Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But he has yet to govern. There has not been a single bill that was the product of his own work. Every one passed came from the Democrats in Congress. He has introduced no new ideas.He is incapable of learning. His policies are total disasters.
So he hasn't "governed" (introduced his own policies) yet, preferring to defer to Congress for that "legislating" thing, but his policies are still total disasters. Somehow he has implemented his policies without lifting a finger, it seems. That's impressive.
Oh, so you mean Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty was actually the product of Congress and he had nothing to do with it?
Funny story about that. The Economic Opportunity Act was indeed written by the Johnson administration--in large part by a group led by Sargent Shriver, who would be appointed by Johnson to run the main agency created by the law to implement the War on Poverty. In other words, the czar wrote the law that defined his powers. Is that what you'd like to see more of?
As for healthcare, Obama had very very little input. Remember the speech where he was supposed to "take control of the debate" and he said what he had always said? Healthcare was the product of Democrats in Congress, not the Obama administration. There was never, not once, a bill that was known as "the president's bill on healthcare."
First of all, it's well known that the Obama administration sought to take the opposite path from that taken by Bill Clinton: whereas Clinton set up an executive branch task force to write his health care bill (which never made it out of a Congressional committee), Obama deferred to Congress to do the actual writing of the legislation. However, to say he had very little input is absurd: he's the one who defined the terms of the debate in 2007-08. He's the one who ran for President on a platform of expanding access and reforming the insurance market through:
- Guaranteed eligibility
- Comprehensive benefits
- Subsidies in the individual market
- A health insurance exchange
- An emphasis on data-driven improvement (e.g. quality reporting, administrative simplification)
- Required employer contributions
- Medicaid expansions
- Increasing emphasis on coordinated and integrated care models, as well as attention to chronic conditions
- Linking payment to outcomes and discouraging preventable re-admissions
- Comparative effectiveness research
That was the plan he offered during the campaign. Amazingly, that's also exactly the form the bills Congress wrote took. Did everything he wanted get in there? Well, yes and no. There are more things on the campaign list (a new public plan, an ability to negotiate drug prices downward, strengthening antitrust law) that didn't become law. However, that's not to say they weren't in the bills--the House bill contained all of those things. In fact, the House bill is pretty much exactly what you might have expected Candidate Obama to have written had he done it himself (it even had a national health insurance exchange instead of state-based exchanges). But what matters is what can clear the Senate and that was something for the Senate to figure out. The law that passed was still virtually identical (certainly in broad form it was indistinguishable from Obama's proposals and the House bill), just missing a few elements.
If you think the health care law would've looked different if the Obama administration had taken a heavy-handed approach to the legislative process, you're mistaken. The law that Congress wrote is exactly what he campaigned on. It seems the President is significantly more skilled at this than you. But I'm sure he'd appreciate your astute analysis of the policymaking process.
The GOP then are on the horns of a dilemma, aren't they? They did nothing from 1994 to fix those problems, or what they did try to fix they fouled up. So you want to put folks who could not see the (supposed) locomotive barreling down on them right back on the track, RGS?
Washington (CNN) A new national poll released Sunday indicates that eight in 10 Americans say that the economy is in poor shape, and the number that says conditions are very poor is on the upswing after steady declines through the spring.
And according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, more people blame the Republicans over the Democrats for the country's economic problems. ...
According to the survey, more Americans hold the Republicans responsible than the Democrats, with 44 percent blaming the GOP and 35 percent picking the Democrats.
"And when George W. Bush's name is added to the mix, the number who blame the Republicans rises to 53 percent, with just a third saying that Barack Obama and his party are at fault. That indicates why the Democrats are likely to mention Bush's name every chance they get between now and election day," Holland said.
Would Obama make a good president?
Now I know some will object that he's been president for 20 months now. But that's only technically true. He was sworn in, yes. But he has yet to govern. There has not been a single bill that was the product of his own work. Every one passed came from the Democrats in Congress. He has introduced no new ideas. He has not changed the face of debate in Washington. He has only intensified its acrimony and partisanship. He is the campaigner in chief, globe hopping to campaign for this or that.
So if Obama were ever to become president, how would he do?
A president can only suggest legislation. He is only one of many sources for the introduction of legislative ideas. We in America do not desire or need a dictator. The new(last 40 years) republican influences on legislation and de-regulation of existing legislation has been a disaster for the vast majority of the population of this country.
I think a better question would be if you are really a Rabbi. If so or not it is curious why more Jewish people are not offended by you. It begs the question are Jewish clergy really this stupid?
Until 1994 the House was controlled exclusively by the Democrats since 1952. The Senate during most of that time was Controlled by the Democrats also with a few 2 year periods of Republican control.
Our economic mess is BECAUSE of the Democrats. Our laws are mostly Democratic proposed and passed laws.
Presidents write bills? Didn't you ever take civics? Wait, this explains so much.
As for new ideas, I'd say the whole healthcare thing was pretty radical.
You might not agree with him, but Obama hasn't been twiddling his thumbs during his time in office.
Oh, so you mean Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty was actually the product of Congress and he had nothing to do with it? Or Nixon's wage and price controls really came out of Congress and Nixon was just doing nothing all that time? Or Clinton's welfare reform actually was the product of Congress and Clinton just took credit for it?
Maybe all these programs are just called after the president who signed the legislation, and he had zero to do with drafting any of it?
Do you have the slightest knowledge of politics and the process beyond a child's video on Youtube? This might explain a lot of your responses, and those of Radioman.
As for healthcare, Obama had very very little input. Remember the speech where he was supposed to "take control of the debate" and he said what he had always said? Healthcare was the product of Democrats in Congress, not the Obama administration. There was never, not once, a bill that was known as "the president's bill on healthcare."
Good you are moronic. Presidents push their agenda. Congress drafts the bills, with suggestions from the administration. Just because the President's name follows an agenda piece doesn't mean they wrote it. You honestly think Clinton wrote the welfare reform act? That came out of the GOP congress and was a cornerstone of the GOP's "Contract with America". You guys have been claiming credit for the damn thing for over ten years, now you are going to tell me Clinton actually wrote it?
Or likewise, have you guys not been bitching about Obama's Healthcare Reform act for the past year or so?
How many bills did W. write?
But he has yet to govern. There has not been a single bill that was the product of his own work. Every one passed came from the Democrats in Congress. He has introduced no new ideas.
So he hasn't "governed" (introduced his own policies) yet, preferring to defer to Congress for that "legislating" thing, but his policies are still total disasters. Somehow he has implemented his policies without lifting a finger, it seems. That's impressive.
Funny story about that. The Economic Opportunity Act was indeed written by the Johnson administration--in large part by a group led by Sargent Shriver, who would be appointed by Johnson to run the main agency created by the law to implement the War on Poverty. In other words, the czar wrote the law that defined his powers. Is that what you'd like to see more of?
As for healthcare, Obama had very very little input. Remember the speech where he was supposed to "take control of the debate" and he said what he had always said? Healthcare was the product of Democrats in Congress, not the Obama administration. There was never, not once, a bill that was known as "the president's bill on healthcare."
First of all, it's well known that the Obama administration sought to take the opposite path from that taken by Bill Clinton: whereas Clinton set up an executive branch task force to write his health care bill (which never made it out of a Congressional committee), Obama deferred to Congress to do the actual writing of the legislation. However, to say he had very little input is absurd: he's the one who defined the terms of the debate in 2007-08. He's the one who ran for President on a platform of expanding access and reforming the insurance market through:
- Guaranteed eligibility
- Comprehensive benefits
- Subsidies in the individual market
- A health insurance exchange
- An emphasis on data-driven improvement (e.g. quality reporting, administrative simplification)
- Required employer contributions
- Medicaid expansions
- Increasing emphasis on coordinated and integrated care models, as well as attention to chronic conditions
- Linking payment to outcomes and discouraging preventable re-admissions
- Comparative effectiveness research
That was the plan he offered during the campaign. Amazingly, that's also exactly the form the bills Congress wrote took. Did everything he wanted get in there? Well, yes and no. There are more things on the campaign list (a new public plan, an ability to negotiate drug prices downward, strengthening antitrust law) that didn't become law. However, that's not to say they weren't in the bills--the House bill contained all of those things. In fact, the House bill is pretty much exactly what you might have expected Candidate Obama to have written had he done it himself (it even had a national health insurance exchange instead of state-based exchanges). But what matters is what can clear the Senate and that was something for the Senate to figure out. The law that passed was still virtually identical (certainly in broad form it was indistinguishable from Obama's proposals and the House bill), just missing a few elements.
If you think the health care law would've looked different if the Obama administration had taken a heavy-handed approach to the legislative process, you're mistaken. The law that Congress wrote is exactly what he campaigned on. It seems the President is significantly more skilled at this than you. But I'm sure he'd appreciate your astute analysis of the policymaking process.
The cognitive dissonance in this thread is spectacular. Even more hilarious is the fact that Rabbi is forfeiting his right to bitch.
If Obama is a "do-nothing" then that means there is only one thing you can bitch at him for. You can't both bitch at the president for the things he's done and then for "doing nothing".
Of course, Rabbi will still try.
Oh, so you mean Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty was actually the product of Congress and he had nothing to do with it? Or Nixon's wage and price controls really came out of Congress and Nixon was just doing nothing all that time? Or Clinton's welfare reform actually was the product of Congress and Clinton just took credit for it?
Maybe all these programs are just called after the president who signed the legislation, and he had zero to do with drafting any of it?
Do you have the slightest knowledge of politics and the process beyond a child's video on Youtube? This might explain a lot of your responses, and those of Radioman.
As for healthcare, Obama had very very little input. Remember the speech where he was supposed to "take control of the debate" and he said what he had always said? Healthcare was the product of Democrats in Congress, not the Obama administration. There was never, not once, a bill that was known as "the president's bill on healthcare."
Good you are moronic. Presidents push their agenda. Congress drafts the bills, with suggestions from the administration. Just because the President's name follows an agenda piece doesn't mean they wrote it. You honestly think Clinton wrote the welfare reform act? That came out of the GOP congress and was a cornerstone of the GOP's "Contract with America". You guys have been claiming credit for the damn thing for over ten years, now you are going to tell me Clinton actually wrote it?
Or likewise, have you guys not been bitching about Obama's Healthcare Reform act for the past year or so?
How many bills did W. write?
Virtually all the legislation I mentioned was drafted in the White House and then introduced in Congress. They all had the imprimatur of the president. They were the president's policies.
The idea for welfare reform came from the GOP. Clinton appropriated it but the actual details in the bill came from his White House and it was his bill in Congress.
There is no, and has never beenm "Obama's Healthcare reform act. The White House was a mute spectator while the Dems in Congress hashed out the actual terms. The White House was dumb on the issue of a public option. Obama never, ever, declared whether a public option was necessary or not.
How many bills did W write?
Let's see:
Clear Skies Act
No Child Left Behind
Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Economic Stimulus Act
And there were others. Technically of course these were "written" by staff lawyers. But each one has the imprimatur of the president. The same cannot be said of Obama.
So he hasn't "governed" (introduced his own policies) yet, preferring to defer to Congress for that "legislating" thing, but his policies are still total disasters. Somehow he has implemented his policies without lifting a finger, it seems. That's impressive.
Funny story about that. The Economic Opportunity Act was indeed written by the Johnson administration--in large part by a group led by Sargent Shriver, who would be appointed by Johnson to run the main agency created by the law to implement the War on Poverty. In other words, the czar wrote the law that defined his powers. Is that what you'd like to see more of?
First of all, it's well known that the Obama administration sought to take the opposite path from that taken by Bill Clinton: whereas Clinton set up an executive branch task force to write his health care bill (which never made it out of a Congressional committee), Obama deferred to Congress to do the actual writing of the legislation. However, to say he had very little input is absurd: he's the one who defined the terms of the debate in 2007-08. He's the one who ran for President on a platform of expanding access and reforming the insurance market through:
- Guaranteed eligibility
- Comprehensive benefits
- Subsidies in the individual market
- A health insurance exchange
- An emphasis on data-driven improvement (e.g. quality reporting, administrative simplification)
- Required employer contributions
- Medicaid expansions
- Increasing emphasis on coordinated and integrated care models, as well as attention to chronic conditions
- Linking payment to outcomes and discouraging preventable re-admissions
- Comparative effectiveness research
That was the plan he offered during the campaign. Amazingly, that's also exactly the form the bills Congress wrote took. Did everything he wanted get in there? Well, yes and no. There are more things on the campaign list (a new public plan, an ability to negotiate drug prices downward, strengthening antitrust law) that didn't become law. However, that's not to say they weren't in the bills--the House bill contained all of those things. In fact, the House bill is pretty much exactly what you might have expected Candidate Obama to have written had he done it himself (it even had a national health insurance exchange instead of state-based exchanges). But what matters is what can clear the Senate and that was something for the Senate to figure out. The law that passed was still virtually identical (certainly in broad form it was indistinguishable from Obama's proposals and the House bill), just missing a few elements.
If you think the health care law would've looked different if the Obama administration had taken a heavy-handed approach to the legislative process, you're mistaken. The law that Congress wrote is exactly what he campaigned on. It seems the President is significantly more skilled at this than you. But I'm sure he'd appreciate your astute analysis of the policymaking process.
The cognitive dissonance in this thread is spectacular. Even more hilarious is the fact that Rabbi is forfeiting his right to bitch.
If Obama is a "do-nothing" then that means there is only one thing you can bitch at him for. You can't both bitch at the president for the things he's done and then for "doing nothing".
Of course, Rabbi will still try.
Obama has allowed the Democrats to run his agenda. Do you think they just went off not knowing whether Obama would sign the legislation?
You are looking for contradictions where there are none.
Yea...and he never did anything after he was a Community Organizer either
Whatever he has done, is wrong. Whatever he hasn't done is still his fault.
Whatever he has done, is wrong. Whatever he hasn't done is still his fault.
Clear as mud.
Can you name a policy of his that has succeeded?
Can you name an issue he has not dealt with yet? Like Darfur for example?
The fact you cannot name one is pretty telling.
The fact you cannot name one is pretty telling.
You mean other than the example I explicitly cited in my post? You asked for one, I gave you one.
The fact you cannot name one is pretty telling.
You mean other than the example I explicitly cited in my post? You asked for one, I gave you one.
Yea...and he never did anything after he was a Community Organizer either
True, he was a state Senator and a United States Senator for like all of 5 minutes.He started running for President after the age of 6 or something.Did he ever run a company,needed to pay corporate taxes,make payroll.Did he ever have to worry about having enough money at the end of the month to make the mortgage payment on the first of the month.
The guy has led a charmed life,everyone making sure he was positioned to be a big player on the national stage.He has a huge ego and will never admit to not being able to fix any problem...this will be his downfall.
