Republican Wins Massachusetts senate race [Archive]

CaptainHaplo

01-19-10, 11:20 PM

Torvald - while the Dems tried to play this off as yet another class battle (as you seem to indicate you believe) - this was more about the huge DEBT we as a nation have incurred, and the plans to continue adding to such debt with things like cap and trade, health care reform, etc.

It also doesn't help that the Dems are giving exemptions to their supporters in legislation (such as the unions not having to have their health care taxed for an extra 5 years, but everyone else will as scheduled), deciding who is going to get hit with "recover the TARP money" fees - namely banks - whether they took TARP money or not (which is inherently bogus to take from someone claiming your recovering the money you gave them, when you know they never took it) - as well as letting some groups - like Fannie and Freddie, as well as other groups in other sectors - like GM, not have to pay it back. That alone is like saying that well, Ford didn't take any bailout money, but they have to pay it back anyway....

The reality is that the majority of the people - of EVERY stripe politically - are by and large concerned with the direction of the country. This isn't isolated, other recent elections have shown the same thing. The problem isn't that people are standing up for this or that group - the problem is that the Democrats have been in control and claiming they are standing up for the "little guy" - but the reality is they are instead more concerned about their own power and agenda to even listen to the little guy. Ultimately, they have looked at the people and said "we know you don't like what we are doing, but shut up and sit down because we know what we are doing and your opinions dont matter" - or as Pelosi said - "We hear them, but it won't change anything". That is what has caused this backlash, and make no mistake, this is a HUGE blow to the Democratic party as a whole.

MothBalls

01-19-10, 11:42 PM

Brings a whole new meaning to 'paint the town red'. The Dems are about to paint the entire country red.

Aramike

01-20-10, 12:24 AM

Wow, does anyone realize how huge of a story this is? This practically overnight changes the very face of the healthcare debate, cap and trade, and even President Obama's mandate.

It also shows people for who they are - the Democrats, who I typically find to be far more emotionally driven rather than intellectually, have yet again proven that through their insistance at their mandate, and their claims of the other party being practically dead.

They just lost in the most fortified liberal stronghold in America, and they lost the very seat held by the so-called "Liberal Lion".

Wake up: Americans are pissed. The trillion dollar bailout, the FAKE claims about its successes, the claims of jobs being saved when they were only government employees getting raises, etc, have only served to make John Q. Public grow tired of the BS. Now we have clear promises of transparency broken and a group of politicians who care only about passing legislation that we can neither afford nor do we WANT, and the wake-up call has been issued.

Thank God - liberal arrogance is astonishing, considering that these people claim to be the most open-minded amongst us.

August

01-20-10, 12:38 AM

Coakleys negative campaigning turned a lot of people to Brown as well. Not to mention getting caught in an outright lie about treatment for rape victims of all things.

nikimcbee

01-20-10, 12:41 AM

OMG a soda out the nose moment... :har:

:haha:

Hopefully this will be the high water mark for socialism in the US:woot:

Jianaran

01-20-10, 01:42 AM

Oh dear, yet more fearmongering at work...
I must say, I still find it pretty funny how what the US calls "left-wing" is the rest of the world's right, and as soon as a party tries to act left-of-centre, they're branded socialist. It'd be almost funny, if you guys weren't the biggest economy in the world.

Anyway, I hope for America's sake that Obama can get the health-care through and keep it up before he and his party are torn apart by the misinformed public. The fact is, America's healthcare system as it currently stands is one of the most expensive and least effective ones in the civilised world.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Health_care_cost_rise.PNG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system#Cross-country_comparisons
Look at those charts: The US is clearly spending a lot more than most other people. Look at the link: in general, they're getting less for it.
(there was a better diagram in the latest National Geographic, but I don't have a scanner and I can't find it online)

Whilst Obama certainly isn't perfect, he seems from here (australia) to be the best president you guys have had for some time. I also greatly respect him for moving away from the ultraconservative political view that America seems to have fallen into in recent decades. As I said earlier, trying to fix healthcare isn't socialism (which apparently = communism, which is apparently a very bad thing), it's merely a return to sanity.

FIREWALL

01-20-10, 02:21 AM

Where's China, India and other high population countries like the U.S on your graphs ?

Of course we spend more. We have more people.

magic452

01-20-10, 02:53 AM

Your graphs may or may not be accurate I really don't know, they most certainly do not justify passing a very bad reform bill.

Obamacare in no way does anything to improve the situation, but just the opposite makes health care spending rise dramatically, cuts benefits for many and does almost nothing to improve health care.

I'm retired and on Medicare and have been paying into it since it's inception and 1/10 for my social Security check goes to paying even more. Add the fact that I have to pay $200.00 a month in supplemental insurance to get even reasonably good health care coverage. Now this idiot wants to take away some of my benefits and give them to someone else for free.

He may seem good to you over 8,000 miles away in Australia but you don't have to pay the bill that this idiot has run up. He would look good to me too if he was 8,000 miles away on another continent and I wish he was.

The last idiot we had and this one we have now are actually making Bill Clinton look pretty good, could stand the man myself, but even though he didn't accomplish much he didn't screw up much either.

I have been around since the Eisenhower administration and in all those years I have seen some pretty bad politicians but nothing to compare to the slim balls we have running our country for the last year, and the previous bunch wasn't much better. Back to back idiots.

Just for fun go find a graph that shows percentage of tax paid in all those countries and see just how cheap health care really is.

Public option health care is not Socialisum but it's a very big step in that direction, one I don't care to take.

There are far better ways to repair health care than Obamacare. Let's start there and fix what we can than see about getting better care for those that can't get it or afford it.

Magic

Tribesman

01-20-10, 03:34 AM

Just for fun go find a graph that shows percentage of tax paid in all those countries and see just how cheap health care really is.

Tax rates in the first two countries on the graph .
#1. up to 39% plus up to 12%
#2. up to 25%

#1. up to 35% plus up to 10%
#2. up to 13%

#1. 15%
#2. nothing

#1. up to 10%
#2. up to 7%
Looks like yours is the more expensive

Of course we spend more. We have more people.
OK, what does percentage mean?

magic452

01-20-10, 10:13 AM

Switzerland??????
Try some of the ones that actually spend money on defense???? No offense to the Swiss.
Don't know where you got those numbers but there are millions in this country that pay no taxes and in fact get refundable tax credits.

OK, what does percentage mean?

You don't understand the theories of Economy of Scale or Diminishing Returns do you?

But yes we do spend too much on health care and too many people don't get what they need.

1) Until there is reform in the way insurance is sold, (intrastate only), Not being able to buy insurance any were in the country from any company only adds complexity and expense for no benefit and lack of competition also adds to cost. No where is this addressed by Obamacare.

2) Reform tort laws involving health care, ($100,000,000.00+ lawsuits which the lawyers pocket 30 to 50%) This is also missing from Obamacare.

3) Prescription drugs is no doubt one the fastest rising health care cost in this country. Foreign countries get US drugs at a fraction of the cost we pay, forcing all the R&D cost on us. Yet we don't get the same in return for non US drugs. Most of this is a result of free trade agreements.

I have seen my mom's drug expense more than double in the last 5 years.
She is reasonably healthy for 96 years but does take a few drugs. My neighbor has Dietaries and his drug expense is in the thousands per month and has also doubled in the last 5 years. # 2 above also applies here as well. None of this is addressed by Obamacare.

4) Fix Medicare and Medicaid before adding millions of new people to the list. And in the proses passing much of the cost to the states with no funding. That alone would bankrupt California ( but not Nebraska!)

These are just a few things that need to be addressed before going to a more comprehensive reform.

We have a broken health care system here but that is no reason to pass a very bad bill that makes the system even worse.

Not to mention the slime way this administration is forcing this abomination down our throats.

Magic

SteamWake

01-20-10, 10:36 AM

Besides its not all about health care ;)

Ships-R-Us

01-20-10, 10:59 AM

Un f in believeale. I spent time in Ashland as a youngster as well as a summer cottage in Barnstable. My SS# begins with 001 and I am proud of it.....You need an Ohio Class sub, Trident 2's and MIRVS, and take the bas.... out......Ships.........PS: where do you live there August? Have a good one and go get 'em.

Tribesman

01-20-10, 11:00 AM

Switzerland??????
Try some of the ones that actually spend money on defense???? No offense to the Swiss.

A percentage of GDP spent on healthcare is a percentage GDP spent on healthcare.
Don't know where you got those numbers but there are millions in this country that pay no taxes and in fact get refundable tax credits.

Just like in other countries on the list then.
Though of course Switzerland is a prime choice as its rather famous as somewhere to avoid tax
You don't understand the theories of Economy of Scale or Diminishing Returns do you?

So with the application of that theory you should be able to perform better than countries with higher tax rates as their revenue would be more diminished....look at the graph in question, them famously high tax countries score much better than the US don't they.

SteamWake

01-20-10, 12:39 PM

WASHINGTON, Jan 20 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama will stick to his policy agenda despite his Democratic Party's loss of a key Senate seat in a Massachusetts special election, a top White House aide said on Wednesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2014253120100120

GoldenRivet

01-20-10, 12:43 PM

B.O.

wholly a fool is he.

Snestorm

01-20-10, 12:52 PM

The graf is immaterial, as THE PEOPLE of USA are opposed to the bill.
That is what the real battle is about:
"Representatives" that do NOT represent!
Tossing all offenders, regardless of party, is the only solution.

GoldenRivet

01-20-10, 12:58 PM

"Representatives" that do NOT represent!
Tossing all offenders, regardless of party, is the only solution.

absolutely.

i think many people in America are in agreement over this very issue.

nikimcbee

01-20-10, 04:17 PM

The best part was, watching MSNBC last night:haha:.

AngusJS

01-20-10, 04:25 PM

So a republican losing in a Republican stronghold in northern NY isn't a repudiation of Republicans, but a Democrat losing in a Democratic stronghold is? Funny how that works.

Coakley a few days ago:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2010/01/13/campaigns_brevity_shapes_coakley_image_on_trail/

Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.

“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that. “This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the [Salem] School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet.’’Candidate fail. She ran an atrocious campaign, and paid the price for it.

But dissatisfaction might be playing a part. Obama has been a poor president. His banking reform is pathetic, and he showed 0 leadership during the health care debate, so now we have a gift to the insurance industry rather than real reform.

Oh well. I'm sure when the Republicans get back in power, we can expect real health care and financial reform.

:haha::rotfl2::haha:

GoldenRivet

01-20-10, 05:03 PM

Oh well. I'm sure when the Republicans get back in power, we can expect real health care and financial reform.

That is the hope of most Republicans i know.

"we" on the right want a system that is a good, fair, and bipartisan reform.

"we" on the right DONT want a bill of thousands of pages of pet projects and TRILLIONS upon trillions of dollars in wasted efforts rushed through legislation in a matter of just a few months.

anyone who would want such a thing is a moron. end of story.

all i know... typically with Republicans in office, I have done well financially.

with a democrat in office, i usually have not.

Platapus

01-20-10, 05:58 PM

My state, about as blue as they get, just elected a Republican to Ted Kennedys former senate seat. :o Can you believe it?

Well one or more of the following four reasons could have accounted for it depending on the individual voter.

1. They truly thought that Brown was the best candidate
2. They wanted any Republican to be voted into office
3. They truly thought that Coakley was not the best candidate
4. They did not want any Democrat to be voted in office

So were the voters voting for Brown/Republican or were they voting against Coakley/Democrat?

Judging from the campaign that Coakley ran, it may be been a case of not that the Republicans won, but that the Democrats lost the election.

I feel there are similarities with the Governor race in Virginia. The Democratic candidates may have thought it was a sho-in, and I can see some of the arrogrance that was in Deeds (Virginia) showing up in Coakley (Mass).

There is no such thing as a safe political race. Coakley is no Kennedy. Kennedy could hold that seat for a few centuries, but that was because he was a Kennedy. It was hubris of Coakley to think that simply because she had a (D) after her name she was a sho-in....as she learned.

I hope that Brown serves Mass and the United States hounorably.

CaptainHaplo

01-20-10, 07:45 PM

The reality of this has yet to sink in for most folks....

Yes, Democrats outnumber Republicans 3:1 in Mass....

Yes Republicans are the minority party there....

But what is KEY - is that the BIGGEST political party in MASS - is INDEPENDANTS. The same independants that helped put the President in office, and give Democrats control of both houses, with a super majority in the senate.

Those same independants don't really care one whit for the letter beside your name. Was this a "Resounding" victory for Republicans? Not really. What it was however was a resounding victory for conservative ISSUES - restraining government, lowering taxes, etc. Brown would never have won without the independants. He won because his MESSAGE resonated with them.

Liberal leaders are split right now - with some claiming that this result is the result of the far left movement not moving FAST enough. They say "If only we went farther left faster we would win again!". Those that hold this idea are ignoring the reality of the INDEPENDANT electorate. They are the one that said we will support a candidate that will try and HALT the far left movement of our government.

Pelosi and Reid and Frank and a few others are going to do all they can to jam this health care bill and a few other things (cap and trade, immigration "reform") through. They WILL fail. The blue dog Dems are seeing the writing on the wall, and they know their ONLY hope to keep their own seats is to hold to the values of their constituents. Without the blue dogs, as well as a few other moderate democrats who are also bailing out, there is no way the major policy shifts will succeed.

Expect the next major push publicly will be for another stimulus bill to "help energize job growth". However - do a little research - more than half of the previous stimulus package is currently unspent....

MothBalls

01-20-10, 09:35 PM

Think about this.

The entire decision about National Health Care, and quite possibly a few other decisions of that scale and magnitude over the next 2 years, now rest on the shoulders of the Junior Senator from Massachusetts.

Maybe they should give him a Nobel Prize, quickly, before he has the chance to make a decision or screw something up*.

He's going to be telling himself "This job sucks". I wouldn't want to be him. Talk about being under the microscope.

*Is it too soon to make bridge jokes?

CaptainHaplo

01-20-10, 09:56 PM

They don't rest JUST with him. They rest on all 100 senators, 435 representatives, and 1 president.

What this does mean is that it no longer rests on JUST 60 senators voting in lockstep.

Any of the people can contact their senator or representative and let them know where the people stand.

Trying to twist it into somehow this one senator now has some major power is wrong - both intellectually and factually. What has happened is a major CHECK to the power that sits currently.

Subnuts

01-20-10, 10:16 PM

He's a republican...in Massachusetts.

Which makes him a dirty stinking commie in large parts of the country. :haha:

August

01-20-10, 10:19 PM

What this does mean is that it no longer rests on JUST 60 senators voting in lockstep.

But that never existed. Not every Democrat was going to vote yes (and not every Republican was going to vote no). So this whole 60 vote thing is nothing but a smoke screen designed to do, what?

Trying to twist it into somehow this one senator now has some major power is wrong - both intellectually and factually. What has happened is a major CHECK to the power that sits currently.

This ^

The reason I voted for Brown is not because he was a Republican but because I hate the idea that both houses of Congress are in the hands of a single party.

GoldenRivet

01-20-10, 10:40 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY&feature=topvideos

AngusJS

01-20-10, 10:44 PM

That is the hope of most Republicans i know.

"we" on the right want a system that is a good, fair, and bipartisan reform.That's why Republicans did nothing about it for the past 8 years.

Snestorm

01-20-10, 10:51 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY&feature=topvideos

Five Stars!

August

01-20-10, 11:13 PM

That's why Republicans did nothing about it for the past 8 years.

He said "bipartisan".

GoldenRivet

01-20-10, 11:39 PM

That's why Republicans did nothing about it for the past 8 years.

I think republicans were too busy making sure Mohammad didnt bomb our asses into oblivion

all the while the democrats were too busy trying to not hurt Mohammad's feelings

AngusJS

01-21-10, 08:49 AM

I think republicans were too busy making sure Mohammad didnt bomb our asses into oblivion

all the while the democrats were too busy trying to not hurt Mohammad's feelingsSurely if fixing health care is merely an issue of removing regulation and letting the industry fix itself, they could have found time at some point in those 8 YEARS to do so.

But I forgot, Democrats are terrorist loving communists while the Republicans are brave defenders of the American way.

:zzz:

AVGWarhawk

01-21-10, 09:33 AM

GoldenRivet

01-21-10, 11:52 AM

Surely if fixing health care is merely an issue of removing regulation and letting the industry fix itself, they could have found time at some point in those 8 YEARS to do so.

But I forgot, Democrats are terrorist loving communists while the Republicans are brave defenders of the American way.

:zzz:

The bill must be BIPARTISAN in its scope.

you cant have morons like Pelosi saying things like "Don't even discuss this bill with republicans." the united states governmental system is a TWO WAY STREET rather that stupid C*** pelosi realizes it or not.

while you cant make all the Democrats happy and all the republicans happy at the same time... you CAN make compromises, and not conduct public business in secret. you can also put a bill out there that has the SUPPORT of 76% of the nation rather than the DISDAIN of 76% of the nation!

they can put a bill out there that has the support of the medical personnel that will have to work under it every single day... the people who are already in the industry, that know the system... when those people are saying "This health care bill is a big problem and we need to think of other ways to fix this." do they not merit at least LISTENING TO?????

who knows better? the surgeons, doctors, nurses in the industry? or some out of touch old woman on the hill?

here is a novel idea - PUT CONGRESS ON THE SAME HEALTH CARE PLAN!!!

the American people are smart enough to know when they are being screwed.

what would you say if i tried to sell you a lawn mower for $50,000 and told you it was the best lawn mower in the world... and when you asked me if i would be using that same lawn mower i laughed and said "hahahahahah hell no! are you crazy?"

i'll be you wouldnt buy it!

removing regulation from the health care industry will NOT let the industry fix itself, it will allow blatant abuses of the system and things get worse.

Turning it over fully to government control will not fix the system either... it will fall apart, just like medicare, just like social security, just like every other government run chartity funded by very real public dollars it will be FLAT ASS BROKE.

if we go forward with this trillion dollar health care bill NOW...

we will be creating a problem ten times that size 15 to 20 years down range.

sorry... im not willing to screw my kids and grand kids and great grand kids over Obama and Pelosi's love child health care bill... have we learned NOTHING from social security?

you want to fix health care in this nation? i have a great place we can start...

elementary school.

yup.

considering many of the top 10 life threatening diseases in America are the result of obesity (in fact i think almost ALL of them are caused by obesity)... and further considering that kids are only required to take ONE health class and ONE P.E. class throughout middle and high school.

Further consider that education is so under-funded that school districts have to sign million dollar deals with Coca-Cola or Pepsi to exclusively offer their products to school children.

Go even further and consider that many school districts will allow Ketchup to be counted as the required daily vegitable serving in their cafeteria!!! It does the kid no good to eat ketchup if he or she is squirting it on a big basket of greasy french fries.

thats ridiculous!

there are a number of ways to approach the problem that do not involve robbing peter to pay paul.

second to that... DO AWAY WITH SOCIAL SECURITY... if they did away with SS first thing tomorrow morning effective immediately - it wouldnt be soon enough.

put that money back into the hands of the American People where it's needed and useful!

I paid almost $3,000 into social security last year, AND FOR WHAT?

so i could qualify for an extra $52 per month when i finally retire?

hell no... i would much rather have put that money into my own retirement instead of just throwing it out onto the street for everyone else to pick up and get LESS OF

August

01-21-10, 12:10 PM

Excellent post GR.

Oh and:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/Another/speeches_on_cable.jpg

No such thing as media bias, nope... :nope:

Tribesman

01-21-10, 12:40 PM

How did Bill Clinton do with the terrorists? How many attacks? How many answered? How did he do with healthcare that Hillary was working on? :hmmm: Oh, and Obama, eye on the ball. Baddies in Afghanistan, no wait, Yemen, no wait......
Isn't it ironic that you say that when it is the agreements Clinton put in place which are being used to bomb Yemen again.

AngusJS

01-21-10, 08:11 PM

you CAN make compromisesThat's all they've been doing - making compromises with people who aren't going to vote for the bill anyway. The result: half a baby.

you can also put a bill out there that has the SUPPORT of 76% of the nation rather than the DISDAIN of 76% of the nation!A large part of that 76% wants real reform, and is disappointed with the cop-outs and half measures in the bill, along with the largess.

they can put a bill out there that has the support of the medical personnel that will have to work under it every single day... the people who are already in the industry, that know the system... when those people are saying "This health care bill is a big problem and we need to think of other ways to fix this."http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790

Most doctors supported the public option.

here is a novel idea - PUT CONGRESS ON THE SAME HEALTH CARE PLAN!!!That's been included in reverse - letting the Office of Personnel Management put contracts up for bid to provide health insurance that ordinary people can buy into. But it's not clear if that will survive reconciliation. And while Lieberboy says he might support it, you can probably chalk that up as another lie.

Turning it over fully to government control will not fix the system eitherIT'S NOT FULL GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL. It was never even close to it.

it will fall apart, just like medicare, just like social security, just like every other government run chartity funded by very real public dollars it will be FLAT ASS BROKE.It's not a charity if it's funded by the premiums of people buying into the plan.

if we go forward with this trillion dollar health care bill NOW...

we will be creating a problem ten times that size 15 to 20 years down range.If we do nothing now, health care costs will go up by another 100% in 10 years time.

We did something, a hell of a lot more than the Republicans ever did. But Obama let Congress run in a million different directions, he let the Right frame the issue and monopolize the debate, and at the end he and the Senate leadership caved into Lieberboy et al.

you want to fix health care in this nation? i have a great place we can start...

elementary school.:rotfl2:

Or we could look at...oh, I don't know...EVERY OTHER FIRST WORLD COUNTRY and see how they handle health care, and do it better for less cost.

Nah, let's just concentrate on school lunches and phys ed. Small stuff, that, while important, come no where near to the crux of the problem.

August

01-21-10, 08:45 PM

Lieberboy et al.

Why do Democrats always have to have a scapegoat to blame their parties flaws upon? The truth is the Democrats with solid majorities in both houses of Congress and in control of the White House, had a golden opportunity to make real progress on something they claim is so important to them and they blew it, Not Senator Lieberman, who btw their party first put into office, not the Republicans, not George Bush, not anyone else but the Democratic party.

They caved to the unions and other special interests, loaded their bill with astronomical amounts of pork and patronage, and then tried unsuccessfully to hide the details long enough to sneak this abortion under the nose of the American people even though they knew that ultimately it would not solve the health care issue and end up costing the taxpayer even more than he pays now. BTW expect another wave of pissed offedness when folks start doing their taxes this year and get to see the repeal of those Bush era tax cuts in dollars and cents.

Meanwhile the Dems tossed band aids at the real problem the people put their party into power in the first place. To paraphrase a Clinton era Democrat; "It's the economy stupid". Unemployment is running at 10% and the economy shows little sign of recovery. I have to say that if they don't expect to get "Scott Browned" on a national level come November the leadership of the Democratic party had better get on the stick and quick.

Platapus

01-21-10, 08:46 PM

... But Obama let Congress run in a million different directions...

Just a minor but important nit to pick until it bleeds.

The President does not LET congress do anything. Congress does not work for, nor are they accountable to the President.

Every congress, regardless of majority, makes damn sure that every President, regardless of party, know that.

The President ASKS congress. He or she does not TELL congress.

The President can attempt to use his charisma or his political capitol, but in the end, all he can do is ask.

That is an important part of the separation of powers.

Snestorm

01-21-10, 09:15 PM

Or we could look at...oh, I don't know...EVERY OTHER FIRST WORLD COUNTRY and see how they handle health care, and do it better for less cost.

In Danmark hospital workers are being layed off because
THE MONEY IS NO LONGER THERE.

AngusJS

01-21-10, 09:24 PM

Just a minor but important nit to pick until it bleeds.

The President does not LET congress do anything. Congress does not work for, nor are they accountable to the President.Obviously that's the case. But the President is the leader of the party, and he can set the agenda. During his health care address, he could have said "Any legislation that does not reduce health care costs by X percent is getting vetoed."

He could have used his pulpit to raise the cost of Lieberboy's opposition to the bill.

He could have done something.

But no, we're supposed to be post-partisan now, so he did what amounted to bupkis.

AngusJS

01-21-10, 09:58 PM

Why do Democrats always have to have a scapegoat to blame their parties flaws upon? In this instance, Lieberboy does deserve a lot of the blame. He supported a Medicare buy-in in September (IIRC), but upon hearing that some Democrats were toying with the idea, flip-flopped.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/lieberman-the-fallout/?hp

Mr. Lieberman had supported the Medicare buy-in proposal in the past — both as the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee in 2000 and in more recent discussions about the health care system. In an interview this year, he reiterated his support for the concept.

But in the interview, Mr. Lieberman said that he grew apprehensive when a formal proposal began to take shape. He said he worried that the program would lead to financial trouble and contribute to the instability of the existing Medicare program.

And he said he was particularly troubled by the overly enthusiastic reaction to the proposal by some liberals, including Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, who champions a fully government-run health care system.

“Congressman Weiner made a comment that Medicare-buy in is better than a public option, it’s the beginning of a road to single-payer,” Mr. Lieberman said. “Jacob Hacker, who’s a Yale professor who is actually the man who created the public option, said, ‘This is a dream. This is better than a public option. This is a giant step.’”

Some Democratic senators who have discussed the health care proposal with Mr. Lieberman have said his positions are inconsistent and at times incoherent. Some say he is shifting further to the right politically in anticipation of a re-election bid in 2012.The way he acted throughout the process gives the impression that he's doing this out of spite for being primaried.

The truth is the Democrats with solid majoritiesAs it turned out, not really. The Democrats had a ~54 seat majority in the Senate; the other senators either had conservative constituencies, or were Lieberboy.

...had a golden opportunity to make real progress on something they claim is so important to them and they blew itThis is true. Regardless of the shakiness of the Senate majority, the Democratic leadership could have done so much better, and deserve most of the blame.

Meanwhile the Dems tossed band aids at the real problem the people put their party into power in the first place. To paraphrase a Clinton era Democrat; "It's the economy stupid". Unemployment is running at 10% and the economy shows little sign of recovery. Well, we have stopped losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month.

Of course maybe that's because there are no more jobs to lose. :D

I have to say that if they don't expect to get "Scott Browned" on a national level come November the leadership of the Democratic party had better get on the stick and quick.I agree. Obama's policies have done little to ensure that another financial crisis on the scale of 08 won't happen again.

Of course, I'm not sure Republican policies would be all that much better. In fact, if we had "let them fail" as a lot of conservatives were saying, we might now be wishing we could have just a 10% unemployment rate as opposed to what we'd have if the unchecked financial meltdown had resulted in the China Syndrome.

CaptainHaplo

01-21-10, 09:59 PM

The failure of the health care "reform" bill does not lay at the foot of the President.

It lays squarely at the feet of Pelosi and Reid.

Yes - the President has a "bully pulpit" - and President Obama can use it. But the ones who shepharded this monstrosity through, who ok'd the various "payments" for votes, who tried to hide the contents from the people, are the 2 leaders in Congress.

Had Obama stood up and said "This is an unacceptable bill for X,Y,Z reasons" - regardless of if they were issues on the public option, costs, how to pay for it, etc - could he have helped shape the public opinion about the bill? Yes - but only in the negative.

The only fault that President Obama is responsible for regarding this bill not getting done is telling his party that he wanted a bill on his desk to sign before the State of the Union address so that he could tout it as the "big accomplishment". Had the Leadership had the ability to backdoor this piece by piece, and not been greedy, some form of this uglyness would have been alot more solidly on its way to being law before the end of this year.

But the writing is on the wall for the President. He will be a one term president, and so they wanted to avoid the mistakes of the past few presidents of both parties - and instead "secure" Obama's legacy and have a springboard for more far left movement in the government.

Greed caused impatience - and impatience "kills" political momentum as assuredly as it kills in combat.

August

01-21-10, 10:23 PM

The way he acted throughout the process gives the impression that he's doing this out of spite for being primaried.

Or he didn't agree with their methods and means more likely. Does your mangling of his name indicate some personal dislike of the man?

As it turned out, not really. The Democrats had a ~54 seat majority in the Senate.

That is a solid majority, especially when you count the RINOs like Snow and Chaffee. Then there is the HoR.

Of course, I'm not sure Republican policies would be all that much better. In fact, if we had "let them fail" as a lot of conservatives were saying, we might now be wishing we could have just a 10% unemployment rate as opposed to what we'd have if the unchecked financial meltdown had resulted in the China Syndrome.

This could be true I suppose. In 1929 nothing was done and in the ensuing great depression the unemployment rate went up to 25%. It remains unproven however that today's 10% would have been worse without government interference. It is also no guarantee that it won't get there this year or next.

CaptainHaplo

01-21-10, 11:07 PM

Actually the chicken in every pot socialistic ideals of the New Deal, along with other highly destructive actions of FDR - kept the country from seeing its way out of the Great Depression for an extended time frame.

The Great Depression is held to have started on Oct 24th of 1929 - so called "Black Thursday". It is commonly held to have ended anywhere from 1939 to 1941 - depending on how you define the end. It was only with the military trade and buildup within the US that the depression ended.

The New Deal is but one of many failures that were supposed to rescue the economy and thus the people. It, combined with things like taking the US off the gold standard, arbitrarily setting the price of gold (by executive decree - which really was illegal), the seizing of privately owned gold, etc - did nothing more than pull the bottom out of the currency, devaluing it greatly and thus impoverishing many more people, as well as increasing the hardship on all the people. This resulted in the inability of the economy to recover since the capital it needed to do so was devalued.

The parallels to today - and the flagrant increasing of our national debt (which significantly devalues our currency) are no coincidence. While the motives may be great, the paths to accomplish them have the opposite of the intended effect. Until spending by the government is reigned in (meaning less social programs and not more of them) as well as the deficit addressed with more than a band aid and yet another set of books - any recovery will be long in coming.

Study your history, or repeat it.

AngusJS

01-22-10, 09:44 AM

Or he didn't agree with their methods and means more likely. Does your mangling of his name indicate some personal dislike of the man?Again, it doesn't appear that Lieberboy was standing on principle. A policy that he was advocating a few months ago suddenly became unacceptable when other Dems brought it up.

Reforming our asinine system was too important to let personal issues get in the way. But it appears that that's just what happened.

That is a solid majority, especially when you count the RINOs like Snow and Chaffee. Then there is the HoR.

It's not a filibuster-proof majority.

August

01-22-10, 10:07 AM

It's not a filibuster-proof majority.

but it's definitely close enough for any bill that enjoys even the least bit of bipartisan support Angus. Apparently it doesn't even have the support of democrat leaning independants. That should tell you something right there.

I don't like my government being run by one party, be they Democrats or Republicans.

Snestorm

01-22-10, 01:45 PM

I don't like my government being run by one party, be they Democrats or Republicans.

Which is why a multi-party system could be advantagiouse to the american people.

OneToughHerring

01-22-10, 02:18 PM

but it's definitely close enough for any bill that enjoys even the least bit of bipartisan support Angus. Apparently it doesn't even have the support of democrat leaning independants. That should tell you something right there.

I don't like my government being run by one party, be they Democrats or Republicans.

Well come on over to Finland, we've got all kinds of little parties like the Swedish Democrats. They have their own minister post in the present government and a seat in the European parliament, from Finland. I'm a Finn and lived here all my life and it boggles my mind how that can be.

August

01-22-10, 03:17 PM

Which is why a multi-party system could be advantagiouse to the american people.

Maybe, as long as they don't run a parliamentary system where the biggest winner takes all.

Snestorm

01-22-10, 05:02 PM

Maybe, as long as they don't run a parliamentary system where the biggest winner takes all.

100% agreed.
Preportionate representation works best.

GoldenRivet

01-22-10, 05:37 PM

its not about the number of seats

its not about the filibuster

its about the American people standing up, making their votes count.

and the people of Massachusetts have sent every senator in the United States a message that they are not immune from being voted off the effing island :up:

any senator with his whits about him or her will think to themselves, boy, if i dont straighten up and start listening to the majority i'll be unemployed come November

Snestorm

01-22-10, 06:21 PM

Other posative steps could be:

1: Government funding of elections.

2: No campaigne contributions in excess of USD 100.

3: No lobbyist contributions AT ALL.

(An end to legalized graft).

August

01-22-10, 08:01 PM

Other posative steps could be:

1: Government funding of elections.

2: No campaigne contributions in excess of USD 100.

3: No lobbyist contributions AT ALL.

(An end to legalized graft).

I gotta disagree to at least number 1. Your intentions are honorable but total government funding means total government control of who can run. Bad idea. To get Ralph Nadar off the ballot in the 04 election the Dems were forced to bring suit in each and every state. A lengthy and expensive process that was not very successful. Now imagine if all they had to do was convince a government administrator, possibly himself a dem appointee to wipe a candidate off the ballot nationwide in one stroke?

Snestorm

01-22-10, 09:12 PM

I gotta disagree to at least number 1. Your intentions are honorable but total government funding means total government control of who can run. Bad idea. To get Ralph Nadar off the ballot in the 04 election the Dems were forced to bring suit in each and every state. A lengthy and expensive process that was not very successful. Now imagine if all they had to do was convince a government administrator, possibly himself a dem appointee to wipe a candidate off the ballot nationwide in one stroke?

You may very well be right here. Although it does work in Danmark, the huge population difference between the lands, would certainly create difficulties for the same principal to work in USA. (The entire population of Danmark is only half that of New York City).

Scratch number 1.

magic452

01-22-10, 11:56 PM

You may very well be right here. Although it does work in Danmark, the huge population difference between the lands, would certainly create difficulties for the same principal to work in USA. (The entire population of Danmark is only half that of New York City).

Scratch number 1.

A little off topic but wouldn't that same logic apply to government run health care. A point I have been trying to make for quit some time.

Harry Reid was already running scared here in Nevada, 5 or 6 adds on every local channel during the news hours. Most featuring Health Care.
He has been doing this for at least 6 months now.

Funny I didn't see any tonight. Maybe I just missed them. :rotfl2:

Can only hope that he is next. If we can get through the next few months maybe we have a chance. We sure need some new blood in DC.
At least it takes the new guys a little time before they become just like the old guys.
We need health Care Reform but one that works, done in a sensible way with support from all parties, dems, repbs and independents as well.

Campaign funding is a horrible mess and I afraid that the USSC just made it worse. The amount of money spent on campaigns will increase dramatically and I'm afraid that it will be to the debtrment of the American people.

Magic

Snestorm

01-23-10, 12:56 AM

A little off topic but wouldn't that same logic apply to government run health care. A point I have been trying to make for quit some time.

Do you trust your government enough to carry the ball alone?
Government owned and staffed hospitals?
Health insurance premiums replaced by higher taxes?
The end of medical lawsuits? (No more $ for injuries).

In my opinion, it's all or nothing. Anything in between is a recipe for exploitation of the system, and the people.

magic452

01-23-10, 02:19 AM

No I don't trust the government enough to run health care, hospitals. etc.
One of the reasons is that the government is so distant from the people.

This thread is a perfect example of this. Health care reform was supposed to be passed last August without any debate or input from anyone other than a few Democrats. People protesting delayed it and if there hadn't been a special election it would have passed now by hook or crook.

Would you trust a government that bribed Senators the way this bunch just did, or tried to sneak it into law without anybody even having a chance to read it?

What I was tying to say is though government health care may work in a country with a much smaller population and much smaller area doesn't mean it will work here. There is too diverse a population here for a one size fits all approach. Different regions and different gropes have very much different needs. A health care system that works good here in Nevada most certainly would not be good in L A or New York city.

A very good example is Medicare Advantage plans, Government paid HMOs. My brother was on one and he received excellent health care in Nevada but I know others in L A that received very poor care under the same system run by the same company.

Magic

Snestorm

01-23-10, 04:33 PM

No I don't trust the government enough to run health care, hospitals. etc.
One of the reasons is that the government is so distant from the people.

You and I agree here.

People protesting delayed it and if there hadn't been a special election it would have passed now by hook or crook.

Both hook and crook, IMO.

Would you trust a government that bribed Senators the way this bunch just did, or tried to sneak it into law without anybody even having a chance to read it?

Even less than you do. (My distrust is by-partisan).

What I was tying to say is though government health care may work in a country with a much smaller population and much smaller area doesn't mean it will work here. There is too diverse a population here for a one size fits all approach. Different regions and different gropes have very much different needs. A health care system that works good here in Nevada most certainly would not be good in L A or New York city.
Magic

There is a big difference in that Danmark is THE STATE, while USA is supposed to be comprised of 50 States. (State, Nation, Country, all have the same meaning). From my prespective, this is another power-grab by the Federal Government from the "States". I have to put that word in quotation marks, as the constitutional power of the states has been by-passes enough to render them as merely servile provinces.

The People are supposed to control The States, who in turn control The Federal Government. Unfortunately, the process seems to have been completely reversed. The People must take back control of their States, who in turn must take back their control of The Federal Government.

I don't see Federal Health Care as being permissable by The US Constitution, other than by the very broadest of definitions.

USA is not alone. I see the same problems arising from the central powers of "The United States of Europe" (The EU), which I am opposed to. I do not wish to see Danmark reduced from a State to a Province, under an overly controling central government.

Would I trust The EU with a One Size Fits All Health Care Package?
HELL NO! I don't trust The EU, or The UN, with anything.

Platapus

01-23-10, 09:01 PM

But the writing is on the wall for the President. He will be a one term president...

People were saying the same thing about Bush.

It depends not only on how the public feels about Obama, but also how the public feels about whoever is running against him next time. If the Republicans give us crap again, it is likely Obama gets another term.

In order for an incumbent to be replaced two circumstances must be present

1. The citizens must feel that reelecting the incumbent would be bad

AND

2. The citizens must feel that electing the opponent would be good.

This is what happened to Bush in 2004. Bush had low approval rates, but what the Democrats were offering was not "that" much better. In politics the tie often goes to the incumbent.

"I am not Bush" did not work in 2004 and "I am not Obama" won't work in 2012. It would behoove both parties if they understood that.

Oberon

01-24-10, 09:13 AM

I happened to catch a report on the World Service which talked about Scott Brown, and he sounds a voteable guy, if half of what it said about him is true then it's little wonder that he got in. He seems to be a rather middle road Republican, a sort of 'Republican-lite' compared to the oft-portrayed (by left leaning media it must be said) right-wing heavies.
It doesn't hurt that he's got the looks and charisma. Heck, the guy is a walking talking vote winner, he's got an American Idol semi-finalist as a daughter, a news reporter as a wife, he swims, he cycles, he runs, he's Downtown Scotty Brown in the hoops, he's in the National Guard, he's a model and he raises money for Nuns who make candy for children.

This guy is going to go far. He's a walking campaign winner I'd say. :yep: We could see a President Brown in 2012. If I were American I'd probably vote for him and I'm more left wing than I am right, but his views sound about right, although I (as I always am) am a bit concerned with the mixture of religion with politics, don't get me wrong, I don't mind what denomination the chap is, so long as that doesn't come through in his policies. Politics and religion should really be kept seperate IMHO, but that's me.