2012 Election Thread
- Thread starter IRHari
- Start date
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
The fun never stops in the vs forum :lol:
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']In all honesty, I would've just let it slide and let them try collecting from me, since I don't own shit(not even a car at this point) but my family wanted me to take care of it. So what could they take from me? If it were a Thursday when I had the ailment that required diagnosis, then I would've likely just gone to the free clinic.
See above. No car, no car insurance. But car insurance to me IS a necessity when you have a vehicle. But health insurance is a luxury which I would rather not pay for if I don't need it.
But chances are I'll never make $200k a year, so I doubt I'd ever look at it as a drop in the bucket, especially with the rates I was quoted prior. I do understand that insurance is in case shit happens, since life is not predictable. But since the gov't is telling me I need to do it because otherwise they'll fine me for not buying it means I won't buy it just because of that. If they wanna gimme insurance gratis though I'm all for it. But no way am I gonna scrape up X amount to pay for something I don't truly need.
[/QUOTE]
And this here is the gist of your problem that I've been alluding too: you don't want to do it because you don't like being told you need to do something. Frankly, it's juvenile considering this is an issue of healthcare and not something of a superficial nature like shaving. But even this is trumped, once again, by the fact that you want the service without having to pay for it in any way.
Instead of supporting the implementation of a more cost effective healthcare system like a national health service, which is something that is a lot more in line with what you want(and cheaper!), you'd rather rally behind further privatizing it because you don't want to pay a
ing dime for it. If the goal is a profit driven healthcare system, what the hell makes you think that your goals are more congruent with that? It simply isn't and it's lunacy to think so. Use your ing brains.
See above. No car, no car insurance. But car insurance to me IS a necessity when you have a vehicle. But health insurance is a luxury which I would rather not pay for if I don't need it.
But chances are I'll never make $200k a year, so I doubt I'd ever look at it as a drop in the bucket, especially with the rates I was quoted prior. I do understand that insurance is in case shit happens, since life is not predictable. But since the gov't is telling me I need to do it because otherwise they'll fine me for not buying it means I won't buy it just because of that. If they wanna gimme insurance gratis though I'm all for it. But no way am I gonna scrape up X amount to pay for something I don't truly need.
[/QUOTE]And this here is the gist of your problem that I've been alluding too: you don't want to do it because you don't like being told you need to do something. Frankly, it's juvenile considering this is an issue of healthcare and not something of a superficial nature like shaving. But even this is trumped, once again, by the fact that you want the service without having to pay for it in any way.
Instead of supporting the implementation of a more cost effective healthcare system like a national health service, which is something that is a lot more in line with what you want(and cheaper!), you'd rather rally behind further privatizing it because you don't want to pay a
ing dime for it. If the goal is a profit driven healthcare system, what the hell makes you think that your goals are more congruent with that? It simply isn't and it's lunacy to think so. Use your ing brains.From that quoted post (and damn how I wish CAG was like some other forums and didn't show quoted posts from people on your ignore list!), the lack of logical consistency is appalling.
Car insurance is a necessity as driving a car entails risk to other people and their property that the vast majority of people couldn't afford to pay for if they get in an accident.
That's true and he gets that. But he doesn't see that it's the same with health insurance.
We all have bodies, and we have little control over whether we get into accidents that can cause major injuries, catch illnesses that require thousands and thousands of dollars of treatments, hospital stays etc. to avoid death. And pretty much no one outside of the top 100% has the cash to cover a major medical emergency with no insurance.
So health insurance is even more of a necessity than car insurance--as one can go without a car as he does. One cannot eschew their body or insure that they never get injured or ill. Thus not having insurance if you can afford it is one of the most selfish things one can do--especially anti-big government idiots--as it's just a big FU to everyone else in society by expecting them to foot the bill for your care if you end up in the emergency room or hospital.
If you're going to oppose government health care, welfare etc., the you need to 100% practice what you preach and always maintain private insurance and never accept any form of government aid in any circumstances.
Otherwise you're a huge hypocrite, which is clearly the case here. And not surprising as this guy is easily the most annoying person on CAG, and among the biggest nuisances on any forum I've ever posted on.
Car insurance is a necessity as driving a car entails risk to other people and their property that the vast majority of people couldn't afford to pay for if they get in an accident.
That's true and he gets that. But he doesn't see that it's the same with health insurance.
We all have bodies, and we have little control over whether we get into accidents that can cause major injuries, catch illnesses that require thousands and thousands of dollars of treatments, hospital stays etc. to avoid death. And pretty much no one outside of the top 100% has the cash to cover a major medical emergency with no insurance.
So health insurance is even more of a necessity than car insurance--as one can go without a car as he does. One cannot eschew their body or insure that they never get injured or ill. Thus not having insurance if you can afford it is one of the most selfish things one can do--especially anti-big government idiots--as it's just a big FU to everyone else in society by expecting them to foot the bill for your care if you end up in the emergency room or hospital.
If you're going to oppose government health care, welfare etc., the you need to 100% practice what you preach and always maintain private insurance and never accept any form of government aid in any circumstances.
Otherwise you're a huge hypocrite, which is clearly the case here. And not surprising as this guy is easily the most annoying person on CAG, and among the biggest nuisances on any forum I've ever posted on.
[quote name='dmaul1114']So health insurance is even more of a necessity than car insurance[/QUOTE]
The main thing that so many players here absolutely don't understand. Health insurance is only a necessity because our current bureaucrats make it so.
Government Health Care, not Government Health Insurance.
The main thing that so many players here absolutely don't understand. Health insurance is only a necessity because our current bureaucrats make it so.
Government Health Care, not Government Health Insurance.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='perdition(troy']Screw the military and screw the draft. If he was dodging it more power to him for not being a mindless murdering "I dun served my country and killed ------" zombie.[/QUOTE]
I have no issue with someone thinking that about the draft. Shit wased up and shit.
Organizing a counter protest to people protesting that the draft ised up and shit means you don't really have that opinion available to you any longer. It's easy to write checks cashed on other people's lives.
I have no issue with someone thinking that about the draft. Shit was
ed up and shit.Organizing a counter protest to people protesting that the draft is
ed up and shit means you don't really have that opinion available to you any longer. It's easy to write checks cashed on other people's lives.
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
The internet works fast:
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
Agreed. As a big fan I really felt bad for the guy.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Not me. It's his own fault.
Bad Luck Clint:
Bad Luck Clint:
Yeah, I don't really feel sorry for him either...maybe embarrassed is a better word. If he's senile or has alzheimer's, I'm going to do some serious finger-pointing at the RNC. Even dragging out the literal ghost of Reagan would've been a better than this. I'm still in shock at what I saw last night and am having problems articulating it.
Apparently Chris Matthews asked someone in the crowd what he thought of Eastwood's speech and the guy said, "That's why we need Obamacare."
Holy that's a wicked ice burn...HAHAHA
Apparently Chris Matthews asked someone in the crowd what he thought of Eastwood's speech and the guy said, "That's why we need Obamacare."
Holy that's a wicked ice burn...HAHAHA
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, I don't really feel sorry for him either...maybe embarrassed is a better word. If he's senile or has alzheimer's, I'm going to do some serious finger-pointing at the RNC. Even dragging out the literal ghost of Reagan would've been a better than this.[/QUOTE]
Ghost Reagan/Hologram Tupac 2016.
Calling it.
Ghost Reagan/Hologram Tupac 2016.
Calling it.
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, I don't really feel sorry for him either...maybe embarrassed is a better word. If he's senile or has alzheimer's, I'm going to do some serious finger-pointing at the RNC. Even dragging out the literal ghost of Reagan would've been a better than this. I'm still in shock at what I saw last night and am having problems articulating it.
Apparently Chris Matthews asked someone in the crowd what he thought of Eastwood's speech and the guy said, "That's why we need Obamacare." Holy that's a wicked ice burn...HAHAHA[/QUOTE]
If that's true then DAYUM!
Apparently Chris Matthews asked someone in the crowd what he thought of Eastwood's speech and the guy said, "That's why we need Obamacare."
Holy that's a wicked ice burn...HAHAHA[/QUOTE]If that's true then DAYUM!
IAmTheCheapestGamer
Banned
[quote name='dohdough']And this here is the gist of your problem that I've been alluding too: you don't want to do it because you don't like being told you need to do something. Frankly, it's juvenile considering this is an issue of healthcare and not something of a superficial nature like shaving. But even this is trumped, once again, by the fact that you want the service without having to pay for it in any way.
Instead of supporting the implementation of a more cost effective healthcare system like a national health service, which is something that is a lot more in line with what you want(and cheaper!), you'd rather rally behind further privatizing it because you don't want to pay aing dime for it. If the goal is a profit driven healthcare system, what the hell makes you think that your goals are more congruent with that? It simply isn't and it's lunacy to think so. Use your ing brains.[/QUOTE]
I would prefer a national healthcare system similar to that in Canada and the UK. However, once again I feel I do NOT need health insurance and I do especially take issue with the government telling me that I will be 'fined' if I don't get health insurance.
While I can understand that is not fair to those with insurance and jobs currently to have to pay for people like myself who may have an occasional emergency and need the services of the local ER without being able to pay, I do also feel that what they charge for their services are outrageous($12 for 2in' aspirin is my favorite example of gouging out the ass these places do).
But whose goal is having a profit driven healthcare system? The insurance companies and the hospitals maybe, but it's certainly not mine. If the only reason a doctor is in the profession is to make a big fat paycheck and live high on the hog, then they became a doctor for all the wrong reasons imo.
[quote name='dmaul1114']If you're going to oppose government health care, welfare etc., the you need to 100% practice what you preach and always maintain private insurance and never accept any form of government aid in any circumstances.
Otherwise you're a huge hypocrite, which is clearly the case here. And not surprising as this guy is easily the most annoying person on CAG, and among the biggest nuisances on any forum I've ever posted on.[/QUOTE]
Like I said prior, it was my family that pushed me to go get medical aid to cover the ER visit I made. If it were just me, since I don't have a dime to my name just about, then I would've let it go to collections and been done with it.
But as I've said before, I am a hypocrite on a number of things. Do I fully expect doctors and other professionals in their fields to work for nothing? No. But I expect them to be compassionate, caring and not gouge out the wazoo for their work.
Most annoying person on CAG though? You flatter me, but imo there are worse people here. But then again, did you really expect me to say 'yeah I'min' annoying as hell!' about myself?
Instead of supporting the implementation of a more cost effective healthcare system like a national health service, which is something that is a lot more in line with what you want(and cheaper!), you'd rather rally behind further privatizing it because you don't want to pay a
ing dime for it. If the goal is a profit driven healthcare system, what the hell makes you think that your goals are more congruent with that? It simply isn't and it's lunacy to think so. Use your ing brains.[/QUOTE]I would prefer a national healthcare system similar to that in Canada and the UK. However, once again I feel I do NOT need health insurance and I do especially take issue with the government telling me that I will be 'fined' if I don't get health insurance.
While I can understand that is not fair to those with insurance and jobs currently to have to pay for people like myself who may have an occasional emergency and need the services of the local ER without being able to pay, I do also feel that what they charge for their services are outrageous($12 for 2
in' aspirin is my favorite example of gouging out the ass these places do).But whose goal is having a profit driven healthcare system? The insurance companies and the hospitals maybe, but it's certainly not mine. If the only reason a doctor is in the profession is to make a big fat paycheck and live high on the hog, then they became a doctor for all the wrong reasons imo.
[quote name='dmaul1114']If you're going to oppose government health care, welfare etc., the you need to 100% practice what you preach and always maintain private insurance and never accept any form of government aid in any circumstances.
Otherwise you're a huge hypocrite, which is clearly the case here. And not surprising as this guy is easily the most annoying person on CAG, and among the biggest nuisances on any forum I've ever posted on.[/QUOTE]
Like I said prior, it was my family that pushed me to go get medical aid to cover the ER visit I made. If it were just me, since I don't have a dime to my name just about, then I would've let it go to collections and been done with it.
But as I've said before, I am a hypocrite on a number of things. Do I fully expect doctors and other professionals in their fields to work for nothing? No. But I expect them to be compassionate, caring and not gouge out the wazoo for their work.
Most annoying person on CAG though? You flatter me, but imo there are worse people here. But then again, did you really expect me to say 'yeah I'm
in' annoying as hell!' about myself?I'm not going to turn this into another multi-page argument about your cognitive dissonance.
Anyways, it looks like Eastwood completely ad-libbed or prepared it in his head because there was nothing on the teleprompters. Still weird as. I mean someone had to have approved it before he went out because the stage prop was out there waiting for him.
Update at 10:18 for teleprompter info:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...08/30/blogging-mitt-romneys-acceptance-speech
Anyways, it looks like Eastwood completely ad-libbed or prepared it in his head because there was nothing on the teleprompters. Still weird as
. I mean someone had to have approved it before he went out because the stage prop was out there waiting for him.Update at 10:18 for teleprompter info:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...08/30/blogging-mitt-romneys-acceptance-speech
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin'](LOL: government medical care is a costly bureaucracy - implying that private care is less bureaucratic and costly).[/QUOTE]
Private care is certainly bureaucratic and costly; that shouldn't be much of a surprise, since government has been running protectionist interference for insurance and drug companies for 50+ years. It's no less a racket than the MIC - well, the first MIC, the one Eisenhower warned us about.
Hack off government involvement (FDA, drug patents, drug importation bans, experimental drugs/procedures bans, licensing, insurance mandates) and insurance companies won't compete in a heads they win, tails they win environment anymore. Drugs won't be costly enough to insure, nurses could set up corner clinics to treat people for colds/stitches/minor procedures... medical school would change, too. Docs wouldn't be going for 8 years and incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt anymore.
Private care is certainly bureaucratic and costly; that shouldn't be much of a surprise, since government has been running protectionist interference for insurance and drug companies for 50+ years. It's no less a racket than the MIC - well, the first MIC, the one Eisenhower warned us about.
Hack off government involvement (FDA, drug patents, drug importation bans, experimental drugs/procedures bans, licensing, insurance mandates) and insurance companies won't compete in a heads they win, tails they win environment anymore. Drugs won't be costly enough to insure, nurses could set up corner clinics to treat people for colds/stitches/minor procedures... medical school would change, too. Docs wouldn't be going for 8 years and incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt anymore.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Private care is certainly bureaucratic and costly; that shouldn't be much of a surprise, since government has been running protectionist interference for insurance and drug companies for 50+ years. It's no less a racket than the MIC - well, the first MIC, the one Eisenhower warned us about.
Hack off government involvement (FDA, drug patents, drug importation bans, experimental drugs/procedures bans, licensing, insurance mandates) and insurance companies won't compete in a heads they win, tails they win environment anymore. Drugs won't be costly enough to insure, nurses could set up corner clinics to treat people for colds/stitches/minor procedures... medical school would change, too. Docs wouldn't be going for 8 years and incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt anymore.[/QUOTE]
Where is the evidence that all of these wonderful things will happen if we do what you say?
Hack off government involvement (FDA, drug patents, drug importation bans, experimental drugs/procedures bans, licensing, insurance mandates) and insurance companies won't compete in a heads they win, tails they win environment anymore. Drugs won't be costly enough to insure, nurses could set up corner clinics to treat people for colds/stitches/minor procedures... medical school would change, too. Docs wouldn't be going for 8 years and incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt anymore.[/QUOTE]
Where is the evidence that all of these wonderful things will happen if we do what you say?
I really have to wonder if there's a part of Romney that regrets inviting Eastwood to speak - not because the man berated an empty chair for 15 minutes, but for the fact that his rambling basically upstaged the entire convention. I haven't heard nearly as many people talking about Romney or Ryan's speeches as I have Eastwood's.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Yes, but not in a very positive way.
Go out of your way to check out last night's Real Time w/ Bill Maher. Dude took that scum Dinesh D'Souza to the woodshed.
Go out of your way to check out last night's Real Time w/ Bill Maher. Dude took that scum Dinesh D'Souza to the woodshed.
[quote name='Cantatus']I really have to wonder if there's a part of Romney that regrets inviting Eastwood to speak - not because the man berated an empty chair for 15 minutes, but for the fact that his rambling basically upstaged the entire convention. I haven't heard nearly as many people talking about Romney or Ryan's speeches as I have Eastwood's.[/QUOTE]
That was the point.
Rubio is the real loser here because no one's talking about his 2016 speech.
That was the point.
Rubio is the real loser here because no one's talking about his 2016 speech.
[quote name='mykevermin']Yes, but not in a very positive way.
Go out of your way to check out last night's Real Time w/ Bill Maher. Dude took that scum Dinesh D'Souza to the woodshed.[/QUOTE]
Damn, Maher had a real bone to pick with that guy. Seemed like he held back to be honest.
edit: Just finished. I like angry Maher. I'm starting to think that he did some research this week instead of loosely winging it like usual. I hope it's because he took some criticiSm from last season about it to heart.
Go out of your way to check out last night's Real Time w/ Bill Maher. Dude took that scum Dinesh D'Souza to the woodshed.[/QUOTE]
Damn, Maher had a real bone to pick with that guy. Seemed like he held back to be honest.
edit: Just finished. I like angry Maher. I'm starting to think that he did some research this week instead of loosely winging it like usual. I hope it's because he took some criticiSm from last season about it to heart.
Last edited by a moderator:
Damn. I've got Eastwood's rambling going on in the background. This is pathetic.
And the crowd goes wild.
Seriously, while I got a chuckle out of the comment (even though I'm not sure what Obama, who wasn't in a Federal position at that time and had no influence over any such decisions, had to do with it...), I'd be willing to guess that 75% or more of the folks in that crowd were flag-waving fools who covered the back of their vehicle with magnet "ribbons" on their way to the Dixie Chicks CD burning. Why the hell are you folks applauding this?
And the crowd goes wild.
Seriously, while I got a chuckle out of the comment (even though I'm not sure what Obama, who wasn't in a Federal position at that time and had no influence over any such decisions, had to do with it...), I'd be willing to guess that 75% or more of the folks in that crowd were flag-waving fools who covered the back of their vehicle with magnet "ribbons" on their way to the Dixie Chicks CD burning. Why the hell are you folks applauding this?
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
I wonder why people would be for ID laws that "prevent" voter fraud but highly against laws that would make it a crime to mislead people about when and where to vote. There already is a bill, and there have been, but it hasn't caught steam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYV8b-cMEf8
He didn't downgrade that.
Meh, Maher didn't do enough to debunk the heavier BS in 2016 if you ask me.
WTF Castanza, going for the Shatner look?
He didn't downgrade that.
Meh, Maher didn't do enough to debunk the heavier BS in 2016 if you ask me.
WTF Castanza, going for the Shatner look?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bain being investigated for possible tax evasion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/b...iny-of-finance-firms.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
It'll be seen as purely political, since Schneiderman is a Democrat. But he's gone after the banks and refused to sign off on the foreclosure deal when other Democrats, including Obama, were trying to make the deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/b...iny-of-finance-firms.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
It'll be seen as purely political, since Schneiderman is a Democrat. But he's gone after the banks and refused to sign off on the foreclosure deal when other Democrats, including Obama, were trying to make the deal.
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
I was disappointed when Cuomo wouldn't take the job as AG anymore when he became governor, but I have to say Schneiderman is doing a heckuva job. When all those states wanted to settle on that bank foreclosure deal, he wanted to say you to BoA. Why is he being such of a dick to our corporate citizens?!
you to BoA. Why is he being such of a dick to our corporate citizens?!
[quote name='dohdough']Arlen Specter[/quote]
Switched parties on April 28, 2009.
[quote name='dohdough']Al Franken[/quote]
Sworn in on July 7, 2009.
[quote name='dohdough']Ted Kennedy[/quote]
Died on August 25, 2009, last vote on April 27. Paul Kirk was appointed to his seat on September 24, 2009.
[quote name='dohdough']Scott Brown.[/quote]
Replaced Kirk on February 4, 2010.
So, what we have here is a true Democratic supermajority from 9/24/09 until 2/4/10, 'half his term' may have been a gross exaggeration but this is the point I was trying to make. July 7-August 25 is often cited in addition to this but as Kennedy didn't vote after April 27, I don't consider that to be valid.
They had more than 4 months of complete carte blanche, 1st time in 30 years that a party had a filibuster proof majority and the Presidency. During the rest of that term, they only needed to compromise enough to keep their moderates in line and get one or two RINOs on board, such as Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins... It's debatable whether the problem Democrats had in getting legislation passed was with a Republican filibuster or with their own refusal to compromise.
I think its fair to say that Obama prioritized health care reform above economic recovery, and he chose to use the historic opportunity presented to him on Obamacare. With that in mind, I don't think he can legitimately point to Republicans and say it's their fault he didn't do more for the economy because they obstructed him from doing so.
Switched parties on April 28, 2009.
[quote name='dohdough']Al Franken[/quote]
Sworn in on July 7, 2009.
[quote name='dohdough']Ted Kennedy[/quote]
Died on August 25, 2009, last vote on April 27. Paul Kirk was appointed to his seat on September 24, 2009.
[quote name='dohdough']Scott Brown.[/quote]
Replaced Kirk on February 4, 2010.
So, what we have here is a true Democratic supermajority from 9/24/09 until 2/4/10, 'half his term' may have been a gross exaggeration but this is the point I was trying to make. July 7-August 25 is often cited in addition to this but as Kennedy didn't vote after April 27, I don't consider that to be valid.
They had more than 4 months of complete carte blanche, 1st time in 30 years that a party had a filibuster proof majority and the Presidency. During the rest of that term, they only needed to compromise enough to keep their moderates in line and get one or two RINOs on board, such as Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins... It's debatable whether the problem Democrats had in getting legislation passed was with a Republican filibuster or with their own refusal to compromise.
I think its fair to say that Obama prioritized health care reform above economic recovery, and he chose to use the historic opportunity presented to him on Obamacare. With that in mind, I don't think he can legitimately point to Republicans and say it's their fault he didn't do more for the economy because they obstructed him from doing so.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
No Republicans voted for the PPACA, so I'm not sure how you're crediting any of the persons mentioned above for its passage.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed February 17, 2009 - less than a month into Obama's first term. Now, that bill did not have as great of an effect as predicted - for whatever reason your political ideology tells you (Dems say it wasn't large enough in size/scope, Republicans simply don't understand the logic of spending your way out of a depression, anyone might say that the predicted effects were overblown simply out of political hubris).
There was also the auto bailout bill, but I'll look up info on that tomorrow since it is quite late. But it was in 2008 or 2009, yes?
Given that, I'd say it's wholly inaccurate to say "Obama prioritized health care reform above economic recovery." It's a convenient narrative to buy into, but it's not correct.
One thing you're crediting Democrats for that is also exceptionally inaccurate is unanimity in beliefs (and/or constituencies). They lack that sort of Grover Norquist 'get-everybody-in-lockstep' panache that the GOP has. The GOP primary where *every* candidate steadfastly refused to consider or entertain *any* tax increases whatsoever, even at a 10:1 ratio of dollars in spending cuts to tax hikes? That doesn't exist on the left. You have too much diversity in interests in the Democratic party, too many pro-life Democrats, or anti-regulation-for-the-energy-industry (also anti-environmental) Democrats (for instance, where they enjoy the support of coal workers in WV and PA), or anti-whathaveyou. On the right, you have a far greater chance at seeing lockstep support for legislation, combined with capitulation from the left. That's why George W. Bush rarely-to-never needed to modify or compromise his proposals, because those passed. GOP had significant input in both the PPACA (single-payer never on the table, final bill looks identical to a concept initially proposed by the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s) and the Reinvestment and Recovery Act (getting a full 33% of the expenditures in the bill in the form of tax cuts).
The difference in bills from proposal to passage differ in enormous and substantial ways for Bush and Obama - and that tells you a great deal about why it's folly to treat the "Democratic supermajority" as a phenomenon that actually existed. It did in terms of party representation, but that's an exceptionally oversimplistic view of the political reality that results in inaccurate conclusions (Obama "had the votes" to do anything he wanted or whathaveyou).
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed February 17, 2009 - less than a month into Obama's first term. Now, that bill did not have as great of an effect as predicted - for whatever reason your political ideology tells you (Dems say it wasn't large enough in size/scope, Republicans simply don't understand the logic of spending your way out of a depression, anyone might say that the predicted effects were overblown simply out of political hubris).
There was also the auto bailout bill, but I'll look up info on that tomorrow since it is quite late. But it was in 2008 or 2009, yes?
Given that, I'd say it's wholly inaccurate to say "Obama prioritized health care reform above economic recovery." It's a convenient narrative to buy into, but it's not correct.
One thing you're crediting Democrats for that is also exceptionally inaccurate is unanimity in beliefs (and/or constituencies). They lack that sort of Grover Norquist 'get-everybody-in-lockstep' panache that the GOP has. The GOP primary where *every* candidate steadfastly refused to consider or entertain *any* tax increases whatsoever, even at a 10:1 ratio of dollars in spending cuts to tax hikes? That doesn't exist on the left. You have too much diversity in interests in the Democratic party, too many pro-life Democrats, or anti-regulation-for-the-energy-industry (also anti-environmental) Democrats (for instance, where they enjoy the support of coal workers in WV and PA), or anti-whathaveyou. On the right, you have a far greater chance at seeing lockstep support for legislation, combined with capitulation from the left. That's why George W. Bush rarely-to-never needed to modify or compromise his proposals, because those passed. GOP had significant input in both the PPACA (single-payer never on the table, final bill looks identical to a concept initially proposed by the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s) and the Reinvestment and Recovery Act (getting a full 33% of the expenditures in the bill in the form of tax cuts).
The difference in bills from proposal to passage differ in enormous and substantial ways for Bush and Obama - and that tells you a great deal about why it's folly to treat the "Democratic supermajority" as a phenomenon that actually existed. It did in terms of party representation, but that's an exceptionally oversimplistic view of the political reality that results in inaccurate conclusions (Obama "had the votes" to do anything he wanted or whathaveyou).
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
Bush didn't bail out the auto industry, so it had to be 2009.
Also, if Obama took a similar GOP Health Care Bill and tweaked it (and yes, there similar bills at the time) he would've gotten some Republican support, making it harder for them to be so gung-ho in repealing it. It's basically Us vs. Them, and that's all it really boils down to.
But I agree with dafoomie. I think Obama prioritized Health Care over economic recovery when he got into office.
Also, if Obama took a similar GOP Health Care Bill and tweaked it (and yes, there similar bills at the time) he would've gotten some Republican support, making it harder for them to be so gung-ho in repealing it. It's basically Us vs. Them, and that's all it really boils down to.
But I agree with dafoomie. I think Obama prioritized Health Care over economic recovery when he got into office.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='KingBroly']Bush didn't bail out the auto industry, so it had to be 2009.[/quote]
Right on, then. Auto industry saved, Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed. And all before Easter 2009.
If he championed a Republican bill, he would have had Republican votes. Do you view that kind of action as "compromise"?
Share the logic behind this thinking. What could he have done? What didn't he do that he needed to? It's 2012, the season's almost over, so I'm very curious to hear what people would have liked to have seen him do that he didn't.
Let's armchair quarterback for a bit.
Hell, while you're at it - what will Ryan/Romney do that will boost job growth? What's in their proposals to help an ailing economy that Obama did not or will not do?
(for the record, I can think of exactly two things I've seen in Romney's proposals that would create jobs that Obama will not do - there may be more, but there are definitely at least two off the top of my head. Look under his "issues" pages and see if you see what I see. But, really, indulge us, will you?)
Right on, then. Auto industry saved, Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed. And all before Easter 2009.
If he championed a Republican bill, he would have had Republican votes. Do you view that kind of action as "compromise"?
Share the logic behind this thinking. What could he have done? What didn't he do that he needed to? It's 2012, the season's almost over, so I'm very curious to hear what people would have liked to have seen him do that he didn't.
Let's armchair quarterback for a bit.
Hell, while you're at it - what will Ryan/Romney do that will boost job growth? What's in their proposals to help an ailing economy that Obama did not or will not do?
(for the record, I can think of exactly two things I've seen in Romney's proposals that would create jobs that Obama will not do - there may be more, but there are definitely at least two off the top of my head. Look under his "issues" pages and see if you see what I see. But, really, indulge us, will you?)
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dafoomie']
So, what we have here is a true Democratic supermajority from 9/24/09 until 2/4/10, 'half his term' may have been a gross exaggeration but this is the point I was trying to make. July 7-August 25 is often cited in addition to this but as Kennedy didn't vote after April 27, I don't consider that to be valid.
They had more than 4 months of complete carte blanche, 1st time in 30 years that a party had a filibuster proof majority and the Presidency. During the rest of that term, they only needed to compromise enough to keep their moderates in line and get one or two RINOs on board, such as Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins... It's debatable whether the problem Democrats had in getting legislation passed was with a Republican filibuster or with their own refusal to compromise.
I think its fair to say that Obama prioritized health care reform above economic recovery, and he chose to use the historic opportunity presented to him on Obamacare. With that in mind, I don't think he can legitimately point to Republicans and say it's their fault he didn't do more for the economy because they obstructed him from doing so.[/QUOTE]
While it may be a fact there were 58 Dems and 2 Independents for those 4 months it was pretty obvious those 60 were not going to pass any radical Progressive Bills. In fact those 4 months saw almost no major legislation passed. Unfortunately, the Dems are less organized in the area of group think, so even with 60 there was not enough to prevent a filabuster because not everyone was on board for the truly progressive stuff. To think that just because you had the super-majority meant a Senator would sign off anything put in front of them is kind of naive. I will link to an article but here is a small sample.
"The notion of a supermajority is an important one. It has figured prominently in the discussions of talking heads and entered the collective consciousness. It suggests that the party with 60 votes can press its agenda with limited or no input from anyone else. It also bolsters the perception that any failings are entirely due to the political party in charge. During the campaign, Democratic leaders spoke of the importance of a 60-seat victory to overcome Bush policies while strategists excited the base by speaking of a perfect storm for a filibuster-proof Senate. And once the results of November 4, 2008 were in, Democrats rejoiced in their new-found political power.
However, a simple deconstruction of the Senate seats belies the vigor of the assumed Democratic supermajority. On the surface, there were 60 Democratic votes. But, look more closely. First, you'll see that two of the supermajority seats were held by Independents that merely caucus with the Democrats. One of those two Independents was a featured speaker at the Republican Convention. Another member of the fabled 60 was a five-term Republican senator from Pennsylvania that switched parties fearing a primary challenge.
Second, other seats were gained in the not-exactly-liberal states of Alaska, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia. These and other seats in both houses of Congress were won by replacing moderate Republicans with moderate or conservative Democrats. Sure, one can argue that there were 58 (now 57) Senators with a "D" next to their name, but this fact doesn't lead to cohesive, unilateral views or votes. The premise of an unfettered supermajority is that the 60 will be a bloc -- and this 60 was never a bloc. It is a coalition of individuals with some similarities but certainly not enough to guarantee a unified vote on a progressive Democratic platform."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-friend/the-fallacy-of-a-democrat_b_443769.html
So, what we have here is a true Democratic supermajority from 9/24/09 until 2/4/10, 'half his term' may have been a gross exaggeration but this is the point I was trying to make. July 7-August 25 is often cited in addition to this but as Kennedy didn't vote after April 27, I don't consider that to be valid.
They had more than 4 months of complete carte blanche, 1st time in 30 years that a party had a filibuster proof majority and the Presidency. During the rest of that term, they only needed to compromise enough to keep their moderates in line and get one or two RINOs on board, such as Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins... It's debatable whether the problem Democrats had in getting legislation passed was with a Republican filibuster or with their own refusal to compromise.
I think its fair to say that Obama prioritized health care reform above economic recovery, and he chose to use the historic opportunity presented to him on Obamacare. With that in mind, I don't think he can legitimately point to Republicans and say it's their fault he didn't do more for the economy because they obstructed him from doing so.[/QUOTE]
While it may be a fact there were 58 Dems and 2 Independents for those 4 months it was pretty obvious those 60 were not going to pass any radical Progressive Bills. In fact those 4 months saw almost no major legislation passed. Unfortunately, the Dems are less organized in the area of group think, so even with 60 there was not enough to prevent a filabuster because not everyone was on board for the truly progressive stuff. To think that just because you had the super-majority meant a Senator would sign off anything put in front of them is kind of naive. I will link to an article but here is a small sample.
"The notion of a supermajority is an important one. It has figured prominently in the discussions of talking heads and entered the collective consciousness. It suggests that the party with 60 votes can press its agenda with limited or no input from anyone else. It also bolsters the perception that any failings are entirely due to the political party in charge. During the campaign, Democratic leaders spoke of the importance of a 60-seat victory to overcome Bush policies while strategists excited the base by speaking of a perfect storm for a filibuster-proof Senate. And once the results of November 4, 2008 were in, Democrats rejoiced in their new-found political power.
However, a simple deconstruction of the Senate seats belies the vigor of the assumed Democratic supermajority. On the surface, there were 60 Democratic votes. But, look more closely. First, you'll see that two of the supermajority seats were held by Independents that merely caucus with the Democrats. One of those two Independents was a featured speaker at the Republican Convention. Another member of the fabled 60 was a five-term Republican senator from Pennsylvania that switched parties fearing a primary challenge.
Second, other seats were gained in the not-exactly-liberal states of Alaska, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia. These and other seats in both houses of Congress were won by replacing moderate Republicans with moderate or conservative Democrats. Sure, one can argue that there were 58 (now 57) Senators with a "D" next to their name, but this fact doesn't lead to cohesive, unilateral views or votes. The premise of an unfettered supermajority is that the 60 will be a bloc -- and this 60 was never a bloc. It is a coalition of individuals with some similarities but certainly not enough to guarantee a unified vote on a progressive Democratic platform."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-friend/the-fallacy-of-a-democrat_b_443769.html
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Well, dafoomie's argument is that they had a filibuster-proof majority (i.e., the "60 is the new 50" claim) so as to do anything they want.
His evidence that there was a filibuster-proof majority was pointing to a time when there were 58 D's and 2 I's in the Senate. Therefore, 60.
cancerman's point, well made, is that this is not entirely accurate. or even remotely so.
His evidence that there was a filibuster-proof majority was pointing to a time when there were 58 D's and 2 I's in the Senate. Therefore, 60.
cancerman's point, well made, is that this is not entirely accurate. or even remotely so.
[quote name='dafoomie']Switched parties on April 28, 2009.
Sworn in on July 7, 2009.
Died on August 25, 2009, last vote on April 27. Paul Kirk was appointed to his seat on September 24, 2009.
Replaced Kirk on February 4, 2010.
So, what we have here is a true Democratic supermajority from 9/24/09 until 2/4/10, 'half his term' may have been a gross exaggeration but this is the point I was trying to make. July 7-August 25 is often cited in addition to this but as Kennedy didn't vote after April 27, I don't consider that to be valid.
They had more than 4 months of complete carte blanche, 1st time in 30 years that a party had a filibuster proof majority and the Presidency. During the rest of that term, they only needed to compromise enough to keep their moderates in line and get one or two RINOs on board, such as Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins... It's debatable whether the problem Democrats had in getting legislation passed was with a Republican filibuster or with their own refusal to compromise.
I think its fair to say that Obama prioritized health care reform above economic recovery, and he chose to use the historic opportunity presented to him on Obamacare. With that in mind, I don't think he can legitimately point to Republicans and say it's their fault he didn't do more for the economy because they obstructed him from doing so.[/QUOTE]
Gross exaggeration my ass. You didn't make that assertion just once, but twice after I called you out on it. It's nice of you to finally look up the dates to correct some of your dishonest characterization of the situation, but how about you go the extra mile and see how often Congress was actually in session to give us a factual, objective, and accurate time frame of the "super majority."
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, dafoomie's argument is that they had a filibuster-proof majority (i.e., the "60 is the new 50" claim) so as to do anything they want.
His evidence that there was a filibuster-proof majority was pointing to a time when there were 58 D's and 2 I's in the Senate. Therefore, 60.
cancerman's point, well made, is that this is not entirely accurate. or even remotely so.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Anyone touting the "Democrat Super Majority" is disengenuous at best and blatantly dishonest at worst.
Sworn in on July 7, 2009.
Died on August 25, 2009, last vote on April 27. Paul Kirk was appointed to his seat on September 24, 2009.
Replaced Kirk on February 4, 2010.
So, what we have here is a true Democratic supermajority from 9/24/09 until 2/4/10, 'half his term' may have been a gross exaggeration but this is the point I was trying to make. July 7-August 25 is often cited in addition to this but as Kennedy didn't vote after April 27, I don't consider that to be valid.
They had more than 4 months of complete carte blanche, 1st time in 30 years that a party had a filibuster proof majority and the Presidency. During the rest of that term, they only needed to compromise enough to keep their moderates in line and get one or two RINOs on board, such as Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins... It's debatable whether the problem Democrats had in getting legislation passed was with a Republican filibuster or with their own refusal to compromise.
I think its fair to say that Obama prioritized health care reform above economic recovery, and he chose to use the historic opportunity presented to him on Obamacare. With that in mind, I don't think he can legitimately point to Republicans and say it's their fault he didn't do more for the economy because they obstructed him from doing so.[/QUOTE]
Gross exaggeration my ass. You didn't make that assertion just once, but twice after I called you out on it. It's nice of you to finally look up the dates to correct some of your dishonest characterization of the situation, but how about you go the extra mile and see how often Congress was actually in session to give us a factual, objective, and accurate time frame of the "super majority."
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, dafoomie's argument is that they had a filibuster-proof majority (i.e., the "60 is the new 50" claim) so as to do anything they want.
His evidence that there was a filibuster-proof majority was pointing to a time when there were 58 D's and 2 I's in the Senate. Therefore, 60.
cancerman's point, well made, is that this is not entirely accurate. or even remotely so.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Anyone touting the "Democrat Super Majority" is disengenuous at best and blatantly dishonest at worst.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']If he championed a Republican bill, he would have had Republican votes. Do you view that kind of action as "compromise"?[/quote]
Call it what you want, but politically it'd be harder for Republicans to put its repeal on their platform if he used an R bill that got a single R vote.
A better recovery idea: A smarter recovery bill. Not necessarily a bigger one, a smarter one. Simply throwing money at the problem doesn't solve anything. 'Exercise Smarter, Not Harder' basically.
Campaign Obama: Obama really hasn't stopped campaigning since he became President. When he got into office they really oversold the healthcare bill. It was on tv, in papers, the internet, etc. It was 'this is the greatest thing for America ever because I say so' nearly everywhere you looked. Or at least that's how it was down here, but it might have been different for you. For him, it was his Legacy, and his number one focus. Not the economy.
I'm not sure what Romney's going to do. Putting things on a platform are no guarantees for success or how actions will be taken. I highly doubt he'll get a budget passed if the Republicans don't win the Senate though, if that's what you're asking. I also doubt it's going to look like the Ryan Plan, which I know a lot of Senate Republicans don't like.
Call it what you want, but politically it'd be harder for Republicans to put its repeal on their platform if he used an R bill that got a single R vote.
A better recovery idea: A smarter recovery bill. Not necessarily a bigger one, a smarter one. Simply throwing money at the problem doesn't solve anything. 'Exercise Smarter, Not Harder' basically.
Campaign Obama: Obama really hasn't stopped campaigning since he became President. When he got into office they really oversold the healthcare bill. It was on tv, in papers, the internet, etc. It was 'this is the greatest thing for America ever because I say so' nearly everywhere you looked. Or at least that's how it was down here, but it might have been different for you. For him, it was his Legacy, and his number one focus. Not the economy.
I'm not sure what Romney's going to do. Putting things on a platform are no guarantees for success or how actions will be taken. I highly doubt he'll get a budget passed if the Republicans don't win the Senate though, if that's what you're asking. I also doubt it's going to look like the Ryan Plan, which I know a lot of Senate Republicans don't like.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Answer the question, please. "Exercise smarter, not harder" is a bumper sticker, not an answer.
Give me a specific. I said I found two on Romney's website, and I don't even support the guy. You can do better than that, can't you?
[quote name='KingBroly']Call it what you want, but politically it'd be harder for Republicans to put its repeal on their platform if he used an R bill that got a single R vote.[/QUOTE]
"if he used an R bill." Defined how? His bill *was* an R bill, as the framework is precisely what the Heritage Foundation proposed in 1993 or so in response to Clinton vowing to propose a health care bill. They suggested what the PPACA is, almost to a T. Yet that is the great socialist monster Obamacare.
I have a feeling you don't quite grasp how politics work. Take, for instance, just how brazen Romney/Ryan lie to Americans' faces - about Obama scrapping "welfare to work" programs, how they lambast him for "stealing" $716B from medicare to fund PPACA - yet their budget proposals reallocate precisely the same money (only it's just a cut to medicare, not a reallocation of estimated savings from medicare payment reductions to other health care related matters). Romney and Ryan are lying to your face, and the media are sitting, scared to death in the middle, afraid (save for a scant few people with backbones, like Soledad O'Brien) to call things what they are.
Think of it this way - we don't discuss ideas politically anymore because people spend more time arguing over what *facts* are. If we are arguing *facts*, then it's erroneous to think that some other kind of fact (PPACA becomes what the R's proposed) would stop them from being able to campaign on it.
Take a real world example - R's gnash their teeth and wail about the size of the debt, when their continued push for the Bush tax cuts (do you recall them holding the debt ceiling hostage, and the threatened shutdown of government in August 2011?) have exacerbated the deficit and debt. R's insisted that 33% of the Reinvestment and Recovery Act take the form of tax cuts instead of spending, yet it's Obama's "failed stimulus" and "wreckless spending."
Take a look at the video nasum posted in this thread - #327. Ryan is quoted, to his face, that S&P's credit downgrade of the US is due almost exclusively to Republican Congressional obstructionism - and he lies and denies a direct quote for which their is zero subtlety.
Yet you think that passing an "R" bill would change things? You can not be serious.
Also, way to not answer the question about whether doing so would be compromise or not. Sweet dodge, dude.
Give me a specific. I said I found two on Romney's website, and I don't even support the guy. You can do better than that, can't you?
[quote name='KingBroly']Call it what you want, but politically it'd be harder for Republicans to put its repeal on their platform if he used an R bill that got a single R vote.[/QUOTE]
"if he used an R bill." Defined how? His bill *was* an R bill, as the framework is precisely what the Heritage Foundation proposed in 1993 or so in response to Clinton vowing to propose a health care bill. They suggested what the PPACA is, almost to a T. Yet that is the great socialist monster Obamacare.
I have a feeling you don't quite grasp how politics work. Take, for instance, just how brazen Romney/Ryan lie to Americans' faces - about Obama scrapping "welfare to work" programs, how they lambast him for "stealing" $716B from medicare to fund PPACA - yet their budget proposals reallocate precisely the same money (only it's just a cut to medicare, not a reallocation of estimated savings from medicare payment reductions to other health care related matters). Romney and Ryan are lying to your face, and the media are sitting, scared to death in the middle, afraid (save for a scant few people with backbones, like Soledad O'Brien) to call things what they are.
Think of it this way - we don't discuss ideas politically anymore because people spend more time arguing over what *facts* are. If we are arguing *facts*, then it's erroneous to think that some other kind of fact (PPACA becomes what the R's proposed) would stop them from being able to campaign on it.
Take a real world example - R's gnash their teeth and wail about the size of the debt, when their continued push for the Bush tax cuts (do you recall them holding the debt ceiling hostage, and the threatened shutdown of government in August 2011?) have exacerbated the deficit and debt. R's insisted that 33% of the Reinvestment and Recovery Act take the form of tax cuts instead of spending, yet it's Obama's "failed stimulus" and "wreckless spending."
Take a look at the video nasum posted in this thread - #327. Ryan is quoted, to his face, that S&P's credit downgrade of the US is due almost exclusively to Republican Congressional obstructionism - and he lies and denies a direct quote for which their is zero subtlety.
Yet you think that passing an "R" bill would change things? You can not be serious.
Also, way to not answer the question about whether doing so would be compromise or not. Sweet dodge, dude.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
This is new voter registration in Florida, where they've made it so much harder to legally do voter registration drives that many groups have quit doing them. Where one Florida teacher is facing huge fines for going around registering students.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Can you elaborate on "so much harder"? Republican registrations are up nearly 33% compared to 2008. From the objective "oh, there's no such thing as covert voter suppression in ID laws, even if there's no evidence of in-person fraud in the first place" mindset of a numbskull, this poll looks like we could easily read it as "Democratic enthusiasm is way down."
So what is the registration policy and how does it negatively influence Democratic attempts to register but not Republican?
So what is the registration policy and how does it negatively influence Democratic attempts to register but not Republican?
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
You have less than 48 hours to make sure the voter registration forms get into the hands of the election board in Florida. Or else it's all fraud.
The situation in Florida is interesting indeed. The way regitsration works in Florida is that any party or organization running a drive can only do so with the consent of the state. What I'm guessing is happening is that RNC affiliated groups are getting the "ok" while DNC affiliated groups are getting back-burnered and if you go out and canvas anyway, then you get arrested.
Oh and what detectiveconan16 said too.
Oh and what detectiveconan16 said too.
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
Yeah, they really expect people to get off their butts and actually register to vote themselves. Some people can do it, that's what I did, but I'm guessing filling out a freakin' form and mailing it in is too much for a lot of people. That's why it is cool to have these organizations help out, but these laws just make such a seemingly simple yet important thing quite ridiculous.
bread's done