Elections Blistering Criticism of President Obama's Legacy Highlights Dramatic Shift Inside Democratic Party

[Jack V Savage]

Kind of.

I am saying that removing borders as a restriction for capital gave them leverage over labor, undermining labor's ability to negotiate a fair share.

That this is the driver of income inequality, and the root of the rise of populism on both the left and right, all across the west.

There are problems with this. For one thing, by standard measures, inequality hasn't risen in the countries you've mentioned over the time period. For another, in places it has risen, that wouldn't be a major driver of it (some legit controversy over the impact on inequality, but I don't think about my claim that it's not a "major driver").

Also, we were talking about Obama. It's not actually true that people are revolting against his policy approach, which is pretty hard to criticize. There's a kind of racial panic, though I think that's a smaller group getting more passionate rather than a growing group. Left-wing populism is almost non-existent as a force in America, though right-wing populists reject the policy approach of the mainstream right so it gets a little muddled.

 

[VivaRevolution]

There are problems with this. For one thing, by standard measures, inequality hasn't risen in the countries you've mentioned over the time period. For another, in places it has risen, that wouldn't be a major driver of it (some legit controversy over the impact on inequality, but I don't think about my claim that it's not a "major driver").

Also, we were talking about Obama. It's not actually true that people are revolting against his policy approach, which is pretty hard to criticize. There's a kind of racial panic, though I think that's a smaller group getting more passionate rather than a growing group. Left-wing populism is almost non-existent as a force in America, though right-wing populists reject the policy approach of the mainstream right so it gets a little muddled.

 

[Wingslaught]

The headline of this thread is not accurate. Obviously, candidates who are not leading are trying to take out the leading guy by attacking his record, and a small portion of that has been directed to his time as VP. There's no shift in the party against Obama, though, given that his approval rating among Democratic voters is *higher* now than it was while he was president. You have a lot of poorly informed ranting from the dregs of the WR ITT, but objectively, Obama's presidency was a massive success, and it's a safe bet that he'll go down in history as one of the greatest presidents we've ever had.

No, no it wasn't. You're taking rose-colored glasses to a whole new level with this analysis. Perhaps you have a natural, unconscious affinity for a fellow mixed-race person.

From the Brookings Institution:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/04/06/the-fragile-legacy-of-barack-obama/

The Fragile Legacy of Barack Obama

t becomes clearer every day that Barack Obama, a historic president, presided over a somewhat less than historic presidency. With only one major legislative achievement (Obamacare)—and a fragile one at that—the legacy of Obama’s presidency mainly rests on its tremendous symbolic importance and the fate of a patchwork of executive actions.

How much of that was due to fate and how much was due to Obama’s own shortcomings as a politician is up for debate and is a question that emerges from Princeton historian Julian Zelizer’s new edited volume, The Presidency of Barack Obama.

With contributions from seventeen historians, the book bills itself as “a first historical assessment” of the Obama presidency. The overwhelming consensus, Zelizer writes, is that Obama “turned out to be a very effective policymaker but not a tremendously successful party builder.” This “defining paradox of Obama’s presidency” comes up again and again: the historians, by and large, approve of Obama’s policies (although some find them too timid) while they lament his politics.

The politics were pretty disastrous. As Zelizer summarizes, “During his presidency, even as he enjoyed reelection and strong approval ratings toward the end of this term, the Democratic Party suffered greatly. . . . Democrats lost more than one thousand seats in state legislatures, governors’ mansions, and Congress during his time in office.” Zelizer could have gone further. According to Ballotpedia, more Democratic state legislative seats were lost under Obama than under any president in modern history.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, no it wasn't. You're taking rose-colored glasses to a whole new level with this analysis. Perhaps you have a natural, unconscious affinity for a fellow mixed-race person.

Funny stuff in that last sentence. But, no, massive healthcare reform (dramatically reducing the uninsured rate, lowering cost growth, and incidentally fixing the debt), huge bump in low-end wages, averted a depression (see how countries that took different approaches fared), green-energy explosion, fixed immigration, major financial reform, etc. Maybe more than the specifics, modeled how a modern presidency can be effective taking a more-reasonable approach and using the data explosion. Obama is the Billy Beane of gov't.

 

[waiguoren]

[Obama's] dramatically reducing the uninsured rate

From what, 14% to 11%? I can see why the "progressive wing" laughs at you. If a primary goal is 0% uninsured, the ACA looks like a flagrant waste of political capital in retrospect.

 

[Jack V Savage]

From what, 14% to 11%? I can see why the "progressive wing" laughs at you. If a primary goal is 0% uninsured, the ACA looks like a flagrant waste of political capital in retrospect.

From 18% to 11% (almost 40%!). Ticked up since Obama left office for obvious reasons. And about a quarter of that total is unauthorized immigrants. Doesn't seem like a waste of political capital to improve the lives of millions of people (and again, the ACA also fixed the long-term debt problem and lowered cost growth). Plus, it's now so popular that it can't realistically be scrapped (even Republicans who want to kill it are having to keep a lot of the reforms, and if they push too hard, they'll rightly lose more seats--likely that the wave election of 2018 was related to GOP trying to reverse the ACA, meaning to take people's insurance away in order to pay for tax cuts for rich people).

 

[waiguoren]

From 18% to 11% (almost 40%!).

False.

Ticked up since Obama left office for obvious reasons.

Irrelevant to the previous discussion, but does show your tribalist tendencies.

Doesn't seem like a waste of political capital to improve the lives of millions of people

You missed the point. The progressive wing sees the PPACA as a waste of political capital relative to whatever could have been achieved through a push for single-payer. The meager decline in the uninsured rate at the cost of tremendous political capital looks like a poor tradeoff for rational people who view 0% uninsured as a primary target.

 

[Jack V Savage]

False.

Not false, and do you think it's honest of you to cut off at 2014? WTF?

I'd also say that your choice of a data presentation is very fishy, given that if you'd just Googled it, you would have seen the other sources first.

Irrelevant to the previous discussion, but does show your tribalist tendencies.

Huh?

You missed the point. The progressive wing sees the PPACA as a waste of political capital relative to whatever could have been achieved through a push for single-payer. The meager decline in the uninsured rate at the cost of tremendous political capital looks like a poor tradeoff for rational people who view 0% uninsured as a primary target.

The "progressive wing" had pushed for single payer for decades, with nothing at all to show for it. The ACA then got a dramatic decline in the uninsured rate (which you are dishonestly describing as "meager"), along with solving our long-term debt issues and lowering costs for everyone relative to a no-ACA baseline. Your framework for evaluation (using a fantasy world as a baseline) is clearly not one you consistently apply or one that you sincerely think is reasonable. Try to discuss the issue honestly here.

 

[waiguoren]

Not false, and do you think it's honest of you to cut off at 2014? WTF?

Mr. Jack, no need to get profane. The truth will set you free.

The first ACA open enrollment period began in late 2013. Both the data that you and I posted show the uninsured rate at that time to be approximately 14%, not the 18% you claimed. Then, the uninsured rate bottomed out at 11%. That's a meager decline compared to a public option or (especially) single-payer. Based on past interactions with you, I don't expect you will admit your error.

The "progressive wing" had pushed for single payer for decades, with nothing at all to show for it. The ACA then got a dramatic decline in the uninsured rate (which you are dishonestly describing as "meager")

14% to 11% is meager, especially compared to the 0% that single-payer would achieve.

Your framework for evaluation (using a fantasy world as a baseline) is clearly not one you consistently apply or one that you sincerely think is reasonable. Try to discuss the issue honestly here.

If your argument is that single-payer could only become law in a "fantasy world" because of red state Senate Democrats (e.g., Manchin) who would oppose single-payer under almost any circumstance, then I can understand your view. Otherwise, I am not sure what you are referring to.

Also, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because I don't agree with self-described "progressives" on policy goals, I should be forbidden from analyzing political strategy from their standpoint?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Mr. Jack, no need to get profane. The truth will set you free.

The first ACA open enrollment period began in late 2013. Both the data that you and I posted show the uninsured rate at that time to be approximately 14%, not the 18% you claimed. Then, the uninsured rate bottomed out at 11%. That's a meager decline compared to a public option or (especially) single-payer. Based on past interactions with you, I don't expect you will admit your error.

There was more to the ACA than the exchanges. You should explain why you're so determined to dishonestly game the numbers here.

14% to 11% is meager, especially compared to the 0% that single-payer would achieve.

The actual decline was from 17% to 11%, which is enormous. The 3% figure (which you arrive at with dishonest number gaming) is still huge, though.

If your argument is that single-payer could only become law in a "fantasy world" because of red state Senate Democrats (e.g., Manchin) who would oppose single-payer under almost any circumstance, then I can understand your view. Otherwise, I am not sure what you are referring to.

My argument is that the ACA is a massive improvement over the previous status quo and was obtained at incredible difficulty. To gloss over that and say "der, he shoulda done single payer," shows extreme bad faith. Combined with your other bad-faith argument, you appear highly motivated to deny credit where it is due.

Also, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because I don't agree with self-described "progressives" on policy goals, I should be forbidden from analyzing political strategy from their standpoint?

I'm saying that your analytical approach here is dishonest. The EITC expansion that Obama made permanent raised bottom-10% incomes by a quarter, but by your approach, you can just say, "why not raise it by 300%? I judge it to be a failure." There's no consideration of the context. What's more, you are perfectly aware of this flaw, but you think that other posters are dumb and will be taken in by your sleazy argumentation.

 

[waiguoren]

There was more to the ACA than the exchanges.

That's all? Looks like you're caving again. Which specific aspect of the PPACA began pre-October 2013 and led to your alleged PPACA-driven reduction in the uninsured rate from 18% to 14%? If you can't come up with anything of substance, you owe an apology to everyone here for spreading misinformation.

The actual decline was from 17% to 11%, which is enormous.

See the above.

The 3% figure (which you arrive at with dishonest number gaming) is still huge, though.

According to the graph I posted, it's comparable to the reduction that occurred in the 1970's when Medicare and Medicaid were expanded.

My argument is that the ACA is a massive improvement over the previous status quo and was obtained at incredible difficulty.

I know, and I think the other side's best argument looks something like: "If Obama had come to the table with single-payer and fought hard down that path, then we would have ended up with a public option instead of a federalized version of Mitt Romney's healthcare plan, the uninsured rate would have dropped by >4%, and almost a decade later we would now be in prime position to adopt single-payer."

To gloss over that and say "der, he shoulda done single payer," shows extreme bad faith.

See the above.

Combined with your other bad-faith argument, you appear highly motivated to deny credit where it is due.

Credit? Seems like you just took the conversation in a totally different direction. You know that I oppose all federal involvement in health care, so obviously it would be hard for me to give "credit" to people for these changes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's all? Looks like you're caving again. Which specific aspect of the PPACA began pre-October 2013 and led to your alleged PPACA-driven reduction in the uninsured rate from 18% to 14%? If you can't come up with anything of substance, you owe an apology to everyone here for spreading misinformation.

This is dishonest of you, as you know the issue is not there not being a lot, but there being too much to cover in a single post. Here's a link (and look at the dates): http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/the-affordable-care-act-brief-summary.aspx. Some highlights:

• Provide tax credits to certain small businesses that cover specified costs of health insurance for their employees, beginning in tax year 2010.
• • Require creation of temporary high-risk pools for those who cannot purchase insurance on the private market due to preexisting health conditions, beginning July 1, 2010.
  • Require insurance plans to cover young adults on parents’ policies, effective Sept. 23, 2010.
  • Establish a national, voluntary long-term care insurance program for “community living assistance services and supports” (CLASS), with regulations to be issued by Oct. 1, 2012.

I know, and I think the other side's best argument looks something like: "If Obama had come to the table with single-payer and fought hard down that path, then we would have ended up with a public option instead of a federalized version of Mitt Romney's healthcare plan, the uninsured rate would have dropped by >4%, and almost a decade later we would now be in prime position to adopt single-payer."

A public option would not have significantly affected the numbers. But that's not addressing the issue, and it's another shifting of the argument. Instead of saying, "single payer, if we assume it could pass with no issues, would reduce the uninsured rate to 0, therefore the massive reduction that did occur is still bad," you're now saying, "negotiating for single payer and settling for the ACA + a public option would be better," which is a question of strategy and is A) unknown and B) something that was considered and dropped after that consideration because it was seen as implausible.

Credit? Seems like you just took the conversation in a totally different direction. You know that I oppose all federal involvement in health care, so obviously it would be hard for me to give "credit" to people for these changes.

I recognize that you are arguing in bad faith, if that's what you're trying to say here.

 

[waiguoren]

This is dishonest of you, as you know the issue is not there not being a lot, but there being too much to cover in a single post. Here's a link (and look at the dates): http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/the-affordable-care-act-brief-summary.aspx. Some highlights:

I usually think of the ACA as "Medicaid expansion+individual mandate+exchanges". All of those changes kicked in after October 2013. As for the three changes you listed, that's interesting and I hadn't recognized them. Do you think they are responsible for taking the uninsured rate from 18% to 14%? It seems unlikely to me, but I'd like to see your argument.

A public option would not have significantly affected the numbers.

It seems to me that young people with low incomes and no steady job would be likely to buy in.

"single payer, if we assume it could pass with no issues, would reduce the uninsured rate to 0, therefore the massive reduction that did occur is still bad,"

I never wrote that. The "progressive" position I tried to outline is about opportunity cost of political capital---that Obama could have achieved much more with the political capital he had.

"negotiating for single payer and settling for the ACA + a public option would be better," which is a question of strategy

Yeah, that's been my point from the beginning. Of course, some will say that Obama is a "corporatist" and didn't want a deal that would hurt his beloved insurance company pals. I wasn't going there.

B) something that was considered and dropped after that consideration because it was seen as implausible.

You state that as a matter of fact, and I do recall contemporaneous MSM reports of that form, but I think political sausage making is usually a lot uglier than you describe.

I recognize that you are arguing in bad faith, if that's what you're trying to say here.

Come on, stop being emotional. Understand my words.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I usually think of the ACA as "Medicaid expansion+individual mandate+exchanges". All of those changes kicked in after October 2013. As for the three changes you listed, that's interesting and I hadn't recognized them. Do you think they are responsible for taking the uninsured rate from 18% to 14%? It seems unlikely to me, but I'd like to see your argument.

As part of the process of trying to fix the system, designers looked at who doesn't have coverage and why. Young adults (not covered under their parents but not yet holding jobs that offered it) were a big group. The temporary high-risk pools was also probably pretty significant. To really go into it in depth would take more work than I'm putting it right now, but starting the clock after a lot of provisions designed to reduce the uninsured rate already kicked in and were having an impact will give a misleading impression of the level of reduction in the uninsurance rate that the reforms led to. Also note that one large group of the uninsured--unauthorized immigrants--were deliberately NOT targeted for reduction, which can be criticized but not in good faith by people who oppose that on principle.

I never wrote that. The "progressive" position I tried to outline is about opportunity cost of political capital---that Obama could have achieved much more with the political capital he had.

There are many progressive positions, including that the whole thing is some kind of sellout or gift to insurers.

 

[waiguoren]

As part of the process of trying to fix the system, designers looked at who doesn't have coverage and why. Young adults (not covered under their parents but not yet holding jobs that offered it) were a big group. The temporary high-risk pools was also probably pretty significant. To really go into it in depth would take more work than I'm putting it right now, but starting the clock after a lot of provisions designed to reduce the uninsured rate already kicked in and were having an impact will give a misleading impression of the level of reduction in the uninsurance rate that the reforms led to. Also note that one large group of the uninsured--unauthorized immigrants--were deliberately NOT targeted for reduction, which can be criticized but not in good faith by people who oppose that on principle.

Of course I'd like to see some hard numbers on this, but you've at least laid out a plausible argument. Good job, fine sir.

 

[Arkain2K]

 

[Wingslaught]

Funny stuff in that last sentence. But, no, massive healthcare reform (dramatically reducing the uninsured rate, lowering cost growth, and incidentally fixing the debt), huge bump in low-end wages, averted a depression (see how countries that took different approaches fared), green-energy explosion, fixed immigration, major financial reform, etc. Maybe more than the specifics, modeled how a modern presidency can be effective taking a more-reasonable approach and using the data explosion. Obama is the Billy Beane of gov't.

"Fixing" the debt by doubling it? JVS has left reality again.

He didn't "fix" immigration either. He normalized illegal immigration by popularizing "dreamers" terminology and supporting legislation that would protect illegal immigrants. The current crisis on the border is likely due to his policies and rhetoric, not that he would ever take responsibility. He prefers to deflect all blame onto Republicans because he's immature that way, imo. Your favorite President is a Narcissist whose Presidency was in part a vehicle for obtaining Narcissistic supply (attention and admiration from voters and the media) and a means through which to enrich himself. There's one big winner from the Obama Presidency and it's not America.

 

[MidnightSnacks**]

obamas platform when he ran in 2008 is closer to trumps than every major dem except for maybe biden. so can we end the "the right is moving further right" meme? its clearly left going further left

 

[Jack V Savage]

"Fixing" the debt by doubling it? JVS has left reality again.

No, fixed it by bringing long-term spending and collections in line (broken again after the Trump tax cuts, of course). Obviously Obama didn't double it (seriously, WTF?), and obviously debt sustainability isn't a matter of any particular couple of years.

He didn't "fix" immigration either.

Of course he did:

Learn to look stuff up before blindly accepting political propaganda.

Your favorite President is a Narcissist whose Presidency was in part a vehicle for obtaining Narcissistic supply (attention and admiration from voters and the media) and a means through which to enrich himself. There's one big winner from the Obama Presidency and it's not America.

It's not about preference. By any reasonable objective measure, Obama is one of the best presidents we've ever had. And, yes, America is the winner. I think you're confusing Obama and Trump with the enrichment and narcissism stuff.

 

[Wingslaught]

No, fixed it by bringing long-term spending and collections in line (broken again after the Trump tax cuts, of course).

So he "fixed" the debt by raising taxes but also doubling the debt. This is just an asinine claim for which you've provided zero data.

Obviously Obama didn't double it (seriously, WTF?), and obviously debt sustainability isn't a matter of any particular couple of years.

Yes, he did.

Of course he did:

Learn to look stuff up before blindly accepting political propaganda.

That isn't fixing immigration in any meaningful way, he successfully slowed immigration from Mexico which is what that graph shows. However, immigration from Central American countries began increasing during his Presidency and it's only gotten worse since. According to the below article illegal immigration used to consist of single males from Mexico looking for work, but now it's whole families arriving with many coming from Central America. It's hardly "fixed", at all.

Central American families have become the new face of undocumented immigration.

In the first five months of the fiscal year that began in October, the Border Patrol detained 136,150 people traveling in families with children, compared with 107,212 during all of fiscal 2018.

A trend toward family migration from Central America that began when Barack Obama was president has endured, after temporarily dipping during Mr. Trump’s first year in office.

Like the current White House, the Obama administration struggled to find the right response to a dramatic increase in the number of migrants fleeing violence and poverty in Central America.

More than 60,000 unaccompanied children arrived at the southern border in 2014, most from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, putting the Obama administration in a difficult position.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/us/crossing-the-border-statistics.html

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/09/683623555/president-obama-also-faced-a-crisis-at-the-southern-border

It's not about preference.

Of course it is, it's the only plausible explanation for why you're so high on a deeply flawed, mediocre President.

By any reasonable objective measure, Obama is one of the best presidents we've ever had. And, yes, America is the winner. I think you're confusing Obama and Trump with the enrichment and narcissism stuff.

I disagree.