Economist Endorses Obama

[CA Dolfan]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I have to admit that i was surprised by that.

In a nutshell they admitted they werent happy with Obama, but were worried that Romney would pander to the increasingly radical elements of the Republican Party.

The Economist loves Keynesian economics but that aside they'll have egg on their face if Obama is reelected he'll have the EPA come down hard on coal etc. and we'll see high energy prices and a stagnate economy.

[jared81]

Yet another publication that supported Obama in 2008 now supporting Romney. So much for some of the bs I've read on this thread.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[trojanma]

We do not have a public option because Obama and Baucus took it off the table. This has been discussed SEVERAL TIMES stemming from the huffington post coming up with an internal memo from the white house exposing Obama for the fraud he is.

It shows his back room deals with both health insurance, and big pharm protecting their non importation price point. It also shows a very classy move by Obama on infusion drugs...yep, he really looks out for the little guy. My brother in law has MS and relies on infusions to live basically. He was cut off earlier this year, but was too embarrassed to tell anyone for almost three months because of a problem with him being under insured. I know it is just me, but i feel Obama is nothing more than a corporate whore, and have a problem understanding how in the world he still has so much support.

This was brought into the forum back when we had objective participants, not a bunch of cheerleaders like now, and this person was an Obama supporter, finataxia.

Hell, we have such a bunch of losers here now (including me) we didn't even get a 4/20 post from finataxia, and i always loved those.

I have posted this link so many times to try and stop the spreading of bull ship but it just goes on, and i give up. If you want to see it, google internal white house memo huff post, and can we please stop about the no public option because of the republicans, when Obama is OWNED by big pharm, and the health insurance industry.

In fact, if i could guess what republican health care reform would look like, it would look exactly like Obamacare, just switch tort reform (lawyers don't pay them enough) with pre existing conditions.

To round it out, assuming the huff post article is true (i certainly believe it) I am then supposed to believe this man wanted a public option???

You cannot believe ANYTHING a politician says, it is mostly pandering now a days, you HAVE to go by their actions, and his actions say that republicans didn't have ANYTHING to do with us not having a public option.

To say that Obama/Baucus took the public option off the table because they are slaves of corporations is being disingenuous.

The Insurance Consortium and Big Pharma are the two biggest power brokers in healthcare BY FAR!

The Public Option was an anathema to both of them. They would have poured resources into destroying it and no one can even come close to their resources.
Why?
With the Insurance Consortium the fear is obvious.
The Public Option would have forced them to tighten up all those hidden profits that are mislabeled as admin costs.

Big Pharma was fearful as well.
All providers(Insurance Companies, the VA, Medicare, etc) negotiate drug costs and more importantly preferred drugs with Pharma.
A public option would create the single largest negotiator that could dictate terms to pharma because there was always the threat of shutting a drug out.

The fact that the ACA/Obamacare has been so messy shows why it will be near impossible to pass meaningful healthcare reform. Once the political sausage making gets into a bill it is ruined.
Obama backed down and went the pragmatic way not the radical way. Just like he went with the banks.

[phinfan3411]

To say that Obama/Baucus took the public option off the table because they are slaves of corporations is being disingenuous.

The Insurance Consortium and Big Pharma are the two biggest power brokers in healthcare BY FAR!

The Public Option was an anathema to both of them. They would have poured resources into destroying it and no one can even come close to their resources.
Why?
With the Insurance Consortium the fear is obvious.
The Public Option would have forced them to tighten up all those hidden profits that are mislabeled as admin costs.

Big Pharma was fearful as well.
All providers(Insurance Companies, the VA, Medicare, etc) negotiate drug costs and more importantly preferred drugs with Pharma.
A public option would create the single largest negotiator that could dictate terms to pharma because there was always the threat of shutting a drug out.

The fact that the ACA/Obamacare has been so messy shows why it will be near impossible to pass meaningful healthcare reform. Once the political sausage making gets into a bill it is ruined.
Obama backed down and went the pragmatic way not the radical way. Just like he went with the banks.

Disingenuous my hind parts, what else would you have called it?

What was his campaign rally cry? Same? or was it Change?

Thank you for telling me how powerful the lobbying groups I mentioned were, what an absolutely pathetic argument.

Looking at this your way, I guess I have a different feeling about all of our leaders up until now, I mean they may have had to go against powerful lobbying groups to get things done.

[phinfan3411]

This just in, we can no longer blame Bush for the war in the middle east, after all he was up against the lobbyists for the military industrial complex, and we all know how powerful they are.

I can no longer blame our corrupt politicians for not joining George Miller in his quest to stop allowing the financial industry to steal money from our 401k's. After all, they would have to fight the financial industry's lobbyists, and we all know how powerful they are...

My god, i miss the members of the 2008 forum too.

[spydertl79]

How can you not "believe" in Keynesian economics? I don't understand that wording... are you rejecting the basic notion of government stimulus as a means to slow an economic decline? Rejecting it as an efficient means of doing so? While I don't disagree that it is usually inefficient, the other side would be Hayek's utopian society... which is a pipe dream IMO.

Even Reagan brought the economy out of a recession using Keynesian principles (just moreso in the defense budget than infrastructure spending). Isn't that the guy that conservatives yearn for? This seems to be the strategy that Romney is moving towards although it's hard to make sense of his real views sometimes since they are constantly changing.

Here's a good article on Keynes vs. Hayek as it pertains to our modern day crisis, worth a read:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Spesh]

My god, i miss the members of the 2008 forum too.

This was brought into the forum back when we had objective participants, not a bunch of cheerleaders like now, and this person was an Obama supporter, finataxia.

Hell, we have such a bunch of losers here now (including me) we didn't even get a 4/20 post from finataxia, and i always loved those.

So, just to be clear: your perfectly happy with the 2012 forum and are very content with the points made from the posters? Gotcha.

If im somehow misreading that, feel free to correct my assumption. In every thread. Or every time a discussion occurs that you dont particularly appreciate. Or every single time a opinion is made that doesnt support the notion that third party is the way to go.

[phinfan3411]

So, just to be clear: your perfectly happy with the 2012 forum and are very content with the points made from the posters? Gotcha.

If im somehow misreading that, feel free to correct my assumption. In every thread. Or every time a discussion occurs that you dont particularly appreciate. Or every single time a opinion is made that doesnt support the notion that third party is the way to go.

So, just to be clear, you are onboard with the fact that using the republicans as the reason we do not have a public option is a complete farce? Gotcha.

The 2008 forum was brought up by another poster, and yes I agree with him. You know, i do not even mind the people that are honest about what they are, I mean James openly states he believes in socialism, I do not say a thing to him (usually) if only to give him a nod of respect. The support that Obama receives on this forum while we have a bunch of stated independents, or Gary Johnson supporters is truly baffling...just be honest about who you support.

You know, like whenever a right winger brings up something negative on Obama, i guess you tend to stay away from those threads?

I can show you how in a recent thread I came to Obama's defense when that right winger was way off, but that does not follow with your argument, so we will just forget that. Gotcha.

Edit to add: What the heck will a third party fix? You think I believe the insertion of a third party will fix all of our woes? A third party candidate can just as easily become a corporate whore as one from the two main parties. Partisanship is a real factor in our decline.

We need to stop supporting politicians and parties that give their financial supporters their ear more than their constituents. Also, when we have a Presidential candidate that is willing to get on board with public financing for federal candidates, i feel they should poll better than 4-5%?

[Spesh]

So, just to be clear, you are onboard with the fact that using the republicans as the reason we do not have a public option is a complete farce? Gotcha.

The 2008 forum was brought up by another poster, and yes I agree with him. You know, i do not even mind the people that are honest about what they are, I mean James openly states he believes in socialism, I do not say a thing to him (usually) if only to give him a nod of respect. The support that Obama receives on this forum while we have a bunch of stated independents, or Gary Johnson supporters is truly baffling...just be honest about who you support.

You know, like whenever a right winger brings up something negative on Obama, i guess you tend to stay away from those threads?

I can show you how in a recent thread I came to Obama's defense when that right winger was way off, but that does not follow with your argument, so we will just forget that. Gotcha.

Edit to add: What the heck will a third party fix? You think I believe the insertion of a third party will fix all of our woes? A third party candidate can just as easily become a corporate whore as one from the two main parties. Partisanship is a real factor in our decline.

We need to stop supporting politicians and parties that give their financial supporters their ear more than their constituents. Also, when we have a Presidential candidate that is willing to get on board with public financing for federal candidates, i feel they should poll better than 4-5%?

I specifically stated i wasnt going to dig through and fight about every example or every single case or anything of the such, this was not the thread to do so in. It was probably my fault, i should know better by now that Obamacare cant be mentioned at all without people flipping out.

The point i was making is: your posts almost always mention how you yearn for the "good ole days" and you directly or indirectly insult anyone who wasnt posting then. This time it was calling everyone cheerleaders and losers. Your quickly becoming "that guy". Everyone has experienced "that guy" in their life, the guy that sits at the end of the bar and bemoans how great everything used to be and complains how everything now sucks. Sometimes they talk about how they would have gone all pro had they not suffered a sprained ankle in highschool and lost their girlfriend. And no one likes that guy. Not a soul.

Fact is, had you read past the second sentence of my post, you could see how i mentioned it was alarming for either party to do this, i just focused on Republicans because they are the ones currently using filibuster as a crutch. I also pointed out that if someone wanted to make a thread concerning how Harry Reid used similar tactics under Bush, id probably agree with them though it was not nearly as bad. I will not be defending my post again on this thread just because you clearly didnt read it. Its a waste of time for me. I can bring a horse to water, but i cant make it drink.

Oh, and finally no one talked about the "2008 forum". Other then you. All mentions of 4 years ago were refering to our politicians or the political atmosphere. You're the one that changed that to mean this forum. Which brings us full circle to the point i was making. If this forum no longer meets your literary standards, stop reading it. If you want this forum to return to the way it was, go create a forum and send those posters invites. If you dont like the points i make or the posts i make, please put me and anyone else on ignore.

[phinfan3411]

Obama tried to work with Republicans countless times. He was more then willing to bend over, which is why, for example, we do not have a public option in Obamacare despite the fact he "shoved it down their throats". Obama spent most of 2011 working with Boehner...only for Boehner to walk away. Republican candidates ran entire campaigns on the promise of "no compromise!!!", im certain everyone here has seen the video of McConnell declaring its their job to make sure Obama is a one term president. Im not going to go through every single instance or case(this is not the thread for that), but to say Obama and the liberals refused to work with conservatives is simply untrue.

Im not going to even touch to "traditional American values" thing, thats to laughable. For someone like me, with our history of overcoming discrimination, Republican positions of equal pay for women and gay rights are anti-American values. I often find that those who use that line(Michele Bachmann comes to mind) cant define what "American values" are.

What is beyond dispute is the numbers. Since Republicans have taken over filibusters have shot through the roof. You cant tell me that "they were just protecting American(!!) values" and Obama had 400 bad ideas....especially since a chunk of that 400 came before he was even elected. I dont even think he was a candidate when those numbers started pilling up.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you wanted to make a thread about how Reid and company filibustered under Bush, id probably agree. They did it and the rate was higher then it was previously. But numbers alone show that Republicans, in all to typical fashion these days, reacted vindictively and in a kneejerk way. The numbers just skyrocketed. They got shut down a few times under Bush, Obama spoke mean about them a few times after winning the presidency, some rich people were presented as villians in the publics eyes: so Democrats had to pay...no matter how sensible the bill they are blocking is. And thats wrong. Thats not governing. No matter how mean Obama was to them or how bad the idea he presented them was, it was conservative politicians job to work through it and build compromises. Instead, they shut it down or banked on the Supreme Court to do their jobs for them.

Much like it says in the link i presented, its sets a dangerous precedence for both parties if this blackmail is rewarded. Its not beyond imagining that the minority will only try and sabotage the majority and refuse to compromise about anything. That is not beyond imagining because weve just lived through it.

I read it again, and again I will question your attempt to blame no public option on the republicans.

Do the republicans want a public option? No. To blame them in this particular circumstance is disingenuous at best, as I pointed out in my previous post.

You will see I countered your other claim in the other thread I brought back up.

As for your suggestion about what to do because of the people that post here, well, I will just wait and let nature take its course. During Bush's second term a huge portion of his supporters left, or changed screen names when it became obviously apparent his two terms were a complete failure, call it a hunch, I see the exact same thing happening again.

Of course you will say you are not going anywhere, but most will, I guess we will see if I'm right.