Hm, let's see here. During the first term of President Obama, we've got the lowest tax burden that we've had for the past sixty years. Does this sound like something a fiscal conservative would approve of? Absolutely.
During the first term of President Obama, 2011 saw the the lowest level of corporate taxation since 1972. Of course, it's projected to go back to what was pretty much the average rate from 1987 to 2000, but no Republican president since Nixon can claim to have been such a friend to business when it comes to taxes. And let us not forget that despite the fact that America has the highest nominal corporate tax rate in the developed world, America actually has the second-lowest effective corporate tax rate in the developed world; please note the difference in the wording between the two. Of course, that's not something that FoxNews would ever allow to see the light of day. But do such low corporate taxes sound like something a fiscal conservative would approve of? Certainly.
On the day that President Obama was sworn in, the Dow Jones closed at 8228 and our economy was in free fall. It would fall as far as 6763.29 before it began its long, slow climb. As of the time of this writing, the Dow Jones stands at 12,486.50, an increase of 34.21 percent since President Obama took the oath of office, and 45.85 percent from its nadir less than three months later. Would a fiscally conservative Republican president be boasting about such a performance by the stock market on his watch? You betcha!
During the first term of President Obama, government spending increased at its slowest rate since Eisenhower. Of course that doesn't exactly match what Republicans have been saying about Obama's "reckless spending spree", so they're doing their utmost to reject the Wall Street Journal-affiliated MarketWatch article by Rex Nutting, but I'll go with what Politifact said about Nutting's findings. Would such fiscal restraint be a "plus" in the eyes of a fiscal conservative? Oh, yes!
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clavos
You're absolutely right, Glenn. The only possible reason any American could hate Obama (not just Republicans! Anyone!) is because he has a black skin.
Hell, even Jesus doesn't measure up to Barry!
I say we amend the constitution and make Bam Messiah for life.
Poor Jesus Christ; he's been totally eclipsed.
2 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Any time you want to, you can try defending the conservative accusation that Obama's just another tax-and-spend liberal who's bankrupting our nation with big government and out-of-control spending.
But that's not what the evidence shows, now is it? Why, then, given Obama's numerous accomplishments that ANY conservative would be proud to own, do conservatives hate him so? If you can give a different answer than I did, please do so, because right now that's the only answer I see.
3 - Clavos
You're right, Glenn, but you didn't carry it far enough: everyone who's agin him (including those steadily increasing numbers of Democrats), is a racist -- there's no other possible explanation for it.
If god existed and were black, I'd be a racist.
I've tried and tried and tried to figure out why I don't like Obama, but he's so perfect, the only possible answer is -- I'm a racist.
Phew! What a relief! Now I don't have to pretend anymore I can hate everyone with a black skin with a clear conscience!
Thank you, thank you, thank you Glenn, for helping me out of the racism closet -- it really stinks in there with all those ignorant Southerners crammed in there.
4 - Clavos
A little more about those racist Democrat rats who are abandoning their sinking ship and its God -- er, Captain -- I mean president!!!
5 - Zingzing
So what's your response to anything in the article except the last three sentences, clavos? or even the rest of the content of those last three sentences? Or anything but the racism thing? Or are you just going to pretend to be insulted some more?
6 - Zingzing
And for the love of gawd, you really link to the post?
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
You completely - and I believe, intentionally - missed the point of the article. Based on the quite conservative achievements on his record, liberals and Democrats have good reasons to disapprove of him...but most of us will stick with him because we can see what a disaster the alternative would be.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have little reason to hate Obama when it comes to his accomplishment, and YES, much of it has to do with racism - or haven't you grokked the long-term effects of Nixon's "Southern Strategy"? Do you really, truly think that the influx of so many "negrophobes" into the Republican party wouldn't have a lasting effect on the party as a whole, especially now that the strongest base of the GOP is in the Southern states where all those "negrophobes" lived?
A Republican president with identical accomplishments to Obama would be hailed as a second coming of Reagan, and I think my article supports that statement. But why do they instead revile him with the worst epithets they can muster? Do you have a different answer than the one I gave? Do you really?
No, I didn't think you did...which is why you resorted to snide retorts and sarcasm. Can't you do any better than that?
8 - Glenn Contrarian
zing -
Yeah, he linked to the NY Post, that paragon of journalistic integrity that's so off the charts that they give sensationalism a bad name.
9 - Zingzing
Glenn, I wish you had left the last three sentences of your article out. If any conservative read it, they'd have to question their reasons for despising Obama so much. But by handing them an answer, and one that's a bit old hat at that, all you'll get is nasty responses to that little bit of the article. Frankly, I don't think most right wingers object to his race or name as much as they do to the fact that he calls himself a dem. That's it. There are two teams and you can't root for both. It really doesn't matter on most economic issues. The admin will say it wants to do one thing, and the opposition will say how dumb that is and that you should vote for more of them to have power. Doesn't matter what the issue or the suggested action is. Something's fine until the other side suggests it, then it's the end of the world. Whatever.
On social issues, Obama has been pretty good, I say. And that's far more important to me. Watching politicians mess with economics is like watching a two greedy toddlers playing with a ball and never learning how to share.
10 - Glenn Contrarian
zing -
You're right, I should have left those last three sentences out. But while they may be old hat, I strongly feel that they're the right answer, if not the politically correct one. I wish I could take you Down South for a couple weeks - I wouldn't have to say a word. All I'd do is let you look around and listen to some of the rednecks I know. You'd find that the wealthier and more educated ones are not racist, or are at least much more circumspect about letting their racism be known. But if you were to walk into any of the white bars - bars outside of the big city are still white or black and not much in between Down South - and sit down, knock back a few beers (no microbrews - that will get you identified as an outsider), and listen to the locals for a while...
...and you'd see what I mean.
But you're right that I should not have included those last three sentences. I'll remember that for the next time I write an article, to do it in such a way as to present evidence in a non-offensive way.
But I'm just as likely to say "Aw, screw it!", cry havok, and let loose the dogs of vitriolic discourse.
11 - Pam Messingham
GOP and racism is alive and well. Look at what they did to Obama over Travon Martin. The President made a mere statement, linking all teenage Americans...and then BAM...Newt and Rush were calling Obama a racist. They insinuated that he just made a racist statement by saying: "If I had a son he would look like Travon Martin." I have three sons and they all look like Travon. They are white. The GOP came out immediately and made it a race issue. Now, before all you GOP'ers start in on me, know this: Of course to the Martin family it looks racist. Blacks are used to that type of behavior from whites. Obama is BOTH...to side with either would be pointless and a lie. He is both races...with a perspective not many of us share. I have to agree with you to a large degree. His color is a huge issue. I also have to agree that he is more like a Republican than a democrat in his voting. I was pissed when he signed the NDAA act. I was ashamed, once again, of our government. Having a black President didn't unite the country...it drew a dividing line. With the mentality of the the "Neo Con's" (said with sarcastic intent) and their racism, (Heaven Forbid...They lost to a black guy!) they have done everything possible to breathe more racism into the country. Look at em go...they have waged a war on everyone: blacks, gays, women, muslims, or anyone they can. Now, I am not an Obama supporter. I didn't want him as a president, not because of his blackness, but because I didn't trust his inexperience or who I believed backed him. I didn't like what the Democratic Party did to Hilary, sort of on the same lines of what the GOP has done to Ron Paul. I don't like cheaters and people who don't play fair, so if I write on the pros of Obama, it's because they are his pros, nothing more or less. So, for me, it isn't about being loyal to a party. It will take sometime before I can overcome the fact that Obama signed the National Defense Act...totally unconstitutional and against the people. Did he sign it because he was black? Did he give the military the power, against the constitution, to strike on our own soil because he is black? No. (Oh boy, did I just open myself up to the slams coming because he wants jihad? lol) My personal belief is it is because they see the revolution coming (a revolution I have forseen for the last twenty years)...they have to be prepared. I personally think they are all on the same team, just hand feed different values to the public...but that doesn't make him the worst president, the most irresponsible president, or any of the other bullshit the GOP pumps out. I read an article the other day that blamed Obama for the gas prices because they were $1.92 a gallon when he took office. I laughed. It reminded me of when I worked as a paralegal and jurys were selected. People don't know that each side picks the weak links, the easily fed/led. People have short memories. In 2008 I was paying almost four dollars a gallon...I don't know where the rest of America was during this time. I laughed when they dropped drastically...I said it was in favor of the end of the Bush Administration. I can't pin the gas prices, with a logical mind, on Obama, no more than I can blame the economy on Obama. People don't want to see anything good he has done, and he has done good. They don't want to see that he is a highly intelligent man, but sometimes I think they can't see beyond the, what I call, "weed sucking mentality." Is it because he is black? I agree, to a large extent, but so many will never agree, they can't admit it...it shows their shallow ignorance...but to many...and I've heard it a million times...it's because he is a "f***ing Nigger." Abrasive? Yes. True? Yes. We've done a terrific job of dumbing down America, haven't we? We have became a backwards, ignorant, easily fed nation.
12 - Zingzing
Don't forget that I'm from the south as well, Glenn. If Obama were a republican, the racial sentiment against him wouldn't be so pronounced, i'd bet.
13 - roger nowosielski
Aside from Clavos's list, I find it more significant that the radical left has turned against him -- Cornell West, Tavis Smiley, Chris Hedges, Naomi Klein. Not only are they are communists but some of them are black, so the race argument doesn't hold in this case.
Either these people are completely ignorant as to what's possible or not possible in politics, or some of their criticism is justified. Considering their names, I'd like to think the latter is the case.
In any case, if Mr. O "accomplishment" qualify him for having been thus far one of our most conservative presidents, it doesn't speak well for him as the presumptive champion of the democratic ideals. An apter characterization would be that for all his efforts at trying, he had betrayed them.
14 - Igor
Obama is the kind of Eisenhower Republican that existed in the 1950s, who were what attracted me to the Republicans. At that time I concluded that the republican Party held the best hope for black people in America. And it did, at that time. I figured that the Dixiecrats were a millstone around the necks of the democrats. But then when LBJ cast the dixiecrats aside, republicans rather stupidly recruited them and created the "Southern strategy", which everyone knew was a racist strategy. How dumb. They should have just let that political faction die, but instead they sought some short-term gain. Thus, they lost long-term viability.
Had the Republicans chosen the more noble goals of their earlier principles, Barack Obama might very well have become the first black president, but as a republican, who would then be celebrated from coast to coast by all republicans as proving their essential point: that republican principles hold the most hope for all citizens.
But, instead they threw it all away, and now all they are left with is a lust for power and no real idea of what to do when they have power.
I think your last three sentences are alright, Glenn.
Pay no attention to Clavos: he's suffering an irony overdose.
15 - roger nowosielski
@15
not communists
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
In any case, if Mr. O "accomplishment" qualify him for having been thus far one of our most conservative presidents, it doesn't speak well for him as the presumptive champion of the democratic ideals. An apter characterization would be that for all his efforts at trying, he had betrayed them.
Remember, most of my article was a look at Obama's accomplishments from a conservative point of view. He accomplished some very good things from the liberal point of view, but much more from the conservative.
17 - Igor
After all, the President is elected on behalf of ALL the US citizens, not just a faction. It is a misuse of presidential powers to always pursue partisan goals. Perhaps these modern blood-lust republicans should take this to heart and abandon their rule-or-ruin partisanship.
18 - El Bicho
You were doing so well until you that last paragraph when you shot yourself in the foot. To paint all Republicans and conservatives with the same brush reveals you to be as narrow-minded and no different than the racists you decry.
19 - El Bicho
Pam, if you expect people to read such a large comment, you should use paragraph breaks.
20 - Glenn Contrarian
El B -
1 - Yes, I shot myself in the foot in that last paragraph - I already admitted as much to zing who had already pointed it out.
2 - The question is not whether my conclusion was 'broad-brush' and narrow-minded, but whether it is correct. Can you think of any other reason to explain the right's hatred of someone whose accomplishments are so in line with conservative doctrine? Clavos can't, which is why he's not responding. Care to give it a try?
21 - El Bicho
Because many are poorly informed and have no idea what they are talking about, but that's not restricted to conservatives
22 - Glenn Contrarian
El B -
Given that studies have shown that Fox viewers are the most uninformed, and given that it's not restricted to conservatives, that still doesn't add up to the almost-total hatred the conservatives have for Obama, given what he's done that would be cause for any conservative to shout with joy.
23 - Dr Dreadful
American politics in general has been shifting steadily to the right in recent decades, for the well-explored reason that conservatives are far less willing to compromise than liberals are.
In thirty years' time, Glenn, no doubt you'll be able to write an article about a Democratic president with a raft of policies Dick Cheney would (have) be(en) proud of.
24 - Glenn Contrarian
I really hope you're wrong on that, Dread. Come to think of it, on most social issues except for abortion and the rise of the religious right, America's continued to shift to the left. Witness the gains in LGBT rights and availability of health care. Before LBJ, there was no Medicare or Medicaid...and, if we get through the Supreme Court challenge, we'll have affordable health care for most Americans.
Besides, while you're right about American politics since Reagan, the politics of the nations of the world as a whole have been shifting gradually to the left for much longer. I suspect that the case of America's rightward shift is an aberration, and will not last too long.
No, I feel that the danger isn't America's rightward shift, for all the tragedy it's caused and will cause. The real danger is our educational system, for as our population is dumbing itself down, we're increasingly unable to be politically united enough to face the challenges ahead - like global warming, for instance.
25 - Baronius
You can't say that the spending through September 2009 was all Bush's. President Obama passed an $800B stimulus package early in his presidency. That's on him. Not just the extra debt, but the higher baseline from which Politifact starts the count. You can argue about the economic impact of that spending, and you can argue about Bush's off-budget spending, but you can't claim that Bush signed a bill into law in February 2009.