I'll start off by saying that I agree that they have made very similar decisions (at least in Obama's first 1.5 years; he still has 2.5 to change that). But I don't think this entirely has to do with both of them being beholden to special interests. I think it also reflects similar challenges that the country faces.

Quote:

Both presented bloated health care bills that amounted to nothing but giant subsidies for the insurance and pharm institutions.



That's one way to look at it. Another is that the new bill expands (requires) coverage (therefore providing profit to the companies you speak of) but at the same time institutes a number of regulations that will adversely affect profits, such as no lifetime limits, limits in how high you can raise rates, limited age rating. I see this as acceptable compromise, not subsidization of these industries, with a benefit to those who utilize health insurance, and to those who don't have it but want it, i.e. - the majority of Americans.

Quote:

Both presented bloated 'stimulus/recovery/bailout' bills that were also nothing but giant subsidies to various banks and economic institutions.



I agree that these were done poorly, with little oversight. I tend to think this was more a product of a rapidly destabilizing economic situation than malicious intent though.

Quote:

Both have kept us mired in unwinnable wars that in essence are nothing but subsidies and no-bid contracts to gov't darlings such as G.E. and other resource companies the U.S. gov't is closely tied to. We would NOT be in these two wars if it wasn't profitable business.



I used to think this way. But now I think that Iraq is actually going very well, and is quite winnable. Iraq is about Middle East stability and how that pertains to our oil lifeline, plain and simple (regardless of how it was initially sold). But then again, our entire economy and way of life is absolutely dependent on oil, so do we really have much of a choice? The byproduct in this case is that Hussein is gone. And I think that if even 10% of the stories about him are true, this is a good thing.

Afghanistan is another story altogether. I have no idea what's gonna happen there, or if we can ever win there.

Quote:

Spend now, pay for it later seems to be the motto of both administrations.



On this I agree. Using debt to finance things has been too free and easy for many years now. In another thread though, I detailed how the two bits of deficit spending we really do are Medicare/Medicaid and off the books war spending. Obama/Congress gets an incomplete here, b/c if he ends the wars before his term is up, and sticks to the Medicare cuts in the health care bill, they will have gone a long way back towards taking a chunk out of the deficit.

Quote:

Both presidents have done whatever they need to do in order to a) appease the moneyed interests that got them elected and b) appease the moneyed interests that the American taxpayer has subsidized for decades.




There is some of that in every political administration in the history of this country. But as far as only serving to appease the moneyed interests that the American taxpayer has subsidized for decades, the bulk of our tax money is spent on three things: Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the military. All three benefit the American people directly in various ways, not just moneyed interests.

It's fine to disagree with the government and to call them out when they do things wrong. In fact, its supposed to be that way. This is not entirely directed at you, but the problem that I have is that rarely does anyone ever comment when the government does something right.

Some good things: Iraq is going well. The health care bill has a good chance to end up being a good thing; it will expand coverage at little cost to current policy holders, while instituting necessary cuts to Medicare (if they stick to them). A financial reform bill was passed with more consumer protections and lessening of the speculation and overleveraging that led to the latest crisis.