Senate The 2nd Term of the Obama Administration: Facts, Opinions, and Discussions

LOL. Ouch!

Hey, I'm the only conservative on these boards. It gets rough fighting the good fight!

One in seven people are on food stamps. This program has run out of check for a few years. I'm glad it's finally getting scaled back a bit.

Do you think there will be a run on the food banks? Because I don't think it will be substantial.

 

I didn't ignore your articles, Obama hasn't been transparent on issues like the NSA and drones. My point was you are making it seem as if laws are always negotiated in the open and they aren't and never have. That isn't an issue of transparency, that is just the way Washington has always worked.

 

Name something not related to national security that the press wasn't allowed to cover?

 

Civil Rights for starters.......

 

When was the press blacked out for civil rights negotiations?

 

Yes, you clearly don't need empirical evidence for anything. It's been clear both in this thread and in the income inequality thread that there is simply no standard of evidence for you. Debating you is a fool's quest.

 

Good. Be seeing you then.

 

They didn't have C-SPAN back then, but LBJ basically got it passed through arm-twisting and backroom deals. Anyway, if you want something more recent, just look at Medicare part D back in the early 2000's, the GOP did essentially the same thing(actually worse....) and it was passed due to backroom deals.

To act like the Healthcare Debate broke some new ground is nonsense, this is how Washington works, there are lobbyist, backroom deals, threats, arm-twisting....you name it.

 

I can't find anything about a press black out of medicare part D negotiations.

 

That is because back-rooms deals are never on CSAPN. The reason why the press made a fuss about it because Obama made the promise to broadcast private negotiations for the first time and he didn't. In reality, Healthcare was dealt the same way like all major legislation are: The hearings were broadcast live on CSPAN, while the messy parts were negotiated behind closed doors.

 

And, lest we forget, the whole Republican party was banned from the negotiations. But I look on CSPAN and there is always all kinds of coverage of law negotiations.

 

Ok, so what you're doing - and admitting to doing - is cherry picking to support your argument. When presented with evidence that objectively the situation isn't as bad as you claim, you push expert testimony aside for non-expert testimony.

You will appreciate therefore why it strains the credibility of both you and your argument, no?

 

Yes. It's a small point I'm willing to retract. But I'd love to find another piece of major legislation that was blacked out to the media.

 

Is that your smoking gun though? Are you saying your government is not transparent because of this?

 

That is misleading.

The GOP had plenty of opportunities to craft the ACA, hell Obama bent over backwards to please them. They simply didn't take it seriously, and spent the entire summer talking about "death panels" or spouting useless cliches like tort reform.

 

Aside from this being not true, you're ignoring the fact that the foundation of the ACA is what the Republican Party wanted. Obama forwent single payer and opted for the mandate/exchanges because it was the premise of the GOP's plan. But who cares about facts!

 

In a way, they did craft the ACA. They were for it before they were against it.

 

The US senate has just voted to end filibusters for non-Supreme Court nominees after Republicans blocked three of Obama's DC circuit court appointments.

I have mixed feelings over this. Senator McConnell immediately accused the democrats of trying to manufacture a crisis to shift the focus away from the fallout over Obamacare, which in part I actually agree with.

Obviously, this is now the opening shot in what's going to be a war for the soul of the Senate. Next, the filibuster for SC nominees is likely to be removed, probably by the GOP the next time they are in the majority, with this maneuver by the dems as justification. Sadly, they would be correct, as turnabout is fair play.

On another note, Paul Ryan and Pat Murray are reportedly making real progress on a budget deal; I wonder now whether or not this will be scuttled due to today's vote, leading to another government shutdown in January and another debt ceiling crisis come the spring.

Time for real government reform: term limits, lobbying limits, and spending limits.

Peace,

V-03

 

Reid is trying to help Obama pack the DC Circuit Court of Appeal.

Short version: The Left cannot really advance their goals via the normal legislative process, so they need the courts to do so. It doesn't surprise me that Reid would turn on a dime from his position eight years ago. And quite frankly, continued stalemate is really the only hope the Democrats have. If these budget talks gets scuttled, moreso the better.

The best reform might be to vote the Dems out, as far as I am concerned. Reid is a petty tyrant and a bully.

 

Charlie Brown finally kicked Lucy!

It is about damn time the D's grew a pair.

 

Reid's hypocrisy knows no bounds at this point:


Oh, and the GOp will have to show that they still have a pair... they're gonna push back. There's always blowback.

 

There was still some sanity within the GOP at the time.

 

Smuggler,

Do you have anything useful to say, or do you just feel the need to reflexively post whenever my name pops up on your alerts?

If you read my post carefully, you'll see that I'm not endorsing Reid's maneuver. I think the democrats will live to regret it. More importantly, it perpetuates the cycle of "you did this, so I can do something worse!". It's childish and dangerous for the country.

In terms of your comments about "The Left", I'd say they Left is doing just fine. Two terms for Obama, a Senate majority, and coming out on the winning side of most issues are certainly the hallmark of a party in decline that needs to go to unelected judges (remember that old battle cry?) to advance its agenda.

You see, the problem is, when you live in an echo chamber, it's hard to be introspective. Even if the ACA leads to the GOP retaking the senate, it would not be a blanket endorsement of Tea Party politics, yet the Republicans would undoubtedly embrace it as such, and move to unilaterally pass as much of their agenda as they could, leading to yet another set of blowbacks and electoral reversals, with yet more see-sawing in policy.

What you and your party need to realize is that this is very bad for the country. People are fed up with not only extremism, but the hyperbolic use of terms like "radical" and "out of the mainstream." It's not the Democrats that are wearing this mantle, Smuggler, it's the Republicans.

Everything cycles, but the country is tired of this. If the GOP can't marginalize its extremists to the extent that they are unwilling to govern with the opposition party, then things like eliminating the filibuster are going to happen.

Peace,

V-03