I never thought I would miss Jimmy Carter...

Started Oct 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
vadimraskin Veteran Member • Posts: 3,596
Re: That's too easy

TrapperJohn wrote:

to attribute it to racism.

It might as well be but that is where it is all originated from. It gained life of its own, of course, but the roots of the movement lay right there: old and well proven rasism, which is hard to rid of.

There may have been a tendancy to amplify Obama's errors due to his race on the part of a few narrow minded people, but the root reasons that people voted tp had nothing to do with him being black. It was Obama and the dems in general taking a rather high handed approach because they had a filibuster proof majority in both houses. And they appeared to be ignoring the immediate economic crisis and going off on another entitlement program that we just don't have the money for. That not only got the attention of the tp'ers, but the independents like myself who started thinking - this all dem solution may not be a good thing, maybe I should get to the polls during midterm elections. I didn't vote tp - I'm not that dumb - but in 2009, I was very concerned about what the 2008 election had created.

The dem leaders warned Obama not to push the ACA, that it would do exactly what it did do - disenfranchise a lot of voters, and create a hardcore opposition. They knew, unlike him, that 2008 was a knee jerk reaction to the real estate crash, not a mandate to change everyone's lives. He would not listen, and forged ahead, thus giving a lot of people the motivation to vote tp, and squandering a lot of political capital in the process.

You have some very good points here and I, for once, did not like all the "shenanigans" that Dems pulled to get the ACA thru the Congress, it stunk! I do; however; understand the reasons behind it. You can't just put your 20/20 glasses on now, almost four years later and pass judgments on what was done back then. You have to take underlining events into account: general opposition to Obama (see above), predicted "shellacking" of the Dems in the mid-term elections and not just because of Obamacare (too simplistic) but because of generally unhappy electorate scared and tiered of high unemployment, bad economy and whipped by the media into a frenzy. If Obama and Dems followed a usual route of negotiations, endless talks and committees hearings, the Reform would not have a chance to happen and the Reform was Obama's center of the election campaign. If he failed it, he would have been done for.

That was Obama's big mistake - believing that once he had the job, he didn't have to listen to anyone but himself. And it shows in his administration... there have been several crises that he has remained detached and aloof about... the budget of 2011, the gulf oil spill, to mention a couple. He  appeared to be petulant and disinterested. Not a good symptom when you're expected to handle every crisis with equal vigor, whether that crisis interests you or not.

ACA affects every citizen in this country. It should have been crafted with the approval of both parties, and hence, the tacit approval of the electorate that put them there. It will remain a sore point and politically toxic until it is torn apart and redone with buy in from the bulk of the electorate. That shouldn't be hard to get - everyone wants a single payer system, and I don't believe anyone has a problem with subsidizing low income people.

"Single payer system" is not an ideal system by far. It has as many downsides as upsides. It is prone to corruption, easily affected by political and ideological mood of the time (abortion is one of the most prominent causes), and creates tendency to have a "free for all" attitude in population. It sounds good in theory but I would be apprehensive to advocate for it. You need a private business approach to create some competition IMOHO. Besides, how is it different from ACA (other than getting rid of the Health Insurance industry vs. creating another HUGE Government bureaucracy instead)? Everyone STILL MUST pay into the system! Isn't it a major sticking point of the GOP opposition to ACA. The costs are still there, no matter who pays them.

And this time, try to address the ungodly costs.

I think you are forgetting about the conditions that led to ACA: shrinking base of the insured people and expanding base of the consumers of health care (baby boomers) and trends that were (and still are) causing huge raise of health care costs for the population paying INTO the system. There isn't a single cause of it, of course, but massive loss of manufacturing jobs and switch over from production oriented economy to the service oriented one lead to many younger people get a job that was not providing a conventional health care insurance; hence the shrinking of the payer base. Health insurance premiums were increasing dramatically way before Obamacare along with reduction of covered care. I know it from my own experience, so probably most of the working people. These costs were chocking businesses and the budget. Something had to be done. You can't just say, "take care of the economy first and then go fix the health care" Health Care IS the huge part of the economy.

Costs of the ACA were SUPPOSED to be mitigated by involvement of that younger and healthier group of payers into the system and increase in the tax base. What GOP and SCOTUS made of it is a mess!

The tp has done one thing right, they brought the budget and the deficit front and center in 2011. And that's where it needs to be. We simply have to get that under control. That means hard times for everyone, before it's too late.

The deficit in the downturn times is very easy to explain: Government has to take care of unemployed people (lay outs) while much less income is coming in. In fact, current deficit is almost a half of what it was in 2011 and it keeps shrinking (if TP stops fckng with economy). By end of 2014 the deficit should almost disappear and surplus will go towards reduction of the Debt (again, unless politicians come up with more ideas on how to screw it up). End of hugely expensive wars, reduction in Government spending (yes) and increase in tax revenues due to raising employment are major contributors.

The situation today is no different than it was in 1980 or 1996. Nothing really changes, nothing major, anyway. Let's look even further back...

Franklin Roosevelt had the same free hand and majorities in both houses in 1932, in the depths of the depression that was far worse than what we face today. He and the dems went hog wild with the programs. By 1936, the supreme court had struck down many of his programs as unconstitutional, and the voters had put republicans back into the house and senate, to reign him in.

Even back then, there was reason to be prejudiced against Roosevelt, he was confined to a wheelchair from polio. That wasn't a factor. His somewhat socialist policies were the factor in bringing opposition to the dems running everything, even though a big one, social security, survived. Of course, we're merrily borrowing every cent in SS to pay for the record deficits we're running...

It is all a matter of opinion, of course.

 vadimraskin's gear list:vadimraskin's gear list
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus E-30 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow