• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Manmademan

Member
empty vessel said:
Going through reconciliation means that what comes out of that will be a truer expression of what Democrats stand for, as they will only need 50 Senate votes instead of the 60 that constrained them before. If there is no public option, no drug negotiation, and/or no Medicare buy-in, it will be because the Democrats, as a party, oppose those measures. And, having opposed those measures, they will have failed to garner the support among the public that they will need during the next election.
Click to expand...

This. Who knew that losing mass. could actually have had a positive outcome? :lol
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Diablos said:
The website is a screencap of an unplayed youtube video :lol
Click to expand...

It looks like you can click on that arrow, but I wouldn't. :lol :lol

did you notice the website was something like "personalinjurylawers.etc.etc.etc" :lol
 
G

Gruco

Banned
cntrational said:
Obama's 'Volcker Rule' shifts power away from Geithner
Click to expand...
In particular...
Goolsbee said that Vice President Biden became a particular advocate for Volcker's approach.
Click to expand...

If Bernstein's and Goolsbee's influence is rising with Volker's, and Geithner is getting pushed aside, that is phenomenal news for white house economic policy. Hopefully this reflects a genuine trend. Definitely something to watch at this point.

I fully support thread ending Monday. It's time.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
empty vessel said:
Going through reconciliation means that what comes out of that will be a truer expression of what Democrats stand for, as they will only need 50 Senate votes instead of the 60 that constrained them before. If there is no public option, no drug negotiation, and/or no Medicare buy-in, it will be because the Democrats, as a party, oppose those measures. And, having opposed those measures, they will have failed to garner the support among the public that they will need during the next election.
Click to expand...
Agree. At the very least there's no reason not to add back in the options that were on the table in the Senate but blocked by a small handful of Senators: Medicare Buy-in and the opt-out public option. They probably could (and should) beef both of those up, but there's unquestionably an opportunity here. I suspect Pelosi is leveraging the anger in the House to push the bill further than the previous negotiations (with a 60-vote threshold in the Senate) would have. She's be a fool not to, and she's no fool.

I'm concerned that so many of the regulatory gaps between the Senate and House bills can't go through reconciliation, but there will be opportunities down the road for those.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
empty vessel said:
Going through reconciliation means that what comes out of that will be a truer expression of what Democrats stand for, as they will only need 50 Senate votes instead of the 60 that constrained them before. If there is no public option, no drug negotiation, and/or no Medicare buy-in, it will be because the Democrats, as a party, oppose those measures. And, having opposed those measures, they will have failed to garner the support among the public that they will need during the next election.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Dax01 said:
There are 51 votes in the Senate for a public option... at least an opt-out one.
Click to expand...
The question is whether it would be eligible due to the Byrd Rule (only items with direct impact on the federal budget may go through the process). IIRC, the Dem leadership did some exploration on what could go though and concluded the public option could (CBO says the opt-out public option would save the federal government $25b over 10 years). Though ultimately it's largely up to Conrad, no strong supporter of one. But if Reid etc. lean on him, it could go through.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Davig Plouffe is Back!!

WH has hired him to oversee political strategy for 2010 elections.

About Fucking Time.

Mr. Obama has asked his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, to oversee House, Senate and governor’s races to stave off a hemorrhage of seats in the fall. The president ordered a review of the Democratic political operation — from the White House to party committees — after last week’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, aides said.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/us/politics/24union.html?pagewanted=1&src=twt&twt=nytimes

theobamateam.jpg
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Diablos said:
For shame, Rahm. For shame.
Click to expand...
What an idiot. Doesn't he realize from MA loss that people are absolutely fed up with the way things are? Rahm is driving Obama's presidency to the ground. I'm so pissed at white house right now for supporting Bernanke. Yeah, he did an ok job AFTER the crash. But what was he doing when all the red flags were going off BEFORE the crash? Fire the guy. I hope he fails the nomination.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
The question is whether it would be eligible due to the Byrd Rule (only items with direct impact on the federal budget may go through the process). IIRC, the Dem leadership did some exploration on what could go though and concluded the public option could (CBO says the opt-out public option would save the federal government $25b over 10 years). Though ultimately it's largely up to Conrad, no strong supporter of one. But if Reid etc. lean on him, it could go through.
Click to expand...
What role does Conrad have in all of this? I've forgotten. Sorry.

cartoon_soldier said:
Davig Plouffe is Back!!

WH has hired him to oversee political strategy for 2010 elections.

About Fucking Time.
Click to expand...
That should really help the Dems this year. Plouffe ran a great campaign for Obama.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Dax01 said:
What role does Conrad have in all of this? I've forgotten. Sorry.
Click to expand...
He's the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, which oversees the budget reconciliation bill. If he doesn't like something, he can refuse to bring it to order.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
empty vessel said:
Going through reconciliation means that what comes out of that will be a truer expression of what Democrats stand for, as they will only need 50 Senate votes instead of the 60 that constrained them before. If there is no public option, no drug negotiation, and/or no Medicare buy-in, it will be because the Democrats, as a party, oppose those measures. And, having opposed those measures, they will have failed to garner the support among the public that they will need during the next election.
Click to expand...

Can drug negotiations be done through reconciliation though?

Agreed on everything else. A medicare buy-in would be ideal. People understand it, and it could go into effect faster than a public option iirc. I'd love to see republicans campaign on repealing health care that increases medicare to a 50 or even 55 year old limit
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Wow. So they could implement drug negotiations, expand medicaid, and lower medicare limit to 55yo...if they wanted to. If that's not the type of bill one could campaign on with full confidence, totally changing the current negative narrative on the bill, I don't know what is.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Gruco said:
Can you imagine if Brown's victory actually leads to Medicare buy-in, drug negotiation and the opt-out :lol
Click to expand...

In a different national climate, Brown would probably not be a big liablity for Democrats. He is to the left of Snowe.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Wow. So they could implement drug negotiations, expand medicaid, and lower medicare limit to 55yo...if they wanted to. If that's not the type of bill one could campaign on with full confidence, totally changing the current negative narrative on the bill, I know know what is.
Click to expand...
We'll see. I'm not going to get too excited just yet, but this was always the possibility with passing the bill - it's easy to add stuff over time via reconciliation once the main structure is passed. It's just now (maybe) happening sooner.

Right now, I'm expecting the contours of the ideas to be close to what was initially agreed to. Beyond that, bonus.
 
T

thefro

Member
cartoon_soldier said:
In a different national climate, Brown would probably not be a big liablity for Democrats. He is to the left of Snowe.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say he is, but if he wants any chance of getting reelected he'd better end up being to the left of Snowe.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Gruco said:
Can you imagine if Brown's victory actually leads to Medicare buy-in, drug negotiation and the opt-out :lol
Click to expand...

That's kind of what I was getting at earlier. The loss in the senate race could mean the dems stop screwing around and compromising a bill to get to 60 votes, and actually pass a strong bill. If this is spun right, they could be in a stronger position going into the 2010 elections than in Coakley had won.

thefro said:
I wouldn't say he is, but if he wants any chance of getting reelected he'd better end up being to the left of Snowe.
Click to expand...

Brown only won because Democrat apathy was at an all time high. a LOT of people stayed home. Against a competent opponent he may very well get crushed no matter what he does, and something tells me that what he's going to do is play obstructionist. I think there's a very good chance the 'pubs are going to prop him up as a VP candidate in 2012 instead.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
He's the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, which oversees the budget reconciliation bill. If he doesn't like something, he can refuse to bring it to order.
Click to expand...
Here's hoping we know definitively what's going to be happening by the end of next week.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Y2Kev said:
You guys have entirely too much faith in the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Honestly I don't expect much, except a bill passes. But I just find it interesting that they have all the cards now. It's just a question of whether they play them. If they went all out they'd make Brown's win an afterthought
 
D

Diablos

Member
GhaleonEB said:
He's the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, which oversees the budget reconciliation bill. If he doesn't like something, he can refuse to bring it to order.
Click to expand...
And how did this jackass get the position in the first place? Argh, why wouldn't the party push for someone with a spine to advocate the President's policies?
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
PhoenixDark said:
Can drug negotiations be done through reconciliation though?

Agreed on everything else. A medicare buy-in would be ideal. People understand it, and it could go into effect faster than a public option iirc. I'd love to see republicans campaign on repealing health care that increases medicare to a 50 or even 55 year old limit
Click to expand...

This This This.

People overwhelming LIKE medicare.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Diablos said:
And how did this jackass get the position in the first place? Argh, why wouldn't the party push for someone with a spine to advocate the President's policies?
Click to expand...
Seniority system; the Senate Democratic caucus is more like a country club than a meritocracy.
 
D

Diablos

Member
GhaleonEB said:
Seniority system; the Senate Democratic caucus is more like a country club than a meritocracy.
Click to expand...
Democrats, especially after they lose the House or Senate someday, need to fundamentally change the way their caucus operates.
 
R

RiskyChris

Banned
Suikoguy said:
This This This.

People overwhelming LIKE medicare.
Click to expand...

If Obama got on TV and explained what was wrong with health care and how to fix it, I'm sure the Democrats would be able to pass anything they wanted to incredible public support.

Haha that will never ever happen though.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Manmademan said:
I think there's a very good chance the 'pubs are going to prop him up as a VP candidate in 2012 instead.
Click to expand...
Part of me thinks he has a shot at VP or maybe even Pres, but then again, if he's to the left of Snowe...

Not to mention, he's pro-choice, accepts evolution, and at times can be an advocate for bigger banks/government, among other things.

1. He supports legal abortion: "This decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor," he says.

2. He's against a national law prohibiting gay marriage: "States should be free to make their own laws in this area," he says.

3. He supports government investment in green programs: "I support reasonable and appropriate development of alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal and improved hydroelectric facilities."

4. He's politically correct on Israel: "I support a two-state solution that reaffirms Israel's right to exist and provides the Palestinians with a place of their own where both sides can live in peace and security."

5. And he doesn't even want to bomb Iran! He's backing Obama's cautious incrementalism! "I support the bipartisan Iran sanctions bill..."
Click to expand...
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/scott-brown-mass-senate-race-011910
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Diablos said:
Part of me thinks he has a shot at VP or maybe even Pres, but then again, if he's to the left of Snowe...
Click to expand...
Obviously this will be when he switches parties, revealing that he only ran as a republican in the senate because he knew he couldn't beat Martha Coakley in the Dem primaries but knew he could take advantage of her lack of personality in the general election.

Hell I'll be surprised if a year or so from now when the "WOW! A Republican senator from Massachusetts! WOW!" shock fizzles out that Rush Limbaugh doesn't start demanding he switch parties like he says with McCain and Powell.
 
P

Plumbob

Member
GhaleonEB said:
No, not really.
Click to expand...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/joe-wilson-apologizes-for_n_281541.html

"Not long after the speech ended, Wilson issued an apology. "This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill," he said. "While I disagree with the President's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility." Wilson also called the White House to apologize."

He might still be an idiot during the SOTU, but I doubt he will shout again.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Plumbob said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/joe-wilson-apologizes-for_n_281541.html

"Not long after the speech ended, Wilson issued an apology. "This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill," he said. "While I disagree with the President's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility." Wilson also called the White House to apologize."

He might still be an idiot during the SOTU, but I doubt he will shout again.
Click to expand...
Sort of.
"While I disagree with the President's statement..."
Click to expand...
The catch. Wilson was the liar, there's nothing to disagree about. So true, he apologized for yelling, but not for lying his ass off, which I think a full apology would include. So I've always thought of it as an half apology, sort of like when people say, "I'm sorry if you were offended."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

No Job, Loads of Debt: Covid Upends Middle-Class Family Finances - WSJ
Social
17
3K
daveonezero replied
[Atlantic] America Has a Drinking Problem
2 3
149
21K
Hawking Radiation replied
Big Business and Government: Grand conspiracy or ramblings of a mad man?
3
2K
Soodanim replied
WSJ: Trump to roll back ACA requirements with EOs next week
2
50
10K
Bsigg12 replied
Trump to Sign Executive Order on Health Care
2
89
20K
N21 replied
Top Bottom