Displaying 18,151 To 18,180 Of 19,504 Comments A Mandate for Civil Disobedience Indeed, Hillary’s designing it independently of Congress turned them against it…the egocentric asses. And with their destructive outrage, they set up the GOP’s return to Congressional power. After seeing what happened to the bill in this Congress, maybe the best way would’ve been between Hillary’s way and this way. » Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 12:06 am Thanks Cher, sometimes you have to bend the silly rules to affect the important ones! » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 11:39 pm Then this breaks the mold since 100% of Republicans oppose the bill and just 1 or 2 voting for it would assure its passage. In fact, 1 or 2 thinking for themselves instead of being mindless robots could support a public option and that would pass as well. Hard to blame Dems for blocking this when only 1 out of 58 oppose it. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 11:35 pm There’s the rub. Dems have a big tent, look how many different perspectives we have just among the members here. Repubs are lemming-like, one opinion fits all. So of course, it’s easier to get robots to all vote the same way. As ChoiceLady said, we have to contact our reps, call and email and not let up. We need to do all we can. That said, my reps are all on the right side of this issue. It is Ben Nelson, Lieberman, etc. who are the problem and they’ve already been bought by the insurance corporations. Just a fantasy but I would love to smack Lieberman so hard his jowls would ripple for a week! » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 11:31 pm Well said! Sorry for misunderstanding your last. You are so right about not allowing ourselves to be herded like sheep by fearful threats into the slaughter house. Dean is right. This bill has killed itself. The Dems need to play hardball, just as the Repubs did when they wanted something passed when they controlled Congress. Nuclear option or Reconciliation, whatever it takes to get a bill that offers real reform passed and into law. As you say, enough with the manipulations, the use of fear and emergencies. If the Dems get this right, they will be rewarded for many years. If they just care about a superficial political victory in just getting something passed, no matter how bad it is, they will pay a huge price by de-motivating their base. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 11:26 pm I think those that think getting any bill passed will boost Obama and the Dems are mistaken. They don’t have their thumb on the pulse of Dems around the country. We are discouraged, de-energized and greatly disappointed by what has been transpiring. If the Dems can’t deliver to us with this huge margin in the Senate, if they aren’t clever or tough enough to use the rules the way Repubs did when they controlled the Senate, how can Dems not feel deeply discouraged with our party? » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 11:12 pm choicelady, I’m behind you on everything you wrote. A few things, it is against Congressional rules to add anything in conference that wasn’t contained in the original bill. If the Senate bill contains no public option, one can’t be added to the version that comes out of conference. This applies to all of the provisions in the House Bill that aren’t reflected in some way in the Senate bill. Conference can’t work miracles or add things the Senate cut out, it can only moderate some of the worst things in it. As for the nuclear option, I am 100% with you on that. If any bill demanded it, this one does and the American people would be grateful for that if it brought back the Public Option and cemented it in. I am not confident about Reid using it though, he has a track record of weakness and rolling over. He was even quoted on Lieberman as saying, “I don’t get frustrated at anyone.” One thing is true, Progressives are pounding on their Reps and Senators to say this will be an outrage and an offense if there’s a mandate and no public option. Who knows what that pressure may change but we have to keep it up to do what we can to get the mandate out if its a mandate for financial slavery to insurance corporations. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 11:07 pm I agree with nearly everything but the idea that anything is better than nothing. We could be voting to cement ourselves deeper into fascism or plutocracy. “Something” is not better than “Something Else” if that “Something” mortally wounds our society. Mandatory purchase of insurance from corporations without a public option is a tyranny. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 10:57 pm Howard Dean, Keith Olbermann, Nate Silver and others have reiterated some or all of the above and they usually are pretty reliable in fact checking before they speak. However, if this is an exception to the rule, do you know of any portions of the bill you could post here which refute any of the above? » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 10:52 pm In addition to K7’s points, I think Obama is hammering the good guys on not being the ones to derail “Health Care” AND impressing on them that if it fails, Obama will be damaged and so will the Dem’s chances in 2010 and 2012. I don’t agree though. It would take months but before the election, the Dems could get single payer/Public Option/Medicare buy in through reconciliation. I hope they do or Dems will be too discouraged to turn out in 2010 and they’ll get massacred. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 10:32 pm Co-sign! » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 10:28 pm Boomer, what was that saying about Reids bending in the wind? Or was it bending over? » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 8:45 pm It’s a four lettered word…R-E-I-D. His track record is one of weakness, concession and failure. As you say, all the tools the Repubs had when controlling the Senate, the Dems have. Including a tool named Reid. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 8:30 pm Cheers Bernard and enjoyed the Leonard Cohen lyrics! » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 8:03 pm We do have to hold Reid responsible for his running of the Senate with this Dem majority. What has happened in the Senate has discouraged even the most faithful Dem. When the Repubs held just a slim majority, they slammed through and used reconciliation to get everything they wanted. I sincerely hope Reid loses his election and someone more capable takes over in the Senate. Even with less Dems, someone with a spine could get more done than this weak and clueless milquetoast. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 7:48 pm Well said, we can’t grow complacent or think that we’re doing something by criticizing those who do nothing. I would say that after reading the posts of many of our members, many here are people whose actions speak as loud as their words. But we can’t become complacent, indeed. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 7:03 pm ABS, appreciate your take on this and your point does make sense. The question is should the U.S. sell off its stock at a loss today or wait since Citibank stock is rising? If we were to wait and realize a better return than we could get today, even with their tax benefit, then we could have not given them the tax break and just have waited a bit longer for the stock to have recovered whatever fraction of the $14 billion value would be reflected in the stock price. As I was pursuing in my article, I think the public would appreciate the government doing the right thing, not giving more handouts to banks just because it might put more money in the government’s pocket. We do want our money back, we could just wait a little longer and still exhibit principles. Rewarding greed is continuing to have a deteriorating effect on our society and this appears just to be a continuation of that. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 6:44 pm Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I was trying to describe two separate parties creating themselves coincidentally at the same time. A 3rd party, say a Teabagger Party comes into being and then later a 4th party comes into being, A Progressive Party. This is not likely. My point is, if a 3rd party started that mainly drew its members from one party, the other party would have a lock…even if it represented a minority of voters. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 6:24 pm Yes it did though the proof that it was not intended to apply in this case is that the government had to make an agreement with Citibank that it would apply in this case. The U.S. took stock in Citibank for some of its bailout, this represented a change in ownership and negated the taking of this tax benefit. So, they made a deal as the article explains to give it to them anyway…even though the law said they couldn’t take it. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 6:18 pm I just don’t buy those results. There are more people who would call themselves conservative after the massive conservative failure of the previous 8 years? When only 20% of voters will call themselves Republican? Doesn’t make sense. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 6:15 pm You’re missing the point. His candidacy collapsed for a number of reasons however these were the results: Bill Clinton – 43% For the first run at a presidency, any 3rd party would see that as huge. KQ was suggesting that moderates wouldn’t be attracted to a 3rd party, I think we could agree that you can’t get to 19% of voters running against the GOP and the Dems without a good deal of moderates. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 6:11 pm First off, welcome to The Planet, aBigSigh! Here is the article that broke the news from the Washington Post. This tax break was not intended to apply during a TARP bailout situation and required the government to decide to give it in this case: The federal government quietly agreed to forgo billions of dollars in potential tax payments from Citigroup as part of the deal announced this week to wean the company from the massive taxpayer bailout that helped it survive the financial crisis. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121504534.html You are absolutely correct in your description of this tax provision, it was not envisioned or intended to be applied to a bank during a period of an emergency government bailout where stock was purchased and affected ownership. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 6:06 pm I’m just speaking hypothetically, the only constructive way to start another party serving the majority would be to counter balanced the desertions it creates from the Dems with a right wing party that similarly draws from the GOP or the majority would end up split and dominated by the right wing minority. So, you would need a Majority Rules Party and a Teabagger Party to start up at the same time. The Teabaggers were looking like they might be starting up their twisted version of a populist party but their ignorance is spilling into their organizational abilities and they seem to be falling apart. Too bad, I would really like to see that happen to hamstring the Repubs and open the door for a legit populist party. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 5:58 pm “Be the change you want to see in the world.” What other solution or response could be as perfect as that to all I addressed? It’s all we can do, it’s the most we can do. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 5:45 pm Agreed KQ, that was my point below to WTS. A 3rd party that slices Progressives off from Dems would guarantee a GOP lock on the presidency. As I mentioned, the only way this could conceivably work is to have two parties added at once, each drawing from one of the two existing parties. But the chances of that happening as it would have to would be astronomical. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 5:43 pm Where do you get that breakdown from? Though I despised him, Ross Perot’s presidential run says something different. Many moderates were attracted to Perot because they saw him as a straight talker and had become very disillusioned with Dems and Repubs. If Obama was to announce in 2012 that he would run under the banner of The American Party, would moderates not follow him if they liked him before? Are people really loyal to a party because of the name or because of its perceived character? What you would need is a candidate that people already liked, then they would be open to voting for him whatever party he was in. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 5:40 pm I think technology has pacified people. Watching tv, playing Wii, even using the computer, we use all this technology to feel we are “doing” something when we’re not. I will take exception when it comes to blogging though, the exchange of ideas and the building of a community that can take action is doing something. But take for an example, the online role playing games like Second Life. People invest huge amounts of their free time in a virtual scenario…which in the end…is totally worthless and meaningless. They could have been spending time with their kids, planting a garden, reading a book, exercising or playing a physical game, thinking and writing about something meaningful (shameless plug), helping someone in need, etc. Technology = passivity. Unless it’s put in it’s place. Technology is fantastic for networking, look at how it worked for the Obama campaign. But by growing accustomed to pushing buttons or touching screens to “accomplish” things, we become less familiar with the simple act of walking on a street with a picket sign in hand. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 5:34 pm Cher, I don’t know. What family can afford a $5,000 deductible every year on top of a $4,000 premium. $9,000 per year a family would be on the hook for. Yes, it’s better than being hammered worse but it’s not the kind of reform that will allow people to get out from under spending more money than they earn. It’s like saying, getting a serious but non-fatal disease is better than dying from a fatal disease. Yes it is. But not getting a disease is what’s best. Insurance shouldn’t cost this much and deductibles shouldn’t be so high. Just because the government is paying off the insurers inflated premiums, it doesn’t make the rates right. We pay way more for health care than most countries, reign in the corruption and markup there and we’ll be where we should be. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 5:26 pm Wonderful and enlightening post, choicelady! » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 5:18 pm You may be right, that could have been the biggest fear of the banks, the GOP and the Bush Admin. As we saw with Obama’s election, things have to get really horrible for the public to voluntarily and dramatically move away from the status quo. » Posted By AdLib On December 16, 2009 @ 5:14 pmComments Posted By AdLib
George H. W. Bush – 37.4%
Ross Perot – 18.9%
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats