Video: Obama at Republican House Retreat
An extraordinary moment for President Obama, as he answers questions from the Republicans lions inside their den — the GOP House retreat. This is the full 86-minute recording from the C-SPAN Video Library.
An extraordinary moment for President Obama, as he answers questions from the Republicans lions inside their den — the GOP House retreat. This is the full 86-minute recording from the C-SPAN Video Library.
1 | _RememberTonyC Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:44:10am |
maybe learning to deal with republicans will help train him to better deal with the iranians, russians, and chinese. He needs some experience in real horse trading, not permanent campaigning.
2 | Buck Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:46:24am |
"Give me any ideas you might have for health care reform"
"Give me only ideas that my advisors think will absolutely work"
3 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:48:01am |
I watched it. It's nice to have a president who doesn't hide behind his handlers and faces his critics. But the GOP is regretting the cameras, apparently:
Luke Russert Twit:
GOP aides telling me it was a mistake to allow cameras into Obama's QA with GOP members. Allowed BO to refute GOP for 1.5 hours on TV
[Link: twitter.com...]
4 | Killgore Trout Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:48:59am |
re: #2 Buck
"Give me only ideas that my advisors think will absolutely work"
Of course that's not what he said, implied or meant. This kind of dishonest bullshit from Republicans/conservatives is why there's so little constructive debate in this country.
5 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:49:05am |
re: #3 darthstar
I watched it. It's nice to have a president who doesn't hide behind his handlers and faces his critics. But the GOP is regretting the cameras, apparently:
Luke Russert Twit:
[Link: twitter.com...]
How foolish of us to let Obama document whatever was said beyond the shadow of a doubt, everyone knows facts have a liberal bias!'
6 | Killgore Trout Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:51:05am |
re: #3 darthstar
I watched it. It's nice to have a president who doesn't hide behind his handlers and faces his critics. But the GOP is regretting the cameras, apparently:
Luke Russert Twit:
[Link: twitter.com...]
Interesting. I think Obama came off pretty well from what I saw. Much of the Republican participation was pretty good and constructive. The exchange with Hensarling (video on the previous thread) was an exception.
7 | American-African Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:51:18am |
After the less than Presidential calling out of the SC at the SOTU, I appreciated the exchange that took place this afternoon. That was the person I voted for back in November. Welcome back, Sir.
8 | Page 3 in the Binder of Women Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:52:07am |
This is unprecedented in my memory. Wonderful! Negativity towards it? Speaks to predetermined bias, as usual.
9 | Buck Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:52:11am |
re: #4 Killgore Trout
Of course that's not what he said, implied or meant. This kind of dishonest bullshit from Republicans/conservatives is why there's so little constructive debate in this country.
It is exactly what he just said. I can't find the transcript yet...
10 | Taqyia2Me Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:52:26am |
He's just prepping himself for next January when he'll be dealing with Congressional ADULTS on a full-time basis.
11 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:53:25am |
re: #6 Killgore Trout
Interesting. I think Obama came off pretty well from what I saw. Much of the Republican participation was pretty good and constructive. The exchange with Hensarling (video on the previous thread) was an exception.
I saw the Hensarling video. Someone needed to be a hero for Fox news. Marsha Blackburn (ex-TeaParty speaker) tried talking down to him and lecturing him, but he responded quite gracefully to her attempt.
I'd like to see more and more of this over the next few months. In fact, President Obama should invite the GOP to a Q&A session every month on C-SPAN at least through the election.
12 | American-African Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:54:21am |
re: #9 Buck
It is exactly what he just said. I can't find the transcript yet...
What I heard was, he would need to take ideas presented to independent experts, Democratic and Republican, and ask them if this can work. What is the mechanism. Though I have not found a transcript either.
13 | RadicalModerate Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:54:34am |
I think President Obama did extremely well in what would be best described as a hostile environment. He answered the majority of the questions directly, admitted on multiple occasions that mistakes were done on his part, did very little hemming and hawing, and took a couple of questioners to task for framing their statements in a "talking points" fashion instead of asking substantive questions.
I can hardly wait to see how the Becks, Malkins, etc. try to spin this one.
14 | Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:55:01am |
I'm all for it. This is transparency where weasel words, partisanship, obstruction, and foregoing fixing things for political points will become clear.
If the two sides can't talk, work things out, and come up with solutions, then both sides have proven that they cannot govern the country due to having gone too far down the path of polarization. In which case, the whole bunch should be voted out, and hopefully a set of pragmatic moderates can be voted in.
Instead, I expect to see finger pointing about how the other side forced them into this position, or that the previous administration of the other party ruined everything first by pushing Humpty Dumpty off the wall. Which is simply the status quo that keeps us amused while nothing gets done.
15 | American-African Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:55:19am |
re: #11 darthstar
President Obama should invite the GOP to a Q&A session every month on C-SPAN at least through the election.
Oh, I think this is the last we will see of this type of thing for a while.
16 | Soap_Man Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:56:13am |
re: #1 _RememberTonyC
maybe learning to deal with republicans will help train him to better deal with the iranians, russians, and chinese. He needs some experience in real horse trading, not permanent campaigning.
I don't know. You can count me in the "disapprove" column for Obama, but these Republicans seem to be completely unwilling to negotiate under any circumstances. I understand they have major philosophical differences on many issues (HC for example) but they are also unwilling to support middle of the road, or day I say conservative, ideas (pay-as-you-go, the commission on deficit reduction, spending freeze)
If any of those three were proposed by President McCain, they would vote for them. Period.
17 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:56:19am |
re: #15 American-African
Oh, I think this is the last we will see of this type of thing for a while.
True...far better to hide from the president and then accuse him of not reaching out--"Real American Hero" style... Plays better on TV.
18 | simoom Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:57:19am |
re: #8 Stanley Sea
It had a bit of a Question Time feel to it. It will be interesting to see what happens with the next one of these.
19 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:57:27am |
re: #7 American-African
After the less than Presidential calling out of the SC at the SOTU, I appreciated the exchange that took place this afternoon. That was the person I voted for back in November. Welcome back, Sir.
It's not that this is a bad thing. It's a good thing. The man's a mediator. It's not even "a strong point" of his personality. It's really who he is.
OTOH, he has a lot to deal with in his own party. The Democrats are just about as disappointed with him (for very different reasons) as the Right is. Maybe I'm not looking at it correctly, but he should have talked to them first.
20 | American-African Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:58:34am |
re: #17 darthstar
Not just that, but this President is just too well prepared for an environment like this and from a political perspective, it does not make all parties involved look good. A round table event or something, perhaps. But no more "law professor takes questions from his students" stuff.
21 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:58:43am |
re: #15 American-African
Oh, I think this is the last we will see of this type of thing for a while.
Why, which side wouldn't want to do it again?
22 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:59:00am |
This is great dialogue between the President and Republicans. The problem is the dialogue between the Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Pelosi basically said today she is going to pass health care reform no matter what gets in her way.
23 | Diego Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:59:03am |
re: #15 American-African
re: #11 darthstar
Indeed. In fact, the House leadership [sic] will be tared and feathered for this event, just you watch. Shame too, it was an excellent exchange and we need more of them in this country.
Oh, I think this is the last we will see of this type of thing for a while.
24 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:59:36am |
re: #22 Lateralis
This is great dialogue between the President and Republicans. The problem is the dialogue between the Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Pelosi basically said today she is going to pass health care reform no matter what gets in her way.
As well she should.
25 | RogueOne Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:00:00pm |
Killgore, you may want to retract your "you're lying Mr. President". What was said was:
"I am happy to have any independent fact checker out there take a look at your presentation versus mine, in terms of the accuracy of what I just said"
The response from the republican was:
"That'd be fine, Mr. President". Not, You're lying. The sound of the C-Span video is much clearer. Scroll ahead to the 1:20 mark to catch more of the exchange.
26 | _RememberTonyC Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:00:12pm |
re: #16 Soap_Man
I don't know. You can count me in the "disapprove" column for Obama, but these Republicans seem to be completely unwilling to negotiate under any circumstances. I understand they have major philosophical differences on many issues (HC for example) but they are also unwilling to support middle of the road, or day I say conservative, ideas (pay-as-you-go, the commission on deficit reduction, spending freeze)
If any of those three were proposed by President McCain, they would vote for them. Period.
all true and i agree with you. but until he learns how to deal with "the enemy" and get them to "come around" at home, how will he do it around the world? the rest of the world wants to screw him, which is a new concept for him to grasp. He has little experience dealing with that sort of thing.
27 | Killgore Trout Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:02:01pm |
re: #12 American-African
What I heard was, he would need to take ideas presented to independent experts, Democratic and Republican, and ask them if this can work. What is the mechanism. Though I have not found a transcript either.
Yes, That's what he said.
28 | cliffster Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:02:14pm |
re: #20 American-African
Not just that, but this President is just too well prepared for an environment like this and from a political perspective, it does not make all parties involved look good. A round table event or something, perhaps. But no more "law professor takes questions from his students" stuff.
Agreed. For the country, I think it is a good thing. For the politics, it necessarily paints a picture, like you describe, of the democrats being the knowledgeable leaders and the republicans yipping at their sides.
29 | American-African Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:02:52pm |
re: #21 jamesfirecat
I honestly felt it made the GOP look less impressive. A round table or at least an event without the cameras there would be better. I did enjoy seeing the true exchange of ideas, which happened quite a bit.
30 | Buck Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:03:52pm |
re: #12 American-African
What I heard was, he would need to take ideas presented to independent experts, Democratic and Republican, and ask them if this can work. What is the mechanism. Though I have not found a transcript either.
Right, but the democrat leadership didn't take the ideas to any independent person, they just kept saying (the president included) that the republicans don't have a plan.
31 | Soap_Man Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:04:58pm |
re: #26 _RememberTonyC
all true and i agree with you. but until he learns how to deal with "the enemy" and get them to "come around" at home, how will he do it around the world? the rest of the world wants to screw him, which is a new concept for him to grasp. He has little experience dealing with that sort of thing.
I agree with you in principle, but dealing with a hostile opposition party and hostile foreign countries are two different things. When it's domestic, it's one side vs. another and that's it. When its foreign, there are a host of complexities that go along with it, like possible military force (or at least the threat of it) the opinions or possible actions of American allies and friends, and the opinion or possible actions of the other countries allies and friends, global opinion, etc. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
But yes, he is inexperienced in dealing with both. And it shows.
32 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:06:28pm |
re: #29 American-African
I honestly felt it made the GOP look less impressive. A round table or at least an event without the cameras there would be better. I did enjoy seeing the true exchange of ideas, which happened quite a bit.
Okay then, I'd be up for a round table discussion idea.
Or we could go whole hog on it and turn it into a quiz show format! Say the secret word and win Olympia Snowe's vote for cloture!
33 | abbyadams Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:07:12pm |
There is no downside to this for the American people. Live questions and answers? That's a win. Period.
And I agree, the GOP is playing the "no" card over and over again.
And I have an honest question for those who disagree with that. Explain
this voteto me.
Does this not try to reestablish "pay-as-you-go" budgeting rules that mandate that any new spending must be paid for? If it does, then why the Nay votes?
34 | lawhawk Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:08:27pm |
Funny, but this event actually made the President look more Presidential than the SOTU. Perhaps that's why the GOP was concerned that they allowed cameras in to capture the interactions?
Where was this kind of event 6 months ago or before ramming through the stimulus package? That could have gone a long way to reducing the rhetoric and negativity around the state of the economy and gotten GOPers on board with some of the proposals.
As an aside, if a member's constituents are opposed to Obama's plan - isn't it the member's obligation to vote per the constituents' wishes? That's what they were sent to Congress to do after all.
Oh, and here's some common ground for Republicans to chew on.
35 | American-African Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:08:35pm |
re: #30 Buck
Right, but the democrat(ic) leadership didn't take the ideas to any independent person, they just kept saying (the president included) that the republicans don't have a plan.
*fixed.
The President directly responded to that charge, and admitted not only that there are some good GOP ideas, some, with caveats, were included in the two bills. He did expound on that answer to include those things which after being reviewed by these experts, did not have a mechanism that would make them effective. Not quite the same thing as saying there are no good ideas from the opposition.
And I do not know that outside experts were not consulted. I will take the President at his word that they were for now.
36 | Killgore Trout Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:08:36pm |
re: #25 RogueOne
"That'd be fine, Mr. President". Not, You're lying. The sound of the C-Span video is much clearer. Scroll ahead to the 1:20 mark to catch more of the exchange.
Good catch. It's still a little unclear but I think you might be correct. I hope you are.
37 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:09:25pm |
re: #33 abbyadams
There is no downside to this for the American people. Live questions and answers? That's a win. Period.
And I agree, the GOP is playing the "no" card over and over again.
And I have an honest question for those who disagree with that. Explain
this voteto me.Does this not try to reestablish "pay-as-you-go" budgeting rules that mandate that any new spending must be paid for? If it does, then why the Nay votes?
Must we really answer that for you?? lol
You're pretty right on there, Ms. Adams.
38 | _RememberTonyC Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:09:26pm |
re: #31 Soap_Man
I agree with you in principle, but dealing with a hostile opposition party and hostile foreign countries are two different things. When it's domestic, it's one side vs. another and that's it. When its foreign, there are a host of complexities that go along with it, like possible military force (or at least the threat of it) the opinions or possible actions of American allies and friends, and the opinion or possible actions of the other countries allies and friends, global opinion, etc. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
But yes, he is inexperienced in dealing with both. And it shows.
Maybe I'm setting the bar pretty high here. What made Ronald Reagan so great domestically was the ability to get political enemies to work with him. Tip O'Neill being the prime example. And I feel one of the reasons he was great internationally was because he knew how to deal with political enemies at home. Anyway, if Obama develops that skill and comes close to Reagan he will be succesful. But he has a lot to learn.
39 | cliffster Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:10:17pm |
re: #34 lawhawk
Where was this kind of event 6 months ago or before ramming through the stimulus package? That could have gone a long way to reducing the rhetoric and negativity around the state of the economy and gotten GOPers on board with some of the proposals.
The 41st senator.. funny thing that
40 | Buck Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:11:05pm |
re: #35 American-African
*fixed.
The President directly responded to that charge, and admitted not only that there are some good GOP ideas, some, with caveats, were included in the two bills. He did expound on that answer to include those things which after being reviewed by these experts, did not have a mechanism that would make them effective. Not quite the same thing as saying there are no good ideas from the opposition.
And I do not know that outside experts were not consulted. I will take the President at his word that they were for now.
Well, if there were ideas taken from the republican side, in those closed door meeting where no republicans were allowed, then it is news to anyone who is following this. The president can say what ever he wants, but he didn't give any examples, and that would have gone a long way...
41 | lawhawk Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:11:13pm |
re: #33 abbyadams
Good questions. One possible answer is that the GOP was opposed to the debt ceiling being raised because it relates to the out of control spending that wasn't pay-go (the stimulus). Only now they're looking to do it after the horse already left the barn, and which would likely exclude the health care reform and other big ticket items that the President mentioned in his SOTU.
42 | abbyadams Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:11:51pm |
re: #37 marjoriemoon
Thanks, MM. I am a science person, not a law person. Legal speak is not my forte, so sometimes I misunderstand the meaning behind the words that get tossed around.
43 | Cog Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:12:03pm |
Props to Obama for even trying, but he has a long way to go to even approach the notion of bipartisanship.
And how does someone who won a presidential election on the fact that he was not George Bush decry divisive rhetoric? Your congressional leaders are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and the president is one of the most liberal senators in the last few years.
If this was not a one off publicity stunt, then he should pare off different groups of republican and democratic congessman and have similar meetings on specific issues. Tackle invididual components of health care reform first. Start with reigning in special interests and lobbyists.
44 | RogueOne Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:12:40pm |
re: #36 Killgore Trout
Good catch. It's still a little unclear but I think you might be correct. I hope you are.
I had to put on my headphones. My laptop speakers weren't clear enough.
45 | Page 3 in the Binder of Women Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:13:02pm |
re: #33 abbyadams
There is no downside to this for the American people. Live questions and answers? That's a win. Period.
And I agree, the GOP is playing the "no" card over and over again.
And I have an honest question for those who disagree with that. Explain
this voteto me.Does this not try to reestablish "pay-as-you-go" budgeting rules that mandate that any new spending must be paid for? If it does, then why the Nay votes?
And a party line no at that. Only Lieberman voted yea. Thanks for reposting that abbyadams.
46 | Charles Johnson Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:13:18pm |
re: #25 RogueOne
The response from the republican was:
"That'd be fine, Mr. President". Not, You're lying. The sound of the C-Span video is much clearer. Scroll ahead to the 1:20 mark to catch more of the exchange.
I think you're right. Not sure he said "that'd be fine," but it wasn't "you're lying."
47 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:13:40pm |
I am not sure which worries me more the Ds & Rs working together or not... I guess I will need to wait & see what if anything they come up with but somehow I think it will just be a version of Obama lite with a few "incentives" for the Rs to play along.
48 | Soap_Man Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:13:51pm |
re: #38 _RememberTonyC
Maybe I'm setting the bar pretty high here. What made Ronald Reagan so great domestically was the ability to get political enemies to work with him. Tip O'Neill being the prime example. And I feel one of the reasons he was great internationally was because he knew how to deal with political enemies at home. Anyway, if Obama develops that skill and comes close to Reagan he will be succesful. But he has a lot to learn.
Agreed. I still think Obama is very smart and has the potential to be a good, perhaps very good, president. But in any career, you have to go through that trail-and-error period of figuring out what works and what doesn't it real life scenarios.
To use a business analogy, he seems like the kind of person who was the top student in a very prestigious school but was immediately hired to a high-level management position (somebody like that in my company). Smart enough to do it, but missed the very important step of cutting one's teeth.
49 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:14:23pm |
re: #3 darthstar
I watched it. It's nice to have a president who doesn't hide behind his handlers and faces his critics. But the GOP is regretting the cameras, apparently:
Luke Russert Twit:
[Link: twitter.com...]
Eh. The audience (with the exception noted by others) handled themselves pretty well too. So Obama looks cool, GOP congressfolk look cool...guess who gets left out?
50 | Mad Al-Jaffee Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:14:44pm |
re: #46 Charles
I think you're right. Not sure he said "that'd be fine," but it wasn't "you're lying."
Maybe he said "I want pie," because who doesn't?
51 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:15:33pm |
re: #49 Aceofwhat?
Eh. The audience (with the exception noted by others) handled themselves pretty well too. So Obama looks cool, GOP congressfolk look cool...guess who gets left out?
He'll have a similar meeting with Democrats soon, I'm guessing. Then we'll hear the old cries of "We're being ignored!" from the right.
52 | abbyadams Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:15:48pm |
re: #41 lawhawk
Hi Lawhawk. Thanks for answering my question. How would a defeat of that measure have helped us now? Would it have capped deficit spending? I'm honestly that ignorant.
53 | webevintage Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:15:50pm |
re: #26 _RememberTonyC
all true and i agree with you. but until he learns how to deal with "the enemy" and get them to "come around" at home, how will he do it around the world? the rest of the world wants to screw him, which is a new concept for him to grasp. He has little experience dealing with that sort of thing.
sheesh....
54 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:17:43pm |
re: #46 Charles
I think you're right. Not sure he said "that'd be fine," but it wasn't "you're lying."
Just re-listened with the noise reduction headphones...sounds like "that'd be fine" to me too.
55 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:17:59pm |
re: #33 abbyadams
There is no downside to this for the American people. Live questions and answers? That's a win. Period.
And I agree, the GOP is playing the "no" card over and over again.
And I have an honest question for those who disagree with that. Explain
this voteto me.Does this not try to reestablish "pay-as-you-go" budgeting rules that mandate that any new spending must be paid for? If it does, then why the Nay votes?
Because it doesn't limit spending, it just says that you have to raise taxes every time you want more spending. It's a BS rule. I love the "no" card when it's played against more spending and more taxes.
It's hard enough getting congress to reduce spending when we CAN'T afford it...imagine trying to reduce spending if they've already enshrined it in our taxes...
56 | lawhawk Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:18:16pm |
re: #52 abbyadams
I think the GOP figured that this would be a symbolic vote against out of control spending, seeing that the Congress keeps raising the debt ceiling every few months it seems. Still, the GOP is party to this mess since they helped push out of control spending when they were still the majority party pre-2006 election.
57 | Page 3 in the Binder of Women Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:18:16pm |
re: #38 _RememberTonyC
Maybe I'm setting the bar pretty high here. What made Ronald Reagan so great domestically was the ability to get political enemies to work with him. Tip O'Neill being the prime example. And I feel one of the reasons he was great internationally was because he knew how to deal with political enemies at home. Anyway, if Obama develops that skill and comes close to Reagan he will be succesful. But he has a lot to learn.
What if it's as simple as Tip O'Neill et al wanted to work with him, and the current GOP doesn't? It takes two to tango.
58 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:18:41pm |
re: #51 darthstar
He'll have a similar meeting with Democrats soon, I'm guessing. Then we'll hear the old cries of "We're being ignored!" from the right.
Lord, i hope not. If so then i will join you in heartfelt mockery.
59 | The Sanity Inspector Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:20:06pm |
re: #6 Killgore Trout
Interesting. I think Obama came off pretty well from what I saw. Much of the Republican participation was pretty good and constructive. The exchange with Hensarling (video on the previous thread) was an exception.
I saw 30 minutes of this on Fox News while I was at lunch; did they run the whole thing? Good on 'em if they did.
60 | The Sanity Inspector Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:20:37pm |
re: #46 Charles
I think you're right. Not sure he said "that'd be fine," but it wasn't "you're lying."
+
61 | lawhawk Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:21:45pm |
re: #57 Stanley Sea
It always helps to have someone to work with from the other party on key issues such that even if you don't agree on all the issues - you can move your own agenda forward on important ones.
Looks like Obama needs to cultivate someone along these lines and move past the divisive rhetoric of his own.
62 | Baier Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:22:20pm |
re: #50 Mad Al-Jaffee
Maybe he said "I want pie," because who doesn't?
Maybe he said "Help that Mine" because there was a mime caught in an invisible box off camera.
63 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:22:23pm |
re: #59 The Sanity Inspector
I saw 30 minutes of this on Fox News while I was at lunch; did they run the whole thing? Good on 'em if they did.
Nope...Fox cut away when President Obama refused to break down and cry for mercy.
64 | Baier Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:22:39pm |
re: #62 Baier
Maybe he said "Help that Mine" because there was a mime caught in an invisible box off camera.
Mine=MIME
65 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:22:45pm |
re: #42 abbyadams
Thanks, MM. I am a science person, not a law person. Legal speak is not my forte, so sometimes I misunderstand the meaning behind the words that get tossed around.
Ahh, well sometimes my bitterness and cynicism sometimes get in the way. Not a good trait to have, probably!
Anyway, you were right when you mentioned The Party of No and I believe that all too often if it's something the Dems want, it's automatically something the Reps do not.
So while I think that this talk is a great thing, I really do, something inside me says, "Why?" Does he really feel the Reps will come to love and respect him? I could be absolutely dead wrong, but I think he should be speaking to the people who actually supported him during the ugliest campaign in history (in regard to mudslinging).
66 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:24:30pm |
re: #65 marjoriemoon
Interesting. Did you think that McCain-Obama was worse than Bush-Kerry? (I thought the latter was worse...not trying to ask open-ended questions!)
Or did you mean Hilliary-Obama?
67 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:25:04pm |
re: #50 Mad Al-Jaffee
Maybe he said "I want pie," because who doesn't?
Pie, Pie, Me oh my
Nothing tastes sweet, wet, salty and dry
all at once oh well it's pie
Apple!
Pumpkin!
Minced
an' wet bottom.
Come to your place everyday if you've got em'
Pie
Me o my
I love pie!
68 | Page 3 in the Binder of Women Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:26:04pm |
re: #61 lawhawk
It always helps to have someone to work with from the other party on key issues such that even if you don't agree on all the issues - you can move your own agenda forward on important ones.
Looks like Obama needs to cultivate someone along these lines and move past the divisive rhetoric of his own.
Which I hope may result from this little Q&A. I don't see any negatives.
69 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:26:38pm |
re: #65 marjoriemoon
Ahh, well sometimes my bitterness and cynicism sometimes get in the way. Not a good trait to have, probably!
Anyway, you were right when you mentioned The Party of No and I believe that all too often if it's something the Dems want, it's automatically something the Reps do not.
So while I think that this talk is a great thing, I really do, something inside me says, "Why?" Does he really feel the Reps will come to love and respect him? I could be absolutely dead wrong, but I think he should be speaking to the people who actually supported him during the ugliest campaign in history (in regard to mudslinging).
He is only talking to the Rs because he has to.
70 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:26:40pm |
re: #66 Aceofwhat?
Interesting. Did you think that McCain-Obama was worse than Bush-Kerry? (I thought the latter was worse...not trying to ask open-ended questions!)
Or did you mean Hilliary-Obama?
The racism that came out of the campaign against Obama was worse than anything. The whole thing was just horrifyingly ugly.
Bush Kerry was ugly? That was a pretty much hands down win for Bush. All campaigns are ugly, but this last one was a doosie.
71 | jaunte Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:26:56pm |
re: #65 marjoriemoon
The President actually spoke to that point in the talk, reminding everyone that it makes doing the people's business very difficult if it means you have to back down and deal with a political opponent after you've cast them as the devil.
72 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:28:39pm |
re: #70 marjoriemoon
The racism that came out of the campaign against Obama was worse than anything. The whole thing was just horrifyingly ugly.
Bush Kerry was ugly? That was a pretty much hands down win for Bush. All campaigns are ugly, but this last one was a doosie.
oh, i see. i thought you were talking about official advertising mudslinging. sorry, misunderstood! carry on!
73 | Mad Al-Jaffee Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:28:55pm |
re: #62 Baier
Maybe he said "Help that Mine" because there was a mime caught in an invisible box off camera.
Or someone asked him what his favorite Beatles song was, and he said "I, Me, Mine."
74 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:29:25pm |
re: #73 Mad Al-Jaffee
Or someone asked him what his favorite Beatles song was, and he said "I, Me, Mine."
"I Feel Fine"?
75 | Page 3 in the Binder of Women Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:29:43pm |
re: #71 jaunte
The President actually spoke to that point in the talk, reminding everyone that it makes doing the people's business very difficult if it means you have to back down and deal with a political opponent after you've cast them as the devil.
Obama:
"So all I'm saying is, we've gotta close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality. I'm not suggesting that we're gonna agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy or what have you.But if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me.
The fact is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable with your own base in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've told your constituents is this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's gonna destroy America."
Again, I'm hopeful that something good will come of this. Yeah, I said hope.
76 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:29:56pm |
re: #71 jaunte
The President actually spoke to that point in the talk, reminding everyone that it makes doing the people's business very difficult if it means you have to back down and deal with a political opponent after you've cast them as the devil.
I'll listen to it when I get home. I had a lovely lunch today and it was on the TV in the restaurant, but I couldn't pay attention to that either. What I said above was my gut reaction when I heard he was going to do this.
77 | windsagio Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:29:58pm |
re: #68 Stanley Sea
heh the negative is that the (R)s won't let it happen again, at least not where anyone can see it ;)
78 | abbyadams Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:30:01pm |
re: #65 marjoriemoon
Eh, I'm still Ms. HopenChangy. I thought this was a brilliant thing to do.
I think he's trying. I think it used to be that people from one party could at least understand that the other party governed in good faith, even while they disagreed (however vehemently.) It's just not that way, now. The thing is, I think we're screwed if we don't get that good faith back, and I respect Obama enormously for trying. I hope a precedent was set today.
79 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:31:22pm |
re: #68 Stanley Sea
Which I hope may result from this little Q&A. I don't see any negatives.
Whichever Republican(s) has/have the strength to reach out to President Obama and seriously work with him will be safe for reelection, and will benefit greatly from the effort. Don't expect it to be Boehner, Cantor, Bachmann, etc. or McConnell on the Senate side.
Orrin Hatch could do it, or Chuck Lugar. They would have the best shot at crossing the aisle and having people respect it.
McCain's damaged goods now, as he's gone teabagger to do battle against JD Hayworth (isn't he the It's my money and I want it now! guy?) And all of McCain's rhetoric from 2008 about working across the aisle was quickly abandoned once he realized he wasn't going to win the presidency.
80 | abbyadams Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:32:09pm |
re: #69 brookly red
I disagree. There's more Ds than Rs right now. For all the talk of everything getting shoved down everyone's throats, that's not happening, and the partisan liberals are more than pissed that it's not. He doesn't haveto talk to anyone.
82 | simoom Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:32:39pm |
ROFL! FNC tweet:
foxnewspolitics: The I's Have It: Obama Uses 'I' 43 Times in Baltimore
http://fxn.ws/96AAGH
Their link goes to the transcript of Obama's introduction, which of course is prefaced with the possessive pronoun count. And then there's this:
FoxNews.com is tracking the president's speeches all this month and will report back after each to see whether The "I's" Have It.
Look out folks, journalists at work...
83 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:33:21pm |
re: #80 abbyadams
I disagree. There's more Ds than Rs right now. For all the talk of everything getting shoved down everyone's throats, that's not happening, and the partisan liberals are more than pissed that it's not. He doesn't haveto talk to anyone.
That's because the Democrats lack the balls to use their majority.
85 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:34:44pm |
re: #82 simoom
ROFL! FNC tweet:
Look out folks, journalists at work...
Knowing Fox, they'll count the 'i's in all the words the President uses. God help him if he says Mississippi more than three times...that'll totally screw up the count.
86 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:35:15pm |
re: #80 abbyadams
I disagree. There's more Ds than Rs right now. For all the talk of everything getting shoved down everyone's throats, that's not happening, and the partisan liberals are more than pissed that it's not. He doesn't haveto talk to anyone.
I would say that is exactly why he needs to, but it is after all only my opinion.
87 | Baier Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:35:48pm |
re: #83 darthstar
That's because the Democrats lack the balls to use their majority.
Exactly. The Democrats had a full year with a filibuster proof majority that unexpectedly lasted only 1 year. The only people that the Democrats should be blaming right now for partisanship is themselves. They just didn't realize they'd have to be extending their hand so soon.
88 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:36:27pm |
89 | cliffster Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:36:31pm |
90 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:37:14pm |
re: #87 Baier
Well remember that "fillibuster proof majority" included a guy who actively campaigned against the President, so I'm sure he was quick to get on board with all of President Obama's plans.
Not to say the Democrats aren't spineless wimps but we're spineless wimps who have backstabbing 'friends' as well.
91 | Baier Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:37:27pm |
92 | Mad Al-Jaffee Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:38:07pm |
93 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:38:37pm |
94 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:38:45pm |
95 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:39:05pm |
re: #83 darthstar
That's because the Democrats lack the balls to use their majority.
They need brass balls.
96 | Baier Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:39:17pm |
re: #90 jamesfirecat
Well remember that "fillibuster proof majority" included a guy who actively campaigned against the President, so I'm sure he was quick to get on board with all of President Obama's plans.
Not to say the Democrats aren't spineless wimps but we're spineless wimps who have backstabbing 'friends' as well.
Cry me a river. The democrats could have gotten much more done if they'd courted Republican support from the beginning. I'm not saying the republicans are blameless, be the Democrats really put their backs against the wall.
97 | drcordell Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:39:45pm |
re: #87 Baier
The only people that the Democrats should be blaming right now for partisanship is themselves. They just didn't realize they'd have to be extending their hand so soon.
I guess that means you haven't been paying attention for the last year. Remember when Obama cut the stimulus by roughly a third and added large tax cuts in an effort to lure GOP votes, and received none? What about when the HCR bill was basically gutted in an attempt to woo GOP votes, none of which materialized?
The Dem's problem was precisely that they didn't just abuse their majority. They actually attempted to govern in a manner that assumed the Republicans were bargaining in good faith. Which they clearly were not.
98 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:40:50pm |
re: #97 drcordell
Or the HCR bill could just be a big, hot, sweaty, nasty bad idea.
99 | The Sanity Inspector Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:41:05pm |
Sidebar: Among the most beautiful musical instruments ever made is the Gretsch White Falcon electric guitar:
100 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:41:32pm |
re: #98 Aceofwhat?
Or the HCR bill could just be a big, hot, sweaty, nasty bad idea.
and it done smell too good either...
101 | webevintage Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:41:41pm |
FoxNews.com is tracking the president's speeches all this month and will report back after each to see whether The "I's" Have It.
Really, just WTF is up with this whole "ZOMG!!!111!!! He used "I" 45 times" crap?
How does one give a speech about what they are doing AS PRESIDENT or what they will do or want to do or how they want to work with the other damn party without the use of "I"?
Really, it is the stupid shit that pisses me off the most, that and Rudi lying.
It makes one think that they really have nothing fair and balanced to use for their "news" programs.
102 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:42:10pm |
re: #78 abbyadams
Eh, I'm still Ms. HopenChangy. I thought this was a brilliant thing to do.
I think he's trying. I think it used to be that people from one party could at least understand that the other party governed in good faith, even while they disagreed (however vehemently.) It's just not that way, now. The thing is, I think we're screwed if we don't get that good faith back, and I respect Obama enormously for trying. I hope a precedent was set today.
That would be terrific. I really shouldn't be so pessimistic.
Certain things nag at me, like Joe Wilson yelling in the middle of his speech "You lie." Is that outrageous or what? I mean, was that ever done before to any president? Yes, it's one man, but it really shows a breakdown of respecting the office, if you don't like the man. Maybe it's a commentary on our society too. No respect, I tell's ya.
Do kids refer to their friends' parents as Mr. and Mrs. Smith or just Bob and Jane? I know one little girl who call me Mrs. Moon out of all my friends, maybe a dozen kids. Is this good or bad?
103 | keloyd Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:42:11pm |
Tort reform? any mention at all?
Any lizards with the time, patience, and bandwidth - please let me know if this one achilles heel of the Democrats was addressed properly, or at all?
My bandwidth right now is a little better than what a few of my ancestors could manage with smoke signals.
104 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:42:51pm |
re: #97 drcordell
They actually attempted to govern in a manner that assumed the Republicans were bargaining in good faith. Which they clearly were not.
It was Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football over and over again. And it was painful to watch. I'm glad they lost the 60th seat because it means 1) they don't have to kiss Lieberman's ass anymore, and 2) they can still reach out for bipartisan support, but have reconciliation as a backup and now will consider it an option if need be, rather than capitulating until the bill at hand is worthless, as that'll just bite them in the ass. The GOP will allow cloture, and then they'll vote "No." because the legislation will suck.
105 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:42:53pm |
re: #99 The Sanity Inspector
Nice. I have a Gretsch 6-string acoustic. Best action and feel for an acoustic under $1k, I swear.
106 | The Sanity Inspector Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:42:56pm |
108 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:43:37pm |
re: #101 webevintage
FoxNews.com is tracking the president's speeches all this month and will report back after each to see whether The "I's" Have It.
Really, just WTF is up with this whole "ZOMG!!!111!!! He used "I" 45 times" crap?
How does one give a speech about what they are doing AS PRESIDENT or what they will do or want to do or how they want to work with the other damn party without the use of "I"?
Really, it is the stupid shit that pisses me off the most, that and Rudi lying.It makes one think that they really have nothing fair and balanced to use for their "news" programs.
perhaps if he said "we" more often?
109 | Baier Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:43:38pm |
re: #97 drcordell
I guess that means you haven't been paying attention for the last year. Remember when Obama cut the stimulus by roughly a third and added large tax cuts in an effort to lure GOP votes, and received none? What about when the HCR bill was basically gutted in an attempt to woo GOP votes, none of which materialized?
The Dem's problem was precisely that they didn't just abuse their majority. They actually attempted to govern in a manner that assumed the Republicans were bargaining in good faith. Which they clearly were not.
I guess you haven't been paying attention as closely as I've been paying attention the past year because the Republicans didn't just oppose 1/3 of the stimulous, they opposed the entire stimulus. And the HCR was not gutted to please the GOP it was gutted to please the Blue Dogs.
110 | Page 3 in the Binder of Women Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:44:47pm |
re: #108 brookly red
perhaps if he said "we" more often?
Then they would accuse him of acting like royalty.
111 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:45:27pm |
re: #110 Stanley Sea
Then they would accuse him of acting like royalty.
now that's just funny stuff right there-
112 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:45:28pm |
113 | Lateralis Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:45:59pm |
114 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:46:07pm |
re: #110 Stanley Sea
Then they would accuse him of acting like royalty.
yes, that was the reference...
115 | The Sanity Inspector Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:47:02pm |
re: #102 marjoriemoon
That would be terrific. I really shouldn't be so pessimistic.
Certain things nag at me, like Joe Wilson yelling in the middle of his speech "You lie." Is that outrageous or what? I mean, was that ever done before to any president? Yes, it's one man, but it really shows a breakdown of respecting the office, if you don't like the man. Maybe it's a commentary on our society too. No respect, I tell's ya.
Yes, the Dems--a whole clump of 'em--booed Bush during one of his SOTU speeches.
116 | webevintage Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:47:36pm |
re: #103 keloyd
Tort reform? any mention at all?
Any lizards with the time, patience, and bandwidth - please let me know if this one achilles heel of the Democrats was addressed properly, or at all?
Not that Tort Reform has been found to make a dif in states that have done it, but here ya go:
"I mean, to be fair, the status quo is working for the insurance industry, but it's not working for the American people. It's not working for our federal budget.
It needs to change. This is a big problem and all of us are called on to solve it.
And that's why from the start I sought out and supported ideas from the Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I'd be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn't get a lot of nibbles.
Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions; that wasn't my idea, it was Senator McCain's. And I supported it and it got incorporated into our approach.
Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers -- that's an idea that some of you, I suspect, included in this better solutions. That's an idea that was incorporated into our package. I support it, provided that we do it hand-in-hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people.
A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents' insurance until they are 25 or 26. I supported that. That's part of our package."
117 | Page 3 in the Binder of Women Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:47:43pm |
118 | cliffster Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:47:46pm |
119 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:47:53pm |
re: #101 webevintage
FoxNews.com is tracking the president's speeches all this month and will report back after each to see whether The "I's" Have It.
Really, just WTF is up with this whole "ZOMG!!!111!!! He used "I" 45 times" crap?
How does one give a speech about what they are doing AS PRESIDENT or what they will do or want to do or how they want to work with the other damn party without the use of "I"?
Really, it is the stupid shit that pisses me off the most, that and Rudi lying.It makes one think that they really have nothing fair and balanced to use for their "news" programs.
Maybe Fox would be happy if Obama started using the royal "we" instead?
120 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:48:05pm |
121 | RogueOne Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:48:23pm |
re: #46 Charles
I think you're right. Not sure he said "that'd be fine," but it wasn't "you're lying."
Just so you know, I'm printing that comment out and thinking about putting it in a nice fram.
122 | webevintage Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:48:29pm |
re: #108 brookly red
perhaps if he said "we" more often?
has anyone taken the time to do WE counts?
and no matter, it is still stupid, silly, petty and a waste of time.
123 | simoom Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:48:39pm |
re: #101 webevintage
Really, just WTF is up with this whole "ZOMG!!!111!!! He used "I" 45 times" crap?
It's a lazy / juvenile way to dismiss the substance of the President's speeches outright and at the same time imply he's a narcissist. It seems to have replaced their old standby which was to obsess over the teleprompter, constantly suggesting that he wasn't bright enough to function without it.
124 | RogueOne Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:49:02pm |
re: #121 RogueOne
Just so you know, I'm printing that comment out and thinking about putting it in a nice fram.
That'd be "frame"
125 | The Sanity Inspector Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:49:22pm |
126 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:50:19pm |
re: #122 webevintage
has anyone taken the time to do WE counts?
and no matter, it is still stupid, silly, petty and a waste of time.
I am more concerned by how many times he says Taxes...
127 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:50:51pm |
re: #115 The Sanity Inspector
Yes, the Dems--a whole clump of 'em--booed Bush during one of his SOTU speeches.
Booing is not too way out. Yes, it's definitely rude (they Right booed the other night too), but shouting out You Lie? That's gotta be some kind of record.
128 | RogueOne Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:50:56pm |
I hate taking an ass chewing, especially when I have it coming. I've been dealing with an irate customer all day. He's pissed and he has a right to be. I hate that.
129 | webevintage Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:51:06pm |
re: #123 simoom
It's a lazy / juvenile way to dismiss the substance of the President's speeches outright and at the same time imply he's a narcissist. It seems to have replaced their old standby which was to obsess over the teleprompter, constantly suggesting that he wasn't bright enough to function without it.
Yeah, just today you could see what kind of BS the old teleprompter meme was...unless Rham was behind the curtain whispering the answers to the President.
130 | Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:51:47pm |
re: #109 Baier
I guess you haven't been paying attention as closely as I've been paying attention the past year because the Republicans didn't just oppose 1/3 of the stimulous, they opposed the entire stimulus. And the HCR was not gutted to please the GOP it was gutted to please the Blue Dogs.
Agree in part and disagree in part The Republicans proposed a ~400 billion and change stimulus package, The Democrats wanted 1 Trillion plus, and things ended up at 787 Billion, and still no Republican votes.
You're pretty on target with HCR, The senate Democrats gutted and mangled HCR until it was unpalatable to the more liberal members of the house, so now there's a bill out there that no one likes and; as much as I don't like to say it, Health Care isn't going to fix itself.
131 | Baier Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:51:59pm |
re: #97 drcordell
The Dem's problem was precisely that they didn't just abuse their majority. They actually attempted to govern in a manner that assumed the Republicans were bargaining in good faith. Which they clearly were not.
Just to add, to your second point, the democrats did not in fact try to govern in good faith, they thought they'd win Mass. and didn't realize they'd run out of time.
I'm not defending the Republicans, I think they've acted like idiots, (and you can read many of my post here on LFG sying so) but to say the Democrats were at all more innocent or well intentioned is just ridiculous.
132 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:52:20pm |
re: #116 webevintage
Not that Tort Reform has been found to make a dif in states that have done it, but here ya go:
"I mean, to be fair, the status quo is working for the insurance industry, but it's not working for the American people. It's not working for our federal budget.
It needs to change. This is a big problem and all of us are called on to solve it.
And that's why from the start I sought out and supported ideas from the Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I'd be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn't get a lot of nibbles.
Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions; that wasn't my idea, it was Senator McCain's. And I supported it and it got incorporated into our approach.
Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers -- that's an idea that some of you, I suspect, included in this better solutions. That's an idea that was incorporated into our package. I support it, provided that we do it hand-in-hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people.
A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents' insurance until they are 25 or 26. I supported that. That's part of our package."
Wait, Obama supports selling insurance over state lines??
133 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:52:57pm |
re: #127 marjoriemoon
Booing is not too way out. Yes, it's definitely rude (they Right booed the other night too), but shouting out You Lie? That's gotta be some kind of record.
just wait till they start flipping birds...
134 | The Sanity Inspector Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:53:08pm |
re: #128 RogueOne
I hate taking an ass chewing, especially when I have it coming. I've been dealing with an irate customer all day. He's pissed and he has a right to be. I hate that.
Injustice is relatively easy to bear; it is justice that hurts.
-- H.L. Mencken
135 | _RememberTonyC Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:53:27pm |
re: #57 Stanley Sea
What if it's as simple as Tip O'Neill et al wanted to work with him, and the current GOP doesn't? It takes two to tango.
if he makes excuses every time he doesn't get his way, he is destined to fail. he needs to "man up" and make them WANT to work with him. And the way to do it is to have good ideas and also be smart enough to be talked out of his bad ideas when warranted.
136 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:54:06pm |
re: #133 brookly red
just wait till they start flipping birds...
heheheeh I have this vision of some very animated Italian person, kinda like when Kramer tried to pay the calzone guy in pennies LOL
137 | RogueOne Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:54:07pm |
re: #54 darthstar
Just re-listened with the noise reduction headphones...sounds like "that'd be fine" to me too.
It was a contentious exchange but they both seemed to be trying to be civil. Probably because the cameras were on.
138 | MandyManners Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:54:11pm |
139 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:54:58pm |
re: #116 webevintage
Not that Tort Reform has been found to make a dif in states that have done it, but here ya go:
"I mean, to be fair, the status quo is working for the insurance industry, but it's not working for the American people. It's not working for our federal budget.
It needs to change. This is a big problem and all of us are called on to solve it.
And that's why from the start I sought out and supported ideas from the Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I'd be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn't get a lot of nibbles.
Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions; that wasn't my idea, it was Senator McCain's. And I supported it and it got incorporated into our approach.
Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers -- that's an idea that some of you, I suspect, included in this better solutions. That's an idea that was incorporated into our package. I support it, provided that we do it hand-in-hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people.
A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents' insurance until they are 25 or 26. I supported that. That's part of our package."
I'm so confused. Who is saying this??
140 | abbyadams Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:54:59pm |
re: #102 marjoriemoon
I have two little ones, and it depends. Some of my friends want to be called by their first names - so I tell them they have to say a "Mr." or "Ms." in front of that (Ms. Marjorie.)
I think that Wilson's breakdown does reflect society, sadly. And a lack of respect for the office. That's just an extension of the blogs, though, IMHO, and the lack of civility that goes on sometimes - we get used to being confrontational, and it transfers to real life.
141 | _RememberTonyC Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:55:17pm |
off to work ... see you tonight around 2am ET
142 | Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:55:45pm |
143 | webevintage Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:56:01pm |
re: #139 marjoriemoon
I'm so confused. Who is saying this??
That is from the transcript of the Q&A time today, President's comments.
144 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:56:06pm |
re: #136 marjoriemoon
heheheeh I have this vision of some very animated Italian person, kinda like when Kramer tried to pay the calzone guy in pennies LOL
Ooooooh, I want a clazone... yes. a nice hot, fat calzone with spinach.
145 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:56:22pm |
re: #116 webevintage
The power of tort reform is not, as many think, a measurable reduction in health care costs. Rather, it stops the flight of providers out of your area so that you can actually get proper care.
Here's an excerpt of an article on the subject...note that it doesn't deal with costs, but rather absence of health care.
146 | webevintage Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:56:33pm |
Sorry, here is the whole thing transcribed:
[Link: projects.washingtonpost.com...]
147 | cliffster Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:56:46pm |
re: #132 marjoriemoon
Wait, Obama supports selling insurance over state lines??
It's not a part of any dialog he's having, as far as I know. The "tort reform" you've bolded is a different thing from that.
148 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:57:05pm |
149 | SixDegrees Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:57:11pm |
re: #56 lawhawk
I think the GOP figured that this would be a symbolic vote against out of control spending, seeing that the Congress keeps raising the debt ceiling every few months it seems. Still, the GOP is party to this mess since they helped push out of control spending when they were still the majority party pre-2006 election.
True. But the current deficits, and those projected over the next decade or so, dwarf even the worst deficits of the past by several times. One look at the rapidly escalating national debt shows that currently proposed budgets are completely unsustainable, and that the day of reckoning is fast approaching - not just within our children's lifetime, but within ours, as debt exceeds GDP in as little as 9 more years, with the deficit growing at an unprecedented rate.
150 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:57:17pm |
re: #135 _RememberTonyC
if he makes excuses every time he doesn't get his way, he is destined to fail. he needs to "man up" and make them WANT to work with him. And the way to do it is to have good ideas and also be smart enough to be talked out of his bad ideas when warranted.
He has to "make" the Republicans represent their constituencies? Were they running for office for the sole purpose of opposing the president? That doesn't sound like a very good campaign platform to me. "Elect me, and I will do absolutely NOTHING to help you, and you can take that to the bank homeless shelter."
151 | drcordell Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:57:27pm |
re: #142 oaktree
re: #97 drcordell
Why not just realize that we're commonly being played by a special interest beholden oligarchy that simply has two public faces?
Oh I agree 110% with you there. But at least the Democrats seem slightly more willing to throw the peasants a few scraps every now and again to keep them placated.
152 | drcordell Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:58:08pm |
re: #148 brookly red
what exactly is a "special interest" anyway?
Special interests = multinational corporations
153 | darthstar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:58:53pm |
Well, it's almost 1:00pm. Time for Wolf Blitzer to report on the "tough questions" President Obama took from Republicans...though I don't expect him to play the President's responses. Blitzer's such a tool.
154 | Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:59:05pm |
re: #148 brookly red
Varies, but a generalization for the various PAC and lobbyist groups who make most of the campaign contributions. Insurance industry, defense contractors, unions, etc.
Bit of a broad brush there... Hmm.
155 | abbyadams Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:59:17pm |
re: #123 simoom
And ignoring that Reagan was a master of the teleprompter. One of the first to use it, and, heck, he should have been. It's okay!
156 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:59:26pm |
re: #152 drcordell
Special interests = multinational corporations
Oh, so not like Planned Parenthood or anything like that? OK I get it.
157 | Blueheron Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:00:02pm |
re: #7 American-African
After the less than Presidential calling out of the SC at the SOTU, I appreciated the exchange that took place this afternoon. That was the person I voted for back in November. Welcome back, Sir.
Yep he finally showed up didn't he?
158 | Cineaste Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:00:11pm |
I feel like it's fair to state that out of control spending is not a party issue, it's a power issue.
The party in power spends profligately. It was true under the Democrats and true under the Republicans. Ironically, based on pure facts, spending increases more slowly under democratic regimes over the last 20 years than democratic ones.
159 | Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:00:28pm |
160 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:01:29pm |
re: #152 drcordell
Special interests = multinational corporations
so a 10billion dollar national corporation is good and a 100million dollar corporation with branches in other countries is evil?
right, got it.
9_9
161 | webevintage Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:01:50pm |
I'm thinking that what the President means when he is saying he likes the idea of "across state lines" is the exchanges.
162 | Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:03:54pm |
re: #160 Aceofwhat?
What if we just started calling them "Multicultural Corporations"?
163 | Blueheron Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:04:24pm |
re: #19 marjoriemoon
It's not that this is a bad thing. It's a good thing. The man's a mediator. It's not even "a strong point" of his personality. It's really who he is.
OTOH, he has a lot to deal with in his own party. The Democrats are just about as disappointed with him (for very different reasons) as the Right is. Maybe I'm not looking at it correctly, but he should have talked to them first.
Don't you think he has?
164 | Aye Pod Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:04:25pm |
re: #110 Stanley Sea
Then they would accuse him of acting like royalty.
what an ego...who cares...didn't you see the way he was standing...that supposed to be a president?...what a joke...you dems all take yourselves too seriously...real people ain't impressed...
;-)
165 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:05:02pm |
re: #160 Aceofwhat?
so a 10billion dollar national corporation is good and a 100million dollar corporation with branches in other countries is evil?
right, got it.
9_9
I kinda thought that any group of citizens who pool resources for common cause is a special interest group... yeah some people really hate that.
166 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:05:12pm |
re: #162 Slumbering Behemoth
Either that or TEH EVIL. Both have their appeal!
167 | SixDegrees Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:05:15pm |
Pork shoulder on sale at $1.25 per pound. That, some apples, cider, onions and selected spices are going to make an awesome braise tomorrow.
I should buy another one and freeze it.
168 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:05:20pm |
re: #147 cliffster
It's not a part of any dialog he's having, as far as I know. The "tort reform" you've bolded is a different thing from that.
Oh sorry, I didn't bold that. I think it was pre-bolded heh
I had no idea he supported buying ins across state lines. It's a horrible idea. Good lord, it's the only freakin idea the Reps came up with!! This is my problem with him.
I also have a problem with tort reform. Let's say you have a man who's making $300,000 a year, a wife, 2 kids, lives in Atlanta. Not a bad salary. Doesn't put him in the millionaire category, but upper middle class, yes? Pretty big city, not LA or NY.
He's killed because of negligence, say a defective car... the wheels fall off, he crashes, dies instantly. What should his wife get paid? She is not skilled, but now has to take care of herself and two kids. Should she be forced into the poor house because some moron didn't give a care to make a safe vehicle?
I worked for a med mal firm at one time and almost this exact scenario happened, btw.
169 | The Sanity Inspector Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:05:30pm |
re: #145 Aceofwhat?
The power of tort reform is not, as many think, a measurable reduction in health care costs. Rather, it stops the flight of providers out of your area so that you can actually get proper care.
Here's an excerpt of an article on the subject...note that it doesn't deal with costs, but rather absence of health care.
I read a book recently about a man who got laid off and spent time working at several menial jobs for a while. One of them was an emergency room technician, doing scut work in the hospital like mopping up blood & such. He tagged along after the ER doc, and noticed what happened whenever a pregnant patient would come in. The patient would receive every conceivable test, even though they probably weren't necessary. It was because the doctor had seen the pregnant patient and breathed the same air. That meant that, to a lawyer, the doctor was now on the hook for anything going wrong from that time to the delivery of a health baby. So, the unnecessary added costs to healthcare.
170 | SixDegrees Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:05:40pm |
re: #165 brookly red
I kinda thought that any group of citizens who pool resources for common cause is a special interest group... yeah some people really hate that.
Like unions, for instance.
171 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:06:22pm |
re: #165 brookly red
I kinda thought that any group of citizens who pool resources for common cause is a special interest group... yeah some people really hate that.
I know...as if they have a right to petition their government. Capitalist pigs, the lot of them-
172 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:06:52pm |
re: #161 webevintage
I'm thinking that what the President means when he is saying he likes the idea of "across state lines" is the exchanges.
YUUCKKK. He could just say "I like the exchange" and tell them why they are dead wrong (in his nice mediating way that he does, not like a screaming banshee like me).
173 | Blueheron Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:07:05pm |
re: #22 Lateralis
This is great dialogue between the President and Republicans. The problem is the dialogue between the Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Pelosi basically said today she is going to pass health care reform no matter what gets in her way.
Yep someone should have a talk with her.
Or maybe they have talked and we are being treated to good cop/bad cop. I hope not.
174 | RogueOne Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:07:11pm |
re: #108 brookly red
perhaps if he said "we" more often?
I learned that in my anger mgmt classes. Instead of saying "YOU have an f'ing problem!" I now say "WE have an f'ing problem". Doesn't seem to work much better.
It's almost 4:20 here. Time to go home.
175 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:07:16pm |
176 | The Sanity Inspector Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:07:22pm |
re: #148 brookly red
what exactly is a "special interest" anyway?
My cause is a public interest group.
Your cause is a special interest group.
The other guy's cause is insider lobbying.
177 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:07:27pm |
re: #149 SixDegrees
True. But the current deficits, and those projected over the next decade or so, dwarf even the worst deficits of the past by several times. One look at the rapidly escalating national debt shows that currently proposed budgets are completely unsustainable, and that the day of reckoning is fast approaching - not just within our children's lifetime, but within ours, as debt exceeds GDP in as little as 9 more years, with the deficit growing at an unprecedented rate.
If I remeber a study my brother once saw our national debt goes up whenever we're in a war and goes down when we're not. The problem is that we never got around to fully paying of the national debt from WW2, and its been increased by every war since.
So maybe once we get out of Iraq and Afganistan (a million dollars a solider talk about out of control government spending) then hopefully we'll have a better shot at decreasing the national debt.
All we are saying.... is give peace a chance....
178 | American-African Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:07:44pm |
re: #138 MandyManners
In bed.
I haven't been here very long, but I get the distinct impression you are often being naughty...
179 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:08:28pm |
re: #155 abbyadams
And ignoring that Reagan was a master of the teleprompter. One of the first to use it, and, heck, he should have been. It's okay!
Well a teleprompter is a lot like those cue cards they have for actors when they forget their lines, right? Makes sense Regan would figure out how to use one pretty quick...
180 | Kragar Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:08:36pm |
Ah, joy of joys. I get to work late until an undisclosed hour to help cover the other team's fuck up. Just got back from stocking up on my snack run.
181 | brookly red Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:09:06pm |
re: #174 RogueOne
I learned that in my anger mgmt classes. Instead of saying "YOU have an f'ing problem!" I now say "WE have an f'ing problem". Doesn't seem to work much better.
It's almost 4:20 here. Time to go home.
no, no... it's WE have a failure to communicate.
182 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:09:13pm |
re: #179 jamesfirecat
Well a teleprompter is a lot like those cue cards they have for actors when they forget their lines, right? Makes sense Regan would figure out how to use one pretty quick...
And the above is in no way intended as an Alzheimer's joke!
183 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:09:24pm |
re: #168 marjoriemoon
That would suck...it would absolutely suck. But are you saying that his life is worth more than someone else's if the doctor's mistake (trying to bring it back to malpractice) killed them instead?
184 | abbyadams Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:10:34pm |
re: #182 jamesfirecat
Neither was mine. Mine was just a reference to his acting skills. The whole teleprompter thing is just a non-issue. Next!
185 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:11:16pm |
re: #169 The Sanity Inspector
I read a book recently about a man who got laid off and spent time working at several menial jobs for a while. One of them was an emergency room technician, doing scut work in the hospital like mopping up blood & such. He tagged along after the ER doc, and noticed what happened whenever a pregnant patient would come in. The patient would receive every conceivable test, even though they probably weren't necessary. It was because the doctor had seen the pregnant patient and breathed the same air. That meant that, to a lawyer, the doctor was now on the hook for anything going wrong from that time to the delivery of a health baby. So, the unnecessary added costs to healthcare.
I don't doubt for a minute that there are costs to be reduced through tort reform. But I'd expect cost reduction to be a minor effect, and care availability to be the major effect (the cost reductions haven't been all that measurable yet in states with tort reform, although these things can take time to shake out).
186 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:12:04pm |
re: #178 American-African
I haven't been here very long, but I get the distinct impression you are often being naughty...
in bed!!
187 | keloyd Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:12:31pm |
On the subject of multinational corporations = evil, I'm calling shenanigans on that. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, he has a chapter on how the big oil companies compare to government-owned Big Oil (like Mexico) of similar size, niche, and total capital, especially in New Guinea, where one would guess you can get away with cutting corners. It turns out the big corporations are much better behaved environmentally than government-run counterparts. The big companies who can get beaten about the head and shoulders with bad publicity are the best behaved. Corporations are never good or evil, they just react to their incentives.
Same goes for segregation in the US 50+ years ago. They were a force for giving the people what they wanted, good or ill.
188 | recusancy Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:12:32pm |
re: #15 American-African
Oh, I think this is the last we will see of this type of thing for a while.
It's going to happen monthly. He said it in his SOTU address.
189 | cliffster Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:13:22pm |
re: #168 marjoriemoon
Oh sorry, I didn't bold that. I think it was pre-bolded heh
Oops, my mistake
I had no idea he supported buying ins across state lines. It's a horrible idea.
I'm interested in hearing why you feel this way?
I also have a problem with tort reform. Let's say you have a man who's making $300,000 a year, a wife, 2 kids, lives in Atlanta. Not a bad salary. Doesn't put him in the millionaire category, but upper middle class, yes? Pretty big city, not LA or NY.
He's killed because of negligence, say a defective car... the wheels fall off, he crashes, dies instantly. What should his wife get paid? She is not skilled, but now has to take care of herself and two kids. Should she be forced into the poor house because some moron didn't give a care to make a safe vehicle?
I worked for a med mal firm at one time and almost this exact scenario happened, btw.
Well, in your example, that is not related to health care reform. It's not referring to all tort, just medical malpractice. Additionally, it's tort reform, not tort elimination. Obviously, there are many cases where there is negligence, and a civil lawsuit with pain/suffering/continuing-expense awards are appropriate. Spelling out what separates good suits from bad ones is what makes reform a challenge.
190 | Blueheron Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:13:24pm |
re: #47 brookly red
I am not sure which worries me more the Ds & Rs working together or not... I guess I will need to wait & see what if anything they come up with but somehow I think it will just be a version of Obama lite with a few "incentives" for the Rs to play along.
It would be great if everyone could tone it down. We have had too much rancor in this country to suit me.
192 | Mr. Hammer Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:14:19pm |
re: #78 abbyadams
I think it used to be that people from one party could at least understand that the other party governed in good faith, even while they disagreed (however vehemently.) It's just not that way, now. The thing is, I think we're screwed if we don't get that good faith back, and I respect Obama enormously for trying. I hope a precedent was set today.
I used to believe this too, then I read about Jefferson and Madison's shennanigans during Washington's second term. GW was most vexed about it all. He wrote in his Farewell Address:
"Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.... This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind....
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.... " and so on.
I don't think there ever were any good old days.
193 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:14:47pm |
re: #183 Aceofwhat?
That would suck...it would absolutely suck. But are you saying that his life is worth more than someone else's if the doctor's mistake (trying to bring it back to malpractice) killed them instead?
Yes, it's the same. Wrongful death specifically, someone kills you through negligence. If he (or she) is the head of the household, how much should a cap be?
194 | American-African Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:15:09pm |
re: #188 recusancy
I do not think they will have cameras again, though.
195 | SixDegrees Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:16:20pm |
re: #177 jamesfirecat
If I remeber a study my brother once saw our national debt goes up whenever we're in a war and goes down when we're not. The problem is that we never got around to fully paying of the national debt from WW2, and its been increased by every war since.
So maybe once we get out of Iraq and Afganistan (a million dollars a solider talk about out of control government spending) then hopefully we'll have a better shot at decreasing the national debt.
All we are saying... is give peace a chance...
Unfortunately, that's not what's driving the problem at the moment. According to the CBO, it's the projected costs of the Administration's proposed entitlements - particularly health care - that will drive the annual deficit to levels three to five times it's current peak every single year for the next decade. That, and what is rapidly morphing into the Never Ending Stimulus, pouring trillions of borrowed dollars - money from the future - into the present-day economy, creating jobs and entire industries that cannot support themselves except by continuing government largesse.
Most people look at these projections, and when they come to, they proceed through life terrified. And rightly so.
196 | simoom Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:16:26pm |
The C-Span video seems to be getting totally hammered, so here's an alternate source if anyone needs it:
197 | recusancy Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:16:57pm |
re: #59 The Sanity Inspector
I saw 30 minutes of this on Fox News while I was at lunch; did they run the whole thing? Good on 'em if they did.
Nope. They cut it off after it became obvious that Obama was handling the questions well and making the GOP look bad. It didn't mesh with their world view.
198 | simoom Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:18:44pm |
re: #197 recusancy
They switched to Rep Pete King instead. I guess they thought he made for more interesting television than what was going on at the retreat...
199 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:19:43pm |
re: #189 cliffster
Well, in your example, that is not related to health care reform. It's not referring to all tort, just medical malpractice. Additionally, it's tort reform, not tort elimination. Obviously, there are many cases where there is negligence, and a civil lawsuit with pain/suffering/continuing-expense awards are appropriate. Spelling out what separates good suits from bad ones is what makes reform a challenge.
Ahhh ok, now I get Ace hehe. I didn't realize it was only related to medical tort reform. Well, that doesn't thrill me either. There's mistakes and there's mistakes.
Ok, another example, a doctor operates on the wrong body part, now you can't walk. What should be the compensation? Now, that's possibly different than say a doctor not diagnosing cancer after giving you a barage of tests and not finding it. I've seen docs sued for this too.
200 | SixDegrees Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:20:09pm |
re: #187 keloyd
On the subject of multinational corporations = evil, I'm calling shenanigans on that. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, he has a chapter on how the big oil companies compare to government-owned Big Oil (like Mexico) of similar size, niche, and total capital, especially in New Guinea, where one would guess you can get away with cutting corners. It turns out the big corporations are much better behaved environmentally than government-run counterparts. The big companies who can get beaten about the head and shoulders with bad publicity are the best behaved. Corporations are never good or evil, they just react to their incentives.
Same goes for segregation in the US 50+ years ago. They were a force for giving the people what they wanted, good or ill.
Good point. And it brings to mind one of my favorite Veridian Dynamics commercials:
201 | Blueheron Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:20:16pm |
re: #192 Mr. Hammer
I used to believe this too, then I read about Jefferson and Madison's shennanigans during Washington's second term. GW was most vexed about it all. He wrote in his Farewell Address:
"Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally... This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind...
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism... " and so on.I don't think there ever were any good old days.
You are so correct.
Hamilton was a first class manipulator and caused to some degree Adams to loose his bid for the Presidency against Washington.
202 | Aceofwhat? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:21:16pm |
re: #193 marjoriemoon
Yes, it's the same. Wrongful death specifically, someone kills you through negligence. If he (or she) is the head of the household, how much should a cap be?
Good question. But i think that agreeing that some sort of cap should exist is the big step. Agreeing ON the cap is, IMHO, simpler...there are already a lot of "standard" wrongful death reimbursement standards out there. At least we agree there should be a cap!
203 | abbyadams Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:21:41pm |
re: #192 Mr. Hammer
Oh, I know that it's always been pretty nasty. Look at the power play Jefferson played on Adams. I just think that there was an underlying "I think your ideas may suck, but you care about America" feeling that existed. I'm not so sure about that anymore. I'm not a huge fan of VP Biden, but he said something last week about this being the first time any decision in the senate has taken 60 votes. There's something wrong, there.
204 | cliffster Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:21:43pm |
re: #199 marjoriemoon
Agreed, it's a sticky topic. But if there's a way to remove frivolous and unjust lawsuits, that should be pursued. It would have to be done by people smarter than me.
I also had asked about your statement that selling across state lines was a terrible idea. Why is that?
205 | Blueheron Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:23:07pm |
re: #203 abbyadams
Oh, I know that it's always been pretty nasty. Look at the power play Jefferson played on Adams. I just think that there was an underlying "I think your ideas may suck, but you care about America" feeling that existed. I'm not so sure about that anymore. I'm not a huge fan of VP Biden, but he said something last week about this being the first time any decision in the senate has taken 60 votes. There's something wrong, there.
Wasn't wrong when the Democrats were in the minority. /
206 | recusancy Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:24:42pm |
re: #204 cliffster
Agreed, it's a sticky topic. But if there's a way to remove frivolous and unjust lawsuits, that should be pursued. It would have to be done by people smarter than me.
I also had asked about your statement that selling across state lines was a terrible idea. Why is that?
Because, for one, as Obama implied today, the companies would conglomorate and eat up all the healthy people. Which would leave all the less healthy people worse off then they already are.
Also they would all move to one state and buy up the legislature ala CC companies and Deleware.
207 | abbyadams Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:26:15pm |
re: #204 cliffster
I hope you don't mind me answering why the state insurance competition can be a bad idea. I think the problem might stem from the fact that insurance companies will move to the states with the least regulation, and the coverage will be terrible.
It's a faith in the company vs. mistrust of the company issue, like trickle down economics. A real R-D disconnect.
208 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:27:04pm |
re: #195 SixDegrees
Unfortunately, that's not what's driving the problem at the moment. According to the CBO, it's the projected costs of the Administration's proposed entitlements - particularly health care - that will drive the annual deficit to levels three to five times it's current peak every single year for the next decade. That, and what is rapidly morphing into the Never Ending Stimulus, pouring trillions of borrowed dollars - money from the future - into the present-day economy, creating jobs and entire industries that cannot support themselves except by continuing government largesse.
Most people look at these projections, and when they come to, they proceed through life terrified. And rightly so.
Then what was up with all the talk I was hearing about how the CBO said that the Democrats plan would decrease the deficite by a few billion over the next decade? (Confused rather than sarcastic)
209 | SixDegrees Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:28:38pm |
re: #202 Aceofwhat?
Good question. But i think that agreeing that some sort of cap should exist is the big step. Agreeing ON the cap is, IMHO, simpler...there are already a lot of "standard" wrongful death reimbursement standards out there. At least we agree there should be a cap!
There's a potential problem with caps, too, however. Right now, lawyers go for the highest award they can dream of, but they very rarely receive it. Much, much more often, they happily accept a much, much smaller out of court settlement. And even if they wind up in court, the chances of getting anywhere near what they're asking is still awfully slim, although not zero.
With caps, you've effectively set a tangible cost on what some particular injury is worth - and absolutely everyone is going to feel entitled to receive that amount, without dickering.
The caps have to be set high enough to seem reasonable - say, $10 million plus incurred costs, a reasonable figure for a lifetime's disability. Now, everyone is going to demand - and likely receive - that amount, while as things now stand claimants will receive anything from maybe $100 million all the way down to nothing, with the vast majority receiving a few tens of thousands at best. It's entirely possible that placing caps on such things will wind up increasing overall malpractice costs.
210 | SixDegrees Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:31:43pm |
re: #208 jamesfirecat
Read through the report I linked, above, which is based on last summer's CBO projections.
The "savings" to be realized by the Democrat's health care plan only applied to the plan itself, not to the overall budget. And just a couple of weeks ago, even those savings became illusory, when the Democrats sat down with unions and agreed to let their membership keep their "Cadillac" health care plans without paying the proposed tax increase on them, completely wiping out predicted savings that were questionable to begin with.
211 | recusancy Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:32:23pm |
re: #205 Blueheron
Wasn't wrong when the Democrats were in the minority. /
The Bush tax cuts for the rich were passed in reconciliation.
Also the dems never used the filibuster as close to as much as it's being used now.
212 | cliffster Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:36:35pm |
re: #206 recusancy
re: #207 abbyadams
Thanks for your replies. immediate, unresearched response would be that these are problems that competition would solve, not cause. Either way, a lot of it is a resignation to the fact that you have to require healthy, young people to buy the insurance to make the actuarial numbers add up.
213 | Joo-LiZ Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:37:07pm |
re: #46 Charles
I think you're right. Not sure he said "that'd be fine," but it wasn't "you're lying."
I think he said "As am I"
214 | abbyadams Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:38:53pm |
re: #212 cliffster
If you do research this, and have some answers, I hope you will share them on another thread when this comes up again.
215 | Joo-LiZ Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:40:10pm |
Also just wanna say, I just finished watching the whole thing, I'm quite impressed with the way that whole thing was handled. I'm curious what something similar would have looked like at a Democrat retreat, with a Republican President.
While I still think many of Obama's policies (especially his foreign policies, which weren't mentioned) are the opposite of what they should be, I've got a different perspective on Obama the man.
216 | recusancy Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:40:44pm |
re: #212 cliffster
re: #207 abbyadams
Thanks for your replies. immediate, unresearched response would be that these are problems that competition would solve, not cause. Either way, a lot of it is a resignation to the fact that you have to require healthy, young people to buy the insurance to make the actuarial numbers add up.
Competition only exists until a few get big enough to buy out it's competitors. A true free market will always eventually lead to a monopoly.
217 | jamesfirecat Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:41:07pm |
re: #211 recusancy
The Bush tax cuts for the rich were passed in reconciliation.
Also the dems never used the filibuster as close to as much as it's being used now.
This is your local congress report and its fillibuster city down there bills are blocked end to end and I just see no end in sight! You better take the reconcilliation offramp or the executive order turnpike because otherwise you might as well be walking to healthcare town!
218 | RogueOne Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:54:42pm |
re: #192 Mr. Hammer
I don't think there ever were any good old days.
Absolutely right. I'm not sure how the meme that we were once so civilized to each other ever got started, but it's based on pure b.s.
219 | recusancy Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:00:32pm |
re: #218 RogueOne
Absolutely right. I'm not sure how the meme that we were once so civilized to each other ever got started, but it's based on pure b.s.
The Daily Show got the heart of that meme here. And George Lucas, the guest, comes on at the end of the show and makes a parallel point about how we always remember our childhood times as the good old days when things were better. He brings up the example of how old Star Wars fans think the new Star Wars films suck and visa versa for young fans.
220 | Jeff In Ohio Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:07:22pm |
re: #87 Baier
Exactly. The Democrats had a full year with a filibuster proof majority that unexpectedly lasted only 1 year. The only people that the Democrats should be blaming right now for partisanship is themselves. They just didn't realize they'd have to be extending their hand so soon.
Quick clarification: not 1 year, 4 months.
The Four-Month Supermajority
221 | Opal Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:18:26pm |
This is the Obama that won my vote in 2008. Here is a well-informed, logical president having an exchange with those who have framed his every move as a socialist plot. Bravo to Obama, and a small bravo to the Republicans who gave him the forum. I don't know whether Republicans gained much from this, but the public did.
222 | blueraven Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:19:59pm |
re: #30 Buck
Right, but the democrat leadership didn't take the ideas to any independent person, they just kept saying (the president included) that the republicans don't have a plan.
The CBO scored the republican health care plan. It did not fare well.
223 | Mr.Boots Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:41:14pm |
re: #12 American-African
What I heard was, he would need to take ideas presented to independent experts, Democratic and Republican, and ask them if this can work. What is the mechanism. Though I have not found a transcript either.
That is basically what I heard, but even if it was phrased as stated, as bluntly as stated. Certainly, Obama clearly stated that he wasn't going to accept Republican talking points or worn-out dogma without details or without examining and evaluating the details.
He doesn't have to accept their ideas without question or dissection. The Republicans are a minority who insist upon being treated as though they are the majority.
224 | Mr.Boots Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:50:36pm |
re: #30 Buck
Right, but the democrat leadership didn't take the ideas to any independent person, they just kept saying (the president included) that the republicans don't have a plan.
Maybe they didn't when they were asked for details. They sure couldn't provide them at the time. Now they have "details." Hindsight is 20-20.
225 | garhighway Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:54:08pm |
re: #209 SixDegrees
There's a potential problem with caps, too, however. Right now, lawyers go for the highest award they can dream of, but they very rarely receive it. Much, much more often, they happily accept a much, much smaller out of court settlement. And even if they wind up in court, the chances of getting anywhere near what they're asking is still awfully slim, although not zero.
With caps, you've effectively set a tangible cost on what some particular injury is worth - and absolutely everyone is going to feel entitled to receive that amount, without dickering.
The caps have to be set high enough to seem reasonable - say, $10 million plus incurred costs, a reasonable figure for a lifetime's disability. Now, everyone is going to demand - and likely receive - that amount, while as things now stand claimants will receive anything from maybe $100 million all the way down to nothing, with the vast majority receiving a few tens of thousands at best. It's entirely possible that placing caps on such things will wind up increasing overall malpractice costs.
Caps are generally only set on pain and suffering. So the plaintiff's recovery, in a state with caps, would be (at the most) ALL of their economic damages (medical bills, lost wages, etc...) plus the capped pain and suffering number. While this still leaves open the possibility that a plaintiff can try to blackboard silly large numbers by exaggerating their economic loss, that is a reasonably easy thing to control and leads to fairer outcomes.
But the existence of caps does not make the plaintiff's liability case any easier. Med mal is a field in which you need a second medical professional to testify on behalf of the plaintiff, saying that the defendant violated the standard of care, and that is not an easy thing to make happen. So in capped states, plaintiffs still lose if they have a bad case.
What you seem to have in mind is more like the 9/11 victim's fund, where you were assured a recovery I you were eligible, and in exchange for that "sure thing", you accepted an amount determined by Feinberg that was based on economic loss. No one has proposed that in health care, that I have heard of.
226 | garhighway Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:55:43pm |
re: #221 Opal
This is the Obama that won my vote in 2008. Here is a well-informed, logical president having an exchange with those who have framed his every move as a socialist plot. Bravo to Obama, and a small bravo to the Republicans who gave him the forum. I don't know whether Republicans gained much from this, but the public did.
Perhaps now we can bury once and for all the "Obama is inarticulate when he isn't reading off of a teleprompter" meme.
227 | CarryOn Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:55:52pm |
I watched this entire thing today.
It was refreshing. I applaud Obama. I just wish he had done this a year ago, but hey....a good start. I hope it wasn't just all for show. There were some good exchanges going on.
228 | oldegeezr Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:03:31pm |
re: #129 webevintage
Ah how soon we forget…?
NASA photo analyst: Bush wore a device during debate.
Now that’s funny…did anyone check Prez. Obama’s back for a wireless mic to Rham…?
229 | American-African Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:06:47pm |
Luke Russert talking with Tom Cole on MSNBC today
RUSSERT: Tom Cole — former head of the NRCC, congressman from Oklahoma — said, “He scored many points. He did really well.” Barack Obama, for an hour and a half, was able to refute every single Republican talking point used against him on the major issues of the day. In essence, it was almost like a debate where he was front and center for the majority of it. … One Republican said to me, off the record, behind closed doors: “It was a mistake that we allowed the cameras to roll like that. We should not have done that.”
230 | Girth Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:36:58pm |
re: #229 American-African
Luke Russert talking with Tom Cole on MSNBC today
RUSSERT: Tom Cole — former head of the NRCC, congressman from Oklahoma — said, “He scored many points. He did really well.” Barack Obama, for an hour and a half, was able to refute every single Republican talking point used against him on the major issues of the day. In essence, it was almost like a debate where he was front and center for the majority of it. … One Republican said to me, off the record, behind closed doors: “It was a mistake that we allowed the cameras to roll like that. We should not have done that.”
That just pisses me off. I got to watch the whole thing on CNN this afternoon, and it was fantastic. For someone to say that it was a mistake for the cameras to show a civil and honest question and answer session between members of our government is indefensible.
231 | shai_au Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:47:54pm |
Is it normal for Presidents to do this kind of thing? Get a grilling from the "opposition", I mean.
232 | CarryOn Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:51:44pm |
re: #230 Girth
That just pisses me off. I got to watch the whole thing on CNN this afternoon, and it was fantastic. For someone to say that it was a mistake for the cameras to show a civil and honest question and answer session between members of our government is indefensible.
I don't take their word for these comments anymore. "One republican said to me"....Really? Tell us their name or don't bother. I'm so sick of 'anonymous' sources.
I'd be surprised to hear that any of them were upset about cameras.
233 | CarryOn Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:52:18pm |
re: #231 shai_au
Is it normal for Presidents to do this kind of thing? Get a grilling from the "opposition", I mean.
Yes, but most of the time Presidents meet with the opp. party often. Obama has not done this. He has avoided them.
234 | shai_au Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:55:01pm |
re: #233 CarryOn
Yes, but most of the time Presidents meet with the opp. party often. Obama has not done this. He has avoided them.
Oh. Well I don't know either way about that. It was just that the "extraordinary moment" comment in the OP led me to believe that this was not the norm.
235 | elizajane Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:59:47pm |
re: #231 shai_au
It's normal in England, and huge fun: I used to stay awake at night when I lived in Amsterdam to hear the broadcast of "Today in Parliament" when it was Margaret Thatcher on Question Time. Wow, could she whop those Labour backbenchers!
Alas, not normal here.
I love the idea that it's a Mainstream Media conspiracy to show Obama standing up to the GOP for 1.5 hours. Of course that's right! They never showed George Bush standing up the Democrats' questions for hours on end, did they? It must have been a librul conspiracy.
236 | teleskiguy Fri, Jan 29, 2010 4:05:56pm |
I'll echo Krauthammer on this one. Things like today's exchange should be institutionalized. I was yelling out "Yeah For Our Constitutional Republic!" after viewing this!
237 | simoom Fri, Jan 29, 2010 4:51:57pm |
re: #234 shai_au
No, you had it right. As far as I know it's unprecedented for a U.S. President to do what is essentially a live, televised press conference with the opposition party as the questioners.
Sure it's not uncommon for meetings in private, or in choreographed photo-op settings, but nothing like this where the political dynamic is clearly very different.
238 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 5:25:18pm |
re: #202 Aceofwhat?
Good question. But i think that agreeing that some sort of cap should exist is the big step. Agreeing ON the cap is, IMHO, simpler...there are already a lot of "standard" wrongful death reimbursement standards out there. At least we agree there should be a cap!
Sorry, I had some trouble loading the page and I couldn't get back till now. Hope your still reading.
I don't think I was advocating a cap! Maybe I was. The cap amount that was going around last time this became any issue, like around the mid-late 90s, was $250,000 and I think that's far too low.
239 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 5:38:37pm |
re: #206 recusancy
Because, for one, as Obama implied today, the companies would conglomorate and eat up all the healthy people. Which would leave all the less healthy people worse off then they already are.
Also they would all move to one state and buy up the legislature ala CC companies and Deleware.
Another main issue, from what I've read, is that because insurance companies are regulated within the state they practice (meaning the state regulates what they must cover or are not obligated to cover), someone out of state would be denied coverages. What I've heard discussed are "benefit mandates" which are things like diabetic testing supplies, pre-natal or maternity care. It would also give incentive for insurance companies to move to these states to do business, not cover a variety of issues and yet not have to worry about getting customers. At least, that's my understanding of it.
240 | Decider Fri, Jan 29, 2010 5:53:32pm |
Could the Republicans look worse? This is like watching a Bruce Lee film with Bruce Lee taking on 100 bad guys and annihilating them all.
241 | oldegeezr Fri, Jan 29, 2010 6:08:50pm |
re: #240 Decider
It was the Harvard debating society…
There’s something to be said for the British house.
Why not?
242 | oldegeezr Fri, Jan 29, 2010 6:23:19pm |
re: #235 elizajane
God luv yah ej...!
Dubyah has degrees from both Harvard and Yale...!
Or did..?
I believe "O" only managed one from Harrrvard...?
I truly luved the spontaneous debate...!
243 | shai_au Fri, Jan 29, 2010 6:46:23pm |
re: #108 brookly red
perhaps if he said "we" more often?
"we"??!? What is he, a communist or something?
244 | oldegeezr Fri, Jan 29, 2010 6:58:25pm |
The very dynamic, temperate leadership and understanding that President Obama displayed today puts him into the history books of societal change.
Olde soldier sends…!
245 | Opal Fri, Jan 29, 2010 7:35:12pm |
re: #239 marjoriemoon
"Another main issue, from what I've read, is that because insurance companies are regulated within the state they practice (meaning the state regulates what they must cover or are not obligated to cover), someone out of state would be denied coverages. What I've heard discussed are "benefit mandates" which are things like diabetic testing supplies, pre-natal or maternity care. It would also give incentive for insurance companies to move to these states to do business, not cover a variety of issues and yet not have to worry about getting customers. At least, that's my understanding of it."
I think that was probably one main reason. When the Enzi bill, which would have opened up purchasing insurance over state lines, was defeated in 2006, there were good and valid reasons:
[Link: releases.usnewswire.com...]
In short, it was a "least common denominator" situation that would have left consumers in worse straits than if nothing was done at all.
246 | What, me worry? Fri, Jan 29, 2010 9:49:11pm |
re: #245 Opal
"Another main issue, from what I've read, is that because insurance companies are regulated within the state they practice (meaning the state regulates what they must cover or are not obligated to cover), someone out of state would be denied coverages. What I've heard discussed are "benefit mandates" which are things like diabetic testing supplies, pre-natal or maternity care. It would also give incentive for insurance companies to move to these states to do business, not cover a variety of issues and yet not have to worry about getting customers. At least, that's my understanding of it."
I think that was probably one main reason. When the Enzi bill, which would have opened up purchasing insurance over state lines, was defeated in 2006, there were good and valid reasons:
[Link: releases.usnewswire.com...]
In short, it was a "least common denominator" situation that would have left consumers in worse straits than if nothing was done at all.
Exactly. I found a lot of links, but this one from Kaiser is pretty good. It talks about pros and cons.
Ironically, the states with minimal mandates represent only about a 5% difference in the cost of the insurance. So for 5% more, you can be covered by a fully comprehensive policy. The link to the CBO study on that is there too.