Why is a Democratic President screwing us?

[Cyrano]

I know there are many here on DU who will stand by Obama no matter what he does or doesn’t do.

And I know there are many here on DU who will blame Obama for everything he does or doesn’t do.

I have both praised and criticized Obama in the past. However, the budget that he presented this week could have been one presented by a “partially sane” Republican, (if such a thing as a “partially sane” Republican still existed.)

I am a die-hard Democrat and I can’t stomach Obama’s budget. He has given away things that Democrats are supposed to believe in. And he's done it before any negotiations have even begun.

President Obama: WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? Why aren’t you standing up for what the Democratic Party has historically stood for?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[truebrit71]

9. BLASPHEMER!!!!

:evilgrin:

[badtoworse]

32. are you going to issue a fatwah?

[Faith No More]

263. It's simple,

It's because it is no longer about democrats and republicans, it is about rich and poor. The rich have no desire to be poor so they are going to cover their asses at all costs. Obama ain't poor and no matter how many glorious, inspiring speeches he gives, he doesn't really give a rat's ass about the poor.

[Autumn]

279. Welcome to DU. Faith No More

You hit it out of the ball park on that reply.

[atreides1]

297. I'm going to use your statement..

...as my FB status.

[Justpat]

302. .

:toast:

[Radical Activist]

94. Are you serious?

Threads that don't criticize Obama are the exception here. Victimization complex?

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. We're easy?

:shrug:

[grasswire]

3. I don't think we like the answer to your question.

Gives me a sour stomach to consider the possible answers.

[Deep13]

4. tradition

:(

[ProSense]

5. There are a lot of

good things in the budget: here, here, here and here.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

26. You're welcome. n/t

[Demoiselle]

111. Thank you, ProSense, for listing specifics.

I am grateful to everyone on DU who works hard to get the facts out there.
But now I'm going to have to shut myself in the basement and scream hysterically for half an hour. It seems that everyone these days, including the President, has allowed the Right Wingers to frame the debate. And that depresses me terribly.

[uppityperson]

47. Thank you for posting some positives.

It is so much easier to focus on the negatives and brush away any positives.

For the OP, politics is a nasty game. We knew it would be hard work to get anything done, even with any sort of party majority in either house. All I hoped for was to slow down the nasty stuff for a bit.

[Cyrano]

51. "... slow down the nasty stuff for a bit."

A Dem Prez putting out a budget that cuts heating aid for the poor, given today's economy, is not something that any normal person would define as something to "...slow down the nasty stuff a bit."

Please. Please. Wake up.

[uppityperson]

57. Do you seriously believe things have gotten as much worse under Obama as they did under shrub?

Seriously?

Of course I don't agree with everything he's proposed and of course he hasn't gone far enough for me but good grief. Are you seriously saying that things are all getting as bad as they did under shrub?

[Cyrano]

66. Are you seriously saying they've gotten any better?

[uppityperson]

72. Some things have. A lot hasn't. And I don't see things going bad as fast as they did under shrub.

[indepat]

95. With the tax cuts for the wealthy in place, increased defense spending, and the wost economy and

jobs market since the great depression, deficit spending might just explode unless pubs get the deep cuts in entitlements they have been arduously been laying the groundwork for 30 years ago and are now champing at the bit for the day of fulfillment of this orgasmic RW wet dream to finally arrive. :patriot:

[poverlay]

236. You are so very right. Without a near-miracle of united pushback,framing the debate in a clear,

proudly liberal way, and concerted defense, they will annihilate every positive aspect of every entitlement and law that benefits the poor and middle class.

WE ARE LIBERAL
WE ARE RIGHT
WE ARE FOR THE PEOPLE
and
Teapublicans are NOT!

[humbled_opinion]

162. Ah-hem....

Now I understand Obama inherited a mess but come on now.... When do we get unemployment back to the 5 percent levels?

[shanti]

220. and he promised

that he would put heavy tariffs on corps. that outsourced....have yet to see that happen, in fact, just the opposite.

[truedelphi]

239. Well when you understand that Rahm WROTE the damn legtal

language that the Clinton Administration needed to enforce NAFTA, you understand who this guy at 1600 Pennsylvania really is.

[shanti]

333. i know now

after the fact, unfortunately :(

[quakerboy]

233. I will dare an analogy

If I cut myself while cooking, and I lose a pint of blood quickly, that is bad. But eminently survivable.

However if one has been shot several times in the chest, loses 39% of your blood, but seems to be clotting, and then get tapped for half a pint of blood, that puts survival itself in jepardy.


As I see it, Whether Obama does a better or worse job than Bush, Clinton, FDR, or Taft is totally irrelevant. The only important measure is whether he will do a good enough job to save the citizens of this country from the situation we are in. "Better than" is a fools game.

[Skittles]

238. please start THINKING

since when would "doing not as badly as the shrub" become a measurement of SUCCESS? OMFG.

[uppityperson]

309. Since what I am talking about is upthread, your chiding me to THINK is a bit off.

"All I hoped for was to slow down the nasty stuff for a bit." Not saying not doing as badly as under shrub is a measurement of SUCCESS but all I hoped for was to slow down the nasty stuff for a bit and I don't see things going bad as fast as they did under shrub.

If you want to read more into what I write and try to claim I said more...well, the IS DU.

[leeroysphitz]

285. So Bush* is now setting the bar? We can't hope to do better?

Sad.

[spooked911]

304. we're falling apart slower-- yay!

[Pale Blue Dot]

67. I don't see a single place where the OP says that.

Not even close. Please cite exactly where the OP says anything close to that, otherwise you aresimply posting a straw man and ignoring the OP's point.

[uppityperson]

71. maybe because that post isn't to OP but to this subthread.

UP "All I hoped for was to slow down the nasty stuff for a bit."

Cyr "A Dem Prez putting out a budget that cuts heating aid for the poor, given today's economy, is not something that any normal person would define as something to "...slow down the nasty stuff a bit.""

UP "Do you seriously believe things have gotten as much worse under Obama as they did under shrub?"

See? I say I wanted nasty stuff slowed down. Cyr says it hasn't been, or that any "normal person" thinks so. So he is saying that yes, things are getting worse, not slowing down.

So, I won't "cite exactly where the OP" etc since I am replying on this subthread, not to the original post. And this subthread is about some positive stuff that happened. Do you not see any positives? Yes, there are a hell of a lot of negatives, but there are some positives also.

Edited to add, about your "strawman" assertion. Since I replied to a person posting positive things, ie this subthread, not sure how this becomes a strawman. As Inigo Montoya says....

[Wednesdays]

191. As Inigo Montoya says...?

:shrug:

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3W5GDkgf2w

[hfojvt]

212. "Inconceivable!!"

"You keepa saying thata word. I don't think ita means whata you think it does."



"You seem like a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."


"You seem like a decent fellow. I hate to die."

[defendandprotect]

128. Why should anything be getting "worse" under Obama -- i.e., moved to the right?

Why?

We gave Obama a landslide victory which he tossed away kowtowing to the Repugs --

who were resurrected from the ashes!!

[tomp]

167. can you say trojan horse?

can you say bad cop/bad-cop-in-disguise-as-good-cop?

[defendandprotect]

219. I sure can --

question is will the rest of America figure this out so that we can begin

to talk about what actually to do about all of this?

And, boy, imagine what a beauty of a Trojan Horse Lieberman would have been!!

Who do you trust?

Especially for 2012?

[tomp]

256. an acceptable candidate has yet to emerge. nt

[savannah43]

278. Is that the standard now?

As log as it's not as bad as Bush, it's okay?

[_ed_]

295. That's your standard?

"Well, he's not WORSE than Bush..."

[valerief]

104. Rich folk gotta get richer. Least they ain't eatin' the poor. Yet. nt

[humbled_opinion]

330. I think your wrong....

The rich gorge themselves on Champagne and Caviar harvested on the backs of the working class, so in fact they are "eatin" the poor....

[defendandprotect]

129. +1000%

[MNBrewer]

89. thank goodness Obama is a "King with a Magic Wand"

and these things will come to pass

[Marr]

115. There you go again, linking to your echo chamber.

Why don't you make your argument here, and defend it here?

[MissDeeds]

155. +1000

A block quote and link for any and all possible occasions. Funny how that works.

[hfojvt]

214. saves electrons

If the argument has already been written, then why re-write it? http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/140

[Marr]

291. Because it's not contributing to the discussion, but diverting attention

away from the discussion.

An occasional post to a journal entry is one thing, but this poster has a stable of talking points (often pulled directly from the White House site), and almost every post is an attempt to redirect discussion into one of their own posts, with a population consisting of a handful of supporters and nothing else.

[Number23]

234. It is very telling that something like this gets 200 recs

While your numerous posts full of DOCUMENTED FACTS which state the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of OPs like this get ignored, maligned etc.

At this point, the wailing is so disingenuous I don't really understand why anyone bothers.

[olegramps]

258. I agree he has done many admirable things. However....

they appear to pale in light of his agreement to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. He should have in fact called for significant increases on the wealth to balance the budget. The agreement to decrease the inheritance taxes I regard as being a damn scandal. We don't have to rehash the health care and financial fiasco.

I respect your efforts to provide a balanced treatment, however, you must also acknowledge his less than commendable efforts in regard to these three major issues. Although the outcome many have been the same, he should have told the citizens that failure to provide significant reform would have devastating consequences for the future of the nation. In light of his past performance it is not surprising that many are rightfully apprehensive about future of Social Security and other progressive programs.

[KittyWampus]

294. I wonder why there aren't dozens of threads discussing those.

[Rex]

321. And a few bad things.

[chimpymustgo]

6. Because too many in his party are cowards, and would rather kiss his ass, or kiss their corporate

masters' asses. Obama needs a primary challenge.

[defendandprotect]

130. They're not cowards ... they're pre-bribed and pre-owned by corporations --

Some may still be expecting millionaires and multi-millionaires in our Congress

to work for the "general welfare" -- I don't!

[shanti]

221. too late for that

i'm afraid. any primary challenger would have to be vetted. same old same old.

[creon]

267. No

There will be no credible primary challenge.
There is no credible candidate to do such a thing.

If you want progressive legislation passed, you need a majority of progressives in Congress.

[social_critic]

7. Because the GOP just took the house and he wants to win in 2012

It's simple. He has to move to the middle to win in 2012. The guy is being smart. Or maybe you want to see Sarah Palin in the White House?

[no limit]

10. Move to the middle? Where has he been for the last 2 years if not the middle?

[defendandprotect]

131. Obama is in the center of a right wing party vs a radical right wing party ....

that puts Obama on the right --

And, certainly, I doubt you would deny that Obama has been on the side of

corporations -- plain and simple to see --

tough and painful for Americans to watch!

[Forkboy]

143. Some jokes write themselves.

[Beacool]

166. Hey Forky, how's the arm?

Still typing with your left hand? Hope all is well with you.

:hi:

[Forkboy]

195. I feel like a Lefty who is known for their right arm.

Other than that I feel like a million bucks, which was awarded to someone else.

Putting my shirts on takes me half a day. Which leaves me a quite a bit of time to be obnoxious here on DU.

Thanks, Bea. I'm tough on you, but it's all out of love. ;)

[Beacool]

204. I know a little of what you feel.

Wednesday 2 weeks ago we had a bad ice storm in this area and I fell face down right in front of the light rail I had just gotten off in front of my job's bldg. It took 4 people to get me up because I couldn't get any traction. They hadn't put salt in the space between the tracks and it was like an ice skating rink. I banged up my knees, but the worst was the pain in my shoulder. I tried to catch myself and I must have done something to it. I thought that the pain would go away and didn't seek treatment, but it hasn't gone away and a doctor friend said that I may have done some damage to the cartilage in the rotator cuff and probably need an MRI. I have an appt. with my own doctor this Thursday. We'll see what she says.

So I'm not in as bad a shape as you, but I can honestly say that "I feel your pain". LOL!!!

:(

Take care and hang in there!!!

:hi:

[Forkboy]

209. Eeeessh!

Like we don't have enough things working against us. Sounds all too much like my own plight. I honestly hope that things work out for the best. I'm not having much fun, and the aggravation is setting in (like I need help being cranky), so I hope that you get through all this with a minimum of hassle. Sounds like you can indeed feel my pain, and I'm sorry for that.

We have our differences, but I never want to see you hurting in any way. I'm sorry you're dealing with the same stuff I am. It sucks.

[Beacool]

213. That's OK.

I'm faring better than you, at least I didn't break any bones. Oh, well........

This winter has sucked lemons. I'm counting the days to spring.

Thanks for the good vibes.

:pals:

[olegramps]

259. I fell on the ice last h year and it still bothers me. Too damn old to heal I guess.

Good luck on recovering. I live to play golf and I am hoping that it gets better. Docs just say there isn't much that can be done. Wish you better.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

185. he always leaned right...he came out of the DLC

[villager]

11. calling the far right "the middle" doesn't excuse anything

n/t

[corpseratemedia]

33. this is the truth and what needs to be repeated!

[Dragonfli]

15. I know, a puppy will die and sista sarah will move into our homes!!!! (if we criticise D RW policy)

We should of course criticise D LW policy, just like our great and holy leader.


Thank you for reminding me and saving me from such evil.

[dkofos]

27. Maybe he should put an R next to his name and run as a repube.

[Hello_Kitty]

34. Oh noes!!1! Sarah Palin!!1!!ELEVENTY!!1!

Quick! We better cut some more programs for the poor to make that eeeeebil specter go away!!!

[CrossChris]

45. I see a lot of people asking this in response to criticisms of Obama.

Is this kind of like a stock answer?

[tavalon]

98. If by answer, you mean straw man, then yes.

[Moral_Imagination]

181. FYI Giffords is to the right of Obama....n/t

[damntexdem]

46. Yeah, right! He has to move the middle further to the right.

He has to screw the nation in order to save it.

Now where have I heard an argument like that before?

[whatchamacallit]

75. Fuck that

I don't care if he wins if this is how he governs.

[Shining Jack]

83. Oh noes!

The Palin bogeywoman again! :rofl:

[WVRICK13]

99. Wrong

If he moved to the middle he would have to move left not right.

[ClassWarrior]

106. "The middle" is a myth.

No Center, No Centrists
by George Lakoff

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[CrispyQ]

109. Here's where moving to the middle gets you:

The only way Obama could move to the middle is to move to the left.

[defendandprotect]

132. +1 --

[Forkboy]

146. There's some Dems here on DU who need to read this, toot sweet!

Of course, the Dems I speak of know exactly what they're doing. Here's a hint: They don't give a fuck about you or me.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

189. and he keeps leaning forward!

[Occulus]

114. And if the "middle" keeps moving to the right, as it has for, oh, fifteen, twenty years now?

What does that make "moving to the middle"?

[kpominville]

120. He is following a failed strategy

The only reason Republicans won in 2010 was because progressives stayed home. Thus, moving farther to the right to keep up with the increasingly crazy Republicans only alienates more and more of the electorate.
If Obama stood up for the common sense progressive principles that made America great in the first place, he would win by a landslide in 2012. If he tried to become an FDR President, instead of a Reagan Republican, he would have America at his back and the election in the bag.

[StarsInHerHair]

151. if Obama emulated FDR he would become a legend

nt

[Enthusiast]

241. You win the award. nt

[Justpat]

303. .

:toast:


great response

[russspeakeasy]

182. MOVE? He can stay right where he is and be in the middle.

3rd dimensional chess again? I guess we who have been
disillusioned should just STFU...

[Hissyspit]

200. Middle of the Road

The middle of the road is trying to find me
I'm standing in the middle of life with my plans behind me
Well I got a smile for everyone I meet
As long as you don't try dragging my bay
Or dropping the bomb on my street

In the middle of the road you see the darndest things

More lyrics: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pretenders/#share
Like fakirs driving 'round in jeeps through the city
Wearing big diamond rings and silk suits
Past corrugated tin shacks full up with kids
Oh man I don't mean a hampstead nursery
When you own a big chunk of the bloody third world
The babies just come with the scenery

Oh come on baby
Get in the road
Oh come on now
In the middle of the road, yeah

The middle of the road is no private cul-de-sac
I can't get from the cab to the curb
Without some little jerk on my back
Don't harass me, can't you tell
I'm going home, I'm tired as hell

[bowens43]

248. sorry, but 'I want to win'

is not qa valid reason to move right of center. Besides, he started this bullshit pseudo-republican crap long before the republicans took over the house.

Smart? Hardly. He's a sell out who cares only re-election. And given the choice , I would rather have a one term Democratic prseident then a two term president who has no values and isn't committed to anything or any any principle.

Would Palin really be that much worse?

[Dawgs]

322. "move to the middle" would mean he has to move to the left.

:shrug:

[LaurenG]

8. He would rather please the republicans than the democrats and trust me

Mr. President, you can't please them. x(

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Motown_Johnny]

14. I think he is planning on running on repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich in 2012

and this budget is going to be framed as "what I had to do because those tax cuts are still in place".


Then the numbers will get thrown around and everything will be confusing to most voters.

All that will be remembered it that President Obama didn't want to do these things but that he had to because of the tax breaks for the wealthy.


It is all political posturing for 2012.

[Dragonfli]

16. And then he won't once elected (the R's are pretty scary after all)

Who could blame him? I am sure he will try extra hard too.

[Motown_Johnny]

37. that remains to be seen, once he has one his second term

he has nothing to think of but his legacy


You may be right, but it is also possible that he may be very different in his second term (assuming he wins one).

[Dragonfli]

41. I see a pattern of Ideology, I do hope for the longshot (he changes 180) tho /nt

[bvar22]

49. Is that going to be the campaign slogan 2012?

Vote for Obama!
It is possible that he may be very different this time.

[Autumn]

282. Hell of a bumper sticker n/t

[defendandprotect]

133. Legacy?

[metapunditedgy]

65. LOLZ! He ran on that in 2008. "This time, I really really promise to do it!" n/t

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[Enthusiast]

243. But oddly enough, it isn't funny.

Only sad.

[defendandprotect]

135. +1000%

[M_A]

82. ah, I see

so letting the poor and elderly freeze and starve is ok as long as it is a way for the great and powerful O to have excuses to get re-elected.

I'd rather be raped by an enemy than by someone who claimed to be my friend.

Glad I voted for McKinney!

[midnight armadillo]

141. Horsepuckey.

It's quite simple: Obama, despite being a Democrat, is firstly loyal to wealthy Wall St and other corporate supporters, and secondly to any Democratic ideals that do not conflict with the first.

The giant corporations and the wealthiest 1%'rs own the government lock stock and barrel. Yes, there are good people still in office and serving in the gov., and on occasion the people are thrown a bone, but there's just enough to keep us placated while the 1% strive to own 99.99999% of all wealth in the country.

[bowens43]

what he runs on

has absolutely nothing to do with what he does once he gets in office. We know that , so who cares what he runs on. The man's word is worthless.

[DeSwiss]

17. "Why is a Democratic President screwing us?"

- Because it's the same monster.......

K&R

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[shanti]

222. +1

:thumbsup:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Ah, come on. You should be grateful that he's expending so much effort screwing us.

Not to mention the criticism from the screwees that the poor guy has to endure.

[Dappleganger]

20. You never loved him!

:cry: :cry: :cry:

:sarcasm:

[Old Codger]

21. DINO n/t

[whattheidonot]

22. stuck

Obama is stuck and he has accepted contributions from the powerful to run their agenda. It is kind of like the sub prime mess. The powerful are chasing their tail trying to right the ship. The ship will not righted until these guys are out of power. No one on the left is really speaking out. Ron Paul seems to be the one who speaks of it the most. Some of his ideas are drastic at best , but he says what is going on.
A President has to be elected who does take all these contributions. Otherwise it makes little difference. The people are close to having had enough. Hang on.

[Rex]

23. The game has changed.

2000 changed everything.

[Webster Green]

119. The bloodless coup'.

It sure did change everything. We're fucked. The fascists have won, and watching Obama's and the wussie dem's inability to counter the right-wing lunatics only verifies that the fascists have won.

[dkofos]

25. You either do what they say or you die.

[Waiting For Everyman]

28. Good question. He's a really lame "negotiator" and the Rs know it by now.

It's tragic. He acts like he thinks he's giving away his own chips, but he's giving away ours (the non-rich, most of all the poor).

[stillwaiting]

88. He would be a lame negotiator if he was negotiating on our behalf.

He is an EXCELLENT negotiator when one realizes that he offers such terrible starting positions to secure most favorable results for those he really is serving.

In that respect, he's a very good negotiator. He's just working against us.

[QC]

93. Lame negotiator, perhaps, but he plays a mean game of good cop/bad cop. n/t

[pansypoo53219]

29. BECAUSE

THE GNEWS MEDIA STILL LOVES ZOMBIE REAGAN!

[Rex]

30. You may have a point there.

[newspeak]

318. that's corporate news media

and they serve themselves well. We all know that most Americans would love to have a beer with that horseloving insider trading cowboy, Bush. Gore is a liar, he did not invent the internet and he's just sooooo boring. At least that's what my tellie tells me. And Kuccinich is such a nut, he believes in UFO's, even though after that statement, retired military officers were requesting an opening of the UFO files--even though Kuccinich stated he did not know where they came from-could be government or other. And Howard Dean is a screamer--he may not be mentally fit to lead the country because he had to yell over his cheering constituents. Yes, I believe all of it because the great corporate owned MSM told me. And they also give me enough useless and bogus information to make my decision on who really to vote for to allow them to make even more money and allow people like to me to be further screwed!!!

[newspeak]

320. oh, I got a heart

thank you--hugs and kisses!!!!!!!!!

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[robdogbucky]

35. I would rank this very high in consideration of an answer to that:

These figures are from the 2008 Presidential campaign:

http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=presidential

Dirty Energy Money is an interactive tool that tracks the flow of contributions to US Congress. Find out which companies are pumping their dirty money into politics and which politicians are receiving it.

• McCain, John S. (R)
$2,911,987

• Obama, Barack (D)
$1,251,195

• Giuliani, Rudolph W. (R)
$699,358

• Romney, Mitt (R)
$608,345

• Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D)
$562,082



Questions?

[johnaries]

36. What has he "given away"?

He's returned LIHEAP back to where it was before he previously doubled it, because fuel prices have gone back down. He made some changes to Pell Grants that weren't doing any good anyway so that he could keep the maximum payout.

You need to get past the sensationalist headlines and read the actual details.

[Vinca]

38. If fuel prices have gone down, why is it 50 cents more a gallon for heating oil this year?

And that's the discount oil vendor!

[katnapped]

43. SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

That's OBVIOUSLY impossible (because the WH and their minions here said so) so you must be a HATER!

:sarcasm:

[dkofos]

39. $750,000,000,000 to the rich in the next 2 years

[robdogbucky]

40. "You need to get past the sensationalist headlines and read the actual details."

I can't get past the tax cuts extension, the wars and the threats to what are now called "entitlements."

These aren't sensational headlines and his "proposed," budget runs along the same path he has cut since inaugurated, which is not what he campaigned on nor what I voted for.


Over and out



Carry on, regardless

[snappyturtle]

102. You and me both...PLUS not going after not going after the criminals

who proceeded him. Then look at the people he has chosen to advise him.

Saying these things really hurts me. I guess I'm not a good at accessing character. I remember going to sleep on election night and there was this huge relief...I thought the nightmare would end. Little did I know!

The President should proceed as a Democrat. The repukes are going to get what they want regardless of what he wants or how many times he invites them to the WH or how many times he extends his hand. What part of this doesn't he get?

[Enthusiast]

245. He gets it.

[grahamhgreen]

53. He gave away Medicare for ALL, the public option, taxing the wealthy, accountability for

Bush and the banksters, ending the war, closing gitmo, the moral high ground, his soul, the soul of the party, the middle class, education, and candy on Halloween.

[Myrina]

81. Fuel prices have gone down?

Where the hell are you living?

$99 a barrel for oil ... $3.25+ for a gallon of gas across most of the country ...

[defendandprotect]

136. How did you miss MEDICARE FOR ALL? Or Rahm "crowing" about preserving PRIVATE....

health care industry?

here's some ACTUAL DETAILS!!

Rahm .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!

Thursday, August 12, 2010

”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care preservedthe private delivery system; the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18...


If that doesn't disgust you, nothing will!


:eyes:

[Forkboy]

148. You've gotten many an answer, yet have so far refused to respond.

Tell us more about the actual details we're all missing.

Thanks for your help in understanding all of this! :toast:

[Control-Z]

230. Can you show me, please?

A link or two. What you wrote sounds reasonable.

[RaleighNCDUer]

313. How does it help that fuel prices have gone down (which is debatable)

when actual fuel COSTS are increasing due to this bitter, bitter winter? I am paying the same cost per kw/hr as I was last year, but my heating costs are 20% higher than last year because it has been colder for longer, therefore I am paying for more kw/hrs - and that is in very survivable NC. I can't imagine how I'd be doing if I were up north and dealing with 5 blizzards in 10 weeks.

THAT is an actual detail.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Because it was on his "to do" list.

[blindpig]

44. Um, because there's not a dimes worth of difference....

Assessments can only be made on actions, intentions(specific or implied) don't mean shit.

What you, and many other Democrats think the party is ain't necessarily so. What people think of as 'traditional Democratic values' is the New Deal, an expedient borne of the Depression. The active phase only lasted 10 years with a brief reprise by LBJ, otherwise the party has been moving away from it ever since.

[eilen]

55. Shit, I would be happy if he had Eisenhower's values. nt.

[HughBeaumont]

48. Ask JFK and RFK.

Those two could be called "Message Sent".

Since then . . . three Democratic presidents, but only ONE displaying any modicum of liberal bent.

Since then . . . it's either been appeasement, senility, bumbling or whiskey-throttle batshit insanity.

Until we stand up to the 4000-old-man wealth cabal that runs this country, not a damned thing is going to change.

[Mimosa]

70. WE TRY, Hugh, but the elected betray us.

It's started to look like it doesn't much matter for whom we vote. They say things which sound right then get in office and do the opposite.

[HughBeaumont]

74. Exactly. That's what I'm saying.

Everyone wants to protest at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue when they should really be converging on Bentonville, Wall Street, The SEC, Madison Avenue and One Microsoft Way.

[defendandprotect]

137. Of course, it doesn't matter -- unless you do something like DRAFT Bernie Sanders ...

to run on a Dem ticket --

get someone like Tom Hayden in as VP --

and get Biden the hell out of there -- he's been calling for Israel

to attack Iran for a year now!! Biden says: "Israel would be justified

in attack Iran" -- !!! Yikes!!

[Moral_Imagination]

183. Why did Bernie Sanders vote with Obama on HCR?

Is he to the right of Reagan too?

[defendandprotect]

217. Bernie fought it all the way, so did Ed Schultz and others ...like Kucinich....

When at the end they would be ostracized for not supporting it --

obviously they do support it. Bernie caucuses with Dem Party --

but he's a better bet, imo, that Obama --

[apocalypsehow]

103. More like try FDR and Give 'em hell Harry: JFK was a "liberal" only by the wildest stretch of the

meaning of the word, and RFK was never President.

Unless you consider cutting marginal tax rates across the board for upper income earners by 20% (1962) and launching the largest peacetime military buildup in American history (1961-63) in real dollar amounts to be "liberal" policy initiatives....

JFK was a center-left moderate on most domestic policy matters with some very strong conservative instincts (as seen above) on some issues. In the foreign policy realm, he was a committed Cold Warrior further to the ideological Right than his immediate predecessor, Republican Dwight Eisenhower.

[Raster]

227. +1,000!

:kick:

[OnyxCollie]

50. Do we have a government that works for the people

or do we have a government that works for the corporations?

The modern State is expected to assume responsibility for an irreducible minimum of
welfare functions far exceeding the traditional spheres of State activity: defense, foreign affairs, police, and a
machinery of justice.39 In the United States no less than in Great Britain, France, Scandinavia, India, or the
Soviet Union, the State is expected to give minimum insurance against such national vicissitudes as
unemployment, sickness, and accidents suffered in the course of employment. The most conservative
Republican Administration in the United States would not be permitted to watch passively-as it
still could a generation ago-a major depression. It would be compelled by public opinion to enact a program
of public works and other relief measures designed to stimulate employment. Such a minimum program
entails continuous heavy taxation.

Again, defense expenditure is a major and continuous financial burden on every major democracy. Clearly,
each organized group, manufacturers, laborers, retailers, consumers, would improve its own position
by having the one or the other of these burdens reduced. But it is not only a balance of forces, it is an
irreducible minimum of articulated demands of public opinion at a given time that makes it impossible to
basically reduce the minimum responsibilities of the modern State.40

Friedmann, W. G. (1957). Corporate power, government by private groups, and the law. Columbia Law Review, 57(2), 155-186.

The totalitarian economy, as many have observed, has been developed in keeping with plans oriented to
a final (if not yet precisely defined) goal. It is thus a goal-oriented economy, the goal being communism.
Those in charge of the Soviet society have assumed that economic and social development in all its
aspects can be purposefully steered by man in the direction of an ideal solution.

This produces consequences not only economic but also political, where, to a large extent, economic life
is self-directive and ultimate goals, such as plenty and progress, are purposely vague.

To be less totalitarian such operations would have to involve some degree of withdrawal on the part of
those in charge from their commitment to total social and economic engineering, thus granting to those
living under the system the opportunity to make important choices not in keeping with the goal.

But such a politically meaningful development would in turn involve a further condition, which at the
present appears highly unlikely, namely the decline of ideology and a basic reconsideration of the firmly
instituted schemes of economic development. Barring that, the totalitarian economic system would
continue to exert pressures for the maintenance of a dictatorship capable of enforcing the kind of
discipline that such total plans demand. It is doubtful that as long as the party remains in power the
tendency of the regime to stress unattainable goals will vanish. Indeed, it is these goals, inherent
in the current ideology, which justify to the population the sacrifices which the party's domination involves.
Thus, as long as the party continues to hold its successful grip on the instruments of power, we can
expect it to continue stressing first the long-range goals of an ultimate utopia, and then the consequent
sacrifices to achieve them, even though possibly at a diminishing rate of effort.

Brzezinski, Z. (1956). Totalitarianism and rationality. The American Political Science Review, 50(3), 751-763.

Both German and Italian Totalitarians reached power by the active help of influential business men
who looked upon them as their political body-guard. These groups did not mind a socialist program
provided it did not give power to trade unionists. They were not much worried by distant promises
of nationalization, but objected to strikes and collective bargaining. In Germany they had made
sure of their position by securing all important ministerial departments for their appointees; they
were quite prepared to leave political and cultural jobs to their allies.

Bonn, M. J. (1940). The economics of the totalitarian states. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 82(1), 77-87.

Why are we being screwed over by a Democratic president? What does "Democratic" mean?

since there is no doubt that educated elites in general, and political elites in particular, “think
about” elements involved in political belief systems with frequency far greater than that
characteristic of mass publics, we could conservatively expect that strict logical inconsistencies
(objectively definable) would be far more prevalent in a broad public

the shaping of belief systems of any range into apparently logical wholes that are credible to large
numbers of people is an act of creative synthesis characteristic of only a miniscule proportion of any
population. second, to the extent that multiple idea-elements of a belief system are socially diffused
from such creative sources, they tend to be diffused in “packages” which consumers come to see as
“natural” wholes, for they are presented in such terms (“If you believe this, then you will also
believe that, for it follows in such-and-such ways”)

any set of relatively intelligent consumers who are initially sympathetic to the crowning posture
turns out to show more consensus on specific implications of the posture as a result of social
diffusion of “what goes with what” than it would if each member were required to work out the
implications individually without socially provided clues

such constraint through diffusion is important, for it implies a dependence upon the transmission of
information. if information is not successfully transmitted, there will be little constraint save that
arising from the first social source.

Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.

There are posters here who will tell you not to believe your lying eyes, that it's only the haters who never loved Obama who says such horrible things.

This phenomenon will become more understandable if we reflect
on the psychology of the communication process. A communication
cannot be viewed as an isolated stimulus automatically evoking a certain
response. The surrounding circumstances make an enormous difference
insofar as the response is concerned. If we want to predict the
response, we have to consider not only the content of the stimulus (what
the communication asserts), but also the predispositions of the recipient
and the perceived role and nature of the source. One of the most important
questions, in connection with this last-named variable, is
whether the source of a communication to me is perceived as a person
whom I know and trust, or as somebody having no person-to-person
tie with me. In the former case, I shall very probably accept the communication
as truth; in the latter, belief will depend on my image of
the basic motivation of the source. If the source's perceived role is that
of a mere purveyor of information who has otherwise no axe to grind,
I am likely to accept the content of his communication matter-of
factly, without an urge to look beyond. If I see the source as a human
being expressing spontaneous opinion, I shall take that opinions imply
as something with which I agree or do not agree, and if I wish I can
freely acknowledge the source as an authority whose views, as views,
carry weight for me. But if the role of the source includes elements
extraneous to the supplying of facts or views-e.g. if I see him as interested
in maintaining a power position in which I do not share then
a barrier will be set up between him and me, and I cannot spontaneously
internalize his message.

Kesckemeti, P. (1950). Totalitarian communications as a means of control: A note on the sociology of propaganda. The Public Opinion Quarterly 14(2), 224-234.

[Cyrano]

58. Dear Onyxcollie: I agree with most the reprints you have posted.

However, posts with so many quotes tend to kill a thread.

What you've posted here would have made for a good original posting. Please forgive me if I suggest that you should have used all of those quotes to start a fresh discussion.

[OnyxCollie]

73. Thanks.

Not what I wanted to hear today.

Fuck everything.

[grahamhgreen]

52. Because Republicans suck in bed?

[SoCalDem]

54. Because, since the late 70's the "default" in the US is "conservatism-republicanism"

even though they have ALWAYS been a minority. When a dem gets into the white house, it's always seen as an aberration..something to be "fixed".

Dem presidents are the logical "tools" to attack the things they love, since it's more "acceptable" coming from them, and it always helps the "default" to force the hand of their opponent. It makes them less palatable to their dem base, and greases the skids for the triumphant return of the next republican admin.. and all the cuts made by dem leaders also piles up some moolah...for the republicans who follow them to steal..rinse repeat since 1933..(at least)

The same philosophy is at hand in pediatrician offices every day when Mom is asked to hold her baby while the doctor/nurse "hurts" them.. They accept it deep down if they feel that Mom is okay with it..

[defendandprotect]

138. Since right wing began to assassinate presidents -- 11/22/63 -- out in open violence....

And the voting computers began to come in during the late 1960's --

some think that election steals began in 2000 -- !! No ...

[bvar22]

56. Because this ain't your Daddy's Democratic Party.

The Centrist (1/2 Republican) "New Democrats" have taken over.

You want to talk about red meat for the base? Listen to some of the language the president used. "Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. And a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society." Wow.

How about this one? "Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of their right to join the union of their choice."

Listen to the way he goes after the right here. "Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible and"--and the president says--"their number is negligible and they are stupid."

That is not what Barack Obama said last night. That is way to the left of any national Democrat at this point. That was all Republican President Dwight David Eisenhower. That was all the stuff he said when he was president.
---excerpt from Rachel Maddow

http://www.alternet.org/news/149700/rachel_maddow%3A_in_america_today,_republican_president_dwight_d._eisenhower_would_be_bernie_sanders_in_the_u.s._senate/

Here is some obsolete stuff from the "old" Democratic Party

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world." --FDR

That shit is long gone, brother.
You won't be hearing anything like THAT from the "New Democrat" Party.
Get Used to it.

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


"By their works, you will know them."

[Enthusiast]

246. Nice post! nt

[olegramps]

261. I would suggest that people should read Eisenhower's State of the Union Speech.

I have posted it several times. I am old enough to have appreciated Eisenhower. My parents were stanch Democrats, but they had great admiration for Ike. People say that we used to respect the presidency and that is the truth. However, after bastards like Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes we have rightfully grow cynical. Sorry to say it but Obama hasn't lived up to my expectations. I was really enthused and thought that at long last here is someone we can look forward to reviving the nation.

It truly depresses me and leaves me with little hope for the future of the country. He actually appears to be overwhelmed and floundering without a clear vision of what is needed to right the ship. Perhaps much can be attributed to the fact that many are of the opinion that he has surrounded himself with the wrong advisers who are little more than political knee-jerk hacks without any vision for the future.

[femrap]

59. Because he can. nt

[pecwae]

78. That's about the

long and short of it.

[femrap]

112. It's a damn

shame, isn't it? I wish I could just leave the country...chuck it all. Go to French countryside and just be. I don't recognize this country anymore.

Where I live everyone is so angry and mean....Dumfukistan, the former state of Ohio.

I just want to :hide:

Until all the worker bees realize we're all in the same boat....it's just more 'divide and conquer.' I've pretty much given up trying to convince people of what is going on....They just say I'm crazy and go back to listening to Rush.

[pecwae]

260. I'll join you

on the French countryside! I can't blame anyone for wanting to chuck it all. After years of trying, waiting and hoping that someone in power will actually keep promises and realize the plight of the people, only to be slapped down time and again, it's a natural defense.

I don't know what it will take to open fellow worker bees eyes or the poorest who are getting the worst shaft, I truly don't. To try and be accused of being a Rush listener or Palin supporter is a low blow, but you see it happening even here. There comes a time when you have to draw a line even though it might pit you against a politician with a D after his/her name. It's about equity and survival.

All the best to you :hug:

[femrap]

308. Thank you

so much for your kind words. It means a lot.

I am going to go see an apartment in a small college town today. I've been wanting to get out of this urban area. I hope it's nice.

:hug:

[CrispyQ]

299. "Where I live everyone is so angry and mean...."

Sadly, it's everywhere, not just where you live.

Repubs, particularly the fundies, point to things like the women's movement, civil rights, gay rights, & immigration & claim this as the reason why our nation has lost it's way. That's not it at all. The reason we lost our way is because we value money & the things it buys over people & they are some of the worst offenders.

[femrap]

305. Isn't there some

Commandment out there about 'Not Coveting?'

Well, I'm sorry that everyone is angry and mean. For me it's to the point of not even wanting to venture out to run errands. Road rage, pushing and shoving in the stores. I am going to try to move to a small town or village where people aren't so crowded and see if that helps.

I don't buy anything anymore except essentials. I make my own greeting cards. I make gifts. I just want a simple life w/ some peace and quiet.

Good luck to those who have fundies and baggers near them.

[mochajava666]

60. It pays well to fuck the poor and shit on the liberals

[Cyrano]

61. So a second term is everything and the rest of us are nothing?

I wish I could disagree with. But given what I've been seeing for more than two years now, I can't disagree with your sentiments.

[Cleita]

62. For what it's worth, it's not going to pass the House

because the Republicans will still insist on being the Party of No about everything this President does.

[Cyrano]

64. Obama knows the House Republicans would never pass it.

It wasn't intended to pass. It was just a "starting" point. And a pretty miserable one at that.

FDR and JFK must be rolling over in their graves.

[Mimosa]

63. Soon will have to go naked, no health coverage.

President Obama and the Dems set this up to FAIL.

Now my partner and I will be forced to drop health insurance. So how did 'reform' help us?

[JoseGaspar]

68. There are two things wrong with this OP...

1) The OP seeks to put himself in the middle ground between those who praise and blame Obama (the OP having done both), and to gain comfort from such. It is a terrible way to begin any analysis. American politics doesn't hinge on support or blame, particularly of any individual. This is just a talking point...

It would be better if the OP spelled out what he supported in the Obama agenda and what he opposed. Then the question would resolve itself.

2) It is a mistake to believe that Obama has opposed what the Democratic Party has stood for... and it is a further mistake to believe that this is the work of Obama alone.

When the OP criticizes Obama for abandoning "what the Democratic Party has historically stood for", he is really talking about the New Deal. The truth is that the Democratic Party no more supports the policies of FDR than the Republican Party supports those of Lincoln. Iconic figures do not a political party make.

The strategy of the 1960s, which was founded on "working within the system", to move "leftward" the political party that had been the object of the Civil Rights struggle and the Anti-War movement (and not its ally, as history has been revised)... that strategy has failed many times over.

The current supporters of Obama who will support whatever he does, no matter how onerous... they have just as much claim to be "true Democrats". In fact, historically speaking, they have more right.

The OP would be better off describing what he believes, and what he intends to do about it.

Trying to shame Democrats is about as "historically" productive as baying at the moon.

[Kweli4Real]

69. Because ...

He is NOT screwing us.

Governing, as oposed to dictating or campaigning, is a slow, deliberate process. It requires that you get what you can, when you can. Then, you come back for another bite at the apple.

Unfortunately, governing also requires often giving the appearance of "giving the other side what they want." Before this, people brought up heating oil ... without recognizing that the cuts largely put the budget back where it was last year. Yes, it's scary for those that might be denied this coming year ... but that's where emergency resolutions come in.

Read the tort reform measure, it's actually not bad (and in no way can be compared to the tort reform efforts of Texas) ... it does not impose a cap, but sets a mechanism in place to prevent run away juries.

[Ramulux]

76. Because hes not a democrat

[HowHasItComeToThis]

312. A MIDWEST DEM IS NOT LIKE AND EAST COAST OR WEST COAST DEM

REC IF YOU WGREE AND UNDERSTAND

[leftstreet]

77. TO GET TO THE OTHER SIDE !!

hehe get it?

:hide:

[Frisbee]

79. "And he's done it before any negotiations have even begun."

This seems to be his modus operandi. :grr:

[geek tragedy]

80. Because his budget isn't the one screwing you.

Rather, it's what the House GOP passes that will screw you.

[unblock]

84. a democratic president is NOT screwing us because the president is NOT IN CHARGE

it should be obvious by now that the real power in this country is beyond the grasp of the office of the president.

even when republicans are president, maybe especially when republicans are president, the office of the president does not really control things. too many congresscritters are bought and paid for, too many other congresscritters can be rented when necessary. the media is solidly in the right-wing's pocket. the oil industry, the war industry, and various other filthy rich people and corporations are the ones in charge.

perhaps obama could do more. but keep in mind that he's fighting some HUGE, entrenched, and highly motivated interests that have gotten extraordinarily powerful over the last 30 years. and obama is fighting with both hands tied because he has little media support, tepid public support, and a whole lot of money fighting against him.

where are the mass strikes?
where are the nationwide boycotts?
where is the pressure forcing congresscritters to move to the left so that obama can -- must -- push for what we liberals want?

ok, sure. obama could do more.

but so could we.

[BOG PERSON]

85. jeez, ever heard of rope-a-dope?

the president is rope-a-doping the public.

[elehhhhna]

86. What Democratic President? I don't see one.

[defendandprotect]

139. +1

[Scruffy1]

284. +2

Ain't seen one in years and years. Maybe they're extinct.

[closeupready]

296. +3.

n/t

[stillwaiting]

87. BIG Fucking Rec! :)

[craigmatic]

91. The left isn't united and he's in perfect position to do this. Personally I don't buy the we're

broke story the repigs keep pushing. We weren't broke when bush spent trillions to invade 2 countries back to back. We weren't broke when they cut taxes for the rich. But now all of a sudden we're boke when it comes time to help poor people who got nothing from the tax cuts and and here they are thefirst ones to take a hit. If they want to cut the deficit, here's an idea- TAX THE RICH.

[BOG PERSON]

92. the left isn't united because the left doesn't exist

it turns out the left was just a democratic party front organization!

[craigmatic]

107. The left is real.

[BOG PERSON]

108. just saying doesn't make it so n/t

[craigmatic]

110. You, sir, are hilarious.

[Forkboy]

149. Swamp Thing speaketh!

Whatever knows fear...

[Javaman]

277. Swamp thing is calling. nt

[defendandprotect]

140. This is a liberal nation -- if it wasn't the rw wouldn't be using violence, stealing elections ...

and wouldn't feel the need to destroy notions of a free press, libraries, etal --

BUT THEY DO HAVE TO DO THOSE THING!

[Radical Activist]

96. He proposed increases for the most important national priority: climate change.

Sorry but the rest of the shit won't matter when a tornado, flood, hurricane, food shortage, epidemic disease or other catastrophic climate disaster hits your area. Good luck cashing that social security check or using universal health care when all the banks and hospitals in town are without power or fucking destroyed. People really need to wake the fuck up and realize how serious this is. Nothing else we're doing means a thing if we don't deal with this.

[JuniperLea]

100. Amen, and amen!

There's just no sense of priority anymore. We will all boil in our own juices, but we'll have a pony!!

:banghead:

[Dragonfli]

228. Keeping people from freezing is now a pony? feeding hungry children is now a pony? how vicious

and cold hearted you are,
I assume all your relatives will live through this so the rest that DIE!!!!!!! won't matter.

[defendandprotect]

142. Global Warming has been "disappeared" for almost 60 years by oil industry ....

if we were serious in responding it would be subsidizing manufacture of electric

cars -- subsidizing purchase of them -- converting existing cars --

working on solar batteries --

and much more!!

It is the one issue -- Nature will play the final cards -- and while we must keep

trying -- it's pretty much too late.

Capitalist/elites won -- oil industry won --

and we're losing a planet!

[Odin2005]

97. He is to the RIGHT of Reagan.

[Raine]

101. He's an opportunistic DINO

that's what he's always been. Obama pretended to be a liberal Democrat when he was running for office, because that was the way to get elected.

[patricia92243]

105. The Chinese rule us. I don't think it will make any difference what party is acting like it is in

power. I thinks someday the Chinese will stop bluffing and let it be known they pull the strings now.

We have sold our soul.

[sledgehammer]

113. Because he was elected President of the United States

He was not appointed dictator.

There is a process in this country by which decisions are made. It requires consensus - across parties, and within a party as well. Not everything the President wants can happen.

It's just like a Republican president can't singlehandedly ban gay marriage outright, or overturn Roe vs Wade, or remove affirmative action, etc. For major Bush policies like the Iraq War, No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act, Bush got support from prominent liberals like Biden, Kerry, Kennedy etc. He couldn't have done it on his own. The American system of govt just doesn't work that way.

Obama is a realist more than an idealist. He knows that certain things he wants will either not get done or will require compromise. Mainly because he has the most obstinate opposition in history to deal with, and also because he has diversity of opinion within his own party too. Do you think he didn't want a public option in healthcare reform? Do you think he didn't want to cut taxes for the rich while maintaining them for those earning less than $250k? If he had the support he would have gone with it, guaranteed. But he can't implement it without getting consensus.

This country has, at best, an even number of liberals/progressives and conservatives/libertarians (though it probably has a slight conservative bent). The sizable moderate population is the group that swings elections. Many of them probably support the repeal of DADT and many of them support the status quo on tax cuts. They may want to see expiry of tax cuts on the rich as long as there's some cuts in spending that assists the poor. What they want to see is consensus and compromise. The views you see on DU are not reflective of the country at all, not even of Democrats as a whole - there are few (if any) moderates on DU. Just like the outrage on freeperville to things like DADT repeal and healthcare reform are not reflective of the entire Republican party or country either.

All that said, Obama has certainly not led from the front in some areas typically championed by Democrats. But it's also easy to blame Obama and at the same time forget the system in place that restricts him (and any other President) from fulfilling his agenda. This is (thankfully) not a country where what the leader wants is what the country gets. There's a system, not perfect by any means, but pretty damn good. It just has to be used effectively, and the Republicans are (unfortunately) doing an amazing job in that regard from their perspective. Unfortunately, the Democrats of 2000-2006 did nothing to prevent the Bush RW agenda. When Democrats like Biden and Kerry are voting to authorize the Iraq war and the liberal lion Ted Kennedy joins them to vote for the Patriot Act (and its reauthorization), there's enough blame to go around.

ETA: For those who want a progressive challenger to Obama in the primaries, do you really think he/she would have a better chance of passing a progressive agenda than Obama does? The Democrat party itself can't unite on a moderately progressive agenda, how do you think that will change with a more progressive leader?

[liberation]

160. "He was not appointed dictator."

New level demagoguery maneuver. LOL!

This one is a classic.

[Dragonfli]

229. "Democrat party" huh, how obvious of you

[Enthusiast]

249. He's going on

my list of "suspect DUers".

[Dragonfli]

254. Calls it the Democrat Party and champions cuts to liheap and head start... I agree

Expect more tho, this President is drawing all the pre tea-party Republicans into our party (they like it now), that is, the ones Rahm hasn't already convinced to change affilliation and run as blue dogs to help get us here.

Call me old fashioned, but big tent to me does not include letting Newt Gingrich wannabees into the party.

I guess that makes me a dangerous purist that is damaging the party.

[sledgehammer]

274. Awesome!

If "suspect DUers" means someone who, despite his disappointment, understands reality by realizing the restrictions on any President of this country, then I'm happy to be on that list.

[Enthusiast]

292. No.

It means a DUer that refers to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party. This usually betrays the true identity as that of a Republican, Teabagger or right wing independent. It is a fundamental mistake we often see from right wingers that pose as Democrats for the purpose of steering the discussion to favor a bankrupt ideology.

[sledgehammer]

306. Nope, you're 0/3

Neither a Republican, Teabagger nor RW independent.

I'm a realist who wants a progressive agenda. There are things I'd love to see, but I know the limitations that prevent everything we want from happening. There's a difference between disappointment (which we all are feeling) and constantly blaming one person as if it is all his fault. My biggest disappointment was the non-inclusion of a public option in the healthcare debate. But I can't blame Obama for it since the Dems themselves weren't united on it, and no repug was willing to even listen.

However, anything that is purely in Obama's control is a different issue. e.g. Guantanamo. There's no reason it should be open, and no reason the detainees should not be tried in the US (from my understanding this doesn't require congressional approval).

[Dragonfli]

331. Why is it so "realistic" to cut heat for poor and old people in the winter?

No one made him put that shite in his budget proposal, it is something HE is championing.
I live in Buffalo and we have deaths every year from unheated apartments of the poor and elderly, when I say this "pragmatism" will cause death in my town, I am not being hyperbolic.
HEAP keeps people alive here tht would other wise freeze ro death, to champion such an approch to budget cutting while touching nothing of the wealthy or the military is a republican stance even if you don't know enough about politics to realize it.

This is not something he had to do, but something he chose to do. It is not a pony, it is life and death for real in my town.

Will you at least thank them for the sacrifice of their lives so the president can posture as a deficit hawk for political reasons? Or is their sacrifice so beneath you all it will not even be recognized.

Myself, I am not up for condoning murder as a sacrifice to appease Republicans that didn't even ask him to do it.

[sledgehammer]

276. Ouch! My bad!

I use the phrase occasionally, didn't realize the history/sensitivities behind it. Lesson learned!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)

[olegramps]

268. That is not the problem. He has proven to be a poor negotiator.

For example he should have started from a position in which he called for increasing the top tax brackets beyond the previous level, not use repealing the tax break.

For example he could have gone to the public with charts that showed the massive transfer of wealth that has occurred in which the top 10% have over 70% of the wealth and the bottom 50% only 2.5%. That was as of 2007 and the situation has worsened in the last three years. Economists estimate that the recession has cost the lower 50% of the population a 37% decrease in their assets as compared to 11% for the top 10%.

[sledgehammer]

273. Very true

His negotiating skills have been poor. Even on healthcare and wall street reform. And that's definitely part of the problem.

But the repugs are the most obstinate people on earth. They have one-track minds, and sadly they are united on that. They are filibustering everything. And even Dems are not united on a progressive agenda.

However, uniting everyone takes some negotiation skill. And Obama certainly lacks that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

325. Nonsense.

"Do you think he didn't want a public option in healthcare reform?"

Why would I think that? When did he make a public fight FOR a public option, laying out just why it was necessary to make his entire reform package workable? He stopped saying it was imperative as soon as he beat Hillary in the primaries - at which point he adopted HER position of a mandate w/o a public option.

"Do you think he didn't want to cut taxes for the rich while maintaining them for those earning less than $250k?"

When did he fight AGAINST the tax cuts for the rich? When did he lay out the argument, and hammer it in the press and to congress, that keeping those tax cuts would undermine every social program, and the very solvency of the United States? Oh, that's right, he fought against those tax cuts BEFORE he was elected.

He was elected on the strength of arguments that he did not follow through on - he was elected because he argued FOR a public option, and AGAINST tax cuts for the rich. He was elected for saying Gitmo would be closed within 12 months; he was elected for advocating against DADT and DOMA - Gitmo remains, despite the fact that as CIC he has authority simply order the prison there closed and all prisoners transferred to any military base in the country (Leavenworth comes to mind). DADT has nominally been overturned, but when he speaks of DOMA he supports it.

Now, I don't know him personally so i can't say that he's a coward - the very fact that he is a black man in the white house argues against that - but the fact is the only way to win anything is to fight for it, and when you fight you sometimes lose. He is so intent on preserving the image of 'not losing' that he is refusing to fight. Maybe that's a product of being a senator - he counts the votes rather than fights for the votes.

"There's a system, not perfect by any means, but pretty damn good. It just has to be used effectively, and the Republicans are (unfortunately) doing an amazing job in that regard from their perspective."

The difference? The republicans FIGHT for their agenda. Obama does not appear to HAVE an agenda, other that reaching consensus.

[sledgehammer]

327. Good points, agree with some and disagree with others

In Sept 09 he reiterated his support for a public option:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32718713/ns/politics-white_house/

And as recently as September 2010 he made clear his support for tax cuts on the rich:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/us/politics/08obama.html

These have been his positions, but the repug strategy was clear - they would not budge. Even Dems weren't united on either one. He can hammer all he wants, but certain people won't budge. And you can't pass what you want with the system in place.

I just wish Dems had this attitude when the tax cuts were being passed, or when the Iraq War was being authorized, or when the Patriot Act was being passed. What the hell were they doing???

You're absolutely right though about him not fighting. He doesn't show the fight at all. Absolutely agree. I guess the way I look at it is that he realizes that he will end up having to reach consensus anyways thanks to the repugs and some of his own party members, so (like you said) he doesn't want to be shown as losing. And this lack of fight definitely was part of the massive Dem failure in last year's elections.

And totally agree on Guantanamo - I mentioned that in another post. That's something that's entirely in his control, and he's the only one who can be blamed on that.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[Webster Green]

118. IBTT

In before the tombstone.

[Skittles]

125. tombstoned for telling the absolute TRUTH?

[Webster Green]

127. Yup!

:spank:

[underpants]

121. The powers that are long standing and deeply entrenched

this ain't gonna happen overnight.

This is not Egypt (yes the irony) where we do have massive demonstrations half of which are ignored and the other half are corporately organized and corporately promoted and corporately reported and corporately chronicled.

It has been two stinking years. We can't erase the weird - torture - because it was so horrifically handled that it put us in a situation that can't be handled. We can't erase the Iraq war - because it was so horrifically handled that it put us in a situation that can't be handled. We can't handle the economy - because it was so horrifically handled that it put us in a situation that can't be handled. We can't handle finances - because it was so horrifically handled that it put us in a situation that can't be handled.

We are working on it. That is all we have right now.

[somone]

122. Because he can and he likes it

and he will do it again and again

[pasto76]

123. Because the democrats in control before him largely set him up for failure and heres how

War in Iraq was kicked off based on complete bullshit. and the Dems let it happen. The Dems let the republicans own national security, the war on terrorism the national budget and deficit and maybe another dozen things I cant think of.

The current rock and a hard place is the budget, at least according to "conventional wisdom" (aka bullshit) must be cut to save us from deficit hell. Thanks to aforementioned Dems letting Repubs own this and that, talking about defunding the wars is a political third rail. Cutting any of the DOD budget is a third rail.

Fact: President Obama has done a lot of good. Yes there are still a ton of things to fix. Fact: he cant change them if he isnt in office. UNfortunately he has to play the bullshit game. You can still support him AND let him know how pissed you are.

[defendandprotect]

144. Since elected, have you heard Obama say "we must end these wars" ...

Reminding us that they are bankrupting our Treasury --

or anything about the homeless -- or the impoverished among us?

:blush:

[Autumn]

289. No. Those words are not in his vocabulary,

or his world.

[liberation]

157. Obama was one of those "Democrats in control before him" you know...

... so as a senator he set himself up for failure, and that is why he as President is not responsible for his failures. Huh?

Do some of you even try to comprehend the leaps in logic some of your justifications are taking, or do you simply go with whatever excuse that pops in your mind regardless of how little sense it may make.

The cult of personality is creepy to say the least.

[Enthusiast]

251. Obama is allowing

the Republicans to frame the budget argument. He will not say that social security has a dedicated funding mechanism so it doesn't add to the deficit. He allows the Republicans to say that social security is the cause of the deficit.

What does this tell us? It tells us that Obama is ideologically in their camp. And THAT camp is the camp of my enemies. That camp is the camp of those that opposed FDR and the New Deal. They are the far right that have been trying to gain a foothold for generations. Now they are firmly entrenched with the help of a so-called Democratic President. He has no intention of 'fixing things', not to my satisfaction.

[WillyT]

124. Because It's Valentine's Day, And...

after being given a bright shiny bauble, you're expected to take a good...

:kick:

[lib2DaBone]

126. Because he is a tool of Wall Street.

He's got a nice comfy desk waiting for him at Goldman Sachs... after he trashes Social Security.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

134. Divided we fall...

The state of of our leadership has been completely relegated to the money controllers, and we as a nation, feud over R vs D. It's a joke.

[defendandprotect]

145. +1000% --

[ProSense]

152. "after he trashes Social Security." Nonsense

The President's position is clera.

It's getting to the point where anything is being said just to justify continuing the outrage.

[MissDeeds]

156. Well, no

It's getting to the point where anything is being said just to justify the outrageous.

[defendandprotect]

164. Obama has already cut $500 billion from Medicare -- effective 2014 --

That was Reug Sen. Arlen Specter's wet dream at one time!!

[ProSense]

171. Complete

RW myth

[Dappleganger]

147. New chess move: screw the pawns.

[liberation]

158. New move??? that is the oldest play in Chess.

The first ones to go in 99.99999% of chess games played through history are the peons.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

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

[pmorlan1]

153. More of the same

In my view this is just more of the same that we've seen from the beginning of his presidency. If we're going to be stabbed in the back I'd rather have it done by a Republican. You at least expect a Republican to be your enemy. It hurts 100 times more when it's a Democrat doing it to you.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

159. President Obama is the most progressive President in decades.

"Why aren’t you standing up for what the Democratic Party has historically stood for?"

He has consistently, and his record (here, here, here, here and here) and vision (here and here) are evidence.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

163. Speak for yourself. n/t

[Mimosa]

169. Obama has helped you and your family while half of the DU members are sinking.

ProSense it's clearly economic. YOU aren't sinking. YOU have health care. I tried to hang on. Now I can't.

I speak for those who earn less than $40,000 a year.

[ProSense]

172. Again, don't attempt to speak for me.

Same people have been railing against the President since the stimulus debate.

Every accomplishment is met with a new outrage and new speculation, from DADT to Social Security.

[Mimosa]

177. I'm glad you can afford health insurance. I don't speak for you.

It's getting so bad even you can't help but see how bad it is for the likes of the under $60K. *LOL!*

Because nobody in this country who isn't on public assistance or making over 60 K can get by,

YOU TELL ME HOW TO AFFORD $1,400 a month in health insurance premiums and I'll respect every word you write, OK?

[ProSense]

180. "I'm glad you can afford health insurance." Hmmm? "I don't speak for you." Right!

"It's getting so bad even you can't help but see how bad it is for the likes of the under $60K. *LOL!*"

A lot of people have personal problems. A lot of people are no longer suffering because they can now get care. I care about them too. Do you?

I'm sure whatever advice you're offered will be met with another reason to reject it as a solution. I'm sure of it.

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

207. Your argument

You've just gotten despicable and you don't even know it. I now have to go without health care and I should be rejoicing? WHY?

The poor can get medicaid. I can't. Why should i be happy? I don't resent people who get health care. I want it for all. YOU and Obama want it for those who can PAY.You think the current system is alright.

...is basically everyone should hate the new health care law because of your personal situation.

"Despicable"? That about sums it up.

[olegramps]

275. Of course he has done some great things.

But what about three major issues: Taxes, Health Care and Financial Reform. Don't you believe these issues are of primary importance. It appears that the majority of those on this board believe he could have done better. He didn't seem to have been a good negotiator and gave up to much up front. I believe that is a justified criticism.

We all realize that he inherited a damn mess. In fact I don't know why anyone in their right mind would want the job within the present political climate of hate spewing right wing nut cases dominating the airwaves. Hell yes I support him and I will vote for him. However, I look forward to someone from organized labor running for the job in the future if I am still around.

Can't give you a valentine since I am donating whatever I can afford to the Mission that is providing for the homeless since it is desperate times for many.

[Forkboy]

231. Is there anyone on DU who can top this post?

I didn't think so. Fucking Prosense kicks ass, motherfuckers!

[defendandprotect]

168. Where, where, where and where .... !!!

For every one "here" there are 10 counter items --

Obama trampled MEDICARE FOR ALL / PUBLIC OPTION in back room deals with Big Pharma

and the private health care industry -- and Rahm has "crowed" about doing all of those

pro-corporate deeds -- !! *


Obama has done immense damage to the nation, its safety nets --

and to the Democratic Party.

We need a new Dem contender in 2012 -- let's go with Bernie Sanders --

he can run on a Dem ticket --

Someone like Tom Hayden to bring a little anti-war vision into the picture!!

And a new team that wouldn't disgust us all!!



*
Rahm .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!
Thursday, August 12, 2010

”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care

preserved the private delivery system;

the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18...


If that doesn't disgust you -- nothing will!!

:blush:

[ProSense]

173. Where

there is no RW spin.

[defendandprotect]

174. YOU mentioned "RW spin" - I didn't ... I mentioned MEDICARE FOR ALL being trampled ....

and Rahm "crowing" about it --

Looks like Chertoff also got some of those "billions in corporate contracts" from

stimulus for his airport scanning operation which was going nowhere until the

obama stimulus came along! :blush:

[markpkessinger]

334. Considering who we've had as Presidents for the last 30 years, that's not saying much n/t

[humbled_opinion]

165. I don't think people really understand the damage....

Don't you realize that the righties spent the better part of 3 years presenting a case that Obama was a Marxist, spread the wealth progressive liberal with communist and socialist associations...

The centrists bought that meme.... So now as Obama pivots right the right will say see just how far he had to come just to get back to the center?????? and effectively that moves the center further right....

This campaign season is going to be a wicked mess.... Oh Well...

[Poboy]

170. Kick and fucking recommend.

[Mimosa]

179. Sending you a virtual HEART.

I went through the only $$ hearts I could afford, PoBoy. *hug*

[Poboy]

186. Thanks...I actually gave you your 'too cool' one I believe.

:hug:

[Mimosa]

190. Big Hug to a Great Guy!

:loveya:

[MzShellG]

175. Thats how I felt about Cinton when he sided with the Repukes....

Back in the day. Too bad there was no DU to vent on.

[BigBearJohn]

176. it's his 3-dimensional chess tactic

:sarcasm:

[KansasVoter]

178. LOL....I miss people posting about the chess. It was always stupid!

[QC]

198. I miss the picture of Spock. Oh, what they hey!

[center rising]

187. Obama is screwing the poor

I live on heating assistance, and can't understand Obama's logic in cutting the program. Does he really want the poor the freeze their asses off??!!

[Moral_Imagination]

199. Sell your computer and cancel

your internet access and buy some heating oil then.

[davidthegnome]

225. Did you leave out the sarcasm tag?

Or are you actually being serious? With a half decent computer - you might, if you're lucky, get a couple hundred bucks in sale for a used PC. It's possible that if you cancel your internet access, you might have anywhere from 20-60 dollars to spend on heating oil. Now if you're fortunate, that might cover you for a month. Then you've got the next month - and the years that will follow, now without a computer or internet access.

Unless of course, the poster is at a library using the library's internet access and computer. Which you really have no way of knowing. So I'm hoping that was sarcasm.

[Enthusiast]

252. What are you some sort of Ron Paul

libertarian?

[Jakes Progress]

188. What Democratic President?

[drokhole]

192. First, he domesticated us...

...then he told us to sit down and shut the fuck up. Later, he'll be the one begging us for money.

[RufusTFirefly]

193. "You know, not many people knew it, but the Führer was a terrific dancer."

(quote from The Producers)

You can always find nice things to say about almost everyone.

We're being totally screwed. And yet the Pollyannas are still looking for the silver lining.

Hey! He's not McCain! Or Palin! Or Huckabee!!

I feel soooo much better now.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Fo4dHDxRXb8/SzJXHwrth9I/AAAAAAAAAGc/v_uV0HidjTo/s400/tn-500_springtime+for+hitler.jpg

(Special note to the obtuse: No, I am not comparing this President to Hitler.)

[Mimosa]

194. ^ Loving it!!! ^

I needed a laugh, Rufus. *hug*

[Iggo]

196. Cuz he ain't as think as we Democratic he is.

[Enthusiast]

253. PLUS ONE!

:rofl: :spank:

[Juche]

197. Obama governs like a new england republican from the early 90s

He is not a liberal progressive from the west or northeast. He has more in common with people like Lincoln Chafee. His policies remind me of moderate republican policies before the religious right took over the party.

Sad that those are our two choices now for president. The sane early 90s republican (Lincoln Chafee) vs. the crazy 21st century republicans (Palin, Bachmann, King)

[MrScorpio]

201. It's pretty much the system in which he has to work which creates this situation

That's the way it's always been.

The Executive has severe limits on that office, which would be more limiting IF he chooses to become primarily partisan. There are quite a few reasons why he's taking this particular path and I'm absolute sure that American racial politics has something to do with it in part.

President Obama feels that the best way to govern is to not be as partisan as many here wish him to be. I understand that THAT is where's he's coming from.

Which begs to explain that one should not just heap everything on his back and this bitch and moan when he doesn't rise to an impossible set of expectations.

Things don't happen in this country in a vacuum, nor without real and sustained popular support.

The system has to change instead… And it's up to the people to demand that it changes at ALL levels, not just wishing that a president waves a magic wand and grants wishes.

[bertman]

202. Here's a REC for you asking the Right Question, Cyrano. Thank you. nt

[Initech]

203. Obama's the president in name only. There's other powers at work here.

They're the ones screwing us and getting away with it. *COUGH* Koch Brothers *COUGH*

[joentokyo]

205. Because he is not a Democrat.

If he walks like Republican and talks like a Republican, he must be a Republican. He is what used to be called a liberal Republican before the Republicans culled them all. You know he is like Clinton and is challenging Clinton for the title of best Republican president.

[BigBearJohn]

206. Democratic president? Where?

[lonestarnot]

208. The weakest among us are the easiest targets. K & R!

[somone]

210. The sheer audacity and courage

is mind-boggling

[lonestarnot]

215. courage in what manner?

[Q3JR4]

211. He knows one thing that many don't seem to get, yet.

If a political party can ALWAYS count on your support no matter what you do then why should they act on your behalf?

If you tell a child, "don't do that," but you don't punish them, why should they listen to you?

Q3JR4.

[MannyGoldstein]

216. bing-bing-bing-bing-bing... we have a winner

The "who the fuck else 'ya gonna' vote for, schmuck!" strategy.

[shanti]

218. you know...

and the repukes are probably laughing behind his back. what a disgrace.

[demwing]

223. This is a trick, right?

Because no Democratic president is screwing us.

Interpret as you wish...

[Tripod]

224. I've been thinking the same thing.

Did someone threaten his family?

[dd2003]

226. probably the rich elite

we have no chance

[Tripod]

240. Probably the $. ;)

[Name removed]

232. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

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

[Jonlovit]

237. No Guts

If you have no guts, there can be no glory.

[Major Hogwash]

242. Do you think the Democrats in Congress will approve this budget?

Do you think the Republicans will approve this budget?

I don't think the Republicans are going to agree to anything Obama proposes.
And if the Democrats let some of the worst things get through the House, then we need to clean house.

Obama could have offered them anything in his budget, and the Republicans would just say "no".

[LooseWilly]

244. Because we're sexy... It can't always be date night with Michelle...

[bowens43]

247. He's fucking us because it's easier the doing the right thing.

Face it, he played us. He's just another professional politician who will do or say anything to further his own interests. The hell with the people.....

[SharksBreath]

250. It's time to draft Feingold or Hillary.

I'm done with Obama. I will never vote for the Pu$$y again.


Here is Feingold's new site.
http://www.progressivesunited.org/media

[madrchsod]

269. just signed up....

[indimuse]

255. Maybe ONE DAY...Americans will wake up and realize..

we have been duped! There is NO difference between Dem's and Repukes..(Only on the surface!!)..by then...it will be too late! If you want to learn the truth about THE TRUTH.... go look up ALL the executive orders and signing statements from 1954 to current! I call this *Oscillation to Power*...

;)

[Raoul]

257. Why is he screwing us?

2 words - no balls

[Ganja Ninja]

262. I've stopped asking "why" a long time ago.

Does it really matter?

[florida08]

264. it's not the president per se

It's the system. It's corporate and crony capitalism. This idea that an individual is sovereign rather than a nation. If you're poor it's because you choose to be since everyone has an equal chance. Not true but that's the culture. The Reagan model favored finance over domestic manufacturing. It has become a flesh eating disease. It should have collapse but with the help of democrats it was revived. Wall St is a disgrace and only works for the few.

We have anarcho capitalism. What's ironic is the same people who support 'starve the beast' will also say 'leave my ss and medicare alone'. So you see they are clueless. Their idea of freedom is not the same as corporate America although they both want the right to be oppressive and limit the rights of the oppressed at the same time..Until it happens in their own back yard then they will yell like stuck pigs. Remember how upset Wall St got when Congress voted down the bailout. What happend? Democrats came in and passed it. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376">Neoliberalism

It's not just republicans

Americans tend to think that individuals are responsible for their own life outcomes; they often distinguish between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor, the latter of whom are poor as a result of their being... Americans care less about equality of outcomes than the possibility of social mobility, even if such mobility takes generations to achieve...

Large numbers of Americans, for example, favor abolishing all inheritance taxes even though only a very small minority of them can ever hope to leave the world with sufficient assets to be subject to it. It also explains why Congress, with the support of President Clinton, abolished the New Deal program Aid to Families with Dependent Children as part of a broad welfare reform, under the rubric of legislation tellingly labeled the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.” ...

Americans don’t want to pay taxes because they are convinced that the government will waste whatever it takes in.

But his main reasoning is this:

Wall Street seduced the economics profession not through overt corruption, but by aligning the incentives of economists with its own. It was very easy for academic economists to move from universities to central banks to hedge funds—a tightly knit world in which everyone shared the same views about the self-regulating and beneficial effects of open capital markets. The alliance was enormously profitable for everyone: The academics got big consulting fees, and Wall Street got legitimacy. And it has kept the system going despite the enormous policy failures it has generated, not to exclude the recent crisis.



http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=906">reasons for the absence of redistribution populism

[NotThisTime]

265. He's trying to play both sides of the fence and the other side of the fence is winning

[creon]

266. Look at Congress

It is Congress that writes and passes legislation.
The 111th Congress did not have enough progressives to pass progressive legislation.

That is the main reason the Democrats lost so many seats in Nov 2010: people who vote Democrat stayed home because the Democrats in Congress did not pass good laws. Now, we have a GOP controlled House.

[BlueJac]

270. Obama wants to be like Reagan..........

Obama = disappointment

[madrchsod]

271. why? who else are we going to vote for?

are we going to vote for the bat shit crazy right wingers...no. do we have any money to make a difference..no. does he have enough corporations that will give him enough money to run his campaign...yes.

[TransitJohn]

272. This shouldn't be surprising from a President who gave us Bob Dole's health care plan. eom

n/t

[Aleric]

280. Because the DP no longer stands for what it historically stood for

The DP of 2011 is not the DP of Roosevelt or Truman or Kennedy or Johnson. It has embraced its corporate overlords and cast its soul aside. It's really that simple.

[leeroysphitz]

281. Extremism in the defense of wealthy people is no vice...

[Scruffy1]

286. I am going to plagiarize that-thanks

Should show up good at the next teabaqgger meeting.

[shireen]

283. it was hard enough when GWB was around

but at least i knew what to expect from him and Republicans. Obama has made me utterly despise politics and Washington. When I come to DU these days, I tend to avoid reading any post topics with his name in it (with the exception of a few highly rated ones like these). There are only so many disappointments one can handle.

I wish we had more people like Bernie Sanders.

[bergie321]

287. Well, Faux News was right

Obama is "transferring the wealth"...

From the poor and working classes to the rich.

[QC]

288. Unfortunately, it is against the rules to answer the question you ask. n/t

[blackspade]

290. Well said.

Your frustration is mine as well.

[Hubert Flottz]

293. Because we just lay there!

We need to walk like the Egyptians!

[florida08]

298. Because Obama is playing to Independents

It's not a left or right condition anymore. Look at these numbers: Some polls have it even higher at over 40%.

An estimated 37 percent of all American voters now call themselves independents or unaffiliated voters, according to a recent study by the Pew Research Center. This is a bigger group than those who say they are Democrats (34 percent) or those who identify themselves as Republicans (28 percent). The percentage of voters who say the are independent is the largest in 70 years.

Many of them say they have been driven from the Republican and Democratic parties by what they perceive as extremism and a failure to focus on the issues they consider most important. Others say they simply have lost faith in the two-party system and do not want to be affiliated with either party."

Many independent voters, who voted Democratic in 2006 and 2008, say they plan to vote for Republicans this year. They have sought change in each of the last three elections but say they haven't seen the change they wanted.

According to the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 60 percent of all voters say they believe the country is on the wrong track.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/01/independent-swing-voters-fed-up-with-entire-political-system/

But the bottom line is not bipartisanship. They want RESULTS. Just like us. This is what this administration is trying to understand. They don't follow lockstop but when results fail to materialize they indeed show up. Right leaning indies have grown and will probably continue to because of the teabaggers in the GOP. To them the stimulous has failed. Accountability has failed. They're against negative ads..and they sure don't like the money being spent on campaign finance. They're fiscally conservative. But support social security. And more of them did support the tax cuts. I know..I don't get the disconnect either. How can you be fiscally conservative and support borrowed tax giveaways. But there you have it.

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2010/11/do-democrats-understand-political-independents/

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/12/13/poll-republicans-democrats-and-independents-oppose-social-security-payroll-tax-cut/

[Mosaic]

300. I'll vote for him

If he stops the wars and stops being a corporatist. Democracy works if we the people get real, true representation. A corrupted republic like ours is inadequate, we must evolve beyond the antiquated republic into a true democracy!

[NorthCarolina]

301. A DLC New Dem simply isn't a good representation of what a Democrat should be. nt

[DaveJ]

307. Because rethuglicans won back the congress

I understand you're upset but that's the simple, intellectually honest answer. If the majority of our country is a bunch of thugs then the POTUS has to appeal to their wishes.

[Cyrano]

310. I prefer a president who leads rather than follows.

And I don't think appealing to "a bunch of thugs" is part of a president's job description.

[DaveJ]

311. I'm not happy with it either, but he does have to represent

People in the U.S. apparently have the character of those who elected this congress. If it were a clear cut issue like rethugs were literally Morlocks then I can see Obama ignoring them. The fact is they have different (albeit repugnant) political philosophies, so when they win elections, the normal stable thing to do is move toward their ideals.

I would like to note that I don't see many people who are 100% ideal in nature. Heck, when it comes to Environmentalists, I believe plastic bags are less harmful to the planet. I care about the planet, and it seems to me paper bags do more harm since they use more resources to produce. Some just follow whatever the trend is and believe whatever. I know that seems like a tangent, but the point is that it is difficult to make people become better people. Just be happy you are a better person, even if there is no reward in it.

[Peregrine Took]

314. He's a small "d" Democrat.

I think he played the left/progressives during the campaign in a very cruel and cynical way in order to get elected.
After that he ran into the Clinton/Bush hole and never came out.

One "sister soljah" move after the other.

I will never vote for him again but I know this is only symbolic because I'm from Illinois and he will win this state without my vote.

[Romulox]

315. Obama is only possible because so many on the "left" have sold out workers, the poor, for so long

How dare "centrists" whine that their new corporatist friends aren't playing nice?

[alfredo]

316. Obama is smart enough to know that it is DOA. It could have

been the best plan in the world but the Republicans would reject it.

The most important thing about the proposal is for it to appear reasonable to the most people. By rejecting it, the Reps look unreasonable. This gives Obama more leverage.

What is said and done now has little to do with the final deal.

Some of the cuts Obama proposed was a take back of extra funding during the crisis days of 2009. Home heating funding was upped due to a spike in heating oil prices. They are down now, so the extra funds are not needed. Doing this makes Obama appear willing to make the hard choices. This will come in handy when the Republicans show unwillingness to rescind the tax cuts for millionaires.

Don't get too worked up over the opening salvos in the budget process. This is the pandering and positioning phase.

Do vocalize your disapproval of specific cuts, and show approval of others like taking back the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

In the end, there will be pain. There's no way around it.

[Vidar]

317. Nicely put, Cyrano!

[Joey Liberal]

319. Because he's scared of the GOP. n/t

[QC]

329. I honestly don't think he's scared of them.

I think he is broadly in agreement with them.

[patrice]

323. Because he either cannot or will not stand up FOR us, since that IS & HAS BEEN the problem for a

VERY long time.

[gateley]

324. I'm with you - sometimes so grateful for what he HAS done and I do think he

has SO much to bring to the office; other times -- WTF?

I think this opened my eyes: While we were out here hollering "single payer! Medicare for all" they were back there doing, they felt, whatever it took to address as many of the injustices of the current system as they could. He'd give this, but get that, this might not be perfect but it's better than XXX, and if we don't, the people get nothing.

So we're feeling like he sold us out, didn't try hard enough, meanwhile they're working like hell to accomplish what they can.

They're looking at it from their perspective, we from ours. Here's the eye opening part -- I read somewhere that they were actually shocked that we reacted as we did, they though we'd feel as jubilant as they.

I think that's still what's happening. He doesn't really really really understand how we feel anymore, we have no idea what it takes to play the political games the POTUS has to.

All in all, it's disappointing and disillusioning, but it's hard for me to "write him off" because I think if the situation were different, e.d. a SANE GOP, we''d be seeing the "change we voted for".

My $.02 - happy to share! :7 :hi:

[treestar]

326. Doesn't it have to be something that gets through a Republican House?

No, the voters "screwed" us by falling for that crap yet again.

[leeroysphitz]

328. Yes but that's been the case since the president took office for some reason. n/t

[donheld]

332. Goldman Sachs owns him