HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » False: "Obama said h...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:26 PM

False: "Obama said he was a 'moderate Republican'"

Context is everything.

AMA: One issue that Cuban-Americans are worried about is, they believe that you favor a socialist model for our country. Cubans and Venezuelans especially because of what they have gone through. What do you think of that?

PBO: I don't know that there are a lot of Cubans or Venezuelans, Americans who believe that. The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican. I mean, what I believe in is a tax system that is fair. I don't think government can solve every problem. I think that we should make sure that we're helping young people go to school. We should make sure that our government is building good roads and bridges and hospitals and airports so that we have a good infrastructure. I do believe that it makes sense that everyone in America, as rich as this country is, shouldn't go bankrupt because someone gets sick, so the things I believe in are essentially the same things your viewers believe in.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

President Obama was redefining the right to emphasize how crazy the Republican Party has become.

It curious how excited people are over this statement in the context of defining the President versus what he actually said, which was related to policies. Republicans today are extremists. The President is saying his policy proposals are mainstream.

The President's health care law:

  • Expands Medicaid: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022047642

  • Increases taxes on the rich: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2059710

  • Includes a federal-control clause: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021978966

  • That doesn't include eliminating the middle man from federal student loans, expanding Pell Grants and strengthening Medicare, to name a few.

    If he's "Republican," he's one I can live with.

    As for the past, let's not let rhetoric get the best of reality. Republicans sucked in the 1980s, and there were a lot of Democrats over the last 40 years who also sucked.

    Phil Gramm:

    In 1976, Gramm unsuccessfully challenged Texas Democratic Senator Lloyd M. Bentsen, in the party's senatorial primary. Then in 1978 Gramm successfully ran as a Democrat for Representative from Texas's 6th congressional district, which stretched from the Fort Worth suburbs to College Station. He was reelected to his House seat as a Democrat in 1980.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm#United_States_House_of_Representatives


    Richard Shelby:

    Originally elected as a Democrat, Shelby switched to the Republican Party in 1994 when Republicans gained the majority in Congress midway through President Bill Clinton's first term. He was re-elected by a large margin in 1998 and has faced no significant electoral opposition since.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shelby


    Zell Miller:

    Miller crossed party lines and backed Republican President George W. Bush over Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zell_Miller


    The dynamics are not new, and the struggle is ongoing.

    A Democratic President enacted the COLA.
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022045787

    I'm not longing for the good old days of Nixon, Reagan, DOMA and the rest.


    81 replies, 4819 views

    Reply to this thread

    Back to top Alert abuse

    Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
    Replies to this discussion thread
    Arrow 81 replies Author Time Post
    Reply False: "Obama said he was a 'moderate Republican'" (Original post)
    ProSense Dec 2012 OP
    RainDog Dec 2012 #1
    loyalkydem Dec 2012 #5
    RainDog Dec 2012 #6
    indepat Dec 2012 #19
    loyalkydem Dec 2012 #2
    cui bono Dec 2012 #11
    OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #26
    woo me with science Dec 2012 #3
    ProSense Dec 2012 #10
    cui bono Dec 2012 #12
    ProSense Dec 2012 #15
    progressoid Dec 2012 #17
    woo me with science Dec 2012 #21
    OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #28
    socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #30
    OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #36
    theaocp Dec 2012 #38
    OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #72
    R. Daneel Olivaw Dec 2012 #68
    brentspeak Dec 2012 #58
    ProSense Dec 2012 #73
    Ichingcarpenter Dec 2012 #22
    NealK Dec 2012 #44
    MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #78
    SidDithers Dec 2012 #4
    NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #7
    Summer Hathaway Dec 2012 #53
    Enrique Dec 2012 #8
    HiPointDem Dec 2012 #9
    Cha Dec 2012 #20
    LineLineReply .
    LWolf Dec 2012 #43
    Lionessa Dec 2012 #13
    Arctic Dave Dec 2012 #14
    Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #16
    ProSense Dec 2012 #25
    progressoid Dec 2012 #18
    allrevvedup Dec 2012 #23
    socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #33
    allrevvedup Dec 2012 #45
    socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #46
    allrevvedup Dec 2012 #47
    socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #49
    allrevvedup Dec 2012 #52
    Fumesucker Dec 2012 #55
    allrevvedup Dec 2012 #56
    Fumesucker Dec 2012 #59
    allrevvedup Dec 2012 #60
    Fumesucker Dec 2012 #61
    allrevvedup Dec 2012 #62
    Fumesucker Dec 2012 #63
    allrevvedup Dec 2012 #65
    TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #64
    allrevvedup Dec 2012 #67
    TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #75
    allrevvedup Dec 2012 #80
    TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #81
    arely staircase Dec 2012 #24
    Scurrilous Dec 2012 #27
    Number23 Dec 2012 #29
    FiveGoodMen Dec 2012 #41
    Number23 Dec 2012 #69
    devilgrrl Dec 2012 #31
    NorthCarolina Dec 2012 #34
    devilgrrl Dec 2012 #37
    socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #48
    NorthCarolina Dec 2012 #74
    socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #76
    NorthCarolina Dec 2012 #32
    Bonobo Dec 2012 #57
    democrattotheend Dec 2012 #35
    Resonance_Chamber Dec 2012 #39
    limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #40
    JReed Dec 2012 #42
    socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #50
    allrevvedup Dec 2012 #54
    socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #77
    allrevvedup Dec 2012 #79
    madrchsod Dec 2012 #51
    WillyT Dec 2012 #66
    ProSense Dec 2012 #70
    bigtree Dec 2012 #71

    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:34 PM

    1. What he's saying is the Democrats have moved to the right

    and his policies reflect this move.

    Clinton also governed much farther to the right than previous Democrats b/c that's what the party felt they needed to do to compete for white voters who moved to the Republican Party after the passage of the civil rights act and Reagan's treasonous actions to get his pasty forget ass in office.

    While the reality remains that the majority of Americans poll much more liberal than Democratic policies on issue after issue.

    That's the real point - that Obama is a realist who wants to pass legislation in spite of the gerrymandered republican congress' opposition. The DLC made the move.

    Personally, I think the pendulum is swinging back toward a more center-left America - it takes the pols a while to catch up with this b/c their big corporate donors have vested interests in maintaining a status quo that benefits them to the exclusion of American citizens.

    same as it ever was, in that regard, all the way back to and before FDR.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to RainDog (Reply #1)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:38 PM

    5. I hope your right. I really hope your right.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to loyalkydem (Reply #5)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:40 PM

    6. The reality is we're better off with a Democrat in office n/t

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to RainDog (Reply #6)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:33 PM

    19. For sure: far better to be right of center than to be far off the

    right end of the bell curve as present-day repugs are. But still far from good, still far from a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; still far from promoting the general welfare rather than the welfare of the most affluent and large corporations.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:34 PM

    2. Thank you for posting that. I get so tired of the naysayers saying that about him.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to loyalkydem (Reply #2)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:55 PM

    11. Please stop using the term "naysayers".

    That does nothing to promote discussion. All it does is set up an us vs. them situation and that is never good and isn't accurate.

    There are plenty of reasons to criticize Obama's policies and this is a place to discuss those policies. When you keep using the term "naysayers" you are being dismissive and rude to those with legitimate complaints. If you disagree with them then use the forum to post your disagreement. If you simply use the term "naysayer" then you are basically conceding that you have no opposing argument and simply don't like the fact that they disagree with Obama, which in turn shows that you are not examining what Obama does but simply engaging in idol worship, which is extremely dangerous.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to cui bono (Reply #11)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:56 PM

    26. The use of the word "naysayer" is the poster's opinion, one that is shared by....

    ....others on this board. I personally don't consider the word to be rude in any way, certainly not even close to the level of a TOS violation like name-calling

    Telling people what they can or cannot say on DU is not going to get you very far in that discussion you hoped to have.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:35 PM

    3. No, he's not a moderate Republican at all.

    Indefinite detention, "kill lists" and drone wars, pre-emptive war as administration doctrine, spy centers for mining or surveillance of all phone calls and email without a warrant, internet surveillance and internet-censoring measures like ACTA, military drones in American skies, coordinated violent crackdowns against peaceful protesters, strip searches for any arrestee, bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks, and austerity budgets in an economy that has already impoverished its middle class.....These are not moderate or centrist positions. Not by a long shot.

    These are extreme corporatist, neocon, and police state policies, not "centrist" or moderate at all. And they are coming from corporatists in both parties.


    Obama, Democrats Push to Make Bush Spying Laws Permanent
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084702

    The Enemy Expatriation Act - another attack on legitimate protest and dissent like NDAA
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022072450

    FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Domestic Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022061578

    NDAA 2013 - Indefinite detention without trial is back
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014342985

    Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014348022

    Democratic-controlled US Senate approves...new $633 billion war bill
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022060449

    Purposely aiming bombs at children: "It kind of opens our aperture."
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931748

    Obama Administration To Offer More Than 20 Million Acres in Western Gulf of Mexico for Oil/Drilling
    http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1896005

    Obama's (Corporate) Education Reform Push is Bad Education Policy
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x221922

    Trans Pacific Partnership is NAFTA On Steroids
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1914478

    NYT slams the government for choosing not to prosecute HSBC top-bankers
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021965407

    Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit???
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022065493

    Obama: "Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938."
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2069607




    The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
    http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

    It's well past time to give up the illusion of what we are really facing here. We have a *systemic* problem of corporate money deluging Washington and corrupting both parties. We are under assault by corporatists who pretend to represent us, and we had better figure out what we are going to do about it, because change is not coming from those who claim to be on our side.




    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:54 PM

    10. It's like

    Indefinite detention, "kill lists" and drone wars, pre-emptive war as administration doctrine, spy centers for mining or surveillance of all phone calls and email without a warrant, internet surveillance and internet-censoring measures like ACTA, military drones in American skies, coordinated violent crackdowns against peaceful protesters, strip searches for any arrestee, bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks, and austerity budgets in an economy that has already impoverished its middle class.....These are not moderate or centrist positions. Not by a long shot.

    These are extreme corporatist, neocon, and police state policies, not "centrist" or moderate at all. And they are coming from corporatists in both parties.

    ...a one-trick pony.

    Ever heard of the Internment, Korean War and Vietnam War?

    Those were all a bunch of "extreme corporatist, neocon, and police state policies."

    The struggle is not new and is ongoing.

    Deal with reality and stop throwing around ridiculous cliches.



    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:00 PM

    12. Just because something has been done before doesn't make it right.

    Do you really think that is a defense of those things? Wow. Did you say that when GWB was doing it?

    Dems are supposed to expect more from their party leaders. If you don't criticize what you know is wrong then you are idolizing the man and not standing up for principles. That is very, very dangerous.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to cui bono (Reply #12)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:09 PM

    15. Actually,

    "Just because something has been done before doesn't make it right."

    ...dealing with reality means that one has to acknowledge that history sometimes repeats itself. Not a defense. The fact is that the silly cliches and obsession with trying to portray Obama as not a Democrat or someone with evil intentions is absurd.

    The President did not come in and create the environment he inherited. He can do much to try to change it, but it is not one that he intentionally put in place. There are also things he cannot singlehandedly change. People can also pressure Congress to hold the President accountable. There are a host of reasons why certain things may or may not happen, objecting to policies is not the same as spending every energy to cast the President as evil, especially using spin.

    The OP statement is a case in point.



    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to cui bono (Reply #12)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:27 PM

    17. +1

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to cui bono (Reply #12)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:46 PM

    21. Well said.

    Emotive bids for loyalty become very creepy when policies like these are at stake.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:05 PM

    28. Don't forget the suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln during the Civil War, the secret bombing....

    ...of Laos and Cambodia by Nixon, and the CIA actions to overthrow the governments of Iran and Guatemala while Ike was the president.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #28)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:12 PM

    30. All of these policies I protested in one way or another.....

    when they were being implemented. Or at least, as soon as I found out about them. So when Obama does the same types of things I'm NOT expected to protest them?

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #30)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:55 PM

    36. All I'm saying is, based on past history which has far more examples than I posted,....

    ....these things are going to happen under every president for a variety of reasons. Some of the DU posters are acting Like the President is the only chief executive to do things we don't like.

    Nobody's telling you what to protest or when to do so.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #36)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:07 PM

    38. I disagree.

    Nobody's telling you what to protest or when to do so.


    By defending policies that samesaid people would abhor under Bush or any other person (shall we speculate "every other president"?), people are, at best, telling me what and when to protest. Bad policy is bad policy.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to theaocp (Reply #38)

    Sat Dec 29, 2012, 05:26 PM

    72. Whatever. nt.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #28)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:08 PM

    68. How can we forget? These all happened under republican administrations.


    Just saying.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:49 PM

    58. In short: Obama is a corporatist Republican posing as a Democrat

    And you're unable to come up with the proper spin to refute that.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to brentspeak (Reply #58)

    Sat Dec 29, 2012, 05:29 PM

    73. I don't

    "In short: Obama is a corporatist Republican posing as a Democrat"

    ...believe that, which is why I voted for him.

    Now, why did you vote for "a corporatist Republican posing as a Democrat"?

    Don't tell me that the alternative was worse.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:50 PM

    22. he's better than all out Facism

    I must have stuck a chord
    in another thread when I said something to an asshole.

    Great post.

    WE are glad to have him

    but he is no
    Liberal in my school or yours.

    Good democrat in today's old world no doubt.

    No one has gone to jail

    that sucks.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:42 PM

    44. Except for the words "drone" and "Internet" it sounds like a description of past police states.

    So +1

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

    Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:57 PM

    78. Bingo

     

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:38 PM

    4. Awww. Don't burst their little bubble...

    so many get great joy out of calling Obama a Republican. They almost peed their pants with glee when they thought Obama validated their opinion.

    And now you've gone and proven them wrong yet again.

    Sid

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:45 PM

    7. Personally I don't give a crap about labels.

    If a policy is good on its merits, and it works, then I'll be happy to support it.

    It's like the "socialist" label thrown around by Republicans. Okay, fine, call universal health care "socialist". That doesn't address anything about the merits of the idea. If universal health care is a good idea and works, I don't care if you call it socialist, communist, capitalist, conservative or liberal.

    The same thing goes for politicians. I look at their ideas, their beliefs, and their plans -- not the labels assigned to them or they assign to themselves.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #7)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:40 PM

    53. Amen.

    You've stated this so perfectly and succinctly.

    There is a propensity among people on this board to label everything - policies, plans, politicians, and fellow posters - without regard to anything else. They have their Label-makers at-the-ready, affix their labels to people and policies, and never look at the underlying facts, as though the 'label' itself is the only relevant thing to be considered.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:50 PM

    8. correct, Obama is not literally a Republican

    he just has the policies of the Reagan-era GOP.

    Thank you for making that important distinction.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to Enrique (Reply #8)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:52 PM

    9. the reagan era, a model of good governance. help

     

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to Enrique (Reply #8)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:44 PM

    20. Yeah, would reagan have implemented a HealthCare like Obamacare..

    Come out for Gay Marriage, Or any of the Accomplishments of the first four years of his Admin/
    b]"We'll Keep This List Going. Here are 206 Obama Accomplishments, With Citations! He's Done Plenty"

    http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

    You know what? It doesn't even matter.. President Obama is who he is.. some people don't like it and that's fine. I'm just glad so many people do like who he is and what he's done for our country and will continue to do in the next four years with the help of Active Citizens.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to Enrique (Reply #8)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:35 PM

    43. .

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:02 PM

    13. He doesn't need to say what's obvious.

     

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:04 PM

    14. An 80's repug?

     

    I don't think anyone in in a Central or South American country would think that is a good thing unless they are part of a fascist regime.

    Really? I mean, WTF!

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:11 PM

    16. Well Pro, these are still the good old days of DOMA. That's still the law of the land.

    Attempting to claim it is not really cricket. It is a very important and bigoted piece of law that is still doing harm. Let's just keep that clear. No celebrating the end of that which has not ended. I'm sure you meant 'the days when DOMA was crafted' and I would hate to return to those days myself. Reagan was the worst US President of all time and Nixon was rude to my Mom as well as being a criminal and all that...

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #16)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:53 PM

    25. You're right. It isn't gone. n/t

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:31 PM

    18. "back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."

    He's not just "redefining the right", he's defining himself.

    I didn't support those "moderate republicans" or their policies in the 80's. Why should I now?




    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:50 PM

    23. Thanks for laying all that out ProSense.

     

    Thus a handy CATO meme is born. Yes, context is everything, and "I would be considered" does not mean "I am." That should be obvious. In any case he was defending himself against an even more useless meme, i.e. that his policies are communist. But when did reality ever get in the way of a good talking point? Greenwald and Hedges will be dining out on this one for years.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to allrevvedup (Reply #23)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:37 PM

    33. Yep. That's what he was saying. And what I said in the 80s.......

    was that "moderate Republican" policies would be the slow death and dismantling of the Democratic legacy of FDR. FDR wasn't left enough for me, but his policies at least helped the individual worker in some small ways. Which meant I was able to support those policies. I wasn't able to support "moderate Republican" policies in the 80s, so why in the world would I support them now?

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #33)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:43 PM

    45. "Moderate republican" is an oxymoron. Nixon? Bush?

     

    None of them have been "moderate," including Ike. Red scare? McCarthy hearings? Bikini Atoll? Atmospheric nuclear testing in Cali, NM and Nevada? Cambodia? Moderate, not even close. It's just a phrase. And let's look at FDR: did he get nationalized health care? No he never did. Neither did any "moderate republican" presidents. So it would be equally or more accurate to say Obama is left of FDR, and in many ways, he is.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to allrevvedup (Reply #45)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:49 PM

    46. Obama didn't get "nationalized health care" either......

    And I speak mostly from an economic perspective. In that manner I see Obama's POLICIES as about where Reagan's are.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #46)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:56 PM

    47. ACA is nationalized health care by any reasonable definition.

     

    Maybe not your ideal model, not mine either necessarily, but more than anyone else has gotten. And Reagan was a bigtime union-buster (remember the air controllers' strike) and covert action green-lighter and those not "moderate" policies.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to allrevvedup (Reply #47)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:10 PM

    49. Nope not really even close.....

    ACA is health INSURANCE reform. It would have been closer to nationalized health care if it had included a public "Medicare" type option for anyone who wanted to buy into it, but it didn't. And even it it had, it would have STILL not been nationalized health care. That can only come with single payer.

    And as far as union busting, Obama MIGHT not be as bad as Reagan, but in all these labor struggles that have gone on to date, he sure hasn't broken out his "comfortable shoes" yet. Plus, I'm waiting to see how he reacts to a national strike before I make a judgement of how much of a union buster he turns out to be.

    Finally there seems to be a LOT of covert (and overt) green lighting going on in a lot of places around the world. I wouldn't call Obama an anti-imperialist president.

    My take is the Obama is a product of his age. He came of political age during the Reagan years and he absorbed the neo-liberal line totally. Neo-liberalism DOES NOT WORK ECONOMICALLY. Until he comes off of that, he's not much better, if at all, than Reagan on economic matters.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #49)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:36 PM

    52. Health care IS health insurance. And Reagan made a career of busting unions.

     

    That's how he got his start in Cali politics, by turning coat on the Hollywood unions. Not even lip service. And while he doubled the deficit, he didn't do it to restart the economy, which tanked, but to firehose dollars at Pentagon contractors. Remember Grenada? and Star Wars? Obama by contrast has shut down two wars, cut Star Wars by billions, and canceled at least one major Pentagon boondoggle, the F-22 Raptor:

    Pentagon unveils $533.7 billion budget
    Stars and Stripes, Published: May 7, 2009

    Obama on Thursday called the budget plan a much-needed clean up of wasteful government defense spending and “sweeping overhaul” of the defense contracting system.

    As announced earlier, the budget plans include massive cuts to the missile defense program, elimination of the $11 billion VH-71 Presidential Helicopter program, ending production of the F-22 Raptor at 187 aircraft, and abandoning the $87 billion vehicle portion of the Army’s Future Combat Systems program.

    “We took a long look at programs and the costs associated with them,” said Robert Hale, comptroller for the Defense Department. “The secretary was adamant; Enough with the studies, now we need action.”

    More than 20,000 contracting posts will also be replaced by new federal jobs over the next five years in an effort to save additional funds.

    http://www.stripes.com/news/pentagon-unveils-533-7-billion-budget-1.91311


    As for the Raptor, thanks for the memories:

    "Last Raptor Rolls Off Lockheed Martin Line."
    Aviation Week |27 December 2011

    In December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed . . .



    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/12/19/AW_12_19_2011_p61-406508.xml&headline=Last%20Raptor%20Rolls%20Off%20Lockheed%20Martin%20Line

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to allrevvedup (Reply #52)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:45 PM

    55. Health insurance is not the same thing as health care

    That's one of the stupidest things I've read on DU and that is saying quite a mouthful.


    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to Fumesucker (Reply #55)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:46 PM

    56. What do you think it is? A truckload of bandaids and sutures?

     

    It's a policy. It distributes money. That's what policies do.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to allrevvedup (Reply #56)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:13 PM

    59. There are plenty of people right now who have insurance and can't afford to use it

    It's a common position to be in and the PPACA isn't going to change that, poor people often can't afford to use insurance that comes with copays and deductibles.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to Fumesucker (Reply #59)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:24 PM

    60. "The PPPACA will eliminate co-pays and deductibles

     

    for recommended preventive care, including preventive care for women." Not to be pedantic here, but if we're going to talk about ACA, let's at least get in focus what it is and what it does. Here's a summary, which is much more clearly formatted at the link below:

    Summary

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will ensure that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care and will create the transformation within the health care system necessary to contain costs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended, is fully paid for, provides coverage to more than 94 percent of Americans, bends the health care cost curve, and reduces the deficit by $118 billion over the next ten years, with additional deficit reductions in the following years.

    Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans

     The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes immediate changes to the way health insurance companies do business to protect consumers from discriminatory practices and provide Americans with better preventive coverage and the information they need to make informed decisions about their health insurance.

     Uninsured Americans with a pre-existing condition will have access to an immediate insurance program to help them avoid medical bankruptcy and retirees will have greater certainty due to reinsurance provisions to help maintain coverage.

     New health insurance Exchanges will make coverage affordable and accessible for individuals and small businesses. Premium tax credits and cost-sharing assistance will help those who need assistance.

     Insurance companies will be barred from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions, health status, and gender.

     A substantial investment in Community Health Centers will provide funding to expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most.

    The Role of Public Programs

     The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expands eligibility for Medicaid to include all non-elderly Americans with income below 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), with substantial assistance to States for the cost of covering these individuals.

     The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act maintains current funding levels for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for an additional two years, through fiscal year 2015.

    Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care

     Congress is committed to protecting and strengthening the Medicare program for America’s seniors. Medicare is a sacred trust with seniors and people with disabilities, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will ensure that trust is preserved. The cost of inaction is unacceptable for seniors and the Medicare program that serves them; without action, the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund is expected to go broke in just over seven years. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will make Medicare a stronger, more sustainable program.

     Medicare currently reimburses health care providers on the basis of the volume of care they provide rather than the value of care. For each test, scan or procedure conducted, Medicare provides a separate payment, rewarding those who do more, regardless of whether the test or
    treatment contributes to helping a patient recover. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes a number of proposals to move away from the “a la carte” Medicare fee‐for‐service system toward paying for quality and value and reducing costs to America’s seniors.
    Preventing Chronic Disease and Improving Public Health

     The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act promotes preventive health care and improves the public health to help Americans live healthy lives and help restrain the growth of health care costs over time. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will eliminate co-pays and deductibles for recommended preventive care, including preventive care for women, provide individuals with the information they need to make healthy decisions, improve education on disease prevention and public health, and invest in a national prevention and public health strategy.
    Health Care Workforce

     Currently, 65 million Americans live in communities where they cannot easily access a primary care provider, and an additional 16,500 practitioners are required to meet their needs. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will address shortages in primary care and other areas of practice by making necessary investments in our nation’s health care workforce. Specifically, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will invest in the National Health Service Corps, scholarship and loan repayment programs to expand the health care workforce. The bill also includes incentives for primary care practitioners and for providers to serve underserved areas.

    Transparency and Program Integrity

     The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will provide consumers with information about physician ownership of hospitals and medical equipment as well as nursing home ownership and other characteristics. The bill also includes provisions that will crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and private insurance. Finally, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will establish a private, non-profit entity to identify priorities for and provide for the conduct of comparative outcomes research.

    Improving Access to Innovative Medical Therapies

     The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will establish a regulatory pathway for FDA approval of biosimilar versions of previously licensed biological products. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will also expand the scope of the existing 340B drug discount program, so that patients at children’s hospitals, cancer hospitals, rural hospitals and in other underserved communities have access to medicines at lower cost.

    Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS)

     The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will make long-term supports and services more affordable for millions of Americans by providing a lifetime cash benefit that will help people with severe disabilities remain in their homes and communities. CLASS is a voluntary, self-funded, insurance program provided through the workplace. For those whose employers participate, affordable premiums will be paid through payroll deductions. Participation by workers is entirely voluntary. The Congressional Budget Office confirms that the program, which has been revised from earlier versions, is actuarially sound.

    Revenue Provisions

     The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is fully paid for and reduces the deficit in the next ten years and beyond. The revenue provisions in the bill focus on paying for reform within the health care system. This is accomplished by tightening current health tax incentives, collecting industry fees, and slightly increasing the Medicare Hospital Insurance tax for individuals who earn more than $200,000 and couples who earn more than $250,000. This increase will not only help fund health care reform, but, when combined with other provisions in the bill, will also extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund by nine years to 2026. The bill also includes a fee on insurance companies when they sell high cost health insurance plans, designed to generate smarter, more cost-effective health coverage choices. Changes to health care tax incentives include capping FSA contributions, conforming definitions of deductible medical expenses and changing penalties for HSA spending that is not devoted to health care. The industry fees reflect responsible contributions from industries who have long profited from health care and who will benefit from the expanded coverage of millions of additional Americans under health care reform. The bill also assesses a small excise tax on indoor tanning services. Together, these revenue provisions represent a balanced, responsible package of proposals that bend the health care cost curve by putting downward pressure on health spending.

    http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill45.pdf


    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to allrevvedup (Reply #60)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:37 PM

    61. Checkups are not what most poor people access the health care system for

    Usually it's because they're too sick to drag their asses to work, that's why they go to the doctor.

    Bronze plans, the ones poor people are going to get, suck.

    If they didn't suck then they wouldn't be bronze plans, they'd be platinum ones.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to Fumesucker (Reply #61)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:41 PM

    62. If preventative medicine is FREE -- no copays, no deductibles --

     

    then people won't be accessing their health care only when they're too sick to afford treatment. Or at least if they're smart. A few will always procrastinate to the bitter end but now at least everyone will be able to take good care of their kids.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to allrevvedup (Reply #62)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:49 PM

    63. If they're smart they'll take a day off without their low pay to go for a checkup?

    It's not just the cost of the doctor visit that keeps the working poor away from the doctor.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to Fumesucker (Reply #63)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:53 PM

    65. Lots of doctors and dentists work on Saturdays.

     

    And if there's time to get lunch, there's time to get a checkup every six or 12 months, and most employers would rather accommodate checkups than pay disability. Maybe not Marley and Scrooge. But yeah there's only so much a policy can do.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to allrevvedup (Reply #47)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:51 PM

    64. What would make the definition reasonable?

    The main reason something very similar to the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act wasn't passed is because previous Democratic leaders had more ideological integrity and were less owned by the corporation (ie what we got was the counter offer to "HillaryCare") and the insurance cartel was still expanding and didn't yet need mandated customers or huge amounts of money from the Treasury to make up the difference between the blood that could be drawn from us turnips and what they demand.

    We'd probably be somewhat better off with Tricky Dick's plan that Teddy killed. Democrats weren't hating Teddy for it either.

    Back to your point though, I don't see how the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act would be anymore a National Healthcare system than what it overlays in a structural fashion. We still have a cartel with an anti-trust exemption, state pools, state regulators and an unreformed delivery system.

    I think the only reasonable system to compare it to is what we had before the bill, that is the closest analog by a lot.
    What this is, is tinkering with what we had "to curb the worst excesses of the insurance companies" not some transformation or even substantive reform in an effort to strengthen and stabilize the cartel's role as gatekeeper to health care to hold off for as long as possible actual systemic reform.

    We made the insurance cartel a too big to fail entity and have put the full faith and credit of the United States behind them and further have made every citizen directly responsible for their welfare.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #64)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:00 PM

    67. Have you ever looked at a bill for a service covered by health insurance?

     

    I recently got a Kaiser bill because I forgot the 20 dollar co-pay and the total was over $3,000.00 for an initial visit to an allergy doctor. No tests or shots, just a visit. But I only owed $20. If everybody gets that they're getting something worthwhile, even if they need to pay a few hundred in monthly payroll deductions or premiums.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to allrevvedup (Reply #67)

    Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:26 PM

    75. Yeah, I'm more than passingly familiar with insurance. The response doesn't explain

    the supposedly reasonable and apparently obvious definition. High level of coverage does not constitute a state or national plan or system.

    Reasonable doesn't necessarily mean extremely broad. Especially "ANY REASONABLE" when it is pretty clear that very reasonable people could in fact disagree because you are depending on exchanging definitions.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #75)

    Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:05 AM

    80. Nationalized health care = nationalized health insurance.

     

    That's the claim I'm making, so to dispute that claim, you'd need to show that the PPACA shouldn't be considered nationalized health insurance, even though health insurance under PPACA will be nationally distributed and regulated once all its provisions are in force.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to allrevvedup (Reply #80)

    Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:19 AM

    81. Insurance won't be nationalized. Something like 85% of us won't be in the exchanges anyway

    Then those in the exchanges will be in state pools, under state oversight, the companies will continue to be for profit individual companies that enjoy an anti-trust exemption.

    Some Federal rules in place doesn't equal nationalization. Do you think the banks are nationalized? How about the extraction industries?

    The nation does not own the insurance companies (in fact it is closer to the opposite, fascism has been established in addition to too big to fail by mandating customers for the cartel) nor is control and demand been nationalized.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:52 PM

    24. only people i have ever heard say that are anti-obama, anti-democratic party posters on du

    eom

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:01 PM

    27. Thanks ProSense.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:06 PM

    29. I don't know why you think the folks spreading this lie are interested in things like

    "truth" and "context" but I applaud you for trying.

    I made a similar post in the BOG yesterday. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1102&pid=6720

    Context is everything, except to those telling lies.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to Number23 (Reply #29)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:26 PM

    41. Calling DUers liars is an alertable offense, no?

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #41)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:43 PM

    69. Go for it if you think so, honey.

    The fact that I never said or even came close to saying "Duers are liars" may make your case a bit more difficult.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)


    Response to devilgrrl (Reply #31)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:42 PM

    34. The Country hasn't moved, just the politicians

    that reap personal gain from moving right.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #34)


    Response to devilgrrl (Reply #37)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:58 PM

    48. Hey I feel your pain (to coin a phrase).....

    I've lived in Tennessee for 30+ years and before that I grew up in Alabama after being born in Mississippi. But that doesn't mean that North Carolina is wrong about the country and it's political leanings. You've got to look at the polls on the ISSUES rather than the polls on self-identification. Those issue polls are a truer indication of the political pulse of the country and they show that the country supports "leftish" positions on every major issue. MUCH more so than the pols of either party do.

    But yes, there are a solid third of the country who are almost fascist in their loonyness. I'm around them too. They seem to be concentrated in the south, but they are all over. But, by the polls, they're only a third of the country.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #48)

    Sat Dec 29, 2012, 07:28 PM

    74. Bingo!

    Glad to see someone who is paying attention.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #74)

    Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:36 PM

    76. I try NC, I try.......

    The one thing that I thought MOST interesting was one poll that showed 10% of the country wanting a communist government. Depending on the tendency, I don't disagree, but that one really surprised me. That's a higher approval rating than Congress has.

    BTW, as I've said before, the only way you can reconcile the numbers between positions on ISSUES and the self identification polls is to count MOST of the people who claim to be "moderate" as leftish. What that tells me is that the RW has been VERY successful in their efforts to demonize the very idea of a "left" in politics.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:18 PM

    32. So, it was 'NOT INTENDED TO BE A FACTUAL STATEMENT'

    Where have I heard that before....hmmmmm

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #32)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:48 PM

    57. roflmao. nt

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:45 PM

    35. That is how I interpreted his comments as well

    I read him as pointing out how far the GOP has shifted to the right, and how insane it is that they are now opposing policies that moderate Republicans used to support. If anything, his comments indicate how extreme he thinks the Republicans have become.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:19 PM

    39. Well he damn sure is not a liberal/progressive but he does have a D after his name

     

    and he is not a Marxist Socialist either but with the D after the name I guess that is all that matters.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:21 PM

    40. on some issues he's pretty good but on other issues he stinks.

    He doesn't challenge corporate power. Something has really been lost from America and from the Democratic Party.

    I hope Democrats get their act together and nominate someone who will tell them big banks and oil companies to fuck off.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:31 PM

    42. What's most important here

     

    is in fact the context. The entire political spectrum in this country has veered so far to the right that what is now center is hard right and what is called right-wing is batshit loony fascism.

    Place Obama's policies in most European or South American political spectrums and he is on the right.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to JReed (Reply #42)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:13 PM

    50. Actually in the USA he's on the right......

    basing it on stands on issues. It's just that our representatives are so far to the right that Obama looks leftish. He's not.

    Does the "J" stand for John?

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #50)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:40 PM

    54. What issues?

     

    Just because Hedges or Chomsky or that oracle if objectivity Alex Jones says it's so doesn't mean it is.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to allrevvedup (Reply #54)

    Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:42 PM

    77. Who the HELL is Alex Jones?????

    I have no earthly idea who that is.

    On the issues of health care, income inequality, taxation, marijuana reform, equality issues, and ALMOST any other issue you can name the people are to the left of the politicians. Look at any of the Pew Polls for the last few years.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #77)

    Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:01 AM

    79. You're better off not knowing.

     

    Trust me on this one. Anyway, how about those issues you were talking about?

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:32 PM

    51. he`s closer to ike...which is`t all that bad.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:57 PM

    66. You Must Really Be Young...

    JFK

    MLK

    RFK

    Ceasar Chavez...


    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to WillyT (Reply #66)

    Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:49 AM

    70. No, and

    JFK

    MLK

    RFK

    Ceasar Chavez...

    ...what is that supposed to mean?

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:08 AM

    71. k&r

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

    Reply to this thread