As reported by ADP this morning, the job numbers have exceeded expectations. There were 297,000 new payroll jobs in December. Why? Because the economic plan of President Obama is working. All the leading economists have been telling us that the Job numbers are the lagging indicator of the economy. Businesses have been for the last few months saying they were going to start adding jobs and another report that verifies this was on the web this week.

Now I know the right wing is going to try and take credit for this, and that is a lie. This was projected by President Obama before the Nov election and guess what, he was right. The economy is moving forward, slowly but forward. Manufacturing has increase for the 17^th consecutive month and construction is up as well.

It is these facts that have the republicans in a tizzy and trying to do everything they can to slow this down or completely reverse it. From new spending rules in the House to the continued agenda of “Obstructionism”.

Not to take the ‘wind out of the sails’ of the newly ‘crowned’ Weeper of the House… but… this little ‘morsel’ is much funnier than watching Agent Orange reruns of ‘The Crying Game’! lol

Only question remaining is whether or not ol’ John will be sober & if his little lapdog Eric Cantor will be scurrying behind him with the box of Kleenex?

According to ABC News, Tea Party maven Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is “seriously weighing whether to seek Republican nomination for president in 2012.” Bachmann will travel to Iowa to meet with “political forces” and “party elders close to the caucus process” before making her final decision.

Bachmann/Palin 2012 - ‘Bat Sh!t Crazy & the Clubber’ - YOU BETCHA! *wink wink*

Feisty

Not to take the ‘wind out of the sails’ of the newly ‘crowned’ Weeper of the House… but… this little ‘morsel’ is much funnier than watching Agent Orange reruns of ‘The Crying Game’! lol

Good morning GF

Pop your popcorn you're in for a threat

When House Speaker John Boehner accepts the Speaker’s gavel from Nancy Pelosi he should say I’m sorry in his first speech. SORRY is all that Boehner can say regarding the GOP/TP PARTY not working hard enough and making tough decisions required by the oath taken of Congressional republican members to move this country forward. SORRY that Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell and myself required through our leadership for the last 2 years in Congress that this body not move forward Sorry that we spread vicious smears and lies about our honorable, president, Barack Hussein Obama. I, john Boehner, think Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell should retract his warning to Democratic colleagues against tinkering with the rules.

Our willingness is now to listen to the American people.

No longer will we the Gop/Tea Bagger party frighten the hell out of seniors with our lies about DEATH Panels. We, the GOP/TEA BAGGER PARTY, WILL no longer perform obstruction and insurgents similar to the one led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich 16 years ago which ended up in a deadlock; no more broken treaties (agreements)We will be loyal to the fading middle class, the working, poor, seniors, and those who cannot help themselves instead of the rich Koch brothers, the chamber of Commerce, and other multinational companies. I will no longer attack unions or make them scapegoats. Likewise, we, the GOP/TEA BAGGER PARTY, will admit that rich hate paying taxes and are freeloading off poorer folks. By the way, I’m sorry to hear that the sight of David Koch one of the top financiers of the Tea Party and pro-polluter front groups whose conglomerate is one of the worst air polluters erupted in boos at the opening performance of “The Nutcracker” at the Brooklyn Academy of Music shortly before Christmas. He does do some laudable things for charities.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll have to pull out my hankie. I need to shed a few tears. You see, all my life I’ve worked hard for this historic moment. Before, we move on I have my cop of the Constitution here I’d like to read. The last time I brought the copy of the Declaration of Independence which I read. I’m SORRY about that.

Feisty;

As I said before, the next two years is shaping up to be a freak show. Instead of Jobs, as the right promised, their first item is to vote on HCR repeal (which they know is not going to happen during this Congress) and then the 280 investigations that Issa is putting together. What happened to Jobs and the economy? Some say the first 20 days are stage setting days for the new Congress. So this is what we are going to be doing for the next 2 years??

Go get 'em Boehner. You and your Republican buddies keep telling us America has spoken. It's jobs, jobs, jobs. With your fabulous insight into the American psyche, could you help explain why I am suffering this overwhelming cognitive dissonance?

You say the first order of business is repeal of Health Care Reform. Help me out on the jobs, jobs, jobs part of that. Tell me how Americans asked to be denied health care for having the nerve to have pre-existing conditions. Tell me how they asked to have their kids 26 and under from piggy-backing on their insurance policies. Tell me how seniors are begging to pay more for medical care.

Tell me how the jobs, jobs, jobs thing meshes with de-regulation. Tell me how Americans are clamoring to let Big Oil run roughshod over the environment. Tell me how they yearn for a return to the day when Big Pharma was not shackled by the terrifying FDA. Tell me how they are not concerned about the purity of their drinking water. Tell me how Americans simply hate the U.S.D.A. for working to guarantee the safety of what they eat. Tell me about how they want the E.P.A. to ignore mercury in our environment; how they hope for more burning rivers and dead lakes and filthy air. Tell me how the want a return to those exciting days when the Big Money boys almost destroyed the entire world's economy.

That's enough for now John. I have to write to my own Congress person and ask why we shouldn't allow auto companies to install fuel tanks that explode on impact. Damned regulations!

As I said before, the next two years is shaping up to be a freak show. Instead of Jobs, as the right promised, their first item is to vote on HCR repeal

Oh it's going to be a freak show alright... no question about it!

Speaking of questions - I thought Boner & his cohorts #1 priority was JOB creation? Instead they're on a witch hunt to repeal HCR (which by the way has ZERO chance of passing in the Senate & Presidential veto power)... but I digress...

What Americans SHOULD be focused on is WHY the Republicant's have not offered up a viable alternative?

We've heard they have a plan for over 2 years now... when are they going to share it with the rest of us?

Nothing more than business as ususal... they have theirs and 'F' everyone else!

Let the BLUBBERING begin!!!

David:

Touche', I agree. The party that claims they listen to America is off on their own agenda and they make no bones about it. They said is was about Jobs and the economy. So what do they do? Play political games with HCR knowing they cannot repeal it, the Issa Investigations, sending letters to the oil companies, energy companies and Insurance companies asking them what regulations they should repeal. What so you think they are going to say? You hit is square. They are going to want to repeal safety regulations, controls that would stop another Wall Street melt down and virtually anything that would help them make more money and the he!!with the American people. This is their agenda and has been for 2 years and running.

@USND

You never explained your comment yesterday when you claimed that the individual mandate was payback by the Republicans to their paymasters the Insurance Companies, when the first order of business for the new congress is repeal HCR including the individual mandate.

Also MSNBC last night they stated that Tom Daschle, a possible Chief of Staff, is a frequent visitor to the White House. Well, Mr Daschle is an employee of Alston & Bird, who by their own website claim to have over a dozen major pharmaceutical clients. Wasn't the first major deal of HCR the deal between the White House and big Pharma to fill the donut hole with brand name drugs at 50% but then all costs after that for brand name drugs would be paid for by the taxpayer at 100%? Wasn't it also announced that there would be no attempt to negotiate lower prices between medicare/medicade and big pharma? Didn't they also agree that their would be no importation of cheaper drugs from abroad? And finally didn't big pharma agree to support all other aspects of HCR?

Or am I connecting the wrong dots?

Although symbolic, the vote to repeal Healthcare Reform could be a political winner if the house has enough votes to override a Presidential veto. That level of support will put enormous pressure on the Senate.

If they get to the point where there are a majority of senators for repeal (3 votes needed as Joe Manchin has already shot a gun at the bill), then the spectacle of Harry Reid using the filibuster will be superb irony.

Alan,

I did answer it yesterday, go back and read it. And NO you are not connecting the dots except for the typical talking points from the right.

Although symbolic

To who? The dumber than a 5th grader crowd?

Say by some twist it is repealed... WHAT are they going to replace it with?

2+ years and we still haven't seen the 'plan' they claim to have...

Excellent post, Louis J. The media deserves a big round of applause for their investigative journalism in this matter. Leadership means leading by example not by popularity or with conduct unbecoming. Being a true leader is not a popularity contest. It seems that a number of Navy personnel aboard the USS Enterprise did object to their commander's video, we have not heard much from them. No doubt conservatives will be talking about free speech and defending this guy as a hero wrongly relieved of his command. I see nothing heroic in his disgusting video.

The gavel Nancy. Hand it over.

"Oh it's going to be a freak show alright... no question about it!"

________________________________________

I'm looking forward to being entertained by all the FR lefty liberals freaking out every day for the next two years!!!

THAT'S gonna be the real "freak show"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@USNV

Sorry, I had to search for your reply.

So, in your opinion the Republicans managed to get the Democrats to legislate an individual mandate to pay back their supporters. Now, they are pushing far a repeal that they know will fail as some Machiavellian scheme?

Were you in Navy Intelligence because this is up there with a Tom Clancy novel?

Joe. When we see what the republicans have in store for us, the entire country will be freaking out.

1946. 1994. 2010.

What do all three mid term years have in common?

The democrats attempted to take over the healthcare system in the first two, and lost control of the House.

They "succeeded" last year, and lost 63 seats.

And First Read questions the republicans on being doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?

I was gone yesterday because it was a travel day for me- back to the cold, unfortunately. I'll be in and out for the next week or so, too, as I put the house back to normal after Christmas. There is nothing so depressing as underrating for Christmas. Too bad it does not last longer!

"There are 96 new members of the House (87 Republicans, nine Democrats)..."

Well, First Readers...87-9.

I guess that pretty much sums up what the electorate thought of DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen's campaign to paint the GOP as "obstructionists" and "The Party Of No".

An odd strategy...

Especially considering that voters evidently wanted someone to obstruct and say no to many elements of the Obama agenda, from Obamacare to the closure of Guantanamo...and chose to send so many more "obstructionists" to Washington at the ballot box last November.

Nice to actually see it quantified, though...

87-9.

Wow.

Navy, David Walker, Feisty, Beverly--great way to start the day.

As for the mandate issue, Alan NJ has absorbed the right-wing talking points on this issue instead of using Google to check it out. It was widely reported in the news that insurance lobbyists met with GOPers often during the HC debate; it is well known fact that it was the insurance companies who demanded that mandatory purchase of insurance be written into the law. I do not disagree with the insurance companies assertion that if they would be required to accept people with pre-existing conditions, they needed "healthy" clients to offset the costs--that's just common sense. Medicare would be in less financial stress if healthier persons at 55 could buy into it or if we could all buy into it. The Senate listened, the President listened and Senator Grassley and the other GOPers on the committee argued for it and democrats agreed to it. The right-wing misinformation league then proceeded to mislead and yell when it was they and insurance companies who convinced democrats to include a mandatory purchase clause.

Alan: the spectacle of Harry Reid using the filibuster will be superb irony

It's is not the use of the filibuster that has been the problem, it's the ABuse.

Navy,

I thought that unemployment always went down in December, because of all the seasonal jobs. But then anything to prove that the economy is working, since the GOP won the elections in November, right:)

“Funny Obama has been saying for 2 years his plan is working, but no new real growth till the last month or so?”

1.1 million Private-sector jobs were created in 2010 plus whatever the December jobs number will show this Friday.

Jody,

When did the government get the right to force people to purchase a product? Where is that listed in the constitution? That seems to be the problem with your side of the conversation, is you seem to believe that the government can make the correct decisions for you and everyone else. But of course, the insurance companies want a mandate, and there are NO cost measures to regulate what they do, so in some areas, the cost has exceeded 30% this year. Where is that saving the middle class money? Where are those costs going down?

Alan,

Thank you for your reply and keeping it civil. That is my opinion as you noted. If the republicans really are serious about the HCR why not open it up to discussion and see if there can be a meeting of the minds? There are things in that bill that I do not like as there are ones that you do not like. But, I think there are a lot of things that both parties do agree upon and why not get those together and then work on the ones that they disagree on. I voted for these people to do that and not the political games that they are playing now.

I really do think we as a contry should be concentrating on Jobs, the Economy and Reducing Spending. How we do that I think are the only questions we should be spending our time on for now.

Dennis,

I wonder how they figure those numbers out, considering that other sources have him at a -3 million jobs created since he took office in January of 2009. Does that mean we had a -4.1 million jobs lost prior to last couple of months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

bob-1805084-

You don't really expect First Readers to be able to conceptualize a relationship between the Democrats' historic electoral beatdown (87 new Republican House members, 9 new Democrats) in November, and an improved economic landscape in December, do you?

US Navy is still struggling mightily with the notion that the electorate overwhelmingly preferred the "obstructionists" to the Democrats.

Remember where you are, bob.

Navy,

Like what you say, sometimes. I like the fact that parts of the HCL are there, I don't like the mandate, I think that it violates our 1st amendment. I also don't like the fact that it does nothing to control the cost of rising insurance premiums. Where is the regulation for that?

But how do you effectively reduce spending when our president is asking for the debt ceiling to be raised? When are those of you on the other side of the aisle going to want to cut programs and money? You yourself have said we should reduce spending--how? I would rather us come up with ways and means to cut, than to argue about petty talking points.

Bigbear, obviously, the answer is, "when Obama said so".

Which, frankly, I find totally disheartening.

Were this a republican president, the same defenders of this mandate would be screaming against it. The difference is, those of us who are against it now, would also be against it were Obama a republican. For proof, take a look at Bush's approval ratings in the last years of his presidency- he was BELOW his base.

I have said for some time that my fear is that Obama will tell his followers that they can fly- think how many of them will hurt themselves jumping off their roofs!

Yeah...that was quite a "unifying" speech you made...

wouldn't you like to start your day at noon and get nothing done and still get a pay raise?

If you want to do something meaningful for the American people you can start with the rules of congress, let them go with the health care they gave us, let them pay the taxes they burden us with, let them worry about being one pay check from being out on the street. Instead it looks like 2 years of wasting time on anything but jobs.

Dennis:

How true. BoBo just does not let facts get in the way of his talking points. Job numbers have always been a lagging indicator and that is a fact. When President Obamatook office we were bleeding about 650,000 jobs per month. That slowed down during the summer and continued to slow down until January of 2010 were we starting adding jobs and have consistently been doing so since, albeit slowly. It also has been reported by CBPP, EPI and others that the new Tax Cut Deal will help to continue this and may in fact even speed it up a bit.

The job numbers we are seeing are the result of the programs already in place and have nothing to do with Nov 2 or wishful thinking. That scenario only exits in the minds of the right and has no base in reality nor supported by the facts.

REPOST: Compliments of the Collapse Cowards!

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired Comment collapsed by the community

As reported by ADP this morning, the job numbers have exceeded expectations. There were 297,000 new payroll jobs in December. Why? Because the economic plan of President Obama is working. All the leading economists have been telling us that the Job numbers are the lagging indicator of the economy. Businesses have been for the last few months saying they were going to start adding jobs and another report that verifies this was on the web this week.

Now I know the right wing is going to try and take credit for this, and that is a lie. This was projected by President Obama before the Nov election and guess what, he was right. The economy is moving forward, slowly but forward. Manufacturing has increase for the 17^th consecutive month and construction is up as well.

It is these facts that have the republicans in a tizzy and trying to do everything they can to slow this down or completely reverse it. From new spending rules in the House to the continued agenda of “Obstructionism

bohner left out a key word. what he meant was "this is the RICH people's house"

how come feisty and retired naval got collapsed? too many republiklans on this thread???

feisty, us navy and all the rest of you early posters are pathetic. every day complaining, calling names, pointing the finger and expecting things to change, doing all the same things you cryed about republican supporters doing. do you people ever listen to yourselves?

i will show these posts to the kids in my class as an example of what NOT to do when trying to help the USA recover from failed partisan politics. youre all extremists, unwilling to work together and always trying to win...sad.

LouisJ

Leadership is what the country needs, not

lewd, hateful, bigoted dramedy. Captain Kirk would not be proud.

Kobayashi Maru, my friends… Kobayashi Maru.

Alan, NJ

The collapse cowards are out in full force.....Why?

Repubs and cowards (the same), can't handle the truth!

Lies, yes! Truth, no!

Feisty:

Thank you. The keyboard cowards are out early just shows everybody that we are speaking the truth and they cannot handle the truth. We do not collapse posts because we feel everybody has a right to say their opinions.

And they say they are not trying to re-write the constitution.

The one thing I hate most about the rich is...that I'm not one of them.

Keep supporting Obama's agenda. Soon, he and the democrats will more completely remove the opportunity for Americans to become wealthy. AWESOME! We can just raise taxes on capital gains and income until the rich are just as poor as the rest of us. Then we will be EQUAL.

Think of it, no more people buying houses and cars and manufactured good. We won't need factories or carpenters or workers of any kind. We can all sit at home and let the government pay us. When they run out of money, we will just merge economically with some foreign countries. AWESOME! We all just want to be citizens of the world anyway, right?

Yes indeed the collapse cowards are doing what they do best...

Clamoring about the Constitution out of one side of their mouth while collapsing comments that go against the right wing squawking points!

Real classy err... I mean cowardly crowd these phoney Patriots are!

Dennis,

Sorry I overlooked your response.

1.1 million Private-sector jobs were created in 2010 plus whatever the December jobs number will show this Friday

Pretty pathetic huh. Unemployment actually went up to 9.8% before the little bit Navy mentioned. Sad that American business created more jobs over seas than at home due to the business environment Obama created here.

Well, at least it didn't continue to get worse like it had been before the election.

They'll NEVER silence you, Feisty...

You'll be squawking and screeching long after they've given up and gone home.

@USNV

Thank you for your reply and keeping it civil. That is my opinion as you noted. If the republicans really are serious about the HCR why not open it up to discussion and see if there can be a meeting of the minds? There are things in that bill that I do not like as there are ones that you do not like. But, I think there are a lot of things that both parties do agree upon and why not get those together and then work on the ones that they disagree on. I voted for these people to do that and not the political games that they are playing now.

The problem with trying to amend it is that so many parts are inter-related, for examples the pre-existing conditions and the individual mandate. I honest believe it should be repealed. Then kids with pre-existing conditions could be included in something like CHIPS. High risk and other pre-existing conditions could be dealt with by a state or regional pool subsidized by taxpayers. People should be given 3 to 5 years to find insurance so that there can't be pre-existing conditions (people gaming the system until they get sick). But at the end of the day something must be done about base costs and that means rationing.

Hurt someone's feelings. Stinging critique...

Yes.

I noticed Fiesty and Beverly like to cry about how uncivil anybody on the Rep. side is but never miss an opportunity to throw names and insults around whenever possible. You prove that you are both hypocritical douchebags everytime you post.

The republican party was awarded the largest electoral victory in 70 years, in Nov. Of last year.

They campaigned on repealing the insurance farce, cutting spending and opposing Obama.

Now they are doing what they said they would.

What did you supporters of the Democratic Parasitical Party, think was going to happen?

You people are just not that close to rational, are you?

Boner is a big ole titty baby. Pelosi is bigger man than he is she never cried. HAHA!

jerry, I thought it was going to unroll just exactly the way it has so far.

The game ain't over yet.

They have to read the constitution. The incoming teabaggers think it was written by the Koch brothers.

Well WStevens, since none of the Koch-funded media or advocacy groups will tell them otherwise they're unlikely to figure it out for themselves.

Alan NJ;

I hear you. I would like to think that if both parties really really were honest and wanted to do something together to help everybody that they could find a fast track. After all, they are the ones making the rules. I just heard that the GOP is not going to allow any amendments to their repeal bill on the 12th. It appears to be a take it or leave it position. Too bad. There must be a way where only pertinent amendments may be considered to avoid the bill killers. Don't know, seems to me many of these guys are a tad short on common sense, that includes my party as well.

Glad they put the post back up, not fair to the people posting here to have their work just trashed when there is no violation of the CoH.

And what's Issa's first job -- to try to de-regulate businesses (by asking them what regulations they find most onorous and trying to get rid of them). He states that by deregulating these businesses, they will be more open to hiring.....does he not remember what happened when we deregulated the banking businesses??? Does he REALLY think that CEO's will hire more people if they are less regulated? They'll just pay themselves bigger bonuses and bigger dividends to shareholders. Once again, the Republicans are more interested in protecting big business than protecting the citizens that erroneously rehired them!!! It's enough to make a person cry!!

Jerry - you really only read in the election returns what you WANT to believe. In fact, poll after poll since November shows that the election was about JOBS and the ECONOMY. The highest ANY Tea Party/GOP plank ranked in the results, and only among a small percentage, was Health Care - and that was 8th ... FAR down the list.

Didi - I am reposting a portion of a piece I did on deregulation, since it seems quite relevant again:

The global economic distress we find ourselves in today is the end game of a process launched by Ronald Reagan's "free market reforms" of the early 1980's. Reagan "deregulated" interstate commerce, transportation, banking, finance, insurance, and energy.

Almost immediately thereafter, in a foreshadowing of the results that would follow in EVERY deregulated industry, one after another, the trucking industry suffered major problems, as did rail transportation. Owner-operators were ruined - those that did survive found themselves no longer in a reasonably-decent income bracket. The "drive to the bottom" had begun (check Steven Brill's "Sweatshops on Wheels" for the grisly details).

Soon thereafter came the savings and loan crisis, caused by precisely the same kind of unethical, dishonest operations that deregulation had made possible in the banking and finance sectors. That was followed by the energy sector - delay of about 10 years in implementation of some of the "reforms," began taking place in the late 1990's. This was the foundation of the Enron scandal, as well as the manipulation of energy resources that just about turned out the lights in California and sent consumer energy prices soaring all over the nation.

Helping drive some of these earlier collapses was another factor of the Reagan "reforms" - changes in tax laws that encouraged investors to engage in day trading and rapid turnover of stock investments for short-term capital gains. Basically, Reagan converted capital investment from a long-term asset marketplace to an arbitrage marketplace.

In so doing, he set up the massive division between workplace and executive suite, with base wages for executives soaring to many hundreds of times the median employee wage, and stimulating executives to focus on short-term quarterly results that justified huge, bloated bonuses (a problem still afflicting business today).

The result was the Great American Sell-Off, as business wwere broken up, employees replaced with long-term "temporary" workers, and massive outsourcing or wholesale movement of American industry overseas. (NAFTA, under Clinton, just made matters worse, but the movement had been long underway.) This new environment of course spurred the kinds of false accounting that undid Enron, Worldcom, and many other companies.

While the dotcom and telecom boom of the 1990's fueled an over-inflated marketplace, Clinton's Administration did very little to exercise retraint on out-of-control practices in banking, finance, and securities. As the "bubble" burst in 2000 and 2001, he was gone, laying that particular problem in George W. Bush's lap. And that was entirely the wrong lap to cradle major issues of the distressed markets, for Bush sought to out-Reagan Reagan.

Deregulation? Already done - but Bush could, and did, choose to entirely suppress what little regulatory authority remained.

John B-

While I very much agree with you that the game isn't over yet, as someone who has posted at First Read for awhile now, and did (just as countless other people did, with the help of Democratic political analysts like Charlie Cook and Nate Silver) correctly forecast early on the historic defeat Congressional Democrats would suffer in the midterms...

For some odd reason, it's my recollection that you were a bit late arriving at a similar conclusion.

Feel free to correct me on that, but in any event...

Happy New Year, John B!

Can she shut the hell up and give him the gavel already so he can bop her in head with it?

My prediction was light, but to be specific "losses at the high end of the normal range" were sufficient to lose the House. At no time did I predict the House to be safe. I DID predict that Republicans would fall short of taking the Senate...and it's an extremely rare event for the opposition party to take the House without also taking the Senate.

Congrats Obama for adding all the new jobs. Since 06 your party drove them all away and now you can take credit for adding to something other than the deficit.

LouisJ - you read this article and then compare it to Star Trek and Crimson Tide, seriously? You do realize that those are works of fiction? This is real world with real world solutions not "it's seems like a good idea, let's pass it and then find out what's in it." That's why Pelosi is no longer in power. I hope the Republicans do a better job than that. In the future we need to stay with reality, look at the long term ramifications before passing cumbersome "good ideas" that we can't afford.

That's a lie, the Tides foundaton is trying to overthrow the consitutrion and establish a socisliat state. They should be investigated for treason.

The tea party want the congress to enforce the constitution. Congress is supposed to represent the will of the people, they haven't done that for four years. If the senate keeps it up they will be flushed in 2012.

Some idiot tried to claim that a lot of the dissatisfaction with democrats is they didn't go far enough. That's pure propaganda, with 58% of the public wanting complete repeal of Obamacare, it is clear that democrats blew it. They didn't lose the liberal vote, they lost the moderarte vote and that is the death knell for success in 2012 if they keep it up.

This just in, Obama has finally stopped declaring war on business, and is going over to the Chamber of Commerce with an olive branch. Liberals are such suckers.

I asked you twice on another subthread, VP -- have anything to back up that 58% claim?

Oh, and your tinfoil hat is slipping. "Tides foundaton is trying to overthrow the consitutrion and establish a socisliat state. They should be investigated for treason."

Maybe you'd like to back that up as well. Otherwise the train for Beckistan leaves in 30 minutes.

Valhalla Phil:

I'm going to ask you too. Where are the supporting data for your claim that 58% of the public wants a repeal of the Health Care reforms enacted last year?

If you have read these threads, you must know it is NOT propaganda when it is said that many citizens wanted reforms that went further than the current law. There are plenty of Americans who wanted single-payer. I'm one of them, and I can assure you that I am not alone.

Listen LIBS,

TEA BAGGING is something HOMOS do to EACH OTHER...they are your constituents, aren't they ?? Tea Party people are for the most part, REGULAR, NON-DEVIANT(THAT IS NON-HOMO) people, who just want control of their OWN lives. Not to be dictated to by YOUR SPECIAL INTERESTS who when they lose on things like HOMO MARRIAGE, resort to the COURTS because they can't take 'NO DEVIANT CONDUCT WILL BE CONSIDERED NORMAL' for an answer.

The Edward's Foundation poll puts the figure at more like 62%

I don't think this congress will actually totally repeal the Obamacare bill, just modify it enough that it fully reflects what the Republican leadership deems proper. This would save a lot of time.

Also, it's great to hear that the recovory has taken place and all those companies are busy hiring. I wasn't worried when the summer of recovery didn't happen. I wasn't worried when the autumn of recovery didn't happen. I knew that we were in the winter of recovery, and soon to follow....The spring of recovery. Thank you Obama.

drink some more of the Kool aid and relax!

The (rich) people's house.

First, I vote that any post all in bold or caps should be immediately collapsed. I realize that would remove most right-wing posts (bold or all caps are just another form of shouting), but it is truly annoying.

Second, I totally caught what Pelosi was saying about Boohoo Boehner wanting the large gavel. You know, like sports cars, it is overcompensation for a certain part of the body. And don't blame tanning while drinking alcohol--that's a conspiracy theory.

But "the people's house" was the big laugh of the day. I agree with ArchStanton that we are now a plutocracy, with rule by the wealthy. Way to go you Tea Party tools.

Listen LIBS,

TEA BAGGING is something HOMOS do to EACH OTHER...they are your constituents, aren't they ?? Tea Party people are for the most part, REGULAR, NON-DEVIANT(THAT IS NON-HOMO) people, who just want control of their OWN lives. Not to be dictated to by YOUR SPECIAL INTERESTS who when they lose on things like HOMO MARRIAGE, resort to the COURTS because they can't take 'NO DEVIANT CONDUCT WILL BE CONSIDERED NORMAL' for an answer.

Yeah, something to think about the next time someone claims the GOPTP isn't a comfortable home for bigots.

To MixedBag and the the rest of you..... I will quote a man far older and wiser than all of you,

"The next time they give you all that civic bull@!$%# about voting,
keep in mind that Hitler was elected in a full, free democratic election"

Pretty much sums up the current Republican and TeaParty takeover..... nuff said.

Its also nice to hear its the "peoples" house, what with all that talk of Obama being a communist, Its funny that Comrade Boehner actually talks like one.

Jody:

Very true. When you have a political system where just one (1) indivudual can stop a bill from passing it makes it very attractive for those lobbist to find only one and help Millions of dollars into their coffers. It does not help when 8 of the new elects have hired well known lobbist to run their show as well.

The right is just paying back their "Sugar Daddys" with our money.

Jody:

An excellent, thoughtful post. I too will be watching the workings in the Senate to see some serious changes. To allow any one Senator the right to block appointments of judgeships and other important positions is simply wrong. Go Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and get-er-done.

Jody:

The GOP claims regulations are "job killing" but they ignore the fact that the regulations help prevent killing those who do the jobs, or as happened in 2008, killing the entire global economy and harming America.

You need to translate from Republicanese to English. When Republicans say that regulation is "job killing" what that means in English is that it will hinder the corporate pursuit of profits with burdensome considerations of the welfare of the nation. They couldn't care less about Americans losing their jobs. They' ve made it clear that they view the unemployed as lazy deadbeats.

And Happy New Year everyone. I don't know what's going to happen, but it's going to be an interesting one for sure.

Jody, I fully back Senator Harkin's efforts to reform the filibuster and bring some sanity to the process.

Houston, you're exactly correct. "job killing" is just a buzz phrase that's been used because it plays to people's emotions. It's applied to everything the wealthy elites require of their Conservative servants in order to enrich themselves. What's good for America isn't the issue.

Thanks for adding good thoughts to my Op Ed. Houston is right, job killing is republicanese for big business doesn't like it because it might hurt their bottom line; ignoring of course, their bottom line will suffer with other extraneous costs such as the millions they spend lobbying against something when a fraction of those millions could have been spent implementing the regulations. Big business is short-sighted.

Here's another thought I've been mulling over. Why did John Kyl threat to hold the START treaty hostage when every previous and current Secretaries of State and Defense (minus Rumsfeld) and so many others said START must be passed? He and his fellow blockers made a big issue out of the preamble to the treaty, declared it would harm America's ability to defend itself, etc, none of which was remotely true. Defense contractors were likely behind his "hold" and the filibuster attempt by him--those contractors wanted the additional funding for upgrades of current systems, for anti-missile defense systems and who knows what else. As US Navy said, connect the dots.

RE-POST FROM #1.1 AS COLLAPSED BY THE KEYBOARD COWARDS!!!!

As reported by ADP this morning, the job numbers have exceeded expectations. There were 297,000 new payroll jobs in December. Why? Because the economic plan of President Obama is working. All the leading economists have been telling us that the Job numbers are the lagging indicator of the economy. Businesses have been for the last few months saying they were going to start adding jobs and another report that verifies this was on the web this week.

Now I know the right wing is going to try and take credit for this, and that is a lie. This was projected by President Obama before the Nov election and guess what, he was right. The economy is moving forward, slowly but forward. Manufacturing has increase for the 17^th consecutive month and construction is up as well.

It is these facts that have the republicans in a tizzy and trying to do everything they can to slow this down or completely reverse it. From new spending rules in the House to the continued agenda of “Obstructionism”.

witt: do you completely forget the spending spree that the Cheney/Bush administration went on, including that little stunt where they lied us into war, WHERE PEOPLE DIED, and kept the war off budget? But, that was okey dokey, right, since they had a big R stamped on their rear ends.The damage to the economy stems from that time. I am in great hopes that the Republicans in the House will be as reprehensible as they are because it is clear that the American public has forgotten. So, let them do what they do. I'll just make popcorn, host the party at the Dew Drop Inn and watch. And for right wing cretins that are collapsing posts today. You must REALLY be afraid that others might have the opportunity to read a view that doesn't march lockstep with the mental midgets on Fox "News". That makes you...let's see, what is the word....ah yes, COWARDS. If I were you, I would do some soul searching and figure out why, when the only multi-syllable word you know is socialism, you act like third world dictators in the face of disagreement. But, I have more fun things to do today. My collie and I are off to school, where he will once again, prove that he is at the elite level.

REPOST: Compliments of the Collapse Cowards!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Comment collapsed by the community

Not to take the ‘wind out of the sails’ of the newly ‘crowned’ Weeper of the House… but… this little ‘morsel’ is much funnier than watching Agent Orange reruns of ‘The Crying Game’! lol

Only question remaining is whether or not ol’ John will be sober & if his little lapdog Eric Cantor will be scurrying behind him with the box of Kleenex?

According to ABC News, Tea Party maven Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is “seriously weighing whether to seek Republican nomination for president in 2012.” Bachmann will travel to Iowa to meet with “political forces” and “party elders close to the caucus process” before making her final decision.

Bachmann/Palin 2012 - ‘Bat Sh!t Crazy & the Clubber’ - YOU BETCHA! *wink wink*

• !

#1.34 - Wed Jan 5, 2011 10:53 AM EST

Final Score:

Obstructionists-87

Democrats-9

Great Post Jody - Iowa!

All I want to know is who will be buying Boehner's yearly supply of tissues to wipe up his constant crying. Are we the taxpayers going to pay for that?? LOL

joejoe1944

Houston I have news for you the unemployed is takeing advantage of the system.

Thanks for illustrating what I just said: The conservatives' professed concern about jobs is totally bogus; the fact is that they despise the unemployed. The only jobs the Republicans and their corporate masters are interested in creating are jobs in foreign countries where corporations can get workers who will work in unsafe conditions for poverty-level wages.

Whether you know five people who "take advantage" of unemployment benefits, aside from being a lame attempt to change the subject, is a meaningless anecdote. Hundreds of people typically show up to interview for a handful of mimimum-wage job openings at places like Walmart. And it's more than just an anecdote that corporate parasites who took advantage of the lax regulatory environment created by the Republicans were responsible for what would have been a Second Great Depression had President Obama not intervened to halt the total collapse o fthe US economy.

Compliments of the Collapse Cowards -

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Comment collapsed by the community

As I said before, the next two years is shaping up to be a freak show. Instead of Jobs, as the right promised, their first item is to vote on HCR repeal

Oh it's going to be a freak show alright... no question about it!

Speaking of questions - I thought Boner & his cohorts #1 priority was JOB creation? Instead they're on a witch hunt to repeal HCR (which by the way has ZERO chance of passing in the Senate & Presidential veto power)... but I digress...

What Americans SHOULD be focused on is WHY the Republicant's have not offered up a viable alternative?

We've heard they have a plan for over 2 years now... when are they going to share it with the rest of us?

Nothing more than business as ususal... they have theirs and 'F' everyone else!

Let the BLUBBERING begin!!!

Funny... they can't answer the question, so they attempt to silence it... Wonder why THAT is?

PS: You're welcome & Thanks Retired!

It would be nice to see Congress reform itself, but I am not holding my breath. It will make for some high comedy when the so-called Tea Partiers remember (or learn for the first time) how the Consitution says the government works and discover that owning one leg of a three-legged stool only means you can make things wobble a bit or worse.

As for real reform, that won't happen unless we rid the country of the scourge of political parties, period. George Washington said it best in his Farewell Address:

They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

In other words, alternating, short-term, inconsistent rule by the lunatic fringes is expected to be the norm with political parties. Meanwhile the intelligent, reasonable person in the middle who can see much further down the road (than any politician besotted with their particular form of dogma), has no voice.

Outlaw political parties, and ban any re-election (i.e. term limits of one term for everyone) -- then we might see an intelligent, responsive Congress.

What it means is....... the middle class will be screwed

What it doesn't mean..... jobs for the middle class

Socrates: The three-legged stool does not wobble, no matter how uneven the surface. To carry your metaphor further, having one leg shorter merely makes it tilt and the other three have to work harder.

Jody, outstanding post. The "job-killing" line resounded ominously. It is a rationale for restricting or repealing regulatory oversight that has deep roots in conservative opposition to "government intrusion" that was part of the loud chorus raised at many Tea Party events last year, and long before that - back to the John Birch Society days of the late '50's and the '60's.

Now, the rationale is expanded. "Smaller government and less spending" is another element of justification. It was used during the Reagan Administration to attempt to eliminate, or at least ignore, regulatory agencies and programs dating from before the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration. In some instances, Reagan was successful, as part of his disastrous course of de-regulation that has wrought havoc in America ever since, and that laid the foundation for the economic crisis we are now in.

Here are some targets we can anticipate:

1. Department of Education

This target is especially hated by the states' rights wing of the Tea Party/Libertarian movement. Although they tend to sometimes agree things such as school lunch programs might be useful (others who see this as welfare for the undeserving disagree), the claim is that the states are better administrators and that it is not the Federal government's job, nor, in extremists' arguments, even legal under the Constitution to become engaged in any education activities.

Here's a typical example, taken from The Oregon 10th Amendment Center website:

Of the money the state takes in (VIZ, $9257/year state expenditure, plus $1000/year Federal contribution), the amount actually spent on educational activity is $5074- what happens to the rest of the money? The rest is spent on compliance to federal mandates and a host of social costs associated with educating people who don’t speak English, to people with disabilities, to “hot lunches,” or to any number of other politically correct causes (not that I am arguing against those). My main beef on this is with the Federal Dept. of Education.

I will defy anyone to show me the enumerated authority in the U.S Constitution which gives the Federal Government the power to regulate or in any way control education. The Federal Dept. of Education does not educate; they simply take the money, (from the citizens of the several states), absorb 32% of it, and then return the rest along with a bunch of attached strings and red tape.

Source: http://oregon.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/the-federal-dept-of-education/

The constitutionality of a national education agency has long since been resolved, despite the plaints of people such as quoted above. That debate began when the Department of Education was separated from the former Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare in 1979 and elevated to Cabinet status. However, there has been a department or office at the Federal level since 1867. For the history, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education .

FDR long hoped to promote education during his Administration, but it was not until the Johnson Administration that a major national program was enacted. According to the Wikipedia site noted above,:

The primary functions of the Department of Education are to formulate and administer federal funding programs involving education, such as college financial aid, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights.

Unlike the systems of most other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards (with the recent exception of the No Child Left Behind Act). This has been left to state and local school districts. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal private process known as accreditation, over which the Department of Education has no direct public jurisdictional control.

Many of us recognize that the George W. Bush "No Child Left Behind" initiative was a cynical, costly, and ineffective effort that actually harmed public education. That's one program that President Obama has tried to correct, with little or no help for the GOP arty of NO.

2. Environmental Protection Agency and the Endangered Species Act. Wetlands Protection Programs, Clean Water Act, Coal-Fired Power Plant Emissions Regulations, Waste Water Discharge Regulations

The EPA overall is despised by ultra-conservatives and Libertarians, which claim that the agency is a Gestapo-like organization, imposes excessive burdens for regulatory complaince, and only wastes money while forcing businesses to invest in "non-productive assets." Such assets include investment in air pollution emissions control systems - some so sophisticated that a single micron-sized particle of hexavalent chromium is trapped from air discharged by chemical process line plants.

The various individual laws or regulatory regimes listed are individually either dismissed by the right wing as "phony," "interference with individual property rights," "too expensive for the benefit obtained," or "unreasonable obstructions to conducting business."

On the other hand, hundreds of communities along the Mississippi River, near massive chemical plants and refineries, are grateful that at least some regulations have eliminated diseases caused by filthy water and unbreathable air, cancer clusters, and accelerated corrosion of their homes and possessions. Some even have been protected from catastrophic failure of plants when fires or explosions occur.

And anyone living, working, or attending schools near plants emitting chromium six (hexavalent chrome, the pollutant found in PG&E's Hinkley discharge pond and water supply, chronicled in the film Erin Brokovich), enjoys a much longer lifespan than before high-efficiency pollution control systems were mandated. Chrome six is the second most deadly airborne carcinogen known today, behind benzine.

Taken as a whole an assault on the EPA and the listed regulatory regimes - and that's but a partial list - endangers virtually everyone living in, or visiting, the United States - plus the country's upstream and downstream neighbors, Mexico and Canada. It is shortfighted and foolish to think that these initiatives should be dismantled, regardless of the ideology of an arrogant and insensitive ultra-right political minority.

3. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and in general, Department of Labor

OSHA is an agency within the Department of Labor, which itself is also a target of many on the right.

Created in 1970, OSHA collated in one agency a wide range of various safety regulations and enforcement of standards, and now proposes regulations for workplace safety, enforces the regulations, and trains people in compliance. It's a large and complex undertaking that is constantly attacked by the right wing as "burdensome," "intrusive," and sometimes, "silly."

On the other hand, crane operators are usually very glad OSHA standards protect their lives. Workers at and neighbors of grain elevators may sleep better at night because OSHA programs have sharply reduced the number of deadly explosions caused by dust. And while 4,390 workers died on the job in 2009 (Source: http://www.osha.gov/), many times more than that are alive today thanks to Federal workplace safety programs. OSHA is not a "job killing" source of regulations; it's an agency to keep jobs from killing people.

The Department of Labor, overall, is a right-wing target because it keeps track of information many in private industry would just as well never saw print, because it regulates relationships between workers and employers, and oversees union organization and contracts. The extreme right, absurdly, considers unions "socialistic" - and, of course, rejects the very idea that employers have or would exploit workers at every opportunity.

There are many more programs and agencies on the GOP/TP "enemies" list, all in the alleged name of encouraging business growth, expanding employment, and promoting freedom while also reducing government intrusion and expense.

Virtually the entire program would take the United States into a wages and workplace situation equal to that now scourging Mexico, Singapore, and Bangladesh.

If it took them (Congress) this long to figure out that its the people's house then we are in trouble, because its full of morons.

jody,iowa - You claim...

"The GOP claims regulations are "job killing" but they ignore the fact that the regulations help prevent killing those who do the jobs, or as happened in 2008, killing the entire global economy and harming America"

OSHA has been in effect since at least the 80's and I know of no attempts by the republicans to repeal it or even claim to have the support to do so.

Do you mean Republicans were responsible for the "killing the global economy..."? Where were the democrats...on vacation? Does the EU know about this? China? India?

Or perhaps you mean US regulations killed the global economy? Please clarify.

Anyone (who handles money) can see that regulations contributes to the loss of domestic jobs as it adds costs to domestically made products and services at prices the american consumer is not willing/able to pay. Does this mean the GOP thinks that all regulations are bad? Of course not!

Ever stop to consider the number of regulations that will be generated just by by the two health care related acts and the financial reform act alone? Legislation that the democrats did not provide a funding source for. So who does the democrats expect to have pay for the additional gov't committees, bureacrats, office equipment and space from the local to federal levels?

Oh, I forgot, the average american consumer will pick up the tab as business just collects taxes and fees from the end user and passes it thru to the government. Seems like the only ones to really benefit from increased regulations will be the bankers, wall st, lobbyists, unions and an increase in government workers.

New speaker of the House today, and Jodi asks "where's the jobs?" Shouldn't this question be asked of Obama, Nancy and Harry, for they have had control for the past two years?

Have the Democratic Party leaders submitted legislation to create jobs? Create a detail plan? I think the answer is no.....for the three of them were creating Health Care and Stimulus Programs and Tarp II, those programs that haven't seemed to work.

joejoe1944

Houston I have news for you the unemployed is takeing advantage of the system. I personally know of 5 people that are taking advantage of it. They wont work unlessthey they can get a job like they had because it is beneith them to work as anything else. That is wrong a job is a job no mater what it is. That is why the illeagles are doing so well in this country , we think it is beneith us to do those jobs now. If they can make it on the pay they are recieving and send the money to mezico why can't our people do that and send them packing.

Well it's official, the unemployed, and probably the previously unemployed, including myself are all lazy because jojo here thinks he knows a handful of deadbeats. So no more unemployment anyone, because jojo know 5 arseholes. Okay, I've got my sarcasm out of the way now. Hey Joe, when I was unemployed I got to know a lot of my fellow unemployed via networking, and the like. Out of the approximately 400 unemploymed I met, 2 of them shared the attitude of your 5 buddies. Interestingly enough both of these gentlemen were white collar upper class (at least upper middle class) guys who drove european automoblies and lived in 500K houses and both voted Rebuplician and hated the current president and all democrats because the democrats "lazy, bloodsucking leechs". Pretty funny from 2 guys who thought taking a job making less than 250K a year was "below them".

Typical. So Joe, make sure you and croonies clean your house before you attempt to criticize others.

Hypocrites.

It's Wall Street's House. They financed the victory. Gee... I wonder why they did that? Good job, America

I sincerely hope I am proven wrong but if the Republicans think Boehner has found "Jesus" all of a sudden and is looking after us when he was the one handing out checks on the floor from the tobacco lobby doesn't bode well. This mess has been in the making for decades. The Republicans are just as guilty, if not more so than the democrats for creating this mess. Moving the chairs around every cycle isn't going to accomplish anything. Term limits and campaign finance reform!!

Excellent article, John A. Well thought out and articulate as usual. I know a teacher who fears that education will be unable to recover from No Child Left Behins and we will inevitably become a second-rate nation.

Unfortunate but true, 98% of us are just an overpaid labor pool for the wealthy elites who control the Republican Party and Conservative movement.

Look lemon heads, they won't dare change the filibuster rule. Democrats know they will lose the senate in 2012 and whatever they do the republicans will keep. Do you really want the democrats to lose the only tool they will have to stop what the republicans do? Even liberals aren't that stupid.

Isn't it amazing how, after republicans took the house, the private sector nearly doubled the jobs created? I guess business thinks it's safe to actually do something now instead of cowering in fear of the socialists. Of course Obama will try to take credit, but the voters will know better.

Well Dave in Kentucky,

If I ever go on unemployment, I myself am going to stay on it as long as I possibly can, if it pays the bills. I could probably make just as much in cash cleaning yards, cutting firewood, and other odd jobs, while collecting a check. Not all people are lazy, and some want jobs, but a good many like the fact they can wait until that perfect job comes back to them. Because we keep extending the benefits. Shoot almost 2 years without a real job, that would be a great vacation for some.

Phil - well, you're back again with some more tired propaganda.

Obama's policies not only got job growth moving, slowly at first, last year, but they influenced recovery to the point that growth will continue next year. It's a cumulative effect, and has nothing to do with the election of November. Just more spin and hot blather from you.

Some of you guys are clrowing, saying that the election results augured well for business and that any further recovery is all due to that. BS. Here's a handy update from Yahoo News:

Economists surveyed by CNNMoney are forecasting an average of 2.5 million jobs added to the U.S. economy this year, which would be the best one-year gain in hiring since the white-hot labor market of 1999.

Of the dozen economists who responded, several of the more bullish are predicting more than 3 million jobs added -- about 250,000 jobs a month. Even the most pessimistic of those surveyed, David Wyss of Standard & Poor's, expects 1.8 million jobs to be added this year, roughly double the pace of hiring in 2010.

That wouldn't be enough to climb out of the 8-million job crater created by the Great Recession and won't bring down the unemployment rate by a significant amount. An improved job market could even bring a short-term rise in the jobless rate, as those discouraged from job hunting resume looking for work and are once again counted as unemployed.

But the forecasted hiring boom could get the economy back into gear and provide real relief for many Americans

Last time you tried to plant propaganda - you remember, I made you eat crow on this one, too - you claimed that everyone should long for Bush when unemployment was 4.6%. Of course, when Bush left office then, it was 8% and climbing and the world economy was in the tank. In fact, you better be careful now - announced plans by the new GOP House leadership would of course immediately stop economic growth, and possibly shove the country further into a "double dip" recession.

Do you even understand what the proposed change is to the filibuster rule?

The change is to force someone to stand on the floor of the Senate and argue their position on a proposed bill.

They will no longer be able to call in a filibuster threat from the comfort of their Lazy-Boy in their living room.

Watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", if you want to see what the change to the filibuster will do.

The voters are smarter than you think. No one will be giving the party of NO credit for creating any jobs, for the last 2 years or for the next 2 years.

After another 2 more years of Republican obstructionism, the American people will finally wake up and put the Democrats back in charge of Congress.

BTW, Obama will be reelected by a landslide, as the GOP Tea Party won't have a viable candidate in 2012.

The economy has been growing for 17 consecutive months now, and economists were forecasting a growth rate of 3-4% for 2011 since at least late Summer.

Just like Conservatives to beg off responsibility for the enormous crash that originated in their own policies while their own guy was President while claiming responsibility for something that happened before they even took the majority.

In the world of politics that's called 'spin.' In the world most people inhabit that's called 'lying.'

socrates -- unfortunately, the people are not familiar to the fact that the founding fathers did not want:

1) church and state hand-in-hand with respect to civil government -- wake up people! the protestants left england because of religious persecution, ie: catholicism ruled at the time;

2) political parties -- ie: because united, we stand - divided, we fall! and we are falling!

3) this is a country of the people, the united states of america, not the corporate states of america

wow, these things are so simple and elementary. what about it is so hard to get????????

Johnb (post 2.3) - SO?? Why didn't you list the caveats as well, as relating to...

Continuing housing imbalances, state and local finances, europe's sovereign debt crises, chinas monetary policies, a weakened US $$$ and if a strengthened global economy means more US exports. Seems to be asking quite a bit for all these factors to resolve themselves favorably in 2011

It would be nice to see a gdp of 4% to bring in 2012, but I don't likehow the 1st three caveats are developing.

BTW - just like the liberals to claim they didn't have anything to do with anything before the "the great recession" More blame gaming by the libs! lmao!

johna (ref post 2.18) - There is no doubt that our k-12 system is a joke (ranked somewhere in the mid 20's world wide) and that "no child left behind" was poorly executed with way too much record keeping involved.

I believe that we need a federal dept of education, but in a far smaller size. they should be involved in creating the policies necessary to create a national standard by which the states dept of educations must implement and follow. Just to much duplication of functions between the state and federal levels.

Our last burst of educational k-12 goals occured just after sputnik in the 50's and carried us into the late 70's and early 80's and has been in decline since then due in part to requiring teachers and school boards to be PC, not require some type of meaningful discipline to those who choose to be disruptive to their class mates. Also many parents have failed to teach their kids discipline or even cared about it as they regarded teachers and schools to be babysitters instead of educators. On and one it goes.

All during this time since the 80's politicians have consistently and generously thrown $$$ into the k-12 system and still we showed a decline in effectiveness compared to other countries. More money hasn't helped and neither has a large federal dept of education.

With regards to OSHA I have never had a politician approach me or state at a caucus that it needed to be repealed. I have also never had an employer say that they were entirely happy with it either. Most construction OSHA rules are easy enough for the average worker to follow without incident and with many employers more than willing to release workers who didn't follow the rules. A large % of violations occur due to employers not adequately documenting safety training, continual education and other violations dealing with written documentation. Also the $$ cost of having the worker be safe is miniscule compared the potential cost of lost time injuries and workers comp claims.

With regards to other regulations it is a no brainer to say that THEY DO in part kill domestic jobs and do encourage job migration overseas where no such regulations occur or the cost of compliance is very little. This doesn't mean that some environmental regs aren't good,, but rather that the american consumer or one overseas is unwilling to pay the american manufacturer a premium for a product made in the USA over one made overseas. One can argue quality of life all they want to, but eventually it will boil down to what the consumer is willing to accept in a tradeoff.

I hope you are right Jody about Boohoo Boehner being held accountable for governing and not just sound bites. But I suspect that the right-wing media (FOX and Hate Radio) will spin the Teapublican failures in some way as to blame the Dems, or hybrid seeds or something. The far-right are delusional, so what makes you think these folks could ever buck up?

We told them Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11, and that Obama was not going to be thrown out of office because he was not born in Kenya, and we told them Republicans had no plans and are clueless how to restore the American Dream (assuming they even care). Facts only make conservatives more entrenched.

Once the GOP finishes symbolically repealing health reform, what are they going to do to address rising health care costs and rising numbers of uninsured?

What are they going to do to offset the increase in the deficit as a result of the repeal of health reform?

Where's the beef?

As always, great post Bill. The Triangle of Dope has finally been broken in Washington DC. Now only Obama and Reid remain, and Reid is very much weakened after the 2010 elections. The House though is what controls the budget, controls the spending, controls the agenda. The first order of businesses is to repeal the highly unpopular ObamaCare legislation. The main stream media is going with the line that this repeal will die in the Senate, but there may be some surprise flips on the Democratic side to vote for this repeal. Many of those Democrats are up for re-election in 2012, and they see what happened to many of their peers in 2010. Obama of course will veto it if it got to his desk, but he's just in his current job temporarily, so that problem will be solved soon enough.

@Nash

If they can't repeal HCR why are health care costs still rising along with the number of uninsured? I thought these were two of the problems HCR was supposed to address?

Alan,

As you know, many of the provisions of HCR haven't even been implemented yet. Unlike a made-for-TV movie, real solutions take time to be implemented and take effect.

Alan, NJ: If they can't repeal HCR why are health care costs still rising along with the number of uninsured?

Please don't frustrate the Libs with trick questions. And remember, as with all Liberals schemes, it's all about the Libs good intentions, and not the bad results.

Joanna Smith, do some math! Reid won by a substantially larger margin this year than his last two elections! At least, much more than 2004! Weakened? Not as long as Republicans keep nominating tube steaks to run against him!

As you know, many of the provisions of HCR haven't even been implemented yet.

The Soviets said the same thing about communism. After 70 years of trying to make it work, they gave up on it.

AF - Joanna Smith, do some math! Reid won by a substantially larger margin this year than his last two elections! At least, much more than 2004! Weakened?

How many Democrats, Socialists, Independents were in Reids caucus yesterday? How many will be in his caucus an the end of today? Do the math AF.

Health Care costs have been increasing long before President Obama came into office. This is one of the major issues that is driving up the costs of Medicare. The fact that there are no controls on the Insurance Industry and they can raise rates anytime and still do. Now they are trying to get every nickel they can before the controls of the HCR become law. This is worse that symbolic no matter how you spin it. The republicans know they have a very slim chance of repealing the HCR so they can say anything they want knowing they are not going to have to back their rhetoric up. Like the "Insurance Mandate" which is a republican agenda for over 30 years going back to Nixon. They know the HCR will not be repealed and this mandate will not be in harms way. It is all the same old political rhetoric from the right that has no basis in fact or reality, nothing more than a dog and pony show for their base and they better hope it does not blow up in their face. Sooner or later people are going to old the right responsible for what they say and if they do not perform then we will see what happens.

JoAnna:

Once clear sign that you have lost an argument is when you bring up communism or socialism. . . what's next . . . teleprompter? lol

Again the conflation of HC costs and HC Insurance. If Insurance companies were the real villains then their % of profits versus revenues would be rising. However, it has been flat between 2.5% and 4% for the last 10 years.

What is driving up the cost of premiums is the cost of health care. Most of this is incurred in the final 6 month of life. That is why there should have been a real debate on "DEATH PANELS" because they are needed. Instead of both sides demagoguing the issue there should be a debate on HC rationing. We can't pay for everything for everybody.

I believe the state of Oregon creates a budget and then decides what procedures it can pay for.

Wrong again, Alan.

In the midst of a deep economic recession, America's health insurance companies increased their profits by 56 percent in 2009, a year that saw 2.7 million people lose their private coverage.

In 2009, the top five health insurance companies saw a profit increase of 56 percent, their best year ever, according to a report by Health Care For America Now.
(Getty Images)

The nation's five largest for-profit insurers closed 2009 with a combined profit of $12.2 billion, according to a report by the advocacy group Health Care for American Now (HCAN).

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699

JoAnna:

You are President of my Fan Club, so you tell me!

And you are right, we never "argue", because you are incapable of responding to information that conflicts with your talking points, thus the predictable "communism" dribble.

Alan:

How is it that health insurance companies always make a profit, even in a recession bordering on a great depression? It is because they raise their rates, cut their services, and cherry pick who gets treatment. Most businesses (or individuals for that matter) don't have that luxury.

Bernie Sanders is a Socialist Nash. And he's in Harry Reid's caucus. Just tell'n ya.

And I'm going to need a raise if you want me to continue being Prez of your fan club. By the way, bad news, membership is down, to zero.

You seem a bit edgy today. Something wrong?

How is it that health insurance companies always make a profit, even in a recession bordering on a great depression?

My gosh, someone is making a profit?! Why can't the government just run everything and take those silly profits out of everything? Profits, always causing problems, they're nothing but trouble.

You make valid points, Bill, about the numbers and who will/will not vote for the repeal. The problem is that republicans mention their alleged majority of voters opposed to the HCR as their justification; what they fail to add to their misleading statements is that this majority felt the bill did NOT GO FAR ENOUGH; they do not want it repealed, they want it fixed. The only people who want it repealed is the GOP base and that is only because the GOPTP has successfully mislead them on the truth about HCR. HCR is not "job killing" legislation; in fact, it helps business provide it; the costs to business are tax deductible, and it provides a path to stop the 45,000 American deaths each year which were preventable. The health of and health care for the American people is not a political game--real lives are at stake. Shame on the republicans for placing politics above people in the name of big business insurance profits.

Where are the jobs, Speaker Boehner?

JoAnna:

Being President of my fan club is something you do for love, not pay, remember? :o)

P.S. Still worked the word "socialist" into your post . . . do you get paid extra for that? lol

Many companies made profits over the last few years including the banks. Why do you only pick on Health Insurers? I am not a defender of them, their business practices or their business model. However, having worked in the industry I know its not just them to blame for higher prices. They are basically a middle-man caught between high provider increases and drug companies.

Nashville,

Haven't talked in while, what's the word in the land of Titans--who goes, who stays?

As for the HCL--I have 2 problems with it--1. Mandated insurance for everyone--where is the freedom of choice for the American people--they are free to chose an insurance program or be fined by the federal government. That is socialism/communism, where is our 1st amendment right to choose. 2. The federal government, both sides of the aisle, chose not to regulate the cost of insurance premiums, because that would take away from the profits of the big corporations that many on here hate. In some areas of the country, insurance premiums have gone up 30% or more, where is the cost savings? Why are companies having to ask for waivers to keep from dropping people off their health care coverages? I think that regulations would have done more for health care than mandates. But that is just me. What do you think?

Jody: this majority felt the bill did NOT GO FAR ENOUGH; they do not want it repealed, they want it fixed

Thanks, Jody! You said it much better than I could have.

I don't understand how people could NOT want some sort of general health care. Or how they expect the solution to the health care issues to happen overnight. Or how they don't understand that the problems we are having with health care now are exactly the reasons it needs to be fixed. Health care affects not only our cost of living (literally!) but also our productivity.

How can congress talk about repeal of health care reform when they have nothing with which to replace it? If congress truly feels that health care should be repealed, then they need to surrender all of their (government funded!) health care benefits as well.

The current overused phrase in politics today is "Repeal and Replace" when a more mature and honest one should be "Review and Refine". There are several provisions in the HCR Law that the majority of the American people support and some of them were Republican contributions. Anything this complicated takes refinement that take time and study. Social Security is a prime example of the thoughtful process that must take place to create a finished product.

This idea that they will repeal the law is showmanship at best, and a huge waste of time and money in reality. You don't tear down a newly built house just because you don't like the wallpaper in the den.

Alan:

The reason I am talking about for-profit health insurance companies is because we are discussing health care reform.

Big Bear:

There is no "freedom of choicet" for health insurance. That is a myth:

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- Consolidation among health insurers is creating near-monopolies in virtually all reaches of the U.S. - with the most dominant firms grabbing more market share by several percentage points a year - according to a study released Monday.

Data from the American Medical Association shows that in each of 43 states, a handful of top insurers have gained such a stronghold that their markets are considered "highly concentrated" under Department of Justice guidelines, often far exceeding the thresholds that trigger antitrust concerns.

The study also shows that in 166 of 294 metropolitan areas, or 56%, a single insurer controls more than half the business in health maintenance organization (HMO) and preferred provider networks (PPO) underwriting.

"This problem is widespread across the country and it needs to be looked at," said Dr. Jim Rohack, an AMA trustee and physician in Temple, Texas. "The choices that patients have now are more difficult."

The AMA study cited a Justice Department benchmark in citing antitrust concerns, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, or HHI. A score above 1,000 shows "moderate" concentration. Those scoring above 1,800 yield a "high" concentration.

Figures show that 95% of the 294 HMO/PPO metropolitan markets studied were above 1,800. Raise that HHI bar even higher to 3,000 and yet more than half, or 67%, rise above it.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/study-confirms-health-monopoly-fears

I personally think that the obsession with the mandate is a bit overblown and is a red herring to keep us from talking about the fact that there is no free market for health insurance that would help to keep costs competitve if it existed.

Every person alive today will need medical care at some point. We need to accept that fact and design a health care system based on reality, and not profits. And the irony is, health insurance mandates is a conservative idea, that now is being used as political wedge issue by the same people who originally proposed it.

Like I said above, enough arguing about minutia and running "against" stuff . . . what is the GOP going to do to address the problem?

Nash,

But even with the fewer choices between companies, people have the choice of whether or not to purchase health insurance, without being fined.

Another point, your article points out to, is if the congress, under democratic control last year, was so anti-big business like many on here are, why weren't they trying to break up these so called monopolies. I would think that every democrat on here would be for that, to cut the profit margin of the big corporations.

So instead of stopping these major corporations the past 4 years, the democratic party has made sure that they are going to make more money by making sure that all Americans are forced to purchase their product. Yet prices go up, not down.

BigBear:

How do you propose that Democrats break up these monopolies? Already, even with the modest reforms proposed, folks are going apesh!t talking about death panels and "government take overs" of health care.

Those benefitting from the current system spend billions of dollars to insure that the American public believes all sorts of lies and target any members of Congress who don't do their bidding to be defeated.

Who is going to stand up to that Big Bear? Who?

Nash: A quick happy New Year to you, and then I am out the door. Just wanted to let you know that JS1 thought an apt comparison to the work that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did as a community organizer was to Al Capone. I think there is nothing more that needs to be said to her, she is beyond the pale.

My premiums go up because people don't have insurance and the costs is handed down to people who have insurance.. Like me who pays for those who don't have it through higher premiums ......... savvy

GOP doesn't know how to create jobs or keep them here so what does it matter? How can people pay for insurance without a job.....take the country back like you said by helping the middle class not destroying it...man if repubs spent more time figuring out how to get rid of the Taliban than the middle class we might become a nation again

Nash,

From listening to many on here, that was what the democrats stood for--anti-big corporations. That they were the root of all evil, which some are, I will admit, but for the democratic party of help out these corporations--by forcing people to purchase their product, they themselves are no better than the big corporate loving GOP. Gee, I think that last big trust buster was Teddy Roosevelt--wasn't he a Republican:)

I, like you, would rather have the truth. I would love to have seen more regulations that prevented increased costs, than allowing these major corporations the ability to make a bigger profit. I am just disappointed that our government has mandated that everyone purchase a product so someone, other than myself, can make a profit. I guess I am off to purchase health insurance stocks. Since I didn't win the lottery last night:(

Happy New Year to you too Newday!

P.S. Not surprised that JS1 once again finds herself on the outside of reality looking in.

Big Bear:

It really doesn't matter what you "stand for" if you don't have enough money to fill the airwaves 24/7 the way the folks who peddle lies do.

Good luck with your stocks and Happy New Year.

Joe Joe 1944

You stated the reason that the health care costs are rising is because of lawsuits against doctors. My husband had a fall, I called for an ambulance and they took him to the nearest hospital. The doctor that treated him said he had a urinary infection. I questioned her about his right right, he was having trouble moving it. My husband had a stroke and the doctor at the hospital didn't realize it. My husband should of been treated within three hours of his stroke with medication. He wasn't, the doctor sent him home. Now he is paralyzed on the right side. Will I sue this doctor, you betcha. The doctors arrogance and lack of ability sentenced my husband to pain, physical therapy and I can only pray that he will recover.

Alan - death panels? You mean palin was right about them? Looks like the libs again used disinformation and ridicule to drown her out on "death panels"

I'm not going to get into a whole healthcare debate today. Bottom line is there are certain sectors of our economy that have to do with people's survival that should not be gambled on the stock market. I firmly believe that if you want to fix healthcare insurance companies must be set up as not-for-profit. I also believe the payment structure must be changed. We should be spending our healthcare dollars on quality not quantity. People who don’t want government run healthcare should know that roughly 65% of healthcare is already government run. The sky hasn’t fallen. Half of these people complaining about it are probably on Medicare. You just have to laugh at the double standard even though this is a serious issue. They would rather have the insurance company standing between them and their doctor.

That's right american, thanks to Tea Party Republican Governor Jan Brewer and her Conservative buddies Arizona now has death panels;

Tiffany Tate needs a lung transplant. She was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis when she was just four months old. It is a condition that's made it impossible to work full time, impossible to get health insurance. Her lungs will deteriorate with age.

So at age 27, Tiffany Tate needs a lung transplant. But in our third story, if all that were not enough, add one new obstacle because Tiffany Tate lives in Arizona.

And she is just the latest person to fall victim to Governor Jan Brewer and the death panel. She joins me in a moment. As we have reported on this news hour, Governor Brewer and state Republican lawmakers have cut funding for arizona's Medicaid program access, thus denying life-saving organ transplants to low-income patients.

The governor calls the program a "Cadillac plan" and has defended her death panel by explaining that transplants qualify as "Cadillac" and optional care.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/arizona-gop-death-panel-denies-lung-t

If, in turn, Gov. Jan Brewer (with the blessing of those same dark angels) chooses to take an expensive trip to Washington to attend a Supreme Court hearing at which she cannot speak and during which the state's lawyers defend an employer-sanctions law that has been completely ineffective - and she does this rather than call a special session to address the needs of seriously ill citizens - then, yes, death panel is the appropriate description.

It could be that legislators will change their minds and decide to renew funding for the life-saving transplant operations that had been eliminated for some AHCCCS patients.

Some seem to be leaning that way.

But the governor says that she first wants them to come up with a solution to the state's $1 billion budget deficit.

It's a cruel political card to play.

The budgetary savings projected from allowing gravely ill working people to die for lack of transplants has been described as somewhere between $1.4 million and $5 million for a year.

Arizona's budget is about $8.5 billion.

Does anyone doubt that a determined budget cutter could find other ways to trim those billions without condemning sick people to death?

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/12/09/20101209Montini1209.html#ixzz1ABPvvsVn

fielden. You're welcome. The irony of the GOP continuous attack on the Health Care bill is that many of them supported it, they talked about the need to fix the problems; it was republicans who wanted the mandated purchase; even today, they go on TV and state they agree with the pre-existing conditions, covering children, expanding coverage to age 26, fixing the "donut hole" yet they fight every aspect they actually support for political gain. Instead of selling their base on the good, they sold it as evil "government take over" that would kill grandma because of nonexistent death panels. The sad and pathetic part is had former President Bush pushed this legislation, they would have embraced it.

"Iam woman" is I was jojo and/or JoAnna (same person) I tell you "yes you are part of the probelm". But I'm not, so I will say I hope your husband recovers as much as possible.

Honestly I hope Boehner and his little t party gets their way and they do repeal HCR. All of it. Once they do I'll drop that crappy health insurance plan my employer provides and do it the conservative way. No health insurance at all for me or my family, if we need healthcare we'll just go to our local ER, get our healthcare and then refuse to pay! Screw it, let someone else pay for my bills. that's the republician way.

nashville (post 3.30) - trying to say the republicans have better organizational skills, better planning and a more focused agenda than democrats?

Are you saying that even with the $$$ backing of Unions, Soros, Jobs, Gates, Buffet and other wealthy individuals (perhaps even JP morgan) the democrats don't have the financial means or the financial know how to sell themselves? Thought the democrats were the media darlings? What happened?

american:

Interesting that you list individuals and unions on one side, but the other side is basically all the "corporate people" who are benifiting from the status quo and more importantly run the media and the Congress in this country.

No contest.

Ed 155.... Another irony, Blue Cross began as a nonprofit insurance company and for years it worked as it should and as you suggest. It was not traded on the stock market. Because others saw the potential for profits, eventually without people realizing what was happening, health insurance companies became money making institutions. Too bad we didn't notice, too bad we didn't create national public health care when FDR then Truman spoke of it before the "for profit" system took the helm.

All government health care systems have death panels. Do you think they are immune from budget issues?

Voting for repeal is a smart move for the republicans. They should do it every six months or so to keep it in the minds of the voters. Democrats lost because they lost the moderate vote when they passed Obamacare. Since the country is 40% conservative, 21% liberal and the rest moderate, democrats need overwhelming moderate support to get elected, (Van Jone's numbers, not mine).

Saying that Obamacare would lower the deficit was a lie. The CBO can only work with the numbers congress gives them and congress gave them outrageous metrics. Since republicans already won the HC debate I don't know if they'll bother but it would be nice if they gave real assumptions to the CBO and asked them to rerun the numbers. That would be another political coup and further damn the democrats.

Valhalla Phil:

Can you prove that health care reform would not lower the deficit? The truth does not cease to exist because you refuse to acknowledge it.

Why should we believe you instead of the CBO? Where are you getting your info?

You talk of political victories, and that is great, but how does that solve the healthcare crisis in this country?

Here is the dirty little secret that Republicans do not want you to know . . . They are in favor of mandatory health insurance for the poor, but not themselves.

You see, currently the tax payers foot the bill for the uninsured who can not afford medical care. That's right, if you do not have insurance and can not afford treatment, the government will pay. I know someone that just had brain surgery, with no insurance and low income . . . the government paid all $600k of the procedure.

Now, you would think that the Republican party would be in favor of mandatory insurance because they are opposed to handouts. Just like welfare, the Republicans are against free medical care for the poor who are not insured. They want THESE people to get mandatory coverage, but they do not want to be held to the same standard. And THAT is their dirty little secret . . . mandatory coverage for the poor, so that they do not get free medical care. Optional coverage for the rich, so that they can keep their money.

Still trying to deny that 62% of voters said the economy was a factor in their vote, only 19% said health care, VP?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/02/first-exit-polls-economy/

You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

BigBear:

Nash's point, which you ignored or missed, is that EVERY person alive today will need medical care at some point. To carry that further, ER's and other health-care providers GENERALLY WILL provide that health care. What is the other alternative? Disability and death by default? Even if there were some way to get people to agree not to use health care services without paying up front for those services, those agreements would generally go by the wayside when actual medical needs arise. The sad truth is that people are generally not rational, nor good at planning long-term for needs that they currently cannot identify. Even those who COULD save up for possible future healthcare needs, many of them, would not. That is why we have insurance. There is no practical way to ensure that those without insurance will not become a drain and a burden on their neighbors and society either through "free" services being given and written off or through deferrment of treatment until conditions become far more severe, expensive and possibly untreatable--most likely a combination of deferrment and then much more espensive treatment.

So if we eliminate the "individual mandate", we are still on the hook for those costs. They don't just vanish.

The constitutionality question is valid, but realistically, given that people DO get sick, the only way to solve that (besides changing the constitution or its interpretation) would be to put provision of health care on the same level as providing for the common defense (which it really is). Why is there a Department of Defense, but no similarly mandated-and-paid-for Department of Health and Human Services? Wait, there is such a Department!

But it's much more sexy and easily sold to fight a common, FOREIGN enemy (preferrably far away, where we don't have to see all the damage done), personified as Saddam or Osama or Hitler or whoever, than to fight a common, DOMESTIC enemy that cannot be so simply personified. That is why it is both clever and disgusting of those who oppose it, when the word "Obamacare" is coined. Now the legitimate threat embodied in healthcare is personalized in Obama, instead of its legitimate location in millions of injuries and illnesses and people segmenting markets and maximizing profits and denying claims and coverage, and the crushing debt burdens and untreated conditions that cause suicides and destroy families, weakening the fabric of our society. Label it "Obamacare" and "socialized medicine", playing on fears old and new, and thus people are fooled, and fool themselves, into voting counter to their interests.

Certainly there are questionable parts to this law. Frankly I doubt that any better could have been passed, given the irrational system and the prejudices and pressures involved.

Bistromathics,

Of course everyone gets sick, I understand that, but is it my responsibility to pay for your sickness. I think not. Obamacare does not control the cost of insurance, it does not bring it down nor will they ever decrease, because their are no regulations. But that is a liberal point, everyone should get something, but who is going to pay for the mandated insurance when someone can't afford it. The wealthy again. Many on here have NO shame in taking from others to provide for someone else. This country was founded on personal responsibility, but now all everyone wants to do is have the government take care of them.

I am not playing on anyone's fears, I have lived long enough to know that when our government is involved in something, it is usually screwed up, or there is way too much paperwork. Our congress sold out to the insurance companies, because if you have read Nashville's posts, these companies are forming monopolies, which neither side of the aisle is going stop. Too much money in the election to go against them. As long as the insurance companies can blame taking pre-existing conditions, and the like as reason for cost going up, they are going to profit. So if I were you and you wanted to get rich. Purchase stocks in Health insurance companies & the drug makers.

Big Bear:

When folks receive medical treatment and can't pay for it, that cost is passed along to everyone, not just "the wealthy". That is a cost we are already paying, so no matter what happens with health reform, the problem will not vanish because you don't want to pay.

Joannasmith....please don't presume that you talk for all of us because you don't. My biggest pet peeve on these comments is that most people try to lump everyone into one group. I, personally, don't think we should repeal the Healthcare Plan because I can see down the road that it will eventually put money into the budget. I, personally, am TIRED of paying my hard-earned taxpayer money to pay for care for people who do NOT have insurance either because they can't afford it or because they know they will get care even without it. I, personally, DO agree that it needs to be reviewed and some changes made; however, it is hoped that it will do the job down the line. Secondly, I, personally, believe that the Republicans are going to end up costing us more money than they are going to save us. Again, these are MY feelings and I'm not putting them on any particular group because you can't. If you're going to comment here, please take responsibility for yourself and don't push your "feelings" on any particular group because we're all different in what we believe!!

Why should we believe you instead of the CBO?

Why should we believe the CBO?During the ObamaCare "debate", which was actually the time Congressional votes were being bought behind closed doors, the CBO was being asked to produce answers to extremely complex questions in a matter of hours. There is not company or an organization in the world that can produce that information with any kind of accuracy in the time frames they were given. The CBO report was held up by the Democrats as the one and only true proof that their plan would in fact work, when in fact it was nothing but a quick look guess-timate using best case scenario data.

What should have been done was to have several companies, independent from the government, do a detailed audit of the ObamaCare plan.Companies like PricewaterhouseCoopers do those types audits all the time, and they take months to do so, and produce a detailed report that are complete and accurate. But yet, on the biggest entitlement ever taken up by the federal government, these types of independent studies were never even considered. Too bad for the country.

Where's the PricewaterhouseCooper report on the Republicans' Medicare prescription drug plan?

John B., another good example, and there should have been an independent audit, but yet there was none.

But it sounds John like you're agreeing with me, that all legislation of such largeness should have an independent audit.

Nope, just pointing out that you're asking for an unprecedented level of confirmation, attempting to set the bar so high that nothing can pass. If Conservatives can't get a big new giveaway to the wealthy elites they'll settle for not doing anything for the other 98% of Americans.

nashville - guess I am not familiar enough on the names of right wing billionaires, but your post referenced lack of funding for the democrats and plenty for the republicans so what do names matter for the republicans if you say they have plenty? another billionaire I know of is Bloomberg, but as he says he is independant don't know where he contributes. I do know that i watch bloomberg TV on a regular basis and I don't recall seeing political ads on it. Quite a few economists, pundents and bulls with very few bears.

Bill in Fairfax - thanks for the articulate post! Well stated...

I'm pretty sure Chairman Mao referred to a lot of things as "the people's" after he lied and bullied his way through his governement, and Comrade Boehner seems to be continuing the tradition. The new spirt of nationalism being cultivated by the Tea Party is both short sighted and dangerous. They have elected these ridiculous uneducated puppets to lead us to ruin. Anybody that doesn't think the Republican Party is evil is likely in league with them, or too blinded by Patriotism and lacking in common sense.

johnb - you say...

But the governor says that she first wants them to come up with a solution to the state's $1 billion budget deficit.

It's a cruel political card to play.

When my father died of cancer my mom was despondent and the rest of the family saddened. He and my mom had appropriate insurance + medicare and some cash on hand so an operation was not out of the question. My mom decided against the operation based on what "a quality of life" after surgery and chemo would be.

Death comes to everyone (except perhaps one generation) why shouldn't we die with dignity and respect rather than relying on a political concept to sustain our lives. I am talking about illnesses where "costs to the general welfare of the people" far outweigh the quality of life of that individual might have IF they survive.

You appear (as many others do) that $$$ can always be found to sustain and promulgate social programs at the expense of the taxpayer and a countries economic future. I guess our recent descent into recession is of no concern to you.

Someone once said I was crazy to sarcastically suggest that we allow America to default on its debt obligations by not increasing our debt ceiling. Yet you seem to not even care about Americas future debt as you suggest that the life of one far outweighs the lives of the many when someone asks to have budgetary issues addressed first. Yes, choosing life or death is a hard decision, but not a cruel one. Those decisions are best left to family members to decide on a course of action.

How far down the road do you want to kick the can of debt? Do you really think that our children can afford it?

It would also be nice if the GOP didn't start out by saying that nothing can be passed that raises the deficit, unless it is tax cuts or repealing health reform (which is paid for and REDUCES the deficit). .

The CBO makes predictions based on information given to them by Congress. It doesn't take into consideration changes made to the law afterwards, backdoor deals, slight of hand legislation or intentionally left out information to make the numbers look good.

But cost projections by the CBO are notoriously unreliable, and history is filled with examples of federal programs - especially in health care - that cost far more than originally predicted.

In 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance program of Medicare - the federal health care program for the elderly and disabled - would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost that year was $67 billion.

In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion.

In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid - the joint federal-state health care program for the poor - would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.

The list goes on. The 1993 cost of Medicare's home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress.

Obamacare's projections were just phonied up to give Democrats talking points. No one believed them. Anyone paying attention knew that they were fake. They served their purpose. Now the American tax payers will have to fund yet again another loser entitlement program.

Dear IhopeHellhasCableTV:

Listen. . .

All "projections" are educated guesses with the best information available.

So basically, nothing you typed is earth shattering.

Interesting how when what the CBO says matches what folks wanna hear, its good enough.

Judging by your name, I have a feeling that you pretty much know everything, so let me know when I can donate to your Presdential run.

Why is it conservatives only agree with the CBO when it is used by the GOP to justify their legislation? You fail to mention that the Bush/GOP Rx Medicare Plan kept the real CBO scores on the costs hidden until AFTER the legislation was passed; and worse, they passed it without funding it. You fail to mention that Bush said the war in Iraq would not cost much but both wars have added about $3 trillion to the debt and none of it was funded. You also fail to recognize that the cost of health care has increased far beyond expectation because of technology, the advances in medical knowledge and ability to keep people alive have been huge and the cost of that is enormous. Our increasing life expectancy also involves unforeseen costs; we're living longer but often living longer means more medication, more aches, pains and diseases--all of which are expensive. None of those intangibles could be foreseen or estimated by any group, the CBO, republican or democrat. Connect the dots; it is not simply a matter of CBO numbers.

I'll help you, Nash-

Since the electorate insisted last November in giving President Obama a solidly Republican House of Representatives, his poll numbers are rising.

Republicans, the voters, and people who respond to polls are all happy with the new paradigm...and President Obama isn't doing too badly, either.

I think that qualifies as a profound change...in the outlook going forward, if nothing else, eh?

By the way...

Happy New Year, Nash!

Oh my God.

Jody, I never said I agreed with the CBO at anytime. I think it's an absolute crock that they say "look at the CBO numbers" no matter what party it is. What they need to do is ask the American people if they want the legislation Congress is trying to pass.

I absolutely disagreed with Bush's Rx plan, it was just another entitlement unpaid for program.

What I do love is that not one of you can actually intellectually make an argument that we should still go forward with Universal health care even though I've shown historically it will not decrease the deficit. It's all about "what's fair".

Great post Jody!

Happy New Year Mixed Bag!

We don't have "Universal Health Care" I hopeHellhasCable! (Maybe you should cut off the TV and read a book . . . no Glen Beck though! :o>)

"But cost projections by the CBO are notoriously unreliable, and history is filled with examples of federal programs - especially in health care - that cost far more than originally predicted."

Nice job repeating the party line -- but the CBO wasn't even established until 1974.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office

It would also be nice if the GOP didn't start out by saying that nothing can be passed that raises the deficit,

True. They should start out with, "In accordance with the PAYGO legislation that president Obama signed into law..."

Repealing HCR fully will reduce the deficient! I wish they could pass this today - it will have to wait until 2012.

Anybody without Health Insurance would think HCR is good thing! However, somebody has to pay for it! And the way legislation is written does not mean it will be enacted (enforced) the same way. I see this as a bottomless pit!

Frank:

I sure do like your youthful optimism. There are a number of domestic issues that need to be addressed. Immigration comes to mind. I wish I could be as optimistic as you. We'll see.

Ron...I've only really been actively engaged in politics for a few years. I'm sure my optimism will be replaced by some healthy cynicism soon enough!! ;-)

Think about the HCR debate. There were quite a few points that in the Senate could have gotten 80-90 votes. Who was gonna vote against disallowing pre-existing condition exclusions? Very few if any. I think they could easily have put together a package of say 10-15 items on which nearly everyone could agree. Then, after those items are passed, go for the more controversial items. But unfortunately, the politics of the situation got hyped up to where neither side wanted to blink.

Frank:

Good to see you again. I trust you and your family had a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

I think the next 2 years are going to be some of the most important this young nation has faced. I, like you, hope that both parties can stop the bickering and get back to what is best for this country. Since my glass is half full I still think we may have more in common than not. We will always have the fringe elements on both sides and that is good if for no other reason than to keep every one their toes.

Time will tell "It was the best of times and the worse of times" (something like that). I think that famous statement pretty much says it all.

Have a great day and a prosperous New Year.

Hey Frank

That is the problem with HCR. To achieve the 10 or so items they could have agreed on they ripped apart the current system. Anybody who thinks private, employer based insurance will last for the middle class another 10 years is mistaken. The promise "If you like your current Health Insurance you can keep it" is already broken. What is currently in place is simply a stepping stone to single payer funded by taxes. The thing is I don't object to that type of system, it is the dishonest way of getting there that I object to.

I'll put it out there again. My first step would have been a "Medicare for Kids" program. Your covered until out of High School. After that all FT education must have an insurance component. This would reduce premiums to companies, increasing competition and reducing employment costs as any medical benefits would only have to include spouse. It would also allow greater mobility of labor as changing jobs would not affect your children;s coverage. This would have been paid for through taxation, not an individual mandate that I hope is unconstitutional.

USN...Thanks! The family had a great Christmas and New Year. Not sure how many more I've got with my kids believing in Santa. That's gonna be a bit sad when that era ends. Hope you have a fantastic New Year as well!

Alan,

Please 'splain to me how Health Care Refore as passed is a "stepping stone" to single payer funded by taxes.

If for profit health insurance dies, it will be because they priced themselves out of the market, not because of some evil plot by the "guvment".

Please 'splain to me how Health Care Refore as passed is a "stepping stone" to single payer funded by taxes.

First, medium size companies will do a cost benefit analysis and decide it's cheaper to pay the fine than pay for employee health benefits. I believe your governor said this was true of the state of Tennessee, that made financial sense to stop paying for state employee health insurance and move them into the pools set up in 2014.

According to the CBO there are approximately 120m people who potentially would be in this position. However, the CBO was instructed to only use a maximum of 19M in there models as the number of people who would be put in to the state run pools. Using that number and the percentage who would need subsidies to buy insurance the total cost of HCR came out just under 1T. However, if these assumptions do not hold, then the number of people moving into the pools would overwhelm the subsidies available and the program would fall apart.

At that point you now have millions with no insurance and no way of doing it unless you put severe price controls on the Insurance Companies and cut benefits. At that point the clamor for a public system would be overwhelming.

Alan...I kinda like your idea. I think that sort of set up could have been workable. My idea was to implement some of the more popular items and also to implement a rate increase cap equal to the annual change in the medical CPI + a 2% contingency factor...if an insurer wanted more than that amount, they would face an increased burden of proof. That way, if insurance rates kept skyrocketing, at least we'd know that it was 100% correlated to medical costs, and we could attack those.

Bottom line is that I think there were so many good middle ground ideas, but the politics of both sides got in the way.

Alan,

First of all, as much as I respect you, I would really love some links to the numbers you provided.

Second of all, even if all that you say is true, how is it the "guvment's" fault that the cost of private health insurance goes up more than 15% a year (and that is a conservative) estimate, while wages have remained stagnant for the past decade? Name another business that can survive with that type of price increase?

The health insurance industry has basically created a situation where a very few companies have monopolies on certain markets (and often entire states), and they face no competition and can charge whatever they want. It is this . . . and I hate to be blunt . . . RAPING of the American consumer that has created the need for health reform in the first place! To now say that the attempt to solve the problem is in fact the cause of the problem is just a bridge too far Alan.

Cry me a river for the sweet lil' insurance companies deciding which doctors are "in network", which drugs can be prescribed, and which patients will have their treatments denied or delayed until they die.

Frank "Grimey" Grimes. If only GOP legislators were as logical and sensible as you are. What a breath of fresh air--your hope for the next two years is my hope. Democrats do not have all the answers, neither do republicans; it takes both sides to produce quality legislation, both sides to move forward; both sides to find the common ground. Actually you echo President Obama's words in "The Audacity of Hope", about both sides having more in common than not.

@Nash

OK. Here's the op-ed by the governor of TN

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562643804015252.html

Here's a good case scenario

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/25/health-care-will-employer_n_773253.html

And here's a bad case scenario

http://americanactionforum.org/files/LaborMktsHCRAAF5-27-10.pdf?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=

No business can survive the 15% inflation thats why the debate should have been about rationing not insurance gimmicks. One of the biggest is that most of the new people covered will go into Medicade. They have coverage but in all likelihood no Doctor. It will also send the states into bankruptcy.

Alan,

Here's the thing . . . there is no "free market" for health insurance.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/study-confirms-health-monopoly-fears

Those in power control the market . . . AND they control the Congress.

I would argue that the also control the Supreme Court, but that's beside the point.

The point is, all the huff and puff about "Obamacare" is just a distraction from the real issue - we are all getting screwed over! I have insurance and still have to pay everytime I go to the doctor until my family meets a $5000 annual deductible.

Private health insurance is already a GIANT RIP OFF and the service offered is out of any proportion to what it costs!

And nobody is going to do anything about it because nobody has enough money to go up against the "corporate people" who have been newly endowed with rights of "free speech" and can fill the airwaves with demonstrable lies to get their way.

That is the real issue and that is why we spend all of our time debating periphery issues and blaming the "solutions" and ignoring the problems.

P.S. I did read Gov. Bredesen's op-ed . . . those are valid points, but as you know, it seems to me that it is a-okay for my family to absorb 20% insurance hikes and shrinking service for a decade, and nobody has a problem with it. Now it's time to get out my hankie for businesses who are going to SAVE MONEY in the new system and worry about their well being when nobody is looking out for mine? Sorry Alan, I'm having a tough time doing that.

Who's crying for the companies? My original point was that "Obamacare" will collapse and even less people will have insurance. At that point the public option will be offered if the Democrats are in power. If not then we'll all be weeping.

As I keep saying we need Health Care Reform not Health Insurance reform

I agree with you Alan, how do you propose that we get it in our current corrupt system where money talks and us regular folks are used as pawns in a game?

I mean, the whole narrative is that everything was fine until "Obamacare" came along . . . sounds good on cable shows but doesn't help anyone.

Alan, if that's the case it was already inevitable. The quadrupling of health insurance rates during the GW Bush Administration proves this, as it's part of a death spiral that the system has been in for over 20 years. Wall Street demands eternally increasing profits from the carriers so they increase rates to reduce the medical loss ratio. People drop insurance because they can't afford it. Their care is folded into an ever smaller pool of policyholders. Repeat the cycle every year for decades.

The system can't survive that.

The problem is Obamacare places new restrictions and taxes on medical company's, etc. which will drive up the cost instead of fostering competition. It also does nothing about tort reform which also increases rates over time. Obamacare actuallly increases costs and stifles innovation instead of controlling costs.

The democrats were smart in putting the few good parts of the bill up front and leaving the really nasty stuff until after the next election. But I don't think the voters are that stupid. The latest polls show 58% would rather have nothing than Obamacare. I know the republicans can't repeal it but they can starve the worst parts of it to death and do a full repeal and rewrite after next election.

Care to back up that claim with some supporting data, VP?

Valhalla Phil:

Why did Republicans do nothing to address the problem with rising health care costs when they controlled the White House and the Congress?

PRI's Corporate-Funded Tort Reform Study Proves Tort Reform Doesn't Work

http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/1957.htm

VP: Obamacare actuallly increases costs and stifles innovation instead of controlling costs.

The innovation part of health care has not been discussed within ObamaCare. The research and development of new diagnostic tools (such as MRIs), new drugs to treat diseases, and new techniques and processes to treat patients each take years and millions of dollars to develop. Much of the worlds innovation for medical care occurs in the US, but the Liberals never question why that is. It's because the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies are profit driven and know that to make a profit, they must continually come up with new and better medicine and medical. In the long run, that helps everyone. You don't see that innovation as much in other countries with socialized health care because nearly every dollar is used to treat patients using existing techniques and very few dollars go to improving the system.

When you take the profit out of the system, R&D for new medicines, tools, and techniques will dry up, and all those wonderful miracle cures we've seen over the decades will dry up with it.

JoAnna:

What is the point of a miracle cure if you can't afford to be treated?

Care to back up your claim with some supporting data, VP?

Nash, thousands of people each and every day are treated with the new and improved medications developed by our pharmaceutical companies. Thousands of people each and every day have access to diagnostic tools such as CAT scans and MRIs. Doctors improve their treatment of their patients with new techniques each and every day.

Do you deny that people, the vast majority of people, have access to these things? Did you ever go to a hospital? An imagining center? A clinic?They are usually full of people, waiting for their turn, and being treated. What is the point of developing all these wonderful tools and medications if there is no demand for it and the ability to pay for it? If the pharmaceutical companies price points for new medications are above what people can afford, they won't recoup their investment now will they? And the point of letting that happen would be what?

And yet you continue with the "lets make medicine not for profit" dogma. It is clear the US, with it's former health care system, led the world in developing these new and improved innovations in health care. Did you ever ask yourself why that is? But it will end with ObamaCare, again because the dollars in the ObamaCare system will be prioritized to pay the people's medical care and not be available for R&D.

So glad that everything is peachy keen in your alternate realty JoAnna.

Might be time to pull the ripcord and STTS or FDD out of this thread Nash. Things are not looking good for you.

Amy

Did you hear how the Unions (industrial and public sector) funded the Democratic party in the election, because they wanted to continue have control of government?

Sounds stupid doesn't it?

Now read your post - it says vitually the same thing from a different political slant.

And now President Obama is bringing in a JP MOrgan bigwig and the Architect of NAFTA to be CHief of Staff.

YOu must admit the irony is almost poetic,

Amy B. - I posted this elsewhere, but I'm going to put it here too with a bit of editing. Hedge Fund managers are a malignancy.

Class warfare is a red herring. There are two classes in this country - upper, which is a very tiny portion, and lower, which is everyone else. There is no honest statistical analysis that shows otherwise.

We have a very, very tiny subset within the wealthy folk group, called hedge-fund managers, who have been able to buy special tax treatment at the expense of low-income citizens. These jackals do not facilitate capital formation, they do not invest in business, they ARE NOT capitalists. They are exactly what I called them - JACKALS.

They are part and parcel of Wall Street money manipulators. They do not add value. Indeed, they remove capital and value from the markets. That is a verifiable and irrefutable fact. What these jackals have bought is special tax treatment for the wealth they have removed from capital markets. It is not enough that they pay themselves outrageous salaries for destroying, not just the U.S. economy, but the entire planet's, they want the money they have looted to be taxed at a 15% rate.

FIFTEEN PER-CENT on what is called "carried interest"!!!! That "carried interest" amounts to billions upon billions of dollars. Class warfare? I am citing the NOMINAL TAX rate here for comparison, but 15% is the rate for people making less than $34,000 annually. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

The "Class warfare" nonsense is a hollow talking point. This is about reducing the vast majority of Americans to serf status and relegating this country to permanent third-world status.

If "Class" has any meaning in this context, yes....Hedge Fund Managers are part of the CRIMINAL CLASS.

Robert in Ohio:

That "JP Morgan bigwig" as you call him, ran a program for JP Morgan to assist women in starting new businesses, he was not selling derivatives to unsuspecting investors, and he is not joining the Obama team in order to stall Wall Street reform, unlike some shiny new Republican legislators.

Robert in Ohio. I see you are buying the latest version of demonizing and blaming the unions for all our problems. How many union workers do you know make millions a year? You do realize that fire fighters, police officers, teachers are lucky to make $60,000 a year and that's a stretch yet these people are being demonized by a group of selfish people whose goal is to take away the voice of middle America, to remove the ability of the average worker to have a voice, those "evil" unions gave you a safe work environment, employer health care, a living wage. They are your neighbors, Robert, they are the ones who risk their lives putting out the fire at your home or down the street or risk their lives to respond to a call of possible abuse or gunfire or a robbery; they are the teachers who educate the future leaders of this country. How dare you or anyone else demonize unions and claim they are to blame for all America's troubles. They are your neighbors, Robert, they are not the problem.

That is exactly why they are bringing him in Amy. I know you don't want to believe it, but Wall Street banks actually contribute more money to Democrats than they do to republicans. I'm talking the actual companies here, not necessarilly the individuals who work there. Of Goldman Sachs' top five contributions, 4 are to (D) 1 to (R). For CitiBank, 3to (D) 2 to (R). And for JPMorgan, 3 to (D) and 2 to (R). All politicians are there because it benefits them to be there, And they got there with someone elses money.

Info for donations comes from:

www.opensecrets.org

"Wall Street banks actually contribute more money to Democrats than they do to republicans"

The article in question states that the banks, which used to back Democrats, are now funding these Republicans because they don't like the reform the Democrats are bringing to Wall Street. I don't know what could be clearer.

David Walker: As an ecologist and a zoologist, I must protest your insult of self-respecting jackals by linking them to hedge-fund managers. Jackals form an important link in the food chain of Africa and Asia. They are clean-up specialists. Hedge-fund managers don't take part in the food chain, they are only extractive. An apology to jackals is in order.

I really think this deserves comment of the day! Cinclodesfuscus..great line, and you win!

A vote from me for Cinclodesfuscus as well! Brilliantly stated, it brought a BIG smile to my face.

One month after the election, private sector looks to have almost doubled it's hiring. That's not a bad start! Obama finally surrendering to the business sector instead of trying to defeat it is another. Looks like that talk with Clinton how to turn right paid off! :<)

One day I was mowing the grass and almost got hit by lightning. So what??

The House takover has nothing to do with supply and demand. That is not what is driving the hiring push. The economy was and still is impoving under Obama's leadership.

That's better than Marxist/socialist traitors house. At least corporations generate jobs and profits that retirement funds depend on. Marxists destroy wealth.

Phil - have you read the news lately? Over 60% of the jobs that these corporations have created in the last year were NOT IN AMERICA. Please explain how that is better than having a group of people that want to improve the living conditions of American? And please attempt to do so without using Fox talking point or name calling (Marxist/socialist traitors). If you can actually cite examples of the Socialist and Marxist ideas that the 111th congress passed, please do so.

One of the newly elected Tea Party legislators held a fund raiser at a fancy DC hotel last night; $2500 a plate, lobbyists invited. For $50,000, a table for 8 with perks. And he hasn't even been sworn in yet. Why waste time pretending for a few months, just go straight to getting big bucks for favors.

The plane is assigned by the Pentagon. It's a perk of his rank in presidential succession. Stay off of the plane. It was senseless when they whined about Pelosi's plane. The beef originally seemed to be that Pelosi's plane was bigger than Denny Halfass's plane. DUH!!!! She had to fly farther to get back and forth from her district!

Patrick, I hope the "liberal media" asks that question. We won't have to wonder how many First Read conservatives will complain about "the plane, the plane" if Boehner uses it--zero.

Pat,

That has allready been in the news the answer is "NO"

Should be a nontroversy as special transportation for the Speaker is a request of the Secret Service. Has been for years. And the next time we have a Democratic speaker those who wish to make an issue of it should be told to shove off.

They will try to make an issue of it, too. Happens every time we have a Democratic speaker.

Private sector jobs increased every month this year.

Its January...

when you are at the bottom everything is going up.

Thanks to 30 years of Conservative economics and 6 years in which Republicans held both houses of Congress AND the White House at least we know were the bottom is located.

You said it tears of a clown what a phony

Too much uncertainty with the unwritten rules from Obamacare and the financial regulation bill. Once businesses know how their bottom line is impacted for fiscal year 2012, they will hire or downsize accordingly.

Insurance cost did nothing but go up while I had my small business. Every year without fail. And even with that as a reality, I planned and made changes in hiring based entirely on the customer demands. Demand is what drives hiring, the need to satisfy the customers. Larger corporations that only have a 1 year business plan are destined to fail.

I know boo-hoo,...Itcommander.

It's disgusting when our leaders refer to the government as the "people government", which is what Boehner was referring to, not run by the rich elite white liberals who ran us deeper into the hole for the last 2 years for more entitlement programs.

Divisive!! You didn't feel that way when the Democratic controlled Congress and Presidency ran rough shot over the majority of Americans who didn't want anything they were selling, did you? Liberal Nazi.

That's why you and your radical socialist liberal leaders got squashed in November and that's why in 2012, we'll finish sweeping you and your kind back into the gutter where you belong.

That there is funny, I don't care where you are from.

It's always, "wait till sometime" eh, friend??

Refer to post below by the Disabled Vet. "The House Inc."

I'm not your friend a'hole.

@IhopeHellhasCabletv- tell me WTF is a liberal nazi that is impossible!!!! nazis were effing anti everything that was'nt Catholic, Aryan, and "Nazi"- Liberals are exact opposite.... ah your Palin like brain needs to read...BTW hell called me up earlier and you will have cable tv there, yes that is very true... its called MSNBC and Maddow broadcasts for eternity.... at least satan cares.... schmuck

What do you want to go back too exactly? It was a pretty crappy country for most people before these things were passed.

If that's the way you feel about this great Country, you should leave.

these guys want to live in the 1800s.... neocons are a cancer

Thanks for the shout out Jim . . . strange that you come here daily since you don't like it . . . or maybe you do! :o)

Jim,

Thank you for pointing out the true Liberals/Progressives and communist on msnbc these people do not know what it has been like for the average working family in this country for the last 2 years it has been a complete nightmare lets hope that now Nancy Pelosi gets knocked down a peg or two and Harry Reid comes to his senses.

Now all we can hope for is the investigations and hopefuly impeachment of all involved with trying to reduce this country to third world status.

Jim is just a puppet he knows he is not smart, and really enjoys crap he is feed.... go back to faux news

Your biggest problem is that you actually believe you know what your talking about. The two party system is designed for balance and control to protect America. Have you ever read the constitution?

I’m voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I’m voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I’m voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq the bad guys will stop what they’re doing because they now think we’re good people.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

I’m voting Democrat because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as they see fit.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe three or four elitist liberals need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe element who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe that when the terrorists from over there come over here, I don’t want to have any guns in the house to fight them off.

I’m voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I’ve decided to marry my horse.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.”

bearbryant

Your biggest problem is that you actually believe you know what your talking about. The two party system is designed for balance and control to protect America. Have you ever read the constitution?

The US Constitution says absolutely NOTHING about political parties, and as was commented on by someone else above, George Washington and other founders of the country had a very dim view of political parties. So, before you attack someone else for not knowing what they're talking about, maybe you ought to know what YOU are talking about. It's clear that you don't.

About putting jobs first -- the govt does not creat jobs --private sector creates jobs IF the govt keeps out of the way.

Houston!

Apparently you don't know "what you're talking about either. The only non-partied president we ever had was Geo. Washington. Check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_political_affiliation

for your much needed facts.

armetisius:

Apparently you don't know "what you're talking about either. The only non-partied president we ever had was Geo. Washington.

Since I never said that he wasn't the only non-partisan president, that makes you look kind of like a jerk for pretending I did.

i feel a bit dumber now after reading bearbryants comment...

I feel dumber after having read most of the comments but Madgrandma makes a good point!