Social Question

marinelife's avatar

Obama is on a roll. Should they focus on passing anything else?

Asked by marinelife (62485points) December 22nd, 2010

He has been getting important legislation through Congress: DADT and the START treaty.

Is there time for them to get anything else through before recess? What should they focus on?

The 2011 Appropriations bill, the immigration act? Something else?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

23 Answers

jlelandg's avatar

Lord I hope not.

tedd's avatar

He got those two through (although I don’t think START is through yet is it?) because all of the ground work had been done over the past 6+ months. Legislation has to go through all these committees and debates and processes in the house, then the senate, then back to the house if any changes were made in the senate…. etc. etc.

Very little legislation remains that they CAN finish before the end of the session (which is in a couple days I think).... And it wouldn’t be anything big like DADT.

classykeyser's avatar

“Should they focus on over-regulating any more of our daily lives?”
There, I fixed that for you.

Seriously, if he or any other sitting president keeps ignoring the ideas of legal immigration, removing the troops from danger zones, or lifting the heavy legislation from the marketplace, they can all fuck off.

BoBo1946's avatar

9–11 bill to help the firefighters and policemen! Two Republicans are blocking the bill, Colbert and Demint! I’ve written Tom Colbert as he has a website. This is money well spent.

bkcunningham's avatar

Take your pick. The Progressive Democrats of America’s agenda, which means Obama’s agenda, includes enhanced Medicare for everyone and replacing private insurers; withdraw of all US military personnel and mercenaires in Iraq and Afghanistan and redirect spending to meet human needs at home and abroad; promoting unions, investment in wireless Internet networks, fair trade deals ONLY if they protect the environment and promote unions; amnesty for illegals which will protect them in the workplace by union membership; establish a Carbon Tax and comprehensive campaign finance reform at the state and federal levels, Instant Runoff/proportional voting, paper ballots, free TV time for candidates.

tedd's avatar

I think the only thing that really has a solid chance of passing (at least that I can think of at the moment) is the 9–11 bill for first responders.

@bkcunningham I like a lot of stuff on the list there, but most if it is way too early in the legislative process to pass in a few days.

Maybe you should post a new question asking what you’d like the president to work on when the new session starts? (I’ll do it, lol)

filmfann's avatar

@bkcunningham Is that better than the Recessive Republicans agenda, which includes the denial of help to the 9–11 first responders and more tax breaks for the super rich?

bkcunningham's avatar

@filmfann I wasn’t passing judgement. Just stating the facts.

filmfann's avatar

You’re right. I am making a judgement there. I think getting rid of DADT and helping the unemployed is more important than helping the rich keep more of their money, and ignoring the brave men who are dying of injuries after helping at Ground Zero after the WTC attacks. Sorry.

Jaxk's avatar

Interesting that no one seems to want to address the economy. Maybe that’s why this is a ‘Lame Duck’ session. They haven’t been able to figure out how to do that for the past two years.

marinelife's avatar

My husband tells me that the Republican Senator that was blocking the 9/11 responders bill has agreed to drop his opposition.

So maybe . . .

BoBo1946's avatar

sure hope so..

Jaxk's avatar

Just a quick point of reality on the 9/11 responders. As we approach the ten year anniversary of the event, we are yet again reaching into our pocket to compensate those we feel did an excellent job responding to a catastrophe. But it was their job and this is not the only extra payment we have made to them. Now I have no problem with the excellent insurance they already have, or the great benefits package they already receive. Hell I don’t have a problem with the half billion they received from the charity donation. Nor should we have a problem with the $700 million they received from the city of New York. Hell, even the $billion they have already gotten from the federal government. But when is this going to end? When will we have paid enough?

It is not like we have ignored those responders, but at some point you got to stop coming back to this same old well. And using this as a wedge issue is merely politics as usual.

janbb's avatar

So happy with today’s developments!

bkcunningham's avatar

If I remember correctly, the reason the Republicans blocked the bill a few weeks ago was just some silly little thing like wanting Congress to fund the federal government into 2011.

I hope more oversight went into this bill on where the monies are actually going this time. The money isn’t only for first responders either.

This isn’t the first money these first responders have recieved. Tax payer dollars, charities and insurance companies paid out previously. According to a study released by the RAND Corporation, victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks-individuals killed or seriously injured and individuals and businesses impacted by the strikes-have received at leat $38.1 billion in compensation with insurance companies and the federal government providing more than 90 percent of the payments.

According to the report, “Among individuals killed or seriously injured, emergency responders and their families have received more than civilians and their families who suffered similar economic losses. On average, first responders have received about $1.1 million more per person than civilians with similar economic loss.”

Don’t get me wrong, what happened was nightmarish and unprecendented. What the first responders did in the line of duty was heroic. I just think we need to look at facts when issues are presented in such a way as to pull on your heart.

The 9–11 terrorist attacks resulted in the deaths of 2,551 civilians and serious injury to another 215. The attacks also killed or seriously injured 460 emergency responders.

“The compensation paid to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania was unprecedented both in its scope and in the mix of programs used to make payments,” said Lloyd Dixon, a RAND senior economist and lead author of the report. “The system has raised many questions about equity and fairness that have no obvious answers. Addressing these issues now will help the nation be better prepared for future terrorist attacks.”

Dixon and co-author Rachel Kaganoff Stern interviewed and gathered evidence from many sources to estimate the amount of compensation paid out by insurance companies, government agencies and charities following the attacks. Their findings include:

Insurance companies expect to make at least $19.6 billion in payments, comprising 51 percent of the money paid in compensation.

Government payments total nearly $15.8 billion (42 percent of the total). This includes payments from local, state and federal governments, plus payments from the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 that was established by the federal government to compensate those killed or physically injured in the attacks. The total does not include payments to clean up the World Trade Center site or rebuild public infrastructure in New York City.

Payments by charitable groups comprise just 7 percent of the total, despite the fact that charities distributed an unprecedented $2.7 billion to victims of the attacks.
Because of concerns that liability claims would clog the courts and create further economic harm, the federal government limited the liability of airlines, airports and certain government bodies. The government established the Victim Compensation Fund to make payments to families for the deaths and injuries of victims. In addition, the government funded a major economic revitalization program for New York City.

Businesses in New York City, particularly in lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center, have received $23.3 billion in compensation for property damage, disrupted operations, and economic incentives. About 75 percent of that came from insurance companies. More than $4.9 billion went to revitalize the economy of Lower Manhattan.

Civilians killed or seriously injured received a total of $8.7 billion, averaging about $3.1 million per recipient. Most of this came from the Victim Compensation Fund, but payments also came from insurance companies, employers and charities.

About $3.5 billion was paid to displaced residents, workers who lost their jobs, or others who suffered emotional trauma or were exposed to environmental hazards.

Emergency responders killed or injured received a total of $1.9 billion, with most of that coming from the government. Payments averaged about $1.1 million more per person than for civilians with similar economic losses, with most of the higher amount due to payments from charities.

Kraigmo's avatar

Repeal the phony health care reform and begin instituting Medicare-For-All.

But, congratulations on the DADT repeal.

YARNLADY's avatar

Personally, I would love to see a congressional session that focused on unpassing things.

jerv's avatar

I don’t think he really did any more than any other politician would’ve done. He folded like an origami swan.
That said, being President is not an easy job, especially not in the age of hyper-partisanship. I mean, the GOP vowed to block practically everything until they got their way on tax cuts for the top, whether by voting it down or tabling or stalling, and the legislative branch holds more power than people think (the POTUS can only approve/veto what they give him; they can’t make laws… unless they are G.W.) so I guess it is to be expected.

@Jaxk Jon Stewart did a nice take on how Republicans should stop using 9/11 as a drinking well due to their treatment of that bill. IMO, I see how they are trying to capitalize on 9/11 at their convenience. Taken with a grain of salt, I found I rather enlightening.

Jaxk's avatar


So you agree with Jon Stewart. Wow, that’s a shocker.

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk I find that most arguments have at least a grain of truth to them. Of course, taking The Daily Show at face value is pretty stupid, as is taking anything at face value.
Just remember, Stewart and Colbert are entertainers, not journalists… though they are often closer to the truth than Fox News. By the same token, medieval bards were often closer to the truth than any of the King’s men.

tedd's avatar

@Jaxk John Stewart is better at delivering the news than any of the big 3 news channels. ESPECIALLY fox.

Jaxk's avatar


Yes amd if a grain is all you need, you’ve got the right source.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther