Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Professor Tiger]

Must disagree. Rat is much uglier.

[Red Bird]

Obama is hardly a liberal.

He's almost exactly the same as George W. Bush. Same Wars. Same Bank bail outs. Same tax cuts for the rich. Same massive defense budget. Even his much derided health care plan is a republican plan first proposed by Newt Gingrich and the congressional Republicans in the 1990's and later adopted by Mitt when he was Governor of Mass.

None of that is liberal.

A liberal would have proposed a single payer health care system.
A liberal would have ended the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A liberal would have ended Bush's Tax cuts for the wealthy.
A liberal would have cut the defense budget by maybe $100 billion.
A liberal would have nationalized the Banks. And sold them off only after the nation was on sound economic footing.

[Red Bird]

I keep hearing Obama derided as a socialist or a progressive. It simply isn't true.

Obama's economic policies are corporatist. A kind of national capitalism, similar to policies pursued by Mussolini in the 1930's and the Neo-cons going back to Bill Clinton and continued by George W. Bush. The basic idea is to use the government to collect taxes, which are turned over to privet interests, who in turn provide public services.

[Professor Tiger]

A liberal would have borrowed so many hundreds of billions from China and spent it all on silly, wasteful "shovel ready stimulus projects" and high speed trains and "green energy" that threaten to bankrupt us and sell our children and grandchildren into indentured servitude. Check.

A liberal would have stifled domestic oil production as a tithe to his man-made global warming religion. Check.

A liberal wold have fought for amnesty for illegal aliens. Check.

A liberal would have created huge new oppressive bureaucracies that churn out mountains of new regulations that attempt to govern every aspect of American life. Check.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

[Red Bird]

So you consider George W. Bush a liberal?

Borrowed many hundreds of billions from China. Check

Fought for amnesty for illegal aliens. Check.

Created huge new oppressive bureaucracies that churn out mountains of new regulations. Check.

Bush did all of this and more.

You did hit on one difference between Obama and Bush. Energy policy. But since Bush was an oil man you could hardly expect him to go against their interests would you?

I have to ask you, how do you define liberal? Because it seems to me that your definition of liberal is simply calling anything you don't like liberal.

[Professor Tiger]

So you consider George W. Bush a liberal?

Borrowed many hundreds of billions from China. Check

Fought for amnesty for illegal aliens. Check.

Created huge new oppressive bureaucracies that churn out mountains of new regulations. Check.

Bush did all of this and more.

You did hit on one difference between Obama and Bush. Energy policy. But since Bush was an oil man you could hardly expect him to go against their interests would you?

I have to ask you, how do you define liberal? Because it seems to me that your definition of liberal is simply calling anything you don't like liberal.

Yes, I do consider Bush to be a mild liberal, or more precisely, an incompetent mild conservative.

Bush was certainly guilty of borrowing and spending way too much. But Obama has borrowed and spent far more. That is undeniable.

Bush was, at best, uninterested in controlling the borders.

Bush did, I believe, cater to his buddies at big oil at the expense of the American consumer.

I am not aware of his administration creating huge new oppressive bureaucracies that churn out mountains of new regulations on nearly the same scale as Obama. That is also undeniable.

I denounced Bush's many other blunders: his horrible planning, inexcusable under-resourcing, and fig leaf nation-building in Iraq; his misguided Dubai ports deal; his nomination of the unqualified crony Harriet Meyers for SCOTUS; his response to Katrina. My criticism of W was not well received by the core PNN'ers. Just ask them.

[AlabamAlum]

What exactly are you trying to say? That many Republicans didn't like ANY of the 2008 candidates so they couldn't be bothered to come out in February and nominate anyone else

Close. I am saying that there were Republicans who were so so unenamored with McCain, that after he was nominated they didn't help campaign (like they normally would have), and if they missed the election they really didn't care. McCain polarized a decent-sized faction of conservative voters more so than any R nominee in memory.

[Jungle Rat]

RAT FOR PRESIDENT! !!

[Red Bird]

OK Now I see that we share some common ground. I'm not a fan of either Bush or Obama.

"I am not aware of his administration creating huge new oppressive bureaucracies that churn out mountains of new regulations on nearly the same scale as Obama. That is also undeniable."

Well Bush created the department of homeland security, which is by far the biggest and most expensive new department created in the last decade. The DHS has created a great deal of regulation and red tape, and what's worse is its function is almost entirely redundant. We already had a defense department, an FAA, Air port police in every major airport and the CIA and other intelligence gathering agencies, as well as various state and local police agencies.

Bush also created the Medicare Part B mess, which has resulted in thousands of pages of new regulations in addition to 1.2 trillion in new spending.

I'm not sure what increases in spending and regulation you can attribute directly to Obama, but I'm sure he's responsible for some.

[Professor Tiger]

What exactly are you trying to say? That many Republicans didn't like ANY of the 2008 candidates so they couldn't be bothered to come out in February and nominate anyone else

I was one of them. I've been voting straight Republican ticket in every election since 1978. But in 2008 I was so disgusted by the R's that I voted Libertarian.

[AlabamAlum]

What exactly are you trying to say? That many Republicans didn't like ANY of the 2008 candidates so they couldn't be bothered to come out in February and nominate anyone else

I was one of them. I've been voting straight Republican ticket in every election since 1978. But in 2008 I was so disgusted by the R's that I voted Libertarian.

Exactly. Throw in the sweet but air-headed, bring-nothing-to-the-table Veep in Palin and in a very real way, Democrats didn't elect Obama. Republicans did.

[Red Bird]

It's hardly surprising that the GOP can't find any good candidates, they lack a coherent philosophy for governing.

The GOP has become a one note political party and that note is: CUT TAXES

Economy going good: CUT TAXES
Economy going bad: CUT TAXES
Need to pay for a war: CUT TAXES
Health care unaffordable: CUT TAXES
Government going bankrupt: CUT TAXES
Crime in the street: CUT TAXES
Children can't read: CUT TAXES

The American people are smarter than that. They may not like paying taxes, but they like the services government provides and they know they can't have those services for nothing.

[AlabamAlum]

Unless the service is posting a message on someone's server.

[Hacksaw]

I'm not particularly an Obama fan, but I have yet to hear one Republican offer a solution to the economic mess we're in. All they do is talk about how wonderful the Constitution is and complain about the deficit, which they blame on Obama even though most of the debt can be traced directly back to George Bush and his policies.

I don't care what the issue is the Republican answer is to CUT TAXES!! If that doesn't work, CUT TAXES AGAIN!

Well, we tried that with G.W. Bush, and instead of the growth we were promised we got the Great Recession.

You are either ill-informed or just being disingenuous. There are Republicans and Libertarians out there with a lot of ideas that go beyond mere tax-cuts. And the Bush tax cuts DID result in economic growth. That much is indisputable. But he also spent like a drunken Kennedy. And, to be fair, he did have to deal with the economic fallout of the 9/11 attacks and the global war on terror.

The unfortunate thing is, as many here have pointed out, neither of the 2 established political party machines really wants to change the current system. They're both too busy enriching themselves. It will take a true maverick to shake things up. Obama certainly isn't it. Bush wasn't, either.

The question is, will the voters ever elect anyone who is seriously committed to real change?

[Red Bird]

The GOP was lucky in 2010. People were pissed off about the economy and they didn't like Obama's health care idiocy. They didn't really want the republicans back, but they only have two choices. So they swallowed really hard and voted for the GOP.

What's funny is the Republicans mistook this good fortune as a mandate to turn the clock back to 1900. If they continue their campaign to end medicare, destroy unions and create a oligarchy, they're going to go down to a historic defeat. They could lose 45 states, both houses and a hole lot of hubris.

[Red Bird]

There are Republicans and Libertarians out there with a lot of ideas that go beyond mere tax-cuts.

Post some; I'd love to see them.

And the Bush tax cuts DID result in economic growth. That much is indisputable.

It's not indisputable, because I'm disputing it now. Bush's tax cuts took effect in 2004, by 2006 the country was falling into a deep recession. So what happened to the economic growth?

[Red Bird]

Unless the service is posting a message on someone's server.

AA, sorry, but I was so involved in the debate, I completely missed your pointed observation.

It may be egotistical, but I believe my contribution to any message board is more valuable than money. They are lucky to have me doing this for free.

[Red Bird]

In fact, I really should start a blogg. Plenty of people would come to read my stuff. I might even make a living out of it.

[Red Bird]

I always tell people I don't have time for a blogg, but sometimes I spend hours a day doing this.

Trouble is, I love a good debate. And I can't get that with a blogg.

[Professor Tiger]

I have to ask you, how do you define liberal? Because it seems to me that your definition of liberal is simply calling anything you don't like liberal.

I'm a libertarian populist now. The "populist" part means there are several issues where I would agree with the liberals and disagree with the conservarives. But that would be a long post, and it's getting late. Maybe tomorrow.

It may be egotistical, but I believe my contribution to any message board is more valuable than money. They are lucky to have me doing this for free.

Nah. We've already got Tick and a couple others to defend liberalism around here. We used to have more, but they've been scarce of late. You are welcome to replace Talent on the liberal team. You are their reinforcements. They need you.