The Obama Administration thread

[Smoking Guns]

btw, on the term limit thing...term limits sound good on paper, but honestly, as much as I disagree with a guy like McCain on many issues, I don't think he's corrupted.  I honestly don't think most representatives are corrupt, I don't.  You want corrupt?  Look at how other governments operate...you might appreciate ours a little bit more after taking a good look around. 

It's not entirely about corruption (though that's part of it).  It's about power and becoming a product of the system.

If you know you have 2 terms in the Senate, for example, you have no onus to try to perpetuate your career IN the Senate.  You get 12 years...that's it.  You don't need to make power grabs to maintain your position or do "favors" your entire life to get you choice comittee memberships down the road or a million other things you do to try to ADVANCE in your CAREER as Senator.  I'm not necessarily even talking about "corruption". I'm talking about the politicing, favor trading, and "boys clubbing" that goes on in perpetuity around the Senate. That CULTURE is simply bad for productive legislation getting passed.  It gives too easy a base for simply playing it safe or being an obstructionist when your party is not in power. 

 In addition, you don't have to pay lip service to lobbys and special interest groups because you're only going to have to run for re-election ONCE.  You can, instead, focus on doing your job.  You don't need nearly as much of their support or money because while running for re-election CAN be expensive, PERPETUALLY running for senate is untenable without corporate "sponsorship". 

Term limits for the Senate would be, IMHO, one of the best things to happen to our legislature.

Pilferk, I agree with everything you said here.

[Perfect Criminal]

The Dem's health care bill has one fundamental problem with it that has yet to be overcome and that is that we cannot afford it.  When my parents taught me about budgeting, there was one fundamental rule, "do not spend what you do not have".

A lesson that the vast majority of our credit card wielding society should learn.  But they haven't yet.  And I'd argue that our country needs real health care reform (and make no mistake, this is a very small baby step toward that...and not a perfect one, at that) a lot more than my fellow countrymen need that 2nd 46 inch LCD, for the bedroom, that went on the Visa card on Black Friday.

  Both parties are guilty of this, but after signing a mostly useless $787 billion stimulus bill, the Dems now want to put our future generation into an even bigger hole. 

Define "mostly useless".  Most economists are actually saying that we're seeing some of the effects of that stimulus bill now, with projected effects to continue thorugh mid 2010.  The quesiton isn't whether it was effective (it was) but whether it will be prolongedly effective.  If you define it as "mostly useless" because you think the effects from the bill won't last pas mid-2010, and we'll be right back where we started....I can see your point.  I don't necessarily agree, but there's evidence in both directions so can at least see your basis.

If, however, you mean "mostly useless" in that it was wholly ineffective....evidence says otherwise.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34452363/ns/business-personal_finance//

And, at the end of the day, it was like the healthcare bill now being offered up: It was FULL of compromise.  Again, that is at least partially because of the Repubs...first to try to get them to vote for it, and then to ensure they had enough votes to get it passed with slim (to no) Repub support and past philibuster. 

Anyone that tells you health care bill is cost neutral is smoking crack.  The republicans are being obstructionists as pointed out before, but with some good reasons.  No one shoudl sign a bill that spends more money and increases taxes and premium of so many.

Cost neutral?  Probably not.  BUT, it's also not nearly as expensive as the Repubs would have you believe.  "Cost neutral" doesn't mean we're not increasing spending...it means the bill has to, within it, carry provisions to pay the cost.  This bill DOES do that, based on projections (though I'm still waiting on the non-partisan Budget office to weigh in...have they??).  In reality?  Probably not...but maybe close enough to be worth the additional costs.

On the Repubs...don't delude yourself into thinking their objections are anything but what they are:  Politicing and trying to revive their party from the disastrous '08 elections.  They're not being obstructionist based on "good reason".  Good reasons exist...I agree.  The Repubs (and we're talking about the ones serving in Washington, not the rank and file members of the constituency) aren't doing anything but paying lip service to them.  They're jockeying for position, putting on a show for the American voter, and hoping this endeavor fails so they have leverage/ammuntion for 2010.  That's the sum total of their objections, and it will be their sum total for the next few months when they vote as a massive block to delay anything productive from happening in the legislature.

We'll have to see if it works, or if it backfires.  But they're so desperate after 2008 that it's really the only viable political option open to them.

That being said, the Republicans come up on the correct side of fiscal prudence here and the Dems come up on the right side of the human side of things.  When those two forces are pitted against each other, the fiscal side better win out for the sake of our future generations.  Humanity will always survive, but America can tumble if we lose further ground economically.  When we reach the point where China questions whether they should invest in the USA, that's a red alert.

I think, actually, you need to strike a nice balance between the two.  Which probably tells you a lot about why I'm a registered independant (and NO, I didn't vote for Leiberman.   ).  And we can't forgo progress because you have a set of "doom and gloom" republicans sounding like the guy outside of the capital building who is always sounding the end of the world.     You're right, though...the United States CAN tumble if we lose  ground further economically.  My question is this:  What do you think will cause more harm?  Additional taxes, levied against goods and services (and wage earners) who can more likely afford them?  Or out of control health care costs that are putting into serious financial jeopardy the working and middle class of the country?   Contrary to popular belief, those costs don't just evaporate when people can't pay them.  They get their wages attached...and suddenly they can't pay their mortgage, or their credit card bills, or all the other things that spur our consumer driven economy on.

I'm not sure the answer is as cut and dry as you suppose it is.

I am all for health care reform if it starts with tort reform.  Any health care bill that doesn't have tort reform is just spending money we don't have.

I agree.  To really address our health care system, torte reform needs to occur.   The bill before the Senate is a TINY little imperfect baby step. I'd guess we're going to see some tweaks and twists as it gets rolled out to further refine the bill.  I think, down the road, they're going to HAVE to address tort as part of the package....and until they do, there are going to be some issues at large.

I'm not going to shout from the mountaintop about this bill.  It's a bit bloated for my tastes.  It leaves out some very important pieces that I think need to be addressed.  But, in this case, I agree with something Clinton just said (and I think quoted from someone else): "You can't let perfection be the enemy of progress".  This is, IMHO, progress.  Hopefully, there is more to come.

Well I certainly appreciate anyone that would take the time and effort to respond to me in such a thorough and well thought out manner.  For that I say "thank you sir".

I disagree with you on a number of issues which is of course evident in your response, but I am not so blind that I do not see the arguments on the other side of my positions. 

I must admit that when it comes to health care reform, my opinion is pretty biased.  I work for a county government and have a very good health care plan of which I pay very little for.  I suppose my salary is reduced from what a comparable job would offer in the private sector to help offset those health care (and a tremendous retirement plan) costs.  Either way, I am not one of the unlucky people without health care right now.

I also have 2 children for which I am very concerned for their future here in the US.  We need to stop the spending!  We need to cut programs that we don't need!  40 years ago we ran this government on a lot less taxes (percentage-wise) and had a healthier bank account.  Unfortunately, we have added a bunch of social programs that were never envisioned in our constitution that have bankrupted us.  For instance, I doubt the constitution ever envisioned a program where the federal government pays for the utility bills of the poor.  There has been so much wealth redistribution in the past 40 years that has lead to higher taxes for the middle class and wealthy.  This has lead to a vast bloating of our government.  I firmly believe that a bunch of these programs are not a hand-up but simply a hand-out the decentivizes instead of encourages.

I know liberals love a big government, but can't people see what a big government does to our economy?  Taxing the rich (those that create jobs and are responsible for a majority of invention in this country) is great if you want to redistribute wealth (like Hugo Chavez) to the poor, but it is a horrible idea for our economy and it lower incentive to work hard and invent things.  The rich will pay more than their share (as they always have), but there needs to be a limit on it.

This country is not very far away from a tax revolt.  The Tea Party stuff proved that if nothing else.  I am not some crazy right-wing guy.  I watch equal amounts of liberal and conservative programming.  I just do not see our country regaining its once great place in this world if we keep borrowing and printing money.

It's time to cut massive programs out of our government spending, not create more of them.

I know I got off topic a bit, bit it all ties together , doesn't it?

[GeorgeSteele]

^

Why are social programs that assist those who actually need help always the target of budget hawks?  How about our $700 billion military budget?  If it was cut to $600 billion, that alone would pay for universal health care.  The 2nd highest military spender, China, is at $70 billion. 

Yes, progressive taxation that "burdens" the rich is in effect income redistribution.  But it's necessary because there is an obscene maldistribution of wealth in the US.  When 10% of the population owns 90% of the wealth, that is a broken system.  These people aren't any more valuable than the working class, but they have the most valued asset -- capital.  In a capitalist economy, capital is rewarded more than labor, skill, expertise and knowledge... money earns money disproportionately... owning money becomes the greatest asset to earn income rather than having skills, expertise etc.

[pilferk]

^

Why are social programs that assist those who actually need help always the target of budget hawks?  How about our $700 billion military budget?  If it was cut to $600 billion, that alone would pay for universal health care.  The 2nd highest military spender, China, is at $70 billion. 

Yes, progressive taxation that "burdens" the rich is in effect income redistribution.  But it's necessary because there is an obscene maldistribution of wealth in the US.  When 10% of the population owns 90% of the wealth, that is a broken system.  These people aren't any more valuable than the working class, but they have the most valued asset -- capital.  In a capitalist economy, capital is rewarded more than labor, skill, expertise and knowledge... money earns money disproportionately... owning money becomes the greatest asset to earn income rather than having skills, expertise etc.

C'mon...you know the answer to that!

Because the nameless, faceless masses of the poor make it easy to target them. And they don't really have a "voice", or a means to cry foul.

 And because, if you're poor (as in, below the poverty line) it's YOUR fault.  You're not working hard enough, you're lazy, and don't DESERVE assistance.  You should pull yourself up by the boot straps, buck up, and simply MAKE MORE MONEY.  It's really that easy.  Everyone has equal access to education.  Everyone has equal access to high paying jobs, no matter what their skill set is.  You know that!!  Environment, chance, circumstance.....NONE of that has anything to do with it.

[Perfect Criminal]

It's actually much easier to explain than all that.  The people that deserve the money are the people that take on the most risk and the people that drive our economy.  The rich and small business drive our economy.  They supply the jobs we all have (except us government employees  ), they supply the goods we use, they take on all of the financial risk when they start these companies.  If the start-ups succeed they deserve to get paid for it.  If they fail, they pay the price (or at least should).

Capitalism is pure.  It is self correcting.  It rewards the bold.  It encourages hard work and risk taking.  It motivates.  These socialist policies of Obama's administration do the exact opposite. 

What rule is there that 10% of the people shouldn't own 90% of the money?  I know liberals want everyone to have the same amount of money, but why should a janitor that has never taken a risk in his life and has never supplied a job to the economy, be treated the same or even better than the wealthy business executive by our government?

The difference between being poor and being rich in the USA is simply the amount of risk you are willing to take.  If you are risk adverse, you will most likely never be rich.  I know because I am one of those people.  On the other hand, if you are Donald Trump and take a huge loan out to build something not knowing wheather or not it will be successful, you just might get rich.  Risk-reward.  Why should the government decentivize people like Trump?  We should give those economy drivers every incentive to continue to create jobs and build product here in the US.

That's just my opinion.  I am kind of sick of the social programs for every possible situation or problem.  They decentivize.  I know people on unemployement now that are not loooking for a job because they still have 3 months of checks coming from the government.  That's what happens in these programs.  Welfare is even worse.  As for the military spending, that should never be decreased.  We have already lost our economic dominance in this world.  If we lose our military dominance we're fucked.  Our military is what ensures us the freedoms we all enjoy here.  The military is the one good thing the government does.  I would privatize every program and service the government currently runs and run them in the open market with the exception of the military.  That is the one thing our government is very good at.

[freedom78]

Capitalism is pure.  It is self correcting.  It rewards the bold.  It encourages hard work and risk taking.  It motivates.  These socialist policies of Obama's administration do the exact opposite. 

Capitalism is pure greed.  It is inherently flawed.  It rewards exploitation.  It encourages those at the top to abuse those at the bottom.     

[Axl4Prez2004]

Capitalism is pure.  It is self correcting.  It rewards the bold.  It encourages hard work and risk taking.  It motivates.  These socialist policies of Obama's administration do the exact opposite. 

Capitalism is pure greed.  It is inherently flawed.  It rewards exploitation.  It encourages those at the top to abuse those at the bottom.     

As Freedom would agree, the best system is found somewhere in between with aspects of both present.  Too much capitalism will result in too great a disparity between the rich and the poor.  Too much socialism will result in decreased incentive to work hard and would likely see decreased innovation as a result.

[freedom78]

Capitalism is pure.  It is self correcting.  It rewards the bold.  It encourages hard work and risk taking.  It motivates.  These socialist policies of Obama's administration do the exact opposite. 

Capitalism is pure greed.  It is inherently flawed.  It rewards exploitation.  It encourages those at the top to abuse those at the bottom.     

As Freedom would agree, the best system is found somewhere in between with aspects of both present.  Too much capitalism will result in too great a disparity between the rich and the poor.  Too much socialism will result in decreased incentive to work hard and would likely see decreased innovation as a result.

Hey!  I thought it was the "make absolutist statements happy hour"!  There is no room for nuance here.

P.S. - Hope you had a nice Christmas, A4P

[Smoking Guns]

I hope this recent terrorist shit on the airplanes isn't a new trend.  This shit sux.

[Axl4Prez2004]

Capitalism is pure.  It is self correcting.  It rewards the bold.  It encourages hard work and risk taking.  It motivates.  These socialist policies of Obama's administration do the exact opposite. 

Capitalism is pure greed.  It is inherently flawed.  It rewards exploitation.  It encourages those at the top to abuse those at the bottom.     

As Freedom would agree, the best system is found somewhere in between with aspects of both present.  Too much capitalism will result in too great a disparity between the rich and the poor.  Too much socialism will result in decreased incentive to work hard and would likely see decreased innovation as a result.

Hey!  I thought it was the "make absolutist statements happy hour"!  There is no room for nuance here.

P.S. - Hope you had a nice Christmas, A4P

Thanks Freedom!  Likewise.  It was a great Christmas.  The only thing that matters to me is the health of my family...and 'tis good.  That's all that matters.        Everything else is gravy.   
Colts-Vikes could still happen!  How cool would that be Freedom?   

Smoking Guns, Pilferk, Steele, Jim, even Blutarsky!  I hope you all had a very merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  We may not agree on everything in the political realm, but just the fact we talk is a great thing isn't it?  I think it is!
Have a great fuckin' 2010!  It's gonna be awesome.   

[Mr. TRash]

It's been a full year since he's been elected, he's accomplished 0, and received the Nobel peace prize, who wouldn't want to be president?

[Smoking Guns]

Capitalism is pure.  It is self correcting.  It rewards the bold.  It encourages hard work and risk taking.  It motivates.  These socialist policies of Obama's administration do the exact opposite. 

Capitalism is pure greed.  It is inherently flawed.  It rewards exploitation.  It encourages those at the top to abuse those at the bottom.     

As Freedom would agree, the best system is found somewhere in between with aspects of both present.  Too much capitalism will result in too great a disparity between the rich and the poor.  Too much socialism will result in decreased incentive to work hard and would likely see decreased innovation as a result.

Hey!  I thought it was the "make absolutist statements happy hour"!  There is no room for nuance here.

P.S. - Hope you had a nice Christmas, A4P

Thanks Freedom!  Likewise.  It was a great Christmas.  The only thing that matters to me is the health of my family...and 'tis good.  That's all that matters.        Everything else is gravy.   
Colts-Vikes could still happen!  How cool would that be Freedom?   

Smoking Guns, Pilferk, Steele, Jim, even Blutarsky!  I hope you all had a very merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  We may not agree on everything in the political realm, but just the fact we talk is a great thing isn't it?  I think it is!
Have a great fuckin' 2010!  It's gonna be awesome.   

Thanks A4P!  Man 2009 really sucked, a lot of people died this year, bad economy, loss of jobs... I hope 2010 is a comeback year for us.

[Smoking Guns]

Are you guys happy with how the administration is handling the 2 flights to Detroit and the terror threats on them?  Are you guys finally seeing why I am not a Janet Napalitano fan?

[freedom78]

Are you guys happy with how the administration is handling the 2 flights to Detroit and the terror threats on them?  Are you guys finally seeing why I am not a Janet Napalitano fan?

I'd hesitate to put the blame on her, since she's dealing not just with US security but with Dutch and Nigerian as well. 

That said, we got lucky and we have to learn from it.

[Smoking Guns]

I am not blaming her, I am talking about her reaction as if everything worked fine... It really didn't.  And Terror still is very much a threat.  She just seems clueless to me.  I don't like her.  Not sure if its because she looks like she has no idea about what is going on, or she actually has no idea about what is going on.

[norway]

Capitalism is pure greed.  It is inherently flawed.  It rewards exploitation.  It encourages those at the top to abuse those at the bottom.     

Hey now, thats socialism!
Which is really an totalitarian ideology, fascism often have this as economical structure.

Viewing ecomomy as a ecological system capitalism rewards cooperation between small and big companies, breeding democracy.

Natural selection will always exist as nature's will is to grow.

Altho, socialism is not "pure greed" it's pure angst at least, or pure hatred. 2days absolutists comment.

[pilferk]

Smoking Guns, Pilferk, Steele, Jim, even Blutarsky!  I hope you all had a very merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  We may not agree on everything in the political realm, but just the fact we talk is a great thing isn't it?  I think it is!
Have a great fuckin' 2010!  It's gonna be awesome.   

Merry X-mas everyone!  We had a great one around the pilferk house.  

Hope everyone else did, too.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Smoking Guns, Pilferk, Steele, Jim, even Blutarsky!  I hope you all had a very merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  We may not agree on everything in the political realm, but just the fact we talk is a great thing isn't it?  I think it is!
Have a great fuckin' 2010!  It's gonna be awesome.   

Thanks dude.

My Christmas was good. My kid got so much stuff I am literally wading thru toys around here.

Look forward to "debating" on here in 2010!

[GeorgeSteele]

Happy Holidays and Merry New Year to all, capitalist pigs and commie scum included.   

Anyway, a couple things...

The concept that those who take business risks deserve to horde all of a society's wealth is flawed, to say the least.  Again, it overvalues capital to the detriment of labor.  There's a chicken and the egg thing going on here and here's a hint -- capital did not come first.  Also, I find the "risk" worship a little funny -- the worst case scenario of any such "risk" taker is that they end up like the rest of us, having to work for a living.  Oh, the horror.

As for capitalism being pure greed, the flip side is that capitalism only encourages greed to the same extent socialism encourages laziness.  We can agree they both have a relationship with a deadly sin.  But, the capitalism vs. socialism debate really clouds the real issue and that's that we are in a class war.  What we should be fighting for are those aspects of capitalism and socialism that benefit those of us that aren't filthy rich.  Who cares about ideological consistency?  We know that the wealthy don't, as evidenced by the bank bailout and every time a city builds a stadium for a sports franchise with public funds.  Right now, the working class people of this country, the primary creators of wealth, are not getting there fair share of the pie and that needs to change.

 

[freedom78]

Who cares about ideological consistency?

A good point.  Ideological purity is a fool's dream and often a destructive one.  While ideology may direct our actions, we should have a strong vein of pragmatism in assessing the outcomes of any policy, ideological or otherwise.