Forum Thread

Obama the Deficit Terrorist recants?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 28 of 28 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Carlitos -- Whatever. But note this, if in 2016 we elect a Congress like what President Obama has experienced in his last 6 years of office, then you have to deal with reality. Blaming Obama for not pandering to the "professional left" is not an excuse for not voting. The reason many of them didn't vote in 2010 and 2014 is just plain apathy and ignorance of the issues. I know because I worked my butt off to register voters and had hundreds of conversations with them.

    Others blamed Obama for not having a job, and decided to "teach him a lesson" and not vote. Sheesh, those people were exactly playing into the strategy of the "Party of No" to say no to everything Obama proposed. And when it comes to knowledge of how our government works, that was lacking as well. The media coined the term "low information voters". I met many of them, and some were on the "professional left".

    We elect the government we deserve. If Bernie's people decide that their hatred of Hillary is such that they can never vote for her, well Republicans, the Party of No, love those Bernie supporters.

    I would expect to see a deluge of anti-Hillary ads in the coming months quoting not only Bernie himself, but also depicting tear jerking interviews with long suffering Bernie supporters saying they can never vote for Hillary. Maybe they'll even have a new SuperPac. At the end of the ad it'll say something like, "paid for by the SandersSupportersforTrump organization".

    I know the vast majority of Bernie supporters are smart and will in fact support Hillary. Trump will cherry pick the few that don't and exploit them. Voting margins in some key states could be very tight. When liberals do not vote, Republicans win. The highly passionate Christian Crusaders, for one, will vote in overwhelming large numbers...for Trump. Add to them other groups and cults who always vote with their tribes and we have reason to worry.

    Finally, Gibbs had apologized for using the term "professional left". He used that term is exasperation in dealing with liberals who thought Obama was a king.

    My opinion as always subject to disagreement.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The Hill, August 10, 2010: White House unloads anger over criticism from 'professional left’

    The above 2010 article puts some context into Robert Gibb's use of the term, "professional left" six years ago.

    To be clear, President Obama did not use that term. It was Gibb's and he had to later apologize for it. It is just another example of phony outrage and indignation by those on both the left and the right who are ideologically driven and cannot compromise on anything. I might add the words "thin skinned" as well. The fact that it is worth mentioning some six years later is revealing in itself.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, I'm not against compromise; I'm saying Obama is a terrible negotiator. And it starts with his agenda. Centrist Democrats are, in fact, ideologically driven, and they are closer to Republicans than they are Progressive Democrats on many general economic issues.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Carlitos -- Now you are sounding like Trump. Are you suggesting a government shutdown every time liberals do not get their way on a budget deal? Those hurt a lot of people. Holding out for the "public option" in the Affordable Care Act would have ensured its demise, just like HillaryCare didn't survive because it overreached. What are you suggesting that Obama could have done better in negotiating with Republicans on closing Gitmo? Liberals blame him for that with scorn.

    Liberal ideologues want 100 percent of their demands...nothing less. Anything less is capitulation. Yet the conservative ideologues are every bit as sincere and committed to their demands as the liberals are to theirs. They want 100 percent of their demands also. Their brains are wired differently than yours or mine.

    I am socially liberally, but on other issues are am more centrist. Being centrist on economic, trade and foreign policy issues is dealing with reality. And the reality, sometimes, is very complicated with no black and white answers...just shades of gray...sometimes a choice of bad or worse. I think Obama thinks the same way, and I am thankful for that.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    No Schmidt, you are wrong! Carlitos says it as it is. You can pussyfoot around and be a "nice, informed, caring & loving Liberal all day long but all that will get you is scorn from everyone else. Liberals just never get it - you have to sink to the level of your enemy if you want to defeat them - Mr. Nice Guy doesn't work (just ask Obama). At least I will give you this - Hillary won't be Ms. Nice Girl but then neither would Bernie!

    Remember, there is a good reason the Republicans have been able to take over control of Congress (beside redistricting) and it isn't because they are the good guys, truthers or honest. You are 100% correct when you say "We get the government we deserve" and, we have.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Democratic presidents over half of the last thirty years . Average person is worse off today. Not even counting money lost in 2008, escalating college costs, escalating prescription drugs. All because Clinton was looking beyond the Presidency and Obama was looking at the legacy from the first black president. Neither looking at the working poor.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Democratic presidents over half of the last thirty years . Average person is worse off today. Not even counting money lost in 2008, escalating college costs, escalating prescription drugs. All because Clinton was looking beyond the Presidency and Obama was looking at the legacy from the first black president. Neither looking at the working poor.

    What would you consider an average person to be?

    The person who used to not be able to marry the person they love, but now can? The person who was born to undocumented parents, but doesn't have to worry as much about them being deported anymore? What about the person who used to be denied health coverage because they had a preexisting condition? Who is this fairy tale 'average person' you're talking about?

    Oh...and prescription drug costs are actually declining, not escalating. I know it's hard to admit, but facts are a tough thing to swallow sometimes...


    Do you honestly think President Obama only ran for the Presidency because he wanted to be the first black President? If so then you have some pretty serious issues you need to talk with a licensed therapist about.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Carlitos -- Now you are sounding like Trump. Are you suggesting a government shutdown every time liberals do not get their way on a budget deal? Those hurt a lot of people. Holding out for the "public option" in the Affordable Care Act would have ensured its demise, just like HillaryCare didn't survive because it overreached. What are you suggesting that Obama could have done better in negotiating with Republicans on closing Gitmo? Liberals blame him for that with scorn.

    Liberal ideologues want 100 percent of their demands...nothing less. Anything less is capitulation. Yet the conservative ideologues are every bit as sincere and committed to their demands as the liberals are to theirs. They want 100 percent of their demands also. Their brains are wired differently than yours or mine.

    I am socially liberally, but on other issues are am more centrist. Being centrist on economic, trade and foreign policy issues is dealing with reality. And the reality, sometimes, is very complicated with no black and white answers...just shades of gray...sometimes a choice of bad or worse. I think Obama thinks the same way, and I am thankful for that.

    Schmidt, we are repeating ourselves and spiraling out......

    Choices were made, bad decisions got us here. I care a whole lot more about what happens next then reliving the Obamanations. And that's a Mosler phrase, not from Trump. This OP was about the past because the president brought it up and his story is still a problem that interferes with what needs to be done in regards to "austerity politics."

    No, I don't think we should have a government shutdown every-time we don't get what we want. Votes in Congress are not about ideals in the first place. My point to you is that Obama's starting point on economic matters is not a progressive one. He's a neoliberal New Democrat, might be on the left side of that spectrum but that does not make him a progressive.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Rtg tuminski Wrote: Democratic presidents over halthis the last thirty years . Average pjujuus erson is worse off today. Not even counting money lost in 2008, escalating college costs, escalating prescription drugs. All because Clinton was looking beyond the Presidency and Obama was looking at the legacy from the first black president. Neither looking at the working poor.

    What would you consider an average person to be?

    The person who used to not be able to marry the person they love, but now can? The person who was born to undocumented parents, but doesn't have to worry as much about them being deported anymore? What about the person who used to be denied health coverage because they had a preexisting condition? Who is this fairy tale 'average person' you're talking about?

    Oh...and prescription drug costs are actually declining, not escalating. I know it's hard to admit, but facts are a tough thing to swallow sometimes...


    Do you honestly think President Obama only ran for the Presidency because he wanted to be the first black President? If so then you have some pretty serious issues you need to talk with a licensed therapist about.

    Reality: Wages stagnant for 30 years.

    And jaredsxtn, If you dont think the biggest thing on Obama's mind is his legacy as the first black president then you should take your own advice.

    What is bringing on this paranoia of personal attacks lately? A trend and action that was denounced and berated about the Republican primary?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Democratic presidents over half of the last thirty years . Average person is worse off today. Not even counting money lost in 2008, escalating college costs, escalating prescription drugs. All because Clinton was looking beyond the Presidency and Obama was looking at the legacy from the first black president. Neither looking at the working poor.

    What would you consider an average person to be?

    The person who used to not be able to marry the person they love, but now can? The person who was born to undocumented parents, but doesn't have to worry as much about them being deported anymore? What about the person who used to be denied health coverage because they had a preexisting condition? Who is this fairy tale 'average person' you're talking about?

    Oh...and prescription drug costs are actually declining, not escalating. I know it's hard to admit, but facts are a tough thing to swallow sometimes...


    Do you honestly think President Obama only ran for the Presidency because he wanted to be the first black President? If so then you have some pretty serious issues you need to talk with a licensed therapist about.

    Jared, sorry you live on an "island" as I said many times. Drug cost here are 10 times what they cost in Europe; Spain has the lowest cost. Wake up the pharma industry here can price things the way they want. In the healthcare coverage in Europe there is strict oversight over the pharma industry, because otherwise you can't control healthcare cost if everyone is covered. Here it is a total mess, thus again as I recommended, (as well Bernie is on board), to copy the European system. But of course we will never do that because we know it much better. I also like to add as I said in another thread, that in Europe the pharma industry is under strict control related to pricing drugs by the government, otherwise the system would not work; here they can do as they please with pricing included doctors, who certainly enrich themselves the same as lawyers.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Carlitos -- Yes we are repeating ourselves. My point to you is that President Obama is a liberal at heart. And if he would have stuck strongly to his liberal beliefs, we would not have the Affordable Care Act today, and Mitt Romney would be president. That is how I tactically think differently from you. I know how difficult it was to barely get the ACA passed, and I know how every compromise Obama made just didn't sit right with some segment of the population.

    You Carlitos are in the 0.1 percent, and I mean that as a compliment...the MMTers who are really thinking progressively. I admire that. But the reality is that 99.9 percent of the population does not think in MMT terms. You should know that very well. The MMT tribe is very small compared to the austerity folks.

    I will make one prediction. The popular vote in this election will be about 48:52, give or take a point. That depicts the reality of the demographics of our voting population. We vote with our emotions and our tribes. It's only the middle 5- 10 percent that will vote with critical thinking about the issues and implications, and they usually split as well. Everyone else votes with their emotions and/or tribes.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Carlitos -- Yes we are repeating ourselves. My point to you is that President Obama is a liberal at heart. And if he would have stuck strongly to his liberal beliefs, we would not have the Affordable Care Act today, and Mitt Romney would be president. That is how I tactically think differently from you. I know how difficult it was to barely get the ACA passed, and I know how every compromise Obama made just didn't sit right with some segment of the population.

    You Carlitos are in the 0.1 percent, and I mean that as a compliment...the MMTers who are really thinking progressively. I admire that. But the reality is that 99.9 percent of the population does not think in MMT terms. You should know that very well. The MMT tribe is very small compared to the austerity folks.

    I will make one prediction. The popular vote in this election will be about 48:52, give or take a point. That depicts the reality of the demographics of our voting population. We vote with our emotions and our tribes. It's only the middle 5- 10 percent that will vote with critical thinking about the issues and implications, and they usually split as well. Everyone else votes with their emotions and/or tribes.

    Schmidt, the ACA hurt Obama and the Democrats politically. They took a beating for it. So it does not follow that the ACA got Obama elected. He was saved by the hypocrisy and awfulness of Romney and the wild Tea Party extremism which blocked Obama's Deficit Terrorist plans to destroy the economy before reelection.

    What follows is a side discussion on the ACA in the spirit of caring about what happens next over what has happened (the later we know ourselves to disagree on), although it does speak to what has happened:

    There remain things that we could do to change the ACA to make it better. I would expand Medicare immediately to get the sick and high risk individuals out of the exchanges to keep prices lower; this would have a deflationary bias by shifting more market power to Medicare while putting additional downward pressure on the price of private plans. The other choice is to escalate and increase the subsidies on the exchanges, which has an inflationary bias. Hence, the actual conservative choice is to radically expand Medicare to keep prices low, to keep taxes lower, and reduce government health spending. We could also change the "individual mandate" from a penalty to a bonus. It's always easier to withhold a distribution than it is to take something away. Much easier to get compliance out of people when they get something for doing something, as opposed to taking something away if they don't do what the government wants. In either event, if you refuse private insurance, and you end up sick, those costs should be paid for by the government, and not socialized throughout the system. Individuals should then be means tested on what payments they may owe for a form of retroactive gov't insurance coverage under Medicare. I do not believe that saddling individuals with medical debts is a moral or limited government compliant enforcement mechanism to encourage people to get insurance. It screws up the entire market place. Leaves the debts to be privately collected. Everybody gets screwed by this.

    It's much easier to just cover everyone under a form of Medicare for all. But if people insist on complexity and having these private insurance markets, what I'm talking about is what needs to happen to make it all work.

    At this point, Paul Ryan's plan to put high risk individuals on state run plans is at least in the direction of something that makes more sense than anything the Democrats have proposed to deal with the growing price spiral on the Obamacare exchanges outside of the public option and Bernie Sander's proposals.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Carlitos -- Yes we are repeating ourselves. My point to you is that President Obama is a liberal at heart. And if he would have stuck strongly to his liberal beliefs, we would not have the Affordable Care Act today, and Mitt Romney would be president. That is how I tactically think differently from you. I know how difficult it was to barely get the ACA passed, and I know how every compromise Obama made just didn't sit right with some segment of the population.

    You Carlitos are in the 0.1 percent, and I mean that as a compliment...the MMTers who are really thinking progressively. I admire that. But the reality is that 99.9 percent of the population does not think in MMT terms. You should know that very well. The MMT tribe is very small compared to the austerity folks.

    I will make one prediction. The popular vote in this election will be about 48:52, give or take a point. That depicts the reality of the demographics of our voting population. We vote with our emotions and our tribes. It's only the middle 5- 10 percent that will vote with critical thinking about the issues and implications, and they usually split as well. Everyone else votes with their emotions and/or tribes.

    Schmidt, the ACA hurt Obama and the Democrats politically. They took a beating for it. So it does not follow that the ACA got Obama elected. He was saved by the hypocrisy and awfulness of Romney and the wild Tea Party extremism which blocked Obama's Deficit Terrorist plans to destroy the economy before reelection.

    What follows is a side discussion on the ACA in the spirit of caring about what happens next over what has happened (the later we know ourselves to disagree on), although it does speak to what has happened:

    There remain things that we could do to change the ACA to make it better. I would expand Medicare immediately to get the sick and high risk individuals out of the exchanges to keep prices lower; this would have a deflationary bias by shifting more market power to Medicare while putting additional downward pressure on the price of private plans. The other choice is to escalate and increase the subsidies on the exchanges, which has an inflationary bias. Hence, the actual conservative choice is to radically expand Medicare to keep prices low, to keep taxes lower, and reduce government health spending. We could also change the "individual mandate" from a penalty to a bonus. It's always easier to withhold a distribution than it is to take something away. Much easier to get compliance out of people when they get something for doing something, as opposed to taking something away if they don't do what the government wants. In either event, if you refuse private insurance, and you end up sick, those costs should be paid for by the government, and not socialized throughout the system. Individuals should then be means tested on what payments they may owe for a form of retroactive gov't insurance coverage under Medicare. I do not believe that saddling individuals with medical debts is a moral or limited government compliant enforcement mechanism to encourage people to get insurance. It screws up the entire market place. Leaves the debts to be privately collected. Everybody gets screwed by this.

    It's much easier to just cover everyone under a form of Medicare for all. But if people insist on complexity and having these private insurance markets, what I'm talking about is what needs to happen to make it all work.

    At this point, Paul Ryan's plan to put high risk individuals on state run plans is at least in the direction of something that makes more sense than anything the Democrats have proposed to deal with the growing price spiral on the Obamacare exchanges outside of the public option and Bernie Sander's proposals.

    Carlitos you see it correctly; Sanders at least looks outside this "island" and sees on how it works in Europe. Especially with "mothers day" then maternity leave as well as paid sick leave pop up as that this country is the only one who has not got that. The refusal of this country to copy existing good working systems from other countries is pathetic. I guess it must be the British influence here (over the centuries) which made this country so arrogant and now only makes "selfie's" of their greatness. "pricing" of "health care" is a total joke here; no control over doctors fees, nor drug pricing. No fines or other actions related to over-pricing. In FL we got big "gangs" who enter fake claims and become millionaires. Some get caught, but the majority plays it "cool" including all doctors and pharma pill pushers.