Politics Shmolitics

[Christy]

:lookaroun

How is it nobody is talking health care? :lol

[Computer Magic]

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/nwitimes.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/5/ac/135/5ac135bc-34f5-11df-9383-001cc4c03286.preview-300.jpg?_dc=1269181424Well as you can see by the light, he is the chosen one....

[Computer Magic]

Posted by Christy:


Let me get this straight......we're trying to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president that also is exempt from it and hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.

What the hell could possibly go wrong?

[Doug11]

I just heard the federal government will have access to individuals' bank accounts for electronic funds transfer for payment.

Surely that can't be true.

Am I going to have to read this bill, now that it is going to become law? I had hoped it would be enough just to be against it.

[BeeJay]

Am I going to have to read this bill, now that it is going to become law? I had hoped it would be enough just to be against it.

Might want to wait until the reconciliation bill cancels half of what's in the original bill before you break out the bookmark and reading glasses. :lol

[Hooker]

This health care bill is far from done.

Maybe it can still die.

[Christy]

Posted by Christy:

?

I shouldn't be so snarky, I should have hope. Hope that it can turn out just like the great social programs of our time, medicare, medicaid, social security... :lookaroun

[Computer Magic]

I shouldn't be so snarky, I should have hope. Hope that it can turn out just like the great social programs of our time, medicare, medicaid, social security... :lookarounAll which will be bankrupt and not available when I retire.

[BeeJay]

This health care bill is far from done.


How do you figure? The health bill (not the reconciliation bill, which the Senate still has to pass) looks like a done deal. Pelosi wouldn't be calling a vote unless she knew she had the numbers. Whether the Senate passes the reconciliation bill or not, the healthcare bill is going to be passed and on Obama's desk tonight.

(Not trying to come off as "nyah nyah" here, just saying I don't see any way the actual Senate HC bill doesn't become law at this point.)

[BeeJay]

I shouldn't be so snarky, I should have hope. Hope that it can turn out just like the great social programs of our time, medicare, medicaid, social security... :lookaroun

Not sure about this because things have changed so much, but I don't think a government-run insurance plan is part of the legislation. If that's true, then nothing comparable to those programs will be part of this.

[Christy]

You're right, it's just "reform" :lol

[Garyhoov]

(Not trying to come off as "nyah nyah" here, just saying I don't see any way the actual Senate HC bill doesn't become law at this point.)

What about a constitutional challenge? I haven't read the text of the bill ( I doubt anyone has ) but how does the bill get around the fact that this sort of legislation is clearly not within the authority of the federal government as defined by the constitution?

[Doug11]

*brushes up on constitutional law and gets ready for a fight*

Several states are getting ready to file lawsuits raising constitutional challenges. The first thing I heard this morning, is the bill puts the burden on the states to pay for the bulk of the administrative costs. In my state, only one representative out of four voted for the bill and no senators did. Add a Republican governor and I think a lawsuit is certain.

[Christy]

Anybody a fan of Jim Gaffigan on Facebook? :lol this was posted:

If the English Breakfast were the American Breakfast, the U.S. would have had public health care years ago.

:rotfl

[BeeJay]

What about a constitutional challenge? I haven't read the text of the bill ( I doubt anyone has ) but how does the bill get around the fact that this sort of legislation is clearly not within the authority of the federal government as defined by the constitution?

You could definitely go to court and try to get it declared unconstitutional. I was just trying to point out that it was absolutely going to be passed by Congress and signed by Obama, thus becoming a law for at least the time being.

[BeeJay]

We're getting way into the weeds here, but what specific provision of the legislation would Obama's executive order be overriding? In other words, what part of the healthcare bill says the federal government WILL or MUST fund abortions? If such a provision existed, then obviously there would be problems with an EO to the contrary. I don't think you're going to find such a provision, but I leave the door open because I sure as heck haven't read the thing.

[Oscar Brito]

Is it too late to add in a public option? :lookaroun

[BeeJay]

Anybody a fan of Jim Gaffigan on Facebook? :lol this was posted:

If the English Breakfast were the American Breakfast, the U.S. would have had public health care years ago.

:rotfl

I refuse to let a Jim Gaffigan reference go unrecognized, no matter how boring or nerdy I feel the need to be in this thread. :D :lol

[figmentmom]

Is it too late to add in a public option? :lookaroun

Seriously.

[BeeJay]

How about "DO fund abortions?" Because if the bill specifically said that federal funds would/could NOT be used to fund abortions, then why did bam have to specifically smooze (for lack of a better word) over the democratic congressmen who were planning to vote against the bill? And the way bam did it was to tell them he would sign an EO saying that federal funds would NOT be used to fund abortions. If there is no wording to the former, then why the need to smooze?

My understanding is that Stupak and his colleagues were worried that the bill contained loopholes that might have allowed federal funds to go to abortion in some circumstances, and they wanted some assurance that those possibilities would be foreclosed.

Your posts are the first place I've seen the suggestion that the bill explicitly says that federal money will cover abortion, and thus would contradict the EO.




Since you are so in favor, why weren't the Republican ideas that bam agreed with in the big "bipartisan summit" in the bill?

The simplest answer is that the bill that was approved last night is the exact same one the Senate voted for in December. After the Massachusetts election, the House leadership decided the way forward was to approve the Senate bill as is. Any changes (i.e., including Republican ideas) would have made it a different bill! Republicans were involved in writing the Senate bill last year, though, particularly in the Finance Committee.

Beyond that, I don't know the explicit provisions of the reconciliation bill, which the Senate still has to pass.


But I'll be blunt, Tom. I get the strong impression from your posts that you're really not interested in discussing the particulars of the legislation. Everything you write on the politics threads has the feel of a campaign ad or a talk radio segment to me. I feel pretty confident that no matter what factual points I make, you're going to either conclude I'm wrong or seamlessly shift to another line of attack.

Obviously, I'm not neutral. I've openly admitted that I support Obama on a lot of issues and I'm glad to see this bill pass, but I really make an effort to talk about this stuff reasonably, fairly and substantively. I'm sure my biases come through, but I try to account for them. You just seem to embrace yours, at least as far as your posts on this board indicate.

Basically, I get the feeling that we're trying to have two different conversations. I feel like I'm talking to you, while you're talking at me. My apologies if I've misjudged you, but if I'm right, I'd just rather let you do your thing after this point while I do mine.

And I'm sorry if this comes off as condescending; I've tried to word it as diplomatically as I know how.

[Garyhoov]

The simplest answer is that the bill that was approved last night is the exact same one the Senate voted for in December. After the Massachusetts election, the House leadership decided the way forward was to approve the Senate bill as is. Any changes (i.e., including Republican ideas) would have made it a different bill! Republicans were involved in writing the Senate bill last year, though, particularly in the Finance Committee.



As someone who doesn't have a strong positive or negative feeling about details of the bill (personally, I believe we need to lower our expectation of quality of care for long-term sustainability and I believe the net, long-term effect of this bill will be lowered quality - that's not a back-handed knock on the legislation but a real belief in a concept that few would have the courage to publicly state), the detail I've highlighted above is something that really concerns me . . . as someone who would like to believe in the fantasy that our representative system of government actually attempts to represent the will of the people.

It seems that Brown's election: on top of the Virginia and New Jersey elections and in combination with every poll from every source, showed, with no reasonably interpreted ambiguity, that the American public absolutely did not want this bill.

Some may have wanted a more extensive bill while some may have wanted a less extensive bill, but I think it's safe to say, that MOST voters would agree that the bill should have been simpler and the objectives and means toward those objectives clearer.

Personally, I'm particularly concerned about the special breaks given to some states - such as Louisiana. When you read the Constituition, one clear intent of the founding fathers is that no Federal laws should extend special privelages to one state over another.

Now with that said, I understand the concept of "leadership". There are times when true leaders need to convince a wavering electorate the right path and lead them along that path, but, with that in mind, Obama had his chance and failed miserably.

The more he talked, the less popular the bill became and the less popular he became. It seems that he came to the realization that he needed to pass this before public sentiment eroded to the point it would be impossible to pass.

In my opinion, that shows a complete lack of leadership.

When the Democrats realized that this bill - in the form offered - was so unpopular that they couldn't pass it even with large majorities in both the House and Senate and control of the White house . . . without offering obscene back-door deals and selling out their ideals (Obama's executive opinion that Federal funds won't be used for abortion even though that is in direct oposition to previously stated opinions is just one example . . . the number of things candidate Obama said he wanted in his vision of reformed health care that this bill doesn't do are FAR too numerous to mention . . . this bill actually matches other candidate's proposed plans more than Obama's . . . I've recognized more McCain and Clinton innitiatives than Obama debate points when I've heard details of the plan . . . remember when Obama took issue with Clinton when she suggested people should be required to obtain insurance?), they should have, at the very least paused.

And again, I'm saying this as someone who is not in direct opposition to some of the broad things this bill accomplishes. However, if I were a public servant, I would put my personal preferences aside and realize it was my responsibility to represent the wishes of my consituents (within reason) and I there's no way I could have voted for this bill.

"This is what change looks like"?

Arrogant leaders passing overcomplicated legislation that nobody (except certain special interest groups) wants and is constitutionally questionable and doing so with dirty back-room deals and give-aways that aren't related to the broad goals of the legislation isn't "change" in my book . . . it's more business as usual.

[Computer Magic]

Arrogant leaders passing overcomplicated legislation that nobody (except certain special interest groups) wants and is constitutionally questionable and doing so with dirty back-room deals and give-aways that aren't related to the broad goals of the legislation isn't "change" in my book . . . it's more business as usual. Great post Gary. I will focus on your summary. This is what bothers me the most.

[BeeJay]

Gary, I agree with the general sentiment that the bill was handled in a way that provided numerous unflattering examples of Washington horse trading and "sausage making."

The concept that the bill was (and is) substantively unpopular remains a dubious one to me...simply because so many of the specific components of the bill ARE popular when polled separately from the legislation. It makes me think that certain voices whose stridency outclasses their representativeness have successfully convinced people that they need to be scared of The Bill when they actually support a lot of the things it does. But that's just my theory.

Obama boxed himself in on the leadership front to some extent, by allowing Congress to draft the bill. As recently as January, we had two separate pieces of legislation that were being considered, so it was hard for Obama to go out and whip up support for a bill when "A bill" in the most literal sense didn't yet exist. I think it will be interesting to see if he finds his voice in the "selling it" department in the months leading up to the midterms now that there IS a specific piece of legislation to try and whip up support for.

Briefly, on the Louisiana handouts: Take this for what it's worth because it's coming from a politician, but I had C-SPAN on Saturday morning for a committee debate :lookaroun on this and the La. issue was raised by a Republican member. The Democrat he was addressing basically said the reason La.'s benefits were left in the reconciliation bill while Nebraska's was taken out is that the La. one was based on hurricane damage and was theoretically available to any state that undergoes major natural disasters, with La. being the only one actually eligible at the present.

[Computer Magic]

Gary, I agree with the general sentiment that the bill was handled in a way that provided numerous unflattering examples of Washington horse trading and "sausage making."

The concept that the bill was (and is) substantively unpopular remains a dubious one to me...simply because so many of the specific components of the bill ARE popular when polled separately from the legislation. It makes me think that certain voices whose stridency outclasses their representativeness have successfully convinced people that they need to be scared of The Bill when they actually support a lot of the things it does. But that's just my theory.

Obama boxed himself in on the leadership front to some extent, by allowing Congress to draft the bill. As recently as January, we had two separate pieces of legislation that were being considered, so it was hard for Obama to go out and whip up support for a bill when "A bill" in the most literal sense didn't yet exist. I think it will be interesting to see if he finds his voice in the "selling it" department in the months leading up to the midterms now that there IS a specific piece of legislation to try and whip up support for.

Briefly, on the Louisiana handouts: Take this for what it's worth because it's coming from a politician, but I had C-SPAN on Saturday morning for a committee debate :lookaroun on this and the La. issue was raised by a Republican member. The Democrat he was addressing basically said the reason La.'s benefits were left in the reconciliation bill while Nebraska's was taken out is that the La. one was based on hurricane damage and was theoretically available to any state that undergoes major natural disasters, with La. being the only one actually eligible at the present.where do you see the Nebraska part removed? From what I've read, that part was passed in the health care bill. Now they are trying to remove it in the fixes, but it is in the bill.


The House may have passed the legislation but the Senate still has to approve a package of fixes - including one that would scrap the so-called 'Cornhusker Deal' giving Nebraska special help. Congressman Adrian Smith says he expects Democrats to face some obstacles.

[Garyhoov]

Obama boxed himself in on the leadership front to some extent, by allowing Congress to draft the bill. As recently as January, we had two separate pieces of legislation that were being considered, so it was hard for Obama to go out and whip up support for a bill when "A bill" in the most literal sense didn't yet exist. I think it will be interesting to see if he finds his voice in the "selling it" department in the months leading up to the midterms now that there IS a specific piece of legislation to try and whip up support for.


In a sentence: Rush Limbaugh has more power and is a better leader than Obama even while Obama has the office of the presidency behind him.

Is that an ugly but true statement?:huh






Briefly, on the Louisiana handouts: Take this for what it's worth because it's coming from a politician, but I had C-SPAN on Saturday morning for a committee debate :lookaroun on this and the La. issue was raised by a Republican member. The Democrat he was addressing basically said the reason La.'s benefits were left in the reconciliation bill while Nebraska's was taken out is that the La. one was based on hurricane damage and was theoretically available to any state that undergoes major natural disasters, with La. being the only one actually eligible at the present.

I heard Obama use a similar rationalization, but my BS meter went through the roof. I would bet that cold and flu are more common in colder states, should they get special deals? Should poorer states get better deals than richer ones? Should states with more aged populations or higher incidence of smoking get special deals? They eat a lot of fatty beef in Texas, how about something for them? Putting any credibility on that weak argument would open up a whole new debate as to what other (more realistc) criteria should be used to give advantages.

Almost any state could find a reason they should get a special deal: My state of NJ? Toxic waste and mobsters. Your state of FL? Roads filled with cotton heads who can't see above their steering wheels.

Having all the counties declared disaster areas is a convenient metric that LA fits but doesn't justify a special deal.

To be cold and rational about it (which policy makers need to be), LA should be happy with the billions we sent down there after the hurricane and not keep milking our pity in perpetuity.

[BeeJay]

where do you see the Nebraska part removed? From what I've read, that part was passed in the health care bill. Now they are trying to remove it in the fixes, but it is in the bill.

Yes, removed in the reconciliation bill is what I was saying. It's in the bill that was passed last night. But the La. stuff is still in the second bill too.

[BeeJay]

Gary: I'm from Georgia.

But we have survived Michael Vick and a perenially underachieving college football team, if we're looking for things to have people feel sorry for us about. :cool

[Garyhoov]

Gary: I'm from Georgia.

But we have survived Michael Vick and a perenially underachieving college football team, if we're looking for things to have people feel sorry for us about. :cool

Doh!:blush

Were you at least living or working in Florida at some point or am I completely screwed up?:goofy

. . . and I'm sure I'm authorized by the Eagles to give you Vick back for your first round draft pick. How about it?

[Christy]

Yeesh... ok, first, coffee, then, try to sit and sort through this. :lol

[Christy]

Arrogant leaders passing overcomplicated legislation that nobody (except certain special interest groups) wants and is constitutionally questionable and doing so with dirty back-room deals and give-aways that aren't related to the broad goals of the legislation isn't "change" in my book . . . it's more business as usual.

:thumbs Can I post this on facebook? :lol

I wish I had the capacity to read and understand this bill, but I don't. If I ever did or had a prayer to, it would've been before the days my mind was turned to mush playing bejeweled blitz and reading Dr. Seuss all day :lookaroun That's what infuriates me, and I know that the reasoning is the whole business of insurance is so intertwined you couldn't pick it apart and do it piecemeal, working a bit at a time so people didn't have to be so crazy about it on both sides, but I still say there could've been a way to try. Now we are giving my kids a what, $980billion dollar debt to take care of on top of everything else.

Btw, did anybody catch any of the interview with Obama and Brett Baier? :lookaroun :rotfl "Mr. President, this is real money, people want to know" (paraphrase) It does seem at times that Obama thinks he's on a big ol' Monopoly board, doesn't it? :goofy He's like the biggest rebound relationship EVER! :lookaroun

I will just be glad when the midterm elections roll around and some balance is back :lookaroun

[BeeJay]

Doh!:blush

Were you at least living or working in Florida at some point or am I completely screwed up?:goofy

. . . and I'm sure I'm authorized by the Eagles to give you Vick back for your first round draft pick. How about it?

Yeah, I worked at WDW for a semester while I was in college. (However, that fact doesn't necessarily remove the possibility that you're completely screwed up.) :lookaroun

And he's your problem now!

[BeeJay]

On funding: the CBO says the bill pays for itself and then some in 20 years. :shrug

However, I went looking for a little more info to make sure I understood that part. Here's an article that basically says it's hard to know exactly what the fiscal outcome will be, and that the CBO itself admits as much: http://moneymorning.com/2010/03/23/health-care-reform-2/

The bill is at least designed to pay for itself, then, whether that turns out to be the case in reality or not.

[BeeJay]

On a much more important note: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/23/a-big-fucking-deal-bidens_n_509927.html?ref=twitter

:lol

[Christy]

Pays for itself... like the cookies at the polynesian are "free" if you stay concierge level? :lookaroun

:lol :goofy

Joe Biden... I do love a good wildcard :rotfl

[Hooker]

This was sent to me in an e-mail. Granted, I am not boned up on constitutional law, so if someone can speak to its validity, feel free. This is why I think this is going to hung up in litigation for awhile.

Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However , that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though.

The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas

[Garyhoov]

On funding: the CBO says the bill pays for itself and then some in 20 years. :shrug

However, I went looking for a little more info to make sure I understood that part. Here's an article that basically says it's hard to know exactly what the fiscal outcome will be, and that the CBO itself admits as much: http://moneymorning.com/2010/03/23/health-care-reform-2/

The bill is at least designed to pay for itself, then, whether that turns out to be the case in reality or not.

What bugs me about the idea that this will "reduce the deficit" is that (and I'm pulling these numbers out of my butt), if the plan costs 1 trillion and they raise taxes by 1.1 trillion, they've just cut the deficit by 100 billion.

HOWEVER, if they had raised taxes by 1.1 trillion to start with . . . and not added the huge spending difference, the deficit (and maybe some of the actual debt) would have been cut in the range it actually needs to be cut.

And now that we've created a lot of broad-based new taxes with this plan, how will tax-payers respond to the additional taxes that will be required to actually cut the deficits and debt like we are going to need to over the next 10 years?

The idea that this is cutting the deficit is like the idea that a person can 'save' a lot of money by going on a spending spree and buying items that are on sale.

I don't mind paying my fair share, and if we need to dig down to help those who can't afford health insurance, I can live with that . . . but don't insult my intelligence by claiming that a huge new spending initiative is actually a good thing as it relates to fiscal responsibility at a time when federal debt is probably the biggest problem facing this country and our children.

[Christy]

I will need more coffee to make it through Scott's post :lol :blush

[BeeJay]

The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.


I was just listening to a cable news debate (I know, I know..shame on me) on this exact point. The guy arguing in favor of a 10th Amendment lawsuit said Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate healthcare. The response was "Well then, Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional" to which the guy basically said "That's right."

The idea that this legislation violates the Constitution isn't crazy. If you take a strictly literal view of constitutional text, it's true...but successfully making that argument will nullify a lot of things the federal government does. I know some of you would say that's probably a good thing, but I'm just pointing out that a lawsuit based on the 10th Amendment will carry implications that go far beyond this healthcare bill.

For those reasons, I suspect it's a losing strategy. Modern Constitutional law (as the CATO guy encouraging the lawsuit acknowledges) has allowed for a broad reading of the constitution. There's a lot of precedent for allowing the government to do things that aren't explicitly mentioned in the constitutional text.

However, if this goes to the Supreme Court, I could envision some scenario where 5 justices strike down some provisions of the law under a narrow holding that doesn't completely unravel modern constitutional law holdings.

The idea that you can get the whole thing struck down under a 10th Amendment defense seems like a real long shot to me, though. The view that the Constitution literally means what it explicitly says and nothing else just isn't very mainstream from a legal standpoint.

[Garyhoov]

I was just listening to a cable news debate (I know, I know..shame on me) on this exact point. The guy arguing in favor of a 10th Amendment lawsuit said Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate healthcare. The response was "Well then, Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional" to which the guy basically said "That's right."

The idea that this legislation violates the Constitution isn't crazy. If you take a strictly literal view of constitutional text, it's true...but successfully making that argument will nullify a lot of things the federal government does. I know some of you would say that's probably a good thing, but I'm just pointing out that a lawsuit based on the 10th Amendment will carry implications that go far beyond this healthcare bill.

For those reasons, I suspect it's a losing strategy. Modern Constitutional law (as the CATO guy encouraging the lawsuit acknowledges) has allowed for a broad reading of the constitution. There's a lot of precedent for allowing the government to do things that aren't explicitly mentioned in the constitutional text.

However, if this goes to the Supreme Court, I could envision some scenario where 5 justices strike down some provisions of the law under a narrow holding that doesn't completely unravel modern constitutional law holdings.

The idea that you can get the whole thing struck down under a 10th Amendment defense seems like a real long shot to me, though. The view that the Constitution literally means what it explicitly says and nothing else just isn't very mainstream from a legal standpoint.


Generally speaking, I agree. I think we've allowed the federal government to get away with so much over the years that it's hard to go back now . . . but where does it end? Don't we have to set some limits some time? Will we soon have a situation in which the Federal government can pass any laws they want, Constitution be damned?

One argument that can be made about Medicare and Medicaid is that they aren't legislation - they're taxes. The federal government isn't telling people what to do with medicare and medicaid . . . they're just taking our money - like they do all the time - and if we want to get some services in the form of Medicare and Medicaid back, the government is willing to "give" us that back if we meet certain criteria.

It's similar to how the Federal government can coerce states without actually telling them they "have" to do something. "You want highway money? Fine, just make sure your drinking age is 21 and your speed limit is 55 and we'll reward you by giving you some money back. We're not passing legislation. We're not saying the drinking age in every state has to be 21, just a little you-scratch-our-back-and-we-scratch-yours . . . "

In my opinion, probably 90% of what the Federal government does is unconstitutional in spirit. We should have more respect for the law and the Constitution than to allow it to be manipulated by tricks and semantics.

. . . but, then again, I'm probably a radical.:lookaroun

[BeeJay]

In my view, our revered Founders deserve their share of the blame for drafting a document that is such a patchwork of ambiguity. (One gets the sense that they felt they needed to put together something that was so full of compromises and lack of clarity to get a majority of the votes in favor of it...not entirely unlike what we saw over the weekend.) :lookaroun

Take the phrase that Congress has the power to regulate "interstate commerce." What the hell does that mean? Well, it COULD mean that a pediatrician in Ohio who buys stethoscopes from a manufacturer in Kentucky is subject to Congressional oversight, or that a doctor just across the NJ state line who treats patients who cross the Lincoln Tunnel from NY for treatment is similarly within the purview of Congress. And you can see how if you look at any financial transaction hard enough, you can probably find some aspect that could qualify as "interstate commerce" if your view is broad enough.

So, should we blame Congress for trying to milk that fuzziness for all that it can? Or should we note that the Founders lacked the political will/votes/foresight/ or even the CAPABILITY to lay out in very specific detail exactly what every phrase in the Constitution means in every situation? Essentially, they kicked the can to future generations to untangle what they meant, in my view...which is exactly what we've been doing ever since.

Granted, the interpretation of their words has generally (always?) been that view that has most liberally (liberal in the dictionary sense, NOT the political sense; so-called conservatives have benefited as well) expanded the power of the central government.

[figmentmom]

In my view, our revered Founders deserve their share of the blame for drafting a document that is such a patchwork of ambiguity. (One gets the sense that they felt they needed to put together something that was so full of compromises and lack of clarity to get a majority of the votes in favor of it...not entirely unlike what we saw over the weekend.) :lookaroun

Take the phrase that Congress has the power to regulate "interstate commerce." What the hell does that mean? Well, it COULD mean that a pediatrician in Ohio who buys stethoscopes from a manufacturer in Kentucky is subject to Congressional oversight, or that a doctor just across the NJ state line who treats patients who cross the Lincoln Tunnel from NY for treatment is similarly within the purview of Congress. And you can see how if you look at any financial transaction hard enough, you can probably find some aspect that could qualify as "interstate commerce" if your view is broad enough.

So, should we blame Congress for trying to milk that fuzziness for all that it can? Or should we note that the Founders lacked the political will/votes/foresight/ or even the CAPABILITY to lay out in very specific detail exactly what every phrase in the Constitution means in every situation? Essentially, they kicked the can to future generations to untangle what they meant, in my view...which is exactly what we've been doing ever since.

Granted, the interpretation of their words has generally (always?) been that view that has most liberally (liberal in the dictionary sense, NOT the political sense; so-called conservatives have benefited as well) expanded the power of the central government.


And THAT, my friends, is just about the clearest analysis of the Constitution - and our Founding Fathers, God love 'em - that I've heard yet. :king

[BeeJay]

Thanks for the backup, Mary. Check's on the way. :lol

By the way, since we're talking lawsuits, here's my best guess as to how this will all turn out. As I've already said, I think the 10th Amendment strategy is a weak one, but I absolutely could see a majority on the SC striking down the individual mandate — basically saying Congress has no authority to force every adult to buy health insurance. That's a libertarian argument that I think might resonate with the conservative wing of the court. If that happens, it would severely undercut the bill.

[Oscar Brito]

One argument that can be made about Medicare and Medicaid is that they aren't legislation - they're taxes. The federal government isn't telling people what to do with medicare and medicaid . . . they're just taking our money - like they do all the time - and if we want to get some services in the form of Medicare and Medicaid back, the government is willing to "give" us that back if we meet certain criteria.


The mandate that many people call "unconstitutional" is really a tax also (penalty tax?)...which I believe is why many say these lawsuits won't go far and are just great political theater....from what I read/hear, the Supreme Court doesn't really like to strike down "major" legislation either. But then again....

To me a mandate made more sense with a public option or medicare buy-in...to force people to get health care insurance only helps the insurance companies (forget the exchanges and the subsidies, since we don't really know if these concepts will work for the people it needs to work for).

It bothers me that the bill is huge and that is has a lot of useless elements (more of that DC business as usual)...it also bothers me that it costs so much....But I have a problem with those that consider funding two wars okay (hello trillions of dollars), and find funding an "expansion" of health care government waste. Protecting life is great! But what about quality of life?

Obama dropped the ball on this from the beginning. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. The Republicans were never going to jump on board (even when the bill was filled with GOP/conservative ideas...ex. the version of the mandate in the bill)....If Obama really was about change, this discussion/debate should've started with Single Payer.

One thing I do know...the Obama of today, is not the Obama who was sworn in....I think he realizes that from this point on, his vision for a bipartisan legislative process is dead...(even if he did forget that the GOP burned him with the stimulus bill [can we say useless compromises] before he got into the whole health care thing)....

Watching the vote on Sunday though...I can't help but be disappointed in the sorry state of our government. The people in Washington have no respect for the institutions (forget the people)....all that disrespectful shouting in Congress....to me that was more telling than anything.

Don't get me started on the Tea Party. The media sways the mob...but who sways the media?

What the world must think of us.....

Anyways...just some thoughts...I really enjoy reading everyone's views. :goofy

[Oscar Brito]

Isn't that what the Supreme Court is for? The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court is to "interpret the laws and Constitution of the United States."

Why should the Founding Fathers have to specify every situation? The whole idea of the Constitution is that it is a DYNAMIC FRAMEWORK for governing. That is the whole idea for amendments to the Constitution!

There is no way that ANYONE would be able to realize the future 200+ years in the future, or how specific laws would affect the country 200+ years in the future.

The government debate has been around since the days of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist. It's part of who we are as a country.

One of the best things in the system is the idea of "separate but equal" branches of government. I think each branch has gotten wrong countless times....no one is perfect. I don't know...I'm all for a strong central government, but I can see the benefits of a small regionalized state system. Maybe we need to start over...with some kind of hybrid. I'm sure congress can pass a "do over" amendment or something.

:lookaroun

[BeeJay]

Isn't that what the Supreme Court is for?

That's exactly what the SC is for. And there is a long history of the SC determining that the Constitution gives the federal government powers that are not specifically mentioned in the text of the document.

That's kinda the point I was trying to get at. :)

[BeeJay]

from what I read/hear, the Supreme Court doesn't really like to strike down "major" legislation either. But then again....


*coughcampaignfinancerestrictions*

:lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

The mandate that many people call "unconstitutional" is really a tax also (penalty tax?)...which I believe is why many say these lawsuits won't go far and are just great political theater....from what I read/hear, the Supreme Court doesn't really like to strike down "major" legislation either. But then again....



You've hit the key word: Penalty.

Consider these two hypotheticals:

1. If you buy a GM car this year, you will get a $10,000 tax credit.

2. If you don't buy a GM car this year, you will get a $10,000 tax penalty.

Both hypotheticals seem similar, but there is a very important difference.

The first one is similar to hundreds (thousands?) of things that have been done in the past by the Federal government. We see tax breaks for hybrid cars, education expenses, mortgages etc., but setting a penalty creates a very important precedent.

Laws are enforced with penalties, suggestions are rewarded with tax breaks. Think about how states enforce laws. They punish inappropriate behavior with fines, jail-time etc.

By creating a penalty in my hypothetical #2, you aren't suggesting that people buy a GM car, but telling them they have to get one under threat of penalty and that is a law as opposed to a suggestion.

With Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security etc. the government isn't penalizing people for things they're doing or not doing. They simply tax everyone based on standard conditions. People are treated equally (within income groups) and the taxes they pay aren't based on their actions or choices so no choices or liberties are taken away.

I still like my idea of enforcing universal coverage best: If you get sick and you don't have insurance, you won't get treated and you will die. Seems simple enough to me.:shrug:lookaroun

[BeeJay]

Health Care Reform FAQ

Can Republicans really repeal it? Does it violate the 10th Amendment? How, exactly, does it reduce the deficit?
By Christopher Beam
Posted Monday, March 22, 2010, at 6:37 PM ET

The House of Representatives passed health care reform Sunday night. This new legislation will extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans, prohibit insurers from discriminating against sick people, and reduce the federal deficit in the coming decades, according to official estimates. Yet many questions remain unanswered. Here's a sampling.

Say I have a pre-existing condition. Can I get affordable insurance now?
Wait three months. The requirement that insurance companies take any and all comers—known as "guaranteed issue"—doesn't kick in until Jan. 1, 2014. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allocates $5 billion for the establishment of "high risk pools" within 90 days across the country. These group insurance plans will provide coverage only for people with pre-existing conditions who can't find insurance through normal avenues. By law, they must take all eligible applicants and can't charge more than the standard rates.

The bill costs nearly $1 trillion in the first 10 years. How exactly does it reduce the deficit?
First, it slows spending on Medicare and Medicaid by reducing the rates those programs pay for services such as hospital visits. (It also reduces the amounts paid out through the Medicare Advantage program.) Second, it introduces new taxes, including a 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax hike for workers who make more than $200,000 a year (and couples who make more than $250,000 a year) and a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income for the same tax brackets. Both taxes will take effect in 2013. Lastly, the so-called "Cadillac" tax on relatively high-end employer-sponsored insurance plans will target individual plans that cost more than $10,200 every year and family plans that cost more than $27,500. (The "Cadillac" tax won't roll out until 2018.) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, together, these measures will decrease spending and increase revenue enough to reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first 10 years and more than $1 trillion in the second decade.

There's a fine for not having insurance. How does the government know whether you have insurance or not?
Through the tax system. The legislation doesn't explicitly say how the individual mandate for health insurance will be enforced, but taxpayers will probably be required to prove that they own insurance when filing their taxes each year. (If you get insurance through your employer, they'll help take care of it. If you're self-employed, your insurer will probably send you a document to submit with your other tax forms.) If a taxpayer doesn't have insurance, the IRS will notify him of his nonenrollment and show him how to sign up through their state's insurance exchange. If he still refuses to enroll, the IRS will levy a fine that shows up on his tax forms. The fee starts small in 2014—$95 or 1 percent of income—but edges up incrementally until 2016, when uninsured individuals will have to pay $695 a year, with a family maximum of $2,085 or 2.5 percent of household income.

What if I have federally subsidized insurance and need an abortion? Who pays for it?
You do. The compromise struck between the House and the Senate says that federal funds cannot be used to pay for abortions. So if the federal government fully subsidizes your plan, you have to pay out of pocket for abortions—except in cases of rape or incest. (This is the same arrangement for women covered by Medicaid.) Even if the government only partly subsidizes your insurance, you still have to pay for the portion of the insurance that covers abortion. Here's how it works: You write two separate checks to your insurance company every month—one to cover possible abortions, one for all other treatments and services. The federal government then contributes a third stream of money, which cannot be used to pay for abortions. Insurers that offer abortion coverage are required to keep those three pots of money separate. So any time someone gets an abortion, it's paid for from the account devoted exclusively to abortion coverage. (Pro-life advocates who claim that the health care bill subsidizes abortion argue that even if you keep the pots of money separate, the government is still contributing to plans that allow abortion.)

The Virginia attorney general has promised to file a lawsuit against the federal government claiming that it can't compel Virginians to buy health insurance. His supporters say health care reform violates the 10th Amendment. Does it?
Probably not. The 10th Amendment states that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The federal government, however, can claim two Constitutional justifications for mandating health care. One is the right to regulate interstate commerce, which includes any business that operates across state lines. (Even if not all health insurance companies operate in more than one state, Congress can still regulate them as long as that regulation is part of a comprehensive interstate scheme, according to the Supreme Court.) Congress also has the Constitutional right to tax. Just as Congress taxes polluting companies for imposing a burden on other people, it could tax Americans who don't buy health insurance for doing the same. As if to emphasize the point, the fine for not buying insurance is levied by the IRS.

What would it take to repeal health care reform?
Realistically, a Republican majority in the House and Senate, plus a Republican president. Even if the GOP won back a majority in the House and Senate in 2010, President Obama could still veto any legislation that would repeal any part of health care reform. Republicans would then need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override his veto. That's unlikely.

If the Republicans control the House, Senate, and presidency in 2012, they will still need 60 votes in the Senate to overhaul the bill in its entirety. They could, however, cut off funding for it through the budget reconciliation process, which only requires a 51-vote majority. But they wouldn't be able to tamper with any part of the legislation that doesn't affect the budget, such as the ban on discrimination against pre-existing conditions.

http://www.slate.com/id/2248560/

[BeeJay]

You've hit the key word: Penalty.

Consider these two hypotheticals:

1. If you buy a GM car this year, you will get a $10,000 tax credit.

2. If you don't buy a GM car this year, you will get a $10,000 tax penalty.

Both hypotheticals seem similar, but there is a very important difference.

The first one is similar to hundreds (thousands?) of things that have been done in the past by the Federal government. We see tax breaks for hybrid cars, education expenses, mortgages etc., but setting a penalty creates a very important precedent.

Laws are enforced with penalties, suggestions are rewarded with tax breaks. Think about how states enforce laws. They punish inappropriate behavior with fines, jail-time etc.

By creating a penalty in my hypothetical #2, you aren't suggesting that people buy a GM car, but telling them they have to get one under threat of penalty and that is a law as opposed to a suggestion.

With Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security etc. the government isn't penalizing people for things they're doing or not doing. They simply tax everyone based on standard conditions. People are treated equally (within income groups) and the taxes they pay aren't based on their actions or choices so no choices or liberties are taken away.

I still like my idea of enforcing universal coverage best: If you get sick and you don't have insurance, you won't get treated and you will die. Seems simple enough to me.:shrug:lookaroun

I actually agree with the principle of what you're saying, but I think Oz might be right that structuring the penalty for not purchasing insurance as a "tax" rather than a "fee" was a pretty smart move from a Constitutionality standpoint.

A "fee" for not buying insurance might be outside of Congressional authority, but no one would argue that the federal government doesn't have the authority to tax. And yes, I recognize that it's an entirely semantic distinction. But semantics could make a big difference as to whether this is legal.

The more I read and learn, the more I get the feeling that the bill has been structured in a way that anticipated these legal challenges.

[Christy]

I still like my idea of enforcing universal coverage best: If you get sick and you don't have insurance, you won't get treated and you will die. Seems simple enough to me.:shrug:lookaroun

Well then! :lol

I do wish there was some way to say "if you are making your life's goal to be the fattest woman in the world, and you suffer all the medical problems that come along with it, you pay for your damn self."

And I want "damn self" to be how it's worded.

[Christy]

And I wonder where they think they're going to find all these doctors to cover all the new patients :blink Medical school is going to have to get a whole lot cheaper and dumbed down :lol :lookaroun

[Oscar Brito]

And I wonder where they think they're going to find all these doctors to cover all the new patients :blink Medical school is going to have to get a whole lot cheaper and dumbed down :lol :lookaroun

I think medical should be cheap if not free so long as the doctors spend a couple of years in "community clinics/hospitals"....the amount of debt some people face out of school is rediculous...I think it would also help the quality o doctors if you open up medical schooling to people who otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford it....I believe a lot of countries do this....but they also limit pay I think....I think their argument if people shouldn't get into medicine for the money.

I don't know I think there is still so much more to address with healthcare.

[figmentmom]

I think medical should be cheap if not free so long as the doctors spend a couple of years in "community clinics/hospitals"....the amount of debt some people face out of school is rediculous...I think it would also help the quality o doctors if you open up medical schooling to people who otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford it....I believe a lot of countries do this....but they also limit pay I think....I think their argument if people shouldn't get into medicine for the money.

Not that I'm equating teaching with medicine :lol, but there have long been programs through the State University of New York that either partially or completely pay off student college loans if the student majors in education AND teaches for a certain number of years in designated schools and/or in designated subject areas. The reading teacher in the district in which I taught will be debt-free for both undergraduate and graduate school in two more years, when she fulfills her obligation to the state (our district, because of its socio-economic makeup, qualifies as one of the districts eligible for the program). I don't know if other states have similar programs, but it has been quite effective here in New York. Why couldn't that work in medicine as well?

[Christy]

I think medical should be cheap if not free so long as the doctors spend a couple of years in "community clinics/hospitals"....the amount of debt some people face out of school is rediculous...I think it would also help the quality o doctors if you open up medical schooling to people who otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford it....I believe a lot of countries do this....but they also limit pay I think....I think their argument if people shouldn't get into medicine for the money.

I don't know I think there is still so much more to address with healthcare.

Some programs do exist to pay back loans if you go to medically underserved areas.

No, you should not go into anything for the money and I don't think that most people do, but if you did what they did day in and day out what would you expect as compensation? Is it up to you or the government to decide? (well, I guess it's heading that way :lookaroun )

It's not all about the money, and I feel I can speak for Andy in this little way, that he feels priveleged to be able to do what he does, he knows it's making a difference, he killed himself for med school, and he works hard and is appreciative of the fact that he can help people in a way that I and most others can't now, but I feel he also did this to ensure that he can do for his own family what he feels needs done, be it paying for college, or taking them out to eat, or anything in between. Why is it fair to say a business man can make whatever because that's the nature of business, but a person doing what he does should be limited because they are helping people?

Anyway, I think we'll see a lot of nurse practitioners popping up to serve the underserved areas. I don't see any other way to do it at the moment.

[Christy]

There was a time (and he may ahve been drunk :lookaroun ) before either of us had ever heard of Barrack Obama :lol that he had said maybe to think of a way to get doctors and nurses to "donate" their time to a clinic, fulfill so many hours a year and get a tax break of whatever, or something to that effect. Sounded like a good plan to me.

[BeeJay]

I posted this on Facebook, but...it seems applicable. (Even though there's no government program involved here. :lookaroun)


This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how socialism in medicine is bad because the government can't do anything right.

http://prorev.com/2010/03/internet-sightings.html

[Christy]

Are we supposed to say "yay government, thank you for protecting us from stuff that we may or may not need protecting from?" :lol :lookaroun

That proves to me that the writer is a snarky ass is all... yes they are all there, the government does stuff. I want their efficiency to be addressed. How are our public schools? Had any spinach, peanut butter, tomatoes, strawberries, jalapenos in the past couple years that you didn't think twice before eating? The NHTSA cars never get recalled because they won't stop, fen-phen, vioxx, rezulin would never cause problems because they are all "approved" :thumbs

:lookaroun

At least the word socialism was finally applied :lol Just because their fingers are in everything doesn't mean it's a good thing. Just means we all get to pay for it.

[BeeJay]

I thought it was a nice counterpart to the e-mail forward you posted earlier. :p :lol

To me, the point isn't supposed to be "yay government," just to show that people who insist that the government is incapable of tying its own shoes and that we'd all be better off without it rarely acknowledge the paved roads and dependable mail service they use every day are government products. It is snarky, but it's a response to an unserious, snarky way of thinking (IMO).

[BeeJay]

Briefly, on contaminated food:

If the idea is that the government could, and should, improve its practices and do a better job...good enough. Count me in. I think you could safely say count everybody in on that one.

If the argument is that government should just get out of it because it's so incompetent and private industry could police itself better...you've lost me. Before we had any government standards, meatpacking plants literally sold whatever fell into the machinery as "beef"...rats, human workers, it didn't matter. There was no attempt to protect consumers from disease. It was a free-for-all. It was a purely libertarian approach that said "the government has no place getting involved." I don't think I'd want to go back. Strawberries might make you sick today, but the odds are a lot more in your favor than they would have been in 1900.

[Christy]

Yes I can go along with that, but as with all government programs, this is going to get so bloated (even more than is on the bill now, come on, we can all admit that) that I believe we'll be lucky if we get away with it only costing a trillion dollars :lol

I want us to start dealing with the pork, and I don't mean the kind that is ground up with rats and made into sausage. :goofy They spend and spend and spend and then find ways to spend more, and with all that, they still screw up often enough for me to say that I do not want them policing health care. And don't insult me by saying this won't have any affect on the american population as a whole*, only that poor people will get to see a doctor now. That's complete and utter bull.

*except for that magical 5% I keep hearing about. :lookaroun Who are they, and why aren't they eligible for coverage? And if this is only reform, what's with the stories about all the people who are VOTING for this bill including provisions to be sure they can "opt out" of it? Opt out of what, exactly? :lookaroun (this is not snark, I am seriously not clear, but then I have many posts here I need to go back and reread which may have addressed this)

Edit, again :lol going back to read the snark I posted :lookaroun is any of that untrue? It's all as true as yours, I think :lol

[BeeJay]

Agreed on the exemptions. It just looks bad to give anybody an out...especially someone connected with the government.

This story lays out more on the topic. Apparently all members of Congress have to buy into the exchanges when they kick in, but some top staffers could be exempt. I would assume this would be changed with a separate bill, just because it looks so bad:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34900.html

[Computer Magic]

Some programs do exist to pay back loans if you go to medically underserved areas.

No, you should not go into anything for the money and I don't think that most people do, but if you did what they did day in and day out what would you expect as compensation? Is it up to you or the government to decide? (well, I guess it's heading that way :lookaroun )

It's not all about the money, and I feel I can speak for Andy in this little way, that he feels priveleged to be able to do what he does, he knows it's making a difference, he killed himself for med school, and he works hard and is appreciative of the fact that he can help people in a way that I and most others can't now, but I feel he also did this to ensure that he can do for his own family what he feels needs done, be it paying for college, or taking them out to eat, or anything in between. Why is it fair to say a business man can make whatever because that's the nature of business, but a person doing what he does should be limited because they are helping people?

Anyway, I think we'll see a lot of nurse practitioners popping up to serve the underserved areas. I don't see any other way to do it at the moment.I agree with your post. Andy worked hard to provide a better life for his family. With 5 kids you have to be a doctor or lawyer to provide for them :goofy Is having a nurse practitioner better than a doctor? HELL NO. My MIL was taken off a certain medicine cold turkey where it should be been gradually removed. It messed her up. My concern is the quality of care.

[BeeJay]

Putting aside all the shadowboxing here for a second: I'm genuinely interested in hearing how these changes affect Andy's practice or those of his colleagues in the months and years ahead...good, bad and ugly.

[Oscar Brito]

Speaking of a Medicare buy-in/public option...I think I like this bill....:lookaroun

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4789:

[Garyhoov]

Speaking of a Medicare buy-in/public option...I think I like this bill....:lookaroun

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4789:

Let me know when I can "buy-out".:lookaroun

[Christy]

Ok, went back to read, finally! :lol


The mandate that many people call "unconstitutional" is really a tax also (penalty tax?)...which I believe is why many say these lawsuits won't go far and are just great political theater....from what I read/hear, the Supreme Court doesn't really like to strike down "major" legislation either. But then again....

To me a mandate made more sense with a public option or medicare buy-in...to force people to get health care insurance only helps the insurance companies (forget the exchanges and the subsidies, since we don't really know if these concepts will work for the people it needs to work for).

It bothers me that the bill is huge and that is has a lot of useless elements (more of that DC business as usual)...it also bothers me that it costs so much....But I have a problem with those that consider funding two wars okay (hello trillions of dollars), and find funding an "expansion" of health care government waste. Protecting life is great! But what about quality of life?

Obama dropped the ball on this from the beginning. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. The Republicans were never going to jump on board (even when the bill was filled with GOP/conservative ideas...ex. the version of the mandate in the bill)....If Obama really was about change, this discussion/debate should've started with Single Payer.

One thing I do know...the Obama of today, is not the Obama who was sworn in....I think he realizes that from this point on, his vision for a bipartisan legislative process is dead...(even if he did forget that the GOP burned him with the stimulus bill [can we say useless compromises] before he got into the whole health care thing)....

Watching the vote on Sunday though...I can't help but be disappointed in the sorry state of our government. The people in Washington have no respect for the institutions (forget the people)....all that disrespectful shouting in Congress....to me that was more telling than anything.

Don't get me started on the Tea Party. The media sways the mob...but who sways the media?

What the world must think of us.....

Anyways...just some thoughts...I really enjoy reading everyone's views. :goofy
Good post :thumbs

I agree with your post. Andy worked hard to provide a better life for his family. With 5 kids you have to be a doctor or lawyer to provide for them :goofy Is having a nurse practitioner better than a doctor? HELL NO. My MIL was taken off a certain medicine cold turkey where it should be been gradually removed. It messed her up. My concern is the quality of care.

Nurse practitioners have their place, I think. And I think they're going to ahve to have more of a place if we want to get all these newly insured patients seen in a primary care setting. They can do a physical, and know the basics of what they are looking for, but I agree that the switching of meds and the like should be kept with the doctors. I can't tell you what a bitch pharmacology was for Andy, do you know how many drugs there are out there? :lol That and neuroanatomy, brutal! :circles Much lost sleep over those :lol

[Christy]

Agreed on the exemptions. It just looks bad to give anybody an out...especially someone connected with the government.

This story lays out more on the topic. Apparently all members of Congress have to buy into the exchanges when they kick in, but some top staffers could be exempt. I would assume this would be changed with a separate bill, just because it looks so bad:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34900.html
Have to read this one yet :lookaroun :blush

Putting aside all the shadowboxing here for a second: I'm genuinely interested in hearing how these changes affect Andy's practice or those of his colleagues in the months and years ahead...good, bad and ugly.

Oh like you have a prayer of keeping me quiet if the poop hits the fan :goofy :lol :lookaroun

We'll see. :dunno

*edit: I don't think this guy is complaining: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/14/a-practice-in-peril.html?sid=101

[Hooker]

Found this on a Democratic-slanted website that I frequent sometimes:

Lessons from the Whole Health-Insurance Reform Process

Obama got his bill, but it doesn't really reform much. It is largely about the government buying insurance for 30 million poor and lower middle class people who can't afford it. But it does little to control costs and not much to change the way the insurance industry operates. While starting in 2014 they can't refuse taking on sick people point blank, they can certainly give them a runaround, hoping they will get angry with the company and find another one. It is perhaps a bit early to try to draw any lessons from the whole process, but here is a first cut.

* Move faster. The whole process took well over a year, during which time the opposition had plenty of time to organize and mobilize public opinion. If the bill had been passed by June 2009, there would not have been any tea party events in August 2009 and public opinion would have been far more favorable at the time of passage. Compare the Democrats' glacial pace with the speed the Bush administration moved on its key priorities (tax cuts, NCLB, Medicare Part D, etc.). Americans like decisiveness and Bush not only said he was the decider, he acted like it, too.

* Frame the issue. Chuck Schumer once said that when the Republicans manage to frame an issue as the rich and the middle class against the poor, the Republicans win. But when the Democrats manage to frame an issue as the poor and the middle class against the rich, the Democrats win. Obama shot himself in the foot on this one by constantly emphasizing the value of the bill to the 30 million uninsured. He should have told people over and over: "You may be paying premiums, but if you get sick, your insurance company may drop you and that is legal. I want to make it illegal." By framing the issue as the people vs. the insurance companies, Obama would have engaged insured voters far more and made it much more difficult for anyone to attack his goal.

* Study history, but don't be a slave to it. Obama knew that when (Hillary) Clinton wrote a health bill, tossed it over the wall to Congress, and told them to pass it, it didn't work. But that didn't mean he should stay out of the loop altogether until the endgame. His active involvement from day 1 would have speeded up the process immensely.

* Too many cooks spoil the broth. Obama outsourced the bill to Max Baucus, Chris Dodd, and three committee chairman in the House. This led to a real mess. He should have said, in public, what features he wanted in the bill, and then told the Senate and House leadership to each pick one committee chairman in each chamber to fill in the details.

* Bipartisanship doesn't work. The voters want the people in Congress to work together to solve the country's problems, but that is not how Congress works. Each party has its own goals and they are usually diametrically opposed. That is the nature of a two-party system. Having the two parties oppose each other all the time is not a bug in the system; it is a feature. It is how Democracy works. After Bush's victory in 2000, he said: "I won. You lost. Now I am going to carry out my program." After failed attempts to get Olympia Snowe on board, Obama should have said the same thing. To the extent that negotiating was needed, it should have been with Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, who were gettable if they got what they wanted whereas even when Snowe got what she wanted (killing the public option), she still voted no.

* Fight misinformation. When Republicans began saying things that weren't true, they should have been called on it. For example, when Sarah Palin began claiming there were death panels in the bill, Obama should have asked a senior senator, say, Tom Harkin (D-IA), to write a check for $10,000 to Palin hold it up for the TV cameras, and say: "Sarah, I'll bet you $10,000 you can't tell me the page and line where death panels are created. How about it Sarah? Put your money where your mouth is." She would have had to back down since she couldn't point to a page and line.

[BeeJay]

I've read a handful of post-mortems from right and left saying the Republicans really have themselves to thank for the bill's passage, by gambling on its total failure instead of demonstrating a good faith effort to compromise. By demonstrating that they were united against this bill regardless of how many Republican ideas were included, they demonstrated a lack of seriousness and emboldened Obama and the Democrats to just ignore them and do it themselves.

This snippet from David Frum (a conservative who's made a name for himself by criticizing conservatives :lol) is representative:


At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

Another snippet, from Matthew Yglesias:


We should also, however, spare a thought for the unsung hero of comprehensive reform, McConnell and his GOP colleagues, who pushed their “no compromise” strategy to the breaking point and beyond. The theory was that non-cooperation would stress the Democratic coalition and cause the public to begin to question the enterprise. And it largely worked. But at crucial times when wavering Democrats were eager for a lifeline, the Republicans absolutely refused to throw one. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and other key players at various points wanted to scale aspirations down to a few regulatory tweaks and some expansion of health care for children. This idea had a lot of appeal to many in the party. But it always suffered from a fatal flaw—the Republicans’ attitude made it seem that a smaller bill was no more feasible than a big bill. Consequently, even though Scott Brown’s victory blew the Democrats off track, the basic logic of the situation pushed them back on course to universal health care.

<snip>

Universal health care has been attempted many times in the past and always failed. The prospects for success were never all that bright. Many of us, myself included, at one point or another wanted to try something more moderate. But the right wing, by invariably indicating that it would settle for nothing less than total victory, inspired progressive forces to march on and win their greatest legislative victory in decades.

[Garyhoov]

I've read a handful of post-mortems from right and left saying the Republicans really have themselves to thank for the bill's passage, by gambling on its total failure instead of demonstrating a good faith effort to compromise. By demonstrating that they were united against this bill regardless of how many Republican ideas were included, they demonstrated a lack of seriousness and emboldened Obama and the Democrats to just ignore them and do it themselves.

This snippet from David Frum (a conservative who's made a name for himself by criticizing conservatives :lol) is representative:



Another snippet, from Matthew Yglesias:

The politicians can spin and analyze this all they want, but the bottom line is that I'd be surprised if one single Democratic seat is gained from this legislation. The number of Republican seats gained will be substantial. How substantial will depend, to some extent, on how good the economy is looking by November. Fortunately for the Democrats, things are likely to be looking much better in November on the economic front.

Generally speaking, politicians are like tumble-weeds . . . who think they're controlling the wind.:lol

[BeeJay]

The politicians can spin and analyze this all they want, but the bottom line is that I'd be surprised if one single Democratic seat is gained from this legislation. The number of Republican seats gained will be substantial. How substantial will depend, to some extent, on how good the economy is looking by November. Fortunately for the Democrats, things are likely to be looking much better in November on the economic front.

Generally speaking, politicians are like tumble-weeds . . . who think they're controlling the wind.:lol

Yeah, I try not to put too much stock in what politicians say. Pundits like the ones I quoted can be overexcitable too, of course.

The Dems will absolutely lose seats in November. Take that to the bank. The out party will be more energized, history says the president's party generally loses seats in a midterm, and the Dems have simply been too successful over the last two cycles to NOT see that start to reverse. Mathematically, you can't have one party continue to have net gains over multiple successive elections, or they will eventually win literally all the seats.

The question (which we will never be able to answer, but is plenty fun to debate!) is whether it would have been better for the Dems to pass the bill or abandon it...i.e., which option would have cost them fewer seats. I've said before I think it's better to have something than nothing when you're campaigning. Most of the people who will vote against the Dems for passing the bill are the same ones who would have voted against them for considering it at all.

I think their best hope was to give their base something to get excited about (which passage of the bill should do), and I further think that by passing it and letting people see the effects (or lack thereof) over the next seven months, they will neutralize the nebuolous sense of fear that the talk radio circuit had succeeded in ginning up. People who aren't die-hard conservatives or libertarians, but opposed the bill because they were hearing scary stuff about it, should be more likely to support it or not much care after the fact.

A Gallup poll (and yes, it's only one poll) the day after passage showed a 49-40 plurality of people happy about the bill's passage...when just the day before, the numbers were almost the opposite in the direction of opposing it.

[BeeJay]

The "big 'bi-partisan' summit" that [the president] set up where he took some republican ideas to include in the bill was all show.

Guess what? I agree with you entirely on this point. :)

However, there are other examples where GOP ideas had already been taken and included only to have the minority turn around and oppose the bill anyway. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama knew what they were dealing with by the time the summit came around, and for that reason, you're absolutely right...they had no intention of listening to the Republicans at that point, but wanted to give the impression they were.

[Doug11]

If the blue voters are "dumocrats," what are the red voters? I propose repooplicans.

and how did conservatives, who have historically rather been dead than red, end up on that color anyway? Given the colors of our flag, wouldn't it have made more sense to cast them as "white?" :lookaroun :lol


proud to be a repooplican, but not always proud of what comes out in the newsletters. *salute*

[BeeJay]

If the blue voters are "dumocrats," what are the red voters? I propose repooplicans.
:lol

My cursory browsing of the comments section of some politics boards has revealed the following possibilities: "Dumbocrats," "Dimmicrats," "Demoncrats," "Rethuglicans," "Repukes," and "Repubes." That's all that comes to mind off the top of my head.


and how did conservatives, who have historically rather been dead than red, end up on that color anyway? Given the colors of our flag, wouldn't it have made more sense to cast them as "white?" :lookaroun :lol

I've seen this addressed, too. Apparently back during the Cold War, Democratic states were represented as red, GOP as blue for the obvious "better dead than red" idea. Likewise, most European countries have rightward parties as blue, leftward parties as red.

I'm not sure why the change happened over here. I assume that after the fall of the USSR, Republicans aren't as allergic to red as they were decades ago.

[Garyhoov]

Has there been any serious discussion/analysis of how many people who are currently insured will drop it under this plan?

With Linda's new job, we're completely covered with no cost to us (the rest of you are paying for it:lookaroun) but prior to that, I was paying something around $750 a month though I almost never go to the doctor.

Assuming I still had that coverage, wouldn't it make sense for me to just drop it, pay the penalty and wait until I really needed it to pick it back up again?:dunno

And I'm thinking my situation wasn't that unusual. Is it possible that this plan will get a few lower income people covered while large numbers of middle income, reasonably healthy people (who currently keep the insurance rates relatively low because they pay more than they collect) drop their coverage?

It seems to just be accepted that this plan will increase the number of people covered, but with the low penalties and inability of insurance companies to refuse people, I'm not so sure the net effect won't be fewer people covered.

[BeeJay]

^ That's a legitimate question. Aside from a CNN story quoting a guy from their comments section who basically said he'd do exactly that, I haven't seen it addressed.

[Oscar Brito]

Over time, I think you'll see employers offer HSAs (Health Savings Accounts) as opposed to real insurance coverage, since its cheaper...I'm not sure how the legislation views HSAs does it count it as legitimate insurance coverage?....If you're healthy I can see HSAs working (the money rolls over every year and if you don't use it, its earning interest)...unless you're hit by a bus or something on your way to work one day...a catastrophe would suck (especially if you're employer's contribution is low)....

[Doug11]

for us, with a staff of approximately 30, we are small business, USA. We have had HSAs for several years now because it provides the best value. Let me explain:

Under a traditional health plan, you start off with a co-pay and a deductible. When you go to the doctor/hospital/emergency room, you make your copay then are billed for the rest after the insurance company sorts out what it owes and what your deductible may be or what is left over . . . blah blah blah. Every January 1, whatever you did last year is wiped clean and you start over. Fine.

With my HSA, I have an enormous deductible . . . but. When I go to the doctor, I see the clinic administrator and tell them I have a high deductible plan and ask what we can work out. Most will give a discount if you negotiate it on the front end. Then, my employer puts in a monthly allotment into the HSA so I don't have to come out of pocket for the full cost of the deductible. We figured out that over a year's time, our employees don't come out of pocket any more than they would under a traditional insurance plan. So far, the HSA is slightly ahead because I get a discount in the physician's office.

Where the real value kicks in is years 2 and beyond. Whatever I banked in my HSA and didn't spend - my own before tax deferrals and employer contributions carry over to year two. Now, if I have a healthy year, I have a buffer and don't come out of pocket as much or at all over the course of year two. and the balance in my account earns interest.

Year 3, things are really good if I am healthy. Now I can use my HSA to pay for things my traditional plan denies as elective or non covered. Braces, botox, whatever. And since I can use my HSA account for any medications, including over the counter meds, the occasional bottle of advil no longer comes out of my take home pay - it comes from my hsa money.

The HSA is an example, in my opinion, of somebody getting it right. If I am sick as a dog every year, I come out of pocket the same, roughly, as I would under a traditional co-pay, low deductible insurance plan.

But if I am healthy, I reap the benefit of that.

If the government hasn't screwed it up. I am confident the government will mess up my good thing by limiting what my employer can pay or by taking my year end balance or the interest. Obama is going to get into my business one way or another.

[BeeJay]

I'm just speculating...this is NOT based on an in depth understanding of the bills...but I would be surprised if an HSA plan like what Doug described is considered an acceptable form of insurance under this law.

The reason I say that is the whole idea behind the individual mandate is that you have all the healthy people (like Doug) paying premiums into the insurance system without taking big payouts as a counterweight to all the sick people who are going to be able to buy insurance now. If you allow that money to stay within small-scale savings accounts, you aren't helping offset the increased risk the insurance pool is guaranteed to see now.

Also, it sounds like your benefits under an HSA are limited to what you and your employer have put in over time. So if yoou have a medical emergency that drains your HSA savings, there's now nothing to prevent you from just buying insurance at that point knowing you've got some heavy bills on the way. Insurance companies won't like that.

Remember that the insurance companies were some of the biggest supporters of this legislation. Just based on my limited understanding of the issues, I can't see where they'd be satisfied with a plan that forces them to accept all comers if people are also allowed to avoid buying their prodcut by using HSA's or similar vehicles.

[BeeJay]

Eh...never mind. I'm as clueless as I said. I didn't realize you have to purchase a high-deductible insurance plan to be eligible for an HSA. Seems like they're still going to be considered acceptable, based on this:

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20100324/FREE/100329938

[BeeJay]

But it looks like HSA contributions could be more limited in their eligible uses now. This is from a right-wing news outlet, but it seems based in fact:


Under the new law, Americans would not be able to use pre-tax dollars from health savings accounts (HSA), flexible spending accounts (FSA), or health reimbursements accounts (HRA) to buy over-the-counter non-prescription medicines. This measure takes effect in 2011 and is supposed to bring in $5 billion dollars. This is found in Section 9003 of the law, under “Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.”

[Doug11]

I told you government was going to screw it up for me. I may have failed to mention that once the high deductible is met, my plan pays 100% of in-network care up to $1 million dollars, and the network is pretty solid. 100% is better than many traditional co-pay insurance plans which never pay more than 80 or 90% of expenses.

[Garyhoov]

I'm not sure what all of this means, but it looks like Lt. Commander Hoover may have some interesting days ahead.:lookaroun

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=132001

[Garyhoov]

I keep asking her when she's going to get a gun. I think this could be the first step. You people better start treating me with some respect now. I've got connections.:lol

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs024.snc3/11131_1153658007168_1399203865_30401165_6718115_n. jpg

[Garyhoov]

Is anyone else getting frustrated with the way Obama is "selling" this plan?

I would think I'm his ideal audience. I'm not thrilled with the plan, but I recognize it is at least attempting to do some things that need to get done, so I'm open minded and willing to listen.

But Obama isn't addressing any of my real concerns in an attempt to get me off the fence. He's not talking about the real, long term costs, details and effects of this plan. Instead, he seems to be spending a lot of time thumping his chest and gloating about his 'win' and trivializing trivial concerns. He was actually commenting the other day that the world didn't end when the bill was passed. Gee, now I feel a lot better. I was concerned that might happen, but I guess we're all fine now.:rollseyes

Roughly 60% of the country didn't like this bill when it passed, but instead of him reaching out to those people and saying: "This is a really good thing. Let me explain why and let's work together on this to make this live up to it's potential." He seems to be saying: "I won, you lost, ha, ha, now suck it up and deal with it.."

Obama's gloating, self-righteous attitude since passage of the bill is really turning me off and I don't think he's helping his cause in any way I can see.:shrug

[Computer Magic]

Obama's gloating, self-righteous attitude since passage of the bill is really turning me off and I don't think he's helping his cause in any way I can see.:shrugExactly the issue. It's not a basketball game on the playground...That is where the trash talking belongs.

[BeeJay]

I definitely see where you're coming from, Gary. Obama seems to be using the fact that most of the GOP acted like the skies would rain blood when the bill was signed to point to a non-bloody sky and say "See?! They were full of it!" (Well, thanks for that newsflash.)

[Christy]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/05/florida-doctor-stands-anti-obamacare-sign-despite-threat-complaint/

:lookaroun


"I came across the timeline for implementation of Obamacare and I got a little discouraged when I got to next year when I found that most of the ancillary services and nursing homes and diagnostic imaging, all these things start to fade away," he told Fox News

:goofy

I think it would be so crazy to think that diagnostic imaging will be affected, if anything it should be as strong as ever... early detection and treatment? Ounce of prevention, pound of cure? Anyone? But at the same time, advanced technology, new techniques, new procedures, radiology is always at the forefront (and then the other specialties steal our stuff :lol ) I wonder how much room there will be for new and innovative procedures, if it isn't on the top of a list somewhere as a procedure that is considered cost effective by the government. It's like we all get to live under one big HMO now :lol

[erika]

Is anyone else getting frustrated with the way Obama is "selling" this plan?

I would think I'm his ideal audience. I'm not thrilled with the plan, but I recognize it is at least attempting to do some things that need to get done, so I'm open minded and willing to listen.

But Obama isn't addressing any of my real concerns in an attempt to get me off the fence. He's not talking about the real, long term costs, details and effects of this plan. Instead, he seems to be spending a lot of time thumping his chest and gloating about his 'win' and trivializing trivial concerns. He was actually commenting the other day that the world didn't end when the bill was passed. Gee, now I feel a lot better. I was concerned that might happen, but I guess we're all fine now.:rollseyes

Roughly 60% of the country didn't like this bill when it passed, but instead of him reaching out to those people and saying: "This is a really good thing. Let me explain why and let's work together on this to make this live up to it's potential." He seems to be saying: "I won, you lost, ha, ha, now suck it up and deal with it.."

Obama's gloating, self-righteous attitude since passage of the bill is really turning me off and I don't think he's helping his cause in any way I can see.:shrug

I said something along those lines to a reporter today... LOL! I rambled through a random over-the-phone CBS/NYT public opinion poll. I felt bad for the guy on the other end of the line. You know us stay at home moms, we're just so happy to have a grownup to speak with, we never shut up :rotfl

[Computer Magic]

I said something along those lines to a reporter today... LOL! I rambled through a random over-the-phone CBS/NYT public opinion poll. I felt bad for the guy on the other end of the line. You know us stay at home moms, we're just so happy to have a grownup to speak with, we never shut up :rotfl:rotfl

[Christy]

I said something along those lines to a reporter today... LOL! I rambled through a random over-the-phone CBS/NYT public opinion poll. I felt bad for the guy on the other end of the line. You know us stay at home moms, we're just so happy to have a grownup to speak with, we never shut up :rotfl

When you start inviting the Jehovahs witnesses in for tea and a chat, it's time to get out of the house! :rotfl

[Christy]

So a week or so ago I posted on facebook the thing about 47% of Americans will pay no federal income tax this year (which some of you "liked" and I wasn't sure how to take that, considering it was Erika and Oz who liked, who never struck me as having similar fiscal ideologies :rotfl :lookaroun but what do I know :dunno) Anyway, I stole it from Dave Ramsey's newsfeed, and somebody commented to THAT with "fairtax.org!"

So I looked it up.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

So, now, since I know jack squat about economics, why do you think this would or would not work?

I also saw it said it would repeal the 16th amendment, so I went and looked THAT up. Yeah, no idea what the hell that actually means, it's all in legal political jargon :rotfl

[erika]

I liked it because it was an interesting read. :)

(I had just finished reading about it in a different article)

[BeeJay]

So, now, since I know jack squat about economics, why do you think this would or would not work?


You see this brought up from time to tome (usually in Republican primaries, it seems like).

My best guess as to why it doesn't get taken seriously is that the government spends too much money to depend on a consumption tax for revenue over an income tax — both for its unpredictability and because you'd probably bring in less money than under the current system.

The 16th Amendment says the federal government can collect income tax and spend it however they feel like, basically.

[Christy]

I'd heard calls for a flat tax before, which obviously isn't going to work because who of those 47% who don't pay anything would vote for someone who supports THAT?! :goofy But never this one.

[Oscar Brito]

So a week or so ago I posted on facebook the thing about 47% of Americans will pay no federal income tax this year (which some of you "liked" and I wasn't sure how to take that, considering it was Erika and Oz who liked, who never struck me as having similar fiscal ideologies :rotfl :lookaroun but what do I know :dunno) Anyway, I stole it from Dave Ramsey's newsfeed, and somebody commented to THAT with "fairtax.org!"


:lol Because its a good thing...considering the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer...I'm all for leveling the playing field however possible.

Interestingly enough....I found this take hilarious....

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-13-2010/that-s-tariffic

:goofy:shrug:D

[Christy]

Oz, one of these days you are going to make my head explode *sigh*

:rotfl

You can't tell me that 47% of americans are "the poor who keep getting poorer" :blink Who was the last person you knew of who took that refund to pay off some bills. I know everybody says it, but they somehow always end up with a new set of patio furniture or a vacation :lookaroun

I also saw that, coincidentally, 45% of Americans think the amount of taxes they pay are "just right" :lol :goofy

[Christy]

BTW, I am sick of the "the rich" talk... all people who make more than $250,000 are lumped together with the Bill Gates and Hearsts of the world. It's bullshit. It makes me insane.

[Christy]

Good video... why isn't it Exxon and GE getting screwed.

[Oscar Brito]

Remember were talking Income taxes...that 47% still pay other taxes. Refunds are good...it returns money to people who according to the gov need it (the government sort of acknowledges that they took/take too much)...I'm sure the Tea Party activists fall in that 47%...but they're fighting for lower taxes for the big money funding that "grass roots movement"...it always annoys me when they bring up the tax issue. How many of them pay income taxes? The fact that the percentage not paying income taxes is so high probably reflects the negative state of peoples income situation. The gap between the wealthiest and poor is widening...I think we can all agree that the so-called "Middle Class" is shrinking. Wealth accumulated by such a small percentage of a society is a danger (look at all the major revolutions/uprisings that have occured). We all benefit from a financially stable prosperous (fair) society. I'm not saying that you should penalize the rich for being rich, but they can help shoulder more of the burden. I don't know where you draw the line with who is rich or not...and how you determine how much more they should pay....and I'm sure there are ways to fix the current system to achieve some balance....we've all heard the talking points from both sides...but there just aren't any excuses for companies like Exxon not paying taxes. Maybe reaction is relative to where you are economically. If I were rich I may look at this differently...but I don't think so. :shrug

[Christy]

Yeah I get that about them still paying other taxes, and I am not complaining about having to pay income taxes. (though Andy might :lookaroun )

I look at our income as a risk/reward thing. It generally seems to be the jobs with high risks also have high rewards, and I think THAT is fair. You think I give a darn if the guy who wanted nothing more from than to flip burgers at McDonald's is getting paid peanuts to do that? Not really... I think the difference is not our income brackets, but how we view other people. :lookaroun I think generally people are bastards coated bastards with bastard filling :lookaroun and I don't want Andy's ass busting going to benefit their bastardly selves :goofy I guess I think there are WAY more people out there who WILL NOT help themselves as opposed to those who CANNOT help themselves, and that is what makes me mad

But Oz my dear, we are all in agreement about Exxon, I am sure :hugs :lol

[Garyhoov]

So a week or so ago I posted on facebook the thing about 47% of Americans will pay no federal income tax this year (which some of you "liked" and I wasn't sure how to take that, considering it was Erika and Oz who liked, who never struck me as having similar fiscal ideologies :rotfl :lookaroun but what do I know :dunno) Anyway, I stole it from Dave Ramsey's newsfeed, and somebody commented to THAT with "fairtax.org!"

So I looked it up.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

So, now, since I know jack squat about economics, why do you think this would or would not work?

I also saw it said it would repeal the 16th amendment, so I went and looked THAT up. Yeah, no idea what the hell that actually means, it's all in legal political jargon :rotfl

IF a consumption tax ever comes around, I think you'd have to be crazy to think the government would give up all their other taxes. We're much more likely to see a consumption tax ADDED on to what we're already paying.

And I don't really like the idea either. To me, such a tax would be unfair. The theory says that such a tax is based on choice, which is a cool idea, but the fact is, someone with a lower income HAS to spend a higher percentage of that income for basic needs. A rich person may choose to spend or not, but a poor person doesn't have that choice.

I like the idea of a simple percentage with no deductions for kids, houses, hybrid cars etc. To me, that would be a truly "fair" system and rich people would still be paying much more than poor people.

If someone who makes $50,000 a year can't afford to pay, say, 20% of their income to the federal government, they can demand the federal government stop spending so much rather than saying someone else should be paying it.

[Garyhoov]

. . . of course a broad philosophical question that has to be asked is: "Is 'fairness' the primary goal of a tax system?" I don't want to put words in Oz's mouth, but it seems like he's less interested in fairness than he is in a system that will redistribute wealth.

Personally, I like "fairness" because as soon as you take away fairness, you have men (and not just any men, but the lowest of the low - politicians) making decisions about who gets what and that leads to corruption.

Of course our current system has already gone so far from the ideals of the Constitution, that I think corruption and inequity is something we need to deal with and manage. We'll never eliminate it.

[BeeJay]

BTW, I am sick of the "the rich" talk... all people who make more than $250,000 are lumped together with the Bill Gates and Hearsts of the world. It's bullshit. It makes me insane.

http://www.slate.com/id/2243529/

:lookaroun

[erika]

I feel ya to a point, Oz. The thing that is great about this society is that most of us have the ability to change our status in life IF we are willing to work hard enough. There are a lot of people who are able, but not willing, and who ruin it for those who are truly in need (and I agree with you that there are far too many truly in need). I've known way too many people who were born into less than stellar circumstances and used that as an excuse to not better their situations in life (and bitch incessantly about the 'wealthy'). But I know others who were dealt far worse hands, and managed to fare much better. They're not lucky. They're not exceptional. They've worked their butts off to get there, and a lot of them are insulted by the insinuation that it was unexpected.

Honestly I think we've come to expect too much. A lot of us have been coddled to the point of being unable to care for ourselves. I think a lot of social programs were probably necessary in the beginning, but now at times they have left us unprepared to stand on our own. Social Security was a great idea when people who were used to pensions were suddenly told they'd be left without. But what about now? It's been how many years and there are still folks who are 5 years from retirement with absolutely nothing saved. I'm not talking about the working poor... I'm talking about people who blew thousands of dollars on crap because they figured the government would take care of them in the end. And guess what... now they are complaining that their SS checks won't be enough! :goofy

[Garyhoov]

http://www.slate.com/id/2243529/

:lookaroun

Considering the inflation that will result from a half-assed, 5 year "stimulus" plan, you're likely to see people breaking through that threshold sooner rather than later.:lookaroun

That's the problem with things like the AMT. Congress sets limits but then doesn't adjust those limits over time to account for inflation so more and more people shift into the "rich" classification. And of course once congress has imposed taxes, we're not going to get rid of those taxes until we pry them out of their cold, dead hands.

[Christy]

IF a consumption tax ever comes around, I think you'd have to be crazy to think the government would give up all their other taxes. We're much more likely to see a consumption tax ADDED on to what we're already paying.

And I don't really like the idea either. To me, such a tax would be unfair. The theory says that such a tax is based on choice, which is a cool idea, but the fact is, someone with a lower income HAS to spend a higher percentage of that income for basic needs. A rich person may choose to spend or not, but a poor person doesn't have that choice.

I like the idea of a simple percentage with no deductions for kids, houses, hybrid cars etc. To me, that would be a truly "fair" system and rich people would still be paying much more than poor people.
If someone who makes $50,000 a year can't afford to pay, say, 20% of their income to the federal government, they can demand the federal government stop spending so much rather than saying someone else should be paying it.
Ok, I can see that... and I agree. 5 kids and all :goofy :lol

http://www.slate.com/id/2243529/

:lookaroun
Oh whatever :lol It's more the tone that I can feel coming through when someone talks about "the rich" knowing that Mr. Burns is the image in everybody's head.

Although after my bastard comment, maybe it fits perfectly :goofy

I feel ya to a point, Oz. The thing that is great about this society is that most of us have the ability to change our status in life IF we are willing to work hard enough. There are a lot of people who are able, but not willing, and who ruin it for those who are truly in need (and I agree with you that there are far too many truly in need). I've known way too many people who were born into less than stellar circumstances and used that as an excuse to not better their situations in life (and bitch incessantly about the 'wealthy'). But I know others who were dealt far worse hands, and managed to fare much better. They're not lucky. They're not exceptional. They've worked their butts off to get there, and a lot of them are insulted by the insinuation that it was unexpected.

Honestly I think we've come to expect too much. A lot of us have been coddled to the point of being unable to care for ourselves. I think a lot of social programs were probably necessary in the beginning, but now at times they have left us unprepared to stand on our own. Social Security was a great idea when people who were used to pensions were suddenly told they'd be left without. But what about now? It's been how many years and there are still folks who are 5 years from retirement with absolutely nothing saved. I'm not talking about the working poor... I'm talking about people who blew thousands of dollars on crap because they figured the government would take care of them in the end. And guess what... now they are complaining that their SS checks won't be enough! :goofy

:thumbs

[Garyhoov]

Okay. Here's a thought to go along with the: "If you make $250,000 you're rich so give it to the government and don't bitch" argument.

According to this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/15/obamas-earned-55-million-2009b/

The Obama's made 5.5 million last year but only donated $329,000 to charity last year (let's not count the Nobel prize because . . . come on).

If $250,000 is rich and enough for any reasonable person, why didn't he donate 5.25 million to charity last year?

It's the least he could do being on the public dole and everything. After all, we pay for his food, housing travel, etc.

[Christy]

And the consumption tax thing, when was it that we were supposed to be scared of Obama or the healthcare plan because they might tax :uh Sodas and junk food :uh

I was on board with that one :shrug :lol :lookaroun

[BeeJay]

Okay. Here's a thought to go along with the: "If you make $250,000 you're rich so give it to the government and don't bitch" argument.

According to this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/15/obamas-earned-55-million-2009b/

The Obama's made 5.5 million last year but only donated $329,000 to charity last year (let's not count the Nobel prize because . . . come on).

If $250,000 is rich and enough for any reasonable person, why didn't he donate 5.25 million to charity last year?

It's the least he could do being on the public dole and everything. After all, we pay for his food, housing travel, etc.

I don't think the argument is that 100% of income above a magic number (250K, a million, what have you) should go to the government, charity, or outside sources.

It's simply a matter of IF you believe a progressive income tax is justified (i.e., one that takes a higher percentage of taxes from the people who earn more), then you have to decide where to start phasing in those increases. Obviously if you support a flat tax, then the answer is simple: nowhere.

We don't have a flat tax, so we (or the bureaucrats and politicians who decide these things) have to decide what level of income generally (key word) affords a standard of living to justify an increase in the income tax rate.

The idea that this means that the government is trying to insure that everyone ends up with the same amount of money at the end of the day doesn't make sense to me. Obviously setting a level above which every penny goes to the government would just insure that nobody bothered to get a job paying more than that amount. Saying that at a certain level you pay more as a percentage isn't the same thing, because you're still left with more than if you had earned less and stayed in a lower tax bracket.

Obviously if your view is that it's all yours and the government has no claim to it, then this logic won't mean anything to you. But if your view is that the government is penalizing hard work and success, I just don't agree. 60% of 5 million dollars is a hell of a lot better than 100% of ten thousand dollars.

I might have brought in some arguments you weren't even trying to make there, so I apologize if so. :lol

[BeeJay]

The bit about all the people who pay no taxes reminded me of the Lucky Ducky comic strip. The quick story behind it is the Wall Street Journal did a handful of editorials on the subject, referring to those people who effectively don't pay any taxes as "Lucky Duckies." It made them out to be so fortunate because of their lack of taxes.

So a cartoonist named Ruben Bolling took off with the idea and made a comic strip where every episode centers on a conflict between a filthy rich guy who feels like his destitute employee (Lucky Ducky) gets all the breaks because he doesn't have to pay taxes and has access to all kinds of public services. The boss might be eating a steak at a swanky restaurant while steaming that Lucky Ducky is "fortunate" enough to qualify for free food stamps, for example.

I could only find one strip online, but here's an example:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2374/1817106070_ec87e3683a_o.gif

Obviously this gets into class warfare and some silly exaggerations (it is a cartoon, after all), but the bottom line is that poor people don't pay taxes because they're poor!

[BeeJay]

This is one of the letters the WSJ got from a reader after one of those "Lucky Duckies" editorials:

I will spend a year as a Wall Street Journal editor, while one lucky editor will spend a year in my underpaid shoes. I will receive an editor's salary, and suffer the outrage of paying federal income tax on that salary. The fortunate editor, on the other hand, will enjoy a relatively small federal income tax burden, as well as these other perks of near poverty: the gustatory delights of a diet rich in black beans, pinto beans, navy beans, chickpeas and, for a little variety, lentils; the thrill of scrambling to pay the rent or make the mortgage; the salutary effects of having no paid sick days; the slow satisfaction of saving up for months for a trip to the dentist; and the civic pride of knowing that, even as a lucky ducky, you still pay a third or more of your gross income in income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes.

[BeeJay]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/15/us/politics/AP-US-Value-Added-Tax.html?_r=1&ref=us

Since we're discussing it, here's a little bit of related news.

[Garyhoov]

It's an interesting aspect of human psychology that VERY few people ever say: "I make enough money that I can give big chunks of it away.", but people are often quick to say: "You make enough money that you can give big chunks of it away."

It's all a matter of perspective. If someone is making $30,000 a year, they may feel that they don't have much money so people that do have a lot of money should pay so that they can have things they couldn't otherwise afford.

But what would a person in a poor, African country think about that person making $30,000 a year? To the African, the person making $30,000 is RICH beyond imagination. That person making $30,000 could EASILY contribute 50% of that wealth to help those people in Africa who have just a fraction of that wealth.

Does the idea that some people simply have too much money and they should "share the wealth" still hold in that situation?

[Garyhoov]

. . . and here's another thing to think about. For the past 25 years, I have scraped, saved and invested. When I go to Disney World, (and Elizabeth can back me up on this) I stay in the value resorts and I only go during off-peak seasons. I rent the smallest, cheapest car I can get. I eat at the counter restaurants and I don't buy much of anything while I'm there. I take the money that I would have spent on nicer rooms, food, clothes etc. and I invest it.

Now the government says: "We see that you've got a healthy investment portfolio. You don't need it, but we do. For the past 25 years when you've been living within your means and spending responsibly, we've been spending much more than we have. So since you're rich, we're going to take your capital gains and dividends because we need it more than you. What do you think about that?"

I'll tell you what I think about that: That sucks.

[BeeJay]

It's an interesting aspect of human psychology that VERY few people ever say: "I make enough money that I can give big chunks of it away.", but people are often quick to say: "You make enough money that you can give big chunks of it away."

It's all a matter of perspective. If someone is making $30,000 a year, they may feel that they don't have much money so people that do have a lot of money should pay so that they can have things they couldn't otherwise afford.

But what would a person in a poor, African country think about that person making $30,000 a year? To the African, the person making $30,000 is RICH beyond imagination. That person making $30,000 could EASILY contribute 50% of that wealth to help those people in Africa who have just a fraction of that wealth.

Does the idea that some people simply have too much money and they should "share the wealth" still hold in that situation?

I think of that sometimes when I feel discouraged at the peanuts I make...the fact that simply by being in this country I'm among the richest people on earth.

I'm sure a lot of this is psychology. It's hard for me to imagine what I would do with it if I made 10 times my current salary, but I guess human nature being what it is, I would eventually adjust to it. (I'm sure if I had a wife and kids it would get eaten up pretty effortlessly.)

I guess if I could content myself with life in an African village, I could give away a lot of my money, but that's not a lifestyle I can imagine living.

I guess the corollary is that someone whose earnings dwarf mine can't imagine a lifestyle like mine (shared house with roommates, one car, rare vacations).

But at some point isn't there a real difference, in terms of the quality of the sacrifice being asked? Yes, if I wanted to give up electricity, clothing, nutrition, a single car and clean water, I could afford to be taxed more heavily. Is that the same as saying that someone whose tax bill prevents him from buying a third Mercedes or a second vacation home is making the same sacrifice? (That's not aimed at everyone who makes $250K. I realize there are gradations of wealth.)

Maybe if I had money I would see this differently, but being who I am today, the fact that anyone sees the situations as even comparable in the abstract strikes me as wilfully dishonest.

Stream of consciousness rant there...I'm not going back over it to edit or condense. :lol

[BeeJay]

. . . and here's another thing to think about. For the past 25 years, I have scraped, saved and invested. When I go to Disney World, (and Elizabeth can back me up on this) I stay in the value resorts and I only go during off-peak seasons. I rent the smallest, cheapest car I can get. I eat at the counter restaurants and I don't buy much of anything while I'm there. I take the money that I would have spent on nicer rooms, food, clothes etc. and I invest it.

Now the government says: "We see that you've got a healthy investment portfolio. You don't need it, but we do. For the past 25 years when you've been living within your means and spending responsibly, we've been spending much more than we have. So since you're rich, we're going to take your capital gains and dividends because we need it more than you. What do you think about that?"

I'll tell you what I think about that: That sucks.

Alright, you manipulative rich bastard, you finally did it! You actually made me sympathize with you! :mad :lol

[BeeJay]

Everyone's definition of "rich" is different, but in the end, there has to be a point where we say ...the people making $XXXXXXXX must pay more (IMO, MUCH more) in taxes. This is the only way to re-balance the tax system. Maybe with what happened in 2008/2009, there will be siblings who will remember what happened, WHY it happened, and try to make sure it does not happen again (at least in their lifetimes).

Tom, you surprise me! You're usually sitting at the other table! =-o

[Christy]

I had a nice rant started last night, then Andy had to get on to make sure some kid wasn't going to die or something. Bastard! :lookaroun

In summary, to the guy who wrote the "get over it" article, it was a big eff you :wave :lookaroun That people assume they know a person's story because they think they have an idea of how much money they make is beyond stupid.

We used medicaid when in school. We did what we had to do to get by. We have since, I am sure, paid back that medicaid. Probably in the first month Andy was in practice :rotfl We lost a fair bit of money on our house in Detroit because of a myriad of reasons, but it was at the beginning of the "bubble" burst when all those people who made what we did weren't satisfied living like we did. We still got screwed. We paid for other people's stupidity then, too. We had 4 kids WAY before we could afford them, but thankfully had the help of family for part of that, and a whole lot of debt to cover what they couldn't. We paid that off ourselves as well. We screwed up, we paid for it.

Now, people of America, follow suit. Use " the system " for what it's there for, then get off your ass and make your life better.

[Christy]

And just to throw in here... I'm sure I've told the story of Andy getting :lookaroun foley catheter fluids (blood... and other stuff :lookaroun ) in the face when he was in his internship helping a Hep C positive and thank God, as it turned out, HIV negative patient who decided to try to yank the thing out, still went on all the drugs and stuff "just in case"... what's that worth? And how much right do YOU have to what he makes doing what he does?

Ok, I think I'm done. :lookaroun

I just get so tired of him coming in looking like he had the crap beat out of him every day, then hearing this garbage. "Get over it" typed from behind a nice pretty safe little laptop.

So yeah, again, eff you :wave

Ok, now I'm done. :lookaroun

[erika]

And just to throw in here... I'm sure I've told the story of Andy getting :lookaroun foley catheter fluids (blood... and other stuff :lookaroun ) in the face when he was in his internship helping a Hep C positive and thank God, as it turned out, HIV negative patient who decided to try to yank the thing out, still went on all the drugs and stuff "just in case"... what's that worth? And how much right do YOU have to what he makes doing what he does?

Ok, I think I'm done. :lookaroun

I just get so tired of him coming in looking like he had the crap beat out of him every day, then hearing this garbage. "Get over it" typed from behind a nice pretty safe little laptop.

So yeah, again, eff you :wave

Ok, now I'm done. :lookaroun

The only ones who would question what a doctor gets paid are the ones who have never seen what a doctor goes through :hugs

Ditto for teachers & nurses.

[Christy]

I hope it was clear I wasn't talking to BJ :lookaroun :blush I did feel guilty afterwards, and you'll all be glad to know that I sent a little bit of money to Food for the Poor as penance to myself. :rotfl I think you are all a bunch of jewish mothers or something, what the heck :lookaroun

I feel this was a good catharsis for me. I'll now render unto Caesar and do so quietly. At least for a while :goofy

[erika]

I hope it was clear I wasn't talking to BJ :lookaroun :blush I did feel guilty afterwards, and you'll all be glad to know that I sent a little bit of money to Food for the Poor as penance to myself. :rotfl I think you are all a bunch of jewish mothers or something, what the heck :lookaroun

I feel this was a good catharsis for me. I'll now render unto Caesar and do so quietly. At least for a while :goofy

I didn't think it was directed at BJ :lol

[BeeJay]

I didn't think it was directed at BJ :lol

Nor did BJ! :)

I think a few of us have "catharted" (is that a verb?) a bit here.

Maybe I should stop linking to Slate articles. They tend to have useful information (like 250K objectively placing you among the top 2 percent of earners in America), but they also tend to be mixed in with snarky commentary or headlines that seem to push people's buttons, which isn't really what I try to go for.

[Christy]

Nor did BJ! :)

I think a few of us have "catharted" (is that a verb?) a bit here.

Maybe I should stop linking to Slate articles. They tend to have useful information (like 250K objectively placing you among the top 2 percent of earners in America), but they also tend to be mixed in with snarky commentary or headlines that seem to push people's buttons, which isn't really what I try to go for.

Did you know that graduating from medical school puts you in the top 1% education wise? :lookaroun

It's all good, it's not like anything any of us, or slate, has to say is going to change what the gentlemen and gentlewomen in Washington decide to do with our money :lol :circles

[BeeJay]

Did you know that graduating from medical school puts you in the top 1% education wise? :lookaroun


I'm definitely not trying to make the argument that doctors don't deserve to make coin. :lol

[Christy]

I know... just a little quid pro quo :goofy :lol

[Garyhoov]

I think the biggest philosophical problem I have with the "let's just tax the rich" idea is that, without shared burden, how can we maintain responsibility? If people feel we can have anything we want and some faceless rich person will pay for it, when will we put on the brakes?

I saw a comment from Obama in today's paper saying that he doesn't know why the Tea-Party people are complaining because he hasn't raised taxes. . .

. . .:blink


Well why the hell not?!?!?

We've been spending like crazy, deficits and debt are through the roof. Social Security is near collapse and the Obama administration has shown no sign of being interested in REAL spending reductions.

I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if I felt those higher taxes would go toward real debt reduction, but as things are going, I expect taxes to go up and I expect spending to go up and I expect the debt to go up with no end in sight. . .

. . . while Obama fiddles and collects Nobel prizes.:rollseyes

[Garyhoov]

. . . oh, and that was a ham-handed Nero reference in case it's not clear.:blush

[BeeJay]

I got it. Roman Empire references for the win. :D

I can't speak for other people, but I feel like I pay a pretty good chunk in taxes. And I'm far from "rich" unless we go to the Nepalese sherpa standard again. :lol

[Doug11]

It's an interesting aspect of human psychology that VERY few people ever say: "I make enough money that I can give big chunks of it away.", but people are often quick to say: "You make enough money that you can give big chunks of it away."

It's all a matter of perspective. If someone is making $30,000 a year, they may feel that they don't have much money so people that do have a lot of money should pay so that they can have things they couldn't otherwise afford.

But what would a person in a poor, African country think about that person making $30,000 a year? To the African, the person making $30,000 is RICH beyond imagination. That person making $30,000 could EASILY contribute 50% of that wealth to help those people in Africa who have just a fraction of that wealth.

Does the idea that some people simply have too much money and they should "share the wealth" still hold in that situation?

Do you read of Somali pirates giving away huge chunks of $$$ ?

I hear they get millions per ransomed vessel. That has to make for a few fat cat Africans with plenty to share.

[Christy]

:lookaroun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ohsvJHkbY&feature=player_embedded

Knee jerk reaction is "Oh come on! Hwo much money is it costing you?" :lol

But the other side of it, for me, is... all our road signs are in english, shouldn't people driving two ton killing machines know how to read them? And I'm not talking the obvious "stop" red octagon signs, but construction signs, etc.

:dunno

[pinkrose]

:lookaroun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ohsvJHkbY&feature=player_embedded

Knee jerk reaction is "Oh come on! Hwo much money is it costing you?" :lol

But the other side of it, for me, is... all our road signs are in english, shouldn't people driving two ton killing machines know how to read them? And I'm not talking the obvious "stop" red octagon signs, but construction signs, etc.

:dunno

I saw this ad on tv the other night.

[BeeJay]

:lookaroun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ohsvJHkbY&feature=player_embedded

Knee jerk reaction is "Oh come on! Hwo much money is it costing you?" :lol

But the other side of it, for me, is... all our road signs are in english, shouldn't people driving two ton killing machines know how to read them? And I'm not talking the obvious "stop" red octagon signs, but construction signs, etc.

:dunno

Yeah, why didn't he just make that argument...it'll save lives, etc? :lol

Eh, I'll refrain from commenting. This whole movement (it's afoot here in GA too) has an icky "feel" to me...but I can't defend that sense intellectually, and I suppose there are good reasons for it like you say. It's just one of those things where I'm absolutely convinced this is about white people who resent the browning of the culture, only in this case they're able to hide behind public safety. I have no doubt that guys like this would make everything...from school district hotlines on down...English only if they thought they could. I've heard/read the comment "WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO DIAL 2 FOR ENGLISH IN AMERICA?!" too many times to believe this is about anything but culture at the heart of it.

(Guess I didn't refrain from commenting after all.) :lookaroun

[erika]

There was a story here last week about a man killed while tree trimming. He was hurt, his coworker went for help, but nobody could understand him. Finally he got someone to call an ambulance, but by the time they got back to the injured man, he had died. That's not to say they could have saved him anyway, but there have got to be a lot more stories like that. Very sad.

On a personal level, I can't imagine not wanting to learn the dominant language wherever I lived. I don't like to feel isolated.

[pinkrose]

There was a story here last week about a man killed while tree trimming. He was hurt, his coworker went for help, but nobody could understand him. Finally he got someone to call an ambulance, but by the time they got back to the injured man, he had died. That's not to say they could have saved him anyway, but there have got to be a lot more stories like that. Very sad.

On a personal level, I can't imagine not wanting to learn the dominant language wherever I lived. I don't like to feel isolated.

Same here.

There are so many 911 calls where the 911 dispatcher can not understand the person calling.


There are so many languages out there. It's impossible to make everything, everywhere, translated into every language. Same goes for having first responders who can speak every language. If for no other reason than it may save your life, knowing (at least some of) the native language is very important.

When I was a volunteer at one of our local hospitals (in the birth suites), the ER called up one evening. They were looking for someone who knew Spanish because they had a patient whom they could not communicate with. The Dr. who knew Spanish was not there. I knew some, so I went down there and was able to find out what happened. It was bad enough that he had to be admitted. What would have happened if no one else had been able to figure it out? It wasn't obvious that he had an infected human bite. It looked like an injury. Had he been able to communicate with the staff, it would have been much easier to help him.

[Oscar Brito]

:lookaroun :wave

Seriously. The whole "not wanting to learn the language thing" or "not wanting to adapt" is a myth. Especially when you look at it by generations...my grandparents don't speak much English (they arrived in their thirties/forties), but they can have a conversation and can read it better than they speak it, my parents know how to speak English (they arrived as young adults) and of course I speak English (born here)....that's how it pretty much is for most people here in South Florida...the time you've lived here dictates how much you know/speak the language, and that's including people who live in Hispanic neighborhoods. Age is a big factor when we're talking about learning a new language too. It's easier for children. The older you are the harder it is....It really bothers me that there are people out there spreading this notion that people somehow refuse to learn the predominant language of this country...that somehow the so-called "new kind of immigrant" isn't really "adapting". I think something that really isn't addressed much, is how subtly the conversation goes from arguing against ILLEGAL immigration to protesting against immigrants in general (immigration, regardless of the type, is quickly synonymous with drugs and crime). Listen to the conversation of the talking heads and their stories...watch how these people who supposedly are only against illegal immigration also attack immigrants that are here legally.

Another thing I always see in the media..."Hispanic" is not a race. This whole idea of "brown" is crazy...its a way to fit everyone of a certain culture/ethnicity into a little box (brown box?)...conveniently keeping us away from the "white" box and the "black" box....there has to be some kind of sociological cause for this....and I'm trying to figure out who wins by separating us that way....

To me, the best way to solve the immigration "problem" is to go after the businesses that hire illegals and go after them hard. IF illegals can't work here...then they won't come here in such large numbers. But lets be honest here...Corporate America loves this new kind of indentured servitude...so I'm not really expecting much in the way of that kind of reform taking shape any time soon.

I think the argument for reform is valid...very valid. But I think its also fair to state that xenophobia/ethnocentrism is also a factor and a major one. Both parties love to score political points...and "common sense" (the real kind)...gets shoved aside yet again. It's frustrating.

[Doug11]

I think something that really isn't addressed much, is how subtly the conversation goes from arguing against ILLEGAL immigration to protesting against immigrants in general (immigration, regardless of the type, is quickly synonymous with drugs and crime). Listen to the conversation of the talking heads and their stories...watch how these people who supposedly are only against illegal immigration also attack immigrants that are here legally.


I have seen that - very aggravating. We are all pretty much some generation of immigrants.

[erika]

:lookaroun :wave

Seriously. The whole "not wanting to learn the language thing" or "not wanting to adapt" is a myth.

Not always... and I am not just talking Spanish speakers, either, although I do think it's easier to put off learning if enough is available in your own language anyway. That's exactly the sort of laziness I tend to be guilty of myself :lookaroun :o :lol
But, I do think that most people do want to learn. It makes no sense to think that they wouldn't.


To me, the best way to solve the immigration "problem" is to go after the businesses that hire illegals and go after them hard. IF illegals can't work here...then they won't come here in such large numbers. But lets be honest here...Corporate America loves this new kind of indentured servitude...so I'm not really expecting much in the way of that kind of reform taking shape any time soon.

AZ passed a law a couple of years ago requiring businesses to use E-Verify when hiring employees. Unfortunately, the side effect of that is an increase in identity theft.

In my experience, some of the harshest critics of illegal immigration here in AZ are legal immigrants. Well, and all the Sun Cities. :lol

[BeeJay]

Can we just go ahead and get that One World Government like the Book of Revelation predicts up and running? :lookaroun

*runs*

[pinkrose]

Not always... and I am not just talking Spanish speakers, either, although I do think it's easier to put off learning if enough is available in your own language anyway. That's exactly the sort of laziness I tend to be guilty of myself :lookaroun :o :lol
But, I do think that most people do want to learn. It makes no sense to think that they wouldn't.



AZ passed a law a couple of years ago requiring businesses to use E-Verify when hiring employees. Unfortunately, the side effect of that is an increase in identity theft.

In my experience, some of the harshest critics of illegal immigration here in AZ are legal immigrants. Well, and all the Sun Cities. :lol

I can see why. They went to the trouble of becoming legal and doing things the correct way. Is it really that hard to do things the right way?

[Christy]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4171129/exclusive-gov-jan-brewer

AZ's governor was really left hanging, I really applaud her. Boycotts? Really? :rollseyes Listen to her stats, and explain why she is doing something bad.

I love at the protests, all the people flying their Mexican flag. So do you want to be here, or there? I am confused :lookaroun

[erika]

People calling for boycotts need to remember the boycotts will hurt the same people they're trying to support.

A lot of the kids I heard interviewed from the protests said they were worried for their cousin/mother/friend/etc who was undocumented. Didn't do a lot for their case. :lookaroun

The fear of innocent people being harassed, that is legitimate, and it worries me. I hope it doesn't come to that.

[Christy]

People calling for boycotts need to remember the boycotts will hurt the same people they're trying to support.

A lot of the kids I heard interviewed from the protests said they were worried for their cousin/mother/friend/etc who was undocumented. Didn't do a lot for their case. :lookaroun

The fear of innocent people being harassed, that is legitimate, and it worries me. I hope it doesn't come to that.

It will happen, just as any other area police should have just cause for pulling someone over or asking questions, but do they always? I don't know, with any group of people in a position of authority, some will abuse it. But that does not mean the law is wrong and should be done away with completely. I think most police officers do their jobs justly and fairly.

[BeeJay]

I read Andrew Sullivan's blog a lot. Some of his readers have sent in some thoughts on this issue. Parts in bold stand out to me the most.


Whenever I read about the absurdity of the Arizona law (and of course, the lawyer that I am, I went out and read the law), my thoughts turn to my family. I'm half Cuban, my family has been here for more or less 40 years - citizens, naturalized or natural born, all. What I think about most is my 85 year old grandfather (or my 75 year old great aunt) whose English isn't very good (it's deteriorated a lot in the last ten years since my grandmother passed away). He's a naturalized citizen, he doesn't have "papers." He may have a passport, but are we really going to say that you have to carry your passport for domestic travel (which, by the way, is unconstitutional)? How, exactly, is he suppose to prove his citizenship? Or for that matter, my mother, who was so young when they came to the US that she was naturalized because her parents were naturalized?

There are a lot of people who are going to be harassed under this law. And they're not going to be illegal immigrants, they are going to be American citizens.

I've already heard the line coming from people on the "right" that "no one should be ashamed to declare their citizenship." But seriously, why should we have to? It's no different than saying "if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about." And more importantly, what happens when the law enforcement officer doesn't believe someone who says (in broken English, or another language) that they are an American citizen? How do you prove it if you don't have "papers"?

This is California Prop 187 all over - but in a digital age. This may well be the undoing of the GOP.



A person who gets stopped and doesn't have adequate proof of citizenship will get fined $500. In other words, if you go out for a jog and don't have your drivers license or whatever the police that stops you thinks is appropriate, you'll get fined. That will happen to people who are legally here...even citizens. Matter of fact, the only people that would get fined are legally here, since presumably the undocumented would get put into federal custody.

This means, in theory, that everyone needs to be carrying papers constantly in case they get stopped. Of course, many people know full well that they won't get stopped. This is the main reason why the Tea Party crowd, who cry "fascism" throw up pictures of Adolf Hitler for things like health insurance reform, are not the least bit outraged by this. This is the main reason why Arizona
Legislators, who have passed resolutions against the Real ID act and tried to ban speed cameras as police overreach, is not the least bit outraged by this. I suppose we won't see any true outrage "small government conservatives" unless this gets enforced against folks that look like the people who are supporting this.

Who looks more illegal: the blonde Norwegian U of A student who overstays her visa or the Army vet in Guadalupe who is sweaty after a day of yard work? Our trouble is that we know the answer that many of the politicians supporting this law would give.

And by the way, I don't think it is a stretch to call the people who are pushing this racist. Sen. Pearce got dinged a few years ago for forwarding neo-Nazi propaganda to his e-mail list and for hanging out with a white supremacist leader.

[erika]

You're already not supposed to be without your drivers license, and some places have laws on the books that say you can't be without a dollar in your wallet. Guess what... I often find myself without either :lol

A lot of officers are saying they'll just be conducting business as usual. They don't have time for this.

[Christy]

You're already not supposed to be without your drivers license, and some places have laws on the books that say you can't be without a dollar in your wallet. Guess what... I often find myself without either :lol

A lot of officers are saying they'll just be conducting business as usual. They don't have time for this.

Are you sure they won't be stopping dark skinned/eyed/haired joggers for their ID's? :lookaroun

:blush

Sorry, it was funny to me. :blush

You there! You, with your bent toward physical fitness and the out of doors, where exactly is your proof of citizenship!?

[Garyhoov]

You're already not supposed to be without your drivers license, and some places have laws on the books that say you can't be without a dollar in your wallet. Guess what... I often find myself without either :lol

A lot of officers are saying they'll just be conducting business as usual. They don't have time for this.

I'd be surprise if much comes of this other than a lot of hand-wringing and bloviation.

There will be a lot of talk of Federal action, but other than efforts to challenge the Arizona legislation in court, I'd be VERY surprised if the Democrats actually do anything on immigration.

What can they do? They can't do any real immigration reform. If they crack down on immigration they'll alienate their base and commit political suicide. If they make efforts to legalize currently undocumented people, they'll piss of the majority of citizens and commit political suicide.

Immigration is likely to be our next abortion/gun control issue: A topic that politicians will debate for the next 20 years without doing anything about it.

[BeeJay]

I don't see illegals going out for a jog before or after work. Could you tell me how many you see everyday?


No, I could not. Because I don't ask anyone I encounter to provide me with documentation of their citizenship status. :p

The point of that section was that LEGAL citizens could be fined for being outside without an ID card. (Illegals would just go to jail.) That's nothing less than a police state provision IMO.

(And for the record, I don't think your national ID idea is a bad one.)

[Garyhoov]

Are you sure they won't be stopping dark skinned/eyed/haired joggers for their ID's? :lookaroun

:blush

Sorry, it was funny to me. :blush

You there! You, with your bent toward physical fitness and the out of doors, where exactly is your proof of citizenship!?

:rotfl

I never take ID with me when I go jogging.

. . . I'm not going to carry any weight I don't absolutely have to.:lookaroun

[BeeJay]

I'd be surprise if much comes of this other than a lot of hand-wringing and bloviation.

There will be a lot of talk of Federal action, but other than efforts to challenge the Arizona legislation in court, I'd be VERY surprised if the Democrats actually do anything on immigration.

What can they do? They can't do any real immigration reform. If they crack down on immigration they'll alienate their base and commit political suicide. If they make efforts to legalize currently undocumented people, they'll piss of the majority of citizens and commit political suicide.

Immigration is likely to be our next abortion/gun control issue: A topic that politicians will debate for the next 20 years without doing anything about it.

I agree completely.

Dems have already shown more spine than I would have thought by passing HCR...but there, you could at least make an argument that the costs of inaction were greater than the costs of acting. The most politically beneficial thing Dems can do about immigration is demagogue about it while doing nothing of substance...which amazingly is what appears to be happening!

[Garyhoov]

(And for the record, I don't think your national ID idea is a bad one.)

You know, I've always thought that people tend to mis-interpret Orwell. The idea that the government has information about citizens isn't a problem. The problem comes when the government uses that information to infringe on the liberty of the citizenry.

So I've always thought: "What's the big deal about cameras everywhere etc., as long as we have a government we trust?"

Unfortunately, I've seen the government taking more and more power over recent years . . . and I don't think it's just my imagination or paranoia.

It seems like more and more the government is deciding what's best for us and we're being coerced into buying hybrid cars, not eating trans fats, not drinking sugary soda, not making too much money etc. etc.

And more and more I see the goverment accusing those who don't agree with it of being anti-American or racist and at the same time the government itself is trying to split us up and define us by race through the census and other programs.

20 years ago, I would have said: "Why not have a national ID card? I've got nothing to hide?"

But I'm becoming less and less comfortable with the role government is taking in making decisions that used to be ours to make, so I'm becoming less and less comfortable with the government having more information.

[Garyhoov]

I feel like I've been duped.

I haven't liked the idea of this Arizona law since I first heard about it. I can't prove I'm a citizen, so the idea of people being stopped because they have brown skin and required to prove they were citizens seemed like a frightening proposition to me. An idea that is counter to the ideals of liberty that our country was founded on and I personally believe very strongly in.

. . . the problem is, the objections that some reactionaries have cited as being a problem with this bill appear to simply not be there.

This morning, I heard this gentleman:

http://www.smerconish.com/must_see.php

on the radio and, while it can be argued that he has his own opinion and potential agenda, he offered something that has been sadly lacking so far: Real details of the bill:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

It seems that the bill doesn't allow people to be stopped based on race, and in fact it actually prohibits that. And people can't just be stopped because they are suspected of being illegal, but there must be some other reason to stop them first.

. . . but I've been told since the start of this that the bill did allow those sort of random stops.

I'm still not 100% on board with the bill. I think there could be abuses and if an overzelous enforcement officer decides he wants to follow a car full of people with brown skin until they forget to put their blinker on, it seems like that could happen under this bill.

. . . but I would feel more comfortable siding with those who oppose the bill if I didn't feel they had already lied to me about the provisions of the bill.

Why do people who support or oppose certain legislation feel they need to make up facts to support their argument? We saw this with the "death squads" when the health care bill was being debated.

If someone supports or doesn't support a bill based on the specifics of that bill, why not keep the focus on those specifics? If the person who supports or doesn't support a bill feels the specifics aren't enough to support their case, shouldn't they question why they are fighting in the first place?

For example: If a bill is proposed that pet rabbits will need to be registered, and that's not a big deal, but I don't want the bill to be passed, so I tell people "THIS BILL HAS PROVISIONS THAT WILL ALLOW THE SENSELESS SLAUGHTER OF BUNNIES". . . what am I doing?

I'm fighting a bill that simply requires rabbits to be registered and if registration isn't a big deal, why don't I just spend 5 minutes to register my rabbit rather than 2 years fighting the bill?

[Doug11]

I am only in favor of a national ID card if it is good for discounts at restaurants and theme park admission. :p

[erika]

I thought our drivers licenses here were swipable which would make them hard to forge, if someone (a police officer) ran one through the system.

Anyway, yes, Gary, those are the provisions, and really I think it's just like Arpaio's frequent sweeps- they stop you for a broken tail light, something minor like that, and then check your immigration status. He does them all the time and people get upset. Ask me if that's stopped him :lol

[BeeJay]

I am only in favor of a national ID card if it is good for discounts at restaurants and theme park admission. :p

:lol

[erika]

Interesting comments--

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/79721/sort_A/Offset0

[BeeJay]

Yeah, the whole "Mexico acts like a third-world dictatorship, so we don't have to be any better" argument doesn't do much for me.

[Christy]

No, but the free for all peace in that we're supposed to be throwing for people here illegally is kind of ridiculous.

BTW, I do not want to throw them in prison, as I do not want to pay for them. They can go home (whoever they are, whatever color they are, if they are illegal) and go through the proper routes to be here legally. Why is this so hard? Why is it such a big deal? I guess I miss why it is not just that black and white. Do we make it that difficult to get citizenship here? Or do they not want us to know they are here? :dunno

[Computer Magic]

No, but the free for all peace in that we're supposed to be throwing for people here illegally is kind of ridiculous.

BTW, I do not want to throw them in prison, as I do not want to pay for them. They can go home (whoever they are, whatever color they are, if they are illegal) and go through the proper routes to be here legally. Why is this so hard? Why is it such a big deal? I guess I miss why it is not just that black and white. Do we make it that difficult to get citizenship here? Or do they not want us to know they are here? :dunnoThey don't want to pay taxes :lookaroun

[Christy]

They don't want to pay taxes :lookaroun

Well, yeah :lol And whatever else it is they want flying under the radar.

People who break the law... break the law. I don't think there are lines being drawn as to what they are willing to say is too much lawbreaking. At least, I'm not willing to bet my kids' lives on it. Maybe everybody else is.

[Garyhoov]

I saw an interesting counter on a discussion board to the idea that we are becoming Nazi Germany because people will be asking for "papers".

He pointed out that, now that health insurance is required, the government will be asking for your "papers" that prove you have health insurance soon.

How many times a day do we produce some sort of identification? Every time we use a credit or debit card, it is linked to a database that has our name, address, etc. And most of us have discount cards with stores we frequent that don't only link to our ID, but have detailed information about our purchases over the past several years (back during the peanut recall, our grocery store called us to tell us that we had purchased some products that had been recalled).

If any of us are involved in an incident involving the police, what would we expect during that encounter? Would we expect for them to ask for some ID? Wouldn't we consider it odd if they didn't?

Whenever I hear someone say, in response to any proposed legislation: "This is going to be like Nazi Germany!" I tend to find myself thinking that the person saying such a thing either has a poor understanding of history or is being something of a drama queen.

[Christy]

That's true, anytime I've been pulled over for speeding (not that it's that often, mind you! :lookaroun ) what do you hear first? License and registration :lol

And I am about as non-Mexican looking as they come. :goofy

[pinkrose]

That's true, anytime I've been pulled over for speeding (not that it's that often, mind you! :lookaroun ) what do you hear first? License and registration :lol

And I am about as non-Mexican looking as they come. :goofy

Here, they set up road blocks all of the time, checking for everyone's license, registration, and proof of insurance. You don't have them, you don't get to drive away. You either have someone come get you, or you walk.

[BeeJay]

They don't want to pay taxes :lookaroun

But they DO pay taxes. I just did a quick Google search and found an article saying that 2/3 of illegals pay Medicare, Social Security and income taxes (presumably with false IDs?). So what you have is a class of people that largely pays taxes while being forbidden to collect the social services that other taxpayers enjoy.



Whenever I hear someone say, in response to any proposed legislation: "This is going to be like Nazi Germany!" I tend to find myself thinking that the person saying such a thing either has a poor understanding of history or is being something of a drama queen.

I agree. And from what I've read, the AZ law has now been amended to say that cops can only ask for citizenship papers if they detain someone for something else. That sounds like a sensible step to me. If you come here illegally and get arrested for stealing, then I'm not shedding any tears for you over being deported.

The way it was worded before did bother me, though. Yes, we have to produce ID for a lot of things, but not just for existing outside of our homes. That was apparently the situation in the law as it was originally passed (or it's my understanding anyway).

[BeeJay]

Here, they set up road blocks all of the time, checking for everyone's license, registration, and proof of insurance. You don't have them, you don't get to drive away. You either have someone come get you, or you walk.

And in theory, those kinds of checkpoints don't discriminate at all. They stop everyone equally, or they stop every 5th car or whatever. No discrimination there, no harassment...no problem IMO.

[BeeJay]

Do we make it that difficult to get citizenship here?:dunno

From what I've heard...yes, we do make it very difficult.

[Garyhoov]

I would guess that the reason we even associate the idea of someone saying "papers?" with Nazi germany has less to do with SS officers constantly stopping people and asking for their papers than it does with the fact we've seen a lot of movies in which the hero is infiltrating Nazi Germany and has forged papers so we hold our breath as the actor playing the Nazi soldier asks for "papers" in an exaggerated accent.

[Garyhoov]

From what I've heard...yes, we do make it very difficult.

Haven't there been stories in which ordinary citizens ( I seem to remember one in which they were actual congress people) were given the citizenship test . . . and failed miserably?:lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

I think I could do pretty well on this . . . though some of the questions are a little vague in terms of what answer they're actually looking for. And, if you imagine coming from another country and not having learned all these things through your whole life, I think it could be pretty tough:

http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us/Elections/100QuestionTest.htm

[BeeJay]

:lol

For the record, I was talking about difficult on the paperwork/bureaucratic/waiting side....not the citizenship test side!

[BeeJay]

:D
You Passed the US Citizenship Test

http://www.blogthingsimages.com/couldyoupasstheuscitizenshiptestquiz/approved.jpg

Congratulations - you got 10 out of 10 correct!

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test? (http://blogthings.com/couldyoupasstheuscitizenshiptestquiz/)

Blogthings: Our Quizzes Weren't Written By Bored 12 Year Olds (http://www.blogthings.com)

[Christy]

Here, they set up road blocks all of the time, checking for everyone's license, registration, and proof of insurance. You don't have them, you don't get to drive away. You either have someone come get you, or you walk.
Forgot the proof of insurance :lol

:D
You Passed the US Citizenship Test

http://www.blogthingsimages.com/couldyoupasstheuscitizenshiptestquiz/approved.jpg

Congratulations - you got 10 out of 10 correct!

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test? (http://blogthings.com/couldyoupasstheuscitizenshiptestquiz/)

Blogthings: Our Quizzes Weren't Written By Bored 12 Year Olds (http://www.blogthings.com)

My filter wouldn't let your dirty dirty citizenship test through! No wonder everybody wants to live here! *creep smiley*

Oz, we need that one back. For real.

[Christy]

:lol

For the record, I was talking about difficult on the paperwork/bureaucratic/waiting side....not the citizenship test side!

But... worth it? Or just too tough, let's stay illegally is the other option.

[BeeJay]

I don't see why some kind of legal guest worker option isn't doable. Obviously there's demand on both sides. People risk their lives crossing the border for these minimum wage jobs, while employers turn a blind eye to hiring illegals because they want the labor.

I have to assume the only reason we haven't done a better job of sealing up the border is the business interests who want these workers fund the campaigns of the people who could make that happen. So if you assume that stopping the flow of bodies across the border is never going to happen, the most sensible option would seem to be letting them come here legally while remaining short of full citizens.

[erika]

The problem (IMO) isn't really the honest worker looking for a better life. The problem is that bodies are found here on a regular basis, and it doesn't even scare us anymore, because we know it's another coyote victim whose family failed to pay ransom. There's something seriously wrong when another dead body found in your town doesn't make you the least bit nervous. There's something wrong when it's common knowledge that you don't buy certain types of trucks without expecting them to be stolen and modified for drug/people smuggling. There's something wrong when street gangs with cartel ties are stockpiling military grade weapons. There's something wrong when drophouses are popping up all over town filled with people who are being abused, tortured, held against their will. If it weren't for all these things going on in my backyard I wouldn't give 2 craps about illegal immigration.

One of my friends who moved here from Mexico has parents still living down there. Her mom gives her a hard time because she only has one house and lives a regular middle class life. "How come you don't have more than one house, like your sister has? How come you don't have this like that person has," etc, etc. "The government gives you money if you ask," she tells my friend. The other people her mom is talking about are collecting public aid here for their kids while owning several properties South of the border, traveling back and forth. :goofy My friend keeps trying to explain to her why it is wrong. :doh

They are the exception and not the rule, but it does go to show that there are a lot of things about America that are misunderstood :lol FREE MONEY, whoo-whoo!

[BeeJay]

Hmm..I'm not sure having several resort areas in Mexico would qualify them as a "3rd world dictatorship." When they become a Sudan, a North Korea, or an Ethiopia, let us know.

I'm not following you on that one. Obviously there are some very nice parts of Mexico. That's why I said "acts like a..." instead of "is..".

Malkin's argument seems to be a (marginally) more sophisticated version of the "But he did it first!" that you hear from every kid who gets called out for misbehavior. Mexico's internal immigration practices/policies seem wholly irrelevant to this topic except as a diversion. In my experience, people only point out the shortcomings of others when they want to avoid taking responsibility for their own!



So what about the other 1/3? Some article...somewhere.....reading through blue colored glasses or red?

Here's the link. You can judge for yourself what glasses they're reading through: http://reason.org/news/show/122411.html

If you don't like the views of that particular organization, here's the whole Google search on the topic of illegals paying taxes: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=illegals+pay+taxes&aq=0&aqi=g2g-m1&aql=&oq=illegals+pa&gs_rfai=&fp=a86c207b1c79523e

And 2/3 is more than 1/3, by my math. Twice as much, in fact. How is it "spin" or reading through "blue-colored" glasses to point that out? :shrug


And why shouldn't they? If America is so valued as a nation that MILLIONS of ILLEGALs are crossing the border, then lets make it as difficult as possible.

I disagree. The reason we have so many crossing the border in the first place is because going the legal route is so difficult. You can't seriously tell me that people are willing to risk death, followed by the daily risk of arrest and deportation, because it's just "more convenient" to come here illegally. That's exactly the opposite of a convenient route!

As I pointed out earlier: They want to be here, the business interests in this country want them to be here, and the politicians (beyond talking about it) clearly have no interest in keeping them out...presumably because of their feduciary ties to said business interests. Conclusion: They're coming here, period. Given that fact, it makes no sense to NOT lower the barriers to LEGAL immigration IMO.

[erika]

I disagree. The reason we have so many crossing the border in the first place is because going the legal route is so difficult. You can't seriously tell me that people are willing to risk death, followed by the daily risk of arrest and deportation, because it's just "more convenient" to come here illegally. That's exactly the opposite of a convenient route!

.

My friend (mentioned above) had to wait 6 years for her green card, and then worked her butt off to become a citizen. There are plenty of people who are willing to work just as hard. But in her opinion, there are plenty more who are looking for the easiest way possible, and that pisses her off.

Another friend, whose parents are from Mexico, wishes that there were more open lines of communication, or a better way to educate peopel wanting to come here about what it takes. In her opinion a person who can afford to pay a coyote a few grand to be smuggled in can afford to come in the legal way. But according to her a lot of people unfortunately don't know the difference. They trust the wrong people and suffer for it.

My opinion? I don't feel like know enough facts or have enough experience to form a solid one. But I have heard some interesting things from both sides. :shrug

[BeeJay]

The problem (IMO) isn't really the honest worker looking for a better life. The problem is that bodies are found here on a regular basis, and it doesn't even scare us anymore, because we know it's another coyote victim whose family failed to pay ransom. There's something seriously wrong when another dead body found in your town doesn't make you the least bit nervous. There's something wrong when it's common knowledge that you don't buy certain types of trucks without expecting them to be stolen and modified for drug/people smuggling. There's something wrong when street gangs with cartel ties are stockpiling military grade weapons. There's something wrong when drophouses are popping up all over town filled with people who are being abused, tortured, held against their will. If it weren't for all these things going on in my backyard I wouldn't give 2 craps about illegal immigration.


It might be naive to say, but I think if we made it easier for the people who just want to come here and work to do so, then we could more easily police the border to keep the real scumbags out. The flow of illegals would lessen, and the business interests would have no reason to oppose that.

Obviously my opinion is formed by living in a place far from the border and you're right there witnessing it firsthand, so I can only talk about it in a more detached way. :shrug

[erika]

I forgot if I posted this earlier-

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/us/24border.html

[BeeJay]

My friend (mentioned above) had to wait 6 years for her green card, and then worked her butt off to become a citizen. There are plenty of people who are willing to work just as hard. But in her opinion, there are plenty more who are looking for the easiest way possible, and that pisses her off.

I just can't see how crossing illegally...when you consider all the physical and legal risks involves...can be considered the easiest way. It makes more sense to me to just assume these are very desperate people. Maybe they feel waiting 6 years just isn't an option for their families, based on the conditions they find themselves in? I dunno...like you, a lot of what I say is based on inexperience and fragmented knowledge.

What I don't get is how you see all these photos of wave upon wave of European immigrants coming through Ellis Island in the early 20th century. Were immigration policies just as restrictive then, or did we make it tougher to jump through all these hoops since then? :shrug

[Garyhoov]

:lol

For the record, I was talking about difficult on the paperwork/bureaucratic/waiting side....not the citizenship test side!

:lol Yeah, I assumed so, but it just reminded me of things I had heard about the test.

Do you (or anyone else) know if there's an English requirement? I thought that was part of it, but Linda didn't think so.

[erika]

I just can't see how crossing illegally...when you consider all the physical and legal risks involves...can be considered the easiest way. It makes more sense to me to just assume these are very desperate people. Maybe they feel waiting 6 years just isn't an option for their families, based on the conditions they find themselves in? I dunno...like you, a lot of what I say is based on inexperience and fragmented knowledge.



My husband had a coworker who came in 3 times: Once across the river, and twice through the desert. He had a friend meet him in the middle of nowhere on the California side.

I had another friend from El Salvador whose mother came over, then borrowed birth certificates from an American friend of hers. She brought them across the border into Mexico and used them to get her husband and 2 kids across. This was a long time ago though, early 80s, maybe?

A lot of people who are supposedly "in the know" say you can deport someone today and they'll just be back tomorrow. :shrug
Particularly if it's someone in the drug trade with access to a lot of money.

[erika]

There were a lot of people sent back home from Ellis island.

[BeeJay]

I just got a text from Roxxy about this topic (purely by chance...she doesn't know anything about this thread).

Her mother is originally from Mexico. She said her mom applied for citizenship a year before getting married after winning a student visa. It was 12 years later (when Roxxy was 3) that she finally got her citizenship. And apparently things were EASIER then!

So....if you want to discourage people from crossing the border illegally, maybe letting them get a shot at citizenship less than a decade after they ask you for one would be a good first step. :shrug

(And if not, a guest worker program would probably help in the meantime.)

[Christy]

It takes people who are born here 18 years to have any substantial rights :lookaroun

[erika]

That's a big part of why a lot of legal immigrants are so pissed. Why should they have to work so hard at it (and wait so long) when other people are flaunting the laws? I'm not sure if it's harder now because there are so many more people trying to come through, or what. I have heard the argument that too many "unskilled workers" risks a strain on the welfare system. Not sure if that's propaganda or truth. I found a map but the latest data on it is from 2002. CA and AZ look pretty bad, but Texas, notsomuch :shrug
http://maps.ers.usda.gov/fsp/index.asp?ActiveLayer=19&ZoomTo=&Go.x=2&Go.y=10&action=zoomin

Here's another hot topic people are fighting about out here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html

[Christy]

Did anybody else get the cartoon about the reason Obama would care about immigration issues is because he may have to provide proof that he is a citizen (the whole birth certificate thing, I guess)

:lol :lookaroun

yes, my family is right wing :goofy

[erika]

OK, if I hear from one more thing about the "birther" conspiracy I'm going to slam my face into the countertop :rotfl

[Christy]

I was trying to find actual statistics of crimes committed by illegals, yeah good luck with that one *doh*

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/29/arizona.immigration.crime/index.html?section=cnn_latest

The bottom video here, with Rick somebody or other... I think he might be borderline retarded. That was the worst line of questioning I have ever seen. :rotfl

And there are a million and two reasons Obama sucks, born here or not, it's irrelevent to me anymore :rotfl :lookaroun

[Christy]

Also, what are the steps taken to become a us citizen? If it takes years and years (and I do not find it unreasonable that a person prove they want to be here that badly, but maybe that's just me) then we give them papers in the mean time. Papers that prove they are in the process, but that they are documented here, we know of their whereabouts, where they are working, etc.

Why is this so hard? My simple brain does not wrap around why this has to be so complicated :lol Look, I want people who REALLY REALY want to live here and make this a great country to be here.

As has been said, I suppose it all comes back to money, and while supposedly 2/3 are paying taxes, I don't know if we can know that if we don't know how many are here and where they are working. I don't believe for a second that there is cheap labor in paying them the legal minimum wage, I don't think the vast majority is even getting minimum wage, and I don't think that many are paying taxes on it. I always assumed a lot of paying under the table, very cheaply paying.

I did find this, just purely immigration statistics, all nationalities http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ni_fr_2009.pdf

1.7 temporary workers and families, 900,000 students

So temporary workers vs "guest workers" you wanted, BJ, what's the difference.

[BeeJay]

1.7 temporary workers and families, 900,000 students

So temporary workers vs "guest workers" you wanted, BJ, what's the difference.

I had to look this up, since I had never heard of it. Best I could find out is this:

What is H2B visa?

The H2B working visa is a nonimmigrant visa which allows foreign nationals to enter into the U.S. temporarily and engage in nonagricultural employment which is seasonal, intermittent, a peak load need, or a one-time occurrence.

Note: This visa is also used for entertainers going on a tour, for film workers or professional minor league players

It seems to be something for professionals, based on that. It does not appear to apply to the kinds of unskilled laborers we're talking about.

I remember clearly George W. Bush proposing an immigration overhaul with a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for illegals already here a few years ago. That got turned into "amnesty" by the right wing echo chamber and Bush's own party in Congress killed it.

[Christy]

There was also something on the chart for seasonal agricultural workers :shrug Here we go: H2A, 150,000 people, or thereabouts.

The note would make it seem like it's for professionals but there's nothing in the actual description that screams professional to me. "foreign nationals to enter into the U.S. temporarily and engage in nonagricultural employment which is seasonal, intermittent, a peak load need, or a one-time occurrence."

Could be anything :shrug

[BeeJay]

There was also something on the chart for seasonal agricultural workers :shrug Here we go: H2A, 150,000 people, or thereabouts.

The note would make it seem like it's for professionals but there's nothing in the actual description that screams professional to me. "foreign nationals to enter into the U.S. temporarily and engage in nonagricultural employment which is seasonal, intermittent, a peak load need, or a one-time occurrence."

Could be anything :shrug

I agree. It's not that clear.

But it seems clearly not aimed at the people we're talking about, based on the fact that Bush's guest worker program was killed and the idea remains very "hot" politically. Here's a story from The Washington Times (a very conservative paper) reporting that a proposed temporary worker program is a major hurdle for immigration reform this year:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/16/union-objection-puts-immigration-push-at-risk/

Maybe it's all about the numbers. 150,000 people here on agricultural permits, plus another 1.7 million temporary workers, falls far short of the 11 million estimated illegals in the country. :shrug

[Christy]

I agree. It's not that clear.

But it seems clearly not aimed at the people we're talking about, based on the fact that Bush's guest worker program was killed and the idea remains very "hot" politically. Here's a story from The Washington Times (a very conservative paper) reporting that a proposed temporary worker program is a major hurdle for immigration reform this year:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/16/union-objection-puts-immigration-push-at-risk/

Maybe it's all about the numbers. 150,000 people here on agricultural permits, plus another 1.7 million temporary workers, falls far short of the 11 million estimated illegals in the country. :shrug

But are those 11 million here looking for jobs, that's my main concern :lol I feel like this is all unnecessary, go ahead and give them their temporary worker program and call their bluff :lookaroun

I know, 11 million people can't all be all bad.

[BeeJay]

We're talking about companies that ALREADY offer health care coverage, right?

So they've decided it's better for them to stop doing something they've ALWAYS done (voluntarily) after the government said they'd pay a penalty for not continuing to do it?

If health insurance coverage is so onerous to their bottom lines, why have they offered it before now, when they could have easily dropped it without paying a dime? Why is it more affordable to pay a fine for not doing something they've done all along?

What am I missing about this that would make it make sense? :lol

[Garyhoov]

We're talking about companies that ALREADY offer health care coverage, right?

So they've decided it's better for them to stop doing something they've ALWAYS done (voluntarily) after the government said they'd pay a penalty for not continuing to do it?

If health insurance coverage is so onerous to their bottom lines, why have they offered it before now, when they could have easily dropped it without paying a dime? Why is it more affordable to pay a fine for not doing something they've done all along?

What am I missing about this that would make it make sense? :lol

That's an EXCELLENT point, and I think that concept will prevent a mass exodus. . .

. . . BUT, I think the idea that they have ALWAYS provided such care presumes that they will be able to just continue doing what they have been doing.

The problem is, even without this legislation, things are changing. Our company has always tried to do things right. Our president has always considered health insurance to be a priority and he has always tried to offer a quality plan and the company covers half the cost.

This year, rates went up 13%. It now costs $1600 a month (so $800 from the company and $800 from the employee).

Think about that.

Someone making $8 an hour makes about $1280 a month gross. So that person's total health insurance bill is already more than they're making with no end in sight.

How long can we sustain that?

That's a big problem, but, unfortunately the massive health care overall didn't do anything to address the real problem of skyrocketing cost.

I have to think that some of the decision makers at companies that are currently offering good health-care plans understand cost pressures better than the people who drafted the health care bill. Those managers recognize that when people who were previously excluded from the health-care system are allowed in, costs will go up even more than they have been and companies are going to have to consider their options.

Since the beginning, I've been discussing the unpleasant but pragmatic idea that we have to accept a reduction in quality. I believe the current plan may help that (through possible price caps etc.), but we still have to wait to see how all that shakes out.

If you are responsible executive, I think you have to at least consider the idea that you will have to drop health insurance participation at some point and you should have someone analyzing the associated costs and benefits.

[BeeJay]

I have to think that some of the decision makers at companies that are currently offering good health-care plans understand cost pressures better than the people who drafted the health care bill. Those managers recognize that when people who were previously excluded from the health-care system are allowed in, costs will go up even more than they have been and companies are going to have to consider their options.


That seems like the central question to me. Will the healthcare bill raise costs by requiring insurance companies to cover people they could previously exclude because of pre-existing condition rules, or will it lower costs by bringing the entire population into the risk pool and giving more people the chance to negotiate group rates?

Logically, both outcomes seem to make sense...but obviously they can't both happen.

[Garyhoov]

That seems like the central question to me. Will the healthcare bill raise costs by requiring insurance companies to cover people they could previously exclude because of pre-existing condition rules, or will it lower costs by bringing the entire population into the risk pool and giving more people the chance to negotiate group rates?

Logically, both outcomes seem to make sense...but obviously they can't both happen.


I'm not quite sure what the theory behind a group cost reduction would be, so I can't comment too specifically, but it doesn't seem to me that would attack the actual cost end in any real way. It seems like, at best, you'd be spreading cost so that sicker people pay a little less and healthy people pay a little more but the total cost wouldn't be reduced any by any group scheme.

I guess there could be some administrative savings. . . but, you can call me cynical, but I find it hard to believe that government involvement will reduce administrative costs.:lookaroun

[Christy]

:rotfl All part of the grand master plan to create more jobs, 3 people will now be required to do what used to be done by 1 person! :goofy

[erika]

Oh, I don't know....maybe it's the fact that people want to (and have wanted to) work for companies that have a good healthcare plan. That is one huge benefit, in many cases outweighing salary. Before Obamacare, companies that did not offer "good" healthcare coverage for their employees (or healthcare coverage at all) did not attract the best people.



A lot of companies have slowly been doing away with that, or reducing it, over the past few years.

I've heard that as an argument against national health care- that we've come to expect it from our employers and therefore don't appreciate the cost. It's become a right instead of a privilege.

[BeeJay]

Oh, I don't know....maybe it's the fact that people want to (and have wanted to) work for companies that have a good healthcare plan. That is one huge benefit, in many cases outweighing salary. Before Obamacare, companies that did not offer "good" healthcare coverage for their employees (or healthcare coverage at all) did not attract the best people.


I don't see how that addresses my question: Why are companies now deciding it's worthwhile to pay a penalty to drop something they've always offered voluntarily? :shrug

Gary's theory is that the individual mandate and elimination of pre-existing conditions exclusions will make offering healthcare more cost-prohibitive than it's always been. Is that what you're getting at?

[BeeJay]

Tell you what...when you go back and answer some questions that I had for you back a few months ago, I'll answer your question.

Enjoy!

Well...I wasn't really trying to back you into a corner or anything like that. It's a question I'm genuinely curious about.

But if you want my input on something I missed a while back, just link me and I'll take a look.

[Computer Magic]

Why are companies now deciding it's worthwhile to pay a penalty to drop something they've always offered voluntarily? :shrugI guess is it is their way out. Some companies union required health care as a benefit. Well now they have health care without the company paying. Also a company don't feel like they have to since it is already out there in some form. IT saves face and bad publicity. What top company CEO wants their name out as their employees don't have health care? Now they don't have to give health care, yet their employees have health care. Seems win win for the company.

[BeeJay]

^ Makes sense, Sherm. Thanks.

It should be interesting to see what does/doesn't get implemented in the coming years and what the fallout is. I have a roommate who sells life insurance. Not exactly what's been addressed here, but you would think major changes in the health insurance market would affect life insurance in some way.

[Garyhoov]

I'm not sure if it's a political issue (though it seems to be becoming one), but I'm curious what people think about the oil spill.

Personally, I would like to have BP handle it. . . but I'm increasingly becoming skeptical that they are capable fo handling it (and I think we all realized from the start that there was a good chance they wouldn't be able to handle it). I've been frustrated that, from the beginning, there seems to be very little communication and organization. It seems like such a hot-potato issue - and something in which nobody is going to come out of it smelling good - that everybody seems to be backing off and considering it "someone else's problem".

Should we expect more? Is it too much to expect or ask that our leaders communicate clearly and directly to us regarding what they intend to do going forward and what impact this will or will not have on the environment of the Gulf coast and the lives of those living there?

I realize it's tough and the answers may be ugly, but I'd like to at least feel there was a point person dealing with the problem, defining objectives, creating contingency plans, communicating expected fall-out etc.

At the moment, it seems like it's just a disorganized cluster-****, and I think it's too important to our country to just allow it to continue as such.

Thoughts?

[Christy]

I'm not sure if it's a political issue (though it seems to be becoming one), but I'm curious what people think about the oil spill.

Personally, I would like to have BP handle it. . . but I'm increasingly becoming skeptical that they are capable fo handling it (and I think we all realized from the start that there was a good chance they wouldn't be able to handle it). I've been frustrated that, from the beginning, there seems to be very little communication and organization. It seems like such a hot-potato issue - and something in which nobody is going to come out of it smelling good - that everybody seems to be backing off and considering it "someone else's problem".

Should we expect more? Is it too much to expect or ask that our leaders communicate clearly and directly to us regarding what they intend to do going forward and what impact this will or will not have on the environment of the Gulf coast and the lives of those living there?

I realize it's tough and the answers may be ugly, but I'd like to at least feel there was a point person dealing with the problem, defining objectives, creating contingency plans, communicating expected fall-out etc.

At the moment, it seems like it's just a disorganized cluster-****, and I think it's too important to our country to just allow it to continue as such.

Thoughts?

Oh yeah, NOW is when that's gonna start :goofy

[pinkrose]

I'm worried about the wildlife and the people who's job's depend on the Gulf and tourism. BP needs to get it's act together.

[Garyhoov]

I don't know if this is being discussed or studied by anyone, but just from the video, it seems it's something that should be investigated:

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/11/video-hay-heres-a-great-idea-how-to-clean-up-the-bp-oil-spill/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5SxX2EntEo&feature=player_embedded

I'm guessing that the volume of hay that would be required would be just too much to manage . . . but if someone can get out there and at least try it in some areas - like maybe the areas that are closest to shore, I can't see how it would hurt.:shrug

[pinkrose]

I'd say it's worth a try.

This just breaks my heart. - http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9FKRD2O2%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1011&sc_cid=homepage_newsDCC_article1

[Garyhoov]

I'd say it's worth a try.

This just breaks my heart. - http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9FKRD2O2%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1011&sc_cid=homepage_newsDCC_article1

Yeah, I heard about that this morning.:no

It's just so frustrating to feel that no-one seems to have any idea what to do. They were showing videos of congressmen grilling people this morning trying to find out whose fault it was, but it seems like that can wait. Let's get some plan for dealing with the oil that's already out there and preventing more from leaking before we worry about whose fault it was in the first place.

[pinkrose]

Yeah, I heard about that this morning.:no

It's just so frustrating to feel that no-one seems to have any idea what to do. They were showing videos of congressmen grilling people this morning trying to find out whose fault it was, but it seems like that can wait. Let's get some plan for dealing with the oil that's already out there and preventing more from leaking before we worry about whose fault it was in the first place.

I totally agree! They are all playing the blame game. As you said, they should be working together to get it cleaned up, then worry about whose fault it was. In the meantime, the wildlife is suffering and people are losing jobs (fishing)/losing money because tourism is down.

[Christy]

Yeah, I heard about that this morning.:no

It's just so frustrating to feel that no-one seems to have any idea what to do. They were showing videos of congressmen grilling people this morning trying to find out whose fault it was, but it seems like that can wait. Let's get some plan for dealing with the oil that's already out there and preventing more from leaking before we worry about whose fault it was in the first place.

:yep

There are some really smart people in this world, surely some heads can come together on this one, for the greater good. And as you say, the investigation for who is at fault can come after it's stopped, now it's turning into everybody's fault for sitting around doing nothing.

[pinkrose]

I heard something on KYW this morning about some hair salon collecting all the cut hair and shipping it someplace, where they make some sort of a mat, I presume that the mat either soaks up the oil or creates some sort of barrier. :dunno

There's one around here doing that. I can't remember which one though.

[Doug11]

Personally, I would like to have BP handle it. . . but I'm increasingly becoming skeptical that they are capable fo handling it (and I think we all realized from the start that there was a good chance they wouldn't be able to handle it). I've been frustrated that, from the beginning, there seems to be very little communication and organization. It seems like such a hot-potato issue - and something in which nobody is going to come out of it smelling good - that everybody seems to be backing off and considering it "someone else's problem".

Should we expect more? Is it too much to expect or ask that our leaders communicate clearly and directly to us regarding what they intend to do going forward and what impact this will or will not have on the environment of the Gulf coast and the lives of those living there?

I realize it's tough and the answers may be ugly, but I'd like to at least feel there was a point person dealing with the problem, defining objectives, creating contingency plans, communicating expected fall-out etc.

At the moment, it seems like it's just a disorganized cluster-****, and I think it's too important to our country to just allow it to continue as such.

Thoughts?

Gary, we learned in Hurricane Katrina that the federal government is NOT CAPABLE of handling major disasters. Private industry is still the best hope.

:shrug

[Christy]

:lol Anybody else a fan of Dennis Miller on facebook? :lookaroun

Dennis Miller Fan Comment: “Fathom the odd hypocrisy that Obama wants every citizen to prove they are insured, but people don't have to prove they are citizens. Bizarro world.” DM says: “Also the weird dichotomy that they can walk across our border to get into this country but then they can’t go across state lines to get healthcare.”

[Garyhoov]

Gary, we learned in Hurricane Katrina that the federal government is NOT CAPABLE of handling major disasters. Private industry is still the best hope.

:shrug

I've never had a lot of faith in the Federal government. And in the instance of Katrina and this mess, clearly there is going to be a lot of suffering and nobody can prevent that.

In the case of Katrina, I didn't expect the Federal government to go door to door taking care of people, but I did expect them to work on, to the best of their ability, the large issues.

And I saw the Army Corp of Engineers out there with heavy equipment putting barriers in place to repair the levies and I saw them working to get the pumping stations back on line, etc.

In this case, I don't expect them to hold fishermen's hands or do the other little things that they aren't good at, but I DO expect to see competent people working on the big problems of stopping the leak and working to skim as much of the oil as possible.

Maybe things are happening and I just don't see it, but I think that, in itself, is a problem. Until it's under control (and my impression is that things are bad and getting worse rather than better) I would like to see someone holding a press-conference each day explaining the situation and what is being done.

Maybe my memory is is flawed and collapsing events related to Katrina, but I remember seeing a HORRIBLE situation that slowly came under control and went from terrible to really bad to bad. Now I just feel like things are going from bad to really bad to terrible and I just don't see anything coming into place to make things better. At this point, I don't have any reason to believe things won't be worse 1 month from today than they are right now, and I didn't have that same feeling (rightly or wrongly) with Katrina.:shrug

[pinkrose]

I have strong feelings on the Katrina thing and Ms. pretty much being left out.

On the news last night, they were talking about a white powder that they will be using on the oil as it gets closer to our shore (maybe Ms. as well. Doug?). They said it turns the oil into a "solid" and they will be able to scoop it up or something like that. A good number of salons are also donating hair. There's an event this weekend where they will be collecting pet hair.

I believe this is the powder they are talking about - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-equipment-used-to-build-war-bunkers-is-being-tested-to-fend-off-slick.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GreenspaceEnvironmentBlog+(Gr eenspace)

[Christy]

I've never had a lot of faith in the Federal government. And in the instance of Katrina and this mess, clearly there is going to be a lot of suffering and nobody can prevent that.

In the case of Katrina, I didn't expect the Federal government to go door to door taking care of people, but I did expect them to work on, to the best of their ability, the large issues.

And I saw the Army Corp of Engineers out there with heavy equipment putting barriers in place to repair the levies and I saw them working to get the pumping stations back on line, etc.

In this case, I don't expect them to hold fishermen's hands or do the other little things that they aren't good at, but I DO expect to see competent people working on the big problems of stopping the leak and working to skim as much of the oil as possible.

Maybe things are happening and I just don't see it, but I think that, in itself, is a problem. Until it's under control (and my impression is that things are bad and getting worse rather than better) I would like to see someone holding a press-conference each day explaining the situation and what is being done.

Maybe my memory is is flawed and collapsing events related to Katrina, but I remember seeing a HORRIBLE situation that slowly came under control and went from terrible to really bad to bad. Now I just feel like things are going from bad to really bad to terrible and I just don't see anything coming into place to make things better. At this point, I don't have any reason to believe things won't be worse 1 month from today than they are right now, and I didn't have that same feeling (rightly or wrongly) with Katrina.:shrug

I don't think people as a whole feel the seriousness of it :dunno Granted, I'm not glued to the news 24/7 but I really don't hear much being said other than it's there, maybe people don't feel it's a danger, at least not to themselves. Katrina could not be ignored because it started as "HOLY SHIT THERE'S A GIANT HURRICANE COMING" and people's attention was immediately grabbed, so the aftermath was headlines. I'm still hearing mostly about immigration and kids walking out of schools in protest right now. :dunno

[Garyhoov]

I don't think people as a whole feel the seriousness of it :dunno Granted, I'm not glued to the news 24/7 but I really don't hear much being said other than it's there, maybe people don't feel it's a danger, at least not to themselves. Katrina could not be ignored because it started as "HOLY SHIT THERE'S A GIANT HURRICANE COMING" and people's attention was immediately grabbed, so the aftermath was headlines. I'm still hearing mostly about immigration and kids walking out of schools in protest right now. :dunno

That's a good point. Lives aren't in danger in the same way they were in Katrina, and I think that's why there's less of a sense of urgency than there was in Katrina.

I guess the reason I see this as more of a Federal responsibility than Katrina is that this requires a broad engineering effort that can't be done by individuals - to protect multiple states and jurisdictions. There was no engineering effort that can prevent a hurrican from making land-fall, but there certainly are methods that can be used to remove oil given enough resources, planning and EFFORT.

It just seems sort of crazy to me that, so many years after the Valdez, we just don't seem to have any plan for a situation such as this. Oil spills are real and can happen - either from tankers or a situation like this.

The link posted by Elizabeth is cool, and it's cool that people are donating hair and it's cool that maybe they can do something with hay, but doesn't that all seem a little half-assed? Shouldn't all these things have been tested years ago and a workable plan developed for an incident such as this?

Is it just considered to be such a rare occurance that we've figured we'll play around when the time comes . . . like we're doing now?:shrug

I guess that's probably it, and hopefully we'll learn from this and be better prepared next time, but I'm betting that won't be the case.

I think we'll see a lot of finger pointing and people jostling to get the best political advantage out of this, but nobody will actually do anything meaningful in terms of preparing for next time.

. . . and I guess that's how things go and I should probably just be more Zen and accept it.:lookaroun

[Hooker]

I heard something on KYW this morning about some hair salon collecting all the cut hair and shipping it someplace, where they make some sort of a mat, I presume that the mat either soaks up the oil or creates some sort of barrier. :dunnoClean hair--emphasis on clean--is a magnet to oil. The thought is that the hair will cling to the oil and you scoop the hair out. That's a lot of hair.

I think BP is gonna be in some serious doo-doo over this before it's all over and done.

[pinkrose]

The LA gov. shoud have had those levies fixed before a cane had a chance of knocking them down. They knew they wouldn't hold, yet did not fix them. They knew this way before Katrina.


We're hearing a lot about the oil down here, but I guess that's because we are a Gulf Coast state. :dunno

[Garyhoov]

The LA gov. shoud have had those levies fixed before a cane had a chance of knocking them down. They knew they wouldn't hold, yet did not fix them. They knew this way before Katrina.


We're hearing a lot about the oil down here, but I guess that's because we are a Gulf Coast state. :dunno

Anyone who ever took a taxi ride from the airport into NO and/or spoke to anyone from the area prior to Katrina would have likely gotten an earful about how the city is below sea level and if a big hurricane ever hit they'd be screwed . . . and that's what eventually happened.

If the levies had held after Katrina, (and they were at least high enough to handle the initial surge) nothing would have happened until we eventually got a bigger one . . . and then it would have been the same thing we saw with Katrina.

[Doug11]

I was just taking the opportunity to express my contra view to the notion that if there is a problem affecting citizens, the federal government should be looked to for the solution.

I may have believed at some level that big government could step in and clean up after a catastrophe such as a nuclear bombing incident or a devastating weather event, but what I saw is that private organizations such as the Red Cross are head and shoulders above FEMA. I would go so far as to say that if those private organizations could be empowered to run our border patrols, our mail delivery, our jails, etc . . . the return on the taxpayer dollar would be much better. Again, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong. :shrug

[Christy]

I was just taking the opportunity to express my contra view to the notion that if there is a problem affecting citizens, the federal government should be looked to for the solution.

I may have believed at some level that big government could step in and clean up after a catastrophe such as a nuclear bombing incident or a devastating weather event, but what I saw is that private organizations such as the Red Cross are head and shoulders above FEMA. I would go so far as to say that if those private organizations could be empowered to run our border patrols, our mail delivery, our jails, etc . . . the return on the taxpayer dollar would be much better. Again, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong. :shrug

No I would agree with that. That's why the government trying to step in and fix all the peoples' woes infuriates me. They never do anything half as well as small organizations who know how to spend time and money effectively do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0hcwbQpfUU
I don't remember if I shared this on facebook or not, but look what this group did with less than $20k :lol How far could the government stretch $20,000?

[pinkrose]

I was just taking the opportunity to express my contra view to the notion that if there is a problem affecting citizens, the federal government should be looked to for the solution.

I may have believed at some level that big government could step in and clean up after a catastrophe such as a nuclear bombing incident or a devastating weather event, but what I saw is that private organizations such as the Red Cross are head and shoulders above FEMA. I would go so far as to say that if those private organizations could be empowered to run our border patrols, our mail delivery, our jails, etc . . . the return on the taxpayer dollar would be much better. Again, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong. :shrug


No I would agree with that. That's why the government trying to step in and fix all the peoples' woes infuriates me. They never do anything half as well as small organizations who know how to spend time and money effectively do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0hcwbQpfUU
I don't remember if I shared this on facebook or not, but look what this group did with less than $20k :lol How far could the government stretch $20,000? I agree with that as well.

[Garyhoov]

I was just taking the opportunity to express my contra view to the notion that if there is a problem affecting citizens, the federal government should be looked to for the solution.

I may have believed at some level that big government could step in and clean up after a catastrophe such as a nuclear bombing incident or a devastating weather event, but what I saw is that private organizations such as the Red Cross are head and shoulders above FEMA. I would go so far as to say that if those private organizations could be empowered to run our border patrols, our mail delivery, our jails, etc . . . the return on the taxpayer dollar would be much better. Again, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong. :shrug

I certainly wouldn't argue with that point because that basic premise has always represented my view.

. . . but I do believe that protecting the environment is one of the few areas where the government serves an important role.

When it comes to the environment, there are limits to how well problems can be fixed with ideals of individual rights and responsibilities.

If a power plant in Ohio emits pollution, that pollution doesn't just pollute Ohio, but the pollution blows into PA, NJ, etc. Like the old saying, "Your right to punch me in the nose ends where my nose begins", we could say the right of a state or company to pollute ends where the property of another entity begins.

With that concept in mind, I believe it is the federal government's responsibility to regulate and control pollution.

And when the government fails to control pollution (as they did in this case in which they didn't have proper oversight to prevent a company like BP from creating a catastrophe that is affecting millions of people) they have a resposibility to help manage the mitigation.

To me, the current situation is analgous to a situation in which a kid is playing with matches and sets a fire, but rather than firemen stepping in and helping put out the fire, they are standing there, chastising the kid and talking about how badly he screwed up as he rushes around trying to put it out with a garden hose.

But in nearly every other situation, I agree 100% that the government is ill-equipped and has no business trying to solve problems that individuals, companies, and local governments should be handling. I just think that environmental issues should, by necessity, be addressed by the federal government - before, during and after incidents.

[Garyhoov]

Here's an opportunity for Obama to take a leadership role. He has a microphone in front of him, so he can tell us what is happening, who is taking responsibility for what and he can discuss long-term plans and what we can expect to see over the coming months, but what does he do? Finger point.:rollseyes

Does anyone else see this clip as the height of irony?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/14/gulf.oil.spill/index.html

[Christy]

He just makes me want to vomit anymore, I can't even listen to him without my blood pressure going up. His voice is my new nails on a chalkboard.

Hope and change, kiss my ass :goofy

[Garyhoov]

He just makes me want to vomit anymore, I can't even listen to him without my blood pressure going up. His voice is my new nails on a chalkboard.

Hope and change, kiss my ass :goofy

:lol

I'm much more neutral than that. There have been times when he has said and done small things that have impressed me, but his management of the bigger things has been very frustrating to me.

I tend to think he doesn't have the best people around him. He doesn't seem to appoint people who are bright or knowledgable about the areas they are managing.

I've often said that I view the presidency as a management position that reports to the people. With that in mind, if he was a manager working for me, I'd sit him down and say: "Look, I think you have some potential. You're bright, but not very experienced and I need you to focus on some big issues that you are currently ignoring such as our debt and deficit problem. You've got to start taking more personal responsibility and you've got to start offering solutions rather than just pointing out problems. Some of your co-workers feel you're quick to take credit for good things but slow to take responsibility for difficult problems. You also need to do a much better job of defining objectives and clearly communicating those objectives. If you can't show some real improvement in those areas by the time your contract comes up for renewal in 2.5 years, I'm afraid we're going to have to seriously consider letting you go."

[BeeJay]

Here's an opportunity for Obama to take a leadership role. He has a microphone in front of him, so he can tell us what is happening, who is taking responsibility for what and he can discuss long-term plans and what we can expect to see over the coming months, but what does he do? Finger point.:rollseyes

Does anyone else see this clip as the height of irony?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/14/gulf.oil.spill/index.html

It's weird how people see things differently. To me, he's doing the exact opposite of fingerpointing.

If you listen to the full clip, he basically said "Everybody shut up. The government and the corporations involved all have a share of blame, so let's just focus on fixing this instead of deciding who gets blamed the most."

[Christy]

"That includes, by the way, the federal government"

End of clip.

:lol

So... in what capacity? :shrug

[Christy]

:lol

I'm much more neutral than that. There have been times when he has said and done small things that have impressed me, but his management of the bigger things has been very frustrating to me.

I tend to think he doesn't have the best people around him. He doesn't seem to appoint people who are bright or knowledgable about the areas they are managing.

I've often said that I view the presidency as a management position that reports to the people. With that in mind, if he was a manager working for me, I'd sit him down and say: "Look, I think you have some potential. You're bright, but not very experienced and I need you to focus on some big issues that you are currently ignoring such as our debt and deficit problem. You've got to start taking more personal responsibility and you've got to start offering solutions rather than just pointing out problems. Some of your co-workers feel you're quick to take credit for good things but slow to take responsibility for difficult problems. You also need to do a much better job of defining objectives and clearly communicating those objectives. If you can't show some real improvement in those areas by the time your contract comes up for renewal in 2.5 years, I'm afraid we're going to have to seriously consider letting you go."

I daresay most people are :blush

[Garyhoov]

It's weird how people see things differently. To me, he's doing the exact opposite of fingerpointing.

If you listen to the full clip, he basically said "Everybody shut up. The government and the corporations involved all have a share of blame, so let's just focus on fixing this instead of deciding who gets blamed the most."

Okay. let's take the phrase "finger pointing" out of it. It's been nearly a month. What is he doing to fix it?
What objectives does he have and what means toward those objectives does he envision? As an alleged leader, what leadership did he show? Do you feel any better informed after his comments than you were before? Do you have a better feeling that things are under control after his comments than you did before?

I heard him mention "the Federal government", but I didn't hear him mention himself or anyone close to him. I would think that if you pushed him, he'd probably blame it on people appointed by Bush or at least far enough removed from himself that it wouldn't be his fault.

If he really believes that elements of the Federal government are dropping the ball, shouldn't he, as chief executive, be working directly with those people privately rather than making vague, accusatory public statements?

I just don't see that collection of words by him being any more useful than the collection of words by others that he finds so distasteful.:shrug

Shouldn't he be taking his own advice and shut up until he has something meaningful to offer?

What happens if, tomorrow, BP throws up their arms and says: "That's it. We give up. We can't do anymore. We're going to declare bankruptcy"?

Do we have a contingency plan, or will we just let the thing spew for the next 100 years? I have absolutely no idea if that's a real possibility or not because my public officials are giving me nothing to work with.

[BeeJay]

I guess I don't feel like things would be any better if Obama came out and said "we're in deep shit, people. We don't know what to do, so we're just throwing crap at the wall and hoping something sticks." ... even though that's probably the most honest thing he can say.

If you pay attention to this story, it seems pretty obvious we're making it up as we go. How many different plans for dealing with this spill have we heard?

* Lowering a dome over it
* firing a ball of compressed trash into the hole
* Drilling a second hole to relieve some of the gushing
* Using hair to soak up the oil
* Burning it on the surface
* spraying junk on the oil to break it up/solidify it/etc.

If Obama basically throws up his hands and says "fuck if I know," you're just going to get more panic. In this case, the "typical politician" act might be the least bad option. :shrug

One concrete thing I've heard from him is that the federal agencies and oil companies were too cozy leading up to this and that it needs to change. That might be the best we can hope for...a realization of what got us here and some commitment to change it.

[Garyhoov]

I guess I don't feel like things would be any better if Obama came out and said "we're in deep shit, people. We don't know what to do, so we're just throwing crap at the wall and hoping something sticks." ... even though that's probably the most honest thing he can say.

If you pay attention to this story, it seems pretty obvious we're making it up as we go. How many different plans for dealing with this spill have we heard?

* Lowering a dome over it
* firing a ball of compressed trash into the hole
* Drilling a second hole to relieve some of the gushing
* Using hair to soak up the oil
* Burning it on the surface
* spraying junk on the oil to break it up/solidify it/etc.

If Obama basically throws up his hands and says "fuck if I know," you're just going to get more panic. In this case, the "typical politician" act might be the least bad option. :shrug

One concrete thing I've heard from him is that the federal agencies and oil companies were too cozy leading up to this and that it needs to change. That might be the best we can hope for...a realization of what got us here and some commitment to change it.

I guess you're probably right, but it's always frustrating to me that the political world is unable or unwilling to function like the real world.

I deal with tough problems all the time at work. When I first hear about them, I usually think: "Crap! That's a big problem. How am I possibly going to deal with that?"

But I damn well can't walk into the president's office and tell him that. I've got to have a solid answer before I talk to him . . . or, at the very least, a sound plan that will get me to a solid answer.

. . . and I never have a month to come up with that plan. Usually more like an hour.

What really concerns me about the current situation is: the only thing really motivating BP is fear of bad press . . . and they've already taken such a black eye on this that the damage is done.

If I'm a BP executive and two plans are put in front of me: Plan A will cost a billion dollars but will likely stop the leak next week. Plan B will cost $100 million and will likely stop the leak 2 months from now, I'm going to go with plan B.

People already hate us and they'll get tired of hearing about the whole thing soon. The down-side to letting this drag on a little longer probably doesn't justify a $900 million expense directly out of our pockets.

With the government basically saying: "This is BP's problem and we're just going to sit back and let them take care of it.", there's no real protection of the public interest" It's all dollars and cents on BP's balance sheets and their call as to what they want to do and if one option is much more in the public interest but also much more expensive, what real motivation do they have to do the right thing?

As much as government frustrates me, they are at least, in theory, directly accountable to the American people in a way that BP executives aren't.

[BeeJay]

I don't disagree with anything you said, Tom. My comment about making it up as we go is just my assessment of what seems to be actually happening, based on what I've seen.

And I think you're right that this particular situation has been so bad that nobody (the feds or the oil companies) seemed to take the possibility of it too seriously beforehand, which is why we have about a dozen different plans for how to deal with it ... which, as you point out, some are based on stemming the flow on the ocean floor, and some are based on addressing the oil that's already spilled.

I guess I share a little of Gary's frustration with the government response here, but I can't get too mad at the government when the private industry responsible seems just as clueless about what to do (although it sounds like this hose they lowered down this weekend might be a big step). Basically it just looks to me like a perfect shitstorm that none of the experts — public or private — took the possibility of seriously beforehand.

[Christy]

So I guess there's going to be some hearing or something today.

You guys can let me knwo what goes down there, I sure as heck won't be watching :goofy :lookaroun

Also, is it weird that gas prices have actually gone down a tad since this all started? Seems like this is the prime opportunity for them to kick us in the pants at the pump, like they seem to do every time anything with the word "oil" in it happens.

[Doug11]

Yes, surprisingly gas prices are going down due to the slumping world wide economy. Demand is down. China of all places has eased off on its consumption, and here in the US, people are not expected to travel as much as in years past.

The one leaking oil well would not affect capacity so much, but it can certainly make an enormous mess. Seafood prices are way up for fresh shrimp and oysters. It may take a while before you see a spike in those prices at the local restaurants and grocery stores, but the increase is coming.

[Christy]

Poop, meet fan? :lookaroun

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/17/san-diego-faces-medicine-arizona-residents-cancel-travel-following-boycott/

[Doug11]

Poop, meet fan? :lookaroun

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/17/san-diego-faces-medicine-arizona-residents-cancel-travel-following-boycott/

Score, Arizona!

[erika]

Arizona electricity regulator threatens power supply to Los Angeles

92 comments
by Ryan Randazzo - May. 19, 2010 12:47 PM
The Arizona Republic

An Arizona electric-utility regulator is drawing national attention for threatening to black out Los Angeles because of that city's boycott over Arizona's immigration law, but actually cutting the juice is not in his power.

document Read Pierce's letter to Los Angeles mayor on boycott

Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce, who is running for re-election this year to the five-member commission, sent a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Tuesday, saying that he'd "be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation."

Pierce wrote the letter in response to the Villaraigosa's comments about the new immigration law in Arizona, which itself has drawn national attention.

But Southern California Edison, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and other California utilities have an ownership stake in major power plants in Arizona, including the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.

The California utilities paid part of the cost of building Palo Verde, and pay their share of the fuel and operations, so Arizona can't take away the power they get from the plant. And the Corporation Commission has no jurisdiction over merchant power plants that sell power from Arizona to California.

Pierce said he wrote the letter simply to illustrate the close ties between Los Angeles and Arizona, and to get the city council there to reconsider its boycott. He said it is not a literal threat to cut power to the city. "It is mischaracterization to say we have any power here other than to call their hypocrisy into question," he said. "A boycott is an unfriendly gesture. Where do you expect that to go?"

Pierce said he spent the majority of Wednesday on the phone with media discussing the issue, and that he was surprised by the national reaction. He said he had not gotten a response from Los Angeles by midday. "It's almost like two communities in Arizona deciding to boycott each other," he said. "We're awful close and interrelate so much, I just think it's an impractical solution and not very well thought out (by Los Angeles). Really guys, let's cool it and move on."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/05/19/20100519arizona-immigration-electricity-regulator-threatens-power-supply-los-angeles.html#ixzz0oPKo6sOr

[Garyhoov]

Are we really getting this ugly?:no

I've always believed in my heart that, as our society becomes more educated and comfortable, we would trend toward being more open and accepting.

I look at history and I see that, with each passing decade, we generally see fewer wars and more democracy and freedom around the world.

But in this country, over the past 30 years, I just seem to be seeing more pettiness and more people who want to force their narrow ideology on others.

Is it my imagination, or are we becoming a less tolerant, more oppressive society? Why can't people let Arizona be Arizona?

Am I just getting old and is my memory just off?:shrug I seem to remember a time when we used to be able to talk about and laugh about our differences. Now it seems like everything is a battle and little things are blown up into over-dramatized BS. And there are so many things that we just can't talk about any more.

[erika]

Are we really getting this ugly?:no



It's bad, isn't it?

There's a counter-boycott now, and many are saying CA will be on the losing end, since so many "Zonies" vacation there during the summer months.

[Doug11]

and yet no States or communities "boycott" Nevada for legalized prostitution or Utah for not getting tough on polygamy. :eek

I am with Scott on boycotts. No thank you!

[Garyhoov]

and yet no States or communities "boycott" Nevada for legalized prostitution or Utah for not getting tough on polygamy. :eek

I am with Scott on boycotts. No thank you!


. . . or New York for giving us Paris Hilton or Louisiana for giving us Britney Spears . . .:lookaroun

[Christy]

:rotfl

There is just too much going on :lol no thoughts from anybody on our latest supreme court nominee? :dunno I have put very little effort into finding anything out about her, because let's face it, nobody gives a damn what I think, she's either in or out whether I think it's good or not :rotfl but it does seem to me that a person who is going to possibly be a supreme court judge should have some experience... as a judge? :lookaroun :dunno I will never EVER take away from the fact that she is smart and accomplished, but I don't know.

[erika]

:rotfl

There is just too much going on :lol no thoughts from anybody on our latest supreme court nominee? :dunno I have put very little effort into finding anything out about her, because let's face it, nobody gives a damn what I think, she's either in or out whether I think it's good or not :rotfl but it does seem to me that a person who is going to possibly be a supreme court judge should have some experience... as a judge? :lookaroun :dunno I will never EVER take away from the fact that she is smart and accomplished, but I don't know.

I had thought that too, but then I was reading a list of other SCOTUS Justices who also had no prior experience as judges, and there are some big names there.

[Christy]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-11-2010/release-the-kagan

I saw this the other day, am still laughing about it. :lol

[Garyhoov]

One of the problems with the idiotic fixation our politicians have on Roe V Wade is that Presidents want to try to find people who haven't actually said anything over the past 40 years.

There was an article in the paper yesterday quoting a democrat who was concerned that Kagan had expressed an opinion during her stint with the Clinton administration that viable fetuses shouldn't be aborted unless the mother's life is in danger.

. . . yeah:huh . . . and that means what? She's not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice because she has a rational and justifiable belief that viable fetuses shouldn't be aborted.

How irrational must someone be to please the extremists? Does someone need to advocate allowing abortions up until puberty to prove they are sufficiently "pro-choice"?:shrug

Politicians should face the fact that we currently have 6, count 'em 6 Catholic Supreme Court justices and Roe V. Wade still stands.

It's time for Politicians to get over that tiny issue and focus on the real duties of a Supreme Court justice.