Chuck Schumer: Focus on Obamacare was wrong.

[krazen1211]

Chuckie is upset that Barry destroyed his Senate majority.

[The_Doctor]

Chuck Schumer is probably upset that Obama has been a drag on the party first and foremost.

Anyone think he's actually sending a message on behalf of Harry Reid to the White House? The White House and Reid have been feuding since the election, and Schumer is a close Reid ally.

Attacking the President's tactical judgment sounds like something Reid would do indirectly, to send a message to the White House. It's his major beef on how they managed the midterm elections.

[AggregateDemand]

I see it differently. They changed their economic strategy - they just adopted what I like to call Diet Reaganomics.

Left-leaning neoliberal bureaucrats within the Democratic Party are like unicorns. They certainly aren't the driving force. How many years has Baucus been pushing income tax reform without any traction in his own party?

Furthermore, they didn't adopt a Republican policy for ACA. Insurance is inherently socialistic, and the way the policy externalizes costs and the amount of cost the policy externalizes determines the nature of the insurance program. Saying that ACA and 1990s Republican healthcare are the same concept is like saying the Cruze is the same as a Silverado because they both have a bowtie badge on the front.

[Likely Voter]

The Dems had been talking healthcare reform for decades and it was a major part of Obama's 2008 platform. They had a unique opportunity with control of both chambers of Congress. They did the stimulus, banking/financial reform and housing/mortgage assistance. They actually thought that healthcare reform was going to be a political winner for them, so it was a no-brainer to do it. Probably the only other major thing they could have used their majority/political capital on was immigration reform (and there are certainly some who feel they should have done that). But what else does Schumer think they should have done in 2009/2010 that they didn't do?

And realistically, how many house/senate seats would the Dems have now without Obamacare? Would they really still have control of the Senate? I actually doubt it.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Schumer, like so many other Clinton-era Democrats, would be content to do nothing if it meant protecting Democratic Congressional majorities.

Notice that his critique is entirely political. He's not saying that the Affordable Care Act is bad policy, or that it has made people's lives worse; only that Democrats would have lost fewer seats. Sure, that's plausible. But if that's your highest priority, why even bother?

It's not at all a bad thing to be concerned about the political consequences of policies when said consequences mean a far lower probability of getting anything done. Nevertheless, I take your point about Schumer.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And realistically, how many house/senate seats would the Dems have now without Obamacare? Would they really still have control of the Senate? I actually doubt it.

Democrats expected that the numbers would prevent them from losing, especially on this scale after 2008. Schumer even says that Republicans will ensure a Democratic majority sooner or later. His theory is that Republicans would not have been able to claim the Democrats were distracted from the economy by focusing on healthcare. As he said, the Republican have nothing to offer a country with falling incomes because they are philosophically opposed to useing gov't as a solution and therefore whenever Democrats advocate using the gov't to solve problems and Republicans do nothing or at least nothing coherent, the voters will give the Democrats a solid a majority in 2016.

[Citizen Hats]

He's not wrong.  People are motivated by their pocketbooks first and foremost, most of the time. 

If the US was a country that could actually make decisions within a reasonable span of time, then we could have had healthcare reform without it seeming to monopolize the attention of Congress, to the detriment of a more motivating economic agenda

[Brittain33]

Chuck Schumer: Focus on [not Chuck Schumer] was wrong.

[Suburbia]

He's right. People do pay attention to their paychecks more.

[Brittain33]

Didn't health care come after the stimulus?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Didn't health care come after the stimulus?

Yes, but the stimulus was passed relatively quickly while the healthcare debate took up much of late-2009 and early-2010.

I'm not sure what else Schumer wanted them to specifically focus on regarding the economy (a bigger stimulus? tax reform? regulatory reform? more job training programs? Higher education reform? He doesn't say) after ARRA passed, but I can see what he means when the public perception was that Dems were focusing too much on healthcare when the economy was bottoming out during that same timeframe.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Here's some interesting critique of the stimulus package: it was primarily focused on funding social programs (health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services) instead of "shovel-ready" jobs in infrastructure, construction, and manufacturing that the administration sold it on.

In fact, only 15% of the $360 billion in spending was spent on actual infrastructure projects ($425 billion was tax cuts). That's $54 billion to be divided amongst 50 states + DC.

I guess that's also a possible reason why Obama and the Dems haven't done so well amongst working class whites as well, because they relied on those jobs while stimulus funds went to sectors in the service economy that benefited Democratic groups. Of course, that's just speculation.

This article comes off as anti-feminist, but if you can put that aside it does make some good points: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp?page=2

[Citizen Hats]

Here's some interesting critique of the stimulus package: it was primarily focused on funding social programs (health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services) instead of "shovel-ready" jobs in infrastructure, construction, and manufacturing that the administration sold it on.

In fact, only 15% of the $360 billion in spending was spent on actual infrastructure projects ($425 billion was tax cuts). That's $54 billion to be divided amongst 50 states + DC.

I guess that's also a possible reason why Obama and the Dems haven't done so well amongst working class whites as well, because they relied on those jobs while stimulus funds went to sectors in the service economy that benefited Democratic groups. Of course, that's just speculation.

This article comes off as anti-feminist, but if you can put that aside it does make some good points: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp?page=2

And some of the shovel-ready projects only recently finished, like building an enormous, raised banked freeway through the town I used to live in that rises twenty feet above the whole landscape for no discernible reason

[AggregateDemand]

Here's some interesting critique of the stimulus package: it was primarily focused on funding social programs (health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services) instead of "shovel-ready" jobs in infrastructure, construction, and manufacturing that the administration sold it on.

In fact, only 15% of the $360 billion in spending was spent on actual infrastructure projects ($425 billion was tax cuts). That's $54 billion to be divided amongst 50 states + DC.

I guess that's also a possible reason why Obama and the Dems haven't done so well amongst working class whites as well, because they relied on those jobs while stimulus funds went to sectors in the service economy that benefited Democratic groups. Of course, that's just speculation.

This article comes off as anti-feminist, but if you can put that aside it does make some good points: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp?page=2

Democrats are incapable of comparing handouts and entitlements to employment. They can only compare handouts and entitlements to abject poverty........which, ironically, is often the result of excessive, poorly-conceived anti-poverty spending in the modern era. As if pointless beat-down of the lower-classes was not enough, Democrats have conjured a fantastic conspiracy theory about Republicans intentionally dismantling America for corporate gain.

The House of Cards will collapse upon itself eventually. Maybe it already has.

[Slander and/or Libel]

But what else does Schumer think they should have done in 2009/2010 that they didn't do?

Yes.

I'm not sure what else Schumer wanted them to specifically focus on regarding the economy (a bigger stimulus? tax reform? regulatory reform? more job training programs? Higher education reform? He doesn't say) after ARRA passed, but I can see what he means when the public perception was that Dems were focusing too much on healthcare when the economy was bottoming out during that same timeframe.

Double yes.

Democrats are incapable of comparing handouts and entitlements to employment. They can only compare handouts and entitlements to abject poverty........which, ironically, is often the result of excessive, poorly-conceived anti-poverty spending in the modern era. As if pointless beat-down of the lower-classes was not enough, Democrats have conjured a fantastic conspiracy theory about Republicans intentionally dismantling America for corporate gain.

The House of Cards will collapse upon itself eventually. Maybe it already has.

You're hilarious.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Here's some interesting critique of the stimulus package: it was primarily focused on funding social programs (health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services) instead of "shovel-ready" jobs in infrastructure, construction, and manufacturing that the administration sold it on.

That's hardly a fault given that some of those social programs would have ended altogether if the federal government had not provided them with funds at a time when state and municipal budgets were strained. There is nothing inherently virtuous about infrastructure spending, particularly when it is as poorly targeted as some projects funded by the stimulus were.

I never claimed that, and I never claimed that it was wrong to fund social programs, but whatever.

Most of the jobs lost during the recession were in construction and manufacturing. During the recession (and before the stimulus), the service sectors I mentioned were adding jobs. Sure, some of the social spending was good, but that's not what the Obama administration solid it on, and when you consider the fact that the American Society of Civil Engineers grades our infrastructure with a "D" and estimates we have to invest a whopping $3.6 trillion through 2020 to bring it up to date, and how improving our infrastructure not only provides an immediate boost to the economy, but also improves efficiency in transport and energy, and the fact that manufacturing and construction jobs pay much better than the aforementioned service sectors, yeah I'd say in this case the stimulus should've focused more on spending.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

The American Society of Civil Engineers is notorious for pushing overbuilt and unnecessary projects. Their scaremongering "report cards"¹ are essentially transparent lobbying and propaganda on behalf of an organization whose members would directly and disproportionately benefit from increased infrastructure spending.

¹To give you an idea of just how lacking in rigor these are, their 2013 report called for increased highway capacity without even mentioning induced demand.

So? Isn't that basically what all these organizations do? I don't see what's wrong with pushing more infrastructure spending, considering what a disaster our infrastructure is. It's not like they're the only ones who call for it.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I'm not sure what you mean by "all of these organizations,"

Lobbying. AARP lobbies in healthcare. NRA lobbies against gun control. ASCE lobbies in infrastructure. Organizations lobby for their interests.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then what is it? The lack of wise investment? Sure I'd agree with you, but I don't see how that negates my point that the stimulus' focus on social services instead of the infrastructure spending it was sold on could have caused political problems for the Democrats. Seriously, what is even your point? Are you just arguing to be argumentative?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said the spending levels were "disastrous", I said the state of our infrastructure is. That's a viewpoint widely agreed upon. Don't twist my words.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How the ASCE not credible? A professional organization of over 140,000 people is not credible? What is a credible organization to you? How about the IMF calling for more infrastructure spending here in the U.S.? IMF not credible? Urban Land Institute? Congress and the states constantly debating infrastructure spending? The New Deal and Interstate Highway System not radically reshaping the American landscape and economy? Take a drive on our roads, try and use public transportation; it's pretty crappy. How much evidence do you need?