I can’t understand why a stated goal of preventing Governance doesn’t count as treason. Using a budget war to prevent the enactment of democratically approved legislation strikes me as the ultimate disrespect for the Constitution and the Will of the People.
Furthermore, these Rep.s know full well that by constantly going to (and past) the line on debt and budget votes they are doing vast harm to the trust of the International investment community.
I think they believe that by letting everything go to pot they’ll wrest full control in the next election. Then once they get control they’ll start getting things done, thus “proving” that only they can fix the economy.
Varys: “Littlefinger . . . would burn Westeros to the ground if he could be King of the ashes.”
It’s already been pointed out to you that the Republicans decided (literally decided, in a documented meeting) on January 20, 2009 to oppose everything Obama did, no matter what. This has led to Republicans voting against (and on at least one occasion filibustering) **their own bills **where Obama has been in favor of them. So the lack of GOP support for Obamacare is entirely down to the lack of GOP support for EVERYTHING Obama does. They wouldn’t vote for something he liked even if it gave them free puppies and donuts for life.
It’s also worth noting that support for the provisions of Obamacare is much higher, including among Republicans, if people are polled about the details of the plan without the name “Obamacare” attached. Which suggests that it’s the propaganda, not the policy, that is driven some of the opposition.
“If one useless man is called a disgrace and two or more are called a law firm, then three or more must be a Congress. And by god, I have had it with this Congress…”
John Adams, 1776
And I blame the Republicans for the current virtually criminal inability to get anything substantial done.
IMO, making such an equivalence between Fox News and NY Times is indeed a sign that you are a “right wing nut case.” Rachel Maddow? Ok, if that’s what toots your thimble (though she and Glen Beck are at the opposite end of the honesty spectrum), but NY Times? :smack: To make it the left-wing equivalent of right-wing FoxNews is laughable.
Clear? The GOP’s rejection of Obamacare despite all attempts by Democrats to compromise demonstrates their hubris and malice. Did you read the link I posted? Using your reasoning, any Party that refuses to cast a vote for a program can make it look like the other side refused all compromise. That’s what happened; that you fell for it just shows you’re gullible (or that your claim of being in the “middle” is a sham).
Yes, yes, I see that point you made, and I saw the 1st time.
You seem annoyed that the political opposition does what it is supposed to do. Oppose legislation that it does not like. That is their job. Is expected from both sides, and the Dems do it well enough on what they not like.
The job of the party in power is to bring about enough of compromise to pass legislation.
My point is that major social changing legislation on the scale of revising the entire medical care system in the USA needed from the start compromise. Enough to pass the legislation and bring enough of a buy in from the other side for it to be accepted. Been done enough times before on issues as big as Obama Care.
The Dems failed in that. Obama could have brought that about and should have. He had the personal charm and political power at that time to do so. We are much worse off that he did not. We have this persistent battle as a result.
So tell me what other major changing social legislation on the scale of Obama Care that passed without some level of support from the opposition ? Name that one for me that is now common accepted and agreed up on by all now that the years have passed.
That is other than the slavery issues up to the civil war. I think that was on a scale way above this.
Obamacare IS a Republican bill. It was created by Republicans, implemented by Republicans and if Republicans had won the 08 election and decided they wanted health care reform it would have looked EXACTLY like Obamacare. The only reason it came from Obama is because he was in his extremely naive “if I compromise from the start I’ll get some Republican support” phase. Obamacare would have been something republicans patted themselves on the back for the next 50 years if they had been the ones to implement it and it would be held up as proof of the success of their policies. Their rabid opposition to it is blatant proof that their mindless obstructionism has absolutely no basis on policy.
Yep, the GOP got scooped on healthcare reform. Obama took their bill, made it his, the GOP knows it, they knew it at the time, and they know they’re fucked if it gets fully implemented. They obstructed it because it was their’s and they didn’t want to see Obama and the Dems get credit for it, plain and simple. To say they tried to obstruct it because they didn’t support it is absolutely laughable. Anyone with any amount of logic and reason can see that THIS REFORM PLAN WAS ORIGINALLY THEIR IDEA. One of their governors actually implemented it. You know-- the severely conservative one.
And the reason they haven’t offered an alternative to it in the past three and a half years is because they shot their wad with that plan. That was the absolute best, most conservative, business-friendly plan they had for healthcare reform. Their only options now are to go back to the way things were or expand it. And lord knows they won’t expand it.
So now they’re being absolute douches in order to make sure Obama doesn’t get credit for their idea.
You seem to be missing the point. Republican policy at that time was to not compromise under any circumstances, for any reason. What more could Obama have done to get compromise under those conditions?
If they shut down the government next Tuesday, no biggie.
If they keep the lights on for now, but play hostage games with the debt limit in a few weeks, then they’re terrorists and traitors, and deserve to be rounded up and shipped to Gitmo.
I don’t know why they hate America. And if they had no power to do something destructive with that hate, it wouldn’t be a problem. But they have that power, and they seem to be willing to use it. If they don’t back down, then AFAIAC, they ought to get the fuck out of here, and let people run the country who don’t think it’s no big deal to hold it hostage. And if they don’t leave, then yeah, send 'em to Gitmo.
dbgb4, this is a very important point, and I think you should familiarize yourself with the history of it.Hereis a pretty decent article about the subject.
“Obamacare” (with a different name, of course) was the Republican counter-offer to President Clinton’s (failed) health care overhaul. To be honest, if Obamacare works and makes peoples’ lives better, we probably ought to thank the Republicans for the concept.
I was vaguely aware of that bill proposed by John Chaffee; I actually thought Happy L was referencing the Massachusetts Health Care passed during Romney’s time as Governor there.
However I will quote sentence 4 of your Kaiser Health News summary. “It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
Key words “similarity to”. That is a far away from being the exact same bill.
I also notice it had bi partisan sponsors. Two thumbs up for that.
So I am waiting on what other major social changing legislation that passed with zero bi-partisan approval like Obama Care did. But we know you can’t answer, because it is not there.
By my reckoning there were 6 major legislative issues of this scale in the last 100 years. Trust busting in the 1890’s, social security and new deal in the 1930’s, civil rights, economic reform by Regan in the 1980’s, welfare reform in 1990’s, and then Obama Care 4 years ago.
The Sherman Antitrust act passed with unanimous approval in the house and 1 vote against in the Senate. Or vice versa, forget which now. Recall that from HS.
Social Security and new deal is as close as you can get, but there was bi partisan votes on the SS act.
Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, had both the house and senate in Democrat control but could not pass the civil right legislation without the assistance and votes of the Republicans. And btw……………the hated Republicans voted in greater % to pass than the Dems.
Ronald Regan seemed to work well enough with Tip O’Neil and Democratic controlled house and senate to pass his measures.
Also, Bill Clinton working with Republicans in the 1990’s for welfare reform of the time.
The point on all of this is in the past Democrats and Republicans have worked together on some pretty major pieces of legislation bringing about a great deal of social change. Things in this country work best when that happens.
With all the so called RINO (as those to my right say) republicans they could not craft a bill to get 1 republican vote?
Well of course it wasn’t word-for-word identical. But are you saying there were any relevant differences? What were they?
EDIT:
Of course there aren’t any bills that were passed “with zero bipartisan support like Obamacare”. This is because Obamacare itself wasn’t passed with zero bipartisan support. When one party proposes a bill, and then the other party passes it, that looks like an exemplar of bipartisanship to me.
You say this like it is somehow a condemnation of Obamacare but in reality all it does is show the irrational obstructionism of the current republican crop. There was absolutely no chance of bipartisanship from the republicans no matter what bill was presented, none. That you want to use this to somehow prove Obamacare was bad is completely irrational.
You should write that to every republican in the house and senate. Not that it would make a difference.
On a bill that was originally a republican proposal and passed in Massachusetts and signed and implemented by a Republican Governor. Who could have expected that not a single Republican would support it?
New Deal Democrats like me don’t care for Obamacare. We want something in exchange for our tax dollars like every developed democracy in the world has: government health care. It’s good enough for every Republican member of Congress, but not good enough for those of us that pay the taxes for it?
Above is a link to an article on countries with better than Obamacare provided by the government.
Obamacare sucks when compared to UHC. Obama proposed Romneycare because it was a Republican idea that he in good faith believed would get Republican backing because it was a Republican idea and counter-proposal in the 1990s.
But Republicans don’t want any mandatory health care coverage in the USA, government or privately provided and were never serious about applying Romneycare nationally. If they wanted something better, they would have proposed it and advanced it in the House of Representatives. Instead, they make symbolic votes 40 plus times against it.
There is no reason that the US cannot afford UHC like all other developed nations.
I got to hear a little C-SPAN today while at the barber shop. Multiple Republicans came up to complain that Obama was willing to negotiate with Putin and Assad, but unwilling to negotiate with them.
My only thought was “Maybe they were being more reasonable than you.”
