The Rage on the Left Is Just Beginning

The Rage on the Left Is Just Beginning


If you are a right-winger who does not like President Obama and calls his policies “socialist,” you’ve got to hear what is going on among America’s left-wingers.

In fact, you can even read it for yourself in The New York Times. Left-wing columnist Maureen Dowd has written several columns dripping with contempt for Obama since he struck a deal with Republicans to cut spending but chose not to increase taxes in order to lower our nation's debt.

And Paul Krugman the Nobel Prize-winning economist has long complained in his New York Times columns that the president displayed weakness by not insisting on a larger stimulus package – even as the right wing has condemned the stimulus as a waste of money and a failure for not lowering the unemployment rate.

And now Professor Drew Westen, in an essay in the New York Times magazines, writes that the Democrat in the White House is failing to respond to right-wing bullying instigated by the rich who have created the “greatest levels of economic inequality and the there greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression…”

The anger coming at President Obama from the left is being fueled by polls that show most Americans, and even the majority of Republicans, think the president should have insisted on having the rich pay more taxes as part of any deal on raising the debt ceiling.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/19/rage-on-left-is-just-beginning/#ixzz1VYuDMvMg
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/19/rage-on-left-is-just-beginning/?test=latestnews

The question is will they still vote for a known failure. I think the answer is yes. They hate Republicans more than they hate Obama's failures.


_

 

Yes, they will vote for Obama again because there is NOTHING to vote for on the republican side. Mitt is a perpetual flip-flopper and believes “corporations are people too”, Michel Bachman is a paranoid nut case who would restart witch hunts and the cold war, and Rick Perry is so far right, he’s not even on planet Earth!

Yes, Obama is TOO conservative and TOO cooperative with the enemy party, but he’s still a better option than having someone from the enemy party. If McCain had been president, we would have been destroyed by WWIII by now and we wouldn’t be worrying about any of those issues right now.

 

Whatever, you are crazed in your partisanship.

Obama is as far left a President as will ever get elected again in this nation.

Progressivism isn't welcome here in America. Take it to Europe.

 

Agreed. A two party system is pretty much equal to a one party system as long as no new parties can start and gain credibility. It is some influence, sure, but it's more like an illusion of choice.

When your best choice is "a known failure", then the several-party-system is no longer in effect.

 

Actually Obama is actually a Corporatist to be completely accurate and the only differences I can forsee will be just an R instead of D on Policies of the next President getting Elected.

Would you like an Authoritarian Republican or an Authoritarian Democrat?

Democratic Party is forcing entitlements and welfare programs on us! This is Injustice and they cannot impose morality unilateraly!!

Republican Party is forcing anti-abortion and various other anti-social laws on us! This is Injustice and they cannot impose morality unilateraly!!

What about the Wars? D says "(*)(*)(*)(*) yeah I love War when the President has a D next to their name!". R says "(*)(*)(*)(*) yeah I love War when the President has a R next to their name!". So... they're both Warmongers who only oppose it when the other shade of color is controlling it.

What about Monetary Policy? D says "(*)(*)(*)(*) yeah I love our Monetary Policy as it allows us to spend it on programs that involves inflating the money but, it's only okay if the leader has a D next to their name when they do it!". R says "(*)(*)(*)(*) yeah I love our Monetary Policy as it allows us to spend it on programs that involves inflating the money but, it's only okay if the leader has a R next to their name when they do it!". So you both follow Keynes Philosophy.

I really don't see a Difference in the choices at all for President... one demands more rights taken away in a certain area compared to the other. I find it laughable people choose their Masters rather than choose Freedom and Liberty.

 

Well the 2 party system is inherent to our Constitution. We're not a proportional democracy and therefore have no need for a bunch of whack job fringers clouding up the public debate.

 

Anything outside of Entitlements, Imperialism, Keynesian Economics and Forced Morality is considered fringe than.

 

they are both the enemy party.
we're being played, and you just played along, willingly

 

The TYPES of evils propagated by SOME politicians on either side of the aisle, create different effects upon people.

If anyone asks me (and rarely do they ever), I'd say that the Democrats are the 'lesser' of the evils which we know exist.

 

You're simply choosing Attila over Genghis...

 

Kindly point out the article and section ?

you sound just like Chris Mathews when you say that.

 

I can’t really argue that point, but I think the whole “Obama is a Failure” concept is a bit over stated. He took down Bin Laden on his watch, he did get some significant changes on healthcare reform done, which I wanted. Obama did at least stall and slightly reverse the job loss factor left by the Bush administration. His “stimulus package” did help some states, like Texas, balance their own budgets. His GM bailout did prevent a massive industry and job crash, and they paid it back.

The real failure is the totally dysfunctional government he has tried to work with and his own attitude that he is going to work with it. The Republicans have made it clear they want to destroy him even if they have to destroy the whole country to do it, and nobody can be a success in that kind of environment.

Obama’s main failure is his determination to unite the two parties and himself with a broken government system.

 

It is.

Obama isn't 'perfect', but he has done well (considering all things). And it is clear that many on the Right, have adopted the practice of trying to scapegoat this President.

 

Look man, the minarchist libertarian world of the 19th/late 20th century is dead and it's never coming back.

The modern electorate of America has decided that there should be certain social programs like extra taxation to care care for the old/sick/crippled/poorest among us. The Income Tax was legally placed within our Constitution via amendment, so no one has a right to complain to much because it's Constitutionally valid.

What you call "imperialism" is simply America protecting the Global Economy from instability. We cannot simply pretend that unless a nation attacks our soil directly we should otherwise pursue a strict "non-interventionist"(read:isolationist) policy.

Because we are basically the center of the globalized economy, when a butterfly farts in Beijing the down drops 500 points. The same goes for war, terrorism, major region wide revolts like the Arab Spring, Arab/Israeli wars, etc.

We don't do this stuff as an enjoyment for war, we do it because no other nation on earth is willing to go to war to protect the stability of the global economy we all rely on everyday for our quality of life.

What "forced morality" are you speaking of? If you mean the "war on drugs" that's not about morality it's about controlling a major social ill and is supported by the vast majority of Americans, therefore blaming a political party for enacting legislation that the majority demands is not "criminal"

You keep acting like Politicians are acting against the will of the people but they are not. They are enacting the will of the majority.

As far as Keynes goes I don't know what to say about that. He's been accepted economic doctrine for decades.

 

Look man, the minarchist libertarian world of the 19th/late 20th century is dead and it's never coming back.

The modern electorate of America has decided that there should be certain social programs like extra taxation to care care for the old/sick/crippled/poorest among us. The Income Tax was legally placed within our Constitution via amendment, so no one has a right to complain to much because it's Constitutionally valid.

What you call "imperialism" is simply America protecting the Global Economy from instability. We cannot simply pretend that unless a nation attacks our soil directly we should otherwise pursue a strict "non-interventionist"(read:isolationist) policy.

Because we are basically the center of the globalized economy, when a butterfly farts in Beijing the dow drops 500 points. The same goes for war, terrorism, major region wide revolts like the Arab Spring, Arab/Israeli wars, etc.

Who is going to secure the world's oceans if not America? Did not the UK fulfill that function before we did as Spain did before them? Who is going to ensure the free access to natural resources if not us? What about access to new and emerging global consumer and labor markets? Who is going to secure all of that? The UN won't. the EU can't. China is interested in just the opposite. So by process of elimination it comes down to us. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.

We don't do this stuff as an enjoyment for war, we do it because no other nation on earth is willing to go to war to protect the stability of the global economy we all rely on everyday for our quality of life and yet, military action is often necessary in regions of the world where diplomacy is often at the point of a bayonet.

What "forced morality" are you speaking of? If you mean the "war on drugs" that's not about morality it's about controlling a major social ill and is supported by the vast majority of Americans, therefore blaming a political party for enacting legislation that the majority demands is not "criminal"

You keep acting like Politicians are acting against the will of the people but they are not. They are enacting the will of the mainstream American. Sorry you don't belong to that group.

As far as Keynes goes I don't know what to say about that. He's been accepted economic doctrine for decades, and while I think that the Modern Globalized Economy as it stands make Keynes obsolete but they aren't listening to me in Harvard School of Economics yet.

 

The 2 Party system is an unintended consequence of the 12th Amendment and the only way to fix the system would be abolish the electoral college and go with a democratically elected President. That is an impossibility except in two circumstances.

The States will refuse to give up their voting sovereignty. Most anyway, not enough to get an amendment.

The other "backdoor" way is the underhaned tactic liberal states are using of passing laws giving their electoral votes to the popular winner of the election. There are only about 123 more electoral votes to go before they have a majority of electoral votes guaranteed to go to the winner of the popular election. It's pretty sneaky and dirty IMO, but Constitutional.

Once we made sure that the President and Vice President run as a ticket together, we virtually guaranteed the 2 party system that had already crystallized under Jefferson and Hamilton would continue indefinitely.

The Civil War destroyed most of the other "major" parties, including the Whigs(who were primarily southern unionists and lost power to the Southern secessionists) and the Democrats Split along secessionist lines guaranteeing the new party the Republican Party, would win the election.

Since then.. the only two parties that have existed are Democrats and Republicans and it will take a complete revamp of the Constitution to break it.

 

I would rather vote for Obama over the current Republican field. I don't beleive Obama is too conservative or too liberal, just out of touch with innovative, pragmatic, and realistic policy. However, the four contenders for the Republican nomination aren't going to attract widespread support among their constituents. Mitt Romney has the best shot of getting the nomination because he is appealing to a larger voter base than Bachmann, Paul, and Perry, the three other contenders.

Michelle Bachmann has the ability to attract voters with her rational-sounding economic policy. However, with each passing day, she is shooting herself in the foot with promises that you only hear in a high school Presidental race, such as being able to lower gas to less than $2 a gallon. Even if you open up all the untapped refineries in and around the United States, gas will still be well above $2 a gallon. Making a promise as idealistic as that will only fool the niave Tea Party crowd, and may turn off some level headed constituents that would vote for her.

Ron Paul, like Bachmann has the ability to make simple statements on economc policy that anyone wth half a brain can at least comprehend. However, the problem with a Liberatarian like Paul is that his stances contradict each other. From my observations of Paul, he is the epitome of a state's rights fiscal conservatve, yet he would bring the issue of abortion to the federal arena. If I was a Republican, the consistency of his beliefs would worry me.

Perry, like Bachmann has been shooting himself in the foot with recent comments on Obama, Ben Bernanke, and the environment. The fact that he took a shot at Ben Bernanke was undiplomatic as a Presidential candidate. Furthermore, his comments on the environment, which basically states that global warming is not man-made. While you can make a claim that there were points in our planet's history in which global warming, and its events, were not man-made, the most recent period of global warming and its events have certainly been accelerated through our acts.

 

It's not really a statement about Obama. I support Obama more than I support for instance McCain, Palin or Bachmann and there are politicians I support more than Obama too, but in the end, I don't know enough about Obama to make an informed decision. That's why I used somebody else's quote rather than my own views.

A one party system is a failure in itself regardless of how well the current leader is doing.

Still, I haven't heard any American politicians even suggest that a system benefiting small parties would be even considered. Then again, I'm haven't looked that closely.

 

The closest thing to a multi-party system would be a Parliamentary Democracy, or a Constitutional Monarchy.

 

Thank for sharing, DonGlock26.

This review was very intertesting.

Perhaps these attitudes as expressed by the poor in America are the very reasons these inequalities in income and wealth today actually exist! Many people are content to simple receive a month welfare stipend than actually work for a living!

The Obama Stash of Stimulus Cash -- Dolla Dolla Bills, Y'all!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19v5Kjmc8FI&feature=related"]The Obama Stash of Stimulus Cash -- Dolla Dolla Bills, Y'all!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

Mr. President, 408,000 more Americas are out of work this week than last week and our core inflation rate has unexpectedly risen to 2.0%. Why are you going on vacation? Please, please stay in Washington and work on our economy!

 

Look, man, that world never existed in the first place, and contemporary minarchists have no desire to return to those days, so you can retire that tired strawman because it has no relevance to our arguments.

The American electorate decided? So much for the Constitution...

Of course we have a right to complain. The Federal income tax, while Constitutional, was instituted by radical leftists as a wealth redistribution scheme. Any true conservative or libertarian would advocate for its repeal.

Mostly agree.

It doesn't matter what retarded justification people use for it, it's still an epic failure and colossal waste of money. Not once have I seen a supporter of drug prohibition put forth an intellectually defensible argument for their position. It's always vague and platitudinous appeals to "law and order" or some such nonsense. You don't have a shred of evidence which would suggest your authoritarian infringement of our rights is anything but a moral crusade against people you personally dislike.

Sounds like a direct democracy.

Just like bleeding was an accepted medical practice for decades.

 

Yes. A vote for someone other than Obama is basically a vote for a Republican, and the Republicans are even worse than he is. So yeah, we'll hold our noses and vote for Obama... because America cannot afford another Republican president.

 

I dunno what your politics are but there is a lot of truth in this OP.

So you get the same old cycle, two almost identical parties alternating.