Obama '08?

@Advocate,

Quote:

The public feels that Obama has been somewhat a failure -- he largely failed to reverse the damage done by Bush and the Republicans.

Nah, few expected him to fix America in a year....what they wanted was to be able to have confidence that we were on the way to fixing, and that Obama was the right person to lead the effort, and that he was effectively leading. None of this has happened.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The public feels that Obama has been somewhat a failure -- he largely failed to reverse the damage done by Bush and the Republicans.

Nah, few expected him to fix America in a year....what they wanted was to be able to have confidence that we were on the way to fixing, and that Obama was the right person to lead the effort, and that he was effectively leading. None of this has happened.

Paul Krugman very glumly stated this morning that Obama has lost all his 'political capital'. I guess only time will tell.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Quote:

Paul Krugman very glumly stated this morning that Obama has lost all his 'political capital'. I guess only time will tell.

the consensus is that he has lost most of it, but that there is a slim chance that he can get a bunch of it back. Nobody knowing after a year on the job who Obama is can work to his advantage, IF he can prove that he is what America wants. Very hard to do this late in the game though, his persona as a huckster politician is strong, which goes far to negate any future efforts to re-brand. Also, Obama has to this point completely failed to connect with the American people, and if he has not done it by now he probably does not have the ability.

In order to bounce back he needs to do both, connect, and be the man that people want and can believe in.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Getting rid of fraud within the system, computerizing Medicare could be enough for now. Americans themselves are solving some of these expenses by just not going to doctors as often, so I just read in today's news. Too many primary doctors pass patients from specialist to specialist, then back to them. Some of these primary doctors aren't able to translate the specialists' diagnosis to the patients. Sad, expensive situation.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The public feels that Obama has been somewhat a failure -- he largely failed to reverse the damage done by Bush and the Republicans.

Nah, few expected him to fix America in a year....what they wanted was to be able to have confidence that we were on the way to fixing, and that Obama was the right person to lead the effort, and that he was effectively leading. None of this has happened.

Nonsense! Obama has made excelllent strides in repairing the country, and you know it. This has been covered in this thread ad nauseam.

From what I have seen, the Reps want us to go back to Bush economics. They offer more of the same.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Quote:

Nonsense! Obama has made excelllent strides in repairing the country, and you know it. This has been covered in this thread ad nauseam

not according to the people who count, the american people. The elites think that everything is fine, or at least on the way to being fine, but they have lost the support of the masses. The elites have been wrong so often and so profoundly that their opinions no longer count for much.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Obama has made excelllent strides in repairing the country, and you know it. This has been covered in this thread ad nauseam.

From what I have seen, the Reps want us to go back to Bush economics. They offer more of the same.

Obama has NOT made excelllent strides in repairing the country, and you know it. He has made things worse than they would have been if he had simply reduced fed spending and fed income tax rates.

Total USA jobs increased by more than one million from December 2006 to December 2007.
Total USA jobs decreased by almost three million from December 2007 to December 2008.
Total USA jobs decreased by more than five million from December 2008 to December 2009.

From what I have seen, Obama is merely repeating Bush's errors plus expanding them and adding a few new ones of his own.

I don't know any Repubs who want to go back to Bush's economics. The ones I've read and heard want to reduce spending, reduce taxes, and reduce violations of the Constitution of the USA by the feds. Actually, I've heard and read an increasing number of Dems that want to reduce spending, reduce taxes, and reduce violations of the Constitution of the USA by the feds.

Please provide some of your evidence that:
1. Obama has made excelllent strides in repairing the country;
2. Reps want us to go back to Bush economics and offer more of the same.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18926&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
A NEW APPROACH TO HEALTH REFORM
The problem with Democratic health insurance bills is that they specify what coverage people must buy. But one size does not fit all well, says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a contributing editor of Real Clear Markets and an Adjunct Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has an idea to fix health reform. In his "Road Map for America's Future," reintroduced this month:

Americans would take refundable tax credits -- $2,300 for singles and $5,700 for families -- and choose private insurance.
All insurance plans that are licensed in a particular state would be eligible, and each company would be free to set its own premiums.
Low-income individuals would get extra tax credits so they could buy the same kind of health care as other Americans.
What about Medicare?

Medicare would remain the same for current beneficiaries and for those 55 and older when they reach 65.
But when those born in 1955 or later become eligible for Medicare at age 65, their plan would change.
They would receive $11,000, adjusted for inflation, to buy a Medicare certified plan.
Those with lower incomes or with more serious health conditions would receive more funding.
Further:

Health insurance companies could offer high-deductible plans carrying lower premiums combined with health savings accounts, or more traditional managed care or fee-for-service plans.
Persons with high-cost chronic illnesses, such as hemophilia or diabetes, would be placed in special affordable state high risk pools, with subventions paid by the government.
On Wednesday, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote to Ryan to tell him that this plan reduced health care costs and the federal deficit. He said: "Under the proposal, national health expenditures would almost certainly be lower than they would under the alternative fiscal scenario. Federal spending for health care would be substantially lower, relative to the amount in that scenario, for working-age people and the Medicare population."

Source: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, "A New Approach to Health Reform," Real Clear Markets, January 28, 2010.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18927&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
A SECOND NEW APPROACH TO HEALTH REFORM
The Empowering Patients First Act, H.R. 3400, sponsored by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), a physician and chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, would insure more people and cut costs, says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a contributing editor of Real Clear Markets and an Adjunct Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

For instance:

It would insure more people by letting individuals take tax deductions for health insurance premiums that they pay, just as employers do.
Workers with employer-paid insurance could retain it.
Low-income individuals would be given refundable tax credits in advance to help them pay premiums.
States would be required to set up subsidized risk pools for those with chronic conditions who might otherwise be uninsurable.
The most innovative aspect of the Price bill, according to Furchtgott-Roth:

It allows -- but does not require -- employers to offer a monetary sum to workers so that they can purchase whatever insurance plan they choose in the open market, similar to defined contribution pension plans.
Employers would still enjoy the same tax benefit for providing coverage, tax-free to the employee, but workers would be able to choose from an entire range of options, policies that they could carry with them when they change jobs.
Now employees are generally limited to one plan, sponsored by their employer, and lose that coverage when they change jobs.
The contrast with the Democrats' health care plan could not be starker, says Furchtgott-Roth. Rather than turn the insurance industry into a federally-controlled public utility, the Republican plans would allow all Americans, including recipients of Medicare, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, to shop around and purchase health insurance on the open market.

Source: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, "A New Approach to Health Reform," Real Clear Markets, January 28, 2010.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican 711nm wrote:

Is Obama trying to govern as a centrist? Is Obama trying to govern as a centrist? Or, is Obama attempting to convince voters that his governing from the left is governing from the center?

Yes, Virginia, Obama is indeed governing as a centrist. If he was governing from the left, he would have started his bid for healthcare reform by sending Ted Kennedy's "Medicare for all" bill to Congress. If Obama was governing from the left, he wouldn't have bailed out the banks last year. Instead, he would have given them the money to stay afloat in exchange for equity shares -- at the depressed market prices for which they traded at the time. If Obama was governing from the left, his stimulus program wouldn't have been so timid. Instead, it have been large enough to plug the gap between potential and actual GDP -- something between $2 trillion and $3 trillion dollars, rather than the $900 billions he actually requested.

Obama is not governing from the left. The extent of his reforms falls far short of what "the Left" has reasonably demanded. Obama's centrism may be misplaced given the situation, but it's genuine.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Yes, Virginia, Obama is indeed governing as a centrist

Wrong. He is everything.....which is the same as being nothing

Quote:

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: January 29, 2010
WASHINGTON " On this much, President Obama’s friends and foes could agree: He eludes simple labels.

Yes, he’s a liberal, except when he’s not. He’s antiwar, except for the one he’s escalating. He’s for bailouts, but wants to rein in the banks. He’s concentrating ever-more power in the West Wing, except when he’s being overly deferential to Congress. He’s cool, except when he’s fighting-hot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/weekinreview/31stevenson.html?ref=weekinreview

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Yes, Virginia, Obama is indeed governing as a centrist.

Thomas, you must be kidding? But perhaps you are assuming that if he governed as a leftist, he would have the power to institute all of his policies, but obviuously he does not have that power, not at this point, but it does not mean that he is not trying to govern from the left. Fortunately, we still have some sanity in this country, in the way of conservatives that can and will oppose all of what he would like to do and how he would like to govern. But the fact remains that Obama approaches every issue from the left. He does in fact govern from the left, but fortunately that does not translate into him being able to instantly transform the government into a totally leftist government. We still do have checks and balances, things called Congress and the Supreme Court, and upcoming elections.

2 Replies

@okie,

By the way, do folks here need to be reminded that Obama wrote in his book that to work in the private sector was like being "behind enemy lines" ? Is there any clearer evidence wrapped up into one little concise statement by any politician, that would indicate any stronger that Obama is clearly an extreme leftist with Marxist sympathies? It is totally obvious that Obama has a government solution to every problem, and he is clearly trying to approach every policy decision from the left. I would call that "governing from the left," not anything like being a centrist.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

By the way, do folks here need to be reminded that Obama wrote in his book that to work in the private sector was like being "behind enemy lines" ? Is there any clearer evidence wrapped up into one little concise statement by any politician, that would indicate any stronger that Obama is clearly an extreme leftist with Marxist sympathies? It is totally obvious that Obama has a government solution to every problem, and he is clearly trying to approach every policy decision from the left. I would call that "governing from the left," not anything like being a centrist.

Are you serious? Thomas just outlined three different situations where Obama clearly did not do that. He didn't pick a solution anywhere near what the 'left' position would have been, let alone the Extreme left.

You really do just ignore everything that doesn't fit the narrative, dontcha?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Thomas, you must be kidding?

No I don't have to, and indeed I'm not.

okie wrote:

By the way, do folks here need to be reminded that Obama wrote in his book that to work in the private sector was like being "behind enemy lines" ?

Can you tell me which book he wrote this in, and on what page? From the way you present it, it sounds as if you copied and pasted something from Boortz or Glenn Beck, who in turn quoted Obama out of context. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. All it takes is a reference to the book and the page on which you've read the quote.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

okie wrote:
By the way, do folks here need to be reminded that Obama wrote in his book that to work in the private sector was like being "behind enemy lines" ?

Can you tell me which book he wrote this in, and on what page? From the way you present it, it sounds as if you copied and pasted something from Boortz or Glenn Beck, who in turn quoted Obama out of context. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. All it takes is a reference to the book and the page on which you've read the quote.

I think in Dreams of My Father, do a search on it Thomas. I have no reason to doubt it, after all it is widely reported, although I cannot in a couple of minutes give you chapter and verse or page number. by the way, Boortz or Beck, no I did not get it from them I don't think, I merely saw it with a casual perusal of the net, but don't recall the source, but Boortz and Beck are relatively honest people compared to Obama, so I would recommend you listen to what they have to say, you could learn alot.

By the way, some are speculating that Obama didn't even write his own book or books, maybe Ayers might have written one or ?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Are you serious? Thomas just outlined three different situations where Obama clearly did not do that. He didn't pick a solution anywhere near what the 'left' position would have been, let alone the Extreme left.

You really do just ignore everything that doesn't fit the narrative, dontcha?

Cycloptichorn

I have told you the obvious a bunch of times. An extreme leftist cannot run as an extreme leftist, because they won't win. They cannot be honest about their true beliefs. Also, if elected, they cannot push for their entire agenda immediately, it has to be incrementally. Obviously, you have never studied people like Alinsky or other leftists, cyclops, or perhaps you are just as dishonest as other extreme leftists, as you apparently are.

The obove Trues are what makes it so difficult to deal with people like Obama, he is shifty and dishonest, a politician that is not open and honest, he is not an open book. You have to study the man, his background, his friends and associates, and be sharp enough to catch the buzzwords and hints to what he is really about. In short, he is not a trustworthy and straightforward politician, not at all. If he was truly a centrist, he would not have admired and listened to Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, nor would he have hung around Ayers and kicked off his political career at his house. Birds of a feather flock together. Obama is no centrist. There is little doubt that Obama is clearly a radical, similar to most to the people he learned from and admired. Believe it, cyclops.

1 Reply

I think that quibbling over exactly where in some (usually unspecified) political spectrum Obama - or many other prominent politicans "resides" is often a somewhat pointless effort - particularly if the quibbling involves definitions of left and right taken from other countries, regions or times. It is clear that Obama is the leader of the major party of the left in U.S. politics, and that he was heavily favored by the most left wing (progressive) groups in the Democrat party (though his stated positions during the primaries were not the most left wing of the candidates for the Democrat nomination).

I believe that one of the key factors in Obama's political success so far has been his unusual ability to make himself appear as sympathetic to the views of the listener - whomever he/she may be and whatever they may be. This studied ambiguity was a key factor in his stunningly rapid ascent in American politics, however, it arguably has not served him well in office as President. I don't know whether this is and has been just a chosen tactic in a complex political struggle or whether it reflects something deeper in the character of our President. I do occasionally get the imppression of an inner emptiness and lack of conviction with respect to unifying principles.

The long debacle of the debate over the several very different versions of health care legislation left many of us wondering just what was the "my plan" to which he referred so frequently. His rhetoric over energy policy during the campaign, though evoking a committment to GHG reduction appeared moderate and inclusive - laced as it was with occasional references to nuclear power and production of domestic oil and gas reserves. Once in office he wasted no time in endorsing a Cap & Trade legislation - somewhat like like the scheme that hasn't worked in Europe. That bill seems dead now, but Obama's EPA wasted no time in announcing its intent to regulate CO2 - though we haven't heard much from them since (and I suspect we won't for some time). Now, following some political reversals, he is again making favorable gestures toward nuclear power and even offshore oil drilling.

He was emphatic about closing Guantanamo and treating terrorists as criminals instead of soldiers in a sectarian army that has indeed declared war on us. However, almost a year into his administration Guantanamo is not closed and the initial steps to empty it have come to a halt, leaving no closure in sight. His Justice Department insisted on trying the principal 9/11 conspirators in Federal Court - over strenuous objections from the opposition party - and even scheduled the event in Manhattan. They added even the latest would-be airline bomber to the criminal trial list - also in the face of strenuous objections. Now, oddly, they appear to be looking for a discrete way to back out of the planned trial in a Manhattan Federal Court. Perhaps Military Tribunals could again become the preferred option. - Hard to say what will follow.

Similarly his economic policy was decidedly left wing (for American politics) with numerous proposals to tax the rich; transfer wealth from haves to have nots; and increase the public sector component of the economy at the expense of the private one. That too seems to be less intense now, and a number of similarly palliative (and largely empty) relatively more conservative gestures are appearing - spending "freezes" (that freeze very little); even selective tax cuts are - tentatively discussed. (These hovever don't sound remotely believable.)

It remains to be seen whether this will become a continuing change in orientation akin to that of former President Clinton in 1993, or whether these are merely palliatives meant to calm and distract the public in the face of recent reversals. We probably won't know which until after the November elections.

Bottom line here is I'm not at all sure what Obama really is (perhaps he doesn't either). That may well be his chief weakness as a political leader.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

.... Rasmussen falls right into the middle among its polling peers.

I think a more serious problem with all of these polls is that they're failing to ask a much more important question: Obama is trying to govern as a centrist. He's governing amidst the most severe recession since World War II. Pollsters are finding that voters are dissatisfied with him. (No kidding?) So, what do voters think their centrist president should do about it: Should he move to the right or the left?

I think if pollsters asked this question, they would find a good share of Democratic voters on both sides of this question. So shouldn't pollsters ask how many dissatisfied voters are dissenting from the left of Obama's position, and how many are dissenting from the right of it? I think they should. But I don't see pollsters looking into this much at all. I find this very mysterious, not to mention unsatisfactory.

Interesting observation. I suspect the reasons we don't see more of that include (1) It is hard to do - complex inferences such as those you suggest require issue specific definitions of relative right & left; approve/disapprove doesn't tell us much, as you indicated, but it is easily & reliable measured in a poll. (2) There may not be many paying consumers of such polls. Many pollsters serve advocacy groups and political parties; others try to be nonsectarian - and, as a result they have to hustle to find willing buyers. (3) Perhaps the most sophisticated polling is done by the political parties for their own feedback on issues and tactics, and it generally doesn't see the light of day - at least to mere mortals such as we.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I think that quibbling over exactly where in some (usually unspecified) political spectrum Obama - or many other prominent politicans "resides" is often a somewhat pointless effort - particularly if the quibbling involves definitions of left and right taken from other countries, regions or times. It is clear that Obama is the leader of the major party of the left in U.S. politics, and that he was heavily favored by the most left wing (progressive) groups in the Democrat party (though his stated positions during the primaries were not the most left wing of the candidates for the Democrat nomination).

I think most people know that the modern Democratic Party is further left than at any time in the history of any party in this country, George. And I have to keep repeating the obvious, but the obvious is that Obama has been mentored, taught, and befriended by Marxists, plus we are not blind when we see clips of those warm handshakes with the likes of Hugo Chavez. I have quit sugarcoating Obama, and you might as well face it as well, I think it is past time to have any illusions that Obama is even close to a centrist.

Quote:

I believe that one of the key factors in Obama's political success so far has been his unusual ability to make himself appear as sympathetic to the views of the listener - whomever he/she may be and whatever they may be.

Sure, we all know that, and more than that, it has been a carefully crafted effort on the part of Obama and the media to build his image as some kind of a centrist, that understands both sides or all people. His book, Audacity of Hope, is a complete attempt to place himself above the fray, as some kind of ultimate arbitor of left vs right, but the whole thing was a complete fraud. The sooner everyone wakes up to who and what Obama is, the better we will all be. He is a radical, plain and simple, who is carefully working to try to institute a series of steps, to incrementalize toward an ultimate goal, which is radical and ultra left. He will of course not tell the people that, because ultra leftists are almost never honest, but it is left to us to figure it out. (By the way, that is true with them here on this forum as well) I believe more and more people are figuring it out. And when you do, it behooves us to say so, to confront him with that knowledge, as a voting block. I believe that began in Massachussetts.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know