E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS From Msnbc.com's Tom Curry
Rep. Stephen Lynch, D- Mass., one of the 34 House Democrats to vote against President Obama’s health care bill, fended off a primary challenge from disgruntled progressives Tuesday night by defeating Mac D’Alessandro, a union activist on leave from his job as the New England political director for the Services Employees International Union (SEIU).
With 87 percent of precincts reporting, Lynch had 65 percent of the vote.
Since the beginning of August, SEIU had spent nearly $260,000 in independent expenditures to boost D’Alessandro.
Lynch’s victory was another defeat for the labor-progressive coalition which had mounted a $6 million effort to defeat Sen. Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas in June. Lincoln defeated Bill Halter in a June 8 runoff.
“Mac D’Alessandro may have come up short in his campaign but his impressive result proves that when you stand up for your beliefs you will never stand alone,” SEIU Massachusetts State Council President Mike Grunko said in a statement.
Lynch opposed the final version of the health care bill because it omitted a public insurance option and, in his view, allowed insurance companies to remain too powerful.
Elected in 2001 and himself a former ironworkers’ union local president, Lynch proved to be resilient. His TV ads avoided the health care vote and emphasized his blue-collar roots and his vote against the Wall Street bailout.
Lynch enjoyed the fund-raising advantage of incumbency. As of the end of August his campaign spent nearly $1 million, a nine-to-one advantage of D’Alessandro’s campaign.
In addition to attacking Lynch’s ‘no’ vote on the health care bill, D’Alessandro also assailed Lynch’s support for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Leave a Comment:
Guess the unions did not spend enough money, should had asked uncle Obama for more.
"Grow up" just doesn't go far enought for you tiptards.
not enough thugs on hand with batons?
Who knows? Maybe next time the unions will help them find a box, or two, or ten of "uncounted" ballots...
Any loss for the Union is a win for the rest of the country. Here's to hoping you lose some more Unions!
I know Obama wouldn't like this, but I think the unions should go to Las Vegas they would have more fun losing their money than just throwing it into the wind. You union people didn't really want to retire anyway did you?
Why is the SEIU throwing their members' money away to defeat a representative who shares their interests??? At least, that's the way this article reads. Any D'Allesandro supporters care to argue that? Educate me.
The democrats have few challengers compared to the Tea Party attempts to purge republicans who aren't conservative enough. Since I don't live there, the only thing I say is that it is to make a point to democrats about voting no on signature democratic legislation.
The corupt need there hands in everything huh?
Why can't the decision of who represents us go back to the people. Republicans....with exception to Scott Brown, care less what happens to us. They are the voice of the corporations that feeds their political career....the highest "donor". It makes me sick. Where is this market place of idea's they should be???
Republicans lost my faith in them when they opt to focus on dirty politics than solving problems the people put them in office to fix.
Dave - while i agree with you - the democrats are no better. Thats the real issue. We have a 2 party system and both parties could care less about the people.
Agreed! I'm more disgusted with Republicans because they just stir things up instead of trying to do some useful legislation, but I'm disgusted with both parties as well as with the voters who don't nominate the candidates who cross party lines. Being an independent in PA means I, along with all the other independents, can't vote in the primaries. I had hoped for Specter, but the PA Dems didn't think he was liberal enough! We are getting to the point where we have to choose between the far left or the far right. I for one am sick of the whole system. I'll be voting only for independents this year, especially for the Senate.
Lynch opposed the final version of the health care bill because it omitted a public insurance option and, in his view, allowed insurance companies to remain too powerful.
I thought that was their complaint.....no public option.
Based on what we have seen the last several months with respect to Health Insurance Premium increases, I think Rep. Lynch is right, Insurance Companies have been allowed to remain too powerful. A year of debate, several thousand pages of new law, and the Insurance industry still does whatever they please!
We need more Lynch and less of the other type!
Kenn,
Let's see....Obamacare demands higher benefits to be offered (mental health parity, lower maximum deductibles, senior wellness), removes prexisting condition clauses and makes health insurance guaranteed to issue.
What did you think was going to happen? That everyone would get that much more for less cost?
2008 average usage among those with insurance in the US was around $3600/year. That's $300/month. Premiums were not too far off that mark (about 3-6% higher). HCR also demands that health insurance companies pay out about 80% (it varies depending on group insurance versus individual) of premiums in claims. How many other businesses out there can remain solvent on 20% overhead to pay staff, infrastructure, technology, property, etc?
This bill didn't cater specifically to the insurance companies as much as it catered to big business pharmacuetical, hospital and medical malpractice. The issue isn't as much the cost of the insurance but moreso the cost of medical care. The travesty known as the Healthcare Reform Act did not address the root of the problem.
No tort reform, no hospital billing reform, no FDA approval cost reform....our congress voted into law 2800 pages of nonsense (that they hadn't even read!).
I have not read the bill, but our health insurance is going up 15% starting in January. I am a county employee. We are paying part of our insurance as of the beginning of last year, and it is thought we will support the increase out of pocket. The employer pays $1200 a month for Blue Shield and Group Health and $990 for union insurance. For me that is $14K a year per employee. 15% of that is well you do the math, but that adds up to maybe another $180 per month. My daughter on a individual policy, her premimum went from $313 per month to $364 per month starting this month. The Health Care Bill did not control any insurance companies from keeping our premimums from rising. This needs to be addressed by the President and the congress if the democrats plan on staying in Wash DC. I don't believe the republicans have any concern about it at all, and they had no ideas on how to control the costs. I can only think of the Health Savings plans they touted, and no other ideas, but that was shot down by the budget office. I admire the democrat who voted against the bill because it had no public option, he stood his ground. If this keeps up, we will be paying more of our salary every month, and eventually we could conceivably be working just to pay the insurance. I think the working person needs to point this out to their representatives in WA DC. There needs to be controls on these corporations or a public option to help them compete.
Joe, I agree that one of the most far reaching and complex pieces of legislation in our history was put together in record time without, for the most part, our input. It was an ill advised RUSH TO LEGISLATION, and the big question is “Why?”
For the record, as a Blue Dog Democrat, I did not support the healthcare reform that was passed; I was with the group that felt we should have started over.
President Obama announced to a joint session of Congress in February 2009 that he would begin working with Congress to construct a plan for health care reform. On March 5, 2009, he began the process and held a conference with industry leaders. In July 2009, a series of bills were approved by committees within the House of Representatives. This bill goes from zero to 2800 pages in just 4 months? It’s no wonder representatives didn’t know what was in it! A push for a vote was made before the August recess (with Nancy Pelosi saying “We have to pass it before we can know what’s in it”) and was turned back (with the help of the Blue Dogs). In August members went back to their districts and entertained town hall meetings to solicit public opinion on the proposals, and the more we found out the more we began to question what is actually in these 2800 pages.
I think the failure of this effort to adequately reform healthcare should be laid directly at the feet of Nancy Pelosi and the left wing of the party. They pushed through a healthcare agenda that had been fashioned long before the 2008 election (which is how you go from zero to 2800 pages in just four months). They were not interested in anyone else’s opinion. They knew what was best for all of us, and that’s what we were going to get.
On the other hand most everyone supports the removal of preexisting condition clauses and making health insurance a guaranteed issue!
Now that we are baring our souls here, Joe, I am asking you to look at the financial reports for Wellpoint, (the owner of Blue Cross). Explain to me how they were able to earn $5.95 per share in the 4th quarter of 2009 after having earned between $1.17 and $1.55 for the prior 3 quarters. I don’t dispute that tort reform, hospital billing reform and FDA approval cost reform should have been addressed within the bill to help contain costs, but I believe it is undeniable that health insurance companies pass on big premium increases that go directly to their bottom line!
Perhaps the answer here is that all health insurance companies should be non-profit!
Glad to see the Dems are getting along so well!
Hey D Colann why are you so afraid of National Health Insurance - we are the only country
in the Western World that does not provide their citizens and might I add dental health insurance - did you see all the peole lined up for the free Clinics - 10,000 and they turned away thousands what a disgrace that our people have to beg - yes beg to be provided for I am ashamed of your comments and I am ashamed of our lack of concern for my "Americans who have to beg - yes beg for health care - this should be a right - natal care by the way we rank 50th in the world - keep your paltry bank accounts and when your children have babies with pre-existing problems they will be bankrupt under our current system and god forbid a pre-existing condition is like a hair lip - like your daughter is raped by the way insurance companies called that a pre-existing condition or if a baby is born with a heart murmur pre-existing condition - grow up and demand the best and quit not thinking - we as Americans should demand the best without bankrupting us
Then why do people from around the world still come to the US for medical procedures? Because we have the best medical professionals in the world. The rest of the world rations health care.
Dobie:
"The rest of the world rations health care."
And you think we don't? Explain that to your insurance carrier next time they deny your claim.
See, now why is it that people are so obsessed with getting something for nothing? Haven't you ever heard the expressions "you get what you pay for"? Personally, I don't want a crappy doctor working on me. But if that's what you want, go for it. Just don't get in my way when I go to MY doctor. I have my own medical problems to deal with (AND PAY FOR MYSELF) without worrying about yours.
Could it be that the Gvmnt has no business in Health Insurance? Could it be that the Gvmnt is once again overstepping their bounds and doing things that SHOULD BE done by its people.
Jeremy:
Actually, the "people" have already done what they can on health care. They elected a President who promised health care reform. And he fulfilled his promise.
Obviously, you don't agree with the "people" on this, but hey, elections have consequences.
In any event, how exactly do you think "people" would reform an industry by themselves? Name one major reform to the market place (not just insurance, but any market place you want) imposed by "people."
The market place is not reformed by "people," because businesses and corporations don't answer to "people." They answer to shareholders, whose interests are profit, not quality or service.
Itjdangle:
Correct, as far as it goes. But they have a conflict of interest. Their health interest is that all necessary care be available. Their shareholder interest is that the insurance company minimize costs. They cannot reconcile this conflict.
Insurance companies follow 2 basic rules: 1) Sell coverage. 2) Deny liability.
ltdjangle:
Agreed. The reform we got was not ideal. It's a compromise of the good, the bad, and the ugly. It's not entirely surprising though, considering the contortions Congress went through to pass it. But, it's still a promise kept.
And it's a start on real reform.
Uh, just for the sake of clarity, I'm part of the "entire country," and I don't want it repealed. And I don't think I'm alone on this. Step out of the echo chamber...not everyone is on YOUR page...
Hey, look... my post above (#4.6) asked a simple question: "Name one major reform to the market place (not just insurance, but any market place you want) imposed by "people." Please...tell me I'm wrong on this.
Give me just ONE example where shareholders essentially said "screw the profits...we need to give better quality and quantity to our customers." Or words to that effect.
I'll wait patiently for your reply.
Ltjdangle:
Still unresponsive on the idea that shareholders as consumers can reform the market place, I see.
No markets need reforming other than health insurance? Right. Nothing wrong with the way AIG, Goldman Sachs, and various other entities involved in abundant corporate greed operate, I guess.
Reconciliation is legislative trickery? Well, I might agree with you, to the extent that the GOP used the same procedure to get the tax cuts in place in 2001 and 2003.
Or am I wrong here? Is it still legislative trickery if the GOP does it?
The fact that you think we got any type of health care reform in the bill shows how Niave you actually are. this was a Health Insurace reform bill. Not one damn thing in the bill addresses the sky rocketing costs of health care. We got something with Health Care in the title to appease people who Voted for Obama on his pledge to reform health care.
The problem is that the Gvmnt already regulates the hell out of Insurance Companies. Look up the facts, they are the most regulated group in the country. They are regulated so much that they are only allowed to make a specific percentage of profit.
It is OUR responsiablity, not the Gvmnts to fix the way the Insurance Companies do business. If you do not like how company A does business, then goto Company B so on and so on. Speak with your pocket books. THAT will tell the share holders what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong. OHHH but you know what, we cannot do that because the Gvmnt has regulated the hell out of Insurance. Company A might not be able to sell to you because you live in a different state.
Stop running to Big Brother, the Federal Gvmnt, to fix your problems. Gvmnt creates more problems then it solves.
Edit:
I said in my 1st post that it is not the Gvmnts job and they are over stepping their bounds. You seem to think different, so tell me... Exactly WHERE in our constitution that tells the Gvmnt what it can and cannot do, gives them the right to be in health care.
Jeremy, If only it were that easy. If your child has a disability that your work insurance won't cover, can you just go to another insurance company? That may work in most other businesses, but not healthcare. It isn't like being unhappy with your bank and so you switch, or even car insurance. The majority have medical through work and you don't have the option to switch unless you are willing to pay huge amounts for coverage, and even then you may not be accepted. I would give up social security, welfare, Medicare, unemployment, etc. if it meant universal healthcare. We can plan for retirement or being unemployed ourselves. We can't plan for some catastrophic illness or injury. And I've heard too many instances of an illness or injury not being covered by the insurance for whatever reason, and once you are denied you can't go to another company and have them cover it. Besides, if you think we haven't all been paying for uninsured for years, think again. Right now we rank number 20 or something in the industrial world for healthcare and we pay twice as much as the next highest amount per GDP. Something is wrong here! Seems like the rest of the world is advancing while we stay idle because everyone's afraid of change. I want to be number 1 again.
That number ( while wrong its 34) according to the WHO, has been proven wrong by the WHO itself.
The reason why the US ranks so low, is due to the different reporting methods from country to country.
Well, I thought the tax cut was so we could pay the property tax increases that we suffered in the artificial housing bubble (our taxes based on re-assessed value of homes that had sold in our area). So we save $1k from our income tax to pay our inflated property tax bill because our cost of living raises did not off-set it. No, the tax cut by Bush was for Votes. And yes, the healthcare bill could be better a lot better, and no, I don't think the economy recovered from the dot com bubble because of the tax cuts.
ltdjangle:
It's not indefensible. It's procedural. And it's abused by both parties. But hey...it seems incredibly hypocritical for the GOP to whine about the Dems using the same procedure they abuse when they don't have 60 votes. Just my opinion, but hypocrisy is one of my pet peeves.
That said, I thank you and congratulate you on carrying on a civilized discussion on subjects we will never agree on. You argue with logic, facts, and some passion, but not with insults or name calling. I enjoyed these exchanges with you today.
Jeremy:
You never answered my question in #4.6:
Are you going to keep avoiding an answer? Do you want to retract your previous statement?
I'd really like to know how "people" can reform an industry other than through government action. I'm still waiting patiently for your response.
I'm willing to take something like this as an answer:
The government is, by definition, a creation of the people. The people (the voters, at least) have periodic input (elections) to select leaders and provide them with guidance. Therefore, government reform is an action that originates with the people.
Do we agree? Is there some other way that I have not presented for the people to implement reform of an industry?
biweeler -
Jeremy did answer your question, and I agree with him completely.
The government has regulated, and bailed out and continues to protect so many business and institutions that it has become virtually impossible for the "people" or the "market" to actually work. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of this, the Dems for regulation HELL and the Repubs for subsidy HELL, generaly speaking.
Jeremy pointed out, which is true, that if it WERE truly a "free" market for health insurance, you would be able to by from any company - but you can't. You can only buy from some companies, that are allowed to do business in your state. And then if you live in a liberal state, your premiums are driven sky high by the items insurance companies licensed in that state are mandated to cover - things like Viagra, acupuncture, massage, etc - things that people USED to be expected to pay for out of their own pockets. Obamacare just adds to this list of mandates, while NOT opening up any actual market competition. The exchanges, when and if they come to pass, will be a quasi-free market - totally and completely managed and manipulated by the government. Then when you throw in the cost shifting onto the privately insured resulting from an average 86% UNDERpayment from government run programs, it is literally impossible for health insurance market to "work" in a way that advantages consumers. The government has made sure of that, via regulation and cost shifting.
In a TRUE free market situation, the crap product dies. Period. One example would be New Coke. Remember that? If not, google it, it was an historic and epic fail on the part of one of this countries oldest and most successful companies - and the consumer said, oh HELL no. And shortly? Old Coke was back. Why? Because the government had not (yet) totally and completely regulated and mandated the life out of the soda industry. People spoke with their pocketbooks, and Coke listened - because the government didn't stop them from introducing the product in the first place, hadn't instituted a sugar tax in its war on freedom of choice, didn't tell them they couldn't use "new" in the name for some obscure reason, didn't tell them they could only sell it in certain locations, didn't tell them could only charge $1.00 per bottle and of that, be required to spend 80 cents on the ingredients and other overhead, etc etc etc.
Yes government is an extension of the people, but a very, very large and growing part of the population in this country is rejecting the idea that government knows best and that more government is somehow good. It's become pretty obvious they don't, and it's not - and that is also true for both sides of the aisle. Why, because they're all for sale to the highest bidder and legitimately care about one thing above all else - getting reelected. Something is dreadfully wrong when people spend millions getting elected to a job that only pays $186,000 per year. Obviously, there's much more to it than that relatively paltry salary - and noone's asking WHAT it is. And, unfortunately, too many people's votes are for sale and can be bought for the price of entitlements and pork that only benefit a handful of people, but cost everyone else dearly.
And for the record, I was incredibly impressed by this thread too, for the level of civility and non-hyperbolic discussion. It is a rare thing to find anywhere anymore.
Pragmatic:
We just disagree. "Free" markets in the theoretical pure form resemble the law of the jungle. Eat or be eaten. We already went through a period of robber barons once; I don't think it's wise to return to that. I prefer having rules for the game that protect both markets AND consumers. Using your example of a "free" market for health insurance, people would certainly die because bogus, unregulated insurance scams would explode. "Free market" is not a concept that innocent people should have to die for.
As for the money in the political system, we agree. It's a pox on the entire country, and it's going to get MUCH worse before it gets better (Citizens United case). I'm at least as pessimistic about this as you are.
As to your comment about the large part of the country rejecting government solutions, you are spot on. I don't deny that there is a large number of angry citizens ready to take corrective action of some kind. I can relate; I was angry and frustrated for 8 years while GWB turned us into a country that sanctions torture, declares habeus corpus doesn't exist in the Constitution, intercepts our electronic communications, conducts extraordinary renditions, and imprisoned a bunch of innocent people at Gitmo with no chance of ever going to trial. And don't get me started on "preemptive war."
My advice to the current crop of angry Americans? Put down the pitchforks and the 2nd Amendment remedies and vote the bums out. Cut the anarchist rhetoric and focus on solutions. We need them.
Finally, thank you for noticing the spirited but civilized exchanges I had with ltdjangle. You're right. It's a rare thing to find anywhere anymore. And, ironically, it may be the only way to start pulling this polarized, angry country back together.
bilweeler -
You're welcome.
I would simply point out one other thing, regarding the idea of "free market".
No one is advocating a return to a "robber barron" mentality. It is a false choice to present the ONLY options as being extremes - regulation that completely stifles the positive effects of a free free market and no regulation at all.
Capitalism without the threat of failure - to quote another poster from another vine - is like religion without hell. The government, via excessive bailouts, subsidy, tax incentive, etc., has basically removed all threat of failure from too much of the marketplace. The effect has been the same on consumers. Too many no longer think it is their responsbility to read know the terms of a loan or credit card, or any other contract - because they think the government is taking care of them.
I share your belief in the need for the government to make and more importantly - ENFORCE - regulations that force companies to honor contracts like health insurance. It's just gone too far.
Pragmatic:
There's more common ground here than either of us realized. Just curious...is there an economy in a developed nation that you consider a good model for us/US?
As for the threat of failure, I think there's some common ground there too. TARP, which was a bi-partisan bailout package (started under Bush, continued under Obama), rescued a number of failing institutions. Many economists convinced both Bush and Obama that the alternative (failure of those institutions) would be worse, and probably result in an extended depression.
Were those economist wrong? I don't know; I doubt anyone really knows for sure. But given the choice, whether false or real, of bailouts or economic disaster, both Bush and Obama chose TARP. For political, if not economic reasons, I doubt either would make the same choice again.
I know they saved the butts of enterprises that were doomed; the question is, did they save our butts too? Thoughts?
I would support government intervention when the failure of a critical enterprise system endangers the national security or economy. Otherwise, you're correct: potential failure has to be an integral part of markets.
biweeler -
I'm not prepared to even consider a scenario in which the United States emulates someone else anymore than we already have. We have, and have had for most of a century, a standard of living far in excess of any other country, and we have brought the world the vast majority of the technology the entire world enjoys now. Our poor live better than the middle class in most countries. We have brought some bad as well, but it is far outweighed by good. It was when we started emulating other countries that we started to have a problem. I firmly believe in American exceptionalism.
I also firmly believe - and believed at the time, this isn't hindsight - that the failures of the banks should have just been handled via bankruptcy court as they're supposed to be, as necessary. There is a lot of speculation that many of those banks didn't really need bailing out in the first place and the moral hazards created, and advantaged by the banks, were and are still enormous.
It's probably likely - and I'm no economist but I"ve done quite a bit of reading and this is where I"ve netted out - that the crash would have been worse. But it would have ended, and we would have started over with a clean slate where necessary. As it stands now, much of the toxic debt that was a problem.... is still a problem. Much of it is being held by Fannie/Freddie, to the tune about $150 billion MORE in taxpayer funds. As is far, far to typical of government meddling, the problem was not fixed. A bandaid was applied, that's all.
You're right, it's impossible to know what "might" have happened and while I hated the bailouts then as much as now - I do understand the justifications for doing them. Unfortunately, it was simply fear and a desire to protect people from reality. The reality is, banks, people and government simply CANNOT live on borrowed money, leveraged at 50x their ability to pay back and have it be sustainable.
In the end, I think we learned that lesson - but a potential deathblow has been dealt to the governmetn, Wall Street and the Fed as far as peoples trust in those institutions. Another thing we probably agree on is that by all indications, this is another area where party is irrelevant. Both are in bed with Wall Street.
Pragmatic:
I think we may be the only ones left in here. These comment pages tend to fill up quickly, then go silent in 24-48 hours. So, in a sense, I guess we're just debating this among ourselves, which is probably a very good thing. We can keep the emotional posters out of a rational discussion. Apologies in advance for the lengthy post, but sometimes things can't be boiled down to talking points.
We still disagree on some fundamentals, but your last post contains a lot of common sense logic that I can't really argue with.
Agreed. We probably disagree on the reasons this statement is true, but in the final analysis, the toxic result is more important than the process that produced it.
Agreed. However, I would disagree to some extent on your next 2 sentences. I don't believe we have emulated other countries to any great degree. Further, I don't think, despite the obvious success of the US, that we have all the answers. We're in a global environment, and we have to "play well" with others. I think we have demonstrated repeatedly since 2000 that we are as vulnerable, and as flawed, as any other developed economy. We are exceptional, but we are not omnipotent. We should embrace, not fear, practical/effective innovations, even if they don't originate in the USA.
I agree, but quibble with the term "moral hazards." The economy, and the enterprises that comprise it, are amoral in my view. They are not driven by any sense of right/wrong, but rather by what's legal and profitable. Goldman Sachs is a good example; they did nothing illegal by trading in mortgage derivatives. However, in practice, they unjustly enriched themselves and nearly destroyed the national economy. Lloyd Blankfein, GS CEO, doesn't get it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/apr/25/profile-lloyd-blankfein-goldman-sachs
Blankfein considers GS successful. In my view, he and GS are the poster children for what's wrong with the market system.
It's difficult to disagree with any sentence that starts with "You're right." I also agree that borrowed money (not an evil in itself) carries substantial risks. We are past the point where the rewards outweigh the risks.
Agree, but quibble with "potential deathblow." All three entities will survive this, although with some damage. I doubt there will be any substantial change to any of them, because these entities do not, traditionally, learn from their mistakes. They tend to rationalize them away, and return to the status quo as soon as possible.
Citizens have virtually no input for 2 of the 3 entities, but government obviously will be accountable to the voters on election day. While we will have angry, frustrated campaigns, even if there are no incumbents re-elected, I don't see substantial policy impacts from the newly elected grenade throwers. They will be a minority, they will be rookies, and they will have a lot less influence than they expect. There are 2 reasons for their impotence:
1. As we both know, both parties are in bed with Wall Street. Money drives politics, not policy.
2. As freshman Congress people all learn, governing is not easy. Ideologues who believe they were elected to destroy government will find that they become part of the problem, not part of the solution, as soon as they are sworn in. Ideologues who believe they were elected to change government will quickly find that reform at that level is incremental tweaking, at best. And those who are not sure why they are elected (I have some candidates in mind, but I'll leave out the personal attacks) will wind up seeking pork for their voters and focusing on re-election.
I'm not really cynical about government; I think it's an important part of what makes this the best country in the world. But it's far from perfect.
I know you do your homework on this stuff, so I've provided a link below to a Michael Hersh/Newsweek article on current economic thinking, or the lack thereof.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/16/our-best-economic-minds-are-failing-us.html
Thanks for providing rational discourse on an extremely important subject. I've learned some things from your posts, and enjoyed the exchanges. But mostly it's reassuring to find a lot of agreement on issues where I suspected there would be little. It's too bad the general discourse is a shouting match rather than civilized conversations. That's not how problems are solved; the kind of exchange we've had here is much more productive. I know it's heresy for the ideologues, but talking to the other side is not inherently evil.
Bill
Stephen Lynch opposed Obamacare because it wasn't "Liberal Enough" (Public Option Missing) so the SEIU spent their members money to support someone "more" liberal? I know I'm a right wing wacko, but will someone explain this to me?
At least his heart was in the right place. Now Americans have to depend on the private sector for health care to do the right thing. Good luck with that!
Georgia Jim it's all we had at the time what I told my husband just open the door when Social Security was enacted it was flawed - we need you to quit fighting us and demand the best - this country can offer - why are 10's of thousands attending fee health c linics a National Shame" JIM WE NEED YOU TO DEMAND THAT EVERY WOMAN AND CHILD IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE AND AFFORDABLE DENTAL CARE
Barbara,
Please explain how we get the best the country can offer without paying for it.
Now O'Really, Barbara didn't say SHE wanted to pay for anything for anyone...she wants the TAXPAYERS providing it....meaning-give it to them for FREE....she doesn't think it's right that people have to wait in line at a FREE clinic...they should just be able to get something for nothing without having ever paid into the system or worked for their own care. I do believe that's the way I read it. Unfortunately, someone always has to pay....
I'm glad the SEIU didn't win this one. The unions had a purpose at one time, but from my personal experience, all they do now is bargain away your personal time while the union heads sit in the office and think of ways to spend the unions money....The unions have caused a lot of employers to have to ship their jobs oversees, because the ridiculous wages they demand for a simple job. All jobs are important, all require some skill, but when you pay a telemarketer 25.00 an hour to answer the phone, I believe that's overcharging the company. Don't get me started on the HUGE expense of providing benefits for union workers! Just like the government, it's time to rein in spending and costs (including salaries) so we can get people back to work here at home.
Right on MillerZ
When our household income is cut back we cut back. Simple is as simple is. It can't be any clearer. Stop spending what you don't have. Government today doesn't get this. I usually give panhandlers spare change if I have it. When I don't have it they don't get it. Do I feel bad? Sure!
Until government STOPS being "GIVER" MENT and gets this simple concept, there will be tea parties all over America.
Stop spending what you don't have!!!
Term limits ... 12 years max ... solves 50-75% of Washington's problems ... NO MORE career politicians ... no more lobbyists cause they would go bankrupt re-buying politicians on a 12 year cycle!
Twelve years is too long. 2 terms for a Rep. One term for the Senate. Then they go home and do their normal occupation. While we are at it. They should not be allowed to lobby Congress or work for any lobbying firm.
Iowa, you've hit the nail on the head. Term limits would be the single most effective step to give this country back to the people. It would necessarily, perhaps automatically, lead to other democratizing measures, like taking money out of politics and shortening the campaigning season from a year or more to a few months...
BUT the Democrats lost interest once they became the majority party in Congress. What a letdown!
Iowa Transplant you are so wrong term limits is not the answer but weeding out the peole who not support your values - maybe from Iowa I would not agree with you but - can we work together someone once said a good negotiation is when both people leave the table wishing they got more but there was a compromise - and the willingness to work together is so lacking in this bodies everbody protecting their interests - what I propose is dollars invested in seeking a term put a cap on money spent !
I have no idea what you just said
Iowa:
We already have term limits. They're called elections. Just ask Mike Castle (R-DE). Or Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Or Bob Bennett (R-UT).
I agree with you, Bilweeler, about elections vs term limits. . .
Unfortunately most people re-elect the same idiots over and over (I live in MA - can you say Kennedy?) simply because they recognize the name and don't bother to do any research on other candidates.
bilweeler - agree with you but what happed with Rangel (D-NY). Seems like the R are trying to clean up but the D's want to keep their crooks
There are crooks on both sides, but I don't see a lot of cleaning up on either side. Who exactly did the R's clean up? Neither side will clean up unless they are made to. They are made to by the voters. Unfortunately, the voters don't know what they're doing. They keep voting the same crooked politicians in until it gets too bad, then they go the opposite extreme. They don't like it either, so they go back to the other way. And they keep getting further to the extremes. Maybe we need more moderates. Time to vote for some fresh faces, and keep getting in fresh faces until we get some that are okay.
Peeps-n-Pie:
Elections do tend to favor incumbents, both good ones and bad ones. I try not to criticize the voters, who may vote differently than I would, because, for the most part, they're sincere even if misinformed or misguided. At least they make the effort to vote.
Given the choices, it's pretty near a certainty that some "idiots" (your term) will get elected. It's also a near certainty that they will get re-elected. Sad, but that's our system.
I don't like term limits because they throw out the good ones (and yes, there are some) with the bad ones. Baby with the bathwater, and no intelligent decision required by the electorate. Term limits would result in permanent rookies who have to learn how to govern. It just seems like term limits would substitute institutionalized failure for our current system of failure by political malpractice/incompetence.
sick_n_tired:
There's no accounting for voter's tastes. Rangel could probably be re-elected even if he was convicted of stealing from his mother. But, as I mentioned to Peeps above, it's sad, but that's our system.
Before someone on here jumps all over me about supporting the status quo, let me be clear. There is AMPLE opportunity for reform in our political system. I just don't think term limits lead to more effective governing. I'd prefer to start with campaign financing, independent ethics oversight, and a more parliamentary system (as opposed to the 2 party system).
Thanks to both of you for the feedback...
Bill
Progressives is another name for Bolshovics! Once in power, they are known as Communists. Poison to the American system and the American way of life. Why allow Obama and his henchmen bring the United States people into a system that the rest of the world is trying to get out of? Clear message of hatred for the people of the United States by Obama by his methods to implode them into destruction and rebuild in the image of Marxist Ideology with poverty for all. Forced Obamacare, Immigration Lawsuits, Economic Ruin via Spending the country into financial ruin, etc, etc, the list goes on. Lets hope and pray this imposter and his lavish spending wife are outsted ASAP. Repeal and Repeal again everything this moron has passed by way of urinating on the United States Constitution. Unions? = Thuggery. Good luck to those who want America back and on course for prosperity for all.
American's can't get back on track until companies stop exploiting workers in American buy sending jobs overseas. What do the Republican's want? American workers to work for .50 and hour with no benifits?
What's this "Bolshovics" stuff, Philip? Someone who, literally, can't spell "Bolshevik" but signs himself "Aussie"?
Looks to me like you're the impostor.
Advice from neo-Nazis, we don't need. What we do need is a strong, responsible labor movement that can do something about five million dollar bonuses to corporate CEO's who lay off thousands.
Could you please name a few of Obama's "henchmen". And if you have one, please turn in your social security card.
Philip-Aussie:
Aussie? Have you checked in on your homeland lately? Australia is WAY more progressive than the US. Free health care for all, to begin with. Ever heard of the "flying doctors?" http://www.flyingdoctor.org.au/
Maybe you should pay more attention to your own country before you criticize others.
Georgia Jim - Republicans want what all Americans want, the opportunity to profit from our labors without the heavy hand of government taking away our incentive to work with regulations and taxes. Here in Chicago for example, the effective tax on personal income just edged over 51% - for every dollar I earn, local, state and federal governments take more than half! Factor in the money I spent on my education, my transportation costs, tools, work clothes, permits and licenses, etc and the return on investment is hardly worth the effort.
As an individual I am stuck with it unless I can pack up and move to a more tax friendly state. Companies are nothing more than individuals who have taken on the tremendous risk of investing their money to employ other people. The hourly wage they pay those employees is in many instances the SMALLEST portion of the overall cost of doing business.
If you are actually living in Georgia you should be aware of the dozen or so Torrington/Timken plants that relocated there to avoid the onerous cost of doing business in Connecticut. Labor costs were certainly part of the equation but not the primary reason. GA attracted thousands of jobs by offering Torrington the opportunity to profit from their investment.
The driving force of our economy is NOT government punishing, taxing and demonizing corporations, it is allowing those companies to profit from their investment because when they profit they expand, they hire more people, pay more taxes and yes, may God forgive them, they make more money.
I sincerely hope you get your way. The sooner bad policy destroys capitalism, the sooner enlightenment can begin restoring it. BTW, it's true that no spelling czar is required: there's a free spelling check. Use it, and you won't have to look as if you never made it through sixth grade. It's the button on the far right with the "ABC" above a green check mark. Otherwise, expect derision- because you will then have demonstrated not only stupidity, but pride in it and disrespect for the intelligence of others- all likely to reduce the impact of your opinions.
If a democrat had to win (grinning), at least it was done without union backing.
Thats the funny thing, the Rep used to be the President of his local when he worked as an Iron worker or electrician or something.....they are eating their own.
This does not bode well for the thugs of SEIU and other unions who think they can dictate to the American people on issues that affect the entire country. While unions had their place during the last century, I'm not at all sure there is a continued need on the scale represented by some that they should continue. I strongly support govenment employees union activities because if there is a single bad boss out there, one that would take advantage of the workers, it would be Big Brother in the form of Big Governemnt,
Everything in life is a comprimise, term limits as well. I think it might be better to reduce the term for a senator to 4 years and limit them to three terms. The real problem is that we already have seen that the quality of people running for office is lower, (in my humble opinion). If a successful person knows he is going to have to give up his or her business to run for office, but they can only have 2 years, is it worth it? Is it long enough to make a change in the government? Will the pause then put them out of competition in their private business? Be very careful about this. Just because your mad, doesn't mean you will make the right decisions, it's usually the other way around. Also, I think we will get more people who have so much money, they don't care how long it is.
For shame Mass,Teddy will roll over in his grave,biting the hand that feeds your Dimocratic machine.
To Tom Curry. Tom, why not put quotation marks around "Progressives" when you use the term to refer to the rabid, Democrats who consider anyone who disagrees with their socialistic agendas - like Obamacare - as the enemy?
You are allowing them to assume a mantle of being truly progressive, when in fact they are every bit as reactionary in their thinking and their goals as the most rabid, right wing Republican.
Call them and characterize them for what they really are, politicians with unbridled agendas devoid of any respect for anyone who isn't a true believer in their righteous cause who has not yet ascended to their lofty heights of enlightenment and almost divinely inspired perception of the"truth" which they believe we would, if only we were as smart and enlightened as they, also believe and cease questioning.
This is just like calling the anti-abortionists, anti-women's choice "Pro Lifers" - we all know that was an ad man's way of creating a bias using words to suggest that those who are for a woman having the right to choose was "Anti-Life". Don't let them get away with a similar load of horse pucky - as Col. Potter of Mash might say.
I also think 2 terms in a lifetime are more then enough...and a drop in salary to 43K rather then the 173K,these "BUMS" have given them self's and NO retirements for the senate /congress..
We need to rid this country of all unions...especially at the governmental level.
Personally,
I think anyone who wants to run for office should be declared insane. Maybe we need to set up a lottery where anyone who meets the current criteria for an office has his/her name put in a hat (albiet a small hat) and have Vanna White pluck out a name from that hat. It would be a lot cheaper and definately faster but the drawbacks whould probably be too great. NEVERMIND!
As usual the "know nothings" are commenting on things they DON'T KNOW!.I thank the good Lord for Unions: They built the middle class in this country following the 2nd World War. If you don't belive that,just wait to see what happens to wages when and if the Tea Pary get's it's way!I am retired..work part time..am 78..have an 81 yr old spouse,veteran..all those hings..Oh,I forgot,I AM A STAUNCH DEMOCRAT!!!Always was,always will be!Proud of it!I do not consider Medicare & Social Security to be "socialist" programs..if you do,refuse the checks evry month and donate the $$ to charity!!FAT CHANCE!
The ownership of media by the wealthy has paid huge dividends in discrediting unions and spreading ignorance- both increasing short-term profit at the ultimate expense of economic survival. How entertaining: we've lost union jobs at about the same rate the economy has declined. But, there couldn't possibly be any relationship between economic collapse and a loss of good jobs..... It simply isn't possible. Automation, outsourcing, and offshoring have produced so much in the way of profit. But, all that profit was achieved at the cost of our future. There will be no recovery because there are no longer enough jobs left to sustain the economy quietly painted into a corner of ever-diminishing returns. Goodbye, future- hello, death spiral. Wake me up when we bottom out- so I can help remove those responsible, and get on with rebuilding a once-great nation from the wreckage greed made of it. Interesting times are on their way.
Chicago Skeptic--What you describe is classic trickle-down economics. But as an almost politician named Ross Perot (rich enough to speak truth to everyone) observed at the end of the Reagan years: "It didn't trickle".
President Reagan slashed federal taxes, reducing the top rate to something like 30 percent. What did those high-income folks do with all that new money? Did they invest in plant and equipment, hire lotsa new employees at a fair wage? No! They bought racehorses, works of art, yachts, big houses, diamonds for the missus (and the mistress).
If they did open a new factory it was more likely to be in Kuala Lumpur than in Kalamazoo--none of those pesky unions to deal with or those EPA bureaucrats with their tedious clean air and water regulations. You don't get yourself all those stock options by being a good corporate citizen.
Chicago skeptic Thank you for your well written piece and calm manner in pointing out some of the realities that face us all as a result of the tax creep that is and will undermine any economic recovery in the years ahead.
Somehow the Democrats never (and never will I predict) get it through their heads that ultimately, as Margaret Thatcher said, "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money to spend."
If I lived in Chicago I would seriously be thinking of moving lock, stock and barrel. What will happen is what has historically happened everytime when tax happy, take the thrifty give to shifty types have gotten their way; people will simply stop working and producing and businesses will cease growing and hiring people because they know that their efforts are not going to benefit them to any appreciable degree and simply go to funding the masses of people who are making no efforts to help themselves, but instead happy to sponge off the welfare system - i. e. 12 million illegal aliens.
The good news is that the class warfare approach of Obama and friends will cause them to loose both their political power base and their jobs. It is inevitable, with their type of stewardship, that our economy will go only one direction - down and down and further down.
Depressing, I know, but just because something is unpleasant to think about, doesn't mean it isn't true and isn't going to happen. In the process of their self-destruction though, fortunately, the Democrats are going to drag their good friends the unions down with them; people long ago realized that unions are a concept that has little relevance in today's world. Unions care predominantly about getting whatever they can get for themselves and their members, and very little about the rest of the population, America and least of all usually their employers - whom they view as their capitalistic "enemies". Time for the unions - like all ideas whose time has past and who have become more detriment and dross than help - to fade away into well deserved oblivion.
The constitution protects the individual from the will of the people or tyranny of you prefer. The heavy hand of the government has no place in decisions that affect our life and individuality. If you wish to be part of a collective, do it. But please don't include me in your schemes.