Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jervill]

As for the healthcare law, many states are now implementing health care exchanges and moving ahead on it instead of wringing their hands over it.

I can't seem to find a list of states doing it, though.  Most have Dem-controlled governments, although I believe New Mexico is also moving ahead on it.

[Owlbread]

Isn't most of the debt ceiling nonsense falling on the Republicans' heads, though?

In the blogosphere and pundit circles? Probably.
In popular opinion? It's falling on "Congress" in a generic sense (about a 14% approval rating, despite the overwhelming majority of incumbents having been recently voted back into office).

I think in general, there's just a mood that our government is utterly dysfunctional and broken, but most people can't see a way to fix it. Plus, they like "their" Congresscritter, which is part of the problem. A dysfunctional Congress may just be evidence of a dysfunctional nation.

I wouldn't say that the US federal government isn't all that utterly dysfunctional and broken when compared with, say, our own or that of other countries. It's in a bad way certainly, and it's essential to have more co-operation, but I still think David Cameron or Nick Clegg would give a lot to be in Obama's shoes right now.

I'd just like to throw in a bit I was pondering recently that I don't think I spoke about in the Presidential Elections thread; if the population of Texas were largely left-wing in their political alignments, say, pretty radical Socialists, would that help to to deal with some of the problems that would come up in the event of Texan independence? You know, the fact that Texas is very polarized between rich and poor, with the social problems among the "great unwashed" eventually crippling the country. There is also a problem with the water I hear; people just aren't getting enough access to the reservoirs, or there's not enough reservoirs being created. Maybe if the socialists were old-school Christian Socialists that would help at least in a small way to get around the problem of the entrenched religious conservatism.

Perhaps if they had some socialistic projects like collective-farms/ranches whatever (not to replace the current free ones, these would be newly created by the government) and some similarly structured groups working en masse on creating new water supplies for the fledgeling country, that could reduce unemployment and also make the country more self sufficient. Perhaps they could even get into creating more windfarms/solar panels/maybe wave power converters along the coast and so on to provide a source of renewable energy for when the oil runs out.

[FearfulJesuit]

As for the healthcare law, many states are now implementing health care exchanges and moving ahead on it instead of wringing their hands over it.

I can't seem to find a list of states doing it, though.  Most have Dem-controlled governments, although I believe New Mexico is also moving ahead on it.

I thought I recalled that a lot of those states were actually Republican-controlled, and were going ahead with it so they could keep the Feds out of their business?

[MonkeyHead]

Isn't most of the debt ceiling nonsense falling on the Republicans' heads, though?

In the blogosphere and pundit circles? Probably.
In popular opinion? It's falling on "Congress" in a generic sense (about a 14% approval rating, despite the overwhelming majority of incumbents having been recently voted back into office).

I think in general, there's just a mood that our government is utterly dysfunctional and broken, but most people can't see a way to fix it. Plus, they like "their" Congresscritter, which is part of the problem. A dysfunctional Congress may just be evidence of a dysfunctional nation.

I wouldn't say that the US federal government isn't all that utterly dysfunctional and broken when compared with, say, our own or that of other countries. It's in a bad way certainly, and it's essential to have more co-operation, but I still think David Cameron or Nick Clegg would give a lot to be in Obama's shoes right now.

At least Obama has a mandate from winning a majority in a vote, unlike the two chumps leading our nation .

[Owlbread]

At least Obama has a mandate from winning a majority in a vote, unlike the two chumps leading our nation .

And at least Obama is in his second term and only has to worry about his legacy. He's got a lot more freedom this time around. Mr. Cameron on the other hand has to worry about re-election. At least he's not Nick Clegg; all he can do is try to dissociate from the catastrophe that has befallen him.

[MonkeyHead]

Yeah, and Obama doesnt have to worry about those behind him sniping for his position as he is not enough of a democrat, unlike Cameron with all those nutjobs behind him wanting GB out of the EU and suchlike.

How will Obama be remembered? I cant say I have come acorss someone who in my eyes is doing a good job in a bad situation who polarises opinion so much. This a function of the 2 party system?

[FearfulJesuit]

He'll definitely be ranked in the top half of presidents, I think. Healthcare is historic, and one of his goals for his second term is immigration reform; if he gets that done, he'll probably get the top third.

[Owlbread]

If there hadn't been the killings at the US embassy in Benghazi, perhaps people could have looked favourably on Obama as a military leader too; very quick, no boots on the ground etc.

[Frumple]

You do have the drone warfare and consistent infringement on privacy et al, though, among other things. Obama's honestly kind of a mixed bag. I'd wager how he's seen by history depends on how the next few folks react to some of the more odious stuff he's done. If we end up with a(n even more) hellish police state based on folks coming after bouncing off some of the stuff Obama's presided over, there might not be much good to say about 'im.

Other than "Better than Bush" anyway

[Jervill]

As for the healthcare law, many states are now implementing health care exchanges and moving ahead on it instead of wringing their hands over it.

I can't seem to find a list of states doing it, though.  Most have Dem-controlled governments, although I believe New Mexico is also moving ahead on it.

I thought I recalled that a lot of those states were actually Republican-controlled, and were going ahead with it so they could keep the Feds out of their business?

Here's a map from the National Conference of State Legislatures:

Map.

Most of the states pursuing it are Democratic states; most of the Republican states are pointlessly opposing it.

[RedKing]

Isn't most of the debt ceiling nonsense falling on the Republicans' heads, though?

In the blogosphere and pundit circles? Probably.
In popular opinion? It's falling on "Congress" in a generic sense (about a 14% approval rating, despite the overwhelming majority of incumbents having been recently voted back into office).

I think in general, there's just a mood that our government is utterly dysfunctional and broken, but most people can't see a way to fix it. Plus, they like "their" Congresscritter, which is part of the problem. A dysfunctional Congress may just be evidence of a dysfunctional nation.

I wouldn't say that the US federal government isn't all that utterly dysfunctional and broken when compared with, say, our own or that of other countries. It's in a bad way certainly, and it's essential to have more co-operation, but I still think David Cameron or Nick Clegg would give a lot to be in Obama's shoes right now.

Let me restate this -- we were considering making a trillion dollar coin, just to pay off our debt to ourself. After which, I suppose it would have been melted down before someone could steal it.

Here's a map from the National Conference of State Legislatures:

Map.

Most of the states pursuing it are Democratic states; most of the Republican states are pointlessly opposing it.

Worth noting that several "red" states like Mississippi, Utah and Kentucky are implementing state exchanges, by executive order. The Dem states are implementing them as a result of passed legislation. The Republican states who are going the state exchange route could reflect governors who know they need to do this, but also know there's no way in hell the legislature would pass such legislation.

[FearfulJesuit]

Why is executive order only affecting those states, and not, say, Texas or Oklahoma?

[GlyphGryph]

I'd presume it's because their executives don't want to. Worried about re-election if they embrace it, I imagine?

[FearfulJesuit]

I'd presume it's because their executives don't want to. Worried about re-election if they embrace it, I imagine?

Both Mississippi and Utah have Republican governors (although Kentucky's is a Democrat). I think RedKing was referring to an order by the Obama administration.

[GlyphGryph]

No, the orders were all State executive orders, and I think it's pretty clear, since he contrasted them with legislative solutions (on the state level) and then went on to say explicitly that he meant governors with:
"The Republican states who are going the state exchange route could reflect governors who know they need to do this, but also know there's no way in hell the legislature would pass such legislation."

Anyway, being Republican governors doesn't mean being in danger of losing reelection, and doesn't seem to have much to do with my statement.