# My heart is broken... (about Obama) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 26, 2009, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144 "2009-10-26T05:19:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/141 "2009-10-30T07:49:55Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > That’s because nobody is trying. FDR completely ignored the banking lobby and did the best he could to fix the problem. Obama is bending over for the bankers, not prosecuting anybody, giving them trillions of taxpayer money and letting them privatise the profits they make from it, not bringing in new regulation. Basically continued the Bush response to the crisis, after specifically saying on the campaign trail that he’d get tough with them, you know the whole change thing. I think anybody who criticised Bush’s handling of the financial industry and who is now an apologist for how Obama is handling the situation is laying themselves open to charges of hypocrisy. You seem like the sort that would appreciate Harper’s Magazine’s take on Obama, namely that he’s [our Herbert Hoover](http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/07/0082562?redirect=1982284879#): > [@](#): > > The comparison is not meant to be flippant. It has nothing to do with the received image of Hoover, the dour, round-collared, gerbil-cheeked technocrat who looked on with indifference while the country went to pieces. To understand how dire our situation is now it is necessary to remember that when he was elected president in 1928, Herbert Hoover was widely considered the most capable public figure in the country. Hoover—like Obama—was almost certainly someone gifted with more intelligence, a better education, and a greater range of life experience than FDR. And Hoover, through the first three years of the Depression, was also the man who comprehended better than anyone else what was happening and what needed to be done. And yet he failed. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/142 "2009-10-30T16:05:19Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > What are you on about? I’m not trying to change the subject. > > First, I don’t find a 2003 medicare bill passed under reconciliation. Do you have the bill number? > > The “Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act” was passed in 2003, and this was a Bush tax cut that expires soon. It expires precisely because it was passed under reconciliation and therefore by law has to come up for review in 10 years from passage. > > Reconciliation was also used in 2001 for the first round of tax cuts. They also expire after 10 years unless renewed. > > The next example I came up with is Bush’s use of reconciliation for the 2006 budget. > > If [this summary](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37538.php) is correct, it sounds like he used it in this case exactly how it was intended to be used: > > A) It was a budget measure > B) It had $40 billion in spending cuts, making it fit within the guidelines of the purpose of reconciliation. > > Do you have problems with that one? If so, what? > > Your larger point appears reasonably valid - I found lots of uses of reconciliation by both parties going back for decades, and including some major changes to health care such as COBRA. But it looks to me like your specific facts about Bush are wrong. Can you provide a cite that Bush used reconciliation to pass a trillion dollar Medicare entitlement? Don’t worry - I’ll be a gentleman and not call you a liar or carp about how often you pollute threads with falsehoods if it turns out you were mistaken. It’s a complex subject and easy to get twisted around. > > I will, however, call you a weenie for getting all snippy at me for asking for clarification of your claim that reconciliation was used to pass a trillion dollar medicare bill. It appeared you were talking about the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, but unfortunately for you that bill passed the Senate by a vote of 76-21, and the final bill passed 61-39. Reconciliation was NOT used. But maybe you’re talking about another trillion dollar entitlement I don’t remember? The bill itself was finally passed 54-44 on November 25, 2003, and was signed into law by the President on December 8. > **[Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act)** > > The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, also called the Medicare Modernization Act or MMA, is a federal law of the United States, enacted in 2003. It produced the largest overhaul of Medicare in the public health program's 38-year history. > The MMA was signed by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003, after passing in Congress by a close margin. > The MMA's most touted feature is the introduction of an entitlement benefit for prescription drugs, through tax brea... I was sure it was passed by reconciliation but it looks like I’m wrong. So I’ll ask you the same question except changing the Medicare bill for Bush’s tax cuts, which did. How come Bush passing tax cuts fits within the parameters of deficit reduction but Obama’s bill doesn’t? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/143 "2009-10-30T16:43:40Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > The bill itself was finally passed 54-44 on November 25, 2003, and was signed into law by the President on December 8. > > [Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act) > I was sure it was passed by reconciliation but it looks like I’m wrong. So I’ll ask you the same question except changing the Medicare bill for Bush’s tax cuts, which did. How come Bush passing tax cuts fits within the parameters of deficit reduction but Obama’s bill doesn’t? I don’t know. That’s the honest answer. From what I can tell, the reconciliation rules specifically disallow bills that would reduce revenue and increase the deficit. Perhaps the argument was that the tax cuts would actually increase revenue through supply-side economics? I’m not saying I agree with that, but perhaps that was the argument made, and if it couldn’t be disproven, it couldn’t be disallowed? Congress has a long history of ignoring laws it doesn’t like, or skirting around the spirit of them through various shenanigans. How many ‘deficit control’ acts have been passed? How many hard targets have been set and ignored? Looking back at the history of reconciliation, it appears it’s even been used for other modifications of Social Security, although the strict reading of the act specifically says you can’t use it to modify Social Security in any way. For that matter, I think the current health care bill also includes modifications to Social Security. It does appear that the 10-year limit has teeth, because both of Bush’s tax cuts had to be limited to 10 years because they were passed through reconciliation. Does that mean the health care bill also has to be renewed in 10 years? It would appear so. But God only knows. Let me ask you honestly - you’ve got a 1,900 page bill in front of you. We all know that this thing is a mass of compromises, payoffs to various commercial and political special interests, the results of backroom dealings, etc. This bill could literally change the life of you and everyone you know. It could destroy the American economy, or save it. Do you _really_ think it’s appropriate to pass this with only 20 hours of debate? That’s a time span short enough to guarantee that no one will have been able read the thing and spot its flaws. Are you so confident in the abilities of the people in the House and Senate that you’re willing to let them modify 1/6 of the country’s economy without any real public debate whatsoever? I mean, I know Democrats want public health care really badly. I know they think this is their one shot to get it. And they may be right. But is that goal so important that you’re willing to throw all caution to the wind and buy whatever pig-in-a-poke a Congress with a 24% approval rating is selling you? Are you not even remotely worried about the devils that may be living in the details? If so, you’ve got a hell of a lot more faith than I do. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/144 "2009-10-30T16:54:04Z")
Sure, but I figure we can fix it if need be. Pencils have erasers, mistakes can be corrected, tinkering is possible, even likely. Do we have to sign a blood oath that whatever we install today, we must live with for one hundred years, without any chance of correction? What irrevocable disaster are you warning us about? And what if we’re right? Do you recall no instance when we were right and you wrong? Could happen again, don’t you think? Or don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/145 "2009-10-30T17:00:23Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I don’t know. That’s the honest answer. From what I can tell, the reconciliation rules specifically disallow bills that would reduce revenue and increase the deficit. Perhaps the argument was that the tax cuts would actually increase revenue through supply-side economics? I’m not saying I agree with that, but perhaps that was the argument made, and if it couldn’t be disproven, it couldn’t be disallowed? > > Congress has a long history of ignoring laws it doesn’t like, or skirting around the spirit of them through various shenanigans. How many ‘deficit control’ acts have been passed? How many hard targets have been set and ignored? Looking back at the history of reconciliation, it appears it’s even been used for other modifications of Social Security, although the strict reading of the act specifically says you can’t use it to modify Social Security in any way. For that matter, I think the current health care bill also includes modifications to Social Security. > > It does appear that the 10-year limit has teeth, because both of Bush’s tax cuts had to be limited to 10 years because they were passed through reconciliation. Does that mean the health care bill also has to be renewed in 10 years? It would appear so. But God only knows. > > Let me ask you honestly - you’ve got a 1,900 page bill in front of you. We all know that this thing is a mass of compromises, payoffs to various commercial and political special interests, the results of backroom dealings, etc. This bill could literally change the life of you and everyone you know. It could destroy the American economy, or save it. > > Do you _really_ think it’s appropriate to pass this with only 20 hours of debate? That’s a time span short enough to guarantee that no one will have been able read the thing and spot its flaws. Are you so confident in the abilities of the people in the House and Senate that you’re willing to let them modify 1/6 of the country’s economy without any real public debate whatsoever? > > I mean, I know Democrats want public health care really badly. I know they think this is their one shot to get it. And they may be right. But is that goal so important that you’re willing to throw all caution to the wind and buy whatever pig-in-a-poke a Congress with a 24% approval rating is selling you? Are you not even remotely worried about the devils that may be living in the details? > > If so, you’ve got a hell of a lot more faith than I do. OK, now you don’t know if what you were arguing before is correct. And can you manage to make one post without endless concern for whether the Democrats are doing the right thing? It’s all irrelevant nonsense anyway. When does anybody ever read any bill? If congress actually read a bill it’s be the first time in history and 99% of them wouldn’t understand any of it. The whole “read the bill” thing is just bs GOP propaganda. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/146 "2009-10-30T17:17:16Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I mean, I know Democrats want public health care really badly. I know they think this is their one shot to get it. And they may be right. But is that goal so important that you’re willing to throw all caution to the wind and buy whatever pig-in-a-poke a Congress with a 24% approval rating is selling you? Are you not even remotely worried about the devils that may be living in the details? In politics, a low approval rating is generally a sign that you’re doing something right. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/147 "2009-10-30T17:24:46Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > OK, now you don’t know if what you were arguing before is correct. > > And can you manage to make one post without endless concern for whether the Democrats are doing the right thing? It’s all irrelevant nonsense anyway. When does anybody ever read any bill? If congress actually read a bill it’s be the first time in history and 99% of them wouldn’t understand any of it. The whole “read the bill” thing is just bs GOP propaganda. The health bill has been gone over for months. It has been hashed and rehashed. The floor leaders have been gathering votes for some time. I doubt there are any surprises. The public option which was dead has been reconstituted. Everybody is aware of that. It is not like a repub energy bill. It is not like the repubs trying to jam the" Paulson make me god bill "instantly. There has been tons of info on the internet too. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/148 "2009-10-30T17:27:07Z")
That’s a pretty low opinion you have of a Congress that you are entrusting with your health care. Strange. And I have no idea what you mean by , “now you don’t know if what you were arguing before is correct.” If you mean that I was arguing that reconciliation was inappropriate for this, I still think so. The fact that it appears to have been used in the same way in the past doesn’t change that. This is a process that intentionally limits debate and transparency, and it’ll be a really bad thing if it slowly becomes the norm for passing any contentious bill. It’s especially hypocritical for an administration that rose to power on a promise of transparency to wholeheartedly embrace such an abuse of process, but it would be wrong no matter who did it, even if it’s been done before. > [@elucidator](#): > > Sure, but I figure we can fix it if need be. Pencils have erasers, mistakes can be corrected, tinkering is possible, even likely. Do we have to sign a blood oath that whatever we install today, we must live with for one hundred years, without any chance of correction? What irrevocable disaster are you warning us about? Do you have any idea how destructive such legislating tinkering is? Businesses cannot make plans without a stable environment to operate in. If this turns into a multi-year ‘corrective’ process where the rules are constantly changing, it will be very destructive to the health care industry. > [@](#): > > And what if we’re right? Do you recall no instance when we were right and you wrong? Could happen again, don’t you think? Or don’t you? What if you’re right about _what?_ Do you even know what’s in the current bill? Do you even know who wrote it, and for what reasons? We do know that the Congress and the administration have been madly cutting deals with all kinds of special interests - all behind closed doors. The White House has invoked executive privilege to prevent disclosure of who it has met with. Remember how you hated that when Bush did it? All I’ve seen so far is a huge stack of paper. You want to vote on that now, using an expedited process, before anyone even has a chance to read it. It’s the _process_ that’s broken in this case. This is no way to run a government. You’d also better consider the ramifications of passing something under rules that are so limiting. Passing this bill under reconciliation likely means it can be revoked by a Republican Congress for any number of reasons. It’ll have the same 10-year cap that Bush’s tax cuts have. And if I’m reading the rules correctly, the government can only use reconciliation once per year, which means cap-and-trade is dead, the education bill may be dead, and the next budget may be harder to pass and have to have more compromises for the Republicans in it. The bottom line is that you really, really own health care now. Forget about whether I think you’ve been right in the past - you’d better hope that in this case you are right, because you’ll be paying the price. If this plan blows up the budget, the Republicans can undo it, and heap all the blame on you. If people find their health care getting worse, they’ll blame the Democrats. Hell, even if the system as a whole gets better or at least no worse than it does, there are always ‘losers’ who will be treated poorly. And they’ll blame you. On the other hand, if it all works out, and health care spending declines and the budget is balanced and support for the new plan is at 80%, you can use that as a big stick against those nasty recalcitrant Republicans. So, you’re going to live or die by this one. What I think is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/149 "2009-10-30T17:28:28Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > In politics, a low approval rating is generally a sign that you’re doing something right. Funny, that’s not what Democrats were saying when approval ratings were low and the Republicans were in charge. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/150 "2009-10-30T17:35:30Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Funny, that’s not what Democrats were saying when approval ratings were low and the Republicans were in charge. Of course not. However, you know as well as I do that politically unpopular moves (Bush I’s tax hike, for example) are often the correct decision. ETA: In this instance, of course, Congress is clearly not making the correct decisions, nor has it for at least a decade. I’m simply pointing out that their approval rating is meaningless- especially considering their incumbency rate. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/151 "2009-10-30T17:39:00Z")
So… Your explanation for Congress’s low approval rating is that they’re doing a whole bunch of really good things? And that it was true of Republicans as well? That’s an interesting take on the situation. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/152 "2009-10-30T17:40:04Z")
**Sam** , are you seriously suggesting that Americans don’t want health care reform, based on a few polls about Congress’ popularity? Polls that don’t differentiate between the parties, and when they do, show the Dems popular and your GOP not? Polls that can just as honestly (if not more so) reflect impatience that Congress has not yet passed such a bill in over a half a century, and impatience that the party you support has done nothing but obstruct? Do you really expect to have that “argument” taken seriously by anyone whose views are not defined by partisan alignment? Or is that just, once again, just another pile of your talking-point Democrat-bashing? ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/153 "2009-10-30T17:49:12Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > So… Your explanation for Congress’s low approval rating is that they’re doing a whole bunch of really good things? And that it was true of Republicans as well? That’s an interesting take on the situation. Congress has a low approval rating because : The GOP have the lowest approval rating ever, still. That’s because their legislative agenda for the years they controlled congress was gaay marriage, flag burning, wedge issues on religion in the public sphere, Terry Schiavo etc. etc. Basically six years of wedge issues and nothing substantive. The Democrats, and this is the crucial bit, _aren’t doing what voters elected them to do!_ No universal healthcare, no hanging the bankers up by their balls, continuing to prosecute dumbass wars etc. etc. It’s not because the Democrats are pursuing radical left policies that they’re losing support, it’s because they’re the GOP without the culture war wedge issues. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/154 "2009-10-30T18:04:00Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I thought the general convention was to quote content to which one’s post is referring and the default assumption would be made that comments underneath a quote refer to that quote. > > I do not, as a general rule, engage in debates about political positions and people for the simple reason that it’s just not worth it to me. I made an exception here as a general commentary on human nature–which is an interest of mine–and you have reminded me of my distaste for politics and the cheerleaders of politicians. > > Although I think political pollyannas are ubiquitous, I meant to be pointing a specific finger here only at the OP. Any others in that camp can include themselves. If the shoe fits, by all means wear it. But I am not sizing you up. Sometimes people quote someone else merely to show what they are starting from to prompt what they are about to write. Sort of, “I want to expand on this while not directly addressing the person who wrote it.” Whichever way you would have it though, three pages into a thread, people will have associated/dissociated themselves with the premise in the OP. That has happened here albeit in a generally more thoughtful/readable manner than the OP started with. As such your sweeping generalizations cover others who were in agreement with the OP. As such I feel safe in feeling caught by those generalizations. Further, I do not see someone as being a Pollyanna because they vote someone in and expect them to work towards the goals their constituents put them there for in the first place. Apparently this is not a few people either who are disillusioned. It is widespread. > [@](#): > > **Democrats didn’t get the Congress they thought they voted for**. I checked in with several pollsters to solicit their explanations for this phenomenon. Republican pollster Neil Newhouse’s answer seems plausible enough: "It’s clear that since Democrats took back Congress a few years ago, their partisans have been anxious for their newfound majority to flex its muscles and exert their will. But, reality has set in. And, that’s clearly frustrated the Democratic rank-and-file across the country. Current data showing strong disapproval of the Democratic-led Congress by rank-and-file Democrats could be given voice as follows: I realize that when Democrats first took control of Congress, Bush was still President, and Congress, even though dominated by Democratic partisans, had their hands tied. But now, with Obama as president and increased majorities in Congress, you’re still not getting stuff done that I care about? And, when are you guys (expletive deleted) gonna focus on what we need most—jobs! You wanted complete control, and that’s what you finally have. And this is what we get?! > > Democratic pollster Karl Agne echoed this sentiment. “During the first years of the GOP Congress, Republicans were primarily motivated by opposition to Clinton, which the GOP Congress delivered consistently. Then, during the (almost uninterrupted) six years of a Bush White House and GOP Congress, you could count on one hand the instances of dissonance between them. The GOP Congress marched in lockstep and gave Bush (and the GOP base) pretty much everything asked of them. It was DeLay’s classic ‘majority of the majority’ approach, executed very efficiently,” he wrote to me by email. “Democrats, on the other hand, have yet to see much of the change they voted for in '06 and '08. Opposition to Bush got Democratic support up some, but the complete sense of paralysis in '07 and '08 and attitudes about the direction of the country limited how high their support would go.” > > SOURCE: [http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/toward-general-theory-of-democratic.html](http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/toward-general-theory-of-democratic.html) What is pollyannaish or naive about that? Apparently the Republicans got what they expected when voters gave them a majority. Why was it dumb for Dems to expect the same? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/155 "2009-10-30T18:44:36Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > So… Your explanation for Congress’s low approval rating is that they’re doing a whole bunch of really good things? And that it was true of Republicans as well? That’s an interesting take on the situation. Read my post again. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/156 "2009-10-31T03:12:39Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I don’t know. That’s the honest answer. From what I can tell, the reconciliation rules specifically disallow bills that would reduce revenue and increase the deficit. Perhaps the argument was that the tax cuts would actually increase revenue through supply-side economics? I’m not saying I agree with that, but perhaps that was the argument made, and if it couldn’t be disproven, it couldn’t be disallowed? Reconciliation specifically disallows bills that would increase the budget deficit, yes. But that explicit rule was only instituted after Democrats took back control of Congress. As I recall, changing that procedure was one of the first things they did, having firmly in mind the then-recent memory of the Pubbies’ fiscally irresponsible antics. It’s worth pointing out that the current House version of health care reform (subject to change, of course) would reduce the deficit by $100 billion over ten years according to the CBO. That’s a start to bending the cost curve and should work under the current reconciliation deficit guidelines. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I mean, I know Democrats want public health care really badly. I know they think this is their one shot to get it. And they may be right. But is that goal so important that you’re willing to throw all caution to the wind and buy whatever pig-in-a-poke a Congress with a 24% approval rating is selling you? Are you not even remotely worried about the devils that may be living in the details? And who’s going to point out these devils? The people who are complaining about non-existent death panels? The people who are bitching about deficits, when they didn’t make even a peep of complaint when their own dude was spending and can’t even acknowledge that 85% or more of Obama’s current deficits are inherited? The people who wanted to cut Medicare, until they immediately flipped position and started “defending” Medicare after the Democrats started trying to institute some cost savings? The people who want to restrict competition and deny more choice for Americans by denying their ability to choose a public health insurance option? The people threatening that a public option will kill Americans? These sorts of empty lies are all that the GOP has to offer. I’ve seen more honest back-and-forth about the advantages and disadvantages of health care reform from individual blog posts from wonky liberals than I have from the entire conservative movement. Even a generally respected libertarian like Tyler Cowen has only been saying, at core, that the reform won’t be a universal benefit, that some people will be less well off in the short-run. That’s worth keeping in mind, but even so, it’s not enough to stop reform. The problem is too large, and growing all the time. There is no dodging this any longer. We need to change course. So yes, I’m personally going to listen to the people who actually are discussing plans instead of the soulless, disgusting, parasitic, dishonest ghouls of the GOP leadership who want us to do nothing so that they can blame the Democrats for having done nothing. Even considering the problems of the Democrats (and there are many), the GOP Congressional delegation\* is without even the slightest bit of intelligence, integrity, leadership, or ideas. \*With the possible exception of Ron Paul, who does seem to have some integrity and ideas. His intellectual principles seem flaky, fringe, and ignorant, but they appear to be genuine principles nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/82dd89/32.png) [@SmartAlx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlx)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/157 "2009-10-31T13:48:35Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > It was not as if his resume spoke of somebody who actually achieved something. Everybody knew that his resume was thin as tissue paper. Also, a lot of people in the primaries didn’t choose Hillary because supposedly, she will just continue Bush’s policies - so what exactly has Obama done in the past months? > > Truth is, people got caught up in the hopey changey environment and decided to drink a lot of Kool Aid at that time because they got chills up their legs thinking that a very cool African American for President is the same thing as electing somebody who is actually effective. Pweh! And that my friends is why they would vote for Ron Paul. Had the media given them chance to learn about him, they would have discovered a candidate that didn’t just want change, but one who was specific about his goals, and one who had a proven track record of fulfilling his campaign promises. Had they given Ron Paul the attention that they gave Obama it would have been no contest. What little attention they did give him was filled with ridicule. But if they would have just done one thing, show the population Ron Paul’s track record, that alone would have won him the Republican Nomination. Everyone wants an honest politician and Ron Paul has proven time and again that he is nothing if not honest. Ron Paul’s campaign promises completely overshadowed Obama’s. Ron Paul said in the first week he would eliminate the Federal Reserve. The second week the IRS. And he swore up and down that he would pull all of our troops from Afghanistan. Healthcare reform? Compared to eliminating the IRS? Shoot! No contest. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/82dd89/32.png) [@SmartAlx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlx)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/158 "2009-10-31T13:50:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > In the absence of anyone who was actually effective, people voted for somebody who sounded effective. You can’t blame them for that - and frankly, he’s probably doing a much better job than any of the alternatives would be. You were obviously not aware of Ron Paul. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/159 "2009-10-31T15:10:16Z")
> [@SmartAlx](#): > > You were obviously not aware of Ron Paul. Obviously, we were aware of him. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144/160 "2009-10-31T15:17:18Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Obviously, we were aware of him. What with all the magic-markered scraps of cardboard taped to telephone poles across America it was very hard not to be aware of Ron Paul. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-heart-is-broken-about-obama/515144.md?page=9)