• on a comment on The Dying Gasps of Nativism over 3 years ago

    Well you can argue calling moveon et all bad names didn't work in 2006, but then you'll have to explain why it worked in 2002 and 2004.

    Clearly when it comes to politics something more fundamental is at work. 

  • They are not completely immune. They did vote for the bill in the end after extracting their various pounds of flesh. Who would have guessed in 2006 that Nelson of Nebraska would agree to an expansion of Medicaid and $100 billion in additional yearly spending on the needy?

    More could have been done of course. A 100,000 people could have showed up at the pro-PO rally rather than a mere 5000.

  • I would say the lesson to be learned from '93 was to try a different legislative tactic. I think '93 is an apt yard-stick because the legislative balance was quite similar to '09. And external factors - democratic momentum and the recession tend to balance each other out.

  • No not really. Their was no reason for Nelson to vote for the bill in any shape or form. See the then senator from NE and Clinton's effort in 93 for example.

  • on a comment on Mad As Hell over 3 years ago

    Ofcourse, though it's never 100%. The polling before Lehman for the Dems was far less clear than what followed afterward. So clearly whatever Obama's position on TARP it did not hurt his standing.

  • comment on a post Mad As Hell over 3 years ago

    Had John Kerry listened to Greenberg instead of Shrum, he'd have won the Presidency in 2004.

    Yes, because the "2 Americas" slogan worked out so well for John Edwards. As it is Kerry came close. Closer than I expected at least.

  • on a comment on Mad As Hell over 3 years ago

    " McCain was a joke, but at least he could sense where the public was on the issue. He would have likely won had he stood against it. But, you got the sense that the bankers, when he went to NYC, told him to stfu if he wanted Cindy to keep all her money. "

    LOL. Memories have faded, but TARP truly was an emergency. Even krugman came out in favor of it.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/people-i-agree-with-part-two/

    Jamie Galbraith, pre-House-debacle, offers a jaundiced pro-Dodd-Frank argument essentially the same as mine:

    In short, as I said at the beginning, the bill is a vast improvement over the original Treasury proposal. Given the choice between approving or defeating the bill as it stands, I would urge supporting the bill. I do so without illusions.

    We need not forget, the callously stupid decision to let Lehman fail is what handed the election to the democrats. 

  • on a comment on Man In the Mirror over 3 years ago

    But you didn't actually say anything new. Your diary was just a mix of right-wing and left-wing talking points. That's the whole point, it was simply a jumble of unoriginal TPs. So you hate both sides, big deal, i got that same argument in 2000. 

  • on a comment on Man In the Mirror over 3 years ago

    A government take over of the entire banking sector was not and is not really an option. Besides bankruptcy proceedings automatically result in a calling in of outstanding debts which would have screwed home owners even more. When Lehman Brothers went bankrupt lots of companies were suddenly called on to pay back their loans - which resulted in a lot of pain.

  • on a comment on Man In the Mirror over 3 years ago

    your engaged in groupthink right here. Actual thought and force of argument is a progressive tradition. you've exhibited none.

  • comment on a post Man In the Mirror over 3 years ago

    we'll just have to admit that we have a reactionary tea-bagger masquerading as a progressive. I read the entire diary and there wasn't a single progressive or liberal thing in it. 

  • on a comment on Repeal and Replace This over 3 years ago

    I understand your point, and I do agree with it. However the promise of HCR, even during the campaign, was most emphatically not to get rid the private insurance model ("Those who like their plan can keep it"). The argument that a PO would move us away from that model was in fact used an argument against the PO.

    Instead, the law cements the Insurance Industry as the very center of our health care system.

    I don't necessarily agree that it "cements" anything. And we did get a rather hefty Medicaid expansion. Yes we didn't get a Public Option, but the PO being debated was so watered down that it was designed to fail. In it's final incarnation all it would have been is a dumping ground for the private companies to dump the sickest and neediest patients on the government. 

    And OK, we did get a Individual Mandate, but we also managed to water that down so much that it too is designed to fail. Sure there is a fine, which even in it's full effect will not be more than 2-3 months worth of premiums. And there is no penalty for not paying, it won't even effect my credit rating. In return we get the ability to sign up for any insurance coverage even after we fall sick. The IM will fail and fail badly, unless it is done away by the courts first.

    And even if you think that on balance it was slightly positive, we lost the best chance we have had and will have for a long time to move more down the correct path.

    I don't think holding out for a better plan would have helped any. Yes it was political foolishness to attempt an expansion of medical coverage during a recession and with collapsing revenues. But one should remember that in '93 the dem majorities in congress were about the same level as in '09. This wasn't 1964. You take what you can get with what you have and i'm glad they took it. Who knows, maybe if Palin is nominated in '12 we will get majorities like in '64 and '34. 

  • on a comment on Repeal and Replace This over 3 years ago

    "We looke dinto verterans's care, since he had fought in WWII, but it would only help after their life savings was used up."

    Medicaid has the same problem. Thankfully the asset test for medicaid and chip have been done away with in the ACA. Now people won't have to blow through their life savings, sell their home and become destitute before they can get coverage.

    Did you know that it was already illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions in California, but that it still happens in record numbers because the state doesn't have the resources to find the larger companies?

    That's not strictly true. The no pre-existing clause only applied to Group plans, and even there the actual pre-existing condition would only be covered after you were enrolled for 6 months. Individual plans had an 18 month wait, and the clause didn't apply to them. 

    Did you know that the health care law enforces the pre existing conditions ban by letting the states enforce it and without giving a dime to the states for that purpose?

    That's not necessarily a big deal. Since it's now law most of the enforcement can be done via the DA's office rather than the Insurance Regulators.

    But meanwhile, the Administration attacks people like me who are not happy about the core problems not being fixed (like with healthcare, or "too big to fail", etc) and tells us to shut up and be greatful for the meager scraps we've been given. How can the be so blind and out of touch?

     Understand where we can from and where we have reached. Ya insurance companies are bad, but 50% of congress didn't want to get rid of them. I would rather have something than nothing.

  • on a comment on Repeal and Replace This over 3 years ago

    We can educate, encourage, push and prod people, but we can't actually force anyone to "adopt a healthy lifestyle". Doing so would be un-American.

    Everyone knows eating at McD's is bad, but should the government ban it or tax it? Well that would be controversial. Maybe we should have a 'fat tax'. Or a 'weigh and trade' system. People who loose weight can earn credits they can sell to people who gain weight or some such rubbish.

    Most doctors I know stress prevention - but what more can they do? They can't force their patients to be healthy or take their meds on time. And saying "your unhealthy! we won't treat you" sort of defeats the point of being a doctor.

  • Moses? Really? 

    As for FDR and Lincoln maybe you should read up on them, the reality is quite different from the myth. Lincoln in particular was reviled by the abolitionists and ultra-unionists, at least in the first few years of his presidency.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads