This is whats wrong with the American political system
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To me, it is the money and redistricting that is paralyzing politics today. Until we get the money out of politics and make sure that every district is competitive, nothing will change.
I think debating details that bring out underlying issues in this thread would be fine. You brought up individual mandate. I don't think it was a democratic part of the plan. Ideally, do you think democrats wouldn't have preferred at least public option, if not an all out single payer system if they could? Remember, in summer 2009, "individual mandate" wasn't a part of the argument, but public option was. So, why did we get something people hate the most? Or, were they going to hate public option equally, if not more?
I don't think we can get anywhere without looking at details of ANY issue. It is easy to lay blame on both sides, but that is just what they crooks want: shared blame. We can't get out of this mess until we stop being politically correct and with a pin-pointed approach.
And here's another good start to that effect:
It's worse than it looks: Norman Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute) & Thomas Mann (Brookings Institute)
Well, until its removed (I've had posts cancelled for less), I'll debate here.
I see your point, the individual mandate was a Republican idea in the 90's. It was their main alternative to the Clinton push for universal healthcare.
Americans supported a univeral healthcare system, as shown in polls also. But why didn't Democrats stand on their soap box and scream bloody murder? Because a large part of the Democratic majority didn't support a universal, single payer, or public option either.
So we end up back in the same place. One party doesn't want this, the other party doesn't want that, and Americans wanted something else entirely.
Yes, you could say that the Democrats did the same thing during Bush's term, but Bush had done quite enough. The Democrats didn't dare to obstruct Bush immediately following 9/11, though. They didn't obstruct him during the Iraq war. They passed his tax cuts and not everyone opposed them. They cooperated enough to pass a number of his legislative initiatives, including Medicare prescription drug coverage -- which was not really a good idea. But they did it because like republicans they didn't want to take on seniors and they also didn't want to be seen as obstructionists. The Republicans, however, have been nothing but obstructionists. They didn't even sign healthcare legislation that was only 10-15 years earlier mostly proposed and endorsed by other Republicans.
I'm sorry, but I agree with one of the previous posters: "both sides DID NOT do it." There are members on both sides who have contributed to this mess, yes, but generally speaking, the republicans have ruined this country's economic chances by its almost unashamed culture of being bought off by corporate interests. It's the party of Jack Abramoff. It's the party of Citizens United. It's the party of Swiftboat. The party of refusing to compromise on a budget knowing full well that the country will hit the budget ceiling and not giving a damn about the consequences.
Obama, unfortunately, has proven to be too naive and too weak to fight these bums. We needed a Teddy Roosevelt and got another Jimmy Carter. A nice guy, but politically speaking, a kitten when we needed a lion.
I agree with you on Obama being a kitten. He has yet to stand up and fight for anything. If you'll remember Teddy was a Republican.
I see the problem as being with both sides still. I can lay more blame on Republicans for the last two to three years or so, yes, but the problem had been there for decades before this. Like most things in our political system, they become amplified over time if not corrected.
I see your point, the individual mandate was a Republican idea in the 90's. It was their main alternative to the Clinton push for universal healthcare.
Americans supported a univeral healthcare system, as shown in polls also. But why didn't Democrats stand on their soap box and scream bloody murder? Because a large part of the Democratic majority didn't support a universal, single payer, or public option either.
So we end up back in the same place. One party doesn't want this, the other party doesn't want that, and Americans wanted something else entirely.
Here is my reason for it: Democrats aren't very good at being the well-oiled propaganda machine that republicans are. Think about it: $50 billion/year in savings in Medicare is suddenly grandma being put to death bed? That was a popular slogan couple of years ago, wasn't it? And trust me, a substantial chunk of the populace still believes it. And is the issue with mandate now that it was democrats fault that they accepted it as a compromise while taking public option off the table? But then, democrats don't walk in lock step either as republicans do. I don't think there are such things as purity tests for democrats.
An episode of Jon Stewart from last week included JP Morgan Chase CEO testifying in front of the Congress. You would think there would be more focus on the issue itself than playing politics? If you haven't seen it, I recommend that you do, and that brings out why we're where we're today. And it is only going to get worse.
My understanding in why single payer was tossed is because of influence from the insurance lobby. There was a compromise behind closed doors and that led up to the "mandate". Apparently if Obama did not shy away from single payer, there were a few democrats at the time that could have shelved the whole healthcare bill altogether with the blessings of this lobby.
Three years ago (June 2009), on Health Care Reform debate, relevant pieces from this article:
1-Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
2- Republicans in Congress have fiercely criticized the proposal as an unneeded expansion of government that might evolve into a system of nationalized health coverage and lead to the rationing of care.
3- Mr. Obama and many Democrats have argued that a public plan would be essential, in the president’s words, to “keep insurance companies honest.” But Mr. Obama has also signaled a willingness to compromise for Republican support, perhaps by establishing member-owned insurance cooperatives instead.
And today, the propaganda is uncompromising nature of Obama administration.
I agree with you on Obama being a kitten. He has yet to stand up and fight for anything. If you'll remember Teddy was a Republican. .......
By party affiliation but by practices he very much mimicked Karl Marx as he did not believe in private property but in state ownership of land instead. T. Roosevelt was the founder of the Progressive Party in the USA. Really, get off of the partisan merry-go-round and wake the heck up!
I agree with you on Obama being a kitten. He has yet to stand up and fight for anything. If you'll remember Teddy was a Republican.
TR was a Republican when being a Republican actually stood for being progressive and changing with the times.
The real problem with Obama is that, as it turns out, he was true to his word when he believed that he was going to change the tone of Washington, and that he could try to compromise with these people. Compounding the problem is that he has had some bad advice. And compounding that problem even more, I think he has listened to the wrong people at exactly the wrong time. I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of Rahm Emanuel but he had some prescient advice for Obama and was warned to put the healthcare thing on the backburner. Obama, however, believed that he had the majority and that it was time to pass a bill -- any bill. I think Obama has, at times, fed the perception that he is interested in things other than returning America to economic stability. I know that some of these moves are to fire up his 'base' of support, but Obama, unlike Clinton, has never found a way to move to the center - at least not in the minds of voters. And fair or not, that's what counts. His refusal to play politics has been an Achilles heel.
Obama just looks weak, too. I can't in good conscience vote for Romney, but I have to say one thing, which is that Romney just looks more competent and more capable in front of a camera. Yeah he shifts all over the place, but he always has something to say. He goes on the attack. I think he's going to eat Obama alive in the debates this fall.
Here is my reason for it: Democrats aren't very good at being the well-oiled propaganda machine that republicans are. Think about it: $50 billion/year in savings in Medicare is suddenly grandma being put to death bed? That was a popular slogan couple of years ago, wasn't it? And trust me, a substantial chunk of the populace still believes it. And is the issue with mandate now that it was democrats fault that they accepted it as a compromise while taking public option off the table? But then, democrats don't walk in lock step either as republicans do. I don't think there are such things as purity tests for democrats.
An episode of Jon Stewart from last week included JP Morgan Chase CEO testifying in front of the Congress. You would think there would be more focus on the issue itself than playing politics? If you haven't seen it, I recommend that you do, and that brings out why we're where we're today. And it is only going to get worse.
Democrats just aren't committed to their cause the way that Republicans are. When it comes to family values, the Republicans may be hypocrites, but they actually believe their own b.s. and they pursue their cause with a sense of purpose and righteousness that you won't find in Democrats. Similarly, when it comes to protecting their pro-rich tax code, the special interests groups are no less committed, waging a kind of jihad against what they call 'socialism'. Conversely, democrats are just too divided and uncertain about how to approach these issues.
Democrats just aren't committed to their cause the way that Republicans are. When it comes to family values, the Republicans may be hypocrites, but they actually believe their own b.s. and they pursue their cause with a sense of purpose and righteousness that you won't find in Democrats. Similarly, when it comes to protecting their pro-rich tax code, the special interests groups are no less committed, waging a kind of jihad against what they call 'socialism'. Conversely, democrats are just too divided and uncertain about how to approach these issues.
Isn't the real problem a "party platform"? And a sheer lack of independent thought and contributions as opposed to assuring lock-stepped approach, from fear of being marginalized for going against party lines?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
