U.S. Politics - Conventional Wisdom

[Spring Bass]

Aside from removing massive amounts of civil liberties, setting back women's rights 40 years, adding massive debt, having the biggest fiscal inequity in the country's history (and doing so during a Democratic presidency), fighting multiple wars, reducing science and research spending, reducing health care and education, allowing for things like creationism to be taught in high school, hugely restrictive and horrible laws against abortion.

1. Obama hasn't reduced civil liberties any more than Bush did, and the climate is actually much more tolerant of criticism of National Security policy. Compare the present environment to the hysteria in 2002, as I mentioned above.

2. All the bugfuck abortion bans don't mean shit as long as Roe remains in place. I'll give you the restrictions.

3. Massive debt was going to happen in midst of a great recession, even if the government hadn't jacked up spending. Tax revenues drop off during recessions, which is also what's fucking up the state and municipal governments.

4. Obama wound down one of the big wars (Iraq), and looks keen to start winding down in Afghanistan. He's also shied away from a stupid intervention in Iran.

5. Health care and education are hardly reduced. We have a universal health care law, for fuck's sake.

6. Creationism has been beaten back everywhere it has raised its head, and even the Louisiana bill isn't long for this world. Aside from Louisiana, most states where creationism has shown up have pushed back against it, like my heavily Republican home state (Utah).

That's a lot of political change. That Obama is seen as this massive liberal despite passing a Republican policy for health care that Reagan would have dreamed to get passed, running up massive debt and barely taxing anything is a good indicator of where this country has gone.

No, it's just a good indicator of the fact that our present Congressional set-up is piss-poor in passing legislation without overwhelming majorities.

[Kalbear]

Obama hasn't reduced civil liberties any more than Bush did

Actually, as Raidne would be happy to point out - not true. He continued the Bush policies while also doing things like executing civilians without trial or even trial in absentia. That's a pretty big change.

All the bugfuck abortion bans don't mean shit as long as Roe remains in place. I'll give you the restrictions.

Yeah, but no. Making abortion even more traumatic and painful in order to guilt people into having babies they can't afford or don't have the ability to care for is fucking evil, even if it's legal. Fuck that noise.

[Shryke]

Massive debt, huge reduction in taxes and lowest taxes for the rich in our country's history combined with bailouts and subsidies for industry and the most military spending in our country's history.

How is it not?

Um, Obama hasn't drastically cut taxes (although Congress has failed to repeal Bush's tax cuts). The lowest taxes for the rich in US history is because of the previous administration and Obama is saying they should be raised.

The "massive debt" is due to tax cuts and wars and financial industry bailouts from the previous administration in large party. Obama's contribution to it is more necessary bailouts and a economic stimulus and a reduction in government income because holy shit the economy imploded.

And Obama is slowing down military spending. It's "the most in history" because of inflation, the US continuing to grow and just congress generally fighting any reduction in military pork.

All these things you mention are either not Obama's own policies or are you grossly misrepresenting basic facts. There's nothing Reagenesque here.

[Kalbear]

He's continuing virtually every policy that Bush 2 had. He hasn't raised taxes. He hasn't ended the military spending (and has actually increased it in several areas such as special forces).

Put it another way, Shryke: Obama could have simply stated 'sorry, we must withdraw immediately from Iraq and will withdraw from Afghanistan.' And at the time this would have been taken fairly well and positively. He could have done other things that were not debt-raising in order to bail out companies and/or add more stimulus (things like selling public land rights or taxes on corporations, which are also at an all-time low). And he didn't do these things.

I understand why some of these things happened, and I don't think that it's entirely Obama's fault, but that whole Hope and Change thing - didn't really change all that much. Liberties are still gone (though apparently willingly, as very few people seem to care in the general populace), taxes are still stupidly low, debt is still increasing, there's not been a single budget passed during his tenure, we're still at war with no specific end in sight. You tell me - does that sound more like Clinton or Reagan? Carter or Bush?

[Shryke]

He's continuing virtually every policy that Bush 2 had. He hasn't raised taxes. He hasn't ended the military spending (and has actually increased it in several areas such as special forces).

Obama =/= Congress

I thought you would know better then this Kal.

And he has lowered military spending growth.

Put it another way, Shryke: Obama could have simply stated 'sorry, we must withdraw immediately from Iraq and will withdraw from Afghanistan.' And at the time this would have been taken fairly well and positively.

He did withdraw from Iraq. And he campaigned on increasing forces in Afghanistan.

He could have done other things that were not debt-raising in order to bail out companies and/or add more stimulus (things like selling public land rights or taxes on corporations, which are also at an all-time low). And he didn't do these things.

Why in the fuck would you want to do these things though? There's nothing wrong with the government taking on debt to stimulate the economy in a downturn.

Your whole argument here is premised on the idea that all debt is the same and that's simply false.

I understand why some of these things happened, and I don't think that it's entirely Obama's fault, but that whole Hope and Change thing - didn't really change all that much. Liberties are still gone (though apparently willingly, as very few people seem to care in the general populace), taxes are still stupidly low, debt is still increasing, there's not been a single budget passed during his tenure, we're still at war with no specific end in sight. You tell me - does that sound more like Clinton or Reagan? Carter or Bush?

It sounds like none of them. It sounds like the President isn't Congress.

[Kalbear]

Obama =/= Congress

I thought you would know better then this Kal.

And he has lowered military spending growth

Obama didn't have a filibuster-proof majority but he did have a majority for the first two years of office. During that time he could have passed a democrat-friendly budget without any issue given that it can't be filibustered. Did he? Nope.

Yes, he has reduced military spending growth. It's still growing, just not quite as much as before. He is still a president that has spent the most per year on the military per capita (or adjusted for inflation, however you chcoose to measure) of any president. Again, how is this not Reaganesque? Carter would have slashed the fuck out of that, and Clinton would have cut it.

He did withdraw from Iraq. And he campaigned on increasing forces in Afghanistan.

I'm not sure how this says I'm wrong. Should I feel better that he did what he said he would in this case?

Why in the fuck would you want to do these things though? There's nothing wrong with the government taking on debt to stimulate the economy in a downturn.

Your whole argument here is premised on the idea that all debt is the same and that's simply false.

As far as issuing bonds and keeping our credit rating all debt is the same. And while there's nothing wrong with taking on debt to stimulate an economy, there is something wrong with doing it while paying for two expensive wars. There is something wrong with doing it while not increasing taxes on the rich and on corporations. There is something wrong with passing a law that will increase the debt significantly. As stated by several economists, the government does not need to spend more in order to create stimulus. Policies and taxes are often just as good if not better. Another point: while stimulus was done, government jobs was at a historical low. One way to keep sustained growth and stimulus is to employ people via the government to do works, not throw a bunch of bailout money at various banks that ended up misplacing it. You can raise taxes during a recession provided those tax raises are on the right things (corporations and the rich are good examples) and then use that money to pay for public sector jobs.

It sounds like none of them. It sounds like the President isn't Congress.

Congress didn't stop gitmo from being closed. Congress didn't stop the Patriot act from being repealed. Congress didn't stop a budget being passed in 2009-2010. Congress didn't approve bombings of American civilians. Congress didn't authorize Obama as the person solely responsible for deciding on a terrorist being killed. Heck, congress didn't even authorize the Libya thing.

[Fez]

Congress didn't stop gitmo from being closed.

Yes they did.

Congress didn't stop the Patriot act from being repealed.

Yes they did

Congress didn't stop a budget being passed in 2009-2010.

Well, no one did. There was a FY2010 budget. As for FY2011, yes they did

Congress didn't approve bombings of American civilians.

They're getting close

Congress didn't authorize Obama as the person solely responsible for deciding on a terrorist being killed.

Considering how softly they're pushing on it, tacitly they did

Heck, congress didn't even authorize the Libya thing.

True there. But they also refused to cut off funding for the mission either. So that's a mixed message.

[TrackerNeil]

Don't be so melodramatic, Kal. We had a combination of Republican House, Senate, and Presidency back in 2000-2006 (as well as a much more politically potent evangelical lobby), and it didn't lead to "the coming darkness". Aside from the disaster that was Iraq, little political change at all happened, except that the country has become much more tolerant of homosexuals and gay marriage when polled.

So, aside from the biggest foreign policy blunder in a century, little political change happened. That's like saying, "Except for Ser Courtnay being thrown out of his window by a creature of shadow, all was quiet in Storm's End last night, sergeant."

Personally, I think that, should he win reelection, Obama will one day be known as the Lyndon Johnson of the new millenium. He presided over the institution of the Affordable Care Act, which closed the last hole in the social safety net, and accomplished alot of liberal policy goals via the ARRA.

[Horza]

Personally, I think that, should he win reelection, Obama will one day be known as the Lyndon Johnson of the new millenium. He presided over the institution of the Affordable Care Act, which closed the last hole in the social safety net, and accomplished alot of liberal policy goals via the ARRA.

So where and when does he start the ruinous, divisive, treasury-draining Land War in Asia?

[Noroldis]

Mlle. Zabzie:

On the "demonization" of financial sector, I'm mainly responding to the attack ads endorsed/prepared by the Obama campaign comparing private equity firms to "vampires";

Some private equity firms, notably Romney's own Bain Capital, do fit the vampire analogy; they suck the financial lifeblood out of the corporations they latch on, and leave behind a weakened or completely dried-up victim that has great difficulty standing on its own anymore, and often ends up dying. And it's not just Obama using the vampire analogy in reference to some part of the financial industry: Rolling Stone magazine called Goldman Sachs a "great vampire squid":

http://www.rollingst...achine-20100405

"The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates."

I'm also responding to his pitting "Wall Street" against "Main Street", which is a great sound bit, but isn't actually really that helpful or insightful.

Wall Street has an army of lobbyists and numerous willing puppets in both major parties in Congress. Thanks to all those fine folks, Wall Street got bailed out by TARP almost immediately when the financial crisis hit, while the little people who will end up paying for that colossal expense got screwed (and are still getting screwed). In addition, the Wall Street banksters avoided the criminal trials and imprisonment they deserve so very much. Wall Street is blatantly exploiting Main Street while escaping justice, and Obama – or anyone else – pointing it out is both helpful (in the sense that it helps to make everyone aware of Wall Street's perfidy) and insightful (in the sense that the accusation is completely accurate).

I'm particularly disturbed because it's disingenuous. On the one hand, he's perfectly happy to support (and take the support of) PE firms that fit his agenda (Carlyle, etc.), and out of the other side of his mouth, denounce the industry.

Yes, Obama is being hypocritical by (very mildly) reproaching the financial industry while asking for and accepting its money. But Wall Street does deserve every reproach leveled at it, and its most prominent figures should be rotting in jail. Maybe if more Americans than just the sadly too-few people of Occupy Wall Street had protested, there would have been real justice instead of a return to business as usual for the banksters.

[TrackerNeil]

So where and when does he start the ruinous, divisive, treasury-draining Land War in Asia?

He'll need another term for that achievement...assuming, of course, there are any other Asian nations Republican administrations haven't already invaded.

[awesome possum]

I must confess that I don't really understand the disillusioned Obama voter (I don't really mean to say that you are one, but it seemed like a good post to pivot off of).

It's almost become one of those things that you hear so often you just start to repeat without really thinking about it.

I agree with you about all the specific things you mentioned. But he is responsible for throwing American citizens in prison indefinitely without charge, which is grossly unconstitutional, plus the assassinations of American citizens abroad that Tormund mentioned uphill. You could cure cancer and I would still have a problem with you if you did those things.

Its already been covered, but I have no problem with killing American citizens who join an overseas group that includes among it's goals killing American citizens. If that guy picked up a gun and shot at American troops and was killed in turn, would you still have a problem with it?

Trisk, I think he's accomplished very little relative to his goals, and done so in a way that has only increased the divisiveness of the country.

This is just clownish right here. Obama has increased the divisiveness of the country?

I mean, I guess you have a point. When one entire political party makes it their goal to obstruct everything that comes their way in order to keep the economy from strengthening so that they can have an easier time winning an election... and the person they want to beat in that election still tries to work with them even though it's fruitless... yeah, I can see how that would be that person's fault. :rolleyes:

Don't be so melodramatic, Kal. We had a combination of Republican House, Senate, and Presidency back in 2000-2006 (as well as a much more politically potent evangelical lobby), and it didn't lead to "the coming darkness". Aside from the disaster that was Iraq, little political change at all happened, except that the country has become much more tolerant of homosexuals and gay marriage when polled.

What happened was that the Republicans screwed up the country so bad they were heavily ousted out of all those majorities, which the far right wing nuts took as divine meaning that the 2000-2006 GOP's namby-pamby liberal ways were too soft and they needed a big shot of Evangelical Jesus Fuck up in this house.

Seriously, worse than all the horrible things they accomplished during that time was perhaps the fact that their eventual ousting led to the rise of the Tea Party and the current religious extremists who have a firm control over the party. Should those fuckers ever get their hands on the wheel, that's it. Lights out.

[Atreides]

He'll need another term for that achievement...assuming, of course, there are any other Asian nations Republican administrations haven't already invaded.

China?

[awesome possum]

So what was Paul's big announcement? I did a brief search and found only a quote of him saying he still hadn't decided yet who he was voting for.

[Sci-2]

So what was Paul's big announcement? I did a brief search and found only a quote of him saying he still hadn't decided yet who he was voting for.

Apparently nothing of note was said, beyond Paul refusing to endorse Mitt Romney.

[Fez]

Apparently nothing of note was said, beyond Paul refusing to endorse Mitt Romney.

Yeah, disappointing that. Was hoping for a curveball.

[Fragile Bird]

Yeah, disappointing that. Was hoping for a curveball.

Could this possibly mean Paul was diverted from his "announcement" and something is going on in the back room? That stopped him from his saying anything last night?

[drawkcabi]

Here is a good post for the disillusioned Obama voter.

I have that book "The New New Deal" on order at the library. I can't wait to read it. I suspect that most of us (myself included) don't fully grasp what all was in ARRA, and that it will be influencing us for years to come.

That article closely sums up my feelings toward Obama's first term. I voted for him in 2008, yes I had hope for change and all that but that did not exceed how I was expecting to be disappointed in him because he's a politician overall and that's what politicians do...they disappoint.

So while there were things I had wanted him to do that he didn't, I am far more impressed by the things he did achieve that for a lot of his campaigning I thought would be just talk.