[climber]

Anyone who watched him today should be able to see it. The Dems, who have been walking around the decks of Titanic, are looking for the lifeboats now.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by climber 

Anyone who watched him today should be able to see it. The Dems, who have been walking around the decks of Titanic, are looking for the lifeboats now.

True, but it doesn't really matter much.

This is the beginning of an ushering in a new generation of how health care is paid for and how costs are controlled. It will be a struggle, but eventually, possibly under the next president and possibly even with an AHA replacement, we'll replace what we have now with something better, and Obama's legacy will be regarded as the start of this process.

As long as we eventually arrive at something better, I think people will eventually consider Obama's overall health care efforts a success in that he got the ball rolling that for years was not budging.

I'm happy that the ball is rolling.

[Shaddim]

This will all be repealed as soon as he leaves office. Hopefully the next attempt will be better conceived, no matter who does it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This will all be repealed as soon as he leaves office. Hopefully the next attempt will be better conceived, no matter who does it.

It could also be amended, significantly or otherwise.

[climber]

He also just laid the groundwork for a future president to essentially gut the law by Executive fiat.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It could also be amended, significantly or otherwise.

It'll leave such a negative impression in most people's minds, I think they'll scrap it entirely, if for no other reason than to remove the name "Obamacare". However, I do think they'll use it as a springboard to deliver better HC reform legislation, it's an awfully expensive object lesson on how NOT to pass laws that call for sweeping changes in such an important industry, and how to roll them out, but I don't believe it'll be a complete loss. I'm hoping for a type of single-payer system for the poorest of Americans to be included, even if it's only for children in families who live below the poverty line.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by climber 

He also just laid the groundwork for a future president to essentially gut the law by Executive fiat.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It'll leave such a negative impression in most people's minds, I think they'll scrap it entirely, if for no other reason than to remove the name "Obamacare". However, I do think they'll use it as a springboard to deliver better HC reform legislation, it's an awfully expensive object lesson on how NOT to pass laws that call for sweeping changes in such an important industry, and how to roll them out, but I don't believe it'll be a complete loss. I'm hoping for a type of single-payer system for the poorest of Americans to be included, even if it's only for children in families who live below the poverty line.

I met with a physician today who had a pretty interesting perspective on health care. He didn't seem to care as much about who funded our health care as he did about wanting to make the breakdown of our costs for procedures and visits transparent rather than opaque as they are now. I hope that there is more effort in the next version of health care legislation to do more in this regard, as whether we are paying for health care, the government is paying for it, or the tooth fairy is paying for it, it seems so easy to get away with unnecessary procedures at unnecessarily inflated costs that we can't make educated choices about or do appropriate research for.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

I think that is why the GOP has essentially not challenged Obama's illegal and outright unconstitutional delay of the employee mandates. They relish that much power when it's eventually their turn in the oval office.

Both sides are lying scum.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This will all be repealed as soon as he leaves office. Hopefully the next attempt will be better conceived, no matter who does it.

Speaking of "who does it", how would you feel about that person being Elizabeth Warren? There seem to be people making predictions that she'll get the nomination. It's WAAYYYY to early to be making predictions, I know, but can you see her being a factor?

[Shaddim]

Too far left of center, I don't think a Massachusetts senator can pull in enough swing states to win. They need someone like Loretta Sanchez, with a background in finance. She also has a decorated army colonel, now attorney, as a husband. She'd win in a walk.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Speaking of "who does it", how would you feel about that person being Elizabeth Warren? There seem to be people making predictions that she'll get the nomination. It's WAAYYYY to early to be making predictions, I know, but can you see her being a factor?

She might be a factor in the Primaries because she'll have to duke it out with the establishment darling; Hillary Clinton. But I think Warren is ultimately too close to Obama and he will become increasingly toxic. Warren's distinguished career will be another casualty of this Administration's folly.

[BadKosh]

All of Obamas accomplishments leave a bad taste in our mouths now. Its been scandal-deny-LIE-Scandal-Deny-LIE etc for 5 years. Even the most shallow and dim-witted liberals are coming around. When he hit the average citizens pocketbook they woke up. His snotty attitude in his recent press conferences/speeches has turned off many people, even in the lamestream media. All the lifeboats are gone off of the USS Barry, and the Democrats are hung out to dry. I'm surprised how fast this all happened.

[ebuddy]

There are essentially 7 measures of an effective President;

• Policy Leadership; this is how the President generally interacts with Congress. Obama has been abysmal here and has created more division between the aisles than ever imaginable under prior Administrations. The backdoor antics of his signature legislation and the means necessary to pass it along with his constant blaming and derision of the opposing party while offering to meet with them is shameless. He's led from behind on just about every policy decision he's attempted to make and his moistened finger in the air for political winds is not fast enough to keep apace with effective Executive leadership.
• Crisis Management; Obama's management of the BP oil disaster made Bush's response to Katrina look like a lesson in effective damage control. Not unlike his handling of the AP phone-tapping, IRS scandals, Fast and Furious, and Benghazi; this President couldn't possibly know less about more. The fundamental rule of crisis management? “tell it early, tell it all, tell it yourself” Well... in Obama's case this has traditionally been; "nothing to tell, I know nothing, I'm giving you a third of the story dishonestly, filing Executive Privilege on the rest, and I'll start by sending my goat-minions out to slaughter first".
• Presidential Appointments; Obama’s nominee to chair the National Intelligence Council, Chas Freeman, withdrew over questions about payments from the Saudi Arabian government, business ties to the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp., and negative statements he made about U.S. support for Israel. White House “Green Jobs” czar Van Jones resigned after a statement he signed in support of a 9/11 “Truther” group was revealed. Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) withdrew his nomination for Health and Human Services Secretary for tax evasion. 

Nancy Killefer, Obama's nominee for chief performance officer, withdrew for tax evasion. Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico) withdrew his nomination for Commerce Secretary because of campaign finance fraud. 

 Jonathan Z. Cannon, nominated for deputy director of the EPA, withdrew over questions about a defunct non-profit mismanaged $25 million in taxpayer funding. Jide Zeitlin, Obama’s nominee for U.S ambassador to the United Nations for management and reform withdrew his name over identity fraud and improper business practices. Erroll Southers, Obama’s nominee for director of the Travel Security Administration, withdrew after refusing to answer questions about collective bargaining and false testimony presented to Congress. Sebelius - fail. Rahm - fail. Geithner - fail, Eric Holder - fail...
• Foreign Standing; as of 2010, Obama's standing outranked Bush's considerably, but since the continued Drone Strikes, poor response to global economic woes, declining American clout, tapping and leaking resulting in the abject scorn of our most important allies, unprovoked military action in Libya, indecision and confusion around Syrian action requiring Putin's aid, and abysmal policy with Iran which will ultimately enable them a nuclear power... the last 3 years have destroyed the only possible hope for this President as a foreign policy wonk.
• Character and Integrity; Most of the American people believe the President outright lied to the public on aspects of the ACA. This combined with his shenanigans around Benghazi, NSA tapping, and the ACA have all taken their toll on our perception of the President. Per the latest Quinnipiac poll; Obama's approval rating has now sunk to George W. Bush's level in 2005 @ 39% and Obama is now underwater @ 52% of all voters claiming the President is not "honest and trustworthy.
• Public Persuasion; Obama blew his wad of political capital in his first term and has become the destroyer of distinguished careers. Obama is now toxic whose presence will not be requested in a single Democratic campaign in 2014.
• Presidential Vision; "fundamentally transform America". He certainly has. We're now less trustworthy, more indecisive, more intrusive, more expensive, more unhappy, more poor, and less powerful.

Barack Obama, worst President in US history.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I met with a physician today who had a pretty interesting perspective on health care. He didn't seem to care as much about who funded our health care as he did about wanting to make the breakdown of our costs for procedures and visits transparent rather than opaque as they are now..

That's the point I was trying to make: the current monopolistic structures allow total distortion of prices and cost.

The fix is actually not hard: when people spend their OWN money, they ask questions, compare services, weigh pros and cons. If you spend other people's money (which essentially is the case with using insurance), nobody cares about cost.

Can you see how insurance is a crucial problem in this equation ?
ACA, and even a single payer system will fix jack squat about that. You're still spending other people's money.

-t

[BadKosh]

But when you contribute to your own insurance along with your company (as part of your compensation) and don't use it, somebody else will, as this is how insurance works. Adding layers of gov't jack asses and state gov't jack asses is more money NOT going to actually pay for medical procedures, drugs etc. Lawyers also suck a lot of money away, and probably too much for what they do. The less people involved should make costs come down.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This will all be repealed as soon as he leaves office. Hopefully the next attempt will be better conceived, no matter who does it.

Funny, I was thinking that if an alternative was to be put forth, now is the time to do it. Right now, the population would be very interested in hearing some alternative proposals, and with the midterms coming up there would be a lot of scared Dems who would likely be quite agreeable to passing a more moderate or bipartisan proposal.

If your aim is to improve american healthcare, now is the time to make your move. Everybody is listening.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If your aim is to improve american healthcare, now is the time to make your move. Everybody is listening.

It's going to be tough with all those obstructive conservati....wait, no, sorry, wrong narrative.

You think Obama is going to let anything pass that doesn't include the parts that we're all so upset about? It'd be nice if we had a leader that was willing to reach across the isle but from the outset of that endeavor, this has not been the case.

We won't be able to do anything until he's out of office, and stops issuing executive orders to "fix" problems with the law.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It's going to be tough with all those obstructive conservati....wait, no, sorry, wrong narrative.

Don't sell the hardcore Rs short.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You think Obama is going to let anything pass that doesn't include the parts that we're all so upset about?

That hasn't stopped the House from repealing ACA like 47 times now? I think people would pay a little more attention if they started touting the replace portion of repeal and replace.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

We won't be able to do anything until he's out of office, and stops issuing executive orders to "fix" problems with the law.

I think Obama would be amenable to something that would improve his standing with the people and his legacy*

*if the Senate were to dissent from him

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Don't sell the hardcore Rs short.

I'm banking on it. This dude is incompetent as president to implement meaningful and productive healthcare reform.

That hasn't stopped the House from repealing ACA like 47 times now? I think people would pay a little more attention if they started touting the replace portion of repeal and replace.

Obama has already vowed to veto the bipartisan attempt to pass a law allowing people to keep their existing plans, and instead will "administratively fix" so that only some meet the requirement to get their old plan. You think he's going to allow further replacement of his namesake law?

I think Obama would be amenable to something that would improve his standing with the people and his legacy*

I'm not sure. The ACA is his party's crown jewel legislation meant to strengthen their position for decades to come. I doubt they'll give up the control they have with ACA that easily. Obama's handlers and cronies won't allow it unless the entire democratic party is in "open rebellion" against the administration like the Rs are now.

*if the Senate were to dissent from him

Yeah. Ok, I think we're on the same page here . I just think they'll still fight to implement it until things reach a boiling point. I just hope that's before the irreparable harm is too bad.

[besson3c]

You guys probably won't hear from me with your future anti-Obama rants.

What usually fuels me is a desire for reasonable statements. For example, any president that makes decisions that result in unnecessary wars where American lives are lost, whether this is Iraq, Vietnam, whatever generally leans harder towards the "worst president ever" title in my book, but at the end of the day making these arguments just feels like I'm defending Obama which I don't really have any interest in doing, and anything I say is not going to change anything anyway.

There is no argument from me that Obama has been highly ineffective.

[Shaddim]

So the continued war in Afghanistan, killing 100s of innocents each year, qualifies him for "worst ever" status too. We don't need to be there.

[climber]

Besson, Just out of curiosity do you consider any war the US has been in necessary? WWI, WWII, or even Kuwait?

[climber]

It also not as if Obama suddenly became less effective as a president the last month or so. It's that pretty much everyone has figured out who he really is and how bad he was all along.

[subego]

If you ignore the "social conservatism" angle, he really is as bad, if not worse than Bush.

[Shaddim]

It's easy to lock-down everything via legislation, or Executive orders, it's harder to fix the problems while still affording citizens their liberty. Like Bush, he's lazy and clumsy.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by climber 

Besson, Just out of curiosity do you consider any war the US has been in necessary? WWI, WWII, or even Kuwait?

The word "necessary" is somewhat subjective or at least ideological. I meant wars that were smart to wage and were strategically sound.

I don't really think Afghanistan was sound either.

[besson3c]

What I haven't decided is if it weren't for Obama's efforts whether we would be overhauling health care right now. This seemed like an issue many conservatives have not wanted to touch.

I honestly think this is the most important issue we've had to address in a very long time. Our whole economy is wrapped up in this issue. If there would be no changes on the horizon under a Republican or another Democrat presidency, I tip my hat to Obama. Of course, we'll never know what would have happened under a different presidency, so I think I will fall back on the precedent of crediting stuff that happens under a president's watch, whether their doing or not. Obama was probably in the right place at the right time when Bin Laden was captured, but he'll be credited for that.

IOW, I tip my hat to him for this reform process starting. I give him poor grades for his general ineffectiveness, his actions not lining up with his rhetoric, his poor record on our civil liberties/privacy, his inability (so far) to pass immigration reform, to complete the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not completely decided for what effect a president can have on job creation aside from legislative intervention such as the stimulus, and I'm also undecided on how much what we are seeing now is the product of a number of much larger changes in our country, its culture, globalization, the strength of our workforce/educational system, etc., but just as Obama can be credited for putting the health care reform train on the rails, it is also fair to criticize him for the poor employment numbers since they have occurred under his watch too. He's done seemingly nothing with stimulating alternative energy research and environmental stuff.

I guess I'm mostly cool with his reluctant but eventual cooperation with social liberal agendas, because I'm not into any social conservative stuff (making gay marriage illegal, blocking stem cell research, abortion, trying to empower religious institutions, etc.). He's been sort of a non-factor there, I guess. I like the fact that he is willing to admit mistakes, I always *hated* that about Bush.

That is my incomplete report card. He gets a failing grade.

[climber]

If I only rate presidents during my lifetime, I would list Bush as the second worst president, just behind Obama. Oddly I would list Clinton close to the top, even though I did not vote for him and I disagreed with many of his policies. I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal, anti federal government guy.

I think I have learned, that at least for me, a good president is not just someone who agrees with my political views, but someone who despite the divide finds common ground and champions solutions. That is someone who is a natural leader. The image of Obama created by the media promised that. The reality is a spiteful, arrogant, mediocre community organizer. I will give him this though he does have charisma, but then so did Reagan.

[climber]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The word "necessary" is somewhat subjective or at least ideological. I meant wars that were smart to wage and were strategically sound.

I don't really think Afghanistan was sound either.

I personally would look at the wars where we did not have a clear objective or a clear text strategy as being "unnecessary". Vietnam, Korea, Irag, Afganistan. In those wars it seems no matter the outcome on the battle field, we lose.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by climber 

If I only rate presidents during my lifetime, I would list Bush as the second worst president, just behind Obama. Oddly I would list Clinton close to the top, even though I did not vote for him and I disagreed with many of his policies. I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal, anti federal government guy.

I think I have learned, that at least for me, a good president is not just someone who agrees with my political views, but someone who despite the divide finds common ground and champions solutions. That is someone who is a natural leader. The image of Obama created by the media promised that. The reality is a spiteful, arrogant, mediocre community organizer. I will give him this though he does have charisma, but then so did Reagan.

I tend to think that maybe we focus too much on the presidency. Politics are not about left vs. right, they are about constructive vs. destructive, or monied interests vs. everybody else. There are so many players in this game, that if there are significantly more politicians that are far more destructive/invested in monied interests, you could elect Jesus as president and it won't really matter. You can't sweet talk or "lead" these people out of their agendas.

It didn't matter that Obama was elected rather than Romney or McCain, and it won't matter who wins the next election until we confront these issues in our politics, which are probably the very reason why you are an anti-federal government guy. I wouldn't go so far to say that it won't matter *at all*, but it won't matter as much as we obsess over every little utterance and fart from our presidents.

[besson3c]

As far as Obama's spending record, I don't generally go as apeshit about stuff as others do. The way I see it, our health care system is like having a house with a shaky foundation, a furnace that doesn't work, and a leaky roof. Wanting to cut back on other spending and/or doing the austerity thing is sort of like obsessing over the windows, doors, lawn, driveway, etc.

If our health care system wasn't what it is, our debt wouldn't be what it is. We are seeing the pains of what goes with changing a large and complicated system, and let's not kid ourselves, there would have been significant pains with any fathomable legislation that was passed, so it seems prudent to devote all of our resources into focusing on getting this right. It pisses me off that half of our government tried and failed to make this transition smooth while the other half invested themselves in stupid political theatre in trying to repeal the law 203948230948 times rather than working on something better to replace Obamacare.

As Dakar said, there is no better time than the present for Republicans and Democrats to put better solutions on the table.

[Shaddim]

At this point, I want Clinton back, and I don't care who's blowing him in the Oval office.

[BadKosh]

The ACA has caused a raise in almost all taxes/fines. The "Better Policies" as defined by the Democrats who made that mess are more expensive, have coverage which is unnecessary but drive the costs up, and has much higher deductibles. This has further reduced spending money for most Americans, which has softened the economic recovery. It has had the effect of cutting many americans jobs from 40 hours to around 25 a week, further damaging families, their savings (if they have any left) all while the Gov't waste is at an all time high, and with the first family pissing millions away on lavish vacations, in a seeming snotty rub it in our face style. Even the ignorant and shallow liberals are coming around to this fact.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As Dakar said, there is no better time than the present for Republicans and Democrats to put better solutions on the table.

How do you get that past Harry Reid, and "I'll Veto ANY house resolution" Obama? You need ADULTS in the room, not a snotty, immature thin-skinned president, and total obstructionist Reid.

Let them stew in all their knee-jerk decisions and poorly crafted legislation until 2014, and hammer the fact it was JUST DEMOCRATS who forced this POS legislation on the Americans which has caused all this turmoil, loss of money, insurance and jobs.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The ACA has caused a raise in almost all taxes/fines. The "Better Policies" as defined by the Democrats who made that mess are more expensive, have coverage which is unnecessary but drive the costs up, and has much higher deductibles.

Folks might miss this in their haste to blame the President exclusively for the ACA debacle. Once passed, there were scant few Democrats not willing to defend it all costs. They went about the country parroting the President's tag-line; "if you like your healthcare, you can keep it. Period" and they took every opportunity to make Republicans' principled opposition appear nothing more than obstructionist, hostage-taking, and trying to blow up the economy. Flash-forward just a few short weeks and now Democrats want blood to run from Obama's ears because he lied? Bullshit. They all lied. This isn't Obamacare, it's Demcare and there isn't a voter paying attention who doesn't see them now shamelessly trying to weasel out of the result of their legislative folly.

Notwithstanding the abuse Romney and the business community took for allegedly outsourcing. Our government has one opportunity to put their money where their mouth is and after nearly a billion dollars and 3.5 years into this joke... is there a single American company involved here?

The ACA will be the gift that keeps on giving. As we go further into next year the cancellations are going to mount. This most recent bandaid of Obama's will be coming to term next year on top of the Employer mandate which will make this recent run of cancellations look like good news for Demcare.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

At this point, I want Clinton back, and I don't care who's blowing him in the Oval office.

I'm still going with Bush. I can't think of too many things Bush and Clinton would've done differently other than the escapades in the Oval orifice and maybe fire-bombing a compound of US citizens.

[turtle777]

Anyone thinking that that Bush or Clinton would do the right thing today is seriously deceived.

They are first and foremost politicians. They will, just as Obama did, lie and deceive, and get their own taken care off first before the American people.

Sorry, folks, the sooner America realizes that the current system will just f$&@ them over, the earlier there will be a true uprising against the current "political" system.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Anyone thinking that that Bush or Clinton would do the right thing today is seriously deceived.

They are first and foremost politicians. They will, just as Obama did, lie and deceive, and get their own taken care off first before the American people.

Sorry, folks, the sooner America realizes that the current system will just f$&@ them over, the earlier there will be a true uprising against the current "political" system.

-t

I feel ya, but as political systems go, you'd likely not find what you're looking for anywhere on the globe and the chances of a Ron Paul (for example) running it would be even less likely than anyone here arming up and storming Pennsylvania Ave.

Yes, we're f%$d, but then it's an institution of human kind and that's what human kind in power does to its subjects. As long as we're offering apologies for others' naiveté; if we can't get so much as a decrease in the rate of increase for (enter program here), the chances of dismantling the system altogether is likely going to be a pipe dream. I'm not going to pretend they're all the same level of bad because IMO, they clearly are not.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Anyone thinking that that Bush or Clinton would do the right thing today is seriously deceived.

They are first and foremost politicians. They will, just as Obama did, lie and deceive, and get their own taken care off first before the American people.

Sorry, folks, the sooner America realizes that the current system will just f$&@ them over, the earlier there will be a true uprising against the current "political" system.

-t

NO! the left WILL DO ANYTHING even if illegal. The Repubs would not ignore the law to any of the extent as the current LIAR n Chief and his admin have. Its a different set of morals. Most lefty dirtbags fight to stay in office, whereas conservatives will quit instead.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

NO! the left WILL DO ANYTHING even if illegal. The Repubs would not ignore the law to any of the extent as the current LIAR n Chief and his admin have.

I'm sorry, Bush broke plenty of laws, and showed blatant disregard for the Constitution .
E.g. Patriot Act, the beginning of the NSA, several wars...

Take off the partisan hat.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I feel ya, but as political systems go, you'd likely not find what you're looking for anywhere on the globe and the chances of a Ron Paul (for example) running it would be even less likely than anyone here arming up and storming Pennsylvania Ave.

Yes, we're f%$d, but then it's an institution of human kind and that's what human kind in power does to its subjects.

I have come to the realization that voting for either Dems or Reps is worse than voting for some unknown idiot / genius running as a Liberal or Independent.

Nothing will change if we keep the current breed of bastards in DC. NOTHING.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm sorry, Bush broke plenty of laws, and showed blatant disregard for the Constitution .
E.g. Patriot Act, the beginning of the NSA, several wars...

Take off the partisan hat.

-t

I feel there was a certain "failure of imagination" in the way Bush decided to break the rules. Obama is far more creative.

I also need to add something people forget about Bush. Al Qaeda tried to kill him and his family specifically. That's not a justification, but it's something of an explanation. One which Obama lacks.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I feel ya, but as political systems go, you'd likely not find what you're looking for anywhere on the globe and the chances of a Ron Paul (for example) running it would be even less likely than anyone here arming up and storming Pennsylvania Ave.

Yes, we're f%$d, but then it's an institution of human kind and that's what human kind in power does to its subjects. As long as we're offering apologies for others' naiveté; if we can't get so much as a decrease in the rate of increase for (enter program here), the chances of dismantling the system altogether is likely going to be a pipe dream. I'm not going to pretend they're all the same level of bad because IMO, they clearly are not.

Turtle is absolutely right, and I'm not jumping aboard some sort of bandwagon here either, I've been saying this since before the 2012 election.

I don't think you're looking at this right though, although in fairness to you I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I would say that a Ron Paul presidency would be even worse than what we have now, if you can imagine that.

Why? Not because of anything specific to Ron Paul's ideology, his intentions may be wonderful. Obama's and Bush's may have been wonderful too, but in this climate politics is where good intentions go to die. The monied interests on both sides will combat Paul viciously, rendering him completely ineffective. You think the Tea Party vs. Republican Party thing is bad today? This would be worse, as it would be both Republicans and Democrats against Paul.

Our best hope now is for the Tea Party to break off with the Republican party and become its own thing, and perhaps some left wing group like Occupy to do the same thing. It's possible that all four of these parties could revert to something resembling what we have now, but in order for these parties to hold some power and relevance they are going to have to differentiate themselves, and sooner than later some form of differentiation will be in the form of something that works in our favor.

This party, of course, will not be elected, but just as the Republicans have to pass things through the Tea Party and have to appease them, all it would take is for these new parties to have just enough power to throw a monkey wrench into plans that involve the status quo.

This will no doubt result in many years of nothing getting done, but perhaps eventually politicians will tire of beating their heads against the wall and will start to work for us. The probability of all of this happening as I'm describing is very low now, but what other choice do we have? Just hope that these monied interests will tire of making money?

[turtle777]

One thing people gotta be absolutetly clear about: Doing the right thing now will be painful.

The current system has kicked down the can so much, and gotten this country so screwed up, untangling this mess will cost time and huge adjustments to the economy and people's standard of living.
There is no way around it. It's like getting off drugs. It's hell in the beginning, and once you start, there will be a tremendous pull to go back to the "old ways".

We can either face reality voluntarily, or have reality forced upon us eventually. Time is running out eventually, and the longer we wait, the harder the adjustments will be.

-t

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Turtle is absolutely right

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Turtle is absolutely right, and I'm not jumping aboard some sort of bandwagon here either, I've been saying this since before the 2012 election.

I don't think you're looking at this right though, although in fairness to you I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I would say that a Ron Paul presidency would be even worse than what we have now, if you can imagine that.

Why? Not because of anything specific to Ron Paul's ideology, his intentions may be wonderful. Obama's and Bush's may have been wonderful too, but in this climate politics is where good intentions go to die. The monied interests on both sides will combat Paul viciously, rendering him completely ineffective. You think the Tea Party vs. Republican Party thing is bad today? This would be worse, as it would be both Republicans and Democrats against Paul.

Our best hope now is for the Tea Party to break off with the Republican party and become its own thing, and perhaps some left wing group like Occupy to do the same thing. It's possible that all four of these parties could revert to something resembling what we have now, but in order for these parties to hold some power and relevance they are going to have to differentiate themselves, and sooner than later some form of differentiation will be in the form of something that works in our favor.

This party, of course, will not be elected, but just as the Republicans have to pass things through the Tea Party and have to appease them, all it would take is for these new parties to have just enough power to throw a monkey wrench into plans that involve the status quo.

This will no doubt result in many years of nothing getting done, but perhaps eventually politicians will tire of beating their heads against the wall and will start to work for us. The probability of all of this happening as I'm describing is very low now, but what other choice do we have? Just hope that these monied interests will tire of making money?

You started off telling me I was wrong in my thinking and that in order to begin to resolve the problem with today's political climate, we need to add more parties and politicians? I couldn't disagree more.

The Fundamental Problem; the monied interests exist in government because the government has been asked, repeatedly by we the people, to do more. When something goes wrong, we want government to draft laws to fix it. When faced with a challenge, we immediately look to the government for a solution and then we need more solutions for the prior legislative overreaches. Chattel slavery for example, codified into law to resolve the labor grievances of Virginians leading to over 150 years of turmoil only to end by undoing the prior legislative folly.

Where you're missing the boat IMO is that you'd have to vote for those expressing a desire for less government. With a growing number of people voting itself a greater share of the largesse and getting it, we now have a government entirely beholden to the entities providing the wares this new bloc of dependency requires. The ones expressing a desire for limited government eventually find themselves in an impossible political battle against Santa Claus and his snow seal pups. Why is smaller government the answer?

You can't bribe a giraffe to swim. You can try to slip the giraffe secret money or favors under the table and you can set up back-room deals with the giraffe and you can be as convincing as you want -- they don't swim. It won't work. The only way to eliminate the money-interest in Washington is to remove Washington's interest in their money. Unfortunately, a growing number of people have shown a repeated desire to vote for Santa Claus and his snow seal pups while demagoguing the opposition as Scrooges; haters of the elderly, the infirm, and the impoverished.

Parties and Politics; we already have multiple parties in the US. Two have risen to the top because they generally align ideologically with the bloc most apt to support them. This continued pursuit for 100%-pure ideological integrity among the institutions of group-think under mankind is as naive IMO as failing to acknowledge the repeated failures of Keynesian economics or a socialist model of governance. This is where I disagree with Turtle. We didn't get here over night and we're not getting back to sanity over night. The USS America is a big ship that will not turn on a dime.

Our friends on the left wanted big change and fast. They wanted a single-payer plan for example, but couldn't get it passed. Why? Because these things don't happen over night. With enough outright lying to the American people, back door deals, bribes and setting up a few cronies like BCBS and others by promising them a huge share of the administration of this takeover; you can get to single payer by destroying the market in a fire-sale approach to progress. The result is shoddy legislation and implementation leaving more broken pieces in its wake and may take decades to resolve.

Our friends on the right want big change and fast. They might like to see the entire economic structure of the US collapse so it can be restarted from scratch in a fire-sale approach to progress, but this will leave more broken pieces in its wake that will take multiple generations for fruition, assuming Santa Claus and his snow seal pups somehow disappear from the scene entirely. The problem is, they won't.

And then there's the mad-middle. People like myself who realize the USS America is a big ship that does not turn on a dime. I don't want it to turn on a dime. Ships that turn this fast, tilt too heavily and throw people overboard. I have children. I don't want to destroy this and dismantle that. I don't want those with short attention spans and ideological zealotry taking the helm. I know far too much about human nature to believe this can go well. Do I want the money-interest to disappear from politics entirely? Hell no, at least not yet. I want the Small Business Association and the insurance companies interested in an open market and the chamber of commerce, and anyone opposed to larger government to pool their collective resources to ensure the sober, eloquent, smaller-government vision guy gets the nomination.

Our pursuit for 100%-pure ideological integrity will result in 1 vote for the 95%-guy, 2 votes for the 90%-guy, and 7 votes for the 45%-guy. As for me, if there's an 80%-guy in there who can garner 7 votes, I'll be one of those votes. Will he destroy this and dismantle that? No and that's perfectly okay with me over the 45%-guy who claims he won't and does anyway. At that point it's up to us to hold our party representatives accountable. Hence, the Tea Party; a bloc of voters that will either settle for the 80% guy or watch their governance continuously succumb to the 45%-guy; the same problem you have in systems with more parties and politicians and there's zero to suggest they've got a lock on real progress. "guy" being used rhetorically, of course "gals" are perfectly welcome.