The existence of a unified opposition party creates the situation that we have now, where wehaveto capitulate to unreasonable demands made by our own party because it's the only way to get anything done at all.
Real men would stonewall in kind. Force the old men to actually, physically filibuster, lambast them in the media, blame them for the paralysis of Congress and obstructionism in general.
If your opposition won't play nice, and you are serious, you need to play in kind. Otherwise, you're admitting that you don't really want whatever it is you're after.
You could be right about that. It seems to me that the Republicans have always been better at the game of politics. If I agreed with their core values, I'd be on board that party in a second.
Force the old men to actually, physically filibuster
More and more, the fact that they don't really pisses me off. They know all the rules to the game, but they won't use them to their full advantage. They're playing sub-optimally.
The Democrats would never make it through a game of T&E; with us.
The existence of a unified opposition party creates the situation that we have now, where wehaveto capitulate to unreasonable demands made by our own party because it's the only way to get anything done at all.
Real men would stonewall in kind. Force the old men to actually, physically filibuster, lambast them in the media, blame them for the paralysis of Congress and obstructionism in general.
If your opposition won't play nice, and you are serious, you need to play in kind. Otherwise, you're admitting that you don't really want whatever it is you're after.
The Democrats don't actually want the pigeon.
...and thus my disappointment with Democrats in Congress.
Studies such as this that pace the percentage of uninsured at 16%. I'm no math major, but I'd call that a minority.
And, yes, the vast majority are happy with their plan. Assuming quality remains constant, who would have a problem with saving money? Even if you're happy with your current plan, saving money is nice. At the rate premiums are rising, most people should be very worried about cost. And what did the Congressional bill do to reduce costs? Not much at all. It would have reduced costs for some, but the majority felt that they were left out in the cold.
Studies such as thisthat pace the percentage of uninsured at 16%. I'm no math majority, but I'd call that a minority.
A minority of about 50 million people at 2010 estimates and all of them cannot be deadweight slackers.
They may be the hardwest workers in the country. But they are still a minority.
Like the soon to be minority of Anglo Saxons? Does having insurance mean that I automatically do not want the uninsured to be covered? Just because a group is a minority, does not mean that they do not deserve protection?
Neither party wants any real change to occur. Why push for change when you are already in power? Oh sure the Republicans don't have the presidency nor do they have have a majority in Congress, but they aren't any worse off then they were a year or two ago. Both of these parties are the enemy of any citizen who wants real, fundamental change. Honestly, I'm pretty much apolitical now, so imbued with cynicism and distrust to expect anything meaningful to happen unless we move to a multi-party system or a metaphorical firestorm ravages through Washington.
Neither party wants any real change to occur. Why push for change when you are already in power? Oh sure the Republicans don't have the presidency nor do they have have a majority in Congress, but they aren't any worse off then they were a year or two ago. Both of these parties are the enemy of any citizen who wants real, fundamental change. Honestly, I'm pretty much apolitical now, so imbued with cynicism and distrust to expect anything meaningful to happen unless we move to a multi-party system or a metaphorical firestorm ravages through Washington.
It's called moving to Europe, where real political change is strangled by the European Council!
I am arguing that the American people are fully capable of forcing their government to bring their supposed values and care for their neighbors in line with reality. Either admit that you don't give a fuck that your neighbor lives in poverty and/or dies OR actually push to ensure that there is a public safety net for all (including themselves if they fall on bad luck or hard times).
It's called moving to Europe, where real political change is strangled by the European Council!
Hey, that's not universally true. In England, It's merely strangled by the idiotic and backwards british government, for whom joining which, I'm sure there is a questionare that includes the question "1) Has the sun set on the British empire? A)No B)Most certainly Not! c)THE SUN NEVER SETS ON THE BRITISH EMPIRE"
Either admit that you don't give a fuck that your neighbor lives in poverty and/or dies OR actually push to ensure that there is a public safety net for all (including themselves if they fall on bad luck or hard times).
Not giving a fuck is exactly what is behind arguments like "only a minority of people are uninsured".
Hey, that's not universally true. In England, It's merely strangled by the idiotic and backwards british government, for whom joining which, I'm sure there is a questionare that includes the question "1) Has the sun set on the British empire? A)No B)Most certainly Not! c)THE SUN NEVER SETS ON THE BRITISH EMPIRE"
Amusingly, their full title is "The Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled."
That's right - the UK parliament's upper house is composed of Time Lords.
I have not once said what I personally feel. I am just pointing out how most people feel. This is a country that still suffers from racism, elitism, and many other problems. I wish it was otherwise. There is a reason why the courts have played the most active role in giving rights to minorities, and Congress has not. Sorry, but that's our history.
I have not once said what I personally feel. I am just pointing out how most people feel. This is a country that still suffers from racism, elitism, and many other problems. I wish it was otherwise.
Kilarney, I didn't mean to imply that you were apathetic to the problem. I just want to be clear and I can see how my comment could be taken that way.
If this was meant to be funny, it was in extremely poor taste.
I don't understand your point. Unless you are supporting my argument. Who have African-Americans the most rights? Congress or the courts?
If you want health care reform, you are much more likely to get it if a clear majority supports it. That is all I am saying. Is this really a contentious argument? Seriously?
I'm trying to come up with ways to get health insurance reform passed and people are arguing with this? I just don't get it.
You know what? I dislike the whole "most people have health insurance from their jobs" business. Not only do only the really good jobs have benefits, but what if someone gets laid off? I had a friend who was a teacher and then his school closed. He had to deal with a hernia far longer than he should of because since he went off insurance he could not get the surgery without incurring huge costs. I have health insurance. I will have it as long as I have a job. However, the moment I lose my job/go part time/take a leave of absence, I have to make sure not to get appendicitis or get hit by a car, because that would totally screw me. I would take the taxes I would have to pay every year (and seriously, I am already paying a bunch for broken ol' medicare!) as a kind of secondary insurance, an insurance that says "if something happens and you get laid off or become a comic artist or something, you can have basic coverage for the months that you need it."
I don't understand your point. Unless you are supporting my argument. Who have African-Americans the most rights? Congress or the courts?
If you want health care reform, you are much more likely to get it if a clear majority supports it. That is all I am saying. Is this really a contentious argument? Seriously?
Your argument is a little flawed. Technically, the courts were the most instrumental in enforcing the rights of African-Americans, but the legislation had to exist first. The whole "small minority" point you made is what kept black people from having rights for a very long time.
The courts cannot create legislation where it does not exist, they're simply the tool that enforces extant legislation. The bill needs to pass before the courts can do anything.
So, no, this fight cannot be won in court. It has to be won in Congress first.
EDIT: The "Negro" comment maybe should have been in green text, but I figured the sarcasm was sufficiently obvious.
Technically, the courts were the most instrumental in enforcing the rights of African-Americans, but the legislation had to exist first.
Wrong. Quite often rights were found under the constitution before any law was enacted.
Since health care is a very different issue, I agree that the court will not take the lead. That is why I am stressing the need to appeal to the majority to also protect the minority. It's just a matter of strategy. If both the majority and minority feel like the bill benefits them, it is likely to have broad based support. This is possible with health care reform (albeit difficult), whereas it would not have been possible for certain other civil rights issues.
Since health care is a very different issue, I agree that the court will not take the lead. That is why I am stressing the need to appeal to the majority to also protect the minority. It's just a matter of strategy. Ifboththe majority and minority feel like the bill benefits them, it is likely to have broad based support.
The problem is that the bill WOULD appeal to the majority if they could have its contents communicated to them truthfully. The problem is, there's been so much noise about the bill (much of which is simple fabrication) that the average voter has given up on understanding it.
If you don't inform the voters, they can't really be convinced of the validity of any bill.
If the Republicans are communicating more effectively than the Democrats, I guess that's something the Dems need to work on.
It's not more effective; it's more like destructive interference. There's too much competing, contradictory, incorrect information being thrown around, and the average voter cannot process all of it.
Of course, the Democrats do need to work on their communication. The Republicans are way too good at spreading FUD.
Well, technically it IS more effective. It has more of an effect; otherwise, the people would not believe it more than the Democrat's message. The problem is that effective is not the same thing as truthful. A lie can be more effective than a truth. That doesn't make it right.
Sensational reports always resonate more with people than honest, moderate reports. For example:
Two news reports come up back to back. One says "Airplane crash kills 180 passengers in a fiery inferno!" The other says "Traveling by airplane safer than traveling by car!" Now, what is the person watching it likely to come away from the news hour thinking about airplanes? They are much more likely to be frightened by the plane crash than reassured by the relative safety of airplanes, despite the fact that both headlines may be true. They get the impression that air travel is horribly unsafe because they have seen a sensationalized report of a large number of people dying in relation to an airplane crash, despite the fact that this is not true at all.
This is exactly the phenomenon that is impeding the flow of honest communication about the health care legislation. The sensational fearmongering may get the same amount of air time as the truth, but people remember the sensational bits more. People get the sense that the entire health care bill is going to kill America because they have been told that there is one provision in it that is going to do something bad, like take away their current insurance plan. The problem is that they haven't been accurately presented with all of the facts; they have been presented with spin, and spin tends to sensationalize.
It would also have helped if the Dems did not have the 'we don't need any Repubs' attitude. With Brown winning in MA that attitude is on the way out and it may lead to something good in the long run.
It would also have helped if the Dems did not have the 'we don't need any Repubs' attitude. With Brown winning in MA that attitude is on the way out and it may lead to something good in the long run.
I'm going to wait for a few things to really comment on this.
1. A more reliable news source to talk about it. 2. More then one instance of this occurring. Since we haven't heard about this before this point I make an assumption that this is rare (plus what is 25 million these days). I doubt Obama even knew about this since this doesn't seem like a decision that would even raise to the level of president. I'd be interested in if he talks about it or if Gibbs fields a question about it. My fellow councilpersons at our local government ran on the same promise but learned quickly how hard it is to actually get different bids and plans. They have a borough engineer who is from a firm who gets all the design work steered towards them since he is doing the advising. Last night it was brought up that we should put this one storm water plan up for a second opinion and the board encountered stiff resistance from the public (because it would take longer) and other councilmen (because getting other firms to write up the plans would probably cost us more money and we wouldn't know if the 5,000 dollar engineer would make a 150,000 plan and the 10,000 engineer would make a 50,000 plan). So they argued that maybe in the future they could vote one way or another on whether to get a second opinion in the future. Having seen this I can see that is fairly naive to think that you can always have bids on EVERY project. (I know on a federal level it is a bit different because more money is involved and the contractors wine and dine you but still). Hopefully we see the bigger deals put out to bid. I'm really not concerned until we see big projects farmed out and/or systemetic use of the no bid contract. (I.E. I'm happy with a reduction of no-bid contracts, they do have there place).
Comments
If your opposition won't play nice, and you are serious, you need to play in kind. Otherwise, you're admitting that you don't really want whatever it is you're after.
The Democrats don't actually want the pigeon.
The Democrats would never make it through a game of T&E; with us.
And, yes, the vast majority are happy with their plan. Assuming quality remains constant, who would have a problem with saving money? Even if you're happy with your current plan, saving money is nice. At the rate premiums are rising, most people should be very worried about cost. And what did the Congressional bill do to reduce costs? Not much at all. It would have reduced costs for some, but the majority felt that they were left out in the cold.
"1) Has the sun set on the British empire?
A)No
B)Most certainly Not!
c)THE SUN NEVER SETS ON THE BRITISH EMPIRE"
That's right - the UK parliament's upper house is composed of Time Lords.
OK, that was a cheap shot, but the point stands.
I don't understand your point. Unless you are supporting my argument. Who have African-Americans the most rights? Congress or the courts?
If you want health care reform, you are much more likely to get it if a clear majority supports it. That is all I am saying. Is this really a contentious argument? Seriously?
I'm trying to come up with ways to get health insurance reform passed and people are arguing with this? I just don't get it.
It would seem that the unfortunate truth is that most people think themselves safe enough with what they already have.
The courts cannot create legislation where it does not exist, they're simply the tool that enforces extant legislation. The bill needs to pass before the courts can do anything.
So, no, this fight cannot be won in court. It has to be won in Congress first.
EDIT: The "Negro" comment maybe should have been in green text, but I figured the sarcasm was sufficiently obvious.
Since health care is a very different issue, I agree that the court will not take the lead. That is why I am stressing the need to appeal to the majority to also protect the minority. It's just a matter of strategy. If both the majority and minority feel like the bill benefits them, it is likely to have broad based support. This is possible with health care reform (albeit difficult), whereas it would not have been possible for certain other civil rights issues.
If you don't inform the voters, they can't really be convinced of the validity of any bill.
Of course, the Democrats do need to work on their communication. The Republicans are way too good at spreading FUD.
Sensational reports always resonate more with people than honest, moderate reports. For example:
Two news reports come up back to back. One says "Airplane crash kills 180 passengers in a fiery inferno!" The other says "Traveling by airplane safer than traveling by car!" Now, what is the person watching it likely to come away from the news hour thinking about airplanes? They are much more likely to be frightened by the plane crash than reassured by the relative safety of airplanes, despite the fact that both headlines may be true. They get the impression that air travel is horribly unsafe because they have seen a sensationalized report of a large number of people dying in relation to an airplane crash, despite the fact that this is not true at all.
This is exactly the phenomenon that is impeding the flow of honest communication about the health care legislation. The sensational fearmongering may get the same amount of air time as the truth, but people remember the sensational bits more. People get the sense that the entire health care bill is going to kill America because they have been told that there is one provision in it that is going to do something bad, like take away their current insurance plan. The problem is that they haven't been accurately presented with all of the facts; they have been presented with spin, and spin tends to sensationalize.
What happened to the no "no-bid" contracts promise? Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor
1. A more reliable news source to talk about it.
2. More then one instance of this occurring. Since we haven't heard about this before this point I make an assumption that this is rare (plus what is 25 million these days). I doubt Obama even knew about this since this doesn't seem like a decision that would even raise to the level of president. I'd be interested in if he talks about it or if Gibbs fields a question about it. My fellow councilpersons at our local government ran on the same promise but learned quickly how hard it is to actually get different bids and plans. They have a borough engineer who is from a firm who gets all the design work steered towards them since he is doing the advising. Last night it was brought up that we should put this one storm water plan up for a second opinion and the board encountered stiff resistance from the public (because it would take longer) and other councilmen (because getting other firms to write up the plans would probably cost us more money and we wouldn't know if the 5,000 dollar engineer would make a 150,000 plan and the 10,000 engineer would make a 50,000 plan). So they argued that maybe in the future they could vote one way or another on whether to get a second opinion in the future. Having seen this I can see that is fairly naive to think that you can always have bids on EVERY project. (I know on a federal level it is a bit different because more money is involved and the contractors wine and dine you but still). Hopefully we see the bigger deals put out to bid. I'm really not concerned until we see big projects farmed out and/or systemetic use of the no bid contract. (I.E. I'm happy with a reduction of no-bid contracts, they do have there place).