Hope and Change leads to the same old thing

[MarchHare]

Jesus Christ himself could have come down to earth, become president, and not been able to make any real change happen.

This is especially ironic since almost all the policies a hypothetical "President Jesus" would champion would be met with bitter resistance from the Republicans in congress.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Ducay

People who argue that Obama is just more of the same clearly don't understand how the American system really works. He is one guy with fairly limited ability to make law when you have such a broken set of houses. Perhaps if he was PM in a majority parliamentary gov't, he would be able to make whatever great changes (real healthcare reform, etc) he actually wants, but as it stands he can simply sit by the wayside as both stubborn parties do nothing in congress.
The man has attempted some pretty serious reforms, but has always been shot down, he would need to win both houses in 2012 in order to have any sort of shot of making real changes.

he had both houses for 2 years right after getting elected, and did nothing with it

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

he had both houses for 2 years right after getting elected, and did nothing with it

People may not like the measures passed to deal with the financial crisis, but there was some significant* legislation passed in its wake. He also got health care reform through, which was undeniably significant.

As for other legislation that would have forwarded the agenda he ran on, the failure on that front was in no small part due to the political capita expended on health care and the ability for the Republicans to filibuster.

You would have seen a lot more done if the Democrats had had a supermajority.



* Significant until it's neutered in the process of writing the regulations

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is especially ironic since almost all the policies a hypothetical "President Jesus" would champion would be met with bitter resistance from the Republicans in congress.

I'm sure that on the day "President Jesus" stepped into the Oval Office, Fox News would run a story about him being a "Secret Muslim" (Only 20% of Americans would believe it though).

[HOZ]

More Hope'n Changey....

From FOX of course.....

no...actually MSNBC
Along Mexican border, US ranchers say they live in fear

Among ranchers, farmers and law enforcement agents working at the ground level, however, there is considerable agreement that large-scale drug smuggling from Mexico into the United States has been increasing in recent years and that the traffickers are becoming more aggressive. For the farmer too afraid to be identified publicly, it creates a painful dilemma.

Captain Teleprompter Awesome is winning! -220,000 jobs in a week and still sucking internationally.

[HOZ]

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

he had both houses for 2 years right after getting elected, and did nothing with it

Simply not true.

With supermajority being the new majority in the Senate, he never had both branches of Congress.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Simply not true.

With supermajority being the new majority in the Senate, he never had both branches of Congress.

I'm pretty sure Obama had his supermajority until Ted Kennedy died. He had more political muscle than any other President in modern times until midterm elections.

Things like cap & trade and the abolishing of the Patriot act were well within his reach but, he chose to break those promises. Obama has shown an inability to work with his own party let alone the Republicans. Bush or Clinton would have been behind the scenes negotiating with Republicans as well as Democrats and would have got a compromise on the budget. Obama hasn't been able to get a budget passed by his own Senate and that includes when he had a supermajority.

Domestically Obama seems to think that the office of President is akin to being king; He commands and everyone obeys. He has spent most of this Presidency complaining because Senators and Congressmen don't obey him blindly. The Patriot act he kept because every king needs one to control the rabble and he has expanded it by including more controls over the internet.

Obama's foriegn policy has included starting a war without Congressional approval in Libya and killing solidiers and civilians in Pakistan on several occasions. And there is of course Obama's ordered assassination of an American citizen on foriegn soil.

You can disagree with Bush's domestic and foriegn policy but, at least it was inacted with the support of both House and Senate. I find it ironic that Bush was allowed to carry all the blame for actions taken by both branches of government while Obama gets to blame the Senate and Congress while not carrying any responsibility for what he has done/not done.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

he had both houses for 2 years right after getting elected, and did nothing with it

He was able to get his health care bill through, something he promised and pushed hard during his election campaign.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by pepper24

He was able to get his health care bill through, something he promised and pushed hard during his election campaign.

he pushed through a castrated bill that has yet to offer real significant change to American healthcare. what he promised in the election and what he eventually signed into law don't even resemble each other

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Itse

I think it's silly to put it specifically on Obama.

He didn't run on controlling special interests and corruption, he basicly ran on new tax and foreign policy and Obamacare. The last two he pretty much delivered, and he clearly has tried to change the tax policy somewhat.

For me, he's seemed pretty much as expected, in good and bad.

Patently false.

That was a huge part of his schtick.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is especially ironic since almost all the policies a hypothetical "President Jesus" would champion would be met with bitter resistance from the Republicans in congress.

Why is it ironic? Because Republicans are Christians and Democrats aren't?

How naive.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Why is it ironic? Because Republicans are Christians and Democrats aren't?

How naive.

MarchHare has a "hypothetical Jesus" and can make him whatever he wants.

The Jesus of the Bible was intolerent of false religion(which would have included atheism) and all corruption(which would have included both political parties). The Jesus of the Bible was all about judgement and personal accountability; Hardly strong areas for Democrats. Jesus introduced both the notion of Heaven and Hell to his followers. If Jesus was a democrat he would have blamed himself for all of man's sins and created a social program to reform those transgressers.

But leave MarchHare alone! His "hypothetical Jesus" can be a democrat if he wants him to.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm pretty sure Obama had his supermajority until Ted Kennedy died. He had more political muscle than any other President in modern times until midterm elections.

Once again, you just ignore facts and make do with your own "I'm pretty sure" set of rules.

Kennedy officially died on August 25th, 2009, and was basically absent from the senate since spring of 2009. Franken did not get sworn in until July 8th.

But also important is that part of the mythical 60 that the democrats would have had included two independents and Specter. At best, your claimed supermajority lasted between 6-7 weeks from Franken's swearing in to Kennedy's death, a time where Kennedy was effectively inactive and bedridden. But even with Kirk seated in Kennedy's place until the Brown election, there was no mandate from the voters and there was no supermajority. Kennedy didn't even vote in the Senate for the health care reform.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your pleasant narrative though.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Once again, you just ignore facts and make do with your own "I'm pretty sure" set of rules.

Kennedy officially died on August 25th, 2009, and was basically absent from the senate since spring of 2009. Franken did not get sworn in until July 8th.

But also important is that part of the mythical 60 that the democrats would have had included two independents and Specter. At best, your claimed supermajority lasted between 6-7 weeks from Franken's swearing in to Kennedy's death, a time where Kennedy was effectively inactive and bedridden. But even with Kirk seated in Kennedy's place until the Brown election, there was no mandate from the voters and there was no supermajority. Kennedy didn't even vote in the Senate for the health care reform.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your pleasant narrative though.

Kennedy was willing and able to come in if needed for an important vote; He said as much. Also, you failed to add in Kirk's time before Brown's election. The 2 independants and Specter were not going to philibuster anything Obama proposed. Obama didn't need 60 Senators to pass anything. He just needed 60 Senators who didn't feel strong enough against something to join the Republicans in a philibuster. He had the hammer and more effective control than any other President in modern times. I don't know how you can excuse his impotence.

And your line about Kirk not having a mandate is laughable. He was there to replace Kennedy. If you want to talk about mandates why don't you talk about the Republican mandate given them in 2010 to balance the budget? The majority of Americans elected representatives who promised to balance the budget while preserving the tax cuts. Instead of Obama heeding that call he is doing everything in his power to create class warfare under the false notion that the rich don't pay their fair share and that is why American's don't have jobs.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Kennedy was willing and able to come in if needed for an important vote; He said as much. Also, you failed to add in Kirk's time before Brown's election. The 2 independants and Specter were not going to philibuster anything Obama proposed. Obama didn't need 60 Senators to pass anything. He just needed 60 Senators who didn't feel strong enough against something to join the Republicans in a philibuster. He had the hammer and more effective control than any other President in modern times. I don't know how you can excuse his impotence.

And your line about Kirk not having a mandate is laughable. He was there to replace Kennedy. If you want to talk about mandates why don't you talk about the Republican mandate given them in 2010 to balance the budget? The majority of Americans elected representatives who promised to balance the budget while preserving the tax cuts. Instead of Obama heeding that call he is doing everything in his power to create class warfare under the false notion that the rich don't pay their fair share and that is why American's don't have jobs.

The funny part about all of this is that you're unswayed by reality.

If you would simply post here the dates that Obama had a supermajority, you'd see how fantastic your claim is that he had "more effective control than any other President in modern times." Give us the dates; it should be easy since you have all these facts at your fingertips right?

Also, Franklin Roosevelt had majorities in the House and Senate for 12 straight years. But of course, your claim about "any other President in modern times" was just your usual fact-free, narrative-on-autopilot type claim that helps make your case even clearer, right? It's ok. I understand.

And no one is excusing Obama for bad decisions or poor governance. But consistency has a price: it means we can't excuse you for making false claims.

P.S. The fact that you think Ted Kennedy, in the 6-8 week period between Franken's swearing in and his own death, was "willing and able" to come to the Senate just shows how far you'll go in not relinquishing a false narrative. Describing a 77 year old man with metastases from glioblastoma, prone to seizures and bed-ridden after chemotherapy as "able" is nothing short of delusional.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

The funny part about all of this is that you're unswayed by reality.

If you would simply post here the dates that Obama had a supermajority, you'd see how fantastic your claim is that he had "more effective control than any other President in modern times." Give us the dates; it should be easy since you have all these facts at your fingertips right?

Also, Franklin Roosevelt had majorities in the House and Senate for 12 straight years. But of course, your claim about "any other President in modern times" was just your usual fact-free, narrative-on-autopilot type claim that helps make your case even clearer, right? It's ok. I understand.

And no one is excusing Obama for bad decisions or poor governance. But consistency has a price: it means we can't excuse you for making false claims.

P.S. The fact that you think Ted Kennedy, in the 6-8 week period between Franken's swearing in and his own death, was "willing and able" to come to the Senate just shows how far you'll go in not relinquishing a false narrative. Describing a 77 year old man with metastases from glioblastoma, prone to seizures and bed-ridden after chemotherapy as "able" is nothing short of delusional.

So you have to go back as far as Franklin Roosevelt to find a president with more party control of the Houses then Obama had. So how old were you? Or better still was your family even American citizens when a President had as much control as Obama did in the Houses?

Kennedy would have come and voted even if it meant voting from a wheel chair or a bed. The article below says as much:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul...n/na-kennedy26

Kennedy even went so far as to ask the State Govenor to change State law so a hand picked Democrat would replace him until enough time had passed for the State to elect a replacement:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...edys_vote.html

Imagine that: Having a State law changed just so your party retains absolute control over the Senate. The deciding vote on ObamaCare was by a guy who was never elected to public office but, rather appointed by a State Governor.

This happened because Obama lacked the ability/will to work with Republicans. The fact that he accomplished so little of his mandate reflects on this fact. If his goal was to spend more than any President before him then he succeeded. If his goal was to make America a better/stronger country than he has failed at every turn.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So you have to go back as far as Franklin Roosevelt to find a president with more party control of the Houses then Obama had. So how old were you? Or better still was your family even American citizens when a President had as much control as Obama did in the Houses?

JFK, Lyndon Johnson and Carter all had house and senate majorities during the lengths of their tenure. I cited the Roosevelt one of 12 unopposed years just to show how ludicrous your "i believes" usually are. You could simply check these things yourself and make a more meaningful claim in support of your position. But rather, you just let your narrative do the talking.

So as you noted, Obama had more "political muscle than any president in modern times." So for accuracy, just do us a favour and post the dates that Obama had his iron grip on the senate and the house.

We want the facts right, not some left or right wing narrative? Thank you in advance for backing up your initial claim.


===

For the record, I agree with you that Obama has made many, many mistakes on many fronts. He's been especially bad on one front that I think is the most important of all, and I've posted this multiple times. However, that displeasure doesn't give me latitude to make other stuff up about the man.

[Azure]

The continuation of the Bush policies are to me his biggest failures. That and the stimulus bill, which was basically just known as a tax cut.

You can't stimulate the economy with tax cuts. Time to stop listening to the lobby groups that keep telling Capital Hill otherwise.

[Azure]

double post for some reason.