Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

So called Obamacare is, at its core, a Republican idea. No?

 

Business doesn't create demand if the consumer market doesn't have the spending power to buy. It doesn't spur economic growth until there are consumers to purchase its goods and services. Simply investing and increasing production of either existing products or new products is worthless to the economy and detrimental to businesses if the new inventory or homes or cars or whatever don't have consumers with the money to access them.

How do you not get the logic behind that?

Just because you might be flush with cash and hunting around for some new high tech gadget to blow it on does not mean every one is in your fortunate position. In case you haven't noticed, there's still a whole lot of people out of work and many more who are working but stretched to the bone financially.

That's why US business catering to the US consumer market is not investing. It's aware that the demand is inadequate to warrant further expansion of production or new purchases of equipment or maintaining surplus inventory or new building or new hiring.

Now there may be a bit of skittishness over what future changes the government might make, but after 4 years, that excuse is wearing thin as a sole reason for a failure to invest more. Which is not to say there hasn't been a marked increase in investments and an overall improvement in the economy.

Your logic is thawed.

We need more jobs. The private sector cannot provide them unless we give them a reason to.

The government is the only entity with the means of putting people to work until the balance has shifted to the point where consumers are demanding more products and services and business can ramp up and hire to meet that demand.
--- merged: Feb 28, 2013 at 9:49 PM ---

Are you suggesting that the government should force lenders to loosen their purse strings in an economy where there is so much income uncertainty in the middle class? Isn't that one of the reasons we've ended up where we are?

 

If 90% or more are going to get reelected can you explain the significance of the poll you cite?

Obama won the election. Public support of his agenda is now secondary. In order to get his agenda put into law, he needs Congress. It appears this is lost on the President, many in the media and it appears that you don't get it either.

We need a President who can get things done - being liked, having high approval, having a nice smile, a wonderful wife or whatever is not important. A person can even be 100% right and that can be secondary to getting things done. I ride a motorcycle and prior to every ride I remind myself that it doesn't matter if my actions are "right" if I am in a collision with an 18 wheel truck - I need to avoid the collision with the truck - period.
--- merged: Mar 1, 2013 at 11:53 AM ---

Consumer spending is up.

Consumer Spending in U.S. Climbs Even as Taxes Hurt Incomes - Businessweek

I am going to assume, I have not looked up the data, that consumer spending is higher today than it was when Obama took office. Your premise on consumer spending has a weakness - can you or your favorite economist address this weakness.

Government regulators establish the rules - the regulators have made it more difficult for lenders to lend and borrowers to borrow. From the housing crisis we went from one extreme of lending standards being to lax to now lending standards being too tight. There needs to be balance. Currently the only people who qualify for mortgages have to be close to a "perfect risk".
--- merged: Mar 1, 2013 at 11:59 AM ---

Yes. The problem with the legislation is that it is a hybrid-like piecemeal solution without a clear focus. The primary principle is that we have a system with 100% participation or as close as we can get. This is best accomplished through real free market reform or a single payer system. Obama-care is neither.

 

We also need a Congress willing to compromise. I get that, as does the American public.

Tea Party, "no compromise" Republicans may continue to get elected in heavy red districts and make this more difficult, although they lost seats in both the House and Senate last year.

The other way around the dysfunction is a Speaker who will ignore the so-called Hastert (former Republican speaker) that requires the support of the majority of the majority party before bringing a bill to the floor.

I applaud Boehner for ignoring the "rule" on three occasions now and marginalizing the extremist (no compromise crowd) in his party- the fiscal cliff, Sandy relief, and just yesterday, the Violence Against Women Act, all of which had less then majority support from his own party, but did have bi-partisan support.

 

What Obama needs is a Congress who will compromise, "willing" is not important. The President is not capable of getting his opposition to "yes". Again, I say a person capable of getting his opposition to "yes" must start with some form of respect for the opposition. What Obama does is cause his opposition to stand firm, stand in defiance against what he wants. Do you see that?

The Tea Party is not Obama's problem. There are enough moderate Republicans who will work with the President. I repeatedly point out to you that falsely characterizing moderates as extremists is a mistake.

Boehner is a person willing to compromise and if Obama burned that bridge, whose fault is it? Who needs to fix it?

Pick a position. Is Boehner controlled by the extreme in the party or not? Perhaps the first step is for Obama to positively acknowledge Boehner. I remember when Bush was President and you folks constantly talked about diplomacy, was all that B.S.? Obama can make gestures towards the Arab community to make up for past US errors but he can't do that with Boehner? Why?

 

The dysfunctional Congress has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the Tea Party.

The American people, for the most part, have had enough of the Tea Party. The problem for sitting Republicans is that any show of compromise will result in a challenge from the extreme right.

 

A little historical perspective leading to where we are today:

But it is Obama's fault.

 

Both parties have compromise plans that result in the same debt reduction.

The Democratic plan would replace the sequester cuts by primarily cutting farm subsidies, oil subsidies, and defense funding (but much less than the sequester) and eliminating some corporate tax loopholes and tax loopholes for millionaires (Buffet rule).

The Republican plan would eliminate the sequester cuts for defense entirely and replace it with additional cuts in domestic programs (food stamps being hit the hardest) and eliminating funding for Affordable Care Act.

Which do you think has more public support?

 

It depends on if you think it is "stealing from the American people" to close tax loopholes on the wealthiest one percent that, even with the recent tax rate rollback to pre-Bush rates, still have a lower effective tax rate than their employees.

Boehner: "How much more money do we want to steal from the American people to fund more government? I'm for no more."​

 

Here is a quote from the article you cited:

[quote]You're dubbed a closet liberal or "Republican in name only" (Rino) by friends on the right, and you're called intolerant, confused or "in bed with Rush Limbaugh" by friends on the left. Worst of all, a moderate's pragmatic streak is often mistaken for having no political ideology at all.[/quote]

Assuming they will never get any "love" from people like me, why wouldn't you and people like you show them some "love"? Get them on your side and you have control.
--- merged: Mar 4, 2013 at 2:08 PM ---

Here is what Obama is at fault for - who knows what his real goals are? Do you? what does he want - increased revenues or increased tax rates? If we can get him increased revenues will he be satisfied?
--- merged: Mar 4, 2013 at 2:11 PM ---

Boehner has been emphasizing the point that the House has passed actual legislation but that the Senate has not. Theoretical plans are worthless.

 

--- merged: Mar 4, 2013 at 2:11 PM ---

The magic "supply side" bean doesnt produce beanstalks, prosperity or additional revenue.

The detailed Senate Democratic plan had the votes to pass, just not the supermajority needed to end Republican blocking a final vote.

The House legislation was passed last session and simply replaced all proposed defense cuts with cuts in domestic programs. Hardly a step towards compromise.[/quote]