Stunning Revelation

[_Res Ipsa]

I was hoping for a super majority in Congress so we wouldn't have to deal with the same obstructionist b***s*** during the first four years. It just frustrates me that the votes were there, but Republicans still control the House because of the redistricting tactics. You do realize the President needs Congress to pass his proposed legislation, right?

I'm hoping that we're moving towards a "public option" with the ACA and eventually when Hillary becomes President, that can evolve into universal healthcare.

The Republicans have Not controlled Congress during all the first four years of the Presidency of Barack Obama. During his first two years of office, President Barack Obama did indeed have a super majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives. The Democrats had a filibuster-free Senate from September 25, 2009 until February 3, 2010. During that time, the Senate Passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as 'ObamaCare' by Party line vote. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) ended up Passing the very heavily Democratic controlled House of Representatives in March of 2010, and then President Barack Obama ended up signing that bill into law.

111th United States Congress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_Unit ... s_Congress

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Pr ... e_Care_Act



During President Bill Clinton's first two years of office, he had a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives. The Democrats controlled the Senate during Bill Clinton's first two years of office, but they did not have a filibuster-free Senate during any of that time. President Bill Clinton tried to get a stimulus package passed of his own back in 1993, but the Republicans filibustered that stimulus package, and it never got signed into law. However, President Barack Obama did indeed get his stimulus package signed into law in 2009.

G.O.P. Senators Prevail, Sinking Clinton's Economic Stimulus Bill:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/22/us/go ... -bill.html

Obama Signs Stimulus Into Law:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123487951033799545.html

in my opinion, it's a little misleading to say that the Democrats had a filibuster free senate for the first two years. Because of the Blue Dogs and Lieberman, the Democrats had to pull one or two republicans for votes on many issues.

[_EAllusion]

Health care reform sounds pretty progressive to me.

1) That's one issue of many that overall speak to whether a politician is progressive or not. Neither Clinton nor Obama have history of being progressive politicians once in office. George W. Bush pushed through a significant expansion in government coverage of health care costs. That's health care reform. Was he progressive?

2) The health care reform Obama got through acts as a massive forced subsidy to the health insurance industry, was the Republican alternative to Democratic health care reform in the 90's, and is generally disliked by progressives because of it systemically roadblocking a single-payer system.

[_Bond James Bond]

in my opinion, it's a little misleading to say that the Democrats had a filibuster free senate for the first two years. Because of the Blue Dogs and Lieberman, the Democrats had to pull one or two republicans for votes on many issues.

The best part of this election for me, besides that the Democrats won big of course, was that better Democrats won. Blue Dogs continue to be pushed out of Congress and more progressive Senators won while Republican Lites like Lieberman are bowing out.

[_Kevin Graham]

1) That's one issue of many that overall speak to whether a politician is progressive or not. Neither Clinton nor Obama have history of being progressive politicians once in office. George W. Bush pushed through a significant expansion in government coverage of health care costs. That's health care reform. Was he progressive?

No, and I think you know why. Medicare Part D wasn't Bush's idea to begin with. It was an idea started by Drug company lobbyists who wanted the government to rig the system so that they could charge whatever they wanted for prescription drugs. No longer could negotiations over pricing be made.

The Republican Congressman, Billy Touzin, was the guy responsible for pushing it through Congress and after Bush signed it, Touzin retired and became the CEO of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, making $2 million a year. Also, more than a dozen of his congressional aides who helped him push this through, also quit to become employees of the lobbying industry. So Bush didn't really "reform" anything. All he did was give a huge subsidy to the pharmaceutical industry, to the sum of roughly $900 billion over ten years, without providing any means to pay for it.

2) The health care reform Obama got through acts as a massive forced subsidy to the health insurance industry, was the Republican alternative to Democratic health care reform in the 90's, and is generally disliked by progressives because of it systemically roadblocking a single-payer system.

But if you had been paying attention at all through this ordeal you'd know that Obama does indeed support a single payer system, and the only reason progressives were upset with his final bill was because it gave in too much to Republican pressures that wanted to do away with important progressive elements of the plan, such as the public option. It wasn't because Obama decided he wanted to be a Conservative all of the sudden. Obama got as much as he could get considering the political circumstances. But the point is Obama's approach to Health Care reform, is actually reforming the entire system in a way that changes who pays for what, and addresses problems such as rising costs. Bush's plan did neither. Bush just wanted to provide a huge payoff for those lobbying him. And you should know that Hillary Clinton pushed for Universal Healthcare when her husband was in office and I predict it will be on her agenda again, once she becomes President.

Incidentally, when I think of the differences between Conservative and Progressive, I think of the old white man who refuses to accept changes in society compared to the younger generation who wants change. My 72 year old Step Dad who sits around bitching and moaning because TV commercials contain footage of black boys kissing white girls. Who stops watching his favorite football team because there are now too many black players on the team. He is the quintessential conservative in my view. Not because he is a racist prick, but because he refuses to accept change. He doesn't like change on any level. We're all supposed to be living in the world of the 1950's.

Other Conservatives I know generally push for tradition. They want to keep sticking to the traditional ideas like religion, outdated science, etc. That is why Conservatives don't want to move into a system where homosexuality is tolerated. Which, by the way, makes Obama a strong progressive since he is the first American President in history to come right out and say he supports gay marriage.

I think this standard applies across the board. Just think of Obama's other radical ideas, like his push for green energy. That's another change the conservatives don't like because simply because it is change.

[_EAllusion]

It was an idea started by Drug company lobbyists who wanted the government to rig the system...

You are aware that Obamacare is written by pharmaceutical and health insurance industry lobbyists too, right?

All he did was give a huge subsidy to the pharmaceutical industry, to the sum of roughly $900 billion over ten years...

If only there was some symmetry in the number of that huge subsidy to the health care industry...

But if you had been paying attention at all through this ordeal you'd know that Obama does indeed support a single payer system,

Obama supports a single payer system in the same way he supports shutting down indefinite detention. He doesn't, and his record shows that clearly. He also negotiated the public option away early on in the process, by the way.

That's all beside the point, though, in that health care alone doesn't make one progressive or not. Richard Nixon supported a more comprehensive health care reform that Obama did. Nixon's plan was actually quite similar to Clinton's in the early 90's. Do you consider him progressive? Probably not, as there's more to that term than one or two positions.

Other Conservatives I know generally push for tradition. They want to keep sticking to the traditional ideas like religion, outdated science, etc.

First, liberals and progressives are overwhelmingly religious. Second, it's more complicated than this. Who the traditionalist is and who the reformer is depends a lot on who has the reigns of power. Think of funding for public media or planned parenthood. Who is the one who wants change and who is the one who opposes it in that case?

Finally, I think outdated/pseudoscience associated with liberals is more of a problem than that associated with conservatives.

Here's my argument:

http://vine.rottentomatoes.com/vine/sho ... udoscience

Have fun.

That is why Conservatives don't want to move into a system where homosexuality is tolerated. Which, by the way, makes Obama a strong progressive since he is the first American President in history to come right out and say he supports gay marriage.

Obama was a coward on that subject who lied about his position until it became politically convenient to revere course. But hey, his support on this social issue once polling indicated a majority of Americans were with him, despite it having little political impact, is totally enough to call him progressive.

Seriously though, progressiveness is far more extensive than that. Think people like Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, Tammy Baldwin, etc. Those are the progressives and they are not exactly the dominant political force right now. This is not the era of progressives.

Where was Obama during Wisconsin's battle over union rights? Nowhere, because that sort of thing just isn't important enough to risk 10 electoral votes. Obama is a moderate pragmatist historically comparable to "centrist" Republicans. He's pretty far from progressivism. So was Bill Clinton, who Hillary is largely in line with.

[_Kevin Graham]

You are aware that Obamacare is written by pharmaceutical and health insurance industry lobbyists too, right?

Obamacare was started by Obama, not the health care industry. It was his baby. Why the hell would the Health care industry be dumping millions into lobbying against something you claim they initiated? They supported the idea of having everyone buy health insurance, but they were dead set against the public option. Saying they wrote the Obamacare legislation is nothing short of misleading. Obama had to water down his original plan to a great extent because he knew he had to compromise if he wanted a bill passed at all.

Obama supports a single payer system in the same way he supports shutting down indefinite detention. He doesn't, and his record shows that clearly. He also negotiated the public option away early on in the process, by the way.

Yes, because he knew it would never pass. Look, your only evidence that Obama doesn't support what he says he supports, is the fact that he was acting as a pragmatic politician and taking what he could get. That is just a really dumb argument in my view and I don't know why you have such a hard time distinguishing between the two; supporting something and failing to get it done because of gridlock.

That's all beside the point, though, in that health care alone doesn't make one progressive or not. Richard Nixon supported a more comprehensive health care reform that Obama did.

I didn't say that was the only factor did I? It was just an example. And Nixon, like Bush, was looking after the interests of the private corporations, and he took Edward Kaiser's suggestion and gave us the birth of HMOs, which promised to provide less care for more money. That's "reform" in a technical sense, but there is hardly anything progressive about it. Obama's reform is different in that it looks after the interests of the people, at the expense of the corporations. I don't know why you can't see this. Already there are millions of people who have health insurance because of Obamacare.

First, liberals and progressives are overwhelmingly religious. Second, it's more complicated than this. Who the traditionalist is and who the reformer is depends a lot on who has the reigns of power. Think of funding for public media or planned parenthood. Who is the one who wants change and who is the one who opposes it in that case?

Those on the Right who are opposed to planned parenthood do so for religious purposes. So equating Liberals with Conservatives as equally religious is really misleading. Yes, Americans as a whole are generally religious, but the Right lets their dogma dictate their politics. Think of the major social issues that divide this country. From abortion rights, to tolerance of homosexuality, from support of stem cell research, to the acceptance of global warming. In virtually all cases, the Right Wingers are on the wrong side of science. What examples could you possibly provide on the left that would tip the scales and make them the larger problem" as far as pseudoscience goes? Laughably, your only example is an acceptance of alternative medicine, which begs the question, how the hell is that a progressive or Liberal idea? And did you know that Obama refused to cover alternative medicine in Obamacare? You really need to read this book, The Republican War on Science.

Obama was a coward on that subject who lied about his position until it became politically convenient to revere course.

horse crap. He supported gay marriage as far back as 1996. Later on the "Christian" came out of him and he said he believed marriage was between man and woman, but at the same time he opposed Proposition 8 which set him apart from the religious fanatics who justified suppressing freedoms using their faith:

"I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think it’s unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them."

That same year he voted against a marriage amendment that would have defined marriage as between a man and woman. And then of course he was later convinced that he was wrong. Obama stated, "over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

But what a coward huh? I'm convinced that no matter what courage this man has, you're going to spin it as cowardice, because in your twisted world, political suicide is the only way to show bravery. And your suggestion that he is lying about all of this and changed his mind for political convenience, would make more sense if he had done so after the election when he had nothing to lose. As it was, he went out on a limb and said this before election, potentially alienating a large swath of religious Democrats and moderates who disagree.

And Bernie Sanders is a socialist who supports Obama. In what sense is he a progressive whereas Obama is not?

[_EAllusion]

Obamacare was started by Obama, not the health care industry. It was his baby.

The heck? I'm now imagining you imagining Obama penning health care legislation. Obama actively campaigned against Hilary Clinton's health care plan in the 2008 Democratic primary. That was a huge part of his campaign against her in Iowa, in fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FknJLMc84bo

Yet, Hillary Clinton's health care plan is what Obama ultimately went with. Obama shook the etch-a-schetch and broke his promises on health care once in office and went instead with what we now call "Obamacare." And it was written by pharma / health insurance industry lobbyists and pushed through committees in Congress. The whole point of Clinton's, and Obama's later embracing Clinton's vision, is the idea that more universal coverage could be passed if the plan was friendly enough to established health care business interests. It's a gamble for them because the price of a huge subsidy to their industry is the no preexisting conditions condition and the risk of losing out to government run insurance at some point down the road.

They supported the idea of having everyone buy health insurance, but they were dead set against the public option.

Pssst. They got what they wanted.

And Nixon, like Bush, was looking after the interests of the private corporations

Nixon's plan was more liberal than Obama's. Why does Obama get credit for good intentions, but Nixon is a corporate slave? Nixon was genuinely liberal on health care. His personal materials indicate this. Apparently the issue closely touched his family. His plan was intended to preserve market incentives in the system while creating a safety net for low-income groups. That's just a difference of economic philosophy. It failed because Democrats thought they had a good shot at single-payer and were going for that instead. Nixon instead had to settle for a legal expansion of HMO's.

The Clintons went with a close approximation of Nixon's plan in the early 90's. It was defeated, but Republicans proposed something like Obamacare in rebuttal that could've been passed. Then, in the next fight, that's what Democrats, learning their lesson from the Clinton defeat, proposed in the face of Republicans opposing even that. It passed this time, but not before history allowed for a general rightward drift on the issue.

Those on the Right who are opposed to planned parenthood do so for religious purposes.

Mostly, yes. Here they are, looking for change while you oppose it - they the reformers against you the traditionalist. See how that works?

What examples could you possibly provide on the left that would tip the scales and make them the larger problem" as far as pseudoscience goes? Laughably, your only example is an acceptance of alternative medicine, which begs the question, how the hell is that a progressive or Liberal idea?

1) That wasn't my only example. I'm guessing you just read my opening post. Here's another: Unreasonable opposition to genetically modified organisms. Another?: Anti-vax hysteria.

2) How is global warming denial a conservative idea? There's nothing inherently political about either. Yet both tend to cohere in one part of the political spectrum for a variety of reasons. It mostly has to do with where cultural suspicions and loyalties lie. That's why I said "associated with." The Huffington post is a den of newagey "woo-based" pseudoscience for a reason.

And the infiltration of alternative medicine into American society (and especially academia) is a serious problem that has significant costs in both money and health and well-being of people. It's literally cost billions of dollars and millions of lives already. Something like creationism simply does not compare in terms of actual harm realized or the potential for further harm down the road.

You really need to read this book, The Republican War on Science.

I've read it. You need to read scientists/sketpics who criticize Chris Mooney for not doing enough to take on leftwing pseudoscience due to his deep partisan biases.

Obama was a coward on that subject who lied about his position until it became politically convenient to revere course.

horse****. He supported gay marriage as far back as 1996.

You mean back when he was running for office in an extremely liberal district? Gee, what a coincidence that his position on the subject changes in exact rhythm to what is politically advantageous at the time. If this was Romney, you'd be chortling about flip-flopping right now, but since it's Obama, it's clearly a sincere struggle.

Later on the "Christian" came out of him and he said he believed marriage was between man and woman...

You actually think that Obama changed his mind recently and all his talk of his position "evolving" wasn't wink winky? Really?

And your suggestion that he is lying about all of this and changed his mind for political convenience, would make more sense if he had done so after the election when he had nothing to lose.

Obama came out in favor of gay marriage right when polling tipped over into indicating that it was a cultural wedge issue that favored supporters rather than hindered them. This election bore that out. It appeased groups whose support he needed that had waning enthusiasm while strongly angering virtually no one but those likely to be opposed to him anyway (outside of socially conservative blacks whose vote he already owned.)

And Bernie Sanders is a socialist who supports Obama. In what sense is he a progressive whereas Obama is not?

Sanders is far to the left of Obama. He was a leader in opposing TARP while Obama was using his political clout to help it push through. He proposed major reforms to the financial industry, including breaking up all large banks, that Obama did not and would not support. He has been opposed to Obama on every single civil rights issue related to the war on terror out there, from things like the PATRIOT act and NDAA to the 2008 FISA. Sanders favors increased funding to just about every social program you can imagine in far excess of Obama. He is more liberal on immigration and opposes Obama's significant increases in deportation. He is strongly pro-union in a way Obama is not and supports a laundry-list of labor law reforms that would make unionization more likely to happen that Obama doesn't. (He did use his voice in the WI fight, incidentally).

Sanders supports significant tax increases compared to Obama. He opposed the escalation of war in Afghanistan and favored a quicker US withdrawal. He supports stricter gun control. Etc. Etc.

Sanders is the socialist rightwing news likes to pretend Obama is.

Almost all progressives support Obama. That's why Obama can get away with being Republican-lite to capture the middle. Progressives have been trained to vote Democrat like clapping seals largely out of pants-wetting fear of Republicans getting into office. Ironically, the last progressive candidate for president to get serious media attention, Nader, probably did more to hurt the progressive movement by encouraging this behavior than help it.

[_Brackite]

I think that part of the reason why the Democrats received the majority of votes this very recent General election is because of several Congressional districts in California that had Democrat vs. Democrat in them as a result of Proposition 14 there. Proposition 14 was passed in California in 2010, and it requires that candidates run in a single primary open to all registered voters, with the top two vote-getters running against each other in the General election.
Here are a few links to the results of Democrat vs. Democrat Congressional races in California:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-rep/district/30/

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-rep/district/35/

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-rep/district/40/


It looks like now that comprehensive immigration reform will end up passing in both the Senate and the House of Representatives sometime during the next session of Congress.

Momentum builds for U.S. immigration reform plan:
http://news.yahoo.com/senators-restart- ... 00663.html