The World Thru My Eyes - I speak my mind and man does it like to talk.

As much as I dislike this who concept of Healthcare Reform the Democrats are offering, I don't understand why they are debating this at all.

 

 

Link

As per the image above, they have majority in Congress and a Filibuster Proof Senate, not to mention a Democratic President who is bent of passing this faster than anyone can read it. So why do they seem to be struggling to get this passed? How come a "hand full" of disruptive protestors who oppose the current Administartions refomr concept are able to keep them from getting this passed? Is this not what the majority of Americans wanted?

Can someone please explain why the Democrats are debating this at all? Just pass the damn thing and get it over with. Let the rest of us disrupt and be unAmericans until we turn blue in the face. It doesn't really matter what the minority want, or the majority for that matter. Our elected ofiicials have decided that they can make decisions for us regardless of what we think because they believe it is in our best interest. This is pointless to say the least. I say let them have their Healthcare Reform Obama's way and hope and pray it works. I'll keep my support against this plan though.

Powered by Zoundry Raven


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Aug 18, 2009

Its amazing how the far left Polosi/Obama/Dean/ Democrats are trying to portray the Republicans as the ones who are standing in the way of Government run health care. Republicans have been rendered totally insignificant from losses in 06 and 08 and cant do a damn thing to stop it. The Democrats can pass anything they want without a single Republican vote and yet they are still blaming the GOP for all their problems.

on Aug 18, 2009

Because it's the United States of Democrats?

I find it interesting that the senate version of the health care reform bill/agenda has a variety of gop parts in it. Seems not many people are willing to admit that part.

 

 

on Aug 18, 2009

Be nice if they printed the Republican parts in red and the Democrat parts in blue - I sure as hell can't tell who authored what when the ink's all black.

on Aug 18, 2009

Nah, I take that back - we have enough trouble staying on topic & on the facts as it is.

on Aug 18, 2009

the democrates are not united, they are fighting with each other... And this "distruptive unamerican people who utilize the first amendment" have got some democrats afraid they will not be reelected if they push this through, so they aren't.

Also, as the bill is written, you'd have to be a corrupt idiot to vote for it... And not EVERY democrat is a corrupt idiot.

on Aug 18, 2009

 

I'm curious at what your thoughts are of this, Charles. I'm a bit skeptical because of the page it's on as well as the data they have (like during Clinton's administration), but it still got me thinking.

 

( Source: http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html )

 

on Aug 18, 2009

The raw numbers are what they are, and don't take into consideration fairly significant events like the dot-com bubble, 9/11, etc., but I note that whether a particular year's deficit is 'Republican' or 'Democrat' is determined by who was in the White House that year.

A more meaningful graph would have control of Congress along the x axis - Republican, Democrat or Mixed.  A President can't spend a nickel on his own, only Congress.  Drawing conclusions might be more difficult but at least the deficits would be correctly assigned.  Doesn't mean the Republicans would look any better - lord knows they've been infected with Potomac Spending Fever, too.

on Aug 18, 2009

The raw numbers are what they are, and don't take into consideration fairly significant events like the dot-com bubble, 9/11, etc., but I note that whether a particular year's deficit is 'Republican' or 'Democrat' is determined by who was in the White House that year.

A more meaningful graph would have control of Congress along the x axis - Republican, Democrat or Mixed. A President can't spend a nickel on his own, only Congress. Drawing conclusions might be more difficult but at least the deficits would be correctly assigned. Doesn't mean the Republicans would look any better - lord knows they've been infected with Potomac Spending Fever, too

 

Indeed we have; thanks for your insight.

on Aug 18, 2009

Here's an interesting thing about this graphs. As Daiwa and many others have pointed out, one must understand how the Govt branches work. Now, we all should know that it is Congress who holds the purse in this country and that no matter who's in the White House the President will only spend what Congress approves. That is why the following chart should be more accurate:

The bottom part in the red box is what party(s) was in control of the House and Senate during these Presidential years. Link

From Joeuser
on Aug 18, 2009

Now, lets not forget that Obama is on a role having both houses on his side breaking records in debt so as much as we might want to watch both sides of this chart, Obama will ultimately make it all look like childs play.

on Aug 19, 2009

the CONGRESS controls the spending, not the PRESIDENT. And charlesCS has corrected the chart marveously.

Besides which, there are plenty of rotten apples in the republicans. But two wrongs don't make a right AldericJourdain, something you liberals constantly fail to understand.

on Aug 19, 2009

Besides which, there are plenty of rotten apples in the republicans. But two wrongs don't make a right AldericJourdain, something you liberals constantly fail to understand.

 

1. Not a liberal.

 

2. Mind explaining what you mean by the two wrongs comment?

 

3. Like I said above, I was skeptical. I never said I was sold hook,line, and sinker.

 

 

on Aug 19, 2009

The reason for the debate?

They are elected offictials, and they may not be reelected this time...  

 

And the chart is correct, the BOTTOM part (the congress) is what controls the spending, the President only can help direct, but cannot create.

on Aug 19, 2009

 

Besides which, there are plenty of rotten apples in the republicans. But two wrongs don't make a right AldericJourdain, something you liberals constantly fail to understand.
 

1. Not a liberal.

2. Mind explaining what you mean by the two wrongs comment?

3. Like I said above, I was skeptical. I never said I was sold hook,line, and sinker.

1. You seem pretty liberal to me, unless I am confusing you with a fellow poster (it happens).

2. You countered a claim of uncontrolled spending by our current administration (democrat) by linking a graph showing supposed uncontrolled republican spending. which is balony as CharlesCS pointed out; [sarcasm] I especially "liked" the "hick speak" at the bottom by the elephant. [/sarcasm]

But even if the graph was perfectly accurate (which it isn't), a history of the republicans doing wrong does not excuse the democrats from doing wrong.

3. Ok, I missed that part about you showing skepticism about the graph's validity. I apologize.

 

on Aug 19, 2009

But even if the graph was perfectly accurate (which it isn't), a history of the republicans doing wrong does not excuse the democrats from doing wrong.

 

1. Mmm, that's the thing - I don't consider myself a liberal largely because I don't associate myself with the current liberal party (democrats). I feel they've gone away from what liberalism, in it's purest form, means. I'm actually writing something on that topic, currently, it might help explain it.

 

2. Not intending to excuse their actions, merely pointing out that both sides have had issues with it; they're definitely equal opportunity on their mistakes.

 

3. Thanks.

2 Pages1 2