what parts of obama's legacy are safe?

it seems like the affordable care act is going to be gutted. the iran deal, if trump keeps his word, could be thrown out too. the paris accords, toothless as they were, are probably done for as well.

i assume most of the executive action related to gay rights and federal workers will be safe. climate-related things, not so much. unfortunately, the parts of his legacy that will be "safest" and probably expanded and further abused are his intolerance for whistleblowers and leakers, use of drones, and unilateral military action

none of them

if they thought they can get away with pretending there wasn't a president between 2008 and 2016, they would rewrite every history book

Unless they need to blame their failures on something, of course

Is there much right-wing appetite for shunning Cuba again? That's probably safer than Iran.

he also will not get "credit" for the parts of his legacy that you dislike

if they have their way, he will get credit for nothing

this is a particula

oops, that was not supposed to be posted; I started writing and then said "nah" and meant to navigate away

Yeah, one of the top items in his 100 day plan is "cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama"

Other than Obamacare, very little of Obama's legacy is embodied in legislation, because of relentless congressional obstruction. Most of it will be undone ASAP. My sense is that the very fact of his eight years in office as the first black president will be his ineradicable legacy. He will be remembered with fierce pride by those he inspired.

unfortunately this is exactly how the republicans planned it all along -- stymie any sort of major legislative or judicial success, force him to take action only via executive power that can be easily reversed by a president of their own party. it makes me sick to think that it worked

me too

tax increases almost certainly gone

his 100 days manifesto says he wants to simplify the tax code and reduce the number of brackets, and reduce taxes for "middle class families" -- totally vague as to how that will be done, but pretty sure tax breaks for the rich are gonna happen again

I wonder about the Medicaid expansion, and also, what will happen with state legislation that is tied to it.

xxp another thread has a link to an analysis of Trump's tax plans. He wants only 3 brackets with 10, 15 and 25 percent rates. No more estate or gift taxes, top corporate rate of 15%.

We're fucked.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan/full

tax breaks for the rich will absolutely happen again. they are extremely well-served by their minions in Congress. I wonder if trump's angry white men will even blink when the rich elbow their way to the front of the line once more.

i could really use an explainer on which of trump's first 100 days items require congressional approval vs things he can do unilaterally.

same here.

what parts of the constitution are safe?

just the second amendment, right?

the constitution won't be amended, just reinterpreted. amendments are hard. reinterpretation is easy when you own the SCOTUS.

obamacare will definitely be touched, but I suspect it might be safer than we think. taking insurance away from 20 million people isn't something you can just get away with. a lot of those 20 million people are democrats, but certainly not all of them.

their biggest issue with obamacare isn't ideological it's the word 'obama' in it, the fact that its his signature accomplishment. so make some minor changes (possibly even reasonable ones, since there's nobody to fight reasonable changes now), call it trumpcare and suddenly obama's signature accomplishment 'disappears'.

maybe call it "romneycare"? oh right nevermind

Congress needs 60 votes to repeal ACA. It ain't happening.

However, budget reconciliation requires a simple majority; that's how it passed in 2010, recall. Essential parts can disappear. He may pull what John Roberts did to the Voting Rights Act: emasculate it but leaving it intact.

there are a lot of parts of the ACA, some of which were, imo "unfortunate compromises" -- I wonder which parts are more likely to go away

increased deportations a safe bet

Congress needs 60 votes to repeal ACA. It ain't happening.

However, budget reconciliation requires a simple majority; that's how it passed in 2010, recall. Essential parts can disappear. He may pull what John Roberts did to the Voting Rights Act: emasculate it but leaving it intact.

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, November 10, 2016 2:08 PM (four minutes ago)

i always forget what the current status of the filibuster is, because it's changed since the ACA was passed -- but don't forget the republicans could simply get rid of the filibuster if they so chose

increased deportations unfortunately a continuation of the obama legacy

Insane budget cuts and shrinking federal revenue should give a little hope on the political side in the future - Republicans are again going to be the party of massive deficits (as they've always been) and more than once economic mismanagement has bitten them in the ass at midterms.

Sotomayor, that was a good appointment; hope she has good security

increased deportations unfortunately a continuation of the obama legacy

I know, I was answering thread q

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13576488/democratic-party-smoking-pile-rubble

What has done a lot to reduce the ranks of the uninsured is the expansion of Medicaid.

But Medicaid is stigmatized as a program for the poor. And, worse, as a joint state-federal program, it’s vulnerable to stealth cuts via block-granting, which is exactly what Republicans will do.

California just voted on a couple Medicaid (here it's Medi-cal) ballot measures to increase funding for it (one is continuing a tax on the rich) and the other involves hospital fees, that sounded like it was partly contingent on federal funding.

anyone read anything yet about what obama's plans are for the next couple months? pardons, executive orders, clemency?

at least the pardons can't be retroactively rescinded

Is Mumia free yet?

The WaPo article making a case for appointing (as a recess appointment? I don't remember the technicalities and can't check right now) Garland in the face of Congressional inaction (and thus, according to the author, abdication of the "advise and consent" role)- how likely does anyone think this is? Will Obama make the mistake of being conciliatory with these fuckers or at least try to wrap up this and other judicial appointments?

Obama has been making the mistake of being conciliatory for the last 8 years imo

Brennan was at first a recess appointment...but he was a Democrat facing a Democratic Congress.

the national surveillance and intelligence networks will continue to bloat until they roll over and flop-crush the future.

the most awesome assassination machine ever known to man

https://twitter.com/DennisThePerrin/status/796790441526067200

Garland was a bluff.

I was about to say hey they got a lot of bipartisan stuff done to formalize that DHS is the lead agency for cybersecurity stuff, because it's *not* a spy agency, but all it takes is for a DIRNSA to get ambitious and make a lot of face time and that's gonna get rolled back over too

god, shut the fuck up forever, dennis perrin

it's *not* a spy agency

http://www.greenroofs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/USCoastGuardStElizabethsGraphic1.gif

i love how even the headquarters is trying to blend into the background

https://twitter.com/DennisThePerrin/status/796790441526067200

― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, November 10, 2016 1:45 PM (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

♬ don't goooooo changin' ♬

Trump really looks like Chris Farley in that photo

None of DHS funds are part of the black budget, Adam. Every program, project & activity at the agency is in public appropriations

Dodd–Frank is D.O.A. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/10/501610842/trump-team-promises-to-dismantle-dodd-frank-bank-regulations

didn't he talk about working redistricting issues? any specifics on what his role would be in that?

working *on* redistricting

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/eric-holder-redistricting-group

the left that loved clinton (presuming bill here) is nothing like the lefts that got confident enough under obama to splinter into the opposing groups that liked, tolerated or despised hilary

the left did not love Bill

tbf he didn't like them either

maybe, maybe but it was a damn sight gladder of him than its next iterations were of hillary i think

it's important to remember that Bill had Perot sucking off votes from the GOP/Independents for both elections, the left never loved Bill, he was just all that was available

that's not all he had sucking off

hiyooooo

we'll be here all week

that's what Bill said

The Holder/Obama redistricting thing was premised on Hillary and a 5-4 liberal court.

the left liked Bill then more than they do now, you gotta remember the GOP was just crushing the D's at that point & they wanted to win at any cost

Don't confuse the left with the Dems, especially in 1992, the high water mark of the DLC.

^^^

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4153194/Cards-Against-Humanity-wants-hire-Barack-Obama-CEO.html

fuck all the way off with that

Don't confuse the left with the Dems, especially in 1992, the high water mark of the DLC.

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:14 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tautology if you define the left by who didnt support the dems no

i mean the leftward portion of the dem party, who may not have loved clinton but certainly put up w/ him after 12 years of GOP presidencies

the dem party is still the largest base for the "left" at that point

In the late Ellen Willis' 2000 collection Don't Think, Smile!, she records the frustration of lifelong leftists like herself putting up with Clinton only to be placed in the position of having to defend him at the height of Kenneth Torquemada's obsession w/impeaching him.

and by "putting up with Clinton" she unequivocally means "doing as little as possible on his behalf."

obviously some people didnt like him! im speaking of a kind of momentum that was more positively inclined towards him in the era of a lot of democrats and supposed leftists voting in favor of the prison industrial complex. when the GOP won repeated elections & substantial portions of the party decided they'd gone too far

Bill was obviously more popular at one point, and his brand of centrism is less popular now

Bill was never popular with the left. show me polls/articles reflecting otherwise or shut up.

A: none

I'd just started college in fall '92, and amid the ebullience inspired by the end of Reagan-Bush I was the reality that the guy who won flew back to Arkansas to oversee the state-sanctioned murder of a man with a two-digit IQ for the sake of looking Tough On Crime. We were 18 and to us Clinton already stank.

But the left was happier in a lesser evil way having him than Bush or Dole or Perot

I just wrote that.

the left was happier in a lesser evil way having him than Bush or Dole or Perot /= the left that loved clinton (presuming bill here)

"love" being the key term here

on another topic x-post upthread re Eric Holder redistricting group....So the former attorney general, who spent a lot of time working at corporate centrist law firms and who did not aggressively try to put wall street and subprime mortgage folks behind bars, is now the guy we have to rely on to fight gerrymandering.

well, we don't *have* to rely on him

on another topic x-post upthread re Eric Holder redistricting group....So the former attorney general, who spent a lot of time working at corporate centrist law firms and who did not aggressively try to put wall street and subprime mortgage folks behind bars, is now the guy we have to rely on to fight gerrymandering.

This is basically the same kind of absurdity you hear from Teahadists if you do a find-and-replace with three or four things they care about. Why would his Wall Street shit affect his ability to fight a completely different set of battles with state and local governments?

Here let me dig the perfect lawyer out of my sought-after lawyer box for you. Here he is!

Hang on he says he has a pretty good job at the moment. Let's go look in this other crate, I don't know if they're any good but they're probably not busy!

What if he draws all the Main Streets into as few districts as possible?

What if God was one of us

obama is probably largely responsible for the markedly increased usage of “folks”, right?

Wasn't it also a Bush-II-ism?

You'll know for sure if Trump tries to remove it from dictionaries.

xp nah you're probably right: https://www.buzzfeed.com/johntemplon/confirmed-obama-says-the-word-folks-a-lot

By this time next year we'll all be saying die Volker instead.

it really drives me nuts

"folks" is also a useful non-gendered substitute for "guys" and "dudes"

Yeah I use it a lot for that in business emails.

using "folks" as a salutation seems pretty standard to me

it seems like I'm seeing it used more and more like this, and it's jarring for reasons I can't really explain.

If you want to go “all natural” then eschew cars and motorcycles. They hurt the environment. And walking is lovely.

Bypassing vaccines hurts our community. It brings back disease we’d virtually eradicated. It risks the lives of immunocompromised folks. https://t.co/A99g17ycHc

— Esther Choo (@choo_ek) June 8, 2018

obama is probably largely responsible for the markedly increased usage of “folks”, right?

― k3vin k., Friday, June 8, 2018 9:39 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this applies to me 100% when I say 'we tortured some folks'

refusing to prosecute US war criminals will live on and be expanded

"immunocompromised folks" is hilariously jarring. I say that as an immunocompromised folk.

Catch All 5 Seasons of Barack Obama's "Folks" Now on Netflix

Do whistleblowers fall under the "folks" typology?

we've prosecuted some folks