Atlantic: Trump Excuses the White Working Class From the Politics of Personal Responsibility

[LadySkinsFan]

You who support Ryan and his vouchers instead of Medicare idea, what will you do if you can't work anymore because of your age and medical condition? You will be paying more every year to pay for the increased premiums. 

 

Example, I had my stroke in June when I was still 64. I got Medicare in September when I turned 65. First early Social Security in October. I bought a Plan F Supplement insurance policy so I don't have any out of pocket expenses, it's more expensive but worth it. 

 

My doctor says I can't work in my profession any more due to high pressure (government proposals).  

 

I have to sell my house and move because my mortgage payment is more than my Social Security payment, plus I am moving closer to my daughter.

 

I don't want to see seniors have to pay outrageous premiums because of Ryan and the Republicans wanting to give more money to the 1%ers.  Do you?

[zoony]

42 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

I have no idea what the "about a girl" line controversy is. 

 

I think the liberals you find on this board aren't the sensitive variety. The "feelings matter" liberal crowd are mostly the Bernie people, who are poorly represented around here. 

 

It it would be kind of fun to have a few around, but for whatever reason, the political ideologies of most people who frequent the tailgate aren't that extreme on either side.

 

Rachel Maddox among others had a full feminist meltdown. 

 

how can you not remember that?  Good Lord start paying attention to the fruitcakes that have hijacked your party

[No Excuses]

1 minute ago, zoony said:

 

Rachel Maddox among others had a full feminist meltdown. 

 

how can you not remember that?  Good Lord start paying attention to the fruitcakes that have hijacked your party

 

This is seriously the first time I'm hearing about this. It did not pop up on any of my social media or news feeds and I don't remember it being discussed on this board.

 

Guess we all live in our bubbles within bubbles. Lol

[LadySkinsFan]

Maddow isn't the only woman disturbed over this election. 

[Kilmer17]

43 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

They should if what Trump wants is going to ruin the country and humans.

I paid into Social Security for 49 years, it was a contract with us that our money and our employer's investment in us as employees, and later when I was self employed, that we would receive a monthly payment in return for that forced investment. I say forced because we can't opt out. And I personally paid in a lot more because self employment.

 

I don't want it ****ed with, period. 

 

Same with Medicare. Not when we need it the most. 

 

Some of you act like you're just fine with beggaring the retired and elderly just so you can pay lower taxes. Well, shame on you for reneging on the social contract.

GOPers said they were opposing Obama for similar reasons.

 

My point is that Obama didnt try to work with the GOP anymore than Trump is going to try and work with the Dems.  Bipartisanship isnt defined by making the other side accept what you want to do.

[The 12th Commandment]

The problem is that the figurative sausage factory moved from a smoky, semi-anonymous back room to wide open social media.  Nobody can be seen capitulating one iota on their party screed.  Whereas they used to be able to horse-trade (if not compromise) in the interest of getting "something" done, now they can't because their cred is instantly gone if they do.  It's going to be a big problem for a long time.

[TheGoodBits]

12 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

GOPers said they were opposing Obama for similar reasons.

 

My point is that Obama didnt try to work with the GOP anymore than Trump is going to try and work with the Dems.  Bipartisanship isnt defined by making the other side accept what you want to do.

 

What? That's terribly wrong. If anything Obama's legacy was defined by trying to work with the GOP too much early on, not using the bully pulpit. He came in with the naive goal of being a transformational president that redefined how Washington works. The GOP crushed him for being weak/ineffective when in reality their rabid partisan voter base that quickly emerged after his election made it politically impossible for any congressman to work with him at all. Obstructionism was the only option.

[Kilmer17]

3 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

What? That's terribly wrong. If anything Obama's legacy was defined by trying to work with the GOP too much early on, not using the bully pulpit. He came in with the naive goal of being a transformational president that redefined how Washington works. The GOP crushed him for being weak/ineffective when in reality their rabid partisan voter base that quickly emerged after his election made it politically impossible for any congressman to work with him at all. Obstructionism was the only option.

He tried to make them accept the ACA.  The GOP opposed the ACA in every way shape and form.  That's not trying to work with them.  That's trying to make them accept his rule.

[PeterMP]

16 minutes ago, KAOSkins said:

The problem is that the figurative sausage factory moved from a smoky, semi-anonymous back room to wide open social media.  Nobody can be seen capitulating one iota on their party screed.  Whereas they used to be able to horse-trade (if not compromise) in the interest of getting "something" done, now they can't because their cred is instantly gone if they do.  It's going to be a big problem for a long time.

 

I think the simultaneous segmentation of the information sources and nationalization of those segments is an issue.  News used to be segmented.  There were different papers in Chicago than NYC and in Chicago there were left leaning papers and right leaning papers and in NYC there was the same thing.

 

That's not new.  In the scope of history, a national news media is relatively new.

 

What is new is that things like Rush Limbaugh have created sectionalization at a national level.

 

To steal from something I posted in another thread:

 

" Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Congressman Hal Rogers, who chairs the House appropriations committee, are perhaps best positioned to lead the effort in ensuring the proposal becomes law. Both McConnell and Rogers are from Kentucky and have constituents who desperately need relief. But their comments on the proposal are hardly a ringing endorsement.  "

 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23062015/aid-package-coal-country-goes-ignored-congress-mitch-mcconnell-kentucky-west-virginia-obama-epa-clean-power-plan

 

Once upon a time, at least Rogers, could have broken with his party's stand on spending for the good of his constituents.  However, today if he does the next day that reaches the sectional group that cares at a national level in detail (and realistically with bias) and that has implications that are new.

[TheGoodBits]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

He tried to make them accept the ACA.  The GOP opposed the ACA in every way shape and form.  That's not trying to work with them.  That's trying to make them accept his rule.

 

Again, terribly wrong. There was a ton of effort to work with the GOP on that early on. Even to the point of dropping the public option and going with a right wing Heritage Foundation approach to universal healthcare. When they STILL wouldn't work with him, Obama gave up and got it passed without the GOP because he had the votes to do so. That doesn't mean there weren't legitimate attempts at bipartisanship. 

[Kilmer17]

3 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

Again, terribly wrong. There was a ton of effort to work with the GOP on that early on. Even to the point of dropping the public option and going with a right wing Heritage Foundation approach to universal healthcare. When they STILL wouldn't work with him, Obama gave up and got it passed without the GOP because he had the votes to do so. That doesn't mean there weren't legitimate attempts at bipartisanship. 

That's simply left wing revisionist history.

 

The GOP opposed the ACA from the beginning.  It didnt matter what a think tank proposed, or what a state proposed, the GOP as a whole wasnt going to support the ACA in any way shape or form.  They made that a central part of their national election effort.

 

And it wasnt because they opposed Obama doing it, they fundamentally opposed a Govt takeover of the Healthcare system.  And the reasons they opposed it?  Are pretty much the failings we are seeing it from it now.

On this topic, will leftwingers here call out the Dems in Congress when they oppose Trump's infrastructure proposal?  I can cite hundreds of statements from Dem politicos and think tanks over the past decade claiming that's what America needs to do to boost the economy and get people working (as well as ACTUALLY FIXING THE ROADS, BRIDGES ETC)

[TheGoodBits]

5 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

That's simply left wing revisionist history.

 

The GOP opposed the ACA from the beginning.  It didnt matter what a think tank proposed, or what a state proposed, the GOP as a whole wasnt going to support the ACA in any way shape or form.  They made that a central part of their national election effort.

 

And it wasnt because they opposed Obama doing it, they fundamentally opposed a Govt takeover of the Healthcare system.  And the reasons they opposed it?  Are pretty much the failings we are seeing it from it now.

On this topic, will leftwingers here call out the Dems in Congress when they oppose Trump's infrastructure proposal?  I can cite hundreds of statements from Dem politicos and think tanks over the past decade claiming that's what America needs to do to boost the economy and get people working (as well as ACTUALLY FIXING THE ROADS, BRIDGES ETC)

 

Your version is revisionist but that's ok. And a lot of the failings of ACA right now are due to GOP obstruction. 

 

Will Dems oppose Trump's infrastructure spending bill? I certainly hope so, if it's the garbage tax incentive privatization proposal he's put forward so far. If he puts together a real proposal I'm sure it will pass with majority Dem support and a lot of republicans who will sign off on it because it has Trump's name on it not Obama's. 

[Dan T.]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

It's already started. The next 4 years are going to be a **** show for anyone who actually wants reasonable political discourse.

 

 

That ship sailed the minute Donald ****ing Trump came down his faux gold escalator and ranted about Mexican rapists and called every Washington politician stupid. We've elected a slimy scumbag as President with an alt-right propagandist as his chief strategist, so I'm not holding my breath for the Golden Era of reasonable political discourse. 

[SkinsHokieFan]

34 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

 

On this topic, will leftwingers here call out the Dems in Congress when they oppose Trump's infrastructure proposal?  I can cite hundreds of statements from Dem politicos and think tanks over the past decade claiming that's what America needs to do to boost the economy and get people working (as well as ACTUALLY FIXING THE ROADS, BRIDGES ETC)

 

So far I haven't seen any Democrat state that an infrastructure bill is DOA.

 

As for the ACA garbage, President Obama 1) campaigned on it 2) won by 10M votes and an electoral landslide and 3) had 60 votes in the Senate and an overwhelming House majority

 

His biggest mistake in January '09 was letting Boehner, Cantor and McConnell in the room as opposed to putting them in the corner where they belonged from Jan '09 until Jan '11

 

And I am one who strongly opposed the ACA and the stimulus package in '09. 

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

That ship sailed the minute Donald ****ing Trump came down his faux gold escalator and ranted about Mexican rapists and called every Washington politician stupid. We've elected a slimy scumbag as President with an alt-right propagandist as his chief strategist, so I'm not holding my breath for the Golden Era of reasonable political discourse. 

That's fine, but no one seems to have any interest in it anymore.

 

You can blame Trump, but this problem started before Trump and has a lot more to do with it than just Trump.

 

You can count on one hand the number of thoughtful conversations we (the general we, as in the entire board) had in the election thread. It's not because everyone participating is stupid, and there were plenty of opportunities ruined for reasons other than Trump.

 

 

[Kilmer17]

6 minutes ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

 

So far I haven't seen any Democrat state that an infrastructure bill is DOA.

 

As for the ACA garbage, President Obama 1) campaigned on it 2) won by 10M votes and an electoral landslide and 3) had 60 votes in the Senate and an overwhelming House majority

 

His biggest mistake in January '09 was letting Boehner, Cantor and McConnell in the room as opposed to putting them in the corner where they belonged from Jan '09 until Jan '11

 

And I am one who strongly opposed the ACA and the stimulus package in '09. 

Exactly.  His failures are his failures.  He ran on a platform, the GOP ran on an opposite one.  It's not "bipartisan" to make the loser accept the winners platform.

[Switchgear]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

GOPers said they were opposing Obama for similar reasons.

 

My point is that Obama didnt try to work with the GOP anymore than Trump is going to try and work with the Dems.  Bipartisanship isnt defined by making the other side accept what you want to do.

 

That really is a false narrative.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/

 

Quote

Did Obama Jam Through the Affordable Care Act Without Consulting Republicans or Working With Them to Find Bipartisan Cooperation?

The Obama White House took a number of lessons from the Clinton experience with healthcare policy. First, do not rely on your own, detailed White House plan as the starting point for negotiations in Congress; let Congress work out the structure and details from your  goals. Second, try from an early point to get buy-in from the major actors in the health world, including insurers, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and other providers, to at least defuse or minimize their opposition. Third, recognize that the House and Senate are very different institutions, and let each work through its own ideas and plan before finding ways to merge the two into a single bill. Obama and his White House executed those lessons brilliantly.

 

There was a fourth lesson: Try in the Senate to find Republican support at an early stage, instead of waiting until the political dynamic shifts toward implacable opposition. The failure to engage John Chafee, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and their colleagues at an early point in 1993, when they crafted their own plan and were willing to negotiate and cut a deal, proved deeply damaging, if not deadly in 1994. As the midterms loomed and Democrats were on the defensive, Chafee and his colleagues were told by then-Republican Leader Bob Dole that there would be no deal, period.

 

In the House, that lesson was not applicable this time; Eric Cantor and House Republicans had already made it crystal clear that they were not cooperating under any circumstances. There, Democrats debated the issue for several months, but mostly amongst themselves, before introducing a detailed bill that emerged from committees in July 2009 and passing it through the House later in the year with just one Republican vote.

But with Obama’s blessing, the Senate, through its Finance Committee, took a different tack, and became the fulcrum for a potential grand bargain on health reform. Chairman Max Baucus, in the spring of 2009, signaled his desire to find a bipartisan compromise, working especially closely with Grassley, his dear friend and Republican counterpart, who had been deeply involved in crafting the Republican alternative to Clintoncare. Baucus and Grassley convened an informal group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the committee, which became known as the “Gang of Six.” They covered the parties’ ideological bases; the other GOPers were conservative Mike Enzi of Wyoming and moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, and the Democrats were liberal Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and moderate Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

 

Baucus very deliberately started the talks with a template that was the core of the 1993-4 Republican plan, built around an individual mandate and exchanges with private insurers—much to the chagrin of many Democrats and liberals who wanted, if not a single-payer system, at least one with a public insurance option. Through the summer, the Gang of Six engaged in detailed discussions and negotiations to turn a template into a plan. But as the summer wore along, it became clear that something had changed; both Grassley and Enzi began to signal that participation in the talks—and their demands for changes in the evolving plan—would not translate into a bipartisan agreement.

 

What became clear before September, when the talks fell apart, is that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had warned both Grassley and Enzi that their futures in the Senate would be much dimmer if they moved toward a deal with the Democrats that would produce legislation to be signed by Barack Obama. They both listened to their leader. An early embrace by both of the framework turned to shrill anti-reform rhetoric by Grassley—talking, for example, about death panels that would kill grandma—and statements by Enzi that he was not going to sign on to a deal. The talks, nonetheless, continued into September, and the emerging plan was at least accepted in its first major test by the third Republican Gang member, Olympia Snowe (even if she later joined every one of her colleagues to vote against the plan on the floor of the Senate.)

 

Do you still want to try to pin this on Obama?

[LD0506]

The Republicans were dead set on stopping a "black" Democrat from doing anything positive, it was their gameplan from the outset. You can spin it, rationalize it, run it through a blender and then just lie your ass off, but that's the fact of the matter.

 

Oh yeah, facts again, we doan need no steenkin faks!

[Kilmer17]

8 minutes ago, Switchgear said:

 

That really is a false narrative.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/

 

 

Do you still want to try to pin this on Obama?

Pin what on him?  From your article-  In the House, that lesson was not applicable this time; Eric Cantor and House Republicans had already made it crystal clear that they were not cooperating under any circumstances.

 

That's exactly what I'm saying.  The GOP didnt want Obamacare no matter how it was planned, packaged or presented.  Obama didnt even try with the House.  And the few that did give it a try in the Senate soon realized it was a folly.  That's not an attempt at bipartisanship.

 

Much like what will happen with the Infrastructure proposal.  We already have people here saying the Dems shouldnt support it because they dont like it.  That's fine.  But it will be a load of crap if Trump and his cohorts later come out and say they tried the bipartisan approach because they offered the chance to the Dems to agree with them. 

7 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

The Republicans were dead set on stopping a "black" Democrat from doing anything positive, it was their gameplan from the outset. You can spin it, rationalize it, run it through a blender and then just lie your ass off, but that's the fact of the matter.

 

Oh yeah, facts again, we doan need no steenkin faks!

Oh that's right.  Racism.  ammiright?!

[SkinsHokieFan]

46 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Exactly.  His failures are his failures.  He ran on a platform, the GOP ran on an opposite one.  It's not "bipartisan" to make the loser accept the winners platform.

 

At this point I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

President Obama and the Dems do own the ACA 100% and it is their fault for attempting bi-partisanship in the first place.

 

It was the first sign of President Obama being "weak" (and I use the word weak very loosely)

 

At a time when he had the most political capital he would ever have, rather than ramming through what he wanted and picking off 1 or 2 GOP senators, he engaged the GOP, let the ACA start to stink like fish and in '10 did what should have happened anyways, ramming through the ACA.

 

End result was a GOP healthcare bill with 0 GOP votes

[Kilmer17]

3 minutes ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

 

At this point I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

President Obama and the Dems do own the ACA 100% and it is their fault for attempting bi-partisanship in the first place.

 

It was the first sign of President Obama being "weak" (and I use the word weak very loosely)

 

At a time when he had the most political capital he would ever have, rather than ramming through what he wanted and picking off 1 or 2 GOP senators, he engaged the GOP, let the ACA start to stink like fish and in '10 did what should have happened anyways, ramming through the ACA.

 

End result was a GOP healthcare bill with 0 GOP votes

Again, it's not bipartisan to ask the other side to agree with you when they've made it clear that they dont.

 

If the GOP passes a law banning abortion and asks Dems to sign onto it and vote for it, and they dont, the GOP cant then claim they tried to be bipartisan.

 

The ACA was ALWAYS a non starter for the GOP as a whole.  They opposed it completely.  Any attempt to offer them concessions to make it palatable were useless.  They were opposed to it.

[Switchgear]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

Pin what on him?  From your article-  In the House, that lesson was not applicable this time; Eric Cantor and House Republicans had already made it crystal clear that they were not cooperating under any circumstances.

 

That's exactly what I'm saying.  The GOP didnt want Obamacare no matter how it was planned, packaged or presented.  Obama didnt even try with the House.  And the few that did give it a try in the Senate soon realized it was a folly.  That's not an attempt at bipartisanship.

 

Much like what will happen with the Infrastructure proposal.  We already have people here saying the Dems shouldnt support it because they dont like it.  That's fine.  But it will be a load of crap if Trump and his cohorts later come out and say they tried the bipartisan approach because they offered the chance to the Dems to agree with them. 

 

 

You started out with "Obama didn't try to work with the GOP". I'm showing you how wrong that is. He wanted single payer, but was willing to compromise on the individual mandate, which if you'll read the article, was an idea proposed by conservatives just a few years before. That's the definition of working with someone. Getting them involved in writing the legislation so they would support it... That's not a refusal to work with someone.

 

Telling someone that no matter what they do, you'll oppose it (like Eric Cantor) or telling everyone involved that it's going to ruin their future (like Mitch McConnell), that's refusing to work with someone.

 

You're essentially saying that by proposing a middle ground solution to an acknowledged problem, and trying to gather support from across the aisle, Obama was refusing to work with Republicans. Come on, man.

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

Again, it's not bipartisan to ask the other side to agree with you when they've made it clear that they dont.

 

If the GOP passes a law banning abortion and asks Dems to sign onto it and vote for it, and they dont, the GOP cant then claim they tried to be bipartisan.

 

The ACA was ALWAYS a non starter for the GOP as a whole.  They opposed it completely.  Any attempt to offer them concessions to make it palatable were useless.  They were opposed to it.

As mentioned above, a couple conservative senators were involved in the process

Quote

What became clear before September, when the talks fell apart, is that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had warned both Grassley and Enzi that their futures in the Senate would be much dimmer if they moved toward a deal with the Democrats that would produce legislation to be signed by Barack Obama.

 Then they were warned not to work with Obama. How can you read that any other way? One side refused to work with the other. You can't work with someone who refuses to work with you, no matter what. You can't blame Obama for that.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, Switchgear said:

 

You started out with "Obama didn't try to work with the GOP". I'm showing you how wrong that is. He wanted single payer, but was willing to compromise on the individual mandate, which if you'll read the article, was an idea proposed by conservatives just a few years before. That's the definition of working with someone. Getting them involved in writing the legislation so they would support it... That's not a refusal to work with someone.

 

Telling someone that no matter what they do, you'll oppose it (like Eric Cantor) or telling everyone involved that it's going to ruin their future (like Mitch McConnell), that's refusing to work with someone.

 

You're essentially saying that by proposing a middle ground solution to an acknowledged problem, and trying to gather support from across the aisle, Obama was refusing to work with Republicans. Come on, man.

Again, the GOP didnt want it at ALL.  It didnt matter what Obama offered, they opposed it.

 

Use the Abortion example if it makes it easy to see the reverse.  If the GOP passed anti abortion laws, but allowed for day after pills as a compromise, would that be an example of trying to work with the Dems?  Of course not.  

 

There was no middle ground for the GOP regarding the ACA.  None.  The opposed it.  End of story.  If the idea of working with the other side is making them accept what they dont want, well Im afraid you'll be singing a different tune when Trump and the GOP start ramming through crazy **** next year.

[Switchgear]

2 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Again, the GOP didnt want it at ALL.  It didnt matter what Obama offered, they opposed it.

 

Use the Abortion example if it makes it easy to see the reverse.  If the GOP passed anti abortion laws, but allowed for day after pills as a compromise, would that be an example of trying to work with the Dems?  Of course not.  

 

There was no middle ground for the GOP regarding the ACA.  None.  The opposed it.  End of story.  If the idea of working with the other side is making them accept what they dont want, well Im afraid you'll be singing a different tune when Trump and the GOP start ramming through crazy **** next year.

 

Yes, that's right. No matter what Obama proposed, they were going to say no. And yet you're putting it on Obama for not working with them. Do you see the disconnect?

[Kilmer17]

2 hours ago, Switchgear said:

 

Yes, that's right. No matter what Obama proposed, they were going to say no. And yet you're putting it on Obama for not working with them. Do you see the disconnect?

No.  I'm putting on the left for claiming that Obama tried.  It was bs from the start.  

 

The GOP was never going to come on board.  So stop pretending that he tried his best.  That's a lie. He knew they weren't coming on board.