The Progressive Case Against Obama

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Interesting stuff. One gripe- one of the cornerstones of the author's argument, the bailouts, happened largely under Bush's watch. Obama only signed in the auto bailouts. Everything else is legit though.

The progressive case against Obama - Salon.com

Its too long to quote but its worth the read.

 

[Broke Wave]

I know you're more towards the center-left of things, what's your take on the the Left's criticism of Obama?

 

[JMurder]

I'd love to read this but uh....

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Seems like every election I'm just voting for a lesser of two evils. Most president's are victims of circumstance and will all do the exact same things if put into the same circumstances, they only vary on small things that don't really matter (but do) like George Bush and stem cell research.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I know you're more towards the center-left of things, what's your take on the the Left's criticism of Obama?

I think they are legitimate. I also think they are great for the country. The black congressional caucus called shenanigans years ago, which was kind of a wake up call for me but of course they were dismissed. However, progressives? That was Obama's last bastion of ideological dominance, and now hes proven that he has no fukks to give about them or their ideas.

Its so bizarre that the right hadn't jumped on any of these points in their beef with dude. I mean, not really but you know what I mean. The right can't criticize dude's politics because he's actually helped further a lot of their causes. So they have to jump on things that "excite their base" to keep their constituents at bay and keep the dollars flowing.

I think these epiphanies happened too late for this election- but if dude gets re-elected, honestly I think the next 4 years will be a shyt show as far as our economy and foreign policy go, and much of the same disillusionment and anger folks had with the GOP after 8 yrs of Bush will be recharged and thrown at the Dems. We are getting into a realm of socioeconomic parameters where shyt is bad enough to make people look around and think, and I think people are beginning to realize the two big players are both no good for the country.

To keep it 110, Romney's a weasel and has no integrity, but then neither does Obama... however I do think Romney will be legitimately better for the economy in a way that's more equitable for society, so low key I am kind of hoping he takes it. I'm not voting for him or Obama, but I am kind of hoping he wins. He will be better for business which I am hoping will work in everyone's favor.

 

[Spin]

I think they are legitimate. I also think they are great for the country. The black congressional caucus called shenanigans years ago, which was kind of a wake up call for me but of course they were dismissed. However, progressives? That was Obama's last bastion of ideological dominance, and now hes proven that he has no fukks to give about them or their ideas.

Its so bizarre that the right hadn't jumped on any of these points in their beef with dude. I mean, not really but you know what I mean. The right can't criticize dude's politics because he's actually helped further a lot of their causes. So they have to jump on things that "excite their base" to keep their constituents at bay and keep the dollars flowing.

I think these epiphanies happened too late for this election- but if dude gets re-elected, honestly I think the next 4 years will be a shyt show as far as our economy and foreign policy go, and much of the same disillusionment and anger folks had with the GOP after 8 yrs of Bush will be recharged and thrown at the Dems. We are getting into a realm of socioeconomic parameters where shyt is bad enough to make people look around and think, and I think people are beginning to realize the two big players are both no good for the country.

To keep it 110, Romney's a weasel and has no integrity, but then neither does Obama... however I do think Romney will be legitimately better for the economy in a way that's more equitable for society, so low key I am kind of hoping he takes it. I'm not voting for him or Obama, but I am kind of hoping he wins. He will be better for business which I am hoping will work in everyone's favor.

I guess they want Obama to cure cancer too. I would like to see any of these pundits in his position. Oh wait it will never happen

 

[kermit da hustla]

I think they are legitimate. I also think they are great for the country. The black congressional caucus called shenanigans years ago, which was kind of a wake up call for me but of course they were dismissed. However, progressives? That was Obama's last bastion of ideological dominance, and now hes proven that he has no fukks to give about them or their ideas.

Its so bizarre that the right hadn't jumped on any of these points in their beef with dude. I mean, not really but you know what I mean. The right can't criticize dude's politics because he's actually helped further a lot of their causes. So they have to jump on things that "excite their base" to keep their constituents at bay and keep the dollars flowing.

I think these epiphanies happened too late for this election- but if dude gets re-elected, honestly I think the next 4 years will be a shyt show as far as our economy and foreign policy go, and much of the same disillusionment and anger folks had with the GOP after 8 yrs of Bush will be recharged and thrown at the Dems. We are getting into a realm of socioeconomic parameters where shyt is bad enough to make people look around and think, and I think people are beginning to realize the two big players are both no good for the country.

To keep it 110, Romney's a weasel and has no integrity, but then neither does Obama... however I do think Romney will be legitimately better for the economy in a way that's more equitable for society, so low key I am kind of hoping he takes it. I'm not voting for him or Obama, but I am kind of hoping he wins. He will be better for business which I am hoping will work in everyone's favor.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

The above is a chart of corporate profits against the main store of savings for most Americans who have savings — home equity. Notice that after the crisis, after the Obama inflection point, corporate profits recovered dramatically and surpassed previous highs, whereas home equity levels have remained static. That $5-7 trillion of lost savings did not come back, whereas financial assets and corporate profits did.

My questions would simply be
1. Why are we assuming that the lost savings should have come back (if it was indeed a bubble, doesn't that mean that the housing market is now priced at its true value?)
2. Why are we assuming that the corporate profits aren't inflated themselves

 

[radio rahiem]

obama's no where near the left. his policies spelled this out CLEARLY
he's just a better candidate than mccain and romney

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I think they are legitimate. I also think they are great for the country. The black congressional caucus called shenanigans years ago, which was kind of a wake up call for me but of course they were dismissed. However, progressives? That was Obama's last bastion of ideological dominance, and now hes proven that he has no fukks to give about them or their ideas.

Its so bizarre that the right hadn't jumped on any of these points in their beef with dude. I mean, not really but you know what I mean. The right can't criticize dude's politics because he's actually helped further a lot of their causes. So they have to jump on things that "excite their base" to keep their constituents at bay and keep the dollars flowing.

I think these epiphanies happened too late for this election- but if dude gets re-elected, honestly I think the next 4 years will be a shyt show as far as our economy and foreign policy go, and much of the same disillusionment and anger folks had with the GOP after 8 yrs of Bush will be recharged and thrown at the Dems. We are getting into a realm of socioeconomic parameters where shyt is bad enough to make people look around and think, and I think people are beginning to realize the two big players are both no good for the country.

To keep it 110, Romney's a weasel and has no integrity, but then neither does Obama... however I do think Romney will be legitimately better for the economy in a way that's more equitable for society, so low key I am kind of hoping he takes it. I'm not voting for him or Obama, but I am kind of hoping he wins. He will be better for business which I am hoping will work in everyone's favor.

'Anti-Business' Obama Is Best President For Corporate Profits Since 1900 | ThinkProgress

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Look at the broken promises from the 2008 Democratic platform: a higher minimum wage, a ban on the replacement of striking workers, seven days of paid sick leave, a more diverse media ownership structure, renegotiation of NAFTA, letting bankruptcy judges write down mortgage debt, a ban on illegal wiretaps, an end to national security letters, stopping the war on whistle-blowers, passing the Employee Free Choice Act, restoring habeas corpus, and labor protections in the FAA bill. Each of these pledges would have tilted bargaining leverage to debtors, to labor, or to political dissidents. So Obama promised them to distinguish himself from Bush, and then went back on his word because these promises didn’t fit with the larger policy arc of shifting American society toward his vision.

No. He went back on his word because he was afraid that telling businesses that they had to raise the minimum wage during the second worse economic disaster in US history would kill any hope of a recovery. I don't understand why folks, regardless of their political identity, simply don't understand how fukked we were. If you're going to fault him for not stepping on the necks of banks, fine, but understand since the day he took office, he's been trying to run out the clock.

Again, the failure of Obama does not lie with his lack of action, it lies with the pussified nature of our electorate. This entire article is written from the standpoint of "why the fukk haven't the banks paid more and why didn't Obama make them pay for their bullshyt."

I think the real article should be, "Why the fukk don't the people of America expect more from their financial institutions? Do Americans even know the terms of the bailout?"

OR

"Why are Americans so stupid?"

 

[MBwithadream]

'Anti-Business' Obama Is Best President For Corporate Profits Since 1900 | ThinkProgress

77.8%

 

[Type Username Here]

The President is a late 80s/Early 90s Republican. Plain and simple.

That's why I give the GOP props. They play chess. Knowing that Obama pushes for moderate Republican policies, they paint it as socialist liberal policies so the country gets shifted more and more to the right in terms of politicians and policy. It works too. It has been working since 1980 all across the country.

 

[Street Knowledge]

'Anti-Business' Obama Is Best President For Corporate Profits Since 1900 | ThinkProgress

I never knew where this myth that obama is bad for business came from

 

[Alexander The Great]

yes, as a progressive it makes sense to NOT vote for Obama and allow Romney to win the election.