Discussion in 'The War Room' started by seiger, Dec 24, 2016.
I've heard different things. Please help clear this up for me.
He's a liberal. Not super ideological.
Good piece here that focuses on Clinton and Trump but a lot of what is said about Clinton applies to Obama:
Here's a key portion:
Cheers and merry Christmas. I've read other sources that have made the argument that the whole political system in USA is skewed to the right, and the American left is in fact right wing also.
was reading this.
That compass is worse than worthless.
Obama is hard to Guage because his policies been hamstrung by republicans. He's more left than his administration suggests but on a world scale he'd be center right.
He is authoritarian as fuck, he ran on a campaign of "eat the rich and forcibly distribute all their money". He said he didn't think breadlines were bad and said he could possibly support 90% tax on the wealthy
There are more that I strongly disagree with but wow on that
I'd say he's pretty central. Probably a bit left for American politics though
It's hard for me to consider obama to the right with Obamacare
He's clearly authoritarian by allowing the NSA to be what it is and his transgender bathroom policy. Hes also a warhawk and has been in military engagements his entire presidency
I'd say he's an authoritarian centrist
If he didn't have to moderate his policies due to the resistance of a very hard right, conservative Republican party, he would be considered a rather traditional leftist for sure.
Now bombing 7 countries
Wall Street Cabinet
Bush's Tax Cuts
Its pretty clear he is not left of center or a liberal. He's a right leaning republican with a blue tie.
For the US he is center left to more far left depending on the issue.
For parts of the world that is far left he is center right to center left depending on the issue.
Obama Is a Republican
Contrary to rants that Obama’s 2010 health reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), is the most socialistic legislation in American history, the reality is that it is virtually textbook Republican health policy, with a pedigree from the Heritage Foundation and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, among others.
It’s important to remember that historically the left-Democratic approach to healthcare reform was always based on a fully government-run system such as Medicare or Medicaid. During debate on health reform in 2009, this approach was called “single payer,” with the government being the single payer. One benefit of this approach is cost control: the government could use its monopsony buying power to force down prices just as Walmart does with its suppliers.
Conservatives wanted to avoid too much government control and were adamantly opposed to single-payer. But they recognized that certain problems required more than a pure free-market solution. One problem in particular is covering people with pre-existing conditions, one of the most popular provisions in ACA. The difficulty is that people may wait until they get sick before buying insurance and then expect full coverage for their conditions. Obviously, this free-rider problem would bankrupt the health-insurance system unless there was a fix.
The conservative solution was the individual mandate—forcing people to buy private health insurance, with subsidies for the poor. This approach was first put forward by Heritage Foundation economist Stuart Butler in a 1989 paper, “A Framework for Reform,” published in a Heritage Foundation book, A National Health System for America. In it, Butler said the number one element of a conservative health system was this: “Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health costs.” He went on to say:
Under this arrangement, all households would be required to protect themselves from major medical costs by purchasing health insurance or enrolling in a prepaid health plan. The degree of financial protection can be debated, but the principle of mandatory family protection is central to a universal health care system in America.
In 1991, prominent conservative health economist Mark V. Pauley also endorsed the individual mandate as central to healthcare reform. In an article in the journal Health Affairs, Pauley said:
All citizens should be required to obtain a basic level of health insurance. Not having health insurance imposes a risk of delaying medical care; it also may impose costs on others, because we as a society provide care to the uninsured. … Permitting individuals to remain uninsured results in inefficient use of medical care, inequity in the incidence of costs of uncompensated care, and tax-related distortions.
In 2004, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) endorsed an individual mandate in a speech to the National Press Club. “I believe higher-income Americans today do have a societal and personal responsibility to cover in some way themselves and their children,” he said. Even libertarian Ron Bailey, writing in Reason, conceded the necessity of a mandate in a November 2004 article titled, “Mandatory Health Insurance Now!” Said Bailey: “Why shouldn’t we require people who now get health care at the expense of the rest of us pay for their coverage themselves? … Mandatory health insurance would not be unlike the laws that require drivers to purchase auto insurance or pay into state-run risk pools.”
Among those enamored with the emerging conservative health reform based on an individual mandate was Mitt Romney, who was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002. In 2004, he put forward a state health reform plan to which he later added an individual mandate. As Romney explained in June 2005, “No more ‘free riding,’ if you will, where an individual says: ‘I’m not going to pay, even though I can afford it. I’m not going to get insurance, even though I can afford it. I’m instead going to just show up and make the taxpayers pay for me’.”
The following month, Romney emphasized his point: “We can’t have as a nation 40 million people—or, in my state, half a million—saying, ‘I don’t have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay’.”
In 2006, Governor Romney signed the Massachusetts health reform into law, including the individual mandate. Defending his legislation in a Wall Street Journal article, he said:
I proposed that everyone must either purchase a product of their choice or demonstrate that they can pay for their own health care. It’s a personal responsibility principle.
Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian.
As late as 2008, Robert Moffitt of the Heritage Foundation was still defending the individual mandate as reasonable, non-ideological and nonpartisan in an article for the Harvard Health Policy Review.
So what changed just a year later, when Obama put forward a health-reform plan that was almost a carbon copy of those previously endorsed by the Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney, and other Republicans? The only thing is that it was now supported by a Democratic president that Republicans vowed to fight on every single issue, according to Robert Draper’s book Do Not Ask What Good We Do.
Senior Obama adviser David Axelrod later admitted that Romney’s Massachusetts plan was the “template” for Obama’s plan. “That work inspired our own health plan,” he said in 2011. But no one in the White House said so back in 2009. I once asked a senior Obama aide why. His answer was that once Republicans refused to negotiate on health reform and Obama had to win only with Democratic votes, it would have been counterproductive, politically, to point out the Obama plan’s Republican roots.
The left wing of the House Democratic caucus was dubious enough about Obama’s plan as it was, preferring a single-payer plan. Thus it was necessary for Obama to portray his plan as more liberal than it really was to get the Democratic votes needed for passage, which of course played right into the Republicans’ hands. But the reality is that ACA remains a very modest reform based on Republican and conservative ideas.
By murrica standards he's an ultra-left commie hippie .
By global standards he's a rightie. His pandering to SJWs makes him one step to the left of Bush but otherwise he's not that different. Just as much of a warmonger and the upward trajectory of wealth inequality we've been on has remained identical under his fiscal policies as it has previously remained since Reagan. Also his "socialized" healthcare is really more like corporatized healthcare once you take a closer look at it.
Edit: ^^ Wizardry on the healthcare point
hey Anung Un Rama,
agreed pretty much, but he's been superior to Republicans on foreign policy.
i know you hate Obama's FP also, but you have to admit that he's a step above anyone from the GOP, Dr. Paul not withstanding.
Obama helped to expand the military might of America but the thing he did better than bush is simply manage our troops. Bush was a blundering chimp in those regards.
There was a time his cronies said Iraq would cost 40 billion. Lol. Trillions later we couldn't do shit with thst country.
Guten Tag Herr IGIT,
TBF, that is not a very high bar. HIs FP may be better than puppets like McCain or maniacs like Cruz and HRC would have been, but it isn't better than Reagan or Bush Sr.
the political spectrum is the political spectrum, surely.
his dedication to drone wars, has probably saved lives, certainly american ones. one of those historical facts he wont get credit for.
i saw that coming a mile away, lol.
you and i have had this conversation before, Anung. i don't equate anything Mr. Obama has done with the Reagan/Bush activities in Central America. to my way of thinking, its not even close.