Obama General Discussion, vol. 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So you feel a person with no insurance has a right to walk into a hospital; get lab work, physician care, medications and possibly a room and meals--for free? And that is paid for by others or provided pro bono? If he is turned away can he sue for having his right to health care violated?


i think everyone has the right to health insurance, regardless of ability to pay. health care is absolutely a need, everyone will at some point use health care, you will not have much choice in determining what kind of health care you wish to receive because you do not choose what illness or injury befalls you. it is not a commodity. when i lived in Europe, i got sick several times. i went to a doctor, was seen almost immediately, spent ample time speaking with the physician, was given a prescription, and then had that reimbursed. :shrug: i think everyone needs that kind of coverage. i don't think that health is a luxury only for the wealthy. poor people don't choose to get cancer, get hit by cars, get brain tumors.



I recognize the constitutional power of governments to levy taxes. But for traditional, constitutional roles. Not income redistribution for example.

what is income redistribution?




And which political party has been in charge of most urban governments for decades? See below answer.




No. The stats showing the number of black children living in a two adult family for the years prior to 1960 and the number today certainly makes for a strong argument.


and this is to do with teacher's unions?


What he doesn't, what liberals are in denial about and can't say, is that too many fathers are missing because the government has stepped in to assume their role as provider and popular culture now provides the role models. You may not admit a cause and effect but there is no denying the ensuing negative social pathologies.

so ... a father walks out thinking, "my kids don't need me because the government will cut the babymomma a check?"

you have to admit that the causes of crime and broken black families since 1960 are far, far more complicated than any sort of welfare program. i lived in the thick of DC gentrification for 4 years and have spent almost 8 years down here in a minority-majority city. the problems of the urban black underclass has very little to do with welfare and teacher's unions than it does with an entrenched history of poverty due to racist housing codes of the earlier part of the 20th century, as well as the influx of drugs and especially crack in the 1980s, and the quick money to be made from the selling of said drugs. and that's just the tip of the iceberg. it can be argued that teacher's unions and welfare may not help in the way that they should, or maybe even exacerbate certain problems, but to identify them as the cause seems really inaccurate.

that said, is it also not true that there is a strong, robust, succeeding black middle class that started growing after the 1960s, and especially into the 1990s? can i attribute that to the helping hand that welfare gave some people so they could go back to school and get degrees and get jobs? can we thank some of their unionized teachers?

and if i could be possibly horrible sounding, but based on observed, anecdotal experience, i'd say that there's an enormous lack of parenting skills in the inner city. some of the stuff i see shocks me. i feel like so many kids would do so much better if their parents were to take a simple (likely government funded) parenting class that would teach them to teach their children basic conflict resolution skills and techniques for delaying gratification. teachers can't do it all.

but that's just my little observation. i can't back it up with any empirical evidence.


Thanks for the discussion by the way. I really think most Americans have the best intentions when these programs are introduced. It's the hostility to admit failure or even subjectively review these programs that frustrates me. And when there is such an acknowledgement the only acceptable answer seems to be... they aren't working because we haven't spent enough money!! That and "Why do hate poor people?" of course.


i appreciate the discussion as well, but the earlier comment about hating poor people (or, just other people) has more to do with the lack of social contract we seem to feel with one another in this country as compared to others. i don't think people want to be poor, or even consciously choose to be poor, and i think things like health care and education are the basic building blocks of opportunity and liberty.
 
This, friends, is the kind of discussion that needs to be had in this country.

Unfortunately it's not the sort of talk that makes one rich.

And sadly, a lot of people would be bored to death with it anyway.

Nevertheless, I'm glad it's taking place here.
 
So you feel a person with no insurance has a right to walk into a hospital; get lab work, physician care, medications and possibly a room and meals--for free? And that is paid for by others or provided pro bono? If he is turned away can he sue for having his right to health care violated? That is what I mean by indentured servitude. One person forces another person to serve him. The exercise of true rights, such as those in our Constitution or natural rights, do not diminish those held by another.

This already happens right now. Those that are uninsured the hospital must treat anyway and the cost gets passed along to us in the form of higher insurance premiums. Do you prefer this form of indentured servitude? And let me reframe your scenario. A person arrives in the emergency room with an accidental and life-threatening injury and has no insurance. Are you suggesting that the doctors first ascertain his ability to pay and refuse to treat him--let him die--if he is uninsured? Do doctors routinely provide elective medical procedures at no charge? Or when medical personnnel treat someone without regard to cost is it because the person's life and health are at stake and they are bound by something called the Hippocratic Oath?




No. The stats showing the number of black children living in a two adult family for the years prior to 1960 and the number today certainly makes for a strong argument.

The issues in the African-American community are complicated, and as Irvine said I think it is drastically oversimplifying the situation to suggest that government welfare is at the root of these issues. It's really a whole seperate subject and a thorny one because not all the answers are politically correct ones, at least in my opinion. The divide between the black middle class and the urban community is definitely an issue. Those that could get out, did,with the end of segregation. It's difficult. But I don't see welfare or government services as a core issue here.

Thanks for the discussion by the way. I really think most Americans have the best intentions when these programs are introduced. It's the hostility to admit failure or even subjectively review these programs that frustrates me. And when there is such an acknowledgement the only acceptable answer seems to be... they aren't working because we haven't spent enough money!! That and "Why do hate poor people?" of course.

I would agree with you that many of these programs have not been as effective as might have been hoped. I'm not as convinced as Irvine that government welfare programs are directly responsible for African-Americans moving into the middle class. Now affirmative action? That's a different story, and a different debate!
 
the problems of the urban black underclass has very little to do with welfare and teacher's unions than it does with an entrenched history of poverty due to racist housing codes of the earlier part of the 20th century, as well as the influx of drugs and especially crack in the 1980s, and the quick money to be made from the selling of said drugs. and that's just the tip of the iceberg. it can be argued that teacher's unions and welfare may not help in the way that they should, or maybe even exacerbate certain problems, but to identify them as the cause seems really inaccurate.
Also, the "War on Poverty" policies were instituted in the first place largely because these trends were already apparent--black unemployment was higher in the mid-60s than it had been in the mid-50s, increases in black incomes relative to white incomes were stagnating, black unemployment rates were no longer in parallel with black welfare dependency rates, and divorce and out-of-wedlock birthrates in the black community were shooting up (see: Moynihan Report). It goes without saying those policies were not a resounding success, and yes there are substantive arguments to be made that they often exacerbated existing problems, but they certainly didn't create the very situations they were designed to address.
and if i could be possibly horrible sounding, but based on observed, anecdotal experience, i'd say that there's an enormous lack of parenting skills in the inner city. some of the stuff i see shocks me. i feel like so many kids would do so much better if their parents were to take a simple (likely government funded) parenting class that would teach them to teach their children basic conflict resolution skills and techniques for delaying gratification. teachers can't do it all.
I'd be inclined to say you see similar problems among the rural underclass (black and white), thinking here of growing up in the Deep South--lack of a longterm vision for the family, self-destructive preoccupation with short-lived and/or risky gratifications and "distinctions," passive attitude towards education, lack of civic awareness, and I think maybe also a kind of overly sex-segregated social world where the notion of men and women as partners and players on the same team is not really taken seriously. And the public schools in areas with high incidences of these problems do tend to reinforce them--by which I mean not teachers but peers: even if your own family has its act relatively together, socially you do tend to get backed up against the wall by peers whose families don't.

I don't know that "a simple parenting class" is likely to achieve much though.
 
I don't know that "a simple parenting class" is likely to achieve much though.



i think if some parents were given basic education on nutrition, first aid, and some method for basic conflict resolution, more kids would show up at school with the ability to learn.

i certainly am not invited into anyone's homes, nor am i remotely qualified as a social worker or whatever, but as someone listening in passing on the street or the bust or the metro, what shocks me most are the threats of violence for various infractions that come out of the mouths of such parents that might actually be well intended. do you really think it's effective to tell a three year old to shut the hell up or else you'll punch them in the mouth and really give them something to cry about? do you really think that yelling "shut the hell up" even more loudly is going to do it either? i think it comes from a very basic lack of parenting skills that have been inherited from generation to generation and some sort of education might go a long way.

clearly, i'm only offering anecdotes. but the threats of violence intertwined into public parental reprimands of children barely out of diapers still shocks me. i don't think it's a lack of love, either.
 
So you feel a person with no insurance has a right to walk into a hospital; get lab work, physician care, medications and possibly a room and meals--for free?

Well, why not?

You have just described the British National Health Service, which survived 20years of right wing Thatcherite governance and, although imperfect, is still more or less still intact.


L Overall life
expectancy Male Female
20 United Kingdom 79.4 77.2 81.6
36 United States 78.3 75.6 80.8

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
the problems of the urban black underclass has very little to do with welfare and teacher's unions than it does with an entrenched history of poverty due to racist housing codes of the earlier part of the 20th century, as well as the influx of drugs and especially crack in the 1980s, and the quick money to be made from the selling of said drugs. and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

What many Americans don't realise is that the set of problems seen in black urban communities in the US - hard drugs, unemployment, lack of education, welfare dependence, poor diet & nutrition, etc - are also seen in inner city communities in many European cities - Dublin, Glasgow, Manchester and others - except that the welfare-dependent underclasses in those cities are 95% white!

You have a point in relation to the drugs, but, to be honest, and I don't mean to be rude, blaming racist housing codes from 100 years ago isn't really going to cut it in my book. Because, if racism is the issue here, I'd like someone to explain to me the existence of the white Irish, white English or white Scottish urban underclass. Welfare dependence is in the mix here somewhere, it can't just be dismissed as a factor.
 
What many Americans don't realise is that the set of problems seen in black urban communities in the US - hard drugs, unemployment, lack of education, welfare dependence, poor diet & nutrition, etc - are also seen in inner city communities in many European cities - Dublin, Glasgow, Manchester and others - except that the welfare-dependent underclasses in those cities are 95% white!

You have a point in relation to the drugs, but, to be honest, and I don't mean to be rude, blaming racist housing codes from 100 years ago isn't really going to cut it in my book. Because, if racism is the issue here, I'd like someone to explain to me the existence of the white Irish, white English or white Scottish urban underclass. Welfare dependence is in the mix here somewhere, it can't just be dismissed as a factor.

Isn't it also fair to say that the problems in these big cities are larger than their local elected governments' jurisdiction?

Many cities receive education funding and tax revenue from a state pool. Is it divided fairly?
Services for the poor, disabled, homeless, mentally ill, etc. are more efficiently placed in large cities. Is it possible that these people in need are not the most mobile of citizens?
What is voter turn-out in large cities versus suburbs or rural areas? Are people in large cities properly and/or adequately represented? On a local level? On a state level? On a national level?

Fair questions to ask before any sort of "big cities plus liberal representation equals social failure" assumptions.
 
What many Americans don't realise is that the set of problems seen in black urban communities in the US - hard drugs, unemployment, lack of education, welfare dependence, poor diet & nutrition, etc - are also seen in inner city communities in many European cities - Dublin, Glasgow, Manchester and others - except that the welfare-dependent underclasses in those cities are 95% white!

You have a point in relation to the drugs, but, to be honest, and I don't mean to be rude, blaming racist housing codes from 100 years ago isn't really going to cut it in my book. Because, if racism is the issue here, I'd like someone to explain to me the existence of the white Irish, white English or white Scottish urban underclass. Welfare dependence is in the mix here somewhere, it can't just be dismissed as a factor.



it's more the institutionalized discrimination of a class of people, however that class is defined. in the US, it became race since other distinctions -- religion, national origin -- were less of an issue here in the new world, and race is also much easier when dividing up a continent of immigrants. you'll see that, for example, much of what you describe replicated itself in the US amongst 19th century Irish immigrants in New York and Boston. certainly it's not the problem it was today, but there are Irish neighborhoods in Southie (south boston) that are as plagued with violence and crime as many African-American communities.

and racist housing codes were in place well into the 1960s.

i can't comment too much on the white underclasses in the UK and Ireland, though i have studied Irvine Welsh in depth, and this is something he writes about, specifically Leith in Edinburgh. it is way, way too much to get in here as i'm trying to leave work, but that seemed to have more to do with class/religion (often the same, right? distinctions, say between Hearts and Hibbs supporters?) and in a way that might mirror but isn't a perfect parallel with race.

such fascinating but dense and complex stuff. makes me want to study it again.
 
S&P Will Slash U.S. Credit Rating if Debt Payment Is Missed
Elspeth Reeve 1:27 PM ET
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/06/sp-will-slash-us-credit-rating-if-debt-payment-missed/39416/

Standard & Poor's will drop the U.S.'s credit rating from its current triple-A to a D if the government misses its debt payment on August 4, Reuters' Walter Brandimarte reports. S&P's managing director John Chambers explained, "If the U.S. government misses a payment, it goes to D. ... That would happen right after August 4, when the bills mature, because they don't have a grace period." The company would downgrade Treasury bills unaffected by the blown deadline, but not as much.

The Treasury Department says that the federal debt ceiling must be raised by August 2. Two days later, the department must pay $30 billion in short-term debt. But negotiations between the White House and Congressional Republicans have broken down to the extent that some Democrats are debating whether to just declare the debt limit unconstitutional and ignore it.

Moody's has said it, too, would downgrade the U.S. if it defaults, though less severely.
Thanks, Boener!

Debt limit "debate" is so stupid. The money has already been spent...this is the equivalent of not paying your credit card bill after already having bought the flatscreen + leather living room set (or in this case, Iraq and Afghanistan).

Goes nicely with the Republican Congress' current plan of running the country into the ground and using it to try and win the 2012 election against Obams, though.
 
So you feel a person with no insurance has a right to walk into a hospital; get lab work, physician care, medications and possibly a room and meals--for free?

As maycocksean already brought up, your real beef is with EMTALA, which since 1986 has mandated that hospitals provide emergency medical treatment regardless of ability to pay.

You can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs. Yes, some poor people will have to die, but the increase in hospital profits transmutes indirectly through the aether, saving equal or greater lives further down the line.....somehow.....A bit of a gamble of an argument to make, but there you go.
 
Daily Beast, June 30
Mark Halperin, the Time magazine columnist and MSNBC contributor, was assessing Obama’s performance at a news conference when he delivered this opinion Thursday morning on Morning Joe:

“I thought he was a dick yesterday.”

...Host Joe Scarborough was not pleased, saying: “Delay that. Delay that. What are you doing?” But the program has a new executive producer who didn’t react by hitting the seven-second delay button.

Now I would be a dick if I didn’t point out that Halperin quickly tried to make amends: “Joking aside, this is an absolute apology. I shouldn't have said it. I apologize to the president and the viewers who heard me say that.” But as more than one wit has pointed out, playing off the title of the best-seller co-authored by Halperin, that was a game changer. Two hours after Morning Joe went off the air, MSNBC suspended him.
I don't think this was so much Halperin's inner coarseness and intellectual shallowness revealing itself, as his pathetically overblown self-regard revealing itself.
 
Daily Beast, June 30

I don't think this was so much Halperin's inner coarseness and intellectual shallowness revealing itself, as his pathetically overblown self-regard revealing itself.

His book was a page-turner though.

Coarseness and disrespect aside, what about his press conference called for such a conclusion? I didn't note anything "dickish" about it.
 
Basically, that he openly criticized the GOP's negotiating tactics on the debt ceiling debate. Why that struck Halperin as an unprecedentedly dirty move justifying unprecedentedly vulgar language (for the media outlet in question), I have no idea.
 
Basically, that he openly criticized the GOP's negotiating tactics on the debt ceiling debate. Why that struck Halperin as an unprecedentedly dirty move justifying unprecedentedly vulgar language (for the media outlet in question), I have no idea.

I think I caught a little of that. . .I was in and out of the car, but again I didn't get a sense of real pissy attitude coming from him.
 
US Forces still flying attack sorties

Air Force and Navy aircraft are still flying hundreds of strike missions over Libya despite the Obama administration’s claim that American forces are playing only a limited support role in the NATO operation.

An Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday that since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector (OUP) took over from the American-led Operation Odyssey Dawn on March 31, the U.S. military has flown hundreds of strike sorties. Previously, Washington had claimed that it was mostly providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and tanker support to NATO forces operating over Libya.

“U.S. aircraft continue to fly support [ISR and refueling] missions, as well as strike sorties under NATO tasking,” AFRICOM spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple said in an emailed statement. “As of today, and since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties in support of OUP. Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance.”

A White House report on Libya sent to Congress on June 15 says that “American strikes are limited to the suppression of enemy air defense and occasional strikes by unmanned Predator UAVs against a specific set of targets.” The report also says the U.S. provides an “alert strike package.”

Dalrymple named the Air Force’s F-16CJ and Navy’s EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft as the primary platforms that have been suppressing enemy air defenses.

However, those F-16s are not solely drawn from units based in Spangdahlem, Germany, or Aviano, Italy. The service has reportedly deployed U.S.-based units to Europe to conduct these operations.

Earlier this month, Malta Today reported that two F-16s from the 77th Fighter Squadron, 20th Fighter Wing, made emergency landings on the island. The 20th Fighter Wing is based at Shaw Air Force Base, S.C.

The AFRICOM spokeswoman did not address why U.S.-based units were deployed for the mission.
 
Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.

Barack Motherfuckin' Obama


Confidence. Confidence??!?!? Are you kidding me? He could stop scoring rhetorical own goals, that guy's such a radical liberal I'm having trouble telling him apart from John Boehner.
 
First GE, now Boeing:

This is totally insane:
Who would you guess pays more in federal taxes: me or Boeing?

I don't mean in rates but in actual dollars. Has the federal Treasury gotten more money of late from the huge aerospace company, which booked $4.5 billion in pretax profits last year? Or from me?

"It's not even close," says Bob McIntyre. "In the past three years, you have paid way more into the system than Boeing."

McIntyre is a tax wonk, the director of a couple Washington, D.C., think tanks that focus on who actually pays the government's bills.

Last month, his group, Citizens for Tax Justice, released a study showing that 12 major U.S. businesses, with $171 billion in profits, combined to pay negative $2.5 billion in federal taxes the past three years. Meaning that even with all that profit, they paid no taxes.

Boeing was in this group. The company made $9.7 billion in profits in 2008, 2009 and 2010. It paid nothing in federal taxes, booking $178 million back from the government in various credits, for a total federal tax rate of -1.8 percent.

These figures are from the company's financial reports. Still, I was expecting when Boeing executives went to Congress recently to ask for even lower taxes that they would deny this report. But they didn't.

"Over the last three years, we have not paid," confirmed James Zrust, Boeing's vice president for tax.

One congressman was incredulous.

"I think in testimony I heard earlier that Boeing would like lower taxes," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. "How much lower could you possibly need?"

Zrust explained the zero tax bill isn't likely to last. It's due to temporary factors, he said. Such as pension payments, and the costs of the development — but not yet any deliveries — of the 787 Dreamliner.

"Those same things that gave rise to low tax payments in the last three years will reverse in the next few years and result in considerable tax payments," Zrust predicted.

I asked McIntyre about that. Is he casting Boeing as a tax freeloader by looking at only a three-year window?

"Well, let's look at 10 years," he suggested. He tapped away at a database he keeps of financial statements.

"In the 10 years ending in 2010, Boeing had $29 billion in profits, and paid minus-$948 million in federal taxes."

McIntyre said if you include the past 11 years, Boeing's effective tax rate was positive, but only barely.

Well, it does eventually come out of the workers' paychecks. Let's not impede the confidence of big business by increasing their negative tax rate.
 
Very good decision


The White House says that families of service members who commit suicide while deployed abroad are now getting condolence letters from the president just like families of troops who die in other ways.

The White House has been reviewing the policy since 2009, lobbied by some military families. A White House official said Tuesday that the change was made this week. The official spoke anonymously to discuss policy deliberations.

“The president feels strongly that we need to destigmatize the mental health costs of war to prevent these tragic deaths, and changing this policy is part of that process,” a senior White House official said in a statement.

Previously, the White House would send presidential condolences to the families of those who died either in combat or as a result of noncombat incidents in a war zone. Condolence letters were not sent to the families of those who commit suicide.

CNN reports that a coalition of senators recently joined the push for a change in policy.

The move comes nearly six weeks after a group of senators -- 10 Democrats and one Republican -- asked President Barack Obama to change what they called an "insensitive" policy that dates back several administrations and has been the subject of protest by some military families.

According to CBS News, the change went into effect Tuesday for soldiers who commit suicide while serving abroad, but will not be enacted retroactively, meaning that soldiers such as Chance Keesling, who killed himself on his second tour in Iraq, will not be eligible for the presidential recognition.

"He was a good soldier and that's the part that I want to know -- that the country appreciates that he fought he did everything that he was asked to do. It didn't turn out well for him, but at least this country could write a simple letter and that president represents our country and just say thank you for our son's service," Keesling's father, Gregg, told CBS News.

While the elder Keesling won't be getting an official presidential condolence letter, he's been told that his son will receive some kind of recognition from the White House to commemorate his service.
 
Very good decision


The White House says that families of service members who commit suicide while deployed abroad are now getting condolence letters from the president just like families of troops who die in other ways.

The White House has been reviewing the policy since 2009, lobbied by some military families. A White House official said Tuesday that the change was made this week. The official spoke anonymously to discuss policy deliberations.

“The president feels strongly that we need to destigmatize the mental health costs of war to prevent these tragic deaths, and changing this policy is part of that process,” a senior White House official said in a statement.

Previously, the White House would send presidential condolences to the families of those who died either in combat or as a result of noncombat incidents in a war zone. Condolence letters were not sent to the families of those who commit suicide.

CNN reports that a coalition of senators recently joined the push for a change in policy.

The move comes nearly six weeks after a group of senators -- 10 Democrats and one Republican -- asked President Barack Obama to change what they called an "insensitive" policy that dates back several administrations and has been the subject of protest by some military families.

According to CBS News, the change went into effect Tuesday for soldiers who commit suicide while serving abroad, but will not be enacted retroactively, meaning that soldiers such as Chance Keesling, who killed himself on his second tour in Iraq, will not be eligible for the presidential recognition.

"He was a good soldier and that's the part that I want to know -- that the country appreciates that he fought he did everything that he was asked to do. It didn't turn out well for him, but at least this country could write a simple letter and that president represents our country and just say thank you for our son's service," Keesling's father, Gregg, told CBS News.

While the elder Keesling won't be getting an official presidential condolence letter, he's been told that his son will receive some kind of recognition from the White House to commemorate his service.

Oh my.

:up:
 
Private sector job growth/losses, newly updated with today's report.
110708_privatejobs.jpg


The plateauing/fading appears to coincide with a newly fashionable austerity. If only someone could carry the mantle of Democrats circa early 2009.
 
clearly, we needed more stimulus in light of today's job's report.

much more.

jobs > deficits.

but, of course, unemployment hurts Obama, and the only thing that matters is harming him so the GOP has a shot at the presidency in 2012.
 
I hadn't thought of this:

Samuel Beckett’s famous phrase “You must go on, I can’t go on, I’ll go on” is a pretty good summation of what will face Treasury come August 3 if there’s no deal on the debt limit. Reuters has a fantastic story this evening on the impossible quandary facing Treasury officials should the unthinkable come to pass; purely as a practical matter, it’s far from clear that it’s even possible to stop making the 3 million payments that Treasury makes automatically every day. Doing so involves a massive computer-reprogramming effort which I’m sure could not be implemented overnight — and for political reasons nobody is going to get started on such an effort until after all hope is lost for a deal in Congress.

Realistically, then, the government is likely to breach the current debt ceiling no matter what Congress agrees. A failure to lift it would be a bit like an edict to a steaming supertanker that it had to stop dead: no matter how much force of law that edict has, sheer momentum is going force many basic operations of the public fisc to continue for some period of days or weeks.

and this is worth stated explictly
Something that I think has gone missing in most discussions of the “constitutional option” of simply ignoring the debt ceiling is that if you think that’s illegal, it’s not clear what the legal alternative is. Bondholders have a legal right to be paid. But so do Social Security beneficiaries. Contractors have, well, contracts. All the federal government’s spending obligations are spelled out in appropriations bills or laws providing for mandatory spending. If you look at any particular option, it seems legally questionable. But obviously something has to be done.

There seems like an awful lot leading to the idea that a literal debt ceiling is inherently poor policy strictly on its operational merits, is furthermore constitutionally flawed, and finally has become an obnoxious tool to extract concessions.

If you want to cut spending, great, pass an awesome budget.
 
clearly, we needed more stimulus in light of today's job's report.

much more.

jobs > deficits.

but, of course, unemployment hurts Obama, and the only thing that matters is harming him so the GOP has a shot at the presidency in 2012.

:up:

Republicans spent 8 years doing whatever they could to get Clinton out of office. If it wasn't his investments (Whitewater) it was Lewinsky and his "lying under oath". They ignore the fact that during this whole scandal, Clinton had over 80% approval and most Americans did NOT want this pursued.

Aren't our Congressmen supposed to represent US not their own selfish goals?

During Obama's 2.5 years, Republicans have gone on a tirade about whether he truly is an American (even though that was resolved before he became President). And as he's a tad more "clean" than Clinton, they are doing what they can legislatively to move forward.

But when Bush - the worst President in my lifetime and one of the worst ever - was in office, Democrats did not spend 8 years trying to impeach him over affairs (even though he had them). Bush did deserve impeachment because he openly lied, yet it was pushed aside for the better of the country.

I'm not saying Democrats are all so pure and holy - but they can certainly push bipartisanship aside to get the country going if needed. Apparently, that concept is foreign to Republicans.

If Obama is one term, so be it. But I can't wait to see the next person flop even more. Suddenly, people will wish Obama was back. Because it's Republican policies that got us into this mess. Funny how 2.5 years later everyone forgets this.
 
I just want to know where all the Republican concern was about spending and the deficit when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor in a green Snuggie (well it was snug in his man parts) in front of a Mission Accomplished banner. I know there wasn't a recession then, but HELLLLLOOOOO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom