The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It comes back around to what "few more entitlements today" do you want to cut?

I don't believe I've seen the line items for:

• "something I call pork because it's for a project like a park or road in another Congressional district that they don't need but I'm happy when those sort of things happen here because we need them"
• "those horrible people typically with a different color of skin who have the latest iPhone and luxury cars and use food stamps"
• "tax breaks for people richer or poorer than me who cheat on taxes or get more than I think they deserve or don't pay their fair share"
• "military hardware or personnel expenditure that is unnecessary despite the fact that I have no real military knowledge"

Those are the really popular ones every time I hear that we want to cut the budget. Never mind that most of those add up to a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. But they sure make great straw men and villains that are ruining this country!

SI

When it comes to this type of characterization of people who oppose your viewpoint, there's no room for sentient discussion. What's the point?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

And as I've said many, many times before - it's going to take a massive financial catastrophe before something is done. Nobody's going to make the hard, unpopular decisions that have to be made, until they have absolutely, positively no choice. Nobody in power has any interest in doing much beyond keeping their own side in power.

You could fix everything but medical inflation costs if the GOP would agree to some new taxes. Obama and the Dems have already agreed to some SS changes and discretionary/military cuts. They just won't agree to a plan that only includes cuts.

That fixes the short term and medium term problem. Medical inflation is the real problem in the long term, but there are signs that is slowing.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Define "catastrophe". We're already doing the slow bleed that levels these things out over time. Money will inflate and suddenly a $20T debt will have the same buying power a $10T debt did a decade ago. That's why debt as a percentage of GDP matters much more than raw numbers but $17T sounds more scary! And it will suck for all of us as wages have stagnated so that a $50K per year job buys what $25K used to.

Except that the debt has grown at about twice the rate of inflation over the last 40 years, and that includes that crazy period in the '80s when things got tough. It has grown at much, much more than twice the rate of inflation over the last few years.

Debt as a percentage of GDP is also growing at a record pace.

It is scary. We are headed for a European-style fall. Hopefully we can handle it, but typically, the gap between the richest and the poorest increases during bad times (it certainly is the last few years). The poor will feel this impending crash far more than the rich.

I don't care if comes from defense or entitlements, we need to stop borrowing so much. When we start praising Obama for proposing 800 billion in debt per year rather than 1 trillion, we've completely lost sight of the big picture.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Agree with your first paragraph sentiments. But the whole "government as a single family" analogy is so flawed - it's been covered here multiple times before, and numerous times out there on the internet - it's disingenuous at best of you to be bringing it up again.

Do you not understand that it's flawed, or are you just repeating the analogy ad nauseum in the hopes that people stop calling you on it?

That simple analogy worked just fine during the Clinton Administration, didn't it?

And really...I'm (well...they are) trying to explain the problem in layman's terms because that's all I really understand. The problem we have right now is that the politicians, who really don't understand this shit either would love nothing more than to fall back on, "It's really more complicated than that...or it's more complicated than anything you could possibly understand." Well, gee, I guess it's alright then.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You could fix everything but medical inflation costs if the GOP would agree to some new taxes. Obama and the Dems have already agreed to some SS changes and discretionary/military cuts. They just won't agree to a plan that only includes cuts.

That fixes the short term and medium term problem. Medical inflation is the real problem in the long term, but there are signs that is slowing.

Giving the government MORE money to piss down a hole is not a solution. And "changes" to SS isn't a fix. Massive overhauls to both social security and our defense policies (among other things, but the two sacred cows have to both be hit hard) are the only things that are truly going to provide long term stability. And again - a drastic shift towards financial responsibility is not a position either party has the desire to contemplate.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Giving the government MORE money to piss down a hole is not a solution. And "changes" to SS isn't a fix. Massive overhauls to both social security and our defense policies (among other things, but the two sacred cows have to both be hit hard) are the only things that are truly going to provide long term stability. And again - a drastic shift towards financial responsibility is not a position either party has the desire to contemplate.

And this is why there won't be a deal. Both sides need to give and one side won't at all.

SS doesn't need a massive overhaul. Without any changes it is scheduled to pay @80% of future commitments. I'm not a big fan, but using chained CPI solves almost all the problems. If you want to add means testing that helps.

Social Security isn't the problem, medical costs are the problem. Combating medical inflation either by reducing access or reducing reimbursements is way more of a problem than SS.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

And again - a drastic shift towards financial responsibility is not a position either party has the desire to contemplate.

And it sure seems to me like they don't because they are still scoring victories by avoiding it. They are driven by the vote vs. logic and common sense and obviously have been for a long time.

There has got be some logic built in for the regular citizen to comprehend. In California, I saw a ballot for no less than 25 additional services where we had to vote yes or no on. I believe the services noted how much it would increase the California annual budget and possibly even mentioned what the tax increase would look like, but nowhere on that ballot was there an option to defund, that's been completely removed from the citizens hands because "it's more complicated than that" and the reality is adding shit to the budget is more complicated than that too...but we need to build a process into our government that allows controls far beyond whatever controls we use today...which are all budgetary additions. That wins votes, but is driving us down this road to ultimate failure.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mike D

That simple analogy worked just fine during the Clinton Administration, didn't it?

And really...I'm (well...they are) trying to explain the problem in layman's terms because that's all I really understand. The problem we have right now is that the politicians, who really don't understand this shit either would love nothing more than to fall back on, "It's really more complicated than that...or it's more complicated than anything you could possibly understand." Well, gee, I guess it's alright then.

Nope - it didn't. It never has. I never made it then, and it was a false analogy then just as it is now.

Not trying to be a dick, but if you can't understand it in more than layman's terms then maybe you should accept that it's a more complicated problem and that other people who can understand it on a more technical level might have a better grasp of it?

It's like going to the doctor - I can have a layman's idea of what's wrong, but if the doctor comes in with his medical knowledge, well hell, I'm going to trust his opinion.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Not trying to be a dick, but if you can't understand it in more than layman's terms then maybe you should accept that it's a more complicated problem and that other people who can understand it on a more technical level might have a better grasp of it?

It's like going to the doctor - I can have a layman's idea of what's wrong, but if the doctor comes in with his medical knowledge, well hell, I'm going to trust his opinion.

I actually mostly agree with you, but if you are serious, then take away my vote as I am clearly not qualified to vote on such matters. Again, do better explaining it to 300 million people.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Nope - it didn't. It never has. I never made it then, and it was a false analogy then just as it is now.

Not trying to be a dick, but if you can't understand it in more than layman's terms then maybe you should accept that it's a more complicated problem and that other people who can understand it on a more technical level might have a better grasp of it?

It's like going to the doctor - I can have a layman's idea of what's wrong, but if the doctor comes in with his medical knowledge, well hell, I'm going to trust his opinion.

It's not like going to the doctor at all. I don't claim economics is simple either but it certainly doesn't just follow some set of rules there is a lot of unpredictable human elements in there as well. These guys often fuck everything up and then fix it and then I can't say anything because "it's to complicated to the simple layman"?

To use your doctor analogy. What if your doctor missed a disease you had back in 2007 completely but then in 2008 told you why you got the disease and now is quite certain if you don't do A, B, & C you will get the disease again. Would you want a second opinion?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mike D

I actually mostly agree with you, but if you are serious, then take away my vote as I am clearly not qualified to vote on such matters. Again, do better explaining it to 300 million people.

I agree with you - it needs to be better explained. But dumbing it down so that it's inaccurate isn't the answer. And I don't think we should take away your vote.

It's incumbent on the politicians and the media (more the media I suppose) to do that in a responsible fashion. The problem is that there's very little responsible, unbiased media left in this country, so you just get partisan spin on it from both sides.

[Dutch]

Cool. So, if you were explaining the inaccuracies of the video to a dumb guy, what would you tell them?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

... maybe you should accept that it's a more complicated problem and that other people who can understand it on a more technical level might have a better grasp of it?

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by panerd

And this analysis is about as sophisticated as an episode of Saved By the Bell.

Well, the Tea Party isn't exactly nuanced, is it?

Honestly, most of what I see from the Tea Party can be represented by my in-laws. They are in their 70s, retired, and quite comfortable. He worked in a job that paid well and matched his passion (which probably doesn't pay as well now), she left college to get married. They are from the South. They are white, deal mostly (exclusively?) with white people, and are generally wary of those of color. They live in an area with a lot of other people who fit the same description (many of which are even better off than they are).

They spend a lot of time watching CNBC (have to track their investments daily), Fox News, and the occasional John Wayne movie (or Dancing With The Stars). I'm not sure they don't still believe that Obama isn't a citizen. They're anti-gay, anti-premarital sex. They view liberals (and Obama) as an assault on Christianity.

Outside of that, they are really nice people. But, they live in their own world, with ideas that bounce around in their own non-progressive bubble which are amplified by their friends and Fox News. I think they represent typical Tea Partiers pretty well.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure they would never have watched Good Times, as it would be the opposite of everything they identify with. Poor, northern, loud, black city folk. The show choice wasn't random.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Oh, and I'm pretty sure they would never have watched Good Times, as it would be the opposite of everything they identify with.

Now I'd bet you're wrong on that one.

Call it Amos n' Andy syndrome if you like, but I'd bet overall Tea Partiers of the right age group were fans of Good Times, I know too many of 'em.

[panerd]

Sources: Senate reaches deal to end shutdown, avoid default - CNN.com

See you guys in Jan rehashing the same arguments about why January just isn't the right time to do anything about the debt/deficit? Time for massive house recall elections in November.

[Matthean]

The Empire Shuts Down - By Michael Peck | Foreign Policy

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sources: Senate reaches deal to end shutdown, avoid default - CNN.com

See you guys in Jan rehashing the same arguments about why January just isn't the right time to do anything about the debt/deficit? Time for massive house recall elections in November.

Ugh.

For the record, not a fan of fucking can-kicking.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sources: Senate reaches deal to end shutdown, avoid default - CNN.com

See you guys in Jan rehashing the same arguments about why January just isn't the right time to do anything about the debt/deficit? Time for massive house recall elections in November.

And then we'll kick it down the curb to about June/July, followed by right after the elections, etc, etc, etc.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Here's a story about what a real leader does for our country. Need more tough, loyal SOB's like this guy.......

Army Ranger believed to be unconscious salutes during Purple Heart ceremony | Fox News

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

And then we'll kick it down the curb to about June/July, followed by right after the elections, etc, etc, etc.

Yup. This is all about the midterms

SI

[JPhillips]

I'm all for a conference committee and a budget agreement, but it can't be done under the threat of default. This may be kicking the can down the road, but that's preferable to negotiating with a timebomb strapped around your waist.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Here's a story about what a real leader does for our country. Need more tough, loyal SOB's like this guy.......

Army Ranger believed to be unconscious salutes during Purple Heart ceremony | Fox News

Here I thought a leader did this...

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Here I thought a leader did this...

HOLY FUCK HE'S NOT PUTTING HIS HAND ON HIS CHEST!!!!!!

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

HOLY FUCK HE'S NOT PUTTING HIS HAND ON HIS CHEST!!!!!!

Also where is his flag pin? He doesn't love America!

[Passacaglia]

This really does trump our economic crisis. According to snopes, that picture is real, and not photoshopped or anything. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that Obama was killed by pitchfork at that Iowa steak fry in 2007, and the powers that be have been pretending he's alive, and even managed to get him elected President in the process.

[SirFozzie]

Interesting comments vis a vis the recovery and spending

High Cost to the Economy From the Fiscal Impasse - NYTimes.com

Moreover, this latest budget impasse comes after years of similar episodes, and the economic ramifications have accumulated over time, analysts say. A new Macroeconomic Advisers report, prepared for the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, estimates the costs of the fiscal uncertainty of the last few years. Its model suggested that since late 2009, that uncertainty has increased certain corporate borrowing costs by 0.38 percentage point, lowered economic growth by 0.3 percentage point a year and raised this year’s unemployment rate by 0.6 percentage point. That translates into 900,000 lost jobs.

The unusually quick pace of deficit reduction — in part because of the trillion dollars in budget cuts over a decade known as sequestration — has had a much deeper effect on growth than the relatively brief shutdown, economists said. Additional cuts would slow the economy even more, they argue.

“We are baffled by the idea that the pace of deficit reduction needs to be increased, given how rapidly the picture is improving already,” Ian Shepherdson, the chief economist of Pantheon Macroeconomics, wrote in a note to clients.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Now I'd bet you're wrong on that one.

Call it Amos n' Andy syndrome if you like, but I'd bet overall Tea Partiers of the right age group were fans of Good Times, I know too many of 'em.

Maybe overall and for those of a certain age, but probably not the case here. From what I gather, I don't think my wife's family watched any of those kinds of shows - All In the Family, Jeffersons, Good Times, Sanford. Probably not even Barney Miller or Taxi either. Too loud/northern/black/whatever. They did watch Hee Haw, though.

Reminds me of the time we were at my wife's grandmother's summer/vacation house. Nickelodeon was on for my nephews (young at the time), and they were watching Keenan and Kel. Grandma asks w/o hesitation something to the effect of "what is this nigger stuff on the tv?" I doubt she watched Good Times.

She was the one grandparent born in the north, though they'd been living in FL for ages (pretty sure she had black help for a while too).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Maybe overall and for those of a certain age, but probably not the case here.

My bad, cross communication there I think. I was referring to 'typical Tea Partiers" (of the appropriate age) generically, not to them specifically. You obviously know the specific people far better than me..

[cuervo72]

Nah, it was a good point to make. I think of them as typical, but maybe they aren't in some regards. I think they're representative of a pretty fair chunk though.

[TroyF]

Saw some guy just lose it on MSNBC. At work now so I can't link, but one of the best rants I've seen in awhile.

[sterlingice]

I'm sure it will make the social media rounds, whatever it is

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Here I thought a leader did this...

You made me do this, EagleFan.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Saw some guy just lose it on MSNBC. At work now so I can't link, but one of the best rants I've seen in awhile.

Was it this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_922855.html

This has been making the rounds again today though it is 2+ years old.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

HOLY FUCK HE'S NOT PUTTING HIS HAND ON HIS CHEST!!!!!!

HOLY FUCK HE DOESN'T EVEN SHOW RESPECT FOR THE COUNTRY HE RUNS.....

ASSHOLE

[Kodos]

Republicans leave no stone unturned in their efforts to find reasons to hate Obama.

[RainMaker]

HE USES A MUSTARD MADE IN FRANCE ON HIS BURGERS TOO

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Giving the government MORE money to piss down a hole is not a solution. And "changes" to SS isn't a fix. Massive overhauls to both social security and our defense policies (among other things, but the two sacred cows have to both be hit hard) are the only things that are truly going to provide long term stability. And again - a drastic shift towards financial responsibility is not a position either party has the desire to contemplate.

I agree there needs to be some overhauls to things. But we are currently making money on our new debt so it's not a huge issue.

[Edward64]

Going to love listening to the analysis by the talking heads over the next several days. Jan will be painful but at least no drama for Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Boehner urges House GOP to support Senate deal - CNN.com

Senate leaders on Wednesday announced a deal to end the partial government shutdown and avoid a possible U.S. default, and House Speaker John Boehner urged fellow Republicans to support it while a key GOP conservative said he wouldn't try to block it in the Senate.

"We fought the good fight; we just didn't win," Boehner told a radio station in his home state of Ohio in reference to GOP efforts to dismantle or defund President Barack Obama's signature health care reforms and extract deficit reduction concessions around the need to fund the government and raise the federal borrowing limit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Republicans leave no stone unturned in their efforts to find reasons to hate Obama.

You say that as though there's a need to do anything more than listen to him. Heck, you can hate him with your eyes closed.

[Buccaneer]

So all the Democrats agreed to was to have more lip-service debt committees? Do you think they would fight to pass a budget that would be lower than last year's and fight to overhaul tax codes, entitlements and department budgets? Me neither.

[SirFozzie]

That's why the Democrats had the CR expire 1/15, the second round of Sequestration kicks in, and they want to fight with 986 billion as status quo, not twenty billion less

[RainMaker]

McConnell-Reid Deal Includes $2 Billion Earmark for Kentucky Project | WFPL

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

McConnell-Reid Deal Includes $2 Billion Earmark for Kentucky Project | WFPL

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

McConnell-Reid Deal Includes $2 Billion Earmark for Kentucky Project | WFPL

Finally! We're getting back to business as usual!

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

If somebody sees the final Senate roll call vote, post a link.

I'll assume Sellout Sax did his usual thing, assuming Isaakson did as well but haven't seen the actual vote tally yet.

edit to add: found it myself moments later
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00219

[PilotMan]

To be fair, it seems that the Dam Deal was done in a bipartisan way to avoid losing 160 million in Taxpayer money.

A statement from Sen. Alexander's office to BuzzFeed says the language was added to prevent funding from being canceled.

"According to the Army Corps of Engineers, 160 million taxpayer dollars will be wasted because of canceled contracts if this language is not included. Sen. [Diane] Feinstein and I, as chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, requested this provision. It has already been approved this year by the House and Senate."

[JonInMiddleGA]

And to be thorough, the McConnell sell out story was broken (at least the version I've seen hitting FB tonight) by the NPR affiliate in Louisville, not exactly known for being a paragon of staunch right-wing propaganda.

[Thomkal]

Ted Cruz was a Nay on the vote, shocking!

[Izulde]

No surprise to see assholes Dean Heller (Tea Partier in all but official affiliation) and Ron Johnson (Tea Partier through and through) vote No. Thankfully Reid and Baldwin are there to counteract those fuckwits' idiocy in terms of representing the states I've lived in the longest.