Can either candidate get their plans passed in Congress?

[HLWalter725]

I have a question I would like to pose and see your answers.

Here is some background: My husband and I were discussing McCain's Healthcare plan and how we both disagree with it (not saying we like Obama's either, but that wasn't the discussion). He responded that he does not believe that the plan would ever make it through Congress. My husband is undecided at this point, so he said that even though he disagrees with the healthcare plan it doesn't impact his vote since he thinks Congress will shoot it down. I disagree with this thought process, but it got me thinking. . . how much of the big exciting plans either side is conjuring really matters if you believe that Congress will keep them from moving forward? And do you believe that the respective platforms will be brought to fruition in the long run?

[Chreamps]

With the current situation, I honestly don't see either side's aspirations coming to fruition until our current crisis is improved, and that may take quite a while.

As far as congress approving either candidate's choices - it just depends on who has the majority, and if they have a majority that would be strong enough to override a presidential veto.

[Scorpiosue1102]

I think for either candidate it would the second term to get any of this done, BUT at this point what's $25 billion or so to get something done. We bailout businesses why not put some good policies out there.

[kjbstevens]

Of course not. The more promised, the more to let down. Anything passed will have so much tacked on it's going to be hard to get a fair vote on any of it.

[Gina.Maria]

Well, I found it interesting that, when asked during the debate if anything promised would be taken off the table because of this current economic situation, Biden mentioned foreign aid and declined to suggest any further cuts but Palin said nothing would change and switched to talking about Alaska... again.

[tsaria]

Originally Posted by Simonetta Rossi (Scorpiosue1102)

it would the second term

NoOOOOOOooooOOOooo! Please don't say this! I don't want anyone to have a second term anymore! I've had it up to *here* with people spending 8 years in the White House! I liked Clinton a LOT, but I don't want the trend to continue.

(I know you didn't say you wanted whoever won to be in there 2 terms, but we're trending that way & I hate it!)

[Stacey42]

I don't think either of them will succeed in getting much, if any of their promises through Congress. Even if Congress' majority is the same party as the President. Clinton had a Democrat controlled Congress for his first 2 years & failed to get his health plan passed. I see no reason why Obama or McCain should have any more success.

[lsl_scrapper]

I think your husband has a valid point. I've always felt that who we elect to congress is far more important than who we elect as president. The president can to nothing without the cooperation of congress, but with overrides, a united congress can accomplish much (for better or worse) without the president. A great president will have vision and be able to unite a congress and motivate them to follow his vision, but as polarized as we've become...I don't see that happening regardless of who wins. Hope I'm wrong, but....

[mama_pajama]

Personally, I think McCain's healthcare plan is there only because he was expected to have one. Forget about Congress, I don't even think he'll introduce it. But it's such a lousy plan that it makes me question his judgement, and there are lots of things like that building up against him.

[Haley64]

Sorry Ladies I am officially high jacking this thread because I can't find any other place to put this and I REALLY don't want to start a new topic!!
It sort of fits because it is about if something would actually get passed or not.

This search of mine started because of this post below...and please remember I had just been sort of stuck in my way of thinking and haven't really given the Roe vs. Wade much thought in years since it hasn't affected me personally. I normally skip over the abortion threads as they upset me and make me uneasy...YWIM?

Until I read this post I really didn't know what partial birth abortions actually was since anything I have ever encountered in my real life. Where either the child or the mother were in danger it was and has been always referred to with a medical operation term instead.

For instance there was a good mother and woman of 5 children who found out her last pregnancy wasn't going well. They found out that the fetus was missing over half of it's head. I am not sure exactly what was done or at what trimester of the pregnancy.
Those are things you just don't ask in general passing...ywim?

There was another case around here where there was a fetus that wasn't complete...the girl was only around 20 and was married. I only know that the child wasn't born...

Originally Posted by DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)

As of today, after hearing an ad on the radio about abortion ... I would have to say another positive is the pro-life stance. They were talking about how Obama voted for keeping the partial birth abortions legal. The guy said something to the effect (I cannot remember it exactly) "is that when all but the head comes out and they murder it or kill it" and the girl said "yes." I literally got all teary eyed. That is horrendous! And the fact that he voted against medical intervention in the event of the baby surviving the abortion. No thank you!

Thank you for making me aware of this issue, it led me on an interesting journey though the internet!

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08101601.html

OBAMA: Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true. The -- here are the facts.

There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.

And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books.

With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception.

And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that's why I voted present, because I'm willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception.

The last point I want to make on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that -- look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views.

I guess I am just confused or wondering why it is so difficult for our leaders to get something that is SO important protected, that they can't get what they need worded correctly to protect those that need it?
(In reference to the underlined words above) Health of either the mother or child. And I defiantly agree that "stress" is not a health issue to the mother!

As I read I came across this comment and it brought back what I now remember being talked about with my young girl friends. As you read you will see why I probably buried it in the deepest regions of my thought process:

"Almost any implement you can imagine had been and was used to start an abortion — darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off.
It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

There is an article written by a doctor that treated the results of bad abortions: Repairing the Damage, Before Roe By Waldo L. Fielding, M.D.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such."

I guess this is why I haven't read the pro or anti abortion threads, I remembered the bad things talked about.

So I know that having two daughters myself, I never want to go back before Roe vs Wade!
If they ever needed qualified medical intervention for whatever we decide, I want them to have the right for their safety.
But I also want to retain that minors need parental notification and hard physical proof that I am the legal parent of said minor, this is a no brainer isn't it?
I don't want the abortion issue in the hand of individual states either and left up to winds of change at state levels!
I totally agree that there are too many abortions for all the wrong reasons, but there are abortions that should be left to the persons personal beliefs and rights. I think it is wrong to take that away and force women to go back to the alleys for it and it would and will happen if Roe vs Wade is overturned!

Now onto partial birth abortions which I read are actually less then 10% of the abortions preformed and now I lost the web page that gave the stats on WHY those were preformed. But I now wonder if this and how this would have affected the personal and medical rights of the two people I mentioned above?

On a very personal side note and not to make you feel sorry for me but to understand my position possibly a little clearer.
I was 17 and in my 5th month when I lost my first baby (natural causes) she lived for 9 hours, I only got to hold her later...to me personally there is nothing else except the death of one of my living children, that could affect me greater! So I guess in my really backwards thinking abortion was easier and less traumatizing...does that even make sense?