Support NeoGAF

[Black Mamba]

As always, I think this is a somewhat unreasonable analysis of Obama's accomplishments in office. He has, in fact, succeeded, through Obamacare, in creating a new social safety net for America, while reframing the American political debate in a way that is designed to build solidarity among historically alienated groups on the left, while fracturing the right and leaving the Randian masters of the GOP with little ability to accomplish their goals. To me this seems pretty good! And, yes, he did it conservatively, and OWS played a major role from my perspective, but it got done, and we're that much closer to a functionally socialist support structure.

It's easy to view politics in terms of what's happening this month or this year, but Reagan, for example, was a landmark conservative president not merely because of the bills he passed while in office, but because of the enduring change in the political conversation in America. I think that's more valuable in the long term, even if it's less obvious in the short term.

While I, and obviously many others here, wish Obama and the Dems pulled the country and party more to the left, I find it weird that some people are seemingly arguing the country has moved right via policies. Uh, no it has not. We just raised taxes on the upper class twice since Obama came in (Obamacare and Fiscal cliff). Obamacare is certainly to the left of the status quo of the time (as you point out). Dodd-Frank is actual regulation on the financial industry. On social policy, it's not even close. The ending of DADT, Lilly-ledbetter, not defending DOMA in court, etc.

Has Obama been forced to compromise way more than many thought and pull much less left than desired? Of course. The Republican party has guaranteed as much. But we've finally pulled back ever so slightly on the policies of the past 30 years.

I don't think people realize how hard it's going to be in this country to undo Reaganism. This isn't something that will be done in a single generation. It's going to take time. Hell, if not for Bush fucking up Iraq (something that nothing to do with domestic policy), who knows how much of that would have been undone to this point compared to now.

Sometimes the first few steps are the slowest and hardest. Again, this is why the GOP is fighting so fucking hard against Obamacare. Once it's implemented and is largely successful, those that are not cast in its net will start to demand a public option. They fucking know this. It's inevitable. These people are going to fight tooth and nail against change no different that the radicals of a religion fought reformation or the South against slavery. Tools different, but it's how it happens.

They will lose eventually. You just have to keep fighting, understand the context of the situation, and make sure to continue taking steps toward the ultimate goal without jeopardizing it through idealism.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I wouldn't say that, but organizing is definitely important. Having a simple message and goals that can be easily understood and that are hard to distort are important. Combo that with a large series of protests and you can really effect some change.

Yeah, I think that explains it better. Like way back when, protests and organizations were under Communist Party control and you had to pay dues and such because it does take money and a considerable amount of effort hence the Tea Party "success".

That's because you want to maintain the status quo. Protesting isn't some sort of fun vacation for many people, they do it because they are so disenfranchised that they can no longer work within the current structure. But whatever, just pretend it was their fault, and that their actions are futile. Pretend that they actually have options had they just pulled their social capital bootstraps, had they just had enough money to actually influence the system.

Victim blaming is a forte of the American people.

Whoa, that's a bit presumptuous and not at all what I was getting at.

I was in high school and participated in the huge rallies against the Iraq war and have been in many pro-immigration rallies, so I'm a bit jaded.

 

[pigeon]

Any change for the benefit of the proles (as I am one) is good, but I think he should have worked from further in the left - especially when it comes to students and environment. I think it would also be safe to say that this is the most power given to corporations in quite a long time (aggregate, obviously Reagan did the most to unchain them), and even when it benefits the proles, he made sure it was in a very favorable way for corporations and his class.

Why do you think this? Can you give examples of how Obama expanded the power of corporations over, say, George W.? This seems rather rote to me when considering a president who began the creation of a health care system instrumental to empowering labor against rent-seekers, not to mention Dodd-Frank and the CPFB.

BTW: I don't think it much matters that the Right is fractured, the Right is just a facade over the class, and they get their will done for the most part by both parties.

Frankly, this position strikes me as rather absurd. For one thing, to a person of color, GLBT, immigrant, or other disenfranchised group, the idea that the Democratic and Republican parties are similar is comical in the extreme -- but even putting privilege aside for the moment, it seems ridiculous to me to suggest that a party that just attempted (and failed) to essentially eliminate funding for such basic government apparatuses as roads and bridges cannot be distinguished from its opposite. To my mind, such a position requires you to not be paying much attention to what's actually happening.

edit:

While I, and obviously many others here, wish Obama and the Dems pulled the country and party more to the left, I find it weird that some people are seemingly arguing the country has moved right via policies. Uh, no it has not. We just raised taxes on the upper class twice since Obama came in (Obamacare and Fiscal cliff). Obamacare is certainly to the left of the status quo of the time (as you point out). Dodd-Frank is actual regulation on the financial industry. On social policy, it's not even close. The ending of DADT, Lilly-ledbetter, not defending DOMA in court, etc.

Absolutely agreed, and a constant source of bemusement to me in these discussions. I'm not sure whether Obama is terrible at messaging his accomplishments or whether American liberals are just bad at understanding when they're winning. I assume they're mostly just not used to it.

 

[thepotatoman]

Protesting is an overrated way of making "change" happen, especially if the organization is opposed to organizing such as Occupy.

The whole romantic ideal of getting out in the streets as an end goal of 'disruption' or attention is just antiquated and inefficient.

Even just getting people to see a view that they wouldn't otherwise see is pretty important. The first step of change is to get the public on your side, but to do that you have to get people to know your side even exists and exists in a large number of people's minds. It's not an overnight process but you have to start somewhere.

For the longest time the gay pride parade was pretty much the only thing all year round that made people aware that potentially the current way we think and do things about gays is wrong and made people that support gay rights realize they weren't alone and could speak out as well.

The parade was treated like a joke, and gay rights still got very little support up through the 90s. But now the issue is clearly avalanching into support for complete rights for the LGBT community in a huge way. If those parades never happened, I'm not sure if we'd even ever think of gay marriage as a debate topic.

 

[KtSlime]

I was in high school and participated in the huge rallies against the Iraq war and have been in many pro-immigration rallies, so I'm a bit jaded.

Perhaps I read in your message something that was not intended. Demonstrations are an important job of the underprivileged class, and I felt your message indicated that we somehow were beyond that, and that there was already an adequate system of representation, which I believe is not the case. I'm sorry if I was excessive.

Why do you think this? Can you give examples of how Obama expanded the power of corporations over, say, George W.? This seems rather rote to me when considering a president who began the creation of a health care system instrumental to empowering labor against rent-seekers, not to mention Dodd-Frank and the CPFB.



Frankly, this position strikes me as rather absurd. For one thing, to a person of color, GLBT, immigrant, or other disenfranchised group, the idea that the Democratic and Republican parties are similar is comical in the extreme -- but even putting privilege aside for the moment, it seems ridiculous to me to suggest that a party that just attempted (and failed) to essentially eliminate funding for such basic government apparatuses as roads and bridges cannot be distinguished from its opposite. To my mind, such a position requires you to not be paying much attention to what's actually happening.

edit:



Absolutely agreed, and a constant source of bemusement to me in these discussions. I'm not sure whether Obama is terrible at messaging his accomplishments or whether American liberals are just bad at understanding when they're winning. I assume they're mostly just not used to it.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to give you the reply I would like to write as I am about to head out, so perhaps I will have to do so tomorrow. But I am not talking about the parties per se, but the class structure that are below them. I definitely recognize the differences between the parties, but I also recognize that it is people in Washington are those who are in Obama social sphere, and not the downtrodden. We all navigate multiple habitus, and the agents in the habitus that pays Obama's bills are completely foreign to me, they are of the opposing class. And they have much more sway over Obama than the people who voted for him.

I am grateful for the social progress that has occurred under Obama's watch/leadership. But I was voting for more. I am no better off than I was (actually I'm worse off) than when I voted for him. I know it wasn't all his fault, but many of his cabinet choices do not instill me with confidence. For instance it is my view that Summers is a crook/liar/confidence man - I'm willing to change my mind with evidence if you got any that he is the best man for the job.

Sorry that this post is likely not sufficient to bridge our differences, I'll try and present something better tomorrow.

 

[TomServo]

I have to agree with the OWS arguments being made. I was a rather large supporter even early on, but it could have done so much more if they had been better organized. They should have just focused on one thing and kicked the Ron Paul Gold Bugs out when they showed up.

OWS fell into the same trap that the nascent (non-AstroTurf) Tea Party did. On one side you get co-opted by mainstream voices using the attention for their own advancement (i.e. Jay Z), on the other side you get derision from the fringe that latches on (for the Tea Party this was the prepper gold bugs).

The original folks gets crowded out because of one side, dismissed because of the other.

Why do you think this? Can you give examples of how Obama expanded the power of corporations over, say, George W.? This seems rather rote to me when considering a president who began the creation of a health care system instrumental to empowering labor against rent-seekers, not to mention Dodd-Frank and the CPFB.

I wouldn't say Obama has *expanded* corporate power, but frankly I'm not sure how much more room it has to expand.

To elaborate on your question with a question (and example), why hasn't Corzine faced even the specter of prosecution?

 

[Oblivion]

 

[NYCmetsfan]

A man can dream

Though I do want to ask why why still got commie departments like labor and health? Let's let the market figure em out.

 

[pigeon]

But I am not talking about the parties per se, but the class structure that are below them. I definitely recognize the differences between the parties, but I also recognize that it is people in Washington are those who are in Obama social sphere, and not the downtrodden. We all navigate multiple habitus, and the agents in the habitus that pays Obama's bills are completely foreign to me, they are of the opposing class. And they have much more sway over Obama than the people who voted for him.

I mean, I don't think this is crazy, but it also seems somewhat fatalistic to me. Even if the impossible happened and a third-party candidate became a competitive Presidential choice, if they won they'd have to move to the District and engage day by day with the same people who work there now. If you just want to indict the system, I generally agree with you, but I think it's silly to discount incremental change while doing so.

For instance it is my view that Summers is a crook/liar/confidence man - I'm willing to change my mind with evidence if you got any that he is the best man for the job.

I'm not sure I think he's a crook, but I don't see any particular reason to choose him for the job. Yellen's better, but as Yglesias points out, both candidates are marked by their satisfaction with the meek monetary policy we have now. If you gave me the reins, I'd pick Paul Krugman. Or empty vessel.

I wouldn't say Obama has *expanded* corporate power, but frankly I'm not sure how much more room it has to expand.

To elaborate on your question with a question (and example), why hasn't Corzine faced even the specter of prosecution?

I would probably prefer to charge Corzine, but I'm not convinced that specific examples of people who got away with something are sufficient to prove a charge of overweening corporate power. Also, in fairness, that story is only a month old! There's plenty of time for things to change there.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Or empty vessel.

Lol give me someone who values real world factors and wouldn't see controlling the fed as some philosophical exercise.

 

[pigeon]

Lol give me someone who values real world factors and wouldn't see controlling the fed as some philosophical exercise.

Kind of the point, though, is that what we need today is an irresponsible choice, someone who won't consider "real-world factors"-- just making a reckless and unexpected selection for central banker will do most of the work we're expecting the new central banker to do with regards to resetting market expectations. To use my other example, Krugman would probably be lousy at almost all of the consensus-building, politics-managing work that the head of the Fed usually does, but precisely because of those lacks he would be very effective at convincing the market that we mean business. Especially because Krugman is the one who's been making that argument for the last three years!

:slatepitch:

 

[zero shift]

Lol give me someone who values real world factors and wouldn't see controlling the fed as some philosophical exercise.

Are you joking or really mud slinging?

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Can we all agree that Obama has successfully divided the GOP like no other Democrat has? Whether it be intentional or unintentional.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Kind of the point, though, is that what we need today is an irresponsible choice, someone who won't consider "real-world factors"-- just making any reckless and unexpected selection for central banker will do most of the work we're expecting the new central banker to do with regards to resetting market expectations. To use my other example, Krugman would probably be lousy at almost all of the consensus-building, politics-managing work that the head of the Fed usually does, but precisely because of those lacks he would be very effective at convincing the market that we mean business. Especially because Krugman is the one who's been making that argument for the last three years!

:slatepitch:

I guess we differ on what we want from a fed chair. I don't want a radically upsetting pick. Leave that stuff to Congress and fiscal policy.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Are you joking or really mud slinging?

It wasn't meant to be a personal attack just point out MMT tends to view monetary policy as a purely academic exercise. It ignores psychology. I agree with some of their statements but their prescriptions leave something lacking.

 

[TomServo]

I would probably prefer to charge Corzine, but I'm not convinced that specific examples of people who got away with something are sufficient to prove a charge of overweening corporate power. Also, in fairness, that story is only a month old! There's plenty of time for things to change there.

What?! MF Global happened in 2011! The guy should be in prison by now.

 

[Link]

I think I just had a stroke.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think I just had a stroke.

Out of pure joy right?

 

[pigeon]

What?! MF Global happened in 2011! The guy should be in prison by now.

The CFTC just filed civil charges in July. I assumed your criticism was because you felt that they were too lenient in not alleging fraud. If you just wanted things to all be done by now, I feel like your criticism is less about Corzine and more about the generally sluggish nature of our legal system!

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I guess we differ on what we want from a fed chair. I don't want a radically upsetting pick. Leave that stuff to Congress and fiscal policy.

And how is that working out so far?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

And how is that working out so far?

Horribly. But that's where reform should be fixed. The fed isn't the place to do it.

 

[Black Mamba]

The problem with picking a radical Fed chairman is that if the Fed does something, the potential outcomes are either completely devastating at worst or slightly helpful at best.

That's not the range of outcomes you want with a radical choice.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The problem with picking a radical Fed chairman is that if the Fed does something, the potential outcomes are either completely devastating at worst or slightly helpful at best.

That's not the range of outcomes you want with a radical choice.

Exactly, there is really not much a fed chair can do without the help of Congress so I'd prefer the choice to be the best within the possibilities of today.

Economic change needs to come from elected representatives

 

[Tim the Wiz]

I've never claimed such a forward shift is possible at this moment, of course it isn't, just that if there is an organization or people that want that shift to occur, we should support them rather than constantly look for excuses to dismiss it just because it's not pro-Obama.

FDR proves that a shift toward social democracy is possible in the America psyche; in fact, all the major polls now on things like health care and gun control and so on prove that the American public is much less conservative than politicians and the media think they are. An economic recession to rally around should have helped, except, well, the Democrats are no longer as wary of corporate influence - today's political game demands playing to their interest in unprecedented fashion - and the Republicans who dominate the House are controlled by their Tea Party-messaged primary electorate.

 

[ivysaur12]

Ahahaahahaahahaah

 

[Tamanon]

At least the Ollie North appointment would mean a strong signal for renewed peace with Iran.

 

[Black Mamba]

It's kind of fitting the only woman in that picture is in black & white.

 

[Marvie_3]

It's kind of fitting the only woman in that picture is in black & white.

:lol :lol :lol

 

[zero shift]

So my brother now officially believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy...

Ugh when will people realize that Youtube isn't the best place to get "proof"?

 

[East Lake]

What is it that convinced him?

 

[zero shift]

What is it that convinced him?

I THINK this one.

He also believes that Trayvon Martin was a gang banger.

EDIT - It's this one.

 

[East Lake]

If you ever talk with him about it I'd just try to cast doubt on anything he presents as evidence. You can be pretty non-confrontational about it. For instance if he's talking about steel temperatures or something put him in a position where he has to be an expert on it. Ask him questions until he has exhausted his knowledge on the subject. You'll probably only have to ask one or two before he has to admit he doesn't know or avoids the subject.

For example.

Bro: Steel in towers doesn't melt until X degrees fahrenheit.
You: What causes steel to melt at that temp, does it change with the manufacturing process?
Bro: I'm not sure.

He might have a couple more lines after that depending on how much he saw in the video but once that info is exhausted he has nowhere to go.

You can also admit some things don't make sense or just nod in agreement with some insane thing he says as long as it allows you to keep the conversation rolling as you call into question other stuff.

A lot of these guys will use really bad evidence to back up their opinions too. I remember in some podcast Joe Rogan was crafting an evil US government narrative for the moon landing conspiracy and one of his pieces of evidence was that Wernher von Braun was a Nazi and the US had no problem hiring him anyway. These conspiracies are partially built on this type of evidence where if it's looked at in isolation proves absolutely nothing, but they have a lot it and sort of work it in in hope that the more there is the easier it will be for people to believe it. If that fails they'll deliberately misinterpret evidence, or use the confusion in early reporting (right after the event) to highlight "conflicting stories" or ask questions that have no answer, or something like that. But you can poke holes in them gradually and sometimes it might be enough to shake somebody out of it.

 

[Diablos]

No one knows how much premiums go up there until the people in charge announce them.

ASAIK, if the Feds are setting up the exchanges, the state laws don't matter as much. I don't think Corbett has much of an effect at all.

How much they go up is a tough question to answer. The plans aren't an apples to apples comparison in most cases and again, depends on if you get subsidies.

If you buy individual insurance right now, are single and healthy, and earn $40k+, your premiums are going up unless you're in NY. If the same is true but you're earning $22k or below, your premiums should go down a lot after subsidies.

Between it's hard to say.

Yeah I'm in between. If it's less than 10% or so I doubt I'll mind.

You have to realize that most of the health plans in red states right now are shit before moving to Obamacare. The state governments let them do what they want. There is no real bare minimum. Now that Obamacare has some real standards, these plans have to get a complete overhaul that will of course jack up their rates. But all this talk in rate increases leaves out the mention of the subsidies provided by Obamacare.

So yes, the rates are going up because the plans will be decent now. But they won't cost that much to actual consumers because of the subsidies and only like 20% of the population gets their coverage on the individual market. Everyone else is covered by the government (Medicaid or Medicare) or their employer.

I'm part of that 20%. Bought health insurance when I was pretty young and so it kept my premiums pretty damn low and I'm lucky.

Perhaps there will be another plan available at a better price if I get fucked over.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

It's kind of fitting the only woman in that picture is in black & white.

Actually, look at the Labor 'appointment'. Cherie Berry.

 

[The Librarian]

Or empty vessel.

Ooh! Is this a new PoliGAF game where we decide what members are best for what positions in the federal government? I wanna play!

 

[B-Dubs]

Apparently perennial NY asshat Steven King, (you remember him from trying to get some McCarthy style hearing against Muslims going), is thinking about a run in 2016.

Because all we need is a guy that thought Joe McCarthy had the right idea in the White House.

 

[Link]

Apparently perennial NY asshat Steven King, (you remember him from trying to get some McCarthy style hearing against Muslims going), is thinking about a run in 2016.

Because all we need is a guy that thought Joe McCarthy had the right idea in the White House.

That picture already has Allen "At Least 80 Members of Congress are Communists" West as VP. Same difference.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I am most offended by Ollie North.

Dude's an outright felon, even if the convictions got overturned (and some things not prosecuted due to immunity).

 

[Milabrega]

Peter King is the NY congressman, Steve King is the Iowa one.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I am most offended by Ollie North.

Dude's an outright felon, even if the convictions got overturned (and some things not prosecuted due to immunity).

Patriotism isn't a crime.

Cue crying eagle gif

 

[Thatonemoor]

Hey Poligaf I'm a pretty new member to neogaf and I read this forum every now and than so I was wondering what is the general consenus on reliable websites to site when I'm arguing with people.

 

[B-Dubs]

Peter King is the NY congressman, Steve King is the Iowa one.

Fuck, I can't keep them straight. They both suck.

 

[RDreamer]

If you want to make yourself angry look up the #ObamaBirthdayPresents hashtag that's trending on twitter right now.

I really dislike lumping people all together, but fucking a conservatives nowadays are goddamned loons with no self awareness as to how freakishly ridiculous they sound.

Seriously, there's so many birthers posting such funny things as "A real birth certificate, because this one's fake #ObamaBirthdayPresents"

Then you have tons of gems like these:

#Obamabirthdaypresents More vacations

A new copy of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals since his first book is worn out #ObamaBirthdayPresents

#Obamabirthdaypresents Justice for the Americans he abandoned to die in #Benghazi #uniteblue #stoprush pic.twitter.com/JIfvAxtNVR

#ObamaBirthdayPresents uh, Benghazi much? can you say... Benghazi? Hey Mr. Obama - here's a present for ya: it's Benghazi.

#ObamaBirthdayPresents What can you possibly get the guy who already takes lavished vacations paid for by everybody except himself?

#ObamaBirthdayPresents: Love potion to get him to love USA and US constitution. Oh plus a brain. #War #Nosurrender #Noamnesty

#ObamaBirthdayPresents experience in any business environment. Heck, even running a lemonade stand. #Clueless #YouDidntBuildThat #ObamaFAIL

#obamabirthdaypresents 1/3 of my parents income

I mean, these idiots are parodying themselves at this point. Tons of benghazi, vacation, dumb communist stuff, birtherism, You didn't build that memes. Wow.

 

[sc0la]

Haha, I mostly feel bad for them, they really do buy into the bullshit, but everyone else are the "sheeple"

Edit: I love the no private sector job experience one, he worked in several law firms iirc

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I THINK this one.

He also believes that Trayvon Martin was a gang banger.

EDIT - It's this one.

I skipped to a random spot in that video and it was ZOMG NO PLANE DEBRIS AT PENTAGUN.

Your bro is a dumbass and likely beyond help.

 

[The Librarian]

Republicans are scared of Hillary.

 

[Frank the Great]

Republicans are scared of Hillary.

Haha holy shit. Dat desperation.

 

[RDreamer]

Republicans are scared of Hillary.

lol, fuck off Reince

 

[Averon]

Republicans are scared of Hillary.

I love the concern trolling about the other Democratic Presidential candidates.

 

[Wilsongt]

Oh the ironing. Wasn't Fox News hyping up every single one of the Republican nominees at some point in 2012? I think so.