If liberal policies are successful, is that bad for America?

I'm guessing this topic has come up before, but I figure it wouldn't hurt to ask.

I was prompted by this exchange:

Sababa said:

wow the right wingers on here hate their President so much that they appear to be cheering and calling for terrorists to kill Americans.

Click to expand...

MMC said:

who is calling for terrorists to kill Americans? I didn't see this at all in here. What is up with that? Just where do they get this stuff from?

Click to expand...

It's clear to me that some on the Right are more interested in having Obama fail than they are in the national interest. And yes, I'm confident that if some relatively minor disaster were to befall this country … and it could be blamed on actions taken by the Administration, these people would in fact be HAPPY, THRILLED because it would have served their political/ideological interests, although I expect most would not admit that even to themselves.

Maybe I was just naive years ago, but this seems like a new phenomenon t' me, at least much more widespread. I was skeptical of many policies advanced by Reagan and Bush43, and I was strongly opposed to some. But I sure did hope they would succeed! If big tax cuts for the wealthy fostered a strong economy, then that would be great. If some clearly positive outcome associated with the war in Iraq developed (and I suppose that is still a possibility), I might be willing to agree that it was a good idea.

I'm a progressive liberal. I have clear policy preferences. But my focus of course is on positive outcomes. Are some of Obama's critics so certain of their attitude toward government, so invested in their ideological bias, that they would rather see the country fail than succeed under liberal policies?


The classic, of course, is the well-known statement by that corporatist, drug-dealing slob, Rash Limpblow, unapologetically saying "I hope he [Obama] fails." He tried to get around the despicable nature of that argument, first, with an entirely false claim that liberals wanted Bush43 to fail, and secondly, with the ridiculous idea that Americans were being asked to hope for Obama's success because he's an African-American. Here's the infamous Declaration of Impenitence:

Relentless Incompetence: Americans Are Giving Up on Obama.....

Over the last several months, the American public has had a hard and clear look at the executive talent inside the White House, and has begun to despair for real leadership and competence.

When leadership fails, people stop following. It appears in the sixth year of the Barack Obama presidency, that moment has arrived.

CNN’s most recent poll provided a clear indicator of this dynamic in the wake of two major controversies involving military issues. The results showed that Obama did not gain a majority of support for any of twelve issues surveyed from the respondents. In fact, in ten of the twelve issues, majorities disapproved of the President’s performance, and only on one – the environment, usually an overwhelming Democratic strength – did his approval exceed his disapproval, and only barely at 49/45. On the economy and health care, which the poll identified as the top two priorities of its respondents, Obama’s approval ratings sank to 38/61 and 36/63, respectively.

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza assigns the change in polling to a crisis of leadership and competence in the White House. “The core of Obama’s appeal,” wrote Cillizza about the 2008 election “was the idea that he would restore competence back to the White House after President George W. Bush's eight years…. Obama openly embraced the idea that he was the anti-Bush on nothing much more than his commitment to putting the best people in the right places within his administration.”

Now, the series of disastrous scandals and unmistakable incompetence have completely eroded confidence in his leadership, Cillizza argues, pointing to a Pew poll series in which his perceived executive competence went from 70/15 in February 2009 to 43/51 in December 2013.....snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/relent...100000019.html


Nothing about Obama’s performance in these scandals and debacles should give anyone confidence in his assurances -- not of security, not of competence, not even of being madder than anyone. The polling numbers suggest that Americans have finally reached a point where the incompetence and dishonesty are just too obvious to ignore any longer......snip~

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...incompetence-americans-giving-up-obama-3.html

mmi said:

It's clear to me that some on the Right are more interested in having Obama fail than they are in the national interest. And yes, I'm confident that if some relatively minor disaster were to befall this country … and it could be blamed on actions taken by the Administration, these people would in fact be HAPPY, THRILLED because it would have served their political/ideological interests, although I expect most would not admit that even to themselves.

Click to expand...

Here's the way this thing works.

Right now the Republicans are doing anything they can to bash anything Obama or progressive. But sooner or later the GOP will be back in control and we can all sit back and watch the Democrats take their turn.

Another year of stalemate in DC. Wonderful, huh. :roll:

MMC said:

Relentless Incompetence: Americans Are Giving Up on Obama

Click to expand...

I'm guessing you voted, but you didn't answer my more pointed enquiry: Would you rather see the country fail than have liberal policies succeed?

I figure I've come to know you a little bit in the past few days, so I won't direct this one at you, but do you think some of yer fellow anti-Obamaites secretly hope that some Americans are killed as a result of the Bergdahl exchange because it might come crashing down on the White House? This is similar to a question I've asked for many months: what would his critics have said about Ambassador Stevens before he was murdered? I know what some were saying in the days immediately after his death — that he was an Arab-lovin', pinko, terrorist sympathizer who got just what he deserved. They also tried to urinate on his corpse by claiming that he was a (gasp) homosexual.

Bob N said:

Here's the way this thing works.

Right now the Republicans are doing anything they can to bash anything Obama or progressive. But sooner or later the GOP will be back in control and we can all sit back and watch the Democrats take their turn.

Another year of stalemate in DC. Wonderful, huh. :roll:

Click to expand...

But BobN.....what about Politico? You arent going to say Brown and Epstein are Republicans are ya? We had it up here in the General Political Discussion Forum.


Special Report: The Obama Paradox


The ritual started in earnest last fall in the midst of the biggest humiliation of Barack Obama’s presidency, the failure of the health care website. Anytime he heard a sliver of good news, the president reacted the same way: He knocked on the polished cherry wood table in the Roosevelt Room. It’s a small thing, almost a nervous tic, but Obama’s habit of knocking on wood during Obamacare meetings had become notable, something that close advisers talked and even joked about among themselves.

In interviews with more than 60 people who have had close dealings with Obama — his aides, lawmakers, friends, historians, critics and outside advisers — the portrait emerges of a president shadowed by a deepening awareness that his time and power are finite, and that two-thirds of his presidency is already in the past tense.

In a departure from a long practice of keeping his personal circle strikingly tight and rarely lingering at official events, Obama has been hosting star-studded dinners that sometimes go on well past midnight and inviting a few newcomers such as former NBA star Alonzo Mourning into his social sphere. He’s playing golf more than any other year, replacing basketball as his go-to sport, partly because of concerns about getting injured.

The president’s political world is more and more beyond his command. Instead, it is driven by Republicans in Congress, potentially power-shifting Senate races in states where Obama isn’t welcomed to campaign, and to speculation centered on Hillary Clinton’s agenda — not his own. Obama tells anxious Democrats that there is only so much he can do beyond fundraising and better implementing the health care law. But he also has told allies that losing the Senate to Republicans would make his last two years in office unbearable......

This sense of diminished possibilities has infused his governing strategy.

THE LOST YEAR AND REVIVING A PRESIDENCY

The goal late last year could not have been more ambitious: save the presidency. :shock:

Read more: Special Report: The Obama Paradox - Carrie Budoff Brown and Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com


http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ncompetence-americans-giving-up-obama-10.html

MMC said:

But BobN.....what about Politico? You arent going to say Brown and Epstein are Republicans are ya? We had it up here in the General Political Discussion Forum.

Click to expand...

You're going to see it in the same place when the Republicans take the White House so stick around and pop that corn.

MMC said:

The president’s political world is more and more beyond his command. Instead, it is driven by Republicans in Congress, potentially power-shifting Senate races in states where Obama isn’t welcomed to campaign, and to speculation centered on Hillary Clinton’s agenda — not his own. Obama tells anxious Democrats that there is only so much he can do beyond fundraising and better implementing the health care law. But he also has told allies that losing the Senate to Republicans would make his last two years in office unbearable......

Click to expand...

If I was a Republican I would be trying to get that party to come together because Obama is almost done with 2 terms and if the GOP is not careful they may very well see Hillary in there for at least one term.

Bob N said:

You're going to see it in the same place when the Republicans take the White House so stick around and pop that corn.




If I was a Republican I would be trying to get that party to come together because Obama is almost done with 2 terms and if the GOP is not careful they may very well see Hillary in there for at least one term.

Click to expand...

Well hopefully we wont have a Republican walking into a Presidency faking like he wanted to work with the other side. Or that he will bring the country together.

One things for sure another Clinton or Bush wont bring the country together. Just sayin!

I agree with both poll options.

mpg said:

I agree with both poll options.

Click to expand...

??

If liberal policies cannot succeed (choice #2), how can they possibly be successful (choice #1)?

mmi said:

??

If liberal policies cannot succeed (choice #2), how can they possibly be successful (choice #1)?

Click to expand...

Most, but not all liberal policies are destructive. I want successful policies more than I want conservative policies.

mpg said:

Most, but not all liberal policies are destructive. I want successful policies more than I want conservative policies.

Click to expand...

I would prefer less policies of both democrat and republican... the less the better.

mpg said:

Most, but not all liberal policies are destructive. I want successful policies more than I want conservative policies.

Click to expand...

Then I'd say you should support choice #1. It looks like you want what's best for the country, but find it difficult to believe that liberalism could get us there.

mmi said:

It's clear to me that some on the Right are more interested in having Obama fail than they are in the national interest.

Click to expand...

And it's clear to me that you're blinded by your own partisanship.

The Right, which is an ENOMROUS entity you're stereotyping here, by and large wants to see the nation do well just as "The Left" does. However, they think that the majority of what Obama is doing is bad for the country either in the short or the long term.

Have an analogy...

You have a sibling you care about deeply. That sibling is very ill. You want them to go to a doctor and get medicine and try to get better. However, their spouse is the one who your sibling is listening to right now, and she wants him to go to a faith healer.

Now you don't believe in the faith healer at all. You think that even if there are some short term improvements thanks to the placebo effect, in the long term this is going to be VERY bad for your sibling because he's not getting the help he needs to get better in the long run. So every step of the way you try to fight against the notion of taking him to a faith healer instead of a normal doctor. In the end, if you fail and he goes to the faith healer then you HOPE for the best...but you don't simply sit back and go "well, let's see". You keep fighting to take him to a doctor, and you keep looking for the oppertunity where he'll start listening to you instead so you can stop this faith healer non-sense and get him to a hospital.

Well, it's the same thing here with Republicans. Sure, IF all the different things Obama pushes for somehow proved to be wonderful in the short and long term I think those on "The Right" would be happy that good things occured. However, there's an inherent belief that many of those things are NOT good for the long term health of the country, and thus need to be fought against....BECAUSE of caring about the countries well being.

All you're doing is seeing people with a different view point, opinion, and belief than you and using your prejudice you're applying negative motivations onto them.

Maybe I was just naive years ago

Click to expand...

You most likely were. Democrats under George W. Bush were very similar to how Republicans are today. Go look at the various stories with the continual tallying of the dead in every measure possible to keep it on the front pages with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Go look at the challenges towards and continual complaints about the PATRIOT ACT. Look back at what was occuring with regards to his judicial selections.

Minus a bit of a grace period due to a HISTORIC situation, this wasn't really the case.

There was economic evidence during Bush's term that suggested that the tax cuts DID help the economy in certain factors. But Democrats, by and large, didn't grasp that info...they grasped any info that suggested it had negative impacts and ran with that. Similar to what the Republicans do now. The only difference is you personally felt the information the Democrats grabbed onto was "justified" and don't now for the right.

Considering you then, in all but typical hyper partisan fashion, grabbed onto a comment...complete with pointless insult along the way...and fail to honestly discuss it in context to what was said (as it relates to Limbaughs "hope he fails" comment), I'm beginning to wonder why I'm bother typing this at all.

Let's be frank....

You believe Republicans think this way because you're a hyper partisan progressive liberal with a bigoted, prejudiced mindset towards all things "the right" and an attitude that gives the benefit of the doubt and thinks fondly of "the Left" in a similar situation.

Liberal policies leave people more dependant on govt and less free. So yes, they are bad for America.

Never mind the societal implications of policies that create incentives to keep people as uneducated supplicants, and to destroy the structure of families-the destruction of the incentives created by the left are enormously destructive.

I think a lot of liberal solutions might be spot on if they happened to be diagnosing the problems accurately, which in my opinion they often are not.

For someone to state that "liberal policies" are bad or "conservative policies" are bad says more about the speaker than the subject, if the specific policies aren't identified. It's not that simple. And a lot depends on how far a policy is taken and how it is implemented and over what period of time, as well as the cost (both of money and the toll on people).

Even your choice "I want America to succeed," doesn't mean anything, since success is defined differently by different people.

JumpinJack said:

For someone to state that "liberal policies" are bad or "conservative policies" are bad says more about the speaker than the subject, if the specific policies aren't identified. It's not that simple. And a lot depends on how far a policy is taken and how it is implemented and over what period of time, as well as the cost (both of money and the toll on people).

Even your choice "I want America to succeed," doesn't mean anything, since success is defined differently by different people.

Click to expand...

Mornin JJ. Then there was Chicago and Illinois.....so much for liberal and or Prog theory. Politically speaking. Just sayin!

Not enough poll options. And the term liberal is not well defined.

mmi said:

I'm guessing this topic has come up before, but I figure it wouldn't hurt to ask.

I was prompted by this exchange:





It's clear to me that some on the Right are more interested in having Obama fail than they are in the national interest. And yes, I'm confident that if some relatively minor disaster were to befall this country … and it could be blamed on actions taken by the Administration, these people would in fact be HAPPY, THRILLED because it would have served their political/ideological interests, although I expect most would not admit that even to themselves.

Maybe I was just naive years ago, but this seems like a new phenomenon t' me, at least much more widespread. I was skeptical of many policies advanced by Reagan and Bush43, and I was strongly opposed to some. But I sure did hope they would succeed! If big tax cuts for the wealthy fostered a strong economy, then that would be great. If some clearly positive outcome associated with the war in Iraq developed (and I suppose that is still a possibility), I might be willing to agree that it was a good idea.

I'm a progressive liberal. I have clear policy preferences. But my focus of course is on positive outcomes. Are some of Obama's critics so certain of their attitude toward government, so invested in their ideological bias, that they would rather see the country fail than succeed under liberal policies?


The classic, of course, is the well-known statement by that corporatist, drug-dealing slob, Rash Limpblow, unapologetically saying "I hope he [Obama] fails." He tried to get around the despicable nature of that argument, first, with an entirely false claim that liberals wanted Bush43 to fail, and secondly, with the ridiculous idea that Americans were being asked to hope for Obama's success because he's an African-American. Here's the infamous Declaration of Impenitence:

The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.​

Click to expand...

Regardless of whom the president is or from whatever party, my hopes are that he keeps America strong, that goes for both economically and militarily. I hope his foreign and domestic policies accomplish those goals. It is a healthy and vibrant America I wish for. When any president leaves office I judge him on the question of, “is America better off and a better country than when he first took office?”

That is purely subjective on my part, but in most cases that answer has been in the affirmative. With this president the jury is still out, he has not left office yet. But one’s opinion can also change over time. That is once we see how his policies worked out and how they effected the country which sometimes can be 10, 20 or more years after he left office. This should not be equated with a president popularity, that has little to do with being a good president or leaving the country better off than when he first stepped into office.

A lot of people rate a president on whether he is a R or a D, whether he gets his agenda of his party through congress and does what his party wants him to do. This is irrelevant to me. I want to see if what a president does, his policies and yes, his agenda ends up being good for the country, indifferent or harms the country.

Yes I want this country to succeed and yes I believe many left policies are destroying it. And how long do we have to live with the failure of one of these boondoggles throwing money at them when they never did what they were set out to do?

Let's start with Johnson's Great Society. It was suppose to end poverty. What it did do is increase entitlement programs that produced generations of government dependency and has kept the people poor.

What about Jimmy Carter's Department of Energy? Created in the 1970s as one of President Jimmy Carter's bright ideas, has seen its mission evolve from basic research and development to spending billions to commercialize technologies that aren’t yet viable—and might never be. This department is one that has encouraged corporatism as it shells out funding on special interests of whatever political power is in charge. It often creates an unfair playing field in business favoring the corporations.

And how has that CRA worked out? spawned sub-prime mortgage lending, which boomed starting in the mid 90's under Clinton. When the bubble burst, millions of sub-prime borrowers, the low-income people the CRA was created to help, found themselves owing more than their homes were worth. This set off the foreclosure cascade, tipped the economy into a prolonged recession, and plunged many families into poverty after they lost the homes they couldn’t afford but that Washington induced them to buy.

Immigration laws after the last bout with amnesty in the 80's have been ignored and often mainly Democrats, some Republicans have encouraged expansion of benefits for illegals that encourage them to enter into this country illegally without consequences. Today in the news we are seeing the results of liberal policies that are at the heart of this crisis.

Department of Education is another boondoggle that was meant to raise the standards of schools across the country but has resulted in a dumbing down of our youth and standards lowered. It isn't encouraging to know there are few these days who finish with their public education that actually possess the skill of critical thinking. Studies show that the quality of education children received at the turn of the 20th century at 8th grade level far surpasses those who graduate from high school today.

All these policies were started out of compassion and all ended up hurting those they were suppose to help. But instead of nixing them, our lawmakers continue to prop them up with exuberant amounts of funding with failed results. If you truly want this country to succeed then it's time to be honest and get rid of what isn't working.

vesper said:

Yes I want this country to succeed and yes I believe many left policies are destroying it. And how long do we have to live with the failure of one of these boondoggles throwing money at them when they never did what they were set out to do?

Let's start with Johnson's Great Society. It was suppose to end poverty. What it did do is increase entitlement programs that produced generations of government dependency and has kept the people poor.

What about Jimmy Carter's Department of Energy? Created in the 1970s as one of President Jimmy Carter's bright ideas, has seen its mission evolve from basic research and development to spending billions to commercialize technologies that aren’t yet viable—and might never be. This department is one that has encouraged corporatism as it shells out funding on special interests of whatever political power is in charge. It often creates an unfair playing field in business favoring the corporations.

And how has that CRA worked out? spawned sub-prime mortgage lending, which boomed starting in the mid 90's under Clinton. When the bubble burst, millions of sub-prime borrowers, the low-income people the CRA was created to help, found themselves owing more than their homes were worth. This set off the foreclosure cascade, tipped the economy into a prolonged recession, and plunged many families into poverty after they lost the homes they couldn’t afford but that Washington induced them to buy.

Immigration laws after the last bout with amnesty in the 80's have been ignored and often mainly Democrats, some Republicans have encouraged expansion of benefits for illegals that encourage them to enter into this country illegally without consequences. Today in the news we are seeing the results of liberal policies that are at the heart of this crisis.

Department of Education is another boondoggle that was meant to raise the standards of schools across the country but has resulted in a dumbing down of our youth and standards lowered. It isn't encouraging to know there are few these days who finish with their public education that actually possess the skill of critical thinking. Studies show that the quality of education children received at the turn of the 20th century at 8th grade level far surpasses those who graduate from high school today.

All these policies were started out of compassion and all ended up hurting those they were suppose to help. But instead of nixing them, our lawmakers continue to prop them up with exuberant amounts of funding with failed results. If you truly want this country to succeed then it's time to be honest and get rid of what isn't working.

Click to expand...

Excellent well thought out post! :thumbs: I cannot recall one instance when throwing more money at something that is failing ever made it better. It might work for a while, but eventually resentment at having to work with something that is not going to improve, no matter what is tried, has to be faced. That goes for business plans and personal relationships as well as political ones. Sooner or later, you have to face the truth, and get on with changing things in order to have better results in the future. Sometimes a different direction is called for, since continuing to hit your head against a stone wall only gives you headaches, and little else.

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave: