The great DU debate, in a nutshell

[Bonobo]

Bush wrenched us so far to the right. 2000-2008 saw the US descend into paranoia, madness and an unconstitutional assault on freedoms that had come to be taken for granted.

Many thought that Obama was call to wrench us back, if not to the left of where we had been, than at least to the middle. A starting point before the madness began.

He has unquestionably brought us further to the left since the last POTUS and will continue to do so in many, maybe even most ways.

But is it enough? Many of us recognize that the right is pulling hard, pulling the US hard to the right with their insane rhetoric. And the have been for 30 years. It seems they instinctively know that there will always be some resistance so if they just pull harder in their direction, they will win the tug of war.

So the big debate in a nutshell, it seems to me, is the heavy concern we on the left have that without us noticing, the entire landscape of the debate has been pulled to the right already and we are now so deep in Republican territory that what SEEMS like a left-right tug of war has long since become a match they already won by puling us deep into their territory.

Incremental steps to the left when you are on their 5-yard line is not enough, particularly when they ball changes heads every 4 or 8 years and when it does, they go for a 40-yard pass.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Imagine, a Democratic president working to slash Social Security

Pushing three Bush-initiated "free" trade bills, and all of Obama's other far-right crap.

Not what I voted for.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

5. you mean the same free trade agreements Al Gore campained on years ago?

Hardly far-right crap, given nations that are decidedly socialist seem to prosper with free trade agreements that exceed any we are party to.

[Bonobo]

6. In fact that was the kind of centrist talk that, along with choosing Lieberman,

cemented his image as a centrist and probably doomed his run for the White House.

Saying that socialist nations are prospering with free trade agreements does not sound like an honest argument. The may be prospering despite free trade agreements, but in my mind a "free trade agreement" quite clearly works against the interests of the working class by incentivizing countries to move to other markets for cheaper labor.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

7. No, other countries - socialist or not, typically have industrial polices

that are favorable to high value added manufacturing - while here we figured that rolling back wages and labor practices would protect the coveted plastic cutlery and styrofoam plate industry from the Mexican and Chinese hoards.

[Zalatix]

8. Ummmmm those nations also do not have 300 million people.

There is no way you can abandon "low end" aka plastic cutlery manufacturing and replace that with high value added manufacturing, in a populace of this size.

High value added manufacturing produces fewer jobs, plain and simple.


Edited to add: and what in the world is your problem with American workers taking the jobs that produce goods for the American market? It seems no one can answer that question. Perhaps this is why free trade is so unpopular in America... because it absolutely discriminates against Americans.

[Motown_Johnny]

2. In some ways we have moved to the right, in others we have moved left

The DADT repeal is something that is clearly a move left. It is sad that a move toward equality is a move to the left but that is just the way it is.

Medical Marijuana now exists. Ten years ago it didn't, well not in all but the most extreme cases. We need to continue this fight but the country has moved left here.

The Lily Ledbetter law was passed, again just a move toward equality but that is still a move left.

Hate crimes legislation has been passed to help provide some protection for the LGBT community.


Ah Hell.... here is my very old copy and paste response to this type of thing. It is getting very old but it still points out that Pres. Obama has had some successes that we never would have gotten with a McCain/Palin administration.



Two great choices for Supreme Court.

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

The Matthew Shepard Hates Crimes Prevention Act (which they said could not be done)

Children's Health Insurance

Tobacco Regulation

Credit Card Reform

Student Loan Reform

The Stimulus (including the largest tax cut ever, the largest investment in clean energy ever, the single largest investment in education in our country ever)

Health Reform

Wall Street Reform

The New G.I. Bill

The Food Safety Modernization Act (the most expansive food reform bill since the 1930s)

The Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal

The New Start Treaty (even when the (R)s said he would never be able to get it passed)

Locking up over half the loose nuclear material in the world in less than half of his first term, something most (R)s thought impossible.




Most of that list is from The Rachel Maddow Show and is included in this clip
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#4077 ...

In that clip she also estimates that ~85% of what President Obama said he wanted to accomplish in his first term had been accomplished in the first half of his first term.

[hfojvt]

3. ironically, you provide a good example of a move to the right

A basic Republican talking point about taxes is "tax cuts = good".

So when a Democratic President and his Democratic supporters start bragging that Obama and the Democratic Congress passed "the largest tax cut ever" then it sure seems like any difference between Republicans and Democrats on taxes has been blurred. Now both parties agree that tax cuts are good, that Reaganomics works, that tax increases would hurt the economy.

So tell me again how the debate has not shifted to the right.

Obama got 85% of what he wanted to accomplish? Then apparently what he wanted to accomplish was not very progressive in the first place. And four more years of the Bush tax cuts, plus payroll tax cuts for the rich, are just part of that insignificant little 15%.

[Motown_Johnny]

9. Progressive tax cuts = good: regressive tax cuts = bad

Payroll tax cuts for the rich?


You honestly think payroll tax cuts are for the rich?


I can't explain to you how some things have not shifted to the right. You paint with to broad a brush. You would not understand the explanation.


Maybe you should go watch the clip at the link I provided. Rachel Maddow has a Phd. in politics and a Bachelors degree in public policy. Maybe she can explain it to you better than I can.

[hfojvt]

10. ooh, a PhD in politics

I have an MA in economics, but really basic math shows that the payroll tax cuts are for the rich.

Just in case you might understand that, here's the breakdown (on page 3) http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf

14.1% of the payroll tax cut goes for to the richest 5%
only 12.1% goes to the poorest 40%.

26.7% goes to the richest 10%
only 27.1% goes to the poorest 60%

Yeah, sure, progressive tax cuts. Sure, Obama started with a making work pay tax credit that gave only 51% of its benefits to the top 40% and 28.9% of its benefits to the bottom 40%. But then he abandoned that, shifting to the right with a tax cut twice as large and which gave 73% of its (larger) benefits to the top 40% and only 12.1% to the bottom 40%.

You know what Bush said about HIS tax cuts? (You know, the ones that Obama decided to keep for four years). He also claimed it was progressive "I think when people take a good, hard look at the rate reduction and who benefits and the fact that our plan erases inequities in the tax code, or eases inequities in the tax code; and that the biggest -- the bottom end of the economic ladder receives the biggest percentage cuts, people will come to realize it. "

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

4. I thought it was breast feeding in the Olive Garden and...

whether or not it is ever okay to advise people how to avoid harm.

[hootinholler]

11. Nah Best buy receipts!

Maybe Pit Bulls.