The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Elections

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-25-2012, 02:14 AM
2ManyTacos 2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Why don't the Democrats grow a backbone?

Just gonna reference this article:

"At least at this point in the story of the healthcare law, just ahead of the US Supreme Court arguments next week, one side has made a much bigger investment toward winning the argument with voters," said Elizabeth Wilner, vice president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, in a prepared statement. "For the law's supporters, closing the gap in advertising would require not just more spending and different targeting, but the sudden boost of a Court victory."

I mean, this issue applies to more than just the health care argument, but I definitely think that it's the most pronounced in the HC debate. It seems to me that in their efforts to remain the level-headed counterparts to the radical Republicans, the Democrats have been handily losing the health care battle; seriously, if the Dems had defended and championed the ACA just as viciously as the Republicans have been demonizing it up until now, I firmly contend that there would be a larger number of the electorate on the Dems' side on this issue. But no, instead all they've been doing is running away from it, and meanwhile the Republicans have refused to allow us all to move the fuck on.

Why don't the Democrats grow a backbone?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 03-25-2012, 05:47 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Costs too much.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-25-2012, 08:56 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
No idea. As a WAG I would assume part of it is that the current crop of politicians and advisers came of age during Carter and Reagan, when being a leftist was considered weak and pathetic. So maybe they take that prejudice with them to this day. But I really don't know why.

There is also the fact that the right has more of a holy war element to it, while the left doesn't have that kind of passion.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-25-2012, 01:50 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 10,473
Or the "left" isn't really that far left. The establishment ostracize our social democrats, the GOP are just more vocal about it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-25-2012, 05:13 PM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,903
Plus the fact that the true left minority neuters itself by obsessing over single payer and the public option, rather than the substantial humanitarian and fiscal accomplishments of Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act was the tightest piece of social legislation passed in the last 50 years.

Sure it extended health care to parents with children who are up to 26 immediately. And it put a stop to rescission: the practice where big insurance companies with cancel policies once policyholders come down with cancer-- all because they didn't report wholly trivial and irrelevant acne treatment years earlier. But it also cut the long term deficit and -contrary to what is reported at Fox News- estimated long term costs have declined since its passage. Indeed, anybody who repeals it will need to increase the deficit or fund offsetting tax increases or budget cuts.

Not a single Republican voted for the ACA. Not one.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-26-2012, 10:54 AM
Enderw24 Enderw24 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: KC. MO -094 35.3 39 4.9
Posts: 10,243
In theory, the Supreme Court decision from this week's arguments will be based upon sound legal principles and not public outcry, political blubberings, or scare tactic "news" reports. And so, in keeping with that theory, it's not incumbent upon Democrats as a whole to stand up and fight for the health care law because the decision lies entirely within a branch of government they don't control and shouldn't be able to influence.

Now, come November, we'll see what fight the Democrats have in them.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-26-2012, 11:33 AM
The Great Sun Jester The Great Sun Jester is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
OP, are you confusing backbone with rabies?

I'm sure there are examples of Demorcatic Party affiliates signing in from left field, but it seems the GOP is where you go when you want to see wackiness on a consistent basis. And just because one side gets all Geobels with its spin machine, the other is not obligated to also lose its mind in order to compete. Sometimes it makes sense to just be the adult in the room.

If I were to find fault with the Democratic party, it would be the extent to which they let the democratic process, which sometimes looks like heated disagreement, be spun to appear as disunity. Especially when the GOP is the very image of lockstep nonthink that should truly terrify Americans.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-26-2012, 11:51 AM
Buck Godot Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Its also easier to have a simple emotional appeal as to why something is bad than why it is good, particularly if it is good only for a rather small minority of people who are unlucky enough to be uninsured with substantial health problems.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-26-2012, 01:51 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enderw24 View Post
In theory, the Supreme Court decision from this week's arguments will be based upon sound legal principles and not public outcry, political blubberings, or scare tactic "news" reports. And so, in keeping with that theory, it's not incumbent upon Democrats as a whole to stand up and fight for the health care law because the decision lies entirely within a branch of government they don't control and shouldn't be able to influence.
When the law was being discussed and passed, it was incumbent on them to make a strong argument that it was good policy, and they did not do that nearly as much as they should have. I think that's what the OP is talking about more than the Supreme Court case in particular.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-26-2012, 02:21 PM
Randvek Randvek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya View Post
And just because one side gets all Geobels with its spin machine, the other is not obligated to also lose its mind in order to compete. Sometimes it makes sense to just be the adult in the room.
It's a little bit more complex than that, I think. Democrats, as a party, are more diverse than Republicans. If the Democratic party started taking a hard line stance on dissent or disagreement, like the Republicans do, I literally do not believe that the party would survive it. The tea party is the first real dissenting voice the Republicans have had in years, which is why it is (imho) destroying the party. You can only play hardball when you have a unified base, which the Democrats haven't had since before... Roosevelt, maybe?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-26-2012, 03:42 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 5,162
Why don't they grow a backbone? It's far easier to be flexible without one.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-26-2012, 04:00 PM
gatorslap gatorslap is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
I suspect most Democrats didn't want the Affordable Care Act. This was their compromise measure.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-26-2012, 11:00 PM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enderw24 View Post
In theory, the Supreme Court decision from this week's arguments will be based upon sound legal principles and not public outcry, political blubberings, or scare tactic "news" reports. And so, in keeping with that theory, it's not incumbent upon Democrats as a whole to stand up and fight for the health care law because the decision lies entirely within a branch of government they don't control and shouldn't be able to influence.

Now, come November, we'll see what fight the Democrats have in them.
You're right of course ... the Republicans control the Supreme Court.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-26-2012, 11:14 PM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,903
1. The Obama campaign has embraced the phrase Obamacare. I suspect that they will be talking up the ACA.

2. The Democratic Party is a coalition of liberals, moderates and conservatives. So it takes a while to come to an agreement. Congressional Republicans are made up of crazies and those afraid of being primaried by crazies. So they all voted against the ACA - which is basically Romneycare. No surprise, both plans were designed by Jonathan Gruber, who worked off a plan proposed by the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s.

3. The healthcare mandate is the bitter medicine necessary to make health care reform economically viable. Without it, insurance companies are likely to enter an adverse selection death spiral (though the process might take some time, and it would only affect the individual market. Plus there might be loopholes.) So while the ACA was highly responsible (you can tell this by the fact that arguments against it are either empty of policy content or wholly demagogic), it's not necessarily an easy sell. Cost controls, long term deficit reduction and even saving lives statistically seldom is.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-29-2012, 03:09 PM
phxjcc phxjcc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
For the following reasons...

1. They are trying to keep their jobs.
They read the poll numbers, most of the electorate are opposed to the ACA. Rightly/wrongly/informed/misinformed/uninformed as they may be, that is the truth of the numbers. If they stand up for the bill, it will be highlighted during their re-election campaign and they know this and are afraid of losing their job.
2. They are trying to keep their jobs.
The HC industry is ~17% of the economy. They have lots of money for lobbying and campaign contributions. If they stand up for the ACA, they will be held accountable by their opponent at election time with backing from the HC industry...see item #1.
3. They are trying to keep their jobs.
Many of them voted for the bill after being coerced/arm twisted into doing so by the Democratic administration in return for favors for their district as well as direct support for their reelection campaign. Note how well this worked in the mid-term elections. White House support is not exactly a guarantee of re-election.

What would you do if you were them?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-29-2012, 04:17 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Just the backbone?! In my basement, I'm growing a whole FDR! With JFK's physique!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-29-2012, 11:55 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by phxjcc View Post
For the following reasons...

1. They are trying to keep their jobs.
They read the poll numbers, most of the electorate are opposed to the ACA. Rightly/wrongly/informed/misinformed/uninformed as they may be, that is the truth of the numbers. If they stand up for the bill, it will be highlighted during their re-election campaign and they know this and are afraid of losing their job.
2. They are trying to keep their jobs.
The HC industry is ~17% of the economy. They have lots of money for lobbying and campaign contributions. If they stand up for the ACA, they will be held accountable by their opponent at election time with backing from the HC industry...see item #1.
3. They are trying to keep their jobs.
Many of them voted for the bill after being coerced/arm twisted into doing so by the Democratic administration in return for favors for their district as well as direct support for their reelection campaign. Note how well this worked in the mid-term elections. White House support is not exactly a guarantee of re-election.

What would you do if you were them?
I don't know, take advantage of the fact that all your statements were not correct back when this stuff was actually passed, as the majority of people were for healthcare reform, and the individual mandate was specifically added because the insurance industry wanted it.

Or they run ads without attaching their names to it, actually utilizing those super PACs' anonymity to their advantage.

Or they could not give a shit about keeping their jobs. If it turns out the electorate doesn't want this stuff, even after giving it a fair shot, then they aren't actually doing their job of representing them, and thus they need to no longer be in their job. If they are in their job for money or prestige, they need to be kicked out anyways.

Last edited by BigT; 03-29-2012 at 11:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-30-2012, 08:40 PM
phxjcc phxjcc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I don't know, take advantage of the fact that all your statements were not correct back when this stuff was actually passed, as the majority of people were for healthcare reform, and the individual mandate was specifically added because the insurance industry wanted it.

Or they run ads without attaching their names to it, actually utilizing those super PACs' anonymity to their advantage.

Or they could not give a shit about keeping their jobs. If it turns out the electorate doesn't want this stuff, even after giving it a fair shot, then they aren't actually doing their job of representing them, and thus they need to no longer be in their job. If they are in their job for money or prestige, they need to be kicked out anyways.
Really.
Statement #1--they read the poll numbers...at the time it was passed, the poll numbers were 80% positive for Obama.
Statement #2--the HC industry is 17% of the economy. So you are saying it was not when this was passed?
Statment #3--they were coerced and arm twisted into voting for the bill. So you are say that is not true?

OK, you win.

The point is that the Democrats are acting in their own self interest. That is all that they are doing. To think otherwise is naive.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-31-2012, 12:21 PM
C K Dexter Haven C K Dexter Haven is offline
Right Hand of the Master
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Chicago north suburb
Posts: 16,082
The Democrats are very divided, because they want change but they're not agreed on exactly what. Medical care is prime example, but every other issue is the same. There are zillion ways that the US medical system can be reformed, and there are factions within the Democrats supporting this way vs that way.

The Republicans are very united, because they just need to oppose every change. It's easy to stand together behind "no health care reform" and "no change in marriage law" and "no tax reform" and ... When they do want change (such as in abortion laws), it's a simple yes/no issue: ban abortions. They're not divided over how or details.

Hence, Democrats appear to have no unity (i.e., no backbone.) Republicans appear to be strongly united.
Quote:
The point is that the Democrats are acting in their own self interest. That is all that they are doing. To think otherwise is naive.
And that makes them different from Republicans ... how?

Last edited by C K Dexter Haven; 03-31-2012 at 12:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-31-2012, 03:58 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 10,473
If the Constitution prohibited governments from forcing people to buy private goods, this case would be over, and in fact the law probably would not have passed.

The anti-mandate side are hoping for a decision that the Constitution speaks from silence, and forbids all that is not explicitly permitted. To which I say, you most likely will not get your wish, and heaven help us all if you do.

By the way, how many of the strict constructionists supported defaulting on the debt to Social Security? Show of hands!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-31-2012, 04:29 PM
C K Dexter Haven C K Dexter Haven is offline
Right Hand of the Master
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Chicago north suburb
Posts: 16,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
If the Constitution prohibited governments from forcing people to buy private goods, this case would be over, and in fact the law probably would not have passed.
The problem, it seems to me, is whether medical treatment is, in fact, "private goods."

I, like most of the rest of the civilized world outside the US, consider that medical care is (or should be) a public service -- like the highways, or (better) like the police department. Everyone pays through taxes, and those who need the services, get them.

The other point of view is that medical care is a commodity, to be bought and sold on the open market, like TV sets or cars. The rich can afford it, the poor can't, and that's life.

Last edited by C K Dexter Haven; 03-31-2012 at 04:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-31-2012, 04:38 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 10,473
I'm sorry, I posted in the wrong thread.
I meant to post in the SCOTUS thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...&postcount=183
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-31-2012, 11:05 PM
phxjcc phxjcc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven View Post
The Democrats are very divided, because they want change but they're not agreed on exactly what. Medical care is prime example, but every other issue is the same. There are zillion ways that the US medical system can be reformed, and there are factions within the Democrats supporting this way vs that way.

The Republicans are very united, because they just need to oppose every change. It's easy to stand together behind "no health care reform" and "no change in marriage law" and "no tax reform" and ... When they do want change (such as in abortion laws), it's a simple yes/no issue: ban abortions. They're not divided over how or details.

Hence, Democrats appear to have no unity (i.e., no backbone.) Republicans appear to be strongly united.
And that makes them different from Republicans ... how?
There is no difference whatsoever. I am puzzled why the Dem electorate expect their elected representatives to act in ways that are opposed to their own self interests. To me the disenchantment most of the Dem electorate experience is due to their unrealistic expectations of altruism to be exhibited by their representatives. Of course, this is carefully cultivated by their candidates.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-01-2012, 02:14 AM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 30,944
To my mind it's the Progressives who provide who little backbone the party ever had. And they by and large wrote it off when the single-payer option was thrown out like week-old bread before it was even opened. And while there are some remaining features to be happy about -- keeping college kids on their parents' plans, guaranteeing coverage even if there are pre-existing conditions, etc., the bulk of it is a massive tax give away to insurance companies. There's just not all that much to go wild for.

The mystery to me is why the Republicans don't love it.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-01-2012, 06:38 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
The mystery to me is why the Republicans don't love it.
This is actually the LEAST mysterious part of the whole thing. The Republicans don't love it because the Democrats (and especially Obama) proposed it. That's the sum total of "Republican thinking" now..."Whatever the Democrats and Obummer are for, we're agin!"
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-01-2012, 07:04 PM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 30,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
This is actually the LEAST mysterious part of the whole thing. The Republicans don't love it because the Democrats (and especially Obama) proposed it. That's the sum total of "Republican thinking" now..."Whatever the Democrats and Obummer are for, we're agin!"
I've been thinking about another question, maybe worth its own thread. The Republicans have been making proposals like the individual mandate for years, largely in response to Democratic proposals that they found unpalatable. Now President Obama comes along and starts, to everyone's surprise, to revive old Republican proposals and put them on the table.

So here's the thing. I had been thinking that the Republicans have been rejecting their own old ideas simply because they were now coming out of Obama's mouth. But it seems to me equally possible that they ALWAYS hated the ideas they themselves proposed, they never genuinely supported them, and they just proposed them to give them an excuse to oppose the more progressive Democratic initiatives. And knowing that the Republican counter proposals were unpalatable to Democrats, they could rest comfortably with the idea that neither side's bills would go anywhere.

During the Obama presidency the Republicans have finally been forced to reveal their genuine attitude toward their own old proposals, which is that they were sham ideas and never had genuine Republican support. We are now mistaking their rejection of their old proposals as a mere tactic of opposing all things Obama. In fact their genuine reasons for the rejection are even more craven, a product or producing sham legislative proposals for a decade or more.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-01-2012, 07:44 PM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,903
Bad Faith, weak character, sensitive disposition, self-pity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
So here's the thing. I had been thinking that the Republicans have been rejecting their own old ideas simply because they were now coming out of Obama's mouth. But it seems to me equally possible that they ALWAYS hated the ideas they themselves proposed, they never genuinely supported them, and they just proposed them to give them an excuse to oppose the more progressive Democratic initiatives. And knowing that the Republican counter proposals were unpalatable to Democrats, they could rest comfortably with the idea that neither side's bills would go anywhere.

During the Obama presidency the Republicans have finally been forced to reveal their genuine attitude toward their own old proposals, which is that they were sham ideas and never had genuine Republican support. We are now mistaking their rejection of their old proposals as a mere tactic of opposing all things Obama. In fact their genuine reasons for the rejection are even more craven, a product or producing sham legislative proposals for a decade or more.
As a second example, conservatives were all for tradeable emission permits, before liberals advocated them too. You see, liberals engage in policy analysis and are perfectly willing to adopt the other side's good ideas. Conservatives in contrast have a habit of bad faith. For a third, fourth, fifth example, google Republican-Lucy-Football. Republicans will make agreements, only to reneg on them in the last minute. And modern conservatives don't mind that this makes them appear as having weak character. They can after all replenish their egos by watching Fox News, an information source that consistently mangles its facts.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-01-2012, 08:32 PM
Least Original User Name Ever Least Original User Name Ever is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
I've been thinking about another question, maybe worth its own thread. The Republicans have been making proposals like the individual mandate for years, largely in response to Democratic proposals that they found unpalatable. Now President Obama comes along and starts, to everyone's surprise, to revive old Republican proposals and put them on the table.

So here's the thing. I had been thinking that the Republicans have been rejecting their own old ideas simply because they were now coming out of Obama's mouth. But it seems to me equally possible that they ALWAYS hated the ideas they themselves proposed, they never genuinely supported them, and they just proposed them to give them an excuse to oppose the more progressive Democratic initiatives. And knowing that the Republican counter proposals were unpalatable to Democrats, they could rest comfortably with the idea that neither side's bills would go anywhere.

During the Obama presidency the Republicans have finally been forced to reveal their genuine attitude toward their own old proposals, which is that they were sham ideas and never had genuine Republican support. We are now mistaking their rejection of their old proposals as a mere tactic of opposing all things Obama. In fact their genuine reasons for the rejection are even more craven, a product or producing sham legislative proposals for a decade or more.

It couldn't be both?

Once upon a time, everyone was for cutting down our emissions. Once the solution to that problem became taxes, one side became strictly against it.

Last edited by Least Original User Name Ever; 04-01-2012 at 08:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-01-2012, 09:25 PM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 30,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever View Post
It couldn't be both?...
Sure, it could be both. But while I've heard tons of left-leaning pundits bashing Republicans for opposing everything Obama likes, I haven't heard one of them suggest that they were never serious about their ideas when they proposed them years ago.

Actually, let me revise that. Back when the the Republicans proposed the ideas, there were plenty of pundits who considered them to be red herrings. But the pundits seem to have forgotten that, and now are unable to ascribe Republican motivations to anything other than other than rejection of Obama.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-01-2012, 10:01 PM
Least Original User Name Ever Least Original User Name Ever is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Sure, it could be both. But while I've heard tons of left-leaning pundits bashing Republicans for opposing everything Obama likes, I haven't heard one of them suggest that they were never serious about their ideas when they proposed them years ago.

Actually, let me revise that. Back when the the Republicans proposed the ideas, there were plenty of pundits who considered them to be red herrings. But the pundits seem to have forgotten that, and now are unable to ascribe Republican motivations to anything other than other than rejection of Obama.
Do you have any examples?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-01-2012, 10:34 PM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 30,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever View Post
Do you have any examples?
Off the top of my head, no. And I may be conflating this idea with so-called "poison-pill" amendments, which are inserted to be so unpalatable to the spirit of the rest of the bill as to render in incapable and unworthy of being passed. The Republicans claimed just a week or two back that the Dems had added unacceptable amendments to the "Violence Against Women Act" for that exact purpose. But I'll give it some thought. I certainly remember as general phenomenon that there have been accusations for a long time in politics about politicians or parties proposing legislation under false pretenses that they knew perfectly well had no chance of passing and had only the purpose of trying to make the other side look bad if they opposed it.

Last edited by Boyo Jim; 04-01-2012 at 10:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-01-2012, 10:47 PM
Least Original User Name Ever Least Original User Name Ever is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Off the top of my head, no. And I may be conflating this idea with so-called "poison-pill" amendments, which are inserted to be so unpalatable to the spirit of the rest of the bill as to render in incapable and unworthy of being passed. The Republicans claimed just a week or two back that the Dems had added unacceptable amendments to the "Violence Against Women Act" for that exact purpose. But I'll give it some thought. I certainly remember as general phenomenon that there have been accusations for a long time in politics about politicians or parties proposing legislation under false pretenses that they knew perfectly well had no chance of passing and had only the purpose of trying to make the other side look bad if they opposed it.
Yeah, I'd say that the poison pill amendments are different from this. Hell, depending who you are, there are poison pill amendments in a lot of bills.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-02-2012, 12:04 AM
scJazz2 scJazz2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Couple of points here and a question.

I'll start with the question. As a conservative am I as outnumbered on this board as I appear to be? I know I'm *not* outgunned but am I outnumbered?

Dems need to knock off calling their opponents crazy/stupid. It is getting old and does lend some credence to the idea that you have forgotten your point.

The Individual Mandate does certainly appear to be unconstitutional. Never before has the Commerce Clause been used to regulate the failure to participate in a market. Of course the Commerce Clause has also been used to regulate being in the market in ways that are also probably unconstitutional.

Republicans have backed away from the Individual Mandate because they pissed off enough people that the Tea Party was formed. The Tea Party reminded them that Republicans were not just the warmongering wing of the Democrat party. They were reminded that the Constitution isn't just a piece of paper. That Federal deficits and debt do really matter. That throwing decade long wars paid for by Chinese loans just for the hell of it is not exactly cool.

Dems could have passed HC reform in a constitutional manner. What liberals want is a single payer system that covers 100% of the people in the country (notice how I didn't say US Citizens ). All they needed to do was pass a 15% tax to cover the 17% of the economy which is HC. I'll assume the other 2% represents savings in some form or another. Of course politically this would have been suicidal which is why they didn't do it and instead intentionally or not made a completely muddled mess of the ACA.

So do Dems have any backbone? I'm sure some Dems do but I think you were talking about politicians so in that case I would have to say no.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-02-2012, 12:14 AM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 30,944
I'd like a cite that the Tea Party was formed because Republicans conceived of or backed an individual mandate. I have never heard that claim.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-02-2012, 12:40 AM
scJazz2 scJazz2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
I'd like a cite that the Tea Party was formed because Republicans conceived of or backed an individual mandate. I have never heard that claim.
Sorry I was not clear... The Tea Party reminded them that Republicans were not just the warmongering wing of the Democrat party. They were reminded that the Constitution isn't just a piece of paper. That Federal deficits and debt do really matter. That throwing decade long wars paid for by Chinese loans just for the hell of it is not exactly cool.

I bolded the one that applies to the Individual Mandate. My point being that Republicans in Federal government were once again on the hook for deficits, fiscally responsibility, following the rules as laid out by the Constitution, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-02-2012, 07:11 AM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by scJazz2 View Post
Dems need to knock off calling their opponents crazy/stupid.
When the Republican party stops being crazy and stupid, we'll stop calling them that. There was a time when we didn't call them crazy or stupid. We just called them heartless and stingy. Change the dominant attributes of the party and we'll change the epithet we use to refer to them.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-02-2012, 07:26 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 23,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by scJazz2 View Post
That Federal deficits and debt do really matter.
The timing for that "discovery" is pretty convenient.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-02-2012, 09:23 AM
Least Original User Name Ever Least Original User Name Ever is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
The timing for that "discovery" is pretty convenient.
Yeah. Deficits didn't matter through the time of Bush 2's presidency, when a Republican was in, and now that we have to try and figure out how to fund two wars and tax cuts for the wealthy, now deficits matter. When the topic of getting rid of those tax cuts comes up, the side that's supposed to be for fiscal discipline digs in their heels and fights it to its last breath.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-02-2012, 10:07 AM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Perhaps the Democrats should model themselves after the British Labour Party. Now there's a party that's got Balls!

Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-02-2012, 10:14 AM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polycarp View Post
Perhaps the Democrats should model themselves after the British Labour Party. Now there's a party that's got Balls!

Now THERE'S a cultural reference non-Brit non-Anglophiles are going to have to Google...

Last edited by jayjay; 04-02-2012 at 10:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 04-02-2012, 12:26 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by scJazz2 View Post
Sorry I was not clear... The Tea Party reminded them that Republicans were not just the warmongering wing of the Democrat party.
No, of course not, they're the bizpandering wing.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-02-2012, 12:29 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by scJazz2 View Post
. . . the Democrat party.
And that's another thing -- when are you lot going to drop this pathetic declaration of your own idiocy?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-02-2012, 12:48 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by scJazz2 View Post
Dems need to knock off calling their opponents crazy/stupid.
Well, at least we acknowledge the legitimacy of elected Pubs. A lot of American RWs seem to have forgotten that Democrats can lawfully and constitutionally hold public office -- yes, even after the Reagan Revolution; any Dem who has an office, they seem somehow to view as a usurper. This attitude goes back to the Clinton Admin at least; when Rush spoke of "America Held Hostage!" that was not simply a stupid ill-natured hyperbolic joke, it was some kind of ideological assertion. Relevant article in The Nation.

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 04-02-2012 at 12:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-02-2012, 01:11 PM
Skammer Skammer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Music City USA
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by scJazz2 View Post
The Individual Mandate does certainly appear to be unconstitutional. Never before has the Commerce Clause been used to regulate the failure to participate in a market.
Everybody participates in the health care market whether you purchase insurance or not. An individual who does not have insurance drives up costs for everyone else when they need care - that's certainly participating in the market.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-02-2012, 01:33 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 22,892
Because although voters mostly like the general idea of a National Healthcare plan, they seem to dislike any possible version of one.

Thus, there’s just not a lot of voter support for Obamacare. And, what support there was has diminished due to GoP scare tactics like “death panels”, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-02-2012, 02:02 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Well, at least we acknowledge the legitimacy of elected Pubs.
Unless we have a specific reason not to, of course, see Bush v. Gore.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-02-2012, 10:31 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 10,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by scJazz2 View Post
Sorry I was not clear... The Tea Party reminded them that Republicans were not just the warmongering wing of the Democrat party. They were reminded that the Constitution isn't just a piece of paper. That Federal deficits and debt do really matter. That throwing decade long wars paid for by Chinese loans just for the hell of it is not exactly cool.

I bolded the one that applies to the Individual Mandate. My point being that Republicans in Federal government were once again on the hook for deficits, fiscally responsibility, following the rules as laid out by the Constitution, etc.
The TEA Party congressmen voted to default on the nation's debts. This is explicitly forbidden in the Constitution. Funny idea of constitutionality, that thinks something is unconstitutional if not required, but not unconstitutional when forbidden.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-03-2012, 12:32 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
The TEA Party congressmen voted to default on the nation's debts. This is explicitly forbidden in the Constitution. Funny idea of constitutionality, that thinks something is unconstitutional if not required, but not unconstitutional when forbidden.
Not to mention their deafening silence on the subject of such core human rights as torture and habeas corpus. Instead they focus on Commerce clause issues that nobody complained about when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was debated.

Let nobody make the mistake of believing that modern conservatives argue in good faith. When Romney ran for President in 2008, he advanced the mandate as aspect of citizen responsibility, to the complaints of nobody. Now modern conservatives claim that it represents the advance of tyranny. I can only conclude that they weren't sincere to begin with and that furthermore they are comfortable and familiar with authoritarian viewpoints.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-04-2012, 11:43 AM
Push You Down Push You Down is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Just the backbone?! In my basement, I'm growing a whole FDR! With JFK's physique!
But unfortunately with Carter's face. OLD Carter.

Last edited by Push You Down; 04-04-2012 at 11:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.