Obama a Partisan President

I'm only half with you.

True- partisanship is nothing new. And certainly not all elected officials agree on every issue and we all need to be more tolerant of opposing/differing views.

But I take issue with congressmen and senators who put party first. I have a big problem with it when every single member of a party votes no (or yes) on something. There is no doubt in my mind that there were a few republicans who wanted to vote yes on the healthcare bill but didn't because they had to vote along party lines.

Then after voting along party lines (this is being partisan- duh) a Republican calls out the partisanship of the democratic president and frames it as being indicative of having a broken moral compass.

Let me see if I get this, all the Republicans voted against it because they are evil partisans. And all the Democrats who voted for it are heros who are tolerant of others and know what is best for us unwashed masses. I guess all the backroom deals and payoffs had nothing to do with it. Because we all know that only evil republicans would vote based on backroom deals and payoffs.
Please, I understand you are in favor of this and Obama is your hero and all, but give me a break. If this bill was sooooooooooooooooo great Pelosi and Reid would not have had to turn Congress into Let's Make A Deal.:roll:

Idlewind, you set you wanted to get this straight. But then you provide a multiparagraph post on what I might think.

I voted for Obama and like him. But I do not support him or his policies unconditionally.

I was against the shady deals like you. And I was not a cheerleader for this bill. I also do not believe that anyone who was against it was uninformed or evil or that anyone who was for it understands it and is good. So pls- give me the benefit of the doubt and judge me by the words I typed. Reread if necessary.

Idlewind, you set you wanted to get this straight. But then you provide a multiparagraph post on what I might think.

I voted for Obama and like him. But I do not support him or his policies unconditionally.

I was against the shady deals like you. And I was not a cheerleader for this bill. I also do not believe that anyone who was against it was uninformed or evil or that anyone who was for it understands it and is good. So pls- give me the benefit of the doubt and judge me by the words I typed. Reread if necessary.

I was trying to interpret for you.
I thought you were saying the Republicans could not possibly have all been against the bill on it's merits so they must have been forced by the evil partisans. But since the democrats stand for all that is right we must overlook all the backroom deals and arm twisting it took to get the votes to pass it.

If I misjusdged your intent or meaning I apologize.

Thx for reaching back. Lately I think we have agreed on much so I felt bad about our latest exchange. We're good though.

Thx for reaching back. Lately I think we have agreed on much so I felt bad about our latest exchange. We're good though.

Mine is never meant to be personal, sometimes I get carried away.;-) I am a frustrated comic.

I wouldn't put anything past Congress. There are political reasons why Republican's would vote against the bill, there are also moral and ethical reasons why Republican's might vote against it, and there are fiscal responsibilities as to why the Reps might vote against it.

I wonder how much pork the dems allowed the reps to be stuffed into the bill. If the dems allowed the bill to be stuffed with republican pork, we would have seen more republicans voting for it. It seems to me that the republicans were left out of the bill and that is the primary reason why they voted against it. Call it partisan, but call it on both sides.

What the heck is wrong with being partisan? Are we such a bunch of milquetoasts that we can't handle ideas that differ from our own? Our executive branch of government has been occupied by partisans from the beginning.

Everyone loves partisanship....WHEN your side is the majority....and HATES it when your side isn't....;-)

What the heck is wrong with being partisan? Are we such a bunch of milquetoasts that we can't handle ideas that differ from our own? Our executive branch of government has been occupied by partisans from the beginning.

I concur... thoughtful and balanced partisanship is healthy.
Sadly however, judging from the ridiculously incendiary email myths circulated by otherwise intelligent folks (of both sides)...
largely, we ARE a bunch of milquetoasts.

All I'm saying is that everybody thinks their side is right and will continue to rally their position, even when as in your case they are down for the count. My post was mainly in response to your remark "defending it when in your hearts and mind you know it was a mistake". Well you can't speak for others. Sometimes one's loss is somebody else's gain. Right now a lot of people are happy with the outcome and will be more and more pleased as time goes on. They are rightfully cheering even though you are disappointed. Clearly at this point in time you have nothing to cheer about I must concede.

But SAM, are those that are cheering, and patting themselves on the back, and raises their glasses in glee...really thrilled, really excited, and really happy? I might not know what they are really thinking, but bet as more and more comes out, and more families are hit with higher taxes, and broken promises...their minds and hearts will be telling them one thing...but their mouths will say another, because that is how politics work...you go down with your party on the sinking ship, I guess we all do it to some extend, but even an old rat knows when to desert a sinking ship...shame we humans refuse to do that.

In answer to Mellidee..."change" America and make us an European type government with a socialist type format...the government will be your Mama, your papa, and even that favorite aunt...they will take care of all your needs...you don't work for yourself...you work for the good of all. SHARE THAT WEALTH!!!!!!

In answer to Bob...a debate is only fair when the other side shares the ball. Closed doors, ignored requests, and having more players on one side so that the vote is always one way (THEIR WAY).. the Dems and their king enjoyed the "spit in your face"attitude, both to the Rebublicans in congress and to the American people. Usually lies and special deals aren't considered "facts or truths" in a debate.

Sam, don't know how to respond to you...because your comment left me confused.

At least learn the difference between socialism and communism. :roll:

Wikipedia

The healthcare bill has its flaws. And truth be told it is more of a health insurance reform bill than anything. But there are some very positive things in this bill that will help a lot of people. We will see how it turns out.

I found it funny that you were talking about old rats abandoning a sinking ship. Funny because you seemed to be applying this analogy exclusively to the democratic party. After watching Bush squander the support of the world after 9-11 by invading Iraq and spending recklessly. After watching an inexperienced black socialist who wasn't born here beat an experienced war hero with his plumber and his weathergirl running mate, after watching the liberal Pelosi and the gay guy with the lisp prevail by sneaking the healthcare bill by while the republicans were drunk and hungover from Brown's Massachusetts win,,,

I can't help but think the dems ship isn't the only one sinking...

Just sayin...

It's all politics. Not sure about the validity of this article, but it is interesting:

Kent Conrad Scores Special Student Loan Deal For North Dakota In Reconciliation Package

(link)
It looks like Kent Conrad (D-ND), who chairs the Senate Budget Committee through which any reconciliation bill must pass, scored a nice, little, special deal for his home state as part of the student loan reform portion of the reconciliation package. From the summary of the bill:Guess which is the only state-owned bank in the entire country?that?s right, it is the Bank of North Dakota.
Personally, I like the idea of state-owned banks to handle the states? own bank accounts, and make long term investments in the local economy. The Bank of North Dakota has done some good for the state, and could be a model for others. If the one provision in this bill encourages a few other states to create state-owned banks, it might not even be a bad thing. But, as it currently stands, this is clearly a special deal secured by Kent Conrad for his home state.
I said all along that Democrats just couldn?t help themselves when it came to special deals in the reconciliation package. Even though they knew special deals like this were helping to kill support for the bill, they still slipped more special deals into the reconciliation package. A reconciliation package whose main point was to ?fix? all the the problematic special deals in the first bill.

Update: Within a few hours of this posting of the original article, Sen. Conrad had his staff call the House to remove this special favor from the ?fix bill.?

It's all politics. Not sure about the validity of this article, but it is interesting:

Kent Conrad Scores Special Student Loan Deal For North Dakota In Reconciliation Package

(link)
It looks like Kent Conrad (D-ND), who chairs the Senate Budget Committee through which any reconciliation bill must pass, scored a nice, little, special deal for his home state as part of the student loan reform portion of the reconciliation package. From the summary of the bill:

Section 2213. Agreements with State-Owned Banks. This section amends Part D of Title IV to direct the Secretary to enter into an agreement with an eligible lender for the purpose of providing Federal loan insurance on student loans made by state-owned banks.

​

Guess which is the only state-owned bank in the entire country?that?s right, it is the Bank of North Dakota.
Personally, I like the idea of state-owned banks to handle the states? own bank accounts, and make long term investments in the local economy. The Bank of North Dakota has done some good for the state, and could be a model for others. If the one provision in this bill encourages a few other states to create state-owned banks, it might not even be a bad thing. But, as it currently stands, this is clearly a special deal secured by Kent Conrad for his home state.
I said all along that Democrats just couldn?t help themselves when it came to special deals in the reconciliation package. Even though they knew special deals like this were helping to kill support for the bill, they still slipped more special deals into the reconciliation package. A reconciliation package whose main point was to ?fix? all the the problematic special deals in the first bill.

Update: Within a few hours of this posting of the original article, Sen. Conrad had his staff call the House to remove this special favor from the ?fix bill.?

Murray, having worked in student loans this was simply a fix to the current system. At present only private bank funds are lent as student loans. Overall student loans are a very good investment. The vast majority are paid back and the overall return is pretty high. A lender can also specifically offer loans to certain demographics i.e. certain schools, states, or states of residency.

This was hardly a back room deal or pork. I'm not saying that is what you were implying, just thought I'd explain what it was in plain English.

Don't think it was pork, but it appears much like the rest of politics -- funneling gov't money to a limited number of friends of politicians for the sake of re-election. Politics today is nothing more than paying back votes. Many politicians change their mind on a whim depending on friends getting paid or votes being bought. Democrat, Republican -- it doesn't really matter. What I was saying earlier about the pork is that if the Republicans had been able to throw their sacks of goodies into the bill, we would have seen republicans voting for this bill. If there is partisan politics being played, don't look at only the votes. Look at the reason why the votes are the way they are -- by doing so, you will likely find that the republican politicians' interests were not included by the dems in the making of the bill.

Don't think it was pork, but it appears much like the rest of politics -- funneling gov't money to a limited number of friends of politicians for the sake of re-election. Politics today is nothing more than paying back votes. Many politicians change their mind on a whim depending on friends getting paid or votes being bought. Democrat, Republican -- it doesn't really matter. What I was saying earlier about the pork is that if the Republicans had been able to throw their sacks of goodies into the bill, we would have seen republicans voting for this bill. If there is partisan politics being played, don't look at only the votes. Look at the reason why the votes are the way they are -- by doing so, you will likely find that the republican politicians' interests were not included by the dems in the making of the bill.

Again, this is not funneling government money to a limited number of friends. It allows a state owned bank to offer money through the federal student loan program. While it wasn't prohibited before it was expressly allowed and this makes it legal. Certain financial institutions weren't traditionally allowed to lend to the student loan program. Those included savings and loans and credit unions. When deregulation occurred they were included to allow lending.

Student loans should not have been in this bill.

Again, this is not funneling government money to a limited number of friends. It allows a state owned bank to offer money through the federal student loan program. While it wasn't prohibited before it was expressly allowed and this makes it legal. Certain financial institutions weren't traditionally allowed to lend to the student loan program. Those included savings and loans and credit unions. When deregulation occurred they were included to allow lending.

According to the article and what I could find on Google, Bank of North Dakota is the only state owned bank in the entire USA. So, I don't understand how it could be considered to be anything other than the funneling of funds, since all student loans across the entire USA would have to be made through one bank if this had continued to be in the Senate's fix-it package to the bill. You state that it allows "a" state owned bank...., but in reality, it appears to allow only "the" (as in one) Bank of North Dakota....

The is no doubt the new legislation is an improvement and a better use of tax dollars.

Student loan program shift not complicated - Roanoke.com

Essentially taxpayers have been subsidizing big banks-there is plenty of blame to go around.

I've been under the impression that both parties pontificate against earmarks. The healthcare bill/law is now under fire for the $3.4B in earmarks approved in the 11th hour and is being questioned as to whether or not this was a 'payoff.'

Student loans should have been a separate bill.

According to the article and what I could find on Google, Bank of North Dakota is the only state owned bank in the entire USA. So, I don't understand how it could be considered to be anything other than the funneling of funds, since all student loans across the entire USA would have to be made through one bank if this had continued to be in the Senate's fix-it package to the bill. You state that it allows "a" state owned bank...., but in reality, it appears to allow only "the" (as in one) Bank of North Dakota....

Prior to deregulation of the financial industry only commercial banks could lend money through the student loan program. With deregulation savings and loans and credit unions could get in on the action. Up until this bill was passed a bank owned by a state was not eligible.

Despite popular belief the vast majority of student loan money comes from private banks and not the government. It is guaranteed ultimately by the federal government, but the money isn't coming from your tax dollars. The only thing coming from your tax dollars are the billions, yes with a b, that go to paying the interest subsidies on loans. Those subsidies allow a student to borrow take free during their school, 6 month grace period after graduation, and an approved deferral period. Any interest accrued during that time is paid by the federal government to the lender, in 90% of cases that is the servicer, SallieMae purchases that percentage of loans after they have been fully disbursed. They do this by securitizing the loans.

Since the original thread theme was the strange-ness of "partisanship," perhaps all of the bipartisan facts should be reviewed (w/in the confines of healthcare reform). Partisanship is a two way street. It is not exclusively defined by affirmative support. So successfully persuading opposing party members to vote "Yes" or "No" is defined as bipartisanship. 216 House "Yes" votes were needed to pass this bill. There are 253 House Democrats! Republicans were way beyond mathematically helpless to stop this bill - they had no power to do so. How hard could it be to get a mere 85% of your own party to support your own bill that defines the competency of your own President?? As we witnessed-up until about 4 hours prior to the vote and 7+ months after the original vote deadline passed - these "party-line Yes" votes were excruciatingly difficult to find. It is indeed true that all Republicans voted against this bill (178 "No" votes). That is a partisan vote if one ever existed. However, 34 House Democrats (13% "No" votes) joined Republican opposition and also voted against this bill. Bipartisanship indeed occurred

True, but one part left out of all of this regarding money is the campaign contributions. Many Democrats were bullied into believing that the GOP on State and National levels would come after them with waves of money and support to prevent their re-election. Thus far that promise has been kept with Palin, although shrill, I don't think it's the worst thing that could happen to you. Unless of course she's rooting for you.

True, but one part left out of all of this regarding money is the campaign contributions. Many Democrats were bullied into believing that the GOP on State and National levels would come after them with waves of money and support to prevent their re-election. Thus far that promise has been kept with Palin, although shrill, I don't think it's the worst thing that could happen to you. Unless of course she's rooting for you.

The Dems had better promises, perhaps?

"Under financial-aid provisions in the bill, all students and parents beginning next fall will borrow directly from the federal government, ending a program in which the government subsidized private lenders to provide federal loans"

Full story can be found on www.wsj.com

Part of the left stream media ya' know.

True, but one part left out of all of this regarding money is the campaign contributions. Many Democrats were bullied into believing that the GOP on State and National levels would come after them with waves of money and support to prevent their re-election. Thus far that promise has been kept with Palin, although shrill, I don't think it's the worst thing that could happen to you. Unless of course she's rooting for you.

Don't you love that play of politics. I'm sure that some dems voted against the bill because of their beliefs, but I'd bet a beer that more than one voted against it because they were scared of not getting re-elected. They knew they would have the votes to pass the bill, and once those votes were achieved to pass the bill, it gave the remaining dems who had not yet voted, a chance to vote against it to keep their job. Ain't Warshington great?