I ask all you Obama doubters out there..

[busterbrown]

Name me one piece of progressive legislation which has come out of the White House since 1980...
almost 34 yrs.?

The Affordable Healthcare Act is the most significant piece of progressive healthcare legislation passed since 1965..

That is enough for me Mr. President for me to call you the most important President of my generation.

Its a shallow start. .. But its a start and will inevitably be the beginning of the process which will eventually lead to a Universal Healthcare System.. It’s the first step..... always the hardest.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy

Bush added prescription drug coverage to Medicare, SCHIP was expanded, probably some other things.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. Bush added prescription drug coverage to Medicare??? Are you fucking kidding me? That was

Medicare Part D!! Do you know ANYTHING about Medicare Part D? It is a rip off of seniors!! Nothing about Medicare Part D is progressive!!! I can't even believe you uttered that crap! Shame on you!

[lumpy]

14. YES

[we can do it]

26. +100000

[MannyGoldstein]

32. From a senior's point of view, how is it worse than what they had previously? nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

69. What are you talking about? Obamacare closes the donut whole!! What they

get back are rebates. They get checks in the mail to help them pay for prescription drugs. Do you not know anything about how Obamacare corrects the horror that Bush and the Republicans did to the prescription drug program? Medicare Part D is not only a disaster for seniors, it added billions to our deficit. While Obamacare isn't perfect, it at least closes that gap, reduces the deficit by not OVERPAYING the manufacturers of Medicare devices (such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, etc.)

You really need to learn about Medicare Part D:

http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/medicare_partD_guide/


Changes under Obamacare to Medicare Part D (compares pre-Obamacare "Donut Hole" Part D to Obamacare's closing of the Donut Hole):

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/health-care/fs182-doughnut-hole-reform.pdf


Now, I know you have issues with Obama. I see that clearly from many of your anti-Obama posts, but at least be fair. I may have issues with some of his decisions, too, but I try to be as fair as I can, and at least know as much as I can about the policy.

[G_j]

79. Delete

wrong sub thread

[busterbrown]

5. Also signed the repeal of Leach Bailey...And gave us NAFTA... Please!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Um... I answered the question that you asked.

Perhaps not the question that you actually wanted to ask?

[treestar]

63. And the repeal of the Glass Steagall

all those throwing Obama under the bus over Larry Summers forgot about Clinton, who would have deserved to be thrown under 20 buses compared to Obama.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

71. We have the Corporate Media today due to Clinton's deregulation of the media...

vis-a-vis the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Now Chuckie "Asshole" Todd thinks his job is NOT informing the American people when Republicans blatantly LIE about shit.

Now we have no fucking media. Our Fourth Estate is dead, thanks to Bill Clinton.

And, of course, Bill Clinton was responsible for welfare reform. And as much as I love Joe Biden, his Omnibus Crime Bill also included minimum sentencing for crack cocaine. As long as we're being honest, we have to put some of the blame on other Democrats, including Bill Clinton.

But, I agree. To blame Barack Obama for all of this? He is still dealing with the effects of essentially 20 years of deregulatory policies that were implemented by his precedessors. It's not fair and it's not right.

Never has a jpg image been so on point:

[img][/img]

...and never has a jpg image summed up the essence of an entire presidency.

[ProSense]

8. Wait,

"Bush added prescription drug coverage to Medicare, SCHIP was expanded, probably some other things."

...you think the donut hole was progressive?

This "prescription drug coverage"?

A Serious Drug Problem

By PAUL KRUGMAN

There was a brief flurry of outrage when Congress passed the 2003 Medicare bill. The news media reported on the scandalous vote in the House of Representatives: Republican leaders violated parliamentary procedure, twisted arms and perhaps engaged in bribery to persuade skeptical lawmakers to change their votes in a session literally held in the dead of night.

Later, the media reported on another scandal: it turned out that the administration had deceived Congress about the bill's likely cost.

But the real scandal is what's in the legislation. It's an object lesson in how special interests hold America's health care system hostage.

The new Medicare law subsidizes private health plans, which have repeatedly failed to deliver promised cost savings. It creates an unnecessary layer of middlemen by requiring that the drug benefit be administered by private insurers. The biggest giveaway is to Big Pharma: the law specifically prohibits Medicare from using its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices.

Outside the United States, almost every government bargains over drug prices. And it works: the Congressional Budget Office says that foreign drug prices are 35 to 55 percent below U.S. levels. Even within the United States, Veterans Affairs is able to negotiate discounts of 50 percent or more, far larger than those the Medicare actuary expects the elderly to receive under the new plan.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1

The health care law not only closes the donut hole and strengthened Medicare, but it increased th Medicaid drug rebate percentage is increased to 23.1 percent.

http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Timeline/Timeline.html

The President proposed the same rate for Medicare.

Obama budget is a disaster for drugmakers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670043

Bush was against expanding SCHIP.

Obama Signs Children’s Health Insurance Bill

By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — The House gave final approval on Wednesday to a bill extending health insurance to millions of low-income children, and President Obama signed it this afternoon, in the first of what he hopes will be many steps to guarantee coverage for all Americans.

<...>

The roll call ended a two-year odyssey for the child health legislation, which President George W. Bush adamantly opposed on the ground it would lead to “government-run health care for every American.”

<...>

In a major change, the bill allows states to cover certain legal immigrants — namely, children under 21 and pregnant women — as well as citizens.

Until now, legal immigrants have generally been barred from Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program for five years after they enter the United States. States will now be able to cover those immigrants without the five-year delay.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/politics/05health.html

Low-income state workers begin to gain access to Children’s Health Insurance Program

By Sarah Barr

At least six states have opened their Children’s Health Insurance Program to the kids of low-income state employees, an option that was prohibited until the passage of the 2010 health-care law.

This relatively small step has as its backdrop years of debate over the program, known as CHIP, including concerns that it encourages states — and consumers — to replace private insurance with taxpayer-subsidized coverage.

Now, as a result of the policy change, families of lower-income state workers who have struggled to pay for family coverage can qualify for the program. CHIP, which is jointly financed by the states and the federal government, provides coverage to the uninsured children of families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance.

The federal government had closed that option to most states when CHIP was established in 1997, because of concerns that it might be an easy way for financially strapped states to shift the costs of some public-employee health benefits to the federal government. Federal employees were allowed to enroll their children.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2011/11/04/gIQAeDvotM_story.htm

Long before this Supreme Court decision, through the Affordable Care Act, seniors began to see positive changes in their prescription drug costs, access to preventive health care, and more. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision the following provisions will continue to be provided to seniors:

Medicare Improvements

The ACA contains several important improvements to the Medicare program, many of which are already helping seniors today.

1) Closing the donut hole

a. Medicare Part D covers the cost of medications up to a certain point. Between that point, and a catastrophic coverage threshold, the older adult must pay out of pocket for medication (this gap in coverage is often called the Part D “donut hole”). One in four beneficiaries fall in this gap, and end up paying an average of $3,610 out of pocket on drug expenses.

b. The ACA requires drug manufacturers to reduce prices for Medicare enrollees in the donut hole. Beginning in 2011, brand‐name drug manufacturers must provide a 50% discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for Part D enrollees in the donut hole. By 2013, Medicare will begin to provide an additional discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for enrollees in the donut hole. By 2020, Part D enrollees will be responsible for only 25% of donut hole drug costs.

c. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.

2) Improving senior’s access to preventive medical services

a. Prior to the ACA, Medicare beneficiaries were required to pay a deductible and 20% copay for many preventive health services.

b. The ACA eliminated cost‐sharing for many preventive services and introduced an annual wellness visit for beneficiaries.

c. The ACA also eliminated cost‐sharing for screening services, like mammograms, Pap smears, bone mass measurements, depression screening, diabetes screening, HIV screening and obesity screenings.

d. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.

- more -

http://www.ncpssm.org/Portals/0/pdf/aca-analysis.pdf

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Correction: SCHIP was *created* under Clinton, not just expanded.

You don't think that qualifies?

Also, the donut was good (other than being poorly funded), but a hole was certainly missing.

[ProSense]

43. SCHIP was an expansion, and it still excluded some children.

The expansion of Medicaid in the health care law is the biggest since the program was implemented.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. Wikipedia says "created", but why do you think it wasn't progressive legislation,

Which is the question the OP asked?

[ProSense]

46. "Wikipedia says" says expansion of Medicaid, and

I didn't say SCHIP "wasn't progressive."

I said Bush was against its expansion.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. Ah... what I wrote wasn't clear

I didn't mean the Bush had expanded it, sorry.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

83. Manny, the Donut Hole was not good, my friend. Nothing about the Donut Hole

was good, not when prescription drug prices are sky high. Not to mention, companies were overcharging the government for services that didn't cost that much to produce, like electric wheelchairs, and the like, then passing on the costs to seniors.

Nothing about the donut hole is good.

[sheshe2]

16. Oh Manny

that's so very sad that you would give kudos to a Repuke President before our sitting Democratic President.

Shame on you Manny! Shame on you!

[MannyGoldstein]

23. I answered the question that was asked, but

perhaps not the question that you wanted to be asked?

[we can do it]

28. How is ripping off seniors progressive?

too busy fixating on the nsa non-issue?

[MannyGoldstein]

36. How is it a rip off of Seniors

As to the NSA... I suspect that one of us is delusional.

[we can do it]

47. You said it

[frazzled]

17. None of those represents new policy or programs

Just changes to existing programs.

I think the OP is talking about major new policies, and he/she is correct about that. Not since Medicare has there been a new program of magnitude.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. SCHIP wasn't created under Clinton?

Hmmm...

[karynnj]

31. Yeah - but Clinton did very little - This was Kennedy's baby

- it started as Kerry/Kennedy and it copied a MA program. Kennedy then made the changes needed to get Hatch and a small number of Republicans. Once it passed, Clinton did make the decision to fund it in his budget.

[ProSense]

49. Yup!

<...>

Not long before last fall's elections, Mr. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, the junior Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, introduced a bill that proposed paying for health insurance for uninsured children through a tobacco tax, a law that was already in place in their state.

Throughout the fall and into the end of 1996, Mr. Kennedy notified a string of Republican senators in an effort to bring them aboard, among them John H. Chafee of Rhode Island, Mike DeWine of Ohio, John McCain of Arizona and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

The common link among those Republicans, a Democratic aide said, was that ''they had voted against the tobacco lobby in the past and they were open to children's health insurance.''

Mr. Kennedy ultimately teamed with Mr. Hatch, a conservative with whom the liberal from Massachusetts had worked closely in the past and whose Mormon beliefs had made him an ardent foe of tobacco and supporter of children's legislation.

President Clinton picked up on the idea and the growing unpopularity of the tobacco industry gave it surprising political appeal. In mid-May, when the President and Congressional Republicans announced a budget agreement, it included $16 billion over five years for spending on children's health, though how it would be spent was not settled

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/11/us/through-senate-alchemy-tobacco-is-turned-into-gold-for-children-s-health.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

104th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2186

To provide access to health care insurance coverage for children.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

October 1, 1996

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-104s2186is/pdf/BILLS-104s2186is.pdf

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

84. Gosh, I had forgotten about that. Even I am really good on social policy...

...as I have a background in that. And even I had forgotten about how the Kennedy's championed this initiative. Thanks for the reminder.

[frazzled]

35. Yes, but essentially an expansion of Medicaid ...

to qualifying children. At least at least in most states. (Some states do set up their own programs, but many administer it through Medicare/Medicaid.)

[Rex]

3. Is an Obama doubter someone that doubts Obama 100% of the time?

I realize you are using nice words here...but wouldn't that be more along the lines of hate?

[busterbrown]

6. You got it... But I didn’t want to waste time on the “Hater” angle they would have pounced on.

[Rex]

54. Just curious.

nt.

[demwing]

34. Would that make you feel better?

to describe opposition Dems as haters, rather than doubters?

It's easier to ignore and disrespect someone when they're a hater. Hate is mindless.

Doubting, OTOH, implies thought, and while you might disagree with someone whom you acknowledge as thoughtful, you don't normally blatantly mock and dismiss them.

At least, most people don't, and if they do, they feel a little shameful afterward.

[Jamaal510]

4. The doubters should

put some pressure on our friends in Congress, since that is who actually has jurisdiction over making laws. Boehner and co. are who is standing in the way of things like single-payer, stricter gun laws, and the end to the Patriot Act.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

85. ...not to mention Jobs bills. But, let's be honest, too. I remember spending most of

the day on the phone with the Kay Hagans and the Mark Pryors of the Democratic Party and begging for a public option. They refused to sign on.

Let's face it: there are obstructionists in the Democratic Party.

I think Obama saw this. I think he knew that he couldn't get a public option through his own party no matter what he did.

More of us should have been calling and demanding the public option rather than bitching on a website or simply being angry at Obama. We didn't help the situation.

Note: By "we," I'm not suggesting specific people; I'm referring to "WE THE PEOPLE".

[Koko Ware]

7. ACA is a Republican written piece of garbage that was an alternate to HillaryCare

and used as a basis.

in my opinion, while the idea is good, but it needs a lot more work. There is a lot of holes in it.

1) optical
2) dental
3) hearing aids

they are key health care issues, and should be covered under ACA. Why buy separate insurance when it should cover all.

I want a full Medicare for All, and the 20% gap reduced to 10%.

And the billionaires taxed heavily to help pay for it. they can afford it.

[busterbrown]

10. Stated it was a “shallow first step”..

But the most important step since 1965..

[liberal_at_heart]

59. It is an idea that came from republicans, you yourself call it a shallow first step, and we are

suppose to hail it as the most important step since 1965?

[busterbrown]

60. Absolutely..

Nothing has come close to this first step. This is a potential game changer..
Millions of uninsured getting insurance and revealed in the past few days. 6 million uninsured will be able to buy healthcare for around $100 a month... Huge...

Average middle of the roader, oblivious to the pluses of good govt. will begin to learn the lies of the right.
As I said a game changer.. .

Name one that is more imp..

[liberal_at_heart]

62. you can think whatever you want. The fact is economic inequality is the largest we've seen in recent

history. Corporations are strangling this country. Insurance companies helped write ACA and are getting guaranteed customers, companies like Monsanto can force farmers to destroy last year's crops just to force them to buy new seed, the TPP which will give companies unlimited powers. Corporations own this country and they will not give up power. ACA will not magically become single payer. If anything insurance companies will continue to lobby for exemptions and allowances. Obama granted the insurance companies a delay in compliance. The American people nor the unions got the luxury of getting any delays or exemptions. Unions just got told they will not get tax credits for their premiums. You don't have to be poor to have a hard time paying premiums. My family's premium is $925/month. Someone down thread said they thought ADA was more significant. If you are just going to insist on an answer on what legislation was more significant in the past few decades I would have to say the ADA.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

89. Fuck that! It's a HUGE step in the right direction, especially for states like CA, NY

and other BLUE states that are beginning to implement the law. It's a GREAT step, too! California, New York, and here in Maryland where I live, thanks to Obamacare, premiums will be cut in half next year. The exchanges have already been implemented and these states have already seen drastic changes in the cost of healthcare, drastic declines in those costs.

Is it as progressive as we want it to be? Hell, no!

But, what are we going to do about it?

Again, I remember sitting on the phone calling conservative Democrats and them saying NO to a public option.

Now, we can blame Obama all we want, but how are we going to get more progressive Democrats elected to Congress who will help us get a public option, at the very least?

And I wanna know if/when you will start to hold the Republicans accountable? Yes, the same Republicans who want to cut billions from food stamps. Yes, the same Republicans who want to cut homelessness programs--I WORK FOR HUD--and divert the money to tax cuts for the wealthy? Yes, those same programs that would rather see people live in poverty and starve on the streets because they hate this black man so much and they hate the fact that his biggest achievement--Obamacare--will start to work for millions of American people next year?

When will you blame Republicans for any of this? When will you blame them for blocking ALL the Jobs bills, transportation-related bills, all the legislation that would have created tens of millions of jobs? When will you blame them? For anything????

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Just because it was designed by the Heritage Foundation

why would you think it's Republican?

[busterbrown]

41. You forgot Mitt.. Surprised..

That it is described as a “piece of shit Legislation”... We will see what happens?
I simply implied that it was a huge step.. especially in the political environment of D.C.

[mick063]

9. I doubt him because there has been better.

It is unfortunate for you and indicative of our times, that he is the most progressive President of your lifetime.

Evidence that we have tried it the "third way", the Clinton way, and it has failed us miserably.


To accept our President's economic ideology is to accept mediocrity at best and growing wealth disparity at worst.

As I said earlier, unfortunate for you, that this is the best you have ever known. Of course you will defend the best you have ever known. This is how bad it has truly become.

Think it is about time to change things?

Not campaign spin "change", but real change?

[busterbrown]

11. And where was everyone in 1981?

[mick063]

15. Did you live 1981?

Were you a coherent adult?

Here is what swept Reagan to power and created the foundation for "Contract with America Congress".....


Three Mile Island
Economic Recession (you should read up on this 1980 event)
Arab oil embargo/Creation of OPEC/Dependence on foreign oil: The "wake up" call.
Iran hostage "crisis" (Every day the national news leading off with "Iran Hostage Crisis: Day XXX)
Disastrous rescue attempt of Iranian hostages.
Well publicized fraud cases within the welfare system.
Soviet Union at the waning height of it's cold war power
Well publicized advent of national level gangs (Bloods/Crypts) and associated "crack" cocaine trade.


These events created a tsunami of backlash against the Democrats in Power.

[busterbrown]

20. Why are you pointing this out?

It was Carter’s fault?.

One thing though.. Carter could have bombed the hell out of Iran and been a national hero to war mongering republicans.. However the Soviet Union was in play big time... Might have presented a small problem..

[mick063]

27. It was a series of unfortunate events.

President Carter could have done little to change them. Those in mid level power became lax in their administration of government services. I am 100% for traditional government services, but they require constant vigilance and maintenance, constant improvement, or we are destined to lose them. If we wish to keep our ideology in place, we must fight the never ending powers that attempt to corrupt them.

This is why we must "hold our President's feet to the fire". We can never be satisfied as there are strong forces at work to corrupt that which you take for granted.

On another note, I expect Pakistan to follow the same historical pattern as Iran at any time.

[busterbrown]

33. Could not agree more..

This especially goes for Union Corruption on all levels...I realize they have taken tremendous hits in the last 30 years.. Their corruption was probably very minute compared to Corporate and Bank corruption but nevertheless gave the right plenty of ammunition lasting until this day...

Your points concerning govt. services is so freaking right on..

[mick063]

40. The big problem was.............

We collectively threw the baby out with the bath water.

We needed change, but not Reagan change. Everything in government was properly in place, but it needed revision, modernization, and more accountability. Instead, a movement was created to go in a completely different direction. A movement that constantly pointed at government failures (ie. weekly on "60 minutes: The fleecing of America".) It opened the door to the concept that private industry could do it better. That profit would motivate efficiency. The era of government contracting, on a major scale, began.

America bought into Freidman economics. It was a wonderful concept. Powerful corporations would spread the wealth to everyone. Americans ate it up. We even opted to collectively change our retirement format to fall in line with it (401K).

Decades later, we find that Reagan's "promise" was a lie. The "trickle down" is stashed off shore or invested in "non job creating" hedge funds, and wages are at historical lows.

In the modern case, it is truly time to throw the baby out with the bath water. We absolutely cannot trust private enterprise to do it better. The test results are in. Reagan (and the Democratic third way) are a complete and utter failure. Our President is a disciple of this economic thinking.


On another note, It won't be long until we collectively discover that 401K is a complete failure as well. And to think that Bush wanted to run Social Security in the same manner as 401k.

[woo me with science]

12. Oh, ye Obama doubters!

[Skittles]

61. "doubter" means you don't support him 110%

you don't wake up jumping up and down on the bed each morning when you realize who is the president

[cherokeeprogressive]

76. Meh. You never really loved Him anyway... n/t

[Skittles]

77. I don't think anyone should ever LOVE a politician!

unless you're dating or married to them!!!

[rhett o rick]

13. I call your ACA and raise you the f'n Patriot Act, domestic spying and indefinite detention. nm

[busterbrown]

18. Patriot Act?

So... our President should have taken on the MIC immediately?. Yea ,he’s considered a Kenyan Muslim Socialist
by 20% of the population and un American by 28%... 9 yrs. after 911...

[SomethingFishy]

70. Excuse me but the Patriot Act was EXPANDED under Obama's administration..

So not only did he not "take on the MIC" he gave them more. Worst thing is we don't even know how much more. I do know a Senator came out of the classified briefing saying "If the American people knew what we just passed they would be up in arms".

I actually agree with your post about the ACA. It sucks but it's a start.

However your slimly hidden agenda to attack anyone who "doubts" Obama is lame, lame, lame. Next time just use the "haters" tag because you aren't fooling anyone.

[busterbrown]

72. o.k.... For those who hate Obama.....

Give me a break.. Congress put in on his desk.. He doesn’t sign and there’s an attack on U.S. soil and you can kiss the House, Senate and Presidency goodbye for at least 2 decades.. He would have been hounded from daybreak from to sundown as being a weak cowardly leader who is not fit to be in charge of the strongest country in the world.

Look what they tried to do with Benghazi...And you might consider what the teabagger right wing controlled govt
would do to S.S., Medicare and Medicaid..

Obama did not give that a chance from happening.. Giving in to the MIC was a smart move..

I expect a lot of changes to be made in the next 3 years with regards to his relationship with the MIC..

[SomethingFishy]

73. Holy shit you're a psychic!

Or full of crap.

I don't hate Obama. But I am not going to sit here and make excuses for poor choices. I'll check back with you in 3 years and see how your "changes" are going.

Giving in to the MIC was a smart move? You are actually being serious with that statement? While our country is crumbling around us, infrastructure failing, schools with no money, 45 million people in poverty, natural disasters decimating the earth and you actually think that giving more to the MIC is a good idea? Good luck with that philosophy

What exactly did they do with Benghazi? Oh yeah they looked like fools. Grayson buried the Benghazi scandal for good yesterday, you should go check out the video.

[busterbrown]

82. You tend to see and write what you want to see..

Giving into the MIC..Where did that appear in my thread? I said it was a good idea to prevent a complete take over of govt. which would have happened if he didn’t sign and there was an attack.. You never address that part..

Looked like fools in front of 45% of the population which agrees with their lies concerning Benghazi.
It was thoroughly debunked way before Grayson...Under Secretary of State made sure of that..

Logical means nothing to these people and their lies are effective.. But surely the lame MSM catches up and the middle sane part of the population begin to get it.. It will surely happen with ACA...

[SomethingFishy]

88. Uh I did address "that part" with the psychic statement.

You really think that basing decisions on "we might get attacked" or "they might take over the government" is real leadership? I could sit here all day and come up with millions of things we should do because of stuff that "might happen".

Living in fear of what "might happen" is how we got in this mess in the first place.

How about we just agree on the ACA and call it a day. We can pick this back up in 3 years when Obama is going to take on the MIC.

[busterbrown]

90. Again, Look what they tried with Benghazi..

You sound as if these things couldn’t happen... No, they will eventually happen, when? ..who knows. How severe?
who knows? And if they did, particularly on the watch of our “Kenyan Muslim President” it would have destroyed any hope of a new day for several decades... “Psychic” is...well, not a great way of responding..

[jazzimov]

39. Which shows how much you haven't been paying attention.

The PATRIOT ACT has been modified and most of it has been allowed to expire.

Domestic spying was addressed in 2008 under the Bush Admin. Although it is true that today all data is collected in a DB, it is only accessible IF a warrant is obtained. THERE IS NO DOMESTIC SPYING without a valid warrant.

Indefinite detention was ended by XO by Obama including the closure of GITMO. However, the movement of GITMO prisoners was de-funded by NIMBY's in Congress.

If you are going to make these wild accusations, you should at least get your facts straight, first.

[Number23]

51. Not to mention the fact that the entire premise of the OP was to note more PROGRESSIVE legislation

that has been done in the last 35 years. Something that was as or more progressive than AHCA.

The fact that that poster and a few others can't come up with shit but wild accusations and criticisms says IT ALL. And the entire point of the OP is now made.

[rug]

19. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990

You can thank Senator Harkin for that.


Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

You can thank Senator Biden for that.

[busterbrown]

24. I should have tagged.... When 3 branches of govt.

We’re not controlled by Democrats..

[rug]

30. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

[Melinda]

37. 16 of 34 years we had a (D) Prez.... and we get bones? Series? And people wonder WHY liberals(D)

are discontented. Sorry, but this is exactly why so many of us are disappointed. And we are most certainly NOT satisfied with the nowdefunctDLCreinventedandcallingitself The Third Way! Long on Raygunomics and short on the 1%.

Less Republican economic policy and MORE social justice would go a LONG way.... as it stands, we continue to have bones, and sometimes, they have a bit of meat on them - history teaches our overlords that even they must appease on occasion.

Listen, I hear what you're saying, I'm just having a problem celebrating given everything else. And until we see serious economic and social change soon, I probably won't be happy with this President again.

[busterbrown]

42. I think the President’s magic wand might be a good short story..

But never existed... The shit he had to contend with is almost unimaginable.. Which makes the passage of the AHA even more admirable .... I also stated only that it will be an important 1st step.. Today it was announced that almost 6 million uninsured citizens will be able to obtain insurance for under $100 bucks.. I said its a start.

[840high]

50. My sentiments exactly.

[busterbrown]

38. Great Job!!!

[truebluegreen]

74. Reccing yourself?

Classy.

[bowens43]

52. and a couple of minor wins make for all his monumental fuck ups? really?

[busterbrown]

53. Before you start listing his fuck ups.. Tell me that after 50 years of government being controlled

by the MIC that all Obama had to do was wave a magic wand.. These programs were not started by Obama and I am sure the Drone issue was spelled out exactly as the MIC wanted it..

Now back to the ACA. If this becomes the beginning of change towards a Universal Coverage System. It will change our world as we know it.. The right wing will be finished as we know it as well. It will prove govt. works to the extent that W.W.1,2, showed how it worked..

Now as I asked in my Thread, Can you name a progressive piece of leg. as important as this since Medicare..

[mick063]

55. Buster, you have to get off the "magic wand" bus for a moment.

There is a difference between the President being blocked of proposed change and the President himself proposing undesirable change.

You are completely missing the point.

Completely.

The President offers up cuts to Social Security. He prioritizes TPP. He defends the NSA complex to the bitter end. He embraces unilateral "policing" of the world. He refuses to investigate the culprits of the 2008 economic debacle. His closest advisors and friends are either financial moguls in the mold of Mitt Romney, disciples of Dick Cheney, or preoccupied with tearing apart the public school system in Chicago.

Republicans do not block any of this. It is Republican agenda. The Republicans cannot be blamed for initiatives the President has taken.

Discerning people can tell the difference between obstruction and bad policy.

Are you a discerning person?

[busterbrown]

56. Did he actually cut S.S or did he use it as a way to avoid a govt. shut down?

On the same level you have to dismiss the arguments that Obama controls everything which happens around him. Your bus is an express as well..He has already voiced his support for major changes to the NSA Spying
laws. You are absolutely wrong about his “policing of the world policies”... He just mentioned that a couple of days ago..That America can no longer afford to do so..

The rest of your rant is the tired old anti Obama rhetoric.. I do not think that Obama’s absolute support for the Consumer Protection Agency as well as his strong support for E. Warren sits well for your argument that he is in bed with “financial Moguls” As a matter of fact that I think his brilliant play towards the center was exactly that.
A way to ease the minds of the Financial Right until he felt the time was right to move...I feel you will see a move by this administration in the next few years to rebuild the financial regulations which were removed by the Clinton/Bush Administrations which caused the debacle in the first place.. Bailey/Leach,Futures Modernization Act
etc..

It really seems to me you took the main talking points of DU Obama haters and simply repeated them in your post..

[mick063]

57. He offered the cuts to Social Security.

No self respecting Democrat would do such a thing.

That is the true "red line". Not Syria. Social Security.

The government shutdown "thing" still haunts us though it is about to explode in the face of the GOP. Never was a true political threat.

[liberal_at_heart]

58. Social Security is the bread and butter single issue for all voters. Democrats better learn quick

that you don't offer Social Security up for compromise whether it is a real threat or a hollow threat, you just don't do it. If there is anything that could bring the democrats down fast it is offering up Social Security on the alter of compromise.

[busterbrown]

64. Wasn’t a true political threat?

Are you saying that right now as well?

Again were their cuts? And I don’t believe he actually was quoted. It was always a source close to the president.
Big freaking difference. No ,this was a serious attempt by the wing nuts to shut down our govt and Obama succeeded in calling their bluff.. There wasn’t anything close to a cut in S.S.

i just can not understand your point.. It didn’t happen and it will never happen under his watch..

[mick063]

65. Your denial greatly hurts your credibility with me.

I'm done arguing a point that is well established. I don't debate history revision.

I might as well be speaking to a fence post.

[busterbrown]

66. My credibility should not come into play.

The facts of the matter should... There were no cuts to S.S. under President Obamas watch..

[cthulu2016]

67. When doubt becomes a bad thing we are a theocracy

[Jim Lane]

68. The National Environmental Policy Act (1969 -- signed by Richard Nixon)

As for the ACA, I think it's too soon to tell whether it qualifies as a genuinely progressive change.

Calling it a "health care" law is a misnomer. I always call it a "health insurance reform law" or the like.

It works some significant improvements in the system that relies primarily on private, for-profit health insurance companies. It also compels everyone of pre-Medicare age to patronize those companies. (OK, not everyone. Some people have access to insurance offered by not-for-profits. Some people will choose to pay the fine instead of buying the insurance, and some of them will be making the correct decision. The point is that the ACA will push millions of people into patronizing for-profit companies.)

In terms of actual health care, as opposed to merely insurance, many people will get care in 2014 who would not have gotten it without the ACA. There will be some who will get worse care because of the ACA, but the overall effect in 2014 will be positive.

A big potential negative of the ACA is the danger that it will further entrench the worst features of the current system (health care paid for through for-profit private companies, with insurance delivered primarily through employment). I believe that the United States will eventually have some form of single payer, but there is a strong argument that passage of the ACA will turn out to have delayed that day.

Obama "doubters" (as you call us) can also point to a different comparison. Instead of comparing ACA with no bill at all, some of us compare the actual ACA with what might have emerged if Obama had acted differently in some respects. No, he couldn't have gotten single payer through, but by being less ready to compromise he might have gotten a bill with a "robust public option" (his own stated minimum requirement, IIRC, later abandoned) and without some of the concessions to Big Pharma and the like. There's no way for Obama "doubters" or the other side (Obama cheerleaders?) to know with certainty what would have happened in this hypothetical.

[Demo_Chris]

75. Mandates are REGRESSIVE...

I'd let Obama know myself but his domestic spying programs are already handling that.

[Erose999]

78. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA)

[busterbrown]

81. Was passed with a Democratic House and Senate..Big difference.

But hardly a game changer like the AHA. The beginning of the end to the Insurance Companies..Past with a hostile Congress...Teabagger House and Blue Dog Dems.

[G_j]

80. the environment?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/10/1428851/chart-obama-has-protected-fewer-public-lands-than-ronald-reagan-george-hw-bush-bill-clinton-and-george-w-bush/

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

President Barack Obama has overseen a resurgence in U.S. oil and gas production on both private and public lands. Under his watch, oil production on federal lands was higher every year from 2009 through 2011 than it was from 2006 through 2008. In 2011 the Bureau of Land Management held three of its five largest-ever lease sales for the rights to drill on public land for oil and gas. And as the president said himself, “we are drilling all over the place”—in fact, the United States is expected to become the world’s largest crude oil producer by 2020, according to the International Energy Agency.

But the Obama administration has significantly more work to do when it comes to balancing energy development and land conservation on our public lands.

The president has begun to establish his conservation legacy, in ways such as removing the threat of uranium mining around the Grand Canyon for 20 years, establishing four new national monuments, and fighting for conservation funding.

Nevertheless, his efforts fall far short when it comes to permanently protecting public lands for their economic, scenic, and environmental values. Protecting public lands means restricting drilling, mining, and other industrial activities that can take place on them, and can be accomplished either by bills passed in Congress or actions taken by a president and his administration under their authorities.

The president’s shortcomings in permanently protecting public lands are particularly clear when his conservation accomplishments are compared to those of previous presidents. As seen in the graph below, just 2.6 million acres of public lands have been permanently protected during the Obama administration by both the president and Congress. Of this total, 186,000 acres were protected by the president using administrative authorities.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. SCHIP comes to mind

Clinton raising the tax rate for the top earners comes as well.

Community policing during the Clinton Administration was also very progressive. It took officers back to the streets they patrolled and out of the cars. It was paid for as well.

Those two took five seconds. One came from a republican house, the other two from a democrat in the WH.

Like Clinton, the ACA is great, but likely the TPP will be the true legacy. I am not sure that's a great legacy.

[Octafish]

87. It's what mitt the shit got for Massachusetts.

So, not really.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

91. The Obama haters may hate the ACA, but this looks like a pretty good progressive move to me...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/19/us-usa-courts-contraception-idUSBRE98I15N20130919