LouisJ

United We Stand, Divided We Fall

Recognition and Appreciation for reminding US is so needed for your bring this one point out daily.

Thank you Louis

It’s time for the GOP/Tea Baggers to Take the Plunge

What progressive action has the GOP Tea Baggers put forth for healthcare? Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, housing, education, are what the American people want and need.

The big bad “government takeover” has to go say the GOP Tea Baggers. This not a socialist country this is America so say the right; especially the tea baggers. Only one thing Eric Cantor (R-VA) said he wants to right their bills. These GOP Tea Baggers are so deceptive and a bunch of hypocrites. They read the Constitution out loud for American s to follow. Apparently, they can’t read. The Constitution clearly states it’s the House of Representatives where that bill must originate.

In spite of that, the Republicans in the House are ready to rock the house with their vote to repeal and replace con.

They will vote to repeal health care reform this week, but they have offered no replacement plan.

The New GOP is Up To the Same Old Tricks with the help of the tea baggers. The tea baggers were purchased by the Koch Brothers fake Astroturf group “Freedom Works” or should I say Fiefdom works for the Koch brothers? Yes, there were other Fiefdom working groups like Karl Rove’s American crossroads, Tea Bagger Queen Sarah Palin, and the US Chamber of Commerce.
Who would have thought Sarah could have given such a word salad in last night’s interview with Swan Hannity. She gave one of the most scattered brained interviews. I told ya'll before a foreign Diplomat could blow her mind in a nano-sec.

We will fall if she is prez.

Not once did she mention Rep. Giffords.

"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."

— Martin Luther King Jr. quote

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/106932

Dick Cheney should concentrate on keeping his batteries live rather than trashing the President. The President approval rating has jumped to 53% according to a new CNN poll.

Feisty;

These are the same people that complain that our President is ignoring him. Again the rhetoric and the deeds do not match. Now they are claiming they have no real power trying to duck out from their responsibility to govern. Still no new ideas. The GOP just does not have any shame.

Bev,

Eventually, they will offer an alternative health care reform plan, one that can be used in the 2012 campaign but it will never become law especially if they win the Senate and Whitehouse.

These are the same people that complain that our President is ignoring him.

Retired,

Ain't that the TRUTH!

BTW: AWESOME job at crossing all the 't's and dotting all the 'i's on the 'Job Killing Health Care Repeal'!

Nothing more than another 'dog & pony' show to play to their base...

Time to sit back and watch them spin until we're ALL dizzy trying to debunk the FACTS!

Better fire up some popcorn... if nothing else the entertainment value should be through the roof! lol

Hey Feisty, I didn't know that he refused all those....wow, way to come together in this time of crisis.

I know president Obama will keep trying to reach across the aisle, just because of politics, but its better for the country. I hope some other politicians would realize that.

Tunde;

You are right on. They keep on saying they are going to do A and instead they really do B. The GOP party has no intention in being part of the solution at all. They will continue to be the "Obstructionist" party, ignore our President when he invites them to have an honest dialogue, and currently over the weekend they are trying now to duck their responsibility to govern.

Sorry the late reply, been in a meeting. Thanks for the comment. I see a renewed vigor in the debate on issues that impact all of "US" and the desire for certain politicians to work together. We need to stop allowing the debate to be hijacked by extremists that wish to only galvanize the unified efforts. We also need to check the haters that fan the flames of things that hinder the civility of the debate.

I see from the above comments that civility is indeed DOA with the same players........Different day.....Same ole Carp! Continue on.......

Feisty good morning,

In addition to the refusals you list above, he also refused to attend the state dinner for India. This is the third refusal to attend WH invitations. Nice start

Good Catch Gingerbread Mamma!

I forgot all about that 'slight'!

So much for bi-partisanship!

*le sigh*

Nice try Nancy, but civility doesn't mean being unable to criticize those who deserve criticism. It DOES mean not trying to make a case that your opponent is some sort of enemy, or worse.

So Louis, when you label Fox an "a counter culture outlet" do you think you are uniting or dividing? Is Fox counter to those of us who are conservative, or those of you who are liberal?

And what is the basis for your assessment? Is it ratings? Seems like Fox does pretty good in that regard. How do you reconcile the fact that more people self identify as conservative than liberal? Or is it just that you find it to be distasteful? Certainly your personal preferance is not determinitive?

How come that are not any viable liberal radio programs? If, as you imply all the EVVILL conservatives (Rush, Beck, Brietbart, etc.) are counter culture, shouldn't there by definition be "mainstrean" liberal radio programs? Does Air American even still exist?

Is it at all possible that it is you and yours, here in MSNBC -land that are "counter culture." Perhaps you are the minority view, the one that is not widely accepted by the mainstream? And why even use labels like "counter-culture" in the first place? Seems intended to divide.

So, are you trying to unite anyone other than the Fiestys, Bevs and John B.s?

For - Beverly in Chicago
There no replacement health care plan that acceptable to the major of the people that provides free coverage to so many. It's not the American Way.

What or WHO is he so afraid of?

Well apparently Mr. Speaker is afraid that being seen with the President or working with him could get Obama re-elected in 2012. Because we all know that the GOP's goal is to make him a one term President.

There no replacement health care plan that acceptable to the major of the people that provides free coverage to so many. It's not the American Way.

It's not the French way or the British way or the Canadian way or the German way or the Japanese way or the Finnish way, either. No country in the world provides free coverage. Every wealthy nation in the world, though -- save one -- provides universal coverage. Why should that not be the American Way?

Spanky, you beat me to it. I was on the verge of agreeing with Louis for probably the first time ever, but he had to take that hard left at the end and call out only the conservative media outlets.

When you call us Tea Baggers you are calling us the enemy. As said above, same players same story. Nothing has changed.

"How come that are not any viable liberal radio programs?"

I ask myself this same question every time I hear the non-stop complaining about all that "liberal Media".

My thoughts exactly DBO.

Suzy, 'almost'? Wow, but hey, I did say other media outlets, I just chose FOX because they are the stand alone of everything vile and corrupting when it comes to 'media'.

And that, Louis, is why it will remain and ALMOST agreed with you. Fox is no more vile or corrupting than MSNBC, they just aren't on your side of the issues. It is our job as responsible consumers of the sensationalism that we call journalism to get information from a variety of sources and disseminate from there. That's why there are a few of us crazy conservative types who read the articles and post to the boards here- you gotta go to sources you disagree with in order to form a real opinion.

FOR - drive-by-observer

"How come that are not any viable liberal radio programs?"

Answer

There just not many people in the audience for liberal program and people after a day or two just don't tune back into the program. That's quite different from the conservative programs which seem to hold their audiences and the audiences keep growing. Base on the posted comments it seems the growth may be due to the Liberals just preferring the conservative programs. It is a strange world.

It is so refreshing to read the liberal hate - with the continued disgusting use of "Tea bagger" you vitriolic silly heads show that day after day you have 1 story, 1 theme, and it is bigoted hatred of those who disagree with you.

The really bad news is that you got the grown ups attention, they got half the job done in Nov '10 and with the continued "tone" coming from the White House and the knuckleheads on the left, 2012 is going to finally send the little hippie kids back to their home states.

"little hippie kids"

Still fighting the arguments of the 1960s, Paul?

@ Suzy post# 1.22 Although we may have different opinions on the issues I so do appriciate what you said in your post. I am almost to the middle but a bit left, but what you wrote made me smile because you posted without name calling and made your point very well. Thanks for that post there is hope for us yet.

Thanks for posting Dennis. I think this was Eisenhower's most powerful speech. A great reminder that for every dollar we spend on defense, a dollar is lost to build roads, schools, bridges, hospitals.

" A great reminder that for every dollar we spend on defense, a dollar is lost to build roads, schools, bridges, hospitals."

Which may very well be blown up (along with many people) without a well funded defense.

Great post Dennis,

By today's standards Ike would be called a liberal!

Dennis: Excellent Post!

I was a kid when Ike was President., but I have a "I like Ike" pin. To this day, driving on the interstate highways, I credit Ike for his work to improve the nations infrastructure. In today's political climate, Ike would pass for a Democrat.

Whether it is the "military-industrial" complex, or the Saudis or big business/Wall Street or the NRA---the point President Eisenhower was making is still relevant----our Congress is bought and paid for and not by ordinary people.

Dennis:

Great post. It is every bit appropriate in today's environment as it was 50 years ago. Nice job.

Which may very well be blown up (along with many people) without a well funded defense.

Fair enough. What level is sufficient to be called "well funded"? Is there a reason we need to spend more on defense than the next 28 nations put together, when 25 of them are considered our allies?

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Eishehower is another great President in my point of view. Thank for reminding Us. The Afghan War is one agenda I do not support the President in.

I know many have spoken of the President as being the fulfillment of Dr King's dream.

I just wish the President would focus more attention to another of Dr King's dream about war.

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom".

Martin Luther King, Jr. quote

One of the greatest casualties of the war in Vietnam is the Great Society... shot down on the battlefield of Vietnam.
Martin Luther King, Jr. quote

It's time to cut our losses and concentrate on US. No country since Ghinis (sp) Khan was able to defeat them. The terrain is difficult and they people live in Biblical days.

Great point JohnB ("...more on defense than the next 28 nations put together, when 25 of them are considered our allies...")

There's all kinds of that hyperbole in the Military-Industrial BS that Ike warned about: witness the Repub's that voted against START II a couple weeks ago, arguing that we need to update our nuclear arsenal! (Despite the whole "parking-lot everything above sea-level 18 times" thing!)

Defense-hawks make me giggle...

One of Ike's promises was to end of the Korean War, which at least he ended the open conflict and ratcheted down the our military involvement and quite possible helped overt WWIII. He certainly was a moderate and was always ticking of the right wing (there used to be liberals in the GOP also) of the GOP who thought he was to liberal. Boy would the Tea Party and the Neocons hate him if he were President today!

My favorite Ike quote is in a letter he wrote to his brother regarding the detractors of our nation social policies.

"Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Dwight D. Eisenhower

The scary part about those who were just a splinter group back then have grown in number due in part to the constant barrage of misinformation from the right wing hate radio consortium.

Thanks Devie - never heard that quote before. Ike was awesome (last prez to truly be able to claim "Party of Lincoln" status! Every republican since then has been "Party of Nixon" lol!)

While I agree, the fringe numbers he spoke of have increased, that's both bad AND good. It's bad for obvious reasons (can't TOTALLY dismiss them like we used to!), but also REALLY good: now they've blossomed into the 15-20% the republicans can't win without !!!

John McCain (and his selection of a VP candidate with his zippered-brain!) is the best thing to happen to the Dems in decades. Heck with the 2000 election - McCain likely gave us 40+ years of Ralph Nader's!

Michelle for America 2016!

Da Noid

If this blog is any litmus test, the answer is, no, it won't be turned down. It can be, but it won't.

I think it's the law makers who need to tone it down. The lawmakers won't listen to the people because the lawmakers get their rhectoic from the grand Pooh-Bah Rush Limbaugh and their corporate masters enable the lawmakers. Spin doctor Frank Luntz, famous for "government take over," provides the highly charged emotional words.

So then are you saying it's up to us to set example for our leaders?

And while all you liberals are intently listening to Limbaugh, waiting with baited breath to pick his words apart, picking out new names to call him, Soro's is slipping in the back door of the White House to give another training session...

Ooh, George Soros, bogeyman of the Conservative Movement.

Do a little research on the John Birch Society. You'll find that Armand Hammer occupied exactly the same position in their fevered imaginations 30 years ago.

EllieMay wrote:

Soro's is slipping in the back door of the White House to give another training session...

A session in what? Do you have pictures?

So I guess todays talking point is George Soros.

Only for right now. Is someone 'scores' on someone else's comment, the subject will magically change to something else. Norht Korea? Ruttebegas? Who knows?

Oh no.. You guys got me.... So sorry, I forgot that Soro's is PO'ed at our President.

Citzen, sorry White House tours were not permissible on any of the days in question and I'm not in the habit of looking under the desks..

Hi USN-Retired – Well said. I truly do not understand why the GOP/TP controlled House is wasting the taxpayer’s time and money on a bill that has zero chance of becoming law. If it did pass the Senate (doubtful) the President already said he would veto it and there are not enough votes in either chamber to override the veto. This is just for show.

And so their real work begins immediately after the repeal vote, with Republicans using every legislative and political tool at their disposal to wage a two-year campaign against the overhaul. And there won’t be anything subtle about this slow-drip strategy as Republicans aim to erode public confidence in the law and, they hope, make it so politically unpalatable that even some Democrats turn against it.

According to GOP House leaders, senior aides and conservative health policy specialists, Republicans have not refined their ideas into a coherent plan. In the absence of a plan, Republican leaders nevertheless are eager to convey that they have ideas about health care – and are not merely trying to knock down those of the Democrats. As a result, they have drafted a resolution to accompany the repeal legislation. It lays out broad, long-held GOP health-care goals, but no specifics, and directs four House committees to develop proposals.

The repeal bill and the lack of real ideas suggest the new majority is uninterested in serious governing.

Dennis;

Great post. If I may add.

It is not only the democrats that say this is not a Job Killing Law.

Others have exposed this Job Killing myth as well. Among them Paul Krugman PhD, Nobel Laureate and a republican Presidential Economic Advisor. The Levin Group has estimated the impact on Jobs to be 150-300,000 mostly minimum or near minimum paying jobs and does not include jobs created. All told they say the job loss will be minimal. Not exactly a Job Killer.

Elizabeth McGlynn of the RAND Corporation also notes that any effect in Jobs will be “Quite Minimal” and points out that most Small Business (those under 50 employees) are excluded from the mandate to begin with. Another inconvenient truth omitted by Mr. Boehner. It should also be noted that the mandate will decrease Health Insurance Costs over time by expanding the pool of participants. Another 30+ Million people will be covered that are not covered now and as NFIB has stated in their report above, substantial Jobs will be created as well, about 890,000 by their estimate.

The law also invests in Community Health Centers, which could create an additional 300,000 jobs in the neighborhoods that need them most and in 2014,

“As Steve Pearlstein points out, “what’s particularly noteworthy about this fixation with ‘job killing’ is that it stands in such contrast to the complete lack of concern about policies that kill people rather than jobs.” “Repealing health-care reform, for instance, would inevitably lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths each year because of an inability to get medical care,” he says.

The GOP position that President Obama’s HCR bill is a massive “Job Killer” is not true and is based on misrepresentation of the facts and the gross exaggeration of the effects of this law.

Most leading Econimist both republican and democrat say this repealing of the HCR law is a very poor idea. Especially since this repeal andt he repeal of the Financial Reform Law is not a high priority for the American people. They want congress to act on Jobs for America and improve the economy, not repeal this and that and hold 280 investigations.

USNVR, I will give you the change in the polls, and then tell you the reason: both polling organizations changed their models.

The prior polls tested LIKELY voters- those who turned out to vote, and handed the democrats their worst defeat in 80 years.

These latest polls were of adults; and, incidentally, included more democrats in their models.

Put it this way: if all children in June of their third grade year were tested on proficiency in third grade math, you would get much higher proficiency scores than if you simply tested all nine year olds.

It is not your fault that you believe that, as a result of these polls, opposition to HCR has dropped. The way the polls were reported was deliberately misleading.

Incidentally, WaPo/ABC also polled HCR in their latest poll, and did not report the results. It did not fit their narrative.

I noticed this morning on Morning Joe that Mike Barnicle's son is still on his insurance plan. He is now 25, what do you think will happen next year, or pehaps this year when he turns 26??? Will he still be on daddy's insurance plan, (somehow, perhaps through an amendent) should he be able to??? When will the umbilical cord be cut???

Hi Feisty: No Jo spins with opinions, no facts. Uneducated people interchange opinions with facts. She is NAWO.

Feisty; Yep we knew she would pop up with nothing. No ideas just bla, bla, bla.

Here is another for the poll dancer, as reported on MSNBC the increase on Wall Street is the third best of any President in History. The DOW has increased 48% under his first 2 years. Can you imagine what could be if the GOP would start to help a bit instead of just getting in the way.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Myths and Facts about HCR and Impact of Repeal

First in a Series of detailed posts

The large majority of people favor HCR – Not the Repeal of it. Two new polls the first from Marist and the second released Sunday from AP-GFK.

Yes, it so great that finally, as you and I as well as the regular libs who have/do post told you the people will wake up to the GOP/ Tea Baggers chicanery.

Keep 'em coming Navy. Wake up the people.

Obamacare is bad legislation. It was passed without bipartisan support and with pluralities or majorities of the public opposing it.

While President Obama and the Democrats regard Obamacare as their signature achievement, repealing it was a major component in the wildly successful Republican campaign in last November's midterm elections. The legislation is facing non-stop legal challenges from state attorneys-general across the country.

For most of the public, "health care reform" meant measures to restrain the rate of increase in the cost of the premiums of the health care that overwhelming majorities were satisfied with...but worried about keeping due to those rising costs.

Obamacare did not address tort reform, and more importantly, the subsequent costs of "defensive medicine". It does not allow for competition between health care providers across state lines to give consumers a choice and the real prospect of lowering the rate of increase of their health care costs. Obamacare sought to control the rate of increase of premiums by imposing a cruel 40% excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans...plans held by many ordinary working class Americans, including union members, who negotiated away wage increases in exchange for better health care coverage.

Poll after poll has shown that the majority of American health care consumers do not feel that Obamacare benefits them personally. Poll after poll shows that majorities believe, correctly, that for them, Obamacare will ultimately result in increased premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures and a reduced level of care...rendering President Obama's feckless promise that Americans could keep their present health care if they like completely meaningless.

For those reasons, there is virtually no political downside for the Republicans in pursuing the repeal of Obamacare...actually the opposite is probably true.

That's the consequence of passing sweeping, landmark legislation with no bipartisan support whatsover, and without majority support of the public.

Fortunately, last November, the electorate took measures to ensure that the Obama Administration can no longer pass laws like Obamacare in defiance of bipartisanship and public opinion.

And...not a moment too soon.

USNVR, I will give you the change in the polls, and then tell you the reason: both polling organizations changed their models.

Like another with half a brain would take Dr. NO the fake PHD's word for it!

'Honesty & integrity' describes her kinda like 'warm & fuzzy' describes Dick Cheney!

Sorry Navy, you got it wrong. Tomorrow the House will vote on a bill to repeal HCR and the Dems are gearing up to push back. I say yeah baby bring it on. What's really cool about all this is the Democrats have already lost this argument – bigtime. But they plan to take the opportunity to relitigate anyway, even as they attack Republicans for doing the same. The Dems will surely take their standard nanny state approach and try to wax eloquent on all the goodies their benevolent government is bestowing on our dependent citizenry. Republicans on the other hand will be predisposed to see the world with more clarity and likely remind folks that the benefits of HCR come with some pretty serious baggage. Let's count some of the ways Republicans can reinforce the argument they've already won.

First, there's this pesky little issue of cost. CBO scored what the Democrats gave them to produce a favorable result, but the problem lies in what the Democrats didn't let them score. Like leaving out $115B in discretionary spending needed to implement the law and leaving out the $200B Medicare doc fix. When considering these and other features of HCR, a more honest accounting would have come up with something like a $700B deficit. So Republicans should remind the folks that Obama pushed through a massive and costly new entitlement at a time when we can't even afford to pay the bills we already have.

Second, there's the issue of process. Republicans should remind the folks of the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback. They should remind the folks of how the most significant piece of domestic legislation since the LBJ years was pushed through using an arcane reconciliation process that was never intended for such a purpose. They should remind the folks that previous landmark domestic legislation was passed with bipartisan support, and not rammed through by partisan ideologues hell bent on remaking America according to their vision. And they should remind the folks that their negative opinion of HCR as consistently reflected in polling results throughout (and subsequent to) the process was completely ignored by these same ideologues – even after Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia sent un unmistakable electoral message that Washington should cease and desist.

Third, there's the issue of the massive intervention by the government into the health care economy by virtue of the voluminous implementing regulations currently being written. The HCR legislation references the Secretary of HHS more than 2,200 times and uses the phrase "the secretary shall" more than 725 times. Each of these references requires HHS to set new rules on medical care. In fact, the HCR legislation arguably left the most important and controversial decisions about our future medical care to the government agencies that will write these regulations. We've already seen some of these regulations, and here's one of the consequences that has come to light: by the government's own estimates, 66% of the plans currently offered by small businesses and 45% of the plans offered by large employers will no longer be in compliance with HCR by 2013. So much for the lie that "you can keep your health insurance if you like it." Republicans should definitely remind folks about that whopper.

Fourth, Republicans should remind the folks of all the new taxes included in HCR. Like the $2.5B excise tax on big pharma that will no doubt be passed on to consumers. And the 100% tax increase on non-qualified distributions from Health Savings Accounts, from 10% to 20%. And the Medicare payroll tax on wages over $200K which will rise from 1.45% to 2.35%, which works out to a hefty 62% increase. And the new 3.8% tax on gross investment income for those earning over $200K. And the new 2.9% national sales tax that medical device manufacturers must collect, another charge destined to be passed directly to consumers. And the increase in the threshold for deducting medical expenses from individual tax returns from 7.5% to 10%, a tidy little 33% raise in that bar. And the $1B from AT&T, the $150M from John Deere, the $100M from Caterpillar, the $90M from 3M, the $31M from AK Steel, charges that all of these companies have announced as a result of HCR changes to the tax liability of companies that provide prescription drug coverage for their retirees.

And lest we forget, Republicans should remind the folks about the granddaddy of government over reach: the individual mandate. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide on the constitutionality of this issue, but while we wait for that process to play out Republicans can remind the folks that their government – a government of the people, by the people and for the people – is forcing those very same people to purchase something they might otherwise have chosen not to purchase. If not, folks must pay a fine (i.e. another tax) of $695 a year or 2.5% of income whichever is higher. Whatever the (presumed) merits of HCR as public policy, there is no getting around the chilling precedent this mandate sets for the future. If our government has the power to force us to buy something today that we may not want to buy, then is there anything such a government cannot force us to do in the tomorrows yet to come? Good gracious, how can any freedom loving American not be horrified by the prospect of a government with that kind of power over our lives?

Opponents of HCR are on solid ground and House Republicans have the wind at their backs on this issue. If the Democrats want to push back, then let them make your day. Because they're just going to lose this argument all over again, and in so doing they will remind folks of one of the reasons why voters tossed them out of office in massive numbers in the first place.

Feisty

She's never met a poll she won't attempt to spin! lmao!

Well, maybe our resident poll dancer can spin the latest FOX-MUSSEN POL!! LOL

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters want to change the law, while only 18% want it left alone. Even a third grader knows Rasmussen Reports are created polls for none other than Fox and Right-Wing Radio.

The pen is mighter than the poll for Dr No. It'll be an interesting spinning from the right winger Dr NO to admit.

Bill, Fairfax VA-

Nice post.

I would simply add that the CBO numbers are based in part on the implementation of cuts to funding for Medicare...cuts that, politically, will be very, very difficult...if not impossible, to impose.

US Navy

Thanks for the information - good stuff. I do have a couple of questions for you and the panel...

The numbers you show tell me that only 14% think that the HCR (as it is today) is a finished product and that 86% feel that it needs to be wither fixed (in one way or another) or repealed. If I interpret that correctly, is this a mandate to the Left to work with the Right (and the right with the left) to tweak and fix the HCR rather than starting over?

This clearly a message to the Republican leaders that repeal is not the desired outcome, but is it not a call to the Democrat leadership that most Americans think there is room for improvement int he bill?

Should there be bipartisan efforts to fix the bill now?

No Joe is absolutely correct on the polls by the way. Look at the historical data. There are generally three types of polls: Adults, Registered voters, Likely voters. Historically, the GOP has been better at getting their voters out to the polls (I think 2008 was a notable exception). Therefore, polls of adults tend to have the highest Democratic representation while polls of likely voters tend to have the least Democratic representation, with polls of registered voters lying in the middle. Now polls of likely voters also tend to fluctuate the most as each pollster has an individual model of voter turnout. However, I beleive in the leadup to an election, a poll of likely voters with a good turnout model is likely to be your best estimate.

Having said all that...my gut feel is that even though the polling organizations switched from a poll of likely voters to adults, I think the President's approval rating is bound to improve. Yes, that switch is going to explain part of the jump. But here's my reasoning why even outside of the method change your going to see an increase in his approval:

1. His handling of the Arizona tragedy...he came across as Presidential and non-controversial, while various members of each political party took cheap shots at each other.

2. With a GOP House and Democratic Senate, he will be able to stay "above the fray" if you will and not appear obstructionist, which he may have with a GOP controlled Senate as well.

3. Legislation that passes and gets the President's signature will necessarily be bipartisan in nature and thus will give the appearance of working together.

4. Time: The further we get from the passing of the HCR and the 2010 elections, the less passionate the feelings amongst the general population.

Just my take on things. Trying to be objective here.

Paul Krugman and other liberals aren't the only ones pointing out the fraudulence of the GOP's claims that the health care law will kill jobs. This article reporst on the dishonest tricks the Repubs used like chopping off inconvenient parts of sentences written by economic analysists to change their meaning, false attributions, and obsolete reports.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/7386001.html

There was another McClatchey article on the same subject that I couldn't find in the online version of the Chronicle that said pretty much the same thing. Another trick they mentioned was citing an obsolete report on the effects of an early version of the proposed legislation that the CBO did in fact say could have a significant impact on job losses, but that version bears little resemblance to the final law that was passed.

So, after the Repubs repeal the health care law, who's really going to trust these liars and con artists to replace what they've repealed with something that will do anything other than rip off consumers and line the pockets of the insurance industry CEOs?

Claim: CBO's cost estimate is misleading because it doesn't include $115 billion in additional
discretionary spending that Congress must provide to implement health reform.
Fact: The health reform law contains authorizations for a variety of grant and other programs,
and CBO has estimated that if future Congresses chose to fully fund these authorizations —
which Congress is under no requirement to do — the total expenditures involved would
amount to $115 billion over ten years. But the large bulk of this amount is neither required nor
necessary to implement the health reform law, and much of it doesn't even reflect new
expenditures. As CBO has stated, more than $86 billion is "for activities that were already
being carried out under prior law or that were previously authorized."3 CBO has noted that the
law's actual implementation costs — that is, the cost that federal agencies will incur to
administer the law — will be roughly $10-20 billion over the first decade.

Remarks that HCR ignores "tort reform" are misleading. First, there is a strong division whether such "reform" is really needed, particularly at the Federal level. Nearly all tort cases are governed by widely-varying state laws.

More to the point, however, is that in fact a great many bases for tort cases disappear under HCR - and consumers and businesses realize very, very big savings thanks to HCR, something the GOP/TP will not discuss.

When people have virtually universal health care, the biggest reason for lawsuits vanishes - medical costs.

Similarly, thanks to HCR, the very expensive medical coverage components of insurance should also nearly vanish - and that includes auto insurance, homeowner' and renters' insurance, business insurance, workers' compensation insurance, and other classes of coverage.

This is a major benefit of HCR that affects everyone.

Re: Polling On Obamacare.

A quick visit to Arianna Huffington's Huffpost Pollster (formerly Pollster.com) reveals that the average of all major polls of Obamacare currently shows:

50.3%-Oppose; 42.8% Favor

The current average for President Obama's Job Approval on the issue of Health Care:

49.7%-Disapprove; 47.5% Approve

While the President's job approval numbers on health care have risen somewhat, as you can see...pluralities or majorities still oppose Obamacare.

That is the backdrop for the Republican effort to repeal.

PERCHANCE, do you recall the election of Nov. 2nd, 2010>

The one where the republicans were awarded the largest electoral victory, in 70 years?

They campaigned on repealing the insurance farce, or if Obama vetoes it, cutting the funding off to it.

Now they are doing it. Why is that so difficult for the libbies, to understand?

As far as the majority wanting it, you can tell that one all you like. The elections says it all.

You folks are truly delusional.

John A:
Thanks for the additional info.

Similarly, thanks to HCR, the very expensive medical coverage components of insurance should also nearly vanish - and that includes auto insurance, homeowner' and renters' insurance, business insurance, workers' compensation insurance, and other classes of coverage

.

This had not crossed my mind and I am glad you pointed it out.

I disagree with No Joe's assertion that the recent polls should be viewed with mistrust because they encompassed all voters not just likely voters. The likely voter scenario is only relevant when we are talking about elections. Everyone has an opinion that is valuable on health care, financial regulations etc., whether they are likely to vote or not--it impacts their lives just as much as it does the lives of likely voters. No Joe spins a negative into the discussion because the polls do not reflect her view.

The republican in congress will be able to go home and say" I voted against Health Care before it was passed and after it was implemented". This vote gives them two times to say no and is all about their next election cycle.

Statistics are so much fun! You can spin them to tell whatever story you wish! While USNDVR can accurately say that ONLY 30% want health care repealed, I can just as accurately say 78% want the health care bill changed in some way.

The point to bringing this vote, as I see it, is giving the House a foundation to build a replacement bill on. If they don't first vote to repeal, there will be constant cries from the left at the wasting of time they're doing by writing to replace existing law that hasn't been challenged in their chambers. By voting to repeal, they eliminate the validity of this claim. Even if the initial push for repeal fails in the senate (as its expected to do, though I think No Joe has previously detailed reasons why that may no longer be a given), they have laid the groundwork. Once they work on the replacement, it might spark action in the senate. Its a place to start. Hopefully this time we can get some genuine bi-partisan input and actually address the root cause of our spiraling healthcare costs (insurance) instead of gifting them bigger profits which is only going to further increase our costs...

To Bill from Fairfax, Mixed Bag, and everyone who supports repeal:

If the ACA is repealed, we'll be back to square 1:

• 45M Americans uninsured and 60M at any one time. Number increasing with high unemployment and as medical inflation forces businesses to drop coverage
• 15M Americans underinsured. Number increasing as medical inflation forces businesses to reduce benefits
• Americans with pre-existing conditions cannot obtain health insurance
• Americans with expensive conditions (often multiple conditions) reach cap limits and lose insurance
• Americans with expensive conditions (often multiple conditions) lose their insurance through rescission
• The Medicare doughnut hole is reopened
• Increased pressure on EDs, raising costs for everyone and forcing closures (500 since 1990)
• Investment to increasing the number of primary care physicians (badly needed) is terminated
• Incentives to population-health based Affordable Care Organizations are terminated
• Medicare financing in jeopardy because of aging population and a compromised tax base (the real income financing Medicare for the last 30 years has remained flat while medical inflation has increased at about 5% per year)

Three questions:

1. Is this a problem?
2. If it is a problem, how do you propose to address it in a bipartisan way? (Conservatives claim that the ACA is partisan legislation, so presumably their health care legislation will be bipartisan.
3. Currently, about 9M people who could afford health insurance and who could pass a health screening have chosen not to purchase it. In light of the over 50M want to be insured but can't be, why is a mandate an overreach?

Responses awaited eagerly.

Hey Joe,
"50% of Americans don't pay any taxes"
Actually that is fiction and the number you want is 47% which is the percentage of workers that pay no income taxes. They still pay payroll taxes as well as all state, local, property, sales and hidden taxes like gasoline tax.
It is also true that before the recession the number was 38% (2008) and before the tax cuts of 2001 & 2003 it was 31% that didn't pay income tax.

The trouble with Conservative thinking is that they believe getting millionaires and billionaires to pay a proportion of taxes in balance with their wealth and income is stealing.

To me that sounds more like fairness.

Joe,
So according to your links you agree with me that the 47% is ONLY Federal income tax.
As for a VAT in principal is sounds great but it will create a huge "black market" don't you think?

Thinking is not a Tea Party strong point. They absorb their knowledge and accept it at face value. Kind of like faith.

Joe,
Your immature attitude and name calling requires nothing further from me.
Have a good afternoon.

These guys just refuse to listen. This fight was never about health care reform or even jobs. It was nothing more than an extreme reaction to having a democratic president and a progressive. ( Notice I deliberately kept his race out of it, despite tea party posters which depict the opposite.) Boehner and McConnell will not listen - they have big debt to pay to the Chamber of Commerce, the Koch Brothers and the likes of Dick Armey. The next two years are going to be a continuation of their games. I only hope that the dems keep it civil but come out swinging on the facts. They allowed the reps to push their "granny death panels" and "failed stimulus" even though neither is true. My only words of advice to the dems and to their supporters is keep writng congress demanding that they stop the anti administration tirade and start getting down to work for this country. I just turned 60 this summer and I am determined to select democratic candidates who represent my progressive views and will get to work on supporting them. I urge every progressive to do the same. Does anybody want to see a republican white house anytime soon?

Joe, if the shoe fits wear it.

People who have been fortunate enough to benefit from the freedom, security, infrastructure and educational system this great country affords should be obligated to support the systems that made it possible they succeed.

Joe, I'll take your social security and medicare, if you don't need them. This commie marxist socialist needs a new V8 engine and fishing boat.

Hey Joe!!
You are are perfect example of the problem. Try being civil anyd maybe somebody will talk with you. If you do not like it here, then go be rude somewhere else.

OK Joe, thanks for making yourself clear.

The wealthy are our betters and we owe them respect and deference for that. You're in favor of yet another massive lowering of the tax burden on the rich, displacing that onto the backs of everyone else.

Welcome to the aristocracy of Old Europe.

John B Iowa:

You can't compare aristocracy, which consists of hereditary positions, with people who work for a living and earn their postions through getting a good education and training and competing with others in the work place, all of which involve hard work on the part of the wokers. So, to steal workers' earnings through taxes is simply taking that that you didn't earn by your own hard work. Not stealing someone else's earnings via taxes isn't showing deference, because the tax payor owes nothing to you and you've no right to take the hard earned money of others to finance yourself and other less productive members of society.

Such an attitude by gov't will only produce more unproductive or, at best, less productive members of society.

I studied hard throughout my school years and worked and earned scholarships to pay for my education. Yes, I've several degrees, but many Americans don't want to do the work; they party and have fun and then are angry when others achieve more success than do they. I workean average of 60 to 65 hours a week. In my position, I'm not paid overtime for working more than 37.5 or 40 hours a week; however, the value of my stock options and my bonsus is determined by the profitability of my company, so I work hard.

I really felt sorry for you when I read your post, because you have such a peasant attitude and it makes me sad. Such an attitude means that you don't try; you just wait for others to work and then you'll live off of the earnings of the workers. This is a recipe for America to fail and so, I consider you unpatriotic and quite possibly, lazy. You certainly are a jealous and envious person, based upon your post.

What makes you think the American story of Horatio Alger is more than myth? The facts would indicate if you want to experience the best possible chance of social mobility you'll live somewhere else;

The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) has released a report that should deflate this nation's inflated sense of self and fundamentalist devotion to "free-markets." According to their findings, social mobility measured according to earnings, wages and education across generations is relatively low in relation to other developed nations such as Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Spain.

For instance, in terms of earnings levels, nine developed countries, including France, offer greater mobility than the United States. The U.S. only tops Italy and Great Britain. And the U.S. ranks the highest in terms of the influence of parental background on student achievement in secondary education.

So to that extent our policies are creating the very aristocracy you deny.

I say you've got Social Darwinism and Laissez-Faire Economics down pat and are all set for the 19th Century. No wonder we're seeing levels of economic disparity and concentration of wealth not seen since the days of the Robber Barons.

And thanks for referring to me as a mentor and educator, I'm sure you meant it as a compliment.

Jody---I think the Republicans could only go after HCR by calling it "job killing" or bad for the economy. They know that people are concerned about the unemployment rate and if told that HCR would cost many jobs could oppose it. The fact that it isn't true doesn't really enter into the equation. That is another change over the past years---the constant repeating of lies until they become the truth---like President Obama is a Muslim.

Jody, Iowa

Keep the debate honest. Yesterday was Martin Luther King Day. He was not a perfect man, he had his human frailties just as we all have

If we listen to each other, keep it honest, keep it factual, keep it passionate but keep it respectful, we can find the compromise that brings about the best legislation.

I think that now since benefits have started to kick in for some the truth will be set forth.

"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."
— Martin Luther King Jr. quote

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/106932

Also Jody, thanks for replying yesterday to how long it's been since Illinois raise taxes and the unfortunate troubled times we are in. You're right no one thinks they should sacrifice. Yes, it 's odd that IL is getting a lot of heat yet NJ's (Gov. Pillsbury dough boy)Christie raised taxes, too. He among others in the Fox Nation find the need to criticize. What are they doing to create jobs?

At least, our Gov. Quinn is thinking of the people and saving jobs and education. Plus, the cuts are temporary.

Steeler Fan. That's true, the only way republicans could hope to defeat HCR was by attaching fear and mistrust to it from the beginning. They knew that because polls reflected that Americans wanted something done. It is sad that the GOP chose to protect big insurance over protecting the voters who elect them to office. That's what I mean about honest debate and the GOPTP is particularly good at avoiding it.

Beverly. You're welcome.

Chicken Little was right at least one time.

Navy: You are on fire today! You are intellectually honest as you have facts to support your conclusions. I would expect the same from the not so loyal opposition. Let's see how they do with facts...or will we just see opinions, and more opinions, and more opinions.

US Navy

Again good information and again a question

If "the effect of the mandate will be small as you indicate the CBO stated", why have over two hundred companies (big and small but mostly big) asked for and received waivers from having to provide coverage because it will cost too much and result in job eliminations?

Navy,

Also because of the rules on how CBO can do their analysis they did not include the number of jobs that could be created from the additional 32 Million people that would be covered now, that currently are not. See NFIB study below.

According to the new HCL, when it becomes effective, doesn't that mean that 32 million more people will be forced--I mean mandated to purchase insurance from "for" profit companies. So you really think that more private sector jobs will come out of this? Because some study says so.

US Navy. Your posts have been informative, factual and honest--great job.

I have had trouble replying this morning but someone mentioned 200 companies who have requested waivers. Without specifics about each of those companies, it is difficult to respond with any credibility. That said, I would point out that the number of small businesses taking advantage of the tax breaks to provide insurance to their employees was huge, much larger than anticipated and it was the Mom & Pop small businesses that took advantage of it. I think that says a great deal more about HCR legislation than does the 200 waivers which considering the number of businesses in the U.S. seems relatively a small number.

Great point, Robert.

And BTW Navy, the first 100 compaanies to receive the waivers, alone represented more than 1 million employees that would have been laid off.

Kinda shoots down your 890,000 right off the bat, huh.

Bottom line - HCR increases labor cost. Fact. Increased labor cost mean fewer jobs, especially with an economy like this.

Really simple. Why is it so difficult for you?

Among those obtaining waivers is McDonald's. Part of the problem for them is that they have a great many part-time employees who are entitled to NO BENEFITS of any kind (thanks in part to the GOP's change in labor laws during the Reagan Regime). HCR would change that. The threat of cutting staff at McDonald's is really hollow - they aren't going to close stores or cut service to customers. McD's is often hardly a "fast food" operation at many locations, anyhow - the company can't afford to lose customers now.

John,

How about the American Federation of Teachers and all the other unions?

Absurd argument nonetheless. How can you take someone trying to support his family of 4 and put another $5.89 per hour on the cost of that job and it not have a negative effect in these economic conditions.

A job loss is a job loss, whether your flipping a hamburger or teaching American history.

The case with McDonald's is actually even more interesting. A vast majority of the McD's stores are operated by franchise holders, not the corporation. Those franchises with 50 or fewer employees are exampt from the mandate, anyhow. Since in many cases McD's franchisees own a good number of stores, they wouldn't be exempt, and would have to shop among the exchanges for a policy for their businesses.

McD's corporate personnel would be the only employees affected by the company's health plan choices - and many of those workers (depending on their jobs) already have health insurance through the company.

I seem to recall the waiver McDonalds got covered 30,000.

Yea, who cares about 30,000.

Pat:

Again we are on the same side. Sitting on the sidelines cheering on the Steelers. The agony of defeat happens in sports, and thank God it's only a game.

I recall a story you told during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That was a scary time.

Sorry for your beloved Pat's loss!

Interesting morsel of history: The last time the Chicago Bears played their arch rivals the Green Bay Slackers (err I mean Packers) in a NFL divisional championship game was 70 years ago - it was also 7 days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Oh... and the Bears WON!

See you at the Super Bowl - bring on the Steelers!

Ron, it's only a game. But man this was brutal. I have two Jets fans and a Steelers fan here at work. The two Jets fans have already come to me with huge smiles. (Can't blame 'em). I have New England Pats fan who have their office doors closed and all I can hear is heated football conversations. The Steelers fan isn't in as yet, but I have made one big huge sign and taped it to his door - BEAT THE JETS

Mark Murray nailed this one - he saw something in the Jets that I didn't.

Other than that, I'm thrilled with this new Cuban policy. Thrilled beyond belief. I recall candidate Obama speaking about what he wanted to see happen with our policy with Cuba, and I was so impressed with his progressive thinking. Yet again. I remember thinking how refreshing this was to hear this coming from a presidential candidate.

Feisty, it's going to be great match ups this weekend. I'm looking forward to both games. I have a feeling the Steelers are going to crush the Jets. Well, perhaps not a feeling. More of a hope and a prayer that they do.

Congratulations to the Bears. It is always good to see the City of Chicago have competitive teams. They are great fans.

Pat, Boston, MA

Pat the bears-packers game will be a blood bath, and not on the field.

Bears fans hate packers fans. and vice verse, with a passion, this goes back 60 years. I can't wait.

Jeff, I love blood baths in football. Lol. The Beats & Packers is a great match-up. Lots of football history for both teams. However, I'd rather see the blood bath in the AFC game. I hope the Steelers beat the crap out of the Jets.

I'm definitely with you. I can't wait.

Pat---we can unite in our desire to see the Steelers beat the Jets. This time we will have 2 players who were out when we played them in Dec.---Troy Polamalu and Tight End Heath Miller---both are game-changers. I am so glad we don't have to take on your Patriots--they are a great team and will be back next year.

Feisty----I am rooting for a Bears-Steelers Super Bowl--maybe we'll have a party at the Dew Drop Inn. I don't see why Cutler isn't getting more respect and I also don't see why Aaron Rodgers is getting early admission to the Hall of Fame. Show me a Super Bowl ring first (Ben has 2!)

Back to politics----I have never understood the embargo, especially in recent years. I do think the best way to change the society is to let them see the freedoms we have and that is accomplished by contacts and interactions. I would love to see Cuba (especially this morning after an ice storm!)

Thought you would be depressed about the Patriot's exit so..

At least you have the Celtics to look forward to; although they aren't my favorite team I love some of their players.

Who can't like Ray "He got game" Allen, silent leader and heart of the team Paul Pierce and hustle guys like Big Baby Davis. KG is still the best big man with his back to the basket and has the sweetest jump shot from a 7 footer outside of Dallas. :}

My favorite is the glue that holds the team together - Rondo rules.

Thanks Yellowdog. Yes, we have to move on now. The losses are worse when you are crowned the best team in football for months. Being the underdog is best I think. The Red Sox had a fruitful offseason, but the Celtics are an intriguing team; they are a very likeable hard working team.

But for now - who is going to win the Super Bowl. I have no idea. Which is the way it should be.

Feisty----I am rooting for a Bears-Steelers Super Bowl--maybe we'll have a party at the Dew Drop Inn. I don't see why Cutler isn't getting more respect and I also don't see why Aaron Rodgers is getting early admission to the Hall of Fame. Show me a Super Bowl ring first (Ben has 2!)

That sounds like a marvelous plan! I'll bring some Portillo's Beef Sandwiches & Ditka's Pot Roast Nachos for our snacking pleasure!

Funny you mention Rodgers... we were having a good laugh about that last night at dinner with some friends! They're already measuring Lambaeu (sp??) Field for a statue to immortalize him! lmao!

Feisty----I'll bring Rolling Rock beer and kolbassi and pierogies to the party! And of course will be waving my Terrible Towel!!

I don't think I've seen any mention of this on TV or the local papers. Appreciate your keeping us informed.

Jody, too much Palin these days. I can understand that her words need to be analyzed, but it's getting ridiculous now. This story on Cuba I thought important. I told a few people today at work and they had no idea. But I'll tell you what - they were thrilled to hear the news.

pat in boston:

Do you realize that castro and his thugs have murdered, tortured, and imprisoned tens of thousands of Cubans? How could you even consider praising a murderer and a thug? What is wrong with you? You're a threat to the freedoms of Americans.

Fantastic Facts!

Navy: Excellent work as always. The problem with the HCR is that so many lies have been told about it, and that those who exclusively listen to Fox "News" are unwilling to find out the truth. For all of you who are concerned about Mental Health treatment, this is the plan that actually allows coverage. By the way, No Jo, would you please provide the Federal law that you claim offers protection to the mentally ill to avoid treatment and involuntary commitment?

NDD:

Very true. I think as the debate on HCR moves forward the people will see more of what is in the law and how it benefits them. This is the last chance for the Democrats to get their message out. Is the law perfect, no way, there are some things I like and others I do not. What we should be doing is keep what everybody agrees on and then address the other stuff, maybe even delete some of it. Total repeal is not the answer, especially since the GOP has no substitute bill that they have made available(and what they had in their Pledge to America was a copy of the current law) how long do we wait for them to do what they do not know yet? Just more stupid political games diverting us from Jobs and the economy. Typical GOP agenda. DO nothing and blame everybody else.

Gee, new day, did you not identify yourself as a mental health professional who had actually testified in cases that challenged institutionalization? Yes, I believe you did. However, since you seem to be fuzzy on the law, I did your research for you.

The Community Mental Health Services Act of 1963 got the ball rolling, shutting down state facilities and releasing people into the "warmth and loving environment" of community mental health facilities. Unfortunately, no such facilities existed.

The law that gave the mentally ill the "civil right" to refuse treatment in the absence of an overt act of violence was actually the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. That act has been the basis for many state lawsuits, but the control was decided by the Supreme Court
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=527&page=581

On the basis of that decision, the commitment laws in all fifty states have been challenged by civil libertarians, who, most often, win.

If you think I am owing to waste my time posting links to every one of those lawsuits, think again. Tell you what: you are the resident expert- you post the links.

Navy

You are on a roll with good information and keeping my attnetion and bringing question to mind.

Seeing the informaiton on the costs (and it makes sense), what happens when businesses are still concerned with the cost of having to offer the insurance or pay the fine and decide to expand business or move current jobs to say Mexico.

Our downward spiral of unemployment and other economic issues would seem likely to accelerate

Except no jo; you are wrong. The ADA provides exemptions for those deemed to be a danger. Which is exactly why I asked you what law you were looking at. By the way, it is state law, and all the states have differing versions of the same law. A danger to self or others. You seem to object to that language...why is that? One more thing: I was not rude to you, there was no need for you to be rude to me. It is also not true that community services did not exist. They have been hit hard with funding cuts.

One more thing no jo: it is also not true that the mentally ill have a 100% freedom to avoid treatment. Courts can and have ordered treatment.

Yes, one DOES have to be deemed a danger. Unfortunately, that bar is set so high, absent an overt act of violence, it cannot be met.

In 1975, in the case of O'Connor v. Donaldson, the SCOTUS set that bar, when it held that ". . .involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's civil rights". The right to refuse treatment was further cemented in the SCOTUS' 1992 decision Riggins v. Nevada.

The case of the sixteen year old who could not be committed involuntarily two days before he raped and murdered a nine year old is one example of the failure of these well intentioned laws.

The Loughner case is another.

And, you have successfully sidetracked me for the last time. Since you are supposedly them professional, why do you not cite the relevant case law, and explain why its application makes society safer for the mentally ill AND the victims of violence?

I shall wait with bated breath.

I just did no jo: why are you so upset with this? I am trying to have a dialogue about the treatment of the mentally ill. I am interested in knowing how you would fix the cracks that folks can fall into. I will tell you how I see it, so I am being an honest broker. We need to expand the availability of health coverage to include mental illness. We also need to make sure that community service funding is in place, so that those folks needing services do not become isolated and are involved in their communities. There needs to be support and education for families with mentally ill members, so that they know they are not alone. Job training and retention, better availability of assessment, and access to qualified mental health professionals, which all costs money. Now...what would you do? How would you fund it?

For my dear friend no jo: who has said that "absent an overt act of violence, it cannot be met." Well, not so much: Read: Authorities: Victim of Ariz. Shooting Arrested After Threatening Tea Party Leader at Town Hall." Jan 16,2011 Bob Christie. The man that made that threat (no overt act of violence) was taken to the local hospital for a mental health evaluation. So, it is clear that the law can and does work. What we have here is a case of hindsight bias.

Doggone it no jo: I treated you with respect, thinking we could have an honest conversation about the treatment of the mentally ill. YOU DID IT AGAIN! I admit I have not thought about a lot of this for about 30 years, but something kept nagging at me about those cites you gave. As usual, they do not support what you are saying. O'Connor V Donaldson simply establishes that someone who has a diagnosis cannot be indefinitely committed if he is not a danger, and is capable of living alone or with someone. IT DOES NOT RAISE THE BAR FOR COMMITMENT. Riggens V Nevada was a decision about whether a mentally ill person can be forced to take an med during trial to treat psychosis, which would allow the state to make sure he stayed competent during trial, which ALSO HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE POINT. Why do you do this?

So there goes the straw man.

When the source of facts is Rush and friends anything is possible.

I spent Monday observing Martin Luther King Jr. Day by watching "Eyes on the Prize" as I am wont to do each year on the holiday.

This year was especially poignant given the carnage in Tucson. I continue to be grateful that Dr. King led a non-violent revolution for change. When I listen to all the shrill rhetoric coming from Capitol Hill and talk radio it saddens me because with all that hot air nothing is being done to help "form a more perfect union".

What if the Republicans spent today coming up with a job affirming plan instead of criticizing the President and the Democrats? That would be a novel idea whose time has come.

That they would engage in this"repeal and replace" nonsense as if they really have a plan and refer to HCR as the "job killing plan" is the antithesis of what Dr. King stood for. He was all about trying to help the disenfranchised and high on the list was full employment.

I believe in my heart that President Obama is doing all that he can to make it easier for businesses to begin hiring again. Afterall, he wants a second term and realizes that a high unemployment rate is a big negative that will dog him during the 2012 campaign. There is no reason he would knowingly tout a "job killing plan".

That is just foolishness and only low-information voters will believe that BS.

NDD: Because she thinks people on the board are stupid and will not catch her mistakes over and over and over. She has been called out for it before by the monitors here as well as the posters. She is persistant though and I give her credt for that.

Navy: Your posts today were amazing, and I give you full credit for the work you have done in gathering the information that you did. Here is what troubles me. The mentally ill have enough problems without people trying to create an atmosphere of fear and innuendo about them. There is no need to foster fear through rumor. And it is SHAMEFUL to post cases that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject. No Jo is forever after not on my reading list.

Dear Joe: is there any real reason to be that rude?

There are many of us, Joe, that are interested in the larger issues of the day and who like to discuss them. You are just interested in insulting people and repeating the Fox "News" talking points, which makes you a mental midget, and also NAWO.

newdaydawning:

I see Joe's point. You're asking people to give up hard earned money for distribution to the unproductive members of society. These aren't any news organization's talking points. Actually, from what I've read of Joe's post, his points are his own and his sources are many and varied.

Why haven't any of you leftists addressed the substance of any of this points? Try it, quoting from his sources or just engaging in a philosohpical debate stating the reasons that you think that it's okay to steal from the most productive members of society in order to give to the least or less productive members.

Wonder what the business community thinks of Obama now, after he called them "fat cats" and demonized them. Of course he is also one of the "fat cats", as he is rich. Pot calling the kettle black???

I noticed that, too. The corporate media apparently wants people to equate liberalism with the imposition of pointless and "job-killing" regulations, just as the Republicans want them to do. Whether the media does this due to cowardice, stupidity, or complicitly, I don't know. But it's one of those three choices.

recyclecongress

Wonder what the business community thinks of Obama now, after he called them "fat cats" and demonized them. Of course he is also one of the "fat cats",

Well, the fat cats got a lot fatter under Obama's leadership. They made record-breaking profits last year. The trouble with fat cats is that no matter how much you feed them, they always want more and they get fatter and fatter until they explode. They're mad at Obama because he can't feed their insatiable greed.

Dear recyclecongress:

Huh?

If you cannot understand why many folks don't feel comfortable "trusting" the business community after the implosion of the housing market and Wall Street, and the BP Oil leak debacle then I suppose there is just no reasoning with you.

I agree, Nashville Fan. The media has to see everything as black & white and being fought over. Even our hosts here at First Read would see it as liberal working class Democrats against conservative business Republicans, with the President moving to the middle.

Nashville fan,

I read the President's opinion piece so I'm not going to pull a one liner or try to pull a quote of his out of context. I will have to see what comes of this as each agency looks to review their individual houses. Although I see his words as trying to strike a balance between why regulations are needed and why they need to be reviewed and or updated, this signing statement causes me to pause.

One thing that everyone seems to agree on is that redundancy in government can be eliminated to save money. I can also agree with Obama that stupid ideas like the sacharin thing can be removed as a hazardous material as it has proven not to be dangerous to people.

I’m going on a limb here and will try to voice an unpopular idea.

How much redundancy is there in the CIA, NSA, DOD, DOJ, Dept. of Homeland security etc? Why is it that the majority of us are oblivious and uncaring to the monetary costs associated with Homeland security, not to mention the forfeiture of civil liberties in the process, to protect us from the slim chance of terrorism? Why is it that so many of us balk at the cost of regulations from the EPA, SEC or OSHA whose protections attempt to protect vast swaths of the population. I don't need to point to the financial collapse and housing fiasco or the mining and drilling disasters to you. In my opinion their apparently is a lack of regulations.

I know you don’t advocate it, but why is it in the best interests of the country to ease regulations that could harm workers just so that big business can make an extra dime?

In my trade, architect, an extra set of eyes, an extra precaution or life safety feature, REDUNDANCY, to ensure the safe utilization of a building is of the utmost importance.

Perhaps there are redundant regulatory agencies to protect the public health and welfare. Cutting them could save money, but how much is a life worth?

Yellowdog, I agree with you 110%. I suspect the President does as well. I think that this is the President's attempt to take his message directly to the business community, since so many folks nowadays self select their media, and never even hear the "other side" of the issues they care about.

I agree. The whole idea of Government is to remain productive and part of that must be review of regulations that work or don't work, review of programs that work or don't and eliminating those that don't. The media has been making this tacking center comment for so long that it is tiresome. As for big business, Wall Street, those guys get no slack from me--they deserved every ounce of criticism leveled at them. They were called greedy and irresponsible because were greedy and irresponsible, and they nearly put this country into a second Great Depression. To claim that a review of regulations is a gesture of good will to big business is merely a talking point to stir debate.

It is like the discussion a couple weeks ago where TV analysts were saying Pres Obama's approval numbers were climbing because after the election, he moved to the center. President Obama has always been a center left guy, has reached out to the GOP time after time despite being shunned each time. No, the analysts were wrong. The numbers improved because of a highly productive Lame Duck session where one piece of legislation after another was passed. Voters want Congress and the President to get things done not argue over petty bits and pieces. A poll the last couple weeks reflected my point.

The NAACP chose to forgive him too, and the speaker at the breakfast he did attend gave him a hug and a kiss.

I hope the NAACP speaker didn't have to kiss the good gov'ner on his -- you know.

Oh no

Houston!! I didn't even think of that!

Obama Orders Cabinet to Pare $100 Million From Budget
" . . . Some Cabinet departments have begun reductions. The Department of Veterans Affairs has canceled or delayed 26 conferences, saving almost $17.8 million; the Agriculture Department is combining 1,500 workers from seven office locations into a single facility in 2011 for a projected savings of $62 million over 15 years, and the Department of Homeland Security says it can save as much as $52 million over five years by buying office supplies in bulk. "

-Roger Runningen, Bloomberg

I'm no math expert, but it seems like just these few changes alread add up to more than $100 million . . . so the answer would be that nobody ever heard about it, but the promise was kept.

It's hard for news like that to break through the 24 hour hysteria cycle in this country.

"Three months ago, President Barack Obama ordered his cabinet secretaries to find $100 million in budget cuts for the current fiscal year to emphasize the point that he, too, was serious about belt-tightening. They responded with $102 million."

This is a really snarky article intending to make fun of some of the cuts that were made . . . but that is really all you have left when a promise is kept, eh? :o)

I see my linkys did not survive . . . argh!

The second quote was from the Wall Street Journal article entitled

"In a Savings Shocker, the Government Discovers That Paper Has Two Sides"

by Jonathan Weisman dated July 29, 2009

Um, Nash? I am surprised you brought those up- they were widely derided when they were first reported.

See, cutting PROJECTED spending is not the same as cutting spending.

Let's say you tell your family that expenses need to be cut. You whittle the grocery bill by using coupons, buying on sale, and eliminating certain items- saving about a hundred dollars a month.

Your husband buys a new, widescreen television. He tells you that he saved two hundred dollars- twice what you saved that month- by buying it on sale.

Who do you think is going to be sleeping on the sofa for a while?

This site is acting weird again. I can only get in via html, easy mode seems to have disappeared.

no joe:

If you don't want to acknowledge that the goal was met, that is fine with me. The Wall Street Journal said it was. And yes I do know the difference between a "projection" and reality, thanks.

You asked a question, and I answered it. You didn't like the answer, and so you spin.

Cool beans. :o)

Yes, this site is acting weird again at least on the First Thoughts thread. I can't use HTML mode so haven't been able to respond beyond my own post and comment to Dennis.

Cheers to you, Houston. If we want smart government, then periodic review is a requirement. Seems that everything must be discussed in terms of politics instead of just good, common sense.

headshaker-2756351

There is no way the civility will last because vitriol is their most effective tool (i.e. Novembers election results). They cannot change courses or they risk losing millions in financial contributions.

Please read the comments above before you place the blame, its not one sided, not by a long shot.

When people attack its out of fear, why do you fear Sara Palin? If she is such a looser, why bother? Why do you fear her so much? Really, I don't get it.

thetotas

why do you fear Sara Palin?

Did you see that interview last night with Swan Hannity?

She could not explain herself. It was a word salad and she couldn't hold a complete thought. She is one shallow ditzy woman. She attacked President Obama who had nothing whatsoever to do with her using the term "Blood Libel".

Furthermore, she admitted she didn't even know the explanation of the term. She invoked Rev Dr Martin luther King Jr's" A lie cannot live." which incensed me.

Why?

Besides all that irritating lip smacking, I guess either she was afraid because she couldn't explain her self or (thought mmm-mmm I'm so good), as she the LiAR read fom a teleprompter. Don't forget she bashes the president for using a teleprompter.

She was and insincere and she had the audacity to quote an icon who didn't hide out from the press.

Even Gov. (Pillsbury dough boy) Chris Christie said that if Sarah Palin continues to avoid unscripted exchanges with media and the public, "she'll never be president.Gov. Dough boy is a Republican.

If she is such a looser, why bother? Why do you fear her so much? Really, I don't get it.

This woman is dangerous. She would either give the country or start a nuclear war. A foreign diplomat or Head of State can blow her mind in a nano second.

thetotas. Headshaker didn't mention Palin. As to fearing her, NO, liberals do not fear her but they do question why the right finds intellectually incurious and red meat throwing appealing as a presidential candidate. In my view, she represents a lot that is wrong with politics today.

beverly in IL:

I think that your entitlement philosophy is dangerous.  Also, you offer no logic for your positions on issues.  Your response to every issue may be sumed up as thus:

'I exist, therefore, I'm entitled to what has been earned by others.'

An attitude or philosophy such as yours will destroy what made America great - hard work, not hardly working and waiting for others to give to you. Please snap out of it and start making meaningful contributions to society.

Jeff, I think that your philosophy that you exist independently from society and therefore owe it nothing is dangerous. If everyone adopts that FYIGM point of view civilization ceases to exist.

Your belief that you can assume to know the situation and and circumstances of those with whom you disagree is also both ignorant and arrogant.

Jim, everyone is welcome here. GOP & Democrats & Independents. Everyone.

"Retired Navy Vet who would not know what Naval service is or was if it hit him in his butt."

As far as rational debate, look what you posted above with respect to military careers. Try posting something a little less junior high. You now own one of the most immature sentences I have ever seen on First Read by posting what you did.

And you want rational debate? Try it sometime.

Jim-was it really necessary to challenge someone's service to our country? There are some conservative posters here who say they are veterans and I have never seen a liberal challenge to that. And what is wrong with the liberals offering support to each other?

I am guessing that Jim did not take the President's advice of talking in a civil manner to heart. Too bad, it would sure help the conversations on there if we all did that.

I could only watch for a few minutes til I started remembering the Bush-Cheney years and had to change channels. I guess this interview is about ego and selling books.

It was a chilling interview. The man basically has a machine where his heart is supposed to be, and will die soon without a transplant. I don't wish him ill, but I also don't want to listen to his opinion. It will be said of Mr. Cheny he was a smart man, but he was not wise.

I hope someone finds out what event won out over the State Dinner with the Chinese.

Word on the street is... tanning appointment followed with wings & booze at Hooters!

It's all about priorities dontcha know! *wink wink*

Yes there is a Mrs. Speaker, I saw her on TV. She's as orange as he is, hee hee.

It seems that talking in civil tones, asked by our President, has taken a detour.

Joe, you sound miserable. You need some sunshine, fresh air, and maybe get laid or something ??

here's an example of why providing internet access to racist rednecks is a bad thing -

WTF ?? Where'd that psychotic statement come from?