Obama: I'm a bad leader but Americans are stupid

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
“I think that’s a fair argument. I think that, over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that, we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn’t just legislation. That it’s a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone,” Mr. Obama told 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft in an exclusive interview set to air Sunday.

“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”
 
Only time will tell if the accomplishment(so far) is worth the losses.
We'll see if Republicans can reverse Obamacare.
 
Only time will tell if the accomplishment(so far) is worth the losses.
We'll see if Republicans can reverse Obamacare.
At the very least, they can stop his radical America destroying agenda for now.
 
Only time will tell if the accomplishment(so far) is worth the losses.
No, we can tell that already. We can let history and experience be our guide- SO LONG as you recognize what has been "accomplished" so far.

We'll see if Republicans can reverse Obamacare.
At best, we can hope they can contain that 2500+ page bill.
 
No, we can tell that already. We can let history and experience be our guide- SO LONG as you recognize what has been "accomplished" so far.


At best, we can hope they can contain that 2500+ page bill.

I meant if the political cost to Obama was worth Obamacare.
I don't know how you can see ahead for that going by the past.

The public may like Obamacare when they get some experience of it.

When universal healthcare was brought in in Canada the doctors went on strike but that didn't stop it from becoming the law of the land.
 
I meant if the political cost to Obama was worth Obamacare.
I don't know how you can see ahead for that going by the past.

The public may like Obamacare when they get some experience of it.

When universal healthcare was brought in in Canada the doctors went on strike but that didn't stop it from becoming the law of the land.
Your anecdote doesn't support your theory. I'm sure Canadians are thrilled with their high taxes and long waiting lines. :rolleyes:

By the way, insurance premiums are already going up in this country. How is that good? Obama promised we could keep our coverage and that premiums wouldn't go up. He lied. Any response to that?
 
All politics is a joke...regardless of what party.
 
All politics is a joke...regardless of what party.

Perhaps. But government and governing philosophies are critically important and impact every aspect of our lives- increasingly so as the federal government continues to expand and engage in catastrophic economic policy.
 
.

When universal healthcare was brought in in Canada the doctors went on strike but that didn't stop it from becoming the law of the land.

First of all, Canadian healthcare is complete garbage. I lived it for 11 years. I had 3 relatives die due to having to wait on a "list" for surgeries that are easily obtainable in the US. Actually, you don't even want to get me started on how Canada's healthcare is complete crap.

And with our healthcare, now, is going down. My mother (about to retire) has been getting healthcare through her school district for years. Just starting this year, they are taking out $100 per month. $0 to $100 is a big difference.
 
Well I'm not really defending Obamacare or socialized medicine per se here.
I'm sorry to hear about your relatives.

It will probably cost a lot to cover 40-50 million more people.

I grew up in Canada and am blessed with good health such that I didn't see a doctor for 24 years until I fell off a roof and was only very sore but decided to have myself checked out anyways.
My brother was treated for cancer in Canada 14 years ago and made a full recovery.

Both systems are capricious in different ways in that some will live while others die.

My point is that governments bring in policies for which they get defeated by the voters but the policy lives on as an accomplishment.
The government pays a political price so the policy may live.
In the euphoria of the election results this point may be forgotten.
 
Both systems are capricious in different ways in that some will live while others die.
Everybody dies. But at least let's keep a country where faceless government bureaucrats don't make those decisions, k?
 
Both systems are capricious in different ways in that some will live while others die.

Neither system is perfect but that hardly makes them equivalent.

Under one system more people will suffer and die unnecessarily then under the other, especially in the long run.
 
Canada has a higher life expectancy than the US as do many of the countries with socialized medicine

and you attribute that to the healthcare system?

That is a bit of a logical leap.

...life expectancy is a poor measure of a health care system. Life expectancies are affected by exogenous factors such as violent crime, poverty, obesity, tobacco and drug use, and other issues unrelated to health care. As the OECD explains, "It is difficult to estimate the relative contribution of the numerous non-medical and medical factors that might affect variations in life expectancy across countries and over time." Consider the nearly three year disparity in life expectancy between Utah (78.7 years) and Nevada (75.9 years), despite the fact that the have essentially the same health care systems. In fact, these exogenous factors are so distorting that if you correct for homicides and accidents, the U.S. rises to the top of the list for life expectancy.​
 
IMO, healthcare is a luxury, it should not be givien to anybody, it should be earned. This country is giving too much away, I am afraid to see the next generation. I have been working towards retirement since I was 14, I have had my own health since I was 17. My dad has always told me "dont worry about the pay, make sure you have good health insurance." We all know that one day we are going to retire, if we fail to plan, we plan to fail. I hope they repeal this "healthcare" bullcrap!
 
Democrats didn't lose the battle of 2010. They won it.

By William Saletan
Posted Friday, Nov. 5, 2010, at 8:19 AM ET

http://www.slate.com/id/2273708/

Democrats have lost the House, and health care is getting the blame. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a retiring Democrat, says his party "overreached by focusing on health care rather than job creation" and by spending $1 trillion on "a major entitlement expansion." Sen. John McCain's economic adviser agrees. Pundits say the health care bill killed President Obama's approval ratings, cost congressional Democrats their jobs, and snuffed out the legacy of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Virtually every House Democrat from a swing district who took a gamble by voting for the health law made a bad political bet," says the New York Times. The Los Angeles Times laments that "the measure of a leader in Washington isn't how much gets done, it's who holds power in the end. On that scale, Pelosi failed."
I'm not buying the autopsy or the obituary. In the national exit poll, voters were split on health care. Unemployment is at nearly 10 percent. Democrats lost a lot of seats that were never really theirs, and those who voted against the bill lost at a higher rate than did those who voted for it. But if health care did cost the party its majority, so what? The bill was more important than the election.
I realize that sounds crazy. We've become so obsessed with who wins or loses in politics that we've forgotten what the winning and losing are about. Partisans fixate on punishing their enemies in the next campaign. Reporters, in the name of objectivity, refuse to judge anything but the Election Day score card. Politicians rationalize their self-preservation by imagining themselves as dynasty builders. They think this is the big picture.
They're wrong. The big picture isn't about winning or keeping power. It's about using it. I've made this argument before, but David Frum, the former speechwriter to President Bush, has made it better. In March, when Democrats secured enough votes to pass the bill, he castigated fellow conservatives who looked forward to punishing Pelosi and President Obama "with a big win in the November 2010 elections." Frum observed:
Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. … No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage?

Exactly. A party that loses a House seat can win it back two years later, as Republicans just proved. But a party that loses a legislative fight against a middle-class health care entitlement never restores the old order. Pretty soon, Republicans will be claiming the program as their own. Indeed, one of their favorite arguments against this year's health care bill was that it would cut funding for Medicare. Now they're pledging to rescind those cuts. In 30 years, they'll be accusing Democrats of defunding Obamacare.

Most bills aren't more important than elections. This one was. Take it from Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader. Yesterday, in his election victory speech at the Heritage Foundation, he declared, "Health care was the worst piece of legislation that's passed during my time in the Senate." McConnell has been in the Senate for 26 years. He understands the bill's significance: It's a huge structural change in the relationship between the public, the economy, and the government.

Politicians have tried and failed for decades to enact universal health care. This time, they succeeded. In 2008, Democrats won the presidency and both houses of Congress, and by the thinnest of margins, they rammed a bill through. They weren't going to get another opportunity for a very long time. It cost them their majority, and it was worth it.And that's not counting financial regulation, economic stimulus, college lending reform, and all the other bills that became law under Pelosi. So spare me the tears and gloating about her so-called failure. If John Boehner is speaker of the House for the next 20 years, he'll be lucky to match her achievements.

Will Republicans revisit health care? Sure. Will they enact some changes to the program? Yes, and Democrats will help them. Every program needs revisions. Republicans will get other things, too: business tax breaks, education reform, more nuclear power, and a crackdown on earmarks. These are issues on which both parties can agree. Which is why, if you're a Democrat, you deal with them after you've lost your majority—not before.

It's funny, in a twisted way, to read all the post-election complaints that Democrats lost because they thought only of themselves. Even the chief operating officer of the party's leading think tank, the Center for American Progress, says Obama failed to convince Americans "that he knows their jobs are as important as his." That's too bad, because Obama, Pelosi, and their congressional allies proved just the opposite. They risked their jobs—and in many cases lost them—to pass the health care bill. The elections were a painful defeat, and you can argue that the bill was misguided. But Democrats didn't lose the most important battle of 2010. They won it.



__________________________________________________________

Like I said, Obamacare lives even as the voters speak.
 
I know on thing that we might try. Let's see if we can tweak it and make it work.

You can't polish a turd.

This bill is rooted in untried and failed idea's policies and worldviews. If we were going to take the approach of tweaking and making it work we should start with something that is proven to work (even if not perfectly), not with something that is untried, is rooted in flawed ideas that have been shown NOT to work and unquestionably IGNORES economic reality.

We should have taken the approach of tweaking the (then) current system and making it work. However, to apply that argument now is disingenuous and foolish. Radical change FORCED on society should NOT be tolerated.

This is much bigger then the healthcare system or even the economy as a whole. This is about the rule of law and arbitrary power. This bill was FORCED on society against the clear will of the people, something that has NEVER been done in this country before and is reminiscent of the way a third world dictatorship works. For those reasons ALONE, this bill should be repealed in the name of protecting the Rule Of Law.

The whole argument of "tweaking and making work" is rooted in the writings of Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism. However, to apply that argument to Obamacare is emaciate and bastardize the argument in the name of political opportunism and political expediency. Burke's argument is that you START with what has been proven to work and slowly modify THAT. It is an argument AGAINST radical change to UNPROVEN means, not for it.
 
Democrats in denial

PH2010110507655.jpg

President Obama speaks at a conference at the White House last month. (Joshua Roberts)








GEORGE F. WILL
Sunday, November 7, 2010


When Alexander Pope was on his deathbed, his doctor assured him that his breathing, pulse and other vital signs were improving. "Here I am," Pope said to a friend, "dying of a hundred good symptoms."
Some Democrats read the election returns as symptoms of health because things could have been worse: "Happily, we have leprosy, not cholera." But embracing the fallacy of false alternatives is not a step toward recuperation. Neither is continuing the attitude that Democrats adopted when passing Obamacare and that foretold their unhappy election: "No compromise with the voters!"
For the second time in 24 months, Barack Obama has been at the epicenter of a historic election, this time with voters reconsidering the first one. For the third time in four years, they have emphatically complained. [URL="http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/2008/2008Stat.html"][URL="http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/2008/2008Stat.html"][URL="http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/2008/2008Stat.html"]Democrats gained a total of 54 House seats[/URL][/URL][/URL] in 2006 and 2008, but after Tuesday are in a net deficit over the past three cycles.
On Oct. 1, Nancy Pelosi, referring to Republicans, said, "I would rather be where we are than where they are." Now she is where they were - in the minority in the House. The Democrats' House caucus will be smaller and more homogenously liberal. Their Senate caucus will be leavened by one freshman who got there by strongly criticizing the defining aspects of Obama's agenda (Joe Manchin of West Virginia) and another who endorsed an important part of George W. Bush's (Chris Coons of Delaware, who endorsed extension of all the Bush tax cuts).

When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had 40 or 41 senators in his caucus, he usually had 40 or 41 votes when he felt he urgently needed them. Beginning in January, with at least 46 senators, he will always have 41 votes when he really wants them.
So, speculation about whether Obama will "change course" is surreal. Whether or not he adheres to his agenda of relentless expansion of government (e.g., cap-and-trade) and promiscuous rewards for Democratic constituencies (e.g., trying to stimulate the economy with trickle-down government spending that sustains unionized public employees), remember: The iceberg was indifferent to the Titanic's course. And now, possessing House committee gavels and subpoena power, Republican chairmen will be able to limit Obama's ability to use the "permanent government" - the bureaucracy - to accomplish through regulation what he cannot achieve through legislation.
Congressional supremacy was the Framers' preference and expectation: The Constitution's Article I concerns the legislative branch. As Georgetown University's George Carey notes, the Framers "regarded Congress as the mainspring of the constitutional system." It "possesses virtually all the powers delegated to the national government" and "can 'discipline' the other branches through its impeachment and removal powers." But the protean power of the modern presidency, combined with Congress's often invertebrate nature, means that, as John Boehner said Tuesday, "It's the president who sets the agenda for our government."

~snip~
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top