Are you a progressive?

[mpjh]

Are you a progressive? Are you satisfied with the reign of change we have? Some points:

Obama has not closed Gitmo
He is expanding the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan
He refuses to tell the Israelis that the settlements in Palestine must end
He is not doing anything about jobs (current unemployment 17% -- over 20% for minorities)
He has not gotten the health care initiative through the congress
His health care initiative, if passed, would not start until 2013 (what's hidden in that box)
He has not ended don't ask don't tell
His administration is dominated by Goldman Sacks
He refuses to nationalize the too-big-to-fail banks and break them up
OMG it is too depressing to continue the list

[nagerous]

Are you a progressive? Are you satisfied with the reign of change we have? Some points:

Obama has not closed Gitmo
He is expanding the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan
He refuses to tell the Israelis that the settlements in Palestine must end
He is not doing anything about jobs (current unemployment 17% -- over 20% for minorities)
He has not gotten the health care initiative through the congress
His health care initiative, if passed, would not start until 2013 (what's hidden in that box)
He has not ended don't ask don't tell
His administration is dominated by Goldman Sacks
He refuses to nationalize the too-big-to-fail banks and break them up
OMG it is too depressing to continue the list

Can I ask if you voted the first option? Who are you going to vote for then? There is no chance for third party politics to gain any success in America and your only other avaliable option is the Palin crew... Sure Obama may have not achieved anything he originally set out to acheive as of yet but the only other alternative for your vote is the Republican Party.

[mpjh]

Honestly, I would rather have rabid republicans in than blue dog poodles. We are headed for fascism anyway, so might as well go with the experts. At least then the enemy is clear.

[jay_a2j]

progressive liberal

[mpjh]

Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

[PLAYER57832]

Are you a progressive? Are you satisfied with the reign of change we have? Some points:

[list]Obama has not closed Gitmo

He is doing so. Nothing can happen overnight, and he cannot act alone in this. He has not even been in office a year...

He is expanding the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan

True, but either we expand and really win that war or we cede it back to the Taliban -- those are the choices. I believe staying is the lessor of two evils. Obama cannot change what was done in the past, cannot undo old mistakes. He can only move forward. He is at least giving far more consideration to ALL sides than I believe G.W.Bush ever did.

He refuses to tell the Israelis that the settlements in Palestine must end

Yes and no. I do believe he should be far more forceful on this issue.

He is not doing anything about jobs (current unemployment 17% -- over 20% for minorities)

Baloney. But the president is not in full control of this issue. Economically, most presidents reap what was sowed in the previous administration. It takes a good deal of time for things to really change.

I don't know if the stimulus stuff was the best course. Again, muchg of it was begun before Obama came into office. The whole GM thing came before Obama was in office.

An irony that came up in Marketplace last night -- did you know that it is only us workers who are really suffering. Stockholders, those who get money off of investments are doing well. Think about the implications of that. THAT is the change that Bush and his cronies (back to Reagan, for that matter), all helped engender. Legislation, the way we take care of society has not changed, but the way we generate income has changed phenomenally. This is not about Obama. It goes well beyond him.

He has not gotten the health care initiative through the congress

His health care initiative, if passed, would not start until 2013 (what's hidden in that box)

In a few months, he has gone further than anyone else ever has. There is a good chance something will be passed very soon.
as for the "it won't start until 2013" -- that was always the case. Do you think creating a whole new system, the exchanges etc can be done overnight? This is FAST for any such legislation.

This sounds like so much "sour grapes". I thought better of you...

He has not ended don't ask don't tell

Not completely, but he has moved to stop some of the "witch hunts" and so forth. Again, the guy hasn't even been in office a year!

His administration is dominated by Goldman Sacks

This you will have to explain.

He refuses to nationalize the too-big-to-fail banks and break them up

Nationalizing, I don't think would be a good idea. As for the "too big to fail", economists are debating this constantly now. I agree that the system needs to change, but simply swooping in and dividing them through some kinds of presidential mandate is not the answer. Among other things, the entire regulatory process has to change to ensure that anything done will be effective and permanent. Obama IS making inroads into that realm, but Health care is coming first.

OMG it is too depressing to continue the list

The depresssing part is that someone who seems as generally intelligent as you would paint such a picture.

I am not sure I like all Obama is doing, has done or will do. However, he has done far more, in a shorter time, but is facing far more criticism than any other president in recent memory.

Seems like anything short of the super human would dissapoint you. (and I wonder if even that would suffice!)

[pimpdave]

This sounds like so much "sour grapes". I thought better of you...

I'm quite sure this is copypasta, and not just because of the weird formatting. When have you ever read mpjh using the word "gotten"?

Or "OMG"?

[thegreekdog]

Grrr... (directed at Player mostly).

Obama has not closed Gitmo. One of the planks he ran on was closing Gitmo. It was an important point of his election and he has not fulfilled that promise.

Obama vowed to end the wars (specifically the War in Iraq). He has not done so. In fact, he has done the opposite. Where is the outcry? The man basically ran on three things: his charisma, the war in Iraq, and the economy. As I continue to maintain, President Bush got a bad rap on this, especially in light of the kid gloves with which President Obama is treated.

If the president cannot affect the economy (Obama and jobs) how can the president affect the economy (Bush and shareholders)? Player, your hypocrisy is astounding. In any event, I personally believe (and I think the facts bear this out) that the president has little effect on the economy (whether the president is Bush or Obama). Among the tools that can be used by the president to affect the economy, all of them involve Congress: taxing, spending, and (lately) government control of industry.

At any rate, any failures of the Obama presidency will be blamed on the prior presidency, whether those failures occur now or in two years. Unfortunately, too many people will believe that President Bush had more to do with the stagnant economy than economics themselves.

[jay_a2j]

Ya have to love the "it's the previous administrations fault" when a D is in office. Cause if you say that when a R is in office they won't have it.

So, let me see if I have this right....


Clinton's BOOMING economy was a result of the Reagan/Bush years.

so

W.Bush gets to blame Clinton for the Recession?



And now we can blame BOTH parties for trillions of dollars in bailouts that are going to come back and bite us in the arse!!!


I was hoping Obama would turn out being a good president. I didn't realize when he talked about change in America he meant literally. Just hope the checks and balances save us from becoming socialist.

[mpjh]

Are you a progressive? Are you satisfied with the reign of change we have? Some points:

[list]Obama has not closed Gitmo

He is doing so. Nothing can happen overnight, and he cannot act alone in this. He has not even been in office a year...

He is commander in chief. He can close the base with an executive order. He hasn't the spine to do it.

He is expanding the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan

True, but either we expand and really win that war or we cede it back to the Taliban -- those are the choices. I believe staying is the lessor of two evils. Obama cannot change what was done in the past, cannot undo old mistakes. He can only move forward. He is at least giving far more consideration to ALL sides than I believe G.W.Bush ever did.

We cannot "win" in Afghanistan. We are supporting corrupt drug dealers, just like in Viet Nam. We need to end the war and pursue terrorists as criminals. The war method is just expanding the base of terrorists and providing recruitment opportunities for them. I mean, get serious, 8 years of war and Ben Laden is still at large. Huge fail.

He refuses to tell the Israelis that the settlements in Palestine must end

Yes and no. I do believe he should be far more forceful on this issue.

We agree, but he doesn't have the spine for it.

He is not doing anything about jobs (current unemployment 17% -- over 20% for minorities)

Baloney. But the president is not in full control of this issue. Economically, most presidents reap what was sowed in the previous administration. It takes a good deal of time for things to really change.

I don't know if the stimulus stuff was the best course. Again, muchg of it was begun before Obama came into office. The whole GM thing came before Obama was in office.

An irony that came up in Marketplace last night -- did you know that it is only us workers who are really suffering. Stockholders, those who get money off of investments are doing well. Think about the implications of that. THAT is the change that Bush and his cronies (back to Reagan, for that matter), all helped engender. Legislation, the way we take care of society has not changed, but the way we generate income has changed phenomenally. This is not about Obama. It goes well beyond him.

It is about Obama. Krugman, Reich, Stieglist, all renowned economists, some nobel prize winner, all said from the git-go that he was not doing enough. He needs to directly hire workers to build, repair infrastructure like we did during the Great Depression. He just doesn't have the spine for it.

He has not gotten the health care initiative through the congress

His health care initiative, if passed, would not start until 2013 (what's hidden in that box)

In a few months, he has gone further than anyone else ever has. There is a good chance something will be passed very soon.
as for the "it won't start until 2013" -- that was always the case. Do you think creating a whole new system, the exchanges etc can be done overnight? This is FAST for any such legislation.

This sounds like so much "sour grapes". I thought better of you...

We implement Medicare in 11 months. He is slipping it to 2013, past the 2012 election because he knows there will be a general revolt against the mandate to purchase insurance. Even if this Frankenstein passes, it will fail. He didn't have the spine to go for Medicare for all.

He has not ended don't ask don't tell

Not completely, but he has moved to stop some of the "witch hunts" and so forth. Again, the guy hasn't even been in office a year!

People are still being discharged because of their sexual preference.

His administration is dominated by Goldman Sacks

This you will have to explain.

All of the top economic advisors are past employees of Goldman Sacks.

He refuses to nationalize the too-big-to-fail banks and break them up

Nationalizing, I don't think would be a good idea. As for the "too big to fail", economists are debating this constantly now. I agree that the system needs to change, but simply swooping in and dividing them through some kinds of presidential mandate is not the answer. Among other things, the entire regulatory process has to change to ensure that anything done will be effective and permanent. Obama IS making inroads into that realm, but Health care is coming first.

Look on this, even the democrats are disappointed. The bill that Berny Frank tried to pass, institutionalizing too-big-to-fail got pulled back. On this point the administration is completely out of tune with the American people. We a sick of the bailees getting million dollor bonuses while we take weekly furloughs to save our jobs.

OMG it is too depressing to continue the list

The depresssing part is that someone who seems as generally intelligent as you would paint such a picture.

Better get used to it. Obama had better get a spine or he will lose mid-terms, and be a one term has-been.

I am not sure I like all Obama is doing, has done or will do. However, he has done far more, in a shorter time, but is facing far more criticism than any other president in recent memory.

Seems like anything short of the super human would dissapoint you. (and I wonder if even that would suffice!)

I don't want super-human, I just want a leader that can fight for justice. Obama has so many lobbyists and cronies hanging on his arms he cannot fight for the toilet paper.

[PLAYER57832]

Grrr... (directed at Player mostly).

Obama has not closed Gitmo. One of the planks he ran on was closing Gitmo. It was an important point of his election and he has not fulfilled that promise.

He did, at one point, vow to close it within a year. That changed to "move to close it within a year", I believe before he even took office.

In any case, it has not yet been a year. And, the major stumbling block is Congressment who don't want detainees in their districts, never mind that we house evne harsher criminals (harsher from a direct safety perspective) all the time.

Obama vowed to end the wars (specifically the War in Iraq). He has not done so. In fact, he has done the opposite.

Funny, but I have just been hearing about the opposite. In less than a year, Obama is already taking steps to give the Iraqis more power, etc.

And mjph's comment was about Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Where is the outcry?

I see plenty of it from every conservative source. Far more than liberal outcries against Bush way back...

The man basically ran on three things: his charisma, the war in Iraq, and the economy. As I continue to maintain, President Bush got a bad rap on this, especially in light of the kid gloves with which President Obama is treated.

OH PLEASE!
These "failures" were asserted from the day he came into office. He could have completed all of it in a month and many folks still would not be happy. He has not even been in office a year. Miracles take time.

If the president cannot affect the economy (Obama and jobs) how can the president affect the economy (Bush and shareholders)?

Affect and completely change/reverse are 2 different things. Bush did not change things alone. It began long before he got into office, but he continued instead of making things better. Even so, he was in office 8 years.

Obama has to completely change, in some cases actually reverse our systems of regulations, etc. He has not yet been in office a year. Furthermore, as I HAVE said many times before, the real impact of Obama economically won't be seen until after he leaves office -- be it 4 years or 8. That is always true. Obama right now, is "reaping" what Bush and his predecessors "sowed".

Player, your hypocrisy is astounding. In any event, I personally believe (and I think the facts bear this out) that the president has little effect on the economy (whether the president is Bush or Obama). Among the tools that can be used by the president to affect the economy, all of them involve Congress: taxing, spending, and (lately) government control of industry.

Again, the president has affect. He can effect subtle and mild change, can push to implement greater change in conjunction with the other players (Congress, agencies, etc.)

At any rate, any failures of the Obama presidency will be blamed on the prior presidency, whether those failures occur now or in two years. Unfortunately, too many people will believe that President Bush had more to do with the stagnant economy than economics themselves.

You have it backwards. Obama is right now being blamed for the failures of the Bush administration. And, for good or ill.. the next administration will be either credited or blamed for what Obama institutes. That has always been true, becuase there is a lag in economics.

No hypocrisy here.

And I am not even saying I necessarily like all Obama is or will do.. I am simply saying it is too little time to judge.

[mpjh]

He doesn't have the luxury of time. It is time to shit or get off the pot.

[PLAYER57832]

Are you a progressive? Are you satisfied with the reign of change we have? Some points:

[list]Obama has not closed Gitmo

He is doing so. Nothing can happen overnight, and he cannot act alone in this. He has not even been in office a year...

He is commander in chief. He can close the base with an executive order. He hasn't the spine to do it.

Oh PLEASE... he can do it, but the consequences would be severe. I should have said he cannot do it overnight without causing extreme chaos and doing far more harm than good.

HE is moving to get us out in ways Bush never was willing to do.

He is expanding the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan

True, but either we expand and really win that war or we cede it back to the Taliban -- those are the choices. I believe staying is the lessor of two evils. Obama cannot change what was done in the past, cannot undo old mistakes. He can only move forward. He is at least giving far more consideration to ALL sides than I believe G.W.Bush ever did.

We cannot "win" in Afghanistan. We are supporting corrupt drug dealers, just like in Viet Nam. We need to end the war and pursue terrorists as criminals. The war method is just expanding the base of terrorists and providing recruitment opportunities for them. I mean, get serious, 8 years of war and Ben Laden is still at large. Huge fail.

Afghanistan is too complex to get into here. But, the war Obama pledged to end was Iraq. He did say we should move resources over to Afghanistan before he was elected.

He is not doing anything about jobs (current unemployment 17% -- over 20% for minorities)

Baloney. But the president is not in full control of this issue. Economically, most presidents reap what was sowed in the previous administration. It takes a good deal of time for things to really change.

I don't know if the stimulus stuff was the best course. Again, muchg of it was begun before Obama came into office. The whole GM thing came before Obama was in office.

An irony that came up in Marketplace last night -- did you know that it is only us workers who are really suffering. Stockholders, those who get money off of investments are doing well. Think about the implications of that. THAT is the change that Bush and his cronies (back to Reagan, for that matter), all helped engender. Legislation, the way we take care of society has not changed, but the way we generate income has changed phenomenally. This is not about Obama. It goes well beyond him.

It is about Obama. Krugman, Reich, Stieglist, all renowned economists, some nobel prize winner, all said from the git-go that he was not doing enough. He needs to directly hire workers to build, repair infrastructure like we did during the Great Depression. He just doesn't have the spine for it.

Some economists say this, some economists say other things.

At any rate, while I certainly would have liked to see a CCC-style jobs program or expansion of the arts as we saw then, it would have taken a LOT more money.. and Congress had a hard time passing what was spent.

And.. I am not saying he is solving the problem. I am saying that it has been 11 months and you are expecting miracles.

He has not gotten the health care initiative through the congress

His health care initiative, if passed, would not start until 2013 (what's hidden in that box)

In a few months, he has gone further than anyone else ever has. There is a good chance something will be passed very soon.
as for the "it won't start until 2013" -- that was always the case. Do you think creating a whole new system, the exchanges etc can be done overnight? This is FAST for any such legislation.

This sounds like so much "sour grapes". I thought better of you...

We implement Medicare in 11 months. He is slipping it to 2013, past the 2012 election because he knows there will be a general revolt against the mandate to purchase insurance. Even if this Frankenstein passes, it will fail. He didn't have the spine to go for Medicare for all.

We implemented Medicare back under TRUMAN, when the system was far, far less complex than it is now.. and it was not without pain, but was also in a time when people were far more willing to "listen to their leaders". Now, its not just Congress, but the American public that has to be convinced.

He has not ended don't ask don't tell

Not completely, but he has moved to stop some of the "witch hunts" and so forth. Again, the guy hasn't even been in office a year!

People are still being discharged because of their sexual preference.[/quote]
I had understood that was stopped, unless there are other circumstances involved.

His administration is dominated by Goldman Sacks

This you will have to explain.

All of the top economic advisors are past employees of Goldman Sacks.[/quote]
And?

[mpjh]

Get used to apologizing for Obama, you will have a full time job. It think it is time for us, as progressives, to build a fire under his butt. If you want to throw water on the fire, that is your choice -- join the poodles.

ps people are still being discharged for being gay or lesbian -- if you are outed - you are out.

[thegreekdog]

Look, I'm not going to say his presidency is a failure because he hasn't been in office all that long, but let's not pretend the guy's been successful, although he (and others) claim he is. I don't like any of the bills he's signed, but we'll see how that bears out in the coming years. I'm simply pointing out that of the campaign promises he made and the issues he made a point of addressing, he has not fulfilled on many of them yet. I believe criticism is warranted in light of the criticism levied against past presidents (Republican and Democrat); yet, I don't see much criticism of President Obama (except by those whacko conservatives... oh, those bastards).

[Frigidus]

I know quoting a comedian isn't the best way to get yourself taken seriously, but Bill Maher summed up my feelings on the matter the best back in June:

You go to the polls, and your choices are the guy who voted for the first Wall Street bailout, or the guy who voted for the next ten. This week we're hearing that a Public Option for health care is unlikely because it doesn't have the support of enough Democrats. Even Ted Kennedy's plan - Ted Kennedy, yeah - leaves 37 million uninsured. This is because we don't have a left or a right party in this country any more, we have a center-right party and a crazy party, and over the last 30 odd years Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved into a mental hospital. So what we have is one perfectly good party for hedge fund managers, credit card companies, banks, defense contractors, big agriculture, and the pharmaceutical lobby - that's the Democrats - and they sit across the aisle from a small group of religious lunatics, flat-earthers, and Civil War reenactors who mostly communicate by AM Radio and call themselves the Republicans, and who actually worry that Obama is a socialist! Socialist? He's not even a liberal. I know he's not, because he's on TV, and while I see Democrats on television, I don't see actual liberals. And if occasionally you do get to hear Ralph Nader, or Noam Chomsky, or Dennis Kucinich they're treated like buffoons. OK, these are not three of the world's most charismatic men, but then nobody is gonna confuse Newt Gingrich for Zach Efron, and I have to look at his fat face on TV more than that Free Credit Report song.

Shouldn't there be one party that unambiguously supports cutting the military budget, a party that is straight up in favor of gun control, gay marriage, higher taxes on the rich, universal health care, legalizing pot, and steep direct taxing of polluters? These aren't radical ideas, a majority of Americans are either already for them or would be if they were properly argued and defended, and what we need is an actual progressive party to represent the millions of Americans who aren't being served by the Democrats, because bottom line: Democrats are the new Republicans.

I won't vote Democrat, but I will never vote for a Republican (at least in their current form).

[Aradhus]

I know quoting a comedian isn't the best way to get yourself taken seriously, but Bill Maher summed up my feelings on the matter the best back in June:

You go to the polls, and your choices are the guy who voted for the first Wall Street bailout, or the guy who voted for the next ten. This week we're hearing that a Public Option for health care is unlikely because it doesn't have the support of enough Democrats. Even Ted Kennedy's plan - Ted Kennedy, yeah - leaves 37 million uninsured. This is because we don't have a left or a right party in this country any more, we have a center-right party and a crazy party, and over the last 30 odd years Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved into a mental hospital. So what we have is one perfectly good party for hedge fund managers, credit card companies, banks, defense contractors, big agriculture, and the pharmaceutical lobby - that's the Democrats - and they sit across aisle from a small group of religious lunatics, flat-earthers, and Civil War reenactors who mostly communicate by AM Radio and call themselves the Republicans, and who actually worry that Obama is a socialist! Socialist? He's not even a liberal. I know he's not, because he's on TV, and while I see Democrats on television, I don't see actual liberals. And if occasionally you do get to hear Ralph Nader, or Noam Chomsky, or Dennis Kucinich they're treated like buffoons. OK, these are not three of the world's most charismatic men, but then nobody is gonna confuse Newt Gingrich for Zach Efron, and I have to look at his fat face on TV more than that Free Credit Report song.

Shouldn't there be one party that unambiguously supports cutting the military budget, a party that is straight up in favor of gun control, gay marriage, higher taxes on the rich, universal health care, legalizing pot, and steep direct taxing of polluters? These aren't radical ideas, a majority of Americans are either already for them or would be if they were properly argued and defended, and what we need is an actual progressive party to represent the millions of Americans who aren't being served by the Democrats, because bottom line: Democrats are the new Republicans.

I won't vote Democrat, but I will never vote for a Republican (at least in their current form).

That was a great monologue by Maher, I think it is pretty accurate. I think it is rather telling, when you see all the right wing lemmings running around the internet screaming Obama is a socialist, and he's going to destroy America.. It is pretty pathetic that a huge group of people can be so easily manipulated by a party of buffoons.

I think Obama has been pretty disappointing. He campaigned on change, ok pretty much all politicians campaign on that, but, ok I admit it! I'm naive, I believed! just this once I thought somebody in the public eye was honest, was the real deal.

If Obama has no desire for wholesale sweeping change, which I don't think he does, then what we've seen so far, is all we're going to get.(I say we, I'm not even from that continent..) In which case Clinton, or even possibly mcCain, would have been a better choice, as they understand how Washington works, and I think would be able to, more successfully achieve the change Obama is aiming for.

[Woodruff]

Are you a progressive? Are you satisfied with the reign of change we have?

I am not a progressive, but I did vote for Obama. I am not satisfied in the least. That being said, I also feel quite confident I wouldn't have been satisfied at this point if McCain were President either.

Oh, and I do tend to agree with Maher. Definitely in this instance regarding the parties.

[mpjh]

As Bob Herbert says in a OP-ED in the NY Times today, if this president is to suceed he must end the war in Afghanistan and end unemployment. Otherwise forget him. He pointed out that while Obama ruminates the issues:

While we’re preparing to pour more resources into Afghanistan, the Economic Policy Institute is telling us that one in five American children is living in poverty, that nearly 35 percent of African-American children are living in poverty, and that the unemployment crisis is pushing us toward a point in the coming years where more than half of all black children in this country will be poor.

[spurgistan]

Somebody mentioned "Citizen Kang" in another thread (easily my favorite Simpsons bit ever) That's basically what I feel about this. I would say President Obama was my favorite possible outcome of the 2008 political system, and in this case, you really go to war with the political system you have, not the political system you want to have (fwiw, I also voted for John Kerry. Holding my nose, yes, but I couldn't "waste my vote on a third-party candidate") And no, I've been very disappointed by 2008, but I don't blame Obama. Frankly, I blame the progressive movement. We've really been out-hustled by the far-right, again.

[thegreekdog]

I think Mahr's a bona fide jackass, but I will take a little something from his insanity-laden diatribe - namely that one should not think for a second that either of the two major parties represents you in any way. They represent whomever gives them the most money for their campaigns.

[mpjh]

I don't see lying about the facts and using scare tactics on old people as "out hustling" the progressives. I also don't think progressives have not stopped protesting the war, nor demanding that something be done about jobs like direct investments in infrastructure. I do think that the mainstream media is ignoring it in favor of the idiotic horse-race for the pathetic reform of insurance profits.

[jay_a2j]

I think Mahr's a bona fide jackass, but I will take a little something from his insanity-laden diatribe - namely that one should not think for a second that either of the two major parties represents you in any way. They represent whomever gives them the most money for their campaigns.

Can't find a thing in this post I disagree with.

[jonesthecurl]

Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

Is this some sort of new lottery card?

[thegreekdog]

I think Mahr's a bona fide jackass, but I will take a little something from his insanity-laden diatribe - namely that one should not think for a second that either of the two major parties represents you in any way. They represent whomever gives them the most money for their campaigns.

Can't find a thing in this post I disagree with.

Yes, that's what happens when I'm right about something.