Republican Wins Massachusetts senate race

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by August

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.c...he-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 majorities

As 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 it

This 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.

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

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]

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

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.

Originally Posted by August

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

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.

Originally Posted by August

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

100% agreed.
Preportionate representation works best.

Originally Posted by August

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.