Barack Obama Failed

[Tecumsehsbones]

There is no reason to create those problems in the first place.



Like it or not, no other president would have done this in a fundamentally different way.

The Icelanders did.

No option is fair. If you give money to all the people who are under water on their mortgages, it really isn't fair to all the people who were actually living within their means. You probably wouldn't be too happy if your neighbor was given hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government and you were not.

Here we go with "fair" again. I wasn't talking "fair," it's a term without an effective definition. I was talking effectiveness and efficiency. I note that you didn't refute my argument, you went haring off after "fair." I'll take that as an admission that you can't refute my argument.

I agree that it isn't a great plan, but it isn't like there was any other serious proposal for change in the pipes.

Looking around the world, the most logical option seems to be a robust government option, but people in the US get so freaked out by the word government that I can't see that happening any time soon.

I don't see how a robust government option is logical, but then again, you use words funny a lot. Maybe you meant "reasonable," or possibly "efficient and effective." I note that you're agreeing with me that Obamacare sucks, but still trying to defend Obama. Must be tough, you have my sympathy.

 

[BornRuff]

The Icelanders did.

Not really. Very recently they did pass a bill to slash like 30 grand from everyone's mortgage, but that was long after the crisis actually took place and a pretty dubious plan overall.

What the Icelanders actually did to combat the crisis was to nationalize all of the banks.

Here we go with "fair" again. I wasn't talking "fair," it's a term without an effective definition. I was talking effectiveness and efficiency. I note that you didn't refute my argument, you went haring off after "fair." I'll take that as an admission that you can't refute my argument.

I assumed that was what you were getting at. Trying to go through and pay off everyone's loans would not be efficient in any way. There are way too many loans out there and no real way to determine a fair price while the market is in free fall. Recapitalizing the banks is a lot more efficient than trying to work through all the individual home loans, or trying to take over all of the outstanding home loans.

What Iceland did works ok in a country with an economy half the size of the smallest US state. The US government nationalizing the entire US banking industry was never going to happen.

Can you really think of an electable US politician who would support nationalizing the banking industry.

I don't see how a robust government option is logical, but then again, you use words funny a lot. Maybe you meant "reasonable," or possibly "efficient and effective." I note that you're agreeing with me that Obamacare sucks, but still trying to defend Obama. Must be tough, you have my sympathy.

You can choose whatever terminology you want. What seems to work all around the world is to build a public healthcare system that provides good quality medical care to everyone.

The US has a lot of partial program that provide healthcare to some people and mostly end up picking up the tab for all of the expensive things when **** gets out of hand. They need a system that provides preventative care and doesn't require your life to go to hell before they step in.

But that would be a massive expansion of the government, which seems to scare the crap out of everyone in the US.

The difference between you and me on these issues seems to be that I am comparing him to realistic alternatives.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Not really. Very recently they did pass a bill to slash like 30 grand from everyone's mortgage, but that was long after the crisis actually took place and a pretty dubious plan overall.

What the Icelanders actually did to combat the crisis was to nationalize all of the banks.



I assumed that was what you were getting at. Trying to go through and pay off everyone's loans would not be efficient in any way. There are way too many loans out there and no real way to determine a fair price while the market is in free fall. Recapitalizing the banks is a lot more efficient than trying to work through all the individual home loans, or trying to take over all of the outstanding home loans.

What Iceland did works ok in a country with an economy half the size of the smallest US state. The US government nationalizing the entire US banking industry was never going to happen.

Can you really think of an electable US politician who would support nationalizing the banking industry.



You can choose whatever terminology you want. What seems to work all around the world is to build a public healthcare system that provides good quality medical care to everyone.

The US has a lot of partial program that provide healthcare to some people and mostly end up picking up the tab for all of the expensive things when **** gets out of hand. They need a system that provides preventative care and doesn't require your life to go to hell before they step in.

But that would be a massive expansion of the government, which seems to scare the crap out of everyone in the US.

The difference between you and me on these issues seems to be that I am comparing him to realistic alternatives.

You want realistic alternatives? The OECD has 33 of them. 33 different programmes that all provide universal coverage and comparable outcomes to U.S. health care, at an average of half the cost per capita.

The U.S. had them. Romneycare in Massachusetts. Utah had passed a health-care law that, while it did not provide universal coverage, provided more coverage and had some realistic cost controls. Most people don't know it, but Hawaii has had universal health care for decades. New York had legislation for a single-payer system all drawn up. They were going to introduce it if Obamacare didn't pass. Wisconsin did a study, and found that with Wisconsin's situation in regard to employment, insurance, and health care structure, the most cost-effective solution for Wisconsin was to simply give insurance to those who couldn't afford it.

All of these ideas, each one taking into account the needs and opinions of the people of the respective states, were trashed by Obamacare.

What an achievement!

 

[BornRuff]

You want realistic alternatives? The OECD has 33 of them. 33 different programmes that all provide universal coverage and comparable outcomes to U.S. health care, at an average of half the cost per capita.

The U.S. had them. Romneycare in Massachusetts. Utah had passed a health-care law that, while it did not provide universal coverage, provided more coverage and had some realistic cost controls. Most people don't know it, but Hawaii has had universal health care for decades. New York had legislation for a single-payer system all drawn up. They were going to introduce it if Obamacare didn't pass. Wisconsin did a study, and found that with Wisconsin's situation in regard to employment, insurance, and health care structure, the most cost-effective solution for Wisconsin was to simply give insurance to those who couldn't afford it.

All of these ideas, each one taking into account the needs and opinions of the people of the respective states, were trashed by Obamacare.

What an achievement!

Realistic in terms of what can actually be achieved in the US. The US voters are their own worst enemy.

Proposals are a dime a dozen. Looking at things that were actually in place, "Romneycare" is essentially the exact same thing as the Affordable Care Act and Hawaii's plan is just a more strict version of one part of the Affordable Care Act, requiring employers to provide insurance to people who work at least 20 hours.

It is naive to claim that because Wisconsin did a study, that means anything in regards to what they would actually implement into law.

The Affordable Care Act does not prevent states from implementing their own single payer systems. Vermont and New York state still have single payer proposals on the table, but they are facing all of the expected resistance from the usual suspects.

The US is way too advanced to leave healthcare up to a random patchwork of proposed laws. They needed to take a step forward to get more people covered. I don't think that you can reasonably say that a national single payer system is in the cards anytime soon.

But yeah, you are simply wrong to claim that everything you mentioned was trashed by Obamacare. Hawaii still has their stricter employer mandate. States are still going ahead with their own proposals.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Realistic in terms of what can actually be achieved in the US. The US voters are their own worst enemy.

Proposals are a dime a dozen. Looking at things that were actually in place, "Romneycare" is essentially the exact same thing as the Affordable Care Act and Hawaii's plan is just a more strict version of one part of the Affordable Care Act, requiring employers to provide insurance to people who work at least 20 hours.

It is naive to claim that because Wisconsin did a study, that means anything in regards to what they would actually implement into law.

The Affordable Care Act does not prevent states from implementing their own single payer systems. Vermont and New York state still have single payer proposals on the table, but they are facing all of the expected resistance from the usual suspects.

The US is way too advanced to leave healthcare up to a random patchwork of proposed laws. They needed to take a step forward to get more people covered. I don't think that you can reasonably say that a national single payer system is in the cards anytime soon.

Nor would I want one. Mandatory-insurance systems seem to work better. And remember what I said about Obamacare trashing the state ideas? You've basically just confirmed that with your comment about Vermont and New York.

Hawaii was pretty happy with its random patchwork of proposed laws.

 

[BornRuff]

Nor would I want one. Mandatory-insurance systems seem to work better. And remember what I said about Obamacare trashing the state ideas? You've basically just confirmed that with your comment about Vermont and New York.

Hawaii was pretty happy with its random patchwork of proposed laws.

Lol, how does pointing out that single payer plans are still going forward in Vermont and New York confirm your point? You said Obamacare "trashed" those ideas.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Lol, how does pointing out that single payer plans are still going forward in Vermont and New York confirm your point? You said Obamacare "trashed" those ideas.

They aren't going forward. Obamacare has been in place for 3 1/2 years. That single-payer legislation ain't exactly blazing through the NY and VT legislatures.

 

[captain morgan]

Don't forget the Reset with Russia and the Pivot to Asia. The Reset emboldened Russia and the Pivot antagonized China. And let's not neglect getting played by the Iranians and the decision to remove Gadhafi from power in Libya. But in many ways the greatest error by Obama was his decision to escalate the War in Afghanistan. About eighty percent of American deaths in that War occurred while Obama was commander in chief.

Say, wasn't Obama elected to his first term with a promise (among many) to withdraw from Iraq and close Gitmo?

 

[BornRuff]

They aren't going forward. Obamacare has been in place for 3 1/2 years. That single-payer legislation ain't exactly blazing through the NY and VT legislatures.

Well, they are explicitly still going forward.

True Single-Payer Healthcare System Being Considered in New York Assembly

"Single-Payer" Healthcare for Vermont on Track for 2017

There is no reason to assume they are going any slower than if the Affordable Care Act was not passed. These things are huge reforms with lots of natural opponents.

Say, wasn't Obama elected to his first term with a promise (among many) to withdraw from Afghanistan?

Not really. He wanted to withdraw from Iraq, but he wanted to "finish" the war in Afghanistan. He actually promised to expand the number of troops in Afghanistan while on the 08 campaign trail.

"As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to reinforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban."

 

[captain morgan]

My bad... My original mistake was not corrected in time.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Say, wasn't Obama elected to his first term with a promise (among many) to withdraw from Iraq and close Gitmo?

He did withdraw from Iraq, and Congress made it impossible to close Gitmo by passing a law forbidding the transfer of Gitmo prisoners to the U.S.

As I've said (several times) I'm not real fond of Obama, but I don't blame him for what ain't his fault.

 

[captain morgan]

He stalled for too long.

The Dems had control of both Houses (so I understand)... It is difficult to accept Congress as the hold on this.

That said, Obama is like any other politician... Pointless for me to expand and add-in the appropriate adjectives.. The balance of the post would be all asterisks.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I think Obama's legacy will be that he was the first non-white President. That's a shame. I'd hoped for more.

 

[EagleSmack]

He stalled for too long.

The Dems had control of both Houses (so I understand)... It is difficult to accept Congress as the hold on this.

That said, Obama is like any other politician... Pointless for me to expand and add-in the appropriate adjectives.. The balance of the post would be all asterisks.

It is a promise not kept CM I agree.


He shouldn't have made the promise if he couldn't keep it.

 

[BornRuff]

He stalled for too long.

The Dems had control of both Houses (so I understand)... It is difficult to accept Congress as the hold on this.

That said, Obama is like any other politician... Pointless for me to expand and add-in the appropriate adjectives.. The balance of the post would be all asterisks.

It isn't just republicans who didn't want Gitmo prisoners in their backyard. The senate voted 90-6 to block funds needed to transfer or release prisoners back in 2009.

 

[BaalsTears]

Say, wasn't Obama elected to his first term with a promise (among many) to withdraw from Iraq and close Gitmo?

He lied. It's what he does.

It isn't just republicans who didn't want Gitmo prisoners in their backyard. The senate voted 90-6 to block funds needed to transfer or release prisoners back in 2009.

Obama gave us his word of honor he would close Gitmo. He could have simply pardoned the remaining inmates and relocated them to NYC. Problem solved.

...

Not really. He wanted to withdraw from Iraq, but he wanted to "finish" the war in Afghanistan. He actually promised to expand the number of troops in Afghanistan while on the 08 campaign trail.

"As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to reinforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban."

Obama never believed in the War in Afghanistan. Haven't you read the Gates book? He talked tough about Afghanistan in order to avoid attacks from Republicans from the Realist School of foreign policy. It was all a matter of political calculation. He escalated the war on December 20, 2009 and announced the withdrawal at the same time. He threw American lives away for nothing. Check this out by date of death:

iCasualties | OEF | Afghanistan | U.S. Fatalities In and Around Afghanistan

 

[L Gilbert]

Duhbama's a politician. They ALL lie, cheat, etc. Therefore, they all fail. So?

 

[BaalsTears]

Duhbama's a politician. They ALL lie, cheat, etc. Therefore, they all fail. So?

So? BHO is a symptom of a far greater malady affecting the residents of the USA. His election is a symptom of a Messiah Complex in the heart of America. His reelection represents the triumph of hope over experience. His reign is proof positive of the decadence of a people. History tells us there is no redemption from decadence. We all know how this story is going to end.

 

[L Gilbert]

So? BHO is a symptom of a far greater malady affecting the residents of the USA. His election is a symptom of a Messiah Complex in the heart of America. His reelection represents the triumph of hope over experience. His reign is proof positive of the decadence of a people. History tells us there is no redemption from decadence. We all know how this story is going to end.

Yeah. Empires rise n fall. And ....?

 

[BornRuff]

Obama gave us his word of honor he would close Gitmo. He could have simply pardoned the remaining inmates and relocated them to NYC. Problem solved.

Yeah, that doesn't sound like all that great of an idea.

Talking about his "word of honor" is kind of misplaced here. He tried to do it, but the political will wasn't there. It wasn't even close. Dems and republicans in congress were dead set against it, and he is not an emperor.

Obama never believed in the War in Afghanistan. Haven't you read the Gates book? He talked tough about Afghanistan in order to avoid attacks from Republicans from the Realist School of foreign policy. It was all a matter of political calculation. He escalated the war on December 20, 2009 and announced the withdrawal at the same time. He threw American lives away for nothing. Check this out by date of death:

iCasualties | OEF | Afghanistan | U.S. Fatalities In and Around Afghanistan

I can't really figure out where you stand on this. You call support for the war "realist", so it sounds like you think he should have continued the war, but you also strongly criticize him for supporting it.