RCP: Obama's Hard Choices for Other People

[nonniey]

Obama's Hard Choices for Other People

By Jeremy Lott

At the recent G20 summit, President Barack Obama announced that next year he would “start presenting some very difficult choices to the country,” and hoped that “these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt” would “step-up.” In any event, he was “calling their bluff.” The world would soon find out how much of the deficit talk is “real” and how much is “just politics.”

Warnings of the Coming Austerity have been a staple of Obama's rhetoric for some time. In a debate with John McCain, Obama promised to go through the federal budget “line by line” and take a “scalpel” to spending. The president-elect met in December 2008 with the nation's governors and warned them that a nation facing “difficult times” would have to make “hard choices.”

Last year, as he was pushing a huge stimulus package, the president called for his Cabinet departments to collectively cut $100 million out of their appropriation requests to Congress. This year, even as he was pushing his expensive healthcare bill, Obama also called for a spending freeze of much discretionary spending.

Obama may speak of tough choices but he has been remarkably unwilling to make them, or to force his close allies to do so. Democrats structured the stimulus bill to help prop up public employee unions and Obama continues to plead for more stimulus. The president angrily lashed out at automobile debt holders, including state pension funds, that complained he was giving the United Auto Workers a sweetheart deal.

Obama could have shelved his expensive healthcare reform in these tough economic times, focused on real job creation, and tried again in a second term, on the back of a recovery. Instead, he used a variety of accounting tricks to make his healthcare reform look affordable and used the brute power of the presidency to push it through. He's currently scolding private insurance companies for hiking their premiums to account for greater risk – risk caused by his reforms.

Make no mistake, Obama is right when he says that he inherited an awful economy from President George W. Bush. However, his reaction to this at the time was not to make “difficult choices” to restore the nation to fiscal sanity. Instead, he intentionally made the situation almost immeasurably worse.

..............

Click Link for rest of Article.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/07/obamas_hard_choices_for_other_people_106220.html

[SnyderShrugged]

while I'd agree that he made things even worse (economically) than and that he inherited a mess to begin with, I don't agree with the last line of the posting that claims he intentionally made things worse.

Personally, I think the President had good intentions but was way off base in the impact of his policies. It's the flaw in most of his ilk. Good people, bad ideas.

[NewCliche21]

while I'd agree that he made things even worse (economically) than and that he inherited a mess to begin with, I don't agree with the last line of the posting that claims he intentionally made things worse.

Personally, I think the President had good intentions but was way off base in the impact of his policies. It's the flaw in most of his ilk. Good people, bad ideas.

Your last line is a pretty reasonable assessment, even if I don't fully agree. I'm a massive Obama supporter if you couldn't tell already, but even Joe Gibbs called some bad plays.

I think that, in the long run, Obama's policies have set a trajectory for economic improvement or at least the prevention of further damage.

Here's how I see the health care reform: a seatbelt, airbag, and crumpling front end. The economy was already crashing, and while seatbelts, airbags, and those crumpling front ends of cars can cause damage and make the scene look pretty bad, it's impossible to imagine how bad it would be without them. You still see the mangled wreck and the driver/passengers with broken bones and lacerations due to the aforementioned safety devices, so it makes you think, "Those seat belts could've taken his head off!", but you'll never realize how lucky they were to have those devices in the long run.

A weird analogy, I know, but it's the best that I can do at 8:30.

[pointyfootball]

At the recent G20 summit, President Barack Obama announced that next year he would “start presenting some very difficult choices to the country,” and hoped that “these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt” would “step-up.” In any event, he was “calling their bluff.” The world would soon find out how much of the deficit talk is “real” and how much is “just politics.”

I personally believe that many working-level people have already made "difficult choices" in their personal lives wrt to finances. I do believe that people are fine with tightening their belt, but I question whether or not Congress & White House would actually approach the budget with the intention to significantly slash spending "across the board". Voters, for whatever reason, tend to punish politicians that reduce $ and/or services coming to their constituients and/or raise taxes, even if it was necessary.

I would be impressed if Obama proposed, and used his political might to help see it through, a % cut in spending in all areas of federal budget. Not just in DoD, or NASA, etc, but in ALL areas. This would send the message that every area of government needs to reduce spending. Never happen, but it should.

[NewCliche21]

I personally believe that many working-level people have already made "difficult choices" in their personal lives wrt to finances. I do believe that people are fine with tightening their belt, but I question whether or not Congress & White House would actually approach the budget with the intention to significantly slash spending "across the board". Voters, for whatever reason, tend to punish politicians that reduce $ and/or services coming to their constituients and/or raise taxes, even if it was necessary.

I would be impressed if Obama proposed, and used his political might to help see it through, a % cut in spending in all areas of federal budget. Not just in DoD, or NASA, etc, but in ALL areas. This would send the message that every area of government needs to reduce spending. Never happen, but it should.

I see where you're going, and I think that it's a good idea, but I think that we just need to spend money more effectively. I can't find the post that I'm looking for, but I gave an example of instead of paying $480 to get a child home, the state of Maryland is paying $10,000 to keep him in care (when he should be going home by that point). Let me get that child home, get him stable, get him a diploma, and get him a job. That'll save you maybe a third of a million dollars over his lifetime PLUS give you tax revenue. But nope, not going to happen, because your dumbass state government only cares about FY 2011 instead of looking down the road.

And we thought Snyder circa 2000 was bad?

We don't need to cut spending; we need to use the money more effectively and it will come back to us hundreds-fold.

[aREDSKIN]

Instead, he intentionally made the situation almost immeasurably worse.

..............

Click Link for rest of Article.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/07/obamas_hard_choices_for_other_people_106220.html

I agree.

[Larry]

I see where you're going, and I think that it's a good idea, but I think that we just need to spend money more effectively. I can't find the post that I'm looking for, but I gave an example of instead of paying $480 to get a child home, the state of Maryland is paying $10,000 to keep him in care (when he should be going home by that point). Let me get that child home, get him stable, get him a diploma, and get him a job. That'll save you maybe a third of a million dollars over his lifetime PLUS give you tax revenue. But nope, not going to happen, because your dumbass state government only cares about FY 2011 instead of looking down the road.

Insert figures on how much drug treatment costs vs costs of criminalization.

[Larry]

I personally believe that many working-level people have already made "difficult choices" in their personal lives wrt to finances. I do believe that people are fine with tightening their belt, but I question whether or not Congress & White House would actually approach the budget with the intention to significantly slash spending "across the board". Voters, for whatever reason, tend to punish politicians that reduce $ and/or services coming to their constituients and/or raise taxes, even if it was necessary.

Agreed that "NIMW" (Not In My Wallet) runs strong in politics.

Recall an executive once telling me a story about a powerful executive. Every morning, as he's putting on his tie, he looks in the mirror, and says:

"Today, I'm going to make 10 decisions.

"Six of them are going to be right, and 4 of them are going to be wrong.

"And, some time, down the road, I'm going to get my behind chewed for 2 of the wrong ones, and 2 of the right ones."

The Party that does What Needs To Be Done is going to be punished heavily, for doing what's good for the nation. (And the Party that didn't do what's good for the nation will make certain to extract the maximum possible rewards for themselves.)

[NewCliche21]

Insert figures on how much drug treatment costs vs costs of criminalization.

Drug treatment, depending on outpatient versus inpatient, can range in the thousands to a little into five figures, but criminalization, depending on the crime, its affects on its victims (have to factor in their losses, insurance coverages, loss in productivity, mental and physical health costs, etc.), the juridstiction, and other figures, can reasonbly cost into the high six-, if not seven-, figures.

[Ax]

Well, he has tried to protect his party by using the oft used, recess appointment, of medical socialism advocate, Dr. Donald Berwick to head rationing, er um, implementation, of Medicare/Medicaid cuts.

Of course, he cites those pesky Republicans as the reason for the end around. However, a partially working brain can figure out that even his own party would balk at confirming this guy, with his socialist advocacy views, right before the fall elections. They're already perceived to be in deep doodoo, (we can only hope) come November. No way in hell the Dems would confirm him.

So, our fearless leader made the "easy choice", so his party wouldn't have to make the "hard choice".

[NewCliche21]

Well, he has tried to protect his party by using the oft used, recess appointment, of medical socialism advocate, Dr. Donald Berwick to head rationing, er um, implementation, of Medicare/Medicaid cuts.

Of course, he cites those pesky Republicans as the reason for the end around. However, a partially working brain can figure out that even his own party would balk at confirming this guy, with his socialist advocacy views, right before the fall elections. They're already perceived to be in deep doodoo, (we can only hope) come November. No way in hell the Dems would confirm him.

So, our fearless leader made the "easy choice", so his party wouldn't have to make the "hard choice".

I hate that "rationing" BS. There is a finite amount of time and money. Everything is "rationed" if you want to put it that way.

It'd be nice if we didn't derail the thread into another pot of the same crap arguments on both sides.

[Thiebear]

President Obama is pushing through what he can in an election year.

Using the standard Rhetoric necessary with little teeth.

I would state the Pushing of the Healthcare used up all the favors...

The Recess appointment was crap though till you at least TRY and push them through.

[aREDSKIN]

Well, he has tried to protect his party by using the oft used, recess appointment, of medical socialism advocate, Dr. Donald Berwick to head rationing, er um, implementation, of Medicare/Medicaid cuts.

.

I guess Dr. Mengele was not available. Is this the precursor to the "death panels" everyone was talking about?? Head of "rationing". Oh my.

[Jeeb]

Well, he has tried to protect his party by using the oft used, recess appointment, of medical socialism advocate, Dr. Donald Berwick to head rationing, er um, implementation, of Medicare/Medicaid cuts.

Of course, he cites those pesky Republicans as the reason for the end around. However, a partially working brain can figure out that even his own party would balk at confirming this guy, with his socialist advocacy views, right before the fall elections. They're already perceived to be in deep doodoo, (we can only hope) come November. No way in hell the Dems would confirm him.

So, our fearless leader made the "easy choice", so his party wouldn't have to make the "hard choice".

Please name any system in which rationing does not occur.

[Ax]

I hate that "rationing" BS. There is a finite amount of time and money. Everything is "rationed" if you want to put it that way.

It'd be nice if we didn't derail the thread into another pot of the same crap arguments on both sides.

I realize that rationing already takes place. But, I'm not alone in thinking that it's going to get much worse under the President's Healthcare Cluster**** Plan.

I also don't see where a thread titled, "Obama's Hard Choices for Other People", was so out of place to suggest he made it possible for other people to make, no choice, since it would cost them politically, therefore making his choice, easy.

You obviously disagree.

[Ax]

Please name any system in which rationing does not occur.

The sewer system?

I've acknowledged rationing already occurs in my last post.

[Thiebear]

I think rationing is a perfectly acceptable function in life to ensure we all get what we need.

Well, until its me.. then this it total Bull**** and we need to fix it!

In most societies rationing exists and then you pay more if you can to fix your relative/self.

Those that can't pay more depend on the charity of family/community/church/state/fed in that order hopefully.

outside of that: your ...............

[NewCliche21]

I realize that rationing already takes place. But, I'm not alone in thinking that it's going to get much worse under the President's Healthcare Cluster**** Plan.

I also don't see where a thread titled, "Obama's Hard Choices for Other People", was so out of place to suggest he made it possible for other people to make, no choice, since it would cost them politically, therefore making his choice, easy.

You obviously disagree.

Just don't turn it into "Obamacare will kill us all death panels OMG give everyone rations SOCIALISM!!!!!" arguments, because that's where it looked like you were heading, and still are.

There are already a ton of threads on that.

However, I do see your point about him making a hard choice, which it was. He wanted to reform health care, and he actually did it. Tough choice that cost HIM a lot and will save many, many lives. Doing the right thing in politics is always the wrong thing for your re-election.

[aREDSKIN]

Just don't turn it into "Obamacare will kill us all death panels OMG give everyone rations SOCIALISM!!!!!" arguments, because that's where it looked like you were heading, and still are.

There are already a ton of threads on that.

However, I do see your point about him making a hard choice, which it was. He wanted to reform health care, and he actually did it. Tough choice that cost HIM a lot and will save many, many lives. Doing the right thing in politics is always the wrong thing for your re-election.

If it's such a great thing for those "many, many" and society why do you argue it's "wrong" for his reelection chances??

[Larry]

Well, he has tried to protect his party by using the oft used, recess appointment, of medical socialism advocate, Dr. Donald Berwick to head rationing, er um, implementation, of Medicare/Medicaid cuts.

Of course, he cites those pesky Republicans as the reason for the end around. However, a partially working brain can figure out that even his own party would balk at confirming this guy, with his socialist advocacy views, right before the fall elections. They're already perceived to be in deep doodoo, (we can only hope) come November. No way in hell the Dems would confirm him.

So, our fearless leader made the "easy choice", so his party wouldn't have to make the "hard choice".

And as an example of how partisanship will attempt to punish politicians for doing What Needs To Be Done, I present the above example of the application of spin to "Obama attempts to slow the growth of Medicare/Medicaid".

[NewCliche21]

If it's such a great thing for those "many, many" and society why do you argue it's "wrong" for his reelection chances??

Because people don't understand its benefits in the long run. They look at the current deficit, not its long-term impact on America's health care, and ultimately, its ability to bring costs down.

Why do you think that every other president talked about it and never did anything? It's politically damaging.

Many, many people wanted us to not get involved in World Wars I & II at the time because they didn't know what the threat was. They found out, and now it's hard to find someone today who would argue against those wars because we see the results.

[Burgold]

I think the biggest problem has been that the Democrats even when they had a fillibuster proof majority have been spineless. They're so afraid of doing something wrong that they'll get blamed for... they're so desperate to create the illusion of bipartisanship so they can share the blame that they wind up being impotent or creating bad bills. The big problem with the Dems and perhaps Obama is that they lack testosterone. Sometimes, you just have to go out there and get it done. That was an admirable quality in Bush (although, he went too far with it).

By trying to please everyone and pissing off no one they've managed to piss off practically everyone and please no one. Sadly, it's a pretty predictable outcome.

[Redskins Diehard]

I think the biggest problem has been that the Democrats even when they had a fillibuster proof majority have been spineless. They're so afraid of doing something wrong that they'll get blamed for... they're so desperate to create the illusion of bipartisanship so they can share the blame that they wind up being impotent or creating bad bills. The big problem with the Dems and perhaps Obama is that they lack testosterone. Sometimes, you just have to go out there and get it done. That was an admirable quality in Bush (although, he went too far with it).

By trying to please everyone and pissing off no one they've managed to piss off practically everyone and please no one. Sadly, it's a pretty predictable outcome.

Exactly. I am not saying I agree with the Democrats policies on everything. But they should at least believe in them enough to enact them without the cover of bipartisanship. At least they should have while they could. I think they are much more comfortable in the "we would love to do it if the R's wouldn't filibuster position" than the "we are unstoppable and can accomplish ALL of our goals the way we have always wanted".

I do think the Republicans would be a little more comfortable in that position.

[81artmonk]

Personally, I think the President had good intentions but was way off base in the impact of his policies. It's the flaw in most of his ilk. Good people, bad ideas.

Just a question, his people, I would assume you mean democrats?

If that is correct than I'd have to take issue with that comment. Since the dems seem to make these type of moves or policies often through history, at what point do they become bad people and bad ideas for making these mistakes so often?

[Burgold]

Just a question, his people, I would assume you mean democrats?

If that is correct than I'd have to take issue with that comment. Since the dems seem to make these type of moves or policies often through history, at what point do they become bad people and bad ideas for making these mistakes so often?

Two thoughts in answer in this.

1) Well, historically, this nation has continued to grow and has emerged into the strongest nation in the world. So, if the Democrats keep repeating the same mistakes they sure seem benficial to the nation.

2) Might I point out that after every single Republican Administration we've had over the last 30 years we've landed in a recession and in economic distress?