|
On March 23 2010 02:35 Neverborn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 02:26 Sadistx wrote:
Asjo, if what you're advocating is a technocracy, then I'm all for it. However the problem there is to shield the scientists from corporate interests effectively. The problem with science is that it's slow to change and tends to jump to conclusions to explain trends.
People who don't understand science tend to jump to conclusions to explain trends. Science doesn't.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On March 23 2010 01:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 00:39 Sadist wrote:On March 23 2010 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2010 00:13 Klive5ive wrote:
Wow, it really says a lot for the credibility of democracy when EVERY single republican voted against.
Out of 178 not a single one considered it might be an alright bill? It's pathetic when parties vote in such a fashion.
Congratulations to Obama, let's hope it works out well. I don't know how closely you follow American politics, but not many democrats even think that it is an "alright" bill. The most liberal democrats hate it because there's no public option. The more moderate democrats hate it because it's a fiscal disaster in the making. Why do you think that there's all this talk of "fix it" follow-up bills? Everyone knows that what's been passed absolutely sucks. Why would a republican cast a vote for a crappy bill that he/she had no input in drafting? Again, if Obama wanted republican votes, he could have gotten them. It would have taken actual "statesmanship" and some biparisanship. So far, he has employed neither during the first year and a quarter of his presidency. That's entirely his fault. Let's be honest: you can't entirely ignore the desires of the opposing party and expect it to support your initiatives. obama couldnt get republican votes. Thats BS and you know it. Politics now is more partisan than ever and the republicans act like animals when they are in the minority. I agree that the bill isnt great but at least its a step. Any secession the democrats made fell on deaf ears. All the gay ass republicans sprouted was tort reform and socialism. You think with the nutbags in the party the reasonable people would bother voting yes? Hell no. The nuts run the republican party because without them the republicans would never get elected. You have assholes up there calling this communism and socialism and then you have the global warming crowd, the intelligent design crowd, the anti-gay marriage crowd........theres just so many fucking nuts in the party if anyone steps out as a moderate theyd get their seat taken by a nutbag republican in a heartbeat. Okay, apparently you know nothing about American politics. Obama had a 70-80% approval rating when he took office. He could have passed almost any initiative that he wanted to very easily and with at least some republican support had he actually endeavored to work with the more moderate republicans. Every president before Obama has worked with the opposing party in passing major legislation. For example, Bush worked with Ted Kennedy in passing education reform, Clinton worked with Ginrich in passing welfare reform, and Reagan worked with O'Neill in passing tax reform. Again, why can't Obama do the same? The democrats and Obama are blaming the filibuster for their difficulties, but the real problem is that they aren't engaging the republicans at all in drafting their initiatives and passing them. That is the very definition of bad statesmanship.
If only post election approval ratings translate into legislation getting passed.... Unfortunately that's not ever the case. Generally post election approval ratings are always that high, but it eventually tapers down. Post election approval ratings aren't equivalent to a mandate from the people to do whatever you want, otherwise we could have seen major reform passed immediately after every president gets elected.
Unfortunately, health care is one of those things where people just can't agree upon. It's always "too messy". Just go back to Clinton's health care proposal. Got shot down hardcore by Republicans in Congress. There was absolutely no way that the Republicans would have let any sort of Democratic championed bill get passed. They spewed so much rhetoric about abortion and socialism that everything else just got sort of drowned out... It didn't help that the Democrats were internally fragmented on this issue.
On March 23 2010 01:21 Neverborn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 00:36 Sadist wrote:On March 23 2010 00:03 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 22 2010 23:52 Sadist wrote:On March 22 2010 23:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2010 16:36 Jibba wrote:On March 22 2010 13:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2010 12:34 Jibba wrote:On March 22 2010 12:26 wishbones wrote:On March 22 2010 12:24 Jibba wrote:
[quote]
No, there is no national health care plan. That was called the public option. what? you mean it was on the table, and the "people" (ones who have jobs, and probably the richest of americans) said no.. wow.. how typical of snobs huh? fuckin greedy c***suckers Both sides are to blame. The republicans were irresponsible by opposing any possible plan from the start. In response, instead of trying to break down that opposition and reaching compromise and because they had a super majority, the democrats said fuck it and figured they could push through legislation without regard for Rs. Conservative democrats delayed the issue and then Kennedy died and the super majority was lost because the Democratic party handled the ensuing election about as poorly as you possibly can. Now D leadership got hasty and is pushing through this half assed bill, hoping they can modify it later, while R leadership are still being little bitches and refusing to join the drafting process in a responsible way, because they'd rather try to hamstring Ds and win back seats in 2010/12 No, just one side is to blame. The republicans offered plenty of ideas such as tort reform and cross-state competition, among other things. However, the democrats were not interested. Even the most partisan democrat would have to admit that the republicans were not given much of a chance to incorporate anything into the bill. It was drafted behind closed doors, exclusively by democrats. Obama and the democrats could have passed a health care bill very easily last year had they drafted a more moderate bill. Plenty of republicans would have jumped ship. Instead, the most liberal democrats drafted this piece of garbage that no one really likes. For better or for worse, the democrats own this bill. Republicans are not against health care reform. They just (unsurprisingly) have very different ideas on how to accomplish it. No, they threw out ideas and drew up their own independent plans but they were never going to sit down and compromise or work in any of those ideas with the majority party's plan. It was a political calculation put into place on certain issues as soon as Obama was elected. I had meetings with several of them throughout the week and it was made clear that the primary issue was not ideology. I have no doubt that the hardcore republican party hacks made a pure political calculation in opposing health care at all costs. However, that does not change the fact that Obama could very easily have targeted several of the moderate republicans (Snowe, Graham, McCain, etc), incorporated their ideas, and gotten some form of health care passed with republican support very easily last year. Seriously, Bush had Ted Kennedy write large chunks his "No Child Left Behind" bill. Do you think Obama could not have done something similar had he had any inclination of doing so? Conversely, do you think that some of those more moderate republican senators would not have jumped at a chance to really participate in the health care overhaul? Just look at what Schumer and Graham are doing now with immigration reform. This may surprise you, but most republicans are not necessarily against the use of public dollars in health care. Most agree that the government should provide a basic level of insurance/service for everyone, and then individuals can go out and buy better, supplemental insurance if they so choose. no way in hell. Not with a democrat majority. The democrats are at least reasonable even if you disagree with them. The republicans play politics better than anyone in the US. Theres no way in hell any of them were going to sign on because theyd be losing their seat in the next elections. Isn't this kind of disingenuous? I mean, you can't be the majority AND the victim at the same time can you? If the republicans were the best, they'd be the majority. Both parties play politics to the best of their abilities and do whatever it takes to win. There are some few individuals on each side who are true, noble, and principled idealists, but the parties as a whole are a dung heap. i completely agree but i feel like at least occasionally the dems have good intentions. The republicans however seem to be all about ignorance, religion, and anti middleclass/poor people. The democrats are definately the lesser of the 2 evils. Both of them care about being reelected way too much though. I don't know if I consider myself a republican anymore, but I wanted to comment on your statement about "ignorance, religion, and anti middleclass/poor people." I'm not against giving my money to people without the opportunity to support themselves, I'm against a government taking my money to give it to people who are able but unwilling to support themselves. It is our responsibility as citizens to help each other out in times of need; it is NOT our responsibility as citizens (and certainly not our government's responsibility) to provide a high standard of living for people unwilling to provide for themselves. Grover Cleveland famously vetoed a "bailout" for farmers in Texas who had lost their crops due to an extended drought. Show nested quote +I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood. Read that carefully. When the government takes it upon itself to provide a high standard of living for everyone, not only to people begin to expect the government to always be there to bail them out, but it discourages us from helping each other. My father-in-law runs a free dental clinic in Africa for the Maasai. It makes no money, since they obviously have no money to give. It runs 100% on donations and volunteer staffing. If the government would stop being such a nanny, you'd probably see things like that popping up here, too.
I wish people were that nice. Unfortunately, the Gilded Age pretty much showed us how charity doesn't work... It just doesn't work like that  . Yes, I would like some anarchism/communism system if everyone would help each other! Too bad we're all so greedy. Someone else posted that people suck as much as they can out of government programs, but that could work the same for charity programs as well. People just aren't nice enough.
On March 23 2010 00:39 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2010 00:13 Klive5ive wrote:
Wow, it really says a lot for the credibility of democracy when EVERY single republican voted against.
Out of 178 not a single one considered it might be an alright bill? It's pathetic when parties vote in such a fashion.
Congratulations to Obama, let's hope it works out well. I don't know how closely you follow American politics, but not many democrats even think that it is an "alright" bill. The most liberal democrats hate it because there's no public option. The more moderate democrats hate it because it's a fiscal disaster in the making. Why do you think that there's all this talk of "fix it" follow-up bills? Everyone knows that what's been passed absolutely sucks. Why would a republican cast a vote for a crappy bill that he/she had no input in drafting? Again, if Obama wanted republican votes, he could have gotten them. It would have taken actual "statesmanship" and some biparisanship. So far, he has employed neither during the first year and a quarter of his presidency. That's entirely his fault. Let's be honest: you can't entirely ignore the desires of the opposing party and expect it to support your initiatives. obama couldnt get republican votes. Thats BS and you know it. Politics now is more partisan than ever and the republicans act like animals when they are in the minority. I agree that the bill isnt great but at least its a step. Any secession the democrats made fell on deaf ears. All the gay ass republicans sprouted was tort reform and socialism. You think with the nutbags in the party the reasonable people would bother voting yes? Hell no. The nuts run the republican party because without them the republicans would never get elected. You have assholes up there calling this communism and socialism and then you have the global warming crowd, the intelligent design crowd, the anti-gay marriage crowd........theres just so many fucking nuts in the party if anyone steps out as a moderate theyd get their seat taken by a nutbag republican in a heartbeat.
To be fair, the Democrats are also pretty pissy when they aren't in a majority too. Just go back to the Gringrich years and the Bush years.
|
No, Sadistx, I guess I'm advocating a socialist democratic society, like the one we have in Denmark. Even though many things are deteriorating currently and some things are changing due to the current liberal government (increased privatization, for instance), the main reason that I'm happy to live in Denmark is the positive view we have on human beings. It's very values for people to participate evenly in the public discussion, and we have a long tradition of being in the values that shape the society as a community.
Of course, it's expensive to have such a large public sector. So, with the current state of the world, where western countries are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain their high standards of living, a lot of cuts have been many recently. However, at the base of it, with our advanced society today, it should never been impossible for us to take care of everyone, and I don't see the large public sector in Denmark disappearing. And if we have to look at it from an economical perspective, I think it's a great advantage for any society to have people who are working for the benefit of everyone instead of just their own benefit. If people take care of the well-being of others, no one will be marginalized and everyone will be better fit to contribute. By being more mindful of others, you also give them more space to contribute and think for themselves, not just doing whatever they have to do to get by. Also, if you are motivated by personal interest and care for something rather than just making money, it's easier for you to make something more of it and something positive for others. I hope you will except anecdotal evidence, since I'll mention how my Italian friend told me about how everyone in Denmark seemed more engaged in what they do and more aware of the environment around them. She gave the example of the post office, where in Italy people would be unable to help them with anything but that which would fall within their own specific function, whereas in Denmark everyone would know about everything and would be much more willing to help and engage in something outside their immediate interest. Now, this might more be a testament to corporate culture or just specific experiences interpreted selectively, but I thought it was a nice way to illustrate the idea.
|
Ideally, yes. And many (most?) scientists do exactly that. But there are a lot lot lot lot of scientists who do jump to conclusions to explain trends.
Continuing on my CHD example:
The China Study
The Cholesterol Myths
Two guys off the top of my head, both with doctorates (and one with an MD to boot), both writing books with incompatible conclusions.
I'm a scientist myself, I understand exactly what you're saying. That doesn't prevent a lot of "scientists" from jumping on various bandwagons.
|
On March 23 2010 00:36 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 00:03 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 22 2010 23:52 Sadist wrote:On March 22 2010 23:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2010 16:36 Jibba wrote:On March 22 2010 13:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2010 12:34 Jibba wrote:On March 22 2010 12:26 wishbones wrote:On March 22 2010 12:24 Jibba wrote:On March 22 2010 12:22 wishbones wrote:
i have no clue as to what this is but i'm assuming hospitals are finally free like as if to be in Canada, or Cuba, or all those other places. is that correct? No, there is no national health care plan. That was called the public option. what? you mean it was on the table, and the "people" (ones who have jobs, and probably the richest of americans) said no.. wow.. how typical of snobs huh? fuckin greedy c***suckers Both sides are to blame. The republicans were irresponsible by opposing any possible plan from the start. In response, instead of trying to break down that opposition and reaching compromise and because they had a super majority, the democrats said fuck it and figured they could push through legislation without regard for Rs. Conservative democrats delayed the issue and then Kennedy died and the super majority was lost because the Democratic party handled the ensuing election about as poorly as you possibly can. Now D leadership got hasty and is pushing through this half assed bill, hoping they can modify it later, while R leadership are still being little bitches and refusing to join the drafting process in a responsible way, because they'd rather try to hamstring Ds and win back seats in 2010/12 No, just one side is to blame. The republicans offered plenty of ideas such as tort reform and cross-state competition, among other things. However, the democrats were not interested. Even the most partisan democrat would have to admit that the republicans were not given much of a chance to incorporate anything into the bill. It was drafted behind closed doors, exclusively by democrats. Obama and the democrats could have passed a health care bill very easily last year had they drafted a more moderate bill. Plenty of republicans would have jumped ship. Instead, the most liberal democrats drafted this piece of garbage that no one really likes. For better or for worse, the democrats own this bill. Republicans are not against health care reform. They just (unsurprisingly) have very different ideas on how to accomplish it. No, they threw out ideas and drew up their own independent plans but they were never going to sit down and compromise or work in any of those ideas with the majority party's plan. It was a political calculation put into place on certain issues as soon as Obama was elected. I had meetings with several of them throughout the week and it was made clear that the primary issue was not ideology. I have no doubt that the hardcore republican party hacks made a pure political calculation in opposing health care at all costs. However, that does not change the fact that Obama could very easily have targeted several of the moderate republicans (Snowe, Graham, McCain, etc), incorporated their ideas, and gotten some form of health care passed with republican support very easily last year. Seriously, Bush had Ted Kennedy write large chunks his "No Child Left Behind" bill. Do you think Obama could not have done something similar had he had any inclination of doing so? Conversely, do you think that some of those more moderate republican senators would not have jumped at a chance to really participate in the health care overhaul? Just look at what Schumer and Graham are doing now with immigration reform. This may surprise you, but most republicans are not necessarily against the use of public dollars in health care. Most agree that the government should provide a basic level of insurance/service for everyone, and then individuals can go out and buy better, supplemental insurance if they so choose. no way in hell. Not with a democrat majority. The democrats are at least reasonable even if you disagree with them. The republicans play politics better than anyone in the US. Theres no way in hell any of them were going to sign on because theyd be losing their seat in the next elections. Isn't this kind of disingenuous? I mean, you can't be the majority AND the victim at the same time can you? If the republicans were the best, they'd be the majority. Both parties play politics to the best of their abilities and do whatever it takes to win. There are some few individuals on each side who are true, noble, and principled idealists, but the parties as a whole are a dung heap. i completely agree but i feel like at least occasionally the dems have good intentions. The republicans however seem to be all about ignorance, religion, and anti middleclass/poor people. The democrats are definately the lesser of the 2 evils. Both of them care about being reelected way too much though.
Overall, I think you're probably right. I at least find that taking tax-payer money to pay for health care is a lot more palatable than taking it to pay for wars in foreign countries, that's for sure.
I do still think that there are individuals in each party who truly want to do what is best for the country, but that they are few are far between, and mostly are swallowed up by the corruption, waste, and propaganda that is our two party system.
My two cents:
No matter what the government is/does, there will be people who steal/murder/rape/etc, there will (for the foreseeable future) always be poverty, and hunger, and homelessness. We cannot just "system" them out of existence. So it's much more worth our time to try to BE better people ourselves, more generous, caring, sympathetic, etc, than it is to try to make our government make everyone into a better person for us.
Even if Grover Cleveland is right, and the govt doing more to help people makes more people want to help out less, that doesn't excuse us! We can choose to do more at the same time. Rather than fight about the merits of the government doing it, lets just go out and do more ourselves.
Maybe if we're helping too, none of the worst case scenarios will happen.
|
United States22883 Posts
|
On March 23 2010 03:02 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 00:36 Sadist wrote:On March 23 2010 00:03 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 22 2010 23:52 Sadist wrote:On March 22 2010 23:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2010 16:36 Jibba wrote:On March 22 2010 13:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2010 12:34 Jibba wrote:On March 22 2010 12:26 wishbones wrote:On March 22 2010 12:24 Jibba wrote:
[quote]
No, there is no national health care plan. That was called the public option. what? you mean it was on the table, and the "people" (ones who have jobs, and probably the richest of americans) said no.. wow.. how typical of snobs huh? fuckin greedy c***suckers Both sides are to blame. The republicans were irresponsible by opposing any possible plan from the start. In response, instead of trying to break down that opposition and reaching compromise and because they had a super majority, the democrats said fuck it and figured they could push through legislation without regard for Rs. Conservative democrats delayed the issue and then Kennedy died and the super majority was lost because the Democratic party handled the ensuing election about as poorly as you possibly can. Now D leadership got hasty and is pushing through this half assed bill, hoping they can modify it later, while R leadership are still being little bitches and refusing to join the drafting process in a responsible way, because they'd rather try to hamstring Ds and win back seats in 2010/12 No, just one side is to blame. The republicans offered plenty of ideas such as tort reform and cross-state competition, among other things. However, the democrats were not interested. Even the most partisan democrat would have to admit that the republicans were not given much of a chance to incorporate anything into the bill. It was drafted behind closed doors, exclusively by democrats. Obama and the democrats could have passed a health care bill very easily last year had they drafted a more moderate bill. Plenty of republicans would have jumped ship. Instead, the most liberal democrats drafted this piece of garbage that no one really likes. For better or for worse, the democrats own this bill. Republicans are not against health care reform. They just (unsurprisingly) have very different ideas on how to accomplish it. No, they threw out ideas and drew up their own independent plans but they were never going to sit down and compromise or work in any of those ideas with the majority party's plan. It was a political calculation put into place on certain issues as soon as Obama was elected. I had meetings with several of them throughout the week and it was made clear that the primary issue was not ideology. I have no doubt that the hardcore republican party hacks made a pure political calculation in opposing health care at all costs. However, that does not change the fact that Obama could very easily have targeted several of the moderate republicans (Snowe, Graham, McCain, etc), incorporated their ideas, and gotten some form of health care passed with republican support very easily last year. Seriously, Bush had Ted Kennedy write large chunks his "No Child Left Behind" bill. Do you think Obama could not have done something similar had he had any inclination of doing so? Conversely, do you think that some of those more moderate republican senators would not have jumped at a chance to really participate in the health care overhaul? Just look at what Schumer and Graham are doing now with immigration reform. This may surprise you, but most republicans are not necessarily against the use of public dollars in health care. Most agree that the government should provide a basic level of insurance/service for everyone, and then individuals can go out and buy better, supplemental insurance if they so choose. no way in hell. Not with a democrat majority. The democrats are at least reasonable even if you disagree with them. The republicans play politics better than anyone in the US. Theres no way in hell any of them were going to sign on because theyd be losing their seat in the next elections. Isn't this kind of disingenuous? I mean, you can't be the majority AND the victim at the same time can you? If the republicans were the best, they'd be the majority. Both parties play politics to the best of their abilities and do whatever it takes to win. There are some few individuals on each side who are true, noble, and principled idealists, but the parties as a whole are a dung heap. i completely agree but i feel like at least occasionally the dems have good intentions. The republicans however seem to be all about ignorance, religion, and anti middleclass/poor people. The democrats are definately the lesser of the 2 evils. Both of them care about being reelected way too much though. Overall, I think you're probably right. I at least find that taking tax-payer money to pay for health care is a lot more palatable than taking it to pay for wars in foreign countries, that's for sure. I do still think that there are individuals in each party who truly want to do what is best for the country, but that they are few are far between, and mostly are swallowed up by the corruption, waste, and propaganda that is our two party system. My two cents: No matter what the government is/does, there will be people who steal/murder/rape/etc, there will (for the foreseeable future) always be poverty, and hunger, and homelessness. We cannot just "system" them out of existence. So it's much more worth our time to try to BE better people ourselves, more generous, caring, sympathetic, etc, than it is to try to make our government make everyone into a better person for us. Even if Grover Cleveland is right, and the govt doing more to help people makes more people want to help out less, that doesn't excuse us! We can choose to do more at the same time. Rather than fight about the merits of the government doing it, lets just go out and do more ourselves. Maybe if we're helping too, none of the worst case scenarios will happen.
You think a one-party system is better? How did that work out for the NSDAP? (did I just lose an argument for referencing that?). There's a lot of corruption and waste in a two-party system, but it also provides a degree of balance. It prevents us from making sweeping changes without considering the consequences.
Why do you think we popped in the two-term limit right after FDR left?
|
Team liquid is a rare breed, instead of 99% of the posters not having any idea what they're talking about like in most message boards, like 60% do, and then the other 40% are in there frusterating us all with a total lack of understanding.
I think having the government provide some competition to the ridiculously overpriced private insurance will be a lovely experiment. If private healthcare survives in it's current state, then democrats were wrong, if premiums for healthcare settle down (as in, not grow as fast as they would have), or stay steady, or even decrease, then public healthcare was the right move. It's EXTREMELY daring by the democrats to try something like this, where it will be very cut and dry in the end as to who is right, and who is wrong.
But guess what, the government package is probably going to lock down everyones healthcare premiums private or not, so get ready to eat some crow conservatives.
|
On March 23 2010 00:39 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2010 00:13 Klive5ive wrote:
Wow, it really says a lot for the credibility of democracy when EVERY single republican voted against.
Out of 178 not a single one considered it might be an alright bill? It's pathetic when parties vote in such a fashion.
Congratulations to Obama, let's hope it works out well. I don't know how closely you follow American politics, but not many democrats even think that it is an "alright" bill. The most liberal democrats hate it because there's no public option. The more moderate democrats hate it because it's a fiscal disaster in the making. Why do you think that there's all this talk of "fix it" follow-up bills? Everyone knows that what's been passed absolutely sucks. Why would a republican cast a vote for a crappy bill that he/she had no input in drafting? Again, if Obama wanted republican votes, he could have gotten them. It would have taken actual "statesmanship" and some biparisanship. So far, he has employed neither during the first year and a quarter of his presidency. That's entirely his fault. Let's be honest: you can't entirely ignore the desires of the opposing party and expect it to support your initiatives. obama couldnt get republican votes. Thats BS and you know it. Politics now is more partisan than ever and the republicans act like animals when they are in the minority. I agree that the bill isnt great but at least its a step. Any secession the democrats made fell on deaf ears. All the gay ass republicans sprouted was tort reform and socialism. You think with the nutbags in the party the reasonable people would bother voting yes? Hell no. The nuts run the republican party because without them the republicans would never get elected. You have assholes up there calling this communism and socialism and then you have the global warming crowd, the intelligent design crowd, the anti-gay marriage crowd........theres just so many fucking nuts in the party if anyone steps out as a moderate theyd get their seat taken by a nutbag republican in a heartbeat.
So here you are, referring to the republicans as "nutbags" and "gay ass republicans." Do you think that that attitude would get you very far in getting a republican to vote for your initiatives or legislation? Considering that the liberal democrats who pushed health care reform shared and expressed your sentiments (although not verbatim), how can anyone expect the republicans to come to the table?
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 23 2010 03:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 00:39 Sadist wrote:On March 23 2010 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2010 00:13 Klive5ive wrote:
Wow, it really says a lot for the credibility of democracy when EVERY single republican voted against.
Out of 178 not a single one considered it might be an alright bill? It's pathetic when parties vote in such a fashion.
Congratulations to Obama, let's hope it works out well. I don't know how closely you follow American politics, but not many democrats even think that it is an "alright" bill. The most liberal democrats hate it because there's no public option. The more moderate democrats hate it because it's a fiscal disaster in the making. Why do you think that there's all this talk of "fix it" follow-up bills? Everyone knows that what's been passed absolutely sucks. Why would a republican cast a vote for a crappy bill that he/she had no input in drafting? Again, if Obama wanted republican votes, he could have gotten them. It would have taken actual "statesmanship" and some biparisanship. So far, he has employed neither during the first year and a quarter of his presidency. That's entirely his fault. Let's be honest: you can't entirely ignore the desires of the opposing party and expect it to support your initiatives. obama couldnt get republican votes. Thats BS and you know it. Politics now is more partisan than ever and the republicans act like animals when they are in the minority. I agree that the bill isnt great but at least its a step. Any secession the democrats made fell on deaf ears. All the gay ass republicans sprouted was tort reform and socialism. You think with the nutbags in the party the reasonable people would bother voting yes? Hell no. The nuts run the republican party because without them the republicans would never get elected. You have assholes up there calling this communism and socialism and then you have the global warming crowd, the intelligent design crowd, the anti-gay marriage crowd........theres just so many fucking nuts in the party if anyone steps out as a moderate theyd get their seat taken by a nutbag republican in a heartbeat. So here you are, referring to the republicans as "nutbags" and "gay ass republicans." Do you think that that attitude would get you very far in getting a republican to vote for your initiatives or legislation? Considering that the liberal democrats who pushed health care reform shared and expressed your sentiments (although not verbatim), how can anyone expect the republicans to come to the table?
To be fair, he could have been talking about Sen. Larry Craig, who was staunchly anti-healthcare reform and fabulously pro-nutbags.
|
On March 23 2010 02:51 Mystlord wrote:
If only post election approval ratings translate into legislation getting passed.... Unfortunately that's not ever the case. Generally post election approval ratings are always that high, but it eventually tapers down. Post election approval ratings aren't equivalent to a mandate from the people to do whatever you want, otherwise we could have seen major reform passed immediately after every president gets elected.
Unfortunately, health care is one of those things where people just can't agree upon. It's always "too messy". Just go back to Clinton's health care proposal. Got shot down hardcore by Republicans in Congress. There was absolutely no way that the Republicans would have let any sort of Democratic championed bill get passed. They spewed so much rhetoric about abortion and socialism that everything else just got sort of drowned out... It didn't help that the Democrats were internally fragmented on this issue.
The importance of the post-election approval rating is that Obama was very popular and the republicans could only oppose him at their own peril of being perceived as an obstructionist party. Obama certainly did not have a mandate to do anything that he wanted. That's why his approval ratings have sunk over the past year. However, he did have the support of the people to push an agenda, including health care reform, as long as that agenda did not stray too far to the left. Obama strayed too far to the left from the start, alienated all of the republicans (which is quite impressive if you really think about it), and, consequently, pissed away whatever mandate that he had. The root of Obama's problem is that he refused to work with the republicans and offer any sort of meaningful compromise. Good politics is not a one-way street.
Also, this notion that republicans are per se against health reform is ridiculous. All of the polls show that most people, including republicans, agree that something needs to be done. Again, where people differ is how to change the system. If your notion of health reform exclusively means "the creation of a robust public option," you're going to find that 65-70% of the country disagrees with you, including virtually all of the republicans.
|
On March 23 2010 03:19 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 03:11 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2010 00:39 Sadist wrote:On March 23 2010 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2010 00:13 Klive5ive wrote:
Wow, it really says a lot for the credibility of democracy when EVERY single republican voted against.
Out of 178 not a single one considered it might be an alright bill? It's pathetic when parties vote in such a fashion.
Congratulations to Obama, let's hope it works out well. I don't know how closely you follow American politics, but not many democrats even think that it is an "alright" bill. The most liberal democrats hate it because there's no public option. The more moderate democrats hate it because it's a fiscal disaster in the making. Why do you think that there's all this talk of "fix it" follow-up bills? Everyone knows that what's been passed absolutely sucks. Why would a republican cast a vote for a crappy bill that he/she had no input in drafting? Again, if Obama wanted republican votes, he could have gotten them. It would have taken actual "statesmanship" and some biparisanship. So far, he has employed neither during the first year and a quarter of his presidency. That's entirely his fault. Let's be honest: you can't entirely ignore the desires of the opposing party and expect it to support your initiatives. obama couldnt get republican votes. Thats BS and you know it. Politics now is more partisan than ever and the republicans act like animals when they are in the minority. I agree that the bill isnt great but at least its a step. Any secession the democrats made fell on deaf ears. All the gay ass republicans sprouted was tort reform and socialism. You think with the nutbags in the party the reasonable people would bother voting yes? Hell no. The nuts run the republican party because without them the republicans would never get elected. You have assholes up there calling this communism and socialism and then you have the global warming crowd, the intelligent design crowd, the anti-gay marriage crowd........theres just so many fucking nuts in the party if anyone steps out as a moderate theyd get their seat taken by a nutbag republican in a heartbeat. So here you are, referring to the republicans as "nutbags" and "gay ass republicans." Do you think that that attitude would get you very far in getting a republican to vote for your initiatives or legislation? Considering that the liberal democrats who pushed health care reform shared and expressed your sentiments (although not verbatim), how can anyone expect the republicans to come to the table? To be fair, he could have been talking about Sen. Larry Craig, who was staunchly anti-healthcare reform and fabulously pro-nutbags.
True.
|
On March 23 2010 03:06 Neverborn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 03:02 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 23 2010 00:36 Sadist wrote:On March 23 2010 00:03 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 22 2010 23:52 Sadist wrote:On March 22 2010 23:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2010 16:36 Jibba wrote:On March 22 2010 13:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2010 12:34 Jibba wrote:On March 22 2010 12:26 wishbones wrote:
[quote]
what? you mean it was on the table, and the "people" (ones who have jobs, and probably the richest of americans) said no.. wow.. how typical of snobs huh? fuckin greedy c***suckers Both sides are to blame. The republicans were irresponsible by opposing any possible plan from the start. In response, instead of trying to break down that opposition and reaching compromise and because they had a super majority, the democrats said fuck it and figured they could push through legislation without regard for Rs. Conservative democrats delayed the issue and then Kennedy died and the super majority was lost because the Democratic party handled the ensuing election about as poorly as you possibly can. Now D leadership got hasty and is pushing through this half assed bill, hoping they can modify it later, while R leadership are still being little bitches and refusing to join the drafting process in a responsible way, because they'd rather try to hamstring Ds and win back seats in 2010/12 No, just one side is to blame. The republicans offered plenty of ideas such as tort reform and cross-state competition, among other things. However, the democrats were not interested. Even the most partisan democrat would have to admit that the republicans were not given much of a chance to incorporate anything into the bill. It was drafted behind closed doors, exclusively by democrats. Obama and the democrats could have passed a health care bill very easily last year had they drafted a more moderate bill. Plenty of republicans would have jumped ship. Instead, the most liberal democrats drafted this piece of garbage that no one really likes. For better or for worse, the democrats own this bill. Republicans are not against health care reform. They just (unsurprisingly) have very different ideas on how to accomplish it. No, they threw out ideas and drew up their own independent plans but they were never going to sit down and compromise or work in any of those ideas with the majority party's plan. It was a political calculation put into place on certain issues as soon as Obama was elected. I had meetings with several of them throughout the week and it was made clear that the primary issue was not ideology. I have no doubt that the hardcore republican party hacks made a pure political calculation in opposing health care at all costs. However, that does not change the fact that Obama could very easily have targeted several of the moderate republicans (Snowe, Graham, McCain, etc), incorporated their ideas, and gotten some form of health care passed with republican support very easily last year. Seriously, Bush had Ted Kennedy write large chunks his "No Child Left Behind" bill. Do you think Obama could not have done something similar had he had any inclination of doing so? Conversely, do you think that some of those more moderate republican senators would not have jumped at a chance to really participate in the health care overhaul? Just look at what Schumer and Graham are doing now with immigration reform. This may surprise you, but most republicans are not necessarily against the use of public dollars in health care. Most agree that the government should provide a basic level of insurance/service for everyone, and then individuals can go out and buy better, supplemental insurance if they so choose. no way in hell. Not with a democrat majority. The democrats are at least reasonable even if you disagree with them. The republicans play politics better than anyone in the US. Theres no way in hell any of them were going to sign on because theyd be losing their seat in the next elections. Isn't this kind of disingenuous? I mean, you can't be the majority AND the victim at the same time can you? If the republicans were the best, they'd be the majority. Both parties play politics to the best of their abilities and do whatever it takes to win. There are some few individuals on each side who are true, noble, and principled idealists, but the parties as a whole are a dung heap. i completely agree but i feel like at least occasionally the dems have good intentions. The republicans however seem to be all about ignorance, religion, and anti middleclass/poor people. The democrats are definately the lesser of the 2 evils. Both of them care about being reelected way too much though. Overall, I think you're probably right. I at least find that taking tax-payer money to pay for health care is a lot more palatable than taking it to pay for wars in foreign countries, that's for sure. I do still think that there are individuals in each party who truly want to do what is best for the country, but that they are few are far between, and mostly are swallowed up by the corruption, waste, and propaganda that is our two party system. My two cents: No matter what the government is/does, there will be people who steal/murder/rape/etc, there will (for the foreseeable future) always be poverty, and hunger, and homelessness. We cannot just "system" them out of existence. So it's much more worth our time to try to BE better people ourselves, more generous, caring, sympathetic, etc, than it is to try to make our government make everyone into a better person for us. Even if Grover Cleveland is right, and the govt doing more to help people makes more people want to help out less, that doesn't excuse us! We can choose to do more at the same time. Rather than fight about the merits of the government doing it, lets just go out and do more ourselves. Maybe if we're helping too, none of the worst case scenarios will happen. You think a one-party system is better? How did that work out for the NSDAP? (did I just lose an argument for referencing that?). There's a lot of corruption and waste in a two-party system, but it also provides a degree of balance. It prevents us from making sweeping changes without considering the consequences. Why do you think we popped in the two-term limit right after FDR left?
Absolutely don't think one party system is better. Perhaps if you read the whole post?
Beginning with "No matter what the government is/does..."
There is no silver bullet with government. I fully agree with Winston Churchill that democracy is the worst, just like all other governments are also the worst.
|
altho healthcare sounds great and it will certainly help.. to make people buy insurance to be a citizen in the country is unconstitutional.
|
The importance of the post-election approval rating is that Obama was very popular and the republicans could only oppose him at their own peril of being perceived as an obstructionist party. Obama certainly did not have a mandate to do anything that he wanted. That's why his approval ratings have sunk over the past year. However, he did have the support of the people to push an agenda, including health care reform, as long as that agenda did not stray too far to the left. Obama strayed too far to the left from the start, alienated all of the republicans (which is quite impressive if you really think about it), and, consequently, pissed away whatever mandate that he had. The root of Obama's problem is that he refused to work with the republicans and offer any sort of meaningful compromise. Good politics is not a one-way street.
Also, this notion that republicans are per se against health reform is ridiculous. All of the polls show that most people, including republicans, agree that something needs to be done. Again, where people differ is how to change the system. If your notion of health reform exclusively means "the creation of a robust public option," you're going to find that 65-70% of the country disagrees with you, including virtually all of the republicans.
[/QUOTE]
Define Left. Center right =/= left.
Obama's policies are center right in any definition of left vs. right.
Public option is center left.
Singlepayer is far left.
Obama got away from both of them. How the hell is that going too far left?
As for the public option, it polls at around 55%. A majority of the people in this country want it. That poll I am citing is actually from Fox news.
|
On March 23 2010 05:56 WWJDD wrote:
The importance of the post-election approval rating is that Obama was very popular and the republicans could only oppose him at their own peril of being perceived as an obstructionist party. Obama certainly did not have a mandate to do anything that he wanted. That's why his approval ratings have sunk over the past year. However, he did have the support of the people to push an agenda, including health care reform, as long as that agenda did not stray too far to the left. Obama strayed too far to the left from the start, alienated all of the republicans (which is quite impressive if you really think about it), and, consequently, pissed away whatever mandate that he had. The root of Obama's problem is that he refused to work with the republicans and offer any sort of meaningful compromise. Good politics is not a one-way street.
Also, this notion that republicans are per se against health reform is ridiculous. All of the polls show that most people, including republicans, agree that something needs to be done. Again, where people differ is how to change the system. If your notion of health reform exclusively means "the creation of a robust public option," you're going to find that 65-70% of the country disagrees with you, including virtually all of the republicans.
Define Left. Center right =/= left.
Obama's policies are center right in any definition of left vs. right.
Public option is center left.
Singlepayer is far left.
Obama got away from both of them. How the hell is that going too far left?
As for the public option, it polls at around 55%. A majority of the people in this country want it. That poll I am citing is actually from Fox news. [/QUOTE]
Single payer isn't even far left. Actual socialized medicine is far left; Ie the doctors work for the government. Single payer systems simply have the government reimburse doctors, but doesn't have them regulate them aside from the creation of a professional body.
Public option is pretty much 100% centrist. You can go private, you can go public, you can do whatever you fucking want.
|
|
|
On March 23 2010 06:01 L wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 05:56 WWJDD wrote:
The importance of the post-election approval rating is that Obama was very popular and the republicans could only oppose him at their own peril of being perceived as an obstructionist party. Obama certainly did not have a mandate to do anything that he wanted. That's why his approval ratings have sunk over the past year. However, he did have the support of the people to push an agenda, including health care reform, as long as that agenda did not stray too far to the left. Obama strayed too far to the left from the start, alienated all of the republicans (which is quite impressive if you really think about it), and, consequently, pissed away whatever mandate that he had. The root of Obama's problem is that he refused to work with the republicans and offer any sort of meaningful compromise. Good politics is not a one-way street.
Also, this notion that republicans are per se against health reform is ridiculous. All of the polls show that most people, including republicans, agree that something needs to be done. Again, where people differ is how to change the system. If your notion of health reform exclusively means "the creation of a robust public option," you're going to find that 65-70% of the country disagrees with you, including virtually all of the republicans.
Define Left. Center right =/= left. Obama's policies are center right in any definition of left vs. right. Public option is center left. Singlepayer is far left. Obama got away from both of them. How the hell is that going too far left? As for the public option, it polls at around 55%. A majority of the people in this country want it. That poll I am citing is actually from Fox news.
Single payer isn't even far left. Actual socialized medicine is far left; Ie the doctors work for the government. Single payer systems simply have the government reimburse doctors, but doesn't have them regulate them aside from the creation of a professional body.
Public option is pretty much 100% centrist. You can go private, you can go public, you can do whatever you fucking want. [/QUOTE]
Keep in mind that the political spectrum in America is very different than elsewhere in the world. While the provision of a "robust public option" may be centrist in Europe or elsewhere, it's solidly left in the USA. A single payer system is considered far left.
In the spectrum of American politics, Obama is very liberal and the most leftist president that we've ever had. Whether you like Obama's policies or not, the simple truth is that the American people simply won't stomach most of what he'd like to do in the USA. That's why the health care bill that was passed is so unpopular.
|
What a sham. The only bi-partisan part of this bill was opposition to it. November can't come soon enough, no one who voted for this bill will be in office to see it take effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
