I think that was his point. He was being sarcastic. His point was that private insurance works the same way as this panel, as did Medicare before the ACA was passed.
It’s all ridiculous, hypocritical theatre by the right wing. They hate anything associated with Obama, even if they liked it before.
… which is because they have a White supremacist base and they know it. If Obama was White we’d have a budget by now, and a confirmed head of the CFPB too.
No, I don’t assume that every rightwinger hates Obama due to his race, without evidence. That’s entirely unfair. Rightwingers hate plenty of white people too. They hated Clinton with a passion too.
They still worked with him in Congress to balance the budget.
They won’t work with Obama on anything, not even privatizing the Tennessee Valley Authority:
Red-State Socialists vs. Obama
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052748704895304578503374244898566.html?mod=BOL_twm_col#articleTabs_article%3D1
They’ve passed a total of 10 laws during the current term:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d113:./list/bd/d113pl.lst:1[1-10](Public_Laws)|TOM:/bss/d113query.html|
TEN. This kind of pathological obstruction has no precedent, just like the racial background of the President has no precedent, and its clearly not a coincidence. They can’t be “seen” to cooperate with Obama - why do you suppose that is?
Yes, because definitely the more laws, the better.
Because they are a new breed of right-wingers - more to the right, more aggressive, more insane, than ever before.
But the question doesn’t need answering. You can’t make assumptions based on the absence of evidence.
It’s a really really bad mistake to go making up accusations of racism without any evidence. All that does is cry wolf - it makes people numb to accusations of racism that actually have merit. And it’s just plain wrong. Don’t do it.
Now, are there some people who hate Obama due to race? Of course. We’ve seen that. But to say that everyone who hates him is just a racist is the worst kind of dirty politics, as dirty as they are.
So you don’t think we need to pass some new laws? You’re fine with the way things are now?
(Oh, and some laws, like appropriations, are required each year just to run the government.).
I am saying it is inane to measure the proficiency/competence/quality of Congress by the number of laws they pass.
I agree in general. But since very few people out there think that there aren’t any issues that need new laws, on either side of the political spectrum, it’s a pretty good measure of how effective Congress is in getting things done. Only someone who thinks the status quo is okay would be happy that Congress isn’t passing many laws, and there aren’t many people like that.
Someone who thinks that the laws Congress would pass would make things worse than the status quo would be pretty happy Congress isn’t passing many laws.
So answer my question then, please - do you think Congress shouldn’t pass any laws? Does the lack of laws passed make you approve of the job Congress is doing?
I think current makeup of Congress does not make me in any way desire that they write any more laws.
Congress needs to pass laws, but it’s productivity should not be measured by how many laws it passes. This republic has been around more than 200 years, it doesn’t need thousands of new laws passed every year, nor does it need Congress to be in session as long as it is.
But you would like more laws, by some Congress, right? So your real issue is with the makeup of this Congress.
But I get your point, and agree. You couldn’t, say, look at how many laws each Congress has passed over the years and say the more, the better the Congress was. What’s in those laws is what matters. (And, of course, some laws are bigger than others).
I agree. Still, a Congress that does virtually nothing is not getting its basic responsibilities done.
Depends on the laws. I would like a lot of laws removed, as well.
Removing laws requires passing laws to remove them. Which was part of my point.