Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Making A Case for Our President

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:20 PM
Original message
Making A Case for Our President
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 07:08 PM by louis c
Let me first start out by saying that I agree that President Obama left many progressives at the alter, especially labor. I know the teachers are unhappy with charter schools and the lack of support on collective bargaining. Card check legislation didn't even get a vote, and now we'll be facing increasing opposition in a new Congress. The Health Care Bill left out single payer and a public option. It was compromised to hell. Iraq and Afghanistan are still unresolved and moving on a trajectory not much unlike the previous administration and with basically the same personnel and policies. OK, I understand your discontent, I have my own.

Now, on to the main point. I'm personally a product of the 60's. I was politically active before I was sexually active. I campaigned for Eugene McCarthy in 1968, at the age of 15. I remember all the adults at the time being pissed off about the Chicago Convention and Humphrey's nomination that we figured there really wasn't a difference. Guess what, there was. We ceded the God Damned country to Richard Nixon out of spite.

I remember 1980. Ted Kennedy was our stalwart. I was now 27 and Kennedy was the "real Liberal". So, fuck Jimmy Carter. As a result, we ended up with the Reagan Revolution, the destruction of the middle class through the near abolition of unions, and a new right wing that we are living with to this day.

Fast forward to 1994 (Now I'm 42). Clinton won the Presidency two years earlier but supported NAFTA and GAT. Anti-union positions that were a body blows to organized labor and the American working class. We sat on our hands in the 1994 mid-term elections. Enter the Republican Congressional majority that lasted over a decade. They nearly obliterated the middle class and organized labor. They even repealed Glass-Stigell.

In each case, we had a right to feel let down and left out. In each case, however, we bit our nose off to spite our face and the result is an America that has moved so far to the right I can hardly recognize it.

The Obama election was a lucky break for us. If it wasn't for the September, 2008 economic meltdown and McCain's ineptness, I don't think we would have won that one. But, never the less, we're in and with a majority of both houses. I'm 57 now. I've learned my lessons. I'm for Obama because the alternative scares the living daylights out of me. So, here's my case for MY President.

When Barack Obama took over the Presidency, we were losing upwards of 750,000 jobs a month. Now we are gaining jobs. We may be gaining jobs at a rate less than we hoped, but Obama's policies have stopped the bleeding. The unemployment rate is a misleading indicator. By extending unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 99 weeks or greater, more unemployed stay on the roles for a lot longer, increasing the rate. Another factor keeping that number high is that as the economy improves, more workers enter the workforce looking for work, and that increases that percentage even further. The real number is jobs created, not unemployment rate. And it must be kept in mind that adding jobs, at any rate, is way better than losing them.

The deficit was one trillion dollars. On top of that, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were "off the books". Some sort of emergency accounting ploy to keep that number out of the budget. Obama campaigned on the fact that that number would be included in the budget. He kept his word, and now our opponents are acting like the money spent under Bush for the wars is actually a deficit under the current President. Why aren't we explaining this to the public?

The Stock Market has increased nearly 25% since Obama took office. If you take into account that february and March of 2009 were horrific months that could hardly be blamed on President Obama, the increase from the March lows is nearly 40%. That's not chicken feed. A lot of working Americans have there lives' savings in a 401k or pensions. I remember when that drug addict, Rush Limbaugh made the point in March of 2009 that the market dropped 2,000 points since Obama was elected (not inaugurated mind you, but elected in November 2008 thereby making him responsible for shit that happened before he was even sworn in). Not a word about the rebound or an ounce of credit for the bounce back from the right, now that the market has recovered.

President Obama saved 350,000 good, middle class, union jobs with benefits in the Auto industry. The right wing likes to cal it a bail out. but it wasn't. I remember assholes like Senators Corker and Bunning calling for a boycott of AMERICAN cars for the president's actions. Good thing we didn't listen to them and we should be touting the President's courage and the American auto industry for the success of this action.

The stimulus bill IS working. One third was in the form of tax breaks for the middle class and, extended and increased unemployment benefits for the people out of work. One third was for aid to states and cities to keep teachers, police, fire fighters and other public servants working. If the president didn't do this, the unemployed would have doubled. That money helped prevent a catastrophe. The final third was for infrastructure and to underwrite new energy jobs. The right likes to look at the net jobs instead of all the jobs that were saved. Of course, the tax breaks for working Americans, instead of the very wealthy.

Banking regulations to hold our largest banking groups accountable. No matter how you feel about the war, his administration has killed or captured more high ranking al Queda operatives in 18 months than the Bush Administration did in 8 years. The U.S. Borders have more personnel manning it than under Bush. More companies are being held accountable for knowingly hiring undocumented workers than the previous Administration, and he's done all of this with no help from the Republican nay sayers.

Sure, President Obama isn't the fire breathing progressive we all thought he was going to be when he won the presidency in November 2008, but he's the best we're ever going to see. Especially if you're 57 years old or older.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. They didn't ruin the country overnight either
And destroying something is the easy part. Constructing something on a multilayered level and many pronged strategy isn't going to be done overnight either. First thing is a solid foundation. then we build on that foundation in such a way that the foundation will hold.

That's Obama's strategy. Whether it works or not is something history will tell us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. repukes did not ruin America overnight
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 06:42 PM by Skittles
it's been a slow, steady destruction, aided and abetted by spineless Dems......now the push to move progressively forward has been painfully slow, aided and abetted once again by spineless Dems
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Republicans are blameless right?
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 06:48 PM by lunatica
It's one thing to be disappointed, but altogether another to refuse to see the whole problem. Dems may be spineless, though not all of them are, but ALL the Republicans are dead set on destroying this country with every breath they take. But somehow Obama is entirely to blame while Republicans are totally overlooked because it's the Dems who are ruining eveything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. get some reading comprehension skills, PLEASE
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 06:59 PM by Skittles
start by understanding the defintion of AID AND ABET:

To assist another in the commission of a crime by words or conduct.

The person who aids and abets participates in the commission of a crime by performing some overt act or by giving advice or encouragement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #17
28. another nasty post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. WTF
someone COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT and I have to SPELL IT OUT TO THEM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. seems to happen a lot
:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #36
44. spell what out?
Obviously you aren't going to be confused with facts because it's easy to see you've already made up your mind in UPPER CASE SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS!!!!

Whatever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #44
73. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #28
101. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
61. Then you misused the term "aid and abet"
as pushing a progressive agenda (even slowly) is not a crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #61
74. it is if it is deliberately watered down to appease criminals
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #74
89. That seems highly unlikely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
27. "spineless Dems" - had to say it twice for effect eh?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FUCKING SPINELESS DEMOCRATS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #35
47. "FUCKING SPINELESS DEMOCRATS"
Very nice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #47
75. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. I agree with you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #79
90. & I agree with you
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #75
80. Nice - now resorting to personal attacks
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 08:35 PM by HughMoran
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. You didn't make your case.
I may never see a decent president, but Obama is not "the best" of anything.

Go back to your first paragraph.

What has he accomplished that is worth the cost of:

Lives lost, blood spilled in never ending unnecessary war?

A nation bankrupted by funding never ending unnecessary war?

Health insurance "reform" that will further bankrupt working citizens?

Destruction of public education?

Union-busting, privatizing, outsourcing, and further degrading working people and the middle class?

I am, if it can be possible, MORE unhappy with the Obama administration than I was the last 8 years. Perhaps because I expected nothing good from GWB, and the neoliberal focus of this Democratic administration is a betrayal of deeply held principles that I expected a Democratic administration, and a Democratic Congress, to uphold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. CORRECT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. +1000 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Do you think you're making a better case?
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 06:44 PM by lunatica
Like it or not it took the Republicans more than a generation to destroy this country. They did it in stages and started small, just like Obama. Destroying the country is the easy part. Trying to reverse that trend when the inertia has gathered momentum has to be done one damn step at a time.

Obama is turning this big ass ship around whether you acknowledge that or not. And it might take more than a generation to do that too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. You don't turn a ship around by
calling "full steam ahead" and pushing forward at maximum speed down the same paths the Republicans were taking us. That's not even attempting to turn around.

And that is exactly what is happening with public education. And the war on terror. And health care reform, imo, mandating that the hens submit to the fox.

If you want to make a case, you've got to come up with a metaphor that works.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Anyone can focus on nothing but the negative
There's much more to what's going on than your narrow tunnel vision sees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
25. "Nothing but the negative"
What the fuck else do you expect me to focus on?

I'm a teacher. It's affecting my profession, and my employment, for the rest of my career. And that affects the rest of my life. That's personal.

It's affecting my health. I already can't afford to use the damned health insurance I pay for. Now I don't see hope on the horizon for health CARE reform. I have health issues that are affecting my quality of life, and getting actual care is getting farther away, not closer. That's personal.

I have two adult children. One's hours have been cut in half; raising a child as a single parent on half-time work affects all of our lives. One got laid off a year ago, has not been rehired for anything, and just had his unemployment benefits cut off. The focus on funding insurance companies, big banks, and the defense department, instead of a domestic wpa type program to keep people working, provide infrastructure, and help all of us keep going, is hurting my family. It's personal.

Why the fuck WOULDN'T I focus on what is happening to me, to my profession, my colleagues, and my family? Especially my profession, when I can see that the damage is ON PURPOSE?

Narrow tunnel vision, my ass. I have legitimate personal beefs, but the negative isn't just affecting a few. It's not just me and mine; it's happening across the nation. The destruction of public education affects the entire nation in a huge way.

When no American is dying or becoming disabled in the middle east, when we aren't gushing blood money we can't afford to stay there, when an actual educator takes the reins of education "reform," when the poor, the un- and under-employed, and the sick's needs are met, when there is actually something to be positive about, I'm sure I'll notice whatever other scraps he's been tossing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Because under an R admin/Congress, of course an actual educator will take the reins.
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 07:25 PM by BzaDem
The poor and un and under-employed and sick's needs will be more met than today. More will be positive than today. All you have to do is not vote for Dems in the Fall and everything you mention will be fixed.

:sarcasm:

Of course, it is blatently false to say that Obama hasn't helped the un and under-employed and sick's needs. That's exactly what the healthcare bill does. It specifically creates an exchange for the un/underemployed where people can comparison-shop for mandated-benefit mandated-actuarial-value plans with subsidies for families of 4 making up to 88k/year. And on top of that, being sick will no longer mean your premiums will be one dime higher. Just because corporations are still involved doesn't make any of the above somehow not reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. You can get better policies by supporting more Democrats for Senate. Not by voting against them.
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 07:27 PM by BzaDem
So while someone in this conversation sounds ridiculous and doesn't have a clue, it isn't me. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. um......hello?
how to you know who I will be voting for? JUST CURIOUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. obviousness?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #33
46. very sweet
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #29
43. The reality?
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 07:30 PM by LWolf
The destruction of education under GWB progressed at a slower rate, BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME OPPOSITION FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Under a neoliberal Democrat, it's increasing rapidly BECAUSE it's a Democrat, and the opposition, for the most part, just isn't there.

Don't preach to me about the faux health care bill. When Obama, and the rest of the Democratic Party, want to help, single payer will at least be on the table.

Set the goal for the best, and we'd have gotten farther along than making the goal pleasing insurance companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. Obama campaigned against Single payer as "extreme."
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 07:39 PM by BzaDem
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/10/ad_health.html

Yet somehow the people of the Democratic party voted for him anyway. I'm sure Obama is personally fine with single payer (he said as much in 2003), but he knew that you fight when you plan to win (not when you plan to have 90 votes against your plan in the Senate or 300 votes against it in the House).

And whether or not he fought for single payer doesn't pertain to your claim that he isn't helping the un/under employed and the sick with the healthcare bill he did pass. That bill was the biggest help to ALL THREE in decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #53
64. IT WASN'T ON THE TABLE.
There was no fight, because it wasn't in the ring, so to speak.

And no matter how many times you repeat it, your statement about that bill is your opinion, not fact.

My opinion? I think that bill set us back decades. I think it will be decades before we'll ever be close to bringing single payer to the table. And that hurts people.

Single payer didn't have to be adopted. It just had to be there, and fewer concessions would have been made.

Kind of the way I teach my students every year.

I don't mind being an idealist in this case. I begin the year, every year, determined that every one of my students will end up a Rhodes scholar after spending a year with me. I set my sights at the top.

It doesn't matter that it's unrealistic. It doesn't matter that it's statistically impossible. What matters is that, by keeping my sights on the highest outcome, every single student gets further than if I had set them lower. It's not realistic, but it's reality.

If Democrats, including Obama, were setting their sights at the ideal, and working hard to get there, I wouldn't fault them for falling short. But they don't. They set their sights on appeasement. They don't even give the ideal a chance to be heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #64
72. What I said earlier about HCR is entirely factual.
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 08:24 PM by BzaDem
"It specifically creates an exchange for the un/underemployed where people can comparison-shop for mandated-benefit mandated-actuarial-value plans with subsidies for families of 4 making up to 88k/year. And on top of that, being sick will no longer mean your premiums will be one dime higher. Just because corporations are still involved doesn't make any of the above somehow not reality."

You can call that "setting us back decades" because it is something other than your optimal system. However, that presumes that single payer will actualy ever get enacted at any point in the future. You fight when you think you can win, or when the fight might make the chances of winning higher. Not when the fight would certainly doom any chance of reform, especially when it is unclear whether the people will EVER accept the goal of the fight (let alone now).

Obama campaigned AGAINST single payer. He won the Democratic primary and the general election, and he fulfilled his campaign promise by not advocating for a plan he specifically called "extreme." You could argue that it was a stupid promise, and that the promise should have been ignored (as some promises should be in certain circumstances), but you can't argue that taking it off the table was somehow inconsistent with what he campaigned on and won on.

But in any case, the fact that it helps the unemployed, the underemployed, and the sick is just that: a fact. Anyone who disagrees with that is simply wrong as a factual matter (it isn't just a case of having a different opinion). People can argue about whether such help was worth it, or whether we helped them in the optimal way given the current political reality, but one cannot expect to be taken seriously if they call the above something other than helping those three groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #72
77. I've seen nothing there that says
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 08:28 PM by LWolf
that people will actually be able to afford premiums, or that paying premiums will guarantee care. Premiums are already going up this fall; mine are going up 5-10 times more than in any of the previous 6 years. Of course, this part may not have kicked in yet. The insurance companies have some time, after all, to make sure they squeeze every last dime out of us before everything becomes official.

What this bill doesn't address? The fact that having insurance doesn't get care. Unless you can also pay the copays and deductibles.

Celebrate having insurance all you like. Until EVERYBODY gets the actual CARE they need, it's just money in the insurance companies' pockets.


I'll stand by my post, and my points.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #77
81. You don't even pretend to back up your talking points.
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 08:42 PM by BzaDem
"I've seen nothing there that says that people will actually be able to afford premiums"

And? Is there something in the current law now that says that people must be able to afford premiums, that this law repeals?

You are saying that the bill does not help the unemployed, the underemployed, and the sick. Saying that it doesn't help them ENOUGH is NOT a valid argument for the idea that it doesn't help them AT ALL. You aren't even pretending to back up your idea that it doesn't help them AT ALL.

On top of that, it actually does cap premiums for families of 4 earning up to 88k/year at 9.5% of their income. For those making less than 88k/year, it caps premiums at even LESS than 9.5% of their income (down to around 2% of their income at 133% of FPL, and free below that). And further on top of that, it has subsidies for coinsurance and deductibles for those making up to 200% of FPL, and implicitly caps them for everyone (since the policies must have an actuarial value of 70%+).

And even further on top of that, the law mandates that 85% of premiums go directly to care. If any less goes to care, the customer gets a rebate for the difference.

The law does a tremendous amount to make premiums affordable and to equate premiums with care. The fact that it doesn't GUARANTEE that premiums will be affordable for all, or that all premium dollars will be spent on care, does NOT mean that it isn't helping tens of millions of the unemployed, the underemployed, and the sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. The current law doesn't mandate insurance.
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 08:46 PM by LWolf
And you skipped the point. It doesn't matter if you HAVE insurance, if you CAN'T AFFORD TO USE IT.

Talking points that skip the point are less than useless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. The new HCR bill only mandates insurance if it costs less than 8% of your income
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 08:50 PM by BzaDem
and you still choose not to get it.

Considering the law makes it so tens of millions WILL be able to afford to use it (INCLUDING cost-sharing/deductibles), my point stands. You don't even pretend to refute this with any evidence.

"Talking points that skip the point are less than useless."

You should take your own advice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. Millions get health care now.
You haven't made a point yet.

I will say this:

If, by 2014 when the whole 2074 pages is active, every single individual in this nation is getting the health care they need without bankruptcy or cutting the grocery budget, I'll acknowledge that it's a step forward.

Meanwhile, I remain a skeptic.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. 30 million will have insurance in a few years that don't have it now.
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 09:04 PM by BzaDem
A high percentage of those millions will be able to afford to use it (with the subsidies for premiums/deductibles/co-insurance, mandates on free preventive care and actuarial value, and a medical loss ratio of 85%). And sick people will no longer be discriminated against.

You really give away the whole argument though when you say that only a bill that covers EVERYONE is a step forward. This isn't just wrong as a matter of fact; you literally are wrong as a matter of logic. A SINGLE person having coverage (which they can afford to use) that wouldn't have it otherwise is a step forward. Yep, that's right -- a single person would be a step forward, as a simple matter of logic. TENS OF MILLIONS of people in this category is OBVIOUSLY a step forward. Anyone who says otherwise should not be taken seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. A high percentage. Based on?
Reality: you are parsing bits and pieces of a 2,074 insurance compromise bill the way a pastor does verses from the bible.

I remain a skeptic. I've indicated my willingness to concede when it's all out there, interpreted, and in play, if I think it's better.

It's going to have to be a whole hell of a lot better, though, to encompass the cost: delaying single payer by decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. You are again assuming that this bill "delays" single payer, as if we would EVER get it
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 09:16 PM by BzaDem
with or without this bill, in 50 years or 100 years or 1000 years. That assumption is questionable, to say the least. (It is even more questionable that the failure of any bill to pass wouldn't have delayed single payer LONGER than passing a bill, to the extent that there might be any chance of single payer at any future point in time.)

"Reality: you are parsing bits and pieces of a 2,074 insurance compromise bill the way a pastor does verses from the bible."

If you think reading the bill and citing provisions (scored by the CBO) is somehow a bad thing, then there is little we can agree on. I look at facts, not voodoo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #97
111. If this bill weren't duping people into thinking
that we've adequately "reformed" health care, single payer would have a greater chance, wouldn't it?

I'm not assuming that single-payer would be an easy, or fast, sell. I'm saying that, if it were on the table this time, it would be on the table every time this bill came up for renewal, and the chances of enacting it within a shorter period of time are a great deal greater than if it's not ever on the table.

I think you are sincere in the points you are trying to make, (as I am,) so I honestly don't see how you don't "get" that.

I don't think reading the bill is a bad thing. Have you read all 2,074 pages, and reconciled all possible inconsistencies and conflicts? If so, you have more time than most of us. If so, my hat is off to you. Sincerely.

I, and anyone, can pull one verse from the Bible to support any wildly diverse position I might want to take, regardless of how it conflicts with anything else the bible says, or whether it supports the intent of the whole. (Glenn Beck just did exactly that last week, did he not?) Not that I think that there is one unified intent in that volume. The health insurance bill is significantly longer than most versions of the Bible. Neither of those unwieldy documents carry a great deal of weight with me. Whatever natural or learned supply of trust that might have been developed over my 50 years was burned away by mistaken idealism many decades ago.

So, where you see hope and progress, I see delays, obstacles, and the chance of ever seeing the change I can believe in during this lifetime slip from my grasp. Maybe you are younger than I. Maybe your life experiences have wired you differently. That's what makes us human.

If I am wrong, no one will be more delighted than myself. I will happily say so. Until then, I remain skeptical and not happy with it. You aren't going to change that. Only actual events will. Why bother trying? Why is it important to you to make it personal, suggesting that my intellect, my experience, and my reasons for my position are somehow inferior to yours?

Why not take the open-minded, liberal attitude of mutual respect, and agreeing to disagree?

I did so, when I told you I'd be happy to be proved wrong. The proof, though, is not in words, it's in how they are implemented, and what happens when they are. Only time will tell, and by the time this insurance reform is fully active, Obama will be a lame-duck. By the time it's been fully active for enough time to judge, he will no longer be president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #31
48. I agree.
The whole point, imo, of being a Democrat, supporting Democrats, or the existence of the Democratic Party, is to work for Democratic principles that are being left behind at a rapid pace. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:24 PM
Original message
Maybe focusing on the entire truth might be the adult thing to do
Instead of everything being about you. There's plenty to be unhappy with. Like I said it took the Republicans a long time to destroy this country. It's going to take just as long to build something out of the rubble and it's going to take more than one administration to do it.

But go jump off that extreme cliff if you want to because you're not getting your problems fixed fast enough. But don't expect everyone else to follow you like lemmings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
54. Of course, if you read MY post,
you know it's not all about me.

Of course some of it is about me; I have to live with what's being thrown down.

If you think public education is all about me, though, you are under a delusion.

If you read carefully, you will also have noticed that it's not because something isn't being fixed "fast enough."

It's because it's not being fixed at all; because the destruction is purposefully advanced.

Big difference.

I understand why you can't deal with this. It makes your reasoning faulty.

It takes time to fix things, as it takes time to destroy them. Fixing them often takes longer. I could use that obvious reality to point out the flaws in the supposed education "reform" we've been suffering for the last decade, but that's beside the point.

Things don't have to be fixed today, or this year, to satisfy me. There just has to be a start. We have to be heading that direction. For the issues that bring me to the voting booth, we're not.

"Fixing things takes time" is not a valid excuse for doing the same things, or doing things that make problems worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sheepshank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #25
38. Actually it is a pretty narrow perspective.
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 07:35 PM by Sheepshank
"Narrow tunnel vision, my ass. I have legitimate personal beefs, "
But I certainly understand you have a narrow agenda and the bigger picture is not part of your paradigm right now.

What is disheartening for so many that see these negative posts over and over is a sense that the narrow personal POV is more regularly seen as part of the Republican meme...and even moreso the Libertarian meme. I've got mine, screw you...or I don't have enough, so screw everyone else until I get what I want.

So you are saying you will get more of what you personally need....where? Why not work toward your goal rather than piss and moan?

Socialism is not a dirty word and it is regularly part of my vocabulary....as you can guess from my comment.


edited to clarify the reference of my post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #38
58. You didn't read carefully.
It should be refreshing that I acknowledge my personal beefs up front.

That doesn't mean that my perspective is narrow. My personal beefs are affecting the entire nation. For the LONG RUN. Not just me.

That's not narrow.

If you think that public education does NOT affect the big picture, I'm not sure about your own vision.

Students are tomorrow's citizens and voters. What better way to gain control of the voting populace than to degrade public education? That's not a "narrow" vision. "Narrow" is thinking that this election, or this administration, or this Congress, is the answer to an issue that large.

Work toward my goal?

Why the fuck would you assume I haven't? I've spent 27 years in pubic education working to improve the system. And I'm not done.

I'm not going to stand by and watch ANY politician work to bring us down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #25
82. LWolf--I am so sorry for your family's troubles; they must weigh on you terribly...
... and cause you so much pain. I'm sorry you are getting grief in this thread, because that's not helpful to your state of mind.

The only thing I can say is that you and I disagree about the source of the troubles you are enduring.

For the past 8 years I've been a DU member and have followed links and done research about the radical right movement in this nation. They've been both stealthy and upfront; they've been both grass-rootsy and exceedingly well-funded. There are religious nut-cases who want Jesus to come NOW, and are convinced that the best way to bring about the End Times is to help destroy the sinful world as we know it. They are behind the homeschooling and homeschool textbooks trend, and they want the public schools to have the same religiously oriented textbooks they use. They field stealth candidates for elective offices -- like school boards.

They have been patiently working at their agenda for some 30 years; or, I guess it would be close to 40 years now. They HAVE had an effect. As an educator, you are experiencing that effect. (Look up Theocracy Watch at http://www.theocracywatch.org/ and follow the links beyond their essays to primary source material. Keep a barf bucket handy.)

In GWBush a literally unholy marriage was consummated between these religious nuts and corporatists who care only for worldly power. As a citizen, you are living with the results.

Please, I don't know about the rest of my cohorts in the "Obama is doing the best he can" group, the "He's not even halfway through his first term" gang -- but for myself, knowing the sickening truth that Obama is struggling against this blood-dimmed tide is one of the things that keeps me praising his every victory, however compromised, and holding my breath that he LIVES through his first term and that he has a second term.

I don't know how much of this particular history Obama and his advisors know or believe. Ten years ago I wouldn't have believed it myself. He's oriented toward politics, not religion, except for his personal religion, which isn't hateful.

That's all -- and again, I am so sorry for your family's troubles. It's just that I blame it on Bush and his enablers and so forth, going back 40 years.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #82
86. All that you say is true.
And I do appreciate your kind words.

My point, which no one is addressing is this:

Obama is not making any attempt, at least in public education, to reverse the erosion and degradation of the last 30 years, which I also lived through. He's accelerating it instead.

If I honestly thought he was struggling against the tide, I'd be there to back him up. I'm just not seeing it. I'm seeing him, based on his choices, as joining them. And that's devastating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. I would be devastated, too, if I saw it that way...
I'm literally holding my breath that it's not.

Peace,

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #82
96. You seem to "get it"
Does anyone think, regardless of the dire situation they are in know, that any of it is Obama's fault? In 1934 the country was in dire, dire straights. no one, at least no real Democrat, blamed FDR. The Republican policies were the same from 1920 to 1932 as they were from 2000 to 2008. 18 months is not enough time to turn around the worst economic disaster in 80 years.

Give me (and him) a break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #96
112. Whose fault is it that
single payer WAS NOT EVEN ALLOWED ON THE TABLE when the health insurance reform was assembled?

Whose fault is RTTT?

Whose fault is the escalation of the war in afghanistan?

Whose fault is the appointment of a whole cabinet of neoliberals, and the pursuit of neoliberal agendas?

Please tell me. If Obama is somehow not accountable for those things, please tell me who is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #25
100. this is politics
It's about what is best for the country. I can realize what is best for the country overall without bringing my personal situation into it. Lots of us can. You're merely self centered. And not even doing what's in your best self interest in a positive way, either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #100
113. You're not making your case by engaging in shallow name-calling.
Weak.

I believe that the policies that I support ARE what is best for the country. I believe that the neoliberal policies espoused by the current WH administration ARE NOT good for the country.

I don't think pretending that the neoliberal takeover of the party or the nation is "good for the country" actually helps anyone but the neoliberals, and that's not in the best interests of the country, either.

But way to pat yourself on the back for putting me in my place. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
92. It's easy to focus on the negative..
... when there is almost nothing positive going on. On any issue where what Obama is doing is positive, it is just barely almost imperceptibly positive, like the health care or financial reform bills, yes they are positive, by an infinitesimal amount, but they could have been monumental.

Obama is a milquetoast, lackluster president, afraid of rocking the boat and therefore incapable of doing anything of real substance.

I'm glad that satisfies you sad, sad people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sheepshank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
41. interesting analogy
LWolf said "calling "full steam ahead" and pushing forward at maximum speed down the same paths the Republicans were taking us. That's not even attempting to turn around."

I'd say that is a perfect analogy for those that are screeching that not enough has been done to date...or quickly enough.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #41
59. I don't think so.
I'm not "screeching" at all, and I'm not saying that not enough has been done to date, or that it hasn't been done quickly enough.

I'm saying that things that SHOULDN'T BE DONE have been given "full steam ahead," while things that SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE haven't been allowed at the table at all.

There's a big difference there. You don't even need nuance, unless you just don't want to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Did you read all of my OP?
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 06:51 PM by louis c
Each time we moved away from the incumbent Democratic President, we ended up much, much worse off.

That's my point. I wish we had a Parliamentary system, so minority parties could use some leverage. But we don't and we won't. At least not in my lifetime.

I'm the President of a small union. I know what "union busting" is. I've been audited under the Bush Administration. I had to find every receipt for every minor transaction. Of course, I was prepared, but it was torture, none-the-less. If Bernie Madoff had one tenth of the scrutiny my little 200 member union had (and many, many other labor unions and organizations) he'd never had gotten away with 57 billion dollars.

My situation was not uncommon and I was prepared through a seminar hosted by my international two years prior to the audit. We knew we had enemies and even the most innocent of mistakes could prove costly. We passed with flying colors, but the scrutiny was amazing.

So, I know the difference between disappointment and attempted extermination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. There are a lot of people here who are perfectly happy with cutting off their nose
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 07:41 PM by Pirate Smile
to spite their face.

Good for you in trying to show how foolish and self-destructive that is but they aren't listening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Yes, I read all of your OP.
Perhaps this is the reason why I was adamantly opposed to the election of a Democratic neoliberal to begin with; we're screwed no matter what. The end of hope.

It hurts worse when it's our own throwing us under the bus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Non-Liberal
A majority of Americans think he's a God Damned Socialist!

We can't even defend him as a moderate. If he moved further left, the Right leaning Independents would move away in droves.

I'm with you. I'm a progressive. However, unlike you, I'm also a realist. We're going to lose seats. Progressive seats. And we're going to lose them to reactionaries. If we don't stem this tide, we're in for a rough time.

What's your (realistic) alternative to supporting Obama and the Democrats in November 2010.

P.S. Please, no naive idealistic blather. I've heard it for 40 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. Reality is what it is, whether you consider it "realistic" or "blather."
I don't have to support Obama in '10. He's not running for anything. If he were, I would not be working, or donating to his campaign. He hasn't earned it. 2012? If he suddenly rejects neoliberalism in all forms within the next few months, and sticks to it for the rest of his first term, he might earn a vote. That's not realistic, though, is it?

I have one Senator up for re-election in November: Ron Wyden. I'll vote for him. He's pretty decent, although I disagree with his ideas on health care. Even then, his health care ideas are better than Obama's. I don't think he'll have trouble being re-elected, but I'll be around to assist anyway.

My Congressman? If a non-neoliberal Democrat steps forward to challenge him, I will work for him or her. Not donate, because I don't have anything to donate. But work? Yes. I would be thrilled with a moderate Democrat, as long as the neoliberal trappings aren't there.

So far, no Democrat has stepped up to the plate. If none do, or if it is another neoliberal, I'll vote 3rd party.

If I had the funds to do so, I'd be donating to actual non-neoliberal Democrats in key races across the nation. I don't, but I may decide to write letters for them, or something I can do from a distance.

I don't really care if that meets with your approval or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #30
107. I believe that I'm the one being "realistic"
after all, if "we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #107
109. That I can agree with.
I just don't see, anywhere in history, where becoming the problem you are trying to eradicate results in positive change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
71. fyi,
I said "neoliberal," not "non-liberal."

There is a difference. And the reason so many thing he's a socialist is directly related to the persistent war against education initiated by Reagan and continued to this day under Obama.

People value anti-intellectualism and take pride in getting their information, and positions, from talking heads. Why is the propaganda so effective? Because the top-down, authoritarian take-over of public education pushes out critical thinking. I've been fighting this my entire career. As a matter of fact, when discussing media bias with 8th grade last year (a carefully neutral discussion with no "side" or personality mentioned,) I had a student blurt out that I was calling Glen Beck a liar, and I was the liar, because everything he says, everything, is the truth!!!!

My concerns about education ARE about the big picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. Pray tell, who did you suppoort in the '08 primaries?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. I supported Hillary
because I thought she had the best chance to win.

I knew we needed a Democrat.

After the Primary fights were over, and Hillary conceded, I threw my heart and soul behind Barack (campaigned in New Hampshire).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Thank you
I know how tough it can be to come around after a brutal primary (Obama is the first candidate I supported who actually won the nomination), so you are to be commended for your efforts.

Where in NH did they send you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #26
50. Salem and Nashua
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 07:35 PM by louis c
It was a Labor to Labor contact.

We also phone banked out of IBEW Local 103 in Dorchester into small towns like Bedford NH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #50
76. Bedford? God love ya.
It's actually not a small town by NH standards (around 25,000 people), but it's the most virulent hotbed of Republicanism you'll ever encounter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. I supported DK. Then Edwards. Then nobody.
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 07:25 PM by LWolf
I sincerely hoped for a brokered convention, so I wouldn't be stuck with either of the two unpalatable choices. When my primary rolled around months too late in late May, I voted for the candidate that wasn't ahead in my state. Just my part to keep it close.

For the record, Obama and HRC were tied for the last "please don't shove either of these two down my throat" place when I ranked primary candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #32
56. Edwards would have made a fine President
(sarcasm intended)

If he had won, the Democrats wouldn't have held the White House again for 100 years.

Great second choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. The reason why he wasn't my first choice?
Partly because DK is better on issues, but partly because, even though he beat everyone else outside of DK on issues, I didn't trust him. Too slick. At least he did the right thing by dropping out.

Too bad Obama won't get the issues right.

Do we really need to re-fight the past primary? Does this somehow help you make your case?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #60
65. Yes. I support the Democrat in the primary
that best reflects my views. In 1992, it was Dick Gephardt. In 1968 it was Eugene McCarthy. In 1980 it was Ted Kennedy.

but in the end, it's in all of our best interest to support the nominee. And in the case of an incumbent president, as I learned the hard way, we should always support the Democrat, because the Republican alternative wanst to make us extinct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. What you don't "get,"
or maybe you do, but don't want to acknowledge it, is this:

There's more than one way to make the Democratic Party extinct. Supporting the perpetual movement to the right, the eroding of principles, and the take-over by neo-liberals will evolve the party to the point that the Democratic Party I've supported for most of my life will become extinct.

Evolution is inevitable, but, during my lifetime, the party is evolving down the wrong path. And we're seeing quality of life for average people erode while it happens.

I don't see how your suggestions turn that process off the current trajectory.

Sincerely.

I understand, and acknowledge, your point: You think that opposing a sitting Democratic's policies hurts the party, and that hurting the party now hurts it worse in the future. I can argue that all day, but I do understand. I could argue it from all sides, as a matter of fact. But...

You haven't acknowledged mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #68
78. Here's a few historical facts
In my lifetime (born 1952) only one northern or midwestern Democratic President was elected.

Now, let me explain. I believe that true Democrats have to come from outside the South. Nothing against the South, but it is virtually impossible for a Liberal Southern Democrat to get elected Senator or Governor without moving to the right of center.

Jack Kennedy was the only Democrat elected from outside of the South in 56 years. So you can preach all you want about moving the Dems to the left, but we've lost the media war, and we are not going to win it any time soon. 2008, Obama is one of the most Liberal general election candidates the Democrats have nominated since FDR. A Keynesian economics man and anti-war to boot. Now, he has no doubt moved to the center on both ends, but you are never, ever, never going to get a Democrat to the left of Obama elected in at least the next 20 years (2032 at the earliest). That's my opinion.

So, I figure we better make the most out of what we've got, because it's not getting any better than this.

As an aside, if you read my post, I thought a lot like you did until now. I was part of the folks who sat out 1968 (even though I could only work in that election). I was among the legions who worked for Ted Kennedy in 1980 against Carter. I sat out the 1994 mid-terms with my angry union brothers and sisters. I understand where you're coming from. I was there. All that got me (and us) was a divided Democratic camp and draconian Republican policies that dug us deeper into a reactionary mess.

It seems the other side understands Machiavelli (divide and conquer) better than we do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #78
83. All your points are valid,
but so are mine.

Obama is not a liberal. He's a neoliberal. Neoliberals are not taking us in any direction we should want to go.

Make the most out of what you've got? I can do that without acting like I've actually got something good to have.

I'm grateful for every tiny crumb...when they are real crumbs and not just something said in a speech that is not supported by action.

You want a crumb? Here goes:

While I can't afford to use my health insurance, and don't expect to be able to when the new health care bill is fully online, and my uninsured son is still paying off a $2500 visit to the emergency room 4 months ago, the medicare "donut hole" will shrink a little for my mom. Of course, by the time it is gone, if she lives that long, medicare premiums will have been increased to offset that. But...it's a crumb, and I love my mom, so I'm grateful.

Here's another: The stimulus package? It helped a little. It means that we only laid off 50 employees in our small district, instead of 60. That was in spring of '09. We also, of course, had to cut school days to balance the budget, despite the stimulus funds. Our students got 144 school days last year. I took two pay cuts: first, a salary cut, then the cut in days worked. But here's the crumb: I still have a job.

Of course, the stimulus money is gone, and to even compete for RTTT funds, we have to sell our professional souls to the union-busting, privatizing agenda pushed by Obama. Thankfully, my state will not be competing this year. That's a bigger crumb. I did, though, take another, even bigger salary cut, and more school days cut, to avoid laying off more teachers THIS spring. The crumb? I still have a job. No wonder I can't afford to use my insurance. The premiums are scheduled to increase by 15-26% this fall; we'll find out in September. I don't know if I'll be able to afford to keep it, let alone use it. But for now, I've got insurance.

In case you think I'm too narrow-minded again, please keep in mind that every employee took the same cuts, and every student got fewer days of education.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #83
94. The Republicans want you to get nothing
and everything Obama did get was over Republican objections.

A union member who supports a Republican for president (or senator 0r congress) is like a chicken that supports Colonel Sanders.

That goes for sitting it out and letting the colonel win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. I didn't expect Republicans to publically support Obama.
They're getting a hell of a lot more than they should be from a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress. Perhaps we can agree on that?

As far as supporting a Republican for president...never have, never will. That doesn't apply to me. Neither does sitting it out. I AlWAYS vote.

I just don't always limit myself to "either or."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. Thanks so much for your thoughtful post, louis c
I remember 1968 very well.

I was so angry about the Chicago convention that I was planning to sit out the election. Then I went home to my native Alabama and listened to the racist comments of my relatives and friends. I realized that I should suck up my disappointment about Chicago and vote for Humphrey, who would have been a much better President than Nixon.

I guess I would say that 1968 was the year I grew up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Here we go again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. As often as necessary. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #16
34. it was a very well-reasoned post
it's just that - well, you're trying to deal with the unreasonable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Yes.
Thanks for the words of support.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #34
52. tell me about it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #34
57. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
63. You must be talking about the original OP, because it was very well done
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #63
102. LOL
dream the fuck on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
11. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Thanks
I needed that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
19. Great post. I too have disappointments with the President -- namely,
mountaintop removal -- but I think he has moved our country forward. Thanks for your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
22. Great post.
K & R :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbie Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
45. K&R
Nicely done. :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueCheese Donating Member (897 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
49. So far...
... Bill Clinton is the best I've seen.

I know a lot of us disagreed with some of his policies, and man did he mess up with his personal scandals, but the country was in great shape during his time in office. Low unemployment, the highest median family income ever, an honest-to-goodness budget surplus, peace in Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, and Kosovo, and respect abroad.

Then GWB came along...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. But he started the outsourcing
Edited on Sun Jul-18-10 07:41 PM by louis c
of American jobs. That's something i will never forgive him for.

That doesn't mean he wasn't better than the Republican alternative. But I'll never forgive him for that.

I also disagreed with he's signing the Republican led legislation of the repeal of Glass-Stigell.

It seems whenever Democrats move to the right to placate the Republicans, we fuck up.

But, it's better than not having any Democrats at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
62. Louis C. you make a very solid case that appeals to the idea of balance
that we need to weigh the good and the bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. After 42 years
It's about time I "get it". Don't you think?

Don't forget, in the OP, I recount my mistakes and the dire consequences that followed.

What seemed appropriate at the time, in the light of 20-20 political hindsight, turned out to be disastrous.

Of course, I didn't act alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #66
70. I have found with age you often gain wisdom. Especially if like you, you are able to see, admit
learn from mistakes. I can remember when I was young I would right of people, institutions and other things for one bad thing. I have since learned to take a more balanced approach where I accept the lack of perfection in the world and try to weigh the good with the bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #70
103. Suprisingly
I've found so many unrecs and deleted messages for an OP that praises the Democratic President on Democratic Underground. I don't get it?

What part of Democratic don't I understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #103
105. I'm guessing those who unrecced did so because they are angry
and what you said made them feel their anger anew. So, they took it out on your OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
67. Personally I never thought he was any sort of "fire breathing progressive"...
...and if you thought he was, well, you can understand how that might undermine the value of your assessment, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
69. You Forgot SCOTUS
How many people in 2000 thought that Gore was no different than Bush, or in 2004 thought Kerry wasn't much better than Bush?

yet, President Bush made 2 Supreme Court appointments. We see how they've ruled. Now look at who President Obama chose. Well, Sotomayor may not be as Liberal as many of us would like, but consider her rulings in the recent cases on corporations buying elections as well as on Miranda rights. Sadly, she was in the minority. Imagine if Gore or Kerry had appointed justices and we didn't have Roberts or Alito on the court, but another justice like Sotomayor. Imagine if a Gore or Kerry appointee had been on the court when hearing the case about restricting a woman's reproductive rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-10 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
98. If President Obama can make people believe that "Government is the solution" again
he will have succeeded in stopping and reversing the inertia of the Reagan Revolution ("Government is the problem, not the solution"). Although Reagan did not get a lot of his "agenda" (eg, end of Roe V Wade, elimination of Medicare, etc) passed, his effect on political culture was immense, and the distrust of government and hatred of taxes has moved the country to the far right.

If Obama can reverse that trend, partly by legislation, but mostly be using the Presidency to change popular/political culture he will be a great success in my eyes. As for his actual policies, I had very low expectations for progressive legislation, given the limited number of progressives in the Congress, and the preponderance of relatively conservative views in the public culture (especially relative to 30 years ago), so everything that has been accomplished is actually a surprise as the country begins to move back toward the middle from the far right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 04:07 AM
Response to Original message
104. Well argued!
Unfortunately, the bumpersticker for your fine narrative is: Vote Democratic, We're Not As Bad As The Other Guys.

It's a hard sell but thank you for the historical perspective. It's been hard to swallow my gall but you've made it easier to do what needs to be done. As much as I want to teach those ungrateful bastards a lesson, it's my nose on the chopping block. I'm going to bookmark this. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #104
114. I'm flattered (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 04:19 AM
Response to Original message
106. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
108. Here's a surprise:
Republicans are going to make the 2010 election a referendum on Bush

:rofl:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-10 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
110. How many innocent civilians have been killed in the past 18 months
in this ridiculous lie of a war on terror?

Oh yeah, I forgot, Obama got the "Peace Prize".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC