Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:38 PM ET, 02/28/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

UPDATE, 9:00 p.m.: I've been arguing that the big story in Wisconsin is that the showdown proves that the scapegoating of public employees is not proving so easy, after all, and the new New York Times/CBS poll demonstrates this as clearly as you could want.

The poll bears out the findings of the recent Gallup poll. The NYT finds strong opposition across the board (60-33) to rolling back public employee bargaining rights, with 56 percent opposed to cutting the pay or benefits of public employees to reduce deficits. And the NYT poll bears out Gallup's findings that many Republicans oppose such efforts and that support for them is confined to upper income groups.

This is more evidence that Scott Walker's overreach may be undermining the right's previous advantages on questions involving public employees. A potential game changer.

(Update: Though those earning over $100,000 were most favorably disposed to Walker's proposals, not even they supported it; they opposed it 49-45.)

* Obama announced today that he is open to letting states opt out of the health care law as early as 2014, and the question now is whether this will undermine legal efforts to strike down the law as unconstitutional.

* The new proposal may have thrown the health law a lifeline.

* It will also be interesting to see if Republicans and conservatives support this change, given that it addresses their main criticism of the law, that it represents federal tyranny.

* Adam Serwer seems a bit skeptical, arguing that offering the right a compromise that wouldn't completely destroy Obamacare is akin to asking "Captain Ahab to reach a compromise with Moby Dick."

* Eric Cantor says that Mark Zandi report that GOP budget cuts will kill jobs is suspect because it was written by the "chief proponent of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi stimulus bill that we now know has failed to deliver on the promise of making sure unemployment did not rise above 8 percent."

* Steve Benen, on the mysterious unwillingness of some commentators to focus on the impact budget cuts could have on the recovery:

How is it this isn't at the heart of the debate over the budget? How far off track is the public discourse when an entire chamber of Congress, in the midst of a jobs crisis, approves a plan to make the crisis much worse, and this is considered only tangentially relevant?

Republicans have of course disputed the studies finding that their proposed cuts would hamper the recovery. But as Steve keeps reminding us, the point is that the debate over whether this is true is not even part of the conversation.

* Ed Kilgore on the real game plan: Turning Wisconsin's economy into the Deep South.

* Despite attacks from the right, Obama reiterates his defense of public employees, and points out that many have already agreed to concessions asked of them.

* As David Dayen notes, those on the left attacking Obama for not going to Wisconsin should keep in mind that the longer national Dems stay away, the longer it remains a truly grassroots fight.

* Conservative groups have been methodically plotting their grand assault on public employees for months or even years.

* Dave Weigel argues Rasmussen gamed its latest poll to lend aid and comfort to the GOP in the government shutdown fight.

* Mitch Daniels, who has irritated some on the right lately with signs of moderation, now says we should forge ahead with budget cuts even if they result in widespread job loss.

* And conservative blogger Allahpundit thinks there may be signs that Wisconsin Republicans are wavering in their support for Walker.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | February 28, 2011; 6:38 PM ET
Categories:  Happy Hour Roundup, Health reform, House GOPers, Labor, budget  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dem poll: Republicans turning on Scott Walker
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

John Aravosis makes a nice catch re the GOP attempt at defunding Planned Parenthood. The link is to the piece by Scaife.

""That would be THE Richard Mellon Scaife, the GOP billionaire who spent much of the 1990s funding scurrilous attacks on the Clintons. He's just penned a piece criticizing the GOP house for defunding Planned Parenthood. It's hard to understate what a big deal this is.""

""Now the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives -- urged on by conservatives opposed to abortion -- has voted to defund Planned Parenthood.

On this issue, Republicans and conservatives are dead wrong.

Abortions are a minor aspect of Planned Parenthood's mission to provide reproductive health care, education and other services to Americans, regardless of income.

More than 90 percent of its work focuses on preventing unintended pregnancies that almost inevitably lead to unwanted, neglected and abused children.""

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleynewsdispatch/s_724838.html#ixzz1FHuhXeRm

Posted by: lmsinca | February 28, 2011 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Guess the quote!

Who said this about PPACA:

"It's good to allow them to work out their own problems rather than a one-size-fits-all federal government dumb-ass program. It really is an awful piece of crap."

Choices:

a) Random Tea Partier
b) A student journalist in Utah
c) Jonah Goldberg
d) Erick Erickson
e) Orrin Hatch

Give up?

If you answered "E" then you are correct.

The 76-year-old Mormon told a bunch of college Republicans that opening up access to health care for millions of Americans is a "dumb-ass program" and "an awful piece of crap". Thanks for playing.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/hatch-obamacare-a-dumbass-program.php

Posted by: ronnieandrush | February 28, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

• There are 7.7 million fewer payroll jobs now than before the recession started in December 2007.
• Almost 14 million Americans are unemployed.
• Of those unemployed, 6.2 million have been unemployed for six months or more.
• Another 8.4 million are working part time for economic reasons,
• About 4 million more have left the labor force since the start of the recession (we can see this in the dramatic drop in the labor force participation rate),
• of those who have left the labor force, about 1 million are available for work, but are discouraged and have given up.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/02/jobs-jobs-jobs.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+Risk%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

And the republicans admit that they want to intentionally put more people out of work.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 28, 2011 6:56 PM | Report abuse

If the GOP's idea is to de-unionize Wisconsin to turn it into the non-union states of the deep south, someone better look at how successful the deep south is in keeping their jobs.

December 2010 #s:

Alabama ....9.1%
Florida ...12.0%
George ..10.4%
Louisiana ...7.7%
Mississippi .10.2%
South Carolina ...10.9%
Tennessee ..9.4%

Then, tada! Wisconsin's unemployment rate is 7.5%.

Yes, that is lower than any of the non union states.

http://www.bls.gov/lau/

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 28, 2011 7:01 PM | Report abuse

CBO needs to look at the House bill and see if indeed lose 700,000 jobs.

Cantor may not believe that either but at least there would have been 3 studies which show large job loss.

Posted by: maritza1 | February 28, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

If the GOP's idea is to de-unionize Wisconsin to turn it into the non-union states of the deep south, someone better look at how successful the deep south is in keeping their jobs.

December 2010 **unemployment** statistics are:

Alabama ....9.1%
Florida ...12.0%
George ..10.4%
Louisiana ...7.7%
Mississippi .10.2%
South Carolina ...10.9%
Tennessee ..9.4%

Then, tada! Wisconsin's unemployment rate is 7.5%.

Yes, that is lower than any of the non union states.

http://www.bls.gov/lau/

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 28, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""Yes, that is lower than any of the non union states.""

Are you asserting a causal relationship between the unionization of government workers and lower unemployment rates? If so, on what evidence are you basing your claim on?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 28, 2011 7:12 PM | Report abuse

"A unionized public employee, a teabagger, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, then looks at the teabagger and says “Watch out for that union guy—he wants a piece of your cookie!”

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 28, 2011 5:28 PM
========================================

Try this: a unionized public employee, a teabagger businessman, and a Democratic politician are sitting at a table; in the middle of the table is a plate with a dozen cookies on it; the Dem pol reaches across and takes eleven cookies, then looks at the teabagger businessman and says "I need a piece of your cookie to pay that union guy; my eleven cookies are already as good as eaten."

Posted by: Brigade | February 28, 2011 7:13 PM | Report abuse

If Obama doesn't get out in front of this then he doesn't deserve a second term.

Posted by: filmnoia | February 28, 2011
=========================================

Obama couldn't care less what D-baggers like you think. Your vote is already in the bank.

Posted by: Brigade | February 28, 2011 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Abortions are a minor aspect of Planned Parenthood's mission to provide reproductive health care, education and other services to Americans, regardless of income.

More than 90 percent of its work focuses on preventing unintended pregnancies that almost inevitably lead to unwanted, neglected and abused children.

Posted by: lmsinca | February 28, 2011 6:51 PM
======================================

Any reason why its supporters can't just support it, without the taxes of people who DON'T support the agenda? Doesn't Planned Parenthood get money from the United Way and other charitable organizations? Too many organizations with their lips on the government teat---the milk isn't really free.

Posted by: Brigade | February 28, 2011 7:22 PM | Report abuse

By the calculations of The Obamateur's economic team, Obamanomics was supposed to prevent unemployment from going above 8% in the first place.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 28, 2011 11:22 AM | Report abuse

---

As opposed to the last team, which had the Midas touch of converting 4% to 10%.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 28, 2011
=======================================

You need some remedial math ole boy. How did Obama plan to keep the unemployment rate below 8% if it was already at 10%?

Posted by: Brigade | February 28, 2011 7:24 PM | Report abuse

* And conservative blogger Allahpundit thinks there may be signs that Wisconsin Republicans are wavering in their support for Walker."

Great comments today from everyone! Exciting reading!

What's the opinion on Hot Air as a reliable source?

Thanks again all!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 28, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

I cited two examples of right wingers wetting themselves in terror over imaginary threats. There is in fact a rich literature in academia on right wing fear, as a well observed and documented phenomena.

Haven't you ever noticed that the only thing that ever drives the right is fear? Whether it is terror that the ERA would lead to unisex bathrooms, that JFK would take orders from Rome . . .

You're all delusional. But I'm the one "whining" somehow. Yeah.

Posted by: Scientician | February 28, 2011
==========================================

You must be fairly new around here, as well as uninformed. The gloom and doom posts from liberals on this blog far outnumber those from conservatives. Haven't you heard that the only future which awaits us is one of poverty, violence, and even slavery---courtesy of the Koch family and Karl Rove? As a conservative, I'm much more optimistic about American exceptionalism than your average liberal bedwetter.

And as for your reference to JFK and Rome, I seriously doubt that you'd be able to identify the conservative, between him and Nixon, through the prism of your 2011 rose colored glasses. Do you really think it's the conservatives around here who are continually whining and worried sick that some politician might take advice from the pope or some fundamentalist pastor? If so, you're an even bigger fool than you appear at first blush.

Posted by: Brigade | February 28, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

"And the republicans admit that they want to intentionally put more people out of work."

Liberal arguments are already stupid enough without assinine statements like that. But that's never stopped any of you before, so carry on.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 28, 2011 7:45 PM | Report abuse

I have had no good reason to regret my move. In fact it seems to have improved my health; I was diagnosed with diabetes a year before I left, it was worsening, and after three months here my blood sugar is back in the normal range.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 28, 2011
========================================

It's all that vinegar you've been putting on the greens from your back yard. Keeps your blood sugar from rising.

Posted by: Brigade | February 28, 2011 7:48 PM | Report abuse

@suekzoo1 "From Balloon Juice:

"A unionized public employee, a teabagger, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, then looks at the teabagger and says “Watch out for that union guy—he wants a piece of your cookie!”"

The joke begs the question of how the cookies got on the plate in the first place.

Posted by: jnc4p | February 28, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

"There is in fact a rich literature in academia on right wing fear, as a well observed and documented phenomena."

No, there's a bunch of ideologically driven, pseudointellectual bullcrap, and secondary bullcrap peddlers. We already have one around here.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 28, 2011 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives deal in facts? Facts like Iraqi weapons . . .

Posted by: caothien9 | February 28, 2011
========================================

The gift that keeps on giving:

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Those blasted conservatives!

Thanks again, ScottC3.

Posted by: Brigade | February 28, 2011 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Greg:
"Obama announced today that he is open to letting states opt out of the health care law as early as 2014, and the question now is whether this will undermine legal efforts to strike down the law as unconstitutional."
=======================================

But, but . . . I thought the consensus among our liberal legal "scholars" was that the challenge to the law's constitutionality was without merit and doomed to fail in any event.

Posted by: Brigade | February 28, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Can someone from the Right (Brigade, ScottC, etc) please explain to me what is going to happen to the unemployment rate and job availability when about 1 million Americans are forced out of work by Republicans in Washington D.C.?

Posted by: ronnieandrush | February 28, 2011 8:01 PM | Report abuse

"The economy is adding between 100,000 and 150,000 per month..."
Mark Zandi, Moody's

What economy is that?

Posted by: tao9 | February 28, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

New NYT/CBS poll:

Americans oppose weakening the bargaining rights of public employee unions by a margin of nearly two to one: 60 percent to 33 percent. While a slim majority of Republicans favored taking away some bargaining rights, they were outnumbered by large majorities of Democrats and independents who said they opposed weakening them. Those surveyed said they opposed, 56 percent to 37 percent, cutting the pay or benefits of public employees to reduce deficits, breaking down along similar party lines. A majority of respondents who have no union members living in their households opposed both cuts in pay or benefits and taking away the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=751815&f=19

"Jamming down our throats"

"The American people think..."

Sound familiar?

The GOP has lost the public.

Posted by: ronnieandrush | February 28, 2011 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Guess the quote!

Who said this about PPACA:

"It's good to allow them to work out their own problems rather than a one-size-fits-all federal government dumb-ass program. It really is an awful piece of crap."

Choices:

a) Random Tea Partier
b) A student journalist in Utah
c) Jonah Goldberg
d) Erick Erickson
e) Orrin Hatch

Posted by: ronnieandrush | February 28, 2011 6:54 PM
========================================

That was fun! Try this. Match the quote with the Democrat:

(1) "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

(2) (On Clarence Thomas) "A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom."

(3) "You'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."

(4) "I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

(5) "I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman.


A. Harry Truman
B. Lyndon Johnson
C. Robert Byrd
D. Ernest Hollings
E. Spike Lee

--------------------

Answers: 1C; 2E; 3D; 4B; 5A



Posted by: Brigade | February 28, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Crosstabs:

2/24-27/11 Rep-26 Dem-36 Ind-31 DK-7

{{{snort}}}

Posted by: tao9 | February 28, 2011 8:27 PM | Report abuse

As a comedian, Brig, you're a terrific plumber.

Random observation. It's a bit ironic that the one thing KDE doesn't comment on is the events in Libya?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 28, 2011 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Can someone from the Right (Brigade, ScottC, etc) please explain to me what is going to happen to the unemployment rate and job availability when about 1 million Americans are forced out of work by Republicans in Washington D.C.?

Posted by: ronnieandrush | February 28, 2011 8:01 PM
=======================================

Crack down on businesses hiring illegal immigrants , and there should be plenty of openings in the meat-packing industry. Unionize for better working conditions and higher wages---in the private sector.

Posted by: Brigade | February 28, 2011 8:28 PM | Report abuse

"The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Feb. 24-27 with 984 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all adults. Of those surveyed, 20 percent said there was a union member in their household, and 25 percent said there was a public employee in their household."
NYT/CBS Poll

{{{snortX2...25%? Where do they find these people?}}}

Posted by: tao9 | February 28, 2011 8:33 PM | Report abuse

"The GOP has lost the public."

Said by the same maroon who spent two years crowing that the GOP was already electorally extinct, and was last seen spamming letters to the editor shrieking about Republicans being responsible for Jerrod Loughner.

Your mom should let you get a job.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 28, 2011 8:36 PM | Report abuse

More from the NYT/CBS poll article:

"Given a list of options to reduce the deficit, 40 percent said they would increase taxes, 22 percent chose decreasing the benefits of public employees, 20 percent said they would cut financing for roads and 3 percent said they would cut financing for education."

GOP = Lou Czar

@Brigade, thank you for making it painfully clear that you care more about using the N-word to attack Democrats than you do about supporting the American workforce.

It truly is unbelievable the disdain Republicans have for this country.

Posted by: ronnieandrush | February 28, 2011 8:41 PM | Report abuse

And all you need for proof that the Republicans have lost control of their message is to just look at the littany of personal attacks, fabrications, and utter ignorance they so graciously display on command. Seriously, all you have to do to test the depths of depravity of the GOP agenda is ask them a question... On any topic.... And let the insults and ignorance fly!

60% of Americans now disagree with the Republican position on union rights.

Flame on GOP. YOU have lost.

Posted by: ronnieandrush | February 28, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Have you all seen the new NYT poll??

http://nyti.ms/hgr8E5

huge

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 28, 2011 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Someone needs to break it to Ethan that going away for a few weeks and coming back with a new name doesn't make everyone forget his history.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 28, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse

It truly is unbelievable the disdain Republicans have for this country.

Posted by: ronnieandrush | February 28, 2011 8:41 PM

======================================

Direct quotes from Democratic icons demonstrate Republican disdain for the country. Go figure.

Posted by: Brigade | February 28, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse

So Mark Levin, the tool that has a radio show from his moms basement, went after Christie and Huckabee for standing by Michelle Obama's anti obesity campaign instead of demonizing her.

This is the same weenie that went after Coburn for calling Pelosi a decent person. See, folks like Levin and Hannity are cowards that are incapable of arguing differences of potical leanings alone. They rely on demonization to augment their arguments for the arguments lack of holding merit on its own. It's how these cretins deal issues they are too lazy to inform themselves on. A bunch of lazy jerks that run their mouths all day to an even lazier audience that isn't interested on truth.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | February 28, 2011 8:59 PM | Report abuse

You're f'n kidding me!

r&r is Ethan?

w000000tttt!!!11! whoopsie.mama

Posted by: tao9 | February 28, 2011 9:00 PM | Report abuse

“These days I’m a teetotal, mean-spirited, right-wing, narrow-minded, conservative Christian bigot, but not a racist,” she told an Australian newspaper, The Daily Mail, in 2003. Bigotry, she added, “just means you don’t have an open mind.”

RIP Jane Russell.

Posted by: Brigade | February 28, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

""The economy is adding between 100,000 and 150,000 per month..."
Mark Zandi, Moody's

What economy is that?"

Hope everyone is doing well tonight!

Isn't he the dude "whose research was relied upon by lawmakers to make the case for the economic recovery package..." that was suppose to keep unemployment below 8.0%? That guy? Plus, isn't the weekly new unemployment claims rate still averaging over 400k?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/17/news/economy/obama_stimulus_meas_success/index.htm

Really impressive comments all! Thank you!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 28, 2011 9:03 PM | Report abuse

"Have you all seen the new NYT poll??"

A couple of us were just laughing at it. Ethan's right there with you though.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 28, 2011 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Actually 60% of 984 people, of which 36% of those were Democrats (which is, uh, 5-6% higher than the 2010 Election exits), of which 20% were union, of which 25% had a public employee in the household.

OMG, its a SEA CHANGE...DeltaDeltaDelta!

BTW: Is there a public employee in 28,708,000 American households? Could be...seems high.

Posted by: tao9 | February 28, 2011 9:11 PM | Report abuse

"You're f'n kidding me!

r&r is Ethan?"

Sadly, yes, although, on the brighter side, at least he doesn't have a twin out there.

I wondered for a bit, but, come on, those posts above, couldn't be anyone else.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 28, 2011 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Hahaha!

See?!

"isn't the weekly new unemployment claims rate still averaging over 400k"

Last I checked, no, it dropped under 400k. Private sector jobs have been growing now, what 16 months? 17 months? I forget.

Tao, where is Boehner's jobs bill? Where is the Republican health care bill that they want to "Replace" PPACA with once they "Repeal" it?

Any leads on those legislative items?

Because, if I remember correctly, the reasons why Americans were supposed to vote GOP in 2010 were because the Republicans would create jobs and "Repeal and Replace" PPACA. Nobody has seen any action on either front, so if you hear anything, let me know.

Posted by: ronnieandrush | February 28, 2011 9:14 PM | Report abuse

All, just updated with a take on the NYT poll. It's big news.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 28, 2011 9:16 PM | Report abuse

TMcW,

I got this from a shadowy, Koch-funded, right-wing muckraking institution recommended by Hannity and Levin on hate-radio:

"The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 9.0 percent in
January, while nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+36,000),
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today."
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Posted by: tao9 | February 28, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

"which is, uh, 5-6% higher than the 2010 Election exits"

Check out any analysis of the midterm electorate.

Of course, you already would have (maybe) if it helped your case.

Posted by: ronnieandrush | February 28, 2011 9:24 PM | Report abuse


""isn't the weekly new unemployment claims rate still averaging over 400k"

Last I checked, no, it dropped under 400k. Private sector jobs have been growing now, what 16 months? 17 months? I forget."

Hi Ethan! I hope all is well with you tonight!

I am using data from the DOL as of 2/24. "The 4-week moving average was 402,000, a decrease of 16,500 from the previous week's revised average of 418,500.". If there is a more recent one, I'll stand corrected.

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

A caveat however, " According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of the United States grew over the past decade by 27 million people, an increase of about 10%. Due to this fact, roughly 125,000 new workers enter the American workforce each and every month. That’s 125,000 new immigrants and/or young Americans flooding the job market every 30 days! How great does “36,000 new jobs created” [January's BLS estimate on the number of jobs created] last month sound now?"

http://www.politicalmommentary.com/2011/02/understanding-the-unemployment-numbers/"

So I'm not sure that happy days are here again.

Really fascinating comments Ethan! You're enthusiasm is palpable! ;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 28, 2011 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Golly, it looks like most Americans don't trust government to be a fair employer. They apparently don't see it as implicitly good, or as the way we "solve our problems," or as a force for the common good, or any of those liberal cliches.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 28, 2011 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Hey kidz, here's something fun and educational!

Get on Facebook. [oh, you're already on? K.]

Now ask 1000 of your friends if they want their taxes increased.

I bet 400 say yes cuz you guys RAWKKKK!

Posted by: tao9 | February 28, 2011 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Captain Courageous Goodhair:

Is Rick Perry Blocking Journalists From Following Him On Twitter?

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/is_texas_gov_perry_blocking_journalists_from_following_him_on_twitter.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 28, 2011 9:34 PM | Report abuse

According to pollster.com, there are 5-10 polls in the next few weeks that will be polling reactions to unions, collective bargaining, balancing state budgets. Gallup and NYT are but two of that group. They back up each other's results. It will be interesting to see how the other polls come out.

Each pollster will ask questions in "variety of different ways, using different language and formats. These probes may not be formal, controlled experiments, but they will give us a good idea of how much wording matters and a generally more nuanced measure of opinion."

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 28, 2011 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Dear Supreme Leader Obama:

Taking more of my money to give to your favored political backers is not "shared sacrifice." It is corrupt and oppressive abuse of power.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 28, 2011 9:42 PM | Report abuse

I doubt that anyone really WANTS their taxes to go up just like nobody wants to pay more for anything. That doesn't stop the oil companies from raising the price of gasoline. But I don't WANT to pay more for gas!

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 28, 2011 9:43 PM | Report abuse

12Bar (from earlier):

""Yes, that is lower than any of the non union states.""

Are you asserting a causal relationship between the unionization of government workers and lower unemployment rates? If so, on what evidence are you basing your claim on?

(BTW...Did you see this morning's thread where your good friend cao proclaimed his hope that I die in a ditch somewhere? You sure know how to pick 'em, 12Bar.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 28, 2011 9:49 PM | Report abuse

"But I don't WANT to pay more for gas!"

1) Lobby your reps to bring ANWAR on line, and release the Gulf platform permits.

2) Don't drive.

3) Avoid non-sequitors.

Posted by: tao9 | February 28, 2011 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Brigade:

""The gift that keeps on giving""

Indeed. The willful ignorance that it requires for these people to continue to bring up this canard about Iraqi WMD is quite astounding I think.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 28, 2011 9:55 PM | Report abuse

The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices.[24] Furthermore, the Energy Information Administration does not feel ANWR will affect the global price of oil when past behaviors of the oil market are considered. "The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case."[24] "Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."[24]

United States. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. SR/OIAF/2008-03. Washington, DC: GPO. 2008.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 28, 2011 9:59 PM | Report abuse

The willful ignorance that it requires for these people to continue to bring up this canard about Iraqi WMD is quite astounding I think.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 28, 2011 9:55 PM

Are you saying that WMD were found in Iraq?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 28, 2011 10:06 PM | Report abuse

quarterback:

"Golly, it looks like most Americans don't trust government to be a fair employer. They apparently don't see it as implicitly good, or as the way we "solve our problems," or as a force for the common good, or any of those liberal cliches."

No, they just know that about half the time their governments are led by Republicans who really enjoy screwing over workers. You wouldn't want to be a state employee under Walker's administration either absent a union to protect you.

Republicans have done an excellent job of proving their own dictum, that government doesn't work.

You wouldn't fly with a pilot who was scared of heights, why would you elect someone who hates government?

Posted by: Scientician | February 28, 2011 10:07 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3:

"Are you asserting a causal relationship between the unionization of government workers and lower unemployment rates? If so, on what evidence are you basing your claim on?"

If there is an effect on unemployment it's probably fairly subtle, but it does suggest that de-unionizing public servants isn't goint to the wider state any good at all.

Posted by: Scientician | February 28, 2011 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Gotta start somewhere prags, otherwise your just b!tchin' into the wind.

Sing It Neil! You Old Beautiful Hippie!!!

♫♫♫♫♫♫♫♫
Billion barrels &
Arctic oil drums.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the pumpin'
On line in A-las-ka.
Gotta get down to it.
Saudis are getting us down,
Shoulda been done long ago.
What if you bought a Prius...
♫♫♫♫♫♫♫♫

{{{now play Powderfinger!}}}

Posted by: tao9 | February 28, 2011 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Crack down on businesses hiring illegal immigrants , and there should be plenty of openings in the meat-packing industry. Unionize for better working conditions and higher wages---in the private sector.

Posted by: Brigade | February 28, 2011 8:28 PM | Report abuse

---

Whereupon every person attempting to organize the union would be fired. Weren't you paying attention the last 30 years?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 28, 2011 10:18 PM | Report abuse

pragmatic:

""Are you saying that WMD were found in Iraq? ""

Um, no. If I was saying that, I would have actually said that.

The canard of which I was speaking is the notion that, prior to the invasion, the idea that Iraq possessed WMD was somehow a republican or conservative idea.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 28, 2011 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous 1
HBGary 0

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/02/28/hbgary-federals-aaron-barr-resigns-after-anonymous-hack-scandal/

Koch are next. I'll enjoy watching these selfish frauds exposed. Hopefully this libertarian la la land these bozos want to trick the US into buying into will finally get some exposure as being a greedy lie that would destroy society as we know it.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | February 28, 2011 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Scientician:

""If there is an effect on unemployment it's probably fairly subtle, but it does suggest that de-unionizing public servants isn't goint to the wider state any good at all.""

What "suggests" this?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 28, 2011 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence failures noted above, by:

 Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single “WMD threat.” The conflation of three distinct threats, very different in the danger they pose, distorted the cost/benefit analysis of the war. (p. 52)

 Insisting without evidence—yet treating as a given truth—that Saddam Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists. (p. 52)

 Routinely dropping caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present in intelligence assessments from public statements. (p. 53)

 Misrepresenting inspectors’ findings in ways that turned threats from minor to
dire. (p. 53)

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Iraq3GuideFind_SummRec.pdf

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 28, 2011 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

If you read the link that Greg posted in his post, you would have gone to:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/84170/republicans-wisconsin-labor-unions-south

which talks about the GOP's wider goal: "It is based on a theory of economic growth that is not only anti-statist but aggressively pro-corporate: relentlessly focused on breaking the backs of unions; slashing worker compensation and benefits; and subsidizing businesses in order to attract capital from elsewhere and avoid its flight to even more benighted locales."

..."default model of economic growth in Southern states for decades—as the capital-starved, low-wage region concluded that the way it could compete economically with other states was to emphasize its comparative advantages: low costs, a large pool of relatively poor workers, “right to work” laws that discouraged unionization, and a small appetite for environmental or any other sort of regulation"
---------------------------------------
A reading of the link would reveal that the author is postulating about the GOP's plans to destroy all unions, public and private. So, I commented on the fact that the south has higher unemployment rates than Wisconsin. It appears that the "southern strategy" does not work.

As far as your dustup with cao, I hope you aren't coming to me to help you. I resist getting into other's disputes. He's still my friend though.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 28, 2011 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Here's the latest from Bernie Madoff:

In his second jailhouse interview, Wall Street scammer Bernard Madoff told a reporter that his victims were "greedy" and the U.S. government is a "Ponzi scheme," though he insisted that he's a "good person."

"Everyone was greedy," said Madoff, according to New York Magazine. "I just went along. It's not an excuse."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie just went along with his investors' greed. Poor Bernie!

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 28, 2011 10:51 PM | Report abuse

12Bar,

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/02/18/the-madison-blues/

Scott, QB, TMcW, RU too. [h/t: reihan salam]

Posted by: tao9 | February 28, 2011 10:51 PM | Report abuse

"Obama couldn't care less what D-baggers like you think. Your vote is already in the bank."

You don't know jack. Hey, drill rod, follow this, I never voted for Blago because I knew he was a crook, and I have a DINO congressman who I will never vote for, and I'm perfectly ready to sit on my hands come election day in 2012.

Posted by: filmnoia | February 28, 2011 10:52 PM | Report abuse

" and I'm perfectly ready to sit on my hands come election day in 2012."

Lol. That'll help....more dbags like Walker and his ner GOP house and Senate further destroy this country.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | February 28, 2011 11:14 PM | Report abuse

lms,

Maybe not jail (For Dodd and Barney is my mantra...heh).

But this might actually have some bite:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/group-targeting-bofa-mortgages-grows-to-84-billion-in-bonds.html

"A bondholder group seeking reimbursements from Bank of America Corp. over soured home-loan securities said the amount of debt it holds grew to $84 billion after more investors joined the dispute."

Posted by: tao9 | February 28, 2011 11:14 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""As far as your dustup with cao, I hope you aren't coming to me to help you.""

Help? Um, no. He's the one with anger/hate issues, not me. And rest assured that I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I would "expect" you to even lift a finger for me.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 28, 2011 11:14 PM | Report abuse

"Lol. That'll help....more dbags like Walker and his ner GOP house and Senate further destroy this country."

While the two of us are on the same side of the political aisle , I think we have reached a point where the spiral to the bottom can't be stopped. Call it The Street of No Return. Yes, yes, I know there is a difference between the two major parties, a big difference, one is feckless and the other is insanely suicidal. As long as we have one part of the media sowing division, and the other part more interested in superficial issues, the true story will never get played out. The people in the street have it figured out, but no one is listening.

Posted by: filmnoia | February 28, 2011 11:23 PM | Report abuse

tao, I saw that Bloomberg piece earlier. I said a long time ago that the investors were the only ones with the clout to bring the banks to their knees in the foreclosure fraud mess. Dodd/Frank VIP Countrywide loans investigation is nothing more than a side show IMO while the real culprits eat our lunch AND steal tomorrow's lunch money at the same time. There won't be much there for the borrowers though, we're the low man on the totem pole and got stuck with the bill.

I read that piece you linked re Dems and unions and the 21st. Century. The public employee unions are not the problem with our economy whether they exist or not. Sounds like he wants to contract everything out to me, have you noticed the contracting mess via fraud, abuse and outright theft that is Afghanistan? No thanks. I'm both a product and a fan of public education, imperfect as it is.

Posted by: lmsinca | February 28, 2011 11:27 PM | Report abuse

tao:

Very interesting link. Let me think on it over night, but my preliminary thought is that it sounds largely right to me.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 28, 2011 11:29 PM | Report abuse

"Help? Um, no. He's the one with anger/hate issues, not me. "

Haha, not you? Really?

Posted by: DDAWD | February 28, 2011 11:30 PM | Report abuse

One more thought from a small business perspective. All those predicted job losses, if they turn out to be true, are our customers. Nice.

Posted by: lmsinca | February 28, 2011 11:33 PM | Report abuse

I probably shouldn't post this, it will just piss people on the left off and mistakenly energize some on the right, because they will miss the point. But here goes, from James Galbraith, if you can take it.

""With this team the President also chose to cover up economic crime. Not only has the greatest wave of financial fraud in human history gone largely uninvestigated and unpunished, the government and this administration with its stress tests (which were fakes), with its relaxation of accounting standards which permitted banks to hold toxic assets on their books at far higher prices than any investor would ever pay for them, with its failure to make criminal referrals where these were clearly warranted, with its continuation in office—sometimes in acting capacities—of some of the leading non-regulators of the earlier period, has continued an ongoing active complicity in financial fraud. And the perpetrators, of course, prospered as never before: reporting profits that they would not have been able to report under honest accounting standards, converting tax payer support into bonuses; while at the same time cutting back savagely on loans to businesses and individuals, and ramping up foreclosures, much of that accomplished with forged documents and perjured affidavits.

Again, could they have done differently? Of course. The President could have told the truth, which is that we faced a historic meltdown, a collapse of the core financial institutions of our economy, and that we had really no way of knowing how bad economic conditions might get or how long this would endure and that therefore the situation would require a full mobilization: all resources, all hands on deck, major departures of policy, no holding back, and the responsibility for trouble and failure falling plainly on those who would obstruct the course. None of the people he chose to advise him on economic policy was remotely capable of thinking in those terms.""

Posted by: lmsinca | February 28, 2011 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Are you asserting a causal relationship between the unionization of government workers and lower unemployment rates? If so, on what evidence are you basing your claim on?

==

And you never wrote "tax Peter to pay Paul," either.

You're pathetic.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 1, 2011 12:07 AM | Report abuse


tao, in the posting, Meade writes, "What America really needs to do to escape [reader alert: classical reference ahead] the Scylla of of a blue model death spiral and the Charybdis of a global ‘race to the bottom,’ is to reduce the costs of doing business in this country and make both capital and labor more attractive by reducing the “friction” in our system.  That means dramatically restructuring government, the legal system and the educational and health care systems."

It's hard to see that happening without an existential crisis, and when you're in an existential crisis, I think any ability to direct the restructuring in any meaningful way is impossible. Our system of government just isn't geared towards dramatic institutional changes to avoid (a) bad outcome(s). We have to taste at least some or all of that "badness" before dramatic change is possible. And even when it happens, the Depression comes to mind, the dramatic restructuring isn't necessarily something that ends up being a "good" thing. Ultimately, when Meade writes the above, when I see is somebody essentially writing: "then a miracle occurs."

Just my opinion though.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | March 1, 2011 12:14 AM | Report abuse

None of the people he chose to advise him on economic policy was remotely capable of thinking in those terms.
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not so sure no one was **capable** of thinking in those terms as much as the implications of disclosing the mischief that had been done was overwhelming. Further, I suspect that much of the damage done was legal, perhaps right on the edge, but legal. I could live with failure to punish the perpetrators, but I am really scared to think how little the system has been changed to prevent it occurring again. We have sold out to Big Banking, but you can line them up with Big Defense and Big Drugs too.

Anyone who wants a real page turner about the crisis, read Sorkin's Too Big to Fail. Excellent book.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 1, 2011 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Indeed. The willful ignorance that it requires for these people to continue to bring up this canard about Iraqi WMD is quite astounding I think.

==

So let me get this straight.

You're claiming that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq?

Trying to top your denials of your own posts?

You're pathetic.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 1, 2011 12:25 AM | Report abuse

So what is this Anonymous group that's going after the Koch Bros?

Posted by: DDAWD | March 1, 2011 12:53 AM | Report abuse

And rest assured that I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I would "expect" you to even lift a finger for me.

==

No surprise, coming from the libertarian creep who thinks the very idea of anyone lifting a finger to help anyone else is abhorrent and unnatural.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 1, 2011 1:13 AM | Report abuse

heh, great takedown on Jon Stewart of Conservatives who deride attacking banks as class warfare, but think Americans should be outraged at how much teachers make.

I don't know what the priorities of Conservatives are, but they are truly a sick group.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 1, 2011 1:46 AM | Report abuse

Any reason why its supporters can't just support it, without the taxes of people who DON'T support the agenda? Doesn't Planned Parenthood get money from the United Way and other charitable organizations?

==

you make it sound as though preventing unintentional pregnancy and hence abortion and unwanted children is some sort of fringey "special interest." It isn't. It's a universal interest.

And since unplanned pregnancy, abortion, and unwanted children are counter to the national interest, what exactly is your conceptual block with using government money to prevent something counter to the national interest?

Why don't we use your reasoning for the military? Let it be paid for by those who support its "agenda."

==

"Too many organizations with their lips on the government teat---the milk isn't really free."

potty mouth

Posted by: caothien9 | March 1, 2011 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Trends Forecaster: Gerald Celente - The Coming Global (and Local) Insurrection!

http://www.trendsresearch.com/SubscriberArea/gerald-celente-on-the-edge-with-max-keiser-global-insurrection-25

Posted by: wdsoulplane | March 1, 2011 5:12 AM | Report abuse

Trends Forecaster: Gerald Celente - The Coming Global (and Local) Insurrection!

http://www.trendsresearch.com/SubscriberArea/gerald-celente-on-the-edge-with-max-keiser-global-insurrection-25

No more can we allow Corporations and SuperWealthy get away with paying little to no taxes; No more must we pay tax subsidies to those who are already raking in billions of dollars and put nothing back into the system. They must be made to pay their fair share. That is the answer to our economic crisis!

Posted by: wdsoulplane | March 1, 2011 5:20 AM | Report abuse

"No, they just know that about half the time their governments are led by Republicans who really enjoy screwing over workers."

So about half the time the public elects Republicans who enjoy screwing workers. Which is to say the public itself enjoys screwing workers. Which is to say my original point was exactly right.

I love liberal smart alecks who trip over their own arguments.

"You wouldn't want to be a state employee under Walker's administration either absent a union to protect you."

I wouldn't want to be WI state employee at all, but if I were I would not want a union presuming to speak for me. The left always presumes to speak for others -- just like you are doing.

"Republicans have done an excellent job of proving their own dictum, that government doesn't work."

I've never heard such a dictum. Nor have you.

"You wouldn't fly with a pilot who was scared of heights, why would you elect someone who hates government?"

Republicans don't hate government. Can't you at least have some newer straw men and talking points?

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 1, 2011 5:46 AM | Report abuse

Where are the jobs ? If the Repubs are so superior hway is their job creation record over the last ten years so poor ? And just what has the Repub House done to create jobs ? Oh yeah they want to slash jobs so their Walmartization of the US can continue.

Posted by: Falmouth1 | March 1, 2011 5:53 AM | Report abuse

"Koch are next. I'll enjoy watching these selfish frauds exposed."

I suppose it would be too much to expect you to explain how they are selfish or frauds. Seeing that they are among the biggest philanthropists in the country and appear to act consistently with their espoused beliefs -- unlike the throngs of super-wealthy liberal hypocrites -- I'd say you are again just talking out of your rear.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 1, 2011 6:04 AM | Report abuse

No more can we allow Corporations and SuperWealthy get away with paying little to no taxes; No more must we pay tax subsidies to those who are already raking in billions of dollars and put nothing back into the system. They must be made to pay their fair share. That is the answer to our economic crisis!

Posted by: wdsoulplane | March 1, 2011 5:20 AM
=========================================

Your elected representatives and your current President have determined their "fair share." They extended the Bush tax cuts and determined that tax subsidies spur investment and create jobs. If you disagree with them, why don't you tell us your theory of "fair share" and then run for office. You're probably a member of the infamous 47%, in which case your "fair share" is zero.

Posted by: Brigade | March 1, 2011 6:30 AM | Report abuse

Tao,

The Mead article looks to have a lot of truth in it, although I wouldn't agree with all of its diagnostic content, and its prescription seems vague. I wouldn't at all agree that the reign of big government, big unions, and big business is what produced past prosperity. The cozy arrangement of big union-big government entrenchment has always been corrupt and immoral and economically damaging, in my view, so there I depart from Mead.

It seems to me that, while the vague notion of transformation he describes probably has merit, there is no panacea there that is going to protect people from global competition. I.e., despite imagining this newly efficient, transformed information economy however one wants, I don't see the entitlement mentality of a large segment of the populace changing. Since what Mead imagines is "system" in which rewards are much more attuned to merits and performance than in current system, I don't see how a population wedded to entitlement and credentialism and (broadly) protectionist institutions would fare well. Hence, I don't see how some Charybdis isn't part of that future, especially for people who continue in the (liberal) mindset of entitlement rather than performance. One way or the other, they'll have to compete, and so far they refuse to consider it.


Not sure where all that leads, but not to a new and different morning in America, I think.

Troll's response above is excellent.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 1, 2011 6:42 AM | Report abuse

Tao,

One other thing. The Mead argument seems a tad utopian to me, if you get my drift. I am skeptical of arguments that society can be refashioned in some deliberate way to be better, faster, stronger, etc. Human nature and all. Incremental improvements yes, remaking, no.

Posted by: quarterback1 | March 1, 2011 6:46 AM | Report abuse

Wasn't Zandi John McCain's economist?

Posted by: rhallnj | March 1, 2011 7:05 AM | Report abuse

cao:

""You're claiming that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq?""

(Sigh) No. See my 10:21 to pragmatic, who asked the very same silly question.

""You're pathetic.""

You said that already. And yet you seem to spend a lot of time focusing on me. Funnny, that.

""...coming from the libertarian creep who thinks the very idea of anyone lifting a finger to help anyone else is abhorrent and unnatural.""

This obsession you have with falsely attributing thoughts to me is just weird.

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 1, 2011 7:37 AM | Report abuse

@Greg, Re: Health Care Lifeline

You have to keep in mind that this "compromise" isn't really much of a compromise.

First off, it doesn't reverse many of the provisions within HCR that help people. Pre-existing conditions and the like. So a vast majority of HCR would remain in tact.

Second, the states have to prove they cover as many people as HCR would. This is fine by me, as I'm always open to the idea that something else may work better. Progressives aren't idealogically blind, like conservatives are.

Third, a lot of the push for this compromise is Dems, particularly one state (I think it's Vermont or CT) which is trying to pass a true Single-Payer system. If they can make single-payer work on a state level like that, it could pave the way for other states, or possibly a national single-payer system in the coming years.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | March 1, 2011 7:51 AM | Report abuse

I love liberal smart alecks who trip over their own arguments.

==

At least with us it's "our own" arguments. Unlike you Conservative People, who depend on about a half-dozen other Conservative People to originate all the shoddy Conservative Positions which the rest of you Conservative People just repeat, all nodding together and agreeing eith each other like a circle of young women in a tampon commercial.

We liberals are all over the map, but we own the deeds to our own minds. You guys don't.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 1, 2011 8:31 AM | Report abuse

cao:

""At least with us it's "our own" arguments.""

Actually, I asked you many, many weeks ago to provide for us one of your "original" thoughts. As I recall, your single attempt to do so resulted in a thought that could be traced back at least as far as the civil war and was used as a defense of the institution of slavery.

Since then, you have punted on the question. So much for your "original thinking".

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 1, 2011 8:36 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/03/the_morning_plum_196.html

Bring the argument over there!

Posted by: Greg Sargent | March 1, 2011 8:43 AM | Report abuse

No Scott that isn't what you asked me, you wanted to talk exclusively in abstractions devoid of worldly references. I'm not interested in discussing air and the more I read of you the more convinced I am that you're a deeply disturbed individual. You're as dishonest as Jake and you huff your denials of your own clearly stated positions.

You're some kind of Randroid jerk who thinks all claims of decency and kindness are lying posturing because why anyone should be nice to anyone else is outside your comprehension, and you insist on believing that the problem isn't with you.

My you reap what you sow, and may you never know a kind word or a helping hand.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 1, 2011 9:16 AM | Report abuse

cao:

""No Scott that isn't what you asked me...""

Wrong. Again.

If you care to look (probably not...you seem to have little intereste in what other people actually say) at this thread from Dec 30, ie "weeks ago":

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/happy_hour_roundup.html

...you will discover that 3 seperate times, at 10:11 am, 10:56 am, and 11:40 am, I asked you to detail one of your "original" thoughts. Finally you tried, at 12:04 pm. Tried, of course, but failed as you merely repeated the same silly notion (happiness is not about freedom, but rather about knowing one's place in the world) that was being used to defend slavery over 150 years ago.

""the more convinced I am that you're a deeply disturbed individual.""

Of course you are.

""You're some kind of Randroid jerk who thinks...""

Thanks for trying to tell me what I think, but your continuing (and frankly remarkable) inabilty to grasp what I plainly say tends to detract from your efforts on this front.

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 1, 2011 10:57 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

© 2011 The Washington Post Company