Obama: Third Way Wimp

[gumOnShoe]

Let me preface this by saying I'm hoping there's a primary challenger in the works for the Democrats because 4 more years of this would totally blow.

Now, let me also preface this by saying;

- I agreed we needed a bailout. (What we got was less than perfect being 50% tax cuts, Republican ideas and nothing focusing on job creation)
- I agreed we needed health reform. (What we got was something that was meant to increase participation in insurance, nothing to actually reduce the cost)
- I agreed we needed bank reform. (What we got was something that ignored the entire derivative market, part of the problem for the crash)

I will also acknowledge that the Republicans are entirely fucking oppositionalist. They haven't voted yes to a single one of Obama's policy gaols. They hold a majority of the blame for my disappointment because they went to Washington and literally refused to allow anything to happen. As such, I will be voting for anyone but them unless there is a major shift within their party.

That said, Obama has turned out to be a horrible champion for any of his policies or goals, and an even worse champion for those goals of his base.

Right now there are three bills he's trying to get passed:

DREAM- This would allow aliens (people not from here) who serve in our military for a number of years a path for citizenship an education. IE, people who risk their lives to defend this nation would have the right to live here.

START - This was a hard bought negotiation between Russia and us that is entirely necessary to reduce the nuclear weapons cache between the two countries. It also gives us rights to check in on the Russians. The army wants it. Several Republicans want it. All of the democrats want it. But one loan republican senator is blocking it because he doesn't want it passed during a lame duck session. If it doesn't get passed now, it won't pass. Note the entire lack of a valid point for not passing it.

DADT REPEAL - This is something Obama literally had the option of just letting happen. The courts had ruled it unconstitutional. The army has said 70 to 30 that the repeal would not be harmful. A poll of united states citizens also comes up along those lines in favor of it. Obama chose to appeal the courts decision and try to force it through a less than friendly congress because he wants more time. But anyone from a sane position can tell he's setting up the entire push for defeat. If this goes to the supreme court, as is likely now, they will vote against it because a majority are fucking Conservatives who don't believe in the word justice.

Neglecting DADT, you'd think I'd just be upset with Republicans, but while all of this is going on what has Obama done?

- He watered down health care from the start, by keeping the public option off the table. While I agree a public option wouldn't have passed he didn't even bother to use it as a bargaining chip.

- He recently declared of his own volition to freeze non-military pay rates. You'll notice a total lack of attention to actual rates of pay or merit. That is, people who make very little, say a VA nurse, can kiss cost of living increases good bye. And why did he do this? No one knows? Its something a republican would do or want, but he just gave it away. He didn't use it to try and get any of the three policies above enacted.

- The bush tax cuts. Again, he's just giving what the Republicans want. And they aren't taking it and they want more (as in all of them extended). As has been the case for everything he's done with them. Never mind extending them for $250,000 or less actually is an across the board tax cut, its just that the rich wouldn't get anymore of a break than anyone else who makes at least $250,000.

- Obama used a Bush appointed diplomat in Spain to suppress inquiries into whether Bush officials broke the law to torture prisoners or who broke the laws of war in ways that affected Spain.

- Net Neutrality has been watered down to allow loop holes where providers can still control the speeds of their internet or grant individual sites "privileged streams" for just their kind of data.

- A complete lack of focus on creating jobs in America.

- Etc

Essentially, whenever Obama has had a bargaining chip he has literally given it away for nothing in return. The guy lacks anything closely resembling balls.

If there is an alternative primary option I'll be looking for it. And if there isn't, come 2012 I'll be looking for a 3rd party candidate.

Here's a list of things you might be disappointed in if you were strongly liberal. I'm not in most cases, but this is very clearly stuff Obama has done as he's drifted away from his base, some of which looks innocent, but looks strikingly similar to the last 8 years of policy once you really look at it:

- surging in Afghanistan?
- intensifying drone attacks in Pak?
- imposing harsh restrictions on Iran?
- providing Israel cover to build on disputed land and starve the Palestinians?
- selling huge arms caches to Saudi Arabia?
- building enduring military bases in the region?
- Like creating a stimulus package reliant on tax-cuts and paying for States' already-planned construction rather than new programs?
- healthcare reform that mandates private insurance?
- increasing the defense budget?
- extending Bush-tax-cuts?
- not reforming campaign finance rules?
- by allowing indefinite detention to continue
- not persecuting war crimes
- not closing Gitmo
- denying habeas corpus
- not repealing the Patriot act
- allowing covert ops to inject agents to peaceful countries
- allowing assassinations of US citizens on foreign soil on the suspicion of terrorism... ?

And talk about political inefficiency. What do the democrats have to work with? They have practical gifts of political talking points:

1) Republicans want to give tax cuts to the rich but won't give you one unless the rich get it too.
2) Bush convinced the fed to loan the banks 9 trillion dollars on the eave of the bank crisis. Almost 9xs the size of TARP.
3) Republicans would vote no on just about anything. Float a jobs bill, get it voted on. Have republicans vote no. Score political points! Float another stimulus, get it voted on, republicans vote no. Score political points! etc etc etc

Face it, Obama is a horrible negotiator, and his next two years are going to be full of nothing accomplishments or a concessions to Republican ideas that haven't worked the last 10 years, like tax cuts, spending freezes, etc.

[poxpower]

I haven't heard anything in the last 2 years that didn't paint Obama as a giant vagina.
And I haven't seen anything that didn't make me think Republicans were batshit insane. They seem to be getting crazier and more evil with every passing year.

All in all, I'm glad I'm Canadian.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/2/10 07:38 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: - I agreed we needed a bailout.

...because you're an economic illiterate.

and nothing focusing on job creation

Lol, so government "Job creation" is a good thing, even though it ultimately boils down to is spending billions of dollars america doesn't have in order to temporarily create jobs that disappear once the money stops being pumped in, all on the basis of some lunatic "money cycles" where people having money will fix an economy and somehow magically reallocate the widespread malinvested resources, all the while ignoring the idea that resources can in fact be wasted.

- I agreed we needed health reform. (What we got was something that was meant to increase participation in insurance, nothing to actually reduce the cost)

here's a crazy idea, how about we let the market work instead of having government (try to) fix problems they created. Healthcare prices are inflated way above that on a free market because (among other things) of restriction of insurance sale over state boarders and a restriction of medical practitioners by the politically connected American Medical Association, and you act surprised that MORE government intervention hasn't brought down prices (and has in fact raised them)? Wow.

- I agreed we needed bank reform. (What we got was something that ignored the entire derivative market, part of the problem for the crash)

Hi, I'm Gumonshoe. Despite over the past century being economically disastrous for America, I claim that the Federal Reverse is "vital" to the economy, suggesting I haven't got the slightest fucking clue about how it works and the damage it causes, which is of course a product of the aforementioned economic illiteracy. Oh, but by the way, I have all these great idea for fixing the banking sector!

DREAM- This would allow aliens (people not from here) who serve in our military for a number of years a path for citizenship an education. IE, people who risk their lives to defend this nation would have the right to live here.

Please, you think (coercively funded) soldiers "Defend this nation"? How quaint.

I support open borders, but if you think contributing to something that is costing the american taxpayer billions of dollars every single day and in all likelihood making them less safe should be seen as some virtue that deserves citizenship, then fuck that shit.

- He watered down health care from the start, by keeping the public option off the table. While I agree a public option wouldn't have passed he didn't even bother to use it as a bargaining chip.

Thank goodness for that. I mean, you're right inasmuch as Obama is a wimp, but consequentially its a good thing.

- He recently declared of his own volition to freeze non-military pay rates. You'll notice a total lack of attention to actual rates of pay or merit. That is, people who make very little, say a VA nurse, can kiss cost of living increases good bye. And why did he do this? No one knows? Its something a republican would do or want, but he just gave it away. He didn't use it to try and get any of the three policies above enacted.

Public employees are over-paid, and if you work for the government you should be thankful to be even receiving a paycheck, let alone increases. Sure, government action destroys jobs/job creation and I am sympathetic about this, but government employees tend not to be free-market sort of people.

- Obama used a Bush appointed diplomat in Spain to suppress inquiries into whether Bush officials broke the law to torture prisoners or who broke the laws of war in ways that affected Spain.

Wait, THIS is what you're complaining about (in relation to torture)?

Uh..how about the fact that a huge part of his the anti-Bush part of his campaign was his criticism of the use of the state secrets privilege..and then he goes and uses the state secrets privilege to cover up torture.

- Net Neutrality has been watered down to allow loop holes where providers can still control the speeds of their internet or grant individual sites "privileged streams" for just their kind of data.

yeah, let's give (necessarily) ambiguously worded powers to the government to control the internet, because they will of course never overstep their bounds, and besides, its only the internet we're talking about, right?

- A complete lack of focus on creating jobs in America.

The fact that most people believe that the government can create (productive, long term) employment is so very sad. Lucky I'm not American.

[gumOnShoe]

At 12/2/10 08:44 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/2/10 07:38 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: - I agreed we needed a bailout.

...because you're an economic illiterate.

Explain to me why the Fed needed to loan these companies 9 trillion when the banks started crashing. Oh yeah, in your world, the banks fail, we go through a depression and come out "stronger." Fantasy land.

Lol, so government "Job creation" is a good thing, even though it ultimately boils down to is spending billions of dollars america doesn't have in order to temporarily create jobs that disappear once the money stops being pumped in, all on the basis of some lunatic "money cycles" where people having money will fix an economy and somehow magically reallocate the widespread malinvested resources, all the while ignoring the idea that resources can in fact be wasted.

If resources were truly ever represented by money you might have a point. Except money is an abstraction and value can't actually be set for any given item. Value, as it were, is in the eye of the beholder.

And yeah, basically you spurn ideas that are probably more accurate than your own ideas.

here's a crazy idea, how about we let the market work

Fuck off. We've been here and done that and in the end you know we fundamentally disagree that markets can "fix everything" and that I think you're a complete and total loon when it comes to that subject.

blah blah fed evil

Abbreviated Timeline:
Depression -> economy crashes
Glass-Segal -> economy stabilizes
Deregulation -> boom bust boom bust boom bust

s-m makes spurious thoughts about the fed when regulation was brought up that didn't have anything directly to do with the fed.

Please, you think (coercively funded) soldiers "Defend this nation"? How quaint.

I support open borders, but if you think contributing to something that is costing the american taxpayer billions of dollars every single day and in all likelihood making them less safe should be seen as some virtue that deserves citizenship, then fuck that shit.

Some defense is necessary. Whether I believe the middle east wars or excessive base deployment is worthwhile has nothing to do with a man being willing to die for a country not getting citizenship.

Thank goodness for that. I mean, you're right inasmuch as Obama is a wimp, but consequentially its a good thing.

Obviously we disagree and since you're on the "opposite" side you would view this as a good thing.

Public employees are over-paid, and if you work for the government you should be thankful to be even receiving a paycheck, let alone increases. Sure, government action destroys jobs/job creation and I am sympathetic about this, but government employees tend not to be free-market sort of people.

Actually both private & public employees are underpaid. The only people who are overpaid are the people that think symbolic ownership grants them the right to also take the majority profits that come from additional work of other people who voluntarily provide their services.

And most government employees I talked too regarding this aren't nearly as upset about it as I am. They've all seen it coming, some are more accepting than others. Of course none of them are thrilled.

Wait, THIS is what you're complaining about (in relation to torture)?

Its all connected. A spanish national was tortured and Obama helped suppress Spains attempt to find out more and prosecute. Essentially Obama has covered up and forgiven the torture.

- Net Neutrality has been watered down to allow loop holes where providers can still control the speeds of their internet or grant individual sites "privileged streams" for just their kind of data.

yeah, let's give (necessarily) ambiguously worded powers to the government to control the internet, because they will of course never overstep their bounds, and besides, its only the internet we're talking about, right?

You clearly don't understand net neutrality. But this topic is about Obama's constant need to concede before making a stand, and actually never making a stand more than it is about educating you.

The fact that most people believe that the government can create (productive, long term) employment is so very sad. Lucky I'm not American.

Damn right, for us at least.

[Musician]

I'm pretty much where you're at Gum. The Democrats are the liberal party in name only. Actually, looking back at the recent history of the dems, you can see that Obama is hardly the first to do things like this. Just look at what Bill Clinton did. He killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children with brutal economic sanctions (he also bombed them with Operation Desert Fox, etc). He bombed the former Yugoslavia; an act that was completely unnecessary and led to an ethnic cleansing killing thousands of people. He bombed a Sudanese pharmaceuticals factory responsible for producing 50% of the poor African country's medicine (again, resulting in the deaths of thousands). And there's more, but theres no point in getting into it.

He didn't do us any favors at home either. He destroyed welfare with the Orwellianly titled "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act." In terms of policy, it's hard to think of anything he ever did to advance a liberal agenda. It's all just appalling. Our country desperately needs a real left-wing party.

[gumOnShoe]

At 12/2/10 07:09 PM, Musician wrote: Our country desperately needs a real left-wing party.

There's been talk lately of actually establishing one, but as usual its probably just blogosphere mumbling. The "conservative," or rather plutocrat, movement has been very successful in branding "liberal" as a bad word, and most liberals have just let it happen.

[poxpower]

At 12/2/10 08:41 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

There's been talk lately of actually establishing one, but as usual its probably just blogosphere mumbling. The "conservative," or rather plutocrat, movement has been very successful in branding "liberal" as a bad word, and most liberals have just let it happen.

Well to be fair, their job is easy.
They cater to idiots with poor reasoning skills and no sense of reality and they don't care about using lies, deception, bribery, stalling and manipulation to get what they want.

It's a hard enemy to combat, especially if you're a spineless chowderhead who thinks a compromise is giving a bank robber only half the money in the vault.

:D
:(

[fatape]

I basically agree with the premise of this thread , Obama is a liberal in name only when really he's just republican lite.

[Dawnslayer]

So to keep this from being yet another "Obama sux"-"no he doesn't you c***f**"-"don't call me c***f** you f***t***" thread, I offer the following question: given your stated position on Obama and acknowledging the possibility he may not run for re-election, who would you most like to see as a Democratic candidate for president in 2012 and why?

[gumOnShoe]

At 12/2/10 09:52 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: So to keep this from being yet another "Obama sux"-"no he doesn't you c***f**"-"don't call me c***f** you f***t***" thread, I offer the following question: given your stated position on Obama and acknowledging the possibility he may not run for re-election, who would you most like to see as a Democratic candidate for president in 2012 and why?

Honestly, I'm just beginning to research the playing field. So I'll shoot out a name and we can debate whether he'd be a good Liberal candidate. I don't know everything about the guy, but why not.

How about Russ Feingold? He's not perfect from what I'm seeing, but he's seems to get it more than Obama.

Thoughts?

I mean, part of the problem here is that we really don't have any true Liberal leaders anymore. At least not well known politically. Point me in the direction of some other actual Liberals and I'll be happy. I'm certainly not happy with the status quo.

[fatape]

At 12/2/10 09:52 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: , who would you most like to see as a Democratic candidate for president in 2012 and why?

I would pick someone who would get up and kick ass everyday , I think Cenk from the the young turks would be a good choice. He's in your face and sometimes he goes a bit overboard , but we need to balance out the pussies in the democratic part anyhow.

[gumOnShoe]

At 12/2/10 10:10 PM, fatape wrote:

At 12/2/10 09:52 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: , who would you most like to see as a Democratic candidate for president in 2012 and why?

I would pick someone who would get up and kick ass everyday , I think Cenk from the the young turks would be a good choice. He's in your face and sometimes he goes a bit overboard , but we need to balance out the pussies in the democratic part anyhow.

Uygur was born in Istanbul;

Sigh, even if he were a good choice, we can't elect him.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/2/10 10:08 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I'm certainly not happy with the status quo.

I completely disagree with this entire thread. The problem here is not Obama, it's the status quo. Too many are too comfortable with they way things are. These people have spent vast amounts of capital, both in money and support to fight everything Obama has tried to do. The thing is this capital is completely contrary to anything you want to do. Obama is trying to do his best to drag the status quo along with him toward goals you would like. If he went and completely threw aside the status quo people he would have got even less done.

There's a great deal of blaming Obama for society's problems. Our soicety is just not mature enough to become truly liberal. until that point, and short of a fscitst take over, NOBODY could do what you are asking. It's a shame that most people just cannot see this.

[BrianEtrius]

Now, I somewhat agree. Yes, Obama's hasn't done what he's promised, yes, Dems had 2 years of controlling 2 branches, but consider this:

Waving a white flag now isn't going to help. If anything, it's going to make it worse. Normally I don't agree with Robert Shrum, but in this article he's got a point. Giving up on Obama now is only going to make it worse.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/2/10 06:30 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Explain to me why the Fed needed to loan these companies 9 trillion when the banks started crashing. Oh yeah, in your world, the banks fail, we go through a depression and come out "stronger." Fantasy land.

Ignoring the fact that on a free market, there would have been no fed and hence never any need for these loans.
Anyway, there is going to be a depression, end of story. Either you accept it up front, or you continue to prop up your failed economy with printed and borrowed money, and things are even worse when it eventually collapses.
And don't act like the fed loaned them the money and that's the end of it. That will come back to bite one day.

If resources were truly ever represented by money you might have a point. Except money is an abstraction and value can't actually be set for any given item. Value, as it were, is in the eye of the beholder.

No, government "investing" money leads to a misallocation of resources. I'm not talking about the money itself. People act like because the money will eventually end up chasing goods produced by free/productive enterprise, it doesn't matter where government spends money. This is in and of itself wrong, but the point is that in doing so the government directs resources to pursuits different to that than individuals acting on a free market would.

Fuck off. We've been here and done that and in the end you know we fundamentally disagree that markets can "fix everything" and that I think you're a complete and total loon when it comes to that subject.

How about you actually address the actual example than a general attack on a free market.

Can you describe a time in america where there was an actual free market in healthcare, and things not working?

Because as far as I know, before the government started helping out their medical buddies, things worked, and as is the case now, government made healthcare less affordable.

And could you also explain how increasing the number of companies an insurance company has to compete with from a dozen or so to a few hundred won't drastically reduce costs?
Can you explain why having the market determine the supply of doctors i.e. having more doctors won't lead to lower costs?
Because in order to do so, you're going to have to argue that more competition leads to higher prices and that the law of supply and demand is false.

Abbreviated Timeline:
Depression -> economy crashes
Glass-Segal -> economy stabilizes
Deregulation -> boom bust boom bust boom bust

Uh no.

Fed created -> Depression (1921) -> Laissez-faire economic policy -> Depression over within a year -> Credit expansion &subsequent boom and bust -> Depression -> Glass-sTeAgalL act --> Still in a depression

Fed-facilitated credit expansion - > boom bust boom bust boom bust

s-m makes spurious thoughts about the fed when regulation was brought up that didn't have anything directly to do with the fed.

My point was that you're blaming derivatives markets when you REALLY don't understand the business cycle at all.

Some defense is necessary. Whether I believe the middle east wars or excessive base deployment is worthwhile has nothing to do with a man being willing to die for a country not getting citizenship.

I suppose mindless drones who respect state authority would make for useful citiznes...

Actually both private & public employees are underpaid.

Nope. All public employees are necessarily overpaid, because their wages are nominal, whereas private employees' wages are determined by supply and demand i.e. something meaningful.
Not being a free market drives down wages (except for the upper class) and destroy jobs/job creation to be sure, but the only state employees receive anything at all is because their jobs are coercively funded and would not exist on a free market (<-which is a good thing).

Either way, public employees are overpaid compared to private employees, ignoring the above arguemnt.

The only people who are overpaid are the people that think symbolic ownership grants them the right to also take the majority profits that come from additional work of other people who voluntarily provide their services.

Firstly, this is subjective or as you said above "in the eye of the beholder".
Secondly, I've explained why state action artificially inflates executive pay.
Thirdly, stockholders and employees know full well how things work when they agree to invest/work for a company.
Fourth, labour theory of value fails.

Its all connected. A spanish national was tortured and Obama helped suppress Spains attempt to find out more and prosecute. Essentially Obama has covered up and forgiven the torture.

I'm talking about a different incident but I guess it doesn't matter, either way, it sucks.

You clearly don't understand net neutrality. But this topic is about Obama's constant need to concede before making a stand, and actually never making a stand more than it is about educating you.

I understand completely what it's supposed to be about. And yeah, I just like stirring up shit I suppose.

Damn right, for us at least.

Yeah okay enjoy your depression.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/2/10 09:22 PM, poxpower wrote: Well to be fair, their job is easy.
They cater to idiots with poor reasoning skills and no sense of reality and they don't care about using lies, deception, bribery, stalling and manipulation to get what they want.

Yeah because all those people screaming about hope and change were intelligent, right?
Of course not.
Anyone who supports the democrats or the republicans are morons.

At 12/2/10 07:09 PM, Musician wrote: He didn't do us any favors at home either. He destroyed welfare with the Orwellianly titled "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act."

LOL so getting rid of coercively funded government spending is orwellian?

lol even when orwell is anti-government, he's being pro-government, right?

[Musician]

At 12/3/10 12:38 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: LOL so getting rid of coercively funded government spending is orwellian?
lol even when orwell is anti-government, he's being pro-government, right?

I don't know why I'm dignifying this with a response, but there are several problems with your post. The first is that I never said that cutting government spending was Orwellian, I said that the title of the bill was Orwellian. As in it was titled "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" when in reality it was more a "Leave Needy Families Destitute and Without Feasible Recourse" act.

Secondly, you're a capitalist and thus deny the coercive nature of wage labour. I believe the wording is "It's a voluntary contract, you don't HAVE to work for a company". If that's your stance, you cannot claim that paying taxes is coercive, because you don't have to live in the United States, or wherever you live. You choose to pay the taxes of your country, voluntarily, by staying in it.

Thirdly, Orwell was a fucking socialist, and he was absolutely in favor of social welfare programs.
.
Hope this helps you with your critical thinking problem. Please check your facts next time.

[peanutfoot932]

At 12/2/10 07:38 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Let me preface this by saying I'm hoping there's a primary challenger in the works for the Democrats because 4 more years of this would totally blow.

...what?

I agreed we needed a bailout.

Ohhh, now I get it. You're a moron.

We didn't need a bailout, and we don't need further government intervention in the economy of any kind. Governmental efforts to spur economic activity always prove ineffective and/or end in disaster, and considering the Federal Reserve has done a bunch of stupid Hamiltonian interventionist stuff and recovery is still slow, I think this is gonna take a while. So rather than sit around and bitch at Obama, why don't you go out and buy something?

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/3/10 01:32 AM, Musician wrote: I don't know why I'm dignifying this with a response, but there are several problems with your post. The first is that I never said that cutting government spending was Orwellian, I said that the title of the bill was Orwellian. As in it was titled "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" when in reality it was more a "Leave Needy Families Destitute and Without Feasible Recourse" act.

So...laissez-faire is orwellian? lol

That's not to say I'm in favour of abruptly ending social programs overnight

Secondly, you're a capitalist

NOPE LOL I'm a proletariat

and thus deny the coercive nature of wage labour. I believe the wording is "It's a voluntary contract, you don't HAVE to work for a company".

There's nothing coercive about wage labor, unless you consider NATURE capable of coercion.

Taxation: "Give us your money or we'll throw you in jail!"

Companies engaging in "wage labor": "Work for us....or don't."

Basically you're complaining about the fact that people will starve if they don't eat, which is ultimately an objection to reality, not "capitalism".

If that's your stance, you cannot claim that paying taxes is coercive, because you don't have to live in the United States, or wherever you live. You choose to pay the taxes of your country, voluntarily, by staying in it.

Um what lol? Since when does the government own a country? See those borders on a map? They're imaginary.

You're admitting that government is a mafia-style extortion racket. I'm in their "territory" and have to pay them protection money, OR ELSE.

I mean, do you think government should be able to do anything, as long as it's within their own country?
Lol, who's orwellian now?

Thirdly, Orwell was a fucking socialist, and he was absolutely in favor of social welfare programs.

NER DUH

Except NOBODY is referencing this fact when they call something "orwellian".

[gumOnShoe]

I'm fine talking about things that are on topic, but lets not branch out by replying to the right wing in this thread like what happens in every other thread and derailing it. The topic here is whether or not Obama is actually a Liberal, whether he concedes before he should, and whether liberals should find another representative to replace him. Which is why I'm not going to reply to the walls of text above, and it'd be cool if no one else did.

At 12/2/10 10:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/2/10 10:08 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

These people have spent vast amounts of capital, both in money and support to fight everything Obama has tried to do.

No disagreement here.

The thing is this capital is completely contrary to anything you want to do. Obama is trying to do his best to drag the status quo along with him toward goals you would like. If he went and completely threw aside the status quo people he would have got even less done.

I'm not saying Obama can ignore the political climate. I was fine with him up until recently when it became apparent that he was making concessions before attempting to negotiate. And Obamas goals are at best moderate middle ground that actually will hurt us more than a true liberal policy. DADT was considered "the best we could have" during Clinton's time and it was still a horrible policy. Its yet another example of a moderate pretending to be a liberal sacrificing and caving to the loud right.

There's a great deal of blaming Obama for society's problems. Our soicety is just not mature enough to become truly liberal. until that point, and short of a fscitst take over, NOBODY could do what you are asking. It's a shame that most people just cannot see this.

We know what the real problems are. We are asking him to actually take a stand now that its clear republicans are oppositional and will not accept his policies. Capitulation at this point only makes things worse. And as far as the society not being mature enough, I'd agree. But with such weak leaders, nobodies making the case for liberalism anymore and that is part of the problem.

At 12/2/10 10:18 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Now, I somewhat agree. Yes, Obama's hasn't done what he's promised, yes, Dems had 2 years of controlling 2 branches,

Dems had 2 years of control while, caveat, the republicans threatened filibutster more than any other senatorial group has in the entire history of the country. Cloture had to be used 2xs as much as the most it had been used in any previous session (almost 200 times).

So I am well aware of the challenges faced. I am also well aware of how the media presented the situation and how the democrats avoided confrontation at all possible costs. Imagine what would have happened if they'd forced a filibuster. You think Republicans could have stood up for that politically? At this point they don't have time for that and they won't do it. They are incapable of it.

but consider this:

Waving a white flag now isn't going to help. If anything, it's going to make it worse. Normally I don't agree with Robert Shrum, but in this article he's got a point. Giving up on Obama now is only going to make it worse.

Its already as bad as its going to get for Obama's presidency. The republicans control the house. The senate is deadlocked. The only thing Obama can do now is be a foreign policy president who can't sign any treaties because they'll never make it through congress.

As far as the article you linked to, I whole heartedly disagree.

As a liberal, I don't have a problem with the bailouts happening. I have a problem with the government getting ripped off, as it were, by the bailouts and by not focusing the stimulus on something other than tax cuts. Liberals aren't arguing that we shouldn't have bailed out the banks or auto industry. We're arguing that after that was done, the criminals should have been prosecuted instead of being granted hall passes.

As far as the rest of it, he's missing the point, which is that Obama's next two years will not be years as a moderate liberal president. He'll be a moderate right wing president that occasionally says no, and that's only if Republicans are suddenly willing to legislate. If they do legislate you can guarantee it will begin with Israel & tax cuts and move directly toward deregulation, attempting to pull down "Obamacare" and enforcing social conservative values on the rest of us.

[fatape]

At 12/2/10 10:13 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
Uygur was born in Istanbul;

Sigh, even if he were a good choice, we can't elect him.

Forgot about that .

On second thought , I'd have Sam Harris run as president , Cenk could still be our official attack dog and go getter. And you know what fuck it Micheal Moore as VP .

[poxpower]

At 12/3/10 03:00 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

Companies engaging in "wage labor": "Work for us....or don't."

Or you know, "work for us or starve to death".

[LardLord]

Obama is a victim of inopportune timing. He has the misfortune of being elected while there are still a lot of middle aged and elderly conservatives living in the rural and suburban areas of the country. This has forced him to compromise in the name of remaining in a position where he can continue to direct the progress of the nation, albeit in a watered-down form. Luckily within the next 30 years, there will be significantly higher numbers of liberals, due to both the hispanic immigration into the country and the fact that the youth of this generation is decidedly left leaning. Had Obama been elected 30 years from now, his agenda would've been much easier to enact.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/3/10 06:44 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 12/2/10 10:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/2/10 10:08 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

These people have spent vast amounts of capital, both in money and support to fight everything Obama has tried to do.

No disagreement here.

While we may disagree to this, I'm still not sure you understand the magnitude of this. This is not just the Republican Party that is being fought here. A large group, perhaps a large majority, of regular Americans are fighting. Obama has been reduced from trying to lead America into the new dawn to dragging a 10 ton baby kicking and screaming just to get to the next block. Criticizing his compromise and difficulty in promoting his original agenda is nothing more than punishing him because America is not ready.

The thing is this capital is completely contrary to anything you want to do. Obama is trying to do his best to drag the status quo along with him toward goals you would like. If he went and completely threw aside the status quo people he would have got even less done.

I'm not saying Obama can ignore the political climate. I was fine with him up until recently when it became apparent that he was making concessions before attempting to negotiate. And Obamas goals are at best moderate middle ground that actually will hurt us more than a true liberal policy. DADT was considered "the best we could have" during Clinton's time and it was still a horrible policy. Its yet another example of a moderate pretending to be a liberal sacrificing and caving to the loud right.

His goals only become moderate left when he found out that the status quo people would only accept the very center as the farthest left they would go. Compared to this status quo, Obama's Nerfed goals are still quite far to the left. I think this is tragic, but the Persident's job is not to push his agenda at all costs. The President's job is to do what you called a failure, in taking baby steps when it comes to dragging the country behind you. Obama has got a huge fight just to get his watered down goals in. Just imagine how much more impossible it would be to pursue any of his campaign goals.

There's a great deal of blaming Obama for society's problems. Our soicety is just not mature enough to become truly liberal. until that point, and short of a fscitst take over, NOBODY could do what you are asking. It's a shame that most people just cannot see this.

We know what the real problems are. We are asking him to actually take a stand now that its clear republicans are oppositional and will not accept his policies. Capitulation at this point only makes things worse. And as far as the society not being mature enough, I'd agree. But with such weak leaders, nobodies making the case for liberalism anymore and that is part of the problem.

I agree with the first point, but I don't think that compromise (or as you put it, capitulation) is bad. I would rather us move slowly in the right direction than know we're in the wrong and not be moving at all. I think Obama is going to have to compromise even more if he wants to get things going his own direction. He's going to have to take a few steps back to get people on board (ala Clinton in after '94) before he can start moving this country forward in any significant manner.

[Warforger]

At 12/2/10 07:09 PM, Musician wrote: I'm pretty much where you're at Gum. The Democrats are the liberal party in name only. Actually, looking back at the recent history of the dems, you can see that Obama is hardly the first to do things like this. Just look at what Bill Clinton did. He killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children with brutal economic sanctions (he also bombed them with Operation Desert Fox, etc).

Oh because Iraqi adults were unaffected? Again that was not his but Saddams fault, Saddam didn't give a shit about his own people.

He bombed the former Yugoslavia; an act that was completely unnecessary and led to an ethnic cleansing killing thousands of people.

No. He bombed Yugoslavia in 1995, AFTER the ethnic cleansing had taken place, it was good because it helped end the war.

He bombed a Sudanese pharmaceuticals factory responsible for producing 50% of the poor African country's medicine (again, resulting in the deaths of thousands). And there's more, but theres no point in getting into it.

That was due to bad intel.

He didn't do us any favors at home either. He destroyed welfare with the Orwellianly titled "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act." In terms of policy, it's hard to think of anything he ever did to advance a liberal agenda. It's all just appalling. Our country desperately needs a real left-wing party.

Let's see..... He destroyed the debt and got us into a surplus I think thats enough.

[RydiaLockheart]

My personal feelings about Obama? As The Who said, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." He claimed that McCain would give us a third Bush term but that's what this feels like. Big business and big banks are in bed with the Obama administration.

When I voted for Obama, I expected him to work on the economy. I understand the stimulus bill was meant to do that, but I expected more from him. Instead, he spent a year cramming health care down our throats. The economy should have been the first priority and health care could have gone on the back burner.

[TheMason]

At 12/2/10 07:38 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Let me preface this by saying I'm hoping there's a primary challenger in the works for the Democrats because 4 more years of this would totally blow.

Gum, I think you give the Republicans too much credit for being able to stop Obama. In 2008 they had no power to stop Obama's agenda. His party had super majorities in both the House and the Senate...yet he could get very little accomplished.

I know many want to chalk it up to a masterful and genius strategy on the part of the GOP to be obstructionist. But I don't think that's correct. In '08 the party was in tatters and utterly demoralized. So who was standing up and obstructing Obama in meaningful ways?

The answer: Democrats.

See not all Dems are/were liberal or left-leaning. Many came from conservative or right-leaning districts that did not want Obama's policies. So these Democrats waivered in their support. These were the ppl Obama had to cut deals with...NOT Republicans.

A few things:
* Tax-cuts: How many times do I have to post that the ppl who have benefited MOST from Bush's tax cuts (something that is unsustainable) are those at the bottom of the tax brackets! I know this because that's where I've been for my entire tax-paying adult life. I have seen my tax rate go from about 2% under Clinton to -7% or more under Bush! Also, we're talking about taking money away from ppl who invest their money in the stock market in a meaningful way. You know what this means? Less money invested in the stock market which only constricts the credit available to companies to do things like expand or improve their operations which means more jobs. Which leads me to my next point...

* Obama the governer instead of movement leader: What has he ever done to prepare him to be president? Much less president in the aftermath of the crash of the financial sector in Sept '08 and two wars? The answer is zip, nada, nothing. That is why he fundamentally misread/misunderstood the nature of the financial difficulties we are facing. This is not a recession where supply has outstripped demand and so product is not moving off of store shelves...so sellers are not ordering more product from the producers...so the producers have to lay-off workers. In such a recession this can be, moderately, helped by government intervention (stimulus). Goverment stimulus will put cash in ppl's pockets to go out and buy goods above and beyond what they need...thereby clearing out inventories.

Now what we have is the collapse of the financial industry and the constriction of credit. In such a case government intervention is actually harming the recovery. By spending so much on stimulus ppl are tightening their belts and using the money to retire debt...which does nothing to constrict debt. Then money is removed from the private sector investment community to pay for the stimulus. This means dips in the stock market and a drying up of investment...which squeezes the credit lines of companies even more.

Remember...Bear Stearns collapsed because a rumor caused a run on their stock (ppl selling to get out before the company crashed) and within hours they went from being a healthy company fighting off a virus (the derivatives you talked about)...to being a dead patient.

* Healthcare: As I've written ad nauseum...the government is involved in providing benefits for just over 100 million Americans (not including non-military federal employees). In short; the government plans only want to pay providers 1984 prices (or about 40% of the cost of delivering healthcare) for services rendered. Then they use the force of law to prohibit Doctors and Hospitals from recouping the difference from the Medicare, Medicaid or Tricare patient. Thus the cost is transfered to private insurance holders and those without insurance.

So if you want real reform that would reduce costs by tackling the real causes of increasing healthcare costs...you'd want bills that reduced government involvement in healthcare rather than increased it.

[chi-master08]

It kinda seems like everybody in here doesn't hold a lot of faith in Obama. I can't really say that he has done a whole lot to inspire confidence, but he did inherit a shitty situation just like Jimmy Carter. Then again people talk shit about Carter but never seem to give a good reason for it.

As far as Obama not being a the liberal expected out of him, I'm kind of fucking glad for that. Just look at the arguments presented in the thread. He tries to compromise to the best of his ability in order to get things done. I would much rather have a man called liberal who is actually trying to get balanced legislation passed then some Democrat fucker who would just spam Democrat legislation through without even caring.

Basically what I'm trying to get across is that having a president who seems genuinely interested in a bipartisan government is the best thing for the U.S. right now even with all of the bad shit going on around us. Fucking suck it up people!

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/3/10 03:18 PM, poxpower wrote: Or you know, "work for us or starve to death".

Like I said..you're objecting to reality, to nature... not companies.

If i go out into the wilderness and begin starving to death, would it be fair for me to claim I'm being "coerced" because nobody came and gave me food?

hahah this is just stupid come on.

Think of all the starving kids in Africa. YOU are directly responsible for their deaths because you're not giving them food.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/3/10 06:44 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I'm fine talking about things that are on topic, but lets not branch out by replying to the right wing in this thread like what happens in every other thread and derailing it. The topic here is whether or not Obama is actually a Liberal, whether he concedes before he should, and whether liberals should find another representative to replace him. Which is why I'm not going to reply to the walls of text above, and it'd be cool if no one else.

I admit I went off topic, so fine, whatever...but that doesn't change in the SLIGHTEST the fact that you're completely economically illiterate.

At 12/3/10 04:47 PM, LardLord wrote: Obama is a victim of inopportune timing. He has the misfortune of being elected while there are still a lot of middle aged and elderly conservatives living in the rural and suburban areas of the country.

yeah, the number of conservatives was the reason he was FORCED to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the banksters. Please.

LOL what the fuck can a bunch of "middle aged and elderly conservatives living in the rural and suburban areas of the country" do to stop him? They don't vote on the bills!
The democrat majority who were in congress are the ones who voted. Holy shit this is hilarious.