Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

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.

Right. And the changes the house wants concerning the excise tax could easily be passed through reconciliation.

And maybe they demand a medicare buy-in while they're at it.

 

[Pctx]

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.

Well I guess my underlying point is why keep throwing money on the fire? Medicare has been bleeding for decades (unfortunately) but I thought the administration was indeed (as you said) going to prolong it and pass it along to another program intended to change the overall infrastructure of American healthcare. Maybe not as drastic as some had made it out to be on either side of the isle.

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.

As I stated above... I believe this was the primary steps of putting things in place to do so. The system would've gone through too much shock too quickly if it was just replaced over night which there's no way they could've done. For efficiency sake though, they do need to start pairing things down.

 

[Novid]

Im not totally suprised of the Mass. election. Never, ever diss the red sox.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Right. And the changes the house wants concerning the excise tax could easily be passed through reconciliation.

And maybe they demand a medicare buy-in while they're at it.

Yeah, that's the thing. Passing the bill and then going through reconciliation actually expands the universe of what can be done. The somewhat ironic part is, passing the bill and then modifying it later through reconciliation is what was always likely to happen, just not this fast. What might end up happening is a worse bill than expected passes (because of no conference), but some hoped-for-down-the-road improvements get made right away.

But I've learned not to get my hopes up through this process. One day at a time. :lol

 

[thefit]

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.

Really? McCain who had he won the election was going to appoint Phil Gramm in charge of finance. The same Phil Gramm of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) wants Glass–Steagal back? Right. It might be all in your head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999-2001) which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and/or an insurance company.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms and insurance companies to consolidate. For example, Citicorp (a commercial bank holding company) merged with Travelers Group (an insurance company) in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica and Travelers. This combination, announced in 1993 and finalized in 1994, would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 by combining securities, insurance, and banking, if not for a temporary waiver process.[1] The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. Historically, the combined industry has been known as the "financial services industry".

 

[Price Dalton]

Really? McCain who had he won the election was going to appoint Phil Gramm in charge of finance. The same Phil Gramm of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) wants Glass–Steagal back? Right. It might be all in your head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

http://www.newsweek.com/id/226938

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aQfRyxBZs5uc

 

[Matt]

Well I guess my underlying point is why keep throwing money on the fire? Medicare has been bleeding for decades (unfortunately) but I thought the administration was indeed (as you said) going to prolong it and pass it along to another program intended to change the overall infrastructure of American healthcare. Maybe not as drastic as some had made it out to be on either side of the isle.


As I stated above... I believe this was the primary steps of putting things in place to do so. The system would've gone through too much shock too quickly if it was just replaced over night which there's no way they could've done. For efficiency sake though, they do need to start pairing things down.

No, that's not right. The bill the Senate voted on was all about expanding the current system and introducing cost-cutting measures. Very little structural change was made, which is one of the reasons why it had to be so long.

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

Yeah but sometimes the unions trying to get their workers better pay and benefits, but hurt the rest of Americans that aren't in that deal.

 

[Diablos]

The Supreme Court decision sucks. Politics become shaped by corporations even further. Fucking great; just what we needed!

This is a really shitty week for the United States of America. I can't imagine what the ads are going to be like in the fall...

 

[RiskyChris]

Yeah but sometimes the unions trying to get their workers better pay and benefits, but hurt the rest of Americans that aren't in that deal.

Trying to compares unions and corporations is so fucking retarded. Corporations do immeasurably more damage to the American public than unions.

It's not a tough call to answer why people here might be more favorable to unions.

 

[Diablos]

So what does this decision really mean? Are we gonna see any company that has the power and money to just run a bunch of mini-movies whenever the fuck they want because Candidate B wants their money?

WTF is this shit? Ads as is are often full of inaccurate information or flat out LIES. It's gonna be so much more common now that any corporation that has the money and will can basically run whatever the hell they want as long as enough people in the Democratic or Republican parties OK it.

 

[thefit]

Yeah but sometimes the unions trying to get their workers better pay and benefits, but hurt the rest of Americans that aren't in that deal.

Hurt them how? Any retaliation upon the non unionized work force is done because the corporation has the ability to do so because there is no union they then blame it upon the unions. So get rid of the union? Thats going to get the corporation to turn around and reward the rest of the work force? Right. They just demonstrated a perfect example of union busting at that point the rest of the workforce just got a taste of what will happen to them if they don't fall in line.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I see we have another gaffer in this thread (Nert) preaching supply-side economics. If anything, it's health care costs that are hurting businesses. Look at the GM plants in Canada. They pay far less on health care and the employees are paid more than employees at the GM plants in the U.S..:lol

Oh and corporate profits were the highest in decades over the past 10 years, yet no net positive jobs were created. :lol :lol

HOORAY FOR SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS!

 

[Diablos]

Ohh, this is RICH.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...52825109576.html?mod=WSJ-hpp-MIDDLETopStories

"Corporations historically have been leery to get involved in races," says Michael Toner, a former Federal Election Commission chairman. "Now they have a constitutional right to advertise when they want and to say anything they want. The question is: Will they?"

OF COURSE THEY WILL.

Doug Pinkham, the president of the Public Affairs Council—an organization that advises corporations on political activity—doesn't expect "a tidal wave of money coming from corporate America...Companies are not in the business of stirring up trouble."

Yeah fucking right :lol :lol :lol

 

[Dupy]

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.

Why would you say this? Any support for gay rights is good support, especially considering there's a federal trial going on about this very topic that's likely to flare up over the course of the year.

And besides it's never "safe" to support gay rights when you're a public figure in the Republican party.

 

[Karma]

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?

"We're not in a big rush" on health care, Pelosi said. "Pause, reflect."

I dont think they are going to pass the Senate bill any time soon.

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...te-bill-lays-out-another-option.php?ref=fpblg

The chairman of the House progressive caucus digs in a bit deeper.

Millions of Americans are watching Congress very closely today to see how health care reform will proceed. The vast majority of House and Senate lawmakers agree that we need to increase health care access as much as possible, bring costs down and institute common-sense insurance industry reform. The question is how to go about doing that.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus and I are diligently working with our colleagues and House leadership to find the best way forward. We continue to seek meaningful regulatory reform and cost containment measures, as we promised the American people at the outset of this process. My objection to simply approving the Senate bill has upset many who believe the problems with the bill - which are too numerous to count - will be fixed through either the budget reconciliation process or a simultaneous bill amending the worst elements.

I believe that a fix of the required magnitude could not pass both chambers of Congress in a timely fashion. Instead, I favor a two-part approach. Part one would be to pass a clean reconciliation bill requiring only 51 Senate votes that would include many important budget-related elements. This would not merely amend the Senate bill; it would pull the best budget-related items supported by the vast majority of American people from the existing reform bills and create a single transparent piece of legislation. Part two would be to send a separate handful of popular regulatory measures to the Senate, where they enjoy bipartisan support. These would include insurance cost controls, portability between jobs, ending the use of preexisting conditions to deny coverage, prohibiting lifetime and annual limits on benefits, prohibiting age and gender discrimination, establishing essential benefit standards, and ending the practice of rescission. This approach ensures that much of what we sought to achieve with health care reform will be enacted without the need to re-engage a debate on how to 'fix' the irredeemable Senate bill in the face of unrelenting Republican obstructionism.

I cannot support the Senate bill for the same reasons I could not before. It is a collection of unfair elements, including last-minute deal-making with certain individual senators in exchange for their votes, that has incensed voters across the country. It does not add up to an improvement in our health care system. I regret that we have come to this point in the reform process, but now that we are here, we should follow a path that gives us the greatest chance to pass the laws we need and deserve and delivers affordable health care services to all Americans. Viewing the Senate bill as the simplest and least controversial vehicle for reform is a tempting but misguided trap. The bill forces people to buy insurance they could not afford. It places the burden on middle-income families it is supposed to protect. It does nothing to change insurance company behavior. In total, it is a recipe for disaster down the line. There are too many elements of this bill that make no sense for me to cast my vote in favor.

I remain committed to working with my colleagues to find the best path forward. As we do so, our first priority will be to achieve our long-standing goal of affordable, accessible health care for all consumers.

 

[NewLib]

Ohh, this is RICH.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...52825109576.html?mod=WSJ-hpp-MIDDLETopStories


OF COURSE THEY WILL.



Yeah fucking right :lol :lol :lol

I kind of disagree for this reason. Both Democrats and Republicans are ALREADY in the pockets of corporations. Hell many corporations donate to both parties. I think its much easier and less expensive for the corporations to directly lobby politicians than it is for them to influence elections.

If they can get their way no matter who wins, why care who wins?

 

[The Librarian]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...te-bill-lays-out-another-option.php?ref=fpblg

The chairman of the House progressive caucus digs in a bit deeper.

Sounds good to me!

 

[Aaron Strife]

Part two would be to send a separate handful of popular regulatory measures to the Senate, where they enjoy bipartisan support. These would include insurance cost controls, portability between jobs, ending the use of preexisting conditions to deny coverage, prohibiting lifetime and annual limits on benefits, prohibiting age and gender discrimination, establishing essential benefit standards, and ending the practice of rescission. This approach ensures that much of what we sought to achieve with health care reform will be enacted without the need to re-engage a debate on how to 'fix' the irredeemable Senate bill in the face of unrelenting Republican obstructionism.

What's funny is you know the Republicans are just going to filibuster all of those.

For fuck's sake, just put it all in one bill for reconciliation.

 

[mAcOdIn]

Well I guess my underlying point is why keep throwing money on the fire? Medicare has been bleeding for decades (unfortunately) but I thought the administration was indeed (as you said) going to prolong it and pass it along to another program intended to change the overall infrastructure of American healthcare. Maybe not as drastic as some had made it out to be on either side of the isle.


As I stated above... I believe this was the primary steps of putting things in place to do so. The system would've gone through too much shock too quickly if it was just replaced over night which there's no way they could've done. For efficiency sake though, they do need to start pairing things down.

Medicare is easy to fix, just no one has the balls to do it.

As for the second, again, no, it had nothing to do with getting rid of medicare. I mean, sure there were some who did indeed want that to happen but that's like saying controlling pollution is a precursor to forcing everyone to become vegetarian, because yes there are some who want us to become vegetarians to cut down on methane but they're a small, small, minority, but because those people do exist should we not curb emissions out of some silly fear that 75 years from now they may somehow get the power to make us vegetarians?

In reality all bills should be taken as face value because there's people on both sides that always want something vastly different. I mean, look at the Constitution, depending on which framer you followed you'd assume the Constitution was the groundwork for anarchy all the way up to a monarchy. Can't allow yourself to be paralyzed by people with different opinions or you will get nowhere.

 

[Novid]

Is it me, or why do the right based websites always have better looking video then the supposed "progressives":lol

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So tired of Chris Matthews talking about Brown's freaking truck. Truck this, truck that, I want to have sex with Brown in his truck, Brown has a big fat truck. So annoying.

 

[besada]

Is it me, or why do the right based websites always have better looking video then the supposed "progressives":lol

You know that the use of supposed and the use of scare quotes in the same sentence is redundant, right?

Are you really not bright enough to figure out the answer to your question?

 

[thefit]

I kind of disagree for this reason. Both Democrats and Republicans are ALREADY in the pockets of corporations. Hell many corporations donate to both parties. I think its much easier and less expensive for the corporations to directly lobby politicians than it is for them to influence elections.

If they can get their way no matter who wins, why care who wins?

It means that corporations don't have to buy representatives anymore they can outright grow their own and run them as a candidates from either party maybe even in the same race. Its actually going to cost them a lot less this way because they no longer have to wet the beak of greedy partisans their candidates will be fully owned subsidiaries of corporation x with guaranteed pay beyond office so long as they maintain the corporations interests above all.

 

[thefit]

What's funny is you know the Republicans are just going to filibuster all of those.

For fuck's sake, just put it all in one bill for reconciliation.

Thats kind of the point, the Democrats are going to force up and down votes on each part and thats means Republicans are going to be on the spot each time.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

It would be great if they do medicare buy-in through reconciliation, and the best part is that it would IMPROVE medicare's cost measures. Why? Because if you expand the age group and lower it, you would be allowing healthier people to buy into medicare, meaning they would spend less.

 

[Oblivion]

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.

Senator McCain respects the views of members of his family. The Senator chaired the effort to successfully pass Arizona Proposition 102, the Marriage Protection Amendment, and his opposition to gay marriage remains the same. Senator McCain believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman.

The first Mrs. McCain was unavailable for comment.

.

 

[Nert]

Most economist? Really, like who?

(Typing on a phone, sorry about the brevity)

Most economists do, in fact, see things like unions, tariffs, trade quotas, strict immigration laws, and the like as creating market inefficienies. Principles like skill differentiation, comparative advantage and competition can create better, cheaper goods; this can be shown mathematically. I can directly define these terms or cite economists when I get home, if you want.

 

[Diablos]

This is pretty telling, people.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/21/sen_kerry_no_one_wants_to_delay_seating_brown.html

Skip to 2:40... listen to what John Kerry says about Scott Brown hopefully finding common ground with Democrats on things like banning pre-existing conditions and being denied coverage even when you pay your premium. Look at the smirk on Scott Brown's face after Kerry says that. He doesn't give a fuck. He's a carbon copy of the GOP's anti-Obama for any reason agenda. I can only hope MA voters are smart enough to catch on in 2012 when they realize he's not an independent Senator, but the top Northeastern GOP obstructionist. This man is gonna vote against anything that pertains to HCR, no matter how stripped down it may be, and probably anything else Obama tries to get through Congress.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

So what's the U.S.'s comparative advantage in being more efficient and producer cheaper goods?

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...te-bill-lays-out-another-option.php?ref=fpblg

The chairman of the House progressive caucus digs in a bit deeper.

So reconciliation used to change the excise tax for instance. Then a new senate bill that only features the popular insurance stuff like pre-existing conditions, increase amount of time children can remain covered by their parents insurance, etc.

He's assuming the senate can even pass the "popular" regulatory mechanisms that have "bipartisan" support. The republicans won't vote for it. Especially if they know a reconciliation bill down the line is going to feature a bunch of liberal changes. It's like the article on TPM from earlier, where a democrat staffer said the republicans are putting up stop blocks claiming everything the democrats do is an attempt to get a single payer system.

 

[Nert]

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.



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.



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.

Just responding to your ending assumptions due to time limitations. I'm an undergraduate senior with a double major in political science and economics, for what it's worth. I have no affiliation with any political party or specific ideology, and I try to do a more utilitarian cost-benefit analysis for issues without making judgements on anyone's intentions.

 

[Mr. Dobalina]

This is pretty telling, people.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/21/sen_kerry_no_one_wants_to_delay_seating_brown.html

Skip to 2:40... listen to what John Kerry says about Scott Brown hopefully finding common ground with Democrats on things like banning pre-existing conditions and being denied coverage even when you pay your premium. Look at the smirk on Scott Brown's face after Kerry says that. He doesn't give a fuck. He's a carbon copy of the GOP's anti-Obama for any reason agenda. I can only hope MA voters are smart enough to catch on in 2012 when they realize he's not an independent Senator, but the top Northeastern GOP obstructionist. This man is gonna vote against anything that pertains to HCR, no matter how stripped down it may be, and probably anything else Obama tries to get through Congress.

So staring and not nodding in agreeance with someone putting words in your mouth means you don't give a fuck?

2012 will be interesting now that Massachusetts is out from under the Kennedy mystique. I have no idea what Brown is going to do these next 3 years, but if he doesn't do anything too crazy, MA might just think "Hey, maybe we're better off not throwing our whole lot with one party."

 

[Oblivion]

Wow, Matthews tore Howard Dean to shreds.

 

[S1lent]

Worst. Supreme Court Decision. Ever!

/Comic Book Guy

 

[Nert]

I see we have another gaffer in this thread (Nert) preaching supply-side economics. If anything, it's health care costs that are hurting businesses. Look at the GM plants in Canada. They pay far less on health care and the employees are paid more than employees at the GM plants in the U.S..:lol

Oh and corporate profits were the highest in decades over the past 10 years, yet no net positive jobs were created. :lol :lol

HOORAY FOR SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS!

Erm... I'm not preaching supply-side economics, and I never said anything about health care outside of a throwaway comment of being against the current reforms being proposed. Health care definitely needs to be reformed in this country, and decoupling health care and employers should be a major part of that.

I appreciate the fact that this is an isolated political thread on a website about videogames, but hopefully this wont fully devolve into people trying to label me and then arguing against that label instead of my own arguments.

 

[RiskyChris]

I appreciate the fact that this is an isolated political thread on a website about videogames, but hopefully this wont fully devolve into people trying to label me and then arguing against that label instead of my own arguments.

This should be the title of the next PoliGAF thread.

 

[Nert]

So what's the U.S.'s comparative advantage in being more efficient and producer cheaper goods?

I can pull up figures on specific industries if necessary, but there are plenty of fields we do great in. Various media products produced in the United States (including music, television, movies, news, and videogames) are highly exported; we have the highest rated higher level education system in the world that draws in plenty of international students; many American firms involved in high end technology have a strong international presence.

To avoid listing more things, the general trend is that, like many other developed countries, our country's strengths involve relatively high education levels and a developed consumer market as opposed to some abundance of natural resources or the availability of a surplus of low skilled, low wage labor. Even if the United States could technically "be the best" at any product, it's mathematically better for us to focus on providing the goods and services that we have a lower opportunity cost of making. In short, if we were to artificially prop up our ailing manufacturing and low-skilled labor industries instead of putting more resources into more productive sectors, we'd be giving up much more of our potential output than we would if we just had more open trade policies.

It's the same reason why it's beneficial for the states of the United States to both trade with each other and have their labor forces and firms compete with one another, really.

 

[Nert]

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.



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.

We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether or not teacher's unions and their payment structures pose an obstacle to education reform, I suppose (not that I'm arguing that it's the one and only factor that's holding schools back, as I just see it as one of many).

I'm not trying to argue that unions are "worse" than corporations, but only that their political lobbying exists for the same reason that corporate lobbying exists; the people doing the lobbying are seeking extra benefits, wages, revenue, profits, or whatever, other than they'd be able to receive simply from the intersection of market demand and supply. An example of a corporation doing this same type of behavior is very easy to come up with: plenty of agricultural groups demand subsidies to stay in business and become net exporters when, without subsidies and trade barriers, people would import similar goods at a lower cost. Multinational corporations constantly lobby to put more stringent measures protecting intellectual property into any kind of free trade agreements that are created, mostly looking out for themselves (adding to the complexity of the bills and slowing down their creation and passage substantially).

I'll drop the blue collar, white collar distinction, as it's not something I believe in, but rather mentioned as a possible reason why people naturally feel more sympathetic for unions. Your artificial separation between the "workers" and the "investor class" doesn't make much sense, though. People can not respect the work of investors, but being an investor is in fact a job, making them "workers," and they look after their own interests in their lobbying... much like unions.

 

[ChoklitReign]

Even more bad news for progressives - Air America bites the dust.

 

[ShOcKwAvE]

Even more bad news for progressives - Air America bites the dust.

Yeah we're not even through January and we've had almost as much bad news as 2009.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Yeah we're not even through January and we've had almost as much bad news as 2009.

Seeing as how Ted Kennedy and Michael Jackson both died in 2009 this is not true.

Spoiler

yet

 

[Diablos]

So staring and not nodding in agreeance with someone putting words in your mouth means you don't give a fuck?

2012 will be interesting now that Massachusetts is out from under the Kennedy mystique. I have no idea what Brown is going to do these next 3 years, but if he doesn't do anything too crazy, MA might just think "Hey, maybe we're better off not throwing our whole lot with one party."

It's not just that he didn't nod, he clearly had a look of "omg no" on his face.

As far as 2012 goes, if Brown proves to be a carbon copy of the GOP's "stop Obama in his tracks" agenda, I do not think he will retain his popularity in a state that has a lot of Democrats. That said, nothing surprises me anymore.

I really do wonder if he'll run for President in three years, though. Obama vs. Brown would be quite epic; I'd expect Brown to be a formidable opponent if he were to remain popular in the Northeast...

 

[Novid]

You know that the use of supposed and the use of scare quotes in the same sentence is redundant, right?

Are you really not bright enough to figure out the answer to your question?

It wasn't a question, just an observation. Of course I know. I just wish the left had the same care (and yes a 5 year old flash video thingy doesn't cut it media matters) as the right does when it comes to something the left should be winning hands down.

 

[Novid]

It's not just that he didn't nod, he clearly had a look of "omg no" on his face.

As far as 2012 goes, if Brown proves to be a carbon copy of the GOP's "stop Obama in his tracks" agenda, I do not think he will retain his popularity in a state that has a lot of Democrats. That said, nothing surprises me anymore.

I really do wonder if he'll run for President in three years, though. Obama vs. Brown would be quite epic; I'd expect Brown to be a formidable opponent if he were to remain popular in the Northeast...

Brown has no shot. Clout maybe - shot no. Its up if Palin wants it. I feel sorry for her if she runs and loses because despite his writing skills I cannot stand it if Beck starts whining on this that and the other. I mean Beck acts almost like some high school kid when he sees the woman. I mean i dont hate him as much as the rest of you do...when he's manic depressive he can write, but lord have mercy if she runs and loses.

Maybe James Franco is right moe is catching like a plague...

 

[Mr. Dobalina]

Brown has no shot. Clout maybe - shot no. Its up if Palin wants it. I feel sorry for her if she runs and loses because despite his writing skills I cannot stand it if Beck starts whining on this that and the other. I mean Beck acts almost like some high school kid when he sees the woman. I mean i dont hate him as much as the rest of you do...when he's manic depressive he can write, but lord have mercy if she runs and loses.

Maybe James Franco is right moe is catching like a plague...

See, but Beck doesn't think she can really be President either - at least in her current state. He said that she is the most guarded person he has ever interviewed and that really hurts her - she is paralyzed by the fear of making a major gaffe.

I'm kind of interested to see what happens once she is settled in at Fox and if she can take over that commentator role versus being the interviewee she has been the last year and a half. There is a big difference between being interviewed (and spewing off talking points) and the role of commentator where the commentators know what questions they are going to be asked and can be much more prepared in their responses.

My guess is she just pockets her millions and supports candidates here and there with her PAC - why go through the headache of trying to run for President. Besides, if Obama doesn't moderate, Hillary is going to take that nomination from him in 2012.

 

[Byakuya769]

My guess is she just pockets her millions and supports candidates here and there with her PAC - why go through the headache of trying to run for President. Besides, if Obama doesn't moderate, Hillary is going to take that nomination from him in 2012.

AHAHAHAHAH. "Democrats lose in a landslide as every single black person in America stays home on election day."

And I love how "moderate" has become a term meaning "governing as a Republican" when it refers to any Democrat.

 

[thefit]

Clinton is not running again, she has already said this.

 

[ToxicAdam]

NO ONE is running against Obama in 2012. Maybe a joke candidacy by a Kucinich or someone like that, but no one credible.