# Democrats obviously don't trust Obama with DADT repeal but media blames Republicans anyway.



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

* javascript:void(0); *

Detroit Free Press - Anne Flaherty - ‎26 minutes ago‎
AP WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an effort by Democrats and the White House to lift the ban on gays serving openly in the military, voting unanimously against advancing a major defense policy bill that included ... 

Video: Republicans Block Bill to Lift Military Gay Ban The Associated Press

Washington Post

- Kansas City Star - BBC News - all 2,154 news articles »

These inacurate headlines just culled from Google news this morning.

Facts;

1) Obama says he will have DADT repealed as soon as report comes back from the DOD.

2) Dems don't trust him so they attempt to sneak in language to the appropriations bill now.

3) We can get into the dopey "Dream Act" later

4) Opposition has more bipartisanship than do proponents

5) Obama/Dems/Media blame Republicans.

Does this make sense to anyone??


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> * javascript:void(0); *
> 
> Detroit Free Press - Anne Flaherty - ‎26 minutes ago‎
> AP WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an effort by Democrats and the White House to lift the ban on gays serving openly in the military, voting unanimously against advancing a major defense policy bill that included ...
> ...


Well the President certainly seems to be keeping an open mind on the issue, until he reads what the report has to say. Certainly, no preconceptions being harbored here!

"Obama" should be more prudent about how he chooses to squander away what little public approval remains, pertaining to his performance in office. In a few years, Sarah Palin is going to have to have that "bile in your throat', awful carpeting, Obama just had installed in the oval office, removed!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

HA!!

I wouldn't go quite that far, I just wanted to make sure my understanding of how the House doesn't trust him to do what he says is accurate.

Also, why the headlines don't reflect what occured.

I will make a concession to fact 2) the language wasn't exactly "snuck in" it was actually quite plain. The "sneaky" part is the end run around Obama's promise to repeal.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Update...

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Polit...-are-pushing-a-series-of-bills-doomed-to-fail

On don't ask, don't tell, Republicans are determined to wait until the Pentagon releases a survey of what its servicemen and women think about the policy before considering a repeal.

So, do I understand that the Republicans (and Democrats that joined them) are insisting to trust Obama with his plan?? Why doesn't the article portray waiting for the report as Obama's plan??

Tell me I'm missing something....


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

The Democrats in Congress (or at least some of them) want to force the issue to look good for their constituents. If Obama repeals the policy, they get no credit for it. They also attached the language as a rider to a bill so now the people in Congress can say "The GOP voted against funding for defense and veteran's benefits!!!!" next election.

There might be a select few Republicans who would vote based on the Pentagon report, but pretty much they are not at all in favor of gays in the military so the whole "let's wait" gambit is bogus.

In other words, it's politics as usual.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

The Dems have the President, the Senate, and the House. They could have gays in the military, gay marriage, and gays on the Moon for that rate. The Dems have the gay vote locked up and are not going to do a thing for them. Until gays stop voting in lock step and begin voting in their own interests, they are not likely to get much.
I recently went to the Halsted Street Fair. This is a local event and while not exclusively gay, certainly has a large gay element. The only booth that was totally vacant was the Log Cabin Republican Booth. People actually gave the booth a 3-4 foot berth as though contact would give some type of illness. IMO, if gays would demand action for their votes, they would be in better shape.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

That vote was split almost perfectly down party lines. Not sure how you can arrive at the conclusion that Dems are doing nothing for gays. They needed three Republicans to cross over and none did.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Tell me I'm missing something....


You're not. You have never missed an opportunity to ooze how anti gay you are, even tho you attempt to cloak it with other issues, like now.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> In other words, it's politics as usual.


That's an observation missed by every headline writer I've referenced thus far!!



jean-paul sartorial said:


> There might be a select few Republicans who would vote based on the Pentagon report, but pretty much they are not at all in favor of gays in the military so the whole "let's wait" gambit is bogus.


Dispite what you may have been lead to believe, revision following the Pentagon report is Obama's plan. There is nothing that compels action before that plan is concluded unless A) Just Politics as usual or B) One doesn't trust Obama. C) Both!!

The merit of DADT is of no consequence to this process. With the conclusion of the Pentagon report, minds may be changed.

Isn't that the point??


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

No. The point of the report is to make everyone feel good that Obama/Congress properly "investigated" something and explored the issues. This then gives one or more likely both sides the freedom to do nothing and claim victory. 

You don't see them asking the military what weapons they might like to use, or if they'd like to fight or if they think they are being paid properly. Why would their opinions on gays suddenly be so important as to require a study? It's bogus.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> No. The point of the report is to make everyone feel good that Obama/Congress properly "investigated" something and explored the issues. This then gives one or more likely both sides the freedom to do nothing and claim victory.
> 
> You don't see them asking the military what weapons they might like to use,


1) Not a bad point. That just what I suspect the "Deficit panel" was created for. Only I suspect it will recommend a VAT or simply higher taxes!!

2) Actually, they are!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 2) Dems don't trust him so they attempt to sneak in language to the appropriations bill now.


Sneak language in? You mean like the Republicans did over and over again in appropriations bills when they were in control under President Bush?



WouldaShoulda said:


> 3) We can get into the dopey "Dream Act" later


The "dopey dream act"? You mean the SAME BILL that was proposed in 2007 by Republican Dick Durbin filed to place the DREAM Act *as an amendment to the 2008 Department of Defense Authorization Bill (S. 2919). *

Only took you one bullet point to shoot your own argument in the foot.



WouldaShoulda said:


> 4) Opposition has more bipartisanship than do proponents


*
You mean the 2 Republicans posing as democrats - Lincoln and Pryor?
*
Good job (as usual) at concealing the truly pertinent points

Then we come to this GEM from Eagle


eagle2250 said:


> "Obama" should be more prudent about how he chooses to squander away what little public approval remains


 Yeah, especially when 75% of the American People think Don't Ask Don't Tell should be OVERTURNED. Oh wait, that doesn't make your point does it?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

This whole thing makes my head hurt. McCain should be ashamed of himself. He said not but a couple years ago he would defer to the judgment of military officials on the issue. Then he not only continues to oppose the repeal, he filibusters it when it comes up. Way to be consistent.

If Sarah Palin becomes president then I'll move back to Canada!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Sneak language in? You mean like the Republicans did over and over again in appropriations bills when they were in control under President Bush?
> 
> The "dopey dream act"? You mean the SAME BILL that was proposed in 2007 by Republican Dick Durbin filed to place the DREAM Act *as an amendment to the 2008 Department of Defense Authorization Bill (S. 2919). *


1) Why aren't more people offended when Democrats act like Bush??

2) If it was the SAME BILL that treated community college enrollment on an equal setting as military service, then yes, that bill would be equallly as dopey!!

BTW~I thought there was special consideration for non-citizens serving in our military back when I was in the Army Reserve 30yrs ago. That is something anyone can get behind.


Jovan said:


> He said not but a couple years ago he would defer to the judgment of military officials on the issue. Then he not only continues to oppose the repeal, he filibusters it when it comes up. Way to be consistent.


Take two aspirin.

The way to be consistent is to defer to the judgment of military officials on the issue as Obama proposed.

You aren't thinking clearly!!



beherethen said:


> Until gays stop voting in lock step and begin voting in their own interests, they are not likely to get much.


A gay Tea Party. I like it!!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm thinking quite clearly. McCain said he would do as much. There's even video of him saying so. Look it up.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Why aren't more people offended when Democrats act like Bush??


Just to be clear. The Republicans voted to NOT ALLOW DEBATE on the Military Appropriations Bill. They didn't debate it, fail to get any of their own amendments added and THEN decide they could not vote for it. They never even allowed it to come up for debate.

This is a new tactic that even long time moderate republicans are unfamiliar with. In the past, when Republicans were in charge....Democrats would vote to allow the bill to come to debate, and if they didnt feel they got enough of their items added to the bill, they would vote against it. But to vote to not even debate - that is a new strategy from McConnell and the "do nothing" boys on the right.

So much for Republicans being STRONG on defense and putting our men and women in uniform above all else. :rolleyes2:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> This is a new tactic that even long time moderate republicans are unfamiliar with.
> 
> So much for Republicans being STRONG on defense and putting our men and women in uniform above all else. :rolleyes2:


1) I am unfamiliar with it. I was unfamiliar with how Obamacare was passed also. If the rules are wrong they should be changed

2) Wouldn't it take less time to debate/vote on these three issues seperately than to Jackass around the system for days and vote once?? (I feel that way about most legislation, not just this one) The appropriations portion should never have been encumbered in the first place. Who's fault is that??


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

They attach riders to appropriations bills for two reasons. One is that it can get you around having to deal with the subcommittee and committee procedures for discussion and voting.
The other is it gives the bill a better chance to pass when it otherwise wouldn't.

Say you are an Alaskan lSenator. You want to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is a controversial subject. But there's a bill allocating $1 billion for roads which would easily pass. You attach your ANWR legislation to the Roads bill. Now people have to pass your bill if they want roads. And if they vote against roads then you slam them in your next cIampaign ad saying they voted against necessary infrastructure improvements.

In this case, the Democrats played dirty by attaching the DADT bill to an authorization bill that would have otherwise easily passed. But it's also pointless to get too mad about it because Republicans have done the same thing thousands of times. 

Now, the bill in question here does have the majority vote. Therefore it seems fair that if you have a majority of people in favor of something, it should pass. But of course the Senate has the somewhat silly filibuster rule where there is no time limit on debating a bill. Which means that a minority of Senators can get up and read the telephone book as part of the "discussion" and stall the bill indefinitely so it will never get a fair, straight-up yes-no vote. Essentially they now need 60 votes to get the bill passed instead of 50.

So the only reason why the Democrats used the cheap rider trick is an attempt to counter the Republican's cheap filibuster trick. If the DADT bill goes up separately for a straight vote it would pass. If the Defense Authorization goes up for separately for a straight vote, it would also pass. So arguably, the Democrats are simply trying to reach the "proper" outcome here.

In the end, the Democrats dirty trick was not powerful enough to overcome the Republicans' dirty trick. They didn't get the sixty votes they needed for cloture.

Is any of this really "dirty," though? Both sides have done this tens of thousands of times. It's standard operating procedure. So when the Democrats and Republican cry "Foul" they're really just being hypocrites and trying to win voters. They all knew the score, and every step in this process was totally routine and predictable.

As for the "Congress doesn't trust Obama" thing. That's nothing new either. They aren't supposed to trust each other. They are separate branches of government, each with the ability to stymie the others' desires. It's an intentional system of checks and balances that pits the branches against each other purposely. From the Senate's standpoint, they want DADT revoked, they have the majority necessary to get it done, so why should they wait around and see if Obama does what they want?

I don't think you can read anything into this concerning Obama or Republicans or Democrats being jerks. It's just a bill that didn't pass.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) I am unfamiliar with it. I was unfamiliar with how Obamacare was passed also.


You mean Healthcare reform? The one that just outlawed insurance companies ability to deny your coverage for a pre-exsisting condition?



WouldaShoulda said:


> 2) Wouldn't it take less time to debate/vote on these three issues seperately than to Jackass around the system for days and vote once?? (I feel that way about most legislation, not just this one) The appropriations portion should never have been encumbered in the first place. Who's fault is that??


I dont know, maybe you should ask the Republicans who controlled both houses of congress for 10 of the last 14 years and ran through every shoddy, underhanded amendment they could get their hands on.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> You mean Healthcare reform? The one that just outlawed insurance companies ability to deny your coverage for a pre-exsisting condition?
> 
> I dont know, maybe you should ask the Republicans who controlled both houses of congress for 10 of the last 14 years and ran through every shoddy, underhanded amendment they could get their hands on.


1) This is not entirely true. If you have continuous coverage from one employer to another for instance the pre-existing exclusion does not apply. I beleive that was part of HIPAA passed some years prior. That encouraged people to participate in plans. Obamacare compels participation with a penalty or tax or whatever they will call it to get it to pass Constitutional muster.

2) That's why the TEA Party exists and Crybaby Bigspending Republican losers got kicked out.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> They attach riders to appropriations bills for two reasons.


I understand it. I just don't like it.



jean-paul sartorial said:


> From the Senate's standpoint, they want DADT revoked, they have the majority necessary to get it done, so why should they wait around and see if Obama does what they want?


Because they'd rather play tricks in an election cycle??

Too bad the sources I quoted previously missed the obvious!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Does it substantially bother any of us that, as citizens/members of the amorphous and always befuddled electorate, that the elected pols on both sides of the aisle are playing us for idiots on virtually every major issue presently facing our Nation? Republican or Democrat, as the old saying goes, "if their lips are moving, the are lying" or, at the very least, stretching the hell out of the truth!


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

It bothers me some, but I suppose in the end I still believe in the principle that people should be free to elect their leaders. So no matter how stupidly I might think the voters are acting, it's not really my right to judge. 

A bunch of freely elected idiots serves the country better than a benevolent tyrant. They lie because we let them, in fact we demand it. Hopefully one day, we'll stop letting them do that.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Too bad the sources I quoted previously missed the obvious!!


Too bad you missed the most obvious part of this entire discussion.

DADT was actually PASSED in the first place as an 11th hour amendment to the Military Appropriations Bill in 1994...as Republicans in congress overrode the President's directive that all Americans be allowed to openly serve in the armed services.

Now, 16 years later - they use another underhanded trick to try and prevent the undoing of a policy that is wildly unpopular with the American public and has negative effects on the military. And Republicans try and blame Obama.

Too funny.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Does it substantially bother any of us that, as citizens/members of the amorphous and always befuddled electorate, that the elected pols on both sides of the aisle are playing us for idiots on virtually every major issue presently facing our Nation?


Since Will Rogers, Mark Twain or before that even??


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> Does it substantially bother any of us that, as citizens/members of the amorphous and always befuddled electorate, that the elected pols on both sides of the aisle are playing us for idiots on virtually every major issue presently facing our Nation? Republican or Democrat, as the old saying goes, "if their lips are moving, the are lying" or, at the very least, stretching the hell out of the truth!


 I don't have a lot of faith in anything that politicians say or do, but I have even less faith in the average American voter.

After 18 months of primarily bailing out and mopping up from the mess left by the previous administration, people are "fed up" and ready to put the same jokers who got us into this mess back into the majority? Run that one by me again&#8230;you want to give the keys to the car back to the guy who crashed it, before the new guy has even completed one lap?

Now, I am not naïve enough to think that President Obama is going to be some kind of miracle worker&#8230;.he has proven he is just as much of a politician as anyone else. I just find it curious that none of these "tea partiers" had much to say for 8 years under President Bush&#8230;.now all of a sudden, when the Dems take over, they are freaking out.

This is nothing but the Republican party under some new guise. Same old Right Wing agenda&#8230;.same cast of characters (Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, Newt) - give me a break.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> I just find it curious that none of these "tea partiers" had much to say for 8 years under President Bush&#8230;.


I'm no TEA Partier but I complained about Bush's dopey spend-happiness all along.



mrkleen said:


> &#8230;you want to give the keys to the car back to the guy who crashed it, before the new guy has even completed one lap?


That got old REAL fast!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That got old REAL fast!!


Yeah, asking people to actually give you a chance to get your head above water before you are judged?

Sounds unreasonable to me too :rolleyes2:

The American electorate deserves what they get if they are this stupid.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> The American electorate deserves what they get if they are this stupid.


You took the words right out of my mouth!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> I don't have a lot of faith in anything that politicians say or do, but I have even less faith in the average American voter.
> 
> After 18 months of primarily bailing out and mopping up from the mess left by the previous administration, people are "fed up" and ready to put the same jokers who got us into this mess back into the majority? Run that one by me again&#8230;you want to give the keys to the car back to the guy who crashed it, before the new guy has even completed one lap?
> 
> ...


Alas, methinks you give far too much credit to the presently serving crop of elected crooks and a**holes! You also seem to overlook the foundation for disaster constructed and left by the Hill-Bill administration. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said. :thumbs-up:


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Obama by and large hasn't broken too many promises-- and to the extent he has it's mostly been towards the right. And healthcare thing hasn't even taken effect yet. I think if you are conservative, what you don't like about Obama is that he has been exactly everything you feared when he was elected. 

So it does strike me as extremely stupid that many of those who voted for him have within the space of two years suddenly think he's terrible. They blame him for implementing a healthcare plan very similar to the one he promised (and McCain had a national plan as well) during the campaign that they all voted for.

While I have some serious issues regarding Bush's competency, he suffered from the same voter schizophrenia. He won the 2004 election in large part because people liked his Mideast policy. By 2006, everyone thought the war was horrible. It's one thing to change your mind, it's yet another to pretend you didn't and some dictator foisted this war on you.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership and agenda is total junk right now. Their agenda now consists of reducing taxes, reducing spending, eliminating health care, reducing the debt and leaving Social Security and Medicare alone. That's a joke. There's no way you can leave Social Security untouched and hope to reduce spending, and if you can't reduce spending and you reduce taxes, you have no chance of reducing the debt. 

It's pointless to blame Congress or either party when individual voters are the ones swallowing these outrageous lies hook, line, and sinker. Liberals allow the Democrats to blame big business for everything. Conservatives allow the Republicans to blame the government (and laughably, the "left wing media) for everything.

Until people take some personal responsibility for themselves and stop blaming everyone else for their problems we're just going to alternate back and forth between scapegoats. Which is why it's so easy for the politicians to create wedge issues.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> So it does strike me as extremely stupid that many of those who voted for him have within the space of two years suddenly think he's terrible. They blame him for implementing a healthcare plan very similar to the one he promised (and McCain had a national plan as well) during the campaign that they all voted for.
> 
> While I have some serious issues regarding Bush's competency, he suffered from the same voter schizophrenia. He won the 2004 election in large part because people liked his Mideast policy. By 2006, everyone thought the war was horrible. It's one thing to change your mind, it's yet another to pretend you didn't and some dictator foisted this war on you.


These are both good points. Obama has done much of what he said he would!!

I have never understood swing voters.

I didn't vote for McCain in the primary though I admire him greatly.

It's hard to imagine invading Iraq was more popular than Obamacare if you go by the house votes!! (or non-votes as it were)


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's hard to imagine invading Iraq was more popular than Obamacare if you go by the house votes!! (or non-votes as it were)


Could you find two more "apples" to "oranges" examples?

Only a few very brave, principled members of congress could vote no on the war in light of the actions of 9/11. The fact that they turned out to be CORRECT is immaterial to the fact that it was a very difficult bill to vote no on.

Health care reform on the other hand, was summarily dismissed by nearly every republican congress member as part of their party affiliation. The Republicans nearly unified strategy to vote "no" or worse, not even allow debate on any democratic bill was just kicking into gear.

Of course there were more no votes for Healthcare Reform. :idea:


----------



## Enron (Feb 16, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> Well the President certainly seems to be keeping an open mind on the issue, until he reads what the report has to say. Certainly, no preconceptions being harbored here!
> 
> "Obama" should be more prudent about how he chooses to squander away what little public approval remains, pertaining to his performance in office. In a few years, Sarah Palin is going to have to have that "bile in your throat', awful carpeting, Obama just had installed in the oval office, removed!


I hope that was a joke. I'm a registered Republican but if Sarah Palin gets into the Oval Office i'm putting in for a transfer to the Toronto office.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

heh. That's a new one... a Republican threatening to leave for Canada.

I wouldn't worry about it, though. Palin is useless. Even if we take the view that her somewhat fringe-ish views end up capturing the mainstream over the next few year, she brings nothing to the table. She's amazingly thin-skinned, she's not very politically astute, and she doesn't listen.

The Tea Party can easily find a much more suitable candidate to replace her. Even her core constituency does not like her so much for her personal qualities, but only because of what she says. The same is true for most of the Tea Party candidates right now, though if they get traction someone will eventually learn, or someone new will come along to offer the complete package.

Say what you want about Obama's views, but foolishly or not to some degree liberals actually believed in the _person_ and not the rhetoric. That's why he won over Hillary Clinton despite their platforms being essentially identical.

When you break down the Tea Party platform, it's actually pretty much indistinguishable from the mainstream conservative platform. They're just crazier is all. I think Palin could still have an impact on conservatives and the population at large, but as a pundit and not as a candidate.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Enron said:


> I hope that was a joke. I'm a registered Republican but if Sarah Palin gets into the Oval Office i'm putting in for a transfer to the Toronto office.


Indeed, while I share a number of Sarah Palins conservative values, I do not believe she is of the timber necessary to gain the Oval office! However, I am very serious in my assertion that President Obama must do a better job of picking his battles and selling his programs to the other side. He is becoming alarmingly out of touch with the American public (sorta like the path taken by President Bush on a number of issues) and will not get a second chance, if he does not soon wake up! Frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hillary Clinton made the attempt to snatch the party nomination away from him, the next time around.


----------



## Enron (Feb 16, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed, while I share a number of Sarah Palins conservative values, I do not believe she is of the timber necessary to gain the Oval office! However, I am very serious in my assertion that President Obama must do a better job of picking his battles and selling his programs to the other side. He is becoming alarmingly out of touch with the American public (sorta like the path taken by President Bush on a number of issues) and will not get a second chance, if he does not soon wake up! Frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hillary Clinton made the attempt to snatch the party nomination away from him, the next time around.


Well yeah, I was really just talking about the Sarah Palin part. I share some of these new conservative values, but just as the Democrats have in recent years become defined by their more liberal leadership (who are still the minority in the party) the Republicans are becoming more and more defined by their crazy loon minority on their uber-conservative right. I think much of it has to do with Republicans stoking the crazy angry fires of the Tea Party simply because Obama is in office and people are upset, and things will go back to normal after we boot him out in 2012 but I find myself more ashamed of my party these days.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> The American electorate deserves what they get if they are this stupid.


I agree wholeheartedly with the basic premise of that statement, that the American people deserve exactly what they get from electing officials. The people deserve every bit of the consequences of the current administration and super majority. I hope that our country will learn from that, and be a little more thoughtful in electing the next one, not just a knee jerk reaction in the voting booth.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Health care reform on the other hand, was summarily dismissed by nearly every republican congress member as part of their party affiliation. The Republicans nearly unified strategy to vote "no" or worse, not even allow debate on any democratic bill was just kicking into gear.
> 
> Of course there were more no votes for Healthcare Reform. :idea:


 Well now, that's quite a spin. The majority of American people think that Obamacare is WRONG, and do NOT want the healthcare reform bill that was passed. But for some reason, every single one of the DEMOCRATS, (not Republicans) decided against the will of the people that it was the right thing to do, and voted for it. This is not just one or two Democrats that said "hmm... I know my constituents don't want me to do this, but I think I'll do it anyway." They ALL did it. Now... of the two parties, which one sounds like voting with the American people, and which one sounds like voting just because your party affiliation tells you to vote that way?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Wildblue said:


> Well now, that's quite a spin. The majority of American people think that Obamacare is WRONG, and do NOT want the healthcare reform bill that was passed.


Most of the people that Democrats represent are - wait for it - DEMOCRATS. And most Democrats supported the Health Care Reform. See that is the point of being the majority. You get to vote the way you and your constituents want you to vote. Democrats didnt vote against the will of the American people...they voted FOR the will of the people that elected them. Republicans did the same, and sorry for the right - there were more votes on the left with this issue.

The vast majority of people in Massachusetts (for example) are in favor of Health Care Reform....so our congressional contingent did the RIGHT THING in voting for the bill. Isnt that their job, to vote for the majority of their constituents?



Wildblue said:


> Now... of the two parties, which one sounds like voting with the American people, and which one sounds like voting just because your party affiliation tells you to vote that way?


Yeah, I dont know WHAT the Republicans vote on in this congress - as they simply DONT VOTE on anything other than the procedural votes to not vote. They vote for filibuster after filibuster - so they never have to go on the record against or for anything.

Another funny thing about this whole "Americans dont want the health care bill fallacy is watching Republicans cherry pick ideas from the big, bad, socialist bill - to put "word for word" into their new"Pledge to America"

So they want to repeal the Health Care Reform act.....yet keep a few of the best ideas for their own. How hypocritical of them. That is like calling someone and idiot, as you rifle through his notes for more "idiotic" ideas you can capitalize on. Yet more of the same from the party of NO votes and NO ideas.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Wildblue said:


> Well now, that's quite a spin. The majority of American people think that Obamacare is WRONG, and do NOT want the healthcare reform bill that was passed. But for some reason, every single one of the DEMOCRATS, (not Republicans) decided against the will of the people that it was the right thing to do, and voted for it. This is not just one or two Democrats that said "hmm... I know my constituents don't want me to do this, but I think I'll do it anyway." They ALL did it. Now... of the two parties, which one sounds like voting with the American people, and which one sounds like voting just because your party affiliation tells you to vote that way?


I agree with a lot of what you say, but in this case, I feel that both the Democrats and the Republicans are guilty of this.

It's hard for me to believe that all these folks voted to put this into play without even reading the bill, but the Republicans have done plenty of rash unwise things to please their "base", too.

Unless we stop pandering to left and right bases and start trying to achieve consensus, our country is not headed to a good place.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Most of the people that Democrats represent are - wait for it - DEMOCRATS. And most Democrats supported the Health Care Reform. See that is the point of being the majority. You get to vote the way you and your constituents want you to vote. Democrats didnt vote against the will of the American people...they voted FOR the will of the people that elected them. Republicans did the same, and sorry for the right - there were more votes on the left with this issue.
> 
> The vast majority of people in Massachusetts (for example) are in favor of Health Care Reform....so our congressional contingent did the RIGHT THING in voting for the bill. Isnt that their job, to vote for the majority of their constituents?
> 
> ...


I guess I worry about the government getting more power. (This applies to some folks on the right trying to push their views onto people instead of winning them over by convincing them of the merit of their ideas. I really don't like either side using the government to bitchslap people they don't like.)

I was a governmental auditor for a few years early in my career and there is very little incentive for anyone to do anything efficiently in a governmental setting. Some government is necessary, but generally, the more freedom people have, the more they will do the right thing for themselves.

I honestly think the worst problem for our health care system is the system where individuals do not pay for their insurance (company or government provided) and start to think of it as a free good instead of as something they need to allocate rationally. Because the insurance companies and the government have so much money, there is little incentive for providers or consumers to be efficient.

However, the changes necessary to reform this system would be so painful in the short term that no one will really reform it until some horrific crisis involving health care happens.

A government agency making these decisions will be no better and could possibly be far worse than private insurance companies using and abusing their power.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I guess I worry about the government getting more power. (This applies to some folks on the right trying to push their views onto people instead of winning them over by convincing them of the merit of their ideas. I really don't like either side using the government to bitchslap people they don't like.)


I am no fan of big government either...and agree that if all they do every 2 or 4 years is ramming through as much crap as they can to stick it to the other side before they regain power - then it is a race to the bottom that just hurt the average American.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> I was a governmental auditor for a few years early in my career and there is very little incentive for anyone to do anything efficiently in a governmental setting. Some government is necessary, but generally, the more freedom people have, the more they will do the right thing for themselves.


I think the past 10 years or so, with the deregulation on Wall St and the subsequent greed and unchecked behavior, the deregulation of coal mines and oil rigs and the subsequent accidents, and the deregulation of trade policies and the exit of millions of American jobs clearly shows this "free marketing / small government" idea is an utter failure.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> A government agency making these decisions will be no better and could possibly be far worse than private insurance companies using and abusing their power.


This is a poor argument. I agree that the government does muck up a lot of what they are involved with - but with the future economic health of the nation at risk and the current system simply NOT WORKING - what else would you have them do? Nothing?

President Obama took a stand on the belief that something is better than nothing. Funny thing is that Republicans - who bashed it everyday since its passage are now CHERRY PICKING IDEAS from the Health Reform Act to put into their own platform.

Bottom line to me here is that Americans want their cake and to eat it too. They want low taxes, free markets, and small government - yet they also want good schools, smooth roads, and someone to hold accountable when there is a big oil spill or hurricane. They want to go to the all you can eat buffet every night - and still look fit and trim. And frankly, no one is telling them how stupid and short sighted they are.

Take the Tea Baggers for example. How many of them collect Social Security, and get health care through Medicare and the VA - yet they still stand up there holding moronic signs calling for "smaller government and less taxes??? Are they really that stupid to believe that you can both cut taxes AND maintain services? Do they understand that Medicare and the VA system is "universal health care"? The mind boggles.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Wildblue said:


> Well now, that's quite a spin. The majority of American people think that Obamacare is WRONG, and do NOT want the healthcare reform bill that was passed.


You probably couldn't get the majority of Americans to agree on anything, much less something as complex as healthcare. Our system is not really built so that the majority gets what they want. Rather it forces compromise so that the majority of people get something they can live with.

The Republicans had an opportunity to sell their constituency on either taking on the tremendous short term costs of the kind of free market solution forsbergacct2000 proposes, or compromising and wringing some concessions from Obama's plan and moving slowly toward their targets.

Instead they took the simplest way out by refusing to do anything and then choosing to blame the other side for absolutely everything that happened-- even if some of those results were things that conservatives should ostensibly favor (like reforming Medicare and Social Security).

As someone who actually leans fiscally conservative and who does not favor Obama's plan, I was hugely disappointed in the way the Republicans handled it.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> ...A government agency making these [health care] decisions will be no better and could possibly be far worse than private insurance companies using and abusing their power.


Interestingly enough, the government-run health care plans Medicare and the Veterans Administration both rank higher in customer satisfaction surveys than private insurance-based health care plans do, while being more cost-effective.   And this is old news -- here's an article from 2006:

Republican politicians, corporate media and their allies in the health care industry would rather invent scare stories about death panels and "socialized medicine" than let people know the simple truth that leaving health care decisions up to corporate bureaucrats is demonstrably the worst possible way to ensure a humane and efficient system.

But hey! Politics is usually about three things and health care isn't one of them. :biggrin:


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

I honestly can't comprehend why Americia seems so rabidly negative towards socialised healthcare for those that _need it_. Guess ultimately there's not much profit it in.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> I honestly can't comprehend why Americia seems so rabidly negative towards socialised healthcare for those that _need it_. Guess ultimately there's not much profit it in.


We already had socialised healthcare for those that _need it_.

Instead of adjusting it and making it more viable, we got Obamacare.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Too bad you missed the most obvious part of this entire discussion.
> 
> DADT was actually PASSED in the first place as an 11th hour amendment to the Military Appropriations Bill in 1994...as Republicans in congress overrode the President's directive that all Americans be allowed to openly serve in the armed services.
> 
> ...


(1) Republicans in Congress couldn't have overridden ANYTHING in 1994 as they were in the minority.

(2) The problems the Dems are having getting R votes to override the current filibuster is linked to the fact that they are limiting Republican amendments. That's one thing never mentioned in the media - the rise of R's use of filibuster is linked to Harry Reid's abuse of the Senate's traditionally opened amendment process.

(3) Finally, the bill in question is an authorization, not a spending measure.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

So say I'm American and I can't afford health insurance because lets say I lost my job.... I arrive at a hospital in the US and need heart surgery. Will I get it? Will I also get the right drugs needed before and after? When I say will I get it, I mean will I get it for free? Just trying to figure out how it works.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> So say I'm American and I can't afford health insurance because lets say I lost my job.... I arrive at a hospital in the US and need heart surgery. Will I get it?
> 
> Will I also get the right drugs needed before and after?
> 
> When I say will I get it, I mean will I get it for free?


1. Yes

2. Yes

3. NOTHING is for free. Medicaid is a State run and Federally funded program that has been around for decades. Every taxpayer pays. A lot!!

BTW~Why would anyone feel entitled to "free" healthcare??


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
You forgot to ask, "Will I die while waiting, interminably, in the que for my hour in the operating room?" That's a reality of socialized medicine that seems often overlooked!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

DCLawyer68 said:


> (1) Republicans in Congress couldn't have overridden ANYTHING in 1994 as they were in the minority.


 
The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton who campaigned on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.[12] At the time, per Reagan's Defense Directive 1332.14, it was military policy that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were discharged.[12][13] The Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures for discharging homosexual service members.[14]
*
Congress overrode Clinton by including text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993)*  requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy.[13] The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993[15] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.[13] This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".



DCLawyer68 said:


> (2) The problems the Dems are having getting R votes to override the current filibuster is linked to the fact that they are limiting Republican amendments. That's one thing never mentioned in the media - the rise of R's use of filibuster is linked to Harry Reid's abuse of the Senate's traditionally opened amendment process.


I am sure you know this, but just for clarity sake - here is how it goes. First you vote to open debate on a piece of legislation. Then, you debate it and introduce amendments. Lastly, you vote on the bill with the attached amendments. By not allowing debate to even begin - Republicans are refusing to even allow it to get to the point where amendments are introduced and debated. If anyone is "abusing" anything, it is the right abusing the use of the filibuster. They are using it in an unprecedented manner. 

 

There have been about "the same number of cloture motions between January 2009 and today as between World War I and the moon landing. *It once took 50 years to get the same number of cloture votes as we've had in just over one year with this Republican minority."* 

John Aravosis : "What the data clearly shows it that the GOP is filibustering at twice the rate of what the Democrats did before, including what they did under Bush. So Republicans can't claim that Democrats did it too -- they didn't. Not like this."



DCLawyer68 said:


> (3) Finally, the bill in question is an authorization, not a spending measure.


Give me a break, you know this is nothing but semantics. 

The  *National Defense Authorization Act* is the name of a United States federal law that is enacted each fiscal year to specify the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton who campaigned on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.[12] At the time, per Reagan's Defense Directive 1332.14, it was military policy that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were discharged.[12][13] The Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures for discharging homosexual service members.[14]
> 
> *Congress overrode Clinton by including text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993)* requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy.[13] The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993[15] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.[13] This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
> 
> ...


(1) You cited authority that "Congress" overrode the President. Before you had stated that "Republicans in Congress" had done so. In short, your citation doesn't back up your assertion.

(2) And I'm sure YOU know this - the Senate Majority Leader lays out the procedures under which a bill will be proceed. When he files amendments beforehand to "fill the tree" it's an indication no other amendments will be permitted. BOTH SIDES are proceeding in a manner uncharacteristic of the Senate in that regard.

(3) Finally, the difference between the DOD Authorization bill and the DOD spending bill is NOTHING semantic. The prior bill contains policy changes, the latter the spending. Hence you're ("Republicans aren't supporting our troops) charge is baseless given this. It's one thing to block the former, quite another the latter in terms of its affect.

I assume the lengthy quotations come from Wikipedia - as someone who worked on the Hill for 10 years, I can assure at least some of it is wrong.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> You forgot to ask, "Will I die while waiting, interminably, in the que for my hour in the operating room?" That's a reality of socialized medicine that seems often overlooked!


Plenty of folks outside the US are as vulnerable to misinformation as we are. 

I'm confident niether of us are dying by the cartload being refused treatment.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> You forgot to ask, "Will I die while waiting, interminably, in the que for my hour in the operating room?" That's a reality of socialized medicine that seems often overlooked!


One year ago or so, my 73 year old mother fell and broker her hip. She was hospitalised immediatly and underwent surgery within three days to have her hip replaced. It was swift, effective, the highest of quality and for all intents and purposes to her it was free - along with weeks of convalesence and rehabilitation. Of course it wasn't free but the principal that most of us Euros have grown up with is one of social solidarity - lifelong taxation sheilds us from the burden of high medical costs when we actually need the system. It's certainly not perfect and works better in some countries than others. But at least you know you'll get the right care and the right drugs when you need them.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Until people have experienced it, many do not realize the limitations inherent in socialized (or quasi-socialized) medicine. My late younger brother suffered a disabling heart attack back in 1993 and as an SSI recipient, was covered by Medicare. They gave him five years to live. He struggled to find one of the more competent doctors, who would accept Medicare, to provide medical care. A number of the more advanced medications were not even authorized by Medicare and his prescription co-payments averaged $400 to $600 per month. We were able to pick up an individual supplemental coverage policy from Blue Cross/Blue Shield to make things workable for him but, it was not cheap! Fortunately, he survived for almost thirteen years, well beyond the predictions of longevity offered by the Docs who accepted Medicare coverage as being fully sufficient.

Based on my military service and retired status, I am eligible for treatment through the VA and my wife and I are eligible for coverage under the Tri-Care (military) Insurance program. In both instances service is so inconvenient and frequently did not accommodate our expectations and we chose to purchase BC/BS coverage, as a result of my civilian retirement and at a much higher rate, to be able to gain access to the medical care we desired, from providers we preferred. Socialize medicine and forfiet much of your choice!

These are just two very simplified examples of what to expect when Obama Care comes fully in force! I for one, am not impressed and am dreading the reality of this disaster that has been foisted upon us by the present Administration and our Congress.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

^ Eagle, all your dour tales of bureaucratic neglect and unsatisfied expectations, fears of a dread future gone wrong, rock-solid belief in the verity of private capital and its masters and warnings about all this creeping Bolshevism seem to indicate a need to change your screen name. How about "Herbert Hoosier?":wink2:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Quay said:


> ...a need to change your screen name. How about "Herbert Hoosier?":wink2:


I laugh, Quay, a lot, but I had to finish before starting this because I think Eagle's quite serious and he's sharing stuff that happened quite close to home. However, Mr. Eagle, this...



eagle2250 said:


> I am eligible for treatment through the VA and my wife and I are eligible for coverage under the Tri-Care (military) Insurance program. [In addition] we chose to purchase Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage...


...puts you in the most enviable of positions. A reminder, and only that because you _gotta_ know, that millions and millions of Americans do not have nor cannot get either.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Peak and Pine: I quite agree with the point made but left unstated in your closing comment, there has to be a safety net. All people should be able to access health care, regardless of their financial condition. However, is the only way to achieve that going to require that we 'dumb-down' the entire system? I do not mind giving back and sharing graciously with those less fortunate...indeed, I enjoy doing so and do so quite regularly! On the other hand, I do not enjoy having my pockets picked, which in five words or less, is how I see Obama Care.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> ... there has to be a safety net. All people should be able to access health care, regardless of their financial condition.


Now that we all agree that acess to is not an issue, the only question that remains is how providers will get reimbursed.

That eliminates a lot of the foolish rhetoric about dying in the streets and brings us back to a workable reality.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
To my mind, an option more reasonable than Obama Care would have been an expansion and clean-up of the Medicare program, sufficient to provide coverage for those who do not have it and to provide funding of this suggested expansion through enforcement initiatives to clean up the fraudulent claims that seem rampant, throughout the present day Medicare program(s). How is it that we can afford to pay all those fraudulent claims and yet not have sufficient funds to insure that claims that we are paying, are legitimate?



Quay said:


> ^ Eagle, all your dour tales of bureaucratic neglect and unsatisfied expectations, fears of a dread future gone wrong, rock-solid belief in the verity of private capital and its masters and warnings about all this creeping Bolshevism seem to indicate a need to change your screen name. How about "Herbert Hoosier?":wink2:


LOL. I rather like the new moniker you have suggested. Indeed I do have some less than complimentary opinions regarding the directions we seem to be going pertaining to health care in this country. In an effort to put my earlier comments in perspective; my nights are occasionally disturbed by dreams that question why I am still here, while others are not and, having been diagnosed with degenerative arthritis in my hip(s), along my spine, both shoulders and in my left wrist (I'm a southpaw for gawds sake), my days are characterized by some degree of discomfort. Many of my present day aches and pains are related to my service to the great republic of ours (and they wouldn't even invite my to play in todays 'sandpit'!). I do have a horse in this race!

I have experienced the health care programs that I have commented on. A few weeks ago, while out for a walk, our six year old grandson commented, "Papa, you walk like an old man!" Perhaps it is possible that there are times when I may get a little cranky (I prefer to say edgy...sounds so much more cosmopolitan!). I do hope my edginess has not unjustly colored my views on Obama Care. I do not think it has. Obama Care will not sufficiently resolve the problems it was intended to address and it will create a long list of new complaints!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I remember the Good Old Days... when this thread was about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," conservatives didn't selectively WANT government involvement when those God Damned Queers offended them, and kids like me stayed away when the grown-ups argued about politics.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Thread does seem to have strayed a bit.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> I remember the Good Old Days... when this thread was about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," conservatives didn't selectively WANT government involvement when those God Damned Queers offended them, and kids like me stayed away when the grown-ups argued about politics.


If you are good, this year we will get you some long pants and let you sit at the grown-ups table Thanksgiving!!


----------

