What If?

[FrenchieCat]

What if President Obama upon being sworn in as President would have.....


Advocated the....
Repeal of the Bank bail-outs and Nationalized the Banks instead,
passed a 3 Trillion Stimulus that concentrated only on producing government jobs,
not bailed out GM and allowed it to go bankrupt,
written his own health bill that was single payer and pushed it relentlessly,
repealed the Bush Tax cuts,
cut defense spending,
ordered simultaneous pull outs from both Iraq and Afghanistan
lobbied to repeal the Patriot Act,
called out the Republicans as assholes from day one in an angry tone,
and refused to even consider bi-partisanship in any form shape or manner,
called out Israel and sided with the Palestinians,
and repealed NAFTA SHAFTA?

Where do you think we'd be by now?

I suggest that in nationalizing banks,
the government would have taken over their combined debts,
and coupled with a 3 trillion stimulus,
the government deficit would be triple what it currently is.

That the stock market would have taken a deep dive due to this and would be at an all time low,
meaning folks 401K would be worthless,
and that the Japanese & Chinese would have cashed in their chips,
withdrawing their investments in American companies,
resulting in many corporations going bankrupt,
and doing massive layoffs much deeper than what we saw,
resulting in bread lines in every state,
20% unemployment,
and a Depression era WPA work program not being enough
based on the sheer numbers of unemployment and government assistances required.

That the auto industry would be totally out of business or nationalized,
and Obama would be known as the President who killed the auto industry.

That the Middle East would be more volatile than ever before,
and that Americans would be more afraid than ever.

That Latin America would be going through the worse depression ever,
due to the repeal of NAFTA,
and illegal immigration would be at an all time high.

That the populace would be angry and feeling duped that what this President campaigned on
were not socialist policies (as he didn't campaign in nationalizing banks, partisanship,
getting out of Afghanistan right away, repealing the Patriot Act or socializing our medical system).....

Oh, and the United Citizens case would have still given Corporations the right to infuse
boatloads of money into our political system....and a majority of Americans would be supporting that, as opposed to being against it.

I suggest that for sure, and without a doubt,
Barack Obama would certainly be a one term President, if not impeached.....
because folks could rightfully say that they didn't vote for those kinds of radical changes,
where the government turned itself upside down,
to become a socialist country........


And folks would actually have a case to make in screaming "We want our country back",
as opposed to being looked upon by the majority of Americans as racist angry ignorant kooks....






Of course, none of this would have been allowed to pass by congress,
and so, you'd have none of this, only a President who advocated such......
and therefore proved that he was a socialist, and so the Protestors above
would still have an accurate point.....
And Republicans would certainly, without any doubts take back both houses in massive majorities,
because most Americans (with the help of a panicked media)
would be scared to death in not providing "Balance"
to the visions of this crazy wacko President.

So what about Democratic Underground? How would we feel?
Well, we'd have our Tall Tan Kucinich,
who'd have Kucinich-like approval ratings at about 10% nationwide,
With most who support him posting here at DU and not many places else.....
and of those, most probably still wouldn't support him, not because of his ideas,
but because of his failure to get any of them enacted or his failures to go
far enough! :rofl:

So when I ask myself "What if?".....
I answer to myself, "Thank God not that"! :patriot:

[Go2Peace]

1. So your messaging here is calling people who disagree "socialists"

Not very nice, not very "Democrat". You should stick to the standard talking points. Sorry, you deserve to get called out on this.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Nationalizing Banks and Socializing our health care

are socialist actions. period. Whether that is a good or a bad word
is a different story.

But those things I mentioned, are indeed strong suggestions made
that our President should have argued for,
throughout.....and usually by same folks.

I'm simply looking at unintended consequences of such acts,
if he would have followed up on what many suggested.

I'm simply saying that we ought not to believe that had the President taken many of the
actions that a lot of liberals wanted that that it would have necessarily resulted in a Eutopia.

[johnnyplankton]

5. Not everyone who doesn't want what I want is evil.

Sometimes they're ignorant. Sometimes,to my arrogant horror, they're right. I love common sense, Frenchie Cat. Talking points are for stooges, and it means I'm giving up my right to think for myself. Keep up the good work! Being popular is not a requirement for being talented and telling the truth.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

36. It is meant to give folks something to think about......

that the alternative reality doesn't have to be what some would presume;
that if Pres. Obama would have enacted exactly what so many here have
advocated over the last year, that everything would be just dandy!

That's what this op is stating.

Whether you call it authoritarian or otherwise,
denouncing my words without backing anything up
with anything is not a real response.

Think about that......

[Go2Peace]

30. No, you are using a REPUBLICAN frame. Many capitalist societies have those

we USED to call them "social programs" until the Republicans successfully framed them as "Socialism". And you are propagating those frames.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Socialistic ideas.......

I don't see the problem here......

I think our nation is a capitalistic one with a socialistic bent.

Socialism isn't a swear word, even when I use it.
Doesn't change a thing though.

With a President pushing the nationalizing of banks, the auto industry,
and socializing medicine 100%,
then yeah....to many voters, it becomes about more than simple "social programs".
That's just a fact, cause you can't change the media's reaction,
which is who does the propagading, not me.
I'm simply posting an OP at DU.
period. :shrug:

[Go2Peace]

42. "social programs" used to be just that. The "socialist programs" meme is new and is Republican

I am surprised FrenchieCat, it sounds like you are really unaware of that?

"Social Programs" did not in the past equate to "socialism", that has been a distortion provided by the Republican Party. And extremely effective one at that. And that meme, if given more power has the power to counter every government program to help people. Why would we want to hurt ourselves by using that Frame?

Have you ever read any of George Lakoff's works?

[FrenchieCat]

47. I'm not publishing this OP anywhere but at DU......

you are going overboard on this!

The point is that this President has his critics,
and at the end of the day, he is doing what he believes
will work, and he is neither to the right or to the left
on any of this.......

I'm also saying that if he would have enacted policies
exactly as was the wish of his critics on the Left,
the Right would be more appealing in their claims
among the regular folks who don't study every single issue.
If you don't get this, then I'm sorry.

I argued against the nationalization of banks at the time,
specifically because I believed that this would lead
to foreign investors pulling out of our markets,
and therefore would cause financial hardships,
not relieve them.

Why don't you argue the facts surrounding that statement of mine,
as opposed to the Frame of it.

[Go2Peace]

54. Have you read George Lakoff's books?

Republicans are way ahead of our side on how language affects the brain. I get your point. Although a lot of it got lost in the inadvertant use of conservative terminology.

[Raineyb]

48. And what's wrong with that? It's obvious that using market forces for things that ought

to be part of the commons obviously doesn't work.

And as the imbecile teabaggers don't know what the hell socialism is and will protest EVERYTHING as socialist who gives a fuck what they think?

[Cha]

4. What's wrong with Socialist?

[Go2Peace]

21. actually, it is simply a different approach. But that is not what the OP implies

Maybe the OP did not mean it that way. But essentially what it says is that taking any approach other than the one Obama took would have been "socialist" (FRAME #1), and because it would have been socialist (Frame language), even if you could have done it, it would not have been supported (another FRAME, albeit with truth), in addition, these socialist ideas (the alternatives mentioned have now bee FRAMED as socialist, regardless if they might or might not truly be a socialist approach) would not have worked (another FRAME created), therefore, Obama is winning, because he did not take the socialist path (another FRAME, which indeed counters the Republican Frame).

Then you place a bunch of pics that reinforce other FRAMES that imply that socialism is evil. Therefore ending with a very strong FRAME that goes something like this:

**********
Obama could have taken alternate (progressive) approaches, but those approaches would have been socialistic and not worked. Obama took the non-socialist approach, made the right decisions, fought off socialism, thus, he can't be a "socialist"

Therefore implying the Tea Bagger Frames are misFRAMES and at the same time countering progressive challenges as "socialist and ineffective", all in one swoop.
**********

Like I have said, I have only seen two posts that are so serious about this approach here. Maybe there have been more. Maybe it is a coincidence but it bodes ill. I hate to see it. It is the kind of stuff that the other side loves to do, but ultimately it is a dishonest way to communicate and hurts democracy in the long run. If the OP wants to make a point it would be better to leave out the emotionalized framing.

[FrenchieCat]

38. You are not even close.

I am speaking plainly......
without relations to "Frames".
That's your own indulgence; I'm not quite that calculated.

My point is that in hindsight,
Obama's policies will be proven to have been pragmatic,
effective, non ideological to be called extreme one way or the other,
based on an electorate that said they wanted change, but really
didn't want their world turned upside down....which is what
padlocking banks and driving insurance companies out of business
in one fell swoop could have been interpreted as.

[Go2Peace]

44. I will take you at your word

Then it was an emotional post. FRAMES are designed to be incorporated into the subconcious. Since you are active in messaging I suggest you read up on it. If you inadvertantly reinforce Republican frames you only hurt your own efforts. Honestly I am not trying to be "nasty" to you. I just hate that meme. I am sure we both can't stand Beck. He uses that meme all the time, right?

[FrenchieCat]

57. I am not "active" in messaging.......

I just write what I think, just like most DU posters....
and I don't really post elsewhere (although I read at a lot of places-heck, I've never even posted at the Obama election blog, when one would think I would have)....
and I've been here since 2003 doing just that (although at one point I did in primary 04,
I also posted at Securing America, but that blog got weird during this last presidential primary),
and the only "messages" I enounciated ever were exactly my own thoughts.
Just happens that some folks agree with me...but of course, there are those who don't.
makes for great debate, or else it used to! :(

[NJmaverick]

3. K & R

[Bobbie Jo]

6. You accurately describe the resulting reaction had Obama

gone in this direction. Some people just aren't "it-getters."

[louis-t]

7. Only one point I would disagree on...

I don't think Latin America woul go bankrupt at the repeal of NAFTA. I'm not sure how many corporations still have factories there that weren't there before. Many have moved to even cheaper countries, China among them.

[firedupdem]

8. K&R

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

11. You can debate the view I offer as what would have resulted IF Obama

had listened to someone like you,
by offering what you think would have happened instead.

But I'm afraid that calling me a name doesn't do that,
therefore, in your lack of making any kind of reasoned argument
to prove me wrong,
you have posted for nothing really,
because you offered nothing (with our without emoticons).

[Raineyb]

51. Prove you wrong? Your scenario is simply a hypothetical

You can't disprove a hypothetical without real world data which simply doesn't exist.

[FrenchieCat]

69. Everyone else does it,

if you hadn't noticed!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

27. Not at all.

I doubt you really know what this post "represents",
since you have yet to articulate such.

As for who I got "help" from.....I don't need no fucking help writing an OP,
and I'm not sure why you would think I would.

In other words, you ain't saying anything either...which is a pity,
cause you could have, but chose only to attempt to minimize me,
and can't even do an adequate job of that!

[The Northerner]

10. I think the banks should've failed and endured their fiscal punishments

and not have been nationalized at the taxpayers' expenses.

[FrenchieCat]

12. I'm basing my OP based on what was advocated at the time

by many here and elsewhere.

The strongest arguments against the financial Bail outs,
was that instead, he should nationalized the banks.

[Go2Peace]

56. The banks are still insolvent and may yet fail. They are just hiding the losses

Watch this PBS video with Bill Black. Unfortunately, the problem has not been "fixed".

I am convinced it would have been better to use the bailout to reinforce smaller banks and let them (big bacnks) fail. But honestly, I can't blame that on Obama. Everything happened so quickly he did not have enough time to fully investigate.

[grantcart]

13. DU would have roundly criticized him for giving up on the environment

[FrenchieCat]

14. Yes.......perhaps,

Of course my point is that most still would have hated him at DU,
just for different reasons.....

But the facts are that he didn't run on taking those actions
that some at DU now criticize him for not taking....
that's the disconnect that I have found,
which is why these days, I'm reading other sites much more often than
I read DU.

Our financial system in particular is a fragile one and was even more fragile
at the time that Obama first became President. Yet folks would still like to think
that there was a better way, but they don't seem to want to entertain the thought
that the way that Obama chose might have been one of them....considering that
a broad view shows that much of our financial system is linked,
and a chain reaction is most likely, no matter which way the reaction goes....
For instances; I don't believe that Nationalizing banks would have solved our problem,
and in fact I believe it would have caused a larger problem by plunging Wall Street stocks into
the garbage. Why anyone would think that Wall street stocks at an all time low would
have been good for America then or now; I'm still waiting for that answer (and I'm sure someone has
one for me).

[grantcart]

15. Its not that they hate the President

Its that they love their self absorbed pristine position as leader of the true believers more.

The most progressive President elected in 60 years and he is constantly painted as being slightly to the left of Nixon.

[FrenchieCat]

17. I just think that a myopic view in which each aspect of anything

is look upon all by itself as a stand alone is an easy trap.

An example would be that I am against looking at the Health Care bill solely
on what it doesn't do to Insurance companies to drive them out of business,
because I also look at what it also does that helps many Americans.

And for me, Folks gaining access to health care really does overides
how much punishment or lack thereof this health care bill contains regarding Insurance companies.

I'm rather grateful that this President takes the long broad view
on what he advocates, as his approach allows us to build on what we never had before,
as opposed to concentrating instead at all we thought we should get in
the one bill, and lamenting on what we didn't get.

[AllentownJake]

74. Because he is slightly to the left of Nixon nt.

[SoxFan]

16. Oh, Frenchie, you and your

sense. How dare you bring political reality into the discussion, you crafty stealth Republican, you!

[VMI Dem]

18. What if he walked back the homophobic rhetoric that he proudly trumpeted during the campaign?

What if he supported full civil rights for all citizens?

That won't happen.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

24. The President's Stimulus bill and increasing Health care access are not

corporatists ideas, as they are government based solutions with a socialistic POV....
they just aren't totally socialistic, as those policies considers the type of
system that we currently have, which is a capitalistic system....more or less.

The Socialist party is not the party that this President identifies with,
or is a member of.....so I'm not sure why you would think that him doing anything short of
enacting 100% socialist policies is what he would be wise doing,
considering that the Democratic party is not interchangeable with the Socialist party.

This President didn't run as a liberal Socialist, period.

[Go2Peace]

29. The only one on DU implying that is YOU

I have not seen anyone else saying they thought Obama should follow socialist policies. Unless you think anyone to the left of Obama is a socialist, which seems to be the implicit point of your OP.

(edited for spelling)

[FrenchieCat]

49. Posters right here at DU have and are calling this President a Corporatist.

so it isn't something implied; it's very real.

I'm saying that this President is not a Corporatist,
and he also isn't a Socialist.

[Go2Peace]

28. And more, it uses pretty charged rhetoric

I am actually quite surprised that it would be used here. Especially given that emotionally charged rhetoric like this is what is often used to push down minorities and it is the favorite approach of those the OP (and most here) hate, the tea baggers. Why engage at their level?

[FrenchieCat]

40. discussing socialism is "emotionally charged rhetoric" here at DU?

Why?

ON Du's pages are posted the Socialist Worker's party's commentary on this administration
just about everyday. Why can't it be discussed? Why do I have to play these word games,
and be so cautious about "frame", while everyone else can just simply say what they want
to fucking say? Why the double standard?

I've read a whole lot that folks were in disagreement with this President about right here.
why is it that I can't write an OP about why the President may have taken the right approach
after all, here at Democratic Underground?

I don't get your defensiveness and apparent fear on this. :shrug:

[flvegan]

23. Hey Kreskin, can I get tonight's Powerball numbers?

:eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

25. What is so ironic about this is that most folks here don't do nothing

but speculate about the what ifs.....

I'm not sure why I should be exempt from doing the same damn thing. :shrug:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[laughingliberal]

26. I believe the amount of stimulus which was considered appropriate by most at the time

was $1.2 trillion with a focus on infrastructure spending and the social safety net and not funneling 40% of the bill into tax cuts. Not that it wasn't good policy, politically, to give a middle class tax bread but 40% of the already whittled down amount of funds was not helpful.

I'm ambivalent about the bank bailout but I think a good move would have been for his Department of the Treasury to come in and add some serious strings to the money before releasing more of it to the banks and financial institutions. I think that threat of nationalization of the banks would have made for great incentive on their parts. Maybe some strings which would have required them to give something back to help get the economy back on its feet rather than to continue sucking the life out of it with our money.

I think he could very well have announced his vision for health care reform to the Congress and asked them to start work on it. It could have been one of those State of the Union type moments where the President's say, "Today, I have asked Congress to send a bill to my desk which provides affordable health care to our citizens by creating an exchange or marketplace in which people can shop for health insurance and which contains a publicly funded option as one of their choices. I absolutely require that it be paid for and add nothing to the deficit. I am available to members on both sides of the aisle to hear ideas that meet the goals of extending affordable coverage, reducing costs and stopping the abuse of our citizens by the for profit health care industry. I am open to idea but will not compromise on the guidelines I have laid out."

I was in favor of a larger bailout for the auto makers as I felt this would help preserve jobs, unlike the money we handed the banks.

I don't think he needed to, necessarily, repeal the Patriot act. I think it could have waited until it came up for renewal and advocated against the renewal.

I think it might have been helpful to start moving towards a draw down of troops in both wars.

I believe he should have told the Republicans, with all due respect, we are open to hearing your ideas but the American people sent us here to do a job which involved changes they can see in their own lives and we would be derelict if we did not produce that for them.

It might have been good, at some point, to publicly ask Congress to start working on legislation that would move NAFTA towards being more fair towards American workers. That, coupled with a statement of unswerving commitment to EFCA, would have restored the confidence and hope of the discouraged American workforce.

As for Israel, I think a more middle ground approach could be found than the one you suggested.

See, there's a way to be even handed but firm without going totally to the fringes in either direction.

[saracat]

32. But my dear Laughing Liberal, that would have required effective leadership

and not triangulating self interested post partisan BS.I am endlessly shocked at how far to the right we have drifted under the guise of "bipartisanship" Just today there are those on DU boasting about pro-life support, as though that were a good thing. I actually never thought I would see the day anti-Democratic ideology was praised in order to bolster a Democratic political agenda. But i suppose that what we get when "winning is everything" and you do not question what it is you have won.

[laughingliberal]

55. That's a point I have a very hard time with.

Never would I have thought I'd see support for restricting reproductive rights among Democrats. It's very discouraging because it was a hard fought battle to obtain those rights and to see them bartered away casually is distressing. It is good, when going for the win, to stop and ask what you have won. That is exactly right and requires us to move away from the sporting event model of politics where any win that has the Democratic moniker attached to it is considered good no matter the ramifications for the people.

[FrenchieCat]

33. I respect your responses, as some are good ones.......

was $1.2 trillion with a focus on infrastructure spending and the social safety net and not funneling 40% of the bill into tax cuts. Not that it wasn't good policy, politically, to give a was $1.2 trillion with a focus on infrastructure spending and the social safety net and not funneling 40% of the bill into tax cuts. Not that it wasn't good policy, politically, to give a middle class tax bread but 40% of the already whittled down amount of funds was not helpful.
The tax cuts were included in the stimulus in order to get it passed, because we don't only have a President, but we have a congress that passes the laws. If you think congress would have, with 60 votes, passed the bill you are speaking of, without sweeteners, I don't think you know this congress. http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/02/obamas-2-3-tril.html


I'm ambivalent about the bank bailout but I think a good move would have been for his Department of the Treasury to come in and add some serious strings to the money before releasing more of it to the banks and financial institutions. I think that threat of nationalization of the banks would have made for great incentive on their parts. Maybe some strings which would have required them to give something back to help get the economy back on its feet rather than to continue sucking the life out of it with our money.
That is exactly what happened. There were serious strings attached to Obama's portion of the bank bailouts. Why do you think banks wanted to pay it back, and have for the most part?
http://senatus.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/senators-introduce-the-tarp-transparency-act/
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/19/business/fi-stress-tests19
http://bailoutsleuth.com/2009/04/inspector-general-opens-six-bailout-related-audits/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afdOT7ECo4sw
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a_5ROSkZZdP4
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124042677481544533.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1734998420090417
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/01/business/fi-cramdown1

And nationalization was one of the ideas bandied about; ask Mr. Greenspan: http://www.businessinsider.com/greenspan-2009-2


I think he could very well have announced his vision for health care reform to the Congress and asked them to start work on it. It could have been one of those State of the Union type moments where the President's say, "Today, I have asked Congress to send a bill to my desk which provides affordable health care to our citizens by creating an exchange or marketplace in which people can shop for health insurance and which contains a publicly funded option as one of their choices. I absolutely require that it be paid for and add nothing to the deficit. I am available to members on both sides of the aisle to hear ideas that meet the goals of extending affordable coverage, reducing costs and stopping the abuse of our citizens by the for profit health care industry. I am open to idea but will not compromise on the guidelines I have laid out."

I don't believe what he said was actually that far off.


I was in favor of a larger bailout for the auto makers as I felt this would help preserve jobs, unlike the money we handed the banks.
OK.



I don't think he needed to, necessarily, repeal the Patriot act. I think it could have waited until it came up for renewal and advocated against the renewal. The patriot Act was up for renewal as it was going to expire. It was renewed for one year in March of this year, or it would have expired. http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/02/Twelfthhour_bipartisan_effort_rescues_Patriot_Act_from_expir/



I think it might have been helpful to start moving towards a draw down of troops in both wars.
He is drawing troops from one war, and doing as he said he would do on the other.....
in fact, what he is doing is what he said he would do on both of those.


I believe he should have told the Republicans, with all due respect, we are open to hearing your ideas but the American people sent us here to do a job which involved changes they can see in their own lives and we would be derelict if we did not produce that for them.

"From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -– that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. (Laughter.) A novel concept. --Pres. Obama at State of the Union
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address

It might have been good, at some point, to publicly ask Congress to start working on legislation that would move NAFTA towards being more fair towards American workers. That, coupled with a statement of unswerving commitment to EFCA, would have restored the confidence and hope of the discouraged American workforce.

Well, ok.....I agree with that.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-15/obama-s-love-of-labor-makes-for-one-unholy-union-kevin-hassett.html



As for Israel, I think a more middle ground approach could be found than the one you suggested.
Ok.....I think that Obama has been doing exactly that.....
http://www.newsmeat.com/news/meat.php?articleId=71422474&channelId=2951&buyerId=newsmeatcom&buid=3281
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-03-12-clinton-us-israel_N.htm



See, there's a way to be even handed but firm without going totally to the fringes in either direction.
I believe that is exactly what the President has done, to a great degree......

[laughingliberal]

52. No need to quibble

I think there are still not enough safeguards in place regarding TARP and the banks are still not cooperating in doing their part to move the economy. I think a serious threat of nationalization might have moved their butts in the correct direction. For instance, they might really have decided to work with people to save their homes instead of just taking the money they got for pretending to help when the President gave over the $75 billion to them to help slow foreclosures. There should have been some requirement to modify a certain percentage of loans in order to get the money. Much as this administration requires now a certain percentage of students to pass test for their schools to be funded they could have required the banks achieve some percentage of success in slowing foreclosures in order to receive the money.

That said, I like the terms of the President's recent initiative to encourage banks to allow short sells and leave the homeowners alone about the deficiency. It also provides the homeowner with $1500 to help them move on. I would like to see the details and know if the bank is required to sign off and not come after the homeowner for the deficiency or if they are just on the honor system to 'try' to act right. At any rate, it does seem a step in the right direction.


The key in the health care statement I would have liked to see was a clear message that he expected a Public Option in the bill. Once in office he was very circumspect about it and moved in the direction of calling it a 'preference' and a sliver thereby downplaying its importance as a central element of bringing the current industry into some balance. Whether this would have led to the success of getting a public option we don't know but we did not get it without his fighting forcefully for it, either. Had he fought and lost he would have won my respect and he could have called out the Blue Dogs for their obstructionism and supported their primary opponents.

I think he should have asked Congress to let the Patriot Act expire and restore to the people their Constitutional rights. If there are parts he considers essential to security he could have asked for new legislation to reinstate those provisions.

As to the war and Israel, they are not issues I am involved enough in to really have an ironclad opinion. More reassurance we are getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not opening more fronts in this war on terror would allay some anxiety for me but I am more tuned in and worried about the domestic front at present.

The difference here is I would have liked to have seen more populism spoken more directly. I think he may not have gotten everything he asked for but I think it would have been difficult for Congress, especially Senate Blue Dogs, to have to go on record as opposing the President had his demands been clear. They may have opposed him, still, but they would have paid a hell of a price for opposing a President with the popularity he had a year ago. And they would have thought twice before doing that.

I like the President very much. I fought vigorously with many in my circle for my belief he was the right person for the job and I think there is still time for him to show himself to be. I am disappointed with his shift to the right since taking office and am sorry to see so much promise I saw for him squandered this past year. I am still hoping to see him move back towards more progressive policy. I am always happy when I see him putting the more progressive members of the economic team like Warren and Volcker out front to advocate for economic policy and hope it indicates a shift away from the more conservative, corporate friendly members of his economic team and the policies for which they advocate. I have not given up on this President. I still write him regularly and call frequently in the hopes that the opinion of the public can sway him, somewhat. I do feel it is the right and responsibility of citizens to make their government aware of their concerns and I do that.

[FrenchieCat]

58. I agree with some of what you have to say.......

and other issues you raise are differenciated by individual preferences
and/or reasoned perspective.

He still has plenty time....

and I'll be working towards making sure that he still has the majorities
he needs to continue towards progress after 2010.

[laughingliberal]

63. I am very much hoping to see our majorities maintained and the number of

progressive Democrats increased. I have much hope for the primary challenge to Lincoln. With any luck and some work we will all survive this, somehow.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[asdjrocky]

39. What if...?

Our President said, screw the critics and did the right thing?

Now that's a fantasy.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Actually, that is what this Prez is precisely doing.....saying screw the critics......

I'll listen to them, I may even try to accomodate them,
but in the end I will govern as I decide.


As for me, my fantasy is to be able to say what I want to like others have,
and have folks actually comment on the substance of what was said without the snark,
and without posting things that don't really amount to anything.

[donco6]

43. I think this is meant to intimidate dissenters into silence.

Is that better?

[FrenchieCat]

45. This op is not about intimidating anyone into silence.

and for you to say so is out of line.

I'm simply stating that although Pres. Obama hasn't gone fully with
what some of his critics have pushed him to do,
it doesn't make him ineffectual nor a failure nor "just like Bush";
words I have read relating to this President right here
at DU.

Dissenters can say what they want.
So should I...without it being implied that I
intimidating anyone.

It's not like those who post their positions against this President have ever been intimidated,
or have or will likely to stop their day-in/day-out full out criticism on this administration.
For you to play victim, and to portray this OP as offensive to anyone's sensibility
is nonsense.

[donco6]

46. So how can I be out of line, then?

If dissenters can say what they want?

I'm saying what I want.

You just want people to shut up about Obama's bad policy decisions.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Because you are saying what you want to say.......which means you are not being silenced,

you are just not allowed to call me names or imply things about me
that aren't true in the process.

Sounds pretty simple to me. :shrug:

As for Obama's bad policy decisions; that's an opinion of yours,
but these are not facts.....proven or otherwise.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[donco6]

59. Ironic, no? (looking at Deleted Message above)

[FrenchieCat]

61. you are just not allowed to call me names or imply things about me

that aren't true in the process.

You have yet to attempt in discussing anything other than
how this OP that I wrote is supposed to be silencing dissent....
but you have not yet agreed to disagree without being disagreable.


Sounds simple to me.

[pecwae]

78. Steeped in it.

Name Removed is a horrible person!!

[donco6]

84. Who's begging to be Shut Up. n/t

[AllentownJake]

62. Just in case someone actually takes this seriously

What if President Obama upon being sworn in as President would have.....


Advocated the....
Repeal of the Bank bail-outs and Nationalized the Banks instead,
The banks are effectively bankrupt, they are insolvent, every financial analyst not on CNBC will tell you this, the only person lending in the residential mortgage sector is the federal government. The Federal Reserve, Fannie, and Freddie, will have spent 3 trillion by the end of this year propping this up, you'd have been better off with nationalization, at least you'd save money on the executive pay

passed a 3 Trillion Stimulus that concentrated only on producing government jobs,
the effectiveness of the stimulus is speculative, the only direct jobs produced that are countable are government jobs that go away next year

not bailed out GM and allowed it to go bankrupt GM did go bankrupt,
written his own health bill that was single payer and pushed it relentlessly,
Maybe he could have just focused on the economy first and gained some trust, or actually aggressively pursued the public option

repealed the Bush Tax cuts,
That is silly they expire this year, no one with a brain says he needs to do that

cut defense spending,
Any economist will tell you military spending produces the fewest net jobs

ordered simultaneous pull outs from both Iraq and Afghanistan
I'd sleep with a Barack Obama stuffed animal if he did that

lobbied to repeal the Patriot Act,
He didn't have to resign the damn thing, it expired on it's own
called out the Republicans as assholes from day one in an angry tone,
Like they did to Rush from day one?

and refused to even consider bi-partisanship in any form shape or manner,
They got bipartisanship on the stimulus bill it fell apart on HCR

called out Israel and sided with the Palestinians,
Very few people on this board have any expectations any US President will do that

and repealed NAFTA SHAFTA?
Meaning keeping his promise to the Unions to renegotiate the provisions that are killing our economy
Where do you think we'd be by now?

I suggest that in nationalizing banks,
the government would have taken over their combined debts,
and coupled with a 3 trillion stimulus,
the government deficit would be triple what it currently is.
That actually happened

That the stock market would have taken a deep dive due to this and would be at an all time low,
meaning folks 401K would be worthless,
If he took over the banks, why would your non-banking stocks be worthless

and that the Japanese & Chinese would have cashed in their chips,
and caused their economies to collapse simultaneously

withdrawing their investments in American companies,
resulting in many corporations going bankrupt,
and doing massive layoffs much deeper than what we saw,
resulting in bread lines in every state,
20% unemployment,
and a Depression era WPA work program not being enough
based on the sheer numbers of unemployment and government assistances required.
This is just fucking nonsense. Unemployment is the 2010 version of breadlines, you won't see 1930s era pictures, because we aren't living in 1930


That the auto industry would be totally out of business or nationalized,
and Obama would be known as the President who killed the auto industry.
They declared bankruptcy anyway and restructured, other than Ford who took no government money


That the Middle East would be more volatile than ever before,
and that Americans would be more afraid than ever.
Yes, because Bibi building settlement in East Jerusalem is controlled by Barack, hint it is pretty fucking volatile over there

That Latin America would be going through the worse depression ever,
due to the repeal of NAFTA,
and illegal immigration would be at an all time high.
Yes everyone is going to run to the US in your doomsday scenario where there are no jobs


That the populace would be angry and feeling duped that what this President campaigned on
were not socialist policies (as he didn't campaign in nationalizing banks, partisanship,
getting out of Afghanistan right away, repealing the Patriot Act or socializing our medical system).....
1) the people that hate him call him a socialist anyway, 2) The patriot act was renewed, 3) Afghanistan is sitting at 50% support


Oh, and the United Citizens case would have still given Corporations the right to infuse
boatloads of money into our political system....and a majority of Americans would be supporting that, as opposed to being against it.
Yes because after their companies lay them off they'll want their companies lobbying congress more!


I suggest that for sure, and without a doubt,
Barack Obama would certainly be a one term President, if not impeached.....
because folks could rightfully say that they didn't vote for those kinds of radical changes,
where the government turned itself upside down,
to become a socialist country........
None of what you talk about is socialism, do you even know what the fucking word means


And folks would actually have a case to make in screaming "We want our country back",
as opposed to being looked upon by the majority of Americans as racist angry ignorant kooks....
There is a Billboard in my town that says Thank you Massachusetts, what the hell do you think that says

[FrenchieCat]

65. Thanks for the thoughful response.......

and as I was saying, the fact that Barack Obama didn't do everything his critics
felt he should doesn't mean that he failed....
because he simply hasn't.

What you have advocated is not what was done,
so you can say how it might have turned out with bothering to substantiate
any of it.....but the problem is that Obama did what he believed he needed to do,
and I see that many economists give him credit for doing a good job,
even if you who is not an economist don't.

I stand by my OP.

[AllentownJake]

68. There are some falsehoods in there

You might want to go back and correct

1) GM and Chrysler did go through bankruptcy, the administration aided them through that process, but the did file for bankruptcy and were restructured. That is why they are solvent now.

2) The cost of the bailouts are not just including TARP. The GSAs that were put under the federal government and are receiving federal government funding are buying back MBS right now. The federal reserve has been doing this for over a year. That was the original intention of TARP.

3) Temporary nationalizing a bank is not socialism unless the government intends to keep it nationalized permanently. The United States has had their own banks on several occasions, I ate in one that was converted into a Steak House in Philadelphia. It was the 2nd National Bank of the US, when the government was headquartered in Philadelphia. So if that is socialism, I'm guessing George Washington and the crew were socialist.

4) If the world economy collapses and unemployment is high, people from Mexico aren't coming to the US.
In fact, one of the under reported stories is the number of illegal aliens that have been going home in this economic downturn.

[FrenchieCat]

71. So GM wasn't bailed out. Good to hear!

Those still waiting for this country to fail (of any political persuasion)
under this President, are in for a long wait....I'll tell you that!

I'm sure you'll agree that this is a good thing; that this country will not fail
after all the naysaying naysayers said.

[AllentownJake]

73. I think for some silly reason people think I want the country to fail

I see a lot of danger on the horizon.

Now when I lists those dangers, I'm not making things up.

The banking sector has overvalued assets on their books due to an accounting rule change. Fact

The FDIC has increased the number of banks that are having liquidity trouble. Fact

There are 7 states that are teetering on the edge of insolvency, their own governors are saying so both Republican and Democrat. Fact

There has not been a prosecution at AIG or Lehman's for the fraud that set this crisis off. Fact.

The consumer confidence and spending numbers don't look good. Fact with an argument. The Census bureau numbers were ripped apart by some very smart people, and when they say, the number that came in February is the same number that initially came in January that was revised down, they are telling the truth.

I like having a society. I'd rather not have to forage for food. I'd rather not have a fascist right winger.

However, realistic long term solutions to these issues have to come, and they need to come soon.

[FrenchieCat]

75. I don't personally think you want this country to fail.....

but there are many who do.

It hasn't yet,
and I'm in the mind that it won't....
not while Barack Obama is President, anyways.

Now, if the Republicans win congress back,
then it will all be very iffy.

For me, there are two sides at the end of the day,
and I normally choose this President's side.

Certainly I encourage those with different ideas
to keep putting it out there, because I don't
think this President is immune from hearing and listening to his critics....
which is why I don't mind the debates, and find them healthy for this country,
I just get tired of those who are against every single thing that this President
has ever done, as at some point it becomes an agenda to fulfill, not just
normal give and take of believing that things could be done better if done differently.

Also sometimes, there are more than one way of doing something in order to get it right.
I don't believe anyone has the corner market on exactly what needs to be done step by step,
they just simply have an opinion....which is fine. It's when they start believing that
their opinion on how to fix something is the only way.

[AllentownJake]

76. At this point

I don't think he can stop phase II of the storm, they fired almost all their ammo.

The best thing the President can do in my honest opinion, is prepare for the hurricane, and lead the clean-up effort after it hits.

This is 30 years of bad decisions coming home, and honestly I don't fault the man for what is about to happen, I will fault him if I don't see handcuffs soon going on some bad guys wrists who have broken what few laws we had left to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

My question right now is the President a just man. Some bad people have hurt his country, there is plenty of evidence they broke existing laws.

History, his citizens, and the world demand justice.

[Armstead]

64. You ignore the huge area between extrenmes

[FrenchieCat]

66. Actually I don't....because the huge area in between is exactly

where Obama stands.

[Jamastiene]

67. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems as though the people in

the pictures at the end of your post are railing against socialism...and so are you. :think:

Have you really stopped to think about that? How much twisting and turning in your mind do you really have to do to reconcile that fact? God, you must be tired.

It is a good thing you put all those pictures at the end of your post. The hypothetical scenario you laid out plus your ranting and raving against socialism plus the pictures of other people ranting and raving against socialism all combined make for what I would call an oxymoron wrapped in an enigma, rolled up in irony then dipped in incongruity.

[FrenchieCat]

70. Then you misunderstood.

[Lorien]

85. Funny about that.

[cornermouse]

72. Unrec. n/t

[DFLforever]

77. I think he'd be lying in a grave in Arlington National

cemetery next to JFK - because of 6, 7, 8 and 11.

[freddie mertz]

79. Unrec. I am sure you meant well. (on edit:) But the "socialist" red-baiting is weird, nt.

[cornermouse]

80. Not only that.

The effort to label people who disagree as socialist is distinctly reminiscent of McCarthyism.

[freddie mertz]

82. And reminiscent of the teabaggers. DIRECTLY reminiscent.

I did find that surprising.

Not that I mind being called a socialist.

I believe in national health care (as a right, not a mandate to buy for profit insurance), public schools, social security, and all kinds of "socialist" stuff.

[cornermouse]

83. I don't see socialism as a bad thing either

but there are lots of people on here who would figure the label would give them all sorts of special rights. I prefer to end the labeling where it starts.

The teabaggers? I prefer to ignore them whenever possible but yes, this would be right up their alley.

[annabanana]

81. Ah! Ma Chere Frenchie,

Not even single payer? Not even getting the uberrich to pay their fair share?
:cry:

[FrenchieCat]

86. What I want and what we can get don't look the same.

we'll just have to work that much harder if we want single payer in our future
which can happen, just not this coming Sunday.

Big ass difference wanting this bill, and by extension this President to fail.

That will get us nada now, and nada later.
Let's not fool ourselves.

[hulka38]

87. Do you acknowledge that there's a chance that this thing will not pass

or do you not allow thoughts like that into your mind?

[Fire1]

88. As of today, It wll pass. Deal with it. n/t