All the House GOP and the President - what an unfair advantage!!!

[The Rabbi]

[Correction: The Republicans were not able to do anything. The Democrats could have passed whatever they wanted.

The Republicans could have stopped the stimulus package, but they didn't. Why are they now complaining about it?

Here's a better question: Why have so many openly celebrated it when they trashed it before it got passed?

Who is "openly celebrating it"??

 

[NYcarbineer]

Has anyone yet figure out that Obama really didn't say anything?

He said plenty. That's why Foxnews went dark on it.

No. Darkwind was right. The President said nothing. He used quite a few words to get there, but when he got there, he was nowhere. Why? Because, getting past your partisan but dishonest spin, he actually didn't say anything.

FoxNews did cover it, but not in the same fawning manner as MSLSD. Thus, they were clear enough in their thinking to break away from the non-news story. By sickening contrast, MSLSD is still having ograsms. I don't think it's just a thrill running UP the leg of those hacks.

Partisan spin? Mary Matalin just said on CNN that the president did GREAT. lol, you don't get more partisan than her, is that the kind of partisan spin you're talking about?

And btw, do you think that MSNBC rerunning this several times and Foxnews trying to pretend it never happened means that the President did poorly?

How on earth would you conclude that? It's profoundly illogical.

 

[Murf76]

Here's a better question: Why have so many openly celebrated it when they trashed it before it got passed?

Who was it specifically that "celebrated it"?

Obama referred to Republican as attending "ribbon-cuttings", so who all should we send our thoughts on the matter? Were all these "ribbon-cuttings" fully funded by Porkulus? ... or were some partially funded?

 

[Murf76]

Yup.

There was an rticle recently that said something like, "The Dems will at least not have to worry about maintaining a filibuster-proof majority after the next midterm elections". In reality, they won't lose what they never really had.

Has Joe been put out of the Democrat's caucus, then? What about Sanders? Has he likewise been tossed overboard?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who votes with the Democratics on almost any and all liberal social agenda bills. So, naturally, the liberal Democratics did have 60 votes. They count the Socialist, too.

But you already knew this when you posted your intentionally deceptive blather.

Lieberman is not a Democrat. He defeated a Democrat to get re-elected. He got 70% of the Republican vote in CT to get re-elected. He endorsed John McCain for president.

How many times do you suppose I'll have to knock you on the head with that before it gets through?

Who was Al Gore's running mate on the Democratic Party ticket in 2000? SOme guy from CT, right?

Yeah, and Ronald Reagan was once an FDR Democrat and a union boss.

What's your point?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a better question: Why have so many openly celebrated it when they trashed it before it got passed?

Who was it specifically that "celebrated it"?

Obama referred to Republican as attending "ribbon-cuttings", so who all should we send our thoughts on the matter? Were all these "ribbon-cuttings" fully funded by Porkulus? ... or were some partially funded?

Yeah, at the partially funded ribbon cuttings, the GOP'ers only cut partially through the ribbon.

 

[Misty]

IMHO Obama is a robot and republicans are whimps.

But as I always say, the less the government does the better.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Correction: The Republicans were not able to do anything. The Democrats could have passed whatever they wanted. But they were unable to persuade even such a reliable Dem vote as Olympia Snowe, much less their own members, to vote for a plan that was a clear loser and massively unpopular.
I dont know why the left continues with this fiction that Republicans blocked anything. But I do know the more they bang that drum, the more unpopular they become with a public that knows the truth.

The Democrats never had 60 votes. Lieberman is an Independent.

Yup.

There was an rticle recently that said something like, "The Dems will at least not have to worry about maintaining a filibuster-proof majority after the next midterm elections". In reality, they won't lose what they never really had.

Plenty of people are to blame for perpetuating the 60 vote myth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Dems will pull the 50 plus 1 option in the Senate if they have to. There is nothing sacred about it, simply procedural. I hope we Pubs get on board and help govern.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Republicans could have stopped the stimulus package, but they didn't. Why are they now complaining about it?

Here's a better question: Why have so many openly celebrated it when they trashed it before it got passed?

Who is "openly celebrating it"??

Here's a fairly long list of GOP'ers touting the stimulus they voted against.

Think Progress Blocking The Recovery While Reaping Its Benefits

 

[Liability]

The Dems will pull the 50 plus 1 option in the Senate if they have to. There is nothing sacred about it, simply procedural. I hope we Pubs get on board and help govern.

Spoken like the liberoidal Democratic we all realize you are.

You are partly right, though.

Your real political Party, the Democrat Parody, CAN, if you dopes are so inclined, get that miserable Marxist bill (in some version) passed via the "reconciliation" route.

There is unlikely to be an Republican support for it, however, since the people have made their opposition all too well known.

You liberoidal Democratics may rush headlong, like the lemmings you are, over that cliff. But there's no virtue in any Republican joining in with them.

And by the way, Jokey, Republicans are unlikely to be taking any advice from a liberoidal Democratic such as you.

 

[Murf76]

Here's a better question: Why have so many openly celebrated it when they trashed it before it got passed?

Who was it specifically that "celebrated it"?

Obama referred to Republican as attending "ribbon-cuttings", so who all should we send our thoughts on the matter? Were all these "ribbon-cuttings" fully funded by Porkulus? ... or were some partially funded?

Yeah, at the partially funded ribbon cuttings, the GOP'ers only cut partially through the ribbon.

Again... Who were the Republicans who participated?... and at what specific events?

 

[EriktheRed]

"Independents" are a diverse and fickle group. For example, while polls do indicate the current HC Bill as crafted isn't popular, there's still a question of what percentage of those polled are dissatisfied with it because it goes too far and what percentage feel it doesn't go far enough. Furthermore, there were polls that showed that the public option was one of the more popular proposals. Not exactly consistent with a public that's supposed to believe the Prez and his party are a bunch of America-hating commies.

I'm not dismissing the recent electoral victories by the GOP, but in two states (namely NJ and MA) there's still a question of how much was due to dissatisfaction with the Prez and the Dems and how much was for the Dem candidate in particular. In regards to Mass, btw, you might find Scott Brown to be quite a RINO in the end. His state still reportedly likes their own public healthcare system, after all. IOW, Massachusetts is still Massachusetts.

And as for all the things you listed as "attractions"...well, that's one way to look at it, I guess. Not everyone sees these things through that kind of filter, though. I'm guessing the Prez is taking the chance that enough people aren't so far gone into Beckland to listen to reason, though. And I'd say this week he did a damn good job of stating his case by reminding both sides of the aisle that it ain't November yet.

Think about it, Eric. If they were so sure of themselves... they'd have simply passed the damn thing. There didn't need a single Republican to do it. Politicians only have one skill in common... that's getting themselves and keeping themselves in office. They're not equipped to run banks and car companies. But the one thing they do well... is reading the mood of the people.

They KNOW that America doesn't want this. They can tell by the protests, and the polls, and the election results, and the phone calls to their offices. Otherwise, they'd have simply passed the damn thing in a matter of weeks.

I know very well that they haven't been sure of themselves and I know very well, too, that as politicians they're gonna worry about their bottom lines (they're jobs, IOW). I also know that some Dems are not going to be near as receptive to doing this as others because they live in constituencies which are more conservative. Both parties have had that problem with some members and you can be assured that if the GOP takes the House in November they're gonna have the same problem again, too. We already saw that in '06.

I also know, though, that they were blindsided by a well-organized attack machine which they haven't done well to counter, and that has contributed to their insecurities. I find it very hard to believe, though, that all of a sudden all independents who supported this President when he was running for office - and still had a high approval of him when he started last year - but are now against him are expressing disapproval because they suddenly decided that they're totally anti-government and no longer support any kind of public solution to the HC problem or any others.

Now, I know that most people outside of forumland don't follow these things as much as we do, but one thing President Obama ran partially on was a publicly-financed solution to the HC problem and the Dems in general have been advocating for public solutions to the problem for a long time now and in the last two elections they were given the keys to power by the American people. Therefore, I don't find it all realistic to think that public opinion has shifted so dramatically - even with the huge economic crisis we have - just because so many people have now decided they think government solutions shouldn't be tried. IOW, I believe it's very possible that despite words to the contrary, passing the current bill (as flawed as it is) will see an uptick in approval for the Prez (if not Dems as a whole), rather than a downturn. They will have shown that they could deliver in the end despite the efforts against it. That, in turn, can boost other measures the Prez is pushing, like financial reform.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here's a better question: Why have so many openly celebrated it when they trashed it before it got passed?

Who is "openly celebrating it"??

Here's a fairly long list of GOP'ers touting the stimulus they voted against.

Think Progress Blocking The Recovery While Reaping Its Benefits

Unfortunately your article (appearing in a self-styled "progressive" blog) doesnt support what you say.
Sorry. Epic FAIL.

 

[Bfgrn]

Let's start HERE...tell me where the President you FEAR is wrong...

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

______________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 3, 2009
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO
SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY AND SENATOR MAX BAUCUS

June 2, 2009
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
The Honorable Max Baucus
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Kennedy and Senator Baucus:

The meeting that we held today was very productive and I want to commend you for your leadership -- and the hard work your Committees are doing on health care reform, one of the most urgent and important challenges confronting us as a Nation.

In 2009, health care reform is not a luxury. It's a necessity we cannot defer. Soaring health care costs make our current course unsustainable. It is unsustainable for our families, whose spiraling premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are pushing them into bankruptcy and forcing them to go without the checkups and prescriptions they need. It is unsustainable for businesses, forcing more and more of them to choose between keeping their doors open or covering their workers. And the ever-increasing cost of Medicare and Medicaid are among the main drivers of enormous budget deficits that are threatening our economic future.

In short, the status quo is broken, and pouring money into a broken system only perpetuates its inefficiencies. Doing nothing would only put our entire health care system at risk. Without meaningful reform, one fifth of our economy is projected to be tied up in our health care system in 10 years; millions more Americans are expected to go without insurance; and outside of what they are receiving for health care, workers are projected to see their take-home pay actually fall over time.

Here, Obama invokes his consistent belief that MORE GOVERNMENT is always the answer. Medicare/Medicaid are government programs under Congress' authority. In his opening statement, he's claiming authority over the entire private system. He has a point that there are problems which will eventually affect the American economy, but as we'll see later, with Obamacare's employer mandates and its failure to reform Medicare/Medicaid... the economy isn't his priority.


Here, he tells us that a good number of the people he's been demonizing, like insurance companies and big business, are actually in bed with him.


Here, he tells us of his intent to ration through "best practices". Bear in mind that costs CANNOT be controlled unless controls are actually put in place. The word "promoting" is misleading. Voluntary measures don't control costs.


You did hear that the Mayo Clinic in Arizona is turning away Medicare patients, didn't you? It turns out, the government isn't paying enough.


This is the crux of the plan. And it's never made sense. For one thing, a single public option is NOT "competition". Not when you could open up the market and have something like 1300 companies "competing" practically overnight. That was alway a red herring. The private insurers would shit themselves.

For another, placing mandates upon private insurers as to what services they'll be forced to cover is what drives the costs of policies UP. When you compare State by State, those who require more services cost more. THIS is the mechanism by which the young in our country are forced to subsidize the old.

A young, unmarried man of 25 in good health, doesn't need a comprehensive policy. The insurers will pay out very little for him. Hell, it's unlikely that he'll bother to show up for any "preventative" care. He might go to the doctor once or twice a year, and unless he has a catastrophic illness or injury, two visits and a course of antibiotics are likely to cost him less than $400.00. If, we put an arbitrary price on insurance, say $200.00 per month... the insurance costs him $1,200.00.

Don't you ever wonder WHY the only squeak we've heard from these private insurers during this whole process was when they found out that the "taxes" under the individual mandate were less than the cost of insurance? They WANT these youngsters in their risk pools.



Here are the individual and employer mandates. And it puts the lie to Obama's earlier concern about the economy. This letter was dated in June 2009. By then, the collapse had already happened. Providing a predictable business climate in which jobs and economic growth could happen should have been the priority. We needed to be moving AWAY from the concept of third-party payers. Nobody cares what their benefits cost when someone else is paying the bill.

In paragraph 1, he tells us, "It is unsustainable for businesses, forcing more and more of them to choose between keeping their doors open or covering their workers." And yet, he continues to demand the burden be carried by employers.

He also let's us know that he's looking for a place to dump small business and the poor. This was where his "public option" was going to get its numbers. It was Harkin's "starter house" for socialist medicine. Even without the "pubic option", he doesn't have any way to pay for this. That's why we're hearing governors complaining about the additional costs being passed to the States.

You'd think private insurers would've been making some noise about his intent to cap the costs of policies. "But I believe if we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable." The fact that they didn't, should tell you how high the caps are promised to be.



To begin with... the idea that any of his ideas for payment would work out as predicted is ludicrous. No social programs EVER come in on, or under, budget. That's just plain history.

The whole REASON why AARP jumped in with him, was to kill Medicare Advantage. AARP is an INSURANCE COMPANY. They may have started out as a lobbying group for seniors, but they make their money selling supplemental insurance. You can't see what's going on, unless you look at what's available for gain. AARP is using our federal government to ax their competitors. It's blatant Corporatism.

Further, the words, "waste, fraud, and abuse" are designed to make us believe they're only going to be trimming the fat. We hear the phrase, "waste, fraud, and abuse" and our minds only process "fraud". Think about who it is that will determine what is "waste"? Think about who it is that decides what is "abuse"?


More rationing for seniors. Plus the unconstitutional seizure of our medical records as "new techologies". This should TELL YOU that Comparative Effectiveness Research is a rationing tool. Who decides what is "unnecessary"?

To identify and achieve additional savings, I am also open to your ideas about giving special consideration to the recommendations of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), a commission created by a Republican Congress. Under this approach, MedPAC's recommendations on cost reductions would be adopted unless opposed by a joint resolution of the Congress. This is similar to a process that has been used effectively by a commission charged with closing military bases, and could be a valuable tool to help achieve health care reform in a fiscally responsible way.
These are some of the issues I look forward to discussing with you in greater detail in the weeks and months ahead. But this year, we must do more than discuss. We must act. The American people and America's future demand it.

This is a bypass of the Legislature's authority. He knows reductions to Medicare will be unpopular with voters. He wants a third party to pin it on.

I know that you have reached out to Republican colleagues, as I have, and that you have worked hard to reach a bipartisan consensus about many of these issues. I remain hopeful that many Republicans will join us in enacting this historic legislation that will lower health care costs for families, businesses, and governments, and improve the lives of millions of Americans. So, I appreciate your efforts, and look forward to working with you so that the Congress can complete health care reform by October.
Sincerely,
BARACK OBAMA
# # #

Letter from President Obama to Chairmen Edward M. Kennedy and Max Baucus | The White House

This last is vague. Almost as if he's touching upon something that we're not privy too. Teddy was dead by August, and this was just a few months prior. It could be that Obama didn't know how sick he was and wanted him to pressure some Republicans. Although, its hard to believe the family kept it from him. But then again, Kennedy's last known public appearance was in early August, so we can assume he was at least ambulatory until that time. Who knows?



Anyway, I'm glad you posted that letter. It may seem benign on its surface, but it's chock full of the intent for presumptuous government expansion and shed light on who the players really are.

Actually, the only thing your comments reveal is YOU...when someone has the audacity to profess they know another man's intentions and then proceeds to dissect benign words and create malignancy and 'code'... the malignancy and 'code' revealed are clear, in YOU...

Here's a thought for you to ponder... what did our founding fathers create? What entity was their instrument and mechanism to address the general welfare of We, the people? Corporations?

The letter you just trashed could have just as easily been written by President Thomas Jefferson or President James Madison...

Our founding fathers had a pretty keen understanding of human nature, justice and what causes INjustice. But even a simple understanding would allow someone to see that FOR PROFIT health insurance corporations are NOT and never will be in the health CARE business. They are in the PROFIT business. That mechanism immediately creates a built in conflict where people are rewarded, praised and ascend in the company FOR rationing and denial of coverage. There is no need to even look for human foible...

If you understand that the Boston Tea Party was really a revolt against the corporate crimes of the multinational East India Company, President Thomas Jefferson or President James Madison's letter to Senators would have called for direct and swift government intervention.

American Rebellions

 

[Murf76]

I know very well that they haven't been sure of themselves and I know very well, too, that as politicians they're gonna worry about their bottom lines (they're jobs, IOW). I also know that some Dems are not going to be near as receptive to doing this as others because they live in constituencies which are more conservative. Both parties have had that problem with some members and you can be assured that if the GOP takes the House in November they're gonna have the same problem again, too. We already saw that in '06.

I also know, though, that they were blindsided by a well-organized attack machine which they haven't done well to counter, and that has contributed to their insecurities. I find it very hard to believe, though, that all of a sudden all independents who supported this President when he was running for office - and still had a high approval of him when he started last year - but are now against him are expressing disapproval because they suddenly decided that they're totally anti-government and no longer support any kind of public solution to the HC problem or any others.

Now, I know that most people outside of forumland don't follow these things as much as we do, but one thing President Obama ran partially on was a publicly-financed solution to the HC problem and the Dems in general have been advocating for public solutions to the problem for a long time now and in the last two elections they were given the keys to power by the American people. Therefore, I don't find it all realistic to think that public opinion has shifted so dramatically - even with the huge economic crisis we have - just because so many people have now decided they think government solutions shouldn't be tried. IOW, I believe it's very possible that despite words to the contrary, passing the current bill (as flawed as it is) will see an uptick in approval for the Prez (if not Dems as a whole), rather than a downturn. They will have shown that they could deliver in the end despite the efforts against it. That, in turn, can boost other measures the Prez is pushing, like financial reform.

C'mon. The Republican Party this past year couldn't have organized a small rummage sale, let alone field a "well-organized attack machine". The bottom line is that it's THE PLAN that sucks. Obama still hasn't lost his personal popularity among independents according to most polls. It's his policies they don't like.

Sometimes... it's just a crappy plan. This is NOT what he talked about on the campaign trail. What he talked about was pretty simple... making it possible for everyday Americans to have access to the same insurance choices that Congress has. What it sounded like, was letting average citizens in on the "group rate", rather than overhauling our entire healthcare industry to the tune of trillions and putting it under the federal government's thumb..

Obamacare is a disaster. Democrats will continue at their own peril. Because they work for us... not the other way around. If they go forward, they will indeed be jamming it down our throats. And they'll pay at the polls for their temerity.

For 15 minutes, explore the possibility that the Republican "attack machine" is not responsible for poisoning people's minds and that Americans are indeed thinking for themselves. And if you do... you'll see the danger to Democrats.

 

[Murf76]

Actually, the only thing your comments reveal is YOU...when someone has the audacity to profess they know another man's intentions and then proceeds to dissect benign words and create malignancy and 'code'... the malignancy and 'code' revealed are clear, in YOU...

Here's a thought for you to ponder... what did our founding fathers create? What entity was their instrument and mechanism to address the general welfare of We, the people? Corporations?

The letter you just trashed could have just as easily been written by President Thomas Jefferson or President James Madison...

Our founding fathers had a pretty keen understanding of human nature, justice and what causes INjustice. But even a simple understanding would allow someone to see that FOR PROFIT health insurance corporations are NOT and never will be in the health CARE business. They are in the PROFIT business. That mechanism immediately creates a built in conflict where people are rewarded, praised and ascend in the company FOR rationing and denial of coverage. There is no need to even look for human foible...

If you understand that the Boston Tea Party was really a revolt against the corporate crimes of the multinational East India Company, President Thomas Jefferson or President James Madison's letter to Senators would have called for direct and swift government intervention.

American Rebellions

Next time just stick out your tongue and give us a rousing "Nuh-uh!". It'll save you some typing and be more to the point.

You've got quite the double-standard going on here, whereby I'm supposed to provide you a detailed analysis, but you're not required to address any of the points raised.

You've got a good bit of nebulous complaint about "corporations" and "insurance cartels", but nothing to say about the fact that they're in up to their ears on Obamacare, nothing to say about the fact that THEY are the beneficiaries of increases to the risk pools. IOW... if you're supporting Obamacare, YOU are the one supporting the very thing you appear to despise, not I. If it was up to me, these bastards would take it out to the free market where bad business practices mean corporate ruin.

Oh... and the "for-profit" rant... is another reason why normal people think you liberals are socialists. The profit motive drives innovation and quality in a competitive market. And while there are some really good non-profit organizations out there, usually religious or charity-based... we don't want theAmerican healthcare system in anyways resembling the usual government-run, not-for-proofit service model ala the U.S post office or state motor vehicle department.

 

[jillian]

Cameras Roll As Obama Schools GOP

It's the Huff, but the best I could find at the moment.

And of course there is this:

Twitter / Luke Russert: GOP aides telling me it wa ...

GOP aides telling me it was a mistake to allow cameras into Obama's QA with GOP members. Allowed BO to refute GOP for 1.5 hours on TV

FWIW, John Boehner called it a "good Q&A"
John Boehner (johnboehner) on Twitter

 

[EriktheRed]

Wanna make one thing clear, btw: I'm not saying I believe the Prez's recent performance is a game-changer. I really don't know how effective this will be.

To repeat what I've said elsewhere, using baseball terminology, I think the Prez definitely got a hit. Only time will tell, though, what kind of hit it really is. For all we know, it might just be an infield single that fails to advance any other runners (like the HC Bill, which is on third).

What I'm happy about is he did what he had to do under the circumstances. He didn't go into the SOTU like a wounded lion. He acknowledged the setbacks that have happened recently for him and his party and even acknowledged that he himself was partially to blame. But he also explained why he believed the measures he was pushing are still worthwhile to pursue and that he wasn't backing down. He also did well reminding the American public about what kind of policies came before him and what a good many of them voted against when they put him in office. Could you also call it "Bush-bashing"? Sure. It was justified, though.

Most importantly, he reminded both sides of the aisle that November is still nine months away and one side needs to not let the recent electoral setbacks spook them into inaction on a critical piece of legislation and the other side better not let these elections make them think that they're already in control.


As for Friday, a few times he did duck and weave and as I admitted earlier, his claim that he never said that the Repubs had no ideas wasn't really true. Nevertheless he also did a great job in explaining why so many of their ideas were crap, not to mention pointing out their own hypocrisy and taking them to task for some of the rhetoric that they (and their media mouthpieces) used against him and his ideas.


Overall, that's why I believe he kicked some major ass this week.

 

[Modbert]

FWIW, John Boehner called it a "good Q&A"
John Boehner (johnboehner) on Twitter

I've always wondered what his tan bill is per month.