Obama Calls for Senate to Avoid “Parliamentary Measures” Blocking Health Care Reform

“Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn’t read the bills.”
The Senate bill is still being worked on. The final version has yet to be released.
President Obama sometime ago said that he would not sign a bill that added to the deficit. In order to get the Senate bill “deficit neutral” they have to delay the benefits (costs) for three to four years while the taxes and revenue paying for the bill will start right away. Wake up America! If it requires 10 years to pay for 6-7 years of costs, THAT is not “deficit neutral.”

After giving the insurance companies everything they wanted, can anyone seriously consider voting for this travesty “standing up to the insurance companies”?
Thanks for nothing, corporate Dems.

WaPo: “With Nelson seemingly on board, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid unveiled the final version of a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health insurance system that would expand coverage to an additional 31 million Americans, coming closer to attaining the Democrats’ longsought goal of universal medical coverage. ”
Let’s do it.
I think it accomplishes quite a bit– the patient protections ARE important, and it will reduce budget deficits more dramatically over time– and it can be improved over time as these kinds of moves often are.
If all goes well– no more childish parliamentary games– the first critical vote will take place after midnight on Sunday.

Nelson has caved on abortion and his been bought off just as Landrieu was (even though he said on Thursday his vote “could not be bought”). Language in ObamaCare bill specifically provides increased Medicare subsidies for Nebraskans (for one “extra” year).
The march towards European socialism with a populace dependent on govt. hand-outs continues…
Obama and Democrats seem hell-bent on destroying the economy. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and the Senate Democrats are intent on ramming this piece of garbage through Congress without deliberation and without transparency because they know this bill is rotten and the more it sits out the more it stinks. 57% of Americans prefer “nothing” to this legislation and only 34% prefer this legislation to no legislation. Majority of country believes their costs will increase while quality will deteriorate. Yet, the Left marches on, blatantly and arrogantly ignoring the will of the people.
Obama and Congressional Democrats who vote for this bill will have the stain of their actions on their hands for years to come…and many will pay at the ballot box.

tjp, a huge chunk of the opposition to this bill is the Left. The only people who really like it are owners of insurance company stocks.

“I think it accomplishes quite a bit– the patient protections ARE important, and it will reduce budget deficits more dramatically over time– and it can be improved over time as these kinds of moves often are.”
Do you know how much this bill ACTUALLY costs? Obama (if I remember correctly) set a target of no more than $900 billion over 10 years. This bill costs SUBSTANTIALLY more than $900 billion (actual costs minimum of $2.5 TRILLION).
You are be scammed, either willfully or blindly, if you believe that this bill costs less than $1 trillion.

The patient protections would be important, if there was any serious enforcement mechanism. There isn’t.

Congress is regularly bought off with other people’s money. Not a peep from the Left or the “mainstream” media…

All the major left blogs are in agreement: the bill stinks. The only hold outs are the liberal/Democratic ones, and they’re falling fast. Without any real benefits, they are beginning to realize that the bill as it stands spells doom for the Democratic Party, since its all mandate to benefit the insurance companies, and nothing in return for the people.

“…why the Republicans don’t walk in goose step… er I mean ‘locked step’ with the Dems over a bill they had no input to nor even have a chance to read.”
The Republicans aren’t going support any healthcare reform no matter what’s in the bills. We could give them everything they wanted and they’d still vote NO. It’s time to ignore these corporate cardboard decoys.

“…and it can be improved over time as these kinds of moves often are.”
Yeah, like Medicare and Social Security (both facing severe projected deficits in the near future) and Medicaid (which are draining state coffers).
Great thinking. Wreckless and misplaced hope.

I hope the president remembers his comments when we get rid of these morons and elect people who will represent the people and not the political machine.

“The Republicans aren’t going support any healthcare reform no matter what’s in the bills.”
The Republicans offered multiple bills, none of which say the light of day in Prince Harry’s court. All were less costly, increased competition, and actually REDUCED spending. Of course this would not do as this legislation is not about reducing costs or improving care – It is a grand scheme to increase government and exert more control from DC.

We should just kill the Senate bill, and pass one of the House versions.
The Senate bill has been hopelessly compromised.

“The Republicans offered multiple bills”
Sure they offer lame ideas all the time–knowing perfectly well that they’ll never actually have to vote in favor of any of them.

tjp, I agree. The Senate bill does nothing but hand over a bunch of cash to the blood-sucking private insurance industry, despite the fact that that industry provides no socially benefit.
It is worse than nothing.

“It is worse than nothing.”
The Dems own it.

tjp, when you write a couple of ideas down on a cocktail napkin, it doesn’t count as a bill. The GOP attempt at CYA was so lame they had to retract less than two days after the press conference announcing they had a “bill”
—
I agree on this (though not on the Senate bill being worse than nothing!) The one bill they offered up as having caucus support was lame and did nothing to move us toward universal coverage.
As for tort reform, the big question remains as to why Republicans refused to use it as a bargaining chip when the opportunity was extended last Spring, IF its really so important to them. Morever, why do they refuse to give patient safety and improved provider-patient communication equal shrift? Despite all that, they still got a nod on tort reform, but rather than seeing that baby step as an opportunity, they kick it in the knees.
The Republicans made their aims clear very early on. No point in trying to pretend they ever had meaningful or good intentions.

What about the 10 years after that? Here is where you are being snookered…but you can’t (won’t?) see it… $2.5 Trilliion +
Posted by: tjp612 |
It is impossible to argue costs with the supporters of this garbage. They are willfully ignoring the accounting games that everyone acknowledges are at work here.

“Why no tort reform in Reid’s bill? Why no interstate competition for insurance companies?”
Wolves in sheeps’ clothing. Republicans just want to limit insurance company payouts to victims of negligence and let insurance companies flock to states where they can more easily take advantage of their customers. We have a real life example as evidence: that’s exactly what the credit card companies did. How much did we all like that? It’s not in the public’s best interest; it’s just more Republican corporate welfare.

he Senate bill does nothing but hand over a bunch of cash to the blood-sucking private insurance industry, despite the fact that that industry provides no socially benefit.
Posted by: Flash Override
Oh it does more than that. It joins the Dems at the hip with Big Pharma and reaffirms the same relationship with Big Tort.

“Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn’t read the bills.”
It seems like each speech or address conains at least one line that sticks out like a sore thumb. How many of the politicians have actually read all 2000 pages of this bill, along with the thousands of pages of previous versions? Even the president can’t explain it in his own words. And those who’ve read it have no clue what they just read.

As for tort reform, the big question remains as to why Republicans refused to use it as a bargaining chip when the opportunity was extended last Spring
Posted by: Elsa Marie |
The assertion that the Dems were ever willing to include anything but the most trivial of conservative ideas in these bills really doesn’t square with reality. It does, though, play to the strength of the party….”blame others”.
They cut a backroom deal with Big Pharma which guarantees that Americans will continue to pay dramatically more for drugs than other countries. Now you can’t find a critic of Big Pharma inside the Pig Tent with a microscope.

It may be a noble attempt but I can’t see how you expect people to believe that the Democrats have suddenly replaced the traditional corporate-stooge party, the Republicans, in doing big business’s bidding. If so why don’t the insurance companies love the healthcare plan? Do you think we should believe the Republicans would have cut a better deal for the public with Big Pharma than the Democrats did? It would be entertaining to watch you guys try and say this stuff with straight faces.

I’m a liberal and I don’t want this bill to pass! It’s not health care reform, but a forced transfer of our money to health insurance companies. I wonder if it is even legal to force Americans to buy private health insurance. I am NOT voting for the Democrats in 2010. You can count on that!

BTW – I bet aspiring medical students are really psyched about the opportunity to work under heavy government regulations, being told how they should practice and where…
Looks like a perfect storm brewing: An existing shortage of primary care physicians, continuing retirements of baby-boomers, increasing demand for primary care, and heavy govt. involvement (which brings with it Medicare-style payments to physicians with low margins). Result: Fewer medical school students going into primary care, acceleration of primary care physician retirements.
Great work, libs. “Historic” indeed…

Great work, libs. “Historic” indeed…
Posted by: tjp612 |
“Unprecedented”

I’m a realist. Before the PR smear campaign started, people in America were more real about health care reform– and they wanted it.
Posted by: Elsa Marie
People still want health care reform. Washington, the source of so much of what is wrong with our system, continues to prove that they have no clue how to provide it. This bill was never about health CARE reform.

Tort reform might save some money but nobody has provided statistical evidence that it will save very much.
Posted by: Skip |
That’s not true. Please see Krauthammer 8/7/9. There’s a link to the study in the article.
”
An authoritative Massachusetts Medical Society study found that five out of six doctors admitted they order tests, procedures and referrals — amounting to about 25 percent of the total — solely as protection from lawsuits. Defensive medicine, estimates the libertarian/conservative Pacific Research Institute, wastes more than $200 billion a year. Just half that sum could provide a $5,000 health insurance grant — $20,000 for a family of four — to the uninsured poor (U.S. citizens ineligible for other government health assistance). “

“This bill was never about health CARE reform.”
Bingo – It has always been about increasing the size and control of government. It has been about expanding entitlements. Dems rely on constituencies who rely on entitlements for votes. Ramming this through promotes future votes and Dem/Lib power. Anyone who can think objectively sees this coming.
Those same (entitlement) contituencies will be the ones who suffer most under a government that is “looking out for them” – How is the “war on poverty” going that we’ve been waging for the past 40+ years?
Obamacare will have same impact on “healthcare reform” as welfare has had on the “war on poverty”: Negligible at best, but most likely making a bad situation worse.

“I’d love to hook lie detectors up to some of you and ask you how hard you swallowed before you pulled that George Bush lever the second time.”
Hook me up! I didn’t vote for him either time. Ashamedly, I hadn’t voted for anyone since Perot in ’92. But Obama got my attention as I figured out (after some initial optimism) who he was and I voted against him in ’08. I will NEVER miss the opportunity to vote again in ANY election.

My 2 senators definitely lost my vote by backing this bill. I will do everything in my power to see that neither of them get re-elected.

Re: “Bingo – It has always been about increasing the size and control of government.”
No, it’s about creating 50+ million new customers for the corporate health insurance industry. You will be forced to buy private insurance and if you don’t the governnment will fine you.
This bill is a disaster and it should not be passed.

This is your idea of democracy? Posted by: tjp612 | Dec 19, 2009 1:05:24 PM
—
To quote my conservative friends, “we’re a democratic republic” or a “representative democracy.” But yeah, I’d say that’s pretty much how it has worked for years. Like I said, I’m a realist. So what I see is that we’re a “center” country– some say center-right, but I think mostly center. We have a center-oriented media, with the exception of Fox News, and most of the opinion programs on MSNBC. In that center, we have the establishment and DC and entrenched interests. As we move further out from the center we get more populist– both on the left and the right. Politicians talk to their more populist bases, but get hung up on following through once they get to DC. Some never intend to change things; others find out its much harder than they thought. So, imho, given the reality of how things work, we can just get hung up and get nothing done, or we can push incremental step by incremental step. Its not as sexy as sweeping change, nor as homespun and validating of “ordinary folks” as Capra’s Mr. Smith goes to Washington, but I don’t believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water. I’m on Team Obama-Rockefeller-Wyden-Vickie Kennedy-Bill Clinton-Ezra Klein-Krugman (though I like the House bill better.)

“To quote my conservative friends, “we’re a democratic republic” or a “representative democracy.”"
Wrong. We were at one time but we’re not now. Quit with the delusion. They don’t care what you think. It’s not about you. It’s about their power and it’s about bribing you with your own tax money. Wake up.

“The long-awaited CBO estimate shows the bill will provide coverage to an additional 30 million Americans and reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the next 10 years.”
Apparently liberals don’t understand basic math. It’ll cost $900 billion to “save” that $130 billion. And the costs beyond 10 years will likely be $2 to $3 trillion.
A little history lesson. SS and Medicare were supposed to be self-supporting too. How well has that turned out?
Current unfunded liabilities:
Social Security: $14 TRILLION
Medicare: $73 TRILLION
Prescription Drugs: $18.6 TRILLION
Total: Over $106 TRILLION or $346,000 PER TAXPAYER
Everything the government runs turns into a huge, financial disaster, enslaving us and future generations. The numbers are right there in black and white but liberals keep thinking they’re going to get something for nothing. But then, liberalism is a mental disorder.

They don’t care what you think. It’s not about you. It’s about their power and it’s about bribing you with your own tax money. Wake up. Posted by: Mary |
Let’s see here. Among other things, I voted for health care reform. I also voted for green, renewable energy intitiatives and an improved smart grid. I voted for the environment. ARRA included several green intiatives, the smart grid is being improved and Medical IT funds have been allocated. SCHIP has been expanded. A landmark public lands bill was signed. The House has passed a health care reform bill. The President went to Copenhagen for the climate change summit. Those are all things I wanted.
I’m awake.

Great news for America. You have now joined the rest of the industrial world in providing health care for your citizens. This will improve your productivity in the work place. If the insurance companies do not play ball and provide affordable prices, there is always “medicare for all” which can be passed with only 51 votes!

This healthcare “reform” law will definately backrupt and trash the country – thats the good news. The bad news is that until it fails we live in the shackles of communism. Welcome to the Obamanation!

“with this bill, private insuracne companies will forced out of business.” VS “This bill is just a payoff to the insurance companies.”
_____________________________
Seems like the anti-Democrat critics can’t get their stories straight.

Anybody got a quick explanation of who does this, what guidelines they follow and how it gets approved?
___
No, but if you find a good one, let us know. I know that after bills are passed in each chamber, a conference committee is formed to write a compromise bill, which then must be approved by both chambers once again. Then it’s sent to the President to sign or veto. My guess is several bloggers will post more later about who is on the conference committee, and what that means. Now its premature, as Christmas Eve is looming and there’s still a Senate bill to pass.
My understanding is that Pelosi backed Obama on health care reform and backed away from the need for a public option saying that the emphasis was on “option” not “public.”
A couple other points about the senate bill– there is some good news in the form of more money to community health centers and the national health service corps fund. Senator Cantwell’s amendment also represents a real tool that progressives can use to further reform at the state level.

Just check Wikipedia for “United States congressional conference committee.”

Maybe a lot of people don’t understand how the ” Individual Mandate” works. My tax lawyer(ex-IRS) was kind enough to explain it to me.
All American citizens will be required to provide proof of government approved insurance by April 15th of the corresponding tax year. Failure to provide proof of insurance will result in the immediate levy of a fine($750.00?). The taxpayer will be notified by mail of the violation and penalties. The letter will also demand payment within a prescribed time frame, usually 30 days. Failure to meet the deadline could result in enforcement actions that include,seizure of bank accounts, garnishment of wages, liens against or forfeiture of property. If the IRS can prove willfull intent to disobey the mandate, criminal prosecution can be initiated. The health care bills also forbid cash or barter for services deals with doctors. The government is essentially saying, you see a doctor through us, or you don’t see a doctor at all.

Democratic leaders probably needed the extra money in order to secure the vote of Senator Nelson. To wit, included in the final legislation is a provision that puts the federal government on the hook for paying for the Medicaid costs of all new beneficiaries in Nebraska, forever. That dandy surely factored heavily in Senator Nelson’s calculations. – Scott Gottleib
Why a rational person would want Washington anywhere near their health care is one of life’s great mysteries.

Why a rational person would want Washington anywhere near their health care is one of life’s great mysteries.
__________________________________
You only need to take a look at other health care systems in the world for the answer to that mystery. It’s not a big secret.

“Why a rational person would want Washington anywhere near their health care is one of life’s great mysteries.”
Even more mysterious is expecting us to trust big greedy insurance companies to operate in our best interests. One of the main reasons this reform effort has gotten as far as it has is because people have become aware that these companies cannot be trusted to protect the sick. Sure, insuring healthy people is easy.

Posted by: Chisco | Dec 19, 2009 7:05:02 PM
Come on Chisco, the Republicans’ tactic has been to oppose everything the Democrats have tried to do basically since day one. It’s the only tactic they have – say ‘no’ to everything. They are the ones setting the tone and the standard for ‘bi-partisanship’.

“…a clear majority in the Senate”??? Holy Cats! There’s a clear majority in the country that doesn’t want this Health Care Scam, but Obama thinks it’s fine and dandy to ignore them and cram this jacked-up piece of garbage down their throats. What an arrogant SOB. Him and all the rest of the Dem who have completely forgotten that they are supposed to SERVE the American public, not dictate to them.

“the Republicans’ tactic has been to oppose everything the Democrats have tried to do basically since day one. It’s the only tactic they have – say ‘no’ to everything. They are the ones setting the tone and the standard for ‘bi-partisanship’.”
From The Hill (12/19/09):
National Organization for Women opposes Senate health bill
A leading women’s group called on senators on Saturday to defeat its healthcare reform bill.
The leader of the National Organization for Women (NOW) excoriated the language in the health bill curtailing federal support for insurance plan covering abortions, which was inserted to win the 60th vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).
“The so-called health care reform bill now before the Senate, with the addition of Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Manager’s Amendment, amounts to a health insurance bill for half the population and a sweeping anti-abortion law for the rest of us,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said in a statement.
“We call on all senators who consider themselves friends of women’s rights to reject the Manager’s Amendment, and if it remains, to defeat this cruelly over-compromised legislation,” O’Neill added.

From the AP (12/19/09):
Budget office: Democrats’ bill covers 94 percent, Removes ‘Botax,’ Adds Tanning Tax
“Congressional budget scorekeepers say the latest Democratic health care bill would cover 94 percent of eligible Americans while reducing the federal deficit.
The Congressional Budget Office said Saturday the changes announced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would cut the deficit by an additional $2 billion, bringing the 10-year total reduction to $132 billion.
The nearly $900 billion bill would be paid for by $483 billion in cuts to Medicare and other federal health programs, as well as tax increases.
(snip)
It would leave 23 million people still uninsured in 2019.
(snip)
Amid pressure from doctors, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to remove a proposed 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery in the health bill that was expected to raise $5 billion over a decade. In place of what was known as the Botax, he added a 10% tax on indoor tanning services.
The change is a victory for the American Medical Association, which urged lawmakers to remove the cosmetic-surgery tax after Sen. Reid included it in a draft of the bill he unveiled in November. The medical industry argued that the tax effectively discriminated against women, since they’re more likely to undergo such procedures.
The tanning tax is part of a last-minute package of amendments that are expected to be included in the final bill. It grants an exception for “phototherapy” services that are performed by licensed medical professionals.”

progressive mama – I think you need to take off those rose-colored glasses. This will not make people better off. It is just more of the same garbage that started with the creation of Medicare.

“It would leave 23 million people still uninsured in 2019.”
Down from 30 million?
Fantastic. Ruin the whole thing for 7 million more? I thought everyone was going to be covered.
Remember this day- remember this when your Mom and Dad cannot find anyone to take their “insurance” because it doesn’t even cover doctors’ costs.
But hey- Harry and Nancy will still have their insurance.

Obama says a clear majority in Congress – but it certainly NOT a clear majority of the American public that want this bill passed. Over 60% say we are better off doing nothing than passing this bill.
The only folks that want this bill are those who think the government should do EVERYTHING for them….

“Universal coverage is the right thing to do. I support passage of the senate bill because I care about people AND fiscal responsibility.”
More delusion from the left.
Google “US national debt clock real time” and tell us all again about the federal government’s “fiscal responsibility.”

The polls are in:
33 percent of likely voters favor a health care bill that does not include a public health insurance option and does not expand Medicare, but does require all Americans to get health insurance. Slightly more Democrats — 37 percent — favor the idea, while only 30 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of independents do.
Meanwhile, if the public option and Medicare buy-in are added, 58 percent of people support the idea. The number of Republican supporters drops to 22 percent, but independent support rises to 57 percent and Democratic support to a whopping 88 percent.

“Obama doesn’t want any of that checks and balances nonsense in his way. That Constitution thing is so pesky at times and Obama has no need for a Constitution.”
Unfortunately, the ONLY check on Obama and the hard-left is high unemployment…November 2010 can’t come soon enough.
BTW – Saw a bumper sticker yesterday: “January 20, 2013 – The End is Near!”

And you think the government can fix it, when they are the ones who broke it?
Posted by: ellsbells930 |
I don’t agree that they are the ones that broke it. I believe there is plenty of blame to go around, and that those who broke it can work together to fix it.
I think as a society, it is immoral, backwards and hugely misguided to NOT do anything about the uninsureds– insurance coverage saves lives. I feel the same way about manmade CO2 emissions and energy independence.
I also think it is fiscally irresponsible in a pretty big way. Check out the Paul Starr quote in my post at Dec 19, 2009 11:53:28 PM.
In addition from a Bernie Sanders press release, an investment in community health centers will ultimately provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, increasing the number of centers from 20 million to 45 million over the next five years. “The investment would more than pay for itself by saving Medicaid $23 billion over five years on reduced emergency room use and hospital costs, according to a study conducted by George Washington University.”
Its time to move into the new millenium and treat each other with decency.

“Universal coverage is a moral goal.”
That’s YOUR opinion and YOUR goal. My goal is to secure liberty for our children and prevent them from being enslaved to pay for unsustainable government debt to fit YOUR moral vision.

progressive mama – All of the problems with our healthcare system can be traced to the creation of Medicare. How can you NOT agree that the government is the problem? Yes, the insurance companies are a mess – but that was in reaction to what occurred due to Medicare regulations. Had Medicare not been the ponzi scheme that it is, we would not be where we are today.
There are plenty of things that can be done for the uninsured without this horrendous bill. How about going back to the days when people actually PAID for a doctor’s visit? It is ridiculous that routine visits are covered under health insurance. Is your car’s routine maintenance covered under your auto insurance? Of course not, because it would cause car insurance to be too expensive. Why do we think employers should be responsible for providing health insurance? Even though some employers are large enough to negotiate better deals, in most cases insurance companies charge a lot for employer based plans – because they can. If people were purchasing insurance on their own, they could purchase plans that fit their needs and insurance companies would decrease the rates because there would be competition -especially if you could purchase insurance out of state. However – since we are ALL going to be forced to purchase insurance, there won’t be any competition -even if there was a government option (because the government option would administered by an insurance company, just as Medicare it).
I am not for a universal plan because that is socialism at the federal level and is outside the powers given to the federal government in the Constitution. I am responsible for myself and my family. I do not want the government taking care of me – because then they get a say in how I live my life. It’s none of their business.

There are plenty of things that can be done
___
And yet for years nobody has done them, and those on the right have done things like attack a 12 year old boy on SCHIP. (For more on that, see Time’s “The Swift-Boating of Graeme Frost”– heartbreaking.)
I’m on the side of human decency, universal coverage, consumer protections, reducing the deficit and fiscal responsibility. I think its a shame to choose otherwise, but we do live in a “free” country, of course.

“I am not for a universal plan because that is socialism at the federal level and is outside the powers given to the federal government in the Constitution. I am responsible for myself and my family. I do not want the government taking care of me – because then they get a say in how I live my life. It’s none of their business.”
Agreed.
Conservatives believe in small government and the power of the invidividual. Liberals believe in big government and the nanny state.
Liberals believe in equality of outcome.
Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity.

I can’t find better words to put this current Socialist/Marxist/Communist movement, in our Congress, Senate and Oval Office, in perspective, than those perspectives of Glenn Beck.
Glenn tells it like it is and something very bad is happening in our Country at this time.
With no regard whatsoever and deaf ears, to the will of the overwhelming majority of the American people, this left-wing extremist movement unethically pushes forward, one radical Bill at a time, drafted under veils of secrecy, behind closed doors, in their relentless efforts to transform America into a Socialist/Marxist/Communist society; while America watches in horror, unable to do anything to stop it, helpless,like a flock of sheep, until the 2010 elections. It already feels like Communism is here now, doesn’t it?

tjp612 -Exactly. It’s the old adage… ‘Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.’ The liberals are the ones who want to ‘give a fish’ (although I don’t know where they think they are going to get them if no one knows how to fish). The conservatives are those who think fishing should be taught.

“There is no one in Washington that knows better than I what is good for me.”
I don’t think anybody doubts that conservatives are acutely aware of what’s best for themselves. It’s understanding and doing what’s best for everybody that they seem to know nothing about.
“Medicare would have to be dismantled and the liberals would never allow that to happen”
But they wouldn’t be the only ones. Neither would all the Republicans on Medicare.

Skip said “It’s understanding and doing what’s best for everybody that they seem to know nothing about.”
Well liberals certainly don’t know what is best for everyone.

“progressive mama – Where do you get that Democrats have the teaching covered?”
They’ve (Dems) had so much success in running the public school systems, haven’t they?

They’ve (Dems) had so much success in running the public school systems, haven’t they?
_________________________________
Poor, pathetic Republicans – they’ve been in power for many of the past 30 or 40 years (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) and yet they were apparently completely incompetent to produce a decent public school system.

Posted by: progressive mama | Dec 20, 2009 2:10:09 PM
“Actually, that’s the liberal position. Conservatives say they do but we all know it never actually works out that way. I look at results over the ideology-winking and lip service paid.”
Really? Do tell. Isn’t the resistance by liberals to allow proliferation of school vouchers an example of liberals denying opportunity? Why is it this Democrat Congress and this Democrat Congress recently voted to cut funding for the successful DC voucher program?
Look forward to your insights, p-mama.

Funny how President Obama only dislikes parliamentary maneuvering when it’s to his disadvantage. Otherwise he loves it!

Isn’t the resistance by liberals to allow proliferation of school vouchers an example of liberals denying opportunity? Why is it this Democrat Congress and this Democrat Congress recently voted to cut funding for the successful DC voucher program? Posted by: tjp612 | Dec 20, 2009 4:01:13 PM
Actually, that’s not a bad question. Originally, it was liberals that supported vouchers, pre-Reagan, in Nixon’s era, I believe.
The problem with vouchers, and I believe even Arne Duncan has argued this, is that they usually serve only 1 to 2 percent of the students in a community and take funds away from public schools, without ever really achieving their goals. Its not really equal opportunity– it’s an opportunity for some, while others get left behind.
I actually liked the theory and was very interested in seeing if it worked– if so, great– but charter schools have achieved better results.
There’s a great article called “An Idea Whose Time Has gone” at Washington Monthly. A couple of snips:
“But in recent months, almost unnoticed by the mainstream media, the school voucher movement has abruptly stalled. Some stalwart advocates of vouchers have either repudiated the idea entirely or considerably tempered their enthusiasm for it. Exhibit A is “School Choice Isn’t Enough,” an article in the winter 2008 City Journal (the quarterly published by the conservative Manhattan Institute) written by the former voucher proponent Sol Stern. Acknowledging that voucher programs for poor children had “hit a wall,” Stern concluded: “Education reformers ought to resist unreflective support for elegant-sounding theories, derived from the study of economic activity, that don’t produce verifiable results in the classroom.” His conversion has triggered an intense debate in conservative circles. The center-right education scholar Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and a longtime critic of public school bureaucracies and teachers unions, told the New York Sun that he was sympathetic to Stern’s argument.”
“One simple reason why voucher supporters have become disillusioned is that the programs haven’t delivered on their promises. School choice advocates claimed that vouchers would have two major benefits: low-income kids rescued from dysfunctional public schools would do better in private schools; and public schools would improve, thanks to the injection of some healthy competition.”

tierra – I wasn’t letting them off the hook. What I was saying is that when the President is of one party & the opposite party controls Congress – neither one can really push through their agenda (thank God!!!!).

” Its not really equal opportunity– it’s an opportunity for some, while others get left behind.”
So rather than offer even a small number of children the opportunity for a better education, liberals prefer that no one receive the opportunity? Per my earlier statement: Libs prefer equality of outcome, conservatives prefer equality of opportunity.
While I appreciate your lengthy response, I must ask the question: If voucher programs are only nominally effective, why all the outrage from D.C. parents whose children will either (a.) no longer be able to receive vouchers, or (b.) not have the opportunity to receive vouchers and attend higher quality schools?
Democrats do not support vouchers because teacher unions oppose them, kids be damned.

“Another example: “The $100 billion in education monies in the economic-stimulus package aims to stem huge cuts by states, fund programs for special education, low-income students, and early-childhood initiatives, and provide incentive to everyone, from teachers to state officials, to think in terms of reform.”
The Obama administration is not “teaching to fish” it is simply throwing tons o’ cash at favored constituencies, in this case teachers unions. Money is delegated to “educational” causes with no corresponding requests for accountability. In the private sector, this would be considered a very poor investment (poor return on investment). But we know Obama and his cronies know nothing of the private sector other than as a “golden goose” to be fleeced and harangued to fund their socialist agenda.

Posted by: tjp612 | Dec 20, 2009 7:02:01 PM
We differ on our definition of “equal opportunity” and how we assess whether a program is “sucessful” or “effective.” I never said that parents and kids didn’t like the program or want to be included in it. The truth of the matter is that D.C. lawmakers could ask their constituents to shoulder the program’s expense.
From the Quick and the Ed:
” The DC voucher program does not represent serious public policy. It was a P.R. move, a bone thrown by the previous administration to the privatization crowd it marginalized by supporting NCLB. The voucher dream (setting aside the obvious anti-labor agenda for the moment) has always been to introduce market dynamics to public education–to create new competition and provide incentives for innovators and entrepreneurs to bring energy and resources to the enterprise of educating students. The DC voucher program does none of these things. No new schools have been built as a result, no groundbreaking programs created, competition spurred, or innovators attracted. It’s basically just an exercise in seeing what happens when you take a couple thousand students out of pretty bad schools and put them in a range of other schools that are, collectively, somewhat better. Answer: some of the students may be doing somewhat better! I think we already knew this.”
{and obviously the kids and parents who participate like it}
“… charter schools are actually creating the whole range of market responses that vouchers are not. Drive across the river and see the brand-new schools built by KIPP and SEED, which are just a part of the tens of millions of dollars of new investment in public education spurred by charters, a wave of new organizations and people coming to the nation’s capital to educate disadvantaged students, along with many others who were here already, people who never would have been able to have been able to operate within the traditional public system.
One could argue, I suppose, that if vouchers had been given to 17,000 students instead of 1,700, they would have had more impact. But I’m not so sure–I kind of doubt that Sidwell Friends and Georgetown Day would up and build annexes in Anacostia in response. In any event, why bother? DC charter schools are directly accountable to the public and specifically designed to serve urban students. Why would it be better to re-direct public funds to schools that are neither of those things?”
Things to think about, though I get the sound bites about Dems and unions are more snappy. Perhaps there are very logical reasons unions were opposed.
jes’ sayin’

“Things to think about, though I get the sound bites about Dems and unions are more snappy. Perhaps there are very logical reasons unions were opposed.”
There is a logical reason: It is called ‘accountability’. Union teachers become accountable and begin to lose jobs. Unions begin to lose dues. Democrats being to lose campaign funds and votes. It’s all quite simple to understand.

while virtually ignoring tangible global problems such as malaria, access to potable water, HIV/AIDS, equal access to education for women, etc., etc.
—-
do you have any evidence to back that up? (Rhetorical question because the answer is no, unless you’re into false propaganda.) I’d look it up before making ludicrous claims.
-
Do you have statistics to back this up?
Absolutely. There are three including the Harvard Study made infamous by Alan Grayson, and another study that specifically looked at children, written up with links and mentioned on threads here as well as on several MSM and other blogs a few weeks to a month ago. You can easily find them with a quick search, and read them in full. They’re startling. Ezra Klein also just last week crunched the numbers on how many lives would be saved by passing insurance reform– as he said we focus sometimes too much on money and not enough on the humanity factor.

Posted by: progressive mama | Dec 20, 2009 8:16:45 PM
Sorry, you are not going to win me over with 25 year-old blogger with a degree in political science (Ezra Klein). I’ll take my education and a life experience that is triple his over anything this youngster has to offer.
As far as “evidence to back up” my assertions that liberals are more interested in their political agenda than in taking measures to improve the plight of those in need, here is a great example from TPM (gasp!) 12/1/09:
“It’s heartbreaking,” Matthew Kavanagh, director of U.S. advocacy for Health GAP told TPMDC. His group was among four U.S. AIDS groups that gave OBAMA “D+” on AIDS policy yesterday. Kavanagh said that to his shock, he felt Bush had a better record on AIDS research than Obama. “I could not imagine I would be saying that now [last year]. Many folks in the global AIDS movement were so looking forward to stepping up the fight with Obama.”
Dr. Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance, said he would have given BUSH a B+ this time last year. The shift since Obama has been “shocking” to the activists around the world, he said.
==============================
Looks like the only president who has actually received a “B+” is President Bush. The only “B+” Obama gets is the one conferred on him by himself.

“do you have any evidence to back that up? (Rhetorical question because the answer is no, unless you’re into false propaganda.) I’d look it up before making ludicrous claims.”
Checkmate.

“I think that’s a big difference between libs and conservatives nowadays– for libs it starts with equal opportunity, and for conservatives, its an afterthought as a way of convincing libs its a good thing. LOL.”
I will repeat it for you again:
Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity. Liberals believe in equality of outcome.
Is there a better example than the quotas placed on Asian students into top-tier universities? (BTW – I’m not just beating this drum to make noise, my wife is first-generation Korean – when it comes time to fill out college applications, we won’t mention they are Asian, don’t want the liberals to discriminate)

Posted by: tjp612 | Dec 20, 2009 8:28:36 PM
Personally, if I didn’t just want to be partisan and contrary and wrong, I’d look up the press for more cash in a strapped economy on that one– and how they dangled a carrot (you could get an A next year Obama if you show us mo-mo-more money). And actually look at the money involved. Its likely you won’t because that’s not on the agenda– but its something to think about. That quote doesn’t get at how much money went to those causes however– and you’re still wrong.
I do admire what President Bush did in that regard.

Posted by: progressive mama | Dec 20, 2009 8:35:51 PM
Sorry, I can’t respond to this comment as it is somewhat incomprehensible (“look up the press?”).
I’m still very interested on hearing a justification from you on why quotas are placed on high-achievers (in this case, Asian students at top-tier universities). Belief in “equality of outcome” perhaps?

Sorry, you are not going to win me over with 25 year-old blogger with a degree in political science (Ezra Klein). I’ll take my education and a life experience that is triple his over anything this youngster has to offer.
___
I’m telling you where you can get stats/numbers/data because you asked– I have no idea what that has to do with your life experience, or why you’d be contrary about that.

“did you notice that the money for jobs included in the recovery are those that are pet projects of the liberals and repayment to those who voted for him? They aren’t for people to get ahead. They aren’t for people who are anti-union. They aren’t for entrepreneurs.”
Here you go:
“Democratic districts have received nearly twice as much stimulus money as Republican districts and the cash has been awarded without regard to how badly an area was suffering from job losses, according to a new study.
The Mercatus Center at George Mason University reviewed the distribution of $157 billion in stimulus dollars based on publicly available reports and found that there was “no statistical correlation” between the amount of money a district got and its income or unemployment rate.
“You would think, right, that if the administration believes in its theory that government money can create jobs, they would spend a lot of money in districts that have high unemployment,” study co-author Veronique de Rugy said. “We found absolutely no relationship. It just kind of shows that the money is spent kind of randomly.”
Rather, the study found that Democratic congressional districts received 1.89 times more money than GOP districts. The average award for Democratic districts was $439 million, while the average award for Republican ones was $232 million.
On average, Democratic districts also got 152 awards, while Republican ones got 94.”
================================
ARRA = Democrat slush fund. It was never meant to “stimulate” the economy nor create jobs. Six months later the economy is flat and unemployment has increased 50%+ (to 10%+ from 6%+) with no signs of significant job creation on the horizon.

“I’m telling you where you can get stats/numbers/data because you asked– I have no idea what that has to do with your life experience, or why you’d be contrary about that.”
We’re all familiar with the saying “Statistics don’t lie but liars use statistics”. I’m not calling Mr. Klein a liar, but he does bring a partisan axe to the shop to grind… So, it is difficult for me to take any analysis he compiles as serious and objective.

(“look up the press?”).
Oh. No. Look up the “press for more cash” (press=”to push) which came from the group you referenced.
More specifically, the press release from Health Gap included this: “But one year is early in any Administration; President Obama still has the potential to carry forward a bold agenda on global AIDS. President Obama could earn an ‘A’ if he seizes this opportunity…”
So my point is that the D+ doesn’t mean the issues you care about were “ignored”; the group you quoted via TPM just didn’t get as much money as they wanted– and they’re using grades to press (meaning push) Obama for more. Get it? I think that’s fine, but I think given the economy and the desire to address domestic AIDs and other global health issues mentioned in my post @8:57:22 PM ought to be taken into consideration.
And the D+ in itself isn’t proof the issue was ignored.
Here’s more from Kaiser:”The Global Health Initiative, a six-year, $63 billion proposed effort, would for the first time develop a comprehensive, U.S. government-wide strategy for global health focused on the health challenges and needs of those in low- and middle-income countries. The initiative builds on the Bush Administration’s efforts to address HIV, TB, and malaria through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and President’s Malaria Initiative but also broadens and augments the focus on other global health challenges, particularly maternal and child health, family planning and reproductive health, and neglected tropical diseases. The effort currently encompasses most, but not all, of the federal government’s investment in global health.
The brief provides an overview of the projected budget for the Global Health Initiative, including the $8.6 billion proposed by the Administration in its pending fiscal year 2010 request and the $8.4 billion approved in fiscal year 2009. It examines the different U.S. programs that would fall under the Global Health Initiative over time, tracking data back to fiscal year 2001. The supplemental chartpack includes additional breakouts and budget trends over time.”
You can click links to the pdf files for the brief and chartpack at Kaiser’s web site.

“This is why they are called “elitists”.”
I was timing you on that one, but the clock is still running….You still haven’t explained how people who believe in equal outcome can be elitists at the same time. Frankly I think it’s just plain talking out of both sides of your mouth again; like saying Obama is in the pocket of Wall St while being a socialist, but others can be the judge.

As for financial literacy – people don’t need the government to “teach” them that. All they need to do is read and research it for themselves. People need to take responsibility and not wait for “big brother” to do it for them.
Posted by: ellsbells930 | Dec 20, 2009 8:35:34 PM
—
Um– you see how this fits into what I said before, right? The funny thing about many people who pay lip service to the whole “teach a man to fish” thing from a conservative perspective or conservative talking points is that what they REALLY mean is “tell that man to go teach himself to fish, but then make it extremely difficult and hide the resources.” LOL.
So what is an example of a Republican actually teaching someone to fish??? Anyone?
The emphasis is really on just everyone leaving everyone the heck alone unless the Right wants to invade right to privacy or turn religious tenets into law and legislate their version of morality (but nobody else’s) or give a corporation a handout and hope benefits trickle down or take away a person’s civil rights– you know, somebody not “real” or good enough somehow or like you. I’m exaggerating that a bit as most of the conservatives aren’t quite that crummy– but the ideology spouted at protests and on TV and against liberals sure seems to be.
Heartless and angry and self-centered, imho.
And the “teach a man to fish” thing is a saying with no meaning to those who spout it. Why? Because when anyone puts programs into play to teach people how to fish, that gets blasted too– and somehow isn’t “equal opportunity”

“You still haven’t explained how people who believe in equal outcome can be elitists at the same time. Frankly I think it’s just plain talking out of both sides of your mouth again; like saying Obama is in the pocket of Wall St while being a socialist, but others can be the judge.”
Skip, the hypocrisy offered up time-and-again by liberal elitists (you know the crowd: Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Edwards, Rockefeller, the Kennedys, etc.) is proof:
- Gore decries how the hoi polloi must cut carbon usage while he lives in a home that has a carbon footprint 10x that of the average home (while he and his venture capital partners profit handsomely from “green technology” investments and carbon offset trading)
- Kerry is working to push through a “cap-and-trade” bill that encourages use of green technologies yet pushes against (along with the Kennedys and other liberal elites) the installation of wind turbines in his precious Nantucket
- Pelosi also speaks of “saving the planet” and “fiscal responsibility” while using tax-payer provided jets to fly home to California and to jet to Copenhagen for COP15
- Edwards talks of “two Americas” while he making a fortune chasing ambulances, and many times, taking significant portions of settlements adjudicated to the middle class and poor
Need more?
Liberal elitists have “gotten theirs” through inheritance (Rockefeller), marriage (Kerry), govt. connections (Gore), etc. and work to maintain their influence and fortunes through creation, maintenance, and growth of an ever-increasing populace dependent on the nanny-state.
Make sense? Liberal elitism in a nutshell.

progressive mama – Let’s see… everyone in this country gets a free public education.. therefore, if you work hard in school, you should know how to read… if you know how to read, then you can take responsibility for yourself. It’s that simple.

“I don’t agree with the equal outcome thing. Equal outcome would mean abolishing grades and giving everyone a smiley face and a pat on the pack and the exact same job interviews with a good recommendation and same pay despite the job or the skill required or performance. I’ve never heard an American liberal advocate for that.”
I sincerely appreciate the attempt and will assume you are being genuine in your response. But this is almost EXACTLY what happens across the vast majority of government jobs! Perhaps you do not have experience with how the government works (including teachers): Broadly speaking, everyone gets paid the same regardless of performance. Performance is generally not differentiated. Liberals believe in this (equality of outcome) otherwise the system would have been changed long ago.
“I also don’t really know anything about quotas on Asians at top-tier universities.”
Oh, it’s happening…and pretty well known, particularly within the California university system. Equality of outcome blatantly on display rather than equality of opportunity.

Perhaps you do not have experience with how the government works (including teachers): Broadly speaking, everyone gets paid the same regardless of performance. Performance is generally not differentiated.
___
Okay, I’m familiar with teacher pay– and I’m for merit pay for teachers. So, when you talk about “equal outcome” you mean pay isn’t based on performance, but it could vary according to other things?For example, it would vary by job– a police officer isn’t paid the same as a postman who isn’t paid the same as a teacher, they each have their own “scale.” Right? For teachers, education level (bachelors, masters, credit hours past masters, PhD) and years of experience are accounted for and given extra compensation– and if you take on additional responsibilities (head of department; coaching) you receive compensation for that.
I don’t know. I’m not a great spokesperson for this because I’m for equal opportunity and fair assessments, but merit pay. And I’m accused of being a socialist and a “lib” on a semi-regular basis. Lol. So, I don’t know…
Also, off topic, but related to another post, aren’t there a heck of a lot of conservative elitists, too? I don’t see what the difference is you’re trying to throw out there, or how liberals are any more elitist than conservatives– or some moderates? The divide there seems more between wealthy connected elitists in the establishment, and everybody else.

Then what was that statement from Obama about spreading the wealth? Posted by: ellsbells930 | Dec 20, 2009 9:46:50 PM
That was Candidate Obama referencing our progressive income tax system and stating support for it to Joe the Plumber, but the reaction of Fox News and the conservative blogosphere, imho, was much ado about nothing–most systems around the world have progressive elements. To recap, Obama answered a question about a flat tax, then said,
“And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don’’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who’’s things are slow and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is that if the economy’’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody… If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re going to be better off it you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now I think everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody. “

Right – teach the kids to read, then throw them out in the streets. No need to educate them about anything.
I’ve heard of ‘progressive’; I guess you’re a ‘regressive’.
Posted by: tierra | Dec 20, 2009 10:24:02 PM
—
That was my reaction too. Teaching to fishing = teaching to read in those horrible public education schools liberals have ruined. (not my words, I’m paraphrasing from the usual talking points.) And then, that’s it folks. You’re on your own. good luck, don’t ask for help, don’t run into bad luck and don’t question the morals we impose on ya or the power-wealth distribution or any oppression or discrimination you might see. LOL.

“Interesting, that is one of the stated goals of Obama – to assess and reward excellence in the education system – including teachers and administrators.”
We’ll see if it happens. I’m not holding my breath as most of Obama’s promises have expiration dates.

“That was my reaction too. Teaching to fishing = teaching to read in those horrible public education schools liberals have ruined. (not my words, I’m paraphrasing from the usual talking points.) And then, that’s it folks. You’re on your own. good luck, don’t ask for help….”
I think you are missing the point. We are all a product of the support systems we had early in life (family, teachers, community orgs., churches, etc.) and the degree to which we take responsibility for our actions and inactions. Conservatives (from my POV) believe that as we move from adolescents into adults we become accountable for our decisions. We thrive on the struggle to become self-reliant as we make our way in the world. We work hard and reap the rewards of our sweat. We do not want a nanny state to care for us. If we wanted that, we never would have moved out of our parent’s home after graduation from high school or college…

Posted by: tierra | Dec 20, 2009 10:54:46 PM
Again, we’ll see if it happens to completion. Obama’s promises seem to carry expiration dates.

tierra – When someone knows how to read, they have the world within reach. That is educating them. You learn by doing. For example… when the first PC’s came out, we got one where I worked. I was told “figure it out”… which is exactly what I did. I turned it on & started figuring it out. I read the manuals (on the hardware & the software). I taught myself how to use it and was able to because I could read. There weren’t any computer classes – you learned by doing.

“When someone knows how to read, they have the world within reach. . ..There weren’t any computer classes – you learned by doing.”
_____________________________________
Wow. Ellesbith you really do believe in just teaching kids to read and then throwing them out on the street to take care of themselves, heh?
Your ‘regressive’ ideas may come into vogue if the economic disaster cooked up on Bush’s watch comes to full fruition. Of course we’ll all be shooting each other like rats and living out of garbages by then too.

tierra – When someone knows how to read, they have the world within reach. That is educating them . . . . I taught myself how to use it and was able to because I could read. There weren’t any computer classes – you learned by doing.
______________________________________
Odd you would make this self-actualizing claim and then plead unable to put together any kind of proposal for “Race To The Top”.
Perhaps your attitude about ‘just teach kids to read and that’s it’ inhibits motivation on your part?
I feel sorry for your district. Do you hold a decision-making position?

“Last time you were touting your extensive professional experience ellesbelles…”
BTW, tierra, what “extensive professional experience” would you tout if you were to do so? Are you paid by tax dollars?

“Very, very, very broad generalization on your part”
Well you made your very broad generalizations and I made mine. I don’t think liberals believe in either ‘equal outcome’ [righty-speak for socialism] or elitism but knock yourself out. Somebody might give you an honorary degree.

Posted by: tjp612 | Dec 20, 2009 10:57:09 PM
Ok. I’m going to take off my partisan hat for a minute here– but don’t hold it against me as I am a partisan and I wouln’t want you to think I’m misrepresenting myself :>)
Here’s what I notice in my own little world, which seems to transfer pretty well to the larger picture. When all is said and done, we– meaning Americans– are actually not all that different (for the most part, there ARE some wackos) though we have a tendency to act like our differences are huge– like our intra American cultural wars are really a huge divide. And we let pundits and politicians play on teensy differences and get us at each other throats. Notice how everyone is saying lately that Obama isn’t all that different than Bush? That’s cuz we fight about these very small differences and blow them way out of proportion. We’re Americans. People in Iran see us all as very similar. So do people in China. So do people in Italy and France, and Brazil and Somalia and Indonesia and North Korea. We’re all way more alike than we may like to think when arguing policy and ideology.
One way, we’re all alike, imho, is that we’re all “Liberal.” By that I mean Liberals who stand for liberty as well as personal dignity, freedom of expression, tolerance, private property, human rights, transparency of government, limitations on government power, multiparty political pluralism, self-determination, right to privacy, the rule of law, due process, respect for science and rational thought, fundamental equality, equal opportunity, a free market economy, free trade.
I say this because sometimes we act like American conservatives or American liberals (in the less broad, more politically specific) sense don’t all stand for the big ideas that actually unite us.

part deux:
Generally speaking, an American conservative, imho, while still a Liberal in the broader sense, stands for conserving a way of life and the current distribution of wealth and power (hence, the whole “clinging to the status quo” accusation that often gets thrown at American conservatives) as well as a stricter more literal interpretation of the Constitution (that may not be in keeping with the times) and less government intervention (supposedly– though we often don’t see this in the social freedom sphere– gay marriage, reproductive choice, right to privacy.)
In some ways, we’re all more conservative than we might like to think too. Its very hard to legislate or lead sweeping change in America that doesn’t come rather organically or culturally from innovation. Our media and the establishment is very geared toward the center and the status quo when it comes to power and wealth.

part trois:
I think conservatives (guess I’m back to being partisan and “offended”)have convinced themselves, that being an American liberal democrat is akin to being a “socialist,” a “fascist”, a “radical,” a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, AND a lazy person that doesn’t want to work and just wants hand-outs. But I believe the same thing you do, tjp–
“as we move from adolescents into adults we become accountable for our decisions. We thrive on the struggle to become self-reliant as we make our way in the world. We work hard and reap the rewards of our sweat. We do not want a nanny state to care for us. If we wanted that, we never would have moved out of our parent’s home after graduation from high school or college…”
I think liberals think the same darned thing– although since FDR, WWII, the 1960s, I think there are issues regarding government spending in times of deflationary depression, civil rights, the strength of the safety net (social programs) that divide us. My heartbreaker, my bottom line, is children. If in order to save the children, a few people get away with gaming the system, I’m okay with that. I don’t think we should let kids fall through the cracks because they had the misfortune of being born into poverty. but I’m certainly self-reliant, as is my independent (Perot, Paul-supporting) husband, my very liberal (green party, Kucinich supporter) sister-in-law, my ex-Navy brother-in-law, my moderate Republican sister and my yellow dog Democrat father. Proud Americans, all.
End of long post (sorry if that was way, way TMI.)

End of long post (sorry if that was way, way TMI.)
Posted by: progressive mama | Dec 21, 2009 12:20:53 AM
_______________________________
No, it’s good information prog mom, detailed and nuanced. It’s good to have this sort of thing posted here – too often it’s parroted slogans and bumper sticker nonsense shouted back and forth.

It’s good to have this sort of thing posted here – too often it’s parroted slogans and bumper sticker nonsense shouted back and forth. Posted by: tierra | Dec 21, 2009 12:29:19 AM
Thanks tierra. Now I have to go sleep, though I was maybe going to watch the Senators vote at 1 (and make sure everyone shows up!), just because health care reform is one of my BIG issues and its Christmas break :>) G’night. (Nice info on Bushonomics and the stock market being up ~25% since Obama’s inauguration.)

“Show us your reference to the quota systems with exact information on the restrictions.”
As I’ve told you many times before, tierra, I’m not going to do research on your behalf, particularly for topics such as this that are so easily researched. As you’ve said before “do some research, get caught up.”

“Since Larry Craig admonished Clinton and Larry Craig is conservative does it mean all conservatives are hypocritical closet case homosexuals?”
Ah, Skip, you’ve brought up another great point. From my POV, I don’t think Craig has done anything illegal, but I would not support him if he were my Senator. Same for Stephens from Alaska (he was found innocent, but there was enough smoke swirling around him there was probably some fire).
What amazes me about Democrats is that they go silent when players on their side are ethically challenged in office: Rangel and Dodd (taxes), Murtha (quid pro quo), etc.
BTW – Ethics charges against Murtha dropped on Friday….

“…because health care reform is one of my BIG issues and its Christmas break”
Do you have any idea how much this bill really costs? Do you believe that Congress will cut $500 billion in welfare? Do you believe that Congress will cut doctor’s pay by 21%?
Call my cynical, but I don’t see it happening. The federal deficit and national debt will continue to spiral (just wait until interest rates go up – we’ve had it easy). Then hard choices will need to be made and rationing of care will occur as demand increases, availability of doctors decrease and government coffers run dry.
These aren’t scare tactics, rather this forecast is based on a fundamental understanding of politics and macroeconomics.
p-mama: you’ve been very reasonable and genuine in you dialogue. As stated previously, you’ve represented your side much better than usual cast of characters.

BTW – Why the rush on passing healthcare “reform” legislation? If this is such a great bill, why is it not debated on its merits (rather than constructed in Harry Reid’s office with limited input from other Democrats and NO input from Republicans)?
Seems to me to be a day-old fish basking in the mid-day sun: The longer it sits out, the worse it stinks.

“elitist” is just another buzz word the Republican right wing has tried to pin on liberals for an easy smear. It’s bumper sticker bullcrap.”
As usual, cutting-edge analysis from you. If I were a Liberal I’d be embarassed that you are a representative of “our side”.

p.s. – Santa Claus isn’t American

“elitist” is just another buzz word the Republican right wing has tried to pin on liberals for an easy smear. It’s bumper sticker bullcrap.”
As usual, cutting-edge analysis from you. If I were a Liberal I’d be embarassed that you are a representative of “our side”.
Posted by: tjp612 | Dec 21, 2009 1:15:23 AM
__________________________________
That is supposed to be an intelligent refutation of my point? My goodness the right wing are a weak-minded lot. You sink to insult, and not a logical response in sight. Come on tjp, that’s weak.

“Why the rush on passing healthcare ‘reform’ legislation?”
I know, it’s only been about 100 years.

tierra – I’m not a teacher, nor do I work for the district. But I am a parent who regularly attends school board meetings & gets as much information as possible about what is going on. I am actively involved in the district and will continue to after all my children graduate. It is my responsibility as a parent and citizen of this community to do so. The information I provided came directly from our Superintendent.

tierra said “then throwing them out on the street to take care of themselves, heh?….. Of course we’ll all be shooting each other like rats and living out of garbages by then too.”
Just a little over the top, don’t you think?
Posted by: ellsbells930 | Dec 21, 2009 6:37:44 AM
_________________________________
You’re quoting way out of context ellesbelles . .. typical tactic . ..
“Your ‘regressive’ ideas may come into vogue if the economic disaster cooked up on Bush’s watch comes to full fruition. Of course we’ll all be shooting each other like rats and living out of garbages by then too.”
I like my original version better . . .