How Will History View Obama's Role in the Economic Destruction?

Will the history books blame G.W. or Obama?

Although the crisis started and certainly flourished under G.W.'s administration, a lot of people (at least on the internet) are saying that Obama has had plenty of time (3 months to date) to enact real fixes and that his lack of executive management skills are the culprit and have damaged his ability to mitigate the effects of the crisis. How will Obama fair when it comes to history's judgment of him? Will he be the knight in shining armor that rode in on the bright white horse to save the day? Or will he be the one who single handedly destroyed the American Dream?

I found this video posted on a forum talking about Obama's inept and naive management of the crisis. I found it interesting that it would be used in the context it was. Is this how he will be viewed?

My view is that Obama was given the presidency TO BE a scapegoat. History will NOT be kind to him.

[edit on 7/3/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

Well it would be nice for starters if they could COUNT. January 23rd to March 6th is not 3 months.

reply to post by elfie


Indeed.

Nonetheless, it is my view that Obama's present course will eviscerate the middle class...as in...there...will...be...none.

History will record that he was not responsible for the financial mess we find ourselves in now, but it will ascribe blame to him for making it just that much worse, imo.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by loam]

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
(3 months to date)

Actually, less than 2 months. 46 days, I believe, counting Saturday and Sunday. This is one problem with trying to figure how he will be viewed. People don't have an objective view of time, it seems, with the 24-hour news cycle. Obama's not even half-way through his first 100 days, which is supposed to be some sort of standard of measurement to see how a president is going to perform, and we're so anxious to look back on the job he's yet to do??? Already? There's something very twisted about that.

Most presidents do very little in their first 100 days except find the bathroom.

But we won't know how he will be viewed until we see what he does. Sure there are all sorts of prophesies and predictions from the economic geniuses on ATS and in the news media, but it's all speculation based on (mostly) political biases. It's a guessing game. Not a very productive venture, in my opinion.

But to answer the question, here's my prediction. How he is viewed will based on how he does. How's that?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Most presidents do very little in their first 100 days except find the bathroom.

Let's hope that is not the case here. Most presidents don't find themselves in this type of crisis. A hundred days in this fast-paced changing environment qualifies as a lifetime.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

How he is viewed will based on how he does

I would prefer how he will be viewed will be based on WHAT he does.

I think that's fair to say that the crisis started even as far back as the Clinton years, probably even before there because of the deregulation under Reagan. Obama won with the presidency a big mess, the "answer" to the mess probably be wrong or right depending on ones' political party unfortunately. But to do nothing would have been catastrophic. I really don't know what the republicans would have done to make it better. Tax cuts really wouldn't do it I don't think. It's probably important also to remember that the bailouts started under Bush with the Bank bailout. He was even considering bailing out GM towards the end. So really, Republicans have nothing to bash Obama with because they've been doing the same thing as him for years and years. He might have the largest budget ever, but no one can say that they didn't see this coming since Bush racked up like 5 trillion in debt.

I do appreciate to a certain extent that Obama seems to be realistic about the seriousness of the situation. He might be playing it up in order to push his ideas through but its a whole lot better than Bush who seemingly always repeated over and over that the "economy is fine, its never been better!" even though anyone with a brain could see it was going down the tubes. Sort of like "mission accomplished!", regardless of the real situation, he was hoping that if he put it out into the universe, it would come true.

Well without my Cristal ball I would venture to guess it will say one of two things.
Either
At least he tried
or
He was the man at the helm that brought us all back from the brink...

As you pointed out its only been three months since he took office, this rescue plan only just now being put into effect. The first of the "Shovel Ready" projects wouldn't begin until at least June. So the only possible answer is,
its just to soon to say...

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
I would prefer how he will be viewed will be based on WHAT he does.

Interestingly, that's what I had written, but I changed it. Because does it matter WHAT he does (within limits, of course) if the results (how he does) are good and positive for this country? I mean, does it matter whether he uses tax cuts or job growth or raises taxes or stimulus? As long as the result is a recovering economy and stabilization of our country?

So, I'll stick with how he does. Because I don't care what he does and I think several methods could be used. I care HOW he does for the country.

That's the problem I think a lot of people get too wrapped up in. They're just sure he's going to fail because of his method (what he does). Right now, many people are judging him based on what he does. Simply because they don't agree politically with what he's doing. When they don't really know how it's going to turn out.

I'm looking for the result, not the tactic. And, unlike his critics, I won't judge his tactic until I see the result.

Originally posted by elfie
Well it would be nice for starters if they could COUNT. January 23rd to March 6th is not 3 months.

I think what they're talking about is from his election. Actually, that would make it 4 months. Even though he wasn't formally president, a prudent person would have started planning exactly what he was going to do and be ready right out of the starting gate. He actually said he was doing this. So, it's not a misnomer at all to say 3 months (that gives him a month vacation in there too.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
(3 months to date)

But to answer the question, here's my prediction. How he is viewed will based on how he does. How's that?

That'll be the first time that happens. History is rewritten all the time. I know you are not that naive so please don't cop out on an answer.

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Most presidents do very little in their first 100 days except find the bathroom.

Let's hope that is not the case here. Most presidents don't find themselves in this type of crisis. A hundred days in this fast-paced changing environment qualifies as a lifetime.

Exactly. Even from his own mouth he acknowledged that very quickly.

Originally posted by DaddyBare
Well without my Cristal ball I would venture to guess it will say one of two things.
Either
At least he tried
or
He was the man at the helm that brought us all back from the brink...

As you pointed out its only been three months since he took office, this rescue plan only just now being put into effect. The first of the "Shovel Ready" projects wouldn't begin until at least June. So the only possible answer is,
its just to soon to say...

Ummm... that's one of the problems with the stimulus.. the time it's going to take to get started.

As far as history saying.. "At least he tried", I seriously doubt that. You know as well as I it's either one way or the other when it comes to historical judgment never in between.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
I know you are not that naive so please don't cop out on an answer.

I thought I answered the question.

To delve deeper, you asked if the history books will blame Bush or Obama. I'm not sure any one president will be blamed. But Obama won't be blamed. He took on the job of righting a sinking ship. Like FDR, he will be seen as the president who took the reins and made some bold, unpopular moves to get things back on track. The blame will probably go to the banks, deregulation, 'forced' mortgage loans, the government in general, and, yes, Bush and his finance wizards.

If there is a question I've missed, please be specific. I'll be glad to answer it. If you know that I'm not naive, then you also know that I'm not in the habit of copping out.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
I would prefer how he will be viewed will be based on WHAT he does.

That's the problem I think a lot of people get too wrapped up in. They're just sure he's going to fail because of his method (what he does). Right now, many people are judging him based on what he does. Simply because they don't agree politically with what he's doing. When they don't really know how it's going to turn out.

I'm looking for the result, not the tactic. And, unlike his critics, I won't judge his tactic until I see the result.

Yes and he's admitted that he doesn't really know how it's going to turn out either. There are many, many economic experts who disagree with WHAT he's doing economically because they think they know what's going to happen because of it. He's admitted repeatedly that he's not very financially savvy and the people around him advising him are the very same people who helped create the mess.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
I know you are not that naive so please don't cop out on an answer.

I thought I answered the question.

To delve deeper, you asked if the history books will blame Bush or Obama. I'm not sure any one president will be blamed. But Obama won't be blamed. He took on the job of righting a sinking ship. Like FDR, he will be seen as the president who took the reins and made some bold, unpopular moves to get things back on track. The blame will probably go to the banks, deregulation, 'forced' mortgage loans, the government in general, and, yes, Bush and his finance wizards.

If there is a question I've missed, please be specific. I'll be glad to answer it. If you know that I'm not naive, then you also know that I'm not in the habit of copping out.

Oh, I guess we're approaching this from two different assumptions. You're assuming that everything's going to get back on track with the economy. I am not. So, assuming we crash and burn, what's your answer.

How history will view President Obama's role in this crisis cannot be fully known by anyone.

But I must say that will hardly matter to a lot of people I have met in my travels. It will hardly matter to a 30 year old single parent and former factory worker who lost his job with hundreds of others, unable to find work, unable to pay bills, losing property and home, moving in with family and after months living this way while holding on to hope from a new president who promised change, who claimed they had a plan that would help working Americans, only to later find out the details of plans that will spend trillions bailing out major financial institutions and the vast majority will be spent on government projects exposing a new reality of continued decline and little or no hope for people like himself who simply want an opportunity to work and to be able to rebuild their lives through hard work.

There are millions more stories and more being added every day now.

There is always hope.

I have hope.

I 'hope' President Obama's future legacy doesn't include the death of our country as we knew it in favor of a new vision of a socialist/totalitarian system that will progressively strip away the freedom and liberty of all in the wake of a complete economic collapse which included the largest most wasteful government spending spree in the history of the world.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
So, assuming we crash and burn, what's your answer.

The same as above, really. Even if the economy doesn't come back, he got on a sinking ship and tried to right it. I don't think he'll been seen as contributing to it because it was already going down when he arrived, and had been for two years previous. I'm sure some will blame him. Some already do. But what the history books are going to say will probably be pretty flattering to Obama.

Again, this is all guessing. It's just predictions on all our parts.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]