DescentBB

tunnelcat wrote:Obama also got stuck with a bunch of Republican and ConservaDem 2-year olds in Congress that have refused to work with him at all to help clean up the mess, of which a good chunk of was also their responsibility.

I'm thinking that from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011 you must have been in a Coma. because the DNC, President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. NONE of who can be called conservative. had total filibuster proof control of our Government and yet failed to pass ANY legislation to "clean up the mess" hell they couldn't even get a Budget passed

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Obama also got stuck with a bunch of Republican and ConservaDem 2-year olds in Congress that have refused to work with him at all to help clean up the mess, of which a good chunk of was also their responsibility.

I'm thinking that from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011 you must have been in a Coma. because the DNC, President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. NONE of who can be called conservative. had total filibuster proof control of our Government and yet failed to pass ANY legislation to "clean up the mess" hell they couldn't even get a Budget passed

Yes, he wanted the job. Yes, he blew it. But he never really had a majority in Congress either. He practically had to pull toenails to get Obamacare through. I think that there were around 6 or 7????? ConservaDems that kept blocking everything he wanted. Just enough to keep a deadlock. Let's see, there is, or was, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Leiberman, Joe Manchin, Jack Webb, to name a few of the Blue Dogs. I haven't the time to see who's still around. I think the tea party knocked out quite a few in 2010.

tunnelcat wrote: But he never really had a majority in Congress either.

you're joking right??? the Facts say your wrong

Party standings in the Senate
57 Democrats
2 Independents, caucusing with Democrats
41 Republicans

Final party distribution in the House of Representatives
Democratic Party: 255 members.
Republican Party: 179 members.

TC wrote:ConservaDems that kept blocking everything he wanted.

and it's the GOP's fault that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi were not good enough leaders to get their own party to vote with them???? if he could not get his bills passed with his party in control it was NO ONES fault but his. quit making excuses for the man

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:only one SLIGHT difference. Obama is the CURRENT President and deserves all the scrutiny he is getting, because he has the power to either fix or further screw-up this country, while your Idol GW is RETIRED and the only power he has is to turn on his remote and watch Obama either fix or further screw-up this country. but I guess that point slipped by you. but if it makes you feel better to believe that all the world failings are GW's fault, then i guess that's a burden you will need to live with. but please live with it in silence, because it's tiresome to the rest of us.

Well, the only reason I'm flogging a dead horse is because I think GW is more responsible for this economic mess that Obama is. but GW's the one that trashed the house, then left the disaster for Obama to straighten out with a parting; "Thankyou very much. I had my fun".

You seem to still forget it was the home mortgage derivatives that caused the "economic mess". The mess was started under Herr Klintons tour of duty. As much as you would like to blame Bush, he was the one saying that banking regulations needed to be fixed but it was one Barney Frank who kept insisting there was no problem. So blame the right people at the very least

And it was the GOP Congress that pulled back all the regulations...at least blame the right people woodchip.

Oh I agree Zuruck. It was definately a "bipartisan" ★■◆●-up of the first magnitude. I was just pointing out the fallacy of laying the economic mess on Bush's feet.

flip wrote:Would it also be fair to say that no one gets elected President without friends and that those are the real architects?

not really. Sometimes the inner circle are like a team of architects, but to reach that level of success, the candidate has to bring something to the table. Sometimes, merely power of personality. Often, actually. Usually, some sharp operator manages the trip to the White House. Obama has Axelrod, Bush had Rove, etc......

I didn't say they were blithering idiots. Just that there are people much smarter than Obama in the room, who Obama will do their bidding, not even knowing or seeing the far end result.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: But he never really had a majority in Congress either.

you're joking right??? the Facts say your wrong

Party standings in the Senate
57 Democrats
2 Independents, caucusing with Democrats
41 Republicans

Final party distribution in the House of Representatives
Democratic Party: 255 members.
Republican Party: 179 members.

TC wrote:ConservaDems that kept blocking everything he wanted.

and it's the GOP's fault that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi were not good enough leaders to get their own party to vote with them???? if he could not get his bills passed with his party in control it was NO ONES fault but his. quit making excuses for the man

We're both right and both wrong. I was wrong on the number of Blue Dogs. It appears that there were 51 Blue Dogs in the 111th Congress. Just enough to keep the Dems from any majority. They were responsible for blocking or impeding much of Obama's agenda in the House. They should've switched to the Republican Party back then, because they sure sounded like Republicans.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/05/04/6 ... ut-to.html

You are right, and I agree with you, that Reid and Pelosi sucked at being leaders and holding their members to the party line. In fact, they still suck big time. But Boehner runs the House now, and HE sucks at it too.

woodchip, I've already said that Herr Klinton was one of many responsible parties for our present mess. It's just that Bush put the finishing touches that made it almost impossible to fix things. I also knew we were screwed in 2008 when Obama hired all those ex-Clinton sycophants to help him run things.

tunnelcat wrote:Yes, he wanted the job. Yes, he blew it. But he never really had a majority in Congress either. He practically had to pull toenails to get Obamacare through. I think that there were around 6 or 7????? ConservaDems that kept blocking everything he wanted. Just enough to keep a deadlock. Let's see, there is, or was, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Leiberman, Joe Manchin, Jack Webb, to name a few of the Blue Dogs. I haven't the time to see who's still around. I think the tea party knocked out quite a few in 2010.

And there you hit on the reason that I think we're still in this mess. Instead of focusing on finding a way to really get the economy back on track when they had control of things, Obama elected to focus his energy on Obamacare.

In my mind it was a matter of choosing liberal agenda over the American people.

snoopy wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Yes, he wanted the job. Yes, he blew it. But he never really had a majority in Congress either. He practically had to pull toenails to get Obamacare through. I think that there were around 6 or 7????? ConservaDems that kept blocking everything he wanted. Just enough to keep a deadlock. Let's see, there is, or was, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Leiberman, Joe Manchin, Jack Webb, to name a few of the Blue Dogs. I haven't the time to see who's still around. I think the tea party knocked out quite a few in 2010.

And there you hit on the reason that I think we're still in this mess. Instead of focusing on finding a way to really get the economy back on track when they had control of things, Obama elected to focus his energy on Obamacare.

In my mind it was a matter of choosing liberal agenda over the American people.

Yeah, and since Obama didn't fix our health care cost problem with his not-so-socialist corporate-suckup Obamacare, which, by the way has not stopped the cost hemorrhaging for the everyday working family. I guess we'll never have a chance to see if a more liberal socialist-style not-for-profit one-payer system would have even worked in the first place.

In fact, three of the highest compensated CEO's for 2011 were in the health care industry, and can attribute their rise in pay due to Obamacare. In fact, I'm betting we won't see any repeal of Obamacare in the future. The blood money is too profitable.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopher ... paid-ceos/

Forbes.com wrote:ObamaCare could end up helping three of the top-10 improve their lot in years to come. The top spot goes to John Hammergren of McKesson, the largest distributor of both pharmaceuticals and health care I.T. systems. It’s thought to be in a good position to benefit from President Obama’s health care overhaul. With compensation of $131 million this year (most of it from exercising stock options), Hammergren won’t have to worry about waiting in line to see a doctor. Same goes for George Paz (fifth place at $51.5 million), who runs prescription drug distributor ExpressScripts as well as Stephen Hemsley (eighth place at $48. of UnitedHealth Group.

Yup, health care reform does absolutely nothing to control the cost of care or coverage, it simply enslaves…err...locks people into the largest elite profit making scam in history.

flip wrote:I didn't say they were blithering idiots. Just that there are people much smarter than Obama in the room, who Obama will do their bidding, not even knowing or seeing the far end result.

you've clearly never spoken with the man. He does no one's bidding, I'd guess.

snoopy wrote:In my mind it was a matter of choosing liberal agenda over the American people.

a cute little simplistic narrative, until one notices that 'Obamacare' in no way fit what the liberal/progressive core wants to see.

Well Slick I would almost agree with you but I saw it with my own eyes. Obama's famous walk when he got out of his limo with his wife Michelle after being elected President. About halfway through, he gets loose as hell and starts strutting, until his wife reaches out and gently touches his arm. Straightens him right back up. That made me wonder.

EDIT: I'm sure I could find that clip somewhere

Spidey wrote:Yup, health care reform does absolutely nothing to control the cost of care or coverage, it simply enslaves…err...locks people into the largest elite profit making scam in history.

So you'd rather do nothing? The bill was far from perfect--but at least he was willing to address the problem. I know you guys think buying across state lines is THE answer, but it's not. Of course, we could just have single payer and everyone will be better off. But being better off just doesnt interest some of you and I cannot figure out why...

Zuruck wrote:

Spidey wrote:Yup, health care reform does absolutely nothing to control the cost of care or coverage, it simply enslaves…err...locks people into the largest elite profit making scam in history.

So you'd rather do nothing? The bill was far from perfect--but at least he was willing to address the problem. I know you guys think buying across state lines is THE answer, but it's not. Of course, we could just have single payer and everyone will be better off. But being better off just doesnt interest some of you and I cannot figure out why...

Obama's solution was not a solution. It was a band-aid that was placed over an expensive arterial bleed of a system we have now. Whether we keep Obamacare, let the Republicans loose with their "free market privatized choice solution" after the next election if they win, or do nothing, we're still going to have massive inequities in our health system.

I vote for do nothing until the damn whole mess implodes in some spectacular meltdown. People never want to deal with something until it reaches some critical mass and the suffering becomes too great to ignore. Americans also can't get past the fact that everybody wants to live, no matter what it costs, but nobody wants to help everyone else live at all costs. That's the rub isn't it? Besides, we as a nation couldn't even afford to give it to everyone with our present system. Americans in general, tend to be self-centered and greedy when it comes to spreading the wealth around to in order to help others in our society.

Zuruck wrote:

Spidey wrote:Yup, health care reform does absolutely nothing to control the cost of care or coverage, it simply enslaves…err...locks people into the largest elite profit making scam in history.

So you'd rather do nothing? The bill was far from perfect--but at least he was willing to address the problem. I know you guys think buying across state lines is THE answer, but it's not. Of course, we could just have single payer and everyone will be better off. But being better off just doesnt interest some of you and I cannot figure out why...

No, actually my position is a bit more radical, so if you weren’t on sabbatical…or just plain skimming over the past few years…you would already know my position.