Obama goes after Independents

On the President’s concessions on the Bush tax cuts:

Although his liberal supporters are furious about the decision, President Obama’s willingness to extend all of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts is part of what White House officials say is a deliberate strategy: to demonstrate his ability to compromise with Republicans and portray the president as the last reasonable man in a sharply partisan Washington.

The move is based on a political calculation, drawn from his party’s midterm defeat, that places a premium on winning back independent voters.

The strategy emerged from hours of post-election meetings among senior administration officials who, after poring over returns, exit polls and midterm history, have determined that the loss of independent voters who supported Democrats in 2008 cost the party dozens of races this year. That conclusion places Obama at odds with many liberal Democrats, who say the midterm losses were the result in part of a political base dispirited by the president’s penchant for compromise.

Faced with unified GOP opposition, Obama didn’t get what he really wanted: the end of Bush tax cuts on household income of more than $250,000 and continuation of the rest.

Instead, he went along with emboldened Republicans to extend even the top-tier cuts for two years in exchange for unemployment insurance and other measures intended to boost the economy.

In doing so, Obama is trying to make the best of a bad situation. Administration officials now say that restoring the president’s image as a post-partisan leader is more important for the next two years of his term and for his reelection effort.

via The president extends an olive branch to GOP.

Liberals, though, are absolutely furious. Democrats in Congress are trying to repudiate the agreement.

I give President Obama credit, though.  If he governs to the center, I’ll support that!

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • WebMonk

    I can’t see inside President Obama’s head or listen in on his strategy sessions, but I suspect he agreed to the compromise with GOP leaders knowing full well that whatever came out of the compromise wouldn’t be as “bad” as the first general agreement. He knew the GOP wouldn’t get everything it wanted, and he calculated that whatever the form of the bill that finally passed, it wouldn’t be as bad as what he has just agreed to in principal.

    However, he sort of forgot to include the Dem leaders in on his planning. He’s not exactly known for his communication abilities, after all.

    That’s my own private theory.

    Or! Maybe it’s a big conspiracy that he has worked out with the Dem leaders in the House – they are all just pretending to be outrage and it is a carefully choreographed display to make Obama seem more moderate when in fact he is uber-l33t-manipulative and ultra-liberal!

  • WebMonk

    I can’t see inside President Obama’s head or listen in on his strategy sessions, but I suspect he agreed to the compromise with GOP leaders knowing full well that whatever came out of the compromise wouldn’t be as “bad” as the first general agreement. He knew the GOP wouldn’t get everything it wanted, and he calculated that whatever the form of the bill that finally passed, it wouldn’t be as bad as what he has just agreed to in principal.

    However, he sort of forgot to include the Dem leaders in on his planning. He’s not exactly known for his communication abilities, after all.

    That’s my own private theory.

    Or! Maybe it’s a big conspiracy that he has worked out with the Dem leaders in the House – they are all just pretending to be outrage and it is a carefully choreographed display to make Obama seem more moderate when in fact he is uber-l33t-manipulative and ultra-liberal!

  • Tom Hering

    There’s nothing wrong with a politician practicing the art of compromise. It’s the art of day-to-day governance. One does wonder, though, when the President will take a stand and fight hard for something on the basis of principle. This, too, is what leaders do.

  • Tom Hering

    There’s nothing wrong with a politician practicing the art of compromise. It’s the art of day-to-day governance. One does wonder, though, when the President will take a stand and fight hard for something on the basis of principle. This, too, is what leaders do.

  • WebMonk

    He did that on the healthcare bill. That was a fight he picked and drove through to the end.

  • WebMonk

    He did that on the healthcare bill. That was a fight he picked and drove through to the end.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    I’m glad whenever Obama abandons what we thought were his principles (his Huey Long “soak the rich” would be one example), but in the long run, it seems to me that what this country needs is a good discussion of principles.

    For example, is it a good thing for employment prospects to take money out of the hands of employers and use it to pay people not to work? I’ve seen evidence that in some states, the tax on incomes to support unemployment benefits is closing in on 5-10%. That can’t help the least among us to get a job, to put it mildly.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    I’m glad whenever Obama abandons what we thought were his principles (his Huey Long “soak the rich” would be one example), but in the long run, it seems to me that what this country needs is a good discussion of principles.

    For example, is it a good thing for employment prospects to take money out of the hands of employers and use it to pay people not to work? I’ve seen evidence that in some states, the tax on incomes to support unemployment benefits is closing in on 5-10%. That can’t help the least among us to get a job, to put it mildly.

  • Jimmy Veith

    President Obama was known to engage in weekly poker games with his colleagues when he was a state senator in Illinois. I am not an expert on the game of poker, but I do know enough about the game that the first thing that you do is look at the cards you’ve been dealt. So let’s look at the hand that was dealt to the President.

    First, unemployment at 9.8%, and an anemic rate growth in the economy.
    Second, beginning in January 2011, a Republican controlled House.
    Third, because of the filibuster, a Senate that could not pass what he really wanted, which they tried last weekend and failed.
    Fourth, corporate America setting on record profits but unwilling to spend it, due in part to economic uncertainties.
    Fifth, a desire to try to pass some things before the end of the year such as the SALT treaty, end to DODT, the dream act, etc.

    President Obama wanted another stimulus bill to prevent a double dip recession and reduce unemployment, which he knew he could not get next year with a Republican controlled House. About 80% of what was proposed will have a real stimulus effect on the economy. In addition, the proposal should provide the stability and certainty needed to encourage corporate America to begin spending some of its cash. If as a result of these two factors, the economy begins to grow at 5% or 6%, we should finally begin to see a significant reduction in the unemployment rate. With a more robust economy, government tax revenues should increase, which will help reduce the national debt in the long run. Once the tax deal is completed, there was at least the possibility that other legislation that he desires could be passed before the end of the year. Most important to the President, is the ratification of the SALT treaty.

    Given the hand that was dealt, I think the President played his cards pretty well.

  • Jimmy Veith

    President Obama was known to engage in weekly poker games with his colleagues when he was a state senator in Illinois. I am not an expert on the game of poker, but I do know enough about the game that the first thing that you do is look at the cards you’ve been dealt. So let’s look at the hand that was dealt to the President.

    First, unemployment at 9.8%, and an anemic rate growth in the economy.
    Second, beginning in January 2011, a Republican controlled House.
    Third, because of the filibuster, a Senate that could not pass what he really wanted, which they tried last weekend and failed.
    Fourth, corporate America setting on record profits but unwilling to spend it, due in part to economic uncertainties.
    Fifth, a desire to try to pass some things before the end of the year such as the SALT treaty, end to DODT, the dream act, etc.

    President Obama wanted another stimulus bill to prevent a double dip recession and reduce unemployment, which he knew he could not get next year with a Republican controlled House. About 80% of what was proposed will have a real stimulus effect on the economy. In addition, the proposal should provide the stability and certainty needed to encourage corporate America to begin spending some of its cash. If as a result of these two factors, the economy begins to grow at 5% or 6%, we should finally begin to see a significant reduction in the unemployment rate. With a more robust economy, government tax revenues should increase, which will help reduce the national debt in the long run. Once the tax deal is completed, there was at least the possibility that other legislation that he desires could be passed before the end of the year. Most important to the President, is the ratification of the SALT treaty.

    Given the hand that was dealt, I think the President played his cards pretty well.

  • WebMonk

    Jimmy, in general I agree that he was dealing with the cards he was dealt and his options were limited, but he did have some better options than what he did – piss off many of his allies while dealing with his cards.

    As it appears to allies, he didn’t get even one concession from Republicans, and in fact gave even more than had been asked for. And it all came out of the blue, catching Dem leaders unaware as far as I can tell. All of which is guaranteed to royally tick off most of the Democrats. Even if one is being forced to do something, one shouldn’t try to enrage one’s allies.

  • WebMonk

    Jimmy, in general I agree that he was dealing with the cards he was dealt and his options were limited, but he did have some better options than what he did – piss off many of his allies while dealing with his cards.

    As it appears to allies, he didn’t get even one concession from Republicans, and in fact gave even more than had been asked for. And it all came out of the blue, catching Dem leaders unaware as far as I can tell. All of which is guaranteed to royally tick off most of the Democrats. Even if one is being forced to do something, one shouldn’t try to enrage one’s allies.

  • LAJ

    I unfortunately agree with the conspiracy theory in
    #1. He is out to get re-elected himself and counts on Nancy Pelosi to keep the agreement with the Republicans from actually happening. I hope we’re wrong on that.

  • LAJ

    I unfortunately agree with the conspiracy theory in
    #1. He is out to get re-elected himself and counts on Nancy Pelosi to keep the agreement with the Republicans from actually happening. I hope we’re wrong on that.

  • WebMonk

    I was joking on that in #1, BTW.

  • WebMonk

    I was joking on that in #1, BTW.

  • Porcell

    Well, Pres. Obama has managed to alienate, not only the independents and conservatives, but, now, his liberal base. It’s fine to reach out to the independents through compromise, though fatal to not pay careful attention to his base.

    For an incisive analysis of this have a look at Peggy Noonan’s WSJ article today, From Audacity to Animosity
    No president has alienated his base the way Obama has.
    including:

    President Obama was supposed to be announcing an important compromise, as he put it, on tax policy. Normally a president, having agreed with the opposition on something big, would go through certain expected motions. He would laud the specific virtues of the plan, show graciousness toward the negotiators on the other side—graciousness implies that you won—and refer respectfully to potential critics as people who’ll surely come around once they are fully exposed to the deep merits of the plan.

    Instead Mr. Obama said, essentially, that he hates the deal he just agreed to, hates the people he made the deal with, and hates even more the people who’ll criticize it. His statement was startling in the breadth of its animosity. Republicans are “hostage takers” who worship a “holy grail” of “tax cuts for the wealthy.” “That seems to be their central economic doctrine.”

    The truth is that Obama, with little executive experience and less high level policy-making experience, has from the beginning of his administration been out of his depth.

    The Journal, also, in one of its editorials, ominously remarked:

    Apart from the near-term economic damage, the stakes in this debate are highest for Mr. Obama. In November voters repudiated the policies of his first two years, but the polls show a reservoir of respect for him as a leader. If he can be pounded into retreat by a soon-to-be-former Speaker whose approval rating is barely north of 10%, Mr. Obama is headed for the unhappy resting place for failed Presidencies known as Carterville.

  • Porcell

    Well, Pres. Obama has managed to alienate, not only the independents and conservatives, but, now, his liberal base. It’s fine to reach out to the independents through compromise, though fatal to not pay careful attention to his base.

    For an incisive analysis of this have a look at Peggy Noonan’s WSJ article today, From Audacity to Animosity
    No president has alienated his base the way Obama has.
    including:

    President Obama was supposed to be announcing an important compromise, as he put it, on tax policy. Normally a president, having agreed with the opposition on something big, would go through certain expected motions. He would laud the specific virtues of the plan, show graciousness toward the negotiators on the other side—graciousness implies that you won—and refer respectfully to potential critics as people who’ll surely come around once they are fully exposed to the deep merits of the plan.

    Instead Mr. Obama said, essentially, that he hates the deal he just agreed to, hates the people he made the deal with, and hates even more the people who’ll criticize it. His statement was startling in the breadth of its animosity. Republicans are “hostage takers” who worship a “holy grail” of “tax cuts for the wealthy.” “That seems to be their central economic doctrine.”

    The truth is that Obama, with little executive experience and less high level policy-making experience, has from the beginning of his administration been out of his depth.

    The Journal, also, in one of its editorials, ominously remarked:

    Apart from the near-term economic damage, the stakes in this debate are highest for Mr. Obama. In November voters repudiated the policies of his first two years, but the polls show a reservoir of respect for him as a leader. If he can be pounded into retreat by a soon-to-be-former Speaker whose approval rating is barely north of 10%, Mr. Obama is headed for the unhappy resting place for failed Presidencies known as Carterville.

  • S Bauer

    No, the stakes are highest for the American people. If our leaders can’t stop their fascination with playing NIGYYSOB to make the hard decisions that have to be made, then we as a country lose big.

  • S Bauer

    No, the stakes are highest for the American people. If our leaders can’t stop their fascination with playing NIGYYSOB to make the hard decisions that have to be made, then we as a country lose big.

  • WebMonk

    I’m curious about what NIGYYSOB means. I can’t figure it out.

    Now I Give You Your Something Orange Back?

  • WebMonk

    I’m curious about what NIGYYSOB means. I can’t figure it out.

    Now I Give You Your Something Orange Back?

  • S Bauer

    Now I Got You, You SOB

  • S Bauer

    Now I Got You, You SOB

  • S Bauer

    Oops. I forgot about the filter. Hope I didn’t make it blush.

    NIGYYSOB is a game that also gets played in the church, unfortunately.

  • S Bauer

    Oops. I forgot about the filter. Hope I didn’t make it blush.

    NIGYYSOB is a game that also gets played in the church, unfortunately.

  • DonS

    Not to throw cold water on this little celebration, but this whole episode is more of the same garbage that has resulted in our current $13 trillion or so debt. This is how “compromises” between Democrats and Republicans always go. In general, both parties come into the negotiation claiming the following: 1) Republicans — we want to cut spending and retain or lower current tax rates and 2) Democrats — we want to raise tax rates and retain or increase current spending. Then, after negotiation, they “compromise”. Democrats give up the increase in taxes and Republicans give up the reduction in spending. Wala! Agreement is reached. No worries, the children who will bear the full burden of this compromise aren’t born yet or are too young to vote.

    The published deal, in this case, is also not the deal that will end up passing. There is a lot more behind the scenes in these secret negotiations (yeah, we’re still playing that game as well), loading the bill up with other spending goodies like the horrible ethanol subsidies and specific “stimulus” pork projects.

    This does not bode well for the next two years.

  • DonS

    Not to throw cold water on this little celebration, but this whole episode is more of the same garbage that has resulted in our current $13 trillion or so debt. This is how “compromises” between Democrats and Republicans always go. In general, both parties come into the negotiation claiming the following: 1) Republicans — we want to cut spending and retain or lower current tax rates and 2) Democrats — we want to raise tax rates and retain or increase current spending. Then, after negotiation, they “compromise”. Democrats give up the increase in taxes and Republicans give up the reduction in spending. Wala! Agreement is reached. No worries, the children who will bear the full burden of this compromise aren’t born yet or are too young to vote.

    The published deal, in this case, is also not the deal that will end up passing. There is a lot more behind the scenes in these secret negotiations (yeah, we’re still playing that game as well), loading the bill up with other spending goodies like the horrible ethanol subsidies and specific “stimulus” pork projects.

    This does not bode well for the next two years.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mmm … ethanol and pork! I know what I’m having for dinner.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mmm … ethanol and pork! I know what I’m having for dinner.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    “Obama goes after Independents”

    That’s really a sidebar. The interesting thing about the compromise is that most Republican did what they thought was best for the economy regardless of who got credit.

    The whole “Republicans just want Obama to fail” slander falls flat when Republicans give him another chance to do something to get the nation back to work.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    “Obama goes after Independents”

    That’s really a sidebar. The interesting thing about the compromise is that most Republican did what they thought was best for the economy regardless of who got credit.

    The whole “Republicans just want Obama to fail” slander falls flat when Republicans give him another chance to do something to get the nation back to work.

  • Carl Vehse

    blockquote>If he governs to the center, I’ll support that!

    The Imamobama can’t even govern center stage at a White House press conference after Monica’s ex-boyfriend began answering reporters’ questions:

    Barry Hussein: “I’ve been keeping the first lady waiting for about half an hour, so I’m going to take off”
    Slick Willie: “I don’t want to make her mad, please go.”

  • Carl Vehse

    blockquote>If he governs to the center, I’ll support that!

    The Imamobama can’t even govern center stage at a White House press conference after Monica’s ex-boyfriend began answering reporters’ questions:

    Barry Hussein: “I’ve been keeping the first lady waiting for about half an hour, so I’m going to take off”
    Slick Willie: “I don’t want to make her mad, please go.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl Vehse, ladies and gentlemen!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl Vehse, ladies and gentlemen!

  • Porcell

    Carl Vehse, as usual, gets to the heart of the matter. Obama governing from the center is a contradiction in terms. He is a hard Left fellow without a clue as to how to govern on the ground. He has been beyond his depth from day one of his administration. Bubba standing at Obama’s side at this point gives us a clue as to the depth of Obama’s incompetence.

    Thanks Carl for that revealing bit at the end of press conference between Slick Willie and Barry Hussein.

    As to Todd’s remark at 16, we have yet another example of a combination of nastiness and contributing nada to the substance of this thread.

  • Porcell

    Carl Vehse, as usual, gets to the heart of the matter. Obama governing from the center is a contradiction in terms. He is a hard Left fellow without a clue as to how to govern on the ground. He has been beyond his depth from day one of his administration. Bubba standing at Obama’s side at this point gives us a clue as to the depth of Obama’s incompetence.

    Thanks Carl for that revealing bit at the end of press conference between Slick Willie and Barry Hussein.

    As to Todd’s remark at 16, we have yet another example of a combination of nastiness and contributing nada to the substance of this thread.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@20), your rather obvious double standard is glaring. Look, we all like people who agree with us. And you clearly dislike people who disagree with you.

    But to call me out for “nastiness and contributing nada” while ignoring Carl’s inability to write the actual names of Democratic Presidents is nothing more or less than just announcing which of the two of us you happen to favor (again, based on whether we agree with you in general).

    So please don’t pretend that you have some standard of rhetoric or decency that you’re adhering to when judging a comment’s value.

    Besides, you’ve made perfectly clear what your standards were on another thread, where you obviously had no problem with “nastiness”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@20), your rather obvious double standard is glaring. Look, we all like people who agree with us. And you clearly dislike people who disagree with you.

    But to call me out for “nastiness and contributing nada” while ignoring Carl’s inability to write the actual names of Democratic Presidents is nothing more or less than just announcing which of the two of us you happen to favor (again, based on whether we agree with you in general).

    So please don’t pretend that you have some standard of rhetoric or decency that you’re adhering to when judging a comment’s value.

    Besides, you’ve made perfectly clear what your standards were on another thread, where you obviously had no problem with “nastiness”.

  • Porcell

    Todd, Carl used well known colloquial names for those Democratic presidents. His post, made with salutary humour, a serious point that Obama is incapable of governing whether from the left or the center.

    Your remark, Carl Vehse, Ladies and Gentlemen is in fact a snarky and rather arrogant put-down of an excellent contributor to this blog.

    As to my “nasty” remark about Louis on another thread, see my response at #90 on that thread.that you linked to above.

  • Porcell

    Todd, Carl used well known colloquial names for those Democratic presidents. His post, made with salutary humour, a serious point that Obama is incapable of governing whether from the left or the center.

    Your remark, Carl Vehse, Ladies and Gentlemen is in fact a snarky and rather arrogant put-down of an excellent contributor to this blog.

    As to my “nasty” remark about Louis on another thread, see my response at #90 on that thread.that you linked to above.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@22), again, your reply is nothing but more of the same double standard. You’re just defending those who agree with you and attacking those who don’t, not abiding by any particular code — moral, rhetorical, or otherwise. Surely you can see that.

    I am almost entirely certain that you would never call playground-level epithets leveled at recent Republican Presidents to be merely “well known colloquial names”! Nor would you consider such “salutary humour”. Again, you don’t like Clinton or Obama, so calling them names is okay with you, and you will defend it. But you like Bush, so you’ll attack anyone who calls him names. There’s no external standard you’re adhering to, though.

    And while you go far, far beyond putting the best construction on Carl’s comments — well into the realm of pretending they’re something they’re not — you then turn around and somehow, somehow manage to find the comment “Carl Vehse, Ladies and Gentlemen” to be an “arrogant put-down”. And you find no humor in that whatsoever.

    So, to recap: pointing out that Carl is acting like Carl? That’s “arrogant”, “snarky”, and a “put-down”. Referring to Presidents as “Imamobama” or “Monica’s ex-boyfriend”? That’s “salutary”.

    Come on, Peter. You’re more intelligent than that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@22), again, your reply is nothing but more of the same double standard. You’re just defending those who agree with you and attacking those who don’t, not abiding by any particular code — moral, rhetorical, or otherwise. Surely you can see that.

    I am almost entirely certain that you would never call playground-level epithets leveled at recent Republican Presidents to be merely “well known colloquial names”! Nor would you consider such “salutary humour”. Again, you don’t like Clinton or Obama, so calling them names is okay with you, and you will defend it. But you like Bush, so you’ll attack anyone who calls him names. There’s no external standard you’re adhering to, though.

    And while you go far, far beyond putting the best construction on Carl’s comments — well into the realm of pretending they’re something they’re not — you then turn around and somehow, somehow manage to find the comment “Carl Vehse, Ladies and Gentlemen” to be an “arrogant put-down”. And you find no humor in that whatsoever.

    So, to recap: pointing out that Carl is acting like Carl? That’s “arrogant”, “snarky”, and a “put-down”. Referring to Presidents as “Imamobama” or “Monica’s ex-boyfriend”? That’s “salutary”.

    Come on, Peter. You’re more intelligent than that.

  • Porcell

    Todd, face it, being a politically correct leftist liberal, you write off Carl Vehse as an evil conservative. Instead of engaging him, you, with juvenile humour, attempt to write him off, as you did at In fact at #19; you never seriously engage conservative opponents, as opposed to insulting them. Your tactics are both superficial and patently rather nasty..

  • Porcell

    Todd, face it, being a politically correct leftist liberal, you write off Carl Vehse as an evil conservative. Instead of engaging him, you, with juvenile humour, attempt to write him off, as you did at In fact at #19; you never seriously engage conservative opponents, as opposed to insulting them. Your tactics are both superficial and patently rather nasty..

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    Calling politicians names is a staple of humor. Getting sensitive because your politicians are targets of mild humor is pathetic.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    Calling politicians names is a staple of humor. Getting sensitive because your politicians are targets of mild humor is pathetic.

  • trotk

    Name calling aside, Porcell, I am blown away that you thought Vehse “got to the heart of the matter.” He didn’t say anything about Obama’s ability to govern from the center. He merely used it as a jumping off point to make fun of him.

    If you believe that this is a thoughtful argument, then I now understand why we cannot see eye to eye so often.

    This clip from the press conference has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama’s ability to govern from the center. You are seeing everything through glasses shaded deep red.

  • trotk

    Name calling aside, Porcell, I am blown away that you thought Vehse “got to the heart of the matter.” He didn’t say anything about Obama’s ability to govern from the center. He merely used it as a jumping off point to make fun of him.

    If you believe that this is a thoughtful argument, then I now understand why we cannot see eye to eye so often.

    This clip from the press conference has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama’s ability to govern from the center. You are seeing everything through glasses shaded deep red.

  • DonS

    Jason @ 16: I’m pretty sure you and I are not in much agreement on this issue, judging from your comment. First of all, isn’t it the House Democrats who appear to be “viciously hostile to compromise” right now, as they try to scuttle the deal as giving too much consideration to the so-called “wealthy”? Secondly, the last two sentences in your post are pegging the political propaganda meter. Needless to say, with attitudes like your’s, the hope for genuine compromise is slim indeed.

    Real compromise will occur only when both parties equally understand the dire straits we have put our children in. Both parties need to recognize that we need real, enforceable, deep spending cuts. And, when those are in place and established, we may also need higher taxes, to actually begin to pay down debt. Spending cuts first (cuts in actual spending, vs. cuts in projected future increased spending), because we have never actually tried that, and our problem is much more on the spending side than the revenue side.

  • DonS

    Jason @ 16: I’m pretty sure you and I are not in much agreement on this issue, judging from your comment. First of all, isn’t it the House Democrats who appear to be “viciously hostile to compromise” right now, as they try to scuttle the deal as giving too much consideration to the so-called “wealthy”? Secondly, the last two sentences in your post are pegging the political propaganda meter. Needless to say, with attitudes like your’s, the hope for genuine compromise is slim indeed.

    Real compromise will occur only when both parties equally understand the dire straits we have put our children in. Both parties need to recognize that we need real, enforceable, deep spending cuts. And, when those are in place and established, we may also need higher taxes, to actually begin to pay down debt. Spending cuts first (cuts in actual spending, vs. cuts in projected future increased spending), because we have never actually tried that, and our problem is much more on the spending side than the revenue side.

  • Porcell

    Trotk, you’re right that Carl didn’t discuss Obama’s inability to govern from the center. He provided a video link that graphically showed Clinton taking over center stage during a joint press conference. Carl in his inimitable way was making the valid point that Obama couldn’t even manage a press conference well.

    Todd, as usual, was about the business of attempting to make a fool of Carl. Of course, in any contest with Carl, one needs to be careful of his back. He is actually a very bright, knowledgeable fellow who is a master of using colorful language.

  • Porcell

    Trotk, you’re right that Carl didn’t discuss Obama’s inability to govern from the center. He provided a video link that graphically showed Clinton taking over center stage during a joint press conference. Carl in his inimitable way was making the valid point that Obama couldn’t even manage a press conference well.

    Todd, as usual, was about the business of attempting to make a fool of Carl. Of course, in any contest with Carl, one needs to be careful of his back. He is actually a very bright, knowledgeable fellow who is a master of using colorful language.

  • trotk

    Porcell, I would dispute that the video even showed as much as the fact that Obama can’t manage a press conference. You could just as easily take the video as Obama trying to appear genuine, or a familial, or endearing to the American people. You don’t see Clinton walking over him, or Obama fumbling questions, or anything of the like. Instead, you see one president saying that he needs to leave, the other making a good-natured joke (the sort that we all might make), and them both enjoying the moment. Hardly a critique of Obama’s abilities, unless that is what you want to see.

    I am glad that you have acknowledged that Vehse offered no critique of Obama’s ability to govern from center, and thus he could not have got to the heart of the matter.

    Interestingly, for my part, I believe that Obama is a poor speaker and gives weak answers at press conferences, although this clip isn’t evidence of that. His speaking (not leaving) is evidence. I taught classical rhetoric for a few years, and I cannot help but be amazed that so many people believe he speaks well. His tempo is flat and unvaried, he uses endless stock phrases that call no great images to mind, he speaks without passion, he speaks in a way that feels like he is reciting answers that he has been provided with and which he does not understand or believe. In short, he puts me to sleep.

  • trotk

    Porcell, I would dispute that the video even showed as much as the fact that Obama can’t manage a press conference. You could just as easily take the video as Obama trying to appear genuine, or a familial, or endearing to the American people. You don’t see Clinton walking over him, or Obama fumbling questions, or anything of the like. Instead, you see one president saying that he needs to leave, the other making a good-natured joke (the sort that we all might make), and them both enjoying the moment. Hardly a critique of Obama’s abilities, unless that is what you want to see.

    I am glad that you have acknowledged that Vehse offered no critique of Obama’s ability to govern from center, and thus he could not have got to the heart of the matter.

    Interestingly, for my part, I believe that Obama is a poor speaker and gives weak answers at press conferences, although this clip isn’t evidence of that. His speaking (not leaving) is evidence. I taught classical rhetoric for a few years, and I cannot help but be amazed that so many people believe he speaks well. His tempo is flat and unvaried, he uses endless stock phrases that call no great images to mind, he speaks without passion, he speaks in a way that feels like he is reciting answers that he has been provided with and which he does not understand or believe. In short, he puts me to sleep.

  • Jimmy Veith

    Whether or not the compromise reached by Obama with the Republicans was a good or bad thing is a matter in which reasonable people can disagree.

    However, being critical of the President for having a press conference with Clinton (the only former living president to have actually given us a budget surplus), to come out in support of the compromise is a criticism that is beyond reason. (I suppose, if you are actually consistent in your criticism, do you also oppose the President when he had every living secretary of state from both parties came out to support the ratification of the START treaty?)

    People who criticize everything the President does reminds me of the evil stepmother who criticizes everything the step child does while not being critical of her own children who do the same thing. Sooner or later, the step child begins to think that it is not their actions that the stepmother despises but rather the child themselves. (No offense to all the wonderful stepmothers out there that do not conform to this stereotype promoted in popular children’s literature. )

    Benjamin Franklin told a story of a father and young son traveling down the road with a donkey. At first, the father road the donkey and the son walked. People criticized the father for being cruel to his son. So the father placed his son on the donkey and he walked. People criticized the son for his laziness and disrespect shown to his father. Then, both the son and father walked. People criticized them both for being foolish. What is the use of having a donkey if you’re not going to put it to use? So then the father threw the donkey off the bridge.

    It seems to me that people will have more credibility in their political discourse when they are more selective in their criticisms, when they criticize the actions or policies rather than the people themselves. Also, in the interest of fairness and in-depth analysis, one should consider the options available to our politicians before criticizing their decisions. In the debate over the compromise with the Republicans, I’m afraid that many of my fellow Democrats just want the President to throw the donkey off the bridge.

  • Jimmy Veith

    Whether or not the compromise reached by Obama with the Republicans was a good or bad thing is a matter in which reasonable people can disagree.

    However, being critical of the President for having a press conference with Clinton (the only former living president to have actually given us a budget surplus), to come out in support of the compromise is a criticism that is beyond reason. (I suppose, if you are actually consistent in your criticism, do you also oppose the President when he had every living secretary of state from both parties came out to support the ratification of the START treaty?)

    People who criticize everything the President does reminds me of the evil stepmother who criticizes everything the step child does while not being critical of her own children who do the same thing. Sooner or later, the step child begins to think that it is not their actions that the stepmother despises but rather the child themselves. (No offense to all the wonderful stepmothers out there that do not conform to this stereotype promoted in popular children’s literature. )

    Benjamin Franklin told a story of a father and young son traveling down the road with a donkey. At first, the father road the donkey and the son walked. People criticized the father for being cruel to his son. So the father placed his son on the donkey and he walked. People criticized the son for his laziness and disrespect shown to his father. Then, both the son and father walked. People criticized them both for being foolish. What is the use of having a donkey if you’re not going to put it to use? So then the father threw the donkey off the bridge.

    It seems to me that people will have more credibility in their political discourse when they are more selective in their criticisms, when they criticize the actions or policies rather than the people themselves. Also, in the interest of fairness and in-depth analysis, one should consider the options available to our politicians before criticizing their decisions. In the debate over the compromise with the Republicans, I’m afraid that many of my fellow Democrats just want the President to throw the donkey off the bridge.

  • Tom Hering

    What the Democrats got was short term. What the Republicans got was longer term – and it strengthens the probability that Wealth Care will become permanent. How is that a genuine compromise? Add to this the fact that the House Democrats were left out of the negotiations, as well as the fact that the President slammed his base, and it’s no wonder he’s losing friends.

    trotk @ 29, the President is a careful speaker. So by contrast with his predecessor, he seems like a good speaker.

  • Tom Hering

    What the Democrats got was short term. What the Republicans got was longer term – and it strengthens the probability that Wealth Care will become permanent. How is that a genuine compromise? Add to this the fact that the House Democrats were left out of the negotiations, as well as the fact that the President slammed his base, and it’s no wonder he’s losing friends.

    trotk @ 29, the President is a careful speaker. So by contrast with his predecessor, he seems like a good speaker.

  • Porcell

    Jimmy, I agree that one needs to be selective in criticizing presidents or other leaders. In the case of Obama, he has done well managing the Afghanistan War, except for announcing times certain to pull the troops out. He, also, pocked an excellent secretary of education who is working well on improving schools.

    However, on balance he went into the job with little executive experience and less high-level policy making experience. In a basically center-right country, he, working with Pelosi and Reid, lurched left, especially with health-care, and managed to alienate many independents; recently he failed to make a careful effort to bring his base along with the compromise on the issue of raising taxes.

    Trotk, I would say that Obama is articulate and speaks well in terms of campaign rhetoric; that’s partly why he won the election, though he hasn’t made the transition to speaking well as a governing statesman. He does have a wicked tendency to hold his head high and display a sneering attitude.

  • Porcell

    Jimmy, I agree that one needs to be selective in criticizing presidents or other leaders. In the case of Obama, he has done well managing the Afghanistan War, except for announcing times certain to pull the troops out. He, also, pocked an excellent secretary of education who is working well on improving schools.

    However, on balance he went into the job with little executive experience and less high-level policy making experience. In a basically center-right country, he, working with Pelosi and Reid, lurched left, especially with health-care, and managed to alienate many independents; recently he failed to make a careful effort to bring his base along with the compromise on the issue of raising taxes.

    Trotk, I would say that Obama is articulate and speaks well in terms of campaign rhetoric; that’s partly why he won the election, though he hasn’t made the transition to speaking well as a governing statesman. He does have a wicked tendency to hold his head high and display a sneering attitude.

  • Jimmy Veith

    To trotk: I actually wrote my comment @ 30 before I read your comment @29, and was not meant to be a response to your comment. I actually what you said was consistent with what I was trying to say. Although, you may be no fan of President Obama, you did not use it as a launching pad to criticize everything that he does. What I reject is the “analysis” employed by some which goes like this: I don’t like Obama. Obama does something. Therefore, I don’t like the thing Obama does.

    When I said @ 30 that: “It seems to me that people will have more credibility in their political discourse when they are more selective in their criticisms, when they criticize the actions or policies rather than the people themselves.”, I don’t mean to suggest that we should not express our opinion or assessment as to a politician’s judgment or ability. That is fair game. What I am trying to say is that a policy position should be assessed on its own merit as opposed to being rejected automatically by your opinion of the person who promotes it.

    I disagree with your assessment of Obama’s speaking ability. As many speeches or interviews that he has to give during the day, you can’t always expect him to be on his A game at all times. However, when he really needs to, I think he can hit it out of the park.

    When you say Obama’s speaking ability “puts you to sleep”, I think that is more of an expression of your personal taste in public speakers, and I don’t begrudge you for expressing that opinion. I could not argue with that any more than I could argue that oranges taste better than apples.

  • Jimmy Veith

    To trotk: I actually wrote my comment @ 30 before I read your comment @29, and was not meant to be a response to your comment. I actually what you said was consistent with what I was trying to say. Although, you may be no fan of President Obama, you did not use it as a launching pad to criticize everything that he does. What I reject is the “analysis” employed by some which goes like this: I don’t like Obama. Obama does something. Therefore, I don’t like the thing Obama does.

    When I said @ 30 that: “It seems to me that people will have more credibility in their political discourse when they are more selective in their criticisms, when they criticize the actions or policies rather than the people themselves.”, I don’t mean to suggest that we should not express our opinion or assessment as to a politician’s judgment or ability. That is fair game. What I am trying to say is that a policy position should be assessed on its own merit as opposed to being rejected automatically by your opinion of the person who promotes it.

    I disagree with your assessment of Obama’s speaking ability. As many speeches or interviews that he has to give during the day, you can’t always expect him to be on his A game at all times. However, when he really needs to, I think he can hit it out of the park.

    When you say Obama’s speaking ability “puts you to sleep”, I think that is more of an expression of your personal taste in public speakers, and I don’t begrudge you for expressing that opinion. I could not argue with that any more than I could argue that oranges taste better than apples.

  • http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/10/clinton-obama/ Carl Vehse

    A Freeper commenting on Obamateur’s FUBAR press debacle yesterday (Google now lists over 8,000 news articles on it):

    “It was entertaining watching two narcissists vie for the limelight at the podium yesterday. Of course one has to go away the loser.”

    Ironically, from a November 24, 2008, Iowahawk editorial, “Obama Names Bill Clinton to Presidential Post“:

    WASHINGTON DC – Ending weeks of speculation and rumors, President-Elect Barack Obama today named Bill Clinton to join his incoming administration as President of the United States, where he will head the federal government’s executive branch.

    “I am pleased that Bill Clinton has agreed to come out of retirement to head up this crucial post in my administration,” said Obama. “He brings a lifetime of previous executive experience as Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States, and has worked closely with most of the members of my Cabinet.”

    Clinton said he was “excited and honored” by the appointment, and would work “day and night” to defeat all the key policy objectives proposed by Mr. Obama during the campaign….

    Obama also announced that he had accepted his own appointment of himself as an Assistant Undersecretary in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    “It’s a fairly low-stress job that I’m reasonably qualified for,” said Obama. “I really can’t do much damage there, and it will give me plenty of free time for Oprah specials. Plus work on my next autobiography and re-election campaign.”

    Warning: The linked article includes a number of obscenities… beside BO, of course.

    As for Slick Willie, he was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for it.

  • http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/10/clinton-obama/ Carl Vehse

    A Freeper commenting on Obamateur’s FUBAR press debacle yesterday (Google now lists over 8,000 news articles on it):

    “It was entertaining watching two narcissists vie for the limelight at the podium yesterday. Of course one has to go away the loser.”

    Ironically, from a November 24, 2008, Iowahawk editorial, “Obama Names Bill Clinton to Presidential Post“:

    WASHINGTON DC – Ending weeks of speculation and rumors, President-Elect Barack Obama today named Bill Clinton to join his incoming administration as President of the United States, where he will head the federal government’s executive branch.

    “I am pleased that Bill Clinton has agreed to come out of retirement to head up this crucial post in my administration,” said Obama. “He brings a lifetime of previous executive experience as Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States, and has worked closely with most of the members of my Cabinet.”

    Clinton said he was “excited and honored” by the appointment, and would work “day and night” to defeat all the key policy objectives proposed by Mr. Obama during the campaign….

    Obama also announced that he had accepted his own appointment of himself as an Assistant Undersecretary in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    “It’s a fairly low-stress job that I’m reasonably qualified for,” said Obama. “I really can’t do much damage there, and it will give me plenty of free time for Oprah specials. Plus work on my next autobiography and re-election campaign.”

    Warning: The linked article includes a number of obscenities… beside BO, of course.

    As for Slick Willie, he was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for it.

  • Jimmy Veith

    To Porcell @32, thanks for agreeing with me, in part. (I will take anything I can get.)

    However, you wrote the following phrase for which I would like to respond: “ In a basically center-right country, he, working with Pelosi and Reid, lurched left, especially with health-care, …”.

    My question is: Why should every politician and every political issue (for example, health care), be placed somewhere on a political spectrum of left, right, center, etc.? Likewise, why should every politician and every political issue receive a label as being liberal, moderate or conservative? Please understand that I am not being critical, because I do this myself, and even my big brother “Dr. Veith”, (who is the smartest person I know) did this at the beginning of the blog when he stated: “I give President Obama credit, though. If he governs to the center, I’ll support that!”

    I submit that the language we use in politics of left vs. right, or liberal vs. conservative, often sheds more heat than light. Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking. Does anyone agree with me?

  • Jimmy Veith

    To Porcell @32, thanks for agreeing with me, in part. (I will take anything I can get.)

    However, you wrote the following phrase for which I would like to respond: “ In a basically center-right country, he, working with Pelosi and Reid, lurched left, especially with health-care, …”.

    My question is: Why should every politician and every political issue (for example, health care), be placed somewhere on a political spectrum of left, right, center, etc.? Likewise, why should every politician and every political issue receive a label as being liberal, moderate or conservative? Please understand that I am not being critical, because I do this myself, and even my big brother “Dr. Veith”, (who is the smartest person I know) did this at the beginning of the blog when he stated: “I give President Obama credit, though. If he governs to the center, I’ll support that!”

    I submit that the language we use in politics of left vs. right, or liberal vs. conservative, often sheds more heat than light. Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking. Does anyone agree with me?

  • trotk

    Jimmy, I thoroughly agree with your last paragraph. This is why I refuse to label myself or the issues that matter to me on that spectrum. I want the merits of the various issues (or people) to be what we discuss, instead of reacting without thinking because of where they fall on some superficial spectrum.

    As for Obama’s speaking, you are right that I am giving my perspective, but the part that annoys me to a degree is that he is lauded so much as a speaker, and yet the content of his speeches rarely seems to be more than stock phrases and the delivery always follows the same awkward staccato rhythm, regardless of audience or content. I just don’t get what is so impressive, even in the best speeches.
    In the best speeches, it seems that the crowds are hungry for the things that his stock phrases seem to address, and so the people respond, in spite of the fact that the content is lacking.
    There is no greater example in my mind than “yes, we can!” and”change.” What is the content?

    I don’t intend to pick on Obama’s speaking and ignore the other presidents who have been vacuous or poor speakers. I also recognize that the ability to write or give a speech is not the primary responsibility, nor should it be, of a president.

    And I also know that I am a subjective creature who responds differently to things than others might.

  • trotk

    Jimmy, I thoroughly agree with your last paragraph. This is why I refuse to label myself or the issues that matter to me on that spectrum. I want the merits of the various issues (or people) to be what we discuss, instead of reacting without thinking because of where they fall on some superficial spectrum.

    As for Obama’s speaking, you are right that I am giving my perspective, but the part that annoys me to a degree is that he is lauded so much as a speaker, and yet the content of his speeches rarely seems to be more than stock phrases and the delivery always follows the same awkward staccato rhythm, regardless of audience or content. I just don’t get what is so impressive, even in the best speeches.
    In the best speeches, it seems that the crowds are hungry for the things that his stock phrases seem to address, and so the people respond, in spite of the fact that the content is lacking.
    There is no greater example in my mind than “yes, we can!” and”change.” What is the content?

    I don’t intend to pick on Obama’s speaking and ignore the other presidents who have been vacuous or poor speakers. I also recognize that the ability to write or give a speech is not the primary responsibility, nor should it be, of a president.

    And I also know that I am a subjective creature who responds differently to things than others might.

  • Porcell

    Jimmy, in an ideal world political people would address problems as objectively as possible without regard to party labels. However, in the real world people are broadly categorized as liberals, conservatives, and independents.

    Gallup in a 2010 poll asking people to identify themselves found that 42% were conservatives, 20% liberals, and 35% independents. Judging from this, in my view it is fair to broadly regard the country as center- right. That is why the health-care bill that pleased liberals went down badly with most of the rest, causing a political eruption from the center-right in the recent election.

  • Porcell

    Jimmy, in an ideal world political people would address problems as objectively as possible without regard to party labels. However, in the real world people are broadly categorized as liberals, conservatives, and independents.

    Gallup in a 2010 poll asking people to identify themselves found that 42% were conservatives, 20% liberals, and 35% independents. Judging from this, in my view it is fair to broadly regard the country as center- right. That is why the health-care bill that pleased liberals went down badly with most of the rest, causing a political eruption from the center-right in the recent election.

  • Jimmy Veith

    The question is not what people think about the health care bill, because I think we can all agree that there was a great deal of misinformation about it. Should my opinion be shaped by the misinformed?

    The question is whether labeling Obama’s health care reform as “liberal” is useful in determine whether or not it is likely to work.

  • Jimmy Veith

    The question is not what people think about the health care bill, because I think we can all agree that there was a great deal of misinformation about it. Should my opinion be shaped by the misinformed?

    The question is whether labeling Obama’s health care reform as “liberal” is useful in determine whether or not it is likely to work.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    Obama’s speaking style has always been extremely annoying to me. It seems like he takes elements of yuppie American English and black preacher diction and he combines them into something that’s sing-songy, preachy and ambivalent.

    I actually like Bill Clinton’s speaking style so it’s not a political bias.

    I wish Obama was a tolerable speaker as I’d like to listen to his State of the Union shows instead of putting the closed captioning on.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    Obama’s speaking style has always been extremely annoying to me. It seems like he takes elements of yuppie American English and black preacher diction and he combines them into something that’s sing-songy, preachy and ambivalent.

    I actually like Bill Clinton’s speaking style so it’s not a political bias.

    I wish Obama was a tolerable speaker as I’d like to listen to his State of the Union shows instead of putting the closed captioning on.

  • Porcell

    Jimmy, from what I know of the hard-nosed fiscal projections of ObamaCare, it can be fairly regarded as yet another unsustainable liberal spending program.

    Better to follow Ryan’s Roadmap that opens up medical insurance nationally and provides fixed subsidies to the poor and disabled that they can take to the insurance market; this, also, gives them an incentive to take good physical care of themselves. In my view able bodied people are not “entitled” to healthcare through the government.

  • Porcell

    Jimmy, from what I know of the hard-nosed fiscal projections of ObamaCare, it can be fairly regarded as yet another unsustainable liberal spending program.

    Better to follow Ryan’s Roadmap that opens up medical insurance nationally and provides fixed subsidies to the poor and disabled that they can take to the insurance market; this, also, gives them an incentive to take good physical care of themselves. In my view able bodied people are not “entitled” to healthcare through the government.

  • Jimmy Veith

    The question is not what people think about the health care bill, because I think we can all agree that there was a great deal of misinformation about it. Should my opinion be shaped by the misinformed?

    The question is whether labeling Obama’s health care reform as “liberal” is useful in determining whether or not it is likely to work.

  • Jimmy Veith

    The question is not what people think about the health care bill, because I think we can all agree that there was a great deal of misinformation about it. Should my opinion be shaped by the misinformed?

    The question is whether labeling Obama’s health care reform as “liberal” is useful in determining whether or not it is likely to work.

  • Jimmy Veith

    Oops. I accidentally posted the same comment twice in a feeble attempt to correct my grammar.

  • Jimmy Veith

    Oops. I accidentally posted the same comment twice in a feeble attempt to correct my grammar.

  • Jimmy Veith

    Porcell @ 40. “… from what I know of the hard-nosed fiscal projections of ObamaCare, it can be fairly regarded as yet another unsustainable liberal spending program.”

    The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that health care reform will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

    I have never understood how allowing individuals to purchase insurance across state lines does anything to help solve the problem. It is likely that the large insurance companies would gravitate to the states that have little or no regulation, and could mass market policies that have little or no value. This would effectively end the ability of state insurance commissioners to regulate the industry. (I thought Republicans wanted greater states rights?)

    Would these nationally marketed insurance policies be regulated at all? For example, would they be allowed to deny coverage for individuals with a pre-existing condition? If so, what would prevent individuals from gaming the system by not purchasing any insurance until they get sick? If healthy people do not pay anything into the system, then premiums would skyrocket for everybody. If these national policies were allowed to deny coverage for individuals with a pre-existing condition, then how does this “solution” solve that problem? Or are you just going to reply that the policy of denying coverage for individuals with a pre-exisiting condition is not a problem that needs to be solved. That’s easy to say if you happen to be healthy.

  • Jimmy Veith

    Porcell @ 40. “… from what I know of the hard-nosed fiscal projections of ObamaCare, it can be fairly regarded as yet another unsustainable liberal spending program.”

    The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that health care reform will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

    I have never understood how allowing individuals to purchase insurance across state lines does anything to help solve the problem. It is likely that the large insurance companies would gravitate to the states that have little or no regulation, and could mass market policies that have little or no value. This would effectively end the ability of state insurance commissioners to regulate the industry. (I thought Republicans wanted greater states rights?)

    Would these nationally marketed insurance policies be regulated at all? For example, would they be allowed to deny coverage for individuals with a pre-existing condition? If so, what would prevent individuals from gaming the system by not purchasing any insurance until they get sick? If healthy people do not pay anything into the system, then premiums would skyrocket for everybody. If these national policies were allowed to deny coverage for individuals with a pre-existing condition, then how does this “solution” solve that problem? Or are you just going to reply that the policy of denying coverage for individuals with a pre-exisiting condition is not a problem that needs to be solved. That’s easy to say if you happen to be healthy.

  • Porcell

    Jimmy, the CBO is forced to use ObamaCare fiscal assumptions that are rather dubious. For an incisive article on this see Medicare Actuary Debunks ObamaCare “Savings” including:

    Medicare’s chief actuary Richard Foster has been a thorn in the side of both Republican and Democratic Presidents.

    …During the recent debate over ObamaCare in Congress, Foster issued a report stating that national healthcare spending would rise by $222 billion over the next 10 years if ObamaCare became law, noting also that if coverage were to begin immediately instead of in 2014, the spending increase would be much higher. He also pointed out that the new long-term care program, used to make the balance sheet look better in ObamaCare’s early years because it will collect premiums for five years before paying any benefits, would likely be bankrupt by 2025.

    Under the Ryan Roadmap, insurance companies would be required to accept those withe pre-existing conditions though if they are smokers or drinkers, or overweight, they would need to pay a premium.

    Any health-care insurance plan that allows unlimited access to physicians and hospitals on a fee for service basis, inevitably becomes much too costly. Health-care, like any other good or service requires market discipline, protestations of romantic liberals notwithstanding.

  • Porcell

    Jimmy, the CBO is forced to use ObamaCare fiscal assumptions that are rather dubious. For an incisive article on this see Medicare Actuary Debunks ObamaCare “Savings” including:

    Medicare’s chief actuary Richard Foster has been a thorn in the side of both Republican and Democratic Presidents.

    …During the recent debate over ObamaCare in Congress, Foster issued a report stating that national healthcare spending would rise by $222 billion over the next 10 years if ObamaCare became law, noting also that if coverage were to begin immediately instead of in 2014, the spending increase would be much higher. He also pointed out that the new long-term care program, used to make the balance sheet look better in ObamaCare’s early years because it will collect premiums for five years before paying any benefits, would likely be bankrupt by 2025.

    Under the Ryan Roadmap, insurance companies would be required to accept those withe pre-existing conditions though if they are smokers or drinkers, or overweight, they would need to pay a premium.

    Any health-care insurance plan that allows unlimited access to physicians and hospitals on a fee for service basis, inevitably becomes much too costly. Health-care, like any other good or service requires market discipline, protestations of romantic liberals notwithstanding.

  • Jimmy Veith

    The fact that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated a net reduction in federal deficits as a result of health care reform was given to refute your assertion that “hard-nosed fiscal projections of ObamaCare, it can be fairly regarded as yet another unsustainable liberal spending program”. Obviously, one can always find economists that disagree with the conclusions of the CBO. Predicting the future is not an exact science, particularly with economists. I guess time will tell.

    I disagree that effective health care reform is somehow just a dream of “romantic liberals”. A comparative study of how other modern industrialized countries pay for health care reveals that they have managed to develop systems that are far more effective and far less expensive than the chaotic “system” that has evolved in this country. No methodology of paying for health care is perfect, and there are problems with every human institution. Even though the citizens of other countries may have their complaints, to the best of my knowledge there are no large groups that are saying: “Let’s pay health care like they do in the United States”.

  • Jimmy Veith

    The fact that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated a net reduction in federal deficits as a result of health care reform was given to refute your assertion that “hard-nosed fiscal projections of ObamaCare, it can be fairly regarded as yet another unsustainable liberal spending program”. Obviously, one can always find economists that disagree with the conclusions of the CBO. Predicting the future is not an exact science, particularly with economists. I guess time will tell.

    I disagree that effective health care reform is somehow just a dream of “romantic liberals”. A comparative study of how other modern industrialized countries pay for health care reveals that they have managed to develop systems that are far more effective and far less expensive than the chaotic “system” that has evolved in this country. No methodology of paying for health care is perfect, and there are problems with every human institution. Even though the citizens of other countries may have their complaints, to the best of my knowledge there are no large groups that are saying: “Let’s pay health care like they do in the United States”.

  • Porcell

    Jimmy, this fellow, Foster, is not a mere academic economist; he lies in the heart of the federal government as the chief Medicare actuary.

  • Porcell

    Jimmy, this fellow, Foster, is not a mere academic economist; he lies in the heart of the federal government as the chief Medicare actuary.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X