Again, what part of "separation of powers" don't you get?"
I don't get the part where it's a thing that only exists when (D)'s are in power.
Just because the GOP ignores the separation of powers doesn't mean we should.
Just as soon as the GOP gets the majority in the senate and enough votes to nuke the filibuster, it's gone. Democrats being pussies about doing away with a terrible procedural rule is just fucking us further. The rule is dead whether we kill it or they do, so we might as well go about it in a fashion that helps the people.
Why are his economic advisors & policy makers somehow all coincidentally Friedmanites who staunchly believe in the Invisible Hand of the free market and it's ability to sculpt paradise?
Neither Larry Summers nor Ben Bernanke is a Friedmanite. You might peg Geitner like that but I think that is a stretch as well.
Calling Bernanke & Summers Friedmanites is the best I can do for them; the only alternative description would be 'common thieves'. Either they are (like Greenspan) so attached to their ideology that they will pursue it to everyone's demise, or they intentionally engineer matters in order to skim some easy cash off of the top of the mess.
There were plenty of wealthy businessmen & economists for Obama to choose from when he was selecting economic advisors & policy makers, and somehow, magically, he chose a heap of dishonest right-wing fraudsters. So, how do you explain this?
So does anyone else think that the biggest problem is that the Democrats don't use the media effectively? They should pretty much be issuing a press release every time they bring up a necessary or popular bill, and another one when that bill gets filibustered.
So does anyone else think that the biggest problem is that the Democrats don't use the media effectively? They should pretty much be issuing a press release every time they bring up a necessary or popular bill, and another one when that bill gets filibustered.
The problem is that conservatives make bombastic claims that are good at fearmongering. And fear is the best headline.
The problem I have is that Obama's performance is rather moot. I will be voting for him again in 2012, because the opposition is pulling candidates straight from the mental ward.
Congress is really where you should be analyzing the performance. Shit, your vote goes way further in a Congressional election anyways (admittedly less so during a Presidential election).
Liberals hoped that Obama would overturn conservative policies and launch a new era of government activism. Although Republicans routinely accuse him of being a socialist, an honest examination of his presidency must conclude that he has in fact been moderately conservative to exactly the same degree that Nixon was moderately liberal.[...]
Conservatives will, of course, scoff at the idea of Obama being any sort of conservative, just as liberals scoffed at Nixon being any kind of liberal. But with the benefit of historical hindsight, it’s now obvious that Nixon was indeed a moderate liberal in practice. And with the passage of time, it’s increasingly obvious that Clinton was essentially an Eisenhower Republican. It may take 20 years before Obama’s basic conservatism is widely accepted as well, but it’s a fact.
The problem I have is that Obama's performance is rather moot. I will be voting for him again in 2012, because the opposition is pulling candidates straight from the mental ward.
Congress is really where you should be analyzing the performance. Shit, your vote goes way further in a Congressional election anyways (admittedly less so during a Presidential election).
Yeah, it's like voting between Adolf Stalin and robot-double-satan.
Not really much of a choice. But one is clearly less evil than the other.
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?
That's absurd, and you're being more than a bit of a silly goose.
I'm more than aware none of those things have a chance in hell of becoming law without opposition. But that doesn't mean Obama had to per-compromise on them before ever even approaching the GOP in crafting legislation.
And when Progressives have the audacity to be irritated over this fact, Rahm was right there to tell us to shut the fuck up, and be happy with the center-right legislation we were getting.
Why would you waste your time, though?
Obama said it best in that talk he gave to college activists: if you go in with unrealistically high expectations, politics will always disappoint you.
Liberals(and Paleo-Conservatives) have three options left to them.
Lose interest in politics entirely, becoming bitter old husks of themselves.
Settle, compromise and make excuses for their elected representatives until their erstwhile opponents are begging them to pull their heads out of their asses.
Rediscover that thing called hatred, and get back to work.
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?
It did if reconciliation was used - a majority of Senators said they would vote for such a plan in the months before the bill was passed.
Liberals hoped that Obama would overturn conservative policies and launch a new era of government activism. Although Republicans routinely accuse him of being a socialist, an honest examination of his presidency must conclude that he has in fact been moderately conservative to exactly the same degree that Nixon was moderately liberal.[...]
Conservatives will, of course, scoff at the idea of Obama being any sort of conservative, just as liberals scoffed at Nixon being any kind of liberal. But with the benefit of historical hindsight, it’s now obvious that Nixon was indeed a moderate liberal in practice. And with the passage of time, it’s increasingly obvious that Clinton was essentially an Eisenhower Republican. It may take 20 years before Obama’s basic conservatism is widely accepted as well, but it’s a fact.
It is Obama's fault that the Senate is structured in such a way that filibusters give disportionate power to the minority party.
Really.
Yes, actually.
The GOP Congress under Bush II was THIS close to getting rid of the filibuster because the Democrats sort of threatened to use the filibuster. They backed down at the threat, repeatedly, which is why the Bush Congress got so much done.
When the GOP tried, the Democrats never made a peep about it. In what was literally a reverse of the same situation, the Democrats backed down again.
This is down to the Democratic Congress, but they've been following Obama's Concessions Now, Concessions Later, Concessions Always strategy. The end result of this strategy is that the Democrats are powerless in the minority and powerless in the majority. At some point, you almost wish they'd all just switch the GOP and get it over with.
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?
That's absurd, and you're being more than a bit of a silly goose.
I'm more than aware none of those things have a chance in hell of becoming law without opposition. But that doesn't mean Obama had to per-compromise on them before ever even approaching the GOP in crafting legislation.
And when Progressives have the audacity to be irritated over this fact, Rahm was right there to tell us to shut the fuck up, and be happy with the center-right legislation we were getting.
Why would you waste your time, though?
Obama said it best in that talk he gave to college activists: if you go in with unrealistically high expectations, politics will always disappoint you.
He should also give them the message that there are elections every *gasp* two years. Not four.
Obama's a bureaucrat not a leader. He and the rest of D.C. are so far inside the system that they do not see its walls. You'll never get change from people who do not even acknowledge the possibility of change.
If there is one thing I can give credit to the Tea Party, it is that they do realize that the "rules" are artificial and if they bang hard enough on them, it will be the rules that break. Laws and governments are only as strong as their ability to function effectively. Once they cease to work for everyone - or can be made to cease to work - their power vanishes.
It's the reason that small numbers of revolutionaries have always been able to defeat seemingly insurmountable odds. Once you lose faith in the system, you start to see its cracks and use them to your advantage.
Just too bad that the people who make this realization tend to be lunatics who end up destroying their nations.
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?
It did if reconciliation was used - a majority of Senators said they would vote for such a plan in the months before the bill was passed.
Whether or not they'd have actually voted for it if it came down to reconciliation we'll never know.
That said, I do recall their being some noise about reconciliation complicating the process, and forcing them to split the bill into its constituent elements because not everything in the bill was budget-related.
This is down to the Democratic Congress, but they've been following Obama's Concessions Now, Concessions Later, Concessions Always strategy. The end result of this strategy is that the Democrats are powerless in the minority and powerless in the majority. At some point, you almost wish they'd all just switch the GOP and get it over with.
This is pretty much my position, and why I'm just about done voting for Democrats: it doesn't matter if they win. They'll never represent my perspective anyway. I might just as well vote for a third party who loses, especially since every damn vote I cast is meaningles - statewide races are safe D anyway, and in district a (D) stands for (D)on't Fucking Bother.
This is down to the Democratic Congress, but they've been following Obama's Concessions Now, Concessions Later, Concessions Always strategy. The end result of this strategy is that the Democrats are powerless in the minority and powerless in the majority. At some point, you almost wish they'd all just switch the GOP and get it over with.
This is pretty much my position, and why I'm just about done voting for Democrats: it doesn't matter if they win. They'll never represent my perspective anyway. I might just as well vote for a third party who loses, especially since every damn vote I cast is meaningles - statewide races are safe D anyway, and in district a (D) stands for (D)on't Fucking Bother.
So you would rather national seats went to Republicans?
Even in the worst case scenario, where you hate all your options, you should still attempt to sway things toward the lesser evil. Failing to do so harms you and everyone you care for.
Reason.com doesn't know jack and/or shit about economics.
1) Friedman's prescriptions for ending the great depression were Keynesian. It was is description of what caused the crisis that was not.
2) Monetarism, as defined by Friedman, has nothing to do with fixing recessions. Its doctrine actually is against it for central banks (despite ironically what he wrote in his book about the GD). Monetarism suggests that we should have a steady increase in the monetary base in order to enact constant inflation. And the suggestion is objectively wrong and everyone realizes it today. (in fact, Volker disproved it in the 80's, not long after it was suggested)
3) Monetary policy is the only lever the fed has to effect the economy. It cannot effect fiscal policy. So saying that he should not use monetary policy is suggesting that he should not attempt to correct recessions.
It is Obama's fault that the Senate is structured in such a way that filibusters give disportionate power to the minority party.
Really.
Yes, actually.
The GOP Congress under Bush II was THIS close to getting rid of the filibuster because the Democrats sort of threatened to use the filibuster. They backed down at the threat, repeatedly, which is why the Bush Congress got so much done.
When the GOP tried, the Democrats never made a peep about it. In what was literally a reverse of the same situation, the Democrats backed down again.
This is down to the Democratic Congress, but they've been following Obama's Concessions Now, Concessions Later, Concessions Always strategy. The end result of this strategy is that the Democrats are powerless in the minority and powerless in the majority. At some point, you almost wish they'd all just switch the GOP and get it over with.
The 111th Congress was far more productive than any Congress in the last 40 years. Nancy Pelosi gets shit done.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This is down to the Democratic Congress, but they've been following Obama's Concessions Now, Concessions Later, Concessions Always strategy. The end result of this strategy is that the Democrats are powerless in the minority and powerless in the majority. At some point, you almost wish they'd all just switch the GOP and get it over with.
This is pretty much my position, and why I'm just about done voting for Democrats: it doesn't matter if they win. They'll never represent my perspective anyway. I might just as well vote for a third party who loses, especially since every damn vote I cast is meaningles - statewide races are safe D anyway, and in district a (D) stands for (D)on't Fucking Bother.
So you would rather national seats went to Republicans?
No, he would rather Democratic voters find the spine to pull the country left.
Either you give up, pussy out, or get to work. Voting for a third party that represents you ensures that your actual opinions are a matter of public record. Liberals need, and always will need to break away from the Dems.
Also, they need to remember that Congress is much more important than the president.
This is down to the Democratic Congress, but they've been following Obama's Concessions Now, Concessions Later, Concessions Always strategy. The end result of this strategy is that the Democrats are powerless in the minority and powerless in the majority. At some point, you almost wish they'd all just switch the GOP and get it over with.
This is pretty much my position, and why I'm just about done voting for Democrats: it doesn't matter if they win. They'll never represent my perspective anyway. I might just as well vote for a third party who loses, especially since every damn vote I cast is meaningles - statewide races are safe D anyway, and in district a (D) stands for (D)on't Fucking Bother.
So you would rather national seats went to Republicans?
No, he would rather Democratic voters find the spine to pull the country left.
Either you give up, pussy out, or get to work. Voting for a third party that represents you ensures that your actual opinions are a matter of public record. Liberals need, and always will need to break away from the Dems.
It might make it a matter of record, but it also means the GOP gets to make the laws. Voting 3rd party to change the Dems is stupid as fuck.
If you wanna change a party's politics do it from the inside like the right did with the GOP
This is down to the Democratic Congress, but they've been following Obama's Concessions Now, Concessions Later, Concessions Always strategy. The end result of this strategy is that the Democrats are powerless in the minority and powerless in the majority. At some point, you almost wish they'd all just switch the GOP and get it over with.
This is pretty much my position, and why I'm just about done voting for Democrats: it doesn't matter if they win. They'll never represent my perspective anyway. I might just as well vote for a third party who loses, especially since every damn vote I cast is meaningles - statewide races are safe D anyway, and in district a (D) stands for (D)on't Fucking Bother.
So you would rather national seats went to Republicans?
No, he would rather Democratic voters find the spine to pull the country left.
Either you give up, pussy out, or get to work. Voting for a third party that represents you ensures that your actual opinions are a matter of public record. Liberals need, and always will need to break away from the Dems.
So you'd be satisfied with having your protest vote be counted as "an unusual number of third-party votes" -- which is to say, 3% versus the usual 1-2% -- than to add one more vote to the not-Republican side? Like I get that libs are disenchanted and upset and whatever, but we are literally encouraging the Tea Party to strike out on its own to weaken the GOP base.
Soon, the Tea Party will have enough votes that they must be welcomed back into the fold.
If you are encouraging the Republican Party to go further Right in the hopes that it will reach some kind of magical idiot threshold, you are a moron with no grasp of how things actually work.
I doubt that would ever happen. Thanks for calling me a moron, though.
As an aside... I don't know how this ship is going to right itself without campaign finance reform.
Ralph Nader wrote a book a few years ago about several extremely wealthy progressives essentially injecting all their fortunes into the progressive movement out of good will.
I doubt that would ever happen. Thanks for calling me a moron, though.
As an aside... I don't know how this ship is going to right itself without campaign finance reform.
Ralph Nader wrote a book a few years ago about several extremely wealthy progressives essentially injecting all their fortunes into the progressive movement out of good will.
I doubt that would ever happen. Thanks for calling me a moron, though.
As an aside... I don't know how this ship is going to right itself without campaign finance reform.
Ralph Nader wrote a book a few years ago about several extremely wealthy progressives essentially injecting all their fortunes into the progressive movement out of good will.
This is down to the Democratic Congress, but they've been following Obama's Concessions Now, Concessions Later, Concessions Always strategy. The end result of this strategy is that the Democrats are powerless in the minority and powerless in the majority. At some point, you almost wish they'd all just switch the GOP and get it over with.
This is pretty much my position, and why I'm just about done voting for Democrats: it doesn't matter if they win. They'll never represent my perspective anyway. I might just as well vote for a third party who loses, especially since every damn vote I cast is meaningles - statewide races are safe D anyway, and in district a (D) stands for (D)on't Fucking Bother.
So you would rather national seats went to Republicans?
No, he would rather Democratic voters find the spine to pull the country left.
Either you give up, pussy out, or get to work. Voting for a third party that represents you ensures that your actual opinions are a matter of public record. Liberals need, and always will need to break away from the Dems.
Also, they need to remember that Congress is much more important than the president.
We just did this ELEVEN YEARS AGO. How did that work out for liberals?
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Quite well right up until the Democrats turned around and primary'd an opponent who just happened to be Bush's life-long friend, and he dropped out before the votes were tallied.
Good God, can we stop with the "Obama's really a conservative!" tripe?
He got the legislation passed that could realistically get passed given the BS in the Senate. He works quietly in the background and got done what could be done on health care. There are a whole host of other liberal things that have been accomplished. You really think conservatives would have passed the Ledbetter Equal Pay Act?
The reason Dems come to the table with a compromise is that they have worked out what they can pass with their own members. The dem caucus is much less rigid and conforming than the GOP caucus.
Just too bad that the people who make this realization tend to be lunatics who end up destroying their nations.
In what way?
Revolutions very rarely turn out well. For the most part, they are a lot of violence to get another set of incompetent/evil assholes in place.
The American and French revolutions are the best counter-examples, and it took a long time for the positive effects of the French Revolution to reveal themselves out of all the blood and chaos.
Just too bad that the people who make this realization tend to be lunatics who end up destroying their nations.
In what way?
Revolutions very rarely turn out well. For the most part, they are a lot of violence to get another set of incompetent/evil assholes in place.
The American and French revolutions are the best counter-examples, and it took a long time for the positive effects of the French Revolution to reveal themselves out of all the blood and chaos.
Well the American revolution was also different in nature then a hypothetical modern one.
Well the American revolution was also different in nature then a hypothetical modern one.
There's a good argument that the American Revolution wasn't even a revolution. It was just the people who ran the place realizing that they didn't have to pay rent to the old landlord anymore.
Well the American revolution was also different in nature then a hypothetical modern one.
There's a good argument that the American Revolution wasn't even a revolution. It was just the people who ran the place realizing that they didn't have to pay rent to the old landlord anymore.
Pretty much. There's a substantial difference between gaining independence and replacing an existing government.
Posts
Just as soon as the GOP gets the majority in the senate and enough votes to nuke the filibuster, it's gone. Democrats being pussies about doing away with a terrible procedural rule is just fucking us further. The rule is dead whether we kill it or they do, so we might as well go about it in a fashion that helps the people.
Calling Bernanke & Summers Friedmanites is the best I can do for them; the only alternative description would be 'common thieves'. Either they are (like Greenspan) so attached to their ideology that they will pursue it to everyone's demise, or they intentionally engineer matters in order to skim some easy cash off of the top of the mess.
There were plenty of wealthy businessmen & economists for Obama to choose from when he was selecting economic advisors & policy makers, and somehow, magically, he chose a heap of dishonest right-wing fraudsters. So, how do you explain this?
EDIT: This article is rather telling for anyone wishing to debate the matter of whom Bernanke's philosophical idol is.
Congress is really where you should be analyzing the performance. Shit, your vote goes way further in a Congressional election anyways (admittedly less so during a Presidential election).
Yeah, it's like voting between Adolf Stalin and robot-double-satan.
Not really much of a choice. But one is clearly less evil than the other.
If playing Paranoia has taught me anything, it's that it's my duty to vote for Robot Satan. And that refusal to do this duty is an act of treason.
Why would you waste your time, though?
Obama said it best in that talk he gave to college activists: if you go in with unrealistically high expectations, politics will always disappoint you.
EDIT: Here's the video.
Lose interest in politics entirely, becoming bitter old husks of themselves.
Settle, compromise and make excuses for their elected representatives until their erstwhile opponents are begging them to pull their heads out of their asses.
Rediscover that thing called hatred, and get back to work.
It did if reconciliation was used - a majority of Senators said they would vote for such a plan in the months before the bill was passed.
Yeah, I called the guy a Nixonian earlier in this thread, I believe.
Yes, actually.
The GOP Congress under Bush II was THIS close to getting rid of the filibuster because the Democrats sort of threatened to use the filibuster. They backed down at the threat, repeatedly, which is why the Bush Congress got so much done.
When the GOP tried, the Democrats never made a peep about it. In what was literally a reverse of the same situation, the Democrats backed down again.
This is down to the Democratic Congress, but they've been following Obama's Concessions Now, Concessions Later, Concessions Always strategy. The end result of this strategy is that the Democrats are powerless in the minority and powerless in the majority. At some point, you almost wish they'd all just switch the GOP and get it over with.
He should also give them the message that there are elections every *gasp* two years. Not four.
Obama's a bureaucrat not a leader. He and the rest of D.C. are so far inside the system that they do not see its walls. You'll never get change from people who do not even acknowledge the possibility of change.
If there is one thing I can give credit to the Tea Party, it is that they do realize that the "rules" are artificial and if they bang hard enough on them, it will be the rules that break. Laws and governments are only as strong as their ability to function effectively. Once they cease to work for everyone - or can be made to cease to work - their power vanishes.
It's the reason that small numbers of revolutionaries have always been able to defeat seemingly insurmountable odds. Once you lose faith in the system, you start to see its cracks and use them to your advantage.
Just too bad that the people who make this realization tend to be lunatics who end up destroying their nations.
In what way?
Whether or not they'd have actually voted for it if it came down to reconciliation we'll never know.
That said, I do recall their being some noise about reconciliation complicating the process, and forcing them to split the bill into its constituent elements because not everything in the bill was budget-related.
This is pretty much my position, and why I'm just about done voting for Democrats: it doesn't matter if they win. They'll never represent my perspective anyway. I might just as well vote for a third party who loses, especially since every damn vote I cast is meaningles - statewide races are safe D anyway, and in district a (D) stands for (D)on't Fucking Bother.
So you would rather national seats went to Republicans?
Reason.com doesn't know jack and/or shit about economics.
1) Friedman's prescriptions for ending the great depression were Keynesian. It was is description of what caused the crisis that was not.
2) Monetarism, as defined by Friedman, has nothing to do with fixing recessions. Its doctrine actually is against it for central banks (despite ironically what he wrote in his book about the GD). Monetarism suggests that we should have a steady increase in the monetary base in order to enact constant inflation. And the suggestion is objectively wrong and everyone realizes it today. (in fact, Volker disproved it in the 80's, not long after it was suggested)
3) Monetary policy is the only lever the fed has to effect the economy. It cannot effect fiscal policy. So saying that he should not use monetary policy is suggesting that he should not attempt to correct recessions.
The 111th Congress was far more productive than any Congress in the last 40 years. Nancy Pelosi gets shit done.
No, he would rather Democratic voters find the spine to pull the country left.
Either you give up, pussy out, or get to work. Voting for a third party that represents you ensures that your actual opinions are a matter of public record. Liberals need, and always will need to break away from the Dems.
Also, they need to remember that Congress is much more important than the president.
It might make it a matter of record, but it also means the GOP gets to make the laws. Voting 3rd party to change the Dems is stupid as fuck.
If you wanna change a party's politics do it from the inside like the right did with the GOP
So you'd be satisfied with having your protest vote be counted as "an unusual number of third-party votes" -- which is to say, 3% versus the usual 1-2% -- than to add one more vote to the not-Republican side? Like I get that libs are disenchanted and upset and whatever, but we are literally encouraging the Tea Party to strike out on its own to weaken the GOP base.
Why would we do it ourselves?
If you are encouraging the Republican Party to go further Right in the hopes that it will reach some kind of magical idiot threshold, you are a moron with no grasp of how things actually work.
As an aside... I don't know how this ship is going to right itself without campaign finance reform.
Ralph Nader wrote a book a few years ago about several extremely wealthy progressives essentially injecting all their fortunes into the progressive movement out of good will.
It was nice left wing masturbatory material.
Dude that was this year.
Hmm I distinctly remember him doing an interview with Thom Hartman when I was still in college over it.
Must have been prior to its release.
We just did this ELEVEN YEARS AGO. How did that work out for liberals?
It's a matter of follow-through, really.
He got the legislation passed that could realistically get passed given the BS in the Senate. He works quietly in the background and got done what could be done on health care. There are a whole host of other liberal things that have been accomplished. You really think conservatives would have passed the Ledbetter Equal Pay Act?
The reason Dems come to the table with a compromise is that they have worked out what they can pass with their own members. The dem caucus is much less rigid and conforming than the GOP caucus.
Revolutions very rarely turn out well. For the most part, they are a lot of violence to get another set of incompetent/evil assholes in place.
The American and French revolutions are the best counter-examples, and it took a long time for the positive effects of the French Revolution to reveal themselves out of all the blood and chaos.
Well the American revolution was also different in nature then a hypothetical modern one.
There's a good argument that the American Revolution wasn't even a revolution. It was just the people who ran the place realizing that they didn't have to pay rent to the old landlord anymore.
Pretty much. There's a substantial difference between gaining independence and replacing an existing government.