No, not specifically.


Lighten up, man. :p

I wasn't trying to be an ass...just a tad snarky as I thought it was being misinterpreted.

No offense was meant by it though.

Oh I agree...our universities on average probably could be a bit more specialized than they are and likely create efficiencies by doing so.

I was just making the point that France (and other European countries) have a fundamentally different system and overall burden to contend with than we do. They may have better strategies for how their Uni's are structured for more targeted education as well.

But I don't think we should discount the effect credit always has on such things...because the net effect of credit is that it adds demand where demand would not have existed otherwise. And naturally, when you increase demand you increase costs. Some might argue that credit is an equal opportunity inflater and should keep with CPI inflation, but I'd disagree when it comes to major purchase items like College tuition, cars, and houses. Because the people who can afford to absorb the "holding" costs of the credit or assets themselves, are of course the wealthy. So the cycle of further wealth concentration continues.

I'm not sure it exacerbates income inequality, but I definitely think it has played a major role in cost inflation. For most schools tuition increases have no effect on enrollment, not all of that is directly attributable to easy loan access, but the ability to "charge it" certainly has played a role in students/parents being far less concerned about costs.

I went to a health care town hall last night. It was kindof interesting and there was a broad mix of people from a lot of college aged people with Obama signs to middle aged protesters with orange "Guns save lives" stickers to older folks just wanting questions answered about health care. We only had 1 person thrown out that I remember- in my side of the room, I "quietly" yelled something to the nearby folks to the effect of "The ranting man has a point! I just have no idea what it is since he wasn't picked to ask a question and has no microphone" to the delight and chagrin of some of the people around me, depending on their political persuasion and ability to take a joke.

Warner walks fine line on health care | Richmond Times-Dispatch

SI

Oh, same here, so no worries.

I'm just happy no one tried to eat you.

Can someone explain to me the outrage of Obama's stay in school speech?

No, not really. I had a conversation with a conservative friend the other day and asked: what would your reaction have been if in 2007 President Bush gave a speech to students and a bunch of liberals said they were going to keep their kids home. He got my point, but was still dismissive.

I think there is a lot of overblown concern that the speech is going to be partisan in nature, and I don't think it will be. That being said, I did have a bit of a problem with the Dept. of Education's suggestions for classroom/homework followup, particularly the original "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." I'd like to think that line came from numbskulls in the bureaucracy, not policy makers in the White House.

Regardless, my kid will be going to school that day. I may, however, ask for equal time to respond to the president depending on what he has to say. :)

Best I can tell, it's being seen as a likely avenue for partisanship as opposed to statesmanship and there's no shortage of people who would take exception to having a mandated audience for that.

My wife & I were actually discussing this earlier today & noted that we haven't heard anything for our son's (private) school about it one way or the other. Our assumption is that it won't be mandatory viewing since it hasn't been mentioned & they know that it would be controversial at the very least, and ticking off the paying customers isn't something they're really keen on if it can be avoided.

If my aunt who forwards me emails is any indication, there are people who will criticize everything that Obama does b/c he does it. The difference seems to be that with 827 twenty-four hour news stations now and this being a very slow news time, it becomes an event when these people get a microphone.

If Bush had done this in 2005, the DailyKos folks would have had the same reaction--talking about indocrination and the like.

Bush Sr. actually did the same thing back on the eve of the election way back in the early 90's.

So how is Obama urging kids to work hard and stay in school part of his socialist agenda?

Wouldn't he be telling kids to be lazy and skip school because the government will take care of you?

is this something you're for or against?

Doesn't sound like it - reading his post.

That was terrible wording and it's already been changed.

(Insert picture of Obama smoking a joint in college)

I would strongly oppose giving him a mandatory audience without prior review of the content.

That's what some schools around Atlanta are planning to do as I understand it: tape the program, review it, and give the schools an opportunity to determine how or if it fits into their curriculum.

I thought Neal McCluskey at the Cato Institute really summed up the concerns pretty well "In general, I don't think there's a problem if the president uses the bully pulpit to tell kids to work hard, study hard and things like that. But there are some troubling hints in this, both educationally and politically,"

As Cam alluded to up the thread a bit, the DOE suggested lesson plans are pretty slanted stuff & seem to be the source of a good bit of the concerns.

In short, in the absence of any of the hoopla we've already seen, I didn't/don't trust him one fraction of an inch not to turn it into an indoctrination speech for Obamacare or anything else on his agenda. In light of the hoopla, I now expect it to be a generic Hulk Hogan "drink your milk, take your vitamins" speech, relatively meaningless but benign.

Oh, it's benign until you realize those vitamins are secretly Obama-indoctrination-conduits. Who will be laughing then?

You say that as though anyone who isn't already an Obamaphile would be dumb enough to take any pills he gave them or even recommended.

How about when Bush Sr. did it back in what was it...'91 on the eve of the election? I presume since we're being consistent you would have wanted that to be similarly non-partisan and would have called for similar strictures? Or was that okay because you agreed with his politics?

:lol:

that's a pretty convienent view to have - makes it nice and safe so you don't ever have to worry about being wrong.

Since this is the first time we've had a "cool" president, I think it's great for him do this kind of stuff.

But, ya, if W. tried to pull this off, we'd have tons of outrage and probably a Daily Show prime time special.

(I don't think George Bush in '91 is really a relevant comparison. This stuff didn't matter then, it wouldn't have mattered for Reagan, or Carter, or anyone else. Only in the last decade or so is everyone so obsessed with team politics and finding every possible opening to score points in that ongoing game).

Please see Atwater, Lee

Hey, I'm giving him credit for at least being smart enough not to do exactly what critics expect him to do (now that he's been called on it in advance), that's about as generous as I'm going to be able to get.

Well maybe "smart" isn't exactly the word, but I'd say his political survival instincts are at least good enough to avoid that mistake.

2009 is way different than 1991, you can't really compare, no matter the individual examples.

Molson did say "everyone so obsessed", not "political strategists so obsessed". I think Molson's also right about a different atmosphere in the early 1990's than what exists today. As Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University told the AP, "There was no virulent hatred of George H.W. Bush. Sometime between Bork and impeachment ... it became progressively less civil."

CURSES!!! FOILED!!!


That's because if W did it we'd all be complaining about the horrific grammatical example he was setting for our kids. :D

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Pelosi saying in her strongest comments yet that if there is no public option in a bill, it's not going through the House.

Nancy Pelosi: No public option, no bill - Alex Isenstadt - POLITICO.com

This is quickly becoming a power battle in the Democrat Party. Pelosi/Reid/Obama are more worried about individually having their legacy stamp on the passage of a bill than actually getting together and even putting a bill together. It's brutal.

Good. Way to go Nancy!

I think it's more likely that Bush1 was the exception. There certainly has been a easily documented hatred for most president's since FDR. In general I don't think "things used to be better" is a good explanation. Where I do see a difference is in cable news and internet. I think the information gets distributed much quicker and to a much more focused group, but I don't think the message has changed much.

The SNL skit certainly writes itself.

:banghead:

The more things change the more they...well they dont.

Can't disagree with you. That was actually the point of my comment. It summarizes the Obama administration in a nutshell thus far. There's little change, especially when the Democrats are busy getting in their own way currently.

Its quickly becoming...

when you predict something it doesnt come true. Care to revisit the Iran thread? the Bowling faux anger? the campaign thread? the palin love? the list is endless.

probably not. The reason your credibility is so crappy and people dont pay attention to your stances as opposed to say Arles or Gstelmack is because you do not pay attention to opposing points of view and simply bang your drum no matter if evidence points to the contrary OR even more clear cut, when an outcome is the opposite of your prediction. You just plug on, blinders on, and continue to drop spin bombs from a MIG. Take a moment address the things youre wrong on and then maybe people will listen to when youre right (or headed that way).

If you are thinking that I do that too, like Molson's perception of me....just look back. Shit im wrong all the frickin time but I admit to it. Sometimes Im right, or think I am but you are never ever wrong and that is why you are yelling into a coffee can.

I do realize that this post is for me psychologically and will have no effect on you (like me ill advised mailbox letters that I was wrong in assuming the outcome of...dead wrong)

He doesn't pay attention because his points of view are cut and pasted from whatever the right-wing site of the day is. You're trying to argue with another site, not MBBF.

The other night on TV I saw someone raise the question to a Republican "So do you want President Obama to fail?" which of course he danced around and looked like a complete jackass in his response. This question seems to be getting asked more and more and is supposed to signify that people against the president’s horrible policies are “Anti-American”. Is it just me or it this the same sort of bullshit the Republican machine used to ask to people opposed to the war in Iraq... "So you are against the troops? You are against America?"

Here is my answer as someone who strongly believes the government is out of control and the guy with the credit card doesn't understand the effects of out of control spending. YES, I hope Obama fails on many fronts...

1) I hope his health care reform fails and he learns there is a consequence to spending money our country doesn't have to try to fix problems that were created by spending money our country didn't have.

2) I hope the war in Afghanistan fails. Because I want our soldiers to die? No, the exact opposite, I am tired of American soldiers dying to try to hang onto America's empire.

3) In fact I hope all of his super liberal agenda fails. Much like I hoped any of Bush's super conservative agendas failed, I don't want government to continue to expand and expand and expand and both parties need a reality check on what their purpose is.

Notice I don't hope that he fails on foreign relations, I would love for him to "win" and give states their rights back for issues like guns and gay marriage and marijuana and gambling, I hope that he wins issues like keeping kids in schools and think this latest nonsense about people pulling their kids from school to avoud hearing our President speak is our polarized country at it's worst.

Will a politican besides one the media ostracizes (like Ron Paul) come out and say this? It seems pretty hopeless but this is what the Republicans or Independents or even Democrats really need.

because the answer is "No..."

you answered it correctly in that you dialed into specific policies and decisions but said "No" to the question. That is the way to handle it IMO...

for some reason the GOP didnt get the memo on how to handle that question which is easy. Just say No and then dial into specific stuff.

I'll agree that it's a very easy question.

You're totally wrong, but feel free to keep beating your drum hoping someone will listen.

Good Lord. I'm floored. You and I are far more similar than I ever realized. I can't disagree with anything you've said here. I've said bits and pieces of this in various posts, but you summed it up extremely well. Well done.

i don't understand from a logical standpoint how anyone can be against healthcare reform if they are fully informed about what it entails.

you mean you are actually against having the OPTION of paying less for healthcare?

If that's the case and you like throwing your money away, you can write me a check for a couple thousand dollars anytime you want. PM me and I'll send you an address.

Wow, great post sir. I disagree with #1 but 2 and 3 are dead on and the last 2 paragraphs are very well said as well.

I will hope that policies don't get passed because I think they'll fail, but I don't think I'd ever root for our country to fail. I can't sit here and root for our economy to get worse and have more people lose jobs and livelihoods. Just seems like a morbid way to view things and a tad narcissistic.

For those who live in other countries, do the people there frequently vote against their best interests in elections? I always find it fascinating how many people in this country do and how much power special interests not only have over politicians, but constituents. I can't imagine there are other countries that are chanting corporate slogans at a political rally.

Considering how far we have fallen behind in a lot of categories (technology, health, etc), I'd be curious to see if we are the anamolly or if this is the norm.

If there was any single change I could make to the political system in this country, it would be this. Either extreme spending limits or publicly financed public elections so that it would be so much harder for special interests to buy in.

SI

I agree. Wouldn't this allow for other parties/people to run as well?

You need to get lobbiest out of Washington. Not sure of the best way to do it, but it needs to be done.

One rule should be not allowing representatives to work for a lobbying firm for 10 years following their term.

Isn't one of the issues now that the system has incentives to not register as a lobbyist so a lot of them are basically lobbyists in all but name and are not constrained by the rules?

SI

Well, hell. If reports are right, then my faint hope for the public option being an option as just a political ploy. Until his speech this week, I’m not discounting anything from Obama but this feels a lot like “we just took a whip count and we can’t win with a public option so let’s soften the fall”.

This is like Dayton Moore getting signed to the 4 year contract earlier this week, last week, whatever. Not only do you know it sucks, but it confirms your worst fears that it's going to continue sucking. Only difference, of course, is that this actually matters in life.

Go pass the stupid, neutered health care bill. Nothing will change and the broken system we have will get revisited in another 15 years when we're deeper in the hole as a society and it's even more dire.

Near as I can tell, here's the laundry list that will change. Correct me if I'm wrong or feel free to add something I missed:

* We got a token $80B in voluntary cash from the drug insurance companies that is basically hush money. if we stop going after them for reform, we can get a little cash back from them raping us to the tune of $800B for Medicare Part D. No, we won't get any substantive change like allowing purchasing across country boundaries or anything that will lower costs but thanks for playing.

* There will be some sort of tort reform as everyone likes the idea of tort reform just like everyone likes the idea of a candidate who is "for education". It's when you start putting pen to paper and fleshing out details that people start strongly disagreeing. Some sort of tort reform has already been enacted in many states and while premiums for malpractice go down, the cost of health care in those states still continues to rise just as any other state. The CBO estimates 2% which is on the conservative side and doctors point to 10%, which is going to be on the extravagant side. So, even if we agree on a method of tort reform, a one-time 2-10% reduction in health care doesn't mean a whole lot when they are increasing more than that annually over the last 10 years. It is a small piece of the puzzle and by no means a panacea- it's more of a red herring.

* We'll have increased cash for electronic records. Great- we already did this earlier this week or maybe it was last week as some of the $10B for electronic record keeping went out to make systems like they have in other countries. This will reduce costs and, more importantly, help save lives (mostly). But it was going to happen anyway with or without this particular bill and the savings aren't going to be passed onto the consumers.

* Which brings us to changes to private insurance. We might open up competition over state lines and that will help in the short term. However, in the end, what will happen is what happens in every industry in this country (and is already true in health care)- all the smaller, even possibly more efficient competitors will either be bought out or run out of business due to their lack of scale and influence in Washington on regulation and we'll be down to 3 or 4 major insurers who just happen to all charge about the same overpriced rates while profits pour in. There's the giant problem and the one that won't be addressed in the least.

* This is the same reason why co-ops are a joke as a compromise. You're not going to be able to compete on a local level with companies who already have a national infrastructure in place including clients and deals when you're a small startup dealing both with startup costs (allegedly offset by tax breaks) and the cost of competing in a much larger market even when you do something much more efficiently and cheaper. The entry barriers are too great.

* Large insurance companies will find a way to skirt the no preexisting conditions clause in similar ways as they do now. Really, this is the only true reform this bill has been stripped down to and I just fear that enough hands were in the making of this bill that huge loopholes will exist here, just as anything else. They will try to find ways to deny you just as they do now as they are escaping any real regulation so the problem won't be fixed even if we say it is.

* People will be mandated to have insurance just as we have to have car insurance. Except demand will swell while supply, which is artificial anyways (on the insurance side as, hell, a bank could sit there and be the middle man for our health gambling needs and it’d probably be less risky than a lot of what they’re going back into investing) will remain the same so prices will just go up. Which will just mean all those profits won’t flow into the health system and improve care- they’ll go right to insurance companies. Get your WellPoint and UHC stock now to help offset some costs.

So, yeah, nothing will substantially change but we'll now all be required to have insurance. We'll pretend something has changed for the better so we won't want to touch it for another 10 years, not that there would be political will to do so anyways. And at that time, we'll look at how costs continue to skyrocket for both the government and public insurance and talk about how this action caused so many issues when it was a complete lack of action that did us in.

But the good news (sic) is that I’m pretty sure companies will continue to cut benefits more and more so all that talk about “but we’ll lose our company insurance” won’t matter when this comes back again in 20 years because none of us will be getting employer-based insurance anyways. And those who do will be paying full price because companies have more recently realized that if you just tell employees that insurance is available when you’re hiring them, they won’t look into it so you can just pass all the non tax credited portion along and get it stripped out of your paycheck every month.

SI

How do we have the option of paying less for healthcare? Someone has to pick up the bill for those who pay less.

BTW, I find the healthcare "reform" useless without any actual reform. Tort reform, handling illegals, Medicare/Medicaid reform, ect.

yeah - what you said :rant:

more of the same old shit

lower premiums due to cost savings thanks to reduced overhead and a stronger negotiating position with providers

Seriously?
Is there a single example in the history of this country where public entities do any task cheaper than private?

Also, the point you are ignoring I believe, is there is no option for paying less. Whether I keep my current insurance or elect to have the govt insurance, I STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR 25% OF THIS POPULATION THAT IS EITHER UNEMPLOYED OR UNDEREMPLOYED to have an insurance option.

So yeah my actual insurance cost may remain the same, but my net income is reduced.

now, take that to my situation as a small business owner, and its no wonder my business is listed with a commercial opportunity broker, and I have seriously looked into BVI real estate costs...

medicare does tasks cheaper than private insurance companies. they take 2-3 cents out of every dollar for administrative costs, private insurance companies take on the order of 20 cents out of every dollar.

re: your 2nd point - i'm convinced that a defecit-neutral bill can be found - either through savings from the program, savings in other branches of government, redistribution away from spending in other places (iraq anybody?), etc.

And that is why so many health care professionals and facilities refuse to take medicare, right?

No its because they save money by not paying the agreed upon fees to the providers.

:+1:

The refusals and unpaid claims are never mentioned because it blows that argument out of the water. In our town, we have 20 general practice doctors. 1 of them takes Medicare and he's considering dropping it as well. He gets tons of business due to him being the only one in town to take Medicare, but he's losing money because of unpaid claim after unpaid claim. It's Medicare's dirty little secret that supporters either are unaware of it or likely don't bring it up.

Interesting that this was never brought up in this thread in the 3-4 days that it was a big story. I'm sure it was just an oversight.

Captain White Roof Paint (aka Van Jones) is out as the Green Czar. Seems to be a jerk and a nutball in addition to being a lousy advocate of environmental concerns.

Obama 'green jobs' adviser quits amid controversy

Frankly, hadn't heard the story until this morning I saw he had resigned.

SI

Yeah, the refusals are pretty big around here. What are considered the top notch doctors won't hardly touch the stuff.

Wouldn't the solution be making Medicare more attractive to doctors? I mean there isn't any other solution for the elderly. They simply can't get private insurance.

A Texas State survey found that 58% of doctors in their state took new Medicare patients. Just thought I'd put some real statistics behind the ones MBBF is making up.

I'll one-up that. Until all this "controversy" around it, I didn't even realize that such a position existed.

Seems like a rather low level position. I had never heard of the guy or that position.

Had heard of the guy (only because he's a truther, really)

Btw, far more optimistic than SI's post (even if progressives don't get everything they want, there is plenty in it for them to be happy), and I'd say I'd rather prefer a comprehensive health insurance reform (as Paul Krugman pointed out, a system more Switzerland than UK) to be honest.

Opening up state lines really does nothing to fix the problem. Bigger companies just buy out their smaller competitors to gain their monopoly. You'd have to not allow an insurance company to have over a certain percent of the market share.

I also don't get how they are going to force everyone to have insurance. This isnt' like autos where if I can't get it due to a poor driving history, I just don't drive. If I have a history of cancer, how exactly am I going to get insurance? Even if a company takes me, there is no chance in hell that the average person can afford thousands a month in premiums.

Hence the concept of a health insurance exchange, having the government act as a broker for wide swaths of citizens.

It was only a big story if you only get your news from right wing blogs. He signed a stupid petition and now he's resigned. Seeing as he was a low level position, big fucking deal.

And nice to know you can still mock something that will lower energy use because it sounds funny. I'll refuse to maintain my tire pressure in your honor.

I don't know if that's it though. It just seems like Americans in general need to feel like they are part of something more than people in other countries. They attach themselves to a political party or pundit and mimic everything they say. Most of the time going against their own self interests.

We either have a dumb population, or we have some of the best marketers in the world. I mean look at how far we have fallen behind other countries in just about everything.

This is an idea I don't understand enough. Is it anything more than invalidating state regulations? If it's more than that, what will it accomplish?

#1 in freedom!

But he doesn't know of any of those sites and doesn't read them. It's just a coincidence that all his links come from there. Dontchya know?

The white roof idea is a good one. Not sure why anyone would mock it. Reflects 85% of heat which saves tons of money for people and businesses. Not sure how far up the ass of energy companies you have to be to be against something that is good for everyone.

To be honest, I think its the first step in moving the regulation of insurance companies from the states to the federal government (if it doesn't allow so already).

This is HUGE! The agency I work for enforces federal pension and health care law, but we really have little power over insurance companies because they are under state law. If that was removed, there would be a ton more we could do.

Do what?

It has always felt like this idea is just a way to put control into the hands of the federal government because lobbying them for beneficial changes is a hell of a lot easier. Aren't a lot of insurance companies already national, but they sell under different regulations or do I misunderstand that?

Such as - like actually go to insurance companies and demand that they cover certain individuals who inexplicably don't have coverage even though their employer takes money out of their checks and send it to the insurance companies.

Right now the federal government can only go to the employer, who then has to contact the insurance company... and if something gets messed up the employer is on the hook even if its the insurance company's fault.

Would be nice to hold the insurance companies feet to the flames.

Basically, allowing them under state regulation makes enforcement of insurance laws and rules subject to state authorities, and enforcement of health care plan law (ERISA) under federal authority. Meaning that when someone is running up against a violation of ERISA by an insurance company, there is very little the federal government can do directly (the only thing we really can do is punish the employer).

The concept on paper would be that loosening or abolishing state regulations would create more competition. Would allow companies from other parts of the country an easier time to enter into markets.

The problem is that in the insurance industry, bigger companies just buy the smaller ones and take their marketshare. So ultimately instead of having 2-3 options in your region, you'd have 2-3 options nationally.

If people want the private industry to work, people need to have like 10 choices when it comes to insurance. The auto insurance industry should be a model to follow. We've seen an influx of competition in that industry over the years thanks to the internet. Rates have been consistently dropping thanks to that as these companies are competing heavily for our business. Health insurance companies don't need to deal with that since they rarely have competition.

I LOL'd :D

SI

I am not sure how to explain this to the people who support public option type health care reform but I am going to try my best to put it in real simple terms. It means more government. The government is terrible in any venture they ever decide to try and tackle. See entire history of department of education, see how the 1980 Insurgent War against Soviet Union’s may have factored strongly into 9-11 and current wars in middle East, see war on drugs, see IRS tax code, see government regulating percentage of sugar you can have in ketchup, etc. They have never met a project they didn't like or a project that they stopped doing because they figured out it was a bad idea. (Amtrack anyone?)

And don’t even try and talk about how good Medicaid is. The program is not funded correctly and could be blamed for most of why health care costs are out of control. I could propose a program that treats everybody for every sickness they ever had and will made everyone happy and every doctor lots of money. It’s only $40 trillion, just add it to the debt!)

Ron Paul and others have done an outstanding job pointing out how the federal reserve is a cartel and evil and how the Constitution doesn't allow them the power they have taken. Want to know why I am against Ron Paul even with all of the evidence? Because the Congress would take over controlling monetary policy. Barney Frank? Nancy Pelosi? The guy in "Religulous" who believes in Noah's Ark? I think I will stick with Ben Bernake.

And I also think I will stick with doctors making lots of money and the great minds we have right now in the medical field. What's the alternative? A place where doctors would making government pay and people like Jim Bunning and Chris Dodd would be running the program. This really sounds like a good idea?

Panerd your vision of the future will never happen the government isn’t that incompetent! Let’s go back to the schools I mentioned earlier… Why do administrators with messages like "Every kid can learn" make 10 times the salary of teachers who work their asses off? Why do those same teachers who work their ass off make 5 times less than those who gave up 10 years ago but have 30 years experience? Government anyone?

See the following: FBI, CDC, NTSB, FDA, NASA, FHWA, FAA, Social Security, etc. Government can run succesful programs with the right people in place.

But anyway, let's look at the private industry and see where they have failed in doing things better: Telecommunications, automobiles, energy, and banking.

The issue is not about public vs private, it's about who is running it and what their intentions are. Each side has their successes and failures.

It's also not all public or all private. The public option was really small. But you guys don't read the bill and just listen to some pundits who don't know what was in the bill either. It was a private plan for everyone who can afford it and get it, with a public plan for those who can't. Nothing about controlling doctors or your care. That crap was just bullshit rhetoric thrown out by insurance lobbyists who didn't want their companies to maintain their monopolies.

panerd, I can't speak for anyone else, but I understand the core disagreement with less government. I just happen to disagree that it's the greater of the two evils in this venture. In particular, I disagree with the assertion that the free market will correct the problems. It's had a long time to do so and it just keeps getting worse, not better. The link in my last paragraph helps explain it better than I could.

I think the government can do quite well at a job like this where it's a money holding pond just as it is for Social Security because there's no extra risk of the government going under- it's less likely than a company and if it does go under, all companies will have issues. For all the complaints people have about SS, it's easily fixed by changing the payout years which makes a lot of sense since life expectancy has greatly increased since the plan was conceived and there is a baby boom to account for. So, I would say Social Security is a smashing success.

A single payer or public option serves a similar purpose. Insurance just acts as a money holding pond as well. Nate Silver says this but in different (and probably more eloquent) words here at fivethirtyeight.

SI

education speech at noon today. Obviously Im of the opinion that it'll be a solely motivation speech and once again the partisanship of the sides will be exposed in the prejudiced uproar that has occurred over the last week or so. If Im wrong, Ill be the first to admit it. Not surprisingly polls are showing that the areas that are saying that they dont want it shown in the school are those where Obama faired poorly during the election.

FWIW I learned that Greer, the rep from Fl, who was in an uproar regarding 'indoctrination' after reading the speech has reversed his stance, is supportive of the speech and is sending his child to school to witness the speech. Good on him.

The speech was released yesterday. It's as unoffensive as you'd expect.

Yeah, they interviewed some of the parents around here and it was really incredible. Some said they didn't want their kids watching it because Obama was going to say the US is falling behind some countries and that our students should stay in school and work harder, when in fact the US is the best nation in the world and they don't want their kids to see our leader saying otherwise. Some simply said their kids do well enough and don't need wasted time in the form of a 30 minute speech from the president.

Needless to say, after the interviews it supported the data that Georgia is in the bottom 5 (maybe 10 now) in education.

And if my school experience is any indication, the kids who need the pep talk the most will likely be the ones to sleep through the speech. :D

he did, however, drop an XBOX plug....MBBF mustve dropped to the floor :)

yeah, this partisan bicklering over Obama's "Kids stay in school" speech is absolute crap,. These were the same idiots spitting out "He's the president, you must support him!" during the last 8 years.

The President must read FOFC, he just wanted to get a dig into MBBF ;).

Though, once again, my party shows how idiotic and tone deaf it is. After the Republicans were being so adamant against this speech, ordinary people are going read it or hear it and say "WTF? Why did you go crazy over this?! Maybe y'all are nutters".

Just read his speech...wow, people were worried about it? That was about as non partisan as it gets. I'm sure the PlayStation camp is pretty pissed right now though.

Yes, the speech was pablum. Given all the attention that it received, there was no chance of it being otherwise. The question remains: what would the speech have been if there hadn't been so much controversy beforehand? Probably pablum, too, but no one will ever know.

Sure, I think the concerns about the speech were overblown, but I don't think that the content of the speech can be used to prove that the initial concerns were entirely unjustified.

Sure, Obama didn't fuck any of the children, but if we hadn't condemned the possibility of child fucking so loudly who knows what he would have done? The absence of child fucking doesn't prove that their wasn't an intent to child fuck.

Ding ding ding.

Heck, even I predicted that he wouldn't actually follow through with anything substantive after he knew that people were actually watching. He may be the most pathetic excuse for a President in history but even I don't think he (and his handlers) are that dumb.

ROFLMAO at the above 3 posts

Ding ding ding.

The "uproar" over this speech is simply some of the dumbest shit I have ever heard. I guess this is just convservative backlash against all the crap Bush took over the last 8 years. Things have regressed so badly that any little thing, like, say, a speech to school kids telling them to work hard and stay in school, becomes a political hot spot.

It's retarded.

I mean, at least most of the shit that got people's panties in a twist back in the day actually, you know, mattered like lying to start a totally unnecessary war that has led to the deaths of thousands and has costs this country trillions, illegal wire taps, torture, illegal prisons, botching Katrina, etc.

And what causes a "fury" now? A speech to school kids. Unbelievable.

Speaking of unbelievable and stupid, I was listening to a radio show this morning on the way into work and they were reading excerpts from a Vanity Fair interview with Levi Johnston, Sarah Palin's daughter's baby-daddy. Wow. Just, wow.

Being a person that couldn't care less over the 'uproar', the uproar over the uproar is equally as amusing. I think the Hawaiian Tropic Bikini Tour Bus just drove by without anyone bothering to take the 'lotion boy' invitation.

Good fact checks to keep the lobby groups in check........

A False Appeal to Women’s Fears | FactCheck.org

Senior Scare, Yet Again | FactCheck.org

Or maybe there was no socialist/democrat propaganda at all in the speech from rough drafts to the one that was actually given? OH NOES!!!

{shrug} If being that naive lets you sleep better at night, have at it.

Have Obama supporters figured out yet that he's center-left? He definitely campaigned as a strong liberal.

I wonder if Hillary Clinton would be president right now if Obama had campaigned honestly.

meaning what? He's a centrist?