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

Smuggler, what about Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen supporting the repeal of DADT? The top brass at the Pentagon has OK'ed the repeal.

 

I calk it up to pressure from the administration. Outside of that I'd also say that none of then served as enlisted aboard a US Navy destroyer. Those kinds of isolated, close quarters make you rethink the meaning of "Private Life" when you can't have one and privacy where there can be none.

 

So Obama seems to have decided to take the Bill Clinton approach to divided government. Just as Clinton took on welfare reform, Obama is signaling his interest in taking on tax reform. Out-Republicaning the Republicans at their own game by offering up legislative opportunities they can't refuse.

It makes perfect sense as a likely component of the deficit commission's eventual recommendations, and it would be a politically feasible way to get the Bush tax cut monkey off our backs. Maybe it won't appeal to Republicans who list beating Obama in 2012 as a higher priority than actually, you know, governing.

 

Do you have proof that the administration pressured Gates and Mullen into supporting the repeal? What did they use to pressure them with?

Gates and Mullen gave their approval when a Pentagon report was published stating that the repeal would "present only a low risk to the armed forces' ability to carry out their missions". The report also said that "70 percent of service members believe it would have little or no effect on their units". Source

Jabba, I saw that the administration is mulling tax reform as a top priority for 2011.

I also couldn't believe today's Charles Krauthammer article. I think I've made the thread too lengthy by posting a lot of newspaper articles already, so I'll just link it this time. Essentially Krauthammer says that Obama swindled Republicans into giving him a bigger and more efficient Stimulus Bill II, which Democrats have failed to realize or appreciate.
Swindle of the Year

 

I am throughly of the opinion that Nancy Pelosi thinks that she is a "co-President", and has earned the right to set the agenda without Obama's approval. Her installation as minority leader will only make things worse.

I am actually glad the House was lost, as history has shown that a losing party's retreat towards pure idealogy only harms them further. Obama is now going to be forced into a showdown with Congressional democrats, and if he is to have any chance in 2012, it is a battle he must win.

Senate democrats, on the other hand, seem to "get it" quite a bit more.

I think Krauthammer's analysis was spot-on, myself.

Peace,

V-03

 

I have never realized that, but now that I read it...it makes complete sense. Pelosi has given me the impression that she thinks Obama is really just a figurehead which will allow her to set the tone. Obama needs to break away of that or there will be serious problems down the line

I think we will see Obama's strength in the next few years, especially if he shows that he is a master of compromise. This can be an advantage for the democrats, especially if he continues to give the republicans just enough of what they want that they will look like morons if they complain. Obama's presidency will be made or lost depending on how he governs with the Republicans over the next two years.

 

Actually, it is a very recent development that the President be allowed to "set the agenda" at all. And no one has ever claimed that it is the President's sole right to "set the agenda." The executive branch became too powerful during the Bush years, and I am glad that the legislative branch has started to regain some of its lost power. (There have even been times in American History when the Speaker of the House was more powerful and prestigious than the President)

The alliance for the last two years beween Obama, Pelosi, and Reid is actually not the historical example. Pelosi and Reid basically tried to do whatever Obama asked, I don't believe the Democratic Party had ever been that unified. Clinton never got along too well with the Democratic leadership in his first two years, and we all know how badly Jimmy Carter got along with congressional Democrats. Even Lyndon Johnson was shunned by his fellow Senators after leaving the Senate to become Kennedy's Vice President.

Intra-party political struggles are the norm, and I expect we'll see more clashes between Obama and Pelosi in the future. As we should, since Obama will be under pressure to compromise more with the Republicans, and Pelosi will want to give liberals and progressives a reason to still vote in 2012.

Also interesting to note, Nancy Pelosi says her role model is Sam Rayburn (aka "Mr. Democrat), who served three times as Speaker of the House and twice as Minority Leader (staying leader of the Democratic Party even when the House temporarily lost a majority, twice) from the Roosevelt presidency to the Kennedy presidency.

 

It's amazing to hear the "f-bombs" dropped towards the president by his so-called supporters.

If Obama is going to emerge from this as the leader of his party and this country, he has to call in the current congressional leadership of his own party and knock some heads around.

As Vaderize mentioned, it is a battle he must win.

 

This is how you fillibuster. Good to see an independent is doing this. This tax deal is wrong politically and wrong for this country so I support what he's doing.

 

I like what the Economist had to say about it. Any believer in fiscal restraint should be appalled that the only route to "compromise" is through giving each other goodies.

 

"Break up the big banks"? "Don't help the billionaires"? "End the tax cuts for the rich in favor of helping the working class"?

I think I've got a new favorite Senator.

 

Yep. Bernie Sanders is gaining immortality tonight.

edit: EIGHT HOURS!$#@(&

 

That press conference with Obama/Clinton was crazy. Obama left and Clinton fielded the rest of the questions.

But I'm in favour of killing this legislation. Wait until January when you dont have a bill loaded with Reid's online gambling and other pork and pass a stronger bill.

 

While I disagree with some of his statements (as he's a socialist, this isn't surprising) I very much respect that he's going for a legitimate filibuster.

 

Well, after eight and a half hours, Senator Sanders finally yielded the floor at 7:00 Eastern. I'm glad someone over there has convictions to stand up for?and worth standing up for.

For those who like what he had to say: contact your Senator. It takes a couple of minutes and costs you nothing.

 

Somehow I don't think the illustrious Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl will be sympathetic to my argument.

Instant cynicism: just add Arizona politics.

 

The thing is - Sanders thinks it is okay to take a person's stuff and hand it over to someone else for some small exchange (in this case, he essentially buys the votes of others via the redistribution of wealth). In short he does not think that my property (which would include what I have earned) to be mine, but his.

He has about as much respect for a person's property as a burglar, only, he does not have the guts to break into a person's house to do said redistribution himself, instead he gets someone else to do it. At least a burglar has the guts to do it himself and risk being shot by the homeowner whose house he breaks into.

 

On another note, a Virginia judge is expected rule on Monday that the health-insurance purchase mandate in the ACA is unconstitutional, a major blow to the reform bill. Experts have been quoted as saying that this case, and a similar one in Florida, stand the best chance of getting up to the Supreme Court.

In the short term, this would be played up as a huge blow to the Obama administration. It might give Congressional democrats in both houses an excuse to simply play gridlock for the next two years......or, it could give dems a huge talking point in the 2012 election season, namely that the courts, in rulings from republican-appointed judges, have voted to give insurance companies back the power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, to drop sick individuals and children from plans, and to restore lifetime limits on coverage.

It will be very, very interesting. I would expect the administration, in the event of such a ruling, to request an emergency expedited appeal to either the appropriate Federal Circuit Court level for an immediate stay of the lower court ruling, or a direct appeal to the Supreme Court itself. Either way, a ruling against the law is likely to find itself under an injunction leaving the changes it is currently mandating the government to enforce intact, until the Supreme Court can take up the case.

Peace,

V-03

 

Yes, yes, and Republicans think it's okay to consolidate wealth or 'borrow' it. I'd prefer the socialist, for while he is taking money and giving it to people because at least it's still giving other people something.

 

When the Faux News/Paylin/teabagger crowd gets hold of those things, fascism could be labeled as "extreme liberalism". These people want to overturn our democracy, going back to when only landowners could vote. They have been quite successful in using accusations of voter fraud to justify voter intimidation tactics as well.

 

Merry Christmas, in case it were anymore obvious let me summarize: Screw you taxpayer.

For people that don't get the reference.

 

Unironic comparisons of democratic socialism to burglary: God bless America.

 

JediSmuggler, is all taxation and spending by the government equal to stealing, meaning that government itself is fundamentally immoral and unjust, or do you only regard the taxation and spending you don't like to be stealing? If it's the first, why don't you just admit that you're an anarchist? If it's the second, where do you draw the line, and why do you think your preferences should be law instead of the collective preferences of the majority of this country as has been determined through our democratic elections and Supreme Court decisions for over 200 years? Right now, it seems that you are either an Anarchist or an aspiring Dictator, and either position makes you appear extremely uncompromising.

 

That is the part of this law that bothered me the most. I hope it is declared unconstitutional.

 

Yeah, I can't wait until the inevitable repercussions of such a ruling get around to car insurance, and then I'll get in a wreck and have the responsible party not able to compensate me for the damages all in the name of "personal liberty." It's gonna be awesome.