home

Wednesday Open Thread

It's a jail day for me, which means an open thread for you. All topics welcome.

< Iraq (not U.S.) Provides Arms to Anbar Tribes | New NarcoDrama: En La Boca del Lobo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    If you want to renew your appreciation (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:25:54 AM EST
    for Pres. Obama, just listen to the NPR interview this morning with Dubya. Apparently he has written a book supposedly about his dad in which he manages to attempt to justify himself as well.

    I think it is the opening salvo in the Jeb 2016 campaign - the attempted rehabilitation of 43. I don't think it will go well. He still sounds like the idiot he is.

    Thanks Ruff (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:47:27 AM EST
    Something I want to hear.

    Parent
    Well....I am still suffering post-Bush Stress (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:56:24 AM EST
    Disorder...that voice triggered an episode.

    Parent
    Yeah, I listened (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 12:21:32 PM EST
    The voice along with the mindset, takes me right back to the Iraq War and spendings in tears with the body count and the wounded count climbed and climbed.  Now, more Iraq and Afghanistan Vets have committed suicide than have been killed in both wars.  Back to back deployments...IEDs...and that simple minded happy go lucky boy Dubya speechifying on the noble cause.

    Parent
    I remember in 2003-5 when (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ZtoA on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:29:16 PM EST
    artists wanted to use images from the war in their work in order to protest it, war images, especially the returning coffins and the 'collateral damage' of children were not readily available online. One really needed to search and be tenacious. W etc really restricted info including visual info which is very powerful.

    Parent
    In Afghanistan, they are now (none / 0) (#108)
    by fishcamp on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:57:12 PM EST
    weaving war rugs, instead of other animal picture rugs. They are the same fantastic quality, but have tanks and airplanes woven into the rugs.  Quite disturbing, but they have rapidly become collector items.  I'v seen several and they are very shocking.

    Parent
    The only (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 07:12:05 AM EST
    thing that W succeeded in doing is making his father look good by being the worst president the country has ever seen.

    Parent
    Someone here asked me why (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 07:37:53 AM EST
    Jeb Bush running for president would be worse than some of the other less than desirable Republican candidates. This is one reason why he would be way worse. We would once again have to see and hear G.W. and the rest of the Bush family on a regular basis. Thank you but I rather not, since those experiences make me slightly nauseous.

    Parent
    "Slightly nauseous" (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 11:31:50 AM EST
    While George W. Bush is fresh in our minds (cf. Veterans Day Thread, Nov 11 comments on Bush decorum), we may forget George HW Bush.  While not getting into his three military interventions during his four year term, we can mine the memory for Daddy Bush throwing up on the Japanese Prime Minister,Miyazawa Kiichi thanks to YouTube.

    Parent
    I've been avoiding all the PR (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    appearances for the Bush book tour; not only do I not want to hear their voices or see their faces, I just really, really do not need to see the media fawning and gushing over them as if their respective turns at the reins of power left this country better than how they found it.

    Ugh.

    Parent

    I think the next two years (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:54:43 AM EST
    will end in tears. Apparently, the Democratic leadership, such as it is, will wait to confirm the nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, until the Republicans assume control of the senate.   The Democrats seem fearful of offending the Republicans on a "process" matter, although the reason being given is that there is not enough time remaining for a really good confirmation proceeding.

    But they're not, apparently, going to (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 11:02:18 AM EST
    wait on the Keystone XL Pipeline vote:

    While no decisions have been made to go forward with the plan, the strategy would see a vote on the controversial pipeline before the Republican majority is sworn-in, and would allow Landrieu, and other moderate Democrats, to vote in support of approving it. Republicans, who have supported approval of the pipeline since its inception, have said a vote on its approval would be one of their first priorities in the 114th Congress.

    Charlie Pierce:

    Just to give you an illustration of how doomed and futile this whole exercise is, consider that the Democrats in the Senate, who still hold a damn majority, are going to try and bull-rush this incipient environmental catastrophe through the process during the lame-duck session, but they're going to hold over the president's nomination for Attorney General for the new, Joni Ernst model United States Senate. I am in no way a Naderite, but these dim bastards make it awfully tempting.

    Jesus.

    Parent

    But, thank goodness there (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 11:09:09 AM EST
    is a Democratic senator who will not put up with obstruction.  Oh wait a minute, oops-- Senator Joe Manchin (D. WVA) will not tolerate obstruction of the Republican agenda by Democrats.

    Parent
    What I wonder (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 11:21:18 AM EST
    is everybody is talking about red state democrats but what about the blue state Republicans that are up for election in two years? Are they going to go hard right on everything?

    And then my GOP senator Johnny Isakson--they are threatening a primary challenge to him to take him out. I don't know if he will keep up the I'm not gonna blow up the country stance or is he going to go far right to try to survive the primary thinking that like Perdue the far right is where it's at?

    Parent

    I believe (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 03:35:13 PM EST
    that Obama can veto the Keystone bill should he choose to do so.

    If if he does have the power, I would love to see him come out and say - right now - that that it is his intention to veto this "environmental catastrophe" if it should land on his desk. And let him refer to it as such when he does so.

    At the very least, it could educate a comatose electorate.

    Parent

    lentinel, maybe if he does veto (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by fishcamp on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 03:43:22 PM EST
    the Keystone bill, it will force us to figure out other forms of energy, muy pronto.  And think about the thousands of miles of land and habitat it will ruin as you said.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 03:56:16 PM EST
    (no pun intended), it isn't as if the oil is going to stay in the ground if we don't approve of XL.  The oil will just go other places, including China and Eastern Canada to be put on ships to places east.  So then, it becomes more than an environmental question, it becomes a question of: do we have an interest in who ultimately gets this oil?

    Parent
    You can (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 04:39:42 PM EST
    justify anything that you know you shouldn't do by saying, well, if I don't do it, someone else will.

    I just wish that Obama would stand up and veto this horror on behalf of the American people.


    Parent

    I'm not justifying anything (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 04:41:13 PM EST
    I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on the XL Pipeline.

    But I was presenting you with more facts so you can understand the entire story.

    Parent

    While you may be neutral on this (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 07:41:45 AM EST
    issue, your comment and corresponding link did not come close to presenting the entire story.

    No where in that article were there "facts" that confirmed that the oil once moved through the proposed XL Pipeline would remain in the U.S. and not be exported to other countries including China.

    So your question of

    do we have an interest in who ultimately gets this oil?

    is not really pertinent to whether or not we build the XL Pipeline since TransCanada has not and will not commit to selling the products from the pipeline to the U.S. Just to make that point perfectly clear, our interests are not relevant since we cannot control where the product goes once it has been refined.

    Let me make it even clearer in case someone missed the point entirely. We may very well be risking our environment, including a risk to our water supply, to facilitate exports to China and Venezuela

    Parent

    It's Not Like Alaskian Oil... (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 04:53:39 PM EST
    ...ends up in the US or that we are going to use less, it's just shifting the route.  But we will have access to the same amount regardless if the pipeline is built or not, same for everyone else.  The pipeline is about one thing, transportation costs, not access.  

    I live in a place with zillions of pipelines needed to refine oil that everyone else needs, seems to reason that one pipeline isn't the end all that everyone is making it out to be.

    Here is a map of pipelines in North America, one more, one less, not going to really make a difference.  

    Someone is going to bear the environmental burden of getting the oil from ground to pump, it's just a matter of who that will land on.  Because as mentioned, it's not gonna stay in the ground, and it ain't going drive itself to the refinery.

    Parent

    You are (none / 0) (#58)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 05:34:50 PM EST
    probably right - that the oil won't stay in the ground - but it doesn't have to be that way.

    A beginning step in the right direction is to scrap this disaster waiting to happen.

    Then let's discuss each step as it is proposed.

    We have to put a stop to this destruction of life on Earth - and this is an excellent place to begin.

    Parent

    Maybe it will and maybe it won't (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:22:19 PM EST
    From your link:

    Both projects face strong opposition from environmentalists and from tribes whose lands the pipelines would cross. Although the proposed pipelines are much shorter than the ones heading east, "they are both pretty problematic due to the political situation," says Eric Lee, an oil analyst at Citigroup (C)

    Surprise, surprise, there are Canadians who strongly oppose having that toxic material run through their area with the chance of it ruining their environment.


    Parent

    Good chance (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 07:14:55 AM EST
    that the oil transported by the Keystone Pipeline will be exported outside of the U.S.

    Canadian companies backing the Keystone XL - touted as enhancing US energy security with a big new surge of imported Canadian oil - actually expect it to supply more lucrative Gulf Coast export markets as well as raise Midwest oil prices by reducing "oversupply" in that region.
    ...
    So, would TransCanada support US legislation requiring Canadian oil and products refined from it, such as diesel, to be sold only in the United States, asked Rep. Ed Markey (D) of Massachusetts, "so that this country realizes all of the energy security benefits your company and others have promised?"

    "No, I can't do that," Mr. Pourbaix said.
    ...
    Most analysts agree that more Canadian oil flowing south would help reduce imports from other regions. Less obvious, however, is the fact that the Keystone XL pipeline is not actually needed to bring all that new Canadian oil to the US - a flow now projected to rise to 1.7 million barrels per day by 2030, according to the same DOE study. Often characterized by proponents as validating the need for the pipeline, that study actually found that Canadian oil import growth will go on at "almost identical" levels through 2030 using existing and new pipeline capacity as well as rail shipments - whether or not Keystone XL is built. link



    Parent
    Who ultimately gets the oil... (none / 0) (#132)
    by unitron on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 02:15:18 AM EST
    ...will be determined by where the oil companies can net the most profit.

    In addition to US refineries, there will be a segment to a warm water port on the Gulf of Mexico from which it can go east across the Atlantic or through the Panama Canal and west across the Pacific.

    Parent

    Sort of... (none / 0) (#195)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    ...the price of crude is determined by the market.  Most likely the oil will be purchased by an energy trader and shipping costs will either paid by them or the recipient, the refineries.  This would also include the price of using the pipeline.

    The crude coming from ND and Canada is light, and the refineries in the Gulf are setup for dark crude from the Middle East and South America.  So the obvious choice would be to export the light and keep importing the dark, the problem is that there are laws in the US regarding tankers leaving from the US with crude.  They have to be build here to leave here with crude.  The cost of a US build tanker is something like 10 times the cost of a Chinese build tanker.  I believe the laws were enacted to dissuade exports at a time when we imported most of our oil.

    No real point other than beyond the pipeline, there is going to have to be some legislative changes or refinery conversions to deal with the oil.  Pumping it to a place that can't refine or export, cost effectively, isn't the solution.

    Parent

    Now why would Harry Reid want to bring up (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:39:07 PM EST
    a vote on an issue that is favorable to the oil industry?? I mean, it's not like there's an election in an old producing state...

    Oh. Wait.

    Can you spell Louisiana?????

    lol

    Parent

    COWARDS! (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 12:16:30 PM EST
    We have the best government that can be bought

    Parent
    And this is exactly how and why they (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 12:17:37 PM EST
    Lost control of the Senate

    Parent
    It's ironic (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 11:04:53 AM EST
    how even far right Republicans think that everybody is supposed to go along with what they want not ever realizing how wacko their ideas are. The only good news is the GOP is going to run out of anything "bipartisan" to pass pretty quickly.  

    Parent
    One prospective & positive thought (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 03:01:33 PM EST
    ... a thought, btw, that looks to have a solid foundation.  A thought about potential legacy: (1) Obamacare/ACA and the resultant multi-millions of people well-insured in the USA, at long last (2) Major environmental break-through ... See the first agreement to cap greenhouse gas emissions (albeit 2030) by China & the U.S.(lowering @26 to 28% by 2025, an agreement said by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to heighten the chance for international agreement to address this major worldwide eco challenge and see the EPA's earlier issuance of regulations of greenhouse emissions under this administration (and the Keystone Pipeline context awaits)  AND (3) Executive Order action on Immigration ... an anticipated action that undoubtedly (& for very practical reasons) will dissolve the years-long quagmire, an action that could be expected to have very significant impact on a demographic that a new report from the Kellogg Foundation estimates will comprise one-third of the national population by 2060 (and, in CO, by 2040.) As for (3), a Presidential action that addresses this dilemma has the large potential for effecting the sociological make-up of voters and American governance for generations to come, in a manner similar to the Kennedy intervention assistance on MLK's behalf when he was imprisoned for protesting.

    My point, KeysDan: Even those three accomplishments standing alone are incredibly consequential.  

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by sj on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 04:22:57 PM EST
    those are Main Street issues that will address the effects of falling wages, student loan affordability, the off-shoring of middle jobs, etc.

    Or not.

    A thought about potential legacy: ...

    I don't want to diminish the importance of those issues. At all. But those are bullet points to make Obama's "legacy" look better than it really is. And frankly Obama's "legacy" is of zero interest to either me or, I suspect, much of the voting population. Let me tell you outright: a quick polling of people around me at the moment didn't muster any particular enthusiasm about those any of those. The attitude was, frankly, those are baby first steps at addressing those issues. Not even close to what is really required.

    I haven't asked family (yet) but I don't think they're going to muster even that much enthusiasm. Most of them aren't very political at all. They aren't looking for good spin.

    Relief in the areas that affect us? Jobs? Failing infrastructure? Unemployment compensation extension? Different story.

    ---
    A quick note since you don't seem to mind these things. It would be much easier to read for content if each of your numbered items was its own paragraph instead of one big run-on paragraph.

    Presentation in reading material, as in food, makes the content much more appetizing.

    Parent

    Short term and long term (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:30:20 PM EST
    Your comments about peoples' day-to-day concerns are the most important in the sense that philosophy, what-do-we-do-for-future-generations, or "legacy" mean little to nothing if we cannot take care of the here and now.  Yes, your comments must be addressed by all those managing the government ... whether President or Congress.  It really is a Maslow scale analysis.

    But, sj, my comment is equally relevant in terms of historical contributions.  

    Both long term & short term have relevance in their time.  Looking at the near term:  I know that Obamacare/ACA fits both areas of focus ... individuals & families who could not be insured before are now (and that is fact) AND the macro-level of all the individuals amounts to a huge societal change from where we had been entering this decade.  

    As for issues where immediacy of attention is long past due: The matter of keeping pace with wages and with familys' hopes & dreams for their children should be at the top of the list, imo.  Now, that the economy is coming back--almost roaring back--statistically, it is becoming (as it should be) the most pressing issue.  While that might not have been possible to resolve in the depths of the recession, it clearly is now.  Robert Reich has recently suggested some types of steps for the government to take that would help ... at the top of the list, as I recall, was raising the minimum wage.

    Parent

    Okay, I can accept that (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by sj on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 08:02:19 PM EST
    But, sj, my comment is equally relevant in terms of historical contributions.
    Although if you are going to do that, it is only right to that "legacy" include the historical contributions of a too small stimulus package, bailing out Wall Street instead of Main Street, wage stagnation, effective indentured servitude for student loans and the like.

    Parent
    The stimulus package that was (none / 0) (#85)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 08:43:54 PM EST
    My gut reaction also was that it was too small.  But, it really did appear that the votes for what was needed to stimulate were not there ... in that sense, I'm the compromiser who will take half-a-loaf (and reconfigure the next round.)

    Parent
    ::shrug:: (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by sj on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:03:03 PM EST
    In the history books it isn't going to have a little asterisk that says there might have been a larger stimulus if they had asked for more but they thought the votes weren't there.

    That "legacy" is the end result. Not the posturing and conjecture around its creation.

    in that sense, I'm the compromiser who will take half-a-loaf (and reconfigure the next round.)

    And, come to that, when exactly do you think the Obama administration will actually have that next round? Were you really expecting one? Are you still?

    You'll probably be unsurprised to know that my answers to those questions are:
       Never
       Nope
       as if

    What are yours? I'm genuinely curious.


    Parent

    As it turns out (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:21:25 PM EST
    it does seem that almost every indicator used by economists shows the economy moving solidly ahead now.  It was a long time; but, it appears to be much longer still for Europe ... and, relatedly, the still fairly recent recession felt by Japan more than a decade ago is described as taking more than 10 years to subside with a reviving economy.

    But, as you have pointed out: There is the reality of daily living.  Statistics may be only the window-dressing that we trot out to show improvements.  And, as the President has emphasized, our economy is clearly improving, markedly, but (and, as we all note, that "but" is a big caveat) it is not being felt across the board by all Americans.

    What to say about the throes of the deep recession? My feelings about how it was handled are "mixed." There is what my inner-populist and idealist wanted; and, there is what appeared to be possible.  Honestly, I could not stand Timothy Geithner from the get go ... but, at the same time, I believe an inside-insider may have been the key (despite his unpopularity) to smoothing the way out while minimizing institutional aftershocks.  If it weren't a whole, complex governmental structure, I would have opted for "throwing the whole thing out, making a clean break, and starting all over" & all that ... but, that wasn't what we were dealing with here.  We might have felt good, hoisted a few, and congratulated ourselves for showing the bums whats what ... but then what?  No ... my genuine response quickly became a slow-but-steady recuperation, economically.  Soooo ... given what was handed to Obama in 2009, I consider that the economic path taken and the results in this relatively short timeframe have been better than economically expected.

    'Sorry for another long answer.  But, this is where I came down apart from my obvious political persuasion.

    Parent

    My concern is this (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:55:24 PM EST
    Economy is built on two things.  Cheep money and our reputation that no matter how bad it looks it's not as bad as everywhere else.

    This policy has allowed the well connected to make money on cheep interest rates but since the fundamentals aren't much better then they were before the recession they can't transfer it to the rest of us.

    So you get anemic growth, more jobs that aren't as good traditionally and an overall sense that if this is as good as it ever gets we in the bottom 95% aren't to happy about it.

    Americans are pretty smart after all.  We know when the Economy is really getting better.  You feel it and hear about it in places that aren't talking heads spitting out numbers on Cable TV.   Yeah the stock market went up.   Too bad I'm not in it.  Yeah more people got hired.  Too bad I'd be crazy to try and leave the low end job I got.   Yeah my daughter graduated from college, can't wait to move her into her old room so she can start that waitressing job and start working down that student loan.

    When that is the world that most Americans are living in its no wonder they don't give Obama and in a bigger sense government credit for good "numbers"

    Parent

    Your (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:09:46 AM EST
    post shows the exact reason trickle down does not work. Obama and Bush both decided that saving the "Masters of the Universe" would solve all our problems ignoring the fact that nothing is going to "trickle down" to the masses. The so called Masters of the Universe need a carrot and a stick to do something with the money that they do have. Just letting them be shows that they are not going to do anything other than hoard more money and keep it out of the economy. The trickle down people don't even understand basic economics it would seem. But trickle down is nothing new. It's just repackaged plantation economics from the old south where if you take care of the plantation owner everything will work out just fine.

    Parent
    That wasn't an answer, you know (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:48:23 PM EST
    I asked specific questions. I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't care about your mixed feelings or genuine responses or your obvious political persuasion. And at this moment I care even less about what indicators economists use.

    I was only curious about specific answers to three specific questions -- two of which only needed a single word reply.

    To be fair, I think you wander so far rhetorically because you can't even let yourself think about such specific questions. Let alone the answers.

    But never mind, I guess.

    Parent

    Your questions were rather rhetorical, it seems (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:59:36 PM EST
    They were general assumptions cast as questions.  My answer was my answer.  You wanted my response; my response addressed the matter.  I did not believe that the "questions" called for "yes" or "no" or "true" or "false" or slogan, quick responses ... because the economy of the US and all its segments has more complexity than that.

    I did not realize we were supposed to be playing "gotcha."  Thank you for the reminder:)

    Parent

    rhetorical? (none / 0) (#118)
    by sj on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:07:05 PM EST
    You thought my questions were rhetorical? I gave you my answers and said specifically I was genuinely interested in yours. I wasn't playing gotcha at all. Here is exactly what I said:
    And, come to that, when exactly do you think the Obama administration will actually have that next round? Were you really expecting one? Are you still?
    You'll probably be unsurprised to know that my answers to those questions are:
        Never
        Nope
        as if

    What are yours? I'm genuinely curious.

    Those questions are in NO WAY rhetorical. Any "matter" your "response" addressed is entirely of your own making and has nothing to do with my comment.

    I apologize. I really do. I didn't mean to limn the way your meanderings go sideways. I should have just ignored your first comment as I usually do.

    ::sigh:: I'll probably forget the futility in another six months and take you seriously again.

    Parent

    As for your last paragraph (none / 0) (#185)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 10:38:07 AM EST
    Likewise, I'll probably take the bait again <with regard to responding to your questions> in future.  Ah well ... when two people see things so differently, when their Opinions are so far apart, we can acknowledge those differences, and try another discussion at another time.

    Parent
    And we haven't even talked about (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:32:59 PM EST
    the massive invasions of privacy, the prosecutions of the press, the war on whistleblowers (please read the Matt Taibbi article on the JP Morgan Chase whistleblower and the criminal negligence of Eric Holder's DOJ).

    Now, there's a legacy, huh?

    Parent

    Anne (2.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:51:14 PM EST
    thanks for the link. It really helps anyone understand what happened.

    Parent
    I thought the issue at hand was the economy (none / 0) (#99)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:43:20 PM EST
    But, the subject of privacy--or what is left of it and in all its manifestations--is a subject that deserves treatment in scholarly books, treatises, extended public debate, and another focused special look here at TL.  If I might add as to any separate/special consideration here at TL: It would be useful, especially, to focus on legislative agenda in this regard ... what kind of steps, legislative fixes are in order now that we are where we are (or appear to be.)

    Parent
    You were the one sharing your (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:01:54 PM EST
    thoughts on legacy, christine.

    There have been some good things; I don't want to pretend there haven't been.  But when you talk "legacy," you can't just cherry-pick your way past all the not-so-good and downright-shameful stuff.

    And honestly?  The damage that's been done to the foundations of this democracy cannot even now be fully comprehended, and christine: Obama owns a whole lot of that.

    Parent

    We all own it, Anne. (none / 0) (#115)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:04:12 PM EST
    You can own it if it makes you feel better, (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:22:15 PM EST
    but I rather suspect that your desire to rope all of us into taking responsibility for that particular sh!tshow is really more about sheltering Obama from the criticism he deserves.

    Please don't bother to explain; I already have a headache, and really am not up for wending my way through another of your incomprehensible word salads.

    Parent

    Participatory democracy (none / 0) (#186)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 10:41:40 AM EST
    We all get the credit; we all share the negative fall-out when things go wrong.  Voting has consequences ... a pragmatic refrain if ever there was.

    Parent
    Nope, no way (4.00 / 3) (#119)
    by sj on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:09:17 PM EST
    Replying To:

    We all own it, Anne. (none / 0) (#115)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:04:12 PM MDT

    I don't own it even a little bit. I'm stuck with it, but that doesn't give me ownership.

    Parent
    I know what all those words mean (none / 0) (#105)
    by sj on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:53:06 PM EST
    but when you put them together? Not so much. What my civil liberties and personal privacy has to do with scholarly books and treatises is beyond me.

    It is not a complex issue. Much as the mealy-mouthed, dishonest keepers and acquirers of the information would like to pretend otherwise.


    Parent

    Not complex??? (none / 0) (#114)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:03:40 PM EST
    What do you think about private involvement in your affairs on the internet or off? When is "surveillance" good and when is it bad?

    Think again about the lines we draw.

    Parent

    Surveillance is good when it's OVERTLY legal (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by sj on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:15:31 PM EST
    and the circumstances are transparent and where there are enforceable and public checks and balances and when the target is specific and -- most of all -- where there is real true probable cause. All other surveillance is bad. Private involvement between myself and another party on the internet is NOT "surveillance". It's a transaction. One that the government has no business surveilling.

    It's only "complex" when someone wants to excuse what is really happening. I know exactly which lines I am drawing.

    Parent

    Pretty words, sj (none / 0) (#158)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:12:19 AM EST
    Nice, pretty, and SUBJECTIVE words. While I agree with the statement, your earlier comments cry out for objectivity.  Just one example: "Transparent."
    Now, "transparency" is surely one non-transparent word that fits any speaker or proponent of something. One person's "transparent" is often another's "opaque."  

    Nonetheless, your opinion on when "surveillance" could be good or useful is well-stated.  Opinions are important in matters of importance; then, the populace (or the populace through its elected representatives)can weigh the various Opinions and come to a recognized overall Opinion via explicit consensus/vote.

    Parent

    You are absolutely right (none / 0) (#109)
    by sj on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:57:31 PM EST
    I tried to keep focus small. I wasn't successful at keeping it on target, however.

    By the way, I went to see CitizenFour. I already knew a great deal of the story and even still...

    If you view it be sure to watch it from the very beginning. You will get a sense of how intensely aware and cautious those first contacts were.

    Parent

    Job creation (none / 0) (#111)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:00:01 PM EST
    Christinep, With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the entry of China to the WTO, the massive expansion of computerization and the growth of the internet and automation, the structure of the American economy has been indergoing a massive transformation since the second half of the 1990s. The only jobs that may be difficult to offshore these days are defense and healthcare jobs. The President did his best to create jobs in these sectors (through creation of ACA and expansion of cybersecurity jobs). He also tried his best to get the Congress to pass infrastructure spending bills (road, bridges, telecom infrastructure etc). Republicans obstructed every spending initiative that were brought up and many people in the left just freaked out at the mere mention of putting dollars for defense (even if jobs could be created in the process).

    The President rescued the economy from the depths it had plunged during the tenure of his predecessor. However, owing to structural changes in the economy caused by automation and easy availability of offshoring, it has become difficult for people without specialized skills to find well paying jobs (even though continuous job growth has occurred under his watch). The structural shifts in the economy commenced long before BHO became the President, it is a little off the base to keep blaming him for every economic ill that people face in this country.
     

    Parent

    The economy is tied to (2.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 07:51:30 AM EST
    consumer spending. Consumer spending, especially on the lower end, is tied to the cost of energy

    Obama doesn't want cheap energy it conflicts with his so-called green agenda.

    Parent

    Which is why he's against solar power (none / 0) (#145)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 07:59:27 AM EST
    Because it's cheap.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 08:10:03 AM EST
    Yeah, saying that he wished thev (none / 0) (#149)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 08:17:06 AM EST
    price of gas hadn't gone up so quickly means he's against cheap energy.

    You're right, I did LOL, but at your cluelessness, which, unlike gas prices these days, will never diminish.

    Keep flogging that dead horse, James, the laws of chance dictate that you'll be right someday, even once.  😉

    Parent

    You can deny what he (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:19:57 AM EST
    said but you can't change it.

    And to show that he meant it, what did he do as soon as he was sworn in??

    Facing gas prices near $4 a gallon and a pivotal national election, congressional Democrats allowed a ban on offshore drilling to lapse in September

    But times change, and on Tuesday, the Obama administration - with gas prices roughly half what they were and many Democrats' having been swept into office blocked offshore drilling plans put in place at the last minute by the Bush administration, including plans to open the national outer continental shelf for drilling.

    Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar also announced last week that his agency would block drilling on public lands in Utah, criticizing the Bush administration for releasing its offshore drilling plan just days before leaving office.

     Link

    And gas that had tumbled to $1.81 after Bush's actions started climbing.

    Parent

    I don"t see how wanting the prices to rise (none / 0) (#165)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:23:50 AM EST
    Slower rather at the rate they did rise at is a bad thing.

    Your article is 5 years old.

     Btw, how does that relate to the fact that gas prices have been falling for a while now?

    Parent

    And there's this (none / 0) (#172)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:42:24 AM EST
    Link

    To be clear, the domestic hydrocarbon boom has been driven by the private sector and not the government. Still, it has transpired under the eye of an executive who is not nearly so anti-drilling as his opponents have made him out to be. In a presidential debate a year ago, Mitt Romney sought to paint Obama as an enemy of all fossil fuels. "This has not been Mr. Oil or Mr. Gas or Mr. Coal," he chided. In fact, while drilling on federal lands has been stagnant or declined, the oil and gas industries have fared remarkably well under Obama on the whole. He certainly isn't Mr. Coal, but based solely on the numbers, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch at this point to call him Mr. Oil or Mr. Gas.

    Perhaps that will change now that his top adviser on energy and climate change is stepping down, but it seems unlikely. As he is on most issues, Obama is a pragmatist on energy and the environment, preferring to chip away at carbon emissions without sending energy costs soaring. Environmentalists may well lament that a Democratic president has overseen such a boom in hydrocarbon production, but they can take solace in his long-awaited war on coal. Republicans may condemn the war on coal, but they can take solace in the oil and gas boom. A good compromise leaves partisans on both sides mad.

    And let's face it: No matter which side you're on, if someone had told you when Obama took office that the United States would substantially ramp up its oil and gas production while substantially reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, you probably would have scoffed. But here we are, poised to produce more oil than Saudi Arabia while cutting carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020. Not bad, eh? Not bad.



    Parent
    Excellent point, politalkix (none / 0) (#166)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:24:20 AM EST
    Sometimes people--for a host of reasons--want to squeeze responses, reactions, assessments into a multiple-choice response.  OTOH, sloganeering or "dumbing down" elicits a jeer ... only to be followed by our replicating the push for a simplistic yes-or-no type answer.  

    Sometimes, I also think, the push for this-or-that-yes-or-no-right-now is a thinly veiled attempt to decry an individual who disagree. Thank you for discussing the complexities inherent in the world's and America's modern economic issues; thank you, politalkix, for resisting the "if we had just done X, all our economic problems would be resolved."  

    Parent

    Dr. Baden, the medical examiner (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    who performed a "very preliminary autopsy" on Michael Brown at the behest of Brown's family, has been called before the GJ, according to the family attorney.

    "very preliminary autopsy" meaning "I looked at the body at the funeral home."

    ...and, our suspicion that Brown's body (3.50 / 2) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    had been cleaned before Baden saw it at the funeral home seem to be confirmed:
    Brown's body had been washed after the first autopsy, a standard procedure


    Parent
    RIP: Carol Ann Susi (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 12:22:50 PM EST
    also known as "Mrs. Wolowitz" on the Big Bang Theory.

    Weird... (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 12:32:45 PM EST
    ...as I always thought the voice was Howard's wife, Bernadette.  I looked up Carol and I recognize her from all kinds of things.

    62 is too young.

    Parent

    I watched (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 12:43:44 PM EST
    a program on Hulu last year (I think) and it was from PaleyFest at the Paley Center.  They had the whole case (minus Carol Ann Susi) and when Melissa Rauch (Bernadette) was asked about the voice she did that sounded like Mrs. Wolowitz, she said she channeled her New Jersey-born mother.  But it was amazing how much she sounded like her.

    "Ho-Wahd!"

    Parent

    I Wonder if She Will Do It... (none / 0) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 01:07:28 PM EST
    ...going forward.  IMO they aren't going to find a closer match, the way he talks about and to his mother is one of the funniest bits in the show.

    Parent
    Especially this season (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 01:16:00 PM EST
    {SPOILER ALERT}

    Since former comic-book store owner Stuart is now living with "Debbi" and is her BFF.

    Parent

    Holly Molly... (5.00 / 10) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    ...we, Earthlings(Europeans), managed to put a lander on a comet 317 million miles from Earth.

    It was released from the spacecraft Rosetta this morning and took seven hours to touch down safely.  The signal takes 28 minutes to travel from Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko to Earth.

    The event served as the climax of a $1.3 billion mission that was launched more than 10 years ago and involved a 4-billion-mile (6-billion-kilometer) journey to the comet.

    The car-sized Rosetta spacecraft reached its rendezvous point in August. Since then, the mission team has been mapping the planned trajectory for the 220-pound (100-kilogram) Philae lander, which is about the size of a washing machine. LINK

    It's insane that we can land anything on something a couple miles long that is nearly a third of a billion miles from Earth.  

    HERE is an awesome graphic depicting how gravity of the planets is used to propel spacecraft and eventually into the same orbit as the comet.  And why it takes 4 billion miles and 10 years to reach a comet 300 million miles away.

    Finally, something deserving the word. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:02:21 PM EST
    Awesome.

    The crazy thing was that the craft caromed through gravitational fields to get to a place almost without gravity.

    Parent

    The stupidity of the American voter, or whatever (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 03:40:32 PM EST
    Jonathan Cooper - Architect of the ACA

    Yet another confirmation that the administration and specifically this president lied to pass this bill.  

    What a great president we have.

    The Stupidity Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 04:45:25 PM EST
    ain't just Gruber. You guys seem to be relying on it as well it seems. Attempting to convince folks that somehow, something that benefits a great many fellow citizens is a bad thing. In spite of individual experiences to the contrary.

    Parent
    Well it's another step (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 05:10:31 PM EST
    back from the law of the jungle, every-man-for-himself libertarian Utopia folks like Slado and the Koch brothers yearn for: when privatized police and security forces will round up the disgruntled rabble and stick them in privatized prisons, where, if they can pay for it, they may or may not receive any needed medical attention.  

    Parent
    The Best Anti - ACA... (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 05:19:09 PM EST
    ..argument is that it sucks, and yet no republican wants to mention why compromise after compromise had to be made, or why we don't have Single Payer, cough, cough, republicans.

    Speaking of lying, I guess death panels and all the other garbage was nothing but the gods honest truth, speaking of Ted Cruz.

    You peddle a lot of garbage here, but truth about the ACA is not something any republican should have the audacity to claim others were less than honest about ACA.

    Republicans ensured we could never get what the American people wanted, single payer, and now all they can do it b*tch about a bill that they directly had a part in watering it down.  There is no way in he11 you don't remember that, or your party making outrageous lies to scare the hell out of people.

    Take some GD responsibility for the republicans part in the legislation, and the never ending anti-ACA drum beating.

    What exactly is wrong with ~10 million people, including republicans, being insured that were not before, exactly.  What is your beef with ACA, exactly ?  Not what your party thinks of it, not what someone told you, what parts of the bill do you take issue with ?

    Parent

    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 05:57:17 PM EST
    R
    epublicans ensured we could never get what the American people wanted, single payer, and now all they can do it b*tch about a bill that they directly had a part in watering it down.

    But you can't leave out the part where Obama, campaigning in 2008, said, "I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer". (Emphasis his)

    With friends like that... who needs republicans?

    Parent

    Well, I didn't make the comment you are (3.50 / 2) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:01:28 PM EST
    responding to, but assuming that the 10,000,000 number is correct, can you show the evidence that confirms that their lives have been improved due to the legislation?

    Assuming that was the goal of the legislation.

    I'd imagine such an analysis would look at least at their health care expenditures before and after they got insured, and their quality of life before and after.

    Serious question.

    Parent

    My life has been improved (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:21:04 PM EST
    what would you like to know besides I couldn't afford to see a doctor and now I can?


    Parent
    You could afford to buy a house (2.00 / 7) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:29:20 PM EST
    but could not afford to see a doctor.

    I guess that settles it.

    Scott, if you have a serious answer, I'd be interested.

    Parent

    What the hell is that even (5.00 / 9) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:34:46 PM EST
    supposed to mean?
    I cashed out a 401k and bought a house.  For cash.  That pretty much took all the money.  And no I couldn't afford to see a doctor like lots of other people.

    You don't know wtf you are talking about.  I am using and liking the ACA.  sorry if that doesn't help your BS talking point.  But you wouldn't know a serious answer if it bit you on the ass.

    Parent

    I would like to explain how this works (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:59:21 PM EST
    since you apparently don't know anyone who works for minimum wage.  Or near itfor that matter.  These are the people benefiting from the ACA.  Not people with no income.   Those people are in the Medicaid program if the are lucky and live in a state that took it.   If you have an income you qualify for tax subsidies that allow you to have insurance.
    It works like this, you can make an appointment and see a doctor if you are not sick.   For about 20 bucks.  If you have no insurance it's over a hundred.  Do you see the problem?  No? Not yet?  How about hundreds more for any tests?
    Why not go to the old emergency room?  Well you can't.  Not unless you are sick or injured. Oh! I know how about a free clinic?  It's turns out you can't go to them either unless you are sick.  And even then the care is limited.

    I've done this.  All of it.  You should try it.  It would make your opinion a lot more credible.    I lived without health care for more than a year at age 62.  I was able to get some prescription help.  I take blood pressure and colesterol medication, but I could not get the test you are supposed to get every six months without a 100+ office visit and hundreds for tests.  

    There are many working poor in that situation.  That is who's life is improved by the ACA.    You should get to know some.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 07:11:56 PM EST
    in between insurances I had to take my youngest child to the family practice doctor. The cost was $150 for an office visit. People who don't have the power to negotiate their prices with the doctor just have to pay whatever they are told to pay and the 150 was just the beginning of the costs because then I had to pay for prescriptions out of pocket.

    And yes, if you don't like the ACA find something better but the GOP has nothing better. The only thing better would be single payer which they are never going to do. But if they're so hip to get rid of my son's coverage I'll be glad to send his $1200 medical bill to them and they can pay for it. My oldest son is only able to have insurance because of the ACA and if you don't think that 22 year olds have medical bills you are just fooling yourself.

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 07:25:19 PM EST
    i could have found a job for that year.  It would have required relocating to another city but I could have done it.  I made the decision to rough it.  And it was a decision.  Want to be clear that.  I'm not whining.  It was a choice.  I knew more or less what I was getting into.  But I am so glad I did.  

    I understand the stakes now it ways I never did before and in way you can not know without that experience.  And I survived with no illness or injury.  Could have been otherwise.

    Parent

    Save the drama for your momma. (1.20 / 5) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 08:22:13 PM EST
    You made the conversation personal to you. And now are making up strawmen to, what, rationalize your outrage I guess.

    Parent
    I answered you idiotic question (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 08:29:47 PM EST
    sorry it's not the one you were looking for

    Parent
    My question was about looking at the goals (2.00 / 1) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:24:24 PM EST
    of the legislation and finding out, on a non-anecdotal, nation-wide, 10,000,000 person level as framed by Scott, whether those goals were accomplished.

    Despite your apparent fervor for a indignant snit, I think an objective analysis is a reasonable request.

    It is a serious question. And one that I recognize may well have no conclusive answer as of yet as it may too soon...

    Parent

    If that's what you are interested in (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:31:23 PM EST
    there is the CBO report

    More than 12 million people will gain health insurance under the Affordable Care Act this year, according to new projections released by the Congressional Budget Office Monday. And millions more stand to benefit from the law over the next decade.

    At the same time, the law's costs to the federal government are shrinking. According to the new projections, the federal government will spend more than $100 billion less on Obamacare's coverage provisions through 2024 than previously projected. That includes a downward estimate of about $5 billion this year. Overall, spending on the federal and state insurance exchanges are projected to cost 14% less than originally forecast.

    The CBO said plans offered through the exchanges are narrower, allowing companies to keep premiums low and the federal government to pay less in subsidies. The lower spending projections on the Affordable Care Act will help shrink deficits overall. The CBO said the federal government will now run a deficit of $492 billion in fiscal year 2014, which is almost a 33% decrease from 2013.

    Through both the federal and state insurance exchanges and the expansion of the federal Medicaid program under the law, the CBO projects more than 12 million people now have insurance who wouldn't have normally been covered in the absence of the law. The CBO also projects 19 million people will gain coverage by 2015, 25 million more by 2016, and 26 million more by 2026.

    In 2014, according to the CBO, about 6 million people gained insurance from the exchanges and close to 7 million people benefitted from the Medicaid expansion. Those gains reduced the number of uninsured in the U.S. to 42 million --16% of the population. By 2024, the CBO projects, about 89% of U.S. residents will have health insurance.



    Parent
    nor what is important.

    Parent
    You asked (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:12:31 PM EST
    to, but assuming that the 10,000,000 number is correct, can you show the evidence that confirms that their lives have been improved due to the legislation?

    How exactly would you determine that to your satisfaction?
    The report says it's doing what it said it would do.  Better than expected.  I explained to you how my life, and many others, have "improved".  
    What exactly do you want to know?

    Parent

    Well, I didn't make the comment you are (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 03:01:28 PM PST
    responding to, but assuming that the 10,000,000 number is correct, can you show the evidence that confirms that their lives have been improved due to the legislation?

    Assuming that was the goal of the legislation.

    I'd imagine such an analysis would look at least at their health care expenditures before and after they got insured, and their quality of life before and after.

    That's my original comment. I'm not sure how many times I need to say it before you actually see it.

    For example, while not directly equivalent, I'm sure programs like No Child Left Behind are considered successful by some, if the stated "goal" is merely implementation.

    Sure, ACA has been implemented. But what I'm asking is are the kids learning better (are the 10,000,000 newly insured lives improved) because of it?

    Parent

    Question (1.50 / 2) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:21:51 PM EST
    At the same time, the law's costs to the federal government are shrinking. According to the new projections, the federal government will spend more than $100 billion less on Obamacare's coverage provisions through 2024 than previously projected.

    Do you agree that it is shrinking because it is covering fewer people or was it just overstated in the beginning to give a phony picture?

    Parent

    Or, maybe Obamacare (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 08:03:20 AM EST
    Is working to lower healthcare costs, as is implicit in the title of the bill Affordable Care.

    Or is that too straight-forward and honest for you?

    Parent

    So you believe that (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 08:14:07 AM EST
    just by naming something affordable it becomes affordable.

    Parent
    Nope, I believe in the facts (none / 0) (#152)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 08:35:41 AM EST
    On the ground, instead of openly declaiming my ignorance
    For all and sundry to see:

    But the law also provides tax credits, which offset part or all of the increase for most people, and it actually reduces the price of coverage for people who once higher rates because they were relatively old or in poor health. As a result, many people paid less for their insurance in 2014 than they had in 2013.

    Multiple studies have shown that, between 2013 and 2014, premiums inside the marketplaces are barely rising. There's a lot of variation, even within states, and in order to save money some consumers will have to switch plans. (Hence, the aforementioned issues with reenrollment.) But in some places the price of the benchmark silver plan is actually declining, something that Larry Levitt, senior vice president at Kaiser, has likened to "defying the law of physics." It just doesn't happen.



    Parent
    You are talking like a politician (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 08:36:40 AM EST
    Costs haven't been "lowered".  Health care costs have been rising for years and will continue to rise.  What has changed, partly because of Obamacare, is that the rate of growth has been slowing down (and much of that is due to the slowdown in the economy, i.e., people haven't been going to the doctor as often).

    Parent
    If the price of silver premiums is going down (none / 0) (#155)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 08:54:03 AM EST
    How is that not a reduction of the cost of health care?

    Parent
    Because (1.00 / 1) (#156)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:01:40 AM EST
    "Health Care Costs: does not just include premiums  - it includes what the doctors charge, what the labs charge, what hospitals charge, what the drug company charges, etc.  Also, not all premiums, silver or otherwise, are going down. Some are staying the same, while others are going up (some by a little, some by a lot).  All of that is to be considered when throwing out the terms "health care costs".

    Parent
    The point is, that health care costs are going (none / 0) (#161)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:14:28 AM EST
    down for the consumer, and, as one of the charts in the article noted, the rise is half what it was before.

    On those points you made, from the article:

    Several factors seem to be at play, including the recession. For that reason, it's likely that spending will start to accelerate a bit as the economy recovers. But most experts now think the "new normal" is lower inflation, because the health care industry is becoming more efficient--at least partly in reaction to new incentives that the Affordable Care Act introduced.

    One sign that those incentives is working is a dramatic decline in the number of hospital readmissions. The decline began just as hospitals started facing new financial penalties, enacted as part of Obamacare, for high readmission rates. Whatever the cause, it's clear that health care spending isn't accelerating rapidly, as critics predicted would happen once Obamacare became law.

    Leave the arm-waving to Jim, he's much better at it than you are.

    Parent

    While I think it's possible to take (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 10:14:18 AM EST
    an aggregate of the many cost factors and make a blanket statement that costs are doing something - going up, going down, holding their own -  the reality is that whatever the bottom line may be in the aggregate, it's going to vary from individual to individual.  Generally speaking, people care about what's coming out of their own pockets - if it's less, they're happy; if it's more, they're not.

    And that's an important distinction that has to be made, between the cost of the care itself - the provider costs, the facility costs, procedure costs, etc. - and  the dollars that are actually coming out of the insureds' pockets. It's not just premiums, but  deductibles, co-pays, costs for out-of-network coverage and prescription drugs.  A lot of employers who offer plans may have had  to increase the employees' share of these out-of-pocket costs in order to keep the actual premiums stable.

    Out-of-pocket costs can add up, but with so many more mandated coverages, it's entirely possible that for the average, reasonably healthy person, he or she is  spending less on health care now than a year ago.  

    I've certainly had  - and still have - my issues with the way we're handling such a basic need, how the ACA was designed, the back-room deals,  how long it took to be fully implemented, how many people still do not have insurance, how the emphasis is on insurance and not on care, and so on.  But there's no denying that more people do have coverage and are able to get the care they need.  In states where Medicaid has expanded, more low-income people now are able to get care who had not been able to afford to do so before.

    In the end, I think the ACA may have allowed overall costs to take a step back, but I don't' think that the model on which it is based and built will be able to maintain that.  I think the flaws in the system that brought us to this attempt to "reform" health care were baked into the ACA, and whether it's 5 years or 10, I think we're going to be right back where we started, talking about the crisis in the system and the need to fix it.

    Maybe then we can have single-payer "on the table," and we can keep  the lobbyists and industry insiders from being allowed to essentially craft any new legislation on the basis that they didn't fix the last crisis we had, but I'm not all that confident that has much of a chance of happening.
    .  


    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 10:38:04 AM EST
    With all of it.  Obviously my opinion of this is colored by by experience.  
    But I think the bottom line is flawed as it is they got it through.  Against all odds.  And it's here to stay.  A fact well known to republicans who warned if it passed it would never go away.  Once people had the benefits there would be no going back.  They were right.  I said so at the time.
    Going forward they can fix it but not kill it.

    That is IMO the most significant part of the ACA.  It marked the point of no return.   The first step.

    Parent

    Health care costs (none / 0) (#163)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:20:53 AM EST
    are going down for some consumers.

    Please save the platitudes and half-true statements for the politicians.

    Parent

    No, you do better at it as anyone (none / 0) (#170)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:31:02 AM EST
    Perusing your comments here can see.

    As for platitudes, did you even read the article I linked to?

    Again:

    Some of the best evidence I've seen comes from a survey, by the Kaiser Foundation, of people who had previously bought their own, individual insurance policies and had to switch plans because those old plans were not compliant with Obamacare regulations. Of those people, 46 percent of respondents said they ended up paying less, while just 39 percent said they were paying more and 15 percent said they were paying the same. Throw in the fact that most of these people were also getting more comprehensive benefits--and that the survey didn't even include people who, because of their low incomes, were able to qualify for Medicaid--it seems very likely that there were more winners than losers.

    Oh, and don't forget that, in Commonwealth Fund surveys, 68 percent of the people buying marketplace

    Yes, some people pay more, but many more who weren't able to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions or the cost can afford it now.

    Read the article and tell me specifically where they got it wrong, and don't use any platitudes or half-truths in doing so.


    Parent

    So you agree with me (none / 0) (#174)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:47:36 AM EST
    ...while just 39 percent said they were paying more and 15 percent said they were paying the same.

    that some people are paying less, while 54% are paying the same or more.

    And since yet again you ignore that premiums are only part of what "health care costs" are, your point doesn't make any sense.  Yes, some people have coverage now that didn't have it before (although that number gets inflated because it adds in those under 26 who were added to their parents plans, and while Obamacare covered that, it was already the law in something like 30 states prior to Obamacare being implemented, so those really can't all be counted).

    Parent

    Or you can say (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    61% were paying the same or less, and only 39% had an increase from their previous premium.  Not an optimal solution, but better 39% than 100% without the ACA, and yes, we should be doing something about the 39% as well.

    You're not very good with numbers, are you?

    Parent

    To finish (none / 0) (#175)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:49:35 AM EST
    There were so many things that could have been done differently, and they have been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere, so I will leave it to you to do your research.

    Parent
    Ah, so you will not respond to the article (3.67 / 3) (#176)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:52:56 AM EST
    Because you can't refute it.

    Good move.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:13:47 AM EST
    it really doesn't have much to do with the economy and more to do with the stranglehold the AMA has over the medical profession, the stranglehold the pharmaceutical companies have on the government and a lot of other things. All this contributes to rising prices. The insurance companies blame the doctors. The doctors blame the insurance companies. The pharmaceutical companies blame both doctors and insurance companies. Basically you have a few cartels controlling an entire section of our economy with no incentive to do anything but raise prices.

    What Obamacare has done is stop some of the cost shifting that has gone on for years. That is what is slowing the rise in costs in insurance.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#167)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:27:07 AM EST
    Even the White House itself does not agree with you.

    While recent slow growth in health care spending reflects a variety of factors, including the 2007-2009 recession and other structural changes in the health care sector, cost-saving reforms included in the Affordable Care Act have also played a role.



    Parent
    2007 -2009 (none / 0) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:58:17 AM EST
    was five to seven years ago. I'm talking about now not then.

    Parent
    Thanks for helping to keep people honest (none / 0) (#181)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 10:03:23 AM EST
    Around here.

    Parent
    It is necessary, obviously (none / 0) (#190)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 11:31:51 AM EST
     to look at a period of time rather than a"snapshot" to measure a rate of growth (or decline).

      If you actually read the report linked in the WH blog he linked,  he linked

    In 2013 health spending growth is expected to have remained slow, at 3.6 percent, as a result of the sluggish economic recovery, the effects of sequestration, and continued increases in private health insurance cost-sharing requirements. The combined effects of the Affordable Care Act's coverage expansions, faster economic growth, and population aging are expected to fuel health spending growth this year and thereafter (5.6 percent in 2014 and 6.0 percent per year for 2015-23). However, the average rate of increase through 2023 is projected to be slower than the 7.2 percent average growth experienced during 1990-2008. Because health spending is projected to grow 1.1 percentage points faster than the average economic growth during 2013-23, the health share of the gross domestic product is expected to rise from 17.2 percent in 2012 to 19.3 percent in 2023.

    Parent

    didn't mean to post until i pointed out (none / 0) (#191)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 11:38:19 AM EST
    the report states that in 2013 health spendingg growth was expected to remain slow and it was attribute largely to the stagnant economy and the sequestration. The other factor mentioned for restraining growth is that consumers are being forced to share more of the burden  (that's what "continued increases in private health insurance cost-sharing requirements" means).

      As you can see from the future projections that follow, health care spending is expected to grow at a faster rate than the economy for the next decade and rise as a % of GDP.

      That's slower, as pointed out, than in 1990-2008, but faster than "recently."  

    Parent

    A comment from you is (3.67 / 3) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:32:22 PM EST
    the equivalent of invoking Godwin's.  When you arrive the conversation is over.  At least for me.  Thank you for NOT taking my side.

    ;-)

    Parent

    I favor Occam's Razor (1.00 / 1) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 08:26:03 AM EST
    Studies show that health care costs have been rising more slowly than at any time in the last fifty years, but the American people think they are rising faster than ever. Who's right, the experts or the public? They both are, they just look at the problem from different perspectives.

    snip

    One reason people see health costs differently than experts do is that what they pay for health care has been steadily going up.  They pay less attention to the fact that they are going up more slowly than before.  For example, the average deductible five years ago in employer plans was $735 per person and by 2013 it had grown to $1,135.  Premiums have been growing at historically low rates,
    but the average family premium in an employer plan in 2008 was $12,680 and in 2013 it was $16,351.
     Over that time the share of the premium paid by workers rose from $3,360 to $4,560.

    What people pay for health care has also been going up when their wages have been flat or even falling in real dollars.  The result is that when people look at their family budgets and try to make ends meet, the pain level from paying their health care bills does not necessarily feel smaller to them and may feel larger.

    Link

    Perhaps you have heard the expression, "I'm so broke I couldn't but a hubcap if the car cost a nickle."

    So the "lower increases" is just an excuse. And the trend started in 2008. Long before Obamacare.

    On a personal note our Medigap, which we went to when our supplemental went to near $500/month in 2009 has went up 100%.

    Parent

    Stop complaining about Medigap (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 08:32:04 AM EST
    The people who you vote for want to increase your premiums. It's one of the first orders of business Mitch put in the senate agenda.

    Parent
    And, has been pointed out to Jim before (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 08:51:24 AM EST
    Medigap policies are regulated by the states they are offered in, not by the ACA.  

    If you have a problem with yours, Jim, you should contact the state agency in TN to find out what is going on there, instead of mindlessly blaming Obama because you can't use your tech expertise to do a few minutes of research on the subject.

    Parent

    heh (1.00 / 1) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:27:49 AM EST
    Obama also proposed raising money through a
    surcharge on Medigap plans in his fiscal 2013 budget plan and in an earlier deficit proposal, but the idea failed to win support. Among opponents were the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which in 2011 expressed criticism of a similar Obama proposal, saying it could harm low-income seniors.

    But in the budget that Obama released last week, he said the surcharge makes sense. "Some Medigap plans cover all or almost all copayments, including even modest copayments for routine care that most beneficiaries can afford," the Department of Health and Human Services said in the budget outline. "This practice gives beneficiaries less incentive to consider the cost of services, leading to higher Medicare costs and Part B premiums."

    He'll get there.

    BTW - All insurance premiums are state regulated.

    It was the evil Sean Hannity who wanted a national market...

    Parent

    Your link is from last year, so (none / 0) (#173)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:44:48 AM EST
    I doubt that it went through, unless you have something more up-to-date on this subject.

    Parent
    suo: Survival of the Fittest (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 10:51:38 AM EST
    Or at least a variation of that POV.  Your "choose between a place to live OR the security of available healthcare" is a tell-tale sign of the typical political positions on the right as well as a possible tip-off that the plight of those either temporarily or permanently in the lower economic quadrants is not comprehended by the speaker.

     "Your money or your life" as spoken by the thief on the street ... that is an easier choice to be sure. For me, I expect a more compassionate view from society than that of the thief's choice.  

    Parent

    Btw (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:25:09 PM EST
    i know quite a few people who's lives have been improved.   I just helped a very republican friend understand the sign up process.  A real family of Obama haters who have watched their friends enjoy health care for a year and decided they want some of that.

    Parent
    Well Although I Think It's Obvious... (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 11:46:27 AM EST
    ...I never wrote:
    but assuming that the 10,000,000 number is correct, can you show the evidence that confirms that their lives have been improved due to the legislation?

    I did write:

    What exactly is wrong with ~10 million people, including republicans, being insured that were not before, exactly.

    That was the most conservative number I could find, the highest estimate, I believe was 16M.

    I don't even know how to respond to someone wanting proof that heath insurance improves lives.  First I would ask you, has it improved your life, your kids, your wife, your parents ?

    But beyond not making the claim, it's subjective, but I think if you feel like Googling how many people are offered insurance and don't take it, it would be an indication of need, and generally when someone gets what they need/want, it improves their life.  Not always, but with health insurance the only reason someone would not get it, would be price.

    While I can only speak for me, health insurance, has most certainly improved my life.  Maybe not ever year, but I can not imagine living life not being able to afford to fix my body when in pain or when broken.  But beyond that, it has afforded me the opinion of a medical professional regarding test and how improve my life for the future.  The last bit, obviously I could afford w/o insurance, my yearly examine is probably cheaper than my premiums.  But I can tell you this, when I had a kidney stone, which I didn't know at the time, it was the worse pain I ever had.  I cannot imagine having to run some mental cost benefit analysis when I couldn't even stand up. Especially if that analysis would have kept me on the couch and maybe sitting on an appendix ready to rupture.

    But no, I don't have a poll or stats to back a subjective claim I never made, that to me is obvious, health insurance improves lives.  But since you brought it up, why don't you prove it hasn't.

    Parent

    Again, I think it is reasonable (none / 0) (#197)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 02:36:26 PM EST
    for this or any legislation to analyze whether or not it has been successful in achieving its goals.

    Some sort of reasonable, non-anecdotal analysis of the 10-16M.

    What is interesting to me is that you and others seem to think that asking the question means that the asker is looking for reasons to attack the legislation. And, likely, that you and others are concerned that such reasons will be found.

    Again, I recognize that it may be too soon to properly analyze this one.

    Parent

    Have you identified the goals of the ACA? (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 02:57:18 PM EST
    Or are there multiple goals?

    One of my problems with the ACA was always that the goal seemed to be for everyone to have insurance - which isn't the same goal as everyone having access to affordable care.

    I would have to say that, given that not everyone is insured, and there is still a problem of access to affordable care, those goals have not been met.

    Should we be adding some kind of time frame - is there a time frame?  

    Will everyone eventually have coverage and access to care they can afford?  I don't know, but I'm inclined to think not.  There's that ninth circle of hell where one can have coverage, but not be able to afford the co-pays, deductibles and other add-ons and surprises.

    If you're asking whether the legislation as written is the vehicle by which these assorted goals are best attained, I'd probably say "no," because I still believe that, coverage for a set of mandated services notwithstanding, the ACA is built on the same dysfunctional foundation that was breaking down in the first place.  

    In any event, I think it's way too early to be able to answer many of these questions - and we haven't even considered the likelihood of some serious fiddling and futzing with it by assorted "lawmakers" and a possible Supreme Court sh!tshow that could undo a lot of it.

    Meanwhile, people want what they've always wanted: to be able to go to the doctor, obtain necessary medication, undergo whatever curative or palliative procedures are needed, without going into debt or having to sell one of their children.  They don't want to wake up from a coma in the hospital that isn't in their network and all of a sudden have a $50,000 bill to pay because they weren't able to tell the EMTs to take them to the other hospital that is in the network.

    Parent

    Yes, that is what I'm talking about. (none / 0) (#200)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 03:05:43 PM EST
    It's the Vehicle to Get People.. (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 04:06:42 PM EST
    ...health insurance that didn't have it and reduce costs for all.

    I answered snarky, because to me it's disingenuous to ask if insurance improves lives.  This bill is providing people with insurance, it's not a new concept, not rare for people to be insured, people who have the chance to get it at their employers discounted price, generally take it, and I would imagine you, yourself, have it, including your family.

    So it's not about the insurance, that is something people positively like, and there isn't much question that it improves people's lives, most likely extending them, so it's about a bill that provides, in excess of 10M people, that product.

    I don't see how that is confusing.  Same companies, more or less same coverage, with many added benefits like no more per-existing condition rates.  It's provides people access to a product they like, want, and need, that didn't have access before.  

    It's insurance, if it were car insurance, I could positively say that it has in no way improved my life as I have never had an accident or filed a claim.  But that could change tomorrow, which is the entire point of insurance, managing unknown risk.  It's why I continue to pay premiums.

    Asking people if health insurance has improved their lives over a one year period is disingenuous as well.  It will be skewed, depending on age, and the answer to that question will move from no to yes as time increases.  And unless they are murdered, eventually everyone will be a yes, with the sliver of a fraction of people who manage to die naturally and never incur real medical expenses.

    But there is nothing I wrote you don't know, and that is why the snark, your comments seem very disingenuous.  I would be less so if it was providing a new product or actually treating people or something other than providing people access to to something.

    You never answered:

    ...has it(insurance) improved your life, your kids, your wife, your parents ?

    Now 10M more people have what we have, so the point is if you like it, if you feel it improves your life, why would it be any different for those 10M+.


    Parent

    It's too soon, for sure.... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 03:05:18 PM EST
      but we will never have objective, quantifiable data  which will allow anyone to declare credibly that the ACA was an inarguable success or failure.

      Even applying your implied standard of "whether it met its stated goals," begs the question of whether the stated goals were the wrong goals or the right goals.

      Beyond that, even with universal agreement the stated goals were the right goals, it is a virtual certainty that not all of the stated goals will be fully achieved and quite likely that the projected costs at the time of enacted will eventually prove to have been understated. So, unless this a historical anomaly it will do less and cost more than "advertised."

      By that measure, though, no large scale government program has ever been a success. That suggests to me, therefore, that is not a fair measure.

      Another thing that will rightfully lead to endless debate is whether comparing outcomes under the ACA to the prior outcomes is a particularly valid measure. By that measure, any program that results in marginal improvement, even at tremendous cost, could be deemed a "success."

      Of course, a more valid measure, presents the conundrum of how to evaluate an existing program to a hypothetical one.  Some (and I admit I am inclined in this direction) may deem the ACA a failure because it does not achieve as much good relative to cost as a hypothetical alternative would have. I believe that to be true but
    I readily concede I can't prove it.  

    Parent

    10-16M to see what kind of changes their lives have had as a result of the ACA.

    Not as a binary pass/fail of the legislation, but rather as feedback with the goal improving (whatever that means), if necessary, what is presently in place.


    Parent

    Before the evil Repubs (1.50 / 2) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 07:58:18 AM EST
    could have defeated it:

    Republicans ensured we could never get what the American people wanted, single payer

    Obama had to have Reid introduce a bill.

    Parent

    Name (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:14:26 AM EST
    one Republican who would have voted for single payer?

    Parent
    The issue is that (1.00 / 1) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:30:36 AM EST
    Obama didn't introduce it.

    The Repubs could neither oppose or support a non action.

    Parent

    You can't (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:57:36 AM EST
    even answer my question because you know the answer would be 100% nos from the GOP. If it was introduced you already know who would vote for it and who would vote against and you know that 100 of the red senators would be voting against it.

    Parent
    It's my feeling that Obama kept single-payer (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 10:30:44 AM EST
    off the table precisely because he knew there was no GOP support for it (and no support within the health industry), and he was still in that phase where he thought he could win over at least some of the GOP so this could be deemed a bipartisan initiative.

    So, both things are true: Obama never put single-payer on the table, and no Republican was going to support anything - even if, for all intents and purposes, the final product was a warmed-over version of an old Republican plan.

    Parent

    Thank you for a balanced exposition (none / 0) (#189)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 10:53:01 AM EST
    Of the facts, however uncomfortable they may be to those critics from the left, right, and the ceiling, behind the failure to propose and pass SP legislation.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    probably true. I'm not even sure there would have been enough D votes for it to pass anyway. You can bet people like Claire McCaskill would have voted against it.

    Parent
    Oh dear G0d (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:00:44 PM EST
    Yes - you're shocked and disheartened that pols are pols and that they spun this bill to comply with CBO guidelines and make it more saleable.

    I'm no fan of the ACA.  That being said, when Bush/Republicans did the very same thing, did you call him out as a liar and state "What a great President we have"?, or are you suffering from the delusion that spinning a bill isn't done all the time?

    Parent

    Yes I'm shocked (2.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:44:28 PM EST
    To learn that Dems know only stupid people or people who achieved benefits would support this plan if they told the truth.

    Because as they continue to see it unfold it's now just as unpopular as it was before because unless your Capt. you got lied too.

    Whose more stupid?  The one who believes the lies after they learn the truth or the ones who had to be lied to for the thing to get passed.

    The damage has been done and Capt and others should not lose coverage but someone is going to figure out how to pay for all this once the enrollment starts dropping and the rates keep going up.

    Of course none of that will happen if you listen to the guy playing the flute.

    Parent

    You really should take a quick look (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:48:54 PM EST
    at the CBO report.  The fact that you don't know any low income people who deserve health care doesn't mean they don't exist.  
    Believe it or not it's not just me.

    Parent
    Btw (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:06:52 PM EST
    another "anecdotal" thing I have noticed is that there are a lot of people my age benefiting from the ACA.  Old enough to be automatically discarded from job applications but to young for Medicare.  Most unlike me never intended or expected to be pushed out of the work force at 55+ but it happened.  I know several people who have been moved out of the employer insurance pool because of ageism.  I hope you don't believe ageism exists so it will come as a surprise to you.  It sure did to me.  
    Anyway, the point is it's not all lifelong minimum wage "losers" who are needing help to stay insured.  There are lots of professional people who also took themselves very seriously and who don't so much anymore.

    Parent
    I'm shocked, too (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 06:29:22 AM EST
    ... at your reading comprehension skills.

    Parent
    Btw (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:30:27 PM EST
    its pretty funny that Mika Brzezinski is the arbiter of ordinary folks.

    Parent
    My mistake (none / 0) (#46)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 03:45:15 PM EST
    It's Jonathan Gruber

    Here are some more "off the cuff" remarks of his were he admits Ted Cruz is completely correct.

    Parent

    Loretta Lynch or Gruber or anybody, huh? (none / 0) (#48)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 03:57:06 PM EST
    The tape (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 04:27:24 PM EST
    is over a year old and they aren't even allowing the guy to explain what he was talking about. The most instructive thing about this is that it is letting you know what the agenda of the GOP is going to be: It's going to be attempted repeal after repeal of Obamacare same as it was in the house.

    Parent
    Angus King (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 04:08:40 PM EST
    blasted the morons at Fox News about that and also apparently the agenda of the GOP is to take insurance away from people. I'm glad to find out that people in the GOP who claim they didn't even read the bill are now screaming.

    And the thing about the GOP wanting transparency is just hysterical. They refused to go to any meeting on it. Where was the GOP if they were so concerned about transparency and the bill? Oh, that's right they weren't.

    Parent

    Just saw (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 05:52:45 PM EST
    a clip of an interview of Inhofe with Jake Tapper on CNN.

    Inhofe was astonishing.

    He put words together that made absolutely no sense, and yet he spoke them as if they had some meaning.

    And Tapper was essentially useless as an interviewer.
    If that's all we have to challenge the likes of Inhofe, here come the slicks.

    But Inhofe is a phenomenon.
    A blithering fool speaking non-sequiturs and non-sentences, and expressing all this garbage with a rigid earnest expression and vocal cadences that implied meaning when there was none.

    Hopefully, somebody in politics will confront this connard.

    Sans Premium channels (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 08:18:38 PM EST
    I have been hitting the DVD collection.  
    Yesterday I watched Viscontis The Damned.  What a brilliant twisted piece of work.   Could never be made today probably.  For a movie made in 1969 about the early 30s it seemed eerily topical.  In the process of a tour of the Nazi archives there was this quote-

    These are the most complete archives ever conceived. This is the secret Germany. Nothing is lacking. You can even find your history and Frederick's. Can you believe it? You see it's not very difficult to enter into the lives of people. Every German citizen today is potentially one of our informers. The collective thinking of our people is now complete. Don't you think that is the true miracle of the Third Reich?...

    Wonder what he would think of the NSAs info stash?

    Haha (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 08:48:15 PM EST
    I was thinking the same thing about NSA when I read your post even before I saw what you wrote.

    Have you ever watched the show Myth Hunters? I think that's the name of it and it's British I believe. They delve into the Nazi's a number of times. One of the creepiest myths was about how they started changing history of the country to make is sound like Germans were exceptional and their country was exceptional and they repeated this myth over and over until the majority of Germans believe it. Very creepy and much like a lot of conservatives do today with the American Exceptionalism stuff. You will also recognize several Indiana Jones plots like the search for the Ark of the Covenant which apparently Himmler actually tried to find. Also the legend of the crystal skulls.

    Parent

    Impossible to watch it and not (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 08:51:37 PM EST
    think of the NSA.  You should NETFLIX The Damned.  It's a terrific classic movie.  

    Parent
    For the record (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:01:23 PM EST
    there are some scenes of the seduction of a young girl by the twisted nazi aristocrat.  It's not graphic or IMO in any way gratuitous but even more cringe inducing and hard to watch because of that.   It could never be made today.   It was controversial then.

    Parent
    OK, Scott, since you asked. (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 04:47:04 PM EST
    Although it has nothing to do with the question I asked, but is a question you asked several times and it seems you are interested in the answer.

    I pay just under $1000/month for health insurance for my family. My family, knock wood, has not yet, ever, had any issues that would put us on the positive side, fiscally, of that equation.

    For a number of years, before kids, my wife and I did not have health insurance. During that time we did have a couple issues that were expensive. My wife had a melanoma cut out of her and I had a basal cell cut out of me.

    We found docs that would bill us at the rates the insurance companies have negotiated with them. In fact we found most docs were willing to do so. We paid out of pocket. Some took payments over time. According to our calculations, we came out ahead over those years.

    Now, given our cancer history and having kids, we are appreciative of the potential of catastrophic medical bills, and hope that our med ins would be helpful in that case. My wife, especially, feels more comfortable, and that it good enough reason for me.

    Obama strikes again (1.50 / 2) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:34:23 AM EST
    Three months after announcing Nashville would be among cities gaining its ultra high-speed Internet, AT&T is halting fiber investments, pointing to the potential for tighter regulations for Internet providers.

    "We can't go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed," AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said at an analyst conference Wednesday, according to Reuters.

    The announcement follows President Obama's comments Monday in which he urged the Federal Communications Commission to enact tougher rules for Internet providers and protect what has been called "net neutrality."

    Link

    I mean the government has done such a stellar job of improving postal service.

    "Fool me once, shame on you (none / 0) (#2)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:47:22 AM EST
    Fool me twice, it must be Fox News."

    Another Obamacare victory. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:48:55 AM EST
    Outsourcing? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:09:24 AM EST
    The GOP is the master of that. I would think the GOP would be celebrating outsourcing because this is exactly what they want to do. This has nothing to do with Obamacare and everything to do with the GOP's believe of privatizing and crony capitalism.

    Parent
    Yes, this seems to be (none / 0) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    a trend, even for this School District with previous outsourcing of busing and school nursing services.   At best, the School Board's decision was one that took into account several factors.  At worst, provision of health care for its substitute teachers was a rationalization.

    There appeared to be differences of opinion as this outsourcing was considered as to the real savings to the schools: (it will cost $1.6 million with a projected savings of $160,000). Since the substitute teachers do not now receive health benefits, the District could have keep substitutes under the 30 hours to continue that policy,  not difficult to achieve for substitutes. Substitutes will at least get some health benefits with the outsourcer.  

    The School Boards that try outsourcing need to evaluate the change.  From the link, New Jersey Washington Township noted back in 2012 that outsourcing with the same firm as Roanoke was not effective and lacked cost savings. The contract was initially not renewed, but that was rescinded when the Township found difficulty in bringing substitute teachers back in-house.  

    Parent

    When (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:41:02 AM EST
    is the GOP ever going to learn that privatization costs the taxpayers MORE money because it creates a middle man with a profit incentive. Of course, though when you understand their real incentive behind doing this--crony capitalism--it's not about saving anybody money. It's about handing tax payer money over to their cronies and campaign contributors. Get your guy elected and you hit the jackpot on the crony capitalism sweepstakes.

    Parent
    Because They Have Been Deluted into... (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 11:45:26 AM EST
    ...believing that companies like THIS, are far more efficient than the government.

    They complain about public employees making outrageous salaries and benefits while ignoring that most Fortune 500 officers make more than the President.  That is not including CEO's and the multi-million dollar umbrellas they get whether they succeed or fail.

    When prices go up, it's the workers, or the materials, or whatever other non-sense that doesn't ever include for profit companies making record profits, like Exxon.  Nope high gas prices are Obama's fault, the Middle East's fault, but never the people raking it in.

    We keep outsourcing the government and wondering why people can't afford to live here, aka living in poverty.  The more poverty increases, the closer it gets to each of us.  We have less buying power each time a dollar is made by private industry doing a government function.

    Parent

    The (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 12:14:56 PM EST
    GOP practices plantation economics. The goal is to drive down wages and then they're the first ones to come after the people who are actually suffering from their policies. I've never seen such petty, small minded, mean and vindictive people in elected office in my entire life.

    Parent
    handing tax payer money over to their cronies (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    .
    You betcha.  Tom Steyer was spending tens of millions of dollars to keep the "renewable energy" mandates and subsidies gravy train rolling on down the tracks.  Unlike contracted products or services where the government actually receives something of value the crony capitalists in the "renewable energy" scam deliver both higher taxes and higher cost energy.
    .

    Parent
    Get back to me ... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 05:49:46 PM EST
    ... when you start complaining about all government "subsidies" instead of just government funds used to promote green energy.

    Was Steyer mean to you at some point?  Because it seems personal with you, given the number of times you bring up his name.

    Parent

    BTW - Where's are your diatribes ... (3.67 / 3) (#61)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 05:53:47 PM EST
    Your provides no proof (2.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:34:31 PM EST
    And I suppose you don't understand that businesses are allowed to depreciate various items used in the business. The depletion allowances are just that.

    Parent
    Jim suddenly likes "proof" (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 06:23:23 AM EST
    After ignoring the evidence provided because he doesn't like it.  I guess he doesn't understand that depreciation deductions aren't what I or the International Energy Agency are talking about.  But he sure does like his gas subsidized by our tax dollars.

    Heh.

    Funny stuff.

    Parent

    Words have meaning (2.00 / 1) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 07:41:41 AM EST
    If being allowed to take deductions before paying taxes is a subsidy then everyone is getting "subsidies."

    Solyndra received money from the government to do something. Its actions were subsidized.

    A small company my wife and I owned depreciated certain pieces of equipment and expensed other items before we paid taxes.

    Parent

    The tax code (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 09:23:08 AM EST
      does provide "subsidies" for virtually every taxpayer, corporate or individual.

      Whether you are a poorly paid  wage earner filing a 1040 EZ or a multinational corporation, or anything in between,  you almost certainly can claim some credit, deduction, exemption or allowance that either  causes your "taxable income" to be less  than your gross income or requires you to pay less tax on your taxable income (probably both for most taxpayers).

      A relatively few people advocate for either  truly "flat" income  taxes or the elimination of income taxes and creation or increase of other taxes which would not contain provisions "subsidizing" any activity by  or any condition of any taxpayer.

      Other than possible simplification of calculating and paying taxes  and a desire for ideological purity, such ideas have little appeal. The inarguable  truth is that such a tax regime would be extremely regressive or to cure the regressive nature of the regime  would have to incorporate provisions that are just different forms of subsidies, which would defeat the simplicity and ideological purity aspects of the concept.

      Arguing against "subsidies" granted through taxing provisions is pie in the sky stuff. The real debate almost necessarily has to focus on whether "subsidies" meet certain goals. Wise goals to aim for include:

    fairness

    equity (those two are not exactly the same thing but are related)

    effectiveness (in terms encouraging activity or conditions that benefit society and discouraging activity and conditions that harm society-- obviously differing perspectives  raise many more debates about what benefits or harms and to what degree)

    efficiency  

    stability and predictability of revenues

     

    Parent

    Interesting that you would bring up Solyndra (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 10:48:26 AM EST
    because while you see that as costing taxpayers money, the fact is The Department of Energy Loan Program for Green Energy is turning a profit for the government.

    Overall, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under a program designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology. Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that -- a loss rate of 2.28 percent. The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black.


    Parent
    So apparently (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 03:10:12 PM EST
    crony capitalism is okay with you as long as the GOP is doing it. And I know the GOP freaks about renewable energy because it's part of Agenda 21 that's going to make you live in a FEMA camp and give cows voting rights. So solar panels are going to lead to cows voting.

    And you are making the case against privatization with your statement. You can't even defend privatization. LOL.

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 03:19:28 PM EST
    But these most certainly deserve subsidies, Exxon still gets 4 billion in subsidies while paying no income taxes and recording record profits.

    2008-10 Subsidies by Industry in millions

    Financial 37,454
    Utilities, gas and electric  31,217
    Telecommunications 30,713
    Oil, gas & pipelines 24,182
    Aerospace & defense 12,880
    Industrial Machinery 11,362
    Retail & wholesale trade 10,697
    Miscellaneous services  9,853
    Pharmaceuticals & medical products 9,711
    Information Technology Services 9,153
    Food & beverages & tobacco 8,693

    The top four account for 55.5% of all subsidies.

    Data from pdf HERE.

    That is in millions, so $37 billion for the financial industry that has been fined billions for doing bad deeds.  HERE  HERE  HERE  And that is just the big fines in the past year.

    These are banks fined billions for ripping off people.

    You mentioned 10's of millions, exactly how much, and why isn't that same logic applicable to companies who turn massive profits who continuously get caught cheating consumers ?  I am curious as to why you picked a drop in the bucket and neglected the overflowing barrel right next to it.  A real conundrum.

    Unlike contracted products or services where the government actually receives something of value...

    What value do any of the above provide the government that would not be provided w/o subsidies ?

    Parent

    Really??? (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:31:24 PM EST
    This study takes a hard look at the federal income taxes paid or not paid by 280 of
    America's largest and most profitable corporations in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The companies in
    our report are all from Fortune's annual list of America's 500 largest corporations, and all of
    them were profitable in each of the three years analyzed. Over the three years, the 280
    companies in our survey reported total pretax U.S. profits of $1.4 trillion.
    While the federal corporate tax code ostensibly requires big corporations to pay a 35
    percent corporate income tax rate, on average, the 280 corporations in our study paid only
    about half that amount.

    What we have here is corporations taking perfectly legal actions.

    You may disagree with that but is not a subsidy.

    Parent

    Uhhhmmm, yes it is (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 06:27:57 AM EST
    You're arguing that because it's legal, it's not a subsidy?

    Seriously?

    Parent

    Even (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:10:29 AM EST
    the article says that it's not going the save the school district any money.

    Parent


    To no one's surprise (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 12:21:49 PM EST
    rewriting history (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 02:31:08 PM EST
    A "fun" article today about the repeal of gas tax indexing to inflation.  Something stuck out to me about the article, and I find it a good representation of what's "wrong" with media coverage in general following an election:

    "The inflation repeal passed comfortably, with 53 percent of the vote."

    Ahh 53%, also known as a mandate in American politics?  I find this especially telling since tha language on the ballot question was confusing, and anecdotal evidence suggests that at least 5 people voted yes when they meant no.  I'm sure many people voted yes because they meant yes - but the margin of error could have easily been 3%.

    This particular rant isn't even about ending gas tax inflation (transportation funding is still gonna have to come from somewhere, and frankly not even the gas tax was cutting it), it's about media coverage pretending a 3% win on a confusing ballot question is a convincing victory.

    The article (none / 0) (#36)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 02:39:19 PM EST

    The article laments the prospect of fewer trains and buses without an ever increasing gas tax.  Raising fares to cover costs on those two forms of transportation is the fair solution to this vexatious problem.

    Parent
    trains and buses (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 02:53:14 PM EST
    in this city are not just good for people who ride trains and buses.

    Traffic is atrocious, it's one of the most congested cities in the country, and it's bad enough that it's affecting economic growth in some areas.

    It's an old city, with tiny narrow streets and nowhere to put more cars.  We already spent 22 billion dollars on a new tunnel that was supposed to include an additional train connection - guess what got cut.  The last thing anyone needs, especially those that already drive personal vehicles on a daily basis, is more cars on the road at rush hour.

    I actually don't have a huge problem raising fares on public transportation.  But it's not gonna be enough to fill the transportation funding hole.  That money has to come from somewhere.  The article actually suggests issuing a payroll tax for those who work in Boston rather than raising fares.  That would target people who drive into the city as well, but benefit from the T in that there are fewer vehicles on the road.  Also in the article:

    "The shortfall covers both state highways and the MBTA."

    No surprise that you would only focus on the MBTA part of that - even though the author brings it up to make the point that "the T is the engine that's enabling Greater Boston's breakneck growth right now. The growth engine is humming, even though the transit system it runs on is seriously over capacity and under-funded. Without a serious cash infusion, it's headed for a breakdown."

    Parent

    and before you (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 03:05:02 PM EST
    or anyone else suggests building more highways to accommodate more traffic - the last time the city built a new highway it cost 22 billion dollars because the only place to put it was in a tunnel under the city.  Meanwhile, it's still the busiest stretch of roadway in the state.  There's no space to add any more lanes even if we wanted to.

    I think at this point funding public transportation to reduce congestion is not only the more cost-effective option for the city, it's the only feasible option on the table.

    Parent

    At this point (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 03:15:18 PM EST
    unless you live in a rural area expanding highways has become cost prohibitive. And even some of the expansions down here in GA have been horrendously expensive in the exurbs with the state having to completely buy houses to expand the road.

    Parent
    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#65)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    just tweeted that he "just received" the book "41" by GW Bush - talking about his awkward father.

    Clinton said that he found the book to be "a touching tribute".

    How he found it to be a touching tribute having just received it...
    well - he could just tell.

    Clinton has a soft spot for GHWB.
    And it really stinks.

    In this day and age, I don't want to hear about a touching tribute written by the architect of a major disaster - and who lies for a living - written in praise of a president who allowed American soldiers to be used in the service of the Emir of Kuwait.

    Maybe he meant 'touched' (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 08:11:51 PM EST
    Anyway I don't blame him for being diplomatic at this point. He did his bit beating GHWB's a#$ in 1992.

    Parent
    They are good friends (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Ruby on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 07:29:43 AM EST
    Especially after their work together after the 2005 Asian tsunami.

    It's not really that hard to see that Democrats and Republicans can be friends because most of the rhetoric that they spew is posturing bulls--- to get elected.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 06:21:34 PM EST
    GWHB is not the problem. I think most people would look at him as the doddering old grandfather. He really isn't the problem it's his son.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#81)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 08:27:42 PM EST
    but I also think that it ill behooves one of the only people in the Democratic party with some degree of clout to lavish any kind of praise in the direction of the Bushes. To be frank, I think they are all elitist lowlifes.

    I think Clinton has lost what was left of his mind.

    Parent

    I'm not really agreeing with you but I made (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 08:34:37 PM EST
    a comment below about the movie The Damned.  Supposedly that film was based on the Krupps.  History-

    TBG is so rich it even bought out the Krupp family, famous arms makers for Hitler, leaving the Thyssens as the undisputed champion survivors of the Third Reich. Where did the Thyssens get the start-up money to rebuild their empire with such speed after World War II?

    --

    The bottom line is harsh: It is bad enough that the Bush family helped raise the money for Thyssen to give Hitler his start in the 1920's, but giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is treason. The Bush's bank helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed allied soldiers. As bad as financing the Nazi war machine may seem, aiding and abetting the Holocaust was worse. Thyssen's coal mines used Jewish slaves as if they were disposable chemicals. There are six million skeletons in the Thyssen family closet, and a myriad of criminal and historical questions to be answered about the Bush family's complicity.


    LINK


    Parent
    IMDB (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 08:38:43 PM EST
    Basically, Visconti is taking on Macbeth, here. Dirk Bogarde plays the Macbeth figure, an up-and-coming industrialist who's sleeping with an evil Grande Dame of Nazi finance, Sophie von Essenbeck (Ingrid Thulin, having an absolute ball), heiress to a munitions conglomerate. (The von Essenbecks are loosely based on the Krupps, but don't take this as any sort of literal historiography.)


    Parent
    Holy Moly! (none / 0) (#97)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:38:38 PM EST
    I have always sensed that the Bushes were elitist - entitled - snobs - and contemptuous of human life - but I did not know about that pathetic family funding the Third Reich.

    So what is it with Clinton?
    What is he up to?
    Why is he sucking up to the Bushes?

    Parent

    Like Willie Sutton supposedly said... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:50:18 PM EST
    when asked why he robbed banks:

    "Because that's where the money is."

    Parent

    Ha (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 09:55:18 PM EST
    Honestly, I think he was probably just trying to be nice.  It's a southern thing.  

    Parent
    It's like (none / 0) (#133)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 05:26:33 AM EST
    we were nice to Hirohito.

    These old guys, butchers tho they be, are kinda cute and cuddly when you think about.

    Parent

    Actually, (none / 0) (#134)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 05:37:29 AM EST
    Willie said that he never said that.

    But about Clinton, I think that quote says it. The Bushes are where the money is. Old money. Not that new money that hicks like Clinton make on the lecture circuit.

    Class.

    Ah. To belong to a real family -- with sterling silver dining ware and servants.

    You know... I'm kinda touched too now after thinking about it.

    About Willie - he said that actually he wasn't in it for the money. He felt it was his calling - the way one is driven to be an artist. He said he never felt as alive as he did when he was casing a joint or pulling off a robbery.

    I wonder what Clinton's calling is at this time.
    Money. Class. Power by proxy? Redemption by association?

    Maybe he just needs to be loved by the very rich to feel that warm secure feeling. Daddy. I wuv Daddy. I want my Daddy. Poppy Bush. Would you... would you be my Daddy? Can I be your favorite?

    Let me outta here.

    Parent

    W's grandfather Prescott Bush ... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 02:14:17 AM EST
    ... and great-grandfather George Walker lost control of the Union Banking Corp., which was confiscated by the federal government in 1943 under provisions of the Trading With the Enemy Act, after it had been determined that they were still doing business with Nazi Germany even after was formally declared in Dec. 1941.

    Parent
    It's 2 degrees below zero (none / 0) (#125)
    by sj on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:40:38 PM EST
    after a weekend in the 70's.

    I worked from home today because people forget how to drive in the 2 inches of snow that we got. All the major arteries had traffic movement in the red. One of those arteries is pretty much my only way to work.

    I need to go and see if my car will start. And if it does I have to throw the garage door wide open so I can freeze rather than asphyxiate myself while I let it run for a while.

    Alternatively, I could purchase a new battery.

    It's teens here tonight (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:47:53 PM EST
    with inches of snow coming this weekend.  Most of the leaves are still on the trees.  If it's heavy wet snow that could be bad news.

    The morning of the cold front, (mon?) I made a quick milk and bread run to the store.  The temp dropped 5 degrees from the time I went into the store to when I came out and 11 from leaving and returning.   I think it's going to be a crazy winter

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 06:34:07 AM EST
    They are forecasting snow starting Sat. afternoon and possibly into Sun. here. I'm scheduled to depart St. Louis at the ungodly hour of 6 a.m on Sat. for a 2 day mystery trip heading S.E. (Based on trajectory of bus pick ups)  so there is a chance I will miss the snow. Hurray if true. If I'm really lucky it will be gone from my driveway when I get back

    Parent
    The snow that we got (none / 0) (#127)
    by sj on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:57:02 PM EST
    was dry snow so you might luck out. With the cold temps the drive shouldn't have been that bad. If only the drivers kept their heads.

    Parent
    There are times when it's really (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 11:00:51 PM EST
    good to be retired.  Snow storms top that list.  Half the time last year I didn't even shovel it.  I just stayed in the house till it melted.

    Parent
    Guess the whole Tea Party insurgents (none / 0) (#194)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 01:43:10 PM EST
    in the House have quieted down for now.

    Boehner will be re-elected Speaker.  

    House Democrats just re-elected their whole leadership team again

    Over in the Senate, John Tester becomes head of the DSCC.  Elizabeth Warren gets a seat at the table at a brand new made up leadership position.

    For now (none / 0) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    but the exit polls showed that 2/3 of their base wants the tea party agenda pursued. So will they do a sister souljah on the tea party or will they cave? Remains to be seen.

    Parent