kapkomet

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 03:19 PM) They didn't put those silly co-ops in either. It'd be nice if you'd actually argue against the extant bill. Yes, they did. They have a "market exchange" - hi co-ops. You can call it whatever you'd like.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 03:22 PM) Except...every analysis by the CBO, every non-partisan analysis, and pretty much everything coming out of anywhere that can add says the opposite. It's a free country so you do continue to have the freedom to insist that 2+2 = 3, but the last 8 years proved pretty well what happens when you try to govern based on that premisis. Like I said...you're basically arguing that the U.S. is guaranteed to go bankrupt in 20 years no matter what we do. In that case, we may as well give people health insurance and try to free up small businesses and the poor to get out of the disastrous individual market, since you've assumed bankruptcy is inevitable either way. I have medicare and social security to back up my reality, not the phony bulls*** that Congress tells the CBO the bill is going to be.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 06:55 AM) Balta said it, but again, you can either call the taxes bad idea, or call it unfunded, but you can't say that it's both unfunded and their tax ideas are bad ideas. As balta said, I'm a bigger fan of the cadillac plans because it's a more consistent string of revenue in addition to it being a cost saving measure in itself. The taxes collected (as specified by this bill) will not cover a pimple on an elephant's ass regarding the costs of this bill.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 12:14 AM) So by getting private insurers access to a larger market in four years without any public insurance program anywhere, exactly where did the government get control over your body? And when do I get my microchip? The whole damn bill is a public option, it's just not called that. (Co-Ops, hi)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 10:53 PM) And to repeat one more point...you argue that the cuts in Medicare aren't real and won't actually happen. This is tantamount to arguing that in 20 years the country will be completely bankrupt and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. You argue this explicitly when you cite the $36 billion figure. So, if the country is 100% guaranteed to go bankrupt, at least with some measure fo reform, 30 million more people have health coverage. Hooray for government entitlements. This is essentially the Democrat playbook for the last 80 years. The Democrats just orgasmed today (you saw the snow in Washington) over finally getting control of YOUR body. That's the motherload of all entitlements right there.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 07:55 PM) While we don't know what specifically will pass: 1) The senate bill is funded by a tax of "cadillac" health care plans 2) The house bill is a tax on high income brackets. Then you don't have a clue what they have done to cook the numbers. But it's ok. Utopia and $1.5 to $2.5 trillion later, we're home free, baby! Medicare is "cut" - uh huh. That's a $500 billion lie. "Cadillac" health care plans? LMAO. You think people are going to keep that s*** if they get taxed 40%? MORE taxes on the "high income brackets"? That helps small business. Wait - there's "small business tax cuts" - seriously? They're going to tax the high brackets and then turn around and subsidize many of these same people? Right. And since when does a medicare program that's $36 Trillion (TTTTT) in unfunded obligations help ANYONE with a fraction of a brain trust that the government will make this "budget neutral"? Pass me the bong, because there's no way in hell.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 07:03 PM) how is this unfunded? Where were you for the 2003 ACTUALLY unfunded medicaid bill passed by Republicans? How is it funded, besides lies and BS number twisting?

Nashville is like a bad case of hemmoroids that won't go away.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 18, 2009 -> 06:29 PM) The key sentence... "We're not that far from a point where job gains will outweigh job losses, but that's not enough to reduce the unemployment rate," he said So in other words, people still are getting laid off more than they are being hired, plus there are all of the new people entering who aren't able to collect unemployment and be counted. And there's getting ready to be a s***load of those, even with all the extensions.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 07:36 PM) And you know how in middle school you elected the cool kid to run student government, and 3 weeks later the school was bankrupt, closed, and on fire? That's just an awesome post. That's two today, you're on a roll.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 07:35 PM) Lieberman's on the same side as Franken? At the end of the day, he is. He just likes to make a spectacle of it all.

I don't think a lot of us "defend the insurance companies". I do, however, staunchly oppose my government being my health care mandator/provider.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 07:38 PM) Doesn't the fact that we've already tried them in completely phony and totally illegitimate military tribunals provide a reason to try doing it in a better way? No they haven't.

This abortion thing is bulls***, by the way. It's all window dressing for the "breakthrough moment". We have to have drama.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 05:59 PM) Actually, he was just enforcing the rules as previously agreed upon for no extensions of time. Which had been done previously in the day to Senator Cornyn. Generally, you don't do it to your own caucus. Gees, you go to great lengths to protect your own. There's always some "good" reason for your view.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 05:53 PM) First off, we have that whole pesky innocent until proven a piece of s*** thing we value as Americans. I'm not certain we want to start turning that on and off. Don't we usually return prisoners of war after the conflict? How would that fit in? Are there civil trials in the military courts or only criminal? A military tribunal doesn't "turn that on and off". The Eisentrager case dealt with "enemy combatants" and was the standard for years, until Eric Holder's law firm sued the government to get it changed. (Miiiiiiiiiiiight be a conflict of interest, no? Of course not.) If prisoners of war are found guilty for crimes against the state, they would serve time. Ironically, they'd get treated better in our prisons then their own country, but that's another story as well. And when I say "civil" I mean the US court system. I'm not trying to distinguish "civil" vs. "criminal" cases here. The better word should have been "federal (public)" vs. "military" court system.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 05:07 PM) That's a way to gain popularity in liberal blogland but that's a pretty dick move Franken just became the Almighty in the Senate (now that Barackus the Great has ascended).

Al Franken punched Joe Lieberman today in the Senate. True story. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091217/ap_on_...enate_lieberman

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 02:53 PM) Kap's ahead of me? H. Christ, that's what moving and AGU will do to your post count. Best post of the thread right there.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 03:02 PM) No, I'm not saying don't start doing something -- but be smart about what. Don't just pick something and sink trillions into it now because "we must act RIGHT NOW OR EVERYONE WILL DIE OMG OMG OMG"...because this is the direction we are going right now...I'd prefer a smarter/slower approach. You, sir, are on the wrong side of history. You know, there were those who thought we need to slow down when it came to slavery. There were those who thought we needed to slow down when it came to women's rights to vote. There were those who thought we needed to slow down when it came to civil rights. Come on, now is not the time to slow down. FULL SPEED AHEAD, BABY! You know utopia awaits those who agree with me!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 01:36 PM) The 2006 rulings, I don't remember specifically. One saying the system was unconstitutional, or that the detainees couldn't be held indefinitely. In the beginning there was nothing wrong with Guantanamo existing in and of itself, or the idea of military tribunals in general, the problem was the actual procedures themselves were blown so badly. Eventually it got to be overrun with both legitimate flaws and just plain old politics that Guantanamo became unworkable. The end result will be the same, KSM's guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion honestly. That's all nice... they could and should get that same verdict under a military tribunal. They just want to make a spectacle of this.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 01:06 PM) I'm sure you will provide examples. And what about the supposed threat of closure of Offutt AFB in NE. That has "rat" Emanuel wriiten all over it. Not to mention it is probably the 2nd or 3rd most important AFB. But this is all politics. And the hospital that under the new laws would basically not be allowed to practice. He'll make sure that project is exempt as well. There's all sorts of buying and weaseling bulls*** going on, but it's all for this grand utopia of "better care, cheaper costs" that cannot exist the way tha the law is written.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 11:14 AM) And then there were subsequent Supreme Court decisions that followed that seem to just not matter to some people. Really? Like which ones? And I'm talking about pre Guantanamo - which is what was set up due to the laws as they were interpreted (even) by the courts at the time. You can't cherry pick new interpretations. Eisentrager is the one that set this up. They later ruled against it but that's not the point when it was originally set up.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 12:10 PM) I'm just happy more of them are getting trials, of one kind or another. This holding them indefinitely thing is awful on multiple levels. I agree with this - it just doesn't belong in the civil court system.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 09:16 AM) Why exactly? What's the difference between KSM and a guy that murders someone in Illinois and then bolts for another country? Does it really matter that the military happened to pick the murderer up? And yes, I think the security costs of doing this trial in a temporary federal jurisdiction (think 30k people county courthouse in the middle of the country) would be much cheaper than doing it in the middle of manhattan. QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 09:34 AM) There's actually an extensive argument in favor of doing it and the logic is kind of hard to argue, most arguments against seem to be based on raw emotion. First of all, Guantanamo was set up due to a supreme court decision in the first place. Bush was following the law. No one wants to remember that. Second, KSM is an enemy combatant according to the supreme court as well. Therefore, he does not belong in the civil UNITED STATES court system. He belongs in the military court system. You can't give the guy the same rights that you and I have. You just can't. You immediately cheapen the rights that we as citizens have to this piece of s***. Third, it sort of does matter that the military picked this guy up. This isn't a police action. I guess that's why we can't win any wars - we have to mirandize these guys, "just in case". We have to gather evidence, "just in case". Right? Why even have the notion that exists for turning this into a civil matter? It shouldn't be there.