Jamie_B Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 [url="http://www.alternet.org/story/153867/andrew_sullivan_is_right:_obama_has_governed_as_a_conservative/"]http://www.alternet.org/story/153867/andrew_sullivan_is_right:_obama_has_governed_as_a_conservative/[/url] Pretty much. [color=#000000][font=Arial, Georgia, sans-serif][size=3][/size][/font][/color][/left] [quote][color=#000000][font=Arial, Georgia, sans-serif][size=3][left] [b] Andrew Sullivan is Right: Obama Has Governed as a Conservative[/b] [/left][/size][/font][/color][/left][color=#000000][font=Georgia, Arial, sans-serif][size=4][i][left]Sullivan took Obama's critics to task for not recognizing his accomplishments--sadly, those accomplishments only appeal to "conservative-minded independents" like him.[/left][/i][/size][/font][/color][/left][color=#000000][font=Georgia, Arial, sans-serif][size=4][i][left][font=Arial, Georgia, sans-serif][size=3]Last week, Newsweek magazine and The Daily Beast published an article by Andrew Sullivan, “How Obama’s Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics,” which excoriated left-wing critics for failing to appreciate how much Obama has accomplished, while at the same time trying to convince conservatives that Obama is not a liberal, let alone a socialist, and that, in fact, he has governed as a conservative. The fact that these two critiques are internally inconsistent has somehow managed to escape Mr. Sullivan.[/size][/font][/left][/i][/size][/font][/color][/left][color=#000000][font=Georgia, Arial, sans-serif][size=4][i][left][font=Arial, Georgia, sans-serif][size=3]The main case Mr. Sullivan, a self-described “conservative-minded independent,” makes for Obama is that, “he continued the bank bailout begun by George W. Bush, he initiated the bailout of the auto industry, and he worked to pass a huge stimulus package of $787 billion.”[/size][/font][/left][/i][/size][/font][/color][/left][color=#000000][font=Arial, Georgia, sans-serif][size=3][left]In fact, Obama deserves even more credit for the bank bailout (TARP) than Sullivan gives him: Obama did not simply “continue the bank bail-out,” he, more than Bush, was the main reason TARP passed Congress, as Congress first rejected TARP, then passed it by a narrow margin when Obama, then far in the lead of McCain in the Presidential race, endorsed it and actively campaigned for its passage. It was the first, but not the last, example of Obama promoting a Republican plan.[/left][/size][/font][/color][/left][color=#000000][font=Arial, Georgia, sans-serif][size=3][left]Sullivan essentially argues that the bank rescue was necessary, so stop whining about it and give Obama the credit he deserves. There are many problems with this theory, the first of which is that TARP, and the subsequent giveaways and guarantees given to banks by the Federal Reserve and overseen by Obama, put too much of a burden on taxpayers, too little on the bank shareholders, and placed almost no conditions on the banks in terms of how they used the federal hand-outs or how they compensated the managers of these failed banks. Normally, when a business fails in a capitalist economy, the shareholders take the losses. But what TARP did was shift losses for toxic investments in poorly collateralized debts (mostly mortgages) to taxpayers. At the same time the private equity market was paying 20 cents on the dollar for toxic assets, Obama’s advisor and later Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, was counseling Obama to agree to pay 100 cents on the dollar for the same junk, which he did. If you read Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz’ book, “Freefall,” you will see that Obama did this passively and reflexively, without any serious consideration of alternatives. Not only did the federal government overpay and over-guarantee bank obligations, it imposed no conditions on the banks to loan money to Main Street. [/left][/size][/font][/color][/left][color=#000000][font=Arial, Georgia, sans-serif][size=3][left]The central economic problem, of course, was the freezing up of credit, which blocked investment and development; even if saving the biggest banks was required (as opposed to other options, such as nationalizing the largest banks or letting banks fail and establishing a federal lending institution), the fact that money was not distributed downward into the economy allowed the economy to continue to stagnate while the banks were awash in cash, which they used mainly to buy up small and mid-sized banks so today the big banks are even bigger and there are fewer community-based and mid-sized banks to compete with them. And, of course, the banks continued their excessive compensation practices unabated while most taxpayers saw their house values, pension plans and net worth fall 30-40%. Arianna Huffington said at the time that Obama had sacrificed 70% of his credibility with voters by standing with the banks, and not average people, and that seems about right to me. The Democrats historic shellacking in the November 2010 election confirms this assessment. Was that huge election defeat part of Obama’s “long game,” Mr. Sullivan?[/left][/size][/font][/color][/left][color=#000000][font=Arial, Georgia, sans-serif][size=3][/size][/font][/color][/left] Sullivan credits Obama with saving the auto industry, and I agree that credit is warranted. But Sullivan fails to note how differently auto workers were treated than bankers by Obama. When the Obama Administration agreed to invest in the auto companies, they did so on the condition that future worker wages and benefits would be substantially diminished, so what you now have in the auto industry is a two-tier wage/benefits scale, with older workers getting good wages and benefits and younger workers getting substantially less now and in their futures. No such wage or compensation limits were placed on bankers, despite the fact that the federal bank bailouts and guarantees were more than a hundred times bigger than the auto bailouts. If and when “long game” historians write the obituary of organized labor, the auto industry’s two-tier wage cram-down by Obama will merit a chapter. Sullivan credits Obama with creating jobs with his $787 billion stimulus plan, but fails to note that $282 billion of this was tax cuts which no one had asked for and which had very little stimulus effect, as people used their tax rebates to pay off debt. That left only $500 billion for real stimulus---approximately 1/3 of what his economic advisors considered necessary to jolt the economy and bring it back to life. If you read Ron Suskind’s marvelous book, “Confidence Men,” which carefully examines the stimulus decision within the Obama White House, it becomes painfully obvious that the decision had little to do with economic projections, let alone what was needed economically---instead, the decision was driven entirely by politics, with Rahm Emanuel and Obama deciding that the stimulus had to be less than $1 trillion for cosmetic and political purposes. The fact that putting too little money into the economic stimulus might not create sufficient jobs to fix the economy and that Obama might be judged in the 2010 and 2012 elections by economic results, not political perceptions, seems to have escaped Mr. Sullivan. Or, perhaps it is part of Obama’s “long game” that Mr, Sullivan cherishes. Sullivan cites some job creation statistics, but all his comparisons are to Bush’s presidency, which sets an extremely low bar for job creation. The truth is that Obama, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers badly miscalculated the problems of the economy, projecting that unemployment would top out at 8%, when, in fact, it rose to 10.2% and remains around 9% only because millions of workers have dropped out of the labor market due to discouragement. That is the main reason Obama’s re-election is in doubt, despite the Clown Act that is the Republican Presidential primaries. Sullivan chides his conservative friends for criticizing Obamacare. He explains that it is a very conservative program, based entirely on Republican principles and ideas developed in conservative think tanks and endorsed by a long line of Republicans: “Obamacare…is based on the individual mandate, an idea pioneered by the archconservative Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, Mitt Romney, in the past. It does not have the public option, it gives a huge new client base to the drug and insurance companies; its health-insurance exchanges were also pioneered by the right.” In fact, Obamacare is “remarkably similar to Nixon’s 1974 proposal.” This should put to rest any claim that Obamacare is a progressive healthcare reform; in fact, it brings 30 million involuntary customers and $500 billion per year of new revenues to the private health insurance industry, with no public healthcare competition and no meaningful cost controls---despite the fact that in 2008 Obama had campaigned against the individual mandate and for a public healthcare option (was this flip-flop part of the Obama “long game,” Mr, Sullivan?). Of course, claiming any benefits from this “reform” assumes that the individual mandate is not declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, but most legal analysts think there is at least a 50% chance the Court will strike it down as beyond the powers of the federal government under the Commerce Clause. If the individual mandate falls, Obamacare totally collapses, a fact Mr. Sullivan fails to include in his assessment of Obama’s “long game.” Sullivan gives credit to Obama for tracking down Osama bin Laden, but fails to ask why a kill order was issued, when clearly the unarmed bin Laden could have been captured and brought back for trial. But Sullivan does not appear bothered by that or the summary executions, often of innocent people, caused by the expanded drone wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan which have fueled Islamic extremism in the most dangerous country on earth. Sullivan credits Obama for leaving Iraq, despite the fact that the withdrawal was negotiated by President Bush, not Obama, despite the fact that the Obama Administration worked mightily to extend the occupation past the agreed departure date and despite the fact that the only reason the U.S. is finally withdrawing is that the Iraqi Parliament refused to continue to grant immunity to U.S. troops for crimes committed on Iraq soil. In a nutshell, despite running as an anti-Iraq War candidate, Obama surrounded himself with national security advisors who all had supported the invasion of Iraq, including his Secretaries of State and Defense, and his policies and performance in Iraq have not been different in any significant way from Bush/Cheney. Sullivan also points out that Obama ignored “the war crimes of the recent past,” which Sullivan deplores. Sullivan acknowledges that, “Not only did he [Obama] agree not to sunset the Bush tax cuts for his entire first term, he has aggressively lowered taxes on most Americans.” Obama’s decision to continue the Bush tax cuts for the rich was extremely unpopular; in fact, a December 3, 2010 CBS News poll showed that only 26% of voters believed tax cuts should be extended to people making more than $250,000 a year and these tax cuts for people who have done extremely well in a bad economy are projected to cost $800 billion. Surely, Sullivan argues, Obama deserves credit from conservatives for those big-ticket giveaways, especially to the rich; in fact, he argues, “You could easily make the case that Obama has been far more fiscally conservative than his predecessor….” But Sullivan fails to acknowledge the fiscal consequence of such fiscal conservatism and continued tax giveaways---a major reduction in federal tax revenues. As a consequence of these and other tax short-falls, Obama was the first Democratic President in American history to put on the table for negotiations with Republicans major reductions in Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid---concessions sure to thrill and delight conservatives. So, yes, Mr. Sullivan, you have convinced me. Obama has governed as a conservative. Progressives might want to take note. [/quote] [color=#000000][font=Arial, Georgia, sans-serif][size=3][/size][/font][/color][/left] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 I thought he was a Muslim Socialist governing with Communist principles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 He took the bad policies that Bush started and tripled down. I don't think Bush can be mistaken for fiscal conservative... I disagree with the premise of the article but agree with most of the rest of the article. BUT, i disagree wholeheartidly with this statement: [i][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]Sullivan chides his conservative friends for criticizing Obamacare. He explains that it is a very conservative program, based entirely on Republican principles and ideas developed in conservative think tanks and endorsed by a long line of Republicans: “Obamacare…is based on the individual mandate, an idea pioneered by the archconservative Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, Mitt Romney, in the past. It does not have the public option, it gives a huge new client base to the drug and insurance companies; its health-insurance exchanges were also pioneered by the right.” [/size][/font][/color][/i] I don't know the history behind what they said here, but how can giving free healthcare be considered a conservative principle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrlnutz Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 [quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1327524425' post='1092145'] He took the bad policies that Bush started and tripled down. I don't think Bush can be mistaken for fiscal conservative... I disagree with the premise of the article but agree with most of the rest of the article. BUT, i disagree wholeheartidly with this statement: [i][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]Sullivan chides his conservative friends for criticizing Obamacare. He explains that it is a very conservative program, based entirely on Republican principles and ideas developed in conservative think tanks and endorsed by a long line of Republicans: “Obamacare…is based on the individual mandate, an idea pioneered by the archconservative Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, Mitt Romney, in the past. It does not have the public option, it gives a huge new client base to the drug and insurance companies; its health-insurance exchanges were also pioneered by the right.” [/size][/font][/color][/i] I don't know the history behind what they said here, but how can giving free healthcare be considered a conservative principle? [/quote] I don't see free healthcare in the article, nor do I see free healthcare in the affordable care act. So I'm confused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 [quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1327509384' post='1092041'] I thought he was a Muslim Socialist governing with Communist principles? [/quote] No he's a brown skin man that gives away free healthcare. No wait that's Jesus... carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalRep85-9 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1327529227' post='1092179'] No he's a brown skin man that gives away free healthcare. No wait that's Jesus... carry on. [/quote] Lol. I've never really been able to fully comprehend why repubs view themselves as christians since most everything they stand for is staunchly anti-christian? Am I missing something here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 [quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1327525075' post='1092151'] I don't see free healthcare in the article, nor do I see free healthcare in the affordable care act. So I'm confused? [/quote] Maybe YOU aren't the one that's confused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Race card? wtf is wrong with you dumbasses? Especially you Jamie... you think I don't like Obama because he is black? He is just a terrible president. period. As far as my comment, so I mispoke. It happens. However I stand by my point that it is not a conservative plan. It does some good things but it also takes away some of our freedoms. I have had an HSA for a long time now and love it. I think health care should be taken away from the governments role and more into individuals. Answer me this. How many of you with traditional health care plans actually look to see how much you are being charged, ask for generic drugs to cut costs, or shop doctors if your doctor is ripping you/your insurance company off? I bet very few of you do... No this isn't going to solve health care but it is more of a step in the right direction, versus doubling down on medicare which is dead in the water and will eventually sink us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 I dont recall quoting you Rick, I was making a comment in general. But I will say this, the reason you dont think he is governing as a conservative is because the "center" in this country has been so far moved to the right that Obama is a conservative and all the Republican candidates (sans Ron Paul who is a anarcho capitalist) are fascists. Hell Obama isnt that far off himself from being a fascist. Oh and I could not disagree more about medicare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 [url="http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/272-39/7052-medicare-for-all-trumps-mandate"]http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/272-39/7052-medicare-for-all-trumps-mandate[/url] [quote] [b] Medicare for All Trumps Mandate[/b] [color=#333333][size=3][left]By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#DC3B41][size=4][left]16 August 11[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][/size][/color][/left][indent][b][i]Why the new healthcare law should have been based on Medicare. (And what Democrats should have learned by now.)[/i][/b][/indent] [color=#000000][size=4][left][img]http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-T.jpg[/img]wo appellate judges in Atlanta - one appointed by President Bill Clinton and one by George H.W. Bush - have just decided the Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to require individuals to buy health insurance.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]The decision is a major defeat for the White House. The so-called "individual mandate" is a cornerstone of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama's 2010 healthcare reform law, scheduled to go into effect in 2014.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]The whole idea of the law is to pool heath risks. Only if everyone buys insurance can insurers afford to cover people with preexisting conditions, or pay the costs of catastrophic diseases.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]The issue is now headed for the Supreme Court (another appellate court has upheld the law's constitutionality) where the prognosis isn't good. The Court's Republican-appointed majority has not exactly distinguished itself by its progressive views.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]Chalk up another one for the GOP, outwitting and outflanking the President and the Democrats.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]Remember the health-care debate? Congressional Republicans refused to consider a single-payer system that would automatically pool risks. They wouldn't even consider giving people the option of buying into it.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]The President and the Democrats caved, as they have on almost everything. They came up with a compromise that kept health care in the hands of private insurance companies.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]The only way to spread the risk in such a system is to require everyone buy insurance.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]Which is exactly what the two appellate judges in Atlanta object to. The Constitution, in their view, doesn't allow the federal government to compel citizens to buy something. "Congress may regulate commercial actors," they write. "But what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die."[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]Most Americans seem to agree. According to polls, 60 percent of the public opposes the individual mandate. Many on the right believe it a threat to individual liberty. Many on the left object to being required to buy something from a private company.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]Had the President and the Democrats stuck to their guns during the health-care debate and insisted on Medicare for all, or at least a public option, they wouldn't now be facing the possible unraveling of the new healthcare law.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]After all, Social Security and Medicare - the nation's two most popular safety nets - require every working American to "buy" them. The purchase happens automatically in the form of a deduction from everyone's paychecks.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]But because Social Security and Medicare are government programs they don't feel like mandatory purchases. They're more like tax payments, which is what they are - payroll taxes.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]There's no question payroll taxes are constitutional, because there's no doubt that the federal government can tax people in order to finance particular public benefits.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]Americans don't mind mandates in the form of payroll taxes for Social Security or Medicare. In fact, both programs are so popular even conservative Republicans were heard to shout "don't take away my Medicare!" at rallies opposed to the new health care law.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]Requiring citizens to buy something from a private company is entirely different. If Congress can require citizens to buy health insurance from the private sector, reasoned the two appellate judges in Atlanta, what's to stop it from requiring citizens to buy anything else? If the law were to stand, "a future Congress similarly would be able to articulate a unique problem … compelling Americans to purchase a certain product from a private company."[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]Other federal judges in district courts - one in Virginia and another in Florida - have struck down the law on similar grounds. They said the federal government has no more constitutional authority requiring citizens to buy insurance than requiring them to buy broccoli or asparagus. (The Florida judge referred to broccoli; the Virginia judge to asparagus.)[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]Social Security and Medicare aren't broccoli or asparagus. They're as American as hot dogs and apple pie.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]The Republican strategy should now be clear: Privatize anything that might otherwise be a public program financed by tax dollars. Then argue in the courts that any mandatory purchase of it is unconstitutional because it exceeds the government's authority. And rally the public against the requirement.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]Remember this next time you hear Republican candidates touting Paul Ryan's plan for turning Medicare into vouchers for seniors to buy private health insurance.[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]So what do Obama and the Democrats do if the individual mandate in the new healthcare law gets struck down by the Supreme Court?[/left][/size][/color][/left][color=#000000][size=4][left]Immediately propose what they should have proposed right from the start - universal healthcare based on Medicare for all, financed by payroll taxes. The public will be behind them, as will the courts.[/left][/size][/color][/left][/quote] [color=#000000][size=4][/size][/color][/left] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullichicken25 Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 my biggest problem with the "all things healthcare" discussion is that I never see anyone propose anything to actually control the factors that are driving the extreme costs of healtcare and as far as i can tell that's primarily med school costs, malpractice insurance, and greed (on both ends, insurance companies and our sue-happy society) it seems to me that it doesn't matter if healthcare is paid by our taxes, our employers, or our pockets....if the factors that actually drive the cost of healthcare aren't addressed costs are going to continue to increase exponentially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1327550096' post='1092250']I dont recall quoting you Rick, I was making a comment in general. [/quote] I must have missed the other person who mentioned free health care in this thread... I think you need to better understand facism before calling everyone from Ron Paul to Obama a fascist. That is an extremely wide margin of people and would include me because I am between these two politically for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 [quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1327599378' post='1092352'] I must have missed the other person who mentioned free health care in this thread... I think you need to better understand facism before calling everyone from Ron Paul to Obama a fascist. That is an extremely wide margin of people and would include me because I am between these two politically for sure. [/quote] To which I replied to Kenneth's comment which came before yours. Although the point about Jesus stands. I would suggest to your Rick that we are basically in a "soft fascism" and that the only canidate that has been honest about this is Paul. Only thing that pushes me away from Paul is he is an Anarcho Capitalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.