Printable View
I hope Pres. Obama has some ballpoint pens with a lot of ink in them because he's going to spend the next 2 years vetoeing one bill after another. It will be gridlock to the max.
That Immigration bill they're talking about; forget it. We'll be worrying about unborn babies in the womb, gay marriage, whos fault it was for the Bengazi attack etc.
[QUOTE=BayBoy;442136]I hope Pres. Obama has some ballpoint pens with a lot of ink in them because he's going to spend the next 2 years vetoeing one bill after another. It will be gridlock to the max.
That Immigration bill they're talking about; forget it. We'll be worrying about unborn babies in the womb, gay marriage, whos fault it was for the Bengazi attack etc.[/QUOTE]Sure, what a great cap to his legacy of incompetence: Spending 2 years vetoing bills that have overwhelming public support.
First up: The Keystone Pipeline. I want to watch as the President justifies vetoing a bill that would create 20,000 high paying construction jobs, thousands of permanent refinery jobs, cement our relationship with our neighbors to the north, and enhance our energy independence, all to appease a few tree huggers.
BTW, apparently you didn't get the memo: The "War on Women" is over, and the liberals lost. Nobody gives a fuck about "unborn babies in the womb" or "gay marriage".
Thanks,
Jax.
Speaking of lost, I guess the conservatives lost the gay marriage issue. Its legal now in over 30 states, all their efforts were a waste of time.
The Keystone Pipeline will make the Canadiens happy and the big oil refinery companies in Louisiana will be real happy. After the refining the oil will then be shipped to Japan, China, India etc. So what do Americans get?
[QUOTE=BayBoy;442138]The Keystone Pipeline will make the Canadiens happy and the big oil refinery companies in Louisiana will be real happy. After the refining the oil will then be shipped to Japan, China, India etc. So what do Americans get?[/QUOTE]The USA imports about 9 million barrels oil per day of oil and refined products, and exports 4 million barrels per day. Net imports are 5 million barrels per day. The Canadians have alternatives to the Keystone pipeline. They can build a pipeline to the Canadian west coast and export to China, Japan, etc. Or to their east coast and export to Europe, the USA, etc.
What do Americans get if the pipeline goes through the USA? Given that we will always be a net importer of oil / refined products, the answer is energy security. We would not be as compelled to intervene and spill blood every time there's a conflagration in the Middle East that would shut off oil supplies. It's a no brainer, even if you're an American tree hugger. The oil will be produced either way. If I were in Obama's shoes, I'd be doing everything I could to make sure North American oil production could stay in North America in the event of a worldwide crisis, like the 1967 and 1973 Arab oil embargoes.
Right now we have a glut of oil in the USA, that's why the price has been coming down lately. Theres drilling for shale oil in the Dakotas, Colorado and Wyoming etc. We don't need oil from Canada.
These drilling permits were approved by the Interior Dept. During the Obama years.
I saw an interview on C-Span with the executives from all the big oil producers here in the USA. They all said they couldn't guarantee that the refined oil from the Keystone Pipeline would be used here. All lot of it would be going to foreign countries.
Investing in additional infrastructure to produce and transport fossil fuels is counterproductive, because fossil fuels are on the way out. It would be like buying additional desktop computers. You'd see brief fiscal stimulus from the short to mid-term jobs created. I'm not sure we need fiscal stimulus now. Maybe five years ago. I'd rather see infrastructure dollars spent on bridge repair and flood repair/reclamation right now, maybe wildfire mitigation if that's even possible. That's assuming it can't be spent on producing say wind energy.
[QUOTE=BayBoy;442138]Speaking of lost, I guess the conservatives lost the gay marriage issue. Its legal now in over 30 states, all their efforts were a waste of time.
The Keystone Pipeline will make the Canadiens happy and the big oil refinery companies in Louisiana will be real happy. After the refining the oil will then be shipped to Japan, China, India etc. So what do Americans get?[/QUOTE]Shows how uninformed you are. The XL is primarily going to TEXAS Gulf Coast refineries.
What do the American people get?
High paying skilled jobs and money from the sale of refined products to other countries. That money will be coming to the US not to Saudi, Iran, et al.
[QUOTE=BayBoy;442138]So what do Americans get?[/QUOTE]High-paying refinery and dockworker jobs, you ******* obtuse pinhead!
[QUOTE=BayBoy;442141]Right now we have a glut of oil in the USA, that's why the price has been coming down lately. Theres drilling for shale oil in the Dakotas, Colorado and Wyoming etc. We don't need oil from Canada.
These drilling permits were approved by the Interior Dept. during the Obama years.
I saw an interview on C-Span with the executives from all the big oil producers here in the USA. They all said they couldn't guarantee that the refined oil from the Keystone Pipeline would be used here. All lot of it would be going to foreign countries.[/QUOTE]Once again, you ******* obtuse pinhead, the Keystone Pipeline oil is not currently intended for domestic consumtion. It is expected to be refined in the USA (thus the high-paying refinery and dockworker jobs) and the subsequently value-added product will be exported, although that could be changed overnight should it be warranted by our national security interests.
I can't believe these ******* liberals. They can't get behind even the most obvious idea no matter how much common sense it makes.
Jax.
[QUOTE=BayBoy;442141]Right now we have a glut of oil in the USA, that's why the price has been coming down lately. Theres drilling for shale oil in the Dakotas, Colorado and Wyoming etc. We don't need oil from Canada.
These drilling permits were approved by the Interior Dept. During the Obama years.
I saw an interview on C-Span with the executives from all the big oil producers here in the USA. They all said they couldn't guarantee that the refined oil from the Keystone Pipeline would be used here. All lot of it would be going to foreign countries.[/QUOTE]The vast majority of new production is taking place on PRIVATE not GOVERNMENT controlled land.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442143]Investing in additional infrastructure to produce and transport fossil fuels is counterproductive, because fossil fuels are on the way out. It would be like buying additional desktop computers. You'd see brief fiscal stimulus from the short to mid-term jobs created. I'm not sure we need fiscal stimulus now. Maybe five years ago. I'd rather see infrastructure dollars spent on bridge repair and flood repair/reclamation right now, maybe wildfire mitigation if that's even possible. That's assuming it can't be spent on producing say wind energy.[/QUOTE]I support the idea of increasing government infrastructure spending, but that doesn't apply here because the Keystone Pipeline is to be built with private money, not government funds.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442143]Investing in additional infrastructure to produce and transport fossil fuels is counterproductive, because fossil fuels are on the way out. It would be like buying additional desktop computers. You'd see brief fiscal stimulus from the short to mid-term jobs created. I'm not sure we need fiscal stimulus now. Maybe five years ago. I'd rather see infrastructure dollars spent on bridge repair and flood repair/reclamation right now, maybe wildfire mitigation if that's even possible. That's assuming it can't be spent on producing say wind energy.[/QUOTE]You don't read much about "peak oil" anymore. The recent reputable forecasts I've seen for energy consumption show worldwide oil, natural gas and coal production increasing for many years in the future. The U.S. EIA forecasts renewables will only be 12% of total USA energy consumption in 2040, up from 9% in 2012.
As to Jackson's point, I know you're not a communist, so what are you proposing? Should government mandate or otherwise ensure that oil, gas and pipeline companies not spend money on exploration, production and infrastructure because it's a dying industry? Jimmy Carter had the same idea about natural gas, and used price controls to shut down investment. He was very wrong. Considering what's happened in the oil and gas industry over the last 5 or 10 years, the large increases in production, I don't understand the basis for your beliefs.
[QUOTE=Jackson;442147]I support the idea of increasing government infrastructure spending, but that doesn't apply here because the Keystone Pipeline is to be built with private money, not government funds.[/QUOTE]I understand that, but money is fungible and government and private investment compete for capital and for opportunities to deploy it (the "crowding out" effect). So I'm not concerned with whether dollars are private or public, only with where they are going. Now, whether and what types of infrastructure should be privately owned is a separate debate. The risk of private ownership of the pipeline is that the owners will engage in future rent-seeking behavior to the detriment of the public, and that seems like a safe bet to me. The advantages might outweigh those risks; I haven't looked at the particular project as far as that goes. I will say that it does seem like a transfer of negative externalities to the people disrupted by the pipeline, but those same people will probably benefit disproportionately from the positive (although mostly temporary) economic effects.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442149]
The risk of private ownership of the pipeline is that the owners will engage in future rent-seeking behavior to the detriment of the public, and that seems like a safe bet to me.[/QUOTE]It doesn't work that way. The owners of the pipeline would have to show that they lack significant market power, in order to set rates at the level they want. Otherwise, the rates will be set based on cost service, plus a reasonable rate of return on investment. This is regulated by FERC. If the owners of the pipeline engage in rent-seeking behavior then their customers will pursue a remedy through legal and regulatory means.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442149] The advantages might outweigh those risks; I haven't looked at the particular project as far as that goes. I will say that it does seem like a transfer of negative externalities to the people disrupted by the pipeline, but those same people will probably benefit disproportionately from the positive (although mostly temporary) economic effects.[/QUOTE]I'm not sure what you're getting at, but you wouldn't argue that people should ride around in horse-drawn buggies when technology exists for automobiles. Transportation of oil by pipeline is much cheaper and also safer than by rail or truck. What you're calling "temporary" in the case of the Keystone pipeline would perhaps be in excess of 100 years, if you mean how long there will be beneficial economic effects from having the pipeline in operation.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;442148]You don't read much about "peak oil" anymore. The recent reputable forecasts I've seen for energy consumption show worldwide oil, natural gas and coal production increasing for many years in the future. The U.S. EIA forecasts renewables will only be 10% of total USA energy consumption in 2040, up from 8% in 2012.
As to Jackson's point, I know you're not a communist, so what are you proposing? Should government mandate or otherwise ensure that oil, gas and pipeline companies not spend money on exploration, production and infrastructure because it's a dying industry? Jimmy Carter had the same idea about natural gas, and used price controls to shut down investment. He was very wrong. Considering what's happened in the oil and gas industry over the last 5 or 10 years, the large increases in production, I don't understand the basis for your beliefs.[/QUOTE]I just think it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We could easily move away from oil. It would take time, and there would be some short-term economic, but I believe it would be the right thing to do, including economically if you look at the fairly long-term (say 50 years). But as Keynes said, in the very long run everyone is dead, so there is no real motivation to take the steps to move toward renewables with any sense of commitment. The government is beholden to the oil industry, certainly. So not only do you have massive political pressure to continue to extract fossil fuels, you have the reality that they remain relatively cheap in the short run. Conservatives say that liberals are mortgaging the next generation's future with debt. Liberals say that conservatives are mortgaging the next generation's future environmentally.
But government mandates and price controls, certainly not. You know I would never favor price controls. Even more heinous would be trying to influence the direction of the focus of R & D, at least if you believe the private sector is best at development, which I certainly do. I'd look for the court of public opinion, in the form of the minds of the younger generation, to be the catalyst for real change in energy policy. If you want a short term, interventionist, Keynesian suggestion, I'd favor an up-front tax credit or penalty on new car purchases. Figure the current mileage of the US fleet, add X% to it to make it a goal for improvement, and that mileage would have a neutral tax. Purchasing a new vehicle with better mileage than the target figure would result in a credit and purchasing one with worse mileage would lead to a tax or surcharge. Make it a big one, like three or four thousand dollars for purchasing a car with twice the target mileage. Something like that. And as we know, new car purchases have a ripple effect through the economy. Emissions would fall as mileage rose. Rich people love tax credits and would buy luxury hybrids.
Of course wind energy looks good to me because of the part of the country I live in, but I do think it has potential, especially for some of the smaller co-ops that we have around here. You don't want to pump an industry up with credits too much because then you don't know if it would sink or swim on its own, but maybe a subsidy at the consumer level would encourage more wide-spread adoption and give the utilities more critical mass and economies of scale. Another measure I would favor would be basing the cost of a car's license plates on miles driven (which would not rule out a property-type tax based on value; that is a different discussion).
Wow Im an ---- obtuse pinhead.
The Canadian oil could be shipped by rail or truck to the refineries. Also theres refineries in other states like Ohio and Penn. Etc. That are a lot closer. Theres no reason to ship it to Louisiana or Texas.
We have enough oil and natural gas in the USA to last us 100 years. Theres no reason to mess up the environment in all those states by building this pipeline.
Guys try not to have a hissy fit over this.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;442150]It doesn't work that way. The owners of the pipeline would have to show that they lack significant market power, in order to set rates at the level they want. Otherwise, the rates will be set based on cost service, plus a reasonable rate of return on investment. This is regulated by FERC. If the owners of the pipeline engage in rent-seeking behavior then their customers will pursue a remedy through legal and regulatory means.[/QUOTE]In theory. In practice, there is a well-known tendency of regulated utilities to "capture the regulators" so pardon me if I'm a bit cynical about that. The customers will pursue remedies against a system that is rigged against them, as always.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;442150]I'm not sure what you're getting at, but you wouldn't argue that people should ride around in horse-drawn buggies when technology exists for automobiles. Transportation of oil by pipeline is much cheaper and also safer than by rail or truck. What you're calling "temporary" in the case of the Keystone pipeline is in excess of 100 years, if you mean how long there will be beneficial effects from having the pipeline in operation.[/QUOTE]Well, pipelines are the horses and buggies and alternative energy is the automobile, to continue your analogy, but I am only referring to the construction and related employment as being fairly temporary, not the purported benefits of the pipeline. You and I won't live long enough to find out, but I say that, while I'm sure it's accurate that pipelines are safer than trucks, that type of thinking will prove to have been similar to trying to make safer horse-and-buggies circa say 1920 or so.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442151] If you want a short term, interventionist, Keynesian suggestion, I'd favor an up-front tax credit or penalty on new car purchases. Figure the current mileage of the US fleet, add X% to it to make it a goal for improvement, and that mileage would have a neutral tax. Purchasing a new vehicle with better mileage than the target figure would result in a credit and purchasing one with worse mileage would lead to a tax or surcharge. Make it a big one, like three or four thousand dollars for purchasing a car with twice the target mileage. Something like that. And as we know, new car purchases have a ripple effect through the economy. Emissions would fall as mileage rose. Rich people love tax credits and would buy luxury hybrids.[/QUOTE]Or just increase the tax on gasoline, if it's matched by an equivalent decrease in the income tax. That or your suggestion would be better IMHO than government mandates for miles per gallon for vehicles, like what we've got now.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442151]
Of course wind energy looks good to me because of the part of the country I live in, but I do think it has potential, especially for some of the smaller co-ops that we have around here. You don't want to pump an industry up with credits too much because then you don't know if it would sink or swim on its own, but maybe a subsidy at the consumer level would encourage more wide-spread adoption and give the utilities more critical mass and economies of scale. Another measure I would favor would be basing the cost of a car's license plates on miles driven (which would not rule out a property-type tax based on value; that is a different discussion).[/QUOTE]
Wind is already getting a lot of subsidies, although I think Congress has been renewing that for new projects on a year-by-year basis. On days when there's low demand for electricity in certain parts of Texas, wind generators actually sometimes pay to put electricity into the grid, instead of receiving revenues from the power they're producing. They do this because, say, they're getting a 2 cent per kilowatt hour subsidy or tax credit they can sell, and only have to pay a penny a kilowatt hour to get the grid to accept the power. So it makes more sense to keep operating, instead of shutting down and saving the wear and tear on the equipment. This appears to me to be a waste of the taxpayers' money.
[QUOTE=BayBoy;442152]Wow Im an ---- obtuse pinhead.
The Canadian oil could be shipped by rail or truck to the refineries. Also theres refineries in other states like Ohio and Penn. Etc. That are a lot closer. Theres no reason to ship it to Louisiana or Texas.
We have enough oil and natural gas in the USA to last us 100 years. Theres no reason to mess up the environment in all those states by building this pipeline.
Guys try not to have a hissy fit over this.[/QUOTE]There are refineries in China and eastern Canada, and actually that's where the oil will go in the longer term without Keystone. What you say about natural gas is probably correct. We will always be net importers of oil though.
Are you the son of World Travel 69? Just wondering as he's from the bay area, and also believes the most important goal of the federal government should be to screw the Texans and the southerners.
Increasing the gasoline tax would be regressive and would be less likely to get gas guzzlers off the road in the short term. I don't have any stats to back it up, but I bet the very poor, say the poorest quintile of all drivers, drive cars with [B]below[/B] average gas mileage, cuz they are stuck with them. Maybe, to help get them out of those cars that are harming those who do NOT drive them, my credit could also apply to used cars as long as the newer car represented an X% improvement in mileage and the old car was put in the crusher. That might drive up the price of used cars, though.
Credits work faster than changes in tax rates and so are the superior fiscal tool, in my opinion. I should add that reducing the age of the fleet on the road will have ancillary benefits in terms of safety, and the states' coffers may benefit because newer cars pay higher registration fees (and of course in most states there would be sales tax revenues on purchase as well).
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/midterm-disaster-rips-apart-awkward-ties-between-obama-and-senate-democrats/2014/11/05/5bdd257a-650e-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html?tid=pm_pop[/URL]
In politics, once in power, there really is very little difference between a GOP or a Democratic president. They are beholden to Big Business. All the big players donate to both parties & candidates. And so you better know how to play the game as good as Bill Clinton did. A man of loose morals, that is the type of president that America needs. Say what? Just in case you didn't know, the Clintons are the poster couple for Corporate America. And in Obama, the Financial Lobby had a true friend.
When the very, very, very, junior Senator Obama leapfrogged Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination, he upended the Democratic hierarchy. Both Reid & Pelosi and a few others were powerful and they were not going to just bend over. They had their fiefdom and ambitions to protect. Publicly, they were embracing each, of course. Never mind, the one-term goal that the GOP had proclaimed. As the financial crisis hit, Obama found himself a juggling act of the highest order. What a legacy Bush bestow on Obama!!! No wonder he is doing so much painting, he needed to hide himself from the public eye.
And so we march forward, Boehner warns Obama "not to poison the well". Too late, the well has already been poisoned. How can you tell? Just count how many medications you have prescriptions for. What? You say you never felt so good? Then, great for you.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442156]Maybe, to help get them out of those cars that are harming those who do NOT drive them, my credit could also apply to used cars as long as the newer car represented an X% improvement in mileage and the old car was put in the crusher.[/QUOTE]Isn't that what "Cash for Clunkers" was supposed to do?
BTW, has anyone seen or heard from Debbie "Screech" Wasserman-Schmutz?
ROTFLMAO!
Jax
[QUOTE=Jackson;442158]Isn't that what "Cash for Clunkers" was supposed to do?
BTW, has anyone seen or heard from Debbie "Screech" Wasserman-Schmutz?
ROTFLMAO!
Jax[/QUOTE]I don't know who that is but the difference in C4C and what I envision is that C4C was short-term and limited. That meant that a lot of the people who participated were merely accelerating a purchase they would have made anyway. That was okay from a fiscal stimulus standpoint but suboptimal from an energy policy standpoint. What I propose would work best if it was permanent or at least fairly long-term. You know in your heart we could improve the mileage of the US fleet 20% or more in 5 years or less. Focus on some similar goal. The EPA mileage standards force manufacturers to produce higher mileage cars. I would prefer that consumers demand higher mileage cars. Targeting the end consumer with a subsidy is superior to threatening the producer with a penalty.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442132]Jackson, you were exactly correct in stating Esten needed to get direction from the DNC before he could respond, nearly word for word response from the DNC.[/QUOTE]Actually I speak for myself. If my comments are similar to others, they are likely just looking at the same set of facts.
About the DNC though, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to go. She has never been a great face of the party, and she failed at coordinating a clear unified message for Democrats this year. It will be a mistake to keep her on.
BTW Doppel, I still haven't seen you THANK Obama for his tax policies that are helping you BIG TIME, saving you almost $20,000 a year via the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.
[QUOTE=Esten;442164] the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012[/QUOTE]Otherwise known as the Dickhead Immediate Retirement Act! Do I thank Bush for the reverse Robin Hood tax cuts or Obama for extending them? Thanks to both of them! Retirement is awesome! Harvesting massive amounts of capital gains at 0% federal rates while obtaining hugely subsidized health care is awesome! Now I get free drugs too! And I have a free car!
So I'd like to thank myself for working hard for 40 years, [B]and[/B] I would like to thank the combination of the Bush tax cuts, the ATRA's extension of them, the Affordable Care Act, and the late Senator William V. Roth, Jr. of Delaware for making it so I didn't have to work 10 or 12 more years.
But today I found out you fucks cut my health insurance subsidy by $75 a month. That is really a shame because as my New Year's resolution I have promised to donate my entire 2015 health care subsidy to qualified and needy prostitutes throughout Latin America and southern Europe, so by cutting my subsidy you are just taking bread out of these poor women's mouths. I guess I will just have to make up for this lack of nourishment by giving them extra [I]leche[/I].
[QUOTE=Esten;442164]BTW Doppel, I still haven't seen you THANK Obama for his tax policies that are helping you BIG TIME, saving you almost $20,000 a year via the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.[/QUOTE]Obama saved me much, much more than that. My 2013 taxes were about 20% of what I paid for 2012. That is, they were about 80% less. This is because I decided if the mother fuckers in Washington are going to tax me at a rate of 43.4%, in addition to what I gladly (honestly) pay state and local governments, then I'm going to quit working. Or at least cut way back. Thank you President Obama!!!
Yeah, when I work I face 41.05% marginal taxation with the Obamacare effect. So fuck it. My target is to make $6500 a year by working and contribute it all to my IRA. Not a penny more. It's gonna take a few more years for people 50-65 years old to realize they can just flat out quit and get subsidized insurance, but as awareness sets in, you'll see more of them packing it in. Obamacare is also good for younger folks who want to quit their jobs and travel or fuck off or chase hookers for a year or so. They get kicked off their parents' insurance when they turn 26 and since they're still living in the parents' basement, this way they can still pay for their health insurance along with their subscriptions to Pandora and Hulu and their iPhones. Oh, wait a minute; their parents are paying for all that shit too.
Never mind.
[QUOTE=Esten;442164]Actually I speak for myself. If my comments are similar to others, they are likely just looking at the same set of facts.
About the DNC though, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to go. She has never been a great face of the party, and she failed at coordinating a clear unified message for Democrats this year. It will be a mistake to keep her on.
BTW Doppel, I still haven't seen you THANK Obama for his tax policies that are helping you BIG TIME, saving you almost $20,000 a year via the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.[/QUOTE]First of all I have saved nothing under Obama. Point of fact between taxes and ObamaCare running up my employee health costs over 60% in three years I am worse off now than when he took office.
Why should I thank you for anything Esten, you have done nothing but propagate the DNC's propaganda for years. If the mid-terms were not a repudiation of Obama and his policies I don't know what is.
When Carter starts criticizing Obama you know something is really wrong. Obama will go down as the biggest failure as a president in American History replacing the stupid peanut farmer! By the way Carter's grandson got his ass handed to him on Tuesday as well.
Just educate them.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;442155]There are refineries in China and eastern Canada, and actually that's where the oil will go in the longer term without Keystone. What you say about natural gas is probably correct. We will always be net importers of oil though.
Are you the son of World Travel 69? Just wondering as he's from the bay area, and also believes the most important goal of the federal government should be to screw the Texans and the southerners.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442175]
Obama will go down as the biggest failure as a president in American History replacing the stupid peanut farmer! .[/QUOTE]Your assertion is so ridiculous and utterly inaccurate I wonder if even a right wing ultraconservative such as yourself actually believes it. Obviously what will happen between tomorrow and January 20, 2017 is not known, but barring a catastrophic geopolitical or economic event Obama will be judged kindly by the historians involved in ranking Presidential Administrations. No matter what its "final" iteration is, the Affordable Care Act aka "Obamacare" is here to stay and its initiation will be judged by historians as a landmark event in US history on the level of Social Security and Medicare. Obama will also be given credit for overseeing the massive recovery from the so-called Great Recession and for successfully ordering the military strike that killed Osama bin Ladin.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;442179]Your assertion is so ridiculous and utterly inaccurate I wonder if even a right wing ultraconservative such as yourself actually believes it. Obviously what will happen between tomorrow and January 20, 2017 is not known, but barring a catastrophic geopolitical or economic event Obama will be judged kindly by the historians involved in ranking Presidential Administrations. No matter what its "final" iteration is, the Affordable Care Act aka "Obamacare" is here to stay and its initiation will be judged by historians as a landmark event in US history on the level of Social Security and Medicare. Obama will also be given credit for overseeing the massive recovery from the so-called Great Recession and for successfully ordering the military strike that killed Osama bin Ladin.[/QUOTE]EAP would you care to place a bet on ACA in it's final form as passed by the House and Senate and signed by Obama will remain intact?
I can tell you that simply will not happen and it will be judged as the colossal failure it is. The total ineptitude of the Obama administration from domestic policy to foreign policy to the use of the IRS to inflict injury on his political enemies will make Carter look sterling when compared to Obama.
Obama has diminished both the country and the presidency and will be judged accordingly.
Either Boehner or McConnell acknowledged yesterday that they don't have the votes to repeal Obamacare. I don't agree with EAP about how Obama will be judged but I do think the ACA will become like Medicare and fifty years from now it will be taken for granted. Of course, maybe they will have the votes in 2017. The US is starting to remind me of Chile or Uruguay, lurching back and forth from right to left every other election. It did seem like in general moderates won and extremists on both sides lost, so that could be a start.
If I were Obama I would call in five highly influential Republican senators and five highly influential Democratic ones and I would say, "Write your best idea for what we can accomplish in the next two years on this piece of paper in the next sixty seconds and then get the fuck out." Then I would pick the best two Republican ideas and the best two Democratic ones, call the same ten fucks, I mean folks, back in and say, "I don't want to hear one more word out of any of you fuckers until you come up with some bipartisan legislation on these four ideas." Then guarantee them that whatever they come up with, he won't veto.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442184]Either Boehner or McConnell acknowledged yesterday that they don't have the votes to repeal Obamacare. I don't agree with EAP about how Obama will be judged but I do think the ACA will become like Medicare and fifty years from now it will be taken for granted. Of course, maybe they will have the votes in 2017. The US is starting to remind me of Chile or Uruguay, lurching back and forth from right to left every other election. It did seem like in general moderates won and extremists on both sides lost, so that could be a start.
If I were Obama I would call in five highly influential Republican senators and five highly influential Democratic ones and I would say, "Write your best idea for what we can accomplish in the next two years on this piece of paper in the next sixty seconds and then get the fuck out." Then I would pick the best two Republican ideas and the best two Democratic ones, call the same ten fucks, I mean folks, back in and say, "I don't want to hear one more word out of any of you fuckers until you come up with some bipartisan legislation on these four ideas." Then guarantee them that whatever they come up with, he won't veto.[/QUOTE]That's called "leadership", which is a skill that Obama doesn't possess.
I didn't say I was holding my breath waiting for it to happen. But you make a good point. I look back at the presidents in my lifetime and I just don't see an outstanding leader, as in none, as in zero. In fairness I do not remember Eisenhower. Kennedy had the qualities but didn't get much of a chance. The rest of 'em, not too impressive. I was just looking at the last few governors of my state, which is a swing state. I went back three Dems and three Republicans. Just nothing really outstanding about any of them.
I think Charles Barkley would make a good president. Plus he likes hookers.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442183]EAP would you care to place a bet on ACA in it's final form as passed by the House and Senate and signed by Obama will remain intact?
I can tell you that simply will not happen and it will be judged as the colossal failure it is. The total ineptitude of the Obama administration from domestic policy to foreign policy to the use of the IRS to inflict injury on his political enemies will make Carter look sterling when compared to Obama.
Obama has diminished both the country and the presidency and will be judged accordingly.[/QUOTE]No democratic president will ever allow the ACA to be repealed, period. Every year that passes more and more US citizens will be enrolled in the ACA and it will become (if it is not already) politically unfeasible for any party to even consider eliminating it the same as eliminating Social Security or Medicare would be impossible. As I stated in my post it is anybody's guess what the "final iteration" of the ACA will consist of (meaning it will, and should be continually updated, modernized and made more efficient as need be) but it has achieved its objective of providing the possibility of affordable healthcare to the masses and it will be going nowhere.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442183]EAP would you care to place a bet on ACA in it's final form as passed by the House and Senate and signed by Obama will remain intact?
I can tell you that simply will not happen and it will be judged as the colossal failure it is. The total ineptitude of the Obama administration from domestic policy to foreign policy to the use of the IRS to inflict injury on his political enemies will make Carter look sterling when compared to Obama.
Obama has diminished both the country and the presidency and will be judged accordingly.[/QUOTE]First, everybody already agree that ACA is not perfect, that there will be changes down the road as they tinker and fine tune it. Why do you keep forgetting that?
Quite some time back, 3 or 4 biographers of various presidents appear on a tv talk show. They all agree that Obama would go down in the top 5 presidents all-time. They might not be as gushing today, but I think your opinion is highly prejudiced. But you are entitled to it, of course. Myself, I do not think he is top 5 and I am not astute enough to want to venture a ranking. For sure, he will be rank above Bush, Jr.
It has been very sad to see American politics the way it has been the last 2 decades. But it is a reflection of the dysfunctional state of our lifestyle. We are only saved by the great natural resources that we possess and the vigor of the thousands of immigrants that still arrive each day. If not for them, most Americans would be smoking dope, screwing their best friend's wife, suffering from some kind of disorder, and contemplating suicide! An exaggeration, of course, so no bashing, please.
With great interest, I will enjoy the new soap opera season. I can't wait for Sarah Palin to open her mouth. And of course, the main man himself, Donald Trump.
The Republicans don't have the votes to override an Obama veto of a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. They need to get over it. Its here to stay. The act is bringing medical insurance to millions of people for the first time in their lives. Plus:
-- No caps on benefits.
-- Seniors don't have a donut hole to worry about on their prescription drugs (Pres. Bush's great idea).
-- No preexisting conditions can stop people from getting insurance.
-- Young people can ride their parents insurance until age 26.
And much more. Whats not to like.
[QUOTE=Jackson;442192]the purpose of Obamacare was redistribution of wealth.[/QUOTE]If that is the case, then they sure fucked it up because without means testing it's mostly going to be a distribution of wealth to lazy assholes like me who were already well off to begin with and who know how to work the system. A lot of the others who might get a wealth transfer aren't going to be able to figure it out. If you subsidize people who have to consume the entire subsidy, they don't accrue any wealth. They just kind of survive. The real wealth transfer will be to the CPAs who have to plan around this. The ACA is a huge intergenerational financial and estate planning opportunity and that's just going to perpetuate existing wealth more so than transfer it.
Say your worthless son, Entitled Snotnose III, is getting kicked off your health insurance because he's turning 26. Not much chance of being covered under an employer plan since the little shit hasn't worked a day in his life. You can still support him and he can get Medicaid. Or say you are a CEO who has made $27 million in last five years so you retire at 60. Take all your money out that year and you too can go on Medicaid until you are 65. Makes no sense.
First I don't "hate" Obama even though he has disgraced himself, the office of the president and the country.
Please pull your head out of the sand, did you totally miss what happened on Tuesday? It was a complete repudiation of Obama and his policies. Stop whining, your boy is an idiot, get over it.
Top 5 presidents, please. Perhaps the worst 5 if not the worst.
ACA is here to stay, I doubt that. Perhaps parts of it will be rolled into a new system but ACA / Obamacare is a joke. Double digit increases this year and guess what, the federal subsidies were found to be illegal by a federal court.
Deadlines pushed back without legal authority and why, because the midterms would have been even worse if they had gone into affect. Pure politics by your boy because he is scared of his own "signature" policy.
Here's a good one for you. The IRS says they are not prepared to collect the "tax" for going naked and their web site for their side of ACA according to the IRS will be at least as bad as ObamaCare was when it was rolled out.
This thing has been a closterfuck from the start.
Tell me how great ACA is, it has boosted my employee healthcare costs 60%+ over three years and here is the kicker, our current plan will be classed a "Cadillac Plan" under ACA which means I will have to trim the benefits to avoid the additional penalty. Believe me my employees are not amused.
As far as his threat to use executive orders to provide amnesty to illegals, I hope he does. It will galvanize the electorate and perhaps provide the impetus for democrats to further distance themselves from the Emperor, joining republicans for the 2/3's majorities of the House and Senate to over ride an Obama veto of coming legislation. Remember with 54 to 55 Republicans in the Senate it will only take a few to move over. The same for the House. It's going to an interesting 2 years.
[QUOTE=RevBS;442189]
Quite some time back, 3 or 4 biographers of various presidents appear on a tv talk show. They all agree that Obama would go down in the top 5 presidents all-time. They might not be as gushing today, but I think your opinion is highly prejudiced. [/QUOTE]I saw this recently too with another historian but they do judge presidents on their accomplishment rather than partisanship. If you look objectively look at Obama's accomplishments and put your hate on hold there's no way he could be the worst presidents. Some of his feats are:
-The stock market is at an all time high, now close to 18000 points up from the 6500 or so when he took office. (personally I regained all my losses from MY TSP and 401K which I lost prior to 2008. This is a major accomplishment by anyone's standard and a huge gain for the country).
-No terrorist attack on US soil during his term to date (unlike 9-11 where so many warnings were ignored by the President conservatives want to forget).
-Killed America's number one nemesis Bin Laden (something the Republican president was unable to do) This was therapeutic for many Americans.
-Saved the Auto Industry.
-Put the economy on the right track from the disastrous road it was travelling on (its not perfect but better than where it was when he took office).
-ACA (love it or hate it, this will go down a major accomplishment similar to SS).
-Ended the extremely unpopular Iraq war saving the country's stressed out military from exhaustion.
-Allowed all citizens to freely serve the country in the Armed Services ending that discriminatory practice. (Conservatives wailed and cried when Obama did this and warned it would be the end of the military as we know it. Today this is a non-issue in our Armed Forces).
-Continually lowered the unemployment rate which dropped again this month (but conservatives now want to change the measurement metric, the same one that was always used).
What did Bush jr do to make him a better president than Obama and remember over 3000 Americans died on 9-11 needlessly because of his administration ineptitude and poor leadership and don't forget Bush's economy. Conservatives rail against Obama regardless of the issue, similarly many Liberals love him despite the issues. Obama's accomplishment will support him as being one of the best, the most loved/admired and the most hated presidents in our history but no way is he the worst, he's at the top of the list in terms of his achievements.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442196] the federal subsidies were found to be illegal by a federal court.[/QUOTE]On the same day another and equal federal court found the exact opposite, and only as they pertained to the federal website. The states' websites were not covered by the ruling although they receive their subsidies from the feds. But just go ahead and cherry pick whatever supports your point of view.