News Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[WhoWee]

Good question. I'd like to follow that.

I was following a company called NanoSolar for a while - haven't heard much lately?

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-debt-talks-600/2011/06/27/id/401645?s=al&promo_code=C849-1

"Obama Pushes $600 Billion in New Taxes in Debt Talks"

Cutting corporate loopholes and eliminating oil subsidies might sound good to the Left - but are they serious solutions?

 

[Ryumast3r]

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-debt-talks-600/2011/06/27/id/401645?s=al&promo_code=C849-1

"Obama Pushes $600 Billion in New Taxes in Debt Talks"

Cutting corporate loopholes and eliminating oil subsidies might sound good to the Left - but are they serious solutions?

I'd say they're every bit as valid as refusing to raise the debt limit, which is getting pretty close to the deadline of... August 3rd was it? Then we either default on our payments or have a government shut-down resulting in thousands of more jobs lost.

All we need is a temporary solution that will work well enough for a year or two while we hammer out the real plans that will succeed in taking us far into the future, the plans that no one can seem to agree on right now will have time to become real.

I don't like the $600 billion number (seems a bit high), but if they figure they can get that much without killing the corporations that pay it, well... that's great. I'm skeptical to say the least.

 

[Al68]

Then we either default on our payments or have a government shut-down resulting in thousands of more jobs lost.

This statement has been repeated often by the left, and this forum, but is not true. What is true is that the Treasury Secretary has threatened to default on debt payments unless the debt ceiling is raised as a leverage ploy against congress. Big difference.

It's simply false that debt default is a direct consequence of not raising the debt limit. Unlike what the left would have us believe, it's absurd to think that congress somehow is obligated to authorize the government to go further into debt, while Obama is not obligated to honor existing debt obligations. Like many claims of the left, the exact opposite is true.

 

[BobG]

I'd say they're every bit as valid as refusing to raise the debt limit, which is getting pretty close to the deadline of... August 3rd was it? Then we either default on our payments or have a government shut-down resulting in thousands of more jobs lost.

This statement has been repeated often by the left, and this forum, but is not true. What is true is that the Treasury Secretary has threatened to default on debt payments unless the debt ceiling is raised as a leverage ploy against congress. Big difference.

It's simply false that debt default is a direct consequence of not raising the debt limit. Unlike what the left would have us believe, it's absurd to think that congress somehow is obligated to authorize the government to go further into debt, while Obama is not obligated to honor existing debt obligations. Like many claims of the left, the exact opposite is true.

Which part is false? It was an "or" statement. You only addressed the debt default option; not what government would have to do to avoid the default option.

 

[WhoWee]

Back to 2012?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pres...ance-nod-2012-battlegrounds/story?id=13948413

"Obama Gay Marriage Stance a Nod to 2012 Battlegrounds

Gay pride month celebrations hit the White House today as President Obama welcomes some of his gay and lesbian supporters and renews his commitment to helping them "win the future."

But don't expect the president to flash his rainbow stripes in support of marriage equality: That's an issue he now believes should be left up to the states.

"His belief, our belief [is] that this is a matter that states should decide," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday after New York became the sixth, and largest, state to allow same-sex marriage.

The position -- a new twist for Obama, who appeared to support legalizing the unions in 1996, later opposed them, and recently said his views are "evolving" -- has rankled advocates who say the president is making a calculated political decision with an eye toward 2012.

"The president has staked out a cynical political position aimed at not rocking the boat," said Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues. "This states' rights argument is a separate but equal argument. Would the president have thought it right to let the states decide on the issue of interracial marriage, or on whether or not women should be allowed to vote?""

 

[Ryumast3r]

This statement has been repeated often by the left, and this forum, but is not true. What is true is that the Treasury Secretary has threatened to default on debt payments unless the debt ceiling is raised as a leverage ploy against congress. Big difference.

It's simply false that debt default is a direct consequence of not raising the debt limit. Unlike what the left would have us believe, it's absurd to think that congress somehow is obligated to authorize the government to go further into debt, while Obama is not obligated to honor existing debt obligations. Like many claims of the left, the exact opposite is true.

I'm not talking about the Treasury Secretary, his threats are his own (and frankly, defaulting is dumb - but it'd work... besides, as you said, it's all about leverage). But what happens when the debt limit is finally reached, and we have no other money-moving options like what we're currently doing? You either default on a payment, or you shut down the government so you know longer have to pay employees, thus getting a little extra revenue, and then you continue to pay the debts - or the wonderful third option which is printing out money like crazy, devaluing the dollar, and just saying "Here you go!"

I never said debt default is, there are two realistic options (That I'm aware of, please feel free to point out a valid third one, because I would love expanding my knowledge bank). Default, or shut down services to save money. Even with Ryan's plan (the most extreme one in terms of cost-cutting) the government would still have to raise the debt limit in order to not default/shut down services and keep paying the bills over the next two years.

Congress is obligated, as is the president, to keep this country running. And saying Obama is obligated to honor existing debt is an odd way of putting it, since Congress (not the senate, or the president) is the one with the purse.

 

[Vanadium 50]

A third option would be to sell assets. For example, the US government still owns $13B in General Motors. It could operate for 3 more days on that.

 

[Ryumast3r]

A third option would be to sell assets. For example, the US government still owns $13B in General Motors. It could operate for 3 more days on that.

This is true, they could do that, though I doubt that there's very many assets they could sell without having to lay off workers... that, and 3 days really isn't that long.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The fiscal year ends September 30th. If the debt ceiling is reached in early August, that's maybe 50 days to go. 3 days is 6% of it. Not a bad start. If it were .006% I would say that this is not feasible. But one item getting 6% of the way there?

Let's consider another one: TVA. They have an EBIT of about $2B/year. That gives it a value of something like $24B. Six more days. Now we've solved 18% of the problem.

No layoffs yet - just a change in ownership, although it is probable that eventually there would be. The new owners' goal will be to turn a profit, after all. I'm not so sure that the argument that the government can operate TVA less efficiently is a good reason to keep it public.

 

[Al68]

I'm not talking about the Treasury Secretary, his threats are his own (and frankly, defaulting is dumb - but it'd work... besides, as you said, it's all about leverage).

I agree that defaulting is dumb, but the threats of the Treasury Secretary are not his own. Any power he exercises is delegated to him by the President, and the President is responsible for all executive branch actions.

But what happens when the debt limit is finally reached, and we have no other money-moving options like what we're currently doing? You either default on a payment, or you shut down the government so you know longer have to pay employees, thus getting a little extra revenue, and then you continue to pay the debts - or the wonderful third option which is printing out money like crazy, devaluing the dollar, and just saying "Here you go!"

I never said debt default is, there are two realistic options (That I'm aware of, please feel free to point out a valid third one, because I would love expanding my knowledge bank). Default, or shut down services to save money.

Yes, I agree those are the options, but limiting spending to current revenues is a long, long way from a "government shutdown". It's just a balanced budget.

Even with Ryan's plan (the most extreme one in terms of cost-cutting) the government would still have to raise the debt limit in order to not default/shut down services and keep paying the bills over the next two years.

Which is why I think the Ryan budget is too big on the spending side. It's pretty indicative of the massive shift of the U.S. "left-right" spectrum that a budget far to the left (according to the numbers) of any budget in history, that grows government even bigger by 30% over 10 years (in inflation adjusted dollars) is referred to as "extreme right". I know such characterizations are just fraudulent manipulation attempts, but that one's pretty bizarre.

Congress is obligated, as is the president, to keep this country running.

Neither are obligated, or authorized, to "keep this country running." As far as keeping the federal government itself operating, that cost is a miniscule fraction of the federal budget.

And saying Obama is obligated to honor existing debt is an odd way of putting it, since Congress (not the senate, or the president) is the one with the purse.

Not odd at all, considering that congress has already appropriated the money to honor the debt Obama is threatening to default on.

The issue is that congress has also already appropriated the money for all the other stuff Obama wants to spend money on instead, resulting in the choice being the President's alone if the debt limit isn't increased. The President is purposely putting the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. on top of the chopping block, precisely because it's the most disastrous choice, and therefore gives him the most leverage over Republicans, if they believe his threat. It's not like a threat to not fund Obamacare or the EPA could be used as blackmail against the GOP. My personal opinion is that it's a bluff and the President would not default on the debt.

But it is the fault of congress that the President has so much discretion in the matter, which is why I favor a law requiring the prioritization of debt service.

 

[WhoWee]

Not odd at all, considering that congress has already appropriated the money to honor the debt Obama is threatening to default on.

The issue is that congress has also already appropriated the money for all the other stuff Obama wants to spend money on instead, resulting in the choice being the President's alone if the debt limit isn't increased. The President is purposely putting the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. on top of the chopping block, precisely because it's the most disastrous choice, and therefore gives him the most leverage over Republicans, if they believe his threat. It's not like a threat to not fund Obamacare or the EPA could be used as blackmail against the GOP. My personal opinion is that it's a bluff and the President would not default on the debt.

But it is the fault of congress that the President has so much discretion in the matter, which is why I favor a law requiring the prioritization of debt service.

I'm not sure this is the "Hope and Change" that a narrow margin voted for in 2008? Ideology doesn't replace leadership - IMO - this is one of the President's most transparent moments - his lack of experience is quite obvious. Again, IMO.

 

[mheslep]

Ownership of GM is tiny fraction of the enormous assets of the US federal government which include, for instance, nearly a third of all US land area. Though there would be much gnashing of teeth, the federal government could cease to collect any income tax revenues and finance the current $3.8T/year spending rate for at least a year, if not several by selling off assets. Selling off the strategic petroleum reserve alone (four billion barrels) would run the entire show for a month.

 

[WhoWee]

Ownership of GM is tiny fraction of the enormous assets of the US federal government which include, for instance, nearly a third of all US land area. Though there would be much gnashing of teeth, the federal government could cease to collect any income tax revenues and finance the current $3.8T/year spending rate for at least a year, if not several by selling off assets. Selling off the strategic petroleum reserve alone (four billion barrels) would run the entire show for a month.

Can you imagine if President Obama proposed to sell all of the non-defense assets of the US - to continue deficit spending?

 

[WhoWee]

Is anyone else getting emails requesting $5 donations and a " last chance to enter the "Dinner with Barack and Joe" contest"?

 

[turbo]

Can you imagine if President Obama proposed to sell all of the non-defense assets of the US - to continue deficit spending?

You have things a bit skewed. Congress passes spending bills and appropriates the money. If you want to blame all the spending on Obama, you have some 'splainin' to do, Lucy. We were running deficits and spending off-budget long before Obama took office.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You have things a bit skewed. Congress passes spending bills and appropriates the money. If you want to blame all the spending on Obama, you have some 'splainin' to do, Lucy.

Fair enough - although one wonders why Congress couldn't pass a budget when they had a majority in both houses and the presidency.

Does this mean that you will stop blaming Mr. Bush for the budgets passed when he was in the White House?

 

[turbo]

Does this mean that you will stop blaming Mr. Bush for the budgets passed when he was in the White House?

I can't stop blaming the Democrats in Congress for rolling over and playing dead when Bush/Cheney lied us into an unnecessary war, then started another in that quagmire Afghanistan and let them keep the costs off-budget. There's more than enough blame to go around on those counts, and neither party can claim the high ground, IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

You have things a bit skewed. Congress passes spending bills and appropriates the money. If you want to blame all the spending on Obama, you have some 'splainin' to do, Lucy. We were running deficits and spending off-budget long before Obama took office.

Actually turbo - I agree. You are correct - all President Obama did was sign every Democrat sponsored spending Bill the real leaders (Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) put on his desk - is it a cumulative $5Trillion and counting?

 

[WhoWee]

President Obama - what IS your energy policy?
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/...l/2011/07/02/id/402295?s=al&promo_code=C8BF-1

"The Obama administration is foot-dragging on approving a pipeline to deliver abundant Canadian oil to the United States at the same time the Chinese are investing in a pipeline that could send that oil to China."

Did anyone else notice the price of gas jumped about $.25 per gallon again - just paid $3.69 for 87 - hope just our annual 4th of July gouging (IMO).

 

[Char. Limit]

Did anyone else notice the price of gas jumped about $.25 per gallon again - just paid $3.69 for 87 - hope just our annual 4th of July gouging (IMO).

You lucky bastard. I wish that was an unusual occurrence for me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

President Obama - what IS your energy policy?
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/...l/2011/07/02/id/402295?s=al&promo_code=C8BF-1

"The Obama administration is foot-dragging on approving a pipeline to deliver abundant Canadian oil to the United States at the same time the Chinese are investing in a pipeline that could send that oil to China."

Did anyone else notice the price of gas jumped about $.25 per gallon again - just paid $3.69 for 87 - hope just our annual 4th of July gouging (IMO).

From 2009

... What we know is that oil sands creates a big carbon footprint. So the dilemma that Canada faces, the United States faces, and China and the entire world faces is how do we obtain the energy that we need to grow our economies in a way that is not rapidly accelerating climate change," Obama told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. on Tuesday.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said energy security and the environmental impact of massive oil sands operations in Alberta province will be priorities during his meeting with Obama. Harper is expected to lobby Obama on the merits of the oil sands as a safe and secure source of oil.

But critics say the growing operations by major oil companies will increase greenhouse gas emissions and threaten Alberta's rivers and forests. Experts say producing a barrel of oil from sand results in emissions three times greater than a conventional barrel of oil...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29258276/ns/us_news-environment/t/obamas-sticky-issue-canada-oil-sands/

Maybe he would prefer to focus on creating jobs for Americans by keeping to domestic supplies of relatively clean natural gas. Perhaps he is looking forwards, rather than backwards. We don't need to end just our reliance on oil from the ME or unfriendly nations, we need to stop importing oil. Transitioning to a domestic energy supply will eliminate about [over] half of the trade deficit.

3/30/11

...In a speech at Georgetown University on Wednesday, Mr. Obama also promised to work with Congress to provide new incentives to increase natural gas consumption in both the transportation and power sectors. That is good news for North American gas producers who face depressed prices due to a glut of production from prolific new shale gas plays...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/obama-signals-new-reliance-on-oil-sands/article1963575/

 

[WhoWee]

From 2009


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29258276/ns/us_news-environment/t/obamas-sticky-issue-canada-oil-sands/

Maybe he would prefer to focus on creating jobs for Americans by keeping to domestic supplies of relatively clean natural gas. Perhaps he is looking forwards, rather than backwards. We don't need to end just our reliance on oil from the ME or unfriendly nations, we need to stop importing oil. Transitioning to a domestic energy supply will eliminate about [over] half of the trade deficit.

3/30/11

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/obama-signals-new-reliance-on-oil-sands/article1963575/

Perhaps his policy will be clear by 2012?

 

[WhoWee]

According to the Labor Department, there were 14,825,000 unemployed persons in 2010 - roughly a 9.6% rate.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/

If the President were to give each of these people a Government job that pays enough to generate $100,000 each in federal taxes - he can solve both unemployment and the national debt of $14Trillion - talk about a strong 2012 strategy.

Of course he'll have to find the money for payroll somewhere - how about an Immigration tax? Sorry - just having fun.

 

[WhoWee]

I believe the US share of the UN budget is about 22% (?) - do you think the President will align with this plan in time for 2012?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/06/even-un-admits-that-going-green-will-cost-76-trillion/

 

[WhoWee]

This is a dangerous game - IMO.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

"President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

The Obama administration and many economists have warned of economic catastrophe if the United States does not raise the amount it is legally allowed to borrow by August 2."

I asked a few pension-recipients what they thought today - they said the Government better stop spending their money (label IMO).

 

[WhoWee]

Harry Reid just called Eric Cantor's behavior childish?

President Obama says the debt issue could end his career - I agree.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/13/moodys-considers-downgrading-us-credit-rating-amid-stalemate-over-debt-limit/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2|77741

President Obama walked out of high-level negotiations Wednesday, saying according to a Republican aide, "I've reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I won't yield on this."

Obama "stormed out of the room" but promised to resume talks Thursday, the GOP aide said.
"We are very far apart right now," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said, calling Obama's exit from the talks Wednesday "abrupt."
"He became very agitated, said 'Ronald Reagan wouldn't sit here. You either have to compromise on the dollar figure or the grand bargain,'" Cantor said. "He said, 'Don't call my bluff. I'm going to the American people on this.'" "

my bold
Great - another speech by the President. Maybe he should just re-read this one:
http://geekpolitics.com/obama-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion."

It's my favorite (2nd time I posted it). Then Senator Obama speculated the national debt would reach $12Trillion (with a "T") by 2011 - now he's driven it to $14Trillion (with a "T") in the same time frame?

I agree - this is a clear sign of leadership failure Mr. President - you should be replaced.

 

[mheslep]

...
I asked a few pension-recipients what they thought today - they said the Government better stop spending their money (label IMO).

Soon you'll be able to respond that this (pensions and pensioners medical care) is *all* the government spends their money on, that and the debt service.

 

[WhoWee]

How might an aggressive Iran influence the President's strategy for troop withdrawal leading up to the election?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14189313
"Iranian forces have inflicted a "heavy and historic defeat" on Kurdish rebels based in Iraq, army officials say."

 

[WhoWee]

President Obama made a prime time speech on 7/25/11 regarding the national debt and need to increase the debt ceiling - followed by a response by Speaker of the House John Boehner.

After failing to reach a deal with the Speaker in the previous week, I'm not the only one who noticed he didn't threaten to VETO the Bill that comes out of Congress - now that Boehner and Senate leader Harry Reid are negotiating.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusi...er-debt-crisis-obama-stays-mum-043411132.html

"Washington may have become, as President Obama said on Monday, a place where "compromise has become a dirty word," but in the context of the menacing debt-limit crisis there was a far dirtier word he didn't utter.
Veto."

IMO - The Speaker missed an opportunity - should have looked into the camera, lowered his voice , and explained that Congress has no intention of allowing default - that a Bill will be placed on the President's desk in time to avoid default - and if the President Veto's the Bill - the financial collapse of the US Government will be the fault of President Obama.

Btw - while the President didn't say "veto" - he did use the word "balance" about 7 times - pollsters must have made a recommendation?

 

[mege]

President Obama made a prime time speech on 7/25/11 regarding the national debt and need to increase the debt ceiling - followed by a response by Speaker of the House John Boehner.

After failing to reach a deal with the Speaker in the previous week, I'm not the only one who noticed he didn't threaten to VETO the Bill that comes out of Congress - now that Boehner and Senate leader Harry Reid are negotiating.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusi...er-debt-crisis-obama-stays-mum-043411132.html

"Washington may have become, as President Obama said on Monday, a place where "compromise has become a dirty word," but in the context of the menacing debt-limit crisis there was a far dirtier word he didn't utter.
Veto."

IMO - The Speaker missed an opportunity - should have looked into the camera, lowered his voice , and explained that Congress has no intention of allowing default - that a Bill will be placed on the President's desk in time to avoid default - and if the President Veto's the Bill - the financial collapse of the US Government will be the fault of President Obama.

Btw - while the President didn't say "veto" - he did use the word "balance" about 7 times - pollsters must have made a recommendation?

"Compromise from thee, but not from me!"

 

[Char. Limit]

President Obama made a prime time speech on 7/25/11 regarding the national debt and need to increase the debt ceiling - followed by a response by Speaker of the House John Boehner.

After failing to reach a deal with the Speaker in the previous week, I'm not the only one who noticed he didn't threaten to VETO the Bill that comes out of Congress - now that Boehner and Senate leader Harry Reid are negotiating.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusi...er-debt-crisis-obama-stays-mum-043411132.html

"Washington may have become, as President Obama said on Monday, a place where "compromise has become a dirty word," but in the context of the menacing debt-limit crisis there was a far dirtier word he didn't utter.
Veto."

IMO - The Speaker missed an opportunity - should have looked into the camera, lowered his voice , and explained that Congress has no intention of allowing default - that a Bill will be placed on the President's desk in time to avoid default - and if the President Veto's the Bill - the financial collapse of the US Government will be the fault of President Obama.

Btw - while the President didn't say "veto" - he did use the word "balance" about 7 times - pollsters must have made a recommendation?

Or maybe he has no plans to veto the bill. Obama knows, I think, what's political suicide, and I think he'll avoid it.

 

[BobG]

IMO - The Speaker missed an opportunity - should have looked into the camera, lowered his voice , and explained that Congress has no intention of allowing default - that a Bill will be placed on the President's desk in time to avoid default - and if the President Veto's the Bill - the financial collapse of the US Government will be the fault of President Obama.

Btw - while the President didn't say "veto" - he did use the word "balance" about 7 times - pollsters must have made a recommendation?

Or maybe he has no plans to veto the bill. Obama knows, I think, what's political suicide, and I think he'll avoid it.

Or maybe he knows there's almost no chance of a bill being placed on his desk for him to veto. I don't think Boehner's close to a point where he could deliver on a promise to place a bill on the President's desk. Even if he gets a bill House Republicans could support, it will get gutted in the Senate - and then back to the House - and then back to the Senate, etc.

You've got a problem in the House. It's almost turned into a three party legislative body with no party having a majority.

 

[WhoWee]

Or maybe he has no plans to veto the bill. Obama knows, I think, what's political suicide, and I think he'll avoid it.

Leaders lead - we don't need any more scare tactics or bluffs.

 

[Char. Limit]

Leaders lead - we don't need any more scare tactics or bluffs.

Then you should be glad that Obama isn't threatening to veto - that's both a scare tactic and a bluff.

 

[WhoWee]

Or maybe he knows there's almost no chance of a bill being placed on his desk for him to veto. I don't think Boehner's close to a point where he could deliver on a promise to place a bill on the President's desk. Even if he gets a bill House Republicans could support, it will get gutted in the Senate - and then back to the House - and then back to the Senate, etc.

You've got a problem in the House. It's almost turned into a three party legislative body with no party having a majority.

Thus far, the House is the only body that has actually passed anything? As for the Senate - Harry Reid will find a way to work with the Republicans - he doesn't want default laid at his feet. On the other hand, if he blocks all Republican legislation - he could set President Obama up for an end run with the 14th - couldn't he?

IMO - the President knows that might just move the House to start Impeachment proceedings - my money is on Harry Reid finding a way to agree and the President signing (and trying to take credit).

 

[mege]

You've got a problem in the House. It's almost turned into a three party legislative body with no party having a majority.

Isn't this something that people have been asking for, for years? Another major political party? :p

 

[lisab]

Isn't this something that people have been asking for, for years? Another major political party? :p

Except the third party isn't major, and won't compromise. Really, they're just playing the role of spoiler.

 

[Char. Limit]

Isn't this something that people have been asking for, for years? Another major political party? :p

We'd like a major political party that knows the meaning of "you can't always get what you want".

 

[daveb]

We'd like a major political party that knows the meaning of "you can't always get what you want".

Maybe they're thinking that if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need

 

[Char. Limit]

Maybe they're thinking that if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need

You win an internets!

 

[Astronuc]

Step aside!

Make way for EVO!

 

[BobG]

I think this is an interesting time for Obama.

Just looking at recent Presidents, their term usually had some key moment that defined their Presidency.

In Reagan's case, he was a very good President, but had great leadership qualities that gave enough room and flexibility so that his key moments only affected his thinking - it didn't affect how his Presidency was defined.

In Bush 41's case, he was a very good President, with less leadership qualities and his defining moment came at a very bad time - in the middle of his re-election campaign. So he didn't really have a defining moment - just a moment that ended his Presidency. Even good Presidents can be undone if they don't have the whole package.

In Clinton and Bush 43's case, neither were very good Presidents when they took office.

Within a year, Clinton's Presidency was dead in the water. And then he became better. Overall, he wound up probably slightly above average if you just look at his Presidential accomplishments and not at his 'personal' accomplishments.

Bush 43 had a lot of momentum from the post-911 reaction, so he just ignored his key moments. His Presidency just got worse and worse. Eventually, he started to become better, but by that time it was way too late and way too little and we saw the results of that in the 2006 and the 2008 elections.

I think it has to be said that the worries of putting someone with as little experience as Obama were justified. He wasn't a very good President when he came into office. He proves Bush 43 was no fluke.

So far, his reaction to his first key moment (the economic crisis he inherited from Bush) was very similar to Bush's. His attitude is that a great President doesn't let external events derail him from accomplishing the things he set out to do. In Obama's case, that attitude is a little more justified because it's an economic crisis. Presidents just don't make or break an economic recovery, while Bush applied his attitude to issues he really did control. Obama put out an economic stimulus plan that had some things in it to stimulate the economy - but most of it promoted his plans to reform health care. That's a good Presidential move if the economy recovers. It looks like the plan helped the economy, but more importantly, it advanced his goals for his Presidency. But if the economy doesn't improve, then it looks as blindly oblivious and as arrogant as Bush's responses to his key moments were.

We'll see what happens with this key moment - the debt ceiling increase. Obama really hasn't had any adequate response to this and I think it puts him in the same situation Clinton was in his first term. Either Obama turns the corner and gets better very quickly, or he "stays the course" no matter how far down it drags him, or he just wallows the way Jimmy Carter wallowed, with the events of his time just pushing him about.

Or House Republicans bail him out of this crisis by looking even worse than him - but I don't think that's the same as making Obama look good. I think he needs to make some serious adjustments regardless of what Republicans do with this.

 

[WhoWee]

We'll see what happens with this key moment - the debt ceiling increase. Obama really hasn't had any adequate response to this and I think it puts him in the same situation Clinton was in his first term. Either Obama turns the corner and gets better very quickly, or he "stays the course" no matter how far down it drags him, or he just wallows the way Jimmy Carter wallowed, with the events of his time just pushing him about.

Or House Republicans bail him out of this crisis by looking even worse than him - but I don't think that's the same as making Obama look good. I think he needs to make some serious adjustments regardless of what Republicans do with this.

I think the key item is the length of the extension - extending beyond the election is a big win for the President - a six month extension will hurt his re-election efforts.

I watched Laura Ingraham, a Conservative, last evening - guest host on the "Factor". She cited several Conservatives and a few Tea Party Reps that want to take a deal while they are ahead. Her comment (to the Tea Party House members) was to take the win and go back home to explain the results. She specified by electing the small group progress was possible - if voters want bigger change - elect more Conservatives. That approach could help redeem the Republicans - but not necessarily hurt the President.

 

[BobG]

I watched Laura Ingraham, a Conservative, last evening - guest host on the "Factor". She cited several Conservatives and a few Tea Party Reps that want to take a deal while they are ahead. Her comment (to the Tea Party House members) was to take the win and go back home to explain the results. She specified by electing the small group progress was possible - if voters want bigger change - elect more Conservatives. That approach could help redeem the Republicans - but not necessarily hurt the President.

Wow! I haven't actually listened to Laura Ingraham in years, so I don't know what her position has been lately, but if my general impression of her is still correct, wouldn't you think the Tea Party folks would at least have a clue they might be overplaying their hand just a bit?

 

[WhoWee]

Wow! I haven't actually listened to Laura Ingraham in years, so I don't know what her position has been lately, but if my general impression of her is still correct, wouldn't you think the Tea Party folks would at least have a clue they might be overplaying their hand just a bit?

The Republicans have clearly mismanaged their momentum after the 2010 election. Hopefully the freshman House members will step back and look at the bigger picture.

 

[mege]

The Republicans have clearly mismanaged their momentum after the 2010 election. Hopefully the freshman House members will step back and look at the bigger picture.

I agree with this to a certain extent. The perception of mismanagement is being exploited by the Democrats (and the President) whom are putting them in positions specifically to fail politically. While many of the TEA Party members have great ideas and heart, they're bad politicians.

 

[Char. Limit]

I agree with this to a certain extent. The perception of mismanagement is being exploited by the Democrats (and the President) whom are putting them in positions specifically to fail politically. While many of the TEA Party members have great ideas and heart, they're bad politicians.

I think it's better to say that they're NOT politicians, which ironically enough is the exact reason they got elected in the first place.

 

[WhoWee]

I think it's better to say that they're NOT politicians, which ironically enough is the exact reason they got elected in the first place.

I think it's a good thing - to send people who are not career politicians. However, there is a learning curve and voters must also understand gradual change is still change.

 

[BobG]

I think it's a good thing - to send people who are not career politicians. However, there is a learning curve and voters must also understand gradual change is still change.

How is that a good thing? You want amateurs to plan the US government's economy?

Do you go to someone who's not a career stock broker for your investment advice?

Part of the rationale of a representative democracy is that you elect someone with expertise to devote all of their time to running the government instead of something like a direct democracy where you'd have to vote on these individual bills and you'd have to find the time to research all of these issues in your spare time.

Aside from that, how do you know that they're not career politicians. Every Congressman had to start somewhere with no experience. If they were good enough to get re-elected, then they became career politicians. If they weren't, they had to give up politics and go into some other career.

In other words, you don't know whether they're career politicians until they've had a chance to show how competent or incompetent they were. Non-career politician is just one that was really bad at his job.

Being a freshman Congressman is no sin. But, usually, a freshman Congressman tries to learn the ropes before deciding they're qualified to take control of Congress.