Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
57. Ah,
Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:19 PM
Dec 2012
"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican." - Barack Obama


...context is everything.

AMA: One issue that Cuban-Americans are worried about is, they believe that you favor a socialist model for our country. Cubans and Venezuelans especially because of what they have gone through. What do you think of that?

PBO: I don't know that there are a lot of Cubans or Venezuelans, Americans who believe that. The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican. I mean, what I believe in is a tax system that is fair. I don't think government can solve every problem. I think that we should make sure that we're helping young people go to school. We should make sure that our government is building good roads and bridges and hospitals and airports so that we have a good infrastructure. I do believe that it makes sense that everyone in America, as rich as this country is, shouldn't go bankrupt because someone gets sick, so the things I believe in are essentially the same things your viewers believe in.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

President Obama was redefining the right to emphasize how crazy the Republican Party has become.

It curious how excited people are over this statement in the context of defining the President versus what he actually said, which was related to policies. Republicans today are extremists. The President is saying his policy proposals are mainstream.

The President's health care law:

  • Expands Medicaid: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022047642

  • Increases taxes on the rich: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2059710

  • Includes a federal-control clause: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021978966

  • That doesn't include eliminating the middle man from federal student loans, expanding Pell Grants and strengthening Medicare, to name a few.

    If he's "Republican," he's one I can live with.

    As for the past, let's not let rhetoric get the best of reality. Republicans sucked in the 1980s, and there were a lot of Democrats over the last 40 years who also sucked.

    Phil Gramm:

    In 1976, Gramm unsuccessfully challenged Texas Democratic Senator Lloyd M. Bentsen, in the party's senatorial primary. Then in 1978 Gramm successfully ran as a Democrat for Representative from Texas's 6th congressional district, which stretched from the Fort Worth suburbs to College Station. He was reelected to his House seat as a Democrat in 1980.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm#United_States_House_of_Representatives



    Richard Shelby:

    Originally elected as a Democrat, Shelby switched to the Republican Party in 1994 when Republicans gained the majority in Congress midway through President Bill Clinton's first term. He was re-elected by a large margin in 1998 and has faced no significant electoral opposition since.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shelby


    Zell Miller:

    Miller crossed party lines and backed Republican President George W. Bush over Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zell_Miller


    The dynamics are not new, and the struggle is ongoing.

    A Democratic President enacted the COLA.
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022045787


    Recommendations

    0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

    Why indeed. woo me with science Dec 2012 #1
    Thanks for that video. Obama thinks liberalism is a tired, old ideology that needs to be replaced?? factsarenotfair Dec 2012 #42
    Obama: "Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938." woo me with science Dec 2012 #69
    How can intelligent people fail to heed Obama's words and deeds: He is not a friend of Social byeya Dec 2012 #73
    The words "not a bloodless process" are indeed chilling. factsarenotfair Dec 2012 #102
    This message was self-deleted by its author woo me with science Dec 2012 #104
    Because the Third Way believes that SS needs to be privatized and that the sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #2
    I think the opposite argument could be made too democrattotheend Dec 2012 #5
    so to "reduce the cost of the program" by cutting future benefits is ok with you? DrDan Dec 2012 #8
    I never said it's ok democrattotheend Dec 2012 #9
    I have to agree with your reasoning Freddie Dec 2012 #18
    +1 SunSeeker Dec 2012 #23
    We democrats did NOT stay home in 2010. Independents stayed home. sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #82
    there are other options that do not seem to be pursued - for example raising the cap DrDan Dec 2012 #35
    Wait. Why is Social Security in the mix - WHEN IT DOES NOT ADD TO THE DEFICIT? grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #37
    !!!! bvar22 Dec 2012 #68
    Great photo! grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #70
    I was lucky enough to have lived in St Paul, Minnesota... bvar22 Dec 2012 #79
    Amen. woo me with science Dec 2012 #76
    That's absurd. Simply having those who earn over $110,000/yr pay ito it will keep grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #10
    and/or include capital gains and "carried interest" reteachinwi Dec 2012 #27
    That is a solution I could definitely get behind democrattotheend Dec 2012 #108
    There is no reason to even mention SS in these negotiations and the Progressive Caucus xtraxritical Dec 2012 #31
    I've never seen any figures on how raising the cap will raise sufficient sums of money customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #80
    There's a bill introduced by Bernie Sanders that details all of it: grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #84
    I see some pretty charts customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #92
    Here are the core numbers in the PDF from the Social Security Chief Actuary: grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #98
    But the whole reason this "cut" is being proposed is truedelphi Dec 2012 #53
    "have the President sign and Executive Order recapturing that money" - grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #86
    If only that were true. But the opposite is true. First of all SS is not in trouble sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #63
    Hear Hear! Well said! grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #87
    I think YOU MIS READ WHAT I POSTED. truedelphi Dec 2012 #100
    I'm sorry, I was trying to agree with you but didn't do it very well. sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #105
    all I know is that I am headachy and grouchy now that not a truedelphi Dec 2012 #106
    Lol, I haven't had any egg nog either, so I wish I could join you also. sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #107
    Do you even know what a chained CPI is? daa Dec 2012 #66
    Sorry, but that makes no sense... grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #110
    Yep they first have to degrade and denature it kenny blankenship Dec 2012 #12
    Neo-liberalism is a failure as policy duffyduff Dec 2012 #28
    Yes, Neo-liberaliam has been tried in several places throughout the world and has been proved to byeya Dec 2012 #74
    Certainly Social Security is Self-Funded, On the Road Dec 2012 #3
    That's absurd. No one has to negotiate that which is simply not in play. Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #4
    No excuse for adopting what they bring to our proposals. TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #6
    If you are in control of negotiations, if your party wins an election, you get to sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #7
    Look at OBAMA'S offers, not BOHNERS. Why did OBAMA put it on the table? grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #11
    Mr. Obama is a long way from Wellstone ruled Dec 2012 #13
    He's "more like Harry Truman"? You must have a sense of humor. He's the exact opposite of Truman. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #17
    Right now, SS is self-funding. However, this will not be the case starting in 2033. Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #14
    Projections can change, it still has nothing to do with the current deficit Dragonfli Dec 2012 #20
    Exactly right reteachinwi Dec 2012 #30
    Bingo, spot-on, you've nailed it. hypergrove Dec 2012 #45
    Rationalization fail. Logic fail. High probability of administration deception detected. grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #38
    All we need do is have those who make over $110,000/yr pay into SS! grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #32
    Those numbers are based on the worst economy and the high enemployment sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #64
    If by self-funding customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #81
    The media has spun the demographics to make it appear half the population is not working, thus they freshwest Dec 2012 #15
    Obama is not doing this alone. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #16
    The appointer of Simpson & Bowles knew exactly where these two right-wingers stood. Their answer indepat Dec 2012 #19
    Take the cap off of wage limits on SSI. Not fair that poor and middle class only pay this in. earcandle Dec 2012 #21
    or maybe it was used to bribe senators and house? Put it back and audit SSI NOW earcandle Dec 2012 #22
    The ruling class sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #24
    Same reason he is lowering corporate taxes, and... soryang Dec 2012 #25
    President Obama has already taken Social Security off the table UCmeNdc Dec 2012 #26
    If you have any proof of that, I would love to see it, unfortunately his latest statement, grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #89
    because he knew the radical right would never go for a tax increase. He looks like a goddamn hero pasto76 Dec 2012 #29
    How does offering up our SS fund to vultures make him look like a "goddamn hero"? Dragonfli Dec 2012 #33
    Wait. You have a link for that? I would love it if he said he took SS off grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #39
    It is simple....... rustydad Dec 2012 #34
    ....and that is why Al Gore wanted a "lock box". NCarolinawoman Dec 2012 #43
    well, Gore did win--and they've formally admitted that since *2001* MisterP Apr 2013 #111
    Because "deficit" isn't the only thing that matters. Igel Dec 2012 #36
    So, you don't want to pay back the money you borrowed from the elderly... grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #41
    SS is not under attack and the deficit has nothing to so with SS... TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #40
    "Odd" That Obama "Throws Out Suggestions" Regarding SS Iggy Dec 2012 #44
    That's not how it works... TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #54
    No, that's wrong. Both sides throw out an entire offer, woo me with science Dec 2012 #90
    You state, "SS is not under attack", yet you admit that grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #46
    he hasn't stolen fom anyone yet, and... TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #52
    Of course, but historically Obama has had to be pushed hard to do the right thing. grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #61
    Look back at his first two years and say that. TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #65
    "can be changed in the future"? NCarolinawoman Dec 2012 #47
    We are finished with shadow governments and guns and fake facts. earcandle Dec 2012 #48
    Every body knows. earcandle Dec 2012 #49
    Quite possibly, when there is a less toxic House... TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #51
    Because Obama is a Republican. UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2012 #50
    Oh bullshit. I know the reason: ProSense Dec 2012 #55
    . UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2012 #56
    Ah, ProSense Dec 2012 #57
    Advantage: Prosense Number23 Dec 2012 #59
    Thank you.... Bobbie Jo Dec 2012 #94
    Don't you wish that just once he would pander to the left Doctor_J Dec 2012 #60
    Because the banksters who own the government WANT IT Doctor_J Dec 2012 #58
    When negotiating, you must offer the other side something they want. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2012 #62
    Just say someone wants to buy your car, but, heck, they'd like your house too; grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #67
    I don't think it should have ever been offered...but I still understand why he went there. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2012 #72
    I read nothing in that article about Obama attacking or cutting Social Security. And he hasn't. Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #71
    All the red areas comprise cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #75
    The CPI is only in Obama's last proposal, which he has withdrawn. Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #95
    I would very much appreciate a link to the administration stating that chained cpi and grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #96
    Bullshit. You declare defeat before anything even happens. MjolnirTime Dec 2012 #77
    I had to laugh out loud at your response Oilwellian Dec 2012 #83
    What are you talkin about? This is a call to action, asking that we all call grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #85
    Don't cut SS, cut corporate welfare! commenter8 Dec 2012 #78
    Because this is what the professors are telling him to do Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #88
    Bernake is only interested in stuffing our hard earned money into his obesely rich grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #91
    Corzine was never prosecuted Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #93
    Because SS is unsustainable in its current form- it's going to need some tweaking if people my age cecilfirefox Dec 2012 #97
    Then it should be adressed seperately from the the deficit reduction talks. Especially grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #99
    Last year Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #101
    Wall St. JReed Dec 2012 #103
    But Obama magically *knew* his offer(s) wouldn't be accepted! DirkGently Dec 2012 #109
    Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why is Social Security Un...»Reply #57