They obviously won't admit it publicly, but I think many Dems, especially Blue Dogs, must be scared shitless. Obama can't save them, in fact, he wants to sacrifice them in order to get his radical agend passed. Obama could care less about losing a few seats in 2010 and the Blue Dogs know it.

WHY?

according to manypaths and others here and pelosi and axelrod..
THEY WON......

and did pelosi REALLY say something about health care reform was based on "SAN FRANSISCO VALUES" ?

If that clip I heard was real then NOTHING they do will help as long as they keep pushing things that SHE says are based on 'san fransisco values'...

what IM saying is that more than one report showed that people in tuesday didnt vote against obama but were scared and against POLICIes of the dems.....even on CNN the numbers were devastating for dems

#2 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-11-05 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag: Can't even spell San Francisco.

But what do we expect from a Texas schoolteacher? Literacy?

also in a general sense

when DEMS in california STEAL money from taxpayers like they just did to the tune of 10% out of their checks as a "LOAN"...

and when the federal reserve attempts to extort banks who didnt get a bailout on what they pay their people

and when thier programs like cash for clunkers which NOW AP says was a lot of 'trucks for trucks' that had little to NO environmental advantage...
old f150's for new f150s..
and COSTS TAXPAYERS 24K

when they keep up these tired old boondoggles

they can meet all they want and conservatives USING THE RIGHT means of getting out thier message will win every time...OR except when DEMS steal that message like they like to do.

I am in a hurry dipshit.
sorry if that abused your spelling sensibilities

but your attack did nothing to move the debate along..
GEE......where have I heard THAT Before..

But what do we expect from a Texas schoolteacher? Literacy?

#3 | Posted by Zatoichi
* * * *

This from a poster who said that multiplication wasn't a linear function.

But what do we expect from our resident "scientist"? Command of Algebra I?

#6 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-11-05 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag: failed fifth grade math

Thy x^n, where n>1, shit-for-brains.

Try

No, that's exponentiation, and parabolic.

Yesterday, your post said this:
* * *

The operative word is 'multiplying', it gone non-linear.

Morons.

#10 | Posted by Zatoichi

* * *

In fact, multiplying is linear, as in y = 2x. Or y = 14x + 7. And so on.

Stick to the so-called "settled science", and linking to Arhenius. You tend to get out of the shallow end of the pool in a hurry.

If Obama adopted the Repub health care plan he would become a legend. He would be known for bringing the parties together and getting health care reformed, this would also give the democratic party a boost for the 2010 elections. Won't happen though, Pres. Pelosi won't allow it.

"but I think many Dems, especially Blue Dogs, must be scared shitless. Obama can't save them"

Yes, it's only a coincidence that here in Virginia the winning candidate ran as a moderate.
He ran so fast away from today's "conservative" heroes it made heads spin!

"If Obama adopted the Repub health care plan he would become a legend."

That is the most ridiculous thing I've read today.

#13 He is not going to get his plan passed so why not? It's all about power anyway.

Yes, it's also only a coincidence that obamas slump in the polls coincides with his continuation of bush policies.

It must mean that he isn't to the "right" enough, right?!

Forget that not so long ago when we had a republican majority, the common meme for you people was that it meant the American people were "right of center", but after those same Americans elected a center left majority, the same people claimed it meant America was "right of center".

do you people ever get dizzy from your constant spin(ing)?

If the Democrats try to move to the center and listen to the Republicans they will start losing elections. They were elected on a promise of CHANGE and that is what voters want. We want new trade policies to bring manufacturing jobs home, we want health care reform, we want credit card reform, bank regulation and reform, new bankruptcy laws, etc. If the Dems become our leaders against the corporate oligarchy they will retain power.

Danni, you're starting to get it--"against the corporate oligarchy"--we've had a socialistic big business system that's been developed over the years and synergistic with government and both parties.

Danni, they can't produce their promises, Obama's ratings are dropping like a stone because he is getting NOTHING done, if he crosses the isle like he promised in the campaign he could actually get something done.

OH COOL, MATH PROOF DAY.....

My Math Proof proves that Women are evil....

First we start with our assumptions:
--as anyone who has ever dated knows, women = time x money.
--Also, as the learned practitoners of Economics know, Time = Money.
--Lastly, as philosophers through the ages have concluded, Money = The Root Of Evil.

so.....

Women = Time x Money
Money = Time
Women = Money x Money
Women = Money squared
Money = The Root of Evil
The Root of Evil x The Root of Evil = Money Squared
The Root of Evil x The Root of Evil = Evil
Women = Evil

For tommorow's lesson, we'll examine this theory using absolute values and irrational numbers.

First & foremost I am a conservative, second a registered republican (because there is no viable conservative 3rd party & if you have no affiliation in FL, you don't get to vote in primaries).

Overall, I truly believe America is right of center.
Last year's elections results were a mixture of war/Bush weariness, media propaganda, white guilt and a fantastically run campaign by the Obama camp. (no sarcasm).

I think the repubs. are making more to do out of the results than is really there. Not to say some of the votes were not votes against Obama/dems./current administration, VA & NJ exit polls both showed about 25% +/- voting for that reason, but had the NY CD 23 gone to the conservative, that would have spoken volumes. It was VERY close though, 4-5% points difference, if the repub. party had been solidly together behind the conservative candidate, I think he would have won the seat.

All incumbents, R/D/I, should be on notice. The spending plans being put forth by the current admin. are inexcusable. AS a country we are broke, we have no real dollars to spend on anything, unless of course we print or borrow and at this point either of those options are disastrous.

I think this comment from the article says it all, (from a dem. forgot to get the name).

"...I don't think there's any reason to panic here. We have to get health care done, and then we have to turn our attention to the economy and jobs."

Get health care done, and THEN we have to turn....

It doesn't matter which party you are in, Country MUST come before party. It will be nice when we have a party that understands that.

Political history teaches us that the party out of power does well in the mid-term elections and that means the repubs will do okay next year. How well will be determined what the job and the deficit situation is at that time.

whistling past the grave yard.do something to create jobs instead of creating more handouts.

they need to stay on their present course if that's what they believe in. we'll find out if that's what america wants. i'm actually a little sick of governance with a finger in the air to see which way the wind blows.

We can't AFFORD new health care spending
We can't AFFORD cap and trade for a fake theory
You can argue stimulus on "priming the pump", but even there, the wastage is huge.

We can't afford whats already on our plate, and the fools are adding MORE?

FAR worse than Bush

"Obama's ratings are dropping like a stone"

Sorry, that is simply not true.

"AS a country we are broke, we have no real dollars to spend on anything, unless of course we print or borrow and at this point either of those options are disastrous."

Nice of you to finally notice, it didn't seem to bother Republicans when Bush decided to invade Iraq, didn't seem to bother Republicans when he passed a huge tax cut for the rich, didn't seem to bother Republicans when they passed the Medicare Drug bill which forbids negotiating with BigPharma for lower prices but all of a sudden the sky is falling????

The Virginia and New Jersey state house results don't faze me a bit. They had nothing to do with national politics. NY-23 was an utter delight, proving again that more-Republican-than-thou types will go down with the ship, arms extended stiffly in Hitler salutes, rather than join the 21st century. If they manage to scuttle health care, it will be many generations before an irate citizenry forgives. herm

"We can't AFFORD new health care spending
We can't AFFORD cap and trade for a fake theory
You can argue stimulus on "priming the pump", but even there, the wastage is huge."
But, we certainly could afford a trillion dollars plus in Iraq. For what?
Where were all you fiscal conservatives for the last eight years?
You have no problem handing out huge amounts of money to the people and businesses that don't need it, and make a big stink when a fraction of that amount is spent on people that truly need it.
Bizzaro-World

BILLYCHAN

You are a drooling moron.

At what point did I express ANY sort of approval for Bush's spending.

4 Bush deflections so far. Keep 'em comin, lefties!

Note for the next idiot:

I'm sure some other moron will immediately try and imply that I and others like me oppose ANY spending.

Grow a fucking brain.

Heck, I do NOT oppose spending money to help poor families and medicine for the less advantaged. Nor do other concervatives, AND YOU KNOW THATS TRUE.

What we want, is a government that will spend a low enough amount of money each year that there is a substantial amount left over at year's end to pay off some debt principle.

WITHIN THAT LIMIT, debate on domestic, military, social, economic or whatever type spending is legit.

When NOT WITHIN THAT LIMIT, talk of spending more on ENTITLEMENTS is drooling stupid.

Concervative Condemns ALL deficit spending, including Bush's.

Liberal Idiot Reply: "Why condemn deficits? You liked Bush's".

Bottom line: Obama = Worse than Bush.

"WITHIN THAT LIMIT, debate on domestic, military, social, economic or whatever type spending is legit."

There's more than one way to skin a cat, I say raise taxes back to pre-Reagan levels. Cutting spending would mean eliminating jobs and right now that is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Raise taxes, offer deductions for domesting investment into job creating enterprises, penalize investment overseas. Penalize companies that outsource jobs. Protect markets just like our competitors do. Quit listening to Free Trade corporate economic traitors.

DANNI

While I tend to be against taxes, I find them easier to stomach than reckless spending, ESPECIALLY in a situation like today.

Tax increases don't bother ANYTHING like the new entitlement spending does.

The post talks about the dems meeting "nervously" and considering whether job creation should be more emphasized then the administration's ambitious programs------duh.

"Tax increases don't bother ANYTHING like the new entitlement spending does."

Calling it "entitlement spending" doesn't change the fact that health care reform is an attempt to end runaway health care industry inflation. If we don't get control of the costs we will bankrupt the whole country. We should be changing the system far more radically by putting everyone into Medicare but political realities make that impossible for now. I think it will become obvious that is our only real choice within a few short years.

To pretend that any conservative was speaking out against tax cuts for the wealthiest, or holding military, gas and oil companies, insurance companies, Wall Street etc, to any kind of regulations is disingenuous at best. It's easier to just say "Lefties blah, blah, blah".
I remember the "debates" on Iraq military spending - Un-American - treason - you hate our troops...
Your selective memory is astonishing.

""The question is, do people think we're tending to the things they care about?" said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.)."

He is one of the most progressive in the Senate and a big supporter of the Public Option.

Calling it "entitlement spending" doesn't change the fact that health care reform is an attempt to end runaway health care industry inflation. - DANNI

Calling it "reproductive rights" doesn't change the fact that abortion is still the taking of innocent life.

See how it works? At least entitlement is the correct description for the government option. The example I quoted is just absurd.

whistling past the grave yard.do something to create jobs instead of creating more handouts.

#24 | Posted by semtex111

That is not in the Dem playbook of how to run the country into the ground.

--------

Why are they so paranoid when the elections didn't mean anything and per Pelosi--the Dems won!!

Just wondering what brilliant ideas the right has to create more jobs.

Oh wait, I know, give rich folks more tax cuts. Sorry, just forgot for a moment.

#27 | Posted by danni

Again proving yourself the stoopidest person on the DR.
Obama's personal approval rating has pretty much held it's own, however, his job approval is down almost 20 pts. & his job disapproval is up almost 30.

"Why are they so paranoid when the elections didn't mean anything and per Pelosi--the Dems won!!"

How do you figure they are paranoid???
You just wish they were really all that worried.
This country isn't putting a Republican majority in Congress any time soon. Maybe never.

There is no recovery unless jobs are created. No one in their right mind should give a shit whether G-Sax makes $100 million a day or the stock market tops 10,000. These indicators don't mean shit.

#42 | Posted by danni

Who do you think opens business and creates jobs?
They don't appear from thin air?
How many jobs have you created lately?

"And, fyi, Bush is gone. So stop blaming him, he has his share to atone for, but you libs gotta get off that one."

We'll quit blaming him when the effects of his presidency are less obvious. BTW, the famous CLINTON DEFLECTION went on for years.

#47 | Posted by danni

Typical bed wetter, all emotion, no sence.

"Who do you think opens business and creates jobs?"

Obviously not rich folks who got tax cuts. Seems a little odd that we had less unemployment problems when taxes were higher. Think maybe avoiding taxes is a reason to reinvest profits into a business???
It sure as hell was during the 50-70's.
I still remember owners of businesses saying that they were buying new equipment at the end of they year because it was better than giving the money to Uncle Sam.

"Typical bed wetter, all emotion, no sence."

When trying to say a person has no sense it helps to spell the word correctly. I'm not normally a spelling Nazi, but I am when it is an insult directed at me.

#49 | Posted by danni

Again proving you idiocy.

Just a few years ago we had 4.4-4.5% unemployment.

That is considered FULL employment. Everyone who wants a job, has a job.

You make this too easy, get some facts.

Wow, is that the best you got? (grammatically incorrect).

Stoopidest is also stupidest, you missed that one.

If you want to create jobs you first have to create demand for goods and services. Wages is what creates demand. Jobs create wages, whether those jobs be private sector jobs or government jobs. That is one area I think Obama is not doing the right thing, he should be creating jobs programs to get people working. If we are giving them unemployment checks anyway we could just pay them a little more and put them to work doing something. Then they would buy goods and services which would cause the private sector to start hiring again and push unemployment numbers down which would raise demand for labor which would increase wages which would create more demand......that's how we built the American middle class.

"Just a few years ago we had 4.4-4.5% unemployment."

We sure did, all paid for with credit based on home equity which suddenly evaporated. Wages were stagnant, people were employed but in low pay jobs that didn't earn enough to pay for the goods they were buying. That is not a sustainable economy and it finally collapsed.
I don't think it is rocket science to figure out that if you outsource jobs, import cheap labor, you are going to destroy the middle class.

What REAL jobs can the gov't create?
The last thing we need is more federal employees, they are paid tax dollars that we don't have.

Look at NY, now that it's taboo to make a large salary or get a big bonus, NY small business are taking the high hard one. Wealthy people expand their business, buy things, boats, high end cars, mansions, jewelery, go out to eat, etc...
All those things put people to work, all those things create lasting jobs. And get this, those people do the same things and that creates more real jobs, and those people... well, by now I hope you see where this is going.
This admin. has made it a "no-no" to buy high end items, go to Vegas on a vaca, get paid your big bonus that you have written your contract.

That's where the prob. is, gov't meddling. The free market has always worked when it allowed too. There will always be some corruption in it. But, we can rest assured that when the gov't provides everything for us, all will be well and there will be no corruption, right?

DANNI

If health care reform was about reining in cost, it would be one thing, but it is all about "attempting" to provide more care REGARDLESS of cost, which is something completely different.

If I can be made to believe that the primary purpose of the reform is to bring down overall cost to the economy (not just to poor families), I'd be for it.

Spending for new care to the poor is something that is right and proper, IF you have the money (we don't).

My first choice would be Tort reform, with a specific focus on tort reform that would reduce defensive medicine.

If we can end defensive medicine, that 10% to 20% right there. That money can go to pay the debt, or if unwise, spent on other things.

People made bad choices by running up their cc's, that happens every day.
Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton
all own the sub-prime market issue, which IS what caused the housing crash.
The gov't made banks loan $$ to people who had lousy credit & no way to pay back the amounts they borrowed. The Community Redevelopment Act, I believe it was called.

See, the gov't meddled and the free market gets the blame.

The economic structure is constantly changing, you guys love evolution so much this should be a no brainer, our job skills must evolve!!

Half the crap we buy would be unaffordable if it were made here.

" The free market has always worked when it allowed too."

No it never has. You can't give me a single example of when the "free market" ever really worked while we also had a middle class. It can't happen. The middle class was created by artificially manipulating the labor market to make labor more valuable. All of your arguments are just combinations of right wing talking points which have been thoroughly disproven with the collapse of Reaganomics.

"Half the crap we buy would be unaffordable if it were made here."

Not if we were paid enough money to make it.

"People made bad choices by running up their cc's, that happens every day."

That is probably true but it is also true that those "bad choices" were that great Bush economy we used to hear so much about. Without those "bad choices" we would have seen the recession we were really living in. Virtually no wealth was created during his entire presidency.

"If I can be made to believe that the primary purpose of the reform is to bring down overall cost to the economy (not just to poor families), I'd be for it."

That is a fair way of looking at it, I'll give you that. I think when you consider that everyone gets some health care when they need it even if that means emergency room visits, if you consider that preventive care is much cheaper in the long run than more intensive care for preventable disease, if you consider the huge amounts that goes to insurance companies who provide no real health care services....then reform become the cost container.
I'm not so sure this reform will do it though but I suspect it is just the beginning of a more extensive overhaul of our system, we can't afford not to overhaul it completely.

The concept of Emergency Room use reform is a valid point, that I'll grant. But I still see this bill as a MASSIVE dose of additional spending.

Tort reform aimed SPECIFICLY at issues affectng defensive medicine (which would cripple a lot of lawyers), and focus on Emergency Rooms would be a good place to start.

But the words on everyone's lips is what is provided that is NOT currently provoded.

If the Dems were shouting from the roof tops that the reform will NOT increase the number of doctor visits by even ONE person, but would only change where that doctor was seen (not the emergency room), I'd take them more seriously.

I simply don't believe cutting cost is their PRIMARY motive. I'm happy if they have multiple motives, but cost cutting needs to be at the top.

So say I, a man who had eviction proceedings started on him last year, but who flatly REFUSED to take a dime of public money (my need was not great enough), and is now paying off a portion of the PRINCIPLE of my debt every month.

You ain't seen NUTHIN yet!

Http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/
17260182/1610997888/name/FTC-
vi26.wmv

This is about taxes up front and none of the so-called benefits would take place until out years and since this thing is conceptional with no meat on its' bones (yet) noone knows what this thing will morph into due to political change prior to implementation.

Anyone (DAnni) who thinks that growing the government sector to create jobs is an idiot.

Look at California. Net increase in jobs THIS YEAR. You cannot fire a California worker easily, if at all. Most get pensions, and are paid more than private sector jobs. That is one reason California is broke, broke, broke...

Then, unions pressure the politicians, and it gets worse instead of better. Now there's a massive deficit, they gonna tax --- yep, private businesses more to create even a deeper hole.

That is a recipe for utter disaster.

#58 | Posted by danni
+ 59
+ 60

The free market has always worked for the middle class when gov't in intervention is held in check.
I will find you the info.

People make bad choices and that has nothing to do with who is prez. The economy was humming along nicely before the housing boom, why you ask, because of the "tax cuts for the rich". More millionares were made in this period then in any other. The federal gov't had more $$ coming in than it had ever had, the problem is the repubs. turned into dems. and spent it all.

Your comment on #59 shows you have no concept of how $$ works.
"Not if we were paid enough money to make it."

Allrightttty than, if I pay you $25 an hour to make Nikes instead of the Chineese kid that makes 25 cents an hour, do you still think I can sell those shoes for $50.00 a pair?
If I pay you 15.00 per hour to make my Big Mac & fries, how much do you think the #6 need to cost to make a profit?

You are responsible to make yourself worth everything you can, the gov't can't mandate what you are worth to an employeer, the gov't can mandate what the employeer must pay you (min. wage), but every time that goes up, so do costs.

Again, you make this too easy,.

#67 | Posted by Surn

NICE

You'll have to forgive Danni. She's playing with half a deck here. Economics and finance are not her strong suite.

FYI, those evil rich people and private business are the economic engine of any healthy economy.

Government does not create jobs or wealth, conversley, it destroy it.

Those looking for a free hand-out need not apply.

Liberals are so convinced they're right that they will ignore even the most wide-spread, massive criticism. If 90% of the population of the US demonstrated against socialized medicine and other nonsensical liberal policies, they would _still_ just dismiss it as the work of a few right-wing extremists.

Perhaps, we need to examine the trillion dollar note from the Bank of Zimbabwe. It may very well be an accurate reflection of the future. I foresee rapid inflation followed by price and wage controls, just like we had in the seventies--or in the Roman Empire under Diocletian. It didn't work for him, it didn't work in the seventies, and it won't work for Obama.

"The free market has always worked for the middle class when gov't in intervention is held in check."

You don't even know what a free market is. WE haven't had one in America in our entire history as a nation. We have always had regulated capitalism with regulation gradually increasing or decreasing in different eras. In the twentieth century, after regulation was greatly increased we finally built the middle class that we know today, it prospered for four decades until the era of deregulation began. For the next thirty years the middle class has seen jobs eliminated or outsourced creating less demand for their labor and thus stagnating wages. For a while we used credit from home equity to mask the economic plight of the middle class but with the burst of the housing bubble that mask was removed and we saw clearly that most Americans were living a life style they can no longer afford.
Reversing Reaganomics and returning to the Keynsian economics which built our Middle Class is our only real hope of returning to prosperity and at a time like this that means government creating demand for labor through jobs programs to kick start the economy by creating demand for goods and services.

"If 90% of the population of the US demonstrated against socialized medicine and other nonsensical liberal policies, they would _still_ just dismiss it as the work of a few right-wing extremists."

Utter nonsense. The majority supports health care reform and no imaginary 90% opposition exists now or ever will. Trust me, if 90% of the people demanded anything that thing would be done.

#71 and #72 are really making my points and do not require any response...

Yeah imaginary 90% protests prove something.
Hell why not make it 100%, when it is imaginary why not go all the way???

"Half the crap we buy would be unaffordable if it were made here."
BINGO! Most of the stuff we buy is crap. We lead the world in buying crap. And we always seem to want even more crap. Dave Ramsey 101

Utter nonsense. The majority supports health care reform and no imaginary 90% opposition exists now or ever will.

#72 | Posted by danni

Danni, Danni, you have to get some real information in your life, get off huffington and msnbc web sites.
No it is not 90% opposed, but it clearly is not a "majority" that's in favor.
Unless 42% in now considered a majority.
The majority oppose it because it makes NO sence.
Most people are happy with their care, those w/o insurance can get medicaid. All this is, is gov't AGAIN over reaching.
If you need to be corrected on anything else, just let me know. As of now, you are my new part time job.

"Republicans hadn't lost in the region in more than a century. Owens defeated Hoffman despite a 45,000-voter registration edge for Republicans and big-name endorsements for Hoffman from former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson and others."

Geee, I guess if MSNBC, Piglosi, The Messiah and all of the other Obamarobots say that the Republicans haven't lost in NY-23 in over a Century, it has to be true!

Guess I have to go back to school since with this new math, a Century couldn't POSSIBLY be 100 years any more...
Since the last Democrat to hold a seat in NY-23 was only SIXTEEN YEARS AGO.
In fact, in the last 109 years since the beginning of the 20th Century the Democrats have held the NY-23 seat for SEVENTY-FIVE of those years and Republicans have held it for only 34 years.

In fact, since NY-23 became a single seat district in 1843, the Democrats have held that seat for 89 years, while Republicans have held for only 68 years (don't forget that the Republican Party didn't even EXIST for the first 17 of those years). The rest of the time it was held by a Whig, and Independent, a Unionist and an Opposition party member.

One Obamarobot ACTUALLY said that Republicans have held NY-23 since 1843, which is a great trick since the Republican Party wasn't formed until the late 1850's right here in my county.

Hardly what I would call a Rock Ribbed Republican District!

In my Congressional District I can go back at least 54 years without finding a single Dem since the last three served 50 yrs and my current one is in his second term already.

That is what you call a Rock Rib Republican district...

Last, but hardly least, THE DEMOCRATS did NOT win NY-23.
Owens, who appears to be the winner (though it will be another 1 1/2 weeks before all ballots are counted and the election is certified) was a registered INDEPENDENT until the Democrats in desperation convinced him to run as a Democrat a couple of months ago.
So while not a Republican, he isn't a real Democrat either. From the Republican point of view, he is MORE CONSERVATIVE than their candidate DEDE was.
So while Democrats can believe this was a victory by a DEMOCRAT in a "solid Republican" district, the reality is that it was a Democrat DEFEAT because a real INDEPENDENT was elected in a SOLID DEMOCRAT district. Or don't you consider a seat that has been held by the Democrats for 75 of the last 109 years to be a solid Democrat district?

So enjoy your whistling past the graveyard as Republican momentum builds up more and more until Nov 2010 when it all dumps on your heads. Or will The Messiah "part the waters" and save Piglosi, Reid, Boxer, et al from the unemployment lines?
Now THAT would be a REAL miracle!

What is the difference between GOD and Obama?
GOD doesn't think he's Obama....

"Calling it 'reproductive rights' doesn't change the fact that abortion is still the taking of innocent life." Cidney clings to his patently absurd fundie notions, forgetting that even in "scripture" Big G smites entire communities for very little. Men, women, children. Even pregnant women and their fetuses. Is this the wrong thread in which to bring that up? herm