U.S. Politics, 12

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

This is terrifying. I'm quite convinced that Rand Paul is clinically insane.

Not Rand. Ron. The old guy who ran for president last time.

[Altherion]

Ron Paul To Chair Monetary Policy Subcommittee

That's hilarious. I don't know whether it is actually good or bad for the country and I suspect in practice it doesn't change much, but I can't think of a funnier outcome for that subcommittee chairmanship.

But this is ridiculous. Financial Reform wasn't perfect, but it's miles and miles better then what existed before. Even if you know the details, it's good stuff and it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise. It's just not as good as you might have wanted.

No, it really is not. It is better, but not by much. A lot of the rules it imposes are things the firms in question had decided to do in any case. In the worst case scenario for them, the rules close off one loophole and but deliberately leave a few others open. Most importantly, it does nothing to remove the risk to the entire system inherent in the dependence on a few very large firms (i.e. "too big to fail"). The galling thing is that he had them. They needed money from the government and he had all the popular rage a politician could ask for. Give this scenario to Franklin D. or Theodore Roosevelt and there might have been some real change, but Obama settled for what the banks were comfortable with.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The fact that none of the large banks or insurance companies fought the health care reform or financial reform bills tells me all I need to know.

[Shryke]

No, it really is not. It is better, but not by much. A lot of the rules it imposes are things the firms in question had decided to do in any case. In the worst case scenario for them, the rules close off one loophole and but deliberately leave a few others open. Most importantly, it does nothing to remove the risk to the entire system inherent in the dependence on a few very large firms (i.e. "too big to fail"). The galling thing is that he had them. They needed money from the government and he had all the popular rage a politician could ask for. Give this scenario to Franklin D. or Theodore Roosevelt and there might have been some real change, but Obama settled for what the banks were comfortable with.

Or, you know, what he was capable of passing. And by "He" let's remember we're talking about Reid and the Senate, not Obama.

And again, you've already admitted my point right here in the first line.

Some financial reform >>>> No financial reform

The fact that none of the large banks or insurance companies fought the health care reform or financial reform bills tells me all I need to know.

What's it tell you exactly?

And both of those groups DID fight reform.

[Shryke]

Also, more on "Fiscal Conservativism" from Krugman:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/no-people-really-dont-care-about-the-deficit/

No, People Really Don’t Care About The Deficit

They sometimes say they do — but almost always it turns out that they really mean something else. Look at all the “fiscal hawks” who suddenly lose all interest in the budget balance when tax cuts are on the line.

Also, you really have to understand that voters don’t have any clear idea of how big the deficit is, let alone what makes it go up or down. Here’s my favorite (well, one of my favorite) Larry Bartels results, about views of the deficit in 1996, after Bill Clinton had already presided over a huge improvement in the budget picture

Yep, a plurality of voters — including a majority of Republicans, and a third of Democrats — thought the deficit had gone up.

If Obama somehow eliminated the budget deficit over the next two years, not only would he get no credit, Republican voters would go to the 2012 polls believing that the deficit had continued to soar.

[Altherion]

Or, you know, what he was capable of passing. And by "He" let's remember we're talking about Reid and the Senate, not Obama.

And again, you've already admitted my point right here in the first line.

Some financial reform >>>> No financial reform

Some financial reform > No financial reform, but this is not something I would hold up as Obama's accomplishment -- some financial reform was going to happen no matter what. Everybody (including even the banks) agreed that it was needed and people (including even much of the upper class) were angry enough to make it happen. Obama kept it far below what it might have been given popular sentiment. I do not know whether this was deliberate (looking at his economic team, that possibility is not implausible) or whether he simply failed to persuade the Senate and/or House. In either case, I don't see any reason to be impressed.

[Inigima]

What "hot-button issues"?

Health Care Reform? Passed.

Financial Reform? Passed.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act fixing the huge issue that was fucking over anybody being discriminated against by their employer? Passed.

Student Loan Reform that ensures more students get loans for college by cutting out the useless bank middle-men who were just skimming off the top? Passed.

GITMO? Executive Order signed to close it.

Gays? Federal Employees now get coverage for their same sex partners. DADT repeal was put into the Defense Appropriation Bill but was fillibustered by McCain. They are planning to hit that again.

Credit Card Reform? Passed.

And this is just off the top of my head.

The problem is, people are comparing what did happen to what they wished could have happened, even if what they wished wasn't actually feasible, instead of looking at what actually happened. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It's ridiculous.

What the Democrats needed to do was SELL these accomplishments. But they are/were too disorganized to form a cohesive media strategy. And it didn't help that a good chunk of their members were Blue Dog types who were busy running away from any accomplishment the party made and who's seats were not easily sustainable.

But this is ridiculous. Financial Reform wasn't perfect, but it's miles and miles better then what existed before. Even if you know the details, it's good stuff and it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise. It's just not as good as you might have wanted.

I agree that they deserve credit for what they did do. But healthcare reform is a shit poor shade of what it might have been and satisfies virtually no one, is the result of repeated compromise by the Democrats because they kept trying to bring in the Republicans who were playing them and laughing all the way to the bank, and isn't a particularly hot button issue for me or for most of the young people I know, although maybe we're outliers.

I don't want to venture too far off the reservation on FinReg because I didn't research it extensively but I don't recall it being satisfying either.

A signed order to close Gitmo doesn't mean shit, it's still open. I'll give Obama and Holder credit for trying but the party dropped the ball, and Obama is still claiming the right to detain indefinitely without charge. I don't much care about Gitmo being closed if they just repeat the same mistakes elsewhere.

I'll give you the same-sex employment benefits, but it's an embarrassingly small token for a group they've been stringing along the way they have. They've said they aren't doing shit on DADT for the lame duck session, and god knows if they'll ever do a damn thing on gay marriage.

Obama has held the Bush/Cheney line on FISA.

Most of the shit you listed is stuff that's nice but not things we were up in arms about and a lot of it is half assed. Just because "health care" is technically on the list of things that passed doesn't mean that what was passed was any good.

[Shryke]

Some financial reform > No financial reform, but this is not something I would hold up as Obama's accomplishment -- some financial reform was going to happen no matter what. Everybody (including even the banks) agreed that it was needed and people (including even much of the upper class) were angry enough to make it happen. Obama kept it far below what it might have been given popular sentiment. I do not know whether this was deliberate (looking at his economic team, that possibility is not implausible) or whether he simply failed to persuade the Senate and/or House. In either case, I don't see any reason to be impressed.

Seriously? You are saying this with a straight face?

If the Republicans had been in charge, nothing would have gotten done.

Obama didn't "keep it below what it could have been" firstly because Obama is the President and thus not part of the legislature. And secondly because popular sentiment only has so much effect on what is passable in the Senate. The GOP fought any financial reform every step of the way.

[Ser Greguh]

Not Rand. Ron. The old guy who ran for president last time.

Ah. I was wondering how a first-term senator-elect got to be on such a prestigious committee already. Turns out I just can't read.

Ron's a bit better. A bit.

[Shryke]

I agree that they deserve credit for what they did do. But healthcare reform is a shit poor shade of what it might have been and satisfies virtually no one, is the result of repeated compromise by the Democrats because they kept trying to bring in the Republicans who were playing them and laughing all the way to the bank, and isn't a particularly hot button issue for me or for most of the young people I know, although maybe we're outliers.

I don't want to venture too far off the reservation on FinReg because I didn't research it extensively but I don't recall it being satisfying either.

A signed order to close Gitmo doesn't mean shit, it's still open. I'll give Obama and Holder credit for trying but the party dropped the ball, and Obama is still claiming the right to detain indefinitely without charge. I don't much care about Gitmo being closed if they just repeat the same mistakes elsewhere.

I'll give you the same-sex employment benefits, but it's an embarrassingly small token for a group they've been stringing along the way they have. They've said they aren't doing shit on DADT for the lame duck session, and god knows if they'll ever do a damn thing on gay marriage.

Obama has held the Bush/Cheney line on FISA.

Most of the shit you listed is stuff that's nice but not things we were up in arms about and a lot of it is half assed. Just because "health care" is technically on the list of things that passed doesn't mean that what was passed was any good.

You are either outliers or fucking crazy. Health Care reform was the biggest issue for Obama and was always claimed to be by Obama and his team. It's also by far the most important economic issue for the US right now. If it's not a "hot-button issue" I don't know wtf is.

And seriously "not any good"? What the fuck? You know when the last Health Care Reform was passed? What, FDR?

Seriously, this is exactly the attitude I'm talking about. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. "Sure, you passed Health Care reform, something no President has done since like the 2nd fucking World War, but that doesn't count because I wanted more." Like come the fuck on.

The entire complaint seems to be based around the fact that they weren't your fantasy dream congress that did everything specifically you wanted to deal with in exactly the way specifically you wanted them dealt with.

And this is the thing. You aren't gonna ever get perfect. The expectations are ridiculous.

What Obama et all were trying to say was "Hey, this is what we ACTUALLY did. All this great shit. Come out and support us so we can do more." and instead people were like "Yeah, wasn't perfect. We're gonna let the Republicans win instead".

It's the exact same attitude at work in people voting for Republicans again because Obama didn't snap his fingers and instantly fix the economy.

[Shryke]

Also, remember that Debt Ceiling I was talking about before?

Rand Paul just claimed he was going to Filibuser any attempt to raise it.

This should be fun to watch.

[Zap Rowsdower]

I was too busy celebrating that I almost forgot to ask the resident Obama supporters a couple of questions.

Did you enjoy being teabagged last night?

Looking forward to another round in two years?

Hope! Change!

[Shryke]

I was too busy celebrating that I almost forgot to ask the resident Obama supporters a couple of questions.

Did you enjoy being teabagged last night?

Looking forward to another round in two years?

Hope! Change!

/looks at Delaware, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado...

I think you are confused about who got Tea Bagged here. :lol:

[BloodRider]

Ron Paul To Chair Monetary Policy Subcommittee

This makes me inordinately happy. Mr. Paul needs to fit Mr. Bernanke' teeth around the curb and stomp.

In other news, Republicans plan on making Richard Dawkins the next Pope. I mean ffs.

Anyway. Not sure how this fits in in the grand scheme of things, but this is the first time ever both houses didn't flip.

[Inigima]

Shryke, I don't expect perfection. But the Dems gave it all away. There was no "compromise," there was no "negotiation." There was just the Democrats, capitulating over and over again, in pursuit of fantasy Republican votes they were never going to get, and occasionally for the shithead "Democrats" who act like Republicans because they have no party discipline whatsoever.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BR,

Anyway. Not sure how this fits in in the grand scheme of things, but this is the first time ever both houses didn't flip.

Ummm... No. The HoR was controled by the Democratic party for 40 years before 1994 while the Republicans controled the Senate for a number of years during those four Decades. Therefore, the Senate has fliped without the HoR any number of times.

[Shryke]

Shryke, I don't expect perfection. But the Dems gave it all away. There was no "compromise," there was no "negotiation." There was just the Democrats, capitulating over and over again, in pursuit of fantasy Republican votes they were never going to get, and occasionally for the shithead "Democrats" who act like Republicans because they have no party discipline whatsoever.

They needed those votes though. They needed 60 votes in the Senate and they did not have it. So they had to appease either Republicans or capitulate to Lieberman and Nelson.

[The Progressive]

Shryke, I don't expect perfection. But the Dems gave it all away. There was no "compromise," there was no "negotiation." There was just the Democrats, capitulating over and over again, in pursuit of fantasy Republican votes they were never going to get, and occasionally for the shithead "Democrats" who act like Republicans because they have no party discipline whatsoever.

Even if you didn't think that the Democrats have to compromise with the Repubs and teabaggers on the legislations passed, the reality is that they still have to reach compromise with other Democrats. You can't run away from the fact that not all Democrats are far-left liberals who wants the investment banks nationalized and single-payer healthcare system.

Wake up, or let teabaggers like zap and flow decide who will sit on Congress.

[Ormond]

Ummm... No. The HoR was controled by the Democratic party for 40 years before 1994 while the Republicans controled the Senate for a number of years during those four Decades. Therefore, the Senate has fliped without the HoR any number of times.

Although it's the first time both haven't flipped at a midterm election since 1930. They had a little segment about that on NPR's All Things Considered tonight. Considering what happened after 1930 (the Depression got much worse) that sounded a bit ominous.

[awesome possum]

Looking forward to another round in two years?

I dunno, will this be in your warped fantasy world where being an adult and putting your testicles in an unwilling participants mouth is still considered not just funny but a valid political platform... or in reality, where Barack Obama will be reelected for a second term as president?