|
|
On August 07 2012 08:16 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 05:00 ThreeAcross wrote:On August 07 2012 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2012 03:55 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 03:31 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 02:33 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 01:17 Vega62a wrote:On August 07 2012 01:12 darthfoley wrote:On August 07 2012 01:01 Vega62a wrote:
[quote]
It is absurd to me that there are still people trying to say that Romney's plan is serious. Even the sincere members of his own party (few that are left) are saying it's absurd. Even the extremely right-leaning Economist has said it is absurd.
We really do choose our own facts. We're close to a tipping point, I think - either the reality-denying crazies will take over and those who have any sense left will migrate to other countries, or we will see a massive political purge in which the rational finally reasserts itself and purges the crazy from both parties. (Although to be honest I see the left as more guilty of "I dont know how to handle myself" than of deliberate and reality-denying crazy.) I hope it's the latter. I get the feeling it will be the former. i'm sure xDaunt will tell you how it makes sense, stupid biased left wing propaganda machines!!!!!1! I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves. The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible. Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it. He's getting hammered for it every single day by right-wingers, who conveniently forget that Congress and the Republican opposition have made it particularly difficult for Obama to pass the policies he wants. See for example the American Jobs Act, which never made it through Congress, or the continued blocking of debt relief implementation by the Republican director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So no, the "empirical results" from the last four years don't really reflect how good Obama's policies were for the economy. So what part of this post makes you feel that Obama deserves re-election? He will still have to deal with Republicans for the next four years. So because the Republicans have decided obstructing Obama is worth destroying there country he shouldnt be voted for? You must have forgotten that Obama had a democrat congress for two years. Neither candidate is worthy to be president. We need someone else, and not Ron Paul He only had 60 votes in the Senate for about a year, since a Republican won Ted Kennedy's seat when he died. And it's not like every Democrat automatically votes for everything the President puts on the table. Bill Clinton was able to pass significant Welfare Reform with a Republican Congress. And that was the same Congress that hated him enough to impeach him later. So why couldn't Obama accomplish any sort of bipartisan success? The answer is because Clinton went toward the middle. He was a Centrist and before elections he would go even more to the Center. Obama has only gone more to the Left and then complained that Republicans didnt' follow him. If you go so far to the Left that even your Democratic allies won't support you, then you can hardly blame the Republican Party for obstructionism. Obama has nobody to blame but himself. Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 05:36 Saryph wrote:On August 07 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 05:00 ThreeAcross wrote:On August 07 2012 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2012 03:55 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 03:31 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 02:33 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 01:17 Vega62a wrote:
[quote]
I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves.
The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible. Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it. He's getting hammered for it every single day by right-wingers, who conveniently forget that Congress and the Republican opposition have made it particularly difficult for Obama to pass the policies he wants. See for example the American Jobs Act, which never made it through Congress, or the continued blocking of debt relief implementation by the Republican director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So no, the "empirical results" from the last four years don't really reflect how good Obama's policies were for the economy. So what part of this post makes you feel that Obama deserves re-election? He will still have to deal with Republicans for the next four years. So because the Republicans have decided obstructing Obama is worth destroying there country he shouldnt be voted for? You must have forgotten that Obama had a democrat congress for two years. Neither candidate is worthy to be president. We need someone else, and not Ron Paul He only had 60 votes in the Senate for about a year, since a Republican won Ted Kennedy's seat when he died. And it's not like every Democrat automatically votes for everything the President puts on the table. Also the democrats would be more of a big tent party than the republicans, and have to deal with the complications of that. I generally don't like to repeat points that have been made previously in the thread, but I am going to make an exception here because it is so important. Obama's failure to get much done in the way of legislation passed is strictly due to his failure as a leader. He enjoyed huge majorities in congress and in the senate during his first 2 years in office. All that he had to do to get a handful of republican votes (which is all that he needed) was to invite one or two republicans to write legislation along with democrats. Hell, Bush came to office in 2000 in an even more toxic political environment (he stole the election, remember?), but he still pushed and passed all sorts of legislation because he had prominent democrats (like Ted Kennedy) participate in the drafting process. I don't for a moment believe that some of the moderate republicans wouldn't have jumped ship and voted for the legislation had Obama done this. Instead, Obama took a hyper-partisan line and made it really, really easy for republicans to band together and obstruct him. ^^ Also this.
Obama is a flaming centrist, on basically everything.
|
As an actual leftist, I think it's really hilarious (by which I mean depressing) that people think Obama is one.
edit: @coverpunch, you raise an interesting comparison there between google and chikin. The real problem, though, is that the combination of universal suffrage, a failed educational system, and mass media (oh, and the electoral college) actually just breaks democracy.
|
On August 07 2012 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
As an actual leftist, I think it's really hilarious (by which I mean depressing) that people think Obama is one.
i second this notion
|
The difference between the Republican party during Clinton and Obama is also pretty big. Its fast moving more and more to the right thanks to extremist elements.
They were willing to work with Clinton and now there only goal ever since the elections is to destroy a president regardless of the cost to there own nation.
|
On August 07 2012 08:23 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 08:11 sam!zdat wrote:On August 07 2012 04:56 coverpunch wrote:
You also have to be careful with the word "corporations". You have to focus on human beings. Corporations are irrelevant because they are non-human institutions. So you have to decide when you say "corporations have power" whether you're talking about the owners (stockholders) of the corporation, the employees (management, workers) of the corporation, or the customers. Didn't we decide that corporations were people? Joking aside, though, I think that you need precisely to think about corporations, not people. Corporations are the way that people insulate themselves from the systemic implications of their actions... it is not them, it is the corporation. It is that the organizations of people act in ways in which no individual within that organization would act on their own. He we have some recourse to the Foucauldian notion of "strategy," although that may be muddying the waters a bit. You're joking but I think you bring up a good point. You have to think about the human beings, not the institutions. But in the case of corporations, we do give them separate and distinct shroud of rights. And people do like to muddy the waters a lot, making it difficult sometimes to tell them apart. For instance, political ads by corporations are justified because the corporation has the right to free speech. So when Google puts up an anti-SOPA banner, that's their First Amendment right. There is a non-trivial question if you say corporations don't have rights about whether the government could force Google to take down banners as political statements. On the other side, Chick-Fil-A's president makes a controversial statement and there is a shitstorm about whether he's saying it as a private citizen and where Chick-Fil-A as a corporation stands on the issue. They ended up having it both ways - the president can say it as a private citizen but people rallied behind the restaurant. In the context of whether corporations have too much power, it comes down to whether rich and/or influential people have too much power. A lot of them use their corporate interests and brand names as leverage. Hopefully that kind of threads the needle =p.
The Chick-Fil-A thing was a great example of what's wrong with the libertarian principle of "just leave them alone and society will condemn them through the market." The company itself spent significant money on campaigns against gay marriage, it wasn't about what the CEO said. The company also has been accused of discriminatory practice in hiring, so let's not act like the president said a couple things and people got mad. Corporate resources were involved in political activity. The company then got business as supporters showed up because they agreed with the belief.
@xDaunt and Savio, Obama passed a stimulus bill that was in significant part tax cuts and a health reform bill including a mandate rather than a public option, what has he really done that is so hyper-partisan or is that more just how you feel, and not something you have any evidence of? the legislation was also drafted based off a health care reform bill created by a Republican so... lets not pretend its all that liberal, the plan is market based still.
|
On August 07 2012 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
As an actual leftist, I think it's really hilarious (by which I mean depressing) that people think Obama is one.
edit: @coverpunch, you raise an interesting comparison there between google and chikin. The real problem, though, is that the combination of universal suffrage, a failed educational system, and mass media (oh, and the electoral college) actually just breaks democracy.
What's an actual "leftist"? A social democrat? Because even in Europe that varies tremendously.
|
On August 07 2012 08:22 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 07:17 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 07:10 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 07:05 Adila wrote:
If Obama was hyper-partisan, we would have had the public option for healthcare and a much larger stimulus. I stand by my characterization that Obama has been hyper-partisan. We know you do. We also know you're wrong. Actually, your arguments have actually seemed pretty weak compared to his. Just making an observation. Try comparing Obama to Bill Clinton and you will understand.
(& reply to this post:
+ Show Spoiler +On August 07 2012 08:16 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 05:00 ThreeAcross wrote:On August 07 2012 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2012 03:55 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 03:31 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 02:33 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 01:17 Vega62a wrote:On August 07 2012 01:12 darthfoley wrote:On August 07 2012 01:01 Vega62a wrote:
[quote]
It is absurd to me that there are still people trying to say that Romney's plan is serious. Even the sincere members of his own party (few that are left) are saying it's absurd. Even the extremely right-leaning Economist has said it is absurd.
We really do choose our own facts. We're close to a tipping point, I think - either the reality-denying crazies will take over and those who have any sense left will migrate to other countries, or we will see a massive political purge in which the rational finally reasserts itself and purges the crazy from both parties. (Although to be honest I see the left as more guilty of "I dont know how to handle myself" than of deliberate and reality-denying crazy.) I hope it's the latter. I get the feeling it will be the former. i'm sure xDaunt will tell you how it makes sense, stupid biased left wing propaganda machines!!!!!1! I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves. The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible. Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it. He's getting hammered for it every single day by right-wingers, who conveniently forget that Congress and the Republican opposition have made it particularly difficult for Obama to pass the policies he wants. See for example the American Jobs Act, which never made it through Congress, or the continued blocking of debt relief implementation by the Republican director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So no, the "empirical results" from the last four years don't really reflect how good Obama's policies were for the economy. So what part of this post makes you feel that Obama deserves re-election? He will still have to deal with Republicans for the next four years. So because the Republicans have decided obstructing Obama is worth destroying there country he shouldnt be voted for? You must have forgotten that Obama had a democrat congress for two years. Neither candidate is worthy to be president. We need someone else, and not Ron Paul He only had 60 votes in the Senate for about a year, since a Republican won Ted Kennedy's seat when he died. And it's not like every Democrat automatically votes for everything the President puts on the table. Bill Clinton was able to pass significant Welfare Reform with a Republican Congress. And that was the same Congress that hated him enough to impeach him later. So why couldn't Obama accomplish any sort of bipartisan success? The answer is because Clinton went toward the middle. He was a Centrist and before elections he would go even more to the Center. Obama has only gone more to the Left and then complained that Republicans didnt' follow him. If you go so far to the Left that even your Democratic allies won't support you, then you can hardly blame the Republican Party for obstructionism. Obama has nobody to blame but himself. Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 05:36 Saryph wrote:On August 07 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 05:00 ThreeAcross wrote:On August 07 2012 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2012 03:55 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 03:31 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 02:33 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 01:17 Vega62a wrote:
[quote]
I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves.
The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible. Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it. He's getting hammered for it every single day by right-wingers, who conveniently forget that Congress and the Republican opposition have made it particularly difficult for Obama to pass the policies he wants. See for example the American Jobs Act, which never made it through Congress, or the continued blocking of debt relief implementation by the Republican director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So no, the "empirical results" from the last four years don't really reflect how good Obama's policies were for the economy. So what part of this post makes you feel that Obama deserves re-election? He will still have to deal with Republicans for the next four years. So because the Republicans have decided obstructing Obama is worth destroying there country he shouldnt be voted for? You must have forgotten that Obama had a democrat congress for two years. Neither candidate is worthy to be president. We need someone else, and not Ron Paul He only had 60 votes in the Senate for about a year, since a Republican won Ted Kennedy's seat when he died. And it's not like every Democrat automatically votes for everything the President puts on the table. Also the democrats would be more of a big tent party than the republicans, and have to deal with the complications of that. I generally don't like to repeat points that have been made previously in the thread, but I am going to make an exception here because it is so important. Obama's failure to get much done in the way of legislation passed is strictly due to his failure as a leader. He enjoyed huge majorities in congress and in the senate during his first 2 years in office. All that he had to do to get a handful of republican votes (which is all that he needed) was to invite one or two republicans to write legislation along with democrats. Hell, Bush came to office in 2000 in an even more toxic political environment (he stole the election, remember?), but he still pushed and passed all sorts of legislation because he had prominent democrats (like Ted Kennedy) participate in the drafting process. I don't for a moment believe that some of the moderate republicans wouldn't have jumped ship and voted for the legislation had Obama done this. Instead, Obama took a hyper-partisan line and made it really, really easy for republicans to band together and obstruct him. ^^ Also this.
Here's a better observation: none of his arguments backed up the idea that Obama was hyper-partisan. None.
I suggest you follow your own advice, though, but in addition to comparing Obama to Clinton (who, incidentally, you might notice did not manage to pass a healthcare reform), do compare the political climate during their respective mandates. In fact, you can easily do this by reading this book by political scientists Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, which I referenced earlier. You're welcome.
|
On August 07 2012 08:40 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
As an actual leftist, I think it's really hilarious (by which I mean depressing) that people think Obama is one.
edit: @coverpunch, you raise an interesting comparison there between google and chikin. The real problem, though, is that the combination of universal suffrage, a failed educational system, and mass media (oh, and the electoral college) actually just breaks democracy. What's an actual "leftist"? A social democrat? Because even in Europe that varies tremendously.
Well in America it means that you think the government should take care of the people at least in some minor way. If you don't think the government should be torn down, taxes should never raise, and government institutions should be allowed to discriminate then basically you're a commie pinko nazi socialist.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 07 2012 08:41 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 08:22 Savio wrote:On August 07 2012 07:17 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 07:10 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 07:05 Adila wrote:
If Obama was hyper-partisan, we would have had the public option for healthcare and a much larger stimulus. I stand by my characterization that Obama has been hyper-partisan. We know you do. We also know you're wrong. Actually, your arguments have actually seemed pretty weak compared to his. Just making an observation. Try comparing Obama to Bill Clinton and you will understand. (& reply to this post: + Show Spoiler +On August 07 2012 08:16 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 05:00 ThreeAcross wrote:On August 07 2012 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2012 03:55 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 03:31 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 02:33 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 01:17 Vega62a wrote:On August 07 2012 01:12 darthfoley wrote:On August 07 2012 01:01 Vega62a wrote:
[quote]
It is absurd to me that there are still people trying to say that Romney's plan is serious. Even the sincere members of his own party (few that are left) are saying it's absurd. Even the extremely right-leaning Economist has said it is absurd.
We really do choose our own facts. We're close to a tipping point, I think - either the reality-denying crazies will take over and those who have any sense left will migrate to other countries, or we will see a massive political purge in which the rational finally reasserts itself and purges the crazy from both parties. (Although to be honest I see the left as more guilty of "I dont know how to handle myself" than of deliberate and reality-denying crazy.) I hope it's the latter. I get the feeling it will be the former. i'm sure xDaunt will tell you how it makes sense, stupid biased left wing propaganda machines!!!!!1! I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves. The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible. Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it. He's getting hammered for it every single day by right-wingers, who conveniently forget that Congress and the Republican opposition have made it particularly difficult for Obama to pass the policies he wants. See for example the American Jobs Act, which never made it through Congress, or the continued blocking of debt relief implementation by the Republican director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So no, the "empirical results" from the last four years don't really reflect how good Obama's policies were for the economy. So what part of this post makes you feel that Obama deserves re-election? He will still have to deal with Republicans for the next four years. So because the Republicans have decided obstructing Obama is worth destroying there country he shouldnt be voted for? You must have forgotten that Obama had a democrat congress for two years. Neither candidate is worthy to be president. We need someone else, and not Ron Paul He only had 60 votes in the Senate for about a year, since a Republican won Ted Kennedy's seat when he died. And it's not like every Democrat automatically votes for everything the President puts on the table. Bill Clinton was able to pass significant Welfare Reform with a Republican Congress. And that was the same Congress that hated him enough to impeach him later. So why couldn't Obama accomplish any sort of bipartisan success? The answer is because Clinton went toward the middle. He was a Centrist and before elections he would go even more to the Center. Obama has only gone more to the Left and then complained that Republicans didnt' follow him. If you go so far to the Left that even your Democratic allies won't support you, then you can hardly blame the Republican Party for obstructionism. Obama has nobody to blame but himself. Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 05:36 Saryph wrote:On August 07 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 05:00 ThreeAcross wrote:On August 07 2012 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2012 03:55 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 03:31 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 02:33 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 01:17 Vega62a wrote:
[quote]
I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves.
The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible. Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it. He's getting hammered for it every single day by right-wingers, who conveniently forget that Congress and the Republican opposition have made it particularly difficult for Obama to pass the policies he wants. See for example the American Jobs Act, which never made it through Congress, or the continued blocking of debt relief implementation by the Republican director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So no, the "empirical results" from the last four years don't really reflect how good Obama's policies were for the economy. So what part of this post makes you feel that Obama deserves re-election? He will still have to deal with Republicans for the next four years. So because the Republicans have decided obstructing Obama is worth destroying there country he shouldnt be voted for? You must have forgotten that Obama had a democrat congress for two years. Neither candidate is worthy to be president. We need someone else, and not Ron Paul He only had 60 votes in the Senate for about a year, since a Republican won Ted Kennedy's seat when he died. And it's not like every Democrat automatically votes for everything the President puts on the table. Also the democrats would be more of a big tent party than the republicans, and have to deal with the complications of that. I generally don't like to repeat points that have been made previously in the thread, but I am going to make an exception here because it is so important. Obama's failure to get much done in the way of legislation passed is strictly due to his failure as a leader. He enjoyed huge majorities in congress and in the senate during his first 2 years in office. All that he had to do to get a handful of republican votes (which is all that he needed) was to invite one or two republicans to write legislation along with democrats. Hell, Bush came to office in 2000 in an even more toxic political environment (he stole the election, remember?), but he still pushed and passed all sorts of legislation because he had prominent democrats (like Ted Kennedy) participate in the drafting process. I don't for a moment believe that some of the moderate republicans wouldn't have jumped ship and voted for the legislation had Obama done this. Instead, Obama took a hyper-partisan line and made it really, really easy for republicans to band together and obstruct him. ^^ Also this. ) Here's a better observation: none of his arguments backed up the idea that Obama was hyper-partisan. None. I suggest you follow your own advice, though, but in addition to comparing Obama to Clinton (who, incidentally, you might notice did not manage to pass a healthcare reform), do compare the political climate during their respective mandates. In fact, you can easily do this by reading this book by political scientists Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, which I referenced earlier. You're welcome.
Quick little comparison between Clinton and Obama:
http://news.investors.com/article/620735/201208030805/obamanomics-nothing-like-clintonomics.htm?p=full
Spending. Federal spending during Clinton's eight years in office fell as a share of GDP, from 22% the year before he took office to 18.2% the year he left. Under Obama, spending has risen from 20.7% to 24%. His budget would keep it above 22% for the foreseeable future, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Deficits. In Clinton's first year, liberals in his administration wanted more spending, while budget hawks wanted to stress deficit reduction. The hawks won, and Clinton's first budget sought $140 billion in deficit cuts. Obama's first budget, in contrast, proposed exploding the deficit by $240 billion. Obama has yet to produce a budget with less than $1 trillion in red ink.
Tax cuts. In 1997, Clinton signed a tax-cut plan pushed by Republicans that, among other things, slashed the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%, fueling an investment and stock market boom. Obama proposes to raise the effective top rate on capital gains to 24.7% and hike the top rate on dividends to 44.7%.
Deregulation. In 1999, Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that freed banks from Depression-era regulations, saying it "will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry." Obama has argued that the law contributed to the financial crises. In 2008 he said banking deregulation "encouraged a winner-take-all, anything-goes environment that helped foster devastating dislocations in our economy."
Free trade. Clinton aggressively pushed the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it "will create a million jobs in the first five years." During his 2008 run for president, Obama attacked the pact, claiming, "1 million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA." And Obama didn't get around to ratifying three trade deals negotiated by George W. Bush until late 2011.
Welfare reform. Clinton upset the liberal wing of his party by signing a sweeping welfare reform law in 1996 that included strict work requirements for beneficiaries, a change Clinton said would "break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens." Last month, Obama's Health and Human Services Department quietly issued a directive that critics say guts those work requirements.
Tax hikes. Obama says he wants to return to Clinton-era tax rates. But he'd actually keep most of Bush's tax cuts. And under his plan, the top two rates would be higher than under Clinton due to ObamaCare's Medicare tax surcharge on the wealthy. (Clinton, meanwhile, confessed in 2005 that he thought he'd raised taxes "too much.")
One of those Democratic Presidents was more of a Centrist than the other. Should be pretty obvious
You're welcome.
|
Hey Savio, do you understand how amazing our economy was doing under Clinton? Compare that to the massive economic failure that happened right before Obama. You can't possibly compare those fiscal situations at all. They are polar opposites.
|
On August 07 2012 08:48 DoubleReed wrote:
Hey Savio, do you understand how amazing our economy was doing under Clinton? Compare that to the massive economic failure that happened right before Obama. You can't possibly compare those fiscal situations at all. They are polar opposites.
...Deregulation....NAFTA....deficits.....welfare reform....
You are claiming that a bad economy has forced Obama to be more partisan than Bill Clinton?
You think that if the economy was better, he would have been less partisan and more Centrist?
|
On August 07 2012 08:46 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 08:41 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 08:22 Savio wrote:On August 07 2012 07:17 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 07:10 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 07:05 Adila wrote:
If Obama was hyper-partisan, we would have had the public option for healthcare and a much larger stimulus. I stand by my characterization that Obama has been hyper-partisan. We know you do. We also know you're wrong. Actually, your arguments have actually seemed pretty weak compared to his. Just making an observation. Try comparing Obama to Bill Clinton and you will understand. (& reply to this post: + Show Spoiler +On August 07 2012 08:16 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 05:00 ThreeAcross wrote:On August 07 2012 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2012 03:55 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 03:31 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 02:33 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 01:17 Vega62a wrote:On August 07 2012 01:12 darthfoley wrote:On August 07 2012 01:01 Vega62a wrote:
[quote]
It is absurd to me that there are still people trying to say that Romney's plan is serious. Even the sincere members of his own party (few that are left) are saying it's absurd. Even the extremely right-leaning Economist has said it is absurd.
We really do choose our own facts. We're close to a tipping point, I think - either the reality-denying crazies will take over and those who have any sense left will migrate to other countries, or we will see a massive political purge in which the rational finally reasserts itself and purges the crazy from both parties. (Although to be honest I see the left as more guilty of "I dont know how to handle myself" than of deliberate and reality-denying crazy.) I hope it's the latter. I get the feeling it will be the former. i'm sure xDaunt will tell you how it makes sense, stupid biased left wing propaganda machines!!!!!1! I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves. The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible. Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it. He's getting hammered for it every single day by right-wingers, who conveniently forget that Congress and the Republican opposition have made it particularly difficult for Obama to pass the policies he wants. See for example the American Jobs Act, which never made it through Congress, or the continued blocking of debt relief implementation by the Republican director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So no, the "empirical results" from the last four years don't really reflect how good Obama's policies were for the economy. So what part of this post makes you feel that Obama deserves re-election? He will still have to deal with Republicans for the next four years. So because the Republicans have decided obstructing Obama is worth destroying there country he shouldnt be voted for? You must have forgotten that Obama had a democrat congress for two years. Neither candidate is worthy to be president. We need someone else, and not Ron Paul He only had 60 votes in the Senate for about a year, since a Republican won Ted Kennedy's seat when he died. And it's not like every Democrat automatically votes for everything the President puts on the table. Bill Clinton was able to pass significant Welfare Reform with a Republican Congress. And that was the same Congress that hated him enough to impeach him later. So why couldn't Obama accomplish any sort of bipartisan success? The answer is because Clinton went toward the middle. He was a Centrist and before elections he would go even more to the Center. Obama has only gone more to the Left and then complained that Republicans didnt' follow him. If you go so far to the Left that even your Democratic allies won't support you, then you can hardly blame the Republican Party for obstructionism. Obama has nobody to blame but himself. Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 05:36 Saryph wrote:On August 07 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 05:00 ThreeAcross wrote:On August 07 2012 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2012 03:55 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 03:31 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 02:33 coverpunch wrote:On August 07 2012 01:17 Vega62a wrote:
[quote]
I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves.
The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible. Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it. He's getting hammered for it every single day by right-wingers, who conveniently forget that Congress and the Republican opposition have made it particularly difficult for Obama to pass the policies he wants. See for example the American Jobs Act, which never made it through Congress, or the continued blocking of debt relief implementation by the Republican director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So no, the "empirical results" from the last four years don't really reflect how good Obama's policies were for the economy. So what part of this post makes you feel that Obama deserves re-election? He will still have to deal with Republicans for the next four years. So because the Republicans have decided obstructing Obama is worth destroying there country he shouldnt be voted for? You must have forgotten that Obama had a democrat congress for two years. Neither candidate is worthy to be president. We need someone else, and not Ron Paul He only had 60 votes in the Senate for about a year, since a Republican won Ted Kennedy's seat when he died. And it's not like every Democrat automatically votes for everything the President puts on the table. Also the democrats would be more of a big tent party than the republicans, and have to deal with the complications of that. I generally don't like to repeat points that have been made previously in the thread, but I am going to make an exception here because it is so important. Obama's failure to get much done in the way of legislation passed is strictly due to his failure as a leader. He enjoyed huge majorities in congress and in the senate during his first 2 years in office. All that he had to do to get a handful of republican votes (which is all that he needed) was to invite one or two republicans to write legislation along with democrats. Hell, Bush came to office in 2000 in an even more toxic political environment (he stole the election, remember?), but he still pushed and passed all sorts of legislation because he had prominent democrats (like Ted Kennedy) participate in the drafting process. I don't for a moment believe that some of the moderate republicans wouldn't have jumped ship and voted for the legislation had Obama done this. Instead, Obama took a hyper-partisan line and made it really, really easy for republicans to band together and obstruct him. ^^ Also this. ) Here's a better observation: none of his arguments backed up the idea that Obama was hyper-partisan. None. I suggest you follow your own advice, though, but in addition to comparing Obama to Clinton (who, incidentally, you might notice did not manage to pass a healthcare reform), do compare the political climate during their respective mandates. In fact, you can easily do this by reading this book by political scientists Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, which I referenced earlier. You're welcome. Quick little comparison between Clinton and Obama: Spending. Federal spending during Clinton's eight years in office fell as a share of GDP, from 22% the year before he took office to 18.2% the year he left. Under Obama, spending has risen from 20.7% to 24%. His budget would keep it above 22% for the foreseeable future, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Deficits. In Clinton's first year, liberals in his administration wanted more spending, while budget hawks wanted to stress deficit reduction. The hawks won, and Clinton's first budget sought $140 billion in deficit cuts. Obama's first budget, in contrast, proposed exploding the deficit by $240 billion. Obama has yet to produce a budget with less than $1 trillion in red ink. Tax cuts. In 1997, Clinton signed a tax-cut plan pushed by Republicans that, among other things, slashed the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%, fueling an investment and stock market boom. Obama proposes to raise the effective top rate on capital gains to 24.7% and hike the top rate on dividends to 44.7%. Deregulation. In 1999, Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that freed banks from Depression-era regulations, saying it "will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry." Obama has argued that the law contributed to the financial crises. In 2008 he said banking deregulation "encouraged a winner-take-all, anything-goes environment that helped foster devastating dislocations in our economy." Free trade. Clinton aggressively pushed the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it "will create a million jobs in the first five years." During his 2008 run for president, Obama attacked the pact, claiming, "1 million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA." And Obama didn't get around to ratifying three trade deals negotiated by George W. Bush until late 2011. Welfare reform. Clinton upset the liberal wing of his party by signing a sweeping welfare reform law in 1996 that included strict work requirements for beneficiaries, a change Clinton said would "break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens." Last month, Obama's Health and Human Services Department quietly issued a directive that critics say guts those work requirements. Tax hikes. Obama says he wants to return to Clinton-era tax rates. But he'd actually keep most of Bush's tax cuts. And under his plan, the top two rates would be higher than under Clinton due to ObamaCare's Medicare tax surcharge on the wealthy. (Clinton, meanwhile, confessed in 2005 that he thought he'd raised taxes "too much.") One of those Democratic Presidents was more of a Centrist than the other. Should be pretty obvious You're welcome.
And this asinine comparison (so spending and deficits went up after the 2008 recession, you say? Hmm, I wonder why that is...!) shows Obama has been "hyper-partisan" how exactly? Right - it doesn't.
Also, you must have missed the part of my post where I told you to compare the political climate during their respective mandates (as in, the voting trends of the Republicans and the kind of rhetoric used), since you somehow did not address that. It was easy to miss though, since it was basically my entire post.
|
On August 07 2012 08:46 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 08:40 1Eris1 wrote:On August 07 2012 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
As an actual leftist, I think it's really hilarious (by which I mean depressing) that people think Obama is one.
edit: @coverpunch, you raise an interesting comparison there between google and chikin. The real problem, though, is that the combination of universal suffrage, a failed educational system, and mass media (oh, and the electoral college) actually just breaks democracy. What's an actual "leftist"? A social democrat? Because even in Europe that varies tremendously. Well in America it means that you think the government should take care of the people at least in some minor way. If you don't think the government should be torn down, taxes should never raise, and government institutions should be allowed to discriminate then basically you're a commie pinko nazi socialist.
Yes, but sam!zdat was suggesting Obama is not one of these people.
|
On August 07 2012 06:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +There have been plenty of "American Jobs Acts" which have made it through congress. They are a dime a dozen these days. Erm, no they aren't.
Surey they are. We've passed the ARRA, the JOBS act, the HIRE act, the Small Business Jobs act, the Education Jobs Fund and VOW to Hire Heroes act.
There have been tons of 'jobs' bills passed and rejected throughout Obama's term.
|
I'm going to have to agree with DoubleReed here.
This is just a personal feeling, but I really feel like Bush changed the way the parties looked at each other...Democrats HATED Bush. Now it feels like there is a lot of hatred towards Obama. Since the end of clinton's presidency, I really feel the parties have worked less and less together, and just flat out hate the other party on some things, even when it doesn't make sense. I honestly don't remember much about Clinton's presidency cause I was young though, so take it how you will.
Also with time, comes improvement. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a great example of this(although it's a social policy and not financial), it was progress for it's time, but with time comes changes to policy. It needed to be changed for progress for our views on sexuality as a country. Originally implemented by a democrat Bill Clinton, later criticized by Democrats.
Was there really this much of a divide between parties before 2000? I know there was a big division on social policies around Vietnam era, when Democratic party started to care a lot more about social rights then it had in the past.
|
On August 07 2012 08:52 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 08:48 DoubleReed wrote:
Hey Savio, do you understand how amazing our economy was doing under Clinton? Compare that to the massive economic failure that happened right before Obama. You can't possibly compare those fiscal situations at all. They are polar opposites. ...Deregulation....NAFTA....deficits.....welfare reform.... You are claiming that a bad economy has forced Obama to be more partisan than Bill Clinton? You think that if the economy was better, he would have been less partisan and more Centrist?
Deficits which are almost entirely within the natural expansion of unemployment benefits and shrinking of the economy. He hasn't done ANYTHING that has exploded the deficit, only refused to cut government drastically to match the economic slump. Even the healthcare law was close to revenue neutral.
NAFTA is, at best, a neutral topic. There was a little bit gained and lost in it.
Deregulation is what led us into this nonsense in the first place, and smart regulation and not DEregulation is where we should be focused.
Welfare can only be reformed so much, and is especially dangerous while close to a quarter of U.S. workers are unemployed or underemployed.
And are you really calling Obama leftist for wanting to increase taxes slightly? Everybody is paying record lows in taxes. If anything, he's bringing it back to the middle.
|
The only thing stopping Obama from being a real leftist policy-wise is the political reality that this country won't tolerate truly leftist policies. Specifically, there are too many democrats, in addition to everyone on the right, who won't support that kind of agenda. The perfect example of this is Obamacare and why Obamacare does not have a public option.
Even a cursory review of Obama's past and history shows that Obama is far more of a leftist ideologically than he publicly lets on for obvious political reasons. Hell, just look at some of his political appointments, many of whom are very left wing.
|
You have a party that swears loyalty oaths to a pledge to never increase taxes under any circumstance. How do you expect there to be any debate on the issue with such an environment, even though taxes are their lowest in decades?
|
On August 07 2012 08:52 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 08:48 DoubleReed wrote:
Hey Savio, do you understand how amazing our economy was doing under Clinton? Compare that to the massive economic failure that happened right before Obama. You can't possibly compare those fiscal situations at all. They are polar opposites. ...Deregulation....NAFTA....deficits.....welfare reform.... You are claiming that a bad economy has forced Obama to be more partisan than Bill Clinton? You think that if the economy was better, he would have been less partisan and more Centrist?
Let's see, you mean:
That one deregulation bill that helped cause the financial crisis by creating systemic risk in the entire financial system? (removed parts of Glass-Steagal Act)
A Free Trade Bill that's been used as a political football but no one has any intention of repealing?
Deficits really increased in the worst recession in 70 years, how did revenues do?
Welfare reform appropriate in a booming economy are not totally appropriate in the worst recession in 70 years?
False comparison on every level, free trade agreements tend to not be aggressively pursued in recessions because countries are inclined more towards protectionism, its just not a priority and there are no agreements of similar size on the table so time and resources are better spent elsewhere.
|
On August 07 2012 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
The only thing stopping Obama from being a real leftist policy-wise is the political reality that this country won't tolerate truly leftist policies. Specifically, there are too many democrats, in addition to everyone on the right, who won't support that kind of agenda. The perfect example of this is Obamacare and why Obamacare does not have a public option.
Even a cursory review of Obama's past and history shows that Obama is far more of a leftist ideologically than he publicly lets on for obvious political reasons. Hell, just look at some of his political appointments, many of whom are very left wing.
Or you can argue that many Democrats don't want to make it look like they're excluding the right. There are plenty that are in contested districts that want compromise, and looking like you're excluding Republicans is a huge no-no. They're not even "Blue Dog" Democrats, just ones that want to look reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
