Quote :

"I would have laughed at it. Getting hit with a shoe is a small price to pay for sending thousands of American troops to their deaths for oil."

you're such a hack

9/10/2009 10:53:13 AM

It's kinda hilarious in retrospect. Before 9/11 the Bush Administration was not taking a hard line with Iraq really, but after the attacks, suddenly we knew they had WMDs, even though we did not have enough intelligence before the attacks to prompt a harder line from Bush pre-9/11. Hence, lies.

9/10/2009 10:55:15 AM

And if a Democrat had yelled "YOU LIE" when Bush addressed Congress, he would have most certainly been labeled a TREASONOUS TRAITOR by the Conservative party.

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 10:57 AM. Reason : ]

9/10/2009 10:57:18 AM

Quote :

"The republican Congressman from South Carolina Wilson managed to fund his opponents entire campaign by shouting out to call the president a lair in the middle of his address to a joint session of congress last night. http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/19079 The amount raised went up 3000 dollars while I typed this message."

Since I posted that link earlier this hour the amount raised has gone up about 30,000. It's gone up over 100,000 from when I first saw it last night for this Rob Miller guy who "served 13 years in the United States Marine Corps, including two tours of duty in the Iraq War" according to wikipedia

9/10/2009 10:58:47 AM

Pres. Obama didn't say much of anything new. He has hitched his wagon to the Pelosi Bill which is losing support daily.

Did he ramp up partisan attacks for his democrat base in congress? yes. Did he actually change anyone's mind? doubtful.

Obama's speech was what we've come to expect now. Lots of teleprompted elegance at the beginning and end with little substance in the middle.

9/10/2009 11:06:53 AM

Quote :

"Did he ramp up partisan attacks for his democrat base in congress? yes. Did he actually change anyone's mind? doubtful."

For my money he seemed pretty bipartisan, he talked about malpractice reform which the right cheering during the speech, he used a McCain idea that got Senator McCain to stand, clap, & give a thumbs up, he framed the idea of everyone having to pay for emergency care of the uninsured as a tax on us all which got some 'pubs clapping (gotta cheer for something framed as tax relief), he talked about some exemptions of certain requirements for small business that again got the republicans clapping, he did a lot to bring seniors on board (although he already has the AARP), & he told the left that while he thinks the public option is a good idea that the left needs to be more open to all ideas that are means to the same end of providing affordable health insurance to all even if those ideas come from the right.

This easily could have been a THE PUBLIC OPTION IS THE ONLY OPTION/PUBLIC OPTION NOW!!1! speech, and it was not. It could have been lets do this without republican votes speech, and it was not. Saying he was open to ideas from both sides, but that he will not make time for those who have made the political calculation that it is better to kill this bill than to improve it was a very potent line too.

To see room for more bipartisanship in this speech is perfectly valid & true of any political speech, but to see this speech as solely a partisan attack... you had to want it.

9/10/2009 11:26:38 AM

When he speaks, I have to put him on and listen - I can't stand to watch his side to side motion as he switches from the teleprompters in the corners. He hardly ever looks the camera - the people, directly in the eyes, which is a little curious in itself.

9/10/2009 11:27:44 AM

i feel like this address was a little more to congress itself, rather than the people.

but he kind of can't look directly at the camera...prompters on on either side... and the man can't do a speech sans prompter

9/10/2009 11:30:20 AM

Not the issue. We saw a film of Hoover picking his nose during a speech in high school. Didn't have a fucking thing to do with his performance as President.

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM. Reason : ...]

9/10/2009 11:35:28 AM

I don't believe I'd make a reference to Hoover in support of Obama.

9/10/2009 11:37:31 AM

People certainly equated Bush's speaking abilities to his intelligence. He was not a good public speaker, and was called moronic because of it.

9/10/2009 11:38:04 AM

I'm not supporting Obama. I'm saying the President's reliance on a teleprompter is irrelevant.

9/10/2009 11:39:19 AM

Bush actually was a decent public speaker before his presidency. I think nerves just took over after the failures of finding WMDs in Iraq, which cheney completely invented, and the economy sinking, along with the unpopular war, and Katrina. He just had a mental breakdown.

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM. Reason : -]

9/10/2009 11:44:39 AM

Quote :

"For those who care about facts, the nonpartisan PolitiFact.com and FactCheck.org, both examined the claims that the Democratic proposals provide coverage for illegal immigrants and found the claims to be false."

Between this and the "death panels", I think it's clear that when Republicans whine that nobody can read the health care bill, they mean "Republicans don't bother to read the health care bill"

And it seems that Wilson is a known hot-head and idiot:

Quote :

"It was not the first time Wilson — attorney, U.S. Army vet and former aide to U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond — has raised eyebrows by shouting at political opponents. Seven years ago this month, the then-freshman Wilson appeared on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” with five-term Congressman Bob Filner (D-Calif.) to discuss whether to go to war in Iraq, action that Filner opposed but Wilson supported. In the course of the discussion, Filner noted that the U.S. supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein’s regime during the Iran-Iraq War — a fact revealed by the investigation into the Iran-Contra Affair, which discovered the Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran, then under an arms embargo, to win support for freeing U.S. hostages in Lebanon and to fund the Nicaraguan contras, a counterrevolutionary rebel force that was fighting the country’s government. But Filner’s statement incensed Wilson, as the Washington Post reported at the time: “That is wrong. That’s made up,” Wilson fired back. “I can’t believe you would say something like that.” When Filner calmly held his ground, advising Wilson to read newspaper reports and other documentation, the Republican erupted: “This hatred of America by some people is just outrageous. And you need to get over that.” As moderator Connie Brod sat by helplessly, Filner challenged: “Hatred of America? . . . Are you accusing me?” “Yes!” Wilson shouted. For good measure, over the next minute Wilson accused Filner of harboring “hatred of America” four more times, of being “hateful” three times and of being “viscerally anti-American” once. Filner responded, “This is not worth replying to,” and Brod finally regained control of the discussion by taking viewer phone calls."

9/10/2009 11:46:15 AM

ZOMG Obama can't speak without a teleprompter!

9/10/2009 11:46:25 AM

Insta-polls show a bump in his approval rates

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/09/09/top13.pdf

9/10/2009 11:50:03 AM

^ Interesting, I wonder if it'll last?

From everything you have heard or read so far, do you favor or oppose Barack Obama's plan to
reform health care?
            (Post-Speech)  (Pre-Speech)
               Sept. 9           Sept. 5-8
                2009                  2009 
Favor           67%                53%
Oppose         29%               36%
No opinion     4%                 11%

9/10/2009 11:53:26 AM

Quote :

"for the people who are against this healthcare reform, have any of you tried to buy your own health insurance when your employer doesn't provide it?"

I've purchased my own health insurance before, a few times, and it wasn't a huge deal. When I was out of college and it took a while to get a good full time job (with coverage) I bought my own policy with BCBS. When I was laid off in 2008 again I purchased my own coverage (which was WAY WAY WAY cheaper than COBRA. COBRA fucking blows). Granted I'm a healthy single individual in his 20s and I opted for pretty basic coverage so it wasn't ridiculously expensive ($65/month the first time and about $85/month more recently).

I think there are some problems with our current system but I don't feel more government involvement is the solution. It seems to me that health insurance would be a lot cheaper if it was only offered directly to invididuals and not through a company. Since employers get huge tax breaks for providing coverage for their employees they get beefcake & excessive packages that drive up the costs and put the individual at a disadvantage. If I'm mistaken here anyone can feel free to correct me.

In my opinion health insurance should be more like auto insurance. There's the bare minimum required by law and then there's all the other options that are up to you. That are your choice.

9/10/2009 12:37:51 PM

Quote :

"In my opinion health insurance should be more like auto insurance. There's the bare minimum required by law and then there's all the other options that are up to you. That are your choice."

So you are basically about 80% in support of the Obama plan?

The "Health Exchange" establishes the bare minimum, and you have the option to get nicer plans if you want.

The only difference between what you want and the current system/Obama plan is that employers still provide most peoples' health care (which is a system most people are currently happy with).

9/10/2009 12:43:15 PM

No one answered my question I posed in the other thread.

What if employers opt to take the cheaper penatly rather than provide insurance for their employees? Are there any provisions to keep this fromm happening? This is my main concern with the entire health care overhaul that is being proposed. I'm happy with the coverage I have today - but if the government provides a cheaper loophole for companies, they will certainly take it.

9/10/2009 12:47:06 PM

^ Employers don't have to offer health coverage now, they generally do it as a "perk," it's almost expected.

If your employer is offering health coverage now when they don't have to, they'll likely continue to offer health coverage after the new policies are in place if business stays the same.

Otherwise, you are free to find another job with a better employer (you know... how capitalism is supposed to work).

9/10/2009 12:52:40 PM

Quote :

"In my opinion health insurance should be more like auto insurance. There's the bare minimum required by law and then there's all the other options that are up to you. That are your choice."

The problem is establishing what a bare minimum is. Never mind that there is a significant difference between liability insurance and health insurance and the fact that just because you have insurance doesn't mean you're actually getting care. For reference, see Mass. where more people have insurance, but ER visits for non-emergencies are still up. You can provide people with "insurance" all you want, but if it doesn't cover the right things AND if people don't actually use it, then it doesn't solve the problem.

Quote :

"^ Employers don't have to offer health coverage now, they generally do it as a "perk," it's almost expected. If your employer is offering health coverage now when they don't have to, they'll likely continue to offer health coverage after the new policies are in place if business stays the same."

I think you're missing the point of the question. If it costs Company A 10,000 / year to insure their employees, and the tax penalty for not providing coverage is $7,000, what incentive does the company have to continue to provide coverage when as soon as they drop theirs all of their employees would be eligible for .govcare?

Sure you could say that employees might choose another job, but realistically most wont because again, they're covered by .gov care and it's not like this same cost / benefit analysis won't happen at every company. So in the long run you'll have exactly what we have now. Shit care for people who don't get employer coverage and better care for those who do.

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 1:00 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/10/2009 12:56:02 PM

http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/19079

The last time Wilson was challenged it was with a $500,000 campaign, if this keeps up the challenge this time from Rob Miller will have bypassed that within 24 hours. Rob Miller's campaign has raised over $300,000 so far since Wilson's outburst at the address to the joint session of congress.

9/10/2009 2:15:29 PM

from about 8k people... which means that as this goes on, he can go back to those $5, $10, $20 donors again....

this guy's fundraising team is most likely going to be taking a vacation soon.

9/10/2009 2:18:25 PM

On ABC, I heard some correspondent mention something about "going nuclear", where they would only need 51 votes in the Senate instead of the usual 60. What are they talking about?

9/10/2009 2:23:03 PM

^ the reconciliation option. passing it without requiring the normal 60 votes for cloture, to bypass filibustering.

9/10/2009 2:24:20 PM

reconciliation - I dont really understand it either, sounds like a hack the dems are going to use to cram this bill through

9/10/2009 2:24:34 PM

^ don't be an idiot, that 'going nuclear' threat has been around for years. it's nothing new here.

9/10/2009 2:27:40 PM

Can you explain how it works? Or how it's justifiable to use it one instance and not another? I've heard of the term, but don't know if I've ever seen it applied.

9/10/2009 2:29:10 PM

i read a really good explanation of it the other day...

i will see if i can find it

9/10/2009 2:30:50 PM

basically it's kinda a pandora's box. 51 votes to pass a motion, rather than 60. i.e. needing a majority to pass a bill, not a supermajority. so if one party decides to use this as a way to pass a bill, just wait until they're out of power, and the other party does the same thing. it defeats the civility that the senate tries to keep for itself.

9/10/2009 2:32:11 PM

I dont understand how it is justifiable to go forward without a majority vote. It just boggles the mind that this can even happen.

9/10/2009 2:32:59 PM

^^Not that needing 60 votes to prevent a filibuster falls in the realm of civility either, needing 60 votes to pass something isn't the standard requirement, its just the only way to pass something that you know already has the votes to pass but the opposing party will use delaying tactics or in some cases actually not releasing control of the floor by talking with no breaks so as to prevent a vote.

The 60 vote thing only applies when you know the opposing team wont let a vote happen because they know if a vote did happen they'd lose. For my money I think the democrats letting the republicans filibuster to prevent a vote from happening would hurt the republicans (it'd probably hurt everyone b/c congress wouldn't be getting anything done, but it'd hurt the republicans more after being labeled as obstructionists when the dems say hey look, we have the votes to pass it, but the republicans wont let it come to a vote).

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

9/10/2009 2:36:55 PM

Bush used it to pass his tax cuts early in his administration. I don't want to hear any complaining from the right if it's used to pass health care reform. The 60 vote requirement to break a filibuster is inherently unfair to Democrats anyway, as it's considerably harder to gather support for progressive legislation than anything else.

9/10/2009 2:40:37 PM

To trigger the reconciliation process, Congress passes a concurrent resolution on the budget instructing one or more committees to report changes in law affecting the budget by a certain date. If the budget instructs more than one committee, then those committees send their recommendations to the Budget Committee of their House, and the Budget Committee packages the recommendations into a single omnibus bill. In the Senate, the reconciliation bill then gets only 20 hours of debate, and amendments are limited. Because reconciliation limits debate and amendment, the process empowers the majority party.

Until 1996, reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction, but in 1996 the Senate adopted a precedent to apply reconciliation to any legislation affecting the budget, even legislation that would worsen the deficit. Under the administration of President George W. Bush Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts. Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed.

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644) outlines what reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be extraneous in six cases:

(1) if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

(2) if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;

(3) if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;

(4) if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;

(5) if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and

(6) if it recommends changes in Social Security.

If a provision violates the Byrd Rule, then any Senator may raise a procedural objection and unless 60 Senators vote to waive the objection, then the offending provision will be stripped from the bill.

So basically, reconciliation can be used in the case of health care because it will affect the budget in some way and delaying legislation that is contingent on budgets is very messy business. If the bill stalls out in the Senate, reconciliation can be used with 51 votes instead of 60, and the majority party will have more power over what goes into the bill before it is made into law. Kinda like when under the Bush Administration, the GOP used reconciliation to pass three tax cuts for the wealthy with 51 votes, because it had an impact on the budget, obviously. Rushing tax cuts through the process is completely acceptable, but if Obama tries to do the same thing with health care, expect a lot of idiots to say that it's unconstitutional or some other GOP BS.

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 2:52 PM. Reason : -]

9/10/2009 2:45:01 PM

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 2:50 PM. Reason : nm....i missed a post up there]

9/10/2009 2:46:45 PM

Very interesting. Thanks for the info. I had no idea this process existed or that it was used to get the tax cuts through.

9/10/2009 2:47:33 PM

Thanks, good information. Here's a current whip count of people currently opposed to the legislation: http://drudgereport.com/flashwc.htm Granted, it's from Drudge, but it's some good information nonetheless.

I'm not arguing whether or not it should be used... but doesn't everything potentially effect the budget? I mean, it sounds to me to be similar to how the federal government uses the Commerce clause to enact legislation in the States... in shorthand, if it effects interstate commerce, then the feds can regulate it.

Maybe I'm not seeing the check on this kind of power?

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM. Reason : ]

9/10/2009 2:53:14 PM

Quote :

"For my money he seemed pretty bipartisan, he talked about malpractice reform which the right cheering during the speech, he used a McCain idea that got Senator McCain to stand, clap, & give a thumbs up, he framed the idea of everyone having to pay for emergency care of the uninsured as a tax on us all which got some 'pubs clapping (gotta cheer for something framed as tax relief), he talked about some exemptions of certain requirements for small business that again got the republicans clapping, he did a lot to bring seniors on board (although he already has the AARP), & he told the left that while he thinks the public option is a good idea that the left needs to be more open to all ideas that are means to the same end of providing affordable health insurance to all even if those ideas come from the right. This easily could have been a THE PUBLIC OPTION IS THE ONLY OPTION/PUBLIC OPTION NOW!!1! speech, and it was not. It could have been lets do this without republican votes speech, and it was not. Saying he was open to ideas from both sides, but that he will not make time for those who have made the political calculation that it is better to kill this bill than to improve it was a very potent line too."

I said this before thinking President Obama was being bipartisan, but in light of the reconciliation option that only needs 51 votes, maybe this was one last chance to get the republicans on board before doing it without them? Or maybe he was just setting things up to avoid as much political fallout for doing it without the republicans if they don't come on board.

Will the face of the republican health care efforts in the coming weeks be Joe "the Shouter" Wilson, or something with more bipartisan flavor like Republican Senator Olympia Snowe?

9/10/2009 2:54:08 PM

I think it has more to do with losing Dem support....especially the fiscally more conservative Dems

if they can lower the needed votes then they don't have to depend on those Dems as much

9/10/2009 2:58:24 PM

Honestly, the check on the power existed before Bush. Since he used it to pass tax cuts, and then even tried to use it to drill for oil in protected national parks, it's pretty clear that the GOP, specifically the Bush Administration, can be blamed for it's expanded implied powers.

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 3:00 PM. Reason : -]

9/10/2009 2:59:43 PM

Quote :

"basically it's kinda a pandora's box. 51 votes to pass a motion, rather than 60. i.e. needing a majority to pass a bill, not a supermajority. so if one party decides to use this as a way to pass a bill, just wait until they're out of power, and the other party does the same thing. it defeats the civility that the senate tries to keep for itself."

actually the nuclear option is different from reconciliation....going nuclear reduces the number of votes needed to stop a filibuster not pass the bill...

Quote :

"In U.S. politics, the "nuclear option" is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005."

i don't usually rely on wiki...but this is what it says about it's most prominent and probably recent use...

Quote :

"The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Quote :

"Stimwalt - Honestly, the check on the power existed before Bush. Since he used it to pass tax cuts, and then even tried to use it to drill for oil in protected national parks, it's pretty clear that the GOP, specifically the Bush Administration, can be blamed for it's expanded implied powers."

the Byrd rule was instated as a result of Senator Robert Byrd's opposition to Clinton trying to enact reconciliation to pass his health care plan...

Quote :

"August 25, 2009, Sen Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), one of the members of the "Gang of Six" bipartisan group to work on a health care reform bill in the Senate has said that reconciliation may be used, is an acceptable option, and that he can support it. Health care reform is inherently directly related to any budget developed and a precedent was set in 1981 to adopt the reconciliation procedure to enact far-reaching budget bills."

so you're right about the GOP starting it...since they had control of the Senate in '81....you're just wrong about which leader it was under


[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 3:38 PM. Reason : sfgd]

9/10/2009 3:11:33 PM

Thanks for the explanation - I did not know that it had been used before by the Bush administration, as I do not recall a big deal being made of it at the time.

9/10/2009 3:28:57 PM

Quote :

"If a provision violates the Byrd Rule, then any Senator may raise a procedural objection and unless 60 Senators vote to waive the objection, then the offending provision will be stripped from the bill."

that line right there will be the kicker if the Senate enacts reconciliation...

if any Senator (more than likely a Republican) finds anything in the bill that doesn't significantly affect the deficit, the Senator can object and without the super-majority to strike it down the provision will be removed from the bill completely...

this can leave a LOT of holes in a bill that big...

9/10/2009 3:56:25 PM

wow, LP, I've never seen you in here talkin bout stuff before,

9/10/2009 4:09:00 PM

that's because my visits to TSB were few and far between


i'm sick of chit chat


i need something that makes me think

9/10/2009 4:12:01 PM

share the wealth. Chit Chat needs you, too

9/10/2009 4:13:26 PM

i think i'll leave chit chat for my night time endeavors

9/10/2009 4:17:40 PM

oh my...

9/10/2009 4:18:30 PM

Quote :

"Insta-polls show a bump in his approval rates"

Yet, if you read the pdf itself and not just the headline that CNN uses to generate misleading support for the speech, you will find this:

Quote :

"18% of the respondents who participated in tonight's survey identified themselves as Republicans, 45% identified themselves as Democrats, and 37% identified themselves as Independents."

Please stop trying to use slanted polls as the truth. It doesn't help you and makes you look even more like a Flavor Aid drinker (like that is even possible).

9/10/2009 4:31:03 PM