Obama - The Second Four Years

[thegreekdog]

In an effort to direct most US political discussion to one thread, I am creating this thread to further discussion about the president and his policies. I will be occasionally posting items related to the president. However, the items I post will only be with respect to laws he's signed, orders he's given, or policies he's enacted. I will not be posting anything about his college transcripts, birth certificates, class warfare rhetoric, or any other crap.

I hope to show that Barack Obama is and will be a good [deleted] conservative, 1990s Republican president.

Let's have a recap of the first three years and change:

Economic Laws and Policies

- Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - revised the statute of limitations for filing pay discrimination lawsuits.
- Signed the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act - the first bailout, which was a combination of tax breaks, infrastructure projects, welfare extensions, and education. Cost - $787 billion and $1.2 trillion with debt service included.
- Proposed new regulations on power plants, factories and oil refineries to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
- Signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which ends the process of government giving subsidies to banks to give out federally insured loans; increased the Pell Grant scholarship awards.
- Introduced the Public-Private Investment Program for Legacy Assets, which contains provisions for buying up to $2 trillion in depreciated real estate assets.
- Renewed loans for GM and Chrysler to continue operations.
- Signed the Car Allowance Rebate System (cash for clunkers).
- Signed the Budget Control Act of 2011, which limits distrectionary spending until 2021, establishes procedures to increase the debt limit, creates a congressional committee on debt reduction.
- Signed the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which included a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts, a payroll tax reduction, continuation of unemployment benefits, and a new estate tax rate and exemption amount.
- Signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which expands Medicaid eligibility, susidizes insurance premiums, provides incentives for companies to provide healthcare benefits, prohibits denial of coverage and claims on pre-existing conditions, establishes health insurance exchanges, prohibits annual coverage caps, and supports medical research; includes taxes, fees, and cost-saving measures including Medicare taxes, taxes on indoor tanning, cuts to the Medicare Advantage program, the medical device excise tax, and penalties for those who do not obtain health insurance. Immediately and continuously obtained waivers for certain companies.

Social Laws and Policies

- Lifted restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.
- Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act which expands hate crimes to include crimes motivated by actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
- Signed the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Foreign Policy

- Suspended the Gitmo Military Commission and ordered the detention facility to be shut down (Congressional inaction resulted in the facility not being closed).
- Banned torture in the interrogation of terror suspects.
- Signed the New START treaty on reducing the number of long-range nuclear weapons.
- Ordered the exit of the last U.S. combat brigade in Iraq on August 19, 2010
- Increased troops in Afghanistan.
- Increased military cooperation with Israel, including military aid, the reestablishment of the US-Israeli Joint Political Military Group, and the Defense Policy Advisory Group; vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements.
- Ordered air strikes in Libya.
- Ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Other Laws and Policies

- Announced stricter guidelines for lobbyists in the White House. Immediately requested a waiver for certain appointments.
- Appointed two Supreme Court justices.

[thegreekdog]

I'm breaking my first rule already, but I find this hysterical.

Incredibly, nearly all the most senior advisors to the nation’s first black president – whose appeal to minorities and women won him reelection – are white males. Democrats made much during the campaign of an alleged GOP “war on women.” But Obama’s own battalions include relatively few of the distaff variety.

Of what are arguably the ten top most important White House advisers, only one – Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett – is a woman. Jarrett is also African American.

But the other nine are each white men: Vice President Joe Biden; Senior Advisor David Plouffe; Chief of Staff Jack Lew; National Security Advisor Tom Donilon; Counselor to the President Pete Rouse; National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling; Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer; Acting OMB Director Jeffrey Zients; and Press Secretary Jay Carney.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/1 ... Dossier%29

[AndyDufresne]

Just you wait, TGD, I heard Common was going to be joining his cabinet, if the Republicans don't try to stop him.


--Andy

[InkL0sed]

I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.

[thegreekdog]

I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.

I call him a Republican for two reasons. First, he is a moderate conservative in the vein of the 1990s Republican party (i.e. pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party). Second, the Republicans oppose most of his policies merely because they are his policies and not because those policies are antithetical to Republican ideals.

[comic boy]

I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.

I call him a Republican for two reasons. First, he is a moderate conservative in the vein of the 1990s Republican party (i.e. pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party). Second, the Republicans oppose most of his policies merely because they are his policies and not because those policies are antithetical to Republican ideals.

Given that the current Republican party appears to be veering further right would it not be more accurate to describe Obama as an old school Republican.

[Frigidus]

I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.

I call him a Republican for two reasons. First, he is a moderate conservative in the vein of the 1990s Republican party (i.e. pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party). Second, the Republicans oppose most of his policies merely because they are his policies and not because those policies are antithetical to Republican ideals.

Given that the current Republican party appears to be veering further right would it not be more accurate to describe Obama as an old school Republican.

Sure. Here's a brief list of acceptable ways to describe Obama:

Borderline Neoconservative
George Bush minus the Christian extremism
Big business toady
Part of the problem

[InkL0sed]

I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.

I call him a Republican for two reasons. First, he is a moderate conservative in the vein of the 1990s Republican party (i.e. pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party). Second, the Republicans oppose most of his policies merely because they are his policies and not because those policies are antithetical to Republican ideals.

Republicans are still Republicans, and Democrats are still Democrats. You're just using terms differently to make a point. So it's not actually interesting for you to say he's a Republican. What you mean is he is conservative.

[thegreekdog]

I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.

I call him a Republican for two reasons. First, he is a moderate conservative in the vein of the 1990s Republican party (i.e. pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party). Second, the Republicans oppose most of his policies merely because they are his policies and not because those policies are antithetical to Republican ideals.

Republicans are still Republicans, and Democrats are still Democrats. You're just using terms differently to make a point. So it's not actually interesting for you to say he's a Republican. What you mean is he is conservative.

Okay. I'll refer to him as a conservative instead of a Republican. That's a fair criticisim.

[Johnny Rockets]

I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.

I call him a Republican for two reasons. First, he is a moderate conservative in the vein of the 1990s Republican party (i.e. pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party). Second, the Republicans oppose most of his policies merely because they are his policies and not because those policies are antithetical to Republican ideals.

Republicans are still Republicans, and Democrats are still Democrats. You're just using terms differently to make a point. So it's not actually interesting for you to say he's a Republican. What you mean is he is conservative.

Okay. I'll refer to him as a conservative instead of a Republican. That's a fair criticisim.

I don't comprehend why you guys need to label your politicians categorically. The issues, and effective solutions are never black and white, so detesting a policy because it's conservative, or too Liberal should come way past the consideration of if it is effective or not.
The refusal to work together, (Both parties) and the climate of political xenophobia over policy implementation is why you guys are fucked solid.

Time to work in the Now.


JRock

[thegreekdog]

I don't understand why you call him Republican. I understand you think he's a moderate conservative (and I have no problem with that because that's a relative term), but not a Republican. He advocates policies which the Republicans vigorously oppose. He leads the Democratic Party. That pretty much makes him objectively a Democrat.

I call him a Republican for two reasons. First, he is a moderate conservative in the vein of the 1990s Republican party (i.e. pre-Bush, pre-Tea Party). Second, the Republicans oppose most of his policies merely because they are his policies and not because those policies are antithetical to Republican ideals.

Republicans are still Republicans, and Democrats are still Democrats. You're just using terms differently to make a point. So it's not actually interesting for you to say he's a Republican. What you mean is he is conservative.

Okay. I'll refer to him as a conservative instead of a Republican. That's a fair criticisim.

I don't comprehend why you guys need to label your politicians categorically. The issues, and effective solutions are never black and white, so detesting a policy because it's conservative, or too Liberal should come way past the consideration of if it is effective or not.
The refusal to work together, (Both parties) and the climate of political xenophobia over policy implementation is why you guys are fucked solid.

Time to work in the Now.


JRock

I'm responding to the labels from conservatives (e.g. Phatscotty) that the president is a socialist/Marxist/liberal and from liberals that the president is a defender of personal freedom and social liberal. These are incorrect characterizations.

The refusal to work together is fake in its reasons, by the way. For example, this fiscal cliff issue is just crap. Both parties are essentially the same, with some minor differences related to somewhat inconsequential issues. You've bought into the idea that there is a substantial difference between the two parties when there isn't. The only reason there is fighting between the political parties is to see who can get the most power and therefore the most money.

[Metsfanmax]

You've bought into the idea that there is a substantial difference between the two parties when there isn't.

Why should anyone care whether there is a difference between the two parties? Political decisions are made by individuals, not by political parties, and blaming anything on the political party structure absolves congresspeople from responsibility for their actions. And there are real differences between individuals. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney do have substantially different ideas about the country and how to run it. The fact that it is not a socialist running against a libertarian does not make the differences any less stark.

[saxitoxin]

Agree 110% with what TGD just said.

Besides, I still fail to understand why parties working together is a desirable thing. If Chevron and Exxon worked together to set gas prices or a defense attorney and prosecutor worked together in court people would end up in prison. The term for all members of parliament working in unison to pass the same bills is "one party state." And, besides, there are plenty of examples of bills passed with cooperation of both parties: the Patriot Act, FISA, NDAA, etc. Democracy should be based on vigorous competition, not vigorous cooperation.

On a related note, here's a great clip I've cued from yesterday's DoS daily briefing in which Obama flunky Victoria Nuland squirms like a snake when the AP's Matt Lee asks her if "a U.S. citizen invited to a U.S. embassy has any legal protection against being killed by the U.S. government when they arrive." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxWpNepntTk&t=38m20s (Earlier in the video Lee also roasts her over Obama's Islamaphobia.)

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney do have substantially cosmetically different ideas about the country and how to run it.

fixed

The Democrats of 2012 are one of the great triumphs of the Republican Party.

After Democrats were decimated to the point of extinction in 2004 they had to radically remake themselves just to survive and - unable to shake Republican framing - made a hard-turn to the right. Parties exist to advance their ideas, not their logos. To get moderate and center-left voters to enthusiastically vote for right-wing candidates like Wal Mart board member Hillary Clinton and her cobwebby, old lady vagina had to be one of the most brilliant Republican victories ever.

[thegreekdog]

You've bought into the idea that there is a substantial difference between the two parties when there isn't.

Why should anyone care whether there is a difference between the two parties? Political decisions are made by individuals, not by political parties, and blaming anything on the political party structure absolves congresspeople from responsibility for their actions. And there are real differences between individuals. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney do have substantially different ideas about the country and how to run it. The fact that it is not a socialist running against a libertarian does not make the differences any less stark.

In order to be elected, individuals must side with a particular political party. And they must be beholden to the "ideas" of that particular political party. If they disagree, they are summarily tossed (e.g. Dennis Kucinich). There are exceptions, of course, but I don't know how you can look at the political system in the United States and not see a large problem with our two major political parties and the control they wield.

The president and Romney made rhetoric-laced comments about the economic state of the country and the social state of the country. The president's actions in his first administration (see above) were almost entirely different than his rhetoric during his first and second presidential campaigns. Similarly, Mitt Romney's rhetoric was entirely different than his actions as governor. The foreign policy debate was a fucking joke; they agreed on everything.

I don't mind that a Republican runs against a Democrat. There are some differences (e.g. rhetoric about abortion, rhetoric about rich and poor, rhetoric about over or under regulation). But it is all rhetoric.

What I mind is that those are the only two real choices and that choice isn't as stark as it needs to be. It's like wanting to choose a place to eat and having only two choices: Burger King and McDonald's. Is there a difference? Sure. But it's not a big one.

[AndyDufresne]

TGD, I tried writing you in for President when I voted in the fall (your Vice was Metsfanmax) on one of my supplementary voter fraud ballots, but I don't think you both won.


--Andy