So Now What? Republican Politics Or Getting Something Done?

[rubato]

"...
Total horseshit. Pure, unadulterated horseshit.

Obama compromised with the Republicans on financial regulatory reform. He compromised with them on the stimulus package. He compromised with them on health-care-insurance reform. Etc., etc., etc.

The refusal to compromise has come from the Republicans. We all know about McConnell: The only thing he cares about is "for President Obama to be one-term president," and he doesn't give a shit how many ordinary Americans' lives he has to wreck to make that happen.

But Boehner is no better. Oh, he doesn't say things as mind-bogglingly stupid as the things that come out of McConnell's mouth. But he has made no bones about it: "We will not compromise."
... " .

True facts.

But the party of treason will not care.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Obama compromised with the Republicans on financial regulatory reform. He compromised with them on the stimulus package. He compromised with them on health-care-insurance reform. Etc., etc., etc.

I'm going to assume that there must be a parallel universe somewhere, where that actually took place...

But in this time line what happened was that after Obama initially came up with a stimulous package that the GOP Congressional leadership described as "a good basis for negotiation", Nancy Pelosi went up to the White House and informed them that was a dead issue; that she and the Demo leadership in the House would write the bill; to which David Aklerod replied, "message received".

What then happened is that Pelosi and her Demo cronies wrote a bill, shutting out every single GOP amendment, and then, when none of the Republicans voted for it, they had the cynical gall to start trying to tag the Republican Party as "the party of no" and accusing them of obstructionism and having "no ideas"....

Also on this planet, meaningful financial regulatory reform was torpedoed by the Democrats, particularly Chris Dodd and Barney Franks, (two of the biggest bank whores in the Congress) with able assistance from Obama's own Tim Geitner....

Again, here on Terra Firma, No effort was made to include the GOP in the Healthcare Bill, (one GOP Senator who did sign on to a bill got sand bagged by Harry Reid) and the Dems were unable to pass a bill with a public option because they couldn't get enough Democratic votes for it....

But I guess things went differently in your universe....

Did the Yankees win the World Series there?

[rubato]

Obama compromised with the Republicans on financial regulatory reform. He compromised with them on the stimulus package. He compromised with them on health-care-insurance reform. Etc., etc., etc.

I'm going to assume that there must be a parallel universe somewhere, where that actually took place...
... "

This would be the universe of reality where the Democrats did not have a filibuster-proof majority and thus had to ... compromise ... to get enough votes to enact legislation.

sparky.

try to keep up?

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

I'm going to assume that there must be a parallel universe somewhere ....

You don't have to assume; you inhabit it.

I live in the real universe where most Americans want everyone to have access to health care, including non-emergency health care.

You live in the parallel universe where the fact that millions of Americans have no access to non-emergency health care is A-OK.

I live in the real universe where most Americans want the financial industry to be regulated so that ordinary people are not routinely ripped off.

You live in the parallel universe where the select few make fortunes by duping the non-select many, and that's A-OK.

You live in the parallel universe where correctly identifying "the Republican Party as 'the party of no' and accusing them of obstructionism and having 'no ideas'" is labeled false.

I live in the real universe, where your claim is given the respect that it deserves -- on par with geocentrism.

The incontrovertible facts remain exactly that -- incontrovertible.

The truth of the matter is that the productive parts of America -- the parts that both produce more than they suck from the federal teat and recognize that their productivity is a cooperative enterprise -- would be even better off if they were to do the right thing by severing the right-wing, leeching parts of America.

You know that it's true.

You can deny it all you want. You can deride it is "Liberalstan," but you do so because you know that it is true.

Recognize the truth: Right-wingism leads to disaster for all but the privileged few. Anti-right-wingism (which is not, much as you love to claim that it is (hey, when rational argument fails, there's always diversion) the same as left-wingism) can lead in various directions. Some of them are disastrous. But others are not.

And that's more than right-wingism can honestly claim (not that right-wingism and honesty have anything other than an adversarial relationship).

Take off your blinders, Lord Jim.

I know that you are better than what you have recently posted. And so do you.

[Gob]

Fascinating to see the way in which the USA is split along party lines, with such intelligent men as Andrew and Jim, able to make reasonable points to support their cases.

So guys, within the context of the current situation and set up, explain to a foreigner who does not understand your political system, (and sees it as a recipe for disaster) what needs to be done by your political leaders FOR THE GOOD OF THE USA.

Political ideology, history, and likes/dislikes aside, what can be done now to drag the USA out of its current predicament?

[Gob]

Oh, and without personal attacks would be nice

[Crackpot]

Elect effective leadership?

[rubato]

Elect people who understand that their role is to lead and to educate the public when the public does not understand rather than to switch sides to pander to the lowest instincts.

The bank bailout was passed by both Republicans and Democrats, to the credit of both. It was the right decision. But when the Republican party learned that the 'angry white' voters they had curried did not understand that the bailout was necessary, albeit unpalatable, they switched sides (or got booted by "tea-baggers") rather than take on the job of explaining why it was the right decision. The result is that stupidity got re-elected and the electorate are even more stupid and more likely to support stupid policies than they were before.

Education is the cure for many ills.

Complete cowardice.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

You underestimate yourself, Gob.

... a foreigner who does not understand your political system, (and sees it as a recipe for disaster)....

You understand our political system quite well.

[Lord Jim]

Strop, the federal government was deliberately structured in such a way as to make it difficult for the government to do things, especially to do them quickly. This is what the concept of "checks and balances" is all about.

This was done, because the Founders recognized that while having a government was necessary, that unchecked, governments tend to become tyrannical. So the whole system was designed not to enable government action, but to prevent government excesses.

On top of this, within each house of the legislative branch, they have designed their own procedures which further slow down the pace of taking action. (This is particularly true in the Senate where they have designed rules so tilted in favor of the minority that a single Senator can hold up legislation, or an appointment, almost indefinitely)

When you overlay on top of the system and these procedures, the level of mistrust and acrimony that exists today between the various parties and factions in the Congress, (and also vis a vis the Executive) it becomes very very difficult to get anything done.

[Long Run]

.

The real issue is exemplified by this: You have health insurance through your employer. After you (and your employer) had paid premiums for a decade or so, you are diagnosed with liver cancer. That is not a "pre-existing condition"; you had been covered under the insurance policy for years before you were ever diagnosed with liver cancer. Then your employer decides to switch insurance companies, a decision over which you have no control. The new insurance company decides that your liver cancer is a "pre-existing condition" -- after all, you had already been diagnosed with liver cancer before the new policy kicked in ("incepted") -- so you are no longer covered. All of those premiums that you paid for a decade or so before being diagnosed with liver cancer just go up in smoke. The insurance company gets the profits, and you get the shaft.

So what do the Republicans plan to do about that?

This problem has largely been dealt with, by both Rs and Ds. On a state level, there has been insurance reform to require guaranteed issue (if an employer goes from one carrier to another carrier, there is no preexisting condition exclusion for continuing participants). Both parties implemented the HIPAA portability provisions that say if you go from one coverage to another coverage (within 63 days) there can be no preexisting condition exclusion. I suppose the rules can be tightened, but this is one issue that both parties have agreed to.

On the preexisting condition issue, it is unfair to all payers if someone who has not been paying, then gets ill or injured, to be able to obtain coverage for their preexisting condition. In contrast, if someone has been in the system, they should not be subject to preexisting condition exclusions. As a result, the only way to fully eliminate the preexisting condition exclusion, is to have universal coverage which means mandatory coverage. Mandatory coverage is unpopular, while preexisting condition exclusions are also unpopular . . . go figure.

This also highlights where Obama/Pelosi/Reid went wrong. Instead of continuing to identify the most pressing problems with healthcare (as was done since 1993) and dealing with those problems, they went for the whole banana. The legislation appears to be an attempt to create a national-like health care plan, which is designed to be unworkable and enormously expensive, and to eventually lead to a single payer system.

[dgs49]

Note to foreigners:

There is a chasm between the American political parties that is not amenable to compromise.

The Left sees the social democracies of Europe as the ideal to which we should aspire. Cradle to grave care, "free" medical, "free" pensions, "free" old age homes, "free education," the lot. The American Left abhors the very concept of objective morality, reacts to religion in the same way that Count Dracula reacts to a crucifix, and basically sees the Federal Government as the necessary solution to all of life's problems. The Left sees no problem with enacting gargantuan new government programs in response to the most bizarre anecdotal problems (see AJD's latest post).

The Left conveniently ignores the facts that (a) Americans are not willing to pay $7.50/gal for gasoline, and (b) half their gross incomes to fund all this government "largess." They also ignore that we have a constitutional government that prohibits most, if not all, of these government programs, and it plants partisans in the judiciary, who pretend that the constitution does not say what it patently does say.

The Right is the party of mature adults - people who beleive that people ought to be responsible for their own acts and failures.

Simple, eh?

[Guinevere]

Actually, if you read Dave's posts you will come to know that the "Right" is made up of many short-sighted, ignorant bigots who care about nothing but themselves, how they can line their own pockets.

I concede that not every right-winger is like that, and admit that I have some dear friends who are conservatives, and who are thoughtful and caring in their approach to government. Dave, of course, could not begin to concede that anyone who identifies as "Left" could possibly have anything to contribute to any discussion. Dave also conveniently ignores that fact that there are an equal if not greater number of those of us on the "Left" who are successful, self-made than those on the "Right." The difference -- even if we are successful (or perhaps because of it) we give a damn about our community and our country, not just ourselves.

So who is the most "mature?"

[Gob]

Dave personifies the selfish right wing and their delusions.

He cannot see that every first world country provides, healthcare, pensions and care for the elderly, and no one there thinks these things are free.

He creates fictitious lies as he has little or no substance to back up his views. He lives on a diet of cliche and untruths.

[Econoline]

Actually, if you read Dave's posts you will come to know that the "Right" is made up of many short-sighted, ignorant bigots who care about nothing but themselves, how they can line their own pockets.

I concede that not every right-winger is like that, and admit that I have some dear friends who are conservatives, and who are thoughtful and caring in their approach to government. Dave, of course, could not begin to concede that anyone who identifies as "Left" could possibly have anything to contribute to any discussion. Dave also conveniently ignores that fact that there are an equal if not greater number of those of us on the "Left" who are successful, self-made than those on the "Right." The difference -- even if we are successful (or perhaps because of it) we give a damn about our community and our country, not just ourselves.

So who is the most "mature?"

What Guin said. I'm sick and tired of conservatives like dgs, Captain Ray, Lush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, et al, presuming to tell the world what I and others like me supposedly believe.




(edited to add: BTW, I'm nevertheless glad to see you posting here, Dave. I very rarely agree with anything you write, but at least your posts are well written and clearly expressed...and this place would be pretty boring if we all agreed with each other.)

[Gob]

(edited to add: BTW, I'm nevertheless glad to see you posting here, Dave. I very rarely agree with anything you write, but at least your posts are well written and clearly expressed...and this place would be pretty boring if we all agreed with each other.)

Ditto. I may be repulsed by Dave's views, and irrate at his idiotic defining of what others think, but we need to have views other than our own for debate here.

[Mr. Duality]

Jim had it right concerning the difference between McConnel and Boehner. I strongly suspect Boehner actually wants to get practical things done and will cooperate with Obama more than most people think he will.

IMO Obama compromised too much regarding health care. He should have tried for single payer when he and his party had the momentum.

[Gob]

IMO Obama compromised too much regarding health care. He should have tried for single payer when he and his party had the momentum.

I must admit, I was surprised by this myself. Why did he not bite the bullet and instigate a first world style health care system?

[Jarlaxle]

He didn't have the votes to push single-payer through & he knew it.

Thank the Fates.