kapkomet

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2009 -> 10:03 PM) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/o...x_n_132886.html Again, that is an incentive to get people on the "universal health care". Not to mention that corporations will no longer get the deduction (reduction of expenses) for health care either. This is about control. Period. It's not about being "nice".

QUOTE (Texsox @ Mar 15, 2009 -> 04:50 PM) We're finally considering basic health care a right Oh no WE are not.

And one more thing: It makes me laugh at the hypocracy - all I've heard for the last 7 years is how much George W. Bush has taken away our "rights" and all this s*** in the name of 9/11. How did this effect you and me? Reality: it didn't. Now, Obama takes all these social issues and it has to do with each and every one of us. But that's ok... it's all going to be BETTER under the government. Please. What hogwash. And hypocritical for those who support Obama's stealing of our individual freedoms.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 15, 2009 -> 02:33 PM) i think no matter what, you're going to read everything the exact same way. if he didn't give ONE S-H-I-T about the American people he wouldn't try to overhaul Health Care in the first place... but he recognizes he has to pay for it somehow, so he's open to any ideas, one of them being taxing benefits. fine. you HAVE to be open to everything if you're going to find the thing that works. seems logical to me. the article didn't say he's GOING to, just that it's one of the options on the table. Like I said... trial balloon. And in that way, they get all the power. This isn't about the American people, this is about getting all the power they can into government. Oh, wait, I'm supposed to just trust Obama, he's our president, and he's the Messiah. HE will save health care. And everything else. (Kaperbole ™ ). Seriously, though, the more welfare type giveaways the government gives, the more votes he gets in the long run - see 50% of people don't pay taxes and they are going to get more credits then ever before - this is why I say Obama is one of the smartest Dems to come around in a long time. The more entitlements he gives away and hurts the "rich", the more "poor" votes he gets, and remember the tax scale. There's a hell of a lot more "poor" then "rich", so he doesn't give a f***, it's about getting Democrat votes. That cannot be denied. It works for a good while, honestly. And a good while is long enough to make sure the policies slant it that way for longer then a while.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Mar 15, 2009 -> 10:50 AM) Have to feed that pork somehow. Private Health Benefits, well lets tax that. This right here proves that Obama doesn't give ONE S-H-I-T about the American people. Either do it my way or I will punish you. I know, I know, this is a trial balloon to see what response they get, but this is a motherf***er move right here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 07:46 PM) I will alter your statement one bit...the list I gave you is their Op-ed staff, the people who write on the opposite side of the editorial page. The editorial staff is a different group, they write the official paper editorials/endorsements/etc. (In my paper those are the unsigned editorials). Those are a different group of people, but I will add, I'm not a fan of that group and especially its work of the last 8 years (Drink!) either. Gotcha. Now I see what you're saying.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 06:58 PM) I'm trying to figure out what that means. Did I lie to Congress at some point? Did someone I support? Did the President lie to Congress? Do you think I'm Roger Clemens? I'm not. Sorry, Mr. Clemens. Hee hee. I was referring to BJ Clinton. But if you ever get important enough to testify in front of Congress, let me know. I will support you even if I disagree, pal.

So their editorial page is playing "fair and balanced"? Ok. I honestly don't know them enough to say - so they've evidently changed.

No, the WaPO doesn't. Not very often.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 04:47 PM) The Bush attorney replacement scandal was not a scandal because of the fact that the attorneys were replaced. I went through this a couple years ago and I'll go through it again. The scandal was a scandal because of why the attorneys were replaced...because the people at the top wanted them to bring phony voter fraud prosecutions as a way to intimidate/keep minorities and poor people from voting. And the scandal was a particular scandal because they tried to cover it up. The President of course is fully within his rights to replace the attorneys for any reason. Bush could have even fired Fitzgerald to try to stop the Libby investigation. He had the power to do so and no one could have stopped him. The only reason they didn't was the PR hit they'd take (documents have shown that they considered it at the highest levels). The underlying crimes weren't replacing the attorneys. They were the efforts at voter disenfranchisement (specifically illegal caging lists and illegal purging of voter lists), the fact that after it was discovered, they were called before Congress and Gonzalez in particular lied about why he'd arranged for those attorneys to be replaced (lying to Congress under oath is still a crime whether you're lying to cover up another crime or just lying to cover your boss's political arse). Oh, and making all of the documents that were supposed to be preserved disappear...that's a crime also. The underlying crime in the DOJ politicization case was violations of the Hatch Act, which is intended to prohibit federal employees from being hired/fired based on their political leanings (and we have more than a few cases where political position was inappropriately used as a qualification for employment) and use of federal employees directly for campaign related activities. The President does have the power to go quite far politicizing the DOJ. And he has the right to replace the U.S. attorneys at his whim for whatever reason, including shutting down investigations of himself or people within his party. The President has the right to fire U.S. attorneys who are unwilling to use their position to intimidate the political opposition. The President and his minions do not have the right to lie about that under oath. And finally, I'd argue that the whole case makes a very compelling argument that the DOJ in particular needs to be significantly more independent of the White House than it currently is...a matter for Congress to take up. Unfortunately, had the Dems put together a package to fix that problem last Congress it would have been filibustered, and unfortunately now the Democratic Congress isn't likely to take on the President in that way. There are multiple things that need fixed here, I'll be the first to agree to that. This is one of many areas where the executive branch's power has grown too far. Oh the hypocracy.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 12:32 PM) Yeah, I was going to say the same thing here. If Obama is going to allow the cloning of humans (he said he would not when he signed the statement), or look the other way when embryos are created just for the purpose of destruction, then yes, I have a problem with that. All of the other points the writer makes make it sound like sour grapes that Obama took a position he didn't like, a position which he makes completely obvious. Well, you all know my stance. I said pretty much what you just did here, I just found it interesting that a WaPO (aka the Washington Compost) writer went out and blasted Obama. It doesn't happen very often.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 12:08 PM) I'm sorry you feel that way. I've said this a whole bunch of times, but... I think many of Obama's supporters AND his detractors went into the election with the wrong idea of how things would go. Some of his most avid supporters thought he'd go in there and change the world overnight, which is just not possible. Many of his biggest critics claimed the exact same thing - that he would change everything, and for the worse. Then there was a third set of people, also critics of Obama, who thought he'd be exactly the same, that they are all the same, etc. None of them were right then, and none are right now. He's doing what history, and his own words, told us he would do. He is different than Bush, and is making some significant changes, but not at nearly the scale or scope that many were duped into thinking he would. So not, he is not the same or even close to the same as Bush. But no, he is not our savior. I understand where you are coming from. B-b-b-b-but ... () the guy is JUST as political as every other one of them if not moreso. Especially when you have staff meetings with the press every day to get your talking points out there to railroad non-government people. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about... nothing has changed, in fact, it's the Clinton war room on steroids. Oh wait, it IS the Clinton war room, except they are much more up front that they will take out who they don't need.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 11:15 AM) The Bush administration violated Federal statues. That's what is different. Do none of you remember that big report that came out last summer showing just how pathetically political they made the DOJ? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/ju.../doj_07-28.html QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 11:45 AM) It is much easier for people to make out Obama to be "THE SAME" as Bush, than to acknowledge these differences. Regardless of the fact that they are quite clearly not the same. This kills me. OF COURSE the DOJ is political. It always has been and it always will be. How about Supreme Court Justices? Hmmmm. It's political! Wow, who would have thunk it? It was easier for Clinton to fire the whole lot because there was 12 years of Republican control. Don't EVEN say that wasn't political. Obama is going to get the people he wants based on their ideology. PERIOD. Oh wait, he's got Republicans in his cabinet! Please. That's for show. NSS, this isn't fairy tale land. No offense, but Obama is NOT that much different then Bush was. In fact, I would argue in a lot of ways from what I've seen since election day, Obama is worse, because at least with Bush, you knew the dirty crap was coming because they told you. With Obama, if you criticize, the mud starts slinging from behind and the knifes come out to attack.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 01:10 AM) I don't really understand this. It seems like Obama is legally allowed to replace these US Attorneys, but why was Bush not allowed to do the same? This would be why Karl Rove and Harriet Miers are getting thier asses dragged in front of Congress. I don't know why Bush couldn't do the same, either, but apparently it's different for Democrats when they do the same damn thing, like fire the whole staff like Clinton did.

Interesting. http://www.chronicle-tribune.com/articles/...3d329352661.txt Actually from the Washington Post oringally.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 04:23 PM) you're totally missing the "doing good for their constituents" part of my argument aren't you? No, I think you're missing it. It shouldn't be an excuse to just do what the hell ever you want carte blanche because it gets you elected. These people are supposed to be above themselves and be about we, the people.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Doesn't this make us all feel better?!?!

I don't think the spider bite had anything to do with him walking again. It sounds to me like this was an accident that they even found out his nerves were still working.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 11:14 AM) The worst-run state in the country with perhaps the strongest term limits in the country says hi. Ok, now why is that, then? And why is it better to have Teddy, Mitch McConnel, Byrd, etc. etc. etc. up there for half their life? Government was never intended to be a career (not as representation, anyway).

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) I'm sick of this high horse people get themselves on. each of us would do the exact same thing to protect our job. it's our JOB. how we make money. and they don't want to lose it any more than you or I want to lose ours. Principle is all well and good until you have to be the one in the position to stand by it. Well, here's your problem then, reddy. Their JOB is to represent our interests. Their JOB should be to be government representatives for the United States of America, not bought off when it's convenient. Their JOB needs a new job description. Their JOB shouldn't be to be an elected official for life. Their JOB should be to be the public servant that they are and get the f*** out when they have been there too long. You want real change in Washington? Put in term limits. Then you would actually see people doing the right thing a lot more often because it wouldn't become about their JOB staying in Washington forever so they can pull s*** like this.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 02:03 AM) Oh jesus christ we're going to end up with a swiss model, the swiss model, that country where all the b****y companies *those 6 companies, you know, those galt companies that are so smart they left despite no real difference b/w here and america* and it will be incomplete and whatever but we will adjust. Blah blah blah blah blah. Earmark reform will never happen because its a stupid platform to run on, it's a stupid (i'm going to change things) platform that will never happen because everyone benefits from it. Oh f*** Utah for getting federal funding to reduce an insect that effects their agriculture I buy! f*** them! But thank you, I will take my new highway. We deserve it. I will re-elect you, congressman and senator, at a 94 percent rate. Go McCain! YOU FOUND THE PROBLEM! It wasn't deficit spending using emergency funds for two wars or not dealing with the entitlement spending! It was the 1% of the budget going towards social projects! That would've saved the doubleing of a 10 trillion deficit in ten years! YOU ARE SO GOOD AT MATH! What?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 12:21 AM) Actually health insurance really started as a means of competitive hiring. Offer better benefits in lieu of more money. Health insurance is not a right, but I think its foolish and counterproductive for a developed government to not provide at least basic health care to its citizens at low cost with the focus being on preventative care. Re: point #1. Yes. But then unions came in and took that to a 'hole 'nother level. Re: point #2. That sounds wonderful. But in reality, that is not what's going to happen. It's not. They are not going to just throw some security blanket over the "47 million" (which is a insanely huge bulls*** number but that's another discussion) that doesn't have health care and wave the wand to just those people and say "you're insured now for basic health care". :) Ahhhhh, so nice! We did it! It will not work like that. It's not (yes, repeating).

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 11:56 PM) Howard Dean as head of DNC? Yes please! Howard Dean as President? Umm, no thanks. Dean did his job well as head of the DNC, once he shut his mouth. Steele is too much of an arrogant prick to keep his piehole shut, I think.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 11:59 PM) This is the slippery slope I see. Here is my worst case scenario for the basic health care. Basic Health care is given to all americans, HR and benefits managers will start to get asked by companies to compare the company HMO and PPO offerings to the basic, to see where the gap is. Then HMO and PPO companies will start to offer lower cost, hybrid policies that will bridge that gap. Companies will jump on that to save money, and then you will start with coverage issues of matching insurance, doctors, hospitals and who covers what and where. This will cause a large headache, as the private insurance and governemnt fight over what is covered and by who. The private HMO and PPOs will then start to jack their rates up to cover the new admin costs, and companies will pass that on employee, or drop it all together and require them to get private coverage. People will once again have a gap, and then the only answer is full governmental coverage. Kind of a stretch, yet kind of realistic. Good post. I just addressed it more from the other side... shareholder value and all that. Agree with you totally here. I can't seen an in between once you start this in motion.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 11:54 PM) So essentially because we can't count on corporations to be good citizens, we shouldn't make a change in the way health care is provided? That's not what I'm saying at all... but then again, yes, at the same time. I'll try to explain. First, this comes back to health insurance being a "right". It's not. It just isn't. And please don't give me that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" crap, it has nothing to do with that. (Not you, Rex). Second, the bottom line responsibility of a company is to return shareholder value. Period. Period. Period. It's not to employ us all and give us good paychecks, an insurance package, and all of that. We give a resource to the company, they pay us for that resource. I can't say it any more plainly then that. Somewhere in the 1950's, it became practice for companies to give health insurance. OK, it didn't cost much. Let's then thank the unions to taking this to an extreme. THANKS, UNIONS! Over the last 10 years or so, the costs have skyrocketed, for a number of reasons, which I have outlined before on here, and even just recently. There are ways to get that back in line. However, what is happening is that Obama is throwing companies a bone here. They will get health care off of their books in exchange for some of the other bulls*** that's going down. IMO, that's the dirty little secret. There's a lot more going on here then can be seen or heard. It's the only way that the squaky wheels will get turned here. Quasi government takeovers on a whole hell of a lot of industry. We'll make sure you won't have to pay for health care anymore. Woot! Tax breaks for health insurance? GONE! That way, we (taxpayers) and everyone gets insurance! Bonus! How do you regulate that? By who, when, where, how, and what is seen. I can't see it any other way. There will HAVE to be limitations on it because of the sudden flood of people that they are going to get in to the system. It's supply and demand. So, I guess the short answer is you're right... but at the same time, it's what the government gives and takes for businesses. They have to give that money back to shareholders so it can be reinvested. If the government takes more and more chunks of money out of the market system, it will face greater risk then it does even now.