Seruko, you've been both far goosier and far more incoherent in both this and other threads.
Non-reforming insurance reform. The only reform possible for a generation which fails to address the problems in health care out comes, or health care prices is a bad deal.
The excuses for this is "but GOP obstructionism," the bad deal mentioned above past with zero GOP support and 100% GOP opposition. So why no meaningful refrom?
Second excuse "but Democratic obstructionism," if the titular head of a political party cannot rally his own troops to pass his own legislation, then he is a bad leader.
If the titular head of a political party does not want to pass legislation that he campaigned for, and wants instead to pass legislation that he campaigned against, then he is acting in bad faith. The office of the president is one in which we expect a good leader acting in good faith.
Please forgive me If I've been unclear about that argument.
How about this: you craft a reality where you can get blue-dog Democrats in the Senate from Arkansas and Nebraska to get on board with any kind of public healthcare reform (keep in mind that Blanche Lincoln went on to lose her re-election campaign by 21 points despite voting against ACA) and I'll get you one where we have a better healthcare reform.
Dismissing "Democratic obstructionism" and expecting Obama to rule over the Democratic party with an iron fist is simply ignoring reality.
Don't forget about Lieberman.
0
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
Seruko, you've been both far goosier and far more incoherent in both this and other threads.
Non-reforming insurance reform. The only reform possible for a generation which fails to address the problems in health care out comes, or health care prices is a bad deal.
The excuses for this is "but GOP obstructionism," the bad deal mentioned above past with zero GOP support and 100% GOP opposition. So why no meaningful refrom?
Second excuse "but Democratic obstructionism," if the titular head of a political party cannot rally his own troops to pass his own legislation, then he is a bad leader.
If the titular head of a political party does not want to pass legislation that he campaigned for, and wants instead to pass legislation that he campaigned against, then he is acting in bad faith. The office of the president is one in which we expect a good leader acting in good faith.
Please forgive me If I've been unclear about that argument.
How about this: you craft a reality where you can get blue-dog Democrats in the Senate from Arkansas and Nebraska to get on board with any kind of public healthcare reform (keep in mind that Blanche Lincoln went on to lose her re-election campaign by 21 points despite voting against ACA) and I'll get you one where we have a better healthcare reform.
Dismissing "Democratic obstructionism" and expecting Obama to rule over the Democratic party with an iron fist is simply ignoring reality.
Don't forget about Lieberman.
This is Pure Apologia and without substance. "That Dog won't Hunt."
as
1. It is one of the core roles of the president of the US to act as the political head of their own political party. If the president cannot get his own people in line then they have failed in their role as a leader. For example. Dog walkers walk dogs. When dogs don't want to go some place well that is what the freaking leash is for.
2. Even ignoring the above, there is the well used parliamentary procedure to circumvent the 60 person requirement, a procedure that was ultimately used anyway.
The least often used, and best in my opinion, argument against Obama the President is that he's just not very good at getting his own legislation past. He's not very good at the executive part of his job. FFS the Republicans impeached Clinton and Clinton still whipped them like dogs to get the legislation that he wanted past, past. If Obama is unable, unwilling or playing some kind of game that prevents him from doing the same to his own people, he's not fit for the job.
Edit: The same goes for every other major policy fight from the stimulus to the debt ceiling limit. Either Obama is an awful executive (politically naive and impotent) or his real agenda is not to do what's necessary to fix things. Either way.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
As I recall it, Clinton got his shit through by passing Republican stuff in a whole deal that they'd both pass each other's bills.
Obama has tried this, and it resulted in the republican thing passing, and then the GOP saying "haha, fuck your deal"
The inability for the legislative branch to function is not a commentary on the executive. It's a commentary on the legislative branch. Hence why their approval rating is so freaking low. Even the least politically active person can look and say "Uh, I'm pretty sure congress is just throwing a gigantic tantrum"
As I recall it, Clinton got his shit through by passing Republican stuff in a whole deal that they'd both pass each other's bills.
Obama has tried this, and it resulted in the republican thing passing, and then the GOP saying "haha, fuck your deal"
The inability for the legislative branch to function is not a commentary on the executive. It's a commentary on the legislative branch. Hence why their approval rating is so freaking low. Even the least politically active person can look and say "Uh, I'm pretty sure congress is just throwing a gigantic tantrum"
When you control the house and the senate it is a commentary on the executive.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
"'The perfect' should not be the enemy of 'the good'."
That doesn't mean we shouldn't get anything until we get the 'perfect' bill. Because a perfect bill just isn't going to happen.
I think you misunderstand the quote.
Perfect should not be the enemy of good means you shouldn't hold out on a good deal because you want the perfect deal. The GOP has suffered from this a few times when they've been offered amazing sweetheart deals to sign things, and turned them down on ideological grounds. And wound up getting nothing instead. They dropped the ball so badly on the debt ceiling it wasn't even funny. Not that it was at all funny that they tried to play political chicken with the world economy in the first place.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
As I recall it, Clinton got his shit through by passing Republican stuff in a whole deal that they'd both pass each other's bills.
Obama has tried this, and it resulted in the republican thing passing, and then the GOP saying "haha, fuck your deal"
The inability for the legislative branch to function is not a commentary on the executive. It's a commentary on the legislative branch. Hence why their approval rating is so freaking low. Even the least politically active person can look and say "Uh, I'm pretty sure congress is just throwing a gigantic tantrum"
The Obama Administration brought in a lot of Clinton people who remembered the days of the Contract with America where the GOP was willing to come to the table and barter for things. Thanks to Obama's inexperience, the first two years were kind of blown on that kind of thinking.
Then he met the Tea Party who remains more than willing to burn down the country around them and hold no loyalty to Boehner (one of the weakest Speakers in history in my opinion) in the way that the Contract people felt slightly indebted to Gingrich for a little while.
0
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
Yeah, Clinton got... a lot of Republican initiatives passed. I thought that's why you don't like this President?
Only on these forums would a socialist be accused of critiquing Obama from the right.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Seruko, you've been both far goosier and far more incoherent in both this and other threads.
Non-reforming insurance reform. The only reform possible for a generation which fails to address the problems in health care out comes, or health care prices is a bad deal.
The excuses for this is "but GOP obstructionism," the bad deal mentioned above past with zero GOP support and 100% GOP opposition. So why no meaningful refrom?
Second excuse "but Democratic obstructionism," if the titular head of a political party cannot rally his own troops to pass his own legislation, then he is a bad leader.
If the titular head of a political party does not want to pass legislation that he campaigned for, and wants instead to pass legislation that he campaigned against, then he is acting in bad faith. The office of the president is one in which we expect a good leader acting in good faith.
Please forgive me If I've been unclear about that argument.
How about this: you craft a reality where you can get blue-dog Democrats in the Senate from Arkansas and Nebraska to get on board with any kind of public healthcare reform (keep in mind that Blanche Lincoln went on to lose her re-election campaign by 21 points despite voting against ACA) and I'll get you one where we have a better healthcare reform.
Dismissing "Democratic obstructionism" and expecting Obama to rule over the Democratic party with an iron fist is simply ignoring reality.
Don't forget about Lieberman.
This is Pure Apologia and without substance. "That Dog won't Hunt."
as
1. It is one of the core roles of the president of the US to act as the political head of their own political party. If the president cannot get his own people in line then they have failed in their role as a leader. For example. Dog walkers walk dogs. When dogs don't want to go some place well that is what the freaking leash is for.
2. Even ignoring the above, there is the well used parliamentary procedure to circumvent the 60 person requirement, a procedure that was ultimately used anyway.
The least often used, and best in my opinion, argument against Obama the President is that he's just not very good at getting his own legislation past. He's not very good at the executive part of his job. FFS the Republicans impeached Clinton and Clinton still whipped them like dogs to get the legislation that he wanted past, past. If Obama is unable, unwilling or playing some kind of game that prevents him from doing the same to his own people, he's not fit for the job.
Edit: The same goes for every other major policy fight from the stimulus to the debt ceiling limit. Either Obama is an awful executive (politically naive and impotent) or his real agenda is not to do what's necessary to fix things. Either way.
We've actually got the solution right here.
If the Democrats won't do what Obama wants, he should just go down to Congress and choke them into submission.
That's not what I took from that comment at all Seruko, personally. I read it as "what, you want him to pass more right leaning legislation? I thought you didn't like when he did that?"
Clinton was successful because he was dealing with a group that used their clout to negotiate for favors in exchange for playing ball. The expected method of government. Obama's issue has been entirely based around dealing with a group whose only pet issue is Obama losing power. So there's absolutely nothing he can offer that isn't his resignation that will get them to play ball. This has a side effect of grinding the government to a dysfunctional halt because the system wasn't designed to quickly deal with people being elected who had no interest in governing.
Yeah, Clinton got... a lot of Republican initiatives passed. I thought that's why you don't like this President?
Only on these forums would a socialist be accused of critiquing Obama from the right.
You totally missed the point. You said that Clinton was far more accomplished at getting things passed. What you fail to realize is that he got things passed because they were Republican things! Granted, in a Republican Congress.
Clinton had one liberal accomplishment legislatively, and that was his first budget. After that it was NAFTA (which I'm fine with, but most of your liberal base is... not), welfare reform, repeal of Glass-Steagall, instituting DADT in the first place, and conservative, Dick Morris approved horseshit all the way down. I'm saying you're logically inconsistent.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
As I recall it, Clinton got his shit through by passing Republican stuff in a whole deal that they'd both pass each other's bills.
Obama has tried this, and it resulted in the republican thing passing, and then the GOP saying "haha, fuck your deal"
The inability for the legislative branch to function is not a commentary on the executive. It's a commentary on the legislative branch. Hence why their approval rating is so freaking low. Even the least politically active person can look and say "Uh, I'm pretty sure congress is just throwing a gigantic tantrum"
When you control the house and the senate it is a commentary on the executive.
So because Obama couldn't forcibly make assholes like Lincoln, Nelson, and Lieberman fall in line, that's means he wasn't "acting in good faith" during the ACA negotiations? Really? Congressional Democrats not acting as a single-minded monolith, unlike the Republicans, can be frustrating. But it isn't a bad thing.
As I recall it, Clinton got his shit through by passing Republican stuff in a whole deal that they'd both pass each other's bills.
Obama has tried this, and it resulted in the republican thing passing, and then the GOP saying "haha, fuck your deal"
The inability for the legislative branch to function is not a commentary on the executive. It's a commentary on the legislative branch. Hence why their approval rating is so freaking low. Even the least politically active person can look and say "Uh, I'm pretty sure congress is just throwing a gigantic tantrum"
When you control the house and the senate it is a commentary on the executive.
So because Obama couldn't forcibly make assholes like Lincoln, Nelson, and Lieberman fall in line, that's means he wasn't "acting in good faith" during the ACA negotiations? Really? Congressional Democrats not acting as a single-minded monolith, unlike the Republicans, can be frustrating. But it isn't a bad thing.
It pretty much is, but it has more to do with the Senate's general bullshit of an existence than anything else.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
As I recall it, Clinton got his shit through by passing Republican stuff in a whole deal that they'd both pass each other's bills.
Obama has tried this, and it resulted in the republican thing passing, and then the GOP saying "haha, fuck your deal"
The inability for the legislative branch to function is not a commentary on the executive. It's a commentary on the legislative branch. Hence why their approval rating is so freaking low. Even the least politically active person can look and say "Uh, I'm pretty sure congress is just throwing a gigantic tantrum"
When you control the house and the senate it is a commentary on the executive.
So because Obama couldn't forcibly make assholes like Lincoln, Nelson, and Lieberman fall in line, that's means he wasn't "acting in good faith" during the ACA negotiations? Really? Congressional Democrats not acting as a single-minded monolith, unlike the Republicans, can be frustrating. But it isn't a bad thing.
It pretty much is, but it has more to do with the Senate's general bullshit of an existence than anything else.
From the standpoint of wanting to get everything done that you want, you're right, it's a bad thing. From the standpoint of the general health of the party, I'd argue that it's a good thing. Acting as a single-minded monolith is how the GOP are purity testing themselves into oblivion.
As I recall it, Clinton got his shit through by passing Republican stuff in a whole deal that they'd both pass each other's bills.
Obama has tried this, and it resulted in the republican thing passing, and then the GOP saying "haha, fuck your deal"
The inability for the legislative branch to function is not a commentary on the executive. It's a commentary on the legislative branch. Hence why their approval rating is so freaking low. Even the least politically active person can look and say "Uh, I'm pretty sure congress is just throwing a gigantic tantrum"
When you control the house and the senate it is a commentary on the executive.
So because Obama couldn't forcibly make assholes like Lincoln, Nelson, and Lieberman fall in line, that's means he wasn't "acting in good faith" during the ACA negotiations? Really? Congressional Democrats not acting as a single-minded monolith, unlike the Republicans, can be frustrating. But it isn't a bad thing.
It pretty much is, but it has more to do with the Senate's general bullshit of an existence than anything else.
From the standpoint of wanting to get everything done that you want, you're right, it's a bad thing. From the standpoint of the general health of the party, I'd argue that it's a good thing. Acting as a single-minded monolith is how the GOP are purity testing themselves into oblivion.
To bad this doesn't happen more within the party itself then.
As I recall it, Clinton got his shit through by passing Republican stuff in a whole deal that they'd both pass each other's bills.
Obama has tried this, and it resulted in the republican thing passing, and then the GOP saying "haha, fuck your deal"
The inability for the legislative branch to function is not a commentary on the executive. It's a commentary on the legislative branch. Hence why their approval rating is so freaking low. Even the least politically active person can look and say "Uh, I'm pretty sure congress is just throwing a gigantic tantrum"
When you control the house and the senate it is a commentary on the executive.
So because Obama couldn't forcibly make assholes like Lincoln, Nelson, and Lieberman fall in line, that's means he wasn't "acting in good faith" during the ACA negotiations? Really? Congressional Democrats not acting as a single-minded monolith, unlike the Republicans, can be frustrating. But it isn't a bad thing.
It pretty much is, but it has more to do with the Senate's general bullshit of an existence than anything else.
From the standpoint of wanting to get everything done that you want, you're right, it's a bad thing. From the standpoint of the general health of the party, I'd argue that it's a good thing. Acting as a single-minded monolith is how the GOP are purity testing themselves into a legislative majority.
Fixed!
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
Yeah, Clinton got... a lot of Republican initiatives passed. I thought that's why you don't like this President?
Only on these forums would a socialist be accused of critiquing Obama from the right.
You totally missed the point. You said that Clinton was far more accomplished at getting things passed. What you fail to realize is that he got things passed because they were Republican things! Granted, in a Republican Congress.
Clinton had one liberal accomplishment legislatively, and that was his first budget. After that it was NAFTA (which I'm fine with, but most of your liberal base is... not), welfare reform, repeal of Glass-Steagall, instituting DADT in the first place, and conservative, Dick Morris approved horseshit all the way down. I'm saying you're logically inconsistent.
Clinton got things accomplished, with a republican house. I am not concerned at what he got past because it's irrelevant.
Obama was unable to pass meaningful reform, didn't even propose meaningful reform and then comprise, started out compromised and then had to compromise further time and time again with a democratic majority in both the house and the senate. That's pretty logically consistent to me.
Logically consistent with Obama not being a good president, or not wanting to pass good legislation.
Obama tried to fill a 3 Trillion Dollar GDP output gap with 500 billion dollars worth of stimulus and 270 Billion Dollars worth of tax cuts, on the face of it obviously not enough stimulus to get the job done. Obama didn't even start bargaining from the position to do enough to fill the GDP gap. That's not a republican critique.
-- The republican critique would be stimulus doesn't fix anything because wholly rational investors will reduce spending to compensate for government investment because of future tax burden (which is ridiculous, that is a critique I do not agree with). --
However, guess who also tried insufficient stimulus and major tax cuts to relive economic poor performance? Freaking Bush. The same damn policy, with a small change in emphasis.
Health care is ruinously expensive and getting more expensive proportionally above inflation every year.
Obama campaigned against a universal mandate, saying "that's like trying to solve the housing problem by mandating people buy houses"
Obama gets elected and what does he propose to solve the crisis? Everybody must buy insurance.
Not even the option of single payer, or buying into Medicare or federal insurance that he says "is off the table."
What is different between those toi things? Both Federal health insurance and Medicare come with price controls. Controls which would go a long way towards solving the problem. Also they are not for profit and lack market inefficiencies. They also lack market efficiencies, but guess what health care is a special kind of service where both the people who offer it and the people who consume it lack access to the information that would make that market efficient. That is not a republican critique of health care.
A republican critique would be government intervention is the problem entirely. Privatize everything and dont give money to seniors for health care, the market will sort out how to deal with their problems (which is true, the market would let them die, problem solved. Unacceptable in any just society).
My critique is wholly logically consistent. Here it is in Aristotelean form.
1. Obama was either unable or unwilling to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
2. A good presidential would be able to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
3. A good presidential would be willing to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
4. Obama is not a good president.
1. Obama's Forgeign Policy is the natural continuation of Bush's Policies.
2. Obama's economic policy are sufficient close to Bushes policies to be called the same policy but varying on emphasis.
3. Presidents who's economic and foreign policies are natural continuations and can be called the same are similar.
4. Obama and Bush's presidency are similar.
To wit: Obama and Bush are similar and not good presidents.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Congress, still the problem with all of your issues with the President (there are plenty of things to critique HIM about, and they all have to do with the national security state). The Democratic Party is not the Borg.
What you want is a liberal dictator. What you have is a system where the people of Nebraska (for example) have an overstated say in the process. Enjoy!
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Obama campaigned against a universal mandate, saying "that's like trying to solve the housing problem by mandating people buy houses"
This is a problem with how he campaigned, not with how he governed. You can't fix health care without getting rid of the free-rider problem.
Obama gets elected and what does he propose to solve the crisis? Everybody must buy insurance.
Not even the option of single payer, or buying into Medicare or federal insurance that he says "is off the table."
How many Blue Dogs would have voted for that? Yes, fine, maybe he could have started with Medicare for all and negotiated downwards but it was a pretty hard sell regardless.
My critique is wholly logically consistent. Here it is in Aristotelean form.
1. Obama was either unable or unwilling to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
2. A good presidential would be able to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
3. A good presidential would be willing to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
4. Obama is not a good president.
Depending on how you define "control", either #2 is false or your implicit #5 (Obama had control of the House and Senate) is false. If you want to defend this you are going to need to show how a good president can compel 218 House and 60 Senate members to vote for meaningful reform.
Tenek on
0
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
Congress, still the problem with all of your issues with the President (there are plenty of things to critique HIM about, and they all have to do with the national security state). The Democratic Party is not the Borg.
What you want is a liberal dictator. What you have is a system where the people of Nebraska (for example) have an overstated say in the process. Enjoy!
No. Dog walkers walk Dogs. Taxi Drivers Driver Taxi's. When it is possible for meaningful change to happen, and it's not even proposed to satisfy a minority that will never be satisfied, and wouldn't even support the compromised compromised version, then what you have is someone bad at doing their job. The filibuster and the 60 person senate majority rules had back doors. Back doors that were ultimately used anyway. To compromise twice in advance, to strip out every meaningful provision that does not represent a giveaway to big pharma and insurance monopolies is bad legislation.
The argument is being made here time and time again that Obama could not convince the blue dog democrats to do what he wanted, while attributing to Obama a position that he never advocated for. Obama didn't propose meaningful solutions to real problems and got even less past. Saying that he could have started from a better position is not advocating for a dictator.
Good executives get Good things done. Presidents act as the head of their political parties. Not getting his people in line means he's not doing a good job.
Instead we have a health care plan that doesn't solve the health care crisis and real unemployment is still in double digits after 4 years. If the US is lucky it might have a 10 year turn around on getting unemployment down. That represents a real failure of the executive. It's not a process it's a product. The US shouldn't be taking a journey with Obama as he learns about the political realities of being President. The Product of the Obama term has been slightly less bad than the Hoover administration. Whoopee.
Edit: Cries of it's not his fault, are just on the face of them absurd.
Coffee is for freaking closers.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
So, Seruko, you completely refuse to understand how American politics works, and in particular how the Democratic Party works. Presidents cannot force Congress to do anything, and Democrats are particularly uncooperative in that regard. Feel free to come back to this thread once you actually learn something about our system.
My critique is wholly logically consistent. Here it is in Aristotelean form.
1. Obama was either unable or unwilling to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
2. A good presidential would be able to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
3. A good presidential would be willing to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
4. Obama is not a good president.
Depending on how you define "control", either #2 is false or your implicit #5 (Obama had control of the House and Senate) is false. If you want to defend this you are going to need to show how a good president can compel 218 House and 60 Senate members to vote for meaningful reform.
The house did vote for meaningful reform. Reform that was not even proposed in the senate. If the President cannot get it to even be proposed...
My argument above is logically consistent and Aristotelean. You argument against it is called "hand waving."
This is a laundry list of failure. From privatizing space flight, to creating a consumer protection board and falling to appoint a director for years, to creating more laws for the SEC to not enforce, to a whole lot of DOMA. Well maybe not the last bit, Obama has done remarkably well on the GLBT front. Good for freaking him, meanwhile African American unemployment is flirting with 17%, but since 1/3 African American men go to prison at some point, they're probably just in jail. Well played Obama.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Yes, and the House has a simple majority requirement. Reconciliation is a process that only applies to budgetary matters, so true reform has to break the 60 vote threshold in the Senate.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The White House isn't even supposed to run Congress. It proposes ideas in the SotU address, Congress passes laws, the President enforces those laws, and the judiciary irons out problems and reviews those laws.
There's no one place to put the blame in the American system, and in different instances varying levels of blame can float around to everybody.
If you think that we're only marginally better off than at the end of the Hoover administration you're a goose.
And, if you think voting for any of the GOP candidates is a good idea because Obama isn't as Liberal Jesus as he didn't promise to be, I don't know how to engage you.
And not voting is a vote.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
My critique is wholly logically consistent. Here it is in Aristotelean form.
1. Obama was either unable or unwilling to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
2. A good presidential would be able to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
3. A good presidential would be willing to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
4. Obama is not a good president.
Depending on how you define "control", either #2 is false or your implicit #5 (Obama had control of the House and Senate) is false. If you want to defend this you are going to need to show how a good president can compel 218 House and 60 Senate members to vote for meaningful reform.
The house did vote for meaningful reform. Reform that was not even proposed in the senate. If the President cannot get it to even be proposed...
My argument above is logically consistent and Aristotelean. You argument against it is called "hand waving."
Your logic is only consistent if the Presidency has an uneven amount of power over the Congress. Which isn't the case.
Congress, still the problem with all of your issues with the President (there are plenty of things to critique HIM about, and they all have to do with the national security state). The Democratic Party is not the Borg.
What you want is a liberal dictator. What you have is a system where the people of Nebraska (for example) have an overstated say in the process. Enjoy!
No. Dog walkers walk Dogs. Taxi Drivers Driver Taxi's. When it is possible for meaningful change to happen, and it's not even proposed to satisfy a minority that will never be satisfied, and wouldn't even support the compromised compromised version, then what you have is someone bad at doing their job. The filibuster and the 60 person senate majority rules had back doors. Back doors that were ultimately used anyway. To compromise twice in advance, to strip out every meaningful provision that does not represent a giveaway to big pharma and insurance monopolies is bad legislation.
The argument is being made here time and time again that Obama could not convince the blue dog democrats to do what he wanted, while attributing to Obama a position that he never advocated for. Obama didn't propose meaningful solutions to real problems and got even less past. Saying that he could have started from a better position is not advocating for a dictator.
Good executives get Good things done. Presidents act as the head of their political parties. Not getting his people in line means he's not doing a good job.
Instead we have a health care plan that doesn't solve the health care crisis and real unemployment is still in double digits after 4 years. If the US is lucky it might have a 10 year turn around on getting unemployment down. That represents a real failure of the executive. It's not a process it's a product. The US shouldn't be taking a journey with Obama as he learns about the political realities of being President. The Product of the Obama term has been slightly less bad than the Hoover administration. Whoopee.
Edit: Cries of it's not his fault, are just on the face of them absurd.
Coffee is for freaking closers.
You don't know how the Democratic party works, do you? It's like a herd of cats. They're not as vicious at controlling their factions like the Republicans are. It has its benefits and flaws, of course. But I'd take that method over Republicans.
Here it is in Aristotelean form.
1. Obama was either unable or unwilling to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
2. A good presidential would be able to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
3. A good presidential would be willing to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
4. Obama is not a good president.
Well we're still arguing the "control of the House and Senate" part in assumption #1. There were 3 members of the Democratic Party (and 1 independent) in the Senate who were not going to vote to invoke cloture on any bill that was more progressive than the one that ended up passing. Full stop. No amount of head bashing from the party leadership was going to change that because these people thought their re-election hinged on not voting for this, and people in the Senate tend to want to stay there. Turns out it didn't help them at all, but that's their fault for being stupid, not the President's.
Without those votes, the opposition would have used a filibuster to prevent any healthcare bill from reaching the floor for a vote.
The things that were added/subtracted in reconciliation were relatively minor (the biggest thing was removing the stuff they had to add to bribe Nelson into voting for cloture in the first place) - any suggestion that they would have been able to go in there and magically turn the bill into a single-payer system (or whatever you want) is a complete non-starter politically.
There are plenty of people here who agree with your complaints, but placing the blame for it solely on the President is just being ignorant of the composition of the Senate at the time and the political realities of how the Democratic Party tends to operate on these kinds of issues (that is, poorly).
0
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
As I recall it, Clinton got his shit through by passing Republican stuff in a whole deal that they'd both pass each other's bills.
Obama has tried this, and it resulted in the republican thing passing, and then the GOP saying "haha, fuck your deal"
The inability for the legislative branch to function is not a commentary on the executive. It's a commentary on the legislative branch. Hence why their approval rating is so freaking low. Even the least politically active person can look and say "Uh, I'm pretty sure congress is just throwing a gigantic tantrum"
When you control the house and the senate it is a commentary on the executive.
I don't buy that. If you mean the time when democrats controlled both houses, they still had to contend with a "filibuster" rule which allowed Repubs to squelch anything they did.
I'm not sure when else you could be talking about because it's been a while since Republicans controlled both houses.
My critique is wholly logically consistent. Here it is in Aristotelean form.
1. Obama was either unable or unwilling to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
2. A good presidential would be able to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
3. A good presidential would be willing to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
4. Obama is not a good president.
Depending on how you define "control", either #2 is false or your implicit #5 (Obama had control of the House and Senate) is false. If you want to defend this you are going to need to show how a good president can compel 218 House and 60 Senate members to vote for meaningful reform.
The house did vote for meaningful reform. Reform that was not even proposed in the senate. If the President cannot get it to even be proposed...
My argument above is logically consistent and Aristotelean. You argument against it is called "hand waving."
What does it matter whether or not something that unequivocally didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing the Senate makes it to the floor or not? There was a zero percent chance of single-payer passing the Senate. Absolutely everyone in Congress and the White House knew that. Forcing something to fail isn't a sign of strength. And the opposite isn't a sign of weakness.
TheCanMan on
0
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
Here it is in Aristotelean form.
1. Obama was either unable or unwilling to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
2. A good presidential would be able to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
3. A good presidential would be willing to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
4. Obama is not a good president.
Well we're still arguing the "control of the House and Senate" part in assumption #1. There were 3 members of the Democratic Party (and 1 independent) in the Senate who were not going to vote to invoke cloture on any bill that was more progressive than the one that ended up passing. Full stop. No amount of head bashing from the party leadership was going to change that because these people thought their re-election hinged on not voting for this, and people in the Senate tend to want to stay there. Turns out it didn't help them at all, but that's their fault for being stupid, not the President's.
Without those votes, the opposition would have used a filibuster to prevent any healthcare bill from reaching the floor for a vote.
The things that were added/subtracted in reconciliation were relatively minor (the biggest thing was removing the stuff they had to add to bribe Nelson into voting for cloture in the first place) - any suggestion that they would have been able to go in there and magically turn the bill into a single-payer system (or whatever you want) is a complete non-starter politically.
There are plenty of people here who agree with your complaints, but placing the blame for it solely on the President is just being ignorant of the composition of the Senate at the time and the political realities of how the Democratic Party tends to operate on these kinds of issues (that is, poorly).
We're not. I was accused of being logically inconsistent. I provided the form which is logically consistent. Saying "but you're wrong" has no bearing on the logical consistency of the claims.
EDIT: which is part of what is wrong with these board and why they are a democrat echo chamber. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about facts. Making wholly logical claims on different factual basis. I disagree with spoll32 about a lot of facts. But I often find his claims logically consistent. Here he is often shouted down as arguing in bad faith, being stupid or evil.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
As I recall it, Clinton got his shit through by passing Republican stuff in a whole deal that they'd both pass each other's bills.
Obama has tried this, and it resulted in the republican thing passing, and then the GOP saying "haha, fuck your deal"
The inability for the legislative branch to function is not a commentary on the executive. It's a commentary on the legislative branch. Hence why their approval rating is so freaking low. Even the least politically active person can look and say "Uh, I'm pretty sure congress is just throwing a gigantic tantrum"
When you control the house and the senate it is a commentary on the executive.
I don't buy that. If you mean the time when democrats controlled both houses, they still had to contend with a "filibuster" rule which allowed Repubs to squelch anything they did.
I'm not sure when else you could be talking about because it's been a while since Republicans controlled both houses.
Reconciliation do you speak it?
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
The Senate has always been a place where the parties need to compromise, especially recently.
The last four Senates:
112
111
110
109
Most majorities hinge on one or two independents and must be careful not to see too much aisle swapping to keep party cohesion.
The filibuster and the 60 person senate majority rules had back doors. Back doors that were ultimately used anyway.
The "back door" of reconciliation only worked because the Senate had actually passed a bill with 60 votes. Also keep in mind that the Senate had 48 days in summer '09 and 117 in the fall and winter where they actually had 60, which left them with the difficult task of persuading every last conservative Senator not to kill it. And they did it! That should count as a victory.
The filibuster and the 60 person senate majority rules had back doors. Back doors that were ultimately used anyway.
The "back door" of reconciliation only worked because the Senate had actually passed a bill with 60 votes. Also keep in mind that the Senate had 48 days in summer '09 and 117 in the fall and winter where they actually had 60, which left them with the difficult task of persuading every last conservative Senator not to kill it. And they did it! That should count as a victory.
It counts as the single greatest victory in healthcare reform since Medicare/Medicaid. Just because we don't live in a fantasy land where we have single-payer and unicorns for everyone, doesn't even come close to minimizing that victory.
0
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
The filibuster and the 60 person senate majority rules had back doors. Back doors that were ultimately used anyway.
The "back door" of reconciliation only worked because the Senate had actually passed a bill with 60 votes. Also keep in mind that the Senate had 48 days in summer '09 and 117 in the fall and winter where they actually had 60, which left them with the difficult task of persuading every last conservative Senator not to kill it. And they did it! That should count as a victory.
This is counter factual. Please feel free to look up reconciliation.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Posts
Don't forget about Lieberman.
This is Pure Apologia and without substance. "That Dog won't Hunt."
as
1. It is one of the core roles of the president of the US to act as the political head of their own political party. If the president cannot get his own people in line then they have failed in their role as a leader. For example. Dog walkers walk dogs. When dogs don't want to go some place well that is what the freaking leash is for.
2. Even ignoring the above, there is the well used parliamentary procedure to circumvent the 60 person requirement, a procedure that was ultimately used anyway.
The least often used, and best in my opinion, argument against Obama the President is that he's just not very good at getting his own legislation past. He's not very good at the executive part of his job. FFS the Republicans impeached Clinton and Clinton still whipped them like dogs to get the legislation that he wanted past, past. If Obama is unable, unwilling or playing some kind of game that prevents him from doing the same to his own people, he's not fit for the job.
Edit: The same goes for every other major policy fight from the stimulus to the debt ceiling limit. Either Obama is an awful executive (politically naive and impotent) or his real agenda is not to do what's necessary to fix things. Either way.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Obama has tried this, and it resulted in the republican thing passing, and then the GOP saying "haha, fuck your deal"
The inability for the legislative branch to function is not a commentary on the executive. It's a commentary on the legislative branch. Hence why their approval rating is so freaking low. Even the least politically active person can look and say "Uh, I'm pretty sure congress is just throwing a gigantic tantrum"
That doesn't mean we shouldn't get anything until we get the 'perfect' bill. Because a perfect bill just isn't going to happen.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
When you control the house and the senate it is a commentary on the executive.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
What does this mean again?
I think you misunderstand the quote.
Perfect should not be the enemy of good means you shouldn't hold out on a good deal because you want the perfect deal. The GOP has suffered from this a few times when they've been offered amazing sweetheart deals to sign things, and turned them down on ideological grounds. And wound up getting nothing instead. They dropped the ball so badly on the debt ceiling it wasn't even funny. Not that it was at all funny that they tried to play political chicken with the world economy in the first place.
The Atlanic had a good article about this, actually: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/obama-explained/8874/
The Obama Administration brought in a lot of Clinton people who remembered the days of the Contract with America where the GOP was willing to come to the table and barter for things. Thanks to Obama's inexperience, the first two years were kind of blown on that kind of thinking.
Then he met the Tea Party who remains more than willing to burn down the country around them and hold no loyalty to Boehner (one of the weakest Speakers in history in my opinion) in the way that the Contract people felt slightly indebted to Gingrich for a little while.
Only on these forums would a socialist be accused of critiquing Obama from the right.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
We've actually got the solution right here.
If the Democrats won't do what Obama wants, he should just go down to Congress and choke them into submission.
Clinton was successful because he was dealing with a group that used their clout to negotiate for favors in exchange for playing ball. The expected method of government. Obama's issue has been entirely based around dealing with a group whose only pet issue is Obama losing power. So there's absolutely nothing he can offer that isn't his resignation that will get them to play ball. This has a side effect of grinding the government to a dysfunctional halt because the system wasn't designed to quickly deal with people being elected who had no interest in governing.
You totally missed the point. You said that Clinton was far more accomplished at getting things passed. What you fail to realize is that he got things passed because they were Republican things! Granted, in a Republican Congress.
Clinton had one liberal accomplishment legislatively, and that was his first budget. After that it was NAFTA (which I'm fine with, but most of your liberal base is... not), welfare reform, repeal of Glass-Steagall, instituting DADT in the first place, and conservative, Dick Morris approved horseshit all the way down. I'm saying you're logically inconsistent.
So because Obama couldn't forcibly make assholes like Lincoln, Nelson, and Lieberman fall in line, that's means he wasn't "acting in good faith" during the ACA negotiations? Really? Congressional Democrats not acting as a single-minded monolith, unlike the Republicans, can be frustrating. But it isn't a bad thing.
It pretty much is, but it has more to do with the Senate's general bullshit of an existence than anything else.
From the standpoint of wanting to get everything done that you want, you're right, it's a bad thing. From the standpoint of the general health of the party, I'd argue that it's a good thing. Acting as a single-minded monolith is how the GOP are purity testing themselves into oblivion.
To bad this doesn't happen more within the party itself then.
Fixed!
Clinton got things accomplished, with a republican house. I am not concerned at what he got past because it's irrelevant.
Obama was unable to pass meaningful reform, didn't even propose meaningful reform and then comprise, started out compromised and then had to compromise further time and time again with a democratic majority in both the house and the senate. That's pretty logically consistent to me.
Logically consistent with Obama not being a good president, or not wanting to pass good legislation.
Obama tried to fill a 3 Trillion Dollar GDP output gap with 500 billion dollars worth of stimulus and 270 Billion Dollars worth of tax cuts, on the face of it obviously not enough stimulus to get the job done. Obama didn't even start bargaining from the position to do enough to fill the GDP gap. That's not a republican critique.
-- The republican critique would be stimulus doesn't fix anything because wholly rational investors will reduce spending to compensate for government investment because of future tax burden (which is ridiculous, that is a critique I do not agree with). --
However, guess who also tried insufficient stimulus and major tax cuts to relive economic poor performance? Freaking Bush. The same damn policy, with a small change in emphasis.
Health care is ruinously expensive and getting more expensive proportionally above inflation every year.
Obama campaigned against a universal mandate, saying "that's like trying to solve the housing problem by mandating people buy houses"
Obama gets elected and what does he propose to solve the crisis? Everybody must buy insurance.
Not even the option of single payer, or buying into Medicare or federal insurance that he says "is off the table."
What is different between those toi things? Both Federal health insurance and Medicare come with price controls. Controls which would go a long way towards solving the problem. Also they are not for profit and lack market inefficiencies. They also lack market efficiencies, but guess what health care is a special kind of service where both the people who offer it and the people who consume it lack access to the information that would make that market efficient. That is not a republican critique of health care.
A republican critique would be government intervention is the problem entirely. Privatize everything and dont give money to seniors for health care, the market will sort out how to deal with their problems (which is true, the market would let them die, problem solved. Unacceptable in any just society).
My critique is wholly logically consistent. Here it is in Aristotelean form.
1. Obama was either unable or unwilling to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
2. A good presidential would be able to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
3. A good presidential would be willing to provide meaningful reform with control of the congress and the senate.
4. Obama is not a good president.
1. Obama's Forgeign Policy is the natural continuation of Bush's Policies.
2. Obama's economic policy are sufficient close to Bushes policies to be called the same policy but varying on emphasis.
3. Presidents who's economic and foreign policies are natural continuations and can be called the same are similar.
4. Obama and Bush's presidency are similar.
To wit: Obama and Bush are similar and not good presidents.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
What you want is a liberal dictator. What you have is a system where the people of Nebraska (for example) have an overstated say in the process. Enjoy!
This is a problem with how he campaigned, not with how he governed. You can't fix health care without getting rid of the free-rider problem.
How many Blue Dogs would have voted for that? Yes, fine, maybe he could have started with Medicare for all and negotiated downwards but it was a pretty hard sell regardless.
Depending on how you define "control", either #2 is false or your implicit #5 (Obama had control of the House and Senate) is false. If you want to defend this you are going to need to show how a good president can compel 218 House and 60 Senate members to vote for meaningful reform.
No. Dog walkers walk Dogs. Taxi Drivers Driver Taxi's. When it is possible for meaningful change to happen, and it's not even proposed to satisfy a minority that will never be satisfied, and wouldn't even support the compromised compromised version, then what you have is someone bad at doing their job. The filibuster and the 60 person senate majority rules had back doors. Back doors that were ultimately used anyway. To compromise twice in advance, to strip out every meaningful provision that does not represent a giveaway to big pharma and insurance monopolies is bad legislation.
The argument is being made here time and time again that Obama could not convince the blue dog democrats to do what he wanted, while attributing to Obama a position that he never advocated for. Obama didn't propose meaningful solutions to real problems and got even less past. Saying that he could have started from a better position is not advocating for a dictator.
Good executives get Good things done. Presidents act as the head of their political parties. Not getting his people in line means he's not doing a good job.
Instead we have a health care plan that doesn't solve the health care crisis and real unemployment is still in double digits after 4 years. If the US is lucky it might have a 10 year turn around on getting unemployment down. That represents a real failure of the executive. It's not a process it's a product. The US shouldn't be taking a journey with Obama as he learns about the political realities of being President. The Product of the Obama term has been slightly less bad than the Hoover administration. Whoopee.
Edit: Cries of it's not his fault, are just on the face of them absurd.
Coffee is for freaking closers.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
The house did vote for meaningful reform. Reform that was not even proposed in the senate. If the President cannot get it to even be proposed...
My argument above is logically consistent and Aristotelean. You argument against it is called "hand waving."
This is a laundry list of failure. From privatizing space flight, to creating a consumer protection board and falling to appoint a director for years, to creating more laws for the SEC to not enforce, to a whole lot of DOMA. Well maybe not the last bit, Obama has done remarkably well on the GLBT front. Good for freaking him, meanwhile African American unemployment is flirting with 17%, but since 1/3 African American men go to prison at some point, they're probably just in jail. Well played Obama.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
There's no one place to put the blame in the American system, and in different instances varying levels of blame can float around to everybody.
If you think that we're only marginally better off than at the end of the Hoover administration you're a goose.
And, if you think voting for any of the GOP candidates is a good idea because Obama isn't as Liberal Jesus as he didn't promise to be, I don't know how to engage you.
And not voting is a vote.
Your logic is only consistent if the Presidency has an uneven amount of power over the Congress. Which isn't the case.
You don't know how the Democratic party works, do you? It's like a herd of cats. They're not as vicious at controlling their factions like the Republicans are. It has its benefits and flaws, of course. But I'd take that method over Republicans.
Well we're still arguing the "control of the House and Senate" part in assumption #1. There were 3 members of the Democratic Party (and 1 independent) in the Senate who were not going to vote to invoke cloture on any bill that was more progressive than the one that ended up passing. Full stop. No amount of head bashing from the party leadership was going to change that because these people thought their re-election hinged on not voting for this, and people in the Senate tend to want to stay there. Turns out it didn't help them at all, but that's their fault for being stupid, not the President's.
Without those votes, the opposition would have used a filibuster to prevent any healthcare bill from reaching the floor for a vote.
The things that were added/subtracted in reconciliation were relatively minor (the biggest thing was removing the stuff they had to add to bribe Nelson into voting for cloture in the first place) - any suggestion that they would have been able to go in there and magically turn the bill into a single-payer system (or whatever you want) is a complete non-starter politically.
There are plenty of people here who agree with your complaints, but placing the blame for it solely on the President is just being ignorant of the composition of the Senate at the time and the political realities of how the Democratic Party tends to operate on these kinds of issues (that is, poorly).
I don't buy that. If you mean the time when democrats controlled both houses, they still had to contend with a "filibuster" rule which allowed Repubs to squelch anything they did.
I'm not sure when else you could be talking about because it's been a while since Republicans controlled both houses.
What does it matter whether or not something that unequivocally didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing the Senate makes it to the floor or not? There was a zero percent chance of single-payer passing the Senate. Absolutely everyone in Congress and the White House knew that. Forcing something to fail isn't a sign of strength. And the opposite isn't a sign of weakness.
We're not. I was accused of being logically inconsistent. I provided the form which is logically consistent. Saying "but you're wrong" has no bearing on the logical consistency of the claims.
EDIT: which is part of what is wrong with these board and why they are a democrat echo chamber. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about facts. Making wholly logical claims on different factual basis. I disagree with spoll32 about a lot of facts. But I often find his claims logically consistent. Here he is often shouted down as arguing in bad faith, being stupid or evil.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Reconciliation do you speak it?
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
The last four Senates:
112
111
110
109
Most majorities hinge on one or two independents and must be careful not to see too much aisle swapping to keep party cohesion.
The "back door" of reconciliation only worked because the Senate had actually passed a bill with 60 votes. Also keep in mind that the Senate had 48 days in summer '09 and 117 in the fall and winter where they actually had 60, which left them with the difficult task of persuading every last conservative Senator not to kill it. And they did it! That should count as a victory.
It counts as the single greatest victory in healthcare reform since Medicare/Medicaid. Just because we don't live in a fantasy land where we have single-payer and unicorns for everyone, doesn't even come close to minimizing that victory.
This is counter factual. Please feel free to look up reconciliation.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Yes, that's what I said.