and his 2012 win will be reminiscent of Reagan in 1980 (loses '76 nomination and comes back to win in a landslide 4 years later as an incompetent democrat runs the country into the ground) yeah!
im sorta with OE on this one... i never really like Edwards that much... he was so, so transparent. I found him conniving... i felt like he placating every audience he spoke to... i never had much sympathy for him...
but sanford... as much as i disagreed with him, seemed like he actually believed the shit he was selling... and now i see that somehow they got a hold of some emails sent back and forth... love notes... really personal stuff... that feels completely inappropriate... not only is it a total invasion of the 2 in questions privacy, but can you imagine the incredible pain that reading those notes would inflict on his family?... i sort of feel bad for him...
As a female, I am disgusted. By all of them. How hard is it to stay faithful to your wife? And the mother of your children, no less? I guess if your husband goes into politics you take your chances. Note to self.
Apparently his previous trips to Argentina were taken on the taxpayers' dime too, which makes his opposition to the stimulus money very hollow...was he afraid he'd take more trips if they gave him more money?! Slimey bastard.
Well, this will Im sure open a whole new can for worms, but the whole institution of marriage feels a bit contrived to me. Like Im sure for a small proportion of the population its totally works. But those are the kind of folks who probably would stay happily in love anyway. It just seems like trying to reinforce a relationships with money and lawyers and socially shame are all the wrong kind of incentives. So Im frankly just not that shocked when people fall out of love, fall in love with others, whatever. That seems natural to me.
nice, i like that he apologized to the mistress before his wife and kids.
class act! for someone that voted to impeach clinton, he sure takes the cake!
for mr. 'fiscal responsibility' to trek to BA, supposedly on taxpayer dollars, is effing hilarious. hypocritcal scum. but i do thank him for highlighting how ridiculous the 'marriage is sacred' argument is.
Jesus guys though really? Is this the modern future weve been fighting for? I mean were we saying the same thing when clinton fucked up? And his shit wasnt even heartfelt, he was just getting jacked off cause hes a fiend. I mean of course he sorts shit out with his gal before getting back to the family, what youre gonna go back to the wife and not have clear answers about your future? You cant look her in eye and say youve put it to bed?
I mean this is feminism guys. Having an honest and real view of what real relationships are like and not being so slavish to these kind of archaic gender rolls.
It's not that I disagree with the argument of marriage or whatever, it's just that when you DO get married, you know what you're signing up for. And, as a South Carolina Republican, he sure as HELL knew what he was signing up for. It's never the infidelity that got me the most upset... it's the hypocrisy.
Also, FRaC, I think it's interesting that you're so gung ho over Mitt Romney. I would listen to him if he didn't change his mind on everything he's ever claimed he stood for. He brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "flip-flop".
A friend and I today were just talking about how, even though we both potentially have futures working in government, have agreed to never, ever date or entertain the idea of dating someone who is interested in partisan politics.
We then batted eyes at the pretties sitting next to us and asked them their opinion. We got the resounding response amongst all of them that politics was for "smart but not intelligent" people, that it only matters that if you believe you are doing the right thing and that passion can be a turn off.
When we asked them who the President of China was... the coyly responded with "probably some chinese dude." They then said it was Hu Jintao and explained that they would rather be seen as dumb than bring confrontation to issues that have a polarizing quality.
, defeated by sestak in pennsylvania democratic primary race
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
may 18, 2010
WASHINGTON - Sen. Arlen Specter has been defeated in a Pennsylvania primary in his bid for a sixth term after taking the risky step of switching to the Democratic Party.
Voters Tuesday picked U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak as the party's nominee and rejected the 80-year-old Specter in his first Democratic campaign.
The vote also was a defeat for President Barack Obama, who supported Specter when he abandoned the Republican Party last year.
Specter was seeking his sixth term — but the first in his new party. Sestak gained traction in recent weeks by tagging him as an opportunist, even airing an ad that showed Specter saying he had abandoned the Republican Party so he could win re-election.
You, know after listening to MPR and the issues with border security, I am even more convinced that the AZ law is more racist than before. To assume that all people crossing from Mexico are criminals is insane, how about that most people crossing are doing so for one reason; to keep from being killed.
Arlen was a prig, and I am glad he stuck it to the Republicans, those spendy Republicans; never paid for the war, never paid for Bush tax cuts and never paid for Medicare Part D.
i loved the hubris in rand paul's victory speech last night. he'll 'respectfully' ask them to 'deliberate on this'! IF there is anyone in the room when this junior senator from kentucky asks, i hope they tousle his curly mop, tell him how cute he sounds proposing to balance the budget, lower taxes, and not cut any of the programs that his constituents demand, and tell him to turn the lights out when he leaves.
he'll have to make sure that he keeps the government from messing with their medicare, of course.
kentucky showed that our priorities are really just that the government let us keep our lottery and cig money and stop wasting it on things like education and construction projects.
oh, and let businesspeople do anything they want, because the public's best interests are always their top priority. it's always worked before hasn't it? [cough cough]
Everything that goes to Washington ends up tempered and watered down and weakened by being faced with the reality of how gridlocked the entire system is. I'm sure Paul will find that his most aggressive ideas will be impossible once he gets into the system - the question is, will the people who voted for him keep him in office if he doesn't deliver, or will they decide he's a principled statesman who will guide things in their direction because it's the right thing (in their view) to do?
I'm bummed about the results, overall, but not really surprised, and not especially worried, either.
The only thing I'm actually VERY sad about is that our local Dem candidate for Secretary of State, Vop Osili, who is a wonderful person AND very good and successful architect, was beaten by a truly idiotic and corrupt Repub. When either party fosters corruption on the taxpayers' dime - which the winner in this case did - it pisses me off deeply, and I'm dismayed that the majority of voters preferred a corrupt good-old-boy to someone I believe could have been a statesman. So it goes.
let's see... blue dogs kicked out at record numbers, leaving real dems in place.
R's massive fail to take senate will mean the house will actually have to pump stuff out and won't have senate to save them. which means they'll have to actually perform.
only they said they wouldn't. they're going to focus on climate change witch hunts and repealing health care reform.
republicans will go down big time in 2012 if they tack that way, although my takeaway from this election is the average voter is easily swayed by idiots, is an idiot, and has a memory worse than a goldfish.
nationally, i think this election was fairly meaningless. there will be complete legislative inertia for at least the next two years. no major legislation will be passed which is probably okay as the country is fatigued from legislative reform (though it's a shame the democrats couldn't push through an energy reform bill before the election, but dems da breaks.) the economy will continue its feable recovery or just stagnate. republicans have no answers for the economy, and the dems no longer have votes to do anything substantive.
on a state and local level, though, this was an absolute disaster for the democrats. public schools will be eviscerated in the wake of all the republican-controlled state legislatures and governorships. funding will be cut for public education and charters will continue to seriously erode existing public school districts. (bipartisan policies on a national level that support charter schools and outcomes-based funding [race to the top] will further degrade public education.) civic amenities (libraries, parks, the arts, etc.) are also in big trouble. on a day-to-day basis, i think this election will have a bigger impact than 2008.
1. I firmly believe giving the wealthy tax cuts and expecting them to create jobs is like like giving a fat kid a twinkie and expecting leftovers. Not gonna happen.
2. That being said, America is kinda like that dumb girlfriend who catches her man cheating on her, over and over but always takes him back because he says, "I'm so sorry baby I'll never hook up with another skank again I swear". Republicans always act like they love America more and will help everbody, but then they get elected and it's always back to the three Rs, Rich, Religious, and Rifles. By this time next year they'll be out banging the same whores again.
He really shouldn't be crying too hard. The decision is probably a good thing in the long run for conservatives.
1. The ruling puts a big limitation to the breadth of future appeals to the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS ruled that ACA is not constitutional under Commerce, but is a TAX.
2. The Obama Administration argued very deliberately that the ACA was NOT a tax. Why? Well, that would allow their opponents to pigeonhole them as big tax'n'spend progressives. And besides, ACA as a tax is highly regressive: wealthy folks already have health insurance for the most part, so they don't worry about the mandate, er.. penalty, er... tax.
3. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled that ACA only flies as a tax, the Republicans can accurately claim that Obama has put through the biggest tax increase on the middle class in history.
Am I the only liberal (actually, socialist) that doesn't agree with the healthcare law?* Seems to me like the way to bring health care costs down is not to give more money to the insurance companies, but to fix the root causes of skyrocketing costs... kill the pay-for-service model, reform tort law, bring down the costs of medical education so you can pay doctors less... and of course, institute single-payer health care.
In fact it shouldn't even be called the health care law, because it doesn't even address CARE. It should be called the health insurance law. Paying for health insurance is not the same thing as receiving better care. Argh.
*Although of course on a partisan political level I suppose I am happy that Obama was vindicated. But I don't agree with the stupid law! I just can't stand the thought of yet another wealth-worshipper in the White House. The amount of money one has should not equal one's human worth, and that is what Romney and his ilk believe. To them, riches = moral value.
Yes, agree with EKE. Plus, gives the Repubs more "fighting power" for Nov. They loooove to vote AGAINST things (since they offer nothing to vote FOR) - brings out their ground troops like nobody's business.
Then again, I'm a big cynic and was totally shocked with this ruling in the first place. Assumed Scalia would convince everyone. I actually agree that it's essentially a tax (and agree with Court's reason to not agree under Commerce clause) so find myself agreeing with Chief for first time. Weird feeling.
manta, actually in the depths of the ACA are the beginnings of payment model reform. While expanding Medicare, it also starts a couple of very important experiments around pay-for-results models that are only at the beta stage right now but seeing as Medicare/Medicaid makes up something like 55% of the healthcare payments in the U.S. right now, there will be an eventual trickle-down. Just as Roberts buried a very solid blow against congressional powers to regulate interstate commerce within an opinion that on the surface gave progressives the win, Obama has buried the beginnings of a deeper reform within a law that on it's surface talks about individual responsibility.
"The Obama Administration argued very deliberately that the ACA was NOT a tax. Why? Well, that would allow their opponents to pigeonhole them as big tax'n'spend progressives. And besides, ACA as a tax is highly regressive: wealthy folks already have health insurance for the most part, so they don't worry about the mandate, er.. penalty, er... tax."
This argument about "tax" vs "penalty" is a distinction without meaning -- anybody with half a brain (*) knew all along what it was, all semantics aside. It's an incredibly fair way to force those who can afford to pay for coverage, or health care, to cover their own costs. I'm tired of subsidizing those freeloaders.
The Republicans suffered a huge defeat with this ruling and this debate about "tax" vs "penalty" is the only thing their grubby little paws can latch on to.
(*) Oh, right -- most tea-baggers don't have "half a brain"
Ah yes I had forgotten about the beta tests!!! Thanks for reminding me, rationalist - I remember being pleased with that way back when. Yes this will help us build a solid, proven case for pay-for-service reform. Let's hope those test models shake out within the next 2 years, so Obama can get it passed in his next term... otherwise the ideas might die out waiting for another President to implement!
Manta, this is a really good law because there are about 536 people who get input and voting rights for any law. About half of those people have to be pleased with it enough to vote for it. Some of those people truly believe we should have less government, and that without government involvement the invisible hand of the market will level insurance costs such that it will be affordable for everyone that counts. A good number of those people signed a pledge that they would never vote for any sort of tax increase. Some are set on opposing any legislation supported by Obama on strictly partisan grounds. What passed is an honest improvement to a system that was broken and unsustainable in a political and legislative climate that is broken and unsustainable. I think we at least need something like the 'public option' where states can help maintain risk pools outside of private insurance profiteering, but that apparently would not have gotten the votes required to pass. It's not perfect, but it is definitely an improvement.
I also think this is good for republicans. If the Supreme Court struck down even part of the law, there could be pressure on them to offer an alternative. Now they can bitch all they want without any need to suggest a solution. Apparently it's the bitching that attracts people to republican party, so that could be a big win. Especially for Romney, having to offer a solution would suck since this pretty much was his solution as governor.
Totally, EKE. Thats a pretty smart analysis. It was an honest and fair ruling. I dont know why conservatives are surprised liberals aren't married to the bone on the commerce clause. The mandate was your idea, not ours. We just dont think the best way to bring heath care costs down is to let poor people die in the emergency room.
Completely agree with your second paragraph, curtkram, but not with your first. Just because 536 people vote for something does not mean it is good. Also, by your logic, every single bill that ever gets passed into law must be de facto good, and that's obviously not true. Anyway, I don't think the ACA addresses the root causes of our crazy health care costs (excepting the beta tests of fee-for-service alternatives) as mentioned above, and I believe in single-payer health care. So... to me, I don't agree with an insurance mandate, no, and I don't think the rest of the law goes far enough. I think it's honestly arguable as to whether it will truly end up helping the people who need it or not. I tend to believe that anything that plugs into business interests will only (eventually) lead to higher profits for those business interests - they'll just figure out a way to make that happen either regardless of, or via exploiting, the law. In my view the only way we'll ever get close to fair and equitable health care is to completely take the profit motive out of it - by instituting single payer care.
It is absurd to me that such a thing as for-profit hospitals and insurance companies even exist. One moment's reflection of how the exchange-of-services works in such a situation is enough to make one realize that the only way for such businesses to make a profit is, ultimately, at the expense of sick people. Our social contract then becomes less "we agree to these laws so that we can all do better, together" and more of a lottery - "I don't REALLY want everyone to do better, together, because I want to do better than everyone else... so I'll just hope I'm not the one who gets struck down with sickness and has to pay into the profit system for others' gain." If you're lucky enough not to get sick, it's a great system.
Anyway, I'll relent a little bit... obviously it is better, within the context of our current system, that folks who currently can't get insurance will have help (both $ and legal force) to get it. But it's hard for me to even say that this is a step in the right direction, because the direction it's going in just points to more of the same insurance-company-controlled, profit-driven system we already have... which is ultimately what is bad for our country and what is leading us into economic stagnation.
Plenty of people with insurance still get bankrupted dealing with medical issues.
This law does a couple of big things, such as medicaid expansion to cover a wider population of people who would otherwise be unable to afford insurance and providing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. Those should make a big difference from the start.
A lot of the problem with our current political climate is that some of our representatives are demanding that they get everything they want or they will sit and pout like toddlers. For example, President Obama offered opening more leases for drilling oil, which democrats would not be happy with but republicans would like, in return for support of legislation that would limit pollution. The republican rebuttal what they are are strongly in favor of drilling for more oil but will never support action to limit pollution. Another great example is with the deficit reduction efforts. Obama and Boehner came together, as did the 'super committee' or whatever it was called, and a lot of spending was cut and it ultimately hurt everyone. But they were unable to get votes because a significant contingent of representatives said they will only accepts cuts to medicare, medicaid, public education, and social security. Nothing else can be on the table. Those people will only vote if they get their way 100%, and no progress has been made simply because they're selfish and immature.
There are a lot of people in our country who don't care about helping others. There are a lot of people who can apparently watch their neighbors die without feeling the need to help. There are enough people like that to put enough people in office to prevent anything more meaningful than what was passed. Those of us that do want to help our neighbors had to give up a lot of what we would like to see, but we did get to help people. We can't expect to get our way 100%, but this time we did a good job of making compromises and making a difference for a lot of people who really needed help.
I agree that the current system is set up to favor private insurance corporations. I think they will take advantage of that. On the other hand, maybe in a few years Republicans will start supporting healthcare regulation that actually addresses why costs are increasing since their money is now on the line.
I also agree, in purely political terms, the Obamacare = middle class tax increase cudgel will be brutal in the coming months. Fortunately for Obama, the politics do cut both ways:
since frac thought it was important to necro threads from years ago, i thought i would bump the thread that spawned that one so we can see how far we've come.
i think we can look back and see that the affordable care act is very successful to everybody except those who really believe our nation must be failing because sometimes they don't get their way.
obama's presidency will be coming to a close soon. to paraphrase reagan, are you doing better now than you were 8 years ago? whatever specter saw in 2009 must have been a pretty big deal.
sure, the democratic party is just in shambles now that the chair is stepping down. i don't know if they'll ever recover. but then you guys put up sarah palin, mitt romney, donald trump. . . get paul ryan to fail to pass a budget a few more times. send the army corps on unpaid holiday again. you're doing a heck of a job!
here's one of your insights from 2009 frac. pretty well sums up where the party wants to go, doesn't it?
---------------------
I'm not opposed to seeing a healthy Republican party again, but they need to base their future off of something other than being divisive, name-calling, racist, greedy fear-mongers.
what? nice job describing the republican party with your name-calling and divisiveness ..
and the republican party is basing its future on racism, greed, and fear-mongering? come on, dubK, you know better than that.
-------------------------
also, i would encourage you to read oe's post from May 2, 09 3:16 pm. it's like it could have been written yesterday.
oe's post was bull shit. First of all for a smart guy like that to misspell 'Reagan' as 'regan' is just plan ludacris. Second, he said the best thing republicans have going is the idea of individualism, which if anyone could get past the plagiarism obsession last week they would have heard the 'you can do it' speech repeated ad infinitum.
and curt your declaration that obamacare is a success is bull shit, too. I know plenty of left wingers who got absolutely screwed by that unconstitutional piece of shit (who gives a FUCK what judge cutie John Roberts says). Obamacare still hasn't fully kicked in and will be seen as one of the worst pieces of legislation of our generation. Good luck with that, kids!
My post at the top of the page was wayyyyy off. I got the nomination of Mitt right, but who knew he would roll over to even the slightest criticism and loose to the fabricated 'war on women' myth?
The constitution is the document that establishes the supreme court as the body that judges a law as constitutional or not. The constitution says Obamacare is constitutional, with the exception of state medicaid expansion. If your in a state that chose to opt out of medicaid expansion, then there will be a coverage gap where some people end up in a bad place.
Which head of the 2 headed corporate snake is this thread about? Ahh doesn't matter...
Obama care is a watered down policy built on compromise and deeply imbedded corporatism. It's far from a perfect policy, but Functionally, I think it's better than what we had before for most people. Is it unconstitutional? Maybe partially, but not as unconstitutional as citizens United. If we are going down that road let's tackle that pos ruling first.
Obama has been a pretty centrist president. He represented the nation with class and dignity unlike Trump and Hillary. I disagree with many of his policies, but he still carried himself in a presidential manner and accomplished some big things like killing Osama, preserving forests, and pulling the nation from a depression. I personally lean between Libertarian and Green Party on most issues, and I like Gary Johnson by far out of the current crop, but if A repub or dem comes along with good character, temper, and intelligence I will vote for them as I did for Obama. At the end of the day I vote for the guy who I think is less likely to start thermo nuclear war and approve dumping toxic sludge into the water...I don't have any loyalty to a party. I am actually a proponent of dismantling parties all together. They are inherently dangerous and corrosive.
Both parties have become a caricature of themselves. Actually the thing I like about Trump is that he has basically torn the party of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz to shreds. It's not the same party anymore. I'm not sure it is any better than what it was before, but I am glad it is different and working through a process of change. Democrats are completely ossified. They missed their opportunity for redemption with Bernie basically because they stacked the deck against him.
The Implosion of the Republican Party (hang on while I get some popcorn...)
i know, it will be Mitt Romney!
and his 2012 win will be reminiscent of Reagan in 1980 (loses '76 nomination and comes back to win in a landslide 4 years later as an incompetent democrat runs the country into the ground) yeah!
im sorta with OE on this one... i never really like Edwards that much... he was so, so transparent. I found him conniving... i felt like he placating every audience he spoke to... i never had much sympathy for him...
but sanford... as much as i disagreed with him, seemed like he actually believed the shit he was selling... and now i see that somehow they got a hold of some emails sent back and forth... love notes... really personal stuff... that feels completely inappropriate... not only is it a total invasion of the 2 in questions privacy, but can you imagine the incredible pain that reading those notes would inflict on his family?... i sort of feel bad for him...
As a female, I am disgusted. By all of them. How hard is it to stay faithful to your wife? And the mother of your children, no less? I guess if your husband goes into politics you take your chances. Note to self.
Apparently his previous trips to Argentina were taken on the taxpayers' dime too, which makes his opposition to the stimulus money very hollow...was he afraid he'd take more trips if they gave him more money?! Slimey bastard.
Well, this will Im sure open a whole new can for worms, but the whole institution of marriage feels a bit contrived to me. Like Im sure for a small proportion of the population its totally works. But those are the kind of folks who probably would stay happily in love anyway. It just seems like trying to reinforce a relationships with money and lawyers and socially shame are all the wrong kind of incentives. So Im frankly just not that shocked when people fall out of love, fall in love with others, whatever. That seems natural to me.
nice, i like that he apologized to the mistress before his wife and kids.
class act! for someone that voted to impeach clinton, he sure takes the cake!
for mr. 'fiscal responsibility' to trek to BA, supposedly on taxpayer dollars, is effing hilarious. hypocritcal scum. but i do thank him for highlighting how ridiculous the 'marriage is sacred' argument is.
Jesus guys though really? Is this the modern future weve been fighting for? I mean were we saying the same thing when clinton fucked up? And his shit wasnt even heartfelt, he was just getting jacked off cause hes a fiend. I mean of course he sorts shit out with his gal before getting back to the family, what youre gonna go back to the wife and not have clear answers about your future? You cant look her in eye and say youve put it to bed?
I mean this is feminism guys. Having an honest and real view of what real relationships are like and not being so slavish to these kind of archaic gender rolls.
anyway. Im obviously outvoted. just saying.
It's not that I disagree with the argument of marriage or whatever, it's just that when you DO get married, you know what you're signing up for. And, as a South Carolina Republican, he sure as HELL knew what he was signing up for. It's never the infidelity that got me the most upset... it's the hypocrisy.
Also, FRaC, I think it's interesting that you're so gung ho over Mitt Romney. I would listen to him if he didn't change his mind on everything he's ever claimed he stood for. He brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "flip-flop".
A friend and I today were just talking about how, even though we both potentially have futures working in government, have agreed to never, ever date or entertain the idea of dating someone who is interested in partisan politics.
We then batted eyes at the pretties sitting next to us and asked them their opinion. We got the resounding response amongst all of them that politics was for "smart but not intelligent" people, that it only matters that if you believe you are doing the right thing and that passion can be a turn off.
When we asked them who the President of China was... the coyly responded with "probably some chinese dude." They then said it was Hu Jintao and explained that they would rather be seen as dumb than bring confrontation to issues that have a polarizing quality.
sounds like they have the same problems as a majority of the right - the denial of reality and a desire to be loudest no matter how incorrect.
No, see holz, they are refusing to do the exact thing you did right there. They are giving up expression and freedom to maintain civility.
That's a sad prospect of a future if that is the future we're creating today.
oops, yer right, they just have a denial of reality
somewhere, some staffer is changing his cell service from sprint:
wait, you said 'hitting some argentinian tail'?!?
jon stewert grabs some popcorn on the daily show last night!
WonderK: this sort of thing isn't limited to the male of the species:
Pamela Churchill Harriman
woah who's that cougar?
Also, all you folks hoping for Romney are hilarious. Do you remember Mitt Romney?
..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4
arlen specter implodes
, defeated by sestak in pennsylvania democratic primary race
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
may 18, 2010
WASHINGTON - Sen. Arlen Specter has been defeated in a Pennsylvania primary in his bid for a sixth term after taking the risky step of switching to the Democratic Party.
Voters Tuesday picked U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak as the party's nominee and rejected the 80-year-old Specter in his first Democratic campaign.
The vote also was a defeat for President Barack Obama, who supported Specter when he abandoned the Republican Party last year.
Specter was seeking his sixth term — but the first in his new party. Sestak gained traction in recent weeks by tagging him as an opportunist, even airing an ad that showed Specter saying he had abandoned the Republican Party so he could win re-election.
FRaC, how is that Kool-Aid?
You, know after listening to MPR and the issues with border security, I am even more convinced that the AZ law is more racist than before. To assume that all people crossing from Mexico are criminals is insane, how about that most people crossing are doing so for one reason; to keep from being killed.
Arlen was a prig, and I am glad he stuck it to the Republicans, those spendy Republicans; never paid for the war, never paid for Bush tax cuts and never paid for Medicare Part D.
Criminals.
kool-aid? wtfuck are you talking about, beta? (and why you debatin' the nAZi law in herre? we're talkin' implosions, baby!!)
*grabs popcorn*
i loved the hubris in rand paul's victory speech last night. he'll 'respectfully' ask them to 'deliberate on this'! IF there is anyone in the room when this junior senator from kentucky asks, i hope they tousle his curly mop, tell him how cute he sounds proposing to balance the budget, lower taxes, and not cut any of the programs that his constituents demand, and tell him to turn the lights out when he leaves.
he'll have to make sure that he keeps the government from messing with their medicare, of course.
kentucky showed that our priorities are really just that the government let us keep our lottery and cig money and stop wasting it on things like education and construction projects.
oh, and let businesspeople do anything they want, because the public's best interests are always their top priority. it's always worked before hasn't it? [cough cough]
Everything that goes to Washington ends up tempered and watered down and weakened by being faced with the reality of how gridlocked the entire system is. I'm sure Paul will find that his most aggressive ideas will be impossible once he gets into the system - the question is, will the people who voted for him keep him in office if he doesn't deliver, or will they decide he's a principled statesman who will guide things in their direction because it's the right thing (in their view) to do?
I'm bummed about the results, overall, but not really surprised, and not especially worried, either.
The only thing I'm actually VERY sad about is that our local Dem candidate for Secretary of State, Vop Osili, who is a wonderful person AND very good and successful architect, was beaten by a truly idiotic and corrupt Repub. When either party fosters corruption on the taxpayers' dime - which the winner in this case did - it pisses me off deeply, and I'm dismayed that the majority of voters preferred a corrupt good-old-boy to someone I believe could have been a statesman. So it goes.
let's see... blue dogs kicked out at record numbers, leaving real dems in place.
R's massive fail to take senate will mean the house will actually have to pump stuff out and won't have senate to save them. which means they'll have to actually perform.
only they said they wouldn't. they're going to focus on climate change witch hunts and repealing health care reform.
republicans will go down big time in 2012 if they tack that way, although my takeaway from this election is the average voter is easily swayed by idiots, is an idiot, and has a memory worse than a goldfish.
nationally, i think this election was fairly meaningless. there will be complete legislative inertia for at least the next two years. no major legislation will be passed which is probably okay as the country is fatigued from legislative reform (though it's a shame the democrats couldn't push through an energy reform bill before the election, but dems da breaks.) the economy will continue its feable recovery or just stagnate. republicans have no answers for the economy, and the dems no longer have votes to do anything substantive.
on a state and local level, though, this was an absolute disaster for the democrats. public schools will be eviscerated in the wake of all the republican-controlled state legislatures and governorships. funding will be cut for public education and charters will continue to seriously erode existing public school districts. (bipartisan policies on a national level that support charter schools and outcomes-based funding [race to the top] will further degrade public education.) civic amenities (libraries, parks, the arts, etc.) are also in big trouble. on a day-to-day basis, i think this election will have a bigger impact than 2008.
1. I firmly believe giving the wealthy tax cuts and expecting them to create jobs is like like giving a fat kid a twinkie and expecting leftovers. Not gonna happen.
2. That being said, America is kinda like that dumb girlfriend who catches her man cheating on her, over and over but always takes him back because he says, "I'm so sorry baby I'll never hook up with another skank again I swear". Republicans always act like they love America more and will help everbody, but then they get elected and it's always back to the three Rs, Rich, Religious, and Rifles. By this time next year they'll be out banging the same whores again.
There there Boehner.
sorry for your loss, we'll see you lose again in november
Supreme court upholds obamacare
^ very funny ... what a freaking crybaby.
I wouldn't get too excited. I still think Romney has odds this november.
He really shouldn't be crying too hard. The decision is probably a good thing in the long run for conservatives.
1. The ruling puts a big limitation to the breadth of future appeals to the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS ruled that ACA is not constitutional under Commerce, but is a TAX.
2. The Obama Administration argued very deliberately that the ACA was NOT a tax. Why? Well, that would allow their opponents to pigeonhole them as big tax'n'spend progressives. And besides, ACA as a tax is highly regressive: wealthy folks already have health insurance for the most part, so they don't worry about the mandate, er.. penalty, er... tax.
3. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled that ACA only flies as a tax, the Republicans can accurately claim that Obama has put through the biggest tax increase on the middle class in history.
This should be interesting.
Am I the only liberal (actually, socialist) that doesn't agree with the healthcare law?* Seems to me like the way to bring health care costs down is not to give more money to the insurance companies, but to fix the root causes of skyrocketing costs... kill the pay-for-service model, reform tort law, bring down the costs of medical education so you can pay doctors less... and of course, institute single-payer health care.
In fact it shouldn't even be called the health care law, because it doesn't even address CARE. It should be called the health insurance law. Paying for health insurance is not the same thing as receiving better care. Argh.
*Although of course on a partisan political level I suppose I am happy that Obama was vindicated. But I don't agree with the stupid law! I just can't stand the thought of yet another wealth-worshipper in the White House. The amount of money one has should not equal one's human worth, and that is what Romney and his ilk believe. To them, riches = moral value.
Yes, agree with EKE. Plus, gives the Repubs more "fighting power" for Nov. They loooove to vote AGAINST things (since they offer nothing to vote FOR) - brings out their ground troops like nobody's business.
Then again, I'm a big cynic and was totally shocked with this ruling in the first place. Assumed Scalia would convince everyone. I actually agree that it's essentially a tax (and agree with Court's reason to not agree under Commerce clause) so find myself agreeing with Chief for first time. Weird feeling.
manta, actually in the depths of the ACA are the beginnings of payment model reform. While expanding Medicare, it also starts a couple of very important experiments around pay-for-results models that are only at the beta stage right now but seeing as Medicare/Medicaid makes up something like 55% of the healthcare payments in the U.S. right now, there will be an eventual trickle-down. Just as Roberts buried a very solid blow against congressional powers to regulate interstate commerce within an opinion that on the surface gave progressives the win, Obama has buried the beginnings of a deeper reform within a law that on it's surface talks about individual responsibility.
"The Obama Administration argued very deliberately that the ACA was NOT a tax. Why? Well, that would allow their opponents to pigeonhole them as big tax'n'spend progressives. And besides, ACA as a tax is highly regressive: wealthy folks already have health insurance for the most part, so they don't worry about the mandate, er.. penalty, er... tax."
This argument about "tax" vs "penalty" is a distinction without meaning -- anybody with half a brain (*) knew all along what it was, all semantics aside. It's an incredibly fair way to force those who can afford to pay for coverage, or health care, to cover their own costs. I'm tired of subsidizing those freeloaders.
The Republicans suffered a huge defeat with this ruling and this debate about "tax" vs "penalty" is the only thing their grubby little paws can latch on to.
(*) Oh, right -- most tea-baggers don't have "half a brain"
Ah yes I had forgotten about the beta tests!!! Thanks for reminding me, rationalist - I remember being pleased with that way back when. Yes this will help us build a solid, proven case for pay-for-service reform. Let's hope those test models shake out within the next 2 years, so Obama can get it passed in his next term... otherwise the ideas might die out waiting for another President to implement!
Manta, this is a really good law because there are about 536 people who get input and voting rights for any law. About half of those people have to be pleased with it enough to vote for it. Some of those people truly believe we should have less government, and that without government involvement the invisible hand of the market will level insurance costs such that it will be affordable for everyone that counts. A good number of those people signed a pledge that they would never vote for any sort of tax increase. Some are set on opposing any legislation supported by Obama on strictly partisan grounds. What passed is an honest improvement to a system that was broken and unsustainable in a political and legislative climate that is broken and unsustainable. I think we at least need something like the 'public option' where states can help maintain risk pools outside of private insurance profiteering, but that apparently would not have gotten the votes required to pass. It's not perfect, but it is definitely an improvement.
I also think this is good for republicans. If the Supreme Court struck down even part of the law, there could be pressure on them to offer an alternative. Now they can bitch all they want without any need to suggest a solution. Apparently it's the bitching that attracts people to republican party, so that could be a big win. Especially for Romney, having to offer a solution would suck since this pretty much was his solution as governor.
Here's a take on the ruling from Slate, hardly a bastion of libertarian philosophy. Essentially makes the same point.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/06/roberts_health_care_opinion_commerce_clause_the_real_reason_the_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.single.html
Totally, EKE. Thats a pretty smart analysis. It was an honest and fair ruling. I dont know why conservatives are surprised liberals aren't married to the bone on the commerce clause. The mandate was your idea, not ours. We just dont think the best way to bring heath care costs down is to let poor people die in the emergency room.
Completely agree with your second paragraph, curtkram, but not with your first. Just because 536 people vote for something does not mean it is good. Also, by your logic, every single bill that ever gets passed into law must be de facto good, and that's obviously not true. Anyway, I don't think the ACA addresses the root causes of our crazy health care costs (excepting the beta tests of fee-for-service alternatives) as mentioned above, and I believe in single-payer health care. So... to me, I don't agree with an insurance mandate, no, and I don't think the rest of the law goes far enough. I think it's honestly arguable as to whether it will truly end up helping the people who need it or not. I tend to believe that anything that plugs into business interests will only (eventually) lead to higher profits for those business interests - they'll just figure out a way to make that happen either regardless of, or via exploiting, the law. In my view the only way we'll ever get close to fair and equitable health care is to completely take the profit motive out of it - by instituting single payer care.
It is absurd to me that such a thing as for-profit hospitals and insurance companies even exist. One moment's reflection of how the exchange-of-services works in such a situation is enough to make one realize that the only way for such businesses to make a profit is, ultimately, at the expense of sick people. Our social contract then becomes less "we agree to these laws so that we can all do better, together" and more of a lottery - "I don't REALLY want everyone to do better, together, because I want to do better than everyone else... so I'll just hope I'm not the one who gets struck down with sickness and has to pay into the profit system for others' gain." If you're lucky enough not to get sick, it's a great system.
Totally agree, oe. I like the way you worded that.
Anyway, I'll relent a little bit... obviously it is better, within the context of our current system, that folks who currently can't get insurance will have help (both $ and legal force) to get it. But it's hard for me to even say that this is a step in the right direction, because the direction it's going in just points to more of the same insurance-company-controlled, profit-driven system we already have... which is ultimately what is bad for our country and what is leading us into economic stagnation.
Plenty of people with insurance still get bankrupted dealing with medical issues.
This law does a couple of big things, such as medicaid expansion to cover a wider population of people who would otherwise be unable to afford insurance and providing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. Those should make a big difference from the start.
A lot of the problem with our current political climate is that some of our representatives are demanding that they get everything they want or they will sit and pout like toddlers. For example, President Obama offered opening more leases for drilling oil, which democrats would not be happy with but republicans would like, in return for support of legislation that would limit pollution. The republican rebuttal what they are are strongly in favor of drilling for more oil but will never support action to limit pollution. Another great example is with the deficit reduction efforts. Obama and Boehner came together, as did the 'super committee' or whatever it was called, and a lot of spending was cut and it ultimately hurt everyone. But they were unable to get votes because a significant contingent of representatives said they will only accepts cuts to medicare, medicaid, public education, and social security. Nothing else can be on the table. Those people will only vote if they get their way 100%, and no progress has been made simply because they're selfish and immature.
There are a lot of people in our country who don't care about helping others. There are a lot of people who can apparently watch their neighbors die without feeling the need to help. There are enough people like that to put enough people in office to prevent anything more meaningful than what was passed. Those of us that do want to help our neighbors had to give up a lot of what we would like to see, but we did get to help people. We can't expect to get our way 100%, but this time we did a good job of making compromises and making a difference for a lot of people who really needed help.
I agree that the current system is set up to favor private insurance corporations. I think they will take advantage of that. On the other hand, maybe in a few years Republicans will start supporting healthcare regulation that actually addresses why costs are increasing since their money is now on the line.
I also agree, in purely political terms, the Obamacare = middle class tax increase cudgel will be brutal in the coming months. Fortunately for Obama, the politics do cut both ways:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/repeal-is-a-fantasy.html
since frac thought it was important to necro threads from years ago, i thought i would bump the thread that spawned that one so we can see how far we've come.
i think we can look back and see that the affordable care act is very successful to everybody except those who really believe our nation must be failing because sometimes they don't get their way.
obama's presidency will be coming to a close soon. to paraphrase reagan, are you doing better now than you were 8 years ago? whatever specter saw in 2009 must have been a pretty big deal.
sure, the democratic party is just in shambles now that the chair is stepping down. i don't know if they'll ever recover. but then you guys put up sarah palin, mitt romney, donald trump. . . get paul ryan to fail to pass a budget a few more times. send the army corps on unpaid holiday again. you're doing a heck of a job!
here's one of your insights from 2009 frac. pretty well sums up where the party wants to go, doesn't it?
---------------------
I'm not opposed to seeing a healthy Republican party again, but they need to base their future off of something other than being divisive, name-calling, racist, greedy fear-mongers.
what? nice job describing the republican party with your name-calling and divisiveness ..
and the republican party is basing its future on racism, greed, and fear-mongering? come on, dubK, you know better than that.
-------------------------
also, i would encourage you to read oe's post from May 2, 09 3:16 pm. it's like it could have been written yesterday.
oe's post was bull shit. First of all for a smart guy like that to misspell 'Reagan' as 'regan' is just plan ludacris. Second, he said the best thing republicans have going is the idea of individualism, which if anyone could get past the plagiarism obsession last week they would have heard the 'you can do it' speech repeated ad infinitum.
and curt your declaration that obamacare is a success is bull shit, too. I know plenty of left wingers who got absolutely screwed by that unconstitutional piece of shit (who gives a FUCK what judge cutie John Roberts says). Obamacare still hasn't fully kicked in and will be seen as one of the worst pieces of legislation of our generation. Good luck with that, kids!
and GOOD DAY, SIR!
My post at the top of the page was wayyyyy off. I got the nomination of Mitt right, but who knew he would roll over to even the slightest criticism and loose to the fabricated 'war on women' myth?
Oh Mitt (Willard?) you could have been so great!
The constitution is the document that establishes the supreme court as the body that judges a law as constitutional or not. The constitution says Obamacare is constitutional, with the exception of state medicaid expansion. If your in a state that chose to opt out of medicaid expansion, then there will be a coverage gap where some people end up in a bad place.
so curt you've never disagreed with a supreme court ruling? never ever?
dissenting judges should just stfu regarding constitutionality of cases?
Which head of the 2 headed corporate snake is this thread about? Ahh doesn't matter...
Obama care is a watered down policy built on compromise and deeply imbedded corporatism. It's far from a perfect policy, but Functionally, I think it's better than what we had before for most people. Is it unconstitutional? Maybe partially, but not as unconstitutional as citizens United. If we are going down that road let's tackle that pos ruling first.
Obama has been a pretty centrist president. He represented the nation with class and dignity unlike Trump and Hillary. I disagree with many of his policies, but he still carried himself in a presidential manner and accomplished some big things like killing Osama, preserving forests, and pulling the nation from a depression. I personally lean between Libertarian and Green Party on most issues, and I like Gary Johnson by far out of the current crop, but if A repub or dem comes along with good character, temper, and intelligence I will vote for them as I did for Obama. At the end of the day I vote for the guy who I think is less likely to start thermo nuclear war and approve dumping toxic sludge into the water...I don't have any loyalty to a party. I am actually a proponent of dismantling parties all together. They are inherently dangerous and corrosive.
Both parties have become a caricature of themselves. Actually the thing I like about Trump is that he has basically torn the party of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz to shreds. It's not the same party anymore. I'm not sure it is any better than what it was before, but I am glad it is different and working through a process of change. Democrats are completely ossified. They missed their opportunity for redemption with Bernie basically because they stacked the deck against him.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.