If Obama got his way. . .

originally posted by: dovdov

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: dovdov

We've gone past an "oligarchy".

Soft despotism is closer to what we are now.

And anyone that endorses or encourages more of the same does not seek to embrace the values of the US.

Agreed. And I can assure you NO PROGRESSIVE desires any kind of despotism, despite what you may believe.

I've yet to be convinced of that.

Now if I do see a progressive politician espousing the ideals that I embrace, then I may start to think differently.

Until then, I will be suspicious of anyone.

a reply to: beezzer

If someone claims to be a progressive who endorses more government control then he is not a progressive. That is an important point for you to understand. He's not a progressive, he's just an a**hole.

a reply to: whyamIhere

That is a good point, hatred actually comes in the way of how political figures have behaved in the pass and the present.

Perhaps we do not hate a person per say, like the president, just the fact that he is a politician with a record that has much to be desired when it comes to protecting the voters, tax payers and our constitutional rights.

But then again, we already went through all this with the last president.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Why cant you guys just admit you hate the man and is agenda, no problem there you guys have free speech.

And if you dont hate him why go in nearly every thread that starts with obama and bash him non stop,its comical to pretend its only is policies you dislike.

Is that a weak attempt at baiting? I hate everything this man stands for, but I can't hate him as I don't know him. But from his views of us, the military (vets), the truth, etc...I could see him as someone I could hate.

a reply to: dovdov

Freedom is a undeniable birth right the the rule of law is man made to control the masses by those few with the power to do it.

Just food for thoughts.

originally posted by: dovdov
a reply to: beezzer

If someone claims to be a progressive who endorses more government control then he is not a progressive. That is an important point for you to understand. He's not a progressive, he's just an a**hole.

While you may be the exception to the rule, I would have to say, I don't buy this. Let us look at some of the pudding to find the proof shall we?

One could say that Bush was a progressive republican, he really was about more government control I think that is a given that we can all agree on correct? Let us look a little further back, lets see some of the Progressive's greatest hits shall we?

prohibition, that was a great idea from the progressive movement. That was all about control.

Eugenics was a great idea that was supported (at the time) by a large portion of progressives.
en.wikipedia.org...

Theordore Roosevelt's New nationalism speech ...

" It has become entirely clear that we must have government supervision of the capitalization, not only of public-service corporations, including, particularly, railways, but of all corporations doing an interstate business. I do not wish to see the nation forced into the ownership of the railways if it can possibly be avoided, and the only alternative is thoroughgoing and effective legislation, which shall be based on a full knowledge of all the facts, including a physical valuation of property. This physical valuation is not needed, or, at least, is very rarely needed, for fixing rates; but it is needed as the basis of honest capitalization.

We have come to recognize that franchises should never be granted except for a limited time, and never without proper provision for compensation to the public. It is my personal belief that the same kind and degree of control and supervision which should be exercised over public-service corporations should be extended also to combinations which control necessaries of life, such as meat, oil, or coal, or which deal in them on an important scale. I have no doubt that the ordinary man who has control of them is much like ourselves. I have no doubt he would like to do well, but I want to have enough supervision to help him realize that desire to do well."

www.whitehouse.gov...



Woodrow Wilson....

at the time he wrote his essay , "Socialism and Democracy" he was a professor of political science, maintains that there are no principled limits to what government may do.

voices.yahoo.com...

I know, These are old examples, so, lets find some modern Progressives, and see if they, in fact do not want more government power....

cpc.grijalva.house.gov...

So we see that Bernie Sanders is part of the Congressional Progressive Caucus,the founder actually, as well he is also a Democratic Socialist
en.wikipedia.org...


lets see some more progressive caucus members...

Sheila Jackson Lee, Alan Grayson, Charlie Rangel, Elijah Cummings, John Conyers, Maxine Waters is a founding member
Xavier Becerra who is the Democratic caucus chair, Luis Gutierrez, there are more, It is safe to say all of these people are big government types.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

I cannot say. I cannot read Obama's mind. Nor can any of us, so I am baffled as to the intent of the thread. Well, actually I am not. It's just an Obama-bashing thread, and I would gladly be on board with that if there was some substance. When the OP says "If Obama got his way" I would hope for some direction as to what that means.

a reply to: marg6043

Thank you! This is what I was asking the OP for.

I did like your previous post in which you stated that what Obama is doing is simply what previous admins (note the plural) did. And that is exactly why I asked the OP 3 times to describe what Obama's "dream laws" would be. We are on a track that was set long ago. We can (and should) blame Obama for this, but we should also look at the hidden hand.

a reply to: InvisibleOwl

Well from the information that I have seen, Amnesty for illegal immigrants, a ban on firearms (even though he consistently calls it common sense regulations, it would lead to a ban, just read statements from the past from him and holder) a large tax on higher tax brackets, that are in most cases small business owners that create jobs, not necessarily people like Bill gates, the koch brothers etc, unfortunately the family that owns your favorite seafood market, bakery, auto shop, etc would be hit by this as well. Cap and trade, the dream act, single payer healthcare, removal of private property rights, I am sure I could find a few more if i really tried, this was just off the top of my head, granted this is mostly conjecture from his past comments and actions.

originally posted by: InvisibleOwl
a reply to: marg6043

Thank you! This is what I was asking the OP for.

I did like your previous post in which you stated that what Obama is doing is simply what previous admins (note the plural) did. And that is exactly why I asked the OP 3 times to describe what Obama's "dream laws" would be. We are on a track that was set long ago. We can (and should) blame Obama for this, but we should also look at the hidden hand.

The problem is, if I simply stated what I thought were Obama's goals, then this exercise would be entirely subjective from my viewpoint only.

I was actually looking for other viewpoints.

a reply to: SM2

you make a good point..

Several progressives are for government oversight of various parts of the economy, for improving the social-programs in the United States, and to update government policy to make our country a nicer place to live. Historically there Have been pushes for tightening government regulation of the financial sector and big business, efforts led in part by progressives.

but what do you mean by "government power", furthermore what do you mean by "more"?

are government programs, government regulation of finance and industry, really "more" government power?
our government doesn't need more power, it just needs to use its powers in the interests of the people. with regards to Bernie Sanders, he admires the scandinavian democratic socialist model because it quite clearly uses government power in the interests of the people. Argue that its more hemogenous culturally or whatever, the point stands that they effectively use what powers the government has to benefit the people. notice what powers scandinavian governments dont have/haven't demonstrated; they don't have infinite detention, secret prisons, they don't ignore due process or spy on their citizens internet history without warrants. They don't send military forces out on the whims of their president/prime minister.

(double post)

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: SM2

you make a good point..

Several progressives are for government oversight of various parts of the economy, for improving the social-programs in the United States, and to update government policy to make our country a nicer place to live. Historically there Have been pushes for tightening government regulation of the financial sector and big business, efforts led in part by progressives.

but what do you mean by "government power", furthermore what do you mean by "more"?

are government programs, government regulation of finance and industry, really "more" government power?
our government doesn't need more power, it just needs to use its powers in the interests of the people. with regards to Bernie Sanders, he admires the scandinavian democratic socialist model because it quite clearly uses government power in the interests of the people. Argue that its more hemogenous culturally or whatever, the point stands that they effectively use what powers the government has to benefit the people. notice what powers scandinavian governments dont have/haven't demonstrated; they don't have infinite detention, secret prisons, they don't ignore due process or spy on their citizens internet history without warrants. They don't send military forces out on the whims of their president/prime minister.

See this is where progressives really fall down. America was founded on principals of a very restricted federal government with specific restraints, which over time have been broken with alot of special deals with the states that if I were to do to you, I would be in jail for extortion. For example, the national drinking age, and seat belt laws. The feds basically told the states if they did not go along with the plan, then funding for roads, medicare/medicaid etc would be cut, but back to the point. America is supposed to be limited government and maximum freedom and liberty. This has really been reversed over the years. All of the things you mention, indefinite detentions, secret prisons etc really go against American founding principals and if the founding fathers were still alive, there would be another revolution.

To your statements on improving programs and making America a nicer place to live. How has that worked out? HCA has been a disaster, it hasnt improved anything. The current welfare system has been reformed and improved numerous times and it hasnt made anything nicer, has just breed more and more generational welfare families. Which in turn has decreased property values, increased crime rates, cost billions of dollars, ruined and bankrupted entire cities..see Detroit.

To your question on government power. Yes government regulation and "oversight" is more government power, as they can force you to do things, that you may or may not otherwise do under penalty of force,prison,monetary loss. Yes in some cases it forces entities/people to do the moral/ethical thing, but it is still government force to make you comply. So what if I do not want to wear a bicycle helmet? Is that your business? is it hurting you? So what if I want to ride my motorcycle without a helmet not your business either, most bike wrecks are caused by some idiot not paying attention when they are driving anyways. So what if I want a 32 ounce soda, why should government be able to tell me I can not have one? These are all examples of government power my friend. Any time the government can force you to comply with it's demands is government power and everyday those a*&hats in Washington DC feel they have to add more and more to the books so they feel they have done something, and every time they do,they increase governmental power and someone, somewhere is loosing yet another freedom/liberty

As far as the Scandinavian model... I am glad that it works for them, that is great. It however runs against everything that America was built on, stands for (at least used to) and claims to foster. If Bernie Sanders admires it so much, maybe he should just pack his bags and take his big fat socialist arse over there, no one with any sense would miss him.

a reply to: beezzer

I think it would be a horrible world, at least for the majority of ATS members. I think (GASP) the hungry would be able to eat, the homeless(GROAN) would have safe, warm shelter, the poor (OH NOES) would be able to get medical care without worrying about giving up either of the first two points. Luckily, once again for the majority here at ATS, this will never happen because the Republicans (or whatever you call yourselves these days) will filibuster any attempt at this, thus resulting in the same old same old.

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: beezzer

I think it would be a horrible world, at least for the majority of ATS members. I think (GASP) the hungry would be able to eat, the homeless(GROAN) would have safe, warm shelter, the poor (OH NOES) would be able to get medical care without worrying about giving up either of the first two points. Luckily, once again for the majority here at ATS, this will never happen because the Republicans (or whatever you call yourselves these days) will filibuster any attempt at this, thus resulting in the same old same old.

All sounds dandy,but there are not a lot of starving people in this country as attested to by the obesity rate.Many homeless I have known don`t want Gov. provided shelter,they want to be on their own.Medical treatment is available for all indigent people in this country.That is not enough ,is it?You all want more and more programs and more and more taxes.There will never be enough money for all the grandiose schemes the so called progressives can come up with and there will never be enough taxes to foot the bill.The way of progressivism leads to ruin of this nations middle class and they will never be satisfied until all are equally poor and equally miserable.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sparky63
My paltry wealth that I have worked so hard for over the years would be given to his supporters to ensure their perpetual support, and I would be labeled a "racist" for complaining about it.

Hey wait.

That's not a nightmare.

It's already happening !!

Yikes !!

That's right and you know what else has been implemented?

a reply to: SM2

so you think we should live in anarchy?

Personally I feel the nordic model would be just fine for the US, and would work perfectly well within the perspective of its founding principles. Frankly I don't see how they don't. The issue that led to the american revolution was a lack of representation in parliment, you have a representative if you live in the US, you just need to write them up.

originally posted by: Sunwolf
All sounds dandy,but there are not a lot of starving people in this country as attested to by the obesity rate.Many homeless I have known don`t want Gov. provided shelter,they want to be on their own.

I'm sure you know a lot of homeless people....

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

Are you referring to this ......?

Social Corporatism

So maybe we DO need all those big corporations?

And I think those nations are deep in debt as well.

a reply to: xuenchen

hmmm.. well.. it's interesting that you think that;

seems like most of whatever debt they have their is debt privately owed by citizens. Which is probably one of the downsides to a strong social safety net, in that you might be more willing to take a chance as you won't be forced into abysmal living conditions if you can't pay stuff back. Nevermind that Scandinavian countries have proper education, proper healthcare, and properly high taxes on those that profit from the country's human and natural resources.

The debt is not a national one, mostly because they won't waste their money on useless pork-projects like the f-35... seriously; the F-35 has been in development since the end of the clinton administration, when we had a surplus... Imagine if instead of spending on that worthless piece of vaporware, we had spent money on improving infrastructure (laying down fiber-optic lines, or high-speed railway systems, or something else that is probably just as much of a pork project, but one that is a meaningful pork project, that at least pretends to do public good rather than being just another giant metal phallus for our military to waggle(though a high speed rail train is pretty close to that..))