Obama admits failure to change Washington

[00timh]

I'm sorry, but that is absurd. There is no question that the Republican minority is the most obstructionist minority in modern memory. It's absurd to suggest that the president could do whatever he wanted for two years, because that implies that he should be able to get 100% cooperation from Senate Democrats on every major bill. By way of comparison, the current House majority leader is lucky if he can get HALF of House Republicans to toe the line on important votes (not silly symbolic votes).

What is absurd is the hypocrisy of people who think when their party is in the minority and all line up to oppose, you guys think they are doing the right thing as they should by altering the final bill so that the majority doesn't get 100% their way, but when you guys are in the majority and the minority does the same exact thing, you cry about it.

 

[AdamT]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do recall the democrats making Bush and all other GOP presidents and candidates losing their main priority have they not?

No, they have not -- not to the exclusion of all other things. A majority of Democrats, for example, supported President Bush's immigration reform proposal, which was defeated by congressional Republicans. That was no small thing, as Bush set it up to be the centerpiece of his second term.

 

[00timh]

No, they have not -- not to the exclusion of all other things. A majority of Democrats, for example, supported President Bush's immigration reform proposal, which was defeated by congressional Republicans. That was no small thing, as Bush set it up to be the centerpiece of his second term.

Is this really the best example you have? It was what the democrats wanted. To further my point, when GHWB broke his vow of no new taxes, he got wide democratic support. Then come election time they used that against him for breaking promises to the American people. Democrats are NO different, no matter how much you like to think they are.

 

[OhIsee.Then]

Is this really the best example you have? It was what the democrats wanted. To further my point, when GHWB broke his vow of no new taxes, he got wide democratic support. Then come election time they used that against him for breaking promises to the American people. Democrats are NO different, no matter how much you like to think they are.

You are making an equate based on how the war is fought, not on the objective of the warring. Interestingly shallow.

 

[AdamT]

Is this really the best example you have? It was what the democrats wanted. To further my point, when GHWB broke his vow of no new taxes, he got wide democratic support. Then come election time they used that against him for breaking promises to the American people. Democrats are NO different, no matter how much you like to think they are.

It is the best I have, and it's pretty damned good, if I do say so myself.

Again, immigration reform was Bush's top domestic policy priority for his second term and Democrats supported it while his own party told him to shove it. Obviously Democrats supported it because they wanted it. I don't expect anyone to vote for something that they don't generally support, even if it isn't *exactly* what they want.

But that's the distinction; Republicans in this Congress have voted against bills that they themselves introduced for no other reason than that Obama agreed with them. On other occasions Republicans have voted against Democratic measures that had wide support among Republicans ... again, because they simply refuse to take the chance that it could be viewed as a victory for Obama. And they're doing all this when the country is painfully vulnerable and really needs these idiots on both sides of the aisle to get over their bickering and do what's best for the country.

 

[washunut]

Absolutely there was. If only Obama and the Dem's had been willing to even have the discussion.

The real answer to Mr T's question is there is no way to know the answer to his hypothetical question. That is because the administration made it clear from the outset that input from the other party was not welcome or needed.

Obama said clearly, clections have consequences so we get to call ALL the shots. Then he and Mr T seem surprised that Washington is deadlocked.

Obama and team have proven themselves to be excellent politicians but materially weaker as leaders.

 

[Prof. Peabody]

Your right. No one did. I simply made a comment on how outstanding you play the partisan hack card.

If you liked my posts, I would consider myself a failure.

 

[Prof. Peabody]

It's torture just getting a transportation bill passed -- traditionally among the least controversial bills and one that would put two million people out of work if it expired. Republicans would engage in meaningful debate about comprehensive health care reform? Not a chance.

They tried, but the Democrats didn't care to hear what they had to say as they thought they had enough votes to ram through what ever they wanted. They ended up passing it in reconciliation as they couldn't get enough Democrats to walk the plank for Pelosi to pass it any other way. Why?

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Poll: Start over on health reform

A Zogby International poll released Tuesday shows that 57 percent of Americans do not like either of the competing health care bills produced by the Senate and House and say Congress should start over, as a group of bipartisan lawmakers head to a health care.

Poll: Start over on health reform - Washington Times

The result was a loss of 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate in the 2010 mid term.

 

[AdamT]

They tried, but the Democrats didn't care to hear what they had to say as they thought they had enough votes to ram through what ever they wanted. They ended up passing it in reconciliation as they couldn't get enough Democrats to walk the plank for Pelosi to pass it any other way. Why?



The result was a loss of 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate in the 2010 mid term.

They didn't try and never would.

How about a more recent poll?

Americans think it's time to move on.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 47 percent of a group of 1,239 American adults say they approve of the Supreme Court's decision, which upheld the vast majority of the ACA, allowing the hotly-debated individual mandate to survive as a tax. Another 43 percent oppose, and respondents' views were, as usual, "heavily influenced by party identification."

The poll also queried participants on whether opponents of the law should continue to try to block the law from being implemented. Overall, 56 percent said anti-ACA folks should stop their efforts to block the law and "move on to other national efforts," while only 38 percent said those efforts to block the ACA's implementation were worthwhile.

Post-ACA, most Americans ready to move on: poll | OnCentral

Let's see the results of the 2012 elections.

 

[Prof. Peabody]

They didn't try and never would.

How about a more recent poll?



Let's see the results of the 2012 elections.

The poll is germane to the statement I was making as to why the Democrats took such a historic thumping in 2010.

Here's why they will get canned in 2012.

Public opinion of the health care law

June 28, 2012 10:36 AM

Since it was enacted over two years ago, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama's signature piece of legislation, has never been especially popular with the American public. Just 34 percent approve of the health care law, according to a CBS News/New York Times Poll released earlier this month, while 48 percent disapprove. Other recent polls also show more oppose the law than support it.

Overall opinions of the health care law have barely wavered since its passage in March 2010, and support for it has never reached 50 percent in CBS News Polls. Back in May 2010, two months after it was passed, 43 percent of Americans approved of the law - that's the highest percentage to date.

Public opinion of the health care law - CBS News

AND.....

Disability Ranks Outpace New Jobs In Obama Recovery

By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 09:45 AM ET

More workers joined the federal government's disability program in June than got new jobs, according to two new government reports, a clear indicator of how bleak the nation's jobs picture is after three full years of economic recovery.


The economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. But that same month, 85,000 workers left the workforce entirely to enroll in the Social Security Disability Insurance program, according to the Social Security Administration.

The disability ranks have outpaced job growth throughout President Obama's economic recovery. While the economy has created 2.6 million jobs since June 2009, fully 3.1 million workers signed up for disability benefits.

3.1 Million Workers Join Disability Ranks Vs. 2.6 Million That Got Jobs In Obama Recovery - Investors.com

Of course none of it will matter. The real crux of the election is, am I better off today than 4 years ago when Obama was elected? If it's yes than those folks will vote for Obama, if it's NO then those will vote for Romney. The majority is NOT better off. All the flailing and thrashing around won't help the candidate if folks aren't better off today than 4 years ago. No BS, trumped up issues or anything else will matter.

 

[AdamT]

Of course none of it will matter. The real crux of the election is, am I better off today than 4 years ago when Obama was elected? If it's yes than those folks will vote for Obama, if it's NO then those will vote for Romney. The majority is NOT better off. All the flailing and thrashing around won't help the candidate if folks aren't better off today than 4 years ago. No BS, trumped up issues or anything else will matter.

Hmm, so you think the majority was better off when the financial system was teetering on the brink of collapse, the economy was shedding three quarters of a million jobs per month, GDP growth was around NEGATIVE 9% and homes were being foreclosed on as fast as eviction notices could be tacked up?

I would have to disagree.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

If you liked my posts, I would consider myself a failure.

Cool beans.

 

[Fiddytree]

Good, I'm glad he accepts defeat. However, he still "believes" Washington is a problem, and it's not. It's just a stupid talking point to make regular people feel smarter than their leaders. It's absolutely shocking that the American people believe that their leaders are the problem when it is they who help select the multiple tiers of platforms their representatives are supposed to achieve. They elect Obama who has that platform, then they start electing Republicans under a completely different platform, and they expect everything to go smoothly.

 

[Fiddytree]

that is (on healthcare, at least) incorrect. They didn't need Republicans, and they didn't pursue them. Obamacare is what the Democrat party all by itself could pass.

Instead they tried to wedge moderate/conservative Democrats into the "you're with us or you're against us" rhetoric before they were able to do some concessions.

 

[azgreg]

Good, I'm glad he accepts defeat. However, he still "believes" Washington is a problem, and it's not. It's just a stupid talking point to make regular people feel smarter than their leaders. It's absolutely shocking that the American people believe that their leaders are the problem when it is they who help select the multiple tiers of platforms their representatives are supposed to achieve. They elect Obama who has that platform, then they start electing Republicans under a completely different platform, and they expect everything to go smoothly.

Should we then just elect a "party" and then that party apoint a President?

 

[Fiddytree]

Should we then just elect a "party" and then that party apoint a President?

Hardly. I like it the way it is.

 

[Prof. Peabody]

Hmm, so you think the majority was better off when the financial system was teetering on the brink of collapse, the economy was shedding three quarters of a million jobs per month, GDP growth was around NEGATIVE 9% and homes were being foreclosed on as fast as eviction notices could be tacked up?

I would have to disagree.

It's obvious they are no better off today. When you have more people added to the Disability roles than have new Obamanomics jobs, yea they are no better off.

 

[AdamT]

It's obvious they are no better off today. When you have more people added to the Disability roles than have new Obamanomics jobs, yea they are no better off.

I think most would take slow growth over gut-wrenching freefall.

 

[American]

You do realize that the Obamacare/Romneycare mandate and healthcare proposal was a Republican idea that was written by the Heritage Foundation right? And that the GOP was all for it until Obama proposed using it...

Did you read what Heritage wrote about the so called idea that Obama changed? Go to their site and look it up. What Obama put forward was not the same.

 

[johnny_rebson]

At least he can admit that. Changing Washington however is bigger than one man. Even the president.

But he doesn't want to make the changes that are necessary. In order to compete with China we need to make major changes to our environmental and labor laws.

Have you noticed all the American jobs that have been sent to China? Do you want those jobs back in America or not?

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually he did jump on the RomneyCare bandwagon, but I'm not sure if that counts since Romney is a liberal.

who did you support and on what issues were they demonstrably more conservative (i.e. less government) than Romney on?

 

[RadicalModerate]

"Washington feels as broken as it did four years ago," Mr Obama said in an interview with CBS television, betraying the fact that Congress is more polarised than ever between rival Republicans and Democrats.
The past three-and-a-half years have been marked by blanket Republican opposition to Democratic initiatives as Mr Obama's opponents adopt a policy that any compromise that helps the president must be snuffed out at all cost.
Democrats, in turn, have refused to budge on protecting large social programs and insist that the wealthiest Americans should pay more tax if the poorest are to lose some of their state benefits.
Having struggled to break out of the stalemate, Mr Obama said the fact that he hadn't "been able to change the atmosphere here in Washington to reflect the decency and common sense of ordinary people" frustrated him most.


Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

This might make him the most honest President we've ever had.

 

[RadicalModerate]

But he doesn't want to make the changes that are necessary. In order to compete with China we need to make major changes to our environmental and labor laws.

Have you noticed all the American jobs that have been sent to China? Do you want those jobs back in America or not?

Why the hell do we want Chinese jobs back? Why do we want to waste our own labor and energy getting back the manufacturing we sent over there? They make cheap plastic crap and earn next to nothing. It's unskilled labor. You think unskilled labor is gonna revive our economy? Get outta town with your crazy talk.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

But he doesn't want to make the changes that are necessary. In order to compete with China we need to make major changes to our environmental and labor laws.

Have you noticed all the American jobs that have been sent to China? Do you want those jobs back in America or not?

:roll:
What do you expect we do? Is it because of the "laws"? Or is it because hey we can ship jobs overseas use kids as labor, pollute the **** out of the country, and then make bigger profits for us guys at the top!
Sorry but i like some labor laws, and to breath clean air.

 

[Fiddytree]

This might make him the most honest President we've ever had.

If he were honest he would have said the entire enterprise is hopeless and naive. This is just using "Washington" against Washington some more-turning it into an endless punching bag. It's like ranting about lobbyists and bureaucracy.