Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Obama
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 151 of 314 (596796)
12-16-2010 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Theodoric
12-16-2010 10:42 PM


Re: Just a reminder
If he were so liberal he would make some sort of liberal stand on something.
What would you call six votes against telecom immunity provisions, and joining a filibuster against the bill, if not "making a stand"?
It isn't compromise when you are always giving in.
That is, actually, exactly what compromise is. Compromise means recognizing when you can get something you want by giving something your opponent wants. A reasonable adult person seeks any opportunity to do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Theodoric, posted 12-16-2010 10:42 PM Theodoric has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 152 of 314 (596890)
12-17-2010 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by onifre
12-10-2010 11:15 AM


Re: Hilary - less liberal
I saw something today that substantiates what I was saying about Oni's point:
No they are not. They may not approve of the presidents way of getting it, but they all want affordable insurance for everyone.
Well, no, they don't. They want some people to get less care:
quote:
But it should be possible to strengthen the safety net while modernizing some of the Great Society structures. Paul Ryan, a Republican, and Alice Rivlin, a Democrat, have come up with a Medicare reform plan in which new enrollees would receive a fixed contribution from the government, growing a bit faster than inflation. They would apply that money against the cost of health insurance. This would make Medicare a defined contribution program and save hundreds of billions. If Obama said he was open to thinking about this sort of fundamental reform, he’d generate tremendous excitement on the right.
Opinion | Bigger Is Easier - The New York Times
As Matthew Yglesias points out:
quote:
I think this is a dubious use of the term save. If I went to CVS, bought a box of Diet Cokes, and kept them in the fridge in the CAP kitchen I’d save a substantial amount of money relative to my current practice of constantly going to the soda machine....What Ryan-Rivlin does is buy less Diet Coke. It sets a hard cap on Medicare expenditures, thus reducing government outlays. Then in an unrelated move, it dismantles the publicly administered single risk pool of Medicare and replaces it with multiple privately administered for-profit risk pools. The combination of these two moves is a sleight of hand designed to make you think that the structural shift is saving money when in fact it does nothing of the sort. Creating multiple privately administered risk pools doesn’t offer any efficiency gains. It simply creates an adverse selection problem and ensures that the rationing decisions made necessary by the hard cap will be made by employees of for-profit firms rather than government employees.
In other words, the conservative answer to rapidly rising health care costs is simply to buy less health care, for less people. Conservatives have no desire to expand access to health care; they want to diminish access to health care because health care is expensive.
You know, assuming David Brooks and Paul Ryan can be taken as representative conservatives. (Who the hell are those guys, right?)
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by onifre, posted 12-10-2010 11:15 AM onifre has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 153 of 314 (596948)
12-18-2010 12:26 PM


Obama - gets it done on DADT
quote:
A White House-backed bid to end the ban against gays serving openly in the military cleared an important Senate Republican hurdle on Saturday, advancing a major step toward becoming law.
Supporters mustered more than the needed 60 votes in the 100-member Senate, 63-33, to limit debate on the legislation to lift the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell," policy. Six Republicans joined the Senate Democratic majority to support repeal.
The Senate is expected to give it final congressional approval as early as Sunday, clearing the way for President Barack Obama to sign it into law. The House of Representatives passed the bill earlier this week.
Congress repeals ban against gays in military | Reuters
You just can't make money betting against Obama.

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Theodoric, posted 12-18-2010 3:12 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 158 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2010 3:52 AM crashfrog has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 154 of 314 (596960)
12-18-2010 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
12-18-2010 12:26 PM


Re: Obama - gets it done on DADT
I will give him this one.
But he is still not a liberal on gay marriage. He is very right center on gay marriage.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 12-18-2010 12:26 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by arachnophilia, posted 12-18-2010 4:06 PM Theodoric has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 155 of 314 (596963)
12-18-2010 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Theodoric
12-18-2010 3:12 PM


Re: Obama - gets it done on DADT
i dunno about that. he strikes me as very "compromisey". and there are things that perhaps we shouldn't be willing to compromise on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Theodoric, posted 12-18-2010 3:12 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 12-18-2010 4:11 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 166 by dronestar, posted 12-20-2010 12:47 PM arachnophilia has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 156 of 314 (596964)
12-18-2010 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by arachnophilia
12-18-2010 4:06 PM


Re: Obama - gets it done on DADT
there are things that perhaps we shouldn't be willing to compromise on.
The problem is that a lot of liberals can't seem to recognize when "not compromising" is going to result in "getting nothing." The Constitution has no provision for passing legislation just because you really, really want to.
Once again Obama has sidestepped the circular firing squad and done more to advance the liberal program than any living politician as a result of being ready to compromise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by arachnophilia, posted 12-18-2010 4:06 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Jazzns, posted 12-19-2010 2:29 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 159 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2010 3:56 AM crashfrog has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 157 of 314 (597031)
12-19-2010 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by crashfrog
12-18-2010 4:11 PM


Re: Obama - gets it done on DADT
The problem is that a lot of liberals can't seem to recognize when "not compromising" is going to result in "getting nothing." The Constitution has no provision for passing legislation just because you really, really want to.
Once again Obama has sidestepped the circular firing squad and done more to advance the liberal program than any living politician as a result of being ready to compromise.
I haven't been able to participate lately due to restrictions at work but I just want to say well done on this thread crash.
Progress is slow and hard fought anytime it has resulted in anything meaningful. The problem with 2008 is that we had a Democratic wave and not necessarily a progressive wave and people weren't paying attention enough to know the difference.
Democracy is messy and a massively inefficient way to get the right things done quickly.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 12-18-2010 4:11 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by dronestar, posted 12-20-2010 12:40 PM Jazzns has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 158 of 314 (597032)
12-19-2010 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
12-18-2010 12:26 PM


crashfrog writes:
quote:
You just can't make money betting against Obama.
I believe the words you are looing for are "in spite of Obama." DADT certainly wasn't repealed because of what he did. In fact, his efforts went down in flames. It's only because, and I shudder to say this because he's a complete tool...only because of Lieberman that it happened. It's only because Reid was willing to keep the Senate around up to the change of seats in January. They managed to get the House to pass a stand-alone bill. If they hadn't managed to get things done at the very last second, it never would have happened because Boehner would never have allowed it.
He got lucky. It didn't pass because of him. It passed in spite of him.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 12-18-2010 12:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 12-19-2010 12:14 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 159 of 314 (597034)
12-19-2010 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by crashfrog
12-18-2010 4:11 PM


crashfrog writes:
quote:
Once again Obama has sidestepped the circular firing squad and done more to advance the liberal program than any living politician as a result of being ready to compromise.
I'm confused...how, exactly, does one "compromise" on an either/or proposition? Either DADT is repealed or it is not.
And speaking of "compromise" and the silliness of insisting upon it, the Virginia legislature was discussing new ethics rules, some of which pertained gifts to the spouses of legislators. A woman then asked that since she was married to her wife but Virginia doesn't recognize it, does that mean these ethics rules don't apply to her?
Everyone in the body sat there in stunned silence, unable to respond.
Some things in this world are black-and-white and for which there is no physical way to "compromise."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 12-18-2010 4:11 PM crashfrog has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 160 of 314 (597035)
12-19-2010 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by onifre
12-13-2010 5:28 PM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
I would guess this has to do with Insurance companies and Big Pharma guilding the state of our healthcare system.
What does that have to do with anything? If the people wanted it, they'd get it. There were people running who were gunning for single-payer, universal coverage. Why weren't they elected? Why did we have people screaming, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"?
quote:
Now, there are some people who like to pay higher insurance prices for a good return on their money
But that's just it: We're not getting a good return on our money. We spend more and we get less.
quote:
Also, union workers don't see the benefit of universal healthcare since theirs is one of the best insurances in the US.
If you had good healthcare, why would you want to give it up for the "reform" that was instituted?
quote:
I have republican friends, I have concervative friends, they all have children, ALL of them want their kids to have a good education in the best schools. It seems to be what every parent wants for their child.
You do understand the difference between what people say and what they do, yes? Of course, they're going to say that they want a good education, but then you look at their actions and their justifications for those actions and you find that they don't actually believe that at all. When you ask them to provide bonds for the funding of schools, to pay taxes, to give so that districts outside of theirs can be improved, they suddenly start to pull up short.
No, they don't want a good eduction in the best schools.
quote:
This was not up to the people, the normal, everyday, middle class worker.
When it came time for them to elect officials who would regulate the industry and ensure that those jobs weren't lost, they caved into the magic of Reaganomics.
quote:
Also, unions are still alive and well.
Alive? Yes. Well? Please.
Exactly how much of the workforce is unionized? Compared to 10 years ago? 20? 50?
quote:
But my point is simple, the average, middle class person, whether rep or dem, wants the same basic living conditions: Good job, affordable healthcare, and a good school for their child to attend.
Again, you do understand the difference between what people say and what they do, yes? That when you ask them to justify why they are doing what they are doing, it suddenly becomes clear that they don't actually mean what they say, yes?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by onifre, posted 12-13-2010 5:28 PM onifre has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 161 of 314 (597066)
12-19-2010 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Rrhain
12-19-2010 3:52 AM


I believe the words you are looing for are "in spite of Obama."
LOL! I wondered how you were going to try to turn this around. All that time to think of the spin, though, and that's the best you could do? Disappointing.
...only because of Lieberman that it happened.
Hey, wasn't there some controversy about Lieberman back in 2009? Something about how after his return to the Senate as an independent (having been kicked out in his own primary) he endorsed McCain instead of Obama? And how everybody wanted to strip him of his committee chairs and seniority since, if he was going to act like a Republican, who the hell needed him? But then somebody stood up and said, "look, we need Lieberman, eve if it doesn't seem like it right now" and made sure Lieberman suffered no reprisals for his actions?
Who was that, again? Oh, right - Obama. I'm not saying the kid can see the future, but you have to admit he's ten steps ahead of you or I. Hell, even I thought the compromise on Lieberman was a "cave too far" but I was dead wrong and so are you - Lieberman was genuinely the hero of this 11th-hour DADT reform, but the only reason Lieberman was in a position to play the hero was because of Obama. Case closed.
It's only because Reid was willing to keep the Senate around up to the change of seats in January. They managed to get the House to pass a stand-alone bill.
Frequently good leadership is simply a matter of putting the right people in place to do the right things.
He got lucky.
Oh, right. The most effective progressive presidency since FDR, and it's all the result of luck. Good luck with that one, bub.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2010 3:52 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2010 11:25 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 170 by Rrhain, posted 12-20-2010 2:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 162 of 314 (597152)
12-19-2010 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by crashfrog
12-19-2010 12:14 PM


crashfrog responds to me:
quote:
I wondered how you were going to try to turn this around. All that time to think of the spin, though, and that's the best you could do? Disappointing.
Hmmm...you don't actually respond to the point and you say I'm the disappointment. OK. If that's what you need to tell yourself.
quote:
Hey, wasn't there some controversy about Lieberman back in 2009?
Ah, so you're all about surface. It doesn't matter about any of the other things Lieberman did or the means by which he carried out his actions, so long as the immediate surface result is what you want, then that's fine by you. Never mind the long-term results, never mind the precedents established, so long as he does one good deed, that makes up for everything else.
Let's see...he was the one who killed the health reform bill, making it only an insurance reform bill, by killing Medicare buy-in.
This "reliable liberal" stated, "I will do everything I can to make sure Congress extends the so-called Bush tax cuts for another year and takes action to prevent the estate tax from rising back to where it was."
He wants to privatize Social Security.
So yes, he will fight for the right of gay people to serve in the military...because he doesn't want the war to end.
The favors of the fallen, we do not need. Do you really think if he had bowed out and let Lamont run without his interference that Lamont wouldn't have also championed the rights of gay people to serve?
quote:
Frequently good leadership is simply a matter of putting the right people in place to do the right things.
OK...let's go with that. Exactly how did Obama manage to put Murphy and Hoyer in the House?
quote:
The most effective progressive presidency since FDR
Oh, that's precious. You really believe that, don't you?
Hint: That legislation was passed during a time when the administration was not ravingly right-wing does not equal "progressive." Indeed, a lot of legislation was passed despite Republican obstructionism.
I don't think passing a bill that kills Social Security can be called "progressive," do you? Even if it manages to extend unemployment benefits for a short time, it's still dismantling the New Deal, which isn't exactly "progressive."
The insurance reform bill is also not "progressive." It was the same conservative plan that was being kicked around back in the 90s when Clinton tried. Again, you seem to be caught up in the surface and are refusing to look at the deeper results. It isn't "healthcare reform." It's insurance reform with nothing but huge giveaways to the insurance companies. They're already raising their rates.
Guantanamo is still open.
Even more egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment rights are enshrined.
Hell, Obama has called for the ASSASSINATION of an American citizen without trial or even formal charges being written up.
Not even Bush tried that.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 12-19-2010 12:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 12-20-2010 12:40 PM Rrhain has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 163 of 314 (597218)
12-20-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Rrhain
12-19-2010 11:25 PM


Hmmm...you don't actually respond to the point and you say I'm the disappointment.
Well, yeah. You know, I saw that you had replied last night and rather than read it, I said to myself "eesh, better save that till tomorrow - Rrhain's so good at this, I'll be tossing and turning all night if I read his reply." And then this morning I actually read your post and it's this. Imagine my disappointment.
Never mind the long-term results, never mind the precedents established, so long as he does one good deed, that makes up for everything else.
You act like all Lieberman did here was get a road or a state park named after somebody.
Rrhain, he ended decades of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the armed services, many of whom had been wounded in service to their country. That's quite the mitzvah. Does it "make up" for anything? I have no idea. But I do know that Lieberman being in a position to do so was directly and solely the result of Obama's foresightedness in preserving Lieberman's connections and seniority in the Democratic coalition, at a time when all the rest of us were calling for his head.
I don't know if DADT repeal is enough to save Lieberman from the Flames of Liberal Perdition. But I do know that if you're arrived at the point where the assignment of committee chairs are now a matter of inviolable progressive principle, you're truly at the point where futile last stands on principle are more important than actually governing. You know, like how the conservatives are.
You really believe that, don't you?
Because it's objectively true. You can act like the death of public option health care was the death of All American Liberalism, Rrhain, but it's not true. The ACA allows millions to have insurance who would not otherwise have it. DADT is dead, and need I remind you that it was repealed with precisely the exact strategy you claimed was a non-starter? Now you're predicting the demise of Social Security as a result of the employment benefits extension deal, and I have news for you - your track record as a swami isn't very good.
It's insurance reform with nothing but huge giveaways to the insurance companies.
Funny, I feel like I've addressed this, to no substantive reply. To recap: if it's such a giveaway, why did insurance companies spend millions to block its passage? How is it a "giveaway" when the millions of new customers are precisely the customers insurance companies didn't want to insure - those who are going to immediately make expensive medical claims well in excess of the revenue from their premiums? How is it a "giveaway" when it carves the heart out of the profit mechanism of the medical insurance industry - rescission and adverse selection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2010 11:25 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Rrhain, posted 12-21-2010 3:13 AM crashfrog has replied

dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 164 of 314 (597219)
12-20-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Jazzns
12-19-2010 2:29 AM


"Progress"?
Hi Jazzns,
I am disappointed in you. This "progress" that you speak of means more pain and death around the world while furthering elite's power and profits.
Besides not closing Gitmo, underage torture, extraordinary rendition, increased military spending, and all the other items in this ten page thread, I'll add these items:
1. The Obama administration wanted to open up oil and gas drilling three weeks before the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history despite grave ecological warnings.
2. Obama has ordered more drone-attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan THAN Bush Jr.. This guarantees more death to innocent women and children and guarantees more retaliatory strikes (blowback) against US in the future.
3. Status quo in Israel. Though the US continues to bribe Israel with billions of $, the continuation of illegal building and criminal discrimination/torture/death of Palestinians will continue.
That you consider ALL this to be "progress" is sad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Jazzns, posted 12-19-2010 2:29 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by crashfrog, posted 12-20-2010 12:44 PM dronestar has replied
 Message 192 by Jazzns, posted 12-21-2010 12:21 AM dronestar has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 165 of 314 (597221)
12-20-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by dronestar
12-20-2010 12:40 PM


Re: "Progress"?
The Obama administration wanted to open up oil and gas drilling three weeks before the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history despite grave ecological warnings.
And before that three weeks he'd been a relentless opponent. His stance on offshore drilling was becoming a stick with which to beat Democrats.
Status quo in Israel.
Oddly enough Barack Obama is not the President of Israel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by dronestar, posted 12-20-2010 12:40 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by dronestar, posted 12-20-2010 1:10 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 180 by dronestar, posted 12-20-2010 3:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024