The biggest problem with the healthcare reform

[MikeWaters]

Could you imagine what a hellhole this country would be if the whole thing were like the Coasts? California and New York?

Now California wants the red states to bail it out.

NO THANKS!!! SCREW YOU COMMIEFORNIA!!!!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Could you imagine what a hellhole this country would be if the whole thing were like the Coasts? California and New York?

Now California wants the red states to bail it out.

NO THANKS!!! SCREW YOU COMMIEFORNIA!!!!

Left crazies believe everybody is with them. Please jump on the ship so we can all die together. Oh joy.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Left crazies believe everybody is with them. Please jump on the ship so we can all die together. Oh joy.

Yep. You nailed it. We are all going to die.

/sarcasm.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yep. You nailed it. We are all going to die.

/sarcasm.

California is going down for the count, except for the Marxist Obama stepping in to save the day.

California is what you have, when rampant leftist socialism takes over, bankruptcy begging others to pay the bill. It always does. Thank you, no, I've had enough.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

California is what you have, when rampant leftist socialism takes over, bankruptcy begging others to pay the bill. It always does. Thank you, no, I've had enough.

Or Michigan.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What percentage of the population would you guess is represented by Republicans in the Senate, Tex? Talk about circumventing the desires of a majority of Americans.

Here:

I will save you the trouble.

http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=2274

I hear echoes of sour grapes in that argument. Ted Kennedy tried this a few years back when the Dems had only 44ish votes. "We're in the minority, but we represent the majority." I have two thoughts for you on this:

First, the civics lesson. The Senate was created for the minority. That's why it exists: a way for the little guy in RI and DE to beat back those big meanies in VA and NY (see "Great Compromise"). Senators represent states, not individuals, so talking about how many voters you "really" represent is totally meaningless, whether D or R. It's an argument completely ignorant of why the Senate was created in first place.

Second, assuming that because you are in the majority, that most Americans agree with your policies is a fast track to the minority. It's like the Martha Coakley approach to electioneering.

I'm curious, Cali: you seem completely dismissive of the numerous polls showing the unpopularity of this bill, and apparently believe MA was nothing more than an "Attaboy!" to Obama. The House Democrat leadership has openly said that health care passage will be worth it to them, even if it costs them their majority. (Not sure if they're just blowing smoke, but that's what they've said.)

Do you feel the same way? What cost is too great? Losing the Senate too? The White House? Would all that be worth it to you, to get this bill passed?

Not saying any of it will ... but just entertain the hypothetical for a moment.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Or Michigan.



I hear echoes of sour grapes in that argument. Ted Kennedy tried this a few years back when the Dems had only 44ish votes. "We're in the minority, but we represent the majority." I have two thoughts for you on this:

First, the civics lesson. The Senate was created for the minority. That's why it exists: a way for the little guy in RI and DE to beat back those big meanies in VA and NY (see "Great Compromise"). Senators represent states, not individuals, so talking about how many voters you "really" represent is totally meaningless, whether D or R. It's an argument completely ignorant of why the Senate was created in first place.

Second, assuming that because you are in the majority, that most Americans agree with your policies is a fast track to the minority. It's like the Martha Coakley approach to electioneering.

I'm curious, Cali: you seem completely dismissive of the numerous polls showing the unpopularity of this bill, and apparently believe MA was nothing more than an "Attaboy!" to Obama. The House Democrat leadership has openly said that health care passage will be worth it to them, even if it costs them their majority. (Not sure if they're just blowing smoke, but that's what they've said.)

Do you feel the same way? What cost is too great? Losing the Senate too? The White House? Would all that be worth it to you, to get this bill passed?

Not saying any of it will ... but just entertain the hypothetical for a moment.

Sour grapes? That doesn't even make sense- not when Democrats are poised for the first time in decades to accomplish one of their highest priority agenda items.

I am well aware of the purpose of the Senate. It was YOUR argument that a majority of Americans don't support Democrats. A strong majority is what elected the Democrats to office in the first place. You seem to be of the opinion that now that they have been elected, they should live and die by each poll which is released, even if it requires totally changing their opinions on the very subjects which got them elected in the first place. The most accurate poll is the one taken on voting day, and on that day Democrats did extremely well. Better than any party has since the 1970s. Your quote on Kennedy is amusing as it seems to suggest Democrats are in the minority now. They have 59 seats in the US Senate, not 44. You didn't cite poll numbers from Kennedy's day- instead you looked to seats in the Senate in that example to show "minority" status. Flip your argument and you have clear majority status now for Democrats.

As for what I am willing to lose to get health care reform done- all of it. This is why we have elections. So things can get done. I want my party to get done what they ran on, no matter the political cost to them. I am not interested in perpetuating any political career. I am interested in results. Get the results, even if it costs your job. If, as I believe, the results will be a net positive, the voters will come back soon enough and you can then get more results. Politics isn't a game. All the wrangling, all the arguing, all the posturing and positioning, is for one reason- to get results. Instead, to you and others, the wrangling, arguing, posturing and positioning appear to be the actual desired result with accomplishments a distant second. I'm not interested in that model.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Sour grapes? That doesn't even make sense- not when Democrats were poised for the first time in decades to accomplish one of their highest priority agenda items.

I fixed your sentence.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am well aware of the purpose of the Senate. It was YOUR argument that a majority of Americans don't support Democrats. A strong majority is what elected the Democrats to office in the first place. You seem to be of the opinion that now that they have been elected, they should live and die by each poll which is released, even if it requires totally changing their opinions on the very subjects which got them elected in the first place. The most accurate poll is the one taken on voting day, and on that day Democrats did extremely well. Better than any party has since the 1970s. Your quote on Kennedy is amusing as it seems to suggest Democrats are in the minority now. They have 59 seats in the US Senate, not 44. You didn't cite poll numbers from Kennedy's day- instead you looked to seats in the Senate in that example to show "minority" status. Flip your argument and you have clear majority status now for Democrats.

As for what I am willing to lose to get health care reform done- all of it. This is why we have elections. So things can get done. I want my party to get done what they ran on, no matter the political cost to them. I am not interested in perpetuating any political career. I am interested in results. Get the results, even if it costs your job. If, as I believe, the results will be a net positive, the voters will come back soon enough and you can then get more results. Politics isn't a game. All the wrangling, all the arguing, all the posturing and positioning, is for one reason- to get results. Instead, to you and others, the wrangling, arguing, posturing and positioning appear to be the actual desired result with accomplishments a distant second. I'm not interested in that model.

The irony is when the very results that you seek is what drives you from power. Politics isn't a game? Neither is democracy. Representatives of the people who refuse to listen to their constituents will find themselves no longer being representatives of the people.

Yes, election day is the poll that matters most. But it isn't the only one. Dems right now are engaged in a racing game: "how much unpopular legislation can we ram through Congress before the people take our power away"? That's no way to govern.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I fixed your sentence.



The irony is when the very results that you seek is what drives you from power. Politics isn't a game? Neither is democracy. Representatives of the people who refuse to listen to their constituents will find themselves no longer being representatives of the people.

Yes, election day is the poll that matters most. But it isn't the only one. Dems right now are engaged in a racing game: "how much unpopular legislation can we ram through Congress before the people take our power away"? That's no way to govern.

What's the problem, then? That you find the potential result "ironic?"

Again, are you advocating for an approach whereby members of Congress only do what polls tell them to do? If not, what are you advocating?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What's the problem, then? That you find the potential result "ironic?"

Again, are you advocating for an approach whereby members of Congress only do what polls tell them to do? If not, what are you advocating?

I might ask you the same question.

This little discussion started when you suggested that the percentage of the population represented by Democrats in the Senate somehow implied the majority of Americans approves of their health care agenda.

I demonstrated what a meaningless and illogical position that is by pointing out the population-minority-friendly nature of the Senate, underscored by Ted Kennedy making this same claim while Dems were in the governing minority. He actually said (I'm paraphrasing), "We're in the minority, but we represent a majority of Americans." Um, ok, Ted.

So which is it? Is the only justification required for any policy change (to say nothing of the magnitude of this health care bill) to simply point a finger at the last election and shout, "Scoreboard"? If so, someone should tell all these congressmen to stop commissioning polls, stop holding town meetings, and stop accepting mail and phone calls from their constituents.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I might ask you the same question.

This little discussion started when you suggested that the percentage of the population represented by Democrats in the Senate somehow implied the majority of Americans approves of their health care agenda.

I demonstrated what a meaningless and illogical position that is by pointing out the population-minority-friendly nature of the Senate, underscored by Ted Kennedy making this same claim while Dems were in the governing minority. He actually said (I'm paraphrasing), "We're in the minority, but we represent a majority of Americans." Um, ok, Ted.

So which is it? Is the only justification required for any policy change (to say nothing of the magnitude of this health care bill) to simply point a finger at the last election and shout, "Scoreboard"? If so, someone should tell all these congressmen to stop commissioning polls, stop holding town meetings, and stop accepting mail and phone calls from their constituents.

Um, no, I am not advocating a "follow the poll" approach. My point about the seats in the Senate has nothing to do with the polls (I thought I had made that abundantly clear by now), it has everything to do with the fact that an overwhelming number of Democrats were elected to do a job, and health care reform comprises part of that job. They have now gone through a lengthy process and emerged with a very good bill and they should now pass it. It's what they were elected to do. If the public thinks the bill they ultimately pass isn't what it wanted, they will vote the Dems out of office, and that's perfectly fine by me.

The question stands: are you advocating a "follow the polls" approach? If not, what are you advocating?

Have you noted, once again, you are not responding to direct questions?