Why SPECIFICALLY do Republicans hate Obama?

[Marley23]

@TriPolar

@Marley23

TriPolar, tone it down. Rune can also call Barack Obama any name he feels like (within SDMB rules) because he’s a person posting anonymously on the internet. So can anybody else here.

Sorry, I’ll make the facetious quality of such remarks more apparent in the future.

Rune, all in fun.

I had a feeling that was the case (I knew you don’t usually say things like that), but I couldn’t tell for sure. Thank you for clarifying.

[Clothahump]

We don’t hate him personally.

What we object to is that he is a Marxist and his policies are damaging our country.

[VinylTurnip]

@Clothahump

We don’t hate him personally.

What we object to is that he is a Marxist and his policies are damaging our country.

You may hate his policies, and perhaps with good reason, but endless repetition of the word “Marxist” is never going to turn Obama into a Marxist. It only makes you sound foolish.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Shodan

And it was the Democrats who put teeth in PAYGO and used it to turn a record budget deficit into a record surplus.

Refresh my memory - which party controlled Congress the last time the budget was balanced?

Regards,
Shodan

See this post. Or not, I believe you and I have done this before. The true answer is the Democrats cannot really take credit for the balanced budget, but neither can the Republicans. It was a confluence of factors that let us balance the budget. Moreover, the idea that Republicans are more fiscally responsible than the Democrats is laughable does not hold up under scrutiny.

@Algher

OK, I am a Republican (“Hi Algher”). I don’t hate Obama, nor do most of the Republicans that I interact with. Then again, I stick to perhaps a more informed and genteel set rather than the frothing-at-the-mouth folks who are necessary in any get-out-the-vote drive.

In other words, most of us are “fine” with him in general, and our opposition is due to standard differences in how we see things.

The health care bill is crap. It is too big, too complicated, and does not fix our root problems of employer based coverage (part of the system thanks to FDR and WWII price controls) and coverage for those with certain long-term illnesses if they fall off of a plan (endemic to a profit-based risk-sharing system with individual buy-in).

Just so long that you understand that this bill is the essentially the Republican plan from the 90s. Regarding the underlying problem of employer based health coverage, you and I are in total agreement.

@Algher

The bailouts of the banks (and others) was bad, IMHO. I would have let more of them crash. Instead, we seem to have created a system where the big banks could buy out little banks thanks to Fed money and Fed arm-twisting. I would have let more companies go under - but I actually believe in cut-throat capitalism.

You know that this all went through before Obama became president?

@Algher

I am HAPPY that Obama is continuing the path of getting out of Iraq. I hope he continues that. I am HAPPY that Obama listened to his military and is letting them ramp up some pressure in Afghanistan. I hope that he can find a way out of there.

After that, most of it remains to be seen. We put up a crap candidate, and we deserved our ass-kicking in the last election. We “deserve” to get back some seats only because the Democrats haven’t solved all of the nation’s problems. The electorate is pissed, scared, nervous and cranky and will grab onto whoever promises them SOMETHING to make it all better (sounds like my kids when they were toddlers).

Agreed. I just wish the Republicans would put up some rational candidates instead of people like Sarah Palin and Sharon Angle. The Republican party these days seems to have a problem with frothing at the mouth (YMMV).

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Clothahump

What we object to is that he is a Marxist <snip>

Cite?

[elucidator]

Some say he gravitates towards Groucho, but I think he’s a Harpo kind of guy.

[Algher]

@elucidator

Some say he gravitates towards Groucho, but I think he’s a Harpo kind of guy.

Clinton was Groucho. Obama is more Harpo certainly. Bush was Shemp, the Stooge we would rather forget.

[TriPolar]

@Algher

@elucidator

Some say he gravitates towards Groucho, but I think he’s a Harpo kind of guy.

Clinton was Groucho. Obama is more Harpo certainly. Bush was Shemp, the Stooge we would rather forget.

Hey Shemp wasn’t that bad! Joe Besser’s the one we would rather forget. Bush was more like Margaret Dumont.

[foolsguinea]

@Una_Persson

@Dick_Dastardly

1. Not true. According to the CBO the healthcare bill wiped out two-thirds of the US long term deficit.

Fiscal Policy: The Long-Term Budget Outlook

That’s somewhat deceptive - this random blogger you linked to qualifies it with “*if the U.S. Congress now sticks to PAYGO–as it did during the Clinton years[3/4 of which had a Republican House, something he somehow failed to mention, huh, nope, no partisanship there! - Una]–and doesn’t pass new programs and amendments to old programs that add to the deficit.”

What are the odds of that happening? Not very good.

PAYGO was not passed by the Gingrich house. They inherited it, & they decided not to renew in the new millennium.

Oh, covered in post #76.

[foolsguinea]

@Una_Persson

Um…didn’t that little “9/11” bugaboo and two freaking wars impact that? Just an itsy-bitsy bit? A smidge? A trifle? Two memes on this message board which I wish would really die out are:

1. Democrats were SOLELY responsible for the Clinton-era balanced budget.
2. Bush and the Republicans skyrocketed the deficit and 9/11 and two wars had NOTHING to do with it.

You know why this argument isn’t credible? Because they cut taxes during wartime. They added expenses while cutting revenues.

Let me say it again. They cut taxes during wartime.

They cut taxes during wartime.

They cut taxes during wartime.

They cut taxes during wartime.

They cut taxes during wartime!!!

How stupid do you have to be?

No, no, no. I will never vote for the GOP again. We need a realignment, six years ago.

@Una_Persson

And the Republicans of 1997 were unfortunately a better sort, or at least behaving better, than those of the mid-2000’s. They were a big, big disappointment to me. The wars should have been paid for with tax increases. “America goes to war” my ass - “America” engaged in a McMansion-buying housing bubble like a drunken monkey with a bag full of bananas in a monkey whorehouse, while the Republican Congress mortgaged our future even further. The wars should have been PAYGO or not done at all.

Oh, I see you acknowledged this. Should read a few posts down before responding. That said, who are the GOP leadership now? The budget-balancers or the tax-cutters?

[Algher]

@foolsguinea

@Una_Persson

Um…didn’t that little “9/11” bugaboo and two freaking wars impact that? Just an itsy-bitsy bit? A smidge? A trifle? Two memes on this message board which I wish would really die out are:

1. Democrats were SOLELY responsible for the Clinton-era balanced budget.
2. Bush and the Republicans skyrocketed the deficit and 9/11 and two wars had NOTHING to do with it.

You know why this argument isn’t credible? Because they cut taxes during wartime. They added expenses while cutting revenues.

Let me say it again. They cut taxes during wartime.

They cut taxes during wartime.

They cut taxes during wartime.

They cut taxes during wartime.

They cut taxes during wartime!!!

How stupid do you have to be?

No, no, no. I will never vote for the GOP again. We need a realignment, six years ago.

@Una_Persson

And the Republicans of 1997 were unfortunately a better sort, or at least behaving better, than those of the mid-2000’s. They were a big, big disappointment to me. The wars should have been paid for with tax increases. “America goes to war” my ass - “America” engaged in a McMansion-buying housing bubble like a drunken monkey with a bag full of bananas in a monkey whorehouse, while the Republican Congress mortgaged our future even further. The wars should have been PAYGO or not done at all.

Oh, I see you acknowledged this. Should read a few posts down before responding. That said, who are the GOP leadership now? The budget-balancers or the tax-cutters?

Well, the ability to wage war without asking anyone to pay for it was a trend started by LBJ. He escalated Vietnam without asking for any real monetary sacrifice, and we have followed that trend ever since.

I don’t think the GOP HAS any leadership right now. This is why Obama has to keep on introducing new “opponents” to harass in speeches (Boehner? Really?). Obama versus who? President making John Boehner a foil

[foolsguinea]

@BrainGlutton

It is significant that Nixon was the last Republican POTUS elected before movement conservatism took control of the GOP. Apparently, movement conservatism does not equate to fiscal conservatism.

“Fiscal conservatism” has [del]two[/del] three meanings. The careful, responsible, long-term planning meaning, & the “cut taxes on the rich” meaning–and the “bankrupt the government to destroy the welfare state” subset thereof.

@Algher

The health care bill is crap. It is too big, too complicated, and does not fix our root problems of employer based coverage (part of the system thanks to FDR and WWII price controls) and coverage for those with certain long-term illnesses if they fall off of a plan (endemic to a profit-based risk-sharing system with individual buy-in).

Hi, Algher.

Sounds like you are sad that Obama didn’t push for expanded single-payer & a more rational system than the present one, considering the GOP certainly won’t. What kind of crap excuse for a left do we have in this country, amirite? …Actually, I can respect that.

But consider the Democratic Party’s position. Every time they propose a regulation (like, “Companies selling insurance have to provide it when the customer needs it”) or raise a tax (even back to historic norms), they’re denounced as communists & unAmerican–as aliens in effect. And about a third of the country believes it! After a while, a centrist patriotic party like the Dems gets worn down.

I’m foolsguinea, & I’m a former GOP voter. I had to learn to stop legitimizing that party.

After that, most of it remains to be seen. We put up a crap candidate, and we deserved our ass-kicking in the last election. We “deserve” to get back some seats only because the Democrats haven’t solved all of the nation’s problems.

Hardly. This is the fallacy of a two-party system. The GOP screwed up, big. Four years in the wilderness is not long enough. And you can’t blame the moderate Dem establishment for not solving all the nation’s problems in two years as if that’s equivalent to the GOP creating so many problems in 12 years.

The electorate is pissed, scared, nervous and cranky and will grab onto whoever promises them SOMETHING to make it all better (sounds like my kids when they were toddlers).

Well, yes, there’s a reason we don’t give toddlers the vote.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@flickster

@New_Deal_Democrat

Also he’s bright. If there is anything they can’t stand it is a Negro who has more brains than they do.

Never fails, when you got nothing else play the race card :rolleyes:

And the brains card.

[Una_Persson]

@foolsguinea

Oh, I see you acknowledged this. Should read a few posts down before responding. That said, who are the GOP leadership now? The budget-balancers or the tax-cutters?

Neither, I’d say. As much as people like to complain that the “Democrats appear leaderless”, I don’t see any leaders in the Republican Party, either in the Congress or outside of it. Palin is a vacuum inside a vacuum, and Gingrich hasn’t realized it’s not 1994. Romney is a somewhat shady character to some (I know more than a few Republicans who will stay at home rather than vote for a Mormon), Huckabee is “look at me, I’m Mr. Religion!” and little else, and the list goes on. Dear God, is it going to be Jeb Bush after all? A veritable dynasty of mediocrity?

[foolsguinea]

@Algher

I don’t think the GOP HAS any leadership right now. This is why Obama has to keep on introducing new “opponents” to harass in speeches (Boehner? Really?). Obama versus who? President making John Boehner a foil

And this is a reason to put this pack of wild dogs in Congress in greater numbers how?

Also, I’m from SW Missouri, which is very hardcore GOP. I laugh at the idea that the GOP don’t have leadership. Maybe you think people like Roy Blunt, John Boehner, & Mitch McConnell aren’t good leaders, but the Republicans follow them because the party follows whatever passes for a leader. Certainly more than the Democrats follow Obama.

Don’t believe me? Where were all the Republicans smarter than George Bush who stood up to him & stopped the war in Iraq? Where was his 2004 primary challenge from the sensible right? (That’s the point I wrote the GOP off.) The GOP will follow the leader down to hell.

The Dems aren’t much better–Obama does suffer some disrespect to his youth, but Democrats rolled over for Bush’s war authorization too. Raising the proportion of GOP congressmen will steer the country in the direction Boehner, your “non-leader,” wants. Looks like he’s leading to me.

Further, it will encourage the GOP’s behavior. Why should these guys be rewarded for the last two years?

[foolsguinea]

Another way of looking at it is that the GOP is led by the dead hand of half-remembered principles & assumptions. That’s not “real leadership” either I suppose.

[BrainGlutton]

@Una_Persson

@foolsguinea

Oh, I see you acknowledged this. Should read a few posts down before responding. That said, who are the GOP leadership now? The budget-balancers or the tax-cutters?

Neither, I’d say. As much as people like to complain that the “Democrats appear leaderless”, I don’t see any leaders in the Republican Party, either in the Congress or outside of it. Palin is a vacuum inside a vacuum, and Gingrich hasn’t realized it’s not 1994. Romney is a somewhat shady character to some (I know more than a few Republicans who will stay at home rather than vote for a Mormon), Huckabee is “look at me, I’m Mr. Religion!” and little else, and the list goes on. Dear God, is it going to be Jeb Bush after all? A veritable dynasty of mediocrity?

If Huckabee emerged as the GOP’s leader, that would signify an important change in the party’s direction, because he’s not just Mr. Religion, he’s also a Huey Long economic populist who might ally with the Dems on many economic issues – a combination that taps a whole new base, as there are lot of Americans who think the same way, and they’re highly unsatisfied with the GOP as it is, dominated by business interests.

[foolsguinea]

@BrainGlutton

@Una_Persson

Neither, I’d say. As much as people like to complain that the “Democrats appear leaderless”, I don’t see any leaders in the Republican Party, either in the Congress or outside of it. Palin is a vacuum inside a vacuum, and Gingrich hasn’t realized it’s not 1994. Romney is a somewhat shady character to some (I know more than a few Republicans who will stay at home rather than vote for a Mormon), Huckabee is “look at me, I’m Mr. Religion!” and little else, and the list goes on. Dear God, is it going to be Jeb Bush after all? A veritable dynasty of mediocrity?

If Huckabee emerged as the GOP’s leader, that would signify an important change in the party’s direction, because he’s not just Mr. Religion, he’s also a Huey Long economic populist who might ally with the Dems on many economic issues – a combination that taps a whole new base, as there are lot of Americans who think the same way, and they’re highly unsatisfied with the GOP as it is, dominated by business interests.

Sorry, I’ve led this thread off the rails to a criticism of the GOP. And hey, no one here would admit to following me! Funny thing, that. Leader or not, we still go places.

So let’s go to another thread, where we can talk about leadership in the GOP.

[Clothahump]

@VinylTurnip

@Clothahump

We don’t hate him personally.

What we object to is that he is a Marxist and his policies are damaging our country.

You may hate his policies, and perhaps with good reason, but endless repetition of the word “Marxist” is never going to turn Obama into a Marxist. It only makes you sound foolish.

Sigh.

The three primary aspects of Marxism are:

1. The dialectical and materialist concept of history — Humankind’s history fundamentally is a struggle between social classes. The productive capacity of society is the foundation of society, and as this capacity increases over time the social relations of production, class relations, evolve through this struggle of the classes and pass through definite stages (primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism). The legal, political, ideological and other aspects (e.g. art) of society are derived from these production relations as is the consciousness of the individuals of which the society is composed.
2. The critique of capitalism — Marx argues that in capitalist society, an economic minority (the bourgeoisie) dominate and exploit an economic majority (the proletariat). Marx argues that capitalism is exploitative, specifically the way in which unpaid labor (surplus value) is extracted from the working class (the labor theory of value), extending and critiquing the work of earlier political economists on value. Such commodification of human labor according to Marx, creates an arrangement of transitory serfdom. He argued that while the production process is socialized, ownership remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie. This forms the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society. Without the elimination of the fetter of the private ownership of the means of production, human society is unable to achieve further development.
3. Advocacy of proletarian revolution — In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. Upon this, material foundation classes would be abolished and the material basis for all forms of inequality between humankind would dissolve.

Marxism

Obama hits on all three points.

[Fear_Itself]

@Clothahump

Obama hits on all three points.

See, this is why no one takes you seriously. You go to all the trouble to cite a Wikipedia article, then shoehorn Obama into it and say , “See! I told ya so!” Your cite does not support your opinion.