Mitt must be so proud!
Seriously, the GOP was in a much better spin position if SCOTUS had punted health care. If they voted it down, Romney gets to say, “We were right and the Supreme Court said so! Vote for us!” But they supported it, and so the GOP gets to add it to their wish list of things they want to take away, including a woman’s right to choose and gay marriage. If you want things that other people care about to go away, vote Romney!
As opposed to the Democrats who, if it had been voted down, would have been hard-pressed to be heard above Fox leading the GOP “Whoop! Whoop!” chant.
PAD
• 
Way back when Newt Gingrich had his Great Downfall, someone (i think it was a Well-Known-New York-Editor Someone) remarked on line that Bill Clinton (who had, of course, recently survived his impeachment) had more class than he (WKNYE) had – he figured that if HE were Clinton, he’d be up on the WHite House roof thumbing his nose in the direction of the Capitol going “Neener neener neener, I’ve still got MY job!”
Clinton and Gingrich are so alike it’s scary. The lust for power, women, explosive tempers, intelligence, ability to galvanize people…neither would have fallen as hard or risen as high without the other. Gingrich’s downfall is, as one GOPer put it, “He has twice of Clinton’s abrasiveness but only half the charm”.
They did have a bit of a yin-yang thing going there …
Hail the GOP! Cut off one line of attack and two more will take its place!
Now Obama hiked taxes (for reals!) and lied about it. Hail the GOP!
Largest tax increase on the middle class ever. Congrats, Democrats. And you pretend Dems are about freedom.
I can’t wait to see you recite the rest of the GOP/Faux News talking points, Harv!
You mean the largest tax cut on the middle class ever, since only those who can afford insurance but choose not to get it will pay the mandate penalty. The lack of the penalty for the vast majority is effectively a tax credit, amounting to a tax cut!
The best part is the morons who say that because of this they’re going to move to Canada.
Or the ones who think Roberts is now a traitor (were they not paying attention during Citizens United?)
Really? They say they object to universal health care and on that basis they’re moving to Canada where they have universal health care?
Classic irony.
PAD
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare
I haven’t heard one conservative say they’re moving to Canada over this. That sounds like an example of the left thinking conservatives are dumb, so they make up stories to prove it.
Robert, that looks to me more like libs attempting to be ironic.
Robert, that looks to me more like libs attempting to be ironic.
Malcolm, I think you’re desperately trying to project.
There are plenty of Americans who couldn’t point out Canada on a map with it clearly labeled. There are certainly going to be some of them on Twitter who are serious with such comments.
Not only that, Limbaugh predictably said that Roberts “kicked into activist mode”. Of course, this is the same dumb bášŧárd that said he would move to Costa Rica if we ever got universal health care. Maybe Limbaugh should’ve just said Canada, too?
Not really, Craig. I don’t judge the intellect of conservatives by a few random people on twitter, anymore than I judge libs by that standard. Though, if you feel this a valid pìššìņg contest, I’m sure I can bring up just as many Obama voters who’ve said dumber things.
BTW, I listened to Limbaugh when he made that statement. You might want to learn what a “jest” is.
Malcolm, you apparently learned not a god dámņ thing from the Eric Holder thread.
And what lesson was that Craig?
“Robert, that looks to me more like libs attempting to be ironic.”
Some are. Others are serious.
“I don’t judge the intellect of conservatives by a few random people on twitter”
Nobody here is doing that. You’re the only one who even used the word “conservatives.” Everyone else is just mocking dumb people.
To quote PAD from that thread:
Malcolm, to quote Josiah Bartlett, I’d be a bit more impressed with your moral indignation if it weren’t quite so covered in crap.
Craig, when I issued an apology in that thread, I did it because I was apologizing for not complying with the light natured intention of that thread. I did not seek to defend or clarify my position in that particular part of the thread because it would make it seem insincere. I now wonder if that wasn’t a mistake. That said, I don’t think what PAD said applies here. If it does. I’m sure he’ll correct me.
Malcolm, you apparently learned not a god dámņ thing from the Eric Holder thread.
Actually, I thought you were referring to the Holder thread from a couple years ago. You remember: the one where I said something critical and suddenly dozens of people were swinging by to tell me that I was a racist áššhølë.
Good times.
PAD
PAD,
This explains why I didn’t quite understand your “covered in crap” comment. Now that I have the context, it makes perfect sense – I don’t remember the previous Holder thread. If it happened in 2010, I probably forgot it due to the chaos in my life then.
I will admit to believing that progressives hold “the racism of soft expectations” (I believe it was Daniel Patrick Moynihan who coined that term or something like it.) and it’s possible I stated that belief way too strongly.* I remember issuing a repentant mea culpa a few years ago, but I don’t remember why at this moment. If I ever called you a “racist áššhølë” I sincerely apologize, again.
My response to the last Holder thread, though wrong in tone, was due to the way it hit several pet peeves of mine at the same time. It came because I’m constantly reading on the comic-mix site about how the GOP is dominated by racist, homophobic, woman haters. Because of that, and the factors mentioned in the other thread, when I felt the F&F scandal was trivialized, I reacted poorly.
I hope I don’t have to state this all again, but knowing I have some hot-headed tendencies, I probably will.
*And that is my tendency when I think I’ve been accused of racism by a lib.
Canada doesn’t want them…
Why not? Fair’s fair – we took Celine Dion and Justin Bieber, and we already gave them Neil Peart…
Yes, I hate when people threaten to move to Canada when they don’t get their way. Thank God nobody on this blog threatened that in, say, November of 2004.
The same way that Democrats threatened rebellion and nullification when the Supreme Court made a controversial decision in 2000.
.
Oh wait …
David, your premise is flawed. Maybe if, say, people threatened to move to Russia in 2004, you’d show something equal to what some of these individuals are saying now.
But to say you’re going to a flee a country moving toward universal health care for a country that already has it? That’s just being ignorant.
I don’t deny that people are being ignorant. I’m just saying that it’s a bit rich to complain about people threatening to leave the country (i.e. take their toys and go home) when they don’t get their way in one election or political cycle, when a lot of the same people who are complaining now once threatened to do the same thing back in 2004. (Or possibly threatened to hold their breath until they turned blue. I can’t remember which childish threat was invoked 8 years ago.) Where any given group wants to flee is irrelevant. The bigger issue for me is: if your dedication to this country is so shallow that any one election or any one political change is enough to disrupt it, then maybe you should get the hëll out. We don’t need you.
Great thing about the ruling is that John Roberts managed to remind us that he is not a right wing drone, like Scalia (man, the anti Obama vitriol on this guy), Alito and Thomas, while still being a conservative, and that despite recent predictable 5-4 conservative decisions, there are still issues when one of the six remaining justices can be the swing vote (as the three aforementioned ones are always voting for whatever the GOP somehow instructs them to. Frankly, I would not be surprised if when Scalia dies, a mysterious red phone is found in his chamber that links directly to Republican headquarters).
Trouble is, this will only incense Romneybots into promising to redo the SC into a conservative one. And Roberts will be labeled a traitor.
will Glenn Beck cry?
Just out of curiosity, if Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan vote as reliably for the left as Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito vote for the right, does that make them drones too? Or is the “drone” label reserved exclusively for people with whom you disagree?
.
And I don’t suppose you subscribe to the idea that the conservative (or liberal) justices are highly intelligent people who vote consistently because they consistently apply their own world-views or jurisprudential philosophies? And, yes, that’s exactly what I think, which is why I would never describe, say, Justice Ginsburg as a “drone.”
.
Incidentally, smarter conservatives are calling Roberts anything but a traitor, since they’re capable of counting to five and noticed that the Supreme Court just reined in the Congress’s Commerce Clause powers.
Of the four Justices you mentioned, two are too new to truly assess, and two are the mostly liberal but swayable Ginsburg and Breyer.
Scalia is a guy who pretends to adhere to text and origin, but is more than willing to betray his philosophy if it beckons the conservative side (check CU vs FCE, Rasul v Bush, Hamdam v Rumsfeld, Penn v UGco, Gonzales v Carhart, Heller, Raich, etc) All those cases were matters in which Scalia, had he followed his recognized views, would have found differently, but he then found it fitting to change philosophies (never admitting the fact, of course) to fit whatever was more in line with the GOP. In cases like Heller and Atkins, he manufactured interpretations fitting whatever was the party line. That’s why I have him pegged as a drone: he purports to be so into textualism as to almost be predictable, excepto when it might pìšš øff conservatives.
Thomas is pretty much, at least in the bigger picture, very similar to Scalia, with automatic rejections of liberal arguments.
And Alito, well, truth is I still have hopes for him, not to become liberal, but to become less of an automatic “what would the GOP do” kinda vote.
Considering Scalia’s recent shameless political opinionating in his dissent of the recent Arizona ruling and Thomas’s speaking at conservative events … yes, right-wing drones is not an unfair description for them.
Also, I don’t believe they SCOTUS reined in the Commerce Clause at all, but simply left the question unresolved and available for future review. (Only Roberts waved away the Commerce Clause in favor of taxation — the other 8 justices based their dissents and concurrences on the Clause.)
Was out all day so didnt rly follow the news. Which made it all the more fun when attending Shakespeare in the Park tonight and hearing Oliver Platt in delivering the closing lines of the play mention ‘nine justices coming to a decision’ and ‘voting 5 to 4’ and then hearing a mostly reserved crowd of theater goers suddenly cheering in unison like it was the final minutes of the Super Bowl.
Only in New York.
A few things:
1. There is one huge difference between Romney-care and Obamacare, other than the name – the latter is federal. No one here who has read anything I’ve written on my views of Federalism can call me inconsistent on this point. If such idiocy was confined to Massachusetts, I wouldn’t move there. If it was passed in a state I lived in, I would move out of that state. I no longer have that choice, I must live under Romney-care, and I’m furious. I’ll gladly vote for the guy who promises to repeal it, even if that guy is Romney.
2. Now that it’s essentially been ruled that economic inactivity can be taxed, where does this end? The broccoli tax question brought up in the oral arguments has been answered with a, “Yes, congress can tax you for not buying broccoli.” Can congress tax someone who doesn’t buy a car in a recession in order to spur growth? If you choose not to install low-flow toilets in your home, can they tax you? If the asphalt industry wants you to re-do your driveway, can they lobby a tax? Can a conservative congress and President tax you for not buying a gun? (I’ll admit, I’ve been slacking in keeping up with the Brady Campaign’s “1-gun-a-month” plan.) Can they tax you for not flying and American flag in your yard? If the answer to any of these questions is no, I need to see it in this ruling. Regardless of who wins in November, the precedent set horrifies me.
3. I don’t blame you guys for spiking the football. I know I would be too, if the situation were reversed. That said, this may very well re-energize the Tea Party. How many Senate seats are up this election? If you complain about the lack of compromise with Republicans now… I reserve the right for a huge-ášš spike of my own in November. I’ll probably even shout, “In your face, Shelbyville!”
Again with the broccoli mandate/taxation arguments? This silliness is threatening to embed itself like birtherism.
.
For a quick explanation of why healthcare are broccoli markets aren’t the same check out this article.
Do people get that broccoli is good for them?
I mean, it’s bizarre enough that GOP talking heads condemn Michelle Obama for her anti-obesity campaign. I’d be intrigued to see how many Democrats condemning Betty Ford as being a killjoy bìŧçh because she wanted to rain on the parade of drug addicts.
But all the wealthy, industrialized countries who already have health care–which would be, at last count, pretty much all of them–must look at us mewling about being forced to eat stuff that’s good for us, like howling three year olds, and think we’re out of our minds.
PAD
Interestingly, it might be wise to recall that Roberts cited SCOTUS precedents going back to at least 1922 which upheld penalties as taxes for his line of reasoning…
Can someone explain why “Obamacare” is an unwarranted federal intrusion into matters best left to the states, but Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are fine? If your logic is just based on the individual mandate thing then a universal system funded from general taxation would be fine too, right?
As I recall, at the time that Social Security was first crafted, there were a lot of people pushing back against it. They decried it as–wait for it–socialism. And the joyful irony now is that we have Tea Partyers who, on the one hand, decry Health Care as socialism while on the other hand howling that the government better keep its hands off their SS and Medicaid. They’re against entitlements except those entitlements that they’re for.
Don’t blame them. Scientific studies indicate that the way their brains are structured, they have fundamental problems holding two ideas in their heads at the same time.
PAD
Worse, PAD, these types decry Obamacare as socialism while also decrying the SCOTUS decision as fascism.
And yes, Malcolm, there’s even more of this than people claiming (seriously or otherwise) that they’re moving to Canada.
Socialism and fascism are not mutually exclusive terms. Every fascist is a socialist, but not every socialist is a fascist.
ah, but PAD,
You mentioned the significant difference. SS and Medicare are just that – PAID FOR! I have been paying for it my entire adult life, just as I had been paying for unemployment and disability. So, there existed a contract between me and the government – I pay a tax now, and will get a benefit later.
But now, we have a new contract: BUY this product (insurance) or pay a direct penalty in taxes. Now, health insurance is a good product, and is probably to my benefit. Unfortunately, I am just about to be priced out of the market. Since I am now self employed, I have to pay for individual coverage. In the past two years, I have gone from a fairly nice low deductible with small co-pay plan to a high deductible major medical plan. My premiums have actually INCREASED during this same period. Why? Because TANSTAAFL! yes, the government can decree that insurers cover X, Y, and Z in all policies, but the insurers just raise the premiums to pay for it. I now have pregnancy coverage, whether it applies to me or not… 😉
So, SOMEONE has to pay for these entitlements. The government doesn’t really get to make up money out of thin air (or at least, not that much of it!) The rich already pay a lot, and the basic truth is there are just not that many of them. The ‘poor’ (and guess what, THAT INCLUDES ME!) don’t pay any income taxes and that is half of us. So, that means that the productive half of the populace ends up paying for everything.
So, that means that the productive half of the populace ends up paying for everything.
And yet you and so many others are willfully ignoring the fact that you’re already paying for it.
There is no wall between the insured and the uninsured that in some fairytale land means the uninsured have no impact upon the insured.
There’s also the fact that getting everybody cheaper preventive care now will help avoid a lot of expensive care later. But apparently few care to think long term to the point that the GOP simply wants to overturn the health care law without a Single. Ðámņ. Thing. to replace it.
@Charlie
But, when it was originally set up in 1936, the Social Security Act wasn’t funded in the way you describe. Payroll taxes was used to fund payments to retirees that hadn’t paid a dime in to the scheme (and couldn’t, what with it not having existed).
Was that unconstitutional then?
Craig,
Yes, you are right. In a way, I am already paying for that care, where it is available, and for many, yes, it isn’t available. I am paying for it indirectly in higher taxes and insurance premiums. Now, it this law did its magic in such a way as to reduce my taxes and premiums, I would be delighted. No such luck, however. My taxes stay the same, and my premiums go up greatly. Yes, some folks will now get coverage, and that is good, but even more folks now will be unable to afford coverage, and that will be bad. The government gets more in taxes, as those unable to otherwise afford insurance now pay a higher tax amount. Again, everyone wins but the honest middle class person…
Abigail,
In many ways SS was, and still is unconstitutional. There really is no real foundation for it in the constitution other than in the preamble. And those early retirees were rewarded benefits by ‘considering’ them as though they had been paying benefits for some time.
Now, if they really wanted to make this fair, they would pass a law that says ALL government employees, INCLUDING CONGRESS must comply with this, as well as all other laws. Then things would be a lot more balanced. Make congress only able to get SS and Medicare when they retire!!!!
Charlie, the ACA obligates government employees (particularly congress critters) to be part of the exchanges.
My taxes stay the same, and my premiums go up greatly.
And how much have your premiums gone up?
I’ve been employed at the same small company for 10 years now. Before we joined ADP, our premiums were going up at a better than 10% clip per year.
Ironically, the last couple of years have been pretty much our lowest rates of increase in premium. And yes, I know that ADP is huge help in this regard.
But guess what? The insurance companies will use any pretext to raise premiums. They were going to raise your premiums ‘greatly’ regardless of whether this law ever passed or was in turn struck down.
There is no proof that premiums are going to shoot through the roof any more than the claim I read that said 40% of small businesses would go out of business with Obamacare. It’s simple scaremongering.
It’s so much easier to name call than to come up with actual ideas as an alternative, isn’t it?
Craig,
Ok, facts. Three years ago, I got insurance with a $250 deductible for about $150. Then, after a year, it went up to almost $200. Last year, after OC passed, it jumped to $240. My budget was only $200, so I went to a major medical, high deductible plan at only $160. This month, this new coverage goes up to $200 again. As I figure it, I basically have had a 50-60% increase over the last couple of years…
Cry me a river, Charlie. I’m paying $780/month to Blue Cross for the highest level that will allow me to choose my own doctors. And that’s only because I was lucky to have an uncle who set aside a trust which allows me to do this. Otherwise I would be stuck at an HMO level where some gatekeeper would decide who I should see and what procedures I should have. There’s freedom for you (not).
So, if I’ve read your post right, before the ACA passed, your premium went up big time. Then after ACA passed, your premium went up big time.
Yet, ACA is entirely to blame?
Yes, Linda, it is too expensive, and getting worse!
Craig,
Yes, my premiums were going up, about 10-15% a year, then ACA hit! What I guess wasn’t apparent in my description was that, if I had remained with my old insurance level, my premiums would have been 100-150% higher in the last year!
It was only by going to a major medical type of plan that I have any insurance at all. HMO plans are no longer an option…
The thing that torqued my jaw about this whole heathcare deal from the beginning was the gutless, disingenuous and unethical process that led to its creation. For cryin’ out loud, if one can’t create and sell a program like this to the American people without resorting to lies and obfuscation, then maybe, just maybe, one did not have the brains and funds to realistically implement such a program in the first place. The cowardice and back-room dealing displayed by the plan’s crafters was Brobdingnagian. Despite total control over both houses of Congress, and control of the Executive Branch, the Democrats never had the guts to call the method of payment for their healthcare plan a tax. Anyone with an ounce of brains knew that’s exactly what the “mandate” was, but in a convoluted effort to avoid the political fallout from the “tax” label, they gerrymandered a government-coerced payment method through private businesses and called it a “mandate.” Last, but not least, was the hubris displayed by the tiny group of Democratic healthcare law crafters who urged their party faithful to vote for the extremely complex legislation despite the fact that none of the party faithful had a flippin’ clue what was actually in it. I don’t know about you guys, but I’d never sign a brand new, never-before-implemented contract with major implications on my family’s future finances and health without reading it first. Then again, I’m an old fart now and will be dead soon, so it won’t be my problem. But if I were in my 20s and just starting out in life, I’d be crappin’ pineapples right now.
Say hi to Steve Douchey for me!
Yeah, y’know what, Russ? Let’s go with your worldview: Current president and associates lied in order to create a law that will improve countless lives. Meanwhile, previous president and associates lied in order to create a war that destroyed countless lives.
I think history will more kindly judge the administration that didn’t commit war crimes, don’t you?
PAD
Or, will be that current president and associates lied in order to create a law that destroys countless lives, as they finally succeeded in pushing healthcare beyond the means of anyone actually affording it, while lining their pockets and the pockets of the insurance companies that supported them.
“Please don’t pass this bill! It will RUIN my company!!! And, don’t throw me into that der briar patch, neither!”
Charlie
Charlie –
what is this i don’t even
Seriously, how does any of what you’ve said follow? How does mandating that the risk for health care be spread across the broadest possible base make it more expensive??
Meanwhile, here in Realityworld, I stand as an object case of someone who has been unable to afford health care for years. I have what I believe to be osteoarthritis in both knees and my back (said condition runs in my family); I’ve been treating with OTC painkillers because I can’t afford to see a doctor. This condition, of course, leaves me unable to hold any positions that involve standing for long periods, and my Asperger’s Syndrom (which I have mentioned before) keeps me from getting past interviews (since I don’t use “body language”, I give the interviewer the wrong “gut feeling”, so I don’t get hired for any jobs that involve interviews). And since I’m under 50 and have not been officially diagnosed with anything the EEOC calls a “disability”, I have so far been unable to qualify for any form of public assistance, particularly given the draconian cuts required in my state since all increases in state funding began to require a public vote (and why? The keyword is “Tim Eyman”).
The Affordable Care Act, when fully implemented in 2014, will finally cause me to fall under the umbrella of Medicare, which I have paid into during periods of employment, but have never been deemed worthy of collecting from. I will, at long last, be able to seek medical care for this constant pain, and perhaps even dental care for what has happened in my mouth (the less said, the better – I’ll simply note that some people assume I must be a meth addict).
Jonathan,
I am sorry for your pain. While I am fairly healthy, my wife is blind and has been unable to find work other than us opening up our own company. At least she qualified for disability and medicare.
But spreading the risk might help some if enough folks actually sign up, but again TANSTAAFL! When you add in a whole bunch of folks that are going to be expensive to cover, and then start expanding coverage so everything starts getting under that ‘insurance’ umbrella, then of course costs are going to rise.
But while the insurance companies appear to be fighting it, they have just won a great victory. Remember, in their business, they basically operate on a ‘cost plus’ basis, i.e. they take all their costs and overhead, and then ‘assume’ a profit of X%, and charge their premiums accordingly. Increase costs and overhead, and they can then raise rates to cover them PLUS their profit. They are planning their million dollar bonuses as we speak…
So you’re saying lies are perfectly OK if the person doing the lying believes they are doing the right thing? Hëll, PAD, practically every tinpot despot in history thought that, in the long run, they were doing the right thing — that destiny was on their side. The whole idea of voting in Obama was that he’d be different. He’d be Fair, open and transparent. Yet, the whole healthcare law process was the epitome of old-school, closed-door, take-care-of-your-buddies politics. If Democrats wanted more of the same, why did they even bother to field a candidate in 2008?
So you’re saying lies are perfectly OK if the person doing the lying believes they are doing the right thing?
I wasn’t making value judgments or saying it was “OK,” Russ, although thanks for pretending that I did. It’s always appreciated when someone makes up stuff and then attacks that. That just never gets old.
I’m saying, as Doctor House so frequently and accurately did, that everybody lies. Everybody. GOP presidents. Democratic presidents. And when one side does it, the other side mounts their high horse and howls their indignation because they are shocked, SHOCKED, to find that lying is going on here, and they hope/pray that if they do it loudly enough, their dudgeon will carry the day and people won’t realize that the plaintiffs are as full of šhìŧ as the defendants.
And why do they lie? Because they always face a hostile opposition who is more interested in gaining power than serving the people. So they consider lying simply another tool in their toolbox to deal with all the tools who are themselves lying. They lie on the campaign trail. They lie in their commercials. They lie to their closest allies. They lie to themselves. They tell people what they want to hear rather than what they should hear, because if they didn’t, they’d never get anything done or even elected. It’s not Washington, D.C. , it’s Washington, DeCeit, and the only thing sadder than that fact is that the “other” side is always claiming that they have the monopoly on truth, and the only truth is that there is no truth: there’s just fifty shades of bûllšhìŧ.
And once you realize that and set aside partisan blinders, then the only thing left is, as Machiavellian as it may sound, to look at the results.
Bush and company lied. Thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis died.
Obama and company lied. We got healthcare.
I’m not saying that, as a rule, the ends justifies the means. But it sure softens the blow when the ends results in something life saving rather than life-taking. And not all the hypocritical GOP finger-pointing and tongue-wagging is going to change that.
PAD
I agree with the first 4/5 or so of PAD’s 9:02 post. The closest we can usually come to an honest politician is the R.A. Heinlein definition: one who stays bought.
.
I have two “quibbles” (okay, serious disagreements) with PAD’s invocation of “Bush lied, people died.” (1) You can always rephrase it or be selective about which consequences you designate as the “result.” “Bush lied, 25 million people were freed from a Ba’athist dictatorship” doesn’t rhyme nearly as well, but it’s equally true. And to the argument that the people still died from the intervention, I’d point out (a) Hussein was killing tens of thousands of his own citizens each year anyway, and (b) how’s nonintervention working out for Syria? (2) “President Bush was wrong” is at least as plausible an explanation as “Bush lied.” I know it was 9 whole years ago and memories fade, but try to recall that just about every intelligence agency in the world agreed with our assessment. If you insist on believing that the President lied about WMDs, you have to believe that the administration was really, really good at deceiving people going in, but utterly hopeless at covering up afterwards. I have trouble with that part: it’s hard to believe that the administration was duplicitous and shrewd before the war, but not after. If Bush and Co. were Machiavellian enough to fabricate a reason for war, they’d have been Machiavellian enough to fabricate evidence. In other words, if they’d planned far enough ahead to lie about WMDs in order to justify a war, you can be dámņ sure they’d have arranged to “find” some. Or, as xkcd pointed out on Wednesday, if you’re willing to tell one big lie, you’d be willing to tell another one.
PAD — Even though I was not a fan of the Iraq War foisted upon us because of flawed intelligence, I don’t buy any of that “Bush lied, people died” crap. Bush did what he thought was the right thing to do at the time. The proof in the pudding came when Bush departed and a new administration took over — an administration with a very different political philosophy. The left pilloried Bush and company for a wide variety of his policies regarding national security — yet many of those policies Obama opted to keep (often with great reluctance) once he was in the hot seat and privy to the daily classified reports. As far as lying politicians go, I reject the assertion that since they all lie, we have to remain supine and accept it. That’s why I refuse to align with either party. Because the sad fact is, once one does, one tends to overlook or rationalize away great (and sometimes appalling) indescretions as long as the politicians in question continue to support and vote for the base’s causes du jour. I, on the other hand, don’t think twice about voting someone out of office if they fail to meet my expectations — regardless of how good of a panderer they are.
No, you’re thinking of the Bush-era Medicare-D expansion, which was on the verge of being voted down in the House until the GOP, against all precedent, kept the voting window open for (IIRC) hours and turned off the CSPAN cameras so that the naked political bribery wouldn’t be televised.
Obama has been remarkably fair, open, and transparent, especially when compared to both the man he replaced and the man who now wants to replace him. The main reason that Dems ended up wheeling-and-dealing on the ACA was because of the simple fact that the GOP joined in lockstep partisan opposition, filibustering every dámņ thing in sight, obligating the Democrats to constantly get all 60 members of their caucus to vote for cloture and dealing with Senators who milked the situation for all it was worth. If the meagerest handful of Republicans had not cynically opposed a solution they’d been championing for decades, this would not have been necessary.
Gah! This should be:
No, they didn’t. That was part of Bush’s problem with his rationale to go to war. He also could have allowed UN inspectors to do there job but he chased them out. I wonder why …
Not necessarily the case. If the point was to get the US into war that would almost be impossible to then get out of, it succeeded. What need would there be to fabricate evidence that you were right? (Especially since it would also be an unnecessary risk.)
Sasha wrote: “Obama has been remarkably fair, open, and transparent, especially when compared to both the man he replaced and the man who now wants to replace him.” — Such nonsense is exactly why I won’t take political sides. Every single argument you make when someone criticizes Obama is basically, “But Bush did it,” or “But Bush was worse.” The fact is, Bush is gone. He’s history. He hasn’t been running the country for more than three years. And rationalizing that Bush did this or that as an excuse for the present administration’s gaffes, underhanded behavior or hypocrisy misses the entire point I made that the “hope and change” pledge, along with a pledge of openness, was all a political facade. I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976, but when he failed miserably as president, I voted for John Anderson in 1980. I voted for Bush the Elder in 1988, but when he refused to admit there was a recession going on and took no real steps to fix the economy, I voted f0r Ross Perot in 1992. I’ve proudly been an independent most of my life, and I’m telling you that your partisan “Bush, Bush, Bush” arguments defending the indefensible ring hollow, and aren’t going to sway the independent voters who will make the difference in the November election.
For someone who claims not to take political sides, you have a remarkable talent for adopting them regardless.
I point out that Obama (and his party) has been far more open and straight in his dealings than his predecessor or his would-be replacement and you handwave this away by stating any criticism of Bush as utterly irrelevant. Bush may very well be over three years gone, but the consequences of his policies continue to echo loudly and will continue to reverberate for decades. It is not rationalization to point out that much of the mess Obama has to clean up is a direct result of what Bush did or allowed to happen under his administration, it’s plain stating of fact. (And considering that the current crop of conservatives is running on a platform that is essentially Bush-on-Steriods, it’s also a dámņ good idea to remind people of what a disaster Bush-regular was.)
Out of curiosity, whom did you vote for in 1984, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008?
And I trust the partisan “Obama, Obama, Obama” arguments that attempt to deflect away the unbelievable will have no effect on independent voters like you, right?
Well, Mr Maheras, how do you feel about that lying rhymes-with-witch Sarah Palin who pulled that malarkey about “death panels?” Apparently nobody bothered to remind Snow Snooki that the INSURANCE companies have been running their own death panels for the past couple of decades. Got a pre-existing condition? Well, too bad–no insurance for you. Got insurance and develop a serious illness for which a new treatment’s been developed but the insurance company regards it as “experimental?” Well, too bad for you; the insurance won’t cover “experimental.”
But did anyone think about that? No. They were too busy being bamboozled by the Quitta from Wasilla and her complete lack of any connection with reality.
Oh. One last thing. The Dems did NOT have “total control of both houses of Congress.” Sorry to bust your stupid conservative fallacy but, thanks to the Senate’s insane filibuster procedures, if a party doesn’t have 60 solid votes, then very little legislation can be passed. And the Dems did NOT have those “60 solid votes.” Thanks to the Blue Dog Dems (and Joe Lieberman), the Dems never had those votes. The Dems had 58 seats in the Senate for a grand total of 5 months, split over the course of a 7-month period between July 2009 and Feb 2010. That was all. (When you add Lieberman and Bernie Sanders to the Dem senators, you get the “Democratic caucus.” So, there was five months–during the entire January 2009 to December 2010 period–when the Dem caucus had 60 votes.) Furthermore, the measure passed in the House by a mere 7 votes, with 34 Dems voting against the bill. (What was that you wrote about “total control?”)
The problem with Palin, Pelosi or any other partisan politician is that regardless of what the subject is, they always distort or spin the worst aspect of it. As for senatorial control during the first two years of this administration, who are you trying to kid? If the Democrats had not tried to steamroll over non-lefties (including independents) at almost every turn, they could have easily passed anything they wanted. They had a level of control rarely seen in our government, yet they squandered much of the opportunity — particularly in the area of the economy, which they basically ignored after passing the initial stimulus package. Will the Republicans make the same mistake if given similar power? Probably — which is why I think the two-party system sucks. The bases on either side exert too much pressure when their party gets too much power, and clearer heads no longer can prevail.
Steamroll non-lefties the same way that the GOP rubber stamped every bloody thing under Bush, browbeating opponents as un-American? Are you joking?
The Republicans’ recent abuse of the filibuster remains unprecedented and their lockstep opposition on every blessed thing Obama and the Dems attempted … especially on things which historically had bipartisan support (such as stimulus in a recession, individual mandate-based health plans, START, etc.) The Dems tried to put some jobs bills through as well using policies that the GOP never had a problem with before, but Obama is President so everything changed after he was inaugurated.
Indeed. I am still amazed at the chutzpah of the Republicans to do a 180 on an idea concocted by the Heritage Foundation over 20 years ago purely out of political spite and gamesmanship.
And I’m sure you’re even more incensed with the plan’s opponents who, unable to find legitimate complaints, divined non-existent death panels and demanded that the bill fail while offering no comparable and workable legislative solution of their own.
Considering that the ACA was crafted and debated for about a year before final passage, and the basis behind its structure had been around for decades (unlike, say the PATRIOT Act, which was introduced and passed within weeks), any congressperson who claims they had no idea what was being voted on either is lying or derelict in his or her duty.
“Despite total control over both houses of Congress, and control of the Executive Branch, the Democrats never had the guts to call the method of payment for their healthcare plan a tax.”
Uh, no, that never happened. There was never a time in the Obama Administration when those who reliably vote Democratic had total control over both houses of Congress.
On paper, for seven months from the swearing in of Al Franken to the swearing in of Scott Brown, the Democrats did have a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. But in actuality, much of that was during the winter recess, and also Ted Kennedy was very ill for most of what remained and unable to participate, so it was only a bit over a dozen weeks.
Furthermore, even that wasn’t actually a concrete filibuster-proof majority, because of Blue Dogs. The Democrats don’t march in lock-step like the modern GOP does.
With today’s GOP, anyone who dares to reach across the aisle or even think the word “bipartisan” is branded as a RINO. They have done everything in their power to block everything Obama has tried to do, just because it’s Obama. For them, it’s their team at all costs, even the end of the USA itself. Even the end of human civilization itself. Even the end of humanity itself, were it to come to that.
The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, is on record as saying that their Number One Priority is to make Obama a one-term President, to deny him a second term. You do know what “Number One Priority” literally means, right? It means that there are no higher priorities! At all! Period! Not saving the US economy, not saving the USA’s existence, not saving Western Civilization, not saving human civilization, not even saving humanity itself!
The only absolutely, positively sure way to guarantee that Obama will not have a second term is to make sure that there are no more Presidential terms, for anyone. Meaning to make sure that the USA itself ceases to exist prior to Inauguration Day. According to McConnell’s stated goal, the GOP will do that if there is no other way!
When a Democrat reaches across the aisle, s/he’s hailed as being a Moderate.
See the difference?
I see no victory for Liberals. The GOP won the battle for hearts and minds. I’ve read that they spent four times as much money in propaganda against Obamacare, than Liberals spend in propaganda for it.
And they’re a lot more skilled in the art of framing the discussion, I’m sorry to say. Even most poor people, that will be benefited by this law, have swallowed the GOP’s line that it’s evil because it’s “socialist”, and it’s horribly expensive (why people aren’t worried about wars being expensive?)
It’s the Fall of America. Now you guys will be as economically broken and full of epidemics as other fallen Third World countries like Japan, Canada, and the Scandinavian countries. The horror!
(Yes, I know, I also marvel at Conservatives’ ability to live in a parallel universe)
“But all the wealthy, industrialized countries who already have health care–which would be, at last count, pretty much all of them–must look at us mewling about being forced to eat stuff that’s good for us, like howling three year olds, and think we’re out of our minds.
PAD ”
We do. Believe me, it’s the only thing Nicolas Sarkozy (the Ferengi who managed to rule France for five years) and me agree on: When we hear about what happens in the United States in regard to healthcare, we have trouble believing it.
But when I hear horror stories like what happened to William Messner-Loebs, I’m glad I live in France. Yes, all included (basics and “mutuelle”), my healthcare costs me some 90 € per month, and doesn’t cover everything (dental prosthetics are way overcharged, and not entirely covered), but my last pair of prescription glasses cost me (once I was reimbursed) 5 €, and I even got a pair of free sunglasses in the bargain.
But you forgot that rich Arabian princes and celebrity Canadian athletes come to be medically treated in the US.
Now, who is Arabian royalty or a celebrity athlete, raise your hands!
(I think I have a distant cousin that married a distant cousin of Arabian royalty, I wonder if that counts?)
But you forgot that rich Arabian princes and celebrity Canadian athletes come to be medically treated in the US.
And yet, in recent years American insurance companies have sent people to Mexico and as far away as India for medical procedures because it’s cheaper than in the good ol’ USofA.
Apparently those countries are doing something right… beyond the fact that both are trying to get to universal health coverage, where as we are fighting it tooth and nail for some awful reason.
Justice Roberts may have just handed Romney the White House and the GOP the Senate. We’ll see who’s hooting and hollering then.
No hooting and hollering from me. The Dems have made a disastrous job of selling the idea, as usual. You might be right.
If Justice Roberts handed Romney and the GOP the election, it wasn’t with this decision but rather 2 years ago with Citizens United.
Uhm…Jerome…you DO realize that if the court had shot it down 5-4, the general thought would have been that in demolishing Obama’s signature legislation, the court had just handed Romney the White House and the GOP the Senate.
As far as the conservatives are concerned, there is no scenario in which the advantage doesn’t go to Romney. So, all things being equal, I’ll take the scenario that actually gives a dámņ about sick people.
PAD
Once again, none of the people who planned to vote for Obama in the first place will vote for him now. What was the move in Star Trek which was a no-win situation? That’s how conservatives feel about this decision, whether it went their way or not, it boosts Romney. But does Romney have any actual ideas? Or is it just this is bad and …… nothing else, vote for me!
Neil, I believe you’re thinking of the Kobayashi Maru training scenario.
Oh, no! There are many ways having his signature accomplishment would have been far worse…having a stimulus that a majority of people feel his one of two major achievements be recognized as a failure by people who are stubbornly still struggling and want to see more than “Blam Bush” sermons almost a full term into a new administration would be bad. Having the other declared unconstitutional would have been far worse.
.
There were no conservatives 20 minutes before the ruling saying, “Boy I hope Obamacare is upheld. That’ll be a boon.”
.
But now? I have never seen anything like this. It has been like a slap in the face to people who were sleepwalking through this election season.Who felt, “well…this election is about the economy..If it’s looking better, Obama wins…if it’s not, Romney will…but hey, neither guy is electrifying anybody so..”
.
But now? People feel the government is rapidly taling control of more and more of their lives and that we are going broke…They made their voices heard in 2009 at the ballot box and in early 2010 in Massachusetts and then in November 2010..because something this sweeping was decided by the thinnest of margins…and they are scared, determined and angry – and better informed than you will ever give them credit for – and have been given a jolt of adrenalin a little more than four nmonths before a huge election.
.
Can Romney reap the benefits of that? That remains to be seen. What is certain, is that a movement far more deep and wide has been energized…to the point that a Republican novice, Tom Smith, is threatening to unseat Senator Casey here in PA. And if he gets in and doesn’t deliver, then someone will be found that will. Unlike the OWS áššhølëš, this movement has people from the local to the national level interested in making their voices heard through the electoral process.
.
And the line that “Bush lied” and that there were “war crimes” committed..well, I appreciate hyperbole and demagogues as much as anyone else, but until these “crimes” are actually brought forth – if there was anything substantial to these “charges” Pelosi, Obama, etc. would have a solemn duty to bring them forth, don’t you think? Until they do, your accusations are pure partisan fantasy, which no rational person takes seriously.
.
And the GOP has ideas on how to help people also. For you to claim that your way of thinking is the only way to express doing so is pure bûllšhìŧ.
And it’s the same people who blithely ignored the power grabs and fiscal irresponsibility of Republicans who are better informed only in the sense that they have more information, not good information (or else they would have already demanded accountability from all the GOP legislators who rubberstamped said grabs and irresponsibility such as Ryan, Boehner, McConnell, DeMint, etc.) They are a minority of Americans.
That said it bears remembering that a sufficiently zealous minority can dramatically alter things to the regret of everyone else.
Unlike, OWS, the Tea movement was quickly captured by professional politicians who turned anti-Wall Street bailout sentiment into the pro-rich people social conservative movement that has always defined the Far Right. It’s easy to make your voices heard at the local and national level when the same people who have always been there are using the bullhorns they’ve always used.
Waterboarding is torture, torturing prisoners is a war crime, Bush bragged that he authorized the waterboarding (i.e., torture) of prisoners captured at war in his book; ergo, Bush is a self-admitted war criminal. No one except the most blindly partisan of people can deny that inexorable and rational conclusion, yet because of the would-be-comical-if-it-weren’t-appalling politicized nature of the nation, any attempt to actually do anything about it would be declaimed by the usual gang of useful idiots as the government attempting to silence and punish political opponents. That the administration made a political decision to not have that fight is something I consider a failure on its part, the cynical choice made by his political opponents to politicize crimes committed by its “teammates” disgusts me, and the apathy of the citizenry on the subject is a gøddámņ national tragedy that threatens to blot the American character for at least a generation.
I have to ask: what is the last major piece of legislation that was actually overturned with more legislation?
Are we talking about a lot of the deregulation laws that all but ruined our country financially? There’s got to be something other than Prohibition.
The Republicans talk all the time about getting rid of social safety nets. And yet, when they had far greater control of Congress & the White House under Bush than the Dems got for the short time with Obama, they never really made a serious effort to actually do so.
(And how quickly the rubber-stamped PATRIOT Act has been forgotten, and how that was a far, far more serious blow to this nation than the ACA ever will be.)
So, what makes anybody really believe that they can get Obamacare undone? That it’s nothing more than hollow campaign promises and time-wasting with symbolic votes?
Because “This time is different!”? Sorry, I need a lot more than that.
Because Obamacare is unconstitutional — as a penalty or a tax.
Read the fine print (always good advice for lawyers).
And as is so often the case, some of the best coverage came from THE DAILY SHOW, which showed Romney vowing to repeal Obamacare on day one, then saying how he’d keep various parts of Obamacare (like kids staying on their parents’ insurance, not being denied insurance for pre-existing conditions); TDS then pointed out that by rejecting the mandate, Romney would get rid of Obama’s plan, keep most of it, and not pay for it.
Then again, Bush came up with a prescription plan that wasn’t paid for with any taxes — and that helped leave a massive deficit in its wake.
This Day Before Yesterday in History: President Eisenhower signs a huge federal government program into existence, dooming America to suffer a socialist nightmare whose economic effects haunt us still.
David, what makes you think they didn’t punt?
What’s fascinating is the apparent fact that Roberts was initially supportive of joining the Court’s conservatives but then switched sides.
What makes you think he switched sides?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/01/mitch-mcconnell-uninsured-obamacare_n_1641033.html
It’s all about the winning!
THIS JUST IN: SUPREME COURT REPEALS ROMNEYCARE!
On 31 July 2012, the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, William K. Suter, per Jeffrey Atkins, assistant clerk, and citing Rule 12.6, refused to accept a motion from this party for leave to intervene in the case of National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, # 11-393 (one of the Obamacare cases).
Intervention was sought for the purpose of seeking rehearing on the question of whether Obamacare’s penalty, now a “tax,” is an unapportioned, direct tax in violation of Article IX, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.
By refusing to hear this outsider petition for rehearing on the key issue still to be resolved, the Court per its Clerk has restricted the result of the decision to the parties only. For, since no man can be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, U.S. Const., Amends. V, XIV, and since central to that concept is the right to be heard, it follows that a decision not to hear prevents the judgment from having any widespread application.
That’s right: THE PARTIES ARE BOUND BY IT; THE REST OF US CAN IGNORE IT!
Suckers!