Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:19 AM Apr 2013

Two truths about Obama

1. Obama is the most liberal President we've had in a while - since Johnson at least. The people who are fighting with him are genuinely bad people who will make this country much worse; we need to make sure that Obama and Congressional Democrats win in any battle against the right, as much as we can.

2. Obama is at best a Centrist compared to most of us - and might even be center-right. His instincts are to cater to big business and the wealthy, and if we don't hold his feet to the fire, that is probably what he will do.

How you negotiate those two truths is trick - the easiest way is just to decide that one of them isn't true - either believe that Obama is the bees knees or that he's a total bastard. All the conflicts melt away.

Bryant

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Two truths about Obama (Original Post) el_bryanto Apr 2013 OP
I think that's an excellent description alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #1
Obama is a lame duck, his personal neurosis is not the issue at hand. It is not about personalities Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #2
It's comforting to assume that people who's principles are different from yours have no principles. el_bryanto Apr 2013 #7
Yeah except I did not say that. One of my principles has to do with not rewording other people's Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #9
"it is about principles, an alien concept to the 'moderate centrists'" el_bryanto Apr 2013 #11
No, that is your edited version, incomplete and thus inaccurate. Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #17
OK - thank you for clarifying. Still seems like a pretty fine distinction el_bryanto Apr 2013 #21
Oh, a fine distinction is it? Because you say so? Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #25
I'm really sorry I hurt you feelings so badly - I'll be more careful in the future. nt el_bryanto Apr 2013 #33
Nonsense. 99Forever Apr 2013 #3
+1 woo me with science Apr 2013 #10
Actually, ProSense Apr 2013 #13
Blah blah blah 99Forever Apr 2013 #23
That response contains almost as much insight as your original point BeyondGeography Apr 2013 #27
You think... 99Forever Apr 2013 #29
He's also very, VERY wealthy, and will never need social security closeupready Apr 2013 #4
I think's non-ideological. I think he's a pragmatist who only cares about getting things done. Liberal_Stalwart71 Apr 2013 #5
OBAMA = BAD, BAD, BAD!!!!!! Liberal_Stalwart71 Apr 2013 #6
Obama is not even close to liberal. ananda Apr 2013 #8
Wait, ProSense Apr 2013 #12
While I agree that Obama is more liberal than the poster you are responding to gives him credit for el_bryanto Apr 2013 #14
Disagree ProSense Apr 2013 #18
Heh. progressoid Apr 2013 #31
Please help. How was Carter less liberal than Obama? HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #15
Carter as President - not as he has been since leaving the Presidency el_bryanto Apr 2013 #16
Yes, please, that is the question, how was he as president less liberal than Obama? HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #19
He is a born-again Christian and was (until 2000) a member of the Southern Baptist Convention. bigtree Apr 2013 #24
"might even be center-right" hobbit709 Apr 2013 #20
you're smart enough to know that thinking this way is just bull bigtree Apr 2013 #22
Another factor is that it's extremely unlikely that a President MineralMan Apr 2013 #26
The way you phrase it here I agree, but I know you do not intend that double negative.... Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #28
You are engaging in the nonsense of inaccurate labelling Armstead Apr 2013 #32
His instincts have never been to cater to the wealthy BeyondGeography Apr 2013 #30
 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
1. I think that's an excellent description
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:37 AM
Apr 2013

Obama is, for better or worse, trying to make liberalism work within neoliberalism. Like many Americans, he believes in the tenets of both. As you note quite astutely, this is the source of the seeming conflicts that surround him.

Ultimately, the adherence to both New Deal/interventionist style liberalism and neoliberal economics is unsustainable. These positions and foundations for action are, in fact, incompatible. It really is a case study in what Marx identified as internal contradictions both driving and rending apart a system of thought (and policy). Obama-ism, if we might call it that, has no future.

We should note that this same conflict has many manifestations in contemporary culture (Obama is symptom, not cause). Computer/internet culture, for example, is particularly riven by the attempted suturing of liberal and neoliberal thought, where we want both "gift economies" and a generalized "sharing/free culture" (a variation on the social thought of liberalism) and plenty of "entrepreneurs" (the neoliberal economic imperative). The whole culture is a mishmash of nonsense that will split apart under its own forces. The figure of the "social entrepreneur" who makes a business work around interventions into the social good is perhaps the key (clownish) figure of this nonsensical cultural impulse.

In Obama-ism, we get the return (of the repressed) of liberalism inside neoliberalism. His supporters (and right wing opponents) focus on that return of liberalism; his left opponents focus on the neoliberal direction that reshapes and encloses it. They are, in a sense, all correct about Obamaism, which is precisely why the philosophy cannot last.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
2. Obama is a lame duck, his personal neurosis is not the issue at hand. It is not about personalities
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:39 AM
Apr 2013

it is about principles, an alien concept to the 'moderate centrists' I know, but right and wrong really are not relative to that which the Republicans want to do.
Plus, your two points can both be true, most liberal since LBJ and also a right leaning conservative Democrat. Both can be true, both can be false, either way that which is wrong remains wrong. Cutting the least among us to feed more to the rich is wrong. The spectacle of Obama doing so, after years of preaching about his Super Christian Devotion when railing against the rights of minorities he does not like, is a unique display of hypocrisy and self service, nearly as entertaining as it is disgusting.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
7. It's comforting to assume that people who's principles are different from yours have no principles.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:51 AM
Apr 2013

May not be accurate, but its comforting.

Bryant

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
9. Yeah except I did not say that. One of my principles has to do with not rewording other people's
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 09:17 AM
Apr 2013

words. I did not even imply that others have no principles. I said people put personalities above principles, and in order to do so, clearly they must have some principles, perhaps different from my own, perhaps identical to my own just ignored for the sake of expedience.
If you wish to take issue with my words, use my actual words, not something you make up.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
11. "it is about principles, an alien concept to the 'moderate centrists'"
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 09:21 AM
Apr 2013

That's what you said. What is the key difference between saying that principles are an alien concept to moderate centrists and saying they have no principles? Because it seems like a pretty fine distinction to me.

Bryant

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
17. No, that is your edited version, incomplete and thus inaccurate.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 09:33 AM
Apr 2013

I said "It is not about personalities it is about principles, an alien concept to the 'moderate centrists'"
The concept that is alien to some is that it is about something other than 'two ways to look at a personality'. The OP is all about a person. I say the issues are not about the person, but about principles, which should not be subverted for the expedience or the sheer fun of personality oriented politics.
Again, you are rewriting and slicing and dicing what I said and then arguing with that rather than responding to what I actually said. You cut out the very heart of what I was saying, altered the meaning and groused about that which you yourself created.
It is alien to some that principles always override persons. Is that clear enough for you? They have principles, they simply seem to decide to ignore them in order to focus on petty personality politics.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
21. OK - thank you for clarifying. Still seems like a pretty fine distinction
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 09:41 AM
Apr 2013

And you are still making the assumption that they disagree with Obama, but choose to support him because of his personality. That may not be the case.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
25. Oh, a fine distinction is it? Because you say so?
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:00 AM
Apr 2013

If it is so fine a distinction, why then did you feel the need to misquote me, edit out the salient parts and then say 'that's what you said' about your version, not about what I really said?
And you still have not spoken to what I actually said.
I am not making any assumption, you keep putting assumptions in my mouth. My words are my words, and they are here for all to read. I clearly said they might have principles or they might not, some clearly put principle aside for expedience, that's just politics, if you wish to deny that happens you might as well deny that water is wet. It is the nature of politics.
To be very clear, the OP tries to make important issues all about how individuals see another individual, and I say that is a shoddy way to look at important issues that will harm or help millions of people. I do not see politics as being all about the politicians.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
13. Actually,
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 09:27 AM
Apr 2013

"Jimmy Carter. Hell, even Nixon was to the left of Obama."

Carter was pro-life and pro-deregulation. Nixon wanted to abort bi-racial babies. Then there is Cambodia and Watergate. What a guy.





 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
4. He's also very, VERY wealthy, and will never need social security
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:46 AM
Apr 2013

to secure a decent retirement standard of living.

So what does he do? Uses social security as a bargaining chip.

ananda

(28,783 posts)
8. Obama is not even close to liberal.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 09:16 AM
Apr 2013

And he never has been since he got in the Senate.

Everyone should know this.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
12. Wait,
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 09:24 AM
Apr 2013

"Obama is not even close to liberal."

..."not even close"?

President Obama signed health care reform into law, which included the biggest expansion of Medicaid since it was implemented. It also strengthened Medicare and gave new benefits to seniors. From the stimulus, to repealing DADT, to health care, student loan (taking banks out of the federal student loan process) and Wall Street reform, he's been reversing a lot of Reagan and Clinton's damaging policies, and he's still got nearly four years to go.

Obama’s stimulus package aids people with disabilities

By Mike Ervin,

<...>

The first is a one-time additional payment of $250 to people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and other selected Social Security benefits. Many SSI recipients live on less than $10,000 a year, and so this additional income will make a significant difference.

Second, the stimulus package also allocates $500 million to help the Social Security Administration reduce the processing time for claims and appeals decisions. During the Bush years, the number of people awaiting final determination on their Social Security disability claims more than doubled to 755,000. Many were waiting two years or more for determination, without income. Obama’s allocation should help end this disgrace.

<...>

More creatively, Obama provided $140 million to support centers for independent living. These nonresidential centers are run by people with disabilities and are focal points for services and advocacy. There are hundreds of these centers throughout the United States, providing thousands of good jobs for people with disabilities and others in their communities.

The stimulus package will also invest in the future by providing $540 million for vocational rehabilitation programs, which assist people with disabilities in obtaining higher education and jobs.

- more -

http://progressive.org/mag/mpervin030509.html

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included a number of provisions of particular concern to people with disabilities.

•The Act included $500 million to help the Social Security Administration reduce its backlog in processing disability applications;
•The Act supplied $12.2 billion in funding to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA);
•The Act also provided $87 billion to states to bolster their Medicaid programs during the downturn; and,
•The Act provided over $500 million in funding for vocational rehabilitation services to help with job training, education and placement.
•The Act provided over $140 million in funding for independent living centers across the country.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/disabilities


Krugman: Insurance and Freedom
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022636098

Senate Republicans Unanimously Support Repeal of Student Loan Reform Law

By Josh Israel

All 45 Senate Republicans voted Friday for a budget amendment that endorsed the repeal of both Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. While Congressional Republicans attempting to repeal Obamacare is nothing new — this marks the 39th repeal attempt — this proposal also aimed to repeal the student loan reform and Pell Grant expansions that were enacted at the same time.

All 54 Senate Democrats present successfully voted to defeat the amendment, offered by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). If passed, it would have put the Senate on record in support of a repeal of
provisions that moved student loans from commercial banks to direct lending from the U.S. Education Department and:

  • Used half of the the estimated $61 billion in savings to increase the maximum annual Pell Grant scholarship to $5,550 in 2010 and to $5,975 by 2017, while indexing the grants to inflation.

  • Lowered monthly payments on federal student loans and shortened the debt forgiveness timeline. For new loans after 2014, this will mean graduates will have to pay 10 percent of disposable income, instead of 15.

  • Provided $2.55 billion to support historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions; $2 billion for community colleges; and $750 million for a college access and completion program for students.
Such a repeal would have meant a return to larger payments, smaller Pell Grants, and reduced support colleges and universities while putting billions of dollars back in the coffers of Wall Street banks. But in his floor speech explaining the amendment, Cruz told his colleagues only that his proposal was about defunding and repealing Obamacare, making no mention of the billions of dollars he would take from higher education to give back to for-profit banks.

Though every Congressional Republican voted against the health care and student loan reforms, House Republicans specifically exempted the student loan reform provisions from previous repeal attempts, though they have repeatedly slammed the reform as a “Washington takeover” of the student loan industry.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2013/03/22/1762921/senate-republicans-unanimously-support-repeal-of-student-loan-reform-law/


Want to talk about Wall Street reform, which expanded the FDIC's powers and created the CFPB?

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
14. While I agree that Obama is more liberal than the poster you are responding to gives him credit for
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 09:29 AM
Apr 2013

Bringing up Wall Street to argue your point isn't that strong - some of that was done under Bush and the Reforms of Wall Street are as toothless as a stuffed alligator.

Bryant

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
18. Disagree
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 09:33 AM
Apr 2013

"Bringing up Wall Street to argue your point isn't that strong - some of that was done under Bush and the Reforms of Wall Street are as toothless as a stuffed alligator"

The problem is in part getting regulators to do their jobs and fully implementing the law. Think about the last two Senate Banking Committee hearings.

Elizabeth Warren Embarrasses Hapless Bank Regulators At First Hearing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022377143

WARREN TO BERNANKE: "So when are we gonna get rid of 'too big to fail?'"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022434722

Senator Warren was highlighting the problems that have plagued the implementation and enforcement of Dodd-Frank. See the exchange beginning at 3:25 mins of the Bernanke clip at the link. First , she went after regulators for not doing their jobs, which has huge implications for Dodd-Frank.

Dodd-Frank requires enforcement of its provisions, which are not "toothless."

Public Citizen, a public interest nonprofit organization representing more than 250,000 members and supporters nationwide, hereby petitions the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board”) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “Council”) to recognize that the Bank of America Corporation (“Bank of America” or “the bank”) poses a “grave threat” to the stability of the United States financial system and to mitigate that threat, as provided by section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or the “Act”). 1 Pursuant to the authority in the Act, the Board and the Council should reform Bank of America into one or more institutions that are smaller, less interconnected, less complex, more manageable and, as a result, less systemically dangerous.

Under section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act, if the Board determines that a financial institution poses a “grave threat” to U.S. financial stability, then the Board, with approval from the Council, “shall” mitigate that threat.2 The Act offers regulators the flexibility to take a range of actions, including limiting the institution’s mergers and acquisitions, restricting or imposing conditions on its products or activities, or ordering it to divest assets or off-balance sheet items.

- more -

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Public-Citizen-Bank-of-America-Petition.pdf


Orderly Liquidation Fund

To the extent that the Act expanded the scope of financial firms that may be liquidated by the federal government, beyond the existing authorities of the FDIC and SIPC, there needed to be an additional source of funds, independent of the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund, to be used in case of a non-bank or non-security financial company's liquidation. The Orderly Liquidation Fund is to be an FDIC-managed fund, to be used by the FDIC in the event of a covered financial company's liquidation[75] that is not covered by FDIC or SIPC.[76]

Initially, the Fund is to be capitalized over a period no shorter than five years, but no longer than ten; however, in the event the FDIC must make use of the Fund before it is fully capitalized, the Secretary of the Treasury and the FDIC are permitted to extend the period as determined necessary.[36] The method of capitalization is by collecting risk-based assessment fees on any "eligible financial company" – which is defined as "[…] any bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors." The severity of the assessment fees can be adjusted on an as-needed basis (depending on economic conditions and other similar factors) and the relative size and value of a firm is to play a role in determining the fees to be assessed.[36] The eligibility of a financial company to be subject to the fees is periodically reevaluated; or, in other words, a company that does not qualify for fees in the present, will be subject to the fees in the future if they cross the 50 billion line, or become subject to Federal Reserve scrutiny.[36]

To the extent that a covered financial company has a negative net worth and its liquidation creates an obligation to the FDIC as its liquidator, the FDIC shall charge one or more risk-based assessment such that the obligation will be paid off within 60 months (5 years) of the issuance of the obligation.[77] The assessments will be charged to any bank holding company with consolidated assets greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Federal Reserve. Under certain conditions, the assessment may be extended to regulated banks and other financial institutions.[78] Assessments are imposed on a graduated basis, with financial companies having greater assets and risk being assessed at a higher rate.[79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act#Title_II_.E2.80.93_Orderly_Liquidation_Authority


Now a group is pushing for implementation of the Volcker Rule.

Occupy the SEC Sues Fed, SEC, OCC, CFTC, FDIC, Treasury Due To Failure To Implement Volcker Rule

by bobswern

Just a few days plus a year after approximately 100 supporters of the former Occupy Wall Street (“OWS”) working group, the now-autonomous Occupy the SEC (“OSEC”), peacefully marched on Wall Street carrying signs stating, “We don’t make demands so this is a suggestion: Enforce the Volcker Rule,” we’re now learning via a concise and inspiring post by Naked Capitalism Publisher Yves Smith that “Occupy the SEC, Frustrated With Regulatory Defiance of Volcker Rule Implementation Requirements, Sues Fed, SEC, CFTC, FDIC and Treasury.”

First, here’s the link to Wednesday’s story, directly from the OSEC blog: “Occupy the SEC Sues Federal Reserve, SEC, CFTC, OCC, FDIC and U.S. Treasury Over Volcker Rule Delays.”

Occupy the SEC (OSEC) has filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against six federal agencies, over those agencies’ delay in promulgating a Final Rulemaking in connection with the “Volcker Rule” (Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010).

Congress passed the Volcker Rule in July 2010 in order to re-orient deposit-taking banks towards safe, traditional activities (like offering checking accounts and loans to individuals and businesses), and away from the speculative “proprietary” trading that has imperiled deposited funds as well as the global economy at large in recent years. Simply put, the Volcker Rule seeks to limit the ability of banks to gamble with the average person’s checking account, or with public money offered by the Federal Reserve.

Almost three years since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, these agencies have yet to finalize regulations implementing the Volcker Rule. Section 619(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act set a mandatory deadline for the finalization of the Volcker regulations. That deadline passed over a year. Despite this fact, the federal agencies charged with finalizing the Rule have yet to do so. In fact, senior officials at the agencies have indicated that they do not intend to finalize the Volcker Rule anytime soon.

The longer the agencies delay in finalizing the Rule, the longer that banks can continue to gamble with depositors’ money and virtually interest-free loans from the Federal Reserve’s discount window. The financial crisis of 2008 has taught us that the global economy can no longer tolerate such unrestrained speculative activity. Consequently, OSEC has filed a lawsuit against the agencies, seeking declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief in the form of a court order compelling them to finalize the Volcker Rule within a timeframe specified by the court…
- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/28/1190410/-Occupy-the-SEC-Sues-Fed-SEC-OCC-CFTC-FDIC-Treasury-Due-To-Failure-To-Implement-Volcker-Rule


Wall Street reform was a huge achievement, but while its implementation is being ignored by supporters, its opponents are doing everything in their power to delay it.

Anyone paying attention saw this coming in 2011.

Report: Wall Street’s Opposition to Dodd-Frank Reforms Echoes Its Resistance to New Deal Financial Safeguards

Bedrock Consumer Protections Once Were Flogged as ‘Exceedingly Dangerous,’ ‘Monstrous Systems’ That Would ‘Cripple’ the Economy

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the nation approaches the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, opponents are claiming that the new measure is extraordinarily damaging, especially to Main Street. But industry’s alarmist rhetoric bears striking resemblance to the last time it faced sweeping new safeguards: during the New Deal reforms. The parallels between the language used both then and now are detailed in a report released today by Public Citizen and the Cry Wolf Project.

In the decades since the Great Depression, Americans acknowledged the necessity of having safeguards in place to prevent another crash of the financial markets, including the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and laws requiring public companies to accurately disclose their financial affairs. Although these are now seen as bedrock protections when they were first introduced, Wall Street cried foul, the new report, “Industry Repeats Itself: The Financial Reform Fight,” found.

“The business community’s wildly inaccurate forecasts about the New Deal reforms devalue the credibility of the ominous predictions they are making today,” said Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division and author of the report. “If history comes close to repeating itself, industry is going to look very silly for its hand-wringing over Dodd-Frank when people look back.”


<...>

In fact, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is designed to prevent another Wall Street crash, which really made it tough on everyone by causing massive job loss and severely hurting corner butchers and bakers, as well as retirees, families with mortgages and others. The Dodd-Frank law increases transparency (particularly in derivatives markets); creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that consumers receive straightforward information about financial products and to police abusive practices; improves corporate governance; increases capital requirements for banks; deters particularly large financial institutions from providing incentives for employees to take undue risks; and gives the government the ability to take failed investment institutions into receivership, similar to the FDIC’s authority regarding commercial banks. Much of it has yet to be implemented.

- more -

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/07/12-0


progressoid

(49,827 posts)
31. Heh.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:27 AM
Apr 2013
"President Obama signed health care reform into law"


That is one dead horse.

An ironically dead horse since many of the wonders in PPACA were first proposed by Nixon.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
16. Carter as President - not as he has been since leaving the Presidency
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 09:33 AM
Apr 2013

But it's a fine line; it's possible he was, as president, as liberal as Obama. But I don't think so.

Bryant

bigtree

(85,918 posts)
24. He is a born-again Christian and was (until 2000) a member of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 09:59 AM
Apr 2013

wiki (for lack of a quicker source):

"While the Republican Party began to pursue a strategy of wooing born-again Christians as a voting bloc after 1980, led by activists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, in 1976, 56% of the evangelical Christian vote went to Carter. He combined conservative fiscal and social policies with more moderate views on peace and ecology . . .


PBS:

Carter, a fiscal conservative at heart, was determined to lead the fight against inflation by cutting government spending.
"And across the table is Tip O'Neill," according to John Farrell, "the quintessential New Deal Democrat -- unrepentant, un-reconstructed, and determined to follow the [Franklin D.] Roosevelt philosophy . . .

bigtree

(85,918 posts)
22. you're smart enough to know that thinking this way is just bull
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 09:50 AM
Apr 2013

. . . every issue has its own element of support. First, there's the president's actual position (most of the time, right on the issues we want to see promoted), then, there's the political reality he's forced to deal with in Congress. Yet, the president still just proposes, and on budget issues, that's mostly ALL he accomplishes before Congress works it's disparate will.

I've actually seen this President adhere closely throughout his term to what the Democratic leadership says it will bear on legislation, so let's not overstate his ideology when we apply these left/right/center labels.

You want real results to your advocacy? Quit playing the suckers game of pretending the President holds sway on these budget issues and focus on what Congress actually intends to do. Focus on where the votes in the legislature actually are. Look to the Democratic leadership or their caucus to measure what they'll likely support or pass.

Setting hair fires over a mostly DOA budget from the WH is just weirdness.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
26. Another factor is that it's extremely unlikely that a President
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:03 AM
Apr 2013

who was much further to the left would not have been elected at all. Then, we'd have Mitt Romney sitting in that office.

Lesser of two evils? Depends how you look at it. In a system like ours, people on the edges do not win Presidencies.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
32. You are engaging in the nonsense of inaccurate labelling
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:38 AM
Apr 2013

"people on the edge"......"further to the left"

That's the kind of decayed, stagnant labeling that is always used to prevent actual progress.

Positions like saving Social Security and protecting beneficiaries are not "too far left" ...Nor are many otehr ;progressive populist positions. MOST people (excluding people like the Kochs and their brainwashed followers of the ultra right wing) believe in progressive principles like protections of consumers and workers, and they also believe that concentrations of corporate power are dangerous.

But those basic shared beliefs have been excluded from the political dialogue by this chuckle headed manipulation that equates basic fair play and decency with "too far left." It is especially destructive when so-called liberals and "pragmatic" progressives echo the message that has been cooked up for many years in Koch think tanks.





BeyondGeography

(39,284 posts)
30. His instincts have never been to cater to the wealthy
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 10:25 AM
Apr 2013

He spent most of his professional life trying to have as little to do with them as possible or working to counteract their excesses. Look at the choices he has made (his adult life didn't start in 2007); corporate types would spray their drinks on the screen looking at all the posts calling Citizen Obama, who is clearly bored by the private sector, a corporatist. Amazingly, many on the Right have a clearer understanding of who Obama is than the firegbaggers on the left.

Obama is a liberal politician who tries (wrongheadedly at times) to be what he considers to be "practical." You could argue that he is more politician than liberal, but he certainly didn't start out that way, nor has he strayed as far from the left as his most vociferous critics here would argue.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Two truths about Obama