The primary reason President Obama hasn't made more progress on the economy and jobs

[bigtree]

reublicrats:

'Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson and Montana Senator Jon Tester joined together with 46 Republicans to block the (jobs) bill, and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, and Jim Webb and Independent Senator Joe Lieberman all stated that if the bill was not blocked they would vote against its final passage in its current form.'

(http://www.care2.com/causes/morning-mix-jobs-act-fails-obama-angry.html)

[polichick]

1. That's a big part of it - look what happened when we had 60 votes...

The left was absolutely right to target the Dem obstructionists with ads, but the WH shot the left down - I hope the prez gets it now.

[pansypoo53219]

28. obama KNOWS we need moerates, but many of the moderates

are just pissants. lieberfuckenputz NEEDED to go.

[polichick]

29. What he should get is that we need MORE LIBERALS - more who will fight for...

...Democratic principles.

[tridim]

2. Republicans are the primary reason.

Fake Democrats are the distant secondary reason.

[polichick]

3. But it's the fake Dems that we have something to say about - or should.

[RC]

4. They are not so distant.

They are the 'spys' among us, working hand in hand with the self acknowledged enemy of the people, the Republicans.

[leftstreet]

5. It took him 3 years to submit this bill? n/t

[bigtree]

7. c'mon, that's the same sort of obfuscation republicans rely on

. . . to cloud the fact that they've hamstrung this presidency with their obstruction.

How many of 5the President's proposals lay on the floor because of Congress' inaction or dismissal?

[leftstreet]

8. If Obama is 'hamstrung' why submit any bills at all? Why don't they all just go home?

Leave us be

[bigtree]

10. because the political system isn't automatic

. . .

[leftstreet]

11. Bush got everything he wanted n/t

[bigtree]

15. because he enjoyed a sufficient number of republicrats

. . . willing to bend to republican initiatives - conversely, there haven't been a similar number of republicans willing to bend to Democratic initiatives.

[leftstreet]

17. The line you're taking makes Obama look like a weak, lame, ineffective CEO

I know you mean well, putting the blame on Congress etc

But what CEO would last 3 years with these kinds of failures?

[bigtree]

18. well, he made record legislative progress when he had the votes

. . . a CEO could hire or fire the folks who spent the money of his corporation. The president has Congress as his board of directors. If he had the votes and the numerical control, we could certainly hold him primarily accountable for the decisions they made and the course of the entity (in this case, the U.S. economy).

[leftstreet]

20. Add 2012 !! to that ^^ and you've got your campaign slogan

:scared:

[bigtree]

23. politics is a self-perpetuating battle

. . . reconciling all of the disparate and diverse interests and concerns in the electoral process and building working legislative coalitions is integral to all of that.

[Frustratedlady]

13. And, the president should include those numbers in his speeches.

I was shocked to hear how many bills haven't even made it to discussion, let alone a vote. They are the worst do-nothing Congress we've ever had.

All because they don't like Obama. Idiots!

[newspeak]

34. okay, how about little boot's free trade agreements

Obama has signed onto? Doesn't that also hurt workers here?

[PufPuf23]

37. How many of the policies supported by POTUS Obama are

counter productive for the Nation or at odds with Candidate Obama?

POTUS Obama could have gone FDR starting with his appointments and had the long term Democratic faithful and the youth (that are now OWS) in the streets from day one of his term in support of strong Democratic Party principals but chose not.

The people that compromise OWS are the votes that were missing in the 2010 midterms. The WH set the stage for mid term loss in 2010.

POTUS Obama has lost support because of his own choices and IMO lack of integrity.

Quit blaming Congress or the idiot GOP because POTUS Obama fibbed about changing the status quo in his campaign.

[madamesilverspurs]

6. Nelson and Tester and

[MadHound]

9. Poor, pitiful, powerless president

It's not his fault, he shares no blame. Never mind the fact that he has yet to step up and fight for legislation that is vital to the well being of ordinary citizens. He is all too willing to toss things like the public option, or ending tax cuts for the rich etc. when he runs into the least little opposition from the 'Pugs.

[bigtree]

14. that's the effect of the blocking or ignoring of his proposals

If the President had his way without opposition and obstruction we would see wide ranging, progressive solutions and remedies in action. It's not as if he can enact the legislation from the WH.

[MadHound]

16. Yet where was the president during the fights over the public option,

Or extending the tax cuts for the rich? Rather than engaging, with a supportive majority of the public behind him, he took a hands off approach and didn't fight. So much for "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family." So much for his promise to not extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

It is one thing for the 'Pugs to block legislation, it is something entirely different when the President doesn't even fight for his own legislation, or to keep his own promises.

[bigtree]

19. not having control over the House, where the spending originates

. . . the President still managed to advance vast many more Democratic principles and initiatives in those legislative fights than republicans were able to defend against or co-opt with their own nonsense. Now he's taking up that fight to remove the unfair tax advantage the wealthy enjoy as he fights to advance those initiatives and principles that were previously rejected. It makes no sense to blame the President for failing to enact the things Congress stands in the way of.

[MadHound]

22. But during his first two years, when the public option and tax cuts for the rich came up

HE HAD A DEMOCRATIC HOUSE, AND SENATE.

Excuses and more excuses for a president who doesn't keep his promises and simply won't fight.

Meanwhile, the only thing he is fighting to advance now is his mislabeled "Jobs Bill", which, being made up of mostly more tax cuts and tax credits, is more accurately another stimulus bill, and a piss poor one at that.

And let's not forget the latest Free Trade bill with S. Korea, et. al. That's another job killer right there, but will he veto it? Nooo. In fact name me the last time he has vetoed anything. . .

The man simply doesn't fight, and by following that path of least resistance, he doesn't keep his promises either.

[bigtree]

24. by 'fight' I think most folks mean for him to just sit on his hands

. . .and refuse to make the compromises needed to push initiatives forward - like the republicans do.

[MadHound]

25. Well, there you are, making assumptions again.

You can "think" all you want, but in reality people both here and in the real world are wondering where all this fire he initially showed over the latest "jobs bill" was two years ago. Where was the state to state tours, calling out recalcitrant Blue Dogs? Where were the calls for Americans to get in touch with their reps. The only one sitting on his hands during those fights was indeed the president, sitting on his hands, staying out of the fray.

[bigtree]

26. well, I followed those legislative battles closely

. . . and I remember the President very actively engaged in eliciting support from Americans and others for his initiatives. It's just sophistry to suggest that he was passive during those debates.

[MadHound]

27. Really? Where were the tours? When did he call out Blue Dogs for the obstructionism?

Where was the promised veto when the final product didn't include the public option? If you followed this so very closely, surely you can come up with a few quick links showing these actions.

Oh, wait, never mind, you can't provide such links because those actions simply didn't happen. Never mind.

[bigtree]

33. the White House_to_Main Street tour

. . . much was said, much was debated.

The President didn't sit on his hands and refuse to allow the Democratic-initiated HCR to advance into law for the sake of enacting a 'public option'. I'll bet folks affected by these changes in the law are glad he didn't:


---No Discrimination Against Children with Pre-Existing Conditions

---Prohibits new health plans in all markets plus grandfathered group health plans from denying coverage to children with pre‐existing conditions. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, this prohibition would apply to all persons.)

---Provides access to affordable insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre‐existing condition through a temporary subsidized high‐risk pool. Effective in 2010.

---Bans insurance companies from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Effective 6 months after enactment.

---Provides a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010. Effective for calendar year 2010. (Beginning in 2011, institutes a 50 percent discount on prescription drugs in the donut hole; also completely closes the donut hole by 2020.)

---Prohibits health insurance companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage. Effective 6 months after enactment.

---Tightly restricts the use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care in all new plans and grandfathered group health plans. These tight restrictions will be defined by HHS. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, the use of any annual limits would be prohibited for all new plans and grandfathered group health plans.)

---Requires new private plans to cover preventive services with no co‐payments and with preventive services being exempt from deductibles. Effective 6 months after enactment.

---Ensures consumers in new plans have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal decisions by their health insurance plan. Effective 6 months after enactment.

---Increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow for nearly a doubling of the number of patients seen by the centers over the next 5 years. Effective beginning in fiscal year 2011.

---Provides new investments to increase the number of primary care practitioners, including doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. Effective beginning in fiscal year 2011.

---Prohibits new group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees. Effective 6 months after enactment.

---Provides aid to states in establishing offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals with the filing of complaints and appeals. Effective beginning in fiscal year 2010.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/immediate-benefits

etc.

[MadHound]

39. The White House to Main St. Tour? Is that your answer? Are you serious?

That tour was little more than a five state swing where Obama got to show his empathy, and follow in Clinton's footsteps of "I feel your pain". There was no call out of recalcitrant politicians, no coherent action taken, just a five state swing in over five months. Not much of a tour at all.

As far as HCR, yes, there is no denying that it does some modicum of good. But it is a mandated monopoly without a public option. Already insurance rates are rising, and they will really shoot through the roof when 2014 comes. With no public option, and few price restrictions, the middle and working class are going to get hammered.

And meanwhile, Obama failed to keep his promise, he went ahead and signed a HCR bill without the public option. Hell, he didn't even fight for the public option, just like he doesn't fight for anything else.

A sad testimony.

[AtomicKitten]

32. He had a 60-vote majority in the Senate for 49 days, not two years.

Al Franken was sworn in to the Senate on July 7, 2009, 246 days after the November 2008 election. Kennedy died of brain cancer on Tuesday, August 25, 2009. That's 49 days that Obama maybe had a Senate which had a 60 vote plurality to avoid the virtual filibuster. Truth be told Teddy was unable to vote for the last three months and only came once to vote for Health Care Reform, in effect Teddy wasn't really there at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x781184#781575

* lifted from joshcryer

[MadHound]

40. Hey there, why not read for content instead of the quick reply, you won't look foolish then.

I said nothing about a sixty vote majority in the Senate. I simply stated that Obama had a Democratic House and Senate for two years, and still didn't manage to do a damn thing worthwhile.

[AtomicKitten]

41. 49 days < 2 years = fact that mitigates your broadbrush criticism which makes you look foolish

[MadHound]

43. OK, let me put this question in simple terms, just for you.

Did the Obama administration have a Democratically controlled House and Senate to work with for two years? Yes or no, real easy question.

[AtomicKitten]

44. My answer in simple terms that even you should be able to understand (unless you choose not to).

Democrats had control of both Houses of Congress for two years but in practice not enough in the Senate to overcome the nonstop, record-making GOP filibusters (except for 49 days).

Those are the facts, perhaps too complex for you but more likely dismissed because the facts don't fit the narrative you are promoting. I'll leave you to the long knives.

[MadHound]

46. Thank you, I know that admission cost you a lot, but I do appreciate that dose of reality

Yes, for two years there was a Democratically controlled Congress, and yet very little was accomplished during that time.

[AtomicKitten]

47. Wrong again. The House under Nancy Pelosi passed 100+ bills in those two years.

The Senate during those two years suffered 100+ GOP filibusters.

Still President Obama and Democrats managed "the most legislatively productive 21 months in decades."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLQ-OKa6OZQ

Check with your local junior college for a civics course on how government works.

[uponit7771]

30. Yeap, easier for people to shout out Obama than to work for more progressive congress.

[Lord Helmet]

49. Nelson -&- Tester are both up for re-election in 2012

[NightWatcher]

12. Who's making him sign this Panama, Korea... Free Trade Agreement?

[Puregonzo1188]

21. And here I thought it was the fact that he wanted to raise a billion dollars from Wall Street for

his reelection.

[librechik]

31. repuglicrats n/t

[Scuba]

35. So when are the Dems going to start pushing some liberal/progressive candidates?

[Maven]

36. And Obama is just like them

And supports them in every primary election across the land. You're not fooling anyone else, so it's time to stop fooling yourself.

[bvar22]

38. SEE: Arkansas Democratic Primary, 2010,

and get back to me.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[wryter2000]

42. Someone must be primary-ing Nelson

Anyone know who? I'm going to have a very few extra $$$ on Friday and would like to make a contribution.

[Rex]

45. That is one huge factor in the equation.

Repukes refuse to work with their peers and want Obama to fail, even if that means the country ends up in ashes. IF we have any real mainstream news organizations in this country, the Repukes would already be looking for new jobs. As it is the M$M does everything but fill out the election ballot for Repukes. Quite a disgusting development.

[Romulox]

48. Obama himself invited Mitt Romney's people in to help write healthcare.

Who you callin' a Republicrat? :hi: