American Politics during the Obama Presidency

I think some of you are simply too stubborn and set in your ways to make a real effort to understand the liberal philosophy of Dems in the US.

I'm a bit surprised at how many misconceptions I see here. But perhaps I shouldn't be, given the abundance of spin and misinformation in the right wing media.

I'm wondering if there is even a single person here who can accurately articulate - without exaggeration - the philosophy of most Dems in the US today? Walleye and Doppel have already dq'd themselves, but anyone else who wants to give it a shot please do.

[QUOTE=Esten]I think some of you are simply too stubborn and set in your ways to make a real effort to understand the liberal philosophy of Dems in the US.

I'm a bit surprised at how many misconceptions I see here. But perhaps I shouldn't be, given the abundance of spin and misinformation in the right wing media.

I'm wondering if there is even a single person here who can accurately articulate - without exaggeration - the philosophy of most Dems in the US today? Walleye and Doppel have already dq'd themselves, but anyone else who wants to give it a shot please do.[/QUOTE]I think I nailed it, without exaggeration.

The philosophy of almost all Dems, and Republicans, is to say what they need to say to get elected and vote the way they need to vote to get contributions from big donors.

Bob

[QUOTE=Esten]I think some of you are simply too stubborn and set in your ways to make a real effort to understand the liberal philosophy of Dems in the US.

I'm a bit surprised at how many misconceptions I see here. But perhaps I shouldn't be, given the abundance of spin and misinformation in the right wing media.

I'm wondering if there is even a single person here who can accurately articulate - without exaggeration - the philosophy of most Dems in the US today? Walleye and Doppel have already dq'd themselves, but anyone else who wants to give it a shot please do.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=AllIWantIsLove]The philosophy of almost all Dems, and Republicans, is to say what they need to say to get elected and vote the way they need to vote to get contributions from big donors.

Bob[/QUOTE]Which is why I am neither. I am a Conservative.

Pretty tired from my morning tennis session, and contemplating a short nap after lunch when it kind of hit me that in the last few months, we have seen electorates rejecting traditional parties and their impotence, notably England and Australia. Parties are having difficulty winning the majority of seats and have had to form coalition type of govenments. Japan have seen prime ministers come and go. All the traditional economic powers seem to have hit the ceiling with little growth and unemployment on the dinner menu. So no surprise, if the American elections reflect these same sentiments.

Gee Esten, the "right wing" media? I just love it when you use this term. The left has had the major media outlets in their pocket for years and they completely tanked for Obama in 08, yet suddenly one media outlet (Fox) at least attempts to be fair and perhaps a little "right" so they are branded the hateful "right wing media".

This sounds suspiciously like Hillary Clinton crying out about the massive right wing conspiracy regarding Bill and Monica and we all know how that one turned out.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Pretty tired from my morning tennis session, and contemplating a short nap after lunch when it kind of hit me that in the last few months, we have seen electorates rejecting traditional parties and their impotence, notably England and Australia. Parties are having difficulty winning the majority of seats and have had to form coalition type of govenments. Japan have seen prime ministers come and go. All the traditional economic powers seem to have hit the ceiling with little growth and unemployment on the dinner menu. So no surprise, if the American elections reflect these same sentiments.[/QUOTE]Coalition govts formed to create a majority for the purpose of "ruling" usually don't turn out too good. Similarly, changing the guy at the helm every six weeks (e. g. Japan and Italy) doesn't seem to work so well either (don't get me wrong, I want to change the guy at our helm, asap)

In my own feeble opinion, given to me by the propagandists, the best way to build a coalition is to be right (little "r") have the courage of your convictions, lead by example and take your message directly to the people and let the rudderless legislators fall in line behind you.

Unfortunately, getting elected and going to Washington makes sea glass out of men (and women) The sharp and irregular edges (both good and bad) get worn smooth and after a while. They become undistinguished.

Congressional gridlock will be coming to DC in November. That is a good thing in that it will stop (or at least slow) the runaway spending machine. Hopefully, there will be follow through in 2012 with the election of a real leader who will be historic in his (or her) own special way by being the first to actually cut spending.

New reports show Republicans' chances of winning the Senate are increasing. [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100826/el_yblog_upshot/democrats-hold-on-the-senate-is-increasingly-at-risk[/url]

It's still a longshot, and a long way off. But, Democrats are showing that, given enough time and enough rope, they will do everything in their power to simultaneously hang themselves and step on their collective dicks -- which is no small feat. The tired 'it's all Bush's fault' excuses are now falling on deaf ears after two years of showing the public what they really meant by "change". Nonetheless, that appears to be the Dems rallying cry this fall.

Then again, Democrats have a significant funding advantage, especially after their union crook buddies at the SEIU and AFL-CIO pledged to spend $80 million to help them this fall.

Anyone who thinks the Republicans are the party of "big money" or "big corporations" is fooling themselves. Wall Street banks give far more money to Dems, as do health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and a host of other connected corporate lobbies. Republicans certainly get a share, but not as much as Democrats.

This administration has taken the corrupt pay-to-play politics of the shamed Gray Davis administration to new levels. Thankfully, something will be done about it in the fall. The only question is whether we're trading one batch of crooks for another, and if the new batch will be worse. It's hard to fathom "worse" than the current crop, but politicians have a way of surprising.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]I think I nailed it, without exaggeration.[/QUOTE]Of course you do. You are not only set in your ways, you are stuck in them.

There's a difference between reducing inequality and eliminating it; you seem unwilling or unable to grasp this distinction. Liberals have no inherent issue with economic inequality, it's essential for capitalism to work. What Liberals have an issue with is extreme economic inequality.

[QUOTE]What is completely mind boggling is that despite a myriad of clear historical examples of the failures and falsehoods of liberalism the liberal elites and media are able to indoctrinate new generations of believers.[/QUOTE]Hardly convincing when unrestrained capitalism just gave us the worst recession in decades.

I have some recommended reading for you. Note the part about the mixed economy and the post-war economic expansion. What I'll add that this write up omits, is that the mixed economy modern Dems favor is one mostly based on the private sector. One need look no further than the successful efforts with the US auto industry and now GM's IPO as to their commitment to a strong private sector.

Modern liberalism in the United States

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten]Hardly convincing when unrestrained capitalism just gave us the worst recession in decades.[/QUOTE]For the 10,000th time, the current recession was precipitated by [u]Democratic[/u] [u]politicians[/u] who legislatively mandated the lowering of mortgage qualification standards in pursuit of their [u]liberal[/u] goal of increasing the country's percentage of home ownership.

This [u]artificial[/u] [u]distortion[/u] of the free market resulted in the unintended consequence of the housing market being flooded with new (and previously unqualified) buyers who, in competition for the same inventory of houses, resulted in an artificial run up of home prices.

It's a simple as that, and I for one am tired of liberals blaming the ensuing recession, which they perpetrated by meddling with the free market, on George W. Bush.

You can continue to foist this lie to the gullible idiots in the country, but those of us who are able to think beyond sound bites know who is really responsible.

Thanks,

Jackson

We've been through this before. Nobody forced Bear Stearns, Lehman and other Wall Street banks to take on the leverage and risk they did. When the government let Lehman fail, credit markets froze. This "financial crisis" precipitated by poor risk management and greed was the direct causal factor of the recession, not housing policies.

BTW this is my post #500. May I take a moment to say, thank you for providing this board and the open discussion we are having here.

[QUOTE=Esten]We've been through this before. Nobody forced Bear Stearns, Lehman and other Wall Street banks to take on the leverage and risk they did. When the government let Lehman fail, credit markets froze. This "financial crisis" precipitated by poor risk management and greed was the direct causal factor of the recession, not housing policies.

BTW this is my post #500. May I take a moment to say, thank you for providing this board and the open discussion we are having here.[/QUOTE]But how about the instructions to Freddie and Fannie to finance the mortgages. That was a direct instruction from the Clinton administration and the first link in the causal chain! Let's not put the cart before the horse.

Argento

[QUOTE=Esten]Of course you do. You are not only set in your ways, you are stuck in them. [/QUOTE]So, I should change my beliefs and values because they have been the same, consistently year over year? That sounds like "change for the sake of change." What a great philosophy.

[quote=]There's a difference between reducing inequality and eliminating it; you seem unwilling or unable to grasp this distinction.[/QUOTE]I believe it is you, my friend, who does not see the distinction, between enabling an individual to succeed on his own and provide for himself for life as opposed to giving him something for nothing to sate him for a day. Lao Tzu is credited with saying something like that once.

[quote=]Liberals have no inherent issue with economic inequality,[/QUOTE]Then why are they so hostile to everyone trying to make a buck, except for themselves?

[quote=] it's essential for capitalism to work. [/QUOTE]Ha! Please show me one liberal that has every conceded that point.

[quote=]What Liberals have an issue with is extreme economic inequality.[/QUOTE]Here we can agree. Prime examples include: Mssrs. Gore, Kennedy, Soros, Edwards, Clinton, Obama.

[quote=]Hardly convincing when unrestrained capitalism just gave us the worst recession in decades.[/QUOTE]There is nothing unrestrained about the US brand of capitalism. Ever heard of the IRS, FTC, FCC, EEOC, DOE, or the EPA? Any idea what their primary focii are?

[quote=]One need look no further than the successful efforts with the US auto industry and now GM's IPO as to their commitment to a strong private sector.[/QUOTE]What a brilliant example. The govt expropriated the assets of GM and Chrysler from the rightful owners (bond holders) and gave them to the auto unions. The only reason why they are trying to IPO is so that the unions can liquidate their shares to diversify away from Government Motors. I can't wait to read the S-1 (that is the primary form they must file to begin the IPO process) which among other things must include potential risks to the purchasers of the securities. I can see it now:

"Purchasers of these securities face the risk of loss of capital due to pending legislation against the company and the US Govt for the illegal seizure of private property by the govt. Further, the private property stolen from the plaintiffs consists of the assets that are the underlying value in the investment you are considering making. If the plaintiffs are successful, you will lose 100% of your investment. Don't worry however, the UAW will have already effectuated a zero-cost collar on their ownership position of the Company, therefore they will not be effected by the outcome of the litigation."

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]So, I should change my beliefs and values because they have been the same, consistently year over year? That sounds like "change for the sake of change." What a great philosophy. [/QUOTE]Absolutely not, but you should recognize and drop the numerous erroneous beliefs you have about liberals. Which you cling to, even when presented with data and information demonstrating otherwise. That is "stuck".

[QUOTE]I believe it is you, my friend, who does not see the distinction, between enabling an individual to succeed on his own and provide for himself for life as opposed to giving him something for nothing to sate him for a day. Lao Tzu is credited with saying something like that once.[/QUOTE]Don't dodge the discussion point. You stated that liberals were hell bent on eliminating inequality. Is that really your belief?

On your other point here, another erroneous belief. Liberals feel strongly about enabling individuals to succeed. There are basic things such as affordable housing, health care and education that are part of that enablement. Liberal policies are not giveaways; rather they help improve the odds of success.

[QUOTE]Ha! Please show me one liberal that has every conceded that point.[/QUOTE]Obama's own words in clarifying his remarks to Joe the Plumber:

[I]"We don't mind people getting enormously wealthy because of their skills and talents and their drive. But we always want to make sure that playing field is such where everybody who's got a good idea has a chance to succeed. Everybody's got a chance to get financing. Everybody who works hard is able to raise a family. Everybody has an opportunity if they act responsibly to send their kids to college and retire with dignity and respect."[/i]

[QUOTE]Here we can agree. Prime examples include: Mssrs. Gore, Kennedy, Soros, Edwards, Clinton, Obama. [/QUOTE]You forgot Buffet. And wealthy Dems, through their words, actions and votes, support the allocation of wealth in a manner that reduces extreme economic inequality.

[QUOTE]There is nothing unrestrained about the US brand of capitalism. Ever heard of the IRS, FTC, FCC, EEOC, DOE, or the EPA? Any idea what their primary focii are?[/QUOTE]Let me re-phrase then: [I]inadequately restrained[/i]

Have fun at the rally tomorrow.

But I like the give and take.

[QUOTE=Esten]Absolutely not, but you should recognize and drop the numerous erroneous beliefs you have about liberals. Which you cling to, even when presented with data and information demonstrating otherwise. That is "stuck". [/QUOTE]Please elaborate and enumerate (if you know what that means) on my 'erroneous beliefs."

[quote=]Don't dodge the discussion point. You stated that liberals were hell bent on eliminating inequality. Is that really your belief? [/QUOTE]You're kind of slow aren't you? I think I have stated in unequivocal terms that this is the case. My last post was on point to this fact. You have provided nothing other than a weak deflection of an excellent point (which, given the fact that you are dead wrong is probably as good as anyone could expect)

[quote=]On your other point here, another erroneous belief. Liberals feel strongly about enabling individuals to succeed. There are basic things such as affordable housing, health care and education that are part of that enablement. Liberal policies are not giveaways; rather they help improve the odds of success.

Obama's own words in clarifying his remarks to Joe the Plumber:

[I]"We don't mind people getting enormously wealthy because of their skills and talents and their drive. But we always want to make sure that playing field is such where everybody who's got a good idea has a chance to succeed. Everybody's got a chance to get financing. Everybody who works hard is able to raise a family. Everybody has an opportunity if they act responsibly to send their kids to college and retire with dignity and respect."[/i][/QUOTE]Sweet pea, I think you left out this part "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

[quote=]You forgot Buffet. And wealthy Dems, through their words, actions and votes, support the allocation of wealth in a manner that reduces extreme economic inequality.[/QUOTE]Their actions speak louder than words. John Kerry's attempted tax dodge on his yacht is a great example.

[quote=]Let me re-phrase then: [I]inadequately restrained[/i][/QUOTE]Whatever, keep changing what you meant. It has little meaning anyhow.

[quote=]Have fun at the rally tomorrow.[/QUOTE]What rally? I'll be celebrating MLK's "I have a dream speech." What will you be doing? Burning Reagan in effigy?