Unless you have been living under a rock these days, you know that this week, the United States Supreme Court ruled (5-4) in favor of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), more popularly known as "Obamacare". What shocked everybody was that Chief Justice John Roberts was in the majority of that ruling. Basically, he and other Justices reinterpreted the clause about the ACA mandating the purchase of health insurance as being a tax rather than forced commerce. In addition, the only major setback to the ACA was the striking down of the clause saying (if I understand this correctly) that states must expand Medicaid coverage to cover low-income people who would otherwise be unable to afford the mandated insurance or else forgo funding for health care entirely. (Please note that I am not anything close to a legal scholar. The following constitutes little more than random mumbling, so you don't have to take it for more than that.)
Showing posts with label president obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label president obama. Show all posts
2011-07-13
On the Current US Deficit and Debt Crises
It's been a long time since I've posted here about straight-up US politics (that doesn't have much to do with technology, technological freedoms, et cetera), but I felt that what's happening now deserved a post.
Unless you've been living under a rock, you probably know that the US has a pretty big deficit and a whopping debt. The debt is so high that the US is rapidly nearing the debt limit; if it doesn't raise the debt ceiling, it will default, and the US credit rating will probably be downgraded from 'AAA' to 'AA'. Of course, this will have catastrophic consequences for the economy, which until recently I didn't really understand, but now I sort of do. Many government workers, probably including myself (in my summer internship at NIST) and someone in my direct family will be laid off at least for a while. Interest rates will shoot up. Elderly people will stop receiving Social Security and Medicare, at least until this whole thing can get straightened out again. And the reason why this hits home is because if government workers do get laid off, I may not be able to attend college again until my family has income again to pay for my education. It's a scary and saddening thought, and it's certainly not something I thought I would ever have to worry about in my four years of undergraduate education.
Just for a quick rundown of what's happened so far, President Obama has been trying to bargain and compromise with Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate in order to actually raise the debt ceiling. These negotiations stalled thanks to Republicans, especially House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, repeatedly walking out of these talks. Obama has moved steadily to the right to try to court Republicans, promising $5-6 in spending cuts, even in things like defense and entitlements that traditionally haven't been touched, for every $1 in tax increases. Recently, House Speaker John Boehner seemed to be agreeable to such deals, but that all fell apart, probably under pressure from Cantor.
Just this week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell came up with a last-resort plan to raise the debt ceiling, if all else failed. This would involve Congress passing a resolution against raising the debt ceiling, which Obama would veto in order to raise the debt ceiling. For the veto to stand, 1/3 of the representatives and senators would need to block attempts to override the veto. This would happen in all likelihood, and this would have the effect of Obama unilaterally raising the debt ceiling without Congress's help. This would be done in conjunction with trillions of dollars in spending cuts, and this would be repeated 2 or 3 times, once every three months. Most people in Congress have supported it as a last-resort measure, yet Cantor still opposes it, despite it coming from a Republican senator.
There are so many problems with this whole thing, it's unbelievable. Leaving aside the mechanics of the actual debt and deficit reduction plans for a moment, let's just focus on the behavior of the people in DC. Obama and Boehner have been the most agreeable people here for actually seriously considering solutions to the problem, even risking disapproval from members of their respective parties. Cantor has been the No-Man here, saying no to any deal here. In fact, Cantor has had the gall to say that even choosing to negotiate with Obama and the Democrats is itself a compromise. Hello? Last time I checked, negotiation is a prerequisite for compromises to be made. If your idea of sticking by your principles is sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, people are probably going to give up trying to reason with you. Sadly, you're endangering the economy at the same time by choosing to do absolutely nothing.
And the McConnell plan strikes me as almost as ridiculous as Cantor's stance. It's obvious this is done so that Republicans can place the full blame of raising the debt ceiling on Obama. (As if saving the economy from survival is now supposed to be a shameful act...) This is in response to Obama rightly calling out Republicans on refusing to do/going back on things like closing tax loopholes, ending subsidies for ethanol, and ending tax breaks for toys for very wealthy people. In effect, this also places the blame on Republicans should the US default due to Republican obstinacy. Yet Republicans, more focused on staying in power than actually serving their country and constituents, would rather not act to prevent the US from defaulting by putting the whole burden of raising the debt limit on Obama. I suppose it's marginally better than no plan at all, but the overtly political nature of the stunt is frankly disgusting.
(All for what? To please a guy named Grover Norquist, who has never himself been elected, and who said on The Colbert Report that grandmas should die at the hands of terrorists before taxes can be raised. Yes, he really said that, and judging from the genuinely taken-aback expression on Stephen Colbert's face upon hearing that, Norquist was serious. So really, it's Norquist holding the economy hostage so that his whims may be pleased. What's worse, people paying small portions of their income for the public good, or people losing their jobs, possibly to never get them back? It's insane, but I slightly digress...)
It's sometimes amusing to watch the antics of politicians, and to watch them act like screaming 4-year olds. It's no longer fun when the economy, my college education, and loved ones' jobs are on the line. I think I'll stop before I puke repeatedly and before I get a prescription for hypertension medications.
Unless you've been living under a rock, you probably know that the US has a pretty big deficit and a whopping debt. The debt is so high that the US is rapidly nearing the debt limit; if it doesn't raise the debt ceiling, it will default, and the US credit rating will probably be downgraded from 'AAA' to 'AA'. Of course, this will have catastrophic consequences for the economy, which until recently I didn't really understand, but now I sort of do. Many government workers, probably including myself (in my summer internship at NIST) and someone in my direct family will be laid off at least for a while. Interest rates will shoot up. Elderly people will stop receiving Social Security and Medicare, at least until this whole thing can get straightened out again. And the reason why this hits home is because if government workers do get laid off, I may not be able to attend college again until my family has income again to pay for my education. It's a scary and saddening thought, and it's certainly not something I thought I would ever have to worry about in my four years of undergraduate education.
Just for a quick rundown of what's happened so far, President Obama has been trying to bargain and compromise with Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate in order to actually raise the debt ceiling. These negotiations stalled thanks to Republicans, especially House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, repeatedly walking out of these talks. Obama has moved steadily to the right to try to court Republicans, promising $5-6 in spending cuts, even in things like defense and entitlements that traditionally haven't been touched, for every $1 in tax increases. Recently, House Speaker John Boehner seemed to be agreeable to such deals, but that all fell apart, probably under pressure from Cantor.
Just this week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell came up with a last-resort plan to raise the debt ceiling, if all else failed. This would involve Congress passing a resolution against raising the debt ceiling, which Obama would veto in order to raise the debt ceiling. For the veto to stand, 1/3 of the representatives and senators would need to block attempts to override the veto. This would happen in all likelihood, and this would have the effect of Obama unilaterally raising the debt ceiling without Congress's help. This would be done in conjunction with trillions of dollars in spending cuts, and this would be repeated 2 or 3 times, once every three months. Most people in Congress have supported it as a last-resort measure, yet Cantor still opposes it, despite it coming from a Republican senator.
There are so many problems with this whole thing, it's unbelievable. Leaving aside the mechanics of the actual debt and deficit reduction plans for a moment, let's just focus on the behavior of the people in DC. Obama and Boehner have been the most agreeable people here for actually seriously considering solutions to the problem, even risking disapproval from members of their respective parties. Cantor has been the No-Man here, saying no to any deal here. In fact, Cantor has had the gall to say that even choosing to negotiate with Obama and the Democrats is itself a compromise. Hello? Last time I checked, negotiation is a prerequisite for compromises to be made. If your idea of sticking by your principles is sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, people are probably going to give up trying to reason with you. Sadly, you're endangering the economy at the same time by choosing to do absolutely nothing.
And the McConnell plan strikes me as almost as ridiculous as Cantor's stance. It's obvious this is done so that Republicans can place the full blame of raising the debt ceiling on Obama. (As if saving the economy from survival is now supposed to be a shameful act...) This is in response to Obama rightly calling out Republicans on refusing to do/going back on things like closing tax loopholes, ending subsidies for ethanol, and ending tax breaks for toys for very wealthy people. In effect, this also places the blame on Republicans should the US default due to Republican obstinacy. Yet Republicans, more focused on staying in power than actually serving their country and constituents, would rather not act to prevent the US from defaulting by putting the whole burden of raising the debt limit on Obama. I suppose it's marginally better than no plan at all, but the overtly political nature of the stunt is frankly disgusting.
(All for what? To please a guy named Grover Norquist, who has never himself been elected, and who said on The Colbert Report that grandmas should die at the hands of terrorists before taxes can be raised. Yes, he really said that, and judging from the genuinely taken-aback expression on Stephen Colbert's face upon hearing that, Norquist was serious. So really, it's Norquist holding the economy hostage so that his whims may be pleased. What's worse, people paying small portions of their income for the public good, or people losing their jobs, possibly to never get them back? It's insane, but I slightly digress...)
It's sometimes amusing to watch the antics of politicians, and to watch them act like screaming 4-year olds. It's no longer fun when the economy, my college education, and loved ones' jobs are on the line. I think I'll stop before I puke repeatedly and before I get a prescription for hypertension medications.
2010-03-15
I'm With Republicans on Intellectual Monopolies
I say this in response to this (Thom Holwerda, OSNews) article on Obama's support for the RIAA, MPAA, and other lobbies on the topic of intellectual monopolies.
He has claimed that "Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people".
Yes. That's true. Go on.
"It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century. But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor."
Wait, what?
Isn't the whole point of a competitive advantage to be able to produce the same good/service at a lower cost, benefiting everyone (consumers AND producers) in the economy? Come on, that's Economics 101/AP Economics!
Or, is he seriously suggesting that higher costs just to maintain monopolies is OK?
I don't know how we are going to move forward as an economy with that kind of thinking - not when somehow ensuring that the "original inventor" gets all the revenue (to the detriment of all else).
Geez.
Thankfully, as stated in the article, the EU Parliament has shot down the ACTA. Good for Europeans - sadly, the American people are not informed enough to ask representatives and senators to do the same (right) thing.
The title? Usually it's Democratic politicians who are proactive about introducing new restrictions on digital rights and enforcing new, longer-lasting intellectual monopolies. This mainly derives from Hollywood's influence on the Democratic party. Republicans do not have this connection, so they are a little more reserved about introducing such new intrusive laws (in line with their beliefs in small government); sadly, they rarely have the guts to oppose "protection of 'intellectual property'" (and this is one time where I want the Republicans to be more proactive in this regard). That's why I'm with the Republicans on this one.
He has claimed that "Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people".
Yes. That's true. Go on.
"It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century. But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor."
Wait, what?
Isn't the whole point of a competitive advantage to be able to produce the same good/service at a lower cost, benefiting everyone (consumers AND producers) in the economy? Come on, that's Economics 101/AP Economics!
Or, is he seriously suggesting that higher costs just to maintain monopolies is OK?
I don't know how we are going to move forward as an economy with that kind of thinking - not when somehow ensuring that the "original inventor" gets all the revenue (to the detriment of all else).
Geez.
Thankfully, as stated in the article, the EU Parliament has shot down the ACTA. Good for Europeans - sadly, the American people are not informed enough to ask representatives and senators to do the same (right) thing.
The title? Usually it's Democratic politicians who are proactive about introducing new restrictions on digital rights and enforcing new, longer-lasting intellectual monopolies. This mainly derives from Hollywood's influence on the Democratic party. Republicans do not have this connection, so they are a little more reserved about introducing such new intrusive laws (in line with their beliefs in small government); sadly, they rarely have the guts to oppose "protection of 'intellectual property'" (and this is one time where I want the Republicans to be more proactive in this regard). That's why I'm with the Republicans on this one.
2009-09-09
Socialist Education! Oh noes!
The big news this week was President Obama's address to students of all ages and their parents about education.
The bigger news was that prominent Republicans were lambasting it before they even knew what it was going to say. They claimed that Obama was going to "indoctrinate" schoolchildren in "leftist socialist ideologies".
Then, of course, Obama gave his speech. It was a speech that made sense - it was about students taking responsibility for their own education and for them to keep trying at it even when the going gets tough.
There was no hint of liberal ideology. In fact, personal responsibility is something many (now deceased) rational conservatives used to espouse. They should be proud.
Furthermore, the same conservatives who blasted the speech prior to its delivery without any basis changed course and praised it afterwards without any apology for bad prior judgment.
Why is this?
The bigger news was that prominent Republicans were lambasting it before they even knew what it was going to say. They claimed that Obama was going to "indoctrinate" schoolchildren in "leftist socialist ideologies".
Then, of course, Obama gave his speech. It was a speech that made sense - it was about students taking responsibility for their own education and for them to keep trying at it even when the going gets tough.
There was no hint of liberal ideology. In fact, personal responsibility is something many (now deceased) rational conservatives used to espouse. They should be proud.
Furthermore, the same conservatives who blasted the speech prior to its delivery without any basis changed course and praised it afterwards without any apology for bad prior judgment.
Why is this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)