Edit Preferences
Logout
Edmonsky's Comments (320)
View Comments:
Sort:
1 - 25 of 320
Orszag Curiously Circumspect About Unemployment Insurance Extension (VIDEO)
Commented Nov 05, 2009 at 00:27:41 in Politics
“Dylan Ratigan wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/why-keep-geithner_b_341908.html
“This is why I think we must ask if U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is still the right person for the job. It has become clear recently that, back in his previous role as New York Federal Reserve Governor, he unnecessarily gave billions of dollars of US tax money to banks and insurance companies with few strings attached.”
This is yellow journalism at its worst. TARP is an Act of Congress enacted October 3, 2008 and signed into law by President George Bush. It is known as Public Law 110-343 (Pub.L. 110-343, 122 Stat. 3765. TARP allows the US Dept. of the Treasury to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of troubled assets. New York Federal Reserve is not part of US Treasury authorized to pay TARP money.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/why-keep-geithner_b_341908.html
“This is why I think we must ask if U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is still the right person for the job. It has become clear recently that, back in his previous role as New York Federal Reserve Governor, he unnecessarily gave billions of dollars of US tax money to banks and insurance companies with few strings attached.”
This is yellow journalism at its worst. TARP is an Act of Congress enacted October 3, 2008 and signed into law by President George Bush. It is known as Public Law 110-343 (Pub.L. 110-343, 122 Stat. 3765. TARP allows the US Dept. of the Treasury to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of troubled assets. New York Federal Reserve is not part of US Treasury authorized to pay TARP money.”
Orszag Curiously Circumspect About Unemployment Insurance Extension (VIDEO)
Commented Nov 04, 2009 at 20:33:28 in Politics
“Xlntcat:
Thank you for your enlightened views. How would Larry Summers oppose extending unemployment benefits and still has his job in the White House. Smearing Larry Summers and Tim Geithner is the best entertaining sport amongst the progressives.”
Thank you for your enlightened views. How would Larry Summers oppose extending unemployment benefits and still has his job in the White House. Smearing Larry Summers and Tim Geithner is the best entertaining sport amongst the progressives.”
Solja replied on Nov 04, 2009 at 21:12:55
“I agree.”
Is the President Really in Charge?
Commented Nov 04, 2009 at 20:05:46 in Politics
“Professor Christina Romer serves as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. Professors Austan Goolsbee and Cecilia Rouse assist Prof. Romer. Women are playing critical roles in Obama’s presidency.”
Public Option: Progressives Take Aim At Rahm, Demand White House Take A Stronger Stance
Commented Oct 23, 2009 at 14:16:26 in Politics
“When Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he did not at any time campaigned on “public option” legislation for healthcare.
He campaigned on creation of a National Health Insurance Exchange in which private insurers would offer coverage as generous as the government's plan, with new regulations requiring them to accept and not penalize anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. Obama regularly cites the type of insurance members of the Congress have under a similar Exchange.”
He campaigned on creation of a National Health Insurance Exchange in which private insurers would offer coverage as generous as the government's plan, with new regulations requiring them to accept and not penalize anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. Obama regularly cites the type of insurance members of the Congress have under a similar Exchange.”
windup replied on Oct 23, 2009 at 14:32:59
“"private insurers would offer coverage as generous as the government's plan"
That won't happen unless there IS a public option they have to compete with. It's a necessity if we actually want REFORM rather than a band-aid which will end up costing us all more. So he may not have used the word, but it's be the only thing that can achieve the goal.”
That won't happen unless there IS a public option they have to compete with. It's a necessity if we actually want REFORM rather than a band-aid which will end up costing us all more. So he may not have used the word, but it's be the only thing that can achieve the goal.”
Henk replied on Oct 23, 2009 at 14:23:02
“Yes if he don't campaign on it he doesn't have to support it. No matter that it's supported by the majority of the people and the party. No matter that it saves, lives, family finances and government money, he didn't run on it so just because WE ALL WANT it, doesn't mean OUR president needs to support it.”
honoursplendor replied on Oct 23, 2009 at 14:21:08
“Using, you know, "facts" to support your logical statements won't work with people committed to only one view. ;--)”
Reagan's Lesson: "Patience" in a President's First Year Is Political Suicide
Commented Oct 23, 2009 at 00:58:45 in Politics
“Winning presidential election depends on electoral votes won rather than the popular votes won. If the latter were the case, Al Gore would have won the president over Bush.
President Reagan won 489 electoral votes and President Carter won only 49. He defeated Carted with 9.7% point.
President Obama won 365 electoral votes, while Senator McCain won 173. Obama defeated McCain with 7.2% point.
Reagan carried 44 states and President Carter carried only 6 plus DC.
President Obama carried 28 states plus DC and Senator McCain carried 22 states.
To say that Reagan had a much smaller legislative mandate than Obama leave your readers scratching their heads in perplexity.
Furthermore, every President governs through tax increase or decrease, increase or cut in social programs when presenting budget proposals. Any objective observer will not consider passing such budget proposal as major legislative accomplishments. Passing healthcare, energy and financial reforms are major legislative accomplishments.”
President Reagan won 489 electoral votes and President Carter won only 49. He defeated Carted with 9.7% point.
President Obama won 365 electoral votes, while Senator McCain won 173. Obama defeated McCain with 7.2% point.
Reagan carried 44 states and President Carter carried only 6 plus DC.
President Obama carried 28 states plus DC and Senator McCain carried 22 states.
To say that Reagan had a much smaller legislative mandate than Obama leave your readers scratching their heads in perplexity.
Furthermore, every President governs through tax increase or decrease, increase or cut in social programs when presenting budget proposals. Any objective observer will not consider passing such budget proposal as major legislative accomplishments. Passing healthcare, energy and financial reforms are major legislative accomplishments.”
The Public Option is Dead as a Doornail
Commented Oct 23, 2009 at 00:25:37 in Politics
“The healthcare bill under consideration provides for expansion of Medicaid to include uninsured poor people. How does private insurance companies benefit from insuring poor people under Medicaid?
The healthcare legislation under review prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or capping costs or dropping insured when they are sick. To mitigate this situation, individual mandate is proposed in order to bring into the system, the young and healthy to even things out. This is an issue of commonsense rather than conspiracy theory.”
The healthcare legislation under review prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or capping costs or dropping insured when they are sick. To mitigate this situation, individual mandate is proposed in order to bring into the system, the young and healthy to even things out. This is an issue of commonsense rather than conspiracy theory.”
Citizen54 replied on Oct 23, 2009 at 00:59:28
“How about if we mitigate the situation by removing for-profit insurance companies from being involved in the the health and care of Americans?
Mandates are a way to make sure the insurance companies maintain their high profits. We must resist.”
Mandates are a way to make sure the insurance companies maintain their high profits. We must resist.”
HuffPost Editor Roy Sekoff On Joy Behar Show Debates Reagan Vs. Obama: Who Deserved Peace Prize? (VIDEO)
Commented Oct 13, 2009 at 13:35:43 in Politics
“That President Ronald Reagan was responsible for ending cold war is pure Republican myth that flies in the face of commonsense.
President Reagan had no hand in electing reformist Gorbachev the General Secretary by the Politburo in 1985.
The end of Cold War came about by the attempt of Gorbachev to restructure Soviet economy after the stagnant Brezhnev years. To achieve that, he introduced perestroika (reconstruction) and glasnost (openness).
Lo Behold, prior to all these, President Reagan spent time demonizing Soviet Union by calling them “Evil Empire”. It took the intervention of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to put a leash on Reagan by advising him that Gobachev was the man the West can do business with.
Gobachev was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990.”
President Reagan had no hand in electing reformist Gorbachev the General Secretary by the Politburo in 1985.
The end of Cold War came about by the attempt of Gorbachev to restructure Soviet economy after the stagnant Brezhnev years. To achieve that, he introduced perestroika (reconstruction) and glasnost (openness).
Lo Behold, prior to all these, President Reagan spent time demonizing Soviet Union by calling them “Evil Empire”. It took the intervention of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to put a leash on Reagan by advising him that Gobachev was the man the West can do business with.
Gobachev was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990.”
America-stan: The Progressive Movement Neuters Itself by Supporting "States' Rights" to Opt Out of the Public Option
Commented Oct 12, 2009 at 02:08:11 in Politics
“There are certain disagreeable facts we must always bear in mind.
A progressive democrat cannot win nationwide election in any of the Republican Red States. However, only conservative democrat can win such election. A conservative democrat will be elected based on low taxes and limited government. What ties conservative democrats to liberal or progressive democrats are matters relating to civil rights, preexisting social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc.
A robust public option means growing government. It is antithesis to what conservative democrats believe in as political philosophy and ideology. Hence, getting 60-votes in the senate for robust public option seem impractical matter. A democrat who insists on passing robust public option may as well accept failure in passing healthcare legislation this time around and be ready to face the consequences in the mid-term election in 2010.
Wise men in Democratic Party are putting heads together to come up with an alternative that will win support of conservative democrats in the senate to avoid republican filibuster.”
A progressive democrat cannot win nationwide election in any of the Republican Red States. However, only conservative democrat can win such election. A conservative democrat will be elected based on low taxes and limited government. What ties conservative democrats to liberal or progressive democrats are matters relating to civil rights, preexisting social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc.
A robust public option means growing government. It is antithesis to what conservative democrats believe in as political philosophy and ideology. Hence, getting 60-votes in the senate for robust public option seem impractical matter. A democrat who insists on passing robust public option may as well accept failure in passing healthcare legislation this time around and be ready to face the consequences in the mid-term election in 2010.
Wise men in Democratic Party are putting heads together to come up with an alternative that will win support of conservative democrats in the senate to avoid republican filibuster.”
upriser replied on Oct 13, 2009 at 09:48:47
“It takes 60 votes in the Senate to cut off a Republican filibuster. The Democrats have 60 votes. They can therefore cut off a Republican filibuster. Conservative Democrats do not have to vote for the bill, they just need to be loyal Democrats and vote to stop a Republican filibuster. Why is that so hard to understand? Then those conservative Democrats can vote against a bill they don't like (and face the wrath of their constituents who want health care reform). It only takes 51 votes (a majority) to pass the bill in the Senate. If conservative Democrats join with Republicans to filibuster a bill, THEY ARE NO LONGER DEMOCRATS. THEY ARE DINOS AND NEED TO BE RUN OUT OF THE PARTY WITH STRONG PRIMARY CHALLENGES IN THE NEXT ELECTION.
By the way, the United States Senate with its anti-democratic rules that basically allow minority rule in this country, should be eliminated. It is the single most anti-democratic institution in this country and has made a mockery of what is good in our constitution. The United States Senate has created a CORPOCRACY (corporate capitalism) and is destroying the fabric of our country. You need to go see "CAPITALISM, A LOVE STORY".”
By the way, the United States Senate with its anti-democratic rules that basically allow minority rule in this country, should be eliminated. It is the single most anti-democratic institution in this country and has made a mockery of what is good in our constitution. The United States Senate has created a CORPOCRACY (corporate capitalism) and is destroying the fabric of our country. You need to go see "CAPITALISM, A LOVE STORY".”
Hope, Hype, and the Many Faces of Barack Obama
Commented Oct 03, 2009 at 06:27:37 in Politics
“Hamdan Azhar,
You are brilliant. However, you missed a vital point by either omission or commission. You are troubled why President Obama is insisting on Iran meeting its obligation by allowing IAEA unfettered access to inspect its nuclear facilities while saying nothing to Israel with nuclear arsenals. You derided Obama by calling it “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when it comes to Israel. Iran is a signatory to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but Israel is not. Please research this fact if you are in doubt.”
You are brilliant. However, you missed a vital point by either omission or commission. You are troubled why President Obama is insisting on Iran meeting its obligation by allowing IAEA unfettered access to inspect its nuclear facilities while saying nothing to Israel with nuclear arsenals. You derided Obama by calling it “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when it comes to Israel. Iran is a signatory to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but Israel is not. Please research this fact if you are in doubt.”
Why Is Obama Trying to Crush Primaries That Would Help Him Overcome His Legislative Obstacles?
Commented Sep 26, 2009 at 15:23:25 in Politics
“It is very difficult to understand your logic as it relates to public option.
Public option has currency until December this year after which the issues to dominate the Congress and the media will be 2010 midterm elections. After 2010 midterm election, the next big item ticket will be presidential primaries and election for 2012.
New York Gov. Paterson is so low in opinion poll and stands no chance of winning re-election. It is not his losing the re-election is the matter but dragging down other candidates with him. For instance, former Gov. Pataki wants to run for US Senate and stands the chance of defeating Senator Gillibrand if Gov. Paterson is on the ticket. Former Major Giuliani wants to run for governorship and will handily defeat Paterson but stands no chance of defeating Attorney General Cuomo.
Cuomo will defeat Gov. Paterson in the primary but consequently it will fracture New York Democratic Party because African Americans are going to be disenfranchised and stay home in the general election in 2010. President Obama wants to avoid the obvious outcome in the interest of the party.
You may have contempt for Senator Arlen Specter but he is an integral part of 60-vote filibuster proof for president’s plan on healthcare. Healthcare will pass or fail depending on what happens in the senate. Congressman Sestak is inconsequential in passing healthcare in 2009.”
Public option has currency until December this year after which the issues to dominate the Congress and the media will be 2010 midterm elections. After 2010 midterm election, the next big item ticket will be presidential primaries and election for 2012.
New York Gov. Paterson is so low in opinion poll and stands no chance of winning re-election. It is not his losing the re-election is the matter but dragging down other candidates with him. For instance, former Gov. Pataki wants to run for US Senate and stands the chance of defeating Senator Gillibrand if Gov. Paterson is on the ticket. Former Major Giuliani wants to run for governorship and will handily defeat Paterson but stands no chance of defeating Attorney General Cuomo.
Cuomo will defeat Gov. Paterson in the primary but consequently it will fracture New York Democratic Party because African Americans are going to be disenfranchised and stay home in the general election in 2010. President Obama wants to avoid the obvious outcome in the interest of the party.
You may have contempt for Senator Arlen Specter but he is an integral part of 60-vote filibuster proof for president’s plan on healthcare. Healthcare will pass or fail depending on what happens in the senate. Congressman Sestak is inconsequential in passing healthcare in 2009.”
Querent replied on Sep 27, 2009 at 01:13:51
“Do us all a favor and buy two books: a dictionary and a grammar.”
Obama the Impotent
Commented Sep 26, 2009 at 01:59:59 in Politics
“It is true that the National Football League does have salary restrictions. However, such salary restrictions were not imposed on National Football League by the federal government.
It is also true that Silicon Valley businesses and NFL quarterbacks don't cause an economic collapse when they screw up as you suggested. If the airline industry collapses, the entire economic system will follow suit. Would that be the reason to cap executive compensation for airline industry.”
It is also true that Silicon Valley businesses and NFL quarterbacks don't cause an economic collapse when they screw up as you suggested. If the airline industry collapses, the entire economic system will follow suit. Would that be the reason to cap executive compensation for airline industry.”
DIAGUY replied on Sep 26, 2009 at 10:59:33
“If we were discussing a government owned airline or an airline that was operating on federal dollars than capping pay would be appropriate. But, if we are talking about a private or publicly traded corporation the government only has two functions; safety and collecting the taxes on their income. I find it VERY troubling that government seems to be overreaching in many areas they have NO business being. Their recent proclamation that health insurance companies are not permitted to "bad mouth" the government plan to their customers is getting very "nazi-like".”
HuffPost Editor Roy Sekoff Discusses Obama's Latest Straddle on Public Option (VIDEO)
Commented Sep 22, 2009 at 05:07:10 in Politics
“Finance Senate Committee has 12 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
Three Democrats, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln have stated categorically that they are opposed to public option. Two Democrats, Jeff Bingaman and Bill Nelson, are suspected to be against public option. Any reasonable person knows that public option is dead. If the bill does not pass in the Senate Finance Committee, it means that the healthcare legislation has failed again and has to start all over again in 10-15 years again when Democrats have majority in the both Houses of Congress.
Democrats
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/committee.htm
Max Baucus, MT
John Rockefeller, WV
Kent Conrad, ND
Jeff Bingaman, NM
Blanche Lincoln, AR
Ron Wyden, OR
Charles Schumer, NY
Debbie Stabenow, MI
Maria Cantwell, WA
Bill Nelson, FL
Robert Menendez, NJ
Thomas Carper, DE
Republicans:
CHUCK GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
JIM BUNNING, KY
MIKE CRAPO, ID
PAT ROBERTS, KS
JOHN ENSIGN, NV
MIKE ENZI, WY
JOHN CORNYN, TX”
Three Democrats, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln have stated categorically that they are opposed to public option. Two Democrats, Jeff Bingaman and Bill Nelson, are suspected to be against public option. Any reasonable person knows that public option is dead. If the bill does not pass in the Senate Finance Committee, it means that the healthcare legislation has failed again and has to start all over again in 10-15 years again when Democrats have majority in the both Houses of Congress.
Democrats
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/committee.htm
Max Baucus, MT
John Rockefeller, WV
Kent Conrad, ND
Jeff Bingaman, NM
Blanche Lincoln, AR
Ron Wyden, OR
Charles Schumer, NY
Debbie Stabenow, MI
Maria Cantwell, WA
Bill Nelson, FL
Robert Menendez, NJ
Thomas Carper, DE
Republicans:
CHUCK GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
JIM BUNNING, KY
MIKE CRAPO, ID
PAT ROBERTS, KS
JOHN ENSIGN, NV
MIKE ENZI, WY
JOHN CORNYN, TX”
jazzman replied on Sep 22, 2009 at 13:00:50
“The health care situation is like a cancer that has mestaticized and is getting out of control. Baucus and his gang of sell outs are in a deep state of denial. They think they can put a bandage on a tumor and have it all go away. That was possible in 1993 but things have progressed way beyond that state now. 10 to 15 years the public anger will be so big that you'll be looking at revolution not reform. This is a grave situation being mishandled by a clueless man from Montana and a cool and calm President who doesn't seem to be aware that smooth words to handle and work the people isn't going to work this time around.
It's scary really, how clueless everyone on Capitol Hill, the White House, and the Supreme Court seem to be about the fires burning around them regarding a whole host of issues all related to corporate control and corruption of our government. They think they can keep it going and in the case of SCOTUS, they're about to pour gasoline on the fire. They're complete and utter fools.”
It's scary really, how clueless everyone on Capitol Hill, the White House, and the Supreme Court seem to be about the fires burning around them regarding a whole host of issues all related to corporate control and corruption of our government. They think they can keep it going and in the case of SCOTUS, they're about to pour gasoline on the fire. They're complete and utter fools.”
Johnagain replied on Sep 22, 2009 at 11:55:36
“In another 10-15 years, how many of our children, parents, spouses will have been sicker, died younger, and lived poorer? How much more will Americans take of this cr@p?”
Subverting the Public Option
Commented Sep 22, 2009 at 05:05:14 in Politics
“Finance Senate Committee has 12 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
Three Democrats, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln have stated categorically that they are opposed to public option. Two Democrats, Jeff Bingaman and Bill Nelson, are suspected to be against public option. Any reasonable person knows that public option is dead. If the bill does not pass in the Senate Finance Committee, it means that the healthcare legislation has failed again and has to start all over again in 10-15 years again when Democrats have majority in the both Houses of Congress.
Democrats
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/committee.htm
Max Baucus, MT
John Rockefeller, WV
Kent Conrad, ND
Jeff Bingaman, NM
Blanche Lincoln, AR
Ron Wyden, OR
Charles Schumer, NY
Debbie Stabenow, MI
Maria Cantwell, WA
Bill Nelson, FL
Robert Menendez, NJ
Thomas Carper, DE
Republicans:
CHUCK GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
JIM BUNNING, KY
MIKE CRAPO, ID
PAT ROBERTS, KS
JOHN ENSIGN, NV
MIKE ENZI, WY
JOHN CORNYN, TX”
Three Democrats, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln have stated categorically that they are opposed to public option. Two Democrats, Jeff Bingaman and Bill Nelson, are suspected to be against public option. Any reasonable person knows that public option is dead. If the bill does not pass in the Senate Finance Committee, it means that the healthcare legislation has failed again and has to start all over again in 10-15 years again when Democrats have majority in the both Houses of Congress.
Democrats
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/committee.htm
Max Baucus, MT
John Rockefeller, WV
Kent Conrad, ND
Jeff Bingaman, NM
Blanche Lincoln, AR
Ron Wyden, OR
Charles Schumer, NY
Debbie Stabenow, MI
Maria Cantwell, WA
Bill Nelson, FL
Robert Menendez, NJ
Thomas Carper, DE
Republicans:
CHUCK GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
JIM BUNNING, KY
MIKE CRAPO, ID
PAT ROBERTS, KS
JOHN ENSIGN, NV
MIKE ENZI, WY
JOHN CORNYN, TX”
Baucus Bill: Health Reform That Isn't
Commented Sep 22, 2009 at 05:02:26 in Politics
“Finance Senate Committee has 12 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
Three Democrats, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln have stated categorically that they are opposed to public option. Two Democrats, Jeff Bingaman and Bill Nelson, are suspected to be against public option. Any reasonable person knows that public option is dead. If the bill does not pass in the Senate Finance Committee, it means that the healthcare legislation has failed again and has to start all over again in 10-15 years again when Democrats have majority in the both Houses of Congress.
Democrats
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/committee.htm
Max Baucus, MT
John Rockefeller, WV
Kent Conrad, ND
Jeff Bingaman, NM
Blanche Lincoln, AR
Ron Wyden, OR
Charles Schumer, NY
Debbie Stabenow, MI
Maria Cantwell, WA
Bill Nelson, FL
Robert Menendez, NJ
Thomas Carper, DE
Republicans:
CHUCK GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
JIM BUNNING, KY
MIKE CRAPO, ID
PAT ROBERTS, KS
JOHN ENSIGN, NV
MIKE ENZI, WY
JOHN CORNYN, TX”
Three Democrats, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln have stated categorically that they are opposed to public option. Two Democrats, Jeff Bingaman and Bill Nelson, are suspected to be against public option. Any reasonable person knows that public option is dead. If the bill does not pass in the Senate Finance Committee, it means that the healthcare legislation has failed again and has to start all over again in 10-15 years again when Democrats have majority in the both Houses of Congress.
Democrats
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/committee.htm
Max Baucus, MT
John Rockefeller, WV
Kent Conrad, ND
Jeff Bingaman, NM
Blanche Lincoln, AR
Ron Wyden, OR
Charles Schumer, NY
Debbie Stabenow, MI
Maria Cantwell, WA
Bill Nelson, FL
Robert Menendez, NJ
Thomas Carper, DE
Republicans:
CHUCK GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
JIM BUNNING, KY
MIKE CRAPO, ID
PAT ROBERTS, KS
JOHN ENSIGN, NV
MIKE ENZI, WY
JOHN CORNYN, TX”
hp blogger M.S. Bellows, Jr. replied on Sep 22, 2009 at 13:34:48
“Any reasonable person knows that public option is dead. If the bill does not pass in the Senate Finance Committee, it means that the healthcare legislation has failed again and has to start all over again in 10-15 years
I understand your fear, but things are better than that. All it takes is for SOME bill to pass Finance and make it to the Senate floor. At that point, amendments will be voted on (hopefully including one adding public option). Then a conference committee will change it again to jibe with whichever version the House passes, then the full Senate and House vote on the final product, which could pass with 50 votes + Biden if they do it under budget reconciliation rules the way Republicans did in the past to defeat Democratic filibusters.
Again, all we need is for SOME bill to make it to the floor; then all bets are off. Thank God.”
I understand your fear, but things are better than that. All it takes is for SOME bill to pass Finance and make it to the Senate floor. At that point, amendments will be voted on (hopefully including one adding public option). Then a conference committee will change it again to jibe with whichever version the House passes, then the full Senate and House vote on the final product, which could pass with 50 votes + Biden if they do it under budget reconciliation rules the way Republicans did in the past to defeat Democratic filibusters.
Again, all we need is for SOME bill to make it to the floor; then all bets are off. Thank God.”
Americans Have Been Taken Hostage
Commented Sep 14, 2009 at 04:46:42 in Business
“Dylan Raigan Wrote:
“Why did we pay Goldman Sachs and all the other banks 100 cents on the dollar for their contracts with AIG, using taxpayer money, while we forced GM and others to take massive payment cuts?”
Major counterparties to AIG are the following:
Société Générale (France)
Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500)
Merrill Lynch International
Deutsche Bank (Germany)
Calyon, Crédit Agricole (France)
UBS (Switzerland)
Barclays (England)
Coral Purchasing, DZ Bank (Germany)
Bank of Montreal (Canada)
Rabobank (the Netherlands)
Royal Bank of Scotland
Bank of America
Wachovia
HSBC (England)
Barclays Global Investors
This is contractual agreement. The Fed operate under the law and there is no law that allows the government to arbitrarily abrogate duly signed contractual laws. The option was to go through arbitration while the global financial system collapses.”
“Why did we pay Goldman Sachs and all the other banks 100 cents on the dollar for their contracts with AIG, using taxpayer money, while we forced GM and others to take massive payment cuts?”
Major counterparties to AIG are the following:
Société Générale (France)
Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500)
Merrill Lynch International
Deutsche Bank (Germany)
Calyon, Crédit Agricole (France)
UBS (Switzerland)
Barclays (England)
Coral Purchasing, DZ Bank (Germany)
Bank of Montreal (Canada)
Rabobank (the Netherlands)
Royal Bank of Scotland
Bank of America
Wachovia
HSBC (England)
Barclays Global Investors
This is contractual agreement. The Fed operate under the law and there is no law that allows the government to arbitrarily abrogate duly signed contractual laws. The option was to go through arbitration while the global financial system collapses.”
vlm1948 replied on Sep 14, 2009 at 06:34:55
“They found it easy enough to do with GM and its workers or are contracts only valid for the rich and greedy?”
Head Count: House Progressives Preparing For Public Option Showdown
Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 23:42:17 in Politics
“The trajectory is very clear.
House will pass legislation with public option.
Senate will pass theirs with no public option.
During the conference resolution, the final bill will pass without public option.
Most pundits with good political anthena know this for fact.”
House will pass legislation with public option.
Senate will pass theirs with no public option.
During the conference resolution, the final bill will pass without public option.
Most pundits with good political anthena know this for fact.”
ouroborous replied on Sep 12, 2009 at 03:03:46
“No, that's how Rahm et al wants it to roll.
We're not going to let that happen.”
We're not going to let that happen.”
Marcospinelli replied on Sep 12, 2009 at 00:00:21
“The same day that Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid announced that they "would support any provision that increases competition and accessibility for health insurance - whether or not it is the public option favored by most Democrats" a chief lobbyist for UnitedHealth, Steve Elmendorf, sent an email blast inviting people to a $5,000/PAC or $2400/individual fundraiser in his home for Nancy Pelosi.
http://www.openleft.com/diary/15066/unitedhealth-lobbyist-announces-big-fundraiser-for-pelosi-as-she-backs-off-public-option”
http://www.openleft.com/diary/15066/unitedhealth-lobbyist-announces-big-fundraiser-for-pelosi-as-she-backs-off-public-option”
pearlone replied on Sep 11, 2009 at 23:51:51
“and next year there will be another bill, and another after that. By the end of Obama's second term we may even be single payer.”
LeftOfCenter44 replied on Sep 11, 2009 at 23:44:47
“Then President will veto or be a lame duck 1 term president. Simple.”
Obama's Speech: Trapped In the Gap Between Action and Rhetoric
Commented Sep 11, 2009 at 07:12:51 in Politics
“These Senators below are opposed to healthcare legislation with public option. That is the crux of the matter.
Missouri: McCaskill (D)
Colorado: Bennet (D)
Connecticut: Lieberman (ID)
Florida: Nelson (D)
Arkansas: Pryor (D)
Arkansas: Lincoln (D)
Louisiana: Landrieu (D)
Indiana: Bayh (D)
Montana: Tester (D)
Montana: Baucus (D)
North Dakota: Conrad (D)
North Dakota: Dorgan (D)
Nebraska: Nelson (D)
South Dakota: Johnson (D)”
Missouri: McCaskill (D)
Colorado: Bennet (D)
Connecticut: Lieberman (ID)
Florida: Nelson (D)
Arkansas: Pryor (D)
Arkansas: Lincoln (D)
Louisiana: Landrieu (D)
Indiana: Bayh (D)
Montana: Tester (D)
Montana: Baucus (D)
North Dakota: Conrad (D)
North Dakota: Dorgan (D)
Nebraska: Nelson (D)
South Dakota: Johnson (D)”
eleanorhawking replied on Sep 11, 2009 at 09:47:40
“I see that those town halls finally woke McCaskill out of her snooze. Good!”
The Problem with Obama's Speech
Commented Sep 10, 2009 at 09:32:36 in Politics
“Cenk Uygur:
Why you insist on your fixed ideas is beyond me. President Obama has always insisted that to bring down healthcare cost, there must be choice. He gave example with public and private universities that co-exist and provide students with choice. In the insurance exchange, there will be public option among other participating private healthcare insurance companies.
CBO has already calculated that the public option will insure between 10-12 million. Public option will be for those who are not insured. You seem to be conflating public option with single payer system.
President Obama is not going to draw line in the sand saying that without public option, he will not sign the bill. That will be shear idiocy by backing himself into a corner. He left the door open by suggesting that if anybody has another alternative that will lead to providing choice in the exchange, that he will be willing to listen. Nobody is taking the bait since there is no alternative outside public option.”
Why you insist on your fixed ideas is beyond me. President Obama has always insisted that to bring down healthcare cost, there must be choice. He gave example with public and private universities that co-exist and provide students with choice. In the insurance exchange, there will be public option among other participating private healthcare insurance companies.
CBO has already calculated that the public option will insure between 10-12 million. Public option will be for those who are not insured. You seem to be conflating public option with single payer system.
President Obama is not going to draw line in the sand saying that without public option, he will not sign the bill. That will be shear idiocy by backing himself into a corner. He left the door open by suggesting that if anybody has another alternative that will lead to providing choice in the exchange, that he will be willing to listen. Nobody is taking the bait since there is no alternative outside public option.”
jsarets replied on Sep 10, 2009 at 10:07:09
“Furthermore, Obama has acknowledged on several occasions that if he could start from scratch, he would prefer a single-payer system because that's the most effective way of driving down the cost of healthcare. Now he says that choice of payers reduces the cost of healthcare. Which is it? They can't both be true.”
gsuescum replied on Sep 10, 2009 at 10:03:52
“The choice between private and public universities is not a good metaphor. You don't NEED a university degree. Everyone will eventually NEED healthcare unless you end up dying instantly in an accident of some sort.
You're right about him not wanting to draw a line in the sand. I wish he would though.
I was also concerned about him wanting to "slow" the rise in the cost of healthcare. He should have been talking about what we can do to bring it down.”
You're right about him not wanting to draw a line in the sand. I wish he would though.
I was also concerned about him wanting to "slow" the rise in the cost of healthcare. He should have been talking about what we can do to bring it down.”
jsarets replied on Sep 10, 2009 at 10:01:16
“"President Obama has always insisted that to bring down healthcare cost, there must be choice."
And he's wrong. A choice of care providers is good for consumers. But a choice of payers only benefits the drug companies and care providers, unless they are forced into collective negotiation.
Wal-Mart brings down the cost of the consumer goods by eliminating choice of retailers and squeezing producers with its tremendous bargaining power.
Choice is always desirable, but for middle-man industries like finance and retail, choice comes at a hefty price unless the competing middle-men are compelled to act as one when dealing with the supply side.”
And he's wrong. A choice of care providers is good for consumers. But a choice of payers only benefits the drug companies and care providers, unless they are forced into collective negotiation.
Wal-Mart brings down the cost of the consumer goods by eliminating choice of retailers and squeezing producers with its tremendous bargaining power.
Choice is always desirable, but for middle-man industries like finance and retail, choice comes at a hefty price unless the competing middle-men are compelled to act as one when dealing with the supply side.”
The President's Speech
Commented Sep 10, 2009 at 01:19:25 in Politics
“This is a very thoughtful and insightful commentary from a brilliant mind.”
Obama's Health Care Speech: HuffPost Bloggers React
Commented Sep 09, 2009 at 22:33:36 in Politics
“You are asking a very cynical question. The issue is about insurance coverage. To obtain insurance coverage, you must present driver’s license and social security card. These identity cards are not issued to illegal immigrants.”
A Bronx group's battle with the Yankees reminds us about real community organizing
Commented Sep 09, 2009 at 21:46:09 in New York
“Part-1
Miguel Guadalupe:
Many presidents in the last 80 years have tried to pass universal healthcare and failed. Here are some incontestable facts.
FDR won 42 of 48 states.
Eisenhower won 39 of 41 states
LBJ won 44 of 50 states
Nixon won 49 of 50 states
Reagan won 44 of 50 states
George H.W Bush won 40 of 50 states.
Obama won 28 of 50 states.
What makes you think that these presidents with overwhelming electoral mandate could not pass universal healthcare, and you expect a president with barely above average mandate to easily succeed where others failed.
No president in US history has made more progress in universal healthcare legislation than President Obama. Under Bill Clinton in 1993/94, the healthcare legislation did not pass from any of the five committees in the Congress. President Obama has pushed it out of 4-committess and expecting the fifth.”
Miguel Guadalupe:
Many presidents in the last 80 years have tried to pass universal healthcare and failed. Here are some incontestable facts.
FDR won 42 of 48 states.
Eisenhower won 39 of 41 states
LBJ won 44 of 50 states
Nixon won 49 of 50 states
Reagan won 44 of 50 states
George H.W Bush won 40 of 50 states.
Obama won 28 of 50 states.
What makes you think that these presidents with overwhelming electoral mandate could not pass universal healthcare, and you expect a president with barely above average mandate to easily succeed where others failed.
No president in US history has made more progress in universal healthcare legislation than President Obama. Under Bill Clinton in 1993/94, the healthcare legislation did not pass from any of the five committees in the Congress. President Obama has pushed it out of 4-committess and expecting the fifth.”
The Simplest Thing
Commented Sep 05, 2009 at 19:20:55 in Politics
“Budget reconciliation is a piece of legislation subject to reviews every five years. It is same with Bush tax cut that is not permanent and because it led to budget deficit, it is allowed to expire. If public option does not reduce deficit, it will expire after five years. If Republicans were to gain more senate seats in 2010 and with the support of conservative Democrats, they could vote it down even before it takes effect.
Medicare is a legislation that is not contingent on expiration or budget deficits. It is false that Republicans want to get rid of Medicare. It is only fringe elements in Republican Party (less than 1%) are opposed to every government program including Medicare.”
Medicare is a legislation that is not contingent on expiration or budget deficits. It is false that Republicans want to get rid of Medicare. It is only fringe elements in Republican Party (less than 1%) are opposed to every government program including Medicare.”
The Simplest Thing
Commented Sep 05, 2009 at 16:39:31 in Politics
“Mike Lux:
Reconciliation process is not that simple as you are suggesting for the following reasons.
Public option through reconciliation process is subject to renewal every 5-year. If in the out years, the public option does not reduce budget deficit it will sunset.
Regulatory aspect of healthcare reform cannot pass under reconciliation process. You assume that those who oppose public option will vote for healthcare regulation reform. They favor healthcare reform regulation under comprehensive healthcare legislation. In other words, you can pass public option under budget reconciliation but cannot muster 60 votes to defeat filibuster for healthcare regulation reform. Public option without healthcare regulation legislation is analogous to a car without transmission system.
Healthcare reform without individual mandate, incentives for preventive treatments, reformation of hospital delivery systems etc is empty ritual.”
Reconciliation process is not that simple as you are suggesting for the following reasons.
Public option through reconciliation process is subject to renewal every 5-year. If in the out years, the public option does not reduce budget deficit it will sunset.
Regulatory aspect of healthcare reform cannot pass under reconciliation process. You assume that those who oppose public option will vote for healthcare regulation reform. They favor healthcare reform regulation under comprehensive healthcare legislation. In other words, you can pass public option under budget reconciliation but cannot muster 60 votes to defeat filibuster for healthcare regulation reform. Public option without healthcare regulation legislation is analogous to a car without transmission system.
Healthcare reform without individual mandate, incentives for preventive treatments, reformation of hospital delivery systems etc is empty ritual.”
mendelcrosses replied on Sep 05, 2009 at 22:13:01
“Yeah,let it be. Lets see who has got the balls in five years to come and tell people that,the cancer and other treatments they had for free isnt good and they will be better off start paying thousands of personal cash for it.
Who is talking about eleminating medicare now? Even the people who didnt want it,dont like it still cant talk about it. Have you ever tried telling anyone on medicare that they should leave and join the private insurers?”
Who is talking about eleminating medicare now? Even the people who didnt want it,dont like it still cant talk about it. Have you ever tried telling anyone on medicare that they should leave and join the private insurers?”
trackerone replied on Sep 05, 2009 at 17:09:28
“"Public option through reconciliation process is subject to renewal every 5-year. If in the out years, the public option does not reduce budget deficit it will sunset."
If the government has learned anything over the years, they know it's nearly impossible to take something away quickly. The republicans have been trying to get rid of medicare for years but have been unsuccessful. If the public option gets passed through reconciliation, I am confident it will NEVER be allowed to expire.
"you can pass public option under budget reconciliation but cannot muster 60 votes to defeat filibuster for healthcare regulation reform"
I would love to have the public option alone without the other 1000+ pages of corporate handouts.”
If the government has learned anything over the years, they know it's nearly impossible to take something away quickly. The republicans have been trying to get rid of medicare for years but have been unsuccessful. If the public option gets passed through reconciliation, I am confident it will NEVER be allowed to expire.
"you can pass public option under budget reconciliation but cannot muster 60 votes to defeat filibuster for healthcare regulation reform"
I would love to have the public option alone without the other 1000+ pages of corporate handouts.”
codycap replied on Sep 05, 2009 at 17:00:22
“And everything will be challenged, which could run into the hundreds . Every challenge has to have 60 votes to pass.
At the end whatever challenges that made 60 votes will be what is left. What is left can pass with 51 votes.
And then I believe you begin discussing how to pay for it, I.E. raising taxes on the rich etc. That will be the hardest part according to Lawrence O'Donnell, as if it could get any harder.
I would rather lose fighting for single payer then try to put a "we WIN" face on whatever the republicans and blue dogs leave us.”
At the end whatever challenges that made 60 votes will be what is left. What is left can pass with 51 votes.
And then I believe you begin discussing how to pay for it, I.E. raising taxes on the rich etc. That will be the hardest part according to Lawrence O'Donnell, as if it could get any harder.
I would rather lose fighting for single payer then try to put a "we WIN" face on whatever the republicans and blue dogs leave us.”
What About Joan Kennedy: Doesn't She Deserve an Honorable Mention Too?
Commented Aug 29, 2009 at 21:03:42 in Home
“That is the meaning of divorce in traditional sense. A divorced spouse is no more part of hitherto family but an outsider. There are also terms agreed upon during the divorce proceedings by the parties that are to be respected as a matter of law. Outsiders, like the author of this article, ought to walk gingerly on matters that are of personal bent rather than crying more than the bereaved.”
BlueInTheFace replied on Aug 31, 2009 at 07:01:15
“Perhaps you might want to rethink your statements. The AUTHOR wrote about the deliberate omission of Joan, by the SPEAKERS. That has nothing to do with the meaning of divorce and who the outsiders are. It's about respect. On it's face, it's impossible to discuss in great detail someone's whole life (void 24 years with his wife) and not sound insensitive or hypocritical. That's just a fact. Vicki was not there for those harsh years...Joan was.”
SharpDressedMan replied on Aug 29, 2009 at 22:40:20
“You are stretching for various reasons. Aside from the unwarranted personal attack on the author, you overlooked the following.
a) Divorce isn't permitted by the Catholic Church. Yes many Catholics around the world divorce and practice some aspects of life regardless of the Church's position. It's up to them to establish post marriage relations.
b) Parenting and parental rights don't end when the divorce starts.
c) About half of the childrens' genes (making allowance for dominant genes) are contributed by the biological mother. No divorce or separation can undo the gene mix.
d) In the eyes of the children, Ted's new wife didn't replace Joan, their biological mother.”
a) Divorce isn't permitted by the Catholic Church. Yes many Catholics around the world divorce and practice some aspects of life regardless of the Church's position. It's up to them to establish post marriage relations.
b) Parenting and parental rights don't end when the divorce starts.
c) About half of the childrens' genes (making allowance for dominant genes) are contributed by the biological mother. No divorce or separation can undo the gene mix.
d) In the eyes of the children, Ted's new wife didn't replace Joan, their biological mother.”
davidly replied on Aug 29, 2009 at 21:48:19
“Well you sure aren't treading very lightly either, are you. If one were so inclined, or cared the least little bit what you thought, they might just ask what it is to you. But more importantly than that is that there is no divorce law or possible agreement thereof which has anything to do with this post.”
The President of Cool
Commented Aug 23, 2009 at 20:16:00 in Politics
“I see Progressive pundits and their echo chambers in the Democratic Party as a band of idealistic men and women living in alternate universe. They are often predisposed to intellectual dishonesties and conspiracy theories in advancing their ideological arguments. For instance, they see legal expression of free speech in the form of campaign contributions as classic case of kickbacks; anybody who pursues dual careers in private sector and government is a corrupt individual.
As usual, Progressives claim that President Obama has won people’s mandate in the last election and hence can make changes with magic wave of hand. This is very false. President Obama won in 28 states, George H.W. Bush won 40 states; Reagan won 44; Nixon won 49, LBJ won 44; Eisenhower won 39.
Progressives over-exaggerate their power, influence and capacity. They tried to elect Ned Lamont in Connecticut where the condition was optimum for success due in part to Lieberman’s cheerleading role on Iraq war in Iraq. Within Democratic Party, the instinct for anti-war was at fever pitch and Lamont won at the primary. Lieberman opted to vie as Independent candidate in the general election and silenced the vociferous Progressives with defeat over Lamont.”
As usual, Progressives claim that President Obama has won people’s mandate in the last election and hence can make changes with magic wave of hand. This is very false. President Obama won in 28 states, George H.W. Bush won 40 states; Reagan won 44; Nixon won 49, LBJ won 44; Eisenhower won 39.
Progressives over-exaggerate their power, influence and capacity. They tried to elect Ned Lamont in Connecticut where the condition was optimum for success due in part to Lieberman’s cheerleading role on Iraq war in Iraq. Within Democratic Party, the instinct for anti-war was at fever pitch and Lamont won at the primary. Lieberman opted to vie as Independent candidate in the general election and silenced the vociferous Progressives with defeat over Lamont.”
freelyb replied on Sep 14, 2009 at 14:11:23
“"For instance, they see legal expression of free speech in the form of campaign contributions as classic case of kickbacks; anybody who pursues dual careers in private sector and government is a corrupt individual."
Progressives personally gave quite a bit in the 2008 campaigns. It's the corporate influence behind the things you mention that should be questioned -- unless you are an active participant in them.”
Progressives personally gave quite a bit in the 2008 campaigns. It's the corporate influence behind the things you mention that should be questioned -- unless you are an active participant in them.”
1 - 25 of 320
