+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with (/thread-650306.html)
Pages: 1 2
So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - EagleRockCafe - 09-19-2013 12:26 PM
with Republicans. What a great leader.
http://thehill.com/video/house/323261-boehner-asks-why-obama-will-negotiate-with-putin-not-republicans
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Bull_In_Exile - 09-19-2013 12:52 PM
The best thing the GOP in the house can do right now is pass individual bills for budget items. SS/Defense/....
Send over the bills to the dems "This Bill funds SS for the next year, this one our dept of ed".
LEt the dems and Obama shout down the government and stop peoples checks.
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Tom in Lazybrook - 09-19-2013 12:59 PM
Obama tried negotiating about Obamacare. The GOP isn't interested in that. Negoitation requires two parties willing to give and take. The GOP House (which has a majority of House seats even though the DEMS got more votes for Congress in 2012) isn't interested in anything other than destroying affordable healthcare for working and poor Americans.
Obama ran on Obamacare in 2012. He won the election. Its going to be implemented. And once implemented, good luck trying to repeal it (because then the GOP will have to replace it with something that actually works for working and middle class Americans).
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Owl 69/70/75 - 09-19-2013 01:02 PM
(09-19-2013 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: Obama tried negotiating about Obamacare. The GOP isn't interested in that. Negoitation requires two parties willing to give and take. The GOP House (which has a majority of House seats even though the DEMS got more votes for Congress in 2012) isn't interested in anything other than destroying affordable healthcare for working and poor Americans.
Obama ran on Obamacare in 2012. He won the election. Its going to be implemented. And once implemented, good luck trying to repeal it (because then the GOP will have to replace it with something that actually works for working and middle class Americans).
When Obama did this negotiating with the republicans, what did he offer to give?
There's this myth that Obama somehow tried to negotiate with the republicans. Negotiation does indeed require two parties willing to give and take. Obama was willing to take but not to give. All I heard from Obama offer republicans was, you can go along with doing it my way, or you cannot go along and we will go my way without you. Disagree? Then answer the above question.
And once Obamacare is implemented, good luck trying to get health care.
You'll have health insurance, which may or may not cost you more than today. But what difference does it make how much you spend on health insurance when there is no health care to insure? We are going to increase demand by adding 30 million to the system. We are going to cut costs by paying doctors less to work longer and harder. And we are not going to have shortages, queues, and lowered quality? Really? How is that going to happen? When in all of recorded history has that ever worked?
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Hambone10 - 09-19-2013 01:07 PM
(09-19-2013 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: Obama tried negotiating about Obamacare. The GOP isn't interested in that. Negoitation requires two parties willing to give and take. The GOP House (which has a majority of House seats even though the DEMS got more votes for Congress in 2012) isn't interested in anything other than destroying affordable healthcare for working and poor Americans.
Obama ran on Obamacare in 2012. He won the election. Its going to be implemented. And once implemented, good luck trying to repeal it (because then the GOP will have to replace it with something that actually works for working and middle class Americans).
Interesting that you say he tried to negotiate on Obamacare, and then in the same post, say that he ran on it and "it's going to be implemented". Are you implying that the election constituted negotiating?
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Smaug - 09-19-2013 01:12 PM
(09-19-2013 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: the GOP will have to replace it with something that actually works for working and middle class Americans.
Making it a better plan than this one.
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Tom in Lazybrook - 09-19-2013 01:44 PM
(09-19-2013 01:12 PM)Smaug Wrote:(09-19-2013 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: the GOP will have to replace it with something that actually works for working and middle class Americans.
Making it a better plan than this one.
The plan could be better (making it universal and stripping away the link between employment and access to health care, making doctors who gained their careers with taxpayer help actually being required to serve the taxpayers and stopping the gigantic ripoff of American consumers by pharma, etc.) but it is far better for millions like myself.
The critical issue is one of ever increasing compensation of health care executives. They can continue to raise prices at will due to the inelastisity of health care demand (they raise the price, you'll keep paying for it until you can't access money anymore) as well as the fact that there are barriers to entry (certificate of need restrictions on competition) that make the health care market inefficient.
I can't vote to change a private health care monopoly/oligopoly (effectively what we have in Texas). I can vote to change a government that runs a public health care system.
The private health care system has failed the American people (not just poor Americans, even RICH Americans who have pre-existing conditions).
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Tom in Lazybrook - 09-19-2013 01:47 PM
(09-19-2013 01:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:(09-19-2013 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: Obama tried negotiating about Obamacare. The GOP isn't interested in that. Negoitation requires two parties willing to give and take. The GOP House (which has a majority of House seats even though the DEMS got more votes for Congress in 2012) isn't interested in anything other than destroying affordable healthcare for working and poor Americans.
Obama ran on Obamacare in 2012. He won the election. Its going to be implemented. And once implemented, good luck trying to repeal it (because then the GOP will have to replace it with something that actually works for working and middle class Americans).
Interesting that you say he tried to negotiate on Obamacare, and then in the same post, say that he ran on it and "it's going to be implemented". Are you implying that the election constituted negotiating?
Obama did meet with the GOP. Unfortunately, the GOP didn't understand that negotiation doesn't mean a minority has veto power over the wishes of the majority.
Elections matter. Ideas matter. The GOP keeps trying the same ideas that they can't sell to a majority of Americans and then try to obstruct the will of the people.
Go ahead, shut down the Government. You'll get blamed for the shutdown this time too.
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - uofmcamaro - 09-19-2013 01:55 PM
(09-19-2013 01:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: When Obama did this negotiating with the republicans, what did he offer to give?
That's the thing. I've had debates with libs and I've gave on portions of the positions I was debating only for them to ask why I won't give more. I truly believe it is a lib strategy. They try and make you bend and when you do bend they try and get you to bend more to where eventually you break on the position completely. It is dirty as hell....because when you come back later and won't bend at all they use it as ammo to make you appear as uncooperative when really it is just that you know the game.
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Smaug - 09-19-2013 02:35 PM
(09-19-2013 01:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:(09-19-2013 01:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:(09-19-2013 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: Obama tried negotiating about Obamacare. The GOP isn't interested in that. Negoitation requires two parties willing to give and take. The GOP House (which has a majority of House seats even though the DEMS got more votes for Congress in 2012) isn't interested in anything other than destroying affordable healthcare for working and poor Americans.
Obama ran on Obamacare in 2012. He won the election. Its going to be implemented. And once implemented, good luck trying to repeal it (because then the GOP will have to replace it with something that actually works for working and middle class Americans).
Interesting that you say he tried to negotiate on Obamacare, and then in the same post, say that he ran on it and "it's going to be implemented". Are you implying that the election constituted negotiating?
Obama did meet with the GOP. Unfortunately, the GOP didn't understand that negotiation doesn't mean a minority has veto power over the wishes of the majority.
Elections matter. Ideas matter. The GOP keeps trying the same ideas that they can't sell to a majority of Americans and then try to obstruct the will of the people.
Go ahead, shut down the Government. You'll get blamed for the shutdown this time too.
So, what concessions did the president offer? What compromise?
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - SuperFlyBCat - 09-19-2013 02:39 PM
Obama offered up nothing to the GOP. He didn't need to as his party had a super majority to ram
the bill through up to his desk, and that is exactly what happened. This also why in 2010 the Republicans
took back Congress.
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - boss man - 09-19-2013 02:42 PM
Quote:Elections matter.
And they have consequences, as we are all finding out with this atrocity known as ObamaCare.
It is breaking America and the full ramifications are coming in January
Yes, America doubled down on its horrific mistake in 2008 by re-electing an individual so far over his head, accumulating debt to unprecedented levels, damaging the economy and running huge unemployment numbers for YEARS, and condemning record numbers of citizens on federal benefits.
Now, the early 2nd term results is MORE OF THE SAME. In the past 10 months the COST to America has increased in terms of lost face and worldwide respect. We are seeing the Benghazi cover-up exposed, "TrayVon could be my son" fiasco, Detroit going literally to the dogs, more large companies - most recently Duke Electric in NC - slashing health care benefits to prepare for the ObamaCare pain, and most recently this Syria red-line back down with Putin schooling Obama in a NYT editorial.
DAMN SKIPPY, elections matter.
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Tom in Lazybrook - 09-19-2013 03:04 PM
(09-19-2013 02:42 PM)boss man Wrote:Quote:Elections matter.
And they have consequences, as we are all finding out with this atrocity known as ObamaCare.
It is breaking America and the full ramifications are coming in January20142015 (since the Dems screamed to Obama that trying to win in the mid terms with ObamaCare implemented will result in conservatives taking the Senate).
Yes, America doubled down on its horrific mistake in 2008 by re-electing an individual so far over his head, accumulating debt to unprecedented levels, damaging the economy and running huge unemployment numbers for YEARS, and condemning record numbers of citizens on federal benefits.
Now, the early 2nd term results is MORE OF THE SAME. In the past 10 months the COST to America has increased in terms of lost face and worldwide respect. We are seeing the Benghazi cover-up exposed, "TrayVon could be my son" fiasco, Detroit going literally to the dogs, more large companies - most recently Duke Electric in NC - slashing health care benefits to prepare for the ObamaCare pain, and most recently this Syria red-line back down with Putin schooling Obama in a NYT editorial.
DAMN SKIPPY, elections matter.
And so long as the GOP does nothing to help produce increased AFFORDABLE access to health care for the working class and for anyone with a pre-existing condition, stop scapegoating minorities (and even cheerlead murdering of minorities, like Trayvon Martin), provide a path that rewards work for the hundred million left behind by 30 years of Reaganomics, and stop putting the culture war first, then the Dems will win again in 2016.
Elections matter. Its a shame the GOP has stopped seriously contesting them.
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Tom in Lazybrook - 09-19-2013 03:07 PM
(09-19-2013 02:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Obama offered up nothing to the GOP. He didn't need to as his party had a super majority to ram
the bill through up to his desk, and that is exactly what happened. This also why in 2010 the Republicans
took back Congress.
The GOP has won exactly ONE national election out of the last 10.
2006, Dems won more votes for the US House, US Senate
2008, Dems won President, US House, and US Senate
2010, GOP won the raw house vote, Dems the Senate
2012, the Dems won all three (due to gerrymandering, the Dems won more votes for US House, but the GOP got more seats)
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Smaug - 09-19-2013 03:09 PM
Hahaha and Democrats don't gerrymander.
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Tom in Lazybrook - 09-19-2013 03:18 PM
(09-19-2013 03:09 PM)Smaug Wrote: Hahaha and Democrats don't gerrymander.
53% of US House votes went to Dems, who only got 45% of the seats. The current GOP gerrymander is the biggest in history.
But even that isn't going to save the GOP if they keep insulting and demeaning a majority of Americans.
I get it, if you are a white, male, straight,fundamentalist living in the former Confederacy, you like the GOP. There's just not enough of you guys to continue to win elections nationally. And the gerrymandering is going to stop being effective soon as well (the numbers are going to be too great).
The real issue is that GOP is held captive by a tiny minority of Americans whose views don't translate towards the majority of voters. And the GOP isn't even trying to move away from their exclusionary, ineffective, and insulting positions.
I can only imagine how damaged whoever wins the 2016 GOP primary is going to be when they emerge from that cesspool of racism, homophobia, hatred for the working class, and selfishness.
By the way, the Senate in 2016 will be running on 2010 seats (which was a high tide - low turnout - GOP year). 2016 is a Presidential election year. The head of the ticket is likely to be a lunatic like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. This may get real ugly for you guys.
Hillary may end up with 60 in the Senate. And unlike Obama, she plays hardball.
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Jerry Falwell - 09-19-2013 04:07 PM
(09-19-2013 03:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: Hillary may end up with 60 in the Senate. And unlike Obama, she sleeps with women.
FIFY
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Hambone10 - 09-19-2013 04:07 PM
Damn those state lines, eh Tom?
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Owl 69/70/75 - 09-19-2013 05:29 PM
(09-19-2013 01:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: The plan could be better (making it universal and stripping away the link between employment and access to health care, making doctors who gained their careers with taxpayer help actually being required to serve the taxpayers and stopping the gigantic ripoff of American consumers by pharma, etc.) but it is far better for millions like myself.
The critical issue is one of ever increasing compensation of health care executives. They can continue to raise prices at will due to the inelastisity of health care demand (they raise the price, you'll keep paying for it until you can't access money anymore) as well as the fact that there are barriers to entry (certificate of need restrictions on competition) that make the health care market inefficient.
I can't vote to change a private health care monopoly/oligopoly (effectively what we have in Texas). I can vote to change a government that runs a public health care system.
The private health care system has failed the American people (not just poor Americans, even RICH Americans who have pre-existing conditions).
Tom, you have the talking points well memorized, but you don't appear to have a clue what they mean.
Making health care universal, at least at the basic level, and de-linking employment and health insurance are good ideas. There are many ways to do those things. The best approach by far, based on the experience of the rest of the world, is the Bismarck universal insurance approach. The worst approach, again based on documented world experience, is the single-payer approach (like Canada) that democrats claim to want to go to, and the second worst is the single-provider system (like UK) that is what I think democrats seem to mean when they say single-payer.
As for doctors who gained their careers with taxpayer help, when they get out of med school owing several hundred thousand dollars worth of student loans, sounds like they didn't get enough help. There is a system where docs do in fact gain their careers with government help--France, a Bismarck system--and in return commit to work for the "free" system for a period of years. That would be a sensible thing to do if we went to a Bismarck system.
What is actually happening in you call the ripoff of American consumers by pharma is pretty easy to understand. Pharma spends huge R&D money developing new treatments. Since most of the R&D money is spent here (research is one of the few places where the tax benefits are better here than anywhere east), the R&D costs accumulate here, and other countries won't let us pass them on. So Americans have to eat the R&D costs, and everybody else gets to skate at our expense. What we need is a president with enough cojones to tell the rest of the world--at least the developed countries--to pay their fair share. It's not pharma who is ripping off US customers--it's Italy and UK and the like.
You leave out the cost of malpractice--and it's a lot more than just the insurance premiums. I read a couple of days ago about a new study from a left-leaning think tank saying that malpractice adds only about $50 billion a year to the costs of health care. That's supposedly only 2.4% of total cost, although I can't verify any of the data in that report. I've seen estimates by right-leaning think tanks as high as 20-30%. It's probably somewhere in between, and almost certainly too much. We could emulate Sweden, and do no-fault malpractice. But even taking the little number above, that's way, way more that those executive salaries that you want to blame.
As for barriers to entry, we're getting ready to see a huge one caused by "you can't make any money doing that." CBO, in their report that got widely bandied about as saying that Obamacare would reduce the deificit and debt (it didn't actually say that, but who notices when there's a good sound byte to be had), had some interesting comments in the last few pages. Basically, CBO thinks the only way to contain costs will be cheaper admin (by the time you add in IPAB, HCC, CCO, and the other regulatory and bureaucratic overload, forget that), lower quality, and reduced access. I'm all onboard for reduced quality and access, aren't you? Woo too.
You may be able to vote for president and congress, but you have no vote for the unaccountable bureaucrats who will actually run the system. Who did you vote for, for HCC commissioner last time? Oh, you didn't vote for anyone? You won't. Ever. You can vote with your feet and your wallet in private systems. That's why Bismarck works better than single-payer or single-provider.
The private health care system has not failed me. In fact, it's served me quite well. Far better than I expect Obamacare to. Let me get this straight. We're going to increase demand by adding 30 million people to the system. We're going to cut costs by paying docs less to work more, and we're NOT going to have shortages and queues, and lower quality? Really? Can you name one time in recorded history when that has worked?
I do think that shutting down government to kill Obamacare is stupid.
RE: So Obama will negotiate with Russia, Syria and Iran, but not with - Fo Shizzle - 09-19-2013 07:20 PM
I agree with Owl...A government shutdown at this time is not prudent. Our economy is rebounding. We can debate later who gets the credit. The point is... We don't need to do anything to derail this now. Many of our problems are solved by a growing economy. Dont F with it. After recovery and people are back to work?...then have at it.