OT: "Cash for Cloture" under scrutiny!
Richard W.
page 1020.
Richard W.
-----------------------------
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
You and I have witnessed one of the most corrupt legislative
schemes in American history! Now, Senate Democrats are
rightfully getting called on the carpet for it.
Please read below- Mat
For the past several weeks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
has systematically bought off every Democrat member of the
Senate who could possibly derail his crucial cloture vote
on ObamaCare. When all the "bribes" were handed out, Reid
had the required 60 votes to choke off debate in the middle
of the night!
++Chicago on the Potomac
Honest Americans have been nauseated as we have watched:
** Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) get $300 million in extra
federal spending for her state in what critics derisively
called "The Louisiana Purchase."
** Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) break the hearts of pro-life
Americans by accepting a deal exempting his state from
any new Medicaid costs and several other long-term perks.
Nelson's purchase has been dubbed the "Cornhusker Kick Back."
** Many other bribes and "special provisions" affecting the
states of Vermont, North and South Dakota, Wyoming,
Massachusetts, Hawaii, Michigan, Florida, and Connecticut -
you can easily associate each bought-and-paid-for senator's
name with their state by reviewing recent news feeds.
But perhaps most painful of all was watching a condescending,
smug Harry Reid justifying his corrupt acts by suggesting it
is every senator's DUTY to get pay-offs for their votes!
"If they don't have something in it important to them, then
it doesn't speak well of them," Reid said in a post-cloture interview.
So much for the integrity of the United States Senate!
The liberal congressional leadership and the Obama White House
arm twisters have drug our nation down to the level of a cheap
banana republic!
++On top of the corruption, ObamaCare is unconstitutional
If you wondered why Harry Reid has been rushing his 2,074-page
bill and its 383-page "Manager's Amendment" through in the
middle of the night with just hours to read them, Senator
Jim DeMint (R-SC) and his staff found at least one answer...
Right there on page 1,020, the tyrannical Senate majority
insists that no future Congress can repeal or otherwise
amend the section on "Independent Medical Advisory
Boards."
You will probably remember that socialists mocked Governor
Sarah Palin for calling such independent boards "death panels."
Yet Governor Palin was absolutely correct in her assessment -
what else would you call boards with the power to grant or deny
life-saving care using some "cost-benefit" formula?
Carefully hidden away in Reid's version of ObamaCare is a
section that gives these boards far more power and permanence
than the Constitution allows to ANY government entity!
Thankfully, Senators Jim DeMint and John Ensign (R-NV) raised
a "Constitutional Point of Order" on the Senate floor yesterday
concerning these "Advisory Boards." The Senate cannot pass
a law that can never be repealed by a future Senate. How
ridiculous is the thought? Sen. Reid is acting like a dictator!
They also called Reid out on the ObamaCare "Personal Mandate"
that every American must buy insurance or face criminal charges.
Please pray that Senators DeMint and Ensign won't be slapped
down by the newly purchased 60-vote super-majority!
++ If this bill becomes law, Liberty Counsel is prepared to
challenge its constitutionality in court!
Harry Reid's version of ObamaCare (H.R. 3590) and its "Manager's
Amendment" are unconstitutional because:
1) Congress has NO authority to force every American to
carry insurance coverage, and,
2) Congress has NO authority to fine employers whose
policies do not have the mandated coverage.
If this monstrous healthcare bill passes, it must
be strongly challenged in the federal judiciary from the moment
of its birth. Liberty Counsel stands ready to do exactly that!
++For now, as difficult as it may be, we MUST continue to make
Congress hear our voice!
Major pro-life and conservative organizations are going all out
this week to BURY the Senate in protest over Harry Reid's and
Barack Obama's dirty tricks.
After the Senate adjourns for the Christmas break (now planned for
Thursday morning), we will have time to strategize the next phase
of our resistance to ObamaCare. But we MUST send them home with
their ears ringing with protests against this outrageous bill and
the scandalous way it has been handled!
Americans nationwide are expressing OUTRAGE at this overt
manipulation and total lack of integrity. Reid, Pelosi and
Obama have proven they will do anything to get this government
takeover of our medical industry.
Now more than ever, the socialists and abortion advocates need
to understand that WE HAVE NOT GIVEN UP and will resist to the
very end!
Here's what I'm asking you to do...
#1 -- Fax Your Senators TODAY!
Even if you have done so many times already, help us continue
flooding Senate offices with protests right up until the Senate
adjourns. Go here right now:
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=23844&CID=297&RID=21321253
Of course, we always encourage you to send your own faxes if you
prefer. We have provided all the information you need to reach
the key senators here:
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=23845&CID=297&RID=21321253
#2 - Call your Senators!
Please... take a moment to call your two Senators - even right
up to Christmas Eve - and let them know you are OUTRAGED by the
way this bill has been handled.
Sen. Wyden 202-224-5244
Sen. Merkley 202-224-3753
#3 - Pray that this bill will be miraculously derailed! Pray for
God's deliverance from being forced to pay for abortions and from
the overt deceit and trickery that has become the norm from the
Obama/Pelosi/Reid power axis. PLEASE keep the heat on, especially
now that we have been shoved aside! Go here to raise your voice
in protest:
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=23846&CID=297&RID=21321253
Now is NOT the time to be silent! Join like-minded Americans who
will be making Harry Reid and the Senate majority realize that
this power-play WILL be the undoing of everyone who votes for
the ObamaCare Abortion Bill of 2009!
God bless you,
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
P.S. This battle is not over, no matter how much the Pelosi/Reid/Obama
power axis wants us to think that it is. Now that there are serious
challenges to ObamaCare's constitutionality, anything can happen!
Please pray! There is always hope in God! Continue taking action!
And let your Senators know that you WILL hold them accountable for
their decisions on ObamaCare and its outrageous handling! Once again,
thank you for praying and speaking out.
Jeff Strickland
"Richard W." <raw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RLWdnWkTN_bMKq7W...@molalla.net...
>I was sent this from the liberty council. Be sure to read what it says
>about page 1020.
>
> Richard W.
>
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
> Liberty Counsel
>
> You and I have witnessed one of the most corrupt legislative
> schemes in American history! Now, Senate Democrats are
> rightfully getting called on the carpet for it.
AS THEY SHOULD BE!!!
This CRAP is the biggest violation of the Constitution this nation has ever
seen. A bill should pass the legislative process on its own merit, not on
how much pork can be wrung out of it.
Representation of the people, by the people and for the people is being
entirely and utterly ignored.
Setting aside, for the moment, that we need or do not need a health care
overhaul in this country, we need ANYTHING that is done to be done right,
not done fast. We've muddled along with what we have for several decades
now, there is no need to change it by midnight tonight or the universe as we
know it will implode. If our elected representatives have to be bought off
by the leadership (President and his merry men, and women) to pass a piece
of crap bill, then the bill should not pass.
Personally, I think that NO BILL SHOULD EVER PASS because, "I supported
yours so you have to support mine." And we should halt the practice of
tacking one crappy bill onto the back of other crappy bills, or good bills
for that matter, just so they can help each other out.
A legislative idea is either good or it's not good. It could be mediocre, I
suppose, but if it's so bad that the leadership has to buy passage by
dishing out dollars for social programs, then it ought not pass.
There was once a movie, An American President, or something like that, where
Michael Douglas is hanging out with Annette Benning, and the undercurrent of
the movie was passage of Gun Legislation and Environmental Legilsation. The
various sides were trading support for one to get support for the other, and
neither was drawn up good enough to pass on its own merits. I can see how
the sides for one bill will say, I'll help you get this if you help me get
that, and they trade poker chips back and forth on the bills themselves to
make them acceptable to more legislators so that they will pass. But the
health care bill we have before us today is not passing because of this sort
of trading-of-poker-chips, IT'S BEING FLAT OUT BOUGHT WITH PORKULOUS
DOLLARS.
Where's the ACLU when you need them? It's too bad they aren't a neutral
party that can carry a case of Unconstitutional Action on the part of the
Legislative AND Executive Branches to foist a bad bill upon the American
public. Never mind the arguments that we need health care, or don't need it.
If it takes a commitment of the Congressional Leadership to expend federal
tax dollars to specific state legislators in order to get a bill that the
President wants, then the governmental structure that separates legislation
and execution has completely eroded, and the ACLU is the private party that
should be raising the red flag.
If we actually NEED health care reform, AND the bill that accomplishes the
needed reforms, then that bill should be able to stand on it's own and not
need to be bought and paid for with Sweet Deals of federal dollars for the
states. If the bill sucks, then fix it. If it can't be fixed, then toss the
whole damn thing and start over. Start by assessing the goal that's meant to
be achieved by the bill. If a bill cannot be crafted to reach the goal, then
the goal is not worthy, because if it was worthy, then agreement on how to
reach it would be easy enough that the Congressional leadership would not
have to buy votes with cold hard cash.
And whatever the bill is that floats down from on high to the floor for a
vote should be a bill that only addresses the issue at hand, any other bills
that are the poker chips that get traded should be voted separately.
FatterDumber& Happier Moe
Damn, this is almost as bad as justifying the invasion of a foreign
country on trumped up weapons of mass destruction. There is a
difference though. At least all the money will stay home with this one
and it's being funded.
Jeff Strickland
"FatterDumber& Happier Moe" <"WheresMyCheck"@UncleSamLoves.Mee> wrote in
message news:4b33c4cb$0$5355$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>
>
> Damn, this is almost as bad as justifying the invasion of a foreign
> country on trumped up weapons of mass destruction. There is a difference
> though. At least all the money will stay home with this one and it's
> being funded.
Therein lies the problem, it's not funded and they're not counting the cost
as part of the health care debacle. So, health care will cost XXX (yes,
obscene) dollars, plus the cost of buying the votes needed to get it passed.
Whatever health care is going to end up costing (I think the number is
TRILLIONS), they are not including the several hundred million or so dollars
they are spending on buying the votes of Senators that are essentially
opposed to the plan in the first place.
FatterDumber& Happier Moe
jbsl...@gmail.com
All this vehemence over something that has been going on since the
U.S. government was formed. do a google for "riders on bills" and
"U.S. legislation". to see how it works. Takes care of everything from
"get a bunch of money for my state" to "make my Gardner a citizen".
Regards,
J.B.
Buerste
"FatterDumber& Happier Moe" <"WheresMyCheck"@UncleSamLoves.Mee> wrote in
message news:4b33c4cb$0$5355$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
> Damn, this is almost as bad as justifying the invasion of a foreign
> country on trumped up weapons of mass destruction. There is a difference
> though. At least all the money will stay home with this one and it's
> being funded.
So, THAT'S what your pamphlet tells you to think and say! Cool!
Bob F
>
> You will probably remember that socialists mocked Governor
> Sarah Palin for calling such independent boards "death panels."
> Yet Governor Palin was absolutely correct in her assessment -
> what else would you call boards with the power to grant or deny
> life-saving care using some "cost-benefit" formula?
I'd call them "insurance comnpanies". They do it all the time.
tak
"dbu''" <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:6_ydnYboVOAoa67W...@giganews.com...
> In article <RLWdnWkTN_bMKq7W...@molalla.net>,
> on in D.C. WRONG!!! He's promoting it.
> --
>
Congratulations, Dbu, you have finally "manned up" and admitted the previous
administration and its republican congress weren't the wonderful group you
had been trying to tell us they were.
Stuart Wheaton
And think the republicans shot themselves in the foot here too. If
there had been 65 senators willing to vote cloture for the Bill, no
single senator could have weilded that power the each senator had when
only 60 were willing to consider the Bill.
All the Republicans did was drag this out and empower the Democrat fringe.
Any single Republican who was willing to vote for CLOTURE could have
stopped Nelson from getting his sweet deal, and sweet deals like that
are not unconstitutional, they are normal. Throughout US history, some
states pay more in taxes than they get back. It isn't against the
rules. The Republican party made Nelson that powerful, and he won a
prize that will make it VERY likely that HIS state will vote to return
him to the Senate.
Wes
>And think the republicans shot themselves in the foot here too. If
>there had been 65 senators willing to vote cloture for the Bill, no
>single senator could have weilded that power the each senator had when
>only 60 were willing to consider the Bill.
>
>All the Republicans did was drag this out and empower the Democrat fringe.
Hey don't blame us. If 5 democrats would have acted responsibly, we could have had
bi-partisan objection.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
tak
didn't come get you (well, not yet, anyway). Welcome to the world of
straight talk. Keep practicing, it'll get more comfortable for you. Like why
not make it a New Year's Resoluation to strip another delusion away each day
or two during the coming year.
"Season's Greetings" {G}
TAK
"dbu''" <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:TYidnW4SNanGbKjW...@giganews.com...
> In article <a1bZm.935$wC3...@newsfe07.iad>,
> No, I was referring to the corrupt bubba clinton organization which
> occupied the WH for eight long years. We will begin to change starting
> next year. The crooks now in charge will be shown the door.
> --
>
>
Stuart Wheaton
> Stuart Wheaton <sdwh...@fuse.net> wrote:
>
>> And think the republicans shot themselves in the foot here too. If
>> there had been 65 senators willing to vote cloture for the Bill, no
>> single senator could have weilded that power the each senator had when
>> only 60 were willing to consider the Bill.
>>
>> All the Republicans did was drag this out and empower the Democrat fringe.
>
> Hey don't blame us. If 5 democrats would have acted responsibly, we could have had
> bi-partisan objection.
I don't think you get it Wes.
Mr. Reid has 60 votes, and he intends to pass a health care Bill, ALL
the democrats are prepared to pass a health care Bill. To get it, some
of them are extracting deals that are detrimental to the Bill as a whole.
From the beginning, the GOP had one plan. Kill it. period, no
negotiation, just try to peel off one vote. They will grudgingly
acknowledge that there were some troubles, but they never even attempted
a small cure while they held power, and I will not trust that they might
do so later if this Bill fails.
I do not think the deals made with Lieberman and Nelson improved the
Bill. I think that the Bill would have been better if Snowe, or
Collins, or even McConnell, had agreed to vote Cloture to save Reid from
having to make sweetheart deals, even if they were not going to vote for
Passage. The Bill will pass. There have been too many failures in
previous attempts, and the 60 vote plurality will not last after the
mid-terms. The question is, "how much damage the Republicans are
willing to do to America in their mindless attempt to stop it?"
So Wes, from the standpoint of somebody who does not like the Bill, do
you think there was something in the compromises with Lieberman and
Nelson that made the Bill better from the point of view of a
conservative? If so, please explain what it was.
Stuart
Wes
>Wes wrote:
>> Stuart Wheaton <sdwh...@fuse.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And think the republicans shot themselves in the foot here too. If
>>> there had been 65 senators willing to vote cloture for the Bill, no
>>> single senator could have weilded that power the each senator had when
>>> only 60 were willing to consider the Bill.
>>>
>>> All the Republicans did was drag this out and empower the Democrat fringe.
>>
>> Hey don't blame us. If 5 democrats would have acted responsibly, we could have had
>> bi-partisan objection.
>
>I don't think you get it Wes.
>
>Mr. Reid has 60 votes, and he intends to pass a health care Bill, ALL
>the democrats are prepared to pass a health care Bill. To get it, some
>of them are extracting deals that are detrimental to the Bill as a whole.
I do get it. Reid has the power and is going to get his way no matter what the cost is to
the country.
>
> From the beginning, the GOP had one plan. Kill it. period, no
>negotiation, just try to peel off one vote. They will grudgingly
>acknowledge that there were some troubles, but they never even attempted
>a small cure while they held power, and I will not trust that they might
>do so later if this Bill fails.
Well there was that Medicare Part D that the republicans were soundly criticized for
keeping a vote open 3 hours or so. Sounds like Reid only had to hold one of the votes
open for 15 minutes to wheel Byrd in.
>
>I do not think the deals made with Lieberman and Nelson improved the
>Bill. I think that the Bill would have been better if Snowe, or
>Collins, or even McConnell, had agreed to vote Cloture to save Reid from
>having to make sweetheart deals, even if they were not going to vote for
>Passage. The Bill will pass. There have been too many failures in
>previous attempts, and the 60 vote plurality will not last after the
>mid-terms. The question is, "how much damage the Republicans are
>willing to do to America in their mindless attempt to stop it?"
The question is how much damage is the democrats willing to do to America.
The Republicans didn't have anything to buy votes with so I'm inclined to think they stood
on principle. But thanks for confirming dems can be bought.
>
>So Wes, from the standpoint of somebody who does not like the Bill, do
>you think there was something in the compromises with Lieberman and
>Nelson that made the Bill better from the point of view of a
>conservative? If so, please explain what it was.
I wanted it killed. You seem to think I should accept bad instead of worse.
Ed Huntress
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:HRoZm.266557$mn3.1...@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com...
The principle is that they can count on Big Pharma and the insurance lobby
to support them, even running TV commercials in many markets.
The chance that every Republican Senator doesn't get it is about zero. They
get it, alright. And what they get is the chance to pound the Democrats.
This is the most disgusting display of partisanship we've seen in a while,
and the no's are playing it for all it's worth.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>> The question is how much damage is the democrats willing to do to America.
>> The Republicans didn't have anything to buy votes with so I'm inclined to
>> think they stood
>> on principle.
>
>The principle is that they can count on Big Pharma and the insurance lobby
>to support them, even running TV commercials in many markets.
As opposed to other interests supporting the dems?
>
>The chance that every Republican Senator doesn't get it is about zero. They
>get it, alright. And what they get is the chance to pound the Democrats.
>This is the most disgusting display of partisanship we've seen in a while,
>and the no's are playing it for all it's worth.
This is a conflict of philosophy. I seem to remember when GWB tried to put a bit of SS
into private accounts. We saw a similar response from the Dems.
If state run health care is a good thing then do it at the state level if the states
constitution permits it.
Massachusetts did it. Leave it up to the 50 states. Just maybe we might come up with a
good plan. I sure hope you don't think that if the Feds are running something they
automatically are doing it better and smarter.
I see this immediately increasing costs to me and my employer and my mom losing medicare
advantage. I don't see any bending of the cost curve in the near term. And expecting
something down the road for a sacrifice now, sure has worked for those union types that
took future promises instead of immediate wage increases.
Trust me, I'm from the government and I'm here to help. NOT!
John R. Carroll
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> The question is how much damage is the democrats willing to do to
>>> America. The Republicans didn't have anything to buy votes with so
>>> I'm inclined to think they stood
>>> on principle.
>>
>> The principle is that they can count on Big Pharma and the insurance
>> lobby to support them, even running TV commercials in many markets.
>
> As opposed to other interests supporting the dems?
Those "other interests" aren't the ones making drugs or collecting policy
premiums Wes.
Some are even medical practitioners.
>
>>
>> The chance that every Republican Senator doesn't get it is about
>> zero. They get it, alright. And what they get is the chance to pound
>> the Democrats. This is the most disgusting display of partisanship
>> we've seen in a while, and the no's are playing it for all it's
>> worth.
>
> This is a conflict of philosophy.
Not really there isn't. What there is is the realization that a succesful
effort by Democrats in the health-care arena will strengthen their hold on
voters and adversly impact that of the Republican party. What Republicans
might have done here is to shoot themselves not in the foot, but in the
head.
>I seem to remember when GWB tried
> to put a bit of SS into private accounts. We saw a similar response
> from the Dems.
And Republican's Wes. Bush couldn't convonce the public that his ideas
included a workable formula for implimentation and the herder he tried to
sell it, the less support he got. In the end, it was a mercy killing but it
gave Democrats a powerful tool to pound Republicans with at the polls in
2006.
>
> If state run health care is a good thing then do it at the state
> level if the states constitution permits it.
The states run the programs now Wes.
>
> Massachusetts did it. Leave it up to the 50 states. Just maybe we
> might come up with a good plan. I sure hope you don't think that if
> the Feds are running something they automatically are doing it better
> and smarter.
>
> I see this immediately increasing costs to me and my employer
I don't know why you see that. Their Workman's Comp. premiums will nearly
dissapear.
That's a big windfall, probably between ten and seventeen percent of your
companies total payroll, and something that goes directly to the bottom
line.
>and my
> mom losing medicare advantage.
Medicare Advantage isn't going away.
Apparently you don't understand what it is - private coverage. She'll still
be able to get that and she'll still have to pay for it. What will change a
lot is the level of transparency.
Where do you get all of this prattle from Wes?
As for bending the cost curve, the bend will be nearly immediate. 15 million
healthy 18-34 Y.O. people are going to begin purchasing health care
coverage. 3 million people that are currently uninsured will be able, within
90 days of passage, to become Medicare participants.
--
John R. Carroll
Steve W.
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> The question is how much damage is the democrats willing to do to America.
>>> The Republicans didn't have anything to buy votes with so I'm inclined to
>>> think they stood
>>> on principle.
>> The principle is that they can count on Big Pharma and the insurance lobby
>> to support them, even running TV commercials in many markets.
>
> As opposed to other interests supporting the dems?
>
>> The chance that every Republican Senator doesn't get it is about zero. They
>> get it, alright. And what they get is the chance to pound the Democrats.
>> This is the most disgusting display of partisanship we've seen in a while,
>> and the no's are playing it for all it's worth.
>
> This is a conflict of philosophy. I seem to remember when GWB tried to put a bit of SS
> into private accounts. We saw a similar response from the Dems.
>
> If state run health care is a good thing then do it at the state level if the states
> constitution permits it.
>
> Massachusetts did it. Leave it up to the 50 states. Just maybe we might come up with a
> good plan. I sure hope you don't think that if the Feds are running something they
> automatically are doing it better and smarter.
Take a look at the current conditions in Mass.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/20/massachusetts-health-care-woes-cast-cloud-romney-bid/
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/17/nation/na-health-massachusetts17
>
> I see this immediately increasing costs to me and my employer and my mom losing medicare
> advantage. I don't see any bending of the cost curve in the near term. And expecting
> something down the road for a sacrifice now, sure has worked for those union types that
> took future promises instead of immediate wage increases.
>
> Trust me, I'm from the government and I'm here to help. NOT!
>
> Wes
> --
> "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
> government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
> in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
--
Steve W.
Stuart Wheaton
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> The question is how much damage is the democrats willing to do to America.
>>> The Republicans didn't have anything to buy votes with so I'm inclined to
>>> think they stood
>>> on principle.
>> The principle is that they can count on Big Pharma and the insurance lobby
>> to support them, even running TV commercials in many markets.
>
> As opposed to other interests supporting the dems?
>
>> The chance that every Republican Senator doesn't get it is about zero. They
>> get it, alright. And what they get is the chance to pound the Democrats.
>> This is the most disgusting display of partisanship we've seen in a while,
>> and the no's are playing it for all it's worth.
>
> This is a conflict of philosophy. I seem to remember when GWB tried to put a bit of SS
> into private accounts. We saw a similar response from the Dems.
Are you referring to when he wanted to divert up to 50% of the incoming
funds for a program that is underfunded, and funnel them into the hands
of his fat cat buddies that ran the economy into the ground during the
next 3 years? Seems to me he couldn't even get enough Republican votes
to bring it out of committee.
And America was So Mad about it, that they replaced some of those
Republicans with Democrats to ensure that that sort of insanity would
not be tried again.
Wes
>>
>> The question is how much damage is the democrats willing to do to America.
>> The Republicans didn't have anything to buy votes with so I'm inclined to
>> think they stood
>> on principle.
>
>The principle is that they can count on Big Pharma and the insurance lobby
>to support them, even running TV commercials in many markets.
It requires votes for those Senators to be re-elected. I'm in inclined to believe the
Republicans might actually be listening to there electors.
>
>The chance that every Republican Senator doesn't get it is about zero. They
>get it, alright. And what they get is the chance to pound the Democrats.
>This is the most disgusting display of partisanship we've seen in a while,
>and the no's are playing it for all it's worth.
Hey, we gave you R2D2, that was bipartisan ;)
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The question is how much damage is the democrats willing to do to
>>> America.
>>> The Republicans didn't have anything to buy votes with so I'm inclined
>>> to
>>> think they stood
>>> on principle.
>>
>>The principle is that they can count on Big Pharma and the insurance lobby
>>to support them, even running TV commercials in many markets.
>
> It requires votes for those Senators to be re-elected. I'm in inclined to
> believe the
> Republicans might actually be listening to there electors.
But the electors have heads full of phony "facts" perpetuated by Pharma et
al. The Republicans are indeed listening to those people, and their primary
goal is to regain some of Congress in 2010. With health care, they think
they have a wedge issue.
If you're going to tell me that most people understand what's really going
on here, I'm going to say you're naive. <g>
>
>>
>>The chance that every Republican Senator doesn't get it is about zero.
>>They
>>get it, alright. And what they get is the chance to pound the Democrats.
>>This is the most disgusting display of partisanship we've seen in a while,
>>and the no's are playing it for all it's worth.
>
> Hey, we gave you R2D2, that was bipartisan ;)
I wish I knew what you're referring to so I didn't have to ask, but I have
to ask. Huh?
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>If you're going to tell me that most people understand what's really going
>on here, I'm going to say you're naive. <g>
No, I don't think there are more than a sub percentage of the population that understands
it. That is scary enough.
It would have been better to take small steps and work out the kinks but that would take
too long and the grip on power may be to short for those pushing the current agenda.
>
>>
>>>
>>>The chance that every Republican Senator doesn't get it is about zero.
>>>They
>>>get it, alright. And what they get is the chance to pound the Democrats.
>>>This is the most disgusting display of partisanship we've seen in a while,
>>>and the no's are playing it for all it's worth.
>>
>> Hey, we gave you R2D2, that was bipartisan ;)
>
>I wish I knew what you're referring to so I didn't have to ask, but I have
>to ask. Huh?
Arlen Spector. I really thought everyone knew that. Technically he is really D2R1 but it
doesn't flow as well. Benedict Arlen is another nickname.
Wes
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>If you're going to tell me that most people understand what's really going
>>on here, I'm going to say you're naive. <g>
>
> No, I don't think there are more than a sub percentage of the population
> that understands
> it. That is scary enough.
>
> It would have been better to take small steps and work out the kinks but
> that would take
> too long and the grip on power may be to short for those pushing the
> current agenda.
I think you've nailed it. Hang on, we're in for a bumpy ride.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<huge snip>
>No, I don't think there are more than a sub percentage of the population that understands
>it. That is scary enough.
>
>It would have been better to take small steps and work out the kinks but that would take
>too long and the grip on power may be to short for those pushing the current agenda.
================
Indeed, and this is not limited to "health care." Historically
this has been a problem in that the "powers that be" become
excessively good at preventing small incremental changes to the
point to where enough pressure builds up and there is an
explosion. Two examples are the French and Russian revolutions.
Delay is not the same thing as prevention.
Unka George
(George McDuffee)
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
F. George McDuffee
>No, I don't think there are more than a sub percentage of the population that understands
>it. That is scary enough.
>
>It would have been better to take small steps and work out the kinks but that would take
>too long and the grip on power may be to short for those pushing the current agenda.
==================
Rather than [just] posting to RCM/AMC you may wish to send your
Representative, Senators and the WH an email.
You can send the Prez an email at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
You can identify and access the webmail for Congress at
http://house.gov/ and http://senate.gov/
[Be sure to bookmark for future reference]
==== start of email =====
The most necessary return of Glass-Steagall
Re:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aeQNTmo2vHpo&pos=10
It is critical that the fire walls between not only the FDIC
insured depository/commercial banks and the investment
banks/brokerages be restored by mandatory divesture/de-merger but
the multitude of other financial services and activities such as
mutual funds, hedge funds, private equity pools, money market
funds, pension funds, insurance companies and non-bank banks such
as G.E. Capital and CIT be isolated and separated from each
other.
While a new comprehensive Glass-Steagall Act will not be a
panacea or "cure-all," it will greatly contribute to the
stability of the American financial system and economy. It will
also go a long way to addressing the problem of the continued
existence of financial service companies that are "too big to
fail," and "too complex to fail."
It is true that in some instances and under some circumstances a
new Glass-Steagall Act will greatly increase the difficulty and
expense of some of the most questionable financial transactions
[which it is intended to do], and may significantly reduce the
short-term profits of a few giant financial firms and the
banker's bonuses, however the interests of the nation and the
welfare of the huge majority of citizens must be placed ahead of
the interests and profits of the mega banks and brokerages.
Not only must the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act be
reinstated and enhanced, the CFTC Modernization Act of 2000 must
be repealed to again allow the most necessary and vital control
of the creation and sale of "derivatives as well as the
prevention of commodity futures speculation and market
manipulation, particularly in areas such as energy and petroleum,
if the speculative bubbles and a repeat of the 2007/2008
financial implosion is to be avoided or even reduced/limited.
==== end of email ===
Feel free to use all, any part or none.
F. George McDuffee
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:58:40 -0500, Wes <clu...@lycos.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>No, I don't think there are more than a sub percentage of the population that understands
>>it. That is scary enough.
>>
>>It would have been better to take small steps and work out the kinks but that would take
>>too long and the grip on power may be to short for those pushing the current agenda.
><snip>
>==================
>Rather than [just] posting to RCM/AMC you may wish to send your
>Representative, Senators and the WH an email.
>
>You can send the Prez an email at
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
>
>You can identify and access the webmail for Congress at
>http://house.gov/ and http://senate.gov/
>[Be sure to bookmark for future reference]
<snip>
To see the text of the proposed new "Glass-Steagall" goto
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.2886:
Note that this is *ONE* page. Banking Integrity Act of 2009
(Introduced in Senate) S. 2886 Sponsored by Ms. CANTWELL (for
herself, Mr. MCCAIN, and Mr. FEINGOLD
RBnDFW
> From the beginning, the GOP had one plan. Kill it. period, no
> negotiation, just try to peel off one vote. They will grudgingly
> acknowledge that there were some troubles, but they never even attempted
> a small cure while they held power, and I will not trust that they might
> do so later if this Bill fails.
That's just not true.
Republicans have offered, at last count, 17 alternative proposals,
several of which actually made sense and appeared constitutional.
All we really need is to remove most of the territorial protections we
give to the pharmas and the insurance companies, and let competitive
markets work.
Wes
>> It would have been better to take small steps and work out the kinks but
>> that would take
>> too long and the grip on power may be to short for those pushing the
>> current agenda.
>
>I think you've nailed it. Hang on, we're in for a bumpy ride.
I was getting an echocardiogram today and the young lady running the machine was worried
that she might lose or have have her healthcare degrade as her employer responds to all
the economic forces that are about to be unleased.
She was happy I was willing to reschedule my time slot since she doesn't get paid if she
doesn't have patients and making the trip for my only appointment in our community
hospital that day would have eaten up a lot of time for travel in the middle of the day.
Nice young lady. Just bought a house, didn't have student loans. Eyes wide open and very
concerned.
Wes
Wes
>Wes wrote:
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> The question is how much damage is the democrats willing to do to
>>>> America. The Republicans didn't have anything to buy votes with so
>>>> I'm inclined to think they stood
>>>> on principle.
>>>
>>> The principle is that they can count on Big Pharma and the insurance
>>> lobby to support them, even running TV commercials in many markets.
>>
>> As opposed to other interests supporting the dems?
>
>Those "other interests" aren't the ones making drugs or collecting policy
>premiums Wes.
>Some are even medical practitioners.
And many of them are policy wonks and politicians.
>
>>
>>>
>>> The chance that every Republican Senator doesn't get it is about
>>> zero. They get it, alright. And what they get is the chance to pound
>>> the Democrats. This is the most disgusting display of partisanship
>>> we've seen in a while, and the no's are playing it for all it's
>>> worth.
>>
>> This is a conflict of philosophy.
>
>Not really there isn't. What there is is the realization that a succesful
>effort by Democrats in the health-care arena will strengthen their hold on
>voters and adversly impact that of the Republican party. What Republicans
>might have done here is to shoot themselves not in the foot, but in the
>head.
If you are saying Democrats are better and bidding for votes, you might have a point.
Health care seems like a natural for that.
>
>>I seem to remember when GWB tried
>> to put a bit of SS into private accounts. We saw a similar response
>> from the Dems.
>
>And Republican's Wes. Bush couldn't convonce the public that his ideas
>included a workable formula for implimentation and the herder he tried to
>sell it, the less support he got. In the end, it was a mercy killing but it
>gave Democrats a powerful tool to pound Republicans with at the polls in
>2006.
He just wanted to keep the politicians from spending SS money. Notice the debt is
spiraling? That slush fund, aka, SS payments, isn't producing the excess income to the
government like it used to.
>
>>
>> If state run health care is a good thing then do it at the state
>> level if the states constitution permits it.
>
>The states run the programs now Wes.
And they are having problems with it. At least it is contained to a single state where
things can be worked out. Let us not go nationwide until a workable solution exists.
I'm a pretty big states rights guy. Better to screw things up in one state than the whole
nation. Success is something we don't mind copying, failure, sane people try to stay away
from.
>
>>
>> Massachusetts did it. Leave it up to the 50 states. Just maybe we
>> might come up with a good plan. I sure hope you don't think that if
>> the Feds are running something they automatically are doing it better
>> and smarter.
>>
>> I see this immediately increasing costs to me and my employer
>
>I don't know why you see that. Their Workman's Comp. premiums will nearly
>dissapear.
>That's a big windfall, probably between ten and seventeen percent of your
>companies total payroll, and something that goes directly to the bottom
>line.
Will or have? I don't have much faith in projections.
>
>
>>and my
>> mom losing medicare advantage.
>
>Medicare Advantage isn't going away.
>Apparently you don't understand what it is - private coverage. She'll still
>be able to get that and she'll still have to pay for it. What will change a
>lot is the level of transparency.
We will see.
>
>Where do you get all of this prattle from Wes?
I was going to ask you.
>
>As for bending the cost curve, the bend will be nearly immediate. 15 million
>healthy 18-34 Y.O. people are going to begin purchasing health care
>coverage. 3 million people that are currently uninsured will be able, within
>90 days of passage, to become Medicare participants.
3 million people will find doctors in there area have opted out and 15 million people will
be asking wtf just happened.
Ed Huntress
Interesting. But does she know anything, or does she just read too many
blogs?
Hardly anyone I've spoken to has made an attempt to understand the plans. I
was talking to some people here a few nights ago and the guys were going on
football -- they must be watching every New York team game, from the
discussion. But not one had read a single serious word about the healthcare
reforms.
--
Ed Huntress
jbsl...@gmail.com
Some things are IMPORTANT and others aren't :-)
Regards,
J.B.