What progressive bedrock principles are sacrosanct to President Obama?

[WillTwain]

After putting Social Security on the table with chained C.P.I., the pres now signed off on pension cuts in the Cromnibus bill. College tuition rates have gone up under his watch. We continue to have the most regressive tax policy since FDR. Wall Street got the deregulation they sought. Minimum wagers have lost another 20 percent of their purchasing power with very little support from the White House. Granted, he is not responsible for Reaganomics, but he was elected to reverse it.

We elected him as a progressive, yet what is off of the table to him? Republicans draw lines in the sand that they will die for. What will Obama go down screaming over?

Can anyone tell me what progressive policy or program that Obama will refuse to cut?

[zipplewrath]

1. announcers curse

I'd be afraid to. About the time one would declare something sacrosanct, he'd cut it.

[RiverLover]

2. LOL

[WillTwain]

4. I think they have their eyes on everything already.

If you can cue them in on something you are a special man.

[djean111]

3. None. nt

[geek tragedy]

5. Medicaid. And taxes became more progressive under his watch

in case you're concerned with actual facts.

[WillTwain]

6. The fact is

Last edited Tue Dec 23, 2014, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)

our tax code is nearly as regressive as it has been since the Great Depression. The percent of wages paid into taxes (sales taxes, property taxes, tuition costs and more must be factored in) by the poor and working class has never been higher. The rich have not paid a lower percentage since Hoover. Corporate taxes are near historic lows, also. If he has tweaked a few things, they are small in the grand scheme. Go ask the one third of all Americans that live in poverty about all he has done.

[840high]

7. ....

[geek tragedy]

13. Irrational to blame Obama for local/state

sales and property taxes, let alone tuition costs.

[FSogol]

14. Tuition costs stayed the same in Maryland. Is that Obama's fault too?

[WillTwain]

23. They stayed the same, still too high for most.

There is a great argument.

[Sheepshank]

64. we should blame gas prices on Obama as well while were at it...oh and the DOW n/t

[WillTwain]

67. We should praise gas prices on him

Gas prices are very low thank you and the Dow is doing great. I would argue he has done a very good job on both of these.

[Sheepshank]

70. I think you missed the point? Obama has nothing to do with gas prices either..

...Obama's influence on the DOW is secondary to bettering and stabalizing the overall economy....I should have use the sarcasm thingy...I think most others understood your comment in the OP and Obama's effects when compared to the issues in my post.

[Number23]

136. !!

I think this is now my favorite OP this WHOLE month. Oh, Lordy...

[JDPriestly]

186. The DOW records almost entirely benefit the 1-10% and much of the income earned by those

who gain is blessedly tax-free thanks to the capital gains tax gimmicks.

Taxes are a loss in this liberal accounting for Obama.

Obama could do much better. He could use his veto more often.

But his willingness to take stands on immigration and Cuba do put the Republican Congress on notice that it will have to put its votes where its money is on those issues and blatantly offend a lot of people because Republicans know they can't please all the racist fanatics that elect them into office and still do what is good for their big donors in those areas.

[WillTwain]

21. Irrational to not blame him

the way it works is as the rich sherk responsiblility, the local taxes are forced to go up to cover basic governmental duties. A large increase at the federal level would relieve pressure at the local level. This is simple stuff.

[geek tragedy]

24. Obama did raise taxes on rich people.

Your ODS is showing.

[WillTwain]

30. You seem to miss the whole idea

His small increase on the rich is inadequate. Again, a small increase on the rich and a decrease on corporate taxes, while they have captured almost all of the new wealth leaves a huge net gain for the rich. Basic stuff.

You need to consider the big picture. The rich are getting richer, the rest are living on less and getting screwed on everything else. Rotten infrastructure, unaffordable college, declining wages, on and on.

If the rich made another one hundred millionand paid an additional 3 percent, they are doing cartwheels. The bottom line: the wealth is going to the top.

[SomethingFishy]

43. Yes but you are deranged... You suffer from ODS.

See it's not that the rich are getting richer, it's not that wages are stagnant or that the minimum wage is at 1980's levels. It's not that my kids can't afford to go to college, or that I'm paying insane amounts of money for "health insurance" so some asshole can get rich off of denying me needed care.
It's not that the wars have continued, or that whistleblowers are in hiding or jail, it's not that we don't prosecute criminals, it's not that we are still bombing people in "pre-crime" fashion for something they might be planning to do it the future. It's not the secret trade deals, or the fact that we keep putting Wall Street execs in charge of the economy...

It's that you are deranged.

So quit it.


Welcome To DU. Don't worry you get used to the ODS folks.

[WillTwain]

46. This is going to be fun. You said nothing to dispute me. Don't like the message-shoot the messenge

Again, can you tell me a sacrosanct policy?

[SomethingFishy]

49. That was sarcasm friend...

Sorry I thought the note at the end would give it away... I too apparently suffer from ODS.

I'm with you. Welcome to DU. Again. (NOT Sarcasm)

[WillTwain]

50. Sorry comrade

I would gladly share a beer with you.

[SomethingFishy]

51. No worries, I've been here 10 years in one incarnation or another

and it's still hard sometimes to read between the lines.

After awhile you will start to see this kind of ODS thing from the same posters, I have put most of them on ignore but I keep a few around for laughs...

[WillTwain]

52. Help me along

when you see I am in trouble. I am going to piss some ardent Obama backers off, but believe me I wish his presidency ended differently. Obama is a good man but not the answer.

[SomethingFishy]

55. That's how most of us feel..

ODS is what crazy Republicans have. The Blue Dogs(right leaning Dems) want to paint any serious liberal with ODS because unlike crazy Republicans we have facts to back up our complaints.

There are lots of great people here, some to look for posts from are Woo Me With Science, Jackpine Radical, Hissyspit, Manny Goldstein, WillyT and XChrom, all prolific posters who supply plenty of food for thought...

Enjoy! I'm heading out to catch a matinee of The Hobbit with my kids, I'll be back later.. Feel free to pm me if you need anything.

[stevenleser]

77. No, your entire post is irrational. The tuition costs swipe was a dead giveaway.

The tuition at the lowest cost schools, the state colleges and community colleges are handled by the state legislatures and governors.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with that.

Then it turns out your tax attack on the President relies also on local and state and sales tax as well, again, nothing to do with the President.

Why don't you blame him for the fact that we will all die one day too.

[WillTwain]

85. Please read the whole thread grasshopper

the answers lie within view but your eyes must be open.

[L0oniX]

181. Lots of "reactive" minds here.

[Cha]

147. If it's so "simple" why don't you get it. President Obama did raise taxes on the rich.. you didn't

know that?

Obama's budget: Help for workers, taxes for the rich

"President Obama on Tuesday released a nearly $4 trillion budget proposal for 2015 that includes more generous tax breaks for working families while scaling back breaks for the rich."

snip//

"But the plan also features a $56 billion growth and investment package that includes money for universal pre-K, infrastructure and job training. Obama proposes to pay for those initiatives through additional spending restraint and increased revenue."

MOre..
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/04/pf/taxes/obama-budget-taxes/

Progress.

[marble falls]

154. Thankyou, Chai!

[pampango]

8. Krugman: Why the One Percent Hates Obama - Their tax rates back to pre-Reagan levels

A peculiar aspect of the Obama years has been the disconnect between the rage of Obama’s enemies and the yawns of his sort-of allies. The right denounces financial reform as a vast government takeover — and lobbies fiercely against it — while the left dismisses reform as symbols without substance. The right accuses Obama of being a socialist stealing the money of hard-working billionaires, while the left dismisses him as having done nothing to address inequality.

On all these issues, the truth is that Obama has done far more than he gets credit for — not everything you’d want, to be sure, or even most of what should be done, but enough so that the right has reason to be furious.

The latest case in point: taxes on the one percent. I keep hearing that Obama has done nothing to make the one percent pay more; the Congressional Budget Office does not agree:



According to CBO, the effective tax rate on the one percent — reflecting the end of the Bush tax cuts at the top end, plus additional taxes associated with Obamacare — is now back to pre-Reagan levels. You could argue that we should have raised taxes at the top much more, to lean against the widening of market inequality, and I would agree. But it’s still a much bigger change than I think anyone on the left seems to realize.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/why-the-one-percent-hates-obama/?_r=0

[WillTwain]

10. The chart shows tax increases on the poor and middle class, too.

So let's not go crazy with his attack on the rich.

[pampango]

11. The increase on the 1% is much more than any other group. In fact,

the other groups show a negligible increases since 2009. Not so with the 1%.

[WillTwain]

12. A one percent increase on the poor and the working poor (nearly half of all Americans)

is devastating, maybe the difference between eating and going hungry. While a 3 percent gain on the rich is the real negligible increase. Again, slaes taxes have soared, property taxes have soared and tuition has soared since 1979. So the real tax rate paid by the rest is much higher than is shown.

[geek tragedy]

18. And how are sales and property taxes the president's fault? nt

[WillTwain]

25. This was answered already

[geek tragedy]

27. Not in a rational manner.

States are responsible for their own budgets. It's called federalism.

You can read about it in the same books that discuss this thing called "separation of powers" where you might learn which branch of government sets tax rates.

[WillTwain]

29. If you do not understand it then it is irrational - ok

The feds formerly paid large amounts to states that has been cut due to slashing corporate and high income tax rates. This is simple stuff. Without the federal money, local taxes must go up. Pretty basic. I hope this makes sense to you. If not, so be it.

[stevenleser]

79. No, geek T understands it. It's irrational. nt

[pampango]

22. I would not support ANY tax increase on the poor and working poor. I DO support increasing taxes

on the 1%. I do not expect that a 4% increase in the effective income taxes paid by the 1% will impoverish any of them but it is progress.

Of course, Obama does not have control over sales taxes, property taxes and tuition. I agree that those regressive burdens on the middle class and poor have increased as progressive taxes have decreased. A return to progressive income taxation - which the increase on the 1% is a step towards - would allow those burdens to be eased.

Of course, removing ANY taxes on the poor and working poor and cutting sales and property taxes will require federal and local legislative action. It is certainly not likely to occur at the federal level with a republican congress. At the local level it would depend on progressive state taxes being raised or some kind of revenue sharing from the federal government to replace the revenue lost by local governments by reducing sales and property taxes.

[WillTwain]

26. I am with you entirely

it is probably hard to believe but I am critical of the pres only to get a bigger discussion going. I fought for him for years and lost friends on the right as a result.

[Number23]

83. Krugman had killed so many DU memes I'm surprised we're still allowed to post him here

Not that his (rational, informed, reasonable) opinion will make any difference to those determined to believe that Obama is a "slave" to his Third Way/1% "masters"

[WillTwain]

89. Krugman said Obama has not done nearly enough

We all agree he has done something, so what is your point?

[Number23]

94. My point is what I said it was. That Krugman has killed so many DU memes it's not even funny

And where does Krugman say that Obama hasn't done nearly enough? Was that before or after he slayed the "Obama is a slave to the 1%" idiocy that blankets this site daily?

[WillTwain]

95. Take it down a notch

Read the link. He says he does not get enough credit but he has not done enough, either.

Let's have a peaceful conversation. No need to get ugly because Krugman spoke against you.

[Number23]

96. You take it down. Sorry your thread isn't going as well as you'd like

My initial post wasn't even to you. What Krugman actually says is that more could have been done but that Obama doesn't get nearly enough credit for the thing that he HAS done.

You jumped in and are now pretending that Krugman "spoke against me" when what he has done is crush YET ANOTHER ignorant, pervasive DU meme. Which, judging by the content in your OP, you seem to enjoy eating up with a knife and fork.

[WillTwain]

101. Calm

Did you read Krugman? He said Obama has not done close to what should be done. I can agree he has done something but you are locked up in your defensive crouch.

The post is going well. This is better than I expected. It will take time to break dogma like yours. I have patience.

[Number23]

110. Well if five recs out of over 1000 views is "going well"

No wonder you keep trying to pretend that Krugman is criticizing Obama instead of his uninformed "critics" on the "left"

[giftedgirl77]

113. Hey Number 23...

How are you doing?

1000 views & 5 reccs doing ok, with the ODS around here???

[Number23]

116. Hey GG77! I'm doing wonderfully, how are you??

Happy holidays to you and your family!

1000 views & 5 reccs doing ok, with the ODS around here???

I know! It's hilarious! This forum is Ground Zero for ODS and all this person can muster up is five, no 6 now!, recs and somehow he's the one that's got everything figured out.

But he's definitely learned the errr... LINGO in his time here, I'll give him that. Complete with flat out distortions of the president's record and now trying to pretend that Krugman went after the president instead of very clearly spanking the president's critics on the left and right.

[giftedgirl77]

120. I'm good Number 23, Happy Holidays to you as well...

It's amazing how many newbies have just popped up out of nowhere. I must say this one has done an excellent job of building his post count in this one thread all by his lonesome. I must say his last reply to us was exactly the same & finally shows exactly what we are working with.

[WillTwain]

114. You cannot be reached, so stuck in bias.

Will you please state the program tha you think obama will defend without caving in on.

You resort to rhetoric and popularity contest comments to make your...point. i guess point is the right word.

It is amazing how when the light gets brighter you close your eyes tighter so you can ignore it.

I am on a democratic blog criticizing the pres, it is no surprise that that message will be met with negative force. Obama is a neoliberal.

Again, please answer the question. It will help your cause immensely.

[Number23]

117. I entered this really pointless and laughable thread because a poster posted a link to a Krugman

piece where he ONCE AGAIN spanks the president's critics on the "left."

You inserted yourself into that conversation to pretend that Krugman was criticizing the president and "speaking against me" when it's clear to anyone that can read that he is actually criticizing the president's critics.

Now, you can type all of the paragraphs full of nonsense and platitudes that you like, including the mess about "popularity contest comments" as if that means anything whatsoever but that doesn't change what's happened in this thread. And I have been enjoying it IMMENSELY.

[WillTwain]

119. I love when "brilliant" men like you are cornered

so they dodge off topic to salvage respect.

Answer the simple question and save some dignity.

Krugman is criticizing the president's critics while saying he has not done enough. Seriously, you cannot glean that from his comment. Really.

I dare you to answer the question. Do not shoot me I am only the piano player.

I bet you I am enjoying this more than you. It is fun to watch you hide from the truth.

[giftedgirl77]

122. Number 23 isn't a man...

Your trolling is becoming more obvious by the second.

[Number23]

123. !!

Will should be flattered though. We're the only ones kicking this thread!

[giftedgirl77]

128. Well it is the holidays..

I'm in a giving mood .

[WillTwain]

125. If you were truly gifted girl

you would not see a troll.

Sorry Number 23.

GG77 you still are running from the question, making me look better with every comment.

[sheshe2]

151. Nah, you most certainly are not looking better with every comment oh sage one~

[marble falls]

155. Finally. No more pseudofacts. Straight to the ad hominem, have you posted this on discussionist,

yet???

[JI7]

124. it really is funny , reminds me of the behavior of republicans with how they use Benghazi

and the repeated attempts to repeal the ACA.

and the usual lack of understanding different levels of govt .

[WillTwain]

126. Oh sage one

can you answer the question and shut me up.

[Number23]

129. I know! And because everyone is laughing at his idiotic questions instead of wasting one nanosecond

of their life answering them, he thinks he's WINNING something.

Look at how many times he's posted, "14,999 views and no one's answered my question!1!" "18,345 views and no one's answered!" Dude, at what point do you not get that your "question" is probably too stupid and/or blatantly loaded for anyone to answer? I am CRYING.

[Bobbie Jo]

134. Winning!

[giftedgirl77]

130. Good evening J17, welcome to the party....

You know you have a dud when you can't even get a good ole ODS thread going at DU. I wish it was always this delightful.

[Number23]

132. But he WON, GG! According to him, he won!

I know you're thinking "won what? " but that's not important.

The important thing is that no one answered his "questions," he couldn't even get the Perpetually Petulant in GD to co-sign his OP, and the vast majority of the folks in this thread are telling him that he's really blatantly mischaracterizing the president's and other people's positions or is just flat out ignorant of how government works, but none of that matters. HE WON.

He won!!! And what a fabulous prize to win!

Let us rejoice and singeth his praises.

[giftedgirl77]

135. Lolololololol, do you mean we could have just declared

him the winner of the internetz, given him & he would have ran back to his cave a long time ago?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

142. 6-1.

On Tue Dec 23, 2014, 09:11 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Winning?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5998612

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Blatant childish Obama-bashing troll aiming only to ... troll. "I won." "Obama was a mirage" "hahaha" The whole thread but this post crystallizes it.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 23, 2014, 09:24 PM, and voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alerter so am voting to hide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster seem pretty darned rude and disruptive. But by DU metrics these days, it's just not Hide worthy. And I'm usually an Obama supporter.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: In fact, I'd lock this thread completely. Seems WillTwain is a troll and set this up to bait and taunt people.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm voting to hide, mostly because I think the OP was flame-bait to begin with.
And, the incessant kicking by the OP indicates that s/he wants to keep the antagonism going.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: the OP suggests he voted for obama but in this post he shows himself to be the troll he is
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[Number23]

144. And with that... this Colossally Epic Fail of a thread can now be put to rest

And for the record, I just want to say that I did not alert on a single one of the OPs posts.

And I honestly don't know what is making me the hardest. His posts upthread "agreeing" with someone who was facetiously giving the president props for low gas prices without understanding in the least that the president has nothing to do with that; the endless kicking of his own thread which has now screeched to a halt since the OP got a post hidden; half the people in this thread (including jurors) openly calling him a troll; and his proudly bizarre declaration that he had "won".... something because no one was bothering to answer the really pointless questions in his OP.

Any two of those things would be enough to crack anyone up but all four together? I don't know how much more I can take.

[giftedgirl77]

145. Yes Ma'am indeed....

I must say I honestly thought the other post #114 (I think) was a pretty good indicator that someone wasn't here to play nice. Maybe MIRT can send him packing, he is still under 100 posts.

[Number23]

149. And the final insult?

The OPs rec count just went from 7 to 6.

I'm out. I simply cannot take anymore.

[giftedgirl77]

146. Now I know how a cat feels when you turn off...

the laser pointer. Thanks for the results....

[grasswire]

150. that was a ridiculous alert

Not hide worthy.

[L0oniX]

180. All part of the group plan to shut down opposing views on DU?

As one who also is on DI ...I am seeing a lot of hands off by the admins. Both sites have become a game of who can dominate by means of the jury system. It doesn't even matter if their is a TOS violation ...a tilted jury pool will vote according to their likes or dislikes of what is said. The more of one kind of group expands the more likely a tilted jury pool ...and that is what is happening on both sites IMO. The admins are off with "real" life while these sites churn ad revenue for them ...and I can't and won't blame them for it.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

185. Barack Hussein Obama, a BLACK MAN with THAT NAME, is running for President?

Surely you must be kidding, surely you know such a person cant possibly win

wait did you also say he is a

D E M O C R A T

You are pulling my leg, I know you are.

NO chance in HELL he can be elected president.


Because if he was, he would be attacked all day everyday from both sides, this is America, you know. Where even many people who claim to be democrats or progressives simply wont tolerate that one as president.

President, pfft...who are you kidding

No chance, I will eat my hat if he wins...

[hfojvt]

166. "the end of the Bush tax cuts at the top end"

Nice of Krugman to peddle that lie.

Tax cuts for the rich made permanent by Obama would be more accurate

favorable tax treatment of dividend income - permanent
large cut to the estate tax - permanent
lower rates on the first $400,000 of income - permanent (yeah, tell me how much benefit somebody making $40,000 a year gets from THAT. Not nearly as much as somebody who makes MORE than $400,000 a year.
patch for the AMT - permanent

and case in point, it's a distraction to talk about "the 1%" and Krugman should know it.

[ozone_man]

187. The top marginal rates were much higher under Reagan

And under Nixon they were 70%. Under Eisenhower they were 90%.



http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2010/02/04/historical-marginal-income-tax-rates

[WillTwain]

9. To Quote Krugman

"You could argue that we should have raised taxes at the top MUCH more, to lean against the widening of market inequality, and I would agree."

This is exactly my point. He has tweaked things by a few percent, but you must know that they also have captured 94 percent of all new wealth under Obama. So a small tax increase is more than offset by the enormous income gains they have received.

These are horrible times that require big change. Krugman says this, also. So, yes, many may not be aware of the good done but it is not even close to being enough.

[Hekate]

163. I think you take Krugman out of context. Krugman actually supports Obama's actions...

....more often than not. Krugman lays majority blame where it belongs: with the GOP.

Are you having fun stirring the pot yet?

[arely staircase]

15. Obama won

Get over it.

[WillTwain]

17. I voted for him both times

donated lots of money, campaigned and fought for him for six years. Maybe you should get over him.

[Hekate]

164. Somehow I doubt the veracity of this claim. Given your assertions here, it's ludicrous.

However you have provided several long-time DUers with some holiday mirth, so there's that.

Enjoy your stay.

[WillTwain]

16. With over two hundred views, so far nobody has listed a sacrosanct progressive policy

that the POTUS will keep off of the table.

[arely staircase]

19. yadda yadda yadda nt

[WillTwain]

42. You are man of great wit and a linguistic savant.

[arely staircase]

58. it is calibrated for each occassion

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

[marble falls]

156. Great posts and a link I will use today in another forum. Merry Christmas!

[arely staircase]

157. yeah. it will.come in handy around here

Hey. I used to live in Austin and love the Salt Lick. (Marble Falls reference) general area anyway.

[marble falls]

158. You know the area? I was in Austin for years in 78704. Marble Falls is the conservative version of..

Austin. In Austin nobody really cares what you do, in Marble Falls nobody wants to know what you do but when they find out they react.

Its a mix of old hippies, young ropers and the Tea Party. I have a dye shop so you know I'm one of the old hippies.

[arely staircase]

189. cool

Yeah I lived in South Austin pretty much allbof the 90s and early 2000s. Would love to move back.

[marble falls]

190. Its gotten VERY expensive. My studio used to be upstairs where the the Grateful Shed ....

used to be. The space used to be a brothel for the airfield that used to be across the street(Congress and Ben White).

78754 is now the new 78704.

[geek tragedy]

20. You apparently don't consider Medicaid a progressive

policy . . .

[WillTwain]

28. I have no idea where you got that from

The question is what is sacrosanct to him?

[geek tragedy]

56. And I replied that Medicaid was. nt

[WillTwain]

57. Thank you

let's watch the next two years. I hope you are correct. If the rethugs come after it - and you can be sure they will - the president better flat out veto it no matter what tricks the rapeublicans tie to the bill. This will be fun to watch.

Thanks for your input.

[giftedgirl77]

33. I believe what you meant was 200 views & nobody took your bait...

You should try this place called Discussionist.com, I think it would be more up your alley.

[WillTwain]

34. So

you have nothing that is sacrosact, either. Thanks for your evidence,

[stevenleser]

81. Yep. nt

[stevenleser]

80. There's no need. You haven't made a rational argument in the other direction. nt

[giftedgirl77]

86. He's like a carney trying to get people on his ride...

Now it's just getting sad.

[stevenleser]

91. At least you can feel sorry for a carney.

[WillTwain]

98. We have a small band of grasshoppers

[giftedgirl77]

107. When the faithful people with ODS won't even jump

on your bandwagon you know you have a problem.

[WillTwain]

108. Once again giftergirl77

What program do you think Obama will go down swinging for?

Be brave and answer the question. He already went after Social Security, guaranteed pensions and unions (fast-tracking TPP).

You can prove me wrong wth your strong choice rather than with empty rhetoric.

[giftedgirl77]

112. No, see as I stated in my very first reply your silly ass little

OP is nothing but bullshit flame bait. Hence why you have well over 1000 views, only a few reccs, & no substantial discussion. That's why you are stuck yelling "1000 posts & only 1 answer", your game is tired, weak, & played out.

[WillTwain]

115. You have no answer

and your pride will not let you stop fighting.

What program will he save at all costs? I dare you to say one. You will not do it because you know everything is on the table.

[NaturalHigh]

31. His post-Presidential speaking fees?

[WillTwain]

32. You have won a cupie doll

So far this is the only response.

[Ykcutnek]

35. He didn't run as a progressive.

If people elected him as one, that's their problem... not his.

[ucrdem]

37. He ran as a game changer and he's changed the game, bigtime.

Some would rather we didn't know that. Some apparently don't WANT to know that.

[WillTwain]

39. Explain please

[WillTwain]

38. This is a great point

It was assumed with all the "Hope and change" rhetoric. But he did not define himself as a progressive. I was guilty of falling for his rhetoric as were 60 million others. He is a neoliberal, much like Bill Clinton. Not as bad as Rethugs but still not what we need.

[RiverLover]

93. Not.

[ucrdem]

36. How about life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, peace on earth and good will to all?

Can you deny it? Nopity.

[WillTwain]

40. After Cromnibus and the TPP

Do you still have his back?

[ucrdem]

41. Neither is a core principle. Or remotely resembles a core principle.

But you knew that right?

[WillTwain]

44. If you do not see pension protection and Wall Street regulations you do not undertand the New Deal

He overturned a fourty year prohibition on pension raiding. This strikes directly at the core of progressive principles.

you knew that right?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

45. Yes

you 'Better beleive it' ...

[hifiguy]

47. I can't think of a one he wouldn't put on the table.

Which makes me very sad considering that I voted for him twice, the first time with boundless enthusiasm.

[WillTwain]

48. So far only his post office speaking fees have been offered as sacrosanct

I voted for him twice. too. I campainged fervently for him an donated lots of money. I lost conservative friends, for life, over him. it is amazing that people will not open their eyes. There loyalty is impressive, but enough is enough.

[JoePhilly]

53. He hates America.

Just ask the far right and the far left.

[WillTwain]

54. With over 400 views nobody has offered anything sacrosanct to the president

This speaks loudly. The lack of input by over 400 readers proves my point.

[stevenleser]

82. No one thinks you have a point. nt

[jberryhill]

59. Lack of rigid ideology and dogma

Willingness to compromise.

[WillTwain]

60. We finally have a brave DUer - Geek Tragedy

Medicaid will be off the table according to Geek Tragedy. Let's hope he is right. The next two years should test Geek's theory.

Thank you Geek Tragedy.

[tularetom]

61. Well he's begun to tell the congress to kiss his ass

And that would be a good thing, except the issues he's made his stand on have nothing to do with the economic plight of middle class and working class Americans.

Resumption of relations with Cuba? Little or no effect. Immigration reform? Probably a negative effect to bring more low wage workers into the country. Gay marriage? Little or no effect.

Affordable Care Act? Lots of goodies in there for the middle class. But it remains to be seen how strongly he stands behind it once a serious challenge is raised by congress or the courts.

When it comes to economic issues, his spine resembles a slinky.

[WillTwain]

62. Yes, he is trying to make a stand on social issues

Will he punch it out with the neoliberals is the question. There is little evidence of this in six years.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

63. He's refused to gut/repeal PPACA

It's not the most "progressive" program out there but it's a step forward from what we had and he's not giving up on it. If he had a Congress willing to work with him on it, I have no doubt that he would want to make it better and take it further. I see President Obama as being a pragmatic person more than an ideological one and not a very "line in the sand" person. That being said, he has also had to work with Republicans since 2011, so some concessions have had to be offered/made just to keep the lights on. It will be even worse the next two years since we lost the Senate but I'm just glad that he's still in office and can veto and/or moderate whatever junk Congress sends to him.

[WillTwain]

68. His first two years he had huge majorities

He missed a huge opportunity to do more. They always talk about a president's first hundred days and he let way to much slide.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

73. In all fairness, he had a lot of things to deal with

And significant Republican obstructionism to contend with. I'd say that he got a lot done notwithstanding.

[WillTwain]

75. He did get a fair amount done but missed a huge chance to do more

You need to strike when the iron is hot, He should have known he would have two years to get as much as possible done. it was clear for a long time that 2010 was not looking good.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

109. I don't remember it being that obvious

It didn't necessarily have to be, anyway or wasn't inevitable. Still, he had his hands full dealing with cleaning up Bushco's many messes. I don't know how he has gotten through the last six years without losing his mind, frankly.

[WillTwain]

121. He is a great guy in many ways

but he has done some awful things, too. The pension issue is beyond belief.

[markpkessinger]

102. He never had a "huge" majority in the Senate

I have been plenty critical of this President on many fronts, but the claim that he had 'huge' majorities in both the House and Senate is inaccurate. In fact, he only ever had the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster for a total of about 2 months in 2009. Remember that:

1) Al Franken wasn't seated until the summer of 2009. Leaving the Dems + Independents at 59 until he was seated.

2) Ted Kennedy died shortly after Franken was seated that same summer, returning the total of Dems + Independents to 59.

3) Brown (R) won Kennedy's seat and took office in Jan 2010. Dropping the Dems to 59 again.

Also, keep in mind that even in those two months, counting to 60 required the votes of the two independents, Sanders and Lieberman. Sanders was a fairly reliable ally, but Lieberman, by that point, was pissed that Democrats had chosen a different Senate candidate in the primary, and hence he became an Independent who acted out his anger by caucusing with Republicans and supporting their filibusters.

There has been and is plenty to be critical of with regard to this President. And I've wondered, too, if there was any progressive ideal at all that was sacrosanct in the mind of this President. But please, let's keep the criticisms honest, and refrain from rewriting history.

[WillTwain]

106. Historically, 59 is a huge number

It is well above average. Bush had a 50-50 senate and for his first two years and never got over 55. Yet, he managed to destroy the country.

[markpkessinger]

111. As a practical matter, however . . .

. . . under current Senate rules, with a Republican minority that has been uniquely (in history) committed to filibustering virtually any and every piece of legislation that came before the Senate, to pass anything requires 60 votes. Personally, I believe the founders would be rolling over in their graves over the way this Senate rule has been employed, but that's where we are. To ignore that reality in order to support a claim that Obama could have done whatever he wanted during his first two years is intellectually dishonest.

Again, criticize away -- and indeed, I share many of your criticisms. But let's keep it honest, shall we?

[WillTwain]

118. You make very valid points

Points that I have made in the past.

I still think this is the test of leadership, though. If Obama could not push through a minimum wage increase with 59 senators and the will of the people behind him, I just do not know what to say in his defense. He needs to berate therepublicans like FDR did and like Reagan andBush did, too.

If he failed to pass more legislation with 59 votes, then we are cooked. We may never see 60 senators. In reality, we may need 65 senators because of defectors. We may be in a state of continuing decline unless we find a leader that can make 55 votes work.

The thugs are playing hardball, but we need to rise to the occasion, not wimp-out.

[markpkessinger]

133. I don't believe there is any amount of competent "leadership" . . .

. . . by this President that could have overcome the GOP's determination to block absolutely everything.

[eomer]

153. You do know what the budget reconciliation process is, right?

And, if so, why do you not include in your explanation what it is, how it could have been used, how it relates to the filibuster, what Democrats could have done by using it more during 2009/2010?

[BumRushDaShow]

161. The reconciliation process can't be used willy nilly

Nor can it be considered a slam dunk way of enacting legislation due to the Byrd Rule. It may look good in theory but the idea might be tossed out by the Parliamentarian as was done in the past.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/11/would-a-republican-majority-abuse-the-budget-reconciliation-process/

[eomer]

162. Who said anything about using it willy nilly?

It can be used to raise tax rates, as one example. There's no question about that.

And regarding the parliamentarian, when Republicans have the majority then they get a parliamentarian that will rule the way they want - it's the majority that controls that. But when Democrats have the majority they spend their energy on finding explanations for why they can't do anything, like you're doing now.

[BumRushDaShow]

169. No one said that it can't be done

but you misconstrue my facts with your conjecture.

[eomer]

170. Not sure what that means, but the point is that Republicans use these types of options

to the maximum they can push through while Democrats don't make hardly any use of them and instead focus on explaining why they can't do anything.

From the article you linked to:

Republican leader Mitch McConnell has already signaled their intention to make vigorous use of the reconciliation process to get things passed.

How long did that take? After six years of my trying to get people on DU to even acknowledge that this procedure exists and that there are important things that could be done with it when Democrats have a majority in both houses, how long did it take for it to start being talked about when Republicans hold the majority? Answer: it didn't even take until the majority is sworn in. Even before they sit down in their seats we're already hearing about the things they may do with it and how they're going to push it as far as they can. Why do we not hear this kind of talk when Democrats have that power?

[BumRushDaShow]

171. Statistically

both sides have used the option almost at the same rate. But to point to McConnell's threats is just silly. Despite this whole system of government being one big house of cards that could go in any minute, any hyperbole out of the GOP becomes just that, a lot of blustery talk. There will be a flurry of nonsensical legislation that will ultimately either be blocked or vetoed, with no way to override. I.e., the continual obsession of many DUers assuming the current President will somehow allow any of the GOP's most egregious crap to come to fruition, is why their arguments lose all credibility. If anything, the GOP has the challenge of dealing with probably 1/3rd of their members who were either elected not to govern (as a protest) or with no experience in governing, and the GOP leadership will be unable to control them enough to pass legislation that the GOP establishment might need... Meaning an even worse record then the current congress.

In essence, I agree with this thought -

One of the biggest congressional stories of 2015 is going to be how the Republicans, in total control for the first time in eight years, conjure many of their boldest and fondest policymaking desires into a single legislative punch and then whisk the huge behemoth past Democratic senators stripped of their normal filibuster powers. The only potential mystery is whether they’ll end up watching helplessly as the entire conservative fireball gets vaporized with a few swooshes of President Barack Obama’s pen. That’s because the sorcery of reconciliation, while very powerful, has an even more forceful antidote: the veto.

<...>

If even the narrowest majorities of the House and Senate support adoption of a budget resolution, which hasn’t happened since 2009, that document can order the production of legislation to tackle any and all fiscal policies. That means taxes may be increased or reduced, discretionary spending may be curbed or boosted, the debt ceiling may be raised or restricted, and all manner of mandatory or entitlement programs may be expanded, contracted or refashioned — from Medicare and Medicaid to farm subsidies; from veterans’ benefits to school lunches.

<...>

But that’s as far as it would be guaranteed to get. The lawmakers who invented reconciliation 40 years ago, in a statute boosting the congressional role in the federal budgeting system, were powerless to take away the veto power created by the Constitution. And there’s no chance that bipartisan, two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate would form to override Obama’s rejection of a measure to curb entitlements or remake the tax code, for example, entirely on the GOP’s terms.

<...>

The answer will be the most consequential way in which GOP leaders reveal how they’re going to manage the fracture of their ranks that’s going to continue in 2015, no matter how the coming shutdown brinkmanship over immigration plays out — with the don’t-give-an-inch-to-Obama confrontational conservatives on one side and the we’ve-got-to-prove-we-can-govern mainstream conservatives on the other.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/hawkings/budget-reconciliation-history/?dcz=

[eomer]

172. I doubt that is how it will play out.

Most likely what we'll see is something like we saw already with Cromnibus. The deals will be worked out, they will constitute a negotiation essentially between Wall Street and the other ruling elites of the .1%. The rest of us will sit on the sideline and watch, some of us complaining about it while others of us defend the indefensible.

[BumRushDaShow]

173. Well we shall see

It's ironic that DUers think that the U.S. was once a utopia founded by honorable men who suddenly ceded control and succumbed to the elite class post-FDR, despite the fact that in reality, this country was established by the "1%" of their day (pre-"Wall Street&quot - the wealthy corporate-affiliated white male landowning slave-holders.

That group begot generations of what would successively become the newest wealthy white male robber barons - the banking barons, train barons, mining barons, oil barons, media barons, and of late, back full circle to yet another generation of the banking robber barons of old.

I.e., this country was created by and has always been maintained for the benefit of the very people we rant against. To believe otherwise is naive. To effect what change one can to level the playing field is honorable, but never guarantees an outcome to be on equal-footing with the founders and their progeny, save an overthrow.

[eomer]

174. Which DUers think that?

"that the U.S. was once a utopia founded by honorable men..."

[sheshe2]

152. Do some homework....

His first two years he had huge majorities

Because you are wrong. He also entered office with a country that was on the brink of a deep recession, you remember that correct? Yup thanks to Bushco we were in the toilet and about to be flushed for good. His first 100 days was trying to keep our heads afloat. Silly you, you missed all that did ya?!

[Sheepshank]

65. Be sure not to vote for again....

did you vote for him before?

[WillTwain]

69. Yes, I voted for him both times.

If the thugs put up another rotten candidate, and I am sure they will, i would vote for him a third time, too.

[Sheepshank]

71. really?

[WillTwain]

74. If he could run a third time

and Jeb,Mitt,Rand or Christie are the reps, then hell yes.

[Hekate]

165. Uh-huh

[WillTwain]

72. With over 700 views we have one, yes one, DUer willing to say the pres holds something sacrosanct

That one vote was for medicaid. We will see how this plays out in the next two years.

This says much about our view of the president.

[WiffenPoof]

76. I love this thread...

It takes some courage to ask this question. I think it is clear why no one can list a single "Progressive" conviction. There are none. I tend to agree that our current president is more like Bill Clinton than FDR.

[WillTwain]

78. Shameless

How about a rec?

[stevenleser]

84. Still no one thinks you have a point. nt

[WillTwain]

87. Grasshopper look where you made your last comment

right under "I love this thread"

Oh, have you anything that President Obama will not bargain on?

Really looking forward to your insights.

[L0oniX]

178. Pins dropping.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

88. The best thing to do is not vote in 2016 if Hillary is the candidate, that will show them

[WillTwain]

90. There are others that hopefully will run. Sanders, Warren, Brown, O'Malley, Webb

If Hillary wins the primary - and it looks good for her - we will hope for the best.

[L0oniX]

179. Well ...we can't have people vote according to their conscience ...can we.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

183. YOu bet, if your conscious tells you overturning Roe is a road worth going down to make your point

go for it..

I will fight that however with every last breath.

I will fight it by supporting any breathing human being who wont act the way we are certain rightwingers will act if given total power.

Ask a minority of any group if they can afford the luxury of having 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 years of rightwing, racist, homophobic, misogynist xenophobes in charge of EVERYTHING

Please ask them that...

[L0oniX]

184. You mad bro?

[RiverLover]

97. 2008 Obama: "No Welfare For Wall Street" populist rhetoric, utter BS

Obama: "No Welfare For Wall Street"

Obama said fighting off lobbyists and special interests was key, as is recognizing that the fundamentals of our economy are not strong - which he suggested his opponent, Republican John McCain, has not recognized.

"Some of the root causes of this crisis have to do with the day-to-day struggles that ordinary people are going through," he said, "with flat wages and incomes but constantly increasing costs.

That puts pressure on them to take out more debt, to use home equity loans, to try to refinance. It created an environment in which this kind of crisis potentially could occur.

"We should have never gotten into this place in the first place. And I think this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policy."

Obama said more serious regulations are required. "We have to set up some rules of the road, some regulations that work to keep the system solvent, and prevent Wall Street from taking enormous risks with other people's money, figuring that, 'Tails I win, heads you lose,' where they don't have any risk on the downside.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-no-welfare-for-wall-street/

[WillTwain]

99. He says all the right things at all the right times.

I love the "I will be fighting for you (the middle-class) every day. Focused like a laser." Then he cuts pensions and puts our FDIC insured money on the roulette wheel.

[RiverLover]

100. Yes he was, & is, the Great Pretender.

Speaking of people fooled by him, I wonder if they want their Nobel Peace prize back.

[WillTwain]

103. I laughed aloud at your last comment

This can be a tough crowd. Glad to see someone that seeks the truth.

Peace

[RiverLover]

105. Peace

Indeed.

[Bobbie Jo]

160. heh

[L0oniX]

177. ...and that's just one of many stabbings in the backs of progressives / populists.

[WillTwain]

104. We are near 1000 views and only one brave DUer has sided with the president

and offered a sacrosanct pledge.

There are plenty of angry folks out there that want to defame the opinion, but only one has the will to make the pledge.

[WillTwain]

127. Wow: Over 1200 views and one lonely defender of the president. What an indictment

Come on number 23 and giftedgirl77 stand forsomething.

[aspirant]

167. His refusal

to act against political bribes

[Rex]

137. The plutocracy exists way above the POTUS, he has zero power

to spank billionaires when they behave badly. The best he can do is take away their pocket change. The blame for the last 6 years is mostly with Congress. You got to remember that he doesn't get any support from Congress or the SCOTUS.

Well he refuses to cut Obamacare. That progressive enough for you?

[merrily]

139. Yet, billions are spent on Presidential elections--and that's not even counting time and energy.

I don't know if people like Buffet, Adelson and Koch would invest their money on campaign donations and lobbying, when they are really controlling everything anyway, no matter what.

[aspirant]

168. Remember the Sherman anti-trust act?

He and the DOJ can break'em up, no congress needed.

[Rex]

182. Nobody breaks up monopolies anymore, we should.

The big banks should be broken up and scattered into the wind.

[1StrongBlackMan]

138. posted to for later

[merrily]

140. Do you even have to read any of the replies to your OP, or does just the screen name alone tell

you what to expect from each post?

[brooklynite]

141. I didn't vote for him as a Progressive.....I voted for him as a Democrat

He's still far and away better that either Republican he's run against. If that's not good enough for you, perhaps you should be encouraging Dennis Kucinich to run again.

[Doctor_J]

143. since he himself disdains being called liberal or progressive, there is no

reason to consider him that way at all. He is a corporatist to his core.

[stevenleser]

148. Locked out of your own OP eh? Thou hast truly disrupted, poorly. Nt

[woo me with science]

159. K&R Corporate bait and switch, planned. We need corporate money out of government.

We have united oligarchy now, pretending to be democracy.

[Township75]

176. The principle of bashing money in politics then taking in more money than any other candidate

That principle has been around a while.

[heaven05]

188. this site

has shown me that the words progressive and liberal are relative. So are your problems with the POTUS. Our POTUS is better than anything I've seen in that house in 30+years.