SiliconInvestor
     Advanced Search   [ sign in ]

sponsor
Sponsor

 Politics | View from the Center and Left

Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: GST who wrote (135356)3/30/2010 3:38:04 PM
From: cnyndwllr of 224921
 
It turns out that it's almost impossible to get a health care bill past political factions and lobbyists so this bill isn't close to optimal. You do, however, have a chance to fix a "convoluted sham of a bill" and this bill incorporates principles that I happen to think are core principles.

If you're going to turn the great tanker that's the American social/economic machine you have to start somewhere and I think we just saw a slight turn into clearer waters. I'm not saying we won't have to lighten the load sometime but I'm not too pessimistic about our odds of making it safely into port either.

Now that's as vague as I can get so don't expect more. g. Ed

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Paul Smith who wrote (135358)3/30/2010 3:47:16 PM
From: JohnM of 224921
 
Spoke to another person today that is fleeing NJ to escape the excessive tax burden that has built up over the last 8-10 years. NJ's loss is Pennsylvania's gain.

PA's welcome to have him/her. Our problem is far too high property taxes. You need to be specific about the tax burden. And a failure to contribute to the pension fund, starting with Christie Whitman's idiotic decision to stop contributing because gains in the stock market would take care of contributions. Hard to believe anyone would ever believe that.

My guess is that NJ politics will be unusually volatile for several cycles now. Christie had an opportunity to correct some of the problems but has so overreacted and so bullied constituencies even though he's only been in office a few months, that the Reps will have a hard time.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (135359)3/30/2010 3:48:18 PM
From: JohnM of 224921
 
He could have made a lot more of the "expensive trip around the world" analogy which makes Sumuelson appear callous and petty. Ed

I agree with that but he opened with his notion that pundits like Samuelson, when they can't argue against a policy on serious grounds will resort to analogies.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: JohnM who wrote (135364)3/30/2010 3:54:24 PM
From: Paul Smith of 224921
 
Christie had an opportunity to correct some of the problems but has so overreacted and so bullied constituencies even though he's only been in office a few months, that the Reps will have a hard time.


Once again, I can take the same sentence and swap the word Obama for Christie and it works!

-----------------------------

Democrats who held out hopes that President Barack Obama’s health reform win would mean a quick boost to the party’s political fortunes are getting a reality check — a reminder that it takes more than one good week to shake up a year of sliding polls.


Obama and his health reform plan did get a bump in several surveys immediately after the House vote eight days ago — but the numbers in some of those polls flattened out, showing how difficult it will be for Obama to capitalize on reform, even after his top legislative goal cleared Congress.


“It helped a little bit, but I think it’s within the margin of error,” said Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac poll, which recorded a slight drop in disapproval of Obama after the bill passed. “The Democrats said the American people will grow to love this. We’ll find out. At this point, they’re not exactly jumping up and down.”


The most prominent political prognosticator who predicted a post-reform bump for Obama was President Bill Clinton — who told reporters last year that Obama would add 10 points to his approval rating “the minute health reform passed.”


But Obama’s approval in the Gallup daily tracking poll stands at 48 percent — near his all-time low of 46 percent in the three-day rolling average.



Read more: politico.com 

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Lane3 who wrote (135361)3/30/2010 3:54:44 PM
From: Travis_Bickle of 224921
 
How could it be otherwise, regardless of what bill got passed?

Regulatory agencies are no panacea ... just look at the amount of litigation that arises from decisions made by regulatory agencies.

And in any case it is impossible to get anyone on the phone at a regulatory agency ... first you must file Form 223IDE and wait for a response, then if the response is not to your liking you must file Form 99YIK, and if that is denied you can file an emergency appeal using Form 108CDE, after which you will be deemed to have exhausted all remedies and if you wish you can file in Federal District Court, but oh yeah it will be 18 months before your case can be heard.

It would be the same under any system.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (135363)3/30/2010 3:55:38 PM
From: GST of 224921
 
<core principles> Yes, I hear that. But I also see another principle enshrined in this bill -- the principle of putting the interest of powerful vested interests miles ahead of the national interest. It is not exactly a problem exclusively limited to healthcare -- as we all know. But when it comes to the $35 trillion dollar black hole we are facing, it suggests that the outcome as it unfolds will not include a plan to escape a financial fiasco that will make the current financial mess seem like a warm up act. Once in a while it pays to be direct, honest and bold. Obama missed the only opportunity he will ever have to be all three. Now it is left to death by a million amendments.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: GST who wrote (135356)3/30/2010 3:56:52 PM
From: Mary Cluney of 224921
 
<<<Like Bush before him who promised a war without cost or sacrifice, Obama offered 'change' that would not change much of anything. Honesty and courage seem almost impossible to find in Washington. >>>

Poor analogy.

You can't equate Bush to Obama on any metric.

One man is academically disciplined, reads a lot, has curiosity, and does not carry around half baked religious views. The other, by his own admission, wasted most of his life in aimless pursuits.

One person is thoughtful, the other lacks intellectual discipline.

There is a difference in vision and leadership potential.

If you can't see how the difference matters, then you will not be able to see any difference in results.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Paul Smith who wrote (135366)3/30/2010 3:57:59 PM
From: JohnM of 224921
 
If you want to talk about Obama, go right ahead. You, however, were talking about Christie. And New Jersey. And the Manhattan Institute's support for Christie. Which is a little like, I don't know, the AEI supporting Gingrich.

If you wish to talk about Obama's period in office, you need to look at the long list of achievements WR posted here. Perhaps Christie will have such after a year in office. But he's not headed that way now.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (135369)3/30/2010 4:04:47 PM
From: GST of 224921
 
Bush and Obama have little in common, no dispute. But when it came time to decide how to 'sell' their biggest idea to the American people they sang the same tune -- no pain, no sacrifice, don't worry, be happy, mission accomplished. They both failed to step up and face the music -- whether it be the horror and cost of war or the fear and financial devastation of the ticking time bomb that is health care in the USA.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: Dale Baker3/30/2010 4:10:36 PM
of 224921
 
CLUB FOR GROWTH DEMANDS FEALTY.... Mark Kirk, say hello to the repeal trap.

GOP Rep Mark Kirk, who's running for Obama's Illinois Senate seat, was one of the earliest to vow to roll back reform. Today, however, he repeatedly refused to say whether he's still on board with repeal, claiming only that he opposes certain aspects of the bill.

Now the Club for Growth, the powerful, well-funded conservative group, is ripping into Kirk for his sudden indecision, and making it clear that they expect him to live up to his promise.

"He said that he's going to do this," Club for Growth spokesman Mike Connolly just said by phone. "We expect him to live up to his pledge."

Kirk no doubt realizes he's in a bind. This year, in Illinois and every other state in the Union, the Affordable Care Act will extend tax credits to about 4 million small businesses, protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, restrictions on rescissions, eliminations on lifetime limits or restrictive annual limits, free preventive care, and a new benefit that allows young adults to able to stay on their parents' policies until they're 26 years old.

These benefits are likely to be especially popular in Illinois -- President Obama's home state.

The right is demanding that every Republican candidate promise voters that he/she will vote to get rid of all of these new benefits -- no exceptions. In Kirk's case, he actually signed a pledge to that effect, thinking it would boost his fundraising and his primary prospects.

And now he doesn't want to talk about it anymore.

As we've been talking about, the goal is to put Republican candidates in a box. Democrats are going to ask candidates like Kirk, "Are you really going to fight to repeal protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions? Are you really going to take coverage away from 32 million middle-class Americans? Are you really going to take away breaks for small businesses?" If he says "no," he alienates the GOP activists who will settle for nothing but a full repeal. If he says "yes," he alienates the mainstream electorate.

Dems have set a repeal trap. Kirk's leg is already caught in it.
—Steve Benen 3:45 PM

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQ
Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.