Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Health care passes the Senate, political wrangling begins

After months of wrangling, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed President Barack Obama's health care plan by a 60-39 vote this morning.

The vote was along strict partisan lines. Summing up the bill's impact, the Post's Shailagh Murray wrote this morning:

For the first time, most Americans would be required to obtain health insurance, either through their employer or via new, government-regulated exchanges. Those who can't afford insurance plans would receive federal subsidies. And Medicaid would be vastly expanded to reach millions of low-income children and adults.

Although the bill has now passed, the political wrangling has just begun.

"Just like voters watched Republicans preside in Washington and do absolutely nothing to address the skyrocketing costs of health care, they have also watched Republicans obstruct common sense solutions at every turn," said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (N.J.).

Countered Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele: "This Christmas, the Democrats and President Obama have given America the one gift that keeps on taking."

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 24, 2009; 8:16 AM ET
Categories:  White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Pennsylvania House Democrat resists party-switching entreaties
Next: Redistricting and the 2010 governors landscape

Comments

"Political Wrangling" is a very polite way of measuring the discourse in the Congress and with the 24/7 pundits. Personally, I am very tired of hearing the left wing attack the President. We are much better off than we were a year ago. ...........


http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/12/28/really-tired-of-liberal-complaining/

Posted by: glclark4750 | December 29, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Whew. Lame conversation.

Posted by: nodebris | December 29, 2009 12:01 AM | Report abuse

On the health care bill - what gets me is the lying that Obama is doing surrounding the bill. The American people are not being told the whole truth.


The partisan atmosphere is so poisoned that no one seems to care.


That is not the way a massive government program should be passed.


The most serious is Obama's assertion that the bill is "deficit neutral."


The financial aspects of this bill could have extremely serious results for this country.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 28, 2009 10:59 PM | Report abuse

The recession, of course, was the result of excesses during the Bush years, none of which benefitted average Americans.

Posted by: TomCamfield
-----------------------------------------
Bush "excesses" measured in billions
Obama "excesses" measured in trillions

Posted by: leapin | December 28, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Actually, most economists agree that this latest recession was triggered by AVERAGE AMERICANS buying houses and other things that they simply could not afford.

Posted by: JakeD | December 28, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

The recession, of course, was the result of excesses during the Bush years, none of which benefitted average Americans.

Posted by: TomCamfield | December 28, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm not a Republican but even I can see that we weren't in a recession back then -- everyone cut Bush some slack in dealing with 9/11 too -- that ain't gonna happen next time.

Posted by: JakeD | December 28, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Jake: That's not the point. The point is the turn-around hypocrisy coming out of the mouths of Republicans. They're criticizing Obama for the type of thing to which they gave their blessing while kissing rump during the Bush years.

Posted by: TomCamfield | December 28, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

TomCamfield:

Is Obama going to run against Bush (again) in 2012?

Posted by: JakeD | December 28, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele: "This Christmas, the Democrats and President Obama have given America the one gift that keeps on taking." What a bunch of mealy-mouthed hypocrisy.

How quickly they conveniently forget the excruciating years presided over by George W. Bush, who never saw a spending bill from a GOP-controlled Congress that he didn't like. And, oh yes, launched a war that been draining the treasury for some 7 years, so far. And de-regulated the Wall Street fat cats who pretty much destroyed the U. S. economy.

Posted by: TomCamfield | December 28, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"We will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable" ... now watch this drive.

Posted by: JakeD | December 28, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

He will also reference the fact that we need to keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country.

LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD
-----------------------------------------
I imagine that a lot more silver haired grannies will be getting strip-searched at airports to address the problem. If you must remove your shoes, it now follows that you must remove your underwear.

Posted by: leapin | December 28, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

leapin:

That's not all (can you imagine if Bush had taken this long to react to 9/11?!)

After 3:00 pm ET (more than THREE DAYS later), Obama will address the public on the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day. He will describe the immediate steps the government has taken to ensure the safety of the traveling public. He will detail the two reviews that he has ordered on the watch-list and on our detection capabilities because he believes it is critical we learn from this incident and take the necessary measures to prevent future acts of terrorism. He will also reference the fact that we need to keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country.

LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | December 28, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Y9X5ggxzA

Posted by: JakeD
------------------------------------------
This is an outrage with little to no coverage by the state run media. If yelling "you lie" during Obama's state of the union address is a viloation of protocol and requires censure that so does this episode of a liberal drunk on power and other substances.

Posted by: leapin | December 28, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | December 28, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

leapin:

Can you believe that was actually BAUCUS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus (aka Bacchus)

Stanford Law School alumni everywhere cringed after hearing him slur on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Back on topic though, Baucus has been criticized for his ties to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and has been one of the largest beneficiaries in the Senate of campaign contributions from these industries. From 2003 to 2008, Baucus received $3,973,485 from the health sector, including $852,813 from pharmaceutical companies, $851,141 from health professionals, $784,185 from the insurance industry and $465,750 from HMOs/health services, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. A 2006 study by Public Citizen found that between 1999 and 2005 Baucus, along with former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, took in the most special-interest money of any senator.

Only three senators have more former staffers working as lobbyists on K Street, at least two dozen in Baucus's case. Several of Baucus's ex-staffers, including former chief of staff David Castagnetti, are now working for the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries. Castagnetti co-founded the lobbying firm of Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, which represents "America’s Health Insurance Plans Inc.," the national trade group of health insurance companies, the Medicare Cost Contractors Alliance, as well as Amgen, AstraZeneca PLC and Merck & Co. Another former chief of staff, Jeff Forbes, went on to open his own lobbying shop and to represent the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Advanced Medical Technology Association, among other groups.

Posted by: JakeD | December 28, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

(cont.)

A statistical analysis of the impact of political contributions on individual senators' support for the public insurance option conducted by Nate Silver has suggested that Baucus was an unlikely supporter of the public option in the first place. Based on Baucus's political ideology and the per capita health care spending in Montana, Silver's model projects that there would be only a 30.6% probability of Baucus supporting a public insurance option even if he had received no relevant campaign contributions. Silver calculates that the impact on Baucus of the significant campaign contributions that he has received from the health care industry further reduces the probability of his supporting a public insurance option from 30.6% to 0.6%.

In response to the questions raised by the large amount of funding he took from the health care industry, Baucus declared a moratorium as of July 1, 2009 on taking more special interest money from health care political action committees. Baucus, however, declined to return as part of his moratorium any of the millions of dollars he has received from health care industry interests before July 1, 2009, or to rule out a resumption of taking the same or greater health care industry contributions in the future. Baucus's new policy on not taking health care industry money reportedly still permits him to take money from lobbyists or corporate executes, who the Washington Post found continued to make donations after July 1, 2009.

A watchdog group found that in July 2009 Baucus took more money from the health care industry in violation of the self-defined terms of his moratorium, leading Baucus to return the money too.

Posted by: JakeD | December 28, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you try to defend Obama's assertion that the health care bill is "deficit neutral?"

.

Posted by: 37thand0street
--------------------------------------
Not even a drunk senator can defend it. Although he could go on an incoherent rant.

Posted by: leapin | December 28, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Exactly. Just consider what the Democrats have done with the economy so far. Why does anyone think they'll do better with health care (or, as we all have just seenm national security)?

Posted by: JakeD | December 28, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Let's get back to the actual topic of the thread - health care -


The democrats are jamming this down the throats of America - which is wrong.


I believe the American people have done a pretty good job this year of telling the democrats that they do NOT want this version of the health care reform.


Obama in his speech to Congress made three commitments:

1) That abortion law would stay the same

2) That illegal aliens would not be covered

3) That the bill would be "deficit neutral"


NOW as far as anyone can tell these three commitments are LIES.


The American people have also stated quite clearly that they do NOT want the tax increases which are certain to come down the line in the future - DO YOU GET IT?


We are on to the trick of the democrats to start a program, get it going, and then deal with the tax increases later.


That is NOT going to work this time.


The democrats should pay for this bill themselves.


There should be one tax rate for the democrats, and one tax rate for the republicans - send a separate bill to the democrats every month and have the democrats PAY FOR OBAMA'S SPENDING BINGE.


This spending binge is not much unlike Obama's old cocaine binges, however that is a story for another day.


I suspect that Obama simple does not understand the economics involved here - how the employer mandate will put a drag on hiring.


This health care bill is a financial disaster - there is not other way around it.


The democrats believe that making a massive financial mess will create a electorial windfall for them. The American people are on to this joke which the democrats claim is "governing."


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 28, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Blade:

Why don't you write something about the issue - instead of being obsessed with other posters - it is getting a little tiring with you.

The topic is health care.


Why don't you try to defend Obama's assertion that the health care bill is "deficit neutral?"


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 28, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

LOL

Posted by: drindl | December 28, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"Conducted by" (you know, like a train or orchestra conductor) includes those posts cut & pasted by drindl AND those trying to reason with her. Nonetheless, please read Mr. Cillizza's admonitions to all of you on the latest thread.

Posted by: JakeD | December 28, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

BB-- Ezra Klein has a good live chat going on Senate reform...

Posted by: drindl | December 28, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Woo hoo! Blades 1 Preston NE 0

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 28, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Fully twenty five percent of the posts on this thread are from 37th&O. Let me help you out a little, snowbama.

Name & Percent
37thand0street 25.60%
drindl 18.40%
JakeD 13.60%
FairlingtonBlade 9.60%
snowbama 7.20%
mark_in_austin 4.80%
SeattleTop 4.80%

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 28, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

– On December 16th, Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) sent out a press release hailing $1,044,140 in stimulus money Carroll County school system, while crediting himself for securing the money. “I am pleased that our office was able to assist them in obtaining these funds,” noted Davis in the release. On the same day, Davis blasted a separate release claiming that the stimulus had “failed.”

Of course, Luetkemeyer, McCaul, and Davis voted against the stimulus. Congressional Republican leadership, who helped corral partisan opposition to the Recovery Act, are also shamelessly attacking the stimulus while requesting stimulus money. As ThinkProgress has reported, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) recently hosted a job fair filled with jobs fueled by the stimulus, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been taking credit for stimulus projects in his home state.

Posted by: drindl | December 28, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Every Republican in the House and nearly every Republican Senator voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (also known as the stimulus). Although the Congressional Budget Office has credited the stimulus with creating up to 1.6 million jobs, the same GOP politicians who opposed the stimulus have attempted to justify their opposition to the policy by smearing it as a failure. But as ThinkProgress has documented, the same politicians are returning to their districts to take credit for the economic success of the stimulus.
In the past month, several more GOP lawmakers went home to their district to praise and claim credit for successful stimulus programs:

– Earlier this month, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) called the stimulus a “large-scale failure,” but last week hailed a stimulus program in Frankford, Missouri as “critical.” Referring to a $330,000 loan and $313,900 grant authorized by the stimulus, Luetkemeyer said, “Clearly, the 328 residents of Frankford will benefit from this grant and I appreciate the USDA’s willingness to help this community.” In September, Luetkemeyer requested $100 million from the stimulus for a road project in Missouri.

– On his campaign website, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) features his opposition to the “pork-filled” stimulus. However, on his congressional website, McCaul features a story from earlier this month about a largely stimulus-funded project to expand Highway 36 in Texas. In the story, he is thanked for “taking this project to the next phase of reality.” Noting its importance, McCaul says the highway expansion will “cut down on fatal crashes and ensure commerce can continue to move efficiently through Austin County and the rest of this important region.”

Posted by: drindl | December 28, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Fully twenty five percent of the posts on this thread, and on this blog historically, is conducted by a single imbecile who regularly accuses others of having no lives.

This poor creature has turned it's two year job failure into a cultivation of anger, hate, spite and idiocy.

This same period has seen the fortunes of America tumble precipitously after the peloony congress began destroying our prosperity. Now the cherry on top of our demise- an incompetent, know nothing executive.

Posted by: snowbama | December 28, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

A comfort for the weak and paranoid:

'In a powerful paper for the libertarian American think-tank the Cato Institute, Professor John Mueller provides strong support for the Parris argument. He points out that "in almost all years, the total number of people worldwide who die at the hands of international terrorists anywhere in the world is not much more than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States". He adds that even including the September 11 attacks, the number of Americans killed by terrorists since records on this were kept is about the same as those killed by lightning, accident-causing deer or severe allergic reaction to peanuts."

Posted by: drindl | December 28, 2009 10:55 AM | Report abuse

answer is yes, ddawd - has a long history of doing just that. all the different voices have names.

anyway -- none other Senator Teabagger Himself, Jim DeMint is holding up the nomination of the new head of the TSA. Nice work, Jim, thanks for the Nigerian bomber!

"The Obama administration has nominated Erroll Southers as the new head of the Transportation Safety Administration. Southers is currently the head of homeland security and the police force at the Los Angeles World Airports and is a former FBI Special Agent. He was nominated in September. Hearings were held in October and November, but his nomination has been blocked by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina because of concerns about unionization of the TSA workers. I guess keeping the TSA out of unions is more important having the head of an agency responsible for our safety? Thanks for your support of national security, Jim!'

Posted by: drindl | December 28, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Nut job liberals are so concerned with bush (still) that the bumbling inactions of barry are of no issue.

How will they blame the next disaster on someone else? And maintain a straight face.

But then consider the mental level of most libs. You do what you can.

Not that security is all messed up, make that CHANGED, it is time to destroy health care.

Posted by: snowbama | December 28, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I think that there could be many more people who are profiting from health care, and could pay in.

Trial attorneys and Insurance companies could participate more in offsetting the cost. I do believe we are moving in the right direction. If this bill helps solve the medicare trust fund crisis, then it may end up being its legacy.

http://pov9.blogspot.com/

Pat Parris

Posted by: pparris | December 28, 2009 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Drindle and BB

Why don't you simply stick to the issues - and forget about commenting on other posters.


What is the point, you are actually doing nothing less than attack other posters.


YOU two should be banned, forever.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 28, 2009 10:43 AM | Report abuse

jesus christ. Is snobama so desperate for us to perceive his "intelligence" that he created another name to have someone agree with him?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 28, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Ah, but we post different and more interesting drool. Hey, had to find some amusement while the Cowboys were pasting the Redskins. My guess is that the Hoyas are on winter break, so 37th has a little free time.

Well, off to load some samples and do a little programming.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 28, 2009 10:25 AM | Report abuse

The House Dems are suprisingly amenable to the death of the public option. Could there be a bill on Obama's desk by the SOTU?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | December 28, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Hey BB-- want a Monday morning laugh? Check this out typical republican corruption -- nothing ever changes:

"Now that's loyalty.

When a top supporter gets busted by the Feds for allegedly running a massive Ponzi scheme, most big-time pols are usually pretty quick to distance themselves. (See Crist, Charlie, for the locus classicus of the genre).

Not Pete Sessions though. Hours after Allen Stanford was charged by the SEC for swindling investors out of around $7 billion, the Texas congressman, and chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, sent the following email, signed "Pete":

'I love you and believe in you...If you want my ear/voice -- e-mail.'

ain't that touching?

The message, sent at 11:31 a.m. on February 17, was obtained by McClatchy, which reports that the Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether Sessions and numerous other lawmakers who received campaign funds or lavish Caribbean trips from Stanford did him any special favors in return.

As we noted earlier this year, in 2001 Stanford lobbied successfully to kill a bill that would have helped crack down on offshore tax havens, and might have led to the exposure of his alleged Antigua-based scam."

Posted by: drindl | December 28, 2009 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Look at this, BB -- all through the christmas holidays -- nothing but snobama/zouk and 37 posting the same drool over and over again. what a statement on their lives.

Posted by: drindl | December 28, 2009 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Snowbama


The situation is deeper than you think - Obama is lacking on security issues because he is convinced that Bush was wrong on security issues.


For Obama to start to take security more seriously, Obama would have to admit that Bush was right.


It is Obama's arrogance that is standing in the way - Obama's arrogance has caused the lack of concern for security - because Obama KNOWS better than Bush. This is a serious character flaw.

The terror trials and the release of prisoners is where the real danger to the country is.

Obama released 12 prisoners from Gitmo last week - some went to Yemen. What is buried in all of this is the CRITERIA for release - all of a sudden "potential evidence at trial" is being looked at in deciding whether to release the Gitmo prisoners.


well....

See - instead of having a high-profile trial and losing on some technicality - Obama the Arrogant has decided to RELEASE many of the Gitmo prisoners BEFORE TRIAL - THEREBY AVOIDING A POTENTIAL PUBLIC RELATIONS DISASTER.

However, these prisoners are still released, they are still going to Yeman, a hotbed of terrorist activity.


Obama thinks no one notices.


Many of the prisoners released from Gitmo return to terrorism and go back to al Queda - look that up if you don't believe me.


Obama is WEAK ON SECURITY ISSUES - and it is mainly because Obama is desperate to prove to someone (not sure who) that Bush was wrong.


It is sort of a pathetic motivation - but it is at work - I just hope that no one dies because of Obama's arrogance.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 28, 2009 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Let's get back to re-re-posting the same comment on the blog that we did at 11:49 p.m.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 28, 2009 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Snowbama

Obviously Obama has a problem with transparency - Obama also has a problem with bipartisanship.


It is really problematic.


The reason is - because Obama made these things central to his campaign themes - Obama's actions make him a FRAUD. It is severe - because people voted for Obama FOR his platform, more than him.


It was extremely disturbing that people voted for Obama because they wanted to make some racial statement - that their vote was only skin-deep.


NOW Obama's performance in office is tearing to shreds any hope that Obama would actually adhere to his campaign themes.


What is even worse - the items in Obama's platform which Obama is attempting to implement - many of those are becoming increasingly unworkable.


I should not say unworkable - I should say "completely unrealistic from the start."

From Obama's Iranian policy, to closing Gitmo, to holding terror trials - Obama has chosen the MOST UNREALISTIC items to attempt to implement.

This is going to be painful to watch - sort of like a football team that you know should be playing better.

.


Posted by: 37thand0street | December 28, 2009 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Clearly this administration is unable to
protect us.

Military bases with murderous doctors.

Airplanes with mad bombers.

White house anyone can wander in.

Iran soon to have the Bomb.

All the signs of utter incompetence are clear. What will it take for liberals, the press and democrats to wake up?

Posted by: snowbama | December 28, 2009 8:51 AM | Report abuse

After days of denying any culpability or error, napolitano has finally admitted mistakes were made.

After months of economic failure no admission of ineptitude.

After years of enviro looniness, the kooks march on.

The peloony congress in charge since the decline began. Time to flush.

Posted by: snowbama | December 28, 2009 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Do you think that the bomber on the plane to Detroit was retaliation for Obama's bombing of Yemen? There have been all sorts of reports of Obama being involved in bombing Yemen recently.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 28, 2009 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Let's get back to the actual topic of the thread - health care -


The democrats are jamming this down the throats of America - which is wrong.


I believe the American people have done a pretty good job this year of telling the democrats that they do NOT want this version of the health care reform.


Obama in his speech to Congress made three commitments:

1) That abortion law would stay the same

2) That illegal aliens would not be covered

3) That the bill would be "deficit neutral"


NOW as far as anyone can tell these three commitments are LIES.


The American people have also stated quite clearly that they do NOT want the tax increases which are certain to come down the line in the future - DO YOU GET IT?


We are on to the trick of the democrats to start a program, get it going, and then deal with the tax increases later.


That is NOT going to work this time.


The democrats should pay for this bill themselves.


There should be one tax rate for the democrats, and one tax rate for the republicans - send a separate bill to the democrats every month and have the democrats PAY FOR OBAMA'S SPENDING BINGE.


This spending binge is not much unlike Obama's old cocaine binges, however that is a story for another day.


I suspect that Obama simple does not understand the economics involved here - how the employer mandate will put a drag on hiring.


This health care bill is a financial disaster - there is not other way around it.


The democrats believe that making a massive financial mess will create a electorial windfall for them. The American people are on to this joke which the democrats claim is "governing."


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 28, 2009 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Blade

Seems you can't keep with ANY discussion - health care or terrorism

We can always interject terrorism-related issues - and evaluate how badly Obama is performing.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 28, 2009 1:23 AM | Report abuse

Somehow, I didn't realize bombing Yemen was a part of the health care topic. It's open line Friday at the moment. If you can't take the heat...

Anyway, I've finished sorting out the papers, kissed the kids and the missus good night, and will say sayonara

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 28, 2009 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Blade

I'm trying to tell you to stick to the topic at hand - instead of attacking and MOCKING OTHER POSTERS.


You and drindl should be BANNED.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 28, 2009 12:53 AM | Report abuse

Let's get back to re-posting the same comment on the blog that we did at 11:49 p.m.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 28, 2009 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Let's get back to the actual topic of the thread - health care -


The democrats are jamming this down the throats of America - which is wrong.


I believe the American people have done a pretty good job this year of telling the democrats that they do NOT want this version of the health care reform.


Obama in his speech to Congress made three commitments:

1) That abortion law would stay the same

2) That illegal aliens would not be covered

3) That the bill would be "deficit neutral"


NOW as far as anyone can tell these three commitments are LIES.


The American people have also stated quite clearly that they do NOT want the tax increases which are certain to come down the line in the future - DO YOU GET IT?


We are on to the trick of the democrats to start a program, get it going, and then deal with the tax increases later.


That is NOT going to work this time.


The democrats should pay for this bill themselves.


There should be one tax rate for the democrats, and one tax rate for the republicans - send a separate bill to the democrats every month and have the democrats PAY FOR OBAMA'S SPENDING BINGE.


This spending binge is not much unlike Obama's old cocaine binges, however that is a story for another day.


I suspect that Obama simple does not understand the economics involved here - how the employer mandate will put a drag on hiring.


This health care bill is a financial disaster - there is not other way around it.


The democrats believe that making a massive financial mess will create a electorial windfall for them. The American people are on to this joke which the democrats claim is "governing."

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 28, 2009 12:35 AM | Report abuse

The fact that you think that's a slam says everything about you and what you could possibly offer to this community. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 28, 2009 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Blade:

Is that your lame cover story? give everyone a break.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 28, 2009 12:21 AM | Report abuse

37th -Before spouting off, Google Sheffield United. You might learn something, if that's conceivably possible.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 28, 2009 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Blade

I really do not think SeattleTop is doing that - and his name is offensive - your name is borderline too, but it also shows your age, so who cares?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 28, 2009 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Obama's bombing of YEMEN this week reminds me of Nixon's bombing of LAOS and CAMBODIA


Funny how accusations of lying to Congress and bombing third countries seem to go hand-in-hand.

Do you think the bomb on the plane was retaliation for Obama's bombing of YEMEN this week???


Do you think Obama is willing to come clean with the American people ???

Next time there is a terrorist incident, do you think Obama will respond to the American people - or will his staff keep Obama in the dark for hours again ?

To all the democrats who loved to belittle Bush's response on 9/11 - NOW you have Obama knowing NOTHING for hours on this one.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 28, 2009 12:00 AM | Report abuse

I figure Seattle Top is just saying that he or she thinks that Seattle is the tops. Having been there recently, I'd heartily agree. Had a great meal at an Italian place emphasizing local and seasonal ingredients. Oh, and 37th? PlEAse gET yOUr CaPs Lock Key cHECked out. It'S sTUtTeRIng.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 27, 2009 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Let's get back to the actual topic of the thread - health care -


The democrats are jamming this down the throats of America - which is wrong.


I believe the American people have done a pretty good job this year of telling the democrats that they do NOT want this version of the health care reform.


Obama in his speech to Congress made three commitments:

1) That abortion law would stay the same

2) That illegal aliens would not be covered

3) That the bill would be "deficit neutral"


NOW as far as anyone can tell these three commitments are LIES.


The American people have also stated quite clearly that they do NOT want the tax increases which are certain to come down the line in the future - DO YOU GET IT?


We are on to the trick of the democrats to start a program, get it going, and then deal with the tax increases later.


That is NOT going to work this time.


The democrats should pay for this bill themselves.


There should be one tax rate for the democrats, and one tax rate for the republicans - send a separate bill to the democrats every month and have the democrats PAY FOR OBAMA'S SPENDING BINGE.


This spending binge is not much unlike Obama's old cocaine binges, however that is a story for another day.


I suspect that Obama simple does not understand the economics involved here - how the employer mandate will put a drag on hiring.


This health care bill is a financial disaster - there is not other way around it.


The democrats believe that making a massive financial mess will create a electorial windfall for them. The American people are on to this joke which the democrats claim is "governing."


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 27, 2009 11:49 PM | Report abuse

drindl

Stop attacking other posters - it has been decided that everyone was going to stop dong that - however you have not stopped - YOU are usually WRONG so it makes it more difficult with you.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 27, 2009 11:39 PM | Report abuse

drindl


OK Obama is getting us involved in ANOTHER WAR IN ANOTHER COUNTRY - YEMEN.

This week Obama was involved in bombing YEMEN - at least twice.


And then someone in YEMEN was involved in getting the bomb onto a plane to the US to Detroit.


HHHMMMM - how many posters here want to call Obama's bombing "pointless?"


Just commenting.........


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 27, 2009 11:34 PM | Report abuse

SeattleTop:

You are WRONG on all accounts - I really do not want to get into all of it.


However, please stop attacking other posters, you have been doing alot of that lately.


Also, I find your name offensive - would you please change that too ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 27, 2009 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, seattle, that's what they're here for...

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2009 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, seatlle, that's what they're here for...

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2009 10:39 PM | Report abuse

"I thought Chris had already banned snowbama/zouk."

if anyone has been banned here but snowbama, 37th&0, and JakeD haven't been, then something is seriously f3ucked up. Who could be more objectionable?!? They're just piss in the pool.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 27, 2009 8:54 PM | Report abuse

"Not sure liberals have figured out that Bush is not running for anything. All despotic ideaology needs a constant enemy to alter focus away from it's own immense failures."

What failures would those be?

Obama has already achieved more in one year than Bush did in eight. And he's managed to not get us into any pointless wars, nor have we been attacked.

You can run the Bush isn't President piano roll but don't expect anyone with a WHOLE mind to forget that the messes Obama is cleaning up came from Bush's unbroken record of failure after failure after failure.

Better get used to it.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 27, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

I thought Chris had already banned snowbama/zouk.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

What is more fluid than an obimbo deadline?

Jello?

Reids spine?

Cilizzas threats to finally ban chrissy fox.

Posted by: snowbama | December 27, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"drindl:

Careful with the ad hominem personal attacks or you will get banned too."

If anyone needs to be banned here it's you, snowbama, and the intersection cretin. Not a brain between the three of you, just stupidity and snark. I see a few people trying to do thoughtful posts and you three jerks drowning them out.

I'd rather read personal attacks than the spew of unemployed mental patients.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 27, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Not sure liberals have figured out that Bush is not running for anything. All despotic ideaology needs a constant enemy to alter focus away from it's own immense failures.

Soviets had it. Nazis had it. Fidel has it. Hugo too. Of course Barry now.

Posted by: snowbama | December 27, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Bizarre, alternate universe 'history':

'On CNN today, GOP strategist and former Dick Cheney adviser Mary Matalin argued that President Obama is speaking too much about the severe debt, deficits, and economic recession he inherited from the previous administration. Defending her former boss, Matalin charged that President Bush had in fact “inherited a recession” and the September 11th attacks from President Clinton:

MATALIN: I was there, we inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation’s history. And President Bush dealt with it..

In reality, the terror attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center occurred on Sept. 11, 2001 — eight months into President Bush’s first term. Also, the 2001 recession began in March of 2001, well after Bush assumed office. Last month, former Bush administration spokesperson Dana Perino claimed that “we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term.”

Former Bush administration officials seem intent on misrepresenting history to pretend that the country never suffered its worst terror attack in history under Bush’s watch. It’s a peculiar talking point-- as if there were no records of the period--even considering the other efforts to whitewash Bush’s disastrous record.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse


TO: "snowbama" @ 1:40 p.m.

Or Perhaps It's a 'False Flag' Op Intended to Gin Up Terrorism Fears -- and to Deflect Attention from More Proximate Threats?

JOURNO EXPOSING GOV'T CELL TOWER TORTURE NETWORK
HELD HOSTAGE TO BUCKS COUNTY, PA COMMUNITY WATCH 'GESTAPO'

• Secret multi-agency federal program tortures, impairs, subjugates unconstitutionally "targeted" citizens with microwave/laser cell tower attack system -- and oversees local community watch vigilante "stalking" terrorism and financial sabotage campaigns aimed at supposed "dissidents" and "undesirables."

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 27, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Barry who didn't miss a tv appearance for any stretch of two days for his entire tenure has curiously given the teleprompters the day off when a terror attack occurs and Iran has demonstraters in the streets. The lure of golf was too strong.

Voting PRESENT was the old muscular obambi. Now it is simply MIA.

Posted by: snowbama | December 27, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

snowbama:

What I want to know is if Abdulmutallab was ever included in Obama's PDB?


More like his fundraising list.

What is still safe in the Obama era?

Not planes. Not military bases. Not investments. Not homes. Certainly not jobs. Not kids education. Not the borders. Not health care. Not inflation. Not Iran. Not the environment. Not religion. Not business. Not the constitution. Not democrats.

Posted by: snowbama | December 27, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

If not for a faulty detonator, the first year of barrys despotic and bumbling rule would have been stained by American blood.

Cheney was right. These nincompoops are going to get us all killed.

Posted by: snowbama | December 27, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

So much for "most other people are with family and friends". LOL!!! Gotta go now.

Posted by: JakeD | December 27, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

he DCCC chair also sought to allay concerns that the Democratic Party was slated to sustain huge losses come 2010. Saying he wouldn't be happy if the Democrats were to lose 20 seats (the average loss sustained by the party in power during the midterm election of a president's first term) Van Hollen stressed that the political landscape was vastly different now then in midterms past.

"Let's put these numbers in perspective," he said. "You said there are 11 Democratic retirements [this year]. There are 12 Republicans who are not running for their seats, including people like Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill) in very competitive seats for Democrats. Number two, we're not going to be surprised like in 1994, and we've been preparing from day one. And number three, Republicans... the public [view] of the Republican Party right now [is] very, very low. And that contrasts with 1994.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said on Sunday he was "very confident" that there would be no more defections by House Democrats to the Republican Party between now and the 2010 elections.

The Maryland Democrat, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," was referring to the announcement this past week that Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith was joining the GOP. Van Hollen laced into his former colleague, calling Griffith an opportunist who was going to have trouble surviving inside the Republican tent. He even brought, to the set, a copy of Griffith's local paper, the Huntsville Times, which accused the lawmaker of operating out of "self-preservation, not conviction."

"He got coal in his stocking" for Christmas, Van Hollen said. "The fact is, [Griffith] did a poll showing he might be in trouble. My view is he miscalculated politically."

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

'Seriously, your post is nothing but hate-filled garbage.'

LOL at the pot calling the kettle black. seriously, read your own posts. why do you think you are so widely reviled here?

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Careful with the ad hominem personal attacks or you will get banned too.

Posted by: JakeD | December 27, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

37 and O -- I'm surprised it took you this long to make up some phony reason why obama was to blame for a lapse in airport security in Amsterdam. Maybe it took you this long to grasp at some straw, but it comes to nothing but ranting. Here's something for your's, and every demagogue republican's, ignorance:

"Yemeni security forces carried out airstrikes and ground raids against suspected al Qaeda hide-outs over the past two weeks “with what American officials described as ‘intelligence and firepower’ supplied by the United States. The assaults were Yemen’s widest offensive against jihadists in years.” President Obama reportedly personally approved the use of “military hardware, intelligence and other support to Yemeni forces” in their assault on al Qaeda.

Moreover, both Obama and his homeland security adviser, John Brennan, have cited Yemen as a key concern. After a terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen last September, Obama said:

OBAMA: We must do more to strengthen the military, police, and intelligence capability in nations like Yemen that are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism. We need a Shared Security Partnership Program to build the infrastructure to deliver effective counter-terrorism training, and to create a strong foundation for coordinated action against Al Qaeda and its affiliates. [More »]

In his speech on the Afghanistan surge to West Point cadets earlier this month, Obama highlighted Yemen again:

OBAMA: We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships. [12/1/09]

Similarly, Brennan noted Yemen in August as a place from which the terrorist threat is emanating:

BRENNAN: Even as the President takes a more focused view of the threat, his approach includes a third element: a broader, more accurate understanding of the causes and conditions that help fuel violent extremism, be they in Pakistan and Afghanistan or Somalia and Yemen. [8/6/09]

Despite Hoekstra’s desire to make a political issue of the terrorist attack, the evidence is clear that the terrorist threat emanating from Yemen has been a focal point for the Obama administration.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

drindl


Do you have anything to add to the discussion besides attacking other posters ???

Seriously, your post is nothing but hate-filled garbage.

State your opinion and leave other posters alone.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 27, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Last weekend, Obama released 12 Gitmo prisoners to Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia.


Could there have been a worse time for Obama to have a bomb coming from YEMEN show up in the skies above an American city???


NO WONDER Obama has not been on camera or ANSWERED ANY REPORTERS QUESTIONS for the past few days.

Reports show there there is a percentage of released detainees who return to the fight with al Queda.


So why in the world is Obama insisting on this policy? Is it because Obama is obsessed with proving that Bush did something wrong?

Leave Gitmo alone - stick this new prisioner in there - and forget about them.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 27, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Predictable. During the Christmas holidays, when most other people are with family and friends, most of the posters here were the haters and losers -- the sad, friendless rightwing trolls who have nothing else to do with their sad sacks than anonymous loony ranting on the internet. 37&O, Joke, snozouk, et all -- of course, when you see how seething with hatred their posts all are, it's easy to see why they have nothing and no one.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

If the democrats want to cover the illegal aliens, let them. Include that bill in the MONTHLY BILL TO THE DEMOCRATS. If the democrats want something, make them pay for it.


That way, everyone can agree.


See, somehow the democrats never think about WHO is going to pay for these things - all they think it about is "wouldn't it be wonderful if all this free health care appeared out of nowhere."


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 27, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

snowbama:

What I want to know is if Abdulmutallab was ever included in Obama's PDB?

Posted by: JakeD | December 27, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

The best way to settle this is clear: set up one tax rate for democrats and one tax rate for republicans.

If the democrats want a massive health care program with uncertain costs, let them pay for it.


It is pretty simple - let the democrats guarantee any cost overruns. If the democrats are so confident with the numbers we are getting from the Obama administration, and from the CBO scoring we are getting from the information supplied by the democrats, then let the democrats COVER the cost overruns.


Pretty simple - ANYONE registered as a democrat when this bill passes gets a MONTHLY HEALTH CARE BILL IN THE MAIL - in which they have to pay EXTRA to the federal government to pay for this massive government program.


If the government goes over what was in the original budget coming out of the CBO, the bill to the democrats goes higher.


Pretty simple, and pretty effective.


This way, the republicans can agree.


The democrats can guarantee the numbers in the health care bill.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 27, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

And you trust the DEMOCRATS to get tough on illegal aliens? They simply see new voters. Hopefully, the GOP learned their lesson.

Posted by: JakeD | December 27, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

KOZ, I am not a fan of Congressional management of anything. But the Feds do run the biggest hospital system in the country. The VA gets mixed reviews, but their hospitals are often among the best in any area.

I am just pointing out that the hospital analogy was flawed, not arguing for the federal takeover of all hospitals!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 27, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Jake, I almost added that the only group left to the ERs would be the undocs and IAs. They are, however, a national 1/4th of the ER folks; while being a huge majority in the RGV and I am guessing half of SD county's load, or more. They are near half in San Antonio.

This could be an argument in favor of coverage for them, of course. My view is that the IAs and undocs must be met by uniform hiring standards imposed by DOL and recognized by SS. The voluntary march out of the country that began with the recession would be encouraged if my client employers were shielded from liability if they fire employees with unmatched SS#s, or if we had technical methods for dealing with four relatives of one legal sharing his SS card at different employment venues.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 27, 2009 9:52 AM | Report abuse

These bozos can't even keep airlines safe when a father rats out his own son.

They can't keep interlopers out if the white house.

They can't manage a retirement program

can't rescue flood victims. Can't deliver the mail or run a train

who really thinks they can run hospitals?

Posted by: snowbama | December 27, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

The only way that the final bill "shifts" costs from emergency rooms is if illegal aliens are covered. Remember Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)?

Posted by: JakeD | December 27, 2009 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Street Corner, let me concede that this is an expensive proposition full of unknowns right from the start. Let me concede that the universal mandate will provide an expansion of business for the health care industry; a jobs program, as "shrink" says. Further, let me concede that the actual cost of medical care is not the focus of this bill.

We are still faced with facts that make me favor its passage in the form of the SB.

1] The bill should result in a mass shift out of the hospital emergency rooms for charity patients with the flu. The reduction of this inefficiency alone, all else equal, means fewer tax dollars will be spent on the poor after the law takes effect than before, all else held equal. Subsidization for the poor to be insured is cheaper than subsidization of our most expensive delivery method of health care to the poor. We already pay for this, now we will pay less.

2] The limitation of profit+Admin OH should discourage slop in the insurance industry. In turn, their increased business will provide gross dollar profits that will allow them to operate at the restricted % margins. Think grocery stores operating at 3%. Obviously this is less of a savings than #1 because 75% of the cost is in the care, not the insurance. Another shortfall here: without the opening of a national market, small states will still suffer from the segregated insurance markets.

3] No public option means that there will not be another black hole opened in the fed budget, to triplet with Medicare and Medicaid. Speaking of which, this law will change the future of medicaid, unpredictably.

There are many other uncertainties. There will be unintended consequences. All your fears are not in any way irrational. I do not have space here to list all the failings of the SB, from an economic viewpoint. But
Numbers 1, 2, and 3 are enough to make me think it will be grossly cheaper than the status quo because it will serve the same population now being served, with somewhat more efficiency than the current process.

Grossly cheaper than costs increasing at three times the rate of inflation might be costs increasing at 2.5 times the rate of inflation, so critics will always have the ability to say "see, I told you so."

In any event, attacking medical costs will still be required. But after near-UHC, we will all have a stake in that. If I had my druthers, as anyone who has read my posts for two years knows, we would have attacked medical costs first. But TR Reid has pointed out that no other nation attacked costs until after UHC became policy, b/c the public will did not exist, ante.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 27, 2009 9:02 AM | Report abuse

What many of the posters here do not fully realize is the extent to which the CBO scoring has been manipulated.

Let's see the democrats give us some kind of financial guarantee for the numbers???


If the cost of the health care bill exceeds the scoring, the tax rates for democrats increase to cover the cost overruns - how about that???


How about having the Senators and Congressman who want to be such heros by "making history" - why don't we have them issue personal guarantees to the finances of the health care bill???

I would like to see that.


And the posters here - will you personally guarantee the numbers in the health care bill???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 27, 2009 7:20 AM | Report abuse

It is not a bad point - it is the democratic party which apparently wants to be such heros on health care reform - why don't they PAY for it too.

It is only fair.


A great deal of people believe that the democrats are being extremely irresponsible, and even deceptive, about the financial part of the health care bill.


In the real world, when there is a contract, and one side does not want to be responsible for cost overruns - often the other side is willing to guarantee the numbers and therefore become responsible for any cost overruns.


So why don't we do something like that here?


Let the democrats register - and let them be responsible for the health care bill and all the cost overruns in this "fuzzy math" which the democrats claim is "deficit neutral."


Let the democrats agree to a separate taz rate to pay for what they want in the bill as well.


In this way, everyone can agree. It will be truly bipartisan - Republicans can hold down the cost of their taxes, and the democrats can spend away.


If the democrats' bill is truly "deficit neutral" then there should be no problem, right?


AND let's have Obama put up his house too, on the guarantee for the cost overruns.


Can we do that?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 27, 2009 6:23 AM | Report abuse

SeattleTop


When did you become so nasty ??? All you have done is attack other posters.


State your opinion on the topic and leave it at that.


We really do not care about your mischaracterizations.


To you, if someone does not agree with you, they are a racist -


That is actually an extremely sick way to look at the world - I would advise you to see a doctor.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 27, 2009 6:15 AM | Report abuse

Hey JRM save your breath.  The guy's writing is immature and childish, even ignoring the all-caps.  And even if he was playing with a full deck if he cared at all about facts he wouldn't be a dumb Republican echo box.  You think he cares that the red states are supported by the blue ones?
 
This is 2009, and what used to be a legitimate Republican Party is now a support group for racists and the permanently marginalized, people who are never going to be happy living in a country where a black man can be president, people to whom the reality of McCain's failure and Palin's raw idiocy need to be endlessly denied. 
 
When reality is not on your side, life gets really uncomfortable.  No wonder so many Republicans are so furious.  Their religion has failed them.  So they reminisce about Reagan and that long-dead season of conservative swagger.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 27, 2009 3:51 AM | Report abuse


PAY FOR THIS STUFF YOURSELVES - HAVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SET UP ACCOUNTS, RAISE THE MONEY, AND DISTRIBUTE IT YOURSELVES - KEEP THE REST OF US OUT OF IT.

Posted by: 37thand0street
-----------
You do realize that the four solidly Republican states remaining are among the biggest WELFARE states in the union?

So, in other words, it IS the Democrats who pay the taxes in this country, not the obese, racist welfare queens of the south.

So your plan (which you apparently don't even know about) is already in action and has been for quite some time.

Posted by: JRM2 | December 26, 2009 11:13 PM | Report abuse

"Which is why ad hominem attacks are such logical fallacies."

Physician, heal thyself.

Posted by: nodebris | December 26, 2009 10:38 PM | Report abuse

My main point regarding contractors vs. employees was that one needs to consider a position with costs and also consider long term commitments. My salary plus overhead went down by a third when I moved from a private research laboratory to a government position. There is, however, a longer term commitment. I don't think it's necessarily restricted to R&D positions, though.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 26, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Cute quip.

The right wing has a zero-zero track record in it's predictions, its dire warnings most of all. And it's been on the wring side of every social milestone of the last 150 years. Small wonder you guys have to create extravagent myths around lies to justify yourselves.

Lies like "Reagan defeated the Soviets" when it was going to collapse anyway.

Like "Bush kept us safe" when in reality he ignored an explicit PDB and was paralyzed to immobility on 9/11.

Keep trying to turn the clock back. We'll keep cleaning up your messes.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 26, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Even a broken clock is right twice per day.

Posted by: JakeD | December 26, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

And those to the right have also been correct about doom and gloom, e.g. USSR or the housing bubble. Which is why ad hominem attacks are such logical fallacies. Only time will tell if Obamacare actually works.

Posted by: JakeD | December 26, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

nodebris.. those to the right always predict doom with any kind of progress:


“It may be impracticable that our distinctively American experiment of individual freedom should go on.”

—Senator David Hill (D-NY), in 1894, bemoaning the creation of a federal income tax

“Woman suffrage would give to the wives and daughters of the poor a new opportunity to gratify their envy and mistrust of the rich. Meantime these new voters would become either the purchased or cajoled victims of plausible political manipulators, or the intimidated and helpless voting vassals of imperious employers.”

—Former President Grover Cleveland, in 1905, on why women shouldn’t be able to vote

“[T]he child will become a very dominant factor in the household and might refuse perhaps to do chores before six a.m. or after seven p.m. or to perform any labor.”

—Senator Weldon Heyburn (R-ID), in 1908, on why child labor should remain unregulated

Posted by: drindl | December 26, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

ceflynline:

Please email to me at jaked832@gmail.com

If it's too long, it won't post here.

Posted by: JakeD | December 26, 2009 1:24 AM | Report abuse

"EXACTLY You can't put this kind of burden on the economy and expect to have any kind of economic growth."

I notice that Social Security and Medicare really killed our growth. Oh, wait . . .

Posted by: nodebris | December 26, 2009 1:23 AM | Report abuse

I can write a mathematical proof, (it isn't all that hard) that talks to BB's and drindl's posts on wasting money contracting out. It uses no words that in any way could be objectionable, and violates no known standard of propriety. It got swallowed by the waiting on the moderator's approval function.

Should you wish to read it e-mail ceflynline @msn.com

Posted by: ceflynline | December 25, 2009 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Well if not to enrich themselves and cronies, why would Republicans want to hold public office at all? It certainly isn't to do the nation's business, they don't believe in government.

Note the very sheep they fleece screaming in their defense. Democracy in action.

Posted by: SeattleTop | December 25, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Quite true, BB, there are advantages to certain types of contracting, i.e. R&D. But the billions that were been wasted in Iraq, for instance, through a complete and deliberate lack of oversight, was nothing but a hog trough and gravy train for well-connected republicans. If you would like links to give you examples of neocons who pushed for war, and the subsequent front 'companies' they used to rake it in after it started, they are out there.

Richard Perle and Trirememe Partners is one place to start.
And of course Cheney and Halliburton.

Posted by: drindl | December 25, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Others have said that watching the political process is akin to watching sausage being made - that is true if one does not understand methodical management. The President is confident in himself to be humble - to allow a health process to develop. .........

http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/12/23/the-humble-process-of-a-confident-barack-obama/

Posted by: glclark4750 | December 25, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Last year Congress reported that contract employees were each costing the government an average of $250,000 annually, an amount far in excess of what federal employees or military personnel were paid.

===

Quite true, though a direct comparison should be a Fed with overhead vs. a contractor. There is an advantage in contracting out work. Contracts can end whereas Feds gain civil service protections after several years. The short term cost is higher, though there is no long term commitment. [Well, not until the local Representative or Senator gets his or her fingers in the pie]
So, the government has a lot of military research performed at places such as SRI, Johns Hopkins APL, the Draper Laboratory, Lincoln Labs etc.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 25, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Another xmas gift from Congress that will save taxpayers a ton of money -- and rid of us the plague of corrupt crony privateers like Blackwater:

'The Defense Department estimates it will save an average of $44,000 a year for every contractor it replaces with full-time federal personnel to perform critical defense jobs, according to the House-Senate conference report on the fiscal 2010 defense appropriation bill.

Last year Congress reported that contract employees were each costing the government an average of $250,000 annually, an amount far in excess of what federal employees or military personnel were paid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122302972.html

The measure, which passed Congress on Saturday, contains $5 billion to hire replacements for contractors currently performing what have been termed "inherently government functions" both at home and abroad. Those functions include a wide range of activities, from supervising other contractors who provide guard services at forward operating bases, to providing oversight of aid projects overseas.'

Posted by: drindl | December 25, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

MR. PRESIDENT, CONGRESS: "First, Do No Harm." Stop U.S. Domestic Atrocities

U.S. SILENTLY TORTURES AMERICANS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVES, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

• Secret multi-agency federal program tortures, impair, subjugate "targeted" citizens with microwave/laser attack system camouflaged as cell towers -- and oversees local "community watch" vigilante harassment and financial sabotage campaigns.

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
OR http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 25, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

"Germany "celebrated" Hitler's Enabling law once upon a time too."

Wow, you guys really do have no sense of perspective.

I can't even figure out how this bill is supposed to be "socialist". There's no public plan of any kind; the main thrust is purely subsidies to allow more people to buy stuff from private industry.

As it stands, trying to fix the healthcare problem is vital to any economic recovery; healthcare costs are a major drag on US businesses.

Posted by: SeanC1 | December 24, 2009 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Republicans for not caving in to the Democrap Socialists, and voting to try to preserve our Representative Republic and our Constitution from the Obama and Democrap Socialist onslaught to change our government to a George Orwell 1984 one.

Posted by: armpeg | December 24, 2009 5:17 PM
_________

Your Audra Shay Fan Club card is in the mail. Merry Xmas. Riddle me this: If attempts at universal health care are commie plots, how is it every industrialized nation has some form of universal health care? BTW, were you okay with chlorinated water and organized labor?
_________

Also Merry Xmas to Eldrick "Tiger" Woods and his legendary wingmen, Steve Williams and Jerry Chang. Wait out the haters and then come back strong at the Masters in 2010. As the poem says, "Strong men, keep a comin'."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 24, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Republicans for not caving in to the Democrap Socialists, and voting to try to preserve our Representative Republic and our Constitution from the Obama and Democrap Socialist onslaught to change our government to a George Orwell 1984 one.

Posted by: armpeg | December 24, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I am sORrY. I cAn't hEAr yOU. PerHAPs yOu cOUlD tUrn uP The vOLuMe.

bB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 24, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I am hearing a bunch of reasons why it is so fantastic to give away money to people - but I do not hear those same people offering up how we are going to pay for all of that.


These are the same people who believe that they are better than everyone else for these ideas.


PAY FOR THIS STUFF YOURSELVES - HAVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SET UP ACCOUNTS, RAISE THE MONEY, AND DISTRIBUTE IT YOURSELVES - KEEP THE REST OF US OUT OF IT.

The only way to settle this is to have one tax rate for Republicans and another tax rate for democrats.


That would settle the issue fast.


.


Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"You rarely hear from the people who are happy with these great social programs. "

The people who benefit from them rarely get their own cable shows.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 24, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

You rarely hear from the people who are happy with these great social programs. Roosevelt withstood a lot of panicked predictions about what Social Security, survivor's benefits, compensation to injured workers, etc would do to this country. In the 1930s, these programs were going to kill our country, not provide a safety net for the elderly, widows and orphans. Then it was medicare and medicaid that was going to kill our country. Didn't happen, but 40 years later we are still working to make these progams as effective as they can be. It will take as long for this reform package (and probably universal, single payer health care) to come to fruition. Universal Healthcare works the developed world over, so I think we can get it to work here, too.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 24, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse


" Making Medicare sound and attacking the cost issues are the next hurdles."

EXACTLY You can't put this kind of burden on the economy and expect to have any kind of economic growth.


The subtle part of this is: if you want to have ANY CHANCE of the economy keeping up with rising health care costs, you can not afford to place ANY DRAGS ON THE ECONOMY AT ALL.


Obama has created a situation in which the rate of growth of the economy will fall EVEN FURTHER behind the rise in health care costs.

This attitude "we will work out how to pay for it later" is completely silly and irresponsible.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin


That's right - we have a bankrupt program - and the solution being offered is to make the government programs even bigger and bigger - it is FINANCIAL INSANITY.


But it worked last time, they keep on saying.


But the program is spending more money than it is bringing in - everyone keeps on saying they want that.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Funny stuff, drindl. I am old enough that I was already voting during the Medicare fight. The dire predictions then [socialized medicine, second rate care for the elderly, and europeanization] did not come to pass. What did happen was that we both removed trust funds from the kitty and underfunded the program while ned bills rose far faster than inflation - to the point where M'care is approaching insolvency. Medicare is addressed in the SB, but only peripherally. Making Medicare sound and attacking the cost issues are the next hurdles.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 24, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"Blade

I will do whatever I want - I told you that yesterday - "


http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153246/?searchterm=freak%20strike

Posted by: DDAWD | December 24, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Funny stuff. Some things never change:

'Conservatives have lined up in near-unanimous opposition to any progressive legislation introduced during President Obama’s first year in office. Whether they’ve been railing against health care reform, a climate bill, or financial regulation, their ire has stemmed less from legislative specifics than from a generalized prophecy of doom: Obama’s proposals will move the country toward socialism, bankrupt entire industries and small businesses, and deny Americans their basic freedoms.

These arguments, however, aren’t new. Conservatives—not just Republicans, but various politicians and groups who’ve resisted major social changes—recycled them throughout the twentieth century. They used them to oppose numerous progressive measures that Americans now take for granted, from women’s suffrage to child-labor laws to Medicare. (Click here to read Jonathan Chait's feature story on the history of Republican nihilism and what happened to all those great GOP ideas.) Here we’ve collected a few choice predictions about disaster that never came. Conservatives today might prefer they be forgotten.


“It may be impracticable that our distinctively American experiment of individual freedom should go on.”

—Senator David Hill (D-NY), in 1894, bemoaning the creation of a federal income tax

“Woman suffrage would give to the wives and daughters of the poor a new opportunity to gratify their envy and mistrust of the rich. Meantime these new voters would become either the purchased or cajoled victims of plausible political manipulators, or the intimidated and helpless voting vassals of imperious employers.”

—Former President Grover Cleveland, in 1905, on why women shouldn’t be able to vote

“[T]he child will become a very dominant factor in the household and might refuse perhaps to do chores before six a.m. or after seven p.m. or to perform any labor.”

—Senator Weldon Heyburn (R-ID), in 1908, on why child labor should remain unregulated

“I fear it may end the progress of a great country and bring its people to the level of the average European. It will furnish delicious food and add great strength to the political demagogue. It will assist in driving worthy and courageous men from public life. It will discourage and defeat the American trait of thrift. It will go a long way toward destroying American initiative and courage.”

—Senator Daniel O. Hastings (R-DE), in 1935, listing the evils of Social Security

“[I]t would make it practically impossible for any publisher in the United States to accept any food, drug, or cosmetic advertising without facing squarely into the doors of a jail.”

—Federal Trade Commission Chair Ewin L. Davis, in 1935, on the dangers of empowering the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the food, drug, and cosmetic industries

Posted by: drindl | December 24, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Scum sucking moron Dems have vastly underestimated the long term effects of their insidious plan. As with every other gov't run enterprise, there will be unintended consequences that impact every facet of life in what's left of the USA. The rush away from the medical profession will be one of those effects.

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | December 24, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

BTW, I am guessing that every lawyer who represents small biz will be answering clients by suggesting that the SB is better for them than the HB.

Look at your own situation with regard to these bills and decide what you would favor for yourself and why. Some of you would oppose either bill, of course. However the exercise of weighing them is worth your time, so that you can see how each would affect you.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 24, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

lingo009


Except that Medicare is going bankrupt - this health care bill will create a massive government program which will have a massive deficit as well.


You have a SICK PARTISAN MOTIVE because you believe that this giant government program will lead to more votes for the democrats.


YOU DON'T CARE IF YOU BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY. It is irresponsible and sick.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Blade

I will do whatever I want - I told you that yesterday -

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

For those interested in the nuts-and-bolts of what is in these bills [I have to be, because I am supposed to tell clients what to expect; until now it has been anything but clear and now there are still choices on the table] the WaPo has a handy reference widget:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/health/compare-health-plans-2009/

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 24, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Remember that hilarious clip on T.V. of that elderly southern republican shouting- 'Keep the government's hands off my Medicare!'?

Well- same thing here.

One day, we won't be able to imagine that a company could deny a sick person or even a child a doctor's care. It will be as distant as a women's right to vote. Or a child's right to an education. Or a person of dark skin's right to sit on a bus.

Thank you FDR. Thank you Lyndon Johnson. Thank you President Obama!

Posted by: lingo009 | December 24, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

37th - It was the Republicans who pushed this back as late as parliamentary possible. And please, find a competent techiCiAN tO fiX yOuR cAPs LocK Key.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 24, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

John Podesta:

'I congratulate Majority Leader Reid and the members of the United States Senate for taking a historic step forward toward reforming our nation’s health care system.

If enacted, health care reform would substantially improve the lives of millions of Americans currently struggling with our broken health care system. It would extend health care coverage to a record 31 million Americans who are currently uninsured, bringing the total insured population to 94 percent. It would lower premium costs and cap health care spending for millions of families that are struggling today, and begin to rein in the spiraling costs that are creating a fiscal nightmare for the U.S. economy overall. And it would deliver much-needed oversight to the insurance industry, guaranteeing that no American will ever again be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition or see their coverage canceled when they get sick, and that women will no longer be charged 48 percent more for the same coverage as men.

It is critical that a final bill ensures that the subsidies provided are sufficient to make insurance truly affordable for working families. But if enacted, health reform along the lines of what the House and Senate have passed will represent the most historic reform of our health care system in the more than 40 years that I have been in politics. We still have a way to go, but today’s passage represents a major step forward.'

Posted by: drindl | December 24, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"From their perspective, it has worked. Obama's approval rating was knocked down to about 50% and a majority disapproves of the bill the Senate passed this morning."

I don't beleive that, BB. Show me stats please, and the way the questions are worded. I see polls that say quite the opposite. In any case, when you say 'dsapproves' you have to state why. I would guess that many on the left 'disaprove' because the bill lacks a public option. But that doesn't accrue any benefit to Rs, becuase these people would never vote for them anyway.

Lying and deception? Where were you in the Bush years? How about lying us into a war that has cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of lives?

In the end, this bill will help people of more modest means. Which is exqctly what Republicans hate about it.

Posted by: drindl | December 24, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

A vote on Christmas Eve is the ultimate "Friday afternoon press release" - just try to get it out there, but hope no one notices.

Well guess what?


EVERYONE NOTICES.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

It is also just wrong to try to sneak in changes to the abortion issue into the health care bill.


What is amazing is that Obama assured the American people that this would NOT happen in his speech to Congress.


Seriously - this is the problem - there is so much LYING AND DECEPTION.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully we can throw this health-care reform bill out with the bath water.

Posted by: JakeD | December 24, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Could someone explain to me, or for that matter to ANYONE not in the 20% bracket, why the Republican Leadership can't accept that they lost this battle on 4 Nov 2008, and keeps shooting at various bodily appendages to hold the nations attention?

===

From their perspective, it has worked. Obama's approval rating was knocked down to about 50% and a majority disapproves of the bill the Senate passed this morning. They're fighting tactically and more than a little dirty. Then again, some of the Democratic speeches practically had Republicans pulling the plug on little Timmy.

There are some legitimate grievances to be aired (couldn't resist a Festivus reference). If Bill Nelson's objections were about principle, why the wrangling for a few hospitals in the Cornhusker state? Truth to tell, this is a massive appropriations bill and there's a little typical horse trading. For all the Republicans talk of principled opposition, if you're not voting yes, you don't get a few goodies for your state.

My bet is that moderate to conservative Democrats will win on two key points. No government option or Medicare expansion for now; abortion language more reflective of the Stupak amendment.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 24, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

AS Ezra Klein says:

On Dec. 24, in an early morning vote, the United States Senate passed health-care reform. It was the first time the body had been in session on Christmas Eve since 1963. That's fitting, as it's arguably the most important piece of legislation the body has passed since 1963.

H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed with 60 votes, and though that sounds a razor-thin margin given the odd rules of the Senate, it is a landslide in the more normal context for major choices in American politics. The last time a president won with 60 percent of the vote, for instance, was when Lyndon Johnson trounced Barry Goldwater in 1964. Health-care reform passed the House with only 50.5 percent of the body voting for it. And the senators making up this morning's 60 votes actually represent closer to 65 percent of the population. Harry Reid has much to be proud of today.

For all the historic force of the vote -- Ted Kennedy's widow, Vicki Kennedy, was in the chamber, as was the elderly John Dingell Jr., whose father introduced the first national health-care plan into the Congress almost a century ago -- it has become difficult to write these milestone posts. Health-care reform, by this point, has had a lot of milestones. It has cleared five committees. It has come through the House of Representatives. It has been merged into a single bill in the Senate. It has passed through the Senate. No previous health-care reform bill has come anywhere near this far. "

Happy Holidays!

Posted by: drindl | December 24, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

If someone voted for Obama last year because the idea of racial harmony appealed to them, that doesn't mean that person was endorsing a MASSIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM AND MASSIVE TAX INCREASES AND MANDATES TO PAY FOR THAT PROGRAM.


Yea.


That is a horrible, horrible misinterpretation of last year's election.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

This health care debate is NOT over - it was not settled last year in one election which promised bipartisanship and transparency and racial harmony - and all of those things have been left on the side of the road by Obama.


The health care plan is NOT paid for.


The country does NOT want this massive government program - it is going to have to be disamantled. Just because the democrats sleezed their way to 60 votes this week doesn't mean that that situation will always be that way.


DO YOU GET IT ??? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO PAY FOR THIS MASSIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.


The American people have kept on saying that over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again all year long.

The American people are not going to pay for it.


This week in Congress one thing is certain: The democrats DO NOT WANT TO LISTEN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

More joke fodder:

'Leading the fight to defend Christianity in the so-called “War on Christmas,” Rep. Henry Brown (R-SC) introduced congressional resolution 951, which “urges protection of the symbols and traditions of Christmas.” Despite criticism from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) against frivolous legislation, Brown has pressed forward and collected 74 GOP cosponsors. The religious meaning of Christmas is serious to Brown. In an explanation of his resolution to the Christian Broadcast Network, Brown noted that, “we’re in a troubled world,” so “we can’t lose sight of our deep faith by some how or another diminishing the value of Christmas.”

The main threat to Christmas, Brown contents, is the use of the term “happy holidays” rather than an emphasis on “Christ and Christmas.” In an interview with Fox Business last week, Brown lashed out at the use of “happy holidays”:

BROWN: We forget the real meaning of Christmas by using “happy holidays” or “joy to the seasons” or some other word rather than “Merry Christmas.” [...]

Every year, more and more people are shying away from “Merry Christmas” and using “happy holidays” or some other means of expressing this special time for us.'

Indeed, Brown has even attempted to use his resolution as a jab against President Obama. Declaring that the Obamas’ holiday card doesn’t mention Christmas, Brown said, “I believe that sending a Christmas card without referencing a holiday and its purpose limits the Christmas celebration in favor of a more ‘politically correct’ holiday.” Brown’s fight to preserve Christmas and shun “happy holidays” has earned him the title of “patriot” from noted culture warrior Bill O’Reilly.

However, Brown’s 2008 December newsletter wished a “happy holiday” to his constituents for the “holiday season.” Although the newsletter had a link to the White House Christmas tree website, it made no other mention of Christ or Christmas. (Click here for a screenshot) And as Slate’s Chris Beam has observed, Brown didn’t introduce his resolution last year, even though President Bush’s 2008 holiday card didn’t mention Christmas either.

Posted by: drindl | December 24, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Thankfully, Rep. Waxman (D-CA) already provided a helpful guide to evaluate such frivolous travel expenses:

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20060316113550-47530.pdf

Posted by: JakeD | December 24, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline


First of all, I appreciate your listing of the Feast days this week. I would like to add that the 12 Days of Christmas are after Christmas - leading up to the Epiphany.

So thank you for all of that.

To your point on the election - OK - but remember that the Minnesota election result was not known for months, and Alan Specter was elected as a Republican -

One election is not permanent - there will be other elections.


What the democrats are trying to do is take one election, and create a MASSIVE FINANCIAL HEALTH CARE MESS which will force the country to accept permanent changes.


This health care plan is NOT paid for - the democrats do NOT have the political will right now to put forth a real financial plan for what they want to do.


So, the democrats have decided to start a MASSIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM without proper funding - and leave it to a future Congress to clean up the financial mess.


This is not only financially irresponsible, it takes a good measure of lying and deception to pull off.


You are trying to make the point that all this has been settled with the last election - does that mean it can all be undone with the NEXT ELECTION ???


It is possible that a great deal of this health care bill will eventually be repealed.


It is also possible that if this health care bill opens up a massive financial deficit, the result could be that a future Congress could dismantle the whole thing, instead of choosing to solve the problem by massively increasing taxes to fund it.

THAT IS THE CORE OF SITUATION - THE DEMOCRATS ARE ATTEMPTING TO FORCE A MASSIVE TAX INCREASE DOWN THE ROAD - by creating a massive deficit in health care first.

Well - that was not the TRANSPARENCY AND THE BIPARTISANSHIP which was promised last year.


I really do not believe that picking and choosing what last year's election was all about is going to work.

The democrats are forgetting a few things here:


I don't think it has sunk in to the American people what will be the FULL COSTS of the employer mandate in the health care bill - IT IS GOING TO HURT HIRING.


I don't think people realize fully that many people are going to be FORCED to buy health insurance.


Even those people who are eligible for subsidies - do they have to lay out the money first, and then wait until the calculations come through on the tax returns ??? If someone can not afford health insurance in the first place, I don't see how that is going to work at all.


Wouldn't a much better solution be for people just to bring their health insurance bills to their local democratic party office and get them paid right there?


It seems too complicated the other way.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

CORRECTION: "For anyone else wondering how much all these roundtrips on Air Force One are costing the U.S. taxpayers:"

Posted by: JakeD | December 24, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

For anyone else wondering how much are all these roundtrips on Air Force One is costing the U.S. taxpayers:

http://theintrepid.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-much-does-it-cost-to-operate-white.html

With so many AMERICANS out of work the day before Christmas, can we afford these luxuries right now?

Posted by: JakeD | December 24, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Too funny!

'The end-all-regulation, my-health-insurance-company-is-just-fine-thanks crowd in the Tea Party movement have found an unlikely target for their next national effort: Corporate America.

The Tea Party Patriots group is planning a "National Day of Strike" for Jan. 20, one year to the day after President Obama's inauguration. The goal of the strike, according to the website where it's being planned, is to "financially cripple" the companies across America the group says are "backing the leftist agenda" and "funding socialism."

How can you tell which companies are funding socialism? The answer, according to organizers: they advertise on CNN and/or MSNBC, and they donate money to Democratic candidates.

Former Christian Coalition state legislative director and conservative political strategist Allen Hardage is organizing the effort. In his message calling on tea partiers to join the strike, he says he knows from experience that some corporations are sending a message to the left with their advertising dollars.

"Having spent the last 21 years working in advertising I can tell you that before someone take out an advertising plan on CNN, MSNBC etc, they know where they stand," he writes. "Contrary to popular belief it's not just about money, if it were MSNBC would have no advertisers."

On Jan. 20, Hardage is calling on tea partiers to "expose" the socialist-supporting companies, and bombard them with phone calls, emails and protests to demand they stop advertising with "liberal" media outlets and contributing to Democratic campaigns. If they, don't, the tea partiers will promise to boycott the firms into financial ruin.'

"On his blog, conservative law professor William Jacobson argues the plan is doomed to failure, based not least on the fact that conservatives could be alienating a potential ally when they take on the machinery of capitalism'

No sh*t. Watching these people make bigger fools of themselves is always funny, though.

Posted by: drindl | December 24, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Some day, drindl, we all will die. Don't you worry about me, dear.

Posted by: JakeD | December 24, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

It would be delightful if your lights went out. Way overdue.

Posted by: drindl | December 24, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

Time for us parents to CANCEL their credit cards ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 24, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I want every light to go out in the White House too. Change the locks while Obama is in Hawaii. We taxpayers already spend more than $2 BILLION per year to run the White House and fly him all over the world.

Posted by: JakeD | December 24, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Vile and disgusting:

OUr Congress finally does something for the middle class and some anti-semite compares it to Hitler. You have no idea how insulting and hateful this is to Jews -- but perhaps that's what was intended.

I'd like to ask our host to delete - anti-semetic remarks, as well as racist and homophobic. Why should we have to wade through sewage on this board?

Here's another hateful and loony republican:

'No, this is not an Onion story. On C-SPAN's call in show this morning, a woman named Bunny from Parsons, Kansas, said she was so disappointed by the Senate's health care vote that she took down her Christmas tree. And it seems like her call was not a prank.

It wasn't just Bunny's tree that went. "I have taken my Christmas wreath off my house. I have taken all the lights down," she said. "This is supposed to be a nation under God, and it isn't. They absolutely have ruined Christmas."

You can see the C-SPAN host, no doubt trained to deal with the occasional eccentric caller, cock his head ever so slightly as Bunny breaks the news.

"So you took down your Christmas tree because of the Senate health care bill?" he asks, with a hint of incredulity.

"I certainly did. And I would like to see every light in the nation go out, especially in the White House," Bunny replies.'


Posted by: drindl | December 24, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

HEY TO ALL YOU DEMOCRATS OUT THERE


WHEN YOU MAX OUT YOUR CREDIT CARDS, IS THAT A "WIN" ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

The ONLY thing that is going to make sense - and they can do this now or they can do this later - is heavy regulation of the health care industry abuses - and keep the government out of the process and keep the government funds out of the process.


Once the government starts to intervene financially, the numbers get so high, so fast, even the programs we have now are scaring the democrats.


That is a major factor here - the democrats are scared of the where Medicare and Medicaid are going financially.


SOMEHOW they have convinced themselves that making the programs bigger is the answer - that all these additional taxes are going to cover all the new things they want to do AND all the shortfalls in the existing programs.


I think any reasonable person would look at that and reject it.


We are headed toward a MAJOR FINANCIAL DRAG ON THE ECONOMY WITH THIS BILL.


It is serious - do you want stagflation on top of a European-style economic malaise???

Is that want you want for America ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Germany "celebrated" Hitler's Enabling Law once upon a time too.

Posted by: JakeD | December 24, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman sinks like a rock in polls:

In recent weeks, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has faced ire from advocates for the public option, which he successfully forced the Senate to drop from its legislation by threatening to filibuster it. Now, a new CNN poll has found that Lieberman’s “favorable ratings have taken almost a 10-point drop in the past two weeks“:

31 percent of people told a CNN poll conducted Dec. 16-20 that they had a favorable opinion of Lieberman, a key Senate centrist who’d opposed healthcare reform. Opinion toward Lieberman, though, was down from a 40 percent favorable rating in the same CNN poll conducted December 2-3 of this year.

Poll respondents’ unfavorable opinion of Lieberman ticked upward over the same period. 34 percent of those polled said they now have an unfavorable opinion of Lieberman, compared to 28 percent who previously had an unfavorable opinion.'

Posted by: drindl | December 24, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Michael Steele has perhaps the most stale and infantile 'wit' of perhaps any party chairman in history.

I celebrate this win, as a gift for so many americans who now will be able to better afford decent health care. God Bless America!

Posted by: drindl | December 24, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse


The country should really take a serious heed to WHY the democrats wanted to get this done so fast this week - they DO NOT WANT TO FACE THE PEOPLE OVER A BREAK WHILE THE BILL IS STILL PENDING.


What does that tell you?


It's almost as if they are planning their get-away.


"Something is rotten in Denmark."


There is something seriously wrong here - the process stinks - there is a general smell coming out of this process here - they have gone through the procedures without telling the people what is exactly in the bill.

The financial picture of the bill STILL has not been spelled out.


Did they count the $500 BILLION DOLLARS TWICE ???


The bottom line is clear: THIS IS NOT HOW OBAMA PROMISED TO OPERATE LAST YEAR.

ANYONE WHO SAID OBAMA IS A FRAUD WAS CORRECT.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | December 24, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Wait, maybe I was thinking Sen. Webb (D-VA).

Posted by: JakeD | December 24, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

sverigegrabb:

Never underestimate an Annapolis grad ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 24, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

JkR:

Apart from arguing whether it is "much needed" or if he really is "President", Obamacare was his signature campaign promise (since he had to take SOME position on Hillarycare). You do remember that, right? How about the more-recent speech he gave to Congress on 9/9/09?

Even Yahoo news is calling this turd Obama's "health care overhaul":

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Posted by: JakeD | December 24, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Chris, et. al,

Firstly, Happy Holidays to all! Long may the backbiting and endless rants continue, with CC as our sunny blogger-in-chief/moderator and, occasionally, agent provocateur!

And now to another dysfunctional family, the Senate. Who would have imagined that Harry Reid (disclaimer: I've never been a Reid-as-Leader fan), who seems so mousey and colourless in his press conferences, had the tenacity to actually get this bill passed, albeit with not a single R. vote? One must admire his ability to wheel and deal behind the scenes. What an accomplishment, even with all the compromises!

I know, and even secretly relish, that the breathless Congressional antics are far from over, but despite the sour grapes from Michael Steele, Mitch McConnell, and the rest of the Republicans who could have had input in this bill but chose to jeer from the sidelines and behave like a lot of spoilt children, it's still quite an accomplishment.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | December 24, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Why is it "President Barack Obama's health care plan"?

What role did he play in pushing this (much needed) turd across the finish line? Other than indicating a willingness to sign something?

Posted by: JkR- | December 24, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Because they did not lose 40 seats in the Senate on November 4th. Don't expect the GOP to sit idlely by why Obama drives the country off a cliff.

Posted by: JakeD | December 24, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Could someone explain to me, or for that matter to ANYONE not in the 20% bracket, why the Republican Leadership can't accept that they lost this battle on 4 Nov 2008, and keeps shooting at various bodily appendages to hold the nations attention?

Michael Steele's sour grapes gripe can change no minds, affect no votes, and not even ruffle the hairs on the heads of any of the politicians (who still have hair to ruffle) who will reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill.

It can only remind voters that the fundamental problems that the republicans have with a health care over haul is that it exists at all, and that the Democrats provided it. In the next election not one Republican can claim any part of the reforms, and virtually all get to smile like a Grinch when they describe the Democrats Christmas gift. Even on the Grinch it isn't particularly attractive; on an over weight, balding, white, Southern Politician it is reminiscent only of Carpet Baggers and Scalawags, and southern voters may yet remember which party owned the majority of those historical caricatures. Outside the South the combination is too much of used car lot Fred and his unctuous minions.

Sometimes when the battle goes against you it is best to retreat in sullen silence and tend your wounds. The Republicans, though, seem to believe it is better to stay in contact while bathing each others wounds in rancid milk and salted vinegar.

As for me, I like the Christas present from the Democrats, and am too old and experienced to grumble that the present I got wasn't quite the color I had wanted, nor quite as fancy a model as I asked Santa for.

So Merry Christmas, AND happy
Feast of Stephen (26 Dec)
Feast of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist (27 Dec)
Feast of the Holy Innocents (28 Dec)
Feast of Thomas a Becket (29 Dec)
Feats of Sylvester (31 Dec)
Feast of the Solemnity of Mary (1 Jan )
Feast of St. Basil and St. Gregory (2 Jan)

AND

Happy Epiphany. (6 Jan)

Also Happy Kwanzaa, and a most beneficial solstice celebration.

AKA Happy Holidays.

Posted by: ceflynline | December 24, 2009 10:00 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company