Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My Point About Obama

JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 8:39:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Okay. I need to clear up my point about Barack Obama. I don't want to be known as the Joseph Mccarthy of DDO.

My point is this. There are two strings of thought in the mainstream left in the developed West. One string is the type of thought espoused by leaders like Clinton and Blair.

Unlike the right, they typically oppose the dramatic economic liberalization supported by the right. This means things like spending cuts, welfare state reforms, and dramatic tax cuts.

However, they do support things like basic free trade, tax policies that are progressive but not so high on the rich that they kill the goose that laid the golden egg, some spending restraint, some regulatory rollbacks, and reform to some welfare programs.

This is the philosophy of Bill Clinton and Tony Bliar.

Now, the other string on the left is the more old school liberalism. It can be called social democracy or democratic socialism. This philosophy opposes free trade, any kind of deregulation, opposes reforms to the welfare state, and supports dramaticaly higher taxes on the rich. This is Obama's liberalism.

When I say Obama is a socialist, I mean a European style social democrat or Democratic socialist... who would fit right in a place like France. I don't mean a devoted follower of Karl Marx.

In the 1990s, the Democratic party was dominated by the first type of liberalism... But, with Obama in power, the old school liberalism has reared it's ugly head again.

Personally, I am a Reagan or Thatcher style conservative. But, I have much respect for the reformed Clintonites.

But, that is my point about Obama.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 8:46:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Gonna go ahead and favorite this should i need to reference it in the future, but i applaud you clarifying your official position instead of conforming with the crazy people.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 9:11:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 8:46:36 PM, imabench wrote:
Gonna go ahead and favorite this should i need to reference it in the future, but i applaud you clarifying your official position instead of conforming with the crazy people.

;)
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 9:12:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 8:46:36 PM, imabench wrote:
Gonna go ahead and favorite this should i need to reference it in the future, but i applaud you clarifying your official position instead of conforming with the crazy people.

There's a favorite button?!?!
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 9:27:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Obama wants to return the tax rates to the same as under Clinton, yet Clinton is viewed as having a "tax policies that are progressive but not so high on the rich that they kill the goose that laid the golden egg..." while Obama's policy is viewed as "dramaticaly higher taxes on the rich."

Mmmmkay.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 9:44:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 8:39:05 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Okay. I need to clear up my point about Barack Obama. I don't want to be known as the Joseph Mccarthy of DDO.

My point is this. There are two strings of thought in the mainstream left in the developed West. One string is the type of thought espoused by leaders like Clinton and Blair.

Unlike the right, they typically oppose the dramatic economic liberalization supported by the right. This means things like spending cuts, welfare state reforms, and dramatic tax cuts.

However, they do support things like basic free trade, tax policies that are progressive but not so high on the rich that they kill the goose that laid the golden egg, some spending restraint, some regulatory rollbacks, and reform to some welfare programs.

This is the philosophy of Bill Clinton and Tony Bliar.

Now, the other string on the left is the more old school liberalism. It can be called social democracy or democratic socialism. This philosophy opposes free trade, any kind of deregulation, opposes reforms to the welfare state, and supports dramaticaly higher taxes on the rich. This is Obama's liberalism.

When I say Obama is a socialist, I mean a European style social democrat or Democratic socialist... who would fit right in a place like France. I don't mean a devoted follower of Karl Marx.

In the 1990s, the Democratic party was dominated by the first type of liberalism... But, with Obama in power, the old school liberalism has reared it's ugly head again.

Personally, I am a Reagan or Thatcher style conservative. But, I have much respect for the reformed Clintonites.

But, that is my point about Obama.

Respectful nodding
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 9:54:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 9:27:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Obama wants to return the tax rates to the same as under Clinton, yet Clinton is viewed as having a "tax policies that are progressive but not so high on the rich that they kill the goose that laid the golden egg..." while Obama's policy is viewed as "dramaticaly higher taxes on the rich."

Mmmmkay.

Well, first, Obama actually raises taxes through Obamacare too, so that would actually make tax rates higher than under Clinton.

Also, look at Clinton policies on investment taxation. Clinton cut the capital gains tax by 27% in 1997... Obama is proposing a 67% increase.

On top of that, Clinton signed welfare reform and NAFTA... both of which Obama opposed.

Clinton's big achievement in his first term was a deficit reduction package (that did include a tax increase and spending cuts), NAFTA, and welfare reform.

For Obama, it is a huge expansion of governmental powers in Health care, a huge regulatory expansion into Finance, and a huge government spending package.

Quite a different legacy.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:59:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 9:54:08 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/18/2012 9:27:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Obama wants to return the tax rates to the same as under Clinton, yet Clinton is viewed as having a "tax policies that are progressive but not so high on the rich that they kill the goose that laid the golden egg..." while Obama's policy is viewed as "dramaticaly higher taxes on the rich."

Mmmmkay.


Well, first, Obama actually raises taxes through Obamacare too, so that would actually make tax rates higher than under Clinton.

Also, look at Clinton policies on investment taxation. Clinton cut the capital gains tax by 27% in 1997... Obama is proposing a 67% increase.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

Clinton cut the tax rate from 28% to 20%, and that was mostly just a deal with republicans (partially why he waited 5 years to do it). You know that Reagan raised the Capital Gains Tax to 28% (to match income tax rates with the lowered tax rates), that's higher than Obama wants to raise them.


On top of that, Clinton signed welfare reform and NAFTA... both of which Obama opposed.

Clinton's big achievement in his first term was a deficit reduction package (that did include a tax increase and spending cuts), NAFTA, and welfare reform.

For Obama, it is a huge expansion of governmental powers in Health care, a huge regulatory expansion into Finance, and a huge government spending package.

Government spending in a recession?

Quite a different legacy.

Of course it is a different legacy, but it doesn't merit the title of extreme socialist.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:11:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:59:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 9:54:08 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/18/2012 9:27:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Obama wants to return the tax rates to the same as under Clinton, yet Clinton is viewed as having a "tax policies that are progressive but not so high on the rich that they kill the goose that laid the golden egg..." while Obama's policy is viewed as "dramaticaly higher taxes on the rich."

Mmmmkay.


Well, first, Obama actually raises taxes through Obamacare too, so that would actually make tax rates higher than under Clinton.

Also, look at Clinton policies on investment taxation. Clinton cut the capital gains tax by 27% in 1997... Obama is proposing a 67% increase.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

Clinton cut the tax rate from 28% to 20%, and that was mostly just a deal with republicans (partially why he waited 5 years to do it). You know that Reagan raised the Capital Gains Tax to 28% (to match income tax rates with the lowered tax rates), that's higher than Obama wants to raise them.

Actually, Reagan lowered it from 28% to 20% in 1981... then raised it back to 28% in 1986 as part of the deal... Net-net, there was no change under Reagan.

And, Obama is proposing raising it from 15% to 25%.... once Obamacare is included.

And, it doesn't matter if Republicans forced Clinton to sign it, it still happened.



On top of that, Clinton signed welfare reform and NAFTA... both of which Obama opposed.

Clinton's big achievement in his first term was a deficit reduction package (that did include a tax increase and spending cuts), NAFTA, and welfare reform.

For Obama, it is a huge expansion of governmental powers in Health care, a huge regulatory expansion into Finance, and a huge government spending package.

Government spending in a recession?

Yes. It is a bad idea. Fiscal stimulus is very inneffective. And, the worst part is, it is never temporary.

Most of the stimulus went to a bunch of liberal spending priorities. They're here to stay.


Quite a different legacy.

Of course it is a different legacy, but it doesn't merit the title of extreme socialist.

Read the OP.

No it doesnt. But, it does merit the title of "Old fashioned big government liberal who has nothing in common to the centrism of Bill Clinton"
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:08:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 8:39:05 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Okay. I need to clear up my point about Barack Obama. I don't want to be known as the Joseph Mccarthy of DDO.

My point is this. There are two strings of thought in the mainstream left in the developed West. One string is the type of thought espoused by leaders like Clinton and Blair.

Unlike the right, they typically oppose the dramatic economic liberalization supported by the right. This means things like spending cuts, welfare state reforms, and dramatic tax cuts.


This isn't true, they don't support deregulation et al, usually, to the same extent as the (more) right wing alternative parties, but there are a decent number of Congressional Democrats who are basically Republican-lite, and not always all that lite. Especially since the Republican moderates were largely culled, arguably the proper centre-right, at the Congressional level, lies with the Blue Dog Democrats.

However, they do support things like basic free trade, tax policies that are progressive but not so high on the rich that they kill the goose that laid the golden egg, some spending restraint, some regulatory rollbacks, and reform to some welfare programs.


Same as above really. It's why Presidents like Obama and Clinton are sort of not all that dissimilar to Rockefeller Republicans.

This is the philosophy of Bill Clinton and Tony Bliar.


Sure.

Now, the other string on the left is the more old school liberalism. It can be called social democracy or democratic socialism. This philosophy opposes free trade, any kind of deregulation, opposes reforms to the welfare state, and supports dramaticaly higher taxes on the rich. This is Obama's liberalism.


Yup, often Obama and Tony Blair were/are outmaneuvering this constituency in their own party alongside the conservative opposition. Obama amputated the public option, Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown adopted such a hardline on law & order that the current Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, is actually cutting the police, etc.

When I say Obama is a socialist, I mean a European style social democrat or Democratic socialist... who would fit right in a place like France. I don't mean a devoted follower of Karl Marx.


Many who call Obama a socialist do think that he is a student of Karl Marx, or an in potentia Soviet stooge. If you want to be distinct from them, maybe you should stipulate "social democrat"?

In the 1990s, the Democratic party was dominated by the first type of liberalism... But, with Obama in power, the old school liberalism has reared it's ugly head again.


What's your basis for this? There were Democrats who wouldn't vote for a larger stimulus. When they had majorities across the board, and the Presidency, why didn't this materialize in an extreme & demonstrable fashion?

Personally, I am a Reagan or Thatcher style conservative. But, I have much respect for the reformed Clintonites.

But, that is my point about Obama.

Well, fair 'nuff, and I do appreciate that you've taken the time to lay it all out on the table.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:22:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 6:08:59 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 8:39:05 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Okay. I need to clear up my point about Barack Obama. I don't want to be known as the Joseph Mccarthy of DDO.

My point is this. There are two strings of thought in the mainstream left in the developed West. One string is the type of thought espoused by leaders like Clinton and Blair.

Unlike the right, they typically oppose the dramatic economic liberalization supported by the right. This means things like spending cuts, welfare state reforms, and dramatic tax cuts.


This isn't true, they don't support deregulation et al, usually, to the same extent as the (more) right wing alternative parties, but there are a decent number of Congressional Democrats who are basically Republican-lite, and not always all that lite. Especially since the Republican moderates were largely culled, arguably the proper centre-right, at the Congressional level, lies with the Blue Dog Democrats.

Under Clinton, there was some deregulation.


However, they do support things like basic free trade, tax policies that are progressive but not so high on the rich that they kill the goose that laid the golden egg, some spending restraint, some regulatory rollbacks, and reform to some welfare programs.


Same as above really. It's why Presidents like Obama and Clinton are sort of not all that dissimilar to Rockefeller Republicans.

True of Clinton.

But, not Obama. To argue that Obama is at all like a Rockefeller Republican is just being dishonest.


This is the philosophy of Bill Clinton and Tony Bliar.


Sure.


Now, the other string on the left is the more old school liberalism. It can be called social democracy or democratic socialism. This philosophy opposes free trade, any kind of deregulation, opposes reforms to the welfare state, and supports dramaticaly higher taxes on the rich. This is Obama's liberalism.


Yup, often Obama and Tony Blair were/are outmaneuvering this constituency in their own party alongside the conservative opposition. Obama amputated the public option, Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown adopted such a hardline on law & order that the current Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, is actually cutting the police, etc.

Again, very different. Obama only removed the public option because he didn't have the support. He wouldve done single payer if he had had support.'

Having to moderate a bill because of lack of support is not what I am talking about.


When I say Obama is a socialist, I mean a European style social democrat or Democratic socialist... who would fit right in a place like France. I don't mean a devoted follower of Karl Marx.


Many who call Obama a socialist do think that he is a student of Karl Marx, or an in potentia Soviet stooge. If you want to be distinct from them, maybe you should stipulate "social democrat"?

Okay, but you are arguing that he is similiar to a Rockefeller Republican... like Clinton or Blair... which is just as silly as saying he is a marxist.


In the 1990s, the Democratic party was dominated by the first type of liberalism... But, with Obama in power, the old school liberalism has reared it's ugly head again.


What's your basis for this? There were Democrats who wouldn't vote for a larger stimulus. When they had majorities across the board, and the Presidency, why didn't this materialize in an extreme & demonstrable fashion?

It was pretty extreme. My point is who is DOMINATING the party.

Just based on what they proposed, if the people who dominated the party got their wat (Obama and Pelosi), we would have a big government energy program, public option, even higher taxes on the rich than are being proposed, and an even bigger stimulus.

What we got was pretty bad. What was being proposed was even worse.


Personally, I am a Reagan or Thatcher style conservative. But, I have much respect for the reformed Clintonites.

But, that is my point about Obama.

Well, fair 'nuff, and I do appreciate that you've taken the time to lay it all out on the table.

Cool.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:50:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 2:22:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 6:08:59 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 8:39:05 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Okay. I need to clear up my point about Barack Obama. I don't want to be known as the Joseph Mccarthy of DDO.

My point is this. There are two strings of thought in the mainstream left in the developed West. One string is the type of thought espoused by leaders like Clinton and Blair.

Unlike the right, they typically oppose the dramatic economic liberalization supported by the right. This means things like spending cuts, welfare state reforms, and dramatic tax cuts.


This isn't true, they don't support deregulation et al, usually, to the same extent as the (more) right wing alternative parties, but there are a decent number of Congressional Democrats who are basically Republican-lite, and not always all that lite. Especially since the Republican moderates were largely culled, arguably the proper centre-right, at the Congressional level, lies with the Blue Dog Democrats.

Under Clinton, there was some deregulation.


Yes, that's the difference between the centre-right and the hard-right, proportion. And, I suppose, those closer to the centre tend to be more gradualist, as a rule of thumb.


However, they do support things like basic free trade, tax policies that are progressive but not so high on the rich that they kill the goose that laid the golden egg, some spending restraint, some regulatory rollbacks, and reform to some welfare programs.


Same as above really. It's why Presidents like Obama and Clinton are sort of not all that dissimilar to Rockefeller Republicans.


True of Clinton.

But, not Obama. To argue that Obama is at all like a Rockefeller Republican is just being dishonest.



Actually, it isn't. I know that there's a tendency to assume that the truth lies somewhere between two propositions, and that's actually part of what all this "Obama is a socialist" stuff has been about (it drags that in-between point more towards the incredible), but in this case, that's not true in the way you're asserting.


This is the philosophy of Bill Clinton and Tony Bliar.


Sure.


Now, the other string on the left is the more old school liberalism. It can be called social democracy or democratic socialism. This philosophy opposes free trade, any kind of deregulation, opposes reforms to the welfare state, and supports dramaticaly higher taxes on the rich. This is Obama's liberalism.


Yup, often Obama and Tony Blair were/are outmaneuvering this constituency in their own party alongside the conservative opposition. Obama amputated the public option, Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown adopted such a hardline on law & order that the current Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, is actually cutting the police, etc.


Again, very different. Obama only removed the public option because he didn't have the support. He wouldve done single payer if he had had support.'

Having to moderate a bill because of lack of support is not what I am talking about.



You can't simultaneously claim that The Democrats have been taken over by socialists, and that only a minority, of which Obama is a part (despite being chosen generally as the nominee), were willing to vote for the bill with a public option.

What seems to have actually happened is that some, not all that many, but some, wanted a public option, and that the rest, led by the President, knew that the private sector would be too hostile, hence opposed it.


When I say Obama is a socialist, I mean a European style social democrat or Democratic socialist... who would fit right in a place like France. I don't mean a devoted follower of Karl Marx.


Many who call Obama a socialist do think that he is a student of Karl Marx, or an in potentia Soviet stooge. If you want to be distinct from them, maybe you should stipulate "social democrat"?


Okay, but you are arguing that he is similiar to a Rockefeller Republican... like Clinton or Blair... which is just as silly as saying he is a marxist.


No, again, you've decided that the reasonable point is to reject the obviously false, that he's a Marxist, and the tenuously potentially false, that he's a a moderate. The two are not equivalent claims, and the obviously false shouldn't be rewarded by moving the national debate in it's direction.


In the 1990s, the Democratic party was dominated by the first type of liberalism... But, with Obama in power, the old school liberalism has reared it's ugly head again.


What's your basis for this? There were Democrats who wouldn't vote for a larger stimulus. When they had majorities across the board, and the Presidency, why didn't this materialize in an extreme & demonstrable fashion?


It was pretty extreme. My point is who is DOMINATING the party.


As I mentioned above, who is dominating the party changes from being i) socialists, to ii) those checking the socialists, depending upon which policy we're discussing.

Just based on what they proposed, if the people who dominated the party got their wat (Obama and Pelosi), we would have a big government energy program, public option, even higher taxes on the rich than are being proposed, and an even bigger stimulus.

What we got was pretty bad. What was being proposed was even worse.


It's negotiating: you aim for more than you expect, and thereby gain more of what you want - Republicans do it all the time. Plus, rhetoric appeases the base.



Personally, I am a Reagan or Thatcher style conservative. But, I have much respect for the reformed Clintonites.

But, that is my point about Obama.

Well, fair 'nuff, and I do appreciate that you've taken the time to lay it all out on the table.

Cool.

^^
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 4:52:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 2:50:12 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/19/2012 2:22:13 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 6:08:59 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 8:39:05 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Okay. I need to clear up my point about Barack Obama. I don't want to be known as the Joseph Mccarthy of DDO.

My point is this. There are two strings of thought in the mainstream left in the developed West. One string is the type of thought espoused by leaders like Clinton and Blair.

Unlike the right, they typically oppose the dramatic economic liberalization supported by the right. This means things like spending cuts, welfare state reforms, and dramatic tax cuts.


This isn't true, they don't support deregulation et al, usually, to the same extent as the (more) right wing alternative parties, but there are a decent number of Congressional Democrats who are basically Republican-lite, and not always all that lite. Especially since the Republican moderates were largely culled, arguably the proper centre-right, at the Congressional level, lies with the Blue Dog Democrats.

Under Clinton, there was some deregulation.


Yes, that's the difference between the centre-right and the hard-right, proportion. And, I suppose, those closer to the centre tend to be more gradualist, as a rule of thumb.

Yes.




However, they do support things like basic free trade, tax policies that are progressive but not so high on the rich that they kill the goose that laid the golden egg, some spending restraint, some regulatory rollbacks, and reform to some welfare programs.


Same as above really. It's why Presidents like Obama and Clinton are sort of not all that dissimilar to Rockefeller Republicans.


True of Clinton.

But, not Obama. To argue that Obama is at all like a Rockefeller Republican is just being dishonest.



Actually, it isn't. I know that there's a tendency to assume that the truth lies somewhere between two propositions, and that's actually part of what all this "Obama is a socialist" stuff has been about (it drags that in-between point more towards the incredible), but in this case, that's not true in the way you're asserting.

The trith lies in the truth. And, in this case, the truth is that Obama has been a very left Democrat... nothing in common to a rockefeller Republican.

CLinton was more like a moderate Republican...



This is the philosophy of Bill Clinton and Tony Bliar.


Sure.


Now, the other string on the left is the more old school liberalism. It can be called social democracy or democratic socialism. This philosophy opposes free trade, any kind of deregulation, opposes reforms to the welfare state, and supports dramaticaly higher taxes on the rich. This is Obama's liberalism.


Yup, often Obama and Tony Blair were/are outmaneuvering this constituency in their own party alongside the conservative opposition. Obama amputated the public option, Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown adopted such a hardline on law & order that the current Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, is actually cutting the police, etc.


Again, very different. Obama only removed the public option because he didn't have the support. He wouldve done single payer if he had had support.'

Having to moderate a bill because of lack of support is not what I am talking about.



You can't simultaneously claim that The Democrats have been taken over by socialists, and that only a minority, of which Obama is a part (despite being chosen generally as the nominee), were willing to vote for the bill with a public option.

No, most Dems were for public option. But, the coalition of Republicans and a few dems were able to stop it.


What seems to have actually happened is that some, not all that many, but some, wanted a public option, and that the rest, led by the President, knew that the private sector would be too hostile, hence opposed it.

No, the President wanted a public option very badly. But, he realized quickly that he didnt have the votes.

Obama never opposed it... he always supported it. He just stopped pushing it because he didnt have the support.



When I say Obama is a socialist, I mean a European style social democrat or Democratic socialist... who would fit right in a place like France. I don't mean a devoted follower of Karl Marx.


Many who call Obama a socialist do think that he is a student of Karl Marx, or an in potentia Soviet stooge. If you want to be distinct from them, maybe you should stipulate "social democrat"?


Okay, but you are arguing that he is similiar to a Rockefeller Republican... like Clinton or Blair... which is just as silly as saying he is a marxist.


No, again, you've decided that the reasonable point is to reject the obviously false, that he's a Marxist, and the tenuously potentially false, that he's a a moderate. The two are not equivalent claims, and the obviously false shouldn't be rewarded by moving the national debate in it's direction.

I'm not doing the old false equivalence thing.

I am just pointing out the truth. Saying Obama is moderate is ridiculous. It just is.

He is a hard left guy.

The truth does not always lie in the middle... but, in thise case, it does. He is not a marxist and he is not a modetate... he is a social democrat.



In the 1990s, the Democratic party was dominated by the first type of liberalism... But, with Obama in power, the old school liberalism has reared it's ugly head again.


What's your basis for this? There were Democrats who wouldn't vote for a larger stimulus. When they had majorities across the board, and the Presidency, why didn't this materialize in an extreme & demonstrable fashion?


It was pretty extreme. My point is who is DOMINATING the party.


As I mentioned above, who is dominating the party changes from being i) socialists, to ii) those checking the socialists, depending upon which policy we're discussing.

No, there are the moderates and progressives. Obama is in the progresssive camp... CLinton was in the modertate camp.


Just based on what they proposed, if the people who dominated the party got their wat (Obama and Pelosi), we would have a big government energy program, public option, even higher taxes on the rich than are being proposed, and an even bigger stimulus.

What we got was pretty bad. What was being proposed was even worse.


It's negotiating: you aim for more than you expect, and thereby gain more of what you want - Republicans do it all the time. Plus, rhetoric appeases the base.

I understand. THis is exactly what I am saying. Obama got as far left of an agenda as he possibly could. BUt, if he had the votes, he wouldve gone much further.




Personally, I am a Reagan or Thatcher style conservative. But, I have much respect for the reformed Clintonites.

But, that is my point about Obama.

Well, fair 'nuff, and I do appreciate that you've taken the time to lay it all out on the table.

Cool.

^^
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:06:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I could go off on a massive rant, but calling Blair mainstream-left is like calling Hollande a liberal and John Locke socialist. The combining of ideology to make him left-wing makes no sense.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:12:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:11:38 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:59:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 9:54:08 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/18/2012 9:27:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Obama wants to return the tax rates to the same as under Clinton, yet Clinton is viewed as having a "tax policies that are progressive but not so high on the rich that they kill the goose that laid the golden egg..." while Obama's policy is viewed as "dramaticaly higher taxes on the rich."

Mmmmkay.


Well, first, Obama actually raises taxes through Obamacare too, so that would actually make tax rates higher than under Clinton.

Also, look at Clinton policies on investment taxation. Clinton cut the capital gains tax by 27% in 1997... Obama is proposing a 67% increase.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

Clinton cut the tax rate from 28% to 20%, and that was mostly just a deal with republicans (partially why he waited 5 years to do it). You know that Reagan raised the Capital Gains Tax to 28% (to match income tax rates with the lowered tax rates), that's higher than Obama wants to raise them.



Actually, Reagan lowered it from 28% to 20% in 1981... then raised it back to 28% in 1986 as part of the deal... Net-net, there was no change under Reagan.


And, Obama is proposing raising it from 15% to 25%.... once Obamacare is included.

And, it doesn't matter if Republicans forced Clinton to sign it, it still happened.





On top of that, Clinton signed welfare reform and NAFTA... both of which Obama opposed.

Clinton's big achievement in his first term was a deficit reduction package (that did include a tax increase and spending cuts), NAFTA, and welfare reform.

For Obama, it is a huge expansion of governmental powers in Health care, a huge regulatory expansion into Finance, and a huge government spending package.

Government spending in a recession?



Yes. It is a bad idea. Fiscal stimulus is very inneffective. And, the worst part is, it is never temporary.

Most of the stimulus went to a bunch of liberal spending priorities. They're here to stay.

Spend money. Deficits. Increase taxes. Lower consumption. Recession. Spend more, deficits, increase taxes... And it continues





Quite a different legacy.

Of course it is a different legacy, but it doesn't merit the title of extreme socialist.


Read the OP.

No it doesnt. But, it does merit the title of "Old fashioned big government liberal who has nothing in common to the centrism of Bill Clinton"
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:29:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 5:06:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I could go off on a massive rant, but calling Blair mainstream-left is like calling Hollande a liberal and John Locke socialist. The combining of ideology to make him left-wing makes no sense.

My point is that Obama is far to the left of CLinton and Blair.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:35:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 5:29:56 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:06:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I could go off on a massive rant, but calling Blair mainstream-left is like calling Hollande a liberal and John Locke socialist. The combining of ideology to make him left-wing makes no sense.


My point is that Obama is far to the left of CLinton and Blair.

Calling him far to the left of Blair would actually require him to do something far to the left of Clinton and Blair. Bearing in mind blair stopped privatisations (in other words essentially nationalised) industries and is still very well seen as centralist, it's very hard to classify Obama as far left on grounds such as Obamacare. Similarly, when right-wing Conservative David Cameron and further right-wing politicians are promoting legalisation of SSM, for example, it's similarly difficult to classify Obama as left-wing for promoting the same thing.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:38:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
By the by, internationally, Reagonomics and Thatcherism are neoliberals, not Conservatives. It follows alongside Rogernomics, for example. One of the most interesting things politically is how the Conservatives are by and large liberal in America.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:57:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The trith lies in the truth. And, in this case, the truth is that Obama has been a very left Democrat... nothing in common to a rockefeller Republican.

CLinton was more like a moderate Republican...

Nelson Rockefeller (at the State level): expanded education, improved infrastructure, protected the environment, had an ambitious housing project, made medicaid more accessible, funded culture, was relatively (nothing by today's standards) lax on abortion.

Just so we're clear on what a moderate Republican used to look like. I'll maybe throw some Nixon in later if this line of thought is pursued.

Anyways, yes, I'll concede that Clinton, partly because he had a more accessible Congress, who were more interested in deals, was possibly more right-wing than Obama. I think part of that is context though, Clinton was able to eventually balance the budget, whilst that's pretty much denied to Obama due to Bush's deficit-spending (arguably more precisely the forms it took, eg: tax cuts) and the global economic landscape.

However, Obama is not a hard leftist, during his election I saw him as a centrist, centre-left on some issues, centre-right on others, now I think he's probably centre-right with some important left concessions, such as healthcare reform.

No, most Dems were for public option. But, the coalition of Republicans and a few :dems were able to stop it.

It's easy to support a piece of legislation that will both appease your base, and have no effect on your special interests (because there aren't enough votes to pass it).

This is illustrated by the fact that when they needed 60 votes to get through the Senate, 51 stated or signed a petition to the effect that they would support the public option, but when reconciliation rules might have got it through with 50 votes, suddenly the narrative became that there wasn't enough support.

No, the President wanted a public option very badly. But, he realized quickly that he :didnt have the votes.

What's your evidence for this? If the President of the party who has Congress wants something done, and that something is ultimately considered favorably by a slight majority of the American people, he can get it done. At best you'd be saying that Obama didn't prioritize it, that is to say, he didn't want it as badly as he wanted other things, such as his payroll tax-cut, stimulus, etc.

Obama never opposed it... he always supported it. He just stopped pushing it because he didnt have the support.

Same as above. Letting something die when you have political capital to burn is not defeat, it's strategy, at worst.


Okay, but you are arguing that he is similiar to a Rockefeller Republican... like Clinton or Blair... which is just as silly as saying he is a marxist.


No, it isn't. The evidence that Obama is a Marxist is nil, the evidence that's he's a moderate is consistent, from his Heritage Foundation originating healthcare proposals to his gradualism on homosexual rights, even his stimulus was something like a third tax-cut. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but this isn't horsetrading, I don't applaud you for disavowing your allies' falsehoods by reneging on the empirical.

The truth does not always lie in the middle... but, in thise case, it does. He is not a marxist and he is not a modetate... he is a social democrat.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Dennis Kucinich is a social democrat. The latter was personally convinced to drop the public option by Obama. Obama acts to the right of where Kucinich voted.

No, there are the moderates and progressives. Obama is in the progresssive camp... CLinton was in the modertate camp.

Well, if you're going to discount context, then Truman threw American cash at Europe like a sucker.

Just based on what they proposed, if the people who dominated the party got their wat (Obama and Pelosi), we would have a big government energy program, public option, even higher taxes on the rich than are being proposed, and an even bigger stimulus.


Obama has self-identified as a New Democrat, and he admires Reagan. I'm not really sure what you want from him, you've created a situation where, no matter how moderate his policies are, you can still label him a hard leftist, because no matter that he's the President, and he formerly had a majority in Congress, he's secretly to the left of his actions. This could be true of anyone, anybody could hypothetically be to the left or right of what they actually do. Reagan could have been a fascist, and Clinton a Luxemburgist. The only reason people are querying Obama is due to the campaigning of his opponents.

I understand. THis is exactly what I am saying. Obama got as far left of an agenda as he possibly could. BUt, if he had the votes, he wouldve gone much further.

During an economic crisis, with Congress as it was, he couldn't have galvanized the citizenry and got a-lot of what he wanted? We're forgetting his honeymoon period, I think.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:00:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 5:35:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:29:56 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:06:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I could go off on a massive rant, but calling Blair mainstream-left is like calling Hollande a liberal and John Locke socialist. The combining of ideology to make him left-wing makes no sense.


My point is that Obama is far to the left of CLinton and Blair.

Calling him far to the left of Blair would actually require him to do something far to the left of Clinton and Blair. Bearing in mind blair stopped privatisations (in other words essentially nationalised) industries and is still very well seen as centralist, it's very hard to classify Obama as far left on grounds such as Obamacare. Similarly, when right-wing Conservative David Cameron and further right-wing politicians are promoting legalisation of SSM, for example, it's similarly difficult to classify Obama as left-wing for promoting the same thing.

Obamacare, Dodd Frank, Stimulus.

Among other things.

All far left.

Blair changed the Labour to be more neoliberal friendly... Obama has turned Dems against neoliberlism.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:09:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 5:35:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:29:56 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:06:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I could go off on a massive rant, but calling Blair mainstream-left is like calling Hollande a liberal and John Locke socialist. The combining of ideology to make him left-wing makes no sense.


My point is that Obama is far to the left of CLinton and Blair.

Calling him far to the left of Blair would actually require him to do something far to the left of Clinton and Blair. Bearing in mind blair stopped privatisations (in other words essentially nationalised) industries and is still very well seen as centralist, it's very hard to classify Obama as far left on grounds such as Obamacare. Similarly, when right-wing Conservative David Cameron and further right-wing politicians are promoting legalisation of SSM, for example, it's similarly difficult to classify Obama as left-wing for promoting the same thing.

I'm no expert, but Blair expanded the Public-Private Partnerships schemes first implemented by Major. What did he nationalize? I'm drawing a blank, but that could be entirely my fault.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:12:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 5:57:31 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
The trith lies in the truth. And, in this case, the truth is that Obama has been a very left Democrat... nothing in common to a rockefeller Republican.

CLinton was more like a moderate Republican...

Nelson Rockefeller (at the State level): expanded education, improved infrastructure, protected the environment, had an ambitious housing project, made medicaid more accessible, funded culture, was relatively (nothing by today's standards) lax on abortion.

Yes, at the state level. That is the key word.

Many Rockefeller Repubs (George Romney was another one), supported expanding state government but opposed Great society liberalism and big FEDERAL government


Just so we're clear on what a moderate Republican used to look like. I'll maybe throw some Nixon in later if this line of thought is pursued.

Anyways, yes, I'll concede that Clinton, partly because he had a more accessible Congress, who were more interested in deals, was possibly more right-wing than Obama. I think part of that is context though, Clinton was able to eventually balance the budget, whilst that's pretty much denied to Obama due to Bush's deficit-spending (arguably more precisely the forms it took, eg: tax cuts) and the global economic landscape.

How about Obama's deficit spending?

Lol.


However, Obama is not a hard leftist, during his election I saw him as a centrist, centre-left on some issues, centre-right on others, now I think he's probably centre-right with some important left concessions, such as healthcare reform.

On economics, Obama is very hard left. He is more moderate on social issues. But, I am talking about economics.


No, most Dems were for public option. But, the coalition of Republicans and a few :dems were able to stop it.

It's easy to support a piece of legislation that will both appease your base, and have no effect on your special interests (because there aren't enough votes to pass it).

This is illustrated by the fact that when they needed 60 votes to get through the Senate, 51 stated or signed a petition to the effect that they would support the public option, but when reconciliation rules might have got it through with 50 votes, suddenly the narrative became that there wasn't enough support.

I think we both know that, if he couldve, he wouldve had a pubic option.

And, he also knew how innapropriate reconcilation wouldve been.


No, the President wanted a public option very badly. But, he realized quickly that he :didnt have the votes.

What's your evidence for this? If the President of the party who has Congress wants something done, and that something is ultimately considered favorably by a slight majority of the American people, he can get it done. At best you'd be saying that Obama didn't prioritize it, that is to say, he didn't want it as badly as he wanted other things, such as his payroll tax-cut, stimulus, etc.

Um, Obama has voiced support for SINGLE PAYER. Of course he was for the public option.

But, no, he didnt prioritize it. And, the blue dogs came out against it... which made it not have enough votes.


Obama never opposed it... he always supported it. He just stopped pushing it because he didnt have the support.

Same as above. Letting something die when you have political capital to burn is not defeat, it's strategy, at worst.

He lost political capital by this point because of bad economy...



Okay, but you are arguing that he is similiar to a Rockefeller Republican... like Clinton or Blair... which is just as silly as saying he is a marxist.


No, it isn't. The evidence that Obama is a Marxist is nil, the evidence that's he's a moderate is consistent, from his Heritage Foundation originating healthcare proposals to his gradualism on homosexual rights, even his stimulus was something like a third tax-cut. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but this isn't horsetrading, I don't applaud you for disavowing your allies' falsehoods by reneging on the empirical.

First, no heritage plan ever included an expansion of medicaid, employer mandate, comprehensive benefits being mandated, or $500 Billion in tax hikes.

And, Obamacare did not expand HSAs (made them worse), did not reform litigation, or create a national HC market... all of which were in the Heritage plan.

The individual mandate is the ONLY similiarity.

And, as we have discussed, the tax cuts in the stimulus were gimmicky credits, not cuts n marginal rates.


The truth does not always lie in the middle... but, in thise case, it does. He is not a marxist and he is not a modetate... he is a social democrat.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Dennis Kucinich is a social democrat. The latter was personally convinced to drop the public option by Obama. Obama acts to the right of where Kucinich voted.

Lol, yes. He is to the right of Kucinich... but that's not saying much.


No, there are the moderates and progressives. Obama is in the progresssive camp... CLinton was in the modertate camp.

Well, if you're going to discount context, then Truman threw American cash at Europe like a sucker.

Okay...


Just based on what they proposed, if the people who dominated the party got their wat (Obama and Pelosi), we would have a big government energy program, public option, even higher taxes on the rich than are being proposed, and an even bigger stimulus.


Obama has self-identified as a New Democrat, and he admires Reagan. I'm not really sure what you want from him, you've created a situation where, no matter how moderate his policies are, you can still label him a hard leftist, because no matter that he's the President, and he formerly had a majority in Congress, he's secretly to the left of his actions. This could be true of anyone, anybody could hypothetically be to the left or right of what they actually do. Reagan could have been a fascist, and Clinton a Luxemburgist. The only reason people are querying Obama is due to the campaigning of his opponents.

So much wrong here. First, he disavowed the DLC when they tried to court him. He said he was to the left of them in 2004. When he became president, he needed their support so he played nice with them. I think he even called himself one AFTER he was president... only to get their support.

Before he was president, he openly criticized them.

As for Reagan, Obama praised him for making big changes... never praised his worldview or policies... in fact, he is totally opposite those.


I understand. THis is exactly what I am saying. Obama got as far left of an agenda as he possibly could. BUt, if he had the votes, he wouldve gone much further.

During an economic crisis, with Congress as it was, he couldn't have galvanized the citizenry and got a-lot of what he wanted? We're forgetting his honeymoon period, I think.

Your argument that Obama is really a centrist is very, very silly.

Obamacare, despite what you say, is very far left and looks nothing like what a Republican has ever proposed on the national level.

While Clinton reformed welfare, Obama was opposing welfare reform... same with NAFTA.

Obama has been as far left a president as we have had in recent history.

Saying he is a moderate is not funny... it is dangerous. If Obama is moderate, I would hate to see how far left one would have to go to qualify as left.

Of course, Obama is not and has not governed as a moderate. He has been a solid left president.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:28:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Great response, ____*. I'll reply over the next few days, hopefully tomorrow. I'm off for nowskies.

*It'd feel weird to call you "James [Madison]".
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:29:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 6:28:18 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
Great response, ____*. I'll reply over the next few days, hopefully tomorrow. I'm off for nowskies.


*It'd feel weird to call you "James [Madison]".

Looking forward to it.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 7:07:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 6:00:56 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:35:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:29:56 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:06:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I could go off on a massive rant, but calling Blair mainstream-left is like calling Hollande a liberal and John Locke socialist. The combining of ideology to make him left-wing makes no sense.


My point is that Obama is far to the left of CLinton and Blair.

Calling him far to the left of Blair would actually require him to do something far to the left of Clinton and Blair. Bearing in mind blair stopped privatisations (in other words essentially nationalised) industries and is still very well seen as centralist, it's very hard to classify Obama as far left on grounds such as Obamacare. Similarly, when right-wing Conservative David Cameron and further right-wing politicians are promoting legalisation of SSM, for example, it's similarly difficult to classify Obama as left-wing for promoting the same thing.


Obamacare, Dodd Frank, Stimulus.

Among other things.

All far left.

Obamacare isn't far left-wing: it's hardly even centrist. It's subsidising private industry. Calling that far left would mean nationalising industry is so far left wing that it goes all the way around the spectrum and becomes right-wing. And it makes Blair far-left. In fact, it is a lot more Conservative than anything, as the ideological aim is to promote Stability, a Conservative, but not liberal, value.

Bailouts are also comical in general. Merkel committed to bailouts. Cameron committed to bailouts. Sarkozy committed to bailouts. The Spanish gov't, the Irish gov't... you should be telling the world how America actually lost the Cold War, because everyone's now communist!

Blair changed the Labour to be more neoliberal friendly... Obama has turned Dems against neoliberalism.

Labour wasn't neoliberal to begin with: it was syndicalist in reality. Obama has turned Democrats into Modern Liberals: and thus in line with liberalist ideals, though disputing how to go about it.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 7:15:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 6:09:18 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:35:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:29:56 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:06:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I could go off on a massive rant, but calling Blair mainstream-left is like calling Hollande a liberal and John Locke socialist. The combining of ideology to make him left-wing makes no sense.


My point is that Obama is far to the left of CLinton and Blair.

Calling him far to the left of Blair would actually require him to do something far to the left of Clinton and Blair. Bearing in mind blair stopped privatisations (in other words essentially nationalised) industries and is still very well seen as centralist, it's very hard to classify Obama as far left on grounds such as Obamacare. Similarly, when right-wing Conservative David Cameron and further right-wing politicians are promoting legalisation of SSM, for example, it's similarly difficult to classify Obama as left-wing for promoting the same thing.

I'm no expert, but Blair expanded the Public-Private Partnerships schemes first implemented by Major. What did he nationalize? I'm drawing a blank, but that could be entirely my fault.

Sorry, I meant he stopped to the best of his ability privatising deals, such as the British Rail (the single worst case of privatisation, in all of my thought), in which the only thing he could do is create the SRA. It's one of those things that is rarely discussed outside of university circles, though. For example, Northern Rock was nationalised, interestingly, but wasn't seen as a major news story.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 9:41:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 7:07:55 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/19/2012 6:00:56 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:35:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:29:56 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:06:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I could go off on a massive rant, but calling Blair mainstream-left is like calling Hollande a liberal and John Locke socialist. The combining of ideology to make him left-wing makes no sense.


My point is that Obama is far to the left of CLinton and Blair.

Calling him far to the left of Blair would actually require him to do something far to the left of Clinton and Blair. Bearing in mind blair stopped privatisations (in other words essentially nationalised) industries and is still very well seen as centralist, it's very hard to classify Obama as far left on grounds such as Obamacare. Similarly, when right-wing Conservative David Cameron and further right-wing politicians are promoting legalisation of SSM, for example, it's similarly difficult to classify Obama as left-wing for promoting the same thing.


Obamacare, Dodd Frank, Stimulus.

Among other things.

All far left.

Obamacare isn't far left-wing: it's hardly even centrist. It's subsidising private industry. Calling that far left would mean nationalising industry is so far left wing that it goes all the way around the spectrum and becomes right-wing. And it makes Blair far-left. In fact, it is a lot more Conservative than anything, as the ideological aim is to promote Stability, a Conservative, but not liberal, value.

Dude, nationalizing industry is REALLY far left. And, as most conservatives know, nationalization is the opposite of stable.

And, yes, Obamacare is prettty left wing. It raises taxes by $500 Billion, has an employer mandate, creates a massive new subsidy program, and massively expands Medicaid.

What about that is centrist or conservative?

Nothing. THat is good ole big government leftism.


Bailouts are also comical in general. Merkel committed to bailouts. Cameron committed to bailouts. Sarkozy committed to bailouts. The Spanish gov't, the Irish gov't... you should be telling the world how America actually lost the Cold War, because everyone's now communist!

I didn't say bailout. Although, I shouldve added the auto bailout to the list.


Blair changed the Labour to be more neoliberal friendly... Obama has turned Dems against neoliberalism.

Labour wasn't neoliberal to begin with: it was syndicalist in reality. Obama has turned Democrats into Modern Liberals: and thus in line with liberalist ideals, though disputing how to go about it.

Obama has turned them away from the neoliberalism of Clinton back towards social democracy.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 6:55:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 9:41:15 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 7:07:55 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/19/2012 6:00:56 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:35:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:29:56 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:06:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I could go off on a massive rant, but calling Blair mainstream-left is like calling Hollande a liberal and John Locke socialist. The combining of ideology to make him left-wing makes no sense.


My point is that Obama is far to the left of CLinton and Blair.

Calling him far to the left of Blair would actually require him to do something far to the left of Clinton and Blair. Bearing in mind blair stopped privatisations (in other words essentially nationalised) industries and is still very well seen as centralist, it's very hard to classify Obama as far left on grounds such as Obamacare. Similarly, when right-wing Conservative David Cameron and further right-wing politicians are promoting legalisation of SSM, for example, it's similarly difficult to classify Obama as left-wing for promoting the same thing.


Obamacare, Dodd Frank, Stimulus.

Among other things.

All far left.

Obamacare isn't far left-wing: it's hardly even centrist. It's subsidising private industry. Calling that far left would mean nationalising industry is so far left wing that it goes all the way around the spectrum and becomes right-wing. And it makes Blair far-left. In fact, it is a lot more Conservative than anything, as the ideological aim is to promote Stability, a Conservative, but not liberal, value.



Dude, nationalizing industry is REALLY far left. And, as most conservatives know, nationalization is the opposite of stable.

And, yes, Obamacare is prettty left wing. It raises taxes by $500 Billion, has an employer mandate, creates a massive new subsidy program, and massively expands Medicaid.

What about that is centrist or conservative?

Nothing. THat is good ole big government leftism.

1) Obamacare isn't nationalising industry. If the industry is nationalised, then there is now only one competitor, and it is run by the government. i.e. a government controlled monopoly. That is not at all occurring. It is a subsidy.
2) Subsidies themselves have occurred in all governments: short of failed governments I cannot think of a nation which does not subsidise.
3) Laws on employers, or employers mandates, are so common that Blair did it, Sarkozy did it, Merkel did it and least surprisingly of all, Thatcher did it (Gas Act 1986, for example, included multiple restrictions on what the company could do for years to come).


Bailouts are also comical in general. Merkel committed to bailouts. Cameron committed to bailouts. Sarkozy committed to bailouts. The Spanish gov't, the Irish gov't... you should be telling the world how America actually lost the Cold War, because everyone's now communist!




I didn't say bailout. Although, I shouldve added the auto bailout to the list.


Indirect or direct economic stimulus are all so common among all leaders that you have to class all of Europe as failing in the cold war. But I enjoy how you are essentially still claiming that bailouts are far-left when clearly right-wing leaders all committed to bailouts. e.g. Regan (Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company bailout), Thatcher (http://www.moneysmartsblog.com... "under thatcher there were even more bailouts", etc. ignoring all current governments suffering recession.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 9:28:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 6:55:16 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/19/2012 9:41:15 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 7:07:55 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/19/2012 6:00:56 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:35:54 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:29:56 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:06:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I could go off on a massive rant, but calling Blair mainstream-left is like calling Hollande a liberal and John Locke socialist. The combining of ideology to make him left-wing makes no sense.


My point is that Obama is far to the left of CLinton and Blair.

Calling him far to the left of Blair would actually require him to do something far to the left of Clinton and Blair. Bearing in mind blair stopped privatisations (in other words essentially nationalised) industries and is still very well seen as centralist, it's very hard to classify Obama as far left on grounds such as Obamacare. Similarly, when right-wing Conservative David Cameron and further right-wing politicians are promoting legalisation of SSM, for example, it's similarly difficult to classify Obama as left-wing for promoting the same thing.


Obamacare, Dodd Frank, Stimulus.

Among other things.

All far left.

Obamacare isn't far left-wing: it's hardly even centrist. It's subsidising private industry. Calling that far left would mean nationalising industry is so far left wing that it goes all the way around the spectrum and becomes right-wing. And it makes Blair far-left. In fact, it is a lot more Conservative than anything, as the ideological aim is to promote Stability, a Conservative, but not liberal, value.



Dude, nationalizing industry is REALLY far left. And, as most conservatives know, nationalization is the opposite of stable.

And, yes, Obamacare is prettty left wing. It raises taxes by $500 Billion, has an employer mandate, creates a massive new subsidy program, and massively expands Medicaid.

What about that is centrist or conservative?

Nothing. THat is good ole big government leftism.

1) Obamacare isn't nationalising industry. If the industry is nationalised, then there is now only one competitor, and it is run by the government. i.e. a government controlled monopoly. That is not at all occurring. It is a subsidy.

I never said that it did nationalized industry. All I said was that the principle of natilionalizing is a left wing thing.

2) Subsidies themselves have occurred in all governments: short of failed governments I cannot think of a nation which does not subsidise.

Yes, and subsides are bad.

3) Laws on employers, or employers mandates, are so common that Blair did it, Sarkozy did it, Merkel did it and least surprisingly of all, Thatcher did it (Gas Act 1986, for example, included multiple restrictions on what the company could do for years to come).

Okay. Well, in America, Obama did it. And, on HC, it is a BIG deal. It costs a lot... and he also expanded Medicaid a lot...



Bailouts are also comical in general. Merkel committed to bailouts. Cameron committed to bailouts. Sarkozy committed to bailouts. The Spanish gov't, the Irish gov't... you should be telling the world how America actually lost the Cold War, because everyone's now communist!




I didn't say bailout. Although, I shouldve added the auto bailout to the list.


Indirect or direct economic stimulus are all so common among all leaders that you have to class all of Europe as failing in the cold war. But I enjoy how you are essentially still claiming that bailouts are far-left when clearly right-wing leaders all committed to bailouts. e.g. Regan (Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company bailout), Thatcher (http://www.moneysmartsblog.com... "under thatcher there were even more bailouts", etc. ignoring all current governments suffering recession.

Stop the strawmen.

I am talking about the stimulus here.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.