• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will doing “big things” cost Obama?

Will doing “big things” cost Obama?


  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
“There are always costs in doing big things.” — President Barack Obama

Will doing “big things” cost Obama?

Excerpted from “Voters' anxiety clouds Obama's historic successes” By Susan Page and Mimi Hall, USA TODAY, Updated 8h 7m ago
Big problems. Big achievements. Big costs.
[SIZE="+2"]H[/SIZE]istorians say President Obama's legislative record during a crisis-ridden presidency already puts him in a league with such consequential presidents as Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt. But polls show voters aren't totally on board with his achievements, at least not yet, and the White House acknowledges that his victories have carried huge financial and political costs. …
 
To echo the president, “There are always costs in doing big things.”
 
It depends on the "big thing". If the big thing is highly popular, probably not. Bush the first couple years after 9/11, doing big things was a benefit. Over time, those big things where a detriment.

I think in the case of the big things Obama is doing, it will cost him, as what he is doing is not horribly popular currently.
 
The "big things" Obama is trying to do is pass major legislation while he still has a Democrat majority in the House and Senate that will approve of his ideology. He's trying to ram unpopular legislation (like bail outs and the healthcare bill) while he still can and before the American people are allowed to vote some of the Democrats out. Doing "big things" will cost him dearly, not only for trying to screw the American people, but for spending tons of money on things we don't want in the first place.
 
“There are always costs in doing big things.” — President Barack Obama

Will doing “big things” cost Obama?

In my personal opinion, his big things will in the future be looked at as idealistic but moronic.

Just like the other "big" things, from the past, that haven't ended up working well.
 
Perhaps, perhaps not. But sometimes doing "big things" is WORTH the political sacrifice that must be made.
 
Bigger isn't always better. I wonder if Greece was happy with the "big things" they did before their recent fiscal catastrophe.
 
I just want to say, that any poll that includes an option for disagreeing with the premise is an outstanding, respectful, well-thought out poll.
 
Perhaps, perhaps not. But sometimes doing "big things" is WORTH the political sacrifice that must be made.

With 56% of the voters in this country in favor of the repeal of his health care reform bill, that political sacrifice will probable take a very big chunk out of his ass.

Can you say “political suicide” for the democrats that voted for it?
 
With 56% of the voters in this country in favor of the repeal of his health care reform bill, that political sacrifice will probable take a very big chunk out of his ass.

Can you say “political suicide” for the democrats that voted for it?

See my previous post. Sometimes doing big things (health care being a great example) is WORTH the political cost. I know some people struggle with the concept of judging policies by their merits rather than their political ramifications, but give it a try sometime. ;)
 
Last edited:
See my previous post.
Saw it, replied to it...... did you miss that?
Sometimes doing big things (health care being a great example) is WORTH the political cost. I know some people struggle with the concept of judging policies by their merits rather than their political ramifications, but give it a try sometime. ;)

The political ramification most likely will be a Republican house, Senate, and Presidency in 2013...... and the repeal of the health care bill, and believe me, that will be the drum beat of the Republicans for the next 3 years.

How's that for "political ramifications"?

I mean really, if 56% of the voters want this abortion repealed, what kind of merits can it have?
 
Saw it, replied to it...... did you miss that?

Generally when you reply to something, you should at least try to understand what it is you're replying to. If I can type the same thing again in response, then clearly you didn't understand it the first time.

Crunch said:
The political ramification most likely will be a Republican house, Senate, and Presidency in 2013...... and the repeal of the health care bill, and believe me, that will be the drum beat of the Republicans for the next 3 years.

How's that for "political ramifications"?

In order to repeal the bill, one of two things will need to happen: Either the Republicans get a majority in the House, 60 senators, and the White House in 2013 (AND make a concerted push to repeal it)...or they get a 2/3 majority in the House and 67 senators without the White House (AND make a concerted push to repeal it). Neither of those situations seems particularly plausible given the current composition of our government.

Speculating about the political climate in 2013 is just silly. So much could happen between now and then. And why would I believe you that that will be the drumbeat of Republicans for the next 3 years? You have no way of knowing what issues will be important to voters in 3 years. Just look back to 2007 for evidence of that...the most important issues on the table were the war in Iraq and immigration reform. Now those are both minor issues at best.

Crunch said:
I mean really, if 56% of the voters want this abortion repealed, what kind of merits can it have?

So you believe that anything supported by a majority of the voters is a good policy, and anything opposed by a majority of the voters is a bad policy? That is a shockingly simple-minded view of public policy.
 
Last edited:
Generally when you reply to something, you should at least try to understand what it is you're replying to. If I can type the same thing again in response, then clearly you didn't understand it the first time.
See my post above. :roll:
In order to repeal the bill, one of two things will need to happen: Either the Republicans get a majority in the House, 60 senators, and the White House in 2013 (AND make a concerted push to repeal it)...or they get a 2/3 majority in the House and 67 senators without the White House (AND make a concerted push to repeal it). Neither of those situations seems particularly plausible given the current composition of our government.
Have you forgotten about "reconciliation"? You can bet your ass the Republicans haven't.
Speculating about the political climate in 2013 is just silly. So much could happen between now and then. And why would I believe you that that will be the drumbeat of Republicans for the next 3 years? You have no way of knowing what issues will be important to voters in 3 years. Just look back to 2007 for evidence of that...the most important issues on the table were the war in Iraq and immigration reform. Now those are both minor issues at best.

You seem to be over looking the fact that the voters didn't want this health care bill in the first place, and are pissed that it was stuffed down their throat. I'm pretty sure they won't be forgetting it in the near future..... also take a look at the recent election results, and long term dems that have dropped out of politics..... the dems are so screwed. :mrgreen:
So you believe that anything supported by a majority of the voters is a good policy, and anything opposed by a majority of the voters is a bad policy? That is a shockingly simple-minded view of public policy.

The 56% figure was to support the fact that the American public thinks it's bad policy........ you know, THE BOSS DON'T LIKE IT!!! That by definition in our society makes it bad policy. It also points to a blood bath this November and the de-funding of this POS.
 
I should clarify, I think in the short term Obama will pay a cost; but, health care reform and the other “big things” are here to stay and in the long term Obama will be rewarded politically. Obama has altered the course of this country for the better.
 
Have you forgotten about "reconciliation"? You can bet your ass the Republicans haven't.

Under current Senate rules, reconciliation can only be used on things that affect the budget. So while it might theoretically be possible to repeal some individual parts of the health care bill through reconciliation (assuming the Republicans control the House AND the Senate AND the White House AND made a unified push to repeal those parts of the bill through reconciliation...all before the bill takes effect), a wholesale repeal of the bill will not be possible through reconciliation since it affects non-budgetary items. Now, I'm all for an open discussion on whether the reconciliation rules should be changed, but under the present rules what you are suggesting isn't possible.

Crunch said:
You seem to be over looking the fact that the voters didn't want this health care bill in the first place, and are pissed that it was stuffed down their throat.

The Democrats campaigned on health care in 2006 and 2008, and won both times. If the American people didn't like the result, they should've voted for someone else.

Crunch said:
I'm pretty sure they won't be forgetting it in the near future..... also take a look at the recent election results, and long term dems that have dropped out of politics..... the dems are so screwed. :mrgreen:

Despite the fact that I've already posted my view TWICE, you seem to be laboring under the false assumption that I find a short-term political loss to be an unacceptable consequence for the passage of health care reform. If the Republicans take back Congress in 2010 partially due to health care reform, that's OK. It was worth it.

Crunch said:
The 56% figure was to support the fact that the American public thinks it's bad policy........ you know, THE BOSS DON'T LIKE IT!!! That by definition in our society makes it bad policy.

No it doesn't. Policies should be judged on their merits, not what a majority of the electorate thinks at any given moment. Your completely unprincipled view that politicians should always give the people whatever they want is both simple-minded and unethical.

Crunch said:
It also points to a blood bath this November and the de-funding of this POS.

De-funding the health care bill isn't going to happen. Most of it is funded through new mandatory entitlement spending, rather than discretionary spending. They might be able to cut the funding for little bits and pieces of the bill if they really want to, but they aren't going to be able to defund anywhere close to the entire thing.
 
Last edited:
De-funding the health care bill isn't going to happen. Most of it is funded through new mandatory entitlement spending, rather than discretionary spending. They might be able to cut the funding for little bits and pieces of the bill if they really want to, but they aren't going to be able to defund anywhere close to the entire thing.

Add Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) to the roster of Republicans hedging a bit on whether the party can repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Petri said Republicans don’t have to repeal the health care plan. They could effectively quash it by refusing to fund the initiatives as each one comes before Congress for authorization.

“The president can’t spend money unless it’s appropriated by the Congress,” he said.

GOP Rep: We Can De-Fund Health Care Reform Instead of Repealing It The Washington Independent

Over at the Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, Jordan Fabian is reporting that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), one of the earliest and most vocal advocates of repealing the health care reform law, is now backing a new plan “that he says would allow the Republicans to avoid a presidential veto while negating the effects of a new healthcare law.” “The 2008 GOP presidential nominee backed a plan that would strip funding from the healthcare law, which he says would not take an override to a veto to accomplish”:

“When I say repeal, people say you’re not going to be able to do it,” he said on KQTH FM Radio. “I am confident we will get majorities in both houses in the fall. And that means the power of the purse…If we cut off the money, it doesn’t take an override to a veto.”

Wonk Room Will Republicans Be Able To Defund Health Care Reform?

Thursday, March 25, 2010
Boehner (R) Promises to Defund HealthCare Law if Republicans Take The House

Berman Post: Boehner (R) Promises to Defund HealthCare Law if Republicans Take The House



Need I go on?.... there are 41, 297 more hits if you would like to read them.
 

I'm well aware of what Republican congressmen are SAYING they might do if they're elected. Most of that is pre-election posturing, not a serious legislative strategy. But let's examine how our government works to see what they are ACTUALLY capable of doing: Most of the health care bill is mandatory spending, not discretionary spending. That means that the Republicans cannot simply choose to not allocate the funds. They would have to pass a bill repealing the mandatory spending. As long as Barack Obama is president, that is simply not going to happen.

One of your own links confirms this:
As Fabian notes, “Eliminating funds for the health law would likely be done through the appropriations process in Congress, but it is unclear how Republicans would accomplish their goal by sidestepping a veto. Under the constitution, the president has the right to veto any bill that is passed by Congress.” Indeed, it’s also unclear how much damage the Republicans could actually do, since most of the reform legislation is funded through mandatory spending, which is harder for Congress to control than discretionary spending.
 
Last edited:
I'm well aware of what Republican congressmen are SAYING they might do if they're elected. Most of that is pre-election posturing, not a serious legislative strategy. But let's examine how our government works to see what they are ACTUALLY capable of doing: Most of the health care bill is mandatory spending, not discretionary spending. That means that the Republicans cannot simply choose to not allocate the funds. They would have to pass a bill repealing the mandatory spending. As long as Barack Obama is president, that is simply not going to happen.

One of your own links confirms this:

Brooke Buchanan, a McCain spokesperson told The Hill that the move would be done using "fencing language" in an appropriations bill that would get rid of the health bill funding.


But under the constitution, the president has the right to veto any bill that is passed by Congress. Yet, Buchanan said that placing the language in a large spending bill would force Obama to veto the entire legislation, suggesting that the president would rather not take that action.

McCain: GOP hopes to sidestep veto in repeal efforts - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Do you really think that political shenanigans can only be pulled by the democrats? Where there is a will, there is a way…. Especially if that is what is wanted by a majority of the voters….. 56% as of last poll.

You really should learn to recognize when you are defeated.
 

OK, first of all, why don't you examine your source: A senator who is up for reelection in November and is currently involved in a primary against a challenger from the right. Not exactly an unbiased source of information about what is politically possible. Of course he's going to talk about how they're going to repeal the bill. That doesn't make the plan any more realistic.

What part of what I said do you disagree with? Are you disputing that most of the health care bill is MANDATORY spending rather than discretionary spending? Or are you disputing that Congress can't simply deny funding for mandatory expenditures?

Crunch said:
Do you really think that political shenanigans can only be pulled by the democrats?

Not at all, I'm saying that in this particular case the political shenanigans to which you are referring simply will not work. Congress can't just decide they aren't going to fund mandatory spending (which is why it's called mandatory spending). They would have to repeal the bill authorizing the mandatory spending.

Crunch said:
You really should learn to recognize when you are defeated.

:rofl
Yep, less than two months after the most sweeping health care reform in 45 years became the law of the land, obviously *I* need to recognize when I'm defeated. :lol:

I'm merely pointing out the reality of how our government works: You cannot defund mandatory spending without repealing the legislation. If you find that reality irritating, don't blame me, blame the way our spending rules are set up. So hopefully I've established that (with the exception of a few small pieces of the legislation) it would need to be repealed rather than defunded. And hopefully it's clear to you that it won't be repealed after the 2010 election. But maybe you're holding out hope for 2012, the last election before the bill takes effect. So let's consider what would have to happen for the bill to be repealed after the 2012 election:

1. Republicans would need to win the White House
2. Republicans would need a majority in the House of Representatives
3. Republicans would need 60 votes in the Senate (if they wanted to repeal the entire bill)
4. Republicans would need to make a unified push to repeal the legislation

Now let's think about these four requirements, one at a time.

1. Only once in the past 100 years has a party been booted out of the White House after a single term (that honor goes to Jimmy Carter). So while it's not impossible for a Republican candidate to defeat Obama in 2012, I think it's fair to say that the odds are against it given historical patterns.
2. This seems plausible to me, although by no means a certainty.
3. This is simply not going to happen. The Republicans currently control 41 Senate seats. That means they would need a 19-seat swing in two election cycles. The Democrats will only be defending 40 seats over the next two election cycles. Do you honestly believe that the Republicans can snag nearly HALF of the seats that the Democrats are defending? Even under the best circumstances for the Republicans, this is a fantasy.
4. Even if, implausibly, all of the first three things occurred...the Republicans would have to make a major push to repeal the legislation, and keep most or all of their members on board. This would involve at least as much work as it took the Democrats to pass the bill in the first place.


So you can harbor your fantasies about the Republicans defunding the legislation (which they are legally not allowed to do) or repealing the legislation (which is almost politically impossible) if you want to. But now that health care reform has been signed into law, I'm not losing any sleep over the prospect of it not being implemented. ;)
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, perhaps not. But sometimes doing "big things" is WORTH the political sacrifice that must be made.

Exactly. Most politicians do the popular thing, dictated by the masses. But the point that politician was elected was to do what he though was right, and to think for himself, not worry about getting re-elected. If we could put in place limits on how many times any one person can run for an elected position, our government would benefit tremendously.

I think Obama is hurting his political image by doing the right thing rather then the popular thing, but he will stand out in history for doing so. Lincoln, and FDR are both great examples of other presidents who've done the right thing.

Lincoln, like Obama, suffered greatly from his actions, and he would have ben impeached as Johnson was if Booth hadn't shot him. Regardless of this, Lincoln is one of the greatest presidents we've ever had.

FDR was a lucky president. He managed to do the right thing, and the popular thing at the same time, and because of that, he was elected to the office of president a total of 4 times.
 
You bet!

Massive bailouts.

Unconstitutional socialist health care.

Cap and trade proposals.

Catastrophic multi-trillion dollar indebtedness.

Does anybody understand the price for treason?
 
I responded to the Poll questions with a 'YES', however on reflection I should have said 'NO'.
Why the change of mind?
Primarily because whatever this theoretical Marxist proposes and manages to ram through Congress will not cost him personally, anything.
He has never IMO thought of himself as being a 2 term President (although he may well run for a second term), certainly the results of his laws will in no way impact on him personally.
So NO it will not cost him.
 
You really should learn to recognize when you are defeated.

I see...much as you've recognized that all of your birther/truther nonsense was defeated and yet you (and a few others) persisted in your stance?

Look, Republicans can continue to rant about the health care bill and the deficit and a few other issues that the Obama Administration has dared to tackle, but the way I see it if any of these things were as important to the Republicans as they claim them to be they would have taken on reforming the major issues long ago, i.e., Social Security, restructuring Medicare, enforced immigration standards, reeling in high risk taking on Wall Street, found better ways to curb the dangers of off-shore drilling and put in place new alternative energy standards for this nation instead of allowing Big Oil to run amock!

I'm all for capitalism and the free enterprise system, but when the poor continue to get poorer and opportunities become so disporportionate few can afford to participate or some have to sacrafic between livelihood and life itself (health and well-being), it's no wonder this President still has a favorable approval rating despite what many may think of his policies.

The verdict is still out on how legistlation under the Obama presidency will reshape America, but from where I stand I think he's made steps in the right direction. I may not agree with everything he has done, but it's certainly alot more than what his predecessor did in all of his eight-years in office.
 
Back
Top Bottom