Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The reason we don't have more libertarians and fiscally responsible liberals is because there is no power for politicians that don't spend. Spending on pork and programs is what keeps their coffers full and allows them to stay in Washington. It's a slippery slope that we started sliding down a long time ago. I still think the best message any of us could send is having the congress **** near split down the middle and vote against every incumbent for a decade to show the status quo isn't working.

Like any other organization, the government's natural inclination is to grow. That is why the constitution was referred to as the shackles on the gov't. Unfortunately we've so degraded those restraints that, short of another revolution, there may be no way to reign the gov't back in.

 

[SteveF]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The reason we don't have more libertarians and fiscally responsible liberals is because there is no power for politicians that don't spend. Spending on pork and programs is what keeps their coffers full and allows them to stay in Washington. It's a slippery slope that we started sliding down a long time ago.

true. there is no approval ratings for holding tight and paying down the deficit. furthermore, the people complaining now would be in a bigger uproar over cuts in social services, roads, education and other things they generally demand the govt pay for. just look at how the typical american has no savings account and massive credit card debit. the government is a reflection of the people.. democracy indeed.

the thing i find hypocritical is that the people crawling out of the woodwork suddenly complaining about the deficit when its been increasing to record levels every year since 2000 (and with 1 minor exception, basically every year since 1980). sounds like an ulterior motive to me

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

You righties are way too obsessed with me.

However, I'll tell you two problems facing the country are instant gratification and whining. If anything goes wrong, anywhere, the average citizen is too quick to start crying in their beer and then blame somebody else. A whole industry (right wing media) has sprung up to meet this demand and its a lucrative one by most accounts.

A great example is the housing crisis. Whiners want to blame the gubmint, the banks, illegal aliens, The Vatican Council, heavy metal, etc for the housing bubble. This is all off the mark. People, average citizens, the ones carrying signs saying Keep the Govt Out of My Medicare and Vote Out All Incumbents, are to blame. That means Joe Six Pack and his wife. Nobody forced people to take out loans they couldn't afford. If you make 20K a year and somebody qualifies you to purchase a million dollar home, you have to have the horse sense to look at your monthly budget and realize you can't actually afford the purchase, no matter what some stranger is telling you.

However, try and find anybody willing to admit that. Its always somebody else's fault.

Now, these same people will cry and whine that the problem hasn't been fixed. No #$%^ it hasn't been fixed yet. Its going to take awhile. That's not Obama/Bush II/Geitner/Summers/etc etc's fault. Its the fault of people who's eyes were bigger than their bank accounts.

What I admire about the Obama administration and the current Congress is that they aren't whiners, they're doers. What I've seen in the last two years is something I haven't seen since the period of 1993-1997 (which spans Dem & GOP control of Congress). Which is a willingness to tackle the tough and pressing problems the country is currently facing, instead of punting them down the road.

So, lets talk health care. The current system is unsustainable. We've all known this for decades. Yet nothing got done out of fear of electoral losses and demogauges. Too much cost, too many uninsured and no way to pay for the fixes. All three of these were addressed by the legislation. Adopting a wait-and-see attitude = reasonable IMHO. Declaring "its a disaster" = Whiner. It ain't any more complicated than that. Simply put politicians put their careers on the line to take a tough vote. When is the last time we could say that?

Financial reform. Same thing. Big money interests fighting it. Whiners and demogauges everywhere. But look at the law. Process for unwinding too big to fail. Derivative regulations. Things that needed to get done.

Afghanistan. How easy would it to have been to say "see you later" - prior admin has been fighting this war for 7 years to no effect, so time to cut our losses. Instead the right general is now in place with a larger troop committment to get the job done. This won't happen instantly, but its tackling the problem head on.

All of this isn't to say the admin and Congress have been perfect as some numbskulls will no doubt interpret. Obama needs to present a clear plan for deficit reduction (which frankly will mostly rely on an improving economy to boost tax receipts). I also would have liked less focus on "climate change" and more on "energy indepedence" which really are the same thing for this country's purposes. However, as Pierre Trudeau once said, "don't compare me to the Almightly, compare me to the opposition". Today's modern GOP with very few exceptions is run by idiots. McConnell, Palin, Huckleberry, Boner, etc. These people have no plan that will do any good. Get the Warners, Doles, Danforths, Rudmans, etc back and I can see why people would consider them as an alternative. But anybody truly expecting deficit reduction out of this crop of GOP leaders is brainless. You have a better chance of seeing God.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

What I admire about the Obama administration and the current Congress is that they aren't whiners, they're doers.

True dat. And with the exception of spending (which arguably has been necessary to keep the money supply moving) and possibly health care (which is a societal preference), there is no evidence that the accomplishments of the administration/dems have been truly bad for the country. That is in contrast with the previous 8 years.

I would argue that Bush was a liberal too. He just wanted a different kind of big gov't. I say lets try a true conservative (libertarian leaning) next time around.

Not true. I think its more likely that if Bush would have had the same policies but had the personality of Reagan...then Bush would have seen abandonment he did.

Bush may have been the poster child of conservatism. Under his leadership there was a push for religion in schools, talk of using the Constitution to 'protect marriage' from gays, no child left behind, the promotion of Roberts/Alito to the SC, tax cuts for the rich, against stem cell research, tying social security to the markets, increases in military spending, lots of saber rattling and arguably a needless war. We've pulled up polls time and again...liberals absolutely dispised Bush and conservatives supported him long after the country abandoned him.

If your sole piece of evidence is that he spent, again...there is no evidence that the right actually spends anything less than the left. They just talk about it until they get in control...but in the end, they just spend on different stuff.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Financial reform. Same thing. Big money interests fighting it. Whiners and demogauges everywhere. But look at the law. Process for unwinding too big to fail. Derivative regulations. Things that needed to get done.

Since you obviously haven't read it, you may want to hold your slavering praise for Dodd-Frank, and what it doesn't do, and leaves up to the machinations of the regulatory process. Doers? Really ...

http://docs.house.gov/rules/finserv/111_hr4173_finsrvcr.pdf

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

True dat. And with the exception of spending (which arguably has been necessary to keep the money supply moving) and possibly health care (which is a societal preference), there is no evidence that the accomplishments of the administration/dems have been truly bad for the country. That is in contrast with the previous 8 years.



Not true. I think its more likely that if Bush would have had the same policies but had the personality of Reagan...then Bush would have seen abandonment he did.

Bush may have been the poster child of conservatism. Under his leadership there was a push for religion in schools, talk of using the Constitution to 'protect marriage' from gays, no child left behind, the promotion of Roberts/Alito to the SC, tax cuts for the rich, against stem cell research, tying social security to the markets, increases in military spending, lots of saber rattling and arguably a needless war. We've pulled up polls time and again...liberals absolutely dispised Bush and conservatives supported him long after the country abandoned him.

If your sole piece of evidence is that he spent, again...there is no evidence that the right actually spends anything less than the left. They just talk about it until they get in control...but in the end, they just spend on different stuff.

Just about everything you mentioned was more spending and bigger gov't. Being socially conservative doesn't make you a conservative. In fact, I'd argue, if you are going to use the gov't to push your social agenda then you aren't conservative at all.

There is a reason I put libertarian leaning in there. If you had given Reagan a GOP congress I think you would have seen spending decrease. Heck, even with a Dem congress he shrank non-defense spending his last two years.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bush may have been the poster child of conservatism. Under his leadership there was a push for religion in schools, talk of using the Constitution to 'protect marriage' from gays, no child left behind, the promotion of Roberts/Alito to the SC, tax cuts for the rich, against stem cell research, tying social security to the markets, increases in military spending, lots of saber rattling and arguably a needless war. We've pulled up polls time and again...liberals absolutely dispised Bush and conservatives supported him long after the country abandoned him.

If your sole piece of evidence is that he spent, again...there is no evidence that the right actually spends anything less than the left. They just talk about it until they get in control...but in the end, they just spend on different stuff.

Don't forget that "the jury's still out" on Evolution.

Calling Bush a liberal because he spent is like calling Stalin a philanthropist because he was nice to his dog.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

So, lets talk health care. The current system is unsustainable. We've all known this for decades. Yet nothing got done out of fear of electoral losses and demogauges. Too much cost, too many uninsured and no way to pay for the fixes. All three of these were addressed by the legislation. Adopting a wait-and-see attitude = reasonable IMHO. Declaring "its a disaster" = Whiner. It ain't any more complicated than that. Simply put politicians put their careers on the line to take a tough vote. When is the last time we could say that?

Whoa there.

I'm on board with the part where Democrats right now are taking action where they would usually be wallflowers. (This, despite the fact that they are still sissies- the WTC Health Bill that got defeated because the Dems tried to push for 2/3 majority on it is a GREAT example)

But let's not pretend like taking action and being bold automatically means success. Being bold and being correct or prudent are different things. The health care bill is a great example of a bold action taken in a completely wrong direction.

In 2008, Democrats campaigned on changing the status quo: insurance companies have too much control over the health industry, we need regulation to reign them in, in the best interest of the consumer. Most liberals (myself included) bought that, hook line and sinker. So as 2009 moved along, and the debate began in earnest, we were all pretty much in favor of where the bill might go.

And then we found out what the bill really was. That bill is not only the most ridiculous price tag this country has ever seen, but it's also wildly beneficial for health insurance companies. Instead of knocking them down a peg, congress mandated that everyone buy insurance! That's the OPPOSITE of reigning in the insurance companies!

That's 110% why liberals like me are balking on Obama and the Democratic majority right now. Liberals like you, however, seem to be willing to just go along with the capital "D", no matter where it goes.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

This is great.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

furthermore, the people complaining now would be in a bigger uproar over cuts in social services, roads, education and other things they generally demand the govt pay for.

Roads can be paid for via the gas tax. The real problem with the budget is that most of it is non-discretionary now (think: entitlements).

just look at how the typical american has no savings account and massive credit card debit.

http://www.newser.com/article/d9hqc...t-level-since-2002-late-payments-decline.html
This is an assumption that has taken hold over the past few years, but apparently it's been way overblown. The average credit card debt in this country is < $5000 now. Furthermore, according to a comprehensive fed survey a few years ago, most of us don't even carry a balance.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/banking/creditcardsmarts/p74808.asp

On the saving side of things, even with the improved savings rate during this economic downturn, we're still not doing very well. Every article I've pulled on the subject has yielded awful retirement account balances (regardless of age group) - and there is no way they can support these people when they retire. What this ultimately means is people are placing far too much reliance on social security/medicare, which will make it that much harder to do the necessary reforms (cutting benefits / capping future increases / adding to the retirement age).

the thing i find hypocritical is that the people crawling out of the woodwork suddenly complaining about the deficit when its been increasing to record levels every year since 2000 (and with 1 minor exception, basically every year since 1980). sounds like an ulterior motive to me

That's because of a few significant developments in recent years:
- Greece's debt problem illustrates what will happen if we don't reign in spending; creditor nations will dump bonds, the nation's credit rating gets downgraded, and interest rates to service the debt skyrocket. Forced reforms in government spending then lead to massive civil unrest. In other words, it's a *'ing disaster - and one that is completely preventable.
- Social Security took in less money than it paid out in benefits for the first time ever; this hammers home the point that we are running out of time to fix the system in a way that might be palatable to most (the longer we wait, the more brutal the solutions become).
- US debt is approaching its GDP and is climbing at over $1 trillion per year now. This isn't sustainable by any measure. Thanks to artificially low interest rates, the cost of servicing the debt isn't nearly as high as it can / will be in the future. A 2.5% 10 yr yield is almost unheard of. When the economy finally recovers, that rate is going to climb - and with it the cost of making the debt payments.

We may very well be at the point where the spineless Congress will simply have to abdicate its role with regard to the nation's finances and empower a bipartisan commission with the authority to make decisions on how to fix our longterm problems (the one that the Obama Administration created this year has no real power and will probably be ignored). Do any of you have any confidence in anyone in Congress to make the difficult decisions? Can any of you imagine a politician going on record in favor of raising the retirement age, lowering benefits, and raising taxes? AARP would have a field day destroying whoever does that, and the senior citizen voting bloc would turn out in droves to drive that person / those people out of office.

 

[moe24]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Calling Bush a liberal because he spent is like calling Stalin a philanthropist because he was nice to his dog.

What an incredibly ignorant and stupid thing to say. Bush grew the government, grew deficit spending, grew the debt, and got government involved in private business affairs it had no business meddling in (i.e. the bank bailout). To have that staring you in the face and to call him a conservative is absurd at best.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

What an incredibly ignorant and stupid thing to say. Bush grew the government, grew deficit spending, grew the debt, and got government involved in private business affairs it had no business meddling in (i.e. the bank bailout). To have that staring you in the face and to call him a conservative is absurd at best.

Reagan grew the debt too. I suppose he isn't conservative either? There are no fiscal conservatives in this government. Doesn't exist. Bush was a conservative by his social policies. Clinton and the Repubs in the late '90's started to balance the budget by accident on a huge private sector bubble. Bush found a way to make his tax cuts fiscally sane for a short period on a huge housing bubble.

Either way, no one has proven themselves to be fiscally conservative since the last time the budget was balanced. And given the challenges of the current climate I don't see any way they'll be a true fiscal conservative United States in my granddaughters lifetime.

The ship has sailed.

Our best best (IMO) is to find the next cheap energy source if it exists.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bush was a social conservative, and that's about it. Nothing about his spending policies qualified as conservative. Then again, at the federal level, fiscal conservatism may no longer exist, at least when it comes to whichever party is in power.

Divided government is the only scenario that has any ability to restrain spending it seems.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

But let's not pretend like taking action and being bold automatically means success. Being bold and being correct or prudent are different things. The health care bill is a great example of a bold action taken in a completely wrong direction.

In 2008, Democrats campaigned on changing the status quo: insurance companies have too much control over the health industry, we need regulation to reign them in, in the best interest of the consumer. Most liberals (myself included) bought that, hook line and sinker. So as 2009 moved along, and the debate began in earnest, we were all pretty much in favor of where the bill might go.

And then we found out what the bill really was. That bill is not only the most ridiculous price tag this country has ever seen, but it's also wildly beneficial for health insurance companies. Instead of knocking them down a peg, congress mandated that everyone buy insurance! That's the OPPOSITE of reigning in the insurance companies!

Again with demogaugery. What I do is live in the real world. In the real world any bill might be subject to negotiations and you may not get everything you want. In a representative democracy and a system of checks and balances, that's how it works. Rather than declare holy war on the insurance industry, a deal was made that no dropping coverage for pre-existing conditions was offset by a mandate that all have some sort of insurance. Apologies but I don't find that to be an unreasonable trade off but perhaps that's the pragmatic side of me. Anybody who would use that as an excuse to sit on the sidelines and allow a GOP Congress to take over is as clueless as a Ralphie Nader supporter. Its called cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you think insurance companies got a good deal now, wait until they have a situation where its a GOP Congress and GOP President, and then let me know how you feel.

That's 110% why liberals like me are balking on Obama and the Democratic majority right now. Liberals like you, however, seem to be willing to just go along with the capital "D", no matter where it goes.

A stupid statement on many levels. I refuse to vote for bozos no matter what party they're in. For example, I absolutely will not vote for my state's Dem gov for re-election, nor the small time, dumb, two bit state treasurer who left the Dems to launch an independent bid. That leaves me voting GOP (which I've done before for Gov) or not at all.

So, to sum up, you can't evaluate a politician by "he didn't do everything exactly as I wanted to". No #$& they don't. But if you want a parallel to your health care angst, kindly go back and review coverage of Clinton's deficit reduction plan. "WE'RE BEING TAXED TOO MUCH" "THOSE POOR TOP TAX BRACKET PEOPLE" "THIS WILL KILL THE ECONOMY AND DO NOTHING TO BALANCE THE BUDGET!!!!" 5 years later, the budget was balanced for the 1st time in 30+ years and the economy was booming. One wonders if we'll be looking back similarly in a few years time at health care.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

What an incredibly ignorant and stupid thing to say. Bush grew the government, grew deficit spending, grew the debt, and got government involved in private business affairs it had no business meddling in (i.e. the bank bailout). To have that staring you in the face and to call him a conservative is absurd at best.

You might need to read up on some history. Reagan did all of those things, except for the bank bailouts - but those were a product of the circumstance, they were bipartisan, and most importantly - they worked. It was triage, not well planned surgery with lots of prep time, but TARP et al prevented a complete collapse of the economy.

 

[moe24]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

You might need to read up on some history. Reagan did all of those things, except for the bank bailouts - but those were a product of the circumstance, they were bipartisan, and most importantly - they worked. It was triage, not well planned surgery with lots of prep time, but TARP et al prevented a complete collapse of the economy.

Were in my post did I compare Bush to Reagan? I simply pointed out the absurdity of calling someone conservative when their actions were anything but. Besides the comparison doesn't work anyway, Reagan had to make compromises with a Dem congress while Dubya had GOP congress and dove head first into those actions anyway.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

With the rise of Tea Party influence, nobody in American cares about social issues this cycle (other than abortion, the old standby, and a potential huge backlash against gun control if Obama's EPA goes ahead and bans lead ammo). See the big yawn when some Republican "came out" the other day. Nobody cares. The economy and fiscal policy are the only issues that matter. So to define a big-spending "social conservative" (religious politician) as a conservative without that qualification is going to confuse people.
This has been explained before. By modern standards, Bush II was the most liberal president we've had in a generation. Until now.
In addition, it amazes me that someone would hold up NCLB (federal takeover of educational standards from the states) as a triumph of conservative ideals, with a straight face.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Were in my post did I compare Bush to Reagan? I simply pointed out the absurdity of calling someone conservative when their actions were anything but. Besides the comparison doesn't work anyway, Reagan had to make compromises with a Dem congress while Dubya had GOP congress and dove head first into those actions anyway.

You didn't compare Bush to Reagan, I did. Because I think your definition of 'conservative' has no meaning in our political system.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

By modern standards, Bush II was the most liberal president we've had in a generation.

Think what you may of a shift away from social and foriegn policy by the right...but you couldn't be more wrong about Bush being a liberal. Record breaking level of history revision there.

Bush was a social conservative, and that's about it. Nothing about his spending policies qualified as conservative. Then again, at the federal level, fiscal conservatism may no longer exist, at least when it comes to whichever party is in power.

Divided government is the only scenario that has any ability to restrain spending it seems.

This is as much about who 'conservatives' are as it is about who Bush was in office.

If Bush was absolutely a social conservative and a foriegn policy conservative...then you pretty much have a conservative. Remember social conservatism is the origin of the conservative concept and is really the core of the definition, ie from wiki: Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and opposes rapid change in society. Therefore, its not a big surprise that Bush got total support from self proclaimed conservatives until the bitter end.

Its almost like the term fiscal conservative...got the addition of conservative....because some conservative started talking about it first. Conservatives in office spend like any other politician, many conservatives on this message board still want to spend plenty on their own projects just not those of others...heck I'm more of a 'fiscal conservative' as many so called conservatives on the board.

So yes by pretty much all valid measures...Bush was a conservative.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

If Bush was absolutely a social conservative and a foriegn policy conservative...then you pretty much have a conservative.

If you look at historical context conservatives are the ones who tried to keep away from foreign entanglements. Big military, yes, but to be used only as necessary.