Aladdin Sane

The CBO released a new analysis of the House version of ObamaCare yesterday, after getting blasted by White House budget director Peter Orszag for “exaggerating” the costs associated with the proposal. Douglas Elmendorf tells Rep. Dave Camp (R), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, that the changes proposed by the White House will have little impact on their cost analysis, and that in fact the news gets worse in the second decade after the first runs up a $239 billion deficit:

The net cost of the coverage provisions would be growing at a rate of more than 8 percent per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; we would anticipate a similar trend in the subsequent decade. The reductions in direct spending would also be larger in the second decade than in the first, and they would represent an increasing share of spending on Medicare over that period; however, they would be much smaller at the end of the 10-year budget window than the cost of the coverage provisions, so they would not be likely to keep pace in dollar terms with the rising cost of the coverage expansion. Revenue from the surcharge on high-income individuals would be growing at about 5 percent per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; that component would continue to grow at a slower rate than the cost of the coverage expansion in the following decade. In sum, relative to current law, the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year-budget window.

In other words, that $239 billion in Decade 1 was actually the good news. Why will it get worse?

As long as overall spending for health care continued to expand as a share of the economy, people’s share of insurance costs would continue to rise faster than their income, or the government’s subsidy costs would continue to rise faster than the tax base, or both. The proposal limits the share of income that eligible people would have to pay when they purchased coverage in the insurance exchanges, and that share of income would not change over time. In addition, insurance plans offered through the exchanges would be required to pay a specified share of costs for covered services (on average), and that share also would not change over time. Combining those provisions, increases in health care spending in excess of the rate of growth in income would be borne entirely by the federal government in the form of higher subsidy payments—because those payments would have to cover the entire difference between the total premium for insurance coverage and the capped amount that enrollees would pay.

It’s not exactly rocket-science mathematics on display here. If costs go up but premiums and health-insurance payments are capped, guess who pays for the rising costs? The federal government (Taxpayers). The Obama administration will claim that they’ve capped costs and people will see their direct payments to health insurers and providers remain fixed, but the government will have to enact massive tax hikes to pay the back-end costs — which will come out of everyone’s pockets. Either that, or the government will have to sharply ration care — which the Obama administration denies will happen.

Obviously, the White House attempt at public intimidation didn’t cause Elmendorf to flinch. Instead, his report will give ObamaCare opponents in the House, Democrats included, ammunition to demand a return to the drawing board.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

dc_dux

So questioning the CBO findings is "intimidation" rather constructive dialogue?

alladin....back on topic......where was ANY attempt at health care reform by Bush and/or the Republican controlled Congress for eight years? If Obama just hid his head in the sand and done nothing and let the issue fester, it would have been more accurately characterized as a Bush third term

BTW, the same CBO report also refuted the Republican claim that it would result in a massive switch from employer-based plans to plans available through the proposed "exchange".

Conservatives have charged that the creation of a government-sponsored health insurance option, or "public plan," would result in many Americans losing their current, employer-based coverage. The CBO's analysis concludes that by 2016, about 9 million people who would otherwise have had employer-based coverage would not be enrolled in an employment-based plan under the House plan. However, about 12 million people who currently are not offered employer-based coverage would receive it, resulting in a net increase of 3 million Americans with employer-provided care.

CBO also said it was uncertain of the impact the bill will have on premiums, but it lists some factors that could decrease costs. For instance, the average cost of covering enrollees could drop, since Americans would presumably be healthier as a result of having greater access to care.

And finally, it ignores and did not assign a $ value to the potential savings through likely (yes, likely) tax increases on top wager earners (NOT all workers) that would either be a direct tax increase on that small percent at the top or a decrease in several types of their deductions.

I have relatively minor issues with the plans currently under consideration.

I have no issues for the need to do something and recognize that there will be a cost.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Aladdin Sane

They said if I voted for McCain, there would be mass deportations of illegal immigrants, and they were right!

More evidence that President Obama was willing to say anything to get elected. More evidence that he's just another jackass politician. More evidence that the Dumbest Evil Genius in the History of Fascism got a third term:


From the New York Times:

Obama pushes aggressive immigration strategy
Despite vows, president relies heavily on predecessor’s policies on illegals
updated 4:29 a.m. CT, Tues., Aug 4, 2009
After early pledges by President Obama that he would moderate the Bush administration’s tough policy on immigration enforcement, his administration is pursuing an aggressive strategy for an illegal-immigration crackdown that relies significantly on programs started by his predecessor.

That approach brings Mr. Obama around to the position that his Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, espoused during last year’s presidential campaign, a stance Mr. Obama rejected then as too hard on Latino and immigrant communities.

A recent blitz of measures has antagonized immigrant groups and many of Mr. Obama’s Hispanic supporters, who have opened a national campaign against them, including small street protests in New York and Los Angeles last week.
NYT: Obama aggressive on immigration - The New York Times- msnbc.com

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

dc_dux

I dont recall any campaign pledge to not enforce existing laws against employers in a reasonable manner and with respect for the rights of employees.

Enforcement of current laws, particularly against employers is a good thing. Backing away from the previous policy of overly aggressive sweeps into places of employment and rounding up everyone who "looks like an illegal" is even better.
And, IMO, Obama's continued support for a pathway to citizenship for the vast majority of illegals currently in the country (no, not amnesty and certainly not for any who have committed a crime) is the only reasonable approach to the larger illegal immigration issue...along with tougher border security.
Dont get so worked up until you see specific legislation (and it probably wont be anytime soon)....then you can start ranting about "amnesty is unamerican" and a cheap ploy for Hispanic votes.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Aladdin Sane

They told me if I voted for McCain the government would collect all kinds of personal information about Americans, and they were right!

Let me guess: This qualifies as HOPENCHANGE because President Obama does it with such intelligence and finesse?

Government Proposes Massive Shift In Online Privacy Policy (8/10/2009)

Changes Would Pose Serious Threat To Americans’ Personal Information, Says ACLU

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union submitted comments today to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) opposing its recent proposal to reverse current federal policy and allow the use of web tracking technologies, like cookies, on federal government websites. Cookies can be used to track an Internet user’s every click and are often linked across multiple websites; they frequently identify particular people.

Since 2000, it has been the policy of the federal government not to use such technology. But the OMB is now seeking to change that policy and is considering the use of cookies for tracking web visitors across multiple sessions and storing their unique preferences and surfing habits. Though this is a major shift in policy, the announcement of this program consists of only a single page from the federal register that contains almost no detail.

“This is a sea change in government privacy policy,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Without explaining this reversal of policy, the OMB is seeking to allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website. Until the OMB answers the multitude of questions surrounding this policy shift, we will continue to raise our strenuous objections.”

The use of cookies allows a website to differentiate between users and build a database of each user’s viewing habits and the information they share with the site. Since web surfers frequently share information like their name or email address (if they’ve signed up for a service) or search request terms, the use of cookies frequently allows a user’s identity and web surfing habits to be linked. In addition, websites can allow third parties, such as advertisers, to also place cookies on a user’s computer.

“Americans rely on the information from the federal government to research politics, medical issues and legal requirements. The OMB is now asking to retain the personal and identifiable information we leave behind,” said Christopher Calabrese, Counsel for the ACLU Technology and Liberty Project. “No American should have to sacrifice privacy or risk surveillance in order to access free government information. No policy change should be adopted without wide ranging debate including information on the restrictions and uses of cookies as well as impact on privacy.”
American Civil Liberties Union : Government Proposes Massive Shift In Online Privacy Policy

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Aladdin Sane

They told me if I voted for McCain, Jesus speak would become a frequently used rhetorical device, and they were right:

Obama Invokes Jesus More Often Than Bush
Politico: Obama Has Talked About His Religion In Several High-Profile Speeches
He’s done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy.

As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches - something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity.

Obama’s invocation of the Christian Messiah is more overt than Americans heard in the public rhetoric of Bush in his time in the White House - even though Bush’s victories were powered in part by evangelical voters.

“I don’t recall a single example of Bush as president ever saying, ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ,’” said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian group Family Research Council. “This is different.”

To Perkins, Obama’s overtly Christian rhetoric is a welcome development from an administration that he largely disagrees with on the issues, though Perkins sees a political motive behind it, as well.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, doesn’t like the trend with Obama: “I don’t need to hear politicians tell me how religious they are,” Lynn said. “Obama in a very overt way does what Bush tended to do in a more covert way.”

To some, the difference between the two presidents goes beyond rhetoric. David Kuo, a former official in Bush’s faith-based office who later became disillusioned with the president he served, worries that both men have exploited religious phraseology for political gain. “From a spiritual perspective, that’s a great and grave danger,” he said. “When God becomes identified with a political agenda, God gets screwed.”
Obama Invokes Jesus More Often Than Bush - CBS News

Of course, President Obama does it with so much more style and grace.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

dc_dux

I'll take a guy who invokes religion in the context of social policy over a guy who said it was a calling to engage in an unprovoked attack and occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US anytime!

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

There is no difference. If you use religion in social policy you will also use it in foreign policy. Religion has no place in either.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

I havent yet heard Obama make references to fulfilling biblical prophecies.

"Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East" and "the Biblical prophecies are about to be fulfilled" President Bush told the French President Jacques Chirac to explain why he was invading Iraq and wanted France to join a coalition of the willing..."

When/if he does, I will agree with you.

Do you think Obama's not so subtle references to Jesus might also be in response to the fact that a significant percentage (15-20%) of Republicans still believe Obama is a secret Muslim?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Derwood

why is this topic still unlocked? so alladin sane and Marvelous Marv can pipe in once a week to say "GOTCHA!!!"?

Aladdin Sane

Remember when the Left scoffed at the argument from George W. Bush that claimed the authorization to use military force allowed the executive branch to hold captured terrorists indefinitely, without criminal trial? Bush’s opponents screamed about human rights and due process, and claimed that Bush had abused his power. Those critics included Barack Obama, who regularly castigated the Bush administration for its failure to provide his idea of due process to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, as well as blasting Bush for his argument that he didn’t require Congress to act to maintain that power.

Now? Change you can believe in, baby:

The Obama administration has decided not to seek new legislation from Congress authorizing the indefinite detention of about 50 terrorism suspects being held without charges at at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, officials said Wednesday.

Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies.

But President Obama’s advisers are not embracing the more disputed Bush contention that the president has inherent power under the Constitution to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely regardless of Congress.

The Justice Department said in a statement Wednesday night that “the administration would rely on authority already provided by Congress” under the use of force resolution. “The administration is not currently seeking additional authorization,” the statement said.

This is known as a distinction without a difference. If the White House doesn’t see the need to get Congressional authorization for continued indefinite detention, then it means that the White House believes it has that power under the Constitution, whence it derives all authority. They may not want to say it out loud, but their actions speak volumes. Obama has adopted the Bush position in its entirety.

And this is, of course, another example of the Geraghty Axiom. The New York Times has trouble reconciling this with Obama’s statement in May on the subject:

Still, the position surprised some critics who had expected after a speech by Mr. Obama in May that he would seek legislation to put the system of indefinite detention on firmer political and legal ground. In that speech at the National Archives, Mr. Obama said that he was considering continuing indefinite detention in some limited cases but that he would not act unilaterally.

“We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded,” he said at the time. “They can’t be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone.”

The explanation? All of Obama’s statements come with an expiration date — all of them. Ask the Poles, who heard Obama offer rhetorical support at about the same time for a land-based missile shield, a controversial issue for which Polish politicians had risked much, only to have Obama flip-flop on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion.

Will Obama acknowledge that Bush had it right all along, and that war powers give the executive branch the right to hold unlawful combatants indefinitely until the end of hostilities? Or will he attempt, as the New York Times reports, to make distinctions without differences?

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Derwood

I strongly disagree with his handling of these "prisoners". I think you'll find that those who opposed Bush on this also oppose Obama.....this isn't a "gotcha" moment where suddenly all the Obama supporters have changed their tune. I don't know anyone who is happy about this (or the continuation of the Patriot Act, or his handling of Afghanistan....)

dippin

Why do people still bother with this thread? Those who are keeping it going do nothing more than post a random link once in a while and then ignore all responses or discussion.

dc_dux

More of the same? Bush third term?

Hundreds of prisoners held by the U.S. military in Afghanistan will for the first time have the right to challenge their indefinite detention and call witnesses in their defense under a new review system being put in place this week, according to administration officials.
U.S. Gives New Rights To Afghan Prisoners

The Obama administration on Wednesday announced a new policy making it much more difficult for the government to claim that it is protecting state secrets when it hides details of sensitive national security strategies such as rendition and warrantless eavesdropping.
Obama Tightens State Secrets Standard

Take a deep breath.

Perhaps these new policies dont far enough....but yea, baby, change for the better!

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Aladdin Sane

Let's face facts: By and large, the war policies of the Bush years remain in place. The only differences are so subtle as to be meaningless. Obama is nuance. Obama is doublespeak. Obama is personality. At base, the Bush war policies remain and Barack is just another politician (albeit with personality). Mr. President talks a good talk, but promised change is
A) nonexistent;
B) one of style;
C) extant somewhere in the future (washingtonpost.com).

Barack's followers repeat his pronouncements as if saying is doing. The rest of us continue to wait for substantial action. We wait and wait.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

dksuddeth

I cannot accept that this isn't a 'gotcha' moment. Every single Obama supporter here will simply 'disagree' with this policy, or the last policy, or the next policy that mimics what you decried during the last presidents administration, but you will continue to defend and support him regardless.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Derwood

did you not read my post at all? I'm not supporting or defending his actions (re: War on Terruh) at all

dc_dux

One can support a president, any president, w/o supporting or agreeing with every policy of that president.

To suggest otherwise is to promote ignorance.

While there may be some overlap of policies, to deny that there are significant differences between Bush and Obama national security policies is also ignorant.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

so the accusations directed towards those on the right about having no problem with (insert subject here) while bush was in office was meaningless drivel intended to play partisan hackery?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dippin

Personally, I think Obama is Bill Clinton 2, a person with some good reform ideas (and some bad ones) who is hostage to his own image issues and attempts to seem bipartisan. As such, he is not a true reformer in the way I would hope. If I had to grade him, I'd give him a C. In an ideal world I would have a real alternative to the democratic party, which I see as being barely better than certain more rational wings of the republican party.

However, Im sure I come off as a huge supporter. But that is only because of two things:

- He is much better than Bush (no torture, no saber rattling, more diplomatic, less religious)
- There is so much misinformation here about him that we have to spend pages upon pages of threads debunking falsehoods.

I would love to discuss all the problems I see in the Obama healthcare proposal, but instead we have to spend a lot of time debunking the death panels/ insurance for illegal aliens lies. Or the "illegal aliens will be counted in the census for the first time" lies. Or the "illegal aliens will pay in state tuition, but not US citizens." Or any of a number of myths and lies we have to spend pages discussing before we get to the issue itself.

And in this case, the lies are clear, not a matter of being in the eye of the beholder. Which is one thing that I would like to compliment you on. I would rather have more of your posts, given that you don't seem prone to engage in delirious myth making. Unfortunately, it seems that lately a lot of the political discussion around here revolves around the myths propagated by people interested in winning the battle of the news cycles, as opposed to discussing real policy issues.

jaymoney

obama is ten month into his presidensy somebody really has to tell him that he doesn't have to campaign any more and stop talking the talk and start walking the walk.

Aladdin Sane

The venerable lefties at Britain’s New Statesman currently have a cover story on “Barack W. Bush.” Here I re-publish most of it for your pleasure. Proving once again that Barack does nothing, but he does it with style.

New Statesman - Change we can’t believe in

Barack Obama promised a sharp break from the Bush era, yet he seems to have stepped into the shoes of his disgraced predecessor. As the anniversary of his election approaches, Mehdi Hasan investigates what went wrong

On health, he has proposed reforming the system of care that leaves 46 million Americans uninsured, but has retreated at the first sign of trouble, backing down on the "public option" - a government-run rival insurance plan - even though it may be the only method of ensuring that the private insurance industry so beloved of the Republican Party is exposed to real competition and challenge.

On climate change, Obama, unlike Bush, has recognised the need to combat global warming. Like Bush, however, he has failed to persuade Congress to take substantive action on emissions and has yet to pledge significant financial support for developing countries to help them cope with the coming climate crisis. His rhetoric may have shifted since the late 1990s when, as a state senator, he lent his support to a bill condemning the Kyoto Treaty, but it has yet to be matched by action.

One of Obama's executive orders calls for an increase in motor vehicle mileage standards, but this will only, in the words of Steven Hill of the New America Foundation, "push fuel efficiency by 2020 to a level that European and Japanese cars reached several years ago, and which even China has already achieved". Meanwhile, in May, the administration opted to retain, despite Congressional support to overturn it, a Bush-era rule that limits protection for polar bears in the Arctic - classed as an "endangered species" by the US Environmental Protection Agency - from the effects of global warming.

On financial reform, Obama has been accused of being a "socialist" and a "Marxist", intent on nationalising the US economy. The fiscal reality is, however, very different. The multibillion-dollar bank bailout, approved by Bush, has simply been continued by Obama in the same vein (his treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, worked closely with the Bush administration as president of the New York Federal Reserve). Obama has tried to rein in bank bonuses and failed. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan - recipients of bailout aid - paid out billions more in bonuses in 2009 than in 2008. Meanwhile, he has continued to defend executive pay on Wall Street and set himself against European proposals to regulate remuneration or impose a cap on bonuses.

Obama came to power with a "firm pledge" not to raise "any form" of taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year. However, despite an off-the-cuff remark that he wanted to "spread the wealth around", his tax plans have done little to advance even modest social-democratic goals. As the treasury department's "Green Book" on revenue proposals has acknowledged, "The [Obama] administration's primary policy proposals . . . [make] permanent a number of the [Bush] tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003."

Diane Lim Rogers, chief economist at the bipartisan fiscal think tank Concord Coalition, told me that "almost all of the tax policy proposed in the Obama budget is just a continuation of the Bush tax policy". Under the "Bush-Obama tax cuts", the only income group not to benefit is the top 0.1 per cent - households with an annual income of more than $2.7m. Like Bush, Obama seems keen not to upset or disturb the rich and powerful.

On torture and Guantanamo Bay, Obama was praised for announcing, in his first week in office, that the world's most notorious prison camp would be closed within a year and that torture - including the Bush-approved technique of "waterboarding" - would be outlawed. Last month, however, with Congress refusing to agree to closure, the Pentagon's top lawyer, Jeh Johnson, said the administration was committed to shutting Guantanamo Bay by early 2010, but stopped short of confirming it will happen. According to the Columbia University law professor Scott Horton, force-feeding operations have continued at the camp, and are apparently administered with "such violence and brutality" that one prisoner has died.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the US is increasing its capacity to imprison people by expanding facilities at bases such as Bagram, where human rights groups have documented many incidents of torture and several unexplained deaths in custody. In February the new administration told a federal judge that military detainees there have no legal right to challenge their captivity. So much for ending the Bush administration's policy of indefinitely detaining "enemy combatants" without trial.

Obama has refused to release the shocking photographs of the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation" techniques, as well as CIA documents describing those interrogations. He has criticised Senator Patrick Leahy's proposal for a "truth commission" to investigate the Bush administration's national security policies, and backed immunity for senior Bush officials implicated in torture. In effect, he is covering up the torture he decried as a presidential candidate. As the neoconservative Charles Krauthammer wrote with glee in May: "Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government."

It is on foreign policy, and the "war on terror" in particular, that Obama was expected to make the biggest break with the Bush regime. Early on, he announced that he would begin winding down the war in Iraq - but only, it seems, in order to divert US troops, spies and diplomats to the war in Afghanistan and operations across the border in Pakistan. He has approved air strikes there that have killed more civilians in nine months than died in US bombings in the final year of the previous administration.

It may have been Bush who invaded Afghanistan eight years ago, but that conflict should now be seen as Obama's war. With the support of a key holdover from the Bush administration, the defence secretary, Robert Gates, Obama has sent more than 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan since May - almost doubling the US contingent.

The pressure for more troops is being kept up by Obama's new commander on the ground, Stanley McChrystal. In true Bush style, Obama suddenly replaced David McKiernan with McChrystal in May. McChrystal is an odd choice for a liberal president and critic of the Iraq war: a favourite of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has been accused of overseeing torture and human rights abuses, under Bush's presidency, at Camp Nama in Iraq, during his deployment there as a special forces commander.

If he is to chart a course independent of the war crimes, torture, chaos and general lawlessness of the Bush years, Obama has to start with the Afghan debacle. He can, in the words of the New York Times columnist Frank Rich, emulate President John F Kennedy's decision-making on Vietnam, and resist lobbying by military leaders and a hawkish media for more troops and more war, or he can continue down the Bush road of perpetual war for perpetual peace.

Obama will have to act soon to reverse the slide in his ratings, to reassert his authority at home and abroad, to keep his army of liberal Obamaniacs on board. Disenchantment and disillusionment with the candidate of change are beginning to harden. Some will argue that the left is forever prepared to scream "betrayal" at those it elects to power - be that Lyndon B Johnson, Harold Wilson, Bill Clinton or Tony Blair. But the case of Obama is different.

With his presidential campaign, the former Illinois senator raised the hopes of millions of people across the US and the world to an extent never seen in modern politics, talking repeatedly of change, reform and renewal, and suggesting he would erase the legacy of his disliked and disgraced preomgdecessor from day one. It was inevitable that even the slightest sense of continuity in policy, personnel or practice would disappoint, as it has. Obama, however, has gone further, adopting his predecessor's positions on a wide variety of issues, from the parochially domestic to the grandly geopolitical.

The lawyer Jon Eisenberg, who continues to battle the Bush-like Obama justice department in the courts, has been a registered Democrat for 30 years. He considers himself to be a "moderate leftist" and echoes the opinions of growing numbers of Americans: "I voted for Obama - even contributed a substantial amount of money to his campaign. I want my money back."

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Derwood

I think at this point, most would agree with that. I'm not alone in saying I'm disappointed in a lot of what Obama HASN'T done so far

dc_dux

I dont think most Obama voters were looking for a socialist agenda that would would please The New Statesmen. Contrary to the imbecilic rhetoric from the right, Obama is not a socialist. The far left in the US may not be thrilled with some policies either, but they dont represent the majority of Obama supporters.

I think Obama has generally met expectations....most in a positive way and a few negatives.

On the domestic side, he has proceeded to implement a progressive legislative agenda (passage of SCHIP, pay equity, credit card bill of rights,..)....rolling back of many Bush regulations and beginning to put in place new regulations in banking/financial services, energy/enviroment, and consumer protections....restoring some greater level of transparency (reversing Bush FOIA policy), although not as much as promised....an economic policy that is basic liberalism (not socialism) and by most measures, prevented a further collapse of an economy that was on the brink of collapse....and long overdue real health care reform (outcome tbd - but it wont be a European single payer system..no surprise).

On the foreign policy side, restoring diplomacy and respect for US obligations under international treaties, and a surge in positive world opinion of the US.

The greatest negatives are in the area of national security and Afghanistan...but even here, he is doing what he campaigned on...so its no surprise.

Hell, its only been 9 months.....its still in the first quarter of the game.

Aladdin ---your obsession with providing "evidence" of a Bush third term is always good for a laugh....I expect it will continue for the next three years and I look forward to the future installment of your never-ending saga....its good fiction.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

biznatch

Bush wouldn't have told the Human Rights Campaign he was going to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Like Healthcare, I'll believe it when it happens.
This is new, right? IIRC, Obama hadn't really touched on gay rights at all during the campaign.

I wonder if this is to minimize the backlash about the Nobel Peace Prize, taking action on some new issues instead of discussing the ones where we won't see results for a least a year, or much longer (i.e. nuclear disarmament, where we pretty much have to trust that his good intentions will make a change in the world's nuclear missiles stocks).

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

aceventura3

Frank Rich is asking about Obama's convictions or lack of convictions a point that I have been making for about two years. Like Bush or not, agree or disagree with him, one thing you can not say is that he lacked conviction. Is the media beginning to realize this and the fact that there is no substance behind the rhetoric?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/op...rich.html?_r=1

Also, this is interesting from Peggy Noonan.

Peggy Noonan: There Is No New Frontier - WSJ.com

One concern I have with Obama is his unwillingness to act in a manner consistent with being the President. He is "the man", and he needs to act like it. We don't need a commander-in-compromise.

One final note, it is a tragedy that our President still does not know what he wants to do in Afghanistan. we are at war, we have been at war, how can he not know what he wants to do? How could he have had a waking moment when he has not been thinking about our national defense, about our soldiers risking their lives - I know liberals wanted to impeach Bush, but if anything would merit a President from being removed from office it should be not taking war seriously.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Derwood

Cite evidence that Obama is not taking Afghanistan seriously and/or doesn't know what he'd doing there.

Correction, cite something besides a right-wing blog

aceventura3

Nothing presented would be acceptable to you, so why play 'pretend"?

No matter what the evidence, it is apparent that Obama has not made a commitment to a new strategy - in the face of mounting evidence that the existing strategy is ineffective. My point is that a person engaged would not be as indecisive as Obama has been. I know what i would do, I bet you even know what you would do. But, let's get back to "pretend", let's pretend that you don't get this point. Let's pretend I just make stuff up. Let's pretend the NY Times is a right-wing blog. Let's pretend that the WSJ has no credibility. Let's pretend..., please let me know what you want to pretend next, I bet it is going to be good.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ratbastid

Your powers of projection are remarkable. You should hire yourself out as a drive-in movie theater.

You've HEARD Obama be indecisive? What has he said that is indecisive? Or have you simply concluded that because he doesn't swagger like his predecessor the chimp-man?

This ineffective strategy in Afghanistan? It's what Bush had such strong damn convictions about. I know you get all hot and sweaty about Bush's convictions. So when Obama doesn't change course.... now that strategy is ineffective and he's indecisive?

Besides, Obama RAN on a promise he'd expand our engagement in Afghanistan. Now that he's doing that, that's indecision?

The lights are on over in aceland, but there's nobody home.

Derwood

No, I have NO IDEA what I'd do over there, because I'm not privy to the military intelligence and reports from the past 8 years. I'm also not qualified to formulate any such strategies, as I'm a lighting designer, not a military strategist.

You and I also don't know what Obama's plans are because, unlike his predecessor, Obama doesn't stand on the decks of aircraft carriers and announce his plans to the world. Just because you haven't "heard" his plan doesn't mean he doesn't have one

aceventura3

My powers of projection, as you put it, are simply my opinions. I gave the basis for my opinion. I also gave the views of a couple of noted journalists who may be starting to see things the way that I do.

I hear what he says. I remember what he said. I see what he does. I see what he doesn't do. I see how he prioritizes. Based on that I make my judgments. I make my judgments just as you would make yours.

I am not interested in taking the time to make this case for you. If you think he is decisive, good for you. On this question, isn't it subjective? I doubt we share the same standard.

We can not afford to have a "pussy" for President.

India, Russia to develop new hypersonic cruise missile

His convictions were about Iraq and using Iraq as the primary theater in the "war against terror", Afghanistan was a secondary front. Obama said Iraq was the wrong war and Afghanistan is the right war. If true, Obama should already know what he needs to do. Most everyone else knows you can not win a war in Afghanistan. At best, we should adopt the Biden plan.

I simply want a President who leads. I can disagree, yet follow a leader with strong convictions.

If I missed his prime time speech saying that was his plan, I owe you and Obama an apology.

Yea, that's pretty funny. Are you a professional comedian?

---------- Post added at 09:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 PM ----------

You must be joking. Are you really suggesting that you don't have an idea of what you would do? Are you that indecisive, that you need the security of "military intelligence" that has less than absolute certainty before you could form a view? Is this typical for a liberal when it comes to making decisions?

George Washington was a farmer, and then a surveyor before taking command of one of four Virginia militias.

Yea, that's funny. Are you a professional comedian?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dippin

I am not going to waste my time discussing your feelings, ace, but with regards to the apparent new threat you found with the Indo-Russian missile, you do know what 290 kilometers are, right? I mean, you do grasp what that is in miles and so on, right?

aceventura3

Do you want to discuss the issue and the potential implications as it relates to the topic or just make jokes?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Derwood

Yes, Ace, I don't know what I would do. I don't sit here in Ohio and pretend that after watching CNN and reading a few news articles a week that I have even the slightest notion of what is really going on in Afghanistan. I also don't pretend that I, as a person with zero training or education in military, political science or Middle Eastern history, am a person who can even begin to formulate such decisions.

You can frame me as "indecisive", but I prefer "realist".

Do you often make decisions about things when you have very little information?

dippin

the potential implications for American security of a missile with a 290 kilometer range developed by India and Russia? And why we need a "tough" president because of that missile? Really?

silent_jay

Secondary front? What happened to "we're gonna smoke him out"? "Dead or alive"? Remember that guy names Usama? I mean this is the country who was harbouring the guy who flew planes into buildings, and well basically made dubya more than a lame duck, and that was secondary? I mean The War Against Terror (TWAT) started in Afghanistan, how can it be secondary? Iraq wasn't even on the TWAT radar until dubya decided to go get the man who tried to "kill my daddy".

Ooo! Ooo! Mr. Kotter! 180 miles

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

aceventura3

I am simply surprised by the tone of your answer. I appreciate the issues involving being in a position of not having "perfect" information or to not be the expert who develops the minute details to execute a strategy, but to suggest that you are not capable of deciding general priorities, goals, objects, and directives to those who are the experts seems to be a cop out. I am not a carpenter or an architect but I could get a house built. Your tone suggests that you can not. Perhaps I give people too much credit.

---------- Post added at 12:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 AM ----------

It is getting boring connecting the dots for you folks. If it ain't an issue for you and Obama - I got it. Let's just say I disagree.

Europeans Ambivalent about Obama?s Retreat on Missile Defense | The Brussels Journal

---------- Post added at 12:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 AM ----------

He became a non-issue a long, long time ago. I actually think him being alive and hiding in caves like the coward he is, is better than him dead and considered a martyr.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ring

Mixed media was much more eloquent regarding this type of verbiage,
the last time it raised its ugly head.

I want this to be the last time I ever see you, or anyone else,stoop
to this type of garbage. Knock it the fuck off.

dippin

You do know that the missile defense that you are talking about is supposed to defend against ICBMs, and not short range missiles, right? In fact, if these hypersonic missiles are the wave of the future, then the whole missile defense system is pretty much useless.

And yes, I find it fucking ridiculous the idea that now is the time to have a "tough" president (whatever that means) because two nations are planning on cooperating on a short range missile. I mean, you do know that neither nation is within that sort of range from any significant US targets? Sure, if Russia really wanted I bet it could kill a few polar bears off the coast of Alaska with that, and they wouldn't even see it coming. But other than that, that missile would not even be in the top 25 weapons that the Russians have that could do damage to the US. And given India's allegiances, I doubt the US would have anything to fear from them selling it off.


Never mind that the US is much closer to completion of its hypersonic missile.

silent_jay

I have a feeling you mean he became a non issue when dubya realized finding him wasn't going to be as easy to do as it was to say. I love how the man who caused all the boo hoo in the US and flew planes into your buildings, and was/is the 'most wanted man in the world' is a non issue, jesus you Americans sure do have a short attention span.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder