Obama is actually intelligent

reddix · **#41** by **reddix** » Jul 18, 2011 7:17 pm

!

MODNOTE
UtilityMonster

This post contains a personal attack. You state:

UtilityMonster wrote:None of you care because your heads are up your asses,

You have been advised previously not to post in this manner.

This is your first warning for posting personal attacks. Please review the FUA and post within the rules or you may face further sanctions.

Please do not discuss this modnote or moderation in this thread as it is off-topic. If you require clarification or wish to appeal this decision please pm me or a global moderator. Alternatively you can create a thread in the feedback forum.

UtilityMonster · **#42** by **UtilityMonster** » Jul 18, 2011 7:24 pm

GT2211 wrote:

These are things that economists know are true
1) There is no current fiscal crisis.
2) There is no entitlements crisis. There is a potential crisis about 10-20 years down the road in Medicare/Medicaid, people just like to lump SS in with it for random reasons then state they are both in crisis.
3) Business confidence is not the problem.
4) Austerity does not help solve a lack of aggregate demand. In fact it does the exact opposite.

Denying these things for partisan reasons is something I expect from the GOP. What I did not expect was speeches from Obama trying to convince the American people these statements are wrong.

Pretty sure Obama understands 2 and 4 as well as anyone. Also, 3 is not the problem, but it is a problem and is quite real. There is no immediate fiscal crisis, and now is not the best time to balance the books. I agree, but when everyone except a few shrewd economists is going on about how we need to decrease the deficit, Obama has little choice but to do so. Putting the country deeper and debt to create jobs is not even an option. No Republicans would support another stimulus, so that simply cannot happen. Now Obama has come out with the most comprehensive debt reduction plan, and is making the Republicans look like dumbasses because they won't support it. Hopefully the American voter sees in 2012 that Republicans could not care less about the deficit. Their priorities are clearer than ever, and the Democrats have done a fine job illuminating them:

1) Get Obama out of the White House
2) Protect the interests of the top 2%
3) Slash entitlements
4) Support Biblical morality

quill wrote:
The Green Party has zero seats in the Senate, zero seats in the House, zero seats in state legislatures and zero governors. For a "third party" to even get itself listed on a ballot in this country is a tremendous challenge, to say nothing of winning. That will never change without significant electoral or campaign-finance reforms, meaning the only way to affect those reforms short of violent revolution is from within the two-party system.

I completely agree. I would also add that Green Party members often aren't very intelligent. Ralph Nader is a true intellectual and thinker, and I suspect he would have made an excellent president if elected, but people like Cynthia Mckinney are just former Democrats who wanted to run as president and couldn't get nominated. Bob Barr was a former Republican who couldn't get elected and so he ran as a libertarian. They are liars just like everyone else - they change their ideologies to get chosen to represent a third party. Also, Cynthia would have flat out made a worse president than Obama, anyway. She says, without any evidence, that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened and chose not to do anything. She also is hugely supportive of militant Islam causes in the Middle East that aren't exactly humanitarian. She also claimed that the CIA was involved in the assassination of Tupac and MLK.

So, if someone insists on doing a protest vote, at least check to ensure that the candidate you are voting for would actually be better than the Democrat. Sometimes the Green candidate is better and other times the Dem. Although, almost 99% of the time the Dem is better than the Republican.

Salinger · **#43** by **Salinger** » Jul 18, 2011 7:29 pm

Indeed, the idea of the Green Party (or any other third party) ever gaining real traction is laughable. The highest a Green has ever gotten is the state House of Reps, and all of those people have immediately switched parties or been defeated in the next election. As quill says, the laws essentially prevent third parties from winning high office. And if you think electoral reform is going to start in the White House, you're crazy.

Most of the arguments about Obama's capitulation here are pretty accurate. Obviously he can't just tell the Repubs what to do, but having the opposition party control Congress allows the president to use the public and the media as the bully pulpit. And Obama has failed rather spectacularly in this regard. Americans have completely turned against the GOP, but very few of them have turned to him in response.

King David · **#44** by **King David** » Jul 18, 2011 8:51 pm

Salinger wrote:

Most of the arguments about Obama's capitulation here are pretty accurate. Obviously he can't just tell the Repubs what to do, but having the opposition party control Congress allows the president to use the public and the media as the bully pulpit. And Obama has failed rather spectacularly in this regard. Americans have completely turned against the GOP, but very few of them have turned to him in response.

Exactly, Obama has the greatest poll numbers imaginable in his favor on these debt issues, which should allow him to drive a wedge between the "moderate" republicans who want to get re-elected by their constituents and the absurd teabaggers, if he would only use the bully pulpit. He should be getting these very specific messages into the media echo chamber at least every other day, so that the media discusses them and repeats them, spreading the meme:

1. The repubicans are acting against the will and best interests of the citizenry, which is evidenced by every poll out there.

2. The republicans are holding the economy hostage to get what they want, and again, what they want is against the will of the people. They are extorting the people in a Machiavellian scheme to take away their medicare and social security benefits.

3. The republicans want to give tax payouts to the people who tanked our economy in the first place, at the expense of everyone else's benefits.

4. The republican austerity plan would be harmful to the recovery of the economy, as every economist is saying.

Repeat this argument forcefully, especially #2 again and again until even Faux news is repeating the sound bytes. Make the republicans afraid of what their voters will do to them if they go against their wishes regarding medicare, social security and taxes on the wealthy.

UtilityMonster, did you read my last post? It was long, but I'm curious to see what you think about the points I made. Again, I don't think Obama is an idiot, just a terrible negotiator and doesn't know how to use political circumstances or crises in his favor. I could name so many goldmines that he passed over.

rEvolutionist · **#45** by **rEvolutionist** » Jul 19, 2011 12:46 am

Manic Wombat wrote:
The issue with this is there really isn't a cohesive "you all" group. There are a few people on these boards who may indeed participate in civil disobedience and good on them. To get any sort of meaningful attention the scale of protest would have to be enormous and unavoidable by the media.

So there are a few clever people (relatively speaking) who see how much of a failure the current system is. MOST people do not see this, let alone understand it. They're stuck in the partisan game, literally hating their political opponents. The most clueless sects are also the loudest, most passionate portions of the American population. They can easily be manipulated. You have seen the people who profess to be "tea-baggers", yes? These aren't elites. Just regular people with their eyes on the American Dream, doing the GoP's work for them day in and day out.

I imagine people are genuinely afraid of being too radical. Who wants to be an outcast? People who don't fit inside the very narrow mainstream spectrum of political thought are seem as extremists. Protesting is great but the only support you'll receive is from people who agree with you already, you will change very few minds in a system as divisive as the US system. People have been fired for voting the wrong way come election time.

Voting itself has been corrupted. Look no further than the partisan voting clerk in Wisconsin who "found" an extra load of votes for the Court Justice who was more sympathetic (than the other candidate) to the will of the cock-sucker of a governor there.

How many poor people are so disillusioned that they don't bother voting anymore? And if we were to meet these people in the streets would we really be able to convince them to come out on voting day? Many voters are turned away because they don't have the proper identification. Or the voting booths are located in areas inconvenient to poor communities.

More people need to get fucked/realize they're getting fucked for any motivation for change to exist. We'll see what happens...

I expect a GoP victory in 2012! Call me crazy.

Well, get yer guns out then. Either that, or I nominate 914 for a naked bike ride from LA to New York to raise awareness. :razz:

I think the way to get anything going these days is via the internet. It's got to take a concerted social campaign on the internet. Perhaps we should start something right here!

UtilityMonster · **#46** by **UtilityMonster** » Jul 19, 2011 2:01 am

King David wrote:

He gave the republicans the renewal of the Bush tax cuts when the overwhelming majority of the public opposed it, for basically nothing in return, and now, he is poised to do it again. He is simply a weak negotiator who refuses to firmly set out his position the the American people.

I disagree.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/opini ... llins.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/opinion/10brooks.html

Dec. 10, 2010
The fact is, Obama and the Democrats have had an excellent week. The White House negotiators did an outstanding job for their side. With little leverage, they got not only the unemployment insurance, but also an Earned Income Tax Credit provision, a college scholarship provision and other Democratic goodies. With little leverage, they got a package that could win grudging praise from big-name liberal groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center for American Progress.

But let’s admit it. Nothing would have gotten done if Obama hadn’t swallowed that loathsome compromise on tax cuts for the wealthy.

If he’d taken the high road, Congress would be in a holiday war. The long-term unemployed would be staggering into the new year without benefits. The rest of the world would look upon the United States as a country so dysfunctional that it can’t even ratify a treaty to help keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The people who worked at ground zero would still be uncertain about their future, and our gay and lesbian soldiers would still be living in fear.

It’s depressing to think that there was no way to win that would not have involved giving away billions of dollars to people who don’t need it. But it’s kind of cheery to think we have a president who actually does know what he’s doing.

King David wrote:
UtilityMonster wrote: Also, we couldn't pay off the debt solely by raising taxes on the wealthy. Ending the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% would bring in 700 billion in revenue over the next decade,

Sure, but it is a good start, and it is painless, unlike cutting benefits on seniors and the poor. Obama shouldn't agree to anything the republicans want without this as a prerequisite. It may seem childish to be just as stubborn and intransigent as the republicans, but it is the only alternative to constantly moving toward and legitimising the republican position, Obama's current modus operandi. In a standoff such as this, Obama would have the upper hand because public opinion is squarely on his side on these issues. He refuses to play chicken with the republicans and instead just defers and capitulate, again and again.

Except he isn't. He is doing just as you say - not agreeing to anything without ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy as a prerequisite. Did you read the original article I linked?

King David wrote:
Social Security adds nothing to the deficit. Medicare certainly has some issues, but we have yet to see how the new healthcare law will affect costs. If the CBO's predictions were correct, when the new law comes fully into effect in 2014, we will see some not insignificant cost savings on the healthcare front. If they can find more ways to save money without cutting benefits I am all for that as well. That is not what repubs want to do, rather they want to completely dismantle these programs bit by bit.

Everything we are paying for is contributing to the deficit. I know that Social Security is fiscally solvent, but Congress has diverted the money put aside for it to other programs that had shortfalls. Because Social Security spending could be cut without a subsequent decrease in the Social Security tax, it is just as much contributing to the deficit as anything else. I am glad to see you recognize the benefits of the Obama health care law. I tire of people characterizing it as a handout to big business that does not help everyday Americans. It was a huge success for progressives and is going to make people in this country healthier and pay less for care.

King David wrote:
I don't think he is a "bigot," but I don't know that I will vote for him. His accomplishments include such things as passing the Romney/Gingrich healthcare plan from the '90s complete with a big pharma monopolistic giveaway, ramping up the wars, continuing with rendition and warrantless wiretaps, the non closure of gitmo-a campaign promise, a renewal of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, ending DADT-oh wait, they didn't quite do that yet either, and expanded offshore drilling just before the largest oil spill in history.

He surged in Afghanistan but drew down troop levels in Iraq which ultimately resulted in a net decrease. He is pulling out more troops from Afghanistan in the near future. The health care law was the best he could pass. I have seen no evidence that he realistically could have passed a public option. It is possible that if he had argued differently it could have worked, but that is pure conjecture based on nothing. The Senate blocked its passage with a filibuster. DADT has been overturned, so that is false. I disagree with him expanding offshore drilling. Perhaps that is indefensible, but I don't need to agree with the man on everything to vote for him. Again, I happen to lack idealistic expectations.

King David wrote:
Ah but we have this fucked up thing called the electoral college, and I live in a solid red state, which means I can protest vote and not have any effect on who wins. If I lived in a swing state I would strategically vote for Obama.

I live in Tennessee and I still plan to vote for Obama. He could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college which could bring about a renewed fervor to abolish the system. The prospects of that happening decline when people like you vote 3rd party. Also, I doubt whoever is going to be running on the Green ticket this election will actually be more intelligent than Obama. Lastly, I consider voting Dem in a red state a protest vote and strategically beneficial to boot. The better the Dems do in red states, the more Dems will campaign and spend there, ultimately increasing the likelihood of Dems winning state government seats and congressional seats.

King David wrote:
I suppose we have different definitions of what "aggressive" means. Sorry to inform you, but the majority of the electorate is not very intelligent and even less informed, and the sound byte sensationalist media does not provide a platform for a thorough, nuanced, reasoned debate. I hate it, I fucking do, but if you want to be effective in policy, then you must acknowledge these sad facts and tailor your message accordingly rather than wishing it was otherwise. Obama needs vivid imagery and effective analogies in order to control the broader narrative and gain more media coverage of his side of the arguments. As far as analogies, I don't think the ones I suggested are bad analogies to what the repubs are actually doing. I think they describe it adequately and forcefully while putting repubs on the defensive. It is not Machiavellian manipulation to use forceful rhetorical tactics such as these when they adequately describe the situation. What is in fact manipulation is what the republicans do when they intentionally mislead the public by making things like "death panels" up out of thin air or deliberately misrepresenting factual states of affairs.

Yes, and he should not reinforce their sound byte obsession by keeping his analysis under 140 characters. I think the reason he did so well in the election was his calm demeanor. People have deeply held racist imagery of angry black men in their minds, and all Obama needs to do is lose him temper for them to jump to conclusions about him. His pensiveness has got him the White House, and it would be a shame to see him throw it away in a mistaken political calculation. I am so happy he can, to quote Kipling, keep his head when all about him are losing theirs and blaming it on him.

King David wrote:
But is his plan the one he will end up signing. I won't be the least surprised if he agrees to a plan of spending cuts with no repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy, a giveaway to the republicans.

I'll be very surprised if that happens. I guess we will just wait and see. If he doesn't, though, do think more highly of him. I think that is a fair request.

King David wrote:
UtilityMonster wrote:By the way, citing that American people don't want to see cuts in entitlements should be complemented by data that shows they also want to see the deficit slashed.

And one way to get started on that is to implement another policy that the public overwhelmingly agrees with- taxing the wealthy and closing corporate tax loopholes. That would be a start. The fact that only allowing the top tax rate to go back up 3% to Clinton levels would raise 700 billion in revenue is promising when you consider that the top rate for most of the last century was over 50%. Factor in cuts to the bloated defense contractor budget, ending corporate subsidies, a drawdown on the wars, and cuts to the waste and overhead in medicare and you have a solution. Bonus points for ending the drug war and legalizing and taxing cannabis. There is no need to reduce benefits to working people and seniors we have these methods at our disposal.

Come on Obama, make me change my mind about you.

I really think Obama will be a more liberal president in his second term. I predict he will come out in favor of gay marriage. He has already come out in favor of marijuana decriminalization, which is a necessary first step on the path to full legalization. I suspect he will bring this to the forefront in his second term as well. I really do believe that the man is doing everything in his power to better this country. Like I said earlier, I agree he may have made some strategical errors, but I think all have been with good intentions, but just poor results. Still, though, the stimulus package and health care bill have both been very important accomplishments. Both brought down his approval rating. We just can't forget who he has to make his case to - people who don't share his information and understanding of the issues, and who hate him for trying to better their lives.

rEvolutionist · **#47** by **rEvolutionist** » Jul 19, 2011 2:40 am

UtilityMonster wrote:
King David wrote:

He gave the republicans the renewal of the Bush tax cuts when the overwhelming majority of the public opposed it, for basically nothing in return, and now, he is poised to do it again. He is simply a weak negotiator who refuses to firmly set out his position the the American people.

I disagree.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/opini ... llins.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/opinion/10brooks.html

Dec. 10, 2010
The fact is, Obama and the Democrats have had an excellent week. The White House negotiators did an outstanding job for their side. With little leverage, they got not only the unemployment insurance, but also an Earned Income Tax Credit provision, a college scholarship provision and other Democratic goodies. With little leverage, they got a package that could win grudging praise from big-name liberal groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center for American Progress.

But let’s admit it. Nothing would have gotten done if Obama hadn’t swallowed that loathsome compromise on tax cuts for the wealthy.

If he’d taken the high road, Congress would be in a holiday war. The long-term unemployed would be staggering into the new year without benefits. The rest of the world would look upon the United States as a country so dysfunctional that it can’t even ratify a treaty to help keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The people who worked at ground zero would still be uncertain about their future, and our gay and lesbian soldiers would still be living in fear.

But whose fault would that have been if it did come to pass? And the question is, do we know that the repubs wouldn't have blinked at the last minute? Are they really that suicidal that they would allow these things to happen? Ditto on the debt ceiling issue. Some commentary suggests that the repubs are bluffing and they will hold out till the last second before acceding. The problem Obama has is that he is stuck in a position of playing political chicken with a potential sociopath. If the repubs really are sociopathic, then he will always lose. At some point he has to cut his losses and take a different tack. He seems to have no political fight in him. As others have said, he should have started a media and shopping mall blitz highlighting the repubs political terrorism. I've never seen a politician so unwilling to take his opposition on, particularly when public opinion is supposedly so overwhelmingly in his favour on many issues. As far as I'm concerned, this is just proof he is essentially a republican/corporatist-lite. He's not there for the people of your country. He's there for himself and his cronies. He's been a massive let down to the left. Excusing his failure to achieve many campaign promises (they held both houses didn't they? :shock:

) with the statement that all politicians are liars, therefore he's no different from the others is cognitive dissonance. Qualitatively he might be no different, but quantitatively he has failed to fulfil some massive and morally imperative policy changes. He's been a spectacular failure. His only saving grace will be if he wins the next election and has both houses and spits the repubs dick out of his mouth and implements real effective lasting change.

King David wrote:
UtilityMonster wrote: Also, we couldn't pay off the debt solely by raising taxes on the wealthy. Ending the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% would bring in 700 billion in revenue over the next decade,

Sure, but it is a good start, and it is painless, unlike cutting benefits on seniors and the poor. Obama shouldn't agree to anything the republicans want without this as a prerequisite. It may seem childish to be just as stubborn and intransigent as the republicans, but it is the only alternative to constantly moving toward and legitimising the republican position, Obama's current modus operandi. In a standoff such as this, Obama would have the upper hand because public opinion is squarely on his side on these issues. He refuses to play chicken with the republicans and instead just defers and capitulate, again and again.

Except he isn't. He is doing just as you say - not agreeing to anything without ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy as a prerequisite. Did you read the original article I linked?

It was fiscally and morally wrong to extend the tax cuts to the rich.

King David wrote:
Social Security adds nothing to the deficit. Medicare certainly has some issues, but we have yet to see how the new healthcare law will affect costs. If the CBO's predictions were correct, when the new law comes fully into effect in 2014, we will see some not insignificant cost savings on the healthcare front. If they can find more ways to save money without cutting benefits I am all for that as well. That is not what repubs want to do, rather they want to completely dismantle these programs bit by bit.

Everything we are paying for is contributing to the deficit. I know that Social Security is fiscally solvent, but Congress has diverted the money put aside for it to other programs that had shortfalls. Because Social Security spending could be cut without a subsequent decrease in the Social Security tax, it is just as much contributing to the deficit as anything else. I am glad to see you recognize the benefits of the Obama health care law. I tire of people characterizing it as a handout to big business that does not help everyday Americans. It was a huge success for progressives and is going to make people in this country healthier and pay less for care.

But the question is, could he have got more for the American people? Many think he could have, given that he started negotiations at the midway point and then headed towards the repubs position. This is so obviously a stupid negotiating strategy that I have no doubt he knew exactly what he was doing. That is, bowing to the will of corporations and the rich.

King David wrote:
I don't think he is a "bigot," but I don't know that I will vote for him. His accomplishments include such things as passing the Romney/Gingrich healthcare plan from the '90s complete with a big pharma monopolistic giveaway, ramping up the wars, continuing with rendition and warrantless wiretaps, the non closure of gitmo-a campaign promise, a renewal of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, ending DADT-oh wait, they didn't quite do that yet either, and expanded offshore drilling just before the largest oil spill in history.

He surged in Afghanistan but drew down troop levels in Iraq which ultimately resulted in a net decrease. He is pulling out more troops from Afghanistan in the near future. The health care law was the best he could pass. I have seen no evidence that he realistically could have passed a public option. It is possible that if he had argued differently it could have worked, but that is pure conjecture based on nothing. The Senate blocked its passage with a filibuster. DADT has been overturned, so that is false. I disagree with him expanding offshore drilling. Perhaps that is indefensible, but I don't need to agree with the man on everything to vote for him. Again, I happen to lack idealistic expectations.

The thing is, Gitmo, "illegal" wiretaps, rendition, and arguably the extension of the Bush tax cuts are moral issues of major significance. It's not just a case that he didn't achieve everything he said he would. It's more a case of the scale of the things that he didn't achieve. He had a mandate for most (all?) of it.

King David wrote:
Ah but we have this fucked up thing called the electoral college, and I live in a solid red state, which means I can protest vote and not have any effect on who wins. If I lived in a swing state I would strategically vote for Obama.

I live in Tennessee and I still plan to vote for Obama. He could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college which could bring about a renewed fervor to abolish the system. The prospects of that happening decline when people like you vote 3rd party. Also, I doubt whoever is going to be running on the Green ticket this election will actually be more intelligent than Obama.

Intelligent? They don't have to be more intelligent than Obama (after all, he seems like he is of quite high intelligence), they have to have better policies than Obama/Repubs.

King David wrote:
But is his plan the one he will end up signing. I won't be the least surprised if he agrees to a plan of spending cuts with no repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy, a giveaway to the republicans.

I'll be very surprised if that happens. I guess we will just wait and see. If he doesn't, though, do think more highly of him. I think that is a fair request.

And I think it a fair request to ask you if you will finally acknowledge his massive moral failing if he does extend the cuts. Will you do that?

King David wrote:
UtilityMonster wrote:By the way, citing that American people don't want to see cuts in entitlements should be complemented by data that shows they also want to see the deficit slashed.

And one way to get started on that is to implement another policy that the public overwhelmingly agrees with- taxing the wealthy and closing corporate tax loopholes. That would be a start. The fact that only allowing the top tax rate to go back up 3% to Clinton levels would raise 700 billion in revenue is promising when you consider that the top rate for most of the last century was over 50%. Factor in cuts to the bloated defense contractor budget, ending corporate subsidies, a drawdown on the wars, and cuts to the waste and overhead in medicare and you have a solution. Bonus points for ending the drug war and legalizing and taxing cannabis. There is no need to reduce benefits to working people and seniors we have these methods at our disposal.

Come on Obama, make me change my mind about you.

I really think Obama will be a more liberal president in his second term.

Let's hope to gawd that you are right. Because if the greatest hope for reversing the destructive foreign, social and economic policies of the republican governments since Reagan, flops and disappears from history, you guys really are in a massive world of shit.

rEvolutionist · **#48** by **rEvolutionist** » Jul 19, 2011 2:41 am

double-post.

GT2211 · **#49** by **GT2211** » Jul 19, 2011 11:52 pm

UtilityMonster wrote:
GT2211 wrote:

These are things that economists know are true
1) There is no current fiscal crisis.
2) There is no entitlements crisis. There is a potential crisis about 10-20 years down the road in Medicare/Medicaid, people just like to lump SS in with it for random reasons then state they are both in crisis.
3) Business confidence is not the problem.
4) Austerity does not help solve a lack of aggregate demand. In fact it does the exact opposite.

Denying these things for partisan reasons is something I expect from the GOP. What I did not expect was speeches from Obama trying to convince the American people these statements are wrong.

Pretty sure Obama understands 2 and 4 as well as anyone.

At one point I would've agreed. However he is not out there telling the American people that the Republicans are lying and there is no SS crisis. He is doing quite the opposite.

Also, 3 is not the problem, but it is a problem and is quite real.

Business investment, outside of housing) seems to be picking up just fine. There is also the question of whether spending cuts actually does anything to help confidence, which if the UK is any evidence the answer is no.

There is no immediate fiscal crisis, and now is not the best time to balance the books. I agree, but when everyone except a few shrewd economists is going on about how we need to decrease the deficit, Obama has little choice but to do so.

It is hardly even just a few shrewd economists anymore though. I can hardly think of any economists outside of partisan hacks such as John Taylor who think cutting spending now will do anything but hurt the recovery, even the more middle of the road economists/writers such as Wessel have joined on. Bernanke is even involving himself into the process of warning just how bad an idea this is.

Putting the country deeper and debt to create jobs is not even an option. No Republicans would support another stimulus, so that simply cannot happen. Now Obama has come out with the most comprehensive debt reduction plan, and is making the Republicans look like dumbasses because they won't support it. Hopefully the American voter sees in 2012 that Republicans could not care less about the deficit. Their priorities are clearer than ever, and the Democrats have done a fine job illuminating them:

And what good is this going to do? The economy needs more support, the GOP won't support it because they are insisting on sabotaging it and cutting spending, so instead of holding his ground and stating this he instead decides start advocating a policy that he knows will hurt the recovery? When a year from now the unemployment rate has barely budged does he think the GOP will get the blame?

UtilityMonster · **#50** by **UtilityMonster** » Jul 20, 2011 12:24 am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/1 ... 03680.html

President Barack Obama is throwing his support behind a bill that would repeal the federal government's ban on same-sex marriage.

The president has "long called for a legislative appeal for the so-called Defense of Marriage Act which continues to have a real impact on families," White House spokesman Jay Carney announced Tuesday.

The president is “proud to support” the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, Carney said.

The Obama administration announced in February that it believes the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and would no longer defend it in court.

MoonLit · **#51** by **MoonLit** » Jul 20, 2011 2:27 am

UtilityMonster wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/19/obama-defense-of-marriage-gay-rights_n_903680.html

President Barack Obama is throwing his support behind a bill that would repeal the federal government's ban on same-sex marriage.

The president has "long called for a legislative appeal for the so-called Defense of Marriage Act which continues to have a real impact on families," White House spokesman Jay Carney announced Tuesday.

The president is “proud to support” the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, Carney said.

The Obama administration announced in February that it believes the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and would no longer defend it in court.

Wonderful news! :cheers:

NineOneFour · **#52** by **NineOneFour** » Jul 20, 2011 3:36 am

UtilityMonster wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/19/obama-defense-of-marriage-gay-rights_n_903680.html

President Barack Obama is throwing his support behind a bill that would repeal the federal government's ban on same-sex marriage.

The president has "long called for a legislative appeal for the so-called Defense of Marriage Act which continues to have a real impact on families," White House spokesman Jay Carney announced Tuesday.

The president is “proud to support” the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, Carney said.

The Obama administration announced in February that it believes the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and would no longer defend it in court.

Big fucking deal. He could issue an executive order and be done with it.
Obama loves compromise and also loves to lead from behind and let Congress do shit.
Problem is, they don't, and there's no fucking way any bill would get through the batshit insane Republican Congress, so who cares?

Only a spineless compromiser like Obama.

Where's Obama been for 6 months on the debt ceiling? The GOP announced they were going to shit on him 6 months ago and it took him 5.5 months to finally realize they weren't negotiating in good faith. Everyone else figured they were nuts from the start.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... ssion.html

Contra moi, Benjamin Dueholm doesn't see how "adopting an unpopular plan as a bargaining position, thereby selling out his base before negotiating even begins, and 'pummeling' the opposition with it had any hope of getting a deal done":

What if, as during the health care battle, the Republicans just refuse to respect the president's rhetorical pummeling? What if they decided to make a political issue of Bowles-Simpson's big cuts to programs old white people like? What if they took the president's offer of a center-right plan and saw validation of their extreme-right alternatives, at least as a negotiating strategy? What if they have rational motives for not wanting a debt deal at all?

I supported Obama in part because he swore to do what was right and necessary, rather than partisan politics and the usual Washington games. He had a chance to make the case for his current position months ago and balked. Maybe now that he is shown to have been forced into this, his own party will treat the proposal less harshly. Maybe. But he lost a key chance to cement a central proclaimed characteristic - tackling hard choices the responsible, post-partisan way - and allowed the GOP to push him into it.

But maybe he's a genius and this really is meep-meep again and I can't see it from London. I look forward to being proven wrong. But from this side of the Atlantic, he looks weak and passive, and not in a good way. Yes, the Republicans appear to be the most extremist, looniest political party in the West, but that's not the point. The debt and deficit is a real crisis. And Obama has followed, not led. Until the very last minute.

and

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... blame.html

From this side of the Atlantic, the great game of chicken now being played by the American political class with the debt ceiling is regarded as a sign that America - or rather, America's Republicans - has gone completely insane. Everyone in Europe is desperately trying to stave off default - and here is the most powerful economy on earth actually hoping for it! When I explain the details of Obama's last Grand Bargain - a debt reduction built on a ration of 3:1 spending cuts and tax increases - most Brits see it as a Cameron-conservative-style austerity measure. They simply cannot understand why the GOP doesn't take what would for any sane conservative in any civilized country be a no-brainer. I'm reduced to trying to explain what passes for "conservatism" in America is nothing of the kind - just know-nothing, fundamentalist, Manichean pseudo-conservatism. From this distance, the GOP seems even loonier, crazier and more reckless than they do stateside.

My own view, however, is that Obama badly bungled this by not embracing his current position in the State of the Union and pummeling the GOP with it for months. Bowles Simpson was his commission after all, and yet he dropped it like a stone and pandered to his left when he had a perfect moment to pivot to the debt question. Giving the GOP any credibility on debt by offering nothing of real $4 trillion substance until last week may well be seen as Obama's greatest mistake in his first term. Now that he has finally offered it, his ability to maintain the high ground on a fair measure to tackle the deficit is much reduced from his January possibility. This is not a meep-meep moment. And it could easily have been, if Obama had shown, yes, courage sooner.

Nate Silver thinks both parties would take a hit if default occurs - something that Obama's dilatory cowardice made possible. Brendan Nyhan counters:

Both sides would no doubt blame each other for the outcome and create elaborate stories about why the other side is to blame, which would then be reinforced and amplified in the press. Then more than a year would elapse before November 2012, and both sides would continue to blame each other for failing to adequately address the consequences of the default. In the meantime, many people will forget the details of what happened, but will know that Obama is the president and the economy is in bad shape. Under those conditions, how likely is it that people who would normally blame Obama for the poor economy will instead blame the GOP when they show up at the polls?

Agreed. On this score, leading from behind has been pretty much a disaster. And there is no longer much time to lead from the front.

When such an Obama stalwart as Andrew Sullivan has given up, it shows Obama is, at heart, a compromiser, and that is no compliment.

andyx1205 · **#53** by **andyx1205** » Jul 20, 2011 8:29 am

If Elizabeth Warren ran as an Independent...against both the Dems and Repubs...in 2012...that would be pretty awesome. She can easily get a lot of funding online, she's well known amongst progressives and I think many Dem and Repub voters are upset with those two mainstream parties and want an alternative.

Nicko · **#54** by **Nicko** » Jul 20, 2011 9:54 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-B9un1jsg8[/youtube]

NineOneFour · **#55** by **NineOneFour** » Jul 20, 2011 12:45 pm

andyx1205 wrote:If Elizabeth Warren ran as an Independent...against both the Dems and Repubs...in 2012...that would be pretty awesome. She can easily get a lot of funding online, she's well known amongst progressives and I think many Dem and Repub voters are upset with those two mainstream parties and want an alternative.

5 people know who Warren is. It's a non-starter.

She'd serve much better as Senator from Massachusetts and knock off that turd, Scott Brown.

King David · **#56** by **King David** » Jul 21, 2011 12:59 am

UtilityMonster wrote:
I disagree.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/opini ... llins.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/opinion/10brooks.html

I'm not sure what point I was supposed to take away from these op-eds, especially the rambling and disjointed former. Although I like David Brooks, I think his assessment of Obama as a "cluster liberal" pandering to his insular base is totally absurd. Obama has not pandered to the left since his presidency began. In fact he has snubbed and insulted them several times. He is constantly pandering to those on his right and giving them half of what they want before the negotiations even begin--then, because they won't negotiate in good faith, they pull whatever center-right plan we started with further and further to the right so that their far right wing nut platform becomes more and more legitimized to the public at large. I don't see what Brooks based this assessment on. Obama is no further left than David Cameron.

UtilityMonster wrote:
But let’s admit it. Nothing would have gotten done if Obama hadn’t swallowed that loathsome compromise on tax cuts for the wealthy.

Isn't this just pure speculation? It may be correct, but we don't know what might have happened if Obama had strongly argued for a liberal position, something I have yet to see Obama do on any issue. What would happen if he actually used the bully pulpit and used public opinion as leverage?

UtilityMonster wrote:
Everything we are paying for is contributing to the deficit. I know that Social Security is fiscally solvent, but Congress has diverted the money put aside for it to other programs that had shortfalls. Because Social Security spending could be cut without a subsequent decrease in the Social Security tax, it is just as much contributing to the deficit as anything else. I am glad to see you recognize the benefits of the Obama health care law. I tire of people characterizing it as a handout to big business that does not help everyday Americans. It was a huge success for progressives and is going to make people in this country healthier and pay less for care.

That isn't a problem with Social Security, that is a problem with allowing politicians to rob money from programs that work and shifting it into other programs that don't. Why should we agree to cut social security benefits at all?

And yes, I agree that the healthcare plan is vastly superior to the previous state of affairs, but it is also as you say a big business giveaway, especially the monopolistic handout to big Pharma in disallowing imported generic drugs. Getting rid of that provision alone would save patients and taxpayers billions of dollars. I'm glad it passed rather than nothing, but the way it was done was a fiasco because Obama allowed rethugs to absolutely control the debate.

UtilityMonster wrote:
He surged in Afghanistan but drew down troop levels in Iraq which ultimately resulted in a net decrease. He is pulling out more troops from Afghanistan in the near future. The health care law was the best he could pass. I have seen no evidence that he realistically could have passed a public option. It is possible that if he had argued differently it could have worked, but that is pure conjecture based on nothing. The Senate blocked its passage with a filibuster. DADT has been overturned, so that is false. I disagree with him expanding offshore drilling. Perhaps that is indefensible, but I don't need to agree with the man on everything to vote for him. Again, I happen to lack idealistic expectations.

I disagree that the healthcare plan was the best he could pass. Better than nothing but far from the best outcome. His administration totally bungled the public debate and the legislative negotiations. DADT has not been repealed yet pending a report from the Pentagon which has not come through. What you are talking about is the federal court injunction against discharges of gays/lesbians. The Patriot act is still in force, rendition for torture is still in force, warrantless wiretapping is still going on, Gitmo is still open and Habeas Corpus is still being trampled. Is it too Idealistic to expect that the aggregate of all of Obama's policies at lest lean to the left of Bush? Is it too much to ask that he revise his "Start at David Cameron and incrementally move toward Mussolini" negotiating strategy?

UtilityMonster wrote:
I live in Tennessee and I still plan to vote for Obama. He could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college which could bring about a renewed fervor to abolish the system. The prospects of that happening decline when people like you vote 3rd party. Also, I doubt whoever is going to be running on the Green ticket this election will actually be more intelligent than Obama. Lastly, I consider voting Dem in a red state a protest vote and strategically beneficial to boot. The better the Dems do in red states, the more Dems will campaign and spend there, ultimately increasing the likelihood of Dems winning state government seats and congressional seats.

You make a good point here, and I do wish more time and money was spent by Dems in the red states. The problem is that the dem strategy would likely be to move to the right in attempt to pander to these states, further destroying liberalism, rather than to make arguments which would change the minds of people in these states. I don't know anything about the greens or any other third party, but I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama until he starts acting like a liberal. The failure of his communications and negotiations are part of the problem, but the main reason i refuse to vote for him again is his continuation of the Bush administration's War on Human Rights and Civil LibertiesTM. If he stops warrantless wiretaps and NSA data mining of citizens, ends rendition, gives the suspects in Gitmo fair trials by jury, frees Bradley Manning, and supports repeal of the Pat. Act, then I would vote for him despite his lackluster negotiating skills on the economic issues. If he did even a couple of those things I would likely vote for him. I don't want a saviour, just someone who fights for liberal values. Is that too much to ask?

UtilityMonster wrote:
Yes, and he should not reinforce their sound byte obsession by keeping his analysis under 140 characters.

Obama is not going to change how the media covers events. Nothing he does can change the sound byte culture. He doesn't have to keep his analyses short, but he does have to make repeated powerful arguments that can be used as effective soundbytes. If you have ever watched political commentary, what you see is short soundbyte clips of politicians followed by pundits discussing the issues. If Obama doesn't use effective soundbyte type language the republicans will continually win the media war. Republicans are very good, owing to their corporate/marketing connections, at distilling their arguments into effective slogans. Of course most of them are absurd and dishonest, but they are repeated enough on soundbyte clips in the media that they stick n peoples' minds and steer the debate where the republicans want to go. If the dems don't get with the marketing program, they will continue losing communications battles to the repubs.

Examples of effective republican sloganizing:

"Death Panels"
"Tax and Spend Liberal"
"Job Killing Bill"
"Tax Relief"
"Job Creators"
"Welfare Queens"
"Support the Troops"

There are many more where that came from. I could write a whole post on the rhetorical tactics the republicans use, usually dishonestly, which allows them to control the public debate. They are very good at using few words and sparse logic to create an image in the minds of voters, albeit a radically distorted image of reality.

UtilityMonster wrote:
I'll be very surprised if that happens. I guess we will just wait and see. If he doesn't, though, do think more highly of him. I think that is a fair request.

If he manages to get the bush tax giveaway to the rich repealed and avoid any cuts to Social Security benefits, that would change my opinion on his negotiating skills somewhat, and I will give him credit. I won't however, vote for him unless he makes some progress on restoring our civil liberties.

UtilityMonster wrote:
I really think Obama will be a more liberal president in his second term.

I can only hope. If he were any less liberal he'd be Newt Gingrich in the '90s.

UtilityMonster wrote: I predict he will come out in favor of gay marriage. He has already come out in favor of marijuana decriminalization, which is a necessary first step on the path to full legalization.

I hope he follows through on these things, but Marijuana decriminalization is not the answer. Full legalization is the only solution to the issue. Decriminalization is an absurd policy which does nothing to remove the cartel's control of the illegal trade. In fact it is a huge handout to the cartel, while punishing small time dealers and growers. How absurd is it to legalize purchase and use of a product while criminalizing its production and sale? That is another debate for another time though.

UtilityMonster wrote: I really do believe that the man is doing everything in his power to better this country. Like I said earlier, I agree he may have made some strategical errors, but I think all have been with good intentions, but just poor results.

We can disagree about whether he has done everything in his power on the economic front, but what does his lack of respect for civil liberties say about his intentions?

UtilityMonster wrote:Still, though, the stimulus package and health care bill have both been very important accomplishments.

Agreed.

UtilityMonster wrote:Both brought down his approval rating.

Because of the abhorrent communication and negotiation skills of his administration. These should have brought his approval ratings up, especially the healthcare plan, but after allowing the repubs to totally control the debate and his refusal to call them out forcefully, widespread support was turned into distrust and disapproval. As soon as a republican uttered the phrase "death panel" Obama should have uttered the word reserved for people who speak falsehoods--"Liar." He should have repeated the charge until they were too embarrassed to continue their Orwellian propaganda campaign.

UtilityMonster wrote:We just can't forget who he has to make his case to - people who don't share his information and understanding of the issues, and who hate him for trying to better their lives.

Most people don't hate him. The people who do hate him, excepting racists and birthers, hate him because he allows the republicans to dishonestly define him and run over him continuously in the media. Republicans make arguments that reach the people who don't have an understanding of the issues or access to the information. Obama makes intelligent arguments which appeal to policy wonks and go right over the heads of most of the electorate. Am I saying Obama should make dumber arguments? No, what I am saying it there should be a central "values" component to all his arguments which can appeal to those who are not informed of all the facts and who do not have a thorough understanding of the issues, instead of purely academic arguments devoid of passion. I wish it didn't need to be this way. I wish logic and critical thinking was taught in every elementary school in the country, and I wish the media's goal was to elucidate facts rather than to pander and drum up controversy for ratings, but as it stands, we must make do with what we have. If a politician wishes to be an effective communicator, he must know his audience, and the media which informs them.

Like I said, I hope Obama gets his act together with regard to civil liberties and I also hope that he manages to negotiate for an effective budget deal which benefits the people. I hope he can change my current opinion of his performance. He needs to get to work if he wants my admittedly useless vote.

andyx1205 · **#57** by **andyx1205** » Jul 21, 2011 1:10 am

Obama needs to grow some balls and pull a habeas corpus suspension. Lincoln did it in a time of great peril, and America currently is in a pretty dire situation. Most of the Republicans are guilty of treason anyways, since they're plotting to help the corporations hijack the country.

Last time I checked, history looks at Lincoln as ranking amongst the top 3 American Presidents of all time. That's pretty good I'd say, and suspending civil liberties was justified in order to abolish slavery and preserve the Union.

King David · **#58** by **King David** » Jul 21, 2011 11:36 pm

andyx1205 wrote:Obama needs to grow some balls and pull a habeas corpus suspension. Lincoln did it in a time of great peril, and America currently is in a pretty dire situation. Most of the Republicans are guilty of treason anyways, since they're plotting to help the corporations hijack the country.

Last time I checked, history looks at Lincoln as ranking amongst the top 3 American Presidents of all time. That's pretty good I'd say, and suspending civil liberties was justified in order to abolish slavery and preserve the Union.

Habeas corpus has already been suspended for those with brown skin and Arabic names. I won't defend Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus either, but at least there was a better reason-you know, civil war and all.

GT2211 · **#59** by **GT2211** » Jul 22, 2011 5:39 pm

King David wrote:
UtilityMonster wrote:
He surged in Afghanistan but drew down troop levels in Iraq which ultimately resulted in a net decrease. He is pulling out more troops from Afghanistan in the near future. The health care law was the best he could pass. I have seen no evidence that he realistically could have passed a public option. It is possible that if he had argued differently it could have worked, but that is pure conjecture based on nothing. The Senate blocked its passage with a filibuster. DADT has been overturned, so that is false. I disagree with him expanding offshore drilling. Perhaps that is indefensible, but I don't need to agree with the man on everything to vote for him. Again, I happen to lack idealistic expectations.

I disagree that the healthcare plan was the best he could pass. Better than nothing but far from the best outcome. His administration totally bungled the public debate and the legislative negotiations. DADT has not been repealed yet pending a report from the Pentagon which has not come through. What you are talking about is the federal court injunction against discharges of gays/lesbians.

The law will likely be repealed today. They have been training on how to handle issues that might arise and they have been in the process of changing from Gates to Penneta. Penneta and Mullen are expected to meet with Obama this afternoon and this will be discussed. Reports are saying that finishing the repeal is one of the first things on Penneta's agenda when he took over.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59615.html

King David · **#60** by **King David** » Jul 25, 2011 8:18 pm

UtilityMonster wrote:
Except he isn't. He is doing just as you say - not agreeing to anything without ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy as a prerequisite. Did you read the original article I linked?

UtilityMonster wrote:

King David wrote: But is his plan the one he will end up signing? I won't be the least surprised if he agrees to a plan of spending cuts with no repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy, a giveaway to the republicans.

I'll be very surprised if that happens. I guess we will just wait and see. If he doesn't, though, do think more highly of him. I think that is a fair request.

CNN just reported that Obama has endorsed Harry Reid's plan to slash 2.7 trillion in spending without repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. What'd I say. Obama and Reid-- such a predictable duo of spineless, limp dick capitulators who love to bend over for the Republican gangbang.

Are you surprised? I'm not.

Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Re: Obama is actually intelligent

Who is online