You have to admit that it’s at least a tad bit comical that the right painted this as Obama’s waterloo and as the issue that will break his back and kill his momentum, etc., etc., and then the bill still passes.

So if NOT passing it would have been Obama’s waterloo, what, by their own rhetoric, is the corollary metaphor for passing it?

It’s times like this I wish i were batshit insane and slightly delusional, like a tea-partier, so I can make grand statements like the republicans are communists that want to destroy the nation, and seem serious about it.

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 9:00 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2010 8:57:16 PM

yeah, I'll give Obama props for gettin this piece of shit through. he can actually hang up a big banner with "Mission Accomplished" now

3/22/2010 9:15:54 PM

There are incentives for more use of preventative healthcare and less waiting until problems balloon up & having to use the ER which costs us all more in the long run. There are some fairness issues like domestic violence is no longer being a pre-existing condition and other female biology specific issues that are no longer pre-existing conditions. There are regulations that aim to fight the current practice of insurance companies dropping clients for phony reasons whenever they found out paying for their needed services will cost the money (which kind of defeated the point of having for those ppl w/ insurance). And more small children, as well as young adults will get covered. If you can stay on your 'rents insurance til 26, then you can stay covered between high school & a first job, or college and a first job, or after college for a while if you're having trouble finding a job, or while you're waiting on the probationary period on the job to kick in. And there is no oh so scary government run public option.

If the reality of this reform turns out to be anything short of grandma killing communism, then it beats the lowered expectation bar they unified right & tea party set. And now the GOP doesn't have the waterloo they hoped for in defeating the legislation, instead this is being called a possible waterloo for the GOP.

But while we'll probably have to respectfully agree to disagree on whether or not this is a good bill, I agree with Burro in so far as hanging up the Mission Accomplished banner soon goes, and the congress moving on to work on other things.

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 9:35 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2010 9:26:50 PM

We should check to see if they still have the original "Mission Accomplished" banner in the back somewhere.

3/22/2010 9:30:18 PM

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/plouffe-dares-rove-pull-out-mission-accompli

Rove's been asked to go find it!

3/22/2010 9:40:37 PM

I think I would cry if Rove pulled out the banner. it would be hilarious

3/22/2010 10:06:34 PM

^^ hahahahaha

3/23/2010 11:49:39 AM

supplanter what are the incentives for not using the ER in this bill? Half of the uninsured will be put on medicaid. Seriously, I think you arent paying attention.

THis will, more than likely, increase the visits to ERs.

3/23/2010 11:54:03 AM

New nuclear arms treaty with Russia agreed to today, and we didn't have to give up our missile defense plans in eastern Europe for an agreement. Well done.

3/26/2010 12:58:55 PM

^^It's just going to bankrupt the states even further. That's why some of the states are suing. It's unconstitutional as fuck, and I know Democrats don't give a shit about the constitution, but how can they be so flagrant about it?

I've heard an accusation, and I don't know if it's true. Basically, it's that some Democrats know full well that this bill is going to bankrupt the states, and also drive insurance companies out of business, which will lay the groundwork for a massive, federal-based public option. I hope that isn't true, because if it is, some of the left are far more sinister than I give them credit for. Up to this point, I thought they were just incompetent.

3/26/2010 1:07:40 PM

Dude, liberals have undertaken a vast conspiracy to control every aspect of your life. That's a well known fact. I'm surprised you're just now hearing about this.

3/26/2010 1:37:55 PM

It wouldn't be a conspiracy if I knew about it. I'm not joking about the whole "let's bankrupt the system so we can get what we really want - the public option" thing, though. It would be a strategic move.

3/26/2010 1:39:58 PM

^^^ Wowzers.

3/26/2010 1:55:25 PM

Everyone should want the public option.

I'm tired of insurance companies making billion dollar profits to deny people care. Fuck them.

3/26/2010 2:00:23 PM

^^Just say that no one actually believes that. No need to feign disbelief. I know the end goal is the public option. I just don't know what the Democrat strategy to that point is.

3/26/2010 2:04:12 PM

Quote :

"supplanter what are the incentives for not using the ER in this bill? Half of the uninsured will be put on medicaid. Seriously, I think you arent paying attention. THis will, more than likely, increase the visits to ERs."

we need only look at Massachusetts to see that. You know, the state that had to stop accepting new people in to its plan because its program was insolvent. fuck

Quote :

"I've heard an accusation, and I don't know if it's true. Basically, it's that some Democrats know full well that this bill is going to bankrupt the states, and also drive insurance companies out of business, which will lay the groundwork for a massive, federal-based public option."

and you don't think that's exactly what this thing was from the beginning? The whole point was to destroy insurance companies so that in a couple years the democrats could come in again and bitch and moan about how "the market failed" when they stopped making insurance act like insurance.

[Edited on March 26, 2010 at 7:39 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2010 7:37:42 PM

Quote :

"Basically, it's that some Democrats know full well that this bill is going to bankrupt the states, and also drive insurance companies out of business, which will lay the groundwork for a massive, federal-based public option."

This theory holds as much water as the one suggesting that the Bush II administration waged two unfunded wars and initiated record deficit spending in order to create the need to abolish all social programs.

3/26/2010 10:03:47 PM

considering that Bush has never advocated for getting rid of all the social programs, while dems HAVE advocated for single-payer, it's not as absurd as you might suggest

3/26/2010 10:11:36 PM

I'm not sure the Democratic Party has ever advocated for a single-payer system either.

(as long as we're splitting hairs, here)

3/26/2010 10:14:45 PM

the party? no. candidates? fuck yeah

3/26/2010 10:17:22 PM

Quote :

" initiated record deficit spending "

Too bad that record didnt last long.

And bush expanded entitlements btw.

We are so fucked.

"President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020."

Sounds like another great plan. Stamp "Historic" on it and shove it up our asses.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/

3/26/2010 10:20:42 PM

The economy is going to turn around and thrive under President Obama over the next 7 years and, as Reagan said, "A rising tide lifts all boats" and will refill the coffers that Bush raided.

3/26/2010 10:32:25 PM

I hope you are right, I just dont see it happening.

The bush taxcut helped stop a recession. These new taxes and those expiring are gonna hurt. imo

3/26/2010 10:41:06 PM

Quote :

"The bush taxcut helped stop a recession"

[credible] link?

3/27/2010 2:57:22 PM

GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.

The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quar­ters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

3/27/2010 3:38:36 PM

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

3/27/2010 4:50:51 PM

That was a good episode!

3/27/2010 5:08:28 PM

^^^ then what happened after that?

3/27/2010 5:19:08 PM

Quote :

"That was a good episode!"

Ahahaha my thoughts exactly.

3/27/2010 5:29:35 PM

3/27/2010 5:29:35 PM

Quote :

"then what happened after that? "

You think the housing bubble was bc of the taxcuts? seriously?

Bush's problem was spending. Not the taxcuts. But that looks like child's play now.

[Edited on March 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM. Reason : .]

3/27/2010 5:46:05 PM

Well his justification is just as illogical as your own. Both use post hoc.

[Edited on March 27, 2010 at 5:52 PM. Reason : ]

3/27/2010 5:52:29 PM

in that case Ill just say that democrats got elected and shit went south.

3/27/2010 6:17:51 PM

i hope he blows his load before january when they lose the supermajority.

3/27/2010 8:26:53 PM

^They already don't have a supermajority any more, and health care reform was perhaps the biggest campaign promise that requires legislative approval (unlike say setting a time-table to get out of Iraq) and that has already been completed.

Quote :

"the Health Care Reform campaign promise is delivered, the student loan reform promise is delivered, the president advocates for science in our schools, he support stem cell research, the president ordered a return to the Army Field Manual rather than enhanced torture techniques, he supports repealing DADT this year, the president signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, he signed a bill to expand veteran benefits, he signed kids tobacco legislation, he signed a major land protection act, and we finally have a time-table (a word fiercely opposed by the last administration) for getting out of Iraq."

And they are working on several small/incremental (the GOP preferred way of doing legislation) jobs bills that will certainly pass and be signed into law before then. What load are you waiting on to be blown?

3/27/2010 9:08:23 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/27/obama.recess.appointments/index.html?hpt=T1

15 recess appointments, some as radical as his "czars" ... so much for "changing" Washington - about the only change is inserting "Chicago" for "Washington"

3/27/2010 10:03:15 PM

AMNESTY

3/27/2010 11:08:19 PM

"czars"

3/28/2010 12:29:23 AM

^^^He should have appointed 70-some nominees who are being held up instead of some of the 15 most qualified/necessary/delayed. The GOP is going to explode about how evil he is for fighting the obstructionism regardless of whether it was a small number or large number of appointees so he might as well go for large

It is not that you don't have a point, there is a valid role for nomination holds and filibusters and shutting down committee meetings and obstructionism as a political tool, but when benchmarking against the past the GOP is seriously blowing those tools out of proportion. By the by, at this rate, assuming that President Obama gets 8 years in office, he will not catch up to either Bush or Clinton in recess appointments.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/27/unprecedented-level-obstruction

Quote :

"An Unprecedented Level of Obstruction Faced with an unprecedented level of obstruction in the Senate, the President announced his intention to recess appoint fifteen nominees to fill critical administration posts. While the President respects the critical role the Senate plays in the appointment process, he was no longer willing to let another month go by with key economic positions unfilled, especially at a time when our country is recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Many of these fifteen individuals have enjoyed broad bipartisan support, but have found their confirmation votes delayed for reasons that have nothing to do with their qualifications. It has more to do with an obstruction-at-all-costs mentality that we’ve been faced with since the President came into office. Because of political posturing, these fifteen appointees have waited an average of 214 days for Senate confirmation. This opposition got so out of hand at one point that one senator put a blanket hold on all of the President’s nominees in an attempt to win concessions on two projects that would benefit his state. And another nominee’s confirmation was delayed by one senator for more than eight months because of a disagreement over a proposed federal building in his home state. When that nominee was finally given the vote she deserved,she was confirmed 96 to 0. When you attempt to prevent the government from working effectively because you didn’t get your way, you’re failing to live up to your responsibilities as a public servant. To put this in perspective, at this time in 2002, President Bush had only 5 nominees pending on the floor. By contrast, President Obama has 77 nominees currently pending on the floor, 58 of whom have been waiting for over two weeks and 44 of those have been waiting more than a month. And cloture has been filed 16 times on Obama nominees, nine of whom were subsequently confirmed with 60 or more votes or by voice vote. Cloture was not filed on a single Bush nominee in his first year. And despite facing significantly less opposition, President Bush had already made 10 recess appointments by this point in his presidency and he made another five over the spring recess. A few more numbers to put this in perspective: * These fifteen nominees have been waiting a total of 3,204 days or almost nine years to start their respective jobs. * Even the most recently nominated of these fifteen individuals has been waiting 144 days or nearly five months. * Jeffrey Goldstein was nominated to serve as the top domestic finance official at Treasury, a crucial position for fixing the economy and preventing another financial crisis. Goldstein has been waiting 248 days or over 8 months. * Jacqueline Berrien was nominated to serve as Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC currently lacks a quorum and cannot fulfill its mandate to protect American workers from discrimination. Berrien has been waiting 254 days or over 8 months. * Craig Becker and Mark Pearce were nominated to serve on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which protects American workers from unfair labor practices. The five member board has been trying to operate with only two members. Becker and Pearce have been waiting for 261 days or over 8 months. The roadblocks we’ve seen in the Senate have left some government agencies like the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission impaired in fulfilling their mission. These agencies can now get back to working for the American people. These nominees will remain pending before the Senate for what we hope will be the expeditious confirmation that candidates of their caliber deserve. But we also hope that this politically motivated gridlock comes to an end, because each day we dedicate to a strategy aimed at gumming up the works of our government is another day we aren’t doing right by the American people."

Facing more obstructionism than any president in recent history he is doing less recess appointments than presidents in recent history and you right wingers still can't give him a break.

[Edited on March 28, 2010 at 12:31 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2010 12:31:00 AM

i found audio of supplanter and hockeyroman


http://www.wrdu.com/cc-common/mediaplayer/player.html?redir=yes&mps=default.php&mid=http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/26472/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/26472/4028/richmedia/Tree_Hugger_Audio.mp3?CCOMRRMID=17809350&CPROG=RICHMEDIA&MARKET=RALEIGH-NC&NG_FORMAT=country&NG_ID=WRDU1061FM&OR_NEWSFORMAT=&OWNER=4028&SERVER_NAME=www.wrdu.com&SITE_ID=4028&STATION_ID=WRDU-FM&TRACK=

3/28/2010 12:56:09 AM

^^ i know this might just blow your mind, but what if, for argument's sake, the nominees Obama is proposing are just that bad. Should the 'pubs just "go with history" and let Obama put up a bunch of Boltons? you can't always compare numbers.

3/28/2010 7:58:24 PM

what if glenn beck is right?

3/28/2010 8:03:19 PM

They are all Mao loving, Van Jones clones!

And if not, I am sure Beck, et. al. will feign enough outrage to where it will look that way.

. . .

3/28/2010 8:29:19 PM

lolbama has a majority and still can't get his nominees approved. doesnt sound like they are too promising.

3/28/2010 11:09:35 PM

lolhaving a majority has nothing to do with it

3/28/2010 11:55:47 PM

Jim Bunning anyone?

3/28/2010 11:58:05 PM

Obama Steps Up Confrontation: White House Seeks to Rally Supporters With Aggressive Tone Against Opponents

Quote :

"President Barack Obama, after a year of fitfully searching for compromise, is taking a more aggressive tack with his Republican adversaries, hoping to energize Democratic voters and possibly muscle in some Republican support in Congress. On Thursday, the president challenged Republicans who planned to campaign on repealing his health-care bill with, "Go for it." Two days later, he made 15 senior appointments without Senate consent, including a union lawyer whose nomination had been blocked by a filibuster. At a bill-signing event Tuesday, he is set to laud passage of higher-education legislation that was approved despite Republican objections through a parliamentary maneuver that neutralized the party's filibuster threat. ... A senior Democratic official said the push was a textbook case of taking advantage of political momentum as the campaign season begins. Republicans are "on the defensive," the official said, "and as long as they're not cooperating, we ought to keep them there." ... The partisanship "may be more visible, and he may be more resolute about it, but as far as most of us are concerned, this is business as usual," said Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, a member of the Republican leadership."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303410404575152110331938210.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories#articleTabs%3Darticle

We're now seeing Obama turn into the hyper-partisan that we all knew he would become. The article makes it sound like this is going to "rally Democrats," and that could be true. What it's really going to do is rally all of the conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans to get out and vote. Democrats, even on this forum, are trying to make it sound as if Democrats are on the upswing and Republicans are on the decline, since HCR was a "victory," but we'll see in November.

3/30/2010 1:30:20 PM

Quote :

"Because of political posturing, these fifteen appointees have waited an average of 214 days for Senate confirmation. This opposition got so out of hand at one point that one senator put a blanket hold on all of the President’s nominees in an attempt to win concessions on two projects that would benefit his state. And another nominee’s confirmation was delayed by one senator for more than eight months because of a disagreement over a proposed federal building in his home state. When that nominee was finally given the vote she deserved, she was confirmed 96 to 0. When you attempt to prevent the government from working effectively because you didn’t get your way, you’re failing to live up to your responsibilities as a public servant. To put this in perspective, at this time in 2002, President Bush had only 5 nominees pending on the floor. By contrast, President Obama has 77"

At this rate he will not surpass the number of recess appointments done by the last president despite facing way more obstructionism, and you call that hyper-partisan? You're right there is some hyper-partisan ship going on, but it is on the sided united in filibuster, nomination holds, and committee shutdowns.

Seriously, you guys on the right were starting thread like Obama "and this administration will forever be known as a "do nothing" administration." Because he was being filibustered into oblivion, and now that he is doing something despite the constant filibuster attempts, and nomination holds, and committee shut downs you are calling him hyper-partisan.

Its a catch 22. Don't react to the obstructionism and you get pegged as do-nothing, do react and you get pegged as hyper-partisan.

For my money, if the right is going to hate him regardless, then I am glad he is getting something done.

[Edited on March 30, 2010 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2010 1:44:08 PM

Quote :

"You're right there is some hyper-partisan ship going on, but it is on the sided united in filibuster, nomination holds, and committee shutdowns."

Are you really that naive? Do you really think Democrats have any intention of showing real bipartisanship? I mean, really, put down the fucking Kool-Aid.

In their current situation, Democrats can have their cake and eat it too. The crucial point is that the Democrat majority does not need to compromise at all. Not one Republican vote is needed. Democrats propose bills and appointments in a win-win situation. There is no motive whatsoever to compromise when Republicans can be painted as obstructionist AND bills are still passed and appointments are still made, without being "watered down" an ounce.

3/30/2010 2:24:58 PM

You don't think going from Public Option to RomneyCare is watering down even by an ounce? You think Richard Burr shutting down a military armed services committee when generals traveled to Washington from Hawaii and Korea to participate as a part of a wider party committee shut down effort counts as GOP obstructionism? You think having a number of recess appointments that doesn't surpass Bush or the most filibuster threats in history counts as a hyperpartisan GOP? I think you're a little confused about who has the kool-aid.



[Edited on March 30, 2010 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2010 2:41:21 PM