Going “FORWARD”, What Positions Favor Progressives?

This post originated a couple threads back with Cluster offering the following challenge:

“Bring it on liberals. There is not one position in your favor and I look forward to bashing you about the head for the next four years.”

One of our resident Leftist Useful Idiots, thetruthshallsetyoufree, responded with:

Except for all those positions that favored liberals on election day, of course. Good point.

JR responded with:

Small-minded as you are, TruthSSYF, it’s clear you fail to see the irony in that. Absent mass forced reeducation camps, the only thing this election will result in is death and despair. And there are those of us who, if it’s the last thing we do, will see to it that you and those who share your views will be on the receiving end of that paradigm. I don’t think you have the slightest grasp of what lies ahead, but it ain’t gonna be pretty. It is gonna be fun to watch, though.

And I responded with:

Not really a good point, Truthie, as JR points out. Besides winning the presidential election and increasing the Donk majority in the Senate, what positions on November 6th favored Liberals? No President in the last 75 years has been re-elected with the unemployment rate as high as it is — and it’s going higher. No other President has been re-elected with economic growth as weak as it is since they began keeping such statistics in 1930, and Obama’s policies will ensure that it’s only going to get weaker. No other President has been re-elected with the right track/wrong track numbers so stacked against him. The number of GOP governors (30) is at a 12-year high. The GOP-controlled House still controls the purse strings. I haven’t spoken to a single Conservative since the election whose resolve has been anything but strengthened.

Other than free contraceptives and free abortions, what, pray tell, does a second Obama term offer anyone except those with their hands out? As JR alludes to, our side still has most of the guns, and the U.S. military will never, I repeat, NEVER side with Obama. And if you think that Obama’s cute little Kiddie Corps is going to be anything other than cannon fodder, you’re more delusional that I thought.

This exchange, probably close to the end of a dead thread got me to thinking; is there anything that really favors the Progressive agenda going “forward”?  Do Progressives now believe they can just do what they want the next 4 years without repercussions?  The House of Representatives does still hold the purse strings, but what if Obama continues to just bypass the House with executive orders?  Will the nearly 60 million people who voted against him just lay down and do nothing?  What, if any, policies will Obama pursue going “forward” that will result in more liberty and more prosperity?

Update: I’m not getting any takers on the final question of the post, and, admittedly, it asks for someone to have a crystal ball.  So let me rephrase it: what policies going “forward” would you like to see Obama pursue that you believe will have a positive effect on liberty and prosperity?

Advertisements

187 thoughts on “Going “FORWARD”, What Positions Favor Progressives?

  1. mitchethekid November 20, 2012 / 12:17 am

    Wolves eat Mutton and you’re breakfast, lunch and dinner. What you are not is Noah. Gulp!

  2. Retired Spook November 20, 2012 / 10:50 am

    Well, this was an interesting thread; 169 comments over 3 days, and Watson was the only Leftie who could come up with anything that he’d like to see Obama do that would have a positive effect on freedom and/or prosperity. Watson mentioned several points, but the only two that hold water are: continue to support gay rights, giving homosexuals the freedom to marry; and supporting immigration reform (which Obama championed in 2008 and then abruptly forgot until a few months before the 2012 election) resulting in eliminating or lessening the brain drain of foreigners who come here for education and then go back to their native country. The second is a noble idea that I happen to agree with, although Obama has given no indication that it’s on his agenda. If, indeed, that’s all that Obama is likely to do, then it’s going to be a long 4 years. More likely, IMO, is that, as government continues to grow, freedom and prosperity will continue to shrink. History supports that dynamic. A government that’s big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.

    • Amazona November 20, 2012 / 11:48 am

      And even these two points are distortions of reality.

      The first is dependent on the illusion of such a thing as “gay rights” and it also reflects the divisive tactic of separating people into arbitrary demographics and then appealing to each as a separate entity, instead of addressing the rights of Americans, period.

      Homosexual people have exactly the same rights as heterosexual and asexual people. That is already a fact.

      What some homosexual people claim as a denied “right” is the use of a specific WORD to describe their unions. The issue has been demagogued into such a tangle of emotions and lies and hysteria, it is now permanently owned by the demagogues, and there will inevitably be a caving in, to apply this WORD, but it has nothing to do with “rights”.

      The second is a complex issue far greater than merely halting the brain drain. As one who has applied for, and gotten, three different professional visas for foreigners, I may know a little more about this topic than many, and I also firmly favor a policy which encourages skilled people, including those born here, to live here and become citizens and contribute to the vitality of this country.

      I also strongly favor an accelerated path to citizenship for people who serve honorably in our military.

      But those are only two of many issues related to immigration. We also have the problem of porous borders, which affect our national security in that they allow enemies of the state to enter the country, along with all those “only seeking a better life” folks. We have a bird feeder system, in which we set out goodies which attract people, and then become responsible for them. We have lax and poorly organized laws regarding immigration, which telegraph weakness and lack of resolve as well as lack of respect for our own nation and its sovereignty. We have a system which encourages people to live here without assimilating into our language or culture, resulting in what amounts to little nation-states within our own nation, each with its own language and culture and with little or no allegiance to the United States except as the maintainer of the bird feeder.

      I have seen nothing from Obama that appears to address any of these issues.

      • watsonthethird November 20, 2012 / 2:29 pm

        Amazona, Spook is cherry-picking what I said. With regard to immigration, I also said that I think President Obama will again push for something like the Dream Act. As you may know, the proposed Dream Act does proposed an accelerated path to citizenship, in the form of permanent residency, for people who serve in the military, not to mention those who attend college.

        You may also be aware that under President Obama, President Obama has added more border patrol agents and improved the fencing and detection technology at our borders. The number of illegal aliens being deported is at an all-time high, and the number of individuals being apprehended attempting to illegally cross the border has decreased significantly under President Obama, suggesting that the number attempting to cross has also decreased.

        You may have “seen nothing from Obama that appears to address any of these issues,” but that doesn’t mean they haven’t occurred.

  3. Amazona November 20, 2012 / 11:34 am

    “…More specifically, I don’t think Spook understands the nature of federal government involvement in venture capital enterprises.”

    Condescend much? Over the years I have seen Spook’s posts represent a far deeper understanding of financial matters than yours.

    Fascinating, this blissful ignorance coupled with this narcissistic preening over the assumed ability to understand such highly elevated intellectual concepts.

    Let’s rein in this little ego-fest of rico’s, and get back to the biggest and most glaring error in what is, so predictably, a litany of errors.

    “…the nature of federal government involvement in venture capital enterprises…”

    The blissful ignorance lies in the bland assumption that there is a Constitutional right for the federal government to even BE involved in venture capital enterprises. DUH.

    It’s not that people don’t UNDERSTAND it, rico—-it’s that they understand that it is WRONG.

    Show us anywhere in the 17 enumerated duties of the Constitution one that assigns the duty of investment in private enterprise. Or that assigns the duty of government run enterprise.

    Please……..we’ll wait.

    In the meantime, of course, in totally predictable fashion, you waffle, trying to be on both sides of the claim. One one side, Spook just doesn’t understand, but on the other, who really could?

    “And really, I can’t blame him for that either. It very much has to do with one’s perceptions of accepable time horizons for the various parties involved. And to be honest, even as a general principle, that’s hard to explain. Worse, the principle is rightfully applied only to specific circumstances.”

    • Retired Spook November 20, 2012 / 12:17 pm

      Amazona,

      It’s why I normally avoid discussions with Rico. If you try to respond to what you think he said, he inevitably comes back with you failed to grasp what he said, or said another way, or said a third way. It’s a lose/lose/lose exercise in futility.

      • Amazona November 20, 2012 / 1:53 pm

        I know……he goes on and on and on and on and on, about very little, makes little if any sense, falls back on the claim that we would understand how correct he is if only we had the ability to UNDERSTAND him, circles around to make sure he has covered all positions and possibilities, and then preens in his imagined superiority.

        It’s kind of funny to see him posture as oh-so intellectually on top of it all, such as his recent assertion that your problem is that you just don’t UNDERSTAND venture capital or “the nature of federal government involvement in venture capital enterprises” when the very fact of “federal government involvement in venture capital enterprises” is simply not allowed under our Constitution.

      • neocon01 November 20, 2012 / 2:00 pm

        That is why I merely scorn the TROLLS. They are NOT here to dialogue, only disrupt.

    • watsonthethird November 20, 2012 / 2:34 pm

      Earlier in this thread I said, “If we are to judge both candidate’s skills at managing large enterprises based on their campaigns, then President Obama won hands down.” To which Cluster and others took great issue.

      Just to reinforce that point, yesterday the conservative website The Daily Caller posted an article showing how the Romney campaign wound up paying as much as four times more than the Obama campaign for television spots. This isn’t the hallmark of a well-run campaign.

      “Obama could deliver 1,000 points for a fourth as much as Romney,” said one source.

      So why didn’t Team Romney negotiate better rates? Since spots are typically not bumped in early September, the notion of reserving non-preemptable ads — in order to guarantee they would air — seems implausible.

      According to our source, Team Obama simply did the “due diligence to find where the lowest unit rate was,” a tedious process which “takes manpower.”

      Conversely, it appears Team Romney simply didn’t want bother with the hassle. So they threw money at the problem — and walked away.

      http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/19/in-some-cases-romney-paid-four-times-as-much-for-tv-ads-as-obama/

    • ricorun November 20, 2012 / 3:10 pm

      Okay, you’re right. It did sound condescending, and I apologize to you, Spook. But I still have to ask why you said federal investment in renewable energy is a “miserable failure, not to mention a scandal of epic proportions?” Certainly when viewed in retrospect one can identify things that shouldn’t have been done, or done differently, but overall the investment has had a significant impact. There are now several technologies getting very close to parity (e.g., wind, solar PV, and various types of biofuels). 10 years ago none of them were anywhere close. And federal investment (not just from our government, but others as well) is primarily responsible for that.

      Likewise, as this article indicates, the federal government poured billions of dollars into horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies over three decades, pursuits which many considered a boondoggle, and a huge waste of taxpayer money — until it actually worked. No one is saying that now. The payoff has been enormous.

      Also from the article:
      Terry Engelder, a Penn State University geologist known for his enthusiastic support for gas drilling, said the story of how shale gas went from longshot to head of the pack — and how long that took — shows that serious support for renewable energy research makes sense, too.

      ‘‘These renewables have a huge upside,’’ Engelder said. ‘‘In my view, the subsidies are really very appropriate.’’

      I think so too. There will be failures along the way, to be sure. But the payoff will almost certainly be equally enormous. And when it comes it will be tremendously liberating in all sorts of ways, in addition to enhancing prosperity. So to the extent that anything good comes out of Obama’s second term, I hope continued support for renewable energy is involved.

    • ricorun November 28, 2012 / 9:15 pm

      Amazona: The blissful ignorance lies in the bland assumption that there is a Constitutional right for the federal government to even BE involved in venture capital enterprises. DUH.

      I would say the blissful ignorance lies in the bland assumption that such involvement hasn’t paid off in spades, time after time after time. And because it has, you have to admit to the fact that the federal government often adds to the equation, time after time after time. So to take it out of the equation is corrosive.

      • Amazona December 2, 2012 / 11:50 am

        rico, as usual, you completely miss the point.

        The point is, there is no Constitutional right for the government to even BE involved in venture capital enterprises. Which is what I said.

        Rather than address this obvious fact, you just skitter on over to justifying the violation of the Constitution by claiming it has “paid off in spades, time after time after time”.

        You appear to be claiming that it is OK for Congress to ignore the 17 enumerated duties laid out in the Constitution, and the following injunction detailed in the 10th Amendment which so clearly states that if something is not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution it is prohibited to the federal government by the Constitution, IF the violation has a result you approve of.

        You go on to assert that following the Constitution would be, as you put it, “corrosive” as it would remove the federal government from private enterprise.

        It is always interesting to see someone’s core beliefs surface, even inadvertently, in the course of an argument. I doubt that you would ever have overtly stated your belief that the Constitution is not and should not be the defining law of the land but should be ignored when someone finds what seems a good reason to do so, yet this is the point you made in your comment.

        As the core difference between Liberal and Conservative, politically speaking, is the belief in the role of the Constitution in the governance of the United States, I believe this argument of yours places you quite firmly in the camp of the political Liberal. Your personal choice of which Constitutional rules can be ignored or circumvented might not be the same as those of other Liberals, but once you believe that the rules can, and should, be bent or ignored or discarded in the pursuit of something you find valuable you identify yourself as a political Liberal.

Comments are closed.