Who says Obama won't work with the Republicans?

[sangha]

Don't be so naive. Democrats, for one thing, unlike Republicans when they have a majority, never vote in lockstep. Ever. They also continued to try to draw in bipartisan support. How many actually know that Republican amendments included in the health care bill numbered 161? Yet, you continue to hear/read that Republicans were SHUT OUT, or that the Dems RAMMED THROUGH health care with no Republican input.

Disingenuous...and you are better than that Maggie.

Ammednemnts that amnount to little or nothing are irrelevant.

Major issues and suggestions of the GOP were completely ignored.

Many of the GOP smaller ammenedments were for show so people like you can toss it around in a debate.

She won't get it. She hasn't gotten the comprehension skills to see past her democratic liberal views.

Ammednemnts that amnount to little or nothing are irrelevant.

WHy are the republicans offering amendments that are irrelevant? I guess it's the dems fault, right?

 

[MaggieMae]

What are you basing this past 10 year thing on?
Last time I checked in the last 10 years democrats have controlled congress for the last 4 years.
But what the heck since were talking about who has controlled what. The democrats have controlled congress since 1945 almost 60 years. Thats as old as most of us here.

That basically means nothing. The direction of the country is led by the president, and Congress reacts accordingly. Spending has risen exponentially from the 6.9% of GDP at the start of the 20th century as the country's population expanded and modernized due to industrialization.

Congress controls spending to president doesn't.

The agenda is driven by the president, no matter who it is. Why do you think we have presidential elections every four years?

 

[sangha]

That basically means nothing. The direction of the country is led by the president, and Congress reacts accordingly. Spending has risen exponentially from the 6.9% of GDP at the start of the 20th century as the country's population expanded and modernized due to industrialization.

Congress controls spending to president doesn't.

The agenda is driven by the president, no matter who it is. Why do you think we have presidential elections every four years?

The budget process BEGINS with the Presidents proposal. During the bush* admin, Congress passed budgets with less spending than bush* asked for

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Disingenuous...and you are better than that Maggie.

Ammednemnts that amnount to little or nothing are irrelevant.

Major issues and suggestions of the GOP were completely ignored.

Many of the GOP smaller ammenedments were for show so people like you can toss it around in a debate.

She won't get it. She hasn't gotten the comprehension skills to see past her democratic liberal views.

Ammednemnts that amnount to little or nothing are irrelevant.

WHy are the republicans offering amendments that are irrelevant? I guess it's the dems fault, right?

This is the part that is beyond her comprehension skills

Many of the GOP smaller ammenedments were for show so people like you can toss it around in a debate.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Given Obama's agenda.... I say don't work with him. Don't give him one damn inch.

"I hope he fails"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That basically means nothing. The direction of the country is led by the president, and Congress reacts accordingly. Spending has risen exponentially from the 6.9% of GDP at the start of the 20th century as the country's population expanded and modernized due to industrialization.

Congress controls spending to president doesn't.

The agenda is driven by the president, no matter who it is. Why do you think we have presidential elections every four years?

However no mater how hard the president tries, if congress doesn't want it it's dead in the water.

 

[sangha]

She won't get it. She hasn't gotten the comprehension skills to see past her democratic liberal views.

Ammednemnts that amnount to little or nothing are irrelevant.

WHy are the republicans offering amendments that are irrelevant? I guess it's the dems fault, right?

This is the part that is beyond her comprehension skills

Many of the GOP smaller ammenedments were for show so people like you can toss it around in a debate.

Even the wingnuts admit the republicans are playing politics with people's health care.

Why did the GOP want people to toss their irrelevant ideas around in a debate?

And I bet you can't describe just one of these irrelevant ideas the repukes proposed in order to get people to toss it around in debate

 

[MaggieMae]

Obama has bent himself into a pretzel trying to work with the Republican Party and in the process alienated many of the democrats. It's just nonsense that the democrats controlled both houses for two years and because Obama had to "work" in a "bipartisan" way with the Republicans, very little got done, people got mad, and changed it up. And now...again...nothing will happen while the Republicans hold us hostage and Obama dithers around. Good grief.

I'm disappointed too. Obama continues to believe these little "meetings" with Republican leadership will lead to at least agreeing to disagree and begin working on the disparate problems in earnest from there. But as soon as they leave the room, they grab a mike and start just saying no, again. It's all bullshit fakery by McConnell, Boehner, et al., and it really IS time for Obama to just give them a genuine smackdown. If they continue to obstruct by demanding that the wealthy tax cuts remain in place, Obama should just let the tax cuts expire. Period. That'll learn 'em.

Putting aside the political rhetoric...

Exactly why should any American be given something that another American is not given?

As I said earlier.....the wealthy have the right to welfare, but their income does not allow for ir.

So why should the less wealthy get a tax cut but not the wealthy?

This is America...all have equal rights and liberties.

What you are suggesting is legislation that ONLY affects one group of people....

That's why a flat or fair tax continues to be supported. As far as income bracketing, that system reaches back to 1913, so even back then, Congress must have recognized that there would not be enough revenue to protect ALL citizens without requiring the wealthier to pay a bigger share of the tax burden.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why are you lying? The democrats controlled the house and senate and did not need to be bipartisan. The democrats killed themself not the republicans.

Don't be so naive. Democrats, for one thing, unlike Republicans when they have a majority, never vote in lockstep. Ever. They also continued to try to draw in bipartisan support. How many actually know that Republican amendments included in the health care bill numbered 161? Yet, you continue to hear/read that Republicans were SHUT OUT, or that the Dems RAMMED THROUGH health care with no Republican input.

Disingenuous...and you are better than that Maggie.

Ammednemnts that amnount to little or nothing are irrelevant.

Major issues and suggestions of the GOP were completely ignored.

Many of the GOP smaller ammenedments were for show so people like you can toss it around in a debate.

I see you've followed the Republican talking points very well.

Slate examines the GOP amendments to a Senate health care bill. - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim—as they are now, in fact, claiming—that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.

If you go to that link, I believe there is an updated link to the Excel spread sheet which shows all of the amendments. In the meantime, here are some significant ones:

Review of a few of the Republican initiatives included in legislation passed by Congress:

•Includes personal responsibility incentives: Allows health insurance premium to vary based on participation in proven employer wellness programs

•Advances medical liability reform through grants to States: Provides grants to States to jump-start and evaluate promising medical liability reform ideas to put patient safety first, prevent medical errors, and reduce liability premiums.

•Extends dependent coverage to age 26: Gives young adults new options.

•Allows automatic enrollment by employers in health insurance: Allows employee to opt-out.

•Mechanisms to improve quality.
◦(Sources: H.R. 4529, “Roadmap for America’s Future Act;” S. 1099, “Patients’ Choice Act;” H.R. 3400, Republican Study Group bill; S. 1783, “Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act” (Enzi bill))

•Community Mental Health Centers. The President’s Proposal ensures that individuals have access to comprehensive mental health services in the community setting, but strengthens standards for facilities that seek reimbursement as community mental health centers by ensuring these facilities are providing appropriate care and not taking advantage of Medicare patients or the taxpayers. (Source: H.R. 3970, “Medical Rights & Reform Act”)

 

[MaggieMae]

She won't get it. She hasn't gotten the comprehension skills to see past her democratic liberal views.

Ammednemnts that amnount to little or nothing are irrelevant.

WHy are the republicans offering amendments that are irrelevant? I guess it's the dems fault, right?

This is the part that is beyond her comprehension skills

Many of the GOP smaller ammenedments were for show so people like you can toss it around in a debate.

How about you try to "comprehend" exactly what happened, big shot? That blurb is a TALKING POINT, which lemmings like you fall for every time. I'm still hearing from people like you that the Dems "rammed through" health care reform, although it was debated for nearly a year. "Rammed through" is another TALKING POINT only heard in the right wing noise medium.

 

[sangha]

Ammednemnts that amnount to little or nothing are irrelevant.

WHy are the republicans offering amendments that are irrelevant? I guess it's the dems fault, right?

This is the part that is beyond her comprehension skills

Many of the GOP smaller ammenedments were for show so people like you can toss it around in a debate.

How about you try to "comprehend" exactly what happened, big shot? That blurb is a TALKING POINT, which lemmings like you fall for every time. I'm still hearing from people like you that the Dems "rammed through" health care reform, although it was debated for nearly a year. "Rammed through" is another TALKING POINT only heard in the right wing noise medium.

Wingnuts don't do comprehension. All they can do is repeat their mindless slogans

 

[MaggieMae]

Congress controls spending to president doesn't.

The agenda is driven by the president, no matter who it is. Why do you think we have presidential elections every four years?

However no mater how hard the president tries, if congress doesn't want it it's dead in the water.

Yay! You got one right. It's called SEPARATION OF POWERS.

 

[MaggieMae]

Ammednemnts that amnount to little or nothing are irrelevant.

WHy are the republicans offering amendments that are irrelevant? I guess it's the dems fault, right?

This is the part that is beyond her comprehension skills

Many of the GOP smaller ammenedments were for show so people like you can toss it around in a debate.

Even the wingnuts admit the republicans are playing politics with people's health care.

Why did the GOP want people to toss their irrelevant ideas around in a debate?

And I bet you can't describe just one of these irrelevant ideas the repukes proposed in order to get people to toss it around in debate

Well to be fair, they did offer a few that were already in the bill!

Ezra Klein - The six Republican ideas already in the health-care reform bill

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is the part that is beyond her comprehension skills

How about you try to "comprehend" exactly what happened, big shot? That blurb is a TALKING POINT, which lemmings like you fall for every time. I'm still hearing from people like you that the Dems "rammed through" health care reform, although it was debated for nearly a year. "Rammed through" is another TALKING POINT only heard in the right wing noise medium.

Wingnuts don't do comprehension. All they can do is repeat their mindless slogans

Everybody is a wingnut even you asswipe.

 

[MaggieMae]

Here are some general points I'd like to make about health care reform:

First, I never did walk in lockstep with the health reform bill. Anyone who wants to do some backtracking will know that from my comments for over a year. Any arguments I made were almost all over interpretations of language in the various draft bills as they made their way through Congress. Some of those interpretations were so bizarre, people had to be set straight. (And that's what I do )

I do not like the way the final version was signed into law and I've said so many times. It is too entangled, and because of that, the opportunity for too many loopholes and unworkable provisions are far more than just a possibility, what with so many provisions overlapping and dependent on each other. I have a strong feeling that the government will be issuing an awful lot of waivers to businesses as they wade through the myriad provisions regarding their qualifications and requirements.

It should have stayed a straight-forward proposal for universal coverage, or an extension of Medicare, which would have been a much cleaner approach to debate, and for the public to understand the debate. Changing horses in midstream, bowing to a Republican mantra that universal coverage equals Socialism, and thus creating a bill all about private insurance coverage instead was at first embraced by the insurance industry. But not for long. When the insurance lobby realized that the switch to private insurance coverage required the mandate of all-in, they withdrew their support and began spending big bucks to defeat the bill.

Unfortunately for all of us, our health is a very personal thing, and so this issue was bound to be the most controversial of the century. For that reason, I also think it could have been accomplished in parts, with the more complicated segments brought to debate as separate amendments or even new bills.

The result of health care reform being adopted as one big fat package doesn't sit well with a lot of Americans, who can only see the downside as long as they're healthy, and are not looking at the upside should their personal health take a dramatic and costly change for the worse. For that reason, Obama risked a great deal of his political capital, so only time will tell if that risk was worth the grief or not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here are some general points I'd like to make about health care reform:

First, I never did walk in lockstep with the health reform bill. Anyone who wants to do some backtracking will know that from my comments for over a year. Any arguments I made were almost all over interpretations of language in the various draft bills as they made their way through Congress. Some of those interpretations were so bizarre, people had to be set straight. (And that's what I do )

I do not like the way the final version was signed into law and I've said so many times. It is too entangled, and because of that, the opportunity for too many loopholes and unworkable provisions are far more than just a possibility, what with so many provisions overlapping and dependent on each other. I have a strong feeling that the government will be issuing an awful lot of waivers to businesses as they wade through the myriad provisions regarding their qualifications and requirements.

It should have stayed a straight-forward proposal for universal coverage, or an extension of Medicare, which would have been a much cleaner approach to debate, and for the public to understand the debate. Changing horses in midstream, bowing to a Republican mantra that universal coverage equals Socialism, and thus creating a bill all about private insurance coverage instead was at first embraced by the insurance industry. But not for long. When the insurance lobby realized that the switch to private insurance coverage required the mandate of all-in, they withdrew their support and began spending big bucks to defeat the bill.

Unfortunately for all of us, our health is a very personal thing, and so this issue was bound to be the most controversial of the century. For that reason, I also think it could have been accomplished in parts, with the more complicated segments brought to debate as separate amendments or even new bills.

The result of health care reform being adopted as one big fat package doesn't sit well with a lot of Americans, who can only see the downside as long as they're healthy, and are not looking at the upside should their personal health take a dramatic and costly change for the worse. For that reason, Obama risked a great deal of his political capital, so only time will tell if that risk was worth the grief or not.

Plain simple horse shit. Government controlled healthcare does lead you down the road to total government control. You don't think it will be free do you? Once the government starts giving people healthcare they will also start giving demands on what you can and cannot do, eat and drink.

 

[sangha]

Here are some general points I'd like to make about health care reform:

First, I never did walk in lockstep with the health reform bill. Anyone who wants to do some backtracking will know that from my comments for over a year. Any arguments I made were almost all over interpretations of language in the various draft bills as they made their way through Congress. Some of those interpretations were so bizarre, people had to be set straight. (And that's what I do )

I do not like the way the final version was signed into law and I've said so many times. It is too entangled, and because of that, the opportunity for too many loopholes and unworkable provisions are far more than just a possibility, what with so many provisions overlapping and dependent on each other. I have a strong feeling that the government will be issuing an awful lot of waivers to businesses as they wade through the myriad provisions regarding their qualifications and requirements.

It should have stayed a straight-forward proposal for universal coverage, or an extension of Medicare, which would have been a much cleaner approach to debate, and for the public to understand the debate. Changing horses in midstream, bowing to a Republican mantra that universal coverage equals Socialism, and thus creating a bill all about private insurance coverage instead was at first embraced by the insurance industry. But not for long. When the insurance lobby realized that the switch to private insurance coverage required the mandate of all-in, they withdrew their support and began spending big bucks to defeat the bill.

Unfortunately for all of us, our health is a very personal thing, and so this issue was bound to be the most controversial of the century. For that reason, I also think it could have been accomplished in parts, with the more complicated segments brought to debate as separate amendments or even new bills.

The result of health care reform being adopted as one big fat package doesn't sit well with a lot of Americans, who can only see the downside as long as they're healthy, and are not looking at the upside should their personal health take a dramatic and costly change for the worse. For that reason, Obama risked a great deal of his political capital, so only time will tell if that risk was worth the grief or not.

Plain simple horse shit. Government controlled healthcare does lead you down the road to total government control. You don't think it will be free do you? Once the government starts giving people healthcare they will also start giving demands on what you can and cannot do, eat and drink.

Like I said, wingnuts don't do anything but mindlessly repeat their slogans

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here are some general points I'd like to make about health care reform:

First, I never did walk in lockstep with the health reform bill. Anyone who wants to do some backtracking will know that from my comments for over a year. Any arguments I made were almost all over interpretations of language in the various draft bills as they made their way through Congress. Some of those interpretations were so bizarre, people had to be set straight. (And that's what I do )

I do not like the way the final version was signed into law and I've said so many times. It is too entangled, and because of that, the opportunity for too many loopholes and unworkable provisions are far more than just a possibility, what with so many provisions overlapping and dependent on each other. I have a strong feeling that the government will be issuing an awful lot of waivers to businesses as they wade through the myriad provisions regarding their qualifications and requirements.

It should have stayed a straight-forward proposal for universal coverage, or an extension of Medicare, which would have been a much cleaner approach to debate, and for the public to understand the debate. Changing horses in midstream, bowing to a Republican mantra that universal coverage equals Socialism, and thus creating a bill all about private insurance coverage instead was at first embraced by the insurance industry. But not for long. When the insurance lobby realized that the switch to private insurance coverage required the mandate of all-in, they withdrew their support and began spending big bucks to defeat the bill.

Unfortunately for all of us, our health is a very personal thing, and so this issue was bound to be the most controversial of the century. For that reason, I also think it could have been accomplished in parts, with the more complicated segments brought to debate as separate amendments or even new bills.

The result of health care reform being adopted as one big fat package doesn't sit well with a lot of Americans, who can only see the downside as long as they're healthy, and are not looking at the upside should their personal health take a dramatic and costly change for the worse. For that reason, Obama risked a great deal of his political capital, so only time will tell if that risk was worth the grief or not.

Plain simple horse shit. Government controlled healthcare does lead you down the road to total government control. You don't think it will be free do you? Once the government starts giving people healthcare they will also start giving demands on what you can and cannot do, eat and drink.

Like I said, wingnuts don't do anything but mindlessly repeat their slogans

everybody's a wingnut even you asswipe.

 

[sangha]

Plain simple horse shit. Government controlled healthcare does lead you down the road to total government control. You don't think it will be free do you? Once the government starts giving people healthcare they will also start giving demands on what you can and cannot do, eat and drink.

Like I said, wingnuts don't do anything but mindlessly repeat their slogans

everybody's a wingnut even you asswipe.

In wingnut world, the French govt tells the french what they can eat and drink