So I made the mistake of watching Fox News this morning and I think those guys don't like Obama. Some of the stories they discussed came off as being a bit prudish especially the one about the donuts.

No one is hiring? I'll grant you that you may have to take a job for a few thousand less than what you're looking for or may have to move to a different market to land a job, but there's still jobs available. I'm currently employed and have got 3 offers from other companies over the past month. I have two relatives graduate from college this year and they both had jobs long before they had left school.

You'll never get an argument from a Mizzou fan as to the relative stupidity of Kansans. But let's not pretend she was the only beacon of light in a box of burnt-out bulbs.

Naw, I remember how outraged the left was when this picture was used in an article last year in Vanity Fair.........

George W. Bush: Comic-Book Villain?: Vanity Fair | Vanity Fair

What's that you say? They weren't outraged?

I'm a huge fan of Andrew Sullivan, but he's tossing out some major hypocrisy in this post.........

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan


Tell you what, Andrew. You stop pretending that only the right-wing idiots put horns on the pictures of politicians and then we'll have an honest conversation.

WAIT ARE YOU SAYING PEOPLE DISCUSSING POLITICS ARE HYPOCRITICAL

On occasion, yes. :D

So Andy Sullivan is the godsend when it comes to Iran and his spin that you regurge all the time but now that it doesnt jibe with your opinion on a different topic it is BS? 2 posts above that you go anecdotal to sort out something that is a national average?

your spin-ness skills are vast, hypocrisy is long, and your blinders are tight. Good for you.

If I was better at using the search function I think it would be interesting to find out how many posts of yours follow this format:

"This {noun} is quickly becoming a {negative adjective} for {Democrats/The Democratic Party/Obama}."

I wouldn't mind except that you continue to paint yourself as a neutral third party. Give up the fiction and we'll all respect you a lot more.


If the kid goes uncovered for a few months and has the bad luck to develop, say, a random serious heart condition (the treatment of which will now never be covered by insurance because it's a pre-existing condition) that requires incredibly expensive surgery and rehab, who's going to pay the bill? The bankruptcy courts are littered with cases like these. This is basic stuff here - on how health insurance works in the U.S. today.

I've never painted myself as neutral in any way. I'm probably best described as party-confused. On social issues, I'm pretty liberal. On economic issues, I'm as conservative as they come.

Everyone paints my opinions with a broad Republican brush, mainly because I disagree with nearly all of Obama's economic policies and, let's face it, the negative comments are often what stirs the pot. I only get responses to the comments where the majority of the people disagree (which on this board in this thread usually involves non-liberal support). My posts supporting the legalization of marijuana, pro-choice, and stem cell research amongst other issues supported by President Obama barely got noticed. Why? Because the thread generally leans liberal. No one blinks when it's something they support. But when I blast the incompetence of this administration on multiple economic topics, the broad brush filled with Republican paint is whipped out in an instant.

I don't expect any sympathy for my openness to both sides of the fence and the obstacles it provides when you are supposed to be on one side of the fence or the other in a thread such as this one, but let's not pretend in any way that I'm an economic AND social right-winger. That's simply false.

Or Mom could cut a check for $500-600 to cover them for 4-5 months until they have a job if they're so worried about it.

I don't doubt that there are bad circumstances in other familes, but the Sebelius kids will NOT go without insurance in the scenario she provides. She has the ability to cover them for a couple of months and will do so. It was an extremely poor example to choose to illustrate her point.

It's an excellent example that resonates very well with many middle-class families unable to afford the $500/$600 a month until the kid gets a job.

Im having a bad day so Im going to avoid this thread today, or at least posting in it so that my vitriol doesnt get the best of me.

If you're paying $500-600 a month for a college-age kid, you need to shop for a new plan. My $500-600 number was for 4 months. Shouldn't take much more than that.

I don't have a problem with her making a statement similar to yours, regardless of whether it's indicative of the general public or not. I have a big problem with her attempting to portray her family in some sort of health crisis. Her kids won't go a day uncovered.

I guess other than my own racial sensitivities I dont have a problem with the picture of the Joker on Obama or Bush for that matter. The word underneath is a simple scare mongering tactic we've seen used time and again (luckily in failure). Perhaps my own sensitivities towards race are getting in the way of a strictly political judgment or opinion.

Who had 37 minutes in the pool?

Bullpuckey.

Back when I was unemployed (2003-04 area, I would say), I was paying $350 a month in Cobra as it was.

Oh, sorry, it wasnt directed at anyone but myself so I felt alright about it, considering it took me a day or two to figure out where I stood on the picture posted that initially sent shudders up my spine due to my own racial sensitivities but I dont think that that is the intent of the pic. I hope anyways.

Regardless, I am unsuccessful.

Where in the heck do you shop for health insurance? $500 is a monthly rate- actually more like 2; it won't get you 4 months anywhere

EDIT: We're also not talking what you pay out of pocket for your job since your employer is also paying a significant portion and we're talking about people who don't get insurance from their job or don't have a job (the example of a kid right out of college)

SI

Alright, we'll assume your number and say 4 months of insurance at $1,000.

1. Sebelius will STILL be able to afford that with relative ease given her income and her husband's income.

2. If anything, it's an excellent incentive for that kid to give them a deadline of 3-4 months to get a job. It's really not that difficult to do so if you're a college educated person, even in today's economy. You may not get your ideal job, but you'll get something with health coverage and some sort of salary. I don't think that's too much to ask of a kid in similar circumstances. And once again, it's the dumbest example I've seen of why this bill is important.

Sebelius: Just look at the poor college graduate from a home with an income of $200K+. Where will he find health insurance??????????????

Use a homeless guy with a broken leg who can't get treatment or an elderly person who can't afford his meds. It's a much better illustration if you're trying to play the sympathy angle as she did. Some kids never have insurance and we're supposed to be concerned about the plight of a man who is graduating from college with opportunities galore who had nothing but time to apply for jobs knowing that he'd need one in May?

Poll indicates generational split over health care - CNN.com

Looks like the young are for 'Obama's Health care plan' while the 'older' generation are against, and polling is about 50/50. While 7 out of 10 say 'something needs to be done 8 out of 10 say theyre happy with their insurance (obviously that last point is a bit skewed since this is really a discussion about haves and have nots but it is what it is).

Factory orders unexpectedly increase in June - Boston.com

Looks like things are actually working, again, the jobs # needs to improve, but this is a good sign, that things are going better then expected

Good to see GM thriving under new management.

Did you expect something different?

(not saying you did, just askin')

I expect my GM ownership dividend checks to be flowing into the mailbox any time now.

Considering GM has closed two brands and sold off two others in the past 12 months, is a drop comparing July '08 to July '09 that unexpected?

Faux unexpected

Having an employer-based insurance system in a capitalist economy is madness. One of the strengths of a capitalist economy, at least as regards productivity, is that it encourages entrepreneurs to take risks and experiment with new and potentially better ways of doing things. It tries to create a workforce that is as mobile and flexible as possible, so that new industries and companies can emerge quickly.

Employer-based health insurance, though, works against entrepreneurialism and mobility. No small, start-up company owner is going to be able to get as good a deal on health insurance as a large corporation, and if you leave your employer's health plan and then find out that you have a pre-existing condition as you try to join a new one, you're screwed.

The employer-based health system hinders labor mobility and discourages economic innovation. (Not to mention the fact that companies, I think, now regard their health-insurance obligations the same that they regarded their pension plans--as something to be gotten rid of asap so that they can be more competitive globally.)

I'm not sure whether single-payer or individual health accounts is the way to go, but I feel pretty confident that either would be better than what we have now: the single-payer system because it would enable the government to dictate costs to medical providers, and individual health accounts because it would cut down on the glut of unnecessary tests and procedures.

My dream scenario:
People start exercising, eating right, and taking care of themselves. Then premiums are based on these decisions. We have an auto insurance and life insurance industry that is based on good decision making why not on health insurance? (And before I get shelled. I drink, don't eat great and would not expect to pay the same premium as the person who really takes care of themselves. But I also would expect to pay less than the 400 pound woman who can't understand how she got diabetes and why she is so sick all of the time)

Since that is probably not plausible:
Individual health savings accounts with catastrophe coverage. This is what I have right now. (And I am a teacher so I guess this would technically be government coverage) I get $2000 a year to either spend on health costs or save for future health spending. I am responsible for the first $3000 in any year and then a percentage up to a certain point. (I think my max loss in one year is $5000) The result is that I get estimates on tests and make decisions like it is my money. A lady I work with used to go to the doctor and take her kids all the time and then she switched to this and started researching on the internet and thinking before calling him up. Wouldn't this be the best way to save the system? People are cheap when it is their own money and don't give two shits when it is someone else’s. See: Cash for clunkers.

I have nothing much to add but to say I'm one of the 'idiot' Kansans and I also supported Sebelius. She was far from great but when I look at Sam Brownback running for Governor next election I'd love to have her back.

Although the insanity of Kansans really was brought down a few notches after I spent 4 years living in Utah. I don't feel so bad about us now. :)

Carry on.

Just to clarify, I never called any Kansans 'idiots'. I said they were stupid.

Well no need to specify Kansans either way, you just mean Conservatives. :)

Fixed. ;)

If you are looking for news that supports your point of view, I'd suggest CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, Comedy Central, and MTV.

CNN = unwatchable. I dont care what ZeroFab123 has to say via twitter.

What, no ESPN?

Oh, how I wish this were true:(

First of all, you are correct on prices. A young, healthy college aged male should be able to get a decent health insurance plan for under $150/month. A female though looks at over $300 and possibly more if they are married.

Two big problems with it though. Those are the rates if the person is 100% healthy. If they have diabetes, it won't be covered (or they'll be rejected). Same can be said for any other health issue they have. So your statement should say that Mom could cut a check for them if they didn't lose the genetic lottery and have some uninsurable issue.

The other problem is that individual health insurance is different than group. Besides the pre-existing conditions issue listed above, an individual plan renews every year. The provider is allowed to cancel your plan for any reason they see fit to. If you happen to come down with cancer 9 months into the year, you can say goodbye to your insurance in 3 months. There are much stricter laws on group plans (also why they are more expensive) and it's one of the reasons why individual plans are a really shitty option if you are looking for security.

I'm sure Sebelius could probably afford her kids health insurance IF they are healthy and remain healthy. But it's an issue that a lot of middle class families face and that is what she was pointing out. While in your world, jobs are everywhere, most other people are having trouble. Unemployment is nearing 10% and rising. Most major companies that do offer benefits have freezes on hiring. Many jobs that are available don't offer benefits at all. If they are lucky to get a job with benefits, those don't usually kick in for 3-6 months. If it takes a few months to get hired, you could be looking at almost a year without health insurance. Many young graduates are also taking unpaid internships instead of flipping burgers so that they'll have some experience when the economy gets back on track.

Heh, my mom was let go from her job a year ago. She is in good health, but 62 years old and on some thyroid meds. The quotes she was getting were in the 500-900 range per month, and that was with fairly large deductibles and small maximums. She collects unemployment of about $250/week and has mortgage + condo fees of around $800-900. She doesn't qualify for Medicare and doesn't have the money for a shitty plan. Plus, she supports my sister who is taking classes at college and borderline disability.

I'd love more options. It's quite obvious that the poor lady from Kansas can afford to cover her children. It's also quite obvious that many people out there who don't qualify for programs CAN'T afford to cover themselves and/or kids. I'm sure Lynch will defend the insurance companies, and he's right, they are businesses and not charities. They can't afford to insure people they might actually have to pay claims on, but where can these people turn?

See, that's the thing. I doubt you'll find many people that disagree with you that something should be available in this instance. But as a politician, you can't just point at a person in need as a reason why legislation has to be signed, regardless of whether the bill addresses the specific needs in the system. Someone has to pay for that coverage. Everyone agrees that it's needed, but no one wants to pay for it when push comes to shove.

More information that confirms previous reports that stimulus money hasn't necessarily been targeted to the places that needed it most as the President indicated when it was passed. This is what happens when you rush a bill through Congress.

ProPublica: Stimulus Spending Fails to Follow Unemployment, Poverty

Obama has now dropped to a 50% approval rating.

Terms of Service

The democrats continue to make a big miscalculation attempting to demonize these protests. It's never a good idea to criticize the actions of engaged voters whether you disagree with them or not.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas"

So organization of protests and being 'well-dressed' at said protests is now a bad thing? Well done, Mrs. Boxer.

YouTube - Barbara Boxer Objects To Health Care Protesters' "Attire"

More information that confirms.....blah blah blah

Morgan Stanley paid back their Tarp money + 20% interest to you.

I'd say at least in regards to those that have paid the monies back PLUS interest MBBF would have to say, "I was wrong." He wont of course and the entire post above is just a huge regurge and spin. Well done MBBF, you never let us down with your vomit.

This page in itself is not only filled with innaccuracies that are debunked where MBBF comes around by saying, "Lets assume..." then he flops around thrashing about that the entire country is up in arms over this or that, and then says that everyone knows change is needed and then finished it off with the best part yet which is that everyone needs coverage they just dont want to pay for it. Put that on top of his assumption that jobs are just being handed out all over the place, oh yeah, jobs that are pay cuts but jobs nonetheless, you should have no problem tacking on that unassumed premium that he got from fiction land in his first anecdotal example that was debunked later.

MBBF = Dreidel

I think Mizzou B-Ball Fan must now host a beer summit at his house for FOFC members to discuss this issue.

Duly noted. :D

It should be noted in regards to your first point that emergency coverage is an excellent option for younger people in between jobs or school and a job. It covers the worst-case scenarios at a much cheaper price than full coverage, which often isn't needed at that age.

I agree with your second point that it's an issue that some families face. My point doesn't disagree with that. My only point was that she should have cited the plight of those families, not her kids who don't have any of those needs. It was a very poor selection as far as examples go.

Ill bring the Hebrew National Hot Dogs.

However youre discounting the plight due to her specific citing. The situation remains the same and is horrible for millions and millions of Americans and her not fitting into your box doesnt change that or minimize it.

Full Disclosure


Besides, the teabaggers are doing enough to demonize themselves. When will their actions bring about a Cindy Sheehan-level of opprobrium, one wonders?


Yes, according to these same people and their enablers at Fox News, at least if you're protesting the Iraq War, warrantless wiretapping or torture.

It should be noted that poll showed a higher approval rating a week or two ago similar to the ones cited on that website. We'll have to wait for updated polls on those other ones to see if a similar drop occurs. The decline of his approval rating has been steady of late, so it's certainly no surprise that it's going down again this week. More interesting is the numbers on his handling of the economy and the health issue. They're not good at all and they continue to go the wrong way. Anyone who pretends otherwise is fooling themselves at this point.


While not fully agreeing with your characterization of all the protesters as 'teabaggers' (you're better than that.....don't get lazy), I agree that they are generally not behaving well and are doing themselves a disservice if you look solely at their actions. With that said, the Democrats are making a big misstep with some of their comments and reactions. Let the people at the protests stand on their own merit. If you start attacking them, it's not going to end well as you correctly cited with similar reactions during the Bush Administration. It lends legitimacy to what may not be all that legitimate. They should follow Obama's lead concerning the birth certificate situation. Let the blowhards keep blowing.

The reason they're reacting is because polling numbers are moving the wrong way on this issue and it appears the public is turning against this bill. It's all the more reason why the Republicans politically speaking should toss any bipartisan agreement to the curb and let the Democrats pass whatever bill they want to do. Democrats believe they know what the public wants. Let them give it a try with a vote along partisan lines.

Quite so. Thus the difference between the statement "Obama's approval rating is now below 50%" and "We now have a poll with Obama's approval rating below 50%".

You'll also note that Gallup showed an uptick in Obama's approval rating last week.

A full aggregation of the polls shows Obama's support dropping from mid-60s to mid-50s over the course of February to July. While that's certainly a trend, it's not Armageddon.


I wasn't being lazy, I was being intentionally pejorative. :D Having said that, these folks have been pretty open about being from the "Tea Party" organizations and since they appear to like the phrase....

I wish we would get away from a 2 party system.

Granted, while I'm at it I should just wish for chocolate rivers, gum drop rain and unicorns.

FWIW,

I follow Rasmussen's polling.

Obama Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reports™

Would you prefer...

A 3-party system that's popularity is divided equally --> 33%/33%/33%
-or-
A 3-party system where the 3rd choice popularly beats the 2 we have now --> 100%/0%/0%
-or-
A 3-party system that has 2 parties that are strong and one irrelevant like we have now --> 50%/50%/0%

3 party. Democrat, Republican and then one that actually thinks.

When I voted for Bob Barr I don't remember anyone holding a gun to my head and telling me I couldn't.

I didn't say there was. I'm talking about another party that actually wields some level of power.

I wonder how many people don't vote third party just because "they want their vote to count", as if their individual vote will change the election no matter who they vote for.

A third party will have power if people vote for it.

Actually the Liberterians have been saying all of the things all along that the Republicans have all of a sudden discovered again.

I blame the Democrats now for what is happening to this country now but when the Republicans win the 2010 elections I will blame their supporters when it is back to their 2000-2008 brand of governing. Do I think the Liberertarians might do the same thing if they get the power? Sure it's human nature but why not give them the chance. The other two parties have proven they are completely unable to cut back their programs and have a smaller federal government.

It's doubtful the Republicans can make enough gains to take control by 2010. The Senate map does not look good for them. They'll do well to get back within filibuster range. In the House, they need a 40 seat gain, which would eclipse even the Dem landslide of 2006.

They have a better shot in 2012, when the Dems will be defending all of the Senate seats they won in 2006, and they'll likely be in range for the House.

The electoral-vote guy has a decent writeup here, which can serve as a starting primer for the 2010 Senate.

heh. From my POV it's "They'll do well to get back enough to break the monopoly of power."

:)

To be honest, I occasionally get chastise for too much editorial content in a post with a link, so I cut down the length of my comment. Now you point out that I didn't clarify enough. I should just start posting links and nothing else to remove any doubt. ;)

The unfortunate part of ALL of this is that as Mel Martinez (R) claimed in regards to the Sotomayor SC process, things have gotten so partisan that it would seem going back many many years, including times when the Republicans held congress and the Dems had the White house, the 2 sides simply refuse to work together in light of the both sides vision of things being a "game" between them. Things probably would work best for the country if only one party held a branch while the other party held the other (SC aside). Unfortunately Im afraid that that will never pan out again since both sides simply want to "beat" the other instead of 'compromising'. Its a shame really but it is what it is.

BS, that only occurred in the Iran thread where we were clamoring for news because it wasnt elsewhere. IF anything the rolling topics in this thread are newsworthy TOO much in that they can be find anywhere and in great amounts on the interwebs. Feel free to put opinion in here BUT be aware that your 'spin' on things that are empirical is truly awesome, like polling data, actual results, but not unexpected.

I don't know that many of them, nor their voters, see it as a "game". More like a "war".

FYI - I was born in Kenya too:

That's a bit misleading. It's a classic Drudge move to cherry pick one poll out of hundreds and use it as fact. I remember during the election Drudge putting up one random poll with sirens that had McCain up 1 point while the other 999 had him down 7.

I have no doubt his poll numbers are dropping, but a rolling average of polls is probably best. Also adjusting for party affiliation, race, and so forth. I believe the guy at Five Thirty Eight does an awesome job at that and essentially was able to use all the polls and his weighting of how accurate they are to project the election results.

It's the chicken and the egg. I think one of the bigger fears beyond one of their vote not counting is that not voting for the lesser of two evils means getting the more evil one.

For instance in my Congressional disctrict it was Rahm Emanuel vs a racist Freeper (not kidding, she was a freeper who had a bunch of racist rants on the site and was called out by news networks here). Now I'm not a big fan of Rahm and would prefer to vote 3rd party, but do I want to risk having a racist young Earth creationist representing our district? I'm wondering if run-off elections or another method would help alleviate the fear of voting for a 3rd party.

I think anyone who comes to a townhall with the sole goal of disrupting it for others is a jagoff. If anything, I would be more inclined to go against what they are saying.

McCain made a tweet about it yesterday. There is nothing wrong with going to a townhall and voicing your concerns/displeasure, but do so in an appropriate manner that doesn't disrupt it. These are places for representatives to give their thoughts as well as be questioned by constituents. Yelling and screaming like a jackass is just insulting everyone who is there and makes any "movement" look bad. No different than the idiots screaming and yelling in the name of war protests.

They're the Code Pink of the right.

Agreed. They will have a shot to pick up some House seats but the Senate is going to be tough on them. They have a lot more open seats in a lot of blue/purple states. They should be focusing more on 2012.

It's still a long way till election time though. If the economy recovers by November of next year, I think it makes it harder to gain anything. If the economy crashes, they have a good shot. Kind of sad but they are essentially in the position the Dems were in of needing the country to go to shit to win.

I think IRV would be the perfect method, but have no doubt that too many Americans are too stupid to understand it.

It'd be interesting to hear the 31 Republicans explain why this comment from Alito did not bother them:

"And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position…

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Especially Tom Coburn, whose response to this was, "Thank You."

You really think stating that his personal experiences help him understand/relate to a certain case is the same as this:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

It's not like Alito stated that he would hope a wise Italian man would reach a better conclusion than a latino woman. You do see the difference here, right? (hoping this is the case...)

Not nearly as bad as where I think we're heading pretty swiftly.

Sooner or later these things -- be it about health care or whatever half-baked scheme comes up between now & the next recess -- are going to turn violent.

I don't get the sense of frustration, disappointment, concern, whatever that I was getting a few months ago. There seems to be a rising tide of just flat out anger & that usually has a fairly predictable outcome.

Probably. We've had a few small ones in the last year but a lot of the crazy talk is helping create the next Timothy McVeigh.

Well, why would he take it into account unless he thought it could help him reach a better conclusion? I mean, if it would help him, then someone who doesn't have those experiences would not have that help, right?

And here's an example of the hypocrisy I'm talking about:


Alito's comment certainly does not fit that standard.

I dunno, unless DC itself is the target, I imagine the target would be more like an individual(s) or very small targeted gathering rather than something large & relatively non-specific.

Saw this on Drudge:

Protests, passions roiling town hall meeting on health care

Six people, including P-D reporter, arrested at Carnahan meeting - STLtoday.com

Don't really understand the point. You want to voice your displeasure and have the opportunity to put your representative on the spot. So why just scream like an idiot and ruin it for everyone else?

I have to hand it to the insurance lobby though, they sure know how to herd the sheep and let them do the dirty work for them.

House Democrat received Countrywide loans: report - Yahoo! News

These loan records ought to be released and whomever got sweetheart loans from Countrywide, be it Dem or Pub, ought to be forced to resign from Congress. Jerks.

Did you bother to even read these articles before you posted them? First, the lady who had to be restrained by pepper spray was yelling in the meeting in SUPPORT of the health care bill. I thought the only disruptive people were the Republican 'mobs'? FWIW.....I sincerely hope that this woman and the prejudice cop who showed her little sympathy can have a beer on the White House lawn in the near future........


It also appears that the supporters of the bill were dropping racial slurs.......


Listen, I'm not a supporter of the tactics being used here, but there was no physical violence at any of these meetings until today right after the Democratic party made a call for their supporters to 'punch back twice as hard'. It appears they took that statement a bit too literally.

Here's a situation where a Democrat had a public meeting gone awry. As the article notes, many of the people who were attending and were upset had no affiliation at all. His response in the paper and how he handled the situation should be a playbook for the Democrats who want to handle this the right way. This man is doing his party a service with this kind of behavior.........

Protesters Confront U.S. Representative At Simsbury Supermarket Meeting -- Courant.com


This video is a great example of how the opposition should behave when they attend these meetings. Never aggressive, but certainly willing to point out the misstatements when they occur. When the meeting organizer leaves, the attendees continue the discussion on their own. I think that they conducted themselves well while making sure that their voices were heard.

Breitbart.tv » AARP Organizers Cancel ‘Listening Session’ After Participants Refuse to ‘Keep Their Comments Quiet’

I noticed that the unemployment rate dropped from 9.5% to 9.4%.

***cue White House release stating the stimulus bill has turned around the economy in 3......2......1......***

Sorry, but I LOL'd

I really shouldn't even bother as I think it's pretty clear where your loyalties lie (and that you're posting from the White House :) ), but I'll give it a go.

1. Never did I say it was all the Democrats' fault. I said I disagreed with the tactics used by the opposition to shout down people and I don't think the physical confrontation on the other side is right either.

2. You toss out many talking points with little to back it up. It's hard to agree or disagree with you concerning lies on either side when you don't cite any specific examples.

3. Even a Democrat would have a hard time describing this bill as anyting other than a liberal bill. As my grandmother (who is a Democrat) said, "Yes, it's a liberal bill and I'm damn proud of it!".

4. It's also far from the modest level you describe. These are big changes that will significantly alter the landscape of the health care industry. Certainly, you could argue whether it's good or bad change, but any attempt to minimize the level of change will fall on deaf ear.

You act like this is a bad thing? I'm no rabid supporter of the democrats' plans, but at least they are offering plans. There was a letter published yesterday from the head of the RNC talking as the president's 2nd 100 days are up (stupid to be judging him every 100 days, but that's the media's fault). All he talked about was everything the democrats were doing wrong. Even went as far to say as unemployment would be going up even more. I'm sure he'll come out today and minimize the news like you are trying to do, but I'd much rather the leadership get together and figure out how to put something of their own forth (something real, not that last piece of crap budget they slapped together in 6 hours) instead of meeting to figure out how best to spin every piece of news. That's Fox News's job.

I just think the RNC and reps are playing to people with your attitude who claim they want things to improve, but don't work toward anything but criticizing people who are at least trying to do something. I have a baby girl, it does sicken me some of the shit that's being put through. Cash for clunkers, cap and trade, stimulus monies. But how am I supposed to vote for the other side? Because they say after 8 years of their own spending spree on wars and tax cuts that we shouldn't be investing in our health, economy, and banks? I just don't see why you seem to happy to bash the fact that for once the unemployment number shrank instead of jumped up again.

So you posted all that under the assumption that I believe it to be a bad thing when I said nothing of the sort? My only point was that I'm sure that the small improvement means that politicians will give credit to policy A while making sure to point out that it would have been even better with policy B enacted.

Me personally? I'm glad that the unemployment rate is reduced strictly from a humanitarian perspective. It's never a good thing to have people suffer due to political and economic greed totally out of their control.

Also, it should be pointed out that your overgeneral statement in your post that I boldfaced just isn't true. No one on either side of the aisle is saying we shouldn't improve in those areas. We just disagree on how it should be done, hence the reason that we're seeing heavy debate both inside and outside of D.C.

Well, thanks for cherry-picking one sentence to reply to. I was overgeneralizing to state why I don't think the other side really has the answer. Both sides spent/spend a shit ton and just criticize the other side for where it goes.

I didn't post it under the guise you think it's a bad thing, though you do seem to enjoy gloating when things aren't going well. I posted it because there was a little good news, albeit fairly minor (though economists were expecting 325k jobs lost, and just 240k or so were lost), and all you could do it pre-criticize the White House for attempting to put a positive spin on it. I'm sorry if you are blinded by your neutrality and centrism, but this is how it was. If people like you put half as much effort in to improving your local community (or at least working with people to achieve goals) as you did in posting polls to tell us that Obama's numbers are dropping (thanks, I can read CNN too), we'd have a much better place to call home.

Now go back to finding news that the economy is shit, cash for clunkers is waste, banks are dirty, and Democrats aren't doing anything.

A little too much weight gets placed on the whole AMA backing thing. While it's true that it happens to be the largest physician organization in America, its membership includes roughly 15% of the nation's physicians (give or take). Read into that what you will. I'm just saying that "AMA backing" does not equate to "physician backing," which some people seem to try to hang their hat on as far as the healthcare debate goes.

Regarding the backing of the drug companies, I think you revealed some of the motive behind that support yourself...

So did I. "Small taxes on the rich" indeed. Undoubtably middle class tax increases are going to happen, at some point, to pay for the health plan.

I was thinking about this the other day.

It seems to me that since at least the late Reagan years (and really getting underway by 1994) the GOP (and its national politicians especially) have generally been more comfortable being the party of "No". I'll posit that this is the case because the modern GOP tends to prefer "destructive" policies as opposed to "constructive" ones.

(Now, before you get all up in arms about the use of that language, I'm meaning "destructive" in the sense of they'd prefer to dismantle programs, as opposed to create new ones. If you'd like to suggest another word, please do so.)

Perhaps the best of the most recent examples was the debacle of the Paul Ryan-authored GOP "stimulus" plan being trotted out in response to Obama's earlier this year. It was woefully lacking in details (the same criticism leveled at the Democrats' current health care bills, ironically) and seemed to consist of vague promises to lower taxes and dismantle government programs. And this from a guy (Ryan) who is supposedly a "deep thinker" on these topics (a claim I'm willing to believe given that {full disclosure} I know someone personally who works on Ryan's staff).

So it seems to me that what we're doing here is settling into the familiar turf of the pitched partisan battles of the mid/late 1990s. The GOP, safe in the knowledge that everyone knows they can't get anything drastic passed that won't get vetoed, has a free reign to just criticize relentlessly, hoping that it eventually results in an electoral victory from a tired electorate (and if the electorate in 2000 was anything, it was tired of the status quo).

The problem for the GOP, I think, is that it's quite a different situation this time around. For one, more than any time since WWII Americans aren't overly concerned about their taxes. For two, it's pretty well-established that when times are tough, people tend to want government to "do something". (Whether or not that's a good reaction is left up to the reader and his/her personal philosophies.)

So at a time when Americans seem to be willing (albeit grudgingly) to let a Democratic President make some serious structural changes, and perhaps raise some taxes, the GOP seems content to brand itself as the "Party of No". So they'll say No to a qualified Supreme Court candidate, No to "Cash for Clunkers", No to the stimulus package, continue to hold up appointments to Justice, Interior, etc... and etc.... Further, they're happy to encourage (or at least not disassociate themselves from) the birthers & teabaggers in their pursuit of clearly obstructionist and "non-constructive" public activities.

It's clearly a gamble, and a stronger one than I would have expected at this point, especially as the GOP's popularity, on a national level, continues to bump along the bottom. America clearly has at least one problem (a recession) if not several (health care costs, energy independence, etc...), but the national GOP seems content to offer only a negative response to potential solutions with no solutions themselves (aside from "lower taxes" and "dismantle government programs").

We'll know soon enough if this tactic results in electoral success, by looking at the 2010 elections. But I have to think that if the economy recovers to any significant extent by mid-2010 a track record of "destruction" and "obstruction" will be a hard sell in the mid-term elections.

Nicely worded :lol:

Fair enough... My point on the AMA is that it is not as relevant an organization as it once might have been. (membership declining from 45% to the 15-20% range over the past two decades) There does, however, seem to be a growing perception within the medical community that the AMA has not and will not represent physician interests (or patient interests, for that matter) adequately.

And before you go there, I'm not talking just about healthcare reform when I mention "physician interests." Many AMA and non-AMA physicians happen to support healthcare reform. That's not the issue. It's the sum total of a variety of issues (and AMA response or lack thereof) that makes the association a joke in many medical circles.

The problem with taxes is you have the "tax the rich" statements. If the Obama and Dems start to tax the middle-and-lower classes (and it will happen, it's just a matter of when), the views on taxes will likely change.

Of course, when it comes to income taxes, nearly 50% doesn't have to pay (or receives back more than they paid in).

Or just change the definitions of upper and middle class.

If you knew me and what I actually do in my community in my spare time, you'd feel like a jackass for making the above statement.

Good to see you return to overgeneralized and inaccurate statements in your last sentence.

Unless your online persona is a complete fabrication, MBBF, I find that hard to believe.

Maybe you could chime in then, since your posts only seem to be to "report news" which means "report news that is against the administration and current majority". Oops, another over-generalization. I don't doubt people do good things for their community, I just wish you'd spend more time talking about how that will make the country better than just cutting and pasting polls and conservative blogger talking points.

Plus, I really don't care enough to feel like jackass. Your obvious gloating this morning just irritated me on a slow day.

Damn you can't even get that right can you?

The economy is wasted, banks are dirty, cash for clunkers isn't doing anything as much as putting more people into debt they can't pay, and Democrats aren't worth a shit.

Mine would have done a hell of a lot more than irritate you in that case.

Probably not, since you never try to play the 'innocent victim' card.