"The hammer is a symbol of communism, from now on, I Newt Gingrich propose a bill to allow nails to be hammered with the bare hands of inner city children"
BO promised a lot of things. I can count on one finger what he's actually accomplished (I think). Which doesn't mean I support any of the GOP's corporate footstools ...
He's got a good check list that I am sure he'll be campaigning on soon:
Healthcare - check (though all I see is my bill has gone up between 30-40% per year for the last 3 years!!)
Iraq - withdrew troops (yet we still plug on in Afganistan, pointlessly...oh, wait, natural resources akin to Saudi's oil, ah, right)
Infrastructure - I guess there was money there, which gave me work
Hmm, thought there was at least one more item...?
I've not been happy with his performance (has anyone?), not at all, but we have no alternatives. I really don't think anyone else stands a chance, not after Romney's gradual take down by his party (Gingrich doesn't stand a chance, just another flash in the GOP's crazy pan)
Established and appointed first head of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Authorized mission to kill Osama bin Laden (The left may not love this, but the world is a safer place because of it.)
Military support for Arab Spring in Libya (again an incredibly complicated issue, but one in which the U.S. I believe acted rightly.)
In general, Obama has been very strong in foreign policy. No major blunders yet which is often the most important sign of success.
Misses:
Steering national agenda after 2010 mid-term elections. House Republicans have been too powerful in dictating national agenda. Country needs greater executive leadership.
Tax reform. Has kicked too many issues down the road - Bush tax cuts, SS tax extension, not taking a bolder position on Simpson-Bowles. Clear mandate for reform, but little action. Must be a second term priority.
Summer 2011 deficit reduction fiasco. This has a lot to do with being ineffective with steering a national agenda after 2010 elections, but to have allowed House Republicans to push the country towards debt default was a major error. Problem needed much more decisive leadership, and it wasn't there.
[Notably absent for or against: "job creation." I don't believe the public sector is in the business of job creation, but instead creates an environment for job creation. Given economic and political realities, I believe he has done about as well as he could have. Standing up against job-killing austerity is the most important battle he's fought, if not won; needs to do more on tax and regulatory reform front.]
In general I give Obama a solid B+, but without large majorities in the House and Senate, he needs to show better leadership in his second term.
"send me a bill" is not a false promise. It's a request. "Promise" would imply that Pres. Obama was going to do or not do something. "Send me a bill" implies Pres. Obama would like the legislative branch to propose some legislation. I think it will be helpful if his campaigning over the next year explained that it is not his job to write or propose legislation or even tax law. That falls primarily to the House. The brinksmanship the republicans have been entertaining themselves with is not Pres. Obama's fault; it's congress's fault.
For the past three years BO has been rolling over for the GOP and the lap dog of the financial corporations. Now, in an election year, he's suddenly a "liberal" populist.
A vote for ANY Democrat or Republican is a vote for Goldman Sachs.
Obama will be re-elected because he's got the big banks behind him and the alternatives are downright laughable. His accomplishments are irrelevant as long as the banks are happy.
Still, it's pretty remarkable for an incumbent President to survive over a slowing economy which is about to get even slower, yo!
HandsumCa$hMoneyYo: It seems you know which charts to read as well. We're due for a slowdown, even the GDP numbers released yesterday showed we overestimated our growth. Dry bulk shipping though, is tied directly to the global economy.
most presidents face opposition from the opposite party. he's supposed to lead and find solutions halfway. thats what his job is.
i'd give him a C. he's sitting at slightly below 50% approval.
haha don't even get me started on this "fair share" 99% and 1%, polarizing language he's using. as much as the GOP is using the term "class warfare" in the same way, i can't help but agree with it.
Due. Obama has on multiple occasions come 90% of the way, and still house republicans say no. On many issues hes gone farther even than they suggested, only for them to decide they're against their own proposals. The individual mandate was their idea. The payroll tax was their idea. I really wish people would pay attention on this. This isnt principled opposition, it is, and has always been, a deliberate strategy to sabotage the functioning of the federal government, destroy trust in public institutions, and intentionally depress the economy, because they have no political interest in progress being made while he is in office. Mitch McConnel a few years ago admitted as much, that their central priority is to destroy Obama and "deny him his place in history." Everyone there knows thats whats going on.
And I cant for the life of me understand how anyone buys this "class warfare" bullshit. Theres no reason wealthy people should be paying less in taxes than the rest of us. I think you know that. We all work hard. We all depend on public services. All Obama is saying is that if we are to reduce the deficit, everyone needs to contribute.
Of course the republicans are trying to destroy him, and its sickening the way congress is working right now. Its on both sides though, and the president doesn't exactly bring people together. He's pretty much blamed republicans for all his failures when in fact its his responsibility to get results out of the two parties.
"All Obama is saying is that if we are to reduce the deficit, everyone needs to contribute".
I still can't figure out how ramming a healthcare bill that we can't afford through congress was supposed to fix this deficit problem. I'm from Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state in the US, and we elected Scott Brown after Teddy Kennedy died with the primary objective of killing the bill.
But what I'm saying is that this 1% / 99% labeling is dangerous. It divisive and distracts from how our economy and country actually operate and instead encourages those with less money to hate those with more money, regardless of how it was earned. The rich get richer because they invest and know what compound interest is. Investment is what makes the economy go, not throwing a couple bucks at a construction crew to repave a highway that was paved three years ago. Talk to anyone that works for the state or some part of the government, and you'll learn that the stimulus money was poorly allocated. Big government has good intentions but doesn't work.
If you want to get into percentages, 27% of Americans have bachelors degrees. 9% have a Masters or higher. Assuming every "rich" person in the country has a degree (not true, but for the sake of argument), when people here talk about the 1%, they're really talking about 1 in 27 of their peers.
I agree, he'll win because of how pathetic the GOP looks. They have, very efficiently, sealed their own fate. First the crazy Tea Partiers, then the debt debacle, and now you've got two guys basically talking eachother into the ground. Entertaining, though. I had never watched a R debate before (but cheerfully remember watching Perry's freeze, live. Good times!).
I just wish he'd actually do something that would be helpful. So far, healthcare is worse without a public option, still in Afghanistan, etc.
First, the Health care bill reduces the deficit by over 100 billion dollars. Its not a big government spending take over. There is no federal public option, only a public exchange that diverts people to private insurance. In that, its actually a very modest, privately based, (much to progressives chagrin by the way) step toward cost reduction. Talk radio may not like it, but thats the truth. Its also the reason republicans, despite their endless whining, will never repeal it.
I do however actually agree with you on this whole 1% vs 99% line of dialog. I wouldnt call it dangerous, I am glad these kids have changed the discussion, but just from a public marketing standpoint its not a good way to change minds. (And dont get me started on how terrible the word "Occupy" sounds.)
Still, I dont hear that rhetoric from Obama. I know thats how the right wants to paint it, but hes actually been incredibly careful not speak in those terms. He talks about people paying their fair share, but hes very genuine (once again to many progressives ire) not to begrudge people for making money. Youre right, he does, as President, have not just a moral obligation, but a legislative necessity to try to work with the other side, even when they have no actual interest in ever agreeing. Im not as hard on him as many of my peers are for trying. Everyone knows we need a major budget overhaul. Everyone knows this will mean means testing for medicare, cuts to the military, and yes, raised revenues, on top of the trillions in cuts that have already been agreed to. Thats what the Simpson Bowls commission suggested, and thats exactly what Obama has offered on multiple occasions over the last year. The reason the big deal didnt happen is not because Obama didnt try, its because the house is stuffed with delusionally ridged ideologs so consumed with their hatred for Obama they cant even vote for their own ideas. I think its a genuine question how long you can bang your head against that wall before it becomes obvious we just plain need a new congress.
"Investment is what makes the economy go, not throwing a couple bucks at a construction crew to repave a highway that was paved three years ago."
I really think this is the central argument in this whole thing. Investment absolutely spurs growth, but it doesnt necessarily spur growth here. Much of it goes to china and brazil and south korea where brokers can get higher returns. Of course conservatives will argue thats because our regulations are too strict, or because our labor costs are too high, but if your solution is really to pollute like they do in china, to pay people they do in china, without health care coverage coverage, without college assistance, or any hope of improving their station, I have to say, thats not only morally unconscionable, it just isnt going to work. You would never be able or even want to make wages in the US comparable to that. You dont win by competing for third world living conditions, you win by competing with countries like Germany and Japan and Scandinavia. That means investment, yes, by the government, in things like education, technology and infrastructure, which is exactly what Obama is proposing. Fixing a bride, or building a wind mill, or offering a college grant may not boost profits this quarter, but investing in things like that now is the only way we can truly compete in the future.
Dude. The doc fix problem has been around for more than a decade. You cant pretend that costs that would be there whether there was a health care bill or not come as a result of it. Anyone who tells you the health care bill will cost a trillion dollars is lying to you. Theyre only telling you about one side of the ledger. Even with the less optimistic estimate in the Blakely article, which still doesnt account for savings due to prevention and early detection, youve still insured 30 million people and saved money in the process. This is why, once again, whatever they tell you, republicans will never repeal it.
Its hard for me to understand how conservatives cope with the shear scale of dishonesty they are fed. These are really serious, difficult problems we face, and I dont see how we can expect to solve them if we cant have honest discussions about them.
I think one of this admin's big accomplishments regarding our industry is getting the EPA, HUD, and the DOT coordinating on sustainability and "smart growth" - they've been slowly shifting policy away from subsidizing suburban sprawl to investing more in our urban cores and existing infrastructure - which, IMO, should translate into more interesting work for architects in the coming years (i.e. more developers following incentives to build in the city). that high-speed rail thing was a bit of a misstep because instead of just battling with congress for funding they got tied up in sticky regional politics.
FYI - Obama's "smart growth" policies are also eerily similar to Romney's policies during his tenure as governor...
let's all get around the camp fire and sing along with mitt: "america the beautiful"!!!! its kinda like "dr. strangelove" isn't it? can't you imagine newt riding the big bomb to his grave taking mitt, ron, rick and the rest of the GOP with him. the President has done his best with a team of malcontents voting against him cause they don't want that n*****r in their house!!!!! has anyone notice how those GOP candidates never refer the President as the President, they alway refer him as Barack Obama - never mentioning him as OUR PRESIDENT. the code is to get rid of that man of color. oh, i forgot this thread is about jobs.....
I don't know about you, but I feel much safer knowing that the bill "authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial." How nice that "citizenship" only guarantees you rights as long as you conform. Should you have a "radical" idea, you risk being labelled a "terrorist" and detained.
Despite his own objections, the President still signed it. What a tool!
the President has done his best with a team of malcontents voting against him cause they don't want that n*****r in their house!!!!! has anyone notice how those GOP candidates never refer the President as the President, they alway refer him as Barack Obama - never mentioning him as OUR PRESIDENT. the code is to get rid of that man of color.
oh you see things so clearly ~ how perceptive you are! if hillary clinton (oops! i mean madame secretary of state clinton) or dennis kucinich (oh crap! that's the honorable representative of the 10th district of ohio kucinich) were our president i'm sure the republicans would just sit this election out because hey, there's a white person at the helm. thanks janeane garofalo!
I dont know. There are some seedy dog wistles going on for sure, especially from Gingrich lately, but this slow collapse of respect has been going on for decades now. If it were Hillary in office theyd be winking and nodding about something else, but the animosity would be the same. I dont chalk it up so much to outright racism as I do a general lack of honor in their party.
due - I'd be ok with romney only if his running mate was huntsman, and he went back to the more moderate/progressive platform he ran on for governor. right now he's really scaring me - especially the more extremist stuff like this nonsense about "self-deportation" (which aside from institutionalizing racism, would be really bad economic policy and a huge waste of local police resources). He also would do better as a counterpoint to a more united and far more liberal legislature - but I don't think that'll happen in the next election cycle. I keep hoping he's only appealing to the southern antebellum economic and social policy faction of the republicans just so he can win the nomination, but I'm not sure where he really stands anymore, however aside from healthcare and smart growth (which this admin has already adopted as their policy - and national republicans don't exactly like for some really bizarre reason - maybe because it came from the more patrician new england conservatives? is it too northern? i dunno), he didn't really accomplish much in massachusetts.
oe - I think it's more that there is this group of republicans who are still fighting the civil war - which (if you look a little beyond slavery) was about national economic policy. "socialism" is actually code for the more northern-style capitalism which is a rocky (albeit more equitable) marriage of government and private enterprise. southern ideology is that government is only there to enforce economic (and in turn, social) policy dictated by private enterprise. this is where the animosity is coming from - the white house isn't falling in line.
I dont know. I think some of these people just think its politically expedient to pander to base instincts. Calling Obama a "Food stamp president" for example, it just oozes from his eyeballs what hes really trying to say. But not everything is like that. I think the socialism thing was just trying to make Obama sound spooky and foreign. No one even knew what it meant, never mind that public schools and social security are socialism and last I checked people are pretty happy with those. Same with all the Saul Alinsky bullshit. Saying hes not one of us may be seedy politics, but it isnt necessarily racist.
I'd be ok with romney only if his running mate was huntsman, and he went back to the more moderate/progressive platform he ran on for governor.
The trouble with that is it assumes he's pandering now, but really deep down he believes in moderate economic policy and gay rights and everything he said he was for back when he was governor. Instead, I think its obvious at this point that deep down he doesnt actually believe in anything.
I'll aslo say that its good to see people like Allen West and Marco Rubio rising to prominence in the party. Herman Cain may have been a clown, but the fact that he was at least for a time the frontrunner does show that race isnt really an issue for the vast majority of republicans. They've still got some problematic stances on stuff like the Dream act and some less than savory rhetoric from right wing radio dickheads, but the people who really know what theyre doing know thats not what the party can be about.
"Instead, I think its obvious at this point that deep down he doesnt actually believe in anything.
Exactly. Yes, I honestly think he just says whatever he wants to get elected when it comes to things like that. And let me say: I think thats a good thing right now. This is a time when just focusing on the numbers without any bias is a good thing. The whole problem in congress right now is that neither party wants to cut things for their own party. The budget WILL be balanced if he wins. Obama can't cut anything because he'll get too many people that support him mad.
due - I guarantee that a Romney presidency would attempt to balance the budget by increasing revenues (i.e. raising taxes and fees), and shifting the burden of paying for certain programs onto the states and municipalities (which can, perversely, end up costing taxpayers more in the long run, and really hurt poorer states) that's how he did it in Massachusetts - and a big reason why he only lasted one term.
The problem with anyone promising jobs is a two-fold issue which comes down ultimately to one thing— quality of place.
The bigger issue here is one that Jimmy Carter fought against in the 1970s.
He knew that U.S. expansionism— manifest destiny— was a short-term economic solution. In the long run based on the projections of the past, his administration saw that the Western United States wouldn't have any long-term economic security due to the limited availability of water and energy.
And that parallels to today where we simply just don't have enough communities who provide the kinds of infrastructure and services that foster new job growth on top of the environmental and economic pressures that have already existed for close to a century.
And expansionism brings up a second point about job creation. Construction jobs, like civil engineering jobs, are what one might called "low-hanging fruit." But what happens once you've built everything up, wired everything, plumbed everything, paved everything and painted everything?
If one doesn't continually expand and continually build, most of these workers become unemployed and unemployable. And what happens to towns and cities post-boom? A construction job for today is not a career of tomorrow.
If the U.S. doesn't move away from this economic model sooner than later, I'm afraid most of the world's industries will relocate to places who do provide the infrastructure, services, access to workforce and stabilized local economies that allow them to operate more regularly.
We've essentially run out of room to expand in the U.S. and even if we could expand, it's clear we don't have the economic model to sustain developments after their boom cycles.
I'm sorry, but in this era of class division, protests, rage and 99% vs. 1%, I just don't see how a dumb corporate twat born with a silver spoon in his mouth (and who still manages to utter such idiotic sound bites as above) can win a popular vote. American democracy is pretty corrupt and all but there's no way Romney can beat President Obama.
I honestly think Dick Cheney would be more appealing to the average voter than Romney and that's saying something, yo!
"But what happens once you've built everything up, wired everything, plumbed everything, paved everything and painted everything?
If one doesn't continually expand and continually build, most of these workers become unemployed and unemployable. And what happens to towns and cities post-boom? A construction job for today is not a career of tomorrow."
Once everything is built...blow it up and start all over. Would it really hurt to start carpet bombing American suburbs?
If we could only get WWIII to take place in America that might solve a lot of problems, yo!
"I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it," Romney told CNN Wednesday morning. "I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."
It strikes me as being a very reasonable policy position, one that I believe most moderates and independents would support. I find this statement to be in stark contrast to Romney's more conservative pronouncements during the Republican debates, advocating a top-heavy trickle down economic policy approach. The extent to which the DNC tries to twist Romney's words into an out-of-context attack on the poor could ultimately backfire on the Democrats. If I were Obama and the DNC, I would best leave well enough alone and not touch this comment.
Obama promised construction jobs!
Last night! I totally heard him say it.
Anyone want to play over/under on how long it'll take the Congress to draft a bill outlawing all Construction as unamerican?
I say 45 days.
"The hammer is a symbol of communism, from now on, I Newt Gingrich propose a bill to allow nails to be hammered with the bare hands of inner city children"
Obama will have an outstanding second term.
BO promised a lot of things. I can count on one finger what he's actually accomplished (I think). Which doesn't mean I support any of the GOP's corporate footstools ...
I hope they're more of those shovel ready jobs we got during recovery summer 2010! Those will definitely help us win the future.
Miles, he's accomplished a lot more than one thing. Your frustration is noted but not helpful.
He's got a good check list that I am sure he'll be campaigning on soon:
Healthcare - check (though all I see is my bill has gone up between 30-40% per year for the last 3 years!!)
Iraq - withdrew troops (yet we still plug on in Afganistan, pointlessly...oh, wait, natural resources akin to Saudi's oil, ah, right)
Infrastructure - I guess there was money there, which gave me work
Hmm, thought there was at least one more item...?
I've not been happy with his performance (has anyone?), not at all, but we have no alternatives. I really don't think anyone else stands a chance, not after Romney's gradual take down by his party (Gingrich doesn't stand a chance, just another flash in the GOP's crazy pan)
check!
lets be real though, obstruction from the GOP prevented him from doing alot of what he would have done.
that's okay, '... we've already gone too far to turn back now!'
trace, to add to your list of successes:
Established and appointed first head of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Authorized mission to kill Osama bin Laden (The left may not love this, but the world is a safer place because of it.)
Military support for Arab Spring in Libya (again an incredibly complicated issue, but one in which the U.S. I believe acted rightly.)
In general, Obama has been very strong in foreign policy. No major blunders yet which is often the most important sign of success.
Misses:
Steering national agenda after 2010 mid-term elections. House Republicans have been too powerful in dictating national agenda. Country needs greater executive leadership.
Tax reform. Has kicked too many issues down the road - Bush tax cuts, SS tax extension, not taking a bolder position on Simpson-Bowles. Clear mandate for reform, but little action. Must be a second term priority.
Summer 2011 deficit reduction fiasco. This has a lot to do with being ineffective with steering a national agenda after 2010 elections, but to have allowed House Republicans to push the country towards debt default was a major error. Problem needed much more decisive leadership, and it wasn't there.
[Notably absent for or against: "job creation." I don't believe the public sector is in the business of job creation, but instead creates an environment for job creation. Given economic and political realities, I believe he has done about as well as he could have. Standing up against job-killing austerity is the most important battle he's fought, if not won; needs to do more on tax and regulatory reform front.]
In general I give Obama a solid B+, but without large majorities in the House and Senate, he needs to show better leadership in his second term.
For the most part he kept saying "send me a bill" no one will ever send him a bill so it's pretty much false promises.
The Keystone pipeline will provide "million" of jobs.
"send me a bill" is not a false promise. It's a request. "Promise" would imply that Pres. Obama was going to do or not do something. "Send me a bill" implies Pres. Obama would like the legislative branch to propose some legislation. I think it will be helpful if his campaigning over the next year explained that it is not his job to write or propose legislation or even tax law. That falls primarily to the House. The brinksmanship the republicans have been entertaining themselves with is not Pres. Obama's fault; it's congress's fault.
For the past three years BO has been rolling over for the GOP and the lap dog of the financial corporations. Now, in an election year, he's suddenly a "liberal" populist.
A vote for ANY Democrat or Republican is a vote for Goldman Sachs.
Obama will be re-elected because he's got the big banks behind him and the alternatives are downright laughable. His accomplishments are irrelevant as long as the banks are happy.
Still, it's pretty remarkable for an incumbent President to survive over a slowing economy which is about to get even slower, yo!
We're in a recovery, haven't you noticed?
we've gone too far to turn back now
fundamentally change the united states
shovel ready not so shovel ready
HandsumCa$hMoneyYo: It seems you know which charts to read as well. We're due for a slowdown, even the GDP numbers released yesterday showed we overestimated our growth. Dry bulk shipping though, is tied directly to the global economy.
but we've been brought back from the brink
Frac. Im not being snarky, Im genuinely curious. What is it you think republicans will do better?
"send me the bill"
most presidents face opposition from the opposite party. he's supposed to lead and find solutions halfway. thats what his job is.
i'd give him a C. he's sitting at slightly below 50% approval.
haha don't even get me started on this "fair share" 99% and 1%, polarizing language he's using. as much as the GOP is using the term "class warfare" in the same way, i can't help but agree with it.
Due. Obama has on multiple occasions come 90% of the way, and still house republicans say no. On many issues hes gone farther even than they suggested, only for them to decide they're against their own proposals. The individual mandate was their idea. The payroll tax was their idea. I really wish people would pay attention on this. This isnt principled opposition, it is, and has always been, a deliberate strategy to sabotage the functioning of the federal government, destroy trust in public institutions, and intentionally depress the economy, because they have no political interest in progress being made while he is in office. Mitch McConnel a few years ago admitted as much, that their central priority is to destroy Obama and "deny him his place in history." Everyone there knows thats whats going on.
And I cant for the life of me understand how anyone buys this "class warfare" bullshit. Theres no reason wealthy people should be paying less in taxes than the rest of us. I think you know that. We all work hard. We all depend on public services. All Obama is saying is that if we are to reduce the deficit, everyone needs to contribute.
Of course the republicans are trying to destroy him, and its sickening the way congress is working right now. Its on both sides though, and the president doesn't exactly bring people together. He's pretty much blamed republicans for all his failures when in fact its his responsibility to get results out of the two parties.
"All Obama is saying is that if we are to reduce the deficit, everyone needs to contribute".
I still can't figure out how ramming a healthcare bill that we can't afford through congress was supposed to fix this deficit problem. I'm from Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state in the US, and we elected Scott Brown after Teddy Kennedy died with the primary objective of killing the bill.
But what I'm saying is that this 1% / 99% labeling is dangerous. It divisive and distracts from how our economy and country actually operate and instead encourages those with less money to hate those with more money, regardless of how it was earned. The rich get richer because they invest and know what compound interest is. Investment is what makes the economy go, not throwing a couple bucks at a construction crew to repave a highway that was paved three years ago. Talk to anyone that works for the state or some part of the government, and you'll learn that the stimulus money was poorly allocated. Big government has good intentions but doesn't work.
If you want to get into percentages, 27% of Americans have bachelors degrees. 9% have a Masters or higher. Assuming every "rich" person in the country has a degree (not true, but for the sake of argument), when people here talk about the 1%, they're really talking about 1 in 27 of their peers.
13% think they are the 1%.
I agree, he'll win because of how pathetic the GOP looks. They have, very efficiently, sealed their own fate. First the crazy Tea Partiers, then the debt debacle, and now you've got two guys basically talking eachother into the ground. Entertaining, though. I had never watched a R debate before (but cheerfully remember watching Perry's freeze, live. Good times!).
I just wish he'd actually do something that would be helpful. So far, healthcare is worse without a public option, still in Afghanistan, etc.
Life goes on, very little changes.
A couple of things,
First, the Health care bill reduces the deficit by over 100 billion dollars. Its not a big government spending take over. There is no federal public option, only a public exchange that diverts people to private insurance. In that, its actually a very modest, privately based, (much to progressives chagrin by the way) step toward cost reduction. Talk radio may not like it, but thats the truth. Its also the reason republicans, despite their endless whining, will never repeal it.
I do however actually agree with you on this whole 1% vs 99% line of dialog. I wouldnt call it dangerous, I am glad these kids have changed the discussion, but just from a public marketing standpoint its not a good way to change minds. (And dont get me started on how terrible the word "Occupy" sounds.)
Still, I dont hear that rhetoric from Obama. I know thats how the right wants to paint it, but hes actually been incredibly careful not speak in those terms. He talks about people paying their fair share, but hes very genuine (once again to many progressives ire) not to begrudge people for making money. Youre right, he does, as President, have not just a moral obligation, but a legislative necessity to try to work with the other side, even when they have no actual interest in ever agreeing. Im not as hard on him as many of my peers are for trying. Everyone knows we need a major budget overhaul. Everyone knows this will mean means testing for medicare, cuts to the military, and yes, raised revenues, on top of the trillions in cuts that have already been agreed to. Thats what the Simpson Bowls commission suggested, and thats exactly what Obama has offered on multiple occasions over the last year. The reason the big deal didnt happen is not because Obama didnt try, its because the house is stuffed with delusionally ridged ideologs so consumed with their hatred for Obama they cant even vote for their own ideas. I think its a genuine question how long you can bang your head against that wall before it becomes obvious we just plain need a new congress.
"Investment is what makes the economy go, not throwing a couple bucks at a construction crew to repave a highway that was paved three years ago."
I really think this is the central argument in this whole thing. Investment absolutely spurs growth, but it doesnt necessarily spur growth here. Much of it goes to china and brazil and south korea where brokers can get higher returns. Of course conservatives will argue thats because our regulations are too strict, or because our labor costs are too high, but if your solution is really to pollute like they do in china, to pay people they do in china, without health care coverage coverage, without college assistance, or any hope of improving their station, I have to say, thats not only morally unconscionable, it just isnt going to work. You would never be able or even want to make wages in the US comparable to that. You dont win by competing for third world living conditions, you win by competing with countries like Germany and Japan and Scandinavia. That means investment, yes, by the government, in things like education, technology and infrastructure, which is exactly what Obama is proposing. Fixing a bride, or building a wind mill, or offering a college grant may not boost profits this quarter, but investing in things like that now is the only way we can truly compete in the future.
First, the Health care bill reduces the deficit by over 100 billion dollars.
lol
Youve been lied to man.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm
o rly?
oh no!
Dude. The doc fix problem has been around for more than a decade. You cant pretend that costs that would be there whether there was a health care bill or not come as a result of it. Anyone who tells you the health care bill will cost a trillion dollars is lying to you. Theyre only telling you about one side of the ledger. Even with the less optimistic estimate in the Blakely article, which still doesnt account for savings due to prevention and early detection, youve still insured 30 million people and saved money in the process. This is why, once again, whatever they tell you, republicans will never repeal it.
Its hard for me to understand how conservatives cope with the shear scale of dishonesty they are fed. These are really serious, difficult problems we face, and I dont see how we can expect to solve them if we cant have honest discussions about them.
I think one of this admin's big accomplishments regarding our industry is getting the EPA, HUD, and the DOT coordinating on sustainability and "smart growth" - they've been slowly shifting policy away from subsidizing suburban sprawl to investing more in our urban cores and existing infrastructure - which, IMO, should translate into more interesting work for architects in the coming years (i.e. more developers following incentives to build in the city). that high-speed rail thing was a bit of a misstep because instead of just battling with congress for funding they got tied up in sticky regional politics.
FYI - Obama's "smart growth" policies are also eerily similar to Romney's policies during his tenure as governor...
didn't mention: credit downgrade
also, i'm all for romney. we need a moderate that's good with money. i don't give a f*** about social issues.
let's all get around the camp fire and sing along with mitt: "america the beautiful"!!!! its kinda like "dr. strangelove" isn't it? can't you imagine newt riding the big bomb to his grave taking mitt, ron, rick and the rest of the GOP with him. the President has done his best with a team of malcontents voting against him cause they don't want that n*****r in their house!!!!! has anyone notice how those GOP candidates never refer the President as the President, they alway refer him as Barack Obama - never mentioning him as OUR PRESIDENT. the code is to get rid of that man of color. oh, i forgot this thread is about jobs.....
Don't forget one of President Obama's biggest accomplishments, signing the National Defense Authorization Act.
I don't know about you, but I feel much safer knowing that the bill "authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial." How nice that "citizenship" only guarantees you rights as long as you conform. Should you have a "radical" idea, you risk being labelled a "terrorist" and detained.
Despite his own objections, the President still signed it. What a tool!
Land of the free, home of the brave, yo!
the President has done his best with a team of malcontents voting against him cause they don't want that n*****r in their house!!!!! has anyone notice how those GOP candidates never refer the President as the President, they alway refer him as Barack Obama - never mentioning him as OUR PRESIDENT. the code is to get rid of that man of color.
oh you see things so clearly ~ how perceptive you are! if hillary clinton (oops! i mean madame secretary of state clinton) or dennis kucinich (oh crap! that's the honorable representative of the 10th district of ohio kucinich) were our president i'm sure the republicans would just sit this election out because hey, there's a white person at the helm. thanks janeane garofalo!
I dont know. There are some seedy dog wistles going on for sure, especially from Gingrich lately, but this slow collapse of respect has been going on for decades now. If it were Hillary in office theyd be winking and nodding about something else, but the animosity would be the same. I dont chalk it up so much to outright racism as I do a general lack of honor in their party.
due - I'd be ok with romney only if his running mate was huntsman, and he went back to the more moderate/progressive platform he ran on for governor. right now he's really scaring me - especially the more extremist stuff like this nonsense about "self-deportation" (which aside from institutionalizing racism, would be really bad economic policy and a huge waste of local police resources). He also would do better as a counterpoint to a more united and far more liberal legislature - but I don't think that'll happen in the next election cycle. I keep hoping he's only appealing to the southern antebellum economic and social policy faction of the republicans just so he can win the nomination, but I'm not sure where he really stands anymore, however aside from healthcare and smart growth (which this admin has already adopted as their policy - and national republicans don't exactly like for some really bizarre reason - maybe because it came from the more patrician new england conservatives? is it too northern? i dunno), he didn't really accomplish much in massachusetts.
oe - I think it's more that there is this group of republicans who are still fighting the civil war - which (if you look a little beyond slavery) was about national economic policy. "socialism" is actually code for the more northern-style capitalism which is a rocky (albeit more equitable) marriage of government and private enterprise. southern ideology is that government is only there to enforce economic (and in turn, social) policy dictated by private enterprise. this is where the animosity is coming from - the white house isn't falling in line.
I dont know. I think some of these people just think its politically expedient to pander to base instincts. Calling Obama a "Food stamp president" for example, it just oozes from his eyeballs what hes really trying to say. But not everything is like that. I think the socialism thing was just trying to make Obama sound spooky and foreign. No one even knew what it meant, never mind that public schools and social security are socialism and last I checked people are pretty happy with those. Same with all the Saul Alinsky bullshit. Saying hes not one of us may be seedy politics, but it isnt necessarily racist.
I'd be ok with romney only if his running mate was huntsman, and he went back to the more moderate/progressive platform he ran on for governor.
The trouble with that is it assumes he's pandering now, but really deep down he believes in moderate economic policy and gay rights and everything he said he was for back when he was governor. Instead, I think its obvious at this point that deep down he doesnt actually believe in anything.
I'll aslo say that its good to see people like Allen West and Marco Rubio rising to prominence in the party. Herman Cain may have been a clown, but the fact that he was at least for a time the frontrunner does show that race isnt really an issue for the vast majority of republicans. They've still got some problematic stances on stuff like the Dream act and some less than savory rhetoric from right wing radio dickheads, but the people who really know what theyre doing know thats not what the party can be about.
Pardon my correction, but Romney does believe that corporations are people too.
That's something, yo!
Haha, touche.
"Instead, I think its obvious at this point that deep down he doesnt actually believe in anything.
Exactly. Yes, I honestly think he just says whatever he wants to get elected when it comes to things like that. And let me say: I think thats a good thing right now. This is a time when just focusing on the numbers without any bias is a good thing. The whole problem in congress right now is that neither party wants to cut things for their own party. The budget WILL be balanced if he wins. Obama can't cut anything because he'll get too many people that support him mad.
due - I guarantee that a Romney presidency would attempt to balance the budget by increasing revenues (i.e. raising taxes and fees), and shifting the burden of paying for certain programs onto the states and municipalities (which can, perversely, end up costing taxpayers more in the long run, and really hurt poorer states) that's how he did it in Massachusetts - and a big reason why he only lasted one term.
The problem with anyone promising jobs is a two-fold issue which comes down ultimately to one thing— quality of place.
The bigger issue here is one that Jimmy Carter fought against in the 1970s.
He knew that U.S. expansionism— manifest destiny— was a short-term economic solution. In the long run based on the projections of the past, his administration saw that the Western United States wouldn't have any long-term economic security due to the limited availability of water and energy.
And that parallels to today where we simply just don't have enough communities who provide the kinds of infrastructure and services that foster new job growth on top of the environmental and economic pressures that have already existed for close to a century.
And expansionism brings up a second point about job creation. Construction jobs, like civil engineering jobs, are what one might called "low-hanging fruit." But what happens once you've built everything up, wired everything, plumbed everything, paved everything and painted everything?
If one doesn't continually expand and continually build, most of these workers become unemployed and unemployable. And what happens to towns and cities post-boom? A construction job for today is not a career of tomorrow.
If the U.S. doesn't move away from this economic model sooner than later, I'm afraid most of the world's industries will relocate to places who do provide the infrastructure, services, access to workforce and stabilized local economies that allow them to operate more regularly.
We've essentially run out of room to expand in the U.S. and even if we could expand, it's clear we don't have the economic model to sustain developments after their boom cycles.
"Corporations are people too"
"I like firing people"
"I'm not concerned with the very poor"
I'm sorry, but in this era of class division, protests, rage and 99% vs. 1%, I just don't see how a dumb corporate twat born with a silver spoon in his mouth (and who still manages to utter such idiotic sound bites as above) can win a popular vote. American democracy is pretty corrupt and all but there's no way Romney can beat President Obama.
I honestly think Dick Cheney would be more appealing to the average voter than Romney and that's saying something, yo!
"But what happens once you've built everything up, wired everything, plumbed everything, paved everything and painted everything?
If one doesn't continually expand and continually build, most of these workers become unemployed and unemployable. And what happens to towns and cities post-boom? A construction job for today is not a career of tomorrow."
Once everything is built...blow it up and start all over. Would it really hurt to start carpet bombing American suburbs?
If we could only get WWIII to take place in America that might solve a lot of problems, yo!
Actually, if you read Romney's whole quote:
"I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it," Romney told CNN Wednesday morning. "I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."
It strikes me as being a very reasonable policy position, one that I believe most moderates and independents would support. I find this statement to be in stark contrast to Romney's more conservative pronouncements during the Republican debates, advocating a top-heavy trickle down economic policy approach. The extent to which the DNC tries to twist Romney's words into an out-of-context attack on the poor could ultimately backfire on the Democrats. If I were Obama and the DNC, I would best leave well enough alone and not touch this comment.