Democrats & Liberals Archives

My Glenn-Beckian Rant

Sadly, one of our most highly regarded Comedians has fallen ill, and Jon Stewart offers his tribute. Oh, you mean he’s actually serious about that stuff? Well, I shall offer tribute by going unhinged myself, because I… I… [puts hand to mouth] I… [wait for it] just love this country! And I don’t want THEM to destroy it!

But seriously, fellows. I am mad as hell nowadays. And I am not so mad at the Democrats as some Republicans might hope that I am. Why? Because I got used to compromise and disappointment long ago. And you know something? If the Republican blockade of the Senate weren't continuing to prevent anything of consequence from being done, I might be open to occasional deals and moderate compromises to further my party's agenda, and do it moderately.

But why be so lacking in ambition, if it's not going to change Republican minds or votes? Why hold back those who are saying we should just beat the crap out of the other party and show no mercy? What's the point to being bipartisan if you're just going to get taken advantage of?

Grover Norquist defined bipartisanship as date rape. And no, he wasn't some party functionary hidden in a backwoods district, this is a mainstream political figure in the party.

So far, the Republican Party has agreed with its definition.

Yeah, I'm bitter. And no, it's not wrong to be bitter sometimes. What makes me bitter is that the Republicans think they can put history on hold while they're trying to save this country from the rest of us. Yes, al-Qaeda will agree not to attack, the market will agree to remain stable, unemployment will agree to level off and go down, and all the fixes we need now will agree not to become catastrophic problems until later.

I never thought politicians could be so cold-blooded about how they ran government. It's bloody arrogant of them. And no, it's not arrogant for a majority to act like it's got a mandate. Especially when that majority shows a willingness to compromise from the start. We waited weeks, and then months to see if we couldn't satisfy some Republican concerns, and pass an at least somewhat bipartisan healthcare bill. We talked and talked, and talked, and they managed to stall us right past August, because it was so important.

Then they decided to just royally screw us. Unleash those ignorant, belligerent, talking point slogan shouting yahoos who thought they were entitled to shut down every discussion that didn't go their way.

And yes, they might be the smartest people in the room. They could be the most polite and gentle souls when you really get to know them. And they might be good people who know an awful lot. But sadly, that's not the message they sent with their behavior. They used ferociously bad logic. They cited facts that weren't facts, but blatant myths. They used language and demonstrated attitudes that showed clear disrespect and contempt for the other folks in the room. And worse, their methods were built on generating irrational fears, and playing on people's herd instincts. Death Panels. Nazi-ism. Socialism. The prospect of universal healthcare becoming the complete destruction of Democracy, despite the fact that several sane and stable European Countries manage to achieve it without becoming fascist dictatorships.

How could the debate get so God-forsaken stupid, so disconnected from reality? The Right seems fully prepared nowadays to let their imagination runaway itself in order to justify a hardline political strategy that requires every Republican to vote to maintain a blockade of Democratic party legislation in the Senate. And that seems to be reason why we're seeing people making the outlandish claim that somehow, the world ends if healthcare reform passes. You can't keep things like this up on rational thought and sensible intuition. Irrational, bloody-minded, unyielding fear and hatred of the alternative is the high-octane emotional fuel needed for this kind of uncompromising resistance. It's no coincidence that the Republicans are saying the things they are and doing the things they are together. The fear and hatred justifies the filibusters and obstruction.

Otherwise, people start asking after other things.

Like their interests. Or maybe they start thinking for themselves, a dangerous thing because it might lead to agreement. And then, of all things, you might have Republican Senators pressured to vote as their states want them to vote. And you might have people offering the opinion they'd organically come to, rather than the one that all the fear and insanity drives them necessarily towards. If Death Panels aren't in the bill, how do you like not having recissions or pre-existing conditions denying you coverage or the fulfillment of a claim? If Abortion funding by the federal government isn't there, how do you like not having pregnancy or a fat baby deny you healthcare.

If illegal immigrants cannot legally seek coverage, why not have a public option, an optional, public, government-run plan (like the Medicare Tea Partisans ask government to keep its hands off of), which uses the goverment's bargaining power to drag down your costs?

And that's just healthcare. How about jobs? Republicans complain that the recovery going on currently is meaningless because government stimulus funding is responsible for many of the upticks. Then they turn around and say the stimulus doesn't work. Come here, so you can hear me properly: that's the point of a stimulus. More people bought houses, bought cars, because the money was put out there. Teachers are keeping their jobs and classrooms are remaining open and not overcrowded for that reason, too. Other benefits will accrue to us from these funds.

Do Republicans want more? No. They want private companies to take up the slack. Well, are they? The Banks, despite our generosity, aren't lending. They're still uncertain about their nice, deregulated market which unencumbered by government intrusion still managed to screw itself up. Why? Because some people just like to make money for no damn reason, rather than, say, earning it doing a service or providing a good for somebody else. Will they give more tax cuts to the people who already got lots of tax cuts and laid off people anyways? We sunk trillions dollars of our money into the pockets of the top few percent of earners, because of the deliberate structuring of the tax code to favor the upper economic classes, and employment steadily declined under Bush and the Republicans anyways.

We'll spend trillions of dollars for a war that will leave America weaker. Trillions of dollars for tax cuts that will make some richer, and many of us no better oof. Trillions to pay insurance companies to do Medicare's administration for it, trillions for a drug benefit where the government was explicitly forbidden from bargaining lower prices.

But spend less than a trillion over ten years to ensure more Americans and drive down costs that will take trillions a year out of American politics? Why, those tax and spend liberals are at it again. Never mind it's mostly paid for by money we've already got!

Everything, it seems, has to be translated through some utterly moronic political language, where the reality of some thing, or some program is completely ignored for the sake of the desired response from the voter.

Accountability goes out the window, when we're asked to vote in response to a fiction, a lie, a manipulation of the facts.

The Republican Blockade cannot last forever. Sooner or later, something's got to give. It's main purpose is 2010. The Republicans want to replay 1994, and get back their majority. They want to get back their majority, so the Liberal Agenda goes no further. It doesn't matter to them that people voted for change. Change is their enemy, the enemy this blockade is meant to defeat. But change is what most Americans want, by a wide margin. No matter what position folks are on, with most issues, most agree they think that the Country's on the wrong track, and that's been the case since 2003-4 more or less. Americans look at the situation we are in right now, they have been saying they don't want to be in it any longer.

The Republican plan seems to be to wait people out, convince them of the futility of further action, convince them of the inevitability of the conservatives being right, scaring them about the unknown world that lies beyond their change from the Republican status quo, and generally defeating American's wish to change the policies currently in place. The Republicans are trying to starve us of our willingness to upend the current system, despite the destruction it wreaks on our interests.

And yes, some Democrats are part of that coalition. But they are feelilng the constant and withering disapproval of their voters. The Republicans seem to believe they are entitled to return the order of things to its proper place, in their view.

But what entitles them to that? They lost two elections fighting change, fighting America's wish to take its policies in another direction than theirs. The message from voters has been clear.

So instead, the Republicans are twisting that, and trying to portray themselves as newly redeemed. Yet still, they maintain their blockade against the party elected to change things. Still they continue their efforts to starve Americans of the will to move their country in another direction. Still they try to turn the rage and fear and discontent against somebody else.

We went through years, as I recall it, of people venting their discontent like that. And it only made things worse. We saw Appalachian Reagan Democrats vote for the people who, in their conservatism, would help send their jobs overseas. We see Hunters vote for the very visible gun lobby whose rhetoric, rather than calming fears about gun-owners, turns them into the threat around the corner. We see religious people vote for folks who scold those who try to do good for others with the government as sentimental. We see folks who enjoy their outdoors vote for the people who fill it with toxic wastes and cause the climate change that will undo the fabric of the natural world they appreciate.

I think the time has come to understand that the discrepancies between what we think will come of these votes and what does isn't merely the result of an unfinished process of a counterintuitive character, but an ongoing process of a simple character that we were in emotionally driven denial over.

No, the rich folks aren't going to spontaneously and naturally get generous with the rest of us, against their own interests. No, corporations are not going to suddenly give up on their legally required self-interests either, not unless the law compells them.

And no, the stockbrokers aren't going to sudden start behaving right just because somebody the Republicans aren't calling a communist is elected. Who the hell should believe that the Republicans are going to rein in their friends on Wall Street the way they didn't do in the Nineties, didn't do after Enron, and sure as hell didn't do in the years preceding 2008's catastrophic collapse?

Who thinks that the system's going to collapse gracefully, if allowed to, when just letting Lehman Brothers go down brought this system to its knees?

Who thinks that failing to regulate, failing to put safeguards and rules of the road back into play will lead us anywhere else but where we started?

Let's stop being sentimental here! Let's stop being such cowards! Let's stop discussing the beliefs of Marxists, and let's start discussing the actions of Merril Lynch, and what we can do to prevent such misbehavior from occuring again! We let the market and other things, other symbolic means by which we manage our affairs become dependent on signs and symbols that had less to do with our reality, and more to do with folks wanting to get something for nothing, whether that is political power, which the Republicans have done nothing to earn, or wealth, which the investment firms and banks have done little constructive in the economy to deserve.

Let's admit to ourselves that when a system says you've got to cater to the interests of the richest and most powerful in society to do good for that society, that it's not a populist or egalitarian system. It's eltist.

The current system of economic and political power is set up on the notion, right now, that most people are clueless, and don't deserve the power to set the rules for themselves. Oh, we can't trust it when people want more government. It has to be stopped, or it will be like Nazi Germany. Or, of course, if we set limits on how people can make their money, even after one of the most catastrophic economic failures in our nation's history, it's all going down on slippery slope to Soviet communism. Nothing must change, or everything goes to hell!

Well damn it, we're already close it seems, and most of us don't want to get any closer, and I think it's high time we go after the people who are really keeping us this close to ruin and chaos, the folks who are really doing this country harm with their policies and their obstruction of the alternatives. We are right to be disappointed in some of the Democrats, and to a certain extent, Obama. But if you hate that things haven't changed, or fear the fact that they have gotten worse, the folks you need to talk to are the people that are telling you that you can't do anything but wait, go back, and reconsider your desire for change.

It's the people who are doing everything they can to defend a lousy status quo who need to answer to the voters.

We as a people, need to stop fearing change, stop fearing the government that belongs to us, and start responding to the legitimate fears out there of what happens if we simply do nothing. We have restrained ourselves from taking necessary measures for too long to correct our society and our economy. Now's the time to stop letting a bunch of do-nothing, let nobody else do anything politicians scare us out of what's rightfully ours. Now's the time to reach for our birthright, a government of the people, for the people, by the people that responds to our national interests, and helps serve the average American in their interests. That is what Democracy is about. That is what our Republic is about. When we want the status quo, we have a right to ask for it from the government. And when we want change, and we ask for change, that's what we should get, not the most stubborn foot-dragging that the senate has seen in its entire history.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2009 3:51 PM
Comment #290363


Wow!! It looks like it’s dawned on you that you aren’t going to get all you want from Obama and the Democrat majority.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 6, 2009 5:35 PM
Comment #290364


You’ve sold it long enough and often enough…if that means you’ve won, what’s the prize?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 6, 2009 5:52 PM
Comment #290365

Heroes and Villains. Now the other side will respond with word games. Eff the duopoly.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 6, 2009 5:58 PM
Comment #290371


The prize is giving my grandchildren the same opportunities you and I have had in our lifetime.
Allowing them to to have a realistic chance of properity without the burden of an over intrusive government.

I would like them to not be burdened with a tax rate that keeps them from enjoying the fruits of their labor.

I want them to inherit a country that is not sufficating in debt.

There is plenty of money now in the system to provide for the less fortunate we just have to reoganize our priorities.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 6, 2009 6:21 PM
Comment #290375

Craig Holmes-
So much happened during the Bush Administration along these very lines. We asked you, “What about fiscal conservatism? What about deficits?” and Bush gave out trillion dollar tax cuts, the first in American history during wartime.

Nothing personal. I don’t doubt your concern for your children’s future. In fact, I think that’s their hook into people who are actually responsible, who have good intentions. But your concern is misplaced.

If we don’t get out of this economic mess fast enough, if we don’t reform healthcare, those are costs your children will bear. Already, the new generation comes into Obama’s administration having shouldered the costs of Bush and the Republican Congress’s reckless spending.

So, when many of those same congresscritters come crawling around and start shooting down needed reforms and economic stimulus packages, when they oppose anything but their ideologically preferred spending cuts as a means to deal with a huge deficits, you’ll have to forgive me when I doubt their intentions.

You got to ask the question, the way the trends are going in this society, towards greater healthcare costs, towards chronic unemployment, towards greater inequality between rich and poor, fewer benefits and more uncertain entitlements, whether taking the Republican’s course of action, which is to demand Conservative purism from everybody, or nothing gets through, will help the country.

Duopoly. Do you expect to inspire people with such jargon? And does calling the two parties a duopoly change one policy?

The most that cynicism within and around the parties has done is habituate people to mediocrity in government.

What party is in control should be secondary to once concern: is the Government doing right by its people. I don’t think the two party system is what’s preventing better behavior, because we’ve seen better from this system in decades past.

No, we have to get past the notion that cynicism about government is wisdom, that expecting the worse and doing little about it out of a sense of futility only guarantees increasingly offensive behavior further on down the road.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2009 7:04 PM
Comment #290380


Don’t accept the premise of your response that I’m for the Republican way, in fact it is obvious that we can’t trust either political party very far.

You got to ask the question, the way the trends are going in this society, towards greater healthcare costs, towards chronic unemployment, towards greater inequality between rich and poor, fewer benefits and more uncertain entitlements, whether taking the Republican’s course of action, which is to demand Conservative purism from everybody, or nothing gets through, will help the country.

I’m not for conservative purism any more than I am for your agenda, or the current liberal agenda. To suggest that spending stay within historical means is hardly “conservative purism”, but rather a budget.

I agree with you about income inequality. However I would note that wealth inequality as a problem has been sharply reduced in the last year due to the real estate and stock markets declining. Wealth Inequality declined in the 1930’s.

The American people are center right, and center right policies over the decades have provided a great economy and society. There is no reason to abandon what we know works and jerk society hard to the left as current Democrats are doing.

Look at the polls of people that now think Obama liberal.

So Americans are center right in their policies but most believe obama’s POLICIES are liberal.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 6, 2009 9:20 PM
Comment #290384

“Do you expect to inspire people with such jargon?”
I don’t expect to inspire people at all. I’m not particularly interested in being a motivational speaker. I expect people to be able to think for themselves and figure things out. You don’t even have to be well-educated for that, just observant of the world around you. You’re promoting a hero and villain scenario for politicians. None of them are heroes. Very few are not villains.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 6, 2009 10:02 PM
Comment #290385


we have to get past the notion that cynicism about government is wisdom,

Sorry, can’t go with you on that one. Cynicism about government is at the very heart of being an American. That is what founded our country, and is at the very heart of the declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 7, 2009 12:45 AM
Comment #290386

What kind of patriot does a cynic make?

cyn·i·cism (sĭn’ĭ-sĭz’əm) n. An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others: the public cynicism aroused by governmental scandals.

A scornfully or jadedly negative comment or act: “She arrived at a philosophy of her own, all made up of her private notations and cynicisms” (Henry James).

Cynicism The beliefs of the ancient Cynics

What does the average cynic actually believe in, and why would one want to brag about being one?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2009 5:13 AM
Comment #290387


There were some very real reasons and purposes behind our founding documents…cynicism may have played a part, but it’s unlikely to have created a nation. Republican cynicism, a on the other hand, may very well have brought that nation to its knees.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2009 5:17 AM
Comment #290388


“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union…”

Now, there’s a statement that was put down on paper by a cynic, if I ever read one…:)

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2009 5:21 AM
Comment #290396

While unemployment is a lagging indicator, it is actually rising, not declining or leveling off.

There may be other things not so stable about our economy.

Posted by: gergle at November 7, 2009 7:50 AM
Comment #290400


What kind of patriot does a cynic make?

Here are some quotes from some of the best:

Thomas Paine: ”even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

George Washington: ”Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Thomas Jefferson: When, “the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 7, 2009 9:41 AM
Comment #290401


“I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.” Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 7, 2009 10:23 AM
Comment #290404

Sorry Mr. Daugherty…you lost my attention after your first few paragraphs. Nothing new or enlightening in your prose…same old stuff.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 7, 2009 11:42 AM
Comment #290406

The Democrats are directly responsable for the creation of Glen Beck and the New Republican Party. How did the Democrats do this? One word, bipartisanship. The Democrats were so good at bipartisanship that they have stolen the Republican Party’s reason for existing.

The Republicans were supposed to be the party of corporate greed. They were supposed to get the bulk of those corporate dollars. They were supposed to be the party of trickle down.

The Democrats took most of this away from the Republicans. The Democrats have forced the Republicans into a corner, forced them to find another reason for existing. Well, they found one, they are now the Save White America Party.

Posted by: jlw at November 7, 2009 12:34 PM
Comment #290416


So you believe the basic tenant of being Republican is being a racist?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 7, 2009 2:32 PM
Comment #290417

republicans should be asking themselves why. why do their leaders want them to live in constant fear. a good way to control a population is to instill fear. aren’t the repubs tired of being controlled?

holmes - enough w/the polls.

stephen dead on again!

Posted by: bluebuss at November 7, 2009 3:15 PM
Comment #290421

While cynicism rarely builds anything, it often keeps things that are built from collapsing.

Posted by: gergle at November 7, 2009 4:24 PM
Comment #290422

Craig Holmes-
I think the folks who run your party say one thing, but they do other things that speak in contradiction.

Bush ran on an essentially center-right platform, and almost lost in 2000. Gore ran on a center-left platform. Almost won. We put the most Massachussetts of Massachussetts liberals up there, and he almost won. Bush, again, almost lost, again winning on a couple of swing states.

We run a Democrat who boldly proclaimed himself that, and he gets better than fifty precent of the vote, several million more than his competitor. And we get two good elections in a row.

Even this election, A historically Republican district (as in Republican back in the days when the Republicans were just starting) just went to the Democrats.

You folks haven’t won a special election campaign in years. We’ve gotten them all.

I will not say my party doesn’t have challenges, but I think but for Republican efforts, we’d probably be further along in dealing with those issues. We know what side our bread is buttered on. Democrats were elected to reform Washington, not sit there and do nothing. All the Republicans have done is sit around, carp, and rejected anything the Democrats were trying to do, from the Stimulus Bill to the Healthcare Reform being debated in the House.

They’ve been more about sabotaging the Democrats than being better problem solvers than them.

But you can’t solve a problem with a bill, or with a proposal, if your only purpose is to be a problem for the majority party. Sure, it means the majority party will pass a lot, but then it will be a lot easier to blame them for things if their mistakes are acts of commission, rather than simply failures to get legislation passed over an obstructive minority. The Republicans can at least say they did something, or they voted against it, or they could say they acted in their constituents interests.

To Everybody-
I think the thing to keep in mind here is that I’m primarily policy-focused.

I put out so much flak out against cynicism, because I see a whole lot of stupid things done, and allowed to be done for the sake of that cynicism. I see people give up rights, give up fights against corruption, resign themselves to idiocy in their government all on account of the idea that it’s just impossible to change things, that things are always going to go to crap.

That cynicism, in my book, is just learned helplessness. You don’t do anything, millions of other people don’t do anything, and when that happens, naturally, the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling. What can’t be done ultimately can’t be done, with all those people failing to believe it’s possible, and therefore doing nothing.

I’m not one of those “power of positive thinking” folks. I don’t believe you can just do anything just by believing you can. I don’t think things work that way. You have to do the hard work as well. You can’t just be an architect with a grand vision, you have to be an engineer with a notion of how it’s going to come together, how you’re going to get what you want.

And you’re going to have to humble yourself before the nature of what you’re trying to change. But part of that humility is not believing out of positive or negative preconceived ideas of things that you know all possible outcomes, that you can keep your eyes closed, and make up your mind about how things will turn out, and that it will happen in line with your expectations.

We obviously don’t want to work towards things getting worse. So, of course, we set out to make things work for the better. Simple calculation there. But we got to be looking for the chances, the opportunities for that better outcome to arise. We have to work out how to get that, and revise our plans accordingly, but when all is said and done, we should start out with the belief that there are opportunities for better and brighter days possible, if we only look and find the path to follow.

That’s why it also strikes me as pitiable when I hear the Republicans responding to their loss as if it’s the end of the world, as if the Country’s going to go the way of Nazi Germany. I would be ashamed to have that little faith in American Democracy, or to try and convince people to be that fearful for it.

Even in the darkest days of Bush’s violations of American civil liberties, I held fast to the notion that ours is a nation that is perfectable and redeemable, that no matter what our politics is, we can see better days. Not that this meant that I wouldn’t fight the SOB on warrantless wiretapping! No, it meant I felt compelled to do it, because it seemed pointless and depressing to me to just accept it, not when I believed our country was capable of doing better.

If I am angry, I am angry because I know that what I seek is possible, that it can be done in a way that won’t bankrupt this country, and that even if the policy we first come up with is wrong, that better policy can be brought about in its place.

But that’s only if we don’t give up first.

The Trouble with the Republicans, which I have at this point, is that they’re always asking people like me to give up, to look at the odds, long or short, and consider things impossible. Look at this poll, they say, Healthcare reform is doomed!

Here’s what I think: Good policy is its own best PR. You only really have to lay the spin on thick when these things aren’t working. My aim is to see the folks I’ve helped put in charge do the best job they can, and put the best policy forward, and then let that speak for itself.

If it doesn’t work, I’m not going to insist on having it continue. Such insistence is a large part of what cost Republicans their majority. I want liberalism to work, to be popular. I don’t want to have to explain why a bad thing isn’t such a bad thing. That’s pointless. I want a good thing done, even at political cost. I admire Bush Sr. for moving to raise taxes when he had to to avoid bigger deficits. He did the country a service. It cost him an election, but what did his son winning his re-election cost America?

Elections have consequences. What I wrote above, I wrote because I am sick and tired of the Republicans refusing to recognize the verdict of the American political system. I’m sick and tired of them expecting the rest of us to sit down and shut up, even after we’ve won a clear majority in Congress.

The voters have spoken. Why aren’t the Republicans listening? If they hate the outcome, then let that be a lesson to them: be practical, be honest rather than corrupt, pay attention to the needs of America, rather than arrogantly pronounce that they need to get over it. When they do what it takes to get back into the voter’s good graces on honest terms, then they’ll have a solid basis for a majority that will do America good.

For the time being, though, Republicans in Washington just want to win at all costs, and Americans are suffering for that. The time has come for the GOP to stop digging itself in deeper, and for them to make peace with the rest of us, and a nation that is not too positive about them or their ideas right now.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 7, 2009 5:00 PM
Comment #290432


I understand your feelings about Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans. I have the same feelings about the far left with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and those from the dailykos. I think it is important that extremist form both sides do not long keep power. So right now, it’s as important to defeat what is happening in Washington as it would be if Rush Limbaugh were in charge. Both are out of touch with Americans.

There is a reason why Reid and Pelosi and Rush Limbaugh all rank about the same in political polls.

Because you have such a hatred of Republicans I assume you must be very close to Reid and Pelosi politically because you sound so much like them. Are you a big fan of the dailykos and

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 7, 2009 8:04 PM
Comment #290434


Wow!! lots of hate there!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 7, 2009 8:33 PM
Comment #290442

Were you a fan of Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, whatisname and the other guy? You speak as if Pelosi and Reid have horns. They have gained their leadership rolls the same way all who have gone before have done so…where’s the beef?

If you are trying to place those two in the same category as your right wing shouters, moaners and stonewallers…better luck next time.

Name another house leader who has faced a more daunting task, and handled it better. For one thing, I can’t remember one facing a more daunting task, and I sure can’t remember one who has handled a difficult task with more alacrity and courage.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 8, 2009 8:28 AM
Comment #290444

I got a robo-call last night…”are you a registered voter? Yes. “Are you in agreement with raing taxes to pay for abortions in the new health care bill?” WTF!!!???? Do you guys not see that the old mantra of fearmongering via threats of raising taxes does not work?
Craig, are you happy with insurance companies holding your health care hostage that they may line their pockets? Do you not want competition in health care? In my state, only two companies can operate…very cozy. My $800 dollar a month policy has a $2500 deductible. I pay and pay and pay….ad nauseum. I am ready for some change.

When Rhode Island made liability insurance mandatory for drivers, I was pissed!! The f&^%!ng government telling me what to do!!! But now…..seems like the rates have come down. By FIFTY PERCENT!!!! Hmmmm. But that couldn’t happen to health insurance……right? Sheesh….:(

Posted by: steve miller at November 8, 2009 10:42 AM
Comment #290445

Craig Holmes-
First post: What far left? Harry Reid has been a doormat most of his time there, and he’s part of a coalition of more conservative and centrist Democrats. I know your people throw around that term far-left with abandon, but those folks don’t qualify. You don’t see communists and socialists dominating in the Senate or the House. If you want to see where our politics are, just look at what happened with the Stupak amendment. How does that happen in a far-left Congress?

I don’t hate Republicans. I just hate how they run their party. I left the party in the first place, because I could never see the end of the resentment and the antagonism that the party seemed to be developing. There weren’t enough voices saying, “hold back” or “you shouldn’t say that.” I know some feel that such political incorrectness is honesty, but sometimes what we don’t say and don’t do is what marks us as moderates.

I don’t see Republican holding themselves back on much of anything, politically speaking. Holding the Congress hostage for the last few years seems to me to be the kind of thing a party does when it knows most people in the Country don’t agree with it, but they don’t want to let go of their power over policy. However well-intentioned or cynical it may be, it’s wrong, and should stop. Adult Americans of sound mind and judgment made the decision of where they wanted this country to go, and last year, they put an emphatic confirmation of their last judgment.

And this year, you folks tried to make people accept a far right candidate over a moderate, and they rejected you, just as they’ve rejected you in most special election campaigns despite your best efforts and fiercest rhetoric.

I hate that the Republicans can’t let go, that they’re perverting the system to require numbers to pass things that were never supposed to be necessary.

Sooner or later, you folks will have to let something get past you, or there will come a point where the voters prove that the Republican party still has a lot to lose. Do you want to push them to that point?

What are the the enemies I list in that Kos Diary?

Cynical policy and political decisions. Hypocritical ideology. Harmful policy that is allowed to continue for the sake of appearances with those who would find themselves held accountable if they let the water stand still long enough to unmuddy.

I have long been a politically expressive person, but I didn’t put myself out there like I have these last few years, until I was confronted by the absolutely terrible policy decisions of the Republican Party, Bush in particular.

Things aren’t that complicated with me. I want stuff to work right, policy to do what it is supposed to do. Thus, a war policy that’s playing a losing game isn’t going to earn praise from me. Fiscal policy that skyrockets the deficit without a truly emergent emergency to blame is another. How many times do we have to do tax cuts and see deficits rise when we do them to get that it’s a bad idea to cut taxes without taking the political risk of the spending cuts to match? When are we going to realize that uncomfortable as it is, we might just need to raise taxes by a certain amount sometimes?

It seems like we’re not allowed to say that conservative ideas failed their tests. Whether it’s a war policy that allows violence to escalate, a fiscal policy that raises the debt, or an economic policy that allows the market to spend wildly out of control multiple times, we are not permitted by the right to lay these policy choices down as discredited.

If nothing else, that is what I hate: when people insist on forcing the rest of us to stick with their mistaken course of action, mostly because of what THEY have to lose.

Whether that’s Republicans blockading the senate, or their Democratic Counterparts who won’t even vote with the party to simply allow the votes to take place, it just seems like these people don’t want us to play our side of the game, on the off-chance that we actually succeed, and make their power obsolete in the process.

I think it’s time for the Republicans to come up with some new ideas, some new strategies, and lay down the cynicism and antagonism that has marked the party since Goldwater and Nixon steered it towards twisting Americans against each other.

I don’t mind conservatism, and in fact have some of my own. But one of my strongest conservative principles is that things should work like they’re supposed to, and that we should read the results of our efforts to see where our efforts should be focused.

I do not hate the Republicans, but their behavior has become reprehensible and radical without the redeeming features of being actually useful to anybody else but them and their politics. America needs conservatives helping the country, not merely being the hole into which everybody else’s efforts fall and are lost. If you know better, like you claim you do, then do better, and maybe you can convince Americans that you folks are the right ones to lead.

But if all you folks can do is hobble everybody else, then what good is the Republican Party and their politics to America?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2009 12:58 PM
Comment #290471


And this year, you folks tried to make people accept a far right candidate over a moderate, and they rejected you, just as they’ve rejected you in most special election campaigns despite your best efforts and fiercest rhetoric.

You realize you are using baiting language. Go into a group of Blacks or Gays and use “you folks” language and see what happens.

It’s used to paint a group with one brush. So here I am one of your “you folks”. My entire adult life I have worked with Democrats locally to get things done. Spent 10 years on a local school board. Got my name on oh I can’t remember about seven different school buildings from being on the board when they were built or remodeled.

Most of my fiercest political battles have been against the far right defending public education. (In fact that is how I got my start in local politics).

I will tell you something I can talk about now that is sort of funny. When I started in public life in 1995, I was debating on a forum like this, and was on a gay/lesbian forum. Of course the religious right would attack them, and I would help defend. (I am a former pastor as well). When I announced for School Board my very first check was from a wonderful gay couple in Texas!! The check had the gay sign on it. I think both are dead now as they were suffering from AIDS.

In the ten years I served as a local elected official not once did I use my faith in legislation although I always prayed for wisdom. What I mean is that I would never say “vote this way because it is the ‘Christian’ thing to do”. I do think “it’s the christian thing to do” to roll up sleaves and get to work however.

What I have found over the years is that I fight two battles. On is against intolerance on the right, (and left), and also against intrustion from the left of too much government.

With you, quite frankly you remind me in tone and tactic to the religious right, and it makes me react. Those “you folks” comments stir up my blood from my previous wars on intolerance.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 8, 2009 7:57 PM
Comment #290472


Pelosi’s approval rating is in the 30’s. The people you speak of don’t speak for me.

Reid and Pelosi were the ones who tried to cut the legs out from under my son as he headed overseas during the surge. “It’s a failure.” Hard to get over watching your son go off the the middle east on a tour and have the leaders of Congress say he is a failure in his mission before he arrives.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 8, 2009 9:05 PM
Comment #290473

Craig Holmes-
Why should I see the face of moderation in yours when you repeat the slanders of the immoderate? On the web, you are what you communicate.

Do you understand the outrage on the left over the Senate Blockade? Do you know how hostile an environment this creates for the moderates and the conservatives of the Democratic Party, much less our opponents? Do you think you can frustrate Democrats forever like this, not merely opposing but denying the chance for Democrats to make the decisions we were elected to make, without repercussions?

Your party’s policies are diminishing the power and influence of politicians in the middle, forcing a hardline on those who could otherwise appeal to folks as moderates.

You focus on Pelosi and Reid because others focus you on them. They are the punching bags for the Right. They are the bad guys.

Yeah, we have our share of bad guys, but here’s the difference: Rush says obnoxious things as a matter of course. So does Glenn Beck, who also seems to add the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia to bargain. And no, I’m serious. Concentration camps, death panels… crap, this stuff was X-Files paranoia ten years ago, and now the Republicans are marketing this as FACT.

It’s like I’m in a perpetual state of shock about what the Republican Party is resorting to in its efforts to put life into a party that’s otherwise lost its drive and enthusiasm. I fear the side effects from this artificial stimulant they’ve pumped into it’s blood, what more this country will have to suffer, to keep the Republican’s relevant the way they are now.

I can’t save the Republican Party from itself, but maybe people like you could. But let me tell you, you’ve got your job cut out for you, and these people in your party are already out to kick you out of it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2009 10:17 PM
Comment #290474

Well, I’m proud of you, Stephen, you are again politically correct, as you have ended the use of the term ‘you folks’. I understood that the term was used because it types faster and easier and uses less space than ‘those of you on the right’, you conservatives’ or ‘damned Republicans’, but no more of that there ‘you folks’ stuff, because it closets those who shout ugly with those who sponsor ugly shouting…you don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings who thinks Nancy Pelosi is a Commie, and Harry Reid is a Nazi.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 8, 2009 11:11 PM
Comment #290478

For another forum as well as a whole website go to:

Posted by: Aaron Hughes at November 9, 2009 7:22 AM
Comment #290483

stephen gore almost won? we see glimpses of your past at times.

steve miller is making the point. this will not collapse our economy. this will not kill 1/6th of our economy. i mean what the hell? we are getting ppl into insurance. we are bringing 40 million into the fold. we are giving insurance companies 40 million more customers. why how dare we kill insurance like that. crazy.

i really do believe that republicans want to take us back to the really old days. where business owned, set up, and ran towns. like dupont village, or plymouth town. where they controlled all facets of one’s life just because they worked for them. you know the funny thing, it was republicans back in the day that set up unions, that protected employees. and now, you have evolved into this? you are willing to control ppl with fear into supporting businesses. what a fall from grace.

you see, back then, the gov’t had to intervene. it had no choice, they had turned their workers into slaves. it was gov’t protection from corporations. and once again, the gov’t has to intervene because the weak and poor need protection. kind of sick - the rich just can not get enough working poor, and sick blood.

republicans you really need to ask yourselves - what is the motive for them to continually scare you? why do they want to control you voice, and thought? why do you listen to those who tell you lies? who rouse fear, and hate.

i always think of the old woman at a mccain rally. unkempt, seemingly poor, and elderly. she had stated “obama is a terrorist”. mccain had corrected her (as he should have), but, how did she get there. she had listened to the glenn becks of this world, and quite frankly, palin the vp republican candidate (and i could go on and on about that, but i think i have already).

now, do you want to live in fear, or look to the future and have hope. i am choosing hope.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 9, 2009 8:40 AM
Comment #290487

craig - want to ask yourselves why the need for gov’t intervention? it is set up so we do not have 5 year olds working in coal mines. even though it seemed like a good fit, i mean they are small, send the 5 year old in.

you know why regulations are needed. stop acting like it’s some kind of evil thing. when in the sunlight - the evil was, and always has been big business.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 9, 2009 9:00 AM
Comment #290490
Do you understand the outrage on the left over the Senate Blockade? Do you know how hostile an environment this creates for the moderates and the conservatives of the Democratic Party, much less our opponents?

Now, that is interesting, considering that the “Senate Blockade” is only possible because the moderates and conservatives of the Democratic Party have joined it.

It would seem that these moderate and conservative Democrats are less worried about “outrage from the left” than outrage from their own moderate and conservative constituents.

As for the opponents of the left, the “outrage of the left” is experiencing is like Christmas come early. That they aren’t getting their way in enacting a leftist agenda and are directing outrage at members of their own party over it, creating schisms that will shortly be exploiting in upcoming elections, is nothing short of delightful.

Do you think you can frustrate Democrats forever like this, not merely opposing but denying the chance for Democrats to make the decisions we were elected to make, without repercussions?

To the first part of your question, yes. To the second part, I think you are missing a comma after “make.” The Democrats were not elected to make decisions without repercussions, and the repercussions of their decisions are already beginning to arrive.

Posted by: Paul at November 9, 2009 10:30 AM
Comment #290499


Democrats have always thought as individuals rather than en bloc or lockstep. That is why we had some who voted for GLB and some who voted for the stupidity in Iraq and the Constitution busting Patriot Act. We have folks on the left who have their own private agendas and constituent needs. The party, for the most part encourages this. We’ve never had to worry about it before, because there were always enough free thinking Republicans to take up the slack on important legislation. So, it’s not a matter of a few turncoat Democrats, they’ve always been around, it’s a matter of…”where are the free thinking Republicans?”

Posted by: Marysdude at November 9, 2009 12:10 PM
Comment #290506

Sixty is a marginal number. It takes just one Democrat to mess up the works.

Providing that one Democrats joins forty Republicans who have been consistently voting no on cloture measures. If even one Republican crosses over, that Democrat just made an ass of themselves.

The Democrats are not enacting a Deliberate political strategy to roadblock their party. The Republicans are. Could you explain to me how else 112 of these votes turned sour the last Congress? Or how hundreds of Obama officials are being held up?

No, you can’t, because you are using a talking point that conveniently takes it for granted that it’s the Democrats fault that the filibusters are working, neglecting the necessity of complete cooperation between Every Republican in the senate to pull this off.

Let me ask you a direct question: If the Democrats had used an identical strategy against the Republicans, what would the Republicans have said about it?

The convenience of the Republican positions should be taken into consideration. When they are on top, filibusters are affront to Democracy- when they are just against a handful of Republican judges. But when the Republicans shut out hundreds of officials from confirmation votes, or blockade the Democrat’s legislative agenda, they’re fighting for it.

Very convenient. Why is it taken for granted by you that whatever the Republican Party says or does is good for the country? That the Democrats are at fault for something where it’s only Republican obstruction that require such a complete party line vote?

Could somebody show me a coherent rationale here, other than the service of Republican Political power, even when it’s arbitrary to the expressed political interests of the nation?

Or are you going to tell me somehow that voters gave Democrats a supermajority to do nothing?

As for the grammar, I used the second clause after the first to elaborate on what the first meant, before going to the second. It could have read,

Do you think you can frustrate Democrats forever like this without repercussions?

But I wanted to define that frustration further. You can recursively redefine your first clause, and then return to the concluding clause.

So, really, do you think the apettite for change has gone away? The unemployment rate’s still going to be there, whether or not Republicans make a comeback. They can play the game of unemployment, but it can also be played against them.

Americans are going to see their energy prices rise, especially if the Republicans have anything to say about it, and certainly, Healthcare costs will rise.

But I guess you’ll try and blame us for that.

Good luck, because the first thing we can say is: we tried. We tried, but these people, who are screwing things up now, got in the way. They did this so they could gull you into voting for them again, so they could reap the rewards of sowing mistrust in the government, at the very time it could have helped.

And it will be all the more powerful for being true. You folks never have let us unfold our agenda, so why should we bear responsibility if it doesn’t work.

If you folks do let us take our chances with the votes, though, you can do two things: encourage conservative and centrist Democrats to cross over to defeat some measures, and if the legislation passes, keep an eye on things to see how they work. Where the policies don’t work, you have real world ammunition to use with voters to get yourself back into power.

But Republicans aren’t thinking that way. They’re thinking political armageddon.

Unfortunately, after this Armageddon, we don’t have the Kingdom of God, we have the United States of America, and it’s still going to have problems. Whoever wins will have to try something to solve them. Democrats are willing and politically able. Republicans are not.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2009 1:41 PM
Comment #290509

Damn it! Stephen, you’re back to being politically incorrect again…that ‘you folks’ is a do-baddy according to some. ;)

Posted by: Marysdude at November 9, 2009 4:12 PM
Comment #290510

geez, i didn’t know we were getting graded. any way - stephen admire 41? let that slide earlier, but since you are the punching bag today, thought i’d, throw, it, in.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 9, 2009 5:29 PM
Comment #290511


Do you understand the outrage on the left over the Senate Blockade?

I think I do. You be the judge. The last time Liberals had the votes and an advocate in the whitehouse was either the 1960’s with Johnson or the 1970’s with Carter.

It really bothers the left that we are the only industrialized country without univeral healthcare. Finally after wanting this for so long the left can see it in sight, but the Repubilcans wont allow a vote.

Do you understand why I support blocking the vote as a moderate conservative?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 9, 2009 6:13 PM
Comment #290512


craig - want to ask yourselves why the need for gov’t intervention? it is set up so we do not have 5 year olds working in coal mines. even though it seemed like a good fit, i mean they are small, send the 5 year old in.

I agree with you on that. Actually, we have a pretty good 60 year model to look at that has produced quite a civilization. If you look at the education level of Americans now verse 1940, and our standard of living etc, it’s been quite a show for the world to see.

There has been government intervention all of the way along. In 1940 for instance african Americans could not eat it many places I enjoy, and the military that is important to me was segregated. All in all, I think American has a model that works.

Remember the phrase if it aint broke don’t fix it? Right now we are throwing away a great deal of what we have learned and increasing goverment spending far above what we have we have spent since WWII as a percentage of GDP.

In 1940 America was about as big as Britain, Germany and France combined economically. Now today, we are just about as large as the entire European Union. That is because America has traditionally kept it’s tax rates lower and bee leaner on government spending. To be blunt we have kept are government spending at about 20% of GDP.

I would like to keep our spending at about that rate because it means that my children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy the properity and opportunity that I have enjoyed.

The huge problem we have even without Obama is that with SS and Medicare set to balloon in the future, this dream is already in jeopardy. For instance the CBO already says our future economically is “grim”.

I think we can do univeral health care. I support universal health care, just not as long as we don’t fix the over all issue of American on the road to financial ruin.

Politicians are not ready to speak the truth to Americans right now about our future. One would be hard pressed to hear Obama say yep the CBO is right our future unless we spend less money is grim, but I want to spend more!!

What is also true is that we don’t really have a financial problem, only an expectations problem. Basically, longevity goes up a year a decade. That means every decade there is a year more of SS and medicare expenses per American to pay for in addition to baby boomers retiring in great numbers.

There simply is not money to keep the promises we have made to future retirees. Until politicians start telling the truth and dealing with the truth even though I support universal healthcare count me out.

In terms of your question on regulation, we always need to be regulating and unregulating at the same time. New products and issues are constantly being invented and thus need to be regulated. In addition many regulations are no longer relevant and need to be discarded. I think we need to be careful not to over regulate which is where we appear to be heading right now.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 9, 2009 6:32 PM
Comment #290516

>For instance the CBO already says our future economically is “grim”.

Darn it! Craig, you told ME the CBO said the future was “dire”…now I’m all confused again.

Is the difference between ‘dire’ and ‘grim’, like the difference between Code Yellow and Code Orange?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 9, 2009 7:11 PM
Comment #290524

Craig Holmes-
There is no moderation in it. Can a Republican dissent from it? No. It doesn’t work unless all the Republicans engage in it. Specter got kicked out of the party just for agreeing with Obama on the stimulus. That’s how we got sixty.

That should tell you something: the hardball tactics the Republicans are willing to use just to maintain party discipline. That some regard it as a good thing that Hoffman pushed out the moderate in NY-23, even though the seat went to a Democrat, who just now voted yes on Healthcare, along with the other new guy in California.

Democrats are considered the moderates nowadays. In a district that had voted Republican since Lincoln’s time, the Republicans lost the seat.

The Republicans have been doing their best to make the Democrats look like raving lunatics. But despite that, they’ve only succeeded in raising the insanity level of their party, with stunts like that March through Congress, like folks showing up with Guns near Presidential rallies. And your people aren’t putting your foot down. You’re unwilling to face down the far right of your party, to gain a base beyond that.

The left has grown more powerful among the Democrats, but not so powerful, even now, that it gets to dictate terms. That’s the big irony of daily pronouncements that Pelosi and Reid are far left revolutionaries. Reid especially. A more liberal Senate Majority Leader would have handed Lieberman his nuts by now for the BS he’s pulled. Hell, Lieberman would have been history.

The Real problem of the Democrats is that we’re moderates trying to govern over the objections of fanatics in your party who are far more willing to trade the good fortunes of the American people, at least in the short term, for the political fortunes of your party.

But that’s not something I can call moderate. A moderate keeps in touch with their real responsiblities. We’ve got a country to govern, not merely elections to win.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2009 10:34 PM
Comment #290525


Wow!! Your language. First of all they are not “my people!” Do you realize that you use bigoted language? Stop with the “you people” arguments already. You always generalize!! (poor attempt at humor).

If Spector is a point you want to make about Republicans, then why is there a strong primary challenge? His approval rating is in the low 30’s. There is nothing wrong with challenging an incumbant in your own party when they are that unpopular. Of course Pelosi is that unpopular in California.

I don’t think you need much help in looking like lunatics. When you are focusing on issues that are not top priorities for the rest of the country you should go down in the polls.

It’s the economy stupid.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 9, 2009 11:03 PM
Comment #290527

Health Care and the Economy are two parts of the same problem stupid.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 9, 2009 11:14 PM
Comment #290544

Craig Holmes-
Are you, or are you not a conservative? Are you or are you not with them on this ridiculous blockade of the Senate?

They are your people. You chose to associate yourself with their tactics, justify what you are doing. So, you belong in there with them. The moment you repudiate either party (I don’t expect you to.) or this policy (That would be nice.) Then I can talk about you as if you’re not with them.

Specter’s situation is complicated. But he’s doing better than Toomey, your conservative is doing. But his plight illustrates the trouble with the moderates in your party. Namely, that if they depart even a scintilla from the line of the Tea Partisans, they’re going to get primaried and tossed out.

As you can see in the Democratic Party, there’s marginally more tolerance for conservatives, all though that’s going down as their value as negotiators gets sunk by the Republican’s obstruction. I mean, if you can’t get anything through without unity, why bother with those who aren’t with the program?

You are not making basic political calculations here, and your party and faction’s power are diminishing as a result.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 10, 2009 10:16 AM
Comment #290548

Because of all the negative shouting, the many many lies, Rupert’s involvement, and the complexity of the problems, Democratic polls would be expected to go down…it’s the nature of the political beast. But if the right is right, why aren’t their numbers rising? On the one hand we have numbers that are falling , when they are expected to fall, and on the other hand we have numbers falling when they should be expected to rise…as Mr. Simpson would say…doh! Oh, that’s right, the fence straddlers and middle of the roaders are going to ride in to save the day…hmmm…I wonder why we call moderates fence straddlers and middle of the roaders…maybe it’s because they never ride in to save anything, they sit on the fence, or in the middle of the road, and complain about how bad the doers are doing.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 10, 2009 12:14 PM
Comment #290554

craig - healthcare is broke, and we must fix it. truly happy for you that you are happy w/your healthcare, and, you can keep it. but for millions of americans it is broke, and has lead them to just that broke.

leiberman makes me sick. finding it hard to believe that no one in his state needs help. i mean, hell shouldn’t we all move to his state of denial. sounds like a wonderful place. all fat cats living high off the hog. well, the rest of the world has the swine flu. take his parking space, chairmanship, key, and stick a banana in his tailpipe. traitor. completely blindsided by his actions. little, little man.

harry reid is far left? my lord man what are you on?

one more thing, we have made great strides since 1940. and we are americans, we can do anything. but w/o regulation and monopoly busters we wouldn’t be here today.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 10, 2009 3:35 PM
Comment #290557

Lieberman’s clueless. He thinks he’s making himself the kingmaker. In fact, what he’s making himself is an easy target for replacement.

Democrats held back against him before, because he stood between us and not having a Majority. Now that’s not a problem. Instead the problem is the Senate Blockade.

If he were smart, he’d help us break that. But he’s not smart. He’s greedy for the power to be the one guy who can say what’s what, what passes.

Only problem is, one of two things happens: Either Democrats come to the conclusion, after all these stunts, that it makes no difference if they lose him or keep him, they might just decide to lose him, and seek alternative ways to pass legislation.

Or, if we’re talking further down the line, he’s basically encouraged Democrats to push a real Democrat in the election to replace him, somebody who understands what party loyalty means.

The current generation of Democrats think the current leaders of the Democrats are too weak. I can attest to this as somebody who keeps an ear open around DailyKos and the other Netroots centers. They think Harry Reid needs to show more spine. They don’t necessarily like Nancy Pelosi all the time, thanks to the weak response to Bush and his shenanigans, but they’re liking what they see in results.

What mystifies me is the expectation that Republicans have that we see our own folks as the Radicals when they’ve got the people out there saying and doing the things they are.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 10, 2009 4:12 PM
Comment #290560

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “Or, if we’re talking further down the line, he’s basically encouraged Democrats to push a real Democrat in the election to replace him, somebody who understands what party loyalty means.”

LOL…sure hope all the independents understand what voting for a “real” dem means…loyalty to the party, not the folks back home.

Very illuminating Mr. Daugherty…thanks for the info. Party first, constituents and conscience last.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2009 4:49 PM
Comment #290562

“Our folks, you folks?” Try using better terminologies. Am I an “our folk” or “you folk”? Also, how are you authorized to speak for the Dmcrt party like you own it? Isn’t “you folks” biggest problem getting “your folks” to vote the way you want?

Posted by: ohrealy at November 10, 2009 5:20 PM
Comment #290564


I am a moderate conservative and I would vote to block the current legislation.

For instance, I am for health care reform, just not this legislation, nor do I want to be a part of this tone of debate.

Health care is the reason America is on the way to bankruptsy. If you are successful we are still just as broke or nearly so.

I think that is where you probably put me in the same group as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

The bill so far does very little to address the fiscal direction of the country.

I agree with former Senator Warner. He says Obama has mishanded the debate by not starting the debate discussing that health care costs are bankrupting our country.

I think that is the correct premise. Like a majority of Americans I would like a do over.

Come back with a bill that returns America to fiscal solvency and lets talk.

So here are three requirments for my support:

1. Healthcare should move toward universal care.

2. It should return our nations fiscal projections to a sustainable curve. (No more than 3% deficits for as far as the eye can see).

3. It should keep tax rates and federal spending within historical norms. (Federal spending around 20% of GDP).

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 10, 2009 6:06 PM
Comment #290565


What mystifies me is the expectation that Republicans have that we see our own folks as the Radicals when they’ve got the people out there saying and doing the things they are.

What I see is that Obama and the Congress together are way far to the left of the American voter. The highest probablitity is that Congress will move to the right in 2010.

It might do it within the Democratic party if the Republicans don’t get their act together. By the law of reversion to the mean, the highest probability is a more conservative government going forward.

For your liberal agenda it probably in an opportunity of a lifetime.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 10, 2009 6:12 PM
Comment #290567

“You folks”, are the ones who either defend the Beck’s and Limbaugh’s, or remain neutral on the subject. The ones who hear the same lies we do, and hear the same shouting we do and observe the same obstructionism we do, and prefer THAT over what is best for the nation. “You folks” are, right now, part of the problem, not the solution…hence, “You folks”…

Posted by: Marysdude at November 10, 2009 6:26 PM
Comment #290568


Also used for those who honestly disagree with you on what is best for the nation.

So really “you folks” is the term you use for those who disagree with you.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 10, 2009 6:32 PM
Comment #290582


No one expects everyone to agree with what is best for the nation. Healthy debate is good and is a proper political tactic for influencing legislation. We are not talking about disagreement here are we? If it is just disagreement about the course set for future policy…where’s the compromise? But, remembering who won the last major election, and considering that until the ugliness raised its Republican head, the people of the United States had asked for just what Mr. Obama is trying very hard to give them. Disagree if you must…discuss, convince, cajole, beg, etc., but please don’t obstruct.

Principles are good, and are used to set great goals, but, it is easy to forget that all sides of an argument have principles. Staying the course on the strength of ones principles alone, gives insult to others with differing principles. It may be good in religion, but it is not worth a hoot in politics.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 10, 2009 11:22 PM
Comment #290594


Thank you for your resonse. I do respect the election. I think the American people elected Obama and Democrats for several reasons. Among these were to fire the Republicans because of gross mismanagement of the war, the economy, and whatever category you put katrina in.

They also voted at a time of financial panic. The overwelming mandate was to fix the economy.

You use the word obstruct as if I am preventing progress. I understand from your perspective that you would see it that way.

When a President vetos a spending bill, that does not mean he is obstructing. The rules are in place for a reason. It takes of course two thirds majority to override a presidential veto. Presidents use the veto because they want a better bill from their perspective.

The Senate rules work the same way. It allows the miniority to prevent a bill they consider not good enough to become law. Right now it is nearly the only check and balance there is in the system.

Even though I respect the election, which was the opinion of voters a year ago, I also respect the opinion of voters today. Currently the majority of voters are opposed to the current legislation.

So voting with the will of the people is an extremely valid form of “obstruction”. Winning an election does not give license to govern against the will of the people.

I think this is a bad piece of legislation. On this vote I support the Republican party stopping it if possible. However if your party puts true fundamental reform on the table that fundamentally changes our nations course from certain bankruptsy to a sustainable path, with a reasonable price tag (anyone can through money at a problem), then bring it on!!

How about something closer to this:


An interview with an expert on Japan’s system +Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 8

Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half.

Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income.

What is it? Japan uses a “social insurance” system in which all citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their work or purchased from a nonprofit, community-based plan. Those who can’t afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private; doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector.

How does it work? Japan boasts some of the best health statistics in the world, no doubt due in part to the Japanese diet and lifestyle. Unlike the U.K., there are no gatekeepers; the Japanese can go to any specialist when and as often as they like. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down.

What are the concerns? In fact, Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care; half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red. Having no gatekeepers means there’s no check on how often the Japanese use health care, and patients may lack a medical home.

The Japenese have a system that cost half as a percentage of GDP than our does, and they have better health. I don’t want to do a cut and paste from their system to ours. But I certainly want our system to move their way. It seems that 8% of gdp or about half what we are paying now, is doable. Much of the rest of the world does it!!

So if I can point to systems around the world that cost about half what ours does and gives as good of health, and is closer to universal health care, and meets my critera of saving our children from a bankrupt nation, why shouldn’t I oppose this legislation and keep pressure on the government for a better product?

Remember I believe based on OMB statistics (That is Obama’s Office of Management and Budget), that we have a fiscal gun to our head, and without real reform our children will see a drastic decline in their standard of living.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 11, 2009 9:58 AM
Comment #290610


I’m sorry I must have missed it when the Republican leadership attempted to sanely modify the proposed legislation…I was probably sleeping or something. I’m so glad they quit trying to ‘just say no’, and contribute something useful. I TOLD you that political compromise was a good thing, and that Republicans should try it sometime. I’m really glad it is finally happening. But, I haven’t seen any of this put into the legislative debate…can you cite it for me?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 11, 2009 1:08 PM
Comment #290611


If you regard the OMB prognoses so highly, then you must have regarded the Cheney/Bush OMB just as highly…right? You would not cherry pick the times the references you believe in would you?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 11, 2009 1:14 PM
Comment #290635

Royal Flush-
I wouldn’t expect Lieberman to vote for the Public Option, but damn it, he can at least have the courtesy to let the thing come to a vote.

I think it’s illuminating that the Republicans let nothing even come to a vote. They could make their party-line no votes as often as they wished, and if they got more than ten Democrats in the Senate on their side, they could defeat that bill.

Come on, why not do things that way? The Republicans and their allies within our party could still go on the record with their votes. Of course, quite a bit of legislation would pass, but they got their chance when they had the majority to do the same, and they did so. I don’t know why Republicans deserve the privilege when elected by the people, and the Democrats do not.

And no, don’t feed me this BS about party superiority justifying it. Senators are voted in to vote for their constituents, and the constituents are supposed to have their say. There is not one tier of citizenship for those in one party, and another for the supporters of the other. We are your equals.

The Republicans cannot oppose policy by a fair majority vote. They will instead abuse a parliamentary loophole as if it is written into the constitution as their privilege. Look into it: there is no sixty vote requirement to pass legislation from the Senate.

Craig Holmes-
So let me pose the question to you, too: tell me, why is it your vote to block, not vote against the passage of this bill?

Is it not the fact that your party, having been so seriously rebuked in the last two elections, having lost yet another Senator in the last few months to your party’s internecine warfare, cannot guarantee it’s will in the Senate any longer by legitimate methods?

Otherwise, why not just vote nay?

If we do nothing about Healthcare, we will see, in ten years time, healthcare costs taking up 20% of our GDP. We will see fiscal costs go through the roof. That is one reason why Obama doesn’t wait, doesn’t take another year. For one thing, with the 2010 elections right around the corner, he’s getting these people while they’re still willing to take risks. He made the mistake of letting the Republicans stall things out until the Townhall BS occured, and he’s not going to make that mistake again.

You concern yourself with fiscal solvency at a time when our economy is at great risk, where one of the most extraordinary financial crises of the past century has hit our economy.

Let me tell you, if you don’t take care of it, then the following things will be true: reducing government spending will fail to bring desired fiscal results to fruition, raising taxes to reduce debts will be a risky measure, and the economic problems themselves will produce these kinds of interminable deficits.

The Republicans may have already helped doom us, with their ill-timed campaign, to a Japaneses style recovery: long and flat. That will not help fiscal matters.

Repair or replace the broken sink before you fix the leaky faucet. Get the economy in order so you can have the revenues to spare, the private investment necessary to replace government spending, and all the rest of that.

That is what Democrats really intend. Get our house in order first, so that the problem of fiscal sustainability is a solvable one.

Unfortunately, we have to be cast as these stereotypical radicals. So people like you come into the equation thinking we’re just going to be unreasonable about this. That’s never a good place to start a negotiation from.

Your party’s conduct is making it tougher for Republicans like yourself to run for national office. Your party’s conduct is making it tough for moderates in your party to make and keep deals in good faith with the Democrats who are of like mind.

Sooner or later, people like you will have to take back your party from your fringe, or else, you won’t have a party that much longer that will accept or welcome you, and you certainly won’t be in a position to see the moderation you want effected in real world policy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 11, 2009 7:58 PM
Comment #290636


It’s easy to convince me. Show me the numbers from OMB (which president Obama runs) that show that if we pass this bill fiscally we will be on the road to sustainability.

Also, remember a majority of Americans are opposed to this bill.

So back at you. Why don’t you have your party write a bill that a majority of voters can support?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 11, 2009 8:13 PM
Comment #290637


As always I appreciate your response. And I thank both you and Stephen for dealing with the substance of my response.

The fact of the matter is that if this version of health care reform passes our nation will be in almost exactly the same amount of fiscal risk as the day before.

This bill does almost nothing to fix the fundamental problem of healthcare which is run away cost.

Until Government from either party steps up to deal with that issue you are playing in the shallow end of the pool.

This bill looks like a short term sugar high for liberals. It expands coverage which is a good thing, but stays in denial about how these same people you are helping will have their standard of living decline over the years because of federal debt.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 11, 2009 8:27 PM
Comment #290638


Here is the fundamental change we have been looking for:

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net
reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010–2019 period (see
Table 1). In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably
be slight reductions in federal budget deficits.4 Those estimates are all subject to
substantial uncertainty.

You have said many times (Marysdude) that Health care reform is fixing the economy. Sorry it’s just not true. It is simply an expansion of government programs without fundamental change to bring down the cost. It’s throwing money at the problem

We can do better!!

How about just for fun dealing with the substance of what I wrote?

You have all the power (well most of it anyway) what is your plan for stopping America from going over a fiscal cliff?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 11, 2009 8:39 PM
Comment #290644


You have read my opinions as if they were your opinions…health care reform will not FIX our economy, and that is not what I’ve maintained. The economy will never be FIXED without health care reform, and that is what I’ve said, and that is what I believe. As long as the portion of GDP increases annually because of health care costs, nothing done to the economy will matter for any longer than it takes to bell a buzzard.

The crux of your argument is that the economy HAS to come first. The crux of my argument is that without health care reform, it doesn’t MATTER whether the economy comes first or not, it won’t stay fixed, and by that time it will be too late to fix health care.

Besides that, please look at the first sentence of your entry #290637, and the next to last sentence of your entry #290638.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 11, 2009 11:38 PM
Comment #290645


I hear you saying that the economy (long term) will never be fixed without health care reform. I understand.

But my point is that this version of health care reform does not have much of an effect on the long term fiscal policy. That’s one of my issues with this bill.

All I can see that this bill does to the economy is slow it down and cost jobs via increasing taxes. But debt reduction is not a factor. It’s too little.

I agree with what you have been saying. But MY POINT is that this health care reform bill does not do what you want for the long term economic health of our country.

All it will do economically is slow growth. I’m not even saying that is terrible to slow growth. Economic growth is in large part a choice of the electorate. Larger government = slower growth. Larger government also usually equals a more stable economy. (lower standard deviation).

I want health care reform that does what you say economically. This doesn’t do it.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 11, 2009 11:58 PM
Comment #290651

Craig Holmes-
We have sustained the growth levels we have on the backs of workers. Our current troubles come from the fact that those backs are breaking.

How much can you force people to go into debt to maintain the same standard of living they once enjoyed at lesser price? How much can you ask them to see retirement savings and 401k investments go up in smoke so a few can make out like the bandits they are?

Somebody pointed out that while some claim that economic necessity is what’s driving the shipping of jobs overseas, the folks doing the shipping are raking in record profits, something that shouldn’t be happening if it’s economic necessity forcing them to outsource those jobs.

The Economic and Power Elite in America are doing what is in their interests with little interference from those below. That was the true object of many of these reforms that the Republicans put through.

The Republican policies are essentially the policies of a 1920’s industrialist party it once was, the party that opposed doing much of anything for the average person on the grounds that it was the economic activity of the rich and the investor class that matters most.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 12, 2009 8:51 AM
Comment #290659


Thank you for another post attacking Republicans. I understand that from your perspective Republicans are the cause of every evil is society.

To me there are at least two purposes for health care reform. One is to increase participation and move toward univeral coverage. The second is to turn the curve because all economists agree that our nation is heading toward financial ruin.

This bill does almost nothing for the latter. It is not fundamental change at all, it’s simply an increase is government coverage.

For instance, the bill modestly reduces the deficit in the first 10 years and then according to the CBO, only slightly reduces the deficit over the next 10 years.

As near as I can tell, economically the only effect we will notice is slowing the economy do to increase taxes and also reducing jobs creation.
(Basically we are taxing the biggest job makers).

Because we have gone through the great recession, we can no longer kick the can of debt down the road. You have to do real reform and not simply increase spending like this bill does. Any moron can simply increase spending for social programs. It takes real reform to fundamentally change the long term health care delivery system in the country.

I think that is why Americans are opposed to this bill. We were promise real reform. We are getting (yawn) classic liberal answer of more government spending and bigger government.

So now your plan is to pass a bill over the objection of most Americans. Change we can believe in.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 12, 2009 11:33 AM
Comment #290663


You still have a problem with the difference between the health care reform bill and economic recovery bills. They are separate. The health care reform bill is to reform health care cost to a manageable level so that economic recovery is possible. Without the health care bill, economic recovery, no matter what form it takes will not succeed for very long. Health care in America has a broken system, That broken system is keeping the economic recovery from progressing because the escalation of health care costs far out pace the average percentage of inflationary growth. That growth is currently almost nil, but NOT in health care where in some areas it reaches into the stratosphere. And, that is why your economic recovery relies so heavily on insurance, pharma and medical reform. Secondary to all of that is the need for all peoples to have adequate health care available to them…just because it is the moral, healthful, and best thing to do. Good national health care will eventually pay for itself, and without it we are heading into that ‘dire’ situation you are so infatuated with.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 12, 2009 1:05 PM
Comment #290664


And Stephen’s points about the Republican party and its negative impact on our national situation are probably understated. The Republican Party of the past thirty years has sunk the boat to the gunwales, and the current crop of leading Republicans is poking a hole in the bottom to let the water out.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 12, 2009 1:12 PM
Comment #290669


The health care reform bill is to reform health care cost to a manageable level so that economic recovery is possible.

I fully agree that the intention of the health are reform bill is to contain costs.

Show me some evidence that this bill does what you think it does. My contention and alarm is that the house bill does not have ANY meaningful inpact on long term healch care costs, as measured by the Congressional Budget Office.

Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that this bill addresses long term cost containment?

Here is my evidence that this bill does not do what you think it does:

Secondary to all of that is the need for all peoples to have adequate health care available to them…just because it is the moral, healthful, and best thing to do. Good national health care will eventually pay for itself, and without it we are heading into that ‘dire’ situation you are so infatuated with.

This “secondary” is what the bill accomplishes. It basically writes a trillion dollar check to help the uninsured.

So what I hope for is that you will move past the political lefts rhetoric and actually show me proof that the bill passed by the house accomplishes your prime concern, (cost containtment).

And then let me ask a follow up question. If this Bill does not address your primary concern, what are your thoughts about that?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 12, 2009 4:12 PM
Comment #290670


And Stephen’s points about the Republican party and its negative impact on our national situation are probably understated. The Republican Party of the past thirty years has sunk the boat to the gunwales, and the current crop of leading Republicans is poking a hole in the bottom to let the water out.

So you would like us to go back to 1979 when America was in a much better place?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 12, 2009 4:25 PM
Comment #290671

>So you would like us to go back to 1979 when America was in a much better place?
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 12, 2009 04:25 PM

Yes…although inflation was rampant, the economy was fixable. Thirty years of Republican ownership has given us what we have now…an economy that may very well be NOT be fixable. Especially since those who should be stepping up to help are instead holding back for the purpose of obstructing progress on it.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 12, 2009 5:25 PM
Comment #290672


Can you give me some evidence that the current healthcare bills will be a constructive help in reducing the deficit in the future?

CBO numbers are not encouraging.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 12, 2009 6:37 PM
Comment #290673

Craig Holmes-
If you feel imposed upon, I’m sorry. But your party left things bad when they lost power, and they have not had the decency to let anybody else even try, much less fail at the matter before they started attacking with an eye to getting back their power.

I’m angry about the Republican’s behavior. No use being coy about that. And I haven’t had reason to be calm since the start of the year. If you’re going “oh, another SD post bashing the Republicans.”, Then I’m going, at the Republicans, “Oh God not more of this ****. When is it going to stop?”

So, to be honest, when folks from the Red Column come here and berate me for not being more bipartisan, the eye starts to twitch. The Republicans have let a long period of political supremacy convince them that bipartisanship begins and ends with us agreeing with them, letting them get their way.

People like me? We had our fill of this kind of “bipartisanship” back in the Bush era.

And the fact of the matter is, we don’t really gain conservative support for taking those risks. When we reach out to them, the hand is slapped back, the course of urgent legislation stalled.

If Democrats can’t gain cooperation and break filibusters for the compromises we make, why make them in the first place?

As for taxing the biggest job makers? Well, I got to ask you a question: has not taxing the job makers resulted in more jobs, or simply more profits for the job makers to enjoy?

The irony is, the small businesses create the most jobs, not the big corporations or the high earners. The irony is, if you tax the rich to give benefits to the poor, the benefits of those benefits rise upwards. When a worker earns more, they can pay more. The Rich are naturally backwaters for wealth, and given the choice, they will do what most people would do when given more of anything: they will keep more. Human nature defaults towards accumulation.

This is not a class warfare issue, it’s a human nature issue: people look out for their own best interests. What we have to find is not a way where one side is given all the breaks and the other is disadvantage, but rather a way to have both sides benefit.

When the Republicans move towards that in their economic policy, the recognition that wealth will accumulate upwards anyways, but that economies grow best and most stably when the money circulates well before hand, then we’ll be getting somewhere.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 12, 2009 6:38 PM
Comment #290674

Stephen and Marysdude:

I don’t feel put upon by your comments about Republicans.

I do want some facts from you. Could you provide some evidence of how much the the current health care bills will reduce Government health care spending in the future?

Thank you!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 12, 2009 6:51 PM
Comment #290691

Because the bills and the concept are so un-Cheney/Bushlike? So un-Gingrichlike? So un-Bushonelike? So un-Reaganlike? Take your pick…anything un-Republican is bound to work. It just stands to reason…;)

Posted by: Marysdude at November 13, 2009 6:29 AM
Comment #290698

amen (oops - atheist) right on! it does stand to reason anything the republicans have done to put us in the toilet - should stand to reason if we reverse it, we will be ok.

bush started wars - end them
no negotiations for rx - negotiations for rx
no to healthcare reform - pass healthcare reform
torture ppl - do not torture

do republicans really at this time think that their party is pro-american?

Posted by: bluebuss at November 13, 2009 9:30 AM
Comment #290705


No not at all. You made an assertion that the major reason for health care reform was to:

The health care reform bill is to reform health care cost to a manageable level so that economic recovery is possible. Without the health care bill, economic recovery, no matter what form it takes will not succeed for very long. Health care in America has a broken system, That broken system is keeping the economic recovery from progressing because the escalation of health care costs far out pace the average percentage of inflationary growth. That growth is currently almost nil, but NOT in health care where in some areas it reaches into the stratosphere.

I am asking for some back up that this bill passed by the house does what you want.

I don’t think it does anything at all meaningful in this area.

Do you are Stephen have any evidence that current healthcare reform cuts future costs?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 13, 2009 10:52 AM
Comment #290706

under the title beckian rant, it has occurred to me that the man behind alot of discontent is australian. rupert murdock. now, why would this little man want america divided? why does his network alway try to provoke hate, and fear? what is he gaining from it?

you see, i always wondered why republicans voted against their best interest. you are being used by a small man who is not american. do you not see that he doesn’t have americas best interest at heart, because he is not american. can’t you sheeple see that you are being spoon fed incorrect information used to stoke your fears, and bring out the absolute worst in you?

and the talking heads like beck, billo, hannity are essentially turn coat americans who have sold americans out to further line their pockets. they are willing to show false pictures, stage protests, and cause great divide because their boss has appointed them to do so. wake up sheep, get the sleep out of your eyes. you are being played like a fiddle, and australian fiddle.

and craig - it will reduce cost for americans w/o health insurance. you see, if one is insured, he will have a co-pay of like $50 or less to see a doctor. if they go to an emergency room, it is $500 or more right off the bat. it is a reduction in costs for AMERICANS. unprotected, sick, weak AMERICANS. what is it that you really don’t understand? i think you are smart enough to know, but maybe callous enough not to admit change is needed.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 13, 2009 11:41 AM
Comment #290710


It is a reduction in costs to SOME Americans and an increase in costs by OTHER Americans.

The real question is do the people who don’t have insurance now have things like Cable, Cell Phones, Internet Connections, Multiple Cars, etc…

If THEY are unwilling to put their health above such things, why should we who are going to pay for their insurance be forced to care more than they do about themselves?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 13, 2009 12:02 PM
Comment #290711


I appreciate that reminder. Marysdude made the point that a primary reason for health care reform is cost containment. I am waiting evidence that the bill passed by the house does in fact reduce health care costs by the goverment over time. According the the CBO the health care bill has only a very modest positive impact on the federal deficit.

Our country is heading toward bankruptsy because of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending. We need fundamental health care reform to stop this from happening. So far I don’t believe we are there.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 13, 2009 12:06 PM
Comment #290713

oops :


Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 13, 2009 12:32 PM
Comment #290721

Craig Holmes-
Your people won’t let it happen, because ideologically speaking, to do anything of consequence, the bill has to interfere with the so-called free market of healthcare (so-called because of much of it is dominated by places where only one or two companies dominate market share)

Without ideological flexibility, you cannot solve the problem of healthcare reform, and ideological inflexibility is what the blockade is all about. If there was a possibility that Republicans might actually have to vote for or against passage, Democrats might be able to tempt some into compromises.

Then you’ll have Republicans supporting what they’ve called socialism. Inconvenient.

Unless and until Republicans are free enough to negotiate, though, the Republicans will have much, much less influence on the final shape of healthcare reform. They already missed the chance to keep Democrats on board a program of bipartisan outreach, by rewarding it with won votes and broken filibusters.

There is no incentive at this point for most Democrats to support cooperation with the Republicans. If you want more moderate government, then you might consider telling your party to let go of the Senate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 13, 2009 1:58 PM
Comment #290722

you mean the ppl making $7.25/hour. employers do not offer benefits. many employers keep employees at 32 hrs/week, so they do not have to offer a plan. that’s hardly fair, but that is where a lot of young ppl, and the underemployed are dealing with.

yeah, how dare they have such luxuries as a cell phone.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 13, 2009 2:04 PM
Comment #290725


So you aren’t actually refuting my observation, you are just wanting to dismiss it?

Sorry, but if an individual finds that they need cable, a cell phone, an xbox, etc more than they need healthcare, that is THEIR decision to make, not our decision to make FOR them.

Which is what the Democrats are now wanting to do with their latest bill that passed the House.

Congratulations, they have just cemented the very stereotype that they were trying to combat against and had almost successfully done leading up to Obama winning back the presidency. If they sign this (imo unconstitutional) bill into law they may never shake it again.

Nanny State had resonance for a reason, it has just picked up energy again.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 13, 2009 2:39 PM
Comment #290727


The effort of health care reform is to stop the hemorrhaging. All we need is a positive affect on the economy and future budgets. I reittereate…the purpose of HCReform is to stop the hemorrhage, then fixing the economy becomes possible. You have stated that there will be a modest gain…what else is required?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 13, 2009 3:19 PM
Comment #290728

rhinehold - i am not giving into you, i am pointing out that cell phones are not a luxury. the next generation is using them as an only point of contact. geez.

i am also pointing out that at gross is $232/wk. after taxes more like $170. food, rent, utilities. yeah, i’m not seeing multiple cars in that equation. do you understand that there is nothing left out of that money? not even insurance. do the math.

but, most importantly, you are agreeing w/me on the murdock issue. your non-statement speaks volumes to me. so nice of you to agree w/me.

doesn’t feel good when someone else “states” your opinion does it. would appreciate that you didn’t do that again.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 13, 2009 3:28 PM
Comment #290730

Screw nanny state, how about a society that can hold itself together and function economically? We will end up spending one dollar out of every five for healthcare by the end of this decade if we don’t do something, and the aging of the Boomer generation isn’t going to help matters there.

Sometimes, society can afford to let people pay the wages of their own sin. Sometimes, society makes the decision that this is an unaffordable collective cost to pay, and it takes steps to curb that loss.

As for stereotypes? Well, I’m all for breaking free of them, but I’m finding that no matter what Liberals and Democrats do to throw it off, the Republicans and folks like you are going to all lengths to make sure it remains there. We really can’t win. So we might as well push the good policy and worry about how we look later. Functional policy will take the hot air out of the ill-winds that blow our way, and all that we’ll have left is the cold stink of ideological prattle to worry about.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 13, 2009 3:59 PM
Comment #290732
rhinehold - i am not giving into you, i am pointing out that cell phones are not a luxury. the next generation is using them as an only point of contact. geez.

So, being able to be called on a telephone is MORE important to a human being than health insurance? If so, why aren’t you calling for everyone to have free cell phones? Do you not see how illogical your argument is?

i am also pointing out that at gross is $232/wk. after taxes more like $170. food, rent, utilities. yeah, i’m not seeing multiple cars in that equation. do you understand that there is nothing left out of that money? not even insurance. do the math.

I’ve done the math. I’ve lived it. I don’t really need you trying to either preach to me or accuse me of being insensitive.

But, understanding someone else’s plight is not the same thing as being willing to have a gun put into my face to help them against my will. Especially if they are choosing other things as more important to them than health insurance.

And THEN even further, against THEIR will. It is their choice to go without health insurance, policies are available for less than $150 a month. Easily the cost of a cell phone and cable for that same month. Again, what is more important to that person and isn’t it THEIR decision to make, not yours?

but, most importantly, you are agreeing w/me on the murdock issue. your non-statement speaks volumes to me. so nice of you to agree w/me.

I could care less about Murdock. Your attempt to combine everyone who disagrees with you into a big vat and then pushing the views of the fringes of that vat of people onto all of them. It is the same insanity that we rightfully defend muslims for but in the same breath commit against your political foes.

Unfortunately it is the latest meme going around by the talking points of the left.

Now, who is being ‘easily led’?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 13, 2009 4:48 PM
Comment #290733

you missed my point completely. there is NO MONEY FOR INSURANCE.

i am not influenced by any talking heads. i write my personal observations. i am not on this site to spout someone elses thought. that is stupid. easily led? nothing easy about me.

and, i am not preaching to you, don’t care enough to, but, what i am doing is pointing out where i think you are wrong.

and, i don’t think you have done the math. what did eggs cost when you were “living those days”, like 5 cents. now they’re $2.39. what did gas cost like 9 cents? now it’s $2.60. turn you head. ignore the needy - no one can make you care, and you obviously don’t. but i tell you what an honest man’s pillow is his peace of mind. and that i have - how bout you.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 13, 2009 5:03 PM
Comment #290734
i am not influenced by any talking heads. i write my personal observations. i am not on this site to spout someone elses thought. that is stupid. easily led? nothing easy about me.

Except, that is what you are suggesting of other people, do you think that THEY might suggest the same thing?

Or do you think that everyone else who disagrees with you are easily led morons and you are an enlightened individual?

what did eggs cost when you were “living those days”, like 5 cents.

How long ago do you think it was? Seriously?

It was not that long ago, I assure you.

turn you head. ignore the needy - no one can make you care, and you obviously don’t. but i tell you what an honest man’s pillow is his peace of mind. and that i have - how bout you.

And THERE it is. I was expecting that one, lol, so predictable.

I help people more than I daresay you do. I have spent 20 years working with organizations in my local area, including starting and running a couple of non for profit charities.

And because I don’t believe in FORCING people to help others, I somehow ‘don’t care about them’.

Bull. You have made it completely clear to me that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. You haven’t done the math and you are the one who doesn’t care about other people. Otherwise you wouldn’t be overriding their decisions.

Because, let me explain to you how it is going to work.

The cost of insuring these people will cost more, that will have to come from people who are ‘richer’. They will pass on the additional cost to them to their businesses that they run, passing those costs on, etc. The price of goods and services will increase. Currently, because of the Income Tax, roughly 23% of each and every item is the hidden cost due directly to that Income Tax being passed on.

So those eggs are going to cost more. That bread is going to cost more. That gas is going to cost more. And the poor people who you are trying to help are going to end up just as bad off, perhaps worse, because of YOUR decision that you know better than they do how to spend their money.

If you want to help them, help them. But do it without forcing others to do the same. Do as I do and get them better jobs, help them increase their skills, mentor them. That is what they need, not for you to feel better by taking money from someone else at the point of a gun and putting them right back into the same exact position that they started in, giving them only the knowledge that they are now resented by those people who you forced into helping them.

How very CARING of you.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 13, 2009 5:49 PM
Comment #290735


The effort of health care reform is to stop the hemorrhaging. All we need is a positive affect on the economy and future budgets. I reittereate…the purpose of HCReform is to stop the hemorrhage, then fixing the economy becomes possible. You have stated that there will be a modest gain…what else is required?

Again what evidence do you have that healthcare reform stops any hemorrhaging?

There is only a modest amount. Not enough to alter the basic picture at all.

Here is what the effect on the economy will be.

1. slightly reduce the deficit.

2. Slow economic growth.

3. Slow the creation of jobs.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 13, 2009 6:00 PM
Comment #290737


How does spending other people’s money help you sleep better?

Even though liberal households tend to make more money, Conservative households donate more money and time!!

How does that make you sleep?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 13, 2009 6:11 PM
Comment #290744


Hold a gun to your head? I know you did not vote for this administration, but you did exercise your right to vote did you not? Your side (sides) lost, and in America that means we don’t hold guns to heads, that is what the vote does for us that others in the world don’t enjoy. We, many or most on the left, don’t believe the second is as individual oriented as you do, so it is more likely you who will hold a gun to our heads than the other way around. How silly that all sounds, did you proof read that entry before submitting it?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 13, 2009 7:24 PM
Comment #290745


Giving more is not enough…you, as a number cruncher, should be more aware of that than the rest of us. If merely giving was the criteria, we would never have needed taxes to begin with, we’d have just asked for donations and our standing army, US Postal Service, etc, would have been taken care of. If families could have taken care of their own, Social Security would never have come into being. Caring is not the same as giving any more than fixing the health care system is the same as economic recovery. Democrats on average more wealthy than Republicans?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 13, 2009 7:30 PM
Comment #290748
Hold a gun to your head? I know you did not vote for this administration, but you did exercise your right to vote did you not? Your side (sides) lost, and in America that means we don’t hold guns to heads, that is what the vote does for us that others in the world don’t enjoy.

You block your eyes to the truth in order to make yourself feel better. It’s a natural thing to do, but it doesn’t change reality.

A law is, by definition, the use of force against those who disobey the law. That doesn’t mean we don’t have laws, they are necessary. But having them doesn’t mean we ignore what a law is.

So yes, when you make a law to take money from one person and give it to another, you are doing so by putting a gun to their head. Otherwise, why the law? Why not make it a suggestion?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 13, 2009 7:40 PM
Comment #290749


Ok let me try again:

The effort of health care reform is to stop the hemorrhaging. All we need is a positive affect on the economy and future budgets. I reittereate…the purpose of HCReform is to stop the hemorrhage, then fixing the economy becomes possible. You have stated that there will be a modest gain…what else is required?

What I am trying to tell you is that the current health care reform does not stop the hemorrage as you call it. It does almost nothing for out long term fiscal issues related to health care.

The modest gain is less than 1% I spoke of less than 1% of the problem.

I am going to assume that you have no facts to back up your belief about health care reform.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 13, 2009 8:09 PM
Comment #290752


I have a team of experts working on the problem, and the leader has stated that the plan he signs will not add to the deficit. Since I hired him, I think I’ll take his word for that. I might even forgive him if he waffles a little. Your definition of ‘stop the hemorage’ and my definition may not be the same. A 1% gain IS stopping the hemorrhagehemorrhage to me. Apparently you want it to make a profit. Spoken like a true business man or a bean counter.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 13, 2009 9:23 PM
Comment #290760

Its time to use the”nuclear option” to overcome the filibuster.There is a gentlemans agreement not to do so. We are not dealing with gentlemen, we are dealing with self serving scum. The stakes are too high not to push forward health care reform,rational immigration reform,labor law reform,deficit reduction,financial market re-regulation,energy policy reform and other important issues vital to the country. Its pretty clear the Reps will act as they have been and oppose every move. They cannot be allowed to stop us. The filibuster is un-democratic. It was never intended by the Founders. It was an oversite,a loophole. Sure, I might not feel the same with a Rep congress. The stakes are so high I,for one am willing to take the chance,and frankly,if we are allowed to move forward with the needed changes,a Rep congress will be a long way off.

Posted by: bills at November 14, 2009 4:08 AM
Comment #290763

Nations are built for the purpose of directing the conduct of those within their borders towards greater ends. America is different from other nations in that it gives much of the power to the people to delegate it to those they see fit. Yet we are still a nation, and the power of the state works as one part, the formal part of what binds the behavior of our population to useful and overall beneficial ends.

Libertarians are minimalists, and this is their right. But they should be consistent minimalists, and they should understand that berating people as somehow cruel and invasive for their engagement of government power in a matter in the course of a discussion is a bad choice.

After all, you can only choose to be libertarian in the first place.

If you place the emphasis on reason, on informal, social, free methods of encouraging virtuous behavior, then supporting brute force methods like this of forcing the will of the minority on the majority should be absolutely out of the question. Libertarianism is not the individual overpowering the state, but the state being constructed so that it overpowers its citizens as little as possible.

What the Republicans are doing is inconsistent with that. They are overpowering the twice-demonstrted will of the people to change. The majority of Americans should not have one part of their government force a policy on them.

But you don’t like that policy. Alright. But if its libertarianism you’re working from, then you should trust in people’s ability to reason that out for themselves as things go. After all, if people don’t have the capability to reason necessary to consider your policy suggestion, then your libertarianism would be a failure anyways- enforced idleness of government action isn’t libertarianism in action.

If it is reason that drives your policy viewpoint, then you must approach things from a standpoint of seeing what has worked, and what hasn’t, taking a skeptical eye to even your own policy suggestions. Otherwise, it’s just ill-thought out contrarianism towards strong-state solutions, the results of which, if successful, would serve to discredit weaker-state solutions.

I think it’s important for you to recognize that for years, Republicans appropriated the appearance of Libertarianism in support of their corporatist agenda. With that appearance went libertarianism’s reputation. It was fine, very attractive as long as the economy grew, but as the serious disasters have occured in our economy, the reputation of your philosophy, rightly or wrongly, has suffered with it.

If you wish to rebuild its reputation, you must separate it from mere contrarianism towards Liberals. You must be the change you want to see, setting up more than just think-tanks that fight liberal policy.

If you want to prove liberalism works, why not set up the practical organizations that prove that it can work, the kind of charities, market-based green jobs, market based technological development firms that would prove how such things could be done without intervention by the government in the market.

For better or worse, Liberals have the majority. As the leaders of the nation, the Democrats will impose many policies the minority disagrees with. But they will be suffering no more an indignity than the Democrats suffered as a minority. The main difference, is that when the Democrats fell from power, far fewer of us thought the nation would collapse tomorrow. We worried, but we trusted our system of government to be resilient. We didn’t obstruct nearly so much. We adapted to the mood of the nation.

The question is, are the right and the libertarians going to do the same? Or are they going to try and force everybody to agree with them by stalling any kind of progress for the majority? The way the demographics are trending, (towards the young and the minorities) I don’t think this is a viable long term solution to those problems. The majority will get what it wants eventually, this being a Democratic Republic where the people do the electing. The question is, can people like you help lead us to mutually desirable compromises?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2009 9:04 AM
Comment #290764

Craig Holmes-
How do we know all that you have said, having not even tried it? We tried things your way for years, and you folks had the chance to address the problem and put it to bed. Now, it’s our turn.

Or at least, it’s supposed to be our turn, according to the voters.

Maybe you can tell yourself that the voters did not know what they were doing when they put in several more Democrats on top of those who had already been elected. I don’t think that’s right.

I think Republicans should get used to the fact that they were rejected, that it wasn’t merely a fluke, because then they can let go of what they were doing wrong before, and get down to the business of rebuilding their reputation on policy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2009 9:17 AM
Comment #290766


“So yes, when you make a law to take money from one person and give it to another, you are doing so by putting a gun to their head.”

Other than being a lovely bit of hyperbole, the figurative phrase “putting a gun to their head” is pretty useless if you want to have a meaningful discussion.
Every piece of legislation, whether appropriating money, or regulating speed limits is theoretically “putting a gun to some one’s head”.

It’s called living in a society, and whether you agree with the legislation or not, America hasn’t quite become a totalitarian state where they actually do “put a gun to you head” just yet.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 14, 2009 12:21 PM
Comment #290768


If you guys could just for once get out of the Republican/Democrat game and think it would be great.

Here is Robert Reich talking about what I have been saying:

This is real reform because it calls for change in our health care delivery system. I might not like Reich’s approach, but it ups the bar because it is a solution, or probably better said a partial solution. But then if forces others to come up with a better solution that will save more money.

If something like Reich’s solution were in the mix the dollar would start to rebound. I hope your party will listen to Reich as his solution from what I can see addresses our larges problem in health care which is containing costs.

If I were Reich, when people don’t like his proposal I would simply say “show me your proposal”. When the American people see how much money these ideas will save and the difference it will make to our children and grandchildren it would be very hard to oppose.

We need fundamental reform, not just expansion of government.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 14, 2009 12:33 PM
Comment #290769


President Obama said, so long ago I’ve grown gray headed, that he would take all input, and try to come up with solutions that would displease the least number of citizens, yet get the job done. He ran up against a right wing wall that was loudly vociferous and rarely honest in its obstructionism. Now that it is apparent that that ploy is failing, some want to be reasonable. That, in itself, is a good thing. It may be too late, but a good lesson learned in any case.

You folks (I know you hate that generalization, but I could not help myself) made it hard on yourselves by allowing the jerks of the right to set the tone of your argument. Had you stepped aside in enough numbers to have shut them up, we’d have the best of the best bills ready for signature right now. You are coming late to the table, as is Reich from our end, but perhaps we can still get some good law passed.

No one hates it any worse than I do that it has come to this pass. We seem to be lagging as the nation and huge numbers of citizens catch hell. When all we had to do in the first place was lay honest cards on the table, present sane argument, and compromise. I’ve always been of the opinion that that was what it took for good governance. One side of the equation does not agree with even THAT.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 14, 2009 1:59 PM
Comment #290770


Get off the Republican/Democrat thing and THINK? Where in the hell have you been this past ten months or so? Are you the only one here who has been THINKING? I think…I think…I think your thinking stinks!

Posted by: Marysdude at November 14, 2009 2:04 PM
Comment #290772

you feel that a gun is pointed at your head? because your are taxed? hmmm.

can’t really think of a country you could go to w/out being so physically, and emotionally assaulted by taxation. tell ya what, i’ll look into it for you. you see there are options. and i’m for the public one.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 14, 2009 4:42 PM
Comment #290773


Ok. I will gladly apologize.

But Wow the “Republicans are completely evil and Democrats are 100% right” sure gets old and stale.

It simply appears from above that the goal is to correctly assign blame intead of getting to solutions.

You still have not provided me with proof that current Health care bills address your main concern.

Just for review here it is:

The health care reform bill is to reform health care cost to a manageable level so that economic recovery is possible. Without the health care bill, economic recovery, no matter what form it takes will not succeed for very long. Health care in America has a broken system, That broken system is keeping the economic recovery from progressing because the escalation of health care costs far out pace the average percentage of inflationary growth. That growth is currently almost nil, but NOT in health care where in some areas it reaches into the stratosphere

The reason you cannot provide proof, is that none exists.

I know you wont accept what I am saying even though it is a fact because I am a Republican and to admit that your party is not addressing your main concern with this bill would be too much to take. It has too many ramifications because you believe in your party.

So I have provided you a liberal who served in Clinton’s cabinet Robert Reich who says exactly what I have been saying to you which is that:


Here is Robert Reich again:

Here is a quote from the article:

But Harry, you really need to take on future health-care costs. The House bill fails to do this. The public option in the House bill is open only to people without employer-provided health insurance. That will be too small a number to have bargaining clout to get good deals from drug companies and medical providers. And it will mainly attract people who have more expensive medical needs, which is why the Congressional Budget Office decided it would cost more than it would save.

Robert Reich is calling for real reform, not just government expansion like Obama is!!

If Democrats did what Reich said, you would see the Right involved immediately. His proposal is a game changer because it saves TRILLIONS in future dollars. When scored by the CBO, you would be in a position as a party of saying, “Yes this costs a trillion dollars but it saves 5 trillion in future dollars”.

Right now you are upping taxes by a trillion and most voters get very little benefit.

Yes I want you to think. I would like you to show me proof that the current bill addresses your main concern. But more importantly I would like you to read people like Reich and others for REAL solutions.

Our Grandchildren’s future depends on it.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 14, 2009 4:54 PM
Comment #290776


Please re-read post #290769.

Please key on the phrase “You are coming late to the table, as is Reich from our end, but perhaps we can still get some good law passed.”. The reason I ask you to key on this is: ROBERT REICH WROTE THIS MISSIVE YESTERDAY…when did the house pass their version? What part of “coming late to the table” don’t you understand? For months you bitched about the Democratic proposals and bills, then when the house finally passes one, you scream that it was the wrong one. Where were your leaders who could have helped at the time the help was needed? I can answer that…they were miming and aping Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Sean Hannity. All your good ideas plus Reich’s good ideas are way late. Hopefully the Senate and subsequent compromise bill will get better. But, if you are just going to find fault, and not participate in discussions, arguments and compromises, get out of the kitchen, and QUIT complaining about how bad things are.

You say it is tiring to read my and Stephen’s constant references to how bad the Republicans are…don’t you think we get tired of writing it too? We can’t stop until your people stop; obfuscating; obstructing; lying; shouting.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 14, 2009 7:40 PM
Comment #290781


It doesn’t matter to me that he wrote it yesterday. What matters to me is that you had no idea that the house bill does not address your number one concern. I am using a liberal writer as evidence to you on this.

I hear your frustration. Your views are in the minority, and you have a good majorities in both houses and can’t get the bill done because the American People don’t support you on this issue.

American People want health care reform just not what is being offered now.

Those people you are angry at represent the majority view right now. Instead of attacking the people you are attacking, why not figure out why the majority of Americasn are opposed, and fix the bill? That’s all I am saying?

Here are two reasons for you to not support the bill as passed by the house.

1. It does not address your number one concern. (as per Robert Reich)

2. The Majority of Americans are opposed to this legislation.

Those are two very strong reasons.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 14, 2009 9:23 PM
Comment #290783


Why should I feel badly about Republicans trying to stop a bill that has only minority support?

Your issue really is not with Republicans, but with Americans.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 14, 2009 9:37 PM
Comment #290784

Look at this poll. Wow. For the first time in a very long time most Americans do not think it’s the governments job to provide medical insurance. Oh my!! what a swing to the right.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 14, 2009 9:41 PM
Comment #290785


Don’t be silly…of course I support the House bill. I just recognize it for what it is, the first step in a complicated process. I might not support it fully if it were the last step, but of course it is not. Action, rather than stagnation, negotiation rather than obstruction, compromise rather than obfuscation…those things will get a good law passed.

As far as the popularity of my party, my President or the House version of health care reform is concerned…the American people, me included, and obviously you too, are spoiled rotten. We want solutions to complicated issues yesterday rather than today, and today rather than tomorrow. President Obama said from the start that reform would not be easy, and that it would take time. He indicated that he wanted it before the first of the year, and there is a very good chance it will take place before then. Then there is the constant bombardment by the vociferous few who influence the ignorant and impatient among us, and those few are urged on by the likes of you and other so-called moderates, who ‘came late to the table’ because you were too busy wishing everything would go back in time to the Cheney/Bush fiasco, so you could crow about how good things were while they were falling apart.

Frustrated? Yes! But, not for the reasons you will name, but because obstructionism is one of the most damaging and frustrating political ploys of all time. When action is the priority, status quo is the last thing we need, but it’s all we got from you folks until now. If the shoe was on the other foot, you’d be frustrated too.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 14, 2009 9:55 PM
Comment #290786

Today another 15,000 American citizens died as a result of no or inadequate health insurance.

Wow! Indeed. I think this calls for champaign.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 14, 2009 10:01 PM
Comment #290787

PS: If polling were the best measurement, then when this process started, you would have capitulated, and have gotten behind it. That’s what you expect out of those of us who were in the majority at that time…right? What pettiness, but it is what I’ve come to expect from the right.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 14, 2009 10:05 PM
Comment #290794
Today another 15,000 American citizens died as a result of no or inadequate health insurance.


Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2009 11:14 PM
Comment #290795

16,000? Okay, you win…

Posted by: Marysdude at November 14, 2009 11:18 PM
Comment #290796
you feel that a gun is pointed at your head? because your are taxed? hmm.

It has nothing to do with ‘feeling’ that a gun is pointed at my head. That is just a fact. If I don’t pay my taxes, what happens?

can’t really think of a country you could go to w/out being so physically, and emotionally assaulted by taxation.

There is none. Apparently, you don’t understand what a law is…

I also stated clearly that laws are necessary, before the predictable ‘anarchy’ bull comes out.

But understanding what happens when you push for a law is important. And obviously something that no one on the left wants to accept.

A law is a legal writ giving some police force the right to use a gun on another human being.

Ask Wesley Snipes what happens when you don’t pay your taxes. Ask the thousands of people who die in this country from drug arrests gone wrong, how many more are in jail because they broke the law. They had a gun put to their head. It is not a metaphor, it is not hyperbole. It is WHAT A LAW IS.

Without the use of force to back a law, it isn’t a law, it is a suggestion. And anyone can make a suggestion, it doesn’t have to be a governmental body. That is what government is, the organization of the society to agree to when to employ the use of force on the citizens of a nation. THAT IS IT.

Push for the laws all you want, but understand exactly what you are getting in return. Don’t hide behind what you are actually voting on because it sounds terrible to you. If it sounds terrible, perhaps it isn’t the right way to solve the problem, putting people in jail or killing them if they resist a law?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2009 11:22 PM
Comment #290797
President Obama said, so long ago I’ve grown gray headed, that he would take all input, and try to come up with solutions that would displease the least number of citizens, yet get the job done.

This explains exactly what happened to John Mackey when he proposed an idea that was alternative to what Obama was suggesting several months ago.

No one on the left wants to hear other alternatives. That was proven quite clearly not just then but any time someone tried to bring one up. That the Republicans are unable to get any kind of bill through committee or, better yet, unable to rub two salient thoughts together does not mean that alternatives have not been offered.

The notion of ‘listening to alternatives’ is a lie and has been proven so. Move along with your defense of the indefensible.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2009 11:27 PM
Comment #290799

I have your permission to move along? And if I don’t ‘move along’, am I to end up with your gun to my head?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 14, 2009 11:33 PM
Comment #290800

No, that’s the difference between the two of us, Marysdude, I don’t support the use of force against other citizens for trivial things that can be resolved without the use of force.

You support policies that put a gun to people’s heads for very minor and personal things. Wearing a seatbelt, buying health insurance, putting a plant into a brownie, playing a game of poker online, etc.

You can try to make me look the dangerous one all you want, but I want fewer laws against the citizens of the country, you want more. The truth is a much different thing than the fantasy you try to paint.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2009 11:41 PM
Comment #290801

Oh, and btw, the worse part is that you feel insulated against the violence because you employ other people to use those guns instead of yourself.

I wonder what the definition of coward is concerning this topic?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2009 11:42 PM
Comment #290802


I would not be frustrated with Republicans if the shoe were on the other foot. I would be frustrated with my own party for being in this situation. Strong majorities in both houses, and the presidency. Plenty of time and you cant come up with a bill that has the support of the american people.

I think you are wrong to focus your attention on the Republicans when it is Democrats on inability to win public approval for their policies that is the issue.

Stong public approval for what your party wants to do and we would not be having this discussion.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 15, 2009 12:18 AM
Comment #290803


There was strong public approval for health care reform, remember? The lying the caterwauling, the obfuscation and obstructionism has changed a positive to a negative. Think about it for a minute…has public opinion changed because of a solid or sound argument in favor of something else? No? What then has changed it? You provide the answer, but remember, it was not changed because something better was proposed, and not for a positive reason. You folks want to return to the way it was…the way it was no longer exists…deregulation and debt has changed it forever. Status quo killed America and is now interfering with resuscitation.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 15, 2009 6:18 AM
Comment #290804


Your posing and posture has become tiresome, and your blather has lost my interest. I want a divorce.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 15, 2009 6:20 AM
Comment #290811

I guess that answers my question about the definition of a coward…

I is a brave person who would embrace learning the truth about their views, even if contrary to what they thought they were, instead of lashing out at the messenger who provided that valuable insight…

Oh, and I noticed that no where in your lashing back at what I’ve said as ‘blather’ have you countered any part of it with logic, facts or reason.

Congratulations! Oh, and by all means, ignore anything I say in the future. It surely will not hurt my feelings.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 15, 2009 11:52 AM
Comment #290828


If I understand your thoughts, you agree that the health care bill does not address your major concern (restraining costs), and that the American people are opposed to the bills as currently offered.

In addition you blame republicans lies etc. Basically you think you believe americans have been decieved by the right or they would agree with the health care bills.

I disagree. Americans were told that there would be no cost to them. Obama campaigned on the premise that the wealthy had gotten tax cuts that were not just and should be taken back. There would be no cost to those making under $250,000.

Now we are finding out that if one doesn’t sign up, you could end up in jail.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 15, 2009 5:46 PM
Comment #290830


I don’t think there was mention of ‘no cost to them’. The cost was to be restrained in future budgets and not add to the debt. It was to be accomplished by increasing taxation on the welthy and by stemming the flow of fraudulent Medicare charges, which right now amounts to between forty and eighty billion per year (ten years 400 - 800 billion. There were other things mentioned that I cannot remember right now, but no cost? Huh uh!

Posted by: Marysdude at November 15, 2009 6:27 PM
Comment #290831


As far as I know, every one of the proposals has mentioned either the purchase of insurance with participation of employers, and the subsidized purchase of insurance, etc. Are you sure you said what you thought you said, or is my mind fading that fast?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 15, 2009 6:30 PM
Comment #290838

Something like 68% of Americans want Democrats to not pass this bill, and rather to pass what they can with agreement from the Republicans.

A strong majority also does not want comprehensive reform but rather a step by step process.

Also for the first time in a long time, most Americans today do not believe it is the government responsibility to provide health care coverage. This is the first in quite a while.

So if Democrats were to do what the people want, they would pass the parts that Republicans agree with them on and move back to focusing on the economy.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 15, 2009 8:11 PM
Comment #290840

We hire the people to do the job we can’t do ourselves. There are plenty of times the citizen majority go all soft and waffly, and for hundreds of reasons. Now is the time for health care reform. The people will come back around as soon as they find out: 1. it doesn’t mean their granny will be put to death. 2. that insurance premiums actually do go down. 3. more people are actually covered. 4. less people are being dropped for phony pre-condition clauses. 5. drugs become affordable to most. 6. etc. etc. We are a fickle bunch, but most come around when they find out the bomb did not really go off…then we generally lynch the bomber.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 15, 2009 9:21 PM
Comment #290865


Well then who cares what voters think? Thankfully Congress does, which is why this bad bill hasn’t passed.

The American people are smarter than you give them credit.

Bring health care reform back to the middle of the political specrum and not only will you get republican votes but it will pass with public support.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2009 12:15 PM
Comment #290879

i have never heard of someone getting killed for not paying their taxes. jailed, yes. but killed? i didn’t realize wesley snipes was killed for tax evasion. missed that news break. to compare crimes is apples and oranges.

and you can go straight to kuwait.

craig did you actually say bring it to the middle and get republicans to vote on it? did you miss this summer? did you miss the president telling lawmakers his door is always open? did you miss him ACTIVELY seeking republican support?

you know what that brought us? joe shmoe from south carolina yelling “liar”. and grassly yelling death panels. we can not work w/republicans, they are insane. you can not speak to someone who has an answer provided by big business. you need to realize, that republicans have an agenda, and it is to let things remain status quo. that is what you are supporting, and that is what they are fighting for. seen the commercials? devastating jobloss, deficit, big gov’t takeover. nothing positive you know why? IT IS BIG BUSINESS RUNNING THE SHOW. is this a news break to you, are do you actually think a republican is representing you? please show a poll stating that republicans hold the americans best interest at heart. i would love to see it. right.

Posted by: bluebuss at November 16, 2009 2:13 PM
Comment #290892


we can not work w/republicans, they are insane

I appreciate your opinion of my mental balance.

I think I will find another group to work with instead of one who makes bigoted remarks.

So, you are using one brush to paint all Repubicans and are at the same time complaining about how Republicans act.

Isn’t this a bit like being in the KKK and being tired of intolerance!!

It’s like Stephens “You People” remarks.

At least I can see why many Republicans would not want to work with you.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2009 6:28 PM
Comment #290917


Stephen uses you ‘folks’, because he, nor I, can find the differences you would like us to find. As long as you defend the stances of the Beck’s, et al, or stand neutral to the wild spewings of hatred in town hall meetings, or the public displays of tea party fame, we have no alternative but to class the group as ‘you folks’.

If you are indeed moderate, it has not shown in anything but the words you use to say so, not in the words you have used for the past several months to describe your political stance. And, it surely does not show in your defense of the indefensible.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 17, 2009 6:39 AM
Comment #290942
i have never heard of someone getting killed for not paying their taxes. jailed, yes. but killed? i didn’t realize wesley snipes was killed for tax evasion. missed that news break. to compare crimes is apples and oranges.

AWESOME! I will tell Wesley now that he can just leave jail, there is no threat of death being employed against him like he thinks! Why, I don’t know why he showed up at the jail to begin with, since it was of his own accord…

Good to know that no one is putting a gun to his head and making him stay!

and you can go straight to kuwait.

Is this like passing go without collecting $200?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 17, 2009 1:31 PM
Comment #290947


I appreciate your thoughts on my moderation. I don’t see you are Stephen as that much different than Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh. The left’s tone is just as bad as the right. If I were in their forum I would be talking to the far right in at times firm language.

I suppose I am closer in ideology to them than to you, and I am a moderate conservative. But I don’t see the left’s tone and approach as any better than the far right’s. You look pretty equal to me.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 17, 2009 3:09 PM
Comment #290964


This is funny. I put you and Stephen is a camp like Rush. So I can use the phrase “you people” to mean people like you, Stephen, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. I can use the same phrase!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 17, 2009 5:50 PM
Comment #290978

“Life is like a box of chocolates”, sometimes you eat too many and just get sick. After comparing me to Rush and Glen, you’ve finally done me in. It ain’t no fun no more, I’m gonna take a sabbatical.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 17, 2009 10:33 PM
Comment #291060


Pretty funny. You people can compare me, but when it’s reversed all the fun is gone?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 19, 2009 2:41 PM
Comment #291063


Welcome to the mindset of the left, everything is ok for them to do because they are good and have good intentions. Everyone else are evil so their intentions are evil and that is not fair.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 19, 2009 2:54 PM
Comment #291072


Being in the middle means one has to defend from two sides. I’m moderately conservative. To me that means practicality trumps ideology. Prove the numbers to me and it’s likely I can support something. That is not what the left believes. It seems to be “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts”. Then If we are not with them becasue they haven’t proven their facts to our satisfaction, we are a part of this straw man on the right that includes hating women and all minorities. Oh and we like and enjoy war as well. All because we needed more detail on some facts.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 19, 2009 4:31 PM
Comment #291164

why do we need to reform healthcare right now? Yes, it needs to be reformed. But why can’t it wait? The president is putting so much energy into this reform that he is forgeting about what is really important, getting people working again. Anytime someone tries to hury up on something, it doesn’t end up good.

Posted by: tony at November 20, 2009 8:44 PM
Comment #380615

bad, choosing mulberry a stylish case can reebok shoes also be juicy couture outlet a great mcm handbags option. louboutin Thin insanity workout rubberized cases oakley sunglasses can provide salvatore ferragamo a fun splash soccer shoes of color, mont blanc or north face outlet eye-catching design to your device. These items will valentino shoes allow you to express asics running your personality herve leger through true religion jeans your polo ralph phone and converse shoes also nfl jerseys can be used lululemon outlet in ghd hair keeping chanel handbags your louboutin phone clean and bottega veneta free supra shoes from burberry cosmetic defects. Furthermore, in birkin bag such michael kors outlet cases, tory burch outlet an additional amount is added to marc jacobs the coach purses device.

This phone is one of the karen millen most versatile options coach outlet store when coach factory outlet it longchamp outlet comes to coach outlet modern louboutin Smartphone. However, this coach outlet device can longchamp be louis vuitton handbags improved ray ban outlet by adding louis vuitton outlet online appropriate chi hair straighteners accessories. longchamp Choosing hollister the soccer jerseys right toms shoes accessories true religion outlet is the true religion perfect way to get the best new balance shoes experience with any ralph lauren Smartphone.

prada handbags

Posted by: korsu001 at July 6, 2014 11:46 PM
Post a comment