Oh, yeah, you want single-payer paid for by a national, regressive sales tax.  Yes, that is very forward-looking, Jim, have a tax that weighs on the poor more than the rich.  That's really a Social Liberal position.

You know, instead of blaming conservatives for these things not getting done why don't you remember back to January of 2009 to January of 2011....

And understand that Obama had control of both houses of congress with a size able majority and didn't get any of these things done.

WHOSE FAULT WAS THAT?<blockquote>

Quit making things up:

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.

Listen, I've had a ton of criticism for Obama and his failure to leverage Democratic majorities in Congress, but I don't talk out of both sides of my mouth like you do.  I don't fly my liberal flag and then vote for whacko conservatives who question Obama's citizenship, deny the reality of climate change, and want to reform/eliminate and/or privatize important social safety net programs.

If you want all these socially liberal things you say you support, you have to vote for candidates who will work to make them a reality.  You've chosen to sell out those so-called beliefs for anyone who will love war and hate Muslims and assorted brown people as much as you do.

Conservatives have sat on their butts for four years doing nothing but wasting money with numerous inane attempts to repeal Obamacare and sent crackpot legislation to the senate that they know is not going to pass and then they tried to blow up the country. If those two things are all they are going attempt--wasting money and attempting to blow up the country I would rather have them to continue to sit on their butts.

I trust you understand the difference.

It is known as "Title IX" because it actually refers to a specific section of the U.S. Education Amendments Act of 1972, to which Mrs. Mink's proposal was initially attached by Sen. Birch Bayh (D-IN) on the Senate floor as a rider. And while the law is well-known due to its obvious impact in the growth of women's sports, it should also be noted that Title IX provided increased opportunities for women throughout higher education, especially in law school and medical school, which prior to 1972 were seen as almost entirely -- although not quite exclusively -- male preserves.

Sen. Bayh is listed as Title IX's co-author in the Congressional Record, because he initially introduced the Senate bill which ultimately became the vehicle for Title IX, had agreed to attach Congresswoman Mink's amendments at her request, and ultimately became her foremost proponent in defending those amendments on the Senate floor:

"We are all familiar with the stereotype of women as pretty things who go to college to find a husband, go on to graduate school because they want a more interesting husband, and finally marry, have children, and never work again. The desire of many schools not to waste a 'man's place' on a woman stems from such stereotyped notions. But the facts absolutely contradict these myths about the 'weaker sex' and it is time to change our operating assumptions. [...] While the impact of this amendment would be far-reaching, it is not a panacea. It is, however, an important first step in the effort to provide for the women of America something that is rightfully theirs--an equal chance to attend the schools of their choice, to develop the skills they want, and to apply those skills with the knowledge that they will have a fair chance to secure the jobs of their choice with equal pay for equal work." (118 Cong. Record 5804-5808 (1972))

But in terms of its actual substance, Title IX is almost entirely Mrs. Mink's work. She's listed as co-sponsor of the bill in the House along with Congresswoman Edith Green (D-OR), who stepped forward to become the measure's primary champion in that body because Mrs. Mink was not exactly admired by her colleagues universally at the time, due to her rather strident and vocal opposition to the Vietnam War. Speaking from personal experience, the woman was certainly no shrinking violet.

In fact, when President Nixon enacted Public Law No. 92-318, 86 Stat. 235 in June 1972 at a White House signing ceremony, he spoke publicly to another provision in that legislation which was to be used to enforce desegregation in school bussing, a huge and controversial issue at the time that was then encountering a lot of public resistance. He actually said nary a word about those provisions in the bill which later became known as Title IX.

I would further note that the NCAA originally went to federal court in 1975 in an effort to have Title IX struck down as illegal, offering the argument -- get this! -- that the law discriminated against men because colleges were ostensibly diverting monies from men's collegiate sports to fund women's programs. And for his part, Sen. John Tower (R-TX) attempted to convince Congress to repeal the law in 1975-76, in tandem with the NCAA. But through it all, Title IX survived. (Further, the NCAA would not formally incorporate women's collegiate sports under its organizational umbrella until 1981, five years after its lawsuit was dismissed.)

In order to see Title IX enacted into law during the spring and summer of 1972, Patsy Mink was compelled to take a back seat while others steered its passage. In fact, while her amendments were being debated in Congress, she was busy running for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination -- to the LEFT of Sen. George McGovern. This was one woman for whom fire and passion burned brightly until the day she left us, and I believe that we could certainly use a few more like her today.

"What you endure is who you are. And if you just accept it and do nothing, then life goes on. But if you see it as a way for change, life doesn't have to be this unfair. It can be better, maybe not for me because I can't change the past, but I can certainly help somebody else in the future, so that they don't have to go through what I did. [...] I've run many, many times, and I've lost many times. But I've never given up the feeling that I as an individual and you as an individual can make the difference."
-- Congresswoman Patsy Mink, addressing the 1996 Democratic Convention

Disclosure: I worked for Congresswoman Mink on Capitol Hill in 1995-96 and quite obviously, I remain an unabashed fan of hers. She taught me a lot about personal dedication to public service during my two years with her, and she will always hold a very special place in my heart as one of my most admired American heroes.