Similarities Between Bush & Obama.

INTRODUCTION

Hello, Everyone. Hopefully we can get some feedback from both sides in this thread. In many discussions dealing with the current heated political climate, some members will criticize Bush but defend Obama for a certain action while some will defend Bush but criticize Obama for a certain action.

I'd like to take this opportunity to show how similar the actions of Bush and Obama really are to each other. The below will be a sample from various controversial subjects including religion, the Middle East conflict, bailouts, lobbyists, corporations, and the treatment of citizens under each administration, to name a few.

The following will differ sometimes. For instance, in some of the below information Bush was 'worse' while in some information Obama was 'worse.' Or perhaps Bush started a program but Obama continued it. So there will be some minor differences in a few segments but in the end, I hope this helps everyone realize how alike they truly are.

This thread is by no means complete and of course Obama and Bush do differ on some accounts. However, this thread is simply a starting place in an effort to show how they're two sides of one coin regarding some of the biggest issues frequently discussed.

BAILOUTS & STIMULUS PACKAGES

Bush: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

President Bush signed the bill into law within hours of its enactment, creating a $700 billion dollar Treasury fund to purchase failing bank assets. SOURCE

The bailout passed in spite of polls showing overwhelming opposition from the public and the grass roots protests that took place in 41 states, in over 100 cities, at over 250 events. SOURCE. It is also known that the bailout cost more than it's initial $700 billion figure.

Obama: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The Act of Congress was based largely on proposals made by President Barack Obama and was intended to provide a stimulus to the U.S. economy in the wake of the economic downturn. The measures are nominally worth $787 billion... The bill was signed into law on February 17 by President Obama at an economic forum he was hosting in Denver, Colorado. SOURCE.

The stimulus passed in spite of majority public opposition and it subsequently sparked protest movements across the United States as well. SOURCE. Like the bailout above, we also know the stimulus package will be costing more than the original figure.

Conclusion

I often see it asked why there were only protests under Obama and not Bush but this is not so. As mentioned above, there were grass roots protests under Bush. Both bills were passed in spite of public disapproval and both bills were presented to the public as something that had to be done to save us all. Both bills were rushed through without giving the public and even congress enough time to dissect the legislation. There are too many similarities to defend one but criticize the other. In my opinion, they both robbed the taxpayers.

CZAR APPOINTEES

Obama is not the only one with czar positions in his administration. Bush had them, too.

Bush's Czars:

* Cyber Security Czar
* Regulatory Czar
* AIDS Czar
* Bird Flu Czar
* Intelligence Czar
* Health IT Czar
* Katrina Czar
* Manufacturing Czar
* Drug Czar
* Domestic Policy Czar
* War Czar
* Copywright Czar
* Abstinence Czar
* Mine Safety Czar
* Latin American Czar
* WTO Health Czar
* Corruption Czar
* Privacy Czar
* Health Czar

SOURCE (My apologies in advance for having to use such a vitriolic source. My goal was to find impartial sources for this thread but this link was the best because it allows you to click on each appointee to read more about them and their role.)

Obama:

1. Herb Allison-TARP Czar
2. Alan Bersin-Border Czar
3. Dennis Blair-Intelligence Czar
4. John Brennan-Terrorism Czar
5. Carol Browner-Energy Czar
6. Adolfo Carrion, Jr-Urban Affairs Czar
7. Ashton Carter-Weapons Czar
8. Aneesh Chopra-Technology Czar
9. Jeffrey Crowley-AIDS Czar
10. Cameron Davis-Great Lakes Czar
11. Nancy-Ann DeParle-Health Czar
12. Earl Devaney-Stimulus Accountability Czar
13. Joshua DuBois-Faith-based Czar
14. Kenneth Feinberg-Pay Czar
15. Danny Fried-Guantanamo Closure Czar
16. J. Scott Gration-Sudan Czar
17. Richard Holbrooke-Afghanistan Czar
18. John Holdren-Science Czar
19. Van Jones Green-Jobs Czar
20. Gil Kerlikowske-Drug Czar
21. Vivek Kundra-Information Czar
22. George Mitchell-Mideast Peace Czar
23. Ed Montgomery-Car Czar
24. Dennis Ross-Mideast Policy Czar
25. Gary Samore-WMD Czar
26. Todd Stern-Climate Czar
27. Cass Sunstein-Regulatory Czar
28. Paul Volcker-Economic Czar

SOURCE

(Note: The above list is not complete as Obama is still appointing Czar positions after that list was compiled).

Conclusion

Czars are nothing new. You may CLICK HERE for a list of U.S. czar positions under Obama, Bush, Clinton, Truman, Roosevelt, Johnson., etc.

Many of us feel very uncomfortable because of Obama's czars and on one end we should because he has been appointing some very questionable characters. But I did want to show how both Bush and Obama have appointed positions dubbed czar.

CITIZEN SURVEILLANCE

Bush:

In 2002, as a part of ongoing anti-terrorist operations, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans and others in the United States making contact with persons in other nations. According to a The New York Times report, the NSA monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of "hundreds, and perhaps thousands of people" inside the United States over the past three years without warrants. SOURCE.

Obama:

In a stunning defense of President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, President Barack Obama has broadened the government's legal argument for immunizing his Administration and government agencies from lawsuits surrounding the National Security Agency's eavesdropping efforts.

In fact, a close read of a government filing last Friday reveals that the Obama Administration has gone beyond any previous legal claims put forth by former President Bush. SOURCE.

Conclusion

What started under Bush was protected under Obama. CLICK HERE to read a summary of Bush and Obama's actions, the content of the bill approved by Obama, and his response to the criticism.

FEDERALLY FUNDED FAITH BASED GROUPS

Bush:

In January 2001, President Bush created, via Executive Order, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Since then, Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives were established at five federal agencies, assistance and guidebooks were provided to religious groups to help them to apply for federal funds, and websites were created for speedy access to applications.

And in February 2004, the President issued an Executive Order earmarking an astonishing $3.7 billion to be doled out to faith-based and other organizations. SOURCE.

Obama:

At a time when the White House faith-based-initiatives office created by George W. Bush has precious few supporters on the left or right, President Barack Obama is following through with his campaign pledge to expand its scope and influence within his Administration. Obama made that clear Thursday morning at the National Prayer Breakfast, announcing a new Presidential Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that will weigh in on matters ranging from funding of social-service providers and poverty alleviation to the more controversial issue of abortion reduction. SOURCE.

Conclusion

Bush received a lot of flack from citizens for being 'too religious' in office while Obama is sometimes criticized for not being religious enough. Both have had the sincerity of their beliefs questioned and both have been at the center of conspiracies alleging they don't follow the religion they claim. I won't be the one to judge another's heart but it is interesting how they both support federal funds going to faith-based groups.

As a person of faith I do not have issues with the above but I know many secular citizens do. We cannot criticize one but not the other.

A CALLING FROM GOD

We'll do this segment a little differently. Once again, Bush was often criticized by various groups for claiming to 'do God's will' in his politics. What some fail to realize is Obama also invoked God and destiny as well. The humorous comparison of the speeches can be seen side by side in THIS VIDEO CLIP from Jon Stewart.

The quote from Obama which sparked the comparisons is as follows:

Obama: 'This is the source of our confidence. The knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.'

The above was part of Obama's inauguration speech. Coincidentally, in Bush's farewell speech, he mentioned the struggle between good and evil and America's role in the battle.

As president, George W. Bush was praised - and pilloried - for a faith-based certitude that guided his decision-making. Even as he prepared to leave office, he invoked in his farewell address the divine drama of good and evil on earth - and America's role in that battle. And he did it, as always, with a confident clarity.

That's not Barack Obama's style. And yet, Obama is no stranger to expressions of faith. In his inaugural address, the newly minted president said: "This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape our uncertain destiny."

The question: Is there a place for divinely inspired certainty in the governance of the nation? What's the difference between Obama and Bush on this point, and how will that difference be reflected in decisions to come? SOURCE.

In the video above, another comparison is shown side by side:

Bush: Freedom is a universal gift of an almighty God.
Obama: The God given promise that all men are equal. All are free.

If you share my opinion, you probably find yourself asking, 'So?' in response to the above. The above personally does not bother me. However, again, there were many who criticized Bush for claiming to do 'God's will.' There were many who believed he used empty religious rhetoric to appeal to a Christian base for support.

We cannot criticize one but not the other. We cannot claim one was using such rhetoric to garner support from the masses while the other is just expressing his personal beliefs. We can't accuse one of being insincere but not the other. I really see no difference between Bush claiming God told him to invade Iraq or Obama saying it's God's will we fulfill our destiny. For those secularists who had a problem with Bush's statements, do you have a problem with Obama's? They are phrased differently but at their core they are similar. Both presidents tell the public America must follow God's will.

MEETINGS WITH RELIGIOUS LEADERS

1).
Bush Meets Privately With Christian Leaders
Obama Meets Privately With Christian Leaders

2).
Bush Meets With The Pope To Discuss Political Issues
Obama Meets With The Pope to Discuss Political Issues

3).
Bush Meets With Muslim Leaders
Obama Meets with Muslim Leaders

4). Bush Attends Iftaar White House Dinner for Ramadan
Obama Attends Iftaar Whie House Dinner for Ramadan

5).
Bush Meets With Dalai Lama
Obama May Meet With The Dalai Lama.

Conclusion

The list goes on but the above are five examples. I'm not going to point out what I personally believe to be good or bad but the above is presented as food for thought. Do you criticize one for their religious involvement but not the other? Do you think one president meeting with religious leaders had nefarious intentions but not the other? Do you criticize one for allowing religious groups to influence their politics but not the other? Why or why not?

Presidents meeting with religious groups and leaders has occurred for decades but Bush received much criticism for his meetings with Christian leaders while Obama received much criticism for his 'Muslim tour.' Bush was accused of appealing to Christians while Obama was accused of appealing to Muslims.

MIDDLE EAST ISSUES

This segment may be an eye opener for some. The general stereotype is that Bush was a loyal Zionist supporter and blindly supported Israel in every endeavor while Obama will take America away from Israeli support into either a moderate position or even a pro-Palestine position.

But let's see what's really going on:

1).
Bush Says the U.S. Would Defend Israel Against Iran
Obama Says the U.S. Would Defend Israel Against Iran

2). Bush Warns Israel Against Attacking Iran
Obama Warns Israel Against Attacking Iran

3). Bush Supports Financial Support to Israel
Obama Supports Financial Aid to Israel

4).
Bush Pledges Aid to Palestine
Obama Pledges Aid to Palestine

5).
Bush Supports Two State Solution
Obama Supports Two State Solution

Conclusion

Are we seeing a pattern here? It's not that either one was adamantly on one side of the issue while the other was on another side of the issue. They both have very similar levels of involvement, action, and proposals.

Whatever your opinion is on the Middle East conflict will be left up to the reader but I mention the above because it is a very divisive issue that brings out strong opinions from both sides of the debate. Many times the plans of Bush and Obama in relation to Israel and Palestine have come up in political disputes. However, ultimately they supported the same stance.

Many Christian evangelicals supported Bush for his support of Israel while many Muslims believe with Obama they'll finally have an American politician speak for them. However, both Bush and Obama's stances aren't so clear cut and they show a remarkably similar approach to the Middle East conflict for two presidents who are presented as being so different.

LOBBYIST APPOINTEES

Bush:

President Bush has installed more than 100 top officials who were once lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee.

Among the advocates-turned-regulators are a former meat-industry lobbyist who helps decide how meat is labeled; a former drug-company lobbyist who influences prescription-drug policies; a former energy lobbyist who, while still accepting payments for bringing clients into his old lobbying firm, helps determine how much of the West those former clients can use for oil and gas drilling. SOURCE.

Obama:

The Times of India claimed that Barack Obama had appointed seventeen lobbyists to high government positions in the first 14 days of his administration. Politico provided a list of twelve of these last week, a handy reference with which we can start building our lists of “exceptions” to the Obama Administration Ethics Policy:

Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs... SOURCE.

Conclusion

The above is provided to show that what occurs under each administration is not necessarily what Bush wants or what Obama wants or that they are in control with their personal agendas. They both have their juevos in a vice by lobbyists.

The common perception is that Bush supported corporate interests above the citizen while Obama will crack down on corporate interests in favor of the citizen. In some ways, like taxation, that is a correct assessment but things aren't always as they appear. Both appear to be working in ways that support corporate interests. For Bush it may have been military and oil in the Iraq War, for Obama it may be pharmaceuticals and environmental agencies in his health and climate bills.

THE TREATMENT OF DISSENTERS UNDER EACH ADMINISTRATION

This is a very serious issue for all of us because this segment involves an issue where we are constitutionally protected. And that is, the freedom of speech and protest. However, during both administrations, protesters were ridiculed by the media, citizens were denied their rights on some occasions, or activists were placed into free speech zones. Let's examine some examples.

Please note we cannot completely blame both presidents for being directly responsible for all of the following. The below is just to show how dissenters were treated under both administrations. I see many posters from both sides claiming protesters were treated worse under Bush or worse under Obama. Although some reactions towards dissenters are different, in the end, the incidences are equally appalling in their own way.

Bush Free Speech Zone Incident:

At the 2000 GOP nominating convention in Philadelphia, candidate Bush created a fenced-in, out-of-sight protest zone that could only hold barely 1,500 people at a time. So citizens who wished to give voice to their many grievances with the Powers That Be had to... SOURCE.

Obama Free Speech Zone Incident:

“I finally find them, and they’re across the street,” recalls Cooper. “And I ask them what’s going on, and they say, ‘We were asked by the Obama folks to clear off and go to the free speech zone.’ So I said, ‘That’s bull----. I’m going to go back across.’ Tom said, ‘You’ll probably be arrested.’ But I went across, and a USC cop hustled after me. This guy was larger than me, and was threatening to arrest me.” SOURCE.

Bush Detainment for Mundane Incident (Wearing a T-Shirt):

Police took Nicole and Jeff Rank away in handcuffs from the event, which was billed as a presidential appearance, not a campaign rally. They were wearing T-shirts that read, "Love America, Hate Bush."

"We weren't doing anything wrong," said Jeff Rank. The couple, who said they had tickets just like everybody else, said they simply stood around the Capitol steps with the rest of the spectators. SOURCE.

Obama Detainment For Mundane Incident (A Bumper Sticker):

A Louisiana driver was stopped and detained for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker on his vehicle and warned by a police officer about the “subversive” message it sent, according to the driver’s relative. SOURCE.

Marginalizing Citizen Protest Efforts by the Media:

Under Bush:
Example: Cindy Sheehan, Antiwar Protester

Under Obama:
Example: Tea Party Protesters

Bush: Dissenters Labeled Possible Terrorists

In September 2007, the Inspector General of the Justice Department reported that the Terrorist Screening Center (the FBI-administered organization that consolidates terrorist watch list information in the United States) had over 700,000 names in its database as of April 2007 - and that the list was growing by an average of over 20,000 records per month.

By those numbers, the list now has over one million names on it. SOURCE.

Obama: Dissenters Labeled Possible Terrorists

Anti-terrorism training materials currently being used by the Department of Defense (DoD) teach its personnel that free expression in the form of public protests should be regarded as “low level terrorism.” ACLU attorneys are calling the approach “an egregious insult to constitutional values” and have sent a letter to the Department of Defense demanding that the offending materials be changed and that the DoD send corrective information to all DoD employees who received the erroneous training. SOURCE.

Protesters Arrested For Civil Disobedience:

Under Bush:

About a dozen war protesters were arrested Tuesday morning during a peaceful demonstration against President Bush’s speech before the U.N. General Assembly.

Police took the demonstrators into custody after they knelt on the sidewalk in an act of civil disobedience at the rally near the United Nations. SOURCE.

Obama:

Sixty-one anti-torture protesters were arrested outside the White House on Thursday in a planned act of mass civil disobedience at the end of an event organized by Witness Against Torture and Amnesty International. SOURCE.

I really hope this segment especially opened the eyes of those who may claim it was worse under Bush or worse under Obama. Looking at the similarities it seems American dissenters were treated terribly under both administrations.

NATIONALIZATION OF AMERICAN INDUSTRY

Bush (Bank Industry):

The government put itself four-square into the country's banking business Tuesday, resorting to what President Bush conceded was the unwelcome choice of a partial nationalization in order to loosen paralyzed channels of credit.

The president said the decision to to buy shares in the nation's leading banks—a kind of federal intervention not seen since the Depression era—was "not intended to take over the free market but to preserve it." SOURCE.

Obama (Auto Industry):

Once a symbol of capitalist might and U.S. industrial prowess, General Motors would be half owned by the Treasury under a new sweeping plan that would also shut down GM's Pontiac operations, lay off 21,000 workers and impose harsh terms on the company's bondholders.

The partial nationalization proposal -- a last-ditch effort developed by GM and the Obama administration's auto task force to keep the leading U.S. carmaker out of bankruptcy... SOURCE.

Conclusion

Both administrations engaged in partial nationalization of American industry. To relieve taxpayer angst, the cover is that 'the taxpayers own part of the companies' but of course it's not as if we'll be receiving any profit checks. Our taxes go to bailout the industries while others profit.

AGREEMENT ON VARIOUS SOCIAL ISSUES

Since we've looked at some serious political issues, let's take a look at some social issues where Obama and Bush seem to agree. The List is taken from HERE and will be summarized by myself.

The below issues aren't necessarily good or bad like some of the serious issues above in this thread. However, they are simply included in this thread to show the similarities between both presidents even when it comes to social programs. Bush and Obama do differ in approaches or in other respects on some issues but in many startling ways they share the same causes and stances.

Abstinence & Contraception
Both presidents funded programs to teach sexual responsibility including abstinence and contraceptives.

Affirmative Action
Both presidents believe reforming the role of affirmative action in institutions of higher learning.

Budgets
Obama voted with Bush on his budget plans (including 19 spending bills).

Capital Punishment
Both support capital punishment in extreme violent crimes.

Education
Both support charter schools, merit pay for teachers, and voted in support of community learning centers.

Economics
Obama voted to pass Bush's bailout package and both support tax cuts of various segments of the population.

Energy
Obama voted in support of Bush's $12.3 billion energy bill and both agreed it would lessen dependency on foreign oil.

Gay Marriage
Both presidents define marriage as being between a man and a woman and are against gay marriage.

AIDS Activism
Both were/are very active in the global spread of AIDS, contributing much funding to abstinence, education, and medical research.

Health Care
Although different in many respects, both agreed the main problem with American health care is affordability. Bush also expanded community health centers to cover the uninsured.

Middle Class Tax Cuts
In 2001 Bush implemented tax cuts for the middle class and Obama currently has a proposal to do so.

Minority Homeownership
Both Obama and Bush took steps to increase the possibility of homeownership for minorities.

The PATRIOT Act
Both Bush and Obama voted in support of the PATRIOT Act.

Offshore Drilling
Although Obama initially opposed offshore drilling, he now supports it in order to find alternative oil sources. This is in agreement with Bush who has always supported offshore drilling.

Racial Profiling
Bush issued a directive to ban racial profiling in 2001 and Obama, during his campaign, made a promise to call for a ban on racial profiling.

Supreme Court Ruling on Gun Ban
While Bush has always supported gun rights, Obama initially supported partial gun bans but later said in response to the Supreme Court ruling, 'As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms.'

Welfare Reform
Both presidents are interested in welfare reform. Obama hopess to transfer able bodied welfare recipients into gainful employment while Bush believes welfare should be used as needed for children and families but not abused.

CONCLUSION

Of course there are many more similarities between the two but the above should be a good start. In addition, they both have very similar plans including the time tables in withdrawing troops from Iraq (SOURCE), agreement in aspects on the war on terror (SOURCE), Obama's reluctancy to investigate the Bush Administration (SOURCE), etc.

It's frustrating to constantly see support for one or criticism for the other- especially when it often comes down to supporting and condemning for the same ultimate stance or action. It's frustrating to hear 'Bush did it' as if it justifies something Obama is doing. It's frustrating to only see one side of the issue presented repeatedly or one side defended while the other is condemned. It's frustrating to see people torn along party lines when there are so many ways that Obama and Bush are on the same page.

My apologies for any mistakes made in this thread. I'm not very politically savvy but still wanted to address this issue.

reply to post by AshleyD


I see Obama as the 5th term of the ClintonBush white house.

I don't hold Bush as being the source of the Bailout policy at the end of his term.

If you look at Bush's style in the 2nd Term, he gave a lot of authority to his cabinet heads and trusted them to formulate policy. This is especially true with Condolezza Rice as Sec of State.

Rice had way more independence and authority than Hillary Clinton does. Obama's White House is one of the Control Freak. Bush's wasn't.

So I say that so that to say Henry Paulsen was probably given just as much room to handle the crisis

If you remember what the Congress people were saying around that time about how they were told the country was going to spontaneously combust within minutes... I dont recall hearing much skepticism or outright unbelief about such panic notions.

I think Paulsen , Geithner and Bernancle did a compelling Doom and Gloom job and convinced ALL OF WASHINGTON to do things thier way.

I dont see it as a Bush driven policy.

Regarding Bush's interference with the Auto bankruptcies, the way I saw it was that Bush just wanted to get these companies to survive long enough to make it into Obama's term.

Bush's term was at the very end and I think Bush figured it was proper for the new Govt to be allowed to decide the issue.

Awesome post Ash You have pretty good and valid points. I mean when we actually look at things and examine what is going on so far in the Presidenecy of the United States we get the following:

Bush Snr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama (Clinton)

Lets face it, Obama would have never won, if Clinton had not told her supporters to vote for Obama. It just would not have happened. We have been under the same presidential authority for more than 16 years. Yet many people do not see it...

Star and Flagged!

reply to post by VinceP1974

I don't hold Bush as being the source of the Bailout policy at the end of his term...

If you look at Bush's style in the 2nd Term, he gave a lot of authority to his cabinet heads and trusted them to formulate policy...

I dont see it as a Bush driven policy.

My response to that is, but he signed it. Even celebrities are more cautious than that with what they associate their name with. I agree with you that this wasn't Bush's legislation baby but at the same time, he signed it and took part in its passing.

Also, yes, it was 'marketed' as a 'must do.' I mention that in the OP. Both the bailout and the stimulus were presented in a 'this must pass to save America' fashion.

reply to post by AshleyD


What a well thought out and sourced OP! I have to say, that the only real big difference I've seen so far is that one is well spoken and can complete a sentence (not including 'teleprompter' speeches) and the other could not without looking like a fool. As a Centrist, I have problems with both Administrations, and agreed with both Administrations, depending on the issue at hand. I do feel that both did what they thought was best, but being human, both are capable of making mistakes. But as the saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

As to the heated debates here, it is also a natural predaliction to think your 'Guy' can do no wrong and the other 'Guy' can do no right. Simple human bias. But both sides of the political spectrum are capable of both. Some decisions will be right, and others will be wrong. I would also point out that sometimes the right decision is not always the popular decision. That's part of the job, to make the tough decisions that aren't always popular. Only history will show whether the decision was right or wrong. A prime example of this was the abolishing of slavery. It was so unpopular that it caused a civil war! But I doubt many would say now that Lincoln's decision was wrong, even though it was hugely unpopular at the time (even among some in the North). Just something to think about!

Thanks for the thought provoking thread, Ashley! Sometimes we all need one of these:

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by VinceP1974

 

I don't hold Bush as being the source of the Bailout policy at the end of his term...

If you look at Bush's style in the 2nd Term, he gave a lot of authority to his cabinet heads and trusted them to formulate policy...

I dont see it as a Bush driven policy.

My response to that is, but he signed it. Even celebrities are more cautious than that with what they associate their name with. I agree with you that this wasn't Bush's legislation baby but at the same time, he signed it and took part in its passing.

Also, yes, it was 'marketed' as a 'must do.' I mention that in the OP. Both the bailout and the stimulus were presented in a 'this must pass to save America' fashion.

Yes he signed it. I dont mean to diminish his responsibility. But he signed a bill that Nancy Pelosi made. Henry Paulson gave her three pages.

Congress turned into its usual War and Peace - sized disaster

(Which is even more reason why he should vetoed it)


I'm convinced all that activity was about some nefarious plan that is much larger than is known... and I really dont think Bush was part of it. He was told to go along with it by everyone who everyone regards as an "Expert"

I dont recall there being any mainstream widely-respected economics guru publicly denoucing TARP. If Bush were to oppose it, he would need a solid case for doing so and I dont think anyone was making that case.


I'm glad the Conservative House GOP members defeated it the first time.

And that they have consistently opposed this massive engorgement of the Govt.

We are so screwed.

Originally posted by AshleyD
INTRODUCTION

Hopefully we can get some feedback from both sides in this thread.

Would feedback from the center be prohibited?

One man's information is another's propaganda.

There will always be a continued division. Every truth is someone else's lie, every evil is good, up is down, right is wrong.

The endless push from right and left always finds a way to balance out in the end.

Winning and losing is all a matter of perspective.

Are you looking from the right or from the left?

The only change we ever get in Washington is name and/or political party.

The major lobbyists and Washington elite are firmly in control, no matter who the puppet in the white house is.

Excellent post by the way, should be front page, required reading here.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

As to the heated debates here, it is also a natural predaliction to think your 'Guy' can do no wrong and the other 'Guy' can do no right. Simple human bias.

Exactly- and I've been guilty of it myself. I was hoping this thread would give members pause before they instinctively jump to defend or criticize a politician due to their political affiliation.

Sometimes they full on deserve to be criticized (when they truly aren't working in the best interest of the citizens) or defended (when the accusation is obvious propaganda). But it's always important to weigh each issue individually before making our judgment call instead of reacting solely based on whether or not we like the individual under fire.

I'm still trying to learn that lesson myself. I'll immediately go into 'what can I find wrong mode' when a story is presented concerning a politician I do not support.

reply to post by AshleyD


We're all guilty of it, and not just in the realm of politics. You can see it in almost every forum here on ATS. So much so that it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between a 'troll' and a member who is just passionately biased.

The key is to take a good look inside and identify the real reason for your position. Emotions can often get in the way of intelligence. Always question your own logic. It's why I created my new avatar. It's a constant reminder to myself to check my emotions and seek logic. Deep held emotions can lead to 'intentional ignorance', something that is never a good thing!

Brilliant post Ashley. You are hitting on the thing that really needs the most light. Truth of the matter is, the new boss looks an awful lot like the old boss. You have totally shattered the paradigm with your quite extensive Op. Well done. It would be fascinating to see where in the History of the Presidency did this vein of similarity really take form.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by WWJFKD]

Excellent. While Obama spouted of about change, there really hasn't been a whole lot of it.

So that people know where I'm coming from... I distinctly remember a lot of details about the days during which the TARP bill was being developed.

Henry Paulsen was acting very shady and was in fact stabbing Bush in the back and surreptitiously passing information to Obama via employees at Goldman Sachs.

So what's my point? I'm not quite sure... but I think there's something very sinister that was going on on the Obama side.

So I think there's some danger is drawing a false similarity because it white-washes what could be very significant ulterior motives.

I hope I'm not detracting from your article.

I think the important thing to note in all of tehse areas of similiarity is that Obama the Candidate of Hope and Change is an utter and complete sham

He's a David Axlerod publicity stunt.

Obama the Hope and Change Candidate was a Trojan Horse for Obama the Far Left Anti-American Marxist.

Of course I knew this before the election and tried to warn as many people as I could.

Hi AshleyD,

I know your list can be factually proven, and I have seen the online and tv clips for my own eyes. I am not questioning your claims, for I know what you are providing is turthful.

My only concern is based upon some of your sources. Wikipedia and Blogs are not factual sources of informaiton. Since they are written from an opinionated perspective, they cannot be considered as 'fatual' evidence. Even though there is some gain of truth in them, they are not a reliable source for getting 'truth'. Please do not take my statement in a negative manner. I just want to give theses truths some credibility.

What I will do tonight/tomorrow is go through to find more credible pages, so you can replace 'the few' Wikipedia and Blogs sites with credible sources.

Besides all of what I just said. The comparision is very scary. Obama has outdone Bush on manny issues, and this is only his 9th month in office. Bush did all of his changes within 8 years. They do seem similar in philosophy.

People need to see this thread. Great job.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by Pathos]

Thanks for the great thoughts, everyone!

Vince: I understand where you're coming from. I don't care for Bush or Obama but do lean towards being more suspicious of Obama. But the point I was trying to make about the bailouts and stimulus is as follows. We can find some differences like the fact Obama's stimulus was very much tailored to his interests while the Bush bailout wasn't necessarily his brain child. Or that Bush signed the bill on his way out while Obama signed his bill on the way in. Or look to see which bill cost more.

But the ultimate point is that under both administrations the American taxpayers were betrayed, used, and cheated. The bills collectively are costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.

Or we could say Bush was more associated with lobbyist group A while Obama is more associated with lobbyist group B as if it makes a difference. But the fact remains they are both controlled by lobbyists. Or we could break down the section about protests, surveillance, the Middle East, etc. to point out minor differences between each.

So I do understand where you're coming from. I anticipated such responses which is why I stated in my OP in some instances what Bush did was worse or what Obama did was worse but in the end, it leads us to an end too similar to ignore.



Pathos, I had a feeling some would question the couple of times I used Wiki links. The reason why I used them was because everything I linked to had external source links to back of everything in the articles I used. If you want to see the evidence for the Wiki links, just scroll down to the bottom and it will take to you even more sources that confirm the content.

[edit on 9/6/2009 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Pathos, I had a feeling some would question the couple of times I used Wiki links. The reason why I used them was because everything I linked to had external source links to back of everything in the articles I used. If you want to see the evidence for the Wiki links, just scroll down to the bottom and it will take to you even more sources that confirm the content.
[edit on 9/6/2009 by AshleyD]

Cool. You backed them up with other sources.

Originally posted by VinceP1974
I think the important thing to note in all of tehse areas of similiarity is that Obama the Candidate of Hope and Change is an utter and complete sham

He's a David Axlerod publicity stunt.

Obama the Hope and Change Candidate was a Trojan Horse for Obama the Far Left Anti-American Marxist.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

President Obama is as much a victim of the game as we the people are.

His agendas are not entirely his. The same is/was true for former President Bush.

You can go to Washington with a true message of hope and change, only to find a system entirely controlled by major lobbyists and Washington elite.

The best intentions hardly matter when they meet the strict controls of the lobbyists and Washington elite... You will either do it their way, or not at all.

President Obama's choices are simple... Do it their way or not at all.... Either way it is all his fault when things go bad.

He has to do it all their way, back door meetings, deals, etc... The question Obama must ask himself now and moving forward... Was/is it worth it?

He will lose more for every gain he makes... At some point, he, like other past Presidents will learn the utter futility in trying to do anything in Washington.

It would be all too easy to be sympathetic here, however Obama (like his predecessors) has danced with the devils in Washington.

He could have made a real difference by being more open with the American people about the corrupt system he is fighting... He chose to play the game their way.

Too bad, so sad.

Fight the system, not the president, he is spent fuel at this point.

We should launch an official people's initiative that will rename forever the office of President of the United States to Puppet of corporate America.

POCA

Has a ring to it!

Originally posted by AshleyD
But the ultimate point is that under both administrations the American taxpayers were betrayed, used, and cheated. The bills collectively are costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.

Here is were I would disagree with you, at least thus far. It is still way too soon to tell on both of these issues. We are still in an economic abyss, so it will not be until after the economy has rebounded that we will be able to tell whether or not "the American taxpayers were betrayed, used, and cheated". Only more time will tell. Maybe we were screwed, but maybe these initiatives will work. Only history will be able to make that decision, and it's still the present.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


The reason I phrased it that way is because:

1). The lack of transparency in the sending out of the funds.
2). The disappearance of trillions of dollars that cannot be accounted for.
3). The passing of the bills in spite of public opposition.
4). The failure for the legislation to have been read thoroughly prior to passing the bills.
5). The failure to allow enough time for the public to dissect the packages.
6). The efforts by various leaders to block an audit.
7). It wasn't asked for- it was taken.
8). The possibility the some of the funds were transferred to foreign nations.
9). The promise that 'we need to do this before x happens.' Then X ended up happening anyways.

That's what I can think of off the top of my head. If it turns out they will save us all- Great! But so far, it's looking abysmal.

[edit on 9/6/2009 by AshleyD]

Great research! But it is rather simple for me in that both, as the majority of U.S. presidents the past 50 years or so, are merely puppets pushing the agenda of his predecessors. It is almost laughable how people say Obama is great in comparison to Bush when Obama is continuing what Bush started. I was fooled by the news that Obama was pulling soldiers out of Iraq only to increase the troops in Afghanistan, although there is absolutely no reason for us to be there, at least from a military standpoint. We, if honest, should be helping them financially and industrialize the country, build schools, enforce laws, build up their police force, help them get electricity in certain areas they don't have it. Why bomb a country more which is already in the stone age in a sense?

In my perspective, it has become the people vs the government, but because of the complexities of it - that is, the government seemingly doing good only too late do we realize the consequences of that "good" - and because of the ambiguity of their actions seemingly being for the better but ultimately for the worst in terms of civil liberties, we are, essentially, a divided nation stuck between wanting change while wanting to keep aging beliefs and not being completely satisfied with the changes offered.

Take the National Civilian force for instance, it is seemingly good, right? Though Obama skipped over our police force, "Not only our military, but we need a civilian security force,", the civilian security force seems like a good thing because it employs people with a job, it helps average citizens be protected by...average but trained citizens and lastly, take pressure off the cops, yet the bad part of it all is that it is a form of indoctrination, with the incompetence of some police officers ranging from racism to roid rage, do you really want a civilian security force, and lastly, would this not mean you could be more easily watched, given that one could be anywhere, even among your own friends and arrest you for whatever little crime you do? Not to mention, it would create more violence between them and REAL criminals, REAL gangs and drug dealers who would think nothing to murder one.

Another example would be the NAU which would be the death blow to the Constitution. Of course, some will say it is a piece of paper and needs to be updated, but it is nevertheless a foundation of this nation without need to be changed, a transcendental document that should exist as long as America exist. I could be wrong here. However, those updates and changes for a new constitution would not be made by the people for the people but by the elite for the elite's benefit.

And what about the new possible taxes, specifically environmental-related taxes? Environmentalism is a religion to some extent in that anything tagged as an enviornmental issue gets attention from the people without much stated facts and are we the people really to be blamed entirely for global warming? And will that money actually go to benefit the environment or further the agenda of Nature above man? Who knows.

In conclusion, all presidents are puppets steering America to the global agenda because that world, in some's minds, is a better world, a world without nations, without differences and cultures but a singular global nation of one people to defend against itself but if you don't mind, I would rather keep my American flag, my land, my constitution, my gun, and my liberties, however small they are, than to grant the change Obama and others are so promising.