Will Scott Brown Kill ObamaCare?

[Baron Max]

obviously I am guessing, but I think Obama is going to turn populist real quick. Until now Obama has tried to take the middle of the road approach. I would bet that he is going to take the gloves off now and come out fighting.

I expect him to come down hard on Wall Street. And instead of trying to pass big stuff through congress they will try smaller pieces of legislation designed to make to put Republicans and others who have sold their souls between a rock and a hard place. Look out, I think the gloves come off in the coming weeks.

...LOL! He's been losing power and respect steadily in the past 12 months, his power base is rapidly eroding, ..........and you think he'll take off the gloves and come out fighting? ...LOL! Fighting with what?? Maybe bashing people with his Mobile Piece Price?

Baron Max

 

[joepistole]

...LOL! He's been losing power and respect steadily in the past 12 months, his power base is rapidly eroding, ..........and you think he'll take off the gloves and come out fighting? ...LOL! Fighting with what?? Maybe bashing people with his Mobile Piece Price?

Baron Max

Enjoy your laughter Baron Max, it won't last long. Already today, his administration has come out with a proposal to bash the banks and Wall Street. The Republicans and their backers on Wall Street are going to be in for some rough times.

 

[Baron Max]

Enjoy your laughter Baron Max, it won't last long. Already today, his administration has come out with a proposal to bash the banks and Wall Street. The Republicans and their backers on Wall Street are going to be in for some rough times.

So, Joe, is that what you think the US government has been designed and created to do for the American people? ...to bask banks and private enterprise? And you applauded that?

When do we start killing Jews and stealing their property?

Baron Max

 

[joepistole]

So, Joe, is that what you think the US government has been designed and created to do for the American people? ...to bask banks and private enterprise? And you applauded that?

When do we start killing Jews and stealing their property?

Baron Max

What the hell does bashing banks have to do with the government or Jews?

Obama's administration has come out with proposals for new taxes and regulation on banks. It places the Republicans in a bad position. They are going to have to defend their financial backers, the banks. It forces the Republicans to defend the banks or to shoot their financial backers on Wall Street in the back. What will they do, pray tell?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Pelosi has announced that she lacks the votes to pass the Senate version of Obamacare:

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer Alan Fram, Associated Press Writer – 5 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she lacks the votes to quickly move the Senate's sweeping health overhaul bill through the House, a potentially devastating blow to President Barack Obama's signature issue.

Pelosi, D-Calif., made the comment to reporters after House Democrats held a closed-door meeting at which participants vented frustration with the Senate's massive version of the legislation.

Her concession meant there was little hope for a White House-backed plan to quickly push the Senate-approved health bill through the House, followed by a separate measure making changes sought by House members, such as easing the Senate's tax on higher-cost health plans. Such an approach would be "problematic," she said.

"In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi said, adding, "I don't see the votes for it at this time."​

Yahoo News​

 

[quadraphonics]

The public is much more concerned about the economy and the budget deficit/debt than any of Obama and the Dems priorities. Healthcare, Cap and Trade, and Immigration Reform are all now losers.

This nbc/wsj poll on national priorities indicates that the public view the deficit and health care as very close to equal priorities:

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

which is fitting, since health care costs do so much to drive the deficit, in the long run.

Growth and jobs will be less of a public concern as the economy recovers. A poor economy is always a problem for incumbents, regardless of their actual responsibility for such. This could be a liability for this fall, but then again perhaps not; depends on how the job market performs before then. Probably won't affect Obama's reelection, directly.

Furthermore, Republicans are much more excited and energized right now than Democrats.

Being in the opposition tends to do that. Instead of spending your time figuring out how to govern, you get to blow off all that responsibility crap and giddily poke sticks into the other guy's spokes. But will that win an election? If it does, will the resulting government do anything but crash and burn?

the usually popular Democratic Senator from my home state of Indiana (he won his last election with 2/3 of the vote) is likely to face serious opposition ffor the first time in years.

Given how retarded a person would have to be to live in Indiana (and, yes, I have family there. They - or at least the ones who control the decision to live in Indiana - are idiots.), that all sounds about right.

I predict a Democratic bloodbath this November. Especially if they follow your advice and move even further left.

The advice was not to change political orientation, but to achieve results. Disappointment with the Democrats isn't about where they lie on the ideological scale, but about where they lie on the effectiveness scale. They've got a majority in Congress and the White House, and yet somehow they spend all their efforts on their major centerpiece legislation tripping over themselves to gut it and sell out to an obstructionist minority. So you end up with a bill that not even supporters want passed, that they can't even get passed anyway. It's pathetic.

And as far as that goes, there are plenty of Democrats currently in Congress that I'd be only to happy to see disappear from public office, forever. The potential downside is their replacement by even worse Republicans.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Growth and jobs will be less of a public concern as the economy recovers. A poor economy is always a problem for incumbents, regardless of their actual responsibility for such. This could be a liability for this fall, but then again perhaps not; depends on how the job market performs before then. Probably won't affect Obama's reelection, directly.

I agree that growth and jobs would be less of a concern if and when the economy recovers, but it seems to me that most of what the Obama administration is doing is hurting rather than helping that process. Even now the stock market is down on concerns about his proposed banking regulations (this interpretation was just discussed on NPR). They do have a lot of the stimulus money as yet unspent, so I suspect Obama may well pump that money into the economy as quickly as possible to attempt to temporarily improve job numbers by November.

Being in the opposition tends to do that. Instead of spending your time figuring out how to govern, you get to blow off all that responsibility crap and giddily poke sticks into the other guy's spokes. But will that win an election? If it does, will the resulting government do anything but crash and burn?

Being out of power doesn't necesarily create enthusiasm. It can leave the party out of power feeling dispirited and helpless, which was how the Republicans felt until Obama got them all worked up. As to how the resulting government will do, who knows. The American public is (justifiably) in a fowl mood and wouldn't give a Republican congress much time before turning on them as well. However, I think divided government is best. So a Republican congress with a Democrat President should hopefully be a big improvement over what we've seen this year. Clinton certainly improved after 1994.

Given how retarded a person would have to be to live in Indiana (and, yes, I have family there. They - or at least the ones who control the decision to live in Indiana - are idiots.), that all sounds about right.

I can't respond appropriately without a violation of the site's rules. So I'll just ask where you live and that you outline the many benefits of living there that befits a person of your vast intellect .

The advice was not to change political orientation, but to achieve results. Disappointment with the Democrats isn't about where they lie on the ideological scale, but about where they lie on the effectiveness scale. They've got a majority in Congress and the White House, and yet somehow they spend all their efforts on their major centerpiece legislation tripping over themselves to gut it and sell out to an obstructionist minority. So you end up with a bill that not even supporters want passed, that they can't even get passed anyway. It's pathetic.

I certainly agree that their inability to get anything done despite a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate, and control of the house and the presidency is pathetic. As is the attempt by some people to blame this on Republicans. Nevertheless, it was the public outcry over many of these policies that made passing them so difficult.

 

[iceaura]

I certainly agree that their inability to get anything done despite a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate, and control of the house and the presidency is pathetic

They aren't a unified Party of blood-sworn and ideologically purified Brothers.

And they never had a filibuster proof majority on any isuue before the Senate.

But I agree - pathetic. I just don't think that lets the Reps off the hook, for the use of their media influence and serious corporate clout.

So why did the healthcare "drag" wait so patiently for the collapse of the housing market in order to rear its ugly head?

It didn't. Toyota had GM's lunch in hand fifteen years ago. Temp agencies have been the largest single employers in several states for many years. The medical care derived productivity advantage enjoyed by France and Germany and other European countries has cost the US a lot of money and jobs.

Just because a bunch of fifty-year-olds didn't notice until they were job-hunting what the effects of employer-based health insurance were on their projected economic contributions to said employer's bottom line, doesn't mean those effects were not being felt all along by the companies they worked for.

 

[spidergoat]

That's correct, the Dems never did have a supermajority.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Enjoy your laughter Baron Max, it won't last long. Already today, his administration has come out with a proposal to bash the banks and Wall Street. The Republicans and their backers on Wall Street are going to be in for some rough times.

Bashing the greedy bankers is a populist move.
It is fraught with danger though, as companies may move to other countries with more favourable taxation schemes.

In countries which rely on services rather than manufacture, an exodus of the bankers would not be good.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Bashing the greedy bankers is a populist move.
It is fraught with danger though, as companies may move to other countries with more favourable taxation schemes.

In countries which rely on services rather than manufacture, an exodus of the bankers would not be good.

Agreed. And now that Obama no longer has a filibuster proof majority and McCain-FeinGold has been overturned, I doubt Obama will be able to get that sort of anti-business legislation passed.

 

[quadraphonics]

I agree that growth and jobs would be less of a concern if and when the economy recovers, but it seems to me that most of what the Obama administration is doing is hurting rather than helping that process.

Yeah, you're wrong about that.

Even now the stock market is down on concerns about his proposed banking regulations (this interpretation was just discussed on NPR).

The stock market often goes down on "concerns" about things that would help the job market, in particular, and the economy in the long run.

It also often goes up on jubilation over things that will harm the economy and job market, such as unwarranted tax cuts, or - wait for it - speculative bubbles.

So I'm not seeing a lot of serious analysis about the impact of Obama's policies on growth or jobs, here. Your assertion that Obama's policies are harming jobs and growth appear to be unbacked, here. More than that, I don't think you're interested in such an analysis at all; this all sounds an awful lot like the boilerplate Republican framing about "red = growth, blue = taxes."

They do have a lot of the stimulus money as yet unspent, so I suspect Obama may well pump that money into the economy as quickly as possible to attempt to temporarily improve job numbers by November.

I expect there will be some jobs-oriented stimulus, as well as efforts to get stimulus loans repayed and bonuses taxed to put a fresh glean on the deficit.

It can leave the party out of power feeling dispirited and helpless, which was how the Republicans felt until Obama got them all worked up.

That would have been when, exactly? Sometime between when y'all went to bed on election night, and when you woke up the following morning?

This project was in full force months before Obama was inaugurated.

So I'll just ask where you live and that you outline the many benefits of living there that befits a person of your vast intellect .

It's called "California." You do the math.

Nevertheless, it was the public outcry over many of these policies that made passing them so difficult.

Oh? Does the public now have a vote in Congress, or something?

It is corporate lobbying - and the craven ambrace of it by politicians - that is problematic here. The "public outcry" component is itself manufactured by these same malign interests. As is the shallow populist rhetoric supplied to mask this fact.

 

[superstring01]

According to the reality based media, which I recommend as a preventative against retailing corporate Party spin, the State's percentage of registered Dem voters is about average, and four of its last five elected Governors have been Republican - surely among the couple of dozen States with higher percentages of registered Democrats, there are a few with a history of electing Democrats to their most important State office?

IIRC, the labeling of a state as "liberal" or "blue" Vs. "conservative" or "red" is based on voter turn-out and by wining margins of the candidates. In this, Massachusetts is surpassed only by Hawaii and Rhode Island, but not by much. So the distinguishing of who's actually bluer is, realistically, pointless. Massachusetts is about as blue as you get.

~String

 

[superstring01]

I just don't think that lets the Reps off the hook, for the use of their media influence.

Prove it.

~String

 

[joepistole]

Agreed. And now that Obama no longer has a filibuster proof majority and McCain-FeinGold has been overturned, I doubt Obama will be able to get that sort of anti-business legislation passed.

I suppose that is why the markets have done nothing but nose dive since the election of Brown.

 

[navigator]

The public is much more concerned about the economy and the budget deficit/debt than any of Obama and the Dems priorities. Healthcare, Cap and Trade, and Immigration Reform are all now losers. Independents, who typically decide elections, supported the Dems in 06 and 08 but now favor Republicans by nearly two to one.

Furthermore, Republicans are much more excited and energized right now than Democrats. Even Evan Bayh, the usually popular Democratic Senator from my home state of Indiana (he won his last election with 2/3 of the vote) is likely to face serious opposition ffor the first time in years.

I predict a Democratic bloodbath this November. Especially if they follow your advice and move even further left.

Well said.

The Mass election, by itself, may not be a good indicator of what will happen in the midterms. However, when coupled with the results in Virginia and New Jersey it definately shows a trend of moving back to the center. I also think that many incumbants, regardless of party, will be voted out.

 

[spidergoat]

I would like to see Brown try to kill Mass's own socialist health care plan. How much do you want to bet he won't?

 

[iceaura]

IIRC, the labeling of a state as "liberal" or "blue" Vs. "conservative" or "red" is based on voter turn-out and by wining margins of the candidates.

But not governor candidates, apparently. And not historical or locally detailed. And paying no attention to stuff like "registered Democrats".

Which leads to the occasional surprise, eh?

I just don't think that lets the Reps off the hook, for the use of their media influence.
”
Prove it.

Putting a period on the end of the quoted sentence after you shortened it is actual dishonesty, not just normal quota trolling.

 

[quadraphonics]

But not governor candidates, apparently.

Nor Congressional ones. The designation is typically made based on margins of victory in the latest Presidential election.

I wouldn't use that to predict state - or even Congressional - elections.

Alternatively, if one is committed to the proposition that Massachusetts is the prototypical "blue state" in every aspect, down to the local, then one must also adjust the definition of "blue" to match said local factors and so include such doctrinaire liberals as Mitt Romney and William Weld. In which case, the definition of "blue" becomes so muddled that one will have severe difficulty demonstrating that Brown's election is a repudiation, rather than an instantiation of "blueness."

And so to anyone who pursues that program: best of luck.

 

[Norsefire]

I would like to see Brown try to kill Mass's own socialist health care plan. How much do you want to bet he won't?

Unfortunately, sometimes good people fail. We saw this in the Holocaust; even the rebels couldn't stop the machine.

So you're probably right on that bet.