Dear PLAYER57832...

[tzor]

The health care bill wasn't enough for you to be able to tell the difference between the two? You should probably stop discussing politics. Permanently.

I'll take a bite at this one. (Because we are talking about Bush, not "Republicans.") Other than the massive (at the time) Medicare reform in 2003, where do you get the idea that there was a significant difference between Bush and Obama?

"Our government," Bush said, "is finally bringing prescription drug coverage to the seniors of America."

"With this law, we're giving older Americans better choices and more control over their health care, so they can receive the modern medical care they deserve," he said.

In addition to the prescription drug benefits, the measure provides billions of dollars in subsidies to insurance companies and health maintenance organizations, and takes the first step toward allowing private plans to compete with Medicare.

It is the largest expansion of Medicare since the program was created in 1965, though most of its provisions won't take effect for several years. The drug benefit, for example, does not take effect until 2006. Before that, seniors will be able to purchase a discount card that could provide a 10 to 25 percent off prescription drugs.

"Our nation has made a promise, a solemn promise, to America's seniors," Bush said. "We have pledged to help our citizens find affordable medical care in the later years of life."

[Doc_Brown]

Different? Yes. Better? In many ways, but definitely not all. I will say I have not seen where he is worse, but "better than Bush" or "no worse" are very low standards.

I realize a lot of the better/worse issues come down to personal political views. I think the increase in our national debt is one area where Obama is a lot worse, but I know different people will disagree depending on your economic views. However, one area I think most of us should be able to agree that Obama is worse than Bush is the overuse of executive powers in overruling constitutional rights based on charges of terrorism. Breaking it down a bit, Bush was reviled for the warrantless wiretapping and going to war in Iraq. However, Obama has taken it a step further in authorizing the assassination of US citizens overseas when they are believed to be actively involved in terrorist plots. Essentially, he's handed down a death penalty without due process of law.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Woodruff--

As I read your link I contemplated this: Do you think that Obama intended for this all along (as in he wants to further empower the Executive Branch)? Or do you think he came into office and realized that everything was so messed up that he had no choice but to continue with this path (i.e. your OP and his extension of the business records access, monitoring "lone wolf" terrorists, and wiretapping provisions of the Patriot Act)?

[saxitoxin]

Woodruff--

As I read your link I contemplated this: Do you think that Obama intended for this all along (as in he wants to further empower the Executive Branch)? Or do you think he came into office and realized that everything was so messed up that he had no choice but to continue with this path (i.e. your OP and his extension of the business records access, monitoring "lone wolf" terrorists, and wiretapping provisions of the Patriot Act)?

You're saying Obama lacked the worldliness and experience to know he was making empty campaign promises? I wonder what other problems his lack of worldliness may come to cause, or have caused already ...

[Metsfanmax]

I'll take a bite at this one. (Because we are talking about Bush, not "Republicans.") Other than the massive (at the time) Medicare reform in 2003, where do you get the idea that there was a significant difference between Bush and Obama?

"Our government," Bush said, "is finally bringing prescription drug coverage to the seniors of America."

"With this law, we're giving older Americans better choices and more control over their health care, so they can receive the modern medical care they deserve," he said.

In addition to the prescription drug benefits, the measure provides billions of dollars in subsidies to insurance companies and health maintenance organizations, and takes the first step toward allowing private plans to compete with Medicare.

It is the largest expansion of Medicare since the program was created in 1965, though most of its provisions won't take effect for several years. The drug benefit, for example, does not take effect until 2006. Before that, seniors will be able to purchase a discount card that could provide a 10 to 25 percent off prescription drugs.

"Our nation has made a promise, a solemn promise, to America's seniors," Bush said. "We have pledged to help our citizens find affordable medical care in the later years of life."

I didn't mean to imply that Bush didn't support health care spending. However, he never would have supported such a large-scale expansion of the system to the general public, and he definitely never would have mandated that people obtain health care insurance. He was too much of a free-market supporter for that.

[saxitoxin]

However, he never would have supported such a large-scale expansion of the system to the general public,

It always amuses me when a Kapo like Mets tries to schill the propaganda point that the Pigs threatening the public with a $400 fine and scribbling out a few cosmetic regs changes amounts to a "large-scale" anything.

If they think that's "large-scale" I imagine their heads would explode if there were ever real healthcare reform in the United States or a real initiative to get the uninsured, insured.

Look at these well-fed Democrat party functionaries scurry to their AT&T feeding troughs after Obama was nominated (Oink Oink) --- in the DDR, the people would have roasted the pigs and feasted on their fat.


Q: "Can I ask you about the AT&T party inside?"
A: "Thanks."
Q: "Can I ask you about the party?"
A: "Bye."


Q: "Are you going into the party?"
A: "I'm in a hurry."


Q: "Are you going into the party?"
A: "I don't know."
Q: "Can we ask you a couple questions?"
A: "No."


Q: "Are you going to the party?"
A: "Get off of my way."
Q: "Do you -"
A: "GET OUT OF MY WAY!"

[Woodruff]

Woodruff--

As I read your link I contemplated this: Do you think that Obama intended for this all along (as in he wants to further empower the Executive Branch)? Or do you think he came into office and realized that everything was so messed up that he had no choice but to continue with this path (i.e. your OP and his extension of the business records access, monitoring "lone wolf" terrorists, and wiretapping provisions of the Patriot Act)?

I don't know, and that's an interesting question. However, as interesting as I find it, I also find it irrelevant to this particular issue in that I don't CARE if he intended it or not, because that doesn't change the gravity of the situation. But it is something that I would like to know (but likely never will, of course). That being said, I'm very strongly of the opinion that he couldn't possibly COME to that conclusion (no choice) unless he were already predisposed to it.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff--

As I read your link I contemplated this: Do you think that Obama intended for this all along (as in he wants to further empower the Executive Branch)? Or do you think he came into office and realized that everything was so messed up that he had no choice but to continue with this path (i.e. your OP and his extension of the business records access, monitoring "lone wolf" terrorists, and wiretapping provisions of the Patriot Act)?

You're saying Obama lacked the worldliness and experience to know he was making empty campaign promises?

I'm not sure that would count as a lacking in those things...I rather think it would count as a surplus of those things, potentially.

[PLAYER57832]

If you look back, while I did not wind up defending Bush very often (compared to Obama, for sure), I defended him on occasion when the rhetoric was too personal, irrelevant, etc.

Based only on what I've seen in these fora (and recognizing that's a terribly small sample size of information)...from my perspective, you fall squarely into the category of "Obama apologist", honestly.

In these forums, but look at what I am responding to. Almost nothing said "against Obama" is real. When it is, it is "hey, yeah, he might have done what he said, but we don't like it". Even in your thread here, you target me, not Obama, not his policies directly. You basically attack me because you found something you dislike about Obama, then demand I defend Obama.

In truth, I don't like this.

You still believe that Obama is different than Bush? Because it's getting pretty difficult for me to be able to tell the difference, frankly:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html

No matter who the President is, the job will always call for them to be somewhat like the last guy. He obviously doesn't support this, but had to do so.

Uh...no. He did not in any way "have to do this". Just like he did not in any way have to continue with The Patriot Act. And where do you get the idea that he "obviously doesn't support this"...it appears quite painfully clear to me that he supports it very much.

I am not going to pretend to be an attorney, but in a sense he did have to defend it. He had to defend it because that's how our legal system works. When he became president, he became the defender of all presidential policies. He had to defend it to clarify it, among other reasons.

That said, I don't like the continued secrecy. The only "excuse" I can offer (and don't have the time to really pursue any of this right now) is that there are a lot of things kept secret that truly are best kept secret... even if in a perfect world, we might wish it to differ. Its a devils bargain. But, anybody in the military, ready to fight wars knows about "devils' bargains".

[PLAYER57832]

Realized I had better clarify my above statement, lest it be misunderstood.

War is terrible, dispicable. What happens to soldiers is just not excuseable in a sane world. Yet, because we want freedom, we allow young men and women to go off and fight these battles. Then we turn around (as society), and too often basically throw them to the wind.

one of the phrases of "brother can you spare a dime" talks of being in battle, the boy who blew the horn, the one everyone liked... now forgotten.

It is a devil's bargain if there ever was one.

When it comes to secrecy, we have to have a country that continues, a government that works. There is only so much shakeup that any one country can take without total collapse resulting. I am not an insider enough to know the details. Right now, I have to leave that to others. I just raise my kids.

[Woodruff]

If you look back, while I did not wind up defending Bush very often (compared to Obama, for sure), I defended him on occasion when the rhetoric was too personal, irrelevant, etc.

Based only on what I've seen in these fora (and recognizing that's a terribly small sample size of information)...from my perspective, you fall squarely into the category of "Obama apologist", honestly.

In these forums, but look at what I am responding to. Almost nothing said "against Obama" is real. When it is, it is "hey, yeah, he might have done what he said, but we don't like it".

Not in the case of some of his policies that are simply follow-throughs on Bush's policy, such as the Patriot Act and this situation.

Even in your thread here, you target me, not Obama, not his policies directly. You basically attack me because you found something you dislike about Obama, then demand I defend Obama.

I'm definitely attacking him, but doing so in a manner that I hope will result in your also attacking this policy. I'm not so much demanding that you defend him, but rather I recognize that you're not the type that would typically be in favor of this sort of thing, so I am very much hoping that you'll come out against it. I want you to do this, so that I start to consider you objective regarding President Obama. Because I really don't at the moment.

You still believe that Obama is different than Bush? Because it's getting pretty difficult for me to be able to tell the difference, frankly:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html

No matter who the President is, the job will always call for them to be somewhat like the last guy. He obviously doesn't support this, but had to do so.

Uh...no. He did not in any way "have to do this". Just like he did not in any way have to continue with The Patriot Act. And where do you get the idea that he "obviously doesn't support this"...it appears quite painfully clear to me that he supports it very much.

I am not going to pretend to be an attorney, but in a sense he did have to defend it. He had to defend it because that's how our legal system works. When he became president, he became the defender of all presidential policies. He had to defend it to clarify it, among other reasons.

No. His campaign was run largely AGAINST these very policies. If his campaign was running against these policies, then why on Earth would be have to defend them? That doesn't make sense.

That said, I don't like the continued secrecy. The only "excuse" I can offer (and don't have the time to really pursue any of this right now) is that there are a lot of things kept secret that truly are best kept secret... even if in a perfect world, we might wish it to differ. Its a devils bargain. But, anybody in the military, ready to fight wars knows about "devils' bargains".

I'm a huge believer that there are a lot of things that are best kept as secret...no argument. But NOT THIS. Sorry, but there simply is NO JUSTIFICATION for this.

[rockfist]

He is no more open and honest than any previous President was. But he sure talked a good game in the campaign.

[Timminz]

He sure talked a good game in the campaign.

tru dat

[Queen_Herpes]

He is no more open and honest than any previous President was. But he sure talked a good game in the campaign.

What should we expect from the president with respect to state secrets? In seriousness, I believe there are facts, pieces of information, etc. which should be kept secret. (Think about that CIA agent who was "outed" by the Bush administration. I think the identity should have been kept secret.) In jest, shouldn't we keep Area 51, that Alien fighter-craft. and the aliens in vats secret? I mean, what would Will Smith have to do to get the Nuke into the Alien Mothership?

[rockfist]

I have no problem with keeping state secrets. What Obama did was piss and moan about "backroom deals" with Bush's energy policy because the negotiations weren't public...and he had a point.

But he said he would never have negotiations take place on major legislation that weren't public and that bills would be posted on the internet ahead of time so the public could read them...this was either naive or a lie.

I personally think it was just another log on the anti-Bush bond fire he was building...look at evil Bush he is hiding things from us.

I find it ironic that he complained about the right "talking about him like a dog" in the very same speech where he kicked his favorite dog George W. Bush. Its getting old.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Woodruff--

As I read your link I contemplated this: Do you think that Obama intended for this all along (as in he wants to further empower the Executive Branch)? Or do you think he came into office and realized that everything was so messed up that he had no choice but to continue with this path (i.e. your OP and his extension of the business records access, monitoring "lone wolf" terrorists, and wiretapping provisions of the Patriot Act)?

You're saying Obama lacked the worldliness and experience to know he was making empty campaign promises? I wonder what other problems his lack of worldliness may come to cause, or have caused already ...

Are you a multi for Woodruff? jk just messing with you..

Maybe I could've been clearer. My fault. Whether he intentionally made empty campaign promises was only one part of the question, and that didn't have to do with his "worldliness and experience." Rather did he take office and then become privy to information previously unavailable to him as a Senator (e.g. the state secrets that he is now defending) that is only available to the President and his Cabinet? I'm not honestly sure if a Senator would know everything a President does (too many spy movies perhaps ).

That being said, I'm very strongly of the opinion that he couldn't possibly COME to that conclusion (no choice) unless he were already predisposed to it.

Kind of the point I was wondering...

And Woodruff thank you for your answer.

TG

[PLAYER57832]

If you look back, while I did not wind up defending Bush very often (compared to Obama, for sure), I defended him on occasion when the rhetoric was too personal, irrelevant, etc.

Based only on what I've seen in these fora (and recognizing that's a terribly small sample size of information)...from my perspective, you fall squarely into the category of "Obama apologist", honestly.

In these forums, but look at what I am responding to. Almost nothing said "against Obama" is real. When it is, it is "hey, yeah, he might have done what he said, but we don't like it".

Not in the case of some of his policies that are simply follow-throughs on Bush's policy, such as the Patriot Act and this situation.

Even in your thread here, you target me, not Obama, not his policies directly. You basically attack me because you found something you dislike about Obama, then demand I defend Obama.

I'm definitely attacking him, but doing so in a manner that I hope will result in your also attacking this policy. I'm not so much demanding that you defend him, but rather I recognize that you're not the type that would typically be in favor of this sort of thing, so I am very much hoping that you'll come out against it. I want you to do this, so that I start to consider you objective regarding President Obama. Because I really don't at the moment.

I wish Obama were more open. I don't like the Patriot Act and don't like what I have read about this, though I have to clarify that I have not had and still don't right now have the time to really look into this right now. In part, because its not something I can impact directly.

You still believe that Obama is different than Bush? Because it's getting pretty difficult for me to be able to tell the difference, frankly:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html

No matter who the President is, the job will always call for them to be somewhat like the last guy. He obviously doesn't support this, but had to do so.

Uh...no. He did not in any way "have to do this". Just like he did not in any way have to continue with The Patriot Act. And where do you get the idea that he "obviously doesn't support this"...it appears quite painfully clear to me that he supports it very much.

I am not going to pretend to be an attorney, but in a sense he did have to defend it. He had to defend it because that's how our legal system works. When he became president, he became the defender of all presidential policies. He had to defend it to clarify it, among other reasons.

No. His campaign was run largely AGAINST these very policies. If his campaign was running against these policies, then why on Earth would be have to defend them? That doesn't make sense.

I can only say that while I agree, I have heard some very left-wing attorneys put forward the argument that once a policy is put forward, it is the justice deparment's job to defend it. It's not quite like the concept of even the most henious killer needs an attorney simply to be convicted. Its also a matter that forcing a decision forces congress, etc to act. I cannot say that this is what actually happened here. I heard that argument voiced as a possibility some time ago.

That said, I don't like the continued secrecy. The only "excuse" I can offer (and don't have the time to really pursue any of this right now) is that there are a lot of things kept secret that truly are best kept secret... even if in a perfect world, we might wish it to differ. Its a devils bargain. But, anybody in the military, ready to fight wars knows about "devils' bargains".

I'm a huge believer that there are a lot of things that are best kept as secret...no argument. But NOT THIS. Sorry, but there simply is NO JUSTIFICATION for this.

Well... you probably know more about it than I.

The bottom line for me when Obama was elected was not that I thought he would be the greatest president ever, but did I think that overall he would make better choices than his opponents. I did not vote for him in the primary, but did in the final election.

Now, he is our president. Again, I don't like everything about his administration. I wish he had cracked down more on the banks, I feel he is too much in bed with big business, only slightly less than his predecessors, etc. However, if you run down a list of his campaign promises, the truth is he has fulfilled a good many of them. Even when he has not, he is making definite steps to do so. The fault is not that he hasn't tried, its that he underestimated the difficulty. That is particularly true in the Case of Gitmo.

Obama might not have accomplished all I wish he would, but he does seem to at least be trying. And, even if he has not utterly healed the nation, well... its pretty hard to work with people who have as their only platform "say no to anything Democratic". And, yes, lately it seems that is both the Republican and Tea Party views. That part is what angers me. I accept that people differ in various ideas. The problem is when people outright deny truths, ignore facts and plain refuse to even listen to any other side. I am not going to pain the Democrats as saints or purists by any stretch of the imagination. They are very much a part of the existing system. But, right now, they are better than the alternatives.. both the Republicans and absolutely the Tea Party.

I heard an excellent commentary by the Late Dan Shore (sp?) on Reagan's legacy. He made some very good points. Sadly, it was on Alternative Radio and tapes, etc cost money. But he pointed out very clearly how many of what we see as Bush failings are really part of the Reagan legacy. Obama, in that regard, is also a victim of those times. We are paying for past failures to be responsible.

Under Reagan, ignoring infrastructure and so forth because it was "too expensive" became acceptable, allowing huge tax breaks that supposedly were supposed to create a surplus of income. In the short term, it did. However, robbing Peter to pay Paul only works for so long. Now we have to make some extremely hard choices. Bush was not capable of communicating the necessity of increasing taxes, paying for things more so we don't bankrupt the future even further.

I mean, come on... cutting education and social security so billion dollar businesses can hire a dozen more people? (or even a couple hundred each?). It only makes sense if you don't worry about 10-20 years down the road.

Obama inherited that. Even so, I think he has tried more to inform people of the necessity for hard choices. Not nearly enough. He Is a politician and no politician will stay in office telling people what they don't want to hear for very long.. not anymore with the internet, and daily newsblogs by the most virulant of pundits.

[tzor]

I didn't mean to imply that Bush didn't support health care spending. However, he never would have supported such a large-scale expansion of the system to the general public, and he definitely never would have mandated that people obtain health care insurance. He was too much of a free-market supporter for that.

Well, there comes the part where you get to the details, different people sleep in different beds. There is, however, a tendency to associate Bush as some before his time Tea Party president and he was no such thing. He was a Progressive Neo Con, in the same model as his Progressive father who, if you remember, once called Reagan's policy "Voodo Economics." Thus Bush could best be described as a "free market" progressive while Obama could best be described as a "unionist" progressive.

I know people will probably complain about this, but what part of "YOU LIE" don't you understand? Modern 21st century politics is the art of tearing down. You have to demonize the opponent to get elected, even if that means attacking positions you might actually agree (somewhat) with. You also have to promise things you absolutely know you can't deliver (but who gives a damn, anyway). In order to win elections you have to, in effect LIE. It is silly to compare Obama the candidate with Obama the president (except for the fact that Obama still doesn't understand he actually won as he is constantly on his own personal campaign trail). If it wasn't for the fact that this works so well, it would probably never be popular, but it does and so it is the political norm.

[tzor]

Under Reagan, ignoring infrastructure and so forth because it was "too expensive" became acceptable, allowing huge tax breaks that supposedly were supposed to create a surplus of income. In the short term, it did. However, robbing Peter to pay Paul only works for so long. Now we have to make some extremely hard choices. Bush was not capable of communicating the necessity of increasing taxes, paying for things more so we don't bankrupt the future even further.

That's a little harsh on Reagan. I like the analysis from NPR better. We are generally good at starting things, not maintaining things. Highway infrastructure was abadoned after it was "completed" when we moved on to other types of infrastrucutre. Here is the article from Thursday.

BLOCK: That earlier period that you're talking about, where there was so much more spending on infrastructure, of course that was when the highway system was being developed, when there was a whole lot of new building going on. And we're in a different phase now, right?

Mr. LEONARD: You're correct. In the 1950s through the '70s, we built an expansive interstate highway system. In the '70s, we built water and sewer treatment. In the late '70s, we built mass transit. And we built an infrastructure that was the envy of all the world.

Unfortunately, we then sort of patted ourselves on the back and moved on to some other priorities and enjoyed the value of this great infrastructure. And what we built in the '50s through the '70s is now 30 to 50 years old. And most of it has fallen into disrepair. It's just old and needs to be renovated and replaced. It's time for us to sort of pick up that ball and run with it again.

[jay_a2j]

You need not worry, 2 years and he's gone!

[jonesthecurl]

are you sure there'll be an election this time?

[PLAYER57832]

Different? Yes. Better? In many ways, but definitely not all. I will say I have not seen where he is worse, but "better than Bush" or "no worse" are very low standards.

I realize a lot of the better/worse issues come down to personal political views. I think the increase in our national debt is one area where Obama is a lot worse, but I know different people will disagree depending on your economic views.

Bush inherited a much, MUCH better economic situation than Obama and made it even worse, even into the TARP solution that pundits like to blame on Obama. Obama inherited a terrible situation and may or may not have done anything to stabalize the descent or even engender improvement. However, his options were far, far more limited. For that reason, any comparison is not reasonable.

However, one area I think most of us should be able to agree that Obama is worse than Bush is the overuse of executive powers in overruling constitutional rights based on charges of terrorism. Breaking it down a bit, Bush was reviled for the warrantless wiretapping and going to war in Iraq. However, Obama has taken it a step further in authorizing the assassination of US citizens overseas when they are believed to be actively involved in terrorist plots. Essentially, he's handed down a death penalty without due process of law.

You need to study the Bush administration a bit more. You forgot Gitmo, rendition, etc... etc. I am not saying, never have said Obama has the record I would like in this regard, but worse than Bush? Only if you ignore a lot of what happened under Bush.

[tzor]

are you sure there'll be an election this time?

And in New York there will be whailing and gnashing of teeth. We are forced to use an optical system this year instad of the old faithful never known to fail mechanical devices and, frankly, they suck.

The ballots are exactly like the old mechanical layout; are frigging huge; need felt tip pens to fill out; and need to be filled out exactly just right. I don't think anyone realizes that you only get three chances to get it right under NY State Law. Only one machine per district. It's going to be a complete nightmare, starting next Tuesday which is the Primary.

No we cannot avoid this hell, no matter how hard we wish.

[PLAYER57832]

are you sure there'll be an election this time?

No Aliens are scheduled to invade two days prior, will conquer the world in 1 day and turn us all into mutant zombie slaves ... or so elements in the wonderful ..... crowd have informed me.

[jay_a2j]

are you sure there'll be an election this time?

No Aliens are scheduled to invade two days prior, will conquer the world in 1 day and turn us all into mutant zombie slaves ... or so elements in the wonderful ..... crowd have informed me.

The things you believe....