What's next?

First off, congratulations to the new Senator-elect. He's proof that, like in any contest, you play it for a reason, and he obviously didn't let early poll numbers persuade him to mail in the campaign. It's a good lesson for anyone in any kind of contest.

Secondly, he should be seated immediately. I know some conspiratorial voices on here and elsewhere have hinted that Sen-elect Brown will be made to wait, but I don't, and I hope that doesn't happen. He's the duly elected representative of his state. Seat him ASAP, so he can do the business his constituents hired him for.

Now, what do both parties do? It's a big win for the GOP, no doubt, but they're still in a position of minority in both houses, and by a wide margin. Everyone is predicting that the GOP will filibuster everything the Democrats want to do to death, but will they? Should they?


There is an opportunity here-for both sides. If the GOP were smart, they'd would not filibuster Health Care reform with the goal to kill it, but with the goal to IMPROVE it, if they think it needs improved. Perhaps they can get the Dems to make some adjustments to the bill that would satisfy them. There's nothing wrong with that.


However, if they filibuster simply to filibuster, and to simply stymie anything the president and the Dems want to do, they run a huge risk at being seen as obstructionist in their opposition. There's a not-so-fine line between holding things up to change them for the better, and simply holding them up because one doesn't want any change.

As for the Dems, I would love for this to be the trigger that gets rid of both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as leaders in their respective Chambers. they are, by far, a bigger problem than anyone else in Congress, and it would be a good time to change leadership, not as a sign of defeat of panic, but simply that a change is needed, and to include Republicans in the process-IF the Republicans choose to be included.

And it will be a wake-up call for them that the Mid-Terms, as usual, will be tough one, and they will lose seats, as is usually the case.

So both parties better think long and hard about what they want to do. Flush with victory, the GOP will be tempted to simply become a roadblock, not an agent to help get things done in Washington. The Dems, stung by a defeat, could go into panic mode, but there's no need for that, either.

It's a time for both sides to take the other a bit more seriously, and learn to work together, and get the business of the nation done.

The Republican Scott Brown won the senate seat in Masachusetts! The democrats now lack a philabuster-proof senate majority. The Healthcare bill should be dead. The people have spoken. Each of the 3 politicians Obama has backed since his election have lost. America has spoken, we want change from this Obama style Socialism. God Bless America, nay God Save America.

Falcon, well-written.

If his opponents try to delay seating Mr.Brown, any result they attain will be tainted.

Perhaps the ruling party can see this as an opportunity for self-examination, reassessment.

The pressure is now on Pelosi. The decisions she makes next will define her speakership. One option being tossed around is having the House vote on the Senate version of the bill without any amendment. If the House passes it in its current form, the President can sign it and it becomes law. The big question is whether Pelosi can keep 4 Representatives from jumping ship. (Personally, I don't think she can.)

The writing is on the wall, a vote for health care is going to be deadly in moderate districts. So the question is, are the Democrats more interested in getting health care passed or are they more interested in retaining power.

This is also going to substantially change the money race for November. Brown's victory shows that political contributions to GOP candidates aren't going to be wasted. I think Democrats are going to lose about 25 to 30 House seats in November. I also think that Democrats are going to tell Pelosi that her Speakership is done (I don't think it's inconceivable that she'll retire). Reid will also likely lose his seat.

The State of Union is going to be key. If I were a moderate Democrat, I'd demand that the President take ownership of this health care plan. So far he's left Congressional Democrat hanging in the wind. In fact, he's screwed them pretty hard. Remember, the health care tax plan that the President now supports is the exact plan he ridiculed John McCain for proposing. At the end of the day, the entire US House is up for election come November. Until and unless the President stakes his political power on the success or failure of this plan, it's unreasonable to expect Congress to do that - particularly after the message that was sent tonight.

Yes, congrats to the new senator. Even if the Dems may have good ideas and plans, they certainly do not do a good job of conveying their message to the wider people. They perhaps have only themselves to blame.

Quoting Ipodguy7 (Reply 1): The democrats now lack a philabuster-proof senate majority.

That's "filibuster-proof", just for spelling's sake.

Quoting Ipodguy7 (Reply 1): The Health care bill should be dead. The people have spoken.

The people of the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts don't make up the whole nation, last time I checked. And most polls show Americans DO want Health Care reform, so I don't see where it should be dead. In fact, it should not be dead. That's the question I was posing; should the GOP use that one seat, which keeps a filibuster-proof majority out of the Senate, simply to kill reform, or to make reform-which is going to happen anyway-something better? Do they run the chance of being seen as simply obstructionist, or do they use it to help move the nation forward?

Quoting Ipodguy7 (Reply 1): we want change from this Obama style Socialism.

You want change. Most Americans, just one year ago, voted overwhelmingly for Obama to be President, and, unlike you, do not think he is a Socialist. In fact, he's not.

Again, what will both parties do now?

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 3): The pressure is now on Pelosi.

Pelosi heads the House, not the Senate. The pressure is now on Reid, not Pelosi, IMHO.

Quoting N537FX (Reply 4): Even if the Dems may have good ideas and plans, they certainly do not do a good job of conveying their message to the wider people.

Yes, that's why they won the presidency in a landslide a year ago, and hold large majorities in both Houses of Congress.   C'mon, let's get some reality here. Because Coakley didn't run a good race doesn't mean ALL Dems don't run good races. That's a little over-the-top.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5): And most polls show Americans DO want Health Care reform, so I don't see where it should be dead.

Can you link us to 2 or 3 of these polls because every poll I've seen shows that most Americans are happy with their health coverage (by a large majority).

Democrats can still pass health care reform - let's see if they have the guts to do it.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5): voted overwhelmingly for Obama to be President, and, unlike you, do not think he is a Socialist. In fact, he's not.

Please define socialism according to you.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): First off, congratulations to the new Senator-elect.

I'll actually second that, even if it surprises some on this board. MA has elected good Republican Senators in the past. (The last one happened to be an African American.)

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): Secondly, he should be seated immediately.

He will be sworn in as soon as the election is certified by the MA SecState. With the lead we're seeing that should not take a long time. Certainly not a FL 2000 situation.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): He's the duly elected representative of his state.

After he's certified. Probably by the end of the week.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): As for the Dems, I would love for this to be the trigger that gets rid of both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as leaders in their respective Chambers.

I believe that Reid and Pelosi will stay in place until after Obama signs the Health Reform legislation. They are the two that are tasked to carry the load and they'll finish the job.

With Brown elected I see the House simply passing the Senate version of the Health Reform Bill - and doing so rather quickly. There is no reason to spend any more time on it in the Senate from the Democrat's point of view, or from Obama's point of view.

That effectively puts Brown in a position of serving his State in every area outside of health care reform - which will be interesting to follow. WIll Brown be a hard nosed conservative or will he be a moderate who really wants to get elected in his next time up?

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): And it will be a wake-up call for them that the Mid-Terms, as usual, will be tough one, and they will lose seats, as is usually the case.

The mid-terms are always an unhappy event for those in the White House and this year will not be any different.

If the House adopts the Senate version of health reform then the issue will be on the table, but some parts of health reform (pre-existing conditions) will be an albatross around the Republican's neck as Democrats will be able to claim they get rid of it.

And the employment will be a huge factor. We'll need to see how that goes.

As well as the economy, two wars, etc.

The 2010 elections are giong to get nasty, but Republicans can't claim the professional management qualities they used to claim - not after Bush/Cheney.

All in all it's going to be interesting to watch.

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 2): If his opponents try to delay seating Mr.Brown, any result they attain will be tainted.

Apparently Pelosi said she would seat immediately. Our state election commissioner said he would certify immediately as well.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6): Pelosi heads the House, not the Senate. The pressure is now on Reid, not Pelosi, IMHO.

The Senate bill is pending before the House. The Senate never took up the House bill. So if Democrats want to pass health care, they can do so with a simple majority vote in the House of the Senate bill as long as that bill is not amended. The pressure is on Speaker Pelosi.

If SHE decides to not take the Senate bill up for consideration OR seeks to amend it, THEN and only then does the filibuster come into play as the conference bill would have to again be voted on the Senate (and a Senator could then attempt to filibuster it requiring a cloture vote before a final vote on the bill). ABC has a great cartoon video on how a bill becomes a law. Maybe you should watch it.

[Edited 2010-01-20 13:02:52 by srbmod]

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): As for the Dems, I would love for this to be the trigger that gets rid of both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as leaders in their respective Chambers.

I could not agree with you more. I've long thought that Nanci Pelosi has as strong a grip on reality as Squeaky Fromme. She is a national embarrassment on the same level as Bush. The only difference being she's crazy, while he was stupid.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5): And most polls show Americans DO want Health Care reform, so I don't see where it should be dead.

True. However, the majority of Americans do not think that the reform being forced down our throats is the way to do it. Anybody with half a brain can smell something funny in all the behind-closed-doors dealing. Not to mention the price tag...

The House, IMHO, has been completely out of control since about September/October of '08 when it became apparent that Obama was going to win. Also, also this rhetoric being spewed about Hope and change was idiotic if you ask me, because the worst thing you can do psychologically to a person is promise them "hope" and not deliver.

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 7): Please define socialism according to you.

'
Socialism, in it's lesser form, is what you have in many European nations: a large tax burden on the people, that covers just about every service you can think of: higher education; Day Care; Health Care; everything. That's Socialism. At it's worst, it's a system that evolves into Communism, aka the USSR, DRPK, PRC, etc.

What we have in this nation isn't Socialism. Even this new Health Care bill, stripped of a Public Option, isn't Socialism.

We don't have near as high a tax rate as most of Europe and other nations. Our government doesn't outright pay for college, heath care, day care, etc.

I wonder, off-hand, if anyone has ever done a study about who ends up paying more in the long run: people in socialist democracies, who have that high tax rate, or Americans, who would rather pay for Day Care, Health Care, etc, out of their own pocket? Might be interesting.

But there you go.

And, by the way, I truly believe that many people, like yourself, if you REALLY thought you lived in a Socialist society, you'd leave, simply on the principal of it. But we don't come close to such a society, not even under big bad Obama.  

Quoting Ipodguy7 (Reply 1): The Healthcare bill should be dead.

Healthcare is not dead in Massachusetts - there's a statewide healthplan that covers virtually everyone in that state. The voters don't care about national healthcare there, apparently. They "already got theirs".  

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 13): Healthcare is not dead in Massachusetts - there's a statewide healthplan that covers virtually everyone in that state.

Which has driven this state into a massive deficit.

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 13): The voters don't care about national healthcare there, apparently. They "already got theirs".

Yep. And we got the shaft for it. Which is one more reason we elected Brown to stop this madness from happening at a federal level.

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 14): Yep. And we got the shaft for it. Which is one more reason we elected Brown to stop this madness from happening at a federal level.

If Brown is going into this simply to be a force for delay and obstruction, he won't last very long, and from what I've read, he's not a dumb guy.

As I said, Cadet, what will the tactics be: simply to delay and obstruct, or to actually present their own ideas, that have merit? (not like that phony budget they trotted out early last year)

This shouldn't just be a game, my friend, but a chance to do some good-and simply obstructing for the sake of obstruction will boomerang on those who try it eventually. Remember the fallout in the 90's, when the Government shut down. Who got the blame-the GOP, because the American people felt they were simply being obstructionist.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15): If Brown is going into this simply to be a force for delay and obstruction, he won't last very long, and from what I've read, he's not a dumb guy.

Who said healthcare is his only reason?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): Socialism, in it's lesser form, is what you have in many European nations: a large tax burden on the people, that covers just about every service you can think of: higher education; Day Care; Health Care; everything.

I don't think a single economic textbook agrees with you. Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): That's Socialism. At it's worst, it's a system that evolves into Communism, aka the USSR, DRPK, PRC, etc.

Even Marx doesn't agree with that statement. According to the Marx's 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program - capitalism evolves into Communism.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

I believe that MA state law requires a 10 day period to certifiy, although the AG could suspend that. With a win by a substantual margin, beyond that of a requied recount or even worth a challange by the losing canidate, a suspension of that certification period could be effected by later in the week or early next week. Once the certification process by MA is done and the papers filed with the State Elections Board, then the certification can be forwarded to the USA Senate and Brown should be promptly accepted as the new Senator, given his oath and seated.
I wonder which committees he will be assigned to? The Republicans will want to award him one of the preferred ones as a reward for his critical win.

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 16): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15): If Brown is going into this simply to be a force for delay and obstruction, he won't last very long, and from what I've read, he's not a dumb guy. Who said healthcare is his only reason?

I deliberately did not say Healthcare in that paragraph, and for a reason. It's not the only issue, and there's always the chance that the GOP could filibuster everything that comes up now. That's what I'm talking about. Do you want the nation run like that?

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 17): Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

And that CERTAINLY isn't the U.S, especially when you have such a gap between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest. Again, you are incorrect in saying we somehow live in a Socialist society. We don't even come close.

So why do you and other Conservatives keep saying we do, when it's obvious we're not even close? I know why, but I don't think you have the nerve to face up to the real reason.

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 3): The pressure is now on Pelosi.

Ain't that the truth!   

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 3): The writing is on the wall, a vote for health care is going to be deadly in moderate districts.

That won't be know until November. By then there may well be other things that are critical to the voters. Look how "unimportant" Haiti was 2 weeks ago. Things change.

And by then a lot of voters will be able to get insurance for themselves or someone in their family with "pre-existing conditions" outlawed. I don't believe conservatives consider that as important as it is.

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 3): So far he's left Congressional Democrat hanging in the wind.

Odd thing is that he let both the House and Senate use their collective thinking - such as it is. There were "basic guidelines" provided by Obama, but elected officials were allowed to use their own mind. Major change from the previous election.

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 7): every poll I've seen shows that most Americans are happy with their health coverage (by a large majority).

Most, but not all, Americans that actually have health insurance are happy with it. I suspect that you'll also find that the level of happiness increases when the percentage of premium costs paid by their employer increases.

The issue is how these same people feel about, ay, a pubic option for those who cannot afford health insurance, or are "medical rejects". Those polls show that people what others be be able to get care when they need it.

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 13): Healthcare is not dead in Massachusetts

Yes, they do have the Republican Governor Romney plan as I recall. How is that working out?  

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 14): Which has driven this state into a massive deficit.

Could that be because it was a Republican plan that made the insurance companies richer?  

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 18):

As I said above. The state election commissioner was interviewed. He said he has no reason for a recount and will certify the election as soon as the final votes are tallied. He said he would notify the feds immediately.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 19): Again, you are incorrect in saying we somehow live in a Socialist society. We don't even come close.

I never said that. The statement being debated whether or not Pres. Obama is socialist.

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 22): I never said that. The statement being debated whether or not Pres. Obama is socialist.

Which he is not. When the bailout money was handed to the banks, conservatives screamed "See, he's taking over the industry!". Well, that was a lie. Many, if not most, of the banks have paid back the money, and the government no longer has a stake in them, does it?

We are not a Socialist State. We do not have a Socialist president. It seems Conservatives always need some scary term to try and peg their domestic enemies as somehow "UnAmerican". Which is shameful.

Well the only thing immediately apparent is that the Democratic party is now even more screwed up than they already were. These are adults, right?? Sorry, wrong question.

"We're always in touch with our members," Pelosi said at an afternoon press conference. "In the House, we don't have surprises when it comes to elections."

Pelosi’s dig at her Senate colleagues was harsh — but no more so than much of the back-and-forth that played out in a sort of pre-mortem for the Coakley campaign at other levels of the party...

POLITICO reported Tuesday morning that Democratic insiders in Washington — including officials at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel — were putting some of the blame on Coakley for putting Kennedy’s seat at risk.

By mid-day, Coakley’s crew was pushing back — hard.

A Coakley adviser took the White House and the Democratic National Committee to task for “leaking” and said that, “If Martha is guilty of taking the race for granted, so is the White House and the DNC."

Seriously, if there's any Democrat out there who is still an ardent supporter of Pelosi and her underhanded ways, their sanity must now be called into question.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31682.html

I would ask this question, if the Democrats ramrod this healthcare through, does anyone have any doubt that the Republicans would do the same if given the chance with a bill of their own? Personally, I hope they do push this through. I support healthcare. I also support throwing all the encumbent bums out of congress and term limits.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 25): I support healthcare. I also support throwing all the encumbent bums out of congress and term limits.

I second both those.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 23): conservatives screamed "See, he's taking over the industry!". Well, that was a lie. Many, if not most, of the banks have paid back the money, and the government no longer has a stake in them, does it?

Does the US own GM?
Does the US own Fannie and Freddie?
Does the US own AIG?
Does the US still own warrants representing about 35% of Citibank?
Does the US own Chysler?
Did Pres. Obama not demand banks modify private mortgages?

So you tell me, how's that not taking over major industries?

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 27): Does the US own GM? Does the US own Fannie and Freddie? Does the US own AIG? Does the US still own warrants representing about 35% of Citibank? Does the US own Chysler? Did Pres. Obama not demand banks modify private mortgages? So you tell me, how's that not taking over major industries?

You just don't get it, do you? Did the government give up it's stake in those banks who paid back the Federal money? Yes or no?

A temporary investment in them, is not permanent control, and you know it. But you're pretending you don't simply to play political games.

I thought you were smarter than that.

And you STILL have not answered a single question posed in the thread? Are you going to, or are you going to just bitch about the President?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): We don't have near as high a tax rate as most of Europe and other nations.

That's because we borrow the difference.  

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 29): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): We don't have near as high a tax rate as most of Europe and other nations. That's because we borrow the difference.

Good point.

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 27): So you tell me, how's that not taking over major industries?

Go back to the US helping Chrysler out a while back when Iacocca was CEO. We got the warrants, the company paid back all they needed before it was due and the government made a very healthy profit off of the deal.

With the banks there has been interest charged (which would be why funds were paid back ASAP) and I can see an overall profit when all is said and done. A good aAmerican characteristic, profit.

... he should send both his daughters to my house, scantily clad.  

... Actually, I think that Obama/Pelosi/Reid will try to use various nuclear options, especially to get around recalcitrant Blue Dogs. Obama thinks that people will love his health care program once it is enacted. Pelosi's seat isn't in danger, she doesn't care. Reid has lost his seat already, so if he passes an unpopular piece of legislation, it doesn't matter. His seat was lost with his first health care vote, as well numerous Blue Dogs. As for the Blue Dogs, if they voted once for health care, they are screwed. If they didn't, it will be easy to tie them to Dem leadership.

If Obama wants popularity, he'll demand that Pelosi and Reid resign, and ask that two moderate Democrats take their position. He'd have a mea culpa when it comes to health care and ask to work in a bi-partisan manner.

Will this happen?

Never, Obama is arrogant and out-of-touch. This defeat never should have happened and it's all about unpopular Democrat politics.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 23): Which he is not. When the bailout money was handed to the banks, conservatives screamed "See, he's taking over the industry!". Well, that was a lie. Many, if not most, of the banks have paid back the money, and the government no longer has a stake in them, does it?

Then why the proposed 50% tax on bonuses?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28): And you STILL have not answered a single question posed in the thread? Are you going to, or are you going to just bitch about the President?

We are not bitching, we are trying to save our country from getting into further trouble. Obama lied to us, he said health care debate would be trasnparent. It's being done behind closed doors without any GOP input in fact Pelosi has not wanted any. She made it clear that the bill would be her way and only when she saw the public was against it did she play ball. Still without being out in the open. In fact mocking the presidents campaign promise about broadcasting the debate on TV. It doesn't lead to public trust.

Obama campaigned on a platform of change. He told us he would give us affordable health care and what we have seen is a bill that is anything but. Tonight's vote has just driven the point home that people want the simple equation to get the economy working is to drastically slash taxes. This will do 1. Get all businesses big and small hiring, people buying and money in people's pocket. Once things start to improve you can go down the road to health care. Preferably by working with businesses to force them to have to give employees health care through more tax cuts or whatever. Then maybe you can discuss some public option. Yet this administration has put the cart before the horse mostly in an attempt to "make history" We don't need history, we need a bill that works.

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 33): ... he should send both his daughters to my house, scantily clad.

Brown, you mean? Haven't seen them. They that hot, Jcs?

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 33): Never, Obama is arrogant and out-of-touch.

     

And you supported George W? That's funny.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 34): We are not bitching, we are trying to save our country from getting into further trouble

Goody. Where were you the last 8 years when Mr. Bush and the GOP trashed this nation?
Where were those high and mighty words when all these crisis' began under the watch of YOUR party?

The fact is, you're not trying to "save the nation". You simply want it in the image of some kind of Conservative Utopia, nothing else. That isn't "saving the nation". That, for many, would be enslaving it.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 25): I would ask this question, if the Democrats ramrod this healthcare through, does anyone have any doubt that the Republicans would do the same if given the chance with a bill of their own?

Did Republicans "ramrod" through private social security accounts in 2005 when they held the White House and majorities in both houses? That's a rhetorical question, the answer is no.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 35): And you supported George W? That's funny.

Actually, G.W. Bush had humility and rarely fired back at his detractors. Obama has hubris, and has an obsessive reflex of firing back at his detractors. Neither really gave in, but if you think Msr. Bush was inflexible as Msr. Obama, you're kidding yourself.

Quoting N537FX (Reply 4): Even if the Dems may have good ideas and plans, they certainly do not do a good job of conveying their message to the wider people. They perhaps have only themselves to blame.

   The incompetence of the Democrats rears its head again. They took the seat for granted, and it came back to bite them in the ass, hard. They should be ashamed of themselves.

-Mir

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 37): Actually, G.W. Bush had humility and rarely fired back at his detractors.

Humility?

"You're either with us or against us."

"We'll get him, dead or alive."

"Bring it on!"

"I have political capital, and I intend to use it."

Care to change that tune? He was probably the most arrogant president we've ever had.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 39): Care to change that tune? He was probably the most arrogant president we've ever had.

Here's a few whoppers from the current POTUS:

Three days after taking office, Obama’s response to Republicans who disagreed with the economic stimulus plan was “I won.” Obama had been president less than a month when in February he openly mocked Republicans during a speech to the Democratic caucus.

In April, he told a group of bankers that he was the “only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

In May, Obama threatened to sic the White House press corps on Chrysler bondholders who disagreed with his plan to bail out GM.

Never mind that US Bankruptcy law puts bond holders first in line. And before you rail about those greedy Wall St people a lot of common Americans owned those bonds..

Yeah that's one way to get them to cooperate...



Yup that so called political bankruptcy that is working out so well. Have you heard the news about Sergio Marchionne shaking things up in Auburn Hills because he's so displeased with Chrysler. OR the fact that GM CEO Fritz Henderson was out the door in a few months...Both companies continue to lose money and market share...

Then go see how Ford is doing...The government is on record as saying they expect to lose money on the auto bailouts.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28): You just don't get it, do you? Did the government give up it's stake in those banks who paid back the Federal money? Yes or no? A temporary investment in them, is not permanent control, and you know it. But you're pretending you don't simply to play political games. I thought you were smarter than that.

No sir. The US Treasury Secretary has said that our investment in AIG will never be paid back in full. He's said that our investment in Freddie and Fannie will never be paid back. He's said that we won't get all our money back from GM or Chrysler (in fact some of that "investment" has already been discharged in bankruptcy). So what exactly don't I get that you do? It seems that you're just making up the facts.

If we're getting all our money back from bailout out banks by sales of their equity, why exactly is Pres. Obama proposing a TARP tax to recover our investment in these entities?

You make up facts and then get upset when people call you out on them.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 34): We are not bitching, we are trying to save our country from getting into further trouble.

So why didn't you start trying to save the country before now? Why the sudden interest?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 34): Obama lied to us, he said health care debate would be trasnparent.

How, exactly, is he able to force the House and Senate to operate exactly how he wants them too?

Quoting Ipodguy7 (Reply 1): Obama style Socialism

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 22): The statement being debated whether or not Pres. Obama is socialist.

Obama is, at best, an Eisenhower-era Republican. He might even be a little further to the right than that. Just because you don't recognize the shift in American politics and that the Democrats are now classical Republicans and the Republican Party has, overall, been hijacked by right wing nut jobs doesn't make the Democrats socialist.

And if you think Obama is socialist then you are truly an ultracrepidarian. President Obama is about as socialist and left wing as the conservative stalwart Ike. These so-called "socialists" you speak of are just figments of your imagination. Buying into the conservative marketing machine just makes you blind to it.

I am just as critical of the Democrats. Anyone who believes either of these parties is the savior of the country is delusional. The problem, of course, is that the Democrats are infallible and the Republicans are never wrong. So go ahead and believe in the b.s. you are spouting if it helps you sleep better at night. The partisan bickering and name calling is what has caused this country to decline, and it is the fault of both parties with the complicity of the American people. So stop name calling and start working towards real damn solutions.

Health care: we need reform. Have it run by non profits with government support. That way we don't have government bureaucracy or private, for-profit businesses holding up the treatment of people who desperately need treatment. And it should be used for regular visits and doctor approved, necessary procedures only. Happy? Now the government doesn't control it and we don't have the real death panels, who are the corrupt minions at the insurance companies. Yeah, it will cost the government some money but it should also reduce the amount of frivolous claims, provide necessary services, and reduce costs. How? Medical insurance costs decrease because litigation will decrease. Want to help make it more self sustaining? Charge co-pays to help defray costs, but keep them reasonable. Want more money still? Fine, have a deductible that increases in price with the tax rate. That way the people who can afford it pay more, the people who can't pay less, but everyone ends up with health insurance. Don't want to do it that way? Then stick to just the co-payments.

A reasonable solution, no? Quality increases, costs decrease, and the government stays out of the management other than periodic audits. Kind of like what the Swiss do. This is a solution that allows everyone to save face.

Now for the main topic: congratulations to Senator-Elect Brown. I hope he does a good job and, as is my hope for everybody who is elected to public office, I hope he keeps an open mind about ideas and doesn't blindly follow party rhetoric or talking points.

Texan

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 25): I would ask this question, if the Democrats ramrod this health care through, does anyone have any doubt that the Republicans would do the same if given the chance with a bill of their own?

I doubt it. The Democrat's health care initiative is the most egregious abuse of power I have seen any US political body perform, and I voted for Nixon. The bribes, rule changes and closed door deal makings were disgusting. The arrogant jerks even locked out the Republicans because "we have the votes". It's similar to how the Democrats ruled the lower house during their 40 reign before Newt Gingrich's time.
The odds of 60 Republican Senators holding together for such a thing is almost zero, they don't stick together on anything. Look no further than Bob "lets make a deal" Dole and "The Maverick" John McCain. Just holding 40 of them together took a herculean effort by the Democratic leadership.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 25): I hope they do push this through

I don't. It would ruin my health care plan and cost me much more, that is unless my union could some how save me from that fate.   

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 25): I support healthcare

Everybody does, it's a bipartisan issue. About 85% of us are very happy with what we have and covering the other 15% doesn't require a Federal takeover.  

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 36): Did Republicans "ramrod" through private social security accounts in 2005 when they held the White House and majorities in both houses? That's a rhetorical question, the answer is no.

  This is a good example and I can think of others where Republican Senators refused to simply ramrod legislation. McCain for one much preferred to negotiate because he knew that the tables would turn.

Thanks,  
Cary

Quoting Texan (Reply 43): The problem, of course, is that the Democrats are infallible and the Republicans are never wrong.

     

That's one of the greatest things I've ever read on here.

Quoting Caryjack (Reply 44): This is a good example and I can think of others where Republican Senators refused to simply ramrod legislation. McCain for one much preferred to negotiate because he knew that the tables would turn.

Here's another example - did the GOP invoke the "nuclear option" to ramrod judicial appointments who were even brought up to the floor for Senate consideration because a single Senator would put a hold on them?

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 33): This defeat never should have happened and it's all about unpopular Democrat politics.

It's about a lame candidate who ran a lame campaign and lost to a better candidate and campaigner. This wasn't a referendum on health care reform, this was a reminder of the old saying that all politics are local.

Quoting Texan (Reply 43): Health care: we need reform. Have it run by non profits with government support.

Remember how those non profit government backed institutions called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac turned out?

Careful what you wish for...

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 46): Here's another example - did the GOP invoke the "nuclear option" to ramrod judicial appointments who were even brought up to the floor for Senate consideration because a single Senator would put a hold on them?

They invoked the "nuclear option", if you will, over the budget back in the mid 90's, and got the blame for the government shutdown. This won't be quite on the same level, but do they REALLY simply want to kill health care reform?

Again, GatorFan, why don't you go back to my thread-starter and try tackling the questions and queries I posed about what happens now? Not a single conservative has dared to touch it. It's an honest debate I wanted to start on this one, and I think you're intelligent enough to add some of your own insights to what I brought up.

I'd really like to know what conservatives think on this one. Take a swing at it. I'll read it in the morning.  

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): There is an opportunity here-for both sides. If the GOP were smart, they'd would not filibuster Health Care reform with the goal to kill it, but with the goal to IMPROVE it, if they think it needs improved

When the democratic leadership ignores their concerns and attempts to pass a bill that goes completely against core GOP beliefs they have every right to fillibuster. They would be derelict in not doing so.

Quoting Ipodguy7 (Reply 1): The Healthcare bill should be dead.

This particular healthcare bill should be dead. It should have been dead long ago. If you have to buy off your own party and its supporters to get people to agree to vote for your parties bill, that should tell you something.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5): The people of the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts don't make up the whole nation, last time I checked

No they don't. but how many special elections do you have to lose before the picture starts to gain focus?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5): That's the question I was posing; should the GOP use that one seat, which keeps a filibuster-proof majority out of the Senate, simply to kill reform, or to make reform-which is going to happen anyway-something better? Do they run the chance of being seen as simply obstructionist, or do they use it to help move the nation forward?

They should use it to fillibuster this particular bill that comes out of conference to death. Then perhaps the leadership will realize what the public has been saying for months now, namely, scrap this piece of crap and start over.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5): You want change. Most Americans, just one year ago, voted overwhelmingly for Obama to be President, and, unlike you, do not think he is a Socialist. In fact, he's not.

And they also do not think he has brought the change he said he would. All the talk of governing in a new way has been nothing but smoke.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6): Pelosi heads the House, not the Senate. The pressure is now on Reid, not Pelosi, IMHO

The pressure is on Pelosi. The only way this bill passes now is if the House passes the Senate version unamended. Not going to happen as no GOP member will vote for it and there are plenty of leftist democratic party members that won't either. The votes at the moment are simply not there.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8): He will be sworn in as soon as the election is certified by the MA SecState. With the lead we're seeing that should not take a long time. Certainly not a FL 2000 situation.

The MA sec state does not have to wait the 10 days for the election to be certified for the Senate to seat him. They didn't wait 10 days when Niki Tsongas won her special election with only 51% of the vote. As a matter of fact they rushed to get her seated so she could vote to override a Presidential veto.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): At it's worst, it's a system that evolves into Communism, aka the USSR, DRPK, PRC, etc.

Those are/were not communist regiemes in a true sense. They were/are dictatorships where only one party rules.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): I wonder, off-hand, if anyone has ever done a study about who ends up paying more in the long run: people in socialist democracies, who have that high tax rate, or Americans, who would rather pay for Day Care, Health Care, etc, out of their own pocket? Might be interesting.

Or who has less choice.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15): As I said, Cadet, what will the tactics be: simply to delay and obstruct, or to actually present their own ideas, that have merit? (not like that phony budget they trotted out early last year)

When you start off negotiation by calling the other sides proposition phony how well do you think those negotiations will go?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 20): The issue is how these same people feel about, ay, a pubic option for those who cannot afford health insurance, or are "medical rejects". Those polls show that people what others be be able to get care when they need it.

Those same polls show that the majority of people are happy with their particular health care coverage. They say over and over again, fix the 15% and leave the other 85% alone.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 23): Which he is not. When the bailout money was handed to the banks, conservatives screamed "See, he's taking over the industry!". Well, that was a lie. Many, if not most, of the banks have paid back the money, and the government no longer has a stake in them, does it?

Perhaps you've missed the debate on banking regulations. The government does not have to have a direct stake in the company to completely dictate its policies. They can do that just as effectively through regulation and it appears that that is just what they intend to do, unless we are talking about Fannie and Freddie. Pets are evidently exempt.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32): Go back to the US helping Chrysler out a while back when Iacocca was CEO.

The government co-signed on a 1.2 billion dollar loan, it did not offer any actual cash. Big difference between that and handing over billions. How's that working out for us anyway? Chysler was able to repay it's loan in 4 years. Think GM will be able to do the same?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32): With the banks there has been interest charged (which would be why funds were paid back ASAP) and I can see an overall profit when all is said and done. A good aAmerican characteristic, profit.

But a typical government response. Rather than use those funds to reduce the deficit the Obama administration is already looking for ways to spend that money.