Barack Obama is a progressive President

[ProSense]

He's not FDR, LBJ, Kennedy or Truman, and there is no need to compare what was possible under those administrations to what is possible now. The President has equal conviction to achieve his agenda, and no one can say the things he has achieved thus far are not progressive. In fact, most of the critics claim that what he has accomplished isn't progressive enough. OK, let's agree, but that doesn't change the fact that the achievements have been progressive. Nor does it change the fact that he is one of the most progressive President's to lead this country.

President Clinton was a deregulator. President Obama is a regulator. Here is Robert Reich:

The most important thing to know about the 1,500 page financial reform bill passed by the Senate last week — now on he way to being reconciled with the House bill — is that it’s regulatory. It does nothing to change the structure of Wall Street.

When the debate about financial reform began, most people believed that it would fail. The bill is stronger than anyone predicted, and while there were opportunities to make it stronger, it is still significant reform. The bill does break up the largest financial instituions. What it doesn't do is cap the size of traditional banks.

Now, no doubt the Clinton era was different. Back then the country wasn't as far along on issues as they are now. On the other hand, Americans didn't have to deal with the aftermath of 9/11, the Afghanistan war, Bush's invasion of Iraq and the aftermath of Bush's eight years in office. Anyone charged with being President would have to deal with these issues.

Those incidents changed a lot. There are things that Bush set in motion that aren't easily reversed. No matter how deep the desire, it takes time to end a war, meaning ending combat and pulling out troops.

There are a lot of people, given the circumstances of the day, who wish to redefine reality to fit an ideal that does not exist in this country, whether through political posturing, vengefulness and a lack of civility.

President Obama cannot change the country by himself, and there are too many people who spend too much time throwing up obstacles. There are others who refuse to give him an ounce of credit. The President isn't above being held to a higher standard, but he does not deserve to be ridiculed for his actions.

Anyone can take issue with this view, but it's just my opinion.

[NJmaverick]

1. K&R

[Dinger]

14. K & U (nt)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

136. I don't consider you much of a progressive in the first place, so I'm not surprised. (nt)

[Bobbie Jo]

114. K&R

Good grief. :kick:

[phleshdef]

2. Pres. Obama's disadvantage is that his critics on both sides constantly move their own goal posts.

[NJmaverick]

117. In both cases it's because their motives are far from pure

[AtomicKitten]

145. True and it's that kind of inconsistency that exposes their true motives. nt

[ShortnFiery]

3. I sincerely doubt that you could get a majority of democrats to concur with your perspective.

Obama's Failure on International Human Rights and Racism

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/ObamaandRacism/Obama06.htm

[ProSense]

4. I really don't care.

You offer someone's opinion to counter mine, but then I know yours.

[phleshdef]

5. If Obama isn't progressive, then NO President has been progressive.

[ShortnFiery]

7. We must define *progressive* differently? Everything I've seen so far ...

appears to benefit large banks and corporations before the interest of the average wage earning American. If the foregoing is considered progressive, then yes, this Administration is just that.

[phleshdef]

10. Yea, yea, I am use to your broken record of talking points now Shorty.

[RC]

16. Right on!

Guantanamo? - Still in business.
NAFTA? No sign of repealing or fixing.
Two wars? Still going strong.
Regulation of Wall Street? Nothing much there.
Redoing the tax laws so business will quit out-sourcing? Not even in the works.
Repealing bu$h's tax cuts? Nope, gonna let them run out... Maybe, don't hold your breath.

And so on. Obama is not a Progressive. He is a Corporatist.

Oh yeah, where are the jobs in this "Recovery"? Ain't happening for main street.

[Forkboy]

57. Well yeah.

[harun]

147. I would say George Washington was. No others.

[Radical Activist]

34. Obama still has over 80% approval among Democrats.

But both parties have a much lower opinion of Congress. I'd say that's because most liberals understand that the Senate is the main roadblock to progressive legislation, not Obama. They're much smarter than the gullible people on DU who believe anything they read as long as it accuses Obama of not being liberal enough.

http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends

[NJmaverick]

119. Anger is not your friend, try logic and reason

for a change of pace

[zipplewrath]

6. He doesn't think so

You can play the label game all ya want, but he doesn't consider himself a progressive. And there wasn't much progressive about HCR. It was mostly 15 year old GOP ideas created to block universal health care. It mandated an obligation to purchasing health insurance, with no obligation to actually receive health care. It had regressive taxes in both mandates and the cadillac tax. Nothing about that is progressive. It isn't about not being "progressive enough", it isn't "progressive" at all.

He's a democrat and not all progressive ideas are unique, so there will frequently be a close alignment between progressive ideals and what he actually does. But he is not a progressive, doesn't want to be, and brags that he rejects progressive ideas. His CoS is a DLC sympathizer, and they definitely don't want to be considered progressives.

If you like what he is doing, fine. I just don't understand why folks what to place labels on him that he, himself, rejects.

[racaulk]

25. +1

[NJmaverick]

120. -1

[robinblue]

33. You are right.

[Beacool]

99. Reich is in for another heartbreak.

Obama will disappoint him as much as Clinton did years ago.

;)

[zipplewrath]

102. for me, worse

I kinda knew who Clinton was coming in. Obama has dove further right, faster, than even I imagined.

[Beacool]

132. Well, I always thought he was spewing B.S. .........

Maybe he does care, I don't know what's in his heart. To me Obama was always about Obama. He reminds me of plenty of other ambitious people that I've seen in the corporate world. They are so arrogant, so full of themselves. They think that they are ready to be the CEO when they barely know how to find their way around the office. Experience does matter in life and I didn't think he had it. I have a visceral dislike for people like him who ascend, not by hard work, but by bullshitting their way to the top.

Sorry, not a big fan of the man....

:shrug:

[zipplewrath]

134. I knew about his inexperience

It was a reason I wasn't an early supporter. I like my presidents with some executive branch experience. And I figured we'd have to put up with some "amateur hour" stuff the first year or so. I just didn't think he would dive as far right as he did, as soon as he did. Worse, I always kinda thought Clinton wanted to be a liberal, he just didn't think he could "sell it" alot of times, and he was more into strategy that ideology so to speak. In Obama's case, it seems fairly obvious that his ideology is relatively "centrist" to right leaning. I've seen it before, a democrat who probably would actually be a "rockfeller republican" except for all the crazy shit the republicans are tied to these days.

[NJmaverick]

118. More like he doesn't agree with your odd version of progressivism so you

try to hijack the cause

[zipplewrath]

129. He doesn't like the label

I can virtually guarantee it has absolutely nothing to do with any definition I've given it, nor you for that matter. HE doesn't like it and YOU can't seem to get that through your head. It ain't me it's HIM.

But keep assigning him labels he doesn't like nor agree with. It makes your point so much stronger.

[hulka38]

8. My opinion is that this is false.

[ProSense]

9. Why? n/t

[hulka38]

13. Big, connected, moneyed interests

get their way to a great extent under his administration to the detriment of the masses.

[ProSense]

18. I think that's

a fallacy

Such statements are premised on the notion that moneyed interest aren't lobbying people and there are those who are willing to protect them.

Again, the President has achieved strong legislation despite this. Were there about 10 more progressives in the Senate and a couple of dozen more in the House, the bills passed would have been even stronger.

[Cha]

11. Here are some of President Obama's remarks on that very subject..Progress..

<snip>

"Trust me, when I walked into the door of the Oval Office and found a $1.3 trillion deficit after the previous administration had inherited a surplus, the last thing I wanted to do was spend money on a recovery package, or become involved in the auto industry, or prevent the collapse of Wall Street banks -- particularly those whose irresponsibility had helped to cause this crisis. That wasn't on my campaign to-do list. You don't remember me campaigning on those items". (Laughter.)

And they certainly weren't popular. We knew that. You know, sometimes these folks -- I listen to these pundits and they're saying, aw, the President has made this decision and these are unpopular decisions. I've got pollsters. (Laughter.) I know when what we're about to do is politically unpopular. (Laughter.) But what I also knew was that if we wanted to break the back of our recession and get our economy moving again, then the steps we took were absolutely necessary. And while we still have a long road ahead of us, we're beginning to see signs of progress all across America. All across America. (Applause.)

The economy that was shrinking a year ago -- it's growing today. The economy that was bleeding jobs at a historic pace a year ago -- 750,000 jobs a month when I came in -- now we're creating jobs again. Our economic heartbeat keeps growing stronger. These are good things, even if our friends on the other side of the aisle fall all over themselves to argue otherwise.

But here's the thing: The steady progress we're seeing -- it didn't happen by accident. We're starting to see in public opinion surveys that people start thinking that the economy is getting better, but there seems to be a disconnect as to why it's getting better. The reason the economy is getting better is because Nancy Pelosi and every Democrat here embraced the responsibility to lead. It happened because they embraced the responsibility to stand up to special interests, stand up even against the prevailing political winds, stand up for the American people's interests. It happened because we embraced the responsibility to finally take on problems that Washington had talked about for years, sometimes decades, and put off over and over and over again. That's what this Congress has been doing.

And it hasn't been easy. These guys have taken more tough votes in the last 16 months than Congress had taken in the previous 16 years. (Applause.) And that's the truth."

<more>
http://thepage.time.com/remarks-obama-at-dccc-dinner-may-13-2010/

[katandmoon]

12. Good god. You seriously need to read the REST of Reich's article.

Reich is calling Obama out in it.

[ProSense]

15. I read the article, and you need to understand how that

citation fits into the point: Obama is a regulator.

As for Reich's article, I do not agree with all his points.

[hulka38]

51. Prosense, Reich's central point, main point and for practical purposes only point

is that he is dissatisfied with Obama's efforts here as well as the Senate's.
Now you allege that Reich's point is that "Obama is a regulator" as if Reich is praising him. Again, deceptive - sorry mods, what adjective would you say?
Reich: "Even if this regulation were tough enough (and the current Senate bill requires various delays and studies before it’s applied), it would not erode the giant banks’ monopoly over derivatives trading, adding to their power and inevitable 'too big to fail' status."
Reich is saying that regulation is the weaker non-effective, non-progressive approach. This is not opinion. There is no way to misinterpret what Reich is saying unless it's willfully done and English is your second language.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

20. Nonsense.

Reich is of the opinion that the size of traditional banks is an issue. Krugman disagrees.

The problem was never about the size of banks, it was about the non-banking financial tentacles.

[hulka38]

35. I'd urge everyone to read this short article by Reich all the way through

and judge for yourselves whether or not Reich is satisfied with Obama's efforts to effect change to the financial system that this country desperately needs.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

49. The point of the article is not lost on me.

The point of the OP however seems to escape you.

[laughingliberal]

32. You weren't supposed to read that part. Get with the program, damn it! n

[ProSense]

45. The link was provide not to hide the article

If you want my opinion of the article, I offered it yesterday.

The OP has nothing to do with Reich's opinion of what Obama should have done on financial reform. Reich's article does however stress that President Obama is pro-regulation.

[NJmaverick]

116. Selective reading skills still intact, I see

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

23. Couldn't think of anything to rebut the opinion, huh?

You point: more than 400 smilies.

[jgraz]

29. .

:rofl:

[MissDeeds]

24. You beat me to it

The OP gave me the best laugh I've had all day. :applause:

[Junkie Brewster]

22. I think he's a centrist, not unlike Clinton

The problem is that with the Republicans fighting to out-fascist each other, Obama looks like a progressive. I don't regret voting for him, and I will vote (and donate, and volunteer) again in 2012, but he's not a progressive.

[ProSense]

26. You know,

if President Obama had been the 43rd President, on the strength of his appreciation for regulation alone, he would have been deemed more progressive than Clinton. Let's not forget that in the wake of Enron, 2001-2002, progressive Democrats were already trying to undo the damage caused by deregulation.

[Radical Activist]

30. Obama has already done more on clean energy, bank regulation, credit card reform, HCR, CAFE...

A lot of Obama's accomplishments are undoing what Clinton failed at doing or gave away to the right. Obama has more progressive accomplishments in two years than Clinton had in eight combined. The differences between Obama and Clinton are significant and obvious.

[Radical Activist]

27. Too many unrecs for my rec to count. Pathetic.

The fact that we want Obama to do more shouldn't stop people from giving credit when it's due. And Obama is due a whole hell of a lot of credit.

[styersc]

28. Bullshit!

When Obama can benefit from the work and votes of PRogressives, he allows us to believe that he is progressive. Just because those who oppose progressives, also oppose Obama does not mean that he is a progressive!

[ProSense]

31. Bullshit back at you.

"When Obama can benefit from the work and votes of PRogressives, he allows us to believe that he is progressive. "

Makes no friggin sense. Does absolutely nothing to address the points made in the OP.

[styersc]

36. Compared to Clinton, GHW Bush and Nixon were progressive.

Clinton was a triangulating centrist at best. Please- NAFTA, Welfare Reform, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Silent on Ruwanda..... If you are using Clinton as a measure of progressivism, you aren't setting the bar very high.

And sure Obama professes to be pro-strong regulation and crows about the recent financial reform regulation. Pray this regulation is more authentic then the regulations that require safety measures on oil rigs.

[ProSense]

40. That's utter nonsense. n/t

[NJmaverick]

112. You peddle a warped version of Progressivism that strays far from the core

principals and values of true progressivism

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

137. So if Obama does something, it doesn't count because of "the work and votes of PRogressives"?

That's asinine.

[robinblue]

37. RR is not happy with Obama. Read all of the article.

The interesting question is why the president, who says he wants to get “tough” on banks, has also turned his back on changing the structure ...........

[AllentownJake]

38. Reich has been throwing rhetorical bombs before it was cool

and the OP is a misleading pile of tripe that is to be expected.

[ProSense]

41. Where in the OP does it offer an opinion about Reich? n/t

[robinblue]

43. I never said it did. But your quote was very selective to say the least.

[ProSense]

46. The quote was selective for a reason

The OP has nothing to do with Reich's opinion of what Obama should have done on financial reform. Reich's article does however stress that President Obama is pro-regulation.

To make a point. Something which some of the responses here are ignoring simply to cast doubt on the opinion.

[robinblue]

47. thats what happens when a poster selectively

uses a quote to support his/her opinion and ignores the jest of the article.

[ProSense]

53. Selective, but not inaccurate. Here is Reich

Title: Obama’s Regulatory Brain

Throughout the article he makes the point that the bill relies on regulation:

Here, too, the bill takes a regulatory approach instead. It includes a provision barring banks from “proprietary trading,” or making market bets with their own capital. Even if this regulation were tough enough (and the current Senate bill requires various delays and studies before it’s applied), it would not erode the giant banks’ monopoly over derivatives trading, adding to their power and inevitable “too big to fail” status.

And I do not agree with him that regulation, no matter how tough, doesn't work.

If Reich had said President Obama is tall in an article not about tall people, his point would be relevant in discussing tall people.

The entire argument that the quote is selective is a distraction.

[robinblue]

55. RR wants a change in the structure of Wall Street. He disagrees with

the regulatory approach. I think he is correct.

[ProSense]

59. He claims the structure hasn't been changed because a specific bill failed. I don't agree.

The bill that failed would cap the size of banks. Brown-Kaufman was all about leverage and size. It did nothing to address derivatives and other activities. Even Senator Kaufman acknowledges this:

<...>

Swap Dealer Spin-Off

I also believe we must preserve Section 716 of the current Senate bill. That provision, included in the bill by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Lincoln, would prohibit banks with swap dealers from receiving emergency assistance from the Federal Reserve or FDIC.

By forcing megabanks to spin off their swap dealer into an affiliate or separate company, this section would help restore the wall between the government-guaranteed part of the financial system and those financial entities that remain free to take on greater risk.

It would also help address the enormous concentration of power among a few “too big to fail” institutions. The five largest banks – Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America – control over 90 percent of the OTC derivatives market.

Yet, there are those who say that forcing these megabanks to spin off their swaps dealers to affiliates in only a few years time would disrupt the derivatives market. The historical record shows, however, that financial institutions can adapt to regulatory changes quite quickly.

Goldman Sachs has only been a bank holding company for fewer than two years. Within that time, it has used its newly formed bank, which is just one-tenth the size of the overall holding company, to source the vast majority of its derivatives transactions. Amazingly, Goldman Sachs has a $41 trillion derivatives book attached to a $91 billion bank.

Unfortunately, allowing massive derivatives dealers to be housed within banks creates moral hazard, a term often invoked by my conservative colleagues. This was true of AIG, which rented out its AAA rating and the financial strength of its insurance subsidiaries to write credit default swap contracts that systematically underpriced risk. It is also true of dealer banks, whose access to federally-insured deposits and a government backstop of emergency lending allows them to underprice risk on swap contracts. Notably, this government subsidy allows these institutions to be lax in their collateral and margin requirements on derivatives transactions.

Some complain that requiring the megabanks to spin off their derivatives dealers would require those dealers to raise extra capital as affiliates. I say that that is precisely the point. Housing a large derivatives dealer book in a bank, even a small one, allows these institutions to arbitrage capital requirements. Requiring them to spin off their dealer to a separate broker-dealer affiliate would appropriately require them to raise more capital based upon the riskiness of their derivatives book. Currently, these institutions are undercapitalized.

Yet Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke claims that “forcing these activities out of insured depository institutions would weaken both financial stability and strong prudential regulation of derivative activities.” I beg to differ. Spinning off large derivatives dealers would force these institutions to adequately price and capitalize the risks associated with these activities. By ending the aforementioned moral hazard, we are only strengthening financial institutions. By requiring derivatives dealers to hold capital commensurate with the risk of their business, we are only strengthening prudential regulation.

Meanwhile, FDIC Chairman Bair states that derivatives “do have legitimate and important functions as risk-management tools, and insured banks play an essential role in providing market-making functions for these products.” Requiring banks to spin off their derivatives dealers, however, would not preclude them from using derivatives as risk-management tools or as products to service client needs. For example, if a client wanted to hedge the interest rate risk on a floating rate loan through a swap, the bank would still be able to execute that transaction. Senator Lincoln’s provision doesn’t ban banks from using derivatives. Instead, it says that it is inappropriate for a commercial bank to have an almost $80 trillion derivatives book as some do.

Conclusion

Of course, anyone can come up with reasons for maintaining the status quo—of saying, for example, that Senator Lincoln’s inspired solution simply goes too far. But after the crisis we just suffered, I would ask my colleagues to support these proposals, which represent real reform and change. I would ask my colleagues to see the wisdom of building an enduring structure of laws instead of vesting our hopes in unelected regulatory discretion. We have seen the effects of regulators neglecting their duties and banks left to self-regulation.

<...>

[treestar]

86. Well if the article is in jest

:rofl:

[hulka38]

58. Your OP was to opine that Obama is a progressive.

You then get into his progressive policies and cite Reich's piece as backing you up that Obama is being progressive on financial reform. But it is important to point out that in the case of financial reform, settling on regulation at the expense of a fundamental shake up of the system is the weaker, ineffective and non progressive approach according to the man who penned the article you used to back up your opinion. In this case regulation is bad. How can you omit that or deny that it was Reich's point?

[ProSense]

60. "settling on regulation at the expense of a fundamental shake up of the system is the weaker"

You have latched onto to Reich's opinion and have no clue about what the bill does.

The fact is, quoting Reich about regulation, which you seem to now say he is part of the point he makes, is far more appropriate than the attempts to use his piece to claim that the measure enacted isn't progressive. Reich is saying it isn't tough enough, that is it isn't progressive enough. On his characterization of the bill, I completely disagree.

[hulka38]

61. Let's establish something.

You cite Reich's article to back you up that Obama is progressive on financial reform, correct?

[ProSense]

63. "You cite Reich's article to back you up that Obama is progressive on financial reform, correct?"

Wrong.

The quote was cited because he characterized President Obama as a regulator. Now, why exactly are you trying to go in circles?

[hulka38]

64. So wrt financial reform, you believe that Obama's regulatory approach

is more progressive or less progressive than Reich's suggestions of Lincoln's and other proposed reforms?

[hulka38]

66. I think you present Reich's quote that Obama's a regulator as evidence that

Obama is being progressive on financial reform. Reich is saying the opposite.

[robinblue]

67. Correct and thanks

[hulka38]

70. Thank you, robinblue. It's my pleasure.

[ProSense]

72. I pointed to a quote that states President Obama is a regulator

Point to where Reich addresses whether or not the President is a progressive.

[robinblue]

76. Whether RR said it or not is not the issue.

[hulka38]

77. You wanted to use a well loved Progressive economist's quote

"Barack Obama is a regulator" to help readers of your post associate it with "Barack Obama is a progressive President", the headline of your OP.

[hulka38]

130. Why so shy about admitting you're trying to connect Obama being a regulator with being a progressive

"The quote was cited because he characterized President Obama as a regulator."

How does Obama being a regulator on financial reform tie in with the central theme of your OP, that Obama's a progressive? You must think there's a connection otherwise why include it in your OP?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

42. Typical evasive can't come up with a rebuttal answer. n/t

[AllentownJake]

44. I'm sure I could come up with 10 if I was so inclined

but kicking puppies gets me in trouble.

[donco6]

50. But "too big to fail" is one of the biggest problems in our lack of reform.

Reich specifically points to that as being one of the biggest problems that Obama refuses to address. He's hardly progressive - he may be more reliant on regulations than some, but that doesn't make him progressive at all.

[ProSense]

54. Too big to fail was never about banks being too large,

It was always about banks merging with other financial institutions and becoming too complex and beyond the jurisdiction of bank regulators. The Senate bill does break up large financial institutions

Derivatives

Mandates exchange trading and clearing for most derivatives, with a limited end-user exemption. Forces federally insured banks to spin-off their swaps desks.

A Krugman points out, the problem had nothing to do with the size of raditional banks.

[donco6]

56. You'll have to point it out in your link.

I'm having trouble finding that.

[depakid]

68. Wow- sometimes the disconnect with reality astonishes even me!

[NorthCarolina]

52. Just wishful thinking. Like they say

wish in one hand, shit in the other and see which one fills up faster. 'Obama is a Progressive'..... :spray:

[Lindsey]

62. I absolutely agree with you. Thanks for posting. n/t

[freddie mertz]

65. Maybe if we wish for it REALLY HARD, we can make it be true. nt.

[Dr Fate]

69. And Rahm Emmanuel is a progressive Chief of Staff. And Harry Reid is...

...a progressive Senator. So is Joe Lieberman.

And Max Baccus (sp) is a progressive Health Commitee Chair.

And the CEO of BP, he's a progressive too.

For years, "progressive" Radio Host, Rush Limbaugh has advocated a hands off approach as to Big oil, as well as sending troops to the border.

Etc, etc. etc.

[ProSense]

73. Ah, jokes.

Great response. n/t

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

74. Funny, I don't see the word "progressive" in that snip. Here is Reich today:

<...>

Case in point: The measure in the banking bill that would force banks to push their derivative trading into separate units rather than rely on tax-payer subsidized insured deposits. For reasons I’ve already stated, the measure is common sensical.

Wall Street hates it because it would cost it billions.

Already New York Representative Michael McMahon says he’ll work to remove it from the bill. Yesterday, New York Representative Gary Ackerman, also a member of the finance committee, told his staff to circulate a draft letter yesterday to House members seeking their opposition to it.

Watch who signs Ackerman’s letter. Listen for the positions of members of the conference committee. Vote accordingly next fall.

link

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hulka38]

78. Again, to recap: Reich not in favor of the bill's regulatory approach.

Reich thinks structural reform is what needs to be done, not regulation. Between the two approaches, the Wall Street banks would much prefer the regulatory bill. Geitner, Bernanke, Summers and Obama support the bill that the huge Wall Street banks prefer.

ProSense used a trusted, progressive economist's (Reich) quote, "Barack Obama is a regulator" to help readers associate it with "Barack Obama is a progressive President", the headline of her OP.

In this case the word regulator means the opposite of the word progressive.

[ProSense]

79. This is really causing you a lot of anguish, huh? n/t

[hulka38]

80. I kinda liked post #78.

[hulka38]

81. I read 78 again and I think it really puts a bow on it.

[ProSense]

82. I read it again, too

It's desperation.

[Forkboy]

83. I bet you did.

[ProSense]

84. What? n/t

[Forkboy]

87. Your best post ever!

[ProSense]

89. Oh, I forgot

you don't make points. It's all irrelevant snark all the time.

[Forkboy]

90. Only when it's warrented.

[saorsa]

85. Talk about redefining reality....

Here are the last 5 paragraphs of the Robert Reich article.

Inevitably, top regulators move into the industry they're putatively trying to regulate, while top guns in the industry move temporarily into regulatory positions. This revolving door of regulation also serves over time to erode all serious attempt at overseeing an industry.

The only way to have a lasting effect on industries as large and intransigent as banking and health care is to alter their structure. That was the approach taken to finance by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, and by Lyndon Johnson to health care (Medicare) in the 1960s.

So why has Obama consistently chosen regulation over restructuring? Because restructuring Wall Street or health care would surely elicit firestorms from these industries. Both are politically powerful, and Obama did not want to take them on directly.

A regulatory approach allows for more bargaining, not only in the legislative process but also, over time, in the rule-making process as legislation is put into effect. It's always possible to placate an industry with a carefully-chosen loophole or vague legislative language that will allow the industry to continue to go on much as before.

And that's precisely the problem.

You cherry picked the wrong article, I think.

Me personally I don't even buy the "regulator" argument, really, 'cause at least a real 'regulator' would put some oversight teeth behind their 'regulatin', but Reich, bless him for trying, is doin' the diplo speak rag, maybe in order to catch the attention of someone looking to claim Obama is a Progressive. But watch out, lurking in plain sight in the the writer's well structured sentences are the words, terms and phrases that are actually being pinned on Obama here:
placate
loophole
revolving door
go on much as before


Add the above together and if anyone gets the result = Progressive, we all need to have a talk about what Progressive really means.



Or you can just keep repeating after me:
It's all good, it's all good............

[ProSense]

88. Is there denial dust in the air?

Your entire comment validates the claim that Reich referred to Obama as a regulator, which is the only point his quote is intended to make. Then you offer this:

You cherry picked the wrong article, I think.

Me personally I don't even buy the "regulator" argument, really, 'cause at least a real 'regulator' would put some oversight teeth behind their 'regulatin'

No, it was the perfect article to cite to make the point that Obama is pro-regulation.

You may not buy the argument, but that's on you.

[saorsa]

96. Pathetic catch phrase fig leaf for lack of comprehension by user, disrupts poor Mr Orwell's repose

Sorry, no your statement is incorrect, as you cherry picked the article to claim the title of ' Progressive' for Obama, not simply the title of 'Regulator'.
And, as you highlight in posting my words, I even called BS on Mr. Reich for using the 'Regulator' label, which he uses in his article to set up his argument, i.e., that the lame and TOOTHLESS 'Regulation' that phony 'Regulators' enact when compared to the real and meaningful structural change which is required to prevent the kinds of abuses that have caused the crises we now face, is in fact the result of cowardice or connivance, take your pick.

Reich sets up the angle of the whole article in his opening:

The most important thing to know about the 1,500-page financial reform bill passed by the Senate last week -- now on he way to being reconciled with the House bill -- is that it's regulatory. If does nothing to change the structure of Wall Street.

The bill omits two critical ideas for changing the structure of Wall Street's biggest banks so they won't cause more trouble in the future, and leaves a third idea in limbo. The White House doesn't support any of them.

The point of the article is to uncover the wimpy half-assed, cover your butt 'cause you're not about to confront the worst corporate crime wave this country has ever known, pretense of 'pretend' regulators like Obama, versus the ( wait for it) 'REAL CHANGE' the author refers to when he refers to 'Structural Change', which by the way is what all the REAL Progressives are talking about these days, for those who are paying attention 'cause they really give a damn. In retrospect, it was the perfect article to illustrate that comparison, for those who grasped it's meaning.

You choose to ignore the obvious meaning of the article, so you can jump around and gleefully declare
"Obama is pro-regulation ! Obama is pro-regulation! " while Obama and the pathetic sell-outs in the Senate and the House, cut deals with corporate criminals that water down regulations, and defang regulatory legislation in the wee hours after midnight, or take the easy way out and just rubber-stamp bills written by the industry lobbyists themselves.

Some people call Obama a Centrist, or a
Third Way Democrat, Clinton Democrat, New Democrat, Pragmatist, WTF, there's a variety to choose from.

But come now, Obama is no freakin way a Progressive. If you were one, you would know that,
and that's on you.

[ProSense]

101. Utter drivel

"You choose to ignore the obvious meaning of the article"

The OP has nothing to do with the article except as it references the President as being pro-regulation.

Some people are having trouble with basic comprehension, but maybe it's their desperation triggered by seeing the President being described a progressive.

Nothing you are arguing has anything whatsoever to do with my point. Reich's article had nothing to do with being progressive, it had everything to do with analyzing a regulatory approach, albeit critical of it.

[KingFlorez]

91. Yes

Progressive means moving forward and he's taken steps to do just that.

[TomCADem]

92. K & R!

The opinions on DU sometimes makes me think that the right is the new left with the full throated embrace of libertarianism.

[MadHound]

93. Progressive?

No, I don't think so, at least not in the normal sense of the term. Perhaps progressive when compared to Bush, or batshit crazy teapartiers, but then again Ike and Nixon are progressive if you're making that sort of comparison.

But when you hand out a stimulus bill that is almost forty percent tax cuts, a health care reform that gives the insurance industry a mandated monopoly, that's not progressive. Conducting illegal, immoral wars is not a progressive virtue, neither is continuing to deprive the people of their civil liberties. And as for that all out frontal attack on public education, well I never read that as a progressive tactic.

As far as this financial reform bill, the failure to address credit card rates, payday loans and the bringing back Glass-Steagall (one of those big pieces of progressive legislation) certainly doesn't put the progressive imprimatur on the bill.

Obama is cut from the same cloth as Clinton, fifty years ago they would have been moderate Republicans, of the same mold as Ike. There is nothing progressive about that, all it demonstrates is just how far right the political dialogue has gone in this country, when people in the tradition of Ike are now considered "progressive".

[tsuki]

98. You forget the ultra-secret Catfood Commission that was convened

to destroy Social Security and Medicare. Hardly progressive.

[zipplewrath]

103. Orwellian

I couldn't agree with you more. I am dumb founded by the effort on the part of some to define this man as a progressive when even HE avoids that label. I mean, if you like what he is doing, fine. But why the concerted effort to redefine it as progressive when even HE avoids it and even points out how he AVOIDED progressiveness in some of his efforts.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

95. Your opinion of what's worth reading is irrelevant. n/t

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

100. Idiotic. n/t

[muffin1]

104. OMG

You owe me a keyboard. Hilarious! Too funny! Quit it!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ProSense]

107. Ooh, look

You know how to paste smilies.

[GinaMaria]

105. Progressive= VERY Liberal

That is how it is defined on surveys/polls for people to self identify/label themselves. Obama isn't Very Liberal. This non-sense needs to stop. You are who you are and Obama is who he is. Neither of you project a very liberal or progressive point of view. Nothing wrong with that, but calling yourself or Obama very liberal/progressive is like me calling myself a free-market libertarian. It's obvious to everyone I am not a free-market libertarian. Any continued insistence on my part that I am would be insanity. It also accomplishes nothing.

[ProSense]

108. "This non-sense needs to stop."

You first.

Obama:



Barack Obama is a Hard-Core Liberal.

Clinton:



Bill Clinton is a Moderate Liberal.


Making up your own reality doesn't count.

[GinaMaria]

111. voting record

Your link is about BHO's senate record, not presidential record. His voting record in the senate reflects his constituents' not his personal view. The same can be said of Rahm's voting record. They both represented liberal groups of people and voted their constituents' interests. This isn't a reflection of their personal ideology. It's a reflection of a politician's reality, getting reelected.

Talk about creating your own reality....What is your definition of a hard core liberal? On your own chart you've got him placed as a central liberal (middle of the liberal spectrum). Middle of liberal is not Very Liberal/Progressive (need to move left for that). So your own "evidence" demonstrates he is not progressive or very liberal.

How valid is this graph indicating he's in the center of liberal ideology? Did BHO complete this assessment himself or did someone do it for him? We can guess all day long about where someone is on these charts. Who completed this assessment on behalf of BHO? Are his beliefs really important or are his actions and words what really count? How about a measure of his actions since becoming president, since your information only covers his senate record? How would we know? There are several of these quizzes out there. Some use the same graphic with different questions. How valid are these questions (if we can identify which ones were used)today? Do we really have a right/left continuum or a Libertarian/populist continuum right now? Is this really how we would attempt to quantify someone's political positions today?


Your source: Ontheissues.org

The quiz tab takes you to the Votematch tab which is only as current as the 2008 Primary. Attempts to connect to the 2008 candidates quiz results in file not found.

A lot has changed since the primary and since BHO was a senator. How is he currently very Liberal/progressive and on what scale? How do you know your result is valid?

The definition of Progressive meaning Very Liberal has been around since at least early on in the * administration. I first saw it on Zogby polls back in 2002. May have been around a lot longer than that. This is when I first noticed it and started identifying myself as Very Liberal/Progressive. The meaning has been clear for quite some time.

[ProSense]

121. "Your link is about BHO's senate record, not presidential record. "

So he's no longer a liberal, he just used to vote that way?

What nonsense.

[GinaMaria]

123. That's all you've got?

Can't answer a single question I posed. You don't respond to the content of my post. Instead, you post something I never said, "So he's no longer a liberal, he just used to vote that way?"

There's nonsense here alright, but it's not in my post.

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

125. Better luck next time indeed

Unfortunately you went right over this persons head. I guess it is rocket science to understand how a Senator might vote based on who they are representing.

[ProSense]

127. How RWish.

"How valid is this graph indicating he's in the center of liberal ideology? Did BHO complete this assessment himself or did someone do it for him? We can guess all day long about where someone is on these charts. Who completed this assessment on behalf of BHO? Are his beliefs really important or are his actions and words what really count? How about a measure of his actions since becoming president, since your information only covers his senate record? How would we know? There are several of these quizzes out there. Some use the same graphic with different questions. How valid are these questions (if we can identify which ones were used)today? Do we really have a right/left continuum or a Libertarian/populist continuum right now? Is this really how we would attempt to quantify someone's political positions today?"

Posing a whole series of questions after stating: "Your link is about BHO's senate record, not presidential record."

One question: Why did you feel the need to qualify the graph?

[GinaMaria]

128. one question?

I asked several get to mine before asking one. Otherwise step off.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GinaMaria]

126. thanks

:-)

I've noticed that too. Strange world we post in.

Take care

[spiritual_gunfighter]

110. +1

I am not sure why the OP feels the need on almost a daily basis to convince us that Obama is a liberal (or the poster for that matter), because neither of them are in the slightest.

[Odin2005]

106. Yeah, right, and I'm a billionaire! /sarcasm

[NJmaverick]

113. Yeah right and you are also a progressive

:sarcasm:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

109. I guess if you keep telling yourself this

it will eventually be true.

[NJmaverick]

115. Is that the best you can offer when faced with the facts

disputing your fictitious claims?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

122. Hey it's you!

What a surprise.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

131. Isn't PROGRESS of any kind by it's very nature "PROGRESSive"?

Regardless of how you feel about the guy, nobody can really argue that, on balance, Obama hasn't made any progress- even if it doesn't go as far as some people (including myself) think it should. However, progress- of any kind- in the kind of political climate we find ourselves in- is pretty damned impressive and should be recognized even as we push for more progress. In some ways, Obama's Presidency could almost be considered "Clinton 2:The Revenge". I know to many that might be seen as "damning with faint praise" (depending on your view of the Clinton years- I myself thought that Clinton was a good POTUS overall) but Obama has succeeded- or is close to succeeding- on some fronts that Clinton, unfortunately, wasn't able to conquer back in 1993-1994, specifically Health Care Reform and ending the ban on gays and lesbians in the military. Not to mention the fact that he makes the Republicans (and most of his public detractors) look like *real* jackasses whenever he goes toe-to-toe with them. Who can argue with those successes (and the other ones he's been able to achieve since taking office)? :shrug:

[zipplewrath]

135. No

That's not what "progressive" means in this context. Not anymore than being "right wing" has anything to do with being correct.

Progressivism came out of, and has more to do with, the advancement of ALL people, not just the privileged or fortunate. It is the polar opposite of "trickle down" or "survival of the fittest" social philosophies. The only connection to "progress" is that it basically assumes that "change" will be a constant. But "change of any kind" has nothing to do with progressivism.

Mandates are not progressive
Cadillac taxes are not progressive
The war in Afghanistan is not progressive
Expelling members of the military for being gay, when you can stop it, is not progressive.


And for what it's worth, Obama himself does not like to be labeled a progressive. Neither does his Chief of Staff. They prefer the term "New Democrat".

[NorthCarolina]

133. So many posts, so few recs. Apparently many don't agree. n/t

[arcadian]

138. This post has been unrecced into oblivion.

I guess DU rejects your false assertions.

[ProSense]

139. People

unrec facts here too. If someone posted that the President proposed an end to oil subsidies, people would unrec it.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

140. Yeah

it's all those people's fault, they dont see it like I do, I AM THE ONE IWTH THE FACTSSSSSSS11!!!

[ProSense]

141. "I AM THE ONE IWTH THE FACTSSSSSSS11!!!"

Don't be ridiculous. The OP is an opinion, which you evidently cannot refute so you resort to lame responses.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

142. You just said in your previous post that "people unrec facts"

and now you are claiming it is an opinion? Which is it?

[ProSense]

143. Read it again. n/t

[GinaMaria]

144. OMG!!! You crack me up

:rofl:

Thanks for the chuckle this morning

[spiritual_gunfighter]

146. You're welcome Gina. n/t

[stevenleser]

148. Kick

:kick:

(too late to rec)

[Jakes Progress]

149. You say he is progressive. My neighbor says he is a commie.

I think both of you are woefully uninformed and speak from pre-ordained position.

Tiresome.