[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by OSharp)
I only like Obama because the last one blew up anything that moved.

Actually sir, you are wrong.

Obama has been bombing Pakistan and other such nations very liberally.

Infact I think Obama is much more trigger happy than Bush, when Bush waged wars he did it after thousands of the nations citizens were murdered and the public was thirsty for revenge. Obama on the other hand has been on the sly relentlessly bombing the middle east using no end of drones.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Chad_Bronson)
Maybe having someone who 'flip-flops' as you call it is a good idea - So you can get a mixture of both worlds? If a plan is proven to be not working, surely it makes sense to adapt (or ditch, respectively) the idea and replace it with something that does work - rather than be idelogically driven?

Obama's flip flopping comes in, as basically pandering to the republican controlled congress, meaning he has weak principles.

Should we trust this man?

[Chad_Bronson]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Obama's flip flopping comes in, as basically pandering to the republican controlled congress, meaning he has weak principles.

Should we trust this man?

Well played, I have been firmly told

[Tedaus]

I think the difference is that in the UK, we have an alternative to the right. Even if Obama was right-wing like that crude little diagram on that website indicated, he's still the best we can have over in America, since they're so fascist over there in general. The alternative is much, much worse than David Cameron, and that's saying something.

[Sharpshooter]

(Original post by Maddog Jones)
The reality of it is that Obama is progressive/left wing, constrained in large parts by his right wing country, who will never accept fully redistribution of wealth policies or gun control, and Cameron is regressive/right wing, constrained by his more left wing country - who fight against things such as tax cuts for the rich etc.

You absolutley know nothing about American politics.

If Obama is progressive and left wing, please explain the following policies:

- Expanded Afghanistan war to record levels (33,000 troops under Bush to 100,000 under Obama).
- Extended Bush Tax cuts
- Signed NDAA, Americans can be locked up indefinitely without trial
- Executive Orders for warentless wiretapping
- Extended Patriot act
- National version of Romneycare
- Running up drone wars in several different countries
- Saved the biggest banks and crooks and not have one of the arrested
- Has done nothing to support campaign finance reform or get money out of politics

Honestly if you think that Obama is "left wing" then seriously are deluded. So he supports gay marriage, but what has he done about it? The only reason why he supported it in the first place is because he attract the big doners, theres a lot of money in gay rights. If there was no money he would have said no, which backs my opinion on Obama and campaign finance reform, he soaks up all the big money and does nothing to change wall street. In reality he's just part of system like everybody else.

[FDR]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Its like I'm talking to a New York Times Paul Krugman commentor on his blog posts.

[youtube]0uAuuQnh90s[/youtube

"but the stimulus was no-where near big enough though"

Not going to deny that Obama and Cameron are different with regards to stimulus vs austerity, or "growth" vs austerity if you are a social democrat populist bull****** like Hollande.

And I think you know why he won the nomination, his personality mixed with the fact he's black, and various funding groups decided he was the one.

I would say Hilary Clinton is the most conservative democrat.

With regards to Cameron vs obama actions, we have cameron, who is largely acting on ideology, sort of, OK, maybe on one issue, austerity vs spending. Whereas Obama is pretty much a flip flopper and has no set ideology.

I also don't think Cameron and osbourne know that austerity will never word, they are a bit too dim to see so, austerity seem(ed) to work pretty well in Germany.

Krugman is correct about the stimulus being too small, as are his peers, many also esteemed economists, who have all been saying the same thing, but what they are saying isn't based on opinion, it's based on some quite ordinary maths:

Even the C.B.O. says, however, that “economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential.” This translates into $2.1 trillion of lost production. “Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity,” declared Mr. Obama on Thursday. Well, he was actually understating things.

To close a gap of more than $2 trillion — possibly a lot more, if the budget office projections turn out to be too optimistic — Mr. Obama offers a $775 billion plan

.

I don't think Hillary was the most conservative - her healthcare plan was better than Obama's, and I imagine she would have had more nerve than Obama.

It's not just austerity with Cameron though, is it? He has an entire 'de-centralisation' agenda that he is trying to push through - a cut in the top rate of tax, NHS 'reforms', elected mayors. I wouldn't call Obama a flip flopper, but I agree that he doesn't have much of an ideology - which may ordinarily be a good thing, but with such obstructive opponents, Obama is getting pulled to the right. Next term, he is going to need to learn to play hardball.

Austerity worked well in Germany because when they implemented it, the rest of the eurozone, and indeed the world, was growing, and inflation was higher in countries like France, Spain and Italy, which allowed Germany to become more competitive relative to those southern countries, as wages and costs in Germany fell as a result of their 'internal devaluation', and the growth in the rest of the eurozone meant that Germany could just export their way out of problems.

At the moment, austerity won't work for any us, or any of the eurozone countries, because everyone else is doing it, meaning there is no one to export to, and everyone else is trying to become more competitive, which means that when everyone does it, no one wins. Plus, the UK isn't in the euro, and doesn't need austerity, it doesn't have problems with the bond markets (Gilts are at well below 2%), which begs the question, why?

[Maddog Jones]

(Original post by Sharpshooter)
You absolutley know nothing about American politics.

If Obama is progressive and left wing, please explain the following policies:

- Expanded Afghanistan war to record levels (33,000 troops under Bush to 100,000 under Obama).
- Extended Bush Tax cuts
- Signed NDAA, Americans can be locked up indefinitely without trial
- Executive Orders for warentless wiretapping
- Extended Patriot act
- National version of Romneycare
- Running up drone wars in several different countries
- Saved the biggest banks and crooks and not have one of the arrested
- Has done nothing to support campaign finance reform or get money out of politics

Honestly if you think that Obama is "left wing" then seriously are deluded. So he supports gay marriage, but what has he done about it? The only reason why he supported it in the first place is because he attract the big doners, theres a lot of money in gay rights. If there was no money he would have said no, which backs my opinion on Obama and campaign finance reform, he soaks up all the big money and does nothing to change wall street. In reality he's just part of system like everybody else.

Oh, I know nothing about American politics? Maybe if you knew something about American politics you'd know that he doesn't pass the laws, Congress does. Congress where the House of Representatives is currently controlled by the Republicans, allowing them to block anything they want.

I don't particularly think fighting a war excludes you from being progressive or left wing, either.

[Alexandra's Box]

(Original post by FDR)

I do!

I'm very glad that you do - now maybe he doesn't feel so alone

[Teofilo]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Actually sir, you are wrong.

Obama has been bombing Pakistan and other such nations very liberally.

Infact I think Obama is much more trigger happy than Bush, when Bush waged wars he did it after thousands of the nations citizens were murdered and the public was thirsty for revenge. Obama on the other hand has been on the sly relentlessly bombing the middle east using no end of drones.

I'm not sure if he has been more trigger happy than Bush, but he certainly hasn't been shy about those drone attacks.

There is a big difference between drone attacks (objectionable as they may be) and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think one of Obama's biggest mistakes was not realising sooner of the need to get out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later.

He has been good in South-East Asia, and I think he has handled the Iran-Israel issue quite well, given that his hands are largely tied.

[Sharpshooter]

(Original post by Maddog Jones)
Oh, I know nothing about American politics? Maybe if you knew something about American politics you'd know that he doesn't pass the laws, Congress does. Congress where the House of Representatives is currently controlled by the Republicans, allowing them to block anything they want.

I don't particularly think fighting a war excludes you from being progressive or left wing, either.

Wait a minute, he had a majority for the first two years of his presidency. Infact he had a supermajority at one point. This is half his first term.

Did congress make him expand the afghanistan war to record levels?
Did congress make him extent the bush tax cuts?
He didn't need congress to make executive orders for warantless wiretipping or the NDAA
Patriot act? Nope that was his idea
Has he arrested any of the biggest crooks on wall street? nope.

The only thing that he deserves credit for was that he did try to close down guantamano bay but the senate dems blocked it. But after that I don't see anything else. Sure the GOP are playing hardball blocking a second stimulus, but it doesn't preclude him for all the other stuff he's done.

He's an approval rating of 46% currently, a lot lower than Clinton or Reagan at this point.

[Maddog Jones]

(Original post by Sharpshooter)
Wait a minute, he had a majority for the first two years of his presidency. Infact he had a supermajority at one point. This is half his first term.

Did congress make him expand the afghanistan war to record levels?
Did congress make him extent the bush tax cuts?
He didn't need congress to make executive orders for warantless wiretipping or the NDAA
Patriot act? Nope that was his idea
Has he arrested any of the biggest crooks on wall street? nope.

The only thing that he deserves credit for was that he did try to close down guantamano bay but the senate dems blocked it. But after that I don't see anything else. Sure the GOP are playing hardball blocking a second stimulus, but it doesn't preclude him for all the other stuff he's done.

He's an approval rating of 46% currently, a lot lower than Clinton or Reagan at this point.

Patriot Act was Bush's idea, not Obama's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

Not arresting 'crooks on wall street' doesn't mean he's not progressive.

And yes, he did have to extend the Bush tax cuts - a lot had been passed but hadn't come into place yet, and others were forced by Republicans in Congress as part of his financial stimulus ($300bn of the $800bn stimulus was tax cuts). Not that there's anything particularly immoral about tax cuts, either.

[Sharpshooter]

(Original post by Maddog Jones)
Patriot Act was Bush's idea, not Obama's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

Not arresting 'crooks on wall street' doesn't mean he's not progressive.

And yes, he did have to extend the Bush tax cuts - a lot had been passed but hadn't come into place yet, and others were forced by Republicans in Congress as part of his financial stimulus ($300bn of the $800bn stimulus was tax cuts). Not that there's anything particularly immoral about tax cuts, either.

Well the way you're talking you don't sound like a liberal, wars are ok, tax cuts are ok.

The Bush tax cuts have been a failure, back when clinton was taxing the top 2% more revenue was brought in and it help balance the budget. The economy failed massively under Bush and compared to Clinton job creation was minimal.

This isn't tax cuts for the middle class, this is tax cuts for the RICHEST top 2%. So much so that Obama regrets it and disagrees with you and is looking to bring in the buffet rule. 70%+ of Americans support tax increases on the rich.

Actually if you want proof I can prove to you that Obama was offered a larger stimulus at the start of his presidency but rejected it, because he wasn't too sure if it would pass (Obama had majorities remember), nothing really to do with the GOP.

Oh so because he hasn't done anything to arrest the bankers thats ok, what the people who destroyed the economy? Nothing's been done to arrest them?

Obama promised to 'change the way Washington fundementally works', he's done nothing of the sort, the same old system is still in place and the same old crooks are in charge. When you hire people like Summers and Geitner what do you expect?

I'm sorry but if you like Obama thats fine, but to call him a progressive is a joke. He's not progressive in the slightest. (Gay rights but theres money behind that).

[Roaroaroar]

(Original post by Teofilo)
I think one of Obama's biggest mistakes was not realising sooner of the need to get out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later. .

No, that would be idiotic. You may have been against the war in Afghanistan but if America withdraw in 2009, Afghanistan would've been 99% likely to fall back to Taliban's hand. People can be skeptical that the target of 2014/15 or whatever it is would be met but that skepticism doesn't have much backing and it's just a time game where we're going to have to see. You can't just leave the country because a bunch of idiot voters think it's that simple and a strategic plan and a slow withdraw is unnecessary, plus those idiot voters can be manipulated and attention can be turned away from the issue.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Maddog Jones)
I don't particularly think fighting a war excludes you from being progressive

That's the entire point.

[Subology]

I'd liken Obama to Blair, more than I would to Cameron. Essentially a right wing, market kind of guy who believes in some degree of social security. Both are great statesmen, and both have failed to live up to their self-created hype.

Obama - despite some of his rhetoric - isn't remotely left. He 'admits it' himself -jump to 4.50 in this video: