Illegitimate criticisms of President Obama preventing legitimate criticisms
 

He's not a terrorist. He was not born in Kenya. He is not a Muslim. He is not a socialist. He is not a far left ideologue. He is not a racist. He does not hate white people. He is not a Nazi. On and on and on....

Aside from having to state and restate these blatantly obvious answers to the anti-intellectuals, racists, xenophobes, and Tea Partiers, it seems an incredible distraction for those of us on the center and left. Instead of communicating out concerns and critiques with President Obama, the guy we all voted for, we're busy answering the hateful, the ignorant, and the bizarre from the far right.

There are, imho, legitimate complaints to be communicated about the Obama administration, things like continuing rendition, expanding the secret wars, and extra-judicial assassinations, as examples. The problem is these concerns are having trouble cutting through the noise (read: crazy) coming from the right.

Are you also finding this? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

I agree with you completely, but I have no answer. I do wonder if this sort of cheapening of the debate is all that new.

I also think I understand the logic. O'Bama is essentially very moderate, slightly left-of-center debate. A slightly-right-of-center argument just wouldn't have the emotional power to whip people into a frenzy, and get out the vote. The right wing has found that if you whip up the crazies, that emotional energy turns into enormous political power. As long as they can keep some of the crazier aspects of it a little bit in check, and have the plausible deniability to disavow their crazier rantings, it works out brilliantly.

I think it masks not only the legit criticisms, but also the legit praise he deserves. Obviously the latter is the goal of those propagating the bullshit

really? is it any much different with any of the past presidents having to deflect all the crap that is tossed in their direction? It wasn't much different from Regan to BHO.

I can't speak much to what happened under Reagan, as my understanding comes from old newspaper/magazine articles and history books. I was five years old when he left office.

I agree, its a problem with every president, valid concerns and issues are always being drowned out by BS. When Bush II was president it always amazed me how many people focused on stuff like "he caused 9/11" when the mans term was rife with fodder for legitimate criticism...Clinton had the same problem, don't recall Bush I going through it though, Regan with out a doubt and I'd say Carter too. <--- my lifetime of Presidents, I'm sure it goes back further.

Obama being a white hating islamo terrorist muslim nazi socialist racist communist from Kenya who can't find his birth certificate is just so much easier to rip into with out much thought isn't it?

I have no idea what we can do about.

Hell, I was getting annoyed at how much I was defending this guy I had no intention of supporting.

Obama did and does strike me as a mess of many bad policies and aims, but apparently the Republican Powers That Be more loudly decided that 'ZOMG MUSLIM' was the more attractive argument. And now it feels like the reverse with the Tea Parties, a collection of great ideas fronted in small but loud part by borderline/obvious racists and fucking Palin.

Nothing can be done about it. There is very little, if any, difference between the two parties except the extremes. Both parties are beholden to special interest groups, lobbyists and multi-national corporations. Doesn't matter which group is in power, it'll continue to be the same mess till there is nothing left. The only way for them to differentiate themselves from each other is through the extremists. Discredit through sniping, gossip and back biting to get elected. The American public eats this stuff up. Need an example: just about all "reality" tv shows. The loudest and most obnoxious gets the most press.
Its all bread and circuses.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. People who are aren't even on the left, people that are generally in the center right, are having to deal with this utter pig crap. People that didn't evrn vote for Barack Obama are having to deal with this ignorant hatred. It's insane.

Here's a crazy idea: people in the center and the right, people who may vote Republican, don't vote for the asshat representatives bowing to the extreme right. Don't vote for McCain when he runs right to beat a Tea Partier. If everyone running is an ignorant, theocratic xenophobe, run yourself as a centrist. I can think of a good dozen conservatives and libertarians on TFP I'd gladly vote for.

I disagree. I was around during the Reagan years, and the vitriol has never been as shrill as it is now any time in my lifetime.

You lose me here when you conflate far-right with "ignorant, theocratic xenophobes" and general asshattery.

It's unfortunately the case right now, in my view, that the groups promoting the worst and most obnoxious arguments are also promoting the best. They get my vote over the mediocre moderates.

Yes, extremism without compromise is so effective.

That's wierd, I thought you were blocking me.

I'll take ineffective over efficiently terrible.

I like how the fact that they're promoting the worst arguments doesn't make you question what you characterize as "the best".

I like to go slumming every now and then.
This is why I don't venture into that territory very often.

Why would it? "Obama's a Muslim" doesn't have much to do with smaller government or fiscal responsibility.

---------- Post added at 12:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 PM ----------

I'll have to take the initiative, then.

The Republicans don't want smaller government or fiscal responsibility.

They are all asshats, each and everyone of them. You can't get elected if you're not. The people who fund the campaigns expect something for their money, which means the candidates have to abandon their ideals to get into office.

Take the money out of politics and we can have an honest political system. Until then, it will never happen.

And Will, not everyone voted for him.

As for all the crap heaped on his head by the media, look at all the asshats he surrounded himself with and you find your answers. Terrorist, muslims and racists are his cabinet and advisers. Why would someone surround himself with people like that? As to his agenda, I have no idea what that may be. I hear one thing and see another. Just like every other politician in modern history.

The media is going to report what ever gets them ratings, so if your looking for someone to blame, look there. It's not the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Jeremiah Wright, Nancy Pelosi, Rush or any single entity that is obscuring the issues. It's the media in general. There's no moderation, one side is screaming 'he's the messiah' so of course the other side is going to be yelling 'he's the anti-christ'. Unfortunately, the majority of the populous is too busy trying to survive to take the time to filter through all the bullshit to find the relative truth.

If I were into conspiracies, I'd be wondering what the fuck they're really up to with all the convoluted bullshit being spewed in all directions.

Only time will tell whether he was a good president or not, judging by his current actions, he's not.

That's true Rogue, most people just don't spend that much time thinking about these issues. I'm not sure its always fair to think the average 60+ hour a week on the job American really has the time or energy to filter through as much information as we are bombarded with on a daily basis...I know I certainly don't. If the media in this country took their responsibility a little more seriously the BS issues wouldn't be issues in the first place, but sensationalism, ratings, money and all that.

My point was that there's always a distraction that the sitting president has to deal with in some manner. Some of the distraction may be real or made up but either way the administration or the individual needs to deal with it. I believe it's been that way since at least Lincoln based on my reading, then again, I haven't read much about presidents past him.

What? Are you serious? Please list who these cabinet & advisors are
& how they fit into these categories.

I have never seen a news network that calls Obama "The Messiah" (or acts like he is). MSNBC is constantly accused of being in Obama's pocket, but every time I watch Hardball or Maddow, they're lambasting Obama's administration

I haven't gotten around to criticizing Obama for being too centrist yet. When 45.7% of voting Americans voted for the guy who didn't win, there were sure to be some sore losers. I can't say that the Democratic-favoring media was very friendly to Bush in 2000 & 2004. Yet they usually used facts and had substance, not theories and fear about what 'might' happen.

I think Obama has been doing a pretty good job. It isn't easy being in charge right now.

I could see why having terrorist and racist would cause concern but why would you care if someone in his cabinet was Muslim?

Plus I really doubt he has racist or terrorist on his staff.

I agree with Cyn, ever POTUS deals with this crap. Everyone since I've been paying attention to politics has anyway. Shit listening to some people and you'd think Reagan was a butt puppet moron being controlled by Nancy. Bush one was against his own party cause he wanted to do something about the deficit... you know pay for things. So people talked crap about him. Clinton... holy crap what didn't he and Hilary do? Yhey Killed a guy named Foster, a couple of other people by a train somehow. Ripped off half of Arkansas in some land deal. Oh and he got a blow job. My god that man had oral sex with some one other then his wife! Should have shot him for that. Bush? Man the hard left hated that guy, nothing he did was right. The guy could have found a cure for cancer and some people would have found a reason to bitch.

Obama's not getting it any worse then any one else in my opinion.

The funnies thing about the Clinton years was listening to people still bitching about "inhaling" 3 years into his second term. I mean how sad is that?

"The man inhaled POT in college!!! POT!!!! There is no WAY a guy that took a hit off a joint 40 years ago could ever run the country!!!! Impeach the hippie!!!"

Scroll back up. I wasn't talking about the Republicans.

This is funny stuff, becasue of the following:

*On any given day anyone can find someone making some extreme charge against Obama or any public figure.

*The extreme charges that get traction are the ones most vociferously defended by Obama and his supporters.

*The more the extreme chrages get defended the more publicity they get.

*The more publicity the charges get the more credibility they get.

*The more credibility they get the more people believe them.

When people say Obama has thin skin and acts in ways beneath the dignity of the office, look at the above cycle and see if it gives you a better understanding. Example, I could care less if Obama is a Muslim, it ain't relevant, but the more time he spends saying what he is not, makes me think he really does not know what he is - and that is the biggest problem I have with Obama. And, relative to Bush, who clearly is who he is, I don't understand people like Obama. It is not a liberal or conservative issue for me, my favorite liberal is Dennis Kuchinich - I disagree with him, but he is a man of conviction and I like him and on the other-hand I have never like McCain.

You know President Obama isn't a Kenyan, right? And not a Muslim? And not a socialist? And not a terrorist? And not a racist? And not a Nazi?

I'll accept all of the above except 'not a socialist'. His nationalization of GM and Chrysler, and his insistence on controlling the salary and bonuses of executives sure seems to meed the Wikipedia definition of socialism. As far as his government enforced redistribution of wealth by programs like cash for clunkers, new homebuyer credits, forcing mortgage writedowns, etc, that sure sounds socialist to me. It clearly is not capitalism.

When was the last time Obama denied being a Muslim?

I know that part of the (more 'mainstream') right-wing narrative is how thin-skinned Obama is, but I don't see it.

Instead of your narrative, I hear:

** Crazy right-wingers: OBAMA IS A MUSLIM

** Obama: Uh, no, actually I'm a Christian, and I pray every day.

** Crazy right-wingers: OBAMA IS A MUSLIM, AND WAS BORN IN KENYA

** Obama: So, uh, about this economy...

** Crazy right-wingers: OBAMA IS A MUSLIM, AND WAS BORN IN KENYA. SHOW US YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE, BOY!

** Rest of the country: Uh...I think he said he was a Christian.

** Obama: We, uh, passed this healthcare bill. I know it isn't perfect, but it's kinda ok...

** Media: 'Obama a Muslim' claims on the rise.

** Obama: So, uh, the economy is getting a little better...

** Fox News: 'Obama a Muslim? What do you think?'

** Obama: Well, I think we're going to start getting out of Iraq now...

** Slightly less-crazy right-wingers: Obama is soooo thin-skinned!


In other words, we have the crazy right-wing spouting nonsense, the slightly less crazy right-wing repeating the nonsense and then adding their own level of irrelevancy, innuendo, and projection, the mainstream media treating it as a circus, and virtually no legitimate debate.

you prefer the capitalism version of wealth redistribution (i.e. all wealth flows upwards, creating a small, elite upper class and an enormous, underprivileged lower class)?

That's not socialism.

Do you consider subsidies socialist as well? You know, like the U.S. farm bills. Redistributing wealth to farmers. Those things that Republicans as much as Democrats are responsible for.

Guess what Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush have in common? They were Republican presidents who saw some form of nationalization take shape on their watch.

So if these things are what socialists do....I hate to say it, but I suppose that makes the United States of America a socialist nation.

Truth be told, there are a lot of things going on in the U.S. that could be considered socialist (or at least considered as having socialist roots). But people aren't aware of them in that way. These are things that were established long before Obama took office...and many long before he was even born.

I can imagine there are thousands of Americans, if not hundreds of thousands, who fear or otherwise admonish "the socialist threat" all the while benefiting from socialist ideas older than their grandfathers. Ideas that they now take for granted.

EDIT: Oh, and quick answer: he's working with a mixed economy. I'll type on about mixed economies until my fingers are numb. The U.S. is a mixed economy, not a purely capitalist economy. There are capitalist elements and socialist elements. Get used to it. It's been that way for decades.

Ask any real socialist whether Obama is a socialist. Real socialists know what socialism is better than right wing talk radio/tv hosts because real socialists actually practice socialism. Right wing talk radio/tv hosts just use the specter of socialism as a bogeyman to control insecure people.

Why is socialism such a bogeyman? It's everywhere.

Sarah Palin, Socialist | The New York Observer

[...] we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.

--Sarah Palin

And more to the point:
Democratic Socialist Director: Sarah Palin More of a Socialist than Obama

C'mon folks we all know socialism is EVERYTHING left of center, its not hard people! Democrats are socialists, there you go...

... I can't even type that in jest but its scary how much of a commonly held belief that really is.

Absolutely. Unless you are disabled, my success doesn't mean that I owe you a living, and it doesn't mean that the government has the right to take the money I earned and give it to you.

I'll take the lifestyle I've achieved by my efforts over being supported by the government any day. I started from nowhere about 35 years ago and have done relatively well. I've seen others in similar situations do well. Those who thought the government owed them? Not so well.

---------- Post added at 09:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 AM ----------

As I've written before, all subsidies should be eliminated. Every single one.

I'm not a fan of the socialist actions taken by FDR (Social Security) or LBJ (Social Security expansion, Great Society) either.

---------- Post added at 09:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 AM ----------

No? From the Wikipedia article about socialism:

That's exactly what Obama did with GM. The government nationalized GM, threw out the CEO and put management Obama selected in his place.

Also, from the online Encyclopedia Britannica article about socialism http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...1569/socialism

That's exactly what Obama tried with a number of Wall St executives. He publicly stated several times that he was going to make the executives give back their bonuses, to the point that he was going to write retroactive law if necessary to do that. He only gave up after Congress refused to go along with that stunt.

I'll agree Obama isn't a socialist 100% of every day, but he definitely has socialist leanings. If Congress didn't keep him in check, we would have even more of his socialist agenda to worry about.

Temporary 'nationalization' (it wasn't actually nationalization) is no more socialism than an overnighter in the drunk tank is being sentenced to prison.

What Obama is doing is in the same realm of what other presidents have done and will do in the future. This isn't "socialism" so much as it is modern democratic practices. There are few societies who have little or no socialist influences. America was built on a mixed economy. To take away that and move toward a pure capitalist economy would be radical, disruptive, and ultimately risky. I don't know why anyone would support the destabilization of one of the most wealthiest economies in the world.

For example, America would likely have seen a collapse of the agricultural industry. Most Americans would be eating South American or Chinese meat and dairy by now. But a true capitalist system would allow for the free flow of these goods, because no pesky FDA would get in the way.

The only reason for moving toward a pure capitalist economy I tend to hear is based mostly on self-interest, a kind of detachment from society. People tend to want healthy and stable societies, but not all of them want to pay for it.

Pure capitalism. It's basically a plutocracy or an oligarchy. I'm sure it would be enjoyable by less than 1% of the population. It probably wouldn't be any of us. It's just a hunch. At least we could have child labour once again. That always made sense to me. Small hands can do such small work. It's incredible.

'Temporary' nationalism is like being a 'little bit pregnant'. Obama nationalized GM. Again, from Wikipedia article on nationalism

Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state.

That's exactly what Obama did by having the feds buy controlling interest in GM and throwing out GM's CEO.

Why do Republicans and Democrats alike use nationalization as a strategy? If it's socialism, why are Republicans using socialist philosophies?

Taking into the public ownership is not the same thing as purchasing a majority of shares. Nationalization would be the government seizing a company (or companies) in their entirety and taking control of them. What the Treasury did was purchase stocks while GM was going through Chapter 11. This is colloquially known as partial nationalization, but in truth it's quite different.
this isn't true. Frederick Henderson resigned due to pressure from the board. According to his own words: "There was no direction or input from the government," he said. "It was completely by the board and of the board."

Barack Obama is not a socialist and anyone that says otherwise is flat out wrong. It's not a legitimate complaint.

To bring this back to the OP: it's not a legitimate complaint because past presidents have done similar things, both Democrat and Republican, throughout the 20th century.

If they want to criticize the nationalization, partial or no, they should focus on how it is carried out, not that it happened at all. Obama said it was temporary. Hold him to that. That's a legitimate criticism. Let's not call him a socialist for doing what's a part of the American tradition in politics and economic policy.

He's not a far-left Marxist radical seeking to dismantle the republic. To harp on about that is folly.

I wasn't referring to Frederick Henderson. I was referring to Rick Wagoner who was thrown out by Obama when Obama nationalized GM.

The White House admitted to booting Rick out.

GM CEO resigns at Obama's behest - Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

.

I don't know what you call it when a government takes over a company but that alone sounds like socialism to me based on the links I posted previously.

What is a legitimate complaint? That Obama is a tax and spend liberal, based on his latest plan to give a $100 billion tax break and then raise taxes to pay for it?

citation please for this tax break/raise?

This has been in the news a lot in the last week. Here's one reference

News Headlines Obama Unveils Plan to Spend $50 Billion on Infrastructure

Do you really expect the oil companies to just absorb this tax hike and not pass it on to us consumers? Even if BP is one of the collection agents for this tax, it's still a tax.

you're being disingenuous. he's extending an already existing tax credit (not starting a new one) and he's scrapping some tax breaks on companies that don't need them (not raising taxes on the populace).

at least be honest when you're describing something

No. The White House asked him to resign after the treasury purchased controlling interest in the company. They didn't demand it, he wasn't booted out. They asked. And, just like with Henderson, they had the backing of the board.
Source
Nope.

Source
Nope.

Source
This one is slightly closer, but it wasn't the means of production and the distribution of goods, it was just temporarily purchasing controlling interest in a corporation which had just gone bankrupt.

Sorry, but it's not socialism.
You're saying tax breaks somehow become socialism when you agree to pay for them?
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/me...e-facepalm.jpg

That tax credit had an expiration date. Obama wants to extend it for 10 years at the expense of another $100 billion that isn't on the books now.

By closing a loophole, the oil companies tax bills are going to go up. I really don't expect them to absorb that cost. So part of the higher cost of petroleum products will be to cover the increased tax bills.

Corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes.

---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

No, that was a reference to Obama's latest spending/tax plan. If I was Obama and Biden, I'd hang my head in shame too.

so you're in favor of the government redistributing the tax payer's money to the energy companies in order to keep the energy companies from raising prices on the tax payers? Sounds like the tax payers are getting fucked either way, so it seems odd to be really for one side of it and really against the other

That's another form of subsidy which can be eliminated, along with Obama being honest and admitting he is raising taxes on all of us.

wait, so you're saying that cutting the subsidy will result in the energy companies passing the cost on to the consumers (bad) but you're in FAVOR of cutting the subsidy?

Obama has repeatedly said he does not wish to raise taxes on the middle class. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire this next year. He's been very consistent about stating he's only interested allowing those cuts to expire on the top 2.5% of tax payers.

But tully, he may wish to not do it but those articles and pieces on the healthcare program I've read will increase money coming out of the middle classes pockets. If you don't want to call them taxes and call them fees fine, but they still are an increase of money out of pocket with no choice to decline, just like taxes.

re: the bush tax cuts, because people with any sort of wealth have some sort of financial adviser even if it is just an accountant doing their tax planning, they have already been planning on moving as much wealth as possible this year from direct gifts to building more family trusts. I think that the impact on the rich will be minimal because of this, and if it's not done this year it will be pushed out in future years because let's face it, all politicians fit that rich mold and they have a conflicted interest in protecting their own family money.

The government shouldn't be subsidizing any business. Businesses succeed or fail on their own. Remove the subsidy to the oil company and let them deal with that. If their price goes up, so be it. We are already paying that price anyway by means of the subsidy.

Next, Obama starts aggressively cutting spending on all government programs, including funding the military to the point we have a credible defense.

Then Obama starts paying down the deficit with the money he saves by cutting government spending.

No more $50 billion giveaways to his construction buddies. No more $100 billion giveaways to his favorite corporations. His last exercise in giveaways to the tune of a $750 billion stimulus program flopped. He should not get to do it again.

All I was doing was pointing out that Obama has not said he wants to raise taxes on everyone.

On the health care issue some of what you're saying I agree with and some I do not.

Really for years costs and fees have been increasing due to tax cuts. Everything from fees to use national parks to playing sports in school. I remember when playing sports at school was a given. Now it's a pay to play program in many places. This of course has little effect on the wealthy and serious effects on the poor.

You make an interesting point about taxes and how the wealthy deal with them, almost makes me wonder why they spend so much time fighting against them. Because in many ways you're right, they simply find loop holes and shelters and don't pay anyway. Reminds me of a stump speech Bush Jr. used to give where he stated "you can't raise taxes on the wealthy, they're just going to find loop holes and hire accounts and won't end up paying anyway." Not a direct quote, but really close. That amazed me. The argument being that it's impossible to enforce the tax code so why bother? I mean it would be stupid to try to close the loop holes so lets just keep shifting more of the burden to the middle class.

At some point all the money, massive amounts of money spent on the Bush Jr. tax cuts and the wars are going to have to be paid back. Cutting education, health care, Social Security or increasing taxes on the poor and middle class seem like really good ways to ensure the wealthy keep getting more wealthy and the middle class keeps sinking lower.

Infrastructure funding is Obama's giveaway to construction buddies?
Political contributions of the construction industry are heavily towards Republicans.

So how would you pay for long overdue repair of the crumbling public infrastructure?

The stimulus program flopped? Not according to a broad consensus of economists.

The stimulus, along with the the bank bailout (TARP) and policies of the Fed kept the economy from tanking completely and turned it around to the tune to six quarters of positive GDP growth after five quarters of negative GDP growth...and significant job creation (certainly not enough to correct for the 8+ million lost in the prior eight years).

What would you have done with an economy that was sinking to the lowest levels since the Great Depression if you were in that position in 2009? Nothing and hope for the best and that the economy fixes itself w/o further significant decline?

Oh, btw...the notion that Obama is a socialist because of the temporary govt purchase of controlling interest in GM is just nonsense.

The government has begun the process of selling its GM stock as was planned.

Construction workers are heavily unionized, with unions as a major Democratic party backer

Let the states fund it. The federal government funds way too many things that should be at the state level, and with a one size fits all approach that isn't necessary.

9%+ unemployment, housing and auto sales down after Obama borrowed against futirs sailes with his stupid programs, consumer spending down, foreclosures up. Some recovery.

Yes. Eventually it will recover.

In this election cycle:
General Contractors - 61% contributions to Republicans

Special Trade Contractors - 63% contributions to Republicans

Building Materials and Equipment - 72$ contributions to Republicans


So you prefer a piecemeal approach...where smaller, poorer states will just have to live with the crumbling infrastructure that affects not only the state's economy, but the national economy as well.


So you dont think five -six quarters of positive GDP growth (ave 3+%) is a good thing? or a positive result of the government's action? Or that unemployment would have likely been even higher (as much as 2-3%) than the current 9+%.

All sectors do not recovery at once and employment is always the last to recover.

Oh and consumer spending has been going up in the last 12-18 months...not down.

Eventually?

Sure the economy would have recovered eventually?

At what cost? How many more unemployed would have been acceptable? How many more quarters of negative GDP growth would have been acceptable?

Subsidies (like tariffs) are America's way of exercising economic sovereignty in a globalized economy. Without them, America cannot compete on price due to labour, land, and other operational costs.

And you'd think Republicans (and conservatives and free-marketers in general) are okay with the high unemployment. It forces workers to accept lower-than-usual pay and removes a lot of the leverage that unions have when it comes to bargaining power. Maybe the recession will act as a long-term correction to the bloated average pay that Americans receive compared to the rest of the world. American workers, after all, are overvalued in many respects.

I guess they criticize Obama because he's "ruining it." He wants to preserve the quality of life for the average American, and that's just ruining it for the free-marketers who would have otherwise stood to benefit from a "correction" to the American labour force.

Let the market fix the economy. Let American workers earn less, and everything else will fall into place. America's wealth has been too spread out to be sustainable. Let wealth flow where it should: to the hands of the few.

conservatives advocate class war but in the main lack the ethical and intellectual integrity required to own up to what they're advocating. so they pretend its something else. but it isn't.

You can simply look at the data and see every time the cons have controlled things spending has increased, the debt has increased, the wealthy have become more wealthy and the ranks of the poor have swelled.

I'll be interested to see what happens when guys like Miller from Alaska take their seat in the senate. I find the Alaska situation interesting because while a high % of Alaskans have historically complained about federal spending they've enjoyed massive federal pork barrel hand outs. I think they're the #1 state when it comes to federal funds coming in as compared to federal taxes being paid. If Miller does as he's promised and cut the federal spending how will the pop. of his state react? Could be interesting.

I'll go along with that. Let the states pay for what they can justify and afford rather than Washington giving them money. Maybe that will help put an end to federal boondoggles and incentives for Congressmen to 'bring home the bacon'. Let's make the federal government a lean operation.

Not if Obama is artificially inflating the economy with $750 billion of borrowed money, and where he wants to do it again with at least $150 billion this year. Not when the GDP annual growth estimate for the 2nd quarter of 2010 was revised downward to 1.6% GDP Growth Revised Lower to 1.6% - TheStreet where the explanation is that the federal money supply ran out.



---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 PM ----------

So then, if the US can't compete in say the market for steel, then we the taxpayers get to subsidize the steel industry to make up the difference. Similarly with other subsidized products and services. That seems like a pretty dumb idea, especially when I'm being forced to pay for something I wouldn't use in the first place. If the people running the business can't make a profit, they should be doing something else.

They generally do if they can't get enough funding. They move operations or outsource overseas or they get cash infusions from foreign interests---China, for example.

so the state governments (that are all millions in debt) are expected to fund the infrastructure now too? Fine, raise state income taxes to Federal levels and maybe they can manage that

If the states are funding it, then they can make the decision whether the work is really needed and how to prioritize it to stay within their budgets. It means fewer projects that get created just to prove that some Senator is capable of getting money from Washington. It means the state gets done what it thinks really needs to be done rather than what somebody in Washington thinks makes a perfect one size fits all solution. Finally, it shrink's Washington's budget and their ability to meddle in things they shouldn't be be meddling in.

according to an associated press article from yesterday, the poverty rate in the united states is soaring:

The Associated Press: US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009

i expect that its required for the right to act as though these numbers follow from problems with the stimulus package, which they opposed in any event, rather than from the implementation of their core economic ideology. but that's transparently false. conservative economic ideology, implemented, is class warfare. here's the latest data that demonstrates it.

what's remarkable is that anyone takes that economic ideology seriously now given that we all know its consequences are disaster.

When you shift power from the Federal government to the State government, you end up with a State government that is just as corrupt as the Federal

You know what's funny? The guy Minnesota elected to carry the title of Governor while he runs for president has real conservative fiscal bona fides. He'd sooner cut healthcare programs for thousands of sick kids and handicapped folk than raise taxes. A few years ago, his budget policies lead to a brilliant plan whereby the state department of transportation, which was unable to secure money elsewhere, tried to front a multiyear, multihundred million dollar highway construction plan. They seemed a bit shocked when there were no takers.

It was also on his watch that a large highway bridge collapsed after a "we'll do whatever the cheapest option is" maintenance plan had been in effect for several years. Sure, the bridge construction wasn't as specified, but it stood for 40 years. Perhaps a more rigorous (and expensive!) inspection scheme would have caught the problem before it got out of hand. In a way, it was kind of a good thing that the bridge collapsed, because its collapse caused widespread bridge inspections throughout the state and now there have several instances where tenuous bridges that likely would have been ignored have been replaced.

The point being: local people already make infrastructure decisions. Sometimes they make really bad ones. Local decisions aren't always better, they're just more influenced by local politics.

Can you tell us what he is, in terms of what he stands for?

As for your list, I'll play along for a bit:

A portion of his heritage is Kenyan, why not claim it, with pride?
How does a tradition or fundamentalist Muslim view what Obama is?
What is wrong with a socialist agenda, if you believe in wealth rdistribution?
Don't some people see the use of drones an act of terrorism? Our military presence in foreign countries?
As President has Obama done anything to address the chronic problems born of institutional racism that has afflicted the African American community in this country?
Has Obama attempted to segregate, isolate and blame 1% to 2% of our nation's population, the "rich" in his case, through a campaign of propaganda?

---------- Post added at 01:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 PM ----------

Do you ever watch MSNBC?

A democrat. The best way to describe President Obama is as a democrat. He's slightly left of center, but he's afraid of looking too liberal so he moved right on certain issues (especially war/rendition/assassinations). He likes to compromise and doesn't understand how to beat Republicans at their own game.

But, Willravel, it's substantially more difficult to freak out about Obama for being a Democrat.

Point out one single Democrat thing he's done since being in office....just one single thing....I dare you!

The first Democrat thing he did was not immediately do anything upon taking office.

I really doubt that there is150,000 miles of road in the US that are in such desperate need of rebuilding that the feds have to fund it over and above state highway maintenance budgets. That's an average of 3000 miles of road in each state that is in bad shape.

If the railroads want 4,000 miles of railroad, let them fund it. The government has spent quite a bit of money tearing up old railroads and turning them into rail trails so people can 'hike' and 'bike'. Now Obama wants to spend taxpayer money to build new ones. Neat way to waste taxpayer money.

Despite some pretty graphs from some website that asks questions about astrology and other silliness to determine political orientation, Obama is not 'right of center' except in some bizarro liberal universe. If anything, he lands solidly in the the liberal camp on issues like this, and even in the socialist camp on some issues.

If true, perhaps this capsulizes the problem. For Bush, the things he did were not about beating Democrats, he acted according to his convictions. And for me, I have little respect for people who compromise their convictions or those who don't have any. For example, I read your various positions and you are consistent, we disagree on almost everything, but you have my respect.

What this thread is likely getting at is that many people who are causing problems view Obama as further left than centre-left, which he hardly is. Any claims to socialism placed on Obama are a bit silly because similar claims could be placed on Republican presidents as well.

It would seem that perhaps America should own up to its own socialism rather than pretend it's against it.

Do you need a list of things I freak out about regarding Obama. To start:

For example if I developed a 20 year relationship with you, the way Obama did with Rev. Wright, you would have a defender until death. I would never toss you to the side for political reasons. I would talk about how we may disagree, but you would be my friend, my comrade, etc. I would defend you, your rights, you eccentricities, how I understand the evolution of your views. You would always have open door to me. And it would not matter how much we disagreed. Certainly, you can bet I would never stop trying to influence you, but I could never do what Obama did with Rev. Wright. Obama's handling of Rev. Wright freaked me out. I did not understand it, never did and never will. We are wired different. the respect I had for Obama after that went close to zero.

I appreciate that.

I don't get how President Obama being a moderate capsulizes the insane accusations being lobbed against him, though. He should have pushed for single-payer and settled on a public option, but didn't, and yet "Obamacare" (the healthcare reform bill) was being characterized as a communist plot. Those accusations were so loud and so stupid they drowned out the concerns of honest people that are in trouble because of our messed up healthcare industry. Like it or not, there are substantial problems in the healthcare industry and the healthcare bill probably would have addressed them better if the administration didn't have to deal with the "death panel" or "socialism" bullshit.

What I think is going on are these are fucked-up, disingenuous political tactics. Calling President Obama a socialist or a Nazi or a Kenyan are less about abject racism or unbelievable stupidity but more about the right being willing to get down in the dirt and do some of the most despicable things I've ever seen just so they can get a majority back and get to deregulating and giving tax breaks to the rich.

Again, this is funny stuff. You could call me whatever you want, and actually if you go back and read some of the stuff I have been called, I could: I can give it back (my first choice) - ignore it (my maturity level doesn't usually allow this) - make jokes about it (my second choice) - leave (I am a fighter, death before surrender - yea, it lacks wisdom, luckily I surround myself with people wiser than me) - or get all whiny about it (the choice made by Obama and many of his supporters).

Try it, call me something. Call me a greedy capitalist pig? Call me a gun loving, mindless twit. call me irrational. Call me a war monger. Call me Pol Pot. Call me whatever you want, but as the joke goes, just don't call me late for dinner. I know what I am and what I am not.

I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the people who spread the birther lies and the death panel nonsense and the Nazi bs. These aren't being spread by Ace, but by Rush and Beck and Orly and Hannity and Palin. Those are the people I'm talking about, unless I've missed something and you're a birther or someone that thinks the president is a communist Nazi.

The liberals and Democrats complaints about Obama being labeled a socialist are rather ironic and amusing considering the years of liberal and Democratic rhetoric about Bush being a Nazi. The criticisms of Obama as a socialist are nothing by comparison.

Not only did I never call Bush a Nazi, but people like me made sure to call out the very few people on the left who did. What we did do, however, and I'm not going to apologize for that, was draw apt comparisons between what was happening from 2000-2008 in the United States and Germany in the 1930s. Were the scales the same? Of course not, and I never claimed they were. Still, the parallels were there and you can't just dismiss them because they make you uncomfortable. The thing is, though, I can actually back up my assertions. I can back up every actual complaint and accusation I ever lobbed in the direction of Bush. I have evidence. There's no evidence whatsoever President Obama was born in Kenya or he's a Nazi or a communist. I'm not just calling these things illegitimate because I disagree with them, I'm calling them illegitimate because they are in fact illegitimate. They're not opinion, they're ridiculous lies and falsehoods.

I don't recall anyone other than protesters and political bloggers and maybe MoveOn.org calling Bush a Nazi. I found this link: The Gallery of 'Bush = Hitler' Allusions

Other than that, which Democrats and liberal news media called Bush a Nazi? I tended to filter out such things while he was in office.

So which faction do you think these people consider themselves part of? Liberals? Democrats? I'm quite willing to bet that the majority, if not all were neither conservatives or Republicans.

You're using the Canadian healthcare plan as an example of a socialist program http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ml#post2822219

Obama went on public record stating he favored both of these options

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32718713/

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck...sistent_in.php

Now if he didn't believe a single payer system was the right approach, then why would he say it was on his campaign website?

The only reason we don't have the public option or the single payer option was that Obama got beaten so badly for advocating either option, not because Obama isn't a socialist.

But how many of them were politicians or in the mainstream media?

What does that matter? I did notice several relatively well known names in the list. Besides which, I rather doubt that a list which says it was last updated in 2005 is anywhere near a complete list.

It matters in that democratically elected officials and mainstream media consist of the lion's share of voices with regard to politics.

So it's ok to be a hate monger and spread lies about politicians if you're only a minor media personality. Got it. It's not my fault that Air America flopped and the liberals have no voice.

Think that if you want. I personally believe that idea to be reprehensible. I believe people communicating to the public even on a small scale should be as responsible as those communicating on a large scale. But maybe that's just me.

I don't know much about Air America, and no one's blaming you for the current state of the liberal voice in America. It's an interesting problem though. America is a rather conservative nation.

My point is that the form it has taken isn't the universal health care other nations have come to know. It's a insurance scheme. The reason why it happened is because people were freaking out about "socialized medicine" and "death panels" and so Obama had to change how he approached it, which is a shame. And this is where we get back to the OP: they demonized the health care proposal as socialist instead of seeing how it could actually work.

I think whats at the root of all these illegitimate criticisms is that we live in a society that thrives on sounds bites and buzz words, the universal health care debate is perfect example of that. If the right simply went through the proposal and listed the things they didn't like about it nobody would have paid them any attention, its not sexy enough, instead they slap together a slogan like "death panels" and like a catchy jingle suddenly it was everywhere and it was all people were talking about.

But was "death panels" and "socialized medicine" an illegitimate criticism or was it just the easiest way to get the point of "universal health care bad" across to the American public? It seems like, for better or worse, the tactic worked pretty well and I'm pretty sure its the same reason we see the other crazy stuff thrown around about him as well.

I listened to Rush a few times in the past month, and I would say he mostly makes fun of the mainstream media as they over-react to stuff. He has a subtlety to his show that if people don't get it, they take him far too serious.

No he doesn't. He himself directly supports birthers and death panelers. There's no subtlety whatsoever.

You described the Canadian socialist health care plan as having both a public option and a single payer option. Obama went on record as wanting both of those in his health care plan, which places another tick mark in the socialist column for Obama. The fact that the American public wouldn't let him have those options doesn't erase the socialist tick mark.

I like Rush the same way I like Glenn Beck, I see and hear the entertainment, that's it. Sure, they have a good idea or two every once in a while, but for the most part I find them fun and passionate and exciting.

Rush is part of the mainstream media, Ace.

Obama's position on universal health care doesn't give him an imaginary tick mark under some imaginary socialist/capitalist checklist. It won't make him a socialist any more than nationalization of S&Ls made Reagan a socialist.

Presidents use socialist tools. They use capitalist tools. The U.S. is a mixed economy. Obama is a Democrat---a liberal---not a socialist. Signing COBRA didn't make Reagan a socialist, did it?

If Obama were a socialist, his platform would include a central focus on nationalized child care, a stronger stance on supporting unions to help them thrive, a stronger thrust to grant access to post-secondary education to those who can't afford it (i.e. more than just grants and tax breaks), and a foreign policy that seeks to temper previous agreements of free trade with fair trade (probably a more aggressive stance with China with regard to their labour laws and practices), etc.

I could be missing it. Does Obama strive for these things as well?

Ask a socialist how they approve of Obama so far.

This. This exactly.

Rush toys with liberals and the liberal media. As a conservative it is very easy for me to know when he is serious and when he is not. On a few occasions while listening to his show he even announces how he expects liberals to reacts to what he is going to say, either taking it out of context or misinterpreting it, and I have seen it happen. Rush is first an entertainer, he knows it, and he knows being edgy sells. Every time he is mentioned by the Obama team, liberals in the press, MSNBC, it is $$$$$$$ for Rush. Obama would be better served to ignore Rush. As for the others, for example, without Rush or Beck, what would the folks hosting MSNBC shows talk about now that Palin is fading a bit. They actually promote mis-information by talking about it all the time.

---------- Post added at 03:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 PM ----------

No more than Larry the Cable Guy is! Sure Rush has a radio talk show, but that is not my standard for mainstream media. I think of shows like Meet The Press, publications like the New York Times, News Week, etc, as the mainstream media. I think of Rush has having a fringe audience, perhaps that is why I don't understand why liberals seem to be obsessed with him. Like many, I now listen to his show when I am driving around just to see what all the fuss is about. Same with Beck. When I first saw his show, I thought he was a joke, and never watched again until, I was virtually forced to, just to see what he was actually saying.

how nice that you have an official limbaugh decoder ring, ace. did you have to send away for that or did it come with the koolaid?

Wait.... an 8-year, $400-million deal with Clear Channel and over 15 million weekly listeners and you don't consider that mainstream?

Wow....since when is an audience of 15 million a fringe audience? The New York Times doesn't even have 1 million in its daily circulation. Does that make the Times a fringe newspaper? Even if you consider NYTimes.com's 18 million or so unique visitors, I'd hardly call Limbaugh's show "fringe." It's currently the most listened-to radio show in America.

I love you guys. So keep the rest in perspective.

I heard susan Boyle had 100 million hits on her YouTube audition video. Not mainstream.

Lady GaGa makes political statements, her audience is bigger than Rush's. Not mainstream.

If a person's show is an AM radio show, by definition (in my book) it ain't mainstream. Is Rush even on XM or Sirius?

I was doing some traveling by car in rural areas in the Southeast last month. Here is what you get on AM radio: Rush, college football talk, foreign language radio (mostly Spanish), religion, and I am not kidding, there was a Radio garage sale, good for about 300 miles - callers would call in and describe an item for sale, like a used post hole digger, and other callers would call in to inquire about it. I am not kidding! So if Rush has 15 million people who have to drive around and listen to his show each week because they speak English, don't care about college football, don't want to hear a religious sermon, or participate in a radio garage sale, and that makes him mainstream in your book. All I can say is - I love you man!:thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 04:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------

Thats some funny stuff! Between your post and Baraka's, i have tears in my eyes from laughter. Thanks. Time for lunch, I think I will tune in Rush on my way to McDonald's.