President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

Know what? I gotta give TNC this one. McCain did lie and run as a hard core Conservative, even though he's a lying RINO. Sort of funny having a lying bigot slime call me a liar for a mistake.

And, that is the Republican problem in a nutshell.

To win the nomination a candidate has to be a neo/Christian conservative to get people like you and FF to nominate him. The true McCain would have never been nominated...and neither would the true Romney. After election, the Republican candidate has to run to the center...which you and FF, and a huge portion of the Republican party HATE. So, a choice is made...either alienate the Republican base by becoming more liberal....or alienate independents and "conservative" Democrats by continuing to be radically to the right.

NEITHER is a winning strategy.

It doesn't work...Republicans are screwed...just as the Democrats were prior to Clinton.

Democrats were a party of unions and special interests which they absolutely catered to. If they did not do it, their nomination failed. Then they go to the election and the Republicans ran polar opposites of those old ideas and even demonized them. They won election after election because "liberal' became synonomous with being bought by unions and supporting special interest causes, and raising taxes, and spending more...some of which still exists today. Clinton came in with his "it's the economy, stupid" attitude and changed the debate. People like Gephart became "old school" and lost nominations.

Until Republicans can reframe their agenda away from their losing ways - you will not win another national election election.

Add on to this the FACT that Republicans alienate every demographic with the exception of old white guys. Really, WTF? Of course there is also the Tea Party...but the party has reigned them in a bit and they do not have the power of 4yrs ago.

Again, Clinton will win in a landslide - unless you all find another message and a new messenger.

[Monker]

Monker, as far as the first two years of Obama and the ACA, Republicans were told they lost, go sit in the corner. None of the imput they offer was ever considered.

Bullshit. If that is true, I would LOVE for you to explain why there is no public option.

I remember a documentary from back then that covered this debate. Obama essentially gave it to the Democrat leaders in congress to pass....delegating the debate to them. The Democrats spent months trying to get the "super majority" to expediate things. After months of failure, Obama called for the meetings with the relevant congressional leaders and himself to hammer out a deal. McCain called out some state getting special treatment, how was that fair, and blah, blah, blah. Obama's response? "That's a fair point...we can remove that. Now what can you give us?" Silence.

Compromise after compromise was made by the Democrats to get the super majority....and it accomplished NOTHING. Republicans were not negotiating in good faith - they wanted NO BILL AT ALL.

When it came time for a vote, most of America said NO, and Democrats in the Congress said yes.

And, after REPEATED votes to repeal, congress refused it. Get over it - it's the law.

Hince the "You shove it down our throats, we'll shove it up your ass", and they did in 2010.

If they had shoved it down your throat, there would have been no year long debate. There would have been no compromises in attempts to get Republican votes. The Democrats had majorities in both houses. Shoving it down your throats would have been telling you to go fuck yourself, passing the bill with a simple majorities, and moved on to other things...which is essentially what Republicans want to do NOW.

Then the dumbasses reelected Obama to reasure it wasen't going anywhere in 2012.

Obama was reelected because the Republican party is ignorant on how to win a national election. Going about debating dead parrot topics like this accomplishes nothing for their long term agenda.

[Boomchild]

No, they are six government workers. Big deal. Treasury secretary, Labor secretary, Health services Secretary, Soc. Security Commissioner and a few others. Most of them aren't economists. If they weren't trustees, you would be on here bashing them as communistic, bean-counting government bureaucrats, feeding at the trough of hardworking patriotic Americans. Hate to break it to you, but they are NOT infallible gods. I also think it is rich that somebody like you is relying on government data from a government website to prove an anti-government stance. You also cited the Cato institute, which has been pushing to privatize Social Security ever since the Koch Bros. father founded Cato in the 70s. My, how very objective of you. No agenda there.

Sorry, since they are directly involved in it they do know more about it then you do. You have shown nothing that proves the opposite. They are not pushing an agenda. Are you an economists? Did I say they were infallible? I don't think so. Simple fact is they know more of the gritty details better then some poster on a internet forum. If you know so much about the subject, to disprove their findings then point me to your detailed "white paper" or published analysis on the solvency of SS. So go ahead and keep lock step with your fellow progressive Democrat buddies and just provide the solution of tax the population more. I would think that a progressive would be more alarmed at the fact that people would not be getting their "fair share". Meaning that they pay into the SS system and won't receive or will get short changed on their benefits when they retire.

[Boomchild]

You need a history lesson. It was designed that way to get senior out of poverty. The entire first generation of SSN recepients did not pay into it. There was no other way to "design it" for it to have an immediate affect.

No I don't need a history lesson. I am not talking about seniors getting benefits. I'm talking about the parts of SS that pay benefits for other circumstances such as SSI and SSD. I don't think those should be part of SS. If your going to have them, I feel they should be funded under a separate program. When I say "those that have not paid into it", I am speaking about those that have never worked a day in their life and are on SSI but are able bodied and can work. Not senior citizens. SS in my opinion should be to solely help senior citizens in retirement that need financial help to get by.

[Boomchild]

Monker, as far as the first two years of Obama and the ACA, Republicans were told they lost, go sit in the corner. None of the imput they offer was ever considered. When it came time for a vote, most of America said NO, and Democrats in the Congress said yes. Hince the "You shove it down our throats, we'll shove it up your ass", and they did in 2010. Then the dumbasses reelected Obama to reasure it wasen't going anywhere in 2012.

And this is exactly why I feel our nations problems will not be solved by politicians.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Ya, right Monker. Just like Obama said last Wednesday,"If Republicans have ideas, then I'll take a look at them". Translation, leave your ideas in the circular file outside my door, unless they agree with me 100%.

Obama had to resort to executive actions precisely because the GOP had no intention of negotiating on ANYTHING. In addition to the stimulus and Obamacare, both which were watered down to appease the GOP, there was also the extended fiscal cliff talks. Boehner ended up walking away from the deal. You may want to read this book. It sums up the problem pretty accurately.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Sorry, since they are directly involved in it they do know more about it then you do. You have shown nothing that proves the opposite. They are not pushing an agenda.

The trustees are not saying what you think they are. Nowhere do they conclusively say, "Social Security essential sucks. Time to privatize." Based on their projections, they are saying that actions needs to take place (retirement age, cost of living, taxes, etc.) It happened before. It will happen again.

Are you an economists? Did I say they were infallible? I don't think so. Simple fact is they know more of the gritty details better then some poster on a internet forum.

You are hiding behind the patina of government authority to push an anti-entitlement agenda. The simple fact is, America is still the largest economy in the world, and yet our safety net remains underfunded. I don't need a report to tell me that America's priorities are completely fucked up.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Since everyone in this thread likes to share reading materials, I would like to offer up a few articles I am reading this morning over my coffee (two lib articles, two conserv articles). Enjoy.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2014 ... al-history

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/patr ... %E2%80%A8/

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/ ... stand-lose

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/paul ... den-story/

[The_Noble_Cause]

Ya, right Monker. Just like Obama said last Wednesday,"If Republicans have ideas, then I'll take a look at them". Translation, leave your ideas in the circular file outside my door, unless they agree with me 100%.

Obama had to resort to executive actions precisely because the GOP had no intention of negotiating on ANYTHING. In addition to the stimulus and Obamacare, both which were watered down to appease the GOP, there was also the extended fiscal cliff talks. Boehner ended up walking away from the deal. You may want to read this book. It sums up the problem pretty accurately.

Don't even try and tell us they watered down Ocare to appease us, remember, we didn't even know what was in the bill and the Dems weren't sharing specifics with lawmakers or the public. Hence Pelosi saying "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Nice try though.

So where did the public option go? Both you and KC have conveniently ducked Monkers question.

[Monker]

Ya, right Monker. Just like Obama said last Wednesday,"If Republicans have ideas, then I'll take a look at them". Translation, leave your ideas in the circular file outside my door, unless they agree with me 100%. Same way he's run the Senate for the last six years.

Yeah, we need every word Obama says to go through a Republican translator to know what he is REALLY saying...and the President "runs the senate?" Moron.

Looks like Harry Reid JUST figured out he's been Obama's bitch and is about to get tossed aside.

Looks like you haven't figured out that these are politicians speaking.

What's going to be funny to me is when Obama gets tossed aside to make room for Hillary. "Obama was a mistake. We'll be much better off with a Clinton Democrat". It's coming. It has too. Holder and Reid are on their way out. Obama has to find a new buffer zone to protect himself. He can't do it in the Congress any more.

I'm sure after the Republican translator machine reviews her every word that is what someone is going to think.

I doubt it will be reality though.

I'm sure the Clinton machine remembers how Al Gore distanced himself from Bill and how that worked out. They are not stupid and will learn from the past.

I would expect Clinton to use Obama strategically but not overtly. I expect her to say things like, "The last time a Republican was President, he left office with almost 10% unemployment. Now we are at 6%. The last time we had a Republican President, the stock market was going through record losses. Now we are at a record high. The last time we had a Republican President the economy was headed for depression and entire industries were failing. Now we have had persistent growth for the past six years. The last time we had a Republican President, we had wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now we are fighting terrorism strategically rather than sending ground troops at every opportunity. The last time we had a Republican President, Osama bin Laden was alive. Now he's dead. As your future President, I would much rather be inheriting the current state of the country than what Barack Obama had inherited and I will continue to move the country forward rather than back to the Republican way of doing things, which nearly led us to disaster."

[Monker]

So where did the public option go? Both you and KC have conveniently ducked Monkers question.

Yep...and why were they debating Health Care for a year or more? Democrats controlled congress...they could have ended the debate and called for a vote and won at any time - why didn't they?

Now that Republicans are in control...I doubt they will even attempt to get Democrat votes. They will be bringing the bills up for votes and expect the result to be along part lines every time. Watch how often that happens over the next two years.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Soooo, the Dems killed it, what's your point?

Only after close to a year of bi-partisan negotiations. During the back and forth, the GOP demanded everything from the removal of the public option, the ability to purchase insurance across state lines, the inclusion of high risk pools, and limiting abortion coverage in the health exchanges etc. I am glad you posted those excerpts, FF. It shows diversity of opinion in the Democratic Party and singles out which Democrats are truly Republicans in disguise.

[Monker]

Keep cherry picking, it's what Republicans do best:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/29/ ... ef=24hours

Yeah, the Democrats removed it to get a few votes to ensure the Republicans could not filibuster. But, overall, there was NO amount of compromise that would get Republicans to vote for ObamaCare. It was in debate for months and months. They were not debating in good faith...which means they compromise to get something done.

Me, chopping it up...the link is worth reading.

The Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday rejected two amendments to include a government-run public health insurance option in the only compromise health care bill so far.

Sen. Max Baucus said the public option provision would "hold back meaningful reform this year."

The amendments by Democratic Sens. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Charles Schumer of New York were opposed by all 10 Republicans on the committee and a few Democrats, including committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus of Montana

Baucus explained that he liked much about the idea of a public option but that he knew a health care bill containing the provision would fail to win enough support in the full Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster.

"I fear if this provision is in the bill, it will hold back meaningful reform this year," Baucus said.

Republicans unanimously oppose the government-run insurance option, saying it would drive private insurers from the market and eventually bring a government takeover of the health care system.

In efforts to bridge differences, the Finance Committee proposal dropped the public insurance option and a mandate for all employers to provide health coverage. It would require individuals to have coverage or face a fine of up to $1,900 for a family of four but includes subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans obtain health care plans.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I'm tired and really don't feel like doing this shit because, really, it's just not worth it. but after a one minute search, here's one of hundreds on line.


John Boehner is shown. | AP Photo
By JENNIFER HABERKORN | 10/22/13 5:46 PM EDT
House Republicans say they’re being left out of an Obamacare briefing from a White House officials who are coming to the Hill to brief Democratic allies on Wednesday.

So to prove the GOP had no seat at the table in the negotiations leading up to Obamacare, you post something from 2013? Um, the legislation was passed in 2009! The laughs just never stop with you.

[Boomchild]

The trustees are not saying what you think they are. Nowhere do they conclusively say, "Social Security essential sucks. Time to privatize." Based on their projections, they are saying that actions needs to take place (retirement age, cost of living, taxes, etc.) It happened before. It will happen again.

I said, I don't think a program that we have been informed is not sustainable is as you put it a "good metric" to go by. In fact, in a response to another post in this thread I said that I feel SS should be reserved only for assisting senior citizens. Regardless of what my thoughts are, it does not change the fact that the program in it's current state is not going to stay solvent. The only solution that you have offered up is the typical progressive Democrat response, "tax the population more". Nothing about looking at the program itself and restructuring it or looking for alternative solutions.

You are hiding behind the patina of government authority to push an anti-entitlement agenda. The simple fact is, America is still the largest economy in the world, and yet our safety net remains underfunded. I don't need a report to tell me that America's priorities are completely fucked up.

So I'll take this response as a no, your not an economist. Therefore your viewpoint is that of a layman and not as a professional.

[Boomchild]

Don't even try and tell us they watered down Ocare to appease us, remember, we didn't even know what was in the bill and the Dems weren't sharing specifics with lawmakers or the public. Hence Pelosi saying "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Nice try though.

Add to that the members of our legislature that openly admitted that voted for the bill without reading the bill before voting on it.

[The_Noble_Cause]

TNC, that was written in 2009. I will give that book a read.

Maybe you can take a look at this one. With hillary running, i think this will make a come back.

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Party-Hill ... s+radicals

Yea, I heard Horowitz on Beck promoting this book.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The only solution that you have offered up is the typical progressive Democrat response, "tax the population more". Nothing about looking at the program itself and restructuring it or looking for alternative solutions.

So when I mentioned cost of living adjustments and raising the retirement age, that somehow constitutes a "tax increase"? Sounds to me like you're mind is made up and you want to remove the US safety net root and branch. You also have side-stepped the issue, what would happen to retirees if and when Wall Street crashes like it has in 1929 or 2008? The transition costs alone to switch to private accounts would be in the hundreds of billions, as well as other administrative costs. No mention of that by you, either.

So I'll take this response as a no, your not an economist. Therefore your viewpoint is that of a layman and not as a professional.

I'll take that as a badge of honor. Thank you! Why, no. No, I am NOT a "professional" working for the US government. Believe it or not, I am also NOT in the rock band, Journey. Should I be prohibited from commenting on Neal's shredding too? By your idiotic standard, none of us should even be on this forum! Plenty of economists (Dean Baker, Joseph Stiglitz, Reich, Krugman) have looked at Social Security and have proposed ways of shoring it up. The government is NEVER perfect. The roll-out of World War 2 was certainly not perfect either. But as flawed as Social Security is, it has done a tremendous amount of good in the lives of older Americans. If you can point to a Libertarian policy success story, I would LOVE to hear it. To a great extent, the story of America is the story of pro-active big government.

[Boomchild]

So when I mentioned cost of living adjustments and raising the retirement age, that somehow constitutes a "tax increase"? Sounds to me like you're mind is made up and you want to remove the US safety net root and branch. You also have side-stepped the issue, what would happen to retirees if and when Wall Street crashes like it has in 1929 or 2008? The transition costs alone to switch to private accounts would be in the hundreds of billions, as well as other administrative costs. No mention of that by you, either.

Perhaps you have forgotten your earlier response. I'll make it easy for you:

For starters, the income cap on Social Security taxes needs to be raised. Why isn't annual income above 117k subject to payroll taxes?

So it seems to me that your first response is what you are really think is need. Which is what? Taxing people more. The other things you have mentioned are not solutions they are band aids. That will simply only delay the end result which is the program will no longer have enough solvency to payout the benefits it is suppose to. Not only that, you are suggesting to make senior citizens work longer. That seems like a fair and logical solution. Wall Street crashing again? What are you talking about? Our Federal Government which you are so supportive of has told us they have and are taking steps to prevent that from happening again. So we don't need to even consider that, right? Whether a plan or program is public or private does not mean it can not fail. All I know is that the trusties that oversee SS are telling the us it is on the road to failure. For a start the government could at least do something to reduce the amount of waste and fraud associated with SS programs like SSI and SSD. That way more money would go to the people who actually do need it now as well in the future.

I'll take that as a badge of honor. Thank you! Why, no. No, I am NOT a "professional" working for the US government. Believe it or not, I am also NOT in the rock band, Journey. Should I be prohibited from commenting on Neal's shredding too? By your idiotic standard, none of us should even be on this forum! Plenty of economists (Dean Baker, Joseph Stiglitz, Reich, Krugman) have looked at Social Security and have proposed ways of shoring it up. The government is NEVER perfect. The roll-out of World War 2 was certainly not perfect either. But as flawed as Social Security is, it has done a tremendous amount of good in the lives of older Americans. If you can point to a Libertarian policy success story, I would LOVE to hear it. To a great extent, the story of America is the story of pro-active big government.

You were the one spouting off that the trusties don't know what they are talking about. Inferring that your opinion was superior to theirs. Which it is not. That's the point. it's funny that you as a progressive Democrat use the exact words "big government". Day in day out we hear that progressive Democrats state in the press that no one EVER said they want or are for "big government". Yet here you are a representative of them saying so. Thank you for proving what know is the truth about progressive Democrats. BTW, you forgot to mention that big government also has brought us such good things as The Patriot Act. Our government was never designed with the intention of solving or taking care of it's citizens personal financial needs\problems. It was designed to protect a person's rights and freedoms to live how they choose to and not be subjected to a government or a aristocrat that rules over it citizens. So if you want a example of a Libertarian or Constitutionalist policy success story, you live under it. Thing's like The Constitution of The Untied States and The Bill of Rights.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Infering that your opinion was superior to theirs. Which it is not.

I'll respond to the rest of your post when I'm back at my desktop, not my phone. For now, let me just say that the word you're looking for is imply, NOT infer. Your pseudo intellect is all smoke and mirrors and I see right through your dorm room posturing.

[Monker]

I'm tired and really don't feel like doing this shit because, really, it's just not worth it. but after a one minute search, here's one of hundreds on line.


John Boehner is shown. | AP Photo
By JENNIFER HABERKORN | 10/22/13 5:46 PM EDT
House Republicans say they’re being left out of an Obamacare briefing from a White House officials who are coming to the Hill to brief Democratic allies on Wednesday.

So to prove the GOP had no seat at the table in the negotiations leading up to Obamacare, you post something from 2013? Um, the legislation was passed in 2009! The laughs just never stop with you.

That was written in 2009.

No it wasn't. TNC quoted you the byline which said it was 2013. In addition, the article says Boehner is speaker. He was not elected speaker until 2010. So, you are wrong. And, I remember this incident...after years of multiple votes wanting to repeal Obamacare, fighting it every step of the way, Republicans whine when they are not invited to discussions of the rollout. There is absolutely NO REASON why the Democrats would want to do that. The only motive Republicans would have had would be to do whatever it took to delay the rollout.

If I wanted to, I'm pretty sure I could find a Jon Stewart bit where he mocked this on the Daily Show. That is how ridiculous Republicans were acting.

[Monker]

Monker, the copyright was 2009. Even if it was 2010, so what? It says what it says,even if it was 2014. THE POINT WAS MADE.

You are just flat out WRONG...or you are lying. This article was written in late 2013. I don't know where you are getting 2014 from:

www.politico.com/story/2013/10/gop-shut ... 98704.html

You just make shit up as you go.

Yes, the point is made. Democrats were so frustrated with the obstruction of Republicans regarding Obamacare that they did not invite them to the implementation discussions. Good job proving my point.

[The_Noble_Cause]

So it seems to me that your first response is what you are really think is need. Which is what? Taxing people more.

Currently, income over 117k isn’t subject to Social Security taxes. Social Security is funded primarily by taxes on wages, so why is the burden placed on the shoulders of the working class? A cashier making 20k a year has to pay social security taxes on every last nickel of that. This country already tried it your way. What was the result? Old people dying in county poorhouses. Poorhouses, btw, were funded by…yes, wait for it…TAXES! So all I can really say is, grow up dude. To quote Supreme Court Justice, Wendell Holmes, “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”

Not only that, you are suggesting to make senior citizens work longer. That seems like a fair and logical solution.

Actually it DOES. People are living longer these days. When Social Security was implemented the average life span was only 65. That was IF you were lucky. Now it’s up to 80. So this is really just basic common sense. Try applying it sometime, instead of arguing everything from a juvenile Ayn Rand “makers vs. takers” paradigm.

Wall Street crashing again? What are you talking about? Our Federal Government which you are so supportive of has told us they have and are taking steps to prevent that from happening again. So we don't need to even consider that, right?

That’s a cute non-answer. Of course, Dodd-Frank is fairly weak, but parts of it, like enhanced liquidity standards, are certainly better than nothing. With the Republican senate it is sure to be weakened even further. This should make you very happy.

For a start the government could at least do something to reduce the amount of waste and fraud associated with SS programs like SSI and SSD.

No argument there. So I’m assuming you are in favor of increasing the payroll of the Office of the Inspector General to root out such waste and abuse? Or were you hoping the free market would solve it?

It's funny that you as a progressive Democrat use the exact words "big government". Day in day out we hear that progressive Democrats state in the press that no one EVER said they want or are for "big government". Yet here you are a representative of them saying so. Thank you for proving what know is the truth about progressive Democrats.

I'm not running away from America’s legacy of big government. The Unites States put a man on the moon, built the interstate, and defeated Hitler. I think you have been spending too much time drinking the wine at Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church.

Our government was never designed with the intention of solving or taking care of it's citizens personal financial needs\problems. It was designed to protect a person's rights and freedoms to live how they choose to and not be subjected to a government or a aristocrat that rules over it citizens.

Uh-huh. Clearly your NRA pocket copy of the constitution doesn't include the preamble. Contrary to what you may think, “promoting the general welfare", doesn't mean every American born child receives a free AK 47 and tot-sized bandoleer. No, rather, as Thomas Paine said, “No tax shall be imposed except for the general welfare and to meet public needs.” I'm pretty sure preventing seniors from dying in the gutter falls under the category.

So if you want a example of a Libertarian or Constitutionalist policy success story, you live under it. Thing's like The Constitution of The Untied States and The Bill of Rights.

So the most recent example of successful libertarian policy is 1787?! Is that the best you got? Boy, and I thought the Republicans were desperate with their chronic case of invoking Saint Ronnie (or Reagan tourettes). Actually, the Libertarians of that time a.k.a. The Anti-Federalists, HATED the constitution, preferred the Articles of Confederation, and viewed the Philadelphia Convention as a tyrannical amassing of federal power. And given that 27 amendments have passed since the Constitution was first adopted, I would think you would be skeptical of the document's so-called "success." The very idea of amendments sound awfully similar to the various short-term "band-aids" to Social Security.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Shocker: Democrats To Exclude Republicans From Senate/House Health Care Bill Negotiations
NationalJanuary 4, 2010

This must be that “unity” and “bipartisanship” the Democrats were talking about.
After a painful final vote in the Senate the last procedural hurdle the health care bill must get over is a reconciliation between House and Senate versions of the bill. And with the bill hitting new levels of popularity, and with the threat of Democrats defecting from their support of the bill as real as Republicans delaying its progress, the liberal Congressional leadership has decided to bypass formal reconciliation negotiations in favor of “informal” negotiations.

Now that both the House and Senate have passed health care reform bills, all Democrats have to do is work out a compromise between the two versions. And it appears they’re not about to let the Republicans gum up the works again.
According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are “almost certain” to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps–not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate–that Republicans could use to stall deliberations, just as they did in November and December.
“There will almost certainly be full negotiations but no formal conference,” the House staffer says. “There are too many procedural hurdles to go the formal conference route in the Senate.”
If there was ever a piece of legislation to come out of both houses of Congress that deserved the full debate and scrutiny of the formal reconciliation process it’s this health care bill which will fundamentally change the way each and every American gets their health care.
This bill is extremely unpopular, extremely controversial, and if Democrats are set on cramming it down America’s collective maw they owe the courtesy of allowing full debate of the bill all the way to the bitter end.
The danger in skipping such steps is to create resentment. Passing bills in Washington DC was designed to be a slow, arduous process for a reason. In a nation as large and diverse as ours the government shouldn’t act, especially on sweeping new legislation, without a great deal of deliberation and a broad consensus. Failing to do so breeds resentment toward the government.
Resentment that, if ignored, can become dangerous.

Once again, this is AFTER the fact. I think you have lost sight of what it is you're arguing. Even this article acknowledges that the GOP was stalling the legislation.

[Monker]

Monker, the copyright was 2009. Even if it was 2010, so what? It says what it says,even if it was 2014. THE POINT WAS MADE.

You are just flat out WRONG...or you are lying. This article was written in late 2013. I don't know where you are getting 2014 from:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/g ... 98704.html

You just make shit up as you go.

Yes, the point is made. Democrats were so frustrated with the obstruction of Republicans regarding Obamacare that they did not invite them to the implementation discussions. Good job proving my point.

My source was The Hill. And again, what if it was written yesterday? So fucking what. I started leaving sources and dates,ect off because it's an easy out for you. You can't even admit your wrong, which you just did. What an ego.

I seriously don't give a crap what propaganda site reposted the article. The article was written by an author who works for Politico. THAT was your source.

You are so dim that you don't even comprehend the very articles you are posting...probably because the sites you visit are surrounded by bullshit propaganda that you buy into.

[Monker]

Now you have gone completely into OPINION pieces. But, even here you can read the real facts of what happened

Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps–not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate–that Republicans could use to stall deliberations, just as they did in November and December.

Don't you even read the articles you post? This actually PROVES what I have been saying is true. The Democrats were tired of the bullshit delays and obstruction that Republicans were doing. So, they used the budget reconciliation process to expediate the passage of the bill. And, of course, Republicans whined about. BFD.

If Republicans had approached the debate in good faith, there would have been no need to do this.

Shocker: Democrats To Exclude Republicans From Senate/House Health Care Bill Negotiations
NationalJanuary 4, 2010

This must be that “unity” and “bipartisanship” the Democrats were talking about.
After a painful final vote in the Senate the last procedural hurdle the health care bill must get over is a reconciliation between House and Senate versions of the bill. And with the bill hitting new levels of popularity, and with the threat of Democrats defecting from their support of the bill as real as Republicans delaying its progress, the liberal Congressional leadership has decided to bypass formal reconciliation negotiations in favor of “informal” negotiations.

Now that both the House and Senate have passed health care reform bills, all Democrats have to do is work out a compromise between the two versions. And it appears they’re not about to let the Republicans gum up the works again.
According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are “almost certain” to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps–not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate–that Republicans could use to stall deliberations, just as they did in November and December.
“There will almost certainly be full negotiations but no formal conference,” the House staffer says. “There are too many procedural hurdles to go the formal conference route in the Senate.”
If there was ever a piece of legislation to come out of both houses of Congress that deserved the full debate and scrutiny of the formal reconciliation process it’s this health care bill which will fundamentally change the way each and every American gets their health care.
This bill is extremely unpopular, extremely controversial, and if Democrats are set on cramming it down America’s collective maw they owe the courtesy of allowing full debate of the bill all the way to the bitter end.
The danger in skipping such steps is to create resentment. Passing bills in Washington DC was designed to be a slow, arduous process for a reason. In a nation as large and diverse as ours the government shouldn’t act, especially on sweeping new legislation, without a great deal of deliberation and a broad consensus. Failing to do so breeds resentment toward the government.
Resentment that, if ignored, can become dangerous.

[Monker]

Ok, now we have had KC's uninformed (at best) opinion which basically proved himself wrong.

How about an article from Time magazine, which starts detailing the obstructionism of the Republicans, which started being planned even before Obama took office:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/th ... uct-obama/

And, that is just the tip of the iceberg. We now have a majority leader in the Senate who made it the policy of his party to oppose ANYTHING Obama wanted. That is the way Mitch McConell, Eric Cantor, and Paul Ryan worked. The only leader who was not full time on board with the plan was Boehner...who disagreed with Cantor and actually at times tried to work with Obama on the budget compromises and the debt ceiling.

If Obama was for something, the entire Republican caucus in congress was automatically opposed to it...at the direction of their leadership. That is the atmosphere Obamacare, and the stimulus, had to deal with.

[Boomchild]

Currently, income over 117k isn’t subject to Social Security taxes. Social Security is funded primarily by taxes on wages, so why is the burden placed on the shoulders of the working class? A cashier making 20k a year has to pay social security taxes on every last nickel of that. This country already tried it your way. What was the result? Old people dying in county poorhouses. Poorhouses, btw, were funded by…yes, wait for it…TAXES! So all I can really say is, grow up dude. To quote Supreme Court Justice, Wendell Holmes, “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”

Well if I go by the definition of "civilized society", then that means he was talking about taxes to support a government that creates laws that are fair to protect the rights of it's citizens. I don't think he was pointing to taxes to take care of a individuals financial needs. It's an individual's responsibility to provide for themselves. The people that need to "grow up" as you put it are the ones that don't believe in that. SS was not designed to be the only source of person's income before and after retirement. The ones that are struggling and dying in county poorhouses are the ones that are looking to the government as their sole source of income. That's not and shouldn't be the governments responsibility.

Actually it DOES. People are living longer these days. When Social Security was implemented the average life span was only 65. That was IF you were lucky. Now it’s up to 80. So this is really just basic common sense. Try applying it sometime, instead of arguing everything from a juvenile Ayn Rand “makers vs. takers” paradigm.

I see, so now you think the retirement age should be what? Like age 75 or 80?

No argument there. So I’m assuming you are in favor of increasing the payroll of the Office of the Inspector General to root out such waste and abuse? Or were you hoping the free market would solve it?

I am in favor of any solution that is effective in stopping the waste, abuse and fraud in the system. As long as it actually stops it.

I'm not running away from America’s legacy of big government. The Unites States put a man on the moon, built the interstate, and defeated Hitler. I think you have been spending too much time drinking the wine at Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church.

Nice try, that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about ''big government" as in expanding social welfare programs, increasing taxes to support a larger government and enacting laws that interfere with a free market and lessen the rights of individuals.

Uh-huh. Clearly your NRA pocket copy of the constitution doesn't include the preamble. Contrary to what you may think, “promoting the general welfare", doesn't mean every American born child receives a free AK 47 and tot-sized bandoleer. No, rather, as Thomas Paine said, “No tax shall be imposed except for the general welfare and to meet public needs.” I'm pretty sure preventing seniors from dying in the gutter falls under the category.

Funny, I don't recall mentioning that I was a member of the NRA. I don't even own a gun. But, i do believe in the right to own one which is the law. So get over it. You may think that is what Pane thought but, with a generalized statement like that you could shoehorn just about any meaning into it.

So the most recent example of successful libertarian policy is 1787?! Is that the best you got?

It's only the foundation of our whole society and I am not surprised at your reaction. I'm sure your among the groups of people that think it means nothing anymore and would be one of the first to sign a petition to throw the Constitution out the window or water it down to the extent that it no longer means anything.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Well if I go by the definition of "civilized society", then that means he was talking about taxes to support a government that creates laws that are fair to protect the rights of it's citizens. I don't think he was pointing to taxes to take care of a individuals financial needs.

Sounds like YOUR definition of "civilized society." Holmes' views weren't all that dissimilar from progressive Teddy Roosevelt, the President who appointed him to the bench and was one of the first US presidents to advocate for old age pensions.

It's an individual's responsibility to provide for themselves....The ones that are struggling and dying in county poorhouses are the ones that are looking to the government as their sole source of income. That's not and shouldn't be the governments responsibility.

Again, you are not entitled to your own facts. If it was only a few wastrels who were "looking to the government as their sole source of income" the issue never would have become a priority. Before FDR, there was at least one poor house in every state in America. Many were retired farmers whose lives were wiped out due to medical bills. It was a national crisis. Now, thanks to Social Security, the very concept of a poor house or labor farm, is as antiquated as the Gramophone. You sound like you've had it too good for too long.

Nice try, that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about ''big government" as in expanding social welfare programs, increasing taxes to support a larger government and enacting laws that interfere with a free market and lessen the rights of individuals.

Maybe YOU'RE not talking about that, but I am. NASA and World War 2 were funded by taxes. Laws like Obamacare increase freedom. Look at the surge in voluntary part time work and the decrease in involuntary part time work since the bill took effect. What is going on here? Well, people who were previously working full time to get health insurance through their jobs now have the option to acquire insurance via the exchanges. As a result, they can spend more time with their family or doing things they truly want to. Anyone who has seriously looked at universal coverage in other countries knows this effect is not unusual.

You may think that is what Pane thought but, with a generalized statement like that you could shoehorn just about any meaning into it.

Uh huh. Again, you are not entitled to your own facts. Thomas Paine, in addition to proposing old age pensions in Agrarian Justice, also advocated for free education and progressive taxation. Please educate yourself.

It's only the foundation of our whole society and I am not surprised at your reaction. I'm sure your among the groups of people that think it means nothing anymore and would be one of the first to sign a petition to throw the Constitution out the window or water it down to the extent that it no longer means anything.

Blah blah blah. In other words, you can't name a single Libertarian policy success. Meanwhile you attack the crown jewel of Democratic policies, Social Security, which eliminated nationwide poverty for our seniors and has been around for nearly one hundred years.

[Monker]

Democrats won the White house in 2008. Obama took total control with a already Democrat Congress. McCain tried to give input and was told "We Won!". It was Obama's way or no way while the ACA was written by unquailfied Obama lackies. Obama's first two years were nothing but ACA.

You are a complete lost cause who is living in a bubble where facts don't matter.

You didn't even read that article, did you? MULTIPLE SOURCES confirmed that McConnell and Cantor ORDERED the Republican caucus to NOT talk to the Democrats. That ANY major bills Obama supported would not get ANY Republican support. That STARTED with the stimulus where Cantor had already promised ZERO Republican support - BEFORE THEY EVEN TALKED WITH OBAMA. That attitude continued with Obamacare where there was also ZERO Republican support.

That is factual history...Republican obstructionism was planned BEFORE OBAMA EVEN TOOK OFFICE.

People got pissed because he did nothing that helped the economy, so he got 2010, a clear message I thought.

Yes, a clear message that people are sick of a dysfunctional congress. That SHOULD be obvious to BOTH party's . Instead it is taken as a mandate for the side being voted in. I fully expect that in 2016: Democrats will pick up seats in the house and maybe regain the Senate. Why? Because of the fact that it is a Presidential race, the fact that Hillary will most likely be nominated, and people will tire of the bullshit "repeal Obamacare" and fights with the White House...all point to a very high turnout which is traditionally bad for Republicans...and even worse news in today's world.

Obama instructed Reid after he lost the House, if a bill isn't what I want I don''t want to see it. Reid was a useful idiot and like is comon knowledge, brought almost NO Bills to the floor with Democratic blessings from other Senators.

I don't know if this is true, or not. But, it wouldn't surprise me since it is AFTER all of the obstructionist tactics dealing with both the stimulus and Obamacare. it's politics, dumbass.

Why voters voted again for Obama when the country hates just about everything he has done is beyond me, but they did.

They voted Obama in because despite what you think, the country was MUCH better off than it was when W handed it over. The masses know this. Also, Romney exposed how exclusionary Republicans are with his %47 comment. Those two things alone did him in. Just because YOU and those others in your bubble "hate" everything Obama did does not mean the rest of the country does, too. What you have done in your quote above is expose the HUGE bias you and others have against Obama.

Again, he got rejected even harder then in 2012.

And, if you have followed any politics you would know this is NORMAL. The midterms in a President's second term are almost all favored by the other party. Was it 'bad' for Obama, sure...but that's the way it goes, too.

Reid is now pissed because he figured out last week he got screwed.

it's just a blame game where he doesn't want to take any of the responsibility for the losses. Neither does Obama. Again, it's politics, dumbass.

'The Republicans were elected to "obstruct" and that's what they did.

WRONG. They were elected to legislate, not obstruct legislation.

And you call Republicans the Obstructors. Bull Shit!

See quote above - you did, too. Hypocrite.