Disqus - Friends of invadesoda

Re: It Will Soon Be Time For A New New-Deal

ChrisWWW — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:26:28 -0000

mikkel,
That's probably true. Not only do big businesses get to write the laws (see the Baucus health care plan and the bankruptcy "reform" from a few years back) but they also have the money to hire the lawyers and accountants that can game the system. The idea that the US government isn't friendly enough to these guys is laughable.

Re: It Will Soon Be Time For A New New-Deal

ChrisWWW — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:56:51 -0000

Mikkel,
It's undeniably true that the deficit spending should be targeted for maximum efficiency. But the choice back in Jan. & Feb. was between no bill and a crappy bill. Without more than 2% of Congress acting in a sane and selfless way, these are the choices we're left with.

Re: Did Barack Obama Read the Baucus Bill?

ChrisWWW — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:15:50 -0000

*Presses the "like" button on Jazz*

Re: Enough’s Enough America

ChrisWWW — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:57:25 -0000

DLL83,
I suppose the idea is to shame the racist folks for being racists. Show them that society doesn't accept their flawed world-view and small-mindedness. We don't want to go as far as making racism a thought crime, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't put some cost on evil stupidity.

Re: Baucus Plan Looks Promising

ChrisWWW — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:34:52 -0000

Medicare is going bankrupt because its funding isn't increasing to keep up with the cost of health care across the board not because it's an inefficient program.

Put more simply, if the cost of hospital Tylenol goes up, both Medicare and private insurers need more money to pay for that Tylenol. Insurers pay for it by raising premiums or dropping sick customers. Medicare will need to pay for it by raising taxes or reducing benefits. But as it stands, Medicare customers and the taxpayer will get that Tylenol to a sick grandma for 20% cheaper than an insurance company will.

Re: Where Have Conservatives Been All These Years?

ChrisWWW — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:29:15 -0000

I see what you're saying DaGoat, but here's a question: Why are fiscal concerns so far down on the list when Republicans are in power, and at the top of the list when Democrats hold the levers?

I think the answer is fairly clear. The bulk of movement conservatives like Rush aren't concerned about fiscal responsibility as a principle, just as a weapon to use against their opponents. It's really about the pursuit and exercise of power, and nothing else. Bush fits perfectly into that definition; there was hardly a campaign promise he didn't abandon in the course of eight years.

Re: Where Have Conservatives Been All These Years?

ChrisWWW — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:34:29 -0000

CStanley,
I guess the trouble is that there were no prominent fiscal conservatives. Can you even name someone prominent within the party that was concerned with Bush at the time? The point is, the Republican party and the conservative movement was largely unified behind Bush until Jan. 20th. They had plenty of time to complain and distance themselves, but they didn't, so they own the mess he created.

By the way, I'm with Krugman. Obama and the Democrats will regret not having passed more effective legislation. Instead they're compromising for minimal Republican cover (didn't the stimulus package get somewhere around 5 total Republican votes in all of Congress?) or to please their corporate masters.

Re: Jonathan Chait On Who, Or What, Is Really to Blame for the Whole Health-Care Debacle

ChrisWWW — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:22:08 -0000

Agreed. That's always been the most elegant solution to universal coverage in my opinion. But longer term, we really do need to think about how to manage health care spending, unless we're simply willing to pay at any price.

Re: Watching the Democratic Implosion

ChrisWWW — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:00:00 -0000

"There is only one solution. This solution is extreme reductions in federal and state spending. America must take Draconian measures to economically survive. Again, this debt, this rate of wild eyed deficit spending is not sustainable. America is in so deep, my personal estimate is government spending must be slashed by at least fifty percent to give us an outside chance at economic survival."

This is what we call Neo-Hooverism. If we were to slash government spending by 50%, the economy would simply wither and die. Not to mention all the medicare and social security recipients you would be condemning to death as well.

Re: Those Forked Tongue Democrats: How Many Uninsured?

ChrisWWW — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:09:16 -0000

Leonidas,
Then why are seniors so happy with their Medicare coverage? Why are Republicans fearmongering that Democrats are going to take it away?

And I'd bet folks like these would rather wait for coverage than have NONE AT ALL.

Re: Embrace (and Thank) the Blue Dogs, Mr. President

ChrisWWW — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:19:44 -0000

CStanley,
The evidence is France, Canada and Great Britain... to name a few.

As to your first reply, the reason Democrats don't have enough Democratic votes to pass reform is because of the Blue Dogs. Vague public opinion polling doesn't stop these very same people from voting for endless continuation of our glorious wars, so excuse me if I don't find it convincing that they feel hamstrung by those same polls now. If anything, their own obstruction has played a large part in the falling poll numbers to begin with...

Re: Keep Abortion Funding Out Of Health Reform

ChrisWWW — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:43:11 -0000

"when the liberals start putting their money where their mouth is, I'll start giving their opinions credence. If they would only step up to the plate and pay for the abortions themselves, there would be a huge falloff in the public's resistance to the overall issue."

Next up, red states can repay the blue states for the Iraq War.

Re: Keep Abortion Funding Out Of Health Reform

ChrisWWW — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:30:45 -0000

Redbus,
So if someone gets an artificial heart, they are officially dead?

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

ChrisWWW — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:30:28 -0000

CStanley,
If it needs reform, it should get it.

The alternative seems to be letting the private insurers continue to raise prices at a staggering rate, while insuring less and less people.

Something has to be done to a) limit costs and b) provide universal access. The kinds of regulations required for that system would be so draconian that a truly private system wont exist.

At least with a public option, private insurers can be largely deregulated. Let's see what they can do without the watchful eye of the government.

Re: Some Critical Questions on Obama-Care

ChrisWWW — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:40:40 -0000

Dr_J,
The current plans being floated are supposed to be completely self-sustaining, other than the initial infrastructure setup period.

Besides, it's not as if the private insurers are on the receiving end of a huge giveaway as a result of the employer health care tax shield.

Re: Poll Shows Most Americans Want Public Health Care

ChrisWWW — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:41:06 -0000

EEllis,
What about that money funneled through AIG? What about the fact Goldman Sachs pretty much caused the damn recession by itself.

JasonArvak,
Rationing is a part of our health care system now. Unless you have unlimited funds to pay for medical care, you will eventually hit the limit of what your insurance will pay for, or what the hospital is willing to give you without insurance. And it will only get worse and worse if we don't fix the system, because costs are spiraling out of control.

And to be perfectly honest, I don't give a rats @ss if the competition is fair or not. The goal is better, cheaper health care, not a free marketeers wet dream.

CO,
The plan costs more in the short term, but saves money in the long run. That's why it's worth pursuing.

Re: Has the Obama Administration Destroyed America?

ChrisWWW — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:19:27 -0000

T_Steel,
The President has been steadily given more and more unilateral power and does have the power to bring down "America."

A lot of the President's new powers have been wrapped up in the idea that he is somehow a Commander-in-Chief over us all in times of war. And of course that state of affairs has been made permanent since we're always involved in some war somewhere.

Re: In Which Sarah Slowly Self Destructs

ChrisWWW — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:42:40 -0000

1. Most expensive inauguration. Ever.
2. Appointing tax cheat Tim Geithner.
23. Ethics waivers
40. Saying to the people of Peoria: “If Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off.” CEO: No. There will be more layoffs.
47. Taking a 4-day holiday weekend before signing “emergency” legislation.
50. Bombing Pakistan.
55. Signing earmarks while denouncing them.
56. Adding signing statements while denouncing them.
57. Quadrupling the deficits, while denouncing them.

I've narrowed that list down to 9 actual mistakes. Kinda sad that you have to exaggerate your case by a factor of 7.

My preliminary list for Bush:
1) Invading Iraq
2) Ignoring threats about Al Qaeda
3) Slow response to Katrina
4) Authorizing torture
5) Authorizing illegal wiretaps
6) Tax cuts to the rich
7) Passing Medicare Part D
8) Relaxing environmental regulations
9) Pushing the housing bubble
10) Alienating our allies
11) Censoring government reports on climate change
12) Ignoring N. Korea until they tested a nuke
13) Burning olive branches extended by Iran
...
I'm sure I can come up with a lot more given a bit more time, but those are the best hits in my mind.

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

ChrisWWW — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:12:41 -0000

AR,
If the government starts taking over successful/stable/viable businesses.

Re: The Israel Lobby Continues to Dominate

ChrisWWW — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:01:46 -0000

AR,
Ultimately this is really tough on me. I don't agree with Freeman when it comes to Middle East dictators and human rights in China. Perhaps if that's what the fight was really about, I'd be on your side. However, I just don't see how this isn't 99% about towing the line with Israeli policy.

If it's possible to disagree strongly with Freeman, and still support him against these smears of anti-Semitism, then that's what I'm trying to do. Perhaps he was a bad person to defend because of his other baggage, but I hate to see this continuing punishment of Israel related dissent.

Re: Michelle Obama Is “Obama’s Baby Mama” Fox News Says

ChrisWWW — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:20:49 -0000

Excellent point roro80 :-)

The wingnut right should be forced to reconcile with the story of McCain's divorce from his first wife. Especially if they keep up the secret Muslim, secret terrorist, anti-American bullcrap.

Re: John McCain: For Talking to Hamas Before He Was Against It

ChrisWWW — Sat, 17 May 2008 00:45:10 -0000

Neocon,
It makes more sense with each shot of whiskey I take.

Re: On the packaging of candidates

ChrisWWW — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:27:44 -0000

Good response DLS :-)

I'm a little busy now so I can't respond in full... but I wanted to address this:

Nice equivocation. You don't miss many opportunities, do you?

See... when I brought up elitism, I actually came up with examples, some of them even having to do with substantive policy issues. You've just sort of thrown the word "elitist" out there as if it needs no explanation. Well, it does.

Re: On the packaging of candidates

ChrisWWW — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:50:09 -0000

janinedm,
That's assuming she actually opposed it :-)

Re: Blog Controversy (What Else?): Did Obama Give Hillary Clinton The Finger?

ChrisWWW — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:44:10 -0000

Elrod, you're such an a**hole! :-D