State of the Union Address

[Kulindahr]

We all know that the administration saved the economy from imminent collapse with the stimulus bills, wound down the war in Iraq and reassigned troops to Afghanistan, brought competence and and respect for science back to Washington, engaged foreign leaders on middle east problems, climate change and nuclear proliferation, but KOS carried a list of 90 other accomplishments that have been overlooked:

"Saved the economy"? We know no such thing.
"Wound down the war in Iraq"? He's following the Bush plan.
"Engaged foreign leaders"? Yeah. he's good at talking.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/...f-Pres.-Obama-Which-The-Media-Fails-to-Report

A bunch of those "accomplishments" are a matter of flapping his lips. Others are the work of a few minutes, or less. Some are laughable. Others are hypocritical, like the one about lobbyists!

We have posters on these boards that taken Senator DeMint's advice and want to "break" Obama in order to put Republicans back in power, but the facts speak for themselves. Only in the bizzarro world of teabaggers and disgruntled, depressed and denying depressives could one decide Obama is one of America's "worst Presidents", particulary when Obama has 7 more years to go.

I don't care if he gets "broken" or not, because we'll just be replacing the present lying hypocrite with another one.

 

[chuck10x]

That's agross oversimplification. There were many young Republicans and conservatives in the 60's and 70's and there are many young conservatives today. Four little under 30 morons just broke into Mary Landrieu's office.

People have always become a little more conservative as they age, they have more to lose and have often accomplished the more liberal goals that were important to them in their youth.

Yes it is an over simplification,
And yes, People do become more Conservative as they age.
Waiting for the older Republicans to go away or denying them the right to vote so a more Liberal Democratic society can take over is just nuts.
You have to work for what you want, It is not handed to you.
As the older Republicans die off, They will be replaced by younger,smarter,more educated Republicans.
Same with the Democrats.
The faces of both Parties will change, But, Politics will never change.

 

[iman]

^Yes, I have found that even I have become more conservative. I don't want to blow up nearly as many things as I did when I was younger.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wrong.

People expect agreement and getting things done on capitol hill. My idea of bipartisanship is that the party out of power offers amendments in exchange for support of a bill.

What if there are no amendments that will make the bill compatible with their principles?


(we'll assume for the sake of argument that there are politicians with principles)

 

[Kulindahr]

Most people don't give a shit.

You lost me there. Do you mean the congresscritters don't give a shit, or what?

 

[NickCole]

Wrong.

People expect agreement and getting things done on capitol hill. My idea of bipartisanship is that the party out of power offers amendments in exchange for support of a bill.

No Republican with half a brain is going to support a bill simply because Republicans offered amendments. Neither would Democrats.

Contrary to the talking point that Republicans are the Party of No and have no ideas to contribute, Republicans contributed ideas to both the stimulus bill and health care. Their complaint is that they and their ideas were routinely dismissed and Democrats shut them out of talks. This came up again yesterday.

Bottom line is Democrats have two choices: craft legislation in cooperation with Republicans, as Clinton did after the GOP took over Congress, so Republicans will vote for it, or shut out Republicans. With a supermajority, Democrats can choose either way but it's disingenuous to say that Republicans are just saying no or have no ideas or are refusing to participate. With Democrats in super power, they make the rules of the game. Playing it as if they're superior victims is not resulting in good legislation.

 

[NickCole]

Kulindahr,

To further illustrate my point:


Read More

As the quote you pasted said, both sides scolded the other. Since the ball's in Obama's court, if he wants Republicans to play ball then it's up to him to set the tone. And a scolding tone may score points with his team but it doesn't make the other team cooperative.

Also from your link:

But Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., pointedly asked Obama: "What should we tell our constituents who know that Republicans have offered positive solutions" for health care, "and yet continue to hear out of the administration that we've offered nothing?"

Obama showed little sympathy, disputing Price's claim that a Republican plan would insure nearly all Americans without raising taxes.

When I saw that exchange I noticed Obama didn't dispute Price's point that Republicans have offered ideas that are, according to their ideology and their constituency, positive.

Working with the opposition doesn't mean they vote for your ideas, it means creating legislation that incorporates ideas from both sides. If Obama and/or Dem Congressional leaders don't want to do that, that's their call, but it's not true that Republicans have no ideas or that they haven't tried to participate.

 

[chuck10x]

Actually, it is true.

Actually , Republicans wanted TORTE Reform.
Torte reform is easy and saves money, The downside is Lawyers would take a huge hit in the wallet.

 

[NickCole]

Tort reform is a frankly stupid idea.

Another hilarious exchange.

I say Republicans have ideas.

You say they do not.

Chuck points out one of their ideas.

You say it's a stupid idea.

It really is easy to see why Obama so appeals to you.

 

[NickCole]

On the contrary, it is not easy to see why you are obsessed with Obama

He's the President of the United States, the leader of my Party and the Party that controls Congress. We have major problems that, if not addressed well by our government that he leads, could lead to a decline unlike any the US has known.

And even aside from that I always have been very interested in our government. And the President is a pivotal element in what's happening. The current President at any given time has been a particular interest of mine from at least the time I volunteered for McGovern's campaign and Nixon won in a landslide only to end up resigning in disgrace.

 

[chuck10x]

Tort reform is a frankly stupid idea.

It would encourage doctors and pharmaceutical companies to be more lax in their practices. It's real aim is to shield big business and doctors from liability for abuse and negligence.

Big businesses and for-profit hospitals will just have another look at their cost-benefit analyses and reason that since they no longer have to fear large judgments, they can relax on quality of care and safety.

There is better legislation that they can come up with to deal with the costs that doctors, hospitals, and big business force the public to shoulder.

Torte Reform would end Frivolous lawsuits that end up in Lawyers pockets.
Doctors would not have to over prescribe their patients or order unnecessary tests to cover their butts against lawsuits.
As a personal example, 4 months ago I had an X-ray on my hand, No damage found, The Dr. ordered an MRI just to make sure,Results,Normal.
Torte Reform deals with the costs that Hospitals,Doctors and Insurance companies pass on to the patient, It does not protect against negligence or abuse.

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually , Republicans wanted TORTE Reform.
Torte reform is easy and saves money, The downside is Lawyers would take a huge hit in the wallet.

Since when is that a downside?

Lawyers are predatory parasites roaming around looking for ways to suck money out of people by starting arguments.

Tort reform is a frankly stupid idea.

It would encourage doctors and pharmaceutical companies to be more lax in their practices. It's real aim is to shield big business and doctors from liability for abuse and negligence.

Big businesses and for-profit hospitals will just have another look at their cost-benefit analyses and reason that since they no longer have to fear large judgments, they can relax on quality of care and safety.

There is better legislation that they can come up with to deal with the costs that doctors, hospitals, and big business force the public to shoulder.

Tort reform is something we need. A high school friend who's a doctor says over 40% of his medical bills go to pay malpractice insurance -- not other insurance, just malpractice. He has to charge at least $50 for a patient visit just to cover the cost of lawyers winging about like vampire bats looking to suck blood out of honest people. If he didn't have to worry about the malpractice leeches, he'd be charging $20 for a basic visit.

It wouldn't encourage laxity at all, so long as it was well-written. For starters, cap the amount lawyers can make off a case -- so long as they tap a percentage, they'll keep pushing and pushing. In actuality, the situation as it now is encourages laxity -- laxity on the side of common sense, laxity in people taking responsibility for their own decisions, and more.

It wouldn't make hospitals drop quality control to know that there's a cap on punitive damages, and it would save billions on medical bills every year.

 

[chuck10x]

Since when is that a downside?

Lawyers are predatory parasites roaming around looking for ways to suck money out of people by starting arguments.



Tort reform is something we need. A high school friend who's a doctor says over 40% of his medical bills go to pay malpractice insurance -- not other insurance, just malpractice. He has to charge at least $50 for a patient visit just to cover the cost of lawyers winging about like vampire bats looking to suck blood out of honest people. If he didn't have to worry about the malpractice leeches, he'd be charging $20 for a basic visit.

It wouldn't encourage laxity at all, so long as it was well-written. For starters, cap the amount lawyers can make off a case -- so long as they tap a percentage, they'll keep pushing and pushing. In actuality, the situation as it now is encourages laxity -- laxity on the side of common sense, laxity in people taking responsibility for their own decisions, and more.

It wouldn't make hospitals drop quality control to know that there's a cap on punitive damages, and it would save billions on medical bills every year.

Thanks Kulindar,
I was saying Torte Reform as proposed by the Republicans was a good thing.
Both Democrats and Republicans had good ideas.
The Democrats, Pelosi and Reid ,wanted the HCR to be a Democratic win and cut the Republicans out of the process for political points.
Speaking of lawyers, How many are Politicians? And people wonder why Washington is so screwed up.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thanks Kulindar,
I was saying Torte Reform as proposed by the Republicans was a good thing.
Both Democrats and Republicans had good ideas.
The Democrats, Pelosi and Reid ,wanted the HCR to be a Democratic win and cut the Republicans out of the process for political points.
Speaking of lawyers, How many are Politicians? And people wonder why Washington is so screwed up.

I read something a while back that said a majority of Democrats in Congress are lawyers. If that's true, to me it would explain a lot.

Personally, I don't think that people who make their living from the law should be allowed to make it.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I read something a while back that said a majority of Democrats in Congress are lawyers. If that's true, to me it would explain a lot.

Personally, I don't think that people who make their living from the law should be allowed to make it.

It certainly isn't the way that Thomas Jefferson envisioned Congress:

If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Kulindahr]

Chuck10x and Kulindahr,

On the surface what you are arguing does not sound like a bad proposal, but I have to say it just sounds too idealistic to me.

Well, heck then, let's give up on health care reform, gay rights, and defending the country -- those are pretty darned "idealistic", too!

 

[JB3]

Chuck10x and Kulindahr,

On the surface what you are arguing does not sound like a bad proposal, but I have to say it just sounds too idealistic to me.

What Kuli said. If tort reform is idealistic to you, give up on gay rights, hcr, and the like, and go live in a cave somewhere.

 

[JB3]

Tort reform is idealistic and not practical.



That's right, I actually give a shit about gay rights.

Tort reform is not idealistic. What's idealistic about placing restrictions so that crack-pot ambulance chasers can't frivolously sue doctors and hospitals? I'm not quite sure how you can in any way consider tort reform idealistic and not practical. I mean, for god's sake, if that's idealistic and practical to you, then how the hell are any of the health care reforms proposed by Obama or any of his liberal ilk not idealistic or practical? Hell, compared to what Obama proposed, tort reforms is the easiest and most practical thing possible.

 

[Kulindahr]

Tort reform is idealistic and not practical.



That's right, I actually give a shit about gay rights.

But gay rights are idealistic and not practical.

 

[construct]

Was tort reform mentioned in the state of the union speech? Even if it was, I'm agin' it.