Disagreeing with the president

Obama has completely pussied out with the healthcare bill. The starting point should not have been the compromise position. Start with full single payer and compromise down to public option if you have to. Don't start with public option and end up with the shitty special interest laden waste of 1200 pages we have now.

Given the way legislation is created, I don't know how someone can blame someone who's entire contribution is the signature at the bottom.

The senate and the house are responsible.

As much as I admire Obama, the office he holds mainly influences foreign affairs. Domestically, the executive branch has little power.

There is nothing stopping Obama from having his team put together a bill, hand it to the house and senate, and say here's your damn starting point.

I thought Bush's creation of TSA and reorg of the intelligence structure was a mistake. Many conservatives thought Homeland Security was a mistake. And said so.

Many conservatives objected to the tariffs Bush put in place. Remember those?

Bush probably could have done something about social security but punted early.

I wasn't supportive of his limiting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to existing lines. You guys didn't fall for the media lie that he "banned stem cell research" did you?

Faith based initiatives. Not my thing. Obama has increased them BTW. Where's the corresponding outrage on the left?

Of course the handling of of the financial melt down is still a question mark in my mind. Just seemed like many capricious decisions with little consistency or regard for existing solutions and core principles. He went wobbly.

Yes, he could have provided more direct leadership, which is the core of my criticism of Obama's presidency. Well, that, and I think government should be smaller, but that's not my beef with him, that's my beef with Washington.

I think he's a good man, and he's my president for better or worse, but I would appreciate a more direct approach. Still, a president can only do so much...

Thing is, the more you try to lead, the worse it looks if people don't follow. The house and senate resemble a herd of cats that way.

Every major piece of legislation Obama just punts to capitol hill. That way he doesn't get the sink on him, can blame someone else for the hyper-partisan bill and gets his moment to flap his gums when he signs it.

I thought you wanted a discussion but I guess not. More McSame from tonton. You're a guitar with one string and no frets.

nevermind.

nevermind.

nevermind.

nevermind.

Sorry about your thread, tonton.

dmz, do you think that Barack Obama is trying to turn the United States into a socialist nation?

Fascinating.

I was under the impression - from comments in other threads - that the only reason anyone would dare disagree with Obama and actually voice that opposition is because he/she is clearly a racist bigot homophobe, bible-bashing religious zealot, conspiracy loon, tinfoil hat wearing, gun-toting fruitcake.

Or did I misunderstand?

nevermind.

nevermind.

dmz, I did read your posts before you "nevermind"-ed them.

I have to say I agree with much of what you wrote.

No, what?

Is this where you prove how Barack Obama can be an evil Marxist even though nothing has changed?

I can't say as I blame him for pulling out of the conversation. It is really not a conversation when one side does not listen and merely shouts back insults at the other. \

?

Er... he 'neverminded' before I read them. dmz, I thought, was actually being pretty cool and 'neverminded' his replies out of a desire to see this thread actually fulfil tonton's desire not to become a fire-fight.

Not sure what your post's supposed to achieve, since it doesn't address the topic of the thread, or the conversation, or my question, and is nothing but a personal attack on me, but hey.

I was not addressing your actions, just your question. I also did not say which side was doing what, now did I?

I'm sure you'll have some memory of this, but the policy that both Obama and Bush are following is called Pax Americana because of what it has morphed into over the last 60+ years. It was originally the Truman Doctrine. The Bush update to it basically took the word communism and changed it to the word terrorism.

All presidents have followed it and continue to follow it. Liberals enable NeoCons to keep it in place by calling anyone who would remove it a racist and isolationist. It is why our troops haven't left Iraq, are increasing in Afghanistan and why we still have troops in Germany almost 70 years after WWII and why we are still involved in defending South Korea from North Korea almost 60 years after the fact.

There will be no true change in the United States until we give up this doctrine. It is a leftover from WWII and the fear created by Pearl Harbor. We tolerate currency manipulation because of it. We tolerate trade imbalances. It leads to all sorts of policies whereby we cannot act in a self interested manner. Many of the socialist nations whether we agree with their policies or not, are allowed to act in a self interested manner. There is a lot of well justified fear in my view that the EU is undermining this trait in them but the real point is that countries like Denmark, Germany and Canada run trade surpluses and act in their own interest without any fear that it will undermine their ability to police the world because they do not feel responsible to police the world.

I do understand the flip side of the argument. I do recall that Europe spent a thousand years with nothing much going on that continent but bloodshed due to regional conflicts. We were the big stick that put an end to that but I do not feel we have the time, treasure and inclination to continue to do this not only for them, but shoulder even more of a burden by adding the rest of the world to the mix. Regardless of what people want to claim about military-industrial complexes, peace is good for profits. If China wants to go back to killing Japan, India wants to go back to attacking Pakastan and if Europe wants its neighbors to go to war with each other, I say let them because it shouldn't be the sweat of my brow preventing it when they cannot see the advantages themselves.

So my problem with Bush and Obama is the same. I noted when Bush was in office and noted it before Obama was elected. There will be no true change until self interest is no longer maligned with associations about patriarchy and racism in U.S. culture. Until then we will keep showing our "tolerance" by sending our sons and daughters to die on foreign soil so as to prevent the regional peoples from doing to each other that which they have been doing for a thousand years.

Agreed. Obama has not taken a firm stand on much and it would be nice to see him do so in a way that would make it easier to know whether I agree or not with the man.


I did not post much during the Bush era. However, I did not agree with everything he did either. He was, however fairly easy to pin down what he thought, whether you liked his thoughts or not, because he put the thoughts out there for all to see.


Is a tax cut called spending now? So that was the governments money and not mine?


As for what I would fix first, term limits. No lifelong politicians. Give em 8 years and out. If the ideas they are pushing are so great they will be taken up by the next wave, if not, they will likely be dumped as they should be. If the office of the president is so cirtical that it not have more than 8 years of one person, the same should go for congress.

I caught that too. I think only for Democrats, liberals, leftists, progressives...whatever they want to be called.



I don't think you're getting to the root of the problem. Things like term limits, campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, etc. are really only treating symptoms of the problem. As long as government (the federal government in particular, but state and local governments too) remain as an ever increasing epicenter of power, it will attract those who want power and they will use any and all means to obtain and retain that power.

You need to make it smaller and less powerful.

Also, in terms of the bigger issues: with gridlock theoretically removed -- BHO has a virtual supermajority in the Senate 58:40:2 (and within a whisker of a supermajority in the House) 258:177 -- it should be clear now what the true colors of a Liberal majority are. There are bigger groupthink issues here to be dealt with other than "well he just wont get off his ass and do X"

Like the Treasury pick and trumptman's bringing up foreign policy -- it lifts the mask, and goes to the heart of the assumption that "my party's so much different than yours". They really aren't informed or staffed by people that fundamentally differ on the biggest of the issues.

We are out of money, and running out of influence -- there are only so many ways of dealing with that. (and I'd imagine we'll try all of them)

In reponse to the OT, I was not a member of this forum when Bush was president.

I can tell you that I did vote for Bush in 2000 (it was my first general election since turning 18) and again in 2004.

It was not until the months leading up until the 2008 election that I seriously reevaluated my own political ideology and decided I could no longer support the Republican Party.

In retrospect, I can see now that Bush presided over unprecedented government growth, spending, and erosion of personal liberties - that is, until the present administration took power and accelerated the process.

I am now registered in the state of Arizona as "PND" (party not declared).

That said, I always disagreed with Bush's handling of Illegal Immigration enforcement (or the lack, thereof). It made absolutely no sense to me for Bush to declare "War on Terror" and leave our borders wide open for people to just waltz on over and do as they may. I wanted Bush to secure the borders and enforce existing immigration laws. I still want that today, although it will likely never happen under Obama.

I was for the invasion of Iraq at the outset. Towards the end of Bush's tenure, I changed my mind, and willingly admit I was wrong about it. WMDs or not, what it comes down to for me is the constitutionality of it. There was never a formal declaration of war from Congress.

I wondered if I was alone on that one.


I actually think that once you do not have LIFELONG politicians in office only concerned with saving their job for as long as they can that the role of government will naturally start to decline. As new people come in and the power centers of each house change naturally the agenda of one party over the other will become less coherent. This should lead to less legacy actions and more of what the constituency actually wants. Heck, it might even eventually lead to the senators actually doing what is right for the country rather than for their meal ticket.

Keep plucking that one string.

My question?


This question?

This appallingly rude, inflammatory attack on all that is decent?

That he hasn't answered?

dmz, do you think that Barack Obama is remodelling the United States as a socialist, or even a Marxist, country?

Nope, your question of "No, what?". The implied, why did you erase and pull out question. However, it does not really matter.

Er... no. It doesn't matter. Um.. as you were, then.

So, dmz, do you think that Barack Obama's trying to remodel the United States into a socialist, or even a Marxist, state?

Question: If you don't support the troop expansion, what should happen there? Surely you see the problems with the status quo or a precipitous withdrawal?

I agree he hasn't done much about gay rights. Not sure this was ever a major campaign plank of his.

As for healthcare, you know where I stand. That said, just from the standpoint of getting the bill passed, he's done a really bad job. He's set meaningless deadlines, which Congress ignored. He didn't really have a specific plan, but was "open to options" which came across as waffling. We couldn't read the bill, Pelosi rammed it through, Reid bought 60 votes for cloture...all w/o a word from Obama. Not good, even if you support the concept.

As for Bush:

Several of us have been quite critical. We can't just dismiss the criticisms on "spending." He allowed the non-defense discretionary spending to get completely out of control. He signed bills with thousands of earmarks. He pushed through Medicare D.

As for tax cuts, I have to disagree. Tax cuts are NOT spending. In fact, revenue reached record levels after the tax cuts. This is something that liberals cannot seem to understand no matter how many time it is proven over time: Tax policy affects economic behaviors, which end up either stifling or creating growth, which in turn leads to more or less revenue. Tax policy is not zero sum. Higher taxes might result in higher revenue for a time, but eventually stifle growth, especially if the economy slows down due to the natural business cycle. Tax cuts stimulate growth, especially cuts directed at the upper and middle brackets. It is a false assumption when one believes that had Bush era taxes been higher, revenue would have also been higher.

The war: The war in Iraq was/is expensive. There is no question about that. However, in looking at the total economic picture, it really didn't affect us much over the last 6 years. Estimates put the total cost to date at 600-700 billion. That's what...$125 billion a year? That's a lot of money, but it's also 10% of our deficit for THIS YEAR alone. We have to note it, but it's not the reason we're in our current situation.

More on Bush: I think Bush, who you accuse of using Cowboy Diplomacy, actually got gun shy as a result of the Iraq War. It really consumed his second term, to the point where he got little done during it. There was no more tax reform (which was promised), spending cuts, reductions in size of government, etc. He didn't take on Social Security reform. Then there is the controversial No Child Left Behind Act, which had its good points but became real obstacle and hinderance for districts within about 4 years of its passage.

Just a few examples.

That's a pretty dense question -- given what we are seeing.

Everything right now points one undeniable fact: giving the Liberal party essentially Carte Blanche (starting in 2006 with the democratic sweeps), and putting a president, who as a candidate, offered unprecedented levels of simple-minded, flowery BS... promises upon promises upon promises...

Nothing has changed.

What should that tell you?

First, that should tell you that the constraints of our activity as a nation are limited, and have always been limited -- somewhat by groupthink, somewhat by outside influence. Second, it might be worth considering that the democratic process works -- and that these elected people are simply struggling to give the people what they want in the face of these outside constraints.

People behind Glen Beck or DailyKos are entertainment, no more, no less -- they oversimplify the complex processes, ignore what they don't want in their narrative, then SELL that sitting-in-a-warm-diaper narrative to the unsuspecting and uncritical.

"Obama is a Marxist"

"Bush is Hitler"

"Bush was a meanie, and that's why no one likes us."

"Obama will say nice things at a podium, and those Chess-playing Russians will "like us" and change their foreign policy."

Sorry folks, but the world isn't run by teenage girls.

If the fairyland that these people are selling existed anywhere, we would all be riding magical unicorns, be out of Iraq, and Afghanistan, all the foreign detainees would no longer be detained, Russia would have stepped on Aquadimijihad's nuts for us, and we would have Universal Health care, and the cure for AIDS from stem cell research.

The same goes for Reagan, and Newtie's CWA. Window dressing promises, but the hard realities of staying in power by being popular, pandering to a morally anemic population that want's their Jimmy Dean sausage on a stick, and their free angioplasty -- gets in the way of a soothing narrative.


Edit: And Newtie [insert proto-ideologue here] may have believed what he was doing, but still -- the realities shut him down. But right now, there is almost nothing standing in the way of the liberal party in America -- and nothing is happening.

So you don't believe that Barack Obama is a Marxist.

That is good. That means you are not utterly batshit crazy.

So. You are saying that Barack Obama, and George Bush, and if I understand you correctly Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan are all basically the same.

Do I have this right? I'm interested in discovering something of your world view.

(By the way, when I seek clarification from you, do not call my questions 'dense'. We don't see the world the same way and I can't be expected to know what you see until you explain it. Besides that, I'm not fourteen years old and we're not related.)

At this point it really doesn't matter what BHO "is". The process, at least for the Liberal party, is about as good as it gets -- and nothing is changing.

Gitmo will close, but the inmates will simply go to the SuperMAX -- what is the difference? The difference is a hopelessly compromised show trial.


Back to the OP, disappointment with BHO, is disappointment with the system at large, especially with what is purporting to be the liberal wing of it. Point being, I'd be less worried about being "surprised" that X or Y hasn't gotten done, and look at the fact that it is not possible to get X or Y done.

You didn't answer my question, at all.

I asked this: