Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* A remarkable scoop from ABC News's Michael Mosk: A Kentucky millionaire who's handling cash for one of Karl Rove's groups, and has helped launch an ad onslaught attacking Jack Conway, owns a nursing home that's being prosecuted by Conway.

The story is a must-read that gets to the heart of what's wrong with the secret cash flooding our elections.

* Sharron Angle's closing ad: "They promised change. Now it's our turn."

Does "our" refer to the GOP or the Tea Party? Must be the latter, because the GOP ran Congress up until 2006.

* More polling that no one will care about: The new New York Times survey finds overwhelming public support for full donor disclosure.

* Anne Kornblut on how the White House is strategically employing Obama only in races where he can help close the enthusiasm gap.

* Read Matthew Yglesias on why Dems were right to pass health reform: "The point of winning elections is to pass laws."

* Robert Gibbs reiterates Obama's commitment to filibuster reform, and says it's operative even if the GOP takes Congress.

* A scorching editorial in a Kentucky paper about the stomping.

* Larry Sabato's final prediction: Republicans will net 55 House seats. This blog won't make any predictions, but will happily bring you those of everyone else.

* The conservative effort to dismantle campaign finance protections has been a very, very, very long war.

* Betsy Reed sheds light on yet another under the radar ad campaign against health reform that -- natch -- is packed with distortions.

* And Michele Bachmann has her own Tea Party base and doesn't need any GOP leadership: She may not even support Rep. John Boehner for Speaker.

What else is going on?

By Greg Sargent  | October 28, 2010; 6:35 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Campaign finance, Happy Hour Roundup, Health reform, House GOPers, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The coming war among Dems over health reform
Next: Charlie Crist asked Clinton camp to suggest Meek drop out, source says

Comments

I Support Full Donor Disclosure!

If it's too late for this cycle, maybe one of the media/campaign reform orgs will start running ads to increase pressure on the 112th Congress.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Stewart called Obama a "dude"

That doesn't help.

If Obama thinks that his appearance on the Daily Show was going to help his excite the youth vote, that is another Obama-failure.

Obama looks defensive and his points did not achieve anything.

Instead, Obama clearly showed that he has little idea what he is doing. Obama does not know what direction the country should be going in. Obama has no economic plan. Stewart called him out.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Greg wrote: "The story is a must-read that gets to the heart of what's wrong with the secret cash flooding our elections."

So secret the dudes name gets published in the Washington Post. Wow, shadowy and..., mendacious?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 28, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Wow, this from the KY article Greg linked to above:

...what motivates people to physically assault a woman who's carrying a political sign they don't like?

Certainly not respect for the Constitution, which enshrines the right of all citizens to express their opinions without fear. Not a belief in the rule of law. Not common decency.

Some members of Paul's Tea Party issue paranoid warnings that President Barack Obama and Democrats are totalitarians out to impose Marxist control over our country.

But look which side produced the goon squad.

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/10/27/v-print/1496771/thuggish-behavior-stains-kentucky.html

Pitch perfect.

Keep the faith, people. GOTV! And don't let the GOON SQUAD scare you away from your Constitutionally-guaranteed First Amendment rights!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Re; KY editorial:

"Goon squads" aint gonna get you invited to Paul's victory party.

Heh.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 28, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

And speaking of GOON SQUAD:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/mr-mcmahon-strikes-again-wwe-to-hand-out-merchandise-near-polling-places.php

Wrestling merch? Really?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Filibuster

Obama's position makes no sense from a political point of view.

Surely Senators who have six year terms will be concerned about how much power they will have after 2012 - when the Republicans will surely have control of the Senate and possibly could approach 60 seats.


If the polls hold, and the Republicans take the House, there is little political reason for Obama to support a change in the filibuster. Obama still has to negotiate with the Republicans in the House - why not have the Republican Senators in there too ?


The idea for Obama would be to make the Republicans MORE responsible for Congress over the next two years, not less.


Obama's position again makes no sense - it is basically par for the course for Obama - he is doing something that ultimately hurts himself.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

"A Saudi prince who has aided the imam spearheading a proposed Islamic center near New York's ground zero is appealing for another site not associated with the "wound" of the Sept. 11 attacks, a report said Thursday.

"... Prince Alwaleed bin Talal was quoted as saying that moving the planned mosque, health club and cultural center would respect the memory of those killed in the 2001 attacks and allow American Muslims to choose a more suitable location."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013277817_apmlsaudinycmosque.html

Posted by: sbj3 | October 28, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"The biggest public works project in the U.S. — a $9 billion-plus train tunnel connecting New Jersey and New York City — is dead in its tracks. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Wednesday he is sticking by a decision announced earlier this month to kill the project because of runaway costs. He rejected a variety of financial proposals offered by the federal government to salvage the tunnel under the Hudson River, saying none of them fully relieved New Jersey of responsibility for overruns."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101027/ap_on_bi_ge/us_trans_hudson_tunnel

Posted by: sbj3 | October 28, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Clearly one major problem that Obama has is the offensive nature of the false charges of RACISM which have been heard around the nation over the past few years.

The American People are sick of it.

The economy is the most important issue - but Obama has no economic plan. So Obama leaves the American public guessing whether Obama deserves two more years to "figure it out."

The Presidency is no place for on-the-job training. This idea is ridiculous.


Obama should resign. It would be good for the democrats actually. But the country would be far better off.


____________________________________

Obama's interview on the Daily Show was really a disaster.

What did Obama do? He went on a high-profile comedy show a week before the election.

That nationalizes the election, again. Is Obama completely incompetent? That is exactly the wrong thing Obama should have done.

Obama is all over the shows again today, and on the radio.


Obama made the election about him again.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI wrote,
"After America takes a few bites of that shitsandwich"
--------

They've been munching on it for almost two years now, but they'll spit a big chunk of it out next Tuesday.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

At the very least, this battle is just more proof that the US is a left of center nation. If the country were center-right, Republicans could just sit back and let the Dems hang themselves with their own progressive policies. The fact that the GOP resorts to lies like death panels and deficit increases just proves that they don't think that pointing out the actual progressive policies in the law will be a political winning point.

And why is that?

Because Americans LIKE progressive policies.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010
-------

In your fevered dreams. I can't recall a single poll ever taken that would indicate the US is a center-left country. Leftists sometimes get elected by pretending to be moderate, but most polls I've seen show about 20% willing to say they're anything but moderate or conservative.

And why would conservatives just sit back and let some pinkos destroy the country. They care too much for the country to let it go down the tubes for mere political reasons. Patriotism. Try it sometime.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

"A Kentucky millionaire who's handling cash for one of Karl Rove's groups, and has helped launch an ad onslaught attacking Jack Conway, owns a nursing home that's being prosecuted by Conway."

I am shocked, shocked and surprised, I can barely contain my shock oh and also, my surprise...Actually, this is the real face of the health care industry. Here are your health care dollars at work Republicans. And you thought that your hard earned money was taking care of granny.

Why reform health care?

Posted by: shrink2 | October 28, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

liam-still wrote,
"We need the moderates, far more than they need us, because they are double our numbers."
-------

Sane people realize this. Unfortunately for you, too many people like DDAWD live in the echo chamber and assume everyone else thinks like they do.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

These clowns DESERVE to be sent home, recalled and banned from ever serving in ANY office for anything - EVER.

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | October 28, 2010 5:27 PM
------

A whole bunch of them (Dems) are going to get what you say the clowns deserve next Tuesday. And, yes, we hope they never again crawl out of the sewer. Oh, and Republicans don't have to repeal healthcare; if they take the House they can simply defund it unless concessions and changes are made.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote,
"if the only choice was this (HCR) bill or nothing, nothing would have been the correct choice"
--------

LOL.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

When ddawd realizes someone has a good point, the false charges of racism are not far behind.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Is it mere coincidence that the Republicans share the essential vocabulary of a 2-year old: "no" and "mine"?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 28, 2010 6:10 PM
-------

I like it better than "tax" and "spend".

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

"In your fevered dreams. I can't recall a single poll ever taken that would indicate the US is a center-left country. Leftists sometimes get elected by pretending to be moderate, but most polls I've seen show about 20% willing to say they're anything but moderate or conservative.

And why would conservatives just sit back and let some pinkos destroy the country. They care too much for the country to let it go down the tubes for mere political reasons. Patriotism. Try it sometime.

Posted by: Brigade"

Three Palin winkies for you.

Show me one poll where people have supported massive rollback of specific government programs.

And as McConnell specifically said. He doesn't care about the country. It's about taking down Obama. Proiority #1 isn't getting people jobs.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

BTW, Louisiana Senate debate on CSPAN now. Pretty contentious.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Very contentious!

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

When ddawd realizes someone has a good point, the false charges of racism are not far behind.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

"The point of winning elections is to pass laws."

A fairly good indication that progressives are indeed in favor of the never-ending growth and intrusion of government. Here's to hoping that the R's understand that sometimes the point of winning elections is to repeal laws.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 28, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

ddawd writes:

At the very least, this battle is just more proof that the US is a left of center nation. If the country were center-right, Republicans could just sit back and let the Dems hang themselves with their own progressive policies

__________________________________


Isn't that exactly what the Republicans have done over the past two years ???


Where have you been??? This is the problem with the liberals - completely clueless.


So ddawd, are you going to call me a racist again?

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Probably the greatest campaign website, ever


http://www.rentistoodamnhigh.org/

.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Try this experiment: wade into a crowd of those "center right" teabaggers and ask for volunteers who are willing to surrender their social security and medicare in order to balance the federal budget. Then tell me about a "center right country."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 28, 2010 6:18 PM
-------

That's not exactly what teabaggers are upset about. Why would anyone give up the option of filing their claim when they've been paying the premium for forty or fifty years? Elderly recipients of Social Security and Medicare made a pact with the government; they lived up to their end of the bargain, now it's the government's turn. If you have a life insurance policy, pay the premiums faithfully, and then die, the insurance company cannot refuse to pay your beneficiary unless they are broke and going out of business. If the government wants to declare bankruptcy and go out of business because they can't honor their commitments to seniors, they can start by laying off a few thousand government workers, defaulting on the generous pensions and benefits which they can no longer afford to pay their own retirees, and cutting out a few more government programs---as opposed to continually starting new ones. They might even consider kicking working-age druggies and drunks off SSI instead of considering them disabled.

It may be only symbolic, but as long as the government has a few bucks laying around to give NPR (for one example), they don't need to tell me they need more money.
Imagine a guy owes you money and can't pay. He comes to you again and says he's going to lose his home if you don't help him make the payment. Against your better judgment, you let him get into you again. And that night you see him out wining and dining his girlfriend in an expensive nightclub. I doubt you'll care how much he's spending---it's the principle. Our government wastes too much money.

And don't bring up the subject of means testing for Social Security. It is NOT a welfare program. The solvency of Social Security would be assured indefinitely if gutless politicians (of both parties) would take the small steps necessary to fix it now. Medicare is in crisis.

Before you whine anymore about the tea party, let's see what happens when the Republicans take the House. My guess is they'll want spending cuts, and Dems and Obama will scream to high heaven if some government program only gets a 4% increase instead of a 6% increase in funding. Just
wait and see.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

lol. Melancon just laid into Vitter for his entire closing statement. I wonder if his wife can even kiss that scumbag anymore.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 28, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Bearclaw

It is about stopping the growth of more massive expensive programs


That doesnt mean cutting Medicare and Social Security - so don't twist things around


Besides Obama cut 500 Billion dollars from Medicare, not the Tea Party. Show some honesty.

.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, shitsandwich analyst.

We finally found your field of expertise.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 28, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Mike, not on the lips.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 28, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Bearclaw,
A huge amount of the center right people you're denigrating know that they will never see the money they paid into Social Security. That money is gone. Perhaps declining to give you something they no longer have to pay off a debt is, in fact, the honorable thing to do.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 28, 2010 6:23 PM
-------

No good. That money is supposed to be gone. It's being and has been used to pay current retirees. If surplus was replaced with I.O.U.s then the government is responsible for paying it back. A 25 year old who buys a term life insurance policy isn't expecting the company to necessarily hold his premiums until he's 65 years old. Or to use the exact same money to pay his benefit should he die. But they DO have to pay the benefit. If the government defaults on its Social Security obligation to the seniors who have spent their lives paying in, it might as well close up shop. The seniors don't set the taxes (premiums) to keep the program solvent. Gutless politicians are supposed to do that. Need to adjust the retirement age? Do it! Insurance companies also have to occasionally change their actuarial tables and premiums---as opposed to going out of business.

Politicians would like to say that they aren't the ones who got us in the mess. It doesn't matter. They represent us just like the politicians who came before them. If they aren't going to honor the commitments of the previous pols, then why would anyone believe that future pols will honor the commitments of the current generation of crooks...er, pols. One of the current games is a war of generations---convince young people that they'll never see their Social Security benefits even though they're paying the taxes. Then it will be easier to get them to support privatization or simply scrapping the system altogether. The real problem with Social Security is incompetent representation in Washington. What the teabaggers are angry about is wasteful spending, rising debt, and crooked politicians.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Elderly recipients of Social Security and Medicare made a pact with the government; they lived up to their end of the bargain, now it's the government's turn.

and

And don't bring up the subject of means testing for Social Security. It is NOT a welfare program. The solvency of Social Security would be assured indefinitely if gutless politicians (of both parties) would take the small steps necessary to fix it now. Medicare is in crisis.
-------------------------------
This is how I knew your age, because I'll bet that 95% of people our age agree with you, regardless of left or right.

Right on.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 28, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still wrote,
"Bonds had a terrible personality. Ron Kettle once asked him to sign a few shirts that would be raffled off for Ron's Charity, Bonds said to him, I am not going to sign anything for white people."
-------

Ron Kettle. LOL. Remember the time Ted Kennedy congratulated Sammy Sooser and Mike McGweer?

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

"95% of people our age agree with you"

You are all a bunch of commie fellow travelers, pinkos I tell ya. A pact with the gubmint is a pact with the devil!

Posted by: shrink2 | October 28, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

A pact with the gubmint is a pact with the devil!

Posted by: shrink2
----------------------------
Yeah..........but it's OUR devil!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 28, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

A poster on an earlier thread commented on this from moderate Democrat Doug Schoen:

'Says Schoen: "Despite voters feelings toward Obama personally, 56 percent say he does not deserve to be re-elected, while 38 percent say he does deserve to be re-elected president." Worse, Schoen adds, "43 percent say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been."'

We knew the day would come, but it took less than two years for voters to decide that George W. Bush was a better president than Barack Obama. No wonder that "blame Bush" routine isn't working anymore.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Food for thought:

"Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the
party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY
2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush,
which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly
got tough on spending increases.

"For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush
entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until
Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus
spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

"And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very
Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the
omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the
deficits looked like during that period.

"If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last
of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and
the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in
Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted
for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself."

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

"Is Liberalism genetic? A new study from James H. Fowler of the University of California San Diego and Harvard University’s Nicholas A. Christakis claims researchers have identified the dopamine receptor, DRD4, as the Liberal Gene. The new issue of the Journal of Politics, published by Cambridge University, carries the study that says political ideology may be caused by genetic predisposition. The study involved 2,000 participants from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and focused on their social networks and other background information, such as having an active social life as a teenager. Those with a variant of the gene DRD4 were found to be liberal as adults.

"The researchers, including Jaime E. Settle and Christopher Dawkes from UC San Diego, concluded that one’s DNA may have more to do with ideology than other factors.

"The DRD4 ‘Liberal’ gene has a variant which seems to cause novelty-seeking behavior. As a dopamine receptor, DRD4 acts as a neurotransmitter. This affects the cerebral processes in the brain that control or influence movement and emotional responses. They also affect the ability of an individual to experience pain and pleasure.

"Perhaps most relevant here is this connection between ‘novelty-seeking behavior’ and becoming a Liberal as an adult. Coupled with a pattern of an active social network as an adolescent, the Liberal gene makes the adult a Liberal, which fits, given how attracted such are to novelty and irrational emotions. Just look at people like Joy Behar, Keith Olbermann or Alan Grayson. They never seem happy or satisfied, and they blow with the fads of the moment, having no structure in their values or lives."
---Andrew Zarowny

Having looked at Alan Colmes, James Carville, Henry Waxman, et al, I have often wondered; now science has answered the question. Liberals are genetic mutants. I thought as much. LOL.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

BTW, Louisiana Senate debate on CSPAN now. Pretty contentious.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010 7:36 PM
--------

What's going on down there? I saw on the news where some elected Democrat switched to the Republican party because of Obama's actions during the Gulf oil spill. Rats deserting a sinking ship.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Social Security is already means-tested.

There are variable tax rates for social security benefits.

I can't believe the people who write stuff without the basic knowledge of the topics - read a little bit. That applies to the discussions on the tax rates - it was clear that people did not understand what the sliding scales were - and how those scales hit different income brackets.


.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

They never seem happy or satisfied, and they blow with the fads of the moment, having no structure in their values or lives."
---Andrew Zarowny
---------------------------------
Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

If Andrew is right, then the Conservative gene must be primarily judgmental.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 28, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

This place has become a Shanty Town for Fix Refugees


Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

"What the teabaggers are angry about is wasteful spending, rising debt, and crooked politicians. Posted by: Brigade"

Well I am angry about those three things, I have been for years...and I have never been a teabagger, or been teabagged or anything like that. Heck I've never even voted for a Republican. But why did Republicans create and defend unlimited anonymous political donations and still say they don't like crooked politicians? Are the teabaggers ok with that? It isn't like there are any teabaggers that are Democrats. Why did the teabaggers pretend wars and prescription drugs were free, even, that deficits did not matter? Was it only because Vice Lord Cheney said so? They are independent thinkers, pretty much rugged individualists, am I right? So confusing.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 28, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Teabaggers are essentially people who change doctors because they want a doctor who tells them they can lose weight by eating ice cream. And they will believe it. Even though the number on the scale keeps going up, their doctor will tell them they're losing weight and teabaggers are content with the delusion.

It's pretty much the state of the Republican party. They insist that they can cut deficits by cutting taxes. And despite the CBO coming out with report after report saying that the Bush tax cuts are one of the largest parts of the deficit, Republicans keep insisting that these cuts are reducing the debt. And teabaggers want to believe that their ice cream diet is working. And so they do.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

SolarEnergy wrote,
"Social Security is already means-tested.
There are variable tax rates for social security benefits."
-----

Variable tax rates are not what people typically mean when they refer to "means testing." Means testing for Social Security would mean the poorer you are, the more you get, regardless of what you pay in. The better off you are, the less you would get, because you don't "need" it as much as the poor person. It would be like Medicare or welfare. So people who have scrimped and saved their entire lives, so they can have a comfortable retirement, while their neighbors rolled high and squandered every dime they ever made, will be punished---the neighbors "need" their Social Security because they're broke, but the responsible people don't "need" theirs because they have a nest egg. Sound fair to you?

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

The Tea Party is taking back this country.

Get used to it.

The difference between the Tea Party and Obama is that the Tea Party doesn't have any hidden agenda - they are not out to fool the American People. There is a fundamental honesty.


_________________________________


Katrina Van Heuval was on MSNBC this morning - amazingly enlightening.

The personification of "figures don't lie, but liars figure"

Katrina was stating her plan to get centrists to vote for the democrats - basically by puttin the centrists under a set of deceptions.

Her whole point was - she knew the centrists did not agree with the leftist agenda - but she wanted them to be told a set of things to get them to vote for the democrats anyway.


There was no inclination at all to try to get the centrists to agree to the liberal policies, which she wanted them to vote into place. The whole idea was to create a deception about what the real platform is. And there was zero thought of the liberals actually doing what the centrists wanted - centrist policies.


This was it - then she started to say "there are waying to get additional revenue" - that is when they cut her off.


Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

"they want a doctor who tells them they can lose weight by eating ice cream. And they will believe it."

Shhh. Lookit' we are trying to make a little money here. I mean, politics is one thing but the doctor patient relationship, well that is just about everything.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 28, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Sound fair to you?

Posted by: Brigade
-----------------------------
No, I'm with you. SS is a contract with the American people, particularly those of us who paid in for decades. We planned our lives around the calculations. We did our part. Now the government better do its part.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 28, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3 wrote: "Greg:

"The point of winning elections is to pass laws."

A fairly good indication that progressives are indeed in favor of the never-ending growth and intrusion of government. Here's to hoping that the R's understand that sometimes the point of winning elections is to repeal laws."

I'm tearing up man. Beautiful.

Here's a thought, how about, other than yearly budgets and making expiring tax cuts permanent, a Republican Congressional majority, if voters see fit to grant it, at least in one house, spend the next two years repealing laws and going through the Federal Register, repealing things?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 28, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

"Shhh. Lookit' we are trying to make a little money here. I mean, politics is one thing but the doctor patient relationship, well that is just about everything.

Posted by: shrink2"

lol, I finished rotating through the psych ER about a month ago. It was quite an interesting experience. It kind of skewed my view of patients when I moved on to my next rotation. "Wait, a patient tells you something and you just believe it???"

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

They are already doing that - with the tax rates.

What is the difference if you get less in the beginning - or the government gives it to you, then taxes 85% of it???


They already have a sliding scale for social security - those benefits are taxed at different rates for different income levels

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

"A fairly good indication that progressives are indeed in favor of the never-ending growth and intrusion of government. Here's to hoping that the R's understand that sometimes the point of winning elections is to repeal laws."

Repealing laws and passing laws are the same thing. To repeal a law, you pass a new law which has the function of nullifying the law you want to repeal. Like the House and Senate have to pass it and Prez has to sign it. So if the Republican agenda is to pass laws of repeal, that's one thing, but it's a different thing from saying their agenda is to limit Obama to one term.

Of course, in 2012, the Republicans can defeat Obama and take the Senate and then move on to repealing all those laws, just like they did back when they controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency for the better half of the last decade...

Actually, Democrats must have controlled the government back in the early 2000s. Isn't that when they expanded Medicare and the Education Department through instituting Federal mandates for school performance all while making zero cuts in Federal programs?

Must've been the Dems.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

It is interesting to see Brigade singing the praises of moderates in one post and in the next post writing:

A whole bunch of them (Dems) are going to get what you say the clowns deserve next Tuesday. And, yes, we hope they never again crawl out of the sewer.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 7:29 PM

Apparently, "moderate" means ... actually I have no idea what moderate might mean to Brigade.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 28, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

"A fairly good indication that progressives are indeed in favor of the never-ending growth and intrusion of government. Here's to hoping that the R's understand that sometimes the point of winning elections is to repeal laws."

Repealing laws and passing laws are the same thing. To repeal a law, you pass a new law which has the function of nullifying the law you want to repeal. Like the House and Senate have to pass it and Prez has to sign it. So if the Republican agenda is to pass laws of repeal, that's one thing, but it's a different thing from saying their agenda is to limit Obama to one term.

Of course, in 2012, the Republicans can defeat Obama and take the Senate and then move on to repealing all those laws, just like they did back when they controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency for the better half of the last decade...

Actually, Democrats must have controlled the government back in the early 2000s. Isn't that when they expanded Medicare and the Education Department through instituting Federal mandates for school performance all while making zero cuts in Federal programs?

Must've been the Dems.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote,
"It's pretty much the state of the Republican party. They insist that they can cut deficits by cutting taxes. And despite the CBO coming out with report after report saying that the Bush tax cuts are one of the largest parts of the deficit, Republicans keep insisting that these cuts are reducing the debt."
------

Well now, I don't think they'd phrase it quite that way. The conservative belief is that tax cuts stimulate the economy RESULTING in INCREASED government tax revenues. It's actually been shown to work. The government does not traditionally have a revenue problem, so much as a spending problem. You can hardly reduce the debt if you're spending more than you're bringing in.

It's easy to say that if you could increase government revenues by the amount of the Bush tax cuts then you wouldn't have so much debt. That's not economics, it's just numbers crunching. If Democrats or Republicans, either one, thought that tax increases now would actually increase revenues and lower the debt, they'd do it. But unfortunately it would only hurt the economy and thus result in even FEWER tax revenues. Now, I'm not saying you can cut tax rates to zero. There are only so many bullets in a gun. The Fed cuts interest rates to zero, and where do they go from there? I'm not even convinced that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on amounts in excess of 250,000, as Obama has proposed, would necessarily hurt the economy. But if these Washington morons keep squabbling until ALL of the tax cuts expire, it will probably have an undesirable effect on the economy and will NOT lower the debt.

Ironically, the time to raise taxes is when the economy is booming, and the time to cut them is when the economy is struggling. Unfortunately, Republicans are ALWAYS for tax cuts, Democrats are ALWAYS for tax increases. And they both now spend like drunken sailors.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

Let me just give you the "filing single" rates


If you make less than 25,000, none of your Social Security benefits are taxable.


If you make between 25,501 and 34,000, 50% of your SS benefits are taxable

If you make over 34,000, 85% of your SS benefits are taxable.


So, you take that additional taxable income - add it to your taxable income - multiply it by the tax bracket you are in, and that is how much you send BACK to the government.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

I had a difficult relationship with the white coat. It had magical properties, but I was not magic, but, when I put it on, I was magic! (especially if I draped a stethoscope around my neck that was the kicker).

You know, in the annals of psychopathic narcissists, MDeities figure prominently: I have to admire Rand Paul. Creating his own "Board" to certify Himself, because well you know, that other board, the real one, requires data and even worse, the opinions of other people...that is perfect. He may be the perfect doctor.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 28, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote,
"It's pretty much the state of the Republican party. They insist that they can cut deficits by cutting taxes. And despite the CBO coming out with report after report saying that the Bush tax cuts are one of the largest parts of the deficit, Republicans keep insisting that these cuts are reducing the debt."
------

Well now, I don't think they'd phrase it quite that way. The conservative belief is that tax cuts stimulate the economy RESULTING in INCREASED government tax revenues. It's actually been shown to work. The government does not traditionally have a revenue problem, so much as a spending problem. You can hardly reduce the debt if you're spending more than you're bringing in.

It's easy to say that if you could increase government revenues by the amount of the Bush tax cuts then you wouldn't have so much debt. That's not economics, it's just numbers crunching. If Democrats or Republicans, either one, thought that tax increases now would actually increase revenues and lower the debt, they'd do it. But unfortunately it would only hurt the economy and thus result in even FEWER tax revenues. Now, I'm not saying you can cut tax rates to zero. There are only so many bullets in a gun. The Fed cuts interest rates to zero, and where do they go from there? I'm not even convinced that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on amounts in excess of 250,000, as Obama has proposed, would necessarily hurt the economy. But if these Washington morons keep squabbling until ALL of the tax cuts expire, it will probably have an undesirable effect on the economy and will NOT lower the debt.

Ironically, the time to raise taxes is when the economy is booming, and the time to cut them is when the economy is struggling. Unfortunately, Republicans are ALWAYS for tax cuts, Democrats are ALWAYS for tax increases. And they both now spend like drunken sailors.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

Let me just give you the "married filing jointly" rates


If you make less than 32,000, none of your Social Security benefits are taxable.


If you make between 32,501 and 44,000, 50% of your SS benefits are taxable

If you make over 44,000, 85% of your SS benefits are taxable.

_______________________________


How do you like that ??? That is what they are doing now.

It is already means-tested.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote,
"It's pretty much the state of the Republican party. They insist that they can cut deficits by cutting taxes. And despite the CBO coming out with report after report saying that the Bush tax cuts are one of the largest parts of the deficit, Republicans keep insisting that these cuts are reducing the debt."
------

Well now, I don't think they'd phrase it quite that way. The conservative belief is that tax cuts stimulate the economy RESULTING in INCREASED government tax revenues. It's actually been shown to work. The government does not traditionally have a revenue problem, so much as a spending problem. You can hardly reduce the debt if you're spending more than you're bringing in.

It's easy to say that if you could increase government revenues by the amount of the Bush tax cuts then you wouldn't have so much debt. That's not economics, it's just numbers crunching. If Democrats or Republicans, either one, thought that tax increases now would actually increase revenues and lower the debt, they'd do it. But unfortunately it would only hurt the economy and thus result in even FEWER tax revenues. Now, I'm not saying you can cut tax rates to zero. There are only so many bullets in a gun. The Fed cuts interest rates to zero, and where do they go from there? I'm not even convinced that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on amounts in excess of 250,000, as Obama has proposed, would necessarily hurt the economy. But if these Washington morons keep squabbling until ALL of the tax cuts expire, it will probably have an undesirable effect on the economy and will NOT lower the debt.

Ironically, the time to raise taxes is when the economy is booming, and the time to cut them is when the economy is struggling. Unfortunately, Republicans are ALWAYS for tax cuts, Democrats are ALWAYS for tax increases. And they both now spend like drunken sailors.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

DDAWd

I know you might think its magic, but it's true.

Lower taxes increase economic activity - which results in economic growth and more tax revenues.


Higher taxes put a drag on economic activity, less hiring - and less economic growth - if growth is cut so much, tax revenues can actually be lower with higher rates.


Example: the health care plan - Obama has a drag on hiring, that is reducing economic growth and making the deficit higher.

You might say, the health care plan isn't even in effect - but there is a drag on hiring and economic growth is lower.

The deficit is higher now with Obama's health care plan


Go ahead, call me a racist.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about multiple posts. Some glitch in the site software gave me an error and kept sending me back to repost.

Posted by: Brigade | October 28, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

This place is still a Shanty Town for Fix Refugees.


Why did they insist on changing the software - and why in the world won't they just go back - after they saw the fall-off in traffic ?

Greg should get the Fix people to go back to the old format - and send everyone back

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

"Well now, I don't think they'd phrase it quite that way. The conservative belief is that tax cuts stimulate the economy RESULTING in INCREASED government tax revenues. It's actually been shown to work."

And ice cream has been shown to increase your metabolism. You're still not going to lose weight eating it.

"That's not economics, it's just numbers crunching."

If I make a facebook account and look on Palin's page, will I get these sort of gems first hand?

Yeah, me with my high-falutin 'rithmetics.

But this is definitely not the time for deficit reduction. And while tax cuts will help, the problem with tax cuts during a recession is that people tend to save their money. This is responsible fiscal planning, but also ensures that the tax cuts have next to zero stimulative effect on the economy.

I'd go on about how stimulus is better, but is there really any point? It's certainly not going to get you any Palin winky wink points.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

After the November election, the strengthened Replicores will continue what they have successfully done the past two years: vote no, vote no, filibuster, filibuster, vote no ad infinitum. And, they will be successful, just like they will be come November 2. Helping them out will be their corporate buddies who will not hire, the economy will get worse, the Democrats will get blamed because they can't do anything (because of Replicore instransigence), Etc. It is a winning formula because fear clouds a person's mind, whether it is fear of job loss, fear of no job, fear of foreclosure, fear of immigrants, etc.,etc., etc. As long as the economy stays bad, it will be the winning political formula. The Republicores will make sure that the economy stays bad, at least until they can get a Republicore President elected in 2012.

Posted by: dozas | October 28, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd

Lower taxes are better.


We know you love high taxes, massive government programs - and massive hand-outs to minorities.

That should be the democrats' campaign slogans. All the country wants is honesty about it all. Don't tell us change, hope bipartisanship, transpareny and post-racial policies.


Affirmative action is hyper-racial, not post-racial

Obama is setting up 20 offices around the country to enforce affirmative action programs - do the democrats in the rank-and-file even know that???


.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

I actually think that Stewart's "Dude" remark was a bit condescending.

When you tell someone they shouldn't say something, and you add a "dude" at the end, it is a bit of a put-down.


"Dude" actually can have many meanings used in different contexts, and with different intonations.

However, if you tell someone not to say something, and then add the "dude" at the end, its not good.


It's not a word of familiarity at that point, or a word of endearment. It is a put-down. It is, dude, that isn't cool. Dude, you crossed the line and I have to put you in your place.


Dude.


Dude, don't say that, it sounds way too much like Bush.


.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

"I had a difficult relationship with the white coat. It had magical properties, but I was not magic, but, when I put it on, I was magic! (especially if I draped a stethoscope around my neck that was the kicker).

You know, in the annals of psychopathic narcissists, MDeities figure prominently: I have to admire Rand Paul. Creating his own "Board" to certify Himself, because well you know, that other board, the real one, requires data and even worse, the opinions of other people...that is perfect. He may be the perfect doctor.

Posted by: shrink2"

Yeah, there's something cool about the white coat and the steth. I have to admit, the reverence is a bit intoxicating even though it is very undeserved.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 28, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Who messed with Texas?
Are they going to lose again to those "people" from (gulp!) San Francisco?

Posted by: shrink2 | October 28, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

All, new thread:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/charlie_crist_asked_clinton_ca.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 28, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama is making a mistake going to Connecticut - will it really help Blumenthal???

Again, Obama is nationalizing the race - and risking motivating his opposition.

So the calculation - will Obama motivate more people to go with him or against him.

Meanwhile, Obama is sure to be in the New York media market - and on all the cable stations.

Like the Daily Show - clips were shown all over the tv and radio today - it didn't just go to the younger demo Obama wanted - it went all over the place.

AND the interview didn't go well.


Obama knows he shouldn't nationalize the election - but everytime we turn around - there is Obama nationalizing the race. What is up with that? I am astonished at the incompetence. The democrats must be pulling their hair out. Obviously I care about how the country is run. But if this is the way Obama is running the democratic party, there is NO WAY he is qualified to run the country.

It is about time we get some honesty from the democrats on this one.

.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 28, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

McNut: "...Republican Congressional majority, if voters see fit to grant it, at least in one house, spend the next two years repealing laws and going through the Federal Register, repealing things?"

A) Because the Republicans don't want to repeal things. They want to add their own things, new laws or ones that modify existing laws so they are more to their corporate masters' liking. "Small government Republican" is a myth, actually a misnomer. "Small government Republican" just means modifying existing laws and tax rates to be more favorable to the rich and corporations, and appointing corporate cronies to government agencies to pretend to do oversight. "Small government Republican" is basically throwing open the bank vault and putting a narcoleptic on bank patrol.

B) President Obama has cut or killed all kinds of programs and wasteful spending. He signed the bill that re-wrote military contracting laws that will cut down on wasteful government contracts. If you liked reducing the size of government, you'd think that the right would care about it when it actually happens. But no. Spending $20B on a plane that will never fly is okay because military spending is sacrosanct to the GOP. Spending $20B on education? No. Spending $20B on a plane that will never be used? DingDingDing!!!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

McNut: "...Republican Congressional majority, if voters see fit to grant it, at least in one house, spend the next two years repealing laws and going through the Federal Register, repealing things?"

A) Because the Republicans don't want to repeal things. They want to add their own things, new laws or ones that modify existing laws so they are more to their corporate masters' liking. "Small government Republican" is a myth, actually a misnomer. "Small government Republican" just means modifying existing laws and tax rates to be more favorable to the rich and corporations, and appointing corporate cronies to government agencies to pretend to do oversight. "Small government Republican" is basically throwing open the bank vault and putting a narcoleptic on bank patrol.

B) President Obama has cut or killed all kinds of programs and wasteful spending. He signed the bill that re-wrote military contracting laws that will cut down on wasteful government contracts. If you liked reducing the size of government, you'd think that the right would care about it when it actually happens. But no. Spending $20B on a plane that will never fly is okay because military spending is sacrosanct to the GOP. Spending $20B on education? No. Spending $20B on a plane that will never be used? DingDingDing!!!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 said: "A) Because the Republicans don't want to repeal things. They want to add their own things, new laws or ones that modify existing laws so they are more to their corporate masters' liking. "Small government Republican" is a myth, actually a misnomer. "Small government Republican" just means modifying existing laws and tax rates to be more favorable to the rich and corporations, and appointing corporate cronies to government agencies to pretend to do oversight. "Small government Republican" is basically throwing open the bank vault and putting a narcoleptic on bank patrol."

I hope you're wrong.

Followed by: "President Obama has cut or killed all kinds of programs and wasteful spending. He signed the bill that re-wrote military contracting laws that will cut down on wasteful government contracts. If you liked reducing the size of government, you'd think that the right would care about it when it actually happens. But no. Spending $20B on a plane that will never fly is okay because military spending is sacrosanct to the GOP. Spending $20B on education? No. Spending $20B on a plane that will never be used? DingDingDing!!!"

I hope you're right.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 28, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Hope has nothing to do with it, Troll. That's the factual record whether you hope it's true or not.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the schooling. I stand humbled and corrected. I owe you a debt of gratitude. Your kindness and patience know no bounds and you make it a pleasure to converse on what can often be a very partisan blog. How you manage to keep your calm and maintain level headed dialog in this overheated and bitterly partisan atmosphere I'll never know but I salute you. You sir a model of excellence in an otherwise mediocre world. We of the right (I'm referring to my pre-conversion we) can and will learn a lot from a paragon of virtue such as yourself.

SALUD!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 28, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Troll, that was some sappy sarcasm. Over the top, even for you. I give it a C-.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Troll, that was some sappy sarcasm. Over the top, even for you. I give it a C-.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 28, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse


This is sweet major brands do give out samples of their popular health products best place is http://bit.ly/aJWSXv tell your friends

Posted by: davidmason29 | October 29, 2010 1:55 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