Obama Caves

[maxcok]

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

A jest perhaps, but a jest erroneously pointed at the Obama administration:

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.

Though I see you're suddenly dancing to a new tune and blaming the "Bu$hBarians". Is that a term you learned pursuing your vaunted 'Political Science' minor, in lieu of terms like 'paleolibertarian' and 'neoconservative', which you've never heard of or brush aside as meaningless?

But thats another story and well beyond the pasture land of the grazing sheep.

Do lead us to greener pastures, oh wise shepherd.

 

[COMountainGuy]

A jest perhaps, but a jest erroneously pointed at the Obama administration:
Though I see you're suddenly dancing to a new tune and blaming the "Bu$hBarians". Is that a term you learned pursuing your vaunted 'Political Science' minor, in lieu of terms like 'paleolibertarian' and 'neoconservative', which you've never heard of or brush aside as meaningless?


Do lead us to greener pastures, oh wise shepherd.

Obama has now had two years to take the ship 'America' on a new tack across troubled seas. Our brave young men are still losing their lives whilst kicking in doors in Kabul. The Constitution remains in tatters, our freedoms are still close to death under the steel foot of an ever growing military/surveillance/incarceration network of largely unmentioned and growing predatorial agencies, handouts to the super rich and well connected continue, the deficit grows exponentially, we are still groveling under the wishes of our Is***eli master, and the drums of war continue to beat with at least as much intensity.

The Bush administration got much of that going. The seeds were planted, germinated, watered, and cultivated decades ago. Obama has not shown any interest in fighting this. He got their support because he promised to work with them in my opinion.

Read "Tragedy & Hope" by Carroll Quigley if you want a pre-eminent understanding of who the true architects are.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Obama has now had two years to take the ship 'America' on a new tack across troubled seas. Our brave young men are still losing their lives whilst kicking in doors in Kabul. The Constitution remains in tatters

Strike one.

our freedoms are still close to death under the steel foot of an ever growing military/surveillance/incarceration network of largely unmentioned and growing predatorial agencies

Strike two.

handouts to the super rich and well connected continue, the deficit grows exponentially, we are still groveling under the wishes of our Is***eli master, and the drums of war continue to beat with at least as much intensity.

The Bush administration got much of that going. The seeds were planted, germinated, watered, and cultivated decades ago. Obama has not shown any interest in fighting this. He got their support because he promised to work with them in my opinion.

And of course, all of this was supposed to be magically fixed in two years.
Strike three?

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

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.

They would have voted for that anyway. He caved on something that they would have supported, and that he could have spent a ton of time in the media making them look like assholes for not voting on. But rather than do that, he just gave in and gave them things they never dreamed of, like an unheard of payroll tax holiday.

Either he's a terribly inept negotiator and not aware of political realities, or he is just paying lip service to opposing the tax cuts.

He's not dumb, so the answer is obvious.

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.

Shot down by his own party. Which he is the head of. Do some more reading, much of the reforms were killed by White House direction. Which isn't surprising, given that the FIRE sector was his biggest contributor.

I swear, a guy can be getting financial industry money, stock his cabinet with pro-business UofC types, and enact all sorts of pro-business legislation, and people will still try and make up excuses for the completely obvious behavior.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Excuse me, sargon20, can you post that link to the letter again? :biggrin:

 

[FRE]

They would have voted for that anyway. He caved on something that they would have supported, and that he could have spent a ton of time in the media making them look like assholes for not voting on. But rather than do that, he just gave in and gave them things they never dreamed of, like an unheard of payroll tax holiday.

Either he's a terribly inept negotiator and not aware of political realities, or he is just paying lip service to opposing the tax cuts.

He's not dumb, so the answer is obvious.



Shot down by his own party. Which he is the head of. Do some more reading, much of the reforms were killed by White House direction. Which isn't surprising, given that the FIRE sector was his biggest contributor.

I swear, a guy can be getting financial industry money, stock his cabinet with pro-business UofC types, and enact all sorts of pro-business legislation, and people will still try and make up excuses for the completely obvious behavior.

I do agree that Obama should have been more persistent instead of caving. He could have forced the Republicans to accept blame for not extending unemployment compensation and tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. I contacted my representative and two senators urging them not to vote for a bill that extended tax cuts for the rich, and they did not vote for the bill.

That said, I believe that Obama would have preferred not to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. He's simply too willing to make peace in ways that are not acceptable.

 

[COMountainGuy]

Strike one.



Strike two.



And of course, all of this was supposed to be magically fixed in two years.
Strike three?

I never expected it to be fixed in two years. I had real hopes for a change in direction however. Hence my reference to taking the "ship 'America' on a new tack."

Obama promised us real change....not improvement. OK....but where is the real change?

 

[deleted15807]

Excuse me, sargon20, can you post that link to the letter again? :biggrin:

It does seem we need it here again :wink:

See? You see what happens when you young liberal voters get so disgruntled and disillusioned that you drop all your party's newborn, hard-won ideas about Hope™ and Change™, without any patience, without really giving them sufficient time to mature, without understanding that hugely foreign, anti-American concept known as "the long view"?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/11/03/notes110310.DTL#ixzz194msDHsL​

Letter to a whiny young Democrat

​

 

[faceking]

>>You vote Republican you get policies for the CEO's of the world. You vote Democrat and you get wimps who don't even have the cajones to call them out.

Time to move out of mom's garage and join the rest of the grown-ups in reality...

...no really.

 

[FRE]

I don't like this conservative vs liberal stuff. I'm for pragmatism.

 

[COMountainGuy]

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.

Rockefeller challenged others to give to University

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

Fresh humiliation for euro zone as China says it will bail out debt-ridden nations | Mail Online

So...China may soon be purchasing foreign assets for pennies on the dollar. I suspect that Rockefeller and his super elite cadre may be enjoying their best Christmas. Ever.

 

[COMountainGuy]

I don't like this conservative vs liberal stuff. I'm for pragmatism.

Ain't no black & white difference between the dems and the reps. Hasn't been for decades.

An exception is that....somehow....the reps garnered a reputation for fiscal responsibility when, in fact, the opposite is true. The republican party in Washington has been far more fiscally irresponsible over the past few decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...4HdDQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0

Why the DNC doesn't advertise is beyond me.

Look at Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I never expected it to be fixed in two years. I had real hopes for a change in direction however. Hence my reference to taking the "ship 'America' on a new tack."

Obama promised us real change....not improvement. OK....but where is the real change?

What one perceives as "real change" will differ from one person to the next.
Considering that the current administration has done more in the last two years than the last three administrations tells me something. I'm not sure if that registers with anyone else around here, and to some degree I don't really care. Also, I know that anything that is implemented now will take time for its effects to be really felt. So this rhetoric about "change", combined with the disingenuous tone of some people and their continued touts of impatience, is nothing worth taking seriously.

Only people who don't care to pay attention to the details will still regurgitate the old campaign slogans and take them for face value. Everyone knows how long it takes for "real change" to happen. It took 17 years for DADT to be repealed and it took a century for a slave to have equal rights after they were "freed". That should be a clue. Besides... "change" is not why I voted for Obama anyhow. Given the two options, I knew he was better than McCain. I knew he would do things differently and would slowly but surely make things better for this country. And thus far he's proven that to me tenfold.

So you can sit there, tapping your toes with your hands folded and waiting for "change" all you want. Or you can understand the political process and give the man the credit he deserves.

 

[FRE]

Ain't no black & white difference between the dems and the reps. Hasn't been for decades.

An exception is that....somehow....the reps garnered a reputation for fiscal responsibility when, in fact, the opposite is true. The republican party in Washington has been far more fiscally irresponsible over the past few decades.

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Google Image Result for http://fgault.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/natl_debt_chart-2004.gif

Why the DNC doesn't advertise is beyond me.

Look at Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr.

As you say, it's true that the Republicans acquired a reputation for fiscal responsibility whereas the Democrats acquired a reputation for being spendthrifts, but the statistics tell a very different story.

 

[FRE]

What one perceives as "real change" will differ from one person to the next.
Considering that the current administration has done more in the last two years than the last three administrations tells me something. I'm not sure if that registers with anyone else around here, and to some degree I don't really care. Also, I know that anything that is implemented now will take time for its effects to be really felt. So this rhetoric about "change", combined with the disingenuous tone of some people and their continued touts of impatience, is nothing worth taking seriously.

Only people who don't care to pay attention to the details will still regurgitate the old campaign slogans and take them for face value. Everyone knows how long it takes for "real change" to happen. It took 17 years for DADT to be repealed and it took a century for a slave to have equal rights after they were "freed". That should be a clue. Besides... "change" is not why I voted for Obama anyhow. Given the two options, I knew he was better than McCain. I knew he would do things differently and would slowly but surely make things better for this country. And thus far he's proven that to me tenfold.

So you can sit there, tapping your toes with your hands folded and waiting for "change" all you want. Or you can understand the political process and give the man the credit he deserves.

Even though many of us think that Obama has fallen short, there still has been significant change, such as the repeal of DADT and the implementation of a health care system. The health care system falls short of what it should be, but at least it's a start and improvements can be made in the future as experience dictates. Obama deserves a lot of credit for what has been accomplished so far.

Although I couldn't prove it, I suspect that some of Obama's lack of forcefulness is the result of fear of being seen as an uppity you know what, and that fear may be valid. I had hoped that, as a country, we'd be over that sort of thing by now, but unfortunately, I don't expect to live long enough to see the end of it.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

>>You vote Republican you get policies for the CEO's of the world. You vote Democrat and you get wimps who don't even have the cajones to call them out.

Time to move out of mom's garage and join the rest of the grown-ups in reality...

...no really.

Could you get one of the other adults to teach you how to use the quote function?

What one perceives as "real change" will differ from one person to the next.
Considering that the current administration has done more in the last two years than the last three administrations tells me something. I'm not sure if that registers with anyone else around here, and to some degree I don't really care. Also, I know that anything that is implemented now will take time for its effects to be really felt. So this rhetoric about "change", combined with the disingenuous tone of some people and their continued touts of impatience, is nothing worth taking seriously.

Only people who don't care to pay attention to the details will still regurgitate the old campaign slogans and take them for face value. Everyone knows how long it takes for "real change" to happen. It took 17 years for DADT to be repealed and it took a century for a slave to have equal rights after they were "freed". That should be a clue. Besides... "change" is not why I voted for Obama anyhow. Given the two options, I knew he was better than McCain. I knew he would do things differently and would slowly but surely make things better for this country. And thus far he's proven that to me tenfold.

So you can sit there, tapping your toes with your hands folded and waiting for "change" all you want. Or you can understand the political process and give the man the credit he deserves.

I understand the political process fully. The problem is, Obama's problem isn't the political process, it's that he's a conservative. Stop agreeing with the DLC villain of the week, and look at what he's actually doing. Tell me how McCain would have been worse.

Obama is worse than McCain because he gets the Democratic base to support policies that they would have screamed about if a GOP president was doing them. As a poster on another board I read says, I'd rather see the dagger coming than get it in the back.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I understand the political process fully. The problem is, Obama's problem isn't the political process, it's that he's a conservative.

Less ideology and more facts, please.
Calling Obama "conservative" is like calling Heidi Fleiss a nun.
He's not as "progressive" or as "forceful" as you'd like. That's the truth of the matter, and that's perfectly fine if you want to harbor that belief. But conservative? Absolute bullshit and you know this.

Stop agreeing with the DLC villain of the week, and look at what he's actually doing. Tell me how McCain would have been worse.

I'm not even going to speculate on that red herring of a question. McCain is not President so not only is it unnecessary, it's completely irrelevant. Again, I felt that McCain was not the better choice and I voted accordingly. And thus far, I'm pleased with Obama's performance. It doesn't have to be a perfect record of progressive liberalism even if I do swing to the left on many civil rights issues. Nor do you have to approve of it either so watch yourself here.

Obama is worse than McCain because he gets the Democratic base to support policies that they would have screamed about if a GOP president was doing them. As a poster on another board I read says, I'd rather see the dagger coming than get it in the back.

Oh, so you'd have no problem voting for someone who has no problem abandoning and denying everything he ran on for president? Someone who has completely flipped on their stances and has taken the role as the hypocritical, closeted homophobe and political bigot all because he may be able to get his base to get in line? Gotcha.

Wake me when your ideologies are in line with what happens in reality, OK? Better yet... just stay in your purely ideological bubble and don't bother me. I was raised to have patience (especially when it comes to matters that you have little to no control over), and I have more of it than others. If you find that as being a flaw, then that is your psychological problem to deal with.

 

[FRE]

At one time, McCain was opposed to DADT. However, in the Senate, he spoke forcefully in favor of keeping DADT even after a study concluded that repeal would be unlikely to cause serious problems. He cannot be trusted; he is in favor of anything that would enhance his political career regardless of whether it is right or wrong, i.e., he is unprincipaled.

If McCain had been elected president, DADT would not have been repealed. The support he received from the Log Cabin Republican Club does not speak well for the Log Cabin Republican Club.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

Less ideology and more facts, please.
Calling Obama "conservative" is like calling Heidi Fleiss a nun.
He's not as "progressive" or as "forceful" as you'd like. That's the truth of the matter, and that's perfectly fine if you want to harbor that belief. But conservative? Absolute bullshit and you know this.

Yes, liberals are known for being deficit hawks and tax cutters.

I'm not even going to speculate on that red herring of a question. McCain is not President so not only is it unnecessary, it's completely irrelevant. Again, I felt that McCain was not the better choice and I voted accordingly. And thus far, I'm pleased with Obama's performance. It doesn't have to be a perfect record of progressive liberalism even if I do swing to the left on many civil rights issues. Nor do you have to approve of it either so watch yourself here.

You're trying to make a strawman of me wanting him to be the second coming of FDR, because then you don't have to face the facts that he isn't even remotely liberal.

Oh, so you'd have no problem voting for someone who has no problem abandoning and denying everything he ran on for president? Someone who has completely flipped on their stances and has taken the role as the hypocritical, closeted homophobe and political bigot all because he may be able to get his base to get in line? Gotcha.

No I do have a problem with that, which is why I'm upset at Obama.

Wake me when your ideologies are in line with what happens in reality, OK? Better yet... just stay in your purely ideological bubble and don't bother me. I was raised to have patience (especially when it comes to matters that you have little to no control over), and I have more of it than others. If you find that as being a flaw, then that is your psychological problem to deal with.

I'm not the one in an ideological bubble. I'd like a president who at least makes an effort towards liberal ideals, not one who is trying to cut Social Security.

Listen dude, it's great that you are willing to compromise actual liberalism because you don't want to admit you voted for a sham, I get that. But saying that I'm an idealist because I'm not blinded by partisanship is hilarious.

If you think Obama's a liberal Bernie Sanders must blow your mind.

 

[COMountainGuy]

Less ideology and more facts, please.
Calling Obama "conservative" is like calling Heidi Fleiss a nun.
He's not as "progressive" or as "forceful" as you'd like. That's the truth of the matter, and that's perfectly fine if you want to harbor that belief. But conservative? Absolute bullshit and you know this.



I'm not even going to speculate on that red herring of a question. McCain is not President so not only is it unnecessary, it's completely irrelevant. Again, I felt that McCain was not the better choice and I voted accordingly. And thus far, I'm pleased with Obama's performance. It doesn't have to be a perfect record of progressive liberalism even if I do swing to the left on many civil rights issues. Nor do you have to approve of it either so watch yourself here.



Oh, so you'd have no problem voting for someone who has no problem abandoning and denying everything he ran on for president? Someone who has completely flipped on their stances and has taken the role as the hypocritical, closeted homophobe and political bigot all because he may be able to get his base to get in line? Gotcha.

Wake me when your ideologies are in line with what happens in reality, OK? Better yet... just stay in your purely ideological bubble and don't bother me. I was raised to have patience (especially when it comes to matters that you have little to no control over), and I have more of it than others. If you find that as being a flaw, then that is your psychological problem to deal with.

Do you have a vagina?