The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by path12

It's not like Obama is fuckin' Gandalf, after all.

SI

[rowech]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That seems like an awfully loose definition. Does any time anyone calls for a protest constitute treason? Why should it matter if you're local or international when you make said speech? Hell, by that definition, it seems like most of the stuff spewed by your average hate-filled commentator is treason. Are we going to line up Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc up against the wall?

SI

They're not doing it in another country. They're not doing it to get non-US citizens going. Doing it to get US citizens going which is acceptable.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by rowech

You're instigating other citizens to go against the United States.

Originally Posted by rowech

They're not doing it in another country. They're not doing it to get non-US citizens going. Doing it to get US citizens going which is acceptable.

Come again?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Come again?

If you take all three of my posts together you can understand what I meant. Anytime you are playing off of other US-citizens, I have no problem with that whatsoever. When you take that to citizens of another country and get them going...that's when I really start to have a problem.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by rowech

If you take all three of my posts together you can understand what I meant. Anytime you are playing off of other US-citizens, I have no problem with that whatsoever. When you take that to citizens of another country and get them going...that's when I really start to have a problem.

Take what? I read all three and I have no clue what you mean/meant.

[molson]

I can't imagine the U.S. executing or imposing life (which is the penalty we're talking about with treason) on one of their own citizens for "getting people going" no matter what country they're doing it in.

That would basically be the standard for me - something that warrants execution. Like making a rougue sale of nuclear weapons to Al-Queda.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, I'm still not getting what you're saying.

Although, my current assumption is that you're OK with lining Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck up against a wall and shooting them, so I'm fully in support of your argument!

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

I can't imagine the U.S. executing or imposing life (which is the penalty we're talking about with treason) on one of their own citizens for "getting people going" no matter what country they're doing it in.

No, we have thousands of other reasons we can use instead. Or we can just take you for no reason, just because we feel like it.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yeah, the covering the cost of the new program sounded really strange to me. Not sure I understand how this can be done ... I didn't read (or they did not provide) any details.

There will be change if the public option passes for the 40M+ who are underinsured. For the rest who get the benefits through employers ... maybe not, unless to stay competitive with the public option, the other insurers/providers lower their costs.

Better than the GOP plan for $x credit.

My point was more in what I said earlier. I haven't seen plans to fix the actual costs. I just see "let's pay for it" plans.

[rowech]

To all...it makes perfect sense in my mind but I'm obviously doing a crappy job of explaining it.

[RainMaker]

So if Glenn Beck does his broadcast from Canada next week, he should be tried with treason when he gets back?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So if Glenn Beck does his broadcast from Canada next week, he should be tried with treason when he gets back?

Probably not as I'm sure he's not trying to get the Canadians fired up.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

So what did Sean Penn say to get the Venezuelans fired up that makes him deserving of execution?

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So what did Sean Penn say to get the Venezuelans fired up that makes him deserving of execution?

He said he had an ultimate set of tools to fix the US Economy.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Some pretty sobering numbers from the CBO concerning the deficit..........

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

[Greyroofoo]

If only we had a major political party that doesn't spend like drunken sailors.

Sadly none exist.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

If only we had a major political party that doesn't spend like drunken sailors.

Sadly none exist.

I believe drunken sailors take offense to this, as they do not appreciate being compared to a major political party. Or at least that is what I heard.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Another campaign promise heading down the drain for good. Obama plans to keep many Gitmo terrorists retained indefinitely. The ACLU along with some Obama supporters are up in arms about it.

Critics Bemoan Prospect of Obama Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely

I'm in total support of the decision. The only thing that stands out is just how misinformed he was when making some of his campaign promises.

[Flasch186]

ignore the word 'prospect' in the headline.

now bear in mind you also should read this sentence in the Foxnews article carefully:

"Lawmakers this month blocked $80 million the administration had requested for transferring the detainees. Without the money, Obama's order can't be carried out.

---congress isnt funding the president's desire to move them so until Congress approves the $ it CANT be done by Obama or anyone else.

You can throw the word 'prospect' into all kinds of sentences to accomplish your goals MBBF.

BTW if he did this I'd be very much against it, but it's just so MBBF to throw loose words around as if they were the gospel.

[stevew]

That energy bill sounds awesome I figure I don't spend enough on energy as it is. So maybe I can chip in a couple hundred more per year. Do we write the checks out directly to Al gore? And if there is any hope left in the republican party, they will fillibuster this nonsense as long as it takes.

[stevew]

Dola.
I know the republicans did a lot of stupid shit too. I still hate the concept of 300 page amendments going in at 3AM.
And I don't necessarily have a big problem with cleaner energy but I'm not convinced this is the answer.

[sterlingice]

I think people have shown that more and more they only respond to monetary incentives and disincentives. I see people less and less willing to use moral reasons to change their behaviors. So, if money is all people care about, then money is what you have to use to change things.

This is what happens when you spend years teaching people to misinterpret the phrase "you have the freedom to do anything in this country" with the emphasis on the wrong part of that phrase and ignoring that it also means you have to pay the consequences for your actions.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by stevew

That energy bill sounds awesome I figure I don't spend enough on energy as it is. So maybe I can chip in a couple hundred more per year. Do we write the checks out directly to Al gore? And if there is any hope left in the republican party, they will fillibuster this nonsense as long as it takes.

I don't think the Republicans need to do much of anything that the Democrats haven't already done to make themselves look bad in this case. At some point, filibustering isn't the best option. In the case of this bill, the Democratic made some of their middle members sell their soul to support the party at the risk of angering their supporters at home. As one of the Democrats in the House put it, those people may lose in 2010 supporting a bill that won't pass the Senate.

This is why I mentioned a few months ago that Republicans were hoping that Democrats would start trying to pass through anything knowing that they had the party majority. Eventually, they make poor decisions like they have in regard to the Cap & Trade bill that is an expensive bureaucratic nightmare during a time when the #1 of the country now lists the deficit as being the main concern. It's a huge misstep and the Republicans should hammer it as such rather than bothering with a filibuster.

[Flasch186]

speaking of hammering things....it would seem that what used to be the democrats scandal of choice has been completely monopolized by the Republicans. That's crazy considering just 5-6 years ago the Republicans were the cornerstone of the Family Values party. Just pointing out that things can swing one way or the other very quickly. Not as quickly as MBBF would like to show in some polls he dredges for but even the party in power can't become become too comfortable in charge...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

speaking of hammering things....it would seem that what used to be the democrats scandal of choice has been completely monopolized by the Republicans. That's crazy considering just 5-6 years ago the Republicans were the cornerstone of the Family Values party.

1. There's been plenty of democrats keeping both sides in a mess. Let's not be silly here.

2. Most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican because they don't buy the family/religion angle that is brought out each and every election. It's a talking point for Democrats partisan supporters more than anything.

[Flasch186]

1. is true its just the Dems have done a better job of getting caught lately.
2. is a ridiculous thing you put out there. The GOP LOVES being known as the party of Family Values. All of a sudden you want to compare it to the negative "connotation" like 'liberal'? Stop. please.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

1. There's been plenty of democrats keeping both sides in a mess. Let's not be silly here.

2. Most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican because they don't buy the family/religion angle that is brought out each and every election. It's a talking point for Democrats partisan supporters more than anything.

Do you have any data to support that? I can't find info on conservatives, but as recently as early June 63% of Republicans were White conservatives according to Gallup. I've never seen data that says most conservatives are not aligned with the GOP.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Do you have any data to support that? I can't find info on conservatives, but as recently as early June 63% of Republicans were White conservatives according to Gallup. I've never seen data that says most conservatives are not aligned with the GOP.

I couldn't disagree more. Most conservatives don't align with the GOP planks involving religion and family values. Most of that is right wing hypocritical bunk. Sure, as you point out, if they had to choose in a poll, they'd align with the GOP more often than not. But most don't buy into what the extreme right is selling, which unfortunately is what the GOP has decided to align with right now.

The left is sailing down a similarly unsustainable stance regarding their climate change and health care bills. In theory, change in both is a great idea. But the level of utter crap in the cap and trade bill along with the union exceptions and 10M people who will have to find new insurance under the health care proposal leave them in a position where you wonder if they're bothering to think through the ramifications of their actions. Most of the moderates on both sides that put Obama in office will likely balk at these kinds of policies.

[Flasch186]

wow, just wow.

So aside what the polls say, MBBF knows what 'most' members of XYZ really mean. Not only that, but aside what the 'data' says he knows how people 'really' feel about the policies and/or how they'll feel in the future.

Partisans on both sides see their party as the more friendly toward religion, but the divide is particularly stark on the right. Seven-in-ten Republicans say the GOP is friendly toward religion and just 27% say the same about the Democratic Party. Among Democrats, half see their own party as friendly toward religion, but 45% also say the same about the Republican Party. African-Americans, who are largely Democratic in partisan affiliation, diverge somewhat from this pattern. While about half of blacks (51%) see the Democratic Party as friendly toward religion, just 28% say the Republican Party is friendly. Three-in-ten African Americans see the GOP as unfriendly toward religion.

Pew Forum: GOP the Religion-Friendly Party, But Stem Cell Issue May Help Democrats

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/re...religious.aspx

A similar pattern is found when the three partisan groups are broken down into segments based on race, ethnicity, and religious intensity (among whites, as measured by church attendance).

nfnrmvtcbkihhge5lwt5nw

About half of Republicans are non-Hispanic whites who are strongly religious, defined as those who attend church about once a week or more frequently. Forty percent of Republicans are whites who attend less frequently.

Democrats, on the other hand, comprise only 20% highly religious whites, with more than twice as many whites who attend church less frequently. The pattern of church attendance among independents is similar to that among Democrats, but independents have higher percentages of whites in both the religious and the nonreligious categories....

...The data reviewed here highlight an essential dilemma the Republicans face as they ponder their future. The Republican Party's constituency is overwhelmingly white -- and the significant majority of those whites are ideologically conservative, while a majority are highly religious, as defined by church attendance. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has more than three times the percentage of nonwhites among its identifiers as does the GOP. And white Democrats are much more likely to be moderate or liberal than conservative, and are much more likely to be infrequent church attenders rather than frequent church attenders.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I couldn't disagree more. Most conservatives don't align with the GOP planks involving religion and family values. Most of that is right wing hypocritical bunk. Sure, as you point out, if they had to choose in a poll, they'd align with the GOP more often than not. But most don't buy into what the extreme right is selling, which unfortunately is what the GOP has decided to align with right now.

The left is sailing down a similarly unsustainable stance regarding their climate change and health care bills. In theory, change in both is a great idea. But the level of utter crap in the cap and trade bill along with the union exceptions and 10M people who will have to find new insurance under the health care proposal leave them in a position where you wonder if they're bothering to think through the ramifications of their actions. Most of the moderates on both sides that put Obama in office will likely balk at these kinds of policies.

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. If you can provide data that shows most conservatives do not identify as Republicans I'll buy it, but until then you're just making stuff up.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. If you can provide data that shows most conservatives do not identify as Republicans I'll buy it, but until then you're just making stuff up.

I'll be honest. I'm not sure there's any accurate polling of it mostly having to do with the partisan nature of polling on these issues. If you have a poll, it usually identifies people by their registration. In that case, there's conservatives that aren't included as registered party members. I think that liberal partisans would love to think that people that don't vote with them match up with the planks of the Republican Party. That's simply not the case. Same thing on the other end.

The truth is that there's a good 35-40% of voters that sit in the middle much like me and don't hold to a firm belief system harbored by one side or the other. How they vote may lean one way or the other based on importance, but generally those voters don't identify with one or the other.

[JPhillips]

You're changing the argument. You started with the statement that, Most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican. I still haven't seen any evidence to support that claim and changing the argument to whether or not there are independent voters leads me to believe your initial statement was wishful thinking.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You're changing the argument. You started with the statement that, Most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican. I still haven't seen any evidence to support that claim and changing the argument to whether or not there are independent voters leads me to believe your initial statement was wishful thinking.

Not wishful thinking and certainly not an 'argument'. I'm not here to argue. Likely an overly-general statement on my part. It's a fair point, but doesn't diminish my statement.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Not wishful thinking and certainly not an 'argument'. I'm not here to argue. Likely an overly-general statement on my part. It's a fair point, but doesn't diminish my statement.

If it's an over-general statement with no data to back it up, how does it not diminish your statement? Does it somehow augment it? Is this bizzaro-FOFC?

[JPhillips]

If you make a numerical argument (most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican) but can't provide any data to support that argument it certainly does diminish your statement.

I think what you're doing here is extrapolating your beliefs to cover all conservatives.

miked wins.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

If it's an over-general statement with no data to back it up, how does it not diminish your statement? Does it somehow augment it? Is this bizzaro-FOFC?

I was referring to my second statement, not the one that JPhillips cited as overly-general.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you make a numerical argument (most conservatives don't consider themselves a Republican) but can't provide any data to support that argument it certainly does diminish your statement.

I think what you're doing here is extrapolating your beliefs to cover all conservatives.

miked wins.

I do find it interesting that 'wins' are so important in this thread apparantly. It's becoming pretty obvious this thread isn't about discussion. You keyed in on my one opinion/overgeneral statement rather than addressing the other points regarding the disasterous cap and trade and health care concerns. Fair enough. You 'win'.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Good debate here concerning economy as long as you ignore the brutal stiff-as-a-board moderation by Zakiria.........

Krugman Debates Stimulus, Health Care With Conservative Economist John Taylor (VIDEO)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I do find it interesting that 'wins' are so important in this thread apparantly. It's becoming pretty obvious this thread isn't about discussion. You keyed in on my one opinion/overgeneral statement rather than addressing the other points regarding the disasterous cap and trade and health care concerns. Fair enough. You 'win'.

You're misunderstanding what I meant by win. I simply meant that miked posted the same thought earlier, hence he won by getting their first. It had nothing to do with you.

The other points you mention didn't come out until after I asked for data on your statement about conservatives. I've actually been focused on your initial statement while you've been trying to change the topic because you can't provide data to support your initial claim.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I do find it interesting that 'wins' are so important in this thread apparantly. It's becoming pretty obvious this thread isn't about discussion. You keyed in on my one opinion/overgeneral statement rather than addressing the other points regarding the disasterous cap and trade and health care concerns. Fair enough. You 'win'.

Cap and trade concerns are valid, I think the changes will be stupid. Health care, not so much. Our current system is a disaster. I work in the field and I know it needs some drastic changes. I'm not looking for a single-payer government system, but would rather they heavily regulate insurers that run the show now. I'm not worried about Foxnews doom and gloom where they keep trying to convince me Obama is the second coming of Marx. Changing the health care system doesn't mean a bureaucrat in Washington will be perusing my medical data and making decisions. Right now, an uneducated insurance worker is doing that. In fact, Aetna has nurses calling my wife to discuss her lifestyle because she took a drug in early pregnancy to help regulate her insulin as a precaution (borderline) and was off it in 6 weeks.

But you really didn't want to have an intelligent debate about health care, you wanted to do what you usually do, which is post little shards of stories from various conservative news sources, then change the topic once somebody actually engaged you. It just so happened that your topic change brought you to your next unsubstantiated argument, which you acknowledged was over-reaching and unsupported yet felt those 2 things weren't diminishing your argument, so you changed lanes once again for another passing-glance on a different issue.

[duckman]

Here is a very good article (with citations!) about some of the 'myths' of healthcare in the US:

Health-Care Myths at Emac’s Stock Watch | Fox Business

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

Cap and trade concerns are valid, I think the changes will be stupid. Health care, not so much. Our current system is a disaster. I work in the field and I know it needs some drastic changes. I'm not looking for a single-payer government system, but would rather they heavily regulate insurers that run the show now. I'm not worried about Foxnews doom and gloom where they keep trying to convince me Obama is the second coming of Marx. Changing the health care system doesn't mean a bureaucrat in Washington will be perusing my medical data and making decisions. Right now, an uneducated insurance worker is doing that.

I'm confused. I don't disagree with a thing you've said here, yet the implication by lumping me into a group (i.e. FoxNews snipe) is that I do. I agree that the current system is a mess, though we shouldn't change it just for the sake of changing it. I agree that a single-payer system is not a good idea. I'm not worried about any scare tactics by the conservatives, but I'm certainly am concerned with the huge pricetag that comes with the bill that still likely won't come close to covering everyone. I agree with your assessment as far as who's making the decisions, but that won't change under the new health care system. The same idiots denying coverage that is needed will still be denying coverage under the new plan. If anything, that will occur more rather than less often.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by duckman

Here is a very good article (with citations!) about some of the 'myths' of healthcare in the US:

Health-Care Myths at Emac’s Stock Watch | Fox Business

Good article, I've seen similar ones but this is very well laid out. Here's a couple key points I like to bring up when discussing some sort of national health care:

Myth: “About 46 mn Americans lack access to health insurance.”

About 14 mn of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP 2003, a BlueCross-BlueShield Association study based on 2003 data estimated. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room, Sullivan says.

A whopping 70% of uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid, SCHIP, or both programs, a 2008 study by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute shows.

Census figures also show that 18.3 mn of the uninsured were under 34 who may simply not think about the need for insurance, Sullivan reports.

And of those 46 mn without insurance, an estimated 10 mn or so are non-U.S. citizens who may not be eligible, according to statistics from the Census Bureau), Sullivan reports.

So, 14 mil are eligible for Medicaid and simply haven't signed up. 10 mil were undocumented and 18.3 were either kids where 70% are already eligible for programs in existence or young adults in the 20-30 range who may be choosing not to pay for it. So, you are left with around 5-9 million people (dep on overlap) between the age of 33 and 58 who don't have health care insurance options. Is it really worth completely throwing out the current coverage system because about 1-2% of our population doesn't have coverage options?

To me, we need to focus on reducing the cost, improving the quality and trying to strategically fill this remaining void. This can all be done within the existing system with more of a focus on covering preventive actions, reduced medical malpractice overhead, more focus on prescription drug plans, increased doctor/network flexibility within current plans (ie, many plans (like mine) no longer require referrals to see a specialist) and a study/focus on who actually isn't covered, doesn't have options and would like to be. Maybe create a tax credit to cover a person who loses their job for 8-9 months if most are recently out of work.

I would rather focus on the actual issues and try to resolve them one-by-one. This national plan idea is akin to trading a body with a broken leg for one with no legs. Different does not equal better.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Obama and Biden now appear to be facing a two-headed snake. Not only are conservatives bashing their economic policies, many Obama supporters are now hammering their policies as well.

Biden Ignores Warnings Of Krugman, Stiglitz, Roubini And Others

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

dola

More good points regarding how badly the economic policies of the current administration are failing and what needs to be done soon to avoid losing the next election.......

Robert Kuttner: 3 Reasons We Need an Economic Wake Up Call

[JPhillips]

So now you're posting articles giving advice that you completely disagree with just because they're in opposition to some of Obama's polices? What's the point of simply saying, "See some people disagree with Obama's policies!"

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So now you're posting articles giving advice that you completely disagree with just because they're in opposition to some of Obama's polices? What's the point of simply saying, "See some people disagree with Obama's policies!"

Sorry, I thought this was a discussion thread. Did you institute a rule that states that we only can post articles that support our point of view? I think liberal criticisms are just as valid and worthy of discussion whether I agree with them or not. I believe you and I differ in that regard.

[JPhillips]

But you don't discuss anything. You post articles with a comment about how damaging it is for Obama and move on. The economic criticisms you posted aren't new, the same arguments have been made since the stimulus battle. What do you want to discuss? What about the criticisms has merit or doesn't?

What is there besides, Obama is teh suk.

[larrymcg421]

Wow, MBBF has completely converted to an economic progressive. I fully welcome him to our group. I say this assuming that he has done a complete 180 on his economic beliefs and not that he simply posted about an article that he didn't even read.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Wow, MBBF has completely converted to an economic progressive. I fully welcome him to our group. I say this assuming that he has done a complete 180 on his economic beliefs and not that he simply posted about an article that he didn't even read.

What part do you think I didn't read? I think it's an interesting read from the perspective of pointing out the failings of the current policy. It's become apparant in recent days that both conservatives and liberals are not happy with what Obama is doing under current policy. I differ greatly from the author as far as what I believe is the best way to resolve the current problems with Obama's mishandling of the economy.