What Can Obama Really Do?
A zombie argument is going around about why Obama hasn't accomplished liberal and progressive ends to the extent many would have liked him to:
Obama can't do anything because he needs 60 votes in Congress and he doesn't have them because Republicans and Dems like Lieberman and Nelson won't vote for his programs.
This argument is misleading in one sense and incorrect in another. It is misleading in that it misrepresents how things get done in Congress. It is incorrect in that many liberal policies do not require the consent of Congress.
Let's examine the misconceptions this zombie argument is built on.
Negotiation 101
Let's look at how things get done in Congress. Obama apologists make the excuse that Obama couldn't have passed a larger stimulus because he was forced to reduce the stimulus by $100 billion as it was. This line of reasoning demonstrates a misunderstanding of how negotiation (or Congress) works.
If Obama had wanted a $1.2 trillion stimulus, say, he should have asked for a $1.6 trillion stimulus. Then "moderate" Republicans and Dems could have negotiated him down $400K. This is basic negotiation, which anyone who has ever negotiated in a third world bazaar knows—you start off with an offer far higher (or lower) than what you're willing to accept, and leave room for the inevitable haggling.
The same is true of health care reform. If you're negotiating for a public option—if you actually want one, then you don't throw single payer advocates out. You act as if that's something you're seriously considering, you talk about polls showing it has majority support, and you then "compromise" to a public option.
This sort of self-defeating, pre-negotation concession has been a repeated pattern for the Obama administration (assuming that Obama does seek Liberal ends).
Force It Through
Many liberal policies do not require the consent of congress.
The Bush tax cuts were pushed through under reconciliation. Most of health care reform, including a public option could have been accomplished the same way. The tactical choice was entirely at the discretion of the Democratic leadership.
If Obama and Reid can't hold 50 votes, then the problem is them, not the policies themselves, or "how congress works".
Congress: Who Cares about Congress?
Now, let's talk about other issues. There are many areas where Obama does not need Congress's approval.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Obama can issue a stop loss for any soldiers any time he wants. Bang, that's it, at least for as long as he's President.
HAMP (the program supposedly intended to help homeowners, which hasn't): This program is totally under administrative control. If Obama wanted it to work, there's nothing to stop him.
Habeas Corpus: Obama can give everyone in Gitmo their day in court. Restoring habeas corpus is totally at his discretion, and he has chosen not to.
Social Security: After Congress voted down a debt and deficit commission, Obama went ahead and created one anyway--and stacked it with people with track records of wanting to slash Social Security.
In short, Obama has managed to side-step Congress in order to work against Democratic policy positions (e.g., Social Security), but otherwise has ignored executive privilege when he wanted to continue Bush-era policies (e.g., detention without trial at Gitmo) or to ignore the rights and needs of everyday Americans (e.g., HAMP and DADT). To the Obama administration, Congress is a very selective obstacle..
Going Forward: What Obama Can Still Do
Not only could Obama rectify DADT, HAMP, Habeus Corpus, and his Social Security commission with a stroke of his pen, he can still do a great deal to help the economy. If he wants to.
TARP: Obama has complete control of the TARP funds, the majority of which have not been spent. (We're talking over $500 billion in slush funds.) $ 500 billion is a lot of stimulus, if it's done right. Cash for Clunkers, representing a tiny fraction of the total stimulus funds, massively goosed GDP while it was in effect.
Leaving aside direct stimulus, there are plenty of other helpful things Obama could do. For example, as a friend of mine noted, most distressed debt today is selling to collection agencies for less than 10 cents on the dollar (often under 5 cents). The Treasury could buy up $100 billion of that distressed debt at 10 cents on the dollar. Reclaim the money at 15 cents on the dollar through the IRS, and otherwise just write it off. You won't make 50% profit, because some people can't pay even 10%, but you'll almost certainly make some profit. Roll the money over and buy up more debt. Keep doing it. (N.B. In the past such debt didn't sell so cheap, mainly because in the past, pre-Bankruptcy "reform", people who really couldn't pay would declare bankruptcy, but now they can't. Obama never made fixing that horrible bankruptcy bill a priority at all.) Folks would be absolutely thrilled by a way to deal with distressed debt. With the debt off their backs, they could spend again, so it would also be stimulative. There are plenty of other things that could be done with over 500 billion dollars to help ordinary people and goose the economy.
Breaking the Banks (and getting lending going again): The banks have been pretty ungrateful for the massive bailout they received. They have unilaterally increased credit card rates to gouge customers, have been gaming the market (so much so that one quarter many banks didn't lose money on their trading operations even one day of the quarter), have fought against financial reform, and have generally acted against the interests of the majority of Americans. One might say "well, now that they're bailed out, there is nothing we can do about it."
Wrong.
The Fed still holds over $2 trillion in toxic waste from the banks. The banks still hold trillions of dollars of toxic waste. If sold on the open market this stuff would sell for, oh, about 5 cents on the dollar. If forced to mark the assets they are keeping on their books at inflated prices to their actual market value, I doubt there is a single major bank in the country which wouldn't go bankrupt. Including Goldman Sachs.
So here's what you do. As the Federal Reserve you sell $100 billion of the toxic waste on the open market. Set an actual price for it. Then you make the banks mark their assets to market value. They go bankrupt. You nationalize them. (Why no?--They are actually bankrupt after all, and they haven't increased lending like they were supposed to; in fact, they have decreased it.) You make the stockholders take their losses and the bondholders too, then you reinflate the banks. (If the Fed can print trillions to keep zombie banks "alive" it can print money to reinflate nationalized banks.) The banks lend under FDIC and Fed direction, at the interest rates the Fed directs. The FDIC and Fed eventually break the banks up into a reasonable size. And while they're at it, they get rid of the entire executive class which caused the financial crisis, and have the DOJ go over all the internal memos and start charging everyone who committed fraud. (Hint: that's virtually every executive at a major bank.) Again, this is completely up to Obama--the DOJ answers to him.
Think Obama can't do this without Bernanke? Wrong. Obama can fire any Fed Governor for cause and replace them during a Congressional recess with no oversight.* ("Cause" is never defined, but Obama can note that the Fed's mandate includes maximum employment and not stopping the financial crisis in the first place is certainly plausible as cause as well.)
Obama had the power. Obama had the money. Obama has the power--and the money.
The idea that Obama, or any President, is a powerless shrinking violet, helpless in the face of Congress is just an excuse. Presidents have immense amounts of power: the question is whether or not they use that power, and if they do, what they use it for.
Obama has a huge slush fund with hundreds of billions of dollars and all the executive authority he needs to turn things around.
If Obama is not using that money and authority, the bottom line is it's because he doesn't want to.
Putting aside the question of what Obama could have accomplished already, if he wants to help everyday Americans, turn around Democratic approval ratings in time for the midterm elections, and leave behind him a legacy of achievemant, he can still do it. If he wants to.
Endnote:
*"2. Members Ineligible to Serve Member Banks; Term of Office; Chairman and Vice Chairman
The members of the Board shall be ineligible during the time they are in office and for two years thereafter to hold any office, position, or employment in any member bank, except that this restriction shall not apply to a member who has served the full term for which he was appointed. Upon the expiration of the term of any appointive member of the Federal Reserve Board in office on the date of enactment of the Banking Act of 1935, the President shall fix the term of the successor to such member at not to exceed fourteen years, as designated by the President at the time of nomination, but in such manner as to provide for the expiration of the term of not more than one member in any two-year period, and thereafter each member shall hold office for a term of fourteen years from the expiration of the term of his predecessor, unless sooner removed for cause by the President. "12 USC 242
for women just doesn't cut it. He made a few token decisions early on but overall Obama has betrayed the liberal/progressive cause, over and over and over again.
I surely will not ever vote for him, no progressive should. Too bad we don't have a valid third party that is progressive.
Obama and the so-called liberals have caved to the same corporate interests, there are only a few true progressive people in Congress, one being Kucinich. The rest are selling us out, with no hesitation.
of course Obama is not following the progressive cause
hes not stupid
following a progressive agenda is intelligent and smart. Playing it safe only wins short term. Playing it conservative invites disasters, again.
What I urge is for the progressives to run a candidate: Russ Feingold, Sheldon Whitehouse of RI, Al Franken, Grayson and I'm sure there are other progressives in Congress, but I'm embarrassed to admit I don't know the names of the many wonderful men and women in the House who are progressives because, well, I live in America and they don't receive any press coverage.
Howard Dean (if he renounces his ridiculous remarks about "the mosque at ground zero"), Noam Chomsky, Akhil Ahmar, Mike Gravel, Howard Zinn even dead is better than most who are alive. These are just a few Americans that might be able to make a difference? I'm not joking.
Do ya get it?
I thought I was the only one saying these things or seeing them.
BTW, I voted for the President and probably will again just because it would 1 trillion times worse with the gop - been there done that for 8 years - BUT we all need to acknowledge the points in this essay.
You'll feel better
...he uses big words like 'particularly' and 'delicatessen.' -- Jack
in many ways obama has helped this country move forward, BUT
his continuous personal need to compromise with the right is WRONG.
his leadership skills to win votes starts in the wrong place, you don't
bargain with the other side from the middle having thrown out all
your chips in the trash and then saying, here you can have it all and more,
just vote yes. what a bunch of bullshit.
if obama and the currently elected democrats in congress give into
the gop and give them an extension of the bush tax cuts for the rich,
then fuck obama and the democrats. and if obama and the democrats
even touch medicare and social security, then they can kiss their asses goodbye
in the next election. social security is sound, just raise the cap on
the income support and the wealthy can pay their fair share into it.
i am a livelong democrat, but i don't support political cowards.
When Obama first won the presidential election he enjoyed huge political capital . Most Americans not in the far right believed that he would be a visionary and transformative president. Because of too many concessions made to corporations, Wall Street and the "righties" along with too much backsliding regarding progressive issues Independents, progressives and working class people have lost faith in him. Without these people in his political base Obama has no chance of winning in 2012.
I hope that he does the right thing by making an announcement soon that he will not be running for a second term.so that the Democrats can present a viable candidate in 2012.
"if obama and the currently elected democrats in congress give into
the gop and give them an extension of the bush tax cuts for the rich,
then fuck obama and the democrats"
I don't get why you think even if he didn't "extend the tax cuts," which is a no-brainer, is nearly enough or proof that Obama is fit to be president.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIWsMKZt3Eg
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
he's been informed that the system is so fragile that if he dares to disturb even one teensy-weensy part of it -- for instance, by throwing some executives from Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, et cetera, into federal prison -- that said system will fly to pieces in a fortnight.
farcical...This does not take into consideration the impact on the World economy..which would cause blood in the streets! Nationalize the banks after bankrupting them --please! What they --congress needs to do is force a mark to market on the toxic assets. Instead of allowing the Paulsen team to continue to pay !00% of the inflated face value on those assets and make Goldman pay back the monies paid to them thru the AIG bailout... It would not be pretty!
The other solutions I need to research..sounds like a strong issue with DADT is the major point from this author!
And, two months from the elections, what function do these mostly true points have? How about keeping progressives confused and dispirited when their real foes, the Republicans, are "full of passionate intensity"?
Yes. What Obama has done, he has done. He is still 100 times better than the alternative. Do I have to make this point over and over?
It's a bit like the Republicans. They say the "stimulus isn't working," when we know the problem is, it wasn't big enough. Well, if you stay away from the polls to teach Obama a lesson, what have you done? Guaranteed that he can no longer act in any way. His time will be taken up with congressional investigations into Reverend Wright and Obama's birth certificate.
Lobby the Democratic establishment to be more bold. I'm with you. But this is election time. To speak now, you have to have something better to say than, "I told you so!"
... are saying "I told you so" because they have been screaming in the wilderness about Obama the bogus liberal, while others yell at them "Racist!", "Teabagger!", "Troll!". Now that Obama's intentions are to his supporters as murky as it always has been to those who LISTENED TO WHAT HE SAID during the election, we are still painted with a brush of "wrongness" by saying we are only saying, "I told you so!"
I sure as hell told you so, and nobody listened. People lambasted me again and again, and now I see the same people saying the SAME EXACT THINGS that I was saying even before he was elected. Stupidity knows no party.
Open your eyes, people. You're competing with trillions of dollars of spending cash. Your stupid ideas of social justice, caring for the least of us and stopping wars are quaint and ridiculous to Obama and his administration. They are Bush Lite. We (the liberals, the progressives) are "fucking idiots" - Rahm Emmanuel.
The longer you wait to protest Obama's policies of enrichment for the rich, the harder it is to expect that someone left of Attila the Hun will be elected.
________________________________________________
Socialist, atheistic, musical, legal marijuana smoker, voter, father, husband, son, valued (by some) community member, Steely Dan fan
"Some people are saying "I told you so" because they have been screaming in the wilderness about Obama the bogus liberal, while others yell at them "Racist!", "Teabagger!", "Troll!". Now that Obama's intentions are to his supporters as murky as it always has been to those who LISTENED TO WHAT HE SAID during the election, we are still painted with a brush of "wrongness" by saying we are only saying, "I told you so!""
I agree with you completely. I have cut way back on my visitation here because I simply got my gut filled of all the invective I have received in this joint. As a result, my opinion of "Crooks & Liars" has been severely damaged. You and I can scream and yell until the cows come home, but in the end no one will listen to us because they just can't listen, just won't listen, or lack the intellectual acuity to grasp what we are saying.
'
I agree with Ians post. Obama wasn't my first or second choice. I grasp the problems.
I also agree with those who say the way to make it worse is to go further right or McCain/Palin.
I think if one imagines they are going to convince a progressive to vote for a conservative they may want to develop a little more perspective. That is precisely the complaint that is being made here.
Well come on back. There's plenty of like minded folks here
I remember telling people that Obama was a no good SOB two days after the election, when he fired the real democratic champion - Dr. Dean; and hired that DLC Clinton corporate coke sucker Rahm Emmanuel.
I was also ridiculed and dismissed.
Man I wish I would have been wrong!
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
hi
Boehner/McConnell thank all of you from the bottom of their hearts. Especially the REAL Americans like the hack that wrote this article! A true patriot.
Obama's Administration can't stay on topic from one day to the next.
One day, it's "We're all for a strong public option", the next, it's "a public option isn't necessary".
For all the whining about "Oh, Obama's only the President, what can he really do against the Congress?", it's interesting that when it came to getting Bernanke another term at the Fed, Obama twisted arms and cracked heads for that Senate approval, and it worked.
Too bad Obama's NOT willing to do the same for unabashedly liberal/progressive legislation, which means Obama's a corporate shill as much as any of the GOP.
Decided that health insurers needed tens of billions of taxpayer dollars annually, as opposed to putting them on as short and tight a regulatory leash as possible.
Decided that a light touch with financial regulation legislation was far better than long prison terms, draconian fines and stripping of corporate charters.
And what makes things even worse is that, the only chance those two examples of drastically watered-down legislation have to work effectively is strong oversight and regulation, but, since Obama's a "look forward, not backward", and "we need light, not heat" kind of guy, it doesn't look as if the financial services and health insurance industry have anything to worry about as they game the system.
There's no point to the liberals and labor unions doing the GOTV efforts for the Democratic party when it panders to the blue dogs and makes nice with teabaggers and wingnuts like Michelle Bachmann and Steve King, while simultaneously slapping around the liberals and labor unions.
The libs and labor unions have NOT seen their agendas enacted by Obama or the Dems, and the chances those issues will be pushed with fewer Democrats in the Congress is exactly Zero.
But I suppose that ought to be the Democrats new motto, "vote for us, we're slightly less evil and incompetent than the Republicans".
I don't see him stepping forward for Elizabeth Warren. Dawn Johnsen did a lot of waiting for nothing also. They just let her hang in the wind. Sorry to be crude but barry is an elitist smuck and truly gutless.
He may have sucked and sucked hard, but W. got every damn thing he wanted with only a 51 majority.
isn't needed to push forward many of the things listed in the article above.
But you're correct. The dems were wimpy and allowed the gop to pass stuff with reconciliation. The current majority is also too wimpy to use that rule to further the progressive agenda because they're not liberal/progressive at all.
become so stupid that Harry Reid might actually have a race on his hands against Sharron Angle who is mocked even by her own party.
"this sucker is going down".
That Obama has been a disappointment is becoming clearer and clearer to his rabid supporters. I had no lofty expectations of Obama, he pretty much detailed his aversion to progressive ideas during the campaign. However, what I do fault him for is the whole HOPE/CHANGE thing. Great slogan, but the hope has died on the vine, and people are much more pissed at him than is he had been more out front about his intentions re: change. He supports the idea that corporations are more important than individuals (meaning he supports the idea that corporations are individuals). The hope that he brought is hope for the rabid right wing to take over again and finish the destruction of America they started during the Reagan years, and perfected during the term of anti-American, anti-constitution Bush and Cheney and crew.
Progressives and REAL liberals have been left in the dust of corporations rushing to feed at the public trough. Doesn't make sense for the average citizen, doesn't make sense for small independent businesses. It makes sense if you believe in "trickle-down" economics.
What Obama stands for seems to me to be non-sense. We need a hero, not a lawyer. In America's past were presidents who became leaders while they were stinking rich, but were able to see the needs of the poorest as important, and we need another one of those, badly. We're heading into some rough times, and this president has no idea how to bring us together as a nation. He's not even trying. He's full of excuses, but he's all hat and no cattle, as Molly Ivins used to say.
Who's to blame? The army of Obama-bots, who thought the world of Obama when he was campaigning, then made excuses for him when everyone should have been rightfully indignant at his strange need to assuage the right wing and the corporations. Their inability to think of Obama as anything but the second coming has been the license he needed to completely ignore the left and pander to the right.
________________________________________________
Socialist, atheistic, musical, legal marijuana smoker, voter, father, husband, son, valued (by some) community member, Steely Dan fan
is billed as a book about "... the death of reading in the young". Its only major defect, so
far as I can tell, is that I'm even seeing the death of reading in the middle-class
and elderly.
...someone here told it like it is. Both dems and repubs are blocking help for the middle class. This is no longer left v. right, it's up v. down. What Obama should do is end fractional reserve lending, declare derivatives to be unregulated gambling by executive order, reinstate glass/steagall and the pre-2005 bankruptcy law, move the fed into the Treasury and give everyone a national dividend equal to the gap between GDP and incomes (about 3 trillion). There- economic crisis solved! Check out richard cook's new book or sovereignmoney for more info. Will we do the right thing? I doubt it.
before the first week was over.
The rich and powerful like the status quo, and they aren't worried about the niceties of law.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/196725/thumbs/r-SLE...
very well laid out.
such as this one. Nuff said.
GROW A SET !!!!
Rahm put massive Democratic money into electing the blue dog Dems that have been blocking passage of the progressive platform and put them in charge of formulating the Senatorial HCR bill with Republicans. He even bragged that the 50-state strategy of 2006 was his idea, after it succeeded..
When the White House was petitioned by his former campaign workers to fight to the end for, at least, the Public Option, David Axelrod said that these were just naive people who never participated in elections anyway and were unimportant. Oh, yes, and President Obama met with and had an agreement with Health Care Insurance executives prior to beginning the push for reform. Did we ever get an explanation of the nature of that agreement. Nope, national security, I guess, like Cheney's meeting with Big Oil execs before the invasion of Iraq, although we did get a copy of the map.
That Obama creates an advisory panel of Social Security/Medicare haters is no great surprise.
I'd like to hear what he has changed regarding NOLA since his speech after the weekend and what agreement he made with BP allowing them to control the Gulf after the spill.
With the Supreme Court teetering, I'll vote for any Democratic presidential nominee, but send my donations to ActBlue and the like. I'll also work for progressive candidates. There will be challengers to Obama.
Paul C
"What Can Obama Really Do?"
With the shape that this country is in, this is a heck of a time to be posing this question. This should have been brought up in 2008.
Obama should have spent less time pressing the flesh and more time reading up on how past presidents handled this country's problems, all the way from Washington to George W. Bush.
The last time I checked, the American Presidency was not set up for on-the-job training.
I will be laughing my ass off while Obummer gets his ass handed to him by his buddies the RapeUglicans(who are not above looking back).
Very appropriate handle.
Within a few succinct paragraphs you have managed to expose the total abject failure of the Obama administration to promulgate the progressive ideals to which he professed during his Presidential campaign.
Between the issuance of Executive Orders, recess appointments, effective use of the bully pulpit, initiating political negotiations from positions of strength, and using the shear power and prestige of the Office of the President, many of the liberal or progressive or populist planks of the Democratic Party of FDR could have been realized but never happened. This, in spite of the preponderance of ConservaDems and DINOs in the Congress to resist any such leftward movement of the "Ship of State".
The only possible explanations which might issue forth are:
(1) that Obama is far too reliant upon the bad political advice of his staff;
(2) that Obama fears the exposure and pitfalls of expressing true political leadership;
or
(3) that Obama is far more conservative (a Reagan Democrat?) than he ever revealed.
My vote, as an Independent Leftist and a relatively neutral outsider to the Democratic Party, is that Obama is actually a politician of that 3rd kind, a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing Reagan Democrat. Unfortunately, this politician is not up to the task at hand -- steering this country from the brink of the disaster that was the 8 years of George W. Bush mis-governance. Obama does not deserve a second term, at least not based upon what he has accomplished to date. Nor do most of the incumbent ConservaDems and DINOs in the Senate, as well as those irascible ConservaDems in the House.
I say vote all those incumbents out of office, one biannual election at a time. Any short term loss of Democratic political power is IMHO well-deserved. The Democratic Party can either adapt, or like the dinosaur, die off. I'm fully in support of a progressive political party with whose platform I can 100% agree, the USA Green Party.
< http://www.therealdifference.org/issues.html > well illustrates my political position ...
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
My beef with Obama is he keeps (foolishly) reaching out to those who want him and this country of ours to FAIL. The GOP, the Bailout Bandits, Fox News and the Teabaggers would love to see him drown. Yet Obama keeps asking those same people for input...while ignoring his base. You know, the ones that got him elected.
The health care and stimulus bills both could have been bigger and better if Obama hadn't bowed down to Orange Man and the creeps. Bush the r***** did so much damage to this country without 60 damn votes. I'm trying to stay positive, but Obama needs to MAN THE F*** UP.
NOBODY 2012
and do you know why that is? Because Dems legislate while Repukes masturbate. Doesn't matter who the prez is or who controls the house and senate.
Spot on.
Exactly the kinds of things FDR would have done.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
Although I despise the Repugs, there is a part of me that wishes they win big in the midterm election. Then these Obama hatin idiots can get what they truly want. Which seems to be a getting republicans elected so they can work thier magic again.
The Racist repubs are calling Obama a Nazi and everything else in the book, they are calling him the most extreme president ever.
After we (the dems) have seen the Repugs act with nothing but hatred towards Obama the so called Perfect lefties a more than willing to let the repugs have power again.
And all because in thier deluded little brains Obama is just as bad or very close to bieng as bad as the republicans.
What a bunch of of immature children.
I sure don't ever want to be called a perfect lefty, but Obama is closer to a Neocon than anything else.
I don't care how insane the tea bagger wingnuts are, or what they call Obama, they're driveling morons.
But I do care that Obama has sold out the progressive cause. Tell me were he wasn't?
... you are threatening of picking up your toys and leave, and yet you chastise "lefties" as immature Children?
So apparently Dems also want in the runaway projectile delusions of the GOP's main MO. Yay!
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Did you take the wrong meds or something?
Obama has been a republican-lite.
When the country is dying because of 8 years of radical right wing fascism, tiny little DLC republican-lite tweaks - ain't gonna cut it.
What part of that don't you understand?
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
"Then these Obama hatin idiots can get what they truly want. Which seems to be a getting republicans elected so they can work thier magic again. "
Show me ONE person with genuine criticism of Obama who wants the Republicans back in power.
It seems to me that you are slap bang in the middle of the knee-jerk "support the Dems no matter what" mentality, and can brook no criticism at all of the President or his party. That's a very authoritarian-loving-Republican attitude, in my book.
Get this through your head. Saying that Obama and the Democrats are not progressive ENOUGH, is NOT THE SAME as wanting the Republicans to win.
If you can't see that, you should go back to kindergarten or something.
The one I like best is the zombie argument that Obama need only have pissed in more of the Republicans bowls of cornflakes to compel them to cooperate. Another wonderfully superficial argument Ian. I wish I'd had a time machine so that I could have known the stimulus needed to be bigger. That was something even Krugman was not sure about at the time. Your hindsight is twenty twenty. Give yourself a pat on the back.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
n/t
Pleeeeze.
You haven't been paying attention for the past two plus years, eh Peter G?
Krugman, Dean Baker, Galbreath, Ian, Yves Smith and a whole host of left-of-center economists and business analysts were decrying the "small" stimulus package in real time.
Now that all of their predictions have come to fruition, you claim ignorance? It's your fault for not listening to those in the know - who provided bundles of statistical data to support their conclusions - instead you chose to sip from the ObotJuice. The Juice was based entirely on the Hope
Changeand Prayer method.We now see how successful that was?
You can't just pull facts out of thin air. See Krugman's column. Apparently the difference between you and I is I actually read what he says.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
... given the very disingenuous angle you have provided to that linked article. But it is interesting to see you hit the ground and run with that.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
... from the get go.
But who needs facts and reality when pushing an agenda, right?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
that is true. Krugman said it should have been 2 to 4 times bigger I think. Which of course would have been out of the question even if Obama had 70 seats in the Senate.
At the time he thought 600 billion would be sufficient.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
... if you actually read the actual article you linked to he was referring to pure stimulus spending, not a mixture of spending and tax cuts.
Read my above links (not really holding my breath) about his actual assessment of the passed stimulus.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
it would be big enough not that it wasn't and he was practically unique in going that far at the time.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Here's Krugman's column where he calculates the stimulus package should be as high as 600 billion. It is from 2008. The real stimulus package was bigger. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/s...
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Krugman referred to actual SPENDING, the "stimulus" contained a significant amount of tax cuts, so the stimulus did not imply an actual a spending of 600 billions of dollars.
BTW, besides the fact that post refers to Krugman bare minimum estimate of how big the stimulus was supposed to be.
Here is what he had to say about the actually passed stimulus, you know what we were actually talking about:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/s...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/w...
http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/krugman-s...
But as I said, damned be facts when it comes to your narrative. Which as far as I can tell is "Obama GOOOD, everything else BAAAAD" OK, got it.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
names no figure but speculates that the stimulus might be too low. And your second link, after the stimulus package was passed argues that specific cuts in the range of forty billion were a bad idea. Who pulled the trillion dollar number out of their ass? Wasn't me.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
The real stimulus was $780,000,000,000, of which nearly half went to worthless GOP tax cuts for the rich!
Because when you have 20-25% unemployment, what people really need are tax cuts?
Funny how these pricks can steal $2.1 trillion from the SS fund and give 90% of it to millionaires who pay very little or nothing into the fund.
But investing in the country? No can do.
By the way, Krugman was actually saying the stimulus needed to be $1.3 trillion to be effective, and that $600 billion would be the absolute minimum to "perhaps" restart the economy?
Of course President Obama (r), decided to settle for only 75% of even that.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
dating from 2008 where Krugman said any such thing. You know back when the size of the package was being debated.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Go to his blog at the NYTimes "conscience of a liberal." He stated this in several articles before and after the election. You can still read all of them. I go back and reread some of them. He really does seem to have a crystal ball on the failures of GOP and DLC policies, right down to the percentage point.
His books are like a look into the future.
Why Obama would hire Larry "the derivatives guy" Summers over Krugman is almost as painful as his choice of Rahm over Dr. Dean.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
Yeah, Dean truly got the shaft from Obama and Company as did The American People. The elitists truly screwed everyone. To look back at all the celebrating for a new beginning with "hope and change" and "nobody is above the law" they pulled the ultimate sucker shot, a crime against humanity. Barry and Associates are true slime balls for deceiving so many people around the world. Barack Obama appointed eleven members of the Trilateral Commission to top-level and key positions in his administration within his first ten days in office. Not to mention the Zionist faction that is so insidious throughout his brain dead advisory and government. It's like we elected Emanuel as President not Mr. Compromise with a dash of spineless. My bet is on Obama walking after his first and last term. He will have accomplished enough for the powers that be. He and Tony Blair can swap war stories.
Check into the Hotel Reality.
If Bush could do what he wanted as an selected (unelected) president with 50+ Cheney in the Senate, and 222-213 in Hammer's House; don't give me this bulls**t about what he couldn't do!
He didn't do it, because the lying SOB didn't want too! Period! End of story!
He IS the republican Manchurian president. If this jacka** would have been elected in 32', we would probably have fought along side of Nazi Germany.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
Is this commercial on before or after the commercial asking for jobs on behalf of the American People?
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
In order to look ahead let's look behind at all his 'failures'.
Surely this is an iron clad case for more 'inaction' in the future:
1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending
2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices
3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women
4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
6. Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information
7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier’s family
8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act
9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible
10. Limits on lobbyist’s access to the White House
11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration
12. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date
13. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren’t even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan
14. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
15. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research
16. New federal funding for science and research labs
17. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards
18. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect
19. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools
20. New funds for school construction
21. The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out
22. US Auto industry rescue plan
23. Housing rescue plan
24. $789 billion economic stimulus plan
25. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying
26. US financial and banking rescue plan
27. The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed
28. Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards
29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops
30. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010
31. Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols
32. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic
33. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions
34. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office
35. Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job
36. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast
37. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles
38. Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales
39. Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government
40. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children
41. Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program
42. Instituted a new policy on Cuba , allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones
43. Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions
44. Expanding vaccination programs
45. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters
46. Closed offshore tax safe havens
47. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
48. Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back
49.. Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry’s predatory practices
50. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources
51. Lower drug costs for seniors
52. Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings
53. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel
54. Improved housing for military personnel
55. Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses
56. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals
57. Increasing student loans
58. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program
59. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy
60. Established a new cyber security office
61. Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
62. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts
63. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness
64. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient
65. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced
66. Improving benefits for veterans
67. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration
68. Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud
69. The FDA is now regulating tobacco
70. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules
71. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports
72. Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons
73. Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive
74. Making more loans available to small businesses
75. Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare
76. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court
77. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans
78. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000
79. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel
80. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan
81. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan
82. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans
83. Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production
84. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters
85. Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket
86. Held first Seder in White House
87. Attempting to reform the nation’s healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves almost 50 million without health insurance and millions more under insured
88. Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform
89. Has announced his intention to push for energy reform
90. Has announced his intention to push for education reform
... things he did and should have, things he didn't do and shouldn't have, things he did and shouldn't have or things he didn't do but should have?
I am puzzled.
If you need funds to pay for essentials, you have a revenue problem
If you need funds to pay for frivolity, you have a spending problem
Yes, obviously you are.
He has helped to trash the Constitution better than anyone previous including Bush Jr.
It's oblivious after reading this list, it is just a bunch of fluff, and I suspect it is probably the work of someone akin to Valerie Jarrett and company indirectly from the White House. Jarrett pulls the same crap down at Huff Post with cutesy daily reports on Michelle's fashion statements and travel plans using her children as political props. Do you really think progressives believe points such as # 81 and or # 79 are in any way positive. This list is full of BS fluff and padding. Obama apologists are part of the problem that hinders any real change in the system.
Ha....yea, like VJ has nothing better to do than hang out at C&L.
LOL........are you doing your routine all week? How are the tips in this joint?
To all Valerie Jarrett's and Mr. Emanuels paid for Barry apologists that keep flooding honest discussion amongst progressives that pray for real change in our country not the "slick willy" kind. After the Bush Fiasco The American People deserve much better.
we're still in both afghanistan and iraq. wishing and doing are not, by definition, equivalent. has conveniently ignored all the promises he made, about getting rid of DADT, in the military. still there, still destroying lives, careers and combat effectiveness.
has still not learned, after 22 months in office, that playing nice with the republicans is a no-win situation. obama is either much dumber than i gave him credit for, or he just doesn't give a shit, you make the call.
instead of listening to economists, like dr. paul krugman, who actually have a clue, he worries, needlessly, about what wall street might think, sometime in the future, about the deficit. as a consequence, the economy sucks more than it should.
somehow, obama paying out of his own pocket, for remodeling, doesn't make up for his apparent obliviousness, regarding important issues, that affect 300 million other people.
And that cancer thing. Why has that not been solved yet? Typical Obama failure....pffft!
I never expected Obama to solve cancer. That requires a scientific solution, not a political solution.
But I did expect a public option, so that people who get cancer can get treatment.
I know, far-out lefty wack-a-loon thinking.
Obama da' man!
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
Then elect more progressives and move the country further to the left instead of sitting on your asses during midterms. Many just don't vote at all ever then constantly complain that marijuana should be legal blah blah.
You think you just had to elect Obama and critisize him (from day one).
First of all, education doesn't need reformed. It just needs the idiot politicians to shut up and leave the good schools alone! Concentrate on the poor schools. Oh, but the reason they are poor, is because they are economically poor, which is a problem that Obama isn't really into.
He doesn't need to look into cutting agencies that provide public services that are needed.
How about taxing the rich. You could take 75% of what they have tomorrow, and they would still have more money than they could spend if they lived 1000 years.
Or how about reigning in Wall Street and fleecing the criminals, instead of letting the criminals fleece us?
And how about taxing corporations? Especially the ones who outsource.
And since the Koch's and Murdoch's of the world have so many billions that they can use them in anti-american nefarious ways in order to avoid taxes; that tells me they can afford to pay a 10% yearly wealth tax on their fortunes. That ought to give the evil SOB's something to think about for a little while.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
But what have you done for me lately. President Obama has done way more for progressives and us people who still call ourselves liberal, than any previous Democratic president...PERIOD. If we just compare him to the last Democratic president, Clinton, he's done more for the progressive agenda then Clinton did in 8 years. In fact, some would argue that with welfare reform, Clinton took us backwards. I would also add that Clinton was the main reason the Democratic party veered to the middle....remember the DLC? Harold Ford Jr. type democrats.....that was a Clinton thing. So when Obama tries to govern closer to the middle, similar to Clinton with a much more abused filibuster, people call him Bush. WTF is wrong with you people? Do you hate Rahm so much that you want to take the whole damn country down with him? What is your real motivation? I really want to know.
They are just whiners.
I am looking forward to Repukes taking more seats and wanting to bring back witch burning and the spanish inquistion. Then they will REALLY have something to whine about.
But....they haven't earned the right because they probably were too busy whining to even vote in the midterm. That is also another typical progressive characteristic. Then they wonder why their unrealistic progressive agenda is not happening. It's a self fulfilling circle jerk with these people.
............witch burning,.....spanish inquisition.........?????
That's pretty damn funny, and frightening too - considering the election comes right after HALLOWEEN.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
I've heard more and more commenters saying they are going to stay home in November, that will show them. They probably have never voted in the first place and are using it as their excuse-of-the-year. I'm getting to the point where I don't want Jane Hamser, Cenk Uygur, Taylor Marsh, Ian Welsh and the rest of the "firebaggers" in my Democratic Party. Find some other party to torment and weaken, we don't want you anymore.
The policies they support are pretty the same as Obama's, and you won't find any pesky progressives there.
Are you trying to recruit people to go into the GOp?
I'm seeing a pattern here.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
It's obvious an irreparable schism has emerged in the Democratic Party between the liberal base and the conservative establishment. For the good of the country, one side or the other is going to have to go elsewhere, and probably to the GOP, since it's the only viable political alternative in the U.S. I would prefer that the conservatives leave, but that seems highly unlikely, since they control the Democratic Party. On the other hand, it would be difficult for progressives to have any influence in the GOP, but then again, they couldn't have any less influence there than they do in the Democratic Party.
But it makes no sense to me.
The way I see it, people need to get more active and elect more grassroot Liberals into the House and Senate.Voting out the bluedogs and people posing as something their not. Starting at the ground level with local communities.
Leaving the party and joining the GOp? Yeah, that'll work.
You're a genius.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
They've controlled the Democratic Party for 18 years, and they will continue to control it for years to come, as 99% of incumbents are renominated in the primaries. Even if there were some desire for change among the voters, the New Democrat bosses are using the party machinery to keep progressive challengers off the ballot.
Maybe you have more patience than I do, but 18 years of trying to change the Democrats is enough for me. While moving to the GOP might sound like a crazy idea, it's no less crazy than expecting a bunch of ultra-conservative Democrats to suddenly become champions of progress. If you recall, Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, and in terms of domestic policy at least, he was probably the most progressive President this country has ever had. He was to the GOP what Clinton was to the Democrats, and I see no reason why we couldn't elect another *maverick* as President. In fact, it's almost certain that any movement to the left in this country is going to have to come from an unexpected source, which likely means a Republican.
After that disaster, the left came closer to the center. Same with Mondale.
Going to the far left is inviting disaster.
Better to be in a position to try to change things, than be on the outside looking in.
If you haven't noticed, the GOp has a very radical agenda.
This is not to be taken lightly. If you think this admin is bad, you must think the last one had some good qualities. Nothing could be further from the truth. But you keep on tryin. You must get lonely being out there on your own. Or, maybe your not alone out there. At any rate, What you're suggesting is kinda nuts. But go ahead.
If the GOp do take back the majority,I'm sure you'll be quite happy.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
After Clinton, Republicans really had nowhere to go but the right. They had to try and differentiate themselves from the Democrats, and they obviously weren't going to move left so soon after the electoral success of the Reagan years. Of course the Democrats - whose entire ideology now consists of mimicking the GOP - keep following them to the right, which in turns forces the GOP even further to the right. This vicious circle has been going on for 18 years, and it's gotten completely out of hand. Somebody needs to step up and tell Obama and the Democrats they've gone too far with this nonsense, and if you people are just going to govern like Republicans, then there's no purpose in anyone voting for you over Republicans.
So, you agree with the far rights agenda. I must assume that you are in favor of their agenda. Since you so strongly advocate voting GOp.
Thanks but no thanks.
As many faults as BC had, he still created 20 million jobs. He still gave the country a surplus. That ain't bad. Mimicking the GOp's agenda? I disagree. I've posted evidence of this numerous times.
If you choose to ignore this, that's your prerogative.
By voting for the GOp, you risk putting the very same people who drove this country into a ditch back in control.. That doesn't make any sense to me.
But, I can see furthering this discussion is pointless.
You have a nice day.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Is it unrealistic to expect Obama not to support a private health insurance mandate (as he promised during the campaign)?
Is it unrealistic to expect Obama to end DADT with a simple executive order?
Is it unrealistic to expect Obama not to endorse the assassination of American citizens?
Is it unrealistic to expect Obama not to hand out more mountaintop removal permits to coal companies?
Is it unrealistic to expect the federal government take the lead in the Gulf cleanup?
I don't think any of these expectations are *unrealistic* unless you're talking about a Republican President, and Obama wasn't elected as a Republican.
What has he done then in terms of actual liberal legislation... "liberal" for "real"
Examples should be easy to come up with, no?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Seeing as you are incapable of using Google:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/16/8...
Complete with video, audio, photos, transcripts, links. But I'm sure you will refuse to accept any of it. Your head is firmly in the sand or maybe you're just another troll.
as abysmally ignorant. Someone told him he should be pissed so he's pissed.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
... there is nothing more intelligent, sophisticated and proves superior level of education than half assed condescending name calling.
I simply asked for a simple list, how the burden of the proof of a previous poster's claim is on my shoulders to the point of being insulted for it... honestly, is beyond my "feeble" brain I guess. But then again, I noticed none of you provide an actual answer and simply resorted to name calling. Quite telling.
Have y'all a nice day. It seems some of you are operating under the impression that this website should act as an official PR branch of the Dem party.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
where your only reponse to others posts, including mine, is just a lame insult. You do it all the time. Frankly I don't give a damn since I don't really think you have the knowledge or the insight to comment on most issues. But for pity's sake if you must whine about it don't do it.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Don't run around the threads calling people with whom you disagree 'trolls.' It's off topic and flamebait.
either obama is really just not a very bright man, or he just really doesn't give two nanny-goat shits. either way, he's proved the correctness of my having voted for clinton in the primary.
... Obama was not enough of a corporate tool, if you think Mrs. Clinton is the better alternative in this case.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
you're too funny!
... Obama is a center-right politician, if you see him from a center-right political lens he has actually been quite a successful president.
We need to stop trying to make a "one size" fits all when it comes to liberal politics, we have ZERO representation in this administration. Period. He is not interested in liberal policies, and liberals should stop being obligate to vote for him. Let the Dems get votes the old fashion way: by earning them.
I am just tired of being told to shut the fuck and vote Dem in November or the kitten gets it if the GOP wins. What would happen if the GOP wins? Will they create a commission to "gut" Social Security and stack it with republicans? Oh... wait.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
The firedog crowd seems to have a litmus test...one size fits all - mentality.
Hey...Obama finally got the GOP to pass the unemployment extension.
Now THAT was "change" the people really needed.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
"Negotiation 101
Let's look at how things get done in Congress. Obama apologists make the excuse that Obama couldn't have passed a larger stimulus because he was forced to reduce the stimulus by $100 billion as it was. This line of reasoning demonstrates a misunderstanding of how negotiation (or Congress) works.
If Obama had wanted a $1.2 trillion stimulus, say, he should have asked for a $1.6 trillion stimulus. Then "moderate" Republicans and Dems could have negotiated him down $400K. This is basic negotiation, which anyone who has ever negotiated in a third world bazaar knows—you start off with an offer far higher (or lower) than what you're willing to accept, and leave room for the inevitable haggling."
Should be "Simplicity 101"
First off, calling us Obama supporters "apologists" sucks ass. Do you expect me to listen to you after being called an apologist? You should cut that shit out if you want to have a real discussion. In congress, the negotiations often start out with one side saying we will not go above this amount, so don't even think about it. We don't know what the Ben Nelson's, Joe Lieberman's and the rest of the egotistical asshats said behind closed doors.
What world bazaar has 100 people who all have the power to stop the negotiation? Your simplistic example really is just that, something for the bottom feeders to gobble up. You going for the tea party crowd now, Ian?
"The same is true of health care reform. If you're negotiating for a public option—if you actually want one, then you don't throw single payer advocates out. You act as if that's something you're seriously considering, you talk about polls showing it has majority support, and you then "compromise" to a public option.
This sort of self-defeating, pre-negotation concession has been a repeated pattern for the Obama administration (assuming that Obama does seek Liberal ends)."
Joe Lieberman came right out on national television and said he would filibuster if there was a public option. I'm sure there were many others behind the scenes saying the same thing. You act as if the entire negotiation was in public view, in this regards you are just being naive. Washington has all sorts of back room meetings and phone calls and arm twisting and other things that hinge on bribery. Do you just stick your head in the sand on that or do you really not know how things ACTUALLY work in Washington?
Your snarky and oh so clever "assuming that Obama does seek LIberal ends" line just reveals your pettiness and complete lack of account for all things he has done for progressives. See thx 11380's comment where he lists a ton of stuff that this president has done for the progressive cause. That comment has no basis except maybe in petty jealousy or hatred.
"If Obama and Reid can't hold 50 votes, then the problem is them, not the policies themselves, or "how congress works".
What is the basis for this, nothing, it's just conjecture. And then poo pooing "how congress works" as if it is a cliche' instead of reality is nothing more than denial. If you've ever watched C-Span for any length of time, you learn "how congress works" and it ain't pretty. But let's just dismiss it, because damn it, if President Obama really wanted it, he would just do it, right? More naivete'.....
Don't Ask, Don't Tell:
Coming soon to a congress near you....a real law, not some executive order that can be changed by Newt Gingrich when you and your kind get him elected in 2012.
HAMP
"As of the end of April, servicers participating in HAMP had converted almost 300,000 permanent modifications." Screw those 300,000 people, they weren't real mortgages anyway, right?
Habeas Corpus:
You didn't present any evidence to refute, must not have any, huh?
"Social Security: After Congress voted down a debt and deficit commission, Obama went ahead and created one anyway--and stacked it with people with track records of wanting to slash Social Security."
What they voted down was a commission that had power to enact law, they didn't like that idea of taking away their power. And the whole demagoguing of the Deficit Commission is getting old, everyone is getting their panties in a bunch about something that probably will not happen (cutting Social Security) from a commission that has absolutely no power. What a monumental waste of time. And pigs might fly some day.
This next paragraph is a perfect example of the craziness that has infiltrated the left.....assuming you are on the left, Ian.
"In short, Obama has managed to side-step Congress in order to work against Democratic policy positions (e.g., Social Security), but otherwise has ignored executive privilege when he wanted to continue Bush-era policies (e.g., detention without trial at Gitmo) or to ignore the rights and needs of everyday Americans (e.g., HAMP and DADT). To the Obama administration, Congress is a very selective obstacle.."
What a load of crap, I'm sorry. What exactly has changed on Social Security, not a damn thing. And I know that President Obama isn't going to change Social Security no matter how much you "Obama-haters" try to spin it. And when he doesn't, you will move on to the next manufactured "poutrage" that won't come true either. How the hell can you say he has worked against democratic policy positions when nothing has actuall happened and in my opinion WON'T? Are you living in a fantasy world where things that haven't happened already have? That is delusional. IF and WHEN something happens to Social Security, then maybe you can make that statement but until then, you are living in your self created little world.
Gitma is a mess left by the Bush administration that is still being sorted out. How many new people has Obama sent to GITMO? ZERO.....but you state it as if he has. Liar!
Ignore the rights of everyday Americans....HE INHERITED DADT FROM CLINTON, and discrimination in the military has been around since the founding of our country, but it's nice of you to blame the entire mess on President Obama who has been in office for less than two years and is in the process of making a monumental change to the way things have been done for hundreds of years. But the whole damn mess is Obama's. Geez Us!
I'm sorry but your post was a lot of crap wrapped up in populist "poutrage" that just reeks to high heaven. What I have learned since Obama has taken office is that there are a lot of petty, disingenuous, jealous, hateful, ignorant, immature people who call themselves progressive or liberal.
Agreed. With pretty much all you said here. I saw this post go up, and honestly, I didn't want anything to do with it. I've seen this all before. And I tire of this debate now.
Me? I'm still willing to give him more time. Hamsher? I never liked her site or her anyway.
Something just rubbed me the wrong way about her site, Even when Boosh was in office.
A lot of people want Obama to do things like he's a dictator. If he did that, that would make him no better than Boosh and Dick Tater.(sorry,little joke there).
People seem to forget how Boosh ran things. He was like a dictator.
To be honest, Obama has disappointed me somewhat too. But, this isn't a perfect world. And I am aware of the obstruction he faces. Some of it from his own party. The art of compromise. While I disagree with and don't like some of the compromises. I think throwing out the baby with the bath water is foolish. And I'm so tired of all this knee jerking.Like when he put a moratorium on the Gulf. People complained that he lifted it. Fact is, it's still in affect. All this jerkin back and forth................
What is your conceptual, continuity?
The Democratic Party was founded as a progressive and democratic institution, not a haven for elitist, parochial technocrats like Obama. If you can't handle that, you always have the option of leaving and joining a party where you would feel more comfortable - like the GOP, for example. Of course I can understand why you would rather not do that, given that the Democratic Party has largely abandoned its progressive and democratic principles.
Yea, he's so terrible. Here are the terrible facts for you:
IMPEACH!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/16/8...
We didn't say he was terrible, we just said he sucks.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
for the great link thx11380.....is that you George Lucas?
I'm thankful president Obama is not making your socialist fantasy's come true
don't want to know anything in this article. They want to continue to believe that President Obama is the great hope and change guy they voted for, and that it's other peoples fault that his hands are tied.
If you criticise him for not being Progressive enough, or for being just another politician who pulled the wool over peoples eyes, they will call you a Republican. They will remind you that he's "not as bad as Bush" or something. As if we've lowered the bar for being a good President THAT much.
President Obama has been a dismal failure as President. That's not likely to change.
"Social Security: After Congress voted down a debt and deficit commission, Obama went ahead and created one anyway--and stacked it with people with track records of wanting to slash Social Security.
In short, Obama has managed to side-step Congress in order to work against Democratic policy positions (e.g., Social Security)"
There are no words to describe Obama. I could say he is a disgrace, a criminal, a warmonger, a Bushite, a Clintonite, a DLCer, a moderate republican, but nothing conveys the disappointment that Obama has caused not just to me but to millions upon millions of Americans who believed in this country and in him, and what did he do since Day One (it seems it was even before he was elected) he betrayed the people who voted for him and he pretends to be the president of America when he is the president of nobody except for the ruling elites who run this country through multi-national criminal enterprises, and these ruling elites aren't necessarily Americans.
Ian provides a reasonable platform to say that if a mere blogger knows how to get the progressive agenda passed, then Obama himself should surely know. This leaves the inescapable conclusion that Obama doesn't really want the progressive agenda, i.e., he lied to get elected.
The best thing that can happen to the Democrats in this years elections is to lose the majority, then they can whine even more about being powerless.
The simple fact is, they don't care. They DO NOT CARE. It's all a big money game, and anyone who sides with one of the 2 identical political parties is part of the problem.
Why does everyone on the Internet argue as though it's a zero-sum game? Is nuance really dead? If you disagree with a specific position, you must, by default, wholeheartedly support the entirely opposite position?
I, like a lot of progressives, feel a little betrayed by some of what Obama has done while in office. I'm glad to see the withdrawal from Iraq, but I wanted out of Afghanistan as well. I wanted to make sure that I had health care. I wanted to make sure that the kids that I don't yet have the same access to health care, education and opportunity that I have had. That's why I voted you in. I can appreciate incremental change, and didn't honestly expect broad, sweeping, life-altering reforms to come immediately, even with a significant majority in both Houses. That said, it's hard for me to complain about what we got, in a sense, because he was at least going through the motions of getting major parts of the democratic platform (e.g. health reform, etc.) passed. I wasn't thrilled with the Health Care bill that even before the nuts and bolts came out seemed like a handout to the Insurance industry that had gouged us and screwed us over in the past. I wasn't thrilled with saving banks only to have them thumb their noses at us.
I can appreciate that he was put into an ugly position, regarding to cleaning up Bush's mess. I get it, he got left a horrible set of circumstances. But I don't think I'm outside the realm of reasonability to expect him to USE the power and the bully pulpit he was given. I don't think I'm being unreasonable to expect that he learn to STOP REACHING OUT when the Republican party is only interested in biting his hand and seeing him fail. I don't think it makes me less progressive to ask those types of things, and I continue to be annoyed with discussion on this issue that always seems to take the form of "You're either with us or you're against us." I don't have to attribute that quote for people to know who it was.
All I know is that, since HCR, my health insurance has gone up $100 per month.
This is the "on the ground" results of HCR. Maybe 10 million new people and some kids got insurance but 100 million people just got their rates jacked up beyond what they can afford. Maybe in 4 more years after 100 million people pay $4800 more dollars we can't afford to insurance companies we will see some meaningful changes? Oh yea. . then we will be FORCED to pay it all.
Congratulations on these "progressive" accomplishments.
Comments are closed on this entry