Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay I am speaking as an outsider here, I don't have access to all the news that Americans seem to follow... but I'm going to give a quick two cents on what's irking me about Barack Obama at the moment.

I'll quickly make it clear that I fully advocate healthcare reform and am a firm supporter of the NHS (and any American attempts to slug that make my lip wobble).

I believe that every person has the right to access healthcare and I believe that the state should (and hopefully is) fully accountable to the people as an elected body, it should mirror, in theory, the beliefs of the nation. Thus I trust the state to handle healthcare as I believe it has the resources to do so and is the one body that can truly be said to not "be out for a profit".

At any rate, that's settled, onto Obama:

Whilst he's not exactly fervent enough on healthcare for my liking, I considered his policies progressive for America and I rooted for him after his election (beforehand I referred to him as a "coconut", which I guess I still believe). But now that the bill is being hacked into I feel furious with him. I put it to the head of the Obama Campaign in Europe when she came to visit the Liberal Democrat Society at my University that Obama was making a mistake by not criticising the criticisms levelled at him and not denouncing anti-healthcare reform proponents as murderers: Sarah Palin claiming that the elderly would have to face bueracratic "death panels" and the blatant prejudices shown by FOXNews (please see LiberalViewer on YouTube for many, MANY examples... he pretty much stalks FOX) are nothing short of deliberately misinformative and thus, in my opinion, accessory to suffering. Anyway, the woman to whom I put this question told me, and actually at the time had me believe, that Obama was coming out on top with this approach: The more the Republicans yelled, the crazier their yelling got... and thus Obama appeared to be rising above it. But considering recent events, I've come up with a different explanation: Perhaps Obama genuinely seeks to be bipartisan? Could it be that Obama simply lacks the conviction to carry through what the Democrats expected from him? I really believe that he is isolating his core supporters and we're going to see losses in 2012.

I don't understand what's going through his head, I must be wrong really... I mean, I study Politics, I understand how powerless the President really is but a lot of influence can still stem from what he says and I believe he can honestly say that he commands one of the firmest democratic mandates a President has seen: Most of the Nation really was behind him! And yet he does not denounce his opposition (and if he was convicted on this issue, he would genuinely hold them to be despicable, surely?) and doesn't appease his own supporters?! That's political suicide! Lastly, if I recall GoLeftTV (yes, a YouTube cartoon.. my sources of information vary eh? You guys should see their Joe Lieberman skits ;&gt the only individual he has denounced was a guy who actually appears to be on his left rather than his right? Well I'm guessing now so I'll shush...

Rant over!

It's all politics. 'Calling out' your opponents doesn't make them go away, and taking actions like that would probably further solidify party opposition in the Legislative branch, so not only are you fighting tooth and nail to try and get the important stuff you want passed passed, but they start digging in their heels for the more inconsequential stuff too.

Whats this bipartisan nonsense? He can't get 51% to approve much less any Republicans or moderates. To be bipartisan you have to include, you know, things that are bipartisan and "the other side" wants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9D72N2O0&show_article=1

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/01/majority_would.php

Frazzled wrote:Whats this bipartisan nonsense? He can't get 51% to approve much less any Republicans or moderates. To be bipartisan you have to include, you know, things that are bipartisan and "the other side" wants.

The problem is that he's tried that but unless he does strictly what the Rethuglicans want, there's going to be no compromise. That's why a 2 party system sucks.

Secondly, from the whole "most people would vote against Obama"...where did this poll take place? All over the country?

On that same point, a comment from that article...

I am a rightwinger that thinks this type of reporting is idiotic. First of all, we have no idea who the republican nominee will be so you really cannot say who you would vote for until you know who the other candidate is. Second, Obama and the democrats will do less controversial stuff in the runup to the election, so the people will forget whatever he has done that has made them upset. This polling means absolutely NOTHING. Things change very quickly in politics. PLEASE REPORT REAL NEWS!!!!

Frazzled wrote:Whats this bipartisan nonsense? He can't get 51% to approve much less any Republicans or moderates. To be bipartisan you have to include, you know, things that are bipartisan and "the other side" wants.

Harry Reid, perhaps the least astute political mind in the US, just figured out that Snowe was never going to vote for the bill, and once Reid's figured out the GOP is committed to

Most of us had an idea the GOP was never going to go for a compromise bill when they released memos talking about this as the issue where they could break the Democrats, and calling on members to be as deliberately disruptive as town hall meetings as possible. Or when the DNC offered up malpractice reform and asked what any GOP members would consider negotiating on, and not one even raised a proposal. Or when Snowe voted to simply move the bill out of committee, and the GOP spazzed out entirely, some calling her a traitor.

But Reid's finally cottoned on. Maybe you will too.

Really, you shouldn't use Harry "he don't got no negra accent hep hep" Reid in any context to be taken seriously Sebster.

It amazing to me that in the 200+ years of the USA, most bills have managed to get support from both sides. That hasn't occurred since CapNTax. To blame everything on the Republicans is complete and utter nonsense.

Obama let the hard left run with this bill and this is what he got. instead of some real needed improvements we have this porkbarrel nonses thats going to raise taxes onthe Middle class in a big way (or at least the bill he supports). Kiss the House goodby in 2010 and President/Senate in 2012.

I'm out. This topic has been talked to death a hundred times.

Frazzled wrote:Really, you shouldn't use Harry "he don't got no negra accent hep hep" Reid in any context to be taken seriously Sebster.

Which is the point, he's a staggering idiot and managed to figure out that perhaps all that stuff the GOP said about opposing any healthcare reform possibly indicated they were about to oppose any healthcare reform.

It amazing to me that in the 200+ years of the USA, most bills have managed to get support from both sides. That hasn't occurred since CapNTax. To blame everything on the Republicans is complete and utter nonsense.

There's been no GOP support for any bill because they've set themselves to oppose everything. It isn't as if they've even pretended otherwise.

There were healthcare reform had bills in both houses for months, but there was never any proposal from the GOP to amend any bill towards something they could vote for. Not one. When the Democrats approached them, offering malpractice reform as an olive branch, not one Republican could raise even a single issue they might concede in order to reach a bi-partisan agreement.

Instead there were complaints about death panels and socialism. And now the GOP is complaining the the Democrats weren't being bi-partisan. And there seem to be people believing it. Incredible.

And blame what on the GOP? Congratulations are in order, they faced DNC control of both houses and the presidency, and have managed to force the Democrats to squander that utterly, passing no meaningful legislation. And despite the overt filibuster and obstruction goals they set themselves, they've copped almost no negative media - instead the Democrats have been labeled as ineffective (which is, to be fair, completely true). The Republicans have done brilliantly given the hand they were dealt. Pretending it was anything other than politics to spite the DNC is just plain wrong, but as far as politics goes it was very impressive.

Obama let the hard left run with this bill and this is what he got.

HAHAHAHAHA

Lieberman is the hard left now? Who's the centre, Lindsey Graham?

And now the foreigners opine on why Obama President is Best President!

I'm gonna go with he's not Bush for $5, Frazzled

Kanluwen wrote:I'm gonna go with he's not Bush for $5, Frazzled

More than 6 and a half billion people on the planet have that qualification, find a better reason.

They didn't run for president of the United States, now did they!

Tyyr wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I'm gonna go with he's not Bush for $5, Frazzled

More than 6 and a half billion people on the planet have that qualification, find a better reason.

Well actually they have to beUS citizens and over 35 years of age, so that number is a bit off.

I would run for President, but I don't think it would end well.

Whats this bipartisan nonsense? He can't get 51% to approve much less any Republicans or moderates. To be bipartisan you have to include, you know, things that are bipartisan and "the other side" wants.

Concessions like cutting out the public options, half the reforms, abortion aid, and every other thing the republicans asked for.

Maybe you should realize nothing is good enough because it's a bill put forth by a liberal president, regardless of it's actual content. There could be a resolution about how the moon exists and after fox news trawled the conservative voerbase for a month you would see a partisan split 51 49 with every conservative saying the moon is smaller than the earth.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Whats this bipartisan nonsense? He can't get 51% to approve much less any Republicans or moderates. To be bipartisan you have to include, you know, things that are bipartisan and "the other side" wants.

Concessions like cutting out the public options, half the reforms, abortion aid, and every other thing the republicans asked for.

Maybe you should realize nothing is good enough because it's a bill put forth by a liberal president, regardless of it's actual content. There could be a resolution about how the moon exists and after fox news trawled the conservative voerbase for a month you would see a partisan split 51 49 with every conservative saying the moon is smaller than the earth.

So what you're saying is...

'He who controls the Fox News...controls the universe'?

Frazzled wrote:Whats this bipartisan nonsense? He can't get 51% to approve much less any Republicans or moderates. To be bipartisan you have to include, you know, things that are bipartisan and "the other side" wants.

You mean like the healthcare exchanges to supply portable coverage, medicare reform, and a lean on private insurers. The things that are either in the current bill, or being discussed in compromise?

Frazzled wrote:
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/01/majority_would.php

Approval ratings for the same period from Gallup. There has been so much variation in general approval on a week-to-week, and poll-to-poll basis that any change inside of the adjusted standard deviation is meaningless.

Where's the limitation on malpractice suits?
Why on earth are you cutting Medicare?
Why are you trying to tax medical insurance?
But you're right. Its all because of those evil Republicans. if only the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House they could get something done. Evil Republicans! Why are they even allowed in Congress if they are not going to get with the program?

Orly Gnome thinks Frazzled is onto something...

Quick! To the Democratic Castle!

Frazzled wrote:
Obama let the hard left run with this bill and this is what he got. instead of some real needed improvements we have this porkbarrel nonses thats going to raise taxes onthe Middle class in a big way (or at least the bill he supports). Kiss the House goodby in 2010 and President/Senate in 2012.

First of all, allowed, what? Right, well when the President carries more authority in Congress than the Majority leaders you can go ahead with that theory. Or are you actually advocating a stronger executive here?

In any case, the bill is a 3% net spending increase in the form that was put back to the House. The excise tax, which certainly will hit the middle class, covers 55-60% of it and roughly works out to an average tax increase of $260 per year. This falls considerably in the likely event that the public option will be cut, which effectively leaves a bill which is substantively identical to what Republicans have floated (at least outside the expansion to Medicaid, and postulated expansion of Medicare).

Not that the Republicans really want anything to pass. From a political perspective any healthcare legislation which goes through is a significant victory for the Democrats.

Frazzled wrote:Where's the limitation on malpractice suits?
Why on earth are you cutting Medicare?
Why are you trying to tax medical insurance?

Malpractice is a state issue which cannot be directly addressed due to the 10th amendment. There are provisions in the bill which address malpractice (Title VI, Part III, Subtitle I, Section 6801), but they should be more thorough. Medicare will expand by .6% less over the next ten years than it otherwise would have, that's a cut but not a significant one. Medical insurance is being taxed in order to cover the costs of expanding Medicaid, and the public option. It works out to an average increase of $280 a year.

I had no idea that compromise meant getting everything you wanted.

Frazzled wrote:
But you're right. Its all because of those evil Republicans. if only the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House they could get something done. Evil Republicans! Why are they even allowed in Congress if they are not going to get with the program?

When did I say anything about Republicans, and when did your name become Captain Hyperbole?

Vladsimpaler wrote:Secondly, from the whole "most people would vote against Obama"...where did this poll take place? All over the country?

On that same point, a comment from that article...

I am a rightwinger that thinks this type of reporting is idiotic. First of all, we have no idea who the republican nominee will be so you really cannot say who you would vote for until you know who the other candidate is. Second, Obama and the democrats will do less controversial stuff in the runup to the election, so the people will forget whatever he has done that has made them upset. This polling means absolutely NOTHING. Things change very quickly in politics. PLEASE REPORT REAL NEWS!!!!

Yeah, the trouble is that Obama won't be running against "candidate X", he'll be running against someone with a name and their own strengths and weaknesses, etc. Which makes the poll question both stupid and leading. Good polling would have tested Obama against some of the rumored candidates for the GOP nomination.

Didn't John Kerry just prove six years ago that the candidate actually matters, and that dissatisfaction with the incumbent isn't enough for people to vote for you?

The one positive about Obama.

He isn't John Kerry.

Frazzled wrote:
Obama let the hard left run with this bill and this is what he got. instead of some real needed improvements we have this porkbarrel nonses thats going to raise taxes onthe Middle class in a big way (or at least the bill he supports). Kiss the House goodby in 2010 and President/Senate in 2012.

That's complete nonsense, this bill is going to SAVE money: Obama has actually stated his numbers in an address.

I mean, sorry, but when something like that is so blatantly wrong... it just absolutely destroys my faith in the neutrality of the media o.O (as I assume you've heard that rubbish somewhere)

The Brit believes Obama. Thats cute.

Henners91 wrote:
That's complete nonsense, this bill is going to SAVE money: Obama has actually stated his numbers in an address.

I mean, sorry, but when something like that is so blatantly wrong... it just absolutely destroys my faith in the neutrality of the media o.O (as I assume you've heard that rubbish somewhere)

The bill is unlikely to save money in the short term (10-15 years). It might save money over the long term through expanded care, and the resultant reduction of financial burden on hospitals. However, over the short term, it will cost more, not much more, but more; especially if we're only looking at government outlay.

Frazzled wrote:The Brit believes Obama. Thats cute.

Didn't you warn me for being that derisive? Maybe it wasn't you, but it was definitely a mod.

Other estimates have it costing $2.1 Trillion in the next two years. it will cost more.

When you have to start taxing now four years ahead of time just to make it balance its way off.

Frazzled wrote:Other estimates have it costing $2.1 Trillion in the next two years. it will cost more.

When you have to start taxing now four years ahead of time just to make it balance its way off.

Not really, that's what would be considered fiscal responsibility. You know, generating capital in order to cover transition costs.

The $2.1 trillion figure, over 2 years anyway, was a different bill. I've seen estimates that high for the current bill, but not over a period of 2 years. That's just an absurd estimate, there simply aren't enough potential costs in either the House or Senate the bill to produce that kind of fiscal obligation; especially if the public option is cut.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Other estimates have it costing $2.1 Trillion in the next two years. it will cost more.

When you have to start taxing now four years ahead of time just to make it balance its way off.

Not really, that's what would be considered fiscal responsibility. You know, generating capital in order to cover transition costs.

The $2.1 trillion figure was a different bill.

tahts such staggering bu it I don't know where to begin. Its basdic math that if you need 14 years of tax receipts to "balance" 10 years of spending then its not balanced. It costs more on an annual basis. Seriuosly the though thats fiscal responsibility is just utterly absolutely shocking. Thats flamy level playing with numbers to fit what you want.
Of course that double counted the medicare savings too.
I really am done now, this conversation is asinine. Its freaking basic math, basic budgeting.

Henners91 wrote:That's complete nonsense, this bill is going to SAVE money...

Talk about nonsense!
The US government does not know anything about saving money.

Frazzled wrote:
tahts such staggering bu it I don't know where to begin. Its basdic math that if you need 14 years of tax receipts to "balance" 10 years of spending then its not balanced. It costs more on an annual basis.

Yes, that's what I said. In fact, I don't think you'd find anyone who would claim that healthcare reform shifts healthcare costs away from the Federal government. People who claim that it will save money are claiming that it will reduce the net cost of healthcare (so spending on healthcare as a percentage of GDP) within the United States.

Where are you even getting this stuff about 14 years? The taxes built into the bill run within the 10 year cost projection.

Frazzled wrote:
Seriuosly the though thats fiscal responsibility is just utterly absolutely shocking. Thats flamy level playing with numbers to fit what you want.

No, it isn't. Its a recognition of costs, and how to address them. Fiscal responsibility is predicated on spending no more than taxation permits. If that involves taxation prior to the provision of benefits, then its still within the framework of responsibility. You're effectively claiming that saving is fiscally irresponsible. I'd understand a claim based on the notion that the government does not save, but that's not what you're saying here at all.

Frazzled wrote:
I really am done now, this conversation is asinine. Its freaking basic math, basic budgeting.

You barely even know what the conversation is about as you continually let your emotions get in the way of discussing matters of substance.

Instead of thinking with sense, or at least abstaining from comment, you've decided to snipe at people by calling their opinions 'cute' or 'asinine'.

Spendin starts four years AFTER the taxation begins. Thats pri8ma facae proof, if everything went as planned its not budget nuetral.

That doesn't count the more important issue that it rips medicare to pieces.

You're stealing money from old people who worked all their lives to pay for this travesty. We don't even know whats in the bill at this point. Its a joke, its obscene.