Democrat defects to GOP! He's seen the light!!! This is just the tip of the ice berg, a start of a stampede!!! A great flood, of biblical proportions, will ensue!! Dogs and cats living together! :menace:
Poor guy though. Now in the Republican party he'll still have to put up with politics as usual. Or actually, politics that have become even worse and little sign of let up. <_<
Quotehttp://www.deseretnews.com/article/705353555/Democrat-defecting-to-GOP.html
Alabama Democrat defecting to the GOP
By Jay Reeves
Associated Press
Published: Tuesday, Dec. 22, 2009 10:57 p.m. MST
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — A U.S. House Democrat who opposes the health care overhaul announced Tuesday he is defecting to the GOP, another blow to Democrats ahead of the midterm elections.
U.S. Rep. Parker Griffith spoke to reporters at his home in northern Alabama, a region that relies heavily on defense and aerospace jobs.
"I believe our nation is at a crossroads, and I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt," Griffith said as his wife, Virginia, stood by his side.
The 67-year-old radiation oncologist was narrowly elected last year in a district that includes Huntsville and Decatur. President Barack Obama lost badly there to Republican John McCain.
Griffith also slammed the health care overhaul making its way through Congress. He was one of 39 House Democrats to vote against a version of the bill that narrowly passed.
"I want to make it perfectly clear that this bill is bad for our doctors," he said. "It's bad for our patients. It's bad for the young men and women who are considering going into the health care field."
That's bound to happen when Democrats run competitive candidates in deep red districts. They get to Washington and realize they're really Republicans.
QuoteI can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt
Then why is he joining the Republican Party?
"The Democrat party is imploding."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnatsec.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F07%2Frummy.jpg&hash=0ab4b47f1a614b2d614b68a351dcce2cb45b1eae)
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2009, 10:39:02 PM
QuoteI can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt
Then why is he joining the Republican Party?
QFT. Some of the "Democrat crap" being bandied about in Congress right now smells suspiciously like "Republican crap" circa early 2002.
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2009, 10:39:02 PM
QuoteI can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt
Then why is he joining the Republican Party?
There are a couple of odd things about this. He was only elected in 2008. So it's not like an old, old Southern Democrat moaning about the liberal direction the party's taken since the 1960s, rather it's a guy who was elected on a platform that called for economic stimulus and healthcare reform who's annoyed that the Democrats are pursuing those policies. It seems very strange.
The other odd/sad thing is that apparently conservatives are already coalescing behind his Republican opponent (now a primary opponent) because this guy's too liberal :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 23, 2009, 11:12:14 PM
There are a couple of odd things about this. He was only elected in 2008. So it's not like an old, old Southern Democrat moaning about the liberal direction the party's taken since the 1960s, rather it's a guy who was elected on a platform that called for economic stimulus and healthcare reform who's annoyed that the Democrats are pursuing those policies. It seems very strange.
The other odd/sad thing is that apparently conservatives are already coalescing behind his Republican opponent (now a primary opponent) because this guy's too liberal :(
Why is it odd? The guy will betray the Democrts when the going gets rough; who's to say he won't betray the GOP?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 23, 2009, 11:12:14 PM
There are a couple of odd things about this. He was only elected in 2008. So it's not like an old, old Southern Democrat moaning about the liberal direction the party's taken since the 1960s, rather it's a guy who was elected on a platform that called for economic stimulus and healthcare reform who's annoyed that the Democrats are pursuing those policies. It seems very strange.
The other odd/sad thing is that apparently conservatives are already coalescing behind his Republican opponent (now a primary opponent) because this guy's too liberal :(
In other words, he's trying to hedge his bets for reelection too late.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 23, 2009, 11:12:14 PM
There are a couple of odd things about this. He was only elected in 2008. So it's not like an old, old Southern Democrat moaning about the liberal direction the party's taken since the 1960s, rather it's a guy who was elected on a platform that called for economic stimulus and healthcare reform who's annoyed that the Democrats are pursuing those policies. It seems very strange.
This might provide some background:
QuoteThe Wall Street Journal
NOVEMBER 30, 2009
Vulnerable Democrats Juggle Districts, D.C.
Representatives Targeted by Republicans Cast Votes Against Party to Stay Viable for Re-Election, in a Challenge to Party's Priorities
By GARY FIELDS
DANVILLE, Va. -- The challenge facing Rep. Tom Perriello can be seen all along U.S. 58 where Republican campaign signs outnumber those for Democrats 7-to-1.
Mr. Perriello is a freshman Democrat.
As both parties gear up for next year's congressional elections, the most vulnerable candidates are those among the 49 primarily freshmen and sophomore Democratic House members from districts that supported the Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, in the 2008 election. Republicans rank Mr. Perriello, who squeaked out a victory in this southern Virginia district by 727 votes, as perhaps their biggest target.
"Talk about the definition of endangered species," said Gary Nordlinger, a Washington, D.C., Democratic consultant. The majority party usually loses seats in its first midterm election after the inauguration of a new president. In addition, recent Democratic gains have come in traditionally Republican seats. "It's hostile territory," Mr. Nordlinger said.
Democrats trying to address the concerns of constituents in Republican districts is also the definition of a political conundrum. To remain viable re-election candidates, many of these Democratic congressmen are casting votes alongside Republicans in Washington. That is causing difficulties for the Democrats' health-care legislation, climate bill and a revamp of financial-sector regulation, issues on which the party's more-conservative members have some misgivings.
The tension is a direct product of a strategy followed in the 2006 and 2008 elections, in which Democratic leaders picked candidates whose political ideology represented their districts, not party orthodoxy. Gone were litmus tests on hot-button issues such as abortion and gun control. In came sometimes conservative or populist lawmakers who bucked the party line.
Today, managing this diverse caucus is "the big issue for us," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. "It's a hard challenge to keep our coalition together so we can get enough votes to get us over the finish line, while giving enough members the latitude to reflect the views and values of their districts."
Among those on Republicans' target list are Reps. Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith of Alabama, Maryland's Frank Kratovil, Florida's Suzanne Kosmas, Walt Minnick of Idaho and Glenn Nye of Virginia. They have voted with Republicans 83% of the time, opposing some or all of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the 2009 stimulus package, President Barack Obama's budget, a cap-and-trade bill and health-care legislation.
Mr. Perriello's district, which is larger than New Jersey, supported Mr. McCain heavily in last year's presidential race. It helped sweep a slate of Republicans running for statewide offices into power earlier this month. And the youth and black vote that came out strongly in 2008 likely won't be there next year in such numbers.
Six Republicans, including a popular state senator, and one candidate who plans to run as an independent, have already said they plan to challenge him. During a trip in his district where he attended the funeral of a slain Danville youth as well as met with farmers to talk about them potentially losing their farms, Mr. Perriello said he can't be too concerned with who is opposing him. "Last weekend I was in a city with 22% unemployment. The worst thing that happens to me is I lose re-election," he said.
The lawmaker has nonetheless tried to straddle Washington and southern Virginia, sometimes uneasily. Mr. Perriello, 35 years old, voted against Mr. Obama's budget on the grounds that it wasn't balanced, despite a phone call from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel seeking his support. He opposed releasing part-two of TARP. He is likely to side with Republicans on extending Bush-era cuts to the estate tax, to help farmers in his district.
On the other side of the ledger, he supported the stimulus and a cap-and-trade bill, which opponents used in ads against him. He also voted for the House's health-care overhaul, despite opposing an earlier version, although he bucked the party by voting for beefed-up abortion restrictions.
"It's almost as if he's willing to go down guns blazing," said Paul Lindsay, deputy communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, the party's campaign arm in the House. "He's so willingly supporting these things clearly not in line with his constituents."
Mr. Perriello said he changed his mind on the overall bill because the latest iteration included elements he and other freshmen pushed for, including allowing young adults to stay on their parents' insurance.
During a one-hour town-hall conference call organized after the vote, a woman from Farmville, Va., asked: "I would like for you to please tell me why, when you work for the people of this district and this area and they continually say they are against the health-care plan, you vote for it?"
Mr. Perriello told her there is a lack of consensus in the district. It is the stance he takes often during his visits.
In an interview, Mr. Perriello said his fate and that of other Democrats will likely hinge on what the economy looks like in November 2010. "If the economy is stabilized Democrats will get some credit for that and people will be glad," he said. "If it's spiraling down, that will be tough."
Yes this guy called himself a Democrat. But he voted with the Republicans on the stimulus package, the FY 2010 budget, the health care bill, the Stupak Amendment to the health care bill, the jobs bill, the financial regulation package, the cap-and-trade bill, the Fair Pay Act, the Guantanamo detainee transfer vote, and the defense apporpriations bill.
I'm not sure what aspect of the Democrat constituency he was representing.
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 01:11:55 AM
I'm not sure what aspect of the Democrat constituency he was representing.
Presumably the one in Alabama.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 24, 2009, 01:14:01 AM
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 01:11:55 AM
I'm not sure what aspect of the Democrat constituency he was representing.
Presumably the one in Alabama.
The anti-spending, anti-homosexual, anti-health care reform, pro-life wing of the Democrat party.
I thought we lost that valuable constituency to the Republicans in 1994. Clearly there are still hold outs...
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 01:11:55 AM
Yes this guy called himself a Democrat. But he voted with the Republicans on the stimulus package, the FY 2010 budget, the health care bill, the Stupak Amendment to the health care bill, the jobs bill, the financial regulation package, the cap-and-trade bill, the Fair Pay Act, the Guantanamo detainee transfer vote, and the defense apporpriations bill.
I'm not sure what aspect of the Democrat constituency he was representing.
Presumably the one that votes with Pelosi 85% of the time, good luck getting through a Republican primary with that hanging around your neck.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1209/Griffith_voted_with_Pelosi_85_percent_of_the_time.html
Quote
Griffith voted with Pelosi 85 percent of the time - Glenn Thrush: Griffith voted with Pelosi 85 percent of the time
December 22, 2009
Griffith voted with Pelosi 85 percent of the time
While the left is dismissing Parker Griffith as an unreliable Democrat who often sided with Republicans on big issues, one Democratic aide points out that Griffith actually voted with Speaker Nancy Pelosi 85 percent of the time.
According to these rankings compiled by washingtonpost.com, Griffith has a higher party loyalty score than Democratic Reps. Heath Shuler (N.C.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Glenn Nye (Va.), Harry Mitchell (Ariz.), Gene Taylor (Miss.) and Walt Minnick (Idaho).
Griffith has been far more reliable for Pelosi than his Alabama counterpart, Democrat Bobby Bright, who's near the bottom of the loyalty list at 71 percent.
To be sure, many of the votes used to calculate these scores are noncontroversial — and Griffith definitely ditched his parties on the big votes on health care, cap and trade and the stimulus. But these loyalty scores are often used for internal political purposes — which is why a Democratic aide pointed them out to us.
Y'know, the Republicans and independents in his district are also part of his constituency...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 24, 2009, 01:29:15 AM
Presumably the one that votes with Pelosi 85% of the time, good luck getting through a Republican primary with that hanging around your neck.
You do understand that the 85% number basically means procedural votes. :mellow:
On every prominent piece of legislation that I can think of (abortion, the budget, the stimulus, health care, the war, homosexuals) he was a functional Republican.
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 01:36:20 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 24, 2009, 01:29:15 AM
Presumably the one that votes with Pelosi 85% of the time, good luck getting through a Republican primary with that hanging around your neck.
You do understand that the 85% number basically means procedural votes. :mellow:
On every prominent piece of legislation that I can think of (abortion, the budget, the stimulus, health care, the war, homosexuals) he was a functional Republican.
On those last two he agreed with Obama.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 24, 2009, 01:41:07 AM
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 01:36:20 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 24, 2009, 01:29:15 AM
Presumably the one that votes with Pelosi 85% of the time, good luck getting through a Republican primary with that hanging around your neck.
You do understand that the 85% number basically means procedural votes. :mellow:
On every prominent piece of legislation that I can think of (abortion, the budget, the stimulus, health care, the war, homosexuals) he was a functional Republican.
On those last two he agreed with Obama.
He voted against the defense appropriations bill. He voted against the Mathew Shepard act. :huh:
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 01:45:24 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 24, 2009, 01:41:07 AM
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 01:36:20 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 24, 2009, 01:29:15 AM
Presumably the one that votes with Pelosi 85% of the time, good luck getting through a Republican primary with that hanging around your neck.
You do understand that the 85% number basically means procedural votes. :mellow:
On every prominent piece of legislation that I can think of (abortion, the budget, the stimulus, health care, the war, homosexuals) he was a functional Republican.
On those last two he agreed with Obama.
He voted against the defense appropriations bill. He voted against the Mathew Shepard act. :huh:
Ah, I stand corrected. I thought you were judging him by the standard progressive narrative where by backing the escalation in Afghanistan is bad. As for the MS act, pfft, that's just cover to help Obama pretend he didn't throw that constituency under the bus.
An excerpt from Griffith's 2006 interview with Speakin' Out News, an African American publication in Huntsville, Alabama.
Quote
QUESTION: What kind of Democrat are you?
GRIFFITH: A life long one, a Democrat for the little man, for small businesses, for small children, for families, for seniors. I am a Democrat that believes in an excellent education and health care for all of the citizens. This can only result in a strong, vibrant, and prosperous city.
He didn't leave the party, the party left him (between 2006 and December 2009). :lmfao:
Hopefully this newly minted Republican is going to be teabagged to political death.
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 09:39:25 AM
An excerpt from Griffith's 2006 interview with Speakin' Out News, an African American publication in Huntsville, Alabama.
Quote
QUESTION: What kind of Democrat are you?
GRIFFITH: A life long one, a Democrat for the little man, for small businesses, for small children, for families, for seniors. I am a Democrat that believes in an excellent education and health care for all of the citizens. This can only result in a strong, vibrant, and prosperous city.
He didn't leave the party, the party left him (between 2006 and December 2009). :lmfao:
Hopefully this newly minted Republican is going to be teabagged to political death.
YOUR ;) Demotard party took a hard left turn, especially after Obama was elected! So he could argue, probably is, that it did indeed leave him.
And the pundits said the Republitard party was dead, just a year ago. Now the Demotard party is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, just by showing its true colors. Oh the Humanity!!! Queue the Zeppelin....
I kind of wish that all Democrats who vote with Republicans on all the key issues just go ahead and switch now. What's the point of being in the party when you're constantly voting against it? The only thing they're doing is contributing to the perception that liberals are in solid control, when in fact they're not (especially not in the Senate).
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 10:02:00 AM
YOUR ;) Demotard party took a hard left turn, especially after Obama was elected! So he could argue, probably is, that it did indeed leave him.
And the pundits said the Republitard party was dead, just a year ago. Now the Demotard party is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, just by showing its true colors. Oh the Humanity!!! Queue the Zeppelin....
Yes, *gasp*, Democrats want to push a liberal agenda. How dare they? Don't those morons realize that doing what you were elected to do is bad for your re-election chances?
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 10:02:00 AM
YOUR ;) Demotard party took a hard left turn, especially after Obama was elected! So he could argue, probably is, that it did indeed leave him.
What hard left policies have the Democrats had that weren't on their platform when this guy was elected, one year ago? What hard left policies worry you? What do you think of as hard left?
I would have thought that if they'd taken a hard left turn the left would be happier and moaning less about being sold out :mellow:
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 10:02:00 AM
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 09:39:25 AM
An excerpt from Griffith's 2006 interview with Speakin' Out News, an African American publication in Huntsville, Alabama.
Quote
QUESTION: What kind of Democrat are you?
GRIFFITH: A life long one, a Democrat for the little man, for small businesses, for small children, for families, for seniors. I am a Democrat that believes in an excellent education and health care for all of the citizens. This can only result in a strong, vibrant, and prosperous city.
He didn't leave the party, the party left him (between 2006 and December 2009). :lmfao:
Hopefully this newly minted Republican is going to be teabagged to political death.
So he could argue, probably is, that it did indeed leave him.
. . . . . .
In the interview he wants HEALTH CARE FOR ALL. Sounds like he's quite a conserv.. err opportunist.
Quote from: DGuller on December 24, 2009, 10:15:39 AM
I kind of wish that all Democrats who vote with Republicans on all the key issues just go ahead and switch now. What's the point of being in the party when you're constantly voting against it? The only thing they're doing is contributing to the perception that liberals are in solid control, when in fact they're not (especially not in the Senate).
Yeah, really. Let the rational ones change parties now, rather than suffer while remaining in place with government ideas they don't agree with. Spector did that, went Demotard, since he was already pretty in line with that anyway, or he felt his chances of getting elected were better.
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 11:58:13 AM
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 10:02:00 AM
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 09:39:25 AM
An excerpt from Griffith's 2006 interview with Speakin' Out News, an African American publication in Huntsville, Alabama.
Quote
QUESTION: What kind of Democrat are you?
GRIFFITH: A life long one, a Democrat for the little man, for small businesses, for small children, for families, for seniors. I am a Democrat that believes in an excellent education and health care for all of the citizens. This can only result in a strong, vibrant, and prosperous city.
He didn't leave the party, the party left him (between 2006 and December 2009). :lmfao:
Hopefully this newly minted Republican is going to be teabagged to political death.
So he could argue, probably is, that it did indeed leave him.
. . . . . .
In the interview he wants HEALTH CARE FOR ALL. Sounds like he's quite a conserv.. err opportunist.
Stop drinking all that Demotard Kool aid!
Most seem to want health care for all. Big issue is how that all gets done properly and efficiently and in a way to try and cut over all costs.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 24, 2009, 10:30:10 AM
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 10:02:00 AM
YOUR ;) Demotard party took a hard left turn, especially after Obama was elected! So he could argue, probably is, that it did indeed leave him.
What hard left policies have the Democrats had that weren't on their platform when this guy was elected, one year ago? What hard left policies worry you? What do you think of as hard left?
I would have thought that if they'd taken a hard left turn the left would be happier and moaning less about being sold out :mellow:
Yeah, Obama is in trouble for not being left enough for his base! And that's supposed to make me feel good? It does, but only to a point since his base is so left. He's in trouble for actually wanting to try for success in Afghanistan, sheesh.
Pushing at first for single payer health care, Union Card check (removing secret ballots. So heavily in bed with Unions, SEIU and Andy Stern a frequent visitor to the White House. Managed to try and trash the Chamber of Commerce for daring to disagree (Remember Dems used to say that dissent was the highest form of Patriotism), leaving them and other small business orgs out of job summit talks. But Stern and other toadies were there. Spendulus bill gave so much to government spending but about zilch for small business, which actually employ the vast majority of workers. ACORN, a wholly owned subsidary of the Democrat party, though that's a long term issue, not new. Under indictment in many states, some of its own managers under fire for daring to whistle blow, or try to. Obama admin has had some rare characters, some avowed communists, as Czars or other leadership positions.
I keep saying the both parties are issues, so I'm not about to say the Dems are the main or only problem. We have problems with the way our Congress does its business, and more and more Americans are a lot more in tune with how things happen, and not very happy about it.
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 12:39:02 PM
Most seem to want health care for all.
The Republicans do not want health care for all.
And cost containment = instantly demagogued by the right as death panels.
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 12:19:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 24, 2009, 10:15:39 AM
I kind of wish that all Democrats who vote with Republicans on all the key issues just go ahead and switch now. What's the point of being in the party when you're constantly voting against it? The only thing they're doing is contributing to the perception that liberals are in solid control, when in fact they're not (especially not in the Senate).
Yeah, really. Let the rational ones change parties now, rather than suffer while remaining in place with government ideas they don't agree with. Spector did that, went Demotard, since he was already pretty in line with that anyway, or he felt his chances of getting elected were better.
Oh, please. Being in disagreement with your own party doesn't make you a rational one. This is what I found so annoying about "moderates": they seem to base their entire world view, and certainly the way they view themselves, on the fallacy of middle ground.
I can certainly see the appeal in adopting this world view; after all, there is no need to think critically. All one needs to do is to bellyache about the extremists on both sides, and wish pox on both houses. There is no need to evaluate the merits of the arguments, just pick a point in the middle and marvel at your exceptional rationality.
There are methods of controlling costs other than rationing/triage or whatever.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 24, 2009, 01:04:57 PM
There are methods of controlling costs other than rationing/triage or whatever.
Does this involve supply side economics or magic?
Quote from: DGuller on December 24, 2009, 12:56:08 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 12:19:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 24, 2009, 10:15:39 AM
I kind of wish that all Democrats who vote with Republicans on all the key issues just go ahead and switch now. What's the point of being in the party when you're constantly voting against it? The only thing they're doing is contributing to the perception that liberals are in solid control, when in fact they're not (especially not in the Senate).
Yeah, really. Let the rational ones change parties now, rather than suffer while remaining in place with government ideas they don't agree with. Spector did that, went Demotard, since he was already pretty in line with that anyway, or he felt his chances of getting elected were better.
Oh, please. Being in disagreement with your own party doesn't make you a rational one. This is what I found so annoying about "moderates": they seem to base their entire world view, and certainly the way they view themselves, on the fallacy of middle ground.
I can certainly see the appeal in adopting this world view; after all, there is no need to think critically. All one needs to do is to bellyache about the extremists on both sides, and wish pox on both houses. There is no need to evaluate the merits of the arguments, just pick a point in the middle and marvel at your exceptional rationality.
Yeah, right. You keep dumbing things down to "a pox on all houses", instead of doing, oh, thinking critically. We have problems in this country brought about by business as usual, no matter who is in power. Please, why don't you, instead, spare me.
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 12:53:21 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 12:39:02 PM
Most seem to want health care for all.
The Republicans do not want health care for all.
And cost containment = instantly demagogued by the right as death panels.
How the frig would you have any clue? You're part of the Kool aid drinking crowd that feels "your side" can do no wrong.
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 01:22:44 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 12:53:21 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 12:39:02 PM
Most seem to want health care for all.
The Republicans do not want health care for all.
And cost containment = instantly demagogued by the right as death panels.
How the frig would you have any clue? You're part of the Kool aid drinking crowd that feels "your side" can do no wrong.
Are you by any chance a member of the teabagger movement?
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 01:21:12 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 24, 2009, 12:56:08 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 12:19:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 24, 2009, 10:15:39 AM
I kind of wish that all Democrats who vote with Republicans on all the key issues just go ahead and switch now. What's the point of being in the party when you're constantly voting against it? The only thing they're doing is contributing to the perception that liberals are in solid control, when in fact they're not (especially not in the Senate).
Yeah, really. Let the rational ones change parties now, rather than suffer while remaining in place with government ideas they don't agree with. Spector did that, went Demotard, since he was already pretty in line with that anyway, or he felt his chances of getting elected were better.
Oh, please. Being in disagreement with your own party doesn't make you a rational one. This is what I found so annoying about "moderates": they seem to base their entire world view, and certainly the way they view themselves, on the fallacy of middle ground.
I can certainly see the appeal in adopting this world view; after all, there is no need to think critically. All one needs to do is to bellyache about the extremists on both sides, and wish pox on both houses. There is no need to evaluate the merits of the arguments, just pick a point in the middle and marvel at your exceptional rationality.
Yeah, right. You keep dumbing things down to "a pox on all houses", instead of doing, oh, thinking critically. We have problems in this country brought about by business as usual, no matter who is in power. Please, why don't you, instead, spare me.
We have problems in this country brought on by Republicans and the useful idiots like you who continue to vote for them.
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 01:11:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 24, 2009, 01:04:57 PM
There are methods of controlling costs other than rationing/triage or whatever.
Does this involve supply side economics or magic?
Limiting liabilities, consumer cost control/"patient shopping", even the medicare method of setting limits on procedure costs seems to be a pretty effective way of doing it. I'm no expert though. Changes in regulatory requirements could have a pretty big effect on costs too. None of that stuff is either supply-side or magic. Maybe HSA's could be called supply-side, though it definitely doesn't qualify as laissez-faire.
So, I guess that most of you are happy with the Democratic Party stewardship so far.
Carry on then.
I see serious problems looming with the massive spending, deficits getting higher and higher. Senate raised debt ceiling to 12.4 trillion, another 290 billion to get us through two months. This admin has spent more in less than a year than all other admins before it? All pretty scary, and no end in sight. I'm wary how this will impact the average person, family, businesses and economy in the near future. Even Pres Obama has expressed serious concerns over huge deficits.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 24, 2009, 01:34:22 PM
Limiting liabilities, consumer cost control/"patient shopping", even the medicare method of setting limits on procedure costs seems to be a pretty effective way of doing it. I'm no expert though. Changes in regulatory requirements could have a pretty big effect on costs too. None of that stuff is either supply-side or magic. Maybe HSA's could be called supply-side, though it definitely doesn't qualify as laissez-faire.
Tort reform is supply side.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 24, 2009, 01:34:22 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 24, 2009, 01:11:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 24, 2009, 01:04:57 PM
There are methods of controlling costs other than rationing/triage or whatever.
Does this involve supply side economics or magic?
Limiting liabilities, consumer cost control/"patient shopping", even the medicare method of setting limits on procedure costs seems to be a pretty effective way of doing it. I'm no expert though. Changes in regulatory requirements could have a pretty big effect on costs too. None of that stuff is either supply-side or magic. Maybe HSA's could be called supply-side, though it definitely doesn't qualify as laissez-faire.
I do not understand how "setting limits on procedure costs" results in anything less than death panels if reimbursements are coming in at below market cost.
Why hasn't limiting liabilities in Texas resulted in lower malpractice insurance rates? Here the insurance companies simply pocketed the profits from lower claims.
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 12:51:18 PM
Yeah, Obama is in trouble for not being left enough for his base! And that's supposed to make me feel good? It does, but only to a point since his base is so left. He's in trouble for actually wanting to try for success in Afghanistan, sheesh.
Well the left's unhappy with him on healthcare and Afghanistan. They're also unhappy about what I think is the only position where he's taken a significantly different stance than when he campaigned: homeland security/civil liberties.
QuotePushing at first for single payer health care
Isn't it problematic when your definition of hard-left includes the entire Democrat party to the left of Ben Nelson and Max Baucus?
QuoteUnion Card check (removing secret ballots. So heavily in bed with Unions, SEIU and Andy Stern a frequent visitor to the White House.
I don't know much about unions in the US so I'll give you this. But what Democrat isn't in bed with the unions?
QuoteManaged to try and trash the Chamber of Commerce for daring to disagree (Remember Dems used to say that dissent was the highest form of Patriotism)
Have you any details of this?
Quoteleaving them and other small business orgs out of job summit talks. But Stern and other toadies were there.
Summits mean nothing. Who are the toadies you're thinking of?
QuoteSpendulus bill gave so much to government spending but about zilch for small business, which actually employ the vast majority of workers.
Well stimulus is, by definition, government spending. A tax cut without concurrent spending cuts is government spending. As I've said before the vast, vast majority of the stimulus has been spent on a tax cut and plugging the holes in state budgets. There's nothing for small businesses in the same way that there's nothing for large businesses. The way any government spending works is that everything that's being spent for, for example, decommissioning that nuclear site in South Carolina will be done through contractors.
Could it have been done more elegantly? Of course, if you were ruled by economist philosopher kings. However, as Rumsfeld put it, freedom's messy. I think, however, that it was overwhelmingly worth it and economic research companies who make their money by selling projections and forecasts all say that the stimulus has helped ease unemployment and help growth by not insignificant amounts.
QuoteI keep saying the both parties are issues, so I'm not about to say the Dems are the main or only problem. We have problems with the way our Congress does its business, and more and more Americans are a lot more in tune with how things happen, and not very happy about it.
To be honest I think it sounds like you think the Democrats have more issues. In which case I think you should say they've got the main problems and we can have an honest debate about it. I think the fig-leaf of condemning both parties is almost more of a problem, because saying 'they're all shit/corrupt/wrong' basically condemns the entire political system. Saying 'those guys are wrong on this and that and here's why' is something that can be debated and in a wider political context it's something that can be addressed.
The sense I have is that you want to have a go at the Dems more - so do.
QuoteI see serious problems looming with the massive spending, deficits getting higher and higher. Senate raised debt ceiling to 12.4 trillion, another 290 billion to get us through two months. This admin has spent more in less than a year than all other admins before it? All pretty scary, and no end in sight. I'm wary how this will impact the average person, family, businesses and economy in the near future. Even Pres Obama has expressed serious concerns over huge deficits.
The deficits are a worry, of course. But they need context - these deficits are after what is, in the UK at least, the most serious recession since the 1930s.
Stimulus and Obama's budget (the increases, odd tax cut and so on) represents about 10% of the deficit. The overwhelming majority of it comes from TARP, from bailing out banks and from the fiscal effect of a recession.
The loss of tax receipts and the increase of food stamp programmes and unemployment costs (all inevitable in a recession) was almost double the size of the stimulus. Most of the deficit spending from 2008 through 2009 was actually taking over companies or TARP. Now it doesn't matter that that wasn't ideal and that was unfortunate but I think almost everyone would agree that it was actually the right thing to do. It's unpleasant us all owning AIG, but it's better than the recession we'd currently be enduring after financial sector wipeout had the government not got involved.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 24, 2009, 01:34:22 PM
Limiting liabilities, consumer cost control/"patient shopping", even the medicare method of setting limits on procedure costs seems to be a pretty effective way of doing it. I'm no expert though. Changes in regulatory requirements could have a pretty big effect on costs too. None of that stuff is either supply-side or magic. Maybe HSA's could be called supply-side, though it definitely doesn't qualify as laissez-faire.
This article on the cost-control stuff in the bill is interesting:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/a_milestone_in_the_health_care_journey.php
One thing which I don't know if it mentions but which I've seen hyped elsewhere is that there's some legal requirement for price transparency on the part of the insurance companies.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 24, 2009, 02:11:46 PM
Stimulus and Obama's budget (the increases, odd tax cut and so on) represents about 10% of the deficit. The overwhelming majority of it comes from TARP, from bailing out banks and from the fiscal effect of a recession.
I think you mean national debt, not deficit. I also think you're a little confused on the relative magnitudes of stimulus and TARP.
Quote from: KRonn on December 24, 2009, 01:21:12 PM
Yeah, right. You keep dumbing things down to "a pox on all houses", instead of doing, oh, thinking critically. We have problems in this country brought about by business as usual, no matter who is in power. Please, why don't you, instead, spare me.
No, he has a point. Complaining about extremists on both sides is at best lazy at worst showing incredible susceptibility to demagoguery. Demagogues do best when paint their opponents in a bad light. Seeing everyone in a bad light does mean you are some kind of enlightened cynic. It means you are believe the demagogues of both sides to the degree that it has sapped you into inaction.
Who is this Stern guy? This sounds like an issue that get makes waves on talk radio but doesn't exist in the real world.
Maybe if the Democrats did less whining about death panels and that sort of nonsense, more would get done.
Quote from: Neil on December 24, 2009, 02:41:43 PM
Maybe if the Democrats did less whining about death panels and that sort of nonsense, more would get done.
Plenty got done. They gutted much of the cost containment in the bill due to Kronn and the Teabaggets bitching about dead grandmas.
Quote from: Neil on December 24, 2009, 02:41:43 PM
Maybe if the Democrats did less whining about death panels and that sort of nonsense, more would get done.
Well, it is the Democratic party. It's not like they are suppose to be effective. They haven't been effective since 1964.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 24, 2009, 02:27:16 PM
No, he has a point. Complaining about extremists on both sides is at best lazy at worst showing incredible susceptibility to demagoguery. Demagogues do best when paint their opponents in a bad light. Seeing everyone in a bad light does not mean you are some kind of enlightened cynic. It means you are believe the demagogues of both sides to the degree that it has sapped you into inaction.
I agree with you to an extent, but there's also a "my shit doesn't stink" tendency among party loyalists to whitewash their own side's tactics and motivations while demonizing the other's.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 24, 2009, 05:32:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 24, 2009, 02:27:16 PM
No, he has a point. Complaining about extremists on both sides is at best lazy at worst showing incredible susceptibility to demagoguery. Demagogues do best when paint their opponents in a bad light. Seeing everyone in a bad light does not mean you are some kind of enlightened cynic. It means you are believe the demagogues of both sides to the degree that it has sapped you into inaction.
I agree with you to an extent, but there's also a "my shit doesn't stink" tendency among party loyalists to whitewash their own side's tactics and motivations while demonizing the other's.
True, but sometimes you have to pick a side and go in swinging.
" So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
-Rev 3:16
Quote from: Razgovory on December 24, 2009, 05:49:41 PM
True, but sometimes you have to pick a side and go in swinging.
" So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
-Rev 3:16
Jesus says you picked the wrong side. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 24, 2009, 02:26:22 PM
I think you mean national debt, not deficit. I also think you're a little confused on the relative magnitudes of stimulus and TARP.
I don't believe I'm wrong on the deficit (not debt). My understanding is that the fiscal year 2009 goes from October to October for the Federal budget. The overwhelming amount of new spending in the 2009 deficit came from the last period of Bush's Presidency (and he was right).
Of the 3.5 trillion budget (and I think 1.4 somethingion deficit) Obama policies like cash for clunkers, CHIP expansion, the amount of the stimulus that has actually been spent thus far (remember that though the stimulus is 780 billion only 180 billion was projected to be spent in 2009, something like 300 billion will be spent in 2010 and then the rest in 2011) and that appropriations bill represents under 5% of the entire government spending in FY09. The vast majority of new spending that has caused the deficit was buying out banks and Freddie and Fannie and TARP. But a large part of the deficit was also the shortfall of tax receipts and the expansion of programmes that will, inevitably, expand in a recession such as food stamps and unemployment.
Edit: On healthcare I love the headline on Gawker, care of Michael Tomasky: News of first major progressive legislation in 30 years enrages liberals :lol:
Interesting. Where did you get the info on stimulus disbursements from?
:homestar: :yuk: :secret: :yucky:
:moon:
It can be interpreted in oh so many ways...
Quote
Edit: On healthcare I love the headline on Gawker, care of Michael Tomasky: News of first major progressive legislation in 30 years enrages liberals
Actually, Bush's Medicare part D was the last major progressive legislation in 30 years. That didn't anger liberals nearly as much because we didn't expect anything from Bush but were happy to take whatever scraps could be managed. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 25, 2009, 04:59:49 PM
Quote
Edit: On healthcare I love the headline on Gawker, care of Michael Tomasky: News of first major progressive legislation in 30 years enrages liberals
Actually, Bush's Medicare part D was the last major progressive legislation in 30 years. That didn't anger liberals nearly as much because we didn't expect anything from Bush but were happy to take whatever scraps could be managed. :P
The AARP was pissed.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2009, 05:34:38 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 25, 2009, 04:59:49 PM
Quote
Edit: On healthcare I love the headline on Gawker, care of Michael Tomasky: News of first major progressive legislation in 30 years enrages liberals
Actually, Bush's Medicare part D was the last major progressive legislation in 30 years. That didn't anger liberals nearly as much because we didn't expect anything from Bush but were happy to take whatever scraps could be managed. :P
The AARP was pissed.
Weren't they the ones who put out those "it's not perfect but it's better than nothing" sort of ads in favor of it? I know AARP runs their own Part D plans now. They can't hate it that much. I remember Paul Krugman hating it, but it had something to do with Bush, so everyone assumed he would.
They ended up feeling betrayed by the whole thing.
Sheila reads Gawker? Awful. :yucky:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 25, 2009, 04:59:49 PM
Actually, Bush's Medicare part D was the last major progressive legislation in 30 years.
Well, that's 1 too many.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 25, 2009, 04:59:49 PM
Actually, Bush's Medicare part D was the last major progressive legislation in 30 years. That didn't anger liberals nearly as much because we didn't expect anything from Bush but were happy to take whatever scraps could be managed. :P
I thought that just spent more money on something, whereas this is you know reform. I always found that a deeply weird thing though. Maybe Bush just loves the elderly :mellow:
QuoteSheila reads Gawker? Awful. :yucky:
No, I read Michael Tomasky :blush:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 25, 2009, 11:34:07 AM
Interesting. Where did you get the info on stimulus disbursements from?
I think I read it somewhere on the Cato Institute's website. But if you look at the recovery.gov website you can see things that sort-of make that clear. For example there's a total of $288billion in the stimulus for tax rebates. Yet, from the start they've been planning only around $95 billion from March-October 09:
http://www.recovery.gov/News/featured/Pages/TaxReliefOct2009.aspx
Edit: Incidentally does anyone know whether the budget deficit figure ($1.4 trillion I think) is accurate for what's been spent. For example TARP was given $700 billion at the discretion of the Treasury Secretary, so far $364 billion has been spent but not much more is expected to be spent. So does the deficit include the $700 billion figure that Congress has set aside for spending if so needed, or the $350 billion actually spent? I believe money set aside for potential emergency bailouts is also around $200 billion less than Congress prepared for.