The Republicans’ obstruction really has some interesting side effects. Eventually, President Obama will be able to boast that he presided over the biggest shift from public to private jobs in the modern era. And then there is the health care law. By starving the government of the funds needed to implement the bill, Congress has forced the administration to ask the private sector to help pay for the implementation.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has gone, hat in hand, to health industry officials, asking them to make large financial donations to help with the effort to implement President Obama’s landmark health-care law, two people familiar with the outreach said.
Her unusual fundraising push comes after Congress repeatedly rejected the Obama administration’s requests for additional funds to set up the Affordable Care Act, leaving HHS to implement the president’s signature legislative accomplishment on what officials have described as a shoestring budget.
Over the past three months, Sebelius has made multiple phone calls to health industry executives, community organizations and church groups and asked that they contribute whatever they can to nonprofit groups that are working to enroll uninsured Americans and increase awareness of the law, according to an HHS official and an industry person familiar with the secretary’s activities. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk openly about private discussions.
Of course, this will be the next Benghazi.
The “next Benghazi”? What was the last one?
It boggles the mind that a party utterly devoted to breaking civil society so that everything is fixed up nice for their corporate sponsors, that such a party can pull even 47% of the national vote in a presidential election. Their “work” as a political party is simply the relentless industrial-scale attempt to lie about their agenda, and to, every second of every day, troll the political media for spineless coverage of their pissing contests and carnival barker grandstanding, in place of any genuine attempt to work for the American people, much less any concern for the orderly functioning of government, except when it affects the private jet industry or carbon extraction or war profiteering or the convenience of gun ownership.
It’ll be interesting what the stats on income equality look like at the end of Obama’s term. He can boast all he wants but its a mixed bag right now.
My point, if it wasn’t clear, is that Obama never set out to resift the workforce and shrink local, state, and federal government. It just happened because the Republicans never would allow more stimulus.
So, later on, when historians look at the record, it won’t be Reagan who shrunk government. It will be Obama.
It’s ironic.
This does not come as a shock.
Similarly, in 50 years, Barack Obama will be considered the Abraham Lincoln of gay rights, again because of the timing when the big events took place.
You can already see it in the comments of people who think his answer about gay marriage in a magazine interview is the driving force of the shift in public opinion (which predates his “evolution.”)
It’s the same reason why you sometimes see people describe Richard Nixon as a progressive President: he signed everything the Democratic Congress put on his desk in an effort to win their support for his continuation of the Vietnam War, so forty years later, people give him the credit.
This isn’t necessarily a good thing,or a feather in his cap.
Public sector jobs have better benefits, are often union jobs, offer pensions, and are more stable.
So yeah. Bravo. Insert golf clap.
This isn’t necessarily a good thing,or a feather in his cap.
Did anyone say it was?
Maybe you could take the Obama Praise Police cap off for an hour, and try to understand a point in some other terms than that.
Fuck you, Joe.
Actually, Joe’s comment was on point. You know me pretty well. Do you think I am of the opinion that shrinking the pubic sector is a good thing?
Honestly, I’ve seen you defend shit that is so blatantly awful, I simply don’t know.
And Joe can kiss my ads, because it refuses to recognize when I’ve praised Obama.
I may be a tough critic, but I give credit where credit is due. Whereas Obama could eat a live kitten and Joe would reflexively defend it, no matter what.
I am not interested in your fight with Joe. What have I defended that is so awful?
Well, let’s see. I watched you defend Harry Reid to the point that even CG jumped in to point out how much he sucks. And I”ve seen you play down some of the worse aspects of Obamacare, like how a lot of people may fall through the cracks. I’ve seen you flip flop on chained CPI. Just yesterday, you were portraying the Administration’s decision to fight the court on the FDA and Plan B as some majestic strategy, when Oui pointed out it was due to a sweetheart deal with the FDA and Big Pharma.
Yet at the same time your objections to missteps on the sequester, and on civil liberties have been vociferous.
So no, I don’t know where you stand, for real, on shrinking government and whether that’s good or bad. Not trying to bust your balls. Just saying what I’ve read and how I’ve interpreted it.
I don’t even understand your comment about Harry Reid. I have been an absolutely brutal critic of Harry Reid, to the point that I heard about it from his office.
On Chained CPI, I’d like you to find a less harmful carrot to give to the Republicans, and then we can talk.
I have no idea what you are talking about with ObamaCare, unless you are adopting the kill-the-bill philosophy of FDL.
On Obama’s FDA thing, all I said is that I suspect that they don’t really want to win in court. It’s not particularly majestic.
On the whole, I like big government. I don’t like it just for its own sake, but I think it’s been harmful to lose so many state and local government jobs because it has cut into efficiency and needed services.
When you look at the way Joe hounds people, it’s to try to make it unpleasant for them to comment. In my case, when I started commenting here regularly, his insults and rudeness were so predictable that I thought he might be trying to drive me off the site. This community is too small for this kind of exchange. Ignore him. In the vast majority of his comments, he oversimplifies a person’s argument, replies to a caricature he imagines, and personally insults the original poster. If he didn’t do this, I suspect he’d have very little left to say. Maybe one day he’ll prove me wrong.
Not sure he wants to own it, but he can if he does.
Much like Clinton balanced the budget. That was a byproduct of both a booming economy and Gingrich’s Congress. But we get to argue, correctly, that budgetary matters have been much sounder under Democratic presidents than Republican ones.
When we look back at the percentage of the economy that is public, we will be able to say that it shrunk dramatically under Obama, and not under Bush.
It’s not an objective but it’s a result.
Does this matter to anyone but economic conservatives and NYT/Post centrists? No ads are going to be run touting the percentage of public sector shrinkage especially when that is referring to teachers and other mostly state employees.
I just don’t see Obama benefiting from this politically even if he liked the outcome.
Do the Democrats benefit from Clinton’s economic record and in particular his record on the budget?
Of course they do.
Is that an unmitigated plus? No. No, it’s not.
It undermines Republican talking points whole bolstering Republican philosophy.
Do the Democrats benefit from Clinton’s economic record and in particular his record on the budget?
Do they? You mean that he balanced the budget? If you mean as compared to the years that then followed it, yes. But over all? No.
I mean, the Democrats benefit by being able to point to the good economy and healthy budget during Clinton’s presidency, even though at least the budgetary part of it is mainly due to the Republican-controlled Congress.
Are you sure? I’m beginning to wonder if everything that he said in 2008 pre-November was a lie.
Oh cut it out with the hyperbole. Everything he said was a lie? Everything? Obama has broken some promises, sure, but he’s kept a lot of them that weren’t trivial. And no, I’m not going to list them. If you can’t think of one or two, you’re just lost.
Criticize Obama. Hold him accountable. But juvenile exaggerations just damage your own credibility.
My point, if it wasn’t clear, is that Obama never set out to reshift the workforce and shrink local, state, and federal government. It just happened because the Republicans never would allow more stimulus.
This is garbage and you know it. They were too afraid to even ask for more. You had the Blue Dogs kvetching too, don’t forget. Also, you have Obama taking credit for the reducing spending, despite it being the wrong course right now. He’s been pushing austerity from almost the beginning. He’s been a Bob Rubin guy since before he was elected President.
Reminding me of this bumper sticker:
It’ll be a great day when the schools have all the money they need and the Pentagon has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.