Louis J.

How true. President Obama is doing everything he can to try and move this country forward. The republican/tea party is doing eveything they can to stop him. Who looses if they succeed? The American People and the Middle Class.

LouisJ: I read last nite over on DKos that California had to change it place of venue for President Obama's rally. Evidently they need a bigger space because the RSVPs were overwhelming.

I was watching and listening to a few Latinos last night on MSNBC and they are very very impressive during their interviews. They know there is a drive to suppress their vote in the GOP. But they aren't buying it.

They spoke about their concerns - jobs, environment, immigration reform, etc. Things that matter, really matter to the future of our country.

And then you listen to Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest of 'em. I truly hope the Latinos vote, they have so much to offer our country. And I hope they vote D. I would love to have them in our party.

I see President Obama as being compared to the "Angel of Death". I hear the things Limbaugh has to say about President Obama's looks. It is beyond disgraceful.

Senator Reid is going to be on Ed's program this evening. Senator Reid reminds me of those long ago men we used to look up to, just by their demeanor. Dwight Eisenhower and George C. Marshall come to mind.

Respectful. Dignified. I don't know if Senator Reid will win, but he is one of the last of a dying breed - Dignified United States Senator.

Nancy Pelosi will be on Keith's program. Someone who cares for all Americans. I don't know if she will make it either. But she is truly a wonderful wonderful Speaker of the House. She understands her role and has been a phenomenal Speaker on behalf of ALL Americans. Not just the rich, which is what Boehner is going to be if he wins.

The Republicans will take food out of the mouths of children in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest. Nancy Pelosi

Okay . . . Let's vote Republican.

Vote Republican – throw the liberal bums out!

We are hearing this mantra ad nauseam. Okay. Let's go there. Let's imagine McCain is President. How will the country be better? No stimulus bill, that's for sure. With no financial reform, Countrywide, Bank of America and Goldman-Sachs would have run amuck; and forget about any credit card reform. General Motors and Chrysler would have probably gone bankrupt and added to the unemployment figures.

But, hey, the Bush tax cuts would have been extended, making the rich even richer. No drawdown of troops in Iraq and perhaps even an escalation in that region as Iran threatens us with nuclear weapons. And how about the Supreme Court? Ready for a couple more conservatives that could overturn Roe v. Wade? This is the progress that the Republican Party promises. And don't let anyone get sick because health insurance premiums would have only skyrocketed while children with a history of asthma or autism are denied coverage because they have a "pre-existing condition".

BUT: No more "Obama is a Muslim!" or "Don't mess with my second amendment right to bear arms!"

Yep, vote Republican. It's good for the country.

Pat, I'm glad you mentioned the issue of Conservative Republican efforts to suppress the Latino vote. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130715322 In a week that's been loaded with despicable actions (and it's only Wednesday!) this one tops my list of most disgraceful.

Well, Hello Fellow Hoosier.

Enjoyed your comment. Don't forget to vote for Brad Ellsworth come November 2nd.

While I'm at it. Great posts from Beverly, Louis, Navy, Feisty, Nash, IR, and of course Pat.

Latinos hear the conversation and know what the Republican TEA Party is saying... it's up to them to get out there in numbers and have their voices heard.

You know if the Republicans win control, I think the President should allow them to enter the Oval Office and place all their documents of "Change" on his desk and require them to turn their arses around and leave, their is no reason for counsel or conversation. Review their proposals and have them come back and pick them up. President Obama does not owe them time nor place...

What is the point of polling people on the healthcare bill when they cannot describe what is actually in it? How can you ask someone's opinion about a topic they know very little about and expect to get meaningful results?

Enough with the ceaseless polling. How about the media spend some money on actual journalism, you know, collecting facts and report them? PS I'm fed up with being told that America thinks this and America thinks that, when I know full well most Americans are focused on their jobs and love lives and are hoping that some professionals somewhere are making policy decisions based on facts and not on how it plays politically. Just let the Obama administration do its job, for crying out loud, and we will pass judgment when the results of their actions have had time to manifest.

Moving and Leaning Forward are from the same Corporate Board rooms. Same brand and same HYPOCRICY.

Good post, Louis. Since early 2009, all the media has done nothing but criticize President Obama. He didn't do this right, he should have done the HCR bill himself, he isn't angry enough, he didn't respond to the BP disaster fast enough even though he and his staff were immediately involved. No wonder the American people have a negative view--it is what they are preached 24/7. Very little attention was given to the fact that Pres Obama's administration prevented a second Great Depression, they did not tell people the necessity of a stimulus package, very little reporting on the jobs created--didn't see any cameras out nationwide showing people working with ARRA signs in the background.

LouisJ: Absolutely. President Obama owes them zero. They are despicable. As are the people who continue to say NOTHING about their monstrous racist comments and signs.

These GOP politicians are beholden to Limbaugh, who they need to tear down the President.

You don't see African Americans speaking like this. You don't see Latinos speaking like this.

In all my years on this planet never once - not once - has a minority been anything but respectful to me. Yet I listen to the teabaggers and I absolutely cringe from total embarrassment.

And thinking about dignified men in this country, another one I would put in the same class as Senator Reid as far as demeanor is Eugene Robinson. Go to his articles someday and read some of the comments he received.

Yet watching and listening to him on tv, he is so so dignified. As is President Obama. You would never know from watching and listening to them that this is the crap they have to put up with.

Forget the pundits. They never gave President Obama's policies a chance, from day one. Especially the auto industry. How happy I am for those who were able to keep their jobs. With no encouragement from the pundits. Course corrections take a long time. Cable tv doesn't see it that way. It's called being clueless and lazy and wanting instant gratification.

I Can't Get No Satisfaction

MSNBC is terrific during the evening hours. I saw last night where Keith read the paraphenalia from that so-called Conservative is selling. And he read word for word what the article over @ Think Progress wrote. And I had to laugh MAO. I thought if I wrote it here word for word, I'd get in trouble.

Sometimes you just never know how far you can go here. But so so funny when Keith read IT ALL. I don't know if we can get away with what he gets away it. It's hard to know.

And I'm not a fan of "collasped" comments and receiving emails asking me to resist. LOL

Louis the truth means nothing to those who think they can see thunder. Who do they think is paying the bills for the air waves? Never mind they are so blinded with hate and bigotry and they will continuously reject the truth. When that elephant slaps them in their naive butts maybe then they'll see.

Hopefully, this won't happen as it will be the end of democracy as we know it. Everyone needs to vote against the GOPTP.

Julie, vote Republican?!? Republican?!? Me????????

If I were to do that, it would mean I'm a sell out to my fellow Americans. The new norm evidently.

{smile}

Fellow Travelers:

A particularly nasty thought has been nagging me for almost a year now: Why isn't President Obama delivering the change he promised?

As a matter of FACT, he has delivered some rather remarkable change. That he has opened the door for serious reform in health care delivery is a huge step forward and may be Obama's signature achievement and a sterling legacy. The stimulus DID work. TARP - a Bush creation administered under Obama - appears to have been successful. There is much more, and the list of accomplishments - particularly in the face of G.O.P. obstructionism - is rather impressive.

Yet, somehow we are left with the impression that the President has done very little. Why is that?

We constantly hear that his party controlled both the Senate and the House. As head of the party, Obama should have been able to get them to force their vote to conform to his wishes. Right? Let's get real. It's easier to stack BB's. These are Democrats. They don't dance the "Republican Lockstep".

Additionally, as the President has pointed out, too many of our elected officials are far more concerned about staying in Washington than serving the interests of the nation. As an aside, I must point out that while Republicans love to tell us that government is not the solution, it's the problem, an awful lot of Republicans work mighty hard to remain part of that problem. Mitch McConnell (R-Corporate Shill) has no clue what it means to draw a private sector paycheck.

I don't think my gag reflex will stand another poll result, so I am satisfied to wait for the real deal in two weeks. I don't think Dem losses will be quite as bad as the pundits say. Nonetheless, moving the country in the right direction may be even harder than before, if at all.

Obama is more than smart enough to adopt a Clintonian approach to the problems we face and indeed the Republicans may actually begin to cooperate. That is a win for everyone. It would be hard to imagine Obama losing the election in 2012 if the economy is as rosy then as it was in 1996.

If the G.O.P. continues with its obstructionist stance, the public will finally get it. Two more years of stagnation and high unemployment with the Republicans in charge just ain't gonna play in Peoria.

If Dems hold control, they might actually realize they have done some good things. If Republicans take control, they damned well better work to make things better. They both promise better results. We'll see.

Vote!

I enjoy watching the evening news and how they obtain the facts... Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are good at what they do and tell it like it is, but that is only a minute of information being passed around as Joe comprises of the entire morning and every other hack takes their shots at the president during the daytime.

MSNBC has a vast network that spends the majority railing against the president sounding as if they could govern better. They should just report the news instead.

Absolutely true David.

"You know something, I keep hearing about how MSNBC keeps telling society that President Obama is bad at this and bad at that, how he should do this and how he should do that… MSNBC is a shill for the Republican TEA Party."

and you are left with only the voices in your head...this would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Have no fear, dangerfield-

Soon, very soon, First Readers will focus their wrath on the electorate.

The pro-Tea Party MSNBC stance (lol!) will be ignored...they'll have other fish to fry.

I can't stop laughing and apologize for it as liberals continue to emote their despair. It's not Schadenfreude at all, mind you; I just cannot help but laugh at those who continue to permit themselves to be duped by liberal elites who want nothing more than to control individuals at the individual's expense.

When a lemming is trapped, does it chew off the trapped extremity to escape and survive or does it just remain in the trap until it dies?

It's like a Sacred Cow barbeque today~

"When a lemming is trapped, does it chew off the trapped extremity to escape and survive or does it just remain in the trap until it dies?"

Handgunner- I'm glad you posted this (again). It reminds me to ask: When a very, very few own and controll ALL the wealth, will the lemmings kick back and say "oh well", or will they excercise their '2nd ammendment rights', en mass, and "take THEIR country back"?

You provided a great analogy this morning. Thanks.

I see the same people are cheerleading for each other as usual.

Pat you are pitiful. Your outright hatred of Republicans continue to make you look like a damn fool. I have been coming in here for a few months and I have never seen 1 thing positive thing from you towards someone with a different viewpoint than yours.

You ride Olbermann's jock as if he is the smartest person on earth. (He is NOT). I wonder sometime if you're not him in disguise. I think you are the only person in Boston that watches that show, oh I forgot and 3 more people in California.

louis J: lol...lol...lol you are a funny man. That drivel you have been spewing is laughable.

To bad dangerfield and mixed bag don't get it. This whole election is being run by big money and the corporations, even the media is falling in line because they know where their advertising money is coming from and they don't want to jeopardise it. This isn't about the ads being created it's about the money the US chamber and Karl Rove give the media for advertising, so they'll spin their talking points day in and day out. Ever notice there are no political ads on Rachael, Ed, Larry or Keiths shows, it's because they won't bow down to the US chamber and Karl Rove.

Drive by: Lemmings don't have opposable thumbs. However will they cock the hammer? ;_;

Soldier1,

These people offer the same bigotry each and every day and then accuse the Republican party and Tea Party people of being racist. I asked yesterday, after DNV-asked for solutions. I gave some, but never got any response of things that they would actually do to cut the deficit.

I have to give Nashville Fan credit, he did want to cut out wars and tax cuts. Which I pointed out, we were supposedly out of 1 War--according to the Prez. and that those tax cuts are going to expire on Dec 31, 2010 for everyone.

But they could not offer up any other cuts, ways to end the deficit. But they will sure mock others for being part of something that is not spend your way out of debt. Because any sane person knows that is impossible, unless of course you win the lottery as you spend your money on tickets.

Lots of complaining, but no actual ideas for that "Hope & Change".

soldier1. I love Keith's work. And have for many years.

I love the Beatles' work, considering how young they were (early 20's) at the time they wrote the songs they wrote.

I love books written by Len Deighton and Philip Kerr and David Liss. And Doris Kearns Goodwin and David McCollough and about a thousand others.

I love all of Ken Burns' series. All of them.

I talk about Keith because I'm on an MSNBC website. Makes sense to me. I also talk about Rachel and Ed and Lawrence as well, and all their guests and the things we learn because of their tremendous work.

I don't talk about the others because I don't watch their programs.

I will never have anything in common with the GOP until they stop the hate. And learn to work with others, regardless of party. They are there to work for the American people, not against.

Pat-MA,

And learn to work with others, regardless of party. They are there to work for the American people, not against.

I can live with that statement, if only the democratic party did the same. More than a majority of people in this country want some type of health care reform. But did the Democratic party listen when people wanted the bill read, to find out what was in it. Or should be pass something to find out what is in it? Don't spread the hate, because the democrats do it all the time, especially when they pull the race card. Just look at Juan Williams, the man cannot even express his personal opinion without getting fired. As for the health care bill, we passed it, and now we find out the government wants to know who owns gold, and therefore, if you purchase gold you have to report it. Really, what does that have to do with health care?

Funny thing is, I have asked this question dozens of times, yet none of you have an answer? Too bad, I guess you enjoy the government knowing everything about you and your finances.

BigBear, the Democrats worked with the Republicans on a number of pieces of legislation. They watered down the bills to get GOP support. And in the end, they got next to nothing in support. Nothing.

And again, watered down, to find out what is in a bill, after we pass it?

Why was is so important to pass a bill before reading and going through it, so that things like, have to report personal gold sales aren't in a health care bill?

Where are your answers for those questions? I want to see health care reform, I want kids to have insurance, I believe that everyone should be allowed insurance with pre-existing conditions, but couldn't each and everyone of those things been done on a smaller scale and with regulations.

Why is their a mandate in a health care bill requiring us to purchase insurance or be fined? Isn't that against our 1st amendment right to choose?

Instead of giving me the same ole, same ole, answer the questions, you can't be wrong, just a different opinion.

Big Bear:

I do appreciate your attempt to work towards a solution and not just posting a bunch of talking points.

The thing I would like to point out however is that much of what we are being told by the media is simply not true.

As I posted yesterday, the concept that everything was fine until President Obama showed up and began spending and exploding the deficit is false.

The deficit is the result of unfunded tax cuts, wars, and medicare prescription benefit brought to us by the "fiscally conservative" Republican Party.

The deficit actually came in lower than forecast, so for this year, it has been shrinking, not growing.

The health care bill REDUCES the deficit.

The stimulus bill did what it was designed to do, has already created more jobs than the Bush Administraion did in 8 years, and included tax CUTS for individuals AND business.

There is a tremendous gap between what has actually happened during the Obama Administration and what we are being told has happened, and that is a problem.

Those who profit by keep the electorate divided and confused are winning, and folks actually seeking solutions to problems are losing.

I am always intrigued when somone like yourself is shown evidence that things that they believe are not true, there is still somehow a willingness to continue to vote for and support those who are perpetuating the false information.

Why is that Big Bear?

P.S. I am a woman.

P.S.S. Do you agree with the Supreme Court deciding that corporations are people with rights like free speech?

Big Bear:

The health care debate went on for a year and the different versions of the bills were posted online. That is more than enough time for you and everyone in Congress to read it, so please give me a break with the "nobody read it" talking point please.

The health care bill followed the same process that every other bill follows to become a law, so don't act like its something unusual. The only strange thing about it is that somehow, something that beneifts the American people was passed over the objections of th "corporate people".

And in terms of your oh so random "gold tax" question, gold is an asset, so what is the big deal about reporting it? Are you advocating folks being able to shelter their income by buying hordes of gold? What are you getting at exactly?

Nashville Fan

Glad to see you on here again. With the media, you have to dig deeper into each story and research yourself what is right and wrong.

Until we see health care bill working for years, we really won't know if it reduces the deficit or not. I am kind of like Pelosi here--"We have to watch it to see what happens" ("have to pass it to see what is in it")

I know there are 2 things in this law that I disagree with already--1) having to report my gold purchases to the government on a 7 page form, 2) being required to purchase insurance, and if I don't having to pay a fine.

But maybe that is how they fix the deficit--fine the 40 million people without insurance:)

None of the government has been fiscally conservative over the past 100 years. Since the incorporation of the Income tax--in 1913, our government has learned to spend, spend, spend.

As for the Supreme Court decision, We have to live with it. At least for about 20 years, before they change their mind again. But if they are going to allow them free speech, they better tax them like an individual also. Close the loopholes and get some money.

The GOP's philosphy from the moment President Obama went into office was No, hell no - on everything. Their lack of respect for no only the President but especially for the American people was/is appalling.

And they had Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity do the dirty work, as well as all of right wing talk radio.

The Republican Party sold out to Limbaugh and others. They were getting free advertising from these shills.

So no, the Republican Party as a whole never at one moment worked with this Administration. Never.

Big Bear:

Democrats did not fire Juan Williams, okay? And since the comment he made was about a religion, how is that playing "the race card"?

And in terms of the health insurance mandate . . .

It is interesting that this entire concept was a REPUBLICAN IDEA:

Republicans were for President Obama’s requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that has been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as “a personal responsibility principle’’ and Massachusetts’ newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/03/28/health_insurance_mandate_began_as_a_republican_idea/

Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate

"For Republicans, the idea of requiring every American to have health insurance is one of the most abhorrent provisions of the Democrats' health overhaul bills.

"Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty."

But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123670612

So this moderate idea designed as a free market way to achieve coverage for everyone is now an evil socialist plot?

The truth will set you free Big Bear.

And in terms of your oh so random "gold tax" question, gold is an asset, so what is the big deal about reporting it? Are you advocating folks being able to shelter their income by buying hordes of gold? What are you getting at exactly?

My question is why is it in a page of the Health Care bill? Shouldn't this be something for a tax bill or financial reform bill? Why hidden in a health care bill? Why is our congress so deceptive about things like this? Now I don't buy hordes of gold, but purchase some occasionally to prepare for retirement. Most of that should come through my tax forms. I would really prefer not to fill another 7 page form so the government can know more about my financial situation than it already does.

I for one don't completely trust the government. I would like to keep more of what I earn and own instead of giving it to them. But that is my opinion. In fact, I don't have a problem with others giving more if they voluntarily do so, in fact, I would applaud those rich folks on either side, by giving money just to reduce the deficit. Maybe we can start a "Tip Jar" just for that.

But when you see your leaders aka John Kerry, trying to get out of paying taxes & that dude married money, what are you suppose to think?

Handgunner: When a lemming is trapped, does it chew off the trapped extremity to escape and survive or does it just remain in the trap until it dies?

When a lemming/Liberal (same thing) is trapped, it sits there and whines about it, blames corporate America for making the trap, blames the Chamber of Commerce for not disclosing that they financed the trap, blames Bush because that's what they do, blames everyone else except themselves for being so stupid to step in the trap in the first place, and ends the day by sitting their waiting for a Obama to bail them out of the trap (which never happens, because bailouts aren't for the lemmings.).

Pat-MA

So no, the Republican Party as a whole never at one moment worked with this Administration. Never.

So because the Republican Party never worked with that Administration, when at least the 2 Maine Republican's and use to be Arlen Spector, went with them, it gives them the right to cram a health care bill down the throats of Americans, in which 70% or more thought that it was not the correct thing. Even over 50% still think it is a bad law, and 50% including myself think that we need reform. But this law is gonna be filled with all types of crap, that we will have to pay for down the road.

Problem is Pat, neither side is looking for bipartisanship, the democrats hold the congress now, as they have for most of the past 60 years, and they are gonna keep doing things the way they want. Really, neither party cares about the average working person. They really only care about pushing their own agendas.

Nashville,

I know that Juan Williams did not get fired for racism, I mistakenly placed those 2 sentences together. But I am a firm believer, IMO, that race becomes an issue in every election. I do not believe in racism, but can honestly say that I have been a bigot at times in my life. I am not perfect, I can admit to that, because if I were, dang, I would have lots of girlfriends:)

I will also admit, as Juan did, I am more concerned when on planes with those of different religious factions. I am not always politically correct, which Juan wasn't, and it cost him his job.

And even though the Republicans pushed for mandated insurance in the 90s, I was not for it then as I am not for it now.

I believe that any time a freedom is taken from you by the government, you will lose more. So no matter how bad I dislike something, if means losing a God given right, I would rather keep the right than allow the government control it for me. Because, even though I make mistakes, I learn from them, our government does not.

Big Bear, President Obama stated over and over and over - there are no red states, no blue states - only the United States.

I am on board with that concept 100%. I love every state in this Union. Unfortunately the red states hate the blue states with a passion unlike I have ever seen in my lifetime.

It is unfortunate.

The GOP feel the same way. They in no way want this President to succeed. We voted for President Obama because we wanted the tone to change in DC. So didn't President Obama.

The GOP did not. Neither did their supporters. They hate President Obama.

I hated what the Bush Admin. did in Iraq but I never hated GWB as a person. Never.

Those signs reflecting toward President Obama are signs of people who hate him.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck - despicable white men. I'm ashamed of them as Americans. They are three very rich wealthy men who do not want to pay taxes. That's what this election has come to. No regulations. No climate change legislation. Blame President Obama for every single thing in this country instead of looking in the mirror at themselves. Especially Hannity who sold the Iraq War for President Bush.

If there is one thing I've learned is how the rich in this country have exploited the working and middle class into believing all their lies. These three don't care about anyone but themselves and their rich friends.

Leave it to JoAnna to jump all over a 'lemming comment!

Hot damn.... FINALLY something she can share her expertise on! ;0)))

Pat-MA

We should be the United States Of America. I have always liked that and appreciated being able travel throughout this wonderful land. I don't agree with all the blue states, nor do I agree with all the red states. I personally, (JMO), believe that although unions were a great thing years ago, with the laws that protect the workers, and lawyers wanting to make a name for themselves, unions have outdated themselves and overpriced themselves in the workplace.

That doesn't mean that people don't deserve a fair wage for their work, and as a business man, I want to make a profit, why else would I be in business?

That use to be the American dream, make something out of yourself and be rich and successful.

People don't have to listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, or Beck, they choose to. It in some ways inspires them. If these people inspire more americans to get out and vote, then I am for that. I think most people are smart enough to realize the hate from the truth. (I maybe out on a limb there). But people don't have to listen to Matthew, Oberman, or Jesse Jackson either. But even if you do, I think that most people are smart enough to realize the hate from the truth. (again, out on a limb)

Either way, until the people really take back the government, set terms limits upon the congress, reel in spending and deficits, we are going to keep getting the same type of government.

Why aren't we asking these candidates if they would only serve 2 terms as senator? Why are they getting into politics? How long to you plan to stay in politics?

BigBear;

I did not slight you, i got back later than usual yesterday and for some reason FR would not load. I got the login screen and that was about it. I will try later today to go back and see what you wrote.

But I have to admit if your tone is the same as today's I strongly suspect I will be reading more teabag talking points and wasting my time.

Will try to get back to you later on your post or repost it here.

Big Bear;

How is it "ramming something" down folks throat if you go to Congress and take a vote and it passes?

Hell, Big Bear, health care reform took a YEAR to pass.

You keep talking about 70% of folks didn't want it, but are we a government of laws or polls?

I mean, when you have the airwaves covered with LIES about health reform, and you got folks believing that health reform is a plot to kill old people, what do you expect?

The VERY SAME Republicans who proposed the health insurance mandate are now against it, but you give them a pass when the say there are "no Republican ideas" in the health care bill?

I appreciate your honesty and willingness to discuss the issues, but it seems to me that you are willing to give the Republicans a pass on just about anything.

Why is that?

I mean, we hear all this "both sides do it" talk, but the simple fact is, President Obama has bent over backwards to work with Republicans, and they have pretty much not done a damn thing but tell lies and spread fear.

Nash: What Congress votes in favor of and what the American people want are sometimes mutually exclusive. Do not confuse Congressional approval for voter approval merely for the sake of supporting your argument.

I also don't find it fair for you to accuse BB of giving a pass on the Republican origination of mandated insurance purchases as it stands in the HCR legislation. BB earlier stated he was opposed to the notion of forcing people to buy private insurance lest they suffer fines back when the Republicans first introducted the idea.

That said, as far as 'both sides doing it,' well. It's obvious the left and right in this country can agree on the principle of sorely needing a positive change to how we handle the issue of the availability of medical care in this country - the conflict comes from one side viewing HCR as care, yes, rammed down our throats and the other believing any brand of reform is inherently good reform.

For my own opinion, I don't agree with the latter sentiment. If you want to take measures to enable people to cheaply buy private insurance, great. Wonderful. But don't brow-beat people into it - if 47% of the country can't afford to pay their income taxes, how do we expect them to buy insurance, let alone shell out for massive fines? Are we not, in fact, basically guaranteeing that at some point down the road we'll have to federally subsidize health insurance so long as that mandatory requirement stays on the books? Are we not, in fact, looking at another program that in the long run won't be solvent?

This whole affair strikes me as one massive non-sequitur.

Nash;

Well done. It is churn baby churn. BigBear claims I slighted him by not responding to a post. Sorry, I work for a living and got back late yesterday and FR was dead in the water. Sorry I do not sit hear just waiting for him.

If his posts today are any indication I suspect his answers will be in line with the teaparty rhetoric. Trash unions, social security, medicare, unemployment, do away with the department of education, minimum wage etc. I do not know but I will try to get to FT from yesterday to see what he wrote.

he (Obama) is what the constitution was created from

The constitution was created by community organizers????? Of course, Louis, you are correct about his succeeding - he's succeeding in fomenting one of the most successful Republican midterm election victories ever (see Nov 3).

Mr. Navy: I think you're being a little short-sighted there. BB makes some good points; don't write him off entirely. A constant complaint I hear from you, Ron, Pat, Nash, Feisty and so on is that there aren't any people with conservative or conservative-leaning views that actually debate - an unfair view, in my mind.

You've got someone offering up and expressing his opinion now. Don't descend to the same depths as some of the less reputable posters around here often do.

Exodite Dragon:

We have a representative democracy. President Obama and the members of Congress have been campaigning on and promising health reform for YEARS.

So it is disingenuous to pretend that the American people did not know what it was that they were voting for.

It is also disingenuous to pretend that the Republican Party has been anything other than an lying snake in the grass through the entire health reform process.

They did nothing to help the process, and any idea that they presented that the Democrats accepted, they immediately backed away from, which is one reason that the process took so long.

Now, in regards to the "massive fines" . . .

"Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program, or by buying it directly. That year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants, and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.

Those without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines will vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016."

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/03/28/health_insurance_mandate_began_as_a_republican_idea/

Now, I challenge anyone to go out and purchase health insurance for the same cost as the "massive fine" of $1100 dollars.

You can't do it.

So it is not like you are paying something for nothing. And those who can't afford it will not be charged. And there are subsidies in the bill to make the premiums affordable for those who can pay. And folks will not have to forego being treated because they can't afford it.

These narrow arguments about "liberty" and what not are nice, but they don't solve the problem.

Health reform ain't perfect, but under our current political system, it is better than anyone expected and a step in the right direction.

I for one am glad that the President forged ahead and got something done for the American people, instead of waiting until the monied interests could buy enough folks in the midterm to create gridlock.

Nashville,

I don't think that I give Republicans a free pass, I think I give fiscally conservative candidates a free pass. And although parts of the health care measure were posted online, the amendments during the last 24 hours were not up and ready for everyone to read.

To be honest, I thought our government was a representative democracy? Therefore our representatives are suppose to vote with what the majority of his constituents believe and want. I know that my representative during that time period voted the democrat line, especially when more than 80% of the people in his district thought it was wrong. Now he is a toss up to lose.

AS for DNV--Sorry your computer was not up to working yesterday, I just wanted to see some of your answers on some the proposed ideas I had. I thought Nashville & I discussed them diligently yesterday.

BTW-I am not a Teabagger, Republican, or Democrat, but an independent thinker, with sometime conservative fiscal views, liberal social views, tending to be more moderate throughout life. I am so glad that you got on here calling people names. I never felt slighted, I just wanted to start comparing ideas, so hopefully you will get the answers and respond today.

Who's next to fall at NPR, Nash?

Mara Liasson?

Ms. Liasson has already informed NPR that she has no intention of giving up her part-time gig as an analyst for Fox News...she doesn't seem to feel that offering her left-of-center views there should have anything to do with her employment at NPR.

Pretty sad when Juan Williams becomes a victim of political correctness.

The left is eating its own.

You can't possibly approve.

I couldn't have said it better.

And they are all betting that the majority of Americans are stupid.

ED;

You are right and thank you for correcting me. I do think that BB (Big Bear) does make some good points and I would like to discuss those as maybe I will learn something.

I just took exception that because I did not get back in time yesterday to see his post that he used that to claim that we are trying to hide from him, that we do not have an answer or was just ignoring him.

But you are correct, he does bring up some good points and I can agree with him on a few.

Mixed Bag:

NPR is "the left"?

That's funny.

Juan Williams was an employee. He got fired. Happens every day.

Funny how folks get all worked up about esoteric stuff like that, but Supreme Court justices lunching with corporate cronies barely rates a whisper.

Seems like misplaced priorities.

Big Bear:

Just remember, it is the "fiscally conservative" candidates that you have been giving a free pass to that created the deficit that folks are all of a sudden blaming on President Obama.

And I still don't see why you feel that members of Congress should use poll numbers to determine how to vote. Polls are subjective and are only as good as the questions asked and the way the samples are taken.

Running our country based on some gerry rigged poll numbers does not strike me as a good idea.

Nash, YOU tell me how $1100 isn't a massive fine for someone making $28K a year or less - especially for someone who doesn't have a clear and present need to buy health insurance.

I can guarantee you that when or if that part of the law comes into effect, I will be sending the federal government Xeroxed copies of my ass with "1100" written in bright pink crayon across them. If I need to take myself out of the system, on principle, to avoid paying into something I don't agree with, I will. I have the means to fall back on sources of income that don't require me to sit at a desk with a striped noose hanging 'round my collared neck with every penny I earn being fed into a database.

It is disingenious of you to assert that what the people wanted in health reform was what ultimately came out of the halls of Congress. You as much as any other left-leaning poster here have made it a point to decry the Republican involvement in all the legislation passed by this session as serving only to 'water down' or 'ruin the intent of' every bill that's ultimately passed.

Which is it? Is HCR precisely the kind of law Americans wanted when they voted the Democrats to a majority in 2006 and 2008, or is it a misshapen early-term half-abortion wrought by the hands of sinister Republican meddling? You make the claim to both in your post.

Going back to the cost, of course neither I nor anyone else on our own can go out and find health insurance for less than $1100 - but the fact of the matter remains that we should not be required to do so. I'm sorry, but free choice on the part of the individual trumps paying to cover someone else's health costs. No matter how you try to slice it, that is wealth redistribution and I am wholly and completely opposed to such a concept.

Those subsidies are not going to be funded from the coffers of the upper 2%; everyone making from the median $44K and above is going to have to support the lower echelon and that, Nash, is an official sanctioning of a dependency class. That removes the carrot entirely and is a very dangerous thing to do. It is hardly egilatarian.

Let's turn your question around, Nash...

NPR ISN'T "the left"...?

Please...

Exodite Dragon:

First of all, the $1100 figure was for a person making $45,000. So the cost for someone making $28000 a year would be less.

Second of all, what is your solution to the health care crisis in this country?

Whatever your solution is, how do you propose to get it through the Congress, regardless of who controls it?

You say that people did not want the health reform package that was passed. Okay then, please tell me - what is it that "the people" want?

In terms of the Republican Party and health reform, I stand by what I said - they contributed nothing but fear and confusion. Can you identify some brilliant idea they presented that I am missing? Can you explain why ideas they once championed became defective as soon as the President embraced them?

Lastly, I am not trying to make you do anything you don't want to do. I am explaining to you why I believe that the health reform bill was a step in the right direction and a good deal for the American people.

But of course, you and your pink crayon can do whatever you like. That is your right.

My tax dollars have paid for LOTS of things I don't agree with, that is just a part of being in a representative democracy - you can't have things your way all the time.

I just want folks to be RATIONAL and TRUTHFUL when discussing their objections to the health care bill and anything else.

I feel the President has been honest with the American people, and his reward is basically being blamed for all the problems that the Republicans created.

How is that "good government"?

One final point to Exodite Dragon:

The penalty is not to cover someone else's health insurance costs. It is to cover your own.

And those who can't afford it will not be charged. And there are subsidies in the bill to make the premiums affordable for those who can pay. And folks will not have to forego being treated because they can't afford it.

And that right there is where libs and reps differ. You're saying you will take from me to pay for someone who either will not pay their own way (I will concede that there are some who are not physically able to make a living). Why should I be punished because someone else isn't bright enough to get an education of some sort and earn a decent wage?

Nashville,

I thought you knew me better than that. I would never vote for anyone that spends without remorse. I have been voting since the 70s and have believed that we need to cut our spending, reform our entitlements, and cut our taxes. I believe that we as americans can do more with our money than the government can.

$1100 to you might not seem like a lot, but us poor folks don't want to pay that either as a fine for not "CHOOSING" to purchase health care. When a government mandates/requires all Americans to have insurance, they have taken away a freedom of choice. It is wrong of the American government to do such things.

And furthermore, the government should not be running a health insurance program, especially as stated above a form of government insurance. They cannot run medicare correctly, what makes you think that another system will be run correctly.

You know what Chef Darrel?

The simple fact is that folks want to nit pick, but they don't have a solution.

Tell you what - why don't we just leave everything just as it has been.

Let's let private insurance companies charge whatever they want.

Let's let then drop whoever they want for any reason they want.

Let's let health insurance premiums continue to rise, and wages continue to fall.

Let's continue to be "free" to get sick and have no way to pay to be treated.

Cause Lord knows we don't want to PUNISH you by making health care more affordable for every one.

Let's just deregulate everything, abolish all taxes, and let the chips fall where they may, okay?

Because the simple fact is that folks don't want a solution, they want to be "free" to do whatever the corporations allow them to do.

Fine with me.

Big Bear,

The government is not running health insurance, the coverage offered would be from the private sector.

I am still waiting for some of ya'll "liberty loving" folk to explain to me what exactly you propose we do.

Seems like "fiscal conservatives" were in power for quite a while and I don't remember them doing anything about rising health care costs in this country, do you?

Like I said to Chef Darrell, ya'll be "free" and continue to do whatever the "corporate people" allow.

It's just fine with me.

Now Nash,

You know that it is a fine, where is someone going to purchase health insurance for the amount of the fine the IRS gives them. That won't cover even a government sponsored health insurance program unless paid for by other tax payers.

You want ways to combat health care problems.

Allow small businesses to co-op for insurance coverage. That way they can shop for better prices.

Allow businesses to shop state to state for the best prices. Allows for more of an open market.

I agree with allowing pre-existing conditions, because people change jobs, they still need to be covered.

Some regulations need to be placed on insurance companies, especially their ability deny a claim. If they someone is insured in their paper work for a surgery, treatment, or anything else. They should pay for it, because most of the time they are only paying 80% anyways.

Less paperwork for filing insurance forms. With the technology that we have, insurance should be ready to pay at a moments notice, not the 30/60/90 day delay. I am not a fan of insurance companies, but understand they are there for insurance.

I hate car insurance, but have it, in case. I hate life insurance, but need it because I won't live forever.

I also understand they are in it to make money, I agree with that, but the way they deny claims, hold up payments, and etc... those are the things that need dealing with.

Whatever your solution is, how do you propose to get it through the Congress, regardless of who controls it?

Simple, enough, really! Me, on the back of a tank, laughing maniacally. Explosions abound, Nash! Explosions abound~

...god I love explosions. @_@;;

Now, getting back to reality, I am being truthful and honest with my opinion here. Whatever the hell HCR represents, it is not what we need. You, I, everyone can't deny that there is something morally reprehensible about the idea of a private firm telling someone suffering from a debilitating disease that they'll be denied coverage they desperately need because said person receiving coverage would put a dent in said firm's profit margin.

It's cold. It's brutal. But it's not very metal... \m/

Such individuals are left with a choice - suffer the effects of their condition (long-term debilitation, perhaps death) or run themselves into insurmountable debt and likely bankruptcy, likely destroying any future they'd have otherwise. It's entirely cruel and entirely inhuman, especially if you have the viewpoint I do - that the life you have now is the only life you get; there is no before and no hereafter.

My blood boils contemplating things like this.

Situations like that are really the crux of arguments pushing for reform. We are struck on a very deep level about the amorality we allow within our own society and our collective inability to find a solution to it.

This idea is my idea and my opinion. As I see it, the tremendous obstacle we're looking to overcome is the legislation of ethical altruism into a for-profit enterprise. In regards to business, greed is good. We cannot have capitalism without a healthy dose of greed; we cannot promote job growth and retain any industry without allowing industry to flourish and secure profit, hence our problem.

What to do? How do we put restraint on an industry without killing it; how do we provide for the care of our fellow citizens without sacrificing our collective individual liberty?

I say this - we need language that makes it illegal to deny applicants insurance on any basis as much as we need language that prohibits covering the cost of required procedures; but we also need to tie the cost of and payment into an insurance plan to differing tiers of income on the behalf of the policy holders themselves. We do not need the government to subsidize people who otherwise can't afford it and we certainly don't need to fund those subsidies with tax hikes and fines on the rest of the population.

In other words - anyone who wants to should be able to go to an insurance company and purchase a policy, knowing they'll be covered, knowing they won't be denied, while being allowed to pay a fair maximum commesurate with the income bracket into which they fall. I don't want to set actual numerical values because income and wages vary over time, but I think the notion of tying costs to tiers of median ranges is a good place to start.

I know this idea of mine has a lot of holes in it and I can think of numerous ways to attack and assault my own position. I'm operating on a belief of mine that in very, very rare and extenuating circumstances a moral duty supersedes the pursuit and acquisition of profit on the part of a private enterprise to the point of justifying limits being set on what ways profit can be acquired. I've yet, however, come up with a good way to ensure that insurance providers won't simply close shop or discover and impose alternate means of shafting their customers.

If you have ideas, if you have suggestions, if you have thoughts about how to better refine this idea of mine, I'm more than willing to listen.

Believe you me, I'd rather not have to spend long hours in the evening at Kinko's giving the glass-bottom-boat treatment to a disheveled shift worker while wasting all my pink crayons.

...the tank, however, that's debatable... <_<

Come on Nash,

Even over the last 30 years, the Democrats have controlled the house more years than the Republicans. Check it out on Wikipedia. And the Senate has be split over the past 30 years. And before that, the democratic party controlled the congress for what--40 years.

So it is not just those fiscally conservatives that have gotten us in this mess. To be honest with you, it is the American people that have gotten us in this mess. Allowing career politicians to wield power throughout the past 4 decades.

I don't agree with every Tea Partier, Republican, and Democrat, but getting more people involved in the politics of this nation is a good thing. Because if you don't vote, don't complain! We need more than 2 parties in this country, but the small parties don't get it. You have to start at the bottom and make inroads instead of trying to get someone elected to the highest office.

So again I ask Big Bear:

What are the "fiscal conservatives" proposing to address the problem?

What about folks who work for themselves or are unemployed?

You give me the "across state lines" routine, but the insurance companies all charge as much as they can in every state, so how does that help?

They have no competition and they have a monopoly on the market.

If all of this is so common sense and simple, how come nothing has ever gotten done before now?

Other than trying to solve a problem, what do you think President Obama's motivation was for passing health reform?

I see the republican talking head pundits have successfully convinced the right that Juan Williams was fired because of democrats. Juan Williams made an honest point from the brief clip I saw, but his point was turned into something it wasn't by O'Reilly, Bill O was the one who made it ugly. If it was a topic of discussion on liberal blogs, so what? The liberal bloggers do not employ Williams.

Exodite Dragon:

I do appreciate your thoughts. But what you describe is very similar to what was passed.

The simple fact is, love it or hate it, President Obama wanted to do something about the problem instead of just talking about doing something.

And he did.

And I for one appreciate it.

It can be tweaked. It can be improved.

But how many more folks have got to die waiting for the perfect solution?

Not similar enough, I'm afraid. I appreciate the effort but not the end result. Whether the blame can fall on Obama's shoulders or that of the Republicans and those monied interests who lobbied for certain changes is, of course, a matter of opinion.

It is foolish for you to think that the bill we have will be at all improved by any future Congress. That we were spoon-fed that @!$%# line upon the bill's passage was, frankly, the final straw for me with this Congress and this POTUS.

I say start over. I say keep the input of the insurance firms out of it - I do not subscribe to the idea of corporate personhood and find it less of a moral travesty to undermine the profit margin of those companies than I do to pillage the pocketbooks of 300 million citizens.

Exodite Dragon:

I am about to be leaving my computer . . . thanks for the conversation.

As long as the "corporate people" can keep us focused on blaming the President instead of them and those in Congress that they control, they win.

And based on what I am seeing so far, they have truly got control.

If you want to start over, fine with me.

I am pretty much over it.

I see a President trying to work within the confines of a corrupt system.

And I see an unrealistic populace being played.

P.S. And before somebody says it, no I am not saying the President is some perfect and benevolent being. I am saying that he is TRYING and I don't see anything that he is getting personally from it other than gray hair.

I don't see a whole lot of other folks trying.

Biggest Motivation was election promise!

I think we are posting at the same time, I answer, you post. Not getting to read the next one. Like ED, it is hard to look at insurance companies and not get angry, but at the same time know they need to make a profit to survive.

I don't want to pay higher taxes so someone else can get insurance through a government sponsored program while I have to pay for my insurance at full price. There is no easy solutions, but then real people aren't invited to the table to speak about what is needed. Only those who think they know better because they read a book. Well I read a book also:) Yes DNV--it was a comic book, but still a book. The word "book" was on the cover:)

But reforms that don't have to take away capitalism.

How about some more ideas.

Students that become medical doctors using federal funds have to spend 2 years in VA hospitals as interns before entering the private sector.

Nurses using federal funds to go to school would need to spend 1 year as an nursing intern at a federally funded clinic before heading to a private practice.

I know that teachers who get student loans can have a lot of their loans removed by working at a Title 1 school for 5 years. We should implement some of those things into the medical world, if we haven't yet. (not sure, have not researched it).

Any other ideas out there.

Nash, I also had to read your last line a couple of times. I keep seeing "final solution" not perfect solution.

That's all well and good Nash, and thank you for the conversation as well.

However, one last thing to consider - you, I and whomever else should be less concerned with whether the POTUS is prematurely graying and should instead focus on our collective financial and medical futures.

Big Bear:

Where are you getting the idea that you have to pay "higher taxes" because of health reform?

Only the poorest among us would be getting insurance through the government via Medicaid . . . the health insurance companies can't make a profit off of these folks and they basically had no where to turn under the old system . . . the working poor who you keep telling me are so lucky because they don't make enough income to pay income tax.

Everyone else would be buying private insurance at a reduced rate based on the free market principle of everyone paying something reducing the cost for everyone.

Again, I don't understand the need to frame simple economic decisions as a "loss of freedom" . . . freedom to do what? Die uninsured? Go broke trying to pay for treatments that may not even work? What great freedom are we losing?

I think that the American people have just about become ungovernable. We only want to follow laws we like. We want to rewrite the Constitution to fit our every whim or ignore it if it doesn't poll well.

I'm just glad I was alive to see what happened when an intelligent leader tried to be straight with the American people.

Now I can find something else to do and let you "freedom loving" folks do whatever it is that the polls tell ya'll is what the "American people" want.

I mean, I really don't get much out of trying to debunk BS all day.

Ya'll do it ya'lls way.

Let me know how it works out.

P.S. I know, I know. The sweet little states will be "burdened" with trying to pay for Medicaid. It's not fair that they should have to contribute to the health and welfare of their citizens. I understand. It is such a hardship caring for people instead of "corporate people".

See ya'll tomorrow . . . maybe.

You know what ED?

I am not concerned with the President.

He might be the only person who comes through all of this foolishness unscathed.

Like I said, I look forward to the solutions that all these bright and shining "conservatives" will implement.

I wish them well.

Can we, for crying out loud, PLEASE put this "pre existing condition" myth to bed once and for all?

You can always get health insurance, no matter the state of your health. The problem comes up when people LIE on their contracts. Obama perpetuated this myth during the debate by using one example, when someone's health insurance was cancelled in error, was reinstated, and he received treatment that helped him live with a rare form of cancer for five years. Of course, in the Obama version, the man did not get treatment and died, which came as something of a surprise to his family. Perhaps because there were inconvenient witnesses to the truth, Obama trotted out another "victim", a woman whose cancer was not covered because she had seen a dermatologist for acne but did not disclose that. In fact, the doctor told her that the condition she complained of was indicative of cancer, and he did disclose that to the insurer who inquired, based on her disclosure that she had seen him for acne. In other words, she lied.

I have kidney disease as a result of a birth defect, and my medical bills are quite high. I have never been turned down for treatment OR coverage, because I disclose my condition on my application for insurance when I change insurers, which I have done, several times, for superior coverage.

Does it cost more than a healthy person's coverage? Of course it does. Why would it not? I spend as much time complaining about that as I do about my disease, which is to say, no time at all. Both are out of my control, so why waste time griping. I work with what I have, and thank goodness that I am not as badly off as others.

I could, for example, think that anybody owed me something. . .

Nash: No need to get butt-hurt, jeez.

Joe: If it's true that pre-existing condition denials are founded upon people lying on their applications, and I mean, REALLY, if that's true, then I feel quite the fool for my stance. Can you prove your claim?

Sorry No Jo, I have 2 daughters without insurance and can't get it. One with a defective heart, the other with a chronic disease. Both cannot get private health insurance. One is in a group insurance and is covered, the other is now buying hers through the state supported insurance plan. But she was unable to get any private insurance at all, even had her insurance friend trying to get her insurance in this state.....no go.

Snook -- you see NJNB's problem is she really does believe she's the exception and not the RULE!

For starters anyone who previously let their coverage lapse for 45 days or more was automatically considered as having a pre-existing condition. And therefore at the mercy of the insurance companies PRIOR the the passing of HCR!

PS: Good to see you... you getting excited yet? ;0)

...uh, so am I gonna get a straight answer here?

Which is it, Joe's statement or elsewise that's true?

Or is this pretty much just, you know, the end of the discourse and the settling into people hurling thinly veiled insults at each other?

I once had my job eliminated. During the unemployment period we had to choose between keeping the house and paying almost half of my monthly unemployment check for COBRA coverage. I painted and did odd jobs to keep food on the table, it's what you do. Once I again had regular employment there was a wait for coverage AND a lengthy preexisting conditions clause. A family member went without treatment for a chronic medical condition for 18 months and was in constant pain. No one would treat a situation that wasn't life-threatening without insurance, contrary to the Conservative myth that lack of insurance doesn't mean lack of medical care.

Yeah, preexisting conditions clauses were real and people suffered every day because of them. I'm thankful for HCR and the elimination of those heartless profit centers for the insurance companies.

It’s about time someone starts to pay attention the FACT that this country is now for sale to the highest foreign bidder!

Thank you activist Justice Roberts for opening the floodgates:

IDEO: Waxman Confronts ‘U.S.’ Chamber Over Foreign Money Questions, Secret Corporate Campaign Funds

Earlier this month, ThinkProgress investigated the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and found fundraising documents soliciting money from foreign businesses for the same 501(c)(6) account the Chamber is using to wage an unprecedented $75 million dollar partisan attack campaign. ThinkProgress documented evidence of at least 80 foreign companies giving at least $885,000 to the Chamber largely from two countries alone. The Chamber has acknowledged that it accepts foreign funds for its 501(c)(6), but refuses to say how much and which funds they use for their partisan attack ads. While speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for a trade event with Israeli businesses, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) chastised the Chamber for killing billions of dollars in private sector jobs by helping to lobby against clean energy climate reform. He then finished his remarks, in front of a body of Chamber executives and lobbyists, by confronting the Chamber for accepting foreign money without providing “proper transparency and disclosure”:

WAXMAN: An event like this conference today is an appropriate use of contributions from Chamber members overseas. Spending such money on an election in any country would be inappropriate. In this country it would also be illegal. I urge the Chamber to be transparent, to provide full disclosure on the contributions it is making in this election cycle. Without proper transparency and disclosure it is hard for the Chamber to be a role model for corporate citizenship in America and around the world.

A secret memo obtained by ThinkProgress shows that David Chavern, the second most powerful lobbyist at the Chamber, quietly met with Koch Industries and executives from over a dozen other oil and coal companies to plot the 2010 midterm elections last summer. Chavern also met with Tom Petrie, a Bank of America VP who specializes in Bank of America’s oil investments (Bank of America is one of the largest American shareholders of BP).

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/20/waxman-confronts-chamber/

Sorry righties… this isn’t going to be swept under the rug!

I want to know what return these Corporations are getting for these donations and you should to!

And until I get some answers.... I'm just gonna keep on asking the question?

PS: From one 'rockin' Libra to another... HAPPY BIRTHDAY keepertrout! ;0)

It would appear that the NAACP has renewed its scurrilous smear campaign against the Tea Party Movement in a questionable effort to rouse the dispirited and disengaged base of the Democratic Party just 13 days ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.

The last time the NAACP leveled charges of widespread racism within the Tea Party ranks, the law of unintended consequences kicked in...their chief accomplishment would appear to have been to prompt the Obama Administration to fire Shirley Sherrod.

It's truly disheartening that this venerable organization with such a glorious history of confronting injustice would itself engage in intolerant behavior and the suppression of dissent.

Last night on CNN, it was amusing to watch the NAACP's Ben Justice struggle with the irony of a video montage of Democrats Howard Dean, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Al Franken, and yes...Barack Obama, each forcefully declaring that it was time to "take our country back".

Now where have I heard that before...?

Priceless.

Once again...the hypocrisy is truly breathtaking, isn't it?

Bev;

I agree. As the real agenda of the republican/tea party starts to show itself.

The obstructionist attitude from the republicans is now showing us the why behind it. The connection to the "Special Interest Groups" such as the US Chamber of Commerce, American Crossroads, etc., is driving the republican agenda. Wall Street over Main Street, Big Business over Small Business and support for the Richest 2% over the other 98% is the same agenda as the "Special Interest Groups".

The republican party has been bought and paid for by these groups and now they are paying these groups back for their donations by destroying the Middle Class as they perceive the 98% as a threat to their quest for more power and wealth.

You're going to need that coffee Steve, because the issue of wealthy, Conservative elites buying our elections isn't going to go away.

YAWN.. JOHN.. Just Yawn.. Them bad Rich conservatives.. . YAWN....

Those bad people that wish to keep their own money

Poor Steve!

Looks like someone either didn't get enough sleep last night or he's had his a@@ handed to him so many times a *yawn* is all he's got left! lol

I would stock up on some 'No-Doze' there pal... cause the issue is NOT going away!

Feisty, Everytime I hear a Republican say "Yawn, Fail, Epic Fail" or whatever else and have nothing else to say, I see some zit faced kid no older than 12 years old pecking at the keyboard. Maybe it's the child in me trying to reconnect and feel what it's like to stay young. IDK.

Yawn.. Nothing to see here. just the same old Tripe the Liberals have been Talking about for the past Week.. Same old same old.. Asked and Answered

Mixed Bag:

I saw that video montage on CNN last night with all the different Democrats from President Obama to Howard Dean saying that we were going to "take our country back".

I actually enjoyed it . . . great point that "take our country back" is a phrase that is a common one used by the party out of power.

That said, that does not erase the other "uncommon" things that we have seen since the President has been elected, like folks showing up armed outside of Presidential events, and the President's citizenship, religion, and even patriotism being questioned by high level members of the opposition party like members of Congress and the former Vice President of the United States.

So to say that there is no basis for concern would be naive in my opinion.

LOL Louis... You're on a roll this morning!

I think you've captured Steve quite brilliantly! And BTW I LOVED LOVED LOVED the Devil tossing the confetti post!

Steve must subscribe to Bobby Knight's philosophy:

"I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."

Beverly. Your post was terrific.

FOX should be shunned by other media outlets and the lies told on FOX should be reported daily by CNN, MSNBC and every other channel. When you have a TP candidate like O'Donnell claiming Hannity is in her back pocket, that should make even the most devoted FOX fan cringe. FOX provides the GOP candidates an open donation free for all, any candidate makes an appearance and directs viewers to their web site while saying they need money. All media has their own profits on the line but I do credit MSNBC and CNN for attempting fair and balanced in their reporting even when they spend too much time on the nonstory, fake controversies.

Feisty

LOL Louis... You're on a roll this morining!

And so are you Feisty, Nashville_fan, US Navy, John B, Pat, Boston, MA, Jody, Iowa, Ron Indiana, Independent Redneck Va., and everyone else I missed who want to know where is the money coming from?

Those righties how migrate here obviously don't want to know the truth as it really is.

Repost:

Yes, voters do care about secret cash funding elections! 84 % say they have a "right to know" who's bankrolling the ads an overwhelming.
84% of voters polled, including 80% of Republicans and 81% of Independents, believe voters have a right to know who is paying for ads for a particular candidate.

The poll shows clearly that voters do not believe the anonymous groups running these ads
have Americans’ best interests in mind. A majority of voters also believe that a candidate
supported by these ads is less likely to improve economic conditions.
Finally, the research clearly demonstrates that a majority of independent voters are less likely
to support a candidate backed by ads from anonymous corporations and wealthy donors.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/final%20disclosure%20polling%20memo%20.pdf

Oh, and Lady Jo Anna, Cu, NO NO Jo And Mixed bag are on a TEABAGGER ‘S DELIGHT; A RANT.

Nash-

With all due respect, naivete would be to not question the NAACP's motives in attempting to describe a political movement that is primarily concerned with the size and scope of government, and issues of government spending, debt, and deficits, as somehow inherently racist in nature.

Further, I believe you missed the point of the "take our country back" reference in my comment. That sentiment is specifically addressed in the report on the Tea Party just released by the NAACP:

"The oft-repeated Tea Party call to 'Take it Back, Take Your Country Back' is an explicitly nationalistic refrain."

Unless, of course...it's uttered by Democrats.

Pot...meet kettle.

Lol.

Mixed Bag:

You apparently did not pay much attention to the guests on CNN or you would know that the head of the NAACP is Ben JEALOUS not Justice!

Or did you adopt a page from Mr. Raese of WV or Palm Beach who has a penchant for calling minorities anything other than their given names (e.g. Dr. Chow Mein instead of Dr. Steven Chu).

Such disrepect!

Please don't deign to tell Mr. Jealous that he cannot recognize racist behavior.

Fiesty;

No one is listening to your questions but your peanut gallery.

Henry "I can smell the smog in Korea from D.C." Waxman..lol what a joke of a representative.

Who cares about that money. MONEY has ruled this country forever and it is not going to stop because some snort-nosed congressman is worried. He had better worry about someone coming to unseat him in the future.

Mixed bag, how long are you going to keep believing that crap that the tea party (which is actually the Koch brothers) is primarily concerned with the size and scope of government, and issues of government spending, debt, and deficits?

Beautiful post today mixed bag...smooch..smooch no, thank you...smooch...smooch....Man you are on fire dangerfield...smooch...smooch really giving it to those lefties...smooch...smooch .....wish more righties were on here today so I could kiss some more a@@ . You know I do want to fit in with the lefties around here....lol lol

soldier1

Fiesty;

No one is listening to your questions but your peanut gallery.

Henry "I can smell the smog in Korea from D.C." Waxman..lol what a joke of a representative.

Who cares about that money. MONEY has ruled this country forever and it is not going to stop because some snort-nosed congressman is worried. He had better worry about someone coming to unseat him in the future.

Undoubtedly, you didn't have time to read my repost.

Repost:

Hell Yes, voters do care about secret cash funding elections! 84 % say they have a "right to know" who's bankrolling the ads an overwhelming.
84% of voters polled, including 80% of Republicans and 81% of Independents, believe voters have a right to know who is paying for ads for a particular candidate.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/final%20disclosure%20polling%20memo%20.pdf

84% is not a PEANUT GAllery!

Finally, the research clearly demonstrates that a majority of independent voters are less likely to support a candidate backed by ads from anonymous corporations and wealthy donors.

Go to the website and see for yourself.

That's right Show US the money.

Everyone should have to disclose their donations, but the democrats don't want that door opened either, because you can bet they have skeletons in their closet also.

As for Waxman, let all the groups that support him open up and be transparent also. But I guess what is good for the "goose" is not always good for the "gander".

Why does friendship send you right wingers into a complete panic?

What's the matter? When you were kids did you have no friends so... Daddy had to tie a pork chop around your neck to get the dog to play with you?

Jesus... is there NOTHING you won't b!tch about?

You're bitterness towards camaraderie is most telling!

Feisty- I've been thinking this same thing, but didn't know how to say it. Y' done good! (ooops- no 'patting you on the back' allowed! How 'bout a high five instead?)

I hardly think that calling Ben Jealous Ben JUSTICE is a hateful slur, Sheila.

Sarcastic? You bet. Guilty as charged.

Anyway, shouldn't the head of the NAACP be about justice...above all else?

How about a chest 'bump' DBO... that should really set their hair on fire! lmao...

Mixed Bag:

You just don't get it. I never said it was a hateful slur however...

There was time not so long ago when all Black men who worked as Pullman Porters were called George. Not because that was their given name but because white people (mostly southern) in the early 20^th century had no respect for black people and called them just any old thing no matter what capacity they met them in. It was either “boy” or “George”.

Well, Ben Jealous is not your “boy” and his name is not Justice no matter your play on words.

Yes, MB, contrary to popular belief black men want to be called by their given name (not Chairman Mao, Adolf Hitler, Lenin.)

Mixed Bag

Anyway, shouldn't the head of the NAACP be about justice...above all else?

Duuuhh, economic and racial equality is justice. Just for that stupid remark you get to wear the cone shaped hat of the day.

"Anyway, shouldn't the head of the NAACP be about justice...above all else?"

Honestly, I don't see how an organization called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People can be allowed to lable anything racist.

Why aren't they advancing all people, why just colored people. Which brings to question the term "colored people", isn't that a racist term also? What's up with that, shouldn't they change their name to something less offensive?

Sheila-

When Mr. Jealous and the NAACP stop directing accusations of racism towards those with legitimate policy-based objections to President Obama's political and legislative agenda...I'll show Mr. Jealous more respect.

His actions are far more harmful and cynically destructive to the fabric of our society than anything I could ever possibly have to say.

And Bev..."cone shaped hat"?

Really...?

..Feisty redhead....It stopped being a government of, for and by the people long ago, we nolonger choose our representatives, we choose between the puppets the corporate world offers up.......As long as money (not ideas) win elections, the corporate world will control government and dictate legislation. It matters not which faces are in Washington or legislatures, the results will be the same, it is all controlled by the influence of money and corporate world.

It was not Bush, Obama, republicans or democrats that brought the worlds economies to their knees, It was corporate greed and mis-calculations on how long the housing bubble would last. Obama's rise to power was also a miscalculation on the part of the corporate world, they did not forsee anyone staving off corporate money relying mostly on private individual donations.........but it is what it is.

People need to realize it does no good to scream for term limits, which we already have through our vote, and if they wait for Congress to adopt meaningful campaign finance reform, they will not live long enough to see it happen...........If we want to return government to the people and clean up the money corruption that infests American politics, we must do it ourselves while we still have the authority to make laws............State by state, by way of propositions, voters must enact an 'ethics' law that confines campaign fund raising to the'particular' constituency (area) a 'particular' elected public office is empowered to represent in an official capacity in whatever legislative body....... And they must couple it with a 'truth in advertisement' proposition that holds advertisers liable for slander in the case of lies, half truths and twisting of facts intended to mislead, or images of opponents or other persons without consent.............Of course, these measures will not get us all the way to where we need to be to take back our government, but they will get us moving in the right direction.....think about it

Awesome post Ellis, and some very interesting ideas about protecting ourselves from the "corporate people".

Brutus, are black people maintaining that they are inherently superior and therefore justified in ruling over others? Are black people maintaining that another race is inherently inferior and therefore others are entitled to discriminate against them? If not then the term racism doesn't apply. The NAACP is an advocacy organization and as such is perfectly entitled to help each other achieve EQUAL opportunity and rights with others. This Conservative attempt to confuse the meaning of the term 'racism' is an old trick, one that doesn't stand when examined on its merits.

Beverly: Standing O, Cheering O! Thank you for a wonderful post!

Ellis! Pitch perfect post - we could use your voice around here a bit more often! ;0)

Well, now I've read posts where writers definitely fell over the side of the boat--do you sit in a closet at night to think? The NAACP's name goes back to its founding, many many many years ago. Back then, colored was the term. It is why the census listed it again this year--because there are many elderly blacks who prefer to call themselves colored. Why would they change their name? It is who they are and who they always have been since it was founded to advance the causes of their people and provide help.

Some folks really like to play games and take their race-baiting cues from the likes of Beck and Limbaugh.

..Feisty / Nashville...........Thank you,... also enjoy you posts very much, at least some people realize Obama's efforts on behalf of the American people as a whole

Yea.. Maybe you liberals could tell us why you allow so much Foriegn money to be thrown into the Campaigns by the Unions and many other Pacs.. Why dont you start to Tell all those Liberals Groups to stop using Foreign moneys. Start purging the Garbage out of the Democrat party.. Those Corrupt Politicans that Continue to Use Foreign Monies donated form Untracable People. and you Liberals Dont try and Expose who they are. Its just disgusting..

Steve:

All groups should disclose where their money is coming from.

This had been repeated over and over.

So who are you arguing with, yourself?

Steve you just acknowlegded that you understand that President Obama was right and the Right is wrong.

Navy, the Supreme Court has delivered injustice from the seat of Justices and that is a sign that Democracy and the Republic is not in the best interest of man. That's why I place no faith in man whatsoever.

Right Steve. Maybe they can also tell us why the current administration sides with OTHER countries in legal actions against states in our own country involving the flood of illegal aliens.

Let's see what important items the Libs want to talk about today!

How msnbc is the true and honest voice of America. How the Tea Party is corrupt and racist, and the NAACP is not. A leftwing rags claim of Supreme Court justices attending a fundraiser. How Chile runs their government (and that matters to us, how?). A bunch of straight copy and pastes from liberal rags, and the day wouldn't be complete without yet another rant about the Chamber of Commerce, an organization that apparently runs the world, at least according to Liberals. Wait a minute, the copy and pastes are from the same leftwing rag, thinkprogess. Apparently that's now the bible of truth for the Liberals. Got the Koch brothers in the mix again too.

Do you Libs ever have an independent thought? Or do you just believe what thinkprogress shovels into your tiny little heads?

Different day, same nonsense for the Libs. Just like watching Bill Murray in Ground Hog Day.

And all the while the Left is regurgitating what thinkprogress tells them, the Republicans are talking about, . . . . . jobs.

Now you know why you're going to lose Libs. 12 more days.

Impeach Scalia and Thomas.

Steve: I believe that FULL disclosure should be applied to republicans, democrats and independents equally. I play no favorites here. We, the American people want to know. 84% of the people want to know. When was the lasttime we saw 84% of people agree on anything? I agree with your basic idea that we have to purge the crap out of politics.

Louis J: I hear you loud and clear. We are being betrayed by the very same people we put our trust in. I think this makes me the maddest of all. The lies and hypocrisy that we see every day. What ever happened to honesty, morals and ethics. Everybody is claiming to be that but then you examine their deeds and they fall short. Politicians seem to be doing more of this as a way of doing business.

We have to bring integrity back into our elected officials. Easier said than done I am afraid until we force them by exercising our vote.

Good point Farley. The Left couldn't care less about millions of illegals in the country, but has an absolute apocalyptic fit when some leftwing gossip rag (thinkprogress) makes up a few stories about the Chamber of Commerce.

Quote from thingprogress: "Evidence? We don't have any evidence. We don't need no stinking evidence!"

>And all the while the Left is regurgitating what thinkprogress tells them, the Republicans are talking about, . . . . . jobs.

Outsourcing them?

Maybe they'd like to talk about Juan Williams. The famous and respected Democrat journalist just got fire by NPR for basically being un-PC. He made the mistake of admitting publicly that he has human and common sense emotions. Because these feelings involve muslims, and because he sometimes appears to be too chummy with Bill O'Reilly, he lost his job.

Political Correctnesss will be the DEATH OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

Just keeping score here, every Liberal contributor (including myself) states that anonymous campaign money in ANY form should be scrubbed from the process in the interest of democracy. All the Conservative contributors say there's nothing to see here and we should just move on.

Why do Conservatives want so badly to endanger our democracy in this way?

John B

You score keeping is quite accurate. The answer to your question is that it is not about America First (the McCain motto) it is about me first...you second, third, fourth. whatever.

Yes. . thats correct Ron.. I will support my Family First.... Yours is quite aways down their on my list of worries........................

JoAnna:

I am glad you brought up the "millions of illegals" in this country.

The only folks hiring illegal immigrants is the folks trying to make a buck by not paying an American worker a living wage.

So basically what we have here, is business folk using illegal labor to make money on one end, and then campaigning against their illegal employees on the back end to win elections.

Yet another heads the "corporate people" win, tails the American people lose scenario.

US Navy. Keep up the great work on this. It is important for all Americans of every political leaning not just democrats.

Steve. Since you seem tired, go take a nap. YAWN.

JoAnna- yes the repubs are talking about jobs. And that's exactly why they should take over again. That is, if we want more 'talking about jobs' and no 'doing something about' jobs. All I ever hear for a gameplan to bring back the jobs is 'tax cuts for the wealthy'. Well, silly me- those cuts are nearly 10 years old now, and still in place.

SO.....where are the jobs, JoAnna?

Where are the jobs JoAnna? And what are you and the republicans doing (not just talking about) to create jobs? We'll be waiting to hear all your wisdom.

DBO: SO.....where are the jobs, JoAnna?

The Bush tax cuts didn't create that many jobs, but just like Obama's trillions of dollars in "stimulus" spending, the cuts saved millions of them.

JoAnna obviously has trouble connecting the dots.

The question is puzzling for her "where are the jobs?" Repubs know where the jobs are....GONE! GONE because the profit margin is greater by shipping the jobs overseas and paying slave labor.

...and then of course vilifying the Unions for wanting living wages and benefits for US employees.

Where are the jobs? The Repubs have the answer, but refuse to answer! Cheap labor is good for the bottom line of profits!

Mo-1852032

Where are the jobs JoAnna? And what are you and the republicans doing (not just talking about) to create jobs? We'll be waiting to hear all your wisdom.

I don't think you should hold your breath Mo. The Lady knows they're either outsourced or the billionaires are sitting on the jobs.

She also knows those corporatist and their wholly owned subsidiaries of the billionaire's club on Capitol hill (blue dog democrats and republicans) have created a culture of poverty to dupe the masses; just so they (the billionaire's club ) can gain control to finish US off. But Lady Jo refuses to admit the truth.

Mo: Where are the jobs JoAnna? And what are you and the republicans doing (not just talking about) to create jobs? We'll be waiting to hear all your wisdom.

So have you Libs are finally coming to the conclusion that Obama's "stimulus" failed? That's the first step in the process Libs, admitting what a total failure Obama and the Democrats have been in righting the economy. That's a big step for you, congratulations for taking it.

Now your asking about what the Republicans will do is a step in the right direction, it's admission to the very expensive failures Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have saddled the country with for generations to come.

And Mo. Dearest Mo. You're a regular here, you must have seen what I've said about what needs to be done to create jobs. I wrote about it yesterday in fact. So it's time for you to do a little research into it and find it on your own.

Happy hunting Mo.

Congratulations!!!

While this might not be your only post, it is the first post I have read of yours that did not go on tirade about your absolute hate for illegals.

Maybe Billy Shakespeare had you nailed when he said and I paraphrase "I think she protest to much."

Sometimes when people have misplaced hate similar to that you so often demonstrate it is nothing more than their subconsious surpressing hidden fondness and yes sometimes even sexual fantasies for the group they are attacking.

It has nothing to do with "Obama's stimulus." It has EVERYTHING to do with a long term Conservative plan to increase the wealth of the already rich http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html at the expense of the middle class http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/disturbing-statistics-on-the-decline-of-americas-middle-class/19676292/ through an ill-advised, destructive Conservative belief that "our betters" will take care of the rest of us, if only we take sufficiently good care of them. It is an undemocratic view that shows the anti-egalitarian bent of Conservatives while at the same time setting us on a ruinous course which ultimately will lead to the end of the United States as an economic power.

The Right doesn't see us as worthy of a fair day's pay for a fair day's pay. We are a workforce to be exploited at the lowest possible pay, a disposable commodity.

....US Navy vet.........this is primarily what I was talking about in post #2.30, but, all use of foreign money, from whatever source should be banned from American politics. To go even further, any individual or group with direct ties or association with foreign special interest entities should be barred (other than to vote) from participating in American politics altogether.....global trade (pooling of labor) is bad enough, but surely the American election process should not be a global affair

Good post IR, thanks for keeping front and center the fact that Social Security is in more danger from the Conservative Movement than from anything else.

IR:

Very well writtten.

Social Security was never supposed the sole instrument for ones retirement. It was designed to offer some security (not all). I looked at it as a forced savings plan that you fund in part. Unfortunately it has become the only source of retirement income for many less fortunate and they are finding it harder every day to make do with that. To privatize even a portion of that runs the risk of not having those funds when you need them most. Just look at the history of Wall Street, which is where these monies would be deposited.

In the 75 year history of SS, they have never missed a payment period. That is a pretty hard fact to ignore. Is it the sole instrument for retirement, no way. People still need to put a nest egg away on their own. Some do and some do not. That was the whole idea of SS. To give us something to fall back on.

Curently SS is funded at 100% to I think 2037. Does it need to be re-visted to make sure it is around for another 75 years, absolutely.

I am not for privatizing social security in any form. All this does is funnel money to wall street in the form of fees and commisions and bonuses to those handling our money which in part reduces our payback. Not a good idea. Same for Medicare and Veterans Benefits.

More drivel from the uninformed left. Folks who want a more balanced view of Chile's pension system can go here:

http://www.wharton.universia.net/index.cfm?fa=viewfeature&language=english&id=937

Folks who want to see how the U.S. Social Security based retirement system compares with other countries can go here (hint we're 10th out of the 14 countries studied. Behind Chile…way behind):

http://www.mercer.com/referencecontent.htm?idContent=1359420

Folks who want to get a feel for the impact of the financial meltdown on Chile's system can go here:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/7/43921368.pdf

Now, when it comes to p*ssing away retirement money, the U.S. wrote the book. Perhaps you can explain where all the dollars are in the Social Security Trust Fund? I'll tell you, those dollars are gone, gone, gone. Long gone. Perhaps you can explain how the Social Security Trust Fund will be refinanced so as to meet its obligations to the baby boomers who will soon be retiring en masse.

The level of abject ignorance by the left on this issue is astonishing. According to the latest report of the Social Security trustees, beginning in about 2015 the system will be paying out more dollars in benefits than it's taking in via taxes. That shortfall starts out small but by about 2020 we're starting to talk about serious money that gets more and more serious with each passing year. Those dollars have to come from somewhere, and "somewhere" is not the Social Security Trust Fund.

So to those who blithely contend that everything is just fine with our current Social Security based retirement system my message is this: show me the money.

Great post, IR. What happened in Chile is what could happen here IF voters do not pay attention. Be grateful for the Tea Party because most of the time, GOPers have tried to keep their desire to get rid of social security or put it in the hands of big, private Wall Street a secret. President Eisenhower would be reprimanding his party as he believed social security was a great idea and kept seniors from living in poverty in their later years. As big business continues to ship more jobs overseas leaving Americans to work in low paying and often service-related jobs, social security will be even more critical for future retirees.

Great topic of discussion IR. Keep up the great passionate work!!!! I always look forward to your insights.

Bill, Fairfax VA

Folks who want to get a feel for the impact of the financial meltdown on Chile's system can go there:

Now, when it comes to p*ssing away retirement money, the U.S. wrote the book. Perhaps you can explain where all the dollars are in the Social Security Trust Fund? I'll tell you, those dollars are gone, gone, gone. Long gone. Perhaps you can explain how the Social Security Trust Fund will be refinanced so as to meet its obligations to the baby boomers who will soon be retiring en masse.

But...But... Bill, the truth is George Bush destroyed the whole global economy.

Despite all the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt. That’s a lie!

The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter century. Today’s $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, experts in this area, say Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41628.html

US NAVY,

I've seen this play on words before. When you refer to poor people as "less fortunate", what your really saying is "less lucky" (Fortune...luck...same thing). This implies that I have everything I have that a poor person doesn't have...simply because I'm "lucky" and they are not. What a load of liberal crap. Never mind that I get out of bed religiously at 5:00 a.m. 5 days a week and get to work on time, and perform my job to the best of my ability day after day, week after week, year after year. The fact that I'm responsible for my own success has nothing to do with it??? I'm just "lucky???" "fortunate???" This is the kind of liberal, socialist thinking that totally destroys the work ethic in this country.

Edward:

You are a wonderful, hard working guy and this country would be a better place if everyone was more like you.

Feel better now?

Geez.

P.S. Have you ever considered the possibility that everything ain't about you?

Bill Good to see you this morning. It's probably good for me that I've been called a whole lot worse in my lifetime than a driveller. Is that kin to a lollygagger? Any way I thank you for bringing some links and a little coherency this morning. That is all I can ask of my fellow Americans and if you'll look above that's what I advised. I 'm just hoping that everyone will do their due diligence rather than riding off to war with only lies and innuendo in their back pocket. We've done that all to often here in the last little bit and the present circumstances seem to be a continuation of that tendency.

Based on some of the poster's comments, many of you don't watch Morning Jo. Its a shame you don't because this a.m. there was breaking news. Democratic Senator Durbin form IL, stated that he supports rasing the social security payroll deduction from 83% of your salary to 90%. He supports raising the social security tax.

From posts I’ve read on this site, I’m assuming most of you are not fans of “Morning Joe.” If you didn’t watch this morning, you missed some pretty important breaking news. One of the most senior Democratic Senators who just happens to be from Illinois my home state, Sen Richard Durbin, announced that he is in support of raising the payroll tax for Social Security from 83% to 90%. So we have a democrat (not up for reelection until 2012)announcing he supports raising taxes on all working people. He made no mention of raising those taxes only on the wealthy, he supports raising them on all people. So Democrats have done a complete flip flop on the issue of raising taxes. Now they are for it. Sen Durbin also went on to say, that if there could be a way to exclude the very physical jobs such as miners, construction works, bricklayers, he would support extending the age at which one could begin to draw social security benefits. Democrats supporting raising taxes on working people, who would have thought it would happen.

Edward -

I'll admit I don't get up at 5:00am. Good for you. But, I've been working 40+ hour weeks for the last 41 years, including more late nights and weekends than I can remember. I haven't taken a weeklong "go away somewhere for fun" vacation in almost 20 years because I can't afford to. I worked full time throughout my treatment for breast cancer several years ago, going for radiation treatments on my lunch hour every straight day for six weeks. I've taken classes (on my own dime) to try and keep up with the demands of technology for my job. At almost 60 years old, I still try to do whatever maintenance I can on the small rental property I own because I can't afford to pay others to do it for me. I've lost my job temporarily due to poor company management and reorganization twice in the last 13 years, while all the while my healthcare costs are skyrocketing out of control. I lay awake most nights wondering what I'll do if I lose my current job.

How dare you insult my "work ethic"! And if I'm not unlucky or unfortunate, just which insult would you care to use? Am I lazy? Stupid? Incompetent? Or is just being "a liberal" insult enough in your book?

"This is the kind of liberal, socialist thinking that totally destroys the work ethic in this country."

You need to read Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed." This journalist (yes, journalists do still exist) worked as a house cleaner, a waitress and a Walmart employee for a year and wrote about her efforts to support herself on low wages. Poor people pay higher prices for food, housing and medical care than the middle class do (did you know that patients without health insurance pay more for medical services because H.I. companies can negotiate lower prices?) In many ways, our economy is built on the backs of the working poor. And these are the people the Republicans like to scapegoat and claim there is no money to help them get insurance or to improve their kid's schools.

Navy, I disagree with you regarding privatizing SS. I agree that the primary thought was not to use the account as the main retirement vehicle, but look at what was paid into the fund, and then calculate what the ROI would be if the account was entered into a income generating fund. Over the long haul, the individual would receive a greater rate of return by going private.

I also believe that cities and states should consider privatizing services that are currently being provided by the city/state. The California Transportation Department is now looking into this and during recent studies, they found that private companies can provide services faster and less costly that when provided for by the State organization.

There just isn't any reason to force contractors to bid projects based upon prevailing wage contracts, other than to make a project more competitive for union shops.

OK Fiesty Union girl, time for you to jump in and state your ignorant case for union rights.

JoAnne in PA--sounds like you are doing well against cancer.

It can be beat....been there myself twice in the last 11 years.

Hey, Chilled - You're right, it can be beat - my grandmother, my Mom, my uncle, my brother, my sister-in-law and I are all proof. Good for you, too, my friend, and whatever you're doing, keep it up.

Sorry to everyone else for snapping in my post above and going personal - I usually try to stay on topic and be professional about it - but the other side of this coin is that my father died of lung cancer six years ago. As we speak, my step-father is nearing the end stages of it, too, and I just learned this week that my step-mother (Dad's wife of 30 years) has it too and her prognosis looks even worse.

Politics aside for a minute - if you smoke, PLEASE quit. And if you don't, please don't even think about starting. If you don't care about yourself, at least think of your loved ones. This is the only healthcare debate that really matters.....

Edward I think JoAnne’s post up there should point out to you the fallacy of attributing tendencies to folks that you don’t know anything about. Seems like a lot of folks that hang around here have taken up that habit lately. BTW way there friend if you don’t get up till 5 in my neck of the woods we call that sleeping in. I’m generally working on my second cup of coffee and am halfway to work by then.

Janet My answer to Senator Durbin would be that I appreciate him taking a realistic look at the long term problem rather than to chide him for speaking about raising some taxes. Now I’m an old guy so I really don’t have a dog in the fight for thirty years from now like you young folks do. If I were under fifty setting down and taking a realistic look at some kind of changes to insure future viability of a Bedrock program would be something I would be real interested in. Keep in mind many of these taxes etc haven’t been raised for many years so it’s probably time to adjust. Same with retirement age. Life expectancy has increased except in the fields and the professions that he is mentioning so that should be on the table too. I just would not be in favor of putting my entire retirement future in the hands of private enterprise. It would be my opinion that the clause “to promote the general welfare” should mean that there is enough money guaranteed by We the People to make sure that an old leaguer like me don’t starve to death when he gets to damn old to be productive. Seems to me most civilized folks throughout history have managed to honor the Elders at least to that extent.

I absolutely agree with you. There are going to have to be changes made to SS. One I would like to see implemented is to raise the retirement age. Granted there are going to be some people (contruction workers) that this will negatively impact. Starting with those born in 1990 (just an example) the retirement age could be 70. I was part of the retirement group that can't retirement benefits until 67 and some months. BUT I have none that for years. If we start now for those born in 1990 or maybe 1995, those individuals have plenty of time to plan for that fact. They can still retire anytime they want to, they just can't get full benefits until 70. Gives them an incentive to save to be able to retire a little earlier.

Also I don't have any problem paying a little more in Social Security taxes, as I'm sure others don't.

Janet;

I think what they were talking about on Mornig joe was increasing from the current payroll ceiling of $106,500 to a number that would include 90% of payroll as opposed to the current level of 83%. The reason offered was that some people make more money now than before and only those above $106,500.00 would have that ceiling extended. It would not apply to everybody.

If you make less than $106,500 it would not aplly to you. If you make more it would if this ever became a fact.

I think he also said that just doing that would extend another 25 years (pass the 2039 date).

Thanks Janet I kind of figured we could get pretty close to the same page on that thing. Being and old construction worker I watch that part right close but there should be a compromise in there some where. Only real problem I see is what kind of reaction are we going to get when we present it and folks start questioning us about public service employees and the militarys retirement.For instance my wife is a retired school teacher after thirty years and my F in L and B in L are both retired military after 30 years. Are we going to say that the private sector should be able to save for early retirement and then deny these folks the same opportunity.

Thanks for the clarification, USN. Taxing income to a higher ceiling is a change that significant majorities of Americans favor, though it doesn't make nearly such a good Conservative talking point to say "SS will be broke in only 54 years!!"

JoAnne in PA----If you snapped it was justified....this is a good place to vent some of the frustrations that we all have with life in general, and political issues specifically.

You gave very sound advice.

I'm currently well (again), and pray the best for you and yours!

To be called a "liberal" or a "lib" or even a "libtard" by the obnoxious, un-thinking, corporate takeover-worshipping, right wing tea party zombies posting here daily is a BADGE OF HONOR.

Good Morning Pat:

The one thing I can't figure out is who should be the poster child for the Tea Party. A) Sharron Angle or B) Christine O'Donnell. I think I will vote fore B.

Her answer should have been that Democrats arn't there to work with.. they are there for amusement purposes only. Sort of like liberal tokens. It would be like asking a dog his opinion on something.

Here we go with the most reputable source on the planet again; ThinkProgress.

Give me a frikken break.

Well soldier, how about you refute what's in the link instead of just trying to poison the well? If you don't have a good argument a fallacious argument will always work for Conservatives.

John B:

I don't have to refute the link. I know the well is poluted, thank you!

You DO NOT know if I am a Conservative. I have never stated where I fall in the political spectrum.

I forgot, you're from Iowa, you know everything and what is best for all.

Until I see that site and Mediamatters go after Democrats with the same viciousness as they do after conservatives, I will continue to say it is bogus.

And I though Sarah Palin was brain dead?

Navy, you appear to be an intelligent individual, does your comment to the opposition need to be so narrow of a comment?

It's not Palin who's brain dead.....it's her supporters!...

No sign of intelligent life!

safecracker;

Understood. Thank you.

Nashville Fan everything you state is a fact, everyone knows it's a fact, even the "yawner's" know it is an indefensible damn shame, and yet it is the law of the land, and there is nothing you can do about it, legally, that's the scary part of the way our whole Government has decided the will of the wealthy few is to be obeyed and not the will of the people, and all the good republican types on here try and act as if it is no big deal because they think they will personally benefit from the Supreme Courts treasonist ruling, and they might, for a while, what the greed driven idiots don't realize is that these corporate entities won't stop with the destruction of the middle class, no way, they will continue right up the food chain until all the wealth is concentrated at the very top and that very top won't include any of the posters on here that see this law as no big deal, it is probably the biggest step this country has ever taken against Democracy and is just another nail in the coffin of this already dying society.

Louis -

If you don't like it here, then don't come here (smile).

Watch out! Devil's gonna get ya!

MSNBC praises and glorifies the Repubs? Ok.

CU Farley..

Only when they arn't talking about Fox news Station...

Good morning Bill.

I love your capitalist fairy tells.

No facts to back it up, but great reading.

CEO salaries up, employee salaries down.

Outsourcing up, number of employed Americans down.

Corporate power up, power of the people down.

Do you agree that corporations are "people" that have rights of "free speech" guaranteed by the constitution?

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Bill, if it's in the "best interests" of the rich to maintain a healthy middle class why aren't they doing so? http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/gdp-per-capita.html Contrary to your view of the world they seem more interested in enriching themselves. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116849172911973577.html The top 20% of earners now control almost 85% of all wealth. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm How much more do they need before they see fit to maintain that middle class of which you speak?

>A more realistic view of the world would be that individual self interest for the better things in life drives a desire to acquire those things – whether we're talking about rich folks, poor folks or those in between.

Greed for lack of a better word... is good.

>And one big idea underlying the philosophy of the right is the view that a growing economic pie enables more folks to participate in national prosperity and thereby achieve those desires. That fundamentally optimistic and egalitarian perspective has been a key goal of the right at least going back to the Reagan years.

Sounds good, but why does the income gap keep growing? The dominant policies of he last 30 years led us into a world with fewer good jobs and companies that are allowed to make grave errors that threaten to collapse the economy.

It is necessary for government to fix these things. Pure capitalism does not and has never worked. Individuals working only for their own benefit do not create or maintain a functioning society. I suspect this is a point of faith with you that it does, but I don't operate on faith. My view is to support what works and reject that which has been proven to fail. 30 years is long enough to prove that this latest experiment in unrestrained greed has failed.

Lord, Bill, I NEVER do this, but

GREAT POST.

I laughed so hard I cried. You hit it so darn right ther is nothing I could add.

And the Yanks won last night.

"But an ideology which begets a dependency class"

The Republican ideology promotes dependency on employers to provide health insurance (how many potential entrepeneurs have been talked out of starting their own businesses by spouses afraid of losing health insurance?) Republicans think Americans should chain themselves to their desks and work for the good of large companies and their over paid CEO's like Bob Cratchit worked for his miserly boss without even the hopes of a Christmas goose.

The Republican ideology promotes dependency on the Catholic Church to educate inner city kids, because improving public schools in poor communities is too expensive.

The Republican ideology promotes dependency on foreign oil, because international corporate profits are more important than a clean environment or development of new industries by Americans.

>(how many potential entrepeneurs have been talked out of starting their own businesses by spouses afraid of losing health insurance?)

I have been saying this for a while. Once people realize that they will be able to get affordable health insurance on the individual/small group market, there will be a boom of new businesses.

Bill, Fairfax VA

"A recurring theme of many leftist rants around here is the notion that we're all getting shafted by evil rich folks and their corporate co-conspirators."

No, Bill- we don't all think corporations and the people that own and run them are evil.

Just the ones that gain all their wealth in those postions at the expense of their fellow citizens. As in- If I send YOUR job to China, I can make this much more for myself. As in- If we can merge my bank with the one in Cleveland, we can cut your job out entirely, and I can make this much more for myself.

THAT'S the howl from the left- not ALL rich folks are bad or evil. But somehow, that's how the narrative gets perpetuated. And it's wrong.

no joe :)

Bill:

Your post was an interesting read. However, I contend that your conclusions are incorrect.

First, proof of justice lies in the fact that the Rangers are seriously threatening to knock the Yankees out.

Secondly, I believe you base your argument on a misreading of statistics. Based on the distribution of wealth - and I won't bore you with the numbers - there really is no middle class. That's a statistical fiction.

A statistical breakout clearly shows a rich - poor division. That there are very comfortable "poor" people does not seriously affect the distribution. Whether this is "good" or "bad" is purely subjective, however, the rich-poor division is a relative constant in the human condition.

The notion of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" is quite interesting. While poorly named, it does indeed exist. It is hardly a conspiracy inasmuch as the participants who facilitate the upward flow of capital are largely unaware that they are doing so. For instance, with the exception of the candidates themselves, it is no one's self-interest - enlightened or otherwise - to vote for an Angle, a Miller, an O'Donnell, or a Buck. Their degrees notwithstanding, which in and of itself is an indictment of the education axis, they are little more than ignorant lackeys for the rich and powerful. Really, whether they share your political philosophy or not, don't you think they are incredibly stupid? (You know as well as I, where the bulk of their campaign funding originates.)

The failure of the education axis to actually educate - as opposed to taking home paychecks - explains why it is so easy to capture the votes of the right. They're dumb. Please don't tell me you haven't noticed that their pablum includes healthy doses of mutually exclusive "solutions". (By the way, Rachel's last name is Maddow, and it would serve you well to watch her. Yes, she is an unapologetic liberal - a very good thing - but she also understands economics and she does her homework. She'd slice Hannity into dog food before he knew what hit him.) I don't watch for the leftist tilt. I want facts, and she delivers 'em. You don't have to agree with her to learn good stuff.

I believe you also err in your view of an ever-expanding pie. In theory, it looks great, just as the Laffer curve looked great. Unfortunately, Malthus was right. The planet cannot accommodate ever-increasing demand. This is a finite place, Bill. We have excellent biological models to which we can turn for guidance. Bacteria + growth medium yields overpopulation, which yields toxins, which results in the death of the bacteria. This is a constant. Name your species, the outcome is the same.

The "southern strategy" is the antithesis of egalitarianism. You can't have it both ways. Again, the right is quite adept at getting its adherents to accept mutually exclusive ideas.

Class warfare is a constant. I think it defines the human condition. Right now the rich are getting richer - a statistical fact. Even if the "poor" are successful in reversing the flow of capital, it will only be temporary, because in fact, concentrated capital is required to make the economy move.

I will leave the DNA issue for another day. Suffice it to say, I believe you have reached a conclusion that is completely wrong.

However, I am trying to create a new business, and making a few extra dinero is always a nice thing, EVEN if I have to give some of it to the government.

Bill Fairfax VA states "A recurring theme of many leftist rants around here is the notion that we're all getting shafted by evil rich folks and their corporate co-conspirators. To these tortured leftist souls, the vast right wing conspiracy has morphed into an insidious force in our society that seeks to economically eviscerate every citizen who has the misfortune of not being rich. To them, the glass is not only half empty but it's leaking as well. And the rich won't be satisfied until the entire glass is completely drained, with every drop safely ensconced in their offshore bank accounts."

Bill an interesting statement coming from you, I am inclined to think that you believe the statement above to be the truth, I believe you think you are going to be one of the "fortunate rich" that somehow will be unaffected by the coming grief and misery that the "less fortunate" will be forced to endure because of the greed of a few, will you Bill? This country is different from any other country in many ways, tyrants tend to come out on the losing end when the people are pushed far enough, money won't do them any good after a certain point is reached, justice, real justice Bill not the justice like our Supreme Court sell always wins out in this country, and it will this time as well.

That was fantastic , Bill. It was dead-on accurate and slapped these socialists upside the head like a big, wet, dead fish. I never thought of it that way before. These people's whole agenda and belief system is one big paranoid conspiracy theory. What a bunch of whiny, quaking, shivering, angry whackos. lol

If that's what we're doing it's only because we've learned from the best.

Remember, "You Distort, We Deride!"

The interesting thing about Steve is that while he's happy to brand these stories and a lot of others as nontroversies he never seems to tell us about anything Conservatives are doing, or give us a reason to be excited about them. Perhaps that's better left unexamined...

Steve, you're wasting good print space. Go take a nap or post something worth discussing.

Steve's only saving grace is that digital storage is plentiful and cheap.

Steve may be the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac that I heard about. He stays awake at night, wondering if there really IS a dog.

(Either that, or indulging in that one activity that Christine O'Donnell warned us against....)

Co-Opted.. .. Thanks..

Drive by: That might explain why he doesn't respond to posts - can't read; he's gone blind. :D

I forget.. What was the original poster talking about. Yawn....

Congratulate yourself all you wish, Steve, the point is out there and available for anyone who wishes to read, explore, and think about the issues. Ultimately the modern world and its requirement for education, critical thinking, and autonomy will win out over the heierarchical structure of Conservatism.

Steve that is the most intelligent thing I have ever seen you post.

Have a good nap.

Are you typing in your sleep or is it that you just don't have a damn thing to say that can refute the fact the "corporate people" have sold this country out for a buck?

Yawn.. nothing to see here. just the same liberal Tripe....

Nash;

Agreed. We are starting down a very slippery slope with a major cliff at the bottom. Pretty soon our political system is going to be viewed by many in the world to be no better than Afghan, Iran, Iraq where the votes are bought and paid for by the wealthy and those with Special Interests.

This is where we are heading unless we get out and vote the jerks out. All of them.

Nash...why are you trying to argue with Steve? It's like attemtping to communicate basic math to a can of cubed boulion.

Steve,

Your exactly right. This whole article and all the liberal moans are really old news. They are a bunch of losers and are on the brink of one of their worst disasters yet. These posts are just the sounds of the turkey waiting for the axe to fall. YAWNNNNN.

What is it about Steve's yawns that reminds me of telepromters and birth certificates??

Edward,

Better to just change the Subject.. a Yawn is a good way for me to get them talking about me instead of the same old Drivel they spew everyday....

Now you've done it Steve, you've got Edward yawning and falling asleep. Your going to have to turn off Fox and get some sleep guys.

@ Nashville_fan: Crabgrass can be one organism across an entire lawn- so does the front yard and the back yard count as "grassroots"? lol...

BTW, @Steve- my dog yawns far more entertainingly, and that fetching little squeak towards the end, just before his jaws close, is better commentary. Like many a little league player, your best line boils down to "You got NOTHING"! It's a lot cuter coming from the gap-toothed beanpole in far left field than it is from a putative adult.

My thought on media and voter manipulation- the rich own the media. The fifth estate has become, with precious few exceptions, the right wing. With regard to foreign contributions to the Chamber of Congress: greed knows no boundaries. The Right is great for business, even though it's hell on the rest of us. Multinationals will support their interests- and the contributions we know of are just the tip of the iceberg.

I think it's both. I think this election cycle is a smack in the mouth to Obama as much as it is to Washington's status quo.

People are as pissed about ARRA and HCR (and thus, the face attached to them - the POTUS') as they are about life-long career politicians and confounding chamber rules.

Whether the anger is well-founded - or directed to the appropriate places and people - is the matter of on-going debate, but the fact remains that this is a reprisal against the legislature and the Oval Office, not just one or the other.

You can say it's not a referendum on President Obama's policies or Democrats but on Congress...which is completely controlled by Democrats. So....

It really is a referendum on Democrats. Because, you see, if people were happy with Democratic policies, they wouldn't be voting as a referendum on Congress, would they?

But, I do agree that perhaps part of it is a referendum on career politicians. They really are the worst, with Mrs. Nancy "disparity is about ownership and equity" Pelosi being the worst of the worst. For our Speaker to even suggest that fairness in this country is about ownership, thereby implying that ownership should be distributed equally in this country, is truly a frightening thought. What is funny is that I don't see Speaker Pelosi giving up any of the things she possesses or owns for "the greater good."

NJNB -- I'm come to the conclusion that you're not really an economist and you only play one on First Read!

OMG!

no joe posted something that did not include the words "Obama" and "in over his head" in it!

Now THAT is a CHANGE that I can believe in! :o)

...and neither Nash nor Feisty bring anything of value to the table. Cute.

Chronology is always one of the weaknesses in NJ's posts. President Clinton made us vulnerable to oil shocks...as happened in 1973 and 1979!

The biggest blind spot in this view of oil is the concept that somehow drilling in ANWR, which is capable of supplying a small percentage of our needs over a span of decades, will secure cheap oil, allowing us to continue as we have been without change. How is this to happen when ALL oil is sold on a WORLD market? http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/45659/2008-015.pdf?sequence=1 We will be charged for petroleum products from this source EXACTLY the same as we'll be charged for petroleum from anywhere else in the world. Producers will sell Alaskan oil wherever they can make the most money from it, with the Asian market being a strong contender.

This point of view led us to a place in which the price of oil is only compounded by the extraordinary efforts required to make sure we have access to all the oil we need. http://www.dod.mil/ddre/doc/DoD_Energy_Security_Task_Force.pdf The Department of Defense only expects this to become a more thorny issue as the years unwind. All of which means that energy security is best pursued by changes that enable us to not require more oil than all of Europe combined (!). Green technologies and advanced, energy-efficient technologies allow us to spend less on energy, feed the new technologies that can make us more prosperous, and improve our security all at the same time.

To my favorite Dragon:

I bring a winning smile and an off beat sense humor to the debate, which by my own evaluation, is priceless! ;o)

P.S. Surely I contribute enough substance to get an occasional "pick on no joe" pass, right?

No?

Dang.

There you go! John generates a rebuttal worth debating...!

...except I haven't had my morning coffee yet.

EDIT: Nash - sure, why not. I'm easy. I'm just grouchy right now - no caffiene. Surely you understand?

Exodite Dragon:

Your occasional grouchiness and quirky perspective is what I love . . . I understand and appreciate . . . and you don't even have to agree with me!

I could use a little caffeine myself . . . got pretty tired wrestilng with a Big Bear yesterday. ;o)

And yet in spite of FR's assertion the majority of incumbents from BOTH parties will be elected. People nearly always say such things about generic incumbents, but they almost as frequently vote to keep their own incumbents.

Meanwhile....back at the ranch:

Juven, disguised as a door-knob, came off in CU Farley's hand.

dangerfield:

I saw something about a possible problem with the internals on Gallup polls, and since that is your specialty, I wondered what you thought:

Gallup's Implausible Likely Voter Results

"An examination of some of the internals from the latest Gallup survey of likely voters leads to the conclusion that these results are wildly implausible. First, Gallup shows a much larger percentage of Republicans (55% Republican identifiers and leaners vs. 40% Democratic identifiers and leaners) and conservatives (51% conservative vs. 28% moderates and 18% liberals) than we've ever seen in a modern election. They also show a smaller percentage of voters under the age of 30 (7%) and a larger percentage of voters over the age of 65 (27%) than we've seen in any modern election. But that's not all. The candidate preference results for some subgroups of voters are just wildly implausible."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-abramowitz/gallups-implausible-likel_b_764345.html

I'd like to weigh in on this one, Nash-

It's actually entirely possible that Gallup needs to tweak its likely voter screen. However, this is the most respected polling organization in the world, and Gallup's track record in predicting the outcome of midterm elections over the last 60 years is actually quite good.

And, regarding the"big picture" in this election cycle, their polling reveals the same trend that every other major polling organization is showing...a statistically significant edge for the Republicans in the generic congressional vote.

Thanks for your insights Mixed Bag.

As you know, I'm not a big poll person, but this information did strike me as a little odd.

Nash,

I know it's delayed and may not be read, but I don't think I put more stock in or post any more polls than anyone else including the bloggers ar FR, so I do not claim any expertise.

Today's Pew Research poll (+10)is in line with AP(+7), Rasmussen, fox (both +9) and Gallup HV (+11), so whatever the voter screen model the outcome seems to be about the same...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html

Thanks for the input dangerfield.

Pat, Boston, MA

I forgot about the questions she asked last night. My first question would have been

a) Was the over $1.5 billion in cash of fresh $100 bills shrink-wrapped on pallets, which filled three Blackhawk helicopters pilfered in Iraq ever found?

b) Did George Bush really fly the plan when he announced mission Accomplished?

Hey genius, maybe Hitler's decision was different because he was a FRIGGIN' NAZI who was bent on world domination? And Bush was acting on intelligence that that every Dem was also seeing which urged taking out your friend Saddam. This was a prudent thing to do following the events of 9/11. The idea of another Islamic attack, this time involving WMDs, made most people sick. Oh, nevermind.

Your belief that Bush based the invasion on "false propaganda" makes you no different than the tinfoil-hat wearing truthers.

Or maybe you are so against invading Iraq because no muslim and/or middle easterner has ever been rude to you? That's a good reason not to protect western civilization, isn't it?

Are you TRYING to be funny? Seriously. More and more you are strating to seem like a planted poster sent here by the evil Rush Limbaugh to parody bleeding heart, moronic, naive lefties. If so, Good job!

Doesn't matter if you spin that one at 10,000rpm CU, everyone outside Beckistan realizes the intelligence was heavily tilted toward leading us to a place where the Bush Administration was inclined to go. They even opened an office for just that purpose because the CIA and State Department didn't think it was as big a threat as did the Neocons. The information that was fed to Congress and the public was heavily edited to exclude intelligence that would have worked against invasion of Iraq. Turns out CIA and State were right all along.

And that's the charitable version.

Looks like it's time for that wing to be clipped.

I believe Obama wanted the things you listed to happen, from what I gather his inner circle of advisers convinced him it was not in his "political" best interests to push it, Rahm Emanuel for instance was the one one that effectively got the Public Option killed. Obama chose not to fight for what he knew was right in any case, Obama should have vetoed the health-care bill without a Public Option that was the center piece that provided competition and cost reductions, all he signed into law was a Federal mandate to buy insurance from a greed driven corrupt insurance industry, Obama of all people knew that but he wimped out and signed it anyway, and what really pisses me off is he wants people like me to think it's good enough, well it ain't.

Like you mentioned the only thing the Dem's have going for them is the Republicans suck worse than they do, maybe the DNC should have some bumper stickers made up proclaiming, "Dem's Suck But Repub's Suck More".

Fancy That

Reality Check: Yes, the Republicans will be worse, but the President:

how can the President and the Democratic party fairly expect its progressive wing to get fired up about voting in November? The sad answer is this: only because the Republicans will be worse. And that hardly translates into votes.

Get a gripe; have you not seen the latest polls and how assiduously progressives are working to get out the vote?

You're right though the Republicans would be worst.

Fancy That

Wow that is just silly

I guess he could have put Collins in Guantanamo? I agree with the points that he was not aggressive enough. But Democrats never are. We spend years getting things set up, and a republican comes in a tears it all down in less than 100 days.

Here is my take on why this happens. The vast majority of people in America are Democratics, but we have the lowest turnout percentage. So the Dems are always walking around on eggs wondering if this will hurt them, or if that will hurt them, instead of just taking care of business.

But if most of the Dems would vote every cycle, the Democrats would fill most positions, year in and year out. This would give these politicians a stronger feeling that they can make some difficult, unpopular , yet necessary decisions without having to worry that they won't be able to squeak by this election season.

Quite frankly the answer is for the democratic voters to stay involved, vote en masse and their leaders will discover they actually have a backbone. Go out and make all democrats believe IT IS THEIR DUTY TO VOTE!

Regards

The Equalizer

What, did they pull a win out of their ass? I haven't been paying attention this season to anything at all.

Exodite Dragon, yes they sure did. I am thrilled for the Texas fans and hope they win. Same with the Giants, as much as I would like to see Halladay in the WS.

It would be nice to see two non northeast teams in the World Series. Very interesting turn of events for Giants and the Rangers.

We'll see.

Really! The Rangers might be going to the Series? That'd be something; I'd sit down to watch a Texas team in the fray.

"It would be nice to see two non northeast teams in the World Series".

Of course that's easy for me to say since my team is out. LOL

The Texas Rangers in the World Series. Wouldn't that be something? I'm thrilled for the fans. Thrilled.

Beating the New York Yankees is very difficult but the Rangers have played v. well. Beating the Phillies as well isn't easy.

So this is a great story if the NYY and Phillies are knocked out. Great for the fans.

If they get in, I certainly hope they make a better show than our Astros did a few years back.

...but at least we made it there. I still feel for Craig Biggio...

I say the Democrats are going to keep both the House and the Senate and President Obama will be re-elected in 2012.

dangerfield, it looks like that's what is going to happen. Hope you're wrong, but it's not likely that the House will remain in the D column.

Prognosticators we all be, varyingly wrong and right depending on the times.

...hee. Gnosis.

Nahhh,

It's a given that the Republican party shall prevail in at least the House, and will make significant gains in the Senate. This is as nature has always intended, therefore, we are only going back to the natural order of things.

It may be necessary for the Republicans to have the house for a couple years to show the forgetfull public how bad they run the place. If it happens, I'm looking forward to the spectacle.

I say no chance the Republicans will take the Senate, 60% chance they take the House.

Mr "Dewey beats Truman"...A slightly better than 50% chance? Really?

And that is your final answer?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Yes, and it doesn't differ all that much from the estimate I've given consistently for most of the year, that losses for Dems will be at the high end of the average range for the party in power in a midterm election.

I stand by my earlier statements that the "likely voter" models are highly suspect as the builders of those models have skewed them strongly to align with conventional wisdom. That doesn't change the fact that Democrats hold the majority of Senate seats up for election this year, that midterm elections don't go well for the party in power, and that all of that is amplified by a bad economy. So I still expect some "Dewey Defeats Truman" moments.

The Dems hold a slim margin in the Senate, they loose the House (no landslide though), gridlock continues and President Obama wins in 2012.

What's interesting is, national polls show the Tea Party, Sarah Palin and right wing conservative ideology, in general, are soundly disapproved of by most voters, and yet the media gives Palin and her "thoughts," i.e. her version of reality, her opinions, and the rightwing "cause" more publicity than it does actual officeholders, or actual policies, or actual events in real time involving real people. I think the media likes to promote the rightwing because it's pre-packaged enterntainment, and, thus costs less then doing real reporting.

Lady you are just lying out of your arse. What polls said this? This country is center right so I know you're full of cock-I.

Glad you asked, soldier.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43203.html

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/07/5063431-tea-partys-negative-rating-continues-to-climb

Americans are split when it comes to the Tea Party movement itself. Twenty-two percent hold a favorable view of the movement, while 21 percent hold an unfavorable view.

The majority - 56 percent - are undecided or don't know. These numbers have not significantly moved since April.

Palin is viewed favorably by just 22 percent of Americans, according to the poll - including less than half (44 percent) of Republicans. Twenty-one percent of independents and 6 percent of Democrats view her favorably

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20018819-503544.html

The poll also finds growing disapproval of the "tea party" movement, with half the population now expressing an unfavorable impression of the loosely aligned protest campaign that has shaken up politics this year.

And at a time when Republicans anticipate significant gains in House and Senate elections, there is also fresh evidence of the challenges facing the GOP. Six in 10 poll respondents say they have a negative view of the policies put forward by the Republican minority in Congress, and about a third say they trust Republicans over Democrats to handle the nation's main problems.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR2010060800016.html

not to mention:

Former President Bill Clinton had by far the highest positive rating when Americans were asked in a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll to rate their feelings on political figures.

Fully 55% of respondents had positive feelings about Clinton, compared with 23% with negative feelings

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/09/28/wsjnbc-poll-president-clinton-gets-top-rating/

Amy B. Portland ME:

Isn't it a shame that we get a daily dose of what Palin is saying or doing and how she helps the Repubs, yet we never hear about the successes of the Obama administration.

Just the negatives and what he shouda, coulda done differently to dig us out of the hole we were left in by the Bushies and the Republican Congress who spent like drunken -------(no offense)from 2001 until 2006.

Hey, BP fubar'd the Gulf and we're all still mostly here. What's to worry about, Bev?

We still have strawberry festivals down here in Pasadena!