PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List

[mAcOdIn]

Well, I think it's fairly obvious that this bill will run over the 850 Billion dollar budget. I'm not saying the government or the CBO is lying, just that estimates that span decades are always wrong. No offense to the people who make them, I mean, you have to estimate to get you into the ballpark so you can even begin to fund these things but, since they are estimates that span a decade I think every sane person should not assume that that estimate automatically equals a hard cost. It will run over budget, I could bet anyone here a million dollars it will.

Or let me phrase it another way, if it's to succeed it will run over budget, if Republicans take back control and gut it further then it's possible it'll hit the mark or run under budget.

[drakesfortune]

Most non-elected ones, anyway.

Hey, here we agree. It's rare I agree with Franken, but I'm big enough to admit that he's right on this one. I'd burn any fucker at the stake who raped and woman, man or child. I have ZERO sympathy for them

This is the problem with politics in American. Most people choose a side and stick with it no matter what. This is why I don't call myself a Republican.

Just because Republicans were wrong to oppose this amendment does not make them wrong on everything else. The healthcare bill, even by a lot of democrats standards, is an atrocity. It is BAD. It should not be passed. We can NOT afford it as a country. We do NOT have the money. Too few people understand just how dire our economic situation is. We are past being broke. We are so close to bankruptcy, and I think this bill would push us into a sever economic depression. It would cost jobs, standard of living, and our freedoms. We should not let government take this MASSIVE power grab. We should control our own destinies.

[empty vessel]

On the plus side, if it does pass, it will benefit me greatly. I've already cut my income by half so that the taxpayers can foot my tuition bills via Pell Grants. The time away from work is nice, and with the lower state and federal taxes I'm paying, I'm actually coming out about where I would if I were working full-time. Having my health care subsidized because poor little me isn't making much money will probably mean that I take in more in benefits and income working part-time than I would working full-time. Voting sure is easier than working, I'll give it that.

I'm glad you agree. There isn't any good reason you should work full time and go to school. Nobody should. Your education benefits society, and we should all, therefore, help you obtain it. I only wish we could cover your tuition, books, boarding, and all of your health care. Presumably, you are one of "the taxpayers" about which you speak. And you will continue to pay taxes in the future. You should get the benefit of them, as that is what good government does. You're welcome.

[zoku88]

^We can't afford our current system. We might as well try to change it on the off-shoot that we get something that is better.

[Tamanon]

Hey, here we agree. It's rare I agree with Franken, but I'm big enough to admit that he's right on this one. I'd burn any fucker at the stake who raped and woman, man or child. I have ZERO sympathy for them This is the problem with politics in American. Most people choose a side and stick with it no matter what. This is why I don't call myself a Republican. Just because Republicans were wrong to oppose this amendment does not make them wrong on everything else. The healthcare bill, even by a lot of democrats standards, is an atrocity. It is BAD. It should not be passed. We can NOT afford it as a country. We do NOT have the money. Too few people understand just how dire our economic situation is. We are past being broke. We are so close to bankruptcy, and I think this bill would push us into a sever economic depression. It would cost jobs, standard of living, and our freedoms. We should not let government take this MASSIVE power grab. We should control our own destinies.

How would this bill push us into a severe depression? How would it cost jobs and "our freedoms"? You're just randomly saying things now.

But it's good to know you support the closing of Gitmo and pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan at least.

[ToxicAdam]

but I could never vote for any Democrat who would vote for this health care monstrosity. Never. The thing is a complete fuck over of everyone in our society, and it will tear the country apart.

I disagree that it's going to "tear this country apart" or that it fundamentally changes the country.

A fundamental change would have been a single payer system.


The 'big picture' damage of the Bush presidency (and more importantly, the Republican-ruled congress of the past decade) is that they have lost the high ground on spending issues or expansion of government. The American people know this and it's why you aren't seeing such a great outrage on this issue like you would have in the past.

In the end, this isn't a big bill that drastically shapes life in America. It's just a bad bill. America has survived bad bills in the past. It's a bill that liberals hope will improve down the road and blossom into something different. But instead, it will just be another inefficient solution to an existing problem. But it's "for a good cause" so that will be excused by the supporters of it. Unfortunately, Republicans need to sit back and take it. It's their just desserts for being so shitty.

[Open Source]

balancing the budget right now by enacting spending freezes and drastic cuts would actually put us on a more ruinous course.

Ha! That's another thing that's changed since we swapped Presidents. The budget deficit triples, and now it's not such a bad thing to have.

[drakesfortune]

balancing the budget right now by enacting spending freezes and drastic cuts would actually put us on a more ruinous course.

I TOTALLY disagree. Look at the stimulus bill. Massive amounts of that money are wasted, unaccounted for. It has done VERY little good. Just not spending that money would have put us in a much better position.

I think Obama was right to bail out the banks. We'd be fucked if he and Bush hadn't. I don't fault him for that. The stimulus was, however, an awful mistake. It stimulated nothing but union coffers, and inefficient government programs. Obama should have offered tax cuts directed like a laser at small business. That would have been the best thing he could have done. Democrats hate tax cuts so much though, that they can't stand to do it. It would have saved and created far more jobs though, than passing 700 billion into a governmental, incompetent, black hole.

At this point, if the deficit is not destroyed and eliminated, then we are screwed. And I personally support Obama, or whoever does whatever it takes to close that gap. If that means targeted tax hikes, ALONGSIDE equally big spending cuts, then I can support that. We need both though. You can't just hike taxes and not cut spending. That isn't taking the problem seriously. I think the deficit is a profound risk to us all right now. It is a risk to our entire society, our standard of living, our future, and everything.

We're sending out over 250 billion PER YEAR in interest payment right now. Obama is making that MUCH worse with the spending spree he's on. Think about that. The healthcare bill proposes to spend about $150 $200 billion (in real dollars not phony CBO dollars that excludes things that will never happen). So we could pay for healthcare, and pay $100 to $50 billion dollars per year down on our debt if we simply balanced the budget. The public appetite for massive spending programs would go up if we simply paid our bills and didn't throw it on the credit card that YOUR generation will have to pay for. It is the 20 somethings and under that are truly being screwed right now.

At least I had a decade of reasonable taxes to accumulate wealth and where my wife had a good job. I think the younger generation is being royally screwed by the baby boomers. They have fucked us so hard. The baby boom generation, Republican, and Democrat, has HOSED us with their bill. Bastards.

[DrForester]

Well, I think it's fairly obvious that this bill will run over the 850 Billion dollar budget. I'm not saying the government or the CBO is lying, just that estimates that span decades are always wrong. No offense to the people who make them, I mean, you have to estimate to get you into the ballpark so you can even begin to fund these things but, since they are estimates that span a decade I think every sane person should not assume that that estimate automatically equals a hard cost. It will run over budget, I could bet anyone here a million dollars it will. Or let me phrase it another way, if it's to succeed it will run over budget, if Republicans take back control and gut it further then it's possible it'll hit the mark or run under budget.

I have no issues with the public option, but do think some of the stuff republicans think will fix everything, won't obviously fix everything, but will definitely help as part of the goal overhauling our Health Care system, and should be looked at and included. I just don't see this bill doing much to address the costs of medical care, and agree that if they don't address this aggressively, the CBO budget is pretty much worthless.

[beermonkey@tehbias]

It is BAD. It should not be passed. We can NOT afford it as a country. We do NOT have the money. Too few people understand just how dire our economic situation is. We are past being broke. We are so close to bankruptcy, and I think this bill would push us into a sever economic depression. It would cost jobs, standard of living, and our freedoms. We should not let government take this MASSIVE power grab. We should control our own destinies.

How do you feel about the Iraq war that cost us more money?

[Open Source]

I'm glad you agree. There isn't any good reason you should work full time and go to school. Nobody should. Your education benefits society, and we should all, therefore, help you obtain it. I only wish we could cover your tuition, books, boarding, and all of your health care. Presumably, you are one of "the taxpayers" about which you speak. And you will continue to pay taxes in the future. You should get the benefit of them, as that is what good government does. You're welcome.

I doubt I'll work full time when I am done with school, either. Free time is valuable to me and isn't taxed, and if I have everything I need, why bother trying to get ahead? Perhaps I'll just go to chef school when I'm done with programming, which I'm doing for hobby purposes as well. I suppose it could be worse - I could be going to cosmotology school, where the percentage of graduates that end up working in the field is in single digits.

But if you've got money you feel should be going towards these things, then yeah, send me some to cover my other expenses. Why wait for a government middleman to take it and spend some of it on lame stuff like wars? Heck, maybe even just fund me directly instead of funding a politician who may not even get elected, if that's where you want your money to go.

[drakesfortune]

How would this bill push us into a severe depression? How would it cost jobs and "our freedoms"? You're just randomly saying things now. But it's good to know you support the closing of Gitmo and pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan at least.

Because it's another massive tax increase on business, at a time when business needs money to shore up their weaknesses and protect the jobs they have left. If you think for a SECOND that these insurance companies are going to eat these MASSIVE tax increases, then you are delusional. They only make a 2-3% profit as it is. So if they get new costs (taxes) it is WE, and business who will pay them. Period. The taxes imposed in this bill are dishonest, as they always are. Democrats are scared to pass the real costs onto the American public, so they hide them in fees that companies then pass on to us, because they HAVE to or they have to go out of business.

I actually think we may not have a choice but to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Our budget needs to be balanced. And I'm at the point where I think our deficit is a bigger threat than terrorism. So yeah, I think we need to get our costs under control, or we face collapse. I really believe that.

Gitmo on the other hand saves us tons of money. Schumer want 75 million to protect the terrorists during their trial in NY. That's fucking stupid. Another massive waste of money. Obama and Holder are promising us death sentences, so why are we wasting such enormous amounts of money to bring the to the US? Obama and Holder both undermined their stated reasons for wanting to bring them here, which was to show the world we'd give them a fair trial, while at the same time promising a death sentence. They completely undermined their argument the moment they guaranteed a death sentence, and further, the moment they guaranteed that even if they couldn't be found guilty, they STILL wouldn't be let go. So what exactly is the point of bringing them here? Only political reasons is the answer. It's a terrible decision, supported only by the most liberal members of society, and it is another reason Republicans will make huge gains next year. Lindsay Graham tore Holder apart this week before congress, and Holder had ZERO rebuttal. I was honestly shocked by his inability to coherently explain how we were showing of the US justice system while Holder was guaranteeing that KSM wouldn't be released if not convicted, and while guaranteeing a conviction and death penalty. If Obama going out there and promising a death penalty isn't tainting the jury pool, I don't know what is!

I'm against the death penalty by the way, I want to see KSM rot in a prison cell in solitary confinement for the rest of his days. I don't want that fucking prick to be martyred.

[empty vessel]

I TOTALLY disagree. Look at the stimulus bill. Massive amounts of that money are wasted, unaccounted for. It has done VERY little good. Just not spending that money would have put us in a much better position.

This is, like, the opposite of what anybody who knows anything about economics would say. It's pretty simple. The government must spend money, and lots of it, although we certainly can quibble about where it goes. Indeed, it needs to spend still more. Lots more. No legitimate economist would disagree with this prescription.

[WickedAngel]

This is, like, the opposite of what anybody who knows anything about economics would say. It's pretty simple. The government must spend money, and lots of it, although we certainly can quibble about where it goes. Indeed, it needs to spend still more. Lots more. No legitimate economist would disagree with this prescription.

Someone would have posted the exact same shit if there were forums in 1928. The government should just tighten its belt and let the free market happen!

[Doc Holliday]

How do you feel about the Iraq war that cost us more money?

We could have used all these deficit hawks and the power grab paranoids back in 2003 :(

[empty vessel]

I doubt I'll work full time when I am done with school, either. Free time is valuable to me and isn't taxed, and if I have everything I need, why bother trying to get ahead? Perhaps I'll just go to chef school when I'm done with programming, which I'm doing for hobby purposes as well. I suppose it could be worse - I could be going to cosmotology school, where the percentage of graduates that end up working in the field is in single digits. But if you've got money you feel should be going towards these things, then yeah, send me some to cover my other expenses. Why wait for a government middleman to take it and spend some of it on lame stuff like wars? Heck, maybe even just fund me directly instead of funding a politician who may not even get elected, if that's where you want your money to go.

If you have to lie to make your desired political point, you should perhaps consider the point not worth making. You and I both know you will work full time when you graduate. But you should be thanking yourself. It is your very own tax dollars (past and future) that are paying for your education.

We all chip in for each other as well as ourselves around here. We call it society. Take off your shoes, and stay a while.

[Open Source]

This is, like, the opposite of what anybody who knows anything about economics would say. It's pretty simple. The government must spend money, and lots of it, although we certainly can quibble about where it goes. Indeed, it needs to spend still more. Lots more. No legitimate economist would disagree with this prescription.

Didn't work for Japan in the 90s (the "lost decade"). Arguably didn't work for USA in the 30s, although there were so many fucked up things going on at once (protectionism, cartelization, criminalization of gold ownership by private citizens, etc.) that it's hard to say if it could have worked. But of course there is always some reason that THIS time it will be better.

As for the "legitimate economist" bit,
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...scal-stimulus/

[GhaleonEB]

I TOTALLY disagree. Look at the stimulus bill. Massive amounts of that money are wasted, unaccounted for. It has done VERY little good. Just not spending that money would have put us in a much better position.

Which part? The stimulus was roughly broken into thirds: one third stabilizers (unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.) one third tax cuts (for individuals and small businesses) and one third investments. Are you saying having several million people run out of unemployment benefits would be a good thing for the economy? It sounds like it.

Economic consensus is it's pulled the economy out of a death spiral.

On the topic:

New Consensus Sees Stimulus Package as Worthy Step Now that unemployment has topped 10 percent, some liberal-leaning economists see confirmation of their warnings that the $787 billion stimulus package President Obama signed into law last February was way too small. The economy needs a second big infusion, they say. No, some conservative-leaning economists counter, we were right: The package has been wasteful, ineffectual and even harmful to the extent that it adds to the nation’s debt and crowds out private-sector borrowing. These long-running arguments have flared now that the White House and Congressional leaders are talking about a new “jobs bill.” But with roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working. The legislation, a variety of economists say, is helping an economy in free fall a year ago to grow again and shed fewer jobs than it otherwise would. Mr. Obama’s promise to “save or create” about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track, though far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities using their money to avoid cutting teachers, police officers and other workers. “It was worth doing — it’s made a difference,” said Nigel Gault, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecasting and analysis group based in Lexington, Mass. Mr. Gault added: “I don’t think it’s right to look at it by saying, ‘Well, the economy is still doing extremely badly, therefore the stimulus didn’t work.’ I’m afraid the answer is, yes, we did badly but we would have done even worse without the stimulus.” In interviews, a broad range of economists said the White House and Congress were right to structure the package as a mix of tax cuts and spending, rather than just tax cuts as Republicans prefer or just spending as many Democrats do. And it is fortuitous, many say, that the money gets doled out over two years — longer for major construction — considering the probable length of the “jobless recovery” under way as wary employers hold off on new hiring. *snip*

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/bu...s.html?_r=1&hp

[drakesfortune]

This is, like, the opposite of what anybody who knows anything about economics would say. It's pretty simple. The government must spend money, and lots of it, although we certainly can quibble about where it goes. Indeed, it needs to spend still more. Lots more. No legitimate economist would disagree with this prescription.

I haven't heard anyone outside of the Krugman's of the world arguing that we need to increase spending. Given how incompetent the spending of the 700 billion was, it's the last thing we need.

As for 1928 and that period, what did government do in the face of the depression? First Republicans did a MAJOR across the board tax hike on everyone. That was a dumb move. I am not for that. I am for a targeted tax hike in conjunction with spending cuts though.

Then they passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff act. THAT effectively RUINED the economy. That bill set off a trade war, at a time when we exported way more than we imported. It cost us jobs, money, commerce, it was a HUUUUGE mistake. So then, after the economy melted down even further, Roosevelt was elected. What did he do? He waged war on business. Thankfully, I don't think Obama is doing that. He's waging war on insurance companies, but I do not believe he's doing that overall. Roosevelt went to war with the energy companies, and subsidized the TVA and other things which hid the real cost. Private business could have done a much better job, but the federal government, subsidized by everyone was able to provide cheaper power to those in the TVA region. Again though, that was a gimmick. It was not reality, it was subsidized. Just like the public option would be.

Then FDR unleashed the unions on business. That essentially guaranteed the depression would last until WWII. There's plenty of rewriting of history that goes on, but the truth is Republicans of the time created the conditions for a depression through across the board, big tax hikes in the face of a major recession and banking collapse, and Smoot Hawley, and then FDR made matters worse by spending lots and lots of money.

The real question is if Bernanke can prevent a depression right now. He's prevented a 1920's/1930's style depression by flooding the markets with money. Now, how do we unwind that? The parallel now is the depression of the 1800's. Similar conditions to the late 1920's erupted in the mid late 1800's, but right at that time the gold rush happened. Essentially flooding the market with cash (cash was tied to gold at the time) which got us out of it. In the end though, it caught up, and we went into a major depression. Bernanke is a student of depressions. He's a student of the 1800's and 1900's depressions. The question all economists have is if Bernanke can successfully pull all of that cash back in, unflooding the credit markets, without causing a depression. It remains to be seen. I think having an incredibly unbalanced budget makes things much more difficult for him. The unprecedented deficits make his job a lot harder. That's one of the big reasons I think we're in big trouble, and this healthcare bill makes things so much worse.

Never mind the budget gimmicks and lies that are going here. The fact is, no major federal entitlement program has cost less than 2 to 4 times what was promised. Most end up costing 5 to 10 times the promised price. Even at the low end, we're screwed if that comes true as it has time and time again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/bu...s.html?_r=1&hp

Sorry man, I just don't believe anything I read in the Times anymore. They are as liberal and left wing as anything these days. I do not regard them as a reliable source of info. 99% of economists on CNBC and Fox Business regard the stimulus and future stimulus plans as enormous failures. I do not think throwing more money at the problem is the answer, unless it is TARGETED small business tax cuts. Anything else is a waste at this point.

[ToxicAdam]

"Jobs saved". ::puke:: Hope liberals keep that up, it's a quick way to get unelected.


The big failings of the stimulus bill (and it's backers) was that they shied away from the "make work" projects, because they were afraid of being labeled and grossly underestimated employment figures. The second was that they did not open up the housing credit to all Americans. The housing market is still gridlocked in most areas of the country and it's going to needlessly lengthen this recession (although I guess technically we are out of recession).

The other minor headscratcher is why they didn't include language in the "green" section of the bill for home improvement. It was a perfect way to encourage Americans to improve the energy-efficiency of their homes (and spur work for small businesses) and improve GHG emissions into the future. How did this get ignored? Some Democrats (Clinton is one) is pushing for it to get done next year (probably within the "jobs bill" framework).

[Open Source]

If you have to lie to make your desired political point, you should perhaps consider the point not worth making. You and I both know you will work full time when you graduate. But you should be thanking yourself. It is your very own tax dollars (past and future) that are paying for your education. We all chip in for each other as well as ourselves around here. We call it society. Take off your shoes, and stay a while.

I worked part time the year before I started school so that my tax return for that year would qualify me for the maximum Pell Grant amount. I made $15,000 in 2008 working the equivalent of 3 full-time months, started school in mid-2009 and got grants based on my 2008 income.

Now why exactly would I work full-time when I graduate? There's little incentive. I can do just as well making a small amount of money to cover food, housing, and necessities, have my health care paid for in part or in whole by the state, and spend my enormous emount of free time having fun and training in whatever hobby I want to pursue (at no cost to me).

I'm a game designer with 8 years of experience, so a programming degree adds almost nothing to my ability to get a job or to the salary I command. In other words, my degree isn't relevant to my propensity to seek full-time employment. If I didn't think it was worth working full-time when going part-time cost me my health care benefits, why would I go back to it once those are taken care of?

[GhaleonEB]

Sorry man, I just don't believe anything I read in the Times anymore. They are as liberal and left wing as anything these days. I do not regard them as a reliable source of info. 99% of economists on CNBC and Fox Business regard the stimulus and future stimulus plans as enormous failures. I do not think throwing more money at the problem is the answer, unless it is TARGETED small business tax cuts. Anything else is a waste at this point.

Ah, that explains where you've been getting your lunacy from.

When you confine you economic analysis to those on display on CNBC and Fox Business(!!!!) you are getting a spectacularly skewed version of reality. Which actually helps explain most of what you've said, so there's no need to rebut it.

[Open Source]

Ah, that explains where you've been getting your lunacy from. When you confine you economic analysis to those on display on CNBC and Fox Business(!!!!) you are getting a spectacularly skewed version of reality. Which actually helps explain most of what you've said, so there's no need to rebut it.

The NYT isn't exactly a bastion of impartiality. So, according to your logic, there's no need to take the article you linked seriously either, if we're ignoring all right and left-leaning media.

[PhoenixDark]

Sorry man, I just don't believe anything I read in the Times anymore. They are as liberal and left wing as anything these days. I do not regard them as a reliable source of info. 99% of economists on CNBC and Fox Business regard the stimulus and future stimulus plans as enormous failures. I do not think throwing more money at the problem is the answer, unless it is TARGETED small business tax cuts. Anything else is a waste at this point.

the hell

The Times may lean left, but at least they're legitimate journalists. He didn't link to an opinion piece

There is broad consensus on the stimulus, as the article points out. If anything there have been arguments on it not being big enough

[Open Source]

the hell The Times may lean left, but at least they're legitimate journalists. He didn't link to an opinion piece There is broad consensus on the stimulus, as the article points out. If anything there have been arguments on it not being big enough

Maybe in your bubble all this is true. But of course outside your bubble, there are only illegitimate journalists and economists. How do you know they are illegitimate? They disagree with you!

[zoku88]

The NY Times is considered one of the more legitimate news sources in America :-/

Has nothing to do with whether you agree with them or not...