The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

Holy shit, I agree with Jon on something.

the actual problem, which is the generally high cost associated with health care.

Yep. I'm not a big fan of the insurance industry and I think they're part of the problem, but the major issue is price of goods and services. The only way to significantly reduce per capita healthcare costs is to significantly reduce the yearly increase in the costs of goods and services.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Holy shit, I agree with Jon on something.

Thanks (I think)

I honestly don't know how anyone could hardly disagree with that being the actual issue with possible exception of those getting paid for the various services of course.

The only way to significantly reduce per capita healthcare costs is to significantly reduce the yearly increase in the costs of goods and services.

And that brings us to where the matter of how to address the situation comes in, a fairly safe bet that puts us quickly back into our more usual major disagreement territory

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{scratches head a little} Y'know, I really don't see any way to insure people with pre-existing conditions that makes much sense, I mean, not against the pre-existing condition anyway. Insurance is essentially a bet but in the case of something you already have, the bet is already lost. And I say that while my household pays a significantly higher premium for private health insurance on my wife the cancer survivor.

Generally speaking, I don't believe the majority of people actually want "insurance", they really seem to want a "discount plan" a lot more, based on the complaints I hear most anyway. Seems to me that going after insurance is like treating a symptom instead of the actual problem, which is the generally high cost associated with health care.

Your right about one thing. People don't want insurance. They want free health care and they want to call it insurance.

[Raiders Army]

The State of the Union Address should be pretty interesting...

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

The State of the Union Address should be pretty interesting...

It may actually be worth watching now.

[Raiders Army]

Ah, it's always worth watching. Sometimes the parts are boring, but maybe we'll get a couple more "You lie!" moments.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{scratches head a little} Y'know, I really don't see any way to insure people with pre-existing conditions that makes much sense, I mean, not against the pre-existing condition anyway. Insurance is essentially a bet but in the case of something you already have, the bet is already lost. And I say that while my household pays a significantly higher premium for private health insurance on my wife the cancer survivor.

Generally speaking, I don't believe the majority of people actually want "insurance", they really seem to want a "discount plan" a lot more, based on the complaints I hear most anyway. Seems to me that going after insurance is like treating a symptom instead of the actual problem, which is the generally high cost associated with health care.

Well I think that that is an easy way to categorize those you oppose, painting them with a big brush.

I want people to have a parachute so that if something catastrophic happens they dont go bankrupt. I want cheaper prescription drugs and people with pre-existing conditions able to get back onto the rolls so that they arent the walking dead anymore.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{scratches head a little} Y'know, I really don't see any way to insure people with pre-existing conditions that makes much sense, I mean, not against the pre-existing condition anyway. Insurance is essentially a bet but in the case of something you already have, the bet is already lost. And I say that while my household pays a significantly higher premium for private health insurance on my wife the cancer survivor.

Generally speaking, I don't believe the majority of people actually want "insurance", they really seem to want a "discount plan" a lot more, based on the complaints I hear most anyway. Seems to me that going after insurance is like treating a symptom instead of the actual problem, which is the generally high cost associated with health care.

The only way I could see would be to create a government health care plan that would only take those with pre-existing conditions who can't get regular insurance. They would be required to pay a % of their income still for the insurance. Ultimately I believe this is cheaper for the public as a whole than to have hospitals/doctors pass-through costs to insurance holders for fees they can't collect from those on insurance.

I agree with you on health insurance costs. I believe that is ultimately the biggest gripe of people. I do think there is anger towards insurance company which is more delegated to those who have had to deal with them a lot for major illnesses (which is a smaller percent of the country). Insurance companies are quite scummy and run their business rather unethically. But if you're a healthy guy/girl most of your life who is just going in for minor stuff, you never really have to see that side of the business.

The issue I have is that there is so much stuff that would need to be done to lower health care costs. It's so much deeper than a few items in a bill or some money thrown toward it for those uninsured. We need more doctors and nurses out there. We need to find a way to cut down on malpractice claims so that doctors don't play it too safe and over-test. We need to stop doctors from milking an insurance company dry or abusing machines they make money on. We need a much healthier populace who is willing to take preventative medicine seriously.

But the biggest problem may be ourselves and where we draw the line on what we should and shouldn't be doing. Take bacterial meningitis for instance. We have a vaccine out there that can cost over $50 a person. Now it's extremely rare in this country and very few people die from it. To vaccinate every child on up through college would be massively expensive and if you were looking from the outside, probably not worth it. However, if it's your child, you want that vaccine because 1 in 500,000 or whatever is not worth the risk to you.

So to lower health care costs, we'd actually have to sacrifice in some ways. Many would have to say that it's probably not worth spending tons of money on someone who has 3 months to live to give them an extra few weeks. Or to vaccinate an entire nation for something that is extremely rare.

I believe the only way we could solve that is with a two tier system. You have your basics that are covered. Essentially if you get sick and see a doctor, you're covered. You get hurt or have an emergency, you're covered. But that's it. The second tier would cover more elective stuff such as those vaccines or maybe that extra CAT scan or MRI that may find that 1 in a million shot that you have an aneurysm after being bumped in the head. We need to find a way to seperate what is absolutely essential health care from what is not. That second tier should be available to anyone who can afford it (or pay insurance for it) but not be the norm in society.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by miked

I mean, aren't we all for less government and less spending?

Unfortunately, not even close to it.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Not exactly a huge vote for a smaller government.

But here's the thing Steve didn't mention - assuming its the same poll I saw quoted in the newspaper, that's down from 68% at the time of Obama's election. That's a huge swing in the pendulum back towards small(er) government.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

BTW, more proof the people of Massachusetts didn't vote against Coakley due to an opposition to HCR.

New poll finds voter anger drove results of Mass. election - washingtonpost.com

So Massachusetts voters support HCR by 10-15%, and want Brown to work with Democrats on it by ~3 to 1 margin, yet anti-HCR people came out to the polls in much higher numbers and overwhelmingly voted against Coakley. And this proves that opposition to HCR wasn't a significant factor in bringing out Brown voters how....?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The only way I could see would be to create a government health care plan that would only take those with pre-existing conditions who can't get regular insurance. They would be required to pay a % of their income still for the insurance. Ultimately I believe this is cheaper for the public as a whole than to have hospitals/doctors pass-through costs to insurance holders for fees they can't collect from those on insurance.

I agree with you on health insurance costs. I believe that is ultimately the biggest gripe of people. I do think there is anger towards insurance company which is more delegated to those who have had to deal with them a lot for major illnesses (which is a smaller percent of the country). Insurance companies are quite scummy and run their business rather unethically. But if you're a healthy guy/girl most of your life who is just going in for minor stuff, you never really have to see that side of the business.

The issue I have is that there is so much stuff that would need to be done to lower health care costs. It's so much deeper than a few items in a bill or some money thrown toward it for those uninsured. We need more doctors and nurses out there. We need to find a way to cut down on malpractice claims so that doctors don't play it too safe and over-test. We need to stop doctors from milking an insurance company dry or abusing machines they make money on. We need a much healthier populace who is willing to take preventative medicine seriously.

But the biggest problem may be ourselves and where we draw the line on what we should and shouldn't be doing. Take bacterial meningitis for instance. We have a vaccine out there that can cost over $50 a person. Now it's extremely rare in this country and very few people die from it. To vaccinate every child on up through college would be massively expensive and if you were looking from the outside, probably not worth it. However, if it's your child, you want that vaccine because 1 in 500,000 or whatever is not worth the risk to you.

So to lower health care costs, we'd actually have to sacrifice in some ways. Many would have to say that it's probably not worth spending tons of money on someone who has 3 months to live to give them an extra few weeks. Or to vaccinate an entire nation for something that is extremely rare.

I believe the only way we could solve that is with a two tier system. You have your basics that are covered. Essentially if you get sick and see a doctor, you're covered. You get hurt or have an emergency, you're covered. But that's it. The second tier would cover more elective stuff such as those vaccines or maybe that extra CAT scan or MRI that may find that 1 in a million shot that you have an aneurysm after being bumped in the head. We need to find a way to seperate what is absolutely essential health care from what is not. That second tier should be available to anyone who can afford it (or pay insurance for it) but not be the norm in society.

Some good points here. One that I would add is that I would rather see the government spending some money on funding "free" medical schools. Tuition costs are getting to the point where the very wealthy or very altruistic (who are willing to go deep into six-figure debt to become physicians) are going to make up the majority of our doctors. It seems like it would be a smarter social service to create more doctors (who will earn good, taxable incomes over a long period of time) that are willing to work in underserved areas.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

More information about the NY Fed coverup of agreement details has been released.......

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60N1S220100124

[SportsDino]

The only question left on the AIG backdoor bailout as they seem to be calling it, is just how big it was. I'd venture $70 billion to actually be on the low end... but given the lack of transparency in corporate information, you have to forgive a certain lack of accuracy! I'm just waiting for the day that all details of a business are hidden behind a government enforced wall of secrecy and all you have left to make decisions on is marketing spin from the corporation itself.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Holy shit, I agree with Jon on something.

Agreed. Related to this, a while ago in the Health Care thread I posted this by Nate Silver which seeks to illustrate why "health insurance" isn't really insurance, at least in the way we think of it typically.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Poll concerning issues that the public believe need the most attention. Jobs and economy are tops. Health care is 8th and global warming is 18th. Sounds like you can forget about health care reform and cap & trade in the near future.

Public's Priorities for 2010: Economy, Jobs, Terrorism: Summary of Findings - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

[JPhillips]

In case you needed any proof of the GOP's just say no strategy, Obama proposes middle class tax beaks and the GOP comes out against them.

No to tax breaks.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In case you needed any proof of the GOP's just say no strategy, Obama proposes middle class tax beaks and the GOP comes out against them.

No to tax breaks.

As somebody without any kids... good for the GOP! So you pop out a few kids, why do you pay less taxes than me or somebody whose wife stays home with the kids? Hardly a middle class tax cut for middle class panerd.

[Karlifornia]

I suppose there are people out there that care only about themselves, and that's always how they'll make their decisions. I can't really fault someone for voting strictly on whether or not it's financially advantageous to them, but I thought the level of compassion for the others was a little higher across the board.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I suppose there are people out there that care only about themselves, and that's always how they'll make their decisions. I can't really fault someone for voting strictly on whether or not it's financially advantageous to them, but I thought the level of compassion for the others was a little higher across the board.

Just a general statement here, but as I have gotten older I have learned that there is a certain segment of the population whose clearcut, #1 voting priority revolves around money and taxes. That doesn't fit my voting or political profile, but there are a lot of intelligent and likeable people who feel that way and, at some point, you just have acknowledge and respect it.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In case you needed any proof of the GOP's just say no strategy, Obama proposes middle class tax beaks and the GOP comes out against them.

No to tax breaks.

Eh, I'm hoping the GOP suggests upping the child tax credit rather than doubling the child-care tax credit. Of course the fact that I have three kids and no need of daycare might have something to do with that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I suppose there are people out there that care only about themselves, and that's always how they'll make their decisions. I can't really fault someone for voting strictly on whether or not it's financially advantageous to them, but I thought the level of compassion for the others was a little higher across the board.

I think there is compassion toward others. I do think that we cross a line from compassion to encouraging behaivor not beneficial to the country as a whole. This may or may not be the case with these middle class tax cuts, but when you consistently give credits to those who are pumping out kids they may not be able to afford, it's encouraging that and making it balloon. It also comes across as completely unfair to those who have been more careful with when they have kids and who make sure they are capable of financially supporting one.

So you give big advantages to those who have kids they can't afford while punishing those who wait and save up money before they have a kid (something we should be encouraging).

I do not have kids and would not feel comfortable having one until I was certain I could financially support it and give it the necessary parenting time. But I'll be punished by those who do the opposite.

[JediKooter]

Wait...didn't Bush extend tax breaks to the middle class while he was in office? And what about those refund checks too? So now when a democratic president wants to do what a republican president did, the republicans are against it, just like the democrats were against Bush's tax breaks. Wow, politics as usual in DC. Please please bring on term limits...

[RainMaker]

I would like to see a rule that does not allow politicians the ability to work for a lobbying firm or earn any income from one for 5 years after they finish their public service. Like that Congressman years ago who pushed through the huge Medicare bill that greatly benefited the pharmaceutical companies. Then retired from Congress and took a huge paying job with that same lobbying firm.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Poll concerning issues that the public believe need the most attention. Jobs and economy are tops. Health care is 8th and global warming is 18th. Sounds like you can forget about health care reform and cap & trade in the near future.

Public's Priorities for 2010: Economy, Jobs, Terrorism: Summary of Findings - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Some pretty good simple tables down the page in that link, including one that shows the specific party breakouts & differences on the issue as well as where "independents" fall on the same stuff. Some interesting things in that to me, including the 7 items that were 20%+ different between the two. Of those, 6 of 7 were higher for D's than R's.

In case you haven't looked yet & want to try to guess, I'll put those here

Spoiler

Priority for R-D-I
Health insurance for uninsured - 26-75-41
Global warming 11-43-25
Dealing w/ problems for poor 40-67-48
Protecting the environment 34-60-38
Reducing Health Care costs 48-71-52
Improving Educational system 54-75-64
Strengthening the military 64-44-47

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Wait...didn't Bush extend tax breaks to the middle class while he was in office? And what about those refund checks too? So now when a democratic president wants to do what a republican president did, the republicans are against it, just like the democrats were against Bush's tax breaks. Wow, politics as usual in DC. Please please bring on term limits...

They are one pro-state party. Pick a year (1972, 1984, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010). Tell me which party is (in favor of war, spending a lot of money, opposing the president spending a lot of money, outraged at the president, the populist party). Are your answers all over the place? Liberal voters are side-tracked worrying about health care while the president issued an unlimited line of credit to Freddie and Fannie. Both parties are completely out of control and pull outragous proposals out of their ass. But people are too busy whining about Bush or whining about Obama to wake up and realize what is really happening. I wish I could say this just started recently but this shit has been going on for years. Human nature, I guess. Probably will never change but it bears repeating over and over at least hoping a couple of people will listen.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

They are one pro-state party. Pick a year (1972, 1984, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010). Tell me which party is (in favor of war, spending a lot of money, opposing the president spending a lot of money, outraged at the president, the populist party). Are your answers all over the place? Liberal voters are side-tracked worrying about health care while the president issued an unlimited line of credit to Freddie and Fannie. Both parties are completely out of control and pull outragous proposals out of their ass. But people are too busy whining about Bush or whining about Obama to wake up and realize what is really happening. I wish I could say this just started recently but this shit has been going on for years. Human nature, I guess. Probably will never change but it bears repeating over and over at least hoping a couple of people will listen.

Pretty much spot on. Have read some good books about this that state the same thing. These people are all the same and just pick a few social issues that can never be changed or don't matter in the grand scheme of things to seperate themselves. What's the Matter with Kansas? is a good one.

The sad thing is it discourages those we want to vote. The other day I asked a friend who is a smart guy if he had any suggestions for the upcoming election in Illinois in a couple weeks. Just said he doesn't care, they're all scumbags. So you lose smart voters like that and end up with a bunch of mouthbreathers worried about bullshit issues.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The tax refund checks and the original Bush tax cuts were two entirely different things. I'm pretty sure the $600 checks were pretty much widely supported by both parties. As far as the Bush tax cuts go, the problem Democrats had with the 2001 and 2004 (I think) Bush tax cuts is that they were heavily tilted toward the top 1%.

Also, term limits would just make lobbyists more powerful. See California and other states with term limits. I realize this is kind of an unpopular opinion on these boards, but legislating is actual hard work that takes a while to build knowledge of. But, in states with term limits, right around when legislators finally are learning what the hell to do, they get kicked out. For example, during the California budget crisis, when the Governor and the leaders of both parties in both houses met, Ahnold was the one who'd been in office the longest.

So yes, having a Ted Kennedy or a non-corrupt Ted Stevens around who knows everythings that happened and every political trick in the book is good for institutional memory. Otherwise, the only people who know the tricks are the lobbyists.

My point was, both sides bitch about what the other side is doing just because they have an R or a D before their name on CSPAN. There's no bi-partisanship, just bickering and finger pointing unless someone flies a plane into some buildings. Maybe, just maybe had the democrats not cried about Bush's tax breaks and refund checks, the republicans wouldn't be crying about what Obama is wanting to do. I know, a crazy idea. Gotta toe the party line regardless of if a proposal makes sense or not. Yea, there's a few rogues on both sides, but, for the most part nothing really gets done other than trying to position themselves for the next elections.

As for term limits, no one should be a career politician. It should be a civic duty, not a life long opportunity to make money for yourself and your cronies. I'm not sure how term limits make lobbyists more powerful if the politicians would do their damn jobs instead of worrying about if they will get re-elected. Term limits are important so you don't have stagnant asses like Kennedy or Helms or any other long term elected official taking up a seat that could be filled by someone who has some fresh new ideas.

How hard can it be to legislate? I really don't think legislating is all that hard where it should take you a lifetime to figure out what you're supposed to do. A little common sense and a couple of economics classes would go a long way.

I consider myself independent and don't root for either side, but, not having a horse in the race, all their little flaws are that much more obvious to me. It would be nice to see a viable 3rd party come in and shake the dust off of DC. Not the libertarians though.

[tarcone]

Im tired of the crazy health care costs. My Father-in-law was airlifted on a 120 mile round trip (60 miles to get him, 60 back to the hospital). Cost- $60,000. I can go on a helicopter ride at Lake of the Ozarks for $25 on a 6 mile tour. So a 120 mile trip would be $500. Granted there is some cool equipment on the helicopter. But one trip at 60 grand would go a long way to pay for it.
I was diagnosed with Plantar facitis (sp?). A shoe insert- $80.

Fix that and I imagine all health costs would be cheaper.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Im tired of the crazy health care costs. My Father-in-law was airlifted on a 120 mile round trip (60 miles to get him, 60 back to the hospital). Cost- $60,000. I can go on a helicopter ride at Lake of the Ozarks for $25 on a 6 mile tour. So a 120 mile trip would be $500. Granted there is some cool equipment on the helicopter. But one trip at 60 grand would go a long way to pay for it.

That seems like an unusually high cost for a medevac flight. Just Googling, the norm seems to be in the $12k to $15k range. The only breakdown I found in a handful of articles was a Florida company that had a $9000 lift-off fee then $87 per mile, which would have worked out to something like $25k for your father-in-law. Just out of curiosity (if you don't mind discussing it that is), was it a private contract firm that handled the flight or a single hospital or county owned service? I ask because I've seen a figure of $800,000 for an annual lease described as not unusual, so a scenario of limited use + leasing could create a situation where charges are higher than normal just to try to break even. But the $35k higher than I can figure out number sure pays for a hell of a lot of $100 Tylenols.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Im tired of the crazy health care costs. My Father-in-law was airlifted on a 120 mile round trip (60 miles to get him, 60 back to the hospital). Cost- $60,000. I can go on a helicopter ride at Lake of the Ozarks for $25 on a 6 mile tour. So a 120 mile trip would be $500. Granted there is some cool equipment on the helicopter. But one trip at 60 grand would go a long way to pay for it.
I was diagnosed with Plantar facitis (sp?). A shoe insert- $80.

Fix that and I imagine all health costs would be cheaper.

That does seem really high although I know it depends highly on location of pickup.

While there are a lot of gouging and that may very well be a case, the difference in the helicopter rides is the use. A helicopter tour is flying multiple times a day with multiple people on each trip. They probably get thousands of trips a year out of the helicopter.

A Medevac may only be used once a day or less depending on the location. Not only does it require having trained medical personnel on the helicopter, but also a trained pilot who is most likely requiring more skill than a tour pilot (much tougher landing locations). That pilot and that crew need to be on-call 24 hours a day so a hospital or private company may be paying to have a pilot sit around all day doing nothing till a call comes in. So lets say it requires 4 full-time pilots to man one Medevac 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Not to mention emergency personnel, helicopter maintenence and equipment, etc. That's really expensive when you think about it (especially when paying patients have to eat the cost for those with no insurance).

That's part of the issue we run into with an emergency and why it costs so much. It just costs a lot of money to have high tech, trained personnel on call at all times.

I think there are a lot of other areas we can cut back on health care costs. I don't know if I want emergency care to be one of them.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Obama To Diane Sawyer: I Would 'Rather Be Really Good One-Term President' (VIDEO)

"I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president," Obama told Sawyer.

What if you end up being neither?

"There's a tendency in Washington to think that our job description, of elected officials, is to get reelected. That's not our job description," Obama said. "Our job description is to solve problems and to help people."

Agreed. So get busy doing it already and quit worrying about getting reelected.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In case you needed any proof of the GOP's just say no strategy, Obama proposes middle class tax beaks and the GOP comes out against them.

No to tax breaks.

And yet, they used budget reconciliation to pass all the tax breaks under Bush. So I don't see why anyone should complain if the Senate Democrats use reconciliation to pass HCR.

[King of New York]

So the White House has announced a three-year freeze on discretionary spending.

I'm disappointed in what looks to be a panicky gimmick--the sort of stunt that John McCain pulled when he canceled the campaign and rushed to Washington to save the economy. I know that Obama is trying to reassure people, but by so suddenly distancing himself from the Keynesian approach of his first year, he risks an even more massive erosion of people's confidence in his White House.

[DaddyTorgo]

heh

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

And yet, they used budget reconciliation to pass all the tax breaks under Bush. So I don't see why anyone should complain if the Senate Democrats use reconciliation to pass HCR.

Well, the tax cuts were popular for one thing.

[flere-imsaho]

Right now, based on the details as we know them, I'm in 100% agreement with Paul Krugman:

A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team to their first serious political setback?

It’s appalling on every level.

It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment. Jonathan Zasloff writes that Obama seems to have decided to fire Tim Geithner and replace him with “the rotting corpse of Andrew Mellon” (Mellon was Herbert Hoover’s Treasury Secretary, who according to Hoover told him to “liquidate the workers, liquidate the farmers, purge the rottenness”.)

It’s bad long-run fiscal policy, shifting attention away from the essential need to reform health care and focusing on small change instead.

And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view — and more specifically, he has embraced the policy ideas of the man he defeated in 2008. A correspondent writes, “I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy.”

Now, I still cling to a fantasy: maybe, just possibly, Obama is going to tie his spending freeze to something that would actually help the economy, like an employment tax credit. (No, trivial tax breaks don’t count). There has, however, been no hint of anything like that in the reports so far. Right now, this looks like pure disaster.

OK, I believe in political manuvering. I believe in tactics. I believe in picking your battles. But enough is enough. I didn't vote for these guys just for them to be a bunch of pussies. I didn't live through 1994-2000 (Democratic President trying to placate obstructionist GOP Congress) nor 2000 - 2006 (GOP stranglehold running roughshod over everyone) for this kind of BS.

Enough is enough. Here's the plan for the next 10 months, polls be damned:

1. Strip the crap out of HCR you had to put in to placate "moderate" Democrats and pass it via reconciliation in the Senate with 55 Democratic votes, if necessary. While you're at it, remove that seniority rule for choice on committees and kick Liebermann to the curb.

2. Repeal all the Bush tax cuts, using reconciliation as necessary.

3. When Stevens & Ginsburg retire, replace them with liberal judges who are 45 years old. In the face of GOP filibusters on these and any other judges, get George Soros to pay for TV ads that show GOP Senators asking for "up and down votes" a few years ago, and point out their hypocrisy.

4. Send a series of bills through the House & Senate that sound great to the average American but contain provisions the GOP hate and force them to vote against them or filibuster them, and use this in November.


Bottom-line: I understand I wasn't going to get everything I wanted after 2008, but to have these guys give up without a fight? Give me a break.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Well, the tax cuts were popular for one thing.

So was HCR, until they allowed months to go by (heck, basically a year now) while it got hammered by its opponents and dicked around in the Senate. Let's give credit where credit is due: the GOP rammed those tax cuts through before most people were able to give the ramifications a second thought.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So was HCR, until they allowed months to go by (heck, basically a year now) while it got hammered by its opponents and dicked around in the Senate. Let's give credit where credit is due: the GOP rammed those tax cuts through before most people were able to give the ramifications a second thought.

We've had several years now to live with the ramifications. Perhaps you could point out the grassroots protests with thousands of people demanding that their taxes be raised?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Right now, based on the details as we know them, I'm in 100% agreement with Paul Krugman:




OK, I believe in political manuvering. I believe in tactics. I believe in picking your battles. But enough is enough. I didn't vote for these guys just for them to be a bunch of pussies. I didn't live through 1994-2000 (Democratic President trying to placate obstructionist GOP Congress) nor 2000 - 2006 (GOP stranglehold running roughshod over everyone) for this kind of BS.

Enough is enough. Here's the plan for the next 10 months, polls be damned:

1. Strip the crap out of HCR you had to put in to placate "moderate" Democrats and pass it via reconciliation in the Senate with 55 Democratic votes, if necessary. While you're at it, remove that seniority rule for choice on committees and kick Liebermann to the curb.

2. Repeal all the Bush tax cuts, using reconciliation as necessary.

3. When Stevens & Ginsburg retire, replace them with liberal judges who are 45 years old. In the face of GOP filibusters on these and any other judges, get George Soros to pay for TV ads that show GOP Senators asking for "up and down votes" a few years ago, and point out their hypocrisy.

4. Send a series of bills through the House & Senate that sound great to the average American but contain provisions the GOP hate and force them to vote against them or filibuster them, and use this in November.


Bottom-line: I understand I wasn't going to get everything I wanted after 2008, but to have these guys give up without a fight? Give me a break.

This really needs to be done in an MS-PAINT drawing for the Democratic leadership to get the full benefit of your political acumen.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

This really needs to be done in an MS-PAINT drawing for the Democratic leadership to get the full benefit of your political acumen.

I'm trying to free-form rant here, Cam, and your snark isn't helping.

[Dutch]

Flere,

You say Obama is a failure for enforcing Bush's policies. But...

Bush approval rating was 29%, Obama's is 47%.

I call that pure genius. Say your a Democrat to get the Dem's vote, then do what the Republican voter wants....you can't ever fail!

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Obama To Diane Sawyer: I Would 'Rather Be Really Good One-Term President' (VIDEO)



What if you end up being neither?



Agreed. So get busy doing it already and quit worrying about getting reelected.

was the middle comment Sawyer's or yours, spinmeister

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm trying to free-form rant here, Cam, and your snark isn't helping.

Sorry. Seriously, clearly this is a frustrating time for many progressives, but here's my question: who did you think you were electing? I mean, clearly a lot of conservatives thought Obama was the next Chairman Mao, and perhaps we should have realized he was just a craven politician the moment he started throwing people like Jeremiah Wright under the bus in order to win votes. But if conservatives should have realized back then that he was going to be just another politician in it for himself, shouldn't progressives have realized it as well?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

To your first point, bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship is not a good thing. Trying to split things down the middle and straddle a centrist line is how we got this mess of a health care bill (yes, this bill is centrist. Lincoln Chaffee and Howard Baker, both Republicans could've intro'd it.)

It's about what is right for the country, not who can save face from a particular party. As a citizen, I could care less who introduces a bill or reform or whatever, I care about the contents and only the contents.

Sometimes one side is right and one side is wrong. Now, I believe mine is the right side just like Republican's believe they're on the right side but the whole point of an election is to determine who gets to run the ship of state. The Senate has turned into a place where a filibuster is only used for the sake of a truly important bill to something that's used 4 times during a bill that ended up passing 97-0.

That is true, but, when one side is wrong I could care less which side is right. As for the fillibuster, both sides use it as weapon to hold something hostage and both parties have flipped flopped on trying to get rid of fillibusters.

To your second point, you don't have to wonder. Just look at what have happened in states with term limits. The lobbyists take over. Why? Because they have the institutional knowledge. I mean, you wouldn't say that every single machinist at a Boeing plan can only work for 12 years, but the managers can stay forever, right?

What exactly has happened? I live in California and in all honesty, you can't tell the difference. The people and businesses leaving California can be attributed to higher taxes, higher unemployment costs to companies and a global ressesion.

Comparing private sector employees to elected officials, I don't think is a very good comparision. A Boeing employee can't tax the citizenry to pay for homeless panda bears or increase how much it costs to register your vehicle. The damage that can be done by elected officials outweighs what a private sector employee can do by a long shot.

And yes, having a long lifetime career in the Senate can be a civic duty. Up until the last year of his life, Ted Kennedy was pushing through bills for the good of the nation and his state. Kennedy in his 40+ years did more good than 5 different Senator's who each served six years could because he knew how stuff ran.

Imagine what Kennedy could have accomplished without all the game playing and back scratching that is required? He could have retired after 10 years. Trying to navigate something that resembles an Escher drawing is nothing to be proud of. If the government had a, for the lack of a better term, "keep it simple policy", I think a lot more could get done instead of having to play the 'ol Potomac Two Step and having to deal with varying degrees of self induced red tape that exists.

To the third point, this is the one that gets me. Governance is hard. There's a reason why a stable democracy is still seen as a somewhat precious thing. Because it's hard to run and easy to break. Just like with any job, you need time to get used to the work. I'm sure you're better at your job than you were straight out of college.

Is governance really that hard or is it that governance makes it hard on itself? The way it is currently setup, yes it is hard to run and easy to break, because you have people who are too worried about positioning themselves for the next election or wanting to be in good graces with someone so they can get on some committee, instead of doing what is right for the country. Governing is a very common sense type job, not a whole lot of skill required other than being able to BS your way through something, which is no surprise that so many people in government are lawyers.

To the 4th point, as long as the US has a FPTP election system w/ electoral votes for Presidency, a 3rd Party will only get swallowed up by the two other parties. See the Progressive of the 20's and Ross Perot in 1992.

My feeling is, Ross Perot self destructed by bowing out and then trying to come back in and left the people who were going to vote for him stranded and having to pick one of the two parties. Don't know much about the Progressives back in the 20s though. I would like to see more independents get elected in the Congress and the Senate and then work on the presidency later. But, it won't really matter when there will always be that nagging feeling in the back of an elected officials mind...election time is coming up.

These are just my opinions though on how, I as an outsider, view our government is being run. Mostly by incompetent/self intitled people who put their party before the people.

I do appreciate your views regarding our government and like hearing things from all 3 sides of the coin. A broader perspective is never a bad thing.

[JPhillips]

This is karma I can believe in:

The FBI, alleging a plot to wiretap Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in downtown New Orleans, arrested four people Monday, including James O'Keefe, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group's credibility.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is karma I can believe in:

I had to smile at that as well. I wonder if he was wearing his pimp suit as he was waiting in her office.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

here's my question: who did you think you were electing?

This isn't really about Obama. To me, though I never viewed him as the messiah, though I was happy to vote for him, Obama has still, in general, been a thoughtful and pragmatic President, especially within the constraints imposed on his Administration. If I'm disappointed in Obama, it's because he's failed to be as assertive in pushing his policy agenda as I'd like, and perhaps to often surrendered to conventional wisdom when it wasn't warranted.

The bulk of my ire is directed towards Congressional Democrats, especially the leadership who, when presented with an electoral golden opportunity, have completely fumbled it. Their complete incompetence will not only result in the failure of almost any progressive policy initiatives this term, but will almost certainly seriously compromise their ability to do anything after the 2010 midterm elections.

In my opinion 2009 represented the best chance we've had in a long, long time to advance a progressive agenda and in less than a year the Democratic leadership has managed to almost completely squander the advantageous position they were given. Worse, should the GOP gain significant ground in 2010 (and I'm certain they will), this may have been the last time our side of the aisle will have had this opportunity for years. All in less than a year! I mean, the GOP eventually squandered their domination too, but at least they had 6 good years of ramming through tons of stuff they wanted.

Now, don't anyone get the impression I'm maudlin or devastated or anything. I can put this all into perspective. I'm just frustrated, and every once in a while one wants to rant.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This isn't really about Obama. To me, though I never viewed him as the messiah, though I was happy to vote for him, Obama has still, in general, been a thoughtful and pragmatic President, especially within the constraints imposed on his Administration. If I'm disappointed in Obama, it's because he's failed to be as assertive in pushing his policy agenda as I'd like, and perhaps to often surrendered to conventional wisdom when it wasn't warranted.

The bulk of my ire is directed towards Congressional Democrats, especially the leadership who, when presented with an electoral golden opportunity, have completely fumbled it. Their complete incompetence will not only result in the failure of almost any progressive policy initiatives this term, but will almost certainly seriously compromise their ability to do anything after the 2010 midterm elections.

In my opinion 2009 represented the best chance we've had in a long, long time to advance a progressive agenda and in less than a year the Democratic leadership has managed to almost completely squander the advantageous position they were given. Worse, should the GOP gain significant ground in 2010 (and I'm certain they will), this may have been the last time our side of the aisle will have had this opportunity for years. All in less than a year! I mean, the GOP eventually squandered their domination too, but at least they had 6 good years of ramming through tons of stuff they wanted.

Now, don't anyone get the impression I'm maudlin or devastated or anything. I can put this all into perspective. I'm just frustrated, and every once in a while one wants to rant.

+1

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I had to smile at that as well. I wonder if he was wearing his pimp suit as he was waiting in her office.

I hope he's got a good lawyer, because wiretapping a federal office is a big no-no.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This isn't really about Obama. To me, though I never viewed him as the messiah, though I was happy to vote for him, Obama has still, in general, been a thoughtful and pragmatic President, especially within the constraints imposed on his Administration. If I'm disappointed in Obama, it's because he's failed to be as assertive in pushing his policy agenda as I'd like, and perhaps to often surrendered to conventional wisdom when it wasn't warranted.

The bulk of my ire is directed towards Congressional Democrats, especially the leadership who, when presented with an electoral golden opportunity, have completely fumbled it. Their complete incompetence will not only result in the failure of almost any progressive policy initiatives this term, but will almost certainly seriously compromise their ability to do anything after the 2010 midterm elections.

In my opinion 2009 represented the best chance we've had in a long, long time to advance a progressive agenda and in less than a year the Democratic leadership has managed to almost completely squander the advantageous position they were given. Worse, should the GOP gain significant ground in 2010 (and I'm certain they will), this may have been the last time our side of the aisle will have had this opportunity for years. All in less than a year! I mean, the GOP eventually squandered their domination too, but at least they had 6 good years of ramming through tons of stuff they wanted.

Now, don't anyone get the impression I'm maudlin or devastated or anything. I can put this all into perspective. I'm just frustrated, and every once in a while one wants to rant.

Yep. Clinton was right, people would rather vote for strong and wrong than weak and right. Never thought huge bank bonuses would be the highlight of this admin/congress.

edit: Would be nice to see Obama come out swinging the way Reagan did under similar economic/popularity circumstances.

First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend.

Second, because our economic problems are deeply rooted and will not respond to quick political fixes, we must stick to our carefully integrated plan for recovery. And that plan is based on four common-sense fundamentals: continued reduction of the growth in Federal spending, preserving the individual and business tax deductions that will stimulate saving and investment, removing unnecessary Federal regulations to spark productivity and maintaining a healthy dollar and a stable monetary policy the latter a responsibility of the Federal Reserve System.

The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment.

The doubters would have us turn back the clock with tax increases that would offset the personal tax-rate reductions already passed by this Congress.

Raise present taxes to cut future deficits, they tell us. Well, I don't believe we should buy that argument. There are too many imponderables for anyone to predict deficits or surpluses several years ahead with any degree of accuracy. The budget in place when I took office had been projected as balanced. It turned out to have one of the biggest deficits in history. Another example of the imponderables that can make deficit projections highly questionable: A change of only one percentage point in unemployment can alter a deficit up or down by some $25 billion.

As it now stands, our forecasts, which we're required by law to make, will show major deficits, starting at less than $100 billion and declining, but still too high.

More important, we are making progress with the three keys to reducing deficits: economic growth, lower interest rates and spending control. The policies we have in place will reduce the deficit steadily, surely and, in time, completely.

Higher taxes would not mean lower deficits. If they did, how would we explain tax revenues more than doubled just since 1976, yet in that same six-year period we ran the largest series of deficits in our history. In 1980 tax revenues increased by $54 bil lion, and in 1980 we had one of our all-time biggest deficits.

Raising taxes won't balance the budget. It will encourage more Government spending and less private investment. Raising taxes will slow economic growth, reduce production and destroy future jobs, making it more difficult for those without jobs to find th em and more likely that those who now have jobs could lose them.

So I will not ask you to try to balance the budget on the backs of the American taxpayers. I will seek no tax increases this year and I have no intention of retreating from our basic program of tax relief. I promised the American people to bring their taxes x rates down and keep them down to provide them incentives to rebuild our economy, to save, to invest in America's future. I will stand by my word. Tonight I'm urging the American people: Seize these new opportunities to produce, to save, to invest, and t together we'll make this economy a mighty engine of freedom, hope and prosperity again.

Now the budget deficit this year will exceed our earlier expectations. The recession did that. It lowered revenues and increased costs. To some extent, we're also victims of our own success. We've brought inflation down faster than we thought we could and in doing this we've deprived Government of those hidden revenues that occur when inflation pushes people into higher income tax brackets. And the continued high interest rates last year cost the Government about $5 billion more than anticipated.

A little better than "Remember all that stuff we told you was important last year? Well, after one setback we're going to give up."

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Sorry. Seriously, clearly this is a frustrating time for many progressives, but here's my question: who did you think you were electing? I mean, clearly a lot of conservatives thought Obama was the next Chairman Mao, and perhaps we should have realized he was just a craven politician the moment he started throwing people like Jeremiah Wright under the bus in order to win votes. But if conservatives should have realized back then that he was going to be just another politician in it for himself, shouldn't progressives have realized it as well?

I guess the issue for me isn't so much the issues, it's how he's gone about business. He comes into power under massive support even from moderate Republicans. He's laid out his plans throughout his campaign, told everyone that things are going to change, and then proceeds to hand it over to Pelosi and Reid and say "show us the way". Just makes no fucking sense to me. You are insanely popular, Congress is insanely unpopular. You then count on them be the voice for the issues.

Take health care for instance. He should have gotten up front of the Democrats and even moderate Republicans and said "listen, this is how it's going to be done and if you don't like it, I'll make sure your political career ends". It's harsh, but that's what a leader of a party or country does. If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid don't like it, then fuck them. See how well an already unpopular Reid and Pelosi do politically when you have a popular President calling them out. But the public didn't want to see those two shmoes trying to bring in support for health care. They wanted Obama to be out there and the one pushing everything.

Bush was a pretty shitty President but when he wanted to get something done, he got it done. He didn't cry about not having a supermajority or having some moderates in there. He said "I lead this party and this is how it's going to be done and I dare you to fucking cross me". We all want some bipartisianship in government and both sides to work together, but sometimes when you are elected for your ideas, you need to implement them and leave others in the dust.