So, Sarah Palin screws up a speech

Hawk said:
I can't figure out which is more of an annoyance; people earnestly defending Barack Obama['s] political actions, or people believing that attacks on Sarah Palin's intellect are still at all useful in modern political discourse.
Click to expand...

Though I voted for Obama both times, I've also been openly—and often harshly—critical of many things he's done, both on these boards and in the greater world; however, it's inane (if not annoying) to argue that he's done absolutely nothing worth earnestly defending.
 
jpx7 said:
however, it's inane (if not annoying) to argue that he's done absolutely nothing worth earnestly defending.
Click to expand...

Is it really? I'll grant that the Obama administration has provoked the American mindset in ways that are largely more positive than negative -- but his legacy is wholly based upon legislative actions that have either a) outright failed or b) are so riddled with controversy that they will be undoubtedly be diluted and/or reformulated to the point where he can barely claim it outside of academic origin.
 
legislative actions ?

What legislative actions did we miss? This is arguably if not in fact the most un productive congress in history

Controversy ? If not for Fox and Rush this would be the blandest Presidency in recent times.
 
57Brave said:
What legislative actions did we miss?
Click to expand...

This is kind of the entire crux of the debate. We're talking about an administration that was given a clear mandate (and indisputable majority) to lead starting in 2008 and performed an epic belly flop in not only losing the majority -- in sensational fashion -- but also in having literally nothing (perhaps save the ACA, which will be torn apart over the next four election cycles) to show for it.
 
They had a filibuster proof majority for a few days. Then the 2010 election. I for one see the ACA as an historical accomplishment.
Kind of like Sturg's Cap Gains argument -- you can disagree with the policy all you like but the relevance of the accomplishment cant be denied.
A form of universal care was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt over 100 years ago and this is the first POTUS to get something --- anything --- done !! Again, agree or disagree with the content but saying it not a legislative accomplishment is wrong.

I don't think it will be torn apart. It has become as much a part of the American fabric as Medicare Medicaid or Social Security. Even the Tea Party recognizes that.
I hate that it gives so much to the insurance mob. I am a cradle to grave complete health care for all run by the government. So don't tell me how I defend this bill blah blah blah.
I see it as an opener. No more.
I think if you scratch the polling surface you will find many that rate ACA unfavorably hold the same opinion I do. It just didnt go far enough

John Boehner promised in 2010 a Jobs Bill ( shrug )
 
I've said before on these forums that I'm a fervent supporter of universal healthcare. The ACA isn't that. You can make the argument that 'it's a step in the right direction' until you are blue in the face, but Obama had a golden opportunity to institute something truly transformative and simply lacked the follow through to take the concept to the next level. This is a common theme in his executive persona; a lot of blustering, but even more dithering and 'compromise'.

He piggy-backed on progresses made by Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney regarding healthcare, so I'm not willing to give him much credit in conceptualization, either.

Obamacare is expensive and inefficient. Find me a single respected economist who disagrees. Take a look at the figures recently released by the CBO. It's just not going to work in its current form, and the likelihood is that it is legislatively crippled as opposed to expanded based on the current political climate.
 
Again we share disagreement with the shape of the policy. But it can't be denied he accomplished something legislatively progressives for 100 years were un able to accomplish.
Progressives !! Shoot Nixon / Ted Kennedy had a deal on the table that fell through.

Any economist that dis agrees with you you will dis count him as ...

to many people are using it to "cripple" . If it was going to be crippled, it would have already.

you need to get out more Hawk
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/01/27/right-wing-media-wont-tell-you-that-the-cbos-ne/202280

New York Times: "Budget Office Slashes Estimated Cost Of Health Coverage." As The New York Times explained on January 26, the CBO "significantly lowered its estimate of the cost" of the Affordable Care Act. According to CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf, the new estimates show a 20 percent cost reduction from 2010 projections when the health care law was signed (emphasis added)

////////////

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...tlook-shows-the-damage-wrought-by-obamacare /

The damage? I know folks think I live on another planet, but the one I live on doesn’t support that assertion. At all. The latest report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office backs me up on this. According to its “Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025,” “[A]bout 42 million nonelderly residents of the United States were uninsured in 2014, about 12 million fewer than would have been uninsured in the absence of the ACA.”
/////////////

Please with the comparisons of Palin and Obama
kinda like comparing BJ Upton with Mike Trout -- "but they both play CF"
 
Media Matters? Really, 57?

Why not just link the report itself. Let people draw their own unbiased conclusions, not those of a blatant left-wing lobbying group. Sheesh.

https://www.cbo.gov/taxonomy/term/45/featured

The cost reduction from the 2010 figure is a result of low participation in the program.

The bottom line is that Obamacare is costing ~$50K per year per enrollee -- do you think that's sustainable?
 
57Brave said:
Please with the comparisons of Palin and Obama
kinda like comparing BJ Upton with Mike Trout -- "but they both play CF"
Click to expand...

Well, they could possibly share the same equipment down below, if you get my drift.

I'll leave it up to your political allegiances to determine who owns what.
 
Hawk said:
Media Matters? Really, 57?

Why not just link the report itself. Let people draw their own unbiased conclusions, not those of a blatant left-wing lobbying group. Sheesh.

https://www.cbo.gov/taxonomy/term/45/featured

The cost reduction from the 2010 figure is a result of low participation in the program.

The bottom line is that Obamacare is costing ~$50K per year per enrollee -- do you think that's sustainable?
Click to expand...

-- who knows.
but there is no denying this was a legislative accomplishment. Which is what we are discussing -- right ?
Media Matters quotes CBO-NYT .

I trust you have gone through the tables with a fine tooth comb :)
 
Hawk said:
Well, they could possibly share the same equipment down below, if you get my drift.

I'll leave it up to your political allegiances to determine who owns what.
Click to expand...

tom-brady-high-five-fail.gif
 
Hawk said:
.

The bottom line is that Obamacare is costing ~$50K per year per enrollee -- do you think that's sustainable?
Click to expand...

PolitiFact Calls Claim That ACA Will Cost $50,000 Per Enrollee "False." PolitiFact.com determined Stuart Varney's claim that the new CBO projections mean the ACA will cost "$50,000 per enrollee" over the next decade is false, noting that "none of the health care experts we reached, regardless of their economic philosophies or thoughts about health care law, found any merit in the math that produced this figure." PolitiFact also pointed out that Varney's $50,000 cost estimate likely originated in a Daily Mail article claiming the CBO's most recent projections indicate a $1.35 trillion total cost over the next ten years to insure Americans under the ACA:

The basic math is correct. Divide $1.35 trillion by 27 million people and you get $50,000.

But health policy analyst Joe Antos at the American Enterprise Institute, a free-market oriented think-tank in Washington, told PunditFact that the number is meaningless.

"You can't divide a 10-year spending number by the average number of people who are newly insured," Antos said. "That's not the way it works."

We heard the same comment from Christine Eibner, a RAND health care economist. "It is analytically problematic to compare a single-year estimate of the change in the uninsured population to a 10-year projection of the costs," Eibner said. [PolitiFact.com, 1/28/15]
 
I love that 57 wants us to celebrate bad legislation simply because it was hard to get done...

I can't imagine why it was hard to get done...
 
I count 129 pages of definition and tables. Go nuts

Getting back on topic --- I see people that told me Sarah Palin was competent telling me one thing (Fox and Varney) and those that explained why she wasn't (Media Matters) telling me another.
Who's opinion do you think I should put more stock into ???

Becasue even if I could stay awake long enough to read the info CBO published I have no earthly idea how to come to any kind of an educated opinion.

After all -- wasn't it you that told me to find an economist that disagreed with you and wasn't it I that told ou you would dismiss them based solely on who they were ?? Track record be damned

Difference between you and me Hawk --- the sources I link have a track record of getting it right more often than those who's opinions you follow.
Ms Palin case in point
 
sturg33 said:
I love that 57 wants us to celebrate bad legislation simply because it was hard to get done...

I can't imagine why it was hard to get done...
Click to expand...

Good legislation or bad is beside the point --
I was told there were no legislative accomplishments and ACA was an example of --- not a legislative accomp.

This is where these conversations go south. I agree with Hawk and you Sturg on the substance. ACA is in complete and not what it should be -- what riles me is claims that are patently false. ACA is benefitting a good number of people and we could argue cost projections until well, ever

How are we to have a discussion when we can't agree what is a fact and what isn't ???
 
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/49892-breakout-AppendixB.pdf

It's only 15 pages, 57.

I understand it's easier to Google the report, skim over the top 5 results, and cherry-pick which quotes/paragraphs most adequately resonate with your interpretation of the findings. But I'm not interested in reading opinion here, especially when it comes from the sources you provided.

This is one of those issues where the facts are clearly presented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top