Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread

I have court this afternoon, which means an open thread for you. All topics welcome.

< Rove, Miers Transcripts, E-Mails Released in U.S. Attorney Firing Probe | Bruce Lisker Conviction Overturned >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Okay (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:19:22 PM EST
    My gripe for the day is that I'm being bombarded with Obamacare emails from conservatives. I dont like Obama's plan so far but I still refute these things and call them a bunch of liars. I sent one reply all and said "how does lying about something help your cause". I havent got any answers.

    Is it the lie that says, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by bocajeff on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:32:25 PM EST
    We will insure everyone, care will be better, costs will be lower and the deficit/debt will not increase nor will taxes need to raised?

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:39:13 PM EST
    it's the death panel rumors etc.

    School starts tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:19:42 PM EST
    House is very torn up reflooring but if you turn your brain off or meditate that you can always stay at a Holiday Inn Express when you've had enough of this it seems survivable.  It is a convenient excuse to not have to cook.

    tomorrow? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:24:59 PM EST
    I'd think they'd push the start date back to save on AC costs!

    We have two more weeks to go.  Everyone ready to go back.  Even me - although I need to get all Zen and meditated so I can deal with the wretched paperwork.  I swear, this year I am going to enter all the information into the computer and make hard copies.  I need to practice printing teeny tiny letters so I can fill out those cramped forms.

    Why don't they just make e-forms, email them to us and we can fill them out, print them and send them back?


    We just got back from the school open house (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:04:42 PM EST
    Will I ever make it through all the emergency numbers and the people who have permission to pick my child up without having to scribble through something I wrote incorrectly?  The paperwork for the school nurse was a mess.  I was listening to the teacher address everyone while filling it out and tried to write my own name at the top.  I guess I had a flashback from thirty-five years ago or something.  It went downhill from there.

    B-day for me today. (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:35:21 PM EST
    Looks like I am exactly one week younger than Barack. It feels unbelievable that someone the same age as me could be president!

    Happy Birthday! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CST on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:36:55 PM EST
    Doing anything fun?

    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:38:57 PM EST
    Just going out to dinner with the family. Should be fun. Going to a middle eastern place.

    Happy Birthday!!! (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:42:50 PM EST
    Sounds like you'll be having one terrific celebration dinner :)

    Thanks IG. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:55:04 PM EST
    Yes, I'm really looking forward to it. Dinner out is a special treat.

    Count you blessings (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:50:58 PM EST
    for some any dinner is a treat.

    Happy B-Day Dear Molly.....enjoy!


    Happy Birthday Dr. Molly! (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:47:45 PM EST
    And many more to come. Family dinner at a Middle Eastern restaurant sounds perfect.

    Baklava Birthday Cake?


    Thanks shoephone (none / 0) (#87)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    Sorry to say I'm not a baklava fan. I deplore any desserts with nuts in general - I know, blasphemy to many but that's just me. Can't stand nuts in brownies, ice cream, or anything else.

    But some hummus, baba ghanoush, and chicken shwarma will be quite enough!


    I hate them in cereal too ... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by cymro on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:02:28 PM EST
    ... granola cereals are especially susceptible to contamination by nuts. And I agree that they can ruin perfectly good cookies and vanilla ice cream. Baklava is OK though!

    Anyway, enjoy a Happy Birthday dinner, free of nuts in your desert course. Now if we could just banish those wingnuts who are contaminating our political discourse, ...


    Nuts in cereal AND wingnuts - yuck. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:05:20 PM EST
    YAY! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:37:07 PM EST
    Happy Birthday!

    thanks, jb. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:39:11 PM EST
    Happy Happy Bday (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:39:30 PM EST
    I am sad to know that Obama could have babysat me and I would have complained that I could have been fine alone.  I don't feel this old.

    I know. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:45:22 PM EST
    Time is relentless!!

    And what is up with the fact that time keeps going by so much faster as you get older? Is there some physics person that can explain this to me?

    It seems really unfair..


    life is like (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:54:14 PM EST
    a roll of toilet paper.  the closer you get to the end the faster it goes.

    happy birthday and get used to it.


    You know (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:59:44 PM EST
    I never believed my mother when she said not to wish your life away because as an adult, time just flies - she was right!

    Summers used to last forever - as a nerd, I wanted to go back to school come August, but time just dragged on until it was time to go school shopping and then go back to school.  And the holidays!  It was just a few years ago that I realized there's only 4 weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas - it seemed to take forever to get to Christmas!


    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:11:33 PM EST
    I distinctly remember that feeling of the summer dragging on and on and on. And it is directly the opposite of the feelings about time that I have now.

    I swear, there must be some Einstein-ian equation to explain all this.


    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:16:00 PM EST
    I walk in Home Depot looking for a lawn mower and find nothing but snow blowers.

    as a childless single person (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:03:21 PM EST
    sign posts are not as obvious as they are for people who, say, are around kids growing up.

    I only see them now and then and I barely recognize them.  I am always amazed that for example the one wanting to ride my motorcycle was in diapers the last time I saw him.


    I always ask my grandkids (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:07:45 PM EST
    "How did you get so old when I've stayed so young." They get a big kick out of that but then again they love me and give me a lot of latitude.

    From APA convention in Toronto: (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:37:30 PM EST
    Gawd, let's hope so! (none / 0) (#90)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    It's certainly been my experience (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by esmense on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:41:22 PM EST
    (getting happier as you get older).

    A few weeks before my 40th birthday I treated myself to breakfast at a neighborhood cafe frequented by the residents of a nearby retirement community. I couldn't help eavesdropping on a couple of octogenarians in the booth next to me -- they were gossiping about a new, younger member of their community who was having a little difficulty adjusting. That led to a discussion about what was the "best" time of life. They both agreed that 65 was an absolutely wonderful age! Health still good, children fully into adulthood, no trudging off to earn a paycheck, etc. I decided to stop being depressed about turning 40, and instead look forward to the best that was yet to come. And, in fact, that has been exactly my experience (although I still have 3 more years to go before reaching that magic 65).

    Happy birthday, Dr. Molly. With many many more to come.


    You know, Molly (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 06:02:02 PM EST
    what it does to us "elder cockers" to have a young punk like you complaining about their age?


    C'mom, "Geritol Gang," let'er have it!


    The consolation is (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:13:58 PM EST
    that bad stuff is also over quicker.

    LOL - excellent point. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:16:10 PM EST
    Happy Birthday, Molly! (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:56:32 PM EST
    I've also had that feeling of wonderment when I realize the someone the same age or slightly younger than I am is in a position of such extreme responsibility and has pages and pages of "important" accomplishments.  

    That's okay - I think a long and happy marriage, two great kids, good friends, a reasonably functional and happy extended family, a good job, proficiency in my field, and not having the weight of the world on my shoulders is all the "important" I need!

    This year, I will celebrate the 26th anniversary of my 30th birthday; it feels a lot younger when I express it that way!

    Hope you have a great evening, and a great year ahead of you... :-)


    Todays chain and cage report.... (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:39:36 PM EST
    Have you guys heard about the 6 months max handed down by an outta control judge for a yawn?

    The 21 day min. is 21 too many...the only contempt in that court is on the part of the dishonorable one in the robe.

    And in day-to-day tyranny lite news...the cop who broke up a funeral procession to give out a seat belt ticket, causing a couple to miss their sisters funeral.

    What can ya say about that one but shame on you and please find a new line of work, officer.

    Hm (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:49:53 PM EST
    The Supreme Court has said that anyone accused of criminal contempt has a due process right to a trial before a new judge, not the one he supposedly disrespected.  I wonder if there are some facts not present in this news story.

    I got no reason to doubt the Tribune... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    and they say the poor slob has written his family from one of our cages.

    You mean to tell me aside from being a d*ck, the dishonorable one is incompetent?


    from the extended article (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:03:51 PM EST
    Judges have broad discretion under the law, which defines contempt as acts that embarrass, hinder or obstruct the court in its administration of justice or lessen its authority or dignity. As long as the sentence is not longer than 6 months, there is no review of the case -- unless the offender appeals to the judge or a higher court."



    Thanks Jlv... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:10:04 PM EST
    I'm left wondering what "dignity" this clown's court had in the first place that a yawn could lessen.  Or how a yawn could embarass his court more than he has.

    We have a horrible judge in Western WA (none / 0) (#83)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    who charged a woman sitting in the court room with contempt when she refused to remove her cap! The reason she refused? She is a cancer patient and had lost all her hair due to chemo -- thus the cap.

    And it's not the first time this judge has acted like a monster in his court room.


    Correction (none / 0) (#91)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:56:49 PM EST
    Not Western WA. Meant Eastern WA -- Benton County, home of Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

    Well (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:15:20 PM EST
    of course there is no review unless he appeals.  Strikes me as a rather confused article.

    hence the struggle with print (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:17:55 PM EST
    Not the sharpest knife, apparently. (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    Does know how to write a letter--kind of.

    I used to appear in front of a judge who was so full of his elevated status he bawled out a father for coming up to counsel table while his 18-year old son appeared on a peddle-boat joyriding charge.  Another time the judge absolutely reamed a man wearing shorts who appeared for a traffic cite.  Unbelievable.


    That is no way... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:43:04 PM EST
    for an employee to treat his/her bosses...unbelievable is right.

    I wonder how difficult... (none / 0) (#106)
    by desertswine on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:16:29 PM EST
    it was to joy-ride in a peddle boat. Heh, I can just imagine.

    I'm glad here in PA (none / 0) (#150)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:31:03 PM EST
    they can't pull you over for just a seatbelt. It's a secondary offense. You gotta be committing some other moving violation. I think you and I agree, cops for the most part are arrogant bastards.

    Reporting from the world of chamber (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:46:50 PM EST
    music:  today's coaching session was superb.  A Beethoven piano trio coached by a fabulous pianist, who often played the piano part to make his point.  And the wonderful young pianist was talented enough to incorporate his input on the spot.

    this is ripe for a twitter account... n/t (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    Oh yes!!!! (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:28:47 PM EST
    Actually, I may be busy helping (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:32:01 PM EST
    with the libretto of Royal Opera's Twitter opera:  Covent Garden

    That's cool (none / 0) (#183)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 07:54:20 AM EST
    maybe I will contribute some tweets too.  I don't really listen to opera but I am intrigued...as I have been selling classical music (as my job) for over a year.  Shame on me!

    Where and how does one sell (none / 0) (#185)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:58:15 AM EST
    classical music in today's world?

    Here (none / 0) (#186)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 11:00:14 AM EST
    Obama's NH townhall (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:38:42 PM EST
    Tom Schaller at Salon:

    How did Obama do today?

    Let's start a post-town hall thread on Obama's New Hampshire appearance for those who watched or listened. Some quick reactions:

    The president got some subtle and not-so-subtle digs in against those who are making all the fuss at these town halls, referring at one point to "all the chatting, shouting, yelling and noise" and also appealing for us to "start talking with each other and not over each other" and warning about "bogeymen"-style tactics of opponents.

    Obama also struck a more populist tone in the early moments of his speech. He trotted out stories about insurers dropping or denying coverage. He appealed to the underinsured and uninsured. Some big applause lines include:

    "I don't think government bureaucrats should be meddling [in your health care], but I don't think health insurance company bureaucrats should be meddling either."

    Then, a bit later: "Your health insurance should be there when you need it, not just when you're paying premiums."

    And, most effectively, "Insurance companies are rationing care.

    He also made a good point about short- and long-term costs in defense of ramping up preventive care to catch "diseases on the front end."

    But besides citing some trade associations that are "in broad agreement" with most members of Congress about reform, he never set down very explicitly the four or five key changes that his plan will bring. He was short on specifics and substance.

    He spoke mostly in political terms. He dropped in a reference to Ezra Klein's recent scoop, during an interview with Sen. Johnny Isakson, in which Isakson refutes Sarah Palin's "death panel" charge. He paused at one point, in response to a young woman's mention of the protest signs outside, and chuckled a bit under his breath about the resistance.

    Finally, contrary to the story reported earlier, there didn't seem to be any direct appeal in his prepared remarks to insured Americans and why they should rally behind his plan.

    The bold is mine.

    I'm trying to understand what good it does us to have a president whose salesmanship is limited to his own interests, and who cannot close the deal on issues that really matter.

    I watched the town hall (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by magster on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:18:16 PM EST
    I thought Obama really did a good job today, and while in hindsight, maybe Obama could have said more about protecting the insured, Obama strongly debunked the rumors about Obama rationing care to Medicare recipients.

    Of course, Andrea Mitchell took all of .34 seconds to spew bile as soon as the townhall was over (she's been especially hostile to health care reform -- is she or her husband linked to health ins. industry?)


    I missed his defense of Medicare (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:32:13 PM EST
    in what I thought was an otherwise very good speech.

    So why does ED Shultz (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:22:27 PM EST
    still feel the need to insult Hillary, to be sexist?

    His "tease" was Hillary's "tantrum" and then in the same breath "What made the usually soft spoken Tiger Woods get angry?"

    Now I am NOT saying that either Hillary or Tiger were right or wrong in their displays of frustration.  But I am frustrated because the "woman", Hillary in this case, was described as throwing a tantrum (i.e., demeaning, comparing someone to a toddler) while the criticism of Tiger was, well, not even a criticism......in other words, something MADE Tiger angry, while Hillary threw a tantrum.  This is the kind of crap from some of our males supposedly on the left that just p*sses me off).

    We dont like smart men (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:28:27 PM EST
    and we doubly dont like uppity, smart, women.

    Ed Schultz ... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:43:41 PM EST
    ... is a half-wit, sports reporter who claims a gradual conversion to the Democratic party begining in 2000.

    His hatred of the Clintons apparently survived his purported conversion.


    It's bad enough that he had CDS (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 06:31:03 PM EST
    but this was beyond the pale.  After the "tease" he and his all male guest panel, with the exception of Bill Press, sounded like a bunch of locker room rethug jocks.  I am angered and disgusted and I cannot believe people on the left are not outraged by his blatant sexism.

    Tiget is notorious... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:18:05 PM EST
    ...For cursing and slamming clubs after a bad shot.  Don't know what Schultz is talking about.  

    Yes, I know that...I follow golf (none / 0) (#173)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:29:18 PM EST
    which of course makes Schultz's blatant sexism even more obvious.  So why aren't more liberals taking him to task.  Schultz gives more respect to wingnuts like Tancredo than he does to Hillary Clinton.  

    Obama the magician (2.00 / 0) (#124)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:53:15 PM EST
    He must be one because he believes and promises things that aren't true...

    1) "..we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care...That makes sense, it saves lives; it also saves money"

    CBO disagrees

    2) "I have not said that I am a supporter of a single-payer system."

    Really?  Ever hear of YouTube or the internet?  From 2007 townhall in NH no less...

    3) His belief that we can add people to the system, not increase doctors or hospitals and control costs.

    This is fantasy.  Economics render this belief  impossible.   The sheer numbers will drive up costs and then that doesn't even count the eventual rise in usage of the system by those who are currently not covered or only receive partial care.

    He is promising something not possible.  That's where the outrage comes from.   We hear the rhetoric but don't believe that the way he would solve the issue would result in the promises he's made.   We do believe it will add to the staggering amount of unfulfillable promises the governments already made and can't pay for.  This will result in severe rationing and changes to the system for the majority.  We the angry mob believe we will only add more government that can't be undone and get little in return.

    He is saying all the right things but anyone who thinks about what he's promising objectively soon realizes what he's promising is a fantasy.

    I suppose it would be asking (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:01:24 PM EST
    too much to expect anyone in "the angry mob" to have articulated any viable alternatives to the problem?

    Btw, When an angry mob starts calling itself "the angry mob" you know you're in trouble. You guys aren't going to start putting up Wanted Dead or Alive posters the way they did in Dallas, are you?
    Or, do you have to wait till Glenn Beck or Michael Savage give you the o.k?


    Even if what you say is true, we (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:09:28 PM EST
    should do it anyway. Healthcare is a service worth paying for, like education, police, firefighters, and roads.

    I wonder if any angry mobsters (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:14:59 PM EST
    are aware of the discrepencies between the projected cost of the Iraq invasion and what the costs turned out to be?

    Maybe all we need is a bunch of Support the Healthcare stckers 'n ribbons to bring these people around.


    That and the timely (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:17:44 PM EST
    release of a tear-jerkin', flag-wavin' Toby Keith song.

    Maybe he'd do it (none / 0) (#184)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:32:11 AM EST
    he IS a Democrat, after all.

    It would be hard to make it as obnoxious (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:17:48 PM EST
    as the ribbons directing us to "support our troops [exactly how we say, or else]."

    ahhh, I knew we were missing something (none / 0) (#175)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:34:04 PM EST
    to get to these people...

    the ever-enlightened Toby Keith...man, if we just had someone that intelligent on our side we'd have no problem whatsoever...

    btw, someone at the McCaskill town hall today mentioned a revolution...

    I'd say its about time...is there really any reason we allow the south to call itself part of the United States, when they'd rather be anything but united?


    I think they are well aware (none / 0) (#148)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:29:12 PM EST
    and that's why they are outraged.

    Why stop at Iraq?  How about Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription Drug coverage, Cash for Clunkers, The war in Afghanistan, No child Left Behind, TARP, the Stimulus on and on....

    Government can only possibly do something one of two ways.  Efficiently or Effectively.   Depending on your partisan opinion sometimes it does neither.   But what it never, ever does is both.  

    So ask yourself.  Can Obama really believe that he can deliver an effective and efficient version of healthcare?

    Of course he can't.   So why is he promising it?  

    The question you must ask yourself is do we roll the dice and turn what already is a partial government controlled system that many aren't happy with totally over to the government?

    We do if we want expensive and maybe effective care.


    you do realize (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 10:51:00 PM EST
    that a large number of the programs you mentioned are/were highly effective and remain popular to this day right? That if you asked voters if they wanted to eliminate say Medicare you'd not only lose in a landslide you'd likely be escorted out of public life?

    heh...I love all the private sector mumbo-jumbo... (none / 0) (#176)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:36:10 PM EST
    if private sector is so amazing, then why is it more expensive to run a private prison than it is to run a public one?  maybe b/c the businessman are just as stupid as the congressman...duh...

    I agree it's worth it (none / 0) (#145)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:23:42 PM EST
    But Obama shouldn't be promising the impossible.

    I only mention the "angry mob" to poke fun at progressives.  I'm not really in it. I just relate to them.

    I believe that removing government from healthcare (it's already in it tremendously) will free up competition and help drive costs down through choice.

    This isn't going to happen as long as Obama is president so I'd prefer we do nothing now so we can do the right thing later.  

    What's the urgency?  No one can convince me that a bad solution now is more important then no solution at all.


    But (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:34:25 PM EST
    why would you believe something that's already been shown to be false?

    I believe that removing government from healthcare (it's already in it tremendously) will free up competition and help drive costs down through choice.

    So far, private market competition has only driven costs up, up, and up.


    A market will never work for healthcare (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:37:22 PM EST
    Imagine trying to comparison shop for emergency surgery.

    We want diametrically different things (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:34:40 PM EST
    "Competition," is a function of a functioning market. And healthcare could never have one.

    More government in healthcare ASAP, please.


    Are you aware of an arena (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:30:27 PM EST
    that government isnt "in" to some extent, Slado?

    the private sector has already stated (none / 0) (#177)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:38:45 PM EST
    that it wouldn't even be able to compete with the lower prices offered through a government system...so why should anyone believe that the doctors, hospital administrators and health insurance ceo's are willing to give up their 4th vacation houses and only buy their kids a 40,000 car instead of an 80,000 car...not going to happen...

    and we sure know they aren't giving up that 100foot yacht...no way...


    Could you link (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:48:34 PM EST
    to where Obama has said there won't be new doctors and hospitals?  I'm interested in his plan to repeal the law of supply and demand.

    Acutally (none / 0) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 06:23:29 PM EST
    you are wrong about the costs. Bringing more people into the system should lower costs. The costs right now are being borne by a few with cost shifting occuring.

    people seem to always forget that everytime (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:40:35 PM EST
    someone goes to the emergency room without insurance and runs up a 10-40K bill and then files for bankruptcy (what else can someone w/o insurance getting paid $8/hr do) that the cost is passed on to those with insurance, or those without insurance that can afford to pay...

    but why would we want to eliminate that?


    noooo way... (1.00 / 0) (#30)
    by wilco on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:57:05 PM EST
    You mean Obama is still doing the same stuff Bush did, ie..rendition, torture, supports Patriot Act, still funds Blackwater thugs, still spying on Americans?!  GASP.  Where's the same outrage as when Bush was doing it?  Im sure Cheney's behind it and Obama's hands are white as snow.

    Oh bull (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:39:18 PM EST
    We aren't running around telling the world to KMA anymore.  NATO has signed on with us in our new approaches to Afghanistan.  I criticize Obama for anything I don't agree with, but we are far from viewed as the pariah of the world anymore.  I'm free with my criticism of him...plenty free.  When he waterboards someone eighty times though attempting to justify his lies that get us into an immoral war and then destroys all the evidence of doing so then maybe we can talk.

    Please do not feed the troll (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:53:28 PM EST
    Trolls don't fare so well around here (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:55:59 PM EST
    usually due to the factual debate this place inspires.  I invite debate from people with a dissenting opinion.  How else can we ever hope to understand each other or discover where or when we agree with each other?

    I Pray That Obama (none / 0) (#3)
    by bob h on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:23:05 PM EST
    does not feel so encouraged by the NH Town Hall today that he takes on another one in some red zone snake pit.  That was scary enough with that yob with a gun outside.

    I wish they would kill the Town Halls now; they are serving no worthwhile purpose.

    Nah, I think he should keep on keeping on (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:32:58 PM EST
    I refuse to let terrorists win in any country.

    That (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by CST on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:36:04 PM EST
    and the secret service is pretty good at their job.

    They shook me down once before (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:38:04 PM EST
    I went into to hear one of Dubya's idiot speeches.  I had been thoroughly gone over....borderline defiled :)  and that was just my camera.

    Dubya came to my H.S. (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:40:33 PM EST
    they kicked everyone out of the school except for their approved list, did background checks on everyone, had snipers on the roof, searched everyone going in, etc... etc... I wasn't invited :(

    Same when Clinton came to my town (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:55:16 PM EST
    The school was shut down and only those with tickets could get in.  I got a ticket!  But still had to go through a secret service check before I could get the ticket and then had to go through the checks at the door, even with the ticket.  But it was all worth it to hear and see him.  I was in the 3rd row middle!  

    Ha ha ha ha (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:15:09 PM EST
    I married a soldier thereby becoming a literal social insurgent who got ticket offers :)  The whole "ticket" concept of seeing the President speak on some military post always tickled me then.  I guess Clinton just invited them all to get their tails to the parade field but with Bush you needed tickets.  And usually all those idiots behind him smiling were soldiers who were voted "super special" by their peers to get be out front and unafraid :)  That was why they all looked like BushCo smiling idiot poster children.  It's all too funny now looking back.

    It was a lotto system (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by CST on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:49:53 PM EST
    for the teachers.  The only students who got to be there were the student gov't, the national honors society, and in a moment of pity, they gave a few tickets to the 4 members of the "young republicans club" since they figured he should have at least a few fans in the audience.  He was in Boston after all.  Actually, the video of the speech is pretty priceless.  They had the NHS and the student govt behind him on stage.  Needless to say, they did a pretty bad job of keeping their faces straight while he talked.  Lot's of eye rolling on camera.

    I would've been able to go, except I decided Germany was a cooler place to hang for my junior year, so I didn't qualify for the NHS.


    A lotto system :) (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:02:25 PM EST
    You know when he really really flat P.O.ed me forever more was after the Enterprise tornado and he HAD TO SHOW UP FOR THE PHOTO OP CUZ MOST OF THE COUNTRY WAS BEGINNING TO THINK HE SUCKED.  That night ended up with a nine o'clock mandatory curfew for all of us because the president road into town and everything was a mess and nothing was very controlled.  We had dead children, we had people in emergency surgery, we had people with no place to sleep that night, we had people out searching for lost pets but oh no.....all that had to be wrapped up to the best your ability for the failing President's photo op.  That was when I KNEW he was a total selfish self centered a$$hole!!!

    A lotto system :) (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:02:25 PM EST
    You know when he really really flat P.O.ed me forever more was after the Enterprise tornado and he HAD TO SHOW UP FOR THE PHOTO OP CUZ MOST OF THE COUNTRY WAS BEGINNING TO THINK HE SUCKED.  That night ended up with a nine o'clock mandatory curfew for all of us because the president road into town and everything was a mess and nothing was very controlled.  We had dead children, we had people in emergency surgery, we had people with no place to sleep that night, we had people out searching for lost pets but oh no.....all that had to be wrapped up to the best your ability for the failing President's photo op.  That was when I KNEW he was a total selfish self centered a$$hole!!!

    What an (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by CST on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:07:46 PM EST
    @$$.  Yea it was a lotto system.  Only because if they tried to fill it with his supporters the auditorium would've had 4 people in it.  Ted Kennedy was there too though, so silver lining and all that.

    Wow....that double posted (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    There IS a God!

    Remember the W photo op in (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:32:06 PM EST
    Jackson Sq. in NOLA after Katrina and after the North Island Naval Base photo op?

    "This man not only stands for things... (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:37:01 PM EST
    "...he stands ON things.  Like aircraft carriers, and recently flooded city squares."

    --Steven Colbert, from his correspondents' dinner speech a few years ago.


    Lucky You CST! (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:44:03 PM EST
    How was the show last night?  

    It was great (none / 0) (#22)
    by CST on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:46:35 PM EST
    although late, so not quite as happy a tuesday as such things go.  Feeling better?

    Much better thanks... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:54:07 PM EST
    the wonders of the immune system, doing battle on my behalf, mother nature never ceases to amaze.

    And you thought the show was free, the bill just came a day late:) Well worth it though I'm sure!


    Well potential violence killed (none / 0) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:38:36 PM EST
    a Town Hall meeting in University City, MO. McCaskill had scheduled one today at a local schools. University City cancelled the meeting due to fears that the meeting would get out of hand.

    Had originally planned to attend. Based on what she has said at other Town Hall meetings, not sure that it would have made any difference anyway. It appears that she will not support anything that I would consider health care reform.



    Ben Cardin had a town hall last night (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    not far from me, and I could not even get near the place when I ventured in that direction on my way home from work to see if there was any chance I could get in.

    Here's a report from Think Progress, with pictures.

    We had a heat index of 105 yesterday, so I wimped out on being part of the outdoor crowd - and given the recent trend towrd violence, was not comfortable about the mood and potential for problems.


    Perhaps that is why you are such a (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:43:56 PM EST
    good reform voice out there, someone needs to make up for McCaskill.  When you stick your finger in the MO wind what does it tell you in general about MO ?  Because I don't think the finger in the wind works for the crazed lone gunmen but it can be indicative of other things.

    Like most of the country, too few people (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    are getting good information. They don't have the time to sort through reams of documents and reports or hours to spend on the web. They are getting all their misinformation from the MSM or from local politicians who distort what is happening to agree with their agenda.

    People are frustrated about what is going on with the economy, health care etc. but are very confused about what is fact and what is fiction. Can't say that I blame them. I spend time trying to get good information but there are so many conflicting slants on each part of the health insurance plan (sometimes by the same people) that it makes my head spin.  


    It's hard for most citizens (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:42:53 PM EST
    to have the time and energy to read through thousands of pages of proposed bills. After all, when there have been five separate bills rolling around in the Congress intead of one, a person would have to have no job, no familial repsonsibilities... no life! in order to pore over it all and understand the details.

    Which is why the debacle of the nutty town-brawlers + corporate media is even more dangerous. They are able to capitalize on the Dems fractious health care adventure.


    Well the Dems did chose to (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:51:19 PM EST
    go on a fractious health care adventure. There were other alternatives.

    True dat! (none / 0) (#98)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:06:04 PM EST
    It only hurts when I laugh :) (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:11:18 PM EST
    This is f#%^!! crazy (none / 0) (#17)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    Obama's first (or is it...) rendition - torture is alleged.  Scott Horton at HuffPost has it.

    [Raymond] Azar alleges that on arriving at Bagram he was shackled to a chair in an office for seven hours and not allowed to move. Then in the midst of a cold rainstorm he was taken to an unheated metal shipping container converted to use as a cell. The cell was brightly lit and although the outside temperature approached freezing, he was given only a thin blanket. He also claims that he was not permitted to sleep during his confinement at Bagram, which lasted over a day. Then he was told he was going to take a plane trip. His handlers would not tell him where he was going. He feared he was being dragged to Guantanamo, there to be "disappeared" and tortured. How else, he thought, could he explain the absence of Afghan authorities, the hooding and other techniques?

    Also interesting

    The [Justice] department acknowledges the accuracy of many of Azar's specific claims, but it denies that Azar was ever threatened with a photograph of his family or that he was malnourished. It heatedly argues that the characterization of these techniques as "torture" is "hyperbolic."

    There are lots of interesting questions brought up in Horton's article.  What's troubling on a general level is how this incident (regardless of whether the allegations of torture are or are not true) serves as proof that the torture stain will be with us for a long long time.

    So, (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 02:56:04 PM EST
    What's your opinion on this?

    I know it's from Fortune - not exactly a progressive magazine - but let's face it, the Great Health Care Debacle of 2009 is being run by corporations, so Fortune should report on it.

    5 Freedoms You'd Lose Under Obamacare

    (I'll give you the list - you can read the article for the details)

    1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan.
    2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs.
    3. Freedom to choose high-deducctible coverage.
    4. Freedom to keep your existing plan.
    5. Freedom to choose your doctors.

    Any thoughts?

    LIES (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by eric on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    Obama has repeatedly and consistently said that if you like your coverage, whatever it is, you can keep it.

    Lies, dirty lies.


    You mistook the 5 things Fortune (none / 0) (#39)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:04:21 PM EST
    says you would LOSE under Obamacare for things you think they are saying Obama promises - at least I think that's what you've done.

    Reading through (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by eric on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:09:45 PM EST
    that article again, it is painful.  The reasoning is all twisted.  Is their a plan to make insurance companies provide a minimum level of benefits and care?  Yes, that is the whole point.  They seem to think that one should have the right to buy substandard coverage, if you want to.  They might also like to buy cars without airbags and medicine that hasn't been tested, too, but gimme a break.

    Well (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:07:35 PM EST
    Obama's a politician - I don't necessarily believe everything he says either (see: FISA, torture, GITMO, etc.)

    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by eric on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:12:34 PM EST
    does anyone really think that Obama and the big mean government want to take away your health plan if you like it?  Why would they.  Further, it would almost certainly be the most unpopular thing he could ever do.

    It is all just scare tactics and lies.


    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:22:43 PM EST
    But I do think he doesn't have a firm grasp on what will really happen with what has been proposed so far, so while he may sincerely believe in his heart of hearts, that "if you have a health plan, you will get to keep it intact", I have no faith that thatt is a 100% accurate statement.  How many other times have we seen bills sold to the public, then passed, and then OOPS!  there's a little known (or understood) provision that actually makes things worse?

    So true (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:29:38 PM EST
    it's possible, for example, that there won't end up being any death panels.  But that Sarah Palin just doesn't provide any nuance!

    You have much more faith (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    in what politicians say than I have apparently!

    true dat... (none / 0) (#48)
    by wilco on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:14:55 PM EST
    oh yes, true dat my friend.  the shine is coming up already after only 7 mos.  And most of it is his own fault.  He promised too much

    Even the NYT (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:47:02 PM EST
    says Obama's claim that "if you want to keep your health insurance..." may not be completely true:

    Mr. Obama has said repeatedly, as he told the American Medical Association in June: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

    These assurances reflect an aspiration, but may not be literally true or enforceable.

    The legislation does not require insurers or employers to continue offering the health benefits they now provide. The House bill sets detailed standards for "acceptable health care coverage," which would define "essential benefits" and permissible co-payments. Employers that already offer insurance would have five years to bring their plans into compliance with the new federal standards.

    The Senate health committee bill goes somewhat further by offering an "option to retain current insurance coverage."

    The legislation could have significant implications for individuals who have bought coverage on their own. Their policies might be exempted from the new standards, but the coverage might not be viable for long because insurers could not add benefits or enroll additional people in noncompliant policies.

    Dallas L. Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a private nonpartisan group, said: "The president and Democrats in Congress are saying what they would like. Their promises may not be literally true because your health plan may change, and your doctor may no longer accept your insurance."

    This is true under the current system (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:00:59 PM EST
    as well.

    Their promises may not be literally true because your health plan may change, and your doctor may no longer accept your insurance."

    My employer based insurance changed mid cycle. I had no other option than to accept the new plan even though it was more expensive and I was required to pay more out of pocket. Also,  the specialists I go to are only accepting one specific Medicare Advantage Plan. They will accept any and all supplemental plans.

    So I think it is a little disingenuous for the NYT to claim that this could only happen if an Obama health insurance package was adopted.


    I didn't read it that way (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:11:40 PM EST
    The way I read it was that Obama promised to the AMA (and others,a s we have seen in stump speeches) that under his plan, you absolutely would not have your plan changed if you were happy with it.  Of course, your plan can change now, but Obama statement was a definitive one, and he conveniently left out the part where your plan can change now.  

    I think they were just calling him on that.  Could be a "read my lips" moment for him if what the analysis in the Fortune article says is true.


    ya, he should have clarified (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:57:26 PM EST
    that things wouldn't change as a DIRECT result of the bill...

    whatever hospitals and doctors decide to do as a result of the bill is on them...not on the legislators...


    I'm not a fan of the health insurance plans (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:03:29 PM EST
    now being considered by Congress but that is mostly B.S.

    do insurance companies give people especially (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:51:08 PM EST
    low premiums for eating less than 800 calories a day, considering it's been shown that this is the healthiest way to live?

    I guess they'd have to since they are so smart and so amazing and so fair...


    You eat with that lying mouth? (1.50 / 4) (#103)
    by kenosharick on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:15:06 PM EST
    Go back and read again (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:12:19 PM EST
    Those 5 things are from a magazine article.

    You owe jbindc an apology.


    Well (2.00 / 1) (#143)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:20:15 PM EST
    When commenters repeat obvious lies aka rightwing talking points, and hide behind the cover of innocently saying what do you think, that is pretty insidious, to say the least.

    Shouldn't that invoke the opportunity (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:33:57 PM EST
    to debate the subject? I'm pretty sure there's a difference between discussing/debating and shouting someone down calling them names.

    I have been skipping over your comments because there is virtually nothing of value to be learned. I know who you think is a liar, and who you enjoy a good public put down of, but I have no idea what your opinion is on anything other than the other commenters.

    When you talk about wingnuts, squeaky, you forget their primary tactic is to discredit the people they disagree with. Think about it.


    Sorry (2.00 / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:38:38 PM EST
    Repeating obvious wingnut talking points, aka lies, and then 'innocently' asking what do you think?, and then repeating one of them in another comment is not honest debate, it is BS.

    Has Talk Left authoried you to (5.00 / 6) (#161)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:49:48 PM EST
    determine what is honest debate and what is BS?

    Obviously (2.00 / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:58:31 PM EST
    It is my opinion. And most rational people would agree that using RW scare tactics that have been debunked, and recirculating them as discussion points is not debate, it is spreading vile propaganda in and attempt to Incite hate through fearmongering.

    Not this rational person (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 06:19:44 PM EST
    The commenter you speak of doesn't scare me at all. The articles most often quoted by this person come from some mainstream publications; those that available to everyone who doesn't happen to know digby's blog address.

    I found nothing vile, or hair-raising, or successful at inciting hate in any of the articles she linked to.

    jbindc doesn't name call or scream or respond to others with a steady stream of LOL put-downs or accusations that they are right wing wingnuts or too stupid to get past the primaries. It's civil discussion at all times from her.


    Understood (2.00 / 0) (#169)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 06:27:46 PM EST
    But if Obama gets his health care plan you believe that you will lose your freedom:

    AKA Obama is a dictator looking to take away your freedoms.

    That is obviously the sub text of the

    5 Freedoms You Will Lose Under Obamacare

    It is a short leap to go to Palin's statement that Obama will want to euthanize her son, just like Hitler.

    These are not rational debating points, they are talking points meant to scare people into keeping the status quo.


    You're right (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:05:58 PM EST
    those are not rational debating points.

    What I got from the comment is that those irrational points came from FORTUNE magazine. You're shooting the messenger, squeaky. Call for a boycott of FORTUNE for inciting panic.

    This really is a new country. The democrats are divided for a very obvious reason....some remain willing to hold their nose and simply trust that a democratic administration would never, ever bring great harm to our freedoms and wealth. Others are skeptical for what they see as good reason. We have just a little over a year before we could lose our majority, or cut deeply into the spread. We got a horrible Patriot Act, and some unprincipled wars out of the last group...not only are those not being undone, we're looking at a health insurance plan that doesn't appear to be well-designed, and an economic mess that has the poor bailing out the extremely wealthy under this one.

    Both groups of democrats come together on this board hoping to talk it through and find a way to restore the principals and beliefs of the liberal party that wants to have each step this country takes to be a step up. But those efforts regularly get derailed with name calling and accusations replacing discussion. These exchanges don't motivate people to act on what they learned, or the ideas that were born, because it's actually embarrassing to count how many hours are wasted reading this stuff.

    There isn't enough time to build a new party, and the old one is in dire need of restoration. Surely you don't think those who want the party strengthened and bold enough to really make a difference would do better by taking their conversation to the wingnuts, do you? We belong here, squeaky. Right here with the liberal  democrats...and those who have adapted to wingnut name calling need to define their position well enough to share it. Hiding behind aggression tells me you don't know how to defend your position, or that you don't have one. Not digby's, yours.  

    Solutions are found by talking things out.


    in the process of (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:09:36 PM EST
    unloading my mini in the "cash for clunkers" deal.

    Better hurry (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:16:05 PM EST
    Senator McCaskill says she will probably vote "NO" on extending the "Cash for Clunkers Program."

    No funds to put people to work but she never saw a war funding bill that was too expensive.


    definitely (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:17:53 PM EST
    for one thing I went to two car lots to find a car.
    they are literally running out.
    if it happens it should happen today or tomorrow at the latest.  I will end up getting almost 7000 off with the clunker deal and rebates.

    Maybe you should invest about $40K (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:31:42 PM EST
    and get a car that claims to get 230 miles per gallon in the city. GM   Volt

    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:34:59 PM EST
    I wanted to wait another year or so and get something like one of those but I started being afraid the mini was not going to make it thru the winter.  and my truck SUCKS on snow and ice.

    Good for you! (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:19:27 PM EST
    it seems like (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:16:30 PM EST
    a pretty sweet deal

    Let's all drink... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:20:09 PM EST
    to the death of another clunker.  Enjoy the new whip my man.

    The poor clunkers though, they are being executed even if they still got miles on 'em to be driven.  Seems like such a waste to me, there are people out there who can't even afford a clunker who wouldn't mind a freebie....but I guess the feds are worried about double-dipping.


    its really sort of weird (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:25:20 PM EST
    first it qualifies if the average overall gas mileage is 2(two)mpg better.  I just qualified.

    and also I feel sort of strange about turning my mini into a brick.  it has been really good to me.
    it has been completely trouble free for 96000 miles.


    How does (none / 0) (#64)
    by eric on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:29:06 PM EST
    a Mini qualify?  The car must get less than 18MPG to qualify.  No way a MINI Cooper gets less than 25.

    no sorry (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:30:35 PM EST
    mini VAN

    You had me totally confused! (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:57:16 PM EST
    Now I understand.

    What kind of car (none / 0) (#59)
    by eric on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:24:15 PM EST
    are you getting rid of?  The requirement that they get less than 18 MPG is pretty restrictive.  I would trade mine in, but the mileage is too high.

    a chrysler town and country mini (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:26:32 PM EST
    it was 18.  it just qualified. it has to be 18 or less.  the one I am getting, a ford escape, gets 20.

    aha minivan (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by eric on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:30:25 PM EST
    not a MINI Cooper.  I see now.  Good job with the trade.

    If your car (none / 0) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:31:47 PM EST
    is a Mini, it doesn't qualify for the cash for clunkers.

    Must get a combined 18 mpg or less to qualify.

    If they're telling you it qualifies, they're misguided



    Ah, minivan.... (none / 0) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:32:18 PM EST
    well (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:33:35 PM EST
    they just called me.  I pick up the escape tomorrow.
    have to say.  they made it really easy.  if you are even thinking of trading and qualify.

    I say do it.


    Is the voucher in addition to (none / 0) (#122)
    by coast on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:46:15 PM EST
    trade-in or in place of trade in.  My surrent vehicle's blue book isn't at the $3500 or $4500 level.  Do you get to double dip?  I would imagine not.

    The voucher (none / 0) (#123)
    by eric on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:48:28 PM EST
    is for your car.  No trade in.

    actually (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:59:31 PM EST
    you do get a small trade in which is the junk value.
    they you also get whatever incentives the dealer is offering like rebates.

    Got it, thanks. (none / 0) (#128)
    by coast on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:00:28 PM EST
    double dip? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:01:00 PM EST
    you sound like you are in the same position I was.
    its still a good deal since we could not have gotten 4500 for the car.

    Is the Cash for Clunkers program (none / 0) (#162)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:50:45 PM EST
    part of the stimulus package?  Big 3 auto bailout?

    I guess (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:02:25 PM EST
    this means the $1200 coffee maker will have to wait.

    Well I doubt that it would handle (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:07:41 PM EST
    well on the snow and ice. :)

    Where we're going, we don't need roads! (none / 0) (#138)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    (Tried to find the video, but all Youtube had were stupid modifications).

    where to start... (none / 0) (#85)
    by joze46 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:53:43 PM EST
    There is so much to talk about; where to start...Again the media is making the time for chaos rather than structure. Remember those days when across the channels CNN, FOX, MSNBC delivered high tech very impressive "BIG SCREEN" visuals of the election along with maps, expert details of rules, and judicial local laws, with differences in each state and party. To some extent exposed the notion of no rules existing and breach of law all over the place.

    Come on the expertise these media people have is within their ability to deliver honest discourse but they are not, all leading me to believe they want to put breaks on this thing just as much as the insurance companies. They these media people are bring America to misery in this display of very definite consequences.

    They could talk about what is important and the kicker of the plan which places huge huge responsibilities on the States. From my point of view this is it people and it's all politics take a look at, and as most don't specifically identify the section this part is a giant political nut cracker those red stater politicals want to stay away from.


    17 (a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall establish con18
    ditions of participation for health care providers under the
    19 public health insurance option.

    20 (b) LICENSURE OR CERTIFICATION.--The Secretary
    21 shall not allow a health care provider to participate in the
    22 public health insurance option unless such provider is ap23
    propriately licensed or certified under State law.

    Wow yoweee

    Hey folks there looks like no room for Joe plumber here. And the state laws better be up to snuff....

    No quack allowed, the way I look at it this will definitely improve the quality.    

    I just laugh about it all, now we see poster waving Obama evil signs and swastikas and blame Pelosi and the Democrats for them because she pointed it out. I have to give credit to MSNBC for spending some time about freaky meetings and their connection to special interests, but if they with the rest of the media spent even a little time to take apart the so called thousand page health care proposal we the people would be served rightly. It would look pretty good. America remember this is a proposal it can be revise. Cool your jets people.

    If MSNBC even committed a few Sundays as they do to talk about America's jail system which is boring and unique to each case, we the people might see the light of day in this new Health care Plan. But it will not happen because they MSNBC are on the same side as those insurance companies.  

    great new movie site (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:54:30 PM EST

    cant quite decide if its illegal or not.  it seems legal but they are streaming movies like GI Joe that are still in theaters.

    there is a lot more to the site than that tho

    More happy news - TARP (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:15:22 PM EST
    Remember TARP? Seems TARP never actually bought any toxic assets...

    Government programs such as the $787 billion stimulus and last fall's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program have so far been successful, the Obama administration says.

    Except, the Congressional Oversight Panel warns in its August report, TARP never actually bought any troubled assets.

    "It is likely that an overwhelming portion of the troubled assets from last October remain on bank balance sheets today," the panel's report says.

    Those bad assets are still there, rotting away on banks' books, making banks reluctant to ratchet up lending, and maybe, the watchdog warns, paving the way for another financial meltdown.

    "We are now 10 months into TARP," the panel's report notes, "and troubled assets remain a substantial danger to the financial system."

    Even hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars later, they say, the country could still be susceptible to the same problems that existed in the first place -- especially if the economic situation deteriorates again.

    "If the economy worsens, especially if unemployment remains elevated or if the commercial real estate market collapses, then defaults will rise and the troubled assets will continue to deteriorate in value," the report says. "Banks will incur further losses on their troubled assets. The financial system will remain vulnerable to the crisis conditions that TARP was meant to fix."

    I admit I gave up keeping track of TARP (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:17:44 PM EST
    I do remember reading reports though that the banks didn't want to take what was being offered for their worthless assets...it wasn't enough.  I'm fine with them keeping the stuff!  But where did the TARP money go that was supposed to buy the toxic garbage?

    Well, this... (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by sj on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:40:43 PM EST
    ... is what the report says:

    ...83 percent of the respondents said that at least some of the TARP money they received had been used to support new lending. Forty-three percent said some of the funds had been used to maintain an adequate capital cushion to guard against further unanticipated losses, while 31 percent reported devoting some TARP funds to investments, including mortgage-backed securities, which, "according to the banks ... provided immediate support of the lending and borrowing activities of other institutions," the report said. Fourteen percent reported using some of the funds to repay outstanding debt, and 4 percent said some of the funds went to complete acquisitions.

    And here is a rebuttal.

    ...a careful review of last week's bank earnings reports shows that in the first half of 2009, the major banks, which received almost all of the actual TARP monies, actually used their bolstered capital cushions and the exceptionally high 25:1 leverage ratio permitted under the Geithner stress tests mostly for renewed proprietary trading - and, according to their very own statements, specifically NOT for much new lending.

    lol...31% (none / 0) (#181)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 10:06:44 PM EST
    said that the TARP money was used to buy MORE mortgage-backed securities?

    man, I can't wait till these people meet God (if the opportunity ever arises)....


    Excellent question (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:22:08 PM EST
    TARP (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by eric on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:24:27 PM EST
    was never intended to buy any troubled assets.  There have been other proposals along those lines, but TARP, as it was executed, was quite simply a program to give large loans to banks to boost the capital reserves.  From the Wikipedia page:

    In the original plan presented by Secretary Paulson, the government would buy troubled (toxic) assets in insolvent banks and then sell them at auction to private investor and/or companies. This plan was scratched when Paulson met with England's Prime Minister Gordon Brown who came to the White House for an international summit on the global credit crisis.[citation needed] Prime Minister Brown, in an attempt to mitigate the credit squeeze in England, merely infused capital into banks via preferred stock in order to clean up their balance sheets . . .


    I think about it like this (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by eric on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:32:44 PM EST
    TARP turned out to be quite literally a "tarp" as in tarpaulin.  It was just a thing you through over something to "cover it up".

    Then (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:33:50 PM EST
    it sounds like they succeeded.  

    I think it turned out to be a kind (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:36:45 PM EST
    of slush fund for the Executive Branch. Normally I would be opposed to that sort of thing, but I think it was necessary in this case. And I was happy that it was available to rescue the auto industry.

    threw (none / 0) (#116)
    by eric on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:34:01 PM EST
    not "through".

    Actually not technically correct (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by coast on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:55:20 PM EST
    TARP passed as law on October 3rd, before Brown came to US.  It was originally put into law as a purchase program, but was revised several weeks after it became law to become more of a capital infusion instrument.

    Promotion of marriage (none / 0) (#117)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:36:00 PM EST
    Obama wants to continue to fund the Bush "marriage" program to the tune of 150 million a year. It been going now for at least 6 years. Has it done any good? Or is this just another attempt by Obama to appease the Evangelicals?

    That $150 million a year (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:11:07 PM EST
    could help offset the costs of the proposed health insurance plans instead of reducing the Medicare budget.

    Silly and (none / 0) (#121)
    by eric on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:39:37 PM EST
    ridiculous.  The US is already #1 in marriage rate.



    Marriage (none / 0) (#118)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:36:35 PM EST
    But not for gays!

    Of course no marriage for gays (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by caseyOR on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 04:58:54 PM EST
    Don't you know that if I marry then, for example, Anne's successful 26 year marriage will suddenly implode and die? Haven't you been listening?

    Sometimes I look at the Republicans (none / 0) (#168)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 06:27:45 PM EST
    reaction to the proposed health care/insurance extension with wonderment.  If the Republicans had  vision not only for the nation, but  for their own survival; if they were not so hopelessly out of touch;  if they viewed government as something other than an entity to drag into the bathtub  to be drowned; if they ever considered national interests to come in the form other than military preparedness; and, of course, if they ever saw health reform in terms other than an opportunity to politically damage President Obama, this legislation might be seen as having the makings of not only something they could support, but something they might have sponsored, for It often seems more of a Republican plan than a Democratic one.  Yes, the insurers and drug companies appear livid, just as the AMA did during the birthing of Medicare. However,  like the AMA at that time, the corporate interests are busy making sure that  the plan that emerges will work well for them. And, so far it looks good for them.  Also, the "reform" of Medicare, with no "cuts" in  benefits, just cuts to those that provide them with the savings going to support the extended insurance program might not be an anathema. While a Medicare-for all would be far more desirable for most Democrats, the goal is reaching for the best possible for the most.    Now, if the Republicans......oh, never mind.