Schumer disses Dems' prioritization of Obamacare over jobs

[boomerang]

Why now? Maybe I should ask, why at all? Greasing the wheels for a Hillary run? Trying to give the impression of a move towards the center? Seems kind of early for that.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/schumers-obamacare-mea-culpa-1416960209

The Senator called the law a distraction from the “middle-class-oriented programs” his party should have pursued after 2008: “Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem: health-care reform.”
Mr. Schumer said he still supported the entitlement’s goals, but “it wasn’t the change we were hired to make. Americans were crying out for the end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs.” We’re glad he’s finally taking our advice from 2009-2010.

This mea culpa is especially notable because it suggests the wall of implacable liberal opposition to reopening the health-care debate is starting to crack. Democrats have heretofore refused to acknowledge any failing in the law beyond the website rollout fiasco. Endangered Democratic incumbents tried to hold that line this year, and five of them will soon be unemployed.

 

[finglobes]

Schumer is a sociopath. Lets not forget he casued a run on the banks to help kick off the financial crisis of 2008 (just before the election - no accident)

How Chuck Schumer Caused the Second Largest Bank Failure in US History
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25654303

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

For me it's not Obamacare which is the issue so much as it was the wrong effort which needed to be made. Sending jobs overseas, the middle class shrinking in spite of all the partisan praise for increasing numbers, that people did and do fear that if they lose their job they will never possible find a like income position, increasingly poor working conditions and on and on.

The usual response is "THE REPUBLICANS!" Ok, the Republicans suck. Precisely how much effort compared to Obamacare was even put forward for the Republicans to oppose? Not much, and that's Schumer's point. Unfortunately for the Democrats they figured that out years too late and they took a beating in large part due to that.

 

[theeedude]

Like Jon Stewart said, after losing an election because they stand for nothing, the Democrats decided to stand for even less.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Like Jon Stewart said, after losing an election because they stand for nothing, the Democrats decided to stand for even less.

In my opinion it became more important to be seen doing something than actually considering what ought to be done and how. It's a grand thing to want something, but it's not served well by putting political considerations and ego above reason and considered action. Of course that's not just them as it's been the Republican shortcoming for some time.

Unfortunately there are no real options and both parties know it. We get the crumbs we're tossed.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, uhh, the ACA is a failure because Dems should have done something else first back in 2009-2010?

Why does that follow?

I'll agree with Schumer that Dems should have done it differently, no doubt. Obama's first hundred days should have been like Roosevelt's with flurries of legislative action that would have made Righties squeal like stuck pigs.

I kinda doubt that's really what the OP wanted at the time. It's just another opportunity to tear down the opposition.

 

[Matt1970]

Sounds like he finally gets it. When unemployment was being reported at 10.2%, do you need jobs or do you need your healthcare reformed?

 

[ivwshane]

Sounds like he finally gets it. When unemployment was being reported at 10.2%, do you need jobs or do you need your healthcare reformed?

Lol, what came first Matt? The stimulus package the republicans didn't want to make bigger or the healthcare bill the republicans didn't want? Careful answering, I wouldn't want you to make a complete ass of yourself...again!

 

[theeedude]

What exactly does Schumer think Obama should have done instead of ACA?
Republicans believe in tax cuts. When they get in power, they pass tax cuts immediately. They don't say, it's better if we did something else, they pass tax cuts. Even if it creates a massive deficit, they pass tax cuts. Even if the country is in the middle of the war that we need to raise taxes to pay for, Republicans pass tax cuts.
Democrats believe in universal health care coverage and progressive agenda. Democrat elected officials better move that agenda forward and fight for it, because if they abdicate or run away from it, the Democrat voters will just sit at home and let those officials lose elections. Schumer still doesn't get that. This is why Democrats lost big to Republicans in the middle of a massive economic recovery under a Democrat president from a recession caused by Republicans. The Democrats adopt the narrative of their opponents, or they run away and talk about everything other than what Democrats should be talking about. And if you do that, why would anyone bother showing up to elect you if you don't bother showing up for them?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What exactly does Schumer think Obama should have done instead of ACA?
Republicans believe in tax cuts. When they get in power, they pass tax cuts immediately. They don't say, it's better if we did something else, they pass tax cuts. Even if it creates a massive deficit, they pass tax cuts. Even if the country is in the middle of the war that we need to raise taxes to pay for, Republicans pass tax cuts.
Democrats believe in universal health care coverage and progressive agenda. Democrat elected officials better move that agenda forward and fight for it, because if they abdicate or run away from it, the Democrat voters will just sit at home and let those officials lose elections. Schumer still doesn't get that. This is why Democrats lost big to Republicans in the middle of a massive economic recovery under a Democrat president from a recession caused by Republicans. The Democrats adopt the narrative of their opponents, or they run away and talk about everything other than what Democrats should be talking about. And if you do that, why would anyone bother showing up to elect you if you don't bother showing up for them?

You skip from Schumer thinks to Republicans entirely skipping the Democrats. People were and are more concerned about getting and keeping good jobs than obamacare. Nothing much was done and the idea of stimulus as solution is laughable. This is not about Republicans but the Democrats who didn't think or listen. Consequently people didn't show up for Democrats because the Democrats didn't show up for them. Now people can and will start with "but the Republicans" because its inconceivable to them that they failed to address nothing but their agenda, not that of their constituents, but that's SOP.

 

[sportage]

Like Jon Stewart said, after losing an election because they stand for nothing, the Democrats decided to stand for even less.

Democrats were disgusting clots for sure.
What we had were a basket of so called blue dog democrats.
Just as when ACA Obamacare passed.
No public option. Under the table deals. Votes for sale.

Big mistake to run away from not only Obamacare, but Obama himself and thus their party.
Lose, lose, and big lose.
One thing GW has taught us, is that the week do not win.
Right or wrong, you stick to the game plan, or face the consequences.

A strong president, like LBJ, would have done ACA right, been involved up front, and twisted arms.
Kicked those blue dogs in their blue balls.

But Obama? Naw.
He sat it out, which was weird considering his name is now so attached to ACA.

Just imagine if an LBJ or even an Richard Nixon had been in charge during ACA reforms?
Things would be much different, and much better with the end result.

 

[compuwiz1]

Democrats were disgusting clots for sure.
What we had were a basket of so called blue dog democrats.
Just as when ACA Obamacare passed.
No public option. Under the table deals. Votes for sale.

Big mistake to run away from not only Obamacare, but Obama himself and thus their party.
Lose, lose, and big lose.
One thing GW has taught us, is that the week do not win.
Right or wrong, you stick to the game plan, or face the consequences.

A strong president, like LBJ, would have done ACA right, been involved up front, and twisted arms.
Kicked those blue dogs in their blue balls.

But Obama? Naw.
He sat it out, which was weird considering his name is now so attached to ACA.

Just imagine if an LBJ or even an Richard Nixon had been in charge during ACA reforms?
Things would be much different, and much better with the end result.

To me you don't come across as being as partisan as you once were. That's a good thing. There is so much suck in both parties. I think if both parties could have worked together they could have come up with a healthcare plan that both sides could agree on, then get a proper vote on it. I agree there has been some shady deals in the way the ACA was passed and it was just total amateur hour when it was launched and implemented. The true costs and numbers enrolled are yet to be seen too.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

To me you don't come across as being as partisan as you once were. That's a good thing. There is so much suck in both parties. I think if both parties could have worked together they could have come up with a healthcare plan that both sides could agree on, then get a proper vote on it. I agree there has been some shady deals in the way the ACA was passed and it was just total amateur hour when it was launched and implemented. The true costs and numbers enrolled are yet to be seen too.

You seem to have missed the point. The major concern wasn't health care but "job care". Downsizing, losing jobs to overseas, wage disparity, the very existence of a middle class was what people were mostly concerned with. Through the entire " recovery ", all that supporters focus on are percentage points in hiring, while skilled people are worked to death and if they are in their 40's or 50's and lose that job they might as well drop dead because their chance of being rehired at like wages and not be ruined aren't great. The Republicans are fine with that and the Democrats don't do a damned thing but stick to obamacare and ignore the real fears and concerns. We're redundant, not needed. We're being freed from our livelihoods but while we may lose everything no one cares.

 

[Matt1970]

Lol, what came first Matt? The stimulus package the republicans didn't want to make bigger or the healthcare bill the republicans didn't want? Careful answering, I wouldn't want you to make a complete ass of yourself...again!

Oh gee, one single bill and the whole economy was fixed. Woohoo!!!

 

[Matt1970]

What exactly does Schumer think Obama should have done instead of ACA?
Republicans believe in tax cuts. When they get in power, they pass tax cuts immediately. They don't say, it's better if we did something else, they pass tax cuts. Even if it creates a massive deficit, they pass tax cuts. Even if the country is in the middle of the war that we need to raise taxes to pay for, Republicans pass tax cuts.
Democrats believe in universal health care coverage and progressive agenda. Democrat elected officials better move that agenda forward and fight for it, because if they abdicate or run away from it, the Democrat voters will just sit at home and let those officials lose elections. Schumer still doesn't get that. This is why Democrats lost big to Republicans in the middle of a massive economic recovery under a Democrat president from a recession caused by Republicans. The Democrats adopt the narrative of their opponents, or they run away and talk about everything other than what Democrats should be talking about. And if you do that, why would anyone bother showing up to elect you if you don't bother showing up for them?

You mean the tax cuts that Obama and democrats liked so much they made permanent?

 

[ivwshane]

Oh gee, one single bill and the whole economy was fixed. Woohoo!!!

I knew you couldn't help yourself! You just love looking like an ass

Before I school you on the stimulus being "just one bill", are you done moving the goal posts or did you want to qualify your original statement some more? Perhaps you would like to bring up your old tired talking point about how Obama promised us the unemployment rate wouldn't go above 10%?

 

[ivwshane]

You mean the tax cuts that Obama and democrats liked so much they made permanent?

I'll let you look up why your talking point is bullshit.

 

[Matt1970]

I knew you couldn't help yourself! You just love looking like an ass

Before I school you on the stimulus being "just one bill", are you done moving the goal posts or did you want to qualify your original statement some more? Perhaps you would like to bring up your old tired talking point about how Obama promised us the unemployment rate wouldn't go above 10%?

Oh there is an ass here alright, it's the fool backing the people who thought one stimulus bill was enough and it was time to move on. More than one bill you say?

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Pub.L. 111–5), commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, was an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama."

Call it as many bills as you want, less that 2 months in Obama and company claimed mission accomplished with the economy and decided to move on to their agenda, Btw, it was 8%, and it was part of the stimulus proposal.

 

[Matt1970]

I'll let you look up why your talking point is bullshit.

You seem to have a problem with reality.

The first time President Barack Obama tried to revise the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush, he had to settle for a compromise with Republicans in Congress. Obama wanted to extend the rates for lower incomes and repeal them for the wealthy. Republicans wanted to extend them for everybody.

Obama relented in December 2010, agreeing to a two-year extension of all rates. That timetable ran out as the nation neared the fiscal cliff. On Jan. 1, 2013, Congress passed and Obama signed a law permanently extending the Bush-era rates on incomes below $450,000 for families and $400,000 for individuals.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...7/extend-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-lower-incomes/

 

[theeedude]

Democrats were disgusting clots for sure.
What we had were a basket of so called blue dog democrats.
Just as when ACA Obamacare passed.
No public option. Under the table deals. Votes for sale.

Big mistake to run away from not only Obamacare, but Obama himself and thus their party.
Lose, lose, and big lose.
One thing GW has taught us, is that the week do not win.
Right or wrong, you stick to the game plan, or face the consequences.

A strong president, like LBJ, would have done ACA right, been involved up front, and twisted arms.
Kicked those blue dogs in their blue balls.

But Obama? Naw.
He sat it out, which was weird considering his name is now so attached to ACA.

Just imagine if an LBJ or even an Richard Nixon had been in charge during ACA reforms?
Things would be much different, and much better with the end result.

We would always have to do it this way first, before universal single payer. Even if we started later. So it's good that the ball is rolling.

 

[jackstar7]

Opens thread and hopes for Amy Schumer.

Leaves disappointed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We would always have to do it this way first, before universal single payer. Even if we started later. So it's good that the ball is rolling.

Would you rather lose your means to pay the rent, to keep your loved ones sheltered clothed and not find your family on the street or Obamacare? The point yet again is that the Democrats decided they wanted the later.

 

[Moonbeam]

Would you rather lose your means to pay the rent, to keep your loved ones sheltered clothed and not find your family on the street or Obamacare? The point yet again is that the Democrats decided they wanted the later.

Some thought that I have on this, looking back to those times, are that there was a focus then on getting healthcare reform. Democrats put their weight to break down that door. In the mean time the economy collapsed and nobody was prepared. Now you face the issue of momentum in politics. You would like to see a battleship nimbly turn to fire where needed, but when battle plans are laid, and the ship lined up to fire the only vision that's 20 20 is hindsight. Parties are organisms that don't adapt very fast. They are machines and operate on programming. Parties are also mostly male dominated and the male brain is generally single minded in focus. Fuck, I was supposed to take out the trash. Be back later.....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Some thought that I have on this, looking back to those times, are that there was a focus then on getting healthcare reform. Democrats put their weight to break down that door. In the mean time the economy collapsed and nobody was prepared. Now you face the issue of momentum in politics. You would like to see a battleship nimbly turn to fire where needed, but when battle plans are laid, and the ship lined up to fire the only vision that's 20 20 is hindsight. Parties are organisms that don't adapt very fast. They are machines and operate on programming. Parties are also mostly male dominated and the male brain is generally single minded in focus. Fuck, I was supposed to take out the trash. Be back later.....

In have to help with the dishes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sounds like he finally gets it. When unemployment was being reported at 10.2%, do you need jobs or do you need your healthcare reformed?

So you're arguing that the stimulus was too small? Or for tax cuts for people who won't spend the money? Or for the Cut! Cut! mentality of laying off govt workers in the face of massive unemployment?

The vagueness of Right Wing whining is exquisite, particularly considering what they wanted at the time.