Obama Adminstration Meta Discussion
Replies
-
alpha2omega says:It is, at best, a joke to think Obama ever wanted to or even has the ability to be partisan.
A Freudian slip?
I also think it interesting that A2O uses "fundamentally idealistic" as an insult. Or maybe that was a typo as well.
lol Nice catch.
When Obama puts his philosophy before the well being of the American people, yes, it is insulting.
Examples?
Here is one example regarding his intent on bankrupting the coal industry.
http://www.infowars.com/obama-advances-plan-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-with-new-co2-limits/
There are about 174,000 full time jobs directly related to the coal industry in the US.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States
And herein lies the essential contrast in approach to the discussion. One of the points of this thread was to try to elevate the level of dicussion to a more intelligent and nuanced level, where people could explore their positions in more depth and in a way more reflective of the complexity of the issues surrounding us, instead of relying on empty cliches, talking points, lies, etc. You have seen some of the comments posted already from people who support Obama in general, but have specific criticisms of some of the actions of his administration.
You have chosen to take the opposite approach.
Your source of "information" represents the paranoid, delusional, bat-*kitten* crazy wing of the Republican party and conservatives.
Here is another view on the same subject:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/08/18/obama-and-romney-energizing-their-bases-by-muddying-coal-and-wind/
I strongly urge everyone to read both articles and compare the approaches to the same subject. It speaks volumes about who is really behind the so-called "polarization" of the electorate.
You criticise me for citing "paranoid" information yet you cite some left wing hack. Here, is this better for you?
Since that is not a road I want to go down at this point, I'll just invite people to read both links and make their own decisions about who is reasonable and who is a hack.0 -
One topic not yet mentioned yet is that of foreign policy (as opposed to national security/"war" on terror which really needs to be separate as it involves domestic issues as well).
With his lack of direct foreign policy experience, many people felt that this would be Obama's primary weakness. After reading many of Obama's speeches and position papers during the 2008 campaign, I was certain that Obama had an excellent grasp of the realities of 21st century foreign policy and would perform quite well, and I believe events have proved me correct.
A broad challenge of the 21st was and is how to deal with a changing world in which not only the Cold War model no longer exists, but the high-infrastructure, set piece military posture is much less relevant as well. The type of playing field that most Americans grew up with no longer exists. There is no standing military threat to the United States. When military conflicts do occur, they tend to be regional, or local, with as much conflict between citizens and their governments as anything else. New strategies and techniques in asymmetrical warfare, along with increasing globalization, have significantly limited the amount of influence a single country can have by projecting military force alone. Gunship diplomacy ain't what it used to be.
Obama understands this. An article I found described his overall approach as:he has tried to move U.S. foreign policy away from active balancing in favor of allowing regional balances of power to maintain themselves.
Obama is following a general opinion among many foreign policy analysts that active balancing and intervention, such as the US practiced after WW2 and during the subsequent 40-50 years, often resulted in more destabilization than stabilization and led to an increase in anti-American sentiment across the globe.
The result is that the US has been less willing to overtly interject itself into regional conflicts. We have seen this more specifically I think in the response to what was called the "Arab spring". The US played an important background role while allowing other nations with a more direct presence in the region to be more public.
Another thing that has impressed me is how Obama has conducted military operations. He has engaged in detailed processes of developing strategies, processes that are inclusive and fact-based -- as opposed to the "make the facts fit the ideology" approach that led to the disaster in Iraq.
Obama was up front during the 2008 campaign about his intentions in Afghanistan, so not one should have been surprised at the escalation of the conflict there. I disagreed with that plan in 2008, and I haven't really changed my mind since. It is one serious disagreement that I have.
The other is the increased use of drone assassination warfare against alleged terrorist targets. It's ironic that when Republicans use their stock criticism that Obama is "tarnishing the image of the US", the fact is that the most tarnishing Obama has done has been when he has followed actions and policies that are most like those from the Bush administration.
I think there has been some global disenchantment with Obama for the same reason there has been some in the US-- he has not been able to translate his rhetoric into the transformational change that many had hoped for. I think part of this has been due to inexperience, partly due to the restraints put on any President by the adolescent expectations of US citizens, and partly due to preoccupation with the economic meltdown that occurred 4 months before his inauguration.
The contrast between Obama and Romney on foreign policy is one of the starkest in the campaign--and one that has the most frightening implication (IMO) if Romney is elected.
First of all, Romney's knowledge of foreign policy issues--based on what few statements he has made--seem ill-informed and almost Palinesque. He not only has referred more than once to the "Soviet Union", but has also stated that he considers it still a primary threat to our national security. He has, as usual, offered little in the way of specifics, only criticized Obama for "not communicating America's strength and resolve". He seems to still live in a world where he thinks the US can basically wade into any part of the world it wishes and demand submission to our "resolve". It's a particularly insidious fantasy that, the last time it was lived out, cost us tens of thousands of dead and wounded soldiers, millions of Iraqi deaths, and $ trillions in cost.
Despite our current deficits and despite the fact that the US spends more on military spending than just about the rest of the world combined, Romney wants to increase military spending to 4% of GDP (up from the current 3+%). Estimates say that would add an additional $175 billion in military spending per year for the next 6 years. With absolutely no stated plans on how that money will be raised or spent.
All of this is bad enough, but the guys in the shadows are even worse. You've met them all before--the D!ck Cheney wing of the Republican party, led by none other than John Bolton. Enough said.0 -
Despite our current deficits and despite the fact that the US spends more on military spending than just about the rest of the world combined, Romney wants to increase military spending to 4% of GDP (up from the current 3+%). Estimates say that would add an additional $175 billion in military spending per year for the next 6 years. With absolutely no stated plans on how that money will be raised or spent.
This right here is why a lot of people don't take Romney's budget seriously. Most independent voters like me are sick of excess military spending. I'm a veteran's wife, and my husband knows about some incredible wastes of money when he was in. DOD spends billions of dollars "because they have to" not because they need to on all sorts of wasteful projects and items. DOD is a moneypit, and the generals, admirals, and top brass know it. They've even told Congress on multiple occasions that they really don't need this much money to operate a top-notch defense-ready military. Congress even tried to get them to spend more on M1 Abrams tanks that the Army told them point blank that they don't want or need. Why? Congress was heavily lobbied by the manufacturer of the M1 Abrams to keep the contract with their company.
Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120307/DEFREG02/303070011/U-S-Army-Congress-No-New-Tanks-Please
The notion that Romney wants to blow MORE cash on DOD without any plan for that money while claiming to "balance the budget" is absurdly stupid. We should be cutting DOD spending and putting that money back into education and other departments and programs that have been suffering badly because of depleted funding for a decade.0 -
I am going to look at some of this without rose colored glasses.
Did you really just compare what we went through to anything close to what the Great Depression was? At it's peak unemployment during the Great Depression was ~25%. Loss of GDP was around -25% as well. Our top unemployment was ~10% while our lost GDP was ~5%. I didn't live during that time but I am pretty sure my Great Grandmother would have a field day with this arrogance.1. Prevented a second Great Depression--no small feat, although no one seems to remember that.
You can't prevent what Economists generally agree wouldn't have happened.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/25/news/economy/depression_comparisons/index.htm
All that being said... The recession "ended" 6 months after Obama was sworn into office. The only legislation he signed between the time he was sworn into office and the recession ended that could have an effect was the bail out in Feb 2009. I agree that the bail out did have a positive effect on the economy but that alone did not end the recession. Bush policies (TARP) and the Federal Reserve actions had a big part in it. I know the liberals on this board love to blame past policies on the mess we are in right now. It works both ways. When something good happens at the beginning of your term in office a lot of it might have been seeded before you took over. I have no reason to believe the recession wouldn't have ended at the same time had McCain been elected.
Are we talking about TARP here? This was signed by Bush. 50% of the money was spent before Obama took over. I will give him 40% credit!2. Stabilized our national banking infrastructure.
He bailed out 2 mismanaged auto companies. Ford planned well and refused help. I don't disagree with the action. I think it needed to be done. In the end, I think there is a black mark on Chrysler and GM. Time will only tell how this plays out. I can tell you now that my Charger will be the last car I purchase from Chrysler or GM although the Camaro might seduce me /sigh.3. Saved the American auto industry.
I am not against everyone having health insurance. I think it is a good thing.4. Achieved (although the battle is not yet won) the beginnings of a fundamental reform of our health care system, something that no President had been able to pull off in my lifetime.
Herein lies my biggest issue with Obama. He added the largest entitlement to government since Medicare? with no way to pay for it. Sure the bill has a funding plan but when you are running a $1 Trillion deficit is anything really funded especially new spending? I would have liked to see some talk of fiscal responsibility even if it is in the form of cuts to the bloated DoD budget. Instead all I see is more spending.5. Managed an orderly end to the war in Iraq (acknowledging that the process was set in place by the Bush admin, but had to stay the course in spite of calls in military to maintain a longer presence); has managed the war in Afghanistan with planning and preparation). Has shown flexibility in responding to different international crises--choosing the appropriate response based on the circumstances of each event, rather than a cookie cutter approach.
Obama has been an all star with regards to foreign policy. I do not disagree with anything he has done here. Maybe this is because I have a crush on Hilary. If I could see anything changed here it would be sending less (no) money to countries that are our enemies. Sending countries like Pakistan money to fight terrorism is a joke. I would actually prefer to send money to no one until our economic house is cleaned up.0 -
am not against everyone having health insurance. I think it is a good thing.
Herein lies my biggest issue with Obama. He added the largest entitlement to government since Medicare? with no way to pay for it. Sure the bill has a funding plan but when you are running a $1 Trillion deficit is anything really funded especially new spending? I would have liked to see some talk of fiscal responsibility even if it is in the form of cuts to the bloated DoD budget. Instead all I see is more spending.
?? You say the bill has a "funding plan" but that there is "no way to pay for it". Isn't that the definition of a "funding plan"? And the ACA is designed to reduce spending over time.
I kind of understand where you are going on this, but, I guess I look at it like this--if you had an old furnace that was heating only 2/3 of the house and was so inefficient it was increasing your electric bill by an additional 10% - 15% a year, you could make a case that it was worth replacing, even if you hadn't put it the budget that year. You can't always choose when opportunities will arise, and that was a prime opportunity.
I do get annoyed at the baseless implication that there was "no talk of fiscal responsibility". Obama was clear from day 1 and repeated in virtually every speech he gave on the subject that he considered health care reform an integral part of controlling long-term spending and getting our financial house in order. Obviously there is continuing debate about whether or not that will actually occur, but to imply that there was "no talk" is being willfully obtuse, IMO.0 -
I'm all for [cap and trade]. Romney wants to cut emissions by 10%. Obama wants to cut emissions by 50%.
Comparing the link I gave with Romney's discussion of his cap-and-trade proposal with the link you gave to Obama's proposed limits on emissions from new coal power plants, I see that you are comparing apples and oranges.
Romney (Version 2003) wanted to cut total Massachusetts greenhouse gas emissions by 10% from 2003 to 2008. Obama wants to cut emissions from new coal power plants by 50%. Not at all comparable.
But you've already said you support cap-and-trade like Romney (Version 2003) and Obama (Version 2008 and 2012) rather than oppose it like Romney (Version 2012). So you must be voting for Romney for reasons other than energy policy.0 -
I'm all for [cap and trade]. Romney wants to cut emissions by 10%. Obama wants to cut emissions by 50%.
Comparing the link I gave with Romney's discussion of his cap-and-trade proposal with the link you gave to Obama's proposed limits on emissions from new coal power plants, I see that you are comparing apples and oranges.
Romney (Version 2003) wanted to cut total Massachusetts greenhouse gas emissions by 10% from 2003 to 2008. Obama wants to cut emissions from new coal power plants by 50%. Not at all comparable.
But you've already said you support cap-and-trade like Romney (Version 2003) and Obama (Version 2008 and 2012) rather than oppose it like Romney (Version 2012). So you must be voting for Romney for reasons other than energy policy.
If Romney wants to support a cap n trade policy, that would not be detrimental to the coal industry, then I would not have an issue with him pursuing it.
I do not support President Obama's version of cap n trade because he has specifically said his policy would make it impossible for companies to operate coal based electrical plants at the current price to consumers. The price of electricity will have to skyrocket(also explicitly stated by the President) for these energy companies to stay in business which hurts the consumer and will eventually lead to more job loss.0 -
Fair enough. I don't think it's unreasonable for the price of electricity to reflect all the true costs, including the environmental externalities. And I think cap-and-trade is the right way to do that, even if it results in coal-fired electricity increasing in price. Right now, the price doesn't reflect the environmental damage coal causes. If coal can't compete if the environment costs are included in the price, then the market will reflect that.0
-
Fair enough. I don't think it's unreasonable for the price of electricity to reflect all the true costs, including the environmental externalities. And I think cap-and-trade is the right way to do that, even if it results in coal-fired electricity increasing in price. Right now, the price doesn't reflect the environmental damage coal causes. If coal can't compete if the environment costs are included in the price, then the market will reflect that.
If the environmental cost could be objectively quantified, I would have no issue using it as a basis for an additional cost, I just don't see how that could be accomplished.
Just some additional info. Currently, there are roughly 7,000 coal plants in the world, per worldcoal.org. The US has around 600. That equates to 8.6% of the world's coal burning plants. As of 2009, the US also had the largest proven coal reserves in the world. The International Energy Agency estimates that fossil fuels will account for 85% of the energy market by 2030. My point is there wont't be a viable market for renewable sources of energy for many years to come. If by chance the US was able to generate sustainable alternative energy so that coal energy was no longer needed, we would have affected the worlds CO2 output by, at most, 8.6%.
I'm not saying the issue should be completely disregarded, however, it seems trivial when compared to other domestic issues such as unemployment, our national debt and the budget crisis.0 -
Agreed. Which makes me wonder why you brought it up.0
-
Agreed. Which makes me wonder why you brought it up.
The point was not brought up to make an issue of the coal industry but to illustrate how the President's philosophy is detrimental to America.0 -
There is more to America than the coal industry.0
-
Treetop,
I presume you remember well the Reagan administration and the recession of the early 80's. It is quite apparent that Reagan's vision of America was vastly different to that of President Obama's. I was just a child during the Reagan administration so I am genuinely interested in what your personal experience was during that time and if you thought Reagan's policies were at all responsible for the growth experienced late in his first term. Do you feel Reaganomics was legitimate or were there other influences present at the time that led to America's extraordinary growth during his tenure as President?0 -
Reagan's policies were definitely responsible for extraordinary growth--in the national debt.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
As far as growth of the over-all economy, his presidency was very slightly above average for the post-war period:Real GDP advanced at an annualized rate of 5.2% during the Kennedy years, 5.1% during the Johnson years, and 3.6% when the Clinton administration was in power. GDP rose 3.5% per annum in the Reagan years despite a severe recession in 1981-2. Growth averaged a respectable 3.2% per annum when the Carter administration governed — and yes, some people no doubt were better off in 1980 than 1976 — and the Nixon years experienced growth of 3.0% per annum. In none of these presidential periods was growth substantially less than the 3.4% average pace for the whole second half of the 20th century.
http://currencythoughts.com/2008/09/26/us-gdp-growth-under-different-presidencies/
But the main problem with Reagan's policies was the class warfare. Before Reagan, all Americans shared in the growth in GDP. After Reagan, the playing field was tilted toward the rich and the income of middle-class Americans stagnated. Productivity growth benefited only the rich and never trickled down to you and me.
The irony is of course that hogging the benefits of society hurts the rich as well. The businesses they own depend on customers and if their customers don't have money to buy, sales and profits lag. That's what Obama was trying to tell Joe the Plumper, that he wanted to implement policies that would make Joe's customers wealthier, which would make them better able to afford Joe's plumbing services. It wasn't a question of robbing Joe to pay Jim. It was a question of Joe benefiting if Jim had more money.
In any case, I don't see Romney as the resurrection of Reagan. If nothing else, Reagan had a degree of realism that modern Republicans lack. He raised taxes when he believed it necessary, something that is anathema to today's Republican party, all of whom dread breaking Grover Norquist's pledge.But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.
In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.
In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.
In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.
In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.
In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.
In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.
So it’s accurate to say Reagan increased levies during five years of his administration, but there’s a caveat: The overall tax burden on businesses and individuals went down during his presidency.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/25/gerry-connolly/rep-gerry-connolly-says-reagan-raised-taxes-during/
All of which is a rambling answer to your question, I hope. What it comes down to for me is a question of who is better for the economy: A Republican in the mold of George W. Bush or a Democrat in the mold of Bill Clinton? In my mind, there is no contest.0 -
But I'm not done rambling. You can't compare the recession of the early 1980s to that of 2008/2009. The early 80s recession of induced by the Federal Reserve's decision to break inflation by raising interest rates. That's an easy recession to end: The Federal Reserve just lowers interest rates. The 2008/2009 recession was much more serious. It was brought on by financial crisis that resulted in a mass panic and rush to safety. Everyone wanted to hold their assets in cash and cash equivalents, which drove interest rates to zero, taking away the Federal Reserve's primary tool. They couldn't lower interest rates because rates were already near zero. That's a much harder problem to solve, and historically financial-crisis recessions are much flatter at the bottom than a V-shaped interest-rate induced recession like we had in the early 80s.0
-
But I'm not done rambling. You can't compare the recession of the early 1980s to that of 2008/2009. The early 80s recession of induced by the Federal Reserve's decision to break inflation by raising interest rates. That's an easy recession to end: The Federal Reserve just lowers interest rates. The 2008/2009 recession was much more serious. It was brought on by financial crisis that resulted in a mass panic and rush to safety. Everyone wanted to hold their assets in cash and cash equivalents, which drove interest rates to zero, taking away the Federal Reserve's primary tool. They couldn't lower interest rates because rates were already near zero. That's a much harder problem to solve, and historically financial-crisis recessions are much flatter at the bottom than a V-shaped interest-rate induced recession like we had in the early 80s.
I appreciate your perspective.
It is said that the majority of employment is done by small business in America. What role, if any, do you feel healthcare and its increase cost to employers has played in inhibiting job growth? If you feel it has, would you say it was prudent for the President to have embarked on universal healthcare during a time of such fiscal uncertainty?
Also, regarding Clinton. You feel Obama is in the mold of Clinton? I would like to know how so since Clinton triangulated once he lost Congress. Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton. Also, Clinton's spending record, I would even argue, was better than Bush's in that he was able to balance the budget. Obama, knowing he had a severe recession to deal with, has not shown any inclination to cut spending.0 -
But I'm not done rambling. You can't compare the recession of the early 1980s to that of 2008/2009. The early 80s recession of induced by the Federal Reserve's decision to break inflation by raising interest rates. That's an easy recession to end: The Federal Reserve just lowers interest rates. The 2008/2009 recession was much more serious. It was brought on by financial crisis that resulted in a mass panic and rush to safety. Everyone wanted to hold their assets in cash and cash equivalents, which drove interest rates to zero, taking away the Federal Reserve's primary tool. They couldn't lower interest rates because rates were already near zero. That's a much harder problem to solve, and historically financial-crisis recessions are much flatter at the bottom than a V-shaped interest-rate induced recession like we had in the early 80s.
I appreciate your perspective.
It is said that the majority of employment is done by small business in America. What role, if any, do you feel healthcare and its increase cost to employers has played in inhibiting job growth? If you feel it has, would you say it was prudent for the President to have embarked on universal healthcare during a time of such fiscal uncertainty?
Also, regarding Clinton. You feel Obama is in the mold of Clinton? I would like to know how so since Clinton triangulated once he lost Congress. Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton. Also, Clinton's spending record, I would even argue, was better than Bush's in that he was able to balance the budget. Obama, knowing he had a severe recession to deal with, has not shown any inclination to cut spending.
Obama didn't really drop the federal work requirement for welfare. His administration will allow states a waiver if they ask for it. I have argued both sides depending on my mood.
0 -
But I'm not done rambling. You can't compare the recession of the early 1980s to that of 2008/2009. The early 80s recession of induced by the Federal Reserve's decision to break inflation by raising interest rates. That's an easy recession to end: The Federal Reserve just lowers interest rates. The 2008/2009 recession was much more serious. It was brought on by financial crisis that resulted in a mass panic and rush to safety. Everyone wanted to hold their assets in cash and cash equivalents, which drove interest rates to zero, taking away the Federal Reserve's primary tool. They couldn't lower interest rates because rates were already near zero. That's a much harder problem to solve, and historically financial-crisis recessions are much flatter at the bottom than a V-shaped interest-rate induced recession like we had in the early 80s.
I appreciate your perspective.
It is said that the majority of employment is done by small business in America. What role, if any, do you feel healthcare and its increase cost to employers has played in inhibiting job growth? If you feel it has, would you say it was prudent for the President to have embarked on universal healthcare during a time of such fiscal uncertainty?
Also, regarding Clinton. You feel Obama is in the mold of Clinton? I would like to know how so since Clinton triangulated once he lost Congress. Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton. Also, Clinton's spending record, I would even argue, was better than Bush's in that he was able to balance the budget. Obama, knowing he had a severe recession to deal with, has not shown any inclination to cut spending.
Obama didn't really drop the federal work requirement for welfare. His administration will allow states a waiver if they ask for it. I have argued both sides depending on my mood.
Doesn't the option make the "requirement" moot then? I guess its symantics but the end result is the legislation has been undermined, no?0 -
I see that Lour441 has responded to this point, but I just can let it pass since it is at the heart of the latest campaign of lies by the Romney campaign:Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton.
This is simply false. Some states have asked for greater flexibility in how they implement the work requirements, including Republican states like Utah and including Massachusetts when Romney was governor. The Obama administration is granting that greater flexibility, but only if the state programs still achieve measurable success in getting welfare recipients into work.A Mitt Romney TV ad claims the Obama administration has adopted “a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements.” The plan does neither of those things.
* Work requirements are not simply being “dropped.” States may now change the requirements — revising, adding or eliminating them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement.
* And it won’t “gut” the 1996 law to ease the requirement. Benefits still won’t be paid beyond an allotted time, whether the recipient is working or not.
Romney’s ad also distorts the facts when it says that under President Obama’s plan “you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job.” The law never required all welfare recipients to work. Only 29 percent of those receiving cash assistance met the work requirement by the time President Obama took office.
Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific “work activities,” such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment,” which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an “evaluation plan” that includes “performance measures” that must be met — or the waiver could be revoked. . .
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/
Don't make the mistake of believing things the Romney campaign tells you, A2O.0 -
Doesn't the option make the "requirement" moot then? I guess its symantics but the end result is the legislation has been undermined, no?
Semantics? I guess so, in the same way that giving someone the option to volunteer for the military is semantically different than drafting them.0 -
What do you expect from a felon? :huh:Don't make the mistake of believing things the Romney campaign tells you, A2O.0 -
But I'm not done rambling. You can't compare the recession of the early 1980s to that of 2008/2009. The early 80s recession of induced by the Federal Reserve's decision to break inflation by raising interest rates. That's an easy recession to end: The Federal Reserve just lowers interest rates. The 2008/2009 recession was much more serious. It was brought on by financial crisis that resulted in a mass panic and rush to safety. Everyone wanted to hold their assets in cash and cash equivalents, which drove interest rates to zero, taking away the Federal Reserve's primary tool. They couldn't lower interest rates because rates were already near zero. That's a much harder problem to solve, and historically financial-crisis recessions are much flatter at the bottom than a V-shaped interest-rate induced recession like we had in the early 80s.
I appreciate your perspective.
It is said that the majority of employment is done by small business in America. What role, if any, do you feel healthcare and its increase cost to employers has played in inhibiting job growth? If you feel it has, would you say it was prudent for the President to have embarked on universal healthcare during a time of such fiscal uncertainty?
Also, regarding Clinton. You feel Obama is in the mold of Clinton? I would like to know how so since Clinton triangulated once he lost Congress. Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton. Also, Clinton's spending record, I would even argue, was better than Bush's in that he was able to balance the budget. Obama, knowing he had a severe recession to deal with, has not shown any inclination to cut spending.
Obama didn't really drop the federal work requirement for welfare. His administration will allow states a waiver if they ask for it. I have argued both sides depending on my mood.
Doesn't the option make the "requirement" moot then? I guess its symantics but the end result is the legislation has been undermined, no?
I think that is why you can argue it either way.
If the state requests a waiver and receives it and then removes the work requirement wouldn't it be the state that removed the work requirement with the Obama administration's blessing?0 -
Speaking of waivers...
This one seems a little self serving to the Obama Administration.
http://news.investors.com/article/620795/201208021848/skip-pink-slips-defense-contractors-told.htm?p=full0 -
From the Department of Health and Human Service's waiver policy:As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html
They are not "dropping the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton." Simply not true. Romney may or not have committed a felony by lying on SEC filings, but he is definitely lying about the welfare work requirements.0 -
Doesn't the option make the "requirement" moot then? I guess its symantics but the end result is the legislation has been undermined, no?
Semantics? I guess so, in the same way that giving someone the option to volunteer for the military is semantically different than drafting them.
Do you feel better now?0 -
Doesn't the option make the "requirement" moot then? I guess its symantics but the end result is the legislation has been undermined, no?
Semantics? I guess so, in the same way that giving someone the option to volunteer for the military is semantically different than drafting them.
Do you feel better now?
I'm afraid I don't follow. I assume you were using semantics as means of suggesting that the distinction between the two presented options is not really all that important. I disagreed and gave a counter example to highlight that.
Your question around my health seems irrelevant, but to answer it: I'm doing ok. There's only so much I can do about seasonal allergies. Thank you for asking, though.0 -
But I'm not done rambling. You can't compare the recession of the early 1980s to that of 2008/2009. The early 80s recession of induced by the Federal Reserve's decision to break inflation by raising interest rates. That's an easy recession to end: The Federal Reserve just lowers interest rates. The 2008/2009 recession was much more serious. It was brought on by financial crisis that resulted in a mass panic and rush to safety. Everyone wanted to hold their assets in cash and cash equivalents, which drove interest rates to zero, taking away the Federal Reserve's primary tool. They couldn't lower interest rates because rates were already near zero. That's a much harder problem to solve, and historically financial-crisis recessions are much flatter at the bottom than a V-shaped interest-rate induced recession like we had in the early 80s.
I appreciate your perspective.
It is said that the majority of employment is done by small business in America. What role, if any, do you feel healthcare and its increase cost to employers has played in inhibiting job growth? If you feel it has, would you say it was prudent for the President to have embarked on universal healthcare during a time of such fiscal uncertainty?
Also, regarding Clinton. You feel Obama is in the mold of Clinton? I would like to know how so since Clinton triangulated once he lost Congress. Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton. Also, Clinton's spending record, I would even argue, was better than Bush's in that he was able to balance the budget. Obama, knowing he had a severe recession to deal with, has not shown any inclination to cut spending.
Treetop,
Aside from the welfare issue, what are your thoughts on the above?0 -
Doesn't the option make the "requirement" moot then? I guess its symantics but the end result is the legislation has been undermined, no?
Semantics? I guess so, in the same way that giving someone the option to volunteer for the military is semantically different than drafting them.
Do you feel better now?
I'm afraid I don't follow. I assume you were using semantics as means of suggesting that the distinction between the two presented options is not really all that important. I disagreed and gave a counter example to highlight that.
Your question around my health seems irrelevant, but to answer it: I'm doing ok. There's only so much I can do about seasonal allergies. Thank you for asking, though.
Anytime.0 -
From Lour's "Investors.com" link:Labor Dept. Waives 60-Day Notice To Help Obama Win
Posted 08/02/2012 06:48 PM ET
Politics: An administration that doesn't want layoff notices required by law going out days before the November election is telling defense contractors they don't have to send them for the cuts required by sequestration. . .
Robert Stevens, chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, told lawmakers that his company alone is looking at laying off roughly 10,000 employees from its 120,000 workforce. . . .
No doubt that sounds self-serving. But then, this is the type of threat they were responding to:Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens pressed the issue last month when he threatened to issue layoff notices to all 123,000 of his employees on the Friday before the election due to a provision in U.S. labor law requiring large employers to notify employees 60 days in advance of layoffs caused by a foreseeable event.
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/241473-gop-labor-department-hiding-big-job-losses
If the sequestration happens, Lockheed will probably have to lay off 10,000 workers, but Stevens planned to send lay-off notices to ten time that number.
So yes perhaps the Dept of Labor was playing politics . . . but they are hardly alone.0 -
It is said that the majority of employment is done by small business in America. What role, if any, do you feel healthcare and its increase cost to employers has played in inhibiting job growth? If you feel it has, would you say it was prudent for the President to have embarked on universal healthcare during a time of such fiscal uncertainty?
The ACA employer mandate only applies to companies that employ more than 50 workers, so it's impact on truly small businesses will be minimal in the short run. I believe (or at least hope) that in the long run, the cost control provisions on the ACA will "bend the curve," and reduce the growth rate of healthcare. So in the long run, it will help small business and lead to a less uncertain environment on the issue. It will also reduce the number of people who only stick at a job to maintain continuity of coverage, unleashing the vaunted entrepreneurial spirit of the American people!
Since the exponential growth of healthcare costs is the main reason for fiscal uncertainty, yes, I think Obama was completely justified to follow through on what was arguably the main issue of his 2008 campaign. I'd have been sorely disappointed if he didn't.Also, regarding Clinton. You feel Obama is in the mold of Clinton? I would like to know how so since Clinton triangulated once he lost Congress. Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton. Also, Clinton's spending record, I would even argue, was better than Bush's in that he was able to balance the budget. Obama, knowing he had a severe recession to deal with, has not shown any inclination to cut spending.
A recession is the wrong time to cut spending. The time to cut spending was the boom years that Bush frittered away with tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and two unjustified wars.0
