They Have Come a Long Way:

This morning I wasn't sure what to comment on. Election news is getting old and we haven't even had the election yet. So surfing around MSN I noticed their lead story described China's engineering marvels. The Chinese report rolling out a new high speed train with a top speed of 220 miles per hour. Chinese companies are vying for similar projects in other countries, including the United States. They also reported that the Three Gorges Dam, the world's largest hydroelectric project, is now generating electricity. About a week ago I read that the Chinese are working on a project to mine a wide variety of minerals that are being emitted from the fissures under the ocean.

Some might accuse me of being pro-Chinese and say if I'm so enamored with what they are doing, why don't I move there. Those who would say such a thing are totally missing the point. I am a proud patriotic American and would not want to live anywhere else. But I do look around and see what is happening in the rest of the world. In some respects, China is an economic and political threat.

So I wonder, why aren't we the leader in economics, engineering, and science? When I was a kid, anything from China was junk. They have come a long way. It is not because the Chinese people are smarter or work harder than us.

It is because for nearly a quarter of a century the US has caved into partisan politics, stymied education, ignored science, allowed corporate greed to happen, disregarded our infrastructure, and engaged into two needless wars. So, we have an election in 6 days. Are we going to vote for a party that does not support education and science? A party which willingly will allow this country become a Third World Country, or are we going to move forward and thrive in this brave new world? That question will be partially answered next Tuesday.

What I found most disturbing yesterday on First Read was that NOT a one of our resident right wingers condemned the actions of the Tea Party THUG who pushed a woman to the ground and stomped on her head!

What it says is that physical violence and intimidation are totally acceptable as long as the Righties WIN back the power they SO crave!!

The man who helped tackle a MoveOn.org activist to the ground and stomped on her head last night has been identified as Tim Profitt, a volunteer campaign coordinator for Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul. Profitt apologized for attacking activist Lauren Valle, but told the AP “that the camera angle made the scuffle Monday night appear worse that it was.” “I’m sorry that it came to that, and I apologize if it appeared overly forceful, but I was concerned about Rand’s safety,” Profitt said

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/26/paul-stomper-identified/

What’s the matter? Is 85 MILLION dollars of anonymous campaign donations to run attack ads not enough?

If someone has the audicty to ask a question it's acceptable to handcuff THEM!

If someone has on opposing view it's acceptable to knock to the ground and stomp on them!

Ain't AMERICA grand!

Violence from the TEA Baggers is an assault on Democracy...

TARP is in the past and still working on the behalf of America. But Republicans are in the same boat called "FAILURE" and are sailing the sea of "HATRED".

The TEA Baggers could care less that the program worked... McConnell said it himself and he also said that his primary mission is for a one term president...

The President has made great strides and at this point just needs to focus on this weekend and after that, whatever that happens get the remaining legislations passed before the holidays.

Other than that, obstructionism is the name of the game for Republican TEA Baggers... that's the way it has been for the past two years.

With these guys, the Rent is Too Damn High...

Hey Navy,

Does the 8% return include the money spent on AIG and Fannie and Freddie?

The real question is why, and this is directed at the current treasury secretary, the counter parties such as Goldman Sachs were given a 100 cents on the dollar when AIG, was bankrupt.

On the stimulus, I actually read the proposal to spend $775B in stimulus produced by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

1. The republicans pushed the tax cuts. Well if you read the document, the authors state that, it was impossible to spend this amount of money in the timeframe of 2 years because there were not enough projects, therefore tax cuts were the only stimulative measure to push the money out the door.

2. It states clearly that if a theoretical stimulus of $775B passed unemployment would not rise above 8%

3. It states that if the theoretical stimulus of $775B did not pass that unemployment would peak at 9%.

4. It states that 3 to 4 million jobs would be created by the end of 2010.

5. It states that 90% of the jobs would be created in the private sector.

So, by using their own criteria of what the Stimulus was supposed to achieve how can you conclude anything other than that it was a failure?

Finally, on the so called buying of the election, the biggest spender so far is us, the American taxpayer. Through the contributions of the public sector unions which have their wages and benefits paid for by the taxpayer, more money is being funneled exclusively to democratic candidates. The AFSCME proudly denotes itself as the biggest spender for this election cycle. Their ability to do so helped in part by the "Citizens United" decision. The First Amendment which allows for the right of assembly does not distinguish between the types of organizations that may assemble, be they commercial or fraternal. It's a bitch when a decision cuts both ways?

Oh no. Feisty is back to being ashamed to be American again. I thought she would wait until after the election to do that. Nope. She trots out a few isolated incidents of obnoxious lefties pushing people too far to try and prove a point. Lets stay tuned and see if she posts any incidents of SEIU union thug violence or Black Panther voter intimidation.

I've posted several times that TARP was necessary and has been a success, even though it is highly unpopular. But I strongly disagree that Obama's fiscal stimulus was anything more than a colossal waste of money we don't have. It was TARP and the aggressive, innovative actions of the Fed that brought us back from the economic abyss. Not useless fiscal stimulus. For alternative views on the stimulus, folks can check out these links.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-19/obama-omits-jobs-killed-or-thwarted-from-tally-caroline-baum.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575378751776758256.html

A CBO analysis is often cited as providing "proof" the stimulus worked. Baloney. In fact, the CBO folks are quite up front regarding the high degree of uncertainty inherent in their analysis of the economic impact of the stimulus:

"A key disadvantage of the model-based approach is the considerable uncertainty about many of the economic relationships that are important in the modeling. Because economists differ on which analytical approaches provide the most convincing evidence about such relationships, they can reach different conclusions about those relationships. In addition, each study involves uncertainty about the extent to which the results reflect the true effects of a given policy or the effects of other factors. For those reasons, CBO provides ranges of estimates of ARRA's economic effects that are intended to encompass most economists' views and thereby reflect the uncertainty involved in such estimates."

What CBO did was employ various economic models supported by different economists to estimate a range for the impact of the stimulus on the economy. For the 2nd quarter 2010 they estimated the stimulus contributed between 1.7% and 4.5% to GDP on an annual basis. Well by golly that's a pretty wide range, so wide that it raises the question of just how useful this estimate is. Because if reality was that the stimulus only contributed 1.7% to GDP, most folks with a brain might conclude that was a modest impact at best in relation to the cost to the taxpayer. On the other hand if reality was the 4.5% number, then supporters might have a somewhat better case. The problem is we don't know what the reality was, we only know that based on CBO's best professional judgment reality might lie somewhere between 1.7% and 4.5%. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of the success of the stimulus. Even more pertinent, however, is this CBO comment on the impact of the stimulus going forward:

"The effects of ARRA on output are expected to gradually diminish during the second half of 2010 and beyond. The effects of ARRA on employment and unemployment are expected to lag slightly behind the effects on output; they are expected to wane gradually in 2011 and beyond."

In other words, the fiscal stimulus was a one-time shot of adrenaline for the economy that will fade as time passes. The question is, was that shot worth the price? The most important metric for answering that question is this: has the Obama fiscal stimulus succeeded in putting the economy firmly back on the path towards sustainable growth and job creation? And the clear answer is a resounding no.

Most data is showing an economy that is slowing down at best, with a possibility of slipping back into recession at worst – which is why the Fed is about to embark on QE2. These facts force supporters of the stimulus to take the position of claiming things would have been even worse without the stimulus. And if that's the best case they can make that's no case at all, because things are pretty bad now and headed in the wrong direction. All the stimulus succeeded in doing was p*ssing away a ton of taxpayer dollars in a fruitless attempt to influence economic forces far beyond the control of any government.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA.pdf

Ron

"This morning I wasn't sure what to comment on. Election news is getting old and we haven't even had the election yet. So surfing around MSN I noticed their lead story described China's engineering marvels. The Chinese report rolling out a new high speed train with a top speed of 220 miles per hour. Chinese companies are vying for similar projects in other countries, including the United States. They also reported that the Three Gorges Dam, the world's largest hydroelectric project, is now generating electricity. About a week ago I read that the Chinese are working on a project to mine a wide variety of minerals that are being emitted from the fissures under the ocean."

I just curious but where in this country is the demand for high-speed rail? Here in the NE corridor from Boston to Washington we have the Amtrak Acela. Now by using some accounting it, and slower NE corridor, turns a profit but the rest of Amtrak requires federal subsidies to survive. If we build it do think they will come? Will it expand the market or will it drive other forms of transport, air, out of business. Who will own it, the government or private enterprise. I agree that the technology is superb but does it actually solve a problem. Even the French subsidize their rail system.

Alan, NJ:

Thank you for reading the actual pre-inaugural report produced about the stimulus.

Because the report was not an analysis of the actual stimulus bill, it is difficult for me to understand how you feel that you can transpose the generalized analysis therin to an entirely different bill that was passed.

Also, it says repeatedly throught the report that the numbers are estimates and that trying to predict the effects of any program on something as big and dynamic as the U.S. economy is far from an exact science.

So, to use the facts that the numbers in the report do not match real world numbers is in fact, not that surprising and in fact predicted in the report.

Unless of course, you are looking for thin gruel to prop up your objections to the much needed and highly successful stimulus bill.

Bill:

Before the stimulus bill was passed, unemployment was rising steadily and we were losing 750,000 jobs A MONTH.

After the stimulus bill was passed, the unemployment rate leveled off and private sectore job growth went from being negative to being positive.

These are the facts.

Everything else is a smokescreen to distract from the simple fact that the same folks who destroyed the economy, exploded the defiicit, and championed the bail out of "corporate people", saw no need to help the actual "American people" deal with the sh!tstorm that was rained down on them by good old fashioned greed and corruption.

Unemployment benefits? Waste of money, will explode the deficit.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest? Number one priority, deficit be damned.

Enough of the smokescreens and double talk - voodoo economics don't work. And everytime I ask you to take "personal responsibility" for championing programs that have DESTROYED this country, you mysteriously disappear.

Typical.

Alan:

Fair question: How about Chicago to New York. Or, Chicago to San Francisco or LA.

I'm speaking to a broader issue of how we have allowed ourselves to fall behind the Chinese and some (maybe most) of the reasons have to do with what we are doing or not doing. Although the Chinese are presently polluting the atmosphere, they are also working on green energy at a rapid rate. Unfortunately in the US such progress is being blocked by...I guess you know who.

"Thank you for reading the actual pre-inaugural report produced about the stimulus.

Because the report was not an analysis of the actual stimulus bill, it is difficult for me to understand how you feel that you can transpose the generalized analysis therin to an entirely different bill that was passed.

Also, it says repeatedly throught the report that the numbers are estimates and that trying to predict the effects of any program on something as big and dynamic as the U.S. economy is far from an exact science."

So I walk into my bosses office with a proposal that has the caveat that the numbers are estimates and the predictions are not an exact science. How do you think investments are performed. Do you think that every investment in a new product, factory or business is an exact science. If it was then no enterprise would fail. However, we have a we of separating the successful proposals from the failures. We look at the goals they sought to achieve and see if they were met. By using the goals set out by this proposal it has failed.

Excellent information US Navy and Ron IN, too.

Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts--the cornerstone of the GOP platform for 30 years and the result: China and other countries are years ahead of the US in high speed rail, and infrastructure improvements. We may not want to believe it but the US is falling behind. Lincoln gave America the intercontinental railroad; Teddy Roosevelt gave America the National Parks and the beginnings of conservation; Eisenhower gave America the interstate highway system--all republicans when republicans were also progressive thinkers. The new republican conservative party started by Reagan gave us debt and nothing to show for the tax cuts they tout as an economic machine.

Bill, at least you recognize TARP was necessary. What puzzles me is how you can justify and recognize that TARP was necessary to bail out Wall Street yet fail to consider or recognize that it was also necessary to bail out Main Street. It seems to me you should open your mind to the reports and to republican legislators who tout the good in their districts and states (when not in front of a DC microphone) instead of listening to those same legislators (when in front of a DC mic) who claim it a failure trusting that republilcans like you believe it because politically that works in the GOP favor. It could be that you believe TARP necessary and a success because a republican president passed it; the stimulus, however, must be a failure because a democrat passed it.

Hey Ron

I don't know. That was always the big worry of the 80/90's that we were falling behind the Japanese, particularly in computing. If you expand the market are we ahead in transportation? I would think yes. Whether rail can compete with air, or some other technology, on cost and on the environment I don't know but I am happy to let the chips fall. I just don't think the government should be building it though. The tunnel in NJ which was estimated to cost between 8 - 14b didn't go to an actual railway station. This was apparently caused by intra-agency fights (don't ask me what/why).

Alan:

If you look at real world results, the stimulus has accomplished what it was deigned to do - stave off the worsening of the second great depression.

Now if you want to get cutesy and hold them to estimates created before the President was even sworn in, fine with me.

"It could be that you believe TARP necessary and a success because a republican president passed it; the stimulus, however, must be a failure because a democrat passed it."

Give me freaking break, Jody. TARP was necessary because we need a functioning financial system in order to have a functioning economy. But the contribution of fiscal stimulus to the functioning of our economy has been marginal at best. And when considering the cost, reasonable folks can question whether even those marginal benefits were worth the price.

Re: the Move on "stomping"----I couldn't believe I heard Rush Limbaugh quoted as saying--it wasn't so bad, the guy was only stomping on her shoulder. So---OK to stomp on the shoulder of someone exercising her rights but would have been wrong to stomp on her head. Oops---they did stomp on her head. Why does no one on the right ever call out Rush Limbaugh? How has he gotten this much power?

By the way, I remember when he was a "bubble gum rock" DJ here in Pittsburgh.

All of You,

Hey, I can agree that TARP worked somewhat, especially if we made 8%.

I just want my dividend check from the government for that profit. Anyone else want theirs? If not, could I have it? :)

I woke up this morning. Shortly after I awakened, the sun came up. Therefore, the sun came up because I woke up.

That's basically the same argument the left uses when they cite the slowing pace of job losses to "prove" the fiscal stimulus worked. In fact, the correleation between the two events is tenuous at best. But don't tell that to the left. It makes a mockery of their bogus narrative.

Bill,

It is just a coinky dink that the stimulus was passed and the unemployment rate stopped climbing, and the economy began to grow.

Conversely, two unpaid for wars, unpaid for tax cuts, and an unpaid for Medicare presciprtion benefit had absolutely NOTHING to do with exploding the deficit. Just bad timing is all.

The fact that the worse job growth of any modern President came at the exact same moment that America gave the reign of the country to President Bush and the "conservatives" in Congress is another coincidence.

What is "tenuous" is your grasp of reality, Bill.

Typical rightwing republican, bigbear give me give me give me and I'll take yours too.

Hey Mo,

I agree with the "I'll take yours", but give me, give me, give me, that is more of a liberal left wing phrase.

But don't you think, we as taxpayers, who invested in TARP, which supposedly got an 8% return, should get something back from the government. Shouldn't we at taxpayers that bailed out the auto industry, get a dividend check from them? I am starting to sound like a left wing liberal.

What actually are we getting in return for our investments? Jobs? Unemployment stays pretty high these days. Tax breaks? Don't bet on that, come December 31, those expire. Deficit reduction? Not really, we go further into debt each and every day. So what is happening with our investments?

Usually when I invest in something, I expect a loss or gain. When I lose, there is no return. When I gain, I expect dividends. So where is the American Taxpayers dividends for their investments?

Yeah, where's my dividend check? That AA-12 looks mighty shiney in the store window... *@_@*

Two things: 1. Gas prices will make high speed rail more and more attractive, gasoline prices can only go up.

2. We have lost 42,000 factories since 2001, that's factories not jobs. That is why young people with degrees can't find a job, and are jealous of a union laborer that makes a humble living. People with engineering degrees are taking jobs at retailers and are paid accordingly. We have become a nation of casinos, shopping malls, and restaurants, but you don't need a masters degree to deal blackjack.

Forrest,

If they really want people on the rail lines, then they should put casinos in them:)

Yeah, try selling rail. Muncipalities look on rail transit as a cash-cow to milk during every phase of development; it's amazing to me that, for want of the greed of local public officials, we can't get a little high-speed track laid between Houston, Dallas and Galveston.

ED,

That was my thought when I lived in that area. Better yet, why aren't they building a MonoRail, like at Disney that goes above IH45. You already have a straight shot between the 3, just put it overhead. Then of course you have to put in the Casino for Forrest:)

Have you been to Austin in recent years, BB?

I adore the way 35 is built through downtown - the highway is tiered, with an upper level that shoots right through the city and a lower level where all the exit and entrance ramps are.

But if you want the honest-to-God truth, the fact of it is that traffic and highway planning, at least in Houston, is at the mercy of Metro and local powerhouse construction firms like William Bros. So long as it remains more profitable to continuously expand the local highway system and run additional bus lines with rate increases, I don't see us getting our rail back anytime soon. It's a shame because my grandmother recalled, once, when you could hop a train all the way up in Dallas for a day-trip to the beach and back again.

Hell, BB. That's why we have a pissant light rail system that only connects a commerical district with the medical center. There are NO stops through or nearby any major residential areas.

...on a side note, I'm all for legalizing gambling in Texas. Why should Louisiana reap all the rewards from that? It's not like cajuns actually know what to do with tax revenue and I must admit, I'm rather fond of the notion of casino cars in a state-wide rail system. ;p

Navy Vet (I doubt it),

The Washington Post, really, the Washington Post as a source, the 2nd biggest liberal rag in the country behind the New York Twits, are you kidding me

Hello, everyone. An interesting and thought-provoking First Read, in my opinion. Unfortunately, the writers really don't seem to hold much of a "long view" about discontent with government and the way it affects politics. So here are some additional observations:

The type of idological conflict now playing out with the Tea Party and Libertarian wing of the Republican Party on the right, and the "progressives" (of all political affiliations) on the so-called left has really dominated much of American politics since the 1880's. To some extent, the seeds of the conflict were sown in the 1840's in Europe, with a wave of social revolutions that led to the formation of the socialist, anarchist, and capitalist ideologies as known now. Revolts struck in 1848 across Western Europe, with the United Kingdom escaping largely by extending male suffrage on a much broader scale. In France, the revolution of 1848 established the Second Republic.

Various concepts of socialism in particular spread widely through Europe and came to the United States in mid-century. It was not mated strongly with the anarchist movement, which was and is more of a Libertarian concept that opposes the existence of all forms of government as "oppression." Prior to World War I, socialism was a very prominent political force in the United States, and vilified widely as a result.

At the time there was a distinct class war underway in the country, split largely on class lines, but also further fractured among various ethnic groups, with immigrants and urban residents pitted against older American family lines and mainly non-urban residents. In this period, the long-suffering Irish Americans cast their identity largely with the conservative side of the conflict. The First World War resulted in a collapse of the American socialist movement as a significant political factor.

Bolshevik success in Russia elicited from the United States a violent reaction against Communist - the role of U.S. troops in the Civil War that raged after World War I is almost unknown, but both the U.S. and Great Britain committed forces to unsuccessfully support the White Russian counter-revolution. That eventually developed into a fear-driven and widely-accepted American belief that socialism and Communism were either identical or quite closely related, that any movement such as unionization of workers was "collectivism" and therefore somehow anti-American or anti-capitalistic, and that regulation of business in almost any form was inherently un-American.

Those feelings arose, however, at the same time that American society was also convulsing with social, economic and cultural changes. Obvious among these were the battles for union contracts, the national functional rejection of Prohibition, the increased mobility of people, spread of mass communications, rapid development of advanced medical knowledge, rising literacy rates, expanded American industrial and economic influence worldwide, rise of social work and efforts to alleviate economic divisions, and despite conservative opposition, early regulations ranging from the Pure Food and Drug Act to some tentative laws attempting to keep Wall Street somewhat more honest.

It was in this time that the "Progressive" political movement began, exemplified by the Wisconsin La follette family of political leaders - all Republicans. They participated actively with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in many efforts to reform financial regulations, put Americans back to work, stimulate industry, and fight off as much as possible the effects of the Depression. And the Roosevelt pre-war era provied the ultimate dividing line between the conservative movement and what eventually was tagged as the "liberal" or "progressive" movement in American politics. At that time, American political and social institutions underwent a great change, one that President Ronald Reagan somewhat rolled back, but was unable to entirely nullify.

Throughout the course of the sweeping events, public distrust of government ebbed and flowed. The anarchist movement transformed into a body of opinion that animates the Liberatarians today - that virtually no government interference in anything is defensible. Although various socialist parties remained, they exerted virually no influence. And despite the fears aroused both during the 1930's and then the Cold War, Communist activity in the United States was largely exerted by a few significant spies - Fuchs, who delivered the secrets of the atom bomb to Stalin, several who successfully penetrated both the CIA and U.S. military intelligence organs, some turncoats serving in the military. They did the United States significant harm, but the American Communist Party was mainly an imagined threat.

Politically, perhaps the greatest harm done to the U.S. was crafted by venomous anti-Communists such as newspaper writer Westbrook Pegler and of course Senator Joseph McCarthy.

After World War II, public faith in government rose substantially. By the mid-1960's there was a strong feeling of optimism, that American institutions were strong and superior, that integrity was the rule rather than the exception, that an American society mobilized for good could actually take on the world's ills and achieve some success with that.

The Vietnam War and Watergate brought that optimism to a crashing halt. The Watergate scandal was one of the worst blows ever delivered to American faith in government and politicians. The rampant corruption and cyncial political double-dealing of the Ronald Reagan Administration further diluted what residual good will Americans held toward government institutions. That Administration, in also attacking many of the achievements of the Roosevelt years, further fueled the long lust for revenge and retrenchment that survived Roosevelt. The political polarization seen now became firmly established, and has only intensified since.

The long and heavy hand of history left its imprint on current political thought and opinion. It will be decades or more before some of these divsions change form.

There are some excellent books to lend persective and much more depth to this discussion. Barbara Tuchman's superb The Proud Tower should be the starting point. I have recommended before Michael Schudson's The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life, John Kenneth Galbraith's The Great Crash of '29, Walter Karp, Indispensible Enemies: The politics of misrule in America. One not mentioned before is by the late Northeastern Socialist Congressman Michael Harrington, The Politics at God's Funeral. A number of excellent other books on American political life after World War II through the 1970's are available.

ED,

When I lived out Katy way, I always wanted a rail line instead of having to drive. When I moved north to the Metroplex, now they have a nice rail line. Could leave my place in North Texas, get to Reunion area in 20 minutes, didn't have to fight traffic. They could really expand the rail lines in this country, use electric like they do on the Disney Monorails, use the wind and solar to power them. We have an interstate system to follow. It could be a beautiful thing, but too many others are making money from the old ideas.

And you are correct about those Cajuns. Went to school in Nacanowhere, TX, use to spend many a dime in Shreveport. Ah, those good ole Texas days. Yes, Texas spends way too much money in Louisiana, and now Oklahoma. Go up 75 out of Metroplex, cross into Oklahoma, Casino, right there. 1 hour away. Was a mistake to put it there, but restrained weekly:)

John A;

A very well written piece. Everyone on FT should read it.

The only reason the left believes that there is more anger, disrespect etc. in this election is that the shoe is on the other foot and you're the recipient instead of the perpetrator. Being a Republican, I understand how you feel, having had to listen to your blather, hate and disrespect for the last 30 years, much less the last 10.

There is nothing new here folks. The left just always seems shocked to receive back what they've delivered in equal portions through the years. There is no more hate and disrespect than in any other election in recent times.

You all just have a different perspective this time. Live with it, because there isn't any evidence that you can rise above the standards you helped set.

I don't get what the big deal is. If they're concerned about attracting the 'wrong element,' why not just legislate at the state level where these casinos may be built? Why not just legislate their maximum dimensions and how ostentatious their advertising can be? With as many people as there are in the good ol' Lone Star State willing to sit on a bus for hours getting out past Beaumont to try their hand at the slots, I fail to see why they'd stop if they had to take a bus to El Dorado or sommat.

...hell. Given the name, El Dorado would be a great place to put a few casinos. Maybe even Cut 'n Shoot~

Screw it. I'm running for the state legislature.

A freaking break--why should I give you that? Hit a nerve there, did I? What you're saying is twisted republican ideological speak--take taxpayer money and bail out those who caused the economic meltdown and caused the pain for Main Street and caused massive job layoffs and nuts to Main Street who bailed out the banks because only the financial system matters. That's what you said and twice.

ED,

You are correct, El Dorado would make a great place for a casino, but you'd have to move all those religious factions out of there:).

Well if you have been to Cut 'n Shoot, then I know you have been to Gun Barrel City. Another place that should host a Casino.

Did they ever build a casino in Livingston at the reservation there. I heard talk they were going to build one out there.

If you make a state legislature, let me know, might have to move back then.

Okay you guys the casino cars could probably fund the whole project, but please mandate that the cars must be made in the USA.

I swear to God I'll wear an old-time engineer's cap everyday I sit in on a session - and I'll be sure to drop you a line BB. ;p

John A. Excellent post.

Well that got my vote, I am still registered to vote down there. It was a real pain to get my absentee ballot, but hey, I have voted and can't wait for the results.

I can't wait to see if some of my write in votes make the local TV station.

I voted for Ben Dover & Willie Makit in two unopposed races:)

Exodite

Sorry to drop in on this conversation, but I worked with a contractor out of Gun Barrel City for a distribution center project I did down near Houston. Buck from Gun Barrel City, he was a good ol east texas boy. Made me laugh.

Anyway, I can't complain when I used to work in Downtown Dallas I loved to park and ride and use the DART light rail system. It is expanding to run soon to Love Field airport and eventually DFW airport. Recently has expanded east and west corridors as well.

Monied interests are keeping the DART planners from putting much of anything near the highway systems. There is no way TXDot would allow it. I also would like a light rail shot to Austin, I-35 is terrible.

Forrest,

You probably are correct, the casino cars would pay for the entire project. I agree to have the cars built in the USA, as long as you agree that they can be at "right to work" factories, and not just at Union factories.

In that light I may just run under the name "Amanda Hugenkiz" or perhaps "Rich Whitey."

There's a precedent with the latter, after all. And I can leave my gender and age ambiguous! I'm pretty good at the Internets, so I think an all-digital campaign, complete with viral marketing, will energize that elusive 18-34 demographic...

@YD: Hardly, I highly value your input on state matters and I'm glad you threw your two cents in. I'm amazed and pleased that Dallas is able to get its light rail out to Love - we can't even manage a line to Hobby, for God's sakes.

I'm not saying 35 is the best highway in the world, but, Christ almighty, have you ever been on 45 at any point between Conroe and Texas City during rush hour? I-35 looks like a slip'n slide by comparison.

They don't have to be union, people have the right to work for less and less if they wish to.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL said, "What it says is that physical violence and intimidation are totally acceptable as long as the Righties WIN back the power they SO crave!!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have summed up the mentality of vast majority of Righties which is winning at any cost including verbal and physical assaults on those who oppose or question their radical views. The highest ground for the vast majority of Righties is under a rock.

"...because only the financial system matters. That's what you said and twice."

So Jody, what is it about you people that motivates you all to mischaracterize, twist and otherwise misrepresent what your opponents say? I never said only the financial system matters -- not even once, much less twice.

What I said (once) was: "...we need a functioning financial system in order to have a functioning economy." So perhaps you can explain to the objective readers out there how those words became "because only the financial system matters" in your post.

Retired,etc;etc:

You haven't got a clue! What a ridiculous statement"it saved jobs':how do you know that?

How much did everyone of those jobs that Obama "created"("fantasized") cost the American taxpayer?

When the "Chicago Community Organizer"(by the way,Al Capone was a Chicago Community Organizer) loaned billions of $ to the banks at 1/4% interest,they bought US Treasury bonds yielding twice that interest rate and YOU paid the interest;yes,YOU paid the banks to borrow your money.

Dont misunderstand,I am NOT saying Bush and the Republicans are any better than the current,corrupt dirtbags in Washington,that's why we need to vote all incumbents out of Congress every time their term expires.

John A, great writing at 2.29. Even better it was great studying and thinking. There isn't a lot of that around here, your posts are always worth reading.

Yellow Dog,

I wish they would put a monorail down IH35 also, but all the way to San Antonio. Have you ever driven 35 on Thanksgiving holiday. It is absolutely the worst road in America from Austin to Waco. I have never seen such worse traffic, even into Hillsboro where the split is.

I think we should all be investing in mono rails that follow the IH system.

I find it fascinating that someone can actually think this stuff up. Obama and group saved jobs?? Come on, lets look at what is actually happening in this country. I am not talking about the elites on the East Coast with their money and priveledge. I am talking about us, the "unwashed" as we are referred to who inhabit "fly over country". We are mad. We have seen a group of people inhabit the seat of government just as an invading army. Neither Republican or Democrat are worth two bits. That is why the country is divided along conservative versus communist. I traveled in Europe this summer and even they feel that our country has been taken over by communist or tyrannical socialist, what ever you want to call them.

Obama has destroyed health care and the economy with his health package. Real unemployment is closer to 20 % than it is to the 9.5. Due to rules and regulations, our country can hardly produce anything. We are in a deep depression that is not being addressed by our golfing president. The tarp certainly helped with avoiding a world collaspe of the monetary system, brought on by Barney Frank, Bush and all the other liberals on the hill, but little has been done to stop interferring witht the banks and allow them to do their job.

I feel that this is not a regular election cycle. People are mad and feel that our government is killing us.

i think if the politations were held accountable for there lies and missleading statments things would change if they hold progress up with missleading statments or lies they should feel quick and harsh punishment yes even prison things would change fast i for one call for a new law to controll all of them we should all do this and show them its our country and we want it back

From the lead in: "But the anger this cycle -- culminating in Monday’s stomping in Kentucky -- feels so much more different."

My hypothesis is that we have become a classless society, and I’m not just referring to our shrinking middle class and becoming a plutrocracy. I mean lacking in civility, professionalism, and common courtesy. We also have seen capitalism evolve into a competitiveness that is mean and ruthless and focused only on victory of one side rather than “win-win.”

We see it in increasing bullying among children (who learned it from their parents), we see it as road rage, we see it in lack of charity, and so forth. It is a trend in our culture as a whole. However, it is more of a trend among the willfully ignorant haters that have taken to underhanded methods for “victory” from yelling louder, protesting with obnoxious signs, carrying guns to rallies, violent rhetoric from second amendment remedies to crosshairs, the increase in outrageous and hateful conspiracy theories, etc.

We as a nation must return to embracing knowledge, facts, empirical methodology, etc. We must end the anti-intellectualism movement on the right. We must condemn the conservatives who get their information from viral emails instead of credible sources, and who refuse to devote time to sincere research. It’s hilarious that they are the ones who have suggested tests to vote, since they would fail.

For example, conservatives are worried about registration fraud (even though ACORN, which was absolved but was none the less abolished). Why aren't conservatives concerned about real problems like electronic voting machines, unsupervised paper ballots or hanging chads, intimidation, and most of all right-wing gerrymandering that has gone on forever? We should have unbiased foreign monitoring of our elections like other democracies do.

This is the ongoing problem with the far-right. They fail to identify real problems and then offer real solutions.

Part of the problem with your post is that the article about the stimulus is incorrect. To date the CBO has published a variety of claims for money actually spent by the Stimulus. Further the claim that Obama never promised 8% is false. In Obama's speech to the public in support of the Stimulus, he said that if we want to contain unemployment to 8% we must act now. While that is shy of an outright promise, it is a reasonable expectation for people to take it as one. This is reinforced by a comment made by Vice President Biden when unemployment surged over 10% where he commented on the underestimation of the administration as to the severity of the recession. The CBO report sighting jobs saved is a mere guess because there is no way to determine a job saved. Determining jobs created by the Stimulus bill is subjective enough. Lastly, in the past week reports of possible fraud if not outright mismanagement have surfaced on the green energy portion of the bill. A reported 19 wind farms that received money from the stimulus were completed before the measure was even passed. So any new jobs they claim were created are false claims. The projects had already been completed some as much as a year before. So therefore not relevant to the actual stimulus spending.

The consistent hemorrhage of jobs for the last 22 months and the inability to do anything constructive about it is the real problem. Hundreds of billions have been spent on programs that were temporary band aids at best but did nothing to stop the bleeding. It is the policies of this administration and the Democrats that have prolonged the recession and stifled growth. Look for a continuing flat economy if they maintain control of house and senate because certainly their majorities will be even smaller. They couldn't get things moving with large majorities, so it become even easier to sew discord and block legislation.

To US Navy Vet -- Great post as always. But that post would make a conservatives hair hurt, assuming they had enough attention span to read it in entirety.

Another irony about election fraud is conservative fear that illegals are voting. The registration process is the one thorough part of our election process. But if it hadn't been for greedy capitalist Big Businesses wanting cheap labor, illegals wouldn't be here in the first place. I don't suppose conservatives see this, and if they do, they would revert to their typical double standard rationalization of it.

And now that Latino votes, which helped Bush become elected, are going to the Dems, the illegals must be deported and replaced with American cheap labor by abolishing labor laws like the minimum wage. My, my conservatives are working so hard to replace the American Dream with the American Nightmare.

To the post above, from another recent article:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/26/the-biggest-misstatements-of-the-midterms.html
At the end of the article:

Viral Favorites
The claims we’re asked about most often don’t always come from the mouths of politicians, or even their TV ads. Maybe because these claims are pure bohonkey. The falsehoods circulate widely by e-mail, forwarded by people who either don’t know or don’t care that they are spreading misinformation the way a virus spreads disease.

Whopper: The health care law puts a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales. Actually, the new health care law’s tax only applies to the sale of a primary residence in rare cases. For individuals, it falls on profit that exceeds $250,000, if the individual’s income exceeds $200,000. For couples, the tax falls only on profits exceeding $500,000, if joint income is more than $250,000.

Whopper: Obama plans a 1 percent tax on all bank transactions. That’s based on a single House member’s bill that isn’t supported by the White House, has no cosponsors, and has never even gotten a hearing in committee.

Whopper: Congress voted itself a pay raise at the expense of the Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment. It’s true that there has been no COLA for 2010 and 2011, but the COLA is calculated automatically based on inflation rates. And Congress voted to freeze its pay for 2010 and 2011.

So you think the GOP has a lock on gerrymandering? Wrong. The majorities in state legislatures across the 50 states have been democratic and have drawn the congressional districts for the last 5 census intervals. (50 years) If the state legislatures pick up seats as they are expecting, along with the current slate of congressional elected officials, watch what happens when states losing seats due to net population decreases do when GOP leaning state legislatures redraw them out of a seat. In the states where there are net increases, such as Texas picking up 4 seats, you can bet these will be GOP friendly.

Gerrymandering is a centuries old political practice. I think it will be even more fun to watch that sausage making process in 2011 than what watching a nearly equally disgusting process now referred to as HCR.

US politics at it's finest hour.

An excellent post Navy Vet.

Who is anonymously financing these ads?

Why is it important that we not know who they are?

What are they getting for their investment?

Is a hedge fund manager in a different state running ads against an incumbent Congressman who sponsored hedge fund legislation under a "group" consisting of two people "representative democracy"?

This is not about the amount of money, it is about the source of the money and what is actually being purchased.

Joe in Albany

To hear top Democrats tell it, the party is being wildly outgunned this year in the fight for campaign cash as Republicans rely on outside groups to funnel money to GOP contenders.

But the numbers tell a different story.

It’s true that conservative third-party groups are outspending their Democratic rival

That's where should have stopped writing Joe in Albany since s.conservative third-party groups are outspending their Democratic rival

Bev:

Outspending the democrats about 5 to 1. Over 90% of the contributions from US Chamber of Commerce went to Republicans and virtual every dime from American Crossroads went to the Republicans. I saw a number yesterday that claims over 250 Million Dollars in undisclosed contributions have been spent so far this election cycle and the vast majority to Republicans.

People, this country is being sold to the highest bidders both Foreign and Domestic, make no bones about it. This is what the Supreme Court gave us with their "Citizens United" decision and the republicans guaranteed when they voted down the Disclosure Bill that had a 59 Yes vote to 39 no votes in the Senate with no republican votes and 2 republicans actually NOT voting. I wonder why they did not vote with their party? Did they favor the Disclosure Bill bt were told to shut up by McConnell who s on record that he vowed to make President Obama a one term President.

How are the democrats supposed to work with a party that tells you no we will not work with you no matter how it hurts America?????

Waaaaaaaaaaaambulance sent out..

Yawn.....

Steve may be bored by the thought of the longest surving democracy in the world being sold to anonymous, deep-pocket individuals with hidden agendas, but the vast majority of Americans are deeply offended.

Yes, John.. I am Offended that Unions uses peoples Union dues to try and sway Elections when a portion of their Members tell them they dont want their dues used in that way.. It offends me that they pretty much tell their Members . We the Elite part of the Unions will use YOUR money how we want and we dont care what you think.............. all for democrats.. well go figure... and then us Tax payers have to Bail Unions out because the Leadership has Spent your money unwisely..

The Democrats have more money, but why are they not spending it to help their own right now? Are they saving it for 2012?

It does matter where the money comes from to the American citizens. But to the government, congress, supreme court, executive branch, they don't want people to really know where the money comes from. They have political favors to pay. Call me cynical--but I think all of Washington is dirty and needs to be cleaned up.

But only the American people will decide if we are going to change, not government officials.

"It's true that conservative third-party groups are outspending their Democratic rivals."

Yeah Joe, that's where you should have stopped writing. Don't share the full story, just the part that fits the leftist narrative. Squelch the rest of the truth and just focus on the part of the truth that pleases the left. How dare you come here and not play by the leftist rules that demand zero deviation from their dogma. Next thing you know youi'll be thinking provocative thoughts that challenge their world view. And as everyone knows, we just can't have that in a civilized society.

Steve, if you're reading up on the subject you already realize that union donations are by law public record. By Supreme Court edict the money used by CoC, AFP, Crossroads GPS, and the other Republican support groups is anonymous. That's the issue. It's been the issue all along. It will continue to be the issue because Americans don't want anonymous funding of campaigns.

John,

Yawn... its the Bushs Fault.. errr Boehners.. er.. the tea party.. er... the republicans.. er.. Fox news.. errr.......... COC.. its always someone elses fault but Obamas and the Democrats.. I understand your pooint of view...

Novermber 2nd you will see what the people think of your arguements.......

Steve

I have said this numerous times and it is true: Unions can not and do not use dues money for political action. Money for political purposes are collected on a voluntary basis, and it is collected from individual tax paying working citizens of this country. Don't even try to compare that with foreign anonymous donations because it makes you sound like an idiot.

BTW name a union that was bailed out, name a union that received any money from the government you can't, it never happened, it is a lie, and again it makes you sound silly.

"Yeah Joe, that's where you should have stopped writing. Don't share the full story, just the part that fits the leftist narrative. Squelch the rest of the truth and just focus on the part of the truth that pleases the left."

____________________________________

Pretty pathetic. And these lefty liberal morons consider themselves to be the "enlightened" ones. As Jack Nicholson said in A Few Good Men: "The truth? You can't handle the truth!!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Center for Responsive Politics

6 out the top 10 are Big Unions and libbies wet themselves over the little Chamber of Commerce when the AFSME gives $87,500,000.00 alone. Tears and whine over the Tea Party Express? Ranks 18th.

Contributions from PACS:

Business:Dems 52% - Repubs 47%

Labor: Dems 93% - Repubs 6%

Ideological: Dems 61% - Repubs 38%

Other: 73% - Repubs 27%

Forrest,

You kidding? Voluntary? 93%? Did you pull that out of your Forrest Dumper, or do you not know any better?

Name a union that was bailed out, received government money?

How about 150 billion of the stimulus going to SEIU, AFSCME, American Federation of Teachers, and others through mandates and manipulations.

They are not stupid. They don't give 93% of all that money to Obama and the Dems for nothing.

I can't believe what I'm reaading....No union was helped..really? why was the auto industry helped? to help the economy?? really? if Chevy and chrydler were left to go down, THE UNION CONTRACTS would be over. And the UNION would lose. but obama didn't let that happen. why? because he has to pay them back. he was elected by the union, and he has to obey the union. we will never compete internationaly as long as the union contracts hold us back.

Yes voluntary that is correct, you watch a lot of Sopranos do you. Mandates and manipulations? I knew you could not back up your statements with anything other than your opinion, unions did not receive a dime of government money that is a fact. Mandates and manipulations, ha, why not claim bednobs and broomsticks to try and prove your misconceptions.

Thanks for answering the "Dumper" question and glad I limited the first sentence of the last paragraph to unions.

to jo in albany its sad you havent been paying attention or turm the blinders on republicans dont like fact check it shows a lot of missleading and out right lies they scream the dems are spending more then they take in were going broke while there out partying at a lesbin bondage club and all the other things they have been caught with and now mr steel trys to explain why there party over spent and went into debt (guess its ok when your republican right) im not saying the dems are better but when people run with half truths or some emaile they recived and yells about the truth without checking the facts trying to make a point for there party only feeds the fire more and realy shows how out of touch with reality they are

Forrest Grump

BTW name a union that was bailed out, name a union that received any money from the government you can't, it never happened, it is a lie, and again it makes you sound silly.

How about the UAW and SEIU both received a tremendous bailout through various legislation. Why is it that the democrats proposed campaign finance reform but excluded Unions from caps on donations? Why was it so important to call a special session of congress to vote on funding a bill that will have 0 effect on hiring teachers this school year when it could have waited until after the elections when congress was in normal session? Why did Unions receive special treatment and consideration in the Health Care Reform bill? It is all about money and the Democrats wish to protect the advantage they have because of union support. You are either not in a union at all or are in the union hierarchy to think that contributions are solicited voluntarily by the unions for political candidates. In the union world you either toe the union line or you are thrown out. That is how it works and a request for political donations is actually a demand for cash.

DBO:

NJ is a fraud. No question about it.

You should take "them" seriously because we are the voice of an electorate that is angrily rejecting the Obama agenda.

We did not want the 9000+earmark Omnibus spending bill that Pelosi/Reid/Obama rammed through. We did not want the stimulus bill that cost almost a trillion dollars and stimulated nothing but the deficit that the same trio rammed through. We absolutely rejected the HCR bill that the same trio rammed through. We wanted a financial reform bill that actually reformed the entities that caused the fiscal crisis-that would be Fannie and Freddie- not one that actually left them out, and, by the way, institutionalized taxpayer bail-outs.

Then, there is the part of the electorate that is infuriated with empty rhetoric about protecting their human rights while acting to keep them in their status of second or third class citizens. One of his first acts as president was to sanction the filing of a brief in SUPPORT of DOMA. He is now fighting a federal court decision to overturn DADT- a case, by the way, brought by REPUBLICANS.

He has not even introduced an immigration bill, yet tells Latinos to "vote against their enemies". Enemies? And you accuse the right of being divisive?

You don't think anyone should read my posts because I never have anything good to say about Obama? Thanks for the compliment. Obviously, you think I make a pretty good case against him. I don't give myself that much credit, though. I'm only saying what the majority of the electorate is saying. Believe me, those who were mislead about him are far more negative than I.

drive-by, absolutely correct.

For someone who proclaimed last week you would be out knocking on doors this week... you're sure spending a lot of time around here!

Guess the hand/wrist healed faster than expected... eh?

When are you going to start sourcing your materials? Until you do, anything you post is suspect. At least if you have a link or something to substantiate your arguments, I could at least check it out.

The Health care bill and the jobs/economy...that's my top two...

AGAINST THE GRAIN

Health Care Is Ailing Democrats

Dems who stuck with Obama on health care are in the deepest trouble.

By Josh Kraushaar

Election Day isn’t until Tuesday, but the postgame spin has already begun. Conventional wisdom is blaming Democrats’ expected poor performance on the lousy economy. Democrats blame the influx of outside money. And Republicans are thanking Nancy Pelosi.

But the reality that Democrats hate to discuss – and even some Republicans have been hesitant to fully embrace – is that the party’s signature health care law is what’s turning a bad election year into a disaster of potential history-making proportions.

http://nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/health-care-is-ailing-democrats-20101026

Job Losses Outweigh Obama’s Successes

By DAVID LEONHARDT

Published: October 26, 2010

(snip)

Today, that brief period of optimism looks like one of the worst things that could have happened to the White House, other Democrats and, above all, the economy. The nascent recovery removed the urgency that the Obama administration and Democratic senators felt in early 2009. They still favored more action, like aid to states and tax cuts, but it was no longer their top priority.

They assumed a recovery was under way.

We now know, of course, that the recovery has stalled. From November of last year — the month whose job report brought cheer to the White House — to May, the economy added almost one million jobs, thanks partly to census hiring. Since May, almost 400,000 jobs have disappeared.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/business/economy/27leonhardt.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

no joe, no bo, nj

How many doors have you knocked on for the GopTP?

-------------------------------------------------

Steve

I am a Tea party Supporter. and i am tried of your Racism against me Louisj. I am not a white person. you disgust me..

Are you the Black Traveling Minstrel who serenades the Tea Baggers or do you know if it's InThe Middle?

Even if it's neither of you, you're both disgusting because you enforce negative behaviors.

No Joe. Baloney, you are NOT the voice of the electorate but merely the voice of one person in an ever decreasing republican party base. 54% of Americans approve of President Obama, the true voice of the electorate.

Bev,

Glad to see you are safe from the Storm that blew thru Chicago yesterday..

the negative Behavior is from the Democrats who continue to try to tell me that i need to be protected from the Evil white Man (republican) ..

They treat me exactly how i treat them. With Respect... go figure

Steve-505729

Bev,

Glad to see you are safe from the Storm that blew thru Chicago yesterday..

Thank you, during the early morning the winds were pretty high.

the negative Behavior is from the Democrats who continue to try to tell me that i need to be protected from the Evil white Man (republican) ..

They treat me exactly how i treat them. With Respect... go figure

Steve, I was at the rally yesterday at the Palmer House hotel, which by the way was very Passionate. President Bill Clinton, Gov. Quinn and Alexi Ginnoualious were there. There were a few libertarians there but no one attacked them.I can't say if the guy I talked to was a tea bagger for sure; but my point is no one attacked him. He was white; yet I thought he reasons were purely evil.

Oh, and I had an electrifying time. I got Alexi's autograph but Bill Clinton had gone by the time I got around to him.

It would seem nojo is your opposite drive by

Here - watch me follow suit with everyone else and deal in absolutes:

Either Feisty doesn't want to admit Joe's got a point about Obama's @!$%#-up on DADT and DOMA, or she hates gay people~

Ah no joe, when the long knives of the left come out in force to attack the messenger while ignoring the inconvenient message, then you know you've gotten under their skin.

Oh…now I get it….your daily mistreatment, hateful abuse and inappropriate behavior of Bush was justified. Because you say so?

Bill, long knives is overstating it a bit, I think. Nail files perhaps, or a poorly sharpened spoon.

Steve I don't know which Non-White minority you are, but I do know you are not black simply because you don't claim to be Black. IF you are any kind of minority, you must really hate yourself to be so detached from your ethnicity that you don't claim it. My understanding (according to the statements that you have made) is that you are lying about being any kind of minority; that and the puter screen you hide behind make you an agent of thinly diguised hypocricy. If you are a member of the Teabag Party, ok! Spout your piece and have your say. This is The United States of America, and it is your right; but don't try to give the impression that you are someone you are not just to play mean-spirited games...

Yes it has become evil to want fiscal responsibility. It has become evil for everyone to take responsibility for themselves and their families instead on relying on government handouts. Yes it has become evil to make a profit and become successful while others are to lazy to work. Yes it has become evil to think that because someone entered the country illegally he is a criminal. Yes it has become evil to disagree with the president on any issue. Yes you are automatically racist if you support enforcement of immigration laws. Yes you are automatically a racist if you think that it is alright for a policeman to take precautions or uphold the law against someone of a different race. Yes it is evil to want to live free and have a choice on how you live. Yes it is evil if you own a gas guzzling suv. Yes it is evil if you question the effectiveness of green energy in reducing global warming. Yes you are evil if you believe there isn't sufficient information to support global warming as the fault of industrialization. Yes you are evil if you believe that Republicans have a right to be heard and contribute in congress. Yes you are evil if you are anti union. Yes you are evil if you think the Obama administration is anti big business. Yes you are evil if you think the worst of the gulf oil spill is behind us.

If you believe all of the above, please go see a physician immediately so that they can surgically remove your head from you backside.

Quit whining. Any other party than the Republicans you would have been doing the same. The American people has rejected Oblaba's marxist/ progressive policies. So now you Dems are crying in the media that it is the Repugs fault. Stand up like a man take your medicine however it comes to you. Every party goes through success and failure but you Dems don't want to fail so I suspect that you Dems will want to indulge in skullduggery tactics to thwart the Republican victory in certain states. Go ahead we will expose it. If you lose accept , if you win we accept.

A good reminder, well said, Pat.

JuvenBachman....you just proved Washington's point and warning.

Pat all you have to do is read this vine and you can see which direction we are heading, there's no debate just hate.

Pat,

Are you sure we landed on the moon? Are you sure that wasn't just a big conspiracy? If we have been there, then shouldn't we be going back. Maybe to place telescopes on it, research to find out where other life is.

BB, didn't you know? Space exploration is too damned expensive. We can't spend $10 million a year on NASA when we have billions in American treasure we need to devote to foreign wars, foreign aid and "shovel-ready" jobs...

Well I believe one of the mantras from President Obama was that "If you like yur current insurance then you can keep it". I just got the email from my HR department announcing open enrollment for next year. From the email.

"You should be aware that health care cost increases for 2011 -- in addition to the normal inflationary trends -- also are affected by health care reform requirements, which affect both the company and you. For example, raising the age for dependent coverage from age 23 to 26 contributes somewhat to higher costs for businesses, as we must now all extend coverage to greater numbers of young adults."

It seems my insurance is being directly affected or am I being adversely influenced by Fox News, which I don't actually watch.

bilweeler, I agree that Conservatives have done a masterful job of controlling the language of debate. Not just since the '08 election, but during the last 30 years. They recognize that controlling the language is a significant step toward controlling the thinking. It isn't an original idea, as it's embodied in the "Newspeak" of George Orwell's "1984" and propaganda efforts from the WWII era, but Frank Luntz is a master at it and that's why every message from the Right is molded by him. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frank_Luntz

AlanNJ:

We're all being adversely influenced by Fox News. I repeat: they lied about death panels, they lied about it being a government takeover, they lied about it being socialism, and they lied about rationing. If you think that didn't influence the political environment for all of us, well, we just disagree.

My health insurance is going up too. In fact, it would have gone up with or without health care reform. While the costs associated with "increased coverage to greater numbers of young adults" may justify higher premiums, the cost savings don't kick in until 2014. That's when 30 million new customers start paying premiums.

By the way, that lie about "government takeover" is absurd. Can anyone identify a single health care provider that was put out of business by this "takeover?" Of course not. Health care providers were handed 30 million new customers. They are finding the legislation to be extremely helpful to their bottom lines...

Alan-

Next to jobs and the economy, Obamacare is the single issue hurting Democrats and this Administration most. For the majority of Americans, "health care reform" meant measures to limit the rise of the rate of increase of premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.

As you've seen in your own case, and as more and more Americans will see as they receive next years' premium numbers, Obamacare will have had exactly the opposite effect on costs than desired. The only serious measure in the bill that would have addressed rising costs was the dreadfully cruel excise tax on the health care plans of ordinary middle-class workers...and unions successfully delayed implementation of that.

At this site, charges of lies being told are commonplace...but the arguments used by the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats to pass the Affordable Care Act (you can't get any more cynical than hanging that tag on the legislation) set new standards for deceit.

Lies and liars, indeed.

The rise of right wing media in the 1990's is the biggest reason there is so much bad and factless information out there because it appeals to those most likely to believe it. Move-On was established to fight against the right-wing media's power during the Clinton impeachment nonsense. MSNBC's evening line-up came about in an on-going effort to bring the voices of the left into the discussion and to do so with facts.

I like cable television with the choice of stations as much as I like the internet and the availability of so much information but the negative side is that both also provide a choice to hear only the side we want to hear whether that side is factual or not. For many, we do not believe everything we hear and read; we fact check. But there is a large group that if Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly say it is true, it must be true; these are the people who are hurt the most by what they hear and read, these are the people who can be persuaded into believing what is actually bad for them is good for them.

Alan,

Health care costs have been skyrocketing for years. Now the health insurance industry tells you its because they have to cover older kids, and you swallow it whole?

So why were the prices skyrocketing in the years before "Obamacare" passed Alan?

Give me a break.

So Alan, you quote your email from your HR, but nowhere in it did it say you would be losing your insurance. It just said it was going to go up. Care to spin a little more?

Jody, other then Fox what rightwing media are you referring to?

Geez...so much to answer. OK lets take it from the top.

"Can anyone identify a single health care provider that was put out of business by this "takeover?""

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704300604575554293656982422.html?KEYWORDS=big+health

Notes the consolidation in the industry directly attributable to HCR. What is more interesting is that it actually reduces employment as "more" can be done with the same number of employees.

"So why were the prices skyrocketing in the years before "Obamacare" passed Alan?" If you read the email it stated that "in addition to the normal inflationary trends". So I did not say that prices were not skyrocketing before, I was merely pointing what is obvious that when you add additional benefits such as young adults and no-cap on lifetime benefits that costs will increase over and above the current inflationary trends. But I really don't have to point this out to you Nash because you know this already, and I'll bet we could agree on some of the changes that this bill made.

What I object to is the deceit used to sell this bill and that is what is coming back to haunt the Democrats in this election. To me it is reminiscent of lies about WMDs and Iraq.

Thank you, MB, for succinctly articulating the problem with HCR.

"So Alan, you quote your email from your HR, but nowhere in it did it say you would be losing your insurance. It just said it was going to go up. Care to spin a little more?"

Nowhere did I say that I was losing my insurance. What I quoted was the President stating "If you like your current insurance you can keep it". I then stated that his legislation is directly affecting my insurance so his statement is inherently untrue. What am I spinning?

In addition the FSA I contribute is now capped at $2,500 which if you have a family member with a chronic condition and children does not cover drugs an co-pays. Again, the insurance I liked is affected directly by this legislation.

E.D.-

You and I have have disagreed many times on many issues...I know from reading your posts that your political views and your background are very, very different from my own.

The fact that we both see the HCR legislation in a negative light speaks volumes about how unpopular this bill is with the public, and why that's the case..

While it's always "...the economy, stupid", health care cuts to the bone with many, if not most, Americans.

They got it wrong...on an issue of vital importance to virtually everyone.

Nashville,

Hope you are having a good day.

I have to agree with you, health care and insurance were going through the roof prior to Obama care. That is why the reform needed to be done a little differently IMO.

Children's insurance and pre-existing conditions, I whole heartedly agree with. But it did not do enough to lower costs. Even when "it kicks in" in 2014, prices won't be lower, they never go down. I still don't agree with mandates and fines for health insurance. But something could have been done to curb the costs of medical care. I don't mind regulations in some instances, but I do mind tax increase, the pork amendments, and government run options at the federal level. (any government run programs)

Smaller bills, several of them could have done the same as this One Large law. Especially when the Speaker of the House has to say things like "we have to pass it to see whats in it". We shouldn't have to pass a bill to see what's in it, it should be spelled out, be smaller in size, and just worry about health care, not financial purchases.

AlanNJ:

Mergers, acquisitions, and consolidations are hardly the definition of a "government takeover." There is no competition with any government option, unfortunately. If there were, I would be more sympathetic to your position.

No longer able to refuse pre-existing conditions, health insurance companieswill likely face greater risk in their client pools. However, that should be offset by an increase in customers; by 2018, 95% of Americans should be covered, compared with 83% today.

With increased government assistance – families with incomes up to $88,000 will be eligible for subsidies – many more people will afford, and acquire, health insurance.

If the increase in customers doesn’t outweigh the greater risk in the pool, health insurance companies still have the option to raise premiums to make up the shortfall. When the dust settles, expect the health insurance companies to emerge stronger than they are today.

http://www.taipanpublishinggroup.com/tpg/financial-market-news/news-0322103.html

Health-care stocks can now trade freely, without the worry over the uncertainty of government legislation. According to Miller Tabak analyst Les Funtleyder, managed-care stocks stand to benefit the most from reform, followed by pharmaceutical companies, biotech stocks, and lastly, medtech companies.

http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/stocks-health-care-reform-biotech-bill/3/22/2010/id/27401

Some of the obvious beneficiaries of this new law are companies related to the healthcare sector such as health insurers, drug companies, hospitals, medical device makers, etc. Though many provisions of the healthcare reform bill does not become effective immediately, these companies stand to benefit from higher business growth over the next few years.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/195968-u-s-healthcare-reform-likely-a-big-boon-for-majority-of-healthcare-companies

I could go on, but I think I made my point.

I'm referring to right-wing talk radio--the stations where Limbaugh, Morris, and others work.

Big Bear:

I'm having a great day - thanks for asking. :o)

Everyone should have a great day~

Nashville,

I am glad that you are having a great day. You know it is Wednesday, the work week is 1/2 over, and tonight, well criminal minds is on, as is Cougar Town & Modern Family. And a meeting that I had scheduled for tonight has just been rescheduled for later next week. It is a good day, if only the temperature would increase.

Keep having a great day.

Big Bear

Is it true that health care benefits now provided by employers will be taxed as income starting next year? If so, how does this help me? It means I will be paying even more for diminishing healthcare options. I've already been advised that some of the medications previously available will no longer be on the approved list. Really? How does that help me? Granted healthcare in this country is way too expensive, but can we do something about the people who aren't citizens who use it? Are the American taxpayers expected to provide healthcare to anyone who cares to cross our open borders? I really don't mind helping Americans who need healthcare; I do mind helping the world at large when countries are doing nothing to curb the crime and corruption that makes their governments weak and ineffective. Put aside all the rhetoric about Democrats, Republican, TEA party rivalries -- this election is an AMERICAN opportunity to have a voice in how this country is governed. I don't care for a lot of what goes on in Washington DC or even in some State houses, for that matter. But keep your eyes on the larger picture. We are a free people with an opportunity to make things better. We're not perfect -- we're human. God knows it was nothing we did that caused us to be born in the greatest nation on earth. We have larger problems than how much each party is raising money and spending it on this election -- it's too much, of course, but is that the real issue? I haven't read anything here that addresses what I see as top priorities: illegal immigration and terrorism.

Princess:

No. You won't be taxed on employer provided health care benefits:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-bergthold/no-your-health-insurance_b_641937.html

No. Health care reform does not cover illegal immigrants.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/04/health_care_reform_leaves_out.html

Don't believe everything you may be hearing about this stuff. There's a lot of misinformation, misdirection, and flat out lies out there. Check it out for yourself...including my answers.

Princess:

Corrected link:

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/04/health_care_reform_leaves_out.html

bilweeler

Have you actually read the bill and found the context from which those lies were created? They are an exaggeration I will grant but ones based in truth. In an article posted by Newsweek yesterday, they discussed the biggest exaggerations by candidates by both parties. When reviewing these lies it was amazing to find out that they could honestly contest those of the democrats, but could only right off those by republicans as lies. It was very one sided in scope. Health care reform will end up limiting choices because some doctors will opt for early retirement or not accept Medicare as a result of declining payments to care providers. It will also cause some to lose family physicians for the same reason. Death panels may be an over statement but they do exist already in both the Federal government and private insurance companies. In essence any group that determines eligibility for coverage whether for a patient or a treatment is a death panel. Mandates (a fancy term for orders) by government to purchase a product or service is an act of socialism and against free market principles. In a free market, demand and availability determines the winners and losers not government mandates. The health care reform bill has far to many flaws for it to be beneficial and will lead to a collapse of the current health care system which will clear the way for government to step in just like they did with GM to keep an entire industry from collapsing.

arch:

We just disagree. Your "exaggerations" are my "lies."

In a free market, demand and availability determines the winners and losers not government mandates.

We don't have a free market. And frankly, we don't really want a "free" market. If you want a society where you can open a business completely free of any government regulation, move to Somalia. Absence of all government regulation usually comes with absence of all government. I, for one, would not trade reasonable regulation for becoming a failed state.

The health care reform bill has far to many flaws for it to be beneficial and will lead to a collapse of the current health care system which will clear the way for government to step in just like they did with GM to keep an entire industry from collapsing.

Assuming, without conceding, that your comment is correct, I don't think it would be the worst thing that could happen. GM, in fact, is going gangbusters now, and our costs of saving the auto industry are minimal in comparison to the costs of losing that industry.

Health care needs reform. I'm not happy about the result, because it doesn't go far enough. We wouldn't need a mandate if we had a public option to create competition in the market. But hey...I know you'll call me a socialist, so let's just agree to disagree.

I won't call you a socialist for wanting a public option or for wanting greater reforms. My opinion is that we did not receive the right reforms and the sweeping changes incorporated into this bill will not help the system to improve.

We don't have a free market. And frankly, we don't really want a "free" market. If you want a society where you can open a business completely free of any government regulation, move to Somalia. Absence of all government regulation usually comes with absence of all government. I, for one, would not trade reasonable regulation for becoming a failed state.

Taking the statement "free market" to it's most literal definition is a bit extreme. Our system is based on supply and demand. Pricing is determined by the demand of the product and the availability of it's supply. Increase the supply of providers and insurance products and prices will go down or at the very least stop double digit increases. Further regulation, mandates, and restrictions only capture the market for those already in a position to exploit it.

Ford is the company that is going gang busters right now not because of a government bailout, but of good decision making and correct market positioning.

arc:

If you didn't mean "free" market in your post, you should have said so. You dissed government regulation/intervention. I presumed that you preferred the "free" market (no government regulation/intervention) to the "non-free" market we actually have.

If you are not precise, you can't expect people to read your mind.

Ford is doing very well, without any government intervention. GM and Chrysler are doing very well with government intervention. Are you suggesting that GM and Chrysler bankruptcies would have been preferable?

If so, you need to direct your anger at George W. Bush, not President Obama:

"If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy," Bush said at the White House, in remarks carried live by the national broadcast networks. "In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed."

Bush said that "bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquidation of American auto companies."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html

It was Bush who began the auto bailouts, and left Obama to clean up that, and other, disasters. Bush looked at the situation and decided that we could not afford to lose GM. Or Chrysler. Or Goldman Sachs. I disagree with most of what Bush inflicted on this country in his 8 years, but I don't know that he was wrong on this.

In fact, we'll probably never know if he was wrong.

Yes...the GOP that accused Democrats 2 years ago of voting for Obama because they believed he had magical powers and would be disappointed to find out that he didn't have them obviously expected President Obama to fix the economy with his magical powers and is now disappointed to find out he didn't have them.

Oh, the irony.

Mixed Bag

Wrong, the reasons Dems are on the verge of losing the House; if that's as accurate as the media portyas is not wnt you stated.

It's because of lies, obstruction and outside influence sending money to Republicans.

Go to the USIBC website. Many of the groups lobbying goals advocate changing American policy TO HELP BUSINESSES IN INDIA NOT America. Under the manufacturing policy goal, USIBC BOASTS THAT IT “CAN PLAY A HELPFUL ROLE IN GUIDING U.S. COMPANIES TO INDIA, WHILE SUPPORTING VARIOUS POLICY INITIATIVES THAT WILL ENHANCE INDIA’S REPUTATION AS A MAJOR MANUFACTURING AND INVESTMENT HUB.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/10/20/health-insurance-banking-oil-industries-met-with-koch-chamber-glenn-beck-to-plot-gop-wins-in-2010-election/#more-18207

Your spin is so typical of a brainwashed Tea bagger who cares nothing about America.

But to have the Libs tell it, it's "Foreign" money, it's Karl Rove, it's the conservative media, it's the liberal media, it's Drudge, it's the Tea Party, it's the voters who were so smart to vote for Obama in 2008 who have gotten so stupid in two years that they won't vote for Democrats this time around, it's John Boehner, it's Glenn Beck, it's that stupid car that went into the ditch, it's the banks, it's the insurance companies, it's the doctors, it's the hospitals, it's the Evil Rich, it's not enough taxes, it's too much taxes, it is not the lawyers or the unions, it's Rush Limbaugh, it's the Republicans saying no to all the Democrats spending that didn't produce any jobs, it's those darn rich people, it's BP, it's George Bush, it's Ronald Reagan, it's Chester Arthur, it's Newt Gingrich, it's those companies that are "Sitting on trillions of dollars" and not hiring anyone, it's Sarah Palin, it's Sarah Palin's husband, it's Sarah Palin's kids, it's Sarah Palin's dog, it's the man in the moon, it's Sean Hannity, it's CNN, NBC, ABC, Mighty Mouse, it's the oil spill, . . . .

It's everyone, . . . . . but them.

Da Noid-

Progress. Clear signs of acceptance, albeit grudging, of reality.

And, it was lefties like Newsweek's Evan Thomas who proclaimed:

"I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above-above the world. He's sort of God".

Conservatives harbored no such illusions.

Of course...Thomas was speaking to a guy who professed to have a "thrill going up my leg" at the mere sound of President Obama's voice.

Beverly-

You're an example of why the explanation is necessary.

When you campaign as a pragmatic centrist, but govern as what you truly are- a far left liberal;

When you misunderstand what it means to be president, thinking that you can impose legislation without the consent of the governed,

When you believe so much in your own magnificence that you think that is all that is necessary to control rogue nations,

When you ignore the advice of military experts, relying on your own, supposedly superior instincts on how war should be waged,

When you vilify your allies, weakening your position, but do not even recognize a deteriorating situation,

You are a complete, utter, epic failure.

The majority of the electorate knows this. Too bad Obama and his dwindling band of worshippers do not.

When you misunderstand what it means to be president, thinking that you can impose legislation without the consent of the governed,

This argument has just plain got to stop! Like it or not, President Obama and all members of Congress were duly elected to their positions or appointed in accordance with their state's constitution.

That's all the consent they need to govern.

We are a representative government...a Republic...and like it or not, you do not get an individual vote on each and every piece of legislation in Congress.

Don't like it? Tough.

Yes, indeed, da noid, we are a representative government. When voters flooded their duly elected representatives offices with phone calls, letters, and emails indicating their vehement opposition to Obama's legislation, those duly elected representatives should have listened. When all the polling indicated that what they were hearing in their states and districts was, in
fact, the voice of the majority, those duly elected officials should have listened.

Heck, when Obama told them that the difference between now and 1994 was that "this time, you have me", they should have run screaming in the other direction.

They did not, so the voters will use the solution given to them by this country's founders: they will vote out of office those who imposed legislation without the consent of the governed.

Pretty neat how that works, isn't it? That is, unless you are a democrat.

no joe:

You have no credibility.

You whine about stuff being "crammed" down your throat, and then turn around and tell Muslim Americans that their right to worship is secondary to your "comfort level".

The world does not revolve around you no joe.

Everytime something passes Congress that you don't llike, it is not tyranny.

Enough with the hysteria and bluster.

You don't have any solutions to problems.

We are not going to base our votes on your personal problems, okay?

Nash- what?

I have no idea what you are on about. This was about legislation, representative government, and the founders' constitutional prescription for removing those representatives who ignored the electorate.

Where on earth did you get Muslins worshipping as they please, (which, by the way, I support, as I do any religion that does not have harm as part of it's dogma), from that conversation?

You have tried to switch the subject, another Alinsky trick. Isn't working. Distractions are failing as badly as Obama's stimulus this time around.

Nashville sounds desperate.

no joe:

So, that whole Muslims building the non-mosque not at ground zero thing didn't happen?

You did not post that you felt that they should subjugate their Constitutional rights to your "comfort"?

The topic is if the President is following the laws and the Constitution.

The answer is that he is, and your repeated claims that he isn't are undermined by your own hypocrisy.

Nash, aren't you essentially admitting that you don't have the means to counter Joe's arguments if you have to drag an issue apart from the current topic of debate into the fray?

Keep in mind I'd rain on Joe's parade if she did the same thing to you. Keep in mind I can't be everywhere at once, as well.

Exodite Dragon:

To be succint, no.

I explained why I brought up that issue in the subsequent post, and it is related.

No Jo doesn't have an "argument", unless you consider working through the legislative process for over a year and taking a vote as "ramming something" through as well.

That is not a rational argument.

As I have said, this is not about me. This is not about no joe. This is about folks using misinformation to keep our country from moving forward.

You know what this is about, what Joe's point was about? In a representative democracy, I expect - as you should expect - your Congressmen and women, your state senators to listen to the voices of their constituency.

These people we elect to be our voices either mute or misconstrue our wants and beliefs. Misinformation or not, as MB pointed out in an earlier post: to use HCR as an example, I strongly feel that the majority of people thought health care reform would translate to restrictions on rate increases and the inability to deny people plans and care based on pre-existing conditions - not the robbing of the poor to care for the poorest with mandates and fines RAMMED down our throats.

Malarky, Nash. HCR's legislative process was a debacle and you know it - from Kennedy to Lieberman to Pelosi to Reid to Snowe to Obama and so forth and so on. If it was so much the will of the people why did the pharmaceuticals have any say in it? Why did medical lobbies get to put their two cents in? Why were the insurance firms - whom reform was meant to restrict - allowed to demand the ENTIRE American population be required to buy into their PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT industry?

Recalling an earlier post of mine - Xeroxed copies of my ass with pink crayon.

Dear Exodite Dragon:

Here is the thing:

The things that you are complaining about are not new and they are not President Obama's fault.

You ask why all these lobbying groups were at the table?

It is because the OWN the Congress.

So the problem is you are disatisfied with corruption in government, and you want to lay the blame at the President's feet.

It would seem that the complaint that your representative is not "listening" to you means that only your voice counts, not the millions of folks who have a different view.

So you can get all ramped up and irrational if you want. You can blame the President if you want.

But the simple fact is, the system worked with Health Reform just like it has with all the other piece of crap legislation that has been "rammed down our throats" before - like the unfunded tax cuts and the unpaid for wars.

So give me a break with the hyperbole please.

And the fact remains, under our current corrupt system, President Obama got what he COULD get, not what he WANTED to get.

Okay?

You, no joe, and none of the other folks turning a blind eye to health care lies because it serves their politics have offered ZERO solutions to the problem.

So blame who you want, but that does not make it RATIONAL and that does not make it TRUE.

Isn't it amazing how no joe all blow keeps using the phrase the majority of the electorate, I guess she thinks she's the majority of the electorate. News flash no joe all blow, your only one vote not the majority.

...okay. If the system is corrupt, as you say, and these companies and such 'own Congress,' where did you get the gall to initially argue against Joe that Congress was acting according to the will of the people?

If Obama couldn't get what he (and therefore the American people!) wanted, why did he sign the damn thing into law? If monied interests woefully and irreparably corrupted the legislation, does his signature not constitute by itself ramming it down our throats? "Here, America! Suck on this piece of corporate-written filth for the next long while."

Are you not contradicting yourself?

Another thing - do you really think I'm in favor of either the Bush tax cuts or the ongoing debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan?

And I'm calling bull@!$%# on you for daring to suggest I haven't offered an alternative solution to HCR. Numerous times on this board (and elsewhere on Newsvine!) I've proposed talks about other options on health care reform or suggested what a better approach to the issue might've been. Pay some bloody attention, Nash - it does more of a disservice to you to sit here and say these things instead of being able to admit that, hey, yes. Obama and this Congress REALLY dropped the ball on health care.

MO-

For the umpteenth time...it's YOU'RE...Your means; Belonging to you.

YOU'RE; is a CONTRACTION of the TWO WORDS YOU & ARE...

"I'm tryin' to think, but nuthin' happens."
- Curly (CALLING ALL CURS, 1939)

Exodite Dragon:

Let's keep it real simple, okay?

1. You have not outlined how you could get any of your brilliant ideas through the Congress, regardless of who controls it.

2. The President signed health reform into law, because in his opinion, and based on years of research, he thought that it was a damn sight better than the status quo.

3. The President was right.

Now, you can call bullsh!t all you want. You can stop your feet. Hold your breath.

But what you can't do is get a bill that is any better than what was passed through the U.S. Congress.

That is a fact.

Blame who you want, but that is the reality of what we are facing in this country.

You get mad at the President for TRYING to make things better, but you give all the liars and cronies who are actually running things a pass.

You say the President "dropped the ball", but the simple fact is there wasn't even a ballgame until he was elected.

The "corporate people" have been winning in a non-stop route.

Exodite Dragon:

On a related note, after your local Congress Critter "represents" your interests and votes against the "corporate people", the "corporate people" use their newly purchased "free speech" to run lie filled ads to get them voted out and replaced with someone who will do what they say.

But hey, complaining about that is just politics according to some, right?

It's not all related, it's just "Obummer" trying to fire up his "base", right?

To complain about the crappy legislation we get and ignore the buying and selling of the Congress and the Supreme Court is the definition of whistling past the graveyard.

Nash, I have outlined myself repeatedly. You know PRECISELY how I'd get legislation through Congress - with tanks and explosions. ;p

More to the point, the President being 'right' on HCR is a matter of subjective opinion at this point, when all the elements of the law won't be fully in effect until 2014.

I'll tell you this much, Nash. Your synopsis of the situation - that we couldn't do better or expect to get anything else passed through Congress - is excessively and horrifyingly cynical of you. As an America, I always expect better. I always anticipate doing more than we have done, reaching for the best outcome, not the best possible outcome.

What I am mad about here, isn't the President trying to make things better - what I'm most mad and annoyed by in this situation, in this discussion, is that you seem so willing to roll over and die on the issue. You seem entirely too willing to throw your hands up and say, "Well, we tried, this is all we could do." Why, Nash, why? Why resign yourself to the lowest common denominator?

But more importantly, why try to absolve Obama of his signature on the bill? If someone as astute and in-the-know as you, Nash, can see clearly that Congress is a slave to monied interests, shouldn't Obama be able to see that, too? Wouldn't the better option have been to not sign the bloody thing, knowing it would only serve a corporate hegemony?

That's what I don't get. You also need to stop acting like I'm giving a pass to this bull@!$%# - I am as pissed off at the idea of anonymous funds being directed to campaings (any campaign!) as you are and have risen to your defense on that issue in the past.

Exodite Dragon - here's the thing with this HCR issue. Some of us actually think that what was passed did not go FAR ENOUGH. We would have liked to see Exchanges BEFORE 2014; we would have liked to see 'single payer' so all of this arguing about HCR would have been moot.

We did not get that. We got what we could with the Congress we had.

So, how does that equate with the President 'dropping the ball'? The way this LAW is instituted, it is phased in over a number of years. We have the option of amending what was passed, as what was passed was NOT perfect.

This President succeeded where others have failed when it comes to Healthcare.

For you to say that 'the majority of the electorate did not want it' is disingenuous, at best. The President Agenda was approved in 2008 with the election' 53% of the vote went with the President.

Now, if you want to amend the current bill to add/delete/change items, then we can talk about it. The GOPers will NOT be able to repeal the law, so the best case would be to change it through legislation.

The argument over how the law was passed MOOT.

The question is - will Congress make new legislation to amend it?

Exodite Dragon:

We have been talking about health care reform for over 60 years.

To say that getting a bill at all is an accomplishment is not hyperbole.

The most important issue facing this country is how to wrest control of the Congress back from the "corporate people".

Until something is done about that, all this weeping and gnashing of the teeth is an exercise in futility.

It's gonna take a tank to get any legislation that benefits the American people and takes a nickel out of a "corporate persons" pocket through the U.S. Congress.

I have been saying all along that this ain't about President Obama.

This is about the system.

Now, like I said, President Obama in MY OPINION is TRYING to solve problems within the confines of our corrupt system.

You see it differently and that is great.

But at the end of the day, we get gridlock and lies and no solutions.

I am not saying that you support anonymous campaign donations or unpaid for tax cuts or anything else.

I am just saying that "ramming things down throats" is a two way street.

When Republicans lose, it's their fault. (Happy to accept responsibility.)

When Democrats lose, it's the Republicans' fault. (Happy to take the blame.)

I have to admit, it's nice to be completely in control of everything.

Well, us and Fox News, that is.

But then, what do you expect when the "opponent" doesn't even seem to be able to change the channel?

That's the only honest question at this point, Pietro, whether or not Congress will amend the bill. As far as the argument over how the law was passed...don't go pinning The Great War on Germany when the blame belongs to Austro-Hungary and Serbia. ;p

Also: nowhere did I ever stake a claim that the majority of the electorate didn't want health care reform. I did, however, say that the end result is not, by-and-large, wanted at the current point in time. As far as the President dropping the ball, well. That depends upon whether or not Nash's assertions that Congress is a festering bog of oligarchial capitalistic corruption is taken as true and whether or not Obama's as observant as Nash on the nature of these things when he took pen in hand and pressed it to the paper. Context of the argument, Pietro. Context of the argument~

I'm curious, of course. What would you like to see amended? What would you like to see changed? What do you feel we can do without? What do you feel we could do with?

Nash, the grandest failure is that which takes sixty years to make.

That aside, if you know how I can get my hands on a tank (hell, I'd settle for a trebuchet at this point), please be tellin' me. I have the kilt, the broadsword and the blue body paint; I just lack the hardware.

Exodite - I am glad you asked.

First, and this may surprise you, I would like to see the insurance mandate lifted. Frankly, i voted for President Obama rather than Hillary Clinton for precisely that reason. i do not believe that you should mandate anything when it comes to insurance. Now, a lot of people would say that this is just like auto insurance, but it is not - you have the option of driving - or not. it is a choice.

I say that if a person doesn't carry insurance, and has to get medical care without it, they should pay the 'retail' price, whatever that is, for the services rendered. Then, depending on the ailment/malady, they should be on the hook for the highest rated insurance or pay out of pocket until they are 'cured'. This way, it is a choice still to have insurance. Another incentive would be that if you have insurance, your cost is discounted (deeply) so the incentive to carry insurance is there.

I would like to see an amendment where we change the model of healthcare from an insurance based model to a medically based model that uses insurance to pay for the services. That means of the doctor feels that you need tests for a specific malady, you get the tests and then the insurance kicks in to pay for them. We should NOT have the situation where insurance companies are 'dictating' how medicine is practiced so that the insurance company can save money to increase their bottom line.

I would like to see an amendment where discounts for medical care is given for PREVENTATIVE medicine. A yealy checkup and blood pressure monitoring is a lot cheaper to do than to treat hypertension. A wellness plan and food classes would be money better spent than treating diabetes.

I would like to see an amendment where the premiums of healthcare cannot exceed a certain amount. In this case, it would be like auto insurance, where you can purchase the minimum or maximum coverage based on what you can afford and what you need. Healthcare is a needs based commodity that should be priced as such.

I would say that if the insurance companies don;t play well in the sandbox, then they should be excluded from the Health care Exchanges until they learn how to behave. i would like to see that.

I would like to see the Big Pharma deal renegotiated where Americans can get the drugs they need cheaper, using the exchange or a bloc of patients to do the negotiation. I think that in this case Big Pharma did the right thing to settle in a price and not haggle over costs like the insurance carriers are. Big Pharma wins big, and the insurance carriers are going to lose big, especially when the exchanges are in play.

I have worked in the healthcare industry for 15 years, and I have seen the cases where people die because they cannot afford care. I think it is a travesty that we have people making money on misery and bad health. believe me - if you were sick enough, you would spend ANYTHING to get better.

ED, that is just a small list of what I would like to see. I thnik that the President laid this HCR Law out perfectly though - set the foundation and make amendments as needed, just like Social Security.

THIS is the conversation we should be having with America, ED, and NOT how the HCR law was passed. We cannot un-ring that bell. Some will continue to feel that HCR was 'rammed down their throat', and there is nothing we can about that.

JoAnnaSmith:

Point taken.

Please note my comment #6.0. I put the blame on the White House for losing control of the message. And beyond that, for not caring one whit about the message.

It was political malpractice to allow all the lies, and all the damned lies, to be spouted non-stop without any organized effort to counter them with the facts. Allowing the discussion to be focused on "death panels," "socialism," "government takeover," and so on, the White House insured it's own failure on health care.

Obama's main fault is that he is NOT a fighter. He got into a street fight, and looked the other way. As a result, he got his ass kicked. It's on him, if you ask me. Not that the liars and damed liars should feel real special.

bilweeler - no, this is President Obama's standard MO when it comes to fights.

Remember during the campaign when it looked like Hillary was kicking his butt up one street and down the other? We don't have a President Hillary, do we?

The press, progressives, the dog reading the newspaper - everyone wanted him to 'kick her butt', everyone wondered 'when is he going to fight back?'.

This President seems to absorb a lot of body blows before he counterpunches. That is his style. If he gets his butt kicked, then you are right - it is on him.

One other point.

I have noticed that ever since Rham Emmanuel left, he is more energised and engaged. I have a feeling that Rham was bringing the old DLC 'style' to the White House. When President Obama is innovative and energetic, he cannot be beat. When President Obama falls into 'DLC mode', he gets kicked around pretty good, possibly because the GOPers know how to handle that.

I am noticing lately that the 'DLC mode' is gone, and I imagine that we will see innovative and energetic from this point on.

The point I am making - the DLC style worked for President Clinton, it did NOT work for Hillary, and it DOES NOT WORK for President Obama. I am at a loss why the President would go to 'DLC mode' in the midst of legislative battles. DLC Mode is more 'compromise and slide by', where innovative and energetic obiterates the competition (they cannot keep up). It has a lot to do with who is directing the fight, I imagine.

I expect to see more energetic and innovative for the next 2 years.

bilweeler: Please note my comment #6.0. I put the blame on the White House for losing control of the message. And beyond that, for not caring one whit about the message.

The message is not the problem. Obama did dozens of speeches, town halls, prime time speeches to the nation, state of the union speeches, press conferences for the likes of HCR, his stimulus plan, cap&trade, and financial reform.

But it's not the message, it's the results. 10% unemployment, 25% under-employed, record deficits, his anti-illegal-immigration position, his failure to close Gitmo, his failed promise to stop DADT, his failure to respond adequately to the oil spill, his promise of transparency only to perform backroom deals to get ObamaCare passed.

No, in the last two years, Obama has sent a clear message of who he is and what he wants to do. It's those pesky results of those actions that have the people of the country very concerned.

Johanna:

I'll take your response as an endorsement of the lies.

bilweeler - you are correct - the White House DID lose the message war.

I submit it was because the DLCers there did not think that the message was too important; they thought that by their legislative actions that would be enough.

The President has acknowledged as much about the message.

Now that the DLCers are not driving the message, let's see if things will be better in the next 2 years.

Pietro, I agree completely with your DLC thoughts. I don't think that sort of "Republican Lite" thinking was successful in the 1990s, and I think it's less so now. I also think the Conservative strategy of pushing the conversation farther and farther to the right is based on a calculation that Democrats will have either no inclination or no choice but to follow. Ultimately it leads to exactly the same place the Conservatives want to take us, but a little more slowly. Among other failures that line of thought got us NAFTA and a reappointment of Alan Greenspan to the Fed, the wellsprings of much of our current trouble.

Its funny how the same liberals are on here every time I visit saying the same things over and over. Can't wait until Nov 2nd. It will be a fun night watching the returns come in and the liberals giving their concession speeches.

Pietro:

I'm much more cynical then you. I do hope you're right, and that the next 2 years are better than the last 2. But given the probable election results next week, I'm highly skeptical.

Even assuming a new, improved DLC-less approach, I fear it's too little, and way too late. The best opportunities of the last 2 years have become lost opportunities. The next 2 years are almost certain to be an all out street fight, with no winners, but the middle class being a BIG loser.

I understand; you can't solve a decade of problems in 2 years. I also understand that expectations were unreasonably high.

It still amounts to political malpractice because Obama was unable, or unwilling, to get health care right. He left the dirty work to Max Baucus (!) and Harry Reid (??). He didn't engage, trying not to repeat the 1994 health care reform mistakes. And now he has to take the consequences of that political malpractice.

I want him to succeed. I hope you're right.

Pietro

Your devotion to dying idealism in the White house is commendable. However there are a few problems with your point of view. Obama has made several promises he could not keep, Gitmo being just the tip of the iceberg. During his town hall meetings and infomercials for health care, often his description of what he wanted and what actually was in the bill were two separate entities. His later explanations did not reflect what was actually passed in the legislation. Obama is a charismatic and genuine individual, that is how he excited his followers. Obama's problem is that he was naive and uniformed as to the reality of the office and the world prior to being elected and found out reality is not what you want it to be but what actually exists. He has mistreated allies, mistreated states, gone back on promises, and spent us into a greater hole than he could ever accuse the last administration of doing. The facts on these issues are open to public record. I was and still am for health care reform, but I am against the bill that was passed. Further I am against any comment that says it was watered down to try for bi-partisan support or to get blue dog democrats to vote for it. This bill was forced through congress to claim that they passed health care reform. As far as your DLC approach is concerned, it is just another way to shed blame on someone else. The man at the top is responsible for his decisions and those of his staff, just ask General Stanley McChrystal. If Obama didn't get what he thought was a good Reform bill from congress he could have sent it back for further changes or vetoed it out right. Many of the described changes you asked for are actually part of our current system, so the need for a sweeping reform was not necessary. Government does not belong in health care at all. They have authority to regulate but no authority to guarantee or mandate. Obama is an advocate for government solving the countries problems and it was never meant to do that. It was meant to represent us to the world and to keep the states playing all on the same field nothing more. As long as he tries to hold on to the far left policies of his party, he will fail. I don't wish this from any hatred I have for them man, in fact I am proud that a Black man is finally president, but fail he will if he refuses to change his stance and move slower on a lot of issues.

Archangel - you have me all wrong. There is nothing we can do about the last 2 years, and my observation is about a management style that I have seen before. How effective - or not - that management style is in the next 2 years is going to be is something we will need to see.

Next, you are still smarting from how ther Healthcare Law was passed. Although I do not think we got what we should have for various reasons (including the DLC management style I was referring to), everyone constant harping on HOW that law was passed it a waste of time and energy. The Law is passed. The GOP is NOT going to repeal it. They can't. The law can be amended to add/delete/change aspects of the law, and instead of harping on hw the law was passed, maybe you should be harping on what amendment needs to be made to the law to make it better.

I hear a lot about this unfettered Capitalism that is going to 'save' America. We just came through 8 years of 'unfettered' capitalism, and look at us now.

Deficits. Joblessness. Outsourcing. Homlessness. Forclosures.

Are we really any better off now?

What we need is a BALANCE between Capitalism and Government, where Government is a check and balance on Capitalism and vice versa.

That is what I believe. Without some sort of check and balance, we get a mess, like we have seen in the past 8 years during the Bush Administration.

Finally, a lot of your post is about President Obama himself. I see you are forgetting that he has only been in office 2 years; he has 2 years to go. You want everything to be done perfectly and you rail against the man because he has not been able to keep EVERY promise to YOUR satisfaction.

That is your right as an American, but I will make my judgement of the President at the END of his FOUR years. IF I feel that he has done a good enough job to MY Satisfaction, then he will get my vote again. If not, then I will vote for an alternative. I will, though, give the man a chance to do what he is in office to do.

Your 'assessment' of the President is unrealistic as you want to see every 'T' crossed and every 'I' dotted. Well, this is a man who is under intense pressure to do what he does. Let him do his job. If you do not agree with how he is doing hs job, then you can vote him out and get someone who you think can do the job.

I have been around too long and am too old to fall for the 'okie-dokie' where people seem to want INSTANT results and if they don't get them, they want to throw everything out. I am willing to give the man a chance to finish what he has started. I cannot - and will not - tell you what to do, but I know what I am going to do.

I post this will all of the fespect in the world for you, archangel.

Pat:

Very well said...and I especially liked your last line. With the bigotry unmasked, there is no soul.

all people, should be treated with dignity and respect. ESPECIALLY if you’re going to be their Senator. Sharron Angle literally has no soul. She is mean, hateful, and a liar. And a racist.

So all people EXCEPT this one? People are going off the deep end...

Jesus Christ!...is right

dangerfield, who is going off the deep end?

Pat, I think part of your problem is that you listen to Markos and the Keith Olbermann Comedy Hour. How you can listen to that confirmed moron, at least to a serious slant, is not helping your case any.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why Liberals get so torn up over illegals. And any way you try to slice, dice, and spin it, Mexicans sneaking into this country ARE a problem. And of course, since 99% of the illegals that are entering the US trhough Azizona ARE from Mexico (DUH), then does it make you a bigot and a racist to recognize that?

The fact is - it doesnt.

Its about time somebody started calling it what it is. If that makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps you, and other Liberals, should seek some help.

But again, your biggest problem is listening to Keith Overbite, and taking him seriously. Yeah, Keith is a real brave, pioneering journalist. Yeah, the guy who absolutely refuses to have anyone on his show who might disagree with his twisted views and lies.

I'll tell you why he doesnt - because he would be so discredited in about 5 minutes, he could never show his face on TV again.

How can you listen to someone whose nightly diatribe always consists of the following:

Attack Beck

Attack Bush

Have someone on that agrees with you

Attack Rush

Have someone on that agrees with you

Attack Palin

Have someone on that agrees with you

(Go to break)

Attack the Tea Party

Have someone on that agrees with you

Attack Fox News

Have someone on that agrees with you

Blah, Blah, Blah....

The Left's story is getting old...all you have is name calling.

Its not being a racist and a bigot - when its reality.

See you again - perhaps in 2016.

Robert Lynn, I listen to Keith because I'm concerned about our country. That's why.

I see the lies out there, all day, every day.

I see the harm done by the Republican Karl Rove Propaganda machine. Too many innocent people have died. Too many people have been exploited. The greed is everywhere.

There is no concern in the GOP for the America people. None whatsoever.

I will continue to listen to Keith unless he starts lying to the American people/his viewers. Which he does not do.

It's called integrity. Something Karl Rove and his party have none of.

You want to be lied to, that's your problem. I don't. Why would anyone want to be?

Keith is not a sell out.

Rare these days. Very rare.

On Keith 'overbites' show last night, I got to see a virtuoso play a wonderful piece by Gershiwn on a 300 year old Stradivarius.

How often could I see that on, say, Hannity or O'Reily, or Beck??

Keith ''overbite'??? WTF?????

Obviously you are impressed by men that lie, and lie often, and spin the story to make it work for you.

Anyone can do research on Edward R Olbermann and quickly find out the fraud that he is.

For someone that gets kicked around like a sick dog rating-wise, he still appeals to the Left...amazing.

And you make fun of people that listen to Beck? LMAO!

Keith Olbermann is a vicious misanthrope.

At first I thought he was merely a misogynist, but he's expanded his playing field.

The violinist on Keith O last evening was absolutely beautiful! The instrument 3+ million.

The sound was music to calm the soul! ..and never, never would anything like that be heard on Faux!

I'm glad to see you guys are so easily impressed, but then again, if you watch Olbermann and dont die laughing at his attempts to be a "journalist", then I guess it doesnt take too much.

I also saw the piece on the violin; it was very cool, but then again, I'm a purveyor of fine stringed instruments myself.

Olbermann was just a sideshow...

Actually a very apt metaphor..Here comes the tale of woe, cue the violins!...:)

They say that the truth hurts and that Angle's add would send the libtards in a fury. Thanks Patrick in Boston, you have proven that theory correct. Poor little Libtard!

Pat are you serious,first you blast Angle for her views and turn around and say the same about all Christians while at the same time quoting scripture. Can you say hypocrite!

It's funny how Keith Olbermann drives these republicans nuts on here. But then again they can't handle the truth.

No doubt the violin segment was a refreshing break from Keith. I suspect I would have thought so too, had I been watching.

Mo-1852032

"It's funny how Keith Olbermann drives these republicans nuts on here. But then again they can't handle the truth"

It's because they are AFRAID of him, ya big silly!!

Hahahahaha....(I mean, wink-wink)

Keith O...honest? are you serious? I really thought people were smarter than that. Finding a commentator that will call things just as they are is about like finding a needle in a hay stack.

I kind of agree with you in principle, but the big Olbermasm pretty much calls things the way HE thinks they are. In that regard, he's as common as a bellybutton.

Does Keith Olberman drive the Repubs more nuts than Fox News drives the liberals?

I think the liberals have a bigger problem with Fox than we Repubs have with Keith. I never watch MessNBC so I don't see Olberman or Mathews.

I agree with dangerfield it is the economy...

However to the GOP supporters if your candidates win over the Senate or House or merely make gains in those bodies, how will GOP ideas improve the economy?

For those of you concerned about rising deficits, won't the tax breaks to the richest 2% grow the red ink?

For those of you concerned about the unemployment and underemployment numbers but suggest to slash federal/state government employee salaries and or cut their positions, won't that create more unemployment?

For those of you concerned about the loss of manufacturing and jobs in the country, why aren't you behind closing tax loopholes to outsource jobs abroad?

For those of you who claim there has been a government takeover of healthcare, how will repealing the law reduce the deficit or address the problems of those without private insurance health care coverage?

For those of you who believe that our nation has problems that need to be addressed, why would you support the GOP's pledge to say No to everything and subpoena, investigate and repeal everything that has transpired in the last two years?

Just asking.

Dangerfield you keep spouting it's the economy, so what plans do you republicans have to solve the problem? I think this has been ask of you several times and you have yet to respond, so I doubt you will this time either.

But you're barking up the wrong tree with your questions to the ether...

It is an ANTI election, just as the previous two (2006-2008) a mid-term election in which the ruling party generally loses seats in both houses and is occurring during a period of historically high unemployment.

You should be asking how this 180 degree political turnaround could happen in two years to a party that was elected with super-majorities in both houses, don't you think? That is the real question. The republicans were supposed to be reduced to a "regional party" and on their way to political extinction, what happened?!?

Mo-I'm no more a republican than you are an adult with a formal education...

"Did you see where I almost went?!" "No, but I know where you oughta go."
- Curly and Moe (HOW HIGH IS UP?, 1940)

Thanks for the opportunity to post these great Stooges quotes though...

Dangerfield - of COURSE it is about the economy.

The issue is - and I agree with Yellowdog-Mark D - is what is the GOP going to do about the economy?

From what I have been seeing over the past 2 years, the GOP has done absolutely NOTHING to help right the economy from the mess that President Bush left. What ideas does the GOP have? Will they use their time, IF they get a majority in the House, to draft and craft legislation that will help right the economy?

All indications show - and I a sincerely hope I am wrong - that we are in for Government shutdowns, investigations and gridlock. Since it is all about the economy, and if we have gridlock, it wil lSTILL be about the economy after 2 more years, correct?

So what is the GOP going to do to HELP? What has changed other the passage of 2 years if the GOP sits on its collective hands again and does nothing?

p-see my reply above to yd...wrong set of questions to the wrong people...imo...

Right on Pietro, the GOP says that they want to take the country back, I guess they mean to take it back to better times. However, I don't think the policies they are pushing will do anything to make that happen.

I'm not entirely interested in why the electorate is turning this into a change election. It does nothing to extrapolate about What ifs.

As a point of clarification, my original post was directed to the GOP supporters not Mr. dangerfield.

YDM-

The whole "I have a question/questions for my opponents" thing is both self-serving (in their framing) and disingenuous (in their intent), no matter who they are directed towards.

If you don't think that the reason why you are so full of hypotheticals for the GOP is directly related to the actions of the democrats the past two years, I apologize for my misunderstanding. It is a lot more painful to think about WHY this is happening, but in my opinion those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it...

For all you who keep blaming Bush for the economy, he couldn't have done anything without the help of the Democratic congress just as Obama couldn't do anything without bribing the Democratic controlled congress

Dont blame your shortcomings on the "media".

If "progressives" (thats still too funny to describe Liberals that way) had a real message, then you wouldnt be losing elections so badly.

Blame your "Commander in Training", you wanna blame anyone. He's the one that put the Dems back in the toilet.

Robert Lynn, and the GOP who put people in their graves. Innocent people. By lying.

Day after day after day after day.

Robert. Shortcoming's? You mean like bringing the country back from the brink of a depression? Like getting insurance for people with pre existing conditions? Or the tax break that 97% of Americans got since Obama came into office? Which shortcoming's? are you talking about?

Lets see....bringing the country back from the "brink of Depression"....I'm sure....and then sending it spiraling deeper.

Getting insurance for those with pre-existing conditions? You might wanna check and see how much everyone else's insurance is going up...just to pay for those people. Thats a reality that many of my friends have already seen in increased premiums.

Tax break? havent seen mine, nor so I know anybosy else that has seen theirs.

Wanna try again, Sparky? Or did Sgt. Schultz, Butch Maddow, and Keith Overbite give you those talking points?

I guess the reason you guys are gonna lose so bad next week is that all of the people did actually receive all of those benefits, but Repubs are lying again, and told them that they didnt....LMAO!

Lets see....bringing the country back from the "brink of Depression"....I'm sure....and then sending it spiraling deeper.

Looks like the facts have a Liberal bias...again. http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=25448&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=newsletter

"Truck tonnage rose 5.1% in September, the 10th straight year-over-year increase, American Trucking Associations said Tuesday."

No matter how badly Conservatives want the economy to fail, it's improving every single month. In spite of Republican efforts to stop it.

Robert. You are going to vote Tea Party Republican in any event, and will not let facts get in your way. Your choice. But that does not change reality, Obama's actions did prevent a depression. If you made less then 250K you did get a tax break. My insurance premiums tripled in the seven years prior to Obama taking office, so you can not lay that nonsense on him. Vote for who you like, but at least be honest about why.

Patrick the media is suppressing the progressives your trying to be funny right?

wlee. If the truth is funny, so be it.

Patrick, so you weren't trying to be funny? Then why am I laughing

I think we should work on bringing Pat, Boston back from the brink of depression.

Honestly, Pat, it's not so depressing if you just refrain from wallowing in it.

Has anyone noticed that their retirement plans bounced back 20% last year and are up another 10% or so this year (assuming a diversified selection of mutual funds)?

Of course, I give Wall Street credit for that, which might explain why Democrats/Liberals aren't shouting it from the mountain tops. (Kinda explains why Republicans aren't either. Need to keep it quiet until after the election and then take advantage of the timing.)

Instead we get to hear from Nash how the deficit is shrinking during Obama's first budget after TARP inflated the deficit in Bush's last budget. She doesn't explain how President Obama's budget deficit barely shrank after most of the TARP funds were paid back during the first Obama budget.

What exactly DID they do with that money?

Oh, I know! WE SHRANK THE BUDGET DEFICIT all the way down to $1.29 trillion (the equivalent of Bill Clinton's contribution to the national debt for his entire administration). They sure didn't deduct it from Bush's deficit.

Peter. Paul. Rob. Politics. Shell game.

Good to see you too Richard.

Sorry if the truth doesn't fit well with your preferred "narrative".

The simple fact is that "conservatives" have been lying for two years about President Obama "tripling" and "quadrupling" the deficit, which is a damned lie.

So if in actuality, that big, hulking defict has receded ever so slightly, it is worth noting, just like every tick in a poll or every dumb thing out of Sarah Palin's mouth is worth noting.

Will you be the "conservative" who stands up and takes "personal responsibility" for running up the deficit, outsourcing the jobs, and deregulating the market?

Are you going to own up to the fact that voodoo economics doesn't work and is not gonna start working now?

Are you gonna stop telling us that "deficits don't matter" when you folks are in charge and running up the deficit, and then switch to "deficits are all that matter" when all the folks who have had their job outsourced need an unemployment check?

I won't hold my breath.

Looks to me that there are 4 sets of people, the republicans, democrats, tea party and progressives. The blue dog democrats are what the democrat party needs to go back to. My hat is off to the blue dog democrats, they are the ones that stopped this radical left wing agenda.

Nash:

Wise not hold your breath. No need to extend the already evident effects of oxygen deprivation.

You're dismissed.

Richard,

Since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I am indeed flattered as well as "dismissed"! :o)

I will take your decision to ignore conservative hypocrisy about deficits as an oversight, not a deliberate shirking of "personal responsibility".

Because I KNOW you are a "stand up guy"!

Obammie does not believe Americans should make as much money as they can, in a speech in Madison Wisconsin, the Commissar in Chief said " I'm all for making money, but when is making enough, enough". So you are wrong about Dumpocraps wanting people to make as much money as they can. The top 5% pay 95% of the tax burden, fool. Takers, like you pay nothing and you want more at the liberal feeding trough. Remember Libtards, greedy taking pigs go to slaughter first!

soupy55. Sticks and stones as they say but your disrespectful namecalling represents who you are--and it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Capital gains tax revenues accounted for a very large part of the legendary Clinton "surpluses".

2007 was a record year of revenues to the federal government and despite lower effective rates, the rich paid a far greater percentage than ever before in dollar terms.

Think about how dangerous statements like yours are. Class warfare will accomplish nothing. Raising taxes on those whose actions create jobs will further slow the economy.

Maybe a little historical perspective will help?

For one thing (brace yourself)...FDR's policies did NOT get us out of the Depression, unless you believe he helped get Hitler the Chancellory. The economy continued in the doldrums all through the 30s, because of the government's micromanagement thereof. Only WWII got us out of the Depression (at a great cost to life and limb).

The last time class warfare was successfully applied was in the "good ole days" of the USSR, when the kulaks in the Ukraine and other regions were murdered or imprisoned. As a direct result, food production fell dramatically, and millions starved to death.

OK...back to today. Do you have a clue how many millions of people don't even PAY income tax? And how many actually get paid in the form of the Earned Income Credit? For people still in the 15% tax bracket, capital gains and dividends on stocks cost them NOTHING in federal taxes. Virtually everyone got a benefit from the 2001 and 2003 Tax Acts, and these same people will ALL suffer upon their expiration.



It seems to me that a lot of this dissatisfaction is about Obama, and it feels personal. Why anyone is trying to pretend it is about "something" else is absurd! What exactly is it about Obama that pisses so many, in opposition to him, off? I have never seen, or read about ANY President in U.S. history being demonized, demeaned, and disrespected in the way that Obama has been subjected to. Is he a bad President? Is he poorly educated? Is he a bad family man? Does he disrespect the humanity of others? If you can(no matter your political ideology/ point-of-view) answer truthfully to those questions, then there is only one other reason for the hatefulness directed at him. Wonder what that reason could be?

Let's think about that for a moment dropkick, what changed with the advent of WWII. We spent vast amounts of money, most of it on deficit spending, and created jobs for huge numbers of people within and outside the military.

In other words stimulus spending pulled us out of the Great Depression. Thanks for acknowledging that the approach works.

Keynesian Economics did not get us out of the Great Depression or we would have out of that depression in 1934 or 1935. FDR's economic plan kept us in a depression until WW2 started. In WW2 we were producing products to fight the Nazi's and Japanese. I am to young to remember people buying war bonds (loaning the govt money) but I have read my history. You liberals here have no better idea of how to run an economy than this current admin. Marxism doesn't work - ask Cuba & Venezuela.

California Tom

Corporate “investors” at a Koch meeting included businesses with a strong profit motive in rolling back President Obama’s enacted reforms.

Participants collaborated with infamous consultants who specialize in generating fake grassroots movements, as well as experts on how corporations should take advantage of Citizens United.

As the memo states, Glenn Beck has addressed this regular gathering of conservative corporate executives in previous years. Past Koch meetings have included various Republican lawmakers, including DeMint, and SUPREME COURT JUSTICES CLARENCE THOMAS AND ANTONIN as speakers.

Glenn Beck hosted an on-air fundraiser, asking his audience to give to the Chamber. Casual observers might have been surprised by the Chamber’s swift alliance with Beck (Chamber executives appeared on the Beck radio program and sung Beck’s praises on the Chamber blog), who has compared Obama to Adolf Hitler and called the President a “racist” who has a “deep-seated hatred for white people, Beck, who owns a media company worth more than $32 million dollars and an experimental Mercedes Benz, essentially told his working class viewers to give their wages back to their employers.” Beck told his listeners to give money to the Chamber

IMPEACH Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin. The sooner the better!!!

Y' left out Roberts, the most damaging scourge to our great nation ever.

Beverley, it's to bad we can't impeach Beck also. (Smile)

California Tom

Beverley, it's to bad we can't impeach Beck also. (Smile)

Actually, California Tom, I think Roger Ailes has the paramedics on the set to carry Glenn Beck off in a strait jacket to the nut house; where he belongs. It's just a matter of time before he's gone.

It should be hilarious to see multiple personality Glenn/ Glenda leave Booo hooing. First he'll pray a little, beg a lot for gold, and then cry.

Whenever, that happens they'd better take the chalkboard to prevent separation anxiety.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha you gotta love those nimrods from Northern Mexico!

If republicans get control, I do hope they gut and replace the DOJ. Eric Holder is a disgrace.

Once the Repubs take back the House there will be wholesale changes in Obama's cabinet because those people are sick of being associated with Obama. They have to make a living after they leave office - believe me Obummer won't be taking care of those people.

John B:

Excellent analysis, simply excellent.

Thanks Ron, a compliment from you is a compliment indeed. One of the big, underreported long term goals of the Conservative movement is to gerrymander our electoral map. As the trial of Tom Delay begins today it's worth giving him a special prize for chutzpah, being the mastermind of the 2003 Texas redistricting. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Texas_redistricting_scandal In that sad display of Conservative greed and shame the Texas legislature redrew Congressional boundaries BETWEEN census counts just to increase their majority and pad their presence in Congress in the 2004 election. These are NOT people who believe in democracy, and the sooner people realize that the safer our democracy will be.

Yeah, I know, it's awful John B. Why, right here in Washington State, a bastion of conservative Republican government, it seems that Democrats are mounting and funding a campaign to bring down a "conservative" judge. They just don't like him I guess.

If only the republicans had any plan for jobs.

Patrick, You have not been listening, have you. Employers won't hire with so many potentially expensive unknowns, such as the cost for Health Care legislation as it is yet to be determined. The cost of energy legislation and Cap and Trade; and the beat goes on. Increasing the tax burden of small business by ending the Bush Tax cuts. "There is none so blind as one who will not see."

Dahly. If the Bush tax cuts and the lack of regulation are the panacea. Why did they bring us to the worst recession since the great depression? And why would continuing the same policys bring us any better results?

So, if we still had preexisting conditions clauses businesses would hire a bunch of workers to stand around and wait for customers? That argument is as ridiculous as it is frequently repeated by Conservative politicians. It's the talking point the Republican Party has chosen and nothing more. It's DEMAND. When employers can't service their business with the existing workforce they'll expand that workforce. It really is that simple. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/why_businesses_arent_hiring_in.html

Dahly, you are wasting your time arguing with these guys. They understand about as much about business as Obama, which is to say, nothing at all.

Remember, these are people who think the stimulus worked. Why? Obama told them it worked. That is all they need to know. The unemployment rate? Sluggish growth that is only reflective of government spending? Means nothing. Obama says it worked, so it worked!

They are like children, who have proof that the tooth fairy exists because they found quarters under their pillows. You cannot reason with people who are that delusional.

Bush was voted out, remember? The dems controlled both houses since '06. B. Frank and Dodd said there was no problem with Fannie and Freddy. Both parties received large contributions from Wall Street. They were Obama's largest contributor for '08. Plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Obama was elected, in part, because he was going to unite the country and fix the economy. Didn't happen and his party suffers as a result. Rid us of career politicians and get some savvy "Doers" with experience running a business in DC to fix what ails all of us. End the "entitlements for all" mentality and get people back to work and have them earn paychecks rather than taking relief checks. If every mentally and physically capable person could get a job and became more self reliant our country would flourish! God Bless American and all its citizens!

Dalhy, you've bought the right-wing spin. Franks and Dodd both tried to get the republicans to do something about Fannie & Freddie but they refused; and just as we have seen the past two years, the GOP successfully blocked any legislation to solve the problem from ever getting out of committee least of all to the floor. Dems did not have a supermajority in 2006 and by the time 2009 came, the damage was done, the economy collapsed.

Dahly - according to a New York Times article I read, Fannie and Freddie were just doing what President Bush mandated when he wanted to bolster home ownership. President Bush only gave guidelines and basically let the Banks and mortgage brokers do 'whatever it takes' to achieve his goals. There was no oversight and no rules. it was the 'wild, wild, west' on the financial markets, which ultimately crashed because those who should have been watching the store weren't.

Pietro, EVERYONE was for bolstering home ownership. Fannie, Freddie, Barney, Chris, George, Consumer activists, carpenters, contractors, manufacturers, real estate agents, developers, investors, current homeowners, illegal immigrants, politicians of every stripe, lobbyists, you, me, China . . .

Richard - good to see you again.

Your point is the reason why we had the issue. It seems that President Bush DID NOT CARE HOW we got the numbers as long as he had the numbers he wanted. I give you no guidelines. I give you nothing other than 'just do it'.

Was he surprised that a few rules needed to be 'bent' to achieve his goal? Sure he was, but he shouldn't have been. The President set the mandate that the credit rules should be relaxed, and FANNIE , FREDDIE and the banks complied.

Pietro, you're too intelligent to boil the whole thing down to President Bush. That's like saying President Obama is responsible for the current unemployment rate.

You seem inordinately more interested in finding fault in one man than in looking at the big picture. Like a lot of Repubs here, don't you think?

Richard..Hello I too live in WA state. On San Juan. I was born and raised here as were my parents and their parents. Our state has gone to hell in a hand basket thanks to the transients who have flocked here from other broken states. When I think of the Mortgage Crisis's I think of MILA..I worked for them in 96' and they were selling B & C paper back then and I don't believe Bush was in office (wink wink). Keep up the good posts I enjoy reading them!

Richard - actually, I really don't care about finding fault. I was answering the e-mail that said that the DEMs caused Fannie and Freddieto fail. I said no, not based on the NYT article I read. People seem to forget WHY we had a meltdown in the first place an want to blame the Dem COngress for it when it was not them that made the mess.

With that being said, I like looking at the big picture because it makes things that don't make sense fit in the grander scheme of things.

You cannot fix what is wrong until you acknowledge that there is a problem and identify what caused the problem in the first place - Pietro

You cannot fix a problem unless you understand why it is a problem - Pietro

I am quoting myself...

Spinning it again. And our country drowns.