Are republicans willing to let the economy fail to win an election?

here's a better question for you deckard and the I'm a real democrat crowd. what liberal initiatives did the great liberal bill clinton pass through? wellfare reform, a balanced budget deal

by the way, two good pieces of legislation.

 

Did Mr. Clinton change his name to Mr. Obama? I didn't know.

 

what does that mean? clinton didn't sign a balanced budget deal? he didn't sign welfare reform?

 

It means he isn't President Obama and I'm not going to discuss his record. I've been there, done that.

 

oh you have no retort. thanks

 

Another great post. Much of my aggravation with american politics stems from the lame "choices" offered. If the options are "lousy middle ground" and "lousier middle ground", democracy dun goofed.

 

i mean healthcare reform makes him more of a democrat than clinton ever was. clinton did a great job in those negotiations by the way his time around.

look, i don't like to be in a position to criticize clinton, but when you make ridiculous statements about his democratedness, all we can do is compare and contrast.

 

Actually, he was elected by the American people. I know you like to believe that he's just there to serve Democratic interests, but he's not.

Honestly, I don't care one bit if you're upset. You get to vote for who you want to vote for. If you don't like him, that's your choice and you can always choose to not support him. Doesn't affect me in the least. Like I said, for anyone who's been paying attention, he's never been a progressive or a leftist. If you expected that from him, that seems to be your failing - not his.

As noted in this discussion, he talked about reforming entitlements from day #1. It shouldn't remotely come as a surprise to you that he might actually try to do that.

 

but to claim he's ineffective, you have to start from the premise that he is only there to preserve democratic ideals. i can see people arguing that he hasn't kept his promises on some civil liberty issues, even though I debate that from the other side. but some of the other complaints are just outlandish given the political climate he is operating in

 

pgabriel, I have an enormous amount of respect for you, but when it comes to the President, you are the D&D equivalent of a toaster. There is no criticism that is valid. Not for you. It doesn't matter how much one supports the man, that he/she voted for him, gave money to his campaign. Simply criticize him and you are on it like butter on toast. Actually, I admire that about you. You have a position I can understand, unlike some around here. Kudos.

 

personal attacks, no rebuttals, thanks.

 

You consider that a personal attack? I was being sincere.

 

yes calling me the equivalent of a "yao only fan", no it was a compliment

 

OK, my apologies. While the comparison might be apt in a D&D context, it's not in the wider world of ClutchFans. I won't use it again.

 

Didn't Obama pass a healthcare reform bill that was almost identical to what Republicans were proposing as a counter to Clinton back in the 1990s? Wouldn't that make Obama more of a 90s era Republican than Clinton?

 

This is verging towards derail territory, but to be fair, I think Obama's record on other issues helps debunk that. and, really, healthcare reform was hijacked from the beginning by the crazies, such that the watered-down bill was basically all you could pass through the party of No. I'm actually fairly sure in my heart, that had he been given the choice, the President would have passed the public option. However, that's neither here or there though, since that was more or less political suicide and an impossibility.

 

He promised to end the Bush tax cuts on those making more than 250k, to close the Gitmo detention center, to increase oversight on government surveillance, to fight for a public option in the health care reform, to introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill in his first year in office.

 

2 points:

1) There are none in American politics. however, you can mince words all you want, Obama sold himself as one, at least to a point.
2) Regardless, this hardly indemnifies him from criticism in that regard. Infact, it's all the more prudent given his sales pitch during the campaign.

Recently he talked about a "balanced way" that does not "slash benefits". For what it's worth, democrats are now stunned at the change in attitude. But I suppose anyone who assumed Obama was a democrat is a foolish maroon. He only ran as their nominated candidate, after all.

I dislike the "party this" or "party that" bull**** as much as anyone, but the argument you're making here Major provides a huge loophole for any president accused of abandoning his base or his campaign pledges. More to the point, I don't think anyone here is against reforming social security. I'm against blanket cuts to it at the expense of far more useless federal funding (DoD, wars, stupid tax cuts) and I'm alarmed inasmuch as Obama's compromises often turn out to be carefully orchestrated caves (e.g., the public option).

 

But he *didn't* sell himself as a progressive during the campaign. Edwards was the progressive in the race. On the biggest issue in the primary - health care - Obama ran to the right of both Hillary and Edwards, for example - even designing a plan that didn't include an individual mandate. He certainly ran fairly to the right on defense issues as well ("invading" Pakistan, for example).

He was progressive by default when compared to McCain. But he was never the progressive in the primary. He became the candidate the progressives supported because Edwards dropped out and they didn't like Hillary, but that was about it.

He's STILL talking about reforming entitlements without slashing benefits. That doesn't mean making no changes to benefits - it means not crushing the programs.

From that article, they were stunned that he was even willing to talk about SS - not that he was slashing benefits. Here's the Obama Admin response to the Dem griping:

"The story overshoots the runway," said a senior administration
official. "The President said in the State of the Union that he wanted a
bipartisan process to strengthen Social Security in a balanced way that
preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

"While it is definitely not a driver of the deficit," the official added, "it does need to be strengthened."[i/]

Does that sound any different from the article I posted from 2009?

What are the blanket cuts? If you're for reforming SS, what do you propose?

 

Salon now has a piece up giving the pgabriel POV.