Kudos to Senator Kaufman!
The Huffington Post reports the Senator as being the 34th supporter of passing the public option via reconciliation:
“I’m for a public option, if there’s some way that it can get done,” he said. “If it qualified under reconciliation, then I would,” he said, when asked if he’d vote for it on the floor.
Three cheers for Senator Kaufman and even more cheers to everyone who called and emailed and FAXed his office.
Too bad Senator Carper won’t do the right thing here.
Tags: Ted Kaufman
Huff Post also reports that Charlie Rangel maybe giving up his Chair at Ways and Means. It isn’t completely clear that this is what is happening, but it would be Good News if he stepped down from that position.
Charlie Rangel is Going Step Down
Reuters ^ | March 2, 2010 | Thomas Ferraro
Three Democratic leadership aides told Reuters they were unable to confirm or comment on the NBC report. A fourth indicated that no immediate announcements were planned.
NBC quoted a Democratic House member as saying the party did not have the votes to save Rangel, who has faces calls from Republicans and some Democrats to step down as chairman.
Representative Sander Levin of Michigan or Representative Pete Stark of California may temporarily take over as chairman, NBC said, citing congressional leadership sources.
NBC quoted unidentified sources as saying Rangel has been encouraged to step aside before the House votes on a Republican measure to strip him of his chairmanship, which may happen as early as Wednesday,
The Washington news outlet Politico said Rangel would keep his chairman’s gavel “for now.”
It said Rangel emerged from a closed-door meeting in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office Tuesday evening to declare he is still committee chairman.
good find on Kaufman – nice catch.
GOOD ON YA, TED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The common wisdom was that if the number hits 40, the public option will get through on sheer momentum. The list has been steadily growing (to my surprise). I must say that I didn’t think Kaufman had it in him and I am thrilled he proved me wrong.
Gee, how can that be, cassandra_m? A few short weeks ago you told me that reconciliation couldn’t be used to pass HCR with a public option. Senator Kaufman must be mistaken since you know everything and I am a “heartless immoral bastard.”
I’ll believe it when I see it. I just don’t think there’s 50 votes in the Senate for a public option by reconciliation. I’d be thrilled if it happened.
I just don’t think there’s 50 votes in the Senate for a public option by reconciliation. I’d be thrilled if it happened.
This is the “Ted Kaufman” position, I believe.
Do try to contain your enthusiasm, UI.
I’m sorry if I can’t cheerlead anymore. After we got the Lieberman screw I’m refusing to write trial balloons and speculation. I’m ready for results. What I’m hoping is the Sherrod Brown will offer his bill (if PO isn’t added into reconciliation sidecar) and we can get an up or down vote and see who is really on our side. Right now, I guess I don’t see a downside for a Senator to sign the letter if they think no vote will ever come from it.
All I can say is – keep calling, keep writing letters. Even if the P.O. doesn’t get through this time, it doesn’t mean that it can’t be done later.
I think Obama is going to sign a lot of legislation that there wasn’t initially 50 votes for in the Senate. The Bernanke vote was instructive.
I’m with you, UI. I will believe it when I see it. Not enough vertebrae on the Democratic side of the Senate, if you ask me.
If you think it won’t work, you are probably right.
Is that the Tinkerbell theory I hear?
I am on the record stating that healthcare reform is dead in this Congress. I’d love to be proven wrong.
Is that the Calvinist theory I hear? that the outcome of legislation is pre-determined, and no amount of public input can change it, so why bother?
Perhaps more like Adam Smith with his invisible hand. Insurance companies have paid Tom Carper so much money, that he can’t hear my calls through the jingling of change in his pocket.
“if we can’t beat em fairly…JAM IT DOWN THEIR THROATS!!!! YAY PROGRESSIVISM…..Constitution? What…you mean that tired old document? Pfsh…we don’t need that…we’ve got….well Karl Marx!!! WE can make Marxism work here in America despite the fact that it’s failed everywhere else…No need to follow the rules in this democracy…we live in a republic?…what’s a republic again?” – Delaware liberal blogger of the moment
Here’s Evan Q-Tip head again.
You are as much of an idiot as Orrin Hatch. Hatch just ranted and raved about how he only voted in reconciliation to balance the budget when it was pointed out to him that he voted in reconciliation for the Bushie Billionaire tax cuts. D’OH! Those tax cuts weren’t paid for anywhere. They didn’t balance the budget. Those cuts represented over a trillion dollars in budget deficits over a decade. The kids are paying for the billionaire tax cuts Hatch voted for in reconciliation. Hypocrite much?
Here is Dean Baker today:
The Bush Tax Cuts Did Not Lower the Budget Deficits
The Post tells us that reconciliation: “is a procedure created in 1974 to help lawmakers advance politically difficult budget legislation, particularly measures that reduce the deficit.” It then tells us that it has been used 22 times. Two of these 22 uses were to pass President Bush’s major tax cuts.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=03&year=2010&base_name=the_bush_tax_cuts_did_not_lowe
LOL, and here I thought Mr. Founders Values had actually read the constitution or have even the most basic idea of how our legislature works!
OK, Evan, please put on your learning hat and pay attention.
The constitution grants congress the ability to pass legislation via a simple majority. That’s what reconcilliation is. It’s what Republicans used to pass Dubya’s tax cuts (for billionaires).
The filibuster does not appear in the constitution and is not protected by it. The constitution gives the Senate the right to set its own rules by simple majority. The first filibuster in Senate history occurred in 1837. Current Senate rules require a 3/5ths (60 votes) majority for cloture – to stop a filibuster.
Budget bills are governed under separate rules for reconciliation, which does not allow filibusters (limits time allotted for debate/amendment to a fixed amount). This was intended to only be used for bills that reduce the deficit (Byrd Rule – which is not a formal rule). The GOP started using reconcilliation for bills that increase the deficit in the late 90’s (tax cuts for billionaires). However, nonpartisan CBO projections indicate that the current legislation would reduce the defict, in case anyone still uses the Byrd Rule. The Presiding Officer of the senate determines what qualifies as elligible for reconcilliation, and it takes 60 votes to stop him from enacting it. That means we only need 41 votes to start reconcilliation and 51 (or 50 plus Biden) to pass the bill.
Summary: Passing a bill with a 51 vote majority is the epitome of constitutionally guaranteed fairness.
So, I counter your parody of a liberal blogger with my parody of a conservative blogger.
“If we can’t beat em fairly… TYPE IN ALL CAPS!!! YAY CONSERVATISM… Constitution? I haven’t read it, but I’m sure it probably supports me, and if it doesn’t… we’ve got… well Ayn Rand!!! WE can make Randian economics work here in America despite the fact that’s failed repeatedly here in America and everywhere else… No need to pay attention to facts… truth is whatever Fox News tells us it is! What is Fox News telling me the truth is again?”
I love it! Conservatives are trying to sell the filibuster as in the Constitution.
Nancy points out that reconciliation has been used 22 times – 16 times by Republican majorities.
The LOL-worthy talking point today is that reconciliation was used for bills supported by “overwhelming majority.” Obviously not a supermajority of 60, that’s why reconciliation was used in the first place.
Apparently, A1 is a dumbass heaertless bastard.
The entire HCR with or without a public option is not being passed via reconciliation. Just the fixes to the Senate bill are — narrowly drawn as I told you it needed to be. If the Public Option can come up with 51 votes — which I strongly doubt — it’s in.
The whole health care reform couldn’t be passed through reconciliation – it’s narrowly targeted to budget-related items. Most of the regulations would be gone if the whole bill was passed through reconciliation. The best I can tell there’s a whole school of thought that the only thing important in health care reform was the presence of a public option and without it, the whole bill should be defeated.
I’d like to point out that the strategy being pursued right now is “pass it/fix it.”
As usual, cassandra_m has to make stuff up after she insisted with all the fury of a harpy that the public option could not be passed using reconciliation. Wrong then and still wrong.
If the Bush Tax cuts got through reconcilation with Cheney casting the 51st vote, why can’t the public option? First off, Obama gave away the store to appear bipartisan, his first huge mistake. Second big mistake was not giving the PNHP doctors and nurses a seat at the table to prove how cost effective single payer would have been. (Blame ole Rahm on that one). Rahm and Axelod did the deal with Big Pharma to make sure we couldnt get drugs cheaper through Canada, Axelrods PR firm got a cool $28 million on that little deal. If the democrats have any leadership ability at all, the least they can do is provide for a public option that is the only card left to keep the insurance companies honest, and give working americans a place to buy cheaper insurance.
You gotta love ole Chris Dodd. On his way out the door, proposing the Consumer Financial Protection Agency go into the Federal Reserve! The same Fed Reserve that failed to regulate the financial industry. Failed to crack down on irresponsible and reckless behavior of Wall Street. Failed to close the loopholes that allow secret and risky shadow market deals where big banks enjoy the winnings while gambling with our money. Problem is the lobbyists whether insurance or banking are the only voices these Senators appear to care about.
If you really cared about health care reform you would be putting pressure on the Del. Democratic Party, to put pressure on Markell and Cook to get SB 120 out of Cookes drawer. We can fix our own health care problems right here in Delaware, to hell with whatever the Senate or Congress comes up with. Course we would have to deal again with David MCBride who left the Senate to become a lobbyist while Christiana Care was scamming, and never opened his mouth.
A1 – You were right all along… The bill should be killed and we should start all over. Good work.
Out of curiosity, JK, is the Fed responsible for regulating investment houses like Goldman-Sachs and Lehmann Brothers? How about insurance companies like AIG?
I know it’s fun to pick on the Fed for failures, but a good hunk of the issues appear to fall under the jurisdiction of other authorities.
Yes, LG, the bill should be killed if there is no public option passed with it. Here, I am just pointing out that cassandra_m kept insisting that the Senate couldn’t pass a public option via reconciliation, and that I was wrong for insisting that it could.
Actually, the only person making shit up is A1 — who tried to argue that the entire HCR could get passed via reconciliation and got all huffy when it was pointed out that reconciliation would require a much more targeted set of legislation than the complete HCR.
Now that they are looking to only FIX the Senate bill via reconciliation (not pass the entire thing), A1 has to pretend that he wasn’t always on the wrong side of this argument.
Poor cassandra_m. Making stuff up again. If you read the thread that you linked to you’ll see that I wrote “Dems could get the public option and other controversial parts through by using reconciliation. They could get the non-controversial parts through without it, if they needed to.
Reconciliation was just one piece puzzle that the Dems could use to pass real HCR, which includes the public option.
Sorry — you can try to rewrite your pretty plain position there (which was to pass the bill via reconciliation — hence your note that that could get the controversial plus the non controversial parts through), but you would still be a dumbass and a liar.
You were dead bang wrong on this — and the fact that this Congress has decided that reconciliation to make *fixes* only to the Senate bill.
IIRC, A1 wanted to kill the HRC bill and then do a new one through reconcilliation. Wasn’t this at the root of the debate? I don’t think A1 was saying pass the bill and then add fixes. And if I remember this correctly then this reconcilliation debate is very different from the last ones.
You were dead bang wrong on this
So were the people who were telling the House to STFU and just pass the Senate bill as is (does that include yourself and other DL’er? I’m not bothering to check just now). Without the House progressives, and people like A1, we wouldn’t have gotten to the sidecar strategy, and we’d be stuck with the unadorned Senate bill (or maybe nothing at all). We’d have even less than we are getting now.
A1 had nothing to do with the “sidecar strategy”. He didn’t know enough about reconciliation to even know that the entirety of the HCR couldn’t be passed via reconciliation anyway.
And what are you getting now? You are getting two strategies — the so-called sidecar to get the Public Option passed via reconciliation (an effort I still do not see getting 51 votes) and a strategy to get an HCR passed with some compromises or fixes.
So you don’t have one single thing yet, and won’t until votes start to happen.
And Pandora is right — A1 was in the Kill the Bill faction, looking for the Congress to produce a unicorn via reconciliation.
Cassandra_m, you’re still wrong. Anyone can read what I wrote. Pandora is right. I wasn’t saying pass the bill and then add fixes. I was saying cut the legislation into pieces and use reconciliation to pass parts of them (like the PO). But I wasn’t dismissing outright using reconciliation like you were.
And the House hasn’t agreed to the “pass the senate bill first” strategy yet, and if there is no public option, I hope that they don’t. So, speaking of “dead bang wrong,” your statement that “this Congress has decided that reconciliation to make *fixes* only to the Senate bill” is exactly that.
I’m sorry but the debate was kill the bill & start over and the position here was pass it/fix it. I definitely wanted the Democrats in Congress to stop whining.
It’s interesting because a lot of the “kill the bill” faction is now pretending they were “fix it/pass” it all along.
And, huh?
So, speaking of “dead bang wrong,” your statement that “this Congress has decided that reconciliation to make *fixes* only to the Senate bill” is exactly that.
That’s exactly the plan as I understand it right now. What is the strategy as you understand it?
As far as the public option goes, there’s a renewed push to try to get a P.O. through reconciliation by either putting it in the reconciliation sidecar bill or with a separate amendment.
I was a pass and fix gal, too. I never said just pass the bill and then do nothing else.
I am still in the “Kill the Bill” faction.
A1, you continue to be an idiot over this, but this site is filled with your writing about killing the bill and how wrong Dems were for not passing all of this via reconciliation. You were never about splitting up this bill — just killing it so you could get your unicorn bill.
To be here representing otherwise just continues to add to your reputation as a liar and insults everyone here who has actually read what you wrote. A thing that apparently you can’t claim. And again, showing up to lie about what other people’s positions are still shows that you’ve no intention of giving what anyone else writes here a good faith read — as long as you need to do your superior unicorn thing.
It may be the current strategy that some are pushing, but was just pointing out that passing the Senate bill “as is” in the House is far from a done deal.
Cassandra_m, you lost my good faith when you called me a “heartless immoral bastard” for advocating the same position as Howard Dean. I was pretty clear in what I wrote: “Dems could get the public option and other controversial parts through by using reconciliation. They could get the non-controversial parts through without it, if they needed to.”
Really, I am not sure what parts of that you’re having difficulty understanding.
It is about losing anyone’s good faith — you aren’t in the business of extending any. As long as you are Searching for Your Unicorn.
Which lets you pretend that:
Dems could get the public option and other controversial parts through by using reconciliation. + They could get the non-controversial parts through without it, if they needed to.” ≠ Passing the HCR.
So if that is working for you stick with it. Those two pieces that could get passed by reconciliation are the whole bill. But keep working on trying to pretend otherwise.
The only “kill the bill” people who matter are the House progressives who refused to vote for the Senate bill unless the sidecar agreements were made. Those are the heroes who refused to capitulate to the terms dictated by the Blue Dogs. When some wimpy Democrats gave up, the House kept demanding we squeeze more R into HCR.
I’m not sure exactly what will be in the sidecar, but I am sure that if it can’t get 60 votes in the Senate, it must be something really good 🙂
I’m not going to name names because I honestly don’t remember which of you were demanding that the House capitulate and pass the straight Senate bill, and mocking those who suggested otherwise. But you know who you are.
“≠ Passing the HCR.” You see, that’s your opinion, it is not a fact. But don’t expect anybody to read what you write “in good faith” as long as you keep ridiculing other liberals who disagree with your opinions by calling them liars and other nonsense.
I do recall A1 being challenged over and over again “What is your plan to pass the public option” and he wore his fingers out typing long lists of plans and strategies.
But then when he asked YOU guys: “What is your plan to ‘fix it later’?” ….. *crickets*
Good thing Pelosi had a plan.
That’s not exactly accurate, anon. I believe the question was… If we kill the bill then explain how, with this Congress, we start over and get a public option/better bill?
I also think several people made the point about building off the momentum of passing a bill, claiming a victory, and then pushing onward. Now, you can disagree with that statement, but it wasn’t *crickets* (And when I have more time I plan on re-reading those health care threads.)
Where is our TOMMY BOY on this i sent him an e-mail a week ago still no response
Truth Teller: Carpetbagger Tom is having lunch with Lincoln, Stupak and the boys from C Street. If you call his office as I did again today, they will tell you “the Senator has’nt decided”. Perhaps he is wondering if the insurance company lobbyists will demand all their cash back?
Hey Geek. Re the Fed? What OTHER authorities?
I think Carper has decided now. He is on the air today crowing about his tort reform victory. That is probably what he was holding out for.
Carper has said previously he backs reconciliation for the sidecar bill. What he hasn’t signed on for is the public option through reconciliation.
xstryker – Not only have I read the Constitution AND the writings of the founders many…many times…your analysis of a 50+1 vote stands in direct contrast to any form of reality. If a 50+1 plurality was so much the founders idea of good government…why did they insist on so many colonies agreeing to declare independence from England?
You may have noticed that the Declaration of Independence says, “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” To NOT have the consent of 49 of 100 U.S. Senators who represent nearly half of the American people is not living by the laws of good government, nor is it living by the values by which our federal government was created.
Thomas Jefferson said: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.” The founders knew that democracy was unsustainable. Thomas Jefferson said: “Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” The founders knew that a DEMOCRACY on it’s face would be unsustainable and they therefore established a republic to prevent rule by a simple majority, not to promote it.
It’s often confused in our vernacular and rarely corrected.
America is not a democracy. We are a republic. By definition, a republic is a political unit governed by a charter (like our Constitution), while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority. The difference between a republic and a democracy lies in the ultimate source of official power. In the case of a republic, it lies with a charter. In America, our charter is the United States Constitution which limites and defines the power of our federal government. Each state is of itself a “little republic” because each of our states also has a “charter document” that limits the state government. In a democracy, power lies with the rule of the majority and is typically not checked by a founding document. Consider the words to the United States’ Pledge of Allegiance, “And to the republic for which its stands, one nation under God, indivisible …” which has no mention of democracy.
Our founders deliberately decided that a pure democracy would lead to failure. They looked at the Roman democracy which was a “representative democracy” that relied upon a majority’s whim to control the direction of the country, the liberties the people would hold, etc. Instead, they created a founding charter that specifically enumerated the powers the federal government was to have and limiting them only to THOSE powers. It reserved all other powers to the states or the people to decide for themselves. That may be where people confuse America with a democracy. The founders intended the people to be allowed to retain the MAXIMUM number of rights given to them by God while still allowing the federal government to govern and ensure national defense.
Below is a quote from Joseph Story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Story):
“Another not unimportant consideration is, that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse, and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”
a 50+1 plurality
Normal people call this a “majority.”
So Evan can read the minds of long-dead people. He’s the Founders Whisperer. I’d like to remind you the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution and neither is a quote by Jefferson. Please show us where it is stated in the Constitution that bills must pass by a 3/5 majority.
So, Delaware conservatives don’t believe in democracy?
Thomas Jefferson said: “Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Pretty f’ing ironic thing for a plantation owner to say, isn’t it?
Oh, and Evan: If you read everything with a closed mind, it’s the same as not reading it at all.
It’s called reading Unstable…you read the founders writings…learn their intents…things you should be doing before you try to argue what they might have thought…like you do with Karl Marx…
The Constitution can only be interpreted the way it was intended to be interpreted if you actually READ and know who the founders WERE. The meaning of the words may change but the idea of them does not. Take it from Joseph Story:
“The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution.”
“So, Delaware conservatives don’t believe in democracy?” – Unstable Isoptope ……Not the ones who read and agree with the founders writings…JEFFERSON didn’t believe in a democracy…again this is why we have a say it with me progressives…(phonetically spelled for you) RE PUB LICK…Republic
suomynona – Why don’t you read SOMETHING other than the US magazine at the grocery store…go pick up “The Real Thomas Jefferson” and then let’s discuss it ok?
Bold Progressives just sent out a memo to call Carper again. They instructed us how to present the question to get a direct answer. When I asked the Aide whether or not Senator Carper will be signing onto the Bennett letter..she quickly said, “SENATOR CARPER WILL NOT BE SIGNING ON”. I said, may I ask why, Senator Kaufman has. She said, “Senator Carper is not Senator Kaufman. Senator Carper believes the bill is flawed and he will not support the Senate or the House bill. So there you have it. The Blue Dog Carpetbagging corporate whore will vote against health care. Time to find someone to run against this clueless democrat in name only.
Carper already voted for the Senate bill!
Jefferson was also asked about meaning of the constitution. He did not mince words but plainly spoke of its meaning not being twisted by those who would seek to either undermine its original meaning or invent that its clearly defined statements meant something they did not. Once more, Jefferson in his own words:
“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”
She said, “Senator Carper is not Senator Kaufman. Senator Carper believes the bill is flawed and he will not support the Senate or the House bill. So there you have it. The Blue Dog Carpetbagging corporate whore will vote against health care. Time to find someone to run against this clueless democrat in name only.
I’m going to go down to his office and kiss that aide on the mouth 😀
Dude, aren’t you someone who aspires to office? Starting the sexual harrassment early?
Here is a window on where Mr. Carper can be expected to be when the time comes to ‘fix’ HCR: a DKos diary talking about NC candidate Cal Cunningham.
“We’re already seeing some ideological differences in the North Carolina Dem primary field, as SoS Elaine Marshall and ex-state Sen. Cal Cunningham seek to differentiate themselves. Marshall says she’d support the public option, while Cunningham says he’d only have voted to start debate on HCR.
Here are some of the highlights:
Fundraiser thrown by anti-Health Care activits
Kelly Bingel, Jonathon Jones, and Ken Mehlman’s brother threw Cunningham a fundraiser last month. Bingel is Blanche Lincoln’s former COS while Jones worls for the DLC and Third Way. Mehlman makes his money from anti-HCR<AHIP, PhARMA, etc… Sounds like a health care champion, right?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/4/842962/-NC-SEN:-Dont-be-fooledCal-Cunningham-is-the-next-Blanche-Lincoln!-
~~~~~~~~~~~
Cassandra wrote a post about said Jonathon Jones –Carper’s former Chief of Staff– who soon attached himself to a GOPer-owned K Street outfit. Still doing his dirty work I see.
Evan: you might get arrested! Please do go down and count the lobbyists with their checkbooks at the ready.
JK – sorry that I didn’t see the thread earlier… Doesn’t the SEC, the FTC and the Treasury bear some responsibility for this current debacle? It seems to me that the Fed has oversight of just one of the many broken-down cogs in the system.
Center for Public Integrity reports: There are 8 lobbyists for every Senator. 1750 corporations, 270 hospitals, 105 insurance companies, chamber of commerce, 47, AMA 33! $3.47 billion spent on lobbyists. Lobbyists were effective in blocking the public option!
This truly is “taxation without representation”!
Geek: Go the “The Nation” and read the story there. There are several other places where the issue is being discussed. What is needed and what Obama promised was an: independent agency in Treasury with its own budget and its own director. The Fed has had the authority with rules and regulations prior to the financial collapse and never used them. They cant be trusted. More than fox in henhouse.
The Fed has regulatory control of banks, not investment houses or insurance companies.
I assume that you are talking about the Greider article here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090803/greider/single
I like William Greider (I have read most of his stuff in Rolling Stone) but I have I haven’t read his book on the Fed, which many of his suppositions assume I have. He makes leaps of faith, albeit informed leaps, that I am not ready to make.
The Fed certainly isn’t clean in this economic mess, but there is enough blame to go around, including the institution that Greider suggests should wield the power of the Fed, Congress.
The Fed has regulatory control of banks, not investment houses or insurance companies.
Technically perhaps, but the Fed is now lending to investment houses, so when somebody has that much of your money you get a say in how they run things.
In reality there has always been coordination between the Fed and the investment houses. There is de facto regulation of the very clubby kind.
Actually the Greider book has a great accounting of the investment syndicates organized by Morgan and the Fed during the early 20th century.
“Howard Dean: Health bill hangs Dem incumbents and Obama out to dry in elections”
Howard Dean says kill the bill. He must be another heartless immoral bastard like me, eh, cassandra_m?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/84969-howard-dean-health-bill-hangs-dem-incumbents-and-obama-out-to-dry-in-elections
And here you are, still a liar and done in by your own link.
Howard Dean does not say kill the bill. He says it should offer something people can have now, like a Medicare buy-in. The Medicare buy-in which has had no votes and no one knows what kind of votes it would get. This article specifically says “correct the bill”. There are no instances in the English language where the word “correct” = “kill”.
Howard Dean notes that the *reason* why he says this hangs Dems out to dry is because there is little there that people will see a benefit for until 2014. And it will be much harder — in the face of the noise machine — to defend/explain something that does not exist yet. Dean may have a point here, but the remarkably dishonest A1 can’t be bothered to do anything other than cherry pick what he wants to believe.
I encourage everyone to read the link that this liar has posted here. It quite contradicts his idiotic claims for anyone with basic reading comprehension.
In cassandra_m’s world, this is Howard Dean saying that the bill should be passed:
“Dean, who has clashed publicly with the White House over the healthcare proposals favored by the administration, said that by passing the bills under consideration, Democrats would essentially be conceding defeat to Republicans.”
and
“Dean, a physician by training who’s a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), said that Democrats in Congress — and President Barack Obama — would do themselves more harm than good by passing the current healthcare bill. ”
In cassandra_m’s world, Howard Dean wants to concede defeat to the republicans and that is why he is encouraging the Democrats to pass the bills under consideration. So in your “up is down” world, I can see why you think the truth is a lie.
You can rewrite the English language all you want here and cherry-pick all you want here, but Dean is not saying in this interview to Kill the Bill. You are desperate for somebody to validate your need for unicorns here and think that Howard just did it. Howard walked back that Kill the Bill stuff some time back. But like our resident wingnuts hanging on to their denial of climate change, here you are completely impervious to fact.
You are a liar and a fool.
Yep, keep calling me a liar and a fool, but where does he say that the bills under consideration should be passed? Where?
What he says is that “Democrats in Congress — and President Barack Obama — would do themselves more harm than good by passing the current healthcare bill. ”
You can read that as an endorsement in whatever convoluted way that you want, but it is pretty clear to anybody who isn’t an Emperor Obomba worshipper that he is saying kill the bill.
This doesn’t exactly sound like Kill the Bill:
But it is clear from that article that Howard will call me on Friday to tell me what Saturday’s winning Powerball numbers will be.
And you are still a liar and a fool.
Of course, no where in your linked article does he say anything about passing the bill as it currently stands, but don’t let that stop you from admiring your emperor Obomba’s new clothes and telling everyone how lovely they are.
*sigh*
A1, do you have any idea how much you sound like Bush/Cheney? You’re either with us or against us, Good and evil, etc. You are right and everyone else is wrong – actually more than wrong, a traitor to progressive causes. You make debate/discussion impossible, because it’s never enough to agree with you on several points. It’s all or nothing with you. It’s very disheartening… and exhausting.
Um, pandora, since it is apparently perfectly acceptable to you for your colleague cassandra_m to call people who disagree with her on the Senate HCR bill and other ongoing failures of the Obomba administration “liars,” “fools,” and “immoral heartless bastards,” singling me out for criticism to say that I sound like Bush/Cheney and that “You are right and everyone else is wrong” is pretty disingenuous.