Focusing On Obamacare Was Wrong Says NY Senator

esmith · Nov 26, 2014

Well, it seems that at least one Democrat, Senator Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the third racking Democrat member in the Senate, thinks that the Democrats focused on the wrong issue when they took on healthcare. Is it possible that they are starting to see that what they did was bad for the middle class? Of course, they bowed to their base and focused on it anyway.
Schumer: Democrats ‘blew’ opportunity by focusing on ‘wrong problem’ — health care - The Washington Post

Midnight Rain · Nov 26, 2014

Sounds like he doesn't regret getting healthcare reform but does regret that they tackled healthcare BEFORE the economic issues.

The democrats blew it when they had a chance to enact a real healthcare system but then turned around and made a mess that would complicate issues and make it harder to make real changes. Because now those that want healthcare reform often vote for Democrats that are making it worse and the ones that don't are voting for republicans that want to remove healthcare safety nets totally.

We have a flat tire. One side wants to spend tons of time and money making a flat tire out of twigs, grass and mud that will fall apart after we start moving. The other half want to take off the tire and just go on three wheels. No one wants to use the spare tire.

metis · Nov 26, 2014

There's a general rule of thumb when it comes to presidential administrations, and that is if you're going to do something that's very controversial, do it early in the first term. The reason is that Americans tend to have short attention spans, so by the next presidential election at least, they'll have a chance to settle down and maybe see the possible benefits of said program(s).

BTW, the administration did spend much time and capital on working to stop our economic freefall, but unfortunately he didn't get any help from the Republican party that was all too willing to let the American economy fail so as to try and make certain Obama wouldn't get re-elected, which of course was right from McConnell's lips. Speaking of failures...

esmith · Nov 26, 2014

metis said:
There's a general rule of thumb when it comes to presidential administrations, and that is if you're going to do something that's very controversial, do it early in the first term. The reason is that Americans tend to have short attention spans, so by the next presidential election at least, they'll have a chance to settle down and maybe see the possible benefits of said program(s).

BTW, the administration did spend much time and capital on working to stop our economic freefall, but unfortunately he didn't get any help from the Republican party that was all too willing to let the American economy fail so as to try and make certain Obama wouldn't get re-elected, which of course was right from McConnell's lips. Speaking of failures...

You do realize that Obama had 2 years of Democrats controlling both the House and Senate. They did not need or obviously didn't want any input from the other side.

metis · Nov 26, 2014

esmith said:
You do realize that Obama had 2 years of Democrats controlling both the House and Senate. They did not need or obviously didn't want any input from the other side.

That's untrue. Matter of fact, some of the "bailout" programs were started by the Bush administration, plus there were many attempts to try and bring along at least some of the Republicans in the Senate since they were heavily using the filibuster.

As an example, over and over again the administration and congressional D's tried to get more programs to help our crumbling infrastructure, which in the past R's were mostly for, but not with Obama in office. And yet when some stimulus got passed mostly by D's and a small number of R's (if my memory is correct) some of the latter had enough gal to show up at ribbon-cutting ceremonies that they had voted against, and Mr. Boehner was one of those, btw. They also resisted banking reform.

It takes two to tango, and anyone who was waiting for the dance to begin well should know that the R's mostly sat on their hands and whined, and we see that same obstructionism going on today with the issue of immigration reform. Don't do anything-- just whine.

esmith · Nov 26, 2014

metis said:
That's untrue. Matter of fact, some of the "bailout" programs were started by the Bush administration, plus there were many attempts to try and bring along at least some of the Republicans in the Senate since they were heavily using the filibuster.

As an example, over and over again the administration and congressional D's tried to get more programs to help our crumbling infrastructure, which in the past R's were mostly for, but not with Obama in office. And yet when some stimulus got passed mostly by D's and a small number of R's (if my memory is correct) some of the latter had enough gal to show up at ribbon-cutting ceremonies that they had voted against, and Mr. Boehner was one of those, btw. They also resisted banking reform.

It takes two to tango, and anyone who was waiting for the dance to begin well should know that the R's mostly sat on their hands and whined, and we see that same obstructionism going on today with the issue of immigration reform. Don't do anything-- just whine.

So, what is your response going to be when the Republican majority in the House and the Senate send legislation to the President and he vetoes it? Or even if he does sign it and it is not to your liking?

metis · Nov 26, 2014

esmith said:
So, what is your response going to be when the Republican majority in the House and the Senate send legislation to the President and he vetoes it? Or even if he does sign it and it is not to your liking?

"Divine retribution". Except the difference is that the Democrats are not so unethical that they will stop legislation that clearly would help the country and our fellow Americans like the Republicans have done consistently for over six straight years now.

Midnight Rain · Nov 26, 2014

metis said:
"Divine retribution". Except the difference is that the Democrats are not so unethical that they will stop legislation that clearly would help the country and our fellow Americans like the Republicans have done consistently for over six straight years now.

I wouldn't put it past them.
But historically I can't think of a time they have done so.

BSM1 · Nov 26, 2014

metis said:
"Divine retribution". Except the difference is that the Democrats are not so unethical that they will stop legislation that clearly would help the country and our fellow Americans like the Republicans have done consistently for over six straight years now.

Again the Democrats had the Presidency and the Congress for the first two years of this administration. Facts tend to be troublesome varmints. What about the Keystone Pipeline? Seems Democrats are now rethinking their opposition.

YmirGF · Nov 26, 2014

metis said:
"Divine retribution". Except the difference is that the Democrats are not so unethical that they will stop legislation that clearly would help the country and our fellow Americans like the Republicans have done consistently for over six straight years now.

I would not bet the farm on that one, Metis.

metis · Nov 26, 2014

BSM1 said:
Again the Democrats had the Presidency and the Congress for the first two years of this administration. Facts tend to be troublesome varmints. What about the Keystone Pipeline? Seems Democrats are now rethinking their opposition.

Except any kind of political agenda needs time to phase in. It was a miracle enough that we finally got the ACA passed, and no doubt much political capital was at stake. Yes, facts can be troublesome varmints, especially since some seem to think that the process of getting serious and far-reaching plans into legislation, and then getting it passed, is easy.

As far as Keystone is concerned, it is not opposed by the administration as they are waiting for the results of an evaluation. Some D's are for it and some are opposed, no doubt. There are some serious issues with this, and I have mixed feelings about it, but ultimately I do believe it'll be approved.

metis · Nov 26, 2014

YmirGF said:
I would not bet the farm on that one, Metis.

I'm going by past experiences that we've seen over the last six plus years, so I do believe I'm on pretty sound footing here. But you never know if the moral depravity on the right might spread to the left-- but I doubt it.

BSM1 · Nov 27, 2014

metis said:
Except any kind of political agenda needs time to phase in. It was a miracle enough that we finally got the ACA passed, and no doubt much political capital was at stake. Yes, facts can be troublesome varmints, especially since some seem to think that the process of getting serious and far-reaching plans into legislation, and then getting it passed, is easy.

As far as Keystone is concerned, it is not opposed by the administration as they are waiting for the results of an evaluation. Some D's are for it and some are opposed, no doubt. There are some serious issues with this, and I have mixed feelings about it, but ultimately I do believe it'll be approved.

The administration had three evaluations by it's own people (EPA for example). The project was cleared years ago. This is just pandering to the "green" constituency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/u...ase-way-to-approval-of-keystone-pipeline.html (et al)

Shadow Wolf · Nov 27, 2014

BSM1 said:
The administration had three evaluations by it's own people (EPA for example). The project was cleared years ago. This is just pandering to the "green" constituency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/u...ase-way-to-approval-of-keystone-pipeline.html (et al)

It's not just the green constituency, it's those of us who are pissed off they are misusing eminent domain, and those against eminent domain altogether. The US government is taking private property from private citizens and giving it to another private entity for private use. The real issue behind Keystone is how fascist it is. If you support private property rights, you should not be supporting Keystone. Though the environment is an important issue, that it has been molded into an environmentalist movement how much disconnect there is.

BSM1 · Nov 27, 2014

Shadow Wolf said:
It's not just the green constituency, it's those of us who are pissed off they are misusing eminent domain, and those against eminent domain altogether. The US government is taking private property from private citizens and giving it to another private entity for private use. The real issue behind Keystone is how fascist it is. If you support private property rights, you should not be supporting Keystone. Though the environment is an important issue, that it has been molded into an environmentalist movement how much disconnect there is.

Could you site a couple of references where anyone is really up in arms over losing land for the pipeline? I know a couple of Indian tribes made a half hearted, self-serving attempt at making this an issue.

metis · Nov 27, 2014

BSM1 said:
The administration had three evaluations by it's own people (EPA for example). The project was cleared years ago. This is just pandering to the "green" constituency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/u...ase-way-to-approval-of-keystone-pipeline.html

Again, there's another major study that's underway whereas the results are not yet in. And some other groups are concerned, so it's not just the "greens".

Atman · Nov 29, 2014

BSM1 said:
Could you site a couple of references where anyone is really up in arms over losing land for the pipeline? I know a couple of Indian tribes made a half hearted, self-serving attempt at making this an issue.

Here's one for you -

Meet the Texas Farmer Challenging the Keystone Pipeline from the Courtroom to the Plains by Anna Simonton — YES! Magazine

I found it particularly interesting that the right (who constantly bemoan that Obama is some sort of Communist) has never raised an issue about this

"Eminent domain" refers to situations in which the government or a corporation can seize a person's land even if they are not willing to sell it because the planned project is deemed a public good.

is this not the definition of socialism?

Storm · Nov 29, 2014

Atman said:
is this not the definition of socialism?

No. Socialism, even at its most simplistic, is public ownership. Not seizure on behalf of private industry.

But it is a profoundly hypocritical tactic for American conservatives to employ.

Atman · Nov 29, 2014

Storm said:
No. Socialism, even at its most simplistic, is public ownership. Not seizure on behalf of private industry.

But it is a profoundly hypocritical tactic for American conservatives to employ.

I agree that is certainly the case with regards to the Keystone Pipeline. I was referring more to the use of the term "public good" being used as the justification for the seizure of property, than with what was actually going on with the Keystone project.

Storm · Nov 29, 2014

Atman said:
I agree that is certainly the case here, I was referring more to the use of the term "public good" being used as the justification for the seizure of property.

I am a socialist (social democrat). We don't have a monopoly on expressing concern for the public good, we just have our own ideas on what it looks like. Eminent Domain is contrary to everything socialism supports.

I don't want to detract from your larger argument, though. Just a side note.

Focusing On Obamacare Was Wrong Says NY Senator

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Veteran Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Veteran Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Well-Known Member

What? Me worry?

Bodhisattva in Recovery

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

What? Me worry?

Certified People sTabber

What? Me worry?

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Member

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Member

ThrUU the Looking Glass