Political Roundtable Part IX

[montestewart]

If the polls are accurate, you are right that the President’s approval rating is just north of 50%. How does that reconcile with polls saying 70% think the country is headed in the wrong direction? I don’t know the answer but it seems odd.

Within the closed world of that article, that would seem a contradiction, because the article implies that divisiveness and partisanship are Obama's fault. Outside the closed world of that article, many of the people who think the country is headed in the wrong direction do not think that the divisiveness and partisanship are Obama's fault.

[DCZards]

Could the “wrong direction” responses of the public be driven, at least in part, by the recalcitrant Congress, which has sought to block Obama’s agenda at every turn. A Congress whose approval rating is around 16%?

It’s noteworthy that the WSJ article posted by Popper fails to mention that Obama has a 50% approval rating, which is among the highest of any President at this point in his presidency. Bush’s approval rating was 32% at the same point in his presidency. In Bush’s last year (November 2008), 83% of Americans thought the country was going in the wrong direction--an all-time high.

And does anyone need to be reminded how bad the economy was when Obama took over for Bush in 2009? Despite the ongoing problems with our economy, it’s a hell of a lot better now than it was when Bush left office. There’s no disputing that.

As for Obama vs. Reagan: How much of what’s going on across the world can really be blamed on Obama? The reality is that we live in a very different world in 2016 than we did 30 years ago when Reagan was president.

[dckingsfan]

Two unfunded wars, the economy tanking at a rapid pace, unemployment skyrocketing...seems like history is being rewritten by conservatives. The country was taking a nosedive, and the stimulus saved us IMO. As a matter of fact, I believe (as well as many other ecnomoists) that the stimulus wasn't big enough.

Nice label - wrong one but whatever.

Wars were a problem with Bush, he wasn't creative and I feel reacted poorly to 9/11 - Obama's foreign policy has been obismal as well.

The stimulus didn't save us - that is baloney. The Fed intervention saved us. Most economists agree that that particular stimulus was ineffective. And though I am loath to agree with the house Rs, there fiscal policy actually helped get the economy going by having some fiscal constraint and not allowing large tax increases to go through.

The tax policy is crap. That I won't debate with you...you're right. The TPP is a horrible piece of legislation IMO.

Obama had a chance on the tax legislation - he blew it. He knows that entitlements are killing us and he kicked the can down the road.

Healthcare...I will wholeheartedly disagree. Although Obamacare was neutered completely from it's original inception, let's be clear. Obamacare is an offset of the REPUBLICAN plan from the 90's. If it was called Reagancare, or Bushcare, the Reps would be supporting it. And the system (or lack thereof) before Obamacare was completely unsustainable...there were millions of Americans without healthcare, and federal dollars was pouring to cover the expense. Obamacare, while far from perfect, at least is going in the right direction. Single payer is the ultimate goal, but both sides of the aisle avoid it because it would cost them billions in lobbyist funding.

It was a terribly written piece of legislation. And the only time I have been actually embarrassed by Obama. He flat out lied to the public to get it through. Implementation matters - not just the thought that counts.

Race relations...that's unfair to lump that in his lap. Race relations have never been good in this country, so to make that claim is simply not true. Plus, how do you measure "race relations"? I think many white people live in this mist where there were no race problems because people didn't bother complaining as vocally during the Clinton and Bush years as they do now. Well, it's always been bad...now with cell phones and social media, there are more public outcries than they did back in the 90's and early 2000's.

Interesting... I see it that he had a chance to make a difference and hedged. When BLM came out, he could have said that part of the problem was blacks killing blacks. He let it get out of control by not speaking up, IMO.

By no means do I think Obama is a great president, btw. He has MANY flops, and his foreign policy has been poor. With that being said, he is light years better than the disaster of a president before him. He had to mop up a lot of messes.

I think they have both been poor presidents - ranking GW over Obama is fine I guess. I am just unimpressed by both. I just don't think we can say Obama took on the big issues and made the country better. He was more like a placeholder.

[dckingsfan]

If the polls are accurate, you are right that the President’s approval rating is just north of 50%. How does that reconcile with polls saying 70% think the country is headed in the wrong direction? I don’t know the answer but it seems odd.

Within the closed world of that article, that would seem a contradiction, because the article implies that divisiveness and partisanship are Obama's fault. Outside the closed world of that article, many of the people who think the country is headed in the wrong direction do not think that the divisiveness and partisanship are Obama's fault.

Yep, there isn't a logical connection. I think the spirit (and not well articulated) was how Reagan, Bush and Clinton were able to reach across the aisle to get things done.

[DCZards]

Healthcare...I will wholeheartedly disagree. Although Obamacare was neutered completely from it's original inception, let's be clear. Obamacare is an offset of the REPUBLICAN plan from the 90's. If it was called Reagancare, or Bushcare, the Reps would be supporting it. And the system (or lack thereof) before Obamacare was completely unsustainable...there were millions of Americans without healthcare, and federal dollars was pouring to cover the expense. Obamacare, while far from perfect, at least is going in the right direction. Single payer is the ultimate goal, but both sides of the aisle avoid it because it would cost them billions in lobbyist funding.

It was a terribly written piece of legislation. And the only time I have been actually embarrassed by Obama. He flat out lied to the public to get it through. Implementation matters - not just the thought that counts.

Not going to debate how well the healthcare legislation was written. Or whether or not Obama lied to get it passed. The bottom line for me is that close to 20 million Americans, many of whom couldn't get coverage previously due to preexisting conditions, now have healthcare coverage because of Obamacare. That means lives are being saved.

Obama has consistently told Congress that those with suggestions for improving Obamacare should bring forth their ideas. Instead, the Repubs have spent their time and energy trying to get rid of Obamacare with no concrete plan for replacing it or for covering those Americans who would lose healthcare coverage if Obamacare was eliminated.

Interesting... I see it that he had a chance to make a difference and hedged. When BLM came out, he could have said that part of the problem was blacks killing blacks. He let it get out of control by not speaking up, IMO.

Coming out differently about BLM or citing blacks killing blacks as a problem might have helped to improve race relations? Why...because it might make white people feel better about the Obama presidency?

[TGW]

White on white crime is at 85%...what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? BLM is a reponse to police brutality by what they feel is a racial bias in policing. That racial bias is not perceived...it's confirmed by the DOJ. The same DOJ that said white supremacist would infiltrate law enforcement. Bringing up "black on black crime" is just a way for people to sidestep the issue. We should hold taxpayer funded civil servants to higher standards than a person on the street with a gun.

[dckingsfan]

Healthcare...I will wholeheartedly disagree. Although Obamacare was neutered completely from it's original inception, let's be clear. Obamacare is an offset of the REPUBLICAN plan from the 90's. If it was called Reagancare, or Bushcare, the Reps would be supporting it. And the system (or lack thereof) before Obamacare was completely unsustainable...there were millions of Americans without healthcare, and federal dollars was pouring to cover the expense. Obamacare, while far from perfect, at least is going in the right direction. Single payer is the ultimate goal, but both sides of the aisle avoid it because it would cost them billions in lobbyist funding.

It was a terribly written piece of legislation. And the only time I have been actually embarrassed by Obama. He flat out lied to the public to get it through. Implementation matters - not just the thought that counts.

Not going to debate how well the healthcare legislation was written. Or whether or not Obama lied to get it passed. The bottom line for me is that close to 20 million Americans, many of whom couldn't get coverage previously due to preexisting conditions, now have healthcare coverage because of Obamacare. That means lives are being saved.

Obama has consistently told Congress that those with suggestions for improving Obamacare should bring forth their ideas. Instead, the Repubs have spent their time and energy trying to get rid of Obamacare with no concrete plan for replacing it or for covering those Americans who would lose healthcare coverage if Obamacare was eliminated.

Zard's, this matters to both of us... the current law as established is unsustainable. UnitedHealth has bailed, other large insurers are bailing. In some cases you can get coverage but can't get care. That isn't want we wanted. "Nationwide, an analysis by McKinsey found that insurers lost $2.7 billion on individual customers in 2014, the only year since Obamacare coverage expansion for which full numbers are available–with 70 percent of carriers sustaining losses. Those losses are after government payments intended to help plans with high-cost customers. Preliminary data from 2015 suggest the rate of losses likely doubled, according to McKinsey." With the Rs blocking payments to the insurers, watch the rates double.

Implementation matters - that is why I give him really bad marks for this one.

[dckingsfan]

White on white crime is at 85%...what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? BLM is a reponse to police brutality by what they feel is a racial bias in policing. That racial bias is not perceived...it's confirmed by the DOJ. The same DOJ that said white supremacist would infiltrate law enforcement. Bringing up "black on black crime" is just a way for people to sidestep the issue. We should hold taxpayer funded civil servants to higher standards than a person on the street with a gun.

I can see your point. Keep the two issues (black violence and police bias) separate. And I can respect that opinion.

My opinion is the two issues are inseparable and I expected my president to be front and center on both issues (I am holding him to a higher standard). I feel he wasn't/didn't and it has caused a greater divide - which is exactly what I didn't expect to happen.

[Wizardspride]

White on white crime is at 85%...what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? BLM is a reponse to police brutality by what they feel is a racial bias in policing. That racial bias is not perceived...it's confirmed by the DOJ. The same DOJ that said white supremacist would infiltrate law enforcement. Bringing up "black on black crime" is just a way for people to sidestep the issue. We should hold taxpayer funded civil servants to higher standards than a person on the street with a gun.

I can see your point. Keep the two issues (black violence and police bias) separate. And I can respect that opinion.

My opinion is the two issues are inseparable and I expected my president to be front and center on both issues (I am holding him to a higher standard). I feel he wasn't/didn't and it has caused a greater divide - which is exactly what I didn't expect to happen.

President Obama actually has been quite vocal about violence in the black community.

For some reason the media (particularly the conservative media) haven't noticed.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I can see your point. Keep the two issues (black violence and police bias) separate. And I can respect that opinion.

My opinion is the two issues are inseparable and I expected my president to be front and center on both issues (I am holding him to a higher standard). I feel he wasn't/didn't and it has caused a greater divide - which is exactly what I didn't expect to happen.

I think this is a bit trickier still. In theory, the issues shouldn't have to be separated, but do you really believe this was ever going to get noticed, let along change, if the issues were never separated? I mean, even now, while the term "all lives matter" is great in theory, it's basically being used as a shield to turn one's back on the issue. If you want to split hairs and say all lives matter, great, but that really should be followed up by an acknowledgement that there are problems here, and some of them are racially motivated. You shouldn't have to split issues, but it might just be a situation where issues have to be split in practice because otherwise you'll be drowned by silence and indifference.

Whether or not Obama handled it well, I'm not sure, personally. On one hand, I'd have preferred if he found a better way to manage it and further change, but on the other, I recognize that such is probably wishful thinking to a certain degree on my part. Nothing he was going to do was going to wedge things far enough apart to deal with any problems unless there were other stronger forces at play. Whether or not that was wise, I can understand staying a bit silent on the issue overall. I don't think he really had any right options where BLM was concerned. No matter what he did or didn't say, there was going to be division and somebody was going to be accusing him of picking sides, or not doing enough, or doing too much.

[dckingsfan]

White on white crime is at 85%...what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? BLM is a reponse to police brutality by what they feel is a racial bias in policing. That racial bias is not perceived...it's confirmed by the DOJ. The same DOJ that said white supremacist would infiltrate law enforcement. Bringing up "black on black crime" is just a way for people to sidestep the issue. We should hold taxpayer funded civil servants to higher standards than a person on the street with a gun.

I can see your point. Keep the two issues (black violence and police bias) separate. And I can respect that opinion.

My opinion is the two issues are inseparable and I expected my president to be front and center on both issues (I am holding him to a higher standard). I feel he wasn't/didn't and it has caused a greater divide - which is exactly what I didn't expect to happen.

President Obama actually has been quite vocal about violence in the black community.

For some reason the media (particularly the conservative media) hasn't noticed.

That could be - I read the NY Times and can't recall a mention of it for several years anyway. I don't see him continually harping on the issue. He isn't "stumping for" the issue, IMO.

[Wizardspride]

I can see your point. Keep the two issues (black violence and police bias) separate. And I can respect that opinion.

My opinion is the two issues are inseparable and I expected my president to be front and center on both issues (I am holding him to a higher standard). I feel he wasn't/didn't and it has caused a greater divide - which is exactly what I didn't expect to happen.

President Obama actually has been quite vocal about violence in the black community.

For some reason the media (particularly the conservative media) hasn't noticed.

That could be - I read the NY Times and can't recall a mention of it for several years anyway. I don't see him continually harping on the issue. He isn't "stumping for" the issue, IMO.

President Obama, Jul 14, 2016

“It is absolutely true that the murder rate in the African-American community is way out of whack compared to the general population,” Obama said. “And both the victims and the perpetrators are black, young black men.

“The single greatest cause of death for young black men between the ages of 18 and 35 is homicide. And that’s crazy. That is crazy,” the president continued, responding to a question from Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn.

[popper]

The American public and media don't seem to understand the painful trade-offs that will confront them in the very near future as a result of our debt, deficits and entitlement obligations. Because they're ignoring the train wreck ahead they're giving our politicians a pass so that they too can ignore the issue. This is not going to end well if we keep burying our heads in the sand.

[DCZards]

That could be - I read the NY Times and can't recall a mention of it for several years anyway. I don't see him continually harping on the issue. He isn't "stumping for" the issue, IMO.

I don't get why Obama should be "harping on" black-on-black crime. He's the president of all America and not just black America. How would "stumping for" the issue improve race relations?

[dckingsfan]

That could be - I read the NY Times and can't recall a mention of it for several years anyway. I don't see him continually harping on the issue. He isn't "stumping for" the issue, IMO.

I don't get why Obama should be "harping on" black-on-black crime. He's the president of all America and not just black America. How would "stumping for" the issue improve race relations?

Not for race relations - because it would help America. Because it matters and he could have done something about it. It is staggering the number of black men that are murdered each year.

And remembering the original thread - I don't think he is leaving this better than it was before - which is my point. He could of - but he didn't.

[dckingsfan]

President Obama actually has been quite vocal about violence in the black community.

For some reason the media (particularly the conservative media) hasn't noticed.

That could be - I read the NY Times and can't recall a mention of it for several years anyway. I don't see him continually harping on the issue. He isn't "stumping for" the issue, IMO.

President Obama, Jul 14, 2016

“It is absolutely true that the murder rate in the African-American community is way out of whack compared to the general population,” Obama said. “And both the victims and the perpetrators are black, young black men.

“The single greatest cause of death for young black men between the ages of 18 and 35 is homicide. And that’s crazy. That is crazy,” the president continued, responding to a question from Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn.

Thanks Wizardspride... I was trying to find something earlier. I was hoping to prove myself wrong and show that he was continually bringing up the issue.

[popper]

That could be - I read the NY Times and can't recall a mention of it for several years anyway. I don't see him continually harping on the issue. He isn't "stumping for" the issue, IMO.

I don't get why Obama should be "harping on" black-on-black crime. He's the president of all America and not just black America. How would "stumping for" the issue improve race relations?

He shouldn't be harping on violent crime due to race relations, but he should be harping on it due to the pain it causes to victims and families. Blacks idolize the president so he very well might have some positive impact on reducing violent crime in Chicago, Baltimore, Richmond, Detroit, St. Louis, etc. if he were to dedicate himself to that cause vs his golf game and $80 million in family vacations. I've always respected your views DCZ but he has had a unique opportunity to effect positive transformation in the black community but he never embraced it except in the political sense in search for votes.

[DCZards]

He shouldn't be harping on violent crime due to race relations, but he should be harping on it due to the pain it causes to victims and families. Blacks idolize the president so he very well might have some positive impact on reducing violent crime in Chicago, Baltimore, Richmond, Detroit, St. Louis, etc. if he were to dedicate himself to that cause vs his golf game and $80 million in family vacations. I've always respected your views DCZ but he has had a unique opportunity to effect positive transformation in the black community but he never embraced it except in the political sense in search for votes.

Pres. Obama has had a positive impact on the black community…much more so than you probably realize. For starters, his bailout of the auto industry saved the jobs of thousands of African-Americans who work in the auto plants, there’s been a dramatic increase in the number of black Americans with healthcare coverage as a result of Obamacare, and more black men and women than ever are voting in presidential elections and other elections due, in large part, to President Obama. And I’m hopeful that the President’s “My Brother’s Keepers” program gets the funding that it needs and deserve.

I could go on. But I point these things out to make it clear that crime is not the only measurement of how Pres. Obama—or any president—impacts a community.

Sure I would have liked for the President to have done more--and reducing crime in ALL American communities is one of those things. A more supportive Congress would have certainly helped him achieve more in this and other areas.

But please don’t underestimate the positive impact that Barack, Michelle and their two daughters have had on the black community, much of which can’t be seen from the outside looking in.

Edit to add: Obama will also have a positive impact on the African-American community by helping to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Trump.

[closg00]

Meryl Streep vs Scott Baio as speakers, what a contrast.

[popper]

He shouldn't be harping on violent crime due to race relations, but he should be harping on it due to the pain it causes to victims and families. Blacks idolize the president so he very well might have some positive impact on reducing violent crime in Chicago, Baltimore, Richmond, Detroit, St. Louis, etc. if he were to dedicate himself to that cause vs his golf game and $80 million in family vacations. I've always respected your views DCZ but he has had a unique opportunity to effect positive transformation in the black community but he never embraced it except in the political sense in search for votes.

Pres. Obama has had a positive impact on the black community…much more so than you probably realize. For starters, his bailout of the auto industry saved the jobs of thousands of African-Americans who work in the auto plants, there’s been a dramatic increase in the number of black Americans with healthcare coverage as a result of Obamacare, and more black men and women than ever are voting in presidential elections and other elections due, in large part, to President Obama. And I’m hopeful that the President’s “My Brother’s Keepers” program gets the funding that it needs and deserve.

I could go on. But I point these things out to make it clear that crime is not the only measurement of how Pres. Obama—or any president—impacts a community.

Sure I would have liked for the President to have done more--and reducing crime in ALL American communities is one of those things. A more supportive Congress would have certainly helped him achieve more in this and other areas.

But please don’t underestimate the positive impact that Barack, Michelle and their two daughters have had on the black community, much of which can’t be seen from the outside looking in.

Edit to add: Obama will also have a positive impact on the African-American community by helping to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Trump.

Like I said, I respect your views DCZ. Hillary and Donald, like the president, are corrupt serial liars. I'll vote for Trump only because R's will temper his worst instincts and hopefully insist he appoint judges that respect the constitution. For some unknown reason, D's won't.