jade7243's Comments (805)

“A really dumb idea.

Americans show a remarkable knack for wanting everything without wanting to pay for it. Sure, we'll shell out money in the wake of a tragedy to help our fellow citizens, here or around the world. But American's have a "me first" attitude. If you thought the tea partiers were motivated before, just wait...

"We want cheap affordable power, BUT don't put that power plant in MY backyard."

"Yep, we want our kids to have better schools, BUT don't let "those kids" into MY kid's classroom."

"Sure, we want better roads, BUT why should I have to pay for it?"

"Of course we want quality affordable healthcare and cheaper health insurance, BUT I'll be GD'd if I'm going to pay for it. Why it might be used for abortions or illegal immigrants or lazy poor people who just go to the emergency room when they get sick."

"I've got great health care. Why should I have to subsidize anyone else? They should just get a job."”

“Well said!”

“Additional evidence that what you state is true:

http://www.mutualfundsmag.us/2009/12/22/news/economy/banks.fortune/index.htm
"The New Year is shaping up to be a rough one for community lenders.

Dozens if not hundreds of small banks figure to disappear in 2010, as a weak economy and regulatory pressure lead to more failures and mergers. "

See also http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/business/economy/11banks.html”

“"...the smallest banks have been dropping like flies for years, as they labor to master expensive new technologies and regulatory changes -- at a time when giant banks spawned in a rash of megamergers are expanding their reach.

"The consolidation trend should only strengthen in the coming year. Dozens of banks will fail as their customers retrench in a weak economy. Meanwhile, regulators will keep pressuring bankers to lend cautiously -- prompting weaker banks to merge into stronger ones as growth remains elusive.

"A lot of the regional and community banks are going to struggle to remain independent," said Terry Moore, a managing director at Accenture. "We're going to see those numbers shrinking."

They have shrunk a lot already. The number of commercial banks with assets of $50 million or less has dropped by more than 3,600 since 1994, to 1,198, according to recent Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data."

From http://www.mutualfundsmag.us/2009/12/22/news/economy/banks.fortune/index.htm

Free Words of Wisdom: Look Before You Leap.”

“You can tell by the negative comments here not only what the President is up against, but people who are working hard in OFA. The progressives are quick to complain, but painfully slow to act. They'll poke fun at Republicans and snicker at fellow Democrats who are working with the administration. Like the "too cool for school" high school clique, they find fun in sitting on the sidelines while the rest of the class does the heavy lifting.

Progressives will make fun of tea partiers, but do next to nothing to combat their impact on political discourse. They don't show up to town halls. They malign Blue Dog Democrats, who are Democrats after all. They'll giggle that Republicans have a purity test and subject their fellow Democrats to the same d*mn thing. Their only concern is so-called "progressive" issues, which, if not packaged exactly as they'd like they drop like a hot potato. They'll protest that they'd kill healthcare with their 60 votes in the House, but cannot put forward any alternative plan that can reach the only number that counts in the House -- 218.

OFA has a lot more to offer, and would benefit if some of the progressives would quit grousing and get going.”

“"All I know is _________________________ (fill in the blank)..." seems to be at the root of the problem.”

“What exactly is "your neighborhood quack shack" -- a legitimate medical clinic?

How did you pay "co-pay" or "discount" prices for Prednisone and Zovirax? Or list retail price?Your Costco cost for prescriptions would still be based off of having some kind of prescription drug coverage (or you would pay retail.) For example 15 grams of Zovirax ointment is $165.50. And 30 tablets of 20mg (low dose) prednisone is $6.20. Prices from Costco.com

What is the Kaiser Permanente premium you would have paid and in what state do you live? (so we can compare what you would have paid with what you paid according to your "$119 less") Individual or family plan? Pre-existing conditions?

Do you qualify for Medicare? Medicaid? VA benefits?

Did you use any other "discount" medical card or service to reduce your costs?

None of this discusses hospitalization, surgical, long-term chronic or castastrophic care.”

“Newsflash: your premiums would have -- and in past years DID -- go up and those increases had nothing to do with healthcare reform.

It has to do with the whims of the insurance industry and the inability of your employer to continue to foot the bill for the premium increases without passing part of that cost on to you. In return for higher prices, your coverage did not improve at the same rate. You got fewer benefits, more red tape and higher costs.

Healthcare reform, I repeat, had nothing to do with that.

An empty complaint.”

“You're right, Aaron.. far too many people understand the art of negotiation. Maybe they would get it if you had referenced Donald Trump's "The Art of the Deal," after all it's all about the negotiation. Or maybe referenced some Eastern or Middle Eastern philosophy like "The Art of War" or Machiavelli, another master negotiator.

This has become an ego-driven exercise especially for progressives who became so wedded to the public option, they couldn't see straight. That entrenched position is damaging. In the House, blindsided by the Stupak amendment, it darn near derailed the bill. The Senate crafted a work-around of insuring abortion coverage availability with necessitating purchasers to write two checks to make certain the funds are separated.

For many progressives, they are so locked into their positions, that they can only see "being right" as their only option. This President has understood how to "get to yes" and that has been infuriating to progressives.”

“You're very welcome.

All of us at the White House invite you to stop by sometime. The tours are terrific. While you're visiting remind us to get you seating in the House or Senate visitors' gallery. We know some people over there.

Joe Biden says "Hey! Just don't bring those crazy Salahis with you." That Joe cracks me up!

In your spare time, check out Whitehouse.gov! Before you go, don't forget press the "Donate" button, brother (or sister). And support your local Democrat in the 2010 elections.

Have an great Obama Day! Remember, kids: Everyday is an Obama Day!”

“Are you really that naive?

I guess so.

I had.. have ... no problem with the amount of transparency regarding this White House or frankly this session of Congress.

Without the President's "back room deal" (that everybody seems to know all the details of) Big Pharma, AARP, even AHIP would have shut this bill down in its tracks. What you (and Sirota) don't get is that the President cleared the field enough for Congress to have some running room to get the thing done.

I think the President has upheld his promise. You're probably still mad at your parents for telling you about the tooth fairy.

Time to stop the willful naivete and start participating in the real world, not the progressive pipe dream.”

“218 in the House

60 to invoke cloture in the Senate.

A "Progressive Party" is lovely dream. But that's about as far as it goes. All of these multiple parties lead to more gridlock and less progress. (Look at coalition governments elsewhere). The truth is you'd have still have to form a coalition with Democrats to get anything done.

So the reality is:

1) you'd have to get enough people running on a "progressive party ticket" to get elected.

2) then you'd need a legislative majority 218/60) in both bodies to craft wholly progressive legislation,

3) failing those numbers, you'd have to form a coalition and

4) compromise with your coalition partners.

5) Without that you have no power and no influence.”

“House and Senate committees, hearings, debates and votes all on C-SPAN and its sister channels plus on its website.

I downloaded the all of the bills and amendments coming from both the House and Senate. Why didn't you? I watched the coverage and all available video of meetings between the White House and key players. Why didn't you? I watched all of the committee hearings and committee debates in House and Senate on healthcare. Why didn't you?

The problem is not that the information isn't there. The problem is you're too lazy to get it. The problem isn't that the President is blocking your access. The problem is you'd rather complain it wasn't delivered to you on a silver platter with a sprig of parsley. The problem isn't that it's a "bad" bill, the problem is that progressives think their ideas are the only ones that count. The problem isn't that compromise is part of the process, the problem is you all have no fundamental understanding of how legislation is really crafted.

The problem isn't President Obama. The problem is YOU.”

“House "progressives" cannot muster the 218 votes needed to pass the bill with the items they want in it. They can only block it. Fat lot of good that does.

In the Senate, all 60 Democratic or Dem-leaning votes are needed to invoke cloture (end debate). The bill itself needs only a simple majority to pass. But again, the "progressives" do not have the votes to invoke cloture or stave off a filibuster without the moderate and conservative Democrats.

So, the political reality is progressives must be part of the compromise process or be mere obstructionists like the Republicans.

So you can whine about "corruption" and "collusion" but that is all talk. And how you can get to "Dems colluding with Reps to pass it" is an Alice in Wonderland moment when not a single Republican vote for final passage in the Senate and only one in the House.

But hey, keep making stuff up... just remember the two magic numbers progressives DON'T have: 218 and 60.”

“Your TV must not get C-SPAN or C-SPAN2 or C-SPAN3. Your computer probably blocks access to C-SPAN.org.

You must not know to go to House.gov or Senate.gov to download copies of bills under consideration.

Because this process has been as open as it can get. All the committee meetings, hearings, floor debate, votes, and more.

These complaints about "open to public scrutiny" fail when put to the test.

Find something else to whine about.”

“"ping-pong"”

“"We" are not screwed. "You" are screwing yourself with the "I won't for for _______" claim.

What is it called when you screw yourself... The Old Master Bait and Switch Parties Game. Guess what? You lose.

But keeping playing with -- and kidding -- yourself that threats of a third party candidate will lead victory.”

“Actually, this is great news. It means the Democrats will skip Republican obstructionism and will put together a final bill on their own. It means many of the delays and other stall tactics which dragged the Senate bill out to a Christmas Eve passage will be avoided. It means HP and other news outlets, who have dealt with the details of this bill by repeating Republcan talking points, repeating progressive whining, and attempting to stop the bill through wedge issues will be marginalized, if not totally sidelined.

Those of you who complain that there is no transparency clearly didn't watch the progress of either bill through the House and Senate.

I find it odd that you constantly compare the passage of Medicare to this legislation. Medicare was not done in the glare of TV klieg lights. It was done in the Senate cloak rooms, the steam rooms, basement private offices, over steakhouse dinners. It was back room deals that got it done. Politics 1960's style.

The "pong-pong" strategy is the best news for the bill. In order for the two bodies to work out their different and get a bill with can get the 60 Senate cloture votes and a 218 majority in House, it's time to give just a little privacy to those involved so we can get this thing done.”

“Actually, "liberals" are not trying to hijack the "progressive" label.

Progressives have assumed they make up a greater component of the Democratic party than they actually do, and that their ideals and ideology are "perfect."

Progressives are becoming the tea partiers of the left, demanding unrealistic ideological purity, making unfulfillable demands. For example the Progressive Caucus in the House has 60 votes, enough to derail healthcare if they wanted. However, they do not have 218 votes needed to pass a bill with the vaunted public option. (The only reason the House bill passed was enough of the moderate and conservative Democrats were willing to support the Stupak amendment. Progressives didn't have enough votes to overcome that either.)

Progressives are big talkers but lack the political wherewithal or pragmatism to get anything done.

Not mention progressives assumed that President Obama was one of "them," when clearly he wasn't and never claimed to be.

President Kucinich, much?”

“I've been trying to post similar thoughts where this "building goodwill" BS is being spread. It's stunningly naive and superficial to compare China's involvement in with mining in Afghanistan to that of the US. It is even more moronic to willingly overlook China's active and obstructive involvement in other countries like Sudan, where China protects the Arabic, Muslim government's treatment -- ethnic cleansing and genocide -- of the sub-Saharan ("black") Darfurians. The Sudanese point to the "goodwill" and economic assistance China provides by building roads and power plants. Meanwhile, China, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council exercises its veto power to prevent the UN from taking more meaningful actions in the region to stop the genocide.

It's guilt-free because exploitation is more important to China than anything else.

And it's not just in Sudan. China -- needing more and more natural resources -- is planting itself and its workers in far-flung outposts to lay claim to the natural resources of these under developed countries, especially in Africa. To protect its new-found "strategic interests" China is re-colonizing these countries almost identically to what the UK and European nations did during the last two centuries.

China builds "Chinese towns" in these places for the Chinese workers they import to extract the natural resources and send them back to China.”

“I'm sure the people of Tibet would highly recommend the Chinese as "wonderful" lords and masters over an indigenous people. Look how great that has worked for them. And the Darfurians would say life has been just great since China decided to invest in Sudan. Well, great if you don't mind genocide, famine and refuge camp living.

Wonder no more, but do think harder.”

“Only for China.

China only does what is in its self interest. Not for the nations where they have set up outposts. Not for human rights, not for environmental protection, not for economic development of the host nation, not for the health and welfare of the host nation's people.”

“Actually, they're not interested in peace or stability there. China is not "rebuilding" Afghanistan, China is creating its own towns, importing its own workers, building roads to its own factories or mines or power plants that support its interests not the countries its in as a whole. In Iraq, China is drilling for oil with oil boom town filled with Chinese workers who eat at Chinese restaurants and shop at a Chinese company store all inside a secure Chinese compound. There are no Iraqi workers there. None in Afghanistan, None in Sudan, where China supports the Sudanese government's ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Darfurians. It's China that has blocked any meaningful UN involvement towards ending the genocide, by exercising its UN veto to send troops.

Greenwald and Huffington and Wines are stunningly wrong on this. Shame on them for trying to conflate the war in Afghanistan (and any actions against Al Qaeda) with China's "peaceful conquest" of under-developed nations by essentially robbing them of their natural resources and giving next to nothing in return.”

“Heavens to Murgatroid! And to Detroit, even! Or should I say "th-thufferring thyncophants!" E-ven! Everywhere I look burnt offerings and glib typings from the masses for banal, simplistic, sophmoric, "stunningly naive and superficial" pronouncements from the celebrity political blogger.

I want to forget all of the "eninissa" (strike that, reverse it) blogs I have by her about the current administration. For the new year, I resolve to read them in my best "Christopher Walken doing William Shatner doing Truman Capote doing the comedy stylings of political satirist Bill Russell" voice in order to wring from them every last drop of comedic value. I resolve to get my serious political discourse from people with serious political insight, and not the "dollar a page click crowd."

I also resolve to vigorously push back against the rising tide of monolithic "progressive" groupthink that pervades these pages. Someone has to say the "Look, the Empress has no clothes!"”

“Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt?

Really? Important?”