General Discussion

Charlemagne

(576 posts)

14. Here is one of those minimizations

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 07:50 PM

Jan 2012

The most prodigious piece of the health care bill was the mandate. A program favored, in the recent past, by both Mitt Romney and Newt (who are republicans). Moreover, the mandate is something that can easily be challenged as unconstitutional. Why make landmark legislation that includes its own undoing? You shouldnt make it easy for them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama deserves 2 terms to have somewhere near a chance to begin to clean up [View all] Ecumenist Jan 2012 OP

If anyone believes that the execution of bin Laden is the ticket to prosperity I have a bridge Citizen Worker Jan 2012 #1

Sorry to burst your bubble but unfortunately, I believe, (and a Ecumenist Jan 2012 #2

I think it's a huge mistake for the Admin to have promoted the killing of bin Laden BlueIris Jan 2012 #16

It took FDR four terms and a war to get the job done and we expect Obama to do it in one. jwirr Jan 2012 #3

Thank youm which is exactly what I was saying about the "capture" of bin ladin. Ecumenist Jan 2012 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author Ecumenist Jan 2012 #5

That's a lie. The New Deal was in FDR's FIRST TERM. He was re-elected because people LOVED HIM! Edweird Jan 2012 #8

Well you may see it that way - tell me are you old enough to remember - I am. jwirr Jan 2012 #10

So are you denying that the New Deal was in his first term? That's FACT not opinion. Edweird Jan 2012 #11

FDR also had 377 House seats and 73 senators. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #18

2006 and 2008 saw wins by Dems and a significant majority - which Obama pissed away on RW policy. Edweird Jan 2012 #20

He had 49 days at most to "do great things." joshcryer Jan 2012 #21

2010 went the way it did because of policy decisions by Obama. He chose RW policy Edweird Jan 2012 #23

Teabaggers got out 9% more voters than we did. joshcryer Jan 2012 #28

You know, it is quite misleading to pretend that 258 house seats and 58-60 senate seats is at all BzaDem Jan 2012 #29

No but for it all to come together took more time than to get it passed. Everyone did not recover jwirr Jan 2012 #25

But it did not take FDR 4 terms to accomplish it as you claimed. Edweird Jan 2012 #26

It took a Congress that Obama didn't even come remotely close to having. n/t BzaDem Jan 2012 #30

If he hadn't pissed away his majority advocating the RW individual mandate 2010 could have easily Edweird Jan 2012 #32

You are missing my point. I'm saying the FIRST Congress Obama had wasn't even remotely close to what BzaDem Jan 2012 #35

I'm saying that Obama had a significant majority to start with and could have added to it Edweird Jan 2012 #47

...and Obama got more people access to health care (kids and PC) in his first term but... uponit7771 Jan 2012 #13

Here is one of those minimizations Charlemagne Jan 2012 #14

Oh yeah - the RW individual mandate. Which Candidate Obama CAMPAIGNED AGAINST! Edweird Jan 2012 #19

Candidate Obama never ruled out mandates. Progressive economicists said it was needed. joshcryer Jan 2012 #22

No, it wasn't. Edweird Jan 2012 #24

Poll: Majority Now Support The Individual Mandate joshcryer Jan 2012 #27

Whether that's the case or not, it's still RW policy, not necessary, and nowhere near as popular as Edweird Jan 2012 #31

Medicare absolutely has an individual mandate. So does Canada. BzaDem Jan 2012 #33

It is funded through taxes - that is the opposite of an 'individual mandate'. Edweird Jan 2012 #37

A mandate is a mandate regardless of how it is funded. Either the healthy are forced to participate, BzaDem Jan 2012 #39

It is simple. So simple that your lies are embarrassingly transparent. Edweird Jan 2012 #41

LOL, Medicare is taxed. It's a mandate. joshcryer Jan 2012 #34

Yeah, uh, tax funded social programs are the opposite of the 'individual mandate'. Edweird Jan 2012 #36

I'll ask again: Assume for the sake of argument that Bernie Sanders was correct, when he said that BzaDem Jan 2012 #38

We ALREADY HAVE SINGLE PAYER - it's called Medicare. Edweird Jan 2012 #40

Do I really need to spell it out? Assume for the sake of argument that Single payer FOR ALL would BzaDem Jan 2012 #42

Except for the glaring FACT that there is no need to ASSUME anything. Edweird Jan 2012 #45

Wow that guy has got it all down! treestar Jan 2012 #6

I know, right? He's hilarious.... Ecumenist Jan 2012 #9

his name is Charlemagne Jan 2012 #15

Love the walk to and from the podium. AtomicKitten Jan 2012 #7

Yeah , me too. Ecumenist Jan 2012 #12

I really enjoy your posts Ecumenist, keep up the good fight! joshcryer Jan 2012 #17

Awww, thank you JoshCryer...I appreciate it ..ALOT!! Ecumenist Jan 2012 #43

It will be a choice between Obama and Romney... kentuck Jan 2012 #44

Plus, we still have a few freedoms left NorthCarolina Jan 2012 #46