On June 15 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote: As I have mentioned previously in these threads, Bush let democrats pen some of his biggest pieces of legislation. Obama has done no such thing, and he really should have done it with Obamacare.
Eh? The individual mandate itself is the Repiblicans' idea, dating back to the Heritage Foundation in the late 80s and was the GOP congress' counter-proposal to Clintoncare in the 90s. Obama campaigned on a public option with no mandate (this was the major difference between his plan and Hillary's during the 08 primary, along with her insistence on community rating for premiums). when he became president, GOP congressmen talked him into changing over to include a mandate. The public option was also dropped to appease Republicans, as were some of the cost control measures.
Yes, the individual mandate idea originated on the right, but it never received broad-based republican support (the most support it ever received was during the early 90s when it was offered as an alternative to Hillarycare). More importantly, it was not supported by republicans in the 2009-2010 congress when Obamacare was drafted. Different times, different politicians, different policies. If you want to call it hypocritical, whatever. I simply disagree given the difference between the republican party now and twenty years ago.
Also, you're dead wrong on the dropping of public option being done to appease republicans. It was dropped to appease democrats -- specifically blue dog democrats who were rightfully skittish about supporting Obamacare. Because Obama and the democrats cut republicans out of the drafting of Obamacare, thereby guaranteeing that they'd get no republican votes, they had to get basically every single democrat to support the bill. This was a huge tactical error on their part. Again, no republican voted for Obamacare.
So yeah, you definitely can't say that there was any collaboration between democrats and republicans on Obamacare.
As for the political election problems, it's people like you that cause the problems. Recognition that it's not Obama's sole fault is key to understanding the gridlock. It's Congress that is the problem, and Obama doesn't have control of them in an election year. You're placing the blame on the wrong entity because you listen to the special-interest pandering, inflammatory rhetoric that you claim to despise, and intend to vote based on an irrational line of logic that they have put forward to you. In other words, your rant is the exact problem you purport to hate with the system.
You're right, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's fault too. Unstoppable control of Congress for 1 year and only the filibuster able to stop anything for another 1 and what did they accomplish on the economy? A stimulus that achieved jack and shit respectively. The rest of their time they spent on a healthcare bill that 50% of the country absolutely hates and another 25% aren't really too keen about. Obama's at fault, deal with it.
This a thousand times. Never before has a president accomplished so little with so much stacked in his favor. All he had to do was throw a few bones to republicans here and there and actually include them in the process. He could have saved himself sooooooo many problems -- the most significant of which being Obamacare.
Shame on you xDaunt and your BS revisionist history.
Democrats had a supermajority for half a year, tops. During this period, the democratic congress criticized Obama extensively for seeking compromise, and inviting Republican's to the table.
"'We remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years.'"
"I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years."
And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.
Please stay vigilant. Your eyes are as good as ours. Scan Romney's statements for factual untruths - not embellishments or exaggerations, but empirically false statements. Update from a reader:
"Not to let Mitt Romney off the hook, because his "two years supermajority" claim is still blatantly false, but there was an interim Senator from Massachusetts who was, in fact, the 60th vote for healthcare reform after Ted Kennedy died. Paul Kirk served as interim Senator from Massachusetts from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. Therefore, the Democrats had a Senate supermajority for seven weeks with Kennedy and nineteen weeks with Paul Kirk, for a total of 26 weeks, or half a year."
Update from another reader:
"By the time Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, 2009, Ted Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote for about four months because he was terminally ill with brain cancer. (He died on August 25, 2009.) Robert Byrd was also hospitalized from May 18 through June 30, 2009 and may not have been well enough to attend Congress and vote for some time afterward. Thus the Democrats did not really have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster until Kirk took office. Byrd (who died in June 2010) was also periodically too ill to attend and vote during the September 2009-February 2010 period, though I have not been able to confirm this with a quick Google."
In summary, the myth that Democrats had a supermajority for two year to do whatever they wanted is 100% false.
Quite frankly, the level of obstruction that Obama faced from Republican Congress since his presidency started has was despicable, and unpatriotic. They were filibustering EVERYTHING.
And what kills me is that you're smart enough to know this. At least you pretend to be. I hope you're just being disingenuous.
You're just buying into the political posturing. Take a step back and look at a more objective measure: on what bills did Obama and the democrats invite republicans to co-sponsor and draft significant portions of it? I think we have already established that this did not happen on Obamacare, the largest of Obama's accomplishments.
As for the political election problems, it's people like you that cause the problems. Recognition that it's not Obama's sole fault is key to understanding the gridlock. It's Congress that is the problem, and Obama doesn't have control of them in an election year. You're placing the blame on the wrong entity because you listen to the special-interest pandering, inflammatory rhetoric that you claim to despise, and intend to vote based on an irrational line of logic that they have put forward to you. In other words, your rant is the exact problem you purport to hate with the system.
You're right, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's fault too. Unstoppable control of Congress for 1 year and only the filibuster able to stop anything for another 1 and what did they accomplish on the economy? A stimulus that achieved jack and shit respectively. The rest of their time they spent on a healthcare bill that 50% of the country absolutely hates and another 25% aren't really too keen about. Obama's at fault, deal with it.
This a thousand times. Never before has a president accomplished so little with so much stacked in his favor. All he had to do was throw a few bones to republicans here and there and actually include them in the process. He could have saved himself sooooooo many problems -- the most significant of which being Obamacare.
Shame on you xDaunt and your BS revisionist history.
Democrats had a supermajority for half a year, tops. During this period, the democratic congress criticized Obama extensively for seeking compromise, and inviting Republican's to the table.
A reader writes:
"'We remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years.'"
"I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years."
And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.
Please stay vigilant. Your eyes are as good as ours. Scan Romney's statements for factual untruths - not embellishments or exaggerations, but empirically false statements. Update from a reader:
"Not to let Mitt Romney off the hook, because his "two years supermajority" claim is still blatantly false, but there was an interim Senator from Massachusetts who was, in fact, the 60th vote for healthcare reform after Ted Kennedy died. Paul Kirk served as interim Senator from Massachusetts from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. Therefore, the Democrats had a Senate supermajority for seven weeks with Kennedy and nineteen weeks with Paul Kirk, for a total of 26 weeks, or half a year."
Update from another reader:
"By the time Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, 2009, Ted Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote for about four months because he was terminally ill with brain cancer. (He died on August 25, 2009.) Robert Byrd was also hospitalized from May 18 through June 30, 2009 and may not have been well enough to attend Congress and vote for some time afterward. Thus the Democrats did not really have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster until Kirk took office. Byrd (who died in June 2010) was also periodically too ill to attend and vote during the September 2009-February 2010 period, though I have not been able to confirm this with a quick Google."
In summary, the myth that Democrats had a supermajority for two year to do whatever they wanted is 100% false.
Quite frankly, the level of obstruction that Obama faced from Republican Congress since his presidency started has was despicable, and unpatriotic. They were filibustering EVERYTHING.
And what kills me is that you're smart enough to know this. At least you pretend to be. I hope you're just being disingenuous.
You're just buying into the political posturing. Take a step back and look at a more objective measure: on what bills did Obama and the democrats invite republicans to co-sponsor and draft significant portions of it? I think we have already established that this did not happen on Obamacare, the largest of Obama's accomplishments.
The individual mandate was something that was added in to get both Democratic and Republican support. The idea originated with Republicans and Mitt Romney even implemented it.
The only reason they now think it's a affront to their freedom is because Obama is for it.
As for the political election problems, it's people like you that cause the problems. Recognition that it's not Obama's sole fault is key to understanding the gridlock. It's Congress that is the problem, and Obama doesn't have control of them in an election year. You're placing the blame on the wrong entity because you listen to the special-interest pandering, inflammatory rhetoric that you claim to despise, and intend to vote based on an irrational line of logic that they have put forward to you. In other words, your rant is the exact problem you purport to hate with the system.
You're right, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's fault too. Unstoppable control of Congress for 1 year and only the filibuster able to stop anything for another 1 and what did they accomplish on the economy? A stimulus that achieved jack and shit respectively. The rest of their time they spent on a healthcare bill that 50% of the country absolutely hates and another 25% aren't really too keen about. Obama's at fault, deal with it.
This a thousand times. Never before has a president accomplished so little with so much stacked in his favor. All he had to do was throw a few bones to republicans here and there and actually include them in the process. He could have saved himself sooooooo many problems -- the most significant of which being Obamacare.
Shame on you xDaunt and your BS revisionist history.
Democrats had a supermajority for half a year, tops. During this period, the democratic congress criticized Obama extensively for seeking compromise, and inviting Republican's to the table.
A reader writes:
"'We remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years.'"
"I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years."
And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.
Please stay vigilant. Your eyes are as good as ours. Scan Romney's statements for factual untruths - not embellishments or exaggerations, but empirically false statements. Update from a reader:
"Not to let Mitt Romney off the hook, because his "two years supermajority" claim is still blatantly false, but there was an interim Senator from Massachusetts who was, in fact, the 60th vote for healthcare reform after Ted Kennedy died. Paul Kirk served as interim Senator from Massachusetts from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. Therefore, the Democrats had a Senate supermajority for seven weeks with Kennedy and nineteen weeks with Paul Kirk, for a total of 26 weeks, or half a year."
Update from another reader:
"By the time Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, 2009, Ted Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote for about four months because he was terminally ill with brain cancer. (He died on August 25, 2009.) Robert Byrd was also hospitalized from May 18 through June 30, 2009 and may not have been well enough to attend Congress and vote for some time afterward. Thus the Democrats did not really have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster until Kirk took office. Byrd (who died in June 2010) was also periodically too ill to attend and vote during the September 2009-February 2010 period, though I have not been able to confirm this with a quick Google."
In summary, the myth that Democrats had a supermajority for two year to do whatever they wanted is 100% false.
Quite frankly, the level of obstruction that Obama faced from Republican Congress since his presidency started has was despicable, and unpatriotic. They were filibustering EVERYTHING.
And what kills me is that you're smart enough to know this. At least you pretend to be. I hope you're just being disingenuous.
You're just buying into the political posturing. Take a step back and look at a more objective measure: on what bills did Obama and the democrats invite republicans to co-sponsor and draft significant portions of it? I think we have already established that this did not happen on Obamacare, the largest of Obama's accomplishments.
I have to go to work right now like a normal person, but if Obama HAD railroaded more bills down the throats of callous and apathetic Republicans than Democrats would be a lot happier right now.
And Obama did invite Republicans to the healthcare reform debate. Their ONLY suggestion was to do something about insurance fraud. That's it. In their minds, the health care system isn't broken (which it is).
As for the political election problems, it's people like you that cause the problems. Recognition that it's not Obama's sole fault is key to understanding the gridlock. It's Congress that is the problem, and Obama doesn't have control of them in an election year. You're placing the blame on the wrong entity because you listen to the special-interest pandering, inflammatory rhetoric that you claim to despise, and intend to vote based on an irrational line of logic that they have put forward to you. In other words, your rant is the exact problem you purport to hate with the system.
You're right, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's fault too. Unstoppable control of Congress for 1 year and only the filibuster able to stop anything for another 1 and what did they accomplish on the economy? A stimulus that achieved jack and shit respectively. The rest of their time they spent on a healthcare bill that 50% of the country absolutely hates and another 25% aren't really too keen about. Obama's at fault, deal with it.
This a thousand times. Never before has a president accomplished so little with so much stacked in his favor. All he had to do was throw a few bones to republicans here and there and actually include them in the process. He could have saved himself sooooooo many problems -- the most significant of which being Obamacare.
Shame on you xDaunt and your BS revisionist history.
Democrats had a supermajority for half a year, tops. During this period, the democratic congress criticized Obama extensively for seeking compromise, and inviting Republican's to the table.
A reader writes:
"'We remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years.'"
"I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years."
And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.
Please stay vigilant. Your eyes are as good as ours. Scan Romney's statements for factual untruths - not embellishments or exaggerations, but empirically false statements. Update from a reader:
"Not to let Mitt Romney off the hook, because his "two years supermajority" claim is still blatantly false, but there was an interim Senator from Massachusetts who was, in fact, the 60th vote for healthcare reform after Ted Kennedy died. Paul Kirk served as interim Senator from Massachusetts from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. Therefore, the Democrats had a Senate supermajority for seven weeks with Kennedy and nineteen weeks with Paul Kirk, for a total of 26 weeks, or half a year."
Update from another reader:
"By the time Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, 2009, Ted Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote for about four months because he was terminally ill with brain cancer. (He died on August 25, 2009.) Robert Byrd was also hospitalized from May 18 through June 30, 2009 and may not have been well enough to attend Congress and vote for some time afterward. Thus the Democrats did not really have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster until Kirk took office. Byrd (who died in June 2010) was also periodically too ill to attend and vote during the September 2009-February 2010 period, though I have not been able to confirm this with a quick Google."
In summary, the myth that Democrats had a supermajority for two year to do whatever they wanted is 100% false.
Quite frankly, the level of obstruction that Obama faced from Republican Congress since his presidency started has was despicable, and unpatriotic. They were filibustering EVERYTHING.
And what kills me is that you're smart enough to know this. At least you pretend to be. I hope you're just being disingenuous.
You're just buying into the political posturing. Take a step back and look at a more objective measure: on what bills did Obama and the democrats invite republicans to co-sponsor and draft significant portions of it? I think we have already established that this did not happen on Obamacare, the largest of Obama's accomplishments.
I go to to work right now like a normal person, but if Obama HAD railroaded more bills down the throats of callous and apathetic Republicans than Democrats would be a lot happier right now.
And Obama did invite Republicans to the healthcare reform debate. They're ONLY suggestion was to do something about insurance fraud. That's it. In their minds, the health care system isn't broken (which it is).
As for the political election problems, it's people like you that cause the problems. Recognition that it's not Obama's sole fault is key to understanding the gridlock. It's Congress that is the problem, and Obama doesn't have control of them in an election year. You're placing the blame on the wrong entity because you listen to the special-interest pandering, inflammatory rhetoric that you claim to despise, and intend to vote based on an irrational line of logic that they have put forward to you. In other words, your rant is the exact problem you purport to hate with the system.
You're right, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's fault too. Unstoppable control of Congress for 1 year and only the filibuster able to stop anything for another 1 and what did they accomplish on the economy? A stimulus that achieved jack and shit respectively. The rest of their time they spent on a healthcare bill that 50% of the country absolutely hates and another 25% aren't really too keen about. Obama's at fault, deal with it.
This a thousand times. Never before has a president accomplished so little with so much stacked in his favor. All he had to do was throw a few bones to republicans here and there and actually include them in the process. He could have saved himself sooooooo many problems -- the most significant of which being Obamacare.
Shame on you xDaunt and your BS revisionist history.
Democrats had a supermajority for half a year, tops. During this period, the democratic congress criticized Obama extensively for seeking compromise, and inviting Republican's to the table.
A reader writes:
"'We remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years.'"
"I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years."
And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.
Please stay vigilant. Your eyes are as good as ours. Scan Romney's statements for factual untruths - not embellishments or exaggerations, but empirically false statements. Update from a reader:
"Not to let Mitt Romney off the hook, because his "two years supermajority" claim is still blatantly false, but there was an interim Senator from Massachusetts who was, in fact, the 60th vote for healthcare reform after Ted Kennedy died. Paul Kirk served as interim Senator from Massachusetts from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. Therefore, the Democrats had a Senate supermajority for seven weeks with Kennedy and nineteen weeks with Paul Kirk, for a total of 26 weeks, or half a year."
Update from another reader:
"By the time Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, 2009, Ted Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote for about four months because he was terminally ill with brain cancer. (He died on August 25, 2009.) Robert Byrd was also hospitalized from May 18 through June 30, 2009 and may not have been well enough to attend Congress and vote for some time afterward. Thus the Democrats did not really have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster until Kirk took office. Byrd (who died in June 2010) was also periodically too ill to attend and vote during the September 2009-February 2010 period, though I have not been able to confirm this with a quick Google."
In summary, the myth that Democrats had a supermajority for two year to do whatever they wanted is 100% false.
Quite frankly, the level of obstruction that Obama faced from Republican Congress since his presidency started has was despicable, and unpatriotic. They were filibustering EVERYTHING.
And what kills me is that you're smart enough to know this. At least you pretend to be. I hope you're just being disingenuous.
You're just buying into the political posturing. Take a step back and look at a more objective measure: on what bills did Obama and the democrats invite republicans to co-sponsor and draft significant portions of it? I think we have already established that this did not happen on Obamacare, the largest of Obama's accomplishments.
The individual mandate was something that was added in to get both Democratic and Republican support. The idea originated with Republicans and Mitt Romney even implemented it.
The only reason they now think it's a affront to their freedom is because Obama is for it.
Again, adopting a position that a previous republican congress partially adopted 20 years ago isn't the same as inviting republicans to the table and putting the pen in their hands.
Also, no one is going to care about why the democrats included the individual mandate as part of the health care bill when it is declared unconstitutional this month (in my opinion, it's a just question of how much of Obamacare that the Court strikes down). The simple fact is that basically all of the democrats voted for it and none of the republicans did. That was the risk of shutting republicans out of the drafting of the bill. If the bill was a wild political success, the democrats would own it. If the bill was a wild political failure (which it is), then the democrats would also be the sole owners of that failure. Basically, they adopted an un-hedged political position that cost them dearly in 2010 and is still costing them now. I suppose that one can argue whether democrats had any alternatives (I think that they did), but none of that matters in the eyes of the public.
In summary, the myth that Democrats had a supermajority for two year to do whatever they wanted is 100% false.
Quite frankly, the level of obstruction that Obama faced from Republican Congress since his presidency started has was despicable, and unpatriotic. They were filibustering EVERYTHING.
And what kills me is that you're smart enough to know this. At least you pretend to be. I hope you're just being disingenuous.
How is it despicable and unpatriotic to filibuster?
The gridlock couldn't be better, it's helping slow down the deficit producing machine in the executive office.
Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences.
On June 15 2012 02:21 xDaunt wrote: Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences.
Absolutely.
In a CNN poll, 62% of respondents said the Act would "increase the amount of money they personally spend on health care," 56% said the bill "gives the government too much involvement in health care," and only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.
That was during the creation and passage of the bill.
As of February 2012, 72% of registered voters believe PPACA's individual mandate is unconstitutional, while only 20% say it is permissible. By a margin of 50% to 39%, Americans say the Supreme Court should overturn the entire statute.
Ya um something tells me Americans don't want this. But maybe Defacer does?
On June 15 2012 02:21 xDaunt wrote: Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences.
I really don't want to continue debating this issue specifically, because I'll go into a tangent about the merits of reforming US healthcare, which there already is a massive thread about.
But I agree with the general 'theme' of your statement, and not the details. I think whether or not people wanting an individual mandate is different from people wanting health care reform. A person that feels the individual mandate is unconstitutional may also feel that insurers should not have life time caps, or be able to deny coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. You can't do one without the other without breaking the health insurance market.
But yes, the political consequences of Obamacare rests on Obama.
As for the political election problems, it's people like you that cause the problems. Recognition that it's not Obama's sole fault is key to understanding the gridlock. It's Congress that is the problem, and Obama doesn't have control of them in an election year. You're placing the blame on the wrong entity because you listen to the special-interest pandering, inflammatory rhetoric that you claim to despise, and intend to vote based on an irrational line of logic that they have put forward to you. In other words, your rant is the exact problem you purport to hate with the system.
You're right, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's fault too. Unstoppable control of Congress for 1 year and only the filibuster able to stop anything for another 1 and what did they accomplish on the economy? A stimulus that achieved jack and shit respectively. The rest of their time they spent on a healthcare bill that 50% of the country absolutely hates and another 25% aren't really too keen about. Obama's at fault, deal with it.
This a thousand times. Never before has a president accomplished so little with so much stacked in his favor. All he had to do was throw a few bones to republicans here and there and actually include them in the process. He could have saved himself sooooooo many problems -- the most significant of which being Obamacare.
Shame on you xDaunt and your BS revisionist history.
Democrats had a supermajority for half a year, tops. During this period, the democratic congress criticized Obama extensively for seeking compromise, and inviting Republican's to the table.
A reader writes:
"'We remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years.'"
"I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years."
And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.
Please stay vigilant. Your eyes are as good as ours. Scan Romney's statements for factual untruths - not embellishments or exaggerations, but empirically false statements. Update from a reader:
"Not to let Mitt Romney off the hook, because his "two years supermajority" claim is still blatantly false, but there was an interim Senator from Massachusetts who was, in fact, the 60th vote for healthcare reform after Ted Kennedy died. Paul Kirk served as interim Senator from Massachusetts from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. Therefore, the Democrats had a Senate supermajority for seven weeks with Kennedy and nineteen weeks with Paul Kirk, for a total of 26 weeks, or half a year."
Update from another reader:
"By the time Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, 2009, Ted Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote for about four months because he was terminally ill with brain cancer. (He died on August 25, 2009.) Robert Byrd was also hospitalized from May 18 through June 30, 2009 and may not have been well enough to attend Congress and vote for some time afterward. Thus the Democrats did not really have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster until Kirk took office. Byrd (who died in June 2010) was also periodically too ill to attend and vote during the September 2009-February 2010 period, though I have not been able to confirm this with a quick Google."
In summary, the myth that Democrats had a supermajority for two year to do whatever they wanted is 100% false.
Quite frankly, the level of obstruction that Obama faced from Republican Congress since his presidency started has was despicable, and unpatriotic. They were filibustering EVERYTHING.
And what kills me is that you're smart enough to know this. At least you pretend to be. I hope you're just being disingenuous.
You're just buying into the political posturing. Take a step back and look at a more objective measure: on what bills did Obama and the democrats invite republicans to co-sponsor and draft significant portions of it? I think we have already established that this did not happen on Obamacare, the largest of Obama's accomplishments.
The individual mandate was something that was added in to get both Democratic and Republican support. The idea originated with Republicans and Mitt Romney even implemented it.
The only reason they now think it's a affront to their freedom is because Obama is for it.
Again, adopting a position that a previous republican congress partially adopted 20 years ago isn't the same as inviting republicans to the table and putting the pen in their hands.
Also, no one is going to care about why the democrats included the individual mandate as part of the health care bill when it is declared unconstitutional this month (in my opinion, it's a just question of how much of Obamacare that the Court strikes down). The simple fact is that basically all of the democrats voted for it and none of the republicans did. That was the risk of shutting republicans out of the drafting of the bill. If the bill was a wild political success, the democrats would own it. If the bill was a wild political failure (which it is), then the democrats would also be the sole owners of that failure. Basically, they adopted an un-hedged political position that cost them dearly in 2010 and is still costing them now. I suppose that one can argue whether democrats had any alternatives (I think that they did), but none of that matters in the eyes of the public.
The only reason why Republicans don't support it now is because they don't like Obama. And it wasn't 20 years ago. There's a 2009 video in that link. What's changed? Obama, that's what. It is hypocritical for Mitt Romney to implement this and then say that it's the worse thing ever, because he's a flip flopper who would say anything to get elected. Why don't you (or Romney) call for it to be repealed in Massachusetts.
Again, republicans were not shut out. There's a 5 hour video above. If Republicans were shut out why did it take months of horse trading to negotiate the deal? Because of Republicans. Because of Scott Brown in particular. Democrats bent over backwards to get at least some Republicans in board because of the Scott Brown situation.
Republicans never compromise. Not a inch. It's never happened in the last 4 years. Just look at the debt ceiling and Bush tax cut fiascoes. They got everything they want because they are hostage takers.
On June 15 2012 02:21 xDaunt wrote: Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences.
In a CNN poll, 62% of respondents said the Act would "increase the amount of money they personally spend on health care," 56% said the bill "gives the government too much involvement in health care," and only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.
That was during the creation and passage of the bill.
As of February 2012, 72% of registered voters believe PPACA's individual mandate is unconstitutional, while only 20% say it is permissible. By a margin of 50% to 39%, Americans say the Supreme Court should overturn the entire statute.
Ya um something tells me Americans don't want this. But maybe Defacer does?
Asking people whether or not Obamacare will increase the money they spend on healthcare is a completely useless poll question. People have no idea what the economic effects of the law will be and how it will affect the cost of healthcare. It would be like asking them what the 10 year US bond yield would be in 2015.
Let's look at the popular support for the specific provisions of Obamacare.
Still, majorities of Americans, and in some cases, even majorities of Republican voters, want to keep many of the key provisions of the new law. For example, more than seven in ten say lawmakers should keep provisions that provide tax credits to small businesses (78 percent), gradually close the Medicare doughnut hole (72 percent), prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre‐existing conditions (71 percent), and provide financial help to lower‐income Americans to help them purchase coverage (71 percent). Fewer, but still more than half (54 percent), support keeping increases in the Medicare payroll tax on upper income Americans. The big exception among the provisions considered is the requirement that individuals have health insurance or else pay a fine, which two‐thirds of Americans (68 percent) say they want to see repealed.
They all have HUGE majority support, except the mandate. This suggests people aren't looking at what actually Obamacare does. They're dismissing it based on political ideology without considering the specifics of the law, which they do agree with. Because Obama's name is on it.
While most people don't support the individual mandate they fail to realize that all the other provisions, which all have OVERWHELMING support, are economically infeasible without the individual mandate (or a public healthcare option).
On June 15 2012 02:21 xDaunt wrote: Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences.
Absolutely.
In a CNN poll, 62% of respondents said the Act would "increase the amount of money they personally spend on health care," 56% said the bill "gives the government too much involvement in health care," and only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.
That was during the creation and passage of the bill.
As of February 2012, 72% of registered voters believe PPACA's individual mandate is unconstitutional, while only 20% say it is permissible. By a margin of 50% to 39%, Americans say the Supreme Court should overturn the entire statute.
Ya um something tells me Americans don't want this. But maybe Defacer does?
Asking people whether or not Obamacare will increase the money they spend on healthcare is a completely useless poll question. People have no idea what the economic effects of the law will be and how it will affect the cost of healthcare. It would be like asking them what the 10 year US bond yield would be in 2015.
Let's look at the popular support for the specific provisions of Obamacare.
Still, majorities of Americans, and in some cases, even majorities of Republican voters, want to keep many of the key provisions of the new law. For example, more than seven in ten say lawmakers should keep provisions that provide tax credits to small businesses (78 percent), gradually close the Medicare doughnut hole (72 percent), prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre‐existing conditions (71 percent), and provide financial help to lower‐income Americans to help them purchase coverage (71 percent). Fewer, but still more than half (54 percent), support keeping increases in the Medicare payroll tax on upper income Americans. The big exception among the provisions considered is the requirement that individuals have health insurance or else pay a fine, which two‐thirds of Americans (68 percent) say they want to see repealed.
They all have HUGE majority support, except the mandate. This suggests people aren't looking at what actually Obamacare does. They're dismissing it based on political ideology without considering the specifics of the law, which they do agree with. Because Obama's name is on it.
While most people don't support the individual mandate they fail to realize that all the other provisions, all of which have OVERWHELMING support, are economically infeasible without the individual mandate (or a public healthcare option).
You ignored the other parts smartass.
* 56% said the bill "gives the government too much involvement in health care," and only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.
* Only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.
I think many people find it reasonable and fair to enact some of those provisions. The tax credits provision is fair it seems, although I don't understand it completely because it's written horribly and is ambiguous.
Also its retarded to ask people if they would like to see insurances lose the ability to deny you coverage based on pre-existing coverage. That's like asking if you want to be invited to a party you desire. There is a reason why healthcare providers do this, despite being unfair. It ensures they make a profit, and a small one at that. If they made no profit they would cease to exist.
They all have HUGE majority support, except the mandate. This suggests people aren't looking at what specifically Obamacare does. They're dismissing it based on political ideology without looking at the specifics of the law, which they do agree with. Because Obama's name is on it.
They don't support the individual mandate, but every other provision, all of which have OVERWHELMING support are economically infeasible without the individual mandate (or a public healthcare option).
What it suggests is that people have a grasp for the essential and you're unhappy about it so you're misdirecting. The mandate is the most important part of the bill, far more important than any other part of it. What you're suggesting is that because people like the tires on the car they should like the whole car, and if they don't this means they aren't properly weighing the benefit of the tires to the whole. They're dismissing those great tires because of anti-four-door ideology.
They don't agree with the law, they agree with minor parts of it. They don't support every other provision, they support some provisions cherry-picked by you and defenders of the law specifically because they do like them. You're not looking specifically at what Obamacare does, because that allows you to just ignore the unpopularity of the mandate.
Forget that you hate the engine, you should by that car because the tires and seats are nice. And if you don't then you're not looking at it right. That's what your argument boils down to.
There is no evidence that these other provisions can't be reached by other means, that's just ideological fearmongering and unwillingness to try. But looking at things through an ideological prism is bad for thee but okay for me in the parallel universe.
They all have HUGE majority support, except the mandate. This suggests people aren't looking at what specifically Obamacare does. They're dismissing it based on political ideology without looking at the specifics of the law, which they do agree with. Because Obama's name is on it.
They don't support the individual mandate, but every other provision, all of which have OVERWHELMING support are economically infeasible without the individual mandate (or a public healthcare option).
What it suggests is that people have a grasp for the essential and you're unhappy about it so you're misdirecting. The mandate is the most important part of the bill, far more important than any other part of it. What you're suggesting is that because people like the tires on the car they should like the whole car, and if they don't this means they aren't properly weighing the benefit of the tires to the whole. They're dismissing those great tires because of anti-four-door ideology.
They don't agree with the law, they agree with minor parts of it. They don't support every other provision, they support some provisions cherry-picked by you and defenders of the law specifically because they do like them. You're not looking specifically at what Obamacare does, because that allows you to just ignore the unpopularity of the mandate.
Forget that you hate the engine, you should by that car because the tires and seats are nice. And if you don't then you're not looking at it right. That's what your argument boils down to.
There is no evidence that these other provisions can't be reached by other means, that's just ideological fearmongering and unwillingness to try. But looking at things through an ideological prism is bad for thee but okay for me in the parallel universe.
I think a better analogy would be that everyone agrees the US needs a new car, and this is what this new car needs to do, but everyone is either 1) arguing about how to pay for it 2) saying we should buy an even better car 3) settle for the gas-guzzling, expensive car the US already has that sometimes stalls, has no airbags for kids born with congenital heart defects and maxes out at 100 km/hr.
On June 15 2012 02:21 xDaunt wrote: Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences.
Absolutely.
In a CNN poll, 62% of respondents said the Act would "increase the amount of money they personally spend on health care," 56% said the bill "gives the government too much involvement in health care," and only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.
That was during the creation and passage of the bill.
As of February 2012, 72% of registered voters believe PPACA's individual mandate is unconstitutional, while only 20% say it is permissible. By a margin of 50% to 39%, Americans say the Supreme Court should overturn the entire statute.
Ya um something tells me Americans don't want this. But maybe Defacer does?
Asking people whether or not Obamacare will increase the money they spend on healthcare is a completely useless poll question. People have no idea what the economic effects of the law will be and how it will affect the cost of healthcare. It would be like asking them what the 10 year US bond yield would be in 2015.
Let's look at the popular support for the specific provisions of Obamacare.
Still, majorities of Americans, and in some cases, even majorities of Republican voters, want to keep many of the key provisions of the new law. For example, more than seven in ten say lawmakers should keep provisions that provide tax credits to small businesses (78 percent), gradually close the Medicare doughnut hole (72 percent), prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre‐existing conditions (71 percent), and provide financial help to lower‐income Americans to help them purchase coverage (71 percent). Fewer, but still more than half (54 percent), support keeping increases in the Medicare payroll tax on upper income Americans. The big exception among the provisions considered is the requirement that individuals have health insurance or else pay a fine, which two‐thirds of Americans (68 percent) say they want to see repealed.
They all have HUGE majority support, except the mandate. This suggests people aren't looking at what actually Obamacare does. They're dismissing it based on political ideology without considering the specifics of the law, which they do agree with. Because Obama's name is on it.
While most people don't support the individual mandate they fail to realize that all the other provisions, all of which have OVERWHELMING support, are economically infeasible without the individual mandate (or a public healthcare option).
You ignored the other parts smartass.
* 56% said the bill "gives the government too much involvement in health care," and only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.
* Only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.
I think many people find it reasonable and fair to enact some of those provisions. The tax credits provision is fair it seems, although I don't understand it completely because it's written horribly and is ambiguous.
Also its retarded to ask people if they would like to see insurances lose the ability to deny you coverage based on pre-existing coverage. That's like asking if you want to be invited to a party you desire. There is a reason why healthcare providers do this, despite being unfair. It ensures they make a profit, and a small one at that. If they made no profit they would cease to exist.
The following are not provisions of Obamacare:
* 56% said the bill "gives the government too much involvement in health care," and only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.
* Only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.
On June 15 2012 03:39 paralleluniverse wrote: The following are not provisions of Obamacare:
* 56% said the bill "gives the government too much involvement in health care," and only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.
* Only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.
Obviously, but it still doesn't detract from the importance of the peoples feelings.
They all have HUGE majority support, except the mandate. This suggests people aren't looking at what specifically Obamacare does. They're dismissing it based on political ideology without looking at the specifics of the law, which they do agree with. Because Obama's name is on it.
They don't support the individual mandate, but every other provision, all of which have OVERWHELMING support are economically infeasible without the individual mandate (or a public healthcare option).
What it suggests is that people have a grasp for the essential and you're unhappy about it so you're misdirecting. The mandate is the most important part of the bill, far more important than any other part of it. What you're suggesting is that because people like the tires on the car they should like the whole car, and if they don't this means they aren't properly weighing the benefit of the tires to the whole. They're dismissing those great tires because of anti-four-door ideology.
They don't agree with the law, they agree with minor parts of it. They don't support every other provision, they support some provisions cherry-picked by you and defenders of the law specifically because they do like them. You're not looking specifically at what Obamacare does, because that allows you to just ignore the unpopularity of the mandate.
Forget that you hate the engine, you should by that car because the tires and seats are nice. And if you don't then you're not looking at it right. That's what your argument boils down to.
There is no evidence that these other provisions can't be reached by other means, that's just ideological fearmongering and unwillingness to try. But looking at things through an ideological prism is bad for thee but okay for me in the parallel universe.
The mandate is a means to a end.
Things like not being able to deny coverage, making health care cheaper, etc, are the purpose of the law. The mandate is there only as a means to these ends. If all of these things were doable without the mandate, then why didn't they just drop it?
Because, you have no idea about the economics of insurance. Insurance only works when there is a risk pool. The main challenge for insurers is to deal with moral hazard and adverse selection. Without the mandate, sick people cannot be denied coverage, which increases the cost to the insurer, which passes it onto everyone who is insured. This increases the premiums, causing healthy people to drop out of insurance, which reduces the risk pool and reduces the money that the insurer has to cover the remaining sick people who they must insure. Thus, only sick people will be insured while healthy people will tend to drop out of insurance, and the whole enterprise of insurance, to spread risk amongst the population, is rendered pointless and it all falls apart,
On June 15 2012 03:39 paralleluniverse wrote: The following are not provisions of Obamacare:
* 56% said the bill "gives the government too much involvement in health care," and only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.
* Only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.
Obviously, but it still doesn't detract from the importance of the peoples feelings.
I was showing that people's feelings on this issue are based on politics, not facts.
EPT
