The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

About That Cadillac Tax



So wait, they're raising your rates now because of the Cadillac tax?

(Plus, it seems like the whole point of that tax - which seems like a sports luxury tax - is to incentivize companies to cut health care expenditures.)

Yes. According to HR it's part of a plan to "minimize X company's exposure to the Affordable Care Act's 40% excise tax."

[cuervo72]

I think a number of companies use the ACA as an excuse to screw their employees.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

"Only" $21T? Instead of the doomsday scenario of $23T. So it will cost only 10 Iraq Wars instead of 11. Sweet!

But I do appreciate the well crafted "Spending trillions less" headline. Isnt that a core component of a sales pitch? Under promise and over deliver? Gotcha, hook, line and sinker.

It's an article by Vox.

[Edward64]

Some insight into how Obama spends his time after normal working hours.

Log In - The New York Times

Mr. Obama calls himself a “night guy,” and as president, he has come to consider the long, solitary hours after dark as essential as his time in the Oval Office. Almost every night that he is in the White House, Mr. Obama has dinner at 6:30 with his wife and daughters and then withdraws to the Treaty Room, his private office down the hall from his bedroom on the second floor of the White House residence.

There, his closest aides say, he spends four or five hours largely by himself.

He works on speeches. He reads the stack of briefing papers delivered at 8 p.m. by the staff secretary. He reads 10 letters from Americans chosen each day by his staff.
:
The president also watches ESPN, reads novels or plays Words With Friends on his iPad.

Michelle Obama occasionally pops in, but she goes to bed before the president, who is up so late he barely gets five hours of sleep a night. For Mr. Obama, the time alone has become more important.

“Everybody carves out their time to get their thoughts together. There is no doubt that window is his window,” said Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s first chief of staff. “You can’t block out a half-hour and try to do it during the day. It’s too much incoming. That’s the place where it can all be put aside and you can focus.”
:
When Mr. Obama first arrived at the White House, his after-dinner routine started around 7:15 p.m. in the game room, on the third floor of the residence. There, on an old Brunswick pool table, Mr. Obama and Sam Kass, then the Obama family’s personal chef, would spend 45 minutes playing eight-ball.

Mr. Kass saw pool as a chance for Mr. Obama to decompress after intense days in the Oval Office, and the two kept a running score. “He’s a bit ahead,” said Mr. Kass, who left the White House at the end of 2014.

In those days, the president followed the billiards game with bedtime routines with his daughters. These days, now that both are teenagers, Mr. Obama heads directly to the Treaty Room, named for the many historical documents that have been signed in it, including the peace protocol that ended the Spanish-American War in 1898.

“The sports channel is on,” Mr. Emanuel said, recalling the ubiquitous images on the room’s large flat-screen television. “Sports in the background, with the volume down.”

By 8 p.m., the usher’s office delivers the president’s leather-bound daily briefing book — a large binder accompanied by a tall stack of folders with memos and documents from across the government, all demanding the president’s attention. “An insane amount of paper,” Mr. Kass said.
:
Not everything that goes on in the Treaty Room is work.

In addition to playing Words With Friends, a Scrabble-like online game, on his iPad, Mr. Obama turns up the sound on the television for big sports games.
:
Mr. Obama and his wife are also fans of cable dramas like “Boardwalk Empire,” “Game of Thrones” and “Breaking Bad.” On Friday nights — movie night at the White House — Mr. Obama and his family are often in the Family Theater, a 40-seat screening room on the first floor of the East Wing, watching first-run films they have chosen and had delivered from the Motion Picture Association of America.
:
There is time, too, for fantasy about what life would be like outside the White House. Mr. Emanuel, who is now the mayor of Chicago but remains close to the president, said he and Mr. Obama once imagined moving to Hawaii to open a T-shirt shack that sold only one size (medium) and one color (white). Their dream was that they would no longer have to make decisions.

[Edward64]

Another data point for the Obama presidency, significant progress towards oil independence. He gets some but not all the credit as it really wasn't his policies that made this happen, but it happened on his watch and at least he didn't screw it up.

I'm willing to pay more for US oil than to rely on OPEC nations (and subsidize their extravagance).

Obama has presided over America's biggest oil boom ever - Jul. 21, 2016

Donald Trump's potential energy secretary took President Obama to task for trying to "destroy" the U.S. oil boom.

Harold Hamm, a shale oil billionaire, gave a speech on Wednesday night at the GOP Convention arguing that Trump will become the first president to achieve American energy independence. "President Obama chose not to get it, and he has tried to destroy this renaissance and all of its benefits," Hamm said in Cleveland.

But the numbers tell a different story. Believe it or not, Obama has presided over the biggest increase in oil production in American history, even if he can't take direct credit for it all.
:
The U.S. was pumping just 5.1 million barrels per day when Obama took office in January 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Fast forward to April and the U.S. produced 8.9 million barrels per day. That's an incredible 74% increase. In fact, in 2015, the U.S. pumped the most oil in 43 years.

The U.S. is now the world's No. 1 petroleum producer when you count not just crude but also liquified natural gas. If you limit the ranking to just crude oil, the U.S. still comes in No. 3, just narrowly behind Russia and Saudi Arabia.
:
Obama did place some restrictions on fracking, though he hasn't moved to ban the controversial tactic as Bernie Sanders and other environmentalists want. In fact, fracking now accounts for half of all U.S. oil output.

The White House did place a temporary moratorium on Gulf of Mexico drilling after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. However, drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has rebounded and is on track to break a record next year.

On the other hand, under Obama and the GOP-led Congress, the U.S. also removed the 40-year ban on crude oil exports, potentially allowing production to increase once prices rise.
:
The industry has made huge strides under Obama. The U.S. today has become more self reliant, importing about 10 million barrels per day, down from 14.5 million in 2006. But current imports still mean America relies on foreign oil for over half of its daily consumption.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Aetna pulling out of most of health care exchanges.

Aetna to pull out of most Obamacare exchanges - Aug. 15, 2016

[RainMaker]

United and Blue Cross has pulled mostly out of Illinois. Plus a few co-ops went out of business. Can't speak for other states but the exchange has been an utter disaster in Illinois.

[PilotMan]

No one knows why? HAHAHA! Nice try Dallas News. While no official correlation exists yet, I'm going to go out on a limb and point to the decision to "protect the lives of women," that's been incredibly important in the closing of women's health centers across the state.

"The rise in pregnancy-related deaths in 2011 coincided with the beginning of major budget cuts in Texas. In September of that year, health care providers across the state began to feel the effects of a family planning budget reduced by two-thirds."

With Matt Bevin in office in Kentucky, and his desire to see the same thing here, I'm sure that we'll see the same result follow here in Kentucky, one of the poorest states in the US. Woohoo for protecting women!!!!


http://www.dallasnews.com/news/polit...-knows-why.ece

[NobodyHere]

Apparently we still have a sitting president

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...arabia-n652911

I don't get this bill. If somebody does sue Saudi Arabia, who's going to make them pay up?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Apparently we still have a sitting president

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...arabia-n652911

I don't get this bill. If somebody does sue Saudi Arabia, who's going to make them pay up?

IF there's judgements against them, then they can file liens against saudi assets here in the US.

[booradley]

Anyone see Clinton on "Between Two Ferns?" Zach Galiafinakis does a great job with this.

[miked]

So if he does not veto that bill, can Iraqi civilians sue the US for killing innocent family members in bombings? Odd.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, the suing a foreign country for U.S. assets was used to great effect on the Iranians. I'm sure the Saudis raised hell about this and regardless of party we always seem to cave to the Saudis.

[RainMaker]

It's crazy how much power Saudi Arabia has over this country at times.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yeah, the suing a foreign country for U.S. assets was used to great effect on the Iranians. I'm sure the Saudis raised hell about this and regardless of party we always seem to cave to the Saudis.

Read The Atlantic's Obama Doctrine article, it helps to show how frustrated & hamstrung Barack is on that issue.

But regardless of how complicit I think the Saudi's are it's clearly in our best interests to deny lawsuits like this. Otherwise we'd be culpable for a lawsuit every drone strike.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Read The Atlantic's Obama Doctrine article, it helps to show how frustrated & hamstrung Barack is on that issue.

But regardless of how complicit I think the Saudi's are it's clearly in our best interests to deny lawsuits like this. Otherwise we'd be culpable for a lawsuit every drone strike.

Do you have a link to hand?

PS - I'd expect a lot of the reason for the veto was to do with the potential for other countries being able to apply the same logic in reverse to the US, ie. suing for damage/loss of life ...

[Edward64]

I do think this will setup a precedence and we don't want to go there. I want SA to pay for fostering/cultivating such an environment but it'll open up a can of worms that is better deferred as long as possible ... and TBH, we still need their "friendship" right now with the ME in turmoil & their oil (while we develop ours and alternate methods).

[Edward64]

Another shooting in WA, a (future) plea from Obama for additional controls, run up in gun & ammo sales, Donald taking credit somehow for calling it, congress doesn't do anything, rinse and repeat.

[PilotMan]

Let's be honest, the cops are scared of the amount of guns everywhere. Legal and illegal, doesn't matter because it only takes 1 law abiding citizen to decide he wants to kill. But the sheer number of guns on the street makes it much harder on the police.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I think a number of companies use the ACA as an excuse to screw their employees.

Yes this is totally the case

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

PS - I'd expect a lot of the reason for the veto was to do with the potential for other countries being able to apply the same logic in reverse to the US, ie. suing for damage/loss of life ...

Most definitely. I mean this one law won't end the concept of sovereign immunity in toto, but it'll make it easier to chip away at the ediface and sooner rather than later, the US will have to pay the piper... not by Saudi Arabia, but other countries who decide well if sovereign immunity isn't that important to the US, why should it for us?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Do you have a link to hand?

PS - I'd expect a lot of the reason for the veto was to do with the potential for other countries being able to apply the same logic in reverse to the US, ie. suing for damage/loss of life ...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ctrine/471525/

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Do you have a link to hand?

PS - I'd expect a lot of the reason for the veto was to do with the potential for other countries being able to apply the same logic in reverse to the US, ie. suing for damage/loss of life ...

President Obama’s Interview With Jeffrey Goldberg on Syria and Foreign Policy - The Atlantic

It's a long article with a lot of focus on his decision not to bomb Assad after he used chemical weapons for the first time, and his overall attempt at an Asian pivot, but the relevant Saudi quotes I saw on a skim thru.

The Saudis, too, were infuriated. They had never trusted Obama—he had, long before he became president, referred to them as a “so-called ally” of the U.S. “Iran is the new great power of the Middle East, and the U.S. is the old,” Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador in Washington, told his superiors in Riyadh.
...
he has also questioned, often harshly, the role that America’s Sunni Arab allies play in fomenting anti-American terrorism. He is clearly irritated that foreign-policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally.
...
In a meeting during apec with Malcolm Turnbull, the new prime minister of Australia, Obama described how he has watched Indonesia gradually move from a relaxed, syncretistic Islam to a more fundamentalist, unforgiving interpretation; large numbers of Indonesian women, he observed, have now adopted the hijab, the Muslim head covering.

Why, Turnbull asked, was this happening?

Because, Obama answered, the Saudis and other Gulf Arabs have funneled money, and large numbers of imams and teachers, into the country. In the 1990s, the Saudis heavily funded Wahhabist madrassas, seminaries that teach the fundamentalist version of Islam favored by the Saudi ruling family, Obama told Turnbull. Today, Islam in Indonesia is much more Arab in orientation than it was when he lived there, he said.

“Aren’t the Saudis your friends?,” Turnbull asked.

Obama smiled. “It’s complicated,” he said.

Obama’s patience with Saudi Arabia has always been limited. In his first foreign-policy commentary of note, that 2002 speech at the antiwar rally in Chicago, he said, “You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East—the Saudis and the Egyptians—stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality.” In the White House these days, one occasionally hears Obama’s National Security Council officials pointedly reminding visitors that the large majority of 9/11 hijackers were not Iranian, but Saudi—and Obama himself rails against Saudi Arabia’s state-sanctioned misogyny, arguing in private that “a country cannot function in the modern world when it is repressing half of its population.” In meetings with foreign leaders, Obama has said, “You can gauge the success of a society by how it treats its women.”

His frustration with the Saudis informs his analysis of Middle Eastern power politics. At one point I observed to him that he is less likely than previous presidents to axiomatically side with Saudi Arabia in its dispute with its archrival, Iran. He didn’t disagree.

“Iran, since 1979, has been an enemy of the United States, and has engaged in state-sponsored terrorism, is a genuine threat to Israel and many of our allies, and engages in all kinds of destructive behavior,” the president said. “And my view has never been that we should throw our traditional allies”—the Saudis—“overboard in favor of Iran.”

But he went on to say that the Saudis need to “share” the Middle East with their Iranian foes. “The competition between the Saudis and the Iranians—which has helped to feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen—requires us to say to our friends as well as to the Iranians that they need to find an effective way to share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace,” he said. “An approach that said to our friends ‘You are right, Iran is the source of all problems, and we will support you in dealing with Iran’ would essentially mean that as these sectarian conflicts continue to rage and our Gulf partners, our traditional friends, do not have the ability to put out the flames on their own or decisively win on their own, and would mean that we have to start coming in and using our military power to settle scores. And that would be in the interest neither of the United States nor of the Middle East.”

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Most definitely. I mean this one law won't end the concept of sovereign immunity in toto, but it'll make it easier to chip away at the ediface and sooner rather than later, the US will have to pay the piper... not by Saudi Arabia, but other countries who decide well if sovereign immunity isn't that important to the US, why should it for us?

So the Senate overrode Obama's veto and now Mitch McConnell is worried that the bill could have unforseen consequences. And if you're wondering whose fault that is, it's Obama.

McConnell: Saudi 9/11 law could have 'unintended ramifications' - POLITICO

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday that a new law allowing U.S. victims of terrorism to sue foreign governments may have “unintended ramifications,” despite Congress’s overwhelming vote this week to defy President Barack Obama’s veto of the legislation.
Though Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act was easily overridden, many senators are seeking changes to the law later this year, particularly after gauging any international reaction. McConnell laid some fault at the hands of the White House, calling the battle over JASTA a “good example” of “failure to communicate early about the potential consequences” of a popular bill.

[ISiddiqui]

LOL! It's Obama's fault because he didn't tell us what the consequences were early enough!

[NobodyHere]

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

LOL! It's Obama's fault because he didn't tell us what the consequences were early enough!

Obama and the State Department had only publicly brought up the same concerns that McConnell has now in April at the earliest (it's the oldest story I was able to find in a quick search). So even if nothing privately was said before that, five months just isn't enough time!

[flere-imsaho]

McConnell's complaining literally less than 24 hours after he himself cast a vote to override a veto, thus ensuring passage of a bill about which he now has second thoughts? Well, that's either wildly stupid or pretty brazen.

[Thomkal]

And you wonder why your approval ratings continue to go down into oblivion McConnell?

[mckerney]

Hilarious: Barack having to wait on Bill Clinton as they're leaving Israel together. pic.twitter.com/nvMmbkBWVV

— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) September 30, 2016

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

And you wonder why your approval ratings continue to go down into oblivion McConnell?

I'm expecting in a November rush to confirm him we'll hear, "If Obama wanted Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court he really should have said something to us sooner."

Either that or something about a failure of leadership as the White House didn't make a clear case for Garland's qualifications and it shameful that Obama allowed a Supreme Court vacancy to remain for so long.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

LOL! It's Obama's fault because he didn't tell us what the consequences were early enough!

Meanwhile, if an average American displayed this type of incompetence on the job, they'd likely be fired.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by mckerney

I'm expecting in a November rush to confirm him we'll hear, "If Obama wanted Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court he really should have said something to us sooner."

LOL sounds about right.

[JPhillips]

I think what happened was that McConnell thought he could bring it up and then the Democrats would vote against an override. Then, the GOP could use the vote against Dems for the election. I doubt he expected the override to actually pass, but Dems didn't play his game and now we're stuck with a stupid law.

[flere-imsaho]

Perfect example of Party > Country, which seems to be S.O.P. for the GOP for two decades now.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's crazy how much power Saudi Arabia has over this country at times.

WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails

Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton

While this military/para-military operation is moving >> forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence >> assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, >> which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and >> other radical Sunni groups in the region. This effort will be enhanced by >> the stepped up commitment in the KRG. The Qataris and Saudis will be put >> in a position of balancing policy between their oogoing competition to >> dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure.

[BishopMVP]

Dola. Wanted to pull this out of the election thread because I don't want to get bogged down arguing about the specific contents or their domestic political ramifications. But with more emails coming out (and being pushed as the main campaign issue by Trump) and the Clinton campaign doubling down on blaming Russia and trying to tie Russia to Assange and both to Trump rather than addressing the (somewhat embarrassing, but not too damaging in this clusterfuck of an election) content, I'm curious what people think will be the ramifications down the line?

Now, this is consistent with parts of the Russian playbook, though there they were sowing disinformation, and outside of one or two minor oddities these emails appear genuine. And of course there are plenty of anti-Hillary people, and she doesn't strike me as the person who would be too hard to hack. So I suppose the question of whether it actually was Russia is there, though the question of whether they can prove it was Russia (using anything intel gathering sources they're willing to admit to) seems more pertinent and debatable.

So is her & her team's current rhetoric inflaming anything and creating an issue that will play out in her first year in office at this point? And is this something the US government should be actively pushing against (like the Europeans), or is relying on mainstream news sources to get something close to the truth enough?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Perfect example of Party > Country, which seems to be S.O.P. for the GOP for two decades now.

Uh the senate vote to override the veto was 97-1. Stupid bill, very likely unintended consequences but hardly partisan stupidity on this one.

[Edward64]

I don't think there will be ramifications from the emails/Russian hack if Hillary wins (unless there is a real big surprise yet uncovered).

I do think the Cold War II is starting up, not much she can do with Putin still around. When she gets into office, she'll be managing much larger issues than just an embarrassing hack.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm pretty sure she won't be happy that Putin pushed for hacking the Democrats and Clinton herself. She probably will be less inclined to work with Russia on things - then again, the Obama Administration is already right there.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm pretty sure she won't be happy that Putin pushed for hacking the Democrats and Clinton herself. She probably will be less inclined to work with Russia on things - then again, the Obama Administration is already right there.

She'll hand Putin another reset button. It'll be fine.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by panerd

Uh the senate vote to override the veto was 97-1. Stupid bill, very likely unintended consequences but hardly partisan stupidity on this one.

Nope. Re-read what I was responding to:

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think what happened was that McConnell thought he could bring it up and then the Democrats would vote against an override. Then, the GOP could use the vote against Dems for the election. I doubt he expected the override to actually pass, but Dems didn't play his game and now we're stuck with a stupid law.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

She'll hand Putin another reset button. It'll be fine.

That's a pretty naive view. Edward & ISiddiqui have it right, I think.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's a pretty naive view. Edward & ISiddiqui have it right, I think.

It was a non-serious answer and I was referencing this

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...n-translation/

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Here's a change I can get behind!

Obama lifts restrictions on Cuban rum, cigars

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It was a non-serious answer and I was referencing this

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...n-translation/

Ah, sorry.

[Edward64]

Getting to be that time to close the chapter on the Obama presidency and start reflecting on what was/not accomplished/missed opps and how the US/World is/not better off.

Looking forward to everyone's honest opinions.

[bob]

Yikes

Obamacare premiums to soar 22% on average - Oct. 24, 2016

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by bob

Yikes

Obamacare premiums to soar 22% on average - Oct. 24, 2016

Most people won't feel those increases (the article says 85%) and the subsidy limit will increase. The bigger problem from that article is the number of insurers leaving the marketplace. That's a bigger concern right now than premium increases.

[bob]

Well someone is picking up that extra cost, right?