Has Obama harmed traditional liberalism and Democrats' positions?

joko104 said:

The loyalty to Obama by Democrats is astonishing to me and appears unique to Obama. Historically, Democrats had no problem protesting Democratic presidents - such as LBJ ("Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many boys did you kill today?") - while Republicans supported LBJ. Now, partisan lines are so absolute that Obama is like Rev. Moon leading his mindless worshippers.

Here are many examples:

1. While infuriated at the the government monitoring who checks out library books, Democrats now support the government using drones in the USA to watch all Americans.

2. There is silence by Democrats over record numbers of refusals to comply with Open Records requests.

3. Democrats used to condemn and protest drone strikes in other countries - which Obama condemned in campaigning - but now support even increases in foreign drone strikes.

4. Democrats support massive increases in the militarization of the police including Federal police.

5. Democrats dropped all criticism of not closing Gitmo, something Obama campaigned on doing.

6. Democrats are silent on hypocrisy and contradiction and failure - from the administration cancelling allowing anyone else with pre-existing conditions to have affordable insurance under ObamaCare - to Obama lying and then admitting to proposing sequestration to then oppose what he got passed, drone strikes, Gitmo, and the rest.

You also hear over and over on this forum extreme arguments that the Bill of Rights are irrelevant in terms of the power of Congress, where liberals used to intensely support the Bill of Rights.

Has Obama redefined and even reversed many liberal and Democratic traditional stances and priorities?

Click to expand...

Leftism has always been statist. Don't confuse political opportunism during the Bush years with their actual beliefs.

Has he harmed them? No because he is not a true liberal. Its simply how US politics work the pres is in office and 3/4 of the party follows.

cpwill said:

Leftism has always been statist. Don't confuse political opportunism during the Bush years with their actual beliefs.

Click to expand...

Sadly, an ideology's convictions will never be equal to their enthusiasm, but America's left-wing is in no contest with the right when it comes to who is worse at sticking to their principles. Conservatives are far worse.

For example, health care reform is and has been a liberal position for decades. Obama achieved some kind of health care reform. Meanwhile, substantially reducing illegal immigration has been a conservative position for decades. When Republicans possessed congressional majorities and the oval office from 2002 and 2006, they never attempted such reform.

He NEVER takes responsibility for his failures...never.

Click to expand...

Obama takes full responsibility for the economy - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

Did anyone ever figure out where Obama is actually from..

He went to Ireland..claiming he was Irish...

I don't remember any black tribes being indigenous to Ireland???

wolfie said:

Did anyone ever figure out where Obama is actually from..

He went to Ireland..claiming he was Irish...

I don't remember any black tribes being indigenous to Ireland???

Click to expand...

Wow, what insight. I'll have to think about a post like yours for a while to fully understand it.

Gipper said:

It was injured long before then. He's just mainstream.

Know what hurt mainstream traditional liberalism? All those worthless Vietnam hippies who destroyed their brains with too many psychodelics getting old enough and becoming a major voting bloc.

I like to think that if John Kennedy were alive today and meeting Obama, he'd slap Obama in the face and tell him to grow a pair.

Click to expand...

roflamo..

your not serious.

the hippies you talk of are long gone the way of being millionaires and could care less about politics.

liberalism is being destroyed by corporate banishment of individuality in the young.


it's not so much redefined the dems as the dems have the same problem as the republicans.

loss of intellectualism in party politics.

it's easier to knock the insanity going on in the republican mess...
but the Dems are suffering from the same mediocrity it's just not as well honed in late night comedic venues.

OhIsee.Then said:

Wow, what insight. I'll have to think about a post like yours for a while to fully understand it.

Click to expand...

I would be more interested if you understand it?

He claimed his name wasn't Obama....it was O'bama..

And this being St Patricks day as well..tut tut..

Morality Games said:

Sadly, an ideology's convictions will never be equal to their enthusiasm, but America's left-wing is in no contest with the right when it comes to who is worse at sticking to their principles. Conservatives are far worse.

For example, health care reform is and has been a liberal position for decades. Obama achieved some kind of health care reform. Meanwhile, substantially reducing illegal immigration has been a conservative position for decades. When Republicans possessed congressional majorities and the oval office from 2002 and 2006, they never attempted such reform.

Click to expand...

I think what you have identified there is that A) there is less full overlap between "Republicans" and "Conservatives" than there is between "Democrats" and "Liberals"; and B) the strong pro-mass-immigration segment of conservatives who have a contentious view of Law to begin with.

cpwill said:

I think what you have identified there is that A) there is less full overlap between "Republicans" and "Conservatives" than there is between "Democrats" and "Liberals"; and B) the strong pro-mass-immigration segment of conservatives who have a contentious view of Law to begin with.

Click to expand...

Liberals are a marginalized group even in the Democratic Party, which is predominantly moderate with a conservative branch. Indeed, while outnumbered, the conservative elements are more powerful than the larger liberal wing, because the liberal wing is much more pliable.

Republican and conservative interests more or less overlap because Republicans are happy to do the one thing conservatives show any real commitment to, which is obstructing liberal goals -- easy, since Democrats do most of the leg work themselves. The fact Republicans never took any action against illegal immigration when they held power derives from the fact that conservatives themselves don't really care about immigration issue. If they did, they would have severely punished Republicans for not taking action against illegal immigration and replaced them with politicians who did. Same with minimizing the role of the federal government and returning power to the states. Those issues make for great bulletin points, but nobody in the right seriously cares about them or would go to the bat to make sure their congressman gets it done.

Morality Games said:

Those sorts of observations are hollow inventions of right-wing political culture. They have no persistent reality or meaning.

Click to expand...

That is a lofty way of saying, "but President Obama gives better speeches."

WWGWD said:

OK, I felt like this was totally a fair enough assessment of leftist beliefs until that last part, lol. This is where I get stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't disagree the may in which government operates now, totally works the way you describe. My problem is, I like government, just not an intrusive, inefficient and overbearing one. And this is where I get in trouble with my conservative friends, because as soon I say I think the federal government could have a effective role in people's lives, I apparently sprout horns and carry a pitch fork. (I'm not talking all conservatives, but it's happened enough times, I find it to be a pattern).

Click to expand...

Any conservative who says that the federal government couldn't have an effective role is leagues beyond hypocritical. Problem is that they are more concerned with private lives - not sure why, but they are. The only people who would disagree with that statement are anarchists. Even true libertarians recognize the need, and encourage the existence, of government to a limited capacity.

Here is what I think on the questions I asked, you tell me if you think I'm now a lepper. Tax rates should be fair. You should get to pay less taxes because you can afford an army of lawyers who can find you every loop hole in the book. I think it's a bit of a cop out to simply say, well you make more, so your taxes should go up. We need to look much closer at the tax code, and make it more efficient, but yes, I don't think the wealthy are paying enough taxes in general. I think capital gains taxes (which I do not pretend to know a lot about), should remain higher on short term gains, then long term gains. I also think that those tax rates should be tied to inflation and interest rates, since all of them affect the stock market. As far as entitlement, that needs a whole overhaul, from top to bottom. Entitlement programs do not work the way they did 20 years ago. Do I think they can still be useful and helpful to improving the quality of life for citizens of this country, absolutely. However, they have been used to often to pander for votes, and have lost all semblance of being productive and insentivising people. Those programs just aren't what they were intended to be.

So, you tell me, where does that put me on the political scale?

Click to expand...

I'd say you still sound pretty liberal. I don't know how people can say that the rich don't pay enough, unless you want to go back to the pre-JFK days when money was essentially redistributed through 90+% taxation brackets. America has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. I also detest the liberal view on capital gains because they have no idea what the word "risk" means. The fact that you acknowledge the failure that is entitlement keeps you on the right side of sane.

Gipper said:

Any conservative who says that the federal government couldn't have an effective role is leagues beyond hypocritical. Problem is that they are more concerned with private lives - not sure why, but they are. The only people who would disagree with that statement are anarchists. Even true libertarians recognize the need, and encourage the existence, of government to a limited capacity.

Click to expand...

Yea, I'm not sure a lot of the far right wing would agree with your assessment, but that's how I have always felt. The frustration I have, is who we elect to public office these days. Elections have always been a popularity contest, but I think it's gotten way out of hand in the last couple decades. It seems like the electorate as a whole has stopped doing research on candidates they vote for, even on the local level. They seem, from my perspective, to base their votes on party affiliation, msm anchors they like, and maybe a debate. It's pretty disapointing.

[/QUOTE]I'd say you still sound pretty liberal. I don't know how people can say that the rich don't pay enough, unless you want to go back to the pre-JFK days when money was essentially redistributed through 90+% taxation brackets. America has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. I also detest the liberal view on capital gains because they have no idea what the word "risk" means. The fact that you acknowledge the failure that is entitlement keeps you on the right side of sane. [/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how you can say the rich do pay enough, lol. Do you not think that there are an abundant amount of loopholes, and reckless deduductions that could be eliminated for the code and make the whole system simpler? I'm not saying raise taxes on wealthy, just because your wealthy. I'm saying you should be rewarded for finding loopholes in the rules. There is an immense amount of stupidity in the tax code that I think could be addressed with some pretty effectual results. When it comes to capital gains, I will admit, I don't have a comprehensive understanding of it. However, my basic understanding, says to me, that you should be rewarded for long term investments. I think short term investment in the stock market seems to invites quite a bit of unstable fluctuation in the market. That's been a long term problem for our economy over the last decade.

I would say however, that as of yet, capital gains taxes have not effectively addressed the issue of our unstable stock market, so there may be a better solution to the problem. To me, it's one of those things that has the potential to be effective, but no Democrate has the political will to say that, and no Republican has the political will of work anyone interested in correcting that problem.

WWGWD said:

I'm not sure how you can say the rich do pay enough, lol. Do you not think that there are an abundant amount of loopholes, and reckless deduductions that could be eliminated for the code and make the whole system simpler? I'm not saying raise taxes on wealthy, just because your wealthy. I'm saying you should be rewarded for finding loopholes in the rules. There is an immense amount of stupidity in the tax code that I think could be addressed with some pretty effectual results. When it comes to capital gains, I will admit, I don't have a comprehensive understanding of it. However, my basic understanding, says to me, that you should be rewarded for long term investments. I think short term investment in the stock market seems to invites quite a bit of unstable fluctuation in the market. That's been a long term problem for our economy over the last decade.

I would say however, that as of yet, capital gains taxes have not effectively addressed the issue of our unstable stock market, so there may be a better solution to the problem. To me, it's one of those things that has the potential to be effective, but no Democrate has the political will to say that, and no Republican has the political will of work anyone interested in correcting that problem.

Click to expand...

Loopholes exist for a reason. They're meant to encourage spending in areas that normally a corporation would not. Do you really want a world where there are no corporate sponsored scholarships, charities, hiring breaks, investment, and any of a number of altruistic actions that corporations offer these days? I know I wouldn't.

Capital gains need a lower effective tax rate because it requires a significant amount of risk. Everyone hears about people who make money with capital gains. Nobody ever hears about the people who lose money that way. Not every investment pays off. Not every asset appreciates.

Let me put it this way: Would you go to a casino's roulette wheel and put your money on a number 1-36 if the payoff was 10:1? Statistics say that you'd be a complete fool to do that. Why? It's simply not proportionate to risk.

joko104 said:

The loyalty to Obama by Democrats is astonishing to me and appears unique to Obama.

Click to expand...

I seldom respond to posts by Joke104 but this is approaching his stupidest comment. And he has tried to push the stupid limit pretty hard.

Did you forget G. W. Bush already? As if he held up the principles of conservatism.

After watching the idiotic support of him by Reps. during his tenure, I am sure that Dems. have learned a thing or two about loyalty and how powerful it can be. Fragmenting the party through betrayal of the party leader does nothing to strengthen the party. It is instinct to rally around your leader even if they are doing something that you don't entirely agree with.

Seems your post would be more accurate to ask, are democrats embarrased about having to resort to acting like Republicans to furthur their own causes?

Gipper said:

Loopholes exist for a reason. They're meant to encourage spending in areas that normally a corporation would not. Do you really want a world where there are no corporate sponsored scholarships, charities, hiring breaks, investment, and any of a number of altruistic actions that corporations offer these days? I know I wouldn't.

Click to expand...

You are talking about deductions, that's not what I meant. I'm all for insentives for certain actions by corporations. I'm not for American companies being allowed to funnel profits into shell companies, in the Vigrin islands, and not having to pay a penny of taxes on that income. Income that should be taxed, because the business is operated and made successful by American resources. Those are the types of loop hose I would like to see addressed.

[/QUOTE]Capital gains need a lower effective tax rate because it requires a significant amount of risk. Everyone hears about people who make money with capital gains. Nobody ever hears about the people who lose money that way. Not every investment pays off. Not every asset appreciates.

Let me put it this way: Would you go to a casino's roulette wheel and put your money on a number 1-36 if the payoff was 10:1? Statistics say that you'd be a complete fool to do that. Why? It's simply not proportionate to risk. [/QUOTE]

It seems to me that you are over simplifying the capital gains process. Short gains seriously the effect the stability of the market. The fluctuations they cause can be profitable in the short term for the investors, but can depreciate the long term value of a companies stocks. That continues practice can cause what I have heard it called a, "crisis of confidence" in the market. That's a problem that I think can be effected by incentivising long term sales, over short term. It seems to me the solution to this issue should be a two part one, and the two need to be decisively different then the other.

WWGWD said:

You are talking about deductions, that's not what I meant. I'm all for insentives for certain actions by corporations. I'm not for American companies being allowed to funnel profits into shell companies, in the Vigrin islands, and not having to pay a penny of taxes on that income. Income that should be taxed, because the business is operated and made successful by American resources. Those are the types of loop hose I would like to see addressed.

Click to expand...

Capital gains need a lower effective tax rate because it requires a significant amount of risk. Everyone hears about people who make money with capital gains. Nobody ever hears about the people who lose money that way. Not every investment pays off. Not every asset appreciates.

Let me put it this way: Would you go to a casino's roulette wheel and put your money on a number 1-36 if the payoff was 10:1? Statistics say that you'd be a complete fool to do that. Why? It's simply not proportionate to risk. [/QUOTE]

It seems to me that you are over simplifying the capital gains process. Short gains seriously the effect the stability of the market. The fluctuations they cause can be profitable in the short term for the investors, but can depreciate the long term value of a companies stocks. That continues practice can cause what I have heard it called a, "crisis of confidence" in the market. That's a problem that I think can be effected by incentivising long term sales, over short term. It seems to me the solution to this issue should be a two part one, and the two need to be decisively different then the other.[/QUOTE]

The amount of day traders who are rattling a tin cup at truck stops is proof that short term assets really don't need harder tax implications placed upon it.

Gipper said:

The amount of day traders who are rattling a tin cup at truck stops is proof that short term assets really don't need harder tax implications placed upon it.

Click to expand...

I disagree entirely, when you look at the companies who have been effected negatively by those types of short trades. Short trades are perpetuated by rumor, and assumption, to a level that can make it very difficult for a company to remain viable. Even if there is no evidence to support the claims of unstability of it's stock value.

It's a totally different story when it comes to long term capital gains. That's why I say there has to be a dual approach.

WWGWD said:

I disagree entirely, when you look at the companies who have been effected negatively by those types of short trades. Short trades are perpetuated by rumor, and assumption, to a level that can make it very difficult for a company to remain viable. Even if there is no evidence to support the claims of unstability of it's stock value.

It's a totally different story when it comes to long term capital gains. That's why I say there has to be a dual approach.

Click to expand...

About the only way I'd push short term gains as normal income is in situations where you're cashing in stock options. That takes away the risk, and therefore could be legitimately considered normal income.

Gipper said:

About the only way I'd push short term gains as normal income is in situations where you're cashing in stock options. That takes away the risk, and therefore could be legitimately considered normal income.

Click to expand...

I get the concern with risk, and protecting the buyers ability to take that risk. My question would be, does the risk taken by the buyer, out weigh the risk imposed upon the company?

WWGWD said:

I get the concern with risk, and protecting the buyers ability to take that risk. My question would be, does the risk taken by the buyer, out weigh the risk imposed upon the company?

Click to expand...

Once a stock is released as an IPO, it has zero bearing on the company itself except when it tries to reincorporate as treasury stock. They act independently of each other.

Gipper said:

Once a stock is released as an IPO, it has zero bearing on the company itself except when it tries to reincorporate as treasury stock. They act independently of each other.

Click to expand...

So, would you say that there is no correlation between IPO under pricing, short term capital gains, and systemic miss information? I think from a big picture perspective, as you watch the treatment of a stock over a period of time, you do see a pattern emerge that is destabalizing. Would you not say the market has becoming substantialy unstable over just the last decade and a half? What would you say is the cause of that?

WWGWD said:

So, would you say that there is no correlation between IPO under pricing, short term capital gains, and systemic miss information?

Click to expand...

Very little.

I think from a big picture perspective, as you watch the treatment of a stock over a period of time, you do see a pattern emerge that is destabalizing. Would you not say the market has becoming substantialy unstable over just the last decade and a half? What would you say is the cause of that?

Click to expand...

It's relatively stable now because it's not riding any bubbles or under a great deal of speculation. Since the stock market is fueled by human emotion, there has to be destabilization in human emotion to create that. You'll probably notice that, in about 6 months, another bubble will come along (I predict) in a certain sector. It will be due to human emotion reacting to a flux in demand.

Gipper said:

It's relatively stable now because it's not riding any bubbles or under a great deal of speculation. Since the stock market is fueled by human emotion, there has to be destabilization in human emotion to create that. You'll probably notice that, in about 6 months, another bubble will come along (I predict) in a certain sector. It will be due to human emotion reacting to a flux in demand.

Click to expand...

This is an absolutely accurate assesment! I would actually ask you take a step further. What if that bubble is something similar to the housing market that effects a large population of the country? Wouldn't there be a measured value in ensuring that those who who take those risks and perpetuate the severity of those bubbles, pay into a system set to act as a net in case of failure?

Now I'm not saying that's the way the system works now. It's been totally manipulated. However, if it worked that way, would you see value in capital gains taxes for that purpose?

WWGWD said:

This is an absolutely accurate assesment! I would actually ask you take a step further. What if that bubble is something similar to the housing market that effects a large population of the country? Wouldn't there be a measured value in ensuring that those who who take those risks and perpetuate the severity of those bubbles, pay into a system set to act as a net in case of failure?

Click to expand...

Not to me. You invest at your own risk. Besides, what you described is more akin to putting the cart before the horse.

Now I'm not saying that's the way the system works now. It's been totally manipulated. However, if it worked that way, would you see value in capital gains taxes for that purpose?

Click to expand...

I still would not. There still needs to be a "premium" of sorts. That's how money market tools work. It's the same reasoning behind why some people will invest in high-yield (junk) bonds.

Capital gains get a bad reputation because all people see are these fat cat hedge fund managers. For every one of those, there are a thousand middle to upper-middle class people gambling with their money. I'm not about to penalize the vast majority for the actions of a tiny minority.