Would you be eager to go to congress when the republicans oppose everything he does regardless of the merits of the idea?
He doesn't have to be eager, but he should do his job. The point is that he doesn't go to congress at all, and has been using Harry Reid's control over the Senate's legislative agenda to shut down hundreds of bills that come from the congress (headed towards the president to sign, if Reid would allow something like a simple vote, which he doesn't). What you don't hear, at all, is Obama telling Reid to allow anything like the normal bicameral functionality of the legislative branch. That is Obama's strategy, and Pelosi (before she blew it with voters) and Reid (before he just did, too) were his eager (to use your word) helpers on that front. The voters got sick of it. Now the president will have to actually sign or veto things, rather than staying out of the process and making Harry do all the work of shutting down the opposition.
They don't even try to compromise, they just say no
You're describing the Democrats, right? Because, in cases like immigration or the completely partisan ObamaCare ramming-through episode, it was 100% the Democrats who said "No!" to any participation by the other party, or consideration of any of the measures they put forward. You're pretending they're ready and willing to compromise their own positions, but they've said over and over again that they're not. Obama just spent over an hour in a press conference, right after his party took a major smack-down, telling reporters that he "heard the voices of the two-thirds of the population that didn't vote" as being obvious supporters of his policies, and so he's feeling no need to compromise on anything.
Used to be that the two sides could at least talk to each other.
Yes, it did. But Harry Reid has made absolutely sure that no bill offered up by the congress even goes into conference in the interests of a vote in the Senate. He won't talk, ever, because he doesn't want to expose Obama to having to actually sign anything that involves compromise, or veto something that makes sense but wasn't a 100% from-the-Democrats fantasy (like the ACA).
Now a republican has to pass an ideological purity test and cannot ever even seem to be compromising or he doesn't even win the primary in the next election.
Pure BS. You obviously didn't bother to even pay attention to the campaigns and candidates that just beat back the Democrats in congressional, senate, and gubernatorial races across the country. There are Republicans from across the conservative/moderate spectrum. Your "purity" meme is just as false as the Obama-wants-to-compromise meme.
The republicans like to bitch about the Affordable Care Act but they don't ever propose any alternatives or improvements even though there is plenty that could be improved. Instead they just waste everyone's time in futile votes trying to remove health insurance from millions of people that couldn't previously afford it.
Again, either willful ignorance of years of examples, or deliberate attempt to deceive. The Republicans (who weren't allowed by Pelosi and Reid to even participate in the writing of the ACA) shouted to the rooftops about how the lack of cross-state insurance shopping, the Dem's fear-of-the-trial-lawyer-constituency unwillingness to include tort reform, the insanity of putting the federal government in the middle of even more health care transactions, the brand new wave of taxes and deficit spending tied up in the law, and the guaranteed spike in personal monthly rates and huge deductibles would make the law a train wreck. They pointed out specific details and proposed changes. None were considered by Pelosi or tolerated by Reid, and as Nancy said, they just had to pass the law so everyone who wasn't directly involved in writing its thousands of pages could see what was in
No, if you don't realize that when you preach government hand outs and control of the food market you're exactly looking to keep people poor and dependent, then you really need to re-examine what you think you understand about cause and effect.
Raise the cost or taxes on fuel and use it to build much better mass transit and subsidize the price of fruit & veggies, milk & meat produced domestically.
That will do more for the poor - with universal, single-payer, healthcare than simply having cheap gasoline.
So your main objective is to make absolutely certain that poor people stay poor and that other people, under penalty of going to jail, spend part of every day caring for them like pets. Nice.
The way to adapt is by retiring the internal combustion engine.
People driving around in cars is only a tiny part of it. You could stop everyone from driving a petroleum fueled car right now, and it would make little or no difference. Heavy industry, HVAC in homes and businesses - that's what does it. The solution is nukes or one form or another. Solar and wind can't put a dent in it, and China's not going to stop putting a new coal-fired power plant online EVERY WEEK any time soon. Cars have got almost nothing to do with it.
Obama got re-elected with his party having promised to do that, and indeed having done that (the large tax increase that is ObamaCare). Once people who are actually burdened with PAYING those taxes (about half of the country's incoming earners, and those who have to pay full boat for buy-it-or-hear-from-the-IRS new insurance that is a transfer tax) had some time to digest it, the baked-in loserness of the position became clear. And manifested itself in this recent election.
Sure you did. You deliberately asserted that what you had to say was more accurate than the information presented, and proceeded to do a classic slashdot bashing of the officer that busted the operators of the fishing boat for breaking the law, saying the cop made it up.
More accurately, here we have a case of a fisherman being accused of keeping undersized fish.
No, that's LESS accurately, because that's not what happened. A crew member testified to the fact that that captain had him chuck the evidence of their illegal fishing. The "outlandish" claim here is yours. Why lie about it? What's your point?
Sure there was. One party wanted to put into place a huge, sweeping new law that was significantly unpopular with more than half of the population and bitterly opposed by 100% of the congressional minority's party opponents. The law would never have been passed if a handful of Democrat politicians hadn't been persuaded to support it despite their vocal misgivings. That persuasion came in the form of their constituents being convinced that the law wasn't going to hurt them, and those few representatives giving in and echoing Pelosi's and Obama's repeated soothing words. Those words were a months-long, sustained, carefully orchestrated campaign of deliberate, repeated lies. That's the scam part: getting someone to act based on fraud.
The lies - the foundation for the scam that secured the votes under false pretenses - were in the form of the repeated assertions that:
1) Personal insurance costs would go down. That is not true, and everyone from the CBO to every insurance actuary in the country said as much, loudly, in advance. But there was the president saying it was so, and that health insurance would cost about as much as a monthly mobile phone bill. He knew that wasn't true, and that in fact for millions of people immediately, and many millions more shortly after, monthly costs would go substantially up. Exactly as has happened.
2) That if we wanted to keep our current insurance plans, we could. Again, this was something they knew was not true. Saying it over and over again was a deliberate lie.
3) That if we wanted to keep our current doctors, we could. Again, like the above, a conscious, deliberate lie meant to fool people into supporting representatives that needed to vote for a law their initial instincts told them not to - and of course some have already refused to tell reporters if they'd vote for it again.
4) That the law wouldn't impact the budget deficit and debt. Again, as above, a purposeful, knowing deception. The CBO made it clear that wasn't the case, and indeed, it's not the case.
5) That buying annual insurance would be as simple as booking airline tickets on Expedia. That glib assertion wasn't a mistake or a misunderstanding, it was another bald-faced, completely self-aware lie. Nobody at any level of the many institutions involved in planning this ever thought anything so absurd was going to be the case, and of course it's not. Saying so, over and over again, was part of a deliberate misrepresentation.
There's much more, of course. But the point is that the law was sold to hesitant lawmakers and voters under false claims. It was a confidence game. A scam.
You are just wildly lying about people losing their insurance.
Millions of people had their plans cancelled, and many millions more are about to. How are you not clear on this? Many of them have had to go out and buy something different, but what they had was killed off, and what's available to replace it is far more expensive. The first group of millions who lost their plans were the self-employed types who are especially wounded by the ACA-approved "affordable" options that cost much more. And for those that weren't insured before because they couldn't afford it, and now have scraped together the hundreds per month to buy it, how many of them have the cash to handle thousands and thousands annually for what they must pay out of pocket before their high deductibles are satisfied? Those aren't the people able to buy the gold plans with the low deductibles. And of course many who have pre-existing conditions now get coverage, but the law is silent on how much that must cost them - so of course their choices are still very expensive. Our own rates are jumping hugely next year because of the unexpectedly (hah!) high number of healthy young people who have decided they'd rather pay a cheap fine than spend thousands a year on insurance when they're healthy, and then just opt in to buying it
What I support is the first amendment. I don't care if Soros or the Kochs, or Barbara Streisand spent millions of dollars to organize the groups they like and use some media buys to say what they want to say. Because the alternative is having the government tell you what you can say. The republicans area about to take over the senate. Imagine they also get the executive branch in a couple of years because nobody can possibly stand the idea of Hillary Clinton wagging her finger at them for four years. Do you want a one-party government empowered to tell you want you can say about the government, or where you can say it? I don't want any party telling me that, and neither did the people who wrote the first amendment.
If you don't like the effect of communication aimed at swaying people's opinions about candidates or issues, focus your efforts on getting parents to teach critical thinking skills to their kids, so that such advertising won't work later when they grow up. You don't find that such ads change your behavior, do you? Are you that weak-minded? I don't find that they change mine, though I respect your right to run such an ad if you want to.
No, I'm just the tip of the iceberg. If this new law were actually lowering the average person's annual health care costs, the administration wouldn't be issuing gag orders to the insurance companies preventing them from announcing their 2015 rates until after the election, with none of the traditional 60 day window that allows people to shop around with better information. Right now, you should be able to see numbers from employer-oriented programs, but you're not. Because they've been prevented from conducting normal "open season" operations, per the administration. It's 100% about the election.
Millions of new policy cancellations will kick in on Jan 1, as people who were buying what they could afford will now be forced to buy more than they can afford. I'm lucky. I can stop spending money in other areas (too bad, economy!) and instead pour thousands more every year into unusable (except for catastrophe) insurance. A lot of people who make less money cannot do that. But the plans that include being given some of other people's money in order to make them more affordable don't kick in until you make essentially poverty-grade income. So the middle class is being squeezed once again, entirely for political reasons. The law doesn't actually do anything that results in lower costs for buying the professional services and equipment overhead involved in getting an x-ray done, or make fewer people necessary during a surgery, or reduce the overhead in running medical practice (the opposite, actually). Doctors are no less obliged to conduct unspeakable numbers of pointless procedures and tests in order to pre-emptively fend off capricious law suits - OB-GYNs are still having to spend $500-$1000 a DAY on malpractice insurance, and I still can't shop across state lines for a more efficiently run plan.
The law - which only exists on the books because of shameless (and endlessly repeated) lies and 100% partisan maneuvering despite popular push-back that has only grown ever since - does only one thing. It raises prices and taxes on one group of people in order to transfer that to other people. It has nothing whatsoever to do with paying a doctor or a lab or a hospital less for their skills and the materials used. It's entirely about transferring money from one group to another. And it should have been introduced and debated on the merits of THAT, which is its actual purpose and effect. Instead, it was sold as resulting in health insurance that would cost people "about what your monthly mobile phone costs," which would allow people to keep their insurance and their doctors if they wanted to, which wouldn't impact the deficit, and which would get 30 million people magically insured without costing anything more. I would call that a BS fantasy, but it wasn't, since the authors of the law and the people who rammed it through under the power of only one political part KNEW that was all complete BS, and lied about it anyway.
You're suggesting that perhaps I "feel screwed." The question is, why don't you? Are you really in the whatever-means-to-an-end camp? Where do you draw that line? It's OK to scam the country about something impacting nearly a sixth of the economy, and which is about to cost another several million people their insurance, so that that one party can tell their slavishly predictable voting demographic that they've got them another subsidized goody? You were also screwed, whether you want to admit it or not.
What about them? They spend less than rich Democrats do, so the only reason you're mention only that name is because you've got some sort of fetish about it. I wonder why.
And I don't believe that. The rates in question are common knowledge. There are only three insurance providers allowed by the government to operate in our state. We went with the LEAST expensive option (CareFirst) - the other two providers were 15% and 32% more expensive, respectively, on the monthly rates, and about the same on the huge deductibles. The problem isn't that you don't believe it, it's that you're trying to wish it away.
And even as you say you don't believe it, you run down a list of things that would contribute to exactly what I described. The only reason you're not seeing this for millions and millions more people is because the employer mandate was illegally pushed back by Obama until after tomorrow's election. When that kicks in - a year later than it the law he signed said it must - there will a lot more people for you to not believe, not just us millions of self employed and small business types.
factor in your irrational ranting about Obama and Pelosi and drug addicts
What's irrational about it? Obama and Pelosi stood there, time after time, and sold their new law by knowingly and deliberately lying about some of its key features. Lying, over and over again. Pelosi assured us we'd need to pass it to see what was in it, and echoed Obama in promising we'd be able to keep our insurance (a lie) and our doctor (another one).
And drug addicts? It's simple: neither my wife nor I are. If we were to become such, our previous insurance would have provided services along those lines, but we'd have had to include those expenses in our (much lower than now) deductible. Likewise, in the laws-of-physics-make-it-impossible scenario of us suddenly getting pregnant. Our previous insurance would have also helped there, but our deductible would have still been involved.
In both these cases, the new law mandates that the insurer provides these services (typically, $20,000+ for a normal birth, for example) without that being subject to the deductible. Because they have to pay all of the costs of their customers' decision to have a baby, the insurers do simple math and raise the rates that fund those payments. We have fancy new maternity coverage we don't need, but for which we are certainly paying a lot more because of the Affordable act. You say you "don't believe" this. Which simply can't be the case, because these are simple facts, right in front of you. Your condescending dismissal is pretty transparent.
smells very much to me like someone who has just read a lot of conservative blogs and has constructed a faux martyr persona
Your fake sense of smell is about as honest as your fake tutt-tutting about the truth. I'm not a martyr, I'm just one of the very deliberate new beasts of burden baked right into the law on purpose as it seeks to dole out new entitlements to a demographic that typically votes for the party that unilaterally rammed the law through. Gee, what a surprise.
You also don't have Ebola, but your insurance covers that. That's the way insurance works.
Right, and if I get a disease my insurance covers it, after we pay our $12,000 deductible. Last year, it would have been after we paid a $2,500 deductible. But if we get another expensive condition (pregnancy), no need to worry! It's all covered. Just... pay that new $800/month rate, instead of the $250 you were paying, right?
But what about all those people who don't have the time to even get together with like-minded individuals, much less the money to pay a representative to lobby on their behalf?
That's exactly why people on a modest fixed retirement income become members of groups like AARP, or why even bubbas in Appalachia with hardly any cash see fit to become members of the NRA, or why no-job-having eco-activists join the Sierra Club, etc. To pool their voices, and express themselves with like minded people - and to also do that on matters that matter to them, in front of the right legislators and executive branch people.
And... deals? Of COURSE people make deals. "We have a factory to build. We want to build it where it makes the most sense, and that includes a country and a state and a county and a city where the regulatory atmosphere, the tax climate, and the prospects for other growth are attractive for the long term. We think you should focus on the following legislative priorities, or we'll go somewhere that has a legislator who sees things the same way we do." Are you suggesting that people should completely ignore how the decisions made by their elected officials impact their prosperity?
The institution of lobbying effectively makes political change either a rich man's sport or the province of revolutionaries.
Or, the province of normal people like you and me who use all of this glorious new technology to assemble - virtually or traditionally - and be every bit as impactful on the political discourse as some rich guy or raving revolutionary. You may not like them, but look to the NRA as an example. They have a clear agenda, and millions of every-man members whose very modest dues pile up to give them the same sort of horsepower as a guy like Soros, at least within the topic on which they're focused.
It may be on the books, but that doesn't make it right.
Why? You don't think you should be able to help a candidate you like get his message out?
Or put it another way. Let's say a politician is running for office, and he promises that high no his list is to do something to make whatever it is that YOU do or like miserable for you. Say, looking to ban photography in city parks, or tell people they can no long fly their RC models like they've been doing for decades, anywhere in your city or state. Or that he's going to seek to institute some high new tax that singles out your profession. Whatever.
Do you really think that you should be prevented from communicating about that? Or do you think that you SHOULD be able to do something like run an ad in the local newspaper that brings attention to what you see as a dangerous campaign, but you think you should get the use of that newspaper's printing presses and employees for free? Or that your fellow taxpayers should write a check for you so you could say your mind? Would they have to do that every day, if that's how you want to do it? Every hour? Should we scrap the first amendment, and have the government prevent you from speaking your mind on something that's very important to you? Or would you have the government only prevent you from doing so if you have to pay for some paper to use in communicating, or pay to host a web site where you say it?
How is it "not right" to put your own resources into communicating a message you want people to hear? How is it not right to seek out some time with your elected representative to explain what you think, even if the only time the both of you have to do that is over breakfast before his legislative day is started?
Bribery? Be specific. Every last dollar contributed to campaigns is a matter of public record. Unless you're talking about stuff like that Democrat congressman caught with $90k of cash in his freezer as he got arrested for obvious political racketeering, or Chicago-type blatant pocket-stuffing. When a lobbyist sits down for dinner with a congressman or a senator, that's on the books, right down to what the steak cost. What are you referring to, specifically?
More likely Silicon Valley is tired to death of the grotesque regulator over-reach, a non-competitive business tax environment, endless waffling and lies about immigration reform, a disaster of a health care package, and the portrayal of the government as being completely feckless when it comes to international relations and the global economy. There's plenty not to like about some Republicans and the politicians they raise up... but there's a LOT not to like about the Democrats if the current administration is its manifestation, as it relates to what it means to try to start up and run fast-moving, high-tech businesses in the US.
Intellectual property issues are on the radar, but it's much, much bigger than that. The economy is being help back by sheer administrative clumsiness and knuckleheaded nanny-state ambitions. And that's holding back jobs, economic growth, and the sort of climate that Silicon Valley entrepreneurs crave.
It's not about the money, though. Democrats are spending MORE money than Republicans in trying to communicate their message, and they're still losing ground. It's about the entire Democrat party carrying around the stink left on it by a spectacularly incompetent administration - one that the party was supporting in a nearly religious way in order to get re-elected just a while ago. It's buyer's remorse, big time. And since the rest of the party can't bring themselves to say they don't support the administration's policies and world view (although some won't even admit they voted for the guy!), they're left by appearances tacitly endorsing the whole mess, and wearing the consequences as voters show their disgust.
The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether
Absolutely! Because if 10,000 people all have the same thing on their minds, and want to present their case to a legislator in the interests of getting their issue some attention in the House or the Senate, then it makes much more sense for all 10,000 of them to travel to DC and attempt to get some face time with the same one politician (say, the chairperson of whatever committee might impact the way legislation surrounding the topic in question is handled). Yes, that's FAR more efficient than those same 10,000 people pooling a much smaller share of each of their resources and time, and sending a single person to have a single sit-down with that same legislator. We certainly wouldn't want to ask someone who already knows everyone involved, and who understands how the legislature works, to choose the best time and circumstance and context in which to bring up something important. No, that's far too sensible - it's much better if we make it AGAINST THE LAW for people to exercise the first amendment rights to assemble and talk to their government.
Asking one person to talk to your representative on behalf of a bunch of you IS NOT CIRCUMVENTING DEMOCRACY. It's using your damn head.
How does employing a lobbyist to efficiently do what 10,000 of you would do separately equate to "buying" legislation any more than does 10,000 of you individually doing exactly the same thing? Are you suggesting that 10,000 of you shouldn't be allowed to talk to your representatives, or show support for their campaigns, or saying out loud (online, in a newspaper, or a media ad) that you think a given referendum, law, or politician is doing something wrong? Isn't that exactly the point of democracy? Or are you suggesting that campaigns and political expression should be conducted entirely with taxpayer dollars, no matter who the candidate is or how moonbat crazy they are? Personally, I'd like to choose whether and to whom my financial support goes to, when it comes to campaigns. You equate supporting campaigns with buying legislation, but propose no alternative. The only other options are to either force media companies to provide their services for free (government compulsion to support people who you may not actually support) to any old single-topic obsessive who wants to grind some political axe ("911 Truthers For Mars Exploration By Separated Twins!"), or to tell people they're not allowed to spend money to communicate about their politics - something the first amendment specifically protects from people like you, which is a good thing.
Why are Women and Minorities (not including Male Asians) being permitted to opt out of technology education?
This! Skin pigment and chromosonal quota perfection in every walk of life is so much more important than any other thing that might make someone choose something else to do that we should force people to study things in which they're not interested. Because that way, we can be sure that they'll be passionate about hating it even more, so that when they apply for that quota-mandated position, we know they'll be miserable SOBs to work with, and productivity will be sure to suffer, for which we'll be sure to blame Evil Corporations.
Jesse Jackson is a hypocritical, lying fool. His agenda (which is to extort money from public and private institutions so that he and his entourage can spend their time well compensated for doing nothing but whining) is utterly transparent. But it plugs right into the Nanny State world view, which requires professional quota referees for every last thing, including the size of your drink cup and the precise tone of the skin of the programmer in the cube next to you.
Jackson is complaining that Amazon's stats aren't precise enough, but I notice he's not calling for stats about the measured skills and academic records of the couldn't-get-hired-there folks he thinks should be qualified strictly on cosmetic grounds. If he thinks that the members of a particular racial group aren't landing enough jobs at Amazon, he should be turning to that group and lecturing them about developing the critical thinking, communication, technical, entrepreneurial, scientific, and related skills that make someone a shoe-in for such jobs. ALL of that starts at home, and is pretty well viable or terminally broken by the time a kid is half way through elementary school. And THAT is all about the culture out of which that kid emerges. About which Jackson should be doing some serious introspection, if he could stand to look at himself in the mirror. He not only deliberately confuses race with culture, but he deliberately confuses cause and effect - all so that he can thunder on about it, threaten boycotts, and receive grant money from his extortion victims. This is just another round of his racketeering outfit doing what it does.
Costs haven't tripled, deductibles haven't quadrupled--that's completely absurd. You are just a stone-cold liar. Every study shows that Obamacare has bent the cost curve, dramatically.
Excellent!
So, I should only pay part of my government regulated insurance premium, then, since you say that the actual dollar amount is incorrect?
Before the law kicked in, we paid about $250/month, and had a $2,500 deductible. Along comes Obamacare, and our premium (which now requires us to buy things like no-deductible comprehensive child-bearing services despite no longer young enough to even have kids, and comprehensive no-deductible drug treatment coverage for addictions we don't have) have risen to over $800/month, and our deductible is now $12,000/year. So if we have a broken bone in the family, or something else that adds up noticeably, we've gone from our health care costs each year being $5,500 to our healthcare costs being $21,600. Yeah, thanks Obama, Pelosi, and Reid for "bending" that cost. Thanks a lot. And our insurance regulating body in our state tells us that we should expect those premiums, because of the higher costs of coverage and the low participation of healthy people, to go up by 48% next year. So our monthly premium will be up to nearly $1,200. Yeah, that law's definitely got some people bending alright. What's a mystery is why you're such a fan. Has to be because you're on the receiving end of the subsidy equation, and are one of the extra people I'm now paying for.
And the only reason you're not hearing millions of more people screaming about this is because Obama illegally and unilaterally broke his own law, without involving the legislature, and altered the required dates so that people on employer-provided plans won't see exactly the same sort of giant increases in their rates and deductibles until after the mid-term election. A totally craven, partisan bit of manipulation designed to keep people like you whistling past the graveyard through the elections. Aren't you just a little bit embarrassed to be so easily manipulated? Or are you a party shill or some such, and already know all of this?
Exactly right. What regular people want is feast on cheap oil and gas and cheap food, and give a big "fuck you" to the next generation.
No, what they want is to not be the chumps that cripple their own economy for NO IMPACT on the climate while populations several times their size and polluting more every minute just carry on as usual.
Comparing health to the price of gas is moronic. Anybody who values a robust economy more than health can go suck on a tailpipe.
They ONLY thing that makes healthy food, high-tech medicine, clean cities, fancy low-emission hybrids and electrics, and everything else not-like-a-century-ago is a robust economy. If you cannot understand the basic plumbing of civilization, please do not vote on Tuesday.
Keep in mind that you only apply for a drivers license like once in 10 years.
FWIW, our state has you in for a renewal and fresh paperwork every four years. At which time you're handed what amounts to a blank check for voter registration. Nothing during that process (completing the voter registration form) establishes what you say about your citizenship. In fact you can be at the MVA getting your driver's license, where your citizenship status IS addressed, and at the same time, hand in a voter registration that is 100% at odds with what you say about your license, and nobody can or will reconcile those two things, ever.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you be eager to go to congress when the republicans oppose everything he does regardless of the merits of the idea?
He doesn't have to be eager, but he should do his job. The point is that he doesn't go to congress at all, and has been using Harry Reid's control over the Senate's legislative agenda to shut down hundreds of bills that come from the congress (headed towards the president to sign, if Reid would allow something like a simple vote, which he doesn't). What you don't hear, at all, is Obama telling Reid to allow anything like the normal bicameral functionality of the legislative branch. That is Obama's strategy, and Pelosi (before she blew it with voters) and Reid (before he just did, too) were his eager (to use your word) helpers on that front. The voters got sick of it. Now the president will have to actually sign or veto things, rather than staying out of the process and making Harry do all the work of shutting down the opposition.
They don't even try to compromise, they just say no
You're describing the Democrats, right? Because, in cases like immigration or the completely partisan ObamaCare ramming-through episode, it was 100% the Democrats who said "No!" to any participation by the other party, or consideration of any of the measures they put forward. You're pretending they're ready and willing to compromise their own positions, but they've said over and over again that they're not. Obama just spent over an hour in a press conference, right after his party took a major smack-down, telling reporters that he "heard the voices of the two-thirds of the population that didn't vote" as being obvious supporters of his policies, and so he's feeling no need to compromise on anything.
Used to be that the two sides could at least talk to each other.
Yes, it did. But Harry Reid has made absolutely sure that no bill offered up by the congress even goes into conference in the interests of a vote in the Senate. He won't talk, ever, because he doesn't want to expose Obama to having to actually sign anything that involves compromise, or veto something that makes sense but wasn't a 100% from-the-Democrats fantasy (like the ACA).
Now a republican has to pass an ideological purity test and cannot ever even seem to be compromising or he doesn't even win the primary in the next election.
Pure BS. You obviously didn't bother to even pay attention to the campaigns and candidates that just beat back the Democrats in congressional, senate, and gubernatorial races across the country. There are Republicans from across the conservative/moderate spectrum. Your "purity" meme is just as false as the Obama-wants-to-compromise meme.
The republicans like to bitch about the Affordable Care Act but they don't ever propose any alternatives or improvements even though there is plenty that could be improved. Instead they just waste everyone's time in futile votes trying to remove health insurance from millions of people that couldn't previously afford it.
Again, either willful ignorance of years of examples, or deliberate attempt to deceive. The Republicans (who weren't allowed by Pelosi and Reid to even participate in the writing of the ACA) shouted to the rooftops about how the lack of cross-state insurance shopping, the Dem's fear-of-the-trial-lawyer-constituency unwillingness to include tort reform, the insanity of putting the federal government in the middle of even more health care transactions, the brand new wave of taxes and deficit spending tied up in the law, and the guaranteed spike in personal monthly rates and huge deductibles would make the law a train wreck. They pointed out specific details and proposed changes. None were considered by Pelosi or tolerated by Reid, and as Nancy said, they just had to pass the law so everyone who wasn't directly involved in writing its thousands of pages could see what was in
No, if you don't realize that when you preach government hand outs and control of the food market you're exactly looking to keep people poor and dependent, then you really need to re-examine what you think you understand about cause and effect.
Raise the cost or taxes on fuel and use it to build much better mass transit and subsidize the price of fruit & veggies, milk & meat produced domestically. That will do more for the poor - with universal, single-payer, healthcare than simply having cheap gasoline.
So your main objective is to make absolutely certain that poor people stay poor and that other people, under penalty of going to jail, spend part of every day caring for them like pets. Nice.
The way to adapt is by retiring the internal combustion engine.
People driving around in cars is only a tiny part of it. You could stop everyone from driving a petroleum fueled car right now, and it would make little or no difference. Heavy industry, HVAC in homes and businesses - that's what does it. The solution is nukes or one form or another. Solar and wind can't put a dent in it, and China's not going to stop putting a new coal-fired power plant online EVERY WEEK any time soon. Cars have got almost nothing to do with it.
"I'm gonna raise your taxes."
Obama got re-elected with his party having promised to do that, and indeed having done that (the large tax increase that is ObamaCare). Once people who are actually burdened with PAYING those taxes (about half of the country's incoming earners, and those who have to pay full boat for buy-it-or-hear-from-the-IRS new insurance that is a transfer tax) had some time to digest it, the baked-in loserness of the position became clear. And manifested itself in this recent election.
Nope. I only use the word when people with an obvious agenda throw around pure fiction hoping nobody will notice.
My judgement that the distortion was deliberate was based on the ready availability of the truth, and agenda-laden, cop-bashing tone of the falsity.
Why lie? I didn't.
Sure you did. You deliberately asserted that what you had to say was more accurate than the information presented, and proceeded to do a classic slashdot bashing of the officer that busted the operators of the fishing boat for breaking the law, saying the cop made it up.
More accurately, here we have a case of a fisherman being accused of keeping undersized fish.
No, that's LESS accurately, because that's not what happened. A crew member testified to the fact that that captain had him chuck the evidence of their illegal fishing. The "outlandish" claim here is yours. Why lie about it? What's your point?
There was no scam.
Sure there was. One party wanted to put into place a huge, sweeping new law that was significantly unpopular with more than half of the population and bitterly opposed by 100% of the congressional minority's party opponents. The law would never have been passed if a handful of Democrat politicians hadn't been persuaded to support it despite their vocal misgivings. That persuasion came in the form of their constituents being convinced that the law wasn't going to hurt them, and those few representatives giving in and echoing Pelosi's and Obama's repeated soothing words. Those words were a months-long, sustained, carefully orchestrated campaign of deliberate, repeated lies. That's the scam part: getting someone to act based on fraud.
The lies - the foundation for the scam that secured the votes under false pretenses - were in the form of the repeated assertions that:
1) Personal insurance costs would go down. That is not true, and everyone from the CBO to every insurance actuary in the country said as much, loudly, in advance. But there was the president saying it was so, and that health insurance would cost about as much as a monthly mobile phone bill. He knew that wasn't true, and that in fact for millions of people immediately, and many millions more shortly after, monthly costs would go substantially up. Exactly as has happened.
2) That if we wanted to keep our current insurance plans, we could. Again, this was something they knew was not true. Saying it over and over again was a deliberate lie.
3) That if we wanted to keep our current doctors, we could. Again, like the above, a conscious, deliberate lie meant to fool people into supporting representatives that needed to vote for a law their initial instincts told them not to - and of course some have already refused to tell reporters if they'd vote for it again.
4) That the law wouldn't impact the budget deficit and debt. Again, as above, a purposeful, knowing deception. The CBO made it clear that wasn't the case, and indeed, it's not the case.
5) That buying annual insurance would be as simple as booking airline tickets on Expedia. That glib assertion wasn't a mistake or a misunderstanding, it was another bald-faced, completely self-aware lie. Nobody at any level of the many institutions involved in planning this ever thought anything so absurd was going to be the case, and of course it's not. Saying so, over and over again, was part of a deliberate misrepresentation.
There's much more, of course. But the point is that the law was sold to hesitant lawmakers and voters under false claims. It was a confidence game. A scam.
You are just wildly lying about people losing their insurance.
Millions of people had their plans cancelled, and many millions more are about to. How are you not clear on this? Many of them have had to go out and buy something different, but what they had was killed off, and what's available to replace it is far more expensive. The first group of millions who lost their plans were the self-employed types who are especially wounded by the ACA-approved "affordable" options that cost much more. And for those that weren't insured before because they couldn't afford it, and now have scraped together the hundreds per month to buy it, how many of them have the cash to handle thousands and thousands annually for what they must pay out of pocket before their high deductibles are satisfied? Those aren't the people able to buy the gold plans with the low deductibles. And of course many who have pre-existing conditions now get coverage, but the law is silent on how much that must cost them - so of course their choices are still very expensive. Our own rates are jumping hugely next year because of the unexpectedly (hah!) high number of healthy young people who have decided they'd rather pay a cheap fine than spend thousands a year on insurance when they're healthy, and then just opt in to buying it
What I support is the first amendment. I don't care if Soros or the Kochs, or Barbara Streisand spent millions of dollars to organize the groups they like and use some media buys to say what they want to say. Because the alternative is having the government tell you what you can say. The republicans area about to take over the senate. Imagine they also get the executive branch in a couple of years because nobody can possibly stand the idea of Hillary Clinton wagging her finger at them for four years. Do you want a one-party government empowered to tell you want you can say about the government, or where you can say it? I don't want any party telling me that, and neither did the people who wrote the first amendment.
If you don't like the effect of communication aimed at swaying people's opinions about candidates or issues, focus your efforts on getting parents to teach critical thinking skills to their kids, so that such advertising won't work later when they grow up. You don't find that such ads change your behavior, do you? Are you that weak-minded? I don't find that they change mine, though I respect your right to run such an ad if you want to.
No, I'm just the tip of the iceberg. If this new law were actually lowering the average person's annual health care costs, the administration wouldn't be issuing gag orders to the insurance companies preventing them from announcing their 2015 rates until after the election, with none of the traditional 60 day window that allows people to shop around with better information. Right now, you should be able to see numbers from employer-oriented programs, but you're not. Because they've been prevented from conducting normal "open season" operations, per the administration. It's 100% about the election.
Millions of new policy cancellations will kick in on Jan 1, as people who were buying what they could afford will now be forced to buy more than they can afford. I'm lucky. I can stop spending money in other areas (too bad, economy!) and instead pour thousands more every year into unusable (except for catastrophe) insurance. A lot of people who make less money cannot do that. But the plans that include being given some of other people's money in order to make them more affordable don't kick in until you make essentially poverty-grade income. So the middle class is being squeezed once again, entirely for political reasons. The law doesn't actually do anything that results in lower costs for buying the professional services and equipment overhead involved in getting an x-ray done, or make fewer people necessary during a surgery, or reduce the overhead in running medical practice (the opposite, actually). Doctors are no less obliged to conduct unspeakable numbers of pointless procedures and tests in order to pre-emptively fend off capricious law suits - OB-GYNs are still having to spend $500-$1000 a DAY on malpractice insurance, and I still can't shop across state lines for a more efficiently run plan.
The law - which only exists on the books because of shameless (and endlessly repeated) lies and 100% partisan maneuvering despite popular push-back that has only grown ever since - does only one thing. It raises prices and taxes on one group of people in order to transfer that to other people. It has nothing whatsoever to do with paying a doctor or a lab or a hospital less for their skills and the materials used. It's entirely about transferring money from one group to another. And it should have been introduced and debated on the merits of THAT, which is its actual purpose and effect. Instead, it was sold as resulting in health insurance that would cost people "about what your monthly mobile phone costs," which would allow people to keep their insurance and their doctors if they wanted to, which wouldn't impact the deficit, and which would get 30 million people magically insured without costing anything more. I would call that a BS fantasy, but it wasn't, since the authors of the law and the people who rammed it through under the power of only one political part KNEW that was all complete BS, and lied about it anyway.
You're suggesting that perhaps I "feel screwed." The question is, why don't you? Are you really in the whatever-means-to-an-end camp? Where do you draw that line? It's OK to scam the country about something impacting nearly a sixth of the economy, and which is about to cost another several million people their insurance, so that that one party can tell their slavishly predictable voting demographic that they've got them another subsidized goody? You were also screwed, whether you want to admit it or not.
What about them? They spend less than rich Democrats do, so the only reason you're mention only that name is because you've got some sort of fetish about it. I wonder why.
The problem is that I don't believe you.
And I don't believe that. The rates in question are common knowledge. There are only three insurance providers allowed by the government to operate in our state. We went with the LEAST expensive option (CareFirst) - the other two providers were 15% and 32% more expensive, respectively, on the monthly rates, and about the same on the huge deductibles. The problem isn't that you don't believe it, it's that you're trying to wish it away.
And even as you say you don't believe it, you run down a list of things that would contribute to exactly what I described. The only reason you're not seeing this for millions and millions more people is because the employer mandate was illegally pushed back by Obama until after tomorrow's election. When that kicks in - a year later than it the law he signed said it must - there will a lot more people for you to not believe, not just us millions of self employed and small business types.
factor in your irrational ranting about Obama and Pelosi and drug addicts
What's irrational about it? Obama and Pelosi stood there, time after time, and sold their new law by knowingly and deliberately lying about some of its key features. Lying, over and over again. Pelosi assured us we'd need to pass it to see what was in it, and echoed Obama in promising we'd be able to keep our insurance (a lie) and our doctor (another one).
And drug addicts? It's simple: neither my wife nor I are. If we were to become such, our previous insurance would have provided services along those lines, but we'd have had to include those expenses in our (much lower than now) deductible. Likewise, in the laws-of-physics-make-it-impossible scenario of us suddenly getting pregnant. Our previous insurance would have also helped there, but our deductible would have still been involved.
In both these cases, the new law mandates that the insurer provides these services (typically, $20,000+ for a normal birth, for example) without that being subject to the deductible. Because they have to pay all of the costs of their customers' decision to have a baby, the insurers do simple math and raise the rates that fund those payments. We have fancy new maternity coverage we don't need, but for which we are certainly paying a lot more because of the Affordable act. You say you "don't believe" this. Which simply can't be the case, because these are simple facts, right in front of you. Your condescending dismissal is pretty transparent.
smells very much to me like someone who has just read a lot of conservative blogs and has constructed a faux martyr persona
Your fake sense of smell is about as honest as your fake tutt-tutting about the truth. I'm not a martyr, I'm just one of the very deliberate new beasts of burden baked right into the law on purpose as it seeks to dole out new entitlements to a demographic that typically votes for the party that unilaterally rammed the law through. Gee, what a surprise.
You also don't have Ebola, but your insurance covers that. That's the way insurance works.
Right, and if I get a disease my insurance covers it, after we pay our $12,000 deductible. Last year, it would have been after we paid a $2,500 deductible. But if we get another expensive condition (pregnancy), no need to worry! It's all covered. Just ... pay that new $800/month rate, instead of the $250 you were paying, right?
But what about all those people who don't have the time to even get together with like-minded individuals, much less the money to pay a representative to lobby on their behalf?
That's exactly why people on a modest fixed retirement income become members of groups like AARP, or why even bubbas in Appalachia with hardly any cash see fit to become members of the NRA, or why no-job-having eco-activists join the Sierra Club, etc. To pool their voices, and express themselves with like minded people - and to also do that on matters that matter to them, in front of the right legislators and executive branch people.
... deals? Of COURSE people make deals. "We have a factory to build. We want to build it where it makes the most sense, and that includes a country and a state and a county and a city where the regulatory atmosphere, the tax climate, and the prospects for other growth are attractive for the long term. We think you should focus on the following legislative priorities, or we'll go somewhere that has a legislator who sees things the same way we do." Are you suggesting that people should completely ignore how the decisions made by their elected officials impact their prosperity?
And
The institution of lobbying effectively makes political change either a rich man's sport or the province of revolutionaries.
Or, the province of normal people like you and me who use all of this glorious new technology to assemble - virtually or traditionally - and be every bit as impactful on the political discourse as some rich guy or raving revolutionary. You may not like them, but look to the NRA as an example. They have a clear agenda, and millions of every-man members whose very modest dues pile up to give them the same sort of horsepower as a guy like Soros, at least within the topic on which they're focused.
It may be on the books, but that doesn't make it right.
Why? You don't think you should be able to help a candidate you like get his message out?
Or put it another way. Let's say a politician is running for office, and he promises that high no his list is to do something to make whatever it is that YOU do or like miserable for you. Say, looking to ban photography in city parks, or tell people they can no long fly their RC models like they've been doing for decades, anywhere in your city or state. Or that he's going to seek to institute some high new tax that singles out your profession. Whatever.
Do you really think that you should be prevented from communicating about that? Or do you think that you SHOULD be able to do something like run an ad in the local newspaper that brings attention to what you see as a dangerous campaign, but you think you should get the use of that newspaper's printing presses and employees for free? Or that your fellow taxpayers should write a check for you so you could say your mind? Would they have to do that every day, if that's how you want to do it? Every hour? Should we scrap the first amendment, and have the government prevent you from speaking your mind on something that's very important to you? Or would you have the government only prevent you from doing so if you have to pay for some paper to use in communicating, or pay to host a web site where you say it?
How is it "not right" to put your own resources into communicating a message you want people to hear? How is it not right to seek out some time with your elected representative to explain what you think, even if the only time the both of you have to do that is over breakfast before his legislative day is started?
Be specific.
Bribery? Be specific. Every last dollar contributed to campaigns is a matter of public record. Unless you're talking about stuff like that Democrat congressman caught with $90k of cash in his freezer as he got arrested for obvious political racketeering, or Chicago-type blatant pocket-stuffing. When a lobbyist sits down for dinner with a congressman or a senator, that's on the books, right down to what the steak cost. What are you referring to, specifically?
More likely Silicon Valley is tired to death of the grotesque regulator over-reach, a non-competitive business tax environment, endless waffling and lies about immigration reform, a disaster of a health care package, and the portrayal of the government as being completely feckless when it comes to international relations and the global economy. There's plenty not to like about some Republicans and the politicians they raise up ... but there's a LOT not to like about the Democrats if the current administration is its manifestation, as it relates to what it means to try to start up and run fast-moving, high-tech businesses in the US.
Intellectual property issues are on the radar, but it's much, much bigger than that. The economy is being help back by sheer administrative clumsiness and knuckleheaded nanny-state ambitions. And that's holding back jobs, economic growth, and the sort of climate that Silicon Valley entrepreneurs crave.
It's not about the money, though. Democrats are spending MORE money than Republicans in trying to communicate their message, and they're still losing ground. It's about the entire Democrat party carrying around the stink left on it by a spectacularly incompetent administration - one that the party was supporting in a nearly religious way in order to get re-elected just a while ago. It's buyer's remorse, big time. And since the rest of the party can't bring themselves to say they don't support the administration's policies and world view (although some won't even admit they voted for the guy!), they're left by appearances tacitly endorsing the whole mess, and wearing the consequences as voters show their disgust.
The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether
Absolutely! Because if 10,000 people all have the same thing on their minds, and want to present their case to a legislator in the interests of getting their issue some attention in the House or the Senate, then it makes much more sense for all 10,000 of them to travel to DC and attempt to get some face time with the same one politician (say, the chairperson of whatever committee might impact the way legislation surrounding the topic in question is handled). Yes, that's FAR more efficient than those same 10,000 people pooling a much smaller share of each of their resources and time, and sending a single person to have a single sit-down with that same legislator. We certainly wouldn't want to ask someone who already knows everyone involved, and who understands how the legislature works, to choose the best time and circumstance and context in which to bring up something important. No, that's far too sensible - it's much better if we make it AGAINST THE LAW for people to exercise the first amendment rights to assemble and talk to their government.
Asking one person to talk to your representative on behalf of a bunch of you IS NOT CIRCUMVENTING DEMOCRACY. It's using your damn head.
How does employing a lobbyist to efficiently do what 10,000 of you would do separately equate to "buying" legislation any more than does 10,000 of you individually doing exactly the same thing? Are you suggesting that 10,000 of you shouldn't be allowed to talk to your representatives, or show support for their campaigns, or saying out loud (online, in a newspaper, or a media ad) that you think a given referendum, law, or politician is doing something wrong? Isn't that exactly the point of democracy? Or are you suggesting that campaigns and political expression should be conducted entirely with taxpayer dollars, no matter who the candidate is or how moonbat crazy they are? Personally, I'd like to choose whether and to whom my financial support goes to, when it comes to campaigns. You equate supporting campaigns with buying legislation, but propose no alternative. The only other options are to either force media companies to provide their services for free (government compulsion to support people who you may not actually support) to any old single-topic obsessive who wants to grind some political axe ("911 Truthers For Mars Exploration By Separated Twins!"), or to tell people they're not allowed to spend money to communicate about their politics - something the first amendment specifically protects from people like you, which is a good thing.
Why are Women and Minorities (not including Male Asians) being permitted to opt out of technology education?
This! Skin pigment and chromosonal quota perfection in every walk of life is so much more important than any other thing that might make someone choose something else to do that we should force people to study things in which they're not interested. Because that way, we can be sure that they'll be passionate about hating it even more, so that when they apply for that quota-mandated position, we know they'll be miserable SOBs to work with, and productivity will be sure to suffer, for which we'll be sure to blame Evil Corporations.
Jesse Jackson is a hypocritical, lying fool. His agenda (which is to extort money from public and private institutions so that he and his entourage can spend their time well compensated for doing nothing but whining) is utterly transparent. But it plugs right into the Nanny State world view, which requires professional quota referees for every last thing, including the size of your drink cup and the precise tone of the skin of the programmer in the cube next to you.
Jackson is complaining that Amazon's stats aren't precise enough, but I notice he's not calling for stats about the measured skills and academic records of the couldn't-get-hired-there folks he thinks should be qualified strictly on cosmetic grounds. If he thinks that the members of a particular racial group aren't landing enough jobs at Amazon, he should be turning to that group and lecturing them about developing the critical thinking, communication, technical, entrepreneurial, scientific, and related skills that make someone a shoe-in for such jobs. ALL of that starts at home, and is pretty well viable or terminally broken by the time a kid is half way through elementary school. And THAT is all about the culture out of which that kid emerges. About which Jackson should be doing some serious introspection, if he could stand to look at himself in the mirror. He not only deliberately confuses race with culture, but he deliberately confuses cause and effect - all so that he can thunder on about it, threaten boycotts, and receive grant money from his extortion victims. This is just another round of his racketeering outfit doing what it does.
Costs haven't tripled, deductibles haven't quadrupled--that's completely absurd. You are just a stone-cold liar. Every study shows that Obamacare has bent the cost curve, dramatically.
Excellent!
So, I should only pay part of my government regulated insurance premium, then, since you say that the actual dollar amount is incorrect?
Before the law kicked in, we paid about $250/month, and had a $2,500 deductible. Along comes Obamacare, and our premium (which now requires us to buy things like no-deductible comprehensive child-bearing services despite no longer young enough to even have kids, and comprehensive no-deductible drug treatment coverage for addictions we don't have) have risen to over $800/month, and our deductible is now $12,000/year. So if we have a broken bone in the family, or something else that adds up noticeably, we've gone from our health care costs each year being $5,500 to our healthcare costs being $21,600. Yeah, thanks Obama, Pelosi, and Reid for "bending" that cost. Thanks a lot. And our insurance regulating body in our state tells us that we should expect those premiums, because of the higher costs of coverage and the low participation of healthy people, to go up by 48% next year. So our monthly premium will be up to nearly $1,200. Yeah, that law's definitely got some people bending alright. What's a mystery is why you're such a fan. Has to be because you're on the receiving end of the subsidy equation, and are one of the extra people I'm now paying for.
And the only reason you're not hearing millions of more people screaming about this is because Obama illegally and unilaterally broke his own law, without involving the legislature, and altered the required dates so that people on employer-provided plans won't see exactly the same sort of giant increases in their rates and deductibles until after the mid-term election. A totally craven, partisan bit of manipulation designed to keep people like you whistling past the graveyard through the elections. Aren't you just a little bit embarrassed to be so easily manipulated? Or are you a party shill or some such, and already know all of this?
Exactly right. What regular people want is feast on cheap oil and gas and cheap food, and give a big "fuck you" to the next generation.
No, what they want is to not be the chumps that cripple their own economy for NO IMPACT on the climate while populations several times their size and polluting more every minute just carry on as usual.
Comparing health to the price of gas is moronic. Anybody who values a robust economy more than health can go suck on a tailpipe.
They ONLY thing that makes healthy food, high-tech medicine, clean cities, fancy low-emission hybrids and electrics, and everything else not-like-a-century-ago is a robust economy. If you cannot understand the basic plumbing of civilization, please do not vote on Tuesday.
Keep in mind that you only apply for a drivers license like once in 10 years.
FWIW, our state has you in for a renewal and fresh paperwork every four years. At which time you're handed what amounts to a blank check for voter registration. Nothing during that process (completing the voter registration form) establishes what you say about your citizenship. In fact you can be at the MVA getting your driver's license, where your citizenship status IS addressed, and at the same time, hand in a voter registration that is 100% at odds with what you say about your license, and nobody can or will reconcile those two things, ever.