Democrats look at bypassing Senate health care vote
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 1 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 2 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
36 Comments
Login to comment
0
sailwind
Now if that isn't a wake call to the Democrats that the American people are fed up with your far left agenda I don't know what else is. Scott Brown is going to win and it will be another shot heard round the world from the good people of Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy's seat goes conservative how sweetly Ironic.
0
Badsey
It seems like the Libs are at it again.
0
Tatanka
News Flash to Democrats: Its NOT Ted Kennedy's seat -- it belongs to the people of Massachusetts!
0
adaydream
Ps-s-s-st, we ain't had the election, yet. We'll get health care. We just haven't decided how to finish this trek. If Coakley is voted in, then the scrambling was well worth it. < :-)
0
Molenir
Whether or not Brown wins in Mass, this is a stunning vote for Dems. If Brown wins, I'm willing to predict that Dems will lose control of both the House and Senate in 2010. As it is, the very fact that Brown is running this close to Coakley in the Bluest of the Blue states, a state that is owned by the Dems, and for Teddy Kennedy's seat no less is shocking. Win or lose, its a wake up call for Democrats. If they want to have even the slightest hope of retaining power, they need to reconsider going along with Obamas extreme agenda.
0
WayneRooney10
Transparency!
0
WilliB
Ah, democracy in action! This is supposed to be the most transparent and democratic administration ever, remember? Everything on C-span, all voices heard, yes yes! Hahaha... how quickly minds change
0
Sarge
"in case a Republican wins Tuesday's Senate race in Massachusetts"
How is this possible?
0
Molenir
With Obama pushing Socialism, even Dems start to think twice about electing people who will just walk in lockstep with him. Voting for Coakley would be voting to put another Obama lackey in Washington. If the people want someone even moderately independent, they need to vote for someone else. That pretty much sums it up.
I think also a lot of people are realizing, that unlike regular Senators, he won't be in there for 6 years. He's running for a vacant seat, meaning he'll be up for re-election in 2012, so he'll only serve 3 years, then they'll be able to elect someone else. Thats an attractive choice to a lot of Dems who aren't happy with Obama's schemes, and who realize they won't have any trouble retaking the seat once things settle out a bit more.
0
RomeoRamenII
If Coakley fails to win, it's not her fault. It's all those New York Yankees fans like Curt Schilling and New York Giants fans like Doug Flutie who endorsed her opponent that caused her to lose.
Heh, heh.
0
sailwind
Nice analysis Moliner........ This link also comes to the same very conclusion. He is going to win big on Tuesday. This is going to be historic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nEoW-P81-0
0
SushiSake3
It's hilarious to see conservatives hyperventilating that Democrats might - gasp! - force through unpopular policies.
As if the bush years didn't see enough of that, and conservatives supported every bit of it.
The hypocrisy of U.S. conservatives is mind-boggling.
0
Altria
Calling Curt Schilling a Yankee fan is probably not going to help you win in Boston.
Coakley sounds like the Democrat version of Sarah Palin.
0
sailwind
Ahh Sushi, it sure wouldn't be same J.T if you couldn't get Bush in there somehow in the discussion.
0
RomeoRamenII
True dat. Lot of dead people in Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy's worth at least 150 votes for Coakley.
0
RomeoRamenII
Obama keeps lowering our expectations of him, if that is possible. He's in the middle of turmoil with Iran, Afghanistan, the economy, high unemployment, a very bad healthcare bill, and he is taking time out to pump the Massachusetts voters to vote for an inferior candidate?
Scott Brown will win anyway, but now that obama's shown up, he will win handily. Heh, this is the big democrats big plan? They didn't learn anything after Obama's multiple appearances did nothing to help win the New Jersey governorship?
0
goddog
In the end, what does it all mean?
0
RomeoRamenII
After Tuesday it will mean the beginning of the end of the chokehold on American taxpayers by the Obama administration and this government's spending spree.
0
SushiSake3
RomeoRamen - "beginning of the end of the chokehold on American taxpayers by the Obama administration and this government's spending spree."
ha ha, it's almost impossible not to laugh at the sheer void of thought behind that comment.
Romeo's trying to pull a fast one again, expecting all of us to roll over and simply completely forget how the previous U.S. administration burnt through $6 trillion and left whoever took the reins in such a deep hole that it's been near impossible so far to right the ship.
The fact is, that the Obama administration couldn't sit on its hands (like the GOP wanted to) - it had no choice but to spend its way out of the Bush/conservative-led global recession, hence the big hike in the deficit - which should come as no surprise to conservatives if they actually bothered to think about it for just a second, but even that is asking too much, it seems.
Romeo, I'll say it for you - "Look over there! It's a strawman!" :-)
0
RomeoRamenII
These people know it's a bad bill. They're having to bribe each other to agree with it. I wonder how much they stand to profit for selling out the country.
0
SushiSake3
RomeoRamen - "These people know it's a bad bill. They're having to bribe each other to agree with it."
I'm wondering if you can suggest any other method that might be better than negotiating.
Probably not. But I can understand how you still have a need to criticize it anyway.
0
Wolfpack
Although not a done deal, the astounding prospect of a Republican winning a statewide election in Taxachusettes is becoming more likely as the hours pass. I think it would be an amazing irony if Brown were to win "Teddy's" seat and defeat his dream of socialized health care in the US. Democrats have a 3 to 1 voter registration advantage in the state but there is a sizeable number of unaffiliated voters. Brown has successfully nationalized the Senate race just as in the recent governor's elections in Virginia and New Jersey had made the election a referendum on ObamaCare and corrupt deal-making by Democrats.
Even if Coakley were to win, the closeness of the race in such a Liberal state should send a message to President Obama and all Democrats that they need to moderate their arch-liberal domestic policy push. Just as former President Clinton's loss on health care and the landslide Republican victories in 1994 caused him to tact to the center, Obama's own hopes for re-election hang in the balance depending upon his reaction to the current mood of the country. If he continues to push his socialist ideology he is going to further alienate the independent voters that were the swing vote that got him elected in 2008 and he will become a very weak one-term President.
If I were Obama's political advisor, I would give him the bad news that he must scrap his health care reform plans as they now exist in Congress and start over with more a piecemeal approach to reform. The consensus of national polling shows that Americas do not want a massive government takeover of the health care system. If Coakley were to win and ObamaCare gets passed into law, then it is likely that Obama will instantly become a lame duck President and the coming defeats in the mid-term elections will become a tidal way. I just don't know how he will be able to spin that into saying it was Bush's fault...
0
Molenir
Does anyone else remember a bit more then a year ago, when folks like Sushi and Zurc were crowing about how the Republican party was Dead! No more, The End. Now here we are a bit over a year later, and they're running a dead heat in Massachusetts of all places. Win or lose, the irony is hilarious.
Keynesian economic thought or not. It has been proven pretty conclusively now, that you can't spend your way out of a recession. You can take less of peoples money and allow their confidence and larger bank accounts spend your way out, but the government cannot do it. I don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand. It failed in Japan, it failed in the US, repeatedly. It continues to fail, and yet people like yourself, just keep thinking, if we can spend enough money, even if its money we don't have, we can jump start the economy. IT DOESN'T WORK!
0
Molenir
How do you think it was resolved. FDR tried for 9 years to get the US out of the Depression using the same exact methods you believe in. It FAILED. It wasn't until after WW2, when everyone had confidence in the US and its economy. It took a war to jump start the economy, the spend your way out method failed. Keynesian economics failed back then, and it has failed every single time its been tried. Both in Japan and the US.
What you fail to realize, is that recessions and depressions are all about confidence. If people are confident that the recession is over, then it will be. Because rather then saving their money, they'll go out and spend it spurring the economy. Allowing people to keep more of their own money, acts as a direct boost, where simply providing a jobs program to a limited section of the population does not. It provides jobs for families, and thats good, but it doesn't restore the critical consumer confidence thats needed for the economy to run.
I'll take you at your word. I vividly remember quite a few posters after Obamas election sitting here crowing about the END of the Republican party. I can't express just how amusing it is seeing whats happening in Mass. To be honest, I don't expect Brown to pull it out. Not in Mass. I think a lot of Dems are going to go to the polls and say, I like the guy, but I can't vote for a Republican. He'll lose, but it will be close. But the fact that a Republican could even make it close in Massachusetts is a shock, and a delightful irony, considering the last election.
0
yabits
It's not a shock to me. People expect instant results and the problems are so severe that there's no such thing. The feeling may be one more of anti-incumbent party than of any particular party.
If the Republicans do manage to regain control of the Congress and White House over the next four years, the expectations for quick results will be back on them. (Which they'll respond to by doing the things the Democrats are trying to do.)
0
SushiSake3
Molenir - " You can take less of peoples money and allow their confidence and larger bank accounts spend your way out, but the government cannot do it."
The fundamental flaw with that theory is that it needs time that we don't have and never did.
Hence the government intervention, which, it should be noted, happened in pretty much every developed country and many that aren't.
Letting 'the market' correct the effects of this recession would have been disastrous. For a start, GM would have gone under, wiping out 88,000 jobs overnight, and that would have been just the tip of the iceberg.
No, government intervention had to happen.
0
USAFdude
Of course it did; after all, we elect government leaders to govern. What I can't figure out is why the Republicans support anarchy (i.e. no "big government", whatever that pointless term is supposed to mean) when so many brave American men and women have fought and died for our right to vote those we choose to serve in the... wait for it... government.
0
Molenir
What a bunch of nonsense. Thats like claiming, Dem leaders support communism, where everything is owned by the state. Its idiotic. Republicans don't support anarchy, they do however support letting the market take a primary role in shaping the economy.
To a certain extent you're right. I think that government needed to intervene. Though the time to do that was in 2005 when Bush first tried to do so, and was blocked by Mr. Frank. The role and purpose of government should not be saving companies from going under. Stepping in to protect them from their own stupidity and mismanagement, but rather regulating them in such a way that doesn't prevent business from being done, and yet doesn't encourage them to assume extreme levels of risk. There is a role for the government in the market. It just shouldn't be running the market. And the current setup we have now, is much too intrusive. The President shouldn't have the power to fire the head of a company, regardless of how many people will be out of work.
On the subject of GM, in hindsight, its doubtful it would have been forced to liquify. It would have been forced into bankruptcy, and many people might have lost their jobs. Oddly enough though, many of those same people did lose their jobs anyway, as the company is being forced to terminate production and lines, and focus on its more profitable ventures.
0
yabits
Amazing. Democrats would not regain control of Congress until January of 2007 and here we have one Democrat blocking the president? How does that happen?
Of course, like what you've written previously about banks being forced to lend to unqualified borrowers, it's a falsehood -- propagated by those who can not and will not take responsibility for the decisions and judgments they made.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
0
USAFdude
Molenir - Sorry if you found my "anarchy" comments nonsensical; they were made, tongue-in-cheek, to counterbalance the equally nonsensical idea that Obama is some kind of "socialist".
I found the rest of your post informative and well-stated, especially your comment that government does indeed have a role in the market.
0
Molenir
Do you have any idea how congress runs? Do you really not believe that Frank played a role in the banking collapse? What with his unwavering support for FannieMae and FreddieMac? His repeated insistence that nothing was wrong, nothing needed to be changed, and of course that he had nothing to do with "adjustments" made to the Community Reinvestment Act?
0
yabits
Absolutely. As per what will almost surely happen with the health care vote, Congress and the executive branch run on compromise. Each side gives up a little to get a little.
The example you gave of Frank and F&F is a good example, if you would read the link, of a White House that wanted a bill 100% its own way. As the article states, even the Republicans in Congress were sorely disappointed that Bush rejected the bill they produced.
And so you have been duped by one of the oldest political ploys in the book: When faced with a situation where your main policy may have bad repercussions, provide yourself with political cover by taking an unacceptably uncompromising position on an issue which appears to counter your main policy -- which ultimately you know you will not sign. Hey, you can even get your most naive followers to blame the minority party for the failure too!
Back to top