The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

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

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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?

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

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]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

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]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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

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.

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]

From Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell:

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

[rowech]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

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]

Originally Posted by rowech

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]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

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]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

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]

*sigh*

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

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

Interesting indeed.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

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]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

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

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]

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

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."

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]

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]

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]

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]

Emory University sucks.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by miked

Emory University sucks.

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

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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