Frank Schaeffer: Obama's Critics Owe Him a New Years (Fact-Based) Apology

[Radical Activist]

Interesting. Hard truths in this that some people don't want to hear. He picks on Krugman but others come to mind.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-lefty-critics-owe-_b_802911.html

When we hear that jobless numbers are going down faster than expected, that shoppers spent money over the holidays, that economic forecasts are being revised upward and so on, it's time for a reassessment of the President's critic's claims of impending doom because of his many alleged "mistakes." (These include such "facts" as the accusations that Obama "sold out" to Wall Street, is "too ready to compromise" etc., etc.)

A reassessment should come from what might be called the Krugamites. They could do what Rachel Maddow did when she said "I was wrong" while speaking of how she'd given up hope that the President could pull out his year end list of remarkable victories.
Then again Maddow hasn't staked her reputation on our president's failure, as have people like Krugman, who has never warmed to our first black president.

Krugman never forgave Obama for winning the election. Krugman's support for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama was clear in 2008. He argued that Clinton's economic proposals were more progressive than Obama's. Krugman -- and the Left of the left -- have been out to get President Obama ever since. If they weren't they would have admitted by now that time and again, Obama has outsmarted his opponents-- including them! They said the economy would tank: it didn't. Obama's policies are working.

I'm beginning to think that some people on the Left of the left (and there are lots more of them than just Krugman) have such an ego claim to having been smarter than President Obama that they really would rather the news stay bad to prove them right.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Krugman is the left of the left?

Jesus Keeyrist.

[Radical Activist]

3. It bothers me that the chronic Obama haters are being called the left.

Most liberals support Obama and appreciate the obstacles he faces. It's a relatively small number of crank pundits and bloggers who are giving all progressives a bad reputation with their irrational attitude about Obama.

[Go2Peace]

23. But it doesn't bother you when people attempt to intimidate others

on this site and in the "left media", most of whom argue and disagree with policy but do *not* hate obama, and label them as "haters"? You don't see an problem with that?

[Teaser]

47. lovely straw man you set up there.

[vaberella]

51. Who's intimidating who? I don't hear any intimidation.

Lastly there are people who down right hate Obama. Jane Hamsher has proven herself as one more often than not. Rachel Maddow has shown she's far beyond that.

[mkultra]

55. you mean like when a small minority of liberals

threaten to tank the election in order to get what they want? That kind of intimidation?

[Hello_Kitty]

73. But I keep hearing how irrelevant we are so what does it matter? eom

[Radical Activist]

61. If someone is intimidated by what I wrote on an anonymous message board

then they have personal problems I can't help.

There's a right to criticize Obama, and those who do so should expect that they will receive a response when the content of their criticism is bullshit. That's how a free exchange of ideas works.

[Exilednight]

147. And by contrast, those that throw full throated support behind Obama, even in the face of

bad policy, should expect that they will receive a response when the content of criticism of liberals and progressives is bullshit. After-all, that's how a free exchange of ideas works.

[Radical Activist]

174. Yeah, no shit.

I would really love to see those who respond to the progressives who support Obama (and yes, a large majority of the left does support Obama) stick to reasoned, fact-based arguments. That's what the blog post is about.
The right to dissent is not under question or being threatened in any way. The knee-jerk defense of dissent is not needed here. We need intelligent dissent, and we're getting very little of it. I'm glad to see people being called out for that.

[Exilednight]

176. "knee-jerk reactions" are in the eye of the beholder. I've seen it from both sides, IMHO. I see

dissenters put up very well thought out arguments which are followed by Obama supporters yelling "FLAMEBAIT".

To say that "the right to dissent is not under question or being threatened in any way" is flat out ignorance at best, and a complete lie at worst.

[Radical Activist]

189. Could you name some pundits who have been silenced for criticizing Obama?

How about some reporters who were fired from their job like those who opposed Bush after 9/11?

No, you can't, because it isn't happening. It's a non-issue. There's absolutely no shortage of criticism of Obama on the left and instead it's encouraged. There's dissent simply for the sake of dissent because it's an ingrained progressive value. People like Cenk make a good living with anti-Obama hand-wringing.
So no, it isn't a lie. It's the real world.

[stranger81]

168. It bothers me that you would call yourself "left" or "progressive," too,

but just like you get to adopt whatever label you like for your policy preferences, so do critics of the President.

[blindpig]

221. Um, liberals are not the Left.

Liberalism is one of the two flavors of ruling philosophies of Capitalism, the other being Conservatism.

The Left is completely opposed to Capitalism, there is no room for compromise which always leads to assimilation.

[frylock]

223. it bugs me that the constant obama worshipers conflate criticism with hatred

[polmaven]

22. Well....

The article says "Krugman -- and the Left of the left --" and the Left of the left. it does not say Krugman is the Left of the left.

Keeyrist indeed!

[WiffenPoof]

2. I Understand The Article...

I simply do not believe that I owe the President an apology for "holding his feet to the fire."

Sorry.

-PLA

[Radical Activist]

5. We can "hold his feet to the fire" without being irrational cranks.

We can hold his feet to the fire and still admit when he does something right and celebrate victories. Left pundits haven't done that very well and we saw the result of that in the mid-term election.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[eleny]

11. I'll second that emotion, H_K

And Happy New Year to you while I'm at it!

[Hello_Kitty]

12. Thanks! You too. eom

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[jaxx]

18. That little paraphrase can go both ways.

But I'm sure you knew that.

[davidinalameda]

19. BRAVO!!!!!!!!!

you have hit that nail squarely on the head!!!!!!!

:woohoo:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[boppers]

40. Are you 90% supportive of Obama, then?

I generally see the numbers going the other way, maybe 10% of support, and 90% editorializing about "sellout" and "banksters" and "centrist" and "weak" and whatnot.

[WiffenPoof]

14. I'm Proud Of The Fact....

that as critical as I have been, I have also tried to praise President Obama when I felt that he was upholding Democratic principles. There is no need for gratuitous slams on the President....However, I will continue to voice my opposition when I feel he not acted in the best interest of the Democratic Party specifically and the American people in general.

-PLA

[Go2Peace]

24. And we can also disagree with others without being irrational cranks right?

[Caretha]

26. Why is the mid-term election

the fault of "the left"?

Why are you always pointing the finger at people? Someone's going to bite it off one of these days.

[Hello_Kitty]

74. We suddenly become relevant and powerful when they need a scapegoat.

The Sensible Centrists^TM refuse to take ownership of their role in the election losses.

[olegramps]

225. It is analogous to the Dems support of unions.

The only time we hear from them is when they want a handout and our vote.

[DCBob]

149. Exactly..

+1

[chervilant]

166. We can

evaluate his policies without being irrational sycophants.

[RichGirl]

42. Give it a rest!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[namahage]

6. Like Arianna Huffington, Cenk Uygur, and Ed Schultz?

Or is it that former Republican supporters of Obama are bad, while former Republican critics of Obama are good?

[paulk]

10. I did say "some"

address the rest of what I posted instead of building a strawman

[namahage]

13. Fine. Here you go, then:

Your post does little to address the OP's points, and instead seeks to point out that the speaker is a former Republican.

And you tell me to address what you posted, instead of building a "strawman".

The irony is unintentional, I'm sure.

[Go2Peace]

29. I am not sure Ed Schultz was a rabid Republican?

But more of a "good ol' boy" before? Wasn't his primary "schtick" sports? Was Huffington a Republican? Just wondering, I don't know enough about her past.

Schaffer was not "simply" a Republican, but a power hungry, heavy handed, caustic evangelical Republican. He has changed his politics, but having experience with that faith, it seems evident to me he holds on to a lot of the underlying components of it. I am glad he is out there offering something different, but I would not be so sure he is, in the long run, someone to bank on. Just my 2 cents....

Ed, Cenk, and Arianna all are willing to place it all on the line. Schaffer is has mostly moved from one politically "safe" location with power and money and is building up another on the other side of that isle. He is saying good things but he seems quite congnizant and interested in keeping a place with the wealthy and powerful.

[vaberella]

52. Nah...all three were rather rabid Repubs.

Meh, even Cenk did a recent paper praising Reagan as a great president while expanding on how bad a president Obama is and that Obama should take some lessons from Reagan. That op-ed piece was destroyed on DailyKos.

Not everyone changes their politics 100%, I see these people as becoming more libertarian and not really Dem or Repub. They tend to see a role for government but want it small and believe in state laws. While, most of the time just being a straight up conservative. You see this clearly with Dylan Ratigan who makes no qualms to say he's a conservative and seems to share the exact same mind set as Cenk, Arianna, and Ed----I never see a difference in their dialogue. You should put all three together and you'll notice a pattern.

[Capn Sunshine]

92. Every one of those pundits is in it for the money.

The second the audience goes away, they will change their tune. Until then, there's $$$$ to be sucked from the dreamy unicorn and pony rubes left of the left.

[vaberella]

151. Agreed. n/t

[paulk]

33. a former Republican whose conservative values

haven't changed much - which is why he dislikes the left and thinks Obama is a swell guy.

It's pretty hard to address the OP's points, btw - it's such a pile of fawning tripe that it really doesn't deserve any kind of objective response.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

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

[Hello_Kitty]

94. The people you cite dramatically changed their political views over time.

Frank Schaeffer is still a conservative.

[Radical Activist]

7. I can only think of this one.

More former-Republicans who bitterly criticize Obama come to mind, as the other commenter pointed out.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. Andrew Sullivan.

Oh wait, he's still a Republican. As is Charles Krauthammer, who was gushing with praise for Pres. Obama just recently.

[WiffenPoof]

16. Nice Post - Response n/t

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Go2Peace]

27. I am glad he is offerring evangelicals an alternative voice, but

I have seen too many people go from extremes like Schaefer. They change sides, but they still have the same underlying values and sometimes tactics they learned and are sometimes driven by not entirely altruistic motives.

Schafer made a lot of money and a lot of power by intimidating and hurting others. It seems to me he still craves for the same results.

Many actors change politics, but are often still filled with similar motives and modes of operation. Look at people like Rush Limbaugh? He doesn't really care about politics. He just wants power and money. There is a darn good chance that if he lost his savings and then lost his popularity with conservative nuts, that he might end up reinventing himself with "born again" values.

Not saying I know that to be the case with Schaffer, and I am glad he is doing what he is, but he doesn't seem to me to be someone who has really changed many of his deeper underlying values, just his politics.

[jaxx]

15. K&R a well written article.

President Obama's constant critics have boxed themselves into a corner by being constant critics. When something good happens they ignore it, or worse, put it down and run on to the next thing they think will go belly up. I really hate to think that they would rather see the country fail than see the President succeed.

[ThomCat]

17. The "left of the left" isn't part of the reality based community?

Krugman never forgave Obama for winning?

:wtf:

Is this nut-case for real?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[MrModerate]

25. Schaeffer clearly hasn't yet joined the "reality-based community" himself . . .

While I think that many people would agree that Obama ended the year well with some notable wins, they were penny-ante transactions compared to the fact that the 'Licans had already emptied the back of the store.

Dangerously compromised healthcare reform, senseless continuation of our involvement in Afghanistan, and Free Money for the Rich Day loom large over programs that in a sensible political climate wouldn't be arguable at all: an arms control treaty? Healthcare for 9/11 first responders? Extension of unemployment benefits in the worst economic downturn in 80 years? If Republicans had any interest in governing (instead of their single aim of cutting Obama's balls off), such legislation would have passed unanimously.

So he hands over his entire boodle and gets a nickel back. THAT's the criticism of Obama that you hear from -- not "the left of the left" (a completely mythical faction) -- but from the progressive base of the Democratic party that occupies the territory starting a little to the left of Senator Dodd.

My hopes now rest on my expectation that the Republicans genuinely believe that they have some sort of mandate to wreck the government and so will self-destruct starting in January. And that's a very uncertain foundation to rest your hopes upon.

Is Obama the best we could have gotten given the times? Probably so. And several of the policies he's put in place (unpopular ones at that) are having positive economic effects. The fact that the tumble into the abyss that seemed very possible 18 months ago has been averted really does matter, and he should get credit for his contributions to avoiding such a disaster. That doesn't alter the fact that many of us think he gives up too easily and leaves waaay too much on the table.

Schaeffer is a fool, if not a crypto-Republican. Just being sentient enough to recognise that McCain-Palin in the White House would have been an unmitigated disaster doesn't make you a moderate.

[mtnsnake]

28. One of the most sensible, realistic posts in recent days

Well said, MrModerate.

[MrModerate]

32. Thanks. Things are going to get very interesting later this month.

I think we'll know in 6 months or so what Obama is really made of.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. Excellent well reasoned response. Thank you.

I would add to that the sad fact that we have not had a non-bubble based economic recovery since the recession of 90-91. The .net bubble boom and crash was followed by the mortgage derivatives bubble boom of the 00s. Neither of those 'expansions' grew our manufacturing base or increased the median income of working families. Rather they were both symptoms of the take over of washington by wall street and the development of what Matt Taibbi has called Griftopia. We have no manufacturing base. The bedrock of high wage manufacturing jobs: the auto industry, collapsed and in the government lead salvage operation, wages were reduced from 28/hr to 14 for new workers. What manufacturing jobs remain in this country will be based on that new standard as we race down towards asia's labor pay scales.

We may have a recovery, but it will be in the form of another bubble manufactured by the gangsters on wall street. Meanwhile we are employed mainly selling each other shit at Best Buy or giving each other haircuts.

We have not been on sound economic ground since 1992 and I see no prospect for a real recovery under the current system.

[immoderate]

96. Down the road, the can has been kicked...

I would add to MrModerate and Warren's post that taken as a whole, President Obama has done nothing to correct the wealth disparity that is the key to all the economic and political problems we encounter. Not hyperbole, this affects how all things are done.

Wealth disparity stats haven't been this high since 1929. (Look up Gini Index.) Obama has done nothing to improve that; he has not even slowed it up. Slight moves like credit card and student loan reforms, really are reigning in, and support for corrupt, regressive, exploitative, systems which benefit the rich. Everything Obama does benefits the rich. (Yes sometimes there are benefits that "trickle" down, but trickle me once, shame on you...)

Jefferson noted that an individual can amass such wealth as to become a "danger to the State" to wit I would ask, "Does Opera need her own fucking network? She has billions to make a hobby of public education. And now a whole network to experiment with new ways to market crap. Bill Gates similarly has enough money to be dangerous. But these are just illustrations.

As Warren points out, the underlying, systemic problems have not been solved, but delayed, so what appears to be an unstable situation, with a "positive" (bad in this case) feedback loop, will continue until it reaches catastrophic failure unfortunate results. (Yep, scares me too.)

--imm

[MrModerate]

106. Agreed. Wealth disparity is the 800-pound gorilla with a ticking bomb in its arms.

I also appreciate your reference to Winfrey and Gates, who one might think are largely on the side of the angels, but who pose significant dangers nonetheless just by being individual human beings with way too much money. That same money in the hands of sociopaths (and there are plenty out there) poses a real danger to -- and I don't think I'm exaggerating -- the whole planet.

I don't pretend to have a solution, nor do I have any ready advice for Obama if he wanted to reverse the situation. Except maybe confiscatory taxation and massive spending, which somehow I don't expect he'd embrace.

[DCBob]

150. I agree..which is precisely why this recovery (if its real) will take a long long time..

Those wanting and expeting things to have been back to "normal" by now do not understand the reality of our recent economy.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

69. Another 'thumbs-up' from me as well.

:kick:

[Radical Activist]

79. Waiting for Republicans to screw up is a lazy strategy.

Real change isn't easy. It takes hard work. If the left blagosphere had been more engaged in pressuring Congress, rather than putting all the focus on the President, then maybe Obama would not have been forced to accept as many compromises as he did. I hope that at least some left pundits will learn from those failures.

The fact that you're ignoring and/or belittling most of Obama's accomplishments, and ignoring the role of a conservative Senate, doesn't convince me that you're joining the reality based community.

[Hello_Kitty]

95. The left blogosphere was not pressuring Congress? WTF?

You're just making shit up now. The Left was all over Congress on HCR, DADT repeal, the DREAM Act, and a host of other issues. The Sensible Centrists^TM sat on their thumbs, happy for whatever the President and Congress deigned to give them.

[Radical Activist]

124. What do you suppose the ratio is

of posts at DU and other blogs attacking Obama over DADT and health care reform compared to the number of posts about pressuring Republicans in Congress? I'd guess it's around 10 posts attacking Obama for every one about pressuring Congress. In fact, when I suggest at DU that we should focus on Congress more I usually have someone respond that it's a total waste of time. Somehow, they think Obama has extra-Constitutional powers to control Congress beyond what a mobilized public can do. Bizarre.

[MrModerate]

107. While no one can control everything, Obama's limited success in jawboning . . .

Conservadems and similar types is part of the problem.

[Radical Activist]

123. And the left's limited success in jawboning Congress

is part of the problem. A President's strongest weapon is calling on the people. When Obama called on the people to help pressure Congress, half the left pundits wrote as though Obama is the only elected official in DC. Fail.

[dflprincess]

130. I think "the left" put a lot of pressure on Congress & Obama

That certainly happened before the insurance bail out was passed. 70% of the public wanted (at least) a public option & a good chunk of that percentage wanted Medicare for all. Congress & Obama chose to ignore us.

And then Obama turned around and slammed "the left" for not being happy with being required to buy the same old crap from the same old crooks.

[Radical Activist]

133. Obama never ignored the left on health care.

Obama spent months pushing for a public option. It was blocked by conservative Senate Democrats. It makes no sense to blame Obama for something he was forced to do my Lieberman, Lincoln and others.

These kind of non-reality based memes you're repeating are part of the problem. Painting Obama as the enemy on health care was a strategic mistake and probably one of the reasons why the public option didn't pass Congress. We needed a united left to pressure the Senate and instead we had a divided and confused left that spent time pressuring Obama to take a stand that he already agreed with. Dumb, dumb, dumb. The netroots fucked that one up good.

[dflprincess]

135. Obama made it clear that single payer would not even be discussed

and he is the one who cut back room deals with pharma. He wasn't forced into anything, he has a veto pen, he didn't have to sell us out to the insurance companies.

Pretending that he made any real efforts to actually get us access to care like people in civilized countries have is what is out of touch with reality. Don't forget, he campaigned against mandates and now he's upset because people aren't happy with being required to spend their money on crap.

[Radical Activist]

144. You switched from writing about the public option to single payer.

What's the real complaint here? I'm reminded of right wing talk radio listeners who, when confronted with facts that disprove their argument, start repeating a list of anti-Obama talking points. Its frightening to see that behavior become common in the netroots.

Yes, he could have made the forces of obstruction happy by using his veto pen and then nothing would have become law. He could have lost righteously while accomplishing nothing and you would probably be happier with him for it. But millions of people without health care coverage would have been the cost of that kind of self-righteousness.

[dflprincess]

170. Now millions of people are required to pay for "coverage"

and will still not be able to afford care. Most bankruptcies are filed because of medical bills and most the filings for medical reasons are done by people who thought they had "coverage". It is not the lack of insurance that kills people, it is the inability to access care in a timely manner that causes the problem - and absolutely nothing in this scam guarantees that people will be able to get care when they need it. The only gurantee is that they get to keep writing checks to the crooks who make their money by denying care.

We needed reform that would allow us to access care - when he was a state senator Obama believed that as well (or so he said). Once he got into the big leagues he decided selling us out to the insurance companies & pharma was the way to go. Apparently he thought if he called it "reform" we'd all be dumb enough to believe it.

[Radical Activist]

171. Now millions of people who couldn't afford health care will have it.

In effect, your position is that it's better to have no progress at all if it isn't exactly what you and Obama would like. That's sick and sadistic because it would force millions to suffer while we wait for perfection. How long would we have been forced to wait if Obama issued a veto as you suggested? Another 15 years like the last time it failed in '93?

Most Americans still don't even know what the phrase "single-payer" means. And it had no chance of passing Congress. Blaming Obama for those realities is senseless. Yes, Obama negotiated to get something passed. That's how politics works for people who are interested in doing more than making dramatic gestures and losing righteously.

[dflprincess]

179. Health insurance does not equal access to health care

ask anyone who is stuck with a policy that has large deductibles and other out of pockets. And again, most the medical bankruptcies are filed by people who thought they were "covered". Nothing in this scam will change that.

"Obama negotiated something that passed" - yes he negotiated a deal behind closed doors that transfers billions of public and private dollars into the pockets of the same crooks who have caused the mess we're in - without doing a damn thing to guarantee that Americans will have better access to care. All he and Congress did was reinforce the status quo and set back the chances for any real reform for years. The buck stops at Obama's desk and he sold us out.

Passing a bail out for the insurance companies and calling it reform doesn't make it so anymore than Bush's "Clean Skies Initiative" was good for the environment.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[Egnever]

205. Tell that to someone facing cancer or diabetes or any other chronic illness.

Cause without health insurance you are as good as dead.

[dflprincess]

210. The people with cancer, diabetes or any other chronic illness

are the ones who will be stuck with high premium, high deductible "coverage".

There is growing evidence that the high deductible "consumer driven" plans (even when the premium is subsidized by an employer) result in chronic conditions becoming worse because people put off regular visits to their doctors and/or try to stretch their medications because they can't afford the out of pocket costs.

The insurance bill requires that people with preexisting conditions (and note that not all conditions the insurace crooks consider "preexisting" are chronic) be offered coverage but there is not requirement that the coverage be reasonably priced. The high risk pools that currently exist either have premiums or copays that are so high you'd have to win the lottery to afford it. I checked out the high risk pool for my brother and the cheapest monthly coverage is $400, but that comes with a $10,000 deductible. His monthly income is about $1,100 in disability.

The people with cancer, diabetes or any other chronic illness are the ones who will continue to be faced with filing bankruptcy. The insurance bail out doesn't change that.

[Egnever]

213. Holy cow do you just pull this stuff from your butt?

There is a provision in the bill that premiums may no longer be based on anything but age and even there the discrepancy between age groups is limited. What you just spewed is complete and utter crap.

The high risk pool is a temporary stop gap until the full law goes into effect after that what I said above applies.

No wonder so many people like you are outraged you are horribly misinformed.

I wonder how that happened?

Maybe listening to all the doom and gloomers here?

Read the law already and stop spreading misinformation.

[lamp_shade]

215. I had the same reaction to the post. I'll check back later to see if you got a reply.

[dflprincess]

216. Show me any part of the law that says premiums must be reasonable

They haven't been to date and nothing in the Insurance Profit Protection Act will change that. As far as the high risk pools being a "stop gap" measure - that doesn't do a damn thing to help the people who need care today, does it?

This bill only requires that we send money to the insurance companies, it does not require that the insurance companies provide a product that people can afford to use. It's not lack of insurance that kills people, it's not being able to access care. The system we have today leaves a lot of people who are paying for "coverage" still unable to afford care. This is the system that this bill perpetuates.

[Egnever]

217. Wow well if negativity is all you seek I guess you can find it.

As far as the high risk pools being a "stop gap" measure - that doesn't do a damn thing to help the people who need care today, does it?

The hell it doesnt. It will help thousands who were previously denied any kind of coverage at all.

This bill only requires that we send money to the insurance companies, it does not require that the insurance companies provide a product that people can afford to use

Again complete fallacy. The bill sets up support for non profits to enter the market in every state, it also limits the amount of every premium dollar that insurance companies can take for administration and profit to 15% I don't know what you think should be the cost of managing an insurance company should be but I don't find 15% outlandish. A robust competition from non profits should also drive that percentage down.

You seem to not want to face the fact that health care is expensive in this country. Yes the insurance companies are taking a piece of that but their piece is not by far the largest percentage of it and this bill does do things to control that percentage. If you think single payer could have passed or anything that would have eliminated the insurance companies I want some of what you are smoking. At this point in time due to our congress and in part to our economy we are stuck with them.

The system we have today leaves a lot of people who are paying for "coverage" still unable to afford care. This is the system that this bill perpetuates.

I see people parrot this BS all the time. The fact is if you have any sort of serious illness your cost for insurance is dwarfed by the actual costs of care. For someone with diabetes for example the cost of insulin and testing supplies alone are higher than your average insurance premium thats before going to the doctor. Even when you throw in deductibles you still come out ahead in the end if something happens.

There is no such thing as free health care. and that seems to be what you want. It is paid for in some for or another always. There are lots of different things we need to do to address the cost of health in this country and others but trying to pretend this bill isnt a start towards addressing some of these issues is complete and utter hogwash.

[dflprincess]

222. You're assuming, of course, that someone has the money to cover the deductibles

People who don't have the cash for out of pocket expenses tend to put off care and stretch any medications further than they should. More often than not, this results in the condition becoming worse and more expensive to treat. One of the contributing factors to high health care costs is delayed treatment. High deductibles and copays (as well as anything else the insurance company deems "uncovered") are what drive people to bankruptcty. This bill will not prevent people from going broke trying to pay medical bills.

A big problem with the bill is that it still largely ties insurance to employment and more & more employers are going to these high deductible policies. As the number of "uninsured" drops the number of underinsured is going to riser. For that matter, the CBO esitmates that once the mandates are fully in place, the number of uninsured will be 14 million and by 2019 the number will be back up to 19 million and climbing. Before too long we'll be right back where we started from.

No there is no such thing as free health care, but other countries seem to deal with it for a lot less than it costs us and with better results. They don't think it's "progress" to spend 15%-20% (the exact percentage depends on the size of the group) of every dollar spent on overhead, including obscenely high salaries for coroprate officers. BTW Medicare's admin fees run about 3%, so 15% is pretty outlandish and don't kid yourself that they won't find ways around that MLRs.

Obama campaigned against insurance mandates. If they were wrong when he was a candidate one would think they'd be wrong once he was president unless, of course, it was just a lie he used to help himself get elected. In the end, rather than put up a real fight for reform he & Congress were content to strike some backroom deals and sell out our health to protect the profits of the crooks that created this mess but who make large campaign contributions.

[Egnever]

224. You are assuming people don't

More often than not, this results in the condition becoming worse and more expensive to treat.

This point makes no difference, if the person is covered they still have the same deductible but will be treated. Also the new legislation eliminates copays for wellness visits so yet another of your talking points that is ill informed.

A big problem with the bill is that it still largely ties insurance to employment and more & more employers are going to these high deductible policies. As the number of "uninsured" drops the number of under insured is going to riser. For that matter, the CBO esitmates that once the mandates are fully in place, the number of uninsured will be 14 million and by 2019 the number will be back up to 19 million and climbing. Before too long we'll be right back where we started from.

This assumes no changes whatsoever in the law going forward and you have no way to know what employers are going to do once the bill goes into effect so the first sentence is pure doom and gloom speculation.

15%-20% (the exact percentage depends on the size of the group) of every dollar spent on overhead, including obscenely high salaries for corporate officers. BTW Medicare's admin fees run about 3%

Medicares percentages are deceptive because it covers mostly the elderly and chronically ill so its costs are way higher forcing that total percentage to appear lower than the administrative costs actually are. There is very little spreading of the risk in medicare. A per patient number would be much more honest than percentages.

We could argue the reality of the lower costs in other countries as the comparisons don't really take into effect things like publicly provided educations in other countries that are not factored as part of the cost. It would be very difficult to see the actually "cost" because of differences in the societies. However i will concede the point that other countries do it for what appears to be less with better results.

Obama campaigned against insurance mandates

So what? He was wrong, but as all the outrage shows it was the politically smart thing to say. Whatever you want to call it it has no effect on the legislations results. The president doesn't get to write the bills BTW.

Bottom line is despite your ill informed notions of what this bill does it is far better than the situation we had before it and its not the end the pukes are going to try to adjust it and so will the dems and it can be built on to improve our health care even more going forward.

You bile directed to-wards the president is misdirected and the article in the OP points that out correctly.

[dflprincess]

228. Wellness visits are defined as check ups and more often than not include screening tests

The fasting glucose test a person who has not been diagnosed with diabetes may have as part of an annual check up is covered as "wellness" or "preventative" but once a person is diagnosed the twice yearly A1C tests that are recommended and the glucose checks are not considered "wellness" because they are used to monitor an existing condition. These tests will be subject to deductibles and copays as will any prescriptions and/or supplies needed for the individual to track the condition themself.

The same is true for any follow up tests that may result from an abnormal finding in a screening test. The annual mammogram may be covered but, even if all you need is a follow up 6 months later, that is no longer "wellness" but classed as diagnositc test and subject to out of pockets amounts.

Employers have been moving to high deductible plans many accompanied with "Health Savings Accounts" (another Wall Street scam, once you dig past the surface of them) in order to save on premiums for several years now. Nothing in this bill is going to make premiums drop and once an employer has stuck employees with one of these scams they aren't going to go back to anything that costs them more.

Obama wasn't wrong about not supporting mandates - he lied about it. Not just when he was a candidate but as president when he began to back pedal but pretended the only way he would support mandates was if there was a public option. Obama said we needed the public opiton to "keep them honest". He admitted the insurance companies are crooked but in the end he was happy to cut a back room deal and sell us out anyway.

[olegramps]

226. I will respectfully disagree.

The President has a unique position in which he can make a direct appeal to the citizens just as FDR did throughout his presidency. He can transcend party lines and address issues that affect the welfare of all of the citizens. Isn't his lack of the use of his position the major source of the progressives' criticism? He shouldn't be making backroom deals, but clearly informing the citizens of the issues and then it is up to the citizens to influence their representatives. He was elected to lead, not to engage in compromising deals that actually harm the citizens.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

126. Does change come from a President or the people?

My biggest disappointment in the last two years is to discover how many authoritarians on the left think it's Obama's job to hand down change to us on a silver platter. Yes, it's the left's job to push Congress.

The fact that you make the false claim that RTTT is the same as NCLB does not convince me that Obama's harshest critics are fact-based. In fact, it reaffirms that the blogsphere is full of exaggeration and shameless attempts at spinning Obama's comments to promote misunderstanding and outrage. When someone willfully ignores the many respectful words of praise Obama has for teachers, and instead constantly spins one line portrayed as "chiding" it becomes obvious that the person has personal biases that go beyond the issues.

[chervilant]

136. Wow...

You just will not admit that the majority of educators perceive Obama's position on public education as a continuation--with little substantive change--of NCLB. Actually, many educators are critical of RTTT, and feel that this administration's apparent goal is the privatization of public education and dismantling of teachers' unions.

When I compare the two pieces of legislation, I find the following:

NCLB: standards-based accountability (code for standardized testing).

RTTT: enhanced standards and high-quality assessments (code for standardized testing).

NCLB: increased accountability (schools and teachers must meet specific, federally-defined criteria).

RTTT: improved teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (schools and teachers must meet specific, federally-defined criteria).

NCLB: students can choose alternative schools, if their school fails to meet AYP

RTTT: ensures successful conditions for high-performing charters and other innovative schools

NCLB: increased funding for public education

RTTT: states must compete for federal funding, by meeting rigorous, federally-defined criteria

hmm... seems to me the primary tenets of both pieces of legislation are quite similar. However, whose bright idea was it to compel states to 'compete' for much-needed federal funding for public education?!

Ironically, no teachers were asked to participate in the genesis of RTTT, and most educators--as well as the Urban League, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Rainbow Push Coalition--criticize RTTT as an ineffective continuation of the much maligned NCLB. Diane Ravitch (Assistant SecEd under Bush) has asserted that the empirical evidence "shows clearly that choice, competition and accountability as education reform levers are not working."

Gosh...I wonder if someone might be indulging in "shameless attempts at spinning" Obama's policies to promote the fallacy that his stance on public education is a fruitful departure from NCLB?

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

191. What facts?

The post was the usual spin and exaggeration.

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

192. Oh, so now you've changed your message.

RTTT isn't a continuation of NCLB anymore. What this post shows it that it may have some vague similarities to it when described in the broadest terms. That kind of intellectually dishonest bullshit is what made me reconsider my opposition to charter schools.

RTTT: gives money to school districts.
NCLB: gives money to school districts.

They're just the same!!! Really. Are you fucking kidding me?

Urban League, NAACP and Rainbow PUSH expressed support for RTTT once they discussed with the administration what it actually does. Once again, it doesn't help your case that you have to rely and exaggeration and distortion.

[Capn Sunshine]

208. Its the thoughtful support of those groups you mention that got me off the fence on this.

I realized Urban League, NAACP and Rainbow PUSH and their membership are getting really tired of people from outside of their neighborhood coming down and telling them they don't understand this issue because after all, they are poor and....well, you know.

[chervilant]

159. hmm...

Some of us who question Obama's performance are fully aware of his modest accomplishments. Furthermore, we're aware of how difficult has been ANY effort to pass legislation that benefits the many at the expense of the few.

I'd wager that most of us have specific concerns about Obama's record on specific issues--for example, his appointment of Arne Duncan as SecEd, and his continuation of the heinous NCLB legislation (now RTTT). When Obama chided teachers who've been expressing dismay about his policies on public education, he was both condescending and wrong. Thus, Obama has lost the support of many veteran teachers because of his intractable, damaging position on public education. Are you going to tell all those teachers that they'd better get more engaged in pressuring Congress, or they'll have to be happy with whatever compromise Obama 'must' make?

[anAustralianobserver]

98. You win the thread, though I haven't got the impression he's a crypto-Republican

This interview with Rachel Maddow is a most excellent censure (by a Christian) of Republican evangelical fundamentalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbgVV2ql5MM

[howmad1]

104. Unfortunately, whatever positve economic effects:

are a result of Obama's efforts, the repukes ultimtely will wind up taking credit for them. "See how well the country is doing because rethuglicans won the election". This scares the crap out of me because the cretin sheep will believe every word of it.

[Radical Activist]

125. And many left bloggers will help the Republicans take credit

by downplaying anything good Obama did and instead focus on accusations that Obama had a "Free Money for the Rich Day" and complain that the stimulus bill was too small etc. It's pretty self defeating, isn't it?

[bluestateguy]

30. I appreciate that Krugman has kept his criticisms constructive and without demagoguery

Sometimes I have agreed, and sometimes not, but at least he avoids the kind of childish whining and demagoguery that we tend to hear from certain LW critics of the president.

[chervilant]

158. hmm...

I have yet to experience any of these 'certain LW critics' or the "left of the left." Could you be more specific? Who are these vile naysayers?

[LoZoccolo]

34. K&R!

:kick:

[Pholus]

35. Unrec. I call "False Connection" on statements made in the excerpt.

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.fc.transfer.html

I've said my bit. Read the excerpt carefully and see what words in there are not meant to add anything but emotional transference to the argument.

[Radical Activist]

36. huh. You could try reading the whole thing.

[Pholus]

37. Oh. You're right. That made it COMPLETELY different.

:eyes:

My original point stands.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

46. Is this some sort of conspiracy theory? n/t

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

62. The best line in the editorial.

I think of former Nader supporters like Ted Rall and Tom Tomorrow who always "knew better" about Obama. Every negative editorial that paints Obama as a sell-out is a form of self affirmation for them. It strokes their ego while they tell themselves they were right all along.

[Alcibiades]

43. Let's refight the primaries!

That's the path to success!

Fact is, lots of folks around here were Edwards and Clinton supporters. when their candidates dropped out, almost all wholeheartedly supported Obama. I know I did. Most progressives knew what we were getting: an electable Midwestern moderate. He has gotten a lot done. I may not like some of it, but he has gotten things done.

Still, it's not a matter of ego: it's a matter of good public policy. Folks ought to praise the president when he favors policies they favor, and let him know when he does not. And, as much as I may carp here, I'll defend this president and any Democrat against the right wing propaganda machine all day.

[Radical Activist]

66. Too many are.

"Folks ought to praise the president when he favors policies they favor, and let him know when he does not."

I agree and I believe that was part of Schaeffer's point. The problem is that we have a fair number of influential pundits and bloggers with prominent platforms who have a very hard time admitting when Obama says or does something progressive. It doesn't help Obama enact more progressive legislation and it doesn't help the progressive movement.

[Number23]

44. Damn. Schaeffer BREAKS IT DOWN

"The President's Right Wing Republican critics are now thoroughly exposed as the hard-hearted empty suits and haters that they are.

President Obama's Lefty critics look more and more like petulant teenagers who are too small to admit that they are wrong.

Score One to President Obama, Zero to his critics."

Happy to rec :)

[vaberella]

45. If this post was an opinion post on DU, it'd be seen as FLAMEBAIT! Then locked.

I agree wholeheartedly with the text.

[lamp_shade]

48. K&R. Since election day, I have shared Schaeffer's view of Krugman. It has always

been clear to me that "Krugman never forgave Obama for winning..." and I don't think he ever will.

[Radical Activist]

65. Hillary's base in the primary was the DC and NYC press corp.

I saw that in the primary but I underestimated how much that would continue to be a problem after Obama became President.

[Beacool]

76. Please, the media was creaming in their pants for Obama.

They didn't dare ask him any tough questions until the latter part of the primary. Remember the SNL skit after the writers' strike that poked fun at the media for being in the tank for Obama?

:eyes:

[Radical Activist]

86. Yes, the NYC-based SNL did adopt Hilary's victimization narrative about the media.

The fact that SNL was making Hillary's point for her reinforces the fact that much of the NYC and DC media were on her side. They were parroting Hillary's attempt at gaming the refs. It probably helped her get the media to devote more attention to the Reverend Wright attacks when she launched them.

Hillary got the most media coverage and was called the front runner for over a year until people started voting in Iowa. It was a huge advantage for her. Much of the DC press corp still love the Clintons. Hillary was not the underdog and she was not the victim of unusually unfair press coverage. Deal with it and move on.

[Beacool]

109. Yeah, right.

Anything and everything was said about Hillary, while the media was too scared to ask Obama any tough questions. The ABC debate was the first one where he was put on the spot. YOU deal with it and move on.

[Radical Activist]

129. Anything and everything is said abour every candidate!

That's how Presidential campaigns work. Hillary was treated just the same.
But one thing we can say for sure, is that Obama never attacked Hillary with anything so ugly and misleading as the Reverend Wright attack and other smears she threw at Obama. Obama showed respect even after Hillary dragged everyone down into the mud. Hillary was the abuser in that election, not the victim. The fact is that Hillary had every advantage in the world and she blew because Obama was the better candidate who ran a better campaign. If you stop nursing the persecution complex you might be able to accept that and move on.

[Beacool]

155. I beg to differ.

Obama may have ran a better campaign, but IMO he was not the better candidate.

:shrug:

[suzie]

163. A candidate who could have never dealt with any military leaders was a better candidate?

Really?

[Beacool]

180. What are you talking about????

Hillary dealt with military leaders for 8 years as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Furthermore, she is quite popular with the military brass.

:eyes:

[suzie]

198. After the much publicized lie about Tuzia was made public, you want to seriously

try and tell us that any person who served in the military would have any respect for Hillary Clinton as CIC?

And dealing with military leaders as a Senator is not at all like dealing with them as the CIC, whose main claim to fame is that she's married to a draft dodger that tried to hide that fact.

A CIC who has so little respect for those who serve that she thought it fine to lie about "coming in under fire." And to repeat that lie several times.

You want us to believe that political candidate could deal with the military?

Really?

[Beacool]

204. Believe whatever you want, but talk to the brass and you'll hear the contrary.

The incident you refer was a very minor blip in the radar.

:shrug:

[suzie]

209. Lying about coming in under fire to people who have faced combat is a "minor blip on the radar"?

What a joke!

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

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

[RaleighNCDUer]

115. You ever consider that Krugman MIGHT have 'forgiven' him for winning

if his first act was to NOT hire Goldman Sachs to run the economhy?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

142. I never understood why Krugman, someone who proudly proclaims to be a liberal,

supported Hillary Clinton. It's so odd. She is DLC, as is her husband. And Krugman never let up on Obama. Not once. Neither did Cenk. Neither did Jane.

[lamp_shade]

161. What the hell. Let's give this another kick.

[leveymg]

49. Ad hominem flamebait. Attack the critics rather than argue the issues. Cult of personality stuff -

disgustingly familiar formula for political bullshit.

[vaberella]

50. Wouldn't he be a critic himself? It's not a poster on DU...n/t

[leveymg]

53. Reposting an article that is flamebait w/out criticizing it is endorsement = lockable flamebait

As I understand the rules, DUers are free to repost articles provided that the post's primary effect isn't to sow or inflame bitter divisions among DU Members or a personal attack.

I furthermore fault the original article for its ad hominem attack on a particular critic of the Obama Administration's policies. Krugman has never, AFAIK, stooped to making personal attacks on the President. The article is a personal attack on Krugman and others who hold similar views, including many of us here at DU.

In my opinion, under DU rules, this thread could be locked. It's right on the edge of the rules.

[Radical Activist]

64. When a major media pundit has obvious personal biases against Obama

its fair to point that out. It has been obvious about Krugman for a long time and it would be wrong to censor discussion of that reality.

If this post is flamebait then I would have to wonder whether this is a Democratic website. Is expressing support for the most progressive President in 40 years really that controversial at DU?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

68. i guess the article struck a nerve, huh...

[treestar]

70. What rule? One pundit attacking another in an article - that article

cannot be posted on DU? According to what? It does not call out DU posters.

[RaleighNCDUer]

120. Sorry, Krugman is NOT a pundit. He is a prize winning economist

whose suggestions on the economy have been soundly ignored by the Wall Street gang that Obama brought in to fix the economic crisis.

Schaeffer, OTOH, has no credentials upon which he can base his opinions - a former evangelist and Republican hack who is completly unqualified to comment on Krugman's economic theories. HE is the pundit. That's why he resorts to personal attacks.

As for Krugman, he only said the economy would collapse if we did nothing. Obama did not do nothing, just next to nothing, and there is still no guarantee that there won't be a double-dip due to the insufficient response by the WH. When the economy re-tanks after the annual, expected holiday boost to spending and employment, and we settle into the doldrums of January and February, are you still going to sing praises about how Obama saved the economy? You are aware, aren't you, that is was NOT a great Christmas season - it was merely not as bad as was expected. Is THAT cause for celebration?

[treestar]

156. One public figure attacking another then

It is hardly flamebait.

[Radical Activist]

63. I'm looking for any fact-based response to the post and I'm not seeing one.

There's lots of anger and emotion, which is typical for the Cenk/Hamsher crowd, but I don't see a fact-based rebuttal of any kind. In a way, that reinforces the author's point.

[Hello_Kitty]

72. The OP is subjective, as are the responses it's going to get.

It's about Schaeffer's dislike of Obama's critics on the left.

[Radical Activist]

81. It's more about criticism that isn't based on objective reality.

There's plenty of it out there. Facts just don't seem to cenk into some people's brains.

[Hello_Kitty]

83. Who died and made you the arbiter of objectivity?

How obnoxious.

[lfairban]

97. I agree.

There is little of substance in the article, and a lot of name calling. He cites no specific positions of Krugman that he disagrees with. Look at this paragraph:

Krugman never forgave Obama for winning the election. Krugman's support for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama was clear in 2008. He argued that Clinton's economic proposals were more progressive than Obama's. Krugman -- and the Left of the left -- have been out to get President Obama ever since. If they weren't they would have admitted by now that time and again, Obama has outsmarted his opponents-- including them! They said the economy would tank: it didn't. Obama's policies are working.

Schaeffer displays his subjectivity when he says the "left of the left" are upset that Hillary didn't win. What far leftist considers Hillary Clinton to be a progressive?!

When did Krugman say the economy would tank because of Obama's policy? I don't think he did. He did say that the stimulus was inadequate, that it would not bring about enough of a recovery fast enough. According to the "shellacking" last November, we can only conclude he was right.

The whole article is complete drivel.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[tomp]

57. fuck you, too. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. I've never seen "the economy is all better now" posts written by anyone unemployed. n/t

[bvar22]

59. Sounds like someone....

...who is enjoying his now permanent tax break.
Most in the Ownership Class should be quite happy with President Obama.

[Hello_Kitty]

75. Ya think? eom

[hulka38]

60. Stating that Frank Schaeffer comes from a long line of Charlatans

is more fact-based than anything he says in this inflammatory hit piece.

[wndycty]

67. K&R

:kick:

[Beacool]

77. Oh, I see, now Krugman never got over Obama winning?

:rofl:

[Radical Activist]

80. Do you feel his pain?

[Beacool]

110. No, just laughing at the usual people.

Obama could not possible have any faults. If anyone criticizes him it's because they must have ulterior motives. So now it's Krugman's turn to be thrown under the bus? That undercarriage must be pretty crowded indeed.

:7

[Egnever]

218. NO FAULTS !!!1!!

Laughing right back at you.

:rofl: :rofl:

Usual people indeed.

[MannyGoldstein]

78. FDR was an amateur

The economy is booming
The miidle class is vibrant
We are at peace

In only two years!

FDR was an amateur.

Now all that's left is to slash entitlements so old people and the disabled stop living like
fucking royalty. And the bipartisan gesture of putting Cheney back in the VP slot for Obama's 2012 re-election.

[Radical Activist]

82. Obama stabalized the economy faster than FDR.

The depression raged on for years after FDR took office, and many of the most aggressive programs weren't implemented in his first two years because FDR was concerned about deficit spending. Try processing that reality.

[Hello_Kitty]

85. You know it's a depression for a lot of us now.

I've been mostly out of work since 2008. I've lost my home and depleted my savings. I'm 42 and I have nothing. If they take away my SS they might as well give me a cyanide tablet because I will not be able to survive old age.

There are a lot of people in my situation. We will probably never recover. Forgive me for expecting (hoping for) more from President Obama than a few crumbs while piles of money are handed to the wealthiest 1%.

[MannyGoldstein]

90. You won't apologize to Obama?

After he did so much to help banker bonuses?

On a serious note, very sorry to hear of your circumstances. We need to fight together to stop the attack by both parties against the middle class.

[Kahuna]

116. No, it is not. Pick up a history book or watch documentaries to see

what a real depression looks like. Things are bad, it's true. But learn the difference between a depression and a recession. We are suffering the later because Obama prevented the former. :patriot:

[Hello_Kitty]

117. Oh great. Let's play Poverty Olympics.

The Okies in the Dust Bowl had it better than the poor in sub-Saharan Africa do now. Whatever.

[phleshdef]

152. Even during economics golden ages, people still lose their jobs and their homes.

I won't downplay any hardships you have experienced. That wouldn't be fair to you or others in the same situation. But at the same time, you really are pushing it hard to suggest this is anything close to the depression. Its not. Not by a longshot.

[Kahuna]

197. Try to stick to the topic at hand. The FACT is, the country is NOT

suffering a depression, thanks to the President. :patriot:

[MannyGoldstein]

87. You are totally, utterly, exquisitely, staggeringly

wrong.

GDP growth went highly positive right after FDR took office. In his first term, GDP growth averaged. 9% yearly, and unemployment halved.

[Radical Activist]

89. You still aren't in the reality based community.

Where do you get this propaganda? Please, read something about the New Deal that isn't from a polemic trying to make Obama look bad.

[MannyGoldstein]

91. Holy cow! Next you'll tell us Germany won WWII

It's as accurate as anything you've written in this thread.

[Radical Activist]

128. Did you know that the WPA didn't happen until two years after FDR took office?

Probably not. There was a second new deal for two reasons.

1) The first phase of the new deal wasn't enough. It wasn't as successful at stopping the bleeding as Obama was.

2) FDR got larger majorities in Congress after the mid-term election. That allowed him to do more. See, even saint FDR didn't have the dictatorial powers over Congress that you imagine Obama Claus could wield if he just got tough or something. If you want Obama to be more like FDR then stop bitching about him all the time and work for a real progressive majority in Congress. That would actually be a productive use of time.

[MannyGoldstein]

134. You can't be serious. There were many other programs before the WPA

But we digress. Which of these do you disagree with?

1. Unemployment began dropping sharply as soon as FDR took office.
2. Unemployment halved during FDR's first term.
3. GDP began to grow sharply as soon as FDR took office.
4. GDP grew by an average of 9% per year during FDR's first term.

[Radical Activist]

175. You'll need to provide links to your false assertions.

Am I right that your source is a slanted propaganda article aimed at attacking Obama? I bet I am. Go ahead and link it.

Every source I find states that uneployment continued to rise and GDP continued to fall in 1933 after FDR took office. The fact is that Obama's turn around is working faster and better than FDR's. Not to mention that the depression started to worsen again in '37 (after a period of recovery) because FDR cut back spending to reduce the deficit.

Obama is doing a better job than your hero. How does that make you feel?

[Egnever]

206. And of course you get no reply.

Imagine that.

[Number23]

211. Rad, you need to make this an OP. It probably won't do anything for the faithful

you know the ones who faithfully and without fail have decided that EVERYTHING Obama does is wrong/bad/insufficient (even though ironically, they are the first ones to dismissively refer to his supporters as "the faithful") but I think the rest of us would enjoy reading this.

[Egnever]

220. Two days later and you cant support any of that can you?

[olegramps]

227. Thanks, you saved me the trouble. Revisionist History is a bitch.

[chervilant]

113. hmm...

How did I miss such an important event as Obama stabilizing the economy?!?

Oh, wait...

[Hello_Kitty]

84. Don't forget "reforming" public education!

We'll finally get those mighty teachers unions under control.

[Radical Activist]

88. Obama forced right to work states like Tennessee to work with teacher's unions.

That was built into the Race To the Top grant process. That's more than FDR ever did for teacher unions. Fucking awesome!

[Hello_Kitty]

93. The Race to the Top thing is asinine to begin with

Why are struggling states forced into a humiliating competition for funds instead of just being given some funds to help their schools? "Oh sorry, Arizona kids, you lose out on money to help the shitty schools this year because the grant writers didn't dazzle Arne the way they did in Michigan."

[Ramulux]

99. Bullshit

He owes the American people an apology for being a weak president responsible for giving a dead political party a lifeline. The tax deal alone is enough to cement the fact that he sold out 98% of the country to please the top 2%. Guys like Schaeffer are so painfully confused and ignorant of what has happened over the past 2 years its unbearable. He is so obsessed with the few genuinely great things the democrats have done that he feels that those things make up for any other mistake. I'm not gonna bother listing every failure and capitulation done by the white house and dems over the past 2 years, everyone on this site knows what they are and what it has cost us as a party.

Over the past 2 years we have gone from having massive democratic majorities, a popular democratic party, a pretty much dead republican party, and all the good will in the world to a resurgent republican party, a politically toxic democratic party, a painfully weak white house, a lost house and a slim majority in the senate. Oh, but we should be apologizing to Obama for being critical of the choices he made. Schaeffer is a blind Obama loyalist who doesn't seem to have payed ANY attention to anything that has happened over the past 2 years.

[Raine]

105. TOTALLY on point nt

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

131. Republicans and conservative Democrats blocked half of Obama's agenda and you blame Obama.

"painfully confused and ignorant"
Good choice of words.

There are no more LBJs with Democratic super-majorities. If you want progressive legislation rammed through Congress then you need to stop blaming big brother Obama for failing to hand down change on a silver platter and start talking about how a mass movement of the people can make it happen. Stop expecting Obama to do it for you. The people have more power to pressure Congress than any President.

[BlueJac]

100. Obama is a sellout......

social security will be his next.

[mtnsnake]

101. Mr President, I hereby apologize for criticizing you for extending Bush's tax cuts for the rich

Even though I support you most of the time, Frank Schaeffer made me realize that presidents, especially you, should never be criticized. Please accept my heartfelt apology, Sir. I would also like to apologize to Frank Schaeffer. (Snicker)

[thelordofhell]

102. I see the President Obama critics can dish it out, but they can't take it

When you point a finger at someone, three more fingers are pointing back at you.

:nopity:

[DeSwiss]

103. Frank who? n/t

[Beacool]

112. Some Obama apologist............

:shrug:

[DeSwiss]

127. Yeah well he's full of shit.

- I posted this at his article's page but I have no illusions that the mods will let it through:

As Bob Hebert said: "There is a fundamental disconnect between economic indicators pointing in a positive direction and the experience of millions of American families fighting desperately to fend off destitution."

I think I've found one of those disconnections right here. Its name is Frank Schaeffer.

But maybe I'm wrong and you're right. Maybe I'm just focusing on the negative and need to join your bandwagon. Maybe you've found millions of forgotten people jobs! Well, if you have I tell ya, I'd like to thank you, sir. Because I'm heartened that you've been able to find 15,000,000 unemployed people jobs. People who've been without work for a year and in some cases two. So when do they start? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/opinion/28herbert.html

Or have you forgotten them?

You know.... you should be required to post a warning for everyone to don their boots before clicking this thread's link. You're as bad as the MSM. If any apologies are required, they should be coming from you......

[Beacool]

181. Good response.

Did the mods let it through?

;)

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

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

[Egnever]

214. So you would be happier if more were unemployed

Do I have that right? Cause by any indication the actions obama has taken has stopped the job losses that were as high as 700k a month when he came into office and instead were are now gaining jobs.

But I suppose when you have nothing but short term vision all you can see is those still out of work. By all accounts Obama continues to try to push for more actions to create more jobs but again you give him no credit for that and only harp on what hasn't been fixed instantly something he didn't create in the first place btw.

The point of course of the OP which you so dismally tried to refute with your post is that Obama has accomplished a lot in his first two years. In fact it has been the most productive two years of an administration in decades.

The OP wasn't about the problems that yet remain and how they haven't been fixed yet.

You Can chose to ignore facts all you want but every indicator now shows the economy growing instead of shrinking. Obviously it isn't growing fast enough to replace all of the jobs lost due to Bush destroying it. That will take time. It would be nothing short of a miracle if somehow they could have gotten 15 million jobs back already and the fact that you are pissed cause Obama cant perform miracles shows how shallow your thinking truly is.

[RaleighNCDUer]

111. Never mind that Krugman never opposed what Obama is doing in general -

claiming only that what he was doing was watered down, insufficient and ineffective, and that stronger measures taken sooner would have had us on an upswings months earlier.

When it comes to economic matters, I'd bet on a prize winning economist over a constitutional scholar any day of the week, no matter how many Goldman Sachs execs he buddies up to.

[JamesA1102]

118. Never mind that what Krugman wanted was unrealistic.

To quote Jonathan Alter:

"They're politicall­y naïve. Paul Krugman kept saying the stimulus should have been bigger.

"I was in the Senate at the beginning of this week, I was talking to people about this, and they said, 'It's just ridiculous­. He had no chance of getting Collins, Snowe, or Specter if he'd gone over a trillion dollars. Zero chance.

"The stimulus wouldn't have passed. So Krugman and the others can say until they're blue in the face that the stimulus wasn't big enough. It has nothing to do with reality. The reality was, there was simply no way to go higher on the total dollar amount for the stimulus."

[RaleighNCDUer]

121. How about, then, going for a SMALLER stimulus

and cutting out all the tax cuts for the wealthy that were included in it? It would have cost the government LESS money, and retained ALL the effective stimulus money. he could have in fact increased the effective stimulus funds, while keeping the overall stimulus well below that dreaded trillion dollar mark.

They, and you, continue to frame the stimulus as 'money spent' rather than as 'money invested'. If Obama had used the bully pulpit to pound home the concept that the stimulus was INVESTING in the country, through jobs programs and infrastructure development, and that the return on that investment would DWARF the initial outlay, he could have gotten whatever he wanted.

As it is, he simply got what HE wanted, and fuck the economy.

Or do you REALLY think we've turned the corner, based on a less than disastrous holiday season?

[JamesA1102]

137. There were no tax cuts for the wealthy in the original stimulus

All the tax cuts included were for the middle class and small business. And I never framed the stimulus as money spent so please don't put words in my mouth. That's intellectually dishonest of you to do so.

Plus, the President did use the 'bully pulpit' at the time. But it is naive to think he could have gotten whatever he wanted in the face of unified GOP obstruction. So let's deal in reality, not talking points.

[RaleighNCDUer]

140. When your 'middle class and small business' reaches 350k incomes,

well into the top 5% of incomes, that's a little disingenuous in itself. 30% of the original stimulus was in tax cuts - and I don't really care who got them, they DON'T work as stimulus.

TAX CUTS DON'T WORK. Not for the wealthy, not for the poor.

And we will never know what he could have gotten because HE DIDN'T FUCKING TRY. And how YOU framed the stimulus is completely immaterial - it is how OBAMA needed to frame the stimulus, in public, in press conferences, in town hall meetings, on the campaign trail, undercutting the RW talking points.

He let them frame it as spending, then threw away 1/3 of it on worthless tax cuts. It's no wonder the economy is still in the shithouse.

[JamesA1102]

141. It is still disingenous to say they were geared to the wealthy

The rest is just talking points and blind ideology.

[stranger81]

169. This graph does not mean what you think it means. [n/t]

[JamesA1102]

178. So you are so arrogant you claim to know what I think?

Yet you don't even bother to follow up with anything to support your statement.

[stranger81]

182. I think it's a safe assumption to say you think it somehow proves the point that the tax cuts

were not geared towards the wealthy. All that graph shows is that the dollars going to the wealthy under this deal are far less stimulative than the dollars going towards other things. It says nothing about the relative amounts awarded to the wealthy vs others, whether in aggregate or per capita.

[JamesA1102]

183. It's never safe to assume.

And you were dead wrong in your assuption. Buh-bye!

[phleshdef]

153. Tax cuts for the poor and middle class ARE stimulative.

Anytime government does something that puts money in the pockets of people that spend it and spend it reasonably quickly is stimulative. Tax cuts for the wealthy aren't stimulative because they all ready had extra money that they didn't feel the need to spend.

[Paladin]

119. Be Right With You, Schaeffer. In The Meantime, Hold Your Breath. (n/t)

[chervilant]

122. Frank Schaeffer?

Is this Frank "I used to be on the Right" Schaeffer? Frank "I helped found the Religious Right" Schaeffer? Frank "I was not a Democrat until 2008" Schaeffer?

Wonder if this is why his article sounds like he's a dyed-in-the-wool WATB...

[DCBob]

154. So, no comment on the content.. just attempt to trash the author...

suggests to me you have nothing to refute the content.

[chervilant]

157. Gosh...

you could have read all my other posts before making this unsupportable assertion...

Furthermore, I don't 'attempt' to trash the author--I clearly question his politics and his slavish assertions regarding Obama's accomplishments and his condescending characterizations of the "left of the left" and their alleged relentless "carping." His is a poorly written op-ed, and does little to convince me.

Some of the participants hereinabove sound like two opposing factions of American Idol fans, voicing their support of or disdain toward a specific contestant. Very few US citizens take the time to research what's going on and then comment/discuss from an informed position. I come to DU because I find more of the latter and less of the former. However, I'm finding that some DUers are becoming intractable and defensive, particularly when the subject is Obama.

We live in perilous times, DCBob. We have no room for sycophantic or slavish devotion to any elected official. We can ill afford to be in the middle of a crisis only to find--to our collective dismay--that our hero has feet of clay. I'm with Teddy Roosevelt on this one: when Obama says/does something with which I take issue, I will question him. I will question bad policy, and I will work to effect change that benefits us all. (But, I won't write a piece of drivel slamming people whose political activism conflicts with this POTUS' policies or performance.)

[DCBob]

162. Just expecting people to admit they were wrong is not "slavish devotion"..

The "doom and gloomers" were wrong. We are not in a depression... the economy did not collapse.. things are gradually improving. Of course there is still risk the whole thing could come crashing down again.. any idiot knows that. But it has not happened yet.. mostly due to the actions of this administration even in the face of relentless criticism and naysaying from the right and hard left. Truth is Obama saved their sorry asses. Of course they will never admit it. Fools.

[chervilant]

165. Insanity

is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

[Radical Activist]

194. Good point.

Constantly attacking Obama as though he's the only elected official in DC didn't help to pass any progressive legislation. Continuing to do the same and expecting different results would be insanity.

[chervilant]

200. hmm...

No one on this thread has identified the 'constantly attacking Obama' group, Radical. Who are these people?

Furthermore, how has a chameleon editorialist for a propagandist newspaper become an unimpeachable source of information?

I strongly encourage you to read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine (or reread, it, as the case may be). (If you are implicitly encouraging 'blind allegiance' to our current administration, you'll inevitably get fervid resistance from a significant number of DUers.)

[Radical Activist]

201. I read Shock Doctrine over a year ago.

Good book. It powerfully shows that the idea of waiting for the right apocalyptic conditions to ferment revolution is an idiotic strategy for the left. Those conditions are more likely to be manipulated by the right. We're better of doing the hard work of convincing and empowering people to our viewpoint along the community organizing model.

For two years the Senate was the real roadblock to most progressive goals. All the while, many left bloggers and pundits ignored the Senate while placing all the responsibility on Obama to "be tough" and just push things through. If you didn't notice this then you weren't paying attention. The strategy was as counterproductive as it was naive.

The people encouraging blind obedience only exist in your own mind. We don't have to march in lock-step agreement with every poorly reasoned attack on Obama simply because we value the principle of dissent.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[Union Scribe]

143. I liked this better when Chris Crocker did it.

[RBInMaine]

146. Krugman is a good progressive economist, but he needs to start understanding what can PASS.

A larger stimulus could not PASS the congress. Obama got as much as he could. Political reality needs to enter into the equation. What he was able to get done in the last two years against near universal GOP obstruction was astounding.

[DCBob]

148. Krugman's negative attitude has been bugging me for a long time..

I also did not know he was so disturbed that Obama beat Clinton. I really wish these pro-Hillary folks would just get over it already for God sakes. Krugman has been sounding like a fool with all his failmongering talk and extreme comments about an imminent depression and total economic collapse. He may be right in the long run but he has been totally wrong on economic events up to now and yes he should apologize along with all the others who have been dead wrong on their doom and gloom predictions.

[mmonk]

164. Here's a hard truth.

Candidate Obama ran left of his politics. Then criticized those who called him out. End of story.

[Radical Activist]

173. Obama introduced a strongly progressive agenda.

Then half the left pundits nit-picked every aspect of it instead of helping to get anything passed. Massive fail.

He has the best record of progressive successes of any President in 40 years. I kind of feel sorry for people who can't get beyond their cynicism enough to at least appreciate what's happening, even while they fight to get more.

[mmonk]

199. Obama is by no stretch of the imagination, progressive.

[Radical Activist]

202. Clean energy, health care reform, more regulation of business, consumer protection,

making the tax code more fair (which he has still done in spite of the recent tax cut compromise), ending Bush torture policies, ending the Iraq war, etc etc.

These were all progressive goals the last time I checked. I haven't seen conservatives fight for any of these things. The fact that Obama was forced to compromise the details of those issues merely means the Senate is not progressive.

[Egnever]

219. Well said!

Not progressive by any stretch of the imagination.....Where do people get this crap?

[Skittles]

167. RIDICULOUS

[Radical Activist]

195. Very well argued point. n/t

[bullwinkle428]

177. This deserves an unrec based on a "HUGH" factual error fail -

Krugman was clearly a supporter of John Edwards. NOT Hillary, going into the 2008 primaries. I attended a lecture/book signing of his, where he clearly articulated his position based on economic platform.

[Radical Activist]

193. Why would a liberal support the Edwards, the moderate DLC Senate caucus leader

over a candidate like Obama, who had a more progressive record and platform?

I'm really fascinated by the pundits like Sirota, Tomorrow and Rall who were very eager to believe that Edwards changed his conservative stripes but were at the same time extremely skeptical of Obama. Where does a double standard like that come from?

[bullwinkle428]

212. Like him or not, Edwards DID spend a great deal of time during his

campaign discussing the growing inequality gap that's been taking place in America going back to the Reagan years, and Krugman clearly felt his policy positions passed muster in terms of credibility and potential for implementation.

[hulka38]

184. Schaeffer is the kind of guy

who made it necessary to redefine the word "tool".

[chervilant]

186. oooooooooooooohhhhh....

Watch out! You're going to get the dreaded "deleted message" for posting such an erudite observation!

[jeanpalmer]

187. When did the jobless numbers go down?

In the December report, they went up.

[CrawlingChaos]

188. I honestly thought this was going to be satire

Not knowing who Schaeffer was before I read it. Good Lord.

Somehow it makes me think of Ginny Thomas drunk dialing Anita Hill... with about the same likelihood of a resulting apology.

[VeryConfused]

203. Very interesting article. The points made has got me thinking