Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Well of course they will, that's how they play the political game. I was just trying to be honest about who they SHOULD blame.

The answer to that = everyone in Washington past and present

 

[moe24]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

The answer to that = everyone in Washington past and present

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

You knew this was coming, just not this soon: It's Bush's Fault!

Actually, I thought David Frum had a more interesting and accurate take:

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

Republicans could have shaped this bill more to their liking, but instead went for the whole kit and kaboodle - despite their relative lack of power in Congress, thanks to the "It's all Bush's fault" folks geezer linked to.

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

Republicans refused to cooperate in any substantive fashion, and thus abdicated their responsibility (and obligation) to help govern.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

You have consistently declaimed that both parties are the same, the game is a racket, no change is possible, no election result matters.

I think you will agree that this was a real difference and one that was worth either fighting for or against. It is not just a shell game.

(BTW, Nixon's proposal was to the left of this one. But he had an R so our friends didn't need to burn their crosses over it.)

I agree. This was a real difference. One party wanted to try and solve a problem and another one did not. Interestingly the other one had no problems throwing out unfunded mandates and give aways while they were in office.

At least this bill was passed under the guise of being paid for. That's more than we can say for Bush II's Medicare, Iraq, or NCLB bills. Sure it may be a lie, but at least they tried.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

All that aside, we're a day away from seeing the stock market tank.

Tank yet?

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Tank yet?

Actually, according to Bloomberg, the market seems to be doing okay so far. (Maybe it's just shock. ) Healthcare stocks seem to be doing better than the rest. I suspect the bill's passage may have removed some uncertainty.

 

[Wol4ine]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

3/22/1765 - Parliment passes the Stamp Act

Hmmmmmm......

I think what has been going on the past couple of years is more akin to the Tea Act of 1773 (maybe 1772?).

The East India Co. was going broke. Just like AIG today, it was too big to fail and King George decided to 'bail' them out. A lot of people think the Boston Tea Party was about a tax on tea, but really it was about tyranny. The Tea Act allowed the East India Co. to export tea to the colonies duty free, unlike they're colonial competitors. A boycott of East India tea ensued and eventually the duty free tea was dumped into Boston Harbor. Why would people opposed to taxes protest tax free tea? Because it was government intervention into the market. Americans were already drinking cheap, tax free (aka smuggled) tea. The Tea Act threatened to put East India competitors out of busines. Thus creating a monpoly. Can anyone say "single payer"?

Insurance co's today that have to take on people with pre existing conditions are going to go broke and fail, leading to a single payer. Just like the President wants. It was tyranny then, it is tyranny today.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

As much as I'd like to be really p*ssed, I will say congrats to the Dems for getting this passed. They accomplished what they set out to do. Now I will wait patiently for the following to occur:

* $500 billion in annualized savings by eliminating waste/fraud/abuse within Medicare/Medicaid, thus not negatively impacting the federal deficit
* Health insurance to become cheaper for everyone, regardless of the myriad of new applicants
* Another 180,000 people to die over the next four years due to a "lack of affordable" health insurance, and for none of our lawmakers to mention this "factoid" again
* Health care costs to go down so that health insurance remains affordable
* Health care labor unions to stop leveraging our "right" to "affordable" health care against their continuously overreaching demands for higher wages--regardless of the growing cost of said care.

I won't hold my breath. Call me a pessimist, however, I'm quite confident that none of the above will occur. But we shall see. Government hasn't made anything less costly when getting directly involved, so precedent goes against everything that the Dems have told me about this bill.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

EDIT: "No one can call themselves pro-life ever again if they vote for this bill" - Michelle Bachman

Yeah Michelle, especially if they themsleves, you know, never actually have an abortion.

 

[Tiggsy]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

I agree. This was a real difference. One party wanted to try and solve a problem and another one did not. Interestingly the other one had no problems throwing out unfunded mandates and give aways while they were in office.

At least this bill was passed under the guise of being paid for. That's more than we can say for Bush II's Medicare, Iraq, or NCLB bills. Sure it may be a lie, but at least they tried.

How is this solving a problem? Even they had to realize this will create more problems then it solves. They just don't seem to care about normal people... poor people and ultra rich people they care about, one more vocally then the other, but not everyone in between.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Yeah, it will be pretty interesting to watch the Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause arguments, especially bouncing up against the 10th Amendment. However, at the end of the day, I doubt it will derail all of the bill. I suspect the individual purchase requirements, tied to any penalty, will be most suseptible to challenge.

Like I've said, I bear no false hope that this will change anything. At best, the mandate will be stripped from it, but that's it. Still, I'm glad that they are at least trying to do something about it.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqojWrtnieI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mqojWrtnieI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet

 

[Major]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Why have only 38 states expressed their intent to file suit on this bill? What the hell is wrong with the other 12? These Socialist Dumbocrats just don't get it!

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

I agree. This was a real difference. One party wanted to try and solve a problem and another one did not. Interestingly the other one had no problems throwing out unfunded mandates and give aways while they were in office.

At least this bill was passed under the guise of being paid for. That's more than we can say for Bush II's Medicare, Iraq, or NCLB bills. Sure it may be a lie, but at least they tried.

Stop making sense. It freaks me out.

 

[Major]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Stop making sense. It freaks me out.

And here I thought Cornell graduated some semi intelligent people?

 

[Wol4ine]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

The <strike>Democrats</strike> Socialists didn't want to fix a problem. They wanted to create a larger government and expand entitlements to ease wealth redistribution. Of course, if your a socialist, then wealth inequality is a problem.

Capitalism is where people live with inequal levels of wealth.
Socialism is where people live in equal levels of poverty.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

I was out for a walk and got a call from my "New World Order of Socialism" leader Czar Che Lenin McEurotrash and boy you have no idea what is coming next! Everyone who owns a home with more than one room is going to need to grab a random homeless person off the street and move them in! Doing this will wipe out their debt immediately!

I am not at liberty to discuss what is coming later but it is pretty big! The Death Panel votes are heating up and dont be surprised if the Czar of Death Panel 1 is named soon!

It is all coming together nicely comarades...err...friends

 

[Bill]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

The <strike>Democrats</strike> Socialists didn't want to fix a problem. They wanted to create a larger government and expand entitlements to ease wealth redistribution. Of course, if your a socialist, then wealth inequality is a problem.

Capitalism is where people live with inequal levels of wealth.
Socialism is where people live in equal levels of poverty.

"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Margaret Thatcher

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

That's because for a process that costs say $200 to have done, the gvt will only pay $5 to cover it and then the company/doctor's office will have to foot the rest of the bill and then they will go out of business...

understood. my best friend is an anesthesiologist. he's told me what his group plans to do and footing the bill for government programs isn't on their list. it's just amazing stuff

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Oh you must not have gotten the "New World Order of Socialism" sent from the home office in Cuba. It is pretty clear now if you want to ever get your license or buy food in a store you need to knock up 12 women and kill their babies in the town square! The China Amendment will call for us to eat them but that is a few years off...

If this is in reference to me I'm still awaiting your response as to what about taking over our healthcare and making choices for us, taking over car companies and banks is NOT socialism.

Also, your definition of socialism since you claim to know more than the rest of us.