American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Jackson; 413348]Black Shirt,

I take exception to your statement. All things considered, I think the political discussions here are relatively civilized.

Of course, from some liberal's perspective, any venue that permits conservatives and libertarians to have an equal voice is [I]de facto[/I] "uncivil".

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]My fault, what I was trying to infer was that the Board is a reflection of where American culture is at the moment, and more specifically, where the political culture is right now. From past postings by you and others, it seems that we are in agreement that our representatives in Washington are a degraded lot, yet the Board is just as jingonistic, parroting pretty much the propoganda emitting from the landfill. And I am not going the route of "I am not liberal" or "I am not a republican" bullshit.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;413350]My fault, what I was trying to infer was that the Board is a reflection of where American culture is at the moment, and more specifically, where the political culture is right now. From past postings by you and others, it seems that we are in agreement that our representatives in Washington are a degraded lot, yet the Board is just as jingonistic, parroting pretty much the propoganda emitting from the landfill. And I am not going the route of "I am not liberal" or "I am not a republican" bullshit.[/QUOTE]With all due respect, that's a cop out. Anyone can characterize any opinion as "propaganda, " but that doesn't make it so. The country does have a problem with spending. Some here thought the stimulus was necessary; others thought it was unnecessary and wasteful. That doesn't make either position propaganda.

Some here thought health care reform was necessary; others thought it unnecessary or, to the extent necessary, that the plan enacted went too far. That doesn't make either position propaganda.

Some favored Cash for Clunkers; others opposed. Some like Obama and what he stands for; others disagree. Some think Democrats and the left are wrong for the country and articulate why; others think Republicans and the right are a mistake and have articulated their position why. Some think Republicans were responsible for the housing mess; others think Democrats were responsible. Both sides have aired their reasons. None of this is propoganda. Heck, I've even asked anyone to articulate why government unions are necessary, when compared with the traditional justifications for unions (to equalize the bargaining power with capital) and no one's ever bothered to respond.

Again, you can label anything you want as propaganda, including the facts that go into the debate, and there have been plenty of facts provided here. You can disagree with opinions voiced here and not care to read them or respond. If that's true, then why read this thread? If facts and opinions are all propaganda, then this thread isn't for you. There's nothing wrong with that. I just don't understand the need to complain about it and label it as such.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413353]With all due respect, that's a cop out. Anyone can characterize any opinion as "propaganda, " but that doesn't make it so. The country does have a problem with spending. Some here thought the stimulus was necessary; others thought it was unnecessary and wasteful. That doesn't make either position propaganda.

Some here thought health care reform was necessary; others thought it unnecessary or, to the extent necessary, that the plan enacted went too far. That doesn't make either position propaganda.

Some favored Cash for Clunkers; others opposed. Some like Obama and what he stands for; others disagree. Some think Democrats and the left are wrong for the country and articulate why; others think Republicans and the right are a mistake and have articulated their position why. Some think Republicans were responsible for the housing mess; others think Democrats were responsible. Both sides have aired their reasons. None of this is propoganda. Heck, I've even asked anyone to articulate why government unions are necessary, when compared with the traditional justifications for unions (to equalize the bargaining power with capital) and no one's ever bothered to respond.

Again, you can label anything you want as propaganda, including the facts that go into the debate, and there have been plenty of facts provided here. You can disagree with opinions voiced here and not care to read them or respond. If that's true, then why read this thread? If facts and opinions are all propaganda, then this thread isn't for you. There's nothing wrong with that. I just don't understand the need to complain about it and label it as such. [/QUOTE]Again referring to the mess in Washington, if anything is going to get done for you and me, there has to be compromise. We need people who at the end of a hard and vigororous campaign or debate jettisan their partisanship and get on with what's best for the country. We are so f-up.

People post on this thread with different motivations and agendas. Just IMHO, we don't need to play politics here, too. Not complaining, just an observation.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;413354]Again referring to the mess in Washington, if anything is going to get done for you and me, there has to be compromise. We need people who at the end of a hard and vigororous campaign or debate jettisan their partisanship and get on with what's best for the country.[/QUOTE]Fair enough, but "compromise" doesn't get you very far. Again, I don't mean any disrespect whatsoever, but that's the propaganda. Just saying "compromise" is meaningless.

I dealt with that word on a daily basis in my past life as a lawyer. If one side's asking for $1.5 million and the other is offering $50,000, they need to "compromise" to reach a deal. But that doesn't really say anything. It's certainly not "meet in the middle, " because any sap can figure out that you ought to start higher next time, or lower, depending on which side you're on. So, the "compromise where" is the issue, and where non-monetary items are at stake, it's "compromise on what. "

And, even that's not saying much. If one side just tosses an issue out there and says that 'this issue is important to my constituents or my party' does that mean the other side should or must compromise? Certainly not. It's the same dynamic as above: If that's the game, then just throw all your issues out there and make incremental progress toward your position each time you do so. But that clearly can't work.

I'm not trying to be patronizing. I know you know this. But, the idea that folks in Congress need to compromise is a bit facile. Compromise on what, and compromise where, is what all the hollering is about. And, of course, that certainly doesn't mean the two sides will reach an agreement. Sometimes, no deal is the best deal, at least from my perspective.

Rather than seeing compromise, I would prefer to see both sides make an effort at stripping everything down from the federal budget, then adding back what's essential, and finally adding back what we can afford. The latter is where the fight would be, but that would be a fight worth having. I know: Much easier said than done, and a pipe dream at that. But, if they expect me to pay higher taxes, then I'd like them to first justify why they need them.

I'll give you one real world example of why the whole process is messed up from my perspective. I have a former friend who hasn't filed a tax return in 25 years. This person has made over six figures a year, and sometimes well in excess of six figures, for a majority of that time. Usually, about six or seven years after the fact, a federal or state agency will notice that he hasn't filed taxes, and they'll start filing liens and doing levies at the companies from which he draws income. Right now, the state entity is finally catching up to 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 tax years. He owes over $300,000 for those years, and this is just to the state taxing authority. I know because I've seen the levies. The feds still aren't even in the picture, even though he's never filed a return there, either. Frankly, it's appalling. The guy's not a tax protester. He just never bothers to file. He's gone through the compromise process with the IRS and state taxing authorities two times over the past 20 years, where he essentially cuts a check to compromise the penalties and back taxes for the preceding 7-8 years. This will be the third time when he eventually gets around to it, if [i]they[/i] Eventually get around to it.

Wouldn't you think either the state agency or feds would track the guy after the first time he went 6-7 years without paying taxes? How about after the second time? Or, maybe you'd think that they would check on subsequent years when they realized that he never paid taxes for 1999, 2000, 2001 or 2002? Or, maybe you'd think that the state and federal agencies might coordinate their efforts? Nope on all of the above.

And, he's never served a day in jail for tax evasion. Know why? Because signing and knowingly filing a false tax return is a felony; but failing to file a return is a misdemeanor. If you don't file, you never sign anything where you swear, under penalty of perjury, that your numbers are correct. So, what's the lesson here?

That's a small example. It's anecdotal, I know, but I've got dozens more I could relate. My point is: Before they come trying to pick my pockets further, they need to get their own house in order. Government has become the problem.

I have to agree with Stan on the compromise issue. The true definition of compromise is both parties leave the table dissatisfied (rather to a more or less equal extent is debatable)

IMHO spending must stop, period. What we as a country want and what we can afford have become so divergent if we continue on this course we will end up like Greece with debt greater than our GDP. The economy is not recovering (remember according to the eggheads the recession ended over a year ago) and simply can not sustain the level of social programs the dumbasses in Washington continue to attempt to purchase votes with. A good example is the $250 rebate to seniors since there has been no COLA for two years, politics at its lowest and both parties participate but it seems to be the Democrats who have been purchasing votes with social programs longer than the Republicans.

Look at England, Germany and France, semi-socialist countries, even they understand that spending has to be cut and are taking the very unpopular steps to reduce spending. When was the last time Europe was ahead of the US in economic policy? I don't remember a case where this has happened until now. We spent our way into this mess and there is no way we are going to spend our way out.

Maybe we should strip the budget to its base elements (borders, national defense, ect) but what I would suggest is to keep the 'social programs' which have been funded via payroll taxes for years which are Medicaid and Social Security. Point of fact had the Democrats not moved Social Security funds into the general budget in the 50's, these programs would be solvent today and for years to come. Medicaid and other unfunded social programs need to be returned to the states to administer as each state sees fit and not the federal government.

While government by its very nature is inefficient at least the closer to the people governed it is the more efficient is appears to be. An excellent example was presented by Stan regarding delinquent taxes – who was at the door first and continues to be there for payment – the state and not the IRS.

Stan, Dopey,

I do agree big government is a problem, and that they will never be as efficient and cost-effective as private enterprise. For me, compromise is just not being rigid or in many cases, stubborn. You don't have to sacrifice your core beliefs. It just means you might now win everytime or havie everything go your way. Ultimately, great leadership can be one answer, sadly, we are lacking on both sides of the parties. Obama had potential, but inexperience in dealing within his own party cost him a chance to make history.

Perhaps, we can look in the mirror, and see how our culture has evolve to it's Jerry Springer stage. If you read the headlines everyday, and hear the baying on both sides, you know what I mean.

The irony is for most of us, life is still quite comfortable. No fear about the USA being the Titanic and so, we continue to indulge in impasse politics. I guess we haven't reach rock bottom yet.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 413333]The voters were worried about "[I]jobs, the economy and the direction of the country[/I]" two years ago, and in the interim the Democrats failed miserably to deliver on these concerns because they were single-mindedly focused on accomplishing their long-held philosophical goal of taking over and destroying the world's most advanced private health care system.

Now do you see how it's all connected? [/QUOTE]More smears and misinformation! You guys take the cake.

In early 2009, Dems first order of business before they did ANYTHING else was to pass an aggressive stimulus package, the Recovery Act, to work along with other federal programs to stabilize the financial system and stimulate the economy. In fact Obama got moving on this even before he got in office. The stimulus package was widely supported by economists and even the conservative-leaning US Chamber of Commerce.

The Stimulus and other programs are credited with stabilizing the financial system and economy, ending the Great Recession, and creating or saving millions of jobs. We've now had nine straight months of private sector job growth. Which is getting increasingly offset by government job losses, which conservatives should be happy about.

We still have an employment and deficit problem because we lost 7 MILLION jobs over 2008-2009 and the associated tax revenues, the deficit being further increased by the temporary Stimulus spending and tax cuts. While the Stimulus is the big one, Dems have also taken other steps to address jobs, all of which you conveniently omitted.

Those who look at the facts seriously, consider that the federal programs have been successful in helping turn the economy around. Though all agree we still have a long way to go. Where Dems did poorly, as I have said before, is in managing expectations about unemployment.

OTOH, those with a right wing agenda will ignore these facts, and make wild assertions such as Jackson has just posted.

Rock -

Nobody is convincing anybody of much in this thread, and I am sure I won't change your opinion much either. But I'll say it anyways.

I think it is premature to state the PPACA is going to be either a big failure or a big success. I think there are more benefits than the one you cited. And there will be trade-offs. In the end it will come down to whether one believes the advantages outweigh any disadvantages.

From what I have read I believe it has the framework to be successful, as long as it is implemented responsibly and issues addressed and fixed as needed. There is some question mark on this with Republican vows to do whatever they can to dismantle / defund PPACA (they won't be able to repeal). Unclear how that will play out. But the country has just begun the process of implementation and IMO far too early to declare it a huge success or disaster.

One more thing (for all):
If you are doing research on the health care reform, you should use words like ACA, PPACA, Affordable Care Act or Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. If you only use the right-wing slang "ObamaCare" in your search field, your info is going to be slanted to it's detractors.

Black Shirt. I'm with you on the Jerry Springer Mode. I have to laugh to keep from crying at the total BS coming out of the news media.

Term limits for Congress would be a good start, if the President is limited to two terms why not Congress. If you go back and look at the members of Congress for the first 50 years after independence they were in session as little as possible, they had to go home and MAKE A LIVING since there were no 'professional politicians' per say, or at least very few. I know the opposition to term limits say we have a mechanism now to change called elections, but in today's environment incumbency its an extremely powerful weapon against all comers.

The way I see it with term limits the special interests (both conservative and liberal) simply could no longer afford to buy access to power every few years. As it stands now they make the investment once then maintain it for decades with minimum cost. Simply moving the price point out of reach would go along way to solving the problem IMHO.

Wake up and get a grip Esten, everyone is using the moniker "ObamaCare" to describe this abomination of healthcare legislation. Democrats, Republicans, Liberal and Conservative media talking heads.

The next thing you will be telling me is Obama doesn't shit. He 'candies' and he doesn't fart. He 'perfumes'. No matter what you call it – it stinks.

Man, this guy takes the cake. Even [i]a Democrat[/i] Is calling it "Obamacare" and signed the petition to repeal it. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130652430 But he claims we're being slanted when we use the same term and should instead use Obama's preferred alphabet soup. Sure. Same point he made before: It's okay for Democrats but not for Republicans.

This is the guy who also claims to have been privy to Democrats' polling data, which he contends told them that Obamacare was no longer a big issue for their constituents, so they could safely ignore it. Since he claims everything he disagrees with here is "spinning, " it's better to use his own words to hang him:

[QUOTE=Esten; 413277]It's very simple how politicians go about determining their election year messages. They do something called [i]polling[/i] On what moves voters. And what is typically the case is that voters are moved by how their vote will influence the direction of the country going forward.

Dems ran on heath care reform back in 2008 because it was popular yet unrealized. Now it's passed. It is no longer a forward-looking event, so there are plenty of other things on the direction of the country that Dems are focusing on. [/QUOTE]Right. Unless Dems were using the Daily KOS pollsters, there's no way that's a viable argument. Any credible poll indicates that voters are still keenly interested in Obamacare, and most are mad about it. Even left-leaning outfits like Kaiser show this. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/more-bad-news-obamacare_509181.html That's the real reason Dems are running away from it, or touting their opposition where possible. They screwed up if they voted for it, so they ignore it, and they can score points if they voted against it, or support repeal, so they tout those issues.

More hypocrisy in action. Left-leaning NPR always claims that it provides balanced news coverage. This is just a fig leaf owing to the fact that NPR and its member stations still take between 10%.70% of their revenue from the public teet. It wouldn't look to good if they admitted they were liberal and unbalanced yet still lined up at the public trough asking for taxpayer money, so they go in drag and masquerade as non-partisan.

Two weeks ago, NPR circulated a memo telling employees that they could not attend the left-leaning John Stewart / Stephen Colbert rally in DC, unless it was in an official capacity. It might create the appearance of bias if staffers were in attendance. When asked why they didn't circulate a similar memo for the rightwing nutjob on Fox, Glenn Beck, they lamely claimed that Beck's rally was obviously political whereas Stewart's was not. The real reason, of course, is that none of the left-leaning staffers at NPR would ever want to attend a Glenn Beck rally, while they all probably had to cancel picnic plans for the Stewart / Colbert rally once the memo came out. In other words, it's important for NPR to avoid the appearance of bias, but actual bias is fine.

Now this. NPR has fired Juan Williams for saying, on Fox News, "[I]when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.[/I]"

Are you kidding me? Open-minded liberals like NPR object to this? Who [i]doesn't[/i] Feel this way? As they say, 90% of men masturbate, and 10% lie. Only that same 10% can claim they never get nervous in that situation.

The real reason they fired this guy is because he frequently appears on Fox News as the liberal counterpoint to a conservative view. They made Fox remove the NPR icon when Williams was on in the past. Since Juan didn't get that subtle hint, his "nervous" remarks are the latest fig leaf they're using.

Balanced and open minded, that's the left wing media, except when you disagree with them.

We have now seen NPR's version of Political Correctness in action. Now they are eating their own. How dare Juan Williams have the audacity to actually express a personal opinion? These are the same liberals who demand due process for terrorists captured on the battlefield but denied Williams even the courtesy of a face to face meeting.

If we could get NPR to shift at least 2 sigma's to the right, that might put them back to the middle of the spectrum.

I guess CNN was wrong for firing Rick Sanchez.

Makes sense.

On a daily basis, we see how Team Obama is taking a page from the Kirchners' playbook on how to manipulate and distort statistics to their advantage. The most recent:

Team Obama was claiming credit for having created 50,000 jobs with wind farm Stimulus money. They recently got called on it with data showing that many of these wind farms were completed either before Obama took office, or before any Stimulus funds were awarded. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39759042/ns/business-going_green/

So now, they're changing the nomenclature. Since jobs "created" made them look bad, they changed it to "created or saved. " Since that still loses 50,000 jobs from their wind farm tally, they're now changing it to jobs "created, saved or supported. " Whew! And Esten accuses folks on this board of spin!

But, at least they're consistent: They blame Bush for all the jobs lost, and then take jobs created by Bush and put them in their own column, under the new title "jobs created, saved or supported. "

Good thing we've got these renewable energy projects creating jobs, too. Except it turns out that the majority of the Stimulus money for that is going to foreign owned firms. http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/wind-energy-funds-going-overseas/story/renewable-energy-money-still-going-abroad/

Again, at least Democrats are consistent. They criticize Republicans and corporations for shipping jobs overseas. The Democrats would never do that. Instead, they become the middle man, tax us and give the money directly to foreign companies. See Cash for Clunkers for the precursor of this brilliant idea, where all the Clunkers were American and 6 out of 10 cars purchased with Clunker money were foreign made. Brilliant. And these guys are supposed to be on our team?