Who Are The Job Creators? Middle-Class Consumers

National Journal: The Inequality Speech That TED Won’t Show You

Prepare to meet Nick Hanauer. He’s a venture capitalist from Seattle who was the first non-family investor in Amazon.com. Today he’s a very rich man. And, somewhat jarringly, he’s screaming to anyone who will listen that he, and other wealthy innovators like him, doesn’t create jobs. The middle class does – and its decline threatens everyone in America, from the innovators on down.

Here’s an excerpt from Hanauer’s speech last March:

Anyone who’s ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn’t just inaccurate, it’s disingenuous.

That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

Since 1980 the share of income for the richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%.

If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.


More info:
TED Talks refuses to publish income inequality speech

  1. #1 by brewski on May 17, 2012 - 11:19 pm

    So are you saying that there is a causal effect between effective tax rates on the wealthy and unemployment?

    So based on the above chart, would you be in favor of a tax system that kept the wealthiest Americans’ effective tax rate equal to that as in 1995? If so, then I can tell you how to get it easily.

    Mr. Hanauer makes one giant logical fallacy. He states that lower rates and more wealth for the wealthy necessarily go together. When in fact, I could show you how to double Warren Buffett’s taxes with lower that the current rates. So he is just wrong. So we know that a system which includes lower rates could mean less wealth for the wealthy.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on May 18, 2012 - 9:04 am

    An extremely successful venture capitalist is saying that rich people don’t deserve the self-serving, propagandistic title of “job creators.” Jobs don’t come from trickle-down economics, the process is exactly the opposite.

    This is not a new idea, but the Washington politicians are allied with the 1 Percent so we don’t hear it very often.

    What’s arguably the most famous speech in American political history was delivered by William Jennings Bryan on July 9, 1896, at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

    There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

    Unfortunately, many Dems have forgotten whose side their party is supposed to be on.

  3. #3 by cav on May 18, 2012 - 9:17 am

    I bet it scorches jamie’s silk shorts to get orders from the likes of Geithner.

    In the diplomatic language of Treasury communications, Mr.
    Geithner has just told Jamie Dimon to resign from the New York Fed board. It looks bad — and it is bad — to have him on the board of this key part of the Federal Reserve System at a time when his bank is under investigation with regard to its large trading losses and the apparent failure of its risk management system. If Mr. Dimon resigns, that is a
    major humiliation and recognition – at the highest levels of government – that even the country’s best connected banker has overstepped his limits. If, as seems more likely, Mr. Dimon stays in place, that would be a great victory for the big banks – and a reminder of who is really in charge of the country. We the people of course.

  4. #4 by cav on May 18, 2012 - 9:26 am

    Luckily Dimon is the only conflicted yahoo running the system.

  5. #5 by brewski on May 18, 2012 - 11:06 am

    Thanks for not answering my questions.

  6. #6 by Richard Warnick on May 18, 2012 - 12:05 pm

    You’re just peddling pie-in-the-sky tax reform again. Let the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich expire, and then we can talk about reform, OK?

  7. #7 by brewski on May 18, 2012 - 1:26 pm

    Not OK.

  8. #8 by brewski on May 18, 2012 - 1:27 pm

    Let’s just get spending to the same level of GDP as it was under Clinton and then we can talk about tax revenues, OK?

  9. #9 by Larry Bergan on May 18, 2012 - 2:34 pm

    brewski:

    Are you saying we should erase the Bush years before we can talk? It’s going to be a neat trick to actually prevent 911, and his wars of choice isn’t it?

  10. #10 by Larry Bergan on May 18, 2012 - 2:38 pm

    Very disappointing that “TED” was freaked out that Nick Hanauer brought GOD into the conversation and refused to put his speech on.

  11. #11 by brewski on May 18, 2012 - 2:45 pm

    We can start with Clinton’s tax revenues of 18% of GDP and go from there.

    Or was Clinton wrong?

  12. #12 by Richard Warnick on May 18, 2012 - 3:08 pm

    Look, Republicans in Congress refuse to list a single tax loophole they are willing to close. That means it ain’t gonna happen, unless by some miracle the Dems take back Congress and decided to take on the rich and the corporations – wouldn’t bet on that either!

    In case you haven’t been keeping up with current events, the House Republicans want $642 billion in Pentagon spending next fiscal year. That is, they want to bust the spending cap set last year in the Budget Control Act. They have no business complaining about deficits.

    House GOP Throws Out Entire Summer Of Debt Ceiling Negotiations In Less Than 10 Minutes. Makes you wonder why any sane person would try to compromise with Speaker Boehner ever again.

  13. #13 by brewski on May 18, 2012 - 3:44 pm

    I can tell you which ones I would get rid of. All of them.

  14. #14 by cav on May 18, 2012 - 4:07 pm

    The GDP is just a measurement that includes all kinds of wacked-out shit – and excludes a bunch of very essential shit. That it is expected to grow grow grow is nuts, and even if it weren’t nuts, the numbers could remain the same or even suggest growth while abstracting very different and sometimes very destructive ‘Product’.

    It was sort of nice to have a sketch of output when we were just coming into the manufacturing age, but it has been contorted beyond any measure of real value as far as I can see.

  15. #15 by Richard Warnick on May 18, 2012 - 4:14 pm

    brewski–

    You’re not a member of Congress (I’m guessing). If you were, you would know that there are hundreds of lobbyists for every congressman – because they would be calling your office!

  16. #16 by brewski on May 18, 2012 - 4:57 pm

    And your point is?

  17. #17 by cav on May 18, 2012 - 5:32 pm

    Not to put words into Richard’s mouth but his point might have been: Lobbyists might attempt to exercise their particular brand of persuasion upon you were you a congress critter bent on scrapping their favorite loophole. Forgive my presumption.

  18. #18 by brewski on May 18, 2012 - 5:38 pm

    Yes. And the same lobbyists would exercise their particular brand of persuasion upon him.

  19. #19 by cav on May 18, 2012 - 9:13 pm

  20. #21 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 19, 2012 - 1:13 am

    “And your point is?”

    Its not merely enough to purport an idea as being an option on the basis that the idea inclusive of itself would work.

    That idea must also be functional and sustainable in the light of political opposition, and criminal circumvention. while also being flexible to the extent of geographic and economic change over time.

  21. #22 by brewski on May 19, 2012 - 6:22 am

    Then pretty much nothing on here is functional in light of political opposition.

  22. #23 by cav on May 19, 2012 - 7:23 am

    Good Morning.

    ‘They’ do seem to have discovered a system which provides both the resources and the cover to allow such successes.

    It has been contended that, eventually, everything passes on to the ash-heap of history, but it would be nice if we could come up with a way to hasten this along. Especially in the case of banker and hawkish corporate take-over of that which had been supposed to be government Of, By, and For the People Yadda Yadda.

  23. #24 by cav on May 19, 2012 - 7:38 am

    To hear them say it – it’s nothing more than the failure of a ‘risk model’.

    We’re supposed to live with that? Long past time for pitch-forks.

    Again – Good morning.

  24. #26 by cav on May 19, 2012 - 9:15 am

    Shirley there’s a prize for being awake and commenting on a beautiful Saturday morning. You guys make it seem like in all of the rush to score on the weekdays, they’ve move Family Home Evening to Saturday, and changed it to Family Home Saturday!

    Snap too!

  25. #27 by Richard Warnick on May 19, 2012 - 9:56 pm

    brewski–

    You must be aware that Grover Norquist has said getting rid of tax loopholes is a no-no.

  26. #28 by brewski on May 19, 2012 - 10:25 pm

    I think you are mis-stating what he said.

  27. #29 by Larry Bergan on May 20, 2012 - 12:39 am

    Grover Norquist has created and endless loop for himself:

    No taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes no taxes………….

    The only way to get out of this is to reject everything he’s ever stood for and make fools of the entire republican party.

    Unfortunately, hard working people could go down with this lazy idiot and his signers.

  28. #30 by Larry Bergan on May 20, 2012 - 12:45 am

    The Republican pledge:

    On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty to Grover Norquist and his country.

    Signed, brewski/noname

  29. #31 by brewski on May 20, 2012 - 9:04 am

    He did not say, he is against closing loopholes. I believe he said if you close loopholes then you have to lower rates to make it revenue neutral. You know, the same thing Geithner has proposed.

  30. #32 by cav on May 20, 2012 - 9:34 am

    Geithner. Please not to mention that name. Almost as bad as Norquist.

  31. #33 by Larry Bergan on May 20, 2012 - 10:13 am

    OMG!

    Did brewski/noname sign Norquist’s surrealistic pledge.

    Why?

  32. #34 by Richard Warnick on May 20, 2012 - 11:36 am

    Norquist commands that all Republicans “oppose any and all efforts to increase marginal tax rates and oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing the tax rate.”

    Brewski wants to increase revenues by closing tax loopholes. That’s a Norquist no-no.

  33. #35 by Larry Bergan on May 20, 2012 - 12:15 pm

    Norquist commandth!

    brewski Obeyith!

    Nough said!

    Crap!

  34. #36 by brewski on May 20, 2012 - 1:53 pm

    Richard,
    Why are you making any connection between me and Norquist. For some reason you people keep attaching me to people that I have not supported and to positions I have not advocated. What is this some new kind of rhetorical tactic when I say A you attack me for B even though I never said B or supported those who do support B. You are just undermining your credibility, again.

  35. #37 by Richard Warnick on May 20, 2012 - 3:12 pm

    On the contrary, I was pointing out that your tax proposal would violate the Norquist pledge that almost every Republican has signed.

  36. #38 by brewski on May 20, 2012 - 4:21 pm

    No it does not. Norquist would allow a trade off of closing loopholes for lower rates to make it revenue neutral.

  37. #39 by cav on May 20, 2012 - 6:40 pm

    Grover is delusional. Don’t ask my how I know this.

  38. #40 by Richard Warnick on May 21, 2012 - 11:24 am

    brewski–

    But your proposal isn’t revenue-neutral. You keep saying the government can collect more revenue from rich people with your plan than without it.

  39. #41 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 21, 2012 - 11:41 am

    which is delusional, after criminal circumvention, which his proposal would further enable, we wouldn’t collect nearly as much!

  40. #42 by Anonymous on May 21, 2012 - 5:26 pm

    Grover is the most clear headed of the bunch. Can’t get blood from a turnip, or a rich guy.

  41. #43 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 21, 2012 - 11:28 pm

    best approach to tax reform would involve a series of taxes that would be much hard to cheat.

    Using any combination carbon tax, VAT tax, market transaction tax(this is an especially good choice), and either outright Nationalization of the resource extraction industries or extremely heavy royalties on extracted oil/coal/natural gas.

    In addition certain policy changes would help the problems we face long term as well, single payer health care would reduce national health care expenditures by $300 to $700 billion dollars per year.

    Trade policy changes would help as well, we should at a bare minimum match the tariff rates we are charged on our exports on imports to our nation. however any actions we can take against China for their currency manipulation would be a great benefit.

    End the 401K deductions, increase the SS tax rate by 2.2% and lift the SS tax cap, and tax cap gains as ordinary income. To lower the retirement age to 60 while increasing SS payouts by 50%. This would help create upwards wage pressure by allowing many to retire that lost their 401K’s in 2007 or had their pensions stolen by Bain capital or the like over the last 20 years.

    Change the home mortgage interest deduction into a credit on the first $250,000-$400,000 dollars of value on a single primary residence.

    I looked into the idea of a territorial tax system(brewski pointed this out) for foreign profits made by US corporations, the idea has merit but appears to be easily gamed, Part of Europe’s problem actually stems from countries tweaking their territorial rate caps back and forth to play the tax haven game against each other.

    It might work under a treaty where each nation using the system agrees to use the same thresh hold rate for the differential charge on the tax difference or basic rate charge when the thresh hold is meet in the foreign tax burden.

    “Can’t get blood from a turnip, or a rich guy.”

    Completely disagree, individual tax rate increases in the form of additional brackets will increase revenue. always has and always will.

    If such nonsense where the case lower the rate would make no difference to the amount of taxes collected as the money would already be all “hidden” from the tax man. Clearly the drop in revenue after the Bush cuts contradicts this silliness.

  42. #44 by brewski on May 22, 2012 - 9:54 am

    Richard,

    “But your proposal isn’t revenue-neutral.”
    Support please.

    “You keep saying the government can collect more revenue from rich people with your plan than without it.”
    I already showed you the math.

    RDH,
    “market transaction tax(this is an especially good choice)”
    This would be the best thing that ever happened to London, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Toronto, Paris, Brussels, Milan, Shanghai.

    ” and either outright Nationalization of the resource extraction industries”
    Read the constitution.

    “To lower the retirement age to 60 while increasing SS payouts by 50%.”
    It worked so well for Greece.

    “individual tax rate increases in the form of additional brackets will increase revenue. always has and always will.”
    Unfortunately, the actual data already refutes this. Sorry reality gets in the way of your narrative.

  43. #45 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 22, 2012 - 10:09 am

    “This would be the best thing that ever happened to London, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Toronto, Paris, Brussels, Milan, Shanghai.”

    Only high frequency traders and fyi those places can have them, Ohh and Paris already have such a tax.

    “Read the constitution.”

    Nothing in it against this sort of thing.

    “It worked so well for Greece.”

    I outlined how it would be more then payed for.

    “Unfortunately, the actual data already refutes this. Sorry reality gets in the way of your narrative.”

    BS, tax revenue went up after both the Bush Sr. tax hike and the Clinton tax hike, and tax revenue went down after the Reagen and the Bush Jr. Tax cut.

    And don’t try playing games with the rate coming up over time due to inflation, I will cut through that nonsense argument like a chainsaw through butter.

  44. #46 by brewski on May 22, 2012 - 10:59 am

    “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
    So how exactly were you planning on nationalizing all the extraction industries? A la Castro?

    France has not yet implemented their financial transaction tax. I suspect this will be a great boon for London and Frankfurt who do not have such a tax and have no plans to do so. This a huge opportunity for London and Franfurt to gain market share, and jobs, income taxes and property taxes.

    I already showed when the top rate was 92% the amount collected in taxes was less than when the rate was 28%. End of story.

    Try again.

  45. #47 by Richard Warnick on May 22, 2012 - 11:17 am

    brewski–

    If your plan brings in more revenue, it’s not revenue-neutral. QED.

    And you know Grover Norquist, the most powerful man in Washington except for President Obama, won’t approve of any tax “reform” that increases revenue.

    Of course, there’s always the slight possibility that lowering tax rates will bring in less revenue– which is what happened in a big way under Reagan and Bush.

  46. #48 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 22, 2012 - 12:25 pm

    “So how exactly were you planning on nationalizing all the extraction industries?”

    1. Most resource extraction industries are on public lands not private lands, we can terminate land access agreements whenever we want!

    2. Emanate domain.

    “I already showed when the top rate was 92% the amount collected in taxes was less than when the rate was 28%”

    You neglect the difference between the distribution of income at the 2 different times. Further higher rates lead to higher reinvestment rates in companies rather then being taken out as salary or dividends which further shows your ignorant observation to be flawed.

  47. #49 by Titus V on May 22, 2012 - 12:34 pm

    Nobody’s raising revenues in the US so why are you talking about it?

    I feel like I’m in the middle of a D and D game with teenagers talking fantasy.

  48. #50 by Titus V on May 22, 2012 - 12:57 pm

  49. #51 by brewski on May 22, 2012 - 9:13 pm

    “1. Most resource extraction industries are on public lands not private lands, we can terminate land access agreements whenever we want!”
    So they already are nationalized, so your nationalization idea is pointless. As for what the right royalty rate should be, sure, charge as much as you want. How much do you think the market can bear? With Oil companies making margins of 9%, how much room do you think there is to raise royalties?

    “2. Emanate domain.”
    Eminent domain has 2 parts, 1 public use, 2 fair market value. So you would have to prove to the Supreme Court that there is a public use to seizing the private property of these companies. Second, you would have to pay them fair market value of the assets you seize. You got a few extra Trillion lying around?

    The only other way is the Castro way, which it sounds like you are in favor of.

    “You neglect the difference between the distribution of income at the 2 different times. Further higher rates lead to higher reinvestment rates in companies rather then being taken out as salary or dividends which further shows your ignorant observation to be flawed.”
    I didn’t neglect anything and Ha! Source please.
    You have shown yourself to be entirely unfamiliar with history, data, logic and theory.

  50. #52 by Larry Bergan on May 22, 2012 - 9:45 pm

    When I was a kid, I used to watch horror films to get my kicks; now I listen to Chris Hedges.

    Interesting and credible fellow who thinks OWS is our only hope. I agree.

  51. #53 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 22, 2012 - 9:47 pm

    “With Oil companies making margins of 9%”

    9%… after balance transfer games, and the alphabet soup of middle men who have very low capital investment each take their 9% as well(these guys are often wholely own subsidiaries setup for the sole purpose of hiding from the tax man).

    “Second, you would have to pay them fair market value of the assets you seize. You got a few extra Trillion lying around?”

    We already own the lands(minus the 1-2% of private lands that have mineral rights). Compensation would only cover installed infrastructure, which itself is often partly covered by tax subsides. I am fine with a 10year phased buyout or something similar.

    “Source please.”

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

    By all means Mr. history, data, logic, and theory!!!!

  52. #54 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 22, 2012 - 10:07 pm

  53. #55 by brewski on May 23, 2012 - 9:18 am

    “9%… after balance transfer games, and the alphabet soup of middle men who have very low capital investment each take their 9% as well(these guys are often wholely own subsidiaries setup for the sole purpose of hiding from the tax man).”
    Wrong. The 9% profit margin is the consolidated after tax profit margin of the entire business. So your uneducated comments about wholly owned businesses reveals your ignorance since wholly owned businesses are eliminated in consolidation. You know as much about accounting as you do about economics and business.

    I assume you posted the wrong link since I see nothing in the headshop magazine “source” having anything to do with higher tax rates causing higher investment. If that were the case, Michigan would be booming and Texas would be on its back. For some reason [such as logic and rational human behavior] it is the other way around.

    Try again.

  54. #56 by Richard Warnick on May 23, 2012 - 10:07 am

    Ronald–

    Of course, the graph you linked to shows the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich expiring on schedule at the end of 2010. Unfortunately, the Dems rescued the cuts– snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Now, President Obama wants us to believe he won’t give the rich yet another round of tax cuts if we re-elect him. That’s not credible, and anyway Obama keeps talking about $250K a year as if that’s “middle class” when the median household income is $50K.

    In fact, Willard (“Mitt”) Romney is promising additional tax cuts for the rich that go beyond the Bush-Obama cuts, because the latter now seem like they are a given even though set to expire at the end of this year.

  55. #57 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 23, 2012 - 10:18 am

    “The 9% profit margin is the consolidated after tax profit margin of the entire business.”

    I guess you never heard of international tax havens like Ireland or xmas/cayman islands before!!!!!!

    To say nothing of the Balance transferring going on via overwriting their capital costs on foreign purchased equipment though out of country subsidiaries.

    And no they don’t have to report those profits to the IRS until they bring them into the US. This occurs via a couple different methods, via the existing writing off system over time, or via occasional tax holidays that previous republicans administrations have tried.

    “Michigan would be booming and Texas would be on its back”

    By all means neglect to mention the Oil industry in Texas and the royalties they pay to the state their, or some of the highest property tax rates in the Nation, or the fact that Texas is one of those States that gets more Federal dollars then they pay unlike Michigan.

    Why don’t you compare growth in CA to WI. Ohh right that would hurt your silly argument!!!!

    And its not entirely right to compare States anyway, they can’t regulate interstate commerce in anyway so except for a few certain States businesses can play them against each other for the purpose of obtaining maximum government provided benefits.

  56. #58 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 23, 2012 - 11:23 am

    Richard,

    Median income is closer to the lower $40k area.

    And on the tax Obama was in a tough spot, unemployment benefits would have gone away without the compromise due to the filibuster and a few sell out Dems in the Senate.

    Getting congress todo anything is like herding cats, if a president can get a quarter of what he wants done that is a good place to be. If they get more then that it is likely because they are abusing the system(Bush).

    Obama is certainly no FDR, but that is alright he is a transitional president, he is the Democrats Nixon, he is the last president of the conservative consensus as Nixon was the last president of the progressive consensus.

    Really Give the man some credit, he has pulled off alot given all that has been set against him.

  57. #59 by Richard Warnick on May 23, 2012 - 12:06 pm

    You have to admit, what a contrast between Bush (who got almost everything he wanted from Congress except for a Supreme Court appointment for Harriet Miers, and privatizing Social Security) and Obama, who has to constantly make excuses for his powerlessness.

  58. #60 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 23, 2012 - 12:54 pm

    Until Democrats have a real majority that doesn’t require the by your leave of conservative democrats, then their power will be weak.

    When progressives can take full control of the house and because that noisy group in the senate that can hold things up they don’t like then democrats will be strong.

    The current problem with Democrats is they can’t wait, their impatient, they want it all here and now. They can’t accept partial wins in the path to their goals as successes.

    If the Democrats can’t accept partial wins and move forward from that then they will never gain anything.

    Their is already talk about further banking regulations after the JP Morgan fiasco, many many people talking about restoring Glass Steagall, including members of the senate and the house.

    Democrats and progressives accepted the Dodd Frank bill as being a success even for it being merely a partial victory, and because we accepted it as that we have already moved on to making better the things we couldn’t get in it as the goal for the next victory.

  59. #61 by brewski on May 23, 2012 - 2:17 pm

    “I guess you never heard of international tax havens like Ireland or xmas/cayman islands before!!!!!!”
    I’m not talking about taxes!!!!!!
    I’m talking about consolidated after tax profits after everything has been done and paid for!!!!!!
    It is called GAAP accounting!!!!!
    Learn it some day!!!!!!!

    “To say nothing of the Balance transferring going on via overwriting their capital costs on foreign purchased equipment though out of country subsidiaries.”
    Irrelevant to what I am talking about!!!!

    “And no they don’t have to report those profits to the IRS until they bring them into the US. This occurs via a couple different methods, via the existing writing off system over time, or via occasional tax holidays that previous republicans administrations have tried.”
    Ditto!!!!!

    You still have not shown me any source which says that higher taxes causes higher investments.

    “Until Democrats have a real majority”
    They had a real majority and looked what happened:
    Closing tax loopholes for the rich = No.
    Universal health care = No
    Ethics reform = No
    Earmark reform = No
    Closed Gitmo = No
    Kept any Obama promise = No
    Indicted even one banister = No
    Ended the influence of Wall Street = No
    Ended too big to fail = No

    So you got what you wished for and you still couldn’t do it.

  60. #62 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 23, 2012 - 2:25 pm

    “I’m talking about consolidated after tax profits after everything has been done and paid for”

    Yes reported earnings. Earnings made off shore are not necessary reported.

    Learn it some day!!!!!!!!!!

    “They had a real majority and looked what happened:”

    Liberman is not a democrat, Ben Nelson is a shell of a democrat, senate rules make 60 votes the minimum for a Majority, democrats had 58 votes not 60.

    “Ended the influence of Wall Street “

    That would require a 66 vote majority to fix now, and 38 States to ratify. Can’t currently be done.

    The supreme court needs fixing, the John Roberts court has been a disaster.

  61. #63 by Richard Warnick on May 23, 2012 - 2:25 pm

    What about Senate “Majority” Leader Harry Reid? All it would have taken was a simple majority to reform the filibuster rules, and he didn’t do it – instead relying on empty promises from Republicans that they would play nice in this session of Congress.

    George W. Bush took the federal government so far to the right that we’ll probably never get it back to the center. Dems don’t seem to mind, or else they don’t know what to do about it. They are continuing on the trajectory set by Bush.

    Dodd-Frank was inadequate because it didn’t do much more than initiate a regulatory process, and the Republicans know they can thwart that process. Meanwhile, the Obama DOJ has been unbelievably reluctant to investigate and prosecute financial wrongdoing.

    I fail to see how there have been “partial wins” or any “move forward” on critical issues such as jobs, foreign policy, health care “reform” or climate change. Dems remain obsessed with deficit reduction in the midst of a depression – that’s Hoovernomics.

  62. #64 by brewski on May 23, 2012 - 2:40 pm

    “Yes reported earnings. Earnings made off shore are not necessary reported.”
    You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. I have been an auditor and worked in the finance department of 3 Fortune 500 companies and I know exactly how this is done and you have no clue what you are talking about. You don’t know what GAAP means and you don’t know what consolidated means. You are out of your depth and are too ignorant of your ignorance to know it.

  63. #65 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 23, 2012 - 2:57 pm

    “All it would have taken was a simple majority”

    They don’t have a simple majority, their are to many conservative Dems that benefit from the situation as it is.

    “Dodd-Frank was inadequate because it didn’t do much more than initiate a regulatory process, and the Republicans know they can thwart that process.”

    The CFPB is a giant… GIANT step forward. Getting all transactions cleared on the markets is another giant step forward. position limits on derivatives is a giant step forward. A large bank wind down and bankruptcy process is a good step as well.

    And the failure of JP Morgan and the gross manipulation of the volker rule has gone public and has brought out renewed calls for additional regulation and a new Glass Steagall.

    This is the mark of success, We got Dodd Frank through and now we get to push the fight forward.

    So we are not gaining ground fast enough for your liking, If we would have passed Obamacare/BobDolecare back in 1993 we would be talking about the new single payer system now.

    But their are to many people that won’t accept marginal gains, They want it all overnight. These people represent the problem with the Democrat Party.

    We don’t win enough so they stand out the next election upset that the world was not handed to them on a silver plater, and have their marginal gains taken away along with a little extra besides leaving them you much worse off then before.

  64. #66 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 23, 2012 - 3:00 pm

    “You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.”

    I know exactly what I am talking about, you are deluded to think that companies like Exxon, or BP, or TransOcean remotely give a rats ass about playing fair.

  65. #67 by brewski on May 23, 2012 - 3:14 pm

    So how was it that I was in the corporate headquarters accounting department of these multinational companies and I know how GAAP accounting works and you don’t? How is it that our auditors knew where every penny was and you don’t? How is the tin foil helmet and antennae on your head working for you?

  66. #68 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 23, 2012 - 3:22 pm

    “So how was it that I was in the corporate headquarters accounting department of these multinational companies and I know how GAAP accounting works and you don’t?”

    You wernt you and don’t, Your just a random internet troll trying to push a partisan political position.

  67. #69 by brewski on May 23, 2012 - 3:24 pm

    It wasn’t me working in the world headquarters of the accounting departments of 3 multinational companies?

  68. #70 by Richard Warnick on May 23, 2012 - 3:28 pm

    “But there are too many people that won’t accept marginal gains, They want it all overnight.”

    You bet. When our government moved to the right under Bush it was drastic, not marginal. Where is the change in direction under President Obama?

    Maybe it’s too much to hope our government will go back to being a representative democracy. However, many people are fed up with our lack of representation in Washington. We’re fed up with the lack of economic opportunity, with pointless wars halfway around the world, with the government’s attacks on the Bill of Rights, and corporatism in general.

  69. #71 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 23, 2012 - 4:46 pm

    It is much easier to tear things down then to build them up.

    If all your job is, is to swing a wreaking ball around recklessly without regard then your job is damned easy.

    Democrats, have to build a foundation for their policies and build public trust in the.

    The Civil rights Act is a good example, as their was actually a couple of them. The first Civil rights act was very much an insult, but it put into place the groundwork and the idea that we could pass that sort of legislation.

    The Social security act was the same way, it started as an ineffectual grossly racist git of a law. But it layed the groundwork that was build on as the public trust in the idea grew.

  70. #72 by Richard Warnick on May 24, 2012 - 9:19 am

    Ronald–

    I suppose you think the ACA is a baby-step toward actual health care reform. But the political will for reform is a spent force now. Some political observers don’t think anything else can be done for at least 15 years. Most Americans don’t like the final version that passed. Many Dems who voted for the ACA won’t defend it now.

    Remember that candidate Obama himself campaigned in 2008 FOR the public option and AGAINST the individual private insurance mandate. The public option would have provided at least a semblance of cost control, something that the final ACA doesn’t have. And regulation of insurance is left completely in the hands of the states.

    I predict the ACA will become even less popular as employers drop health insurance coverage and more people get shafted by the mandate. The Republicans might even succeed in repealing it.

  71. #73 by brewski on May 24, 2012 - 10:07 am

    The horrifying thing for me, as someone who is one course short of having a masters degree in healthcare economics, is that there is so much intelligent research and thought which has been published, but none of it was used in writing ACA. So when it came to writing the “plan” there was no effort put into trying to make it a good plan. It was just one giant process of trying to get votes to pass any piece of shit.

    Read this:
    http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/mayo-clinics-chief-finds-congressional-health-debate-heart-breaking/

    So we should repeal all of ACA, start over with a blank sheet of paper, get Denis Cortese and there other best minds on this topic and move forward from there.

  72. #74 by Titus V on May 24, 2012 - 10:21 am

    Yep, the obama presidency is officially a bucket pup.

  73. #75 by Titus V on May 24, 2012 - 10:35 am

    Anyone more interested in this? Anyone here want to do a top post about this please?

    http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/05/23/media-blackout-obama-appoints-assassination-czar-137181/

  74. #76 by brewski on May 24, 2012 - 11:00 am

    Now this is what I call a plan:

    “Because Dr. Cortese contends that Medicare has had such a poor track record, he has not been shy in opposing a government-run health care plan, or public option, which many liberal Democrats favor. Instead, he would urge Congress to create a national package of health insurance options modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan.

    That program, the same one available to members of Congress, allows people to choose from a wide range of insurance offerings, with dozens of health insurers participating. If people want more generous coverage, they would have to pay more. The plans are vetted by the government, which also restricts the amount of profit the insurers can make on the basic policies.

    Dr. Cortese would go even further. He suggests the program should be used to eventually replace Medicare, with federal subsidies as needed to help older Americans pay for the coverage.”

  75. #77 by Richard Warnick on May 24, 2012 - 11:34 am

    brewski–

    Perhaps the main thing wrong with the ACA was it was written by a lobbyist for WellPoint, Liz Fowler. Then Fowler went to the White House staff to help implement the ACA.

    The FEHP is pretty good, but the best thing about it is the relatively low premiums paid by federal employees – with the rest of the cost paid by the government. I haven’t seen an estimate of what it would cost to offer this plan to every citizen, but I’m willing to bet Medicare For All would be cheaper.

    Glenn–

    I know about Brennan’s new position as Master of Assassins from reading Glenn Greenwald’s blog. It’s kinda scary that we know so much about a supposedly top-secret program, because there’s bound to be much, much more we don’t know.

  76. #78 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 24, 2012 - 11:41 am

    “But the political will for reform is a spent force now. “

    They thought the same thing about the first Civil rights act!!, Look against all the predictions of the minority that the system would spontaneously combust, and well it didn’t. That is as much the key to building a foundation as anything else, people now have the idea that we can make changes in this area safely against all of the republican propaganda to the otherwise.

    On the mandate, I am assuming the supreme court will strike that down.

    And on the polling, yes the bill as a whole polls badly, but all of its component parts poll well(except for the mandate), this shows that the bill has been poorly communicated to the American public. A disconnect that the republicans are taking advantage of.

    The HHS should have been sending information packets to every American the moment the bill passed and running TV ads describing the new system.

    “Because Dr. Cortese contends that Medicare has had such a poor track record”

    Medicares administrative overhead is way way below that of the private insurance industry.

    All-payer styled universal health care only works in Nations that have a government that can effectively regulate business. Nations like the United States, Canada, UK, etc have to much corruption in their businesses for a privately ran health care system to work efficiently. Or can otherwise create a balance between business excess and the public need (France uses adverse risk insurance and a public option for this).

  77. #79 by brewski on May 24, 2012 - 11:54 am

    Richard,
    Would you rather have Medicare or the FEHP? Based on watching my parents deal with Medicare, I would take FEHP in a heartbeat.

    The measure of how well a plan works is not just its administrative cost ratio. That is probably the 10th on a list of 10 measure with which to evaluate a system.

  78. #80 by brewski on May 24, 2012 - 12:00 pm

    More on alternatives to a fee for service model like Medicare which encourages waste and inefficiency:

    http://mtype.pnstate.org/mt/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=10&tag=Denis%20Cortese&limit=20

  79. #81 by Richard Warnick on May 24, 2012 - 12:06 pm

    brewski–

    FEHP is better, we agree on that.

    However, the reason we have a health care crisis is out-of-control costs — double what citizens of other developed countries are paying. There has to be a cost reduction mechanism, otherwise any health care “reform” is a giveaway to an already bloated and overpriced private health insurance industry.

    Therefore, something like Medicare For All or the Public Option, or whatever you want to call it, has to be available to compete with the private options.

  80. #82 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 24, 2012 - 1:11 pm

    “The measure of how well a plan works is not just its administrative cost ratio. “

    Administrative costs are around 30cents on every dollar in the private industry, Medicare is around 1.5-3cents on every dollar.

    Our entire system is mostly fee for service, its more that the model is forced onto Medicare then that Medicare desires to run this way. Obamacare does introduce ACO’s, and health care warranties which is a change from the standard fee per service model which will help considerably.

  81. #83 by brewski on May 24, 2012 - 1:23 pm

    There is no reason at all to believe that Medicare for all will lower costs. In fact it is likely to raise costs. Medicare does not cost less, it costs more. Medicare is wildly subsidized by everyone not on Medicare since everyone with non-Medicare insurance has higher rates to offset the losses all of the providers suffer from Medicare.

    Yes, shoplifting is cheaper than actually paying for something, but “shoplifting for all” is not a way to keep an economy functioning.

  82. #84 by Richard Warnick on May 24, 2012 - 1:39 pm

    Why are the corporatists so afraid of giving everybody a choice to go with a public plan like Medicare? Simple: the premiums would be less for the same coverage, so the private insurance plans would have to stop gouging consumers in order to compete. Remember, the citizens of other developed countries, on average, pay half what we do for health care that’s just as good or better.

  83. #85 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 24, 2012 - 2:03 pm

    “Medicare is wildly subsidized by everyone not on Medicare since everyone with non-Medicare insurance has higher rates to offset the losses all of the providers suffer from Medicare.”

    Utter nonsense, You can make that claim about medicaid but not Medicare.

  84. #86 by brewski on May 24, 2012 - 3:06 pm

    People from other countries pay half as much as we do not because of the insurance companies gouging. They pay half what we pay since their providers make far less. Their doctors are paid far less, they fixed their drug prices at far less, their hospitals get paid much less, all the way down the line. The insurance companies are just the messengers and everyone wants to shoot the messenger. You might as well blame your grocery store every time the price of milk or meat goes up.
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-doctors-in-other-countries-make/

    ttp://medicynic.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/wpid-photo-aug-9-2011-1156-am.jpg

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZDUxUqRX9ZI/TQrOLp-W8_I/AAAAAAAAAks/BSzbEmxonyA/s1600/Average+Cost+Per+Hospital+Stay.png

  85. #87 by brewski on May 24, 2012 - 3:17 pm

    “The Mayo Clinic, which has been praised by President Obama as an exemplar for the healthcare industry, will no longer accept new Medicare patients at a primary-care clinic in Glendale, AZ, a Phoenix suburb. While this office serves only a small portion of Mayo’s 526,000 patients in Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida, the organization says that the Glendale clinic is part of a 2-year pilot that will determine whether Mayo continues taking care of Medicare patients at other facilities. Meanwhile, the 3,000 Medicare patients who see family doctors at the Glendale office will have to pay nearly $2,000 a year out of pocket if they want to stay with their physicians.

    Mayo is going in this direction because it lost $840 million last year on Medicare. Its Arizona hospital and four primary-care clinics lost $120 million. Nationwide, physicians earn about 20 percent less from Medicare than they do from private payers, but there’s no evidence that most are losing money on Medicare. In a Bloomberg article, Dr. Robert Berenson of the Urban Institute is quoted as saying that some primary-care physicians can afford to do without Medicare “because there is an unlimited demand for their services.” In areas where private health plans pay much more, Medicare looks like a poor payer, he adds.

    Nevertheless, the Mayo experiment highlights the grim realities facing Medicare. Even at the current payment rates, the payroll-tax-funded Medicare Trust Fund, which covers inpatient care, is expected to go bankrupt in 2017.”

    So since Medicare is a fee for service model, if you are a health system that does a great job of keeping your patients healthy and reduce the number of services and procedures they need, then you lose money.

    So Medicare punishes health systems for keeping people healthy, the gold standard of health systems loses money on Medicare, those losses have to be made up by charging someone else. So to say that Medicare for all is a good idea or to say that Medicare doesn’t get subsidized by others is total ignorance of healthcare economics.

    I hope President Romney appoints Denis Cortese as Secretary of HHS instead of the Drizella we have now.

  86. #88 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 24, 2012 - 5:02 pm

    http://www.policymic.com/debates/8373/obamacare-affordable-care-organizations-should-be-expanded-across-the-u-s

    Your Denis Cortese appears to be the wrong person to ask, The number he quoted includes uncompensated care and medicaid into the Medicare numbers, which is grossly manipulative.

    Also under health reform compensation rates would increase 5% to 10% and include bonuses for high quality care.

    The whole thing is purely political The guy running mayo clinic is mad that Obama didn’t include enough of the toys he wanted.

    The AMA played the same BS in Canada when they started doing their health care reforms.

    “I hope President Romney”

    If you hand Romney every last state Obama won by 6% or less Obama would still win with 284 Electoral votes.

    If you use current polling Obama wins by 349 electoral votes.

    Romney has a snow flakes chance in hell of winning.

  87. #89 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 24, 2012 - 5:13 pm

    yea the more i read about that the more sceptical i am of it.,.

    http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/10/mayo-clinic-family-medicine-in-arrowhead-arizona-will-no-longer-take-medicare-patients-.html

    $150 to $400 a visit, with claims that the average visit is 1hour long, their is more holes in their claims then Swiss cheese.

  88. #90 by brewski on May 24, 2012 - 5:21 pm

    “The number he quoted includes uncompensated care and medicaid into the Medicare numbers, ”

    Source?

    We shall see how Obama’s poll numbers are after ACA is tossed out for being unconstitutional, after Arizona’s immigration law is held to be constitutional, after GDP in the third quarter drops to 1.1%, after the Dow drops another 20%.

    Obama knows that he has nothing to run on, that is why he has his henchmen running around the country looking into the divorce filings of Republican contributors. Classy stuff.

    ” a Democratic operative working for a firm specializing in opposition research attempted to obtain all records dealing with VanderSloot’s divorces—a favorite Obama campaign tactic—presumably in an effort to uncover information that might be personally or professional injurious.

    Therein lies the lesson. Come out against Obama, write a big check, and the political operatives who support the president will come after you, digging into your professional background and your private affairs. Call it “donor suppression” or “donor intimidation”

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2012/05/17/obama-campaign-tries-donor-intimidation-against-gop-funders

    All that hopey-changey stuff has turned into Chicago slime pretty fast.

    I am no Romney fan at all. But at this point I’d vote for a potted plant over Obama.

  89. #91 by Richard Warnick on May 24, 2012 - 6:01 pm

    What is the “President Romney” health care plan? On Day One as President, Romney promises to issue an order to “begin replacing Obamacare.” Replace it with nothing, that is. He’s the candidate who says, “If you need help, vote for the other guy.”

    He wants to (1) repeal the Affordable Care Act; (2) end Medicare and Medicaid as we know it, by turning the former into a voucher program and the latter into a block grant scheme; and (3) unravel private insurance, by changing the tax treatment of benefits and undermining state regulation.

    The likely result: 58 million Americans without any way to obtain health insurance.

    “Never before in history has a candidate run for President with the idea that too many people have insurance coverage.” – David Cutler

  90. #92 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 24, 2012 - 7:03 pm

    “Source?”

    How else do you come to a $175 to $400 dollar, 1hour average visit to a primary care physician. Either they are grossly incompetent or they are lying.

    The only thing Medicare doesn’t cover is the cost shift from uncompensated care. I have seen more then enough claims and the numbers behind them to know their is massive amount of misinformation floating around on this one.

    “We shall see how Obama’s poll numbers are after ACA is tossed out for being unconstitutional, after Arizona’s immigration law is held to be constitutional, after GDP in the third quarter drops to 1.1%, after the Dow drops another 20%.”

    The problem for the supreme court will be writing a opinion minimizing the scope of their ruling, accidentaly striking down Medicare with Obamacare would be bad for their political goals.

    Easiest way to minimize the scope of the ruling would be to carve out just the mandate and leave the rest of the law intact.

    Of course even then they will need to jump through some hoops as a good bit of the republicans SS privatization scam relies on a mandate scheme.

    Unintended consequences are the name of the game in the SCOTUS, the Roberts Court is fully aware that to wide a ruling would be destructive to republicans in the future.

    And hold up Arizona’s law?!?!, delusional this one is so clearly spelled out in the constitution I don’t see how anyone even as overtly partisan as the SCOTUS would uphold it.

    And your last hope relies on worst case scenario in Europe, I wouldn’t worry about it to much, right now its just infighting to try and get a better deal, even if Greece leaves the Eurozone it is unlikely that the Euro central bank will not be ready to capitalize their banks and be ready for any runs that happen.

    I am still of the opinion that Germany will come around to a more fair Greece solution as it would be cheaper for them then Greece leaving the Eurozone.

    Either way it is unlikely that you delusion perfect storm of events will ALL happen.

    And Supreme court rulings can backfire politically, Anger over the citizens united ruling is still increasing. I wouldn’t put my hopes on SCOTUS helping your delusion become reality.

  91. #93 by Richard Warnick on May 24, 2012 - 8:09 pm

    brewski–

    I lost count of the times I was accused of rooting for President Bush to fail, when I was merely predicting the inevitable outcome of his malfeasance.

    So I’m not going to accuse you of wanting President Obama to fail. Right now, his job approval numbers are between 47 and 53 percent. He won in 2008 with 53 percent of the vote. So it’s his election to lose.

    Everybody knows who crashed the economy, and it wasn’t the current President. Obama’s failing are mostly sins of omission, such as the refusal to prosecute Wall Street, raise taxes on the rich, and reverse the Bush administration’s unconstitutional power grabs. Or do anything about global warming and getting to a green economy. Or pass EFCA. Well, it’s a long list, but it’s a list of things he did not do.

    The stuff Obama actually did do is almost entirely consistent with conservative orthodoxy and corporatist goals. Leaving Romney without any honest talking points at all.

  92. #94 by brewski on May 24, 2012 - 9:11 pm

    “You can see it’s not selling very well. Why don’t you try to come up with something else?”
    Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    And you call me delusional? I suppose Justice Sotomayor is a right wing partisan to you.

    Your affinity to Castro is looking stronger and stronger.

  93. #95 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 24, 2012 - 10:20 pm

    “And you call me delusional?”

    Yes.

    From the ninth circuit ruling, which upholds the ruling from the lower court, in a ruling by Judge Richard Paez,…..

    “We stress that the question before us is not, as Arizona has portrayed, whether state and local law enforcement officials can apply the statute in a constitutional way… This formulation misses the point: there can be no constitutional application of a statute that, on its face, conflicts with Congressional intent and therefore is preempted by the Supremacy Clause.

    By imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal government’s authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement, turning Arizona officers into state-directed DHS agents.”

  94. #96 by brewski on May 24, 2012 - 10:26 pm

    You do realize that the Supreme Court is above the 9th District and that Sonia Sotomayor is not a right wing partisan?

    You also realize that the 9th District is the most often over-ruled district.

    Over the past decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has overruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 148 of 182 cases—a “strikingly poor record” for the circuit court, said Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain ’63 in a talk at Harvard Law School on September 17.

    What next? You are going to quote Roseanne Barr on her opinion on opera?

  95. #97 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 24, 2012 - 11:03 pm

    Ohh hit a coord did it, HAH.

    And no I think quoting actual Judicial rulings will suffice for the point!

  96. #98 by Richard Warnick on May 25, 2012 - 9:01 am

    brewski–

    Come on, the nation’s foreign policy is strictly reserved to the federal government. Arizona’s anti-immigrant law is blatantly unconstitutional.

  97. #99 by brewski on May 25, 2012 - 9:52 am

    Richard,
    Wrong.
    There AZ law does not interfere at all with the Federal Law. It merely supports it.
    The law is nothing at all anti-immigrant about it.
    And Justice Sotomayor seems to be on my side.
    How many more ways can you be factually wrong?

  98. #100 by Richard Warnick on May 25, 2012 - 10:02 am

    Two words: Supremacy Clause. Every Supreme Court justice ought to be familiar with that.

  99. #101 by brewski on May 25, 2012 - 10:04 am

    The supremacy clause matters when there is a conflict between the laws. There is no conflict. You are fabricating facts to fit your conclusion.

  100. #102 by brewski on May 25, 2012 - 10:08 am

    “Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed by President Obama, asked several questions about it, but seemed satisfied that it need not have harsh consequences.”

    “I’m sorry.… I’m terribly confused by your answer,” Sotomayor said at one point. “Your argument — that this systematic cooperation is wrong — is not selling very well. Why don’t you try to come up with something else?”

    LA Times

  101. #103 by Richard Warnick on May 25, 2012 - 12:32 pm

    brewski–

    The Arizona law does conflict with federal law.

    It’s typical for Supreme Court justices to ask tough questions and make comments at oral arguments (except for Justice Thomas, who is a doofus). Don’t read too much into it.

  102. #104 by brewski on May 25, 2012 - 2:25 pm

    That might make some sense if the Federal government did not create a partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies to help them enforce immigration laws. Apparently you are wholly ignorant of the 287(g) program. So if the Feds want the state and local agencies to enforce the Federal law, and the Arizona law just systemizes and codifies continued enforcement of the Federal law, then there is no conflict, as Justice Sotomayor pointed out.

    So what you are telling me is that if a local cop stops a car on a routine traffic stop, and she glances in the back window and sees a printing press with wet counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes hanging all over it, that that cop has no duty to detain the people in the car and call the Feds?

  103. #105 by Richard Warnick on May 25, 2012 - 2:34 pm

    brewski–

    You hang your hat on the reductio ad absurdum fallacy far too often. The Arizona “papers please” law unconstitutionally pre-empts federal immigration law. We know this because it was not the Arizona legislature’s intent to cooperate with federal law enforcement efforts, which they publicly disapprove of. So they passed their own un-American law, which was written by a racist organization, FAIR.

  104. #106 by brewski on May 25, 2012 - 3:04 pm

    Maddow? Really?

  105. #107 by brewski on May 25, 2012 - 3:12 pm

    I am not hanging my hat on the on the reductio ad absurdum fallacy at all. I am hanging your neck on the itso yourum logicum soum youum needum toum liveum withum itum principle.

    It was the AZ legislature’s intent to get the Feds to enforce their own law. If the Feds think that their own law is so racist then they can go ahead and repeal it. Until then, they need to enforce it. If a state wants to help the Feds enforce a Federal law then there is nothing racist about that.

    In fact, the Feds did not argue the racist point one bit in their own arguments since they know it is a lie and it isn’t true.

    By the way, you never told me how many more US National Monuments the US should cede to Mexico. One down and how many to go?

  106. #108 by Richard Warnick on May 25, 2012 - 3:15 pm

    Yes, really. FAIR is behind this law. In fact, if it is ever implemented it will be a money-maker for them.

    SB 1070, Sec. 2 (PDF):

    A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

    The law allows the plaintiff(s) to recover attorney fees and court costs. This is FAIR’s bread and butter.

  107. #109 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 25, 2012 - 3:20 pm

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/03/475840/reported-neo-nazi-spree-killer-called-sb-1070-sponsor-russell-pearce-his-surrogate-father/

    http://thumpandwhip.com/2011/07/09/russell-pearce-recalled/

    Ahh pictures are worth a thousand words,

    Note, J.T Ready was involved with FAIR, so literately Neo Nazi’s where involved in writing the sb1070 legislation in Arizona.

    Really brewski you are picking a very questionable bunch to align your beliefs and interests with.

  108. #110 by Richard Warnick on May 25, 2012 - 3:24 pm

    The U.S. has not ceded any national monuments to Mexico.

  109. #111 by brewski on May 25, 2012 - 3:41 pm

    So since you are such s stickler for the Supremecy Clase, I assume you must be in violent opposition to all the jurisdictions that flagrantly violate Federal Law with their own local Sancutary laws.

    You must, or you are a giantum hypocritum.

  110. #112 by Richard Warnick on May 25, 2012 - 4:59 pm

    Some police jurisdictions regard the enforcement of federal immigration laws as an unfunded mandate they can’t afford.

  111. #113 by brewski on May 25, 2012 - 6:32 pm

    Name one regulation on businesses that isn’t an unfunded mandate. Isn’t Obamacare by definition an unfunded mandate? Aren’t all mandates on employers unfunded mandates? Who cares what “some jurisdictions” think. That isn’t the point. The point is that the Feds currently have a formal program to get local jurisdictions to help them enforce the Federal immigration law, and now you are telling me that when a jurisdiction actually wants to enforce Federal immigration law, they are racist and it is unconstitutional. Speaking of ones absurdum.

  112. #114 by Richard Warnick on May 26, 2012 - 9:01 pm

    The ACA is fully funded, so I don’t know what you mean (there is no employer mandate, and the individual mandate wil impose costs on individuals, not local governments).

    Some police departments, for example Salt Lake City, think that crime victims and witnesses will be more reluctant to come forward if they fear being turned over to ICE. This makes it harder for police to do their jobs. What the police think definitely counts.

    The Arizona law is: (1) unenforceable, (2) blatantly unconstitutional, and (3) the work of a racist organization, FAIR.

  113. #115 by brewski on May 26, 2012 - 10:15 pm

    “The ACA is fully funded”
    I have no idea why you mean by this. If you mean that it is fully funded from the government’s point of view, that is certainly not true and was already stated not to be true by the CBO. But the question was whether it is an unfunded mandate from the employer’s point of view. If the law says that you must provide health insurance or pay a “fee”, then that sounds like a mandate to me.

    “(there is no employer mandate,”
    I assume you are joking.
    http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2006418,00.html

    The Arizona law is: (1) unenforceable,
    huh?

    (2) blatantly unconstitutional,
    Wrong.

    and (3) the work of a racist organization, FAIR.
    Then why didn’t the Justice Department make that case with SCOTUS?

  114. #116 by Richard Warnick on May 27, 2012 - 10:12 am

    Unlike President Bush’s giveaway to Big Pharma, the ACA is paid for by a combination of taxes and budget cuts.

    The term “unfunded mandate” refers to a federal decision that obligates state or local governments to fund programs. There is no employer mandate. From the Time article you linked to: “The Chamber of Commerce is warning that the new rule, which will go into effect in 2014, will force companies to drop coverage…” I think they might be right. But if they can drop health insurance coverage, like the company I used to work for did, then it’s not really a mandate.

    Don’t be obtuse, brewski. The Arizona law cannot be enforced as written unless everybody stopped by police is required to produce proof of citizenship or legal residence, or a valid tourist visa, and arrested if they cannot. If that happens, Arizona tourism is finished. If not, it’s racial profiling and the flood of lawsuits would prevent enforcement of the law.

    The Arizona “paper please” law is un-American, and unconstitutional because it pre-empts federal law. We have covered this.

    FAIR is a racist organization, as Rachel Maddow has thoroughly documented. They wrote the bill. Nothing illegal here, but worthy of note I think.

  115. #117 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 27, 2012 - 12:32 pm

    Arizona’s law isn’t un-American, Its anti-American.

  116. #118 by brewski on May 27, 2012 - 1:18 pm

    How dishonest can you be in just one post?

    No one outside of the lunatic fringe partisan blind left thinks Obamacare does not increase the deficit, including the CBO:

    “You asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period….
    If the changes described above were made to the legislation, CBO would expect that federal budget deficits during the decade beyond 2019 would increase relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that
    decade in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP.”
    Congressional Budget Office

    You also are telling me what I can use terms to describe. So if I am applying the term unfunded mandate to include unfunded mandates on employers, then I can. You can’t tell me I’m not allowed to under the Richard Warnick rules of words games. So yes there is an employer mandate, and yes of they don’t comply with that mandate they have to pay a fee. So yes this is an unfunded mandate on employers.

    You never answered my question regarding counterfeiting, a Federal crime. Don’t be so evasive.

    If it is so racist then why didn’t the DOJ claim this even once in their petition?

    The law does not re-empt Federal law. Justice Sotomayor has covered this.

    Maddow? Really? Well then, it must be true. I mean she would never say anything that wasn’t true. Except for all the other times I already documented she lied.

    Richard, you have been so thoroughly proven wrong on these points your persistence only goes to reveal the blinders you have on. Why don’t you believe the CBO or Justice Sotomayor?

  117. #119 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 27, 2012 - 2:34 pm

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/conservatives-distort-cbo-data-to-claim-obamacare-costs-have-exploded.php

    brewski, even cursory examination of the current crop of republican claims shows them to be nonsense.

    From the actual CBO report they nicely outline the adjustments to their projections as follows

    ? An increase of $168 billion in projected outlays for Medicaid and CHIP;
    ? A decrease of $97 billion in projected costs for exchange subsidies and related
    spending;
    ? A decrease of $20 billion in the cost of tax credits for small employers; and
    ? An additional $99 billion in net deficit reductions from penalty payments, the
    excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and other effects on tax revenues
    and outlays—with most of those effects reflecting changes in revenues.

    Obama is using every tool he can to let States push people into high Fed matching rate parts of Medicaid, basically chip and the Medicaid expansion portion of the PPACA.

    And even with all of that to the benefit of the States, other factors have improved such that the overall costs are still projected to be lower.

  118. #120 by brewski on May 27, 2012 - 2:49 pm

    I have no idea why you are responding to me what I did not say.

    Do you want me to respond to you about things you did not say?

  119. #121 by Richard Warnick on May 27, 2012 - 5:40 pm

    brewski–

    Before you changed the subject, we were talking about the impact on state and local governments of taking on enforcement of immigration laws. Typically such a burden is referred to as an un-funded federal mandate. How was I to anticipate you would suddenly switch to discussing the Affordable Care Act, which is a totally different thing?

    I don’t know if you know this, but simply being a racist is not illegal under federal law. Racial profiling is the intent of the Arizona law, however due to unconstitutionality (not to mention practical considerations), the law will never be enforced. So the DOJ has no cause of action on that score.

    Justice Sotomayor agrees with me. She was pointing out a weakness in the administration’s argument, in typical Supreme Court style.

    Oh, and your counterfeiting analogy was so lame it wasn’t worthy of comment. The problem with the Arizona law is that over 14 percent of AZ residents are foreign-born, and almost 30 percent of the state’s residents are Hispanic. You can’t seriously argue that a policeman can spot an undocumented immigrant on sight.

  120. #122 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 27, 2012 - 6:46 pm

    I was responding to this!!!!

    “No one outside of the lunatic fringe partisan blind left thinks Obamacare does not increase the deficit, including the CBO:”

  121. #123 by brewski on May 28, 2012 - 7:53 pm

    RDH,
    That is a statement of fact verified by the CBO. You can go argue with them.

    Richard,
    My point was is that the Feds pass unfunded mandates on everyone else all the time. The everyone else includes states and local governments, as well as private businesses and non-profit organizations. So yes, they pass down a lot of unfunded mandates. Just like when they required all able bodied men to be a member of the militia and have a working gun. They didn’t fund that one either.

    There is nothing racist about the AZ law. You just think it is. That doesn’t mean it is so and it goes nowhere in convincing me it is. You can go camping in the wilderness of Organ Pipe National Monument and tell me how that goes.

    The counterfeiting analogy is perfect. That is why you ignore it. You have no answer.

  122. #124 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 28, 2012 - 9:56 pm

    I copy pasted from the CBO report you are referring to where the report states the exact opposite to provide the numbers above, no need to argu with the CBO as clearly you and many other republicans can’t read!

  123. #125 by brewski on May 28, 2012 - 10:32 pm

    “the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would ADD (!!!!!) $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period….
    If the changes described above were made to the legislation, CBO would expect that federal budget deficits during the decade beyond 2019 would INCREASE (!!!!) relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that
    decade in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP.”

    Congressional Budget Office

    Which part of that don’t you understand?

  124. #126 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 28, 2012 - 11:25 pm

    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

    Does not include savings from changes to Medicare advantage, so excluding those changes the net deficit effect would be $59 billion this is less then the $100 billion or so it was at before they modified their projections.

    Which again after you take out savings from changes to Medicare and Medicare advantage leads to a net decrease to the deficit.

    Which part of that don’t you understand?

  125. #127 by brewski on May 29, 2012 - 7:09 am

    Nice try RDH.
    Your source ignores the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961) which, as I am sure you know, which was part of the lie and gimmickry to make ACA look better than it really was. As you know, the ACA pretended to save money by cutting Medicare doctor payments, and then simultaneously undo that lie in the another bill. That’s like saying I’m not really cheating with your wife since she wore a wig when I screwed her so that doesn’t really count. So your link ignores this and your conclusions and you post are lies.

    Get it finally?

  126. #128 by brewski on May 29, 2012 - 8:45 am

    And now Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken want to repeal the medical device excise tax. So much for fully funded.

  127. #129 by Richard Warnick on May 29, 2012 - 8:56 am

    Topic: “Who are the job creators? Middle-class consumers.”

    Brewski: “Medical device excise tax”

    I honestly cannot connect one with the other.

  128. #130 by brewski on May 29, 2012 - 9:56 am

    Richard,
    You said ACA is fully funded.
    It is not and Warren and Franken want it even less so.

  129. #131 by Richard Warnick on May 29, 2012 - 10:21 am

    When the Bush administration pushed through their giant giveaway to Big Pharma, was that paid for?

    The Obama administration made a good-faith effort to make sure the ACA didn’t add to the deficit, but you want to nit-pick.

  130. #132 by brewski on May 29, 2012 - 11:51 am

    Sorry if I hold your statements to the facts. I know you are not used to living in reality.

  131. #133 by Richard Warnick on May 29, 2012 - 12:19 pm

    brewski–

    If you want facts, then you have to admit it’s not possible to know definitively if the ACA will add to the deficit because it hasn’t taken effect yet. Until then, expert predicitions will disagree.

    Democratic Trustee Dismisses Study Claiming Obamacare Will Add To Deficit

  132. #134 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 29, 2012 - 1:51 pm

    “. As you know, the ACA pretended to save money by cutting Medicare doctor payments,”

    The largest cost saving measure in the ACA by far is not cutting doctor payments but cutting Medicare advantage. That is Medicare advantage is a badly designed Bush program to opt out of Medicare and join a private insurance plan. Turns out these private plans are compensated 30%-50% higher then what it would otherwise cost standard Medicare to directly provide the service.

    The PPACA removes this overpayment by removing growth increases until the cost of standard Medicare and it will be the same, at which point the Medicare advantage payment rate to the insurance company will be the same cost as a standard Medicare enrollee.

    This provision is already in effect.

    The doctor payment rate thing you are referencing actually started long before the PPACA, yes it needs to be solved but it doesn’t have a damn thing todo with the PPACA.

    The SGR was enacted in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

    Get it finally?

  133. #135 by cav on May 29, 2012 - 2:23 pm

    Pick any important issue and ask yourself: What about – ‘our top priority is to make Obama a one term president’ – do people have a hard time comprehending? These vicious, hawkish ‘conservatives’ are all about regaining the reigns, assuring business as usual has a white face, and polishing their own turds w/ savvy product placement, and shoving the great, smelly (but correct) ‘other’ – off the cliff.

    brewski can say what he will.

  134. #136 by brewski on May 29, 2012 - 2:26 pm

    RDH,
    I know all about the doc crap. But Pelosi used the fake doc crap to pretend that ACA didn’t add to the deficit. So removing the fake doc crap means that ACA was not fully funded. Richard was factually wrong. Period.

  135. #137 by Ronald D. Hunt on May 29, 2012 - 3:16 pm

    The DOC fix doesn’t have a darn thing todo with the PPACA, the projected scores of the PPACA where based on then law, the SGR needs to be fixed but its scoring does not influence the deficit/no deficit status of the ACA. The SGR Doc fix causes or not causes deficits entirely on its own separate of the ACA, accusing Polesi of not fixing a badly designed law from 1997 passed by a different and republican congress is just asinine.

  136. #138 by brewski on May 29, 2012 - 3:30 pm

    Pelosi assumed in ACA that the doc reimbursement rates would be down and not “fixed”. So the ACA has fantasy assumption numbers in it. They did the doc fix outside of ACA in order to pretend that ACA was funded, which it is not.

  137. #139 by cav on May 29, 2012 - 3:37 pm

    Have either of you seen the ‘Hitler reacts to the ACA doc fix’?

    To say he gets upset is to put it mildly.

  138. #140 by Richard Warnick on May 29, 2012 - 4:04 pm

    Right-wing media refuse to acknowledge the fact that the ACA is projected to lower the federal deficit. According to the CBO, deficit reduction over the 2010–2019 period will total $193 billion.

  139. #141 by brewski on May 29, 2012 - 4:22 pm

    “the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would ADD (!!!!!) $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period….

    If the changes described above were made to the legislation, CBO would expect that federal budget deficits during the decade beyond 2019 would INCREASE (!!!!) relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that
    decade in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP.”

    - Congressional Budget Office (aka right wing media)

    Media Matters? Really?

    The White House? Really?

  140. #142 by Richard Warnick on May 29, 2012 - 4:23 pm

    I recall that Hitler was downright apoplectic when the ACA finally passed.

  141. #143 by brewski on May 29, 2012 - 4:37 pm

    I would think that Hitler would be happy that ACA passed. It would be far easier for him if the US destroyed itself from within rather than having to actually fight us.

    • #144 by Glenden Brown on May 29, 2012 - 4:48 pm

      Brewski -for violating godwins law you are automatically declared the loser of this debate.

  142. #145 by Richard Warnick on May 29, 2012 - 4:41 pm

    Jonathan Cohn:

    Sorting through the deceptive attacks on health care reform gets old, even for me. But on Wednesday the Republicans and their allies made a claim so obviously misleading that they, and the media outlets parroting them, must have known they spreading false information.

    …According to the Republicans, CBO had discovered that Obamacare was going to cost $1.76 trillion over the next ten years.

    …If CBO had truly determined that health care reform’s cost will be twice the original estimates, it would be huge news. But CBO said nothing of the sort.

    …When the Affordable Care Act became law, CBO estimated that the net result of all these changes, taken together, would be to reduce the deficit. Now, with this revised estimate, CBO has decided the law will reduce the deficit by even more money.

    Yes, you read that right: The real news of the CBO estimate is that, according to its models, health care reform is going to save even more taxpayer dollars than previously thought.

  143. #146 by Richard Warnick on May 29, 2012 - 5:43 pm

    Sorry, couldn’t resist. “Downfall” (2004) is a great film, BTW.

  144. #147 by cav on May 29, 2012 - 7:38 pm

    I claim the Goodwin prize – and you can bet I’ll use it again and again when ever the discussion drifts so far rightward as to become preposterous.

    And this blog? What is wrong that you can’t even key Social(mac)ist sans (mac) that you don’t get shit-canned?

    Makes me doubt everything I’ve ever been taught!

  145. #148 by cav on May 29, 2012 - 7:39 pm

    Socialist

  146. #149 by cav on May 29, 2012 - 7:41 pm

    Bushlit political-correctness filter ought to choke on another moderated comment. This place sucks.

  147. #150 by brewski on May 29, 2012 - 10:58 pm

    Glenden, I didn’t say Hitler first. Try reading next time.

  148. #151 by brewski on May 29, 2012 - 11:00 pm

    And all this time I thought the movie was called Der Untergang.

  149. #152 by Richard Warnick on May 30, 2012 - 10:17 am

    Released in the USA as “Downfall.”

  150. #153 by Larry Bergan on May 30, 2012 - 3:53 pm

    I’ve seen that clip used many times on the internet for different things. Always hilarious. That actor really knows how to lose his temper.

  151. #154 by Richard Warnick on May 30, 2012 - 4:10 pm

    Swiss actor Bruno Ganz beat all of the competition (including Alec Guinness) for best-ever Hitler portrayal. And the director, Oliver Hirschbiegel, is OK with the Internet meme. The original scene is awesome, depicting Hitler’s realization that it’s all over.

  152. #155 by brewski on May 30, 2012 - 5:08 pm

    When I saw it, it was Der Untergang. I guess they Americanized it later. Some of the versions of that clip are hilarious, like the Obamacare one. But others are a bit too navel-pondering. I saw one all about Virginia Tech football and if you aren’t a VaTech fan then it is pretty boring. But I am sure it provided a couple of guys something to do in their dorm room one weekend.

  153. #156 by Richard Warnick on May 31, 2012 - 8:42 am

    I think they just translated the name of the film and added English subtitles. The Internet humorists took it from there.

  154. #157 by Larry Bergan on May 31, 2012 - 9:59 am

    I think it’s cool that the director is OK with the modifications. But, after all, I’m sure it exposes the film to a much wider audience and the original scenes are very good. To bad the German audience can’t enjoy the humor because hearing the original dialog would be a distraction.

    I watched the trailer on Richard’s link, and It looks like a top rate film.

  155. #158 by brewski on May 31, 2012 - 10:40 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3ou1QfhQI
    There are other scenes in the movie where the dialog could be easily changed. In this one we can imagine the reaction to ACA being passed and signed and everyone finally finds out what was in the bill. So people starting killing themselves.

  156. #159 by Richard Warnick on May 31, 2012 - 11:22 am

    Of course the scene you linked to is the one where Peter, the child soldier, finds his parents murdered by the SS. Earlier in the film he received a medal from Hitler for knocking out two Russian tanks.

  157. #160 by Larry Bergan on May 31, 2012 - 11:32 am

    Ich spreche jetzt in deutscher Brewski, WOW!

    I’m trying hard, but I just can’t find a connection between ACA and Nazi Germany. Orrin Hatch is your soul-mate, because he promises to repeal it and start over with something better. When asked how he would make it better, he only says he would hand it over to the states and work with everybody.

    Sounds like ALEC to me.

    Co-founder of ALEC:

    Sorry, just can’t quit posting this video of Paul who had almost 40 years to destroy our democracy before he died, (hopefully of shame).

  158. #161 by brewski on May 31, 2012 - 11:49 am

    Larry,
    You can’t find the connection from one Statist to another Statist?

    I can’t stand Hatch or Romney.

    As for health care reform. I’ve stated my position several times before.

  159. #162 by Larry Bergan on May 31, 2012 - 12:35 pm

    But Hatch and Romney both stand for repealing ACA. That’s where I was going. I hate ACA too and generally hate acronyms. Could you reiterate how you feel about “single payer” and ALEC?

  160. #163 by brewski on May 31, 2012 - 1:09 pm

    The majority of Americans didn’t want ACA passed. The majority of Americans do want ACA repealed and redone. The process was unthoughtful and corrupt. Yes it should be repealed and yes we should start over and yes we need to take our time and think about what it will be replaced with. This is too big of a deal to do the wrong way. There is a lot of detail to it including valid points of view such as one monolithic national plan (as Medicare is) or various state plans (as Medicaid is). Should there be a simple minimal standard or should the Feds dictate all kinds of non-emergency coverages to be free because they know what is best? Should it be a VA type model, or a single payer model, or both, or what? These are all excellent questions but won’t get answered as long as ACA exists.

  161. #164 by Richard Warnick on May 31, 2012 - 1:54 pm

    “Repeal and replace” is only a bumper sticker slogan. That’s not going to happen. There is too much political capital invested in ACA.

    A lot of us are opposed to ACA because it does nothing to control costs, and we want single-payer. Others don’t think that government has any business interfering in health care at all, and they even want to get rid of Medicare (as the Ryan budget plan would).

    Maybe we could amend the ACA to finally get a public option, but the corporatists will fight it.

  162. #165 by Larry Bergan on May 31, 2012 - 2:55 pm

    brewski:

    What do you mean about non-emergency coverage? Poor people showing up in the emergency room without any limbs.

    It’s not just poor people who go to the doctor with less then good a good reason, and I admit that it’s a problem, but maybe if the nightly news television fare didn’t scare the hell out of everybody with ads about restless legs, costs could be contained.

    I don’t wish to minimize the problems of conditions I don’t understand, but when you constantly advertise each and every symptom as life threatening, people tend to run to the doctor.

    Since you don’t want to address my second question here, maybe you could address it on my NEW, ALEC thread.

  163. #166 by brewski on May 31, 2012 - 4:13 pm

    Larry,
    Uhhhhh. Non-emergency is anything that isn’t an emergency. Which part of non-emergency is complicated?

    The HHS has not mandated that restless leg syndrome be given FREE treatment. But they have for other things.

    Why are birth control pills more important than heart disease medication, diabetes medication, cancer medication, high blood pressure medication, etc etc etc? You know, actual life threatening diseases.

  164. #167 by Larry Bergan on May 31, 2012 - 6:40 pm

    brewski:

    People who show in the emergency room without coverage are never a priority. Stop acting like you didn’t understand what I meant.

    Why are birth control pills more important then anything else? One reason would be because it’s the only thing Republicans ever talk about, but a conflicting reason would be that they would save the health industry huge bucks. The Republican Christianists aren’t smart enough to figure that out.

  165. #168 by brewski on May 31, 2012 - 9:35 pm

    So what you are saying is that it is more important to give women free birth control pills, than it is to give people with actual life threatening illnesses their life saving medicine. So you are saying you care more about money than about lives. Nice job Larry.

  166. #169 by Richard Warnick on June 1, 2012 - 9:46 am

    Republicans may be headed to the emergency room themselves if the individual private health insurance mandate gets shot down by the Supreme Court.

    Suddenly they’re having rethink the repeal strategy – or at least grapple with, what then? As one GOP aide with a health care portfolio told us, “I do think some Republicans are finally starting to realize they could be the dog that caught the car.”

    Be careful what you wish for: whether it’s a partisan Supreme Court or a chance to start over on health care reform!

  167. #170 by brewski on June 1, 2012 - 2:51 pm

    Well, right.
    I think both parties are the dogs which caught the car. The Dems want health care reform, so when they got all 3 arms of the process in their grasp, they had to deliver. And look what happened. They got what they wished for and the car dragged them down the highway for 10 miles and in 2010 they got tossed out like a dog’s carcass.
    So now it’s the GOP’s turn. They will get what they wished for by having all of ACA tossed out as unconstitutional, they own the House, they may own the WH soon, they will not own the Senate, but they will have to propose a new plan. It is hard to go back so portions of what is in ACA will be in any new plan. The new plan is likely to include things like the state by state exchanges, a minimum basic plan, no denial for pre-existing conditions, etc. This is a bit what the State of Utah had before all this. Utah has a plan (which I was covered by) which is offered to people who were turned down everywhere else. So, does this solve all the problems? No. But it is not back to the previous status quo and it is not the corporate giveaway of ACA.

  168. #171 by Larry Bergan on June 1, 2012 - 8:23 pm

    Gee, I don’t remember saying anything about life saving drugs. I DID say I was for “single payer”.

  169. #172 by brewski on June 2, 2012 - 10:58 pm

    Larry,
    You defended having birth control pills be free, but not having life saving drugs be free.

  170. #173 by Larry Bergan on June 3, 2012 - 1:13 am

    brewski/noname:

    Can you point me there, dude?

  171. #174 by cav on June 3, 2012 - 7:44 am

    The policies Romney, Ryan and Republicans are advocating as solutions, caused the economic crash in 2008.

  172. #175 by cav on June 3, 2012 - 7:59 am

    They create the disaster, and then capitalize on it. They cripple government and then say the government isn’t working.

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/02-2

    Obama’s cowardice, complicity or just plain nooby ineptitude are not helping.

  173. #176 by Larry Bergan on June 3, 2012 - 9:18 am

    Who is this John Atcheson?

    Fox “news” will never have to take on this invisible man.

    Great article though.

  174. #177 by brewski on June 3, 2012 - 9:42 am

    The crash was caused by ineptitude at the Fed. It was caused by poor monetary policy starting in 1994/95. I have not heard Romney or Ryan or any other Republican advocate poor management by the Fed.

  175. #178 by cav on June 3, 2012 - 10:18 am

    Of course the Crash of o8 had nothing to do with deficits from years of budget busting wars and tax cuts foralready the wealthy and corporations. Bernanke did it.

    I’m comforted by your vision. Not!

  176. #179 by Larry Bergan on June 3, 2012 - 11:39 am

    Goddamned Fed anyway!

    What’s a Fed?

  177. #180 by Ronald D. Hunt on June 3, 2012 - 2:53 pm

    Crash entirely had todo with the repeal of Glass steagall and repeal of leverage limits, followed by a complete lack of regulation of derivatives and conflicts of interest in the banking system.

    Prior to 1999 it didn’t matter how loose the Fed was the banks had limits on what they could borrow from the Fed or otherwise leverage themselves out to, and had limits on what they could use as leverage(only cash deposits in savings accounts).

    The supply siders had limits on the extent they could flood the system with cash prior to 1999, And all of those regulations can be consider much needed regulations on the Fed as much as they are regulations on the banks!

    Remember with Home mortgages the longer the loan is held the lower the risk on that loan is, the combined effects of pay down and inflation over time mean that older loans even if they eventually fail will not cause as much shock to the banking system as newer loans will.

    This is so important, the lending that went up in flames in 2007-8-9 was less then 5-7 years old. Often of types of lending that was highly predatory to the borrower, and by extension predatory to the system as a whole.

    In fact you can match major jumps in mortgage failure rates(foreclosures) to the 3, 5, and 7 year bump’s in ARM and option ARM mortgage loans, which the banks conveniently packaged in to AAA rate mortgage securities and sold to some chum…… err Greece!

  178. #181 by cav on June 3, 2012 - 8:18 pm

    Too many people – including many of our Best & Brightest, I’d be willing to bet – think that money has an independent existence, and an intrinsic worth.

    The idea that “money” is just a convenience of our own creation gets lost.

    And when you point it out, people just look at you funny, like a dog trying to understand a magic trick.

  179. #182 by brewski on June 3, 2012 - 11:43 pm

    Hahahahahahaha!

  180. #183 by cav on June 4, 2012 - 9:33 am

    Just a point: Draw your own conclusions.

    The “Bilderberg” Group met in Washington last weekend.

    Of course the meeting took up much of the ‘Front Page’. Not.

  181. #184 by brewski on June 4, 2012 - 9:57 am

    Cav,
    This is a good point. It is interesting what “news” gets covered and what does not. Why does a meeting of people like that not get any news coverage, but the John Edwards trial gets a lot?

    I also have knowledge of a pretty big news story about corporate fraud and tax evasion of a pretty well known person in Utah, but the media won’t run the story. Hard to explain why.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: