Heads I Win; Tails You Lose:

The other day I was thinking about which Republican candidate would be easiest for President Obama to beat. Romney is ahead in delegate votes; he recently won Wyoming, but he is a flawed candidate. He flip-flops like a fish out of water and no one has any idea what he really believes. His plastic persona does not connect with the middle class, which is a big problem for him. Now I must say our US population is not that statistical bell-shaped curve anymore: there is a smaller middle class, a larger group of poor people, and more wealthy people. In fact, in the primaries the wealthy are voting for Romney in droves and that is how he is beating Santorum. There is very little enthusiasm in the GOP for Romney and that is his Achilles heel.

Santorum is a different story. He recently won Kansas and the Tea Party seems to like what he has to say; as crazy as it may be; thus he may be able to sew up that 35% conservative element that currently exists in America. But his far right leanings put him way outside of the American mainstream. Plus his unrelenting attack on women does not serve him well. It's looking like neither Romney or Santorum can beat President Obama.

So when it's all said and done, for President Obama it's a lot like "Heads I win, tails you lose".

Over the weekend I watched the HBO movie, ‘Game Changer’, having read the book some months ago, I was expecting pretty much what I’d read with the same ho hum feeling, having watched the election and then read the book. Not so, the movie, brought into vivid detail how easily and how quickly we can be duped into seeing what is not really there. Sarah Palin, while she was Governor of Alaska, was a relative unknown to the campaign of John McClain but even more so to the voters of America and she was a great actress. She also is a great opportunist and immediately saw this as the golden opportunity of a lifetime.

Sarah Palin was not well vetted, and proved it very quickly once announced she was the candidate for Vice President. However, the voters are more astute than campaigns and political parties and proved that when it counted and didn’t vote for her and John McCain. The movie is very well made; Julianne Moore is outstanding as Mrs. Palin as are the other actors who played actual people involved in the campaign. The story presents the back story of Mrs. Palin’s entry onto the national and even the world stage, and how she enlarged her persona regardless of what the McCain campaign wanted her to be. She was and never will be suited to be Presidential material and I’m happy to say we had a good miss as I shudder to think where we’d be if they had been elected.

As the present election year progresses, we have to pay close attention now to what is written and said about the republican candidates because once a nominee is determined, there is still a lot to learn about them. The campaigns have many ways to cover up flaws and surrogates to explain away questions not answered.

The Romney campaign has been very reticent about their candidate practically keeping him under wraps, seldom allowing Mitt Romney to give interviews and that is not a good sign. Those 2 or 3 he has given have proved to create real problems with their message and the messenger. It is clear that what you see with Mitt Romney is not what you’re going to get. There are several sides or positions he has, depending on what day, or in what state he’s campaigning, you will get a different persona, wooden or plastic, but different. And that’s a problem, because if nominated, it will be a surprise which Mitt shows up. He can prepare all he wants on the many topics a president should be acquainted, however, to let the American public see how well versed he may, there has to be opportunities for him to speak with main stream media journalists, besides Fox, asking unscripted questions on a variety of issues…..before he is nominated. If he is your candidate, and this is not done, you need to ask why, as the reason or lack thereof may be in and of itself a game changer but not a winner.

Hello! My name is Kirk. Come in, come in. There’s enough room for all of you in here. My, what a crowd. Let’s gather at the Frontal Lobe over there. Refrain from touching the gray matter, if you please.

Everybody in? Please try to keep your voices down. It will keep the echoes to a minimum.

Now, where did you hear I was giving tours of the inner workings of my mind? Did I see a hand go up over there? No? Well, tell me what you’re interested in and we’ll see what we can. . .

Yes! Over there. The woman with the red hair. You say you’re intrigued by the mechanics of circular logic? Well, you’re in luck! We’re going to make a full tour around the lobes and we’ll come back to this very spot.

I see another hand up over there. The location of the Exits. . ? In case you need to make a speedy escape. . ? I can’t imagine why you would. . .

No, no, I’ll give you an answer. They’re everywhere, and they’re nowhere. Yes, I can understand why you find that confusing. It confuses me. On the last tour a woman from Iowa said it was “Metaphysics at its finest”. I have no idea what the hell she was talking about.

No more questions? Okay, follow me. And stay close! I wouldn’t want to lose any of you. Lots of tunnels in the gray matter, but none of them go anywhere.

One of the first things you’ll notice is that it’s pretty damned dark in here. I’m forever bumping into things. Makes you wonder where that expression “blindingly obvious” comes from. I can’t figure it out. But never mind.

What’s that? You want to know why it’s so dark. You’ve heard of black holes in outer space, right? Same principle. The gray matter in here is significantly denser than what you find in other brains. So dense that light can’t escape.

But that’s the beauty of it! It’s a closed system. Nothing gets in, nothing gets out.

Brianb has the same model, you know. Bill Fairfax opted to go with the next generation. But it miss-fired and now he’s stuck with it. I’ll keep what I have, thank you very much. Try something new and there’s no telling what you’ll open yourself up to. . . .

Be careful of the clippings on the floor along here. Lately we’ve been doing some cosmetic surgery. We’ll be shy some gray matter when we’re done. But Dr. Walker says it’s unlikely I’ll miss it. Do you know him? Nice guy. He gave me a little wink and said, “It shore will be purty when it’s finished.”

Now let’s go around the corner here and. . .

Omigosh! Look at this! We’re right back where we started. That was quick. I can never get over what a short circuit it is. . . .

Well! I don’t think you can appreciate it in a single tour. Anybody up for another go-around? I could do this all day long. In fact I often do.

Hey. . ! Hello. . ? Where did everyone go. . ?

Dennis, it is disgusting that the GOP agrees to numbers, agrees to defense cuts and then works to undermine what they voted to support. The ultimate flip flop. Apparently, the GOPers are addicted to "shut 'er down" moments; either that or they are gluttons for punishment.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

What’s more, it sets up a situation in which Republicans will have to risk a government shutdown Oct. 1 or flip their votes — weeks before the November elections - when a stopgap continuing resolution is inevitably needed to keep agencies operating.

So we have another situation where the Republicans will attempt to renege on the agreement that became law last summer.

Dennis,

It is good you mentioned that these bumpkins will have to make a choice. My guess is they won't choose any thing good for the country. They are betting the rising gas prices will do it for them. See what they don't know because they are idiots is gas prices always rise this time of year and go down at the end of the summer.

International Business Times Feb 24, 2012: Gasoline demand plummeted -- down 5.4 percent, or about 500,000 barrels per day, from a year ago, marking the 24th week in a row that year-on-year demand is lower.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/304040/20120224/rise-u-s-gasoline-prices-wall-street.htm

According to the USEIA (US Energy Information Agency), domestic production declined during the Bush administration. It was 5,000,000 BPD (barrels per day) when Obama came into office. It is now 5,500,000 BPD, a 10 % increase.

http://www.examiner.com/economic-policy-in-national/u-s-oil-production-increased-10-under-obama-major-oil-discovery-gulf

Half a million barrels a day increase in production. Half a million barrels a day decrease in use. That is an extra million barrels of oil available every day !!

Production is up (9 year high) and demand is down (15 year low) so both should result in a price drop. The real problems come from the Middle East, refinery production (shut downs) and speculators.

If you want to bring the price of oil down then stop all the talk about going to war with Iran.

.

Ron Indiana

So when it's all said and done, for President Obama it's a lot like "Heads I win, tails you lose"

Ron you are so right.

President Obama has gained momentum being consistent, patient, and a leader. There is nothing the Republicans can do at this juncture to turn things around. Why? It would negate their whole strategy of the last 3 years.

You are so right heads or tails the president bests these lost recalcitrant purveyors. It is just too, too, late.

Karma is a bytche when it comes back at ya. HAH!!! as Chris would say.

The Conservatives and Tea baggers deserve it.

They're liars! That's all there is to it. No amount of spinning or twisting is going to change reality. Lies and falsehoods are the foundation of the right-wing message.

It's now been almost two weeks since the vile Rush Limbaugh launched his latest attack on the people he hates most - women. He slanders a young woman for recounting the story of a friend of hers who has a medical problem. He calls her names that should earn him a beating at the hands of any self-respecting husband, father, or brother. In their umbrage, liberal-types, lefties, Democrats, and a handful of Republicans condemn him.

Finally, Rush Limbaugh - the mouthpiece of the right-wing - issues the weakest of apologies, blaming his excesses on the very people he has attacked. That is hardly the worst of it. His followers, Loyal Limbeciles all, not only defend his filthy mouth, they have swallowed the outright lie that this issue is about birth control - FREE birth control for wanton hussies.

The indisputable truth is that Sandra Fluke was testifying about the medicinal value of birth control pills for her ill friend. It had nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with birth control. It had nothing to do with Ms. Fluke. Once again, the low-intellect disciples of diversion have swallowed a lie and now repeat it as though it were fact. Indeed, an outright lie IS fact for these scary people.

It doesn't stop there. Yesterday, Senator Lindsey Graham repeated yet another lie that has been accepted as fact by the right-wing. President Obama promised 8% unemployment, he said. That is a lie. It has been debunked repeatedly, yet Graham can go on national television and look the American public in the eye, and tell a bald-faced lie.

The only question worth asking here is whether Graham is lying or whether he is too stupid to know that President Obama NEVER made such a promise. This is a member of what can only laughingly be called "the world's greatest deliberative body". This is where Senators refer to each other as My Friend. Who among us calls liars, My Friend? Who among us believes we can have an honest debate with someone who is a wanton liar, or in the alternative is too stupid to accept facts?

It's about lies, lies, and more lies, and now there is this whispering current that says we need civility. Let a left-winger call out a liar, and rest assured someone is going to whine about intolerance and insensitivity. Let a Democrat note that there is a stark division between the very rich - one-per-cent of Americans, and the very poor, everyone else. The right-wing is hand-wringingly horrified by the prospect of "class warfare".

An honest debate is not informed by liars. It is not informed by those who twist and mangle the truth. Yet somehow, those who insist on truth, who believe that the world is not a simple black-and-white affair, who understand nuance, are labeled as elitists by those who cherish ignorance.

Elitists? Really? Given the choice between being an elitist and wallowing in ignorance - Well, that's no choice at all. Call me an elitist.

Gingerbread Mamma, I don't have HBO so was unable to watch "Game Change". I read the book not long after it was published being the political junkie l am. I remember at the time being surprised at how unvetted Palin had been; it was beyond me to think any presidential candidate right or left would simply pick someone to win without considering the consequences for the country. I was struck by the fact, they really did not vet her at all; five days. The questionnaire given to all their VP potential candidates had taken months to complete and yet hers was five days and mostly unanswered and definitely not checked. I also came away from reading the book sympathetic to Sarah Palin and probably would have had the same reaction to the movie. At that time I blamed McCain and the campaign for failing both Sarah Palin and the country in their selection for the simple reason of "winning". Their disregard for the Country was apparent and winning at all costs trumped common sense and reason. The McCain campaign required a Game Changer with a fresh, relatively unknown face--and they were willing to risk it all, disregarding the possible disasterous impact in choosing an unqualified person to be a heart beat away from the presidency.

Jack, nice humorous touch to start the week.

Good morning Gingerbread Mamma,

Oh yes, after watching Game Change, the reality is reinforced in what we have known for some time, of how close of a disaster we as an nation avoided with the possible election of Sarah Palin.

Thank God that didn’t happen, and never can she serve in National office.

It doesn't stop there. Yesterday, Senator Lindsey Graham repeated yet another lie that has been accepted as fact by the right-wing. President Obama promised 8% unemployment, he said. That is a lie. It has been debunked repeatedly, yet Graham can go on national television and look the American public in the eye, and tell a bald-faced lie.

So where did the figure of 8% come from David? As I understand it, it was in a proposal produced be the President's economic team for the stimulus. Here is a direct quote from the proposal.

Thus, we are working to counter a potentialtotal job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below theapproximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.

In fact the graph on page 5 of the proposal shows unemployment peaking at 7.9% in 2009Q3. Now you can add all the caveats you want and try and walk back the numbers, but this is what the Administration pushed in January 2009, so live with it.

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

How shocking that the Republicans would make a deal and then try to squirm out of it. I can't think of a rational reason to do this in light of their approval ratings. But then, they aren't always rational.

The foolish and unfortunate killings by a US Soldier in Afghanistan should have nothing to do with President Obama. It is just more evidence how important it is for us to get out of that God Forsaken County. Also, our President is not responsible for the GREED of Oil Companies for price fixing gas prices. No President is, nor has any President been able to control gas prices.

And for those of you who scream that the Keystone project would solve all the Country's problems, I say get a life and do some research on the true story. It will be of little, if any value to us on our gas problems. yet the Repugs love to "bang the drum "on this since their "pet" whine about the Economy is hardly a strong talking point for them anymore.

Obama in 2012.

Alan:

I'm sick of this "As I understand it..." horse crap.

The 8% figure comes from a Romer/Bernstein report in which they suggest that 8% unemployment might be possible. IN THAT SAME REPORT, it states:

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program."

There it is, "IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD......!

Gingerbread Mamma

Sarah Palin was not well vetted, and proved it very quickly once announced she was the candidate for Vice President.

Sarah Palin was chosen because, as anyone can see, she was meat for the old pale white males in the GOP. SHAME!!!!

Ron, good points; not sure which of these GOP candidates would be the most difficult to defeat. I just know that no matter which GOPer wins the nomination, it will be a long and tough fight. The negativity we have seen from the right against their own will be intensified against President Obama.

David Walker, well said as always.

Wall Street has taken the regulation to limit commodities oil speculation to court, suing to block the regulation. Now, we wonder why gasoline prices are high when nearly $.60 of every gallon is due to speculation? Isn't it time we Americans start blaming the folks at Wall Street for some of this--these are the same crowd that brought the economy to its knees. While we are at it, it is time to ask if oil companies are piling on in an effort to increase their bottom line. In addition, all the war talk in the middle east keeps fueling the oil speculators. No wonder the GOP keeps talking tough, they think high gas prices will help them.

[There it is, "IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD......! ]

David, and therein lies the problem...it's not understood, but taken out of context...as usual...much like a five year old who writes a letter to "Santa" that she wants a pony for Christmas...

...we all know what happens when "Santa" doesn't come through.

David Walker

They're liars! That's all there is to it. No amount of spinning or twisting is going to change reality. Lies and falsehoods are the foundation of the right-wing message.

It's now been almost two weeks since the vile Rush Limbaugh launched his latest attack on the people he hates most - women.

David very good point. Yes, they are big liars.

Add Bill O'Reilly to the list of LIARS.

Fox Doubles Down On Fluke Conspiracy Theories

As we've noted, that conspiracy theory imploded when it became clear that Dunn's PR firm started representing Fluke pro bono on Monday and that prior to that Fluke was fielding media requests herself.

Nevertheless, O'Reilly and fellow Fox News host Eric Bolling were still trying to push Fluke conspiracy theories tonigh

On the Factor, O'Reilly not only failed to correct the record about whether the White House has been running Fluke all along, but he actually introduced more Fluke conspiracy theories.

So there you have it. Yesterday, O'Reilly comes up with a laughable conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory gets debunked. Nevertheless, Bolling treats it as a great scoop on Fox today. And O'Reilly, rather than owning up to his mistakes, continues to attack Fluke.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203090023

Anita Dunn's firm SKDK started representing @SandraFluke pro bono on Monday of this week.

FOX NOISE & Bill O'Reilly SUCK!!!

That was good Jack, brilliant almost. I wish I could get so much pleasure at someone else's expense rather than having the ability to actually critically think. Your post really provided great insight to your genius IQ, it was so bright that I covered my face in shame at my own weak pedigree. Your astute clever insights into the workings of the progressive mind have made me wish I would stop thinking on my own too so I could worship at the almighty god of Obama. Keep it up though because I am sure you are really popular with the people around you- a real role model.

Alan NJ:

So where did the figure of 8% come from David? As I understand it, it was in a proposal produced be the President's economic team for the stimulus. Here is a direct quote from the proposal.

What you don't seem to understand is that the 8% figure was projection based on a contraction of the economy of less than 4% in the quarter before the report was prepared. But the GDP contraction made in the midst of the Bush economic was itself way off. The GDP had contracted at a 9% annual rate. You profess to be in the know about economic issues. You're more of a know-nothing if you can't understand or pretend not to understand why the 8% figure was off, and why Mitt Romney is lying every time he says Obama "promised" to keep unemployment below 8%.

I see the alumni of FOX FUX YOUniversity are on their March Madness break.

Because the Obama Administration put the figure of 8%. And you guys can't accept that. You want to rewrite history. The Republicans did not put a figure of 8%, it was the Administration. If they got it wrong then they live, and die, by it.

If Mitt Romney makes a campaign promise that he will reduce unemployment over the next 4 years, and in 2015 it's higher than 8.3% will you accept the following excuses.

a) the economy was in worse shape than he realized

b) his estimate of projected unemployment is subject to significant margins of error

c) Santa didn't bring me a pony

Alan -- You lack understanding. No one can predict exact outcomes. Simple as that. What part of uncertainty or estimate do you not understand? Again:

But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program."

Alan NJ

If Mitt Romney makes a campaign promise that he will reduce unemployment over the next 4 years, and in 2015 it's higher than 8.3% will you accept the following excuses.

Obama made no such promise, so you're just parroting Romney's lie, knowing that what you and Willard are saying is false. And a rational explanation for why the projection was inaccurate is not an "excuse." The Bush Recession was much worse than anyone had believed at the time. Without the stimulus bill, the unemployment rate would have been much higher than its 10% maximum and the country would have slid into another Great Depression.

Alan -- You lack understanding. No one can predict exact outcomes. Simple as that. What part of uncertainty or estimate do you not understand? Again:

I don't lack understanding and I understand that these are estimates. However, the President's political opponents are not lying when they hold him to a promise made by his economic advisers in their attempt to promote legislation.

Tell me, if unemployment stayed below 8% would the Administration be promoting this fact strongly right now? (or would they quietly be saying we got lucky because the estimates were subject to significant margins of error).

The Bush Recession was much worse than anyone had believed at the time. Without the stimulus bill, the unemployment rate would have been much higher than its 10% maximum and the country would have slid into another Great Depression.

Really, and if the estimates are so inaccurate how can you even make this statement? Or is it subject to significant margins of error too?

That is a lie. It has been debunked repeatedly, yet Graham can go on national television and look the American public in the eye, and tell a bald-faced lie.

Yet, not of the so-called Christians step up and say: stop lying. It's a sin. Instead you spread the message. I guess in their world it is true when one of them (Bible waiving hypocrites) says it.

These people hide behind religion, yet not one of them practices what the Bible says. Does the 9th Commandment not apply to them? Or do they think that American people so that stupid that they cannot see the truth??

Not sure why all the apologists for Obama's failure to address the economy or unemployment successfully. Focusing on whether the 8% was an estimate or a promise is irrelevant as the real issue is that after 4 years he has been a failure economically. His desire to create equality of outcomes along with his incredible lack of financial understanding of how the economy works has been astounding. From his view of green energy and approach to oil and gas to international tax and the global economy shows a man that has spent too much time organizing and being a professor and has no real business understanding or acumen. Sometimes I think he really believes that he is punishing a bank by taxing them rather than the owners or customers. We need presidents who are not idealogues (which includes both Bush and Obama) and pragmatists regardless of party. Both Reagan and Clinton were successful because they were not idealogues.

Alan:

I said earlier that you right-wingers refuse to accept facts when they run counter to your foundation of lies. I put the disclaimer out there in black and white. It's a quotation right straight out of the report, and YOU have the nerve to talk about rewriting history.

If Romney makes a promise, to reduce unemployment, I don't know that I will accept any excuses. You don't make promises about such things. You put forth proposals you think will work, you hope Congress will implement your proposals, you hope the underlying assumptions are correct, and you hope there are no significant changes for which you didn't plan. You issue provisos, you issue disclaimers.

The President proposes, Congress disposes. That's how it's supposed to work. It doesn't work when you have an obstructionist Congress that is determined to destroy the President, and that is the Republican M.O.

As to your point "a" - It's embarrassingly transparent. No one had a clue as to the extent of the free fall in the economy, and the truth is, we still don't know all of the ramifications. Republicans act as though the ship of state should have done a 180 in a single quarter. Economic dolts, but experts at prevarication and diversion. I can hear it. "Yeah, but they said we were out of a recession." That's number manipulation that means nothing, and if you don't know it, you should.

Alan -- A promise???? Surely you jest. It was an estimate, based on uncertainty. External factors and unknowns were clearly a concern.

As for your assumption that they would be promoting a report's estimate from almost 4 years ago is silly.

Alan,

If Mitt Romney makes a campaign promise that he will reduce unemployment over the next 4 years, and in 2015 it's higher than 8.3% will you accept the following excuses

Romney could not do it for Massachusetts so I know he cannot do it for the country. The best thing Romney did for Massachusetts was not run for reelection. The state's economy improved 3 times faster after the next governor, and the next governor had the financial meltdown to deal with.

As a Massachusetts resident, I can thank Romney for raising fees on us little people. While corporations enjoyed bunch of tax reductions, I "enjoy" higher fees on everything.

As a Massachusetts resident, I can thank Romney for raising fees on us little people. While corporations enjoyed bunch of tax reductions, I "enjoy" higher fees on everything.

And now Massachusetts has re-elected a Democratic governor can you list the fees and taxes he has reduced since coming to office?

bayllie -- You point out a critical fact. Fees are just another tax under a different name. A regressive one at that. Republicans have always favored using "fees" to raise taxes.

The President proposes, Congress disposes. That's how it's supposed to work. It doesn't work when you have an obstructionist Congress that is determined to destroy the President, and that is the Republican M.O.

But David we both know he had a Democratic house and senate when this was proposed and passed.

And I don't sit around and think that the economy could be fixed in one quarter. However, I do think an administration should be held responsible for the approximately $1T they borrow and spend. Just like the Bush administration is responsible for the war in Iraq, and just like this Administration is responsible for the escalation in Afghanistan.

good job Baylie...Romney ranked 47th in the nation! for job creation while gov'r of Mass....and he has literally destroyed thousands of jobs thru Bain Capital....and the party of GNOP believes this is their savior....ohh wait - not yet.....it might be santorum (puke) who would def lose by a landslide

Jack in Portsmouth - THANKS! I needed that! lol

Nothing like a good chuckle to jump start your day!

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program."

____________________________________________________

It's very entertaining to watch the FR lefty liberals squirming about the "8% unemployment" albatross Barry has hung around his neck.

Yeah, Barry didn't mouth those words himself.

But, his and Biden's most senior economics appointees did state those words on behalf of the Barry admin when they were selling the Porkulus bill, and Barry never refuted their assertions, thereby accepting them as his own.

And the escape hatch copied above is worthless also because it essentially says "We really have no clue about the accuracy of the arguments we are making in this report." Well, then why bother even writing a report??

This is FUNNY STUFF!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alan, NJ

And now Massachusetts has re-elected a Democratic governor can you list the fees and taxes he has reduced since coming to office?

Alan, your biggest mistake is thinking that each president or governor starts from scratch when he/she takes over. In real life, they continue what is left for them by the previous administration. The train doesn't stop. Things don't change over night. By Romney reducing taxes to corporations (which he is so proud of), he decreased the state's revenue.

Romney aides projected Mass budget deficit of between $400 million and $1.1 billion for fiscal 2008, which was to begin in July 2007, six months into Patrick’s term. The aides to Patrick accused Romney of offering the public sunnier projections in public than they gave in private. Regardless of what the real number might be , Romney left with the state budget deficit (of somewhere between $400M-$1B - take an average if you'd like).

Patrick, the incoming governor, submitted a balanced budget within a few months. He also restored the $383.6 million in emergency budget cuts Romney had made before he left.

So to answer your question: no Patrick did not lower our fees that Romney raised. But the big difference is Romney raised fees and didn't have much to show for after he left.

Good morning everybody, I hope you had a great weekend.

Not much to add today, you've all covered the waterfront pretty thoroughly. I don't have HBO and could not see "GAME CHANGE" Saturday evening, so I can't comment on that.

And the GOP Race to Oblivion 2012 continues tomorrow in the South, if Alabama and Mississippi are anything like Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri, poor Mitt is going to have another very bad day and the long slog will continue, probably all the way to the convention.

Two weeks on and Rush Limbaugh is still on the air. Unbelievable. Does Ms. Fluke have a legal defense fund set up somewhere? I'd like to make a contribution and encourage that young woman to sue the fat doper and ALL the stations that aired the program when he defamed her.

What a sad, sad, world we live in when Rush Limbaugh and the other hate mongers can defame a young woman on the public airwaves and get away with it.

Win, lose or draw, Costa Rica is looking mighty good to me today. This country is no place for intelligent, caring people. It's just one rabid pack of wolves attacking the other rabid pack of wolves over the hunk of red meat that is the American electorate. Sunny Costa Rica with it's mountains, beaches, friendly people, low cost of living and universal health care sounds like the place to be.

Come on down and visit me. The wife says she won't go, so it may be just me and my dogs. I'll keep a Dos Equis on ice for you.

Obama/Biden 2012

And the escape hatch copied above is worthless also because it essentially says "We really have no clue about the accuracy of the arguments we are making in this report." Well, then why bother even writing a report??

It is called, jumping in and taking action vs. what the GOP/TP would have done, which was nothing. You want FUNNY STUFF - unemployment in the 30% range, a full-fledged depression, massive bank failures, a national debt twice what it is now as the government paid up on FDIC insurance, a stock market in the range of 1 to 2k, 401ks emptied. That wouldn't be just a bunch of cat piss, that would be a pile of dog sh!t. Wouldn't that be fun? HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The arguments over the 8% are ridiculous and compltetely irrelevant. Let me list facts I think we can all agree on.

Was a figure of 8% ever mentioned within a proprosal? YES

Was that figure ever met? NO

Was the recession worst than expected? YES

Was congress accepting of the Obama's proposals? NO

Wether we agree on why any of the following happened all did occur. David points out clearly there is a disclaimer saying not only may the reports be inaccurate, it is also hinging on congress. Given what I have stated above, yes you can say the figure was not met; however, I don't see what is gained by holding it against Obama.

Using that same logic I would be able to undoubtedly claim that the reason why at this moment we are not at less than 8 % unemployment is due to the Republican obstruction. I do not agree fully with that claim and think it would be foolish to make. This is what David is trying to explain (IMO). Twisting facts, allowing some without others, is simply irresponsible. I for one am not one to questions ones intelligence and refuse to believe it is because peope "dont know". I also, like David, think its deliverate hence,

THEY ARE ALL LIARS.

Dont_carry_it_all

bayllie -- You point out a critical fact. Fees are just another tax under a different name. A regressive one at that. Republicans have always favored using "fees" to raise taxes

yes, we know that the Republicans have no problem raising anything and everything on us little people. Again, why are they so adamant about denying this. Just be truthful, we don't care about the 99% of hard working Americans.

siesta

good job Baylie...Romney ranked 47th in the nation! for job creation while gov'r of Mass....

but Romney will swear up and down that he is a job creator!

Alan:

Again you ignore the facts. NEVER did the President have a veto-proof majority. The proof of that has been posted time and again, at least twice right here at First Read. He cajoled, begged, and twisted arms to get his signature legislation through, ACA, which will some day be viewed as one of the greatest social advances in our history.

Virtually all other legislation has been held up by McConnell via filibuster threat. As far as the stimulus, there is a clear consensus that the stimulus did work, and that it would have worked even better had it been larger.

As far as the borrowing, a great deal of that is predicated on two wars, Medicare D, and the tax cuts, which I fervently hope will not be renewed. Strangely, no one on the right seems to notice that Bush ran a trillion-dollar deficit in his last year, and left another one for President Obama. Those are facts.

I'm not here as an apologist for the President. I'm simply saying if we are going to make decisions on what is best for the country, we are not going to do it properly when lies are presented as facts.

It is called, jumping in and taking action vs. what the GOP/TP would have done, which was nothing. You want FUNNY STUFF - unemployment in the 30% range, a full-fledged depression, massive bank failures, a national debt twice what it is now as the government paid up on FDIC insurance, a stock market in the range of 1 to 2k, 401ks emptied.

__________________________________________________

You forgot to mention that the Almighty Barry also prevented worldwide volcano eruptions, massive earthquakes, tornado swarms, tsunami's on every coast, blizzards in the tropics and floods in the Sahara desert.

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

Alan, NJ

I don't lack understanding and I understand that these are estimates. However, the President's political opponents are not lying when they hold him to a promise made by his economic advisers in their attempt to promote legislation.

Sadly, you do seem to still misunderstand, or at least pretend to. Obama's economic advisers didn't "promise" that the unemployment rate would be kept below 8% any more than the weatherman "promises" a sunny day for your picnic just because he forecasts it. Romney is lying, and you're knowingly repeating his lie.

The Bush Recession was much worse than anyone had believed at the time. Without the stimulus bill, the unemployment rate would have been much higher than its 10% maximum and the country would have slid into another Great Depression.

Really, and if the estimates are so inaccurate how can you even make this statement? Or is it subject to significant margins of error too?

Another thing you don't seem to understand is that the estimates of the dimensions of a disaster made in the midst of that disaster tend to be a lot less reliable than surveys made months or years after the cleanup has started. This is true of natural disasters like hurricanes and man-made disasters like the Bush Recession. The 9% contraction rate that was reported last year for the last quarter of 2008 is certainly far closer to the truth then the 3.9% estimate made in 2008 while the roof was still caving in.

Sarah Palin's choice for Vice President was just another example of how stupid that republicans think women are.

Women are so dumb that they would vote for Palin just because she is a woman and all the Clinton supporters are automatically going to vote for Palin because they are both women.

More proof of what the republicans think of women. Due to their imagined planned parenthood propaganda without an ultra-sound and seeing the baby republican men think women are so stupid she couldn't know she was having a baby. That is why the 24 hour waiting period in their mind she just found out she was pregnant.

I am tired of republicans trying to make women into second class citizens with no rights to decided about her own body.

Religious freedom is not about the republican Taliban forcing all women to live by their religious doctrine.

We came to America to escape religious percecustion. How is forcing women to undergo an unnecessary procedure that is liken to rape and then making her pay for it just to access her constitutional rights not religious persecution?

You don't want me to have birth control because of your religion, how is that not religious persecution?

The republican nominees now have signed a pledge to the person-hood amendment. The very basis of this amendment to overturn Roe v Wade for your Christian Taliban. It is to make miscarriages into murder investigations for your Christian Taliban religion. It is to make most birth control illegal for your Christian Taliban religion. Where did the freedom from religious persecution go?

Too bad republicans don't believe in the contstitution when it come to separation of church and state.

dimage - they make pills to combat paranoia. This ain't twitter...

Again you ignore the facts. NEVER did the President have a veto-proof majority. The proof of that has been posted time and again, at least twice right here at First Read. He cajoled, begged, and twisted arms to get his signature legislation through, ACA, which will some day be viewed as one of the greatest social advances in our history.

Who's taking about the ACA? I thought we were taking about the ARRA, which passed as follows:

On January 28, 2009, the House passed the bill by a 244-188 vote.

On February 10, the Senate voted 61-37.

Nice try but isn't deflection one the Karl Rove blogging tricks?

As far as the borrowing, a great deal of that is predicated on two wars, Medicare D, and the tax cuts, which I fervently hope will not be renewed. Strangely, no one on the right seems to notice that Bush ran a trillion-dollar deficit in his last year, and left another one for President Obama. Those are facts.

Yes he did. Now what has the current Administration done to change the deficit?

11 years of fiscal mismanagement and counting.

This describes idiots like "Damage123" and "Joe in Albany" very well:

"Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

Santorum is weird as a Chicken running around with no head, how can anyone in their right mind vote for this crazy nut ?????

TO: Joe in Albany who wrote:

"... Barry is ... trying to convince the American people that the cat piss they are forced to swallow in the form of high gas prices and a pathetically weak slow-bama economic recovery are really sweet lemonade ..."

Republicans sent Teabaggers to Washington specifically to slow our economic recovery, specifically to cause "gridlock", and Republicans constantly nag and whine that the President should NOT interfere with the "free market" and that prices should NOT be controlled by government.

Now that Republicans' dreams have come true and you don't like what you wished for, well cry yourself a river because you asked for it, and you got it.

Obama / Biden 2012

Interesting on how this thread started off "off topic" and continued to remain off topic. Shame on you dennis.

All depends on which candidate can produce the most "familiar blooming fragrances" from among those of his particular pile.

Oh, Joe 'n' Damage ... still misdirecting. Still lying. Still ... well, still trying to troll up as much attention as possible.

Have either of you ever told the class what GOP candidate you're supporting, or the reason for said support?

I dare you. I double dare you. It takes a big, tough guy to rattle off insults on the internets. SHow me you actually have a set and take a position on the state of the GOP candidacy.

THEN we can have a discussion as to how "your boy" could fix the messes you contend are the sole creation of Obama.

Pretty-f*cking-please?

Skip: Panama and Belize are just as nice as Costa Rica in all respects, and are somewhat cheaper.

Since it has, I will carry it on.

Dennis how humorous that you think that government must establish a budget to spend a given amount. Reminds me of a friend who has since retired from the USDA. At the end of every fiscal year there was a rush to wantonly spend unspent budgetary $$ to preserve next years budget amount.

Even with a "supposed" cut of $20 billion, you are concerned about a government shut down in october? The more likely scenario is that the house will pass a budget plan per their charter and that senate leader will likely table it as he did in 2011. Not only that, reid may even fail to submit a senate budgetary plan ala 2009, 2010 and 2011.

The only caveat is that this is a general election year and I don't think obama and company can afford to be seen as sitting on their hands in not getting a FY2013 budget approved by oct 1, 2012. Then again their are always continuing resolutions that the democrats so favored in 2009, 2010 and into 2011.

Thank you so much for not only being a "doom and gloomer" but also an off-topic poster as well.

Joe in albany

Sadly, there are a lot of self-deluded people out there that will swallow his BS that high gas prices and a weak economy are a good thing because it’s reducing demand for oil

I'm wondering what point you are trying to make. I haven't heard the president saying this. Do you have a source? And, who gives a rat's azz? Obama's policies aren't making gas prices go up. We have more domestic oil than we've had in a long time. As the industrial world economies improve oil products are in more demand and prices go up. It wouldn't matter what policies are in place because it's a global thing.

And, don't even spout garbage about the canadian oil pipeling as though it is going to make a difference in gas prices. Anybody who has been paying attention knows that the oil from that pipeline is the crappiest oil there is and it's mostly going overseas anyway.

You are a propagandist working for the republicans or you are a fool if you believe gas prices are Obama's fault. Which is it?

american,

[off-topic poster as well.] Being on topic has never been a requirement on First Read like other Newsvine articles.

It is not gloom and doom it is a fact that the Republicans in the House are trying to circumvent, once again, the LAW they passed just 7 months ago.

I’m not concerned about a Government shut down the author of the article I linked is. I am concerned about Congress going against a law they just passed.

Someone call beachbum a waaaaaaambulance.

Actually dennis, just addressing yours when you made it a topic.

Regardless, as time changes so can the reasons for supporting a law change. While I acknowledge the point taken it still shouldn't require that a budgetary law not be subject to modification. Think of the waivers applied to healthcare or to many other law changes. It is what politicians on both sides of the aisle do, or have you forgotten that piece of reality?

Thanks for the headsup on FR's requirements that newsvine posters need not follow such a commonsense policy of on topic posting. It does seem to fit in so well with FR having no moderators enforcing other newsvine rules.

Skip: Come on down and visit me

Cool! A group of friends and I have been talking about exactly the same thing!

Let me know how your plans progress.

Ron Paul is wondering where all his votes are. He just needs to ask the GOP which landfill they have been dumped in. It is sad to see so much fraud and vote rigging going on.

american,

Those are temporary waivers not a change to or reversal in the law.

Why pass a law and then only 7 months later decided it didn’t cut enough spending? Because the Republican wan’t another fight. They walked away from a $4 trillion deal and now they want to go at it again … think the voters will notice like they did last year when Congressional approval fell below 10%?

Gingrich is going to announce Rick Perry as his pick for running mate!

Now THAT is a LAUGH!

Beachbum12:

You ask:

"So David, who is actually providing 'lies' in this discussion?"

Funny you should ask. Should we call your post the perpetuation of a lie, or simply misdirection and diversion?

Again, you wrote:

"Therefore, the story about her friend that couldn’t get affordable birth control, eventually leading to an ovarian cyst just doesn’t ring true. As a career expert in women’s rights and with access to at least a dozen different methods in getting low cost or free contraception, either Ms. Fluke is incompetent in her positions, or is a bald faced liar about the story."

I don't care whether the testimony came from a novice or an experienced activist, the issue was not about birth control, the issue was a "birth control" pill, which was used for an entirely different purpose. Yet, even as a self-proclaimed "career expert in women's rights" you seem unable to grasp the fact that there are myriad uses for "birth control" pills. Thus, you are able to tell us that her meds can be had for only $15.00 per month, when it appears her medication regimen was not limited to mere generics as you seem to imply.

Come to this board with proof that Ms. Fluke is a liar, not the conjecture of a self-appointed expert. It might help with your credibility if you don't spend time touting her credentials, then turning around and telling us she is incompetent.

An expert, you say?

It might help with your credibility if you don't spend time touting her credentials, then turning around and telling us she is incompetent.

Apparently, beachbum isn't comfortable with a sassy Sally selling seashells on the seashore, and prefers those silly Sally's bikini-ed, barefoot and pregnant.

Beachbum, all we have is your opinion. Why should it carry any more weight or earn any more favor than anyone else's? Including Ms. Fluke's?

It does not change the substance of Ms. Fluke's testimony. Despite your protests. It still does not justify the attacks on her by Rush Limbaugh and others, including you. Where is Ms. Fluke any less viable or believeable or authoritative or politically charged than the five men who were allowed to testify? Men. Testifying on women's health.

The president of Georgetown backed up Ms. Fluke. If she was indeed a self serving political operative and a plant, why would the University have offered that support?

By the way folks, this was about honesty. Beachbum's post is lifted from a right-wing site. It was written by - allegedly - a right-winger named Thomas Purcell. Beachbum offered no attribution.

If there is a common thread in the G.O.P. today, it is a willingness to lie. Ethics and morals be damned, and these are the people who claim to use the Bible as their moral compass.

And beachbum, I have been posting on the Vine for almost four years. I'll make you a bet. If you can find a post I have written where I make a claim to being an expert, I will never come to the boards again. If you cannot find such a post, will you agree to never return?

Oh, and Beachbum,

To add to what others have said. Why should a woman who already has health insurance coverage use the social safety net of Planned Parenthood birthcontrol. That is ridiculous! It sounds like an argument that one of my Catholic friends gave me about birthcontrol. There should be someone else fronting the bill for this type of healthcare? That makes no sense at all! Planned Parenthood is for those who are in serious need and have no health insurance. If every business decided it didn't want to cover women's preventative healthcare and the entire burden was put on places like Planned Parenthood there wouldn't be enough funding to go around for those who are destitute and therefore desperately in need of aide. You just think "someone else" is going to take care of it. That sounds like so many conservatives I know as well.

Btw, I didn't know Ms. Fluke was so accomplished. I have more respect for her now. Thanks for that, she's a new hero of mine.

P.S. don't you think they didn't want someone who'd never spoken in front of a large and intimidating group (like Congress) to do something like this and be able to speak for women? What's your point?

MGates, so you are ok with someone else fronting the bill for this type of healthcare just because you are employed? Sounds just like my liberal friends who always want something for free and want someone else to pay for it. I could care less about the politics of Ms. Fluke, I dont understand what happened to personal responsibilty. The government doesnt even mandate vaccines for children or coverage for pregnancies but they want to mandate non medically necessary birth control? Give me a break, this isnt a woman's health issue its a pandering to the female vote by buying it issue.

David, if I can find a post in which you were condescending ahole in which you explain to everyone your brilliance at the expense of anyone who dares to question an Obama policy would you stop coming here? Given your rabid defense of Backhouse, Fiesty and everyone who constantly posts things from those highly credible sources of think progress etc, I would think you would welcome Beachbum with open arms utilizing the same techniques?

Gosh, where do I begin???? I have learned things viewing this post thread. I have learned that the liberals represent the party of somebody else.....Let somebody else take the blame, point the finger at somebody else, let somebody else foot the bill, failures are somebody else's fault. And somebody else is taking all the credit for successes. Social justice applies to somebody else. It is OK to limit rights of "somebody else" (fit in whatever group you desire for somebody else) Somebody else is always inconsistent. Somebody else is always obstructionist. World peace (kind of a misnomer as it has never actually existed) is not our problem, it is somebody else's problem. Oil prices are set by somebody else. What is kind of disturbing is that I can remember when my kids were small and things went wrong in the house.....it was always 'somebody else", but then my kids grew up.

Golly gosh Sue lotsanumbers. If those darned liberals bother you so much, you could always go SOMEWHERE ELSE. Or you could tell us where we're wrong.

You could define social justice. You could tell us which rights shouldn't be limited and which rights we want limited. You should tell us about consistency. When a liberal talks about obstructionist policies of the right-wing, you could show us where we're wrong. You could show us who it REALLY is who sets oil prices. Couldn't you?

Beachbum, if you keep asking for tolerance, no personal attacks and being treated respectfully when providing your own opinion experientially or researched based, next thing you know David will put you on ignore. Asking him to stay on point without deflecting or personally attacking is a waste of time but you will know when you have won the debate because he will just ignore you.

Alan, NJ

Could you please provide a link to a video or document where it states that the president said, "I promise the unemployment rate will not exceed 8%".

That'll shut em up.

beachbum:

No, as a matter of fact, I am under no obligation to be tolerant. I find lying intolerable. I see no reason to tolerate that kind of behavior.

As for Sue: Is she unable to defend herself?

Kirk, no I'm ok with my health insurance footing the bill for my health care. I pay them for coverage so I expect to be covered. If I should need birth control for medical reasons and my doctor prescribes it I want my health insurance that I pay into to at least assist me in my payment of my prescription medication.

Sue, I don't know how you got that at all from what I said. In fact I'm criticizing others for wanting "someone else" to figure out how people get their health care. Were you just skimming through or actually reading what I wrote. I like definitive answers and I know a lot of conservatives who want to cut taxes and keep a lot of social safety nets. I ask them, "How do you expect us to be able to pay for social security, lower taxes, and lower the deficit?". They respond, "I don't know but some mathematician (they actually said "Jew" but I thought I'd be more PC I know you righties love that)will figure it out. That seems to be the answer all the time. We don't want to pay for it, someone else will. Oh, I know all the donations will pay for it... from where? Adelson gives Gingrich an exorbitant amount of money to run his campaign. I find that to be a terrible waste of money.

If my house that, I haven't finished paying off yet, gets flattened by a tornado. Who should pay for it if I've been paying for home owner's insurance? I'm not asking "someone else" to pay for it because I put my money into a pool of funds for such a purpose. You wouldn't say that all the other people who's homes weren't flattened are giving me money would you?

What will happen to me if I don't have home owner's insurance and I have no savings. I am homeless. Everything I own was in my home including my clothes for work. If my place of business also gets flattened, then what? That is what the government is for and that is one of the many things that taxes are for. What if this happened to you?

Mgates, that is too simplistic of an answer and you must know that. For example, in your homeowners example, do you think the government should pay for everything even if you intentionally didnt buy insurance or you built on a river knowing the risks? Should the government pay for all the risks and create equality of outcomes for everyone? You pay into health insurance and your employer designs the health plan that you pay into. Your premiums and co pays probably pay 20% of the cost of total employee health care expenses and your employer pays the difference. I have no problem with an employer providing contraception as a health care benefit but I do have a problem having it mandated even when its not medically necessary if the employer chooses not to cover it. Why is contraception chosen over vaccines etc. Its more the government intrusion that I hate. I would be much more in favor of a universal or standard coverage for everyone and lets dump Obamacare and do something that is fair and equitable to everyone.

Forget about some of the social conservatives as this focus on free stuff and government assistance is an economic issue in which we need a fair and equitable tax system including the rich paying a progressive higher rate than the middle class but we also need to make sure everyone is paying tax too. We also need a spending plan that addresses our entitlement culture and the move to the nanny state. Government is needed yes you are correct but government isnt a panacea that can address all our economic issues and create equality of outcomes.

Alan, NJ - David responded already, but I'd add that a proposal of a projection is far different than a promise.

nevermind, DCIA already answered. i need to hit refresh more, by the time i get around to posting, i'm already way behind again :)

Beachbum --You wrote:

Call it what you wish, but I find it interesting that a simple student can be called before a Congressional Committee without having expert credentials regarding the subject.

Please do tell what credentials the male members of Congress have to hold hearings or write laws concerning women's health issues, especially without consulting women? Are they doctors?

Kirk, comments like:

I have no problem with an employer providing contraception as a health care benefit but I do have a problem having it mandated even when its not medically necessary if the employer chooses not to cover it.

Followed by:

Why is contraception chosen over vaccines etc.

Are just freaking ridiculous!

First contraception is NOT chosen OVER vaccines etc...Where did you come up with THAT?? Second, the point of contraceptive's is to PREVENT unwanted pregnancy, and thereby ABORTION!

Why can't you see that?

Its more the government intrusion that I hate. I would be much more in favor of a universal or standard coverage for everyone and lets dump Obamacare and do something that is fair and equitable to everyone.

You do realize that so called government intrusion you hate would be necessary to implement universal or standard coverage. Or is your plan to give carte blanch to the health insurance industry to develop something fair and equitable. We know how well that has worked out - an epic failure.

Forget about some of the social conservatives as this focus on free stuff

What free stuff are we talking about? We are talking about the elimination of a co-pay, which does not make it free. Employer provided health care is part of the overall compensation package paid to an employee in exchange for work. Whether an employer pays some or all of the premium, the elimination of a co-pay does not make it free to the employee. The only way it could be considered free is if some random company paid the insurance premium for a random person, expecting nothing in return. Then it could be argued that the elimination of a co-pay is free.

Jo-An, you clearly didnt read or understand what the issue is. There is a huge difference between what an employer provides in its benefits package as RedDev points out and what is mandated by the government. Currently, the government doesnt mandate vaccine coverage nor does it mandate that maternity benefits be provided but they decided to mandate contraception? I think Reddev is starting to get comprehend my points based on is replies. I am not against contraception at all nor against it as part of the overall compensation package. But the government has decided to pick certain winners and losers and force others-in this case employers-to pick up the tab. Not sure I get your abortion connection as when it comes to employer provided contraception coverage, how many woman do you think are out there currently not using it because they have to pay for it themselves and therefore getting pregnant and then having abortions? We are not talking about woman who cant afford it nor teenagers or college kids we are talking about working women where the cost of the contraception is just being shifted to the employer.

Reddev--first insurance companies are not currently developing or picking our benefits provided--employers are as you point out in the second post. I agree that our current system doesnt work too well in terms of how quality medical care is distributed to 100% of the population. However, medical care delivery is currently very good for over 80% of the population albeit at a very expensive rate. So in order to bring the other 20% into the fold, we are going to reduce the benefits and increase the costs for the other 80% which is why Obamacare and any universal coverage is will be extremely unpopular. Our politicians are just unwilling to have that debate or discussion because it will be extremely unpopular which doesnt mean we shouldnt do it anyway. So I dont have a problem with addressing our medical delivery issues in a more transparent way even if it turns into universal care.

As for the free stuff, come on you are trying to split hairs and you know it. Its free in the sense that what they used to pay for is now picked up at least 90% by their employers. So yes the covered employee has the additional cash in their pockets they used to have to pay for. If your argument is that someone has to pay for it ok its wealth redistribution from employers to employees? If the employer is allowed to reduce its wage increases the following year which it probably will over time anyway, then you are correct that the employee eventually pays for it anyway. That makes this even more a political gimmick to buy votes then doesnt it?

Kirk, maybe you should research what is covered under the "affordable healthcare act"

Vaccines ARE covered under the affordable healthcare act, here's the link:

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html#CoveredPreventiveServicesforChildren

AND maternity benefits,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/health_reform_for_women.pdf

AND MANY OTHER GOOD THINGS!

I think if people actually understood what it covers, they would appreciate it more.

Too many people are dead set against it because of the "mandate" that everyone participate! You know, like Mitt's state's insurance plan requires.

I don't understand how anyone could be against affordable healthcare for all, period. We, the tax payers are paying for all the uninsured NOE, at a much higher cost, because the uninsured use the hospital emergency as their primary care doctors, because they can NOT be turned away for non payment. Wouldn't it be cheaper to have everyone insured?

Jo-An, I wasnt referring to AHA as most of those benefits havent kicked in yet so that is the subject of a different discussion. You are changing the subject and I am happy to discuss AHA but that is totally different issue than mandated non medically necessary contraception which I see as a total political ploy to pander to the females voters. Doesnt mean I am against contraception or woman's health, I am talking about the mandate itself.

As for AHA, I agree there are many good things in the bill and I personally have no problem with the mandate. My issue with the bill is that it really doesnt address very well the expense side of the equation and either intentionally or unintentionally, the cost of the bill is going to be far more than indicated. When you say that all of these things are good because they are covered right you seem to forget that all of these goodies need to be paid for. When you add 40 million people to the system, you have to increase costs and reduce benefits. This is going to dramatically reduce employee health care coverage for people with rich plans like union employees and no the costs wont be reduced because statistics show that less than 15% incur over 80% of the overall health care costs. Yes in comparison to one visit to the ER versus a doctor that will save costs but those savings get dwarfed by the added expense of putting so many additional people in the system with the ability and the need to see the doctor over and over and specialists etc.

But my issue is the lack of political will to have this discourse in public. Its like the social security debate, our politicians lack the political courage to state the actual facts and have tough decisions. Our politicians know that universal coverage will likely reduce overall health benefits for the current covered employees at likely to be a much greater cost in order to ensure quality health care delivery for all. This is the right thing to do but not something that politicians like to discuss.

But THAT is what the whole bruhahaha is about! Why do you think there is a mandate?

The Catholic Church started the uproar, because they "will have to" offer free contraceptives in the upcoming AHA benefits. The Church actually have a waiver, but the church owned businesses, were also against it, hence the bruhahaha! As a result of THAT particular uproar, the Repubs tried to pass the "Blunt/Rubio bill", which took it a step further and said "no employer" should have to offer a health service that goes against their "belief's",

The legislation, known as the Blunt-Rubio bill, is an attempt to limit the force of a controversial federal mandate on employers to offer contraception to workers. If the Republican bill became law, the nearly 80 million women who receive coverage through their employers could lose access to these preventive services, which many just gained under the Affordable Care Act. And the decisions being made about their care would more likely be left to men: Businesses are 80 percent more likely to be owned by them.

Ms Fluke was testifying in opposition to the "Blunt/Rubio amendment".

So, please, tell me what I don't understand?

First off, you are making assumptions about men versus woman beliefs for me based on my economic views. My wife is a successful and trust me very independent lawyer and my two daughters are doing very well in the their respective professions. Who owns a business male or female is irrelevant to this debate and only adds emotion. I know how the original issue was created and I have mixed views on that. I have a very hard time with the catholic church fundamentally but I also want to respect their views and tenets. But my point in the first place, is that non medically required contraception should be treated as any other lifestyle decision and shouldnt be part of a federal mandate. There is a huge difference between mammograms being federally mandated and contraception. If an employer wants to provide them as I suspect most would, I think thats great and should be part of the benefit package. I also dont get the no copay component as even if covered it should be treated no different than Lipitor or AIDs drugs. I disagree with the federal mandate thats it. By the way, there is no way that there are 80 million covered woman under employer paid health insurance plans so not sure where you got that number.

If we migrated to the ACA and universal coverage and contraception was a basic part of the coverage and everyone understood that their tax payments for coverage were paying for this benefit then I have no issue. Dont assume I am an idealogue or there is this anti female aspect of this issue. I also am not naive to think there isnt politics behind this and nobody else should either. If you dont think Obama's decisions were about votes, I have some beach front land here in Illinois to sell you.

Kirk,

It seems you are the one making this about politics:

If you dont think Obama's decisions were about votes, I have some beach front land here in Illinois to sell you.

Remember, I responded to your comment:

I have no problem with an employer providing contraception as a health care benefit but I do have a problem having it mandated even when its not medically necessary if the employer chooses not to cover it.

AND:

Why is contraception chosen over vaccines etc.

Most women of child bearing age, BELIEVE contraception IS medically necessary....to prevent unwanted pregnancy, thereby reducing unwanted abortion!

And, as I pointed out, contraceptives, aren't being "chosen over vaccines". People are talking about the contraceptive issue because it becomes "mandatory" Aug 1, 2012. And there are several other "preventative" measures that have no co-pay, I imagine because they are thought to be important enough to warrant no obstacles to receiving the care.

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html#CoveredPreventiveServicesforWomenIncludingPregnantWomen

Kirk, beachbum - you have spoken strongly about female healthcare benefits. I know of no healthcare coverage that doesn't cover the little blue pill for men. So, why the hypocrisy? Oh wait - men were holding these hearings so the little blue pill was no problem. Interesting.

The main fact here is that men should not have been involved in these panels at all. This was about healthcare coverage for women. Men are not involved and frankly have no education about these issues - unless they are doctors. Even then, we have enough female doctors that could have spoken about these issues. Men should not have been involved. When men have to carry babies (or get to carry babies); have ovarian cysts; have severe periods for which the only answer is the pill; or any of these situations, then and only then should you have input. Otherwise - stay out of the discussions. You know nothing about our issues and frankly, every time I read one of you posting your nonsense, you just look stupid.

SS,

:)

David Walker, your comment about the liars was right on the money. It is going to get a lot worse going forward from now until November.

The question is: are there enough rational, open-minded voters left in America who will take the time and trouble to challenge the lies?

Or are we doomed by apathy to be ruled by incompetent, misogynistic, money and power grubbing liars?

Jo-An and Seeking Sanity--first I am limiting my comments to politics because thats the purpose of this blog and gender and woman's health issues as a priority over other types of health isssues is not what I was posting on. I think those are separate discussions albeit definitely worthy of debate. Seeking Sanity, my employer doesnt cover the little blue pill and many dont but if they do, its based on the choice of the employer and not a mandate. Again, its not coverage but the mandate that I disagree with.

Jo-An--you are making a straw man argument because its not about whether the woman feels or wants to take contraception, its the economics of the issue. We are not talking about poor and working poor who dont have health insurance who can get free contraception already. We are talking about working woman and who PAYS for the contraception. So its not the choice between and unwanted pregnancy and contraception as I find it hard to believe that a woman is going to just not take any sort of birth control to avoid an unwanted pregnancy if she has to either pay a copay or buy it outright. You are making an argument to the extreme. If a woman wants to be on the pill she is going to take it whether she pays for it or her employer does. I also again dont have a problem with woman thinking its medically necessary they should demand their employers cover it. My only point from the beginning is that mandating coverage by the government is a political (and a good one by the way) pandering for female votes. Its no different than the prescription drug subsidy by Bush pandering to the senior vote. Given the aggregate wealth of seniors they are the last group that needs government welfare or assistance that isnt means tested. They already control over 80% of the aggregate wealth in this country and providing them additional government assistance that isnt means tested is wealth redistribution from the young employed to wealthy seniors. But they vote in mass.

Kirk,

First, the "purpose of this blog" is to comment on the article at hand, some are political, some are not.

Second, this is NOT about "the economics of the issue"! We are talking about healthcare being a "mandatory requirement" of employers, as of Aug 1, 2012, and whether or not a contraceptives should be "covered". The ISSUE is whether or NOT an employer MUST OFFER contraceptives in their insurance coverage! The employee pays for their policy in many cases, themselves! So, it is NOT about Who PAYS!

Third, if you believe,

mandating coverage by the government is a political (and a good one by the way) pandering for female votes.

when do you think this mandate "popped up"? AGAIN, the WHOLE REASON we are talking about this is because it will take affect Aug 1, 2012!

Are you just SCREWING with me, or are really that dense??

The Affordable Healthcare Act was passed 2 years ago, so if you are suggesting Obama put that part in to "pander for votes" 2 years ago, great, he is a real great panderer! But low income women probably don't contribute a whole heck of a lot to ANYONE'S campaign, and I doubt they show up en masse to VOTE for anyone either....

ACA, whether you like it or not is likely to be overturned soon. Second, my comments were related to the gnashing of teeth over this issue as a GOP hates women which is why I made my remarks. I know it will be mandated anyway but as your correctly pointed out it came out as a reg under ACA that applied to religious institutions also. I am certainly not that dense nor am I screwing with you. By the way, the issue is about whether employers are mandated because I dont believe they should be. This issue isnt about individuals purchasing insurance because the cost of the contraceptives will be in the premium anyway so its all about who pays. With employer provided insurance without copays, the employer will now pick up 90% of the cost which I think is fine if they want to provide it but they shouldnt be mandated to provide it. I understand you want this to be about a woman's health issue and to you maybe thats how you feel. But all health care issues including ACA is about who is going to pay and where are we going to redistribute wealth in order to cover our aggregate health care costs. Everything from the individual mandate, to mandatory coverage requirements like dependent children up the age of 26 is all about who is going to pay for the additional health care benefits. I have no problem as a society agreeing to many of these as long as we all understand in a transparent manner how each of these benefits are going to be paid for and by whom.

I doubt ACA will be overturned....

They have a problem. Let's say they overturn it.

1. All medical benefits offered by ACA would be revolked. Donut hole is an easy one, seniors go back to losing. Try pre-existing conditions. Try 26 year olds on parent insurance policies. Try by-laws of regulation. Try small business tax breaks.

2. The system is already set up for ACA, what would said benefits be replaced with?

3. Everything with a check mark is in place-> (http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/) You think they can reverse it?

Conservatives will say that it was unfair that I post the healthcare link. After all, many are opposed to it. But when they find out what it is, they support every one. The only argument is on mandates. You remember, the mandate plan republicans proposed but are against it now that the current president is for it.

LOL, my point exactly! I hope someone starts "touting" all the GOOD stuff in it! BEFORE the election!

I don't know how conservatives can be against it when we ARE PAYING so much MORE now, with the uninsured using emergency rooms as their primary physician! AND these southern states voting GOP when they receive the most in so called "hand outs"!! It's CRAZY!!

It took Kirk FIVE REALLY LONG posts to get to the point:

where are we going to redistribute wealth

In the long term healthcare costs WILL come down it's just not going to be immediate!

I personally would like UNIVERSAL healthcare....

Kirks head is exploding NOW! LOL

Sorry Jo-An, you keep making assumptions. I am socially liberal to moderate and fiscally conservative. I think Clinton was a great president and Bush was the worst so dont label me. My head is not exploding and you very well could be right that the individual mandate is considered constitutional but i have my doubts. And for your information, I am all for the individual mandate and have no issue with it. But your view that ACA will lower costs is just plain wrong and its been written about extensively from the WSJ to the CBO etc. Again I have no problem with Universal Care as long as it addresses transparently all the issues. Of course there is a ton of good things in ACA but you completely ignore the costs. By the way redistributing wealth for health benefits will not be a rich to poor concept that you are thinking about. Under the current regime including ACA, its a redistribution from the young to middle aged worker (poor, middle class and rich) to our wealthy seniors and the very poor including illegal immigrants (not an editorial just a fact). ACA creates a system where you are fined as an employer if you dont provide health insurance but that fine is far below the actual costs. Already, many employers are lining up to drop coverage (which tend to be much richer in benefits--think union medical plans) and pay the fine and let their employees obtain coverage in the exchanges. That coverage will on average provide health benefits far less than current employees receive and probably for the equivalent cost. Second, what in the world makes you think the government can run a trillion dollar medical delivery system far cheaper and better than what we do now. Not going to happen.

So my long posts have nothing to do with class warfare as you want to assume. As for those good things like children being covered until 26, preexisting conditions, max lifetime benefit elimination havent you noticed that your premiums, copays or deductibles have risen with your employer faster than the 2% inflation rate? Thats because someone has to pay for these costs and its going to be us which makes our corporations less competitive or hire less employees etc. I dont argue these are good things, but its not a zero sum game.

If ACA were considered unconstitutional, I would hope that congress could work together to create something new to replace those good things you talk but I agree that our current system isnt working that well especially for those that need it the most.

According to the CBO it DOES bring down costs!

The Affordable Care Act will bring down costs, improve the quality of health care delivered to all Americans and expand coverage to 32 million Americans.

Independent experts have found that the new law helps reduce costs for families and businesses, cuts the deficit and strengthens Medicare, adding years to the trust fund while maintaining seniors guaranteed benefits.

The Congressional Budget Office, the government's non-partisan scorekeeper, said the Affordable Care Act would save over $100 billion over the next ten years, and over $1 trillion in the following decade.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-overview#costs

By the way redistributing wealth for health benefits will not be a rich to poor concept that you are thinking about.

So my long posts have nothing to do with class warfare as you want to assume.

You don't know what I am thinking....

AND:

I would hope that congress could work together to create something new to replace those good things you talk

That would be nice, but based on the last 2 years, it's not likely!

Those were the estimates based on the original passing and they dont take into account what has happened since. Even those CBO estimates were based on flawed data provided to the CBO given that it was 10 years of revenue and 6 years of benefits provided. The CBO estimates are based on revenues collected and expenses paid not on whether the health care delivery system will be changed in a manner that actually reduces costs within the system. For example, much of the savings is based on paying doctors and hospitals less which isnt going to happen as their isnt the political will to do so and may not even be a good idea. It also assumes that employers dont stop providing employer provided health care which based on the latest HSS assumptions show that 3 times or even more employers will stop providing health care. Again, instead of making this partisan I am trying to be more transparent about the economic impacts. Furthermore, I dont know if we as citizens have the unselfish ability to pay more and get less in order to make sure 30 million of our citizens get equal health care delivery and subsidize health care to our aging seniors who are already hold 20 trillion in wealth.

I agree the last two years are not a good indicator of the ability to colloborate and compromise. I know many people want to point the finger at the GOP while I think there is merit in that finger pointing but to excuse Obama, Reid and Pelosi from much or even an equal part of the blame isnt accurate either. I long for the days when we had pragmatists in the white house of either party. Unfortunately our last two presidents have been idealogues of both extremes which just polarizes the country while the vast majority of us really are somewhere in between in terms of our passionate political positions.

You did see the new CBO release today? ACA will cost twice as much as Obama had estimated. My guess is it will be alot worse than that before its done if nothing is done to address the expense side of the equation rather than just adding more benefits and people to the plan.

Beverly, nice post.

I also think Palin suffers the same malady as President George W. Bush--they are both incurious. I don't think she is stupid but being incurious about expanding one's knowledge, learning more, learning facts, the failure to ask questions makes one appear stupid.

Beverly,

Excellent post (as always). You summed it up beautifully so the only thing I am going to add is that Gingrich's cheesy grits comment is up there with Romney's tree heights comment: desperate and irrelevant. But the Repubs eat it up...

Jody---I think if Palin had spent the last three years sitting down with experts and becoming knowledgeable about world affairs, economics, etc., instead of making money and pursuing publicity, she could have been a viable candidate. She connects with the base and is comfortable on the stump in ways that Romney is not.

@Jody, Iowa

Beverly, nice post.

I also think Palin suffers the same malady as President George W. Bush--they are both incurious. I don't think she is stupid but being incurious about expanding one's knowledge, learning more, learning facts, the failure to ask questions makes one appear stupid.

Thanks Jody,

Girl Friend you and I usually always agree. This time I differ. I think she is stupid and can't hold a thought for a minute. Do you remember during the campaign I had questioned her posture? I said because she couldn't stand up straight I thought she was either crazy or on some tall psychotropic drugs.

@ bayllie

Beverly,

Excellent post (as always)

But the Repubs eat it up...

You are welcome

The tea bagger/ GOP are a bunch of changelings. Every day they eat themselves over their own lies.

You know what's beyond HILARIOUS?

You socialist fools are STILL getting yer panties in a bunch over someone that isn't even running for dog catcher....lmao....what tools!

Good job Bev "Resist We Much" Babe....I'm shocked noone has snatched you up as their campaign manager yet!

noias always come in PAIRS

http://newsone.com/files/2012/03/rush-cartoon.jpg

Thought you all might enjoy this 'toon - excellent depiction of the GOP/TP hypocrisy.

"Romney should give Santorum a Aspirin after Ricky's 8 hour ride on Mitt's car roof"

@RedDev

I'm blind. My eyes don't work anymore. They put warning labels on cigarettes. That cartoon needs one too!!!

I'm blind. My eyes don't work anymore.

And they say Rush doesn't have a 'hold' over the GOP/TP (or would that be a special bond?).

Oh bev i take exception to your parroted list...

1. The Iraq war is over.

Per signed SOFA agreement by bush2.

2. The economy is recovering.

Not to the extent obama said he could make it happen. Will he start proclaiming that an unemployment rate of 8.3% becomes the new norm? How convienient that he ignores those who have fallen off the rolls or are underemployed.

3. The Detroit bailout worked.

Not until we taxpayers get our money back, preferably with some interest.

4. "Don't ask, don't tell" is over

One for obama

5. Health care reform is here.

Not so fast. Scotus has yet to weigh in, its main features don't kick in until 2014, taxpayers will pay higher taxes (if their employer contributes) and evil vouchers will be used for those who still can't afford "affordable" healthcare.

6. Veterans' benefits are better.

Pretty ambiguous, rather like saying I am doing better because I am still alive.

7. Congress caused the gridlock.

And as POTUS obama lacked the ability to resolve it, but sure did encourage it with his rhetoric and avoidance.

8. He's a great communicator.

9. He's an even better debater.

What good is it if you can't deliver?

10. He's the cutest guy at the dance

Subjective I am sure...lol!

The real story behind the GOP primaries is that one candidate, supported and funded entirely by individual citizens, has been able to effectively compete despite the unprecedented efforts of the establishment to shut him down. Despite the consistent efforts of the mass media to ignore, minimize, ridicule, and at times attack Ron Paul and his achievements he continues to grow. The most important question pertaining to this election is – can Ron Paul and the people win?

In reality Ron Paul is leading one of the most beautiful, fascinating, and profound revolutions the world has ever seen. It challenges the most powerful political forces of our time in a country and world that is being run by and for special interests. It seeks to restore a Constitution designed to serve the interests of average citizens. This revolution is being carried out so subtly that it is hardly recognized as one during the process. It is such a peaceful revolution that no individual has so much as sacrificed a scratch.

All documented evidence clearly shows that wars, occupations, and meddling in the affairs of foreign countries only create resentment, resistance, and terrorism. Modern terrorism was born in response to our meddling which came first. In the meantime the over extension of America’s foreign policy continues to lead the country into bankruptcy.
This, as well as much of the serious domestic over spending only carries on because it benefits special interest groups, as opposed to serving citizen interests.

This election will decide if America continues on the self-destructive path of endless wars, bankruptcy, and full scale Depression or the process of recovery begins under President Ron Paul. Thus the stakes are very high. All of the establishment influence and money is financing the establishment candidates. To help assure success virtually all of the mass media has even been willing to expose itself as a promoter of establishment candidates rather than serving the responsibilities of a free press, in a free election, in a democratic society.

Ron Paul, in turn, comes armed with a cause that benefits the citizens of America as a whole. He also comes with a growing amount of enthusiastic support among a growing amount of people who have studied and are well versed on the issues.

Can America pull off one of the greatest and most beautiful revolutions the world has ever seen? The movement will certainly keep on growing but can it take back the country during this critical election to save much additional hardship and misery? Beyond America many around the world watch with great interest as they know the answer will sooner or later affect them as well.

Yes, America can become the country of moral leadership and prosperity run by and for the interests of the people once again. All it requires is enough informed people willing to place the interests of the country and its citizens first to win the election. The alternative is to be remembered for supporting the side that has destroyed the country.

Bev - I'll take #10 and my President's smile...any day! Why? Because they're merely the icing on the cake. And the cake part?...well that's what accomplished 1-9!

Obama/Biden 2012

Bev - great post. But, I would disagree on one point. I don't think the GOP could have run Condi Rice. She was too much of a "yes" woman to Bush. She knowingly withheld the evidence that the tubes Bush was touting were part of the WMD's actually couldn't have worked for WMD's. She acknowledged that the Bush Administration was warned that we would be attacked by air before 9/11 but argued that alerting the airlines would not have done any good since they didn't know what they were looking for. Her credibility would be under attack - at the very least. Kay Bailey Hutchinson - a very smart woman, which is why the GOP boys won't let her play.

Bev and Jody - agree on Palin - I think she has what my mother always referred to as "native intelligence" - she just has no interest in developing it.

She can get by without studying the issues because her target audience is not seeking knowledge.

She "presents" well in front of an audience and a "pretty face and catchy soundbites" is all they really wanted her for.

Well I see, a certain damaged poster got up on the wrong side of the bed .....again. We know many in your party vote against themselves and when it is pointed out, y'all get real upset.....and you are a perfect example of it.

Damage, they will only be happy when Obama pronounces himself King and discontinues elections.

Someone's not "feelin the love" this morning. I wonder how he's gonna feel after the general election? After about 47 of the 50 states re-elect President Obama. there's always Texas Damaged. :)

I was thinking about the changing poll numbers for all politicians this morning, Jody (I know, I need to get a life). It occurred to me that the folks who post here---both on the right and left---must be so different than the general public. We are all firm in who we support and we tend not to change our mind. I don't agree with the right-wingers who post here but they are consistent. The folks in the real world seem to change their opinion on the politicians in response to whatever else is going on in---whatever headline has caught their eye. And with Republicans bashing the President at every turn, there is a vacuum there that I hope the President's team soon fills up.

Latest polling in Maine shows Obama with a 55% approval rating, 41% disapproval (the same 41% that think our Tea Party Governor is doing a great job?)

Polling in Maine shows Obama beating Romney by double digits.

Damage123

Gingerbread- Maybe you're missing the point. OR, maybe you're like Jody and the others, who are so condescending and elitist that they don't even realize there IS a point.

What's with all this "elitist" stuff? You trying to start a class war or something? Why do you resent people with functioning brains so much?

WOW...Damaged is getting more and more irritated as this election cycle progresses. His obsessions with blacks, homosexuals, Jack in Portsmouth, and David Walker are quite disturbing.

Maybe DamagedGoods needs to wash that sand from his vagina...

This is why you elitist pr**ks have lost 6 out of the last 10 presidential elections.

Correction, we watched you moronic pr**ks steal two of them. Go back under your rock nasty boy. Most have ignored your hateful trash anyway.

In the interest of civilty I will say this: Romney doesn't look 65.

The Damaged one is just now reading the writing on the wall. His Party has forsaken him. By sending out their "Best and Brightest" (sarcasm intended), they've left him high and dry. He has no hope. That danged ol' BLACK GUY is gonna get re-elected. Must be tough to be a RACIST and have to live with that!!! :)

Damage123

Houston: Thank you for making my point better than I ever could.

Your point being that people who don't agree with you should just shut up.

Wow, Damaged has fallen off the bridge, someone throw him a life preserver. It's amazing how his brain absorbs information and contorts it into something that was not said. Personally, I prefer being a liberal "elitist" than a conservative who thinks educated people are snobs.

Now you know why I am afraid to label any of my political views as conservative Jody, because of our pal Damaged here.

Good morning Jody

LOL ya'll, from media matters:

Today Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace explained that the GOP attack on President Obama over gas price increases since his inauguration is "misleading." But will the rest of Fox News stop misleading on this issue?

March 11, 2012

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203110003

The right wing nut jobs are so desperate. They repeat the same oh same oh LIES day after day.

As the IDIOTIC FOX pundits like to say in rhetorical question form-- But, Will Chris Wallace Explaining Gas Prices To FOX NOISE IDIOTS HELP THEM???

Ha Ha ☺☺☺

i think chris wallace probably got advice from his daddy on this one.....Obama has absolutely nothing to do with prices of gas, its the speculators (which should be a criminal offense) and the oil companies themselves (not to mention all the GOP neos touting war against Iran. Our boys just got the hell of of two hellholes, don't send them to the garbage pit of the middle east...but then again, most GOP silver spoon fed politicians have never been in uniform

I think that Washington Post poll may be a bit of an outlier. All the other polls I've seen have Obama beating Romney. The WAPO/ABC poll is only based on a little over 1,000 people, and I wonder how representative of actual voters it could be.

Maybe I should thank you too for helping to make my point, Jody. "Educated people are snobs." ???? Really? Is that what I said? No. I said that looking down on people who feel different from you politically and attributing their views to lack of education (stupidity) is elitist and condescending...and it is. That's EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about. You people just refuse to believe that somebody else who looks at things different than you do, has come to their position through careful and considerite thought. That makes you an elitist snob. Again; how do you people explain the millions of college-educated conservatives? Ahhh. Dupes of FOX NEWS. I forgot.

Damage you get so confused why no one ever responds to your message. Isn't it obvious? With all that hate isn't it obvious?

I do agree, as someone who has been told my best interest, that no one should claim they no someone else's best interest when they do not fully understand their circumstances. However, look how much hate you surround those words in.

I will stop telling you my elitist ideas of what is in your best interest however, the second you stop spreading your hate mongering lies of how Obama has ruined all of our lives.

Especially the ones about how this corporation loving Marxist is forcing us into his socialist empire. (Yes I would even like you to stop telling the ones that are inherently stupid)

I think that Washington Post poll may be a bit of an outlier. All the other polls I've seen have Obama beating Romney.

Actually, Rassmussen (the poller that was closest to predicting the 2008 election) has Romney and Santorum both ahead of Obama. Romney by 5 points Santorum by 3 points

Another weird thing about that WAPO/ABC poll is that 46% of the people feel Democrats care more about "people like you" vs 36% who say Republicans care more. So, these voters are going to support a Party that doesn't care about them?

"Ricky boy is weird as a rock floating in the Ocean"

PS Regarding polling, I find this website helpful, they gather a bunch of polls in one place

http://www.pollingreport.com

Damage123, what are we supposed to do, call silly folks "smart" when they're not?

For the love of ... Damage - give it a @!$%#ing rest. Jesus, dude -- unplug and go for a walk outside. Your insulting, hateful rhetoric is prime irony and is making you look really, really silly.

Which GOP candidate are you supporting?

Da Noid---as more facts come out about this, you have to wonder about the wisdom of the pipeline at all. Rachel Maddow had a piece on about spills of the type of oil that would flow through the pipeline. Not the same as a deep sea oil spill (as bad as that is) because the oil is of a different nature and sinks and gets embedded. There is more technology than I could understand or explain but the bottom line I got from it was that it isn't the same clean up as skimming it off the top of the water. Not a risk I had heard mentioned before.

Steeler and DaNoid -- Here is a link to an article on the Kalamazoo spill that explains in detail what type of crude comes from oil/tar sands. A must read, detailed account of the dangers and problems associated with this type of crude.

Unlike conventional crude, diluted bitumen or "dilbit" is a mixture of unrefined tar that is often heavier than water and "diluent." This is usually a cocktail of volatile solvents like naphtha or natural gas condensate that allows the thick bitumen to be pumped through the pipeline.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/03/05/Diluted-Bitumen/

DaNoid,

thanks for the link to the article.

So the pipeline will help Canada with its export market to the world. It will help reduce the oversupply that now exist of their oil in the Midwest.

But at the same time they want to build this new pipline THROUGH the landscape of the the MIDWEST.

Something is wrong with this picture.

Gas here in MN is around $3.69 per gallon and according the article it will rise 10-20cents when the pipeline is built.

Wonder what the farmers think of this?

What other part of this picture is missing? What is the role of refineries throughout the US? What is the role of transportation from refinery to the gas pump? Do oil companies have a monoply on every aspect of this source of energy?

Simplistic political rethoric is not really helpful to understanding the facts on the ground.

Northstar ... maybe we could present the oil companies with some simplistic questions. Like maybe ... "If the pipeline goes through, can you guarantee us that gasoline will fall (and stay) at $2.50/gal?" And ... "How many American jobs (and for what duration) will you guarantee?" And ... "What protocol will be in place for cleanup in the event of a spill?" And ... "How many billions of $$$ will you place in escrow to accomplish effective cleanup?"

TOG

Shhhh! You can't ask the biggest lobby those kinds of questions. What about all their campaign donations? They might hold back on someone who asked those questions!

Shhhh! You can't ask the biggest lobby those kinds of questions. What about all their campaign donations? They might hold back on someone who asked those questions!

Yes...better that we simply sit back and let Big Oil suckle at the teat of the big government subsidies their industry receives. Besides, these are people corporations that surely know better than we do.

Da Noid, thank you for posting this article.

What republicans and oil industry people also ignore is that many farmers, people living in the area and state lawmakers where the proposed pipeline would run are objecting to it for the reasons you mentioned as well as others. TransCanada has been threatening farmers in the region, and there is genuine concern about the aquifer. Oil and tar sands have a very difficult makeup than oil, they are loaded with even more toxic and carcinogenic chemicals used to extract the oil. A small drip from the pipeline would have a disastrous impact on the aquifer in Nebraska's Sand Hills and elsewhere but particularly in the ecological sensitive sand hills--it would poison the water supply for a huge portion of the midwest and into the west. Keystone XL is being framed as "oil" is the most important aspect or our lives when in reality, our water supply is the most important aspect. The potential for a damaged and poisoned water supply should be the biggest concern because once ruined, it can never be replaced. The water we have is the same water we have had since time began; water is the key to life.

TOG,

You raise really good questions. Jobs and environmental concerns are part of the equation of producing energy.

But my point of departure for this discussion is trying to get my head around the big picture first. Drilling, moving the oil to refineries, distributing their end products to domestic consumers and business, farmers throughout the US. At every point there are jobs and risk management to the environment. There is profit in each segment, and taxes and regulation and speculators making a buck off all these variables.

Maybe I just need to follow the money as Phine suggests to find the answer.

And oil is just one part of energy equation. Add to that, gas, coal,nuclear,new green industries and its is very complex.

Need to do some more reading unless some FR posters can enlighten me about oil industry. Then I can turn to the political policy being debated with some understanding.

Jody,

Good point about sand oil not only needs tons of water to get at the oil , pipelines spills also affect the water underneath the ground and the lakes and rivers. We only have to look at the gulf oil spill to see what damage can be produced to all areas of the economy that were impacted by the spill even today.

So back to my original question of how this all works. Are piplines the only way crude oil get to refineries, to port for shipping world wide?

Northstar, it is my understanding that crude is also transported by rail and by tanker trucks. As for this particular type of toxic crude and the specific hazards involved, not only with the type of pipeline necessary and specifics for a rail or tanker to transport it, there are also national security risks and environmental risks involved for each method.

One question you might ask. Why doesn't the Canadians just put the pipeline through their country as the length would only have to be a third as long to reach their coast?

I believe the environmental laws of refining in Canada are stricter than ours? Also, wouldn't the pipeline in Canada have to cross North American Indian territories/land to the coast? It's my understanding that was the main reason to run it through the U.S.

Ideologyspoilstheview or any Canadians, could you enlighten us about that?

Northstar ... I wish I could answer your questions. Follow the money is always a good thought, but there is SO much money involved spread in SO many directions that it's well beyond my comprehension.

I am a Canadian in IA, and if that is truly the case, then I am appalled.

@ Cynthia's Point

I think getting from Alberta to the BC coast would be doable except for one small hurdle,

(The Rocky Mountains) Still no excuse for polluting US soil !!

DaNoid....thanks for posting this article.

It certainly confirms what many said after the President put the brakes on this deal - let's just slow down and further analyze the project. Pragmatism trumps kneejerk every time.

TOG and Northstar - This article appeared in guardian.co.uk and was reprinted in Reuters.com -might explain where the money trail leads:

Whenever such a harmful project is en route to approval, it needs to be asked who stands to benefit from it. Unsurprisingly, two of the key people best placed to benefit from this pipeline are the Koch brothers. As David Sassoon of Solve Climate reports, via ClimateProgress:

"The Keystone XL pipeline, awaiting a thumbs up or down on a presidential permit, would increase the import of heavy oil from Canada's oil sands to the US by as much as 510,000 barrels a day, if it gets built. … A SolveClimate News analysis, based on publicly available records, shows that Koch Industries is already responsible for close to 25% of the oil sands crude that is imported into the United States, and is well-positioned to benefit from increasing Canadian oil imports.

"A Koch Industries operation in Calgary, Alberta, called Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, supplies about 250,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day to a heavy oil refinery in Minnesota, also owned by the Koch brothers. Flint Hills Resources Canada also operates a crude oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta, the starting point of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline."

Keystone XL is only the latest political fight where the Koch brothers hope to keep secret their involvement and financial interest. And now they're going after Midwest land, the property passed down through generations of family, and the safety of our drinking water and air.

Da Noid - I think the most interesting thing about the pipeline is that the Republican governors of the states the pipeline is to run through do NOT WANT IT! Pretty much says it all.

activist, just because he's not their fav now doesn't mean they won't vote for him in t he general. Lots of people are ABO

A party that votes out of hate rather than what is good for our country.

Republicans must be proud.

If hate cured our problems, we would all be riding in Cadillacs.

Da Noid---"cheesy" is the best word for the plastic pandering going on. I know all politicians do it but with Romney it seems so programmed.

If you want to bring the price of oil down then stop all the talk about going to war with Iran.

I still want to know why, when it comes to oil prices, do Republicans suddenly hate Capitalism.

Bob in Virginia:

MSNBC totally swallows the Obama reelection mantra that Obama policies had NOTHING to do with high gas prices..

Then please enlighten us: What, exactly did Obama do to make gas prices go up? And please no BS about the Keystone Pipeline, which would actually raise gas prices more if it were built because oil that's refined into gas would get to the Gulf Coast ports for export to foreign countries rather than contributing to an oil surplus in the Midwest as it does now, keeping prices lower.

You people do realize the folks in real America (not the right & left political junkies here) don't give a rat's rear end about whose fault the high gas prices are, right? They just know they are high. The more educated of them get that war talk about Iran and speculators and high profit margins are the big reasons - but, even so they just don't care. They want a solution or the truth. Just that simple. Get off the blogs and talk to some people who ARE NOT political junkies and who do NOT get all their information from sites like this. Might be surprised at what you hear and learn.

Oil prices are set on a global market. The problem is speculators.

Ruken,

I know you are right. Most people here know you are right. But the average American? All they know is gas prices are high and they want someone, anyone to do something.

Sorry it wasn't directed at you Phine :(

And yea, Bush was the scapegoat, and now it's Obama's turn I guess (although I don't blame him).

Heh, actually as Dennis pointed out. Those that talk of war with Iran are the cause for this increased speculation as of late.

Ruken,

That's ok. But it is true that the party (or president) in power gets the blame when times are tough (i.e. gas prices, food prices, etc.). Might not be fair, but what in life is?

More people than not think Obama can do something about gas prices. see below

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_031012.html

I find it odd how people assume that consumers don't understand the high price of gas; they do understand a whole lot more than some want to give credit for. The poll numbers reflect a frustration about the rising gas prices but plenty of people realize that no president can do much about it. It depends on how the questions are asked and what other, if any, options are part of the question. The connectivity of people to information today makes it much easier for people to be informed. Not everyone pays attention regardless. I had several poll survey calls last week which makes me think one was the Washington Post/ABC poll. The question in one poll was to pick one of the reasons for high gas prices--there was no "all of the above". The first choice was to blame President Obama. Then a second question pertained to picking either speculators, big oil, and middle east unrest as other choices.

Why did Obama appear on screen in SIX different commercials back in 2007 and 2008 blaming then President Bush for high gas prices?

Obama as evidenced by those commercials believed that Presidents can impact gas prices.

What has changed?

Jody,

The price of gas at the pump is the end result of long process. Being a informed voter is my goal too.

Before I lay blame on any of the players I need to understand the game.I understand parts of it but still have missing elements and the influence,power of each part.

Off to work now so will revisit this thread at the end of the day.

"more people than not" must be absolutely detached from the "real world". Of course, cater to people's fears...

Jody

The poll numbers reflect a frustration about the rising gas prices but plenty of people realize that no president can do much about it. It depends on how the questions are asked and what other, if any, options are part of the question.

Pundits like to say that people vote with their pocketbooks. It's too bad more people don't use their brains instead. The people who don't comprise the low-info voting bloc. They may be a small minority, but the Republicans hope to add their votes to the GOP's tea bag base in order to win the election. The coalition of the ignorant and the willfully ignorant may still be enough for Romney to pull it off, I'm afraid.

Can't forget that these speculators are the same ones that the republicans are protecting from paying fair taxes.

They raise your gas prices and then pay less percentage of tax than you do. What's more the republicans are fighting to keep speculation just the way it is now with no limits or laws controlling them.

The republicans will take food out of your mouth by cutting food stamps but don't ask them to regulate speculation.

VOTE---Obama/Biden 2012

Rob: More people than not think Obama can do something about gas prices.

And a plurality of voters in Alabama and Mississippi think that Obama ia a Muslim.

What's your point? That people refuse to look at facts. That people are prone to being led by someone else's misstatements? Right on both counts. By not seeking truth, by allowing someone else's prejudiced views to shape your own, you are doing yourself, your friends, and your country a disservice.

There is a difference between reaction to administration policies and the capacity of the president himself to affect oil prices. Surely you understand that?

Surely you understand that?

Surely barack doesn't understand, below are his words from 2008...

Democrat Barack Obama on Friday blamed high gasoline prices on Washington and a political establishment that he says hasn't stood up to oil companies, his two rivals for the presidency included.

"The candidates with the Washington experience - my opponents - are good people. They mean well, but they've been in Washington for a long time and even with all that experience they talk about, nothing has happened," Obama said in remarks delivered at a gas station. "This country didn't raise fuel efficiency standards for over 30 years."

The result, the Illinois senator said, is that consumers are suffering.

"So what have we got to show for all that experience?" Obama asked. "Gas that's approaching $4 a gallon."

SO TELL ME BARACK, WHAT HAVE YOU SHOWN US BESIDES PARTISAN HACKERY?

I can't see how anything good can come from continued US presence in Afghanistan. The longer US troops stay, the more they hate being there and hate the people whose "hearts and minds" they're supposed to win, resulting in an endless string of atrocities like this one. And of course, the atrocities inflame the hatred of the Afghan people for Americans leading to the inevitable attacks on US troops by their "allies" as well as people won over to the Taliban. The only thing that the US military occupation is accomplishing is keeping the cycle of violence going.

Time to come home, NOW! Nothing to be gained, more to lose.

The madness will stop just as soon as we put the draft in place again.

Then we need to demand that they can't start a war without a way to pay for it such as increased taxes like in the rest of our history when we were a responsible nation.

Right now Romney wants to cut taxes even more and start another war or two. Sometimes I think the no contraception things is about creating more cannon fodder rather than about religion.

OK you got me laughin pretty good!! But Bachmann as Ginger and Palin as Maryann would be good too!!

You are showing what a typical Lib does ,when you cant win a debate on facts resort to name calling and make fun of the other side that you dont agree with Joke all you want but your Saviour Obama has 8 months before he gets his Pink slip from the American Voters. Thats when we will be laughing.

Who is we?? The other voices in your head? Do they get a vote each? How's that work?

frankbrown,

Sounds to me like you are trying to be nasty here? You one of those "any lib is bad" types?

OK you got me laughin pretty good!! But Bachmann as Ginger and Palin as Maryann would be good too!!

Heh. I am a resident (unfortunately) of Bachmann's district.

There was a story on the news of a woman that is going to be challenging her for her Congressional seat. As soon as I heard it, my mind was made up on who to vote for.

frank, you seem upset. here's an aspirin, hold it between your knees and you will feel much better.

Detroit, it was a good think I had just swallowed my tea when I read your post. Seems only fitting they get the same medical advise they give us.

fuzzy44

Who is we?? The other voices in your head? Do they get a vote each? How's that work?

The "We" are the millions of Americans who are sick of seeing Democrats destroy our country with the marxist socialist view of governing. It's the millions of Americans who want our individual liberties back and a Federal govt that actually follows the Constitution

According to Larry, the "we" are the people that love to use the words "socialist" and "marxist" as the boogeyman. Marxism seeks to even the the classes by controlling the means of production. Can you name a few of these comapnies that have been nationalized under this "marxist" regime? Didn't think so. As far as the "socialist" label goes, there is a socialist component to every government. Perhaps you would like to repair your own road? Would you like to conduct clinical trials to make sure drugs are safe? Maybe you should pay for the air traffic control system? All of these things are paid for by the government so the capitalism can go about its business.

Mormons are Christians you are showing your racist tendencies and your lack of Knowledge.....typical LIB

liz,

Good insight. I live in the south. Those old prejudices die hard here.

Oh, and frankbrown, sorry, but that is the truth. Just ask any good old boy redneck in the deep south!

frankbrown, seriously, have you listened to the evangelicals lately? Franklin Graham, Jeffers, etc--it's what they say about Mormons. Liz is simply stating what these folks say.

I really don't care what religion any of these candidates are, just don't expect me to believe the same and I do not want them to preach to me about religion. These GOP candidates are all speaking of a Christian Theocracy. They preach the First Amendment for religious freedom yet in the next breath speak as if the country is only Christian; they speak of religious freedom while demanding that all women follow their particular religious beliefs.

The truth is that when we vote the answer to the question about faith should be that it does not matter. If we claim to believe in the First Amendment's established freedom of and freedom from religion, then a candidate's faith should have no relevance. The answer to the question of whether or not a candidate's religious beliefs must reflect our own should be--it does not matter.

Awesome, Jody! I couldn't agree more.

Mormons are christians! They believe in God, Jesus and the Holy ghost. They also believe in others rights to believe as they wish.

Jody and Phine nail it , As Usual.

Huh? I've read right-wing twisted logic but frankbrown wins as contortionist of the year.

The parties in general seem to have become more polarized. If you do anything against your party, you'll lose their support (and $$$) and will probably end up losing your seat.

It's like the mafia.

While the politics, partisan divide, have become more polarized, the truth is that since about 1867?, the line for liberalism has remained pretty steady with slight upticks as more liberal and downticks as less. On the conservative side, the line also remained pretty steady with slight upticks as more conservative and downticks as less until around the mid 1980's when the conservative side began moving ever more conservative and it took a huge spike into extreme conservative in the last five years. Liberalism remains about the same as it has always been.

What the media mistakenly reports and people accept as reasonable thought is that both sides have moved to their extremes. That is not true; only the GOP has moved to the extreme. The fact the GOP has means that anytime democrats vote against something or take a different and often moderate position compared to conservatives, the perception is they have adopted the polar extreme position. About every generation or so, the country shifts right to left or left to right. Anytime one party or the other begins shifting toward the extreme far right or left, it drags the other side in that direction as well. There is a point, however, at which that extreme shift to the right (as we have today), the Tea Party rise is a good example, results in a reversal and a revolt by voters who see themselves as mostly center left and center right. That is what we are seeing in the GOP primary--the far right has dragged the entire party to the far right and voters beyond that 30% base are not liking it.

A moderate is either a liberal who is afraid to declare their true beliefs or someone who lacks any strong convictions and beliefs.

The sad truth is this is a weak GOP field but its an improvment over Obama none the Less Obama and his Marxist policies will end in Nov. 2012 ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID LOL

If Obama is Marxist, then the Tea Party must be Fascist.

Farmer John, you nailed it.

Farmer ;, THAT IS A LIE!!! , Mormons believe in a Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ as his son and our Savior and the Holy Ghost. The Holy Bible is the Holy Bible and the book of Mormon is another testament of Christ. If you don't understand a religion at least don't spread lies about it.

Mormons believe that the Holy Bible is an inspired work of God. They also believe that the Book of Mormon is also an inspired work of God and is another testament of Christ.

Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the only savior, and redeemer of mankind. That because of the atonement of Christ all men may be saved and return to Heaven according to their faith and righteousness. Mormons believe that Joseph Smith translated a book, and with the help of Christ, restored the church as they believe it was established by Christ in the New Testament.

While they revere Joseph as a prophet, and translating a book is neat and all, it doesn't hold a candle flame to what they think of Christ and the fact that he happens to be the Savior of all mankind...

Heres their beliefs in easy to understand pictures if you really wanted to know:

www.mormonnewsroom.org/media/mormon-infographic.jpg/blog

That was taken from here:

www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101

Those very same Republicans are shouting about how the latest round of gas price hikes by the big oil companies (those close friends of the GOP) are all the fault of President Obama.

Tom there are SIX different commercials from 2007 and 2008 in which Obama appears on screen railing against then President Bush for high gas prices. You will see those ads being run by republican superpacs frequently over the next several months as gas prices go higher and higher. Obama obviously believed back then that gas prices were the fault of the President.

What has changed?

Rob in ma-3189632

What has changed?

Well, in 2007 and 2008, the Middle East was in chaos because of the war in Iraq that Bush started on false pretenses. In 2012, the Middle East is approaching a similar level of tensions based on Iran's shady nuclear program and the saber rattling by Israel and Republican war hawks here in the US. There are other factors, too that neither president could control. But Bush was the only one whose actions made the problem worse.

Care to provide specifics about those ads, Rob, or did you just pull the number 6 out of your hat.

For the record, I did not blame Bush or Clinton or Bush 41 or Reagan or any president for the price of gas. Since the GOP is so big on free-market capitalism, why is it today they seem anything but supportive of the free market in their rants about high gas prices. Truth is, the GOP doesn't give a hoot about high gas prices--it's just good campaign fodder.

Candidate Obama's ads talked about energy independence, clean renewable energy and not specifically blaming Bush for anything except his failure to have a more broad-based energy plan. I remember how McCain and GOP candidates and even Hillary Clinton mocked Candidate Obama for talking about making sure your tires had enough air--and then was proven right, that proper tire inflation impacts fuel efficiency.

We have Bill O'Reilly in 2008 saying that we should understand that no president has the power to increase or decrease gas prices; anyone promising $2 gas is B.S. The global market, global demand, middle east problems really take it out of Bush's hands. Yet today, Bill-O sings the opposite tune.

http://usamericanfreedom.com/2012/02/24/hypocrite-obama-its-not-my-fault-for-high-gas-prices-blame-bush/

Here's a couple for ya Jody.

The Romney team has a war chest of stupid things that Obama has said back when he was a candidate that they are going to play non-stop once the primary is over.

It's going to get very very ugly for Obama.

Interesting blogspot, Rob. I watched all the ad clips and I did't see where President Obama blamed Bush for high gas prices. The ads stated his energy policies and how fuel efficiency and alternative fuels can help bring the demand for oil down. We are using less oil and exporting more than ever. Now, if we had some controls over speculators and world oil prices driven by fear...?

Obama/Biden 2012

I watched all the ad clips and I did't see where President Obama...

I'm not surprised Cynthia. Obama could drowned a litter of puppies and libbies like yourself would somehow rationalize it away. I think bush derangement disorder has mutated to this new disease for which you should seek immediate treatment.

So they are just as much partisan hacks as the democrats who are defending the president over gas prices today. Those same democrats were complaining that Bush was at fault and he was doing it to benefit his rich oil buddies.

“The next time you hear a politician say that he or she will bring down oil prices, understand it’s complete BS"

Bill O'Reilly Fox News commentator

Newt Gingrich is campaigning on lower gas prices saying that he, Gingrich, will actually interfere with the "free market" if he were POTUS.

I thought Republicans were on record railing against any type of cost controls.

Maybe that's why Republicans tend to like Romney, because Romney goes both ways on every issue and so do Republican followers.

Obama / Biden 2012

in 2006-2008 democrats blamed high gas prices on Bush. why would it not be obama's fault now. he's been in office 3 years..............

3-years too long i might add!!!!!!!!!!!

ANYBODY BUT OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!

How much crack did you smoke already today? The big difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney has signed the front of checks AND had to make sure the cash was in the bank and Obama has signed only the backs of checks from his socialist friends and supporters.

Wow I cant believe how stupid most of the posters are on this site

Marxist Obama

Frank Brown, dream on baby.

Careful, your bias is showing.