The State of the Union speech

[Arhys]

After a tough year that saw the U.S. and world teeter on the brink of financial collapse, President Obama gave the annual State of the Union address last night  What did you think? 

Personally I have been frustrated as attempts at "bipartisanship" have been met with nothing but cold disdain and obstructionism, so I was delighted to read this:

  "So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

    Just stating the facts."

Here's the transcript of the speech.


CBS did a snap poll, MoE 4%, with the following results:

• 83% of speech watchers approve of the proposals the president made in his speech tonight. 17% Disapprove.

• 70% of speech watchers think Barack Obama shares the same priorities for the country as they do. 57% thought so before the speech.

• 59% of speech watchers think that Barack Obama has a clear plan for creating jobs. 40% thought so before the speech.

• 72% of speech watchers approve of Barack Obama's plans for dealing with government spending. 28% Disapprove. .

• 56% of speech watchers think Barack Obama's economic plans will reduce the budget deficit in the long run, and 71% think they will help ordinary Americans.

• Still, just 42% of speech watchers think that Barack Obama will be able to accomplish all the goals he set out in his speech tonight. 57% do not think he will be able to.

522 speech watchers participated in the poll. The margin of error was 4 percent.

Have you seen it?  What did you think?

[Zeitgeist]

I would only point that our dear leader was a senator during the same time period he speaks to (Not for a decade but under the same congress when Bush was president), as this seems to conveniently escape his and his supporters memory. So in fact he does share some responsibility, of which he finds nary ability to assume any of.

Now we could parse his voting record, but what this country needs is leadership, not someone rehashing the past and making excuses. In my opinion he is wholly ineffective, and will remain so despite the democratic majority, super majority or not. Amazing really, and telling.

[Talia]

Personally I thought it was the best he as given to date and impressive. Transitioning to health care, Obama was tough and plainspoken, characteristics which he has sorely lacked in initially presenting his proposals for reform. His speech should restore some his party's political momentum moving forward. Was there issues I would have liked to heard more about or addressed...Yes..and I would have liked to have heard some better time lines towards the changes he wants to make...but he could have talked 24/7 and still not have pleased everyone...There's just to much change and reform needed. The onus is now on the democrats to take advantage of their massive majority and get things done. Time will show us if he puts some actions into those hopeful and inspiring words. But I do like the direction he's going and the first step to solving a problem is recognizing it and suggesting we do something about it. So it's still a game of wait and see.....

[BlindEye]

I was impressed.  He started sounding like he has more backbone than he has shown so far. 

I loved the part that you quoted, about the deficit situation he inherited. 

I also liked the part about "just saying no isn't leadership".  That really needed to be said.   :D

[Brandon]

I was extremely disappointed throughout the entire speech. Most of the time I felt he was saying "Heres what were going to do. Im not going to tell you how were going to do it." Now dont get me wrong, its nice to hear about new initiatives but to believe in any kind of initiative I have to see specifics and I didn't see much of that at all. What I saw was theory craft, not answers to questions

This point really annoyed me:

Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people.

This year, we have broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. The idea here is simple: instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform - reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to inner-cities. In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty programs is a world-class education. In this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential.

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years - and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs - because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

The part that bugs me about this is a failure to acknowledge the programs that are already in place and pay for college yet have many problems within them. Military service was my main choice for my college education. College classes that are taken during service require the military to pay 75% of the tuition costs but the classes must be approved by your commanding officer and can be denied for any reason. If you went to college before and joined the military to have it paid off they do not pay any interest of your original loans. Public service such as the Nuclear regulatory commitee also pay for college but the employee takes a pay cut for doing so. The problem here is you need at least a bachelor's degree to get into these positions i the first place. I think its a much better idea to make military service and public service continue to pay for college but make it so that soldiers and public servants cant be screwed over by a commanding officer or forcing someone to already be highly educated before they can make use of paid college benefits.

Another thing that bothered me about this was the $10,000 tax credit for four years of college. Does he not realize thats a drop in the bucket for four years of college? Even if colleges brought down tuition and cost of living costs its still going to be a drop in the bucket.

Closing: I dont know, maybe Im still wrong about him but from the day he was elected and all the way through to today I cant help but feel like he's a complete charlatan. Telling us everything we want to hear and has no plans (or power) to accomplish it

[Serephino]

I think the reason he didn't tell us how is because he doesn't know.  That doesn't reflect on his ability, but rather the fact the Congress (Republicans in particular) are fighting him tooth and nail.  Nobody can seem to agree on anything.  It's a nightmare. 

[Brandon]

I disagree, it reflects on his inability to plan ahead. If he cant at least come up with some kind of plan to get these things happening then it shows me that he has no intention of going through with it. If he has a plan and congress doesnt go along with it then yes thats not his fault, but not having an idea or plan on how to accomplish what he wants is the problem I have. I hope that made sense

[Vekseid]

Another thing that bothered me about this was the $10,000 tax credit for four years of college. Does he not realize thats a drop in the bucket for four years of college? Even if colleges brought down tuition and cost of living costs its still going to be a drop in the bucket.

That's one or two years for a number of public and community colleges and universities I know of.

[Trieste]

$10,000 is 1/3 of my current loans, and that ain't nothing to sneeze at. The only problem is that I, er, don't pay even close to $10,000 in taxes. Like, ever. So it better be one of those tax credits that gets added onto your refund... or I'll never see it.

[Vekseid]

Credits are worth the full amount, so you would get the full $10k.

[Arhys]

With all due respect this is either not true or illogical. 

I would only point that our dear leader was a senator during the same time period he speaks to (Not for a decade but under the same congress when Bush was president), as this seems to conveniently escape his and his supporters memory. So in fact he does share some responsibility, of which he finds nary ability to assume any of.

Obama was publicly against the Iraq War but not yet in office so he can't be held responsible for that--same with the first tax giveaway to the wealthy in '01.  He voted against the next round of tax cuts for the wealthy as well, as did practically all Democrats (except 7 in both houses), and the failed Medicaid expansion idea.   How is it logical for him to share in the blame for these things when he used all his legal power to stop them?

I disagree, it reflects on his inability to plan ahead. If he cant at least come up with some kind of plan to get these things happening then it shows me that he has no intention of going through with it. If he has a plan and congress doesnt go along with it then yes thats not his fault, but not having an idea or plan on how to accomplish what he wants is the problem I have. I hope that made sense

State of the Union speeches are meant to be broad strokes summarizing national conditions and policy values and goals, naturally the specifics come in the form of bills, and it is Congressional Committees who write the bills.  Obama's branch of government is the Executive, Congress is the legislative so it's pretty much unconstitutional for him to do what you're seeming to expect.  The State of the Union speech lays out a broad plan, then Congress picks up the ball.  Naturally he can lead the party, participate in negotiations, coordinate with other party leaders but he can't make either House schedule a vote or write a law one way or another.  I share your frustration however.

To me the big question for this year is what kind of voice we will hear from Obama, I was DELIGHTED at the meeting with the Republican Caucus yesterday.  Here's the transcript.  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-gop-house-issues-conference

(Edited to add link to transcript)

[Vekseid]

With all due respect this is either not true or illogical. 

Obama was publicly against the Iraq War but not yet in office so he can't be held responsible for that--same with the first tax giveaway to the wealthy in '01.  He voted against the next round of tax cuts for the wealthy as well, as did practically all Democrats (except 7 in both houses), and the failed Medicaid expansion idea.   How is it logical for him to share in the blame for these things when he used all his legal power to stop them?

He does e.g. share some responsibility for the bank bailout. I grant that liquidity freezes are the nastiest thing that can happen to an economy like ours, but at the same time, that was a clusterfuck.

But I can criticize the president and still respect him and feel confident that he was better than the alternative. Even what McCain -said- he wanted to do was worse than what Obama did actually end up doing.

[Schrödinger]

I was DELIGHTED at the meeting with the Republican Caucus yesterday.  Here's the transcript.  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-gop-house-issues-conference

Might as well watch the full thing here.

Featuring such points as the following:
Obama To Republicans: Stop Pretending Health Care Reform Is A 'Bolshevik Plot'

However, I believe Obama could've accomplished more if there was less of the Senate majority reaching to bend over backwards for the Republican minority at the time of the first year of his term (the GOP does not want Universal Healthcare, as far as I've gathered), and the Democratic president calling the old phogeys on their shooting down Democrat plans (any of them; I just can't wrap my head around those Blue Dogs). He didn't, and people got desillusioned. Here's hoping to three years that do work out.

[Trieste]

Ahahahahahahaaaaa *dies*

Okay, so I'm still waiting on Obama's Bob the Builder ("Yes we can!") promises to come through, and I am pissed at the Senate AND the Supreme Court AND the Prez right now... but you have to admit, he's had some pretty nifty speeches lately. :) Obama is a very good speaker.

[Arhys]

@Vekseid:  Clusterfuck is about the only way to describe the bank bailouts, you're right on that!  Do you remember when McCain suspended his campaign to rush back to D.C. to help handle the matter--and did nothing?  It makes me laugh but also makes me cry to even imagine what would be going on had he won.  The TARP bailout under Bush was a disgusting giveaway of monumental proportions and that really determined the initial negotiating positions for round 2 when Obama got into office.  I also fully realize Obama had a metaphorical gun to his head, the world financial system really was on the brink then--but I'm pissed about it too.  At least he got half of TARP back so far, and hopefully the stage is now set politically as other ideas are advanced.

Thanks much for the video link Schrodinger!

And there's certainly a lot to be pissed about Trieste, I'm with you!

[BlindEye]

I've said it before, and I will say it again, I miss the Republican party that was around when I was growing up.  This was the cold war era.  We were stuffy, but at least we were good at a few things.  Now, we're a damn cartoon..... a bad one.

The last administration was enough to convince me that the Republican party isn't for me any more.  I see the current administration, in part, as a chance for the Democrats to improve my opinion of them to the point where I will switch completely.  Time will tell.

Anyone else here in the same boat as me?

[RubySlippers]

Three things bug me from Obama besides him being a wimp.

1. He needs to fraking lead on Health Care Reform this means if he has to get down to the Congress and threaten to Veto legislation they want until he gets what he wants. And trade off presidential favors to turn Republicans into allies if he has to. Of course keeping legislation simple into what needs to be fixed would help.

2. He said we were getting out of Aphghanistan and Iraq so get the frak out get a fraking pair and do an executive order pulling them all out in 90 days.

3. Education I for one am sick of college, college and college being the end all of NCLB and goals for every child to attain to. What about this bring back comprehensive vocational education tracks in High School and teach children who may not be cut out gfor a four year college a fraking JOB. Let them leave High School fully employable as anything from LPN's to cooks to automotive techs and for me this is a fairness issue. Poor parents should not be forced to send a child for vocational education after High School when the government practically pays for the education K-12. Why should they have to go into debt or their children to be a massage therapist, barber, cook or LPN? And since half of student drop out of college by the Junior year its clear many should not be going to college.

[Vekseid]

I've said it before, and I will say it again, I miss the Republican party that was around when I was growing up.  This was the cold war era.  We were stuffy, but at least we were good at a few things.  Now, we're a damn cartoon..... a bad one.

The last administration was enough to convince me that the Republican party isn't for me any more.  I see the current administration, in part, as a chance for the Democrats to improve my opinion of them to the point where I will switch completely.  Time will tell.

Anyone else here in the same boat as me?

I have a lot of conservative views, in the sense that I support gun ownership, etc. and consider the likes of Burke and Eisenhower to be some of the finest politicians of their times.

But I cannot bring myself to check the 'Republican' box right now. I'd like two options that I can make a principled decision between. Three quarters of the Republican senate voted against a gang rape victim's right to trial. The current Republican party is willing to overlook child sex slavery (I link the Wikipedia article merely as a launching point) for... what? What could possibly be worth that? How corrupt does an institution have to be before the stench is so foul that it collapses on itself?

Some might say it's already happening. I'd just rather it not take a good part of the country with it.

[BlindEye]

I feel the same way, really.  The "cultural conservatives" have taken over the party and, like all extremists, replaced thought with dogma. 

Most of the people I know who subscribe to this point of view have a very black-and-white view of the world.  They aren't necessarily stupid, though some strike me as that way.  What they have is a particularly narrow point of view.  You get this with extremists of all kinds.

What bothers me about the Republicans going down this road is that if things don't change, there could wind up being only one alternative for thinking people, ie. the Democrats.  I don't like having only one viable option to choose from, whether I'm choosing a political party, operating system, etc.  Monopolies are never good things in the long run.

[Arhys]

Some ugly numbers guys, but fascinating poll on Republican beliefs just done.  All I can honestly say to Republicans, conservatives, libertarians is that you have to start speaking up on the things you think are foolish within.  There's plenty to debate and will be agreements and disagreements, but some of the following is beyond the pale.

63% of Republicans think Obama is a socialist.                                          This is ignorance.
36% don't think he was born in the U.S. and 22% aren't sure.                    This is crazy.
24% think Obama wants terrorists to win, 33% aren't sure.                       This is appalling.

And the kicker:
23% want their state to secede, 19% not sure. 

There's more, a majority think Palin is more qualified to be President, 33% aren't sure.  Nuggets on racism, ACORN (oh noes), and many issues.

Random sampling by telephone last 4 digits, phone interview with self-identified Republicans, 2003 sample size, margin of error 2%, here are the cross tabs .

[glimmertwin]

I just wonder when Obama makes it his.  I mean, Bush did the same thing - blaming Clinton on defense and it drove me crazy.  Now, Obama is doing the same thing.  After a full year he is still blaming Bush for everything.  Even blaming him for things that he, Obama, voted on.  When does it become his?  Ever?  Does every President just blame the ones before them? 

[Zeitgeist]

Some ugly numbers guys, but fascinating poll on Republican beliefs just done.  All I can honestly say to Republicans, conservatives, libertarians is that you have to start speaking up on the things you think are foolish within.  There's plenty to debate and will be agreements and disagreements, but some of the following is beyond the pale.

63% of Republicans think Obama is a socialist.                                          This is ignorance.
36% don't think he was born in the U.S. and 22% aren't sure.                    This is crazy.
24% think Obama wants terrorists to win, 33% aren't sure.                       This is appalling.

And the kicker:
23% want their state to secede, 19% not sure. 

There's more, a majority think Palin is more qualified to be President, 33% aren't sure.  Nuggets on racism, ACORN (oh noes), and many issues.

Random sampling by telephone last 4 digits, phone interview with self-identified Republicans, 2003 sample size, margin of error 2%, here are the cross tabs .

The source of said polls:

ABOUT DAILY KOS
Founded in May 26, 2002, Daily Kos is the premier online political community with 2.5 million unique visitors per month and 215,000 registered users. It is at once a news organization, community, and activist hub. Among luminaries posting diaries on the site are President Jimmy Carter, Senator Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and dozens of other senators, congressmen, and governors. Even more exciting than that however, are the hundreds of thousands of regular Americans that have used Daily Kos to shape a political world once the exclusive domain of the rich, connected, and powerful.

http://www.dailykos.com/special/about2#dk

Well that's about all I need to know. <pitch> I just about fell out of my chair when I saw 'Luminary' and Jimmy Carter used in the same sentence.  ???

[Trieste]

I'd be more interested in their actual methods than who's writing on the site, m'self. You are, however, welcome to bring forth your own polls from a wacko right-wing more Republican source, Zamdrist. I'm pretty sure they're saying the same thing: Obama is a crazy foreign terrorist who wants to bring down the great US of A.

[Zeitgeist]

I'd be more interested in their actual methods than who's writing on the site, m'self. You are, however, welcome to bring forth your own polls from a wacko right-wing more Republican source, Zamdrist. I'm pretty sure they're saying the same thing: Obama is a crazy foreign terrorist who wants to bring down the great US of A.

Rather, I'll just express my opinion, for objectivity in new media is non existent. So swapping polls and amateur blog posts is rather pointless. No more so than my opinions too I suppose.

While calling Obama a 'socialist' would just be inflammatory, many of his ideals and policies are in the same vein as that of socialism. Health care for all, and penalizing private businesses for handing out bonuses are two examples.

I don't really give a rats ass either way if he was born abroad or here. I've never thought of him as anything but a U.S. citizen. Raising that argument is self defeating anyhow, for Biden would only be worse, next in line. Obama is doing fine himself screwing things up nicely.

Believing he wants terrorism to win is equally silly. Even if his policies are flawed, and badly. So we are going to try these terrorists in civilian courts, believing that the rest of the world will see us as standing up for justice and our own rule of law, as if this will placate the 'moderate terrorists'. At the same time the administration is assuring everyone of the outcome. How can you have a fair and just trial, if you're going to guarantee the outcome? And while I support the use of drone attacks on known terrorists, how can they justify that at the same time? No trial, no nothing, just splat you're dead.

States seceding? I don't know what that would accomplish but further divide us.

Palin is no more, or less qualified for office than Obama. She at least has some experience in more than one executive position. Obama is an 'organizer', a lawyer and a legislator, furthermore it shows, doesn't it? But frankly, I don't think either of them are qualified for the position.

So though I lean Republican, and Libertarian, it seems I don't have much in common with the sample set that makes up this poll.

[Arhys]

The poll was carried out by Research 2000, a well-known and highly regarded firm which is considered to lean Republican by their results if anything.  It was a big reason why daily kos chose to use them actually.  The Republican Party uses this outfit themselves.  The political ideology of a group contracting a poll means nothing is you are unable to prove their ideological bias influenced survey design--it's why I listed the methodology and why the cross tabs are important.

Second, I encourage you to please criticize the poll itself.  Unlike all other media outlets or private contractors of a poll, daily kos publishes full cross tabs for free so the research design is transparent.  What survey question was biased?  How so?  Hundreds of social scientists have already looked at this poll, doubtless you'll be able to find criticisms online if the research deign is faulty.  Are you criticizing the sample size or sample selection?  Both meet or exceed industry standards for polling, the margin or error of this poll is 2%, not the usual 4% because of these measures.  Think the results are funny?  Well, have at the cross tabs and make an argument and back it up. 

[Trieste]

The problem with calling Obama a 'socialist' for those things (or implying it) is that socialism didn't just spring up in a vacuum, and the idea of a government that cares for its people is not a new one. It wasn't invented by Karl Marx, for chrissake.

These are supposed to be national ideals that we were once known for. The Statue of Liberty, gifted to us. The poem carved at her feet. She's named Mother of Exiles, and who hasn't heard her call?

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Not only that, but you have anti-war activists telling our government to look after our own before we look after others. I don't know about you but I've personally asked myself why we're coddling other governments when our own is such a farce. (Then again, taking a look at the Taliban convinces me that we might not have it so bad.) He turns around and tries to take care of our own, and that's not good enough, either.

This isn't addressed to you directly, Zamdrist, but it does make me sit back and wonder, "What on earth do people want from him, if it's not trying to help his own countrymen?"

[Vekseid]

We're paying for single payer in Iraq, too. Go figure.

The source of said polls:

ABOUT DAILY KOS
Founded in May 26, 2002, Daily Kos is the premier online political community with 2.5 million unique visitors per month and 215,000 registered users. It is at once a news organization, community, and activist hub. Among luminaries posting diaries on the site are President Jimmy Carter, Senator Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and dozens of other senators, congressmen, and governors. Even more exciting than that however, are the hundreds of thousands of regular Americans that have used Daily Kos to shape a political world once the exclusive domain of the rich, connected, and powerful.

http://www.dailykos.com/special/about2#dk

Well that's about all I need to know. <pitch> I just about fell out of my chair when I saw 'Luminary' and Jimmy Carter used in the same sentence.  ???

Saying Carter doesn't inspire others is downright silly. As a former president of the United States, he is always going to be deserving of some measure of respect. The only man who didn't earn the title was Ford before him. He is not in Obama's league or even Reagan's, but that doesn't diminish his office.

[Talia]

Some ugly numbers guys, but fascinating poll on Republican beliefs just done.  All I can honestly say to Republicans, conservatives, libertarians is that you have to start speaking up on the things you think are foolish within.  There's plenty to debate and will be agreements and disagreements, but some of the following is beyond the pale.

63% of Republicans think Obama is a socialist.                                          This is ignorance.
36% don't think he was born in the U.S. and 22% aren't sure.                    This is crazy.
24% think Obama wants terrorists to win, 33% aren't sure.                       This is appalling.

And the kicker:
23% want their state to secede, 19% not sure. 

There's more, a majority think Palin is more qualified to be President, 33% aren't sure.  Nuggets on racism, ACORN (oh noes), and many issues.

Random sampling by telephone last 4 digits, phone interview with self-identified Republicans, 2003 sample size, margin of error 2%, here are the cross tabs .

I almost spit my coffee out.....funny yet so disturbing at the same time.......

Zamdrist of Zeitgeist
Palin is no more, or less qualified for office than Obama. She at least has some experience in more than one executive position. Obama is an 'organizer', a lawyer and a legislator, furthermore it shows, doesn't it? But frankly, I don't think either of them are qualified for the position.

Really??   I think your are dead wrong on that statement......... Palin does have an excellent postion...I'm sure...I just don't think it's in politics...  I should probably just leave my thoughts there...

[glimmertwin]

There is no doubt that Palin is qualified.  She meets all the necessary requirements per the Constitution.  Would she be good in office is a different question.  I like her.  I like her ideas and her bluntness but President.  I don't. 

The problem I have with Obama (and many others, Left and Right) is he has no real world experience.  He has never really held a private job and had great success.  In fact, his time in the private sector he called "being behind enemy lines".  I would much rather see a person who has built a very successful company or had a success career in the military than a career politican. 

[HairyHeretic]

There is no doubt that Palin is qualified. 

Judging by her performance in interviews, whilst campaigning, and since then, I suspect we have very different opinions on what counts as qualified.

[glimmertwin]

When I say "Qalified" I am referring to the law.  It is an indisputable fact she is qualified.  If you can show me where she is not, I will gladly look at it.  By all the laws, she is qualified (unless I got her age wrong).

Now, as for qualified outside the law, yes, I don't think she is either.

In regards to her interviews, what is really amusing with that is that there many, many, many interviews where Democrats did a bad a job as her.  There are many quotes that Democrats have made that are as stupid as things she said however, you don't really hear about those as much as you do her.  The Media did a horrible job covering the candidates.  Heck, you knew more about her daughter than you did about Obama.

The sad thing is that when the media fails to do their job, the public loses out.  I remember a video from 2008 taken at the polls where people were given these stupid quotes and asked who said them.  They all said Palin but they were all wrong.  They were from Biden or Obama.  Or they were asked who runs Congress and they all said the GOP.

[HairyHeretic]

When I say "Qalified" I am referring to the law.  It is an indisputable fact she is qualified.  If you can show me where she is not, I will gladly look at it.  By all the laws, she is qualified (unless I got her age wrong).

Now, as for qualified outside the law, yes, I don't think she is either.

Refering to the law I would probably have said legal or eligible to run. Qualified, as you say outside the law, is a very different matter, and that was what I was refering to.

[Zeitgeist]

Judging by her performance in interviews, whilst campaigning, and since then, I suspect we have very different opinions on what counts as qualified.

If you had some snarky, perky reporter (Curic) asking you questions like "So, what do you read?", as if you don't read or what in the world do you read? Or Charlie Gibson looking over his glasses, down his nose at you like some kind of teacher, asking you to define the 'Bush Doctrine', you too would likely be flummoxed.

No, she wasn't all prepared to handle the media, and she still isn't, but she's gaining experience. She's a good populist but not prepared by any means to be president. Just look at the difficulties Obama has had. No, both of them are, or would be in over their heads. Though some of our best presidents have been governors.

[Trieste]

Wandering off topic, here. Feel free to discuss Palin in another thread - I think there's already one made, actually.

[Albedo]

I was really happy with Obama's address last week. I'm getting fed up with congress and I can see he is as well. His chat with the republicans was also really good.  Things need to get accomplished in this country and both sides need to realize they can't get 100 percent of what they want. They have to reach a compromise and combine ideas instead of pointing fingers, playing politics, appealing to their base and worrying about thier next election. If this is what they're going to keep doing nothing is going to get accomplished and I can see Obama's frustration with that.

[glimmertwin]

I was really happy with Obama's address last week. I'm getting fed up with congress and I can see he is as well. His chat with the republicans was also really good.  Things need to get accomplished in this country and both sides need to realize they can't get 100 percent of what they want. They have to reach a compromise and combine ideas instead of pointing fingers, playing politics, appealing to their base and worrying about thier next election. If this is what they're going to keep doing nothing is going to get accomplished and I can see Obama's frustration with that.

The only issue with that whole "compromise" thing is that, for Democrats, compromise means doing what they say and leaving all your ideas behind.  "Reaching across the aisle" always means coming to their side, not the middle.     If he really meant all that, why did he and the Democrats have all those closed door meetings without the GOP?  I know what you mean but for me, I would much rather have less get done in D.C.

[Jude]

The only issue with that whole "compromise" thing is that, for Democrats, compromise means doing what they say and leaving all your ideas behind.  "Reaching across the aisle" always means coming to their side, not the middle.     If he really meant all that, why did he and the Democrats have all those closed door meetings without the GOP?  I know what you mean but for me, I would much rather have less get done in D.C.

They didn't start the whole process by discussing behind closed doors, you make it sound like they were never interested in negotiating with the GOP at all and they just went right into talking only to the Democrats about the issue.

The most liberal position possible is single-payer.  When Bernie Sanders (Senator from Vermont) introduced it to Congress, Republicans demanded that the entire bill be read on the floor of the senate, so it didn't even get to go up for discussion or congressional budget office scoring.  Whether or not you agree with the idea, certainly you can agree that in fairness all ideas should be debated and considered, yet the Republicans did not even allow for that.

Then there was the public option, the next best position that the Democrats wanted and their base felt really passionate about.  By the time the Senate was done, that was gone too.  So to say the Democrats demanded 100% of everything they wanted is entirely incorrect, the majority of Democrats in the Senate liked the idea of the Public Option and the conservative Dems in their own party blocked that.  They couldn't even have the medicare buy in, which was really just expanding an existing program from 65-55 because of Lieberman and again a Republican promise to support a filibuster.

The Dems bargained away a lot of the positions that they wanted, the bill became increasingly centrist, and Republican opposition didn't soften at all.  Even with the Public Option gone, their rhetoric didn't change.  If they continued to say the same thing completely without regard for reality, it should be fairly obvious they weren't interested in negotiating.  And they never proposed an alternative bill or agreed to accept certain provisions in exchange for Democratic admissions.  If you don't believe that negotiations weren't attempted, such as Dems trying to woo Olympia Snow, you weren't watching the process.  It's Republicans who refused to budge an inch, even when Dems said they could do Tort Reform, the Republicans didn't offer up anything in the process.

What you said simply isn't true.

Show me one example of a Republican concession if I'm wrong.

[glimmertwin]

Well, the fact that Obama had the Democrats up the White House the week before Christmas to hammer out health care and didn't invite a single republican is a big example.  That's what I am referring to.  Obama calling for the parties to come together but when has HE listened to the GOP?  I noticed he went to their retreat and pretty much lied thru his teeth (nothing against him on this though..they ALL lie) and then TOLD them what to do.  When it was brought up that he said, nine times, during the campaign that the process would be open and on C-Span and it wasn't he balked at that and said no, many parts were open.  During the campaign he said ALL would be open.

Anyway, both sides do it, it's just that the Dems are in power and doing it now.

[Trieste]

"All the parts of our legislative process will be on C-span!"

"That Obama is too optimistic; you can't put all of the parts of the legislative process on C-span."

"Oh, shit, you can't put all of the parts of the legislative process on C-span. Well, I'll put as many as I can on there."

"ZOMG LIAR!!!!"

*headscratch*

[Arhys]

I challenge anyone to provide a link to an even reasonably detailed Republican health care proposal that passes as serious debate.  Honestly.

Not one amendment was offered in seriousness.  The bills were held up in committee by Republicans for months--who never even made a suggestion on the language.  Olympia Snowe had meetings for months, got everything she wanted, then backed out saying she felt rushed.  Not a single Republican came forward and said if you address this or that concern, I’ll cross the aisle to permit more American families to gain access to hospitals and doctors and the rest. 

[glimmertwin]

My point though is that Democrats do exactly the same thing when they are out of power.  For Obama to stand up there and critize the GOP for holding to 60 votes is just funny.

I love gridlock and hope it goes on and on and on. Regardless who is in the Whitehouse.

[kylie]

My point though is that Democrats do exactly the same thing when they are out of power.  For Obama to stand up there and critize the GOP for holding to 60 votes is just funny.

Statistically, the Republicans have actually used the filibuster many more times than the Democrats.   Whether the Democrats might later block the works a similar number of times for some hypothetical future Republican administration, is a speculative matter.

[RubySlippers]

I'm a Libertarian Party member but I was seriously considering voting for McCain until he chose Palin. I did not want the Democrats to have control of Congress and the Presidency because I wisely found to be true they were going to spend this nation into debts that even Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. combined never could do in 24 years.

But Palin with one heart beat from the leadership of the nation scared the crap out of me to vote along with my party on principle.

And I tend to agree with some its time to test the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the filibuster in the Federal Courts to see if it can be stopped in the Senate and force them to get work done.

[glimmertwin]

I'm a Libertarian Party member but I was seriously considering voting for McCain until he chose Palin. I did not want the Democrats to have control of Congress and the Presidency because I wisely found to be true they were going to spend this nation into debts that even Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. combined never could do in 24 years.

But Palin with one heart beat from the leadership of the nation scared the crap out of me to vote along with my party on principle.

And I tend to agree with some its time to test the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the filibuster in the Federal Courts to see if it can be stopped in the Senate and force them to get work done.

Well, too late for that.  Obama already outspent every President and drawfed 8 years of Bush in a single year.  Not that Bush didn't outspend every President as well.

[Arhys]

Well, too late for that.  Obama already outspent every President and drawfed 8 years of Bush in a single year.  Not that Bush didn't outspend every President as well.

That's because Obama's budget included the costs of the '91 tax cuts, the follow-up round, both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--something Bush never even put on the balance sheet.  Obama's gotten half of TARP back as well.  The deficit we have now is what was predicted in '04, except the stimulus after the crisis that came to a  head on Bush's watch.

As for deficits, I think I'll start a new thread on that in the next day or so.

[Jude]

Glimmer, you're naming something that happened around Christmas as proof that the Democrats were not and are not willing to compromise or be fair; you forget that the Republicans spent about six months before then giving them every reason to close them out of the debate because they were simply stalling, offering no concrete admissions, or participating in fair debate.  I gave you concrete examples of the Republicans' disingeniousness and you basically ignored everything I said in favor of keeping your preconceived notion based on one fact which can easily be accounted for.

As was said earlier, this year the Republicans have used the filibuster a record number of times, but it doesn't stop there.  Lets not forget the Michigan situation where they drew out the election for many, many months to prevent a Democratic supermajority.  The funniest part is, they've proven how hypocritical they are as of late.  When the Democrats are in power they decried the use of the filibuster, threatened and used reconciliation, and even threatened the use of the so called "Nuclear Option" (and they've been speaking out against a lot of that lately).  Don't forget the way they made it sound like Democrats were considering stalling putting Scott Brown in the Congress and Brown even demanded to be seated this week instead of next at the last second, when they kept Al Franken out of the Senate for months (which at first was justified, then things became fairly clear after the first month or so).

Republicans have put down the stimulus package while taken part in ribbon cutting ceremonies in their home town when they funds were dispersed.  Some of them have made up outright lies about death panel BS.  Don't forget the "You lie" outburst, in which very few of them were willing to denounce Wilson's disrespectful action, followed by them asking for Congressman Alan Greyson to be publicly reprimanded for his mocking of the Republic Position on healthcare (which I agree was in bad taste, but how can you be OK with disrespecting the president in the middle of an official speech, and against a Congressman saying something stupid in a proper way).  Lets not forget the memo that Republicans sent internally about breaking Obama on Healthcare and making it his Waterloo.

You'd have to be stupid, really uninformed, or downright delusional to think Republicans have actually been interested in contributing meaningfully to the Healthcare Reform Discussion.

[Serephino]

Oh yes...  Republicans have been total jackasses this past year.  Bush made the party look bad, and I guess they're trying to do damage control.  They're making themselves look worse in the process though.  It seems like they want him to fail so they can go see.... you Democrats screwed up too!  And the number of extremists have grown. 

What President Bush wanted he got, maybe some compromise was involved, but he usually got it.  President Obama has to fight with Congress for months on end.  People criticize him for not getting much done, but Congress has to write and approve the legislation before he can do anything.  He can suggest ideas, but he can't make them do shit, and Republicans are flat out refusing to cooperate. 

[Albedo]

I never see republicans trying to get anything done. Democrats propose ideas for healthcare, and republicans demonize it and pick apart and make up things about it, while all along not proposing ideas of their own. This, from what I see, is how it's been going all year, and I'm glad Obama's been calling it out and trying to catch it early. But I'm not sure how well it's going to work on the stubborn republicans.

[RubySlippers]

It didn't help though the health reform bills were over 2000 pages each that is more than twice the number of pages of most Bibles for reference, that even scared me. I don't get it maybe but they had to cover the poor earning say 150% the Federal poverty line and do some other basic reforms then find a way to pay for it. They needed 2500+ pages for that?

Face it if its not simple, understandable and clear then why did they expect it to pass?

[Albedo]

Well it's health care reform it shouldn't be simple.
If Republicans want something simple, then they should try and work out something simple and run it by the president. But as of now they haven't offered anything.

[RubySlippers]

Why not? The president wussy man should have told the Democrats in Congress what HE wanted in a bill and hand them 400 black sheets telling them it must fit in this. Then be clear unless it gets done and on his desk by Christmas he will veto all legislation they want. Including raising the debt ceiling.

Health care bill on a under 50 pages could amount to this. The States shall provide all their citizen residents health care, paid for by a payroll tax and Medicaid funding and any reforms and laws needed. Failure to do so by 2014 will bar them from any discretionary Federal Funds until the State complies. Simple. And States could decide not to.

[Arhys]

The President is not a dictator and can't tell the legislative making branch of a democracy what to do in such a specific way while it remains a democracy.  And if state rights are so important surely each state deserves more than one page of explanation on how all those changes are to happen. 

[Trieste]

Calm down, please.

[RubySlippers]

My example mimics other legislation so the Federal Government can do it like I stated easily enough, and I noted in under 50 pages leaving some for some extra things like added Federal funding of Medicaid. But States wouldn't have to do anything and could impliment it anyway they wanted from insurance to a state health service but they could refuse. Just lose all Federal Funding unless they do outside of mandates.  ;)

As for the President that is the problem no backbone he is a wimp HE should have had a Health Care Plan in mind and placed it out there and keep is simple and not overly long 400 pages is fair, 2500+ pages is God speaking to us two and a half times over the history of the entire Biblical narrative. That scares people. You scare voters you get yelling people at Town Hall Meetings. Not my idea but something that would fix the basic problems.

[Arhys]

I'm sorry that comment was so abrupt and short, I truly didn't intend it to be so but see how it reads that way and appreciate the gentle moderation.  On second thought, maybe I really ought to be spanked--just a little?  *grin*

[Jude]

First of all, the Senate Healthcare Bill is not 2500+ pages.  It's 2074.

http://documents.nytimes.com/senate-health-care-bill

These are not pages packed full of content in paragraph form that read like a novel either.  Even when they get into the meat of the proposals everything seems to be triple-spaced with gigantic font, they only manage to get 20 lines in on a page and those don't even consist of full sentences.  If the formatting used was similar to a book, I can't imagine this even topping 1000 pages.

The first however many pages are the table of contents, there's tons of procedural language that actually doesn't say anything, and entire sections devoted to ironing out loopholes.  This is the way legislation has to be made so that various portions are clearly accessible, the document conforms to legal standards, and everything is written in a concise enough way that it doesn't turn into a legalistic nightmare.

If the bill was too short, it would become a gigantic burden on the court system or the Health Insurance Providers would search for loopholes.  Face it, you have to be verbose if you want to be concise.  Look also at the fact that they tried to do an enormous amount of things within the bill (as listed by the table of contents).  The length of the bill should not be a stumbling point; it's become one because the Republicans effectively made the argument that the American people don't know what's in it.  Obviously it's size makes that argument easier to make, but poor communication on the subject really sealed the deal.

However, I don't think this was the way to go about things necessarily either.  Issue by issue things should've been passed in smaller packages.  Make the Republicans vote no to pre-existing conditions separately from other issues if you really want to show the American people that they're being obstructionist and/or pass legislation that actually helps people.  I have to wonder why they went with the monolithic approach to begin with.

I've come to the sad conclusion that it was simply Democratic Senators looking to score a big win by pushing through a glut of changes that would give this congress a legacy to campaign on and look back at historically.  They wanted to make this their civil rights legislation and now they have next to nothing to work with a the 2010 elections will most likely be a third party/Republican landslide.  And yet I am not at all surprised.  The Democrats are by far the best part at getting in their own way.

[RubySlippers]

I think 400 pages is long enough for a decent bill. And will make them think on how to do it more efficiently. The big issue is that the average American sees 2000 pages and goes WTF?  :o

But States seem to want a say so I say give it to them and put the burden half on them to provide for their citizens Health Care with mechanisms to get them to do that which are proven to be Consititutional.

On another area jobs the best thing they could do is not spend money or cut taxes but provide Health Reform for those earning at or under 150% the Federal Poverty line alot of workers in my area of Florida fall into that. And cut layers of government regulation I have to point out if one runs a factory in my state you have to deal with city/township, county, State and Federal Laws for many areas. Couldn't they help business and give priority to say Federal Law only if they are stricter than state laws and the other way around if the state is stricter. That would seriously cut redtape and make businesses run smoother.

[Serephino]

I can't believe I'm saying this.... but Jude is actually right in this case.  Everything must be spelled out in minute detail.  That is how government works.  It's a sluggish process.  I think I remember reading that the average bill is around 800 pages for something simple.

I do agree that the way they're going about this is all wrong.  They really should start small, maybe with some regulation.  I also think it would be simpler to do a state by state thing.  Use the medicaid system already in place, and come up with a realistic income scale for premiums.  Of course they would need federal funding, and they'd have to get rid of the limits, but I don't see why it wouldn't work. 

[glimmertwin]

I challenge anyone to provide a link to an even reasonably detailed Republican health care proposal that passes as serious debate.  Honestly.

Not one amendment was offered in seriousness.  The bills were held up in committee by Republicans for months--who never even made a suggestion on the language.  Olympia Snowe had meetings for months, got everything she wanted, then backed out saying she felt rushed.  Not a single Republican came forward and said if you address this or that concern, I’ll cross the aisle to permit more American families to gain access to hospitals and doctors and the rest.

How about letting insurance companies sell across state lines?

[RubySlippers]

Because this is an area regulated state by state. If one supports states rights it won't work and since they deal with in-state networks you would have to go the doctors and the like in the others state if an HMO most likely.

[Arhys]

Selling insurance across state lines is/was already in the Senate bill, please see Section 1333 for details.