Obama, the daily thread on policy, and anything Obama

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I can tell you who SHOULD be held most accountable (Congress).

No, you completely misunderstand because you're thinking like a politician.  I'm thinking on the most fundamental level.  The president was elected to lead.  In all the discussions I hear on this subject, the lack of leadership in the white house is repeated over and over again.  In fact, there really is no leadership in gov't at all.  They all have they're own agendas and can't agree on anything.  Who do you think will be held most accountable?  So, when you say "dictatorship", you're totally off base.  You need to gain a better understanding of how things work from the top down

you know who's complaining about the lack of leadership? The same people who are unwilling to compromise on any issue. So, take whatever they say with a grain of salt. Boehner himself is giving off an impression of 'my way or the highway'. How are you supposed to lead when people are acting like that?

[Super Dude]

Dub, you seem to want a dictatorship. You seem to unfamiliar with how our government works that I really don't know what to tell you. You want Obama to do something which just can't be done without a coup, and you blame him for not leading becuase he's not willing to overthrow our entire government.

No, you completely misunderstand because you're thinking like a politician.  I'm thinking on the most fundamental level.  The president was elected to lead.  In all the discussions I hear on this subject, the lack of leadership in the white house is repeated over and over again.  In fact, there really is no leadership in gov't at all.  They all have they're own agendas and can't agree on anything.  Who do you think will be held most accountable?  So, when you say "dictatorship", you're totally off base.  You need to gain a better understanding of how things work from the top down.

Dublagent, meet democracy.  No one has power over anyone, the governmental process is slow and frustrating, and in the end neither side is completely happy and ultimately both are unhappy.

There's another word for that process, actually, a fairly forgotten word nowadays.  What is that word?  It's none other than...





COMPROMISE!

[El Barto]

An article comparing Obama's position on the current debt limit situation to St. Reagan's (hint:  they're identical)

https://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/28/avlon.debt.reagan/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

"Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest markets would skyrocket. Instability would occur in financial markets and the federal deficit would soar.

"The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility -- two things that set us apart in much of the world."

From the article:

Even a conservative icon such as Reagan would not pass the litmus tests imposed today. After all, Reagan raised the debt ceiling successfully 17 times and increased the deficit during his term in office, a byproduct of his successful strategy to spend the Soviet Union into oblivion.

[Scheavo]

Dub, you seem to want a dictatorship. You seem to unfamiliar with how our government works that I really don't know what to tell you. You want Obama to do something which just can't be done without a coup, and you blame him for not leading becuase he's not willing to overthrow our entire government.

No, you completely misunderstand because you're thinking like a politician.  I'm thinking on the most fundamental level.  The president was elected to lead.  In all the discussions I hear on this subject, the lack of leadership in the white house is repeated over and over again.  In fact, there really is no leadership in gov't at all.  They all have they're own agendas and can't agree on anything.  Who do you think will be held most accountable?  So, when you say "dictatorship", you're totally off base.  You need to gain a better understanding of how things work from the top down.

Your thinking on the most fundamental level ignores the reality on the ground. Seriously. You seem completely ignorant to how our government is set up, completely ignorant to who holds power, and so on. Congress is supposed to lead this country, at least if we have any pretense of being a democracy. It is clearly what the founder's wanted, it is clearly what the constitution sets up. What you want is for the President to lead where he can't lead, to force things he can't force. On the debt limit at least, Obama has been trying to get Congress to do something for a long while now, and he's put forward the most drastic plan out there. His plan reduces the deficit more than Boehner's and more than the GOP's. What do you want him to do? Hold Congressional Republicans families hostage unless they agree to his plan? You're setting up an unfathomably impossible standard for what Obama has to do to "lead" this country, and ignoring the other people in the room who are actually supposed to be leading. If you want to compare this to a corporation, Obama is not the CEO, he's much closer to a high-ranking manager. You don't blame the manager for the problems created by the executives, you don't blame the manager when the company goes bankrupt.

It's distressing for me to see justified anger at our government so horribly misplaced. You want to blame someone? Blame your congressmen. But most importantly, blame your fellow citizen who is too fucking stupid to not vote in incompetent, corrupt assholes who don't have their interest in mind. Blame the two-party system, which fallaciously makes the options into a dichotonomy: Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. Blame the media for propelling this, for being sensationalistic, for creating news and faux scandals to sell more advertisements and more papers.  What you're doing is blaming Obama for the problems he was fucking elected to fix. Ya, I have huge problems with how he has gone about trying to fix them, and I think he could do more to stand up for his position, and not cave so much on the negotiations; but the extent to which you blame him is temporally wrong. You accuse me of thinking like a politician, but your blaming Obama for all of this is more partisan than anything I have ever said.

There's a funny thing about leadership... you can't lead if people willingly choose not to follow. If the Senate wasn't broken from 2008-2010 becuase of Republican senators who deserve to be publicly flogged, I would bet money you wouldn't have an issue about Obama's leadership. Because the Senate was so fucking obtuse, Obama couldn't get anything done. He couldn't fix what he wanted to fix, he couldn't lead. There is absolutely nothing he could have ethically or legally done that would have prevented this. Nothing.

Here's an analogy: imagine our government as an automobile. Congress is the engine, the transmission, and everything under the hood that makes the car run. The President is the driver. Now, if the car is broken, do you blame the driver for not being able to drive the car? NO. You don't blame the driver if the engine won't start. Obama can't lead becuase the government is fundamentally broken, and it's the people of this "great" country which are to blame for this. We own the government, at least in a purely legal sense. You talked about outrage a moment ago, of paying taxes for 25 years and seeing it go no where... and I understand that, really I do... but here's my outrage: as a young adult, I was "handed" a future and a government completely inept and corrupt, the previous generations failed. They failed to keep an eye on their government, they failed to protect their liberty, they failed to keep this country a democracy. They were led by a media, mislead by demagogues and charlatans, and seemingly more interested in the football game on Monday night than what countries their government was bombing, or to whose benefit the public institution of government was. Imagining the government as an automobile, we, the people, are the owners; and it's we, the people, who didn't get the car tuned up, didn't change the oil, etc. It's not the drivers fault, it's not Obama's fault, no matter how much you want it to be, no matter how much discontent you have towards the man and the office. Will he get the blame for all of this? Unless the American people wake up from their media driven stupor, he probably will. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't actually solve our problem.

/rant

[ReaPsTA]

I for one am glad the Republicans broke the Senate.  A world with a Carbon Tax, the undiluted version of the Obama Health Care bill, and god knows what else he could get away with?  Ugh.

Also, if we're going to talk about who broke the Senate, what about the Democrats threatening to filibuster Bush's Supreme Court nominees?  It's easy to throw blame at the guys you don't like as much.

[Scheavo]

I for one am glad the Republicans broke the Senate.  A world with a Carbon Tax, the undiluted version of the Obama Health Care bill, and god knows what else he could get away with?  Ugh.

I'd say the what resulted from the Health Care bill is much worse than the "undiluted" version of Obama Health care (which, I have no idea what you're talking about, considering Obama never gave a health care bill). What resulted was nothing but a rather corrupt scheme to make health insurance companies richer, without addressing the underlying cause of rising health care costs or how broken our system is.

Also, if we're going to talk about who broke the Senate, what about the Democrats threatening to filibuster Bush's Supreme Court nominees?  It's easy to throw blame at the guys you don't like as much.

If you're trying to equate me with Democrats, you're already barking up the wrong tree (as a whole, they're a bunch of corrupt douchebags just like the republicans). Also, Democrats may have threatened to filibuster Bush's Court nominees but they, as you said, only threatened. Republicans are preventing Obama from running the country as he is supposed to do. There are numerous cabinet position unfilled because some Republican has some silly little problem with something unrelated, it's is causing actual harm to the country. The senate broke, and it broke because of obstinate Republicans, and to say anything else, is just factually, and historically, wrong. Democrats helped out, but they weren't the ones who actually broke the senate.

[Dublagent66]

I can tell you who SHOULD be held most accountable (Congress).

No, you completely misunderstand because you're thinking like a politician.  I'm thinking on the most fundamental level.  The president was elected to lead.  In all the discussions I hear on this subject, the lack of leadership in the white house is repeated over and over again.  In fact, there really is no leadership in gov't at all.  They all have they're own agendas and can't agree on anything.  Who do you think will be held most accountable?  So, when you say "dictatorship", you're totally off base.  You need to gain a better understanding of how things work from the top down

you know who's complaining about the lack of leadership? The same people who are unwilling to compromise on any issue. So, take whatever they say with a grain of salt. Boehner himself is giving off an impression of 'my way or the highway'. How are you supposed to lead when people are acting like that?

You lead by being smarter than people like that.  Not by acting like people like that.  When you're a leader, you don't come up with excuses for why there is no compromise.  You become actively involved in negotiations and facilitate the process towards compromise.  This is something that should've happened months ago.  Now, it really doesn't matter what happens.  Everyone in gov't will be damaged on both sides and none more than the president himself.  That's the reality.  Intelligent Americans are fed up with the excuses.  Stop telling people why it doesn't work and get off your ass and make it work.  Do what you were elected to do.  Do what you are paid to do.  This goes for all elected officials, but if you understand how hierachy works, no one will be held more accountable than the president.  The entire world is looking at this administration and rolling their eyes.  This isn't just a domestic issue anymore.  The damage is done and all the excuses in the world won't make a bit of difference now.

[Super Dude]

Therefore I re-emphasize:

Dub, you seem to want a dictatorship. You seem to unfamiliar with how our government works that I really don't know what to tell you. You want Obama to do something which just can't be done without a coup, and you blame him for not leading becuase he's not willing to overthrow our entire government.

No, you completely misunderstand because you're thinking like a politician.  I'm thinking on the most fundamental level.  The president was elected to lead.  In all the discussions I hear on this subject, the lack of leadership in the white house is repeated over and over again.  In fact, there really is no leadership in gov't at all.  They all have they're own agendas and can't agree on anything.  Who do you think will be held most accountable?  So, when you say "dictatorship", you're totally off base.  You need to gain a better understanding of how things work from the top down.

Dublagent, meet democracy.  No one has power over anyone, the governmental process is slow and frustrating, and in the end neither side is completely happy and ultimately both are unhappy.

There's another word for that process, actually, a fairly forgotten word nowadays.  What is that word?  It's none other than...





COMPROMISE!

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I can tell you who SHOULD be held most accountable (Congress).

No, you completely misunderstand because you're thinking like a politician.  I'm thinking on the most fundamental level.  The president was elected to lead.  In all the discussions I hear on this subject, the lack of leadership in the white house is repeated over and over again.  In fact, there really is no leadership in gov't at all.  They all have they're own agendas and can't agree on anything.  Who do you think will be held most accountable?  So, when you say "dictatorship", you're totally off base.  You need to gain a better understanding of how things work from the top down

you know who's complaining about the lack of leadership? The same people who are unwilling to compromise on any issue. So, take whatever they say with a grain of salt. Boehner himself is giving off an impression of 'my way or the highway'. How are you supposed to lead when people are acting like that?

You lead by being smarter than people like that.  Not by acting like people like that.  When you're a leader, you don't come up with excuses for why there is no compromise.  You become actively involved in negotiations and facilitate the process towards compromise.  This is something that should've happened months ago.  Now, it really doesn't matter what happens.  Everyone in gov't will be damaged on both sides and none more than the president himself.  That's the reality.  Intelligent Americans are fed up with the excuses.  Stop telling people why it doesn't work and get off your ass and make it work.  Do what you were elected to do.  Do what you are paid to do.  This goes for all elected officials, but if you understand how hierachy works, no one will be held more accountable than the president.  The entire world is looking at this administration and rolling their eyes.  This isn't just a domestic issue anymore.  The damage is done and all the excuses in the world won't make a bit of difference now.

You've clearly, then, not followed what Obama has been TRYING TO DO with members of both parties to get a freaking plan.

[Dublagent66]

Yeah, he's TRYING not DOING.  Leaders DO.  How long has he been TRYING to do this, for 2.5 years?  If you still can't figure out the point I'm trying to make then go read about what Clinton did in the 95' - 96' crisis.  I have neither the time nor the desire to come in here and argue semantics while principle is thrown out the window.  If he had been doing his job from day one, we wouldn't even be discussing this at all.  Plain and simple.

[El Barto]

I really can't believe that people are still trying to argue this with Dub66. 

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Yeah, he's TRYING not DOING.  Leaders DO.  How long has he been TRYING to do this, for 2.5 years?  If you still can't figure out the point I'm trying to make then go read about what Clinton did in the 95' - 96' crisis.  I have neither the time nor the desire to come in here and argue semantics while principle is thrown out the window.  If he had been doing his job from day one, we wouldn't even be discussing this at all.  Plain and simple.

You still seem to be confusing president with dictator. But whatever. He's only trying because the congressmen below him are acting like kids and not cooperating. What would YOU do about that?

[antigoon]

Threaten them with his guns or something, probably.

[Super Dude]

CONGRESS WON'T PASS ANYTHING BLAME OBAMA FOR EVERYTHING

[MasterShakezula]

Um, is there a way to make Congress not suck?  Besides pray that good candidates run and are recognized as good by enough people through their votes?

[Super Dude]

That second sentence should answer your question.  The problem is it's hard to tell on the campaign trail who is sincere and who will be corrupted.

[El Barto]

This should probably go in the US default thread, but I haven't read any of that, and it's pretty on topic in here.

I'm now thinking that Obama is going to come out of debt situation looking quite well (whether or not that's a good thing is beyond me).  Various people have pointed out several quasi-legal avenues with which he can bypass congress on this mess.  One novel approach was that there's nothing anywhere in the books that mention coinage.  While he can't authorize the printing of new money to handle this,  he's probably allowed to authorize the minting of a couple of trillion dollar coins.  There are one or two other approaches he could take as well.  Now, whether or not these options are actually legal is anybody's guess, but the beauty of it is that nobody could risk pressing the issue.  If it reaches crunch time, and congress is unable to get anything accomplished, he's going to chastise both parties,  authorize some stopgap measure to prevent the default and tell Congress to just deal with it.  The House can then sue him, or initiate impeachment proceedings, but how is that going to look?  They created a nightmare scenario,  he found a loophole to stave off catastrophe, and now they're going to spend months trying in vain to impeach him, or better still,  seek an injunction, the results of which would be the aforementioned calamity?  Nope.  They're going to call him a crook, which is actually better than what they've been calling him, and then get back to business as usual. 

[Super Dude]

I've always felt he should've conducted his presidency under the stewardship model, as Teddy did.

Actually on that note, the thing that most frustrates me about Obama's loudest critics at one moment will blast him for not showing any leadership and not being able to get anything done, and then in the same breath will turn around and call his use of executive orders or his going over the head of Congress to go into Libya tyrannical, that he has too much power and is eroding democracy.  And it's not like these are separate criticisms issued from separate individuals...if you have beef with Obama, at least be consistent!

[j]

Besides pray that good candidates run and are recognized as good by enough people through their votes?

Lol at the prospect of this being a remotely possible reality.  Not only would people have to be smart enough to recognize "good" when they saw it, but it would necessitate that those types of people a) aspired to political careers and b) could make it anywhere near running for a major office without turning into total gamers and bullshitters.

-J

[Scheavo]

Besides pray that good candidates run and are recognized as good by enough people through their votes?

Lol at the prospect of this being a remotely possible reality.  Not only would people have to be smart enough to recognize "good" when they saw it, but it would necessitate that those types of people a) aspired to political careers and b) could make it anywhere near running for a major office without turning into total gamers and bullshitters.

-J

I think a way around this is not voting for individual candidates, but by party. There was actually a study done in Italy which showed this had positive effects, and I think this is one major reason why. When I first heard the idea, I thought it was a horrible idea, but I'm really starting to think it preferable to the demogougical system we have now.

[Super Dude]

Can we rename this the "Rip on Obama" thread?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Can we rename this the "Rip on Obama" thread?

this is why i had epicview make this thread

[antigoon]

Happy birthday, Barry.

I don't know where else to put this, so, here goes.

You know what really bothers me about the Democrats? No matter how much they work to slowly destroy the party's ideals and turn policies that were considered far-right wing and Orwellian under Bush into bipartisan consensus under Obama, they can always count on the progressive base coming back to support them as long as they remember to shove Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin into our faces enough. I don't know about anyone else but I don't plan on being scared into voting for a party that doesn't represent actual people. It's insulting.

Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said polling data showed that at this point in his term, Mr. Obama, compared with past Democratic presidents, was doing as well or better with Democratic voters. “Whatever qualms or questions they may have about this policy or that policy, at the end of the day the one thing they’re absolutely certain of — they’re going to hate these Republican candidates,” Mr. Mellman said. “So I’m not honestly all that worried about a solid or enthusiastic base.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/us/politics/31dems.html?_r=2&hp

So, basically, Obama and the Democrats can do whatever the hell they want, because Gingrich, Paul, Bachmann, Palin and Romney.

What's that old saying? Republicans fear their base, while Democrats despise it? Sounds about right.

Feel free to tear me to pieces or whatever.

[skydivingninja]

Yeah there's honestly no one I want to vote for in the coming election unless Jon Huntsman gets off his ass and starts doing something. 

[Super Dude]

And when it seemed like the conservative pundits couldn't get any crazier...

https://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/alex-jones-loses-it-over-robot-helicopters-with-airborne-ebola/

[El Barto]

And when it seemed like the conservative pundits couldn't get any crazier...

https://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/alex-jones-loses-it-over-robot-helicopters-with-airborne-ebola/

That's really some funny shit, but to be fair,  Alex Jones isn't a conservative pundit by any means.  That dude is a strictly non-partisan whackjob. 

[Super Dude]

Tea Parties aren't kidding anyone; they're conservative.  They really love Alex Jones' paranoid ravings about how Obama is going to set up a new world order and an American Empire.  Ergo, Alex Jones caters to the conservative worldview.

[El Barto]

In much the same way that Democrats loved hearing him talk about how Bush orchestrated 9/11 and was organizing the current police state.  As best I recall,  Jones has no interest in any of the parties or candidates.  He's liked by various whackjobs on both sides, all the time.  He's a pundit to the lunatic fringe, regardless of party affiliation or ideology. 

[Scheavo]

Ugh, Republicans are at Obama for sending ground troops into libya..

https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-09-20/American-troops-Libya/50481462/1

Talk about a technicality, and well after it would have made sense.