WickedAngel
Banned
Anticitizen One said:
God damn. That had to have felt good.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
God damn. That had to have felt good.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
I miss bubba - I now think Hillary would have been the better candidateAnticitizen One said:
empty vessel
Member
jamesinclair said:
To elaborate:
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/01/the-political-geography-of-bro.html
See also: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/25328
I guess this shows either (1) that Democrats are politically stupid or (2) that Democrats don't really represent average (thinking) people. (We know Republicans represent average unthinking people.)
The answer is (2).
PhoenixDark
Banned
GhaleonEB said:
And I bet the media won't cover this one fucking bit. I've been upset with Obama over the last few days, but the media hypocrisy pisses me off more. I'm so tired of this talking point that says Obama has been too liberal and hasn't reached out to the right. Every drive-by republican in this thread says it, most of my conservative friends say it, and the media gives them cover.
I tend to think the deficit commission is a farce; senators don't want to legislate, they want to hold chairmanships. If these people really cared about the deficit they would not have spent 8 years signing off on every massive spending bill Bush sent to them (which were never payed off). And now they have the audacity to question Obama's spending, when he's layed out how he plans on paying for things, or how things are deficit neutral, etc. We won't hear that from the media; in fact, they'll dismiss it as blaming Bush.
Obama could introduce a bill banning abortion and still run into republican opposition.
And not to piss you off any further, but re-read the first sentence of the NYT article:PhoenixDark said:
President Obama's plan. Doubts about his budget strategy.
It wasn't Obama's plan, and isn't his strategy. But he's getting pegged with it now that Gregg baited him into supporting the panel.
It's shit like this that I literally don't ready any of the mainstream news orgs any longer. They fucking suck.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Holy fucking shit @ Clinton. We need more of him.
PhoenixDark
Banned
GhaleonEB said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhI0OVs_zj0
sigh
I don't want to see any sniveling up to republicans begging to be friends. That's not to say Obama should stop being bipartisan, but jesus christ don't let them think they've won.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
minus_273 said:
Let's not try and use logic to twist our way out of acknowledging that you hold the ideals of selfishism aloft, as if it were some great virtue. And you didn't talk to anybody in Germany about Nazis.
empty vessel
Member
minus_273 said:
Uh, those are facts about names. My god have you not read Shakespeare? A rose by any other name something something. Appellations aren't empirical. They don't relate a perception to the real, physical world. They are symbols, which is precisely how and why the Nazis used them (much as the American Republican party does). The Nazis were not socialists. They were fascists. This isn't arguable, so don't argue it.
jamesinclair
Banned
minus_273 said:
Hows that Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea working out?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
GhaleonEB said:
Unfuckenbelievable.
:/
SimpleDesign
Member
That's more like Matthews acting like an ass rather than him getting into Deans...ass.teh_pwn said:
Black-Wind
Member
So . . . now that this Brown Rep guy was just voted in whats the likely hood of the Heath Care bill being shot to all hell? :'/
The Chosen One
Member
mAcOdIn said:
I'm still in favor of them passing it in pieces. Ed Rendell (Gov. of Pennsylvania) made an excellent point on the Rachel Maddow show tonight. Basically if it looks like a bill of only "not denying based on pre-existing conditions" is about to pass, the insurance companies will lean heavily on the Republicans to add a mandate or more comprehensive measures to balance things out. The single pieces will start to look like large portions after all the lobbying is done but this time there will be some reluctant Republican support.
But at the very least, I like Dems making the Republicans take a tough vote. Republicans did it to the Dems ALL the time 2000 - 2006. Dems need to put the Republicans in a position where they are forced to vote "YES" or look like total pricks for voting "NO" .
I dunno, I don't know if they would force Republicans to push for a mandate, I don't even know if health care companies really care about looking like bad guys in the American public's eyes, because, well, what alternative do the American public have?The Chosen One said:
That said, if they lose the ability to pass the whole bill they might as well give it a shot but I really think the mandate's narrative has already been set now and the Republicans would have a pretty damn hard time flip flopping on something that's been shoved down the Americans throats as bad and socialist as it has been.
And I don't know if I like the idea of splitting it up like that because the only thing that made the mandate remotely acceptable was the exchange, and more importantly the government oversight of the exchange, depending on how much of that is also stripped the mandate could be total poison for everyone. I'd have to see what they came up with and how the separate bills were structured, but it'd be terrible if a mandate bill passed but no method of regulating the industry further passed along with it, that would be the insurance companies ultimate wet dream.
Edit: But yes, as someone mentioned earlier, the Republicans do a good job of naming their bills shit that makes it look like, to the uninformed, that anyone opposing it is a total douche, so it would be funny to see Republicans in a similar position.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
That's a good point, but isn't the logical extension large subsidies and new taxes (essentially what we have now)? At what point would Republicans bulk at that? Then again, you'd only need one.The Chosen One said:
The Chosen One
Member
Here's a little talking head review for those that wanted to avoid them today:
@Hardball
- Chris Matthews can be cool when he goes all "pit bull" when he actually has a valid point. But tonight he went after Howard Dean over a rather obtuse point. Chris basically couldn't comprehend that progressives would vote for Brown and thereby kill the healthcare bill even if Coakley supported the public option. Many progressives aren't happy with the current bill (though one WITHOUT a public option), so it doesn't really matter if Coakley is for the public option. But Howard Dean didn't help himself by getting tongue-tied.
@Ed Shultz
- He had an interesting interview with Robert Gibbs that got heated at times. Clearly Ed asked Gibbs some very uncomfortable questions such as why the progressive base has become apathetic. It was hard to tell if Gibbs was in denial or in total spin-mode. But he needs to come up with better answers because it all sounded so hollow.
@Olbermann
- I was only half paying attention when it was on, but he and Ed need to lay off the personal attacks of Brown. Attacking Brown and calling him Dick Cheney just comes off as petty. The Dems f*cked up, plain and simple. No need to smear Brown or give him any extra attention.
@Maddow
- Really good show. She made a great unicorn analogy about how the WH wasted 8 months chasing their 60 vote unicorn. If the WH and Dem leadership weren't so obsessed with getting 60 votes, then the healthcare bill would have looked dramatically different and probably would have passed already. This time last year, the Dems had 58 Senate votes and everyone assumed Norm Coleman would win and no one knew Arlen Spector would have switched parties. So even though a year later the Dems still have more votes than when Obama got in office but because they took on the strategy of getting 60 votes at all costs they basically shot themselves in the vote and nullified their majority.
Btw, the Maddow show was really on point tonight.
@Hardball
- Chris Matthews can be cool when he goes all "pit bull" when he actually has a valid point. But tonight he went after Howard Dean over a rather obtuse point. Chris basically couldn't comprehend that progressives would vote for Brown and thereby kill the healthcare bill even if Coakley supported the public option. Many progressives aren't happy with the current bill (though one WITHOUT a public option), so it doesn't really matter if Coakley is for the public option. But Howard Dean didn't help himself by getting tongue-tied.
@Ed Shultz
- He had an interesting interview with Robert Gibbs that got heated at times. Clearly Ed asked Gibbs some very uncomfortable questions such as why the progressive base has become apathetic. It was hard to tell if Gibbs was in denial or in total spin-mode. But he needs to come up with better answers because it all sounded so hollow.
@Olbermann
- I was only half paying attention when it was on, but he and Ed need to lay off the personal attacks of Brown. Attacking Brown and calling him Dick Cheney just comes off as petty. The Dems f*cked up, plain and simple. No need to smear Brown or give him any extra attention.
@Maddow
- Really good show. She made a great unicorn analogy about how the WH wasted 8 months chasing their 60 vote unicorn. If the WH and Dem leadership weren't so obsessed with getting 60 votes, then the healthcare bill would have looked dramatically different and probably would have passed already. This time last year, the Dems had 58 Senate votes and everyone assumed Norm Coleman would win and no one knew Arlen Spector would have switched parties. So even though a year later the Dems still have more votes than when Obama got in office but because they took on the strategy of getting 60 votes at all costs they basically shot themselves in the vote and nullified their majority.
Btw, the Maddow show was really on point tonight.
The Chosen One
Member
mAcOdIn said:
That was me.
But yeah I see your point. I'm actually against a mandate without strong competition to keep insurance costs down. But at the same time I'm thinking it will take some political gamenship to get the ball rolling. At the very least apply some political pressure on Republicans to reluctantly work on the bill, instead of solely trying to kill it.
See, I don't care so much about competition. You always hear about how the market's supposedly good for finding this great price point/quality for the consumer but that's not really true, it's best at finding a great price/quality for a business, therefore competition doesn't mean that prices will be held down or that quality will stay at a certain standard, it just means the industry will more or less follow a trend. In fact, sometimes competition is downright bad, leading everyone towards the lowest common denominator. Competition, therefore, was always the least of my concerns. It works well if we're talking about something equal across the board, like say electricity but health care? So assuming that we escape the really bad scenario of the industry essentially colluding with each other and instead they were fighting tooth and nail for business what would they start cutting? Would people get shittier drugs, what? What exactly gets cut in health care after you've done all that you can administratively that doesn't start to adversely effect peoples coverage?The Chosen One said:That was me.
But yeah I see your point. I'm actually against a mandate without strong competition to keep insurance costs down. But at the same time I'm thinking it will take some political gamenship to get the ball rolling. At the very least apply some political pressure on Republicans to reluctantly work on the bill, instead of solely trying to kill it.
Health care in my opinion is an industry that doesn't need competition so much as set bars of requirements, regulations and constant oversight and renewed regulation, the standards we set today could be completely shitty 25 years from now.
But I physically can not be against the concept of the mandate, myself, being for single payer essentially champion the exact same fucking thing as a mandate, I'm just terrified of a poor mandate with no true oversight and I don't think competition alone guarantees anything thus barring true oversight and regulation I can not support a mandate.
Further, I really think you give the Republicans too much credit. Their base wants them to be the party of "no" on this, they don't care about expanding coverage to all Americans, 98% of Americans or 1 more American than is currently insured today, they don't care about someone not being able to get insurance because of a condition, they don't want you to sue if someone screws up royally, they don't care and they don't care if everyone knows it. Did you see some of their town halls? I watched one where a Representative basically called a woman irresponsible because she couldn't get it. Basically, the Republicans advice to an American incapable of getting affordable health insurance is to make more money so they can afford it.
The real problem is you have to get the support from the people and the Democrats just have not done that, health insurance wasn't even bad enough yet that most Americans thought it was a problem let alone the defining issue of 2010, so the Democrats really pushed it and brought it to the forefront but totally allowed the Republicans to define the whole debate, it was terrible gamesmanship on the Democrats' part, just terrible. Empty Vessel has it right when he says there needs to be more support from the people, without any real support individual Republicans are safer behind their united wall of obstructionism, the population has to make it known that they want health care reform. Until that happens, it doesn't matter what angle you go at the Republicans they're all going to uniformly oppose whatever you throw at them. Get enough people loud enough and you might scare a Republican or two into abandoning the rest of his party on this vote but until then you can't expect a single vote.
Obama's condescending infantile approach to pandering to the American people by promising everything while paying nothing really let the Republicans get in their and tear that shit apart. I don't know if Obama thinks we're all too stupid to hear the whole truth regarding health care or if he thinks we were all smart enough to where the unsaid was supposed to be understood already by the masses but either way he miscalculated and it cost them dearly.
And the truth is, if they can't pass it now, I don't see how this administration can pass it. They've already set the bar so high for basically bribing each individual vote that I'm not sure they can turn the clock back and play hard ball, nor am I confident there's a single person in the administration capable of selling it to the public cons and all, so if they can't get the House to take the Senate bill as far as I can tell it's dead.
And I still say good riddance if it dies, because I'd rather see the system implode and get completely overhauled instead of moderately patched every 50 years or whatever. Way I see it, killing health care reform is the only way to save health care reform.
But you're spot on about the naming, then and now.
ViperVisor
Member
UPDATE II: Noting that even reasonable conservatives like Stephen Bainbridge are saying things like: "Obama and the Congressional Democrats (especially in the House) governed for the last year as though the median voter is a Daily Kos fan," Andrew Sullivan writes:
The Chosen One
Member
mAcOdIn -
Excellent points.
I also agree that Obama is guilty of pandering and not giving any real straight talk. It's a shame politicians, even those in supposed positions of leadership, are afraid to ask Americans to make sacrifices or tell them the dirty truth.
To be honest, I wouldn't mind if 1.2 - 1.5 trillion was budgeted for healthcare IF the whole process was transparent and the final bill could actually accomplish what its meant to. We've spent just as much and more on the wars this past decade. But the difference is those wars had strong public support (at least at the beginning). You're right, the public never really had a sense of urgency with healthcare. It was a 2nd tier issue behind the economy and the war. And when Obama and Dems brought it up last year, they failed to make it a pressing issue for most Americans.
That said, I still think they could have pulled it off if there wasn't the wall-street, bank, and car bailouts and the stimulus bill and more troops to Afghanistan all within a 4-5 month time-span. If you step back and look at it, HCR was probably just a bridge too far considering all the spending that took place earlier in the year. I think independents started to freak out that maybe Obama does somewhat resemble the caricature the Republicans painted of a big government, big spending, deficit shattering, crazed liberal.
I vaguely remember watching some of the political shows around June right when healthcare was starting up, and some of the level-headed analyst and strategist said the WH should slow down a bit and focus on jobs for the remainder of the year. That while a HCR bill could be a great "checkmark" for Obama, the timing just isn't right considering all the recent emergency spending and the state of the economy.
It seems for once, those talking heads were right.
Excellent points.
I also agree that Obama is guilty of pandering and not giving any real straight talk. It's a shame politicians, even those in supposed positions of leadership, are afraid to ask Americans to make sacrifices or tell them the dirty truth.
To be honest, I wouldn't mind if 1.2 - 1.5 trillion was budgeted for healthcare IF the whole process was transparent and the final bill could actually accomplish what its meant to. We've spent just as much and more on the wars this past decade. But the difference is those wars had strong public support (at least at the beginning). You're right, the public never really had a sense of urgency with healthcare. It was a 2nd tier issue behind the economy and the war. And when Obama and Dems brought it up last year, they failed to make it a pressing issue for most Americans.
That said, I still think they could have pulled it off if there wasn't the wall-street, bank, and car bailouts and the stimulus bill and more troops to Afghanistan all within a 4-5 month time-span. If you step back and look at it, HCR was probably just a bridge too far considering all the spending that took place earlier in the year. I think independents started to freak out that maybe Obama does somewhat resemble the caricature the Republicans painted of a big government, big spending, deficit shattering, crazed liberal.
I vaguely remember watching some of the political shows around June right when healthcare was starting up, and some of the level-headed analyst and strategist said the WH should slow down a bit and focus on jobs for the remainder of the year. That while a HCR bill could be a great "checkmark" for Obama, the timing just isn't right considering all the recent emergency spending and the state of the economy.
It seems for once, those talking heads were right.
turnbuckle
Member
That's how insurance works. As most "progressive" states pay more in federal taxes than they receive and most conservative states do the opposite, your little snipe was pointed in the wrong direction.kzn said:
It's true though. Why isn't every single product or service sold at a near razor thin profit margin? Because the market alone doesn't push prices down. Sure there's some odd ball shit out there where they purposely lose money to gain money elsewhere but if the market alone pushed prices down it would be a truly wonderful thing. The truth is businesses don't want to operate on a small profit margin and consumers are also silly as they easily settle into thinking certain price points, even if they're higher than they should be mean quality, so some products and services have an un-natural price point where enough people are willing to pay the price for something and the company selling that product or service sees no need to lower the price and make less money but sell to more people. The market was never was never to get a product into as many hands as possible but instead to get something into as many hands as comfortably possible. Now given enough time, maybe a week, maybe a hundred years, a company or entrepreneur may decide to shake up the status quo of the previously held value of a good or service but that's hardly a reliable thing to bank on when trying to make policy.kzn said:
This is true to an extent but I think it depends on exactly what we're talking about. Regarding health care for instance many people can't even buy into it even if they have the same amount of money as you, that's an unfair situation I believe. I think it'll be rather funny as time marches on because one day everyone will have some kind of pre-existing condition, I believe everyone should be able to buy into an insurance pool. But you are right, many times they do want someone else to pay for it.kzn said:
That said, I would argue that depending on what a persons yearly income is that sometimes what they're asking for should have already been provided in the form of a higher wage to begin with. I've said before that I think the minimum wage should be high enough that a single person pay rent, some type of phone(hey gotta talk to work), electricity, water, transportation(either gas, insurance and tags or bus/train if living in a well connected city), food, health insurance, actually PAY some taxes and have enough to cover having to shell out for a new pair of work shoes or some shit if they got tore up at work. But that's always fun because if we ever did officially get it raised to a sufficient level like that some'd probably spend it on a new car and still bitch they don't make enough, so there does in fact have to be a line but I currently think the current line is way too fucking low. So the progressive agenda may seem silly and selfish but in reality it shouldn't even exist because a full time worker should already be getting adequately paid for their work.
I don't think the White House can focus on jobs, unless they're going to start hiring people to dig and fill holes, they've about done all they can do now, not that I think they did a great job with the stimulus but it's a little late now to be thinking stimulus 2, although he does need to do finance industry reform before the impetus is gone, perhaps that's why he's dragging ass on it.The Chosen One said:
I also think he missed a great opportunity to kill chip/medicaid. People see so much damn overlap in these government programs, a person eligible for medicaid would also be eligible for a voucher for a public plan under the bill so why fund medicaid? If there's plans that people are paid to enter and there's a plan that covers your kid why fund chip? Imagine if he came out and said that he's completely eliminating two different government health programs for this one, holy fuck that'd have been huge, but it becomes hard to take government serious when they talk about cost cutting and efficiency and we have one health program to cover children, one health program to cover seniors, one health program to cover poor adults, one that covers indians and then one program to cover poor adults who wish to buy a private plan, I mean, what the fuck is that clusterfuck of shit? The plan was ass because it just added yet another plank to government. He needs to go up in there and start slashing shit with Occam's Razor before he starts asking for 800 billion + in more money for new programs.
So fucking complicated, medicaid/chip is both state and federal funded with a variety of fucking different revenue streams funding them, how does government even keep this shit straight anymore? I think Americans want some damn simplicity in their government, every bill should aim to K.I.S.S. or be sent back. I think people feel paralyzed just in the myriad of ways they're taxed for shit. KISS government.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
No unemployment claims for the week?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
SimpleDesign said:
No Dean didn't say what that poster said. I remember Dean saying that a certain percentage of Obama voters ended up voting FOR BROWN, because they wanted to send a message to Washington that the HCR wasn't liberal enough.
That's what pissed Chris Matthews off. And Dean didn't know how to explain why that was while Matthews turned up the heat on his ass.
The Librarian
Banned
The House caucus meeting is going on right now. I'm eager to see the results.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
ToxicAdam said:
Oh well.
New Dem Talking Points: We're Screwed!
Preemptive Blame Placed On GOP ... Memo: 'Mathematically Impossible' For Dems To Pass Legislation On Our Own
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/dem-talking-points-were-screwed.php?ref=fpa
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
PhoenixDark said:
So happy to see this being announced. I hope it's passed. REPs can't side with the banks in an election year right?
The Librarian
Banned
That's from the panic of Tuesday. Whether or not they will continue it, who knows, but let's see what happens with health care first.Jason's Ultimatum said:
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Now TP changed their top headline like, seconds ago:
Plan B 2.0
Are Dems Walking Back From The Brink On Health Care?
House Considers Passing Senate Bill, Fixing It Later ... Option's Been On The Table For Weeks ... House Dems Struggle To Get Reform Back On Course ... Weiner: 'Hit The Reset Button'
These guys don't know what they want or going to do. :lol :lol
Plan B 2.0
Are Dems Walking Back From The Brink On Health Care?
House Considers Passing Senate Bill, Fixing It Later ... Option's Been On The Table For Weeks ... House Dems Struggle To Get Reform Back On Course ... Weiner: 'Hit The Reset Button'
These guys don't know what they want or going to do. :lol :lol
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Jason's Ultimatum said:
IMO Weiner is becoming the biggest jerk off in the House. His antics are childish and he isn't helping his cause at all. He started out being the man, now it's just a childish jack ass.
Sure they could, all they gotta do is claim that this would further slow our ability to pull ourselves out of this recession, which is true but should still be done anyways or go to the old standby that the only reason the banks failed was because they were too regulated.mckmas8808 said:
This time the Oracle is on their side, so that provides some cover. Especially since reps/dems were touting BUffet's love of the bailouts as proof they were a good thing.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPdhurDmpnhEmckmas8808 said:
Ya' know, from a political standpoint, and i'd even argue from a policy one, passing healthcare piecemeal would be a great idea. It would focus the fights on the contentious issues while agreed upon points and expansions could be passed and handed to the public.
Problem is that approach will take time. Time the Democrats feel they don't have. Doing a piecemeal approach will probably take at least a couple of months, probably more, and they don't have that time because the public is screaming jobs/economy.
Problem is that approach will take time. Time the Democrats feel they don't have. Doing a piecemeal approach will probably take at least a couple of months, probably more, and they don't have that time because the public is screaming jobs/economy.
What I don't understand is that the dems aren't going to salvage 2010 with a health care bill. It won't be progressive enough for the left and based on today's polls it will split independents. It won't win them any points in November if the job situation has not turned around.
Table this and start working on whatever Obama has planned for job recovery...what does he have planned? If they can turn around some economic numbers they still have a fighting chance in these elections. If they don't, no health care bill will save them.
Table this and start working on whatever Obama has planned for job recovery...what does he have planned? If they can turn around some economic numbers they still have a fighting chance in these elections. If they don't, no health care bill will save them.
The Credit card act of 2009 is going into effect tomorrow...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009
There's quite a few other changes, but I especially like the bolded. The first should put an end to their BS practice of taking 1 or 2 days to process an electronic payment if done after noon. If I understand the second bolded part right, someone could set their max credit to just below the original max to prevent over-charges. Instead of going through with a charge it should just be declined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009
There's quite a few other changes, but I especially like the bolded. The first should put an end to their BS practice of taking 1 or 2 days to process an electronic payment if done after noon. If I understand the second bolded part right, someone could set their max credit to just below the original max to prevent over-charges. Instead of going through with a charge it should just be declined.
eznark said:
The issue is that if the big plan for health care gets scuttled by the filibuster, that completely changes the political calculus and gives the Republicans a plan on how to prevent any major legislation. We already know the Republicans will be against the "jobs bill" because it'll involve spending and not tax breaks.
Besides, public opinion of the health care bill will rise after it's passed and the world doesn't end after all.
polyh3dron
Banned
Welp, Republicans should be cheering like crazy right now, because corporations are now people too, without any of the negative liabilities of being one like being legally liable for their actions. Yay corporations!
- Status