Support NeoGAF

[The Chosen One]

Reading the last several pages I can see that PoliGAF is in its monthly menstrual cycle.

@Obama's poor leadership

I think it's widely agreed that Obama could be a better negotiator. His primary mistake is that he assumes the other side is reasonable and wants to get something done. But the Republicans on the hill desperately want to make Obama Jimmy Carter 2.0 and they represent people who hate Obama's guts. Republicans gain absolutely nothing by compromising with him.

I think a lot of people are also under-estimating how fucked up the country was in the spring of '09 and how there's still a lot of structural problems with the economy. Obama picked the best time and the worst time to be President. It was the best time because it was one of the rare moments where the country wanted "change" and was willing to gamble on an unknown. It was the worst time because the country hasn't been in this bad shape in probably 70 years.

In addition the 24 hour media of the late 90s has now become the minute by minute media. You got bloggers, flash polls, instant-react comments, and even congressmen tweeting in the middle of SoTU speeches. News stories can twist and turn in a half dozen directions just in a single afternoon. It means unlike past administrations, the Obama admin can't really control the message that well. Any issue Obama tries to pimp can and is often overshadowed by the daily news grind of the inane. And on the big issues, every second and third rate organization has a poll on it before the public has even negligible knowledge of the issue. So it makes it pretty much impossible to build support on major issues because everyone in Washington including the WH are constantly reacting and running maniacal to the uniformed flash opinions of the public.

I know it sounds like I'm an Obama apologist, but the next President Republican or Democrat is going to face the same issues (I do think a Dem President will always have it a little worse simply because Democrats don't circle the wagons the same way Republicans do).

Ultimately America has lost her patience. People say they want "change" but only if they see the results "instantly" and the change has to be "100%" of the change they want, otherwise it's not really change at all and it's not worthy of supporting. I'm going to LMAO when Democrats allow Republicans to essentially repeal HCR before 2014, when HCR is actually a big stepping stone toward universal healthcare in 10-15 years. So many Dems are apathetic toward HCR because they're incapable of seeing the long view.

Unless something proves me wrong, I think America is incapable of doing a Moon/Mars trip, creating a superhighway system, or any other decade long investment. Anything like that will be crushed by public impatience within a couple of years.

Obama is a good President for sure. But the problems of today and our crazy media probably require a legendary President to dig ourselves out. I don't see any legendary presidents in the horizon or in the rear-view. And before you guys romanticize Clinton, her campaign was an absolute disaster, especially when things got tough at the end. She constantly kept flip flopping on her message and in her tone and there was staff disfunction at the highest levels. So I'm surprised some of you guys see her as someone who would provide great leadership. She was a poor leader in her own presidential campaign.

And those of you who actually think Mittens would be a viable alternative to Obama....smfh. His policies are EXACTLY the same as the Republican policies of the last decade. There are ZERO new ideas from the new crop of Republican presidential candidates. Tax cutes, deep spending cuts, de-regulation, and HCR repeal. Yes, that sounds like the perfect prescription for new jobs. At least Republicans seem to have lost their appetite for useless wars (for now), but their domestic policy is basically "let it burn!" and "survival of the richest". I can't see how any progressive or left of center person could vote for the current crop of Republicans.

 

[mckmas8808]

I applaud the man for having balls, taking unpopular positions, and following through.

Damn man would you applaud Hitler for having balls and taking unpopular positions too? Where do you draw the line?

 

[empty vessel]

Damn man would you applaud Hitler for having balls and taking unpopular positions too? Where do you draw the line?

There's a difference between respecting a character trait and respecting the ends to which the trait is put.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Damn man would you applaud Hitler for having balls and taking unpopular positions too? Where do you draw the line?

Laziest Godwin of all time. Get that shit out of here.

 

[kaching]

Nice post, The Chosen One. Very similar to my own sentiments on the subject, but much better than I probably would have expressed it.

 

[Vanillalite]

Life expectancy deceptive issue in Medicare debate
By Aaron Carroll, Special to CNN
June 20, 2011 1:18 p.m. EDT

"...The problem is, life expectancy is complicated. General life expectancy, or life expectancy at birth, is mostly affected by early death. Whenever a child dies, it skews life expectancy from birth way down. Anything that increases infant mortality, or care that ends a potentially devastating childhood illness (think vaccines), will increase general life expectancy a lot. Therefore, many of the gains in overall life expectancy have nothing to do with how long an elderly person lives, but how well we do in treating childhood illnesses.

What we really should care about in this case is not life expectancy at birth, but life expectancy at age 65. In other words, if you make it to 65, how long will you be on Medicare? That's when things get tricky..."​

 

[mckmas8808]

Laziest Godwin of all time. Get that shit out of here.

My point is why applauded a man that trying to stop a woman's right to have an abortion? As a liberal like PD is it just seems mind boggling that he'd say that no?

But it's obvious that he's saying that as a dig at someone or some other people. His agenda was clear when he made the statement. I'd just see to see him explain in his own words why he applauded a guy that did something that he completely disagrees with.

Especially considering it will get overturned in the Supreme Court.

Nice post, The Chosen One. Very similar to my own sentiments on the subject, but much better than I probably would have expressed it.

Yeah I feel the same way you and The Chosen One does. I was trying to explain it yesterday, but he did it way better than I ever could.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Obama is giving a press conference in just a moment, stream has started.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/live?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

Looking forward to the latest batch of concessions to people devoted to destroying him and the economy.

 

[Kosmo]

And those of you who actually think Mittens would be a viable alternative to Obama....smfh. His policies are EXACTLY the same as the Republican policies of the last decade. There are ZERO new ideas from the new crop of Republican presidential candidates. Tax cutes, deep spending cuts, de-regulation, and HCR repeal. Yes, that sounds like the perfect prescription for new jobs. At least Republicans seem to have lost their appetite for useless wars (for now), but their domestic policy is basically "let it burn!" and "survival of the richest". I can't see how any progressive or left of center person could vote for the current crop of Republicans.

When you are in a party that, at least purports to run on smaller government, yes there are generally not new ideas. It's much easier to come up with "new ideas" when your ideas generally require vast amounts of government money. I can think of a 1,000,000 ways to spend money, but only so many ways to save it.

 

[Manmademan]

When you are in a party that, at least purports to run on smaller government, yes there are generally not new ideas. It's much easier to come up with "new ideas" when your ideas generally require vast amounts of government money. I can think of a 1,000,000 ways to spend money, but only so many ways to save it.

you say this like republican ideas haven't generally required "vast amounts of government money."

 

[Kosmo]

you say this like republican ideas haven't generally required "vast amounts of government money."

For the military, yes. And cutting that back is probably the one new idea they could come up with.

 

[Hitokage]

When you are in a party that, at least purports to run on smaller government, yes there are generally not new ideas. It's much easier to come up with "new ideas" when your ideas generally require vast amounts of government money. I can think of a 1,000,000 ways to spend money, but only so many ways to save it.

Having a government that is smaller and effective requires ideas. Any idiot can slash programs, but then again when you're an idiot you can't tell the difference between cutting and adding more debt.

 

[Manmademan]

For the military, yes. And cutting that back is probably the one new idea they could come up with.

massive tax cuts and breaks to corporations isn't "vast sums of government money?" because that's pretty much all republicans do these days.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Having a government that is smaller and effective requires ideas. Any idiot can slash programs.

True, but the premise these candidates are generally starting from is government by definition cannot be effective, which is why it must be slashed. They're not interested in solutions.

Obama is on.

 

[Kosmo]

massive tax cuts and breaks to corporations isn't "vast sums of government money?" because that's pretty much all republicans do these days.

SMH at this nonsense.

 

[mckmas8808]

For the military, yes. And cutting that back is probably the one new idea they could come up with.

Medicare part D?

 

[empty vessel]

For the military, yes. And cutting that back is probably the one new idea they could come up with.

And the pharmaceutical industry. And the health insurance industry. And the health care industry. And pretty much any business to which they can divert taxpayer money. Of course, that goes for Democrats too.

 

[mckmas8808]

SMH at this nonsense.

How is it nonsense? Have you not listened to the popular GOP people in your party within the last 3+ years?

And damn I wish our TVs had sound at work.

 

[Manmademan]

SMH at this nonsense.

shake your head all you want, it's accurate. Remind me again which party is against ending subsidies for oil companies right now, and which one isnt? How are corporate subsidies not "massive amounts of government revenue?"

 

[ezekial45]

Wow, he sounds pissed.

 

[Kosmo]

Medicare part D?

...probably the only government healthcare program to be under budget - thus far it's 40% under budget.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

And he just offered to extend EGTRRA again.

 

[mckmas8808]

And he just offered to extend EGTRRA again.

I don't have sound, but CNN just shown that he said he once to take away those tax cuts. They were wrong?

 

[SoulPlaya]

Obama, you need to raise capital gains tax, if you want to get at millionaires and billionaires, not the income tax (or, at least, not only the income tax).

 

[Kosmo]

shake your head all you want, it's accurate. Remind me again which party is against ending subsidies for oil companies right now, and which one isnt? How are corporate subsidies not "massive amounts of government revenue?"

Remind me which party had full control of Congress and the Executive branch for 2 years and could have ended those subsidies? Do you REALLY think they were against them or only so far as it affected their political careers?

You said "tax cuts and breaks" - if you meant subsidies above and beyond the regular tax burden of corporations, then you have a point. But if you're just talking just about taxes in general, letting a person/corporation keep money they earned is not "taking government money" unless you're willing to say that government must never shrink and we thus have to finance unfunded programs through debt.

 

[ezekial45]

And he just offered to extend EGTRRA again.

I didn't hear him say that at all. He's continuing negotiating.

 

[mckmas8808]

Is there a live blog for conferences like this? Like the E3 live blogs?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I don't have sound, but CNN just shown that he said he once to take away those tax cuts. They were wrong?

What I heard was, "Congress could bring a bill to my desk extending the cuts I signed at the end of last year for another year."

 

[Kosmo]

Obama, you need to raise capital gains tax, if you want to get at millionaires and billionaires, not the income tax (or, at least, not only the income tax).

He already knows he can't win that argument without playing the "I'm smarter than history" card: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8

 

[mckmas8808]

He already knows he can't win that argument without playing the "I'm smarter than history" card: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8

A 20% capital gains tax would not kill this country. If the GOP's goal is to cut the deficit it'll be on the table.

 

[empty vessel]

...probably the only government healthcare program to be under budget - thus far it's 40% under budget.

Nevermind that it costs "vast amounts of money" and was never paid for and that it overpays private, for-profit companies, i.e., is a corrupt racket.

You're a terrible apologist, but I suppose it's never been a requirement that it be good, just that it be broadly disseminated.

 

[GhaleonEB]

...probably the only government healthcare program to be under budget - thus far it's 40% under budget.

Not because it is run efficiently.

It’s true that Part D has so far come in substantially cheaper than was predicted in 2003, when the Medicare Modernization Act was passed. That’s because overall spending on prescription drugs (pdf) has risen much more slowly than expected, mainly thanks to relatively few new drugs being introduced and greater use of generics:

What you really want is a comparison of costs with what happens when the government is able to bargain; and Austin Frakt has the goods: the VA pays 40 percent less than Medicare Part D. This comes at the cost of somewhat restricted choices — but if you’re looking for a way to save money, you want to move away from the part D model, not towards it.​

Just coming in under budget isn't good enough. The question is, can the program be run better and more cheaply? As designed Medicare Part D is intentionally costly to the government, because it is barred from price negotiations. Another branch of our government, the VA, is allowed to negotiate prices and gets the same products for far less. Granting Medicare Part D would save tens of billions of dollars, for the government and for beneficiaries.

My question for you is, are you in favor of changing the law to allow price negotiations, or to continue the program with the gross inefficiencies it was implemented with? It is pure corporate welfare at massive cost to the government and consumers.

 

[Kosmo]

Nevermind that it costs "vast amounts of money" and was never paid for and that it overpays private, for-profit companies, i.e., is a corrupt racket.

You're a terrible apologist, but I suppose it's never been a requirement that it be good, just that it be broadly disseminated.

You should look up the meaning of "purport."

Just coming in under budget isn't good enough. The question is, can the program be run better and more cheaply? As designed Medicare Part D is intentionally costly to the government, because it is barred from price negotiations. Another branch of our government, the VA, is allowed to negotiate prices and gets the same products for far less. Granting Medicare Part D would save tens of billions of dollars, for the government and for beneficiaries.

My question for you is, are you in favor of changing the law to allow price negotiations, or to continue the program with the gross inefficiencies it was implemented with? It is pure corporate welfare at massive cost to the government and consumers.

No, because it's nonsense to think that it will actually save money in anything other than relative terms. Drug prices will rise in the private sector because drug companies will want to maximize the price they receive from Medicare. The price Medicare will pay will be based on the average price in the private sector. So, the higher prices are in the private sector, the greater the average price will be. The higher the average price, the greater the reimbursement the pharmaceutical company will receive from Medicare.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Point blank refusing to answer the question on the War Powers Resolution. Cold-blooded.

 

[empty vessel]

You should look up the meaning of "purport."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

 

[GhaleonEB]

No, because it's nonsense to think that it will actually save money in anything other than relative terms. Drug prices will rise in the private sector because drug companies will want to maximize the price they receive from Medicare. The price Medicare will pay will be based on the average price in the private sector. So, the higher prices are in the private sector, the greater the average price will be. The higher the average price, the greater the reimbursement the pharmaceutical company will receive from Medicare.

Thank you for answering the question.

Right now the VA has price negotiating power and gets the same products for 40% less than Medicare Part D does because of it. Prices would be pushed down relative to the current bar.

But if they would just stay the same, then why not go ahead with it? No harm, right?

You are at once implying Medicare Part D is an efficiently run program when it was engineered from the ground up to be much more costly than it needs to be (the author of the bill promptly left Congress to head up PhRMA), and when that is pointed out, you defend the inefficiency. You have zero standing to discuss government spending when you hold such comical positions.

That is a nice made-up theory but it does not match up with the reality of drug prices in every other industrialized country with a nationalized program. There is a reason why people buy drugs from Canada. Duh. UK, France, Canada, Japan, etc.

This also. Duh, indeed.

 

[Manmademan]

Remind me which party had full control of Congress and the Executive branch for 2 years and could have ended those subsidies? Do you REALLY think they were against them or only so far as it affected their political careers?

You said "tax cuts and breaks" - if you meant subsidies above and beyond the regular tax burden of corporations, then you have a point. But if you're just talking just about taxes in general, letting a person/corporation keep money they earned is not "taking government money" unless you're willing to say that government must never shrink and we thus have to finance unfunded programs through debt.

Why would I remind you of that, when I could remind you of the party that had full control of Congress and the Executive for six years and put them there in the first place? "b-b-b-but democrats are bad too!" doesn't excuse the republican party of lying about being fiscally responsible on one hand, then spending money hand over fist on the other.

As for tax cuts and breaks: what IS the "regular tax burden" of a corporation? Since corporations are technically "people", they should pay the tax rate of people. This is curious because there are enough breaks and loopholes put into the tax code, many by republicans, and many that republicans are fighting to keep there, that many of them pay an effective tax rate of zero. does this sound like a "regular tax burden" to you? What about the "Jobs Creation Act of 2004" that let them repatriate funds hidden in overseas subsidiaries, taxed at 1/6th the usual rate? Who passed and signed that again?

The bill was introduced by Representative Bill Thomas on June 4, 2004, passed the House June 17, the Senate on July 15, and was signed by President George W. Bush on October 22.[1]

Introduced by a republican, passed by a republican controlled house, republican controlled senate, and signed by a republican president. Even worse, Republican John Ensign tried to insert it into the stimulus bill in 2009, KNOWING it didn't work the last time.

"The party of fiscal responsibility" never has been, and you know this.

 

[speculawyer]

No, because it's nonsense to think that it will actually save money in anything other than relative terms. Drug prices will rise in the private sector because drug companies will want to maximize the price they receive from Medicare. The price Medicare will pay will be based on the average price in the private sector. So, the higher prices are in the private sector, the greater the average price will be. The higher the average price, the greater the reimbursement the pharmaceutical company will receive from Medicare.

That is a nice made-up theory but it does not match up with the reality of drug prices in every other industrialized country with a nationalized program. There is a reason why people buy drugs from Canada. Duh. UK, France, Canada, Japan, etc.

 

[mckmas8808]

MSNBC's Chuck Todd gets the next question -- it's about the Constitution (alert the founders). He asks about Libya, the debt limit and marriage. "That was a hodgepodge," Obama says, as reporters laugh.

"We're going to assign you to the Supreme Court, man," Obama says.

He then quickly notes he's not "not a Supreme Court justice, so I'm not going to put my constitutional law professor hat on here." (11:55 a.m.)

President Obama tackles the Libya-debt-marriage question by starting with Libya. He does it in his characteristic way of explaining everything before getting to any sort of answer; Muammar Qadhafi was threatening to massacre his people, etc., then the U.S. stepped in to stop it.

No U.S. troops have died, Obama notes, and the mission is "narrow."

Qadhafi is "pinned down, and the noose is tightening around him," Obama says.

OK, onto the War Powers Resolution: Obama says congressional consultation is "appropriate." He then rhetorically asks himself if he thinks he's violated it. "The answer is no," he says.

Then, Obama says that because the mission doesn't meet the terms of the war powers act, he doesn't even have to give an answer for whether it's constitutional! "I don't have to get to the question," Obama determines, probably to the shock of Chuck Todd and other reporters. (11:59 a.m.)

Obama is pressed. He says: "I’m just saying I don’t have to reach it. That’s a good legal answer."

 

[Jackson50]

Senate Democrats Renew Push For DREAM Act

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ts-renew-dream-act-despite-gop-opposition.php

I listened to Jose Antonio Vargas's interview on All Things Considered last week. A fairly interesting story. A worthwhile listen.

 

[mckmas8808]

On to the next part of the question -- Obama says people shouldn't "discriminate" based on sexual orientation. That's an "essential principle" of his administration and the country, he says.

Obama notes that he thinks DOMA is unconstitutional. Then, on New York's gay marriage law, Obama says of the democratic process, "that's exactly how things should work." But he doesn't say whether he supports gay marriage. (12:01 p.m.)

More on gays: "They've got to be treated like every other American, and I think that principle will win out. ... The president ... can't dictate precisely how this process moves. But I think we're moving in a direction of greater equality, and I think that's a good thing." (12:03 p.m.)

 

[Kosmo]

Right now the VA has price negotiating power and gets the same products for 40% less than Medicare Part D does because of it. .

Link to 40% figure?

 

[Kosmo]

Why would I remind you of that, when I could remind you of the party that had full control of Congress and the Executive for six years and put them there in the first place? "b-b-b-but democrats are bad too!" doesn't excuse the republican party of lying about being fiscally responsible on one hand, then spending money hand over fist on the other.

...which is exactly what I said they do in my original statement.

 

[Manmademan]

...which is exactly what I said they do in my original statement.

your original statement claimed they had "more ideas" to reduce the deficit, since the ideas republicans actually put into practice haven't reduced the deficit at all. Therefore they really don't have any ideas, now do they?

still waiting on the explanation as to why republicans backing massive corporate tax giveaways is "nonsense", btw.

 

[Kosmo]

your original statement claimed they had "more ideas" to reduce the deficit, since the ideas republicans actually put into practice haven't reduced the deficit at all. Therefore they really don't have any ideas, now do they?

No, this is what I said:

When you are in a party that, at least purports to run on smaller government, yes there are generally not new ideas. It's much easier to come up with "new ideas" when your ideas generally require vast amounts of government money. I can think of a 1,000,000 ways to spend money, but only so many ways to save it.

pur·port   
[v. per-pawrt, -pohrt, pur-pawrt, -pohrt; n. pur-pawrt, -pohrt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.to present, especially deliberately, the appearance of being; profess or claim, often falsely:

Republicans run on reducing spending (falsely), and never actually do it. But when you run on reducing spending, there are only so many ways you can say "we'll spend less money!"

still waiting on the explanation as to why republicans backing massive corporate tax giveaways is "nonsense", btw.

I addressed your original question (tax breaks) - before you moved the goalposts to subsidies:

You said "tax cuts and breaks" - if you meant subsidies above and beyond the regular tax burden of corporations, then you have a point. But if you're just talking just about taxes in general, letting a person/corporation keep money they earned is not "taking government money" unless you're willing to say that government must never shrink and we thus have to finance unfunded programs through debt.

 

[mckmas8808]

Obama is asked by a Fox News reporter about Afghanistan -- and how he didn't claim victory in his speech. Obama notes that he didn't claim victory in his West Point speech in December 2009 either.

"We are being successful in those missions," he says. "Even before the bin Laden operation, we had decimated some of the middle ranks and the upper ranks."

Obama says the drawdown -- which he notes hasn't happened yet -- will be done "in a responsible way that will allow Afghanistan to defend itself and will give us the operational capacity to continue to put pressure on al Qaeda

 

[Kosmo]

Obama is asked by a Fox News reporter about Afghanistan -- and how he didn't claim victory in his speech. Obama notes that he didn't claim victory in his West Point speech in December 2009 either.

"We are being successful in those missions," he says. "Even before the bin Laden operation, we had decimated some of the middle ranks and the upper ranks."

Obama says the drawdown -- which he notes hasn't happened yet -- will be done "in a responsible way that will allow Afghanistan to defend itself and will give us the operational capacity to continue to put pressure on al Qaeda

Fuck...another 10 years, here we come!

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

this man speaks truth here.

Obama is failing because of his inability to lead he is black. There is no other explanation for all the crazy shit we have seen from the tea parties, because they didn't care about any of the same shit going on when Bush was in office.

It "could be" any number of things; my guess is that the economy and our future prospects are in a shitty place and people are feeling it. For lifelong conservatives, it is easy to just blame the democrats in power, regardless of race.

People are bummed out and they are getting easy answers from both parties that basically just vilify the other side. Unfortunately, it seems neither side in office is serious about anything but playing politics and that certainly isn't going to help our situation.

 

[empty vessel]

Link to 40% figure?

 

[Manmademan]

No, this is what I said:

I addressed your original question (tax breaks) - before you moved the goalposts to subsidies:

and no, this is what *I* said:

massive tax cuts and breaks to corporations isn't "vast sums of government money?" because that's pretty much all republicans do these days.

tax cuts AND breaks. a subsidy IS a break- there is no goalpost moving. Tax cuts below a "normal threshold" aren't reasonable- as I adressed before, if corporations want the benefits of being treated as a person, they should be taxed as "people" yet both the tax cuts AND tax breaks handed out to corporations are far, far in excess what would be considered reasonable. (for the record, I think the current capital gains tax level is ALSO below what should be considered reasonable. tax that shit as regular income.)

This is ESPECIALLY true when corporations benefit MORE from government regulations and protections to keep them in business than the average person does- unless you think having a stable market for investment would just happen "all by itself" by the magical hand of the free market.