The progressive case against Obama: The president is complicit in creating an increasingly unequal -- and unjust -- society

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 2:59 PM GMT
    Of course, the irony of most direct social policy interventions is that they tend to make the poor poorer and are more about trying to bring down the rich than raise the status of those who are poor.

    http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/

    While life has never been fair, the chart above shows that, since World War II, this level of official legal, political and economic inequity for the broad mass of the public is new (though obviously for subgroups, like African-Americans, it was not new). It is as if America’s traditional racial segregationist tendencies have been reorganized, and the tools and tactics of that system have been repurposed for a multicultural elite colonizing a multicultural population. The data bears this out: Under Bush, economic inequality was bad, as 65 cents of every dollar of income growth went to the top 1 percent. Under Obama, however, that number is 93 cents out of every dollar. That’s right, under Barack Obama there is more economic inequality than under George W. Bush. And if you look at the chart above, most of this shift happened in 2009-2010, when Democrats controlled Congress. This was not, in other words, the doing of the mean Republican Congress. And it’s not strictly a result of the financial crisis; after all, corporate profits did crash, like housing values did, but they also recovered, while housing values have not.

    This is the shape of the system Obama has designed. It is intentional, it is the modern American order, and it has a certain equilibrium, the kind we identify in Middle Eastern resource extraction based economies. We are even seeing, as I showed in an earlier post, a transition of the American economic order toward a petro-state. By some accounts, America will be the largest producer of hydrocarbons in the world, bigger than Saudi Arabia. This is just not an America that any of us should want to live in. It is a country whose economic basis is oligarchy, whose political system is authoritarianism, and whose political culture is murderous toward the rest of the world and suicidal in our aggressive lack of attention to climate change.

    Many will claim that Obama was stymied by a Republican Congress. But the primary policy framework Obama put in place – the bailouts, took place during the transition and the immediate months after the election, when Obama had enormous leverage over the Bush administration and then a dominant Democratic Party in Congress. In fact, during the transition itself, Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson offered a deal to Barney Frank, to force banks to write down mortgages and stem foreclosures if Barney would speed up the release of TARP money. Paulson demanded, as a condition of the deal, that Obama sign off on it. Barney said fine, but to his surprise, the incoming president vetoed the deal. Yup, you heard that right — the Bush administration was willing to write down mortgages in response to Democratic pressure, but it was Obama who said no, we want a foreclosure crisis. And with Neil Barofsky’s book ”Bailout,” we see why. Tim Geithner said, in private meetings, that the foreclosure mitigation programs were not meant to mitigate foreclosures, but to spread out pain for the banks, the famous “foam the runway” comment. This central lie is key to the entire Obama economic strategy. It is not that Obama was stymied by Congress, or was up against a system, or faced a massive crisis, which led to the shape of the economy we see today. Rather, Obama had a handshake deal to help the middle class offered to him by Paulson, and Obama said no. He was not constrained by anything but his own policy instincts. And the reflation of corporate profits and financial assets and death of the middle class were the predictable results.

    The rest of Obama’s policy framework looks very different when you wake up from the dream state pushed by cable news. Obama’s history of personal use of illegal narcotics, combined with his escalation of the war on medical marijuana (despite declining support for the drug war in the Democratic caucus), shows both a personal hypocrisy and destructive cynicism that we should decry in anyone, let alone an important policymaker who helps keep a half a million people in jail for participating in a legitimate economy outlawed by the drug warrior industry. But it makes sense once you realize that his policy architecture coheres with a Romney-like philosophy that there is one set of rules for the little people, and another for the important people. It’s why the administration quietly pushed Chinese investment in American infrastructure, seeks to privatize public education, removed labor protections from the FAA authorization bill, and inserted a provision into the stimulus bill ensuring AIG bonuses would be paid, and then lied about it to avoid blame. Wall Street speculator who rigged markets are simply smart and savvy businessmen, as Obama called Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon, whereas the millions who fell prey to their predatory lending schemes are irresponsible borrowers. And it’s why Obama is explicitly targeting entitlements, insurance programs for which Americans paid. Obama wants to preserve these programs for the “most vulnerable,” but that’s still a taking. Did not every American pay into Social Security and Medicare? They did, but as with the foreclosure crisis, property rights (which are essential legal rights) of the rest of us are irrelevant. While Romney is explicit about 47 percent of the country being worthless, Obama just acts as if they are charity cases. In neither case does either candidate treat the mass of the public as fellow citizens.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 3:07 PM GMT

    Topic got moved off the main forum of all things gay. icon_lol.gif

    Beware of being accused of spamming the boards with topics. Now go hit auto refresh to generate 10 thousand views.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 3:09 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Topic got moved off the main forum of all things gay. icon_lol.gif

    Beware of being accused of spamming the boards with topics. Now go hit auto refresh to generate 10 thousand views.


    Er, I deleted it and reposted it because I realized I posted it in the wrote subject area. You're such a fool. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 3:11 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    Topic got moved off the main forum of all things gay. icon_lol.gif

    Beware of being accused of spamming the boards with topics. Now go hit auto refresh to generate 10 thousand views.


    Er, I deleted it and reposted it because I realized I posted it in the wrote subject area. You're such a fool. icon_wink.gif


    Rofl, you dope, of course you moved it. See the line about beware.

    ...and I'm trolling you. icon_lol.gif

    Now hurry up and finish the job with your 10 thousand views method.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 3:13 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    Topic got moved off the main forum of all things gay. icon_lol.gif

    Beware of being accused of spamming the boards with topics. Now go hit auto refresh to generate 10 thousand views.


    Er, I deleted it and reposted it because I realized I posted it in the wrote subject area. You're such a fool. icon_wink.gif


    Rofl, you dope, of course you moved it. See the line about beware.

    ...and I'm trolling you. icon_lol.gif

    Now hurry up and finish the job with your 10 thousand views method.


    Sorry, I hadn't noticed you had been behaving any differently. I mean it's up to par with your other posts. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Why would I hit my posts with 10k views?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 3:21 PM GMT


    "Why would I hit my posts with 10k views?"

    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 3:49 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    "Why would I hit my posts with 10k views?"

    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif


    I've always been about the ideas. You can track the history of all my postings as such. I also post what seems to be a contrarian view here - and I have some knowledge of finance and accounting and can often easily point out deficiencies as was the case with you and what is your attempt to "troll" me.

    But again, I hadn't noticed any difference in the quality of your posts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 3:53 PM GMT

    No dear, you ARE a contrarian. Something you admitted to when you first arrived. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 3:55 PM GMT
    Since Riddler is not a progressive, I don't see what business he has posting such a topic.

    We progressives may not be completely satisfied with Obama, but he's clearly infinitely better than the alternative.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 3:56 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    No dear, you ARE a contrarian. Something you admitted to when you first arrived. icon_lol.gif


    Oh absolutely I've never been shy or secretive about the fact I hold views that are contrary to many here including your own - of course with the weak and almost always unconvincing counter arguments like your claims of how things like minimum wage help the poor is it any wonder why you often come across as foolish? icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 3:59 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidSince Riddler is not a progressive, I don't see what business he has posting such a topic.

    We progressives may not be completely satisfied with Obama, but he's clearly infinitely better than the alternative.


    Ah so you progressives are lemmings who speak as one and move together? I've posted it just to point out because it's relevant under News & Politics. I'm not a progressive - so does that mean that those who aren't should be silenced from posting anything relating to progressives?
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 29, 2012 4:21 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidSince Riddler is not a progressive, I don't see what business he has posting such a topic.


    It's called desperation. Romney has no path to 270, especially now that he cannot campaign in the states he needs this week due to Sandy. Republicans know this and are entering freak out mode.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 29, 2012 4:40 PM GMT
    Ooooh....... You bin readin WAY too much Ann Coulter Sweetheart icon_biggrin.gif

    Stay away from the light..... Stay away from the light
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 5:04 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    TigerTim saidSince Riddler is not a progressive, I don't see what business he has posting such a topic.


    It's called desperation. Romney has no path to 270, especially now that he cannot campaign in the states he needs this week due to Sandy. Republicans know this and about to enter freak out mode.


    Heh - do you actually believe that? I think it's too close to call at this point but the Republicans clearly think they are seeing a surge with a number of bloggers posting comments about how Obama may lose Wisconsin. It will all depend on turnout.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 29, 2012 5:51 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidHeh - do you actually believe that? I think it's too close to call at this point but the Republicans clearly think they are seeing a surge with a number of bloggers posting comments about how Obama may lose Wisconsin. It will all depend on turnout.


    Yeah well, Republicans see a lot of things that are not based in facts and figures but in their own fantasies, for example, how gays are destroying society and how rape is sometimes legitimate. I've no doubt they're seeing a path to victory for Romney through Wisconsin. They have to cling to hope somewhere.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 6:32 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    No dear, you ARE a contrarian. Something you admitted to when you first arrived. icon_lol.gif


    Oh absolutely I've never been shy or secretive about the fact I hold views that are contrary to many here including your own - of course with the weak and almost always unconvincing counter arguments like your claims of how things like minimum wage help the poor is it any wonder why you often come across as foolish? icon_wink.gif


    uh...you'd better look up the word contrarian. Especially about contrarians that are doing so to make political gain, instead of using reason. Now go figure out a mathematical equation for the human condition.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 6:32 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    No dear, you ARE a contrarian. Something you admitted to when you first arrived. icon_lol.gif


    Oh absolutely I've never been shy or secretive about the fact I hold views that are contrary to many here including your own - of course with the weak and almost always unconvincing counter arguments like your claims of how things like minimum wage help the poor is it any wonder why you often come across as foolish? icon_wink.gif


    uh...you'd better look up the word contrarian. Especially about contrarians that are doing so to make political gain, instead of using reason. Now go figure out a mathematical equation for the human condition.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 6:32 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    No dear, you ARE a contrarian. Something you admitted to when you first arrived. icon_lol.gif


    Oh absolutely I've never been shy or secretive about the fact I hold views that are contrary to many here including your own - of course with the weak and almost always unconvincing counter arguments like your claims of how things like minimum wage help the poor is it any wonder why you often come across as foolish? icon_wink.gif


    uh...you'd better look up the word contrarian. Especially about contrarians that are doing so to make political gain, instead of using reason. Now go figure out a mathematical equation for the human condition.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 7:02 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    riddler78 saidHeh - do you actually believe that? I think it's too close to call at this point but the Republicans clearly think they are seeing a surge with a number of bloggers posting comments about how Obama may lose Wisconsin. It will all depend on turnout.


    Yeah well, Republicans see a lot of things that are not based in facts and figures but in their own fantasies, for example, how gays are destroying society and how rape is sometimes legitimate. I've no doubt they're seeing a path to victory for Romney through Wisconsin. They have to cling to hope somewhere.


    Heh - it seems a bit absurd to malign all Republicans with that brush given that there aren't an insignificant number of Dems who share similar beliefs but regardless, if you actually believe what you're saying you're delusional. I think it's quite possible for Romney to lose, just as I see it quite possible at this point that Obama loses - *and* loses Ohio given the current polling. If you don't see this as at least within the realm of possibility pretty close to the 50% mark, the only one you're fooling is yourself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 7:02 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    No dear, you ARE a contrarian. Something you admitted to when you first arrived. icon_lol.gif


    Oh absolutely I've never been shy or secretive about the fact I hold views that are contrary to many here including your own - of course with the weak and almost always unconvincing counter arguments like your claims of how things like minimum wage help the poor is it any wonder why you often come across as foolish? icon_wink.gif


    uh...you'd better look up the word contrarian. Especially about contrarians that are doing so to make political gain, instead of using reason. Now go figure out a mathematical equation for the human condition.





    Heh - you think you have been using reason. How quaint. icon_lol.gif.

    Incidentally I see myself as a bit of a contrarian given my specific views moreso than that I believe what I do based on being contrarian. Of course, someone like you wouldn't have the ability to see the difference. I am really beginning to think that you do confuse your ignorance with wisdom. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 29, 2012 10:06 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidHeh - it seems a bit absurd to malign all Republicans with that brush given that there aren't an insignificant number of Dems who share similar beliefs but regardless, if you actually believe what you're saying you're delusional. I think it's quite possible for Romney to lose, just as I see it quite possible at this point that Obama loses - *and* loses Ohio given the current polling. If you don't see this as at least within the realm of possibility pretty close to the 50% mark, the only one you're fooling is yourself.


    Democrats do not have anti-gay language in the party platform: the party platform explicitly endorses gay marriage. The party platform also includes language protecting women's rights. If there are Democrats who have opposing views, then they are insignificant because they have no influence on the party platforms.

    Republicans, meanwhile, have anti-gay language in their platform. Meaning that drawing a contrast between the two parties on "those views" is not absurd at all. In fact, the difference is obvious and significant. Republicans who are not women-hating homophobes are the ones who are insignificant, given their ongoing inability to get the party to remove anti-gay, anti-women language from its platform and policies.

    As to me fooling myself, I'm pretty sure I'll take the analysis of expert statisticians Nate Silver and Sam Wang over your "I pulled this out of my ass" wishful thinking any day of the week. Nice try, though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 10:09 PM GMT


    Riddler would rather have this kind of just society, as long as he could get rich.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 10:47 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Riddler would rather have this kind of just society, as long as he could get rich.




    Yep - figures that you'd dip so low as to attempt to paint me now as supporting all policies some Republicans support or in this case Romney supports - or does he?

    First, given the video clip doesn't provide context. Is he saying that it's wrong for gays to adopt?

    No. In fact, this was a long since debunked attack from the Obama Campaign from the left leaning Politifact:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/14/barack-obama/obama-ad-says-romney-opposes-gay-adoption/

    What he did state explicitly was that a birth certificate should include the names of the mother and father - and unless something in science has changed, does every birth not require a mother and father? I certainly don't agree with the idea that "every child has a right to have a mother and a father" but that is in fact, factually true that "every child does have a biological mother and father". The laws in the US will change as I have repeatedly shown you in demographics even within the Republican party. The Republican party will almost certainly also change with time. The question in this election is whether or not poor will be poorer while bureaucrats and technocrats are allowed to pursue class warfare making us all the world over worse off.

    And as long as I can get rich? You have such a limited knowledge of economics it's laughable. You think that it's a question of money rather than the value - but how can I fault you really for being so small minded when your mind really is so small?

    Meanwhile when it comes to so called "progressive" thinkers... the left celebrates those like Che Guevera despite the fact he hated gays, artists and the like and had a number executed for it. But I mean he hated rich people so he must be ok? That's the kind of logic you bring to the table... which is shall we say limited at best?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2012 10:49 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    riddler78 saidHeh - it seems a bit absurd to malign all Republicans with that brush given that there aren't an insignificant number of Dems who share similar beliefs but regardless, if you actually believe what you're saying you're delusional. I think it's quite possible for Romney to lose, just as I see it quite possible at this point that Obama loses - *and* loses Ohio given the current polling. If you don't see this as at least within the realm of possibility pretty close to the 50% mark, the only one you're fooling is yourself.


    Democrats do not have anti-gay language in the party platform: the party platform explicitly endorses gay marriage. The party platform also includes language protecting women's rights. If there are Democrats who have opposing views, then they are insignificant because they have no influence on the party platforms.

    Republicans, meanwhile, have anti-gay language in their platform. Meaning that drawing a contrast between the two parties on "those views" is not absurd at all. In fact, the difference is obvious and significant. Republicans who are not women-hating homophobes are the ones who are insignificant, given their ongoing inability to get the party to remove anti-gay, anti-women language from its platform and policies.

    As to me fooling myself, I'm pretty sure I'll take the analysis of expert statisticians Nate Silver and Sam Wang over your "I pulled this out of my ass" wishful thinking any day of the week. Nice try, though.


    Do you see anti-gay marriage equivalent to being anti-gay? Anti-women? Do you see anti-abortion as being anti-women? You do realize that there are a large number of women who also agree with those policies.

    As for your taking of analysis - they deal with probability - you are suggesting that the win is a foregone conclusion which is a conclusion they most certainly have not reached. In your words, "nice try, though."
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Oct 29, 2012 10:57 PM GMT

    i6yvea.jpg