Support NeoGAF

[thefit]

Its class warfare. You for the rich or for the the guy that even in a union is still more like you?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Obama needs to start busting some heads to get the House to pass the Senate bill, but we all know that isn't going to happen.

Expect a second contract with america.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Holy shit @ Fox/Hannity's viewers on Tuesday night : 6.8 million

CNN was the next closest at 1.68 million

Overall, Fox averaged 6.16 million for the night.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/01/foxs_big_win_electionnight_rat.html

 

[mckmas8808]

Do you understand the definition of take advantage of?

Yes. And they can take advantage of the ruling. They can now run ads pushing for a candidate and put some quick points in there so that the average Joe can feel better about that candidate because their union publically is pushing them.

Again this doesn't mean that unions will have more or the same amount of power or money as corporations have. Just that they can take advantage of the ruling too.

 

[Nert]

Its class warfare. You for the rich or for the the guy that even in a union is still more like you?

Oh yeah, populism.

"Real America" sounds like a nice place, I should probably visit it some day.

 

[empty vessel]

If anything, many sectors of society are more dominated by union interests than corporate interests; an example of this would be our education sector, where figures like Arne Duncan and Barack Obama frequently cite the inflexibility and payment structure of teacher's unions as a factor impeding reform.

More Americans earn their income from employment as a teacher than are people whose primary income source is income from investment (i.e., the very tiny minority of people who make up the capitalist class). So, yes, I support a payment structure for teachers that is good for teachers, especially since that has nothing to do with why the education system is broken.

Is there just more sympathy for "blue collar" workers acting in their self interest over net welfare than for "white collar" workers acting in their self interest over net welfare?

White collar workers are (or can be, at least) represented by unions, too. People with white collars are not the people whose interests corporations serve. Investors are who corporations serve, investing being something that you personally may dabble in but not something that you personally do (because you aren't a capitalist, despite your conditioned association with that class).

 

[mckmas8808]

Just as an aside, it seems like there is a lot more sympathy for unions in here than for corporations. This is something I struggle to understand; when either type of group actively lobbies the government for some kind of special treatment, they're both demanding that the government allow them to receive greater compensation (of some sort) then they would receive in the marketplace alone. Unions seek greater wages and benefits than other workers, who may very well be just as productive, would ask for, while corporations try to exploit legal loopholes and seek out subsidy money.

If anything, many sectors of society are more dominated by union interests than corporate interests; an example of this would be our education sector, where figures like Arne Duncan and Barack Obama frequently cite the inflexibility and payment structure of teacher's unions as a factor impeding reform.

Is there just more sympathy for "blue collar" workers acting in their self interest over net welfare than for "white collar" workers acting in their self interest over net welfare?

One reason is because there are more liberals here so by nature we will trust/like unions more than corporations. But I agree with you that unions shouldn't be celebrated as much as they are in here.

I love unions in general and I love what they stand for, but many times unions make these worse than need be. And many times unions make things worse for the country as a whole. People need to shake the thought that unions are all gracious all the time.

 

[Pctx]

Interesting time for our Nation.

The power hasn't so much shifted as it has been brought back into it's normal levels. I'm glad that there might actually be a conversation now about what people's definition of "reform" is and what that means when it's revisited down the road.

Also nice to see that more likely than not, the bloated 2,000+ bill will die a horrible death and I pray that's the last we ever hear of a health care reform bill be more than 100 pages.


Now it's time for both sides to get their shit together and start talking about some responsible legislation on the health industry and hopefully take a more segmented approach because quite frankly, we need to do something, just not change everything all at once.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Now it's time for both sides to get their shit together and start talking about some responsible legislation on the health industry and hopefully take a more segmented approach because quite frankly, we need to do something, just not change everything all at once.

But then how will you hide 100 and 200 million dollar payoffs to Senators?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Interesting time for our Nation.

The power hasn't so much shifted as it has been brought back into it's normal levels. I'm glad that there might actually be a conversation now about what people's definition of "reform" is and what that means when it's revisited down the road.

Also nice to see that more likely than not, the bloated 2,000+ bill will die a horrible death and I pray that's the last we ever hear of a health care reform bill be more than 100 pages.


Now it's time for both sides to get their shit together and start talking about some responsible legislation on the health industry and hopefully take a more segmented approach because quite frankly, we need to do something, just not change everything all at once.

"Change everything"? All this does is give 30+ million more customers to the insurance companies with tighter regulations. How people equate this to a GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE is beyond me.

 

[Pctx]

But then how will you hide 100 and 200 million dollar payoffs to Senators?

Magic.

 

[Nert]

Interesting time for our Nation.

The power hasn't so much shifted as it has been brought back into it's normal levels. I'm glad that there might actually be a conversation now about what people's definition of "reform" is and what that means when it's revisited down the road.

Also nice to see that more likely than not, the bloated 2,000+ bill will die a horrible death and I pray that's the last we ever hear of a health care reform bill be more than 100 pages.


Now it's time for both sides to get their shit together and start talking about some responsible legislation on the health industry and hopefully take a more segmented approach because quite frankly, we need to do something, just not change everything all at once.

I'm not a supporter of the current health care legislation, but really, how is page length an objective indicator of the quality of a bill? You can't write "Fix Health Care" on page one and be done.

 

[Pctx]

"Change everything"? All this does is give 30+ million more customers to the insurance companies with tighter regulations. How people equate this to a GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE is beyond me.

I guess what I meant by "change everything" is that they're wanting to replace medicare right? I mean hell, I've been paying into that system for almost 30 years now and it's going to go bankrupt in 2017? (haven't keep up to date on that) I would want to fix that as well. The biggest problem with the pay-it-forward mentality that the bill had was raised taxes for said 30+ million Americans added to the coverage.

I don't think the public option that they talked about was ever a real viable option due to it fundamentally screwing over the private sector health companies that would trigger higher payments for people already insured.

 

[thefit]

One reason is because there are more liberals here so by nature we will trust/like unions more than corporations. But I agree with you that unions shouldn't be celebrated as much as they are in here.

I love unions in general and I love what they stand for, but many times unions make these worse than need be. And many times unions make things worse for the country as a whole. People need to shake the thought that unions are all gracious all the time.

I'm in no way saying unions are angels they can be as corrupt but look at what he wrote. He's trying to say that its white collar vs. blue collar and its not like that at all we are talking about faceless entities with billions of dollars that lobby for tax breaks, loopholes and corporate welfare against workers that demand good pay and benefits thats not remotely the same at all. One benefits the direct welfare of the a population the other is just corporate holders moving more money to the top 1% and non of it ever comes back around.

Its defending trickle down vs workers.

 

[Pctx]

I'm not a supporter of the current health care legislation, but really, how is page length an objective indicator of the quality of a bill? You can't write "Fix Health Care" on page one and be done.

Point taken. The idea associated with the page count was the filler that wasn't needed to change the healthcare.

If they put things in a 2,000 bill that did in fact change management, debt and costs for the betterment of everyone, then I think that's fine. I think we'd agree though that this bill didn't meet that design criteria.

 

[Matt]

I guess what I meant by "change everything" is that they're wanting to replace medicare right? I mean hell, I've been paying into that system for almost 30 years now and it's going to go bankrupt in 2017? (haven't keep up to date on that) I would want to fix that as well. The biggest problem with the pay-it-forward mentality that the bill had was raised taxes for said 30+ million Americans added to the coverage.

I don't think the public option that they talked about was ever a real viable option due to it fundamentally screwing over the private sector health companies that would trigger higher payments for people already insured.

No. Everything you have said is wrong.

Medicare was not going to be replaced. The bill would have EXTENDED the life of medicare, as of now it is going bankrupt in this decade.

 

[Nert]

More Americans earn their income from employment as a teacher than are people whose primary income source is income from investment (i.e., the very tiny minority of people who make up the capitalist class). So, yes, I support a payment structure for teachers that is good for teachers, especially since that has nothing to do with why the education system is broken.


White collar workers are (or can be, at least) represented by unions, too. People with white collars are not the people whose interests corporations serve. Investors are who corporations serve, investing being something that you personally may dabble in but not something that you personally do (because you aren't a capitalist, despite your conditioned association with that class).

Sure, the total number of teachers outweighs the total number of investors. That doesn't mean that the narrow interests of teacher's aren't a fraction of what the country as a whole is interested in, because (ostensibly) every child is supposed to receive an education.

I don't think most people would argue that teachers are currently being paid too much, but rather that their jobs are too secure and their incentives are grounded in different behaviors than simple performance. Many would argue that teachers should be paid more, but instead of the rigid hiring and tenure standards currently in place, teaching should be a more competitive field. In particular, teachers working in more difficult areas should be paid more, and teachers that fail to make any kind of progress should be removed from their positions.

I'm not quite sure that I understand your second point... if investors and stockholders own the corporations, then sure, corporate profits are in their interests. But, a profitable company is a company that hasn't failed, and may be expanding in the economy, which helps retain and create jobs for others. If companies exceed some basic level of self interest and begin to lobby the government for special treatment over other companies, than sure, that's acting in their self interest at the expense of society as a whole... but unions do that too.

 

[mAcOdIn]

I guess what I meant by "change everything" is that they're wanting to replace medicare right? I mean hell, I've been paying into that system for almost 30 years now and it's going to go bankrupt in 2017? (haven't keep up to date on that) I would want to fix that as well. The biggest problem with the pay-it-forward mentality that the bill had was raised taxes for said 30+ million Americans added to the coverage.

I don't think the public option that they talked about was ever a real viable option due to it fundamentally screwing over the private sector health companies that would trigger higher payments for people already insured.

What? I wish, well sort of, not really if it was this bill that did it, but I wish their bill killed Medicare, and medicaid and chip and everything else in favor of one system, but these bills were not attempting to do that, not even close.

 

[Nert]

I'm in no way saying unions are angels they can be as corrupt but look at what he wrote. He's trying to say that its white collar vs. blue collar and its not like that at all we are talking about faceless entities with billions of dollars that lobby for tax breaks, loopholes and corporate welfare against workers that demand good pay and benefits thats not remotely the same at all. One benefits the direct welfare of the a population the other is just corporate holders moving more money to the top 1% and non of it ever comes back around.

Its defending trickle down vs workers.

The problem is that unions don't "benefit the direct welfare of the population." Unions are organizations of workers that demand greater compensation and benefits for themselves. As a result, union members can be better off, but firms cannot produce goods at a more efficient level and they're not able to hire as many people. The cost of hiring goes up, so firms either hire less or make less or have to sell their products for a higher price; society as a whole loses out.

Any restriction on competition like this is bad for market efficiency; it's the same reason why most economists are also in favor of free trade policies and immigration reform that would allow for more migration (and therefore labor competition) to take place.

 

[thefit]

Sure, the total number of teachers outweighs the total number of investors. That doesn't mean that the narrow interests of teacher's aren't a fraction of what the country as a whole is interested in, because (ostensibly) every child is supposed to receive an education.

I don't think most people would argue that teachers are currently being paid too much, but rather that their jobs are too secure and their incentives are grounded in different behaviors than simple performance. Many would argue that teachers should be paid more, but instead of the rigid hiring and tenure standards currently in place, teaching should be a more competitive field. In particular, teachers working in more difficult areas should be paid more, and teachers that fail to make any kind of progress should be removed from their positions.

I'm not quite sure that I understand your second point... if investors and stockholders own the corporations, then sure, corporate profits are in their interests. But, a profitable company is a company that hasn't failed, and may be expanding in the economy, which helps retain and create jobs for others. If companies exceed some basic level of self interest and begin to lobby the government for special treatment over other companies, than sure, that's acting in their self interest at the expense of society as a whole... but unions do that too.

Create jobs were and at what pay? If that held true we would not have the economy we have now. The last decade had 0 net job creation, an entire decade lost but you wouldn't know that by looking at the bonuses paid in wall st. You want that defended?

 

[gkryhewy]

And you didn't answer the question. Typical you of course.

Really? Really? I'm expected to answer an inane question like that? "You aren't against telling the truth, are you"? That's not a rhetorical question?

I'm sorry, I was left speechless by the inanity of the question. The answer is yes. Yes, I am against telling the truth.

Now, I see you also didn't answer my question as to whether you're actually a software script on someone's work PC!!

Serious business :lol

 

[thefit]

The problem is that unions don't "benefit the direct welfare of the population." Unions are organizations of workers that demand greater compensation and benefits for themselves. As a result, union members can be better off, but firms cannot produce goods at a more efficient level and they're not able to hire as many people. The cost of hiring goes up, so firms either hire less or make less or have to sell their products for a higher price; society as a whole loses out.

Any restriction on competition like this is bad for market efficiency; it's the same reason why most economists are also in favor of free trade policies and immigration reform that would allow for more migration (and therefore labor competition) to take place.

Most economist? Really, like who?

 

[Nert]

Create jobs were and at what pay? If that held true we would not have the economy we have now. The last decade had 0 net job creation, an entire decade lost but you wouldn't know that by looking at the bonuses paid in wall st. You want that defended?

I don't feel any sympathies for Wall Street executives (similarly, I don't have sympathies for unions), but whether or not you care, trillions of dollars of wealth were eliminated during the financial crisis, and very rich people lost large percentages (often half or more) of their net worth. So no, they haven't really benefited on average over the past few years.

(I have to go to class for now, so I'll check out any other replies later.)

 

[mAcOdIn]

Most economist? Really, like who?

Businesses should hire less, I mean, how many part time jobs out there are filled by people working another full or part time job because their other job doesn't pay them enough or because of companies loving to hire multiple part timers to do the work of a full timer to keep from paying benefits can't find a steady full time job?

It's a freaking balance, I'm not a fan of American unions for the most part because not only are they about money, but also shit I despise like making it harder to fire people for shit people should be fired for, but this desire to push all of working America further and further down just so there's more part time work to be had by us all, and apparently the requirement we take it since they're also fine with full time employment paying poverty wages is just insane to me. Don't they realize that it's also good for business if blue collar Americans can buy your product and service?

 

[CitizenCope]

It was in large part. Racism is the spark of the tea party movement, which ultimately caused unified Republican opposition to the Democratic majority and Coakley's defeat. The health care bill is essentially a Republican bill and yet not a single Republican would touch it because of that popular fascist movement.



That's probably part of it as well. Studies show voters are more likely to refuse to vote for women even than blacks.

You nailed it. I voted Brown because we are both racist and sexist.

 

[thefit]

A rich person losses some wealth and they will still be ok. But the poor bastard tied to his corporation vial his 401k is screwed similarly a working person loses his job or gets his pay cut or loses his benefits and gets sick thats it for them. There goes the mortgage, there goes the car there goes college for junior. This isn't some far out theory this is the reality we are in now.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Point taken. The idea associated with the page count was the filler that wasn't needed to change the healthcare.

If they put things in a 2,000 bill that did in fact change management, debt and costs for the betterment of everyone, then I think that's fine. I think we'd agree though that this bill didn't meet that design criteria.

Have you read H.R. 3962?

 

[PhoenixDark]

A well-informed source tells The Mouth Nancy Pelosi is set to announce the House will go the reconciliation route on health care reform.

Of course, that means using a budgetary procedure that requires a simple majority to pass.

It’s still unclear to us precisely what that means would be passed, but possibilities would be creating a national health care exchange and expanding Medicare or Medicaid coverage.

Democrats are caucusing now, so stay tuned.

Update: A second source confirms that Pelosi is presenting a reconciliation plan to the caucus, and making sure they go with something that can actually pass.

Separately, she is meeting with Harry Reid today.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/21/828237/-Pelosi-Is-Going-For-Reconciliation-On-Health-Reform!-

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/21/828237/-Pelosi-Is-Going-For-Reconciliation-On-Health-Reform!-

And:

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn today agreed with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the House cannot pass the Senate bill as-is.

"No, we can't," Clyburn said on MSNBC. "I think the speaker is absolutely correct."

"Everybody keeps focusing on the Senate getting to 60 [votes], and they don't seem to remember that we have to get to 218 in the house. Even elementary, you can get to 60 quicker than you get to 218," he said. "We all know that."

He said the bill needs to be changed in order to get enough support in the House.

"We can do some corrections and modifications with that bill and get that through the House under reconciliation. But we can't in its current form," Clyburn said.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/clyburn-we-cant-pass-the-senate-bill-as-is.php?ref=fpb

 

[polyh3dron]

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/01/cindy_mccain_joins_californias.html

oh look, Cindy Mccain has joined the anti prop 8 bandwagon, a year too late.

 

[The Librarian]

For the reconciliation route, as is, that means that the House isn't going to pass the Senate bill or it is along with a reconciliation bill?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So the announcement that Obama made today regarding Rules targeting high risks gambling for banks, can he do an executive order or must it be passed through Congress?

 

[xelios]

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/01/cindy_mccain_joins_californias.html

oh look, Cindy Mccain has joined the anti prop 8 bandwagon, a year too late.

Yeah I was kind of surprised to see that. Coming out against something only when it's "safe" to do so doesn't mean much to me.

 

[Tamanon]

For the reconciliation route, as is, that means that the House isn't going to pass the Senate bill or it is along with a reconciliation bill?

Depends on what they decide, most likely they're talking about without passing the Senate bill.

 

[empty vessel]

Sure, the total number of teachers outweighs the total number of investors. That doesn't mean that the narrow interests of teacher's aren't a fraction of what the country as a whole is interested in, because (ostensibly) every child is supposed to receive an education.

I don't think most people would argue that teachers are currently being paid too much, but rather that their jobs are too secure and their incentives are grounded in different behaviors than simple performance. Many would argue that teachers should be paid more, but instead of the rigid hiring and tenure standards currently in place, teaching should be a more competitive field. In particular, teachers working in more difficult areas should be paid more, and teachers that fail to make any kind of progress should be removed from their positions.

If this were actually a cause of problems in American education, I might consider it, but it isn't. The problem with American education is, first and foremost, crumbling infrastructure and lack of social support and welfare. You cannot teach children whose lives are made unstable by deteriorating neighborhoods, parents who lack adequate work, inadequate access to mental and physical health care, etc. Until that is fixed, nothing else can be.

But this is far afield. The teachers union can in no way be shown to be the cause of any problems in American education, although I will agree that education is not the prototypical place in which unions should be strong, because there are countervailing interests that are not present in regular employment. Schools exist primarily to serve children, not to produce and sell commodities. Schools, of course, are not corporations, and so that you choose this example is not surprising.

I'm not quite sure that I understand your second point... if investors and stockholders own the corporations, then sure, corporate profits are in their interests. But, a profitable company is a company that hasn't failed, and may be expanding in the economy, which helps retain and create jobs for others. If companies exceed some basic level of self interest and begin to lobby the government for special treatment over other companies, than sure, that's acting in their self interest at the expense of society as a whole... but unions do that too.

Corporations do not serve the interests of their employees, which is what you posited by raising a false dichotomy between white collar (e.g., an engineer) and blue collar (e.g., factory or construction) workers. Both white collar and blue collar workers--with the exception of corporate executives--are in the same boat. Corporations, by law, must serve the interests of their shareholders to the exclusion of everything else. That includes their white collar and blue collar workers, whose interests in high pay is diametrically opposed to the corporations interest in high profit.

Corporations only "create jobs" by fiat of the economic structure, not because they have some magical "job creating" substance in them. And this is irrelevant to the point, which is that corporations serve the interests exclusively of investors (the capitalist class) whereas unions serve the interests of working people. The former (the investing class) is a tiny class of multi-millionaires and billionaires whose interests as investors is, as I have explained, directly opposite those of working people (higher wages mean lower profits and vice-versa). This should explain why you should not be surprised that any rational person not a member of the investing class would side with unions over corporations.

(I have to go to class for now, so I'll check out any other replies later.)

Let me guess, a business class? No offense, and I don't mean to be harsh (honestly, you seem like a nice enough gent), but you are the future problem of this country and represent the mindset that must be broken if the nation isn't to continue to degrade.

 

[The Librarian]

Depends on what they decide, most likely they're talking about without passing the Senate bill.

Hm. Well, it's good that they're taking some route. Let's hope we get something good from all of this.

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/01/cindy_mccain_joins_californias.html

oh look, Cindy Mccain has joined the anti prop 8 bandwagon, a year too late.

iirc Cindy and Meghan McCain were always for gay marriage, probably why McCain's views towards it are more moderate than the average republican.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Hm. Well, it's good that they're taking some route. Let's hope we get something good from all of this.

It's important to look at what is and is not being said. Pelosi and Clayborn both say they can't pass the Senate bill without modification.

Pelosi is meeting with Harry Reid, right after making that public statement.

I wonder what they are going to talk about.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Ghal, the new rules that Obama spoke about today regarding big banks, is that by executive order or do they need to go through congress? The regulation is so badly needed (look at the stock of the big banks today) that I truly hope it gets done but don't have too much faith in the congress right about now.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Yea, wtf GAF? Why didn't Cindy McCain jeopardize her husband's chance to win the primaries and pursue his lifelong dream of being President? What a selfish bitch.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Ghal, the new rules that Obama spoke about today regarding big banks, is that by executive order or do they need to go through congress? The regulation is so badly needed (look at the stock of the big banks today) that I truly hope it gets done but don't have too much faith in the congress right about now.

I haven't read up on them, but I think he's proposing a new piece of legislation.

They seem to be taking a lesson from healthcare and are now proposing small, single-item banking reforms that are easy to understand and argue for. So they're not all or nothing.

 

[PhoenixDark]

It's important to look at what is and is not being said. Pelosi and Clayborn both say they can't pass the Senate bill without modification.

Pelosi is meeting with Harry Reid, right after making that public statement.

I wonder what they are going to talk about.

Sucks for Reid. Any changes will require 60 votes, and he might not be able to get it. Unless Snowe wants to come back to the table : /

 

[Price Dalton]

Ghal, the new rules that Obama spoke about today regarding big banks, is that by executive order or do they need to go through congress? The regulation is so badly needed (look at the stock of the big banks today) that I truly hope it gets done but don't have too much faith in the congress right about now.

Well, McCain (and I think one other senator) has actually proposed reinstating Glass-Steagall, so Obama might have the votes.

Of course, I've probably just jinxed the whole thing.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Well, McCain (and I think one other senator) has actually proposed reinstating Glass-Steagall, so Obama might have the votes.

Of course, I've probably just jinxed the whole thing.

:lol :lol :lol Yea.

Seriously, this would not only benefit the country but help the Dems politically. Supposedly a poll was taken after Mass in which the voters who voted for Brown were asked if the Dems were tougher on big banks/help the economy, who they would vote for in 2010. 53% of those who voted for Brown stated they would vote for the Dem.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Well, McCain (and I think one other senator) has actually proposed reinstating Glass-Steagall, so Obama might have the votes.

Of course, I've probably just jinxed the whole thing.

:lol So what? they'll just say they don't like how Obama is going about it, and vote 'no' on any related legislation.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Sucks for Reid. Any changes will require 60 votes, and he might not be able to get it. Unless Snowe wants to come back to the table : /

To be clear, the modification both Pelosi and Clayburn raised was through reconciliation. They're looking for some kind of formal agreement that certain provisions both can and will be changed via reconciliation.

Or, worst case, passing some stand-alone items through reconciliation.

 

[PhoenixDark]

To be clear, the modification both Pelosi and Clayburn raised was through reconciliation. They're looking for some kind of formal agreement that certain provisions both can and will be changed via reconciliation.

Or, worst case, passing some stand-alone items through reconciliation.

I was under the impression they want the senate bill changed before they agree to vote for it, as well as a confirmation that a reconciliation bill will be passed shortly afterward.

 

[The Librarian]

I was under the impression they want the senate bill changed before they agree to vote for it, as well as a confirmation that a reconciliation bill will be passed shortly afterward.

That's not gonna happen. Why bother changing it when you can just get the necessary changes through reconciliation?

 

[GhaleonEB]

I was under the impression they want the senate bill changed before they agree to vote for it, as well as a confirmation that a reconciliation bill will be passed shortly afterward.

I suppose it's possible that the Senate could pass their reconciliation bill, and then the House passes the Senate healthcare bill and then the Senate reconciliation bill back to back.

But all the reporting I've seen so far is more about locking in assurances in the Senate that they'll go that route. Because they need to pass the underlying healthcare bill as fast as possible to lock it in place.

 

[Novid]

(if this post or news is old dont mind it)

For all your Faux News haters - rumblings are starting up and despite the ratings, Ailes maybe too maverick for even Murdock to handle.

The Murdock family has been a bit peeaved at Ailes. Despite the fanstastic ratings, there have been some rumors that Rupes wants Ailes to retire. There even some saying that Ailes makes more money that Rupes... There also some saying that there could be a power struggle between James Murdock and Ailes once Rupes does retire.

So, like the old saying goes - all good things will come to a end. (I had the gawker link somewhere but I dont have that with it)