Romneycare vs Obamacare

@parados,

parados wrote:

I think ehbeth's point was that there are blind followers on the left and on the right. The followers are the same because they don't care what their leaders do not that the leaders do the same things.

I actually think both. In this thread, my attention has been drawn more to the first point - but I do feel that the two parties are incredibly similar - when it comes to actually measuring what they do (though the Republicans seem to continue to have the lead in government growth).

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

After a campaign spokesman stated that Romney did not believe that the individual mandate is a tax, Romney has now stated that he does believe it is a tax.

Quote:

unconstitutional penalty,” why did Mitt Romney reverse course yesterday and say it’s a tax? Look no further than today’s scathing Wall Street Journal editorial, which blasted the Romney camp for calling it a penalty. “In a stroke, the Romney campaign contradicted Republicans throughout the country who had used the Chief Justice's opinion to declare accurately that Mr. Obama had raised taxes on the middle class.” More: “Mr. Romney favored the individual mandate as part of his reform in Massachusetts, and as we've said from the beginning of his candidacy his failure to admit that mistake makes him less able to carry the anti-ObamaCare case to voters.” This penalty-vs.-tax episode highlights what many conservatives see as Romney’s fundamental flaw: They simply don’t trust him, especially when it comes to health care. That’s why we’re seeing conservative handwringing over Romney -- from the WSJ, the WSJ’s owner and leading conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch, and Jack Welch -- even though the race is so close.

source

If the mandate is a tax according Romney it is one he thought terrific and a great role model for the whole nation.

Quote:

ROMNEY: I happen to like what we did. I think it's a good model for other states. Maybe not every state, but most. And so what I'd do at the federal level is give to every state the same kind of flexibility we got from the federal government, as well as some carrots and sticks to actually get all their citizens insured. And I think a lot of states will choose what we did. I wouldn't tell them they have to do our plan. Governor Schwarzenegger, for instance, in California, has his own healthcare plan. He's going about it in a different way. I like mine better than his; he likes his better than mine.
RUSSERT: So if a state chose a mandate, it wouldn't bother you?

ROMNEY: I think it's a terrific idea. I think you're going to find, when it's all said and done, after all these states that are laboratories of democracy get their chance to try their own plans, that those who follow the path that we pursued will find it's the best path, and we'll end up with a nation that's taken a mandate approach.

Obviously, Romney was careful to cover his butt by saying that states should be allowed to take a different approach, but in his own words, he not only thought the individual mandate model would be best for most states, he also thought that we'd end up with an nation that's taken the mandate approach.

source

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

You wrote,

Quote:

it's simply not that straight-line

it's not 100% of each side on "their" side

Was this statement really necessary? Who believes that all democrats or republicans think the same?

We're talking about how the majority thinks about any one issue; with millions of people with different viewpoints, it's impossible to perceive and understand issues in the same way (like 100%) - and that's true of most human perceptions and understanding.

We are all subjective creatures. Even identical twins do not have 100% agreement on everything.

1 Reply

@parados,

You're missing the point, dude. We all understand each individual has preference for which party they belong to; that's a given. Beyond that, there are differences in philosophy about what politics and policies are.

However, most individuals understand that there are issues they may cross the line into the other side. That doesn't mean they no longer belong in their party of choice. These are facts. Anyone who says they are 100% one party or the other's policies has no brains.

Look at what's happened during the first three years of Obama's presidency.
The republicans stated early on that they're going to make Obama a one term president. Have you ever heard of such division of this kind in the past?

Have you ever seen one party become the "No Party" to make any president fail in the past?

Have you ever seen anybody interrupt a president's speech in the past?

Have you ever heard a congress member call the president a liar while speaking?

Where's your head, man?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You wrote,
Quote:
it's simply not that straight-line

it's not 100% of each side on "their" side

Was this statement really necessary? Who believes that all democrats or republicans think the same?

the person who originally posted it apparently feels that way

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The republicans stated early on that they're going to make Obama a one term president. Have you ever heard of such division of this kind in the past?

http://crayfisher.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/remember-when-we-wanted-to-make-bush-a-one-term-president/

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

The statement from you link.

Quote:

Since when is it racist (or unpatriotic) to oppose the reelection of an incumbent POTUS? If I recall correctly the progressive blogosphere got its start opposing George W. Bush. As a matter of fact, didn’t Obama become famous for a speech he gave in support of making Bush a one-term president?

Wow! You had to search for this second hand claim about what Obama said once - that didn't have the same media coverage as when McConnell said about Obama?

Just when and where did Obama make this famous speech?

Here's McConnell's speech.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sen-mcconnell-making-obama-a-one-term-president-is-my-single-most-important-political-goal/

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Wow! You had to search for this second hand claim about what Obama said once - that didn't have the same media coverage as when McConnell said about Obama?

no searching required

I can find similar things from each side for each president, going back several generations.

You're acting as if it's weird for the opposition to want presidents to only sit for one term. It's the norm.

3 Replies

@ehBeth,

You said,

Quote:

I can find similar things from each side for each president, going back several generations.

It is the "norm," but find me any time in our history when the minority leader of the senate said such a thing at the beginning of any presidents first term?

I'll wait until hell freezes over!

If my memory serves, it's been normal practice in the past to give new presidents a "honeymoon" period.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

From thinkprogress.org.

Quote:

Mitch McConnell: I Want To Be Senate Majority Leader In Order To Make Obama A One-Term President
By Faiz Shakir on Oct 25, 2010 at 9:50 am
From the moment Obama entered office, right-wing conservatives embraced the posture of hell-bent opposition. Recall, in Jan. 2009, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh expressed his hope that Obama fails. One month later, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell proudly embraced Limbaugh at a conservative conference. The fringe rhetoric of far right activists had quickly become the de facto governing strategy of the Republican leadership, as they adopted a posture of obstructionism.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The republicans stated early on that they're going to make Obama a one term president. Have you ever heard of such division of this kind in the past?

ok, so I show you that it's normal.

Now it has to be a specific person who made a comment?

cicerone imposter wrote:

It is the "norm," but find me any time in our history when the minority leader of the senate said such a thing at the beginning of any presidents first term?

give your head a shake

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

I think it's always been normal that the fringe of either side has felt and expressed the desire to oppose when a member of the opposite party is elected.

What hasn't been normal is for members of the congress in leadership positions to express such animosity and intention from the beginning. They normally claim they will work together.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

I think the major point here is, no matter what rhetoric is used from time to time regarding making someone a 'one-term prez.,' we typically don't see one party act in such an intransigent fashion as the minority GOP has done over the last several years. The Dems certainly haven't in the past, they basically gave Bush every single thing he asked for (despite their rhetoric) and never threatened to sink the ship in order to embarass the man, in the way that the GOP has done.

Take a look at the number of filibuster uses by the minority these last 3 years, and the number of judges they've confirmed for Obama - they are head-and-above more obstructionist than past minorities from either side. It's a function of increased radicalization of the base, and a specific strategy that has been adopted, to make Obama seem like a failure.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I think you're looking at this on too short a time scale and in too small an arena.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

I think you're looking at this on too short a time scale and in too small an arena.

Uh. I guess that's an argument you could make, but why does that matter?

In my lifetime, there has never been a minority party as obstructionist as the current one. Is that better?

And what bigger arena should I compare it to? The world? Nobody is claiming that the modern GOP is the devil, or some sort of 5th column within our government; just that they are transparently power-hungry and shameless liars, all in the name of protecting the wealthy and their assets.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

What they don't seem to realize is the change from the past when there were respect for the president from the members of congress no matter which party ran the administration.

There's nothing in the (long-term past) that equates to what has happened to the federal government since 2009; they can go back over 200 years if they wish to find anything coming close.

Their argument that both parties are equally combative fails on the facts.

What has the GOP compromised on since 2009?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

What has the GOP compromised on since 2009?

The principle to put America first?

1 Reply

@parados,

You then do not understand US history; the majority of Americans benefited under democratic administrations over republican ones. That's a fact.

If the GOP's principle is to put America first, they have failed by about 100%; only the rich and famous benefited.

They are blind to their own goals as a party. They used to be for small government and less intrusion into private lives. They threw those principles down the toilet several decades ago. GW Bush increased the deficit by double, and they now complain that the US deficit is growing too much too fast - when it became necessary to help the majority of Americans with tax cuts and save the financial institutions to keep our economy operating.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

I can find similar things from each side for each president, going back several generations.
.
You're acting as if it's weird for the opposition to want presidents to only sit for one term. It's the norm.

I don't think you will find a democrat representative or senator stating their most important goal was to make the president a one time president and then set about implementing that very statement.

It would have been like democrats refusing to consider any bills by republicans because they were against Bush when that was not the case by any stretch of the imagination nor was it the result.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

EhBeth,

You are making a couple of basic logical fallacies.

First, you can't dismiss key differences by listing similarities. There are a lot of ways that a frog is like a dog. They both have lungs, 4 legs a heart, eat food, etc. etc. etc. In fact I could even list countless ways that a frog is like a tree (dna, respiratory process, cells etc. etc). This doesn't prove anything. You are absolutely correct to point out the similarity of Obama and Bush when it comes to the Afghan war. This doesn't change the differences in social programs, civil rights, equal pay and countless other issues.

The way to prove differences or non-differences you need to look at the facts on that issue. And in critical issues for today like same sex marriage, health care, immigration reform and equal pay for women there is a huge, demonstrable difference between Democrats and Republicans. You can simply look at votes and rhetoric from political leaders to see this.

Nor can you say because 3 Republican congresspeople (out of hundreds) voted for theLilly Ledbetter act for fair pay for women, that the Democrats and Republicans are both in favor of it.

The equivalency fallacy is strong. But it doesn't make logical sense in the face of party line votes.

0 Replies

Romneycare vs Obamacare

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know