General Discussion

Edweird

(8,570 posts)

19. Oh yeah - the RW individual mandate. Which Candidate Obama CAMPAIGNED AGAINST!

Reply to uponit7771 (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 09:55 PM

Jan 2012

Then in 2010, surprise surprise, the Dems suddenly lost support....

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