John McCain blames Republicans for Govt. Shutdown on Fox News Interview

I've always liked McCain, there was a lot of stuff from the 08' election that wasn't McCain-esque but I think he genuinely cares about the murcan people.

 

The Democratic Party is still contested territory, though Obama is not a populist. There are still a sizeable minority of anti-corporate populists struggling to have a voice in the party. Obama sometimes tries a little to help folks beyond the 1%. For instance Obamacare. Obama due to his life experience does seem to be overly impressed by the folks he has hung out most of his life, starting with the fancy prep school in Hawaii.

 

"Sometimes comments like that are made out of malice, but if someone has no intelligence I don't feel it as being a malicious statement."

John McCain on Louie Gohmert calling him an Al-Q supporter.

Hard to argue against McCain on that one.

 

What a sad state the Republican party is in and that's saying a lot considering their past.

It's gonna be a long while until we see another Repub President.

 

For instance Obamacare indeed. Obamacare is not going to help the people as much as it is going to help the insurance companies.

A singer payer systemwas not fought for by Obama, and the reason is that those saying both the parties are in the hands of big business are correct. Obama takes his marching orders from the corporations, just like the Republicans. The difference is not that the Democrats try to help the little people, rather they are a different version of corporate rule for the populous to choose from. The similarities out weigh the differences, and the role of the media is to hype up those differences to such an extent that the anger of the populous are directed at these minor disagreements instead of where it should be directed towards -- namely, the entire system and both parties that (mis) rule this country.

 

Clearly. This is why the insurers were the largest opponents of the policy and why their stocks are generally up much less than the rest of the market since the crash.

The millions of people who are able to get insurance for the first time probably severely disagree with you. The 10 million or so that will be added to Medicaid - which does nothing to benefit insurers - probably disagree with you too. As do the the people who are no longer tied to their corporate jobs and can start businesses or pursue other opportunities without fear of not having health insurance.

This is one of those "hell with them all" posts that lacks any depth or substance or understanding of the actual issues.

 

Sorry, that may have been a bit harsh. But this false equivalence thing is stupid. The two parties are simply NOT the same. They don't the same priorities or values. Just because both may suck doesn't mean they suck equally or should be looked at in the same way.

 

Not saying that the AFA is not an improvement over the way things were before -- especially the fact that people with preexisting conditions can find coverage and the expansion of medicaid. That doesn't diminish all of the issues with the program (which I can list if I need to, but I think you are aware of them) nor does it explain why Obama did not use the bully pulpit to fight for a single payer system that would not work through the health insurance companies at all, does it?

I am also not saying that the Democrats aren't marginally better than the Republicans in actual governance -- but it is too marginal. We should demand better as a populous. And as long as people like you are satisfied with a party that isn't completely insane and regressive like the Republicans, then we as a people won't do any better.

 

I'd say animprovement as to the status quo vs. ABSOLUTE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF THE STATUS QUO AND LIFE AS WE KNOW IT, which is more or less the quaint bargain that the Repubs were hostaging us to/"selling" us on in the last month, is more than a "marginal" improvement.

In a world of nihlists vs. pragmatists -the pragmatists are substantially better - always.

 

There are certainly issues with the program, but I don't think Single Payer was ever on the table because the country doesn't support it and it would be extremely disruptive to 20% of our economy. You can't just tell a whole bunch of companies they are suddenly out of business - the havoc it would cause would be recessionary at the very least. If you're starting from scratch, single payer is a great idea. But when you have a system already in place, you have to change things from within - the practical reality of restructuring 20% of the US economy is simply not feasible even if you could get political support for it. The expansion of Medicaid is an expansion of single payer - that's how you slowly move in that direction over time.

 

Obama did say his preference was for a single payer system. If you believe that Obama could've gotten a single payer system passed if only he had fought for it I have some Astros World Series tickets to sell you.

 

Sorry, goT busy yesterday and did not see everyone's responses until just now.

I agree that the Democrats are better than the Republicans -- but in the same way getting punched in the face once is better than being punched in the face twice. I would rather refuse to get punched in the face.

Jokes aside, if we as a public demanded more from the Democrats in order to support them then we would have something better than the AFA. The AFA is an improvement, but it is not good enough. This is our country, we should stop acting like we have to take what we can get from our elected leaders,

Okay, very reasonable post, and I see where you are coming from. Great point on the expansion of medicaid being the expansion of single payer. However I disagree with the idea that there was not support in the country for it or because it would hurt 20% of the economy. I feel like one of the reasons I and others were willing to vote Democratic again in 08 was because we wanted the single payer system that has made so many other countries have a better and less per capita expensive health care system than we do. But it did not happen. Even though the Democrats controlled both houses until 10, nothing happened. Because the will to do it was not there. The Democrats did not want to make that happen, and they deserve criticism for that. And that is why they lost seats in 10 in my opinion -- people like me did not go back out to the polls because they spent the previous two years doing nothing. Not closing gitmo. Not ending the patriot act. Not fixing healthcare. Not prosecuting the people responsible for the recession.

As far as the damage it would do to the economy -- that is a very practical consideration. But I think it is an investment. Once employers do not have to worry about providing insurance, they can grow and hire more quickly. Once the insurance companies are taken out, we as a country will spend much less per capita on insurance. I mean, 20% of the economy you say -- but SHOULD it be 20%? In order to stop wasting the wealth of the nation on overpriced healthcare, we need to destroy that 20% you speak of. We will be a lot more efficient afterwards.

Did Obama say that? He hinted at it. He had his people float the idea. Did he say it, or fight for it? I don't think so. Definitely did not fight for it anyway.

And my criticisms of the Democrats are not just about Obama. The Democrats as a whole did not make it happen in the two years they had power. They deserve criticism for that. And they stopped deserving our votes when they failed to adequately differentiate themselves from the Republicans during that two year period or in the subsequent years.

 

No, your analogy is indicative of a quantitative difference. 1 punch v. 2 punches.

Rational, reasonable government vs. ABSOLUTE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF THE ECONOMY/GOVERNING STRUCTURES AS WE KNOW THEM is a qualitative difference.

 

I don't think this is a real difference though. Because I could slightly modify the metaphor and your qualitative vs quantitative point disintegrates -- I mean, if I said punch me in the face hard vs punch me in the farce very hard. My point is the same and now unaddressed by your response.

 

That's fine; you're still wrong because a world where the US defaults on its debts is really different.

 

Yes, I never said it wasn't. I just said that a world where the government is open and run by the Democrats is not different enough from a wold where it is OPEN and run by the Republicans to cause me to be satisfied with the Democrats. Or to vote for them.

But I think you realize that I am saying this but would rather turn my argument into something it is not so that you don't actually have to think about it.

 

That's of course, not the choice we faced this past few weeks, or the last 2 times we played debt ceiling chicken.

I don't really consider it an effective barometer that you personally don't consider the world that much different - I have an abidign faith taught to me by years of experience that it makes a lot of difference to have people in charge who are rational and who make rational policy choices in general.

In particular, it probably makes a difference if you're a victim of those choices like kids on SCHIP or Headstart or if you were a soldier deployed to Iraq in vain pursuit of nonexistent WMDs or appoint judges who don't use dead words as a fig leaf to do their masters bidding.

Frankly, I derive a good deal of satisfaction when the purveyors of mass-market stupidity (clilmate change denialism, creationism etc) are denied access to power for its own sake. Stupidity and cruelty deserve to be punished. And one party has made it its calling card to be deliberately stupid and cruel.

 

But Democrats never even proposed or hinted that they were pursuing a single payer system - I'm not sure why you'd vote for them thinking that's what they were going to do. The closest you could argue was the public option - which achieves some of the same goals but actually adds yet another payer - but they couldn't even muster Senate support for that.

And a lot of those other countries with great systems in Europe aren't necessarily single payer either. They are often hybrids or more complicated systems that do involve the existence of insurance companies.

The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for all of 2 months, thanks to the time it took to seat Al Franken, the death of Kennedy, and the election of Scott Brown. Even with that, they passed 2 bills that are more comprehensive reform efforts than anything in 20 years (FinReg, Healthcare) along with the largest stimulus bill in history, all while trying to stop the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Sure, they put off closing Gitmo and other things as a result. But this is very Tea-partyish - "if you don't do everything I want exactly the way I want it, you're worthless!"

Sure - but it's an investment at the expense of millions of ordinary middle class Americans to work in the industries being destroyed or restructured. And an investment at the expense of millions of people's pension funds and retirement accounts that have money invested in companies that are suddenly being deleted from society. All in the middle of a massive recession that is already tanking the economy. This will never, ever happen in a Democracy. And rightfully so.

No absolutely - you're right, it should NOT be 20% and controlling the cost curve going forward is imperative. But it is right now, and you can't just pretend it's not.

Obama has said that if he was starting from scratch, he would like single payer. But as it is, he agrees that there's no way to make that ever happen.

 

Couple things:

From the beginning, I have been talking about the Democrats vs the Republicans in general, their performance over the years -- not just on the debt ceiling debate. The threat of defaulting by the Republicans was just irresponsible and ridiculous. How can anyone vote for a party that takes that tactic and throws billions of dollars of economic growth into the trash FOR NO REASON. I am with you on this. It is really inexplicable to me how anyone can vote for them. And Obama's position that a precedent is set to where that sort of tactic is not allowed to work was very true, and he should get historical credit for it.

Also, I am right there with you in your assessment of the Republicans as a whole. We can leave that be -- we agree.

But, the Democrats, as a whole, in regards what they have done and not done, are not satisfactory. If people set back and let them skate by for being slightly better than crazy, hate mongering, irresponsible ideologues, then they will not improve as a party.

Until they embrace the persona Obama gave them in 08 -- a populous, rational party of change -- they do not deserve our votes. I am sorry, but I can't vote for a party that continues the Patriot Act, continues torture and does not close GTMO.

In most developed countries, the Democrats and their policies would be considered the conservative party. And, regardless if you care or are convinced or not, voting conservative is not good enough for me. I want a party that is not owned by corporations (which the Democrats undoubtedly are).

 

Good replies Major, I appreciate it.

So, the reason I voted for them thinking that's what the wanted (well, really more hoping than thinking to be honest) was your point in the 2nd quote. He never made the single payer an agenda, or said he was trying to make that a reality, but he hinted that he might do so.

Then we can judge the true value of the Democratic party by those two bills perhaps? Those two bills both have a lot of flaws. Flaws that give loopholes to corporations inexplicably. Flaws we can lay at not other parties feet than the Democrats.

And as far as me criticizing them being Tea partyish -- that is completely illogical. So, your saying that I have to like the Democrats if they do anything good or I am like the Tea Party. I am saying that they are not good enough for me -- and just because they are good enough for you, I am the Tea Party. I think making someone who disagress with you a boogeyman (i.e., Obama is a communist) is a lot more like the Tea Party than me bringing up things the Democrats did or did not do that I think are unacceptable.

I think you are just a little more conservative than I am. I think you have to make that change or it will never happen. Perhaps stages should be involved. But change always hurts. It always involves sacrifices. However, so does things remaining the same. Right now tens of millions of Americans are sacrificing so that the insurance companies can stay in power over the health care industry. But if we change who suffers, that suffering will be part of a process of improvement to the overall strength of the system and to the benefit of the people of the country as a whole. I mean, we need to modernize that industry to stay competitive as a country, and modernization always involves frictional unemployment.

But at least those unemployed would have health care.