Let's tie Obama's hands behind his back, then bludgeon him on "weak" job numbers

[nobodyspecial]

That's the game Congress played. They didn't care about getting people back to work. Their stated goal was to make Obama a one-termer. If a proposal would help the economy or average person, it went nowhere. It's amazing the economy has recovered as well as it has considering Europe's austerity measures are leading them back into a second recession. Wonder why nobody in the media is pointing that out?

[MadHound]

1. Obama had large majorities in Congress for his first two years,

He came into office with a huge store of political capital. Instead of using these advantages, he squandered them by trying to be above the fray, "bipartisan" and refusing to get down and dirty in political fighting.

Obama didn't have his hands tied behind his back, but rather was inexperienced and naive. He squandered a golden opportunity that he had when he came into office. That is no fault but his own.

[Tennessee Gal]

5. Perhaps you need to read this:

UPDATED: Barack Obama and the myth of the progressive ‘majorities’

To progressives who complain about Barack Obama “squandering” the progressive majorities he supposedly had going for him when he was elected president, I refer you to the following chart (from Wikipedia):

http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/07/myth-of-progressive-majority/

[MadHound]

8. I didn't say that he had "progressive majorities", but rather Democratic ones

There has never been large progressive majorities in Congress, yet progressive presidents have managed to get their agendas passed. How? By getting dirty, fighting in the fray, not staying out of it, not trying to be "bipartisan". LBJ would target recalcitrant Dems who were blocking his agenda, go into their districts and campaign against them until they saw the error of their ways and got behind his agenda.

Frankly I'm sick of these endless excuses about Obama's performance. The fact of the matter is that when Obama came into office he had a ton of political capital, a mandate for change, and through his inexperience and naivete he squandered it all. That isn't the fault of we the people, that isn't the fault of Blue Dogs, that is the fault of Obama and his advisers.

[ProSense]

9. Interesting

"That isn't the fault of we the people, that isn't the fault of Blue Dogs, that is the fault of Obama and his advisers. "

Now you're defending "Blue Dogs."

Ugh!

[MadHound]

44. Wow, you just make that faulty leap of logic,

Right over the cliff. More amusing, you do it time and again. Doesn't that start to hurt after a while?

[ProSense]

47. "that isn't the fault of Blue Dogs"

You said it, not me.

Live with it.

[Dawgs]

78. Eh, that's not what defending means. n/t

[Poll_Blind]

48. It can't hurt where there are no nerves.

PB

[FarLeftFist]

100. Large majorities?! Ever heard of Joe Lieberman? Ben Nelson? Filibusters? The GOP?

Obstruction? Gridlock? Ted Kennedy dead? Etc.?

[MadHound]

105. Ever hear of the bully pulpit?

Of using your large political capital wisely, rather than squandering it? Of actually getting into the fight rather than trying to be bipartisan and above the fight?

[FarLeftFist]

106. On what issue are you referring? This OP is about April's jobs report.

[MadHound]

107. Oh geez, never mind.

You obviously aren't following along on this thread.

[FarLeftFist]

109. Because you derailed it.

[Tennessee Gal]

13. From the link:

Despite the myth-making on the left, Democrats actually held their tenuous 60-vote majority for only five months in 2009: from July of that year, when Al Franken was finally sworn in after winning the recount against Norm Coleman, through November 2009, when Democrats lost Barack Obama’s old Senate seat in Illinois to Mark Kirk. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th.

I agree with you in some ways. I wanted more, but I am realistic enough to understand what he was up against.

You bring up LBJ and how he conducted himself to get what he wanted, but the times we live in and the people in Congress now do not compare to those times in any way.

[sendero]

60. We've been hearing those excuses .

..... for a long time now.

BOTTOM LINE - we can tell when someone is FIGHTING and when they are ACQUIESCING. It is not easy to prove with FACTS but we know it when we see it.

We know that OTHER DEMS have made things happen and LOADS OF REPUBLICANS have GOTTEN THEIR WAY with WAY LESS CONGRESSIONAL advantage than OBAMA had.

I think Obama will probably be re-elected - but ONLY because his opposition this year is unbelievably inept.

But really, Obama has done little to actually fix the mess we are in, period. For whatever reason and I don't claim to know just what that reason is/was, he TOTALLY UNDERESTIMATED the gravity of the situation and let precious time get away. Now, I'd almost prefer to see Romney because the mess is so intractable he would be eating his words in four years when things are not substantially better.

BUT THERE WAS A WINDOW and OBAMA let it close, period.

[nobodyspecial]

148. Way to put your fellow Americans first.

"Now, I'd almost prefer to see Romney because the mess is so intractable he would be eating his words in four years when things are not substantially better."

But if if would give you some sort of smug satisfaction as we see the Bush era put on steroids, I'm sure it would be totally worth it.

[sabrina 1]

118. The problem is, that when it was the Bailouts, which btw, were voted against in the first vote by

Democrats, there WAS a fight, enough of a fight to make Congress go back and vote again.

It really is a question of priorities. If the majority party wants something, they CAN get it. Bush did it with the help of the Republican leadership in Congress.

The logic behind saying 'well, yes they had a majority, but the Dem Leadership had no control over some Democrats' is that you are really saying 'Republicans, even in the minority, still get what they want'. How do they do that?

Ask a few Republicans who were bullied and pressured by the leadership (remember Tom Delay?) into voting with their party. They were threatened with losing chairs of committees, money for their next elections, etc. etc. Iow, if you SAY you are Democrat, act like one or you lose a lot of those perks you get from the party.

The Dem Party got the bailouts, against the wishes of the American people, against the wishes of many members of their own party and without any Republican support whatsoever.

They get what they fight for iow.

[girl gone mad]

130. Obama actually worked very hard to get TARP passed.

It was frustrating being on the other side of that issue. We were trying to slow the train down, get some restrictions put on the funds, add accountability and some checks on where the money would go. Then Obama started making phone calls.

He's very influential and effective in whipping Congress, when he chooses to be.

[sabrina 1]

143. Yes, and that is why I never bought the excuses. They managed to get the HC Bill passed also.

People fight for what they believe in. They do not throw their hands up in the air and make excuses, especially when they have the kind of power a president has and even more especially when his party is in the majority.

I just wish people would stop with the excuses. Better to tell the truth and then try to rationalize it. That might get more respect and even some converts, but the constant excuses being made simply angers people.

[nobodyspecial]

6. Senate makeup in 2009

2 Independents

57 Democrats

41 Republicans

With 60 votes required to stop a filibuster, Dems never had enough votes even if they got every single member and the two independents to go along with anything. And, the Senate Dems in red states kept backing off. When have the Dems ever had the same lockstep party unity as the GOP? And this difference is Obama's fault?

He made concessions because he had to in order to get anything through to overcome the lack of a filibuster-proof majority. But you keep pushing the fallacy that it was all Obama's fault and he was experienced and naive. I think it's amazing he's been able to accomplish all that he has.

[MadHound]

11. And you keep pushing the fallacy that sixty votes is needed to get anything done

Excuses, excuses and more excuses, sorry, but it simply doesn't fly. When, exactly, did he get down and dirty fighting for his agenda? Oh, yeah, he didn't. Hell, he didn't even start calling upon the people to rise up and flood Congress with messages until last year! And he has yet to go nuclear, threatening to go into the districts of recalcitrant Congressmen and campaign against them unless they saw the light, ala LBJ.

Sorry, but this is Obama's fault. He tried to be noble, above the fray, bipartisan in a job where it is mandatory that you get down and dirty and fight the good street fight.

[ProSense]

14. Maybe you should

"And you keep pushing the fallacy that sixty votes is needed to get anything done...Excuses, excuses and more excuses, sorry, but it simply doesn't fly..."

...deal with reality.


Vote to repeal subsidies for Big Oil fails 51- 47
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002489532

[MadHound]

33. Then explain to me how Obama is finally getting things accomplished now

When he has a Republican House facing him?

Oh, yeah, he's finally learned to use the power of the bully pulpit, the power of the executive order, and the other vast resources at his disposal. He is also finally learning how to fight. Better late than never.

[nobodyspecial]

14. Yeah, he should have just called them dicks and rallied the people to storm the Capitol.

No point in continuing this discussion with you. Facts never trump the raw emotion you have on display here.

[MadHound]

20. Facts like Obama's large mandate for change?

Facts like his large Congressional majorities? Facts like his inexperience and naivete? Facts like the his choice to remain above the fray, to be "bipartisan". Obama had two golden years to achieve a lot, and instead he squandered them. Those are the facts.

All that I see coming from you are excuses. Poor, pitiful Obama.

[Tennessee Gal]

23. He never had large Congressional majorities. That is a fact.

Again:

Despite the myth-making on the left, Democrats actually held their tenuous 60-vote majority for only five months in 2009: from July of that year, when Al Franken was finally sworn in after winning the recount against Norm Coleman, through November 2009, when Democrats lost Barack Obama’s old Senate seat in Illinois to Mark Kirk. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th.

[MadHound]

26. Umm, yes he did

For two years Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. You are continuing to use the filibuster-proof majority as an excuse for Obama's failures.

[Tennessee Gal]

34. The filibuster-proof majority is a necessity to accomplish anything ....

with the right wing voting in block. That is a fact. Not an excuse.

[MadHound]

40. Gee, he couldn't peel off a few of the moderates that were left?

Couldn't pull in Lieberman, Collins, Snowe? I guess not, because he couldn't even manage to keep the Blue Dogs in line. Hell, he didn't discover the power of the bully pulpit, the executive order until about a year ago.

[Tennessee Gal]

18. Sixty votes is required to get anything done.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear from the start that he intended to have his caucus use the filibuster on every piece of legislation, and vote as a bloc, forcing Democrats to always need 60 votes to pass anything

[MadHound]

24. And yet miraculously, after two years of squandered opportunity,

Obama is now managing to get things done, even with a Republican House. Why? Because he is starting to fully use the vast power at his disposal, the power of the bully pulpit, the power of the people, executive orders, and on and on.

Gee, just think what he could have accomplished if he had done this from the start, when he had Congressional majorities and a public mandate for change.

[Tennessee Gal]

31. Okay, you dislike Obama. Keep up the bashing.

What good will it do?

[MadHound]

39. Dislike, no, disappointed, very much so.

He was naive and inexperienced, a half term Senator with a lackluster track record. Frankly it would have been better if he had gotten more experience and chops, then run in 2016. Perhaps then he wouldn't have made the mistakes he made while trying to catch up with the huge learning curve he faced.

[ProSense]

43. Oh

He was naive and inexperienced, a half term Senator with a lackluster track record. Frankly it would have been better if he had gotten more experience and chops, then run in 2016. Perhaps then he wouldn't have made the mistakes he made while trying to catch up with the huge learning curve he faced.

...bullshit!

Again with the 'inexperienced' line?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002618522



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002622822




http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002530308

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/barack-obamas-had-pretty-damn-good-presidency

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002548774

One of the best Presidents ever. So save the "naive and inexperienced" bullshit for the Republicans.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Remember when Bush couldn't do anything without

60 Republican Senators?

Funny, I can't either.

[ProSense]

46. It figures

Remember when Bush couldn't do anything without

60 Republican Senators?

Funny, I can't either.

Bush had to pass his tax cut via reconciliation.

Thanks for filling us in on your short memory.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. What about all the other stuff?

Wars, destruction of civil liberties, getting insane people into SCOTUS, etc?

[ProSense]

57. Are

"Wars, destruction of civil liberties, getting insane people into SCOTUS, etc?"

...you claiming these are successes? I mean, isn't that indicative of the fact that Congress is partly at fault?

You need to come to grips with the fact that Bush was a complete failure. It will help.

CQ: Obama's Winning Streak On Hill Unprecedented
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436116

[MannyGoldstein]

73. I'm claiming that Bush was successful at passing legislation

And terrible legislation at that.

[ProSense]

83. Well,

"I'm claiming that Bush was successful at passing legislation

And terrible legislation at that."

...you're overlooking the fact that Bush was a failure to portray him as "successful."

The fact that Bush couldn't get his signature privatization of Social Security through is a huge failure. I mean, he had the Republicans in his pocket.

He failed to pass immigration reform and he had the Democrats willing to cooperate.

Bush was a failure, deal with it.

[MannyGoldstein]

86. He passed two ruinous wars, decimation of civil rights

and got two crazies on SCOTUS who gave us Citizen's United... and lots of other stuff... while never having 60 Republicans in Congress... and you say he was an abject failure at passing legislation?

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.

[ProSense]

101. Here's what

He passed two ruinous wars, decimation of civil rights

and got two crazies on SCOTUS who gave us Citizen's United... and lots of other stuff... while never having 60 Republicans in Congress... and you say he was an abject failure at passing legislation?

...Obama "passed" in his first two years:

January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-2
February 4, 2009: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP), Pub.L. 111-3
February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub.L. 111-5
March 11, 2009: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub.L. 111-8
March 30, 2009: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-11
April 21, 2009: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, Pub.L. 111-13
May 20, 2009: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-21
May 20, 2009: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-22
May 22, 2009: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-23
May 22, 2009: Credit CARD Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-24
June 22, 2009: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as Division A of Pub.L. 111-31
June 24, 2009: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 including the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), Pub.L. 111-32
October 28, 2009: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub.L. 111-84
November 6, 2009: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-92
December 16, 2009: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub.L. 111-117
February 12, 2010: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, as Title I of Pub.L. 111-139
March 4, 2010: Travel Promotion Act of 2009, as Section 9 of Pub.L. 111-145
March 18, 2010: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Pub.L. 111-147
March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L. 111-148
March 30, 2010: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 111-152
May 5, 2010: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-163
July 1, 2010: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-195
July 21, 2010: Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 111-203
August 3, 2010: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-220
August 10, 2010: SPEECH Act, Pub.L. 111-223
September 27, 2010: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-240
December 8, 2010: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-291
December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-296
December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-312, H.R. 4853
December 22, 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-321, H.R. 2965
January 2, 2011: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-347, H.R. 847
January 4, 2011: Shark Conservation Act, Pub.L. 111-348, H.R. 81
January 4, 2011: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111-353, H.R. 2751


Here's what Bush "passed" his first two years:

June 7, 2001: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, Pub.L. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38
October 26, 2001: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism ("USA PATRIOT&quot Act, Pub.L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272
January 8, 2002: No Child Left Behind Act, Pub.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425
January 11, 2002: Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, Pub.L. 107-118, 115 Stat. 2356
March 9, 2002: Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act, Pub.L. 107-147, 116 Stat. 21
March 27, 2002: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold), Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81
May 13, 2002: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Pub.L. 107-171, 116 Stat. 134
July 30, 2002: Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Pub.L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745
August 6, 2002: Trade Act of 2002, Pub.L. 107-210, 116 Stat. 933
October 16, 2002: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497
October 21, 2002: Sudan Peace Act, Pub.L. 107-245, 116 Stat. 1504
October 29, 2002: Help America Vote Act, Pub.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666
November 25, 2002: Homeland Security Act, Pub.L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135
December 17, 2002: E-Government Act of 2002, Pub.L. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899

Like I said, failure!

Hey, but if you consider Bush "successful," who am I to disagree?

[MannyGoldstein]

119. How would you weight these bills?

Would you really weight the AUMF equal to the Shark Conservation Act? Because that's what you're doing above.

[girl gone mad]

132. Wow. And he was able to do all of that without a filibuster-proof majority!

Wait.. what was your argument again?

[Arkana]

66. Barack Obama isn't LBJ.

And you don't get to be a street brawler when you're the President of the United States. Sorry, but I put this squarely on the shoulders of the Blue Dog coalition that sabotaged financial reform and the ACA.

[MadHound]

68. Ah, so LBJ wasn't a street fighter during his turn in the Oval Office?

You obviously don't know your history.

And the fact of the matter is that you have to be a street fighter when you are president, that is if you want to accomplish anything.

[janx]

153. Great man, LBJ got us into the Viet Nam war and

picked up his beagle by its ears.

I'm not loving that history.

[treestar]

79. That is not a fallacy

Republicans have used it that way.

[ProSense]

7. Really?

"Obama had large majorities in Congress for his first two years"

So why didn't Congress pass this: Obama Offers a Transit Plan to Create Jobs

MILWAUKEE — President Obama, looking to stimulate a sluggish economy and create jobs, called Monday for Congress to approve major upgrades to the nation’s roads, rail lines and runways — part of a six-year plan that would cost tens of billions of dollars and create a government-run bank to finance innovative transportation projects.

With Democrats facing an increasingly bleak midterm election season, Mr. Obama used a speech at a union gathering on Labor Day, the traditional start of the campaign season, to outline his plan. It calls for a quick infusion of $50 billion in government spending that White House officials said could spur job growth as early as next year — if Congress approves.

That is a big if. Though transportation bills usually win bipartisan support, hasty passage of Mr. Obama’s plan seems unlikely, given that Congress has only a few weeks of work left before lawmakers return to their districts to campaign and that Republicans are showing little interest in giving Democrats any pre-election victories.

Central to the plan is the president’s call for an “infrastructure bank,” which would be run by the government but would pool tax dollars with private investment, the White House says. Mr. Obama embraced the idea as a senator; with unemployment still high despite an array of government efforts, the concept has lately been gaining traction in policy circles and on Capitol Hill.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07obama.html

Civil Engineers Respond to President's New Infrastructure Plan

RESTON, Va., Sept. 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Response from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to President Obama's new transportation infrastructure investment plan:

"Out nation's economy can't survive without the stable foundation infrastructure provides. It allows goods to move across the country, water to flow from our taps and energy to be accessed with the flip of a switch. But, for decades, we have allowed that foundation to crumble," said Patrick J. Natale, P.E., F.ASCE, CAE, ASCE executive director. "The solution to reversing the trend, and creating a better reality for our children and our grandchildren, requires that we have a dedicated source of funding and an increase in federal leadership to actually put it into use. The President's new investment plan has the potential to be a real part of such a solution. We applaud him for taking a leadership position, and we encourage Congress to work with the administration on this critical national issue. We also look forward to learning more about the details of the plan, in particular, whether or not it will be paid for by the users, as has successfully been done since the beginning of the interstate system in the 1950s."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/civil-engineers-respond-to-presidents-new-infrastructure-plan-102305564.html

I mean, there was a huge push to get it done.

"Obama didn't have his hands tied behind his back, but rather was inexperienced and naive. He squandered a golden opportunity that he had when he came into office. That is no fault but his own.

Congress had nothing to do with it right?

Some Democrats Are Balking at Obama’s Jobs Bill

WASHINGTON — President Obama anticipated Republican resistance to his jobs program, but he is now meeting increasing pushback from his own party. Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.

“I think the American people are very skeptical of big pieces of legislation,” Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said in an interview Wednesday, joining a growing chorus of Democrats who prefer an à la carte version of the bill despite White House resistance to that approach. “For that reason alone I think we should break it up.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has said he will put the bill on the legislative calendar but has declined to say when. He almost certainly will push the bill — which Mr. Obama urged Congress to pass “right now!” — until after his chamber’s recess at the end of the month; Mr. Reid has set votes on disaster aid, extensions for the Federal Aviation Administration and a short-term spending plan ahead of the jobs bill.

Republicans have focused their attack on the tax increases that would help pay for the spending components of the bill. But Democrats, as is their wont, are divided over their objections, which stem from Mr. Obama’s sinking popularity in polls, parochial concerns and the party’s chronic inability to unite around a legislative initiative, even in the face of Republican opposition.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/us/politics/democrats-in-congress-balking-at-obamas-jobs-bill.html

Biggest problem these last few years is exactly this: Congress gets a pass.

[MadHound]

16. Why didn't Obama fight to get what he wanted?

Instead of admiring Reagan, Obama should have studied LBJ and how to actually fight for his agenda. Instead, Obama tried to place nice with the 'Pugs when any fool can tell you that is like playing nice with a rabid dog. He tried to remain above the fray, tried to be "bipartisan", and in the process squandered a golden opportunity for change.

[Tennessee Gal]

21. These are not the times of LBJ.

Get over it.

[bahrbearian]

25. They are the times of Regan though.

[Tennessee Gal]

28. No they are not.

I have never seen Congress like this and I have lived a long time.

[bahrbearian]

52. Most of the Congress Idolizes Reagan

Though they don't even know what he has done to this country. That is why when Obama Praises Reagan, He isn't helping New Deal Democrats, and thats what we need.

[MadHound]

30. No, they're not,

But it is always time to fight like LBJ, not roll over like a whipped dog. I mean really now, handing the rich a tax cut extension three weeks before the drop-dead date? That's not fighting, that's capitulation.

[bahrbearian]

56. Extending the tax cuts was a major capitulation, like For Profit Health Care.

Where was my Public Option? Then We have to look at the Alternative Option, so I will vote for Obama, but I will hold their Feet to the Fire. But don't make me hold my Nose

[ProSense]

59. Yeah

"Extending the tax cuts was a major capitulation, like For Profit Health Care."

..."major capitulation":

16 million: number of Americans who become eligible for Medicaid under the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

Obamacare will save Medicare $200 billion by 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002599800

[bahrbearian]

61. So where is the Public Option? Its all for profit.

I'm not eligible for Medicare yet , but he wants to put that on the block too.

[ProSense]

62. Ask

"So where is the Public Option? Its all for profit."

...Joe Lieberman, or simply make up something to fit your narrative: expanding Medicaid and strengthening Medicare is "all for profit."

[bahrbearian]

64. Like I said I can't get medicare . can you?

[Bluerthanblue]

82. I can't either,

and will never be eligible as things stand.

Yet I still support Pres.O and supported health care reform. It is FAR from what I had wanted, or what we need, but it is a step forward. Even Dennis Kuchinich saw that and decided to support it when push came to shove.

If we don't come together even when the joining is less than ok- we have NO chance at all.

The Republicans would like nothing more than to completely dismantle the fragile saftey nets we have left in place. And like they've continued to do most of my 50+yrs, their supporters will stand strongly behind them, even though it means destroying their own future.

It's about more than "me". It's about the future for everyone. No, I wasn't personally 'helped' by Health Care Reform- I'll most likely have to pay a fine because I won't be able to afford to purchase any health insurance policy that would cover me- but the fact is, there ARE those who have been helped, and who will benefit when HCR is fully implemented.

The Republican agenda would hurt so many. The only people it benefits are those who already are well able to get what they need.

[nobodyspecial]

149. Well, there your go again...

sounding so reasonable, rationale and compassionate. Don't expect that to get you anywhere with those on this thread.

[bahrbearian]

22. Right on

[ProSense]

32. Why

"Why didn't Obama fight to get what he wanted?"

...don't you ever pay attention? I mean, Obama traveled around the country and pushed people to call Congress. When he fights and rejects the too-watered-down versions of a bill, isn't that supposed to make the "at least he fought" crowd happy? No bill, but at least he fought!

Obama to Republicans at Boehner's bridge: What are you waiting for?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/22/1019317/-Obama-to-Republicans-at-Boehners-bridge:-What-are-you-waiting-for?via=blog_1

[MadHound]

42. Not for the first two years of his term.

He spent 2009 and 2010 trying to be noble, above the fray, bipartisan. I guess after getting his ass kicked around the block for two years he finally learned.

[ProSense]

50. Again

Not for the first two years of his term.

He spent 2009 and 2010 trying to be noble, above the fray, bipartisan. I guess after getting his ass kicked around the block for two years he finally learned.

...bullshit!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=647572

[MadHound]

53. Wow, you are getting to be a caricature of yourself

Now you are linking to your posts in the same thread. Sad, truly sad.

[ProSense]

58. Great rebuttal. I'm still laughing. n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

102. no, he spent the first two years

desperately trying to keep this nation from imploding.

The Republicans made no secret about their desire to not only see Pres. Obama fail, but to make it come about in any way they could.

The worst part of all this, is the way too many Democrats thinking about their own precarious seats did nothing to help and then walked around complaining about the results.

It's absurd to think that anyone could have stepped into the shit hole that was the presidency of 2009 and managed to do much more than simply keep us from complete chaos.

If you really think that it is such a simple matter to push through policies that half this country does not agree with us on, why aren't you in the White House?

[Whisp]

155. your post is offensive

it's election time and trying to convince people here that Obama is a big weak, Reagan admiring fool is disgusting. I'm sure there are tickets available to other sites that will welcome your constant misery.

Do you really believe you can sway someone, or do you just enjoy it so much and can't do without.

[Arkana]

65. Actually, he did--the only problem is that the guys holding his arms behind his back were Blue Dogs.

If you honestly think what we had was a dependable majority then I do not know what to tell you.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

69. that is the one thing that amuses and saddens me

when bush was in power most here agreed that the blue dogs were basically just republicans wearing blue and the reason he got a number of things passed was exactly because he had the support of atleast a number of blue dogs on his issues(if not the same ones for each issue)

yet some of the same people now think the very same blue dogs are loyal democrats that would do what they can to help pass what Obama wants if he just asked them nice enough

Bottom line is that those who helped bush pass some of his stuff are those who tends to fight Obama's agenda in congress on the dem side and thus can't really be counted on.

[MadHound]

70. So why didn't he break that grip they had,

And push them into supporting his agenda? Other presidents have done so, and even gotten members of the other party to go along, why couldn't Obama? Oh, yeah, he wanted to be above the fray, wanted to be bipartisan, and was suffering from a serious case of inexperience and naivete.

[Surya Gayatri]

91. No other modern US president has faced the sheer

obstructionism and divisiveness that he has--starting from the very day of his inauguration.

Haven't you caught Robert Draper making the news show rounds with his new "embedded" book Do Not Ask What Good We Do?

My god, when you read his exposé you have to marvel that PBO got anything done at all.

Those neo-con fuckers' plotting was worse than any Machiavellian cabal. Jeezus, cut the guy some slack, can't ya MH?

Your incessant and tedious ripping on him is really depressing.

[MadHound]

96. Well, you know, being unemployed and underemployed for two years now is pretty depressing

And the fact of the matter is that, starting from Day One, Obama had massive political capital, a public who was mostly on his side and hungry for change, and large majorities in Congress.

And he squandered all of it, every single bit.

To millions like myself who were expecting, hoping and needing more, it is all pretty depressing.

[Surya Gayatri]

113. Hearing things from your personal perspective,

I understand better why you're in that negative space, MH.

I sympathize. Believe me, I know about unemployment, having been laid off five times in my career.

But, as a French resident, I was able to get through the rough patches thanks to France's social safety net.

I was always able to pay the rent and keep food in the fridge until I found something else.

Sadly, many Americans don't have that luxury. I know how it wears down your body and soul to be always panicked about finances.

Be strong and try to keep positive, MH. It's better for your health, plus it makes you a more "attractive" candidate for any prospective employer.

Things will get better and you will find the work you need.

[Arkana]

145. And how does he do that, pray tell?

By sending them flowers? Maybe he could challenge them to an arm-wrestling competition?

And you talk about the concept of bipartisanship like it's a bad thing. It's not. We know, unfortunately, that Republicans had decided it was going to be impossible the day Obama took the oath, but you cannot honestly expect him to have known that.

And who are these other Presidents? Oh, right--FDR and LBJ, right? Never mind that those guys had nearly 70 Senate Democrats, over 300 House Democrats, and no filibuster rule to contend with.

Congressmen are people, not switches to flip one way or the other. They can be cowardly and craven just like regular people. I'm sorry you don't realize that.

[pansypoo53219]

76. congress does not matter if you have a senate that blocked a majority of good.

starting w/ bennet + lieberfuckenputz. and the rest of the filibusters on the rite.

[MadHound]

77. "Ooo, the Senate is blocking me. . .

I guess I have to fold up my tent and go home." What horseshit. Plenty of presidents have faced uncooperative Congresses, and guess what, they stood up, got into the fray, and fought for what they wanted. Obama instead tried to be above the fray, tried to be bipartisan, and for the first two years, simply didn't fight. That cost all of us dearly.

Now with a bit more experience, and a little less naivete, Obama has realized that he has to get into the fray, and guess what, even with a Republican Congress, he has managed to advance his agenda somewhat. Gee, just think of what he could have accomplished if he had been fighting from the beginning.

[ProSense]

80. The

"Ooo, the Senate is blocking me. . .

I guess I have to fold up my tent and go home." What horseshit. Plenty of presidents have faced uncooperative Congresses, and guess what, they stood up, got into the fray, and fought for what they wanted. Obama instead tried to be above the fray, tried to be bipartisan, and for the first two years, simply didn't fight. That cost all of us dearly.

..."horseshit" is pretending that the President has control over the actions of every member of Congress. I mean, whatever happened to the notion that some Senators are "bought and paid for"?

Still, speaking of "uncooperative Congresses": http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/04/1088674/-The-cold-truth-about-Obama-and-FDR

Why do you think it took 100 years to get health care reform?

[MadHound]

84. Ahh, hyperbole

I never said that the President has control over each and every single member of Congress. What has been shown however is that a strong President, one who is willing to fight, can marshal the Congress members of his own party behind him, and even peel off a few from the opposition.

Obama simply didn't do this the first two years of his administration. He was too busy trying to be above the fray and bipartisan.

[ProSense]

87. Yeah,

I never said that the President has control over each and every single member of Congress. What has been shown however is that a strong President, one who is willing to fight, can marshal the Congress members of his own party behind him, and even peel off a few from the opposition.

...and a strong President signed health care reform into law after 100 years of attempts and Wall Street reform in the face of stiff opposition.

You not agreeing with the policy doesn't mean he didn't get it done.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/barack-obamas-had-pretty-damn-good-presidency
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002530308

[MadHound]

89. Ah yes, that gift to the insurance industry, a mandated monopoly,

With no public option and weak price controls

A pretty disastrous " achievement", one that is going to further drive the middle class into the dirt.

[ProSense]

93. No

"Ah yes, that gift to the insurance industry, a mandated monopoly,"

...the "gift" of health care to millions.

16 million: number of Americans who become eligible for Medicaid under the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

Obamacare will save Medicare $200 billion by 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002599800

Are you against expanding Medicaid and strenghtening Medicare?

[MadHound]

99. Are you in favor of giving the insurance industry a mandated monopoly

With weak price controls?

[ProSense]

103. You didn't

"Are you in favor of giving the insurance industry a mandated monopoly

With weak price controls?"

...answer my question: Are you against expanding Medicaid and strenghtening Medicare?

[MadHound]

104. Not at the cost of giving the insurance industry a mandated monopoly,

With no relief in the form of a public option and meaningful price controls.

[ProSense]

110. Guess who

"Not at the cost of giving the insurance industry a mandated monopoly, With no relief in the form of a public option and meaningful price controls."

...doesn't agree with you: Grayson, Kucinich, Sanders and all the other Democrats who voted for the bill.

Alan Grayson:

<...>

We still have over 30 million Americans who cannot see a doctor when they are sick. According to this Harvard study, adjusting for gender, race, smoking, weight, and just about everything else that you can think of, in any given year, the uninsured are 40% more likely to die than the insured are. That results in 44,789 additional deaths in America each year. All of which are avoidable.

This is more than twice the number of homicides in America.

It is more than ten times the number of deaths on 9/11. And it happens every year.

Do you think that we should solve this problem? I do.

And the Democratic Party does. Which is why we passed health care reform. And why we brought the wrath of lobbyists and their sewer money down on our heads in the last election – over $65 million by the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s “American Crossroads” alone.

I see one party taking on the special interests and enacting laws to keep Americans alive, and assure that you can see a doctor when you are sick. Like in every other industrialized country in the world.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/20/937697/-What-I-Didnt-Hear

[MadHound]

114. Really? This is what Kucinich had to say about the individual mandate

"But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross. "
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/11927

This is what Sanders had to say about the individual mandate
"If you're saying to somebody ‘you must have health insurance and you're going to have to go into a private health insurance company who's only function in life is to try to make as much money as possible', I don't that's fair - I think that's wrong."
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=4FF88C22-436D-4621-92F7-EDB63346E58B

This is what Obama had to say about the individual mandate
"Some folks who said that it's not possible to provide universal health care coverage unless there's a mandate._ Their essential argument is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don't buy it, then you'll be penalized in some way....The reason people don't have health insurance is because they can't afford it."

But that was what Candidate Obama said. Shame we don't have Candidate Obama in the White House.

[ProSense]

126. Did he vote for the bill? n/t

[MadHound]

142. Did Candidate Obama campaign against the individual mandate?

Yes he did. Candidate Obama also campaigned for the public option. A real shame that Candidate Obama didn't make it to the White House.

[ProSense]

144. Did Kucinich vote for the bill?

Did Candidate Obama campaign against the individual mandate?

Yes he did. Candidate Obama also campaigned for the public option. A real shame that Candidate Obama didn't make it to the White House.

President Obama never stated that the mandate was unconstitutional or that he was completely opposed to any mandate. His argument was always affordability before a mandate. In fact, the statement about homelessness was specifically to reiterate the affordability point.

Here's some info to jog your memory.

<...>

OBAMA: Let's break down what she really means by a mandate. What's meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she's suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here's the concern. If you haven't made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don't buy a house is they don't have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That's what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html

<...>

SEN. OBAMA...According to Senator Clinton...there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody; it is a mandate that every individual purchase health care...If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate....

MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator Clinton, on this subject --

SEN. CLINTON...Senator Obama has a mandate in his plan. It's a mandate on parents to provide health insurance for their children. That's about 150 million people who would be required to do that. The difference between Senator Obama and myself is that I know, from the work I've done on health care for many years, that if everyone's not in the system we will continue to let the insurance companies do what's called cherry picking -- pick those who get insurance and leave others out.

<...>

SEN. OBAMA...I do provide a mandate for children, because, number one, we have created a number of programs in which we can have greater assurance that those children will be covered at an affordable price. On the -- on the point of many adults, we don't want to put in a situation in which, on the front end, we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and if the subsidies are inadequate, the burden is on them, and they will be penalized. And that is what Senator Clinton's plan does.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?pagewanted=print

[cliffordu]

90. Can you illuminate these points with examples?

Like this one:

"Plenty of presidents have faced uncooperative Congresses, and guess what, they stood up, got into the fray, and fought for what they wanted."

Name a couple, show us what kind of votes each president you name get for whatever legislation they passed.

As for your second paragraph -

WTF is that, crying over spilled milk??

imaginary 20/20 hindsight?

Gee, just think of what I could have accomplished if I hadn't wasted the 15 seconds reading that drivel.

[MadHound]

92. Can you read through this thread?

I've given plenty of examples, don't expect people to spoon feed knowledge to you. Do your own research.

[cliffordu]

95. Ah, yes.....

full of air with nothing there.

[MadHound]

97. In other words you aren't going to read through the thread,

Or go out and educate yourself.

Speaking of nothing there.

[nobodyspecial]

150. I've read through this thread

You haven't given plenty of examples. You invoked LBJ a couple of times but offered no side-by-side comparison between LBJ and Obama showing that they had the same set of circumstances in which LBJ was able to flourish and Obama was not. Just saying something and repeating it does not prove your case.

[cliffordu]

154. Yep.

[cliffordu]

85. I just love your talking points

His "huge majority" must have been on a different plane of reality, particularly when it came to the Senate.

This "Inexperienced and Naive" is a RW talking point and nothing more.

Shame, shame.

[MadHound]

88. Glad you love them,

It shows that maybe, just maybe, you're accepting the truth.

The truth that Obama did have what is considered a large majority in both the House and Senate(57 Dems, plus Sanders and former Dem Lieberman).

The truth is that a half term Senator is indeed inexperienced and naive.

Remember, the truth will set you free.

[paulk]

94. when every disagreement becomes a "RW talking point"

life gets so much easier

[4th law of robotics]

138. People seem to forget this

"Ah but he didn't have 60+ votes" they say.

I suspect if he'd had 60 they would have said "ah but he didn't have 70+ votes!" and so on.

Collapsing on the threat of a filibuster is cowardly. Force them to actually do it.

[Creideiki]

147. Sadly, you're making a few assumptions

First, Obama is progressive. All evidence shows that he's Just Another Fracking Conservative (JAFC). See lack of public option, willingness to ignore climate change, incremental minimalism on LGBT civil rights issues among others.

Second, the Democratic Party is progressive. Aside from the Progressive Caucus, they're JABFC. See above.

By comparison to the Republickan Party, yes they are "more" progressive, but that's a very mild increment.

Vermont will likely need to be the model for Progressives in this country.

[BlueJazz]

2. Yep...it is amazing. We've heard so much about the Tax cuts (for the rich) and how they will...

..create jobs and prosperity and how America will "Get on the right tracK"

Well, they're partially correct.
It's gotten on the right (far right) track, which means the train is having to carry and force their sorry asses into the 21st century.

[TheMastersNemesis]

3. Unfortunately That May Be True

For some reason Obama thought you could negotiate with a bunch of murderous psychopaths. You can't play nice. You have to savage these bastards every way you can.

[madokie]

4. Our media is in the pockets of our big corporations

literally I might add. The same corporations that build our war machines for the most part own our media. They see our minorities as second class citizens and they can't be having a two term black man as President. The media will do any and all things necessary to make sure that doesn't happen and that is why we have to work our asses off re-electing this President. Thats not the only reason for us working our asses off as this President is good for America and the world for that matter.

[NNN0LHI]

10. And check out the pseudo liberals who jump right on that "Obama is bad.", bandwagon

They think we are all as stupid as they are.

Don

[nobodyspecial]

17. Oh, look

There's one now!

[Bluerthanblue]

63. +1

you said it Don.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Three years of slavish devotion to Hoover-nomics

and here we are.

[link:http://harpers.org/archive/2009/07/0082562|Barack Hoover Obama:
The best and the brightest blow it again]

[ProSense]

19. Well, I see

your bogus three-year-old article, and raise you one day-old chart and the facts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002645013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002644562

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Three simple questions:

1. What's bogus about that Atlantic article? Seems to have predicted the future very well, no?
2. Do you have graphs that show job recovery which account for natural population growth? We need to add about 1.5 million new jobs a year to account for this.
3. Why are public sector jobs of no importance? Is this a Third-Way thing?

[ProSense]

36. Simply

Three simple questions:

1. What's bogus about that Atlantic article? Seems to have predicted the future very well, no?
2. Do you have graphs that show job recovery which account for natural population growth? We need to add about 1.5 million new jobs a year to account for this.
3. Why are public sector jobs of no importance? Is this a Third-Way thing?

...bogus. Maybe you can convince the "suckers" (quoting Krugman) who voted in the Republicans with that "Third-Way thing," but thinking people know that Republicans are not the alternative and you get what you get when you vote them in.

<...>

Notice that I said “government in America,” not “the federal government.” The federal government has been pursuing what amount to contractionary policies as the last vestiges of the Obama stimulus fade out, but the big cuts have come at the state and local level...We’re talking big numbers here. If government employment under Mr. Obama had grown at Reagan-era rates, 1.3 million more Americans would be working as schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, etc., than are currently employed in such jobs.

And once you take the effects of public spending on private employment into account, a rough estimate is that the unemployment rate would be 1.5 percentage points lower than it is, or below 7 percent — significantly better than the Reagan economy at this stage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html

[MannyGoldstein]

41. I think you addressed exactly zero of my questions.

Perhaps we both need a cup of coffee. I know I do!

[nobodyspecial]

29. So happy to see posters here eager

to work on behalf of the GOP for Obama's defeat. Not the response I expected. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[marmar]

35. I seriously doubt that posting on DU will have all that big an impact one way or the other.

nt

[Tennessee Gal]

37. It is quite discouraging.

But it will not get me down.

Has Obama done everything I wanted? Of course not. But he is a good, honest, decent, and extremely intelligent man. I like him. I like his family. I like the way he conducts himself. I like the way he speaks. And he is far, far better than what we had for the previous 8 years. And he is far, far better than that dipshit fool Mitt Romney.

[great white snark]

45. You won't change the minds of those who have blamed Obama since day one.

Hell, even during the primaries before day one.

History will be kind to Obama considering the unprecedented obstruction he's faced.

[Ikonoklast]

55. The Far Left and the Far Right both have the same agenda.

Their hatred of this president makes them ignore facts and reality; they both use invented 'facts' to support their nonsense, thinking that if they keep saying it, it will become reality.

[Bluerthanblue]

75. even if it isn't centered on simple hatred-

but rather a fanatical devotion to some key agenda.

We all have issues that are especially important to us- but the reality is, that allowing Republicans to have power moves us even farther away from where we need and want to be.

All the bullshit about there being no difference between the two parties serves no one. There IS a difference, and it is vital that we not allow the Republicans to gain or retain any more control than they already have.

We have to live in this 'real-world'. While working toward the 'ideal' one.

[nobodyspecial]

151. Yep, there is a vocal contingent that believes

if we let is all implode that something better will rise from the ashes. However, history shows us that is often not the case. Often, dictators and despots rise from the ashes promising to restore order and make things better. Think of the disarray of Germany that allowed Hitler to rise to power.

Thanks for remaining reasonable and grounded in reality.

[Surya Gayatri]

115. You'd hardly know this was a Democratic site!

Astonishing, the animus that some of these so-called Dems hold for their present best hope and party standard-bearer.

[toddwv]

49. 600,000 public sector jobs cut.

No... there's no attempt to sabotage there...

[pampango]

54. It's been the republican strategy since Obama's first day in office. Has the potential to work,

though it could also implode with tremendous force. We can always hope.

[Bluerthanblue]

67. yes it does, especially when Dem's join them.

Pres. O isn't perfect, but if we don't band strongly together to fight the Republicans, we will be helping them continue their plan to destroy what matters most.

One thing that can be said for the Republicans, they demand solidarity. Democrats by nature aren't into lock-step mentality (a good thing for the most part) but sometimes it can really hurt us in the long run.

We need to stand united against the Republican/tea-party/religious-right. FAR too much is at stake in this election.

[99Forever]

71. Appears to me to be yet another..

.. laundry list of excuses for poor performance and lack of the ability to fulfill the promises Obama made in his campaign. Same ol' same ol'. I stand unimpressed.

[Better Believe It]

72. President Obama: "I've never believed that government's role is to create jobs or prosperity"

(Excerpt)

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release September 08, 2010
Remarks by the President on the Economy in Parma, Ohio
Cuyahoga Community College West Campus, Parma, Ohio


"Now, we have a different vision for the future. See, I’ve never believed that government has all the answers to our problems. I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it’s the drive and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, our small businesses; the skill and dedication of our workers -- (applause) -- that’s made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. (Applause.) I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine for our recovery.

I believe government should be lean; government should be efficient. I believe government should leave people free to make the choices they think are best for themselves and their families, so long as those choices don’t hurt others. (Applause.)"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/08/remarks-president-economy-parma-ohio

The Obama Administration won't lift President Reagan's ban prohibiting direct WPA type federal jobs programs. President Obama believes it's not the governments role to lead this nation out of the Great Recession by creating millions of useful public works jobs to perform vital work that needs to be done. A "lean government" stays out of the way and lets Wall Street and corporate America perform their magic.

Some magic.

Well, they did make over 10 million jobs disappear. BBI

Excerpts from two articles by Alec MacGillis -

Why aren't President Obama's job-creation efforts more direct?
By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 8, 2009 and
Monday, November 9, 2009

Why has a White House that talks so much about boosting employment steered clear of the most direct strategy that could keep Americans on the job? .... aside from a small summer employment program for young people, it has not sought to create jobs on the public payroll, something the country did in the 1930s and 1970s.

President Richard Nixon gave jobs programs another go in the doldrums of 1973-74 with the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA).

The program withered under President Ronald Reagan, who added prohibitions against public service employment (except for summer programs and natural disasters) that endure today. That the Obama administration shows little indication of lifting this taboo is a sign of how free-market tenets persist even when financial turmoil has called them into doubt, said John Russo, co-director of Youngstown State University's Center for Working-Class Studies.

As for direct job creation: there's a real nervousness about setting up anything that looks like a WPA-style jobs program. It's that reluctance that my piece is calling into question -- after all, is it really more politically damaging to be seen as doing a jobs program than to be facing double-digit unemployment?

.... we had direct job creation programs in place throughout the '70s, as my article recounts. It was called CETA, and it ramped up under Nixon in '73-'74 recession. Reagan ended the program, and implemented a new federal restriction against federal jobs programs, with exception for summer youth programs and national emergencies.

The Labor Department does have various job training programs in place, such as Job Corps. But the federal government is prohibited against doing direct jobs-program style hiring a ban that Reagan put in place and that the Democrats so far have balked at trying to lift.

Read the full articles at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110601900.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/11/06/DI2009110603214.html

[ProSense]

74. "I believe it’s the...skill and dedication of our workers...that’s made us the wealthiest nation..."

"Now, we have a different vision for the future. See, I’ve never believed that government has all the answers to our problems. I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it’s the drive and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, our small businesses; the skill and dedication of our workers -- (applause) -- that’s made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. (Applause.) I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine for our recovery.

I can cherry pick too!

[coalition_unwilling]

81. And, what's worse, those 'weak job numbers,' even were they

entirely Obama's fault (which I now realize is not the case) would be worse by several orders of magnitude under a McCrazy or Romney administration.

If it can't explain an issue to a third grader, the media won't cover a subject. That's how we got Operation Shocking and Awful. (OK, the McClatchy chain is the exception that proves my rule.

[Surya Gayatri]

98. Thanks a lot for posting this, nobody...

It needs to be said.

Fed up to the teeth here with the carping and caviling.

One of the worst offenders says he might even prefer that Rmoney win.
WTF?

[Better Believe It]

112. Like Obama said: "I've never believed that government's role is to create jobs or prosperity"

Do you agree with President Obama on this point?

[Surya Gayatri]

117. In part, yes, if you put it back in the context...

of your own quotation up-thread:

"I've never believed that government's role is to create jobs or prosperity...I believe it’s the drive and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, our small businesses; the skill and dedication of our workers -- (applause) -- that’s made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. (Applause.) I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine for our recovery."

Since I started noticing your posts here, BBI, never have I seen one word of acknowledgement, much less approval, of anything PBO has said or done.

Your posts would find wide acceptance and a warm welcome on any RW site.

If it weren't my personal policy never to put anyone on ignore, you would've been my top candidate for the "oubliette".

I routinely skip over your posts as if they were not there. Zero interest.

[Better Believe It]

127. I take it you are also against massive government public works programs to help the unemployed.

"I routinely skip over your posts as if they were not there. Zero interest."

Is that why you respond to them?

"BBI, never have I seen one word of acknowledgement, much less approval, of anything PBO has said or done."

That just means you've done a piss poor job of policying posts by DU'ers you disagree with or are you just repeating a talking point you've been given?

"Your posts would find wide acceptance and a warm welcome on any RW site."

Right-wing outfits are opposed to significant government public works programs therefore your observation makes absolutely no political sense. And on top of that your comment is a personal attack that contributes nothing to this discussion and has won you a place on my total ignore list.

Bye.

[girl gone mad]

141. In context, the statement is even worse.

I know that people like to hear these platitudes and they want to believe in the confidence fairy and all, but when our nation's prosperity is on the line, it's essential that our leaders know how economies really function. Based on Obama's statement and the context you provided, he doesn't have the first clue, and that's extremely disturbing.

At the time Obama gave this speech, we were still dealing with the fallout of global economic collapse caused by excessive credit creation (unsustainable private sector debt). Economists have understood for well over 100 years that the only way to reverse the effects of a massive private sector debt deleveraging event such as this is for the public sector to spend. That's the reason virtually every industrialized western nation has automatic stabilizers and at least modest safety nets in place.

The line Obama was pushing here is pure bunk. The private sector was contracting at an alarming pace. The Federal Government, as the sole issuer of our sovereign fiat currency had precisely one role to play in the crisis. That is to be the main engine for our recovery. The private sector cannot create money. If we were operating under policies that promote trade surplus, it might be possible for the private sector to grow on its own. Under our current system which encourages dollar reserve, trade deficits and asset bubbles, it simply would never happen.

[nobodyspecial]

152. Well, I thought so as well

but we might as well be on a GOP board given half the posts here. I see a bunch of finger pointing and blame placing, but at the end of the day, we have ONLY two choices in this election: Obama or Romney. It's a shame many fail to see the reality of that.

[Edweird]

108. Poor, poor powerless little Obama. Apparently only Republican Presidents have any power.

[ProSense]

111. Please

"Poor, poor powerless little Obama. Apparently only Republican Presidents have any power."

...define "power"?


Comparing Bush to Obama: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=648160

Comparing Obama to other Presidents: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=647752

Obama's record: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=647683

[Edweird]

116. There's a reason Kucinich got the 'come to Jesus' plane ride and not Lieberman.

[ProSense]

120. Yeah

"There's a reason Kucinich got the 'come to Jesus' plane ride and not Lieberman."

...he's not in the Senate. Do you think Kucinich is a bigger self-serving asshole than Lieberman?

The President courted Kucinich's vote, and got it. That pretty much dashes the argument that he can't do so when people are willing to be reasonable. It's an entirely different thing when a member of Congress is beholden to special interests (or his/her ego).

[Edweird]

121. So we're back to poor, poor pwerless Obama against big bad Lieberman, so he has to beat up Kucinich

Your story is fail. Obama has repeatedly embraced RW policy - the individual mandate being one of many examples.

[ProSense]

122. Unlike you

So we're back to poor, poor pwerless Obama against big bad Lieberman, so he has to beat up Kucinich

Your story is fail. Obama has repeated embraced RW policy - the individual mandate being one of many examples.

...I don't equate being a self-serving asshole with "big bad."

You then claim the President "beat up Kucinich." Does that mean your argument is "poor, poor pwerless" Kucinich.

Aside from being utterly nonsensical, I'll have to give that logic a big: FAIL!

[Edweird]

123. Obama chooses to use his bully pulpit against the left not the right.

You can attempt to portray that however you wish, but it is obvious to anyone with even the slightest critical thinking skills.

[AtomicKitten]

124. Nonsense. Utter nonsensical crapola.

[Edweird]

128. LOL

[ProSense]

129. Here

...laugh at this:

Kucinich: Supreme Court Ruling will be the Next Step toward Single-Payer Health Care

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who provided the pivotal vote in the House to pass the Affordable Care Act, today explained the Supreme Courts’ ruling will simply be the next step in the inevitable path towards single-payer health care. Today, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments as it considers the landmark health care reform bill passed in the previous Congress.

“The Supreme Court has begun its review of the Affordable Care Act, and I hope the law is upheld. I voted for the bill, even as the coauthor of the single-payer solution, because it provided immediate relief [1] for my constituents. It also demonstrated that reform is possible within the context of the for-profit system. However, in the current for-profit system, one out of every three dollars spent on health care goes toward things other than providing health care. The cost of health care continues to grow because the costs cannot be constrained within the context of that for-profit system. Whether the Supreme Court upholds the law or strikes it down, single-payer is the only alternative that can meet our nation’s needs,” said Kucinich.

Congressman Kucinich is the coauthor, along with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), of H.R. 676, Medicare for All. H.R. 676 would cover everyone in the U.S. for all medically necessary services with no copayments, premiums or deductibles, for the same amount we currently pay for health care.

“The fundamental question for Americans is whether health care is only for those who can afford it or whether health care is human right. I believe health care is a fundamental right of every American and we have found that when we treat it as such, it becomes more affordable for everyone.

“Congress has shown an appetite for single-payer. I introduced an amendment to the Affordable Care Act in 2009 in the Education and Labor Committee. The amendment, passed on a bipartisan vote but stripped from the bill, would have helped states pursue single-payer if that is what their residents wanted. My amendment was one of the first single-payer legislative victories in Congress. It won’t be the last.”

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=287135

More on H.R. 676: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002501049

[Edweird]

134. Except that the individual mandate is the exact opposite of single payer.

[ProSense]

135. Is that your rebuttal to Kucinich's statement? n/t

[ProSense]

125. More

"Obama chooses to use his bully pulpit against the left not the right."

...nonsense. Opposition to the bill came from the right and the Blue Dogs (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002607114). The left supported the bill.

Alan Grayson:

<...>

We still have over 30 million Americans who cannot see a doctor when they are sick. According to this Harvard study, adjusting for gender, race, smoking, weight, and just about everything else that you can think of, in any given year, the uninsured are 40% more likely to die than the insured are. That results in 44,789 additional deaths in America each year. All of which are avoidable.

This is more than twice the number of homicides in America.

It is more than ten times the number of deaths on 9/11. And it happens every year.

Do you think that we should solve this problem? I do.

And the Democratic Party does. Which is why we passed health care reform. And why we brought the wrath of lobbyists and their sewer money down on our heads in the last election – over $65 million by the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s “American Crossroads” alone.

I see one party taking on the special interests and enacting laws to keep Americans alive, and assure that you can see a doctor when you are sick. Like in every other industrialized country in the world.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/20/937697/-What-I-Didnt-Hear

[Edweird]

131. The Left (an 2/3'rds of the nation) supported Single payer and accepted the public option as a

compromise. Candidate Obama campaigned AGAINST the individual mandate. Despite all that, Obama sided with Lieberman and FOUGHT FOR the RW individual mandate. I believe that is 'bait and switch'. You are still trying to put a happy face on wretched policy.

[ProSense]

133. More

The Left (an 2/3'rds of the nation) supported Single payer and accepted the public option as a compromise.

...nonsense. Public opinion polls don't vote on bills in Congress.

Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance

Evan McMorris-Santoro

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.

“It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that’s it,” he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday.

Sanders is among the few in the Senate not afraid to say he supports government-run, universal health care. But his calls for such a program have gone unanswered, much to the chagrin of progressives who still feel it is the best way to solve the nation’s health care crisis.

Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually — but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.

Sanders has put forward an amendment to the current health care bill in the Senate that would allow states to use federal funds to create their own single-payer plans, he said.

- more-

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance.php

Remember Section 1332 of the health care law?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002482074

Now, keep working to convince "The Left (an 2/3'rds of the nation)" to put more pressure on their elected representatives.

[Edweird]

136. Pressure is the president's job - quit trying to pass the buck.

Obama fought for - and got - RW policy.

[ProSense]

137. Yes,

Pressure is the president's job - quit trying to pass the buck.

Obama fought for - and got - RW policy.

...and he applied it and signed health care reform into law after 100 years of attempts. Still, I see that in the contradictory statement above, you agree that 1) "Pressure is the president's job" and 2) "Obama fought for - and got" (regardless of your characterization of the policy).

[Edweird]

139. Yep, he applied pressure to pass the RW individual mandate instead of single payer

or even a public option. The 'votes weren't there' because Obama DID NOT FIGHT FOR THEM. HE ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNED AGAINST THEM. Thus, Kucinich got the plane ride and not Lieberman. You and others attempt to shift responsibility from Obama for his RW policies to republicans or the citizens. That is dishonest (and you know it). He is fighting for, and getting, what he wants.

[ProSense]

140. Wait,

"Yep, he applied pressure to pass the RW individual mandate instead of single payer

or even a public option. The 'votes weren't there' because Obama DID NOT FIGHT FOR THEM. HE ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNED AGAINST THEM. Thus, Kucinich got the plane ride and not Lieberman..."

...if the "votes weren't there," how did Obama get them if he "DID NOT FIGHT FOR THEM"?

Are you saying that the entire Progressive Caucus and every progressive Senator, including Bernie Sanders, were prepared to vote for "the RW individual mandate instead of single payer," and the only hold out, Kucinich, caved?

What exactly are you saying?

[Edweird]

156. That Obama acted as a leader and lead congress to the resolution he desired: the individual mandate.

Not single payer. Not the public option.

He applied pressure to those on the Left to support the RW individual mandate instead of pressuring those on the right to support single payer.

Remember when doctors and nurses advocating single payer weren't even allowed a seat at the table and were ARRESTED?

Kucinich got leaned on and Lieberman got rewarded.

Obama fought for votes - for the wrong policy.

[Arkana]

146. What are you implying?

That they threatened Kucinich?