First we had the “Citizens United” decision by SCOTUS that opened the flood gates for unregulated political contributions (both Foreign and Domestic) where people and Corporations can make unlimited political contributions to political parties with absolutely no disclosure or limits.

Then the GOP filibustered the “Disclosure Act” to make sure we never know who is buying our politicians and what their agenda may be.

Scalia and Roberts two SCOTUS judges are caught in secret closed door fund raisers with the Koch brothers. Alito is seen at other right wing lobbyist events. These are the same three judges that boycotted the SOTU.

Today it was reported that Mr. Boehner is the key note speaker for a group of major HCR Repeal Lobbyists. More money for his piggy bank. Now you know why his first piece of business was to repeal the HCR Law. Not because it is a bad law, it is not, but because his handlers have called in their favors and he is going back for more.

Now on Wednesday, the House pushed a bill that will abolish partial public financing on Presidential Campaigns. I think this will only enhance the power of Special Interest Groups like the US Chamber of Commerce to further influence our election process.

We are already seeing the various politicians meeting with lobbyist and Special Interest Groups trying to get their campaign donations. Karl Rove’s group is on record saying they will raise twice as much money come 2012 and the US Chamber of Commerce is going to step up their contributions as well. This is wrong regardless of your party leanings. Both the republicans and the democrats have to stop letting the money make the decisions for this country. That is not what we voted for, we voted for you to listen to all of us, not just Wall Street, Big Business and the Millionaires/Billionaires.

I fear 2012 is going to be like 2010, many elections will be won by who spends the most money and this looks like a record breaker, a Billion Dollars to run for President??

Today is the one week anniversary of Keith Olbermann's abrupt departure from MSNBC.

There were bloggers this week calling him a 'hate monger' and other epithets to numerous to counts.

Did Keith get angry? Yes

Was Keith passionate about his political views? Yes

Did Keith ever instruct someone to shoot another human being in the forehead? NO

Did Keith have a 'Worse Person in the World' segment nightly on his show? Yes

Did Keith ever knowingly report false information? NO

Did Keith ever come remotely close to what the right wing media outlets promote?

HELL NO!

Last week, California State Sen. Leland Yee (D) called on right-wing hate radio host Rush Limbaugh to apologize for mocking Chinese President Hu Jintao and the Chinese language by speaking gibberish "ching chong chang" Chinese on his radio program. Yee, who is Chinese-American and chairs the state Senate Select Committee on Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs, said Limbaugh owes the Chinese-American community an apology for his "pointless and ugly offense." Naturally, Limbaugh did not apologize, and instead railed against Yee the following day on his radio, calling him out repeatedly by name.

Yee's call for civility did not sit well with one Limbaugh fan, who responded by sending several racist death threats to Yee's office this week. "Rush Limbaugh will kick your chink ass and expose you for the fool you are," the faxes read, threatening him with "As the San Francisco Chronicle notes, "The faxes include a drawing of a U.S. flag-adorned pickup truck towing a noose that is looped around what appears to be a caricature head of President Barack Obama."

Along with:

'JoBama Rectum Sniffing Moron'

'Fish Head Leland Lee'

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/27/yee-limbaugh-death-threat/Well… I think you get the picture

Here's a challenge for the right leaning visitors who visit this board to step and denounce this kind of behavior ONCE and for ALL!

If history if any indication, not only will that NOT happen they will defend it and then proceed to collapse this post!

Right wing media is playing a dangerous game – and in the end it is ALL of us who lose!

Someone up to the challenge? Anyone… at all?

Prom Date Night:

At the State of the Union speech I observed some Senators and Representative sitting with members of the opposing party. For that evening it may have created some civility as there was a more subdued tone among congressmen and-women. But most of us political junkies knew the political civil decorum would not last.

In fact, early in the SOTU speech President Obama acknowledged the differences of opinion and the need to debate the issues. And debate there will be, as there are two distinctly different philosophical positions concerning the direction the country should move.

MSN was rather accurate in their assessment that President Obama is opting to invest in our infrastructure. The GOP/TP is focused on reducing spending, cutting services, and their desire for smaller government. How could the two positions be so far apart?

It is noteworthy that both sides do have a valid point. The infrastructure does need fixing. Bridges, roads, sewers, water towers, schools, and the power grid are just a few of the things that are 50 years old and out of date. Yet, the Republicans also have a point that the debts acquired by state and federal governments have reached a critical point.

The solutions to our country's problems are closely related to the values held by each party. Republicans favor big business, creating wealth, making profits, and protecting oil and coal as our energy sources. Democrats value the importance of strengthening the middle class, providing healthcare, insurance for seniors and children, a better education for ALL children, plus research and development in engineering, science and medicine. Again, how could the positions be so far apart?

So, who will win this battle of ideas? Do we learn forward or look backward? Actually these questions were answered in President Obama's speech. We have already moved into a new era of electronics, computers, advances in medicine and science. We are in an era where innovative ideas trump working with our hands. The strength of our nation rests on developing the talents and skills of ALL its citizens.

Those who do not recognize the obvious are looking backward.

There are a several entertaining stories in the news:

First is the news that the Senate did not change the filibuster rule as was predicted by many FR lefty liberals. I’m looking forward to watching them eat a delicious meal of crow today (I’ve heard the secret is to use lots of Heinz ketchup). Of course, they may just be MIA since not even one of the usual suspects posted anything on the late afternoon FR story yesterday.

Second is a WSJ story yesterday about how the US taxpayers are going to make a $12.3 billion profit as the Treasury sells its remaining stake in Citigroup. The total profit for the taxpayers from the evil Wall Street banks is up in the $20-25 billion range. A couple of months ago the Treasury put out a press release saying they expected billions in profit from selling their stake in AIG. Not a bad deal for the taxpayers.

The only likely loser for the taxpayers is the UAW union bailout. GM’s stock price has to go up about 40% just to break even and there isn’t even the slightest hint of getting anything back on the Chrysler bailout billions.

Third: Last week Mr. Ed was on a rant about Social Security making the point that the Republicans are calling its finances a “crisis” and Harry Reid says its fine as is. Mr. Ed summed it up:”I don’t know who is right, but, I know someone is lying.”

From yesterday’s MSNBC.com article it was Harry Reid that is the liar:

WASHINGTON — Social Security's finances are getting worse as the economy struggles to recover and millions of baby boomers stand at the brink of retirement.

New congressional projections show Social Security running deficits every year until its trust funds are eventually drained in about 2037.

The outlook, however, has grown bleaker as the nation struggles to recover from the worst economic crisis since Social Security was enacted during the Great Depression. In the short term, Social Security is suffering from a weak economy that has payroll taxes lagging and applications for benefits rising. In the long term, Social Security will be strained by the growing number of baby boomers retiring and applying for benefits.

News of deficits a wake-up call for policymakers
The deficits add a sense of urgency to efforts to improve Social Security's finances.

For much of the past 30 years, Social Security has run big surpluses, which the government has borrowed to spend on other programs. Now that Social Security is running deficits, the federal government will have to find money elsewhere to help pay for retirement, disability and survivor benefits.

Feisty:

Great post to end the week. Lets see how many will accept your challenge. They have learned nothing from the Tucson incident. Just look at Glenn Beck and Rush. People are starting to get mad at the constant rhetoric that is cloak in hate and violence and they are speaking out. The GOP is mum on this still and still uses it every day in their rhetoric. They have learned nothing and more violence will result.

Just look at Glenn Beck and Rush

Navy - Speaking of Beck, I would be remiss not to mention his Nazi tirade this week! Sadly, they have learned NOTHING and are doubling down on the madness!

From yesterday:

Today, 400 rabbis will mark International Holocuast Remberance Day with a letter demanding Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch sanction CEO Roger Ailes and incendiary host Glenn Beck “for repeated use of Nazi and Holocaust imagery” and for “airing attacks on World War Two survivor George Soros.” The letter will run as an ad in Thursday’s editions of the Wall Street Journal and other media owned by Murdoch’s News Corp.

The nonprofit advocacy group Jewish Funds for Justice is running the $100,000 ad that states, “We share a belief that the Holocaust, of course can and should be discussed appropriately in the media. But that is not what we have seen at Fox News.” Prompted by Ailes’ wanton vilification of NPR executives as Nazis and Beck’s three-part program accusing Soros of “sending his people to death camps,” the rabbis demanded Fox sanction them for continuing “unacceptable attacks” and “dismissive remarks”:

“It is not appropriate to accuse a 14-year-old Jew hiding with a Christian family in Nazi-occupied Hungary of sending his people to death camps,” says the ad. “It is not appropriate to call executives of another news agency ‘Nazis.’ And it is not appropriate to make literally hundreds of on-air references to the Holocaust and Nazis when characterizing people with whom you disagree.”

“We respectfully request that Glenn Beck be sanctioned by Fox News for his completely unacceptable attacks on a survivor of the Holocaust and that Roger Ailes apologize for his dismissive remarks about rabbis’ sensitivity to how the Holocaust is used on the air.”

Having catalogued “literally hundreds” of Beck’s Nazi on-airanti-Semitic “dogwhistling” and Ailes’ weak excuses and dismissal of Beck’s critics as “left-wing rabbis,” the rabbis told Murdoch “you diminish the memory and meaning of the Holocaust when you use it to discredit any individual or organization you disagree with. That is what Fox News has done in recent weeks, and it is not only ‘left-wing rabbis’ who think so.”

Though Fox “hasn’t seen the ad,” Fox News spokesman John Cheatwood offered these conciliatory remarks: “this group is a George Soros backed left-wing political organization that has been trying to engage Glenn Beck primarily for publicity purposes

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/27/fox-news-rabbis/

Oh and did I mention that it's now come out that Jarrod Loughner researched polical assasinations prior to shooting Gaby Giffords?

Nope! No connection they continue to say!

You can only bury your head in the sand for so long before you suffocate!

Ron;

Another solid post to end the week. We all agree that we need spending cuts. But we also need revenues as well. One will not work without the other. The rebuilding of our infrastructure needs about 2.5 Trillion Dollars to complete. That will create a lot of primary jobs that will create tax revenues and reduce unemployment. A win win scenario. Also this will create a lot of supporting jobs as well which will increase tax revenues and further reduce unemployment saving tax payer's money.

The GOP will not go for this because it would be good for the economy and President Obama would get the credit. The GOP cannot have that. That want him to fail and be a one term President no matter how much it hurts 98% of the people.

"Now on Wednesday, the House pushed a bill that will abolish partial public financing on Presidential Campaigns. I think this will only enhance the power of Special Interest Groups like the US Chamber of Commerce to further influence our election process."

__________________________________________

Have you conveniently forgotten that your Messiah, Barry Obama, was the first Presidential candidate in history to opt out of public campaign financing and broke his promise in doing so?

From a 2008 MSNBC.com story:

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he'll bypass the federal public financing system in the general election, abandoning an earlier commitment to take the money if his Republican rival did as well.

Obama, who set records raising money in the primary election, will forgo more than $84 million that would have been available to him in the general election. He would be the first candidate to do so since Congress passed 1970s post-Watergate campaign finance laws. Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee in waiting, has taken steps to accept the public funds in the general election.

Paging Dr. Ron: Want to give us your solutions to the health care cost increases problem?? Or do you have another meeting today?

Navy, you talk about the rhetoric, yet look at your post: two Supreme Court justices "caught" at "secret" fundraisers. ..

Caught? Secret?

All justices speak at meetings, some of them fundraisers. As to being "caught", let alone "secret"- since these speeches were widely reported, I find it difficult to believe that your characterization is correct.

Perhaps you were misdirected by the media, which seldom finds these speaking engagements newsworthy, so that reporting on these events seemed unusual to you.

If you do some research, you will find that they are not.

I have noticed that, in the last few days, the left has decided that losing the House must be the fault of the Court. It is a nonsensical strategy that is falling on deaf ears- much like the diatribe about campaign contributions leading up to the midterms.

By all means, keep it up- it further marginalizes your argument. Perhaps we can come up with a cute little nickname for it-

Maybe "Courters".

Oh and did I mention that it's now come out that Jarrod Loughner researched polical assasinations prior to shooting Gaby Giffords?

And?

I see that Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) has concluded that there will likely be no real leadership on the issue of deficit reduction coming from this White House, and that his Senate committee will be taking up President Obama's slack. No surprise there...

And, no surprise that the hypocritical Democratic Senate leadership will make no significant changes in the Senate's cloture and fililbuster rules.

The months and months of abject, pathetic whining about the minority's abuse of the filibuster in the Senate was mere political posturing...a cynical Democratic kabuki dance intended to stir up the faithful.

And most of you swallowed it...hook, line, and sinker.

x

Paging Dr. Ron: Want to give us your solutions to the health care cost increases problem??

That problem was solved last year with ObamaCare. The hand-waving you'll get now will be just like with the jobs problem, the Libs will say: "Well, the problem would have been much bigger if we didn't do anything!"

2 more years of this crap.

Maybe "Courters".

Works for me! Maybe you can take a stab at trying to spin this?

Federal judges and justices are required by law to disclose their spouse's income — thus preventing persons who wish to influence the judge or justice from funneling money to them through their husband or wife. Yet, as the Los Angeles Times reports, Justice Clarence Thomas has not complied with this requirement for years:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be disclosed. [...]

Virginia Thomas also has been active in the group Liberty Central, an organization she founded to restore the "founding principles" of limited government and individual liberty.

In his 2009 disclosure, Justice Thomas also reported spousal income as "none." Common Cause contends that Liberty Central paid Virginia Thomas an unknown salary that year.

This revelation that Justice Thomas failed to comply with his disclosure obligations comes as he is caught up in another ethics scandal regarding his participation in fundraisers for far-right political groups. Thomas once attended a gathering of wealthy corporate activists convened by billionaire Charles Koch to raise money for right-wing political causes, and he also attended at least one fundraiser hosted by the far-right think tank that used to employ his wife.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/22/thomas-disclosure/

Is it just me or is anyone else concerned about the FACT that Justice Thomas is pleading ignorance as a defense? lol

Excellent post, FRR- just wanted to say that before the collapse cowards strike.

BTW- the only bad thing about Keith's show was- I never got to see him take a bunny and a chainsaw on the set! OR- dress himself up an an SS uniform for the cover of a book.

JS1- "Well, the problem would have been much bigger if we didn't do anything!" You say this like avoiding a depression is a BAD thing. Am I reading that right?

Amazing, isn't it Feisty? Seems pretty simple to me. If you are asked for spousal income, and you check none, what is that but a deliberate lie? Impeach Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts.

Yep, always the answer from those without knowledge. Attack those who are accomplished. Poor little Joey.

Being from Pittsburgh, Joe, I can tell you we put Heinz ketchup on everything---even eggs! I'm not eating crow over the Senate's disappointing decision not to change the filibuster rule---I'm frankly not surprised. Both parties are too invested in the system to care that they are not doing the will of the people who sent them there. It is up to us to send new people.

Fiesty:

Here's a challenge for the right leaning visitors who visit this board to step and denounce this kind of behavior ONCE and for ALL

Two things...

You say "visitors", like the "right leaning" people have to be invited to be here. Are you the one that must grant the invitation to post here?

As for the hate filled rhetoric coming to a stop...first you must practice what you preach.

NDD:

I agree. The next big scandal may be the corruption in the SCOTUS. They are supposed to be neutral not fund raising pundits for one party or another. They are supposed to interrupt the law, not make it. It just keeps getting worse with these guys. Money speaks and the laws do not apply to them.

Joe Albany:

Yesterday I really did not have time to respond so shame on you for presuming I would duck your question. The reality is our values are very different and we are both set in our beliefs about how to deal with healthcare costs. You trust private insurance companies. I have more trust in our government. The purpose of private insurance companies is to make money. The purpose of government is to protect and serve its citizens. Actually, Medicare/Medicaid programs and the VA healthcare systems are doing a pretty decent job caring for seniors and our vets. I have supported "the public option" from the beginning as government administrative costs are and have been considerably lower than the administrative costs of private insurance companies.

I assume you will disagree and prefer to argue with my answer. But don't bother. We come from very different values and perspectives.

Mixed Bag- I saw that article on Conrad last night, and began to wonder. . .

Given his announcement that he will not stand for reelection, think he will challenge Obama?

I think there are plenty of democrats with sense who would be intrigued. Let's face it, Obama is giving any challenger plenty of ammunition.

There have been warnings about the deficit for the two years of his presidency, but he sticks his fingers in his ears, and singsongs "I can't HEAR you". Then calls for more spending.

The economy is limping, and he thinks he has done a great job. Does he think "it could have been worse" resonates with the electorate? The results of the midterms tell the story on the efficacy of that line, but it is all he, and his supporters, have on hand.

Then, there is the beauty of the Health Care bill. Like his stimulus, cap and trade, and drilling ban, unintended consequences never intrude on his thinking.

They do resonate with the electorate, and this little gem is not going to reflect well on the program-

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48299.html

Great idea to put in place a rule that causes insurers to stop ALL coverage, is it not?

I wonder how that helps people keep their coverage if they like it?

Louis, Feisty, US Navy, Ron, excellent thoughts to end the week.

As for the filibuster, well it seems the GOP blocked that effort, too, promising democrats they will play nice and some democrats believed them. At least the Secret Holds was banned. Republicans who are cheering the inability to change the rules forget that it is likely the GOP will be the majority again sometime and those same rules will be used to block, delay, deny and obstruct. This is not a partisan issue, this is a democracy issue and abuse of rules is why the Senate is dysfunctional; why it is difficult to get things, necessary things, done in Washington. Democrats were not eliminating the filibuster, they wanted a talking one where real debate took place; it would still have required 60 votes for cloture. The Senate rules have been used to play political games and the losers in this partisan game are We the People. How sad.

Feisty Redhead:

Did Keith get angry? Yes

Was Keith passionate about his political views? Yes

Did Keith ever instruct someone to shoot another human being in the forehead? NO

But Glenn Beck DID talk about shooting liberals in the forehead, something that we saw played out in Arizona. Beck also fantasized on his TV show about murdering Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore. Beck sounds like a man with spiders in his head. While I know it's mostly an act for the morons who watch his show, I still wouldn't feel comfortable around someone like Beck if he were carrying a Glock like the one Loughner used. Or even a butter knife, for that matter. He should be in a straight jacket for the sake of public safety.

John, Tucson Az:

As for the hate filled rhetoric coming to a stop...first you must practice what you preach.

Yeah, sure. Feisty Redhead criticizing Glenn Beck for his fantasizing about murdering people is much worse than fantasizing publicly about murdering people. You wingnuts really have screwed up values.

Feisty

I do not qualify as a righty. I, at this point, do not fit into either party comfortably. I think you are cherry picking your nuts in this case. I will refer you to right before the November election when a self proclaimed left winger stabbed a college professor thinking it was Governor Jay Nixon in Missouri. I think he didn't fit the message and was ignored.

How is it possible that an attempted assassination took place and was not even below the fold news all over the US? I still can't cut and paste but his name was Casey Brezik.

We have nutty people in both parties and hate can be an equal opportunity driver if we let it.

John, Tucson. We're all visitors to this board, left and right. FR decides who can comment not anyone of us, right or left. Much ado about nothing.

Astounding but not surprising… and hour into the challenge and still no takers?

You say "visitors", like the "right leaning" people have to be invited to be here.

Geeze John, tad prickly this morning are ya John? Excuse me, but if I was under the impression that ALL of us are visitors to this site! My bad for the mistake!

BTW: The Midol in on the 2^nd shelf in the medicine cabinet – help yourself!

Oh and John, please feel free to point in the ‘hate filled’ rhetoric in my above post will ya?

At least I now know which category you fall in (defender)….

Thanks for clearing that up!

The sound of *crickets* around here is deafening!

So Ron, the purpose of government is to protect and serve its citizen. Is that an open ended committment, regardless of cost? Or is there a point where citizens are called upon to help protect themselves and not rely on a benevolent (and fiscally constrained) government?

Medicare is a case in point. Republicans are again tossing around ideas about privatizing Medicare and replacing it with a voucher system. The left will do everything they can to discredit that approach. But whichever side you're on on this issue, there's one fact that's undeniable: the growth in Medicare funding is fiscally ruinous. Maybe the voucher system is the best way to go, maybe it isn't But anyone who thinks we can just close our eyes and pretend there's no problem should take a look at Figure 3 on page 11 in the link below.

And BTW, this isn't just a Republican idea anymore. The debt reduction panel led by former Republican Senator Pete Dominici and prominent Democrat Alice Rivlin endorsed the voucher approach. And the president's own debt commission said the idea should be considered as a potential option to control runaway demands on the federal health care budget.

So, for whom are these bells tolling Ron? They're tolling for every American who's alive today, and reminding us of our fiscally unsustainable tomorrows. That's why ideas such as those presented by Paul Ryan and others demand our attention. And that's why we can't continue to look to government to protect and serve its citizens from the vagaries of life.

I assume you will disagree and prefer to argue with my remarks. But don't bother. We come from very different values and perspectives.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf

NJNB-

I think President Obama feels he's covered. He appoints a blue ribbon debt commission, but declines to endorse their recommendations while urging more "investment" at the SOTU address.

No wonder folks like Conrad are frustrated with the leadership vacuum...but, I doubt that Conrad would challenge the President in 2012.

Any such challenge from within the ranks of the Democratic Party would likely, I believe, come from President Obama's left flank...someone who could garner support from the Firedoglake crowd.

That's the segment of the Democratic base that's most disappointed in Obama and the most likely to support a candidate for a 2012 primary challenge.

While I would consider that possibility a longshot at present, the Firedoglake-type lefties are ideologically pure true believers and political activists willing to give their time and money to a campaign.

We'll see.

Great posts to start the week. Conservative Republicans are barely even making an attempt to hide their corruption these days. Instead they choose to play the martyr act, pretending that they're being unfairly attacked when their obvious lack of integrity becomes a focus.

Misdirection is also big in the playbook. You can be sure you're in territory that makes Conservatives uncomfortable when they pull out the "messiah" line. Never forget, it's a dog whistle term meant to manipulate the Christian Conservative base with visions of the false messiah invoked in the Bible. It isn't a harmless nickname given to the President of the United States by detractors, but a cynical, manipulative, hateful term meant to create revulsion among the Religious Right.

No joe.... really? You don't think thats in there on purpose?

Its the first step in what all the libs want.....100% government control single payer sociaist style healthcare, where a gov't bureaucrat decides if you get a surgery or procedure based on their formulas whic will involve a person's age and how many years of "useful" work they have left in them. Im also sure which party you vote for will count too.

What they thought they would get by those of us who actually love this country is that this biull is just the shell (or vehicle) that gets single payer in the door (I mean come on...... the LIAR in Chief said at a SEIU meeting that he is a proponent of single payer)....

But hey....hes a moderate.....

Ron,

"We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook." - Obama

We were the nation ..... not anymore, especially under Obama.

Edision, the light bulb? Hasn't Tommy E.'s light bulb has been outlawed by the federal government because it uses too much energy?

Wright Bros and the airplane they built in their bicycle shop? What did government have to do with that? Who made that SOTU speech? Can you imagine the feds letting Wilbur set a tent up on the beach at Kitty Hawk and the EPA letting Orville drag the contraption out? Don't forget OSHSA fines for not having eye and hearing protection......

Henry Ford? What SOTU speech was that one. And besides, doesn't Obama's Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu want $7.00 a gallon gas? Who could have afforded gas for Henry's cars with a government like we have now? New York would still have 40,000 horses for their transportation system and the 400 tons of horse manure along with 20,000 gallons of horse pee pee per day.

On and on, but it just not business. Obama talked about Korean teachers and how great they were. You think they have unions to deal with, the the big federal bureaucracy, think they doubled spending to get the same test scores a decade later?

Obama wants government in everything. He wants to chose what energy we have. He wants to pick the winners - solar SHINGLES?

Not the way this country was built and not the way it became the greatest in history.

Conservatives believe in free markets. That is the big difference Ron. Also what works -why can liberals not see the obvious?

Through his support of illiegals, Marxists, jihadi, skyrocketing energy prices, out of control government and spending Obama actually brought George W. Bush back to POPULARITY over Obama (check the polls)

Bush a winner over Obama

Holy shades of 2004

Impeach Thomas and Scalia and the other clown who didn't show up for the SOTU address by our President for political reasons. Some non-partisan position by those who are suppose to be neutral.

Shameful.

Never forget, it's a dog whistle term meant to manipulate the Christian Conservative base with visions of the false messiah invoked in the Bible

Thanks for the reminder John!

No one puts the 'V' into victim quite like the right!

Maybe they should focus a little less on 'fiscal' responsibility and start practicing some MORE 'personal' responsibility for a change!

Might give them a bit more authenticity!

Actually, Medicare/Medicaid programs and the VA healthcare systems are doing a pretty decent job caring for seniors and our vets. I have supported "the public option" from the beginning as government administrative costs are and have been considerably lower than the administrative costs of private insurance companies.

________________________________________________________

Dr. Ron, that's it?? That's the totality of your "solution"?? Pretty lame.

Medicare has $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Where's the money going to come from to fund that financial black hole??

Administrative costs are not the problem. They are a small part of the premium compared to health care costs. Even if you dropped admin and profit to zero, it would be a one shot reduction and rising health care costs would still be going up at 8-15% per year, every year.

Most Doctors won't take Medicaid patients because the reimbursement rates are not even enough to cover the cost of billing for it. Many of those that will take Medcaid patients do it for free and consider it a contribution to the community.

I don't know much about the VA, so I can't comment on it.

BTW, a big part of the increases in commercial health insurance premiums is caused by Medicare/Medicaid underpaying providers for their services and they have to overcharge the private insurers to make up the losses on your beloved govt. programs.

Chef Darrell

Oh and did I mention that it's now come out that Jarrod Loughner researched polical assasinations prior to shooting Gaby Giffords?

And?

And ... I think it suggests that Loughner wasn't criminally insane, evidently having had his wits about him enough to form intent AND a plan. I already thought that buying the gun weeks in advance was sufficient evidence of a plan, and this just enhances that. The next question is, what was his motivation? A casual encounter, or something darker, encouraged by what he saw and heard every day, day after day after day after day? And now I'd be more interested in the connection between his love for Mein Kampf and the fact that Gabby Giffords is Jewish. These are the questions that conservatives in particular do not want to hear the answers to, so they just continue to dismiss his actions as "crazy." Well, apparently not.

@ Feisty ~ Good morning and good for you to call the right-wingers out about Rush Limbaugh. If you or I did that at work, it would be our last day at work. And should be. How anyone could defend that is impossible to understand, especially after what happened in Tucson and the revelation that Loughner had apparently been thinking about it for some time.

California Tom ~

Impeach Thomas and Scalia and the other clown who didn't show up for the SOTU address by our President for political reasons. Some non-partisan position by those who are suppose to be neutral.

Inveterate conspiracy theorist that I am, I really do have to wonder about this. What message are they trying to send, and to whom?

p.s. The other clown is Alito. But the Three Stooges they're not.

Good morning and good for you to call the right-wingers out about Rush Limbaugh.

Thanks Anna Molly! They seem to think that ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room is going to make it go away...

Nothing could be further from the truth!

I'm also pleased to see that the insanity defense is crumbling right before their very eyes!

A quick point on solar shingles. Another good example of how Mr. Obama's critics seem to love to pick a point and ridicule it, when in fact it is a great idea with merit. Remember, people yelled "get a horse" when the first cars drove by. Some people just don't like new ideas. In this case, maybe they would prefer to continue to import oil from Arab countries?

In this case, solar shingles are a cutting edge technology that could revolutionize home solar collection capabilities. Thin, shingle-like panels make the old roof-mounted panels obsolete. They are just about invisible; they conform to most covenants that now prohibit roof-mounted panels; they are less expensive to install. In short, solar shingles are:

a) an area where the US can get out ahead in the growing alternative tech market

b) a technology that has a huge potential market and]

c) a technology that can make collection of solar energy (clean, not imported from some nasty other country) a practical and effective option.

So, why make fun of an idea with enormous potential?

Bill, Fairfax ~

Maybe the voucher system is the best way to go, maybe it isn't But anyone who thinks we can just close our eyes and pretend there's no problem should take a look at Figure 3 on page 11 in the link below.

Why is it, Bill, that the response of the right is always to slash benefits, rather than to do anything to control the costs that are out of control IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. It isn't Medicare that's so expensive, it's PRIVATE SECTOR HEALTH CARE. What do you suppose seniors -- especially the oldest seniors -- will be able to buy on their own with Ryan's "vouchers," without the power of the federal government behind them?

This isn't that difficult to understand, Bill. But let me put it more plainly. If we don't have enough money to cover the costs of Medicare, then we certainly don't have the money to give seniors vouchers that are large enough to meet their needs.

Or would those vouchers morph magically into something more valuable to private sector health care providers than Medicare is now? Like chickens, maybe.

Dream on, Bill.

Unless we do something to get private sector health care costs under control, and the only difference vouchers will make is that they will act effectively as the "death panels" your side claims to abhor.

Think about that, Bill.

AnnaMolly- I do not know what area of law you practice, but I have been wondering. . .

Is there a difference between "not guilty by reason of insanity" and "not guilty by reason of mental defect"?

Is there a different standard between them, or is it simply wording?

Joe in Albany ~

BTW, a big part of the increases in commercial health insurance premiums is caused by Medicare/Medicaid underpaying providers for their services and they have to overcharge the private insurers to make up the losses on your beloved govt. programs.

"Underpaying" by whose standards? What "losses" are you talking about? Apparently, you're buying this snow job, too. Lower "profit" is not "loss." What they charge the rest of us to make up for that merely amounts to gouging.

Show me some impoverished Medicare/Medicaid doctors and we'll talk. You should be the first to agree that they only have a right to make what the market will bear. What they don't like is the 900-pound Medicare/Medicaid gorilla in market. They're not interested in the table being level. How dare anyone inject something into the market to protect seniors from their God-given right to gouge?

maggie-965735

I do not qualify as a righty. I, at this point, do not fit into either party comfortably. I think you are cherry picking your nuts in this case

You are comparing two different types of nuts. Feisty is listing people who have power over other people: Like Beck or Palin. You want to prove your point, please list names of any Liberals that would compare to these examples:

On March 22, 2010, a Lynchburg, Virginia Tea Party activist, attempting to post the home address of Congressman Tom Perriello on his blog, incorrectly posted the address of Perriello’s brother, who also lives in Virginia, and encouraged readers to "drop by" to express their anger against Rep. Perriello’s vote in favor of the healthcare bill. The following day, a severed gas line was discovered in Perriello's brother's yard which connected to a propane grill on the home’s screened-in porch. Local police and FBI investigators determined that it was intentionally cut as a deliberate act of vandalism. The website issued a response saying the Tea Party member's action of posting the address "was not requested, sanctioned or endorsed" by the group.

or

On July 14, 2010, a Tea Party group in Iowa removed a billboard comparing Obama to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin.

or

On March 21, 2010, Springboro Tea Party founder Sonny Thomas tweeted racial slurs on the group's Twitter webpage, including one post that said, "Illegals everywhere today! So many spics makes me feel like a speck. Grrr. Wheres my gun!?".

Not criminal law, no joe. Those may be the same thing, just different jurisdictions, or they may be different things altogether. One sounds like it might cover a moment of temporary insanity, while the other covers people with chronic mental conditions, but I don't know that for sure without research.

Which one applies in the Loughner case, do you know?

NJ:

There is a difference. You have a mental defect, but you are not insane.

NHLucky,

Wasn't making fun of an idea with enormus potential. If it has enormus potential, the free market will be there, lining up to invest. Just the way it always has.

I was mocking Obama though. Comparing Sputnik, the Cold War space race, going to the Moon with making a shingle. Free enterprise, the private sector doesn't have the resources to conduct a Cold War and go to the moon for research and scientic exploration - theydo have the resources to make shingles.

The big problem is social engineering by the government, picking what industries are winners and what industries need to die (the fossil fuel industry for example).

Doesn't work. You may recall the last industry the government picked as its big winner ot socially engineer - the housing industry?

How'd that work out for us?

"So, why make fun of an idea with enormous potential?"

You know damn good and well, 'why', Lucky- it's not WHAT was said, it was WHO said it! There are people that would actually rather give our money to our enemies than to agree with the President of the United States of Amrerica. Sad, too, when you consider those very people ARE Americans themselves!

Ron,

Wow, pretty profound Dr. Ron. Got anything a little more clinical, want ot list a few DSM IV indictors on what we might be dealing with, ......or was that just another of your passive-aggressive chicken sh*t shots?

No, AnnaMolly, I do not know. Not my area, either. I am also willing to admit that I am not the person to ask about the death penalty in this case, as I am not objective.

I am against it in all circumstances.

Feisty ,John B, Des Moines, IA, Jody, Iowa, Anna Molly, newday, Dr Ron in Indiana Louis, and all the other pragmatic left who post here you have started this day off correctly with the right tone.

The righties who migrate to these side are filled with blind rage a la Koch Brothers, Karl Rove and the Tea Potty supported by Thomas, Roberts, and Alito who have been derelict in their duties.

I have 2 things to sum up since I came late to the party.

1) those righties who hold on to the premise President Obama is a dictator just look at Egypt. They are rioting because Mubarak is a dictator. Tea baggers you cannot make in comparision to our President like Mubarak.

2)Navy was right about Social Security Administration i it will never be zero unlees the Republicans give it to Wall Street investors who have been salivation since Reagan for it.

Clara KCMO glad to see your fiesty, pragmatic , spirit post back since your hospitalization

As long as the Nevada Loon, Alaskan Witch Doctor, the Minnesota Mangler and the Delaware Wannabe are the voice of the Right Wing...

HEY LOUIS...THOUGHT THE NAME CALLING WAS OVER...DIDN'T YOU GET THE MEMO OR DID YOU GET ABSOLUTION FROM THE HEAD LIB HIMSELF?

Feisty,

I will accept your challenge, Rush is WRONG and should apologize to the Chinese American Community. That is totally uncivilized behavior.

But he is an entertainer--much as Olberman, Beck, Hannity, Maddow, and Springer. They all have their views, they all find some sort of tidbit or fact to back it up.

We need to teach, even as Louis has said, for our people, children, and everyone to think for themselves. Think about how they would like to be treated if they were in that situation.

We all have different views about how things should be done, what we need is our government officials to start listening to us. As our President has done for me--listened to me about simplifying the tax code. Now if he would just call, I would give him the entire solution to the tax code problem.

Anna Molly – no argument from me about the need to control the unsustainable rise in health care costs. And don't just demonize health insurance companies, every player has their fingers in the health care pie: doctors, hospitals, medical device manufacturers, pharma.

And what is one big reason why folks like doctors and hospitals can get away with constantly increasing their billings to insurance companies? Because there's a ton of money sloshing around in the system, provided by our benevolent government. And there's no incentive to control costs when the players know Uncle Sugar will just borrow a few more bucks from China to pay their bills.

Enter a voucher system which provides a limited subsidy to the aforementioned health care players. Suddenly the amount of money sloshing around in the system is smaller, with no expectation that amount will grow willy nilly just because doctors want to bill more for their services. So, health care players can either rein in their costs, or they can price themselves out of the health care market. That's the theory anyway, and it would play out over time. But given the unsustainable path we're on, how can any reasonable person argue that we shouldn't give that approach a try? Especially since the present system is leading us to fiscal ruination.

Anyone who doesn't understand that is dreaming.

Bob 1085084 ~

or was that just another of your passive-aggressive chicken sh*t shots?

And was THAT one of YOURS?

But wait. Before you answer that, I'll need to see YOUR credentials to diagnose Dr. Ron.

I won't hold my breath. Not that you would care.

And yes, that was one of mine. Some days this is just too easy.

Wow, bob! OMG!! And here I thought that the entire aerospace industry sprang whole from the free market!

N0, seriously, NASA was a huge federal spending program that spawned a vast and varied set of private industries, wasn't it? A good example of the feds goosing the market and private industry responding. Because, bob, the feds DO have the resources. Using them is what will pull our economy out of the doldrums. Sitting by and doing nothing will only encourage contraction. A partnership between federal and private resources is what Mr. Obama proposes.

And the sputnik moment, as far as I am concerned (and I was alive then and remember the morning headline clearly) is about using a perceived defeat, like the one everyone seems to think China is handing us (oh -- maybe that was just last week) to spur us on to do better. After sputnik there was a renewed emphasis on the teaching of math, science and engineering. There was national resolve. That is what he is talking about. How can you be against that?

Anna Molly,

I have a question, that has been asked me several times.

Why do some people get "2 life sentences, plus 99 years"?

And, If a prisoner who has been given a "life sentence" has a heart attack, dies for a few minutes, but brought back to life, does that end his "sentence"? And is that the reason for multiple life sentences?

I promise these have been asked of me by students.

@Larry

we already have "panels" that ration medical care...they are called insurance companies and they absolutely determine who they will pay for and whom they will cancel-regardless of what the physician says or how badly the person needs the treatment or exam. Over 30 years in the healthcare profession and I can tell you plenty of stories. Healthcare costs are out of control for many reasons, but one of the largest culprits is the overuse of diagnostic tests. Some of this is because of the fear of malpractice...that I will give you. The problem is, that behavior has become so ingrained in new doctors that most of them have absolutely no clinical skills, so whether you cap malpractice (which I do agree with, btw) or not, it will not change. They run test after expensive test because they have no idea how to diagnose a patient anymore. Unfortunately, tests do not answer every question. Medicine is not an exact science and yet, Americans want answers NOW and treated NOW and WHY DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING? I WANT ANOTHER MRI NOW! We have the best technology in the world, and yet we are not the best healthcare... why? because it is for profit. Don't believe the lie that hospitals and doctors are non-profit. The "non-profit" means they have to pour back the money they make into their practice-which means they buy another million dollor CT scanner or MRI machine so they need to do more $3500 a piece exams which unfortunately are not triquarters so they don't always answer the question anyway. Another problem is that there are so many uninsured and underinsured who go to the ER (the most expensive type of care imaginable) where the doctors STILL order multiple tests. Who do you think pays for this? EVERYBODY WHO HAS INSURANCE in higher costs for everything from inpatie;nt stays to chest x-rays to bandaids.

@Joe

see above....it's not so much medicare and medicaid as it is the uninsured and underinsured. Believe me, the hospitals and doctors are going to make their money...they have to pay me and everyone else that works there. They have to keep up with the doctors office down the street and make sure they offer the EXACT SAME SERVICES, but maybe without the skilled ppl the hospital has but god forbid they should not make money off their services. I see it all the time. Free-standing outpatient services that offer radiology services that may or may not be up to par but yet these doctors have the right to put up these expensive offices and duplicate services because there is money to be made.

Health care is a monster that desperately needs taming! It is not going to be easy, but it has to be done. We are already a nation that has the best healthcare money can buy...is that who we are as a ppl now? Sad. BTW, I'm all for a Canadian (not European, there is a difference) style national health insurance. Why should you not receive appropriate healthcare in the most affluent nation in the world because you work in the service sector instead of big business (or Congress).

Bill, Fairfax ~

And what is one big reason why folks like doctors and hospitals can get away with constantly increasing their billings to insurance companies? Because there's a ton of money sloshing around in the system, provided by our benevolent government. And there's no incentive to control costs when the players know Uncle Sugar will just borrow a few more bucks from China to pay their bills.

Bill, conservatives can't claim both sides of this argument. Either the federal government drives health care costs by putting too much money into the system because they're so benevolent, or alternatively, as Joe from Albany said today, they don't, which is squeezing poor, downtrodden Medicare/Medicaid doctors to charge the rest of us more.

Those arguments are obviously inconsistent. Conservatives have to keep twisting it because you've got it backwards. Benevolent government's role here is to protect seniors and the disabled FROM the private sector, which isn't benevolent at all. All you do if you put the money into vouchers is to permit the health care industry (I'll include everyone because I agree with you there) to cherry-pick who it covers and charge whatever it likes for that. You won't lower private sector costs and you won't be buying better care for seniors. Once free of all constraints, costs will spiral even further out of control, and you'll be establishing passive death panels by saying to someone's grandmother, who can't afford to buy health care with her voucher, that she will die sooner than someone else's grandmother, who can.

I'll leave it to you conservatives to deliver the news.

BigBear62 ~

Whatever do you teach? Sounds interesting. I'm not a criminal lawyer, as I told no joe, and it's been a long time since I studied criminal law with one eye open and one ear closed, but I think -- and this is just a guess -- that multiple life sentences depend on their being multiple convictions to support them -- like in the case of a mass murder. A judge has discretion sometimes to decide whether they are served concurrently, which would give the defendant at least a theoretical opportunity for parole, or consecutively, which wouldn't, effectively meaning the person will die in prison, although the actual logic of "consecutive" lives escapes me, too.

As for what happens if the prisoner dies and is brought back to life, you'd probably have to consult with theologists and cosmologists and necrologists and a whole variety of experts about this, but in my uninformed opinion, if they come back to life, then they've never truly been dead. We just don't know how to define it.

Your statements are true about both parties. Politics is all about gaining and keeping power. Politicians will say whatever it takes to get elected, true or not. I no longer listen to what they say but see what they do. That shows what they really are all about.

Sonbeam ~

Right on. Really.

I don't know why everyone just accepts the idea that the health care industry gets to charge whatever it likes and effectively function as a monopoly, and that no one ever gets to challenge the concept that doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and the rest of the industry should be free from all market constraints. That's all Medicare/Medicaid is, after all.

Jon Huntsman is THE MAN for the job. He's brillant, a moderate, and has the skill and compassion to turn this country into the "nation" that we could all be proud of. He will whip Obama in any debate form, as smart as Pres. Obama is, he is a lightweight compared to Huntsman. He won't hit everything everyone wants, no one will, but he's far and away the best candidate for the republican party, and if he gets the nomination he will crush Obama. Bank on it.

Joe in Albany, first of all, I find it very offensive that you choose to call Pres. Obama, the "Messiah", where did you come up with that crap, Rush, Beck, who? It's not cute or funny or literate. Feisty, love your posts, and couldn't agree more. Beck is a very dangerous man, full of hate and multiple lies and fantasies. I suspect he is paranoid and has delusions of granduer, thinking he will "lead my people" to some fantasy land of his creation. Rush is just a lying old, fat windbag, who just loves money. These people are responsible for much division and hate that is killing this country. Old Navy Vet, thanks for your service, and your wise words. We need more like you, in this insane world. Keep up the good work, both of you!

Anna Molly,

Medicaid & Medicare reimburse hospitals $0.90 on every dollar of cost like it or not that is a losing proposition that hospitals cannot sustain themselves so they have no choice but to negotiate higher rates with commercial insurers. Joe is right about that. What Joe's comments don't take into account is under the new healthcare law the govt is changing the incentive. For instance, value based purchasing will factor into reimbursement rates. Govt will take an additional 1% skim off the top of the already low reimbursement rate to hospitals. They can get it back if they can prove certain efficiencies in their use of medical and drug supplies. Right now a lot of waste is generated because the govt pays for quanitity, so this should lower hospital costs. The other is the shift to an ACO accountable care organization. The premise of this is hospitals are now responsible for the health of the population, not how many unnecessary procedures they can order. Additional monies will be skimmed of the top of the reimbursement rate to provide incentives for indicators like hospital acquired infections, patient falls, re-admission rates, etc. All are indicators of patient quality at a hospital. Hospitals that provide good quality will get the incentive. This should also lower the cost of care because hospitals will have to pursue the best care plan for a patient that provides good quality. Not provide care based on how many procedures they can do to increase the reimbursement. Nobody knows for sure if this will work but it does look more promosing than the current system.

Ed

" "Underpaying" by whose standards? What "losses" are you talking about?"

______________________________________________________

It's simple arithmetic, Anna Molly. If it costs a hospital $20,000 to provide a bypass surgery and Medicare reimburses the hospital $12,000, that's a loss of $8,000. That's the norm for Medicare for just about everything it covers, it underpays. That $8,000 loss has to made up somewhere and the only choice a hospital has is to jack up what it charges private insurers for the same surgey. What makes it even worse is that there are not an equal number of Medicare and private insurer services. Most of the volume of hospital services are used by Medicare patients. So, now the hospital has to make up say, for example, 10 Medicare surgery losses on only 6 private insurer surgeries, thus compounding the private insurer overcharges. The exact same scenerio happens in doctors offices other than pediatrics. And to Ron: the public option would not do a single thing to change this situation.

"Feisty, love your posts, and couldn't agree more."

There goes ANY credibility, Michelle.

I will accept your challenge, Rush is WRONG and should apologize to the Chinese American Community. That is totally uncivilized behavior.

Good for you, BigBear. I have concerns about the folks who work to blur the line between information and entertainment, regardless whether it's from the Left or the Right. That makes it entirely too easy to spin false narratives and convince people that things are true when they aren't. In the hands of a skilled liar it's very effective.

@ Big Bear - Thank you for being the only one with enough intestinal fortitude to rise to the challenge!

@Michelle - Thank you for the kind words! Hope to see you around here more!

Hope you both have a fabulous weekend! ;o)

Anna Molly -- I stand by my comment that the amount of federal dollars sloshing around in the system contributes to the unsustainable rise in health care costs. Did you bother to look at the chart referenced in my original post? As for the remark Joe Albany made, he is quite capable of defending himself and I won't do it for him.

But I will point out that the idea that government contributes to the rise in health care costs is not inconsistent with the need for Medicaid/Medicare doctors to bill over and above what the government reimburses. In fact, I would argue that's a natural consequence of an inflationary spiral endemic to a health care system fueled in large part by those government dollars. Once the momentum for ever increasing costs is in place – and it's been in place for years – then the players who have become accustomed to substantially increasing their rates will continue to do so even as the rate of increase in government reimbursement begins to lag.

The way to break this spiral is to clamp down hard on the expectations the players have for reimbursement, and that's part of what a voucher system would do. You say such a system would just keep all the players fat, dumb and happy because they would just jack up their billings to the moon and provide health care services only to the affluent who could afford it. I say that's nonsense, the market for health care services will be as diverse as the customers it serves. Those that have Cadillac dollars can buy Cadillac health plans, those that have Ford dollars will buy Ford plans. Kind of like anything else in a market economy.

Thanks for reading.

Larry -

Its the first step in what all the libs want.....100% government control single payer sociaist style healthcare, where a gov't bureaucrat decides if you get a surgery or procedure based on their formulas whic will involve a person's age and how many years of "useful" work they have left in them. Im also sure which party you vote for will count too.

What they thought they would get by those of us who actually love this country is that this biull is just the shell (or vehicle) that gets single payer in the door (I mean come on...... the LIAR in Chief said at a SEIU meeting that he is a proponent of single payer)....

Actually you are completely wrong in this assumption. The following link will provide you with the actual FACTS about the health care bill, and the page number of the bill you can reference so that you can check it out yourself. I can tell you are a Beck fan, because you are shouting the same things he does. So take his advice and "research it yourself" . . . you will discover, as I did, he lied about EVERYTHING.

Page 30 of the HCR bill. An advisory committee is set up to "recommend" benefits in your plan, NOT a bureaucrat to decide procedure. Look it up yourself.

Ed ~ Where do you get that 90 percent number? Just curious. How is cost determined? Do hospitals make any effort to negotiate on the other side with their suppliers -- like builders, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, equipment manufacturers, etc.? Or do they just accept those costs and pass along what Medicare won't reimburse to private insurers? I suspect it's more the latter than the former. And without more evidence, I don't accept the proposition that hospitals would necessarily fail if they didn't make that "cost" differential up. But I do like what you say about incentives. Because that's all Medicare and Medicaid are, anyway -- market incentives for private health care providers.

Just anecdotally, there are three hospitals in this town, including a major university hospital, four if you count the VA hospital. They are the only places in town, these days anyway, where there are constantly building cranes parked overhead. Why? Because they don't have enough money? I don't think so. They're all lovely hospitals and doing quite well, even with Medicare/Medicaid restraints.

I'm glad to read your post. More cost-saving incentives, not fewer, are definitely what is needed. If, as some here advocate, we remove even the currently existing incentives, I can only imagine.

Anna Molly,

No joe was having a polite discussion with you and - Ron jumped in with a completely unnecessary shot at no joe.
Does it day after day after day. And he does it not to guys like me that probably deserve it, he does to someone who tries to stay above the mud - thus is somewhat defenseless.

No joe doesn't need me, I'm not defending her, I just don't like unnecessary, gutless cheap shots by someone who doesn't have the courage to intelligently debate.

I went round after round with Matthew, come after me and the guys that deserve that stuff - fine, just leave the ones that don't deserve it, don't ask for it and are simply just trying to express their view in a polite way alone. That simple.

Matthew has written some great posts this month. I disagree with them, but have either complimented him, or left him completely alone. I respect Matthew for the new effort, hope he continues. That simple.

Ron writes some good posts, much better than most from the left. Today is a perfect example. I responded to his post because it was the best. I offered the counter point and was polite (I think/hope). Wish he would have responded, he is intelligent and could offer an interesting perspective/exchange.

Anyway ...that's the way it goes.

NHLucky,

Sorry I wasn't more clear, but yea, that was the point I was trying to make - the government needs to stick to the big stuff like NASA and defense industry - leave shingles to the other guys.

Sputnik? That is a good, valid, different way of looking at it.

Thanks for your comments.

Michelle, I'm on the same page as you mostly, but I disagree when it comes to Glenn Beck.

I dont' think he believes a thing he says. He's been an on-air personality for a long time and in that time has played a lot of different "characters". He's been a morning shock jock. He's been the "rodeo clown" of Conservative talk radio. He's been a "regular guy who just can't see why the elites don't see it the same way." He's been the recovering alcoholic who trusts his callers to stear him right because he can't figure it out himself. All in the search for piles of cash. Now he has this educator/evangelist thing going and it resonates with his audience.

Plus the Koch brothers are paying him hansomely (he's thanked them publicly) to open their family treasure chest of John Birch Society lunacy and spoon feed it to the public. Much of this is seriously dangerous to an America anyone except the most conspiracy-loving aristocrat worshippers would recognize, but when it's all said and done he won't care in the least.

Because for him it's all about the money.

Bill ~ Your whole post comes down to one thing. You have asserted that Medicare dollars flowing into the system are the cause of greed by health care providers. As if doctors and health insurers wouldn't be greedy otherwise. Please. In the for-profit system, it's all about greed. People with their hands in the cookie jar who can't and won't restrain themselves. But somehow that doesn't even seem to bother you.

Those that have Cadillac dollars can buy Cadillac health plans, those that have Ford dollars will buy Ford plans. Kind of like anything else in a market economy.

Wow. How insightful. In fact, that sounds very suspiciously like what I said, Bill. Just one thing is missing in what you just said -- compassion. But I guess that's the price we have to pay for the "market economy."

I only hope it's not your grandmother or anyone else you know that has to pay it.

And thanks for reading.

@ Joe

Just because they charge $20,000 for a surgery does not mean that's how much it cost. Costs are set by looking at all the services provided and what the reimbursment rate is and then they call the other hospitals in the area to make sure they are in line with the area. Insurance then pays whatever they have negotiated to pay and the hospital bills the patient for the rest or writes it off (meaning they raise the prices of the chest x-ray to cover the money the insurance didn't give them). For instance, let's just say an exam I do takes me about 20 minutes to complete. I use minimal supplies, but the machine I use is pretty expensive to buy ($250,000). I get paid say $35/hour. The cost for that exam in my area is about $450. It doesn't cost that much to do that exam, but that is what they charge. Now say a medicaid patient comes in and they only pay say 50% (just for argument). So medicaid has paid $200 for something that costs no more than say about $50 in costs. This is how it works. No one in healthcare is starving. The hospital I work for is a pediatric hospital and actually a large percentage of pediatric patients are medicaid. Want to know when the CFO got worried? Last year when the state threatened to cut our medicaid. Unfortunately, equipment is expensive and especially pediatrics must rely on the govt. because society does not value children so much-they do not get jobs and pay their way and sometimes their parents have made wrong decisions and sometimes they just can't afford to pay the exorbitant cost of healthcare. So what are we to do? I admit, I have oversimplified the equation, but it really does sum up the situation. Hospitals and doctors charge extremely high to offset the amount they will be reimbursed. It is a ridiculous game. And you are right, though, that most of our healthcare dollars are going to the elderly therefore through medicare but I betcha won't find many seniors about to give up their govt. health care. That is a whole other set of circumstances that would require another soapbox -end of life care. I'll save that one for later :)

Big Bear and Anna Molly - I was struck by your conversation about the 'consecutive life sentences'.

Big Bear - you students are asking GREAT questions. That line of thinking - "if a person has 2 consecutive life sentences and dies, do we resurrect them and they still have a life sentence to go" is priceless. You have a sharp group of students there. I am confident that you will continue to stoke their intrellectual curiosity and challenge them to come up with some answers to those very interesting questions (and how to defend those answers).

Anna Molly - Since I am not a lawyer, I am not even going to try and comment on the law, but your answer to the question(s) that Big Bear's class asked was equally intriguing. I guess that the legal thinkers really dod not think that 'consecutive life sentences' process through well enough I guess. I am sure that has something to do with parole, but your answer was very thught provoking. You posed an interesting point though, if a person is 'resurrected', then are they truly dead to begin with? At what point is a person truly 'dead' in the eyes of the law?

That was a fascinating exchange, and it was non-ideaological.

Thank you BOTH for a very interesting question/answer post.

Thank you, bob.

I tend to ignore the ad hominem attacks because, not being given to fifth grade level bullying, I find it difficult to come up with an appropriate rejoinder.

As to Ron, if he really is a psychologist, I feel sorry for his patients. Who, already struggling with a psychological problem, would benefit from treatment with such a nasty, immature therapist, whose mind seems to run on the continuous loop "Obama great, republicans evil. Bush's fault. Palin dumb".

Anyway, it is nice of you to take up for me. I do appreciate it!

Well I am l iving on a 600 dollar a month disability check. I thank God every day for strong conservative people. We need to return to the strong values and beliefs we had in the past. The Constitution should be consulted regularly.

The Health Care Bill is disliked by over 2/3s of the nation. It is the wrong choice. The government is terrible at health care, for the masses. The big shots left or right get the best treatment in government ran medical situations. I am a vet, but the VA is terrible for average or below average income people so I spend a big portion of my income on insurance, because medicare is pitiful. Now they want to cut it down more. That bill was a poor attempt at real reform.

To the poor soul who is confused by the idea that Fox News has the most viewers but that the media is poredominately left leanig (far left leaning). There are 30 plus left leaning media people for each Fox brodcaster. Furthermore, at least 1/4 th
of Fox people are left leaning also. They just also have common sense. If you have at least a bit of common sense you know for wxample spending your self into massive debt will never lead to prospering. They know for example if you add 30 Million people to the Medical system that will cost way more and cannot in any way cost less. To say it will cost less is either ignorance or untruth. But Obama has already lost that fight the people hate the bill, and it will eventually be gone.

Anna Molly,

Total cost comes from the trial balance then its just a matter of applying it on a per case basis (total cost/total cases = total cost per case. total mcare-mcaid payments/total mcare-mcaid cases = mcare-mcaid reimbursement per case). If you compare those two numbers year after year mcaid-mcare reimburse .90 cents on every $ of cost. I'm sure if you googled mcare reimbursement as a % of total cost you might come out with something similar.

To answer the second part of your question yes. The govt has been cutting reimbursement for years on mcaid/mcare. Especially when there is a budget shortfall it is the first thing they look to. Hospitals are always looking at productivity and run rates things like hours per patient day, the length of time it takes to turn over an operating room, cost of medical supplies per procedure. Often time these indicators are benchmarked against other hospitals throughout the country.

Hospitals try to use their bargaining power as much as they can to negotiate contracts with vendors. Obviously larger hospitals are able to work out better deals due to their size but on the flip side of that coin there are only a few major drug and medical supply companies so your options are limitied. Often times they hold more chips than your average local hospital at the negotiating table.

Based on your description of where you live i'd say your in the same place I am and 81 goes right through the middle of it.

"Just because they charge $20,000 for a surgery does not mean that's how much it cost. Costs are set by looking at all the services provided and what the reimbursment rate is and then they call the other hospitals in the area to make sure they are in line with the area."

__________________________________________

sonbeam, go back and reread my post. I didn't say they charged $20,000, I said the COSTS of providing the surgery were $20,000. The costs include everything necessary to provide the surgery from OR nurses to the electricity for the machines and lights to the supplies used in the surgery to the cost of the HR dept that hires the hospital staff to the depreciation on the building and a thousand other things it takes to run a hospital, all of which require the hospital to spend real dollars. When Medicare/Medicaid pays less than the hospital's COSTS, the private insurers get socked with the govts bill.

BTW, I'm not a lawyer, but, I'm pretty sure that hospitals discussing their billing rates with competitor hospitals would be a violation of federal anti-trust laws.

I tend to ignore the ad hominem attacks because, not being given to fifth grade level bullying, I find it difficult to come up with an appropriate rejoinder

And then she launches into an ad hominem attack on another poster. There's that "truthiness" again.

Bob:

I read your comments earlier and it appeared you were asking a rhetorical question. First let me agree that the nation has had some great inventors, like those you mentioned. Secondly, I agree that Capitalism is an "ism" that I also support. But I must add that the point of vulnerability of capitalism is greed, which must be regulated to avoid a crisis similar to what we experienced in 2008.

The inventors you mentioned were from a previous century and times have changed. Big changes require large amounts of money. Projects like NASA, landing on the moon. Reforming our grid system require federal help because our electric companies have not done the R & D necessary to improve expand to our next step in the development of electric cars and yes, trains.
Like it or not, big projects require big government.

With regard to my "butting in" on a civil conversation between Anna Molly and NJ. Yes, it was snarky. The mental deficit I was speaking of is that NJ has a big problem with telling the truth. That is a character flaw. For what it's worth, I haven't seen patients in years. Consulting with others in management is what I usually do.

Now we have talked in a civil tone, which is a good thing. You ask a civil question and I will answer in kind.

@ Joe

I admitted that I oversimplified the issue just to make a point. But, they DO check what other area hospitals are charging and what they are paying employees. I am not in HR so I don't know exactly how they do it to avoid anti-trust, but at least for employee pay, they call it a market analysis. I also know for a fact they pour over reports of reimbursment rates to set charges based on what the average reimbursement is for every procedure. I also will admit that the patient is not just paying for the actual services and equipment used, they are also paying for the knowledge required to perform that surgery or procedure. I was only saying that it is not so much a matter of hospitals losing money as not making as much of a "profit" margin as previously and the expense of equipment just keeps going up. That is what is costing so much money. All this technology is not cheap. So we are still back to the same thing: is healthcare a right or a benefit? I have seen way too many ppl suffer, I have seen too many ppl die because they delayed treatment because they didn't have the money. IMO this should not happen in a country as rich as we are. Also, my opinions are driven by my faith and I am called to help those less fortunate...not those who want to make more money.

Again, a matter of opposing viewpoints...neither one essentially WRONG, but way different approaches and end results.

Thanks for the discussion- I enjoyed an opportunity to comment on something so close to my heart and I appreciate that not once did you call me any names.

Its funny how all the dems say repubs are racist but then they are sexist. They never think any woman should hold a top office spot. Look how they cant stand the four that louisj always has to make up names about. You claim Clintons where gods then vote her down for the clown that is in office now. And of course his rating is going up because he has moved more to center same as Bill Clinton. Like it or not normal Americans cant stand the far left(same is true for the far right). But in the end I dont blame ya dems you put Pelosi in a position to be heard and she made your party look pretty dumb saying things like "we have to pass it to see whats in it", " 500million americans", and under bush gas has tripled it was a dollar something when he toke office and now its two something". With math like that now wonder Obama cant see the debt he is racking up. I know its still Bushs fault.

Anna Molly,

Thank you for your reply to my questions.

As I tell them I am no lawyer, but if I were a judge, there are some criminals that I would never want back on the streets, therefore they are getting multiple life sentences, so they have a chance at parole.

And if my scenario did ever happen, I wonder if they would even try and save the life of a "life sentence" prisoner. I wonder if they have "DNRs" for those types of people. Not to be too mean here, but wouldn't that save money, by not bringing them back from the dead.

But again, thanks for the reply.

And Pietro, Thanks for weighing in. Hope you all have a great & wonderful weekend.

bob -- regarding the "big stuff", here is my take on that:

The space program -- ie, the big stuff -- was built out of little stuff, ie O-rings. The feds led on the big stuff. President Obama proposes to wean this nation from oil and other fossil fuels -- that is the big stuff. Solar shingles is one component of the new "big stuff." He was presenting an example of the kind of thing the larger initiative would include, not the whole thing.

Put another way:

Space program:O-rings :: Energy program : solar shingles.

Thanks for understanding my interpretation of a sputnik moment.

Navy: The thing we can always count on with the Republicans is that they have very limited answers to the larger questions of the day, and they have been singing this same off-tune since Reagan. Funny how they consider the government to be the problem, yet they all want to be government officials. Makes it easier to steal from the poor I suppose. Feisty, you are exactly right. There are limits to free speech, and putting people in danger by lying and rabble rousing (and rabble is the best descriptor of this bunch) should be excoriated by all freedom loving people. I, too, want to know how the "teabaggers" defend lying by their "heroes" a group of malcontents, who for the most part, did not have the discipline to get through higher education.

In 2011, Social Security will run a deficit of $45 billion dollars, and that deficit will be $547 for the next 10 years. So you can talk about bonds, and 2037, and all those other things, it really doesn't matter. SS is in the red, and that money has to made up somewhere.

Either tax it, borrow it, print it, or stop paying it, there are your options.

Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-social-security-run-45-billion-defic#

First: Social Security does not impact the deficit as many in the GOP claim. It is directly funded by people who work and their employers. Currently the Employer contributes 6.2% of payroll and the Employee contributes 4.2% (for the next 2 years). The trust (General Fund) has about 2.6 Trillion Dollars in it currently invested in T-Bills yielding about 3-4% and change on average. The Social Security Administration says it can pay 100% of all benefits until 2037 and then it would fall to 70-80% if we do nothing. Failure (it will never be zero) is not imminent by a long shot, to say otherwise is a lie by the GOP.

______________________________________________

You might want to research a few FACTS before you post nonsense like the above. See my post 1.4 for the most recent (yesterday) info on SS going broke.

Show us a report from any leading economist that says Social Security will be totally insolvent anytime in the next 10, 15 or 20 years. It will not and that is the bottom line. Even if we do nothing now Social Security will still be here for the foreseeable future. Does it need to be address to continue its lifespan at 100% of benefits? Of course it does, and it will be addressed it just does not need to be tomorrow. We have a couple of decades to fix it and I suspect it will be addressed long before that. People in congress are already working on it to extends its lifespan not give it over to Wall Street or let it die on the vine. Just is not going to happen.

US Navy, all the more reason for people to stop listening to the words and start watching what is done. This has been a GOP goal for decades despite Dwight Eisenhower's warning. You said what I planned to say on this topic only much better.

JAS - In 2011, Social Security will run a deficit of $45 billion dollars...

Ok, so more money will go out versus coming in. Well we could make it so that all people are taxed on all their earnings. Right now there is a cut off of $105,000 or so. A lot of more affluent people aren't taxed on all of their income.

I'm for saving Social Security, how about you?

If you had any questions about the kind of thinking that led people to buy houses they could not afford, then blame the banks for the fact that they did not pay their mortgages, the liberals on this board supply the answers.

Faced with the fact that SS is running a deficit THIS YEAR, they deny it.

Faced with the fact that we have a $1.5 trillion deficit THIS YEAR, they deny it.

They simply have no concept of basic arithmetic.

Then, we have Pietro- who talks about the government increasing revenues, but not taxes. Does he think a lemonade stand should be set up outside the capital?

The only revenue the government HAS is from taxation- and that includes excise taxes. Calling things "fees" fools no one- a tax is a tax. Government does not earn money, it takes money.

The only solution to this financial crisis is to cut spending. NOW.

Thanks for keeping that issue in front of us, USN. Merely removing the income cap on Social Security taxes would erase HALF the deficit expected for the next 75 years. It isn't nearly as difficult to solve the Social Security issue as Conservatives would have us believe.

Yellowdog - Mark D: I'm for saving Social Security, how about you?

It depends. It depends on what else we're willing to give up to save it. And make no mistake about it, Social Security will be very expensive to save.

US NAVY SAID: The Social Security Administration says it can pay 100% of all benefits until 2037 and then it would fall to 70-80% if we do nothing. Failure (it will never be zero) is not imminent by a long shot, to say otherwise is a lie by the GOP.

While Im sure you dont actually care about social security as you already have your hand in the government cookie jar (DOD Retirement -- again I am glad to give part of my tax dollars to retired military - like you and vets - like me) and so if you get social security or not doesnt make any real difference to you.

But where I have a problem is you being ok with SS being at 70-80% funding in 2037 as if we should be grateful to the ever gracious government that they are going to ALLOW me to have 70-80% of the money I pay into SS back when I retire....

If ANY private investment company said that in 25 years you will take a 20-30% loss on your investment (and want us to feel that is good somehow?) they would be out of business in 6 months.

But the government can get away with this crap?

And you wonder why there are those out there speaking of a second revolution?

Hell....the more I think about it....maybe we do need to listen to Sharn Angle and take up some second amendment solutions to this government.

I think its time for a total reset..... Lets start this country over again and ACTUALLY build it on the beliefs of the Founders.... Personal responsibility, faith in the one and ONLY True God Yahweh and helping others out when they need it...

As opposed to what we have today... .Govt is "god" and they are the "only" ones who can fix anything....

Tell the gov't to get the hell out of the way and let the people do what we have always done.... fix it ourselves....

Heres a question for you.... if according to the government people are too stupid to live their lives the right way..... why would I listen to the PEOPLE in government as to how to "fix" my life?

You think removing the income cap will save Social Security? Okay- then explain why removing the income cap from Medicare taxes did not work.

More evidence of magical thinking from the eight year old adults who represent then liberals.

Hell....the more I think about it....maybe we do need to listen to Sharn Angle and take up some second amendment solutions to this government.

I guess we won't count this as a Conservative taking the challenge to denounce violent action.

Yellowdog: Well we could make it so that all people are taxed on all their earnings.

John B: Merely removing the income cap on Social Security taxes would erase HALF the deficit expected for the next 75 years.

So the Liberals are for raising taxes. No surprise. Seems to be their answer to most things.

Any one with any other ideas? You know, like not having the government spend the money they get from SS taxes today and actually building a trust fund?

Larry: But where I have a problem is you being ok with SS being at 70-80% funding in 2037

Social Security is certainly the Holy Grail for the Liberals. But as it's turning out, it's nothing but a hollow icon.

Hell....the more I think about it....maybe we do need to listen to Sharn Angle and take up some second amendment solutions to this government.

I did my civic duty by voting and encourage others to join me!

Obviously, the right listens to the "crisis" chatter and believes every word spoken. Stop listening to the words and do some individual research or is that something conservatives avoid. Navy is right and economists prove it.

$2.6 trillion in the trust, it may show as a large chunk of the budget but it does not impact the budget--it is a pension fund and not discretionary spending funds or defense funds. The Afghan & Iraq war are a good chunk of budget spending and are deficit spending because it wasn't paid for and isn't paid for--social security receives deposits from every worker with every pay check.

John B:

How true. Funny the usual misinformation from the same people over and over. Keep telling us we deny things we do not. We all know we need to cut spending, we just do not believe it should be on the solely on the backs of the Middle Class like the GOP does. We know the deficit is 1.5 Trillion Dollars and we also know that a big portion is from the Tax Cut Deal that most leading economist agree that it will continue to stimulate the economy, create jobs (which creates tax revenues), etc. And it is temporary but not free. We know that starting in 2010 Social Security will pay out more than it is taking in, true, but we do have 2.6 Trillion Dollars in the kitty that is by the way drawing interest and will still have people working paying into the program as well. All this was taken into consideration and Social Security will be funded at 100% for the next two decades and not going bankrupt, as the GOP keeps yelling, any time soon.

Talk about denial: When is the GOP going to admit that a piece of this 1.5 Trillion Dollar deficit is the result of the previous adminstrations two unfunded wars, two previous unfunded tax cuts, unfunded drug bill. President Obama is paying their bills and they seem to deny that. What about the additional waste in the deficit for tax cuts for the richest 2% that does not create jopbs or add anything to the economy except to Wall Street where they put the savings.

Same old spin. Blame the other side for exactly what you are doing yourself and hope they get redirected somehow. I am not buying it. The GOP are some of the biggest deniers on the planet if not the biggest. You guys just keep on yapping and sitting on the side lines doing nothing. The American people are sick and tired of it and we will see in 2012 how your agenda plays out.

Then, we have Pietro- who talks about the government increasing revenues, but not taxes. Does he think a lemonade stand should be set up outside the capital?

The only revenue the government HAS is from taxation- and that includes excise taxes. Calling things "fees" fools no one- a tax is a tax. Government does not earn money, it takes money.

The only solution to this financial crisis is to cut spending. NOW.

Ah, here we have No Joe in here own little world again. It is pretty obvious that you DID NOT read my post and now you are here posting what you THOUGHT you read.

As far as revenues are concerned, I stated that the Revenues are too low, especially in the Corporate Tax area as described by the 2010 Annual Budget (referenced from wikipedia). I stated that MAYBE we should look at OTHER revenue streams because the revenue the government is taking in is not sufficient to cover the DEFICIT.

Alan, NJ caught what I said and wanted me to clarify. I stated that revenues does NOT always have to mean taxes; I said that MAYBE we need to think out of the box and get other revenues to make up the shortfall.

it is BLATANTLY obvious that you don't think at all, either in the box or out of the box. You just parrot your hateful rhetoric to get the much needed attention that is pretty obvious to me that you crave.

So be it.

The fact of the matter is that the current fiscal model we are operating under is NOT WORKING. So why not look at some alternatives? Why not look for additional revenues? Why CAN'T the government generate a profit like many entities do?

President Obama stepped in and saved General Motors. From all indications, it seems that those loan guarantees are actually generating some new REVENUE in the form if interest on the loans that were made.

It is a start and it looks like I am not the only one thinking out of the box for once.

Innovative? You bet.

Larry, where do you come up with this claptrap?

I think its time for a total reset..... Lets start this country over again and ACTUALLY build it on the beliefs of the Founders.... Personal responsibility, faith in the one and ONLY True God Yahweh and helping others out when they need it

So far as I can see, the "Founders" were landed gentry or men of some wealth; they founded a REPUBLIC in which only people like them could vote. They feared the mob rule of a true
Democracy. Their religious views were mixed and many, such as Jefferson, were deists who abhored the prevailing religious tenets of the day.

Do you really want to go there?

What Larry from Minot, ND does not want to admit is that there is already discontent from voters in ND about Berg. They are starting to realize what they have done, by putting the fox in charge of the chicken house. Article in Fargo Forum, a right wing rag, and the largest paper in the area about Berg taking Govt. Health Care, and voting to repeal HCR. The hypocrisy of it was too much for most in the area. Including the right wing. I sincerely hope that Berg goes after shutting down Minot Air Force Base next. As to no jo's prediction about Conrad running for President? Her usual ignorance. Gets old.

Yes I do believe that fair taxation should be implemented across the board. Why should someone making more than the cap not be obligated to pay their fair share? Removing the income cap on social security will shore it up past the 2037 deadline.

I am not for every suggestion in the debt commision however, I think that maybe we need to consider some of the proposals of the debt commission. Perhaps we increase the retirement age 1 maybe 2 years gradually over the next 40 or 50 years.

By the way, the GOP leaners who praise the debt commision fail to remember that their hero Paul Ryan voted against its proposals. They also fail to remember that Obama had to sign an executive order to implement it because the GOP refused to go along with a Congressional review of spending.

Since it was a commission it needed to pass by a 14 to 4 majority, if I remember right, to hold any standing and be binding. Since it didn't it is all voluntary proposals, both Democrats and Republicans on the commision voted against it. If the GOP is so concerned about the deficit why couldn't they support the debt commision proposals?

So the Liberals are for raising taxes.

Once again asking the wealthy to pay taxes in proportion to their wealth, or even to the same extent the rest of us do is something to be ridiculed. Is there some reason why the wealthy should be ENTITLED to pay a lower proportion of their income to SS than the rest of us?

Special treatment for the elites of society is the only REAL Conservative agenda. That's been proven repeatedly.

My, my, Pietro. I bow to your ability to obfuscate.

Reading your last few posts about the government creating new sources of revenue had me thinking that you had some childish notion that the government earned, rather than confiscated, revenue.

Your last post revealed your true intention: nationalization of industry.

Call it whatever you like, but it is NOT innovative- it has been done, many times, and it has one outcome: failure.

Rather than saying so in the few words necessary to reveal your true intention, you meander on for paragraphs meant to delude people into thinking you are talking about something new and exciting.

There is nothing at all new about it, Pietro. It is rejected by the majority in this country for good reason. You do, however, get the prize for promoting socialism without ever coming close to saying the word.

no joe ~

Then, we have Pietro- who talks about the government increasing revenues, but not taxes. Does he think a lemonade stand should be set up outside the capital?

Couldn't hurt, could it? After all, we've been funding schools that way for years now. You conservatives ought to like that idea. After all, why shouldn't members of Congress get to take turns running a real business for a change?

John B: Once again asking the wealthy to pay taxes in proportion to their wealth,

The wealthy pay a considerable and disproportionate amount of the total tax burden today. Liberals want them to pay more. And when asked how much more, the Liberals say "All of it!!".

Social Justice: Catch It!

no joe (to pietro) ~

Your last post revealed your true intention: nationalization of industry.

Call it whatever you like, but it is NOT innovative- it has been done, many times, and it has one outcome: failure.

Well, I'd like to see some examples of failure before I take a firm position on this, but it seems to me that we've tried the private sector, too, and that doesn't seem to be working right now, does it?

Or do you have a third solution, no joe? Because if not, I'd certainly be willing to re-think nationalization, of health care in particular. It ain't broke, and that's exactly what's wrong with it. It's breaking all the rest of us.

And you can call me a socialist if you want. Socialists are for helping people. In my book, that beats the alternative ... whatever you think that is.

JoAnna1 ~

Social Justice: Catch It!

And that's as opposed to "anti-social injustice"? I'll take it.

Pietro:
Good Morning. Many of the people here do not read the posts. They look for buzz words that the GOP tells them and then they surround them with the GOP rhetoric of the day and total foget the context in which is was given. They also like to write that we said something that we did not, this is a diversion tactic to move you in another direction. They pick a sentence or even a few words are try to spin it into something completely different.

This is what happens when they have no new ideas, the ones they have do not work and the people are getting wise to their scams. The GOP has not changed one thing for the better in the last two years and they will continue with that agenda for the next 2 years. They cannot point to one thing that they have done for the last 2 years that helped us move forward. Their current activity revolves around repeal this, repeal that and lets tie everybody up with 280 investigations, although some of those may be valid others not so much. Lets see how that plays out in 2012.

PS: Nice post today by the way.

So the Liberals are for raising taxes. No surprise. Seems to be their answer to most things

So, you ask for suggestions, but you dismiss them all because they don't fit into your views?

The purpose of the President's SOTU speech was to engourage the innovation that made America famous. That means thinking outside of the box. Or going back into boxes we may have discarded. That means trying lots of ideas. It means some failures in the quest to find solutions.

If you would rather sit and criticize, that's your perogative. But please get out of the way.

I gotta laugh at you, No Joe, for such a sorry response to my post.

USNAVY, you are right. No Joe has NO ideas, NO plans, NO innovations, NO sources, NO citations, NO thoughts, NO anything.

Just No. Hmmm... I guess I should have seen it coming from someone who intentionally picked the moniker of NO Joe NO bo.

Well, I am just going to say NO to NO Joe.

What I am going to say YES to are some alternatives. Our Governmental revenue stream is inadequate, causing a DEFICIT (not debt, no matter what Mixed Bag says). If we are to deal with the DEFICIT, then we have to do one of 2 things:

1. We continue with the Present Fiscal Model, and grow the deficit, or

2. We look at new fiscal methods or models and shrink/eliminate the deficit.

Those are our choices. Let's see if there are any innovators that will help.

Anna, the private sector works just fine, when government gets out of the way.

The problem with government intervention is that it interferes with efficiency. Therefore, I am mandated by my state government to purchase insurance coverages I do not need- further increasing my already high premiums.

Individuals can and do make choices- some good, some bad. If you have children, you know that when they reach adolescence, they can make some choices that are deleterious to their health and well being- and, that as a parent, you must carefully choose when to intervene, else they will never learn to make good choices.

Quick example- when my son was in high school he got a pretty high end personal music player- one of the first- from his grandparents for his birthday. On his way out the door, I told him it was probably not a good idea to bring it to school. He ignored me.

Well, it got stolen from his locker during track practice. He asked me why I did not tell him he could not bring it to school- why did I always just suggest things, not demand he do them.

I sort of mentioned that, since it was his property, I really did not have a right to tell him what to do with it. I further told him that he needed to think about advice I gave, and why I was giving it. I further told him that decisions had consequences- and not all of them were good.

Life is like that- make the wrong choice, you suffer the consequence. Make then right choice, you enjoy the reward. So, if I would not infantalize a fourteen year old, why would I be willing to do it with an adult?

Interesting comment, New Day, about Reagan. A montage I saw last night of media reports show most of the main stream media saying o'bama's speech was very "REAGANESQUE." Did you not see that? Couric, Williams, Amanpour the od guty from CBS, etc, etc. That has to hurt!

LOL

Good grief, Pietro- you have been outed.

Nationalizing industry worked well for the Soviets, right? I mean, the bread lines, half finished buildings, people living in the luxury of one room apartments with so much love of country that they had a secret police to cart away those who planned to leave- just great!

Even China recognized that they needed a market based economy, or they would be facing violent overthrow- again. (their history with such is rife with such uprisings. I suggest you read up on it).

Not to mention that such gives rise to such caring, compassionate expressions of government care taking as, oh, say, Germany- in 1939.

Closer to home, and more recently, too, we have some shining examples of government business acumen- look at Amtrack, for example. They run at a multiple-billion dollar deficit, so Uncle Sam must be some businessman!

My guess is that you have been posting this nonsense in the hope that someone else would latch on, and make the suggestion for you.

Too bad for you that it happened to be ME.

The wealthy pay a considerable and disproportionate amount of the total tax burden today.

Can't get through the day without a lie, can you? You've been repeatedly given the numbers to prove that the very wealthy pay a SUBSTANTIALLY lower portion of taxes than their portion of the economic pie. It's constantly pointed out to you that most of their earnings are taxed as capital gains at an artificially low level that's of benefit almost exclusively to the elites. Even Ronald Reagan didn't see the value in that. You've been asked how long Warren Buffet's million dollar bet that CEOs are more lightly taxed than their secretaries will go unclaimed. It's been shown through multiple sources that tax cuts for the rich have moved massive amounts of wealth from the middle class to the top of the economic ladder.

And yet you continue to blissfully tell the same lies without even trying to back up your statement or dispute ANY of the facts stated above. You're a fraud. You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

no joe ~

Please explain: Why did we bail out Wall Street? Why did we bail out GM? Why did Carl Icahn take over TWA? Why did the Reagan administration have to bail out the S&Ls?

Not whether you agree with those actions, no joe, but WHY they were taken.

Or do private sector businesses never run deficits? Do they never fail?

How about Enron? What happened there?

Business failures happen every day in the private sector, no joe, and the only difference is that they are hypocrites when they plead for government assistance to bail them out. And most often, not even grateful, as Goldman Sachs has proven.

Now answer this: Did not many people in the early 20th Century, working under the oppression of our "private sector" robber barons and monopolists like J.P. Morgan live and work in horrendous conditions? Did you never read The Jungle? Did you ever hear of the Triangle-Shirtwaist Company fire? Do you even know why we have minimum wage laws and laws that protect worker safety, not to mention product safety?

And are you condemned to repeat ALL of those mistakes? I think so, no joe. I think so.

No Joe - No - it is you that has been Punked. Hoodwinked. Snookered. you are wrong on most things and you obfuscate and lie about others.

The problem is that you don't even know you are wrong.

The sad thing is that you don't care.

The funny thing is that you don't want to at least post things of substance.

You just want to attack, attack, attack.

You cannot find your way out of a wet paper bag with two holes and a neon sign saying 'exit here', andyou want to pick a fight with me?

Good grief.

Save it, No Joe.

You are embarrassing yourself.

John B,

One of the things that I seem to take from you statement is that you want to tax wealth, right now we don't have a taxation on wealth. We have an income tax. Many of our richest people protect their wealth through corporations/organizations, and so forth. Their income will be quite small, such as Warren Buffett, who pays less than his secretary in "income taxes".

I personally have more wealth than I have income yearly, because I have saved, purchased, and protected myself through the years. I will never favor a tax on a person's overall wealth, I don't really favor an income tax, but realize at this time they are not going away. I think, somewhat like Pietro, we should find alternative ways to put revenues into the hands of the government, not just our taxes.

Did the government bail out the banks? Sure. Should try?

No.

It is a perfect case of government intervention run amuck- and the corresponding issue of the government picking winners and losers. You must remember that the government allowed Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers to go under- while insisting that even those banks and investment houses that did not need TARP funds take them- with their inherent strings attached.

The reasoning behind that was, if only SOME of those institutions got the funds, the market would lose confidence in them, and they would fail

That is the risk in the market.

As to GM, and Chrysler, as well- absent government intervention, both companies would have entered into a structured bankruptcy in the normal way- rather than one driven by the government. The secure bondholders, representing the pension funds of police, firefighters, and teachers, would not have been given the shaft in favor of ridiculous union contracts that pay people, for life, to be unemployed. Moreover, they would have been restructured so that they did not lose money on every vehicle sold.

One only has to look to Ford, which walked away from the government deal, to see how illogical and inefficient "government motors" is- and realize that the government should have stayed out of the way.

Enron is about as perfect an example of a deceitful business as you could bring up- and I am glad that you did. You may remember that Arthur Anderson was blamed for their rating of the company. Funny, that. Enron only showed them the documents it wanted them, as auditors, to see. That was criminal. Now look at what the Obama administration submitted to the CBO, as auditors, if you will, on the healthcare legislation.

They kind of left out the nasty bits. That is not criminal, though. It is politics.

Some call that a double standard.

A further double standard exists wherein the government can continually spend more than it takes in, while a business would only be able to run at a deficit for a limited amount of time before going under. A business running a deficit would look to cut expenses- not so the government.

As to living conditions- can you honestly say that those who receive the generosity of the government in the form of welfare, SSI, etc, live in luxurious conditions- or any conditions better than those who earned their bread of the "Robber Barons"?

Think welfare hotels, tenements, or shelters are better than the cold water flat that, say, John Rockefeller was born in?

The difference is that, those people had the opportunity to rise above their circumstances. Most of the people On welfare and SSI do not. They are either enslaved to substances, or by an attitude that they have no control whatsoever over their circumstances.

The $900billion the DOE spent this past year has not helped even one iota. In fact, its history is one of failure- test scores have gone down, not up, since its inception. Since fully half of that amount is for salaried bureaucrats, cutting the budget in half, and divvying up the remainder to the states, would probably be the first place to start cutting the budget.

I am a big believer in self sufficiency- were I not, my own health problems would have me feeling like a victim. I am a big believer in helping others help themselves. I suspect you and I would disagree on how that is done. So be it.

Your post, Pietro, is full of so much substance.

I will not say what.

Look, you showed your hand. You are offering nationalization as the solution to our economic problems.

You will not admit it because you were hoping someone other than I would recognize it. That person would stumble into your trap, and you could then crow that it was not you who suggested it- it was a real grassroots idea.

And you failed.

One only has to look to Ford, which walked away from the government deal, to see how illogical and inefficient "government motors" is- and realize that the government should have stayed out of the way.

A false comparison. Ford isn't in better shape because they didn't take government money. They're in better shape because two years BEFORE the recession began they were already in such bad shape they had to take action. They fired incompetent management along with a lot of other dead weight, sold a bunch of subsidiaries at pre-recession prices, and even mortgaged the "Ford" name to raise cash.

Most of this would have been impossible once the recession began, but even if it had been possible it would have beein impossible to buck the headwinds of an entire world economy in a tailspin.

Ford didn't have to take a bail out purely due to timing. They had already faced their demons and were on the way back. GM and Chrysler were in better shape when Ford reorganized, but weak enough that the Great Recession pushed them over the brink. Same industry, but still apples to oranges.

No Joe - AND??

Is that all you've got? You accuse me of wanting NATIONALISATION?

THAT'S IT???

Was that supposed to be a SLIGHT?

REALLY??

You are worse off than I thought, No Joe. My dog Oliver can come up with a better argument than that, and I have no doubt he slobbers a lot less than you do.

When we have something that is NOT working - our current fiscal model - you want to continue using the same old, busted, tired model hoping for a different outcome.

Gee, that sounds like the quintissential definition of INSANITY.

Why am I not surprised that we are seeing this from No Joe?

Well, No Joe, your 15 minutes of insanity are up.

At least with me they are.

Pietro & John B:
Touche', she just never learns or does not care to. I have yet to see a day go by that she has not lied at least once on the facts and multiple lies about what people have written here. She likes to pull out just a few words from a post and completely turn around what was written to support her perverted view of the world. Or she sometimes just makes up things. People like Ron and you two have more credibility in their little toe than she has in her whole body.

NAWO

Actually, Pietro, I accused you of attempting to obfuscate what you were calling for, and attempting to lead someone ELSE into suggesting that as a solution.

Your anger with me is obviously based on the fact that your earlier posts were too vague, so no one came up with the answer you were seeking; you then had to be a little clearer, and it was I who named your " innovative idea".

Not what you were hoping for, I guess.

Larry:
Let's get this straight. I wrote that if we do nothing (i did not say to do nothing, as you are trying to spin it) that Social Security today will be able to pay all benefits at 100%. After 2037 IF WE DO NOTHING Social Security will be only able to pay 70-80% of the benefits to the retirees. If you read my post this is not, I repeat NOT acceptable to me and never was. I would like to remove the 106,800 cap as this would be the easiest and fastest way to extend those benefits at 100% beyond 2037.

Either you missed understood my point or you are trying to pull a NoJo and spin that 70-80% figure to justify your own agenda and claim I think it is a good idea to offer only 70-80% instead of the 100%.

Your post is a lie and does not reflect what I wrote, except maybe in your world, but still not what I wrote.

NAWO

Same old spin.

Agreed. Nothing changes in that regard.

Blame the other side for exactly what you are doing yourself and hope they get redirected somehow.

True dat. Look in a mirror lately? You do every day what you are decrying.

I am not buying it.

Yeah, that whole denial of your own actions is a hard pill to swallow.

The GOP are some of the biggest deniers on the planet if not the biggest.

Pot, Kettle, which are you here? Libbies do a great deal of denial as well. It's a two-way street.

You guys just keep on yapping and sitting on the side lines doing nothing.

I've noticed, in the relatively short time I've been here you are full of hot air. The cutting and pasting and injecting your own republican denouncing rhetoric doesn't really solve anything, now does it? People on the non-libbie side propose things and you dismiss them out of hand. But if anyone of a left leaning slant says "Hi" you treat them as if they solved the Grand Unification Theory problem.

The American people are sick and tired of it and we will see in 2012 how your agenda plays out.

Should be a fun ride in 2012. Though you didn't point out that American people were sick and tired of the crap a few short months ago and spoke volumes.

Navy,

I agree with some of your statements, I do believe that we need to reform the system. I do not believe that we should allow the privatization of the SS entitlement program. I do however believe that it should go back to being what it was originally intended to do. Be a supplement to ones retirement, not their only retirement.

I believe that we should make it for retirees & disabled individuals only. I don't think that payouts should be made to family members for years & years. I think that is should be a pay in, get out what you pay into the system. And if I happen to pass sooner than expected, then everything that I have paid into the system should be placed into the accounts of my spouse and/or my children. Distributed evenly. It needs to be reformed.

I do think that Roosevelt had the correct idea, having something for the elderly to have on rainy days, especially with a turbulent economy. I see the need for the government to have a safety net in place for those rainy days. That I why I suggest a pay in/get out system. The government should be like our parents and tell us to save. That is what it should be about.

If you don't have it in your paycheck, then most times you don't spend it. The government should be our constant reminder to save, because if you look at the numbers, no matter how much is supposedly in surplus now, they don't allow it to run forever.

In 1940 there were around 150 workers for each and every retired person. Now we have around 3 people for each retired person and the numbers will keep going down. And most of the people retiring this year and for the next 20 years, they haven't paid in as much as they will take out. As stated yesterday, at the $106K level, a person would only pay in $6572 per year, while their employer would put in the same amount. That is around $13K per year. While the average SS payout per month was $1170 per month--or around $14K. So most of these people are taking out more than they ever put in. It is hard to imagine that such a system can last. Unless of course they raise the percentage put in.

Reform this ponzi scheme. And still protect the elderly.

BigBear:
Thank you for the civil response. There is a lot there we agree upon. Have a great weekend.

Agree but not for your reasons. Why is it such a big deal that quitter Rahm is running for mayor of Chicago?

I guess I still have it against him for leading the charge to table the public option. Besides from what I've heard about him, the guy is cut throat and mean spirited. Can't rout for a guy like that.

IR,

Your post is so poignant! It is a wonderful interpretation of "Sputnik" moments with a healthy dose of American Exceptionalism and CAN DO spirit.

For all of the naysayers that want their country 'back',...PROGRESS doesn't go in reverse. Repealing established law is a waste of time and effort. There is room to IMPROVE; but we're not going to put on the brakes for those who only wish to wail and wait. Don't get left BEHIND!

The time is NOW!

Happy Friday, Everyone! REO Speedwagon (Wheels in the Sky) on the jukebox and ICE COLD Mich Ultra at the Dew Drop tonight! I'm thinking HOT wings, too! Yummy!

Wheels in the Sky is a Journey song.

Since I got power back up on the Hill so’s I can get the John Deere fired off I’m going to be cutting out early today. First me and the Bull Rider are going to get the parking lot down at the Dew Drop Inn all cleared out and salted down. Then we are going to get the Generator started so that every bodies favorite beverages stay cool or get warmed up and the Juke Box will play long as we keep the fuel flowing. I believe that our friend NewDay could probably be prevailed upon to send a pair of Paints and a Sleigh around to pick you that are still up to your necks in snow up

First round for friend and foe will as always be on me and we’ll drink a toast to Our Brave Pioneers that made the ultimate sacrifice to move us all forward.

Drive –by how about we add a little more Bing this week

You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
And latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between

You've got to spread joy up to the maximum
Bring gloom down to the minimum
Have faith or pandemonium's
Liable to walk upon the scene

As always my thanks and appreciation to our hosts for their time, giving me a little place to stand, a subject to comment on, a forum to put it in, and their indulgence when I don’t quite get it right or get a little off subject. I purely do appreciate it. Hope you’ll have a fine weekend and good fun among folks that you know and love. To my fellow participants keep well, keep safe, and keep the faith. We’ll make it. See you’ll next week

You’ll come on down soon’s you can this evening and I’ll see how many Good Old Boy’s I can get lined up with those big Old Four-Bys to augment the Sleigh so we can all get home this evening.

Boy, do I feel old now. Went to see REO when they were an open for James Gang.

Then IR reminds me Challenger was 25 YEARS ago already.

Someone hand me my walker, so I can get a head start toward the Dew Drop Inn.

Chef Darrell,

Right you are, my apologies! I often mix those up, the REO song I am thinking of is:

Roll with the Changes!

Buzz, NO WALKER references, since I am still using a cane, post op here! ha ha Who knew 44 could be the new geriatric? And I bet I've seen REO at least 4 times. Love 'em!

Perhaps the bad back is the result of too many mosh pits,...he he (nice pun for my response to Jody, below! ha)

Harnessing horses as we speak IR, see you later!

Thanks for the post, IR----good to remember those who gave their lives in the quest for knowledge and discovery. Their spirit should be with us as we start to tackle the challenges facing us. JS1 derisively said on another subject "our long national nightmare is over." I think in a certain sense the economic disaster of the last few years (and what lead up to it) has been a true national nightmare and I hope that we can turn to positive things as the recovery takes root.

IR; Very well said. TGIF. Have a great weekend

IR...thanks for posting about the Challenger. I don't remember much from my elementary school days (I blame margaritas in my adulthood for that), but this is one of those memories I do still have. I was in 3rd grade and when it happened I can still remember the tears streaming down the faces of several of the teachers. Such a sad, sad day. But, kudos to the people at NASA and our space program for continuing to push forward after that tragedy.

Awesome post, IR. This morning I heard a story on the radio about Ronald McNair, a man who obviously wouldn't accept the word "can't."

It seems that when Ronald was 9 years old the black youngster went to the library and asked to check out some books. He was told that he wouldn't be allowed to do so because it was a "whites only" library. After continued polite insistence he was told that the police would be called. Hoisting himself up to sit on the counter he announced "I'll wait." A short while later both his mother and the police arrived. "I promise he'll take care of them" she said. "Why don't you just let him, he seems nice" said the police. After his books were checked out McNair smiled "Thank you ma'am" and went about his way.

When Star Trek debuted Ronald's brother saw it as pure science fiction. The concept of people from different ethnic backgrounds working peacefully in concert was too much for him. Ronald felt differently, sure it could be. It did, too, by the time he met his destiny he was a black belt in karate, earned a Phd in Physics from MIT, and became the second African American in space.

Grimey,

I can't resist,...

Kind of like the way we Dems continue to push FORWARD after the Bush Tragedies,...

Sorry to trivialize, but you left the door wide open; someone had to come along and close it.

Excellent reminder, IR. Yes, we can.

Aim high, dream big and the rest falls into place.

John B I can't help but add a little to your story about Ron McNair. He got his undergrad degree from North Carolina A&T in Greensboro N.C. It was a school for African Americans back in the days of segregation and has a long history of turning out fine people. Back when I went out into the world in search of fame and fortune I was able to do some of my course work toward my degree there. While Mr. McNair was after my time there and I never had a chance to meet him that school counts him as one of thier finest Grads and his name graces thier Science Hall

Feisty,

Maybe they should focus a little less on 'fiscal' responsibility and start practicing some MORE 'personal' responsibility for a change!

You are talking about the very party that is 20 million in debt. This fiscally responsible party spent more than they had and now RNC is facing big cash problems.

Hiya baylie!

Thanks for pointing that out and thanks for the back up above!

Nothing like some old fashion 'team work' ;o)

Have a Great Weekend!

Feisty,

No problem - just stating the obvious. Too bad my post somehow ended up in the wrong place and not where I intended it to be.

I enjoy reading your posts as well as most of the people's who post here.

You have a great weekend as well.

Pawlenty is the real deal. A man that stands for what he believes and will follow thru on his promises. A family Man with a clear concsise agenda. I hope he gets the nod. He will clean up the mess left by the Left.

What do you know, Jody- we agree on something. When I read the Kucinich story, I was appalled- and angered. Should he choose to present his dental bills to the company that sold him the wrap containing an olive pit, I would understand.

But to sue for $150,000?

And there are those who think we do not need tort reform.

Jody,

You've managed to sum up the 'boob' moments of the week:

Arm pits and Olive pits. HA HA

Once again, people making a lot of noise about things that either they know little about OR they don't have a meaningful impact on the lives of 280 Million American People. You really can't make this crap up.

PS. You must have missed Donnie Deutsch's 'moment' ths morning on MO JOE. Talk about crazy,...

WIth everything going on in the country and the world (Egypt, anyone?), You can rest assured the olive pit deal what what was on Hannity's small mind the most last night. I had to wonder: "Geez- did Obama's poll numbers go up AGAIN??

Jody:

Great recap of a weird week. I can hardly wait to see what is in store for next week.

FR does not mention that the US Supreme Court declared Bush the winner of the 2000 campaign despite the fact the VP Gore had more citizen votes.

Umm, presidents are elected on the basis of the electoral vote, not the popular or "citizen votes."

Umm 2, you may recall that after the 2000 election the media horde descended on Florida to analyze how the outcome might have been affected if votes had continued to be counted according to a variety of citeria proposed by Democrats at the time. In every scenario, Bush still won. You leftists really need to get over that.

Good Morning Jody:

I was out yesterday afternoon and could not comment on the Pence story. Thank you for the condolences. My take on Pence is that he read a little bit of American history and learned that the last person to become President from the House of Representatives was James Garfield, our 20th president. However, a number of people have become President after living in a state governor's mansion. He may be a contender in about 6 years from now. But he is so conservative, the country will want no part of him.

And in local news...if you want to know what America would be like if the Tea Party wins more national offices, look at what is happening in my state. This week, our new Tea Party Governor, Paul (Kiss my Butt) LePage has sent 36 new proposals for rolling back environmental protection laws in Maine.

Last year the Maine Bureau of Environmental Protection voted unanimously to phase out the use of BPHA from plastic articles designed for CHILDREN, like sippy cups and nursing bottles, in light of studies linking that chemical to cancer, obesity and learning disabilities.

Our New Tea Party Governor wants to recind that policy. He says Maine should not have more stringent laws than the federal government. So much for the philosophy that states know better than the feds! The hypocrisy is astounding. We just got done cleaning up Maine's rivers from pollution from the days when there were no environmental protection laws. We are already suffering from air pollution from the Midwest. Now our Tea Party governor wants to attract and enable polluting industries to our state; maybe because it worked out so well for the fishermen in the Gulf. As much as we love the motto "As Maine goes, so goes the nation," I hope it's not true in this case.

What a great recap of an odd week, Jody. In Kucinich's possible defense, it may have been that his insurance company insisted on a lawsuit in order to get the cafeteria's insurance company to come to the table with a settlement for the medical bills, etc. Otherwise it is pretty stupid.

The bottom line of your post, though, is that another week went by with the Republicans doing nothing of substance to move the nation forward and that is sad.

Looking forward to Happy Hour at the Dew Drop---I'll buy for anyone wearing black & gold!!

SteelerFan:

How true, they make a lot of noise, fill up the airwaves but at the ned of the day they have done NOTHNIG to help this country except to get in the way and try and stop everything.

THe party of no is the party of NOTHING.

Clara, I did miss Donny D this morning, maybe that was a good thing.

As for the electoral college, I'm well aware of that little fact but apparently pointing out the difference in what took place in 2000 and 2008 and why one should not forget the difference in their first Wins and an incomplete comparison between Bush and Obama is unacceptable to conservatives and I am the one who must "get over it" as if I haven't moved beyond 2000. Hey, a good share of the hoards who went to FL were republicans activists who did their best to intimidate the workers trying to do their job.

Steeler Fan. Good point from one who knows the law far better than I. But I still give Kucinich a Jeer and if the insurance required a law suit to pay for dental work--a jeer to them as well.

Pointing out the absurb sounding law suit was not a call for Tort reform from me, just merely commenting on how ridiculous Kucinich's suit sounds. As for Tort reform, the only thing that needs reforming are those who encourage frivolous lawsuits over olive pits or some other non-life threatening incident. There are people seriously injured who will have had their lives altered, some died and it is the right of them or their families to seek restitution from whomever was negligent. The only thing the kind of tort reform the conservatives want would do is limit the dollars those who were truly negligent might have to pay for producing products that harm, for failing to provide safe working conditions, or amputated the wrong limb. The reform needed is to get rid of TV ads claiming riches will be won by contacting John Doe's law firm. No problem advertising law services but keep them to "have a need for.....we do great work".

It is fairly amazing, is it not, Bill?

Our deficit has reached crisis proportions, and Obama's solution is to spend more money.

Tunisia, which was a pretty strong ally of this country, has just had a revolution that is leaderless- who, exactly, do you think will step into the gap?

Egypt is erupting into violence- ElBaradei, who is a big talker, but who is vacillating on taking a leadership position, has arrived to stir the pot- and the Muslim Brotherhood has now endorsed the violence. Who do you think will step into that gap?

Yemen is more cut and dried- it is an Islamist revolution.

Obama is urging all of these besieged allies to "commit" to human rights, and for heaven's sake, not do anything to harm the protestors.

Too bad he could not find those words, weak as they are, when it was the IRANIANS who took to the streets in protest.

GDP growth for the fourth quarter, in the preliminary announce,net, was an anemic 3.2%. It may be revised upward to the estimated 3.5% when the final figure is announced next month, but what of it? We need growth in the 7-8% ranged to recover from the recession. Will NOT happen with the deficit this high. The backdoor cap and trade policy, announced to great
"fanfare" - on Christmas Eve, when the whole world was paying attention- will do wonders to further depress growth.

Meanwhile, the intrepid "journalists" on this site see shades of 2004. It's funny- I read the headlines this morning, and saw shades of 1978.

Bill, Fairfax VA

"A popular narrative these days is that the Tea Party will prove to be a divisive force within the Republican Party and lead to the self destruction of both. The Washington Post jumps on that bandwagon this morning by suggesting that decisions of some new Senators to not join the Senate Tea Party Caucus "underscores the fissures within the Republican Party." I don't buy that argument, never have"

Let's just hide and watch, shall we? Should be quite interesting.

Bill...Great post. The Republicans certainly lost their way when it came to fiscal restraint in the 2000's. If this helps to move us back towards that, then I'm all for it.

Bottom line is that the economy is still recovering, businesses are exceeding both sales and profit expectations (71% on the big board reported better than expected sales and profits), big corporations have over a trillion in cash and some are now saying they will be hiring (hope it is in the USA), Stock Market flirting with 12,000, about a 48-50% increase since President Obama has taken office and yes the deficit is to hit 1.5 Trillion. A big chunk of that is from the Tax Cut Deal (860 Billion). The positive side of this is that many leading economists say this Tax Cut Deal will continue to stimulate the economy, create much needed jobs (reducing unemployment) etc. Is this not what the people wanted? Nothing is for free and besides this 860 Billion tack on is temporary, some of it goes away in 13 months and most of it is done in 2 years. Yes it is a big number but not a permanent one and it does help this country which is the point. Sitting on your butt doing nothing but complain is not the answer, and the people have said so.

To think I did not support Hillary Clinton in 2008 because I was afraid she would be too divisive. Hillary! A woman with an honest to God Ivy League education, law degree, and experience on the international stage. I looked at her "likeability" numbers and I chose Obama, because he could unite the Party and the nation.

Republicans continue to embrace their birther, wingnut, tax evader side, despite the fact Tea Party spokespeople are shrill, rigid ideologues and unlikeable to boot. Well, OK. Good luck with that.

Drive by,

My reaction is that apparently there is still 'honor among thieves',...and it is to be admired?

PS. I think the slogan is "I got mine, screw you".

Clara -- Holy Mud, it's been ages since you graced my posts with one of your typically thoughtful remarks. But about those thieves you mention, are you talking about the spend until you drop Democrats who are stealing the future from our progeny? If not, you should be. Because that's the stealth theft that's going on these days, led by our Cheerleader-in-Chief.

Your slogan is spot-on. It is a variant of "ME FIrst", I believe.

I think the slogan is "I got mine, screw you".

Hi Clara! Thanks for posting the 'sanitized' version of what mine is.. ;0)

Buzz - care for some Notchyo Cheese?

Affirmative on the cheeze, FRR! Maybe a Bud or two also so I can understand some of the nonsense that appears and reappears on here daily. You know- "liberal Press' and other baseless noise.

One question that might be asked is how much money will be saved by going back to the 2006 budget. But don't forget, the Bush budgets NEVER contained the cost of two wars or disasters so does that mean that Congress can ignore those costs because they weren't included? Be careful what you wish for GOPTPers because all you could get is smoke and mirrors.

I was thinking of you this morning when I saw the news of your coach, Nash---Jeff Fisher seems like a nice guy but he just never got the Titans far enough, I think.

I couldn't believe as I read through FR that the news of Q4 growth wasn't the banner headline. And I don't mean because of political implications, although there are those, but because of what it means to our fellow citizens who have been trying to hard to find jobs and get back on their feet. Good news for them is good news for us all.

Re: Egypt---I sometimes think we have Middle East fatigue---it is always there and always seems to be beyond solution.

Thanks for thinking of me Steelerfan . . . I've been thinking of you a lot too with the Super Bowl approaching . . . I am rooting for the AFC and the Steelers! :o)

And I agree about the Middle East fatigue as well. . . I think I am suffering from fatigue with politics as well.

To all those who keep harping on the idea that spending is bad and we need cutbacks -- please keep in mind the near-term vs the long-term. In the near term, spending is good; it is reviving our economy. Yes, it looks bad on the balance sheet. Part of this is due to the fact that normal revenue collections are down because of high unemployment. When employment comes back up (due to spending), revenues will come back up and improve the balance sheet considerably. In the long-term, we do certainly need to improve the overall balance sheet. But spending right now is the way to do that. Anybody who says different apparently doesn't understand the economic concept of "contraction." If you keep cutting spending, the economy will contract even more in a downward spiral. Of course, I don't buy the idea that putting ever increasing amounts of dollars into the hands of the wealthy corporations will result in hiring. Just look -- they are sitting on record amounts of cash. Are they hiring? Are they?

Perfectly stated, NHLucky. Don't be discouraged when you find that there are many who don't want to hear the facts.

Excellent Post, NHLucky. It is pretty obvious that many don't - or don't want to - understand that you need to continue to spend WISELY on our operating costs/cost of living or else this whole exercise is one of futility.

Thanks for the support for my Steelers, Nash.

I think part of the fatigue is winter blues---it is only the end of January and we are all fed up!! I don't have fatigue for the leadership of our President but I am tired of the constant carping that goes on.

Frustrating. No wonder President Obama doesn't get credit for bringing the country back from near total collapse, for the stimulus creating and saving jobs, for the improving economic picture, the media skips over that too often.

Jody - it is because it didn't happen. It is an illusion that about the liberals or 20% of the country espouse. Say it as often as you want but it won't make it happen. We don't have a revenue problem in this country - we have a spending problem in this country. Both sides - all sides. We need to have across the board cuts and live within our means. Keynesian economics has never worked anywhere in the world - it won't work here.

Word.

I submit for your consideration: The One-Half-Term Governor from the great state of Alaska.

The Newt was in Iowa this week, front page article below the fold with pictures along with photo and article above the front page fold about Iowa's far right winger Vander Plaats--President Obama's SOTU was at the bottom of the front page, no photo. I reminded my local editor that they continue to appear biased--that the President, regardless of party, should garner front page above the fold with photo.

I wonder how long it will be before Vander Plaats is outed? Anyone who's WHOLE LIFE is devoted to denying equal rights for homosexuals has to be SERIOUSLY supressing something.

Great point, Houston. Conservatives seem to skip the parts of the Constitution and actions taken by our ancestors that they don't like hoping no one will notice.

I think you are right about Huntsman, Frank---I think 2016 will be his year. I also think you are right about Jeb Bush---if his name were Jeb Smith he'd have a better chance. Re: Palin and Bachmann--since I'm not a Republican any more I don't follow their primary process, but couldn't one of them get enough of the conservative base behind her to get significant delegates in the primaries and win the nomination?

About the threats to Mr. Yee, what troubles us is the behavior by Mr. Limbaugh in the first place--was that really necessary followed by his failure to later acknowledge Mr. Yee's point or later condemn the death threats. When will someone on the right say things have gone far enough?

Enjoyed your comment Frank "Grimey" Grimes. Right now it appears the better GOP candidates have retreated from the stage because the economy is improving, President Obama's poll numbers have risen and the country feels better about itself. Liberals may discuss and joke about Palin running which would make it easier for President Obama but this liberal does not want to see her or Bachmann or any other of the far right extremists as candidates for the Presidency. I see them on the ticket as dangerous. I'd rather losing an election to a qualified GOP candidate than risk the country to the whacky elements that have surfaced.

Jeb Bush would have been a much better President that G. W. Bush; I've always thought that. From what I've read, that was the initial plan but Jeb lost an early run which gave brother George the advantage of being a two-term governor. I seriously doubt we would have invaded Iraq under Jeb's leadership for a lot of reasons. That said, the idea of another Bush just turns me off and not because I'm a democrat--G.W. tainted the Bush name and I'm not sure voters are ready for it.

I agree with Steeler Fan about Limbaugh's comments and Mr. Yee. Free speech is one thing but what has troubled me for a long time is the ugliness coming from the right-wing media, the hate, the references to violence, the demonization of people. I ask the same question, when will someone from the right stand up against that kind of rhetoric and when will Murdoch and the others who currently embrace and condone it finally fire some people.

One of the plans was to maintain the 60 vote cloture but to require an actual talking filibuster. It disgusts me that too many old time democrats refused to consider the reasonable rules changes that were presented. There was nothing that would have prevented dissent but it would have speeded up the process or forced visibility. I can say though, that my old-timer Senator, Tom Harkin, did vote for the changes--in fact, he's been trying to get the rules changes since the 90's.

Jody - Yeah I heard about Harkin, good for him. The reform minded guys got a little bit. Maybe they should have sugested dropping the 60 vote cloture level down to say 56 instead of proposing to go all the way down to 51. I wonder if that would have passed.

The liberals knew better than to change the rules now because they are going to be in the minority after the 2012 elections. There are 23 Dems seats up for election and only 10 Repub seats. The Repubs already have 47 and McCaskill from MO, the ND seat, the VA seat, the PA seat the FL seat - all the incumbents are in deep trouble. MessNBC won't admit it but there is no way the Dems hold onto the Senate in 2 years.

0bummer agreed with McCain to use public financing and then lied and went the private rout. The first of many lies by 0bummer.

Houston, you KNOW they wish she would STFU. But, not a one of them will come out and say it, because they are terrified of the 'baggers. Rove is the only guy that seems to know that if they let her keep making appearances on Fox, she will eliminate her by herself, and they won't have to deal with her anymore.

nah, Republicans admire Sarah Palin's "courage" in keeping profanity levels up in political dialogue.

When Sarah Palin was first brought on to the national stage, it seemed to me she was "not ready for prime time." I didn't blame her for that--I blamed the people who put her into prime time regardless of whether she was ready. But it strikes me now that she has not spent the time since the 2008 election growing as a person or as a leader---if this is an example of her leadership skills. She has made a lot of money and been on TV--I guess that is OK for her.

I also blame the McCain campaign for complete failure in selecting Palin. I read that she was selected and vetted in one week and that those who did the vetting indicating their report was not worth much because they did not have time to really investigate her. All potential VP candidates complete lengthy forms and most take weeks if not months to complete them--she had something like 24 hrs. McCain met her just once and that was the week he announced her as running mate. To me, it proves one thing: not only was Pain not ready for VP but John McCain was not qualified to be President either.

Steeler Fan:

But it strikes me now that she has not spent the time since the 2008 election growing as a person or as a leader

Oh, she's grown as a person all right: she's grown meaner, nastier, and more self-centered than she was when she was libeling then-Senator Obama as someone who "pals around with terrorists."

Actually the concervatives see her as a voice of reason it is always a liberals thought that nothing breaks a bank at all not that all the debt is bad they would much rather play a dangerous blame game of he spent she spent silly nonesence. A dangerous game of who can compleatley bankrupt this nation.

In comes the tea party fed with with the game of who can destroy this nation faster and sarah is a spokes person for this cause so of course the people involved in bankrupting this nation and spending the children of this nation into a mortgage payment before they even get a chance to live their own lives is beyond craziness.

I find it childish to continue on this dangerous path.

Obama saying he will freeze a ratcheded up spending is not helpful to this nation at all.

This must stop!

Your foolish defence of this continued spending placed on the innocent of the future and at the cost of higher prices and lost jobs is a cancer on this nation.

Everything must be put on a list of must have and not want to have.

NO NEW PROGRAMS!

This nation MUST cut back for the sake of NOT you but the future of this nation.

Greed is a sickness.

sandyshores, you need to do some research about where the debt REALLY came from. At the time Barack Obama took office 70% of ALL the national debt was accumulated through the policies of presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Republicans CLAIM to be the party of fiscal responsibility while consistently pursuing policies that explode the debt.

Before the supply siders, Dems and Repubs brought the debt down relative to our income in 27 out of 35 years. The supply siders (with Reagan and the Bushes) raised it 20 out of 20 years. That's no accident.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

George Orwell wrote about you.

'Conservative America may as well adjust to the new"progressive" dictatorship. It;s here to stay. They have the press...'

Would that be all the stations that carry Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Malkin, Medved, Savidge, Cunningham, et.al., or would that be all the newspapers that carry Cal Thomas, Dick Morris, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, et.al? Maybe some of Rupert Murdoch's many outlets?? Please share, jasperark, as I'm sure some of us libbies wold like to tune into some of that 'progressive' press from time to time.

jasperark

Conservative America may as well adjust to the new"progressive" dictatorship.

So, "dictatorship" is what conservatives call a system of government in which the leaders are elected by the people? That's what we have, although the system has always been badly undermined with corporate money and may be totally perverted due to the Supreme Court's Citizens' United ruling that lets them pour unlimited amounts of cash into election campaigns.

Conservatives talk about the "liberal press" and they talk about "the progressives...having the press".

In the next breath they brag that Fox News has the highest viewership in the country.

I'm confused...

Jasperark just quoted one the traditional "talking points' of the right, none of those talking points are rooted in fact but they sound great to the faithful.

Probably the most sensible solution offered to date. You are spot on correct, Pat ~ spending cuts alone will not reduce the deficit by any significant amount and most assuredly will not have positive impact on the overall debt. If the deficit were cut by one-third, that still means an additional trillion dollars will be added to the national debt. There is no easy way out of this mess yet both sides are trying to find one. We cannot grow ourselves out of debt because we no longer have the manufacturing and job base to do so. We cannot cut our way out because we simply cannot cut that deep without severing critical needs. We cannot gain ground by reducing spending while at the same time reducing the revenue stream by a commensurate amount. This is not high math ~ its simple addition and subtraction. It is most inconvenient that the rules of math will not bend to accommodate the political desires of competing philosophies. But they never have.

Red head i have only to put Oberman lies in my browser to see an internet full of blogs about his lies. If you are on the far left nothing will ever make you believe that. If you are on the right you will know those facts.

The left never seems to have a grasp on real numbers.

Let's just use easy math to illustrate this fact.

If i am a boss who hires middle class workers and i have 100% of the money I have earned for my company. I already give 50% of that to the government.

Let's say for argument sake i have 3 employees and myself as the fifth each get 10% with a 10% saved for the bad days so I can carry my employees and maybe buy needed items when things go wrong. Now let's say the government wants 10% This means I must fire one person.

Like it or not that is how it works and since i am not the government I cant print money to keep people.

This means when the government takes more money people get fired.

Since I as a boss I always have to plan ahead if the government tells me my taxes are going up I have to plan for that eventuallity so I fire two people and hold money for that eventuality.

This is the why the economy is bad it is lack of trust in a government that has threatend this nation for the last two years.

Let's move to the statement made about our infrastructure. If we dont have the money and we dont we cant spend it. I dont know how i can be any clearer then that. It is the duty of anyone responcilbe for the household or even government their really is no difference to ballence the budget acording to the money that is collected not some pie in the sky nonesence that does not exist.

This goes for any of the silly wish list the liberals want.

The fact is we are in debt the right thing to do is pay off that debt first then see where we need to spend money.

For the sake of the nation grow up already.

I don't agree one bit there is nothing to cut. we have a trillion in government waste and things that do not effect the people of this nation one bit. there is no reason we should continue this debt. Eric Cantor became a popular man with his you cut site.

The last thing a country that is already in alarming debt needs is any new programs. Either we fend for ourselves or the next generation or two wont have anything but poverty thanks to the never ending greed of the liberals.

Ummm, sandy? First of all, the majority of all corporations pay NO income tax, not 50% as you state. Secondly, corporate income tax is on PROFIT, which is figured AFTER most expenses including salaries. That includes salary for ownership, should owners decide to collect a salary for the corporation. Most do.

Your math works fine...your scenario is badly flawed.

The liberals - both the media and voters don't realize how unpopular 0bama is. The have deluded themselves that last Nov 2nd didn't happen and that somehow the Independents that voted against the liberals and the 0bama agenda are suddenly going to change their minds. There are 23 Senate races where the Dem is up for election and only 10 Repubs. With the Repubs having 47 members already there is almost no way that they won't take the Senate. States like Ohio, PA and Florida which went for 0bama last time have turned very Red and will not be in the Obama column again.

And yet he's STILL more popular than Reagan or Clinton at this stage in their presidencies. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

Gee, I think you just proved my point. Too bad.