Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* I wrote earlier that Sharron Angle wasn't mocking autism in that vid that's making the rounds, but Nevada writer Steve Sebelius makes a strong case that she was, in fact, expressing "skepticism that autism is a legitimate disorder."

Sebelius argues the vid reveals "Angle's utter selfishness, and her encouraging that selfishness in others. She doesn't have autism, or autistic kids, so why should she pay for them? And why should you? She's not going to have any more babies, so why should she be forced to pay for other people's? And why should you?"

* And: Eric Kleefeld points out that "it is very clear that Angle was opposing mandated health insurance coverage for various conditions, including autism." Meaning that Angle's plan wouldn't require insurance companies to cover it.

* Angle's response: Her camp puts out a statement that government allows people to "falsely label other symptoms as autism."

* You couldn't ask for clearer proof than this of the folly of the Dems' apparent decision to punt on the middle class tax cut extension until after Election Day. Here's the response to the news from the NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay:

"Americans are opposed to raising taxes on anyone in this struggling economy, but it seems Democrat leaders in Washington are the only ones who have yet to receive that message. By refusing to address this issue, vulnerable House Democrats can now add the Obama tax hike on small businesses to the long litany of job-killing policies they will be forced to defend between now and Election Day."

Get it, vulnerable Dems? You're getting called tax hikers anyway! No one could have predicted that one.

* By the way, the middle class tax cut vote is not completely dead in the House, I'm told. Discussions still underway, but it seems very, very unlikely.

* Good for Joe Sestak for calling on Dems not to abandon the issue, and to stand and fight.

* With the tax cut issue all but dead, Dem hopes will turn partly on what kind of legislation Dems can roll out, such as the new small business lending bill that House Dems sent to the President today.

* Dems' problems are solved! Joe Lieberman is now throwing his weight into efforts to get Dem base voters to turn out: "It's going to be very hard to win if the base doesn't turn out in big numbers."

* Here's blogger Susie Madrak's take on asking David Axelrod about "hippie punching."

* And Sam Stein also reports on that blogger conference call, noting it was supposed to be about the GOP's "Pledge to America" but ended up being all about Dems punting on the Bush tax cuts. Another sign that's a bad move.

* Don't miss Political Correction's thorough debunking of all of the misinformation swirling around the Bush tax cut debate.

* And Ben Smith reports that not only is the Ohio Dem chair refusing to apologize for cursing about Tea Partyers, he's now raising money off it for his "swear jar."

What else is going on?

UPDATE, 6:25 p.m.: It's officially official: The Senate will postpone the vote on the tax cuts until after election day. From Harry Reid spokesman Jim Manley:

"Democrats believe we must permanently extend tax cuts for the middle-class before they expire at the end of the year, and we will. Unfortunately, to this point we have received no cooperation from Republicans to do so. Democrats will not allow families in Nevada and across the country to suffer or be held hostage by Republicans who would rather give tax giveaways to millionaires and corporations that ship jobs overseas. We will come back in November and stay in session as long as it takes to get this done."


By Greg Sargent  | September 23, 2010; 6:20 PM ET
Categories:  Happy Hour Roundup, House Dems, House GOPers, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, Tea Party, economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Liberal blogger directly confronts David Axelrod, accuses White House of "hippie punching"
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

"What else is going on?"

Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) is a racist.

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/politics/loretta-sanchez-on-unvision-vi/

Posted by: sbj3 | September 23, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

How does that remark make her "racist," sbj3?

Posted by: ChristopherMc | September 23, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Sen Harkin just announced a vote next week about Outsourcing Jobs Legislation. Carly certainly won't like to hear about that vote.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

"What else is going on?"

A little late but Gutfeld skewers Stewart:

"So last week Jon Stewart announced he was going to hold a rally of his own in Washington D.C., to restore reason, sanity or whatever," Gutfeld said... it's an appropriate, hipster response to the tea parties and Glenn Beck's thing...

"Would Stewart have announced his event if those other events had a decidedly liberal tilt? ... Short answer: no," he continued. "Long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooo... what Stewart is doing is not speaking truth to power, but poking fun at the people who are speaking truth to power. I mean, Stewart isn't going after politicians or leaders - he's mocking people who are standing up to politicians and leaders."

"... While the Tea Party is a ‘bottom-up' phenomenon, Stewart is on top, looking down," Gutfeld continued. "His is a reaction from the establishment, not against... So that doesn't make Stewart brave, it makes him a toady," Gutfeld said. "But no surprise - this is what passes for rebellion in the media, which is really just making fun of people in fanny packs who prefer Sarah Palin over Sarah Silverman. I'm with them on the fanny packs, though. They suck. And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobic Islamophobic Europhobe."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/09/22/fncs-gutfeld-mocks-daily-show-rally-what-passes-rebellion-media#ixzz10OVnGYSD

Posted by: sbj3 | September 23, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

"We’re not talking about my feelings here, how am I supposed to motivate my readers when you treat them like the town ho?" ~ Susie Madrak

Wow. What an idiot.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 23, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

ifthethunderdontgetya - I have yet to see proof positive that they did, "dealt away the public option, secretly, early in the process." But let us just assume you are correct and that they did do this. Why did they do it? Because they knew darn well that they didn't have the votes in the Senate to get it through and decided that slaying dragons (passing HCR) is more important than tilting at windmills (Public Option.)

Posted by: nisleib | September 23, 2010 5:28 PM |
=========================

You can't win if you don't try. (Don't listen to Homer Simpson's version!)

And Obama/Rahm didn't try. They sold out to the corporations, which is what the DLC is all about. Rahm has a history of this, by the way.

And for another example of the same thing from the current Administration, here's our Interior Department:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

=>"Employees describe being in Interior – not just MMS, but the other agencies – as the third Bush term," says Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which represents federal whistle-blowers. "They're working for the same managers who are implementing the same policies. Why would you expect a different result?"<=

As for your question, did I want to see HCR go down? No, I knew that would guarantee a "Democrats Failed" theme from our corporate MSM for the rest of the cycle. But I don't appreciate being lied to by corporate stooges, and then being blamed for their failures.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 23, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"Obama tax hike." In fairness, the Dems only had nine years advance notice that expiration was coming. And despite the fact that the expiration is a design of the Bush/GOP tax law, it's simply unfair in this short time period to expect coherent messaging framing them as "Bush tax hikes," and "just another mess George Bush left for us to clean up." They only hold the White House and Congress, so there tools are limited. #AxelRahmFail

Posted by: SteveinSacto | September 23, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

At least the Senate Dems are going to bring out the STOP JOB OUTSOURCING BILL out on Monday to vote on it.

Posted by: maritza1 | September 23, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

And despite the fact that the expiration is a design of the Bush/GOP tax law...
================================

And despite the fact that these tax cuts are the biggest cause of our 13 trillion dollar debt...Republicans don't care about facts.

Fixed it for you, SteveinSacto.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 23, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

@christopher: You can call it race-baiting if it makes you feel better.

"Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege."

Here's what Sanchez said:

"The Vietnamese and the Republicans are ... trying to take away this seat, this seat that we have done so much for our community, take away this seat from us."

If you can't figure it out after that then I'm not the one who can help you!

Posted by: sbj3 | September 23, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Why do I get the feeling that, late at night (or maybe even in the middle of the day), David Axelrod and his cronies talk about progressives in the same way Karl Rove talked about the Religious Right?

"We will tell you to 'hold us accountable,' but don't publicly disagree with us, ever, on anything"? Is that the message?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 23, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

* Congress approves 30-billion-dollar small business fund *

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0924-small-business-20100923,0,4138971.story

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/23/1839347/congress-passes-small-business.html

Lost in the shuffle... good stuff.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 23, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Ethan

You know the answer to that question.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

"despite the fact that these tax cuts are the biggest cause of our 13 trillion dollar debt"

Um, no.

"Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009, so clearly something else is to blame.

"The main culprit was the recession -- and the responses it inspired. As the economy shrank, tax revenue plummeted. The cost of the bank bailouts and stimulus packages further added to the deficit. In fact, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that the Bush tax cuts account for only about 25 percent of the deficit this year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html

Posted by: sbj3 | September 23, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/09/22/fncs-gutfeld-mocks-daily-show-rally-what-passes-rebellion-media#ixzz10OVnGYSD

Posted by: sbj3 | September 23, 2010 6:34 PM
======================================

Greg Gutfeld? Do you really think that guy is funny?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 23, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

I see, sbj3.

It's a reading comprehension problem that you have.

Debt = total accumulated budget deficits and surpluses, plus the interest on same.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 23, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

SBJ, what do you think of the other myths dispelled by that article?

Because except for that one segment that you posted, the economists destroy these myths:

1. Extending the tax cuts would be a good way to stimulate the economy.

2. Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire would hurt small businesses.

3. Making the tax cuts permanent will lead to long-term growth.

5. Continuing the tax cuts won't doom the long-term fiscal picture; entitlements are the real problem.

...even if the economy returns to full employment by 2014 and stays there for the rest of the decade, the continuation of current fiscal policies, including the Bush tax cuts, would lead to a national debt in the range of 90 percent of GDP by 2020. [...]

The Bush tax cuts would account for a significant chunk of this, considering that in each year they are in effect, the revenue lost because of them amounts to nearly 2 percent of GDP.

Compounding the problem: By increasing the government's debt, the tax cuts have already led to higher interest payments on that debt. So even if all of the cuts expire on Dec. 31, we will still be paying for them for years to come.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html

Read the whole thing.

Completely destroys the political argument that Republicans and SBJ are trying to promote.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 23, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

@undertow - you are correct regarding deficit versus debt.

Yes, I think Gutfeld is very funny and perceptive.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 23, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

During an interview earlier Thursday on WHAS-AM in Louisville, Paul was asked what cuts could be made to such popular programs as Medicare as the Republican spoke of the need for spending cuts across government.
Rs call for seniors to pay more towards their Medicare premiums.

That should sell well.
Unbelievable. Why wasn't this included in the R pledge today?

"You want to have more participation by the person who's receiving the entitlement," Paul replied. "By that I mean that they need to be more involved with some sort of economic transaction every time they use their entitlement, and that means they have to bear more of the burden."

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama DOES want to raise taxes by $700 Billion, right?


Otherwise, Obama would be going with the Adler plan - and there would be votes reducing everyone's taxes.

Everyone, not a plan which seeks to divide the nation.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"Completely destroys the political argument that Republicans and SBJ are trying to promote."

Obama is the one trying to extend and make permanent the middle class tax cuts!

Posted by: sbj3 | September 23, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

News FLASH


Bill Ayers was denied emeritus status at the University of Illinois - in part because Christopher Kennedy argued against it -


Bill Ayers had dedicated a part of a book to the killer of his father.

Interesting......

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

imsinca I truly hope I didn't offend you, but those on the left, not you, who demand political purity make my blood boil. They stay home and they enable Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell insanity.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 6:27 PM
-------

Yes, I don't see how the Dems hold the House if they lose all the Blue Dogs. But I still contend Obama's lack of executive experience is telling when he can't get the votes for something as popular as an extension of the middle-class tax cuts.

I would have taken the vote, but I don't assign as nefarious a motive to the opponents as some of the other posters here seem to. Isn't it just possible that the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats actually BELIEVE that higher taxes for the upper class will hurt the economy? If they are acting on principle, then it is up to their constituents and the "other" Democrats in Congress to convince them that they are wrong on the issue. Somehow I don't think calling them names is a winning strategy.

Posted by: Brigade | September 23, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

That Lieberman quote is absolutely priceless. Here's more of it. What a kidder. Not like he had anything to do with it right?

"Democrats have to try to change the minds of some independents, and that's going to be hard. So, the main priority of Democrats, to avoid what could be a disastrous election, is to bring out the Democratic voters."

Posted by: lmsinca | September 23, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

nice to see 37th/STR back advocating for tax cuts for Paris and Lindsay. They could certainly use an xtra 100 grand.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

"You want to have more participation by the person who's receiving the entitlement," Paul replied. "By that I mean that they need to be more involved with some sort of economic transaction every time they use their entitlement, and that means they have to bear more of the burden."

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 7:09 PM
----

In all fairness, the wonderful HCR bill didn't do much in the way of cost containment, and rising costs are what will eventually break the bank. In the absence of other suggestions, I imagine Paul's point was that people would be more mindful of healthcare costs if they had to chip in a little more of their own money.

I don't know how much the elderly contribute in the way of deductibles and co-pays, but I do know that a lot of people with health insurance already have to kick in a share of the cost (co-pays and deductibles) as well as paying the premiums on their policies.

Posted by: Brigade | September 23, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

News FLASH


Bill Ayers was denied emeritus status at the University of Illinois - in part because Christopher Kennedy argued against it -


Bill Ayers had dedicated a part of a book to the killer of his father.


Interesting......

It is interesting because apparently the University of Illinois had no problem with Ayers on account of his bombings of government buildings - the bombing of the Pentagon - the bombing of the Capital building


Or the deaths of his friends who were making bombs in New York City - supposedly to bomb something else


Or the deaths of a Brinks Truck driver in Nyack, NY - for which Ayers friends were convicted in connection with a robbery to fund allegedly more bombings

NONE of that mattered much.


HOWEVER, dedicating a book to Sirhan Sirhan - THAT crosses the line...

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Brigade - definitely there are a lot more cost-containment issues to address - things where groups of doctors buy expensive machines and then prescribe scans that aren't needed, and etc etc. It's a huge complex system so I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of ways to try to game it. But at least requiring insurers to spend 85% of every premium dollar on actual care will make a big difference. The other stuff will have to be tweaked as time goes on. But that change alone will help quite a bit.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 23, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

An internet search of Sirhan Sirhan and Obama revealed this little piece


By Daniel Pipes in 2008


Obama's connections to muslim causes:


Barack Obama's birth and youth as a Muslim, a fact that he completely denies ("I've always been a Christian," "I have never been a Muslim").

Obama's networking with extremist Islamic groups, including the Nation of Islam and such organizations as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the North American Islamic Trust, the Muslim Alliance in North America, and the Muslim American Society.

Obama's indirect connection to Saddam Hussein via two corrupt Middle East businessmen living in the West, Nadhmi Auchi and Antoin S. "Tony" Rezko.

Obama's ties to Ali Abunimah, the Palestinian extremist who praised Obama as "progressive, intelligent and charismatic" and as someone who "used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation." But, Abunimah bemoaned the fact that his once-state senator, on aspiring to higher office, cynically "learned to love Israel."

Michelle Obama's Internet "friend" relationship with Hatem El-Hady, former chairman of "Kindhearts," an Islamic so-called charity shuttered for funding terrorism.

Obama's friendship with Rashid Khalidi, the PLO official now teaching at Columbia University, as well as Obama's apparently vicious anti-Israel remarks at Khalidi's Chicago farewell party in 2003.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

its called a filibuster brigade, a strategy the R Senators have abused this year. I still think they should have called the R bluff and had 2 votes on the D tax cuts and a separate vote that would have lost by 2-3 votes for Paris and Lindsay's tax cuts. It was a winner that Peter Hart begged them to take, you are exactly right about an opportunity handed to them on a silver platter.

The GOP is obviously obsessed with tax cuts. When talking about economics it is the only idea the ever GOP has, period. Why isn't the GOP ending earmarks or telling us what programs they will cut to pay for Paris and Lindsay's $700 billion tax cut?

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 wrote,
"The Bush tax cuts would account for a significant chunk of this, considering that in each year they are in effect, the revenue lost because of them amounts to nearly 2 percent of GDP."
------

These are just opinions. If the economy slows, then increased tax rates do not necessarily bring in greater tax revenue.
I don't know how you actually quantify these theories. When a Democrat tells us that without the stimulus package the economy would be in even worse shape, a Republican can as easily claim that without the Bush tax cuts the recession would have been deeper and without extending them the recovery will be slower. How can you actually prove the point one way or the other?

Posted by: Brigade | September 23, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, just from my experience with my folks, I'm not quite that old yet, they had to chip in as well. Co-pays were relatively low, but they also had co-pays for the hospital and minor (out-patient) procedures.

The biggest expense for them though was medication. They had secondary insurance for both medical and pharmaceutical, paid for by my dad's retirement, but the pharmacy co-pays were nearly out of reach for them. My mom, I found out because the pharmacist alerted me, was cutting her pills in half to make them last longer. That's when I started chipping in.

I also cooked dinner for her several nights a week and made her car payment. SS didn't cut it after my Dad passed and she lived in a subsidized senior apartment.

Probably more than you wanted to know huh?

Posted by: lmsinca | September 23, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

sbj3:

Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) is also an adultress.

http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/06/02/the-making-of-the-%E2%80%9Cloretta-sanchez-scandal%E2%80%9D/

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 23, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I told you months ago Paul would easily win, he is really trying to prove me wrong. brigade try increasing your co pays or deductibles with your employees where you work or tell an elderly living off of a 1% CD return to kick in an extra $50/month. Not smart.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

@sbj: "Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) is a racist."

I don't know about racist, but it sure makes her, at the very least, pretty stupid.

"A little late but Gutfeld skewers Stewart:"

You thought that was a skewering? Wow - you have pretty low standards.

I mean, I don't think this involved any great insight:

"I mean, Stewart isn't going after politicians or leaders - he's mocking people who are standing up to politicians and leaders."

Other than changing "people who are standing up to politicians and leaders." to "teabaggers who aren't smart enough to spell-check their own signs" - then,....Duh! Of course, he's mocking them. I mean, has this guy ever WATCHED Stewart's show?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 23, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1 at 7:42 PM


So when the democrats used the filibuster against Bush's Judicial nominations - that was not "abuse"


If the Republicans take control of the Senate, the democrats will be using the filibuster ALL the time

YOUR comments can not be taken seriously.


LOOK at the conduct of the democrats when they have not had control of the Senate.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

. . . losing the House may not be such a bad thing for the Dems. The GOP can't screw it up too much in 2 years. With the new crop of GOP wackos coming to DC they will be perfect poster children for the Dems to attack come 2012. The Dems caving today is essentially the start of the 2012 campaign.
It will be 1948 all over again, with Obama running against Congress.

Posted by: filmnoia | September 23, 2010 1:04 PM
----

I just had to repost this. I've seen all manner of charts and graphs from liberals explaining why we can't rely on the history of midterms, polls, and Presidential approval ratings to convince us that the upcoming elections will be bad for Democrats. Too many variables. Too much has changed. I've even seen some predictions that Democrats will actually GAIN seats in the 2010 midterms.

But I think the above post may be a precursor of things to come. There is a scene in a Pee Wee Herman movie where Pee Wee wrecks his bike and goes flying head over heels into someone's yard. He hops right up and exclaims, "I meant to do that!" If Dems suffer devastating losses in November 2010, they can always come back and claim that it's part of master plan for 2012---let the Republicans have control so you can show how horrible they are and from 2012 on, you'll live happily ever after.

Posted by: Brigade | September 23, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

Chuck Schumer (D-NY), assuming he is re-elected, will miraculously re-discover the true and noble calling of minority dissent via the filibuster again ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 23, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

look at the comparison of filibusters. Rs have three times more and have used it against EVERY piece of D legislation, that is insane regardless of your rationalizing. I could provide you the comparison of filibusters under Bush and Obama but that would require rational thought on your part which simply and not going to happen.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

its called a filibuster brigade, a strategy the R Senators have abused this year. I still think they should have called the R bluff and had 2 votes on the D tax cuts and a separate vote that would have lost by 2-3 votes for Paris and Lindsay's tax cuts. It was a winner that Peter Hart begged them to take, you are exactly right about an opportunity handed to them on a silver platter.

The GOP is obviously obsessed with tax cuts. When talking about economics it is the only idea the ever GOP has, period. Why isn't the GOP ending earmarks or telling us what programs they will cut to pay for Paris and Lindsay's $700 billion tax cut?

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 7:42 PM
----

Why are you being crabby with me? I told you I would have taken the vote. Make people stand up and be counted. The filibuster will still be around during the lame duck session. That's no exuse. And I'm not willing to demonize the GOP. Isn't it possible they actually believe their position is the best one for the country? The odd thing is that they seem able to prevail. The HCR bill was unpopular (granted, parts of it were not unpopular) but the Dems rammed it through
anyway, at what may be great political cost; but an all around winner like middle-class tax cuts and they fold a winning hand. I'm perplexed.

Posted by: Brigade | September 23, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1:

If I were the one proposing legislation in the Senate, and you were in the minority party, I suspect that you would attempt to filibuster EVERY piece of legislation I offered.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 23, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

I told you months ago Paul would easily win, he is really trying to prove me wrong. brigade try increasing your co pays or deductibles with your employees where you work or tell an elderly living off of a 1% CD return to kick in an extra $50/month. Not smart.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 7:51 PM
----

Well, actually the coverage for my hospitalization went from a 90-10 split to 80-20 this past January. Out-of-pocket limits went up, too. I fear there's more where that came from.

Posted by: Brigade | September 23, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

no one is predicting a positive midterm by Ds bridgade only question is will they hold onto the House by a squeaker. There is still ilkely a 40% chance they will hold the house.

I wouldn't get too excited about D filibusters jake, even though you alone are convinced in your delusional world that Delaware will elect your nutjob candidate.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Well, there you go again. I'm certainly not "alone" (unless you think the candidate herself doesn't believe it). Just counting since she won the GOP primary, Christine O'Donnell has raised over $2.5 million (at least SOME of that is from people who believe she can win ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 23, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Since when does the Washington Post Editorial page dislike anything Republicans do?

"The GOP's 'Pledge to America': Deficits can rest easily"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092304841.html?

I'm on pins and needles myself to see who'll be the first to call it...

"The Republicans' Lemon Pledge."

(or some variant thereof)

Posted by: CalD | September 23, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Rahm Emanuel is leaving before the big losses


Axelrod wants to leave before the big losses


Summers is gone


The WHOLE WHITE HOUSE is in disarray - the rats are JUMPING.


There is complete disorganization and chaos at the White House...

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

The highest unfavorable of all GOP contenders this cycle:

Christine O’Donnell
Delaware
29/50 Favorable/Unfavorable

-21 NET UNFAVORABLE
---------------------------------
Other than that, no problem.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 23, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse


brigade, read what I said. I AGREE WITH you,
Ds were cowards to not take the vote. I would have forced 2 separate votes and predict the upper tax cut vote would nhave lost 48/52. And I am sure your employees were not pleased with that change, try campaigning on I support increasing your deductibles and co pays; plain stupid even in Ky.

we know jake you want to imprison every woman in this country who is raped or involved with incest if they have an abortion; you want 0% taxes; and want Christianity to become the official mandated religion for this country. don't really care your opinions on the filibuster or much of anything.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1 at 8:08 PM


You are unable to admit you are wrong - so you resort to name calling


I thought you were an adult.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse


brigade, read what I said. I AGREE WITH you,
Ds were cowards to not take the vote. I would have forced 2 separate votes and predict the upper tax cut vote would nhave lost 48/52. And I am sure your employees were not pleased with that change, try campaigning on I support increasing your deductibles and co pays; plain stupid even in Ky.

we know jake you want to imprison every woman in this country who is raped or involved with incest if they have an abortion; you want 0% taxes; and want Christianity to become the official mandated religion for this country. don't really care your opinions on the filibuster or much of anything.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

I was wrong about the Rs using the filibuster 3 times more, maybe in your delusional world.
Name calling. Durn straight. I called the juvenile who posted an ugly statement about HIS POTUS a moron, and make no apology.

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/

62 filibuster in 2003-2004; 133 filibusters in 2009-2010 AS OF MARCH 2010. Facts are a stubborn thing, but you are welcome to deny and scream how that is just a left wing conspiracy. You know no one cares.

Rs filibustered over 90% of all D bills since 2008, their apologists here deny that and they delusinally feel that is the norm. Amazing.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

I was wrong about the Rs using the filibuster 3 times more, maybe in your delusional world.
Name calling. Durn straight. I called the juvenile who posted an ugly statement about HIS POTUS a moron, and make no apology.

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/

62 filibuster in 2003-2004; 133 filibusters in 2009-2010 AS OF MARCH 2010. Facts are a stubborn thing, but you are welcome to deny and scream how that is just a left wing conspiracy. You know no one cares.

Rs filibustered over 90% of all D bills since 2008, their apologists here deny that and they delusinally feel that is the norm. Amazing.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

sorry, I see that I called 37th/RTF illogical at 8:08 what an absolutely horrible thing to post.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 23, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade....lmsinca contributed a lot in her answer to your question about what skin Medicare recipients have in the game..aka their co pays.

Generally (realizing the problems generalizing can cause :-) ) Medicare is about like you claim your insurance is going to be this year. It pays "roughly" 80% with the remaining 20% paid by the patient. In all honesty I do not have any senior acquaintances who fall below the poverty line and so I'm completely unaware of subsidies the Gov't provides on co pays for the poor.

I can say however I know quite a few Medicare recipients...at 62 I'm not that far away myself and so I have plenty of relatives and friends who are already recipients....every Medicare recipient I know also carries supplemental insurance.
AARP offers United Insurance which is the most common carrier but I'm sure there are plenty of others.

This is why I didn't buy all the arguments about single payer solutions bankrupting or putting private insurers out of business.

We are the ONLY civilized society that doesn't budget for health care. There is already rationing...based simply on wealth of the citizen...those who have the $ get health care...those who don't get emergency room care...zero preventive medicine...incredibly expensive and inefficient.

"60 Minutes" ran an especially enlightening piece during the HCR debate where the physicians would have smacked Sister Sarah in her obnoxious loud mouth if they could have...talk of "death panels" and "pulling the plug on granny" simply obfuscate a much needed "genuine" debate on how to fix our health care system. EVERY expert I've read on this subject...and I did tons of research, comes to the conclusion that a single payer (my personal preference) or a socialized system (VA happens to be the best performing medical system in our nation right now) is the ONLY real solution.

BTW one of the grannies in the 60 minute piece had a triple by pass...was in her 80's..comatose..in the ICU for two weeks when another dozen procedures were performed..including a pap smear. Yes by all means pull the freaking plug on pap smears for 85 year old comatose women. Is that really such a hard call to make?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 23, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Old McBob McDonnell was all talk. Can't believe he caved and wants handouts now. So much for his balanced budget being such a great thing.

"Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has formally requested that Virginia receive its share of federal Medicaid dollars contained in a bill approved by the Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama on Aug. 11.

In a letter (pdf) sent Wednesday to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, McDonnell requested that the funds be made available to Virginia."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/09/gov_bob_mcdonnell_r_has_2.html#more

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 23, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

I asked on an earlier thread and didn't get an answer. Why will the GOP unanimously oppose (and filibuster in the Senate) a tax cut on the first $250,000 of everyone's income?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 23, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

I asked on an earlier thread and didn't get an answer. Why will the GOP unanimously oppose (and filibuster in the Senate) a tax cut on the first $250,000 of everyone's income?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 23, 2010 10:04 PM
-----

Looks like they may not have to.

Thanks to all for feedback on my earlier comments. The sandman beckons.

Posted by: Brigade | September 23, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

And Brigade, perhaps the republicans, as a matter of principle, believe that income over $250,000 should get an additional tax cut but that shouldn't stop them from voting for the cut on the first $250K should it?

And what about the GOP's principled stand against the deficit? Do you really think they believe that lower tax rates (as currently contemplated) will result in higher tax revenues?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 23, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Finally, I'm not sure whether this really matters but I thought it was interesting:

In our investigation into the growth of Sharia Law in the USA we came across some surprising findings. Numerous American cities now have one or more Muslim 'religious courts' in operation where believers go to adjudicate family law disputes, real estate transactions and various other matters according to Sharia Law by binding arbitration. These religious court verdicts can then be enforced by civilian American courts. Various states have also passed laws to codify Muslim dietary laws, though a few of these laws have been struck down. And numerous national corporations now process foods to suit Muslim dietary standards. Finally, one jurisdiction in New York has been settled entirely by devout Muslims; no candidates run for office except those approved by the local imam; road signs in the town are all printed in both English and Arabic; and various local practices have been brought into line with Sharia.

Actually, there's one detail I didn't mention. The law here isn't Sharia; it's Halakhah, Jewish religious law. And all the above are true if you change 'Muslim' to 'Jewish' and 'Arabic' to 'Hebrew'. (Actually, Yiddish written in the Hebrew script, to be specific.)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/09/the_terror_of_h-a-l-a-k-h-a-h_1.php#more?ref=fpblg

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 23, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

I thought this was interesting from Chris Hayes. Basically it's the economy that's depressing the base. Forget about progressives or the professional left, it's the youth, black and people earning under $30k/year vote that is having trouble dragging themselves to the polls this year. And yet, the irony of the whole thing is that by and large they are also more optimistic than their counterparts on the other side, the Tea Party, who are faring much better in the recession.

"That is the tragic and perilous irony of this political moment: the people with the most faith in the president and the Democratic Party are the hardest hit by the continuing economic disaster; it's this brute fact that's driving the so-called enthusiasm gap between liberals and conservatives. More than frustration with the lack of a public option or anger at a White House that seems to relish insulting the "professional left," the flagging enthusiasm among Obama's '08 base is the product of a kind of cognitive dissonance between hope and reality. "Like a lot of people in my generation, I was really inspired by you and by your campaign and message that you brought," a 30-year-old law school graduate told the president during a live town hall on CNBC recently. "And that inspiration is dying away. It feels like the American Dream is not attainable to a lot of us.... I really want to know, is the American Dream dead for me?"

And here's where we get to the perilous part. Even if most of the midterm outcome is already determined, the margins matter tremendously: just a few seats, possibly decided by just a few thousand votes, could make the difference between a Speaker Pelosi and a Speaker Boehner. Which brings us to another certainty: as bad as things are right now for Obama's base, a world in which Republicans control one or both houses of Congress is going to be far, far worse."

http://www.thenation.com/article/154985/obamas-forgotten-base

Posted by: lmsinca | September 23, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Here's some hopeful news from CA. I think I'll put Boxer and Sestak on the Actblue "community organizers" page tomorrow. Any suggestions for the third spot. What about Gillibrand? I'm not a huge Brown fan, I wish we could have found someone better, but I'd love to see Whitman be unable to buy the governorship with all her millions, so I'll vote for Brown.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SurveyUSA (9/19-21)
Governor
Meg Whitman (R) 43
Jerry Brown (D) 46
Other 8
Undecided 3

Senate
Carly Fiorina (R) 43
Barbara Boxer (D) 49
other 6
Undecided 2

The previous SurveyUSA poll of California from three weeks ago found Whitman leading Brown 47-40 and Fiorina beating Boxer 48-46, so this is clearly serious movement.

While polling from earlier this year shows Boxer in potential trouble, most recent polling has her with a small but clear lead. The race is breaking down along very partisan lines, and with Democrats having such a large edge in California registrations, Boxer has a solid base to draw on.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 23, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60 at 10:04 PM

Rep Adler - D of New Jersey - has circulated a petition - signed by 44 democrats - stating that he wants a tax cut for EVERYTHING plus capital gains taxes to remain the same.


So - CLEARLY your side does not have the votes for what you claim


A majority of Congress would agree to the Adler plan.

So, you can not blame the GOP, as you WOULD LOVE TO MAKE THIS A PARTISAN ISSUE.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, those who "believed" what Obama said in 2008 have been let down - and Obama failed them.


For those who thought Obama was a FRAUD from the beginning, this episode is no happy time.


Obama has done tremendous damage to our economy - Let's just hope we get rid of the democrats and Obama before they do much more damage to the country.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama pulled out of the Federal Campaign Finance System in 2008 -


So no one knows how much the extra expenditures helped him - but the election SURE wasn't a reflection of what would have happened on an even playing field.


In addition, I sensed there were many people who would have voted for McCain - but didn't want to vote against Obama that year - those people are going straight Republican this year.


So - there - it's over

Whatever happened in 2008 - all the deceptions - all the Obama lies - the economic scare - everything that came together at one point - the world is going back to normal.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Here's the reason I supported the HCR bill even though it wasn't really as good as it should have been. We cannot let Republicans take it away from people who have been desperately waiting for coverage. Some of you are aware my daughter is applying for the pre-existing conditions coverage here in CA, but there are thousands and thousands of men, women and children whose lives are a little more secure today. Here's another mother's story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"If his health problems had all arisen today, things would have been much, much different. For starters, they couldn't have dropped us when he was diagnosed, which would have meant our out-of-pocket costs would have been far lower than they were. We also wouldn't have had to continue to pay all of his expenses out of pocket after we were insured again (they excluded his colitis and prednisone sensitivity as a pre-existing condition). Also, my daughter wouldn't have been excluded from coverage for her 'pre-existing conditions'. I use that term with derision in her case, because she had none until Anthem Blue Cross found one or two.

In other words, they have a future where they can reasonably expect to make their own way without intervention from health insurers. They have a future where they can be self-employed, create according to their own talents, or work for someone else if that's what they want. They will not have to worry about losing their home or all they've worked for because they had the misfortune to be stricken with health problems.

Republicans want to take this peace of mind away from me and millions of other parents and their children. They think it's an abomination that my son, through no fault of his own, has a chronic disease he will live with for the rest of his life but will not have to worry about having access to health care. An abomination. They really believe that.

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/september-23-2010-special-independence-day

Posted by: lmsinca | September 23, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca at 10:59 PM


We don't need a massive health care bill - with transfers of wealth on the scale of TRILLIONS of dollars - in order to deal with issues like that.


All we need is to regulate the health insurance companies properly.

Let me clue you into something: the democrats have KNOWN for years that they could have SOLVED all these problems with regulation.

HOWEVER, if the democrats solved the problems one at a time - by regulation and by fixing the system, they would ELIMINATE the rationale for OVERHAULING THE WHOLE SYSTEM IN A "TRANSFORMATIVE" WAY.

The democrats are USING these smaller issues to JUSTIFY A MASSIVE TRANSFER OF WEALTH.

The country does not NEED massive subsidies - even to cover everyone.


The country does not NEED the massive two trillion dollar tax increases.

IF they just regulate the health insurance companies - and curb the abuses - which they could have done long, long ago - then they can't do the massive thing.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

lol. John Stewart's writers are geniuses.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 23, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Wow, King Abdullah on the Daily Show.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 23, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca at 10:59 PM


The democrats have turned themselves into a huge propaganda machine


Everyday, they turn out talking points - mostly half-truths - to deceive and lie to the American People.


The whole thing is to keep the poll numbers of the democrats up - the overnight polling.


It took them 24 hours to come up with some story about the "absorb a terrorist attack" quote - and that is not believable.

Then today, they were blaming the GOP for the lack of votes on the tax bracket issues - when in fact we know that Rep Adler - D of NJ - has 44 democrats who want to lower the taxes for EVERYONE, plus some.

Day after day - the nation has to be subjected to this barrage of deceptions and lie - half-truths designed simply to keep a bunch of liars in power.

Take a look at the Federal budget - a mess.


Almost EVERY DEMOCRATIC STATE HAS MAJOR BUDGET PROBLEMS

California

New York

Illinois

New Jersey


to name a few - where the democrats have destroyed the fiscal responsibility.


Now we have people who have been decieved - getting on the internet and REPEATING THESE LIES -


And getting nasty with everyone in their path.


The whole thing is a complete disaster.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca at 10:59 PM


It is not that difficult to create a high-risk insurance pool -


I will tell you why I am sure of that - many many States have created high risk pools for car insurance.

This is how it works - In order to have a license to sell insurance in a State, an insurance company is REQUIRED to take on a percentage of the high-risk pool.


In that way, the State regulates the premiums on the high-risk pool - and the additional costs of the pool are distributed proportionally to ALL the insurance companies in the State.

IN that way, the incentive for companies to "dump" sick patients is reduced - because the insurance companies end up policing themselves. People who are "dumped" are dumped into the high-risk pool, increasing costs for all the insurance companies. The insurance companies then have an INCENTIVE to keep an equal set of rules among themselves.

ANYWAY - the democrats KNOW about these plans - why don't they try that???


Because that would relieve the pressure for a massive overhaul - plain and simple.


You have to remember a few things - a claim on the system IS a claim on the system - someone has to pay it - somehow.


You aren't going to give out FREE insurance to millions - without millions of other people PAYING for it.


You aren't going to RAISE benefits for anyone - without someone somehow PAYING for it.


These are all laws of economics -


If a whole bunch of sick people are now getting benefits, those costs have to be PAID somewhere - by some other group of people.


That is WHY the "public option" is so VAGUE - people treat it as if FREE stuff is coming out of this option - NO, claims have to be PAID somehow - through higher premiums, or taxes, or somehow.

So - you can understand everything AGAIN - and then ask yourself - WHY DO WE NEED A TRILLION DOLLAR OVERHAUL?


We don't - we never did.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

"Here's another mother's story."

This Karoli person, whoever she is, is simply dishonest. She says, for example: "Republicans want to take this peace of mind away from me and millions of other parents and their children."

This is straight from the Pledge: "We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, eliminate annual and lifetime spending caps, and prevent insurers from dropping your coverage just because you get sick."

She's simply lying.

She goes on: "They think it's an abomination that my son, through no fault of his own, has a chronic disease he will live with for the rest of his life but will not have to worry about having access to health care. An abomination. They really believe that."

Someone show me evidence that any Republican believes that. Show me where in the Pledge it says that.

When someone lies this baldly and disgustingly, I don't believe much of anything she has to say. Why should anyone? Because she's a mother, and mothers can say anything they want?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 24, 2010 6:38 AM | Report abuse

I have a very simple answer to the question why Democrats are hemorrhaging support among Independents, which I also think applies to the Youth and Blacks Obama brought into the voting pool:

These voters don't know consider Republicrat obstructionism a valid excuse for failure. Almost by definition, such voters will be uninformed about intra-party squabbles and uninterested in them as well. Americans elected Obama as president and gave his party overwhelming majorities in Congress. Yet the Democrats have failed to lead; they have bogged down in intra-party schisms that no one outside political junkies cares about. The combination of a dysfunctional Congressional caucus coupled with the absence of forceful presidential leadership has resulted in Democratic failure. And that is all Independents and other non-partisan voters see. Democratic failure.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 24, 2010 6:59 AM | Report abuse

Ethan said:

"Because except for that one segment that you posted, the economists destroy these myths:

. . .

"Completely destroys the political argument that Republicans and SBJ are trying to promote."

You have a rather low standard for "completely destroys." It's just a column by one Brookings (i.e., liberal Democrat) economist reciting talking points that have been "completely destroyed" by economists using more relevant and honest data and analyses.

Here's a hint in his own column, for example: "I have used standard growth and investment formulas to calculate that the overall effect of the Bush tax cuts on economic growth has therefore been negative -- and it will continue to be negative if the cuts are extended."

Translation: I've used standard Keynesian formulas and assumptions that have no empirical validation, such as assumptions about multipliers that are unsupported by empirical data. He is just feeding you an economic tautology, using unvalidated models that assume government spending increases GDP and taxes have no significant effects. Heck, even Christina Roemer concluded from her research that tax increases significantly depress growth.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/Why-Government-Spending-Does-Not-Stimulate-Economic-Growth-Answering-the-Critics

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YzVhZmI5MDAxMDEyZGIzMWVlZTUzZWU1ZDY2ZjExNTQ=

Or take his repetition of the Biden talking point that "only 2%" of small businesses would be affected by the Obama tax increase. He ignores the much more relevant metrics of how many small businesses that actually employ people (i.e., not every hobby or side business) would be affected, and how many jobs are provided by affected businesses and business owners. Wonder why that is. Don't you?

These theories and data can all be argued back and forth, but you can clear up a lot of confusion for yourself by just listening to what business people are saying about Obamanomics. I very recently heard a top executive answering questions about his company. Asked why companies like his are keeping huge amounts of cash on their balance sheets, he said it is very simple, really. There is too much uncertainty and risk posed by what the government might do next to invest or spend all that cash. Copmanies are holding on to cash because of Obama/Dem threats of new and higher taxes, regulations, card check, cap and trade, etc.

That is, Obamanomics is suffocating the economy. That's what you'll learn if break out of your Keynesian thought prison, or simply get acquainted with people in business.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 24, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

"She doesn't have autism, or autistic kids, so why should she pay for them"

You know, that's a question that to some extent ought to be answered. Acting like even asking the question is some tragic moral flaw doesn't really bolster any sort of argument against Angle.

However, there is an answer, and it doesn't have to involve making anybody bad. It's that insurance is a specific sort of thing, necessarily involves risk pools, and while certain folks may not be at risk for having autistic children or getting pregnant, they share a risk pool (in certain types of insurance) with folks who are not at risk for conditions they may develop, thus though they "pay" for pregnant women, the pregnant women end up paying for their chemotherapy years later. Insurance is not an individual savings account.

I'd be more concerned with Sharron Angle apparently misunderstanding the nature and value of insurance than her moral turpitude in asking why she should be paying for autistic children on her insurance. Given that the answer is: duh, because it's insurance.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 24, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Greg:

If you think it noteworthy for the MP I'd love to get your take on Landrieu shaking down Obama on behalf of Big Oil (not that I have an opinion on the matter).

Posted by: wbgonne | September 24, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

@thunder: "Greg Gutfeld? Do you really think that guy is funny?"

He is funny, especially in interviews. In the case, I think he's being too hard on Stewart, who is making a general and valid point that ought to be bolstered, not poo-pooed as partisan.

Plus Jon Stewart is awfully funny, and the whole rally thing is a good idea.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 24, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "They think it's an abomination that my son, through no fault of his own, has a chronic disease he will live with for the rest of his life but will not have to worry about having access to health care. An abomination. They really believe that."

This sort of stuff always amazes me. It's almost crazy. What individual really things that way? Has anybody ever met one? Certainly, collectively, as a group, who thinks that way?

You can say one side or the other is wrong on healthcare, but to suggest it's because anybody, anywhere, literally thinks a sick child is an abomination . . . it's beyond irrational. It makes no sense. At all. I'm not sure lie is the word for it. How about delusional fantasy?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 24, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

"Plus Jon Stewart is awfully funny, and the whole rally thing is a good idea."

I totally agree. It's a great idea for the left to rally behind two elitist comedians. They just need to get Franken out there to make it a real (clown) show.

I hope it gets much media coverage: Big government comedy elitists collectively recoil in horror against the uprising of the unwashed masses!

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 24, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, I had to read that Karoli paragraph several times to believe my eyes. She repeated for emphasis and italicized "abomination."

Delusion, derangement, dishonesty, I don't know what can explain it either. I settled on dishonesty, but the woman is clearly cracked. Yet those on her side seem to lap it up. And why not, when Grayson is another of their heroes.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 24, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1 at 6:38 AM


This is the problem with many of the stories which the democrats have come up with as examples to support their health care.


When reporters actually track down the people, and find out their situations, nothing adds up.


Usually, the people have the insurance - or have an option - which the story doesn't say. Many people are talking about being initially rejected for some reason - have ALREADY appealed - and had their claims PAID.

What is needed is something much DIFFERENT from the 2,000 page bill of Obama.

If there are problems with claims, set up a process to handle the claims properly. The abuses of the health insurance companies can be solved with regulation - WITHOUT a transfer of trillions of dollars.

WHO knows how much Obama's plan will ultimately cost - asking the CBO to come up with legitimate cost in days or weeks.


The fine print of the CBO had all sorts of scenarios in which costs could be much much higher.


But the point is - the stories don't add up.


THE TALKING POINTS of the democrats are asking people around the country to see if one of the provisions fit them - and then tell their own story - "make it personal"


The PROBLEM - is that most times the people telling the stories really don't understand the provisions - AND when you ask them DETAILS, their stories collapse RIGHT AWAY.


For instance, 33 States ALREADY had pools for people who could not get insurance otherwise - Obama just dumped money into those pools - but those people ALREADY HAD INSURANCE through the States - they didnt need Obama's plan.


So 17 States now have the OPTION of setting up a similar plan - they had that option before.


The media has reported many of these stories not panning out - but the truth is often much much different than you might think.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 24, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1 6:38 AM


To state my point again - if they want a law on pre-existing conditions - write it and pass it - focus on that issue.


We don't need a 2,000 page bill which includes a massive transfer of wealth.

The other part of this - they passed a law on pre-existing conditions in the 90s - based on continuity of coverage - so a few modifications to that law probably would have solved these issues.

My point is clear: these smaller issues do NOT justify a massive overhaul - and the democrats continue to press that logical flaw - which leads everyone to believe they are lying about everything else.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 24, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1 at 8:15 AM

33 States already had programs to deal with this issue - those programs were already in place before Obama showed up.

______________________________

Take a look at the health care items which kicked in this week - almost all of them INCREASE the costs of insurance companies.


WHO is going to pay for that ?

Those costs are going to get passed onto the public in the form of HIGHER INSURANCE COSTS.

So, there is nothing FREE - and yet Obama and his democrats want to make it seem like Obama is giving these people something FREE - and Obama is doing all these great things.

But the TRUTH is that health insurance costs are SKYROCKETING.


People can't get JOBS - because the companies don't know how high the health insurance costs are going to go - and they have to pay for their existing employees - so they have no idea on the costs so they are reluctant to hire new people.


So - the TRUTH is a bit more complex -


AND maybe, just maybe, all these changes should be taken up during a period of economic growth, not during a recession when so many people are hurting - just so one person can stand in a backyard in Virginia and strok his ego.


.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 24, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_morning_plum_97.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 24, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

This is a remarkable demonstration of the revisionist history that is typical from the right. From our resident "conservative genius":

"I've used standard Keynesian formulas and assumptions that have no empirical validation, such as assumptions about multipliers that are unsupported by empirical data."

It's as if the period from 1932-1937 didn't happen. Then, of course, the massive Keynesian stimulus of World War II, it failed to spur GDP growth too.

Tell us about all the empirical data that supports the proposition that government austerity will promote economic growth?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 24, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Forgot this one, too: "So even if all of the cuts expire on Dec. 31, we will still be paying for them for years to come."

Repeat after me: There is no such thing as "paying for" tax cuts. By definition. Money is collected, money is spent. Two different things. We, the taxpayers, will be "paying for" (i.e., paying taxes) government spending forever. We will not be "paying for" keeping our own money, nor will the government be "paying" us by not taking it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 24, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Repeat After Me: GOP apologists are simply
Rationalizing when they say they are for tax cuts for Paris and Lindsay and that they are Free. Bush gave us a free luch with 2001 tax cuts which exploded the deficit, led to negative growth in wages, 0 growth in our stock market, and employment over 8 years, and the GOP answer: Please Sir, May I Have Some More. Insanity is defined as the GOP's call to do the same thing over and over again in 2011 and expect different results.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 24, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Gee, thanks so much for giving Madrak's embarrassing behavior a prominent forum in your column. It's so nice to see the full-throated childishness and petulance that makes up much of the "progressive" blogosphere displayed on the WaPo stage in all its glory. Liberal bloggers with a sense of responsibility to the people who will suffer if Republicans return to power understand that this is no time for pettiness. Shame on Madrak, and shame on you, Greg.

Posted by: Leanne_BWN | September 24, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

TRAINED TO RULE. DOES YOUR VOTE COUNT AT ALL?
Planning to vote for one of these people? Great. just understand that they're all members of the CFR, which is telling them to work toward weakening your freedom in the name of a New World Order. Your vote really means zippo (unless you vote for someone other than a Republican or Democrat).

Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson
The reason we must vote out Establishment Government Representatives, whether they are Left or Right, Incumbent or Candidate is explained on this 2 minute News Clip below:

TWO Party Paradigm System News clip:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2824363/the_obama_deception_extra_part_2/

Posted by: PaulRevere4 | September 25, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company