The Second Year of the Obama Administration: Facts, Opinions and Discussions

If I'm not mistaken, much of the focus of those tea party rallies was on the bailouts and runaway spending. So I don't think it's focused on a specific bill, but the overall sense that we're spending too much and not paying for it, coupled with the ongoing recession and unemployment.

IMHO, some of it is still a residual leftover from the Perotistas of the '90s. More populist than a simple conservative movement, but not as liberal as Congress.

In other words, mostly independents without a home.

I highly doubt that it's a 'populist' movement. It's populist in the sense that it's not run by people that are inhernetly for the GOP. I highly doubt Glenn Beck is as much of a shill for the GOP as Rush Limbaugh. But that doesn't mean it's completely a populist movement.

A populist movment would reach across the left and right segments of society. This is a conservative sentment that pulls at those who would say they 'lean' to the left -- but in the same way Reagan Democrats did. In other words people who are a sucker for some of those conservative arguments.

The bailouts and runaway spending are soemthing that would fit right in with that posted list. Sure, the spending and bailouts are a concern. And... where were these people in October 2008? What, the spending's been going on in even GREATER measures for 8-9 years and it's only NOW they're protesting? Come ON. Not a cooincidence. The spending's not even as bad as it was under the Bush Administration: the rate of accelearation has actually slowed. And as for the bailouts -- which also started under Bush -- a lot of those companies have been paying those back or rejecting them.

So yeah, those things are a concern, but I think it's still a pretext. I don't think for a second if for some reason the the 2008 election were to be held next year and Bush was still in charge that we would see these rallies. They'd probably be left waiting until the next Democrat came into office.

Yeah, what they're calling for is certainly a bipartisan problem. And I agree a lot of these people are not really beholden to the GOP. But it's not the problems they profess to be concerned about that's driven them out there. They're not interested in perhaps shouting the GOPs standards, but they're even moreso not interested in blaming them as much as they're interested in blaming the political left.

 

They act like simpletons and they call themselves tea partiers. I guess you could mock them by calling them Besty Wetsy or something equally childish. In my opinion they deserve the mockery because they are a joke. And treating them as such is the best way to fight them.

 

Purely anecdotally, the only people I know that actually went to a tea party were my grandparents, both of whom voted for Obama.

I would point out that the sorts of spending were arguably different, with Bush's spending being tied to war, and those tend to have ends and I think most people don't think that wars should be done by the private sector, whereas the economic stuff has been viewed as outside of what government should be doing, which is why many critics of Obama and the stimulus spending were also very critical of Bush for the same thing at the end of his term when he was doing that.

 

I'm not sure why I'm posting here, because most Republicans here fill me with nothing but contempt. I'm to the point where I don't think I can have a rational conversation with anyone who believes what mots of the GOP today espouses.

Well, then I suppose the obvious answer is- don't post. If you're at the point where you can only respond with negativity and anger, I'd say it's not worth it....and I mean for anyone, yourself included. There was a former Senate moderator from a while ago who developed the concept of being "detrimental to the community." In his words, such a person didn't directly reach the level of flaming, but none-the-less had a negative impact on the forum overall because they interfered with open communication. Do you remember who that was?

But J-Rod, I do think movements and political figures should have looser restrictions unless the posts are just outright hostile. I mean, the same protections here allow you to poke fun at B. Hussein Obama, which I think it should be.

I remember also poking fun of the anti-war protesters or anti-globalization knuckleheads from a couple of years ago who would vandalize whatever they could in the area and then drive away in their Volkswagens and Audis while sipping a Starbucks. Way to protest a serious topic just far enough to not impact your own life....Every movement has their questionable members though, especially since perception is largely dictated by what the media displays.

 

No, J-Rod, you're not racist. Neither is Knight, and that's my point. Saying you think an opposition movement is motivated by racism is not racist. A poor overgeneralization that's often blatantly false? Yes. But racist? No.

 

44: Was it KK?

Nah, he was just detrimental to my communication.

 

Well, a lot of times FID was detrimental to FID's communication... But always interesting....

My own thought is that I just don't like to see someone get so wrapped up in their own perception, especially when it's fueled so much by anger. It's not healthy. I mean, no one mentioned anything close to racism here. I can accept that there are people who think things like "all republicans are racist and nothing else.." But geez...If a person's entire outlook is based on a perception to the point where individuals are lost, I don't know what to say...

Maybe someone like Saint of Killers needs to come back and shake things up a bit. Fiercely promoting his multi-sexual outlook in one post, but then with just as much fierce determination, promote his die hard support for the 2nd Amendment. It would be interesting to see what he thinks of a President like Obama, because I could see his outlook go either way. I suppose he was a libertarian more than anything, but certainly couldn't be chararcterized by the party stereotypes.

I suppose none of that really matters....

So, in the latest "Year 2" news it looks like the nomination for TSA Chief withdrew his name today. It will be interesting to see how much traction this gets, considering the agency now will be without a leader (at least for the short term) moving forward after the most recent "pants bomber" scare....

 

I'm always surprised that support for and opposition to the Second Amendment doesn't vary more along party lines. I've met Democrats who swear by their gun racks and I myself come from a long line of pro-restrictions Republicans, but then I suppose the politicians themselves have to appeal to the largest common denominator in each camp.

 

Obama's first year by the numbers, from CNN:

124 bills signed into law

39 executive orders issued

3 nationally televised prime-time presidential addresses

4 prime-time press conferences

5 press conferences from the White House

20 countries visited
(Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Trinidad, Turkey, United Kingdom)

28 states visited
(Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming)

I would like to see a list of those 124 bills and 39 executive orders.

I know Congress passed tougher laws on cigarettes, and added sexual orientation to the hate crimes list.

The 3 addreses were, I think...
-the first joint address to Congress after the stimulus package passed, outlining plans for financial, healthcare, energy/environmental, veterans, and education reform
-the second joint address to Congress to push for healthcare reform
-the third was the speech on Afghanistan, I think

I think he addressed all the major countries in the world. No trips to Latin America or India, but the first dinner was to honor India, and no trip across Africa yet, or to East Europe, or to Indonesia or Australia. He should work more with Russia, China, India, Brazil.

 

I'm always surprised that support for and opposition to the Second Amendment doesn't vary more along party lines. I've met Democrats who swear by their gun racks and I myself come from a long line of pro-restrictions Republicans, but then I suppose the politicians themselves have to appeal to the largest common denominator in each camp.

But honestly, the gun control debate is all but dead in the US. Something MAJOR will have to happen for it to be opened in a broad sense again. There might be local battles or smaller focused issues, but I can't see anything comprehensive coming up for a long, long, time.

In that sense, the issue has crossed party lines.

 

Yeah I think the gun control debate has reached a certain equilibrium politically. Not going forward or back.
Dead, as you said.

 

I?m combining responses from the other Obama thread here:

Smuggler, J-Rod

Good to hear from you guys as well.

Of course we are presuming that Romney will run, I think he will.

Yes, candidates have to be taken as a whole. I?m just saying I think with health care reform being such a major issue right now, he?s going to take some heat, rightly or wrongly, from his fellow Republicans. Then again, campaiging doesn?t start for a little while so it could fade as an issue.


Mr44

I think a lot of people don't want the federal government to be put in charge of large slices of their lives. There's a difference between living in a state that has something like locally controlled health care such as Mass..and having health care run by committee in Washington. And so on... You can be interested in health care reform, but not want another massive, bloated institution to be put in charge of it.

While I disagree with your characterization of a federal health care program, I do agree with your analysis.

I?d add, again, that Nelson?s Medicaid deal really angered a lot of people and adds credence to your position.

I also think the notion of a supermajority is being overstated. Obama has gotten a lot of legislation passed. Health care reform, especially such a large reform, has always been a huge challenge with many different groups demanding their way, and many obstacles.

That said...I predict a smaller bill that will (in some general form):

- disallow insurance companies from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions.

- cap out of pocket expenses.

- Create insurance exchanges that will be controlled by the states with certain federal guidelines.

- Increase tax credits to small businesses that provide insurance

- Allow people to stay on their parents insurance longer.

- Adjustments to Medicare reimbursements (quality over service).

Covering the uninsured will be left for another day.

 

I'd give Obama a tentative A- just on foreign policy alone. He's done well just by not being Bush....or his polar opposite. I can't stress how ****ed up Bush was; every now and then I have thoughts that he wasn't that bad, until I remember his "you're either with us or you're against us" mentality. There are times when this country should go to war and times when we should not, and in 2003 we did not need to invade Iraq. But Bush decided to crack open with his chauvinistic and anti-intellectual rhetoric because he decided that his personal crusade against Saddam was more important than our country's long-term interests and diplomatic relations. Obama has indeed improved things....no the world did not turn nice and peaceful overnight, but if anything it shows that trust is hard to gain and easy to shatter. Whether Obama turns out to be impotent on the global scene or the next Bismarck, only time will tell.

On the domestic scene, I view Obama as a moderate and I'd fiercely defend him as such. It's infuriating seeing the whole conservative block trying to label him as a "far-leftist anti-Christian yada yada" and I think this bodes ill for the country's future. Repeatedly Obama is attacked for being socialist, anti-gun, pro-abortion or whatever, only for the facts to prove that his positions are fairly centrist. Healthcare is probably the one thing where he rates as being left-of-center, but he may or may not be justified in supporting it and it's not a game-changer for me.

 

I think if they put that, with some uncertainty on that last one, but I think I could back that one pretty well, and as a follow up of a year or two, talk about adding in subsidies for people that can't afford the care.

 

How Democratic of you J-Rod, calling on the bigger powers to protect you.



ES

 

Much as I think that a great deal of its usage has been mainly by people taking cheap and petty shots rather than discuss actual politics (I'm personally really not fond of the label) I will highlight that Oxford considered it a word of the year, and defined it only in a political sense and not bringing into the matter the more vulgar definition, with one of their lexicographers saying the following:

 

I would have to disagree Lowbacca.

Let's say that someone hates all people looking for jobs. And there was a huge jobs rally in The Windy City. Next the opponents of job seekers began calling the rally attendees "Blow Jobbers." No matter how long they were called "Blow Jobbers" or who called them that, the intent and origin of "Blow Jobber" would not change.

 

Purely anecdotally, the only people I know that actually went to a tea party were my grandparents, both of whom voted for Obama.

I'm sure a number of the people at the Tea Parties voted for Obama.

But then I figure a lot of votes he recieved he couldn't be expected to hold on to. Evidently not if it took less than a year (in fact within 6 months, really) for everyone to start demonstrating against him and his way-controvertial agenda.

 

(No Message)

 

Pretty much, 1994 has scared the Democrats off that issue.

In related news, the Supreme Court just struck down some limits on campaign finance.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

 

That part of McCain-Feingold, severely limiting outside issue ads, always seemed so clearly unconstitutional to me. I'm glad to see it gone.

 

That is very good. Equally important, I think, is the fact that corporations are FINALLY on par with unions in terms of political spending.

 

Well, it just seemed a far overreach for the law to limit the non-campaign directed ads and activities. It's one thing to reign in campaign spending, but to have a "no ad zone" so many days prior to an election for issue organizations and non-profits would actually end up favoring entrenched power and incumbents.

So good riddance to you First Amendment destroyer.

 

Indeed, it's nice to see us drop all pretense and just admit that corporations run our country.

 

Can you tell me what the difference is between a union and a corporation?

If unions are allowed to direct funds into political advertising, then why shouldn't corporations?

Kimball Kinnison