Sen. Reid claimed yesterday that any of the 100 senators who didn't secure special deals in the health care bill wasn't doing their job. This new study concerning the spending of stimulus dollars apparantly shows who is doing their job..........

http://mercatus.org/publication/stimulusfacts

Believe what you want but Obama gets security briefings everyday and it ain't from MoveOn.Org or Michael Moore. He's getting the real deal. You giving him no credit if you're just saying he's going by what Rasmussen tells him.


And which form of government would that be?


A Boeing 747 built last year gets .2 miles to the gallon.



The purpose of capitalism is competition. A business may eliminate it's competition through capitilastic means, but the end result is no longer capitalism. A government that runs a business in it's entirety has no competition, has monopolized through elimination, and that is not "as capitalistic as it gets". Quite the opposite actually.

Id love to see the stats when the GOP was in charge and MBBF's posts about that at the time. HA!

I would too. Please post them.

An excellent article from Arianna Huffington on this current health care bill and how detrimental it would be for those looking to truly reform health care.

Arianna Huffington: The Senate Health Care Bill: Leave No Special Interest Behind

Looks like the Nelson payoff may be up in smoke per a MSNBC report I watched over lunch. At least three other senators are now requesting that funding be included to cover their state as well or they will pull their vote. Nelson is saying he'll probably now pull the funding out and is throwing the Nebraska governor under the bus, saying he was the one that requested the funding. Nebraska governor has said that he made no request for $100M funding. No word on whether Nelson will support the bill or not now that his state will lose the $100M to cover any state spending that will be required.

Ok, so the more I read and hear about the issue of health care reform, I have come to the conclussion that it is NOT indeed health care reform that people want, from listening to the arguments. What people want is Health Insurance/Coverage reform.

Like I said, there's no dead bodies in the streets or people actually being refused care, but, insurance denying tests or to cover certain costs or proceedures, etc...People can still get those tests or proceedures, it would have to be paid out of their own pockets instead.

So yes, I would be for some form of health insurance/coverage reform, but, you just have to be careful of what you ask for and make sure that it does indeed actually accomplish the task, but, with the government doing it, I'm not holding my breath.

I have a great plan to sell to those 36% to end unemployment! Get a job or the government fines you. Great plan, right? :)

I know a lot of people are giving Nelson shit, but I don't blame him. He put himself in a position to help his consituents the most. He represents Nebraskans and if he can get massive funding for his people, then he should do whats in the best interest of them.

Nelson is not the despicable one, it's the people paying him off that are.

Then why are they all going out of business? Why did we need to basically save their asses? If there was a company selling a car that got 100 MPG, it would be selling like hot cakes. It is capitalism, and the public is looking at the new cars and saying it's same old shit they had 20 years ago.

Look at the evolution of the computer over the last 25 years, then look at that of the car. Tech companies are not begging Washington for bailouts.

Not on MSNBC.com
Found it on FoxNews.com amazingly that article sounds ALOT like the report you saw on MSNBC down to the quotes and all. Awfull MBBF, just awful. Im not sure if youre trying get more credibility for your summary by attributing it to the Liberal channel rather than where it is front page fodder...weird just weird but gutter no less.

FOXNews.com - Nelson Says More Senators Seeking Special Treatment in Light of Nebraska Deal




Not on Cnn.com

And MBBF's summary is back to old hat, eh DT? Full of crap and spin. Totally left out that last sentence there instead to attribute their possibly pulling out of supporting the bill to this....MBBF is spin to the 1000%

From Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell:

I guess it's no wonder the crooks stay in congress if you think the people making the offers are in the wrong. Heaven forbid someone has the integrity to say no.

Because it takes a long time to design a car. Part of the reason they're getting killed is Mom and Dad loved buying big cars like Humvees and Suburbans. Then, oil goes skyhigh and Mom and Dad wanted to buy energy-efficient vehicles. Detroit is caught behind the eight-ball - they can't roll out cars fast enough for the fickle public. The pendulum is already starting to swing - people are okay with $2.50 gasoline - people will want to feel "safe" and plow through the 1-2 snowfalls a year with their 4x4s, so they will start buying big cars again.

Oh, and technical companies don't have pension programs for people that retired 25 years ago. You'd need a bail out too if $2K for every car was going towards pensions and healthcare for people who don't even work for you anymore.

I'm hearing that other senators (South Carolina, Tennessee) are asking their AG's to look at aspects of the bill in preparation to challenge it as unconstitutional. From what I hear the portions that are ripe for challenge are

1.Giving Neb. and/or certain states an unbalanced share, it violates some fairness doctine.

2. Forcing everyone to purchase a product from a private entity. Basically saying everyone must buy health care. They are looking at it different from car insurance because a person can choose not to drive, those requirements generally require you to have coverage if you harm another driver and don't require you to insure damage against yourself and they are regulated by states not the federal government.

3. Apparently a portion of the bill bars future Senate bills from changing something in the bill. It sounds like the "something" is how the independant medical advisory board is run.

Sounds like, if the bill is passed it will get challenged as unconstitutional. That should be interesting.

Say no? Hell, "fiscal conservative" Ben Nelson demanded the payout for his vote.

Let's not forget tax subsidies that made those SUVs more appealing.

As for #3, it's a supermajority to overturn the board's rulings. Personally, I think it's a good thing to get Congress out of Medicare reimbursements.

None of the challenges will matter. There's plenty of precedent and I doubt it goes much past the blustering phase.

*sigh*

Interesting indeed.

Can't really speak on the others, but this one is funny. South Carolina and Tennessee are massive welfare states that take in much more in federal money than they put in.

there are a lot of states that are that way - care to guess what the vast majority of them have in common? ;)

I really don't know enough about it to understand the true odds. It does seem we have a supreme court that is a little more conservative than liberal. Since Obama has not been able to pack the court, it feels like a challenge has some real chance of sinking the whole thing.

You could also say how noble Harry Reid is that he is willing to give this dirtbag more incentives than others because he is holding up reform that is so critical to our financial security.

As you said, senators are there to get favorable terms (with any legislation) for the people they represent. This is once again why federal government is not the appropriate forum for such concentrations of power.

I know I'm a broken record on this...but it just continues to defy logic to me why we are so accepting of centralized government(regardless of the policy).

Article calls out Obama for adopting into final health care legislation many of the policies that he said he would change when campaigning for President. He attacked Hillary and McCain for proposing many of the ideas he's now allowing into the bill..........

After Ripping Clinton And McCain, Obama Embraces Their Policies

Head of largest nurse organization draws conclusion that passage of current bill would kill any hope of true reform in the near future, mirroring comments made in a column by Arianna Huffington yesterday.........

Rose Ann DeMoro: An Inglorious End to the Promise of Reform

You're spot-on. It's baffling why anyone would ever consider this a good thing, regardless of who benefits from it. It's a gross abuse of power.

Hopefully we can agree that activist judges shouldn't overturn the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

So why does it surprise you then? Sounds like they want a piece of this one as well. It's OK for senators (like Nelson) to look out for their states, right?

Except that article is stupid - Obama hasn't adopted into the final legislation anything. #1 it's the Congress right now, and #2 it still has to go through conference.

I agrees. Campaign finance reform and term limits FTW!

Neither of those points will affect the arguments made in those articles. Those concerns will still remain if/when a compromise bill is signed given that those arguments would apply to the passed bills on both sides of Congress.

MBBF: WHy are you so upset about HCR when, just a few days ago, you claimed that the Dems should just go ahead and pass a bill. They did, why are you so angry?

Maybe, just maybe, you're just opposed to any HCR from the Dems and all this window dressing is disingenuous?

FWIW I happen to agree with the spirit of the article (at least what you posted as a lead-in - i haven't read it yet). I think he SHOULD get blasted when this thing is passed and signed. The White House went about this whole "Healthcare Reform" thing in exactly the wrong way - and it's honestly why it might have made sense to wait a little while or consult Joe Biden more so that Obama could figure out how the game is played.

He should have rallied his party behind closed-doors with a plan and twisted-arms to get everybody on-board in his own party and then come out with a plan and said "my preferred bill would include this. i will not sign any bill that does not at least include x,y,z as a minimum."

Instead you left it to 15 different committes to draft different versions of bills and try to reconcile them in an ugly public debate.

It was a fucking mess and a horrible job of handling something so crucial.

No, my stance hasn't changed. I'm glad that they're finally bothering to vote on something. That doesn't change the fact that it's a cow pie of a bill and I'm more than willing to call it as such as have a lot of people.

You had me until 'consult Joe Biden'. Now I've got a broken arm after falling out of my chair and I'm left looking for my health insurance card.

lol - well my point was essentially "consult someone with more seniority who could explain to you how the game is played from the Oval Office."

insert whatever name you like there

OK, I'll buy into that. :D

Not so sure about this. That didn't work in 1994, but, as flawed as it may be, Obama's approach is going to get near universal coverage.

Here we go - good article critiquing Obama's leadership style.

Drew Westen: Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator

essentially
Drew Westen isn't just any guy with a computer. He's an expert on political communication, the guy who wrote The Political Brain, and one of the "it boys" of the Democratic party.

Is it possible that Obama doesn't feel a far-left agenda is what's best for America?

it's not about "far left" versus "centrist" - it's about leadership.

you also can't run on a platform of "Change!!!" and then get into office and not lead your party, with a solid-majority, to "business as usual."

I would, along with most of the rational world, disagree with "business as usual."

edit: Depending on what "usual" means. The Republicans would not be doing the same things he's been doing. On the other hand, if you thought that Obama was not a politician and would not have to operate within existing political power structures, then I've got a bridge somewhere...

In other words, when both the far left and far right are up in arms about the President, I'd have to think he's doing alright.

Western isn't far-left, or far-right. He's an academic from Emory University who has extensively studied/researched/published/etc. on the center.

Emory University sucks.

be that as it may the guy is apparently very well-respected...

Well, reading that piece I found it pretty easy to guess at his political leanings.

FWIW

Im watching the debate on the Senate floor and the GOP do not agree with MBBF that the bill should be shoved or rushed through.

I'm floored that a group that doesn't fully share my beliefs would have a different opinion on the subject.

It works everywhere else in this thread ;)

SI

:D

SI

Can anyone makes heads or tails of this deficit dispute involving the health care bill? Sounds like the CBO has changed its initial assessment of the deficit impact to where it's now a $300B increase in the deficit, but I'm seeing conflicting stories.

not true.

What they said, according to the Sentor speaking on the 'interpretation' they got from the CBO is that you cant count monies twice, once in spending now, and than once in savings on Medicare later.

So... we're running special ops in Yemen? Seriously this war on terror seems like bullshit... an endless war.

Well we've got the war on drugs too - so they are a matched set.

This Chris Matthews quote is fantastic. The media can hardly contain their glee at having another terroism story. From Balloon Juice:

What you are suggesting is an alternative?

Yes...it is...and people need to be prepared to fight it instead of waiting around for them to bomb our embasies, run suicide boats into our ships, run planes into our buildings, and whatever the hell else they can come up with. I know...let's sit by and just wait for these things to happen over and over again...eventually, when they figure out we won't fight back, they'll just decided to stop.

Ready to retire or seeing the writing on the wall? You decide.

Democrats Dropping Out Of 2010 Elections

Harry Reid might as well do the same thing to avoid having the Senate Majority Leader voted out. Either way, the time frame to pass some of these Democratic mandates just shrunk by quite a bit.

Also Scott Brown (who I find to be a very attractive candidate) has pulled within 9 points of Martha Coakley for Kenendy's seat in the special election. Very unlikely, and probably not enough time left (Jan 19), but still interesting. First Republican Senator from MA in 30+ years?

It will be closer than Obama's win, but that 9 point gap comes from Rasmussen that traditionally leans toward the GOP. Somewhere I read an analysis of what would happen if the MA electorate looked like the VA governor electorate and Coakley still wins by a couple of points.

edit: Will the winner have to run again in the Fall?

Pretty sure that seat will be filled until 2013. And yeah, Brown winning is not terribly likely, but the GOP is having a small renaissance in MA. Odds are our next governor will be a Republican, and Brown is at least making this race more than a formality.

The move actually made it a guaranteed Democrat win in 2010 since the AG will run and he's really popular in the state.

I like Coakley and hope she wins. I don't think Brown is bad either but I still think he's too far to the right on social issues to win in that state. Nate Silver doesn't even have this seat in play according to his Senate rankings.

Can't wait for the Republicrats to gain some Senate seats back! :banghead: At least when neither of the two parties (obviously they are both the same pro-state, pro-spending your money party) has a majority less bullshit gets done. So here comes 2012 when the Democrats make a "resurgence" because the Republicans don't live up to campaign promises. ("They said they were for smaller government. But after more wars with Yemen, Pakistan, and Iran and more corporate handouts we need a change. Obama pledges to being that change back again!!!") Hopefully this country will wake up sometime soon, but sadly I don't see it happening.

Peter Schiff has the best message. Will the people listen or go with the tired and true Republicrat Rob Simmons or even worse Linda McMahon? (who contributed to Rahm Emanuel’s campaign) One can hope for Peter Schiff but this is the American electorate voting so it is highly doubtful. (He doesn't promise the cake or eating the cake)

Correct. Dodd would be the most likely one of the three that you could state saw the writing on the wall. He knew the Democrats were considering a primary challenge to keep him from losing the seat.

He would be a nice voice in the Senate but he's not winning in that state. And despite being correct on some predictions, it's just not the best time for a stock broker to be running for Senate.

Agree that he probably won't win but somebody who understands economics is absolutely who we need with these clowns and their TARP and "jobs" bills. He is hardly a typical stock broker either, his views are very solidly against the grain.

But the average voter is not smart enough to see that. They just see rich stock broker and say "no fucking way, I'm out of work because of guys like this". I think he only stands a chance in a purple state that has some independent leanings like Minnesota.

Surprised this quote hasn't popped up here yet. Mrs. Pelosi doesn't sound like she and Barack are playing nicely when it comes to health care reform.

OH SNAP! Pelosi On Obama: 'There Were A Number Of Things He Was For On The Campaign Trail' | TPMDC

It must be exhausting being continually surprised by everything. One would think cynicism would set it at some point.

Could be. You don't find that to be surprising? I certainly didn't wake up today thinking that I'd see a quote from Pelosi that I'd agree with when it comes to health care legislation, but evidently it's a red letter day.

I don't find it to be surprising that it wasn't mentioned yet in a thread where you start 90% of the discussion and no one had really posted in for nearly a week before you started it off today.

I'm kind of surprised MBBF didn't post about this, which will be the cover article in this weekend's New York Times Magazine: Magazine Preview - The First Senator From the Tea Party? - NYTimes.com

I had the opportunity to talk to Scott Brown earlier today when I was filling in on another radio show. Seems like a very bright guy, and it'd be great to see him win that seat. I'm with you... doesn't seem very likely, but it's still fascinating to see the lack of enthusiasm for Coakley. I wonder if she'll bust out some "Teddy would have wanted you to vote for me" ads before election day?

The problem with Coakley, as I see it, is that she hasn't been campaigning. She's acted like the seat it hers because of winning the primary (which it probably is) and that rubs me the wrong way. Brown is out campaigning, advertising. Coakley is running out the clock.

Brown seems like someone who could win the state. A sort of Mitt Romney-esque Republican before Romney went all pretend conservative for the Presidential race. I'm under the impression that he supports abortion rights which is pretty rare these days for a candidate on the right. His economic views seem good too.

The bigotry toward gay marriage seems an issue though and while I like the guy, if I'm a Massachusetts resident, I probably couldn't vote for him. Just think this civil rights stuff needs to get over with in this country.

no way Brown wins.

We should probably start a 2010 Election Thread at some point.

I could have sworn that the polls were all wrong according to some of the posters here. The country really wants the health care bill. Odd that these big names all just decided to retire. You would think their re-elections would be guarenteed with such a popular bill and popular party in power.

Dodd was out long before health care was on the table. His hands being in a lot of the fraud in the financial system collapse caused him a lot of negative press in the state.

You do know that more GOP politicians have retired in both the House and Senate? Maybe retirements are more complicated than HCR?

I think it's highly unlikely as well, but if voter turnout is low among Democrats, it could be a lot closer than what you'd think, especially considering this is the Ted Kennedy Memorial Election. Coakley in a good year would beat Brown by 20+ points. I think it's very possible that Brown keeps it within single-digits.

You know what my hope is? Maybe the country is getting sick of all of them! But I think I will stick with the country not being happy about the "change" Obama brought. IMO they were fed up with endless war and corporate welfare... and health care was a tier II issue along with stuff like immigration, education, etc. But the Democrats came along and gave more money to banks and escalted more war and then on top of that spent a trillion on health care. I am pretty sure a lot of these guys know its time to get the hell out of Dodge. I hate generally populism but if it actually shakes up Washington then I will give it a pass.

Not looking to butt heads either. I know I paint you as a liberal and you paint me as a guy who wants to end government. I just think it is pretty obvious why all of these retirements are occuring.

In some cases it's obvious, but not necessarily for the reasons you assume. Dodd has been dead since his mortgage deal was made public. HCR didn't change things at all. Dorgan would likely have won re-election and it's still somewhat of a mystery as to why he's leaving. The CO governor I don't know enough about to speculate.

I haven't been an advocate of a 3rd party, so I'm not sure why I'd be interested in that. Florida's a f'd up state to begin with. Ask Al Gore.

Good point. The Romans don't want to talk about Rome when it's burning.

What are you going on about?

I was only joking about how you start most of your posts here with a dishonest claim at surprise.

And I was just joking about how the more liberal posters have gone dead quiet of late as things have gone south with this administration and the party. No worries.

Gone south how? Approval rating for Congress and Obama is essentially flat over the last month or so. HCR is going to be signed int law within the next month or so. ND retirement hurts, but CT retirement helps. Dems still favored over GOP nationally.

What's happened "of late" that would silence liberals? Maybe not much has happened worthy of discussion over the holidays.

Or because Congress is still in recess and not much is happening other than window dressing. Yes, two Senators and a Governor stepped down- that's big news and there was some chatter about it. Pelosi throwing a little political jab- that's not really news.

I am mock surprised at your mock surprise

SI

Robert Gibbs would probably agree with you. There's been nothing on TV, which is in stark contrast to a campaign promise by the Obama Administration that all discussions in conference would be televised so we "could see who was siding with the American people and who was siding with drug companies". I guess that's not such a priority when the reality of what really happened is shown on TV.

White House: We will NOT discuss broken C-Span promise | Washington Examiner

Discussion about why the changes in Senator leanings give more reasons to keeping the filibuster in place. An interesting graph is included revealing the increasing polarity of the Senate, which much of us already know about.

RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - Why the Filibuster Is More Essential Now Than Ever

Looks like Gitmo will not be closed down anytime soon, if ever. Obama's campaign promises on this topic were unrealistic as most people noted at the time. I think they're finally realizing just how unrealistic they were...........

'Gitmo Forever'? - Declassified Blog - Newsweek.com

I just read this


Is that right?

What's interesting is that he's basically in line with Reagan's second year start. People forget how Reagan was in bad shape until the economy turned around.

There's a lot of story left to tell, but between the incredible polarization that's been in place since Clinton and the not-so-stellar start for the Obama administration it's not surprising that he's at a low rating.

It's not going to turn around anytime soon. There's just way too much mistrust of government right now given the increase in deficit spending. There's no incentive for business owners to do much other than save and weather the storm.

I doubt there's a single business owner that is putting off expansion solely because of deficit spending by the federal government.

They're with all the others refusing to make over $250K/year.

He's slightly in line with both Reagan and Clinton, both of whom took office under similar conditions. Obama's 7.6% unemployment is slightly higher than Reagan's 7.50 and Clinton's 7.30.

What's surprising about Obama's number is how he's still at 50% approval despite 10.0% unemployment. Reagan was down to 33% at the beginning of 1983 when unemployment was 10.4%. That suggests his ratings will skyrocket if unemployment starts to drop. That's a big if, but Reagan himself was able to claim "Morning in America" when unemployment was about the same level as before he took office.