The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[nol]

But if everyone on 'the left' was more concerned with being correct rather than enacting policy goals, why were those programs not couched in terms of helping the poor?

If you think John Oliver is driving political discourse, especially on 'the left' (I doubt his ratings are that high, and the only clips of him I've seen were against Trump, FIFA, the NCAA, and televangelists, all of which were shared by Republicans despite my Facebook friends being probably 3:1 Democrats) you could be pretty far down an academic/wonkish rabbit hole or just spending too much time on Reddit. Same with Sanders/Trump supporters; at that point it's down to 10 percent of some minority of people who actually voted in primaries.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by nol

But if everyone on 'the left' was more concerned with being correct rather than enacting policy goals, why were those programs not couched in terms of helping the poor?

Huh? It's exactly because of a 'correct' mentality the poor are being told they are too stupid to realize that these programs benefit them (I think especially with things like the ACA, Democrats did a REALLY bad job of making the case for it especially in moral terms - the article discusses this lack of public defense when it came to states that didn't expand Medicare).

A lot of these programs were focused on middle class people because you aren't really going to be doing a lot of stuff for people who despise you.

I'm actually happy SCHIP is coming back into the conversation, but it's mostly because people attacked Hillary Clinton on her accomplishments and that's her biggest one... and definitely one that was directly focused to benefit the working poor.

If you think John Oliver is driving political discourse, especially on 'the left' (I doubt his ratings are that high, and the only clips of him I've seen were against Trump, FIFA, the NCAA, and televangelists, all of which were shared by Republicans despite my Facebook friends being probably 3:1 Democrats) you could be pretty far down an academic/wonkish rabbit hole or just spending too much time on Reddit. Same with Sanders/Trump supporters; at that point it's down to 10 percent of some minority of people who actually voted in primaries.

Jon Stewart, not Oliver. And for many years, Stewart was the prophet to these look-down-your-nose liberals.

[JPhillips]

Everything is focused on the middle class because programs for the poor are extremely unpopular. If the ACA were sold as an anti-poverty program half of the spineless Dems in the Senate would have bailed.

[nol]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Huh? It's exactly because of a 'correct' mentality the poor are being told they are too stupid to realize that these programs benefit them (I think especially with things like the ACA, Democrats did a REALLY bad job of making the case for it especially in moral terms - the article discusses this lack of public defense when it came to states that didn't expand Medicare).

No, it's because of the effectiveness of which 'helping the poor' can be transmuted to 'helping Shaniqua, who has 5 kids with 5 different men, buy a new iPhone while she doesn't even have to look for a job.' That Democratic politicans attempt to circumvent that entirely by focusing on the middle class rather than simply stating the facts of who benefits from welfare programs, how often these programs are actually 'cheated,' etc., is the definition of being pragmatic rather than insisting on being correct.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Jon Stewart, not Oliver. And for many years, Stewart was the prophet to these look-down-your-nose liberals.

So to fewer than 1 percent of the electorate, and that's assuming that every single person who watched that show was expecting it to be some driving force for political change rather than just some goofy TV show that one would watch as a distraction from 'real life' just as one watches sports, the Food Network, or about any other thing on cable TV.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by nol

No, it's because of the effectiveness of which 'helping the poor' can be transmuted to 'helping Shaniqua, who has 5 kids with 5 different men, buy a new iPhone while she doesn't even have to look for a job.'

Is that why Tea Party folks were so adamant that they keep their Medicare and Social Security?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Is that why Tea Party folks were so adamant that they keep their Medicare and Social Security?

Come on, now. I know you're aware that folks think of those as "earned" benefits rather than welfare.

edit: People believe they worked all their lives to earn those benefits while welfare recipients don't work and just get handouts from the government.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Come on, now. I know you're aware that folks think of those as "earned" benefits rather than welfare.

edit: People believe they worked all their lives to earn those benefits while welfare recipients don't work and just get handouts from the government.

Medicare is paid through the same tax mechanism that fund unemployment insurance, of course. And expansion of Medicare, therefore, should also fall under the "I've earned that" rubric.

I think we've ALL seen poll numbers that indicate white working class people will actually support progressive policies on opinion surveys. An example of that is raising the minimum wage actually receives quite a bit of support from the white working class - and that does benefit the poor. And at the same time, doesn't crater support in the middle class.

For example, this is a fantastic article from last year in the Washington Monthly that touches on this phenomenon:

Undermining the GOP’s White Working Class “Base:” Levison on Progressive Strategies for the Conservative Heartland by Ed Kilgore | Political Animal | The Washington Monthly

[JPhillips]

Sure, but it can't be sold as primarily benefiting the poor. Poor people don't vote, and the working and middle classes are very much opposed to benefits for the poor. That's why everything is sold as benefiting the middle class.

I think there's room for a big set of proposals to benefit the working class, higher minimum wage, increased overtime, etc. Basically policies that build on the idea that full time workers shouldn't live in poverty. But the Dems don't stand for anything, so, oh well.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sure, but it can't be sold as primarily benefiting the poor. Poor people don't vote, and the working and middle classes are very much opposed to benefits for the poor. That's why everything is sold as benefiting the middle class.

I think there's room for a big set of proposals to benefit the working class, higher minimum wage, increased overtime, etc. Basically policies that build on the idea that full time workers shouldn't live in poverty. But the Dems don't stand for anything, so, oh well.

I think your last paragraph here encapsulates it somewhat. There are proposals that the Democrats can, and in the past would have, advance that would benefit the working class and working poor, by selling it in the way that you have - "full time workers shouldn't live in poverty". The party isn't necessarily making that case, or is kind of using it as "and also we should" as opposed to standing up and promoting it and saying why they should promote it.

Maybe it's starting to change? This election seems like it could bring about quite a bit of realignment... but... maybe not?

[nol]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think your last paragraph here encapsulates it somewhat. There are proposals that the Democrats can, and in the past would have, advance that would benefit the working class and working poor, by selling it in the way that you have - "full time workers shouldn't live in poverty". The party isn't necessarily making that case, or is kind of using it as "and also we should" as opposed to standing up and promoting it and saying why they should promote it.

Maybe it's starting to change? This election seems like it could bring about quite a bit of realignment... but... maybe not?

In reality, empathy doesn't go that far and "Full time workers should not have to live in poverty" quickly takes a back seat to "I make $15/hr and you think some burger flipper should be getting paid as much as me!?"

[ISiddiqui]

It goes a whole Hell of a lot further than calling someone too stupid to know what is best for them.

[ISiddiqui]

And you now, what... Actually I think it would go quite far. Because when you propose a policy, those you are intending to help don't so mistrust you that they instinctively wonder how you are trying to screw them over by it.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by nol

In reality, empathy doesn't go that far and "Full time workers should not have to live in poverty" quickly takes a back seat to "I make $15/hr and you think some burger flipper should be getting paid as much as me!?"

True....which is why it may need to be pointed out to the $15/hr worker that they are, in fact, the working poor.

[nol]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It goes a whole Hell of a lot further than calling someone too stupid to know what is best for them.

What does that have to do with your perception that Democratic politicians haven't been strong enough in advocating for a higher minimum wage? That's another issue you've cited where elected officials, regardless of whatever their true beliefs may be, have decided to not go against the status quo because it's a non-starter at best, and more likely political suicide unless they are running in the bluest of areas. Once again, that's the antithesis of caring about being right at all costs.

There is almost zero overlap with this idea of an ivory tower, Daily Show-watching liberal and someone who actually runs for office and tries to set policy goals.

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

True....which is why it may need to be pointed out to the $15/hr worker that they are, in fact, the working poor.

Yeah, and as illustrated, making that point is tantamount to 'you're telling people they're too stupid to realize what their own economic interests are.'

[ISiddiqui]

I am not entirely sure you understand what the being correct over all actually means. It's the concept of there being a correct notion and those who don't accept that notion are just too stupid to get it.

And FWIW, raising the min wage actually scores quite well with the white working class in polling. But they aren't going to trust you if they feel you are talking down to them or don't respect them.

And you may not think there is an overlap between the Daily Show liberal and the politician (I don't think that is the case at all, btw, though it may not be a majority of Dem pols, so let's go with it for this sake), but white working class folks sure do know about the contempt and the ridicule. I mean, it wasn't just the Daily Show that mocked Kim Davis for her looks or multiple marriages. Some mainstream press was definitely involved and white working class folks definitely noticed.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

My wife is from Rowan county and I went to school there. Even the working class folks of Morehead have a distaste for Kim Davis. She basically inherited the office from her mother and isn't seen as a courageous truth teller, but as a glory seeking publicity hound. SHe makes more than double the median wage in the county and hires her family where she's legally able.

The people that support her aren't going to vote for Dems because they see social issues as more important than economic issues. You can present all the economic policy papers you want and they'll still vote for the pro-life candidate every time.

[nol]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I am not entirely sure you understand what the being correct over all actually means. It's the concept of there being a correct notion and those who don't accept that notion are just too stupid to get it.

I understand that crystal clear, and that is not something a politician does, at least not one who stays in the game long enough to have a say in the party's overall strategy. A politician operating under such a worldview would propose a minimum wage bill based on the merits of how it would help the working poor and then say "well, I tried, but these idiots just keep shooting themselves in the foot" after the bill was crushed under opposition from Republicans elected by working-class whites; instead, as you described, the opposite tends to happen (which then leads to blowback from the other extreme chastising them for hating the poor and making everything about the middle class). So, who are the politicians who have operated under this assumption and are to blame for the Dems losing the white working class vote over the last 50-ish years? Honestly curious.

You have focused on those who are reportedly going to switch from Sanders to Trump if Clinton is nominated. Assuming that everybody who announced that intent would actually do so, this is something like 0.1% of the electorate. These voters would be predominantly be union employees who feel as though both parties have sold their jobs overseas out for a quick buck for too long and that Trump qualifies as more anti-establishment than Clinton (otherwise, if the purported liberal smugness were so pervasive and toxic these voters would already be Trump supporters). Anything beyond that is such a small number as to be entirely inconsequential.

And FWIW, raising the min wage actually scores quite well with the white working class in polling. But they aren't going to trust you if they feel you are talking down to them or don't respect them.

FWIW, closing background check loopholes scores quite well with gun owners in polling, but when something's actually on the table there's plenty of advance warning to sound the "slippery slope next they're coming for all the guns!" alarm and it has no chance of passing, regardless of what one's intentions were going in. That's the exact same thing that would happen in the context of raising the minimum wage.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

. I mean, it wasn't just the Daily Show that mocked Kim Davis for her looks or multiple marriages. Some mainstream press was definitely involved and white working class folks definitely noticed.

I could not pick Kim Davis out of a police lineup, but are you seriously implying it's considered out of bounds to mock the hypocrisy of someone who's been divorced multiple times claiming Biblical grounds for not allowing gay people to get married? The divorces are pretty relevant information to that story.

[ISiddiqui]

I think you are making my point for me. They are afraid of the slippery slope because they don't trust the people making the proposal. They don't believe that is where they will halt, even if those politicians say so. Because they feel those pols don't respect them and think they are rubes (you know the whole "Only Nixon could go to China" in a way)

In addition, I don't think Democratic politicians are saying those people are rubes and can't decide, but like the Republican politicians they have code words ("Wrong side of history" is one of the most popular on the Dem side). You can, and people generally do, get to what is behind the deniable carefully chosen words of the politicians by bringing up the example of each side's id. For the GOP, lots of people point to what is being said on talk radio and FOX news as being what is really behind Republican politicians. Why is there such pushback in looking at what is behind Dems (The Daily Show, Air America, etc)?

And once again, no one said the smug attitudes have led to the leaving of the working class whites. Rather the other way around. Why do you perpetuate this thing no one has really said?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[nol]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And once again, no one said the smug attitudes have led to the leaving of the working class whites. Rather the other way around. Why do you perpetuate this thing no one has really said?

That's why I provided that initial example. You described it as an ineffectual way of letting off steam adopted by people who are taking the 'easy way out' compared to, I suppose, quitting one's day job to go door-to-door trying to win over hearts and minds.

Kim Davis took the easy way out by doing what she did rather than using her own free time to try preaching the word of God to every gay person she encountered in hopes they'd change their lifestyle. Destroying property is also taking the easy way out compared to engaging in the political process.

I could accuse you of condescension for assuming that people are not aware of the idea that if they do a good enough job of convincing everyone, they can determine the laws everyone has to follow. People are smart enough to know this and still take the easy way out because it's easier.

So, of all the different ways one can take the easy way out, laughing at people for being stupid and providing specific examples of their stupidity (to the extent this actually does happen rather the much more common response of apathy or fatigue to the vast amount of dumb things people can and will do) is actually legal and does much less harm than the alternatives.

Note, he does not say that the right is any less wrong, but that their wrongness is based on incorrect morals or policy decision making, rather than lack of intelligence. I recall him sending a tweet which basically said something like the KKK is a product of people of ordinary intelligence who are morally vile and evil people, rather than rubes who don't know better.

Yeah, so this completely flies in the face of common sense and social science (Milgram experiment, Stanford prison experiment).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

His main point being that by being smug, thinking the white working class is just dumb, IS distracting the left from looking at the causes of abandonment. Instead of looking at moral or policy questions, too many on the left simply think well, they are just rubes.

To a certain extent. But a lot of these programs are, as you are well aware, couched in terms of "helping the middle class". It is as if the entire political discourse has been wondering what the middle class are going to be happy with.

If the white working class poor are as smart as Rensin argues, then they should have no problem recognizing that Medicaid expansion helps them, despite how it was sold. You can't have it both ways. Either the poor white working class are too dumb to recognize which programs and policies demonstrably aid them, or they are smart and absolutely can and reject those programs for other issues at the ballot box (as JPhillips provides the example).

I'm sure you have also seen the strange phenomenon of Sanders supporters whose second choice is Trump. Part of it, I think, is the idea that Trump doesn't belong to a group that talks down to poor white working class voters

The thing both Trump & Sanders have in common is the extent to which they pander to their supporters by promising them things that not only can they not deliver, but frankly they probably know they can't deliver. If this is what "not talking down to poor working-class whites" is then I have a hard time seeing how it's a virtue.

And again, from his tweets Rensin is a far-left, young, Sanders supporter. He doesn't want to be told that the policies he supports are not currently politically feasible. He interprets this as (a part of) "smug". He, just like the poor working-class whites he's championing (who, by the way, aren't going to take a break from listening to Rush Limbaugh to read his essay), aren't interested in engaging in an actual dialogue on realistic policy and ways to achieve it. And perhaps that, not smugness, is the real problem here. Smugness is just the final result of the exasperation of those on the other side of the dialogue that isn't happening.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Medicare is paid through the same tax mechanism that fund unemployment insurance, of course. And expansion of Medicare, therefore, should also fall under the "I've earned that" rubric.

You're conflating Medicare with Medicaid. As you know, it was the latter that was expanded under the ACA. To the people we're talking about Medicare is "earned" while Medicaid is "welfare".

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

For the GOP, lots of people point to what is being said on talk radio and FOX news as being what is really behind Republican politicians. Why is there such pushback in looking at what is behind Dems (The Daily Show, Air America, etc)?

Because the GOP id attacks people for things they can't change or can't change easily (race, sexual preference, religion, etc...) while the Democratic id attacks people for things they can (turn off Fox News for a moment and read an article with actual cited sources).

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Because the GOP id attacks people for things they can't change or can't change easily (race, sexual preference, religion, etc...) while the Democratic id attacks people for things they can (turn off Fox News for a moment and read an article with actual cited sources).

And people say Dems are smug, I can't imagine where they get that from. Wonderful observation with absolutely no generalization involved sir

[flere-imsaho]

Of course I'm generalizing.

[nol]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

And people say Dems are smug, I can't imagine where they get that from. Wonderful observation with absolutely no generalization involved sir

Wait, do you think the id is referring to something that does not generalize?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If the white working class poor are as smart as Rensin argues, then they should have no problem recognizing that Medicaid expansion helps them, despite how it was sold. You can't have it both ways. Either the poor white working class are too dumb to recognize which programs and policies demonstrably aid them, or they are smart and absolutely can and reject those programs for other issues at the ballot box (as JPhillips provides the example).

As if Democratic voters don't have difficulty identifying programs that help them when offered by the "other side" (as in free trade... granted, I may have in the past indicated that people who oppose free trade are dumb, but that wasn't exactly the best way to win those people over - I try not to do that anymore). We know of plenty of examples where people will support things when done by their party, but will oppose them when the exact same thing is proposed by the opposite party. Part of that is no doubt tribalism, but part of that may be lack of trust for the intentions of the other side...

If only we had an example of white working class people whose state granted Medicaid expansion and then had to deal with a future Governor who proposed taking it away to see if the experience changed their minds on the issue... Oh wait... we do!

Poll: Majority in Kentucky want to keep Medicaid expansion | TheHill

A poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that 72 percent of Kentucky residents want to leave the Medicaid expansion unchanged. Just 20 percent want to scale it back so that fewer people are covered.

I can guarantee you the numbers were not close to as high as when Gov. Beshear and the Kentucky legislature expanded Medicaid.

Smugness is just the final result of the exasperation of those on the other side of the dialogue that isn't happening.

Think about the last time you were having a dialogue with someone who frustrated you because you think they weren't getting it or weren't interested in dialogue. Did being smug over that person do anything positive? Did it help matters at all?

I pointed it out before, but we have people on FOFC who seemingly don't "[engage] in an actual dialogue on realistic policy and ways to achieve it". Does being smug to them actually result in anything worthwhile. Heck, I find when I step away from things for a second, I can sometimes have a worth while conversation with some of those folks and we can even agree on certain things.

You're conflating Medicare with Medicaid. As you know, it was the latter that was expanded under the ACA. To the people we're talking about Medicare is "earned" while Medicaid is "welfare".

You're right. My mistake - was probably responding very quickly and didn't think it through well enough.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You're right. My mistake - was probably responding very quickly and didn't think it through well enough.

Sorry, I didn't mean this as a jab, actually. I was pressed for time and responded quickly. I figured you actually knew the difference and mis-typed, similarly pressed for time.

The rest of your post is worth responding to, but when I have more time. There is, honestly, a lot lot more worth delving into here, even if I'm increasingly of the opinion that the original piece (Rensin's, not yours) is a thinly-veiled concern troll from a Sanders supporter towards the rest of us. Your commentary, to be specific, is what's worth responding to, and I do feel there's a lot to discuss there, especially when we consider the future of Generation X progressives.

Also, because I am smug: Bernie Sanders explains his primary losses: 'Poor people don't vote' | US news | The Guardian

[ISiddiqui]

I don't really believe Rensin is doing some trolling Sanders push - I mean its Vox, which every Sanders supporter apparently believes is in the bag for Clinton anyways. Also trolling posts don't run into 7,000 words. And from what I gather from Twitter, Rensin is a socialist who thinks Sanders is "ok" at best, hence the incrementalist comment. Anyways, who he is and what he may believe is not important (it's slightly ad hominem) - what he says is the interesting part.

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones basically embraces what Rensin is saying, but restates it, saying Liberals (himself included) aren't smug, they are condescending:

Are Liberals Too Smug? Nah, We're Too Condescending. | Mother Jones

[Edward64]

Cute. Not a presidential thing to do (IMO) but its for a good cause and with friends.

The Obamas Trade Escalating Twitter Threats With Prince Harry And Queen Elizabeth II

Relations between the British royal family and the American royal family president and first lady of the United States are cordial. Friendly, even. They pose for photos, have dinner parties together, and share similar views surrounding mental health awareness. They even touch.

Or they used to, that is.

Everything changed Friday thanks to a scathing* Twitter war regarding the upcoming Invictus Games, an Olympics-style sporting competition founded by Prince Harry in 2014 for wounded, injured and sick servicemen and women. This spat has the potential to cause a rift in relations as large as the pond that separates these two nations.

It all started with a threat from Michelle Obama, who grabbed her husband, put on her best tough guy face and sent Prince Harry a bone-chilling message:

[albionmoonlight]

For the white working class, having had their morals roundly mocked, their religion deemed primitive, and their economic prospects decimated, now find their very gender and race, indeed the very way they talk about reality, described as a kind of problem for the nation to overcome. This is just one aspect of what Trump has masterfully signaled as “political correctness” run amok, or what might be better described as the newly rigid progressive passion for racial and sexual equality of outcome, rather than the liberal aspiration to mere equality of opportunity.

--Andrew Sullivan's new piece.

This seems to me to get to the core of a lot of the right-wing anger that liberals are having trouble understanding.

[flere-imsaho]

Link?

[albionmoonlight]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ald-trump.html

[PilotMan]

For the white working class, having had their morals roundly mocked, their religion deemed primitive, and their economic prospects decimated, now find their very gender and race, indeed the very way they talk about reality, described as a kind of problem for the nation to overcome. This is just one aspect of what Trump has masterfully signaled as “political correctness” run amok, or what might be better described as the newly rigid progressive passion for racial and sexual equality of outcome, rather than the liberal aspiration to mere equality of opportunity. --
--Andrew Sullivan's new piece.

This seems to me to get to the core of a lot of the right-wing anger that liberals are having trouble understanding.

---

First off, this entire quote is a bullshit, over-generalization. To say that conservatives get to corner the market on the "white, working class is beyond disingenuous and insulting to the masses that aren't conservative, and yet still, white, working class.

The quote goes on to now throw in attacks on the religion, race, gender, that they've had their jobs usurped from them because of the influx of cheap, liberal supported, illegal immigrant labor. He might have thrown in the actual slaughter of the puppies of white, working class children.

it's hard to argue that equality of opportunity is even a thing that this conservative writer even cares about after conservative lawmakers have put the screws voting and women's health services in state governments.

[Dutch]

That's a conservative writer? If so, he clearly doesn't see Trump among his numbers!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

it's hard to argue that equality of opportunity is even a thing that this conservative writer even cares about after conservative lawmakers have put the screws voting and women's health services in state governments.

Have you met Andrew Sullivan?

I mean at some point, he may have considered himself a Conservative (well, I guess he still does in the Oakshott, Burkean way), but he fits in more with the Conservative Party in his old home in Great Britain than he does with the Republican Party.

[PilotMan]

You guys are missing the point. The fact still stands that the over generalizations and the swiping of wide groups into neat, little pockets of homogeneity, completely undermines the argument that liberals now have a war against the white, working class.

[ISiddiqui]

Over-generalizations based on exit polling, of course. Just because it is an over generalization doesn't mean it isn't based on factual observations.

[Edward64]

Although results of Obama's foreign policy overall is not as good as I would have liked it to be, he keeps on killing senior level terrorists.

Not sure if this helps or hurts (e.g. devil you know) and ISIL has replaced AQ to be the preeminent radical Islamic terrorist group anyway.

Taliban leader Mullah Mansour likely killed in airstrike, U.S. officials say - CNNPolitics.com

Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour was likely killed in an airstrike in Pakistan on Saturday, two U.S. officials told CNN.

One of the officials said the strike occurred around 6 a.m. ET Saturday morning in a remote area of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, southwest of the town of Ahmad Wal.

Mansour was the target of the strike, and a second adult male combatant traveling with him in a vehicle also was likely killed, the official added.
U.S. officials are still assessing the results, the official said. The second source, a senior administration official, said it would likely take days to get "physical confirmation" because of the remote location.

Afghan officials confirmed the killing. President Abdullah Abdullah tweeted that Mansour was the victim of a drone strike that targeted his car in the Dahl Bandin area of Quetta in Pakistan.

[Edward64]

I guess part of Obama's legacy is now somewhat dependent if Hillary gets elected and how well she does in the first 2-4 years.

I've looked but haven't found a nice summarized grid of how Hillary differs from Obama but suspect more left on domestic and more right on foreign policies.

[PilotMan]

Without a doubt much more hawkish than Obama.

My biggest question is will she pursue business friendly agendas and deregulation like her husband did that lead to the housing crash or will she make her own path in a different direction?

I guess that probably depends on Congress and how much power they have at the time.

[Thomkal]

only took them nearly the entirety of Obams's Presidency to come up with their own healthcare plan:

Republicans Release Alternative to Obamacare - NBC News

[PilotMan]

In the meantime...

The US is spending trillions less than expected on health care — and uninsured rates are at an all-time low - Vox

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

In the meantime...

The US is spending trillions less than expected on health care — and uninsured rates are at an all-time low - Vox

"Only" $21T? Instead of the doomsday scenario of $23T. So it will cost only 10 Iraq Wars instead of 11. Sweet!

But I do appreciate the well crafted "Spending trillions less" headline. Isnt that a core component of a sales pitch? Under promise and over deliver? Gotcha, hook, line and sinker.

[Edward64]

I don't disagree there needs to be immigration reform but am okay with this. Hillary will just have to pick up where he left off.

BTW - Hispanic supporters of reform or anti-Trump Wall shouldn't be waving the Mexican flag.

Supreme Court puts Obama immigration legacy on the ballot - CNNPolitics.com

The court's deadlocked ruling Thursday that effectively blocks Barack Obama's controversial executive actions on immigration, sent convulsions through the 2016 election campaign, dealt a shattering blow to the President's legacy and suddenly left four million undocumented people fearing deportation.
:
Obama took his own steps in 2012, allowing some young undocumented immigrants to remain the country on certain conditions. The move was popular among activists, and helped him win by a large margin among Latinos in his re-election bid.

But the next year, a bipartisan measure which seemed to have the best chances of succeeding in Congress died in the House after having passed the Senate with a healthy bipartisan margin.

Frustrated with congressional inaction, Obama made a bold second-term decision to forge his own way forward.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't disagree there needs to be immigration reform but am okay with this. Hillary will just have to pick up where he left off.

BTW - Hispanic supporters of reform or anti-Trump Wall shouldn't be waving the Mexican flag.

Supreme Court puts Obama immigration legacy on the ballot - CNNPolitics.com

Especially when you're burning the American one

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

"Only" $21T? Instead of the doomsday scenario of $23T. So it will cost only 10 Iraq Wars instead of 11. Sweet!

But I do appreciate the well crafted "Spending trillions less" headline. Isnt that a core component of a sales pitch? Under promise and over deliver? Gotcha, hook, line and sinker.

You respond like it went from 0 to 21T just because of ACA. Look at it anyway you want. It's been a success, and a massive success next to the fears that were stoked after it was passed.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Dutch

"Only" $21T? Instead of the doomsday scenario of $23T. So it will cost only 10 Iraq Wars instead of 11. Sweet!

But I do appreciate the well crafted "Spending trillions less" headline. Isnt that a core component of a sales pitch? Under promise and over deliver? Gotcha, hook, line and sinker.

It's also 2.1 trillion less than was forecasted without Obamacare.

[CraigSca]

So far. The crap hits the fan in the coming years. I know my company just let us know that they're raising our rates due to the "Cadillac tax" next year. As wells as the large increase in rates for straight up Obamacare...

[cuervo72]

About That Cadillac Tax

About That Cadillac Tax

Jeff Lemieux and Chad Moutray

April 25, 2016
Blog_Capitol 2

In December 2015, Congress delayed implementation of the so-called Cadillac tax, a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost employer health benefit plans. Now scheduled to be implemented in 2020, the Cadillac tax would effectively cap the current tax exclusion for employer health benefits. By excluding health benefits from taxable incomes, the current tax break creates incentives for employers to pay more of employees’ compensation via health benefits instead of taxable wages, possibly leading to overuse of health care services and driving up health costs.

So wait, they're raising your rates now because of the Cadillac tax?

(Plus, it seems like the whole point of that tax - which seems like a sports luxury tax - is to incentivize companies to cut health care expenditures.)

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Especially when you're burning the American one

Oh, this is a good one and sure to help the cause.

AZ Anti-Trump Protester: ‘Make America Mexico Again’ - Breitbart

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

You respond like it went from 0 to 21T just because of ACA. Look at it anyway you want. It's been a success, and a massive success next to the fears that were stoked after it was passed.

I support Obamacare because it was better than status quo. However I don't really view it as a massive success. The grand vision was to get most of the estimated 40M+ under-insured with some sort of medical coverage but that didn't happen. I get he went for single payer and had to compromise.

One of my biggest beefs with the healthcare industry is the lack of transparency in treatment costs upfront. It made the insurance company more transparent but not the healthcare provider. What other services do you buy that you don't know how much it (estimated) costs are upfront and can't shop & compare.