My radicalization

[zipplewrath]

I'm not generally a radical. Most folks consider me a tad "centrist". I'm not a fan of Moore. I had issues with Zinn's book. I was never a big Kucinich fan. I originally was interested in Richardson last time around, Clarke the time before that.

So I've been trying to figure out why Obama's got me so pissed off and radicalized. I feel like Olbermann some times. And really I can only find one explanation, because I wasn't even this pissed at Clinton.

He lied. It's what we complained about with George. No, he's not "just like George". But if George had done this we'd be complaining from the roof tops.

Single payer, public option, mandates, cadillac taxes, drug price negotiations, private deals with big Pharma, he campaigned against ALL of this stuff. Hey, I can understand the occasional "read my lips" moment. Everyone has to suffer negating a promise at one point or another. But this is astounding. And that's just health care.

Let's talk about Gitmo, or torture photos, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. Admittedly, those aren't nearly raised to the levels of "lies". But holy cow, he campaigned to the left of Hillary and he's standing to the right of her these days. Bank bailouts? Eduation as "union busting"? And the people he's picked. Rahm? Geithner? Summers? GATES!!!! And don't get me started with his good buddy Warren. How's that workin' for ya?

Who'da thunk that Obama would turn me into a wild radical.

[frazzled]

1. You've just been listening to the wrong people

Try reading this article, and maybe you'll reconsider. No one told us this throughout the entire health care debate:

The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.

Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.

Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24leonhardt.html?hp

[PufPuf23]

2. I have seen this NYT article in several threads today

The so-called "biggest attack" slows but does not reverse income inequality trends IMHO.

The analysis was done by the Tax Policy Center. In 2002, tax experts who had served in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton administrations established the Tax Policy Center to provide "unbiased" analysis of tax issues.

The Tax Policy Center is a classical neo-liberal / neo-conservative pro-corporatist think tank.

[zipplewrath]

3. And what about this is supposedly good?

He raised payroll taxes. He made some folks eligible for subsidies. Are there mandates? yes. Did he campaign against them? Yes. Is health CARE a right? No. Are we negotiationg for drug prices? No. Is there a cadillac tax? Yes. (A regressive one I might add since it disproportionately affects the middle class with union based health care). Did he brag that he rejected progressive ideas? Yes. Is there a public option (or even less so a "robust" one)? No. Did he campaign on one? Yes. Is gitmo still open? Yes. Will he close it? Not really, just gonna change the address. Who's writing that legislation? Grahm.

If this is the centerpiece, it is a very weak start, and relies upon much of the "free market reforms" of which Reagan would be proud.

[frazzled]

4. Raised payroll taxes?

Yeah, your payroll tax for Medicare will be raised if you earn more than $200,000 as an individual or $250,000 as a couple. Otherwise, zilch. This is a PROGRESSIVE tax on the wealthy, for the first time in years.

Your misinformed anger is wholly unconvincing. It's FDL "so-left it's hard right" speak, and it doesn't belong on this board.

[zipplewrath]

6. As well as the cadillac tax

The cadillac tax is a tax upon the middle class as much as the upper class. And Obama promised no increased taxes on folks making less than $250K. So now we have ANOTHER campaign promise down the tubes.

[frazzled]

7. Bull

The Cadillac tax has been so scaled back it is raising far less money and will have little impact on average Americans. The unions have endorsed it.

Your determination to be negative is leading you into dangerous territory of misrepresenting facts. Give it up: it is the law now, and improvements to it will be finished by the end of the week, even if we have to vote against prohibiting Viagra for child molesters.

[zipplewrath]

11. It has one of two effects

It is either a direct tax on them, or it ends up creating a diminished policy, which will result in less coverage. Either way, they're spending more. It has been scaled back, and not just for unions. But the cost of health care is going to rise and without careful management, many more could easily get caught in it's provisions.

The law is what it is. Trying to ignore that isn't going to "fix" it.

[deutsey]

5. TIME had a cover in 1993

with Reagan's picture turned upside down with the headline "Overturning the Reagan Era":

[KittyWampus]

8. He's not like George, except the rest of your post= he is. He didn't campaign to the Left Hillary

okay, maybe by a hair.

[zipplewrath]

12. He was the "anti-war" candidate

He rode that horse a long time.

He became the "anti-mandate" candidate.

In the general election he was the anti-cadillac tax candidate.

He was the pro-public option candidate.

Hillary wouldn't back down on her war vote. Obama hammered her for it.

He definitely campaigned against her from the left.

[Turborama]

17. He wasn't the "anti-war" candidate

Obama & McCain debate Afghanistan @ Oxford, Mississippi. September 26 2008

LEHRER: Do you think more troops -- more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?

OBAMA: Yes, I think we need more troops. I've been saying that for over a year now.

And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it's been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO2uA2t9e-I

Transcript: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript

[zipplewrath]

18. Now go back to the primary

The statement was that he campaigned from the left of Hillary. This is from September, while campaigning against McCain. (Ya know against things like mandates, cadiallac taxes, etc.)

[Turborama]

19. I think you're confusing "anti-illegal invasion of Iraq" with "anti-war"

When has Obama ever said that he's "anti-war"?

You're subject line states that "He was the anti-war candidate", that's what I was correcting.

How about going back to 2002?

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama: Against Going to War with Iraq

Chicago, IL | October 2, 2002

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war
rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The
Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of
the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive
the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in
Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories
of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a
larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not
fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears,
I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would
slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself
to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in
this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am
opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other
armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas
down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from
a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract
us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month
since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war
based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear -
I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man
who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN
resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons,
and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be
better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or
to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of
its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be
contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of
undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that
an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will
only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best,
impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not
opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a
clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the
fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a
shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security
program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President
Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously
enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia
safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like
Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons in already in their possession, and that
the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across
the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the
Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating
corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up
without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil,
through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join.
The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in
our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war.
But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we
allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the
full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

From: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf

[zipplewrath]

20. You're obfuscating

I understand this is a common defense tactic. Any candidate says so much over the course of a campaign that one can find almost anything. But the reality is that he was appealing to the anti-war crowd in the primary, and doing so based upon an early opposition to the Iraq War. He leveraged this aspect against Hillary's vote in the Senate that she wouldn't abandon. It was an appeal on his part to the anti-war faction of the party. He also criticized the Afghan war as well. Never mentioning his plan to triple the number of combat troops there.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zipplewrath]

13. Actually, it's "he's doing what he said he wouldn't"

But you seemed to miss that point.

[area51]

16. What an adult response.

And I suppose you're good with 273 people dying each day due to lack of healthcare. :eyes:

[90-percent]

10. War Crimes

That Obama has not prosecuted most of the Bush White House for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity makes him complicit in those crimes.

But, I guess it's OK to lie the country in to wars of occupation that are making us less safe, both in terms of worldwide perception of the US and in the trillions of dollars spent in the wars to basically make things worse for America!

Not prosecuting Bushco for these wars and their conduct and the torture and the kidnappings is simply treasonous. My only explanation is that Obama had a secret chat and was told; "Watch it there, boy, we don't want you to end up like John, Robert and Martin!" A Professor of Constitutional Law would have prosecuted this bunch as the first act of their Presidency. The absurd concept that we "have to look forward" and forget about holding the war criminals accountable sets a tragic precedent for this Country.

Because, someday, we'll be stupid enough to elect a President that wasn't as compassionate as Bush. We'll get a young Cheney type on steroids that will "kill them all and let God sort it out" doctrine to get "the bastards that did this to us", this time probably the New Zealanders or something equally absurd.

-90% Jimmy

[cali]

14. lol you seem the same as always.

not that I particularly give a flying fuck.

[zipplewrath]

15. How long have you "known" me?

This has happened in the last year. I was really making reference to my life prior to that.