State of the Union

[EvilMonkey]

such as explicitly and categorically refusing to allow anyone nominated for various positions (e.g. head of the CFPB) to come to a vote in the Senate.

Which side controlled the Senate until recently? How many votes for everything did he NOT bring to the floor?

[NorthSideSox72]

It requires two parties to reach an impasse. Obama is as much to blame as the Repubs. If you want to pass something, give up something. It's call compromise. It's been rare that's he's been willing to do it, just like the Repubs.

I somewhat agree, though as I noted before, the Dems have at least been trying to pass things that are not simply reversing something someone else did. The GOP hasn't really done that. Both parties have of course done a LOT of blockading.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Clinton makes my list as well. Mainly because he was the last president who was kind of able to reach across the aisle and get some bipartisanship to work. Ever since him its gone seriously downhill. I don't like everything he did and I don't think he did anything that I'd call "overly historic" but he did have pretty impressive approval ratings, etc, oversaw an extremely promising era, etc.

 

The problem with him is that he didn't go through any major obstacles or change the course of the country. He didn't lead us through anything. He was provided a growing economy and certainly helped push that forward with some of his trade deals, but otherwise what did he do? Some of his mideast work was great at the time but it didn't last.

 

Lincoln obviously took us through the worst time in our history

Teddy, among many other things, made us a global player

Washington did maybe the single most important act of voluntarily giving up power

Jefferson doubled the size of the country and at least attempted to prop up states' rights

FDR led the country through the depression and ww2

and Reagan fixed the Carter Mistake, finished off the cold war and revitalized the country

 

A lot of the greatness stuff comes with lucky (or unlucky) timing more than anything else. But these guys mostly nailed it.

[Balta1701]

Which side controlled the Senate until recently? How many votes for everything did he NOT bring to the floor?

I hope we get this exact same reaction when we decide to shut the entire senate down for months at a time for no good reason, because the minority in the senate has the ability to do that. If the majority's going to get blamed for the minority using their ability to clog up the senate, then we should use that ability to the full extent. It'll be McConnell's fault that passing a single bill requires months of debate.

[Jenksismyhero]

No it doesn't. If one side says no to anything that's not their 100% ideal, that creates an impasse even if they're given 99% of what they want.

 

Obama has never offered 99% of anything. He's rarely offered anything. Both have blamed the other side for doing nothing when both sides have done nothing.

[Jenksismyhero]

The continued mythologization (is that a word?) of Ronald Reagan is one of the most bizarre parts of politics today in my eyes. He's been turned into something he simply wasn't. I mean, the guy's administration was responsible for the revolution in use of block grants to the states (which GOP'ers rail against today), he was FOR amnesty for illegal immigrants (same), he dramatically increased (or signed off on increased) government spending even beyond inflation (same), and he oversaw a huge wave of land protections for environmental purposes (same).

 

Yes he pushed drops in tax rates on the higher brackets, yes he deserves credit for pushing the USSR over the brink they were already pretty much headed towards and did it smartly.

 

If he were to run for the GOP Presidential nomination today, he would be laughed off the stage for being far too liberal.

 

Probably, but keep in mind the country he was handed in 1980 and the country he left in 1988. Markedly different. And for the better.

[pettie4sox]

Reddy, Obama at best is an average president. He talked a the good talk but hardly backed it up. Nothing wrong with being an average president.

[Jenksismyhero]

I hope we get this exact same reaction when we decide to shut the entire senate down for months at a time for no good reason, because the minority in the senate has the ability to do that. If the majority's going to get blamed for the minority using their ability to clog up the senate, then we should use that ability to the full extent. It'll be McConnell's fault that passing a single bill requires months of debate.

 

Or as Reddy and others have pointed out, when the people have spoken via their vote, the other side has to just lay down and do whatever the new party says. I've been told that's how it should work repeatedly the last 6 years.

[NorthSideSox72]

Probably, but keep in mind the country he was handed in 1980 and the country he left in 1988. Markedly different. And for the better.

 

Change it to this...

 

Probably, but keep in mind the country he was handed in 2008 and the country he left in 2015*** (leaving in 2016). Markedly different. And for the better.

 

And also pretty accurate, in terms of economy, foreign relations and other factors that the same can be said for Reagan. How much either gets credit for it is up for debate.

 

I think Reagan was very effective, mind you. Overall he did a lot of good, and some bad. Just pointing out that he's been inflated into something cartoonishly inaccurate in some circles.

 

[southsider2k5]

I hope we get this exact same reaction when we decide to shut the entire senate down for months at a time for no good reason, because the minority in the senate has the ability to do that. If the majority's going to get blamed for the minority using their ability to clog up the senate, then we should use that ability to the full extent. It'll be McConnell's fault that passing a single bill requires months of debate.

 

It is all based on what party you are in. The same people that have railed against the Republicans in Congress applauded when Democrats in Indiana effectively did the same thing a few years back by leaving the state.

 

That attitude of excusing your own, while criticizing the other for the exact same thing, is exactly my problem with modern politics. It isn't about solutions or policy anymore. It is about winning the twitter and meme battles. It has to be something that can be described as DESTROYED HIS OPPONENTS so it gets lots of shares. And whatever you do, credit can't be given to the other. The Bush era was the same way, just players wearing the opposite jersey. I got bored with it then, and have been disengaged from it ever since.

 

Personally I have found the engagement into local politics to be much more rewarding than the endless circlejerk of the national scene.

[NorthSideSox72]

Or as Reddy and others have pointed out, when the people have spoken via their vote, the other side has to just lay down and do whatever the new party says. I've been told that's how it should work repeatedly the last 6 years.

I actually like that there is a mixed government. Honestly the only part of that I'd change is the absurd 60-vote rule in the Senate, which I'd love to see go away.

 

[Balta1701]

Reddy, Obama at best is an average president. He talked a the good talk but hardly backed it up. Nothing wrong with being an average president.

This is one where I'm going to say you literally can't tell.

 

Right above this is a post where it says that Bill Clinton left things markedly better when he left. But if you really stop and look at that...he also left a cancer named "Al Qaeda" growing in the middle east, an overinflated stock market bubble, a financial industry with constraints on it completely dismantled (setting up a complete implosion), and nearly 20 more ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

In 10 years, we may really regret the decision to bomb Libya and then ignore it, or we may regret signing the budget just passed that removed some of Dodd-Frank's rules regarding the government insuring financial instruments at big banks, or we may really regret the ending of the Nunn-Lugar program controlling russian nuclear materials, we stand a good chance of regretting the fact that we still haven't done anything about increasing CO2, or who knows. We may be thrilled because health care will turn out to be 95% fixed by the PPACA and that'll be the greatest legacy of any president this half century.

[Jenksismyhero]

I actually like that there is a mixed government. Honestly the only part of that I'd change is the absurd 60-vote rule in the Senate, which I'd love to see go away.

 

That's the problem. We really don't have one these days. We have group A and group B and for the most part the members of each group act and think the same way.

[StrangeSox]

Which side controlled the Senate until recently? How many votes for everything did he NOT bring to the floor?

Until about a year ago, filibustering Executive appointments was still a thing.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's the problem. We really don't have one these days. We have group A and group B and for the most part the members of each group act and think the same way.

Well certainly it has become more binary, with less of the variance on each side. Moderate groups that tended towards the middle have shrunk on the left, and all but disappeared on the right.

 

[bmags]

Yes, yes, if only our politics could get back to the good ole days of party loyalty based off of racisim and civil war legacy.

[StrangeSox]

I'm sick of the pissing contest...well we could do it if the other side would...we would do it if the other side would. At some point, cut the s*** and lets at least enact the stuff the general public wants that makes sense. Obama has failed miserably at working with the other party and yes the Repubs have failed too in this regard. They both get fat F's for this but I put more onus on the president as he is one person vs. say congress.

Specifically on climate change, I'll just point out that Senator James Inhofe, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, made his very first point of business after receiving the gavel to go on a rant about how climate change is a hoax.

 

There's no "working with the other side" when a substantial number of the other side believes in all sorts of conspiracy theories and doesn't even think the issue is a real issue. That's not a technocrat difference on the policy, it's not a philosophic difference on how to address the problem (e.g. hard emissions caps or market-based cap-and-trade) or even an ideological device or whether government should even address it ("let the free market sort it out"). It's one side flat-out refusing to address reality.

 

I don't understand putting more onus on the head of the Executive, either. It's not like a Republican-controlled congress was passing a bunch of bills and he was vetoing them all (as will probably start to happen, at least a little bit, over the next two years). It was a Republican House and a Democratic Senate that couldn't pass bills together to send to the President.

Edited January 23, 2015 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

I actually like that there is a mixed government. Honestly the only part of that I'd change is the absurd 60-vote rule in the Senate, which I'd love to see go away.

Can you expand on why? I haven't thought about it too deeply, but I think I'd much prefer a parliamentary system where an elected party can actually enact the agenda it was elected on. Our current system has so many roadblocks and veto points that politicians are never really held accountable for what they do or don't do. They can always just blame "obstruction."

[EvilMonkey]

The less they do the better off we seem to be most days.

[StrangeSox]

Enacting their agenda could mean repealing things as well if you're of the mindset that there aren't important things for the government to do.

[Chisoxfn]

Specifically on climate change, I'll just point out that Senator James Inhofe, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, made his very first point of business after receiving the gavel to go on a rant about how climate change is a hoax.

 

There's no "working with the other side" when a substantial number of the other side believes in all sorts of conspiracy theories and doesn't even think the issue is a real issue. That's not a technocrat difference on the policy, it's not a philosophic difference on how to address the problem (e.g. hard emissions caps or market-based cap-and-trade) or even an ideological device or whether government should even address it ("let the free market sort it out"). It's one side flat-out refusing to address reality.

 

I don't understand putting more onus on the head of the Executive, either. It's not like a Republican-controlled congress was passing a bunch of bills and he was vetoing them all (as will probably start to happen, at least a little bit, over the next two years). It was a Republican House and a Democratic Senate that couldn't pass bills together to send to the President.

Thats cause who we put on these committee's tend to be morons in their given space. We should have people appointing people with real knowledge of these equations to actually do the real work and undersatnd thing. Its like the finance senate committee's and when I hear some of the people talk I'm like, these clowns are involved in this crap. They wouldn't even know how to balance a f***ing check book for pete sake.

[Chisoxfn]

Since no one has talked about it. Just an FYI, that if you have young kids and use or are planning on using / taking advantage of a 529 plan for college savings that Obama is proposing to cut the benefits. That said, existing 529 plans will likely be grand-fathered in (not sure if that is existing based upon current balances or just plans that were set-up and new contributions to those existing plans would still benefit from the beneficial tax treatment).

 

All of this might be a moot point cause republicans won't support it.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-proposal...tion-1421811117

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Since no one has talked about it. Just an FYI, that if you have young kids and use or are planning on using / taking advantage of a 529 plan for college savings that Obama is proposing to cut the benefits. That said, existing 529 plans will likely be grand-fathered in (not sure if that is existing based upon current balances or just plans that were set-up and new contributions to those existing plans would still benefit from the beneficial tax treatment).

 

All of this might be a moot point cause republicans won't support it.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-proposal...tion-1421811117

 

That's a subscriber only article, what's the jist of it? Why does he want to cut those benefits? Isn't it a good thing that people set aside money for college tax free?

[Chisoxfn]

That's a subscriber only article, what's the jist of it? Why does he want to cut those benefits? Isn't it a good thing that people set aside money for college tax free?

Take the link and paste it into google and you can read it. Supposedly he has another incentive he wants to use but I presume his rational is that the benefit is only being taken advantage of by the more wealthy so lets drop that benefit. I just don't see why the program you want to whack is a program like this which provides an incentive for people to go to college and for families to actually save for college (vs. being in debt, which is a massive problem for the current and future generations of collegiate graduates).

 

But since it involves you actually paying for money, I'm presuming another reason is you cut this and than offer free JC to all.

[Jenksismyhero]

Take the link and paste it into google and you can read it. Supposedly he has another incentive he wants to use but I presume his rational is that the benefit is only being taken advantage of by the more wealthy so lets drop that benefit. I just don't see why the program you want to whack is a program like this which provides an incentive for people to go to college and for families to actually save for college (vs. being in debt, which is a massive problem for the current and future generations of collegiate graduates).

 

But since it involves you actually paying for money, I'm presuming another reason is you cut this and than offer free JC to all.

 

I mean, if that's the case, that's moronic. That's hurting the middle class, not just the rich. My wife and I were about to start looking into this for our son. But if there's no tax advantage, there's no point.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Jenksismybitch