The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

Of course there will be costs, that's the reality of an employer based system. Cutting back on hours a year ahead of it being necessary and refusing to even look at other ways those costs can be made up isn't the only option. Choosing fucking over your employees as the first option does make you a dick, and it only works because the labor market still sucks. If unemployment were under six percent a lot of companies couldn't go this route and still retain labor.

The Papa Johns guy estimated that providing healthcare would add twenty cents to the cost of each pizza.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Your mistake is in assuming I'm defending ACA. Without a public option, the base structure of the bill makes no sense.

EDIT: Tho there are quite a few useful provisions.

SI

This.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

So the defense of ACA is that it really doesn't change much. (Except the fact that it appears anecdotal that the service industry IS reacting to it, but we'll have to wait and see actual numbers on that.)

This is the kind of stuff that worried me about this kind of legislation. When there's perceptions or reactions to it that the supporters don't like, they basically say that they don't count. Even if they're real. "These companies are just being jerks, ACA is really great." So we're not supposed to count the realistic outcomes because people aren't acting right. It doesn't really matter though. People have to live in reality. You have to account for perceptions and how people will actually react to things. Some people think that it's possible that if taxes go too high, people won't hire as much, or they'll spend less, or they're move their company. And maybe they don't have to on paper, who knows. But if they did, that's still bad. That still counts. Legislation that only works in a fantasy world isn't that great, that's the basis of a lot of criticism of Democrat-based legislation. We know at the end of the day it won't work and it will be Republicans' fault.

I would just like to add that this seems to be true with most of the large bills the Congress passes.

[DaddyTorgo]

ACA is horseshit. It's a first step, and as noted, does include some useful provisions, but without a public option you're not going to see many on the left stand up and say that it's what they wanted.

It's a pathetic compromise (when none was necessary, or even desired based upon what Obama campaigned on), a half-measure at best, and frankly, for as much good as it will hopefully do in the short term, it disgusts me, and I think it will only be fully redeemed longer-term if we get a public option out of it and reform the damn system of employment-based healthcare that is an anachronism in the developed world.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

I would just like to add that this seems to be true with most of the large bills the Congress passes.

That's probably true but it seems like Republicans are more willing to "own" their legislation (and executive branch actions), for better or worse, at least during the Bush years. We can evaluate those actions, torch them for it, see how in some ways, it damaged the country and learn from it. With Dems its always harder to nail down. It's harder to know what they really stand for, it's harder to analyze the impact of their actions. I always wonder how intentional that is from the people actually in power.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

That's probably true but it seems like Republicans are more willing to "own" their legislation (and executive branch actions), for better or worse, at least during the Bush years. We can evaluate those actions, torch them for it, see how in some ways, it damaged the country and learn from it. With Dems its always harder to nail down. It's harder to know what they really stand for, it's harder to analyze the impact of their actions. I always wonder how intentional that is from the people actually in power.

Really? So Republicans own the explosion of the debt due to the Afghanistan & Iraq wars?? They own the impact of the Bush tax cuts on the debt?

Those two/three things are the largest contributors to the debt.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

EDIT: Tho there are quite a few useful provisions.

SI

The big one (I think) is the pre-existing condition/mandate thing, right, that kind of creates something of a national health care system is that you can always get treated through an insurance company, and everyone has to contribute to that pool whether they're a current insurance customer or not.

Which is nice if it works well (and there's other provisions that might work well), it'll just have to be measured against any cost increases of insurance, impact on the debt, impact on medicare, impact on access to care, etc. We can evaluate those things in time but nobody's ever accountable because if the costs are too much and there's other unforeseen negative consequences, it's not really anything anybody wanted anyway. The plan's nickname does have Obama's name on it, but there's kind of a subtle effort to dissociate him from it and the plan from that nickname, as if it's some early damage control.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Really? So Republicans own the explosion of the debt due to the Afghanistan & Iraq wars?? They own the impact of the Bush tax cuts on the debt?

Those two/three things are the largest contributors to the debt.

Exactly, those are Republican things. They had some bi-partisan support at the time, but they own that stuff for better or worse now. It's easy to criticize or praise them based on that, it's easy to analyze the Bush cuts and the Bush years in general. What do Dems own? Not ACA, they're running the hell away from that already. It's impossible to criticize them because they don't really stand for anything. It was 8 years of complaining under Bush, and then they finally got the the keys, but it's like we're still in the Bush years. The Dems are more of an opposition party, even when they're in power. Which is nice, the Republicans running amuck would be no good. But it makes it impossible to critique their performance.

[JPhillips]

Well it's hard to judge the ACA when much of it hasn't gone into effect yet.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Well it's hard to judge the ACA when much of it hasn't gone into effect yet.

Definitely, if more Dems were like, "this is our plan, it's going to be awesome," and then we could judge how awesome it was and they were, that'd be great. But it won't be like that. Any problems will be disassociated as stuff they didn't really want or it "won't count" because it's just people acting like jerks in response to it that cause the problems. Some are already starting to disassociate themselves. Not a lot of Republicans say, "ya, the Iraq War and the EGTRRA tax cuts and the Patriot Act have problems but that's only because we never wanted that stuff anyway, all the bad results are because of that other party that didn't let us do everything we wanted." They might deny any bad effects entirely or just say they were necessary for the greater good, but at least we know what the Republicans did.

[finketr]

Originally Posted by molson

Exactly, those are Republican things. They had some bi-partisan support at the time, but they own that stuff for better or worse now. It's easy to criticize or praise them based on that, it's easy to analyze the Bush cuts and the Bush years in general. What do Dems own? Not ACA, they're running the hell away from that already. It's impossible to criticize them because they don't really stand for anything. It was 8 years of complaining under Bush, and then they finally got the the keys, but it's like we're still in the Bush years. The Dems are more of an opposition party, even when they're in power. Which is nice, the Republicans running amuck would be no good. But it makes it impossible to critique their performance.

which is why the number 1 thing we should have learned from the 2008 elections is to not elect a supermajority (60) to the senate, when the same party also has a majority of the representatives and the presidency.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Exactly, those are Republican things. They had some bi-partisan support at the time, but they own that stuff for better or worse now. It's easy to criticize or praise them based on that, it's easy to analyze the Bush cuts and the Bush years in general. What do Dems own? Not ACA, they're running the hell away from that already. It's impossible to criticize them because they don't really stand for anything. It was 8 years of complaining under Bush, and then they finally got the the keys, but it's like we're still in the Bush years. The Dems are more of an opposition party, even when they're in power. Which is nice, the Republicans running amuck would be no good. But it makes it impossible to critique their performance.

Really? Show me like...ONE Republican politician who "owns" the debt explosion??

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Really? Show me like...ONE Republican politician who "owns" the debt explosion??

They don't own the effects or even agree on what the effects were or that they were bad. But they do own the policies. That's my point. We know what the Republicans did, we know what the Bush years are all about. We can attribute those things to Republicans, analyze the effects of those policies, and then judge the Republicans accordingly.

We can't do that with Dems (at least this modern version) because there's always some excuse or reason that the policies they actually execute aren't really the ones they want. ACA is the perfect example. Many Dems are already running and screaming from it, disassociating themselves from it. There's even an effort to take Obama's name off of it. (Note that we say "Bush Tax cuts" but apparently "Obamacare" is going out of style). If there's any negative impacts at all from ACA, we can't even hold Dems responsible for it, because they've already established that it isn't what they really wanted. So how do we evaluate the Dems? We can't. They exist primarily as an opposition party, doing their best to slow down the will of Republicans. But they're generally unable at both the legislative and executive level to put their real ideas out there to be evaluated. How will closing GITMO impact military intelligence and the detention and processing of terrorism suspects? We'll never know. An untested idea is an idea that can never really be challenged. That's the sweet spot that I think the Dems in power prefer.

Edit: And even if it's just all Republicans fault that the Dems can't do everything they want, it's still kind of a big cock tease to actual sincere Dems. Obama runs on a platform he either knows he can't actually implement, or he just has no clue that he can't. Hillary Clinton actually called him on this in the primaries, but it was a lost cause. He gets votes and donations based on ideas that will never be tested in real life. So he can never fail.

[albionmoonlight]

While there are exceptions for individual politicians, the Dems seem to be owning the no-torture policy. The pull-out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The ending of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The decision not to defend DOMA. The Kagan and Sotomayor confirmations. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

There's probably more, but this is off the top of my head.

[JPhillips]

For better or worse there is also more ideological diversity in the Dem Senate caucus. The ACA had to please everyone from Baucus to Lieberman to Sanders to get to sixty. That required a lot of compromise.

[albionmoonlight]

FWIW, I do agree that when it comes to economic issues, politicians of both parties lack the courage to tell us what actually needs to be done (or, at a minimum, to refrain from attacking the other side for telling us harsh truths).

[stevew]

I suspect that a lot of people are going to be pissed now that the acceptance date for tax returns has moved back to Jan 30 and e-filed returns may take 3 weeks or more to post. Hopefully this will wreck places like H&R Block that make their money by scamming dumb poor people and the government(and by extension the taxpayers)

[stevew]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Really? So Republicans own the explosion of the debt due to the Afghanistan & Iraq wars?? They own the impact of the Bush tax cuts on the debt?

Those two/three things are the largest contributors to the debt.

Medicare part D was a clusterfuck as well.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

ACA is horseshit. It's a first step, and as noted, does include some useful provisions, but without a public option you're not going to see many on the left stand up and say that it's what they wanted.

It's a pathetic compromise (when none was necessary, or even desired based upon what Obama campaigned on), a half-measure at best, and frankly, for as much good as it will hopefully do in the short term, it disgusts me, and I think it will only be fully redeemed longer-term if we get a public option out of it and reform the damn system of employment-based healthcare that is an anachronism in the developed world.

The way I look at it, it was the best Obama could do and I'm satisfied that this is a first step (e.g. it was a miracle that Roberts sided with the liberals). It changes the dynamic from the current as-is cluster and, as it gains acceptance over the next several years, opens up opportunities for additional measures, options etc.

I think you have to take some changes slow and in stages.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by stevew

Medicare part D was a clusterfuck as well.

We haven't even gotten to the ill effects of that one. Less than 20 years from now Part D will be over 1% of our annual GDP. Republicans are huge spenders too, they just prefer to borrow for it while Democrats want to tax people now for it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Republicans are huge spenders too, they just prefer to borrow for it while Democrats want to tax people now for it.

C'mon, it's not like the Clinton tax rates would pay for the Dems' preferred level of spending. I'm pretty sure Dems are OK with borrowing too.

[JPhillips]

Perhaps we're not that far off from stabilizing our medium term debt.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3885

[Edward64]

A preview of what's to come. Not good if it happens IMO but it'll generate months of partisan bickering eventually ending up with the Supremes on constitutionality ... and with last years surprise on ACA, who knows what they will decide.

Senate Democrats to Obama: Bypass Congress on debt limit ‘if necessary’

Senate Democratic leaders encouraged President Obama on Friday to bypass Congress if necessary to prevent the nation from defaulting on its spending obligations if lawmakers do not move to raise the nation’s $16.4 trillion debt ceiling next month.

In a letter, Senate Majority Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and the Senate’s other top three Democrats encouraged Obama to “take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis — without Congressional approval, if necessary.”
:
:
In their letter, Reid, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) indicate that they will support Obama if he moves without Congress, if Republicans “make good on their threat by failing to act” to raise the limit. They say, too, that they would support presidential action without Congress if Republicans “pass a debt limit extension only as part of unbalanced or unreasonable legislation.”

One option some congressional Democrats have long advocated for acting without lawmakers would involve Obama invoking the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare congressional action unnecessary for raising the limit.

The amendment holds that the validity of the country’s public debt “shall not be questioned.” Some constitutional experts believe that statement means that Congress cannot tie the government’s hands to borrow funds to meet obligations the government has already incurred. The White House has indicated, however, that Obama does not believe the Constitution gives him the right to ignore the congressionally imposed limit on borrowing

[JPhillips]

If we get to a point where the government runs out of money there will be all sorts of legal issues. The President is legally required to spend everything congress appropriates, so is it illegal for him to choose what gets funded? If the concept is legal, is it legal to stop paying federal contractors?

[sterlingice]

Obama won't support building 'Death Star' - Yahoo! News

Originally Posted by story

But in a posting Friday on the White House website, Paul Shawcross, an administration adviser on science and space, says a Death Star would cost too much to build — an estimated $850 quadrillion — at a time the White House is working to reduce the federal budget.


Besides, Shawcross says, the Obama administration "does not support blowing up planets."

The comments in this are gold. I just keep thinking:







SI

[Desnudo]

Everyone else enjoying the return from payroll tax holiday? This was a much more relevant topic to 99%of Americans. Amazing how little publicity it got considering the broad reaching impact to lower-middle class.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Obama won't support building 'Death Star' - Yahoo! News





The comments in this are gold. I just keep thinking:







SI

The full text of the White House response was awesome. Absolutely priceless.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Everyone else enjoying the return from payroll tax holiday? This was a much more relevant topic to 99%of Americans. Amazing how little publicity it got considering the broad reaching impact to lower-middle class.

It's frustrating to see some money taken out of my paycheck. But at the same time, I'd rather Social Security be solvent and the last 2 years of payroll holidays took like 15 years of solvency off of Social Security so I'd rather we actually be, you know, paying for it. Now if you want to keep taxing payroll above $200K or whatever the cutoff is, and pay SS more progressive with lower pay rates having lower taxes, I'm all for it.

Frankly, I hated that Obama did that in the first place. And I'm glad it's been reinstated.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It's frustrating to see some money taken out of my paycheck. But at the same time, I'd rather Social Security be solvent and the last 2 years of payroll holidays took like 15 years of solvency off of Social Security so I'd rather we actually be, you know, paying for it. Now if you want to keep taxing payroll above $200K or whatever the cutoff is, and pay SS more progressive with lower pay rates having lower taxes, I'm all for it.

Frankly, I hated that Obama did that in the first place. And I'm glad it's been reinstated.

SI

Yeah. And was it underreported or underemphasized? Sure. But it needed to happen in order to increase the solvency of SS. Then again, the fact that there's a cap on payroll above a certain limit is fucking asinine and needs to be fixed - that alone would do a lot to make SS solvent longer-term (I imagine - I haven't seen the numbers on it lately tbh, and i don't remember them from when I did see them).

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Yeah. And was it underreported or underemphasized? Sure. But it needed to happen in order to increase the solvency of SS. Then again, the fact that there's a cap on payroll above a certain limit is fucking asinine and needs to be fixed - that alone would do a lot to make SS solvent longer-term (I imagine - I haven't seen the numbers on it lately tbh, and i don't remember them from when I did see them).

From what I understand its supposed to be a pay as you go system. So why are we running a massive surplus?what does that do for anyone except crowd out private investment?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

From what I understand its supposed to be a pay as you go system. So why are we running a massive surplus?what does that do for anyone except crowd out private investment?

Social Security is not a true PAYGO. The surplus is there because it will be used by baby boomers when they retire. Otherwise the burden for paying for baby boomers would be put on non-retirees who unfairly would have to pay even more to keep up with benefits (of which they would have overpaid by the time they retire).

The money is used to buy special government bonds which help offset the debt so it's not going to waste. It likely keeps income and other taxes down.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It's frustrating to see some money taken out of my paycheck. But at the same time, I'd rather Social Security be solvent and the last 2 years of payroll holidays took like 15 years of solvency off of Social Security so I'd rather we actually be, you know, paying for it. Now if you want to keep taxing payroll above $200K or whatever the cutoff is, and pay SS more progressive with lower pay rates having lower taxes, I'm all for it.

Frankly, I hated that Obama did that in the first place. And I'm glad it's been reinstated.

Yeah, I wasn't a big fan of it. The problem was that benefited those who were working which means people who already have jobs. I think it would be better to take the amount you were going to lose with the tax cut and create jobs with it. God knows there is a lot of shit this country needs infrastructure wise.

[JPhillips]

Our old friend Cam is getting a TV show.

The National Rifle Association will produce a nightly one-hour cable talk show called "Cam & Company" for the Sportsman Channel that is due to premiere on Tuesday, the same day Vice President Joe Biden is expected to present national gun control proposals to the White House.

[gstelmack]

Fear of Earmarks Sparks Split in Sandy Aid Bill | TIME.com

Instead of "Fear of Earmarks Sparks Split in Sandy Aid Bill", how about "Attempts to Cram in Unrelated Spending Sparks Split in Sandy Aid Bill". But as long as we keep getting headlines like the first, the media will continue to help block change.

[JPhillips]

If you read the article it's pretty sympathetic to your viewpoint.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Good lord. Does Obama view each election as a chance to hold a press conference every other day over the lunch hour?

Kids smiling on stage while Joe Biden talks and talks and talks.......

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you read the article it's pretty sympathetic to your viewpoint.

I know, I was very specifically picking on the headline.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Good lord. Does Obama view each election as a chance to hold a press conference every other day over the lunch hour?

Kids smiling on stage while Joe Biden talks and talks and talks.......

No, apparently he does not:

Obama Finishes First Term With Fewest Press Conferences Since Reagan

You can try again though, maybe try:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Good lord. Is Obama afraid to face the press?

[GrantDawg]

Interestingly, several of these new executive actions actually are focused on mental health issues, and providing more money for resource officers in schools. You think there is a chance the NRA will praise them? Naaaaa.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Interestingly, several of these new executive actions actually are focused on mental health issues, and providing more money for resource officers in schools. You think there is a chance the NRA will praise them? Naaaaa.

Nope in fact they already put out a new ad this morning:

NRA Ad: Obama Is 'Elitist Hypocrite' - YouTube

[JediKooter]

Hmmm...something tells me that a presidents kids are much more of a target than my kids would be. NRA not really swaying me with their argument there.

[miked]

There was a decent article by Juan Williams at Fox basically stating how every shred of evidence and precedent put out there gives the president (and elected officials) the right to put certain restrictions on gun purchases and ownership. Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, etc have all enacted some kind of gun rules and courts have upheld it every time...even Scalia said the 2nd amendment is not absolute.

I don't understand why we as a society support most of what the president is proposing (mental health screenings, universal background checks, assault weapons restrictions), but our elected officials don't want to act. I think polls show 80-90% approval of background checks at gun shows. I don't even understand the reasoning behind it, especially in this day and age where we can get computer access underground and in the mountains. Why is it against our 2nd amendment to perform background checks at gun shows?

[GoldenEagle]

There is nothing in the 27 executive orders that should upset conservatives. On the other hand, there is nothing in the 27 executive orders that would have really prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy.

It almost seems pointless to me.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

There is nothing in the 27 executive orders that should upset conservatives. On the other hand, there is nothing in the 27 executive orders that would have really prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy.

It almost seems pointless to me.

This. It's politics as usual. There's nothing inherently wrong with what was proposed IMO. What's wrong is that they used a tragedy like this to push through something that they could have done months ago in a similar fashion or through Congress.

[Edward64]

I'm not sure why they are doing this vs picking the fight now, but I like the part about them not getting paid.

House Republicans agree to vote on bill to raise debt limit for 3 months - The Washington Post

WILLIAMSBURG, Va.--House Republicans will scale back their ambitions in an upcoming fight over the nation’s borrowing limit, saying Friday that they will try to pass a bill next week to raise the debt ceiling for three months. But they indicated that the Senate must pass a budget before the lawmakers would agree to a longer-term increase in the limit.

Under a bill to be considered next week, members will propose raising the debt ceiling through mid-April -- long enough, they say, to give both chambers time to pass a budget. Under the measure, if either chamber fails to adopt a budget by April 15, Congress would not be paid.

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure the 27th amendment would allow that.

[Raiders Army]

Well a budget hasn't been passed by the Senate since Obama took over so the House is pretty safe in tying strings to it.

[GrantDawg]

Wow. That is almost a reasonable action by the House. Bravo.

[Edward64]

Some more polling on Obama's performance.

CNN Poll: Has Obama been all that? – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
all-that/?hpt=hp_t4

According to the survey, nearly half of all Americans say the economy remains the most important issue facing the country today, with the federal budget deficit in second place at 23%.

Forty-eight percent say they approve of the job he is doing on the economy, with 51% disapproving. Just over four in ten give the president a thumbs up on how he has dealt with the deficit, with 57% giving him a thumbs down.
:
Number three on the list of important issues is health care, at 14%. Half the public approves of Obama's track record on that issue, but half disapprove.
:
Obama gets a better rating on foreign policy, and scores his highest approval on terrorism. But only 4% of the public says that foreign policy is the top issue facing the country. Six in ten approve of how Obama is handling environmental policy, which next to terrorism is his best grade in the poll, but only 2% say that the environment is the country's most important issue, number seven out of the seven issues tested.
:
The president's overall approval rating stands at 55% in a CNN poll released on Wednesday, with 43% saying they disapprove of the job Obama is doing in the White House. Of those who disapprove, 34% say they disapprove because Obama is too liberal, with 7% saying they give the president a thumbs down because he's not liberal enough.
:
The public is divided on the job Obama is doing on gun policy, with 46% approving and 49% disapproving, but only 6% said it was the most important issue facing the nation. The new poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday, prior to Wednesday's announcement by the president on new measures and proposals to curb gun violence.
:
In February, 2009, CNN polling indicated that three-quarters said that the new president was meeting or exceeding their expectations; only a quarter said he had fallen short. By the end of 2009, that was essentially a 50/50 split, and in 2010 and 2011, roughly six in ten said that Obama was falling short of their expectations.

Now, on the cusp of his second term, those figures are better for Obama - the number who say he has fallen short has dropped by 14 points since 2011, but nearly half still say he has not measured up to their initial hopes for his presidency. Four in ten say he has met expectations and 13% say he has exceeded them, for a total of 53% who give a positive rating to Obama's first term.
:
The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International on Jan. 14-15, with 814 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

[JPhillips]

I don't agree with everything Andrew Sullivan says, but I really like this.

Over the years, I've never let go of that understanding of conservatism's core truth - that all politics ends in some version of failure, that we cannot change and should not want to change the whole world over night, that constant failure is integral to human life and action - and the key spur to fleeting success. But I've also come to accept and more firmly believe that the flip-side to that must never be cynicism or retreat or nihilism. It must be to play our part where we can to fight injustice, knowing that our achievement will be partial, knowing that as soon as we have solved problems, new ones will replace them, and knowing that the process never ends. In fact, the true hero is the one who acts even in the knowledge of inevitable failure, who puts the realizable good before the unrealizable perfect.