Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Quick summary please here bud yeah boy yeah boy super meat boy yeah boy:
slaughtered a load of foreigners and unable to solve a deeply ingrained crisis in the american governmental system (not sure that second one is his fault really)
great viral videos though
nearly five years
big fan of sunn o)))
operating in a fundamentally rotten system to be.
who have obstructed the will of the people unlike no other in US history, despite Obama's administration being the most bi-partisan and willing to compromise since the FDR-era.
Are you saying he's not a war criminal, or that he is but it's the Republicans' fault?
How irritating it must be for someone who is at heart a bloodless technocrat to be successfully painted as a deep red socialist. It must drive him nuts
Means he's steeped in shitloads of international goodwill and has a Nobel Peace Prize. That's more than I got.
GetOffMyLawn IS steeped in shitloads of international goodwill, though.
For the people of Guantanamo Bay, not very well.
Can't see why you'd have a problem with this.
Why this is/was the case will be debated for the rest of our lives.
US prez's historically don't achieve much - he's done more than most.
through the whole droney, spyey, guantanamo bayey stuff (not to mention things like healthcare where he has been at least partially hamstrung by the opposition) he still seems immensely popular, so you at least have to say he is a fantastic politician.
but a fantastic politician? Nah. He spent his political credit far more poorly than Clinton did, and has gotten a lot less done as a result. Although this as mentioned twice already has had a bit to do with the Republican party being more intransigent than ever before.
he's obviously done very little that helps anyone, but by god people still love the fella.
Clinton was a brilliant politician, but was famous for small-bore policy. His one - admittedly massive - achievement was his fiscal stuff around 1994 that created a boom economy. Outside of that he barely racked up anything. In some cases, he actively made things worse - repealing Glass-Steagall, implementing Don't Ask, Don't Tell to name two.
but in terms of making the US better, a hell of a lot.
Leaving aside the big ticket stuff - Healthcare, Dodd-Frank, Recovery Act, START Treaty (heavily reduces Russian and US nuclear weapons), bumming Bin Laden, potentially this de-nuking of Iran, deficit halved since 2008, ending the war in Iraq (McCain wanted to amp it up) - it's the human side that's much better for virtually everyone.
Gay marriage, equal pay for women act, saving the US car industry, eliminated Don't Ask Don't Tell, directed the EPA to start taking on coal polluters, first national minimum fuel standards for cars, student loan reform, credit card interest reform, looks as though he's about to raise the minimum wage for federal employees. There are plenty which I can't even remember. Individually, stuff like this isn't large and headline-grabbing, but collectively it's the biggest attempt by a president to improve people's lives since the 1960s.
There are plenty of good reasons to be disappointed with his presidency, but historically he's done rather a lot, especially given the unprecedented obstruction and the financial background. Bush was an abject failure after inheriting a SURPLUS from Bill Clinton - Obama has had to do his biz against the worst crash since the Depression. Context matters.
i'd argue on a couple of them (the actual delivery of ACA compared to what was promised, the Iraq war stuff being negated by actions in other countries) but those are some things I weren't aware of because, as you say, they aren't headline grabbers.
A website malfunctioning for the first 6 weeks is politically hugely embarrassing, but at root is a mere tech issue - materially, what happened there has zero to do with the worthiness or otherwise of the law itself.
Current estimates are that 10 million people have been covered by one facet of the law or other since it kicked in - that's a metric shit tonne of people whose lives have been directly improved. But just as importantly, the entire population now has the threat of being bankrupted by a medical accident taken away - psychologically that must be a huge deal.
or do you mean those 10million didn't have cover before and have paid the premium?
The price each person pays is different according to which state they live in, how much they earn, what level of coverage they want etc - it isn't a case of paying a set fee and getting "Obamacare". A large number of people will have had their premiums reduced, not increased.
That 10 million is made up of various aspects of the law - the federal exchange (i.e. the website that was the focus of all the hoo-ha late last year) makes up less than half of that so far I think. There are other elements that get far less coverage, like an expansion of Medicaid, anyone under the age of 26 being covered under their parent's health plan etc.
but America's poorest, who didn't have insurance before and who don't have the disposable income to pay the (still considerable) fee for it, aren't really helped by it. infact they will be fined for not paying it?
A lot of people call it health INSURANCE reform, as distinct from healthcare reform - it's primarily a reform of how private health insurance companies are allowed to operate. There's never been any attempt to suggest it's equivalent to an NHS system.
And I'm not sure what you're talking about with the second part - there are subsidies for people up to 140% of the poverty line to help pay for it. Some people - i.e. the poorest - are paying only a nominal fee.
how much is it?
(i'm pretty sure obama used the words 'free healthcare' a few times, but thats by the by)
As said, there IS no set fee. It's varied person-to-person, state-to-state, age-to-age according to any number of factors - there are plenty of calculators you can use online if you want to try it out.
A hypothetical middle-aged man (40), income of $15k a year would pay zero for the lowest type of plan, or $25 a month for the mid-level plan
That would qualify as 31% ABOVE the national poverty line
did he not refer to it as 'free healthcare'?
for his inadequacies.
If it were suggested that the Conservatives weren't making enough progress because Labour (or even the Lib Dems) kept opposing everything, I sense the argument wouldn't be given such leniency.
Oppositions oppose - it's just what they do. It just seems that the Republicans are rather good at it.
Pay attention to me pweeaaaaase
but I'm happy for you that you're getting off to it.
A shame - it could have been interesting.
because at least the Lords don't cynically block legislation the way that congress does.The multicameral system doesn't serve america very well. it's so fucked up.
You'd be a leading light within Scottish Labour in absolutely no time with an attitude like that. Your fellow Tories, on the otoh, took a much more mature view (during the last minority Holyrood administration, at least) to being in opposition.
Saying "oppositions oppose" is such a fatalistic, two-party-centric, Westminster-conditioned, FPTP-skewed viewpoint.
where it's designed to be two-party-centric bullshit.
It wouldn't be so much of a problem if the Republicans hadn't fixed it so they had control of Congress regardless of who was in charge of the White House.