The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[flere-imsaho]

By the way, let me be clear to everyone: I am not intentionally denigrating anyone with legitimate concerns about how "Health Care Reform" is happening, or about any of Obama's policies, or the actions of the Congressional Democrats (actually, especially on the actions of the Congressional Democrats, now that I think about it).

There are legitimate concerns, and just because you're a conservative doesn't mean they aren't legitimate. In fact, if you're really a fiscal conservative I would expect you to have even more concerns, and I don't take issue with that.

Heck, if you're a fiscal conservative libertarian who thinks the last 6 months contain within them the signs of a quasi-socialist state that will encroach upon your freedoms, I'm not going to criticize you for that either, though I may think some of your assumptions underpinning those conclusions are incorrect.

Let me be 100% clear: I am explicitly and only denigrating the astroturfing teabaggers who are showing up at these town halls at the urging of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck & Co, firmly in the belief of such nonsense ideas that Obama's plan will have you kill your Mom when she's 72, or the government doesn't run Medicare, or you won't be able to have your drugs anymore, etc... and willing to do anything that Rush, Glenn, etc... want them to do to interrupt a normal (if somewhat staged) Democratic process.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Sounds good. We'll take all that, and the enclave of Miami/South Beach/whatever down there that is too liberal for you also. In exchange we'll give you...hmmm...the concrete to finish building the wall across your new Mexican border at cost?

Not sure on the concrete, I mean, the walls become less critical if you just put enough claymores out there. But that's just details, nothing that can't be worked out I think. But we might work out some sort of three-way deal since I figure The Republic of Texas will want some just as an additional measure for their own security.

Damned if I know what we're going to do with Louisiana though.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'll be generous and throw in everything east of Colorado.

I don't think you mean this.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You didn't know that? Didn't "The War of Northern Aggression" usage over the years provide some hint?

Yeah, c'mon folks, Jon's always been very clear about this.

Look, I know it's risky to look a gift horse in the mouth but at the risk of doing just that, could we work on something that gives you our whole little batch of self-hating liberals? You'll love 'em, a goodly number of them were yours originally anyway so at least you gotta take them back. We'll throw in duty-free shopping at Hartsfield Airport or something, maybe provide your own waiting area with express security for U.S. passport holders who are changing planes. Heck, we could even throw in Miami if we have to.

Actually, you could just send them to Miami if you're giving that to us anyway. After all, the reason they're in the south in the first place is because "they can't stand the cold".

Now, is the Research Triangle in North Carolina ours or yours? And what about Virginia - do we need to split that one up as well? Just so we're clear. I think we can reach a workable solution by dinnertime.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You didn't know that? Didn't "The War of Northern Aggression" usage over the years provide some hint?

I suppose. But I mean there's different levels of intensity behind saying that.

Funny thing is - my ancestors on my father's side are Southerners dating all the way back to their arrival at Jamestown in the late 1600's (first person born here in New World in 1700 in South Carolina) and my relatives served in Company K of the 42nd Alabama Infantry during the war.

So my Southern blood is strong and true. And I'll refer to it by that name at times, but I wouldn't call the last 145 years an "occupation."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

The fact that 67% of the people polled support more federal funding for education shows how out of touch people are with reality. (And I am a teacher)

Plus your poll (wonder where you get all your talking points, you joined a month ago and post only in this thread) shows that people support increasing spending everywhere. Ask those same people where the money is going to come from. Not them, tax the rich!

1. I'd note that the poll SteveBalloa is citing is 1 1/2 months old. There's been a lot of change regarding public perception of spending in the past 45 days. A similar poll today would likely show weaker numbers regarding support of increase spending across the board.

2. Where the money comes from is why many of these Obama proposals are running into rough waters. Everybody wants better things, but when it comes time to pay for it, no one wants to be the one paying for it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I don't think you mean this.



Yeah, c'mon folks, Jon's always been very clear about this.



Actually, you could just send them to Miami if you're giving that to us anyway. After all, the reason they're in the south in the first place is because "they can't stand the cold".

Now, is the Research Triangle in North Carolina ours or yours? And what about Virginia - do we need to split that one up as well? Just so we're clear. I think we can reach a workable solution by dinnertime.

sorry, "east of colorado" was building on my "south of the mason-dixon line" comment. so in truth it's "South of the Mason Dixon line and east of Colorado (excluding California)."

Virginia has been increasingly blue lately...I wonder what Jon will say...I'm not too broken-up about the research triangle in NC to be honest.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

And I'll refer to it by that name at times, but I wouldn't call the last 145 years an "occupation."

Not sure what else to call it when a conquering army comes & stays and continues to meddle in most local affairs. By definition the seizure and control of an area by military forces.

edit to add: And while there's ostensibly civilian control, there's no doubt that the only basis for the actual control is at the point of a gun.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Actualy, looking at actual polling, this is from Pew Research.

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey. June 18-21, 2009. Adults nationwide.
"If you were making up the budget for the federal government this year, would you increase spending for [see below], decrease spending for [see below], or keep spending the same for this?"


In addition, the GSS which is the gold standard of social surveys that polls 5,000+ people annually (meaning there's a much lower error percentage) shows that most people think we should actually be spending more. When you paint it as "big government versus small government," small government wins because of thirty years of programming against the words 'big government.' But, when people are asked do you want more/less spending on health care, education, urban renewal, etc., etc., large percentages are for it everytime.

Now, if you said, people don't want to _pay_ for more spending, then sadly, I would have to agree with you. For the last thirty year plus years, people have been sold of goods on both side you can have a lot of services with low taxes. For the ultimate in this, see California.

I don't think people are informed enough to answer a question like that. Who, outside of people in the the respective fields or the federal government, has a sense of how much we spend on education or agriculture or energy? This is really just a "do you think this is important?" survey. Education? "That's important!" International Aid? "BOOO!!!" Veterans? "Ya, we should take care of them!!" Military? "NO! The Iraq war was bad!"

Though, congresspeople probably think the same way, so there's some relevance there.

That's really the whole concept of fiscal discipline though. It's hard. I want a shiny car, and to eat out every night, and a summer home. I might even be able to get all those things too, in the short term. I could never keep it up though.

If someone wants government to spend less, but then they individually want to raise spending on everything, then they're just too dumb to be making those decisions anyway. I don't think breaking down the individual spendings categories shows their true views on government spending, as you're implying. It just shows they're dumb.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Hey, if we do the civil war again, Idaho would be in the "north", right?

(Since this is getting a bit too heated in the "real discussion"...)

But who gets Alaska and Hawaii? One would think Alaska would be north and Hawaii, south, but politically I would think they would be just the opposite.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think people are informed enough to answer a question like that. Who, outside of people in the the respective fields or the federal government, has a sense of how much we spend on education or agriculture or energy? This is really just a "do you think this is important?" survey. Education? "That's important!" International Aid? "BOOO!!!" Veternas? Ya, we should take care of them!! Military? "NO! The Iraq war was bad!"

Exactly. I'm surprised that some of the poll bashers in this thread aren't all over this poll. As I said, everyone's for something (see this poll) until they're informed that they'll have to pay for it. As Steve said, that hasn't changed in years. Lots of people want something for nothing. I doubt it will change going forward either.

[larrymcg421]

Also, what about liberal enclaves in the south like Asheville, Savannah, and Atlanta?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But who gets Alaska and Hawaii?

Taiwan.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Also, what about liberal enclaves in the south like Asheville, Savannah, and Atlanta?

We cleaned those out up the thread a bit, should cut down on the congestion ITP at least.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Also, what about liberal enclaves in the south like Asheville, Savannah, and Atlanta?

If you're talking about Asheville, NC, doesn't North Carolina fall in with the North now voting wise as a blue state?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Taiwan.

I'm thinking Hawaii might be a good place to settle the Palestinians.

[molson]

I'd like to see the results of that survey if that question was worded, "would you like the government to be more fiscally responsible in (category X) spending".

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I'd like to see the results of that survey if that question was worded, "would you like the government to be more fiscally responsible in (category X) spending".

I would probably be 66% yes and 33% no. Problem is that we want that fiscal conservatism for every other district but our own.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

(Since this is getting a bit too heated in the "real discussion"...)

But who gets Alaska and Hawaii? One would think Alaska would be north and Hawaii, south, but politically I would think they would be just the opposite.

SI

I think that Alaska/Idaho/Wyoming/Montana might take the opportunity to branch off and do their own thing.

Ron Paul would be our president and we'd be on the gold standard.

[miked]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We cleaned those out up the thread a bit, should cut down on the congestion ITP at least.

No, the congestion is caused by OTP people that don't want public transportation and the potential minorities that may use it in their neighborhoods. But they want less traffic and cleaner air. Maybe if Sonny prays hard enough, we'll get a viable option.

Though, in areas where demographics are rapidly changing (like certain areas of Gwinnett), I'm sure more people will be making their way back ITP.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

Though, in areas where demographics are rapidly changing (like certain areas of Gwinnett), I'm sure more people will be making their way back ITP.

Under the deal that we're working on here, ITP might actually become livable for decent folks instead of the cesspool it is now, so you're probably right about that reverse migration possibility.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

I think that Alaska/Idaho/Wyoming/Montana might take the opportunity to branch off and do their own thing.

Ron Paul would be our president and we'd be on the gold standard.

And this man's corpse would be veep:



SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And this man's corpse would be veep:



SI

We need us some more God in our Biology classes.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And this man's corpse would be veep:



SI

I wouldn't exactly consider those 4 states the bible belt:

File:Religious Belief in North America.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

WJB was originally from South Dakota. Hell, the Praries states were (and to an extent still are) economically populist so I doubt that their independence would lead to the libretarian paradise some believe it would be. Hell, North Dakota has it's own state-owned bank and a state-owned flour mill.

I'm just saying that don't think WJB is synonymous Alaska/Idaho/Wyoming/Montana. The northern prarie states are a whole other kettle of fish.

So now I'm debating whether a dead historical figure would be a good vp for my fictional country. I need to get out more.

[KWhit]

I didn't think this thread could get any more stupid, but I guess I was wrong. Now we have Jon saying "Say that to my face and I'll beat you up" and talking about the fact that the US government is "occupying" the south.

Great stuff.

I'm not surprised. But still.

Holy hell.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I didn't think this thread could get any more stupid, but I guess I was wrong. Now we have Jon saying "Say that to my face and I'll beat you up" and talking about the fact that the US government is "occupying" the south.

Great stuff.

I'm not surprised. But still.

Holy hell.

Luckily, we had the equally wonderful "let's have Sherman's March II" reply.

This place is slippin'.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I'm actually guessing sterlingice was referring more to Ron Paul's love for the Gold Standard and WJB's um - not love for it as to why the zombie WJB would be sad to see Ron Paul in charge of anything. :-)

I was just trying to pick out the last thing I could remember in history class involving the gold standard

Would L Frank Baum have been a better choice?

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Let me be 100% clear: I am explicitly and only denigrating the astroturfing teabaggers who are showing up at these town halls at the urging of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck & Co, firmly in the belief of such nonsense ideas that Obama's plan will have you kill your Mom when she's 72, or the government doesn't run Medicare, or you won't be able to have your drugs anymore, etc... and willing to do anything that Rush, Glenn, etc... want them to do to interrupt a normal (if somewhat staged) Democratic process.

The trap you have set for yourself is similar to the Kevin Bacon 6 degrees of seperation. You will always tie those views opposing yours to Rush Limbaugh, and then use that as validation that your viewpoint is superior. That's what allows you to mock different people and their cultures so effortlessly.

[RainMaker]

Threads gotten crazy today. Jon's gone a little too much Timothy McVeigh for my taste.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Luckily, we had the equally wonderful "let's have Sherman's March II" reply.

This place is slippin'.

Have a sense of humor y'all

Just gettin' our Georgian friend going a little bit.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

I think that Alaska/Idaho/Wyoming/Montana might take the opportunity to branch off and do their own thing.

Ron Paul would be our president and we'd be on the gold standard.

But if the country were on the gold standard than how would the federal reserve lend $3000 to every New Zealander? And how could we institute all these great social programs that we have no way to pay for?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by panerd

But if the country were on the gold standard than how would the federal reserve lend $3000 to every New Zealander? And how could we institute all these great social programs that we have no way to pay for?

Easy, really. We'll convert to the brass standard.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Threads gotten crazy today. Jon's gone a little too much Timothy McVeigh for my taste.

Actually I was thinking that my train of thought reminded me a little too much of some bits & pieces of either Lou Dobbs or Glenn Beck, whichever one it was who had some security types discussing similar scenarios a few months back. I'm not much on being derivative but sometimes people do share similar thoughts on a subject so it's pretty much impossible to avoid completely.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

For me, it's easy to mock because the teabaggers/town hall invaders are acting like ignorant assholes. Like flere said, I can see the argument against health care reform if you truly believe it'll destroy the budget and a true free market system would lead to a better market for health care. I'd disagree, but I'd understand. The peope showing up to these town halls are unaware that Medicare is single-payer health care and there's nothing about killing old people in the bill.

Somebody got an online degree in overgeneralization from Rainmaker University.

[Flasch186]

Yet its ok to insinuate that the Democrats are pussies for cancelling some townhalls in light of possible threats and security concerns simply because they want to avoid debate. Brilliant spin Dreidel. I do love hypocrisy on the same page of a thread, you failed to achieve it on this one....youre slippin'.

[Flasch186]

So funny that Mark Hanes on CNBC, which heavily leans to the right, said that he would 'welcome debate on Health Care,' when talking to Bernie McSherry, 'instead of these scare tactics theyre throwing at us.' Didnt clarify which side or whom he was directing it at but I thought it was pretty funny nonetheless.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Pretty interesting stuff at the Specter Town Hall meeting this morning. It appeared the constituents were better prepared for the meeting that Specter was. He even noted how impressed he was with the preparation behind the questions and how well-informed they were.

Funny moment at the end. The final lady to ask a question stood up and Arlen Specter said with a smile, "This lady has a t-shirt that says 'Proud Member of the Mob'".

Senator Harkin town hall is ongoing. Definitely a rougher crowd there than at the Specter gathering. They're not very happy at all.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Pretty interesting stuff at the Specter Town Hall meeting this morning. It appeared the constituents were better prepared for the meeting that Specter was. He even noted how impressed he was with the preparation behind the questions and how well-informed they were.

Funny moment at the end. The final lady to ask a question stood up and Arlen Specter said with a smile, "This lady has a t-shirt that says 'Proud Member of the Mob'".

Senator Harkin town hall is ongoing. Definitely a rougher crowd there than at the Specter gathering. They're not very happy at all.

did these people actually read the bill and ask questions about the actual bill? or were they just repeating the same questions about the same outright lies that have been spoon-fed to them by big pharma, the republicans, and the big insurance companies in order to try to derail the process?

[DaddyTorgo]

Look - I'm not a massive fan of the idea of putting the government in charge of healthcare. I'm not out there on the street demonstrating in favor of it because I thin it will solve all our problems. In fact, I think in a lot of (you could even say "most") instances the government is the least effective actor in the market.

That being said, I'm even less of a fan of having for-profit insurance companies dictating care (as they are now) in order to make billions. According to numbers I saw last night, since 2000, the profits of the largest healthcare insurance companies have gone up by $10bn as they have cut by 7m the number of people they insure.

In that case I'd rather have the more-inefficient but at least nonprofit government watching my back.

There's also a lot to be said for the fact that comparatively-speaking, by most metrics, we're not that healthy. What are we now...29 out of 30 developed countries in infant mortality? Lower life-expectancy than a lot of other countries, etc.

We'll always have "cutting edge" surgery sure, because we have the technology-edge, but our level of basic care is for-crap compared to most other major developed countries. And part of the reason for that is because insurance companies, in order to make a buck, are fighting people tooth-and-nail trying to deny every procedure that they possibly can. See some of the stories in the other "Insurance" thread people have related.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

did these people actually read the bill and ask questions about the actual bill? or were they just repeating the same questions about the same outright lies that have been spoon-fed to them by big pharma, the republicans, and the big insurance companies in order to try to derail the process?

Maybe we should make people pass a test before they can ask a question at a town hall meeting.


By the way, if you use the phrases "big pharma" and "derail the process"... you really shouldn't accuse anyone else of regurgitating talking points. Seriously.

[gstelmack]

What about a company like BCBS that is non-profit?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Maybe we should make people pass a test before they can ask a question at a town hall meeting.

By the way, if you use the phrases "big pharma" and "derail the process"... you really shouldn't accuse anyone else of regurgitating talking points. Seriously.

i think we should make them pass a test, frankly. but then again i'm also in favor of making people pass a test in order to vote.

you don't think that's what is going on (re: big pharma and insurance companies)??

all the campaign contributions that they make? all of the advocacy groups that are throwing out all of these fabricated things that are not even in the bill that are funded by Pfizer, etc?

they want to kill it because it threatens their profits, it's crystal clear.

believe me - they don't want to kill it because it's bad for you. they don't give a shit about you. if they did they wouldn't have turned 95% of all surgeries into outpatient surgeries in order to try to cut costs, or constantly be making you jump through hoops in order to get claims approved. all they care about is the bottom line.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

did these people actually read the bill and ask questions about the actual bill? or were they just repeating the same questions about the same outright lies that have been spoon-fed to them by big pharma, the republicans, and the big insurance companies in order to try to derail the process?

No, there was very little 'spoon-fed' questions. Most of them were about specific portions of the bill, to the point where they actually listed the section numbers of the bill and read from the bill and asked questions about that part of the bill. If it was a coordinated effort, it worked awfully well. Similar questions were asked in the Harkin town hall meeting. People are coming to the meeting with questions that they've reasearched and I don't think either of these senators were ready to answer the detailed questions that were asked.

Anybody at this point who tries to label these people as you did given the level of research and work they did to present their questions is treading on thin ice politically. The 'mob' is evolving and making the democratic leaders look awfully bad with their blanket statements.

I would also note that someone posed a question of Specter asking his opinion on the [email protected] situation that's been in the news quite a bit over the past week or so. Specter had no idea what the questioner was even talking about. Seriously?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

No, there was very little 'spoon-fed' questions. Most of them were about specific portions of the bill, to the point where they actually listed the section numbers of the bill and read from the bill and asked questions about that part of the bill. If it was a coordinated effort, it worked awfully well. Similar questions were asked in the Harkin town hall meeting. People are coming to the meeting with questions that they've reasearched and I don't think either of these senators were ready to answer the detailed questions that were asked.

Anybody at this point who tries to label these people as you did given the level of research and work they did to present their questions is treading on thin ice politically. The 'mob' is evolving and making the democratic leaders look awfully bad with their blanket statements.

I would also note that someone posed a question of Specter asking his opinion on the [email protected] situation that's been in the news quite a bit over the past week or so. Specter had no idea what the questioner was even talking about. Seriously?

well good for those questioners then, and that makes those senators look bad that they weren't ready to answer the questions (although tbh i think they should probably all be provided with an "expert on the bill" to go with them to answer detailed questions at this point).

i didn't try to label the questioners - i simply asked about the content of their questions, so don't go trying to paint me as some evil "labeler" . You can't deny that some of the early "questions" were questions about 100% fabricated things that weren't even in the bill.

i've come out before and said that i am in favor of more occurences like this, more accountability of politicians to the people they serve and such. i've got no problem with people asking politicians hard questions.

[email protected] situation? i haven't heard anything about it either. i'd venture to guess he's been tied up with other things and unless it's a matter of national security it wasn't something of sufficient importance to draw a look from him at this point. senators don't have time to react to every single thing that "draws significant attention" in as timely a fashion as you or I.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

believe me - they don't want to kill it because it's bad for you. they don't give a shit about you. if they did they wouldn't have turned 95% of all surgeries into outpatient surgeries in order to try to cut costs, or constantly be making you jump through hoops in order to get claims approved. all they care about is the bottom line.

Really? You serious, Clark?

You did an awfully good 'spoon-fed' impression here given your distain of that method in a previous post.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

believe me - they don't want to kill it because it's bad for you. they don't give a shit about you. if they did they wouldn't have turned 95% of all surgeries into outpatient surgeries in order to try to cut costs, or constantly be making you jump through hoops in order to get claims approved. all they care about is the bottom line.

Yeah and the government really gives a shit about any of us. The scary part is I actually think some people (possibly you?) really believe that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Really? You serious, Clark?

You did an awfully good 'spoon-fed' impression here given your distain of that method in a previous post.

clark??

ummm yes i'm serious. and it wasn't anything i was spoon-fed. it's pure capitalism...it makes economic sense.

maybe it's something that somebody's been parroting and throwing out there, but it also makes 100% economic sense. And there's evidence of the funding of different advocacy groups by pharma+insurance companies both in this instance and also back in 1993.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

(although tbh i think they should probably all be provided with an "expert on the bill" to go with them to answer detailed questions at this point).

[email protected] situation? i haven't heard anything about it either. i'd venture to guess he's been tied up with other things and unless it's a matter of national security it wasn't something of sufficient importance to draw a look from him at this point. senators don't have time to react to every single thing that "draws significant attention" in as timely a fashion as you or I.

1. FYI......Both Specter and Harkin had 'expert' staff members nearby to assist them. It didn't help.

2. A U.S. senator should know about a news story that has been given high billing for over a week. I don't hold you to that same standard given that I'm sure you have better things to do.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Threads gotten crazy today. Jon's gone a little too much Timothy McVeigh for my taste.

Everyone gone a little crazy. It does bring up an interesting question to me. With such passion and seperate values on each side, is the time coming for the U.S. to spilt?

[molson]

Dissent is patriotic as long as you agree with the dissenters.