HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Not since the New Deal

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:58 PM

Not since the New Deal

have two candidates embodied the parties' philosophical divide as much as Romney and Obama


A revived conservative movement dating back to the Fifties has succeeded in locking the Republicans into the philosophy of possessive individualism that was always a strand in the American story. In turn, they have portrayed the Democrats as the collectivist Other. This election the Democrats, or at least their presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has decided he can no longer duck the fight. In a fiery speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors last week Obama put it baldly: “This is not just another run of the mill political debate. I’ve said it’s the defining issue of our time and I believe it. What leaders in both parties have traditionally understood is that the [Democratic government programs] aren’t part of some scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another. They are expressions of the fact that we are one nation.”
.........

To the Republican ideology, American politics since the New Deal at least is a usurpation, not a genuine expression of American character. Not coincidentally, constitutional lawyers around the country are holding their collective breath waiting to see if an ideologically conservative majority of the Supreme Court will reverse the health care law and roll back the understanding of the constitution that made the New Deal possible as a first step in restoring the old order.

The election is the second.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/obama_v_romney_the_philosopher_candidates/



11 replies, 2180 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 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply Not since the New Deal (Original post)
arely staircase Apr 2012 OP
MannyGoldstein Apr 2012 #1
arely staircase Apr 2012 #2
Tesha Apr 2012 #3
MannyGoldstein Apr 2012 #4
ProSense Apr 2012 #5
MannyGoldstein Apr 2012 #6
arely staircase Apr 2012 #8
MannyGoldstein Apr 2012 #11
ProSense Apr 2012 #7
Enrique Apr 2012 #9
ProSense Apr 2012 #10

Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 05:07 PM

1. Both sides fundamentally agree on most issues

 

For example, both want to slash Social Security and decrease the Medicare rolls.

They differ in the degree of pain they're willing to inflict to aid the 1%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 05:19 PM

2. you have a source for either claim?

president obama has never proposed slashing social security or medicare, though the republicans have.

the justice department is currently arguing for an expansion of the medicaid rolls before the ussc.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #2)


Response to arely staircase (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 07:22 PM

4. Sure.

 

There are many, many examples of Obama's attempts to cut Social Security, starting with the naming of the "Deficit Commission" shortly after his inauguration - who's who of Social Security foes led by Alan "Social Security is a milk cow with 310 million tits" to Erskine Bowles, who brokered a deal with Newt Gingrich under Clinton to slash Social Security (Congress wouldn't play along that time). When given the opportunity to strike, during last summer's fully-fake debt crisis, Obama made his move:

Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP


"We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."
- Remarks by the President, July 22, 2011

As to Medicare: "According to five separate sources with knowledge of negotiations -- including both Republicans and Democrats -- the president offered an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare, from 65 to 67, in exchange for Republican movement on increasing tax revenues." - Obama Offered To Raise Medicare Eligibility Age As Part Of Grand Debt Deal

This is not what Democrats do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 07:30 PM

5. Still pushing

Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP


"We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."
- Remarks by the President, July 22, 2011

...debunked claims and distortions?

Here's the President's full statement

Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. We believed that it was possible to shape those in a way that preserved the integrity of the system, made them available for the next generation, and did not affect current beneficiaries in an adverse way.


I mean, you insisted that the payroll tax holiday was the President's attempt to undermine Social Security.

I suppose that means Conyers voted to undermine Social Security: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll072.xml

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 07:32 PM

6. "did not affect *current* beneficiaries in an adverse way."

 

Folks like me who retire decades from now... we're rubes who don't need all that we've been promised, yes?

Got it!

Considering that Social Security solvency crisis is itself fully-fake, and considering that it does not add a penny to the deficit (and cannot by law), the Third Way's repeated attempts to slash it are awful. Awful. Awful.

I don't believe that I ever "insisted that the payroll tax holiday was the President's attempt to undermine Social Security." I await your apology, thanks in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 03:32 PM

8. As i suspected

You got nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:29 PM

11. Yep

 

Other than facts, I got nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 07:36 PM

7. This is key:

What can people know? The Democratic vision recognizes that people can feel the pain of others. “Who are these Americans?” Obama asks, invoking that capacity. “Many are someone’s grandparents who, without Medicaid, won’t be able to afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s Syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the people who count on Medicaid.” The Republican vision does not see pain; it sees only “success.” Romney’s characters are “risk takers,” “winners” (and “losers”) in “races” won, presumably, by the fittest, who then raise up . . . their families.

The expansion of Medicaid is a big part of conservatives opposition to the health care law.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002496395

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 03:51 PM

9. the stark ideological choice

Between "compassionate conservativsm" and right-wing conservatism.

In his last speech that everyone said was so combative, Obama was bragging how conservative his health reform is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 04:46 PM

10. Well

"In his last speech that everyone said was so combative, Obama was bragging how conservative his health reform is."

...in some aspects it's true. It's definitely not single-payer. Still, does anyone expect the President not to employ strategic arguments?

When Kaiser compared the health care law to the 1993 Republican bill, it did so accurately on the basis of a few issues, like the individual mandate.

There are significant differences in the health care law on some of the biggest issues, which Republicans would never support:

Expanding Medicaid (likely the root of the conservative challenge to the current law)

Eliminating the lifetime caps

MLR

Employer mandate (even Romney fought this in the MA bill)



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread