Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

Mizzou B-ball fan 12-22-2009 10:02 AM

Sen. Reid claimed yesterday that any of the 100 senators who didn't secure special deals in the health care bill wasn't doing their job. This new study concerning the spending of stimulus dollars apparantly shows who is doing their job..........

http://mercatus.org/publication/stimulusfacts

Quote:

There are 177 districts represented by Republicans and 259 represented by Democrats. On average, Democratic districts received 1.6 times more awards than Republican ones. The average number of awards per Republican district is 94, while the average number of awards per Democratic district is 152.

Democratic districts also received 1.89 times more stimulus dollars than Republican districts. The average dollars awarded per Republican district is $232,047,857, while the average dollars awarded per Democratic district is $439,200,100. In total, Democratic districts received 73.47 percent of the total stimulus funds awarded. In terms of numbers of awards, Republican districts received 29.77 percent of the total, while Democratic districts received 70.22 percent.

Dutch 12-22-2009 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2189212)
The reality is more domestic than foreign. I really don't believe he feels the war in Afghanistan is necessary or doing much. But he also realizes there is a large percent of the population who wants to be fighting in wars they are too pussy to fight in themselves.


Believe what you want but Obama gets security briefings everyday and it ain't from MoveOn.Org or Michael Moore. He's getting the real deal. You giving him no credit if you're just saying he's going by what Rasmussen tells him.

Quote:

I think one that weighs the economic effects with those of the well-being of its citizens.

And which form of government would that be?

Quote:

It has? We're 100 years in and still can't find a way to offer a car to the public not powered by fossil fuels and combustible engines. We haven't seen a MPG advance in 25 years and cars really haven't added much but some luxury features since the 50's. The biggest advance we've seen has been in the area of safety, which actually has more to do with the government forcing car companies into it than them doing it on their own.

Now take a look at the industry of air transportation. Look at the advances we've had in the last 100 years. It's quite embarassing to see the difference in innovation in the two.

A Boeing 747 built last year gets .2 miles to the gallon.


Quote:

And I wouldn't say a union or monopoly doesn't have capitalistic ideals. If a business achieved it's monopoly status by dominating its competition in the marketplace, that's as capatalistic as it gets. If a union is using its workers skills to negotiate a higher pay in a free market, how is that not capitalism? Unions and monopolies are negative aspects of capitalism that you are trying to pawn off as something else because you want the word to be pure.

The purpose of capitalism is competition. A business may eliminate it's competition through capitilastic means, but the end result is no longer capitalism. A government that runs a business in it's entirety has no competition, has monopolized through elimination, and that is not "as capitalistic as it gets". Quite the opposite actually.

Flasch186 12-22-2009 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2189544)
Sen. Reid claimed yesterday that any of the 100 senators who didn't secure special deals in the health care bill wasn't doing their job. This new study concerning the spending of stimulus dollars apparantly shows who is doing their job..........

http://mercatus.org/publication/stimulusfacts


Id love to see the stats when the GOP was in charge and MBBF's posts about that at the time. HA!

Mizzou B-ball fan 12-22-2009 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2189575)
Id love to see the stats when the GOP was in charge and MBBF's posts about that at the time. HA!


I would too. Please post them.

Mizzou B-ball fan 12-22-2009 11:14 AM

An excellent article from Arianna Huffington on this current health care bill and how detrimental it would be for those looking to truly reform health care.

Arianna Huffington: The Senate Health Care Bill: Leave No Special Interest Behind

Mizzou B-ball fan 12-22-2009 12:52 PM

Looks like the Nelson payoff may be up in smoke per a MSNBC report I watched over lunch. At least three other senators are now requesting that funding be included to cover their state as well or they will pull their vote. Nelson is saying he'll probably now pull the funding out and is throwing the Nebraska governor under the bus, saying he was the one that requested the funding. Nebraska governor has said that he made no request for $100M funding. No word on whether Nelson will support the bill or not now that his state will lose the $100M to cover any state spending that will be required.

JediKooter 12-22-2009 01:18 PM

Ok, so the more I read and hear about the issue of health care reform, I have come to the conclussion that it is NOT indeed health care reform that people want, from listening to the arguments. What people want is Health Insurance/Coverage reform.

Like I said, there's no dead bodies in the streets or people actually being refused care, but, insurance denying tests or to cover certain costs or proceedures, etc...People can still get those tests or proceedures, it would have to be paid out of their own pockets instead.

So yes, I would be for some form of health insurance/coverage reform, but, you just have to be careful of what you ask for and make sure that it does indeed actually accomplish the task, but, with the government doing it, I'm not holding my breath.

sabotai 12-22-2009 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2189456)
Interesting Poll Results on the new Healthcare Bill (note the source of the poll please)



I happen to agree FWIW. It's not currently "healthcare reform" it's "health insurance mandate."


I have a great plan to sell to those 36% to end unemployment! Get a job or the government fines you. Great plan, right? :)

RainMaker 12-22-2009 02:56 PM

I know a lot of people are giving Nelson shit, but I don't blame him. He put himself in a position to help his consituents the most. He represents Nebraskans and if he can get massive funding for his people, then he should do whats in the best interest of them.

Nelson is not the despicable one, it's the people paying him off that are.

RainMaker 12-22-2009 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigSca (Post 2189476)
Actually, the reason MPG hasn't improved is because the size of our cars and our "need" for high horsepower engines. Capitalists only give you what you want, so if you want an SUV or a mini-van with 300 horsepower so Mom can feel "safe" when she's trying to to yield into oncoming traffic on the highway, well, that's what you get. Seems that no one really wants a 45 MPG, 70 horsepower Volkswagen Rabbit anymore.

Then why are they all going out of business? Why did we need to basically save their asses? If there was a company selling a car that got 100 MPG, it would be selling like hot cakes. It is capitalism, and the public is looking at the new cars and saying it's same old shit they had 20 years ago.

Look at the evolution of the computer over the last 25 years, then look at that of the car. Tech companies are not begging Washington for bailouts.

Flasch186 12-22-2009 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2189632)
Looks like the Nelson payoff may be up in smoke per a MSNBC report I watched over lunch. At least three other senators are now requesting that funding be included to cover their state as well or they will pull their vote. Nelson is saying he'll probably now pull the funding out and is throwing the Nebraska governor under the bus, saying he was the one that requested the funding. Nebraska governor has said that he made no request for $100M funding. No word on whether Nelson will support the bill or not now that his state will lose the $100M to cover any state spending that will be required.


Not on MSNBC.com
Found it on FoxNews.com amazingly that article sounds ALOT like the report you saw on MSNBC down to the quotes and all. Awfull MBBF, just awful. Im not sure if youre trying get more credibility for your summary by attributing it to the Liberal channel rather than where it is front page fodder...weird just weird but gutter no less.

FOXNews.com - Nelson Says More Senators Seeking Special Treatment in Light of Nebraska Deal

Quote:

Though he defended the exemption as a "fair deal," he said he never asked for the full federal funding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ended up granting his state. Nelson said he instead asked that states be allowed to refuse an expansion of Medicaid.

"This is the way Senate leadership chose to handle it. I never asked for 100 percent funding," he said.

Nelson has maintained that the only reason he even brought up Medicaid was that Nebraska Republican Gov. Dave Heineman put him up to it.

Quote:

Nelson said Tuesday he wants to talk to the governor before making a decision on the Medicaid provision.

Nelson would not name the three senators he said told him they're thinking of seeking the same kind of federal aid. He said he expected them to seek the money outside the health care reform process, and he defended their efforts.


Not on Cnn.com

And MBBF's summary is back to old hat, eh DT? Full of crap and spin. Totally left out that last sentence there instead to attribute their possibly pulling out of supporting the bill to this....MBBF is spin to the 1000%

JPhillips 12-22-2009 06:17 PM

From Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell:

Quote:

Our side didn’t go in the tank and make this a bipartisan bill. We showed that our opposition has a pulse.

rowech 12-22-2009 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2189696)
I know a lot of people are giving Nelson shit, but I don't blame him. He put himself in a position to help his consituents the most. He represents Nebraskans and if he can get massive funding for his people, then he should do whats in the best interest of them.

Nelson is not the despicable one, it's the people paying him off that are.


I guess it's no wonder the crooks stay in congress if you think the people making the offers are in the wrong. Heaven forbid someone has the integrity to say no.

CraigSca 12-22-2009 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2189700)
Then why are they all going out of business? Why did we need to basically save their asses? If there was a company selling a car that got 100 MPG, it would be selling like hot cakes. It is capitalism, and the public is looking at the new cars and saying it's same old shit they had 20 years ago.

Look at the evolution of the computer over the last 25 years, then look at that of the car. Tech companies are not begging Washington for bailouts.


Because it takes a long time to design a car. Part of the reason they're getting killed is Mom and Dad loved buying big cars like Humvees and Suburbans. Then, oil goes skyhigh and Mom and Dad wanted to buy energy-efficient vehicles. Detroit is caught behind the eight-ball - they can't roll out cars fast enough for the fickle public. The pendulum is already starting to swing - people are okay with $2.50 gasoline - people will want to feel "safe" and plow through the 1-2 snowfalls a year with their 4x4s, so they will start buying big cars again.

Oh, and technical companies don't have pension programs for people that retired 25 years ago. You'd need a bail out too if $2K for every car was going towards pensions and healthcare for people who don't even work for you anymore.

Grammaticus 12-22-2009 08:07 PM

I'm hearing that other senators (South Carolina, Tennessee) are asking their AG's to look at aspects of the bill in preparation to challenge it as unconstitutional. From what I hear the portions that are ripe for challenge are

1.Giving Neb. and/or certain states an unbalanced share, it violates some fairness doctine.

2. Forcing everyone to purchase a product from a private entity. Basically saying everyone must buy health care. They are looking at it different from car insurance because a person can choose not to drive, those requirements generally require you to have coverage if you harm another driver and don't require you to insure damage against yourself and they are regulated by states not the federal government.

3. Apparently a portion of the bill bars future Senate bills from changing something in the bill. It sounds like the "something" is how the independant medical advisory board is run.

Sounds like, if the bill is passed it will get challenged as unconstitutional. That should be interesting.

JPhillips 12-22-2009 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2189799)
I guess it's no wonder the crooks stay in congress if you think the people making the offers are in the wrong. Heaven forbid someone has the integrity to say no.


Say no? Hell, "fiscal conservative" Ben Nelson demanded the payout for his vote.

JPhillips 12-22-2009 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigSca (Post 2189820)
Because it takes a long time to design a car. Part of the reason they're getting killed is Mom and Dad loved buying big cars like Humvees and Suburbans. Then, oil goes skyhigh and Mom and Dad wanted to buy energy-efficient vehicles. Detroit is caught behind the eight-ball - they can't roll out cars fast enough for the fickle public. The pendulum is already starting to swing - people are okay with $2.50 gasoline - people will want to feel "safe" and plow through the 1-2 snowfalls a year with their 4x4s, so they will start buying big cars again.

Oh, and technical companies don't have pension programs for people that retired 25 years ago. You'd need a bail out too if $2K for every car was going towards pensions and healthcare for people who don't even work for you anymore.


Let's not forget tax subsidies that made those SUVs more appealing.

JPhillips 12-22-2009 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grammaticus (Post 2189832)
I'm hearing that other senators (South Carolina, Tennessee) are asking their AG's to look at aspects of the bill in preparation to challenge it as unconstitutional. From what I hear the portions that are ripe for challenge are

1.Giving Neb. and/or certain states an unbalanced share, it violates some fairness doctine.

2. Forcing everyone to purchase a product from a private entity. Basically saying everyone must buy health care. They are looking at it different from car insurance because a person can choose not to drive, those requirements generally require you to have coverage if you harm another driver and don't require you to insure damage against yourself and they are regulated by states not the federal government.

3. Apparently a portion of the bill bars future Senate bills from changing something in the bill. It sounds like the "something" is how the independant medical advisory board is run.

Sounds like, if the bill is passed it will get challenged as unconstitutional. That should be interesting.


As for #3, it's a supermajority to overturn the board's rulings. Personally, I think it's a good thing to get Congress out of Medicare reimbursements.

None of the challenges will matter. There's plenty of precedent and I doubt it goes much past the blustering phase.

duckman 12-22-2009 08:41 PM

*sigh*

Flasch186 12-22-2009 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grammaticus (Post 2189832)
Sounds like, if the bill is passed it will get challenged as unconstitutional. That should be interesting.


Interesting indeed.

RainMaker 12-22-2009 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grammaticus (Post 2189832)
I'm hearing that other senators (South Carolina, Tennessee) are asking their AG's to look at aspects of the bill in preparation to challenge it as unconstitutional. From what I hear the portions that are ripe for challenge are

1.Giving Neb. and/or certain states an unbalanced share, it violates some fairness doctine.

Can't really speak on the others, but this one is funny. South Carolina and Tennessee are massive welfare states that take in much more in federal money than they put in.

DaddyTorgo 12-22-2009 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2189888)
Can't really speak on the others, but this one is funny. South Carolina and Tennessee are massive welfare states that take in much more in federal money than they put in.


there are a lot of states that are that way - care to guess what the vast majority of them have in common? ;)

Grammaticus 12-22-2009 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2189857)
As for #3, it's a supermajority to overturn the board's rulings. Personally, I think it's a good thing to get Congress out of Medicare reimbursements.

None of the challenges will matter. There's plenty of precedent and I doubt it goes much past the blustering phase.


I really don't know enough about it to understand the true odds. It does seem we have a supreme court that is a little more conservative than liberal. Since Obama has not been able to pack the court, it feels like a challenge has some real chance of sinking the whole thing.

SteveMax58 12-23-2009 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2189696)
I know a lot of people are giving Nelson shit, but I don't blame him. He put himself in a position to help his consituents the most. He represents Nebraskans and if he can get massive funding for his people, then he should do whats in the best interest of them.

Nelson is not the despicable one, it's the people paying him off that are.


You could also say how noble Harry Reid is that he is willing to give this dirtbag more incentives than others because he is holding up reform that is so critical to our financial security.

As you said, senators are there to get favorable terms (with any legislation) for the people they represent. This is once again why federal government is not the appropriate forum for such concentrations of power.

I know I'm a broken record on this...but it just continues to defy logic to me why we are so accepting of centralized government(regardless of the policy).

Mizzou B-ball fan 12-23-2009 06:53 AM

Article calls out Obama for adopting into final health care legislation many of the policies that he said he would change when campaigning for President. He attacked Hillary and McCain for proposing many of the ideas he's now allowing into the bill..........

After Ripping Clinton And McCain, Obama Embraces Their Policies

Head of largest nurse organization draws conclusion that passage of current bill would kill any hope of true reform in the near future, mirroring comments made in a column by Arianna Huffington yesterday.........

Rose Ann DeMoro: An Inglorious End to the Promise of Reform

Mizzou B-ball fan 12-23-2009 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2189963)
You could also say how noble Harry Reid is that he is willing to give this dirtbag more incentives than others because he is holding up reform that is so critical to our financial security.

As you said, senators are there to get favorable terms (with any legislation) for the people they represent. This is once again why federal government is not the appropriate forum for such concentrations of power.

I know I'm a broken record on this...but it just continues to defy logic to me why we are so accepting of centralized government(regardless of the policy).


You're spot-on. It's baffling why anyone would ever consider this a good thing, regardless of who benefits from it. It's a gross abuse of power.

JPhillips 12-23-2009 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grammaticus (Post 2189918)
I really don't know enough about it to understand the true odds. It does seem we have a supreme court that is a little more conservative than liberal. Since Obama has not been able to pack the court, it feels like a challenge has some real chance of sinking the whole thing.


Hopefully we can agree that activist judges shouldn't overturn the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

Mizzou B-ball fan 12-23-2009 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2189888)
Can't really speak on the others, but this one is funny. South Carolina and Tennessee are massive welfare states that take in much more in federal money than they put in.


So why does it surprise you then? Sounds like they want a piece of this one as well. It's OK for senators (like Nelson) to look out for their states, right?

DaddyTorgo 12-23-2009 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2189967)
Article calls out Obama for adopting into final health care legislation many of the policies that he said he would change when campaigning for President. He attacked Hillary and McCain for proposing many of the ideas he's now allowing into the bill..........

After Ripping Clinton And McCain, Obama Embraces Their Policies

Head of largest nurse organization draws conclusion that passage of current bill would kill any hope of true reform in the near future, mirroring comments made in a column by Arianna Huffington yesterday.........

Rose Ann DeMoro: An Inglorious End to the Promise of Reform


Except that article is stupid - Obama hasn't adopted into the final legislation anything. #1 it's the Congress right now, and #2 it still has to go through conference.

DaddyTorgo 12-23-2009 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2189968)
You're spot-on. It's baffling why anyone would ever consider this a good thing, regardless of who benefits from it. It's a gross abuse of power.


I agrees. Campaign finance reform and term limits FTW!

Mizzou B-ball fan 12-23-2009 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2190005)
Except that article is stupid - Obama hasn't adopted into the final legislation anything. #1 it's the Congress right now, and #2 it still has to go through conference.


Neither of those points will affect the arguments made in those articles. Those concerns will still remain if/when a compromise bill is signed given that those arguments would apply to the passed bills on both sides of Congress.

JPhillips 12-23-2009 08:59 AM

MBBF: WHy are you so upset about HCR when, just a few days ago, you claimed that the Dems should just go ahead and pass a bill. They did, why are you so angry?

Maybe, just maybe, you're just opposed to any HCR from the Dems and all this window dressing is disingenuous?

DaddyTorgo 12-23-2009 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2190017)
Neither of those points will affect the arguments made in those articles. Those concerns will still remain if/when a compromise bill is signed given that those arguments would apply to the passed bills on both sides of Congress.


FWIW I happen to agree with the spirit of the article (at least what you posted as a lead-in - i haven't read it yet). I think he SHOULD get blasted when this thing is passed and signed. The White House went about this whole "Healthcare Reform" thing in exactly the wrong way - and it's honestly why it might have made sense to wait a little while or consult Joe Biden more so that Obama could figure out how the game is played.

He should have rallied his party behind closed-doors with a plan and twisted-arms to get everybody on-board in his own party and then come out with a plan and said "my preferred bill would include this. i will not sign any bill that does not at least include x,y,z as a minimum."

Instead you left it to 15 different committes to draft different versions of bills and try to reconcile them in an ugly public debate.

It was a fucking mess and a horrible job of handling something so crucial.

Mizzou B-ball fan 12-23-2009 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2190020)
MBBF: WHy are you so upset about HCR when, just a few days ago, you claimed that the Dems should just go ahead and pass a bill. They did, why are you so angry?

Maybe, just maybe, you're just opposed to any HCR from the Dems and all this window dressing is disingenuous?


No, my stance hasn't changed. I'm glad that they're finally bothering to vote on something. That doesn't change the fact that it's a cow pie of a bill and I'm more than willing to call it as such as have a lot of people.

Mizzou B-ball fan 12-23-2009 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2190021)
FWIW I happen to agree with the spirit of the article (at least what you posted as a lead-in - i haven't read it yet). I think he SHOULD get blasted when this thing is passed and signed. The White House went about this whole "Healthcare Reform" thing in exactly the wrong way - and it's honestly why it might have made sense to wait a little while or consult Joe Biden more so that Obama could figure out how the game is played.

He should have rallied his party behind closed-doors with a plan and twisted-arms to get everybody on-board in his own party and then come out with a plan and said "my preferred bill would include this. i will not sign any bill that does not at least include x,y,z as a minimum."

Instead you left it to 15 different committes to draft different versions of bills and try to reconcile them in an ugly public debate.

It was a fucking mess and a horrible job of handling something so crucial.


You had me until 'consult Joe Biden'. Now I've got a broken arm after falling out of my chair and I'm left looking for my health insurance card.

DaddyTorgo 12-23-2009 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2190025)
You had me until 'consult Joe Biden'. Now I've got a broken arm after falling out of my chair and I'm left looking for my health insurance card.


lol - well my point was essentially "consult someone with more seniority who could explain to you how the game is played from the Oval Office."

insert whatever name you like there

Mizzou B-ball fan 12-23-2009 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2190028)
lol - well my point was essentially "consult someone with more seniority who could explain to you how the game is played from the Oval Office."

insert whatever name you like there


OK, I'll buy into that. :D

JPhillips 12-23-2009 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2190021)
FWIW I happen to agree with the spirit of the article (at least what you posted as a lead-in - i haven't read it yet). I think he SHOULD get blasted when this thing is passed and signed. The White House went about this whole "Healthcare Reform" thing in exactly the wrong way - and it's honestly why it might have made sense to wait a little while or consult Joe Biden more so that Obama could figure out how the game is played.

He should have rallied his party behind closed-doors with a plan and twisted-arms to get everybody on-board in his own party and then come out with a plan and said "my preferred bill would include this. i will not sign any bill that does not at least include x,y,z as a minimum."

Instead you left it to 15 different committes to draft different versions of bills and try to reconcile them in an ugly public debate.

It was a fucking mess and a horrible job of handling something so crucial.


Not so sure about this. That didn't work in 1994, but, as flawed as it may be, Obama's approach is going to get near universal coverage.

DaddyTorgo 12-23-2009 09:23 AM

Here we go - good article critiquing Obama's leadership style.

Drew Westen: Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator

essentially
Quote:

Leadership means heading into the eye of the storm and bringing the vessel of state home safely, not going as far inland as you can because it's uncomfortable on the high seas. This president has a particular aversion to battling back gusting winds from his starboard side (the right, for the nautically challenged) and tends to give in to them. He just can't tolerate conflict, and the result is that he refuses to lead....

Drew Westen isn't just any guy with a computer. He's an expert on political communication, the guy who wrote The Political Brain, and one of the "it boys" of the Democratic party.

Ronnie Dobbs2 12-23-2009 09:27 AM

Is it possible that Obama doesn't feel a far-left agenda is what's best for America?

DaddyTorgo 12-23-2009 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2190040)
Is it possible that Obama doesn't feel a far-left agenda is what's best for America?


it's not about "far left" versus "centrist" - it's about leadership.

you also can't run on a platform of "Change!!!" and then get into office and not lead your party, with a solid-majority, to "business as usual."

Quote:

What's costing the president and courting danger for Democrats in 2010 isn't a question of left or right, because the president has accomplished the remarkable feat of both demoralizing the base and completely turning off voters in the center. If this were an ideological issue, that would not be the case. He would be holding either the middle or the left, not losing both.

What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.

Ronnie Dobbs2 12-23-2009 09:34 AM

I would, along with most of the rational world, disagree with "business as usual."

edit: Depending on what "usual" means. The Republicans would not be doing the same things he's been doing. On the other hand, if you thought that Obama was not a politician and would not have to operate within existing political power structures, then I've got a bridge somewhere...

Ronnie Dobbs2 12-23-2009 09:36 AM

In other words, when both the far left and far right are up in arms about the President, I'd have to think he's doing alright.

DaddyTorgo 12-23-2009 10:13 AM

Western isn't far-left, or far-right. He's an academic from Emory University who has extensively studied/researched/published/etc. on the center.

miked 12-23-2009 10:20 AM

Emory University sucks.

DaddyTorgo 12-23-2009 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2190073)
Emory University sucks.


be that as it may the guy is apparently very well-respected...

Ronnie Dobbs2 12-23-2009 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2190071)
Western isn't far-left, or far-right. He's an academic from Emory University who has extensively studied/researched/published/etc. on the center.


Well, reading that piece I found it pretty easy to guess at his political leanings.

Flasch186 12-23-2009 10:56 AM

FWIW

Im watching the debate on the Senate floor and the GOP do not agree with MBBF that the bill should be shoved or rushed through.

Mizzou B-ball fan 12-23-2009 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2190084)
FWIW

Im watching the debate on the Senate floor and the GOP do not agree with MBBF that the bill should be shoved or rushed through.


I'm floored that a group that doesn't fully share my beliefs would have a different opinion on the subject.

sterlingice 12-23-2009 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2187169)
I have no problem debating the topic of {insert topic here}, but I can't if you're just going to completely make shit up.


It works everywhere else in this thread ;)

SI

sterlingice 12-23-2009 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2189975)
Hopefully we can agree that activist judges shouldn't overturn the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.


:D

SI

Mizzou B-ball fan 12-23-2009 02:20 PM

Can anyone makes heads or tails of this deficit dispute involving the health care bill? Sounds like the CBO has changed its initial assessment of the deficit impact to where it's now a $300B increase in the deficit, but I'm seeing conflicting stories.

Flasch186 12-23-2009 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2190188)
Can anyone makes heads or tails of this deficit dispute involving the health care bill? Sounds like the CBO has changed its initial assessment of the deficit impact to where it's now a $300B increase in the deficit, but I'm seeing conflicting stories.


not true.

What they said, according to the Sentor speaking on the 'interpretation' they got from the CBO is that you cant count monies twice, once in spending now, and than once in savings on Medicare later.

Noop 12-30-2009 08:08 AM

So... we're running special ops in Yemen? Seriously this war on terror seems like bullshit... an endless war.

Peregrine 12-30-2009 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noop (Post 2193096)
Seriously this war on terror seems like bullshit... an endless war.


Well we've got the war on drugs too - so they are a matched set.

JPhillips 12-31-2009 12:00 PM

This Chris Matthews quote is fantastic. The media can hardly contain their glee at having another terroism story. From Balloon Juice:

Quote:

MATTHEWS: And I think we have got to get serious about catching terrorists, not just catching weapons. I‘m waiting for the terrorist who knows kung fu or something that gets on an airplane without a weapon. God knows what that is going to be like.

Dutch 12-31-2009 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noop (Post 2193096)
So... we're running special ops in Yemen? Seriously this war on terror seems like bullshit... an endless war.


What you are suggesting is an alternative?

rowech 12-31-2009 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noop (Post 2193096)
So... we're running special ops in Yemen? Seriously this war on terror seems like bullshit... an endless war.


Yes...it is...and people need to be prepared to fight it instead of waiting around for them to bomb our embasies, run suicide boats into our ships, run planes into our buildings, and whatever the hell else they can come up with. I know...let's sit by and just wait for these things to happen over and over again...eventually, when they figure out we won't fight back, they'll just decided to stop.

Mizzou B-ball fan 01-06-2010 07:50 AM

Ready to retire or seeing the writing on the wall? You decide.

Democrats Dropping Out Of 2010 Elections

Harry Reid might as well do the same thing to avoid having the Senate Majority Leader voted out. Either way, the time frame to pass some of these Democratic mandates just shrunk by quite a bit.

Ronnie Dobbs2 01-06-2010 08:30 AM

Also Scott Brown (who I find to be a very attractive candidate) has pulled within 9 points of Martha Coakley for Kenendy's seat in the special election. Very unlikely, and probably not enough time left (Jan 19), but still interesting. First Republican Senator from MA in 30+ years?

JPhillips 01-06-2010 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2197306)
Also Scott Brown (who I find to be a very attractive candidate) has pulled within 9 points of Martha Coakley for Kenendy's seat in the special election. Very unlikely, and probably not enough time left (Jan 19), but still interesting. First Republican Senator from MA in 30+ years?


It will be closer than Obama's win, but that 9 point gap comes from Rasmussen that traditionally leans toward the GOP. Somewhere I read an analysis of what would happen if the MA electorate looked like the VA governor electorate and Coakley still wins by a couple of points.

edit: Will the winner have to run again in the Fall?

Ronnie Dobbs2 01-06-2010 09:04 AM

Pretty sure that seat will be filled until 2013. And yeah, Brown winning is not terribly likely, but the GOP is having a small renaissance in MA. Odds are our next governor will be a Republican, and Brown is at least making this race more than a formality.

RainMaker 01-06-2010 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2197294)
Ready to retire or seeing the writing on the wall? You decide.

Democrats Dropping Out Of 2010 Elections

Harry Reid might as well do the same thing to avoid having the Senate Majority Leader voted out. Either way, the time frame to pass some of these Democratic mandates just shrunk by quite a bit.

The move actually made it a guaranteed Democrat win in 2010 since the AG will run and he's really popular in the state.

RainMaker 01-06-2010 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2197325)
It will be closer than Obama's win, but that 9 point gap comes from Rasmussen that traditionally leans toward the GOP. Somewhere I read an analysis of what would happen if the MA electorate looked like the VA governor electorate and Coakley still wins by a couple of points.

edit: Will the winner have to run again in the Fall?

I like Coakley and hope she wins. I don't think Brown is bad either but I still think he's too far to the right on social issues to win in that state. Nate Silver doesn't even have this seat in play according to his Senate rankings.

panerd 01-06-2010 09:34 AM

Can't wait for the Republicrats to gain some Senate seats back! :banghead: At least when neither of the two parties (obviously they are both the same pro-state, pro-spending your money party) has a majority less bullshit gets done. So here comes 2012 when the Democrats make a "resurgence" because the Republicans don't live up to campaign promises. ("They said they were for smaller government. But after more wars with Yemen, Pakistan, and Iran and more corporate handouts we need a change. Obama pledges to being that change back again!!!") Hopefully this country will wake up sometime soon, but sadly I don't see it happening.

panerd 01-06-2010 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2197343)
The move actually made it a guaranteed Democrat win in 2010 since the AG will run and he's really popular in the state.


Peter Schiff has the best message. Will the people listen or go with the tired and true Republicrat Rob Simmons or even worse Linda McMahon? (who contributed to Rahm Emanuel’s campaign) One can hope for Peter Schiff but this is the American electorate voting so it is highly doubtful. (He doesn't promise the cake or eating the cake)

Mizzou B-ball fan 01-06-2010 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2197343)
The move actually made it a guaranteed Democrat win in 2010 since the AG will run and he's really popular in the state.


Correct. Dodd would be the most likely one of the three that you could state saw the writing on the wall. He knew the Democrats were considering a primary challenge to keep him from losing the seat.

RainMaker 01-06-2010 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2197355)
Peter Schiff has the best message. Will the people listen or go with the tired and true Republicrat Rob Simmons or even worse Linda McMahon? (who contributed to Rahm Emanuel’s campaign) One can hope for Peter Schiff but this is the American electorate voting so it is highly doubtful. (He doesn't promise the cake or eating the cake)

He would be a nice voice in the Senate but he's not winning in that state. And despite being correct on some predictions, it's just not the best time for a stock broker to be running for Senate.

panerd 01-06-2010 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2197363)
He would be a nice voice in the Senate but he's not winning in that state. And despite being correct on some predictions, it's just not the best time for a stock broker to be running for Senate.


Agree that he probably won't win but somebody who understands economics is absolutely who we need with these clowns and their TARP and "jobs" bills. He is hardly a typical stock broker either, his views are very solidly against the grain.

RainMaker 01-06-2010 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2197383)
Agree that he probably won't win but somebody who understands economics is absolutely who we need with these clowns and their TARP and "jobs" bills. He is hardly a typical stock broker either, his views are very solidly against the grain.

But the average voter is not smart enough to see that. They just see rich stock broker and say "no fucking way, I'm out of work because of guys like this". I think he only stands a chance in a purple state that has some independent leanings like Minnesota.

Mizzou B-ball fan 01-06-2010 01:46 PM

Surprised this quote hasn't popped up here yet. Mrs. Pelosi doesn't sound like she and Barack are playing nicely when it comes to health care reform.

OH SNAP! Pelosi On Obama: 'There Were A Number Of Things He Was For On The Campaign Trail' | TPMDC

Quote:

Pelosi did toss a jab President Obama's way

Referring to one of Obama's campaign pledges, a reporter asked Pelosi whether C-SPAN cameras would be allowed to film the House-Senate negotiations.

"There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail," said a bemused Pelosi.

Ronnie Dobbs2 01-06-2010 01:48 PM

It must be exhausting being continually surprised by everything. One would think cynicism would set it at some point.

Mizzou B-ball fan 01-06-2010 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2197543)
It must be exhausting being continually surprised by everything. One would think cynicism would set it at some point.


Could be. You don't find that to be surprising? I certainly didn't wake up today thinking that I'd see a quote from Pelosi that I'd agree with when it comes to health care legislation, but evidently it's a red letter day.

Ronnie Dobbs2 01-06-2010 02:32 PM

I don't find it to be surprising that it wasn't mentioned yet in a thread where you start 90% of the discussion and no one had really posted in for nearly a week before you started it off today.

flere-imsaho 01-06-2010 02:59 PM

I'm kind of surprised MBBF didn't post about this, which will be the cover article in this weekend's New York Times Magazine: Magazine Preview - The First Senator From the Tea Party? - NYTimes.com

CamEdwards 01-06-2010 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2197306)
Also Scott Brown (who I find to be a very attractive candidate) has pulled within 9 points of Martha Coakley for Kenendy's seat in the special election. Very unlikely, and probably not enough time left (Jan 19), but still interesting. First Republican Senator from MA in 30+ years?


I had the opportunity to talk to Scott Brown earlier today when I was filling in on another radio show. Seems like a very bright guy, and it'd be great to see him win that seat. I'm with you... doesn't seem very likely, but it's still fascinating to see the lack of enthusiasm for Coakley. I wonder if she'll bust out some "Teddy would have wanted you to vote for me" ads before election day?

Ronnie Dobbs2 01-06-2010 03:35 PM

The problem with Coakley, as I see it, is that she hasn't been campaigning. She's acted like the seat it hers because of winning the primary (which it probably is) and that rubs me the wrong way. Brown is out campaigning, advertising. Coakley is running out the clock.

RainMaker 01-06-2010 04:02 PM

Brown seems like someone who could win the state. A sort of Mitt Romney-esque Republican before Romney went all pretend conservative for the Presidential race. I'm under the impression that he supports abortion rights which is pretty rare these days for a candidate on the right. His economic views seem good too.

The bigotry toward gay marriage seems an issue though and while I like the guy, if I'm a Massachusetts resident, I probably couldn't vote for him. Just think this civil rights stuff needs to get over with in this country.

DaddyTorgo 01-06-2010 04:35 PM

no way Brown wins.

RainMaker 01-06-2010 04:39 PM

We should probably start a 2010 Election Thread at some point.

panerd 01-06-2010 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2197294)
Ready to retire or seeing the writing on the wall? You decide.

Democrats Dropping Out Of 2010 Elections

Harry Reid might as well do the same thing to avoid having the Senate Majority Leader voted out. Either way, the time frame to pass some of these Democratic mandates just shrunk by quite a bit.


I could have sworn that the polls were all wrong according to some of the posters here. The country really wants the health care bill. Odd that these big names all just decided to retire. You would think their re-elections would be guarenteed with such a popular bill and popular party in power.

RainMaker 01-06-2010 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2197640)
I could have sworn that the polls were all wrong according to some of the posters here. The country really wants the health care bill. Odd that these big names all just decided to retire. You would think their re-elections would be guarenteed with such a popular bill and popular party in power.

Dodd was out long before health care was on the table. His hands being in a lot of the fraud in the financial system collapse caused him a lot of negative press in the state.

JPhillips 01-06-2010 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2197640)
I could have sworn that the polls were all wrong according to some of the posters here. The country really wants the health care bill. Odd that these big names all just decided to retire. You would think their re-elections would be guarenteed with such a popular bill and popular party in power.


You do know that more GOP politicians have retired in both the House and Senate? Maybe retirements are more complicated than HCR?

CamEdwards 01-06-2010 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2197633)
no way Brown wins.


I think it's highly unlikely as well, but if voter turnout is low among Democrats, it could be a lot closer than what you'd think, especially considering this is the Ted Kennedy Memorial Election. Coakley in a good year would beat Brown by 20+ points. I think it's very possible that Brown keeps it within single-digits.

panerd 01-06-2010 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2197697)
You do know that more GOP politicians have retired in both the House and Senate? Maybe retirements are more complicated than HCR?


You know what my hope is? Maybe the country is getting sick of all of them! But I think I will stick with the country not being happy about the "change" Obama brought. IMO they were fed up with endless war and corporate welfare... and health care was a tier II issue along with stuff like immigration, education, etc. But the Democrats came along and gave more money to banks and escalted more war and then on top of that spent a trillion on health care. I am pretty sure a lot of these guys know its time to get the hell out of Dodge. I hate generally populism but if it actually shakes up Washington then I will give it a pass.

Not looking to butt heads either. I know I paint you as a liberal and you paint me as a guy who wants to end government. I just think it is pretty obvious why all of these retirements are occuring.

JPhillips 01-06-2010 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2197712)
You know what my hope is? Maybe the country is getting sick of all of them! But I think I will stick with the country not being happy about the "change" Obama brought. IMO they were fed up with endless war and corporate welfare... and health care was a tier II issue along with stuff like immigration, education, etc. But the Democrats came along and gave more money to banks and escalted more war and then on top of that spent a trillion on health care. I am pretty sure a lot of these guys know its time to get the hell out of Dodge. I hate generally populism but if it actually shakes up Washington then I will give it a pass.

Not looking to butt heads either. I know I paint you as a liberal and you paint me as a guy who wants to end government. I just think it is pretty obvious why all of these retirements are occuring.


In some cases it's obvious, but not necessarily for the reasons you assume. Dodd has been dead since his mortgage deal was made public. HCR didn't change things at all. Dorgan would likely have won re-election and it's still somewhat of a mystery as to why he's leaving. The CO governor I don't know enough about to speculate.

Mizzou B-ball fan 01-07-2010 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2197589)
I'm kind of surprised MBBF didn't post about this, which will be the cover article in this weekend's New York Times Magazine: Magazine Preview - The First Senator From the Tea Party? - NYTimes.com


I haven't been an advocate of a 3rd party, so I'm not sure why I'd be interested in that. Florida's a f'd up state to begin with. Ask Al Gore.

Mizzou B-ball fan 01-07-2010 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2197574)
I don't find it to be surprising that it wasn't mentioned yet in a thread where you start 90% of the discussion and no one had really posted in for nearly a week before you started it off today.


Good point. The Romans don't want to talk about Rome when it's burning.

Ronnie Dobbs2 01-07-2010 07:17 AM

What are you going on about?

I was only joking about how you start most of your posts here with a dishonest claim at surprise.

Mizzou B-ball fan 01-07-2010 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2197974)
What are you going on about?

I was only joking about how you start most of your posts here with a dishonest claim at surprise.


And I was just joking about how the more liberal posters have gone dead quiet of late as things have gone south with this administration and the party. No worries.

JPhillips 01-07-2010 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2197983)
And I was just joking about how the more liberal posters have gone dead quiet of late as things have gone south with this administration and the party. No worries.


Gone south how? Approval rating for Congress and Obama is essentially flat over the last month or so. HCR is going to be signed int law within the next month or so. ND retirement hurts, but CT retirement helps. Dems still favored over GOP nationally.

What's happened "of late" that would silence liberals? Maybe not much has happened worthy of discussion over the holidays.

sterlingice 01-07-2010 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2197983)
And I was just joking about how the more liberal posters have gone dead quiet of late as things have gone south with this administration and the party. No worries.


Or because Congress is still in recess and not much is happening other than window dressing. Yes, two Senators and a Governor stepped down- that's big news and there was some chatter about it. Pelosi throwing a little political jab- that's not really news.

I am mock surprised at your mock surprise

SI

Mizzou B-ball fan 01-07-2010 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2198005)
Maybe not much has happened worthy of discussion over the holidays.


Robert Gibbs would probably agree with you. There's been nothing on TV, which is in stark contrast to a campaign promise by the Obama Administration that all discussions in conference would be televised so we "could see who was siding with the American people and who was siding with drug companies". I guess that's not such a priority when the reality of what really happened is shown on TV.

White House: We will NOT discuss broken C-Span promise | Washington Examiner

Discussion about why the changes in Senator leanings give more reasons to keeping the filibuster in place. An interesting graph is included revealing the increasing polarity of the Senate, which much of us already know about.

RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - Why the Filibuster Is More Essential Now Than Ever

Looks like Gitmo will not be closed down anytime soon, if ever. Obama's campaign promises on this topic were unrealistic as most people noted at the time. I think they're finally realizing just how unrealistic they were...........

'Gitmo Forever'? - Declassified Blog - Newsweek.com

Buccaneer 01-07-2010 08:48 AM

I just read this

Quote:

President Barack Obama begins 2010 with the highest second-year disapproval rating of any president in 50 years

Is that right?

JPhillips 01-07-2010 09:07 AM

What's interesting is that he's basically in line with Reagan's second year start. People forget how Reagan was in bad shape until the economy turned around.

Ronnie Dobbs2 01-07-2010 09:12 AM

There's a lot of story left to tell, but between the incredible polarization that's been in place since Clinton and the not-so-stellar start for the Obama administration it's not surprising that he's at a low rating.

Mizzou B-ball fan 01-07-2010 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2198083)
What's interesting is that he's basically in line with Reagan's second year start. People forget how Reagan was in bad shape until the economy turned around.


It's not going to turn around anytime soon. There's just way too much mistrust of government right now given the increase in deficit spending. There's no incentive for business owners to do much other than save and weather the storm.

JPhillips 01-07-2010 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2198097)
It's not going to turn around anytime soon. There's just way too much mistrust of government right now given the increase in deficit spending. There's no incentive for business owners to do much other than save and weather the storm.


I doubt there's a single business owner that is putting off expansion solely because of deficit spending by the federal government.

Ronnie Dobbs2 01-07-2010 09:25 AM

They're with all the others refusing to make over $250K/year.

larrymcg421 01-07-2010 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2198083)
What's interesting is that he's basically in line with Reagan's second year start. People forget how Reagan was in bad shape until the economy turned around.


He's slightly in line with both Reagan and Clinton, both of whom took office under similar conditions. Obama's 7.6% unemployment is slightly higher than Reagan's 7.50 and Clinton's 7.30.

What's surprising about Obama's number is how he's still at 50% approval despite 10.0% unemployment. Reagan was down to 33% at the beginning of 1983 when unemployment was 10.4%. That suggests his ratings will skyrocket if unemployment starts to drop. That's a big if, but Reagan himself was able to claim "Morning in America" when unemployment was about the same level as before he took office.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.