Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Barack Obama and the Progressive Dwarfs

245

Posts

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Change meant whatever you thought it meant. The Obama campaign did a brilliant job of being all things to all people, so to speak.

    Plenty of people during the campaign said Obama was less of a liberal/progressive than he was getting credit for. Most of them (including me) just underestimated the extent of his less-liberalness.

    Honestly, his main problem is that he fits his rhetoric to what he thinks will get passed rather than staking out a negotiating position. Sometimes this is a good idea, such as when he painted the tiny stimulus as sufficient so the markets would be confident with it, but most of the time he's trying to win over democrats who just want attention for being "centrist" enough to side with republicans and republicans that aren't negotiating in good faith.

  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Sheep wrote:
    I agree with you about the Tea Party's effectiveness. The fact that they've almost reached a level of support that almost makes them a legitimate third party is impressive, and good for the nation in itself, not necessarily their POV.

    That's not accurate at all. A third party that had sane policy positions would be a good thing, but all the Tea Party has managed to do is to further derail American policy and discourse away from what we need to do. The Tea Party is a slow acting poison, not a good thing in the least.

    Wicked Demiurge in most games. Solacus is my main in GW2.
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Sheep wrote:
    I agree with you about the Tea Party's effectiveness. The fact that they've almost reached a level of support that almost makes them a legitimate third party is impressive, and good for the nation in itself, not necessarily their POV.

    That's not accurate at all. A third party that had sane policy positions would be a good thing, but all the Tea Party has managed to do is to further derail American policy and discourse away from what we need to do. The Tea Party is a slow acting poison, not a good thing in the least.

    Actually, with the way US elections work if the tea party became a genuine third party then it would simply destroy them and the republicans. They likely wouldn't get a single seat in the senate between them, because the 'tea party' voters would be 100% republican. The democrats might lose say 10% of their vote to the new 'not insane any more' republicans but that would leave the breakdown like this

    Dems = 45%
    Repubs = 30%
    Tea = 25%

    And considering you probably would get about a 10% swing either way in the most blue or red states, it would be an ANNIHILATION, likely the end of both the republicans and the tea party. Which honestly might be pretty darn excellent, and we could get a new party founded on properly logical grounds.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    Some people really worship the thought of a viable third party, as though it's some kind of magical bullet that will fix all the US's political problems.

    Except countries with viable 3rd and 4th parties have all the same problems.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Registered User regular
    Some people really worship the thought of a viable third party, as though it's some kind of magical bullet that will fix all the US's political problems.

    Except countries with viable 3rd and 4th parties have all the same problems.

    I favor proportional representation, which would naturally result in multiple-party coalitions. But yes, in our current system a viable third party is impossible and would solve nothing anyway.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Did the $700 billion dollar bailout work? I imagine some people will chime in and say, "Of course it worked. America is still here!" but, really, was that money used as efficiently as possible? Did $100 or $200 billion disappear down the memory hole?

  • azith28azith28 Registered User regular
    azith28 wrote:
    When he first was elected, I was willing to give him a chance...mostly because i was curious how a genuinely unexperienced person would do in the job.

    He quickly demonstrated that he thinks hes on a reality show. Hes the Paris Hilton of presidents (Sometimes Parez Hilton). Half the stuff he says is just to get attention cause hes a total attention whore. The first two years of his presidency i was more worried about congress then him because he seemed to just be enjoying the spotlight and signing whatever congress did. When the Dems got kicked from the house and lost supermajority he started taking center stage but most of his decisions have been downright stupid politically. (Trying to save that pedophile/child killer from execution in texas, ignoring the debt problem until the last minutes, Keeping Guantamino open etc).

    Whut? He's taken incredible steps to stay out of the spot light for his entire administration. Frustratingly so, when simply stepping up and throwing his weight around a little bit would accomplish what a dead locked Congress could not.
    Granted his policies have been heavily liberal, a stance im generally against anyway so im still curious how someone with a conservative background would act in these times...but generally he certainly hasnt given me a whole lot of hope that we could one day stop making 'political dynasties' and go back to people who did actual work before choosing to work for the government as a service.

    Oh, I see. Another conservative that claims to have voted for him, and now regrets the decision. It's amazing how many of you are coming out of the woodwork.

    Oh hell no. I didnt claim to vote for him. I most certainly did not. I just wasnt going to instantly judge him because before the election he was a hell of a lot more center then he ended up. That doesnt mean i was thrilled with the choice of McCain either.

    While i agree hes been really quiet when he needed to be vocal I think that was because he was a puppet to the dem run congress who only trotted him out when they wanted to because they didnt need to. After they lost the house and alot of the senate he still avoided the big questions but loved to come out as if he was in charge of the rest of the Democratic party. Hes more then happy to smile at the cameras at a distance or pick some stupid reason to take a stand as long as long as hes not expected to show any leadership qualities at all.

    Stercus, Stercus, Stercus, Morituri Sum
  • DigitalDDigitalD Registered User
    ed: also saying that he didn't campaign on progressive issues is a bit of a stretch. His signature issue positions in the campaign were 1) a more government-oriented health care bill than clinton was proposing and 2) ending the iraq war.

    Ending the Iraq war was not a progressive issue at that point, and the catch here was that ending the Iraq war was also linked to ramping up the war in Afghanistan and conducting more strikes into Pakistan, that's hardly progressive unless you willfully ignore half of what he said.

    The healthcare part, kinda. But that's been an issue since well Nixon. It only didn't fly because Obama was a D, but still, that's hardly owned by the progressives or even the greater liberal body.
    I favor proportional representation, which would naturally result in multiple-party coalitions. But yes, in our current system a viable third party is impossible and would solve nothing anyway.

    It's impossible because neither of the major parties want it and anytime anybody tries people freak out because it will inevitably destroy one of the major parties for a few elections. But if you want an actual progressive party you're going to have to go out and make one rather than relying on the Democratic party to suit your needs. Because as things are, the party is soooo big tent that a staggeringly largely amount of it isn't progressive at all, so you're never going to get your unicorn of a presidential nominee out of the Democratic party, you're trying to wring blood from a rock.

    By the same token, the fabled "Moderate" Republican that's pro business, socially liberal, and isn't a war monger isn't going to appear from the Republican party either as nominee.

    The parties are simply too big to produce a range of choices that are good, they produce crap.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    People obsess too much about the President. If the median member of Congress was as liberal as the President is, policy would be fucking awesome right now.

    Pretty much this. Our House has been taken hostage by extremist ideologues.
    Sheep wrote:
    For a socialist, the guy sure is a very Nixonian Republican.

    In the future (i.e., when the elderly holy-rollers and bigots die off), I can see Obama's politics defining the new Right Wing.

    Obama is the quintessential 1960s Republican, outside of the whole being a Black democrat thing.

    I'd be okay with that.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    emnmnme wrote:
    Did the $700 billion dollar bailout work? I imagine some people will chime in and say, "Of course it worked. America is still here!" but, really, was that money used as efficiently as possible? Did $100 or $200 billion disappear down the memory hole?

    The assholes that put it together waited far too long to do it, made it too small, and attached no conditions to it

    That said, yes it did work, it kept the economy from falling off a cliff

    override367 on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Why is it so many people can't grasp the simple concept of separation of powers?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    The bailout, more or less, worked exactly as well as the post-Katrina FEMA bailout.

    Meaning, it worked, barely, despite massive corruption and misuse at many vectors.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Why is it so many people can't grasp the simple concept of separation of powers?

    Because I voted for a king god dammit.

    seriously though, we bitch about the Bush administration running rampant over the legislative, and then when our guy actually leaves things to Congress that should be left to congress we bitch that he's not taking a direct enough hand.

    Over all i think he's done a pretty good job all things considering. He could have done better on HCR maybe, and I'm not thrilled on his stance on wiretapping and such, but over all I'm satisfied.

    Its not like we were going to get every liberal wet dream met with the economy being what it is and the GOP being what it is.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    "Healthcare Reform Bill should have been 21 pages, not 2100 pages wharglebargle."

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    What I was really hoping for from healthcare reform was an economic incentive for electronic medical records adoption (which we got) and expanded Medicaid eligibility (which we got).

    I want single payer but I don't think it's going to come as a sweeping legislation, but rather as gradual stepwise expansion of our existing healthcare assistance programs.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    "Due to the opposing machinations within the healthcare industry that force or oblige hospitals and doctors to provide care while also not obliging patients to pay in return, the new mechanisms that allow all people to enjoy insurance coverage with no guarantee of capped affordable premiums will dramatically increase healthcare costs exponentially every year, . . . thus solving the problem once and for all."


    I'm stealing this from Futurama, but it applies here equally well.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    I still find it hilarious that the Tea Party is considered a separate, grass roots political movement and not a rebranding effort by the GOP after 8 years of Bush Jr. nearly destroyed the Republican brand.

  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Lawndart wrote:
    I still find it hilarious that the Tea Party is considered a separate, grass roots political movement and not a rebranding effort by the GOP after 8 years of Bush Jr. nearly destroyed the Republican brand.

    I still don't actually know what the Tea Party is. Every conservative sub-bloc out there has tried to ride the coattails of that movement and take credit, it's to the point now that I don't know who is in charge of it or what their mandate is.

    One day it's Anarcho-Capitalism, the next hard-right Evangelo-Fascism, the next it's flat-out Burn-the-World-Down's Syndrome.

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    What I was looking for in health care reform was actual health care reform and not health insurance reform.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    But speaking of Obama, right now he's on par to replace Clinton as my 2nd favorite post-Lincoln Republican President.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Sheep wrote:
    What I was looking for in health care reform was actual health care reform and not health insurance reform.

    There's some of that in there too.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Full blown health care reform in the vein of some sort of single payer system was never a reasonable expectation.

  • UrcbubUrcbub Registered User
    Lawndart wrote:
    I still find it hilarious that the Tea Party is considered a separate, grass roots political movement and not a rebranding effort by the GOP after 8 years of Bush Jr. nearly destroyed the Republican brand.

    I still don't actually know what the Tea Party is. Every conservative sub-bloc out there has tried to ride the coattails of that movement and take credit, it's to the point now that I don't know who is in charge of it or what their mandate is.

    One day it's Anarcho-Capitalism, the next hard-right Evangelo-Fascism, the next it's flat-out Burn-the-World-Down's Syndrome.

    OT, but it is hard to see the Tea party as anything but a re-branding of way-to-the-right conservatism. I know they claim to represent all kinds of Americans, and to be independent from the established parties and such, but to a man they ran as Republicans, and to a man they support nothing but republican/conservative policies. That doesn't make you independent or different, it makes you a part of the republican party. I will call them a third party when we have T-[State] representatives in congress and the senate and they show a willingness to completely disagree with conservatives on issues instead of disagreeing because conservatives "doesn't do it enough".

    As for Obama, I too think his biggest mistake is trying to be too accommodating to a party that openly stated that their main goal was to see him fail. As far as his accomplishments, it took a week in office before conservatives started flooding the media with "so what has Obama done then? LOL biggest failure ever LOL hows that hope n change" and similar messages. They kept that message steady regardless of reality. And combined with Obama not loudly declaring everything he did combines to a steady message of "he hasn't done anything".

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Urcbub wrote:
    As far as his accomplishments, it took a week in office before conservatives started flooding the media with "so what has Obama done then? LOL biggest failure ever LOL hows that hope n change" and similar messages. They kept that message steady regardless of reality. And combined with Obama not loudly declaring everything he did combines to a steady message of "he hasn't done anything".

    miss_me_yet_billboard.jpg

  • HamurabiHamurabi AmsterdamRegistered User regular
    Progressives are unhappy with Obama?

    That's because progressives (ie. the far left in this country, which is actually to the right of liberals in the global context) live in a partisan cocoon magical fairy-tale land where single-payer had a realistic chance of passing the U.S. Congress, where we'd have zero opposition to more stimulus spending, and where rainbows would reach down from the sky to rain down Equality Tokens redeemable at your nearest inner-city post-office for College Education Vouchers and Social Progressivism Seminars.

    I should make clear that I don't disagree with any of the far left's policy stances (which makes sense, given that I'm a lib), but honestly... how much weight do those policy positions carry when they have a snowflake's chance in hell of becoming law?

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    My main problem with Obama is his insistence on 'building consensus' with an opposition who can only reach consensus on a compromise position of "fuck you, but we'll lube up first". It's how he ran and how he sees himself, clearly, but I expected he'd wise up by now that reaching a compromise just isn't something he can FORCE the opposition into doing and he needs to stake out his preferred options and fight for them rather than come to the table halfway to crazy town in the name of a compromise that was doomed from the beginning.

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Full blown health care reform in the vein of some sort of single payer system was never a reasonable expectation.

    They could have mandated it be non profit and that could have fixed some problems right there.

    But.

    You know.

    That cuts out profit, which no Dem or Pub would ever dream giving up.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Sheep wrote:
    Full blown health care reform in the vein of some sort of single payer system was never a reasonable expectation.

    They could have mandated it be non profit and that could have fixed some problems right there.

    But.

    You know.

    That cuts out profit, which no Dem or Pub would ever dream giving up.

    I'm not sure what authority the government has to do that on.

  • HamurabiHamurabi AmsterdamRegistered User regular
    Sheep wrote:
    Full blown health care reform in the vein of some sort of single payer system was never a reasonable expectation.

    They could have mandated it be non profit and that could have fixed some problems right there.

    But.

    You know.

    That cuts out profit, which no Dem or Pub would ever dream giving up.

    Do you think Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security turn a profit? Do you think these "profits" would've gone into individual senators'/representatives' pockets, or what?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Sheep wrote:
    Full blown health care reform in the vein of some sort of single payer system was never a reasonable expectation.

    They could have mandated it be non profit and that could have fixed some problems right there.

    But.

    You know.

    That cuts out profit, which no Dem or Pub would ever dream giving up.

    Tell me how you get Nelson, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Brown, etc. to vote for such a plan.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2011

    I'm not sure what authority the government has to do that on.

    You don't think the sole authority (Federal and State Government) in our country has the authority to pass provisions and laws to designate the health care industry as non profit?
    Do you think Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security turn a profit? Do you think these "profits" would've gone into individual senators'/representatives' pockets, or what?

    They're government institutions and are, by default, non profit. They also do not make up the entire health care industry by any margin. You have numbers of profit orientated insurance companies that put their bottom line before patients. Same thing happens in For Profit hospitals.

    The problem is that Medicare and Medicaid reimburse for profit industries (as well as non profit hospitals) and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements are rife with abuse.

    Take the profit out of medical research and application and re-ban pharmaceuticals and medical industries from directly advertising their product and pressuring doctors to purchase and use machinery that's not needed for tests that are not needed, which is one of the biggest causes of high medical bills.
    Tell me how you get Nelson, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Brown, etc. to vote for such a plan.

    I don't. Hence why I said that it'll never happen.

    Sheep on
    QlBGc.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Then that's not the President's problem! This is my issue with progressives.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • HamurabiHamurabi AmsterdamRegistered User regular
    Sheep wrote:
    Do you think Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security turn a profit? Do you think these "profits" would've gone into individual senators'/representatives' pockets, or what?

    They're government institutions and are, by default, non profit. They also do not make up the entire health care industry by any margin. You have numbers of profit orientated insurance companies that put their bottom line before patients. Same thing happens in For Profit hospitals.

    The problem is that Medicare and Medicaid reimburse for profit industries (as well as non profit hospitals) and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements are rife with abuse.

    Take the profit out of medical research and application and re-ban pharmaceuticals and medical industries from directly advertising their product and pressuring doctors to purchase and use machinery that's not needed for tests that are not needed, which is one of the biggest causes of high medical bills.
    Tell me how you get Nelson, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Brown, etc. to vote for such a plan.

    I don't. Hence why I said that it'll never happen.

    Oh okay, I misunderstood you, sorry.

    Re: the merits of switching to a non-profit single-payer system... I feel like this would have an astronomical number of unintended consequences, man.

    For starters, and I understand that this is a crusty old Big Pharma talking-point, but how do you address the sudden disincentivization of R&D in an environment where you've "taken the profit out of medical research and application?"

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Then that's not the President's problem! This is my issue with progressives.

    Yes, this is true. Single payer would have made the insurance industry de facto non profit, but that wouldn't have stopped abuses at the corporate level

    QlBGc.jpg
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    Hamurabi wrote:
    For starters, and I understand that this is a crusty old Big Pharma talking-point, but how do you address the sudden disincentivization of R&D in an environment where you've "taken the profit out of medical research and application?"

    Increased government investment in R&D would be one solution, and I'd assume that much like the defense industry that pharma companies in a single payer system would still want to compete for government contracts.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Well, they'll have a lot more money for it now that they're not spending any on commercials or magazine space.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Yes single payer would have been nice.

    But it was never going to happen for reasons entirely outside the president's power.

    So I assume we can all not blame Obama for our problems with HCR?

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Oh okay, I misunderstood you, sorry.

    Re: the merits of switching to a non-profit single-payer system... I feel like this would have an astronomical number of unintended consequences, man.

    For starters, and I understand that this is a crusty old Big Pharma talking-point, but how do you address the sudden disincentivization of R&D in an environment where you've "taken the profit out of medical research and application?"

    Single payer is inherently different than a non profit health care industry. As mentioned above, single payer fixes the issue with insurance, but not other issues at hand, some that play a hand in our problems. I don't know to what degree R&D would suffer from individualization, but there are plenty of successful non profit R&D groups in the medical field already.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    Obama's lack of support for single payer doesn't irk me that much (even though I recall when he was in the Senate he endorsed a single payer plan) so much as his lack of support for a public option.

  • HamurabiHamurabi AmsterdamRegistered User regular
    Lawndart wrote:
    Obama's lack of support for single payer doesn't irk me that much (even though I recall when he was in the Senate he endorsed a single payer plan) so much as his lack of support for a public option.

    It didn't matter in the end what the president supported.

    They fought tooth-and-nail against a program that formally drives every single American into the hands of private insurance companies, and this was before last November. Do you think a bill containing a public option ever had a chance?

Sign In or Register to comment.