Democrats scramble on health care after GOP win

[MaggieMae]

What's this ? Another liberal defending FakeJake?? ...wow, what a surprise!!!

You and I can disagree on politics Maggie, but I don't pretend to be something I am not, nor do you. We both have the courage of our convictions. FakeJake, by contrast, is a coward that pretends he is a conservative when he isn't. We have conservatives here on this forum, plenty of them. Around 15 conservatives voted in a poll about our duplicitous friend FakeJake, not one of them thinks FakeJake is a conservative. Not one!! I think it would be nice if he stopped lying to us.

PS- what is radical about wanting the government to balance the budger? What is radical about holding politicians accountable? What is so radical about not wanting to bankrupt the nation with more ill conceived entitlement programs?

Your definition of a conservative are members of this board? Well that explains it.

A true conservative is a compromiser; a middle of the road person who realizes that s/he doesn't have the solution to every part of every problem. A true conservative has a set of ideals that is in truth socially liberal. They believe in fairness which must translate into equal opportunity. They believe that a central government must regulate those systems that keep the engine of this country moving so that it reaches all corners and no one segment of society goes without that which is required to survive and connect to the rest.

The conservatives who post on this board (and those all over the nation who are now suddenly aware that to keep this nation ahead of all the rest costs a lot of money, and that has caused deficit spending). But they want to just cut everything off at the knees and do a restore, like it's just as easy as rolling back your home computer to some magic date that meets with your approval). THAT is radical thinking, because THAT doesn't just happen. It takes a lot of study, analysis, and...compromise where basic ideology is concerned. See "true conservative," above.

Liberal Democrats are trying to ram a corrupt, ill-conceived healthcare bill down our throats without even ONE Republican vote and we're the ones who need to compromise? Liberals are paying off entire states, thousands of Union workers, and government employees and we're supposed to compromise? You really ought to get a job as a comedian......

Just for once, try to fight your way out of the health care box. I wasn't referring to the bill, nor any of the tactics used to get it where it is today. If you'd been reading everything I've said about it for the past 6 months, you would know that I am anything but in total favor of the damned thing. The concept yes, the way it is now, no.

Contrary to your black and white versions of political ideologies, the political genre for most thinking Americans is, in fact, a little conservatism and a little liberalism.

 

[Avatar4321]

"Political suicide"? Says who? Certainly threatening the "Nuclear Option" didn't work out badly for the Republicans. Nor did it work out badly for the Democrats all the other times they suggested it in the last 50 years.

Who told you the "Nuclear Option" would be political suicide?

any idiot who realizes that using it to pass judicial nominees and a bill that no one wants and everyone has voted against are two totally different issues.

 

[MaggieMae]

So what did National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn take from Scott Brown's (R) win last night?

In an interview on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports," Cornyn told Mitchell that when it comes to health care, the message voters were sending was, "Slow down and work together, and listen to us and our concerns. Don't just try to pass something and ignore our disapproval of what you are trying to do."

Cornyn: Time to slow down on reform - First Read - msnbc.com

I hope he is kidding. I have never seen a party bend over backwards like the Democrats have over this health care plan to try and please those old fart Republicans. Especially the prez. It makes me angry at him. He needs to get it through his head that Republicans will never, ever work with him or even try to appear to be reasonable. They are just dead weight.

And Mr. Cornyn is a lying sack of you know what.

I've sent several emails to the prez and I told him he is being way to accommodating and that he needs to ignore them.

Please, link us up to the bending over backwards.

What is remembered and actionable by both what's happened and what may happen:

Obama to GOP: 'I won' - POLITICO.com Print View

Obama to GOP: 'I won'
By: Jonathan Martin and Carol E. Lee
January 23, 2009 01:25 PM EST

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.

The Republicans stressed that they want to include more middle class tax cuts in the package, citing their proposal to cut the two lowest tax rates — 15 percent and 10 percent — to ten percent and five percent, rather than issue the refundable credit Obama wants.
...

I never understood why that "I won" comment was such a big deal. What he meant was I won, I have political capital and I intend to spend it. But wait. George W. Boooooooooosh said that too, and he did. Clinton said it, and he did. Reagan also spent his political capital "because he won." I don't get it. So? Obama shouldn't?

 

[Vast LWC]

"Political suicide"? Says who? Certainly threatening the "Nuclear Option" didn't work out badly for the Republicans. Nor did it work out badly for the Democrats all the other times they suggested it in the last 50 years.

Who told you the "Nuclear Option" would be political suicide?

any idiot who realizes that using it to pass judicial nominees and a bill that no one wants and everyone has voted against are two totally different issues.

"No one wants"?

"Everyone voted against"?

Wow, so when did the 40 Republicans in the Senate grow into "everyone"?

The Democrats RAN on reforming the health care system in 2008 as one of their major platforms, and they won.

Half the people that don't like the current Senate bill don't like it BECAUSE IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH, which would surely be rectified if 60 votes weren't needed to pass it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Political suicide"? Says who? Certainly threatening the "Nuclear Option" didn't work out any idiot who realizes that using it to pass judicial nominees and a bill that no one wants and everyone has voted against are two totally different issues.

"no one wants and everyone has voted against". . . what a loon. Complete denial of reality.

 

[Murf76]

Oh, yes, definitely, they should have been required to get a Constitutional amendment passed for something that was already provided for in the Constitution...

OR, they could just be going for what the Constitution itself requires, a majority vote to pass a law.

Where exactly is the enumerated power that authorizes the central government to provide healthcare to the nation's citizens?

 

[Avatar4321]

"Political suicide"? Says who? Certainly threatening the "Nuclear Option" didn't work out badly for the Republicans. Nor did it work out badly for the Democrats all the other times they suggested it in the last 50 years.

Who told you the "Nuclear Option" would be political suicide?

any idiot who realizes that using it to pass judicial nominees and a bill that no one wants and everyone has voted against are two totally different issues.

"No one wants"?

"Everyone voted against"?

Wow, so when did the 40 Republicans in the Senate grow into "everyone"?

The Democrats RAN on reforming the health care system in 2008 as one of their major platforms, and they won.

Half the people that don't like the current Senate bill don't like it BECAUSE IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH, which would surely be rectified if 60 votes weren't needed to pass it.

No the American people repeatedly voting no is everyone.

I dont know why you have such a hard time understanding what the people want.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Murf, stop the loony goony comments. The Constitution provides the power for the legislature to pass the laws that are necessary for the welfare of the country.

 

[Murf76]

Murf, stop the loony goony comments. The Constitution provides the power for the legislature to pass the laws that are necessary for the welfare of the country.

No. The Welfare Clause certainly does NOT give Congress the right to do whatever it wants. That argument was put to rest before ratification.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
-- James Madison

Further, only a Steny Hoyer could possible come up with such a "loony-goony" argument.
Congress hasn't bothered with The Welfare Clause in years.

Hatch was asked about the argument made by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.), who told CNSNews.com that the constitutional phrase that says Congress shall have the power to provide for the “general welfare”--which appears in the prefatory language preceding the Commerce Clause and the other enumerated powers of Congress--gives Congress the power to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. He rejected this argument.

“Well, keep in mind the General Welfare Clause hasn’t been used for years, except through the Commerce Clause--Article I, Section 8,” said Hatch. “And frankly the Commerce Clause affects, quote, ‘activities,’ unquote. And, you know, the government telling you you have to buy health insurance--mandating that you have to buy health insurance--is not an activity. That’s telling you you got to do something you don’t want to do.

“Well, let’s put it this way,” said Hatch. “If that is held constitutional--for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance--then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do. Nothing.”

(more...)
CNSNews.com - Sen. Hatch Questions Constitutionality of Obamacare: If Feds Can Force Us to Buy Health Insurance ?Then There?s Literally Nothing the Federal Government Can?t Force Us to Do?

 

[Rinata]

So what did National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn take from Scott Brown's (R) win last night?

In an interview on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports," Cornyn told Mitchell that when it comes to health care, the message voters were sending was, "Slow down and work together, and listen to us and our concerns. Don't just try to pass something and ignore our disapproval of what you are trying to do."

Cornyn: Time to slow down on reform - First Read - msnbc.com

I hope he is kidding. I have never seen a party bend over backwards like the Democrats have over this health care plan to try and please those old fart Republicans. Especially the prez. It makes me angry at him. He needs to get it through his head that Republicans will never, ever work with him or even try to appear to be reasonable. They are just dead weight.

And Mr. Cornyn is a lying sack of you know what.

I've sent several emails to the prez and I told him he is being way to accommodating and that he needs to ignore them.

Please, link us up to the bending over backwards.

What is remembered and actionable by both what's happened and what may happen:Obama to GOP: 'I won' - POLITICO.com Print View

Obama to GOP: 'I won'
By: Jonathan Martin and Carol E. Lee
January 23, 2009 01:25 PM EST

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.

The Republicans stressed that they want to include more middle class tax cuts in the package, citing their proposal to cut the two lowest tax rates — 15 percent and 10 percent — to ten percent and five percent, rather than issue the refundable credit Obama wants.
...

Another bossy bag head. What is with you people always giving orders like you're in charge of something??

I will answer this post the way I would like to, Mrs. Crabtree. Actually it is not a secret that Obama has been way to accommodating. It's common knowledge. But here is one article that I got just today, I know you people aren't good at researching.

The Washington Monthly

 

[Annie]

So what did National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn take from Scott Brown's (R) win last night?

In an interview on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports," Cornyn told Mitchell that when it comes to health care, the message voters were sending was, "Slow down and work together, and listen to us and our concerns. Don't just try to pass something and ignore our disapproval of what you are trying to do."

Cornyn: Time to slow down on reform - First Read - msnbc.com

I hope he is kidding. I have never seen a party bend over backwards like the Democrats have over this health care plan to try and please those old fart Republicans. Especially the prez. It makes me angry at him. He needs to get it through his head that Republicans will never, ever work with him or even try to appear to be reasonable. They are just dead weight.

And Mr. Cornyn is a lying sack of you know what.

I've sent several emails to the prez and I told him he is being way to accommodating and that he needs to ignore them.

Please, link us up to the bending over backwards.

What is remembered and actionable by both what's happened and what may happen:Obama to GOP: 'I won' - POLITICO.com Print View

Obama to GOP: 'I won'
By: Jonathan Martin and Carol E. Lee
January 23, 2009 01:25 PM EST

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.

The Republicans stressed that they want to include more middle class tax cuts in the package, citing their proposal to cut the two lowest tax rates — 15 percent and 10 percent — to ten percent and five percent, rather than issue the refundable credit Obama wants.
...

Another bossy bag head. What is with you people always giving orders like you're in charge of something??

I will answer this post the way I would like to, Mrs. Crabtree. Actually it is not a secret that Obama has been way to accommodating. It's common knowledge. But here is one article that I got just today, I know you people aren't good at researching.

The Washington Monthly

It doesn't matter how much magneta you add. Did you freaking read the article you linked to? What a crock of shit your post is.

 

[Vast LWC]

Oh, yes, definitely, they should have been required to get a Constitutional amendment passed for something that was already provided for in the Constitution...

OR, they could just be going for what the Constitution itself requires, a majority vote to pass a law.

Where exactly is the enumerated power that authorizes the central government to provide healthcare to the nation's citizens?

Sigh, how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

I cannot be more clear. Congress is given the power to collect money to use to provide for the general welfare of the country.

You people keep posting nonsensical semantic arguments to try and prove that this passage doesn't mean what it says, but it's right there in black and white.

 

[Vast LWC]

No the American people repeatedly voting no is everyone.

I dont know why you have such a hard time understanding what the people want.

Who the hell are "the American people" that are "repeatedly voting no"? "Voting no" on what?

What are you even talking about?

 

[Zander]

Oh, yes, definitely, they should have been required to get a Constitutional amendment passed for something that was already provided for in the Constitution...

OR, they could just be going for what the Constitution itself requires, a majority vote to pass a law.

Where exactly is the enumerated power that authorizes the central government to provide healthcare to the nation's citizens?

Sigh, how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

I cannot be more clear. Congress is given the power to collect money to use to provide for the general welfare of the country.

You people keep posting nonsensical semantic arguments to try and prove that this passage doesn't mean what it says, but it's right there in black and white.

PROMOTE!!!!!!!!! not provide.

 

[Vast LWC]

Murf, stop the loony goony comments. The Constitution provides the power for the legislature to pass the laws that are necessary for the welfare of the country.

No. The Welfare Clause certainly does NOT give Congress the right to do whatever it wants. That argument was put to rest before ratification.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
-- James Madison

Further, only a Steny Hoyer could possible come up with such a "loony-goony" argument.
Congress hasn't bothered with The Welfare Clause in years.

Hatch was asked about the argument made by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.), who told CNSNews.com that the constitutional phrase that says Congress shall have the power to provide for the “general welfare”--which appears in the prefatory language preceding the Commerce Clause and the other enumerated powers of Congress--gives Congress the power to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. He rejected this argument.

“Well, keep in mind the General Welfare Clause hasn’t been used for years, except through the Commerce Clause--Article I, Section 8,” said Hatch. “And frankly the Commerce Clause affects, quote, ‘activities,’ unquote. And, you know, the government telling you you have to buy health insurance--mandating that you have to buy health insurance--is not an activity. That’s telling you you got to do something you don’t want to do.

“Well, let’s put it this way,” said Hatch. “If that is held constitutional--for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance--then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do. Nothing.”

(more...)
CNSNews.com - Sen. Hatch Questions Constitutionality of Obamacare: If Feds Can Force Us to Buy Health Insurance ?Then There?s Literally Nothing the Federal Government Can?t Force Us to Do?

And here is the argument, from the same single viewpoint that it always is.

Apparently Teabagger-Types firmly believe that Madison was the only founding father, and that he was the final word on the Constitution.

Various social programs throughout the last century have relied on the "Provide for the General Welfare" clause, and have NEVER been struck down by the Supreme Court on the basis of being unconstitutional in this manner.

But hey, I guess all those congresses that made the programs and all the supreme court justices that didn't overturn the laws were all just a bunch of "loonie-goonies" (whatever the hell that means).

And I guess the only people that know how to correctly interpret the constitution are a bunch of radical right-wingers 230 years after the fact.

LOL.

 

[Vast LWC]

PROMOTE!!!!!!!!! not provide.

No, it's "promote" in the preamble.

It's "Provide" in Article 1, Section 8, where the powers of congress are actually enumerated.

 

[Vast LWC]

And as far as this quote goes:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
-- James Madison

They cannot take a hand in religion, because of the first amendment. It already takes care of major roads and has the FBI as a federal police force.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Murf, stop the loony goony comments. The Constitution provides the power for the legislature to pass the laws that are necessary for the welfare of the country.

No. The Welfare Clause certainly does NOT give Congress the right to do whatever it wants. That argument was put to rest before ratification.


Further, only a Steny Hoyer could possible come up with such a "loony-goony" argument.
Congress hasn't bothered with The Welfare Clause in years.

Hatch was asked about the argument made by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.), who told CNSNews.com that the constitutional phrase that says Congress shall have the power to provide for the “general welfare”--which appears in the prefatory language preceding the Commerce Clause and the other enumerated powers of Congress--gives Congress the power to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. He rejected this argument.

“Well, keep in mind the General Welfare Clause hasn’t been used for years, except through the Commerce Clause--Article I, Section 8,” said Hatch. “And frankly the Commerce Clause affects, quote, ‘activities,’ unquote. And, you know, the government telling you you have to buy health insurance--mandating that you have to buy health insurance--is not an activity. That’s telling you you got to do something you don’t want to do.

“Well, let’s put it this way,” said Hatch. “If that is held constitutional--for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance--then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do. Nothing.”

(more...)
CNSNews.com - Sen. Hatch Questions Constitutionality of Obamacare: If Feds Can Force Us to Buy Health Insurance ?Then There?s Literally Nothing the Federal Government Can?t Force Us to Do?

And here is the argument, from the same single viewpoint that it always is.

Apparently Republicans firmly believe that Madison was the only founding father, and that he was the final word on the Constitution.

Various social programs throughout the last century have relied on the "Provide for the General Welfare" clause, and have NEVER been struck down by the Supreme Court on the basis of being unconstitutional in this manner.

But hey, I guess all those congresses that made the programs and all the supreme court justices that didn't overturn the laws were all just a bunch of "loonie-goonies" (whatever the hell that means).

And I guess the only people that know how to correctly interpret the constitution are a bunch of radical right-wingers 230 years after the fact.

LOL.

Come on, amend that to a few very conservate Republicans and a whole lot of loony wing nut reactionaries, like Zander. They do not reflect true Republican values. They are mewling kittycats compared to real lions. When the GOP comes up with a solid platform and a good leader who can communicate that platform to the voters, then the GOP will come back, but never, ever as forum of teabagging wierdos.

 

[logical4u]

Its dead, no matter how they try to save face with it and they know it.

Agreed. I think it's toast.

That said, Obama HAS to pass some kind of meaningful legislation by November. I think it's most likely that they'll adopt some version of the Republican plan at this point, all the while pretending they came up with it all by themselves.

It would be INSANE to push ahead. People hate this plan on the right *and* on the left.

Personally, I would like to see a gradual moving away from employer-based health insurance. I think it would be great for business, and it would decrease the cost of insurance due to competition. Hell, when people are paying out of their own pockets... they shop more carefully. Allowing policies to be sold over state lines and letting people set up HSA's with pretax dollars and roll them over.... could go a long way toward encouraging people to get their own.

Whatever else he decides to work on, he'll have to do it on the cheap. People aren't going to put up with any more of this crazy spending.

To fix health care, you would need to get the gov out of citizens' paychecks.

Which way will they go?

Decisions, decisions: cap n trade, new national voter registration rules, immigration reform, fairness doctrine (re-visited), bank nationalization, etc
Which one will they choose, or all the above?

 

[Vast LWC]

Come on, amend that to a few very conservate Republicans and a whole lot of loony wing nut reactionaries, like Zander. They do not reflect true Republican values. They are mewling kittycats compared to real lions. When the GOP comes up with a solid platform and a good leader who can communicate that platform to the voters, then the GOP will come back, but never, ever as forum of teabagging wierdos.

Alright, that's a good point, I'll amend it.