Obama Caves

[helgaleena]

Shoot. I thought this thread was about a new speleological attraction being named after him. :wink:

I don't see any 'caving' in this business personally. But then i haven't combed through searching for pork either.

 

[deleted15807]

Although to be honest, I still don't think the richest 2% should be getting a tax cut. Perhaps they could extend the cuts to people making $500K or even $1 Million and less?

Americans as a whole apparently no longer care about the concentration of wealth. The top-down message of 'we deserve it for our hard work' is resonating with the foot soldiers.

And on another note:

As angry as some liberals might be with the president, they know he is the best they are going to get in the immediate future. Many of them look to the 1980 primary challenge by Sen. Edward Kennedy to Mr. Carter as a giant mistake.

A weakened Mr. Carter lost that November to Ronald Reagan, whose election ushered in an ideological swing to the right that ended a half-century of liberal domination of American politics.

Why Obama Isn’t Likely to See a Primary Challenge in 2012

​

And this country will never recover from the fatal blow Reagan gave the US and African-Americans in particular with his 'War on Minorities....uhhh I mean War on Drugs'.

 

[FRE]

Americans as a whole apparently no longer care about the concentration of wealth. The top-down message of 'we deserve it for our hard work' is resonating with the foot soldiers.

Perhaps SOME of them do deserve it, but it appears that many wealthy people became wealthy not by doing anything useful, but rather, by engaging in esoteric financial manipulations to the detriment of others.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Americans as a whole apparently no longer care about the concentration of wealth. The top-down message of 'we deserve it for our hard work' is resonating with the foot soldiers.

And on another note:

As angry as some liberals might be with the president, they know he is the best they are going to get in the immediate future. Many of them look to the 1980 primary challenge by Sen. Edward Kennedy to Mr. Carter as a giant mistake.

A weakened Mr. Carter lost that November to Ronald Reagan, whose election ushered in an ideological swing to the right that ended a half-century of liberal domination of American politics.

Why Obama Isn’t Likely to See a Primary Challenge in 2012

​

And this country will never recover from the fatal blow Reagan gave the US and African-Americans in particular with his 'War on Minorities....uhhh I mean War on Drugs'.

Hmmm. Maybe Carter was weakened because the economy was still in bad shape, he'd alienated Democrats in Congress because he didn't understand how Washington worked, and he looked helpless in attempting to free hostages in Iran. It could have been that.

 

[b.c.]

Americans as a whole apparently no longer care about the concentration of wealth. The top-down message of 'we deserve it for our hard work' is resonating with the foot soldiers.

And on another note:

As angry as some liberals might be with the president, they know he is the best they are going to get in the immediate future. Many of them look to the 1980 primary challenge by Sen. Edward Kennedy to Mr. Carter as a giant mistake.

A weakened Mr. Carter lost that November to Ronald Reagan, whose election ushered in an ideological swing to the right that ended a half-century of liberal domination of American politics.

Why Obama Isn’t Likely to See a Primary Challenge in 2012

​

And this country will never recover from the fatal blow Reagan gave the US and African-Americans in particular with his 'War on Minorities....uhhh I mean War on Drugs'.

Yeah, still, it's rather presumptuous of the writer of your linked article to dismiss the anger as just so much "venting" by voters who (presumably) will have "no other choice".

True, angry voters may not choose the other candidate. Worse still, they may merely choose to stay home on Election Day.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

Shoot. I thought this thread was about a new speleological attraction being named after him. :wink:

I don't see any 'caving' in this business personally. But then i haven't combed through searching for pork either.

Giving Republicans the only thing they really wanted this term, and then some stuff they only hoped to get, while getting something that they would have had to vote for anyway? At the same time where he makes the first payroll tax cut ever, essentially selling out the shining star of liberal legislation in the past 75 years(SS) at the time? Pissing off his base, and giving lie to his supposed concern to deficits?

Nope, no cave here. What a great compromise Obama.

 

[deleted15807]

True, angry voters may not choose the other candidate. Worse still, they may merely choose to stay home on Election Day.

They might as well get it over with and drink the hemlock if they do.

Letter to a whiny young Democrat

 

[B_VinylBoy]

They might as well get it over with and drink the hemlock if they do.

Letter to a whiny young Democrat

Best part of the article comes at the very end: "Check the accomplishments. Understand the process. Deal with the messiness. It will never be perfect. It will never be giddy liberal nirvana, because it doesn't work that way. Politics is corrosive and infuriating, de facto and by definition, even with someone as thoughtful as Obama in the Big Chair. Understand it. Deal with it."

It can always get better, and as long a we can keep electing the right people into office it will continue to do so. Patience is one of the most important virtues when it comes to politics because it keeps folks from going stir crazy. Sadly, many just don't have it anymore.

 

[COMountainGuy]

I was hoping this would be about some cool, new geological discovery.

In politics? I fear that 'The Obama Caves' may someday become a runaway best seller about what happened to our economy and our quality of life.

 

[maxcok]

In politics? I fear that 'The Obama Caves' may someday become a runaway best seller about what happened to our economy and our quality of life.

You're blaming the state of the economy on Obama? LMFAO! Though I haven't agreed with every policy decision pursued to stabilize the economy (or otherwise), one thing you can say about the current administration is they did prevent a complete global catastrophe. Virtually every economist worth a damn now agrees that the economy is improving a mere two years after the meltdown, which is something of a miracle. Unemployment continues to be a problem, it will continue to be, and that's typical.

As far as "quality of life" issues, that's rather vague, but I would tell you to look at the steady, systematic decimation of the middle and working classes as a direct result of Republican economic policies and lax regulatory policies over the past 40 years. I would also remind you of the rampant constitutional abuses and the erosion of individual freedoms that occurred under the prior administration.

As did the economic meltdown.

 

[midlifebear]

Uh, yeah . . . what Maxcock said/wrote/succinctly pointed out, etc.

 

[b.c.]

They might as well get it over with and drink the hemlock if they do.

Letter to a whiny young Democrat

Those among us who are somewhat politically astute need no reminders of the complexities of governance and the difficulties of having one's way in Washington (though I personally think opportunities Democrats had to hold firmer on their goals had been squandered a few times too many).

The point of my response was that the subtleties of politics are lost on the general populace if you're aren't too good at making that connection with your constituency, a connection sometimes made by taking a firmer position on principle, even if one has to step back somewhat in actual practice.

Republicans do it all the time. Why do you think they couch their ideas in simplistic terms that connect with people who aren't even benefited in any way shape or form by their policies... all that noise about the budget, about pet projects, suddenly forgotten now that they can have their way?

Sad fact is, the "genius" of any man is lost on his constituency if he fails to make the connection with them, which is apparently the problem here, since all of Obama's accomplishments cited in your linked article (and also cited by me on numerous occasions) have failed to translate into energizing his base of support.

Perception is much, if not everything. And if the current perception among Obama's constituency is that he's given up too much to the Republicans, then who's fault is that?

Theoretical disillusionment over some desire to reach "liberal nirvana"? (Who among us ever really expected that??) Unrealistic expectations of young activists? Spiteful laziness?

Or maybe the frustration of a people typically assumed to be a foregone conclusion...Whatever.

The effect is still the same.

 

[deleted15807]

Those among us who are somewhat politically astute need no reminders of the complexities of governance and the difficulties of having one's way in Washington (though I personally think opportunities Democrats had to hold firmer on their goals had been squandered a few times too many).

I would also add the complexities of the economy and how much a president can do or Congress can do to 'fix it' in a two year election cycle. No one suggests that either can do anything short term to give the economy a real lift. But facts don't win elections.

The democrats have an extraordinarily hard time framing the debate and staying ahead of the disinformation and propaganda. You would have thought they would have learned after being bamboozled into a war. Until they do we will have more 2010 election disasters and more financial disasters and a myriad of other costly disasters..

 

[FRE]

I would also add the complexities of the economy and how much a president can do or Congress can do to 'fix it' in a two year election cycle. No one suggests that either can do anything short term to give the economy a real lift. But facts don't win elections.

The democrats have an extraordinarily hard time framing the debate and staying ahead of the disinformation and propaganda. You would have thought they would have learned after being bamboozled into a war. Until they do we will have more 2010 election disasters and more financial disasters and a myriad of other costly disasters..

I also agree that the Democrats have not adequately dealt with disinformation propaganda. As I see it, they have put too little effort into dealing with it and that is the major cause of the problems with which we are dealing.

Unfortunately, most voters depend for their information mostly on silly sound bites and bytes which convey more emotion than information. They expect simple answers and quick fixes for complex problems. Even more astute voters have difficulty getting adequate information.

TV news programs are not intended to provide information. Rather, they are intended to raise as much advertising revenue as possible which requires getting the largest possible audiences. Getting large audiences requires entertaining the audience rather than expediting erudition. Thus, there are two news readers, one a man and the other a woman who, for no reason except entertainment, read alternate lines. Considerable time is spent telling jokes. If a news item can be made emotionally gripping, it is repeated over and over for days or even weeks; it's treated like a soap opera. At one time, that was not the case; years ago, news programs provided good commentary and background information.

For those of us who really want to understand what is happening, commercial TV news programs are practically useless. Fortunately there is PBS, but it can't do everything. We also have the Internet, but getting information from the Internet requires considerable reading, which most people no longer like to do; it also requires finding several different sources and being able to evaluate them critically.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

Some of you seem tied up in the idea that the democrats are a hopelessly inept opposition party, when the more obvious answer that they have the same goals is staring you in the face.

 

[COMountainGuy]

You're blaming the state of the economy on Obama? LMFAO! Though I haven't agreed with every policy decision pursued to stabilize the economy (or otherwise), one thing you can say about the current administration is they did prevent a complete global catastrophe. Virtually every economist worth a damn now agrees that the economy is improving a mere two years after the meltdown, which is something of a miracle. Unemployment continues to be a problem, it will continue to be, and that's typical.

As far as "quality of life" issues, that's rather vague, but I would tell you to look at the steady, systematic decimation of the middle and working classes as a direct result of Republican economic policies and lax regulatory policies over the past 40 years. I would also remind you of the rampant constitutional abuses and the erosion of individual freedoms that occurred under the prior administration.

As did the economic meltdown.

My post was in jest, I figured that was obvious.

I do agree that the Bu$hBarians eviscerated the Constitution and waged war on freedom. Shoot, I'll see that and raise you a couple. The country was in good shape before the Bu$hbarians galluped into Washington. They left a mess in Obama's lap that may not be fixable.

So the Bu$hbarians secretly hated the country and Americans? Perhaps....but they could not have done it if Congress had not danced into the night, cavorting to the tunes emanating from BushCheney's magic flute.

"Republican economic values?" No. It was the 60s/70s monetary policies emanating from the Freidman led University of Chicago school of economics. The blueprints for this disaster were originally designed there.

The power of the University of Chicago has not waned. In fact, Obama is an alumni.

I will agree that the Republicans proved unusually easy to seduce however.

 

[FRE]

Although Obama is an alumnus of the University of Chicago, he isn't wedded to the Milton Freidman approach. Remember he didn't get his bachelor's degree at Chicago.

 

[COMountainGuy]

Although Obama is an alumnus of the University of Chicago, he isn't wedded to the Milton Freidman approach. Remember he didn't get his bachelor's degree at Chicago.

The Obama administration has a higher ratio of UofC alumni than the Colorado lodgepole pine has of the pine beetle.

If you aren't familiar with that blight, I'll just say that millions of acres of our forests have been decimated.

Obama may appear to be the captain of the ship but the ship is not-so-secretly steered by the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). The CFR has a similar infestation as the Obama administration.

Bored old students of globalism may cast a weary eye at the avid donations to the UofC that the Rockefeller family delivers. But thats another story and well beyond the pasture land of the grazing sheep.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/011018/donors.shtml

"Over two decades, Rockefeller donated more than $35 million to the nascent University"

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Some of you seem tied up in the idea that the democrats are a hopelessly inept opposition party, when the more obvious answer that they have the same goals is staring you in the face.

Loyal Dems are almost as bad as loyal Reps... But not quite, because what they are loyal to is similar, but fundamentally different... I think there is a distinct difference where one side wants to retain its wealth and knows the only way to do that is by making sure that non-wealthy people have enough to get by on (called the middle class) and won't rebel against the system. The other side wants to retain wealth, but they have no qualms about doing so by taking from anyone they can get away with. While the first option isn't too palatable to the non-wealthy, at least everything functions and things generally even improve, though not very quickly. But the latter option is inherently unsustainable and results in a highly stratified society that inevitably collapses and will do so repeatedly until the imbalance is corrected.

 

[FRE]

Let us not forget that Obama did not want to extend the tax cuts for the very wealthy, i.e., for people with an annual income > $250,000, and he also wanted the inheritance tax to be raised for amounts > something like $5 million. He compromised because, rightly or wrongly, he felt that he had to to get unemployment compensation extended. So far as I can tell, that had nothing to do with influence of Democrats from the U. of C. Similarly, proposals to limit the size of financial institutions "too big to fail" were, unfortunately, shot down.