News Obama for President: Experienced Leader

[mege]

I agree in that I think that Obamacare doesn't really address the root problem, which, imo, is the inordinate inflation of healthcare costs. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that the Obama administration hasn't really done anything to effectively address any of the important problems that America and Americans are confronted with. He's a bust. A total disappointment, imho. But I also think that a GOP president would be even worse, if that's possible.

One big thing that President Obama has introduced is unpredictablity in economic policies. He lays outlines for stark policies, begs for change, and has much of the country holding their breath. This unpredictability and 'wait and see' mentality hurts the economy in a way. The biggest example of this of course is the ACA - how much is this going to cost employers that want to continue to insure their employees in the long run? Even in the short term this could be even more important if an expansion is planned. This is a trait of President Obama in particular as I don't think even President Clinton held the country hostage with his ideas quite to this extent. Catergorize this under 'too much rhetoric.'

Even if the 'real impact' of these policies is minimal, the perceived impact can often be damaging.

Campaign promises aside - this is something that a seasoned executive would know (perception matters). I realize that speeches/pressers/etc aren't always the President's call, but he should have enough backbone to say 'Is what I am going to say going to make things better or worse?' (IMO, this is also one of those things that would afflict Ron Paul if elected President) Santorum and Romney both have executive experience both in government and business. I don't think they'd make these perception mistakes and realize when it's time to just say nothing rather than stir the pot and leave people wondering.

 

[ParticleGrl]

But from the UK record we can reject argument-is-over statements like "no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer."

I contend your chart makes my point for me. Put the US on the same chart If you are using the UK to make a comparison between single payer and our system, you should at least make the comparison instead of putting up the UK numbers in isolation. If you put the US on your charts, you'll find we pay more and have faster growing costs.

Also, to compare like-with-like medicare spends less for patient care then the private sector, despite insuring a riskier population. Its growth has also been slower than private care. Ergo, expanding medicare to cover everyone would result in less money spent on health care.

 

[Pythagorean]

Does anyone else find it humorous that President Obama has cited his on-the-job experience recently? It was a different story in the Dem primaries in 2008. my bold

That's the point, really. He was criticized for not having experience. Now he has more experience as president than any of the republicans running, so as much as they banked on that argument before, it's no longer a tagline.

 

[turbo]

That's the point, really. He was criticized for not having experience. Now he has more experience as president than any of the republicans running, so as much as they banked on that argument before, it's no longer a tagline.

And he can run as a centrist. He has not embarked on any far-left runs that the GOP can use against him.

 

[Pythagorean]

I actually think Obama and Romney are both pretty moderate folks. Not sure why we don't just accept the moderate party as a country, yet. We must like this illusion of polarization.

 

[turbo]

I actually think Obama and Romney are both pretty moderate folks. Not sure why we don't just accept the moderate party as a country, yet. We must like this illusion of polarization.

I hate the polarization. I almost always vote split tickets;, and the current crap flying around in the media ticks me off to no end!

 

[russ_watters]

And he can run as a centrist. He has not embarked on any far-left runs that the GOP can use against him.

He can run as whatever he wants, but that doesn't guarantee the strategy will have any traction.

 

[WhoWee]

And he can run as a centrist. He has not embarked on any far-left runs that the GOP can use against him.

As you've explained this repeatedly in previous posts - let's give credit to the GOP for preventing him from enacting anything that's too far left - agreed?

 

[WhoWee]

I contend your chart makes my point for me. Put the US on the same chart If you are using the UK to make a comparison between single payer and our system, you should at least make the comparison instead of putting up the UK numbers in isolation. If you put the US on your charts, you'll find we pay more and have faster growing costs.

Also, to compare like-with-like medicare spends less for patient care then the private sector, despite insuring a riskier population. Its growth has also been slower than private care. Ergo, expanding medicare to cover everyone would result in less money spent on health care.

If Medicare for everyone was the answer - why didn't President Obama push for it - rather than a 2,000 page Bill that greatly expands the size and scope of Government (including the IRS)?

 

[Char. Limit]

As you've explained this repeatedly in previous posts - let's give credit to the GOP for preventing him from enacting anything that's too far left - agreed?

How much can you name that the GOP has stopped Obama, as in Obama personally, from enacting?

 

[WhoWee]

How much can you name that the GOP has stopped Obama, as in Obama personally, from enacting?

I'm not certain - I'll need to re-read all of the posts making that claim.

 

[WhoWee]

Remember that Obama can do a few things in his administrative capacity, but he cannot legislate. The GOP in Congress is doing their level best to stop every initiative that he supports, and he's getting precious little support from some in his own party. When Mitch McConnell says that his #1 priority is getting rid of Obama (not creating jobs or helping to fix the economic mess we're in), take him at his word.

Can you (please) cite some examples to help further our discussion?

 

[turbo]

Do you demand more proof?
If you are a politics-junky, you already knew this, so why demand confirmation?

 

[russ_watters]

You missed the point, turbo - WhoWee agrees with you (as do I). It was Char who wanted WhoWee to substantiate your claim.

And assuming your point is correct - that the Repubs prevented Obama from being more liberal - I think Obama will have trouble selling "I governed from the middle."

 

[mheslep]

I contend your chart makes my point for me.

Reminder: your point was not single payer is arguably cheaper, but "no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer."

Put the US on the same chart If you are using the UK to make a comparison between single payer and our system, you should at least make the comparison instead of putting up the UK numbers in isolation. If you put the US on your charts, you'll find we pay more and have faster growing costs.

Look, the UK's NHS spending more than doubled from 2000 until now. Over that same time period the UK's population grew by 3 million while the US population grew by 29 million. I won't try to produce a private (i.e. federal tax deductible employer insurance) spending curve over the same time period, but whatever it is (and its bad) do you really think the UK doubling-of-spending record makes your case beyond any doubt?

Also, to compare like-with-like medicare spends less for patient care then the private sector, despite insuring a riskier population. Its growth has also been slower than private care.

which I dispute. The usual flawed figures leave out a great deal of cost not included in Medicare's 'administration' books, Medicare cost shifts onto the private system, and then given the size of Medicare its going to be very difficult to separate cause and effect between Medicare and everything else.

 

[WhoWee]

Do you demand more proof?
If you are a politics-junky, you already knew this, so why demand confirmation?

Actually turbo - as per Evo (today) - information from the Heritage Foundation is slanted anti-Obama and not permitted in this forum. Accordingly - do you have anything else?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Actually turbo - as per Evo (today) - information from the Heritage Foundation is slanted anti-Obama and not permitted in this forum. Accordingly - do you have anything else?

That's not citing the Heritage Foundation claiming Mitch McConnell believes this (which would be disallowed), that's a video of Mitch McConnell stating his number one priority is defeating Obama. There's a clear difference, and the fact that he happens to be talking at a Heritage Foundation event is irrelevant to the greater conversation (unless you want to argue that he lied to them for political reasons)

 

[WhoWee]

That's not citing the Heritage Foundation claiming Mitch McConnell believes this (which would be disallowed), that's a video of Mitch McConnell stating his number one priority is defeating Obama. There's a clear difference, and the fact that he happens to be talking at a Heritage Foundation event is irrelevant to the greater conversation (unless you want to argue that he lied to them for political reasons)

I'll defer to Evo?

 

[WhoWee]

Listening to President Obama's speech about the budget he's sending (about a week late?) to the Hill - not sure why it needs to be explained and promoted? Given last year it didn't pass - and the Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 1,000 days - where is the sense of urgency and priority? Suggesting Repubs want to set the economy back by not renewing the payroll tax deduction (which actually cuts contributions to Social Security) - seems very petty in the greater context - IMO of course.

 

[mheslep]

Yes his new budget will have a $1.3 trillion deficit for FY 2012. Lots of new spending, no serious cuts to old spending or Medicare reform, but includes a big tax increase. This should raise the debt to over $16 trillion by the end of the year. Next FY the debt will have nice shot at 110% GDP.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/overview

 

[Evo]

Actually turbo - as per Evo (today) - information from the Heritage Foundation is slanted anti-Obama and not permitted in this forum. Accordingly - do you have anything else?

I said that the Foundry blog you linked to was yellow journalism and not acceptable.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes his new budget will have a $1.3 trillion deficit for FY 2012. Lots of new spending, no serious cuts to old spending or Medicare reform, but includes a big tax increase. This should raise the debt to over $16 trillion by the end of the year. Next FY the debt will have nice shot at 110% GDP.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/overview

I just heard on the radio President Obama wants an additional $800,000,000 for countries of the "Arab Spring" - label IMO until I find a source please.

 

[mheslep]

I just heard on the radio President Obama wants an additional $800,000,000 for countries of the "Arab Spring" - label IMO until I find a source please.

Doesn't matter wrt to the deficit. $0.8B is in the noise, a little more than 2 hours of current federal spending. He has to reform Medicare. Right now the fix can be w/ no change at all to, say, people over 55 as per a Ryan plan or something like it. Soon, the situation will require changes to benefits already in the system.

 

[WhoWee]

Doesn't matter wrt to the deficit. $0.8B is in the noise, a little more than 2 hours of current federal spending. He has to reform Medicare. Right now the fix can be w/ no change at all to, say, people over 55 as per a Ryan plan or something like it. Soon, the situation will require changes to benefits already in the system.

I have a problem with ANY requests for additional spending when they haven't passed a budget in the past 1,000+ days.

 

[mheslep]

I have a problem with ANY requests for additional spending when they haven't passed a budget in the past 1,000+ days.

To be specific, 'they' is Harry Reid in the Senate. The House or course passed a budget.

 

[WhoWee]

I wonder if President Obama will respond to Newt Gingrich's remarks in OK? Newt said (Obama) is the most dangerous President of all time - very critical on his (Obama's)reluctance to identify terrorists as Islamic extremists, and said we should take Iran at their word when they say they want to wipe Israel from the map. Newt also said we could lose an American city in our lifetimes.
http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2012/02/21/gingrich-obama-most-dangerous-president-american-history

 

[Pythagorean]

I think his best bet would to be ignore Newt directly, maybe implicate or insinuate a response elsewhere.

 

[aquitaine]

I think his best bet would to be ignore Newt directly, maybe implicate or insinuate a response elsewhere.

Newt's already faded, soon enough this will become a total non-issue.

 

[Pythagorean]

Newt's already faded, soon enough this will become a total non-issue.

exactly.

 

[lisab]

Newt's already faded, soon enough this will become a total non-issue.

Newt who?

 

[turbo]

Newt who?

Good response. Newt is a non-issue. He would like to stay in the public eye, but he is not a player. He has a ton of baggage and no plurality of women would vote to put Callista in the WH as first lady.

 

[Pythagorean]

I like these words

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

 

[russ_watters]

I like these words

I don't think they are all that useful - even a little disingenuous - since the "principle" at issue is clearly accessible to people of all/no faith.

 

[Alfi]

I like these words

I also like them. They speak to me as a vision farther than a single country's.
They also make it clear that Obama thinks democratic governments, in the making of laws, should not be guided solely by religious dogma.

I agree

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't know if I'm allowed to post this. It is the prohibition against killing people that is being cited. This is a universal principle and should satisfy Obama's criterion. The argument is over who is and isn't a person. This argument has occurred in the past and didn't end well

 

[WhoWee]

With the Supreme Court decision on PPACA approaching, I think court appointments will become more of an issue - here's a recent article on the subject as related to an Obama second term.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/obama-court-nominees_n_1255688.html

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know if I'm allowed to post this. It is the prohibition against killing people that is being cited. This is a universal principle and should satisfy Obama's criterion. The argument is over who is and isn't a person. This argument has occurred in the past and didn't end well

You're exactly right Jimmy and this is what irritates me so much about Obama (and his fans, for falling for it). If Gingrich says something pompous or Santorum says something from the religious fringe, people think - 'well, that figures', he's ________ - but Obama is able to hold on to his squeaky clean image by being a propaganda master. In this case, he got people to believe a falsehood without even having to say it!

It is certainly true that separation of Church and State requires that laws not have strictly religious motivation. And therefore, it is also true that it is incumbent upon the Pro Life side to frame their agument according to principles even the non-religious can agree on. But the implication of explaining this to us is that the Pro Life side is not properly framing their argument. Obama doesn't say this, though, he just tricks his followers into generating it themselves. Trouble is, it's nowhere close to true. The truth of the matter is that the principle that the pro life side is discussing is simply "Thou shalt not murder" (irony intended) - a principle that essentially everyone agrees on.

At best, this is a strawman/red herring piece of propaganda by Obama. At worst, it's an implied lie.

And yes, Jimmy, we don't need to dig into the nitty-gritty of when/how you decide if a fetus has a right to life that is violated by aborting it (resulting in murder). The point isn't in that discussion, its that Obama doesn't even acknowledge that's what the issue is.

 

[AlephZero]

The argument is over who is and isn't a person.

So far as I can tell, the dogma is about when a collectiion of molecules becomes a person, which is a different argument.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So far as I can tell, the dogma is about when a collectiion of molecules becomes a person, which is a different argument.

On this one point we agree. My side espouses reason, while the other side espouses dogma.

 

[mheslep]

... If Gingrich says something pompous or Santorum says something from the religious fringe, people think - 'well, that figures', he's ________ - but Obama is able to hold on to his squeaky clean image by being a propaganda master. In this case, he got people to believe a falsehood without even having to say it!

It is certainly true that separation of Church and State requires that laws not have strictly religious motivation. And therefore, it is also true that it is incumbent upon the Pro Life side to frame their agument according to principles even the non-religious can agree on. But the implication of explaining this to us is that the Pro Life side is not properly framing their argument. Obama doesn't say this, though, he just tricks his followers into generating it themselves. Trouble is, it's nowhere close to true. The truth of the matter is that the principle that the pro life side is discussing is simply "Thou shalt not murder" (irony intended) - a principle that essentially everyone agrees on.

At best, this is a strawman/red herring piece of propaganda by Obama. At worst, it's an implied lie. ...

Exactly, and the abortion/birth control funding issue turned to religious nut issue is just one example of the general method. Argue against against the the size of the deficit and the racist card or the 'rube' card is played, etc.

 

[Pythagorean]

But the implication of explaining this to us is that the Pro Life side is not properly framing their argument

So you don't identify with "40 days for life" or prolife.com or any of the other leading acitivists that rally outside of abortion clinics, tell people they're going to hell, and commonly cite Jeremiah 1:5?

These are clearly the most vocal people about pro-life... and these people exist... so Obama's words are obviously targeted at them. It seems "disingenuous" to not acknowledge these people exist and that they vocally represent the pro-life movement.

There's actually three major religions that represent pro-life in the US: Christian, Islam, and Judaism. Obama obviously isn't referring to secular pro-life groups (whom hardly represent the demographics of pro-lifers).

 

[Drotzer]

Heh, my parents are pure middle class and had nothing but higher taxes and higher medical bills because of him. I'm sometimes curious as to which middle class people are talking about when they say Obama is a man of the middle class. You can appeal all you want to people, but when they see your actions concerning them, appealing to voters isn't going to be worth much.

That is totally false. Higher medical Bills would be due to insurance companies. Taxes? If your parents are middle class, their taxes were lowered.

 

[WhoWee]

That is totally false. Higher medical Bills would be due to insurance companies. Taxes? If your parents are middle class, their taxes were lowered.

We really don't know which taxes he's referring to or their specific income level or filing classification - do we? They might be small business owners facing cost increases - we don't know. The payroll tax cut (the one that reduces your contribution to social security at a time when social security is facing insolvency) might not be enough to offset a lost deduction of some type?

As for medical, we really don't know the medical history or reasons for increases - do we? For instance, are you certain that healthcare mandates (PPACA/Obamacre) aren't causing insurance premiums to rise? Also, are you certain that changes to the Medicare reimbursement rates haven't somehow impacted the specific health care costs of these particular people?

If Pengwuino decides to share more details - then perhaps a definitive response can be given - until then - we just don't know enough about their particular situation to render a conclusion - IMO of course.

 

[SixNein]

when social security is facing insolvency

Last time I checked, social security was projected to be solvent through 2037. And quite frankly, projections aren't that great so far out.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cbo-projec...ration-solvent/story?id=12776481#.T0co13mY7x4

 

[WhoWee]

Last time I checked, social security was projected to be solvent through 2037. And quite frankly, projections aren't that great so far out.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cbo-projec...ration-solvent/story?id=12776481#.T0co13mY7x4

My mistake - Social Security will be solvent for another 25 years (approx). Do those projections factor in a shrinking workforce, reductions in contributions, increases in SSDI, annual cost of living increases, expanded LIS program,or other variables?

 

[turbo]

If we start taxing the wealthy on just a bit more of of their income, SS can be solvent forever. I think that we all know this. There are politicians that want to resist this and claim that SS is in crisis, and clamor for "privitazation" instead of considering reasonable reforms. I hit the maximum contribution limit for years and years. It wouldn't have hurt me a bit to pay just a bit more, when I was making those wages.

 

[WhoWee]

If we start taxing the wealthy on just a bit more of of their income, SS can be solvent forever. I think that we all know this. There are politicians that want to resist this and claim that SS is in crisis, and clamor for "privitazation" instead of considering reasonable reforms. I hit the maximum contribution limit for years and years. It wouldn't have hurt me a bit to pay just a bit more, when I was making those wages.

What makes you think the increased revenues won't be used elsewhere - again?

 

[SixNein]

My mistake - Social Security will be solvent for another 25 years (approx). Do those projections factor in a shrinking workforce, reductions in contributions, increases in SSDI, annual cost of living increases, expanded LIS program,or other variables?

Why not just look up the CBO report?

I don't think it's possible to state how long social security will remain solvent with any kind of certainty. All we can say is that social security is now on a decline, and if the trend continues at its present rate, it will be insolvent in 2037. But next year, the trend could dissipate, accelerate, or remain the same. There is simply too many variables to predict social security so far out into the future. For example, there will be 6 presidential elections between now and then. One might as well ask the 8 ball.

A more accurate argument would be that social security coffers are currently declining; however, there is no immediate risk of insolvency of the program. So social security coffers are something we want to keep an eye on, but it's not currently a crisis of any kind.

 

[WhoWee]

Why not just look up the CBO report?

I don't think it's possible to state how long social security will remain solvent with any kind of certainty. All we can say is that social security is now on a decline, and if the trend continues at its present rate, it will be insolvent in 2037. But next year, the trend could dissipate, accelerate, or remain the same. There is simply too many variables to predict social security so far out into the future. For example, there will be 6 presidential elections between now and then. One might as well ask the 8 ball.

A more accurate argument would be that social security coffers are currently declining; however, there is no immediate risk of insolvency of the program.

I'd like to see the Social Security funds managed with the same level of accountability private pension funds and their managers/administrators are held.

 

[SixNein]

I'd like to see the Social Security funds managed with the same level of accountability private pension funds and their managers/administrators are held.

Social security is the one program that doesn't concern me too much. By and large, social security has been doing its job.

Medicare, military, and energy are my largest concerns. I have quite a few concerns about our legal system...