General Discussion

karynnj

(60,854 posts)

118. LBJ would have had 60 votes because the Democrats had 68 Senators in 1964!

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 01:49 PM

Oct 2013

Not to mention there was an underlying liberal movement in those years. He also had a huge margin in the House. Still it was a challenge to pass the Civil Rights bill - an issue that cut across party lines with many Dixiecrats being the worst of the bunch. LBJ greatly increased the social safety network and he fought for all those bills.

However, even with 68 Senators, there were things he did not even attempt to pass because he could count votes - just as the Democrats did in 2010! You might note that he passed Medicare -- which helped only the elderly. If he had so little trouble passing anything, why did LBJ not go directly to Medicare for everyone?

Answer - it would not have had the votes!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

232 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Robert Reich: Obama Should Have Gone With a Comprehensive Public Insurance Plan [View all] kpete Oct 2013 OP

And it would have been unquestionably constitutional. n/t lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #1

That was back in the President's "Can't we all just get along" days. russspeakeasy Oct 2013 #2

Yup. We can thank him, and Max Baucus, the Blue Dogs and truebluegreen Oct 2013 #5

Don't forget DINO Ben Nelson and his abortion antics, nt geek tragedy Oct 2013 #7

As much as we wished that Lincoln, Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Olympia Snowe geek tragedy Oct 2013 #3

I think RR's point is that, as President, he should have insisted on a much more progressive bill. Dawgs Oct 2013 #8

Do you think that he could have persuaded Lieberman or Collins? karynnj Oct 2013 #11

If he would have started with something more progressive, absolutely. Dawgs Oct 2013 #48

Lieberman specifically rejected Medicare for those over 55 karynnj Oct 2013 #54

Of course he did. Obama had absolutely no leverage. Dawgs Oct 2013 #59

It's certainly possible he could have done more to sideline Baucus, but geek tragedy Oct 2013 #65

So, then why did we elect Obama if Baucus, Lieberman, and others were going to design ALL policy? Dawgs Oct 2013 #71

He mishandled a lot of it. There are about 1000 scenarios as far as how this could have geek tragedy Oct 2013 #74

10/1000 with a weak President. Much higher with a stronger one. n/t Dawgs Oct 2013 #92

Sigh. You're way to obsessed with the idea that the President is a national daddy geek tragedy Oct 2013 #94

Sigh. All I wanted was for him to try. Instead, he left it up to the blue dogs. n/t Dawgs Oct 2013 #96

+1 That's the game. woo me with science Oct 2013 #114

Woo, this should be pinned to the top of the page. How they play us. And the SUCKERS who fall for it chimpymustgo Oct 2013 #170

That doesn't even make sense. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #157

So you're admitting that he's worthless when it comes to policy then. Nice to know. n/t Dawgs Nov 2013 #194

No, he's neither powerless nor omnipotent. nt geek tragedy Nov 2013 #195

Too late. You've already said he has to leave policy up to Congress. Can't take it back now. n/t Dawgs Nov 2013 #198

Yes, I made the remarkable observation that when it comes to passing geek tragedy Nov 2013 #199

I know exactly know you meant, and I'm not surprised one bit. At least you're consistent. n/t Dawgs Nov 2013 #200

Yes, I understand how government actually works, as opposed to geek tragedy Nov 2013 #201

Except I never said, or don't believe, that Presidents make shit happen. Dawgs Nov 2013 #209

In your view, how does a bill become a law? nt geek tragedy Nov 2013 #210

What does that have to with Obama not pushing for something more progressive than the ACA? Dawgs Nov 2013 #213

Obama did push for a public option, and also lowering the Medicare age was put on geek tragedy Nov 2013 #214

Sorry. I'm starting this argument over again. Look at my previous posts if want an answer. n/t Dawgs Nov 2013 #215

Yes, your answer is that you would have done a much better job. geek tragedy Nov 2013 #216

He got something done... Drunken Irishman Nov 2013 #186

That's how I remember it. mountain grammy Oct 2013 #77

Yes, just like other Dem President's have made it clear to their party sabrina 1 Oct 2013 #181

Problem was Lieberscum kept on moving the goalposts. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #14

Romneycare + PO was hardly "extreme". It was more like center-left. Dawgs Oct 2013 #53

No, it wasn't extreme. But the problem was the math in the Senate, which made geek tragedy Oct 2013 #57

See post #59. n/t Dawgs Oct 2013 #61

He did not allow single payer advocates to sit at the table and discuss health insurance reform JDPriestly Oct 2013 #63

+1000.. whathehell Nov 2013 #192

Exactly. cui bono Oct 2013 #113

I think there would be great value today if a beter plan had been advocated by Obama, even if Bluenorthwest Oct 2013 #10

the plan advocated by Obama was better than what passed, but geek tragedy Oct 2013 #15

Straight out of the gate? zipplewrath Oct 2013 #49

That was the plan he campaigned on--it was based on the plan geek tragedy Oct 2013 #55

He campaigned on a strong public option and his oppostion to individual mandates. Bluenorthwest Oct 2013 #69

The individual mandate stuff was a counterattack against Hillary after geek tragedy Oct 2013 #73

'Kay, but zipplewrath Oct 2013 #133

The plan as it started was fairly centrist, with a few sprinklings of geek tragedy Oct 2013 #135

Heritage Foundation zipplewrath Oct 2013 #138

If you haven't picked up on the GOP's game (including Lieberman and Heritage) when geek tragedy Oct 2013 #144

Still trying to see how Lincoln et. al. drove Obama to pick this up zipplewrath Oct 2013 #145

You have sourcing for the claim that Heritage secretly liked Obamacare? geek tragedy Oct 2013 #150

Closest I've found zipplewrath Nov 2013 #207

Professor Krugman is mistaken as you can clearly see from reading the geek tragedy Nov 2013 #208

And this is due to Lincoln et. al. zipplewrath Nov 2013 #211

Huh? Krugman's main complaint with Obama's plan geek tragedy Nov 2013 #212

But you said zipplewrath Nov 2013 #228

If I said that the conservative document was originated by Lincoln & Co geek tragedy Nov 2013 #229

The Obama Administration had TONS of "leverage" that went unused. bvar22 Oct 2013 #127

nice conspiracy theory, wherein every shitty thing that any geek tragedy Oct 2013 #129

No. It is called "politics", bvar22 Oct 2013 #131

Lincoln got the endorsement in exchange for voting for the ACA itself. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #132

Excuses, excuses, excuses,...and more excuses. bvar22 Oct 2013 #136

Congress is a coequal branch of government. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #141

from woo's excellent post #114 questionseverything Oct 2013 #137

Greenwald, the Libertarian, is lying about the Dems. pnwmom Oct 2013 #163

reconciliation bypasses filibuster questionseverything Oct 2013 #168

Laws passed by reconciliation also only lasts a decade. jeff47 Oct 2013 #174

Excellent dreamnightwind Oct 2013 #143

Lieberman took one for the Connecticut insurance industry. pnwmom Oct 2013 #164

When the Dem leadership wants unity, they can get it. sabrina 1 Oct 2013 #146

When Dem leadership gets unity, they thank their lucky stars. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #151

When the leadership is on the page as the Blue Dogs, when they sabrina 1 Oct 2013 #173

So do you agree that the Blue Dog Democrats are the scourge of the Party? nm rhett o rick Oct 2013 #179

This is a revisionist meme; he wouldn't even let single payer advocates into the original meetings: grahamhgreen Nov 2013 #190

Single payer was never on the table. Wasn't during the campaign either. nt geek tragedy Nov 2013 #193

That's the point. It is the better idea and would have avoided all the blowback the admin is grahamhgreen Nov 2013 #220

It's a goal, but going cold turkey for single payer was not plausible. geek tragedy Nov 2013 #221

Well, it's actually what most of Americans want, so it would have happened, IMHO, but I can agree on grahamhgreen Nov 2013 #231

Bait and switch. woo me with science Oct 2013 #4

Surrrre BeyondGeography Oct 2013 #6

It did not have 60 votes in the Senate - and was not going to get 60 votes because of Lieberman, karynnj Oct 2013 #9

The public option was very popular in polls, and public opinion woo me with science Oct 2013 #12

Do you really think one Republican would have been swayed by the public opinion numbers? karynnj Oct 2013 #16

Defeatism is *always* the argument. The truth is that woo me with science Oct 2013 #20

Now you're using Cruz's "surrender caucus" language! geek tragedy Oct 2013 #26

... woo me with science Oct 2013 #29

If the jester's hat fits . . . nt geek tragedy Oct 2013 #30

It would have been a very high stakes risk karynnj Oct 2013 #41

No, it would not have been a risk. woo me with science Oct 2013 #43

Yes it was a risk karynnj Oct 2013 #50

From the very beginning, of course. The country *already* polled in support of a public option, woo me with science Oct 2013 #112

Absolutely correct. cui bono Oct 2013 #121

But I heard Putin stopped us from invading Syria. JoePhilly Oct 2013 #45

Nope and we didn't get those votes anyway so fuck em. TheKentuckian Oct 2013 #80

"public opinion could have been mobilized to change those numbers" geek tragedy Oct 2013 #17

Unattainable? The power of public opinion = See Syria n/t leftstreet Oct 2013 #21

Puh-leaze. Syria resolution never stood a chance of passing Congress-- geek tragedy Oct 2013 #22

Public opinion forced the WH to go to Congress leftstreet Oct 2013 #25

There was a ton of debate over the public option. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #27

There was? YoungDemCA Nov 2013 #217

You remember incompletely. geek tragedy Nov 2013 #219

Methinks you are dealing with the "last word" rule. woo me with science Oct 2013 #34

I win! leftstreet Oct 2013 #37

Nah uh! woo me with science Oct 2013 #47

+1 zeemike Oct 2013 #79

+10000 Corporatists loudly support policies that help the 99 percent woo me with science Oct 2013 #35

In hindsight, I think it was Obama buying time while keeping the pressure on karynnj Oct 2013 #88

That was NOT public opinion karynnj Oct 2013 #87

LOL n/t leftstreet Oct 2013 #89

You are aware that he did go to Libya karynnj Oct 2013 #100

UK & US citizens said NO! leftstreet Oct 2013 #104

"no one cares" -- rather presumptuous to assume that karynnj Oct 2013 #115

Quite the opposite leftstreet Oct 2013 #123

However, there is NO cause and effect that you can prove karynnj Oct 2013 #126

Just like it stopped the strikes on Lybia!!!! jeff47 Oct 2013 #176

The Republicans just shut down the government, against the vast majority of public opinion. jeff47 Oct 2013 #175

Funny how that works though. zeemike Oct 2013 #75

On what did Bush not have the votes? karynnj Oct 2013 #86

that is such a tired argument. liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #185

Of course. I don't see a lot of health insurance CEOs whining and moaning about the ACA. jsr Oct 2013 #13

Du rec xchrom Oct 2013 #18

So, the most popular excuse today is the Lieberman/Baucus/Nelson BS. Egalitarian Thug Oct 2013 #19

+1. SammyWinstonJack Oct 2013 #23

There's this thing called "elections" you should learn about. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #24

And here we are again. You ignore what was written and argue against a point Egalitarian Thug Oct 2013 #31

You're ignoring the role of the filibuster, because it destroys geek tragedy Oct 2013 #33

No, I'm not. But if you just keep inventing stuff to argue about long enough, people might forget Egalitarian Thug Oct 2013 #38

You falsely claimed that the role of Lieberman, Baucus, and Nelson geek tragedy Oct 2013 #40

You've corrected nothing, and all you've done is argue with yourself over points Egalitarian Thug Oct 2013 #52

Here we go again.... beerandjesus Oct 2013 #42

Blaming Obama for the fact that 60 votes were required to geek tragedy Oct 2013 #46

You legitimize the tea baggers by aping their tactics. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #51

LBJ had 68 Democrats in the Senate. nt geek tragedy Oct 2013 #60

That doesn't excuse calling DUers tea-baggers beerandjesus Oct 2013 #62

It's not calling them Teabaggers. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #68

In the real world, it is not an ideology-free term. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #76

Are you denying that there are Firebaggers? nt geek tragedy Oct 2013 #78

Yes. Because you're using the same slander in the term "Firebagger" as you are in the term "ODS". beerandjesus Oct 2013 #84

Well, if you insist that every single critic of Obama from the left geek tragedy Oct 2013 #90

So you might as well call them racists? beerandjesus Oct 2013 #93

I accused no one here of being a racist. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #95

Indeed we do. But you DID call them racist. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #98

The people who call for Obama's impeachment or compare him to Hitler geek tragedy Oct 2013 #101

Then don't call them racist by lumping them in with the racist right. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #105

You're the one insisting that ODS means racist. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #107

I already refuted that "point". beerandjesus Oct 2013 #108

You cited urban dictionary as exemplifying external reality. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #109

I cited urban dictionary as the first thing that comes up when you Google ODS. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #110

ODS is a lot more common on the right. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #111

We're all allies here. I don't understand why slander is such an important tool in your arsenal. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #116

Wow leftstreet Oct 2013 #97

Hahaha! My pleasure... that's why I find the epithet so infuriating. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #99

They know those get hidden leftstreet Oct 2013 #103

I've been tempted to start flagging posts that accuse DUers of ODS. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #106

Well Done! bvar22 Oct 2013 #159

LBJ would have had 60 votes because the Democrats had 68 Senators in 1964! karynnj Oct 2013 #118

Thank you for making the point without saying "ODS"! beerandjesus Oct 2013 #119

Your welcome, I have always thought the "X" syndromes response no matter who X was is bullying karynnj Oct 2013 #120

I strive for your serenity! beerandjesus Oct 2013 #122

+1 liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #189

agreed gopiscrap Oct 2013 #28

I agree, though we might still be mired in debate over it ... Auggie Oct 2013 #32

Yes - Dems "win" only when they implement RepublCON plans... polichick Oct 2013 #36

But, but, but...we won!!1 progressoid Oct 2013 #39

Too Willing to Compromise gussmith Oct 2013 #44

There's no way that Medicare for all could reward politician-stockholders who voted for the ACA. AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #56

Obama should have gone with single payer ProSense Oct 2013 #58

I also remember the ads that liberal groups began to run to pressure Blue Dogs... polichick Oct 2013 #64

It didn't pass, and frankly this is a colossal waste of time. ProSense Oct 2013 #67

It's a RepubliCON plan - Medicare for all would be the Dem plan. polichick Oct 2013 #70

It's the law, and "would be" isn't going to get people coverage in January. n/t ProSense Oct 2013 #72

So is medicare. zeemike Oct 2013 #82

Yeah, ProSense Oct 2013 #83

It will never happen unless Democrats try to make it happen zeemike Oct 2013 #130

+1 leftstreet Oct 2013 #91

That's OK, we designed the plan to do that. jeff47 Nov 2013 #202

Well, the sooner the better - it's way past time to join the civilized world. polichick Nov 2013 #205

One in which you invest heavily zipplewrath Oct 2013 #134

What the hell are you talking about? Here's something more important ProSense Oct 2013 #139

You call it a colassal waste of time zipplewrath Oct 2013 #142

I want this guy as President. nt Demo_Chris Oct 2013 #66

Of course. Cleita Oct 2013 #81

I totally agree with Reich, but...... ReRe Oct 2013 #85

Yep... WillyT Oct 2013 #102

How was he supposed to overcome Lieberman and the 60 vote requirement? pnwmom Oct 2013 #117

Maybe if he had worked as hard for a Public Option... bvar22 Oct 2013 #149

Give me a break. Lieberman wouldn't have budged. pnwmom Oct 2013 #153

Lieberman "took one" for Team DLC by playing Judas in the Kabuki Theater. bvar22 Oct 2013 #161

Lieberman was NOT a Dem. And the only group that controlled him pnwmom Oct 2013 #165

What do you not understand? bvar22 Oct 2013 #171

reposted from woo questionseverything Oct 2013 #152

Yes, Greenwald does spout a lot of woo. n/t pnwmom Oct 2013 #155

the point is all we needed questionseverything Oct 2013 #160

Greenwald was wrong. Lieberman voted against cloture pnwmom Oct 2013 #162

reconciliation bypasses the filibuster questionseverything Oct 2013 #166

They couldn't bypass the cloture vote. Reconciliation bypasses the filibuster pnwmom Oct 2013 #167

http://www.ehow.com/info_7954864_budget-reconciliation-definition.html questionseverything Oct 2013 #169

Reconciliation bills also can not last more than 10 years. jeff47 Nov 2013 #203

link pls questionseverything Nov 2013 #222

Can't find Wikipedia yourself? jeff47 Nov 2013 #223

frm your wiki link questionseverything Nov 2013 #224

"Increase the Deficit" means "Increase Spending" jeff47 Nov 2013 #225

because if dems actually promoted policies that helped questionseverything Nov 2013 #226

Would it have separated the deathhold employers have over their Rex Oct 2013 #124

+1 Couldn't agree more! B Calm Nov 2013 #191

+2 madrchsod Nov 2013 #227

Also... kentuck Oct 2013 #125

With all due respect, Mr. Reich, you go out and whip the votes. Arkana Oct 2013 #128

Exactly! Armchair quarterbacking is always so effective ;) arthritisR_US Oct 2013 #140

If Reich can get 60 votes in the Senate to overcome an almost-certain filibuster Arkana Oct 2013 #147

Wish more blokes would remember this because reality does interfere with arthritisR_US Oct 2013 #148

of course no one else.. stillcool Oct 2013 #154

well, they DID try, but got the heave-ho MisterP Oct 2013 #172

Obama has less political will than any president in my lifetime Doctor_J Oct 2013 #156

Newsflash for Reich: It wouldn't have passed both houses. His is bullshit 20/20 hindsight criticism. ancianita Oct 2013 #158

So Reich can't count to 60. The good news is the ACA gets us to the same end jeff47 Oct 2013 #177

Obama's Paymasters On Wall Street Call The Shots. blkmusclmachine Oct 2013 #178

This presumes that Congress would have gone along with it. Jesus, while we're wishing.... NYC_SKP Oct 2013 #180

k&r idwiyo Nov 2013 #182

exactly. Obama was too accommodating because he was trying to avoid a fight. Well he got one anyway. liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #183

The only way single payer will be possible is state by state eridani Nov 2013 #184

I do not believe that. Wages are down. Inflation is up. Costs of rent, college, groceries, liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #187

If that was true, we wouldn't be in this situation. jeff47 Nov 2013 #204

believe whatever you want. I disagree. liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #232

NO SH** Skittles Nov 2013 #188

I absolutely agree.... but.... Adrahil Nov 2013 #196

American Exceptionalism In A Bad Way colsohlibgal Nov 2013 #197

yep, of course this should have been pursued quinnox Nov 2013 #206

Meh, shoulda woulda coulda Prism Nov 2013 #218

And Reich shouldn't have peddled NAFTA Skidmore Nov 2013 #230