The Progressive Case Against Obama

[MeachTheMonster]

Education- Race to the top, fair enough that its too soon to tell. But by taking on student loans for higher education, Obama has worsened the underlying enabler of skyrocketing tuition costs. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are no limits to how big of loans kids can take, nor is there a limit on how much of a year to year tuition increase the govt will cover. So Obama has basically written a blank check to colleges for which the bill will be sent to students....

Healthcare- they literally just announced the workaround public option. From what I have read they have not announced how they plan to pay for it though. And much of what I still don't like about Obamacare (penalties for non coverage for employers AND employees for example) is still in it, and very similar to provisions in Romneycare

Energy- yes he made good on green energy, but he's fukking up on regular energy, which we need to get stronger on to ease the transition and to bolster ourselves strategically. Solar, wind, geothermal, we should look for how to make the most of those... but we are decades away from those being primary energy sources. Why block the Keystone pipeline in the meantime???

Tax + economy- Taxes, hes fukking up on, period. 4 years of trillion dollar deficits, a shrinking tax base, more and more preferential deductions, the perpetuation of the idea that we will be able to fix it all through tax hikes on the 1%. His solution is TOO progressive. The numbers show it.

On the economy, mixed bag. Lot of stuff isn't his fault and he has kept stuff moving. He did get dinged on the stimulus, but in return he stretched it out over his whole presidency. A $1.5T stimulus was too small. What about a $6T stimulus? Plus like people pointed out, growth under Obama has been DISGUSTINGLY top heavy. So for all the talk of his work helping the middle class, numerically we are worse off WRT inflation compared to where we were before the crash... and we are WAY worse off than the rich. What is he going to change about his strategy to make the distribution of growth more equitable?

Not to mention, even though it wasn't part of his plan, what about foreign policy? What about civil liberties? What about immigration? He had objectives for each of these issues.... did he meet them?

So you make a thread titled, "The progressive case against Obama" then say your not a progressive. You challenge people to post proof that obama has furthered the progressive agenda. People provide that proof, then you criticize it from a conservative standpoint

What are you really trying to get at? Seems like you just want to argue why Obama is bad, and 3rd parties are better while ignoring actual facts and logic.

 

[No1]

So you make a thread titled, "The progressive case against Obama" then say your not a progressive. You challenge people to post proof that obama has furthered the progressive agenda. People provide that proof, then you criticize it from a conservative standpoint

What are you really trying to get at? Seems like you just want to argue why Obama is bad, and 3rd parties are better while ignoring actual facts and logic.

This is why I didn't engage him. That's why I kept telling him to explain his angle and he thought it was because I was afraid to debate him. I saw it from a mile away. A MIIIIIIIIIIILE away.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I basically have 5 questions

From a liberal/progressive POV, what has Obama achieved and what has he been unable to make gains on?

I think this has been discussed plenty in this thread

From the POV of his 2008 campaign, what has Obama achieved and what has he been unable to make gains on?

read above

What are the available courses of action for representation for people who are disillusioned with the two big parties?

A grassroots campaign that starts locally with the people, as opposed to waisting votes in the general election. Also we have to understand that EVERYBODY has to play the game of politics, so the more mainstream any movement becomes the more it will be politics as usual.

Can one be an informed voter and make a choice other than Obama?

Yes, and no. You can be informed and still make a misguided decision. We all agree that the two party system needs to be shaken up, but voting for a random unpopular 3rd party candidate isn't the way to do it.

And finally what are the problems we need to fix, and what are the most realistic ways to fix them?

Big question. We have problems on the gov level. Campagn finance, electoral college, worthless congress, etc. But we also have problems on the social, economical front. Wealth gap, education, poverty, taxes,etc. In my opinion the social, and economical issues should be addressed first. I think we are on the way to fix them, but the old capitalistic way of thinking is standing in the way. Change comes slow, and as citizens all we can do is keep fighting for that change and electing those who will fight as well.

 

[Darts]

Education- Race to the top, fair enough that its too soon to tell. But by taking on student loans for higher education, Obama has worsened the underlying enabler of skyrocketing tuition costs. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are no limits to how big of loans kids can take, nor is there a limit on how much of a year to year tuition increase the govt will cover. So Obama has basically written a blank check to colleges for which the bill will be sent to students....

Healthcare- they literally just announced the workaround public option. From what I have read they have not announced how they plan to pay for it though. And much of what I still don't like about Obamacare (penalties for non coverage for employers AND employees for example) is still in it, and very similar to provisions in Romneycare

Energy- yes he made good on green energy, but he's fukking up on regular energy, which we need to get stronger on to ease the transition and to bolster ourselves strategically. Solar, wind, geothermal, we should look for how to make the most of those... but we are decades away from those being primary energy sources. Why block the Keystone pipeline in the meantime???

Tax + economy- Taxes, hes fukking up on, period. 4 years of trillion dollar deficits, a shrinking tax base, more and more preferential deductions, the perpetuation of the idea that we will be able to fix it all through tax hikes on the 1%. His solution is TOO progressive. The numbers show it.

On the economy, mixed bag. Lot of stuff isn't his fault and he has kept stuff moving. He did get dinged on the stimulus, but in return he stretched it out over his whole presidency. A $1.5T stimulus was too small. What about a $6T stimulus? Plus like people pointed out, growth under Obama has been DISGUSTINGLY top heavy. So for all the talk of his work helping the middle class, numerically we are worse off WRT inflation compared to where we were before the crash... and we are WAY worse off than the rich. What is he going to change about his strategy to make the distribution of growth more equitable?

Not to mention, even though it wasn't part of his plan, what about foreign policy? What about civil liberties? What about immigration? He had objectives for each of these issues.... did he meet them?

u are moving the goal posts. You asked how he furthered his agenda...I demonstrated that he has gotten a significant portion of his agenda and what he promised in the campaign. Now ur talking about how effective the policies are without a shred of context...namely a big fukking financial crash that nearly destroyed everything and can't be fixed overnight...


yeah like others have said I think its time to disengage.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

So you make a thread titled, "The progressive case against Obama" then say your not a progressive. You challenge people to post proof that obama has furthered the progressive agenda. People provide that proof, then you criticize it from a conservative standpoint

What are you really trying to get at? Seems like you just want to argue why Obama is bad, and 3rd parties are better while ignoring actual facts and logic.

"The Progressive Case Against Obama" = the title of the article that prompted the thread. Obama has moved the progressive agenda ahead in some aspects, but he's retrenched, stalled or moved backwards in many others where he didn't have to. Hence the question, "what do you guys think he accomplished in the context of progressivism"... you play up the good and ignore the bad to paint him in the best light. I haven't criticized anything from a "conservative" standpoint.

I think this has been discussed plenty in this thread

read above



A grassroots campaign that starts locally with the people, as opposed to waisting votes in the general election. Also we have to understand that EVERYBODY has to play the game of politics, so the more mainstream any movement becomes the more it will be politics as usual.

Again what good is a grassroots campaign that has zero effect on the folks actually in power? What political movement has succeeded working completely outside of the political machine?

Yes, and no. You can be informed and still make a misguided decision. We all agree that the two party system needs to be shaken up, but voting for a random unpopular 3rd party candidate isn't the way to do it.

Then what is the way to do it? You want to have grassroots movements outside of the mainstream, but then you completely discount actually voting for/electing non-mainstream candidates

Big question. We have problems on the gov level. Campagn finance, electoral college, worthless congress, etc. But we also have problems on the social, economical front. Wealth gap, education, poverty, taxes,etc. In my opinion the social, and economical issues should be addressed first. I think we are on the way to fix them, but the old capitalistic way of thinking is standing in the way. Change comes slow, and as citizens all we can do is keep fighting for that change and electing those who will fight as well.

ME is destablilizing and we are intensifying it

Wealth/income gap is increasing & growth has been completely top heavy

Etc. etc. all throughout Obama's tenure

Again change can't happen through mainstream channels, but we shouldn't vote for non-mainstream candidates

I don't get what you are getting at here... are you saying Obama isn't a mainstream candidate, despite being funded by corporations and being affiliated with one of the two mainstream parties?

u are moving the goal posts. You asked how he furthered his agenda...I demonstrated that he has gotten a significant portion of his agenda and what he promised in the campaign. Now ur talking about how effective the policies are without a shred of context...namely a big fukking financial crash that nearly destroyed everything and can't be fixed overnight...


yeah like others have said I think its time to disengage.

Heres what youre doing

Everything he accomplished, you give him credit for. Everything he couldn't do, you have an excuse for. Ignoring the fact that there's a lot of stuff he said he would do/could do that would be in line with his supporters + party's beliefs, that he has either stalled on or completely reversed on. Low key, you guys are like those right wingers who assign success to the private sector and failure to the public. What was the rationale for not fighting the piece of NDAA that took away our right to trial before being detained? What's the rationale for not signing legalization & civil unions into law? How is he going to address the skewed distribution of recovery growth and growing # of folks leaving the workforce?

 

[Type Username Here]

Pay attention ladies and gentlemen, this is a guy throwing the towel when someone has made him look like a ridiculous for the past 2 months. Don't ever mention my career again just because I'm not as immature as you. I guess you think it's impossible for me to work with professors who are writing amicus briefs to the courts about the NDAA while still recognizing that Obama is better for the country than Romney overall. I'm convinced that you only deal with people who only can see things in two shades like yourself. Maybe that's why you've been caught up in this lying, misrepresenting and stuttering game against me. You literally don't understand how to argue with someone who doesn't fit into your narrow view of the world. Someone who knows how and when to fight certain battles.

You're going to be a future lawyer that doesn't understand law. You can get your little degree and pass your Bar exam, yet you fail to recognize how extremely illogical is to vote for someone you know is breaking the law of the land. Do you even read what you are saying? You're willfully supporting the law being broken. Not just any law, the supreme law. You'll make a fine ambulance chaser.

YET, and I say this again...YET...your best response to me shytting on what you're putting at stake is, "But isn't it always at stake?"

"Isn't it always at stake?" No, and I just told you why. But will you answer that? No. Because you have too much pride to realize that there are literally, LITERALLY no facts to support that stance. There is no way that they are not under greater risk now than at any point in the past 15 years.

Nice usage of examples of straw men though.

What an absolute joke you are. You are admitting to being against a person breaking the law, even volunteering to challenge it in court, and then you turn around and tell people who aren't voting for this man that they are stupid and childish. Just an absurd position to take.

What a fine lawyer you'll make.

 

[Type Username Here]

Dude has admitted to it being illegal, even going as far as volunteering and bragging about helping it be challenged in court, then turns around and scolds people who have a problem in supporting criminal behavior.

 

[Type Username Here]

Sometimes, we have to go back in history to wise men:

Also, Garrow said, King became "a very harsh critic" of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson over his escalation of the Vietnam War and "wouldn't necessarily have backed (Democratic presidential nominee) Hubert Humphrey in '68 had he (King) lived."

PolitiFact Texas | Houston group says Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Sometimes, we have to go back in history to wise men:



PolitiFact Texas | Houston group says Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican

Why didn't the Republicans support the Civil Rights movement?

 

[Dirty Mcdrawz]

Also, Garrow said, King became "a very harsh critic" of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson over his escalation of the Vietnam War and "wouldn't necessarily have backed (Democratic presidential nominee) Hubert Humphrey in '68 had he (King) lived."

 

[MeachTheMonster]

"The Progressive Case Against Obama" = the title of the article that prompted the thread. Obama has moved the progressive agenda ahead in some aspects, but he's retrenched, stalled or moved backwards in many others where he didn't have to. Hence the question, "what do you guys think he accomplished in the context of progressivism"... you play up the good and ignore the bad to paint him in the best light. I haven't criticized anything from a "conservative" standpoint.

No one has ignored the bad. You have pointed it out and it has been acknowledged. The bad doesn't cancel out the good, nor does it mean Obama has changed his ideology. And you did criticize him from a conservative standpoint

From what I have read they have not announced how they plan to pay for it though. And much of what I still don't like about Obamacare (penalties for non coverage for employers AND employees for example) is still in it.

but we are decades away from those being primary energy sources. Why block the Keystone pipeline in the meantime???

Tax + economy- His solution is TOO progressive.

^^^^^all conservative criticisms.

Again what good is a grassroots campaign that has zero effect on the folks actually in power? What political movement has succeeded working completely outside of the political machine?

None and none

The point would be to get enough people behind the movement to make an effect. People need to use the political machine from the start, instead of waiting till vote day and thinking they can make a change.

Then what is the way to do it? You want to have grassroots movements outside of the mainstream, but then you completely discount actually voting for/electing non-mainstream candidates

For example, if the OWS movement actually had an agenda, a plan, and viable candidates. They could have mad a big difference. But due to disorganization, and a jumbled message they didn't change anything. And I didn't say one should never vote 3rd party. I said voting for a 3rd party without any type substantial popularity or movement is waisting a vote, and with what's at stake it could come back to haunt you.

ME is destablilizing and we are intensifying it

Wealth/income gap is increasing & growth has been completely top heavy

^^^ has been the case for 50+ years. Was Obama supposed to fix it in 4?

Again change can't happen through mainstream channels, but we shouldn't vote for non-mainstream candidates

I don't get what you are getting at here... are you saying Obama isn't a mainstream candidate, despite being funded by corporations and being affiliated with one of the two mainstream parties?

You're too stuck on this Mainstream/non mainstream dichotomy. Everything happens in the mainstream, any change that happens, or candidate that brings that change will be mainstream before it's all said and done. The point of any grassroots campagn is to bring the non mainstream to the masses and garner support from the mainstream. Obama is a politician just like the rest of them, and if Jill stein or any other candidate wants to make a change they will have to play along as well. It's easy for 3rd party candidates to talk big shyt about what they'd do differently, but at the end of the day if Jill stein wants to get elected she's going to have to pander to big business, and alter some promises as well. It's the way the world works.

What you want, and what we need is a change in the ideology of the average America voter, and voting for a third party won't do that.

 

[Darts]

"The Progressive Case Against Obama" = the title of the article that prompted the thread. Obama has moved the progressive agenda ahead in some aspects, but he's retrenched, stalled or moved backwards in many others where he didn't have to. Hence the question, "what do you guys think he accomplished in the context of progressivism"... you play up the good and ignore the bad to paint him in the best light. I haven't criticized anything from a "conservative" standpoint.

Again what good is a grassroots campaign that has zero effect on the folks actually in power? What political movement has succeeded working completely outside of the political machine?




Then what is the way to do it? You want to have grassroots movements outside of the mainstream, but then you completely discount actually voting for/electing non-mainstream candidates



ME is destablilizing and we are intensifying it

Wealth/income gap is increasing & growth has been completely top heavy

Etc. etc. all throughout Obama's tenure

Again change can't happen through mainstream channels, but we shouldn't vote for non-mainstream candidates

I don't get what you are getting at here... are you saying Obama isn't a mainstream candidate, despite being funded by corporations and being affiliated with one of the two mainstream parties?





Heres what youre doing

Everything he accomplished, you give him credit for. Everything he couldn't do, you have an excuse for. Ignoring the fact that there's a lot of stuff he said he would do/could do that would be in line with his supporters + party's beliefs, that he has either stalled on or completely reversed on. Low key, you guys are like those right wingers who assign success to the private sector and failure to the public. What was the rationale for not fighting the piece of NDAA that took away our right to trial before being detained? What's the rationale for not signing legalization & civil unions into law? How is he going to address the skewed distribution of recovery growth and growing # of folks leaving the workforce?

u answering and arguing ur own questions at the same damn time, and now debating for the sake of debating.

You seem to be one of those under the delusion that a U.S. president is all powerful and can do everything...i honestly don't have the patience to debate with that type of thinking at all...i'm out.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

No one has ignored the bad. You have pointed it out and it has been acknowledged. The bad doesn't cancel out the good, nor does it mean Obama has changed his ideology. And you did criticize him from a conservative standpoint

^^^^^all conservative criticisms.

1, just because a criticism is "conservative" doesn't mean it isn't legitimate

2, my criticisms were not conservative, unless you are suggesting a "neutral" position would be for us to have no fiscal accountability and no strategy for how to transition from non-green energy to green energy. The "conservative" criticism of Obamacare is its socialist and everything should be left to the private sector. I didn't say either. The "conservative" energy policy is to only chase what makes $$$, which is not really green energy. I already said I am on board with Obama on energy.

None and none

The point would be to get enough people behind the movement to make an effect. People need to use the political machine from the start, instead of waiting till vote day and thinking they can make a change.

Fair enough

For example, if the OWS movement actually had an agenda, a plan, and viable candidates. They could have mad a big difference. But due to disorganization, and a jumbled message they didn't change anything. And I didn't say one should never vote 3rd party. I said voting for a 3rd party without any type substantial popularity or movement is waisting a vote, and with what's at stake it could come back to haunt you.

OWS was such a huge tragedy. It still angers me.

But again, your suggestion is kind of like the chicken and the egg. Yes if folks are unhappy with the two choices, they should be spending time to find + spread awareness about alternative choices. But come on bruh. You dont think people are already doing that? That we even know folks like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson exist speaks to the existence of the very folks you are talking about. However, at the end of the day, as long as the Democrats and Republicans control the narrative and keep alternative parties from being heard, 3rd party activism will never be enough. The big two have created a system that pretty much makes it impossible for anyone else to penetrate or be heard through mainstream channels, and thus have guaranteed, barring some kind of revolution, that either one or the other will be in power. Thats not democracy bruh

^^^ has been the case for 50+ years. Was Obama supposed to fix it in 4?

You're too stuck on this Mainstream/non mainstream dichotomy. Everything happens in the mainstream, any change that happens, or candidate that brings that change will be mainstream before it's all said and done. The point of any grassroots campagn is to bring the non mainstream to the masses and garner support from the mainstream. Obama is a politician just like the rest of them, and if Jill stein or any other candidate wants to make a change they will have to play along as well. It's easy for 3rd party candidates to talk big shyt about what they'd do differently, but at the end of the day if Jill stein wants to get elected she's going to have to pander to big business, and alter some promises as well. It's the way the world works.

What you want, and what we need is a change in the ideology of the average America voter, and voting for a third party won't do that.

You are the one who brought up the mainstream/non-mainstream thing. And in any case, third parties don't remain fringe because they can't garner support. They remain fringe because mainstream parties block them from mainstream avenues of self-promotion. So then it becomes a self fulfilling cycle. Only the most dedicated will give them money, further diminishing the size of their communicative toolbox. Then they are heard less. Etc. etc. Until they are completely irrelevant.

Whereas if they were allowed to participate in debates, for example, people would know + hear about them. People would realize they have other options besides the big two. The dynamic would change. You are saying they need to play by the rules of a game that is rigged to keep them from winning. I am saying the rules need to be changed so they have a fair shot.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

1, just because a criticism is "conservative" doesn't mean it isn't legitimate

2, my criticisms were not conservative, unless you are suggesting a "neutral" position would be for us to have no fiscal accountability and no strategy for how to transition from non-green energy to green energy. The "conservative" criticism of Obamacare is its socialist and everything should be left to the private sector. I didn't say either. The "conservative" energy policy is to only chase what makes $$$, which is not really green energy. I already said I am on board with Obama on energy.

1. Correct, but you can't say you're disappointed in someone because they didn't push a progressive agenda, then criticize them for being too progressive.
2. I said "conservative criticisms" not "republican talking points". Big difference

OWS was such a huge tragedy. It still angers me.

But again, your suggestion is kind of like the chicken and the egg. Yes if folks are unhappy with the two choices, they should be spending time to find + spread awareness about alternative choices. But come on bruh. You dont think people are already doing that? That we even know folks like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson exist speaks to the existence of the very folks you are talking about. However, at the end of the day, as long as the Democrats and Republicans control the narrative and keep alternative parties from being heard, 3rd party activism will never be enough. The big two have created a system that pretty much makes it impossible for anyone else to penetrate or be heard through mainstream channels, and thus have guaranteed, barring some kind of revolution, that either one or the other will be in power. Thats not democracy bruh

Unfortunately "the chicken and the egg" is a good description of the issue. The more change a candidate fights for, the less likely he'll be reelected. The more support a politician gets, the less likely they are to fight for big sweeping changes, out of fear of alienating potential supporters. I agree with you that our democracy is tainted by party politics, I'm just not convinced that voting for a 3rd party just because they are a 3rd party is a good way to fix it.

This graph just proves my point. The wealth gap has been widening for a long time. Due to the stimulus, profits under Obama have skyrocketed, but I thought stimulating corporate profits was a good thing during a recession.

You are the one who brought up the mainstream/non-mainstream thing. And in any case, third parties don't remain fringe because they can't garner support. They remain fringe because mainstream parties block them from mainstream avenues of self-promotion. So then it becomes a self fulfilling cycle. Only the most dedicated will give them money, further diminishing the size of their communicative toolbox. Then they are heard less. Etc. etc. Until they are completely irrelevant.

Whereas if they were allowed to participate in debates, for example, people would know + hear about them. People would realize they have other options besides the big two. The dynamic would change. You are saying they need to play by the rules of a game that is rigged to keep them from winning. I am saying the rules need to be changed so they have a fair shot.

I agree the playing field should be leveled. They should be able to participate in debates, the rules should be changed. But again voting for a random unpopular 3rd party candidate won't bring about theses changes. I'm saying they need to play by the rules, in order change them. There's no other way.

 

[CrimsonTider]

This might be the worst thread ever.