US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

This may be 20/20 hindsight, but maybe health-care reform in the first year of the Obama term, in the midst of a recession, may have been a bit too ambitious? I think they should probably acknowledge that health-care reform is going to be a very complicated business, that it's taking up too much of Congress's time right now, that maybe they should enact some kind of temporary enlargement of Medicaid/Medicare as a stop-gap measure and turn their attention to financial reform, unemployment, housing foreclosures, etc. Then if they survive the midterms with majorities intact, take that as a mandate for some serious nuts-and-bolts reform.

I really don't get the aversion to fucking putting chips on tables. Oh wait--the idea of losing permanent status as a member of Congress means that some of these fucking slugs will have to go find a real job if they get booted from office.

― Obama needs a John McCone (Dandy Don Weiner), Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:35 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

what you mean as a lobbyist?

too late for that shit, the Republicans obviously smell blood in the water. Dems can either charge forward and look bold and arrogant and action-oriented or they can scale back and look like pussies - either way they are likely to lose at the polls. Question is which course of action will minimize the damage. I'm inclined to say the former is the better option because at least it will shore up the base.

er x-post

This may be 20/20 hindsight, but maybe health-care reform in the first year of the Obama term, in the midst of a recession, may have been a bit too ambitious? I think they should probably acknowledge that health-care reform is going to be a very complicated business, that it's taking up too much of Congress's time right now, that maybe they should enact some kind of temporary enlargement of Medicaid/Medicare as a stop-gap measure and turn their attention to financial reform, unemployment, housing foreclosures, etc. Then if they survive the midterms with majorities intact, take that as a mandate for some serious nuts-and-bolts reform.

― o. nate, Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:37 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

i mean--thats basically the kind of thinking that has created the modern (shitty) democratic party

"lets wait till we have a mandate, like, i dont know, huge majorities in the house, senate, and control of the executive branch"

unemployment, housing foreclosures

thought they already did summa that

some kind of temporary enlargement of Medicaid/Medicare as a stop-gap measure

Didn't someone already try this and get shot to SHIT?!?

ah that's bullshit. health care reform IS a fiscal issue, congress really doesn't have anything better to do (legislate? us? pshaw!) medicaid enlargement IS part of the package (iirc), and it's not as if the battle for financial reform, unemployment (what is congress supposed to do about this, btw? hire more pages?), or foreclosures is any easier or faster or even different.

why do they need to wait until after '10 to get another "mandate," wasn't '08 good enough? what the fuck, they're going to go down in flames anyway, pull the trigger already.

xps heh

Whatshisface, Lieberman torpedoed that, among other idiots. Even though he had CAMPAIGNED ON the idea of expanding Medicare for years, he suddenly changed his mind when it might have allowed the HCR bill to pass.

I think it looks a bit desperate for the Dems that as soon as they get the 60-vote supermajority in the Senate they try to enact one of their perennial, capital-R Reform Agendas, which on the surface at least, seems to have little to do with the probably reasons why they were elected (to wit, the Republicans royally fucked up the economy, the deficit, foreign policy, etc.).

you know who looks like the biggest idiot in this mess is fucking Harry Reid. I never liked him much anyway but now the dude is obviously totally ineffectual to boot. Pelosi, by contrast, is practically a knight in shining armor.

seems to have little to do with the probably reasons why they were elected

this is wrong. healthcare was like number two issue behind the economy for voters in 08

I think I said this before but the real problem here is that Republicans actually understand how federal government works (ie, the minority party hamstrings every fucking thing they can in order to keep the country in a state of paralyzed stasis, forcing the states to fix their problems) and the Democrats don't (because they keep acquiescing to batshit Republican plans that make the country worse).

btw I think this system is categorically awful and should be abolished but the only replacement I'd really be happy with is one where I was named dictator in perpituity

and Obama did their big economic stimulus package FIRST in case you don't remember. ARRA funding is just now starting to really hit the private sector afaict

x-post

well o.nate i don't know what to say to you other than, you're wrong. no, it doesn't look desperate.

xp i dunno shakey, harry ried is gonna get burned over this and he knows it. pelosi will be in washington as long as she cares to be.

I think it looks a bit desperate for the Dems that as soon as they get the 60-vote supermajority in the Senate they try to enact one of their perennial, capital-R Reform Agendas, which on the surface at least, seems to have little to do with the probably reasons why they were elected (to wit, the Republicans royally fucked up the economy, the deficit, foreign policy, etc.).

... wait "desperate?"

from eschaton, this is awesome

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/duncanblack/metrofail.jpg

I think I said this before but the real problem here is that Republicans actually understand how federal government works

I salute our new Fearless Leader because he is OTFM here. Compare how McConnell has handled the Republican Senate Caucus compared to the Dems under Dubya, who couldn't maintain any kind of unity and let the Rep majority roll right over them.

what looks desperate is democrats collapsing like a house of cards when their 60-vote majority is reduced to a 59-vote majority

I think I said this before but the real problem here is that Republicans actually understand how federal government works

It helped that being in the minority for 40 years gave them plenty of time to study the mechanisms of the fed bureaucracy.

i dunno shakey, harry ried is gonna get burned over this and he knows it.

yep, he's a goner at this point. I think he can kiss his Senate career goodbye, he's already not well-liked in his home state and now on top of that he won't even be able to point to any accomplishments as Senate Majority Leader as a reason to keep him. He's gonna lose that seat in November.

Dunno who will get the majority leader nod after him (Schumer? Dunno if he's a good fit, tbh.)

healthcare was like number two issue behind the economy for voters in 08

Well, the economy is still shit though, so maybe they should take care of that first. And I don't really buy the argument that healthcare and the economy are one and the same, and I don't think the voters will either. Everyone realizes that the benefits of healthcare reform to the economy (presumably increased efficiency and cost-containment) are not going to happen for many years, regardless of whether the plan is passed now or in a year's time. I think voters are perhaps saying: Yes we voted for you, but not to enact something that looks suspiciously like a Democrat pet project - but because we trusted you more than the other guys to fix the economy. This is a bit like the GOP taking Bush's re-election in '04 as a mandate for Social Security reform - it wasn't.

? well again, what is there to say. no, it's nothing like social security privatization.

o. nate where do you get your news, politico?

why would ppl that voted overwhelmingly for dems be put off by a suspiciously dem pet project?

also, what do you propose the democrats do, besides pass a $700 billion stimulus in the face of unanimous republican opposition?

Well, he's partly right: if the economy sucks, there ain't no way you're going to convince skeptics like my parents that we need to overhaul the health care system, shitty as they acknowledge it to be.

dude you can't fix huge structural economic problems in less than a year. I hate to parrot an Obama talking point but its really true in this case. The gov't doesn't work that fast, and neither does the economy. Its not like boom JOBS BILl and then a month later JOBS!!

x-post

But UNLIKE Bush in 2004 Obama actually had a mandate, so the time to force the issue was now.

yeah maybe some of that eceonomy bill shoulda appropriated funds for an ad campaign to say "HEY JUST FYI WE PASSED THIS BILL SO THE ECONOMY WOULDNT SUCK SO MUCH ASS. YOU'RE WELCOME."

Also: critics have accused Obama of not "explaining" himself. Putting aside the fact that he's blanketed the airwaves for six months, he can't very well explain the direness of the economic catastrophe we just crawled out of without revealing how much he's indebted to his Wall Street cronies.

as someone who works in an industry that is being specifically targeted by the stimulus/ARRA funding I can say that that money has started coming in in just the past few months - public funding has to go through a lot of bureaucratic hurdles to ensure that its properly handled; there's controls and oversight built into every step of the process, and it takes a little while (i.e., more than a year) for that money to get out into the general economy and spur growth, allow companies to hire more people, get projects built etc. It IS working, but to act like some miracle wand could be waved and change the economy in just a few months is like uh waht

x-posts

on any "economic" issue you care to name: mortgage cramdowns, expanded unemployment insurance, tighter banking regs, establishing a finance consumer protection agency, etc, the legislative dynamic is exactly the same as the one for healthcare -- complete phalanx mindless opposition from the GOP, a bunch of wishy-washy and mostly bought-off interest-pandering moderate dems, a few progressives, and the white house trying to herd cats and watching it's poll numbers go down. it's not different. it's... the same thing!

besides, it's medicare that's going to bankrupt the gov't and medical spending, more than anything else, that's dragging on growth.

xp u guys are fast

I'm viscerally against term limits, but perhaps Congress is where they're needed. It might just be exchanging old shits for new shits, but more non-douchies might slip in. Seniority needs to be blown to smithereens.

but anyway, too late

also, what do you propose the democrats do, besides pass a $700 billion stimulus in the face of unanimous republican opposition?

The stimulus was too small, as Krugman never tires of arguing. But beyond that, even if you can't pass a bigger stimulus, at least look like you're working on the problem. Healthcare reform is extremely complicated. People fear change. Instead of getting bogged down in backroom deals to pass something that looks like a typical Washington over-designed solution, now may be the time to address people's feelings about the current situation. I don't think that people expect government to single-handedly fix the economy, but at least look like you're doing something more than bailing out bankers and taking over car companies.

Term limites are horrible. Look what it did to California. Granted its all douches in there, but nobody knows how to fucking run anything.

Well perhaps that is exactly what we need in DC!

in love w/you for this simile tbh

xo, but I know married men are TROUBLE

Term limits are not of themselves horrible. I think two 6-year Senate terms, and four 2-year house terms, is reasonable. If we can have them for the President, I'm not sure what makes Congressdouches so damned special.

Why the hell should Clinton have been limited to two terms but Strom Thurmond served FOREVER?

I'm wondering what the most unintentionally hilarious word in DC is, but I think "mandate" is high on the list.

Mandate is whatever the fuck you want it to be--if you're in power, you get to decide the agenda, no matter what the electorate says. Ergo, 14,000 riders to a spending bill.

o.nate OTM

xp

term limits are never the answer and I'm against them for presidents too

we already have term limits, they're called elections.

things are bad! drop what you're doing and look busy!

is that a plan for legislative success? for any party? i though o.nate was just criticizing the majority for looking desperate?

now if we could only have public financed elections everything would work out fine and dandy haha

x-post

we already have term limits, they're called elections.

"Stop me before I elect Mitch McConnell again" is fine w/ me

all I have to say is term limits have been a total disaster for my state. if you want any evidence of why they don't work, just survey California's completely crippled gov't.

you end up with a bunch of idiots who have no idea about how gov't should work, how to make deals, how to craft legislation, and with no incentive or imperative or TIME to learn (after all, they're all gonna be gone in a few years so who gives a shit, right?)

Ugh publicly financed elections would seem to solve all our goddamn problems.

Thanks for nothing SCOTUS, you fucks.