Me too.

Post #312,758 by Another Scott 8/19/09 11:46:06 AM Reply	Me too. The plan is bad because it's being rushed through - the implication being that it's been thrown together. "We've got to slow down and study this more!!!111" The plan is bad because it's too big and complicated for anyone to read - the implication being that government will get its tentacles into every aspect of our lives. "I'm not voting for a 1000 page, $1T bill!!!111!!" An oxymoron, no? They're throwing anything at the wall and hoping it sticks. Someone yesterday said that if the Democrats cave on the Public Option, the Republicans will start screaming about Employer Mandates and demanding that that be stripped. If the Ds cave on that, the Rs will start screaming about Individual Mandates and demanding that that be stripped. And so on. They know they can't kill the idea of reform and the overwhelming desire for change of the system, so they're trying to emasculate it. They have no desire to see a workable bill pass. Naturally, the Republicans are already starting the blame game, too. http://www.washingto...009_08/019544.php Cheers, Scott.
Post #312,759 by jake123 8/19/09 11:57:37 AM Reply	You know what I think? I think Obama threw it to Congress to come up with a plan on purpose, with a long term expectation that he was going to end up vetoing the first one to come out just before the mid-terms whilst calling it "wholly inadequate" and naming names as to why. It would make sense if part of what he's trying to do is to get rid of some Democrats... and some of them definitely need to be gotten rid of, and the only way for Obama to do that is to get the voters to get rid of them.
Post #312,760 by Another Scott 8/19/09 12:14:40 PM Reply	I think that won't happen. He wants a bill that he can sign. The democratic leadership won't allow any poison pills to be in the conference report (the final House+Senate bill). On the bigger picture, I think he desperately wants to increase the majority he has in the Senate, and that means the party has to show that it can get things passed while it has a majority. If he's fighting with the Senate, it weakens the argument that the Democrats can get good things done for the country. Vetoing a bill would be a disaster for his hopes of increasing the majority and solidifying the change in direction after Bush. I don't think it's in his nature to call people out, either. Going back to his law school days, he was much more interested in using honey than flyswatters. http://www.boston.co...a_unifying_voice/ I think he always tries to see the big picture... Cheers, Scott.
Post #312,765 by beepster 8/19/09 12:33:08 PM Reply	Re: Me too. The plan is bad because it's being rushed through - the implication being that it's been thrown together. "We've got to slow down and study this more!!!111" Are you disputing this or supporting it? You have people on the hill saying they won't read it because its too long...nice position for people working on what is being called the most important debate in the history of our government. And while the blame game may be fun, do you need to still have it pointed out that the Democrats do not need 1 republican to support it? Not 1. They can't work something out amongst themselves...now nicknaming their own the "Blue Dogs" (those jerks..how dare they hold us to a standard that the plan be fiscally neutral to the country). I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,779 by Another Scott 8/19/09 2:00:28 PM Reply	People on the Hill say lots of things they don't believe. You have people on the hill saying they won't read it because its too long...nice position for people working on what is being called the most important debate in the history of our government. Don't confuse what politicians say with what they actually believe. No, I don't think the bill is too big or too complex, compared even compared to big pieces of legislation - e.g. the legislation for Medicare Part D (PL 108Â173) is 416 pages. The committees have been working on it for months - interested members have had plenty of time to acquaint themselves with it. Most of it is boiler-plate. Important parts are handled by the respective committees and the member's staff's job is to keep track of whats in the various sections. You know all of this, I'm sure. Sure, legislators should read the bills the vote on. But they don't, by and large. That's not why the Republicans are against the bill, though. It's just a convenient talking point. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #312,782 by beepster 8/19/09 2:51:37 PM Reply	That's pretty basic And lets not focus on why Republicans are against the bill. If you want, lets focus on why DEMOCRATS are against the bill..or maybe on my point of why rational people are wary and possibly against current versions...so we can actually discuss something. Y'all are using this "bepatient quotes talking points" to dismiss valid issues and change it to a R v D issue. As I stated before...what Republicans do or say DOESN'T MATTER. They have no power here. Democrats can succeed without a single Republican vote. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,785 by drook 8/19/09 3:16:17 PM Reply	I'm having a vision ... Someone convinces Obama to strong-arm the Democratic Senators to pass ... something. A few months later primary season starts. Republicans point to the 60/40 passage of the health care bill and say, "After all their talk of change and bipartisanship, Democrats rammed through a proposal without listening to what Real Americans™ had to say." Democrats lose three seats in the Senate. Yeah, you're right. Republicans have no power here. -- Drew
Post #312,787 by boxley 8/19/09 4:13:09 PM Reply	you expected something different? If not in power you are the power of no
Post #312,788 by beepster 8/19/09 4:15:17 PM Reply	Your point being? If this is so good and necessary(and well done), then the democrats should be hailed as "visionary leaders" and will win even more seats. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,789 by boxley 8/19/09 4:29:54 PM Reply	naw, then he would have to admit that the huge democratic majority in this country isnt
Post #312,801 by drook 8/19/09 6:16:59 PM Reply	Republicans have mastered the Big Lie They will keep describing the evil intent, the poor execution, the failed initiatives of the Democrats, whether they exist or not. Since the beginning of this administration, they have been determined shoot down anything the Democrats want, no matter how popular it is. Then just keep lying about what it really was. And yes, the "death panel" bullshit is a perfect example. They supported the substance of it last year, now suddenly it's evidence of evil. -- Drew
Post #312,786 by Another Scott 8/19/09 4:00:08 PM Reply	Why? And lets not focus on why Republicans are against the bill. If you want, lets focus on why DEMOCRATS are against the bill..or maybe on my point of why rational people are wary and possibly against current versions...so we can actually discuss something. Most Democrats are in favor of a strong public option. Seniority and chairmanship rules in the Senate give a lot of power to those who, in this case, have more "conservative" views. In particular, those making up the Senate Finance Committee are not representative of the body as a whole. As Nate Silver of 538 pointed out, it's easier to find 50 on the floor than 12 in the Committee - http://www.fivethirt...-option-have.html. (I'm not as pessimistic as him, myself.) Why focus on the noisy outliers? Should we be talking about Sen. Sanders or Rep. Kucinich? If you want to talk about the substance, why cite an OpEd that talks about style? Why not start the thread with a quote from "rational people" who are against the bill(s)? Baum is an OpEd writer. Her job is to get people riled up and generate hits. You helped her earn her paycheck. ;-) HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #312,791 by beepster 8/19/09 4:31:21 PM Reply	Re: Why? see the response to Drew. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,954 by Another Scott 8/22/09 12:30:58 AM Reply	More on pages... http://www.slate.com/id/2225820/ [...] Over the last several decades, the number of bills passed by Congress has declined: In 1948, Congress passed 906 bills. In 2006, it passed only 482. At the same time, the total number of pages of legislation has gone up from slightly more than 2,000 pages in 1948 to more than 7,000 pages in 2006. (The average bill length increased over the same period from 2.5 pages to 15.2 pages.) Bills are getting longer because they're getting harder to pass. Increased partisanship over the years has meant that the minority party is willing to do anything it can to block legislationÂadding amendments, filibustering, or otherwise stalling the lawmaking process. As a result, the majority party feels the need to pack as much meat into a bill as it canÂotherwise, the provisions might never get through. Another factor is that the federal government keeps expanding. Federal spending was about $2.7 trillion in 2007. That's up from $92 billion 50 years ago. And as new legislation is introduced, past laws need to be updated. The result: more pages. Bonus Explainer: Do members of Congress actually read legislation? It depends. If a lawmaker is a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, say, chances are he'll read allÂor, at least, mostÂof a climate bill. But he probably would not read every last word of an education bill. Instead, he'd just read the parts that he considers importantÂperhaps because they're controversial. Furthermore, since bills often read like bureaucratic gibberish, lawmakers hire aides with various policy specialties to study the legislation in depth and summarize it. (The job of actually converting the policy ideas into legislative language goes to the nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Counsel.) So when a lawmaker "reads" a bill, it's usually a combination of glossing summaries of the less important stuff and, when necessary, poring over the actual text to understand the more crucial bits. Cheers, Scott.
Post #312,794 by lincoln 8/19/09 4:47:51 PM Reply	Re: Me too. WYMT-TV in Hazard, Kentucky, aired a report on McConnell and health care, showing McConnell telling constituents that he opposes the health care proposal. The reporter then saysÂ "The Republican leader says he has not read all 1000 pages of the proposal, but says he knows enough about it, saying it will put health care in the governmentÂs hands, and create significant cuts to Medicare to pay the trillion dollar bill over ten years." Video here. ItÂs not quite clear which bill the reporter was referring to, but she was pretty specific in saying that McConnell had acknowledged not reading the thousand page proposal. source: http://theplumline.w...health-care-bill/ "Video here" source: http://www.wkyt.com/...nes/53066597.html "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow

Welcome to IWETHEY!