Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Foes ran $100 million in ads against health care -- after it passed

Why are Democrats on the defensive over health reform? This statistic, buried in today's big New York Times piece on that very topic, is striking and deserves some more attention:

Opponents of the legislation, including independent groups, have spent $108 million since March to advertise against it, according to Evan L. Tracey, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks advertising.

That is six times more than supporters have spent, including $5.1 million by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the new law, Mr. Tracey said.

So $100 million in ads tarring health reform have run since Obama signed the bill into law in March. And many ads on health care contain multiple falsehoods and distortions. Is this entirely to blame for making health reform a political liability for many Dems? No, of course not. Though majorities have steadily said they like individual provisions, the overall law was unpopular in the lead-up to passage. Dems have not done what they needed to do to change the public's mind at the rate they had hoped to.

But even if the massive post-passage ad campaign against the law is only part of the story, it's nonetheless significant. Clearly, those heavily invested in returning the majority to the GOP recognized that a concerted campaign to tar this major Dem achievement -- after it had been enshrined into law -- had to be a central feature of their strategy. It seems likely that this massive ad onslaught may have been one key factor in preventing public opinion from turning around quickly enough.

If the GOP takes back the House, as expected, a huge argument will erupt among Dems over the wisdom of passing reform and over whether the "liberal overreach" it embodied helped sink the Dem majority. I hope folks will remember that the enormous amount of money spent to twist and misrepresent the law in the public mind might have also played a role in what happened.

By Greg Sargent  | October 27, 2010; 4:03 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Health reform  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Charlie Crist flip flops on Sarah Palin
Next: Happy Hour Roundup: Rand Paul camp flip-flops on returning stomper's campaign cash

Comments

"Foes ran $100 million in ads against health car"

I think I know how to fund single payer healthcare. First, pass a law requiring that all advertising against single payer health care must be matched with a contribution to the single payer healthcare fund.

"That is six times more than supporters have spent"

That's because rich liberals are stingy. If they weren't so greedy with their money, Spielberg and Geffen and Oprah and George Soros and Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could have promoted the heck out of that thing. /snark

"including $5.1 million by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the new law, Mr. Tracey said."

There is no way they could have spent more, though. Imagine a $50 million dollar campaign to promote the healthcare law, and how that would play on talk radio, Fox news, and with the media in general.

"Granny Jones can't get her arthritis drugs. But the government is spending $50 million dollars on commercials?"

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 27, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Did said "foes" do ANYTHING illegal?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 27, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama has said that if it makes him a one-term president, but he gets HCR passed it would be worth it.

I, personally, thank President Obama for not only his efforts in changing this country for the better, but for his political fortitude and bravery in a time of savage partisanship.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 27, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Because for-profit health care delivery is really, really, really profitable.

You gotta spend money to make money, kid.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 27, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I was wondering about your approach to this blog: why you cover certain things and ignore others. For example, I haven't noticed coverage of the Alaska senate race or many others but there have been a least a dozen posts on Acqua Buddha and the stomping incident.

Posted by: wswest | October 27, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Newt Gingrich is using his company Center for Health Transformation to blast the health plan on conference calls.

Companies are paying 40k membership to his company and he uses the first five minutes of a conference call on how to implement the new plan in companies to instead talk about how it's going to destroy America.

40k membership to hear him blab his mouth.

And companies are paying it.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 27, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Another busted meme falls flat.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=EADA3CE4-BDA3-4348-00995418331E5A97

So far, the latest figures show that the Democratic Party machinery has outraised its Republican counterpart in this campaign cycle by almost $270 million.

And even when outside spending on television advertising and direct mail is added to the mix, Republicans still haven’t closed the gap.

The money race totals come to $856 million for the Democratic committees and their aligned outside groups, compared to $677 for their Republican adversaries, based on figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | October 27, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

OT:

I guess we only care about potential terrorist attacks when it is potentially politically damaging to Democrats.

Anyone read this yet?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/27/AR2010102704857.html

A definite victory for the FBI, and it clearly makes the case for pro-active counter-terror police-work instead of "fighting them over there."

As one with relatives in D.C., I thank all of our public servants for protecting the peace and safety of all Americans.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 27, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

The health care bill has not been misrepresented, the American People actually have no idea how costly it will eventually be.

The health care deficits will hit businesses, State governments and the Federal government.

Ironically, the provisions of the health care bill make health care more expensive, making it more difficult to pay for.

The democrats blew it.

Obama really blew it. There were other health care options which he refused to look into.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 27, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Even the New York Slimes debunks Greg's spending meme;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/us/politics/27money.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

"Democratic candidates have outraised their opponents over all by more than 30 percent in the 109 House races The New York Times has identified as in play. And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 million."

Try harder to lie to your Leftist readers, Greg.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | October 27, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama ran on this, won by a landslide (an acutal mandate), worked like crazy to get it passed including giving republicans every chance to be part of the process. They took a pass because that could've been constructive. Then it gets unpopular because of lies and distortions pedaled by and/or not debunked by various media outlets. I for one, am happy to have a president that does what he says he is going to do. Not like that last joker.

Posted by: cao091402 | October 27, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Why do Leftists even try this "poor, poor Democrats" myth? Americans knowDemocrats control the levers of power in Washington, which means that lobbyists will naturally gravitate toward them. With the GOP running on a “shrink government” platform, the public-employee unions have big incentives to spend massively — and they have, with figures that appear to have avoided the Times’ notice. Three unions (AFSCME, SEIU, NEA) have pitched in a combined $171 million on behalf of Democrats this year as they try to prevent Republicans from trimming the federal payroll.

Besides, when Democrats outspent Republicans in 2006 and 2008, with outside groups favoring Democrats by a 2-1 advantage, no one in the media seemed terribly concerned about the possibility of “foreign influence” or nefarious motives. Why all of the concern over "outside group" spending now?

Because Americans don't buy it any longer, that’s why.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | October 27, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

SolarEnergy,

You have a very familiar style. Hrmm...

Who could that be!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 27, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

@SolarEnergy . . . you look strangely familiar.

And Kaddafi! You've been gone forever. How serendipitous. Or, as I like to say: seren-dipity-doo!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 27, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

KaddafiDelendaEst,

I guess you haven't been paying attention. Republicans hate the RNC under Steele and instead of giving directly to the party apparatus, the usual funders are giving massive amounts of money to outside groups where their contributions can take place in secret.

That said, I think ALL political funding should be disclosed so Americans can see who is funding each and every political campaign.

Is that the point you're trying to make? If so, I agree.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 27, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: When Democrats outspent Republicans in 2006 and 2008, with outside groups favoring Democrats by a 2-1 advantage, no one in the media seemed terribly concerned about the possibility of "secret" or "foreign" influence or other nefarious motives. Why all of the concern over "outside group" spending now?

Because Americans don't buy it any longer, that’s why.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | October 27, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Small businesses have begun to calculate the costs of dropping health insurance - and they have found an Obama-incentive to drop people off the health care plans.

Small businesses get a penalty for not offering health care to their employees.

So, many businesses have calculated that it costs less to take the penalty, than to offer the health insurance.

There are plans out there in which small businesses offer raises to their employees - in exchange for dropping the health care. So the Obama-incentives are split.

So what happens?

Then all the employees go on the government plan - and the expenses are on the taxpayers.

Who knows how expensive Obama's health care bill will be when all this works itself out. However, it is clear that a great number of people who are not expecting to be on the government plans are going to end up there.

The the real Obama stuff starts to kick in. Re-distribution of wealth, IRS agents and everything else.

There is a good deal of potential nightmares in those 2,000 pages.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 27, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"which means that lobbyists will naturally gravitate toward them"

Hahaha. Mkay, so you're obviously not paying attention.

-Companies that received bailout money giving generously to candidates-

"Among companies with PACs, the 23 that received $1 billion or more in federal money through the Troubled Assets Relief Program gave a total of $1.4 million to candidates in September, up from $466,000 the month before.

***Most of those donations are going to Republican candidates***, although the TARP program was approved primarily with Democratic support. President Obama expanded it to cover GM and other automakers."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/24/AR2010102401561.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 27, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

SolarEnergy & KaddafiDelendaEst show up on the day SaveTheRainForrest got the ban hammer, how... unusual.

Hmmm, well, if I didn't know better I'd think there was a connection!

I'm sure Ethan2010 must have missed KaddafiDelendaEst, nobody else took the time to call poor Ethan (a Jewish man) a Nazi.

Posted by: nisleib | October 27, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

nisleib is a bald-faced liar. I never called Ethan a Nazi.

Take your meds, you paranoic.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | October 27, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Wow Ethan. $1.4 million? That's a big number.

Three unions (AFSCME, SEIU, NEA) have pitched in a combined $171 million on behalf of Democrats this year as they try to prevent Republicans from trimming the federal payroll.

"Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!"
[Matthew 23:24]

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | October 27, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

nisleib is a bald-faced liar. I never called Ethan a Nazi.

Take your meds, you paranoic.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | October 27, 2010 5:07 PM

*******

Ah, that's right, you just called all of us quislings, which is equally offensive if you know what the term means.

Posted by: nisleib | October 27, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Moving the goalposts now, nisleib. I accept your confession to lying about me as evidence of intellectual bankruptcy.

Yes, Quisling. How terrible for you to be compared (accurately) to a Norwegian Axis collaborator.

But you keep dancing around your silly strawman. Your whining doesn't change the fact that Dems still outspend Republicans.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | October 27, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Divide the union contributions by the number of members.

Now divide the contributions of Rove's group and the others that have no transparency by the number of contributors.

Oh, wait, you can't.

If you can't understand the difference, then there is no grounds for having an argument with you. Unions and millionaires/billionaires/corporations are not the same thing.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 27, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

this is silly:
=======
instead of "fighting them over there."
==================

Who said it is an either or? It is the considered opinion of many that doing BOTH is necessary to protect Americans.

Why would anyone assume that it is either a or b but not some of each ethan?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 27, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

KaddafiDelendaEst | October 27, 2010 5:17 PM

Bwahhhaa ha ha! You are a little touchy, aren't you? You didn't like having one of your handles banned, did you?

You crack me up.

PS - Do you even know what a strawman is? You obviously don't have a clue about quislings, otherwise you wouldn't be calling anyone that.

Posted by: nisleib | October 27, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

KaddafiDelendaEst, I don't know which is worse, your insulting personal attacks or your lies about politics.

The amazing thing with people like you is that you are subjected to the same ill effects of corporate greed that everyone in America is subjected to. You just happen to root for them and applaud their ability to screw people and screw America and screw our economy. Go ahead and root for corporate control. See what it gets you.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 27, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

OT - Benen has a link to this:

When the Tea Partyers get around to identifying how America has changed and to whose benefit, however, they get it almost all wrong. In the worldview of the American right -- and the polling shows conclusively that that's who the Tea Party is -- the nation, misled by President Obama, has gone down the path to socialism. In fact, far from venturing down that road, we've been stuck on the road to hyper-capitalism for three decades now.

The Tea Partyers are right to be wary of income redistribution, but if they had even the slightest openness to empiricism, they'd see that the redistribution of the past 30 years has all been upward -- radically upward. From 1950 through 1980, the share of all income in America going to the bottom 90 percent of Americans -- effectively, all but the rich -- increased from 64 percent to 65 percent, according to an analysis of tax data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. Because the nation's economy was growing handsomely, that means that the average income of Americans in the bottom 90 percent was growing, too -- from $17,719 in 1950 to $30,941 in 1980 -- a 75 percent increase in income in constant 2008 dollars.

Since 1980, it's been a very different story. The economy has continued to grow handsomely, but for the bottom 90 percent of Americans, it's been a time of stagnation and loss. Since 1980, the share of all income in America going to the bottom 90 percent has declined from 65 percent to 52 percent. In actual dollars, the average income of Americans in the bottom 90 percent flat-lined -- going from the $30,941 of 1980 to $31,244 in 2008.

In short, the economic life and prospects for Americans since the Reagan Revolution have grown dim, while the lives of the rich -- the super-rich in particular -- have never been brighter. The share of income accruing to America's wealthiest 1 percent rose from 9 percent in 1974 to a tidy 23.5 percent in 2007.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026343.php

Posted by: nisleib | October 27, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"Unions and millionaires/billionaires/corporations are not the same thing."

True. The unions, which are now dominated by government employees, are the ultimate special interests, and are the only parties who not only enjoy legally enforced monopolies but can extract legally compulsory "contributions."

Democrats and their "independent" allied groups are only outspending Republicans by close to 200 million this year. Poor babies. Poor whiny babies.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"Why would anyone assume that it is either a or b but not some of each ethan?"

Why does anyone do anything?

Why do you oppose seat belt laws?

Why do I support renewable energy?

A better question is, why don't you applaud the fact that we got the guy before he attempted to attack us and instead seize on one aspect of my comment and try to antagonize me?

What's more important to you, Skip, defending America at home or antagonizing "The Left"?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 27, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Someone needs to alert Bernie! Ethan2010 is "fetishizing" the police and our National Security apparatus: "As one with relatives in D.C., I thank all of our public servants for protecting the peace and safety of all Americans."

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 27, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama really blew it. There were other health care options which he refused to look into.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 27, 2010 4:51 PM

Indeed! And to which "other" options are you referring? Not being snarky but serious.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 27, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib: "The share of income accruing to America's wealthiest 1 percent rose from 9 percent in 1974 to a tidy 23.5 percent in 2007."

And you propose we should change this, how? That's kind of the question.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 27, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 - I think he is talking about the Sue Lowden plan.

Posted by: nisleib | October 27, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

@ruk: "Indeed! And to which 'other' options are you referring? Not being snarky but serious."

Vouchers. But, that being said, SolarEnergy is STRF. Proceed with due caution. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 27, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm off on vacation. Everyone have a great rest of the week and a fun (and safe) Halloween.

Later.

Posted by: nisleib | October 27, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Normally I would call this OT but considering "some" of the posters on this thread I have a question.

Does anybody know if the Guiness Book of Records keep a number for the largest number of sock puppet held by one poster?

I'm really thinking Greg's lovely blog might have a contestant here. I know I've lost count...perhaps the Guiness people could figure it out. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 27, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

"@SolarEnergy . . . you look strangely familiar."

Can you just imagine the poor sap sitting at his computer:

"Must....not....hit....caps lock.....must ...not....double space....."

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 27, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

"Ah, that's right, you just called all of us quislings, which is equally offensive if you know what the term means.


Posted by: nisleib | October 27, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse"

Ah yes, who could forget Ethan's calling for banning of anyone going Godwin, only to have someone produce the inconvenient archived comment by Ethan calling all conservative commenters Nazis.

Thanks for the reminder.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin "And you propose we should change this, how? That's kind of the question."

By returning the tax code to more historic norms...by providing medicare for all. Not really radical or complicated.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 27, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

TrollMcWingnut,

At least I'm not fetishizing being a smart-a$$.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 27, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

qb, hilarious.

The reason there are more government workers in unions than blue collar workers is that the factory jobs (and manufacturing generally) have been sent overseas by your party and your beloved corporations.


So, see Ethan's stats above. Look where that's gotten us.

If you can't understand this any other way, maybe you should be concerned that once demand goes down because the middle class doesn't have expendable income, the whole economy is going into the toilet. Concentrate all the wealth at the top and you have 3rd world capitalism. Is that what you want?

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 27, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

The issue at hand is health care. You all simply do not understand the situation here. Obama has added so many additional benefits to the health care system that premiums are going to go through the roof.

At the same time, business have been offered a penalty-option - which is really an Obama-incentive to throw people onto the government health care plans.

Obama also has a system of subsidies to pay for people's health care - or a portion of it - for people who get thrown off the system. So the business throw people off, and the Federal government picks up the difference in the government system.

I think the whole thing is pre-set to implode - and bring about a single-payer system.

However the damage along the way is going to be massive - to businesses to individuals to everyone.

There will be another recession as a result of the Obama bill if it does go into effect. There is no doubt that the whole thing will collapse and drag down demand economy-wide.

Seriously folks, the whole health care bill has to be stripped down before it drags the whole economy into another recession.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 27, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

@rukidding: "By returning the tax code to more historic norms...by providing medicare for all. Not really radical or complicated."

I don't think that will actually change the yawning chasm between the haves and have-nots. And, really, shouldn't we just want national healthcare or whatnot based on it's own merits, not because it's going to punish the really-extra-super-rich?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 27, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

OT:

Ralston VERRRRY skeptical of CNN/Rass polling in NV.

Check it:

http://twitter.com/RalstonFlash

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 27, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

And, really, shouldn't we just want national healthcare or whatnot based on it's own merits, not because it's going to punish the really-extra-super-rich?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 27, 2010 5:51 PM
===========================

What has been happening the last 30 years is the really extra super rich have been punishing the rest of us, Kevin. And they plan to keep doing so via tax cuts for themselves and benefits cuts for everyone else.

It does not surprise me to see you twist reality, by the way.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 27, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

And, really, shouldn't we just want national healthcare or whatnot based on it's own merits, not because it's going to punish the really-extra-super-rich?


Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 27, 2010 5:51 PM

Who has said anything about "punishing" anyone?

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 27, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

The health care memes that SE is spouting are so standard, sore loser, WATB fare...

Just one example:

Obama has added so many additional benefits to the health care system that premiums are going to go through the roof.

Of course, in the 5 years before health care reform what happened to premiums? Why they went through the roof WHILE COVERAGE GOT WORSE!!!!

And what are these benefits that we could really do without?

-Ending rescission for accidental mistakes on insurance forms

-Allowing children to age 26 to stay on the P's insurance

-Ending preexisting condition restrictions on children

-requiring that necessary preventative screenings are included for low or no copays

-making insurance companies actually explain what is and is not covered in english instead of insurancese

-creating an exchange (eventually) so that insurers have to post their rates and coverages so people can comparison shop

The 100 million spent by the right to demonize "Obamacare" has worked, but the actual provisions are popular when they are described to people.

Advertising works...that's why we need some kind of level playing field for political advertising...

Posted by: srw3 | October 27, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Oh boy. After months and months of insisting that she really doesn't oppose Social Security -- despite her past statements about wanting to phase it out -- now a tape has surfaced of Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle decrying the program as an example of society's "wicked ways." And this was just two and a half weeks ago.

As Politico reports, an audio recording was uploaded to the Democratic National Committee's Accountability Project site, of Angle speaking at a church on October 10. During her speech, Angle offered a confession for America's sins -- going beyond just the standard religious conservative issues of abortion, but also the legislation of divorce, and various social welfare programs.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/angle-social-security-welfare-and-legal-divorce-are-nations-wicked-ways-audio.php?ref=fpb

This is the woman you were contributing to sbj, to "level the playing field." But, yeah, you fair minded righties are honest about your candidates.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 27, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

"The reason there are more government workers in unions than blue collar workers is that the factory jobs (and manufacturing generally) have been sent overseas by your party and your beloved corporations."

That is hilarious. There is no such thing as a job's being "sent overseas," let alone by the GOP.

More importantly, it is primarily BECAUSE OF UNIONS that manufacturing jobs have declined in the U.S. Those are immutable laws of economics at work. The party was nice for a few people while it lasted, but the hangover is a bi***. The blame falls entirely on your party if on anyone's.

Union membership outside government has also fallen because many more people have learned how unions hurt them while claiming to help them. "Hi, I'm from the union and I'm here to help," is now approaching "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help" in credibility. Big government and unions; they just go together.

"If you can't understand this any other way, maybe you should be concerned that once demand goes down because the middle class doesn't have expendable income, the whole economy is going into the toilet. Concentrate all the wealth at the top and you have 3rd world capitalism. Is that what you want?"

You know Keynesian mythology, not economics. I don't want the government to "concentrate . . . the wealth" anywhere. Another word for that is "redistribute." You can't artificially prop up wages and salaries forever. Nor can you continue to rob "the rich" to redistribute their money indefinitely. The union bubble burst. It's time you collectivists accept that you can't cheat the laws of economics and human nature forever. You love "jobs," supposedly, you just hate the people and the conditions that create them.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

"What has been happening the last 30 years is the really extra super rich have been punishing the rest of us, Kevin. And they plan to keep doing so via tax cuts for themselves and benefits cuts for everyone else.

It does not surprise me to see you twist reality, by the way."

Oh yes, I wake up every morning feeling how savagely I am being punished by "the rich" not paying a 90% marginal rate any more.

You all have twisted words and reality so long and so badly that you have no grasp on reality any more.

But your time is up next week. Hope your moment in the sun was pleasant, because it is over starting in six days. America saw the horror of "progressivism" and thankfully is throwing it in the trash bin of history.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

You know Keynesian mythology, not economics. I don't want the government to "concentrate . . . the wealth" anywhere. Another word for that is "redistribute." You can't artificially prop up wages and salaries forever. Nor can you continue to rob "the rich" to redistribute their money indefinitely. The union bubble burst. It's time you collectivists accept that you can't cheat the laws of economics and human nature forever. You love "jobs," supposedly, you just hate the people and the conditions that create them.


Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 6:26 PM

Wow ... just wow.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 27, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Wow ... just wow.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 27, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse


I'll up you're wow with a standing ovation and a "Well done!"

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 27, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

"Wow ... just wow."

He's delirious.

And it's no wonder... Every 3rd word is spin.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 27, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

I take it that no one can think of ANYTHING about this that was illegal then. Assuming that the ads weren't lies, is there even anything immoral about them? Can the Republicans not be opposed to Obamacare based on principle.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 27, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

You can't artificially prop up wages and salaries forever. Nor can you continue to rob "the rich" to redistribute their money indefinitely.

Posted by: quarterback1
-------------------------------------------
Wages have been stagnant for about a decade. This is despite economic growth occurring until the 2007-2008. It's probably more accurate to say wages have decreased when you take into account inflation and rising health care costs. But you're right, we should really be concerned about the poor people having too much money.

What redistribution are you talking about? I would love to see some numbers that reflect that the wealthy are losing their share of income/wealth and that the money is ending up in the pockets of the lazy, non-contributing portion of our economy.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 28, 2010 8:40 AM | 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