"How Can We Make it Better if it doesn't Exist?"

[last1standing]

That's the new mantra of the republicrats and the sell-outs and the neo-23 percenters in congress, and elsewhere, today and I'm finding it to just be too much. The problem is that basic logic (nope, you don't need to be a master of three dimensional chess to understand it) defies this absurd comment.

One, if the votes aren't there for these wonderful fixes today with 60 democratic senators, where in Fuck's Name are they going to come from after the mid-terms? Do the neo-23 percenters really expect us to believe that lieberman and nelson are going to somehow change course and support the people over their benefactors? It just won't happen. Not Now - Not Ever.

And two, didn't Bill Clinton and his apologists say the exact same thing when he was signing the welfare reform act that fucked over so many people just a few years later? Why yes he did. He promised to enact reforms to the reform that never appeared but everyone conveniently forgot about that because the people they would help weren't worth caring about.

So how is today any different? It's not. What we're now seeing is exactly what we're going to get, a plan by and for the ultra-wealthy at the expense of the middle classes. This plan will make anything bush* ever did seem progressive by compare and there will be no Hope for Change.

[Armstead]

1. 23 percenters?

Can you translate?

[last1standing]

2. By the end, there 23% still followed bush* into Hell.

Twenty-three percenters are those people who will support anything and everything a president they voted for does no matter how cruel or stupid. Neo-23percenters are the ones supporting this president over their own beliefs.

[Armstead]

4. Oh -- unfortunatly in this case it seems like more than 23 percent

[last1standing]

5. For now...

That won't last. It's only a select few who will take a full four years of being screwed over and still support someone.

[xchrom]

3. We aren't going tomake it better -- not ever now

We're going tomake it all more complicated.
That's what we have allowed to happen.

I don't give a shit any more.

[last1standing]

6. Nope. No chance of making it better because of the lobbyists.

They messed up the best chance we'll have in our lifetimes and our "fierce advocate" says its exactly what he wanted from the beginning.

What more is there to say?

[xchrom]

7. +1

[pnwmom]

8. Why will the situation be different after this is in place? Here's why.

Right now, we've had to make a lot of trade-offs to get enough votes to get this through, involving lots of different parts of a hugely complicated bill. For example, we couldn't get a ban on dropping coverage and on pre-existing conditions without getting a universal mandate. But once the overall structure is in place, we'll be able to introduce narrowly targeted bills that would be much harder for even the most conservative Rethug to publicly vote against. For example, specific measures designed to contain costs. Right now, the Rethugs can claim that they oppose the bill for any of dozens of reasons. When they're faced with a narrow bill that strictly deals with an issue of cost it will be much harder for them to justify voting against it.

[last1standing]

9. You're right! No republican would risk holding up popular legislation.

I mean its not like you can look back on this last year and see countless examples of that very thing happening again and again...

Wait.....!

Next lame talking point, please.

[pnwmom]

10. Depends on the legislation. Extremely popular cost saving measures --

like allowing the reimportation of drugs from Canada -- will be much harder for them to oppose, when the measures aren't mixed in with a slew of other issues, such as abortion.

[last1standing]

11. You do know that the Obama administration lobbied against that, right?

That's why it failed. How do you think that bill is going to get in over Obama's head?

Strike two.

[pnwmom]

12. Only because the issue threatened the votes of some key Senators. n/t

[last1standing]

13. Yet Obama says he got exactly what he wanted from the bill.

And there were all those meetings with big PhRma where he promised them he would block that legislation.

How odd...


Shall we call that a foul ball?

[pnwmom]

14. So he doesn't want to advertise the fact that he didn't get everything?

Is it going to help any Democratic cause if he paints this significant (although flawed) win as a failure?

[last1standing]

15. Come on! You're not even trying to play!

Now you're just making up motivations and excuses out of whole cloth. I can't even respond to that post properly because its less substantial than cotton candy. It'd be like arguing with a brain damaged puppy on the merits of not peeing on the carpet.

Useless.

[pnwmom]

18. So you're one of those who think you can strengthen your position with an insult.

I'm done.

[last1standing]

20. I think you've posted a meaningless comment of nothing but your own projection.

And you insulted my intelligence with that first. Also, if you read carefully, you'll note that I did not insult you, I commented on your comment. If I wanted to insult you I'd start with your disgusting and puerile views toward the GLBT community. I could go on for days flinging insults your way over that.

[karynnj]

16. Read her earlier post

Obama did not want to upset the applecart on the complicated bill. As a standalone bill, it could pass without jeopardizing anything.

[last1standing]

17. I read it, and refuted it.

You not agreeing with me doesn't mean I didn't answer her comment.

[pnwmom]

19. Only in your own mind. n/t

[last1standing]

21. That really did sound like it should come from a second grade recess fight.

Note: Again, this is not an insult directed toward you, only your comment. Please understand the difference.

[tbyg52]

22. K&R back up to zero.

The money people are in charge, and the money flows ever upward.