»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
A Loss of Cool???
| The Alley |
|
A Loss of Cool??? |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Obama rips GOP as 'opportunists,' touts loan plan AP NASHUA, N.H. – President Barack Obama branded Republicans on Tuesday as electoral opportunists more concerned about their own interests than the people's, taking a political risk by escalating criticism of the very lawmakers he's urging to work with him. The newly combative approach is a double-edged sword for Obama. Fearful of losses in the November congressional and gubernatorial elections, Democrats have been urging Obama to throw tougher punches at Republicans. Those calls grew louder after the Democrats' stunning loss two weeks ago of a Senate seat in Massachusetts, seen as an indictment of Democratic control over Congress and the White House. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_25 Lawmakers upset over Obama's 2nd anti-Vegas remark LAS VEGAS – Nevada lawmakers lashed out at President Barack Obama on Tuesday after he made another reference to Las Vegas while explaining how people should make tough choices on spending. The issue is sensitive to Sin City because its economy is largely based on tourism, and several lawmakers said they were shocked that Obama singled out Las Vegas again after commenting one year ago about bailed-out banks holding meetings here. "When times are tough, you tighten your belts," Obama said, according to a White House transcript of his appearance Tuesday at a high school in North Nashua, N.H. "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage," Obama said. "You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices." The comments quickly sparked a flurry of reaction from federal, state and local lawmakers in the Silver State, which had an unemployment rate of 13 percent in December. "I'll do everything I can to give him the boot," Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said during a hastily called news conference, adding that he was incensed when he heard about the comments and said he would no longer welcome the president here if he visits. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_las_vegas_2 Obama banking plan complicates regulatory bill AP WASHINGTON – The Obama administration's stepped up demand for tougher restrictions and new taxes on big banks is complicating Senate efforts to write a bipartisan financial regulation overhaul, even drawing a sharp rebuke from a top presidential ally in the Senate. In an unusual reprimand, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., chided administration representatives at the end of a hearing Tuesday for injecting ideas late in his negotiations for a sweeping bill. Dodd complained that the timing of Obama's proposal "seemed to many to be transparently political." "It's added to the problems of trying to get a bill done," Dodd said. His reproach came at the end of a hearing with former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_on_bi_ge/us_financial_overhaul_7 Obama team draws sharp Hill questions on budget AP WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's $3.8 trillion budget outline drew bipartisan fire on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with Republicans complaining it doesn't address deficits soon enough and raises taxes too much. Democrats balked at some of Obama's spending cuts. It was a rocky reception for the day-old document, underscoring election-year restlessness and rising public anger at bailouts, bonuses and ballooning deficits. The complaints across party lines suggested it could be difficult for Obama to win support for key parts of his budget, even from members of his own party. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., called Obama's proposal to cancel NASA's manned moon return program shortsighted. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., derided his proposal to include Army Corps projects in a proposed partial three-year spending freeze. Sen. Jay Rockfeller, D-W.Va., said environmental priorities in the budget would unfairly burden coal states such as his. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100202/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_budget |
||
| © Copyright 2010 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
"Phil says: Six more weeks of Rahm Emanuel" we can only hope!  |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Oh, it's "cool" already... http://beforeitsnews.com/sto ry/15409/Andy_McKenna_For_Governor_Illinois_Election_Results_2010_To_Close_To_Call_with_Jim_Ryan_and_Kirk_Dillard.html "Chicago, Il- Primary Day has Andy McKenna for Governor Illinois Election Results looking to outrun top contenders Jim Ryan and Kirk Dillard. UPDATE: 8:43 PM Andy McKenna Leading Kirk Dillard 21% to 19% with 53% of Precincts Reporting Dillard is a Republican Republican in the Illinois Senate, who once appeared in a Television Commercial in June 2007 touting Barack Obama. He has drawn strong criticism from his fellow Republicans for this backing of a strong liberal politician. Jim Ryan is a career Republican who previously served two full terms as Illinois Attorney General. He previously ran unsuccessfully for Governor in 2002 for the Republican Party. January 22, 2010 Polling showed Kirk Dillard leading with 19%, Andy Mckenna in second with 17% and Jim Ryan with 13%. Jim Ryan was consistently losing momentum in the final weeks of the campaign to McKenna's surge. At last count there was an undecided number of 17% which will be key to deciding the winner of this Gubernatorial Primary." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Ten points for the President. quote: Ten points for the President. quote: The President is wrong. He loses ten points on this one. quote: Yea, right, like no one was expected to complain when they didn't get what they wanted? People are expected to be selfish. In the cases cited here, however, it's clearly not very enlightened selfishness. Like the man said, "You prioritize. You make tough choices." And then you accept the ensuing heat. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
President Barack Obama branded Republicans on Tuesday as electoral opportunists more concerned about their own interests than the people's ... Ten points for the President. Well, let's follow the scenario.... (1)Obama blasts Republicans in the State of the Union speech (2) A smiling Obama meets with Republicans to discuss working together (3)Obama blasts Republicans as electoral opportunists "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage," Obama said. "You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices." Ten points for the President. Well, let's follow the scenario.... (1) Obama warns against spending money on places like Vegas (2) Vegasians lose hundreds of jobs and the city loses hundreds of thousands in revenue. (3) The government has a convention in Vegas (4) Obama warns against blowing money in Vegas I will assume, Ron, that when you award ten points that must be ten points out of one hundred?? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The folks The President spoke with on Sunday were House Republicans. While he did a fair amount of smiling with them, he was also not backing down on the effect that the Republican rhetoric had on the Republican legislators themselves. In this I believe he was correct. It it now very difficult for Republicans to do any negotiating at all with somebody they have portrayed as a socialist, a communist, a maoist, a stalinist and a nazi without regard for the inherent contradictions among these things, content only to be trying to destroy his name and character before the nation. Whoops. Many of the representatives that had questions to ask, put them in the form of attacks, such as the man who suggested that The President had rejected Republican bills out of hand and for no good reason. The President had to remind some of these folks that the very ideas that they were rejecting with contempt today were ideas that they had put forward themselves as acceptable during the Clinton negotiations in 1993. Perhaps you missed these exchanges. In fact, these exchanges aren't really the point, since the House Republicans have been able to do some talking, at least, with the Democrats, though most votes will still fall along party lines. It is in the Senate where The President seemed to feel the problem was most serious, and where time after time the votes have been on party lines even after the Democrats have proven willing to include and to consider Republican ideas in the bills. You, Mike, seem to suggest that the President is hypocritical for acknowledging the differences between the two groups of Republicans. I would disagree with you. I would also wonder where the Senate Republicans are, given they have been offered the chance to speak with the President in public in the same way the the House Republicans have. I would suggest that they are, sulking in their tents, like Achilles, uncaring that the country is about to be damaged by their lack of cooperation, focused instead, only on their lost pride on not getting the spoils they thought were theirs by right. It is not attractive. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, apparently there are democrats who don't give Obama the same points you do. "Enough is enough!" Democratic Congresswoman Shelley Berkley said in a statement. "President Obama needs to stop picking on Las Vegas and he needs to let Americans decide for themselves how and where to spend their hard-earned vacation dollars." Reid, one of Obama's closest allies, issued a statement headlined "Reid to Obama: 'Lay off Las Vegas'" and was unusually blunt in his reaction. "The President needs to lay off Las Vegas and stop making it the poster child for where people shouldn't be spending their money," Reid said. "I would much rather tourists and business travelers spend their money in Las Vegas than spend it overseas." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_las_vegas |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Ten points is simply my metaphorical approval, Mike. Taking away points is disapproval. Nevada has my sympathy. My sister and her family live out there. I visit Vegas as often as I can (especially during our cold Michigan winters). There's a lot of good people there. But let's get real, okay? The services they provide don't compare to feeding your family or putting a roof over their heads. For them to get mad because someone suggested hedonism shouldn't be a man's first priority is at once silly and incredibly selfish. Vegas chose their role as purveyors of luxury. What did they expect? FTR, Vegas isn't in economic trouble because of the recession (though, no doubt, it didn't help). They simply experienced unprecedented growth and failed to manage it very well. Too many people apparently thought the good times were going to last forever. Sound familiar?  Mike, for someone who often rails against political correctness I'm a little surprised you would criticize someone, even a Democrat, for simply telling the truth. Sure, it wasn't particularly politically correct. It wasn't expedient. It probably wasn't even smart. It's still the truth. Added: You posted, Mike, while I was still writing. While it surprised me, Mike, that you would criticize the truth, it doesn't surprise me at all when politicians do it. Doing what's expedient is what makes them good politicians, after all. Republican, Democrat, it's all the same. Our whole problem right now is that we have so many good politicians and so damn few good leaders. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Damaged by their lack of cooperation, Bob? Saved would be more accurate. Let's face it. We have had for the past year a democratic president, a large majority of Democrats in the House and a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats in the senate, up until 2 weeks ago. They have had the ability to pass any bills they wanted. The Republicans did not have the capability of stopping them.....and yet the president couldn't do it. Why? BEcause they could not get the democrats to stand together to pass them because there were democrats who did not support what Obama, Pelosi and Reid were trying to get through. They tried threats, bribery and whatever else they could do to get the democratic votes. Were there any republicans that were offered bribes for their votes? Name them. No, they were all democrats, their own party members that they couldn't convince that their bills had enough merit to pass. Obama can blame republicans all they want. His own party has kept his bills from being passed. It is comforting to see that sense of dignity from at least a few of the people on the left side of the aisle. The only reason Obama came to the republicans is because of the Mass. election, costing him his filibuster-proof Senate. Up to that point, he hasn't bothered paying attention to them at all. Submitted bills have been disregarded, advice falling on deaf ears, and republicans basically being shut out, the closed door meetings of health care being a great example. Now, however, with the election results opening up the filibuster option, along with the blue dogs, Obama KNOWS he needs republican support to get anything done, hence the visit. That's what makes his flip-flops so strange. He insults republicans, then goes to meet with them in a spirit of wanting to work together, then comes out and insults them again. Chicago politics. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Obama conceded there was a political cost for the health care fight in 2009, when the nation watched a messy, confusing process unfold with key negotiations taking place in private. HE was the one responsible for the private negotiations. "The American people are out of patience with business as usual," he said HE is the one conducting "business as usual" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON – Some rank and file Democrats in the House are trashing President Barack Obama's plan to give businesses that add workers a new $5,000 tax credit for each job they create. Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson of California said businesses won't hire new employees unless they have work for them to do. Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas said companies that have struggled to keep workers would lose out while those that got rid of workers could get the credit by replacing them. The lawmakers challenged Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing Wednesday to come up with a better way to create jobs. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_taxes_jobs Look closely and you will not see the word "republican" mentioned above. Let it not pass, however, and who will Obama blame? Give yourself a gold star...... |
||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
From the same yahoo article in #9 - "Obama used the same language toward Republicans as he did toward extremists in the Muslim world in his inaugural address. Of Republicans on Wednesday, he said, "We extend a hand and get a fist in return." In his inaugural address, he said the United States "will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Obama was countering the Republican argument that he doesn't accept any of their ideas. Obama conceded there was a political cost for the health care fight in 2009, when the nation watched a messy, confusing process unfold with key negotiations taking place in private. "Some of the transparency got lost," Obama said. "And I think we paid a price for it. So it's important, I think, to constantly have our cards on the table." As I see it, the “fist” in the Healthcare debate was the Republican, dealt from the bottom of the deck, hand containing outright lies about the program such as it would establish “death panels”, ration care, result in worse healthcare, etc. I’m pleased to see Obama openly acknowledging mistakes were made and taking steps to try and correct those mistakes. If a government run healthcare program, which we help pay for, works for members of Congress, and for the military, then Congress should be able to come up with one we will help pay for that works for us. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Right, Balladeer, I don't see the word "republican" in the article, but I do see that Democrats are pushing for ways to create jobs rather than whining on and on about about off the cuff remarks made about spending the childrens' college fund in Los Vegas or speculating that Obama hates Los Vegas because he's really a Muslim and the Koran forbids gambling.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
whining on and on is that one of those ad hominum attacks you think should be stopped? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The referent appear to be "Republicans in office" and not "Mike," Mike. Had the referent been directed personally toward you, it would in fact have been one of those uncomfortable ad hominem attacks. As it is, it is a personification of a group as an individual, a fairly common metaphor. If you look at the verbs we use in American English as opposed to at least some English English, you'll see that some of the time we actually build the metaphor into the language. Sometimes when we use the singular, the English will use the more literal plural, not buying into the metaphorical use of one particular noun or another. It's an interesting question, and I'm glad to see you thinking about it. Perhaps some opf our more grammatically inclined folks could give a better or more accurate account, or could correct me in this matter. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Be glad to, Bob. It's an attack against the "whining" republicans. Better yet, let me give the full statement... Wouldn't it be more productive to stop the ad hominem attacks, the mockery, sarcasm, nit picking and stick to discussing facts and the real issues? - Jennifer Somehow the word "whining" smacks of mockery and sarcasm, little to do with facts and real issues. Jennifer made a good statement - and then showed how hard it is to practice. Thanks for jumping in with your opinion again, Bob. If you care to give your opinion on some things more pertinent to the thread, you may wish to read response #8 and share your thoughts. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Since it's your thread, Balladeer, and you changed the focus a bit with your post in #13, to which Bob then replied, seems cool to me to post this link in response to his query addressing your reply. http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/Ad_hominem?q=ad+hominem+genetic |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Your welcome, Mike. Good of you to remember the forum is public and not private, and that should you have wished a private discussion without my input, a simple email exchange with somebody would solve your problem. Good of you to remember that as well. You seem to have forgotten that the Senate through the great majority of both your life and my own has not required a filibuster-proof majority to pass virtually every piece of legislation before it. Before the days of the current ill will, it was considered that 51 votes were sufficient to pass all but the most utterly contentious of issues, and that it was rarely invoked and seldom even threatened except around issues such as slavery. A requirement that one side or the other of the senate now have at least 61 votes and that it be able to keep all its members under an absolute party discipline at all times is not my understanding of how the framers designed the Constitution. From the style of your assertions, however, it now sounds that you are trying to assert that it is the way that the framers designed the constitution. I would remind you that the framers gave the Senate the right to establish its own rules, which they have taken advantage of, but that other than in that somewhat ambiguous form, the framers nowhere even suggest the notion of filibuster. Not that I think it an entirely bad idea, mind you, but that for you to suggest that there's nothing wrong with the Republican's current use of it seems difficult to justify. The Democrats do have a solid majority, and should be able to get legislation passed, as would the Republicans in similar conditions, though not under the condition that virtually every vote would require a filibuster proof majority. Were that the case, the filibuster would never have ever been useful as a threat in the Senate, and as you well know, for many years it was exactly that. If it were to be considered the normal method of business, there would never have been the need to name it as a special legislative tactic. I do not find the flavor of Koolaide you are trying to sell here at all refreshing, Mike. I am surprised you would expect it to pass. I have trouble believing that you believe it yourself. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I wish I knew what your last sentence meant, if anything, but I don't. Perhaps I'm not enlightened enough to understand it. Not that I think it an entirely bad idea, mind you, but that for you to suggest that there's nothing wrong with the Republican's current use of it seems difficult to justify. So you don't think the filibuster rule is a bad idea but the republican's use of it is unjustifiable? Add that to something else I don't understand. Is it your claim that republicans invented the filibuster rule? You may be right but I'd like to see some proof of that. Bottom line is that a democratic white house, House and senate cannot get things done, even with bribing their own members. It's remindful of Gore losing the election, with democrats pointing out all of the reasons he was "robbed", when, in fact, he lost because he couldn't carry his own state. If he would have gotten the votes of the people he represented, he would have won. It's easy to pass the blame off on the other side but it doesn't change the facts. The democrats have not gotten things done because the democrats have not stood together to pass them...and why? Because there were democrats who recognized the bills as being not worthy of passage. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Interesting article and comments on obstructionism and the filibuster here: http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/21/historic-obstructionism-and-filibuster-use-finally-being-discussed/ |
||
|
Klassy Lassy Member Elite
since 2005-06-28
Posts 2187Oregon |
Such hypocrisy. Beware of the foe in ambush! I don't know anyone who buys a boat when they can't pay their mortgage unless they plan to live on it. And why did the bailout go to people who continue to profit off of corruption? Something is rotten in Washington.... |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
another memory refresher - http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/05/nation/na-budget5 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: As you will remember, when I see my language is obscure, I am ready to admit the fact. In this case, you'll have to specify exactly what you don't understand, Mike. It reads quite straightforwardly to me. quote: Again, I'm uncertain what the difficulty is you're having here, Mike. I admire many firearms for their beauty and utility. They have many decent purposes to which they might be usefully employed, fighting a just war might be one you'd get behind, target shooting, skeet shooting, simple collection as objects of engineering excellence — all are pretty good. You might add home defense to that, though I believe there's a downside to that and many good police officers would agree with me on the matter. Comitting a crime, however, would not be one of the uses you would agree that a firearm should be put to. I believe that the fillabuster is much the same. Regular legislation is designed to be voted on by simple majority. Perhaps you have forgotten your life before 1990 or so, but that's the way it used to be, and that's the way everybody felt it was supposed to be. Remember the notion of "majority rule?" I'm old fashioned enough to still believe that that's thge way we should run the country. I think the Fillabuster is fine, as a threat for extreme situations. I think that's what it needs to be used for. As a standard for everyday legislation, it is a piece of madness. This is why the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate several years back put together an agreement for avoiding fillabusters. As I recall, it lasted long enough for the Democrats to let a couple of Supreme court nominations go through, but when time for repayment came, the Republicans developed amnesia. Perhaps my memory is faulty. The principle was there, however: Fillabuster is not a good way to govern. quote: Nope. I don't know who invented it. As I said, it's not a bad thing, it simply shouldn't be used as a way to get around the basic democratic set-up we've been using for a very long time. It's to use for shooting elephants, not for shooting individual ants, and clogging up the time and efforts of the Senate and sabotaging the flow of Senate business over virtually every bill. The articles That Jennifer posted are very good and to the point, and worth having a look, if you haven't had a chance yet. quote: Not against a requirement of 60 votes, Mike. The Republicans wouldn't do well if they were required to have a 60 vote majority for every vote either. As for the bribing their own members, making deals with Senators is the way business gets done in the senate. Sometimes it's money for the Senator's state, sometimes it's a tax break for a favored contributor. Sometimes it's this and sometimes it's that. Are you actually telling me that this is the first you've known of this? Or that you believe that Republicans do politics in some different fashion, or are you actually thinking that I would nod like a bobble toy on a dash board and agree with you about this? Can you spell Abramoff? Can you spell Rove? I You verge on black humor here. quote: What was that about Alger Hiss? How many communists were there in the State Department again? What was, exactly, that irrefutable proof? Why do we have to use the hydrogen bomb on China, now that they're pouring over the 38th parralel? I'm sorry, I must have gotten distracted. I thought we were talking about the fillabuster. For most of this business, there were fifty Democrats who would have voted for the bills, Mike. Since when is 60 the new 50. If I give you fifty bucks and ask for it back, are you going to slip me sixty? I don't think so. It takes longer to put together coalitions of 60 than it does coalitions of 50, therfore fewer things get done, and more stuff has to get added to the bill to satisfy everybody's interests, right? Of necessity, more riders and more ammendments to fight over and more of what seems to be pork. You are shocked that the Democrats would do such a thing! Shocked, you tell me! Sixty votes, not fifty, Mike, creates the thing you most love to criticize. You can blame it on the democrats if you want, but what gets hurt in the process is the country, and about this I see no sign of remorse at all. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I think the Fillabuster is fine, as a threat for extreme situations. I think that's what it needs to be used for. Bob,we are talking about a bill that deals with 1/6th of our entire budget, a bill that will affect the health care of millions of Americans, a 2000 page bill that most congressmen haven't even read, a bill that will cost every American more in taxes, a bill that Obama calls the most important of our generation, a bill that threatens to cause people to lose the type of health care the majority claim to be happy with, a bill that Obama admits has been dirtied by things that have just "sneaked in there" which shouldn't have, a bill whose final touches have been concocted behind closed doors, Republicans barred from entering....etc, etc, etc, etc. If you don't consider something like this to be of extreme importance, the mind boggles at what you WOULD find to be important. This is exactly the type of thing the filabuster was created for. Something this important that affects so many lives, not to mention the economic impact of the country should have to carry more than a 51-49 approval rating. If it's that good, it should be 90-10, at least. You prefer the 51-49, with the 51 including people who have been bribed for their vote. You call the health care bill "standard, everyday legislation"? May God bless your naiivite. As for the bribing their own members, making deals with Senators is the way business gets done in the senate. Oh, well, then that excuses it, I suppose. It's just business as usual. Wait a minute....isn't business as usual one of the things Obama promised to change? You are being very generous to your democratic cronies, Bob. I can just imagine your outrage, had it been a republican president buying votes from republican congressmen with taxpayer dollars to vote for a bill they may not have wanted to vote for without having their palms greased. Pardon me, but that's an extremely poor excuse for excusing the inexcusable. Since when is 60 the new 50. Sinc they instituted the filabuster, Bob, that thing that you think is not a bad idea, as long as it's not used for standard, ordinary, mundane things like a government takeover of national health care. I'm sorry, I must have gotten distracted. I thought we were talking about the fillabuster. Yes, and the fact that, when Democrats cannot band together to get things done, they blame the republicans...Gore was a good example, which I'm sure you saw but pretend not to recognize. No problem.....I really didn't expect you, too. but what gets hurt in the process is the country, and about this I see no sign of remorse at all. In this case, it's what gets saved, which IS the country, and I also see no signs of remorse from the democrats who tried to ram it down the public's throat with their bribes and closed door meetings for the sole reason of wanting to be THE ADMINISTRATION that succeeded in a government-controlled health care system. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You defend an insurance controlled health care system, Mike. Nor do you actually respond to the points that I've made. The bill is there and has been there for anybody to look at for as long as you've been talking about it not being there. You may keep up with it or not, as you choose. Don't pretend it's locked away in a vault someplace. The Republicans are not involved because they don't choose to be involved other than to slow things down until they can make sure that no bill passes on the subject except one that continues the status quo. You surely have not missed your own loud victory dance over the past several weeks on exactly this subject, have you? As for your comment "since they instituted the filibuster," I notice you leave no referent to the pronoun "they." The question isn't who instituted it, to my mind. If you'd have checked out JM's references, you'd have the information I'm talking about here. The question is, Should the filibuster be put to the use it is currently being put to, not simply on the matter of health care, but on many items of business before the Senate as well? Suggesting that a bill that affects 1/6th the GNP is worth filibustering certainly is not my call. I would think that the question would be which constitutional, moral and ethical issues were involved. Considering that most budget bills get by without the issue coming up, however, I would suggest that there is at least a substantial case to be made for disagreeing with you. Considering the bill is supposed to be about reducing the amount of money being spent to a level that countries who cover all their citizen spend, and still having it be less proportionately than it is now, I would want to know why the Party that says it's for financial conservatism wants to scuttle a money saving bill of this magnitude. A Filibuster on such a bill, one would think, is exactly the opposite of what such a party would want, [i]if what it wanted for its voters was the same as it claimed it wanted.[i] My contention is that it is not, and that the Republicans are lying to the majority of their constituents. The suggestion that the Government is trying to take over health care is interesting. My thinking is that The Republicans are trying to take over health care for the Insurance industry, and that they've duped the democrats into going along. Considering the rising prices of health insurance, the rising profits of the Insurance industry, the successful attempts of the Republicans at blocking any attempt to cut those costs or to cut the proportion of the GNP spent on insurance, I'd have to say that I have a pretty good case. Certainly far better than the case you have for a government take-over for health care. The current government's interest is in controlling the outrageous profits of the insurance industry — at least when they stand up and think like Democrats, it is. And extending coverage to everybody. That's about Insurance regulation, not health care services. And as the President said on Sunday, none of the Republican plans seem to pass the fact check process as being workable and as living up the the promises that the republicans make for them. Oddly enough, none of those House Republicans who were so ready to take swipes at him for all sorts of things during that televised forum chose to take him on about the facts of that particular statement of his. I suspect that this issue was not respect for the office; despite the stuff they voiced during the Bush years about respect for the Presidency, they haven't shown any particular respect for this President, and I really don't expect them to start now. If they had facts to back up a dispute with The president in this matter, they wouldn't have been shy about using them. You seem to keep coming back to the fact that I am honest about saying that I don't think the filibuster is in itself a bad thing. That's true, I don't, only abuse of the tactic. Why do you keep coming back to this statement of mine? Do you believe the filibuster is a bad thing and it should be eliminated? If so, for goodness sake, don't be coy, come out and say so! If you think it's a good thing, then perhaps you ought to think twice about your tone with me about the issue, eh? You would be criticizing me for being honest about holding a belief that you agree with, wouldn't you? That would be going a long way to try to smear somebody, don't you think, I mean to smear somebody for agreeing with you is going a bit far, isn't it? It is the tactic of choice for the Republicans right now, isn't it? Make up your mind about your thoughts on the subject, so that we can talk about the issue straight on, if you will. You confuse me about which position you're taking, and you seem to be attempting to take both at the same time. "My Democratic cronies?" Mike? When I heard that, I began to get the vapors. My "Democratic Cronies" are hanging out with your "Republican minions" and all the other "running dogs of capitalism," doing the "bidding" of your "Wall Street Masters." Democratic Cronies. Next I'll be a "fellow Traveler" if I don't watch out. Me and "Hanoi Jane" and all the rest of those darn protesters. Goodness gracious, Mike, I do believe I've misplaced my smelling salts. "Cronies!" I don't think Gore is an example, by the way. In this country, you don't actually have to win your own state to win the Presidency, though you'd think it would be so. This may have been left of our your civics lessons when you were a kid, since you seem to think differently today. I am one of the folks who think that the Republicans stole two election for the Presidency, by the way, but I think that's off the subject here unless you can think of some way to make it interesting to everybody else. Basically, I think the discussion has been beaten to death. If you want to talk about it, open up another thread, and I'll put at least a little energy into it, if you'll keep to the topic. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you connect these things. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The bill is there and has been there for anybody to look at for as long as you've been talking about it not being there. You may keep up with it or not, as you choose. Don't pretend it's locked away in a vault someplace. The Republicans are not involved because they don't choose to be involved other than to slow things down until they can make sure that no bill passes on the subject except one that continues the status quo. Ah, Bob, you live in a world of denial. The bits and pieces have been there but the final actions of putting together the bill has been nowhere except for the vault behind closed doors you claim doesn't exist, the one the Republicans are not involved in because it was by invitation only, no democrats, no C-span and no press. The question isn't who instituted it, I'll agree but your earlier comment seems to point toward republicans as it's creators. That makes the question valid. Suggesting that a bill that affects 1/6th the GNP is worth filibustering certainly is not my call. No, but apparently suggesting that it is not is your call. Suggesting tha such a bill with such ramifications is not worthy of achieving filabuster status is quite a statement. I would want to know why the Party that says it's for financial conservatism wants to scuttle a money saving bill of this magnitude. Simple. No one believes that it is a money-saving bill. They don't go with the trumped-up, unrealistic figures Obama has tried to get them to digest. They believe it will be the same scenario as the stimulus package where Obama claimed the unemployment rate wouldn't pass 8% and, when it did, he simply claimed extenuating circumstances beyond his control and looked for others to lay the blame on. How can I say that? Look at the polls of thousands who states that the bill would indeed cost Americans more. You want to insult the republicans for not buying this dog and pony show? Be my guest. My thinking is that The Republicans are trying to take over health care for the Insurance industry, and that they've duped the democrats into going along. Actually, the republicans have shown nothing to indicate they want to take over health care. They don't WANT the government, or the democrats, to take it over at all, hence the opposition. While I acknowledge it is not difficult to dupe democrats, I suppose what you are trying to say here is that democrats didn't want to take over health care - they were fooled by republicans into trying to take it over. I shall look for a planet named Denial so I can get a glimpse of your home. You seem to keep coming back to the fact that I am honest about saying that I don't think the filibuster is in itself a bad thing. That's true, I don't, only abuse of the tactic. Why do you keep coming back to this statement of mine? Simple enough. You claim it's not a bad thing but unworthy of being used on the largest and most impactful bill in our recent history. You denounce the use of it while claiming it is an acceptable tool. In this country, you don't actually have to win your own state to win the Presidency, though you'd think it would be so. Good attempt at a twist....well, actually it's not. My point was that, if Gore had carried his own state, he would have won. Those were the people who know him best. Instead of bemoaning the fact that he couldn't even carry his own state, they decided to go after hanging chads and the court system. The health care vote is the same. Instead of recognizing that they can't even win over their own fellow democrats, they blame the republicans for their ineffectuality. I understand that you will continue to deny there is any comparison and that's ok. Anyone else reading these entries (if there are any still foolish enough to do so) will make the connection. Make up your mind about your thoughts on the subject, so that we can talk about the issue straight on, if you will. You have shown you are not interested in talking about issues straight on, Bob. You are exercizing damage control for a party that has really screwed things up and are spinning out of control. I understand that that's what you have to do and symphathize with your position but playing dodgeball is not talking straight. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The current government's interest is in controlling the outrageous profits of the insurance industry Really? If you check the profits of the major industries in the United States, you will find that the insurance company does not even come close to leading that list. They DO make big profits, I'll grant you and you will not find me rising to their defence, but you avoid the actual point. The government can control the profits without taking over the health care system...which is their only goal. I understand that, to get power in their favor, democrats bring out the "bad guys".....insurance companies, the rich, the successful companies, the banks...anyone who can raise the ire of the lower classes...nothing new there. How about lobbyists abd special interests, Bob? Seems to me one of Obama's changes was to boot them out or, at least, control them (while he wasn't taking money from them for his camopaign). How's that change been going? HAMPTON, NH -- Health insurers block progress toward universal health care. Big Oil corrupts our energy policy. Banks and lenders make money on the backs of college students forced to repay huge loans. Agribusiness benefits from government subsidies at the expense of small farms. This was Barack Obama's populist message this morning at the Adeline C. Marston Elementary School here, one of three public campaign stops in the last two days in New Hampshire. To Republicans, casting business as an enemy of change may sound like a tired trope of the left. But Obama laid the blame for inertia on health care, energy independence, and other issues squarely at the feet of select industries and their lobbyists. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/07/obama_big_busin.html[/ URL] There's a great example of bring out the "bad boys". ANd those darned lobbyists? What has he done with them? WASHINGTON — The recession has battered the U.S. economy, but the lobbying industry is humming along in the nation's capital, even for companies that have shed thousands of jobs in the past year. The 20 trade associations and companies that spent the most on lobbying increased their spending by more than 20% in 2009 to $507.7 million, up from $418.2 million a year earlier, according to a USA TODAY analysis of reports compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. The top 20 include oil giant ConocoPhillips, which announced nearly 1,300 layoffs in January 2009, and drugmaker Pfizer, which shed 4,200 jobs since completing its merger with drug company Wyeth last fall. [URL=http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-04-lobbying_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+%28News+-+ Washi]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-04-lobbying_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+%28News+- +Washi ngton+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo Wow....not going to well, it seems. Obama will have to find someone to blame for that, too. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
A pity the Bush Administration chose to spend the trillion that would have paid for the proposed healthcare program for the next ten year on killing people in Iraq. And, the last time I checked, the projected cost of care for wounded troops would be in that same trillion dollar range. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health-care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a “jobs bill.” This being a democracy, don’t the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don’t they understand Massachusetts? Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid, and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.” http://article.nationalreview.com/423992/the-great-peasant-revolt-of-2010/charles-krauthammer . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear John, Interesting to know what the National Review thinks, but I do actually have a look at them from time to time. The onlyu chance I get to know what you think is here. Sometimes your opinions take me by surprise, and I learn something from them. I find The National Review predictably savage about those who disagree with them and slow to offer new insight into conservative thinking that allows me to understand it. Some things about George Herbert Walker Bush I thought were thoughtful and decent, especially his willingness to raise taxes and put his Presidency on the line at the end of his administration. Some things about President Clinton, I don't particularly admire in retrospect, for example I'm not sure that his trade agreements were all that good for the country. I try not to dismiss along party lines, though I am clearly a Liberal. I can understand the occasional commentless quotation, but I'm really more interested in what you think. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Perhaps you missed the place where I actually said that I didn't know who instituted it. It came before I said "The question isn't who instituted it" If you could in fact point out to me the place where I actually said the Republicans did any such thing, I'll correct that. As for your inference, if you can show me the words I used that prompted you to draw that inference, I shall attempt to address that more directly. I do not like to be unclear. Have we clarified this? To be absolutely clear, the Republicans have used only the threat of filibuster so far. The Democrats have shown a notable lack of spine by refusing to call them on it. The Republicans would then actually have to make a decision as to where their actual interests were. They would have to decide whether they were willing to hold up the business of the country for an indefinite amount of time during a time a war and financial crisis, or whether they would either pass the bill or negotiate in good faith. I believe that the Democrats should call their bluff and stop p;laying softball, allowing themselves to be jerked around by a threat that the Republican keep pulling out of their pockets like it were garlic for use against vampires. I think the tactic stinks that badly, and the Republicans need to understand that it is a two edged sword, that can cut just as deeply in either direction. The last time it was used was by Newt Gingrich on the budget against President Clinton. Gingrich was voted out of office and the Republicans became, at least briefly, very unpopular. It may happen again, it may work the other way. In either situation it is a stupid threat, and the Democrats are stupid to react to it in this way, by caving in to it. quote: Fox cut away from the President's telecasted session with the House Republicans. They tried to sneak this one by him then, too. Unfortunately, he nailed them with his response. The trumped up figures are apparently accurate, and have been fact checked. The plans that the Republicans have proposed have apparently not gotten by the fact checkers and nobody among the house Republicans could come up with word one or fact one face to face with his to disprove him. He confronted them about it on national TV and the whole bunch of them backed down. They had zip to say about that. Nada. Nothing. They changed the subject. But as a Fox news watcher, you probably didn't see that. Fox probably didn't think it was fair to show you that. As for the thousands who didn't buy that in polls, I'd like to remind you that there is a substantial divide between opinion and fact. Opinion can vary dramatically over time. Fact tends to pretty much stay the same. For you to offer a matter of opinion as a way of addressing a matter of fact is a category mistake, like trying to stuff a pocket patch into the coin slot of a gum ball machine. It might be a very valuable and interesting pocket watch, but the gum ball machine won't give you a gum ball for it. quote: Please forgive me in advance, but with a set-up like you're providing a ham like me, this simply must be said, Mike. NO, MIKE, YOU'RE WRONG. DE NILE IS A RIVER IN EGYPT. Had to get that out of my system. Forgive me. On a more serious note, my understanding is that the bill as it reads now, wants a single payer option available for people who do not have any insurance right now. The government will be the folks who will be that insurer. The government will serve as the insurance company for those people. For this to be a takeover of the health care system, the government would have to be owning hospitals, equipment, be employing the doctors, the pharmacists, the whole health care system. The legislation suggests that the government only function as one health insurance carrier among many, and then only for people who have no other health care at all. People with other health care couldn't get it. You would be able to continue your current health care insurance as long as you want. This would cost money. It wouldn't be free. It's a lot less than what I, for one, would like; but that's all that I understand to be on the table, and this is what I understand the Republicans to be furious about. I am willing to be corrected by any of my Republican friends. If Grinch, the ever helpful and informed, has information about this, I'd welcome that as well. The insurance Companies want a lot more than this in the other direction, and they seem to be very much on the road to getting it. I'd be interested if other people would care to contribute any information they have about what the insurance companies have to gain from this legislation. I have no desire to call Mike any names around this. I do have a desire to get our facts straight and to come out from the partisan masks and to look at what the country needs in the matter. That much, I believe we all agree on. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
