Who Voted for Brown in Massachusetts — and Why?
by Maggie Mahar
crossposted with Health Beat
Who Voted for Brown in Massachusetts — and Why?
The media continues to report that the Massachusetts vote was a referendum on health care reform — and that this has the White House worried. If so, the White House is wrong. Take a look at polling conducted by Hart Research Associates for the AFL-CIO on the evening of the election, revealing who voted for Brown –and what those voters said. Then consider separate polling done by the Washington Post together with the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University. Read both reports, and you’ll have a very hard time believing that Scott Brown’s election represents a mandate on healthcare legislation.
Finally, factor in the eye-opening Kaiser Family Foundation January tracking poll, and what it reveals about what voters do and don’t understand about health reform legislation. If most voters have only a hazy idea of what is in the legislation, you really can’t say that they voted against the Senate bill.
Who Voted for Brown ?
Democrats who are disillusioned that Obama has not pushed further on health care reform? Upper-middle-class voters who believe that Obama doing too much, going too far, and may well hike their taxes? No, the surprise is that Brown was elected by Massachusetts’ working class, and they were not focused on health care legislation.
Non-college men voted for Brown by a 27-point margin (59% to 32%), and non-college women also voted for Brown by 13 points (while college women went for Coakley by 13 points).
If you look at all college graduates, Coakley won this election by five points among college graduates, but lost the non-college vote by a 20-point margin. This represents a huge swing among non-college voters since 2008, when Obama won by 21 points, for a net swing of 41 points.
What happened? How did Democrats lose so many working class voters? Many of the non-college voters who chose Obama a year ago were Latinos and African Americans. This time, they stayed at home, according to election eve and election night polling done jointly by the Republican firm American Viewpoint and the Democratic group, Lake Research Partners on behalf of the nonpartisan group Women’s Voices. WomenVote. (Unmarried women and younger voters also came out in fewer numbers. )
Keep in mind that a minority of white voters pulled the lever for Obama in 2008—he needed non-white voters to carry him over the top. Apparently this time Democratic organizers in Massachusetts didn’t work very hard to bring out their vote, or to explain to minority communities that, even if they didn’t particularly warm up either candidate (which I can well imagine), this vote could be important for health care reform.
The Hart poll was done on the evening of January 19, when pollsters conducted a telephone survey among 810 voters in the special election for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. The survey has a margin of error of ±3.8 percentage points. (The pollsters note that “the survey data were weighted to be consistent with the actual election results, yielding a five-point margin for Brown –50% Brown, 45% Coakley, 1% other candidates, 4% refused).
In the end, the pollsters observe that the results of this election “were not a call to abandon national health care reform.” 82% of voters were aware of Scott Brown’s opposition to health care legislation supported by President Obama and congressional Democrats, but “it had virtually no net impact on the Senate election.” Here is the money line:
“Those who knew Brown’s position [on reform] were as likely to say it made them less likely (39%) to support him as to say it made them more likely to support him (41%).”
A few HealthBeat readers have suggested that Massachusetts elected Brown because they have seen health care reform in their own state, and do not like it. But the poll reveals that two-thirds (67%) favor the Massachusetts health insurance law that ensures nearly universal coverage, including 53% of Brown voters
Moreover, the poll confirms HealthBeat reader Pat S’s argument that the vote had more to do with personality than issues: “Considerable evidence exists that this election was largely about the individual candidates, Coakley and Brown, more than a referendum on President Obama or the Democratic agenda.”
By 61% to 33%, Massachusetts voters said they were picking the best candidate to be their U.S. senator, rather than “sending a message to Washington.” Drill down, and look only at Brown’s voters, and you’ll find that they, too, say they were selecting the best candidate, not sending a message to Washington about the direction of the country (52% to 42%). People simply liked Scott Brown better. His personal rating from voters was 51% positive to 32% negative (net +19 points), while Coakley had much weaker personal ratings at 40% positive and 37% negative.
Voters were not expressing dislike for the president: Massachusetts’ electorate give Obama much better ratings than Coakley (52% positive, 33% negative), and approval of the job he is doing (52% approve, 38% disapprove).
Insofar as they were voting on issues, those polled reported that they were most concerned about the economy and jobs. Electing a candidate “who will strengthen the economy and create more good jobs” was the single most /very important factor according to 79% of those polled.
Health care reform placed a distant second: “Electing a candidate who is committed to controlling health care costs and covering the uninsured” (single most/very important factor) among only 54% of all voters. The working class voters who elected Brown have been hit hard by the economy. That is their immediate concern. As Hart notes:
“Economic dissatisfaction played a large role in Brown’s victory. The majority of voters who said the Massachusetts economy is not so good or poor (52%) voted for Brown by 56% to 39%. However, voters who said the economy was excellent, good, or fair supported Coakley by 52% to 43%.”
A Second Poll
Over at the Washington Post, Ezra Klein reports on the Post/ Kaiser/ Harvard poll srv/politics/polls/WaPoKaiserHarvard_MassPoll_Jan22.pdf , a second survey that tried to determine why voters chose Brown.
This Washington Post-Kaiser-Harvard poll was conducted by conventional and cellular telephone Jan. 20-21, among a random sample of 880 voters in the Massachusetts special election. The margin of sampling error for the sample of voters is plus or minus four percentage points.
After reviewing the results, Klein observes:
“The results make it untenable to argue that the election had nothing to do with national issues in general or health-care reform in particular. But it makes it similarly hard to argue that the state is firmly opposed to health-care reform, or that Scott Brown’s election is a mandate against the bill.” .
I agree, but I would go further. When I took a close look at the questions and the results in the Post/Kaiser/Harvard poll, I discovered that it tended to confirm much of the Hart research.
First, 91% of Brown’s voters considered the economy and jobs “extremely important or very important” compared to 84% of Coakley’s voters.
More importantly, 88% of Brown’s voters thought “leadership and personal qualities” were “extremely important or very important” compared to just 69% of Coakley’s voters. (This supports the notion that, to a large degree the folks who picked Brown were selecting someone they liked, without worrying as much about the issues. )
Granted, 93% of Brown’s voters said that health care reform is “extremely important or very important,” but as Ezra notes,
“48 percent of Brown’s voters think that Brown should work with Democrats on the health-care reform bill rather than partner with Republicans to sink the effort altogether. Which suggests that though Brown’s election was far from an affirmation of President Obama’s agenda, nor was it a call for relentless obstruction.”
There are many contradictions in the way Brown voters responded to the Washington Post/Kaiser/Harvard poll’s questions. (This is not unusual. Human beings are, well, peculiar creatures. We often disagree with ourselves. And Brown’s voters do not all agree with each other.) On the one hand the vast majority of Brown voters who were polled say they are opposed to the health reform legislation—but their reasons for disliking it vary widely. Many in the media have suggested that those who voted for Brown were disgusted by all of the deal-making and the way Democrats cave to special interests.
But when Brown voters who said that healthcare was “extremely” or “very important” were asked to be more specific, only 13% of Brown voters said they “Didn’t like the way it was being handled; politics; deal-making; closed doors lack of transparency.”
What is striking is just how varied the responses were:
– Nine percent of Brown voters said healthcare is important because they “generally support reform or the current bill. Just 22 percent said they put healthcare reform near or at the top of their list because they are generally opposed to reform or the current bill.
– Fourteen percent said healthcare is important because they’re concerned about the cost of the bill—increased taxes, government spending and the deficit.
– Twelve percent of Brown voters said health care reform mattered to them because they are opposed to government involvement in health care.
What may be most telling is that among Brown voters who think health care and health care reform is “extremely or very important” only 2% agreed that “everyone should have health care; healthcare is a right.”
When explaining why healthcare is important to them, none named the “need for more/better coverage for the uninsured.” This suggests that many of Brown’s voters may be opposed to the legislation because they are opposed to the basic idea of universal coverage—whatever form the legislation takes.
By contrast, when explaining why they are focused on healthcare 21 percent of Coakley’s voters said “everyone should have healthcare; it is a right;” and 8 percent mentioned the need for better coverage for the poor.
This suggests that many of Brown’s voters are conservatives or libertarians who don’t believe that a civilized country has a responsibility to make healthcare available to everyone. They believe in “personal responsibility.” Everyone should take care of themselves and their own families.
The fact that so many African-Americans, Latinos, didn’t turn out helped skew the results; the majority in these communities do believe that healthcare is a right.
How Can People Oppose Legislation They Don’t Understand?
But the strongest argument suggesting that the Massachusetts vote was not a vote against reform can be found in a Kaiser Family Foundation study that polled households shortly before the Massachusetts election. http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8042.cfm The survey showed voters sharply divided on the legislation along Democratic and Republican party lines, with Independents evenly divided (41 percent support the legislation; 43 percent don’t)
But most importantly, the polling showed that most voters have only a dime idea of what is in the bill. According to Kaiser, “The poll finds that even after a year of substantial media coverage of the health reform debate, many Americans remain unfamiliar with key elements of the major bills passed by the House and Senate.”
– Nearly 40 percent did not know that the bill would prohibit insurers from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
– The majority of seniors had no idea that the Senate bill would help close the Medicare “doughnut hole” so that seniors would no longer face a period of having to pay the full cost of their medications.
– Forty-eight percent of all Americans had not heard that the legislation would offer tax credits to small businesses to help them buy insurance for their employees.
– Forty-one percent are not aware that if they have employer-based insurance, the reform legislation will not change existing arrangements.
– More than one quarter of all Americans had no idea that reform legislation would provide subsidies to help low-income families buy insurance.
– Thirty-seven percent did not realize that insurers would be forced to provide a basic benefit package, defined by the government—no more “Swiss Cheese policies” filled with holes.
– Sixty-three percent were unaware that insurers will no longer be allowed to charge women more.
In each case, those polled responded more favorably to the legislation as they heard about these provisions. For instance, when they were told about the tax credits for small businesses 73 percent said they would be more likely to support the bill.
In general, the more respondents learned about the bill, the more positive they were. “It’s one thing to talk about the public’s perception of health care reform legislation, which right now is in some ways negative, but it’s another to tell people what’s actually in the bill and when you do that people are more positive,” said Kaiser President and CEO Drew Altman.
Why do so few Americans know what is actually in the legislation? A blizzard of misinformation has created much confusion. In newspapers and on television, you regularly hear that ordinary Americans will be forced to buy insurance they cannot afford (no mention of subsidies or caps on out-of-pocket payments which should virtually eliminate medical bankruptcies.) You read that small businesses won’t be able to afford a mandate (no mention of tax credits.)
Americans have been told that the Democrats are making no effort to rein in spending (no mention of the pages and pages of proposals that would cut Medicare costs, paving the way for lower health care bills throughout the system.) They are warned that Medicare beneficiaries will be hurt (no explanation that Medicare cuts are targeting unnecessary care that puts patients at risk without benefits; no mention that the bill will help close the donut hole that now forces Medicare patients to pay for their drugs out-of-pocket.)
We have been told that insurers will continue business as usual (no mention of the provision that prevents them from putting a lifetime cap on benefits, or the plank in the legislation which says that insurers must spend a certain percentage of the premiums they receive on healthcare. If they don’t spend it, they are required to give their customers a partial refund.)
The other reason most people aren’t aware of what the Senate bill would do is because they are busy. They are working. They are raising children. They don’t have time to pay attention to the devilish details. In some cases, they don’t have the education or the powers of concentration needed to absorb and analyze this legislation. That’s not what they do for a living.
Why can’t some of the analysts boil the bill down to a few pages, and six power-points? Because the benefits are all in the details, and often those details are interlocking. You cannot understand one without understanding another. (I’ve written a three-part post that tries to cover all of the important points—both the pros and the cons. See Glass Half-Empty, Glass Half-Full, parts 1, 2 and 3)
But the truth is that re-forming a $2.6 trillion industry that serves (or at least should serve) millions of very different people—young and old, sick and healthy, poor, working-class, middle-class, upper-middle-class and wealthy requires thousands and thousands of adjustments. Just spelling out what will be covered requires many pages, and many amendments.
For instance, did you know that the legislation would require that insurers cover vision and dental care for children? That’s just one of those adjustments that will make all of the difference for some families.
– Finally, it is true that some Americans are strongly opposed to both the Senate bill and any reform legislation.
As Kaiser’s January tracking poll observes: “Views on the proposed legislation seem indelibly partisan: A solid majority of Democrats (64 percent) support the proposals being discussed, while an even larger majority of Republicans (76 percent) oppose it. When it comes to the enthusiasm gap, strong feelings are significantly more predominant on the right, with twice as many Republicans saying they ‘strongly oppose’ the proposed legislation as Democrats saying they ‘strongly support’ it.”
“Political independents, that critical swing group, are divided down the middle: with 41 percent supportive and 43 percent opposed.”
The bottom line is this: the Massachusetts special election does not serve as a referendum on health care legislation. The voters who chose Brown chose him for myriad reasons. They say that they knew he opposed the legislation; about half of his voters counted this in his favor, while half counted it against him. Go figure.
The White House should ignore the Massachusetts election.
Nationwide, most voters have only a sketchy idea of what is in the bill. . So it’s impossible to talk about whether they favor or oppose current legislation. People can’t reject something they don’t understand – unless they are simply against reform on first principles, i.e. they don’t believe in universal coverage.
stupid stupid stupid
Maggie Mahar,
Just about everyone on the democrat side that supports the healthcare bill does not understand the bill. And what’s your point about college educated people, are you saying that those that voted for Brown were stupid and voted out of ignorance and those voted for Coakley did so out of enlightenment? The democrats are going to have a problem with their new democraphics if the only time their voters come out is when the candidate looks like them. Personally, I vote on ideas consistent largely with free market conservatism. There are a lot of us in Massachusett (which is why Reagan carried the state twice).
Another point I would like to make is that I challenge you as an expert on healthcare economics. In you book you said that healthcare was not a commodity which is wrong. By getting this definition wrong you basically ruled out the entire set of market based initiatives such the aim to put individuals on the front lines in seeking lower prices (for instance I don’t see how you could fairly evaluate medical savings accounts).
Whistle, whistle, whistle, oh, is that a graveyard? Please, please Dem leadership keep believing this!
I have a friend that lives in Mass and voted for Brown becuase the Health care legistaltion is terrible (and he is not opposed to a national plan), bank bailouts, villifying banks (he works for an investment firm), and the stimulus which he feels was very poorly targeted. He feels governmnet is trying to do the right things, but the solutions are poorly constructed, controlled by lobbyists, and being used as a personal piggy bank by politicians only seeking reelction.
People are pissed they want good governmnet and good legistaltion – not well intentioned crap.
Maggie,
Both the house and senate dems are not buying your explination either. If they truely believed in what your selling they would have already passed HCR. By their actions they don’t buy it – and its their jobs at stake.
I agree with CoRev, you just ignoring reality, and I thought this was a reality based blog???
Rdan – where’s the open thread/ topic on reviewing Obama’s first year in office? We can talk about all his promises he broke…
You know – 8% max unemployment, GITMO closing, out of Iraq, transparency in government, putting bills on the web for 10 days, DADT, etc etc
I was very surprised you didn’t have something up.
BTW – can someone explain to me where all the anti-war protestors went? Or did it all become a good-war now that a Dem is running the show???
Islam will change
“Considerable evidence exists that this election was largely about the individual candidates, Coakley and Brown, more than a referendum on President Obama or the Democratic agenda.”
And now all of you Dems can go back to your corner (nude), arms locked around your knees – rocking back and forth – sitting in a pool of your own excrement, mumbling as you gently weep, “It isn’t about *me*, it isn’t about *me*, it isn’t about *me*,…”
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, baby.
Well, whatever. Still, maybe congressional democrats foolishly believe that if about the most liberal state in the nation will elect a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy after a year in which the legislative agenda was dominated by health care reform, maybe they should be nervous about continuing on the same HCR path with a view towards election efforts this fall. Not exactly profiles in courage, and quite possibly the wrong response, but I seriously doubt that any of these post-election “why” polls have a tenth of the impact that the real “poll”, which was the election which came in about 20 points worse than the democrats should have expected. And be careful about explaining the Senate bill. For example, filling the doughnut hole is about the last thing I want done. In an era where younger workers have a great deal of difficulty finding jobs at all, and if they do they either have no pensions or defined contribution, why would extra hundreds of millions or tens of billions to the elderly make me sit up and say “that’s wonderful”?
I have been frustrated by the immediate dismissal by many of HSA’s. It is a good middle ground solution that might achive the key goals of national coverage, can be progressive, can maintain some level of freedom (so people do not feel as if governmnet is taking over healthcare), could be supported by Republicans, would prevent medical bankrupcy, all get it regardless of health, and it may actually control medical costs.
(just an example) HSA system would have a progressive deductible. Lowest quartile income earners could have a $1000 deductible next quartile $2000, then $3000, then say $5,000, and people over a certain income maybe $10,000. The catastrophic insurance would be a minimum governmnet baseline, and people can buy supplemental for things outside that baseline (there is the bine for inssurance companies).
Any costs up to the deductible would have to be paid through the HSA. Poor could have their HSA funded through some sort of tax credit, others could be payroll deduction and employer match. If someone does not use all their HSA, then in some years they may not have to fund it.
Hopefully you get the idea.
Hi McWop:
“A few HealthBeat readers have suggested that Massachusetts elected Brown because they have seen health care reform in their own state, and do not like it. But the poll reveals that two-thirds (67%) favor the Massachusetts health insurance law that ensures nearly universal coverage, including 53% of Brown voters “
It appears your bankster friend is a part of the 33% and the 47% then?
Is there something inherently wrong in voting for the centerfold? Just axin’. NO
Nancy, now that adds value.
Eric:
I believe MA has quite a few more independent voters that either the Repubs or Dems singularly. I wouldn’t call the state liberal as much as independent although it does elect Dems. It also appears the Senate Healthcare Bill is misunderstood by many constituents. We can chalk this up to a media which distorted the elements in it, many bloggers who failed to become knowledgeable in any of the healthcare bills, and an anti-anything Republican lock-steppers. The 20 point issue appears to be also similar to the issue Hillary experienced in being over-confident in her base.
ESI is not healthcare insurance, it is a gamble and it can be, which it will be in the next decade, priced out of your range of affordability or eliminated completely without your concurrence. The Senate Bill bill did much to provide healthcare ay affordable to much of the nation’s young and old who live under 400% of poverty. Perhaps, you are higher income?? The biggest loophole is for the elderly making $50,000 to $100,000 who will be paying 3 times a couples plan or an individual’s plan which if we use an average cost for an aindividual of $7,000 will equate to $21,000 for a person >50years of age. So, I guess your ageism is being fulfilled there.
As far as this:
“In an era where younger workers have a great deal of difficulty finding jobs at all, and if they do they either have no pensions or defined contribution, why would extra hundreds of millions or tens of billions to the elderly make me sit up and say ‘that’s wonderful’?”
Jobs started slipping away for the 25-54 year old male age bracket in the eighties. It was on a black diamond ski slope since 2001. Salaries for males started their decline at about the same time. Elizabeth Warren in her “The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class” does a nice job of detailing the decline as well as other issues faced by many of us. It is a good 57 minute listen and not like texting, so you will have to sit still for a bit. Assuming you are male; you are in and have been in trouble for other reasons besides healthcare insurance and the doughnut hole. Why not attack the real issues, such as two wars, the 2001/2003 tax breaks, and the cliff diving by banks and Wall Street? All of which have cost the nation $trillions and could pay for healhcare insurance 10+ times over.
Why would you say “thats wonderful” for the passage of healthcare insurance. Because youth is fleeting and you will be older some day also.
Eric:
I believe MA has quite a few more independent voters that either the Repubs or Dems singularly. I wouldn’t call the state liberal as much as independent although it does elect Dems. It also appears the Senate Healthcare Bill is misunderstood by many constituents. We can chalk this up to a media which distorted the elements in it, many bloggers who failed to become knowledgeable in any of the healthcare bills, and an anti-anything Republican lock-steppers. The 20 point issue appears to be also similar to the issue Hillary experienced in being over-confident in her base.
ESI is not healthcare insurance, it is a gamble and it can be, which it will be in the next decade, priced out of your range of affordability or eliminated completely without your concurrence. The Senate Bill bill did much to provide healthcare ay affordable to much of the nation’s young and old who live under 400% of poverty. Perhaps, you are higher income?? The biggest loophole is for the elderly making $50,000 to $100,000 who will be paying 3 times a couples plan or an individual’s plan (younger adults). If we use an average cost for an individual of $7,000, this could equate to $21,000 for a person >50years of age. So, I guess your “perceived” ageism and anger at older people can be fulfilled there.
As far as this:
“In an era where younger workers have a great deal of difficulty finding jobs at all, and if they do they either have no pensions or defined contribution, why would extra hundreds of millions or tens of billions to the elderly make me sit up and say ‘that’s wonderful’?”
Jobs started slipping away for the 25-54 year old male age bracket in the eighties. It was on a black diamond ski slope since 2001. Salaries for males started their decline at about the same time. Elizabeth Warren in her “The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class” does a nice job of detailing the decline as well as other issues faced by many of us in the Middle Class. It is a good 57 minute listen and not like texting, so you will have to sit still for a bit. Assuming you are male; you are in and have been in trouble for other reasons besides healthcare insurance and the doughnut hole. Why not attack the real issues, such as two wars, the 2001/2003 tax breaks, and the cliff diving by banks and Wall Street? All of which have cost the nation $trillions and could pay for healhcare insurance 10+ times over.
Why would someone of youth say “thats wonderful” about the passage of the healthcare bill? Because youth is fleeting and you will be older some day also.
The working-class works — and therefore they know shirkers when they see shirkers. Workers also know that shirker prevalence rates rise as government involvement rises. Workers also know that shirking is not exclusively tied to government involvement, at least not directly.
Those who believe that the working-class lacks understanding — they are the ones who don’t understand.
My understanding is that heath insurance is already pretty available to all in Mass and therefore the desire for better coverage, etc., is a non-issue there. I say this from memory of what I have read. I will check to verify it.
Yes, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform
very interesting article on the problems in Greece and what they could mean for the broader markets, gold, and the economy: http://www.goldalert.com/stories/Gold-Price-Bull-Market-Intact-Greece-Bailout
I think the protestors got complete discouraged since now both parties are imperialist warmongering parties. They had hoped the Democrats would have more sense, but Obama bought the neverending war line. Except that now it would seem there are undercover moves to try to get our troops out of Afghanistan without appearing to lose. Karzai is scared his puppeteer will drop the strings and abandon him. Long run we can hope abolishing “don’t ask, don’t tell” will ruin the army as a fighting force and stop the empire that way. But that will take a while before real demoralization sets in.
warprofiteers=warmongers
BTW here’s a guy who will go down in history as one of the great dupes and fools of all time. Learned nothing, knew nothing, was a stupid little suckup to Bush and is basically now widely despised throughout the UK since they see what a mendacious idiot he was and is.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100129/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_blair_iraq;_ylt=ArYjQc0.rr4dCDt8LQU1VVGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNsZWJmcDNyBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTI5L2V1X2JyaXRhaW5fYmxhaXJfaXJhcQRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2JsYWlyb2ZmZXJzag—
Mahar has demonstrated in a long and detailed post, including two seperate and credible polls which provide supportive data, that the Mass election results had little to do with the singular issue of health care legislation. She provided interesting and detailed information from that research concerning the demographic factors effecting the election results and the general ignorance of voters in regards to the helath care legislation. What does the comment thread return to her post? Yet another repetition of tiresome and misleading ideological rhetoric ignoring the data which Mahar has provided. That is the problem with politics and legislation in this country in the recent past. Ideology and profit prevail over reasoned discussion and balanced legislative action.
One point that I believe should be made is that we are all making reference to health care reform and ignoring the fact that the legislation only addresses helath care financing. That is a major distinction which has added to the public’s confusion. The legislation is an effort to address the spirlaing cost of health care and reform the insurance coverage of that cost. There is no aspect of the legislation that addresses how health care is administered. There is no aspect of the legislation that effects hospital or physician care of the individual. It’s a finance and insurance of cost reform effort. The public needs to better understand that difference.
One other point. Angry Bear has been developing a rectal aspect to its presentations. There is far too much crap being spewed out by some participants. Theirs is an effort at obfuscating every discussion with false and/or misleading ideological talking points. Many of the comments following Maggie Mahar’s excellent post are glaring examples of that rectal inclination. The site needs a good enema in order to evacuate the BS.
Cantab,
“The democrats are going to have a problem with their new democraphics if the only time their voters come out is when the candidate looks like them.”
Way to stay classy, Cantab. I’ve been a lurker here for quite a while and I always enjoy reading your right-minded perspective on the social and economic structure of our fine country. Few people show your courage in the face of the liberal fact-mongering and morality-obsessed AB posters. I salute you sir.
As to the article. I’m sure that you are correct in that most people don’t know the details of the Senate bill. But its been reported extensively that the WH worked out a back room deal with the insurance industry and pharma long before now. You don’t have to know every item thats in the bill to know that it will benefit the industry far more than ordinary people. You also gave no mention of the loopholes in the bill for the Insurance Industry. Like denying coverage because someone commited the fraud of not mentioning a sinus infection on their original applications. Also, the bill was very fluid, in fact theres still no “bill”. Its subject to revisions so saying any of those “facts” at this point is misleading. Exaclty the way the industry wants it.
Cantab,
“The democrats are going to have a problem with their new democraphics if the only time their voters come out is when the candidate looks like them.”
Way to stay classy, Cantab. I’ve been a lurker here for quite a while and I always enjoy reading your right-minded perspective on the social and economic structure of our fine country. Few people show your courage in the face of the liberal fact-mongering and morality-obsessed AB posters. I salute you sir.
As to the article. I’m sure that you are correct in that most people don’t know the details of the Senate bill. But its been reported extensively that the WH worked out a back room deal with the insurance industry and pharma long before now. You don’t have to know every item thats in the bill to know that it will benefit the industry far more than ordinary people. You also gave no mention of the loopholes in the bill for the Insurance Industry. Like denying coverage because someone commited the fraud of not mentioning a sinus infection on their original applications. Also, the bill was very fluid, in fact theres still no “bill”. Its subject to revisions so saying any of those “facts” at this point is misleading. Exaclty the way the industry wants it.
Cantab,
“The democrats are going to have a problem with their new democraphics if the only time their voters come out is when the candidate looks like them.”
Way to stay classy, Cantab. I’ve been a lurker here for quite a while and I always enjoy reading your right-minded perspective on the social and economic structure of our fine country. Few people show your courage in the face of the liberal fact-mongering and morality-obsessed AB posters. I salute you sir.
As to the article. I’m sure that you are correct in that most people don’t know the details of the Senate bill. But its been reported extensively that the WH worked out a back room deal with the insurance industry and pharma long before now. You don’t have to know every item thats in the bill to know that it will benefit the industry far more than ordinary people. You also gave no mention of the loopholes in the bill for the Insurance Industry. Like denying coverage because someone commited the fraud of not mentioning a sinus infection on their original applications. Also, the bill was very fluid, in fact theres still no “bill”. Its subject to revisions so saying any of those “facts” at this point is misleading. Exaclty the way the industry wants it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/28/taliban-united-nations-afghanistan
No comment needed.
Wow. Hardly a reasonable response in the thread so far….you are welcome to your interpretation of what the post says, but the distortion is clear to me. Cringing nude liberals rocking back and forth is a response?…you need better friends CoRev.
Fact mongering and morality based??
Just because a presentation is offered that is not popular…the vindictive spleen being offered means the post was probably not even read. Sourness will not win votes either, in the long run.
There is no put down of blue collar here except in your own fantasies folks. The post is clear that jobs and banks are a key issue.
Jack:
If you begin reading on page 146 of the Manager’s Amedment; I believe you will find some detail on what you are specifying here:
“There is no aspect of the legislation that addresses how health care is administered. There is no aspect of the legislation that effects hospital or physician care of the individual.”
Briefly and there is more than just this in the Amendment:
Subtitle C – Provisions Relating to Title III
Page 146 Plans for Value Based for Ambulatory Surgical The Secretary shall develop a plan to implement a value-based purchasing program for payments under the Medicare program
Page 149 Revision to National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Healthcare; Development of Outcome Measures
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf
You never asked topi
Jack:
If you begin reading on page 146 of the Manager’s Amedment; I believe you will find some detail on what you are specifying here:
“There is no aspect of the legislation that addresses how health care is administered. There is no aspect of the legislation that effects hospital or physician care of the individual.”
Briefly and there is more than just this in the Amendment:
Subtitle C – Provisions Relating to Title III
Page 146 Plans for Value Based for Ambulatory Surgical The Secretary shall develop a plan to implement a value-based purchasing program for payments under the Medicare program
Page 149 Revision to National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Healthcare; Development of Outcome Measures
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf
The Dems are overlooking the fact that many welfare recipients are better off than those who work. The Dems positions on Welfare, and Immigration(legal and illegal), combined with the increasingly cozy relationship between the Dems and the corporate elite, has alienated the Working-Class. The black vote has become something of a wild-card and so welfare programs and concessions to black community leaders etc. have become necessary to keep this base in Dem control. But that alliance is causing the working-class to mobilize and these voters are too cynical to accept the transparent PR ploys that the Dems rely so heavily on. The Welfare-Class with their gold jewelry, tattoos, and expensive other adornments are too visible and a President pretending to be appalled by an increase of free speech for Corporations is not going to fly. Only when work is rewarded fairly will workers lose their cynicism and the Dems have used up their “political capital”. So who is it that ‘lacks understanding’? My guess is that it is those who confuse the Working-Class, with the Middle-Class.
Jack:
If you begin reading on page 146 of the Manager’s Amedment; I believe you will find some detail on what you are specifying here:
“There is no aspect of the legislation that addresses how health care is administered. There is no aspect of the legislation that effects hospital or physician care of the individual.”
Briefly and there is more than just this in the Amendment:
Subtitle C – Provisions Relating to Title III
Page 146 Plans for Value Based for Ambulatory Surgical The Secretary shall develop a plan to implement a value-based purchasing program for payments under the Medicare program.
Page 149 Revision to National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Healthcare; Development of Outcome Measures
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf
Ah, and the Repubs will increase wages?
Jack:
If you begin reading on page 146 of the Manager’s Amedment; I believe you will find some detail on what you are specifying here:
“There is no aspect of the legislation that addresses how health care is administered. There is no aspect of the legislation that effects hospital or physician care of the individual.”
Briefly and there is more than just this in the Amendment:
Subtitle C – Provisions Relating to Title III
Page 146 Plans for Value Based for Ambulatory Surgical The Secretary shall develop a plan to implement a value-based purchasing program for payments under the Medicare program.
Page 149 Revision to National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Healthcare; Development of Outcome Measures
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf
Dan, how did I get pulled into this? “Cringing nude liberals rocking back and forth is a response?…you need better friends CoRev. ” Gotta admit, it was a smile evoking vision for its uniqueness.
rdan,
Look, for the sake of argument I will give you the entire polling results as accurrate. And they don’t matter. At all.
The only result every Dem in the House and Senate see is Ted Kennedy’s “safe” Dem Senate seat for the last 50 years going to someone who run explicitly on being the 41st vote to de-rail Obama-care and being a Republican.
You can spin polls all day, but the Dems currently in Congress like their jobs and want to keep them. Thier actions in response to Brown’s election show they believe it was a referendum on Obama-care and Obama’s first year in office. Coakley being a very flawed candidate just added to the fire.
People are in a definite “throw the bums out” mood and currently the Dems are the bums in charge.
Islam will change
mthomas:
We could sell you some space in which to advertise the other site if you like?
Youth is fleeting, but what’s wrong with asking the elderly, who have exactly the same civic responsibilities as everyone else does, to suck it up a little and be satisfied this the enormous transfer of funds they collectively got under the original Medicare part D, until, say the budget deficit maybe crawls back below $200B or so? My doughnut hole is the whole doughnut.
“The Dems are overlooking the fact that many welfare recipients are better off than those who work.”
Except that we don’t have bonafide “social” welfare anymore; rather, we have the orwellian acronym TANF (*TEMPORARY* aid to needy families). It pays a pittance and is not available to anyone who does not care for a “legal” dependent.
The primary recipients of “welfare” in this nation are the rich (do i really need to elaborate after trillions in asset bailouts…) and the dwindling, apthetic middle class (the gluttonous recipients of larcenous tax breaks, deferrals, and out right government gifts). The poor are nothing more than meat puppets sustained by the meager scraps of the monied elite.
Dan, it’s not about increasing wages, but creating jobs! This Prez has dithered away one whole year trying traditional Dem economic solutions, and worse wasting energy on a low priority healthcare reform bill. Voters realize he took his eye off the ball. Pursuing these initiatives has expanded and extended the pain of unemployment, and all its related impacts.
run,
Good point, but note that the language is focused on measurement of results. It oputlines the necessity and intention to collect data which would relate to: “value based
purchasing” of care, “provider level outcome measures,” and result in “clinical practice guidelines.”
Granted that over the several years suggested in the legislation for the purpose of generating such measures there may be a result that relates to the actual provision of health care. The bill only calls for measurement and analysis of the data.
On the other hand, I did find the section having to do with gun ownership interesting and informative. I’m not certain if it’s the provider’s right to bear arms that is being shielded, or is it the patients’. And what has gun ownership got to do with it?
“The black vote has become something of a wild-card and so welfare programs and concessions to black community leaders etc. have become necessary to keep this base in Dem control. But that alliance is causing the working-class to mobilize and these voters are too cynical to accept the transparent PR ploys that the Dems rely so heavily on. The Welfare-Class with their gold jewelry, tattoos, and expensive other adornments are too visible and a President pretending to be appalled by an increase of free speech for Corporations is not going to fly.” rl love
That is one of the most racist and assinine comments yet. Welfare=black voters??? rl love, you are indeed an ass. And “welfare recipioents (no racial distinction there) are better off than those who work”?
As I said Dan, AB is beginning to develop a rectum and there is a steady and increasing amount of crap coming out. When did fair mindedness become the excuse for allowing every ignorant schmuck a soap box from which to regurgitate extremist and racist ideological BS?
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1799
UTICA, New York – President Barack Obama would beat Republican Dick Cheney by a sizable margin in a hypothetical presidential match-up – but 35% of likely voters said they would choose the former Vice President over the current President (49%) and another 14% said they would pick someone else, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
I like the trend. Maybe after Cheney runs and wins in 2012 Maggie will tell us “Who Voted for Cheney in the United States — and Why?”
BROWN WAS BROUGHT TO US BY THE SAME PEOPLE THAT BROUGHT US GW BUSH
CoRev, Rdan, oceanian,
I disagree that it is jobs insofar as the Working-
Class is concerned. That is a Middle-Class issue. There are still no shortage of floors to clean, roofs that must be repaired, and the like. But these roles have lost value in relation to other roles over the past few decades. The Dems have found it politically convenient to treat this group as part of the Middle-Class, but the Middle-Class actually benefits from low wages that affect their costs.
The rise in the black vote obscured the fall in the workers participation in the last election, but it is this worker group that has been screwed over the most. I understand that the repubs have nothing much to offer these workers (Rdan), but immigration reform and crime prevention are at least something and if I implied that I think Repubs are any less devious than Dems, I certainly did not do so intentionally (Rdan).
And as for where so many people who don’t do their share of the work are getting their money (oceanian), did you know that 25% of the world’s prison population is incarcerated here in the land of 4%? And we still have vast areas, that a great many, apparently spend little or no time in. But most workers know these areas well.
Nicely stated. Why not start there?
Well, you would not be smiling if you saw me naked. :'(
t, Huh??? Make a point, and then support it. We can start comparing Yr1 for each Prez, if you wish. But, that kind of ?snarky? incomplete commentary gets us nothing.
Dan, you need a better kind of friend, and Jack, is this one of those comments to which you were referring? Jack, why is eliminating free speech such a frequent Lib approach to discussion?
t, Huh??? Make a point, and then support it. We can start comparing Yr1 for each Prez, if you wish. But, that kind of ?snarky? incomplete commentary gets us nothing.
Dan, you need a better kind of friend, 😀 and Jack, is this one of those comments to which you were referring? Jack, why is eliminating free speech such a frequent Lib approach to discussion?
Jack:
I am a Lean Six Sigma black belt who follows the DMAIC methodology to get to root causes before recomendations and solutions are enacted. Define, measure, analyze, improve and control. Without defining the direction, measuring the data, analyzing the data first; how does one recommend improvements and control the process? Otherwise, everything else stated is just an opinion with no basis. The process is exactly what they should be doing before one does the suspected improvements. Furthermore there are more medicare improvements coming with an emphasis on primary care rather than specialty care.
Page 188: “Not later than January 15, 2015, and at least once every two years thereafter, the Board shall submit to Congress and the President recommendations to slow the growth in national health expenditures (excluding expenditures under this title and in other Federal health care programs) while preserving or enhancing quality of care, such as recommendations—
I doubt this is being done just for the hell of it.
As far as the “gun nuts,” they are afraid Congress will deny them healthccare coverage if they own guns. If youy remember, there was something for everyone in this bill in order to get it out of the Senate. Except for the Repubs of course, who believe in nothing being done.
No, as was pointed out Mass has almost universal heath care so Obamacare was not the issue. Mass didn’t vote for him to change the Senate balance so expansion of healthcare elsewhere would be stopped. They were voting on other issues.
warprofiteers=warmongers
the point is obvious , you just do not like it.
CoRev,
You know very well that I am not referring to the mild bickering that often goes back and forth on this blog. You should know that I am referring more specifically to the assinine ideological screed that cantab and now rl love are providing to us. Speech is free in public discourse, but can be managed in private discussions. A blog site is a private platform open to public observation. The site is judged by the content it publishes. Therefore the administrator of the site has an obligation to evaluate and judge the content entered by the participants. I’ll certainly encourage rdan to monitor false and misleading commentary for rejection. More so I think it unacceptable to allow racial stereotypes to be admitted to the conversation.
Eric:
If you read what I wrote, they already will “suck it up” at three times your insurance rate because they are older. The elderly cost doughnut to suck up is three times (minimum) your dougnut in this health bill.
The elderly “collectively paid” for Medicare the same as you did. That they are old is “not” the major reason healthcare costs are out of control. The media, anti-healthcare lobby, and others would like you to believe so though. No, on the budget deficit crawling back to $200 billion, as the surplus from SS and medicare have been used to finance much of the things you enjoy today. Furthermore, you are attacking the wrong issues. It is time we use the real budget to determine taxes rather than the “unified” budget.
jack,
If your reading skills were better, you would realize that it is you that is the racist. But then you would also need to understand who most benefits from a divide in the Working-Class. But then you would need to understand so many things, and you already have so much time invested in your narrow view and in learning all of the terms that so often signal those views: ‘ignorant’, ‘crap’, ‘extremist’, assinine’, ‘schmuck’, ‘ass’, ‘rectum’, so maybe it is too late for you. Believe what you must.
Jack,
What you really want is for everyone to agree with you? You, like so many religious zealots, are insecure in your belief system, and so you need confirmation. Bias is a type of mental-illness.
rl love:
There may be no shortge of roofs to be down; but, there is a shortage of people who can afford to have there roof done right now. Since 2001, 95% of the taxpayers have seen either their income stagnant or decrease, which includes all of the middle class up to ~$250,000 annually.
The numbers of people in the Civilian Labor Force as taken from the Non-Institutional Civilian Population, especially males, has been decreasing since 2001 and for males since the late eighties. The problem is not as you describe it.
Jack,
Speech is free in public discourse, but can be managed in private discussions. A blog site is a private platform open to public observation. The site is judged by the content it publishes.
The fact that you would have me banned makes you a bad person. Run is not so great either. It’s fitting that you were doing a little back an forth love fest earlier. Maybe you could have you’re own site and call it “Angry Jerks”. You could sit there by yourself banning everyone you don’t like.
Eewwww!!!! I think I just threw up a little in my mouth! Then, then my head exploded. As you can tell I found most of the pieces and duct taped it back.
I’m certainly not finding fault with any effort to codify the need to collect data and analyse outcomes. I was only pointing out that the proposed legislation doesn’t offer specific health care mandates. That there is a provision to require the study of health care outcomes is logical in a society that is seeing an inadequate result from its enormous health care costs.
Fire arms in the health center? Now that Scott Roeder has been found guilty of bringing his gun to church and using it in a very unsavory manner will those who are concerned about their gun ownership rights begin totting concealed arms to the hospital. Just in case the doctors aren’t cooperative!! Will the legislation protect them from doctors who might be requiring up front payment from the uninsured?
Racism is not a matter of disagreement. It is the end reult of dangerous ignorance. Your comments are the proof of the danger in allowing extreme ideologues like cantab to participate in an unrestricted manner. That only attracts more extreme and distorted comments from others like yourself. It’s the same phenomenon as flies being attracted to mounds of crap on the street. It’s all in the gutter. Angry Bear’s audience deserves a better source of information than what you want to offer.
Cantab,
There is absolutely no similarity of form between your commentary and that offered by run75441. That rl love has joined in, alopng with a few other loose nuts and bolts, is the proof that accepting all comments regardless of their validity or truthfulness is a self defeating process. I may disagree with many of the other participants, but your contributions are dishonest, bearing little factual content and being based upon ideology only.
rdan,
Even though your the site owner, I think it would be a very major error to post your nude pictures….probably a site violation. Also I’m not sure I have any brain-cleanser that will get that out of my head…
duct tape fixes everything….
Cantab,
1) Cheney will not run in 2012
2) If he did it would get Reps like me to vote for anyone else but him in the primaries
3) He would be massacured in the general.
No way he wins…you would have a better chance with Palin. Obama’s one saviour in all this is the Reps really have no convincing leadership currently available. But no one saw Clinton coming in ’89 either…
Islam will change
Actually I think a lot of MA voters decided to show the elites it was the MA seat not the Kennedy seat. As Bruce Webb says on his other web site, people want to have their home as their castle more than anything else. The media said that MA had to vote democratic, that was the way it was, but the people showed the media. Note that as a special election turnout was way down which it always is, and Democrats can not be bothered to vote in special elections. As stated elsewhere the country is looking for a more sane version of Ross Perot or William Jennings Bryan, who would win in a heartbeat, as many think the elites need to be punishes, the banking/wall street elite, the media elite, the policical elite, and the academic elite. They look down on average people try to take advantage of them whenever they can, and only really care for themseleves.
Run,
It must be nice to be allowed to distort what folks say and just sweepingly say; “The problem is not as you describe it.”
To begin with the people who still have jobs are not ignoring leaky roofs. Nor did I say replace or ‘done’, I cleary was referring to people who work for low wages and your distortion was clearly disengenuous. Your contention, held against what I ‘actually’ said, suggests that people with$ 40,000 to $249,999. incomes are dealing with their leaky roofs with well placed buckets, at a time when they are seeing an increase in disposible income, and when roofers are in extreme oversupply.
And if you think your second paragraph explains anything regarding what I said you need to stop spending so much time looking at statistics. I worked as a roofer in 1973 and earned $7 per hour, now that equates to about $36 per hour. I also had a complete medical and dental plan and that same job now pays about $12 per hour with no benefits, that was in So. Cal. and of course a very expensive place to live. You might find on some government site that roofers in LA actually earn more than what I stated, but of course that is part of the rub between us, you believe ‘them’, and I have actually seen with my own eyes, and the roofers I have been seeing for the last 20 years or so are not in your stats. So what males decreasing has to do with anything, especially without any consideration for undocumented workers, is confusing for one of us. You are good with the numbers but that is less than half of what it takes to understand.~ ray
The elsewhere was David Brooks column in the New York Times this am. It captures a bit about the rage against all the elites in this country. One other time there was a full country rage against the elites in a county, it was France in 1789, and they chopped the heads off a lot of the elite there. (Not that the new elite was much better)
rdan,
I think you confused me with CoRev. I should have had sarcastic marks around my first paragraph I suppose. Cantab said that Dems wouldn’t vote for someone who wasn’t like them (black). I took that as racist and/or sexist so I threw some sarcastic remarks his way. Like I said, I’m a lurker. I don’t have much to add to the economic aspects of the articles here.Which is why I’m hear, to learn.
Fact-mongering is a play on Steven Colbert, another *great conservative*, who said that reality had a well known liberal bias. If conservative use “truthiness” to decide where they stand on an issue, it would make sense that a liberal would use “fact-mongering” to make an (to such a conservative) illogical argument. So while I sayed “stay classy”. I meant continue to be a vapid reactionary who hides their real feeling behind a thin vener of civility/rationality.
I’m not sure my comment got posted as the right replay, but it did appear for a while as a response to cantab.
rdan,
I think you confused me with CoRev. I should have had sarcastic marks around my first paragraph I suppose. Cantab said that Dems wouldn’t vote for someone who wasn’t like them (black). I took that as racist and/or sexist so I threw some sarcastic remarks his way. Like I said, I’m a lurker. I don’t have much to add to the economic aspects of the articles here.Which is why I’m hear, to learn.
Fact-mongering is a play on Steven Colbert, another *great conservative*, who said that reality had a well known liberal bias. If conservative use “truthiness” to decide where they stand on an issue, it would make sense that a liberal would use “fact-mongering” to make an (to such a conservative) illogical argument. So while I sayed “stay classy”. I meant continue to be a vapid reactionary who hides their real feeling behind a thin vener of civility/rationality.
I’m not sure my comment got posted as the right replay, but it did appear for a while as a response to cantab.
rdan,
I think you confused me with CoRev. I should have had sarcastic marks around my first paragraph I suppose. Cantab said that Dems wouldn’t vote for someone who wasn’t like them (black). I took that as racist and/or sexist so I threw some sarcastic remarks his way. Like I said, I’m a lurker. I don’t have much to add to the economic aspects of the articles here.Which is why I’m hear, to learn.
Fact-mongering is a play on Steven Colbert, another *great conservative*, who said that reality had a well known liberal bias. If conservative use “truthiness” to decide where they stand on an issue, it would make sense that a liberal would use “fact-mongering” to make an (to such a conservative) illogical argument. So while I sayed “stay classy”. I meant continue to be a vapid reactionary who hides their real feeling behind a thin vener of civility/rationality.
I’m not sure my comment got posted as the right replay, but it did appear for a while as a response to cantab.
Jack,
I always tell the truth, and start by making it perfectly clear where I’m coming from, and where i’m coming from is consistent with the dominent ideology in the United States for around the last 30 years. If you can’t handle this you should go.
Jack,
I would argue with you if you would only support something now and then. And you are also doing such a swell job of making my case that anything I might say would only seem redundant (as in ‘end result’ [that is an example of support {a petty premise, but a good example nonetheless}]).
Still committing treason and hating your country “Cantab”. I know, you want the merchant caste to dissolve America and create a plutocratic dictatorship.
Blacks beg for welfare programs? Sure. So do Whites. In a different manner, but everybody begs for welfare little man.
Listen, considering that foreign merchants just bought a large stake in America, you should be happy. The dissolvement is well underway.
Paying three times now is not sucking it up if they also had an extended period of paying lower premiums associated with youth. The concept of insurance is to provide risk coverage against unforeseeable events. That the elderly require more health care is anything but unforeseeable. Their age is not the cause of any particular procedure’s cost, but their age is clearly associated with the frequency of procedures they use. I don’t hate the elderly, but the idea that after having rained billions down on benficiaries that now, with deficits through the roof, this would be the moment to rain billions more down on them strikes me as socially unbalanced. I would be happier if the current amount of money were used in a means-tested system to fill in the particular doughnut holes of individuals for whom it is a true hardship.
Does the person who suggested yesterday that we should leave the planet actually have a transport vehicle? Or was that just some random photo? If so, can Cantab the commie come too if I stop thinking of Dems as Conservatives? I’ll even give up on the farm subsidy thing and I will never say another word about biochar, or world poverty or any of the rest — I promise.
rl love,
That was me and it was a picture of the proposed Orion Crew Vehicle. High Speed rail is just plane nuts in most locations and is not competitive vs. anything. The line in Florida is just laughable unless they are running direct from Tampa Airport to Disneyland. Even then its problamatic. The ROI is not there…
If we are going to just throw money down rat holes I go with NASA over rail everytime…
Islam will change
ricky:
Quit stuttering, we do not need to see your posts in triplicate.
ricky:
Quit stuttering, we do not need to see your posts in triplicate.
Buff,
Of course there is a chance that Cheney would win. However, he probably won’t bother running because of health and age. Cheney is a much more solid guy then Obama. And look at the polls, the numbers show he’s making a comeback.
Remember, nobody beat Cheney one-to-one, and he can crush most of his opponets in debate, and then top it off with one of his crooked smiles.
rl love,
I didn’t think we agreed enough to be lumped together. Is jack just barking off again?
CoRev,
This Prez has dithered away one whole year trying traditional Dem economic solutions, and worse wasting energy on a low priority healthcare reform bill.
The problem is that Obama didn’t try Democratic solutions; he watered down Democratic solutions by trying to woo moderate Republicans. As a result he ended up with a stimulus package that was too small and focused too much on tax cuts. And healthcare reform was not just a separte issue above and beyond the stimulus. The Administration was quite explicit about the relationship between the stimulus package and healthcare reform. The argument was that stimulating the economy in a liquidity trap meant strong fiscal policy. And that meant running some big upfront deficits. But those deficits have to be paid down once the economy gets back on track, and healthcare reform was the principal vehicle for paying down that deficit. The idea was to “bend” the cost curve because that was the only way to get control of Medicare/Medicaid, and it is those two categories that are driving the outyear deficits. If you don’t believe me, go look at the CBO’s analysis. So guess what? By killing healthcare reform you just bought yourself big tax increases down the line. You’ll either see those tax increases as explicit rate hikes or in the form of the Fed having to inflate away the debt and weakening the dollar. Congratulations…economic ignorance wins again. And again, if you don’t believe me then try and explain away how the Fed is going to absorb over a $1 trillion in excess reserves. Good luck.
Voters realize he took his eye off the ball.
No, the problem is that the voters never had their eye on ball. Voters are not particularly smart. And the polling data shows that those who voted for Brown were poorly educated, low information voters. They were motivated by anger, not brains.
Cantab,
Cheney was a horrible CEO while he was at Haliburton. Cheney personally championed 12 major projects. When he left 11 of those 12 projects were bleeding red ink and the 12th was barely treading water. He was a failure as a CEO and a failure as Veep. He was very good at lying and bullying people, but he has horrible judgment. And back in the summer of 2000 when he was giving speeches about helicopter readiness rates, the only thing that kept him from committing a crime was that what he was saying was complete BS that he just made up. Fake numbers from a fake man.
2slugs, I’ll ignore the begionning of your response. We just have diametrically opposed views. That last part “Voters are not particularly smart.” is just breath takingly arrogant. I can only hope it reflects the Dem leadership views.
BTW, a survey this week proved again that the most ignorant voters were Dems. Whoda thunk it?
I’ll ignore the begionning of your response. We just have diametrically opposed views.
To paraphrase Krugman…”CoRev says world is flat. Opinions differ.”
What the survey showed is that voters are hopelessly confused. Most supported the very thing that Brown said he would oppose. I’m not blaming Brown. He made no bones about his position, even though it represented a complete reversal of his earlier position. Afterall, he voted for Romney’s healthcare bill and the Senate bill was 95% the same. Voters are confused and stupid.
Cantab,
I am a little mixed up right now but I think it goes like this. A conservative thinks you are a radical lefty. A liberal thinks I’m a racist. So we seem to at least have the ability to confuse people, in common. Good people have been burned at the stake, and tortured to death in unspeakable ways, for causing this very type of confusion. Keep up the good fight, you are learning fast.
2slugs, I don’t know what survey to which you are referring, but the one I saw was mostly a common sense history and politics survey.
Ricky,
Good luck trying to figure out how to use sarcastic punctuation.
On racism I don’t think there is a single person, given my posting history, that would doubt for a second that I would rather vote for a black Reagan conservative than vote for an white Irish liberal. See I vote for ideas and ideology and look past race. I would automatically vote against one of my kind if they were a liberal.
Now on the other hand its just a fact that minorities (hispanic, chinease, black, indian, russian, ect) were not inspired to vote for Coakley as they were for Obama, while I was actually giddy to vote for Brown even though he did not have Joe the plumber and Tito the builder on his economic team.
On
racism
Punctuation
Ricky,
Good luck trying to figure out how to use sarcastic punctuation.
On racism I don’t think there is a single person, given my posting history, that would doubt for a second that I would rather vote for a black Reagan conservative than vote for an white Irish liberal. See I vote for ideas and ideology and look past race. I would automatically vote against one of my kind if they were a liberal.
Now on the other hand its just a fact that minorities (hispanic, chinease, black, indian, russian, ect) were not inspired to vote for Coakley as they were for Obama, while I was actually giddy to vote for Brown even though he did not have Joe the plumber and Tito the builder on his economic team.
Slugs,
To paraphrase Krugman…”CoRev says world is flat. Opinions differ.”
Parts of the world are flat. I think capenters with that thing with the bubble in the middle proves it.
What you seem to not understand is that any misinterpretation of your ideas is most liklely due to the inadequate represtation of your thoughts. That’s not such a surprise given that your thoughts, both of you, are confused as a result of a conflict between reality and your individual ideologies. In effect, neither of you make much sense.
Why not ask the war profiteers to suck it up?
If the F-35 worked it would be delivered. It don’t work.
Kill some corporate militarist’s pork for the deficit do not take Grandpa’s glass of sherry.
Only in the presidential primaries.
I will ask the GF what she thinks fo Brown in the buff. To her he is a youth!
No offense buff pilot.
The muslims don’t like to see naked men either.
Other ratholes: Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, United Defense, United Tech/P&W engines for lawn darts, etc.
Would you rather my grandkids get to Mickey or see some Marine killed in Helmand?
Jack ~
“That’s not such a surprise given that your thoughts, both of you, are confused as a result of a conflict between reality and your individual ideologies.”
Had this statement of yours said “,’each’ of you,” it would have meant what you evidently thought it did. What you actually said is that we are confused in common as a single entity. I doubt that you are able to understand such subtle distinctions, but if you can, then perhaps you might also understand how hypocritical and ignorant the premise of your entire comment is.
Before you start telling others what YOU THINK makes sense you need to sharpen up your reading and writing skills. Then stop pretending to debate by simply exchanging confirming views with other regurgitaters who agree with you. Also, instead of the childish name-calling, explain ‘why’ you disagree. You will be surprised by how much you can learn if you stop pretending to know more than what your writing skills suggest that you do. Then if you could do something about that pent up anger, I suppose you are being abused in some way, and evidently, because you so frequently make references to ‘rectums’, I am only able to guess at what is really behind all of that anger, but do something to improve your situation. It could be affecting your thinking in some irreversible way.
And if nothing else, at least get some ‘spell-check’ or stop using words that are too big for you.
Brown was elected for two primary reasons, IMO.
First, everyone, but especially the Democrats, assumed that any Democrat would win, and tried to prove it by nominating a candidate whose record indicated a lack of qualification to be called a ‘human being’, let alone Senator.
Secondly, and probably more important, was the relative turnout. Not between D and R, but between D and anti-D. The potential voters who would have voted for any D had neither pre-election positive nor negative meaningful incentives to vote.
If the election were repeated today, with any different Democratic candidate, there seems to me little doubt that the result would be reversed, probably comfortably.
Contrary to the belief that the election was a rejection of the Mass mandated health program, it is more likely that individual Mass residents have only so far seen the benefits of that program, and not its long term costs. Accordingly, the Federal Reform program may well be seen as a threat to the existing Mass program.
Regards, Don
Ricky,
Good luck trying to figure out how to use sarcastic punctuation.
On racism I don’t think there is a single person, given my posting history, that would doubt for a second that I would rather vote for a black Reagan conservative than vote for an white Irish liberal. See I vote for ideas and ideology and look past race. I would automatically vote against one of my kind if they were a liberal.
Now on the other hand its just a fact that minorities (hispanic, chinese, black, indian, russian, ect) were not inspired to vote for Coakley as they were for Obama, while I was actually giddy to vote for Brown even though he did not have Joe the plumber and Tito the builder on his economic team.
Sarcasm doesn’t seem to work in comments on its own…no inflection or body language, Ricky. I stand corrected on your intent.
Jack,
In general, you start out with the notion that Lib talking points are existential truths. Therefore anyone who doesn’t agree with them is either ignorant or malevolent, so your only responses are ad hominems.
You should entertain at least the possibility that those who disagree are at least as smart or well intentioned as you are.