44.0°F Fair [Forecast]
:: Saturday, November 21st, 2009CapeCodToday Blog Chowder
Welcome to CapeCodToday's Blog Chowder! This page aggregates the most recent postings from all the CapeCodToday bloggers for your convenience. Bookmark this page or see below left for RSS options.Latest comments
Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Starr & Chapman, Inc.
A full-service educational consulting company with over 15 yrs experience successfully placing over 1,000 students at competitive boarding schools and colleges across the United States.
A full-service educational consulting company with over 15 yrs experience successfully placing over 1,000 students at competitive boarding schools and colleges across the United States.
All Seasons Vacation Rentals - WeNeedaVacation.com
Browse 600+ Winter Rentals on the Cape and Islands. Ready to think summer? Search 3500+ summer rentals by price, availability and amenities. Locally owned and operated since 1997.
Browse 600+ Winter Rentals on the Cape and Islands. Ready to think summer? Search 3500+ summer rentals by price, availability and amenities. Locally owned and operated since 1997.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Crusader,
I'm a Capuano guy too. I like his experience.
Heck, part of why I want to understand Coakley et. al.'s opposition to the abortion amendment is to criticize them. I'm pretty sure that they're trying to extend abortion protection in a darned health care bill.
I'm a Capuano guy too. I like his experience.
Heck, part of why I want to understand Coakley et. al.'s opposition to the abortion amendment is to criticize them. I'm pretty sure that they're trying to extend abortion protection in a darned health care bill.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Crusader,
Much of what you say seems wrong or doesn't make sense:
Health care passed the house by 5 votes not 2.
If Coakley wins she'll be in the Senate: No chance for her to affect the House vote.
Hyde and Stupak are not completely redundant because, in the new health care bill, federal funds can be used to buy private insurance. Today, that's not possible so Hyde doesn't touch private insurance. There is a difference.
"Capuano voted on health care bill to include pro choice…"
Capuano voted on a bill that disallowed federal money for abortion. That's pro-life not pro-choice.
"they moved it to Senate vote without restrictions on abortions"
Except for "no federal money for abortions". That's a restriction if I ever saw one.
Much of what you say seems wrong or doesn't make sense:
Health care passed the house by 5 votes not 2.
If Coakley wins she'll be in the Senate: No chance for her to affect the House vote.
Hyde and Stupak are not completely redundant because, in the new health care bill, federal funds can be used to buy private insurance. Today, that's not possible so Hyde doesn't touch private insurance. There is a difference.
"Capuano voted on health care bill to include pro choice…"
Capuano voted on a bill that disallowed federal money for abortion. That's pro-life not pro-choice.
"they moved it to Senate vote without restrictions on abortions"
Except for "no federal money for abortions". That's a restriction if I ever saw one.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Crusader,
You're right, in large part the GOP and other opponents of health care reform is just whipping up the abortion issue for political purposes: To kill reform.
Still, I'm trying to understand the objection that the liberals have to the Stupak amendment so that I can decide who's right.
Do you understand the objection of liberals?
You're right, in large part the GOP and other opponents of health care reform is just whipping up the abortion issue for political purposes: To kill reform.
Still, I'm trying to understand the objection that the liberals have to the Stupak amendment so that I can decide who's right.
Do you understand the objection of liberals?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Bitter,
Yes the Bishops lobbied for the Stupak amendment and, yes, that could bring the church's tax exempt status into question.
But that does not change the fact that federal funds cannot be used to fund abortion today. That's the Hyde Amendment and it's been a rock solid law for years now.
So, the Bishops were arguing for something that already exists: They argued for the status quo.
EXCEPT for the fact that sticking with this long established approach now affects some private insurance.
Yes the Bishops lobbied for the Stupak amendment and, yes, that could bring the church's tax exempt status into question.
But that does not change the fact that federal funds cannot be used to fund abortion today. That's the Hyde Amendment and it's been a rock solid law for years now.
So, the Bishops were arguing for something that already exists: They argued for the status quo.
EXCEPT for the fact that sticking with this long established approach now affects some private insurance.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Bitter:
No: I'm quite sure that Stupak applies just to private insurance purchased using federal subsidy. It does not touch private insurance purchased without federal subsidy.
Crusader: You say: "It never have been included in the bill". But as soon as you decide to use private insurance for the uninsured and, if you agree that some of those people will need subsidy, you've got a problem. Covering abortion was not put into the bill per se, but allowing the uninsured to purchase private insurance introduces the problem.
IF, that is, this is the issue that Coakley et. al. are objecting to.
No: I'm quite sure that Stupak applies just to private insurance purchased using federal subsidy. It does not touch private insurance purchased without federal subsidy.
Crusader: You say: "It never have been included in the bill". But as soon as you decide to use private insurance for the uninsured and, if you agree that some of those people will need subsidy, you've got a problem. Covering abortion was not put into the bill per se, but allowing the uninsured to purchase private insurance introduces the problem.
IF, that is, this is the issue that Coakley et. al. are objecting to.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Can anybody using this blog define what the heck the abortion issue is with the health insurance bill?
What are Coakley et. al. opposed to? The amendment in question seems to maintain the status quo: No federal money for abortion. What's the beef?
I put my best guess in the 1st post in this thread. This is one of the things that makes me mad at the media: You can read a dozen articles on this issue in the papers but, while there's always plenty of room to cover the controversy (example: Coakley vs. Capuano) there's never room to actually explain what each side wants and what the disagreement actually is.
Richard, you're good at this stuff. Can you help?
What are Coakley et. al. opposed to? The amendment in question seems to maintain the status quo: No federal money for abortion. What's the beef?
I put my best guess in the 1st post in this thread. This is one of the things that makes me mad at the media: You can read a dozen articles on this issue in the papers but, while there's always plenty of room to cover the controversy (example: Coakley vs. Capuano) there's never room to actually explain what each side wants and what the disagreement actually is.
Richard, you're good at this stuff. Can you help?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Rich,
I agree that an historic health care bill is not the place to draw the abortion swords. But I have a technical question for you: What rationale do Coakley and the other pro-choice people use to justify allowing abortion in this bill?
Existing law says that federal funds cannot be used to fund abortions. For this reason, Medicaid does not cover abortion.
The Stupak amendment to the House Bill says the same thing. Doesn't it then just maintain the status quo? What are Coakley and others so upset about?
I suspect the answer is as follows: Today, the only health insurance that can employ federal funds (subsidy) is Medicaid - a government plan. There are no laws limiting private insurance covering abortion. Under health care reform, individuals would be able to use federal subsidies to buy PRIVATE insurance through the Insurance Exchange. So, this would be a limit on the purchase of private health insurance that covers abortion. That's what is new.
Even if that is the point, I'm still with you: It's OK to limit abortion coverage to get reform.
I agree that an historic health care bill is not the place to draw the abortion swords. But I have a technical question for you: What rationale do Coakley and the other pro-choice people use to justify allowing abortion in this bill?
Existing law says that federal funds cannot be used to fund abortions. For this reason, Medicaid does not cover abortion.
The Stupak amendment to the House Bill says the same thing. Doesn't it then just maintain the status quo? What are Coakley and others so upset about?
I suspect the answer is as follows: Today, the only health insurance that can employ federal funds (subsidy) is Medicaid - a government plan. There are no laws limiting private insurance covering abortion. Under health care reform, individuals would be able to use federal subsidies to buy PRIVATE insurance through the Insurance Exchange. So, this would be a limit on the purchase of private health insurance that covers abortion. That's what is new.
Even if that is the point, I'm still with you: It's OK to limit abortion coverage to get reform.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Where is Barbara Tuchman when we need her?
In response to: Where is Barbara Tuchman when we need her?
I can't think of a reason to stay in Afghanistan. There should be a cheaper way to keep a lid on al Qaeda than stationing 100,000 troops. Even if we smash al Qaeda, they'll just go somewhere else.
Finally, America can't win these low level police-action wars: We lose patience and it's impossible to win a war without public support.
Finally, America can't win these low level police-action wars: We lose patience and it's impossible to win a war without public support.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Buzz,
I complained about the stimulus from day one because it was an unfocused grab bag of Congressional pork.
Have you taken any economics? If so, you know that a downturn like this one will take years to fix. FDR didn't fix the Great Depression for years, and basically not at all (WWII did that). Does he deserve criticism? No: Some economic holes just take years to fill.
Does this mean that Obama's economic policies are necessarily top notch? No. The jury is out. But it's too early to conclude that they've failed. No matter what Obama did, this mess was going to last for years.
Re: Health Care's price tag: It will be paid for, that is, no deficit increase. Too bad Bush couldn't say that about Iraq, Afghanistan, and his tax cuts. Obama will be able to say this.
I complained about the stimulus from day one because it was an unfocused grab bag of Congressional pork.
Have you taken any economics? If so, you know that a downturn like this one will take years to fix. FDR didn't fix the Great Depression for years, and basically not at all (WWII did that). Does he deserve criticism? No: Some economic holes just take years to fill.
Does this mean that Obama's economic policies are necessarily top notch? No. The jury is out. But it's too early to conclude that they've failed. No matter what Obama did, this mess was going to last for years.
Re: Health Care's price tag: It will be paid for, that is, no deficit increase. Too bad Bush couldn't say that about Iraq, Afghanistan, and his tax cuts. Obama will be able to say this.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The tribes' claim seems unsupportable
In response to: The tribes' claim seems unsupportable
OK Neil,
I think my mistake is in looking just at the prevailing direction of a coastline. In Mashpee, that means East-West meaning that looking to see from a Mashpee beach normally means looking South. I don't know Poppanesset Beach in detail, but - since the shore is irregular - it could be oriented in such a way that the view is East - toward the sun.
Hey, it's nice to get a comment from someone who can provide something useful. That's rare.
I think my mistake is in looking just at the prevailing direction of a coastline. In Mashpee, that means East-West meaning that looking to see from a Mashpee beach normally means looking South. I don't know Poppanesset Beach in detail, but - since the shore is irregular - it could be oriented in such a way that the view is East - toward the sun.
Hey, it's nice to get a comment from someone who can provide something useful. That's rare.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The tribes' claim seems unsupportable
In response to: The tribes' claim seems unsupportable
Well Maverick,
I know that this is normally beyond you, please tell me where I'm wrong. For an example, read Ned's post.
Care to take a stab at telling me where I'm wrong? Or is that still too tough for you?
I know that this is normally beyond you, please tell me where I'm wrong. For an example, read Ned's post.
Care to take a stab at telling me where I'm wrong? Or is that still too tough for you?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Buzz,
Economic messes as bad as the one inherited by Obama from Bush take years to fix. Remember, this is the worst economic disaster since 1929.
Of course, you Obama haters will ignore this economic reality just because you hate him so much.
But anyone who knows anything about Economics will know that you're dead wrong. This was going to be a very long, painful slog in the very best of circumstances.
Having said that, I did not like the stimulus either.
Economic messes as bad as the one inherited by Obama from Bush take years to fix. Remember, this is the worst economic disaster since 1929.
Of course, you Obama haters will ignore this economic reality just because you hate him so much.
But anyone who knows anything about Economics will know that you're dead wrong. This was going to be a very long, painful slog in the very best of circumstances.
Having said that, I did not like the stimulus either.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
margebunny,
This site is all about offering opinion. When one does that, he/she is not setting himself up as "judge". J.madden offered opinion. You got a problem with that? If so, I'd say ignore this blog.
This site is all about offering opinion. When one does that, he/she is not setting himself up as "judge". J.madden offered opinion. You got a problem with that? If so, I'd say ignore this blog.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
possee,
Let's say you underpay your taxes by $750 this year and the IRS calls you on it. They'll come after you with civil steps: Penalties, interest, etc. and they'll escalate. THEORETICALLY your transgression could escalate to deserve criminal prosecution, that is, the $25,000 and 1 year jail term penalty.
Of course, the chances of that with a $750 underpayment are nil.
Now, if you want to insist that someone not paying a health insurance tax penalty will be slapped with a $25,000 fine or land in jail for a year, then have at it. Of course, the rest of us will know you're nuts.
Let's say you underpay your taxes by $750 this year and the IRS calls you on it. They'll come after you with civil steps: Penalties, interest, etc. and they'll escalate. THEORETICALLY your transgression could escalate to deserve criminal prosecution, that is, the $25,000 and 1 year jail term penalty.
Of course, the chances of that with a $750 underpayment are nil.
Now, if you want to insist that someone not paying a health insurance tax penalty will be slapped with a $25,000 fine or land in jail for a year, then have at it. Of course, the rest of us will know you're nuts.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
I don't know possee, how often I can point out your errors. My goodness.
What ABC and Obama are referring to is the tax penalty that will be levied upon people who don't get health insurance. There's debate over the size of that penalty but it's measured in the hundreds of dollars.
The penalty is very different from the $25,000 and 1 year in jail penalties that you have insisted will rain down on people who don't get health insurance. Of course, these are maximum penalties in the Internal Revenue code for use in criminal cases.
Let's make this simple:
Hundreds of dollars in tax penalties
versus
$25,000 and 1 year in jail penalties if convicted of criminal tax evasion.
See any difference there? For your sake, I sure hope so.
What ABC and Obama are referring to is the tax penalty that will be levied upon people who don't get health insurance. There's debate over the size of that penalty but it's measured in the hundreds of dollars.
The penalty is very different from the $25,000 and 1 year in jail penalties that you have insisted will rain down on people who don't get health insurance. Of course, these are maximum penalties in the Internal Revenue code for use in criminal cases.
Let's make this simple:
Hundreds of dollars in tax penalties
versus
$25,000 and 1 year in jail penalties if convicted of criminal tax evasion.
See any difference there? For your sake, I sure hope so.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
I just remembered Mav: The single piece of personal information that I've provided is my previous party affiliation. And guess who used that against me a few posts ago? One guess.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
I don't share personal information on blogs Mav. Not to mention the fact that that particular piece of information is totally irrelevant to health care.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The tribes' claim seems unsupportable
In response to: The tribes' claim seems unsupportable
Unless I've forgotten my 5th grade science, the sun rises in the east right? So, for Cape Wind to interrupt an Indian's first light ceremony he/she would have be in a place where the turbines are due east.
Well, check out this map of Cape Wind:
http://offshorewind.net/Images/CapeWind/Map.jpg
The turbines are due South of Cape Cod so I hope we don't hear any Mashpee Indians talking about 1st light.
As for the Indians on the Vineyard, it looks like they'll only have turbines due east of them if they choose to view from East Chop. A tiny part of the Vineyard shoreline has turbines due East.
This has obviously been trumped up to bring Cape Wind down with the aid of the Alliance.
Well, check out this map of Cape Wind:
http://offshorewind.net/Images/CapeWind/Map.jpg
The turbines are due South of Cape Cod so I hope we don't hear any Mashpee Indians talking about 1st light.
As for the Indians on the Vineyard, it looks like they'll only have turbines due east of them if they choose to view from East Chop. A tiny part of the Vineyard shoreline has turbines due East.
This has obviously been trumped up to bring Cape Wind down with the aid of the Alliance.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Well Maverick, maybe someday you'll have the courage to learn enough to join the conversation.
Until then.... bye, bye.
Until then.... bye, bye.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Mav,
No need to pay attention to your score keeping. By your own admission, you can't even follow the game!
But you still like to comment on things that you know nothing of don't you?
No need to pay attention to your score keeping. By your own admission, you can't even follow the game!
But you still like to comment on things that you know nothing of don't you?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
r-5,
In what way have tax payers subsidized demand for private insurance? Are you referring to the tax deductibility of the employer portion of health insurance?
If that's what you're referring to, how has has it "wrecked the operation of the market"?
If not, what are you referring to?
In what way have tax payers subsidized demand for private insurance? Are you referring to the tax deductibility of the employer portion of health insurance?
If that's what you're referring to, how has has it "wrecked the operation of the market"?
If not, what are you referring to?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Maverick,
I'm sorry that public policy issues are too tough for you. Sleep well....
I'm sorry that public policy issues are too tough for you. Sleep well....
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Buzz,
You ask: "Is the bill congress just passed similar to what you'd like to see in this country?"
No. This bill doesn't go far enough. I would like to see an approach similar to what other countries have done in their national health care systems.
Let me use a baseball analogy. In the health care game, it's the 8th inning, the bases are loaded, and we're down 3 runs. Obama's bill represents a bunt. It's not close to enough. Mainly, it doesn't do nearly enough to reduce/control costs.
But the only way to do that is to move way from for-profit private insurance. And that's not even close to being politically possible today.
I'm one of those who hope that a Public Option is created, that it performs well, that this success shows Americans that government run health care can succeed, and that it is expanded over time. We need other fundamental reforms too including the elimination of fee for service.
You ask: "Is the bill congress just passed similar to what you'd like to see in this country?"
No. This bill doesn't go far enough. I would like to see an approach similar to what other countries have done in their national health care systems.
Let me use a baseball analogy. In the health care game, it's the 8th inning, the bases are loaded, and we're down 3 runs. Obama's bill represents a bunt. It's not close to enough. Mainly, it doesn't do nearly enough to reduce/control costs.
But the only way to do that is to move way from for-profit private insurance. And that's not even close to being politically possible today.
I'm one of those who hope that a Public Option is created, that it performs well, that this success shows Americans that government run health care can succeed, and that it is expanded over time. We need other fundamental reforms too including the elimination of fee for service.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Well r-5, a personal mandate - that is a compulsion - is certainly not a national value IF we're too close minded to consider the benefit.
As I've said more than once now, a new compulsion is a reduction in freedom and not something to be desired. But in life, sometimes it's necessary to accept something that we don't like for a greater benefit. I can't say categorically that the reduction in insurance premiums that a personal mandate would generate would make the loss of freedom worth it. But it's worth considering, rather than rejecting it out of hand without consideration. That's my opinion anyway.
As I've said more than once now, a new compulsion is a reduction in freedom and not something to be desired. But in life, sometimes it's necessary to accept something that we don't like for a greater benefit. I can't say categorically that the reduction in insurance premiums that a personal mandate would generate would make the loss of freedom worth it. But it's worth considering, rather than rejecting it out of hand without consideration. That's my opinion anyway.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
r-5,
That is true. Government becomes more prevalent and market forces less prevalent.
But even that doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. In Germany, several large non-profits compete to provide insurance. In that Frontline special I keep suggesting, a representative of one of those non-profits is asked: "If you're non-profit, what's your motive to excel and to compete?". The answer was: "Well, we don't want to go away. We want to keep our jobs, get promoted, etc. We also just plain take pride in our jobs".
My other response is: Who says that market forces work in Health Care (or more accurately: Health Insurance)? It sure as heck hasn't worked here.
Having said that: I would have liked to see and debated a conservative/libertarian approach from the Bush administration. I would have had an open mind and perhaps there is a way to provide everyone with affordable insurance via the market alone.
Alas, Bush and company didn't give a hoot about health care. They had a chance to show us a market driven approach but they passed. Too bad.
That is true. Government becomes more prevalent and market forces less prevalent.
But even that doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. In Germany, several large non-profits compete to provide insurance. In that Frontline special I keep suggesting, a representative of one of those non-profits is asked: "If you're non-profit, what's your motive to excel and to compete?". The answer was: "Well, we don't want to go away. We want to keep our jobs, get promoted, etc. We also just plain take pride in our jobs".
My other response is: Who says that market forces work in Health Care (or more accurately: Health Insurance)? It sure as heck hasn't worked here.
Having said that: I would have liked to see and debated a conservative/libertarian approach from the Bush administration. I would have had an open mind and perhaps there is a way to provide everyone with affordable insurance via the market alone.
Alas, Bush and company didn't give a hoot about health care. They had a chance to show us a market driven approach but they passed. Too bad.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Buzz,
For every article trashing the Canada, I've seen one that says that its problems are exaggerated. Still, my gut feel is that Canada is far from the best of the national health care systems.
Let's assume, for now, that Canada's system stinks.
Who says that we should do health care Canada's way? There are plenty of other more successful systems to look to around the world: Germany, Switzerland, France, Japan, Hong Kong, and on and on.
Why can't we look at those systems and pick and choose what works and what is compatible with our national values?
No, Buzz, falling back on Canada's problems is pretty much of a cop out.
I keep pushing the Frontline special "Sick Around the World" available through NetFlix. There you'll really see how different approaches have worked elsewhere.
Trashing Canada is very narrow thinking and, frankly, mainly a debating tactic Buzz. You should consider other countries too.
For every article trashing the Canada, I've seen one that says that its problems are exaggerated. Still, my gut feel is that Canada is far from the best of the national health care systems.
Let's assume, for now, that Canada's system stinks.
Who says that we should do health care Canada's way? There are plenty of other more successful systems to look to around the world: Germany, Switzerland, France, Japan, Hong Kong, and on and on.
Why can't we look at those systems and pick and choose what works and what is compatible with our national values?
No, Buzz, falling back on Canada's problems is pretty much of a cop out.
I keep pushing the Frontline special "Sick Around the World" available through NetFlix. There you'll really see how different approaches have worked elsewhere.
Trashing Canada is very narrow thinking and, frankly, mainly a debating tactic Buzz. You should consider other countries too.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
r-5,
You say "full government control and regulation" but there are many possible levels of government involvement. Most are far short from "full government control" and it's very important to remember that.
In virtually all national health care systems, doctors and hospitals remain private.
In Germany, private non-profit health insurers provide insurance. In others, the government collects premiums through taxes and does the insurance.
You've really gotta see that Frontline special. It's amazing to see the approaches taken in other countries, to see how they make sense and how they're not as socialist or nationalist as you might think. And then, of course, there's how they work. MUCH better than our system.
You say "full government control and regulation" but there are many possible levels of government involvement. Most are far short from "full government control" and it's very important to remember that.
In virtually all national health care systems, doctors and hospitals remain private.
In Germany, private non-profit health insurers provide insurance. In others, the government collects premiums through taxes and does the insurance.
You've really gotta see that Frontline special. It's amazing to see the approaches taken in other countries, to see how they make sense and how they're not as socialist or nationalist as you might think. And then, of course, there's how they work. MUCH better than our system.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
r-5,
I'd still like to hear your thoughts on the personal mandate.
The biggest problem with the current bill is that it doesn't cut costs enough, primarily, costs in the private insurance market. The new restrictions on private insurance (no prior-conditions, etc.) will cause private insurers to jack premiums up even more than they have in the past.
You bemoan our path to "nationalization". How are you defining that term? Remember the Frontline special "Sick Around the World" that I recommended awhile ago? It reviews 5 national healthcare systems and the only one that is truly "nationalized" - where doctors work for the state and the state owns the hospitals - is England. In all the rest, doctors and hospitals are still private. While the 5 systems vary, the common things are: One set of reimbursement rates, health insurance is non-profit, and everyone must join.
With the exception of England, none of these systems are "nationalized", that is, state owned. Not even close.
If you're equating "nationalization" with "state owned" you should really see that special.
I'd still like to hear your thoughts on the personal mandate.
The biggest problem with the current bill is that it doesn't cut costs enough, primarily, costs in the private insurance market. The new restrictions on private insurance (no prior-conditions, etc.) will cause private insurers to jack premiums up even more than they have in the past.
You bemoan our path to "nationalization". How are you defining that term? Remember the Frontline special "Sick Around the World" that I recommended awhile ago? It reviews 5 national healthcare systems and the only one that is truly "nationalized" - where doctors work for the state and the state owns the hospitals - is England. In all the rest, doctors and hospitals are still private. While the 5 systems vary, the common things are: One set of reimbursement rates, health insurance is non-profit, and everyone must join.
With the exception of England, none of these systems are "nationalized", that is, state owned. Not even close.
If you're equating "nationalization" with "state owned" you should really see that special.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
r-5,
Let me put the question explicitly: An individual mandate will result in significantly lower health insurance premiums for everyone.
However, a mandate is a reduction in our freedom. That's seems un-American.
Question: Are lower, affordable health insurance premiums enough to justify a mandate that everyone must have health insurance and then IRS penalty and interest to anyone who doesn't? (Again, $25,000 penalties and jail time are not in the cards).
Let me put the question explicitly: An individual mandate will result in significantly lower health insurance premiums for everyone.
However, a mandate is a reduction in our freedom. That's seems un-American.
Question: Are lower, affordable health insurance premiums enough to justify a mandate that everyone must have health insurance and then IRS penalty and interest to anyone who doesn't? (Again, $25,000 penalties and jail time are not in the cards).
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Hey r-5,
I think you'd better pack up and move to some part of the world that doesn't have any government if you're so horribly opposed to everything that government does.
Let's see, what places might work? Afghanistan comes to mind. You'd have a whole lot of freedom from government action there. Of course, you wouldn't have much of anything else, including safety.
Returning to reality: It is certainly reasonable to question the reach and power of government. I agree that we should be suspicious of government. But the extreme libertarian philosophy, which involves an automatic "no" to virtually any government action, is just too extreme.
Read my last post to Buzz about the individual mandate. Reasonable people can debate if the benefits of such a mandate justify its reduction in our freedom. I think that deciding if one supports or opposes the individual mandate comes down to weighing the benefits against the cost. An extreme libertarian will say "No" automatically without weighing both sides. That's too simple.
I think you'd better pack up and move to some part of the world that doesn't have any government if you're so horribly opposed to everything that government does.
Let's see, what places might work? Afghanistan comes to mind. You'd have a whole lot of freedom from government action there. Of course, you wouldn't have much of anything else, including safety.
Returning to reality: It is certainly reasonable to question the reach and power of government. I agree that we should be suspicious of government. But the extreme libertarian philosophy, which involves an automatic "no" to virtually any government action, is just too extreme.
Read my last post to Buzz about the individual mandate. Reasonable people can debate if the benefits of such a mandate justify its reduction in our freedom. I think that deciding if one supports or opposes the individual mandate comes down to weighing the benefits against the cost. An extreme libertarian will say "No" automatically without weighing both sides. That's too simple.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Buzz,
I erred when I chose paying a mortgage as a compulsion. One makes a choice when taking on a mortgage.
Regarding the personal mandate: I didn't like this until I learned more about the health care systems of other countries that are MUCH better than ours. Then I was reminded that in any insurance system it is necessary to insure everyone.
Let's say we're talking about Life Insurance. Everyone doesn't have that. However, a Life Insurance company can't just insure the elderly and sick. That would make premiums unaffordable. So, a Life Insurer must also sell to young healthy people.
The countries with superior health ins. systems have personal mandates so that the healthy participate. This keeps premiums affordable.
Nobody likes mandates, especially in the U.S. They are restrictions on our freedom. Is it worth taking on this mandate to have affordable health insurance? It's debatable. But that's the logic behind it. And lets be serious about the penalties: The IRS will use penalties and interest not a year in prison if someone doesn't get health insurance.
I erred when I chose paying a mortgage as a compulsion. One makes a choice when taking on a mortgage.
Regarding the personal mandate: I didn't like this until I learned more about the health care systems of other countries that are MUCH better than ours. Then I was reminded that in any insurance system it is necessary to insure everyone.
Let's say we're talking about Life Insurance. Everyone doesn't have that. However, a Life Insurance company can't just insure the elderly and sick. That would make premiums unaffordable. So, a Life Insurer must also sell to young healthy people.
The countries with superior health ins. systems have personal mandates so that the healthy participate. This keeps premiums affordable.
Nobody likes mandates, especially in the U.S. They are restrictions on our freedom. Is it worth taking on this mandate to have affordable health insurance? It's debatable. But that's the logic behind it. And lets be serious about the penalties: The IRS will use penalties and interest not a year in prison if someone doesn't get health insurance.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Oh boy Buzz, I must have just made your day. You got me. Forgot to mention the mortgage thing. Good work sport!
Of course, that's just about the level of discourse that I should expect of someone who argues that not getting health insurance will cause $25K fines and a year in prison to rain down.
You really believe that don't you? Pitiful.
Of course, that's just about the level of discourse that I should expect of someone who argues that not getting health insurance will cause $25K fines and a year in prison to rain down.
You really believe that don't you? Pitiful.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
r-5, You shouldn't be so eager to denigrate compulsions. Even though they limit freedoms, they're often beneficial to society. Existing compulsions include:
One must:
- Have auto insurance to drive
- Have home insurance to own a home
- Pay income tax
Of course, any compulsion contained in law must be justified. With health insurance, making everyone have insurance is fundamental to making it affordable. In insurance, a situation where only those who are likely to need insurance get insurance is called "anti-insurance". Insuring just those people likely to need insurance means outrageous, unaffordable premiums.
All other industrialized nations have mandates where all citizens must be insured because they understand anti-insurance. Without the young and healthy, the older and unhealthy cannot afford insurance and the whole system collapses.
Now, I can see why one might think this un-american: We don't like forcing things on people.
But we've done it many times when it benefited society. Health Care affordable to all important. It may justify a personal mandate.
One must:
- Have auto insurance to drive
- Have home insurance to own a home
- Pay income tax
Of course, any compulsion contained in law must be justified. With health insurance, making everyone have insurance is fundamental to making it affordable. In insurance, a situation where only those who are likely to need insurance get insurance is called "anti-insurance". Insuring just those people likely to need insurance means outrageous, unaffordable premiums.
All other industrialized nations have mandates where all citizens must be insured because they understand anti-insurance. Without the young and healthy, the older and unhealthy cannot afford insurance and the whole system collapses.
Now, I can see why one might think this un-american: We don't like forcing things on people.
But we've done it many times when it benefited society. Health Care affordable to all important. It may justify a personal mandate.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Markey to Obama Admin: Cape Wind decision needed by Copenhagen
In response to: Markey to Obama Admin: Cape Wind decision needed by Copenhagen
Markey is really stretching it here.
First, he's smoking something if he thinks that a decision on Cape Wind will get any notice in Copenhagen.
Second, the Interior Department should do its due diligence thoroughly and in a timely fashion. This work should not be accelerated for the benefit of foreign countries.
First, he's smoking something if he thinks that a decision on Cape Wind will get any notice in Copenhagen.
Second, the Interior Department should do its due diligence thoroughly and in a timely fashion. This work should not be accelerated for the benefit of foreign countries.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Sorry Buzz,
You've still embarrassed yourself.
First, the link you provided proves your and possee's mistake: The penalties in question are not in the health care bill: They're in the internal revenue code.
OK, let's say that's splitting hairs. let's continue:
The link you sent says: "In practice, the application of criminal penalties is infrequent". In fact, the link shows that only 1,500 criminal cases were opened in all of 2008 (in a country with what, 200 million filers?).
Obviously, the horrible sounding criminal penalties that you contend will rain down on the heads of people who don't get health insurance are reserved for the very worst of offenders.
Anyone with an ounce of sense will understand that such people will not be fined $25,000 in slapped in prison for a year as your quoting of sections 7201 and 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code suggests.
Sorry Buzz. I know that you and Possee like to throw stuff on the wall against health care reform until something sticks, but it definitely didn't work in this case.
You've still embarrassed yourself.
First, the link you provided proves your and possee's mistake: The penalties in question are not in the health care bill: They're in the internal revenue code.
OK, let's say that's splitting hairs. let's continue:
The link you sent says: "In practice, the application of criminal penalties is infrequent". In fact, the link shows that only 1,500 criminal cases were opened in all of 2008 (in a country with what, 200 million filers?).
Obviously, the horrible sounding criminal penalties that you contend will rain down on the heads of people who don't get health insurance are reserved for the very worst of offenders.
Anyone with an ounce of sense will understand that such people will not be fined $25,000 in slapped in prison for a year as your quoting of sections 7201 and 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code suggests.
Sorry Buzz. I know that you and Possee like to throw stuff on the wall against health care reform until something sticks, but it definitely didn't work in this case.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Possee and Buzz,
Let me give you a bit of advice: I have HR 3962 on my hard drive and I read it whenever you guys make claims about it. So, you should actually read it before spouting off about it.
If you do, you'll see that it does not have sections 7201 or 7203. Sorry guys, the bills sections are numbered 501 to 573.
To be sure, I searched the bill for the words "misdemeanor" and "felony". The former is not in the bill and the latter appears once but not in possee's context.
Signed,
The "know all" dkfalmouth. Or should I rephrase that, the "actually reads the bills" dkfalmouth.
You guys are really embarrassing yourselves.
Let me give you a bit of advice: I have HR 3962 on my hard drive and I read it whenever you guys make claims about it. So, you should actually read it before spouting off about it.
If you do, you'll see that it does not have sections 7201 or 7203. Sorry guys, the bills sections are numbered 501 to 573.
To be sure, I searched the bill for the words "misdemeanor" and "felony". The former is not in the bill and the latter appears once but not in possee's context.
Signed,
The "know all" dkfalmouth. Or should I rephrase that, the "actually reads the bills" dkfalmouth.
You guys are really embarrassing yourselves.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
r-5,
Both parties stink. But the Dems stink the normal amount. Politics has never been a clean game. Politicians always lie and shade the truth.
That does not mean, however, that one party can't push the envelope and become truly destructive.
So, the Dems stink as have all parties ever. The Republicans, however, are breaking very new ground:
a. Do next to nothing to help the country during 8 years of dominion.
b. Turn a budget in balance to the biggest deficit in history.
c. Lord over the start of the greatest recession since 1929.
d. Engage us in one war that it didn't finish and then in another that should never have been fought at incredible price.
e. When they deservedly get kicked out of office, become the party of "NO" and do nothing other than hamstring the political process during a time of real emergency.
The Dems are no picnic. But the Republicans are the most destructive party since the southern Democrats before the Civil War.
It's wrong to paint both parties with the same brush. The GOP worse. Much worse.
Both parties stink. But the Dems stink the normal amount. Politics has never been a clean game. Politicians always lie and shade the truth.
That does not mean, however, that one party can't push the envelope and become truly destructive.
So, the Dems stink as have all parties ever. The Republicans, however, are breaking very new ground:
a. Do next to nothing to help the country during 8 years of dominion.
b. Turn a budget in balance to the biggest deficit in history.
c. Lord over the start of the greatest recession since 1929.
d. Engage us in one war that it didn't finish and then in another that should never have been fought at incredible price.
e. When they deservedly get kicked out of office, become the party of "NO" and do nothing other than hamstring the political process during a time of real emergency.
The Dems are no picnic. But the Republicans are the most destructive party since the southern Democrats before the Civil War.
It's wrong to paint both parties with the same brush. The GOP worse. Much worse.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Maverick,
Sorry, that should have gone to Possee.
Sorry, that should have gone to Possee.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Jail terms Maverick? Boy, you've gotta work REAL hard to throw that one in.
Yes, if one doesn't pay one's taxes for years upon years it's theoretically possible that one could go to jail. But nobody's gonna go to jail for not paying the health care tax penalty.
Fines and late fees? Probably. Jail terms? Only in the minds of you rabid reform opponents. Wow - that one is out there Maverick.
Yes, if one doesn't pay one's taxes for years upon years it's theoretically possible that one could go to jail. But nobody's gonna go to jail for not paying the health care tax penalty.
Fines and late fees? Probably. Jail terms? Only in the minds of you rabid reform opponents. Wow - that one is out there Maverick.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Buzz,
Can you provide a reference for that Phd. who says that Medicare is less efficient than private health insurance?
Can you provide a reference for that Phd. who says that Medicare is less efficient than private health insurance?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Weak comebacks r-5,
Cynthia McKinney? I had to look her up to see who she was. I'll take your word for the fact that she's a liberal loon. Perhaps I should have added the word "significant" to my challenge. Palin, who is absolutely loony tunes and is a superstar of the Right which hangs on her every word. Sorry, Cynthia McKinney is a very weak comeback.
Nancy Pelosi as whacko as Palin? Again, come on. I'm not going to defend Pelosi - I don't like her either. But she hardly compares to the craziest politician (Palin) that we've seen in a generation.
You dodged my question about the Pundits. Forget my supposed hate of losing a liberal monopoly on the air. Who is as wild and destructive on the left as Beck on the right?
Cynthia McKinney? I had to look her up to see who she was. I'll take your word for the fact that she's a liberal loon. Perhaps I should have added the word "significant" to my challenge. Palin, who is absolutely loony tunes and is a superstar of the Right which hangs on her every word. Sorry, Cynthia McKinney is a very weak comeback.
Nancy Pelosi as whacko as Palin? Again, come on. I'm not going to defend Pelosi - I don't like her either. But she hardly compares to the craziest politician (Palin) that we've seen in a generation.
You dodged my question about the Pundits. Forget my supposed hate of losing a liberal monopoly on the air. Who is as wild and destructive on the left as Beck on the right?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
r5,
I'd be interested to hear an example of a lie from the Left as outrageous as "Death Panels" which, by the way, Palin mentioned again over the weekend.
And who on the Left can you say, with a straight face, is as crazy as Palin?
Once you get done with that, can you name pundits on the Left who as outrageous as Limbaugh and Beck?
I was in the GOP for years. I know from long experience that the GOP leaders of old - Reagan, Gingrich - while tough political players and far from lily white when it came to truth telling were FAR short of today's demagogues. That's why I left the party: We lost the tough but sane conservatives and were left with nothing but the crazies like Palin.
I'd be interested to hear an example of a lie from the Left as outrageous as "Death Panels" which, by the way, Palin mentioned again over the weekend.
And who on the Left can you say, with a straight face, is as crazy as Palin?
Once you get done with that, can you name pundits on the Left who as outrageous as Limbaugh and Beck?
I was in the GOP for years. I know from long experience that the GOP leaders of old - Reagan, Gingrich - while tough political players and far from lily white when it came to truth telling were FAR short of today's demagogues. That's why I left the party: We lost the tough but sane conservatives and were left with nothing but the crazies like Palin.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
possee,
OK we agree on the ERISA thing. Admitting that you were wrong on that didn't kill you. It happens.
You are not talking to a typical leftie here. I was a devout Reaganite and in the GOP for about 25 years. Like you, I am very suspicious of big government.
But I think that you take your hate of government too far. Let's face it, our health care system MUST be reformed. And how will that be done without government action? It won't. So, this is an example of the world being imperfect:
You and I distrust government to do things right but only it can lead health care reform.
So what should a reasonable person do given that? Just yell and scream and help paralyze government action on health care reform? No: We should watch government's actions on health care, acknowledge what's good and criticize what's bad.
OK we agree on the ERISA thing. Admitting that you were wrong on that didn't kill you. It happens.
You are not talking to a typical leftie here. I was a devout Reaganite and in the GOP for about 25 years. Like you, I am very suspicious of big government.
But I think that you take your hate of government too far. Let's face it, our health care system MUST be reformed. And how will that be done without government action? It won't. So, this is an example of the world being imperfect:
You and I distrust government to do things right but only it can lead health care reform.
So what should a reasonable person do given that? Just yell and scream and help paralyze government action on health care reform? No: We should watch government's actions on health care, acknowledge what's good and criticize what's bad.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Come on possee,
You've got an opportunity to show us your knowledge of the health insurance debate by showing how my statement on the House Bill vis-a-vis ERISA is wrong.
Let's hear it!
You've got an opportunity to show us your knowledge of the health insurance debate by showing how my statement on the House Bill vis-a-vis ERISA is wrong.
Let's hear it!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Oh Buzz, you'll have to source that claim very specifically. Please provide a link or some scholarly study.
We've read over and over that overhead costs in Medicare are in the 3 - 4% range and that private insurance is between 20% and 30%.
Of course, those private numbers correctly include profit.
Anyway, I'd love to see a source from Dr. Book.
I'd also like you thoughts on the national health care systems of the industrialized countries whose per capita costs are MUCH lower than ours.
We've read over and over that overhead costs in Medicare are in the 3 - 4% range and that private insurance is between 20% and 30%.
Of course, those private numbers correctly include profit.
Anyway, I'd love to see a source from Dr. Book.
I'd also like you thoughts on the national health care systems of the industrialized countries whose per capita costs are MUCH lower than ours.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Bitter,
Re: a method to the GOP's madness:
Agreed as long as we limit the discussion to politics. Obviously, sound bite lies and distortions that scare the pants off of voters is the best electoral approach.
And don't get me wrong: The Democrats do the same thing. For example, during the 2nd Bush term the Dems hammered similarly on Bush and not always honestly (although by then they had PLENTY to complain about including Iraq and a budget that had gone from the Black to the most Red ink in history).
But the difference is "matter of degree". I like to use Sarah Palin as an example here: If some liberal said the liberal equivalent of "death panels" it would not get any traction. Not so on the Right: Any statement, any strategy regardless of how vile is fair game on the Right.
Heck, the pure fact that someone as nuts as Palin is a superstar in the GOP says it all.
The Dems aren't pure but - considering matter of degree - the GOP is MUCH worse and the worst that I've ever seen.
Re: a method to the GOP's madness:
Agreed as long as we limit the discussion to politics. Obviously, sound bite lies and distortions that scare the pants off of voters is the best electoral approach.
And don't get me wrong: The Democrats do the same thing. For example, during the 2nd Bush term the Dems hammered similarly on Bush and not always honestly (although by then they had PLENTY to complain about including Iraq and a budget that had gone from the Black to the most Red ink in history).
But the difference is "matter of degree". I like to use Sarah Palin as an example here: If some liberal said the liberal equivalent of "death panels" it would not get any traction. Not so on the Right: Any statement, any strategy regardless of how vile is fair game on the Right.
Heck, the pure fact that someone as nuts as Palin is a superstar in the GOP says it all.
The Dems aren't pure but - considering matter of degree - the GOP is MUCH worse and the worst that I've ever seen.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Possee,
One problem: Exact quotes that do not say what you say they do are useless.
“Nothing in paragraphs (1) or (2) shall be construed as affecting the application of section 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.”
Please tell me how this statement from me is wrong:
"Page 140 says ERISA is unaffected, that is, it maintains the status quo. There is no new protection from liability there".
Come on - no more direct quotes. Tell me how my statement is wrong.
One problem: Exact quotes that do not say what you say they do are useless.
“Nothing in paragraphs (1) or (2) shall be construed as affecting the application of section 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.”
Please tell me how this statement from me is wrong:
"Page 140 says ERISA is unaffected, that is, it maintains the status quo. There is no new protection from liability there".
Come on - no more direct quotes. Tell me how my statement is wrong.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Bitter,
Do you read the New York Times? Paul Krugman has a good editorial today that describes how the GOP has been hijacked by people like Possee who basically want to do nothing other than tear the system down.
He says reasonable people in the GOP were able to keep a lid on this faction until last year when Obama was elected and the GOP got slaughtered again in Congress. Now Rush, Hannity, Palin et. al. and their ability to leverage conservative anger have come to dominate the party.
Possee is a great example: He'll never come up with a rational answer to my question: "Where has government health insurance cost more than private insurance? " because that would require him to consider fact and experience. All he wants to do is to rant, rave and spew bile.
Simply put, the faction of the GOP that has come to dominate is not interested in improving the country. By definition, that requires government activity and that's - again by definition - not acceptable.
So, what's the answer? Sit out our hands, yell and scream, and tear it all down!
Not very constructive, huh?
Do you read the New York Times? Paul Krugman has a good editorial today that describes how the GOP has been hijacked by people like Possee who basically want to do nothing other than tear the system down.
He says reasonable people in the GOP were able to keep a lid on this faction until last year when Obama was elected and the GOP got slaughtered again in Congress. Now Rush, Hannity, Palin et. al. and their ability to leverage conservative anger have come to dominate the party.
Possee is a great example: He'll never come up with a rational answer to my question: "Where has government health insurance cost more than private insurance? " because that would require him to consider fact and experience. All he wants to do is to rant, rave and spew bile.
Simply put, the faction of the GOP that has come to dominate is not interested in improving the country. By definition, that requires government activity and that's - again by definition - not acceptable.
So, what's the answer? Sit out our hands, yell and scream, and tear it all down!
Not very constructive, huh?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Possee,
Now that you're back online, I'd like to hear a response from you on my post that showed the inconsistency of 2 or your posts:
#1: The Health Care Bill creates a new liability protection for insurers
#2: What the bill actually says is that ERISA won't change, that is, status quo.
No new protection there.
Now that you're back online, I'd like to hear a response from you on my post that showed the inconsistency of 2 or your posts:
#1: The Health Care Bill creates a new liability protection for insurers
#2: What the bill actually says is that ERISA won't change, that is, status quo.
No new protection there.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Possee,
Please name a government health insurance system that is inefficient. And please name one whose costs are higher than private insurance?
Please, name one.
Fact is, Possee, that all experience with government health insurance in the industrialized world shows that government delivers cheaper health care than does private insurance. Medicare does that right here and its the best evidence. England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Hong Kong, and on and on do it elsewhere.
I really wish you could support your position that the Public Option will be costly with an iota of evidence.
Can you? Until you can, you're not worth listening to.
Can't wait for your response which will be, as always, devoid of backup.
Please name a government health insurance system that is inefficient. And please name one whose costs are higher than private insurance?
Please, name one.
Fact is, Possee, that all experience with government health insurance in the industrialized world shows that government delivers cheaper health care than does private insurance. Medicare does that right here and its the best evidence. England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Hong Kong, and on and on do it elsewhere.
I really wish you could support your position that the Public Option will be costly with an iota of evidence.
Can you? Until you can, you're not worth listening to.
Can't wait for your response which will be, as always, devoid of backup.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
There's a great editorial in the Cape Cod Times today that points out the fundamental inconsistency of GOP opposition to the Public Option:
1. It represents an expansion of government and thus is doomed to be wasteful and inefficient.
2. Because it has lower costs/premiums, private insurers won't be able to compete with it. Private insurers will go out of business.
Hmmm... how do those 2 positions fit together? If the Public Option will be so inefficient, how the heck will it have lower costs and premiums? Obviously, that makes no sense. Of course, saying non-sensitical things to support its "anti-government at any cost" philosophy is no problem for the GOP.
And I really love it when the GOP bemoans the fact that private insurers won't be able to compete. I guess that, in order to guarantee those insurers profit margins and bonuses for its executives, the rest of us must pay higher premiums, huh?
Yet again the GOP shows itself to be nothing but anti-government no matter what, anti-Obama and pro-big business.
A disgraceful party.
1. It represents an expansion of government and thus is doomed to be wasteful and inefficient.
2. Because it has lower costs/premiums, private insurers won't be able to compete with it. Private insurers will go out of business.
Hmmm... how do those 2 positions fit together? If the Public Option will be so inefficient, how the heck will it have lower costs and premiums? Obviously, that makes no sense. Of course, saying non-sensitical things to support its "anti-government at any cost" philosophy is no problem for the GOP.
And I really love it when the GOP bemoans the fact that private insurers won't be able to compete. I guess that, in order to guarantee those insurers profit margins and bonuses for its executives, the rest of us must pay higher premiums, huh?
Yet again the GOP shows itself to be nothing but anti-government no matter what, anti-Obama and pro-big business.
A disgraceful party.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Possee,
Allow me to reproduce 2 of your comments from previous posts:
1st: "Buried in the thousands of pages of the health care bill drafted by Democrats in the House and Senate is a provision to protect insurance companies from legal accountability for benefit decisions that cause injury or death to patients".
That is, you say that the House Bill creates a new protection from liability.
2nd: Page 140 of the House bill reads: “Nothing in paragraphs (1) or (2) shall be construed as affecting the application of section 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.”
That is, that the health care law leaves an existing bill (ERISA) unchanged.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that when a new bill leaves an existing law unchanged it is not creating a new law. Nope, it's maintaining the status quo. The House bill does not create a new corporate protection.
Can you refute that logic? If so please do so that I can learn something. If not, admit it.
Allow me to reproduce 2 of your comments from previous posts:
1st: "Buried in the thousands of pages of the health care bill drafted by Democrats in the House and Senate is a provision to protect insurance companies from legal accountability for benefit decisions that cause injury or death to patients".
That is, you say that the House Bill creates a new protection from liability.
2nd: Page 140 of the House bill reads: “Nothing in paragraphs (1) or (2) shall be construed as affecting the application of section 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.”
That is, that the health care law leaves an existing bill (ERISA) unchanged.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that when a new bill leaves an existing law unchanged it is not creating a new law. Nope, it's maintaining the status quo. The House bill does not create a new corporate protection.
Can you refute that logic? If so please do so that I can learn something. If not, admit it.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Wampanoag challenges Boston Globe Editorial
In response to: Wampanoag challenges Boston Globe Editorial
Maverick,
Have you heard any horror stories of OFFSHORE (not onshore) wind turbines destroying tourism in Europe? Everything I've read either says: No impact or the turbines actually attract tourists.
The closest that the turbines will be to land is about 5.5 miles. But if you look at the map, you'll see that's at a very sharp point of the wind farm map off Cotuit. The vast majority of the turbines will be much more than 5.5 miles offshore.
Have you every tried to look at something 7 or 8 miles offshore? If not, come visit me in the Buzzard's Bay side of Falmouth where Mattapoisset is about 8 miles away. You've really gotta stop and squint to see anything on the other side of Buzzard's Bay even on a clear day.
Another example: If you're walking on the Martha's Vineyard side of Falmouth you can clearly see the Vineyard's water towers that are about 6 miles away IF YOU STOP AND LOOK FOR THEM. If you're just walking the beach, you never notice them. 6 miles is a long way away.
This "Cape Wind will destroy the Sound" argument is WAAAAAAY overblown.
Have you heard any horror stories of OFFSHORE (not onshore) wind turbines destroying tourism in Europe? Everything I've read either says: No impact or the turbines actually attract tourists.
The closest that the turbines will be to land is about 5.5 miles. But if you look at the map, you'll see that's at a very sharp point of the wind farm map off Cotuit. The vast majority of the turbines will be much more than 5.5 miles offshore.
Have you every tried to look at something 7 or 8 miles offshore? If not, come visit me in the Buzzard's Bay side of Falmouth where Mattapoisset is about 8 miles away. You've really gotta stop and squint to see anything on the other side of Buzzard's Bay even on a clear day.
Another example: If you're walking on the Martha's Vineyard side of Falmouth you can clearly see the Vineyard's water towers that are about 6 miles away IF YOU STOP AND LOOK FOR THEM. If you're just walking the beach, you never notice them. 6 miles is a long way away.
This "Cape Wind will destroy the Sound" argument is WAAAAAAY overblown.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Wampanoag challenges Boston Globe Editorial
In response to: Wampanoag challenges Boston Globe Editorial
Maverick,
I've answered your inane "simple questions deserve simple answers" question under the Op Ed blog. The answer to the question is simple but interpreting takes a little more brain power. My question in that other blog is: Do you have enough brain power to think beyond the extremely simple? Check it out.
I've answered your inane "simple questions deserve simple answers" question under the Op Ed blog. The answer to the question is simple but interpreting takes a little more brain power. My question in that other blog is: Do you have enough brain power to think beyond the extremely simple? Check it out.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Hey Possee,
Have you read the 2 pages of the bills that you mention? Doesn't look like it.
page 240 of HR 3962 talks about "Relation to Other Requirements; Miscellaneous" and doesn't say a word about insurance company immunity.
Same for page 56 of S. 1796 which talks about State insurance plans and how they relate to the new federal insurance regulations.
I'd send the language of those pages to you but they're too long for this system. I can Email them to you if you give me your EMail address.
Where did you get the idea that those 2 pages provided immunity for insurance companies? Whatever she source, it looks like a bad one.
Have you read the 2 pages of the bills that you mention? Doesn't look like it.
page 240 of HR 3962 talks about "Relation to Other Requirements; Miscellaneous" and doesn't say a word about insurance company immunity.
Same for page 56 of S. 1796 which talks about State insurance plans and how they relate to the new federal insurance regulations.
I'd send the language of those pages to you but they're too long for this system. I can Email them to you if you give me your EMail address.
Where did you get the idea that those 2 pages provided immunity for insurance companies? Whatever she source, it looks like a bad one.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Also Buzz regarding doctors and hospitals if reimbursement rates go down. I'll respond again with a question:
Why do all of the national health care systems in industrialized countries have lower reimbursement rates than we do AND still provide better care than does our system?
Looks like controlling health care costs does not force doctors and hospitals out of the market.
Many other countries have done this Buzz. Sure doctors can't get filthy rich in those countries like they can here. But those countries make it work AND they outperform us.
What do you want to do? Leave things the way the are today and let health care costs increase at 4 times the rate of inflation until we're flat broke?
Something's gotta give Buzz and doctors making $300K and over is one of those things.
Why do all of the national health care systems in industrialized countries have lower reimbursement rates than we do AND still provide better care than does our system?
Looks like controlling health care costs does not force doctors and hospitals out of the market.
Many other countries have done this Buzz. Sure doctors can't get filthy rich in those countries like they can here. But those countries make it work AND they outperform us.
What do you want to do? Leave things the way the are today and let health care costs increase at 4 times the rate of inflation until we're flat broke?
Something's gotta give Buzz and doctors making $300K and over is one of those things.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Buzz,
Typical: When you get an answer you don't like change the subject. I'll assume that you have accepted the fact that larger insurance systems are cheaper.
I'll try your tactic and ask questions in response to your question:
a.) How many times have actuaries predicted that Medicare would go bankrupt?
b. How many times were they right?
Answers:
a. So many times it's hard to count
b. Never
Medicare has faced actuarial problems over and over. Congress hates to bite the bullet and make the changes required to balance the books, but they eventually do. Same story today.
But you've avoided the essential point here: Even if Medicare has future financial problems it is still MUCH cheaper than private insurance.
If you don't like Medicare's financial woes, just imagine if private insurers were covering the elderly. Things would be immeasurably worse because, remember Buzz, Medicare is cheaper than private insurance. Much cheaper.
Typical: When you get an answer you don't like change the subject. I'll assume that you have accepted the fact that larger insurance systems are cheaper.
I'll try your tactic and ask questions in response to your question:
a.) How many times have actuaries predicted that Medicare would go bankrupt?
b. How many times were they right?
Answers:
a. So many times it's hard to count
b. Never
Medicare has faced actuarial problems over and over. Congress hates to bite the bullet and make the changes required to balance the books, but they eventually do. Same story today.
But you've avoided the essential point here: Even if Medicare has future financial problems it is still MUCH cheaper than private insurance.
If you don't like Medicare's financial woes, just imagine if private insurers were covering the elderly. Things would be immeasurably worse because, remember Buzz, Medicare is cheaper than private insurance. Much cheaper.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Retort to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
In response to: Retort to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Maverick,
I believe that the grid accepts about 3,000 MW/Hr on average virtually all of which comes from burning fossil fuel. CW's rated capacity is 170 MW/Hr. That's about 6% of the total average grid demand.
Simple enough? The hard part is understanding that virtually all plants on a grid contribute a small percentage of total demand like Cape Wind would. So, a single clean energy plant that contributes a small percentage go a grid is not just a useless drop in the bucket. All plants are drops in the bucket.
Tell me that's not too hard for you.
I believe that the grid accepts about 3,000 MW/Hr on average virtually all of which comes from burning fossil fuel. CW's rated capacity is 170 MW/Hr. That's about 6% of the total average grid demand.
Simple enough? The hard part is understanding that virtually all plants on a grid contribute a small percentage of total demand like Cape Wind would. So, a single clean energy plant that contributes a small percentage go a grid is not just a useless drop in the bucket. All plants are drops in the bucket.
Tell me that's not too hard for you.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Retort to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
In response to: Retort to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Carl,
I think you lost the wind farm people, both pro and con, because the title of your editorial just said "Retort to JFK, Jr." but didn't mention Cape Wind.
Too bad: I would have loved to hear the Cape Wind opponents try to defend RFK's hysterical criticisms. Picking off the Cape Wind critics trying to defend RFK would have been like shooting fish in a barrel. It would have been great sport!
I think you lost the wind farm people, both pro and con, because the title of your editorial just said "Retort to JFK, Jr." but didn't mention Cape Wind.
Too bad: I would have loved to hear the Cape Wind opponents try to defend RFK's hysterical criticisms. Picking off the Cape Wind critics trying to defend RFK would have been like shooting fish in a barrel. It would have been great sport!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Retort to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
In response to: Retort to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Maverick,
Why am I not surprised to learn that you are one of those "magic bullet seekers" in the Wind/Cape Wind debate. That is, one of those people who say:
"Cape Wind will only be a drop in the bucket so it's not worth doing".
Of course, you and others that use this line of reasoning ignore the obvious point that ever single stinking power plant in the country is - by itself - a drop in the bucket. Using your logic, we'd never have built a single power plant in this country!
To move away from fossil fuels we're going to have to build hundreds/thousands of plants of every stripe: Wind, solar, hydro, and yes nuclear. Each, like Cape Wind, will be a drop in the bucket but if we build enough of them the bucket will be full.
And finally: The person slinging the BS is RFK Jr., not Carl who has quite clearly and patiently explained each of RFK's lies.
As I said in my 1st post: I've never seen to many anti-Cape Wind lies in a single interview. Impressive!
Why am I not surprised to learn that you are one of those "magic bullet seekers" in the Wind/Cape Wind debate. That is, one of those people who say:
"Cape Wind will only be a drop in the bucket so it's not worth doing".
Of course, you and others that use this line of reasoning ignore the obvious point that ever single stinking power plant in the country is - by itself - a drop in the bucket. Using your logic, we'd never have built a single power plant in this country!
To move away from fossil fuels we're going to have to build hundreds/thousands of plants of every stripe: Wind, solar, hydro, and yes nuclear. Each, like Cape Wind, will be a drop in the bucket but if we build enough of them the bucket will be full.
And finally: The person slinging the BS is RFK Jr., not Carl who has quite clearly and patiently explained each of RFK's lies.
As I said in my 1st post: I've never seen to many anti-Cape Wind lies in a single interview. Impressive!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
One more thing Buzz:
Ask anyone who works in insurance (as I did for about 12 years): Having a large group is a fundamental requirement to being competitive.
- One administrative system for more policies (lower cost/policy)
- One sales and marketing system (lower cost/policy)
- More policies to spread losses over should an unforeseen event occur.
- MUCH more power to negotiate with providers (important in health insurance, not as important in other types of insurance).
This is a maxim of insurance.
Ask anyone who works in insurance (as I did for about 12 years): Having a large group is a fundamental requirement to being competitive.
- One administrative system for more policies (lower cost/policy)
- One sales and marketing system (lower cost/policy)
- More policies to spread losses over should an unforeseen event occur.
- MUCH more power to negotiate with providers (important in health insurance, not as important in other types of insurance).
This is a maxim of insurance.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Buzz:
You ask for examples of larger insurance systems costing less. That’s child’s play:
1st, Medicare is cheaper than private insurance. Its overhead (3%) is MUCH lower than that of private (20% - 30%). Premiums are lower too because it is HUGE & very powerful (able to negotiate low rates).
2nd, compare any country with a nationalized system to ours: Every single one is much cheaper per capita. As with Medicare, these systems are HUGE & very good at controlling costs.
3rd, examine all of the private insurance markets in the world. Initially, there tend to be big private players & small private players. Because of their greater market power, the big boys are able to negotiate lower prices with providers and they can offer lower rates to employers. One caveat, however: In private insurance, the small boys are almost always run out of the market which leaves 1 or 2 big boys who jack up their rates again. Strange as it may seem, there really isn't much competition in most private markets.
Without exception, large insurance systems are much cheaper than small ones
You ask for examples of larger insurance systems costing less. That’s child’s play:
1st, Medicare is cheaper than private insurance. Its overhead (3%) is MUCH lower than that of private (20% - 30%). Premiums are lower too because it is HUGE & very powerful (able to negotiate low rates).
2nd, compare any country with a nationalized system to ours: Every single one is much cheaper per capita. As with Medicare, these systems are HUGE & very good at controlling costs.
3rd, examine all of the private insurance markets in the world. Initially, there tend to be big private players & small private players. Because of their greater market power, the big boys are able to negotiate lower prices with providers and they can offer lower rates to employers. One caveat, however: In private insurance, the small boys are almost always run out of the market which leaves 1 or 2 big boys who jack up their rates again. Strange as it may seem, there really isn't much competition in most private markets.
Without exception, large insurance systems are much cheaper than small ones
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Buzz,
You ask:
"Only 4% what a bargain... in tiny Massachusetts. What happens when the plan goes national? Can you give us some numbers please?"
Fist, here's a much more relevant question:
"At what rate were health care costs growing in MA before the new health care plan?".
I don't know the answer to that, but that would be important information. There's a good chance that 4%/year is a decrease. Heck, if MA was increasing at the national rate before it instituted its new plan, then 4% would definitely be a decrease.
Second, there's no reason to think that doing something like the MA approach at a larger level (nationwide) would cost more: In fact, the concept of economies-of-scale says that it should cost less. This concept applies more to insurance than it does to most businesses: Large groups have much greater power to negotiate rates.
Overall, you're on very shaky ground when you assume that a plan like MA's would cost more at the national level. It's much more likely that it would be cheaper.
You ask:
"Only 4% what a bargain... in tiny Massachusetts. What happens when the plan goes national? Can you give us some numbers please?"
Fist, here's a much more relevant question:
"At what rate were health care costs growing in MA before the new health care plan?".
I don't know the answer to that, but that would be important information. There's a good chance that 4%/year is a decrease. Heck, if MA was increasing at the national rate before it instituted its new plan, then 4% would definitely be a decrease.
Second, there's no reason to think that doing something like the MA approach at a larger level (nationwide) would cost more: In fact, the concept of economies-of-scale says that it should cost less. This concept applies more to insurance than it does to most businesses: Large groups have much greater power to negotiate rates.
Overall, you're on very shaky ground when you assume that a plan like MA's would cost more at the national level. It's much more likely that it would be cheaper.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Maverick,
No come back on the GOP's blatant political ploy that it calls its health care "plan"? Could it be that even you understand that this was not a constructive step?
Obama's plan has many problems. But a lot of those deficiencies were caused by the need to answer the never ending political attack of the GOP including the inevitable demagoguery that we'll here from it between enactment and the midterm elections.
As opposed to contributing constructively to health care reform and improving the bill, the GOP has emasculated it and made it worse. Then it tries to cover its tracks at the 11th hour so that they can say: "Here's what we proposed" in next year's midterm elections.
Politics at its absolute worst. Zero concern for the welfare of the country.
No come back on the GOP's blatant political ploy that it calls its health care "plan"? Could it be that even you understand that this was not a constructive step?
Obama's plan has many problems. But a lot of those deficiencies were caused by the need to answer the never ending political attack of the GOP including the inevitable demagoguery that we'll here from it between enactment and the midterm elections.
As opposed to contributing constructively to health care reform and improving the bill, the GOP has emasculated it and made it worse. Then it tries to cover its tracks at the 11th hour so that they can say: "Here's what we proposed" in next year's midterm elections.
Politics at its absolute worst. Zero concern for the welfare of the country.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Buzz,
Health Care costs rising 8% in 2 years is as low as it gets in the US these days. 4% per year? That's an incredible bargain.
Health Care costs rising 8% in 2 years is as low as it gets in the US these days. 4% per year? That's an incredible bargain.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Maverick,
OK, you tell me why did your "party of truth" - the GOP - do nothing on health care until the bills emerged from committee?
Please tell me. If they knew the truth, why didn't they act on it before the 11th hour?
OK, you tell me why did your "party of truth" - the GOP - do nothing on health care until the bills emerged from committee?
Please tell me. If they knew the truth, why didn't they act on it before the 11th hour?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
In response to: Tort Reform and Other Shibboleths of the Wingnut GOP
Frankly, I'm not going to give the GOP "plan" the time of day nor should anyone else because it is not a good faith attempt to reform health care. Rather, it's a political stunt.
If the GOP had cared about reforming health care it would have:
a. Lifted a finger to do so during the 6 long years it controlled the White House and all of Congress
b. Been involved in the process starting back in May. You know, the way Olympia Snow was. Now, she didn't get everything she wanted, but she got quite a bit. Involvement affected the final outcome.
The GOP leaders know that the way for a party to be involved in a legislative process is NOT to sit on it hands until the bills emerge from committee and then to submit a "plan" diametrically opposed to all the work of many months.
Nope this is absolutely not a serious plan and should not be considered to be one. It's last minute political maneuvering.
Yet another example of the total worthlessness of today's GOP.
If the GOP had cared about reforming health care it would have:
a. Lifted a finger to do so during the 6 long years it controlled the White House and all of Congress
b. Been involved in the process starting back in May. You know, the way Olympia Snow was. Now, she didn't get everything she wanted, but she got quite a bit. Involvement affected the final outcome.
The GOP leaders know that the way for a party to be involved in a legislative process is NOT to sit on it hands until the bills emerge from committee and then to submit a "plan" diametrically opposed to all the work of many months.
Nope this is absolutely not a serious plan and should not be considered to be one. It's last minute political maneuvering.
Yet another example of the total worthlessness of today's GOP.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Carbon Tax, Not Cap-and-Trade
In response to: A Carbon Tax, Not Cap-and-Trade
Karent2,
Since our environment cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, it is impossible to "prove" global warming categorically. Rather, as with a great deal of our accepted science, we must rely upon the consensus of scientists.
An extremely high percentage of the world's climatologists believe that human activity is accelerating global warming. A tiny minority, and a lot of crackpots, disagree.
Who are we to believe? The vast preponderance of scientists of course.
You want to believe the tiny minority? OK, that's your right. But it makes no sense.
Since our environment cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, it is impossible to "prove" global warming categorically. Rather, as with a great deal of our accepted science, we must rely upon the consensus of scientists.
An extremely high percentage of the world's climatologists believe that human activity is accelerating global warming. A tiny minority, and a lot of crackpots, disagree.
Who are we to believe? The vast preponderance of scientists of course.
You want to believe the tiny minority? OK, that's your right. But it makes no sense.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Oh yeah Maverick, I definitely need you to list the guidelines that Cape Wind has ignored.
This is probably the most reviewed, most regulated project in American history. It's been under the magnifying glass for 8 years now. It's undergone 2 full multi-year Environmental Impact Studies, and been challenged in court so many times I've lost count. If there are guidelines that Cape Wind has ignored it's because the process established by law does not contain those guidelines.
Now, I hope that you're not going to give me a bunch of things that YOU happen to believe should have been reviewed more stringently but that the law does not require. And I hope that you don't give me guidelines that have been hotly debated and on which the appropriate authorities, including the courts, have decided in favor of Cape Wind but that you wish had come out differently. Unfortunately, your personal desires aren't law.
Anyway, please list the guidelines as established by federal, state and local law that Cape Wind has broken.
This is probably the most reviewed, most regulated project in American history. It's been under the magnifying glass for 8 years now. It's undergone 2 full multi-year Environmental Impact Studies, and been challenged in court so many times I've lost count. If there are guidelines that Cape Wind has ignored it's because the process established by law does not contain those guidelines.
Now, I hope that you're not going to give me a bunch of things that YOU happen to believe should have been reviewed more stringently but that the law does not require. And I hope that you don't give me guidelines that have been hotly debated and on which the appropriate authorities, including the courts, have decided in favor of Cape Wind but that you wish had come out differently. Unfortunately, your personal desires aren't law.
Anyway, please list the guidelines as established by federal, state and local law that Cape Wind has broken.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Maverick,
I read the introductory comments by Jay Rockefeller, committee chairman, from the web page you sent and from them it's pretty obvious that this is a brand new initiative. The Senate is at the starting line on this federal effort.
I don't know Maverick, I don't think it's reasonable to criticize Cape Wind using this new Senate effort because:
a. Cape Wind proposed its wind farm 8 years before this effort started.
b. Saying that this brand new effort would prevent Cape Wind is pure speculation.
You're bending awfully far over backwards to use this as a criticism of Cape Wind.
I read the introductory comments by Jay Rockefeller, committee chairman, from the web page you sent and from them it's pretty obvious that this is a brand new initiative. The Senate is at the starting line on this federal effort.
I don't know Maverick, I don't think it's reasonable to criticize Cape Wind using this new Senate effort because:
a. Cape Wind proposed its wind farm 8 years before this effort started.
b. Saying that this brand new effort would prevent Cape Wind is pure speculation.
You're bending awfully far over backwards to use this as a criticism of Cape Wind.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Maverick,
Can you give me the name of the legislation you're talking about so that I can google it? I have a tough time believing that a state Ocean Management bill would cover federal waters.
Can you give me the name of the legislation you're talking about so that I can google it? I have a tough time believing that a state Ocean Management bill would cover federal waters.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Well Jane, I've been wondering for awhile how the heck Gordon is going to make money on Cape Wind. The cost of offshore wind, the market price of power, and the subsidies that he'll receive haven't seemed to add up.
So, perhaps the answer is in the "invisible" credits you describe.
The only credits that I know much about are RECS (Renewable Energy Credits). CW will generate 1 of these for each MW of power that it produces and it can sell them to dirty energy producers. The current price of an REC is about $60 but it'll drop once CW floods the market with them.
Even if you can't find your research on Carbon Credits and Depreciation Credits perhaps you can describe them in general at least.
If you researched them years ago, it sounds like Carbon Credits are not the allowances created by Cap and Trade.
Anyway, please tell me what you can without killing yourself. EMail me if you like.
So, perhaps the answer is in the "invisible" credits you describe.
The only credits that I know much about are RECS (Renewable Energy Credits). CW will generate 1 of these for each MW of power that it produces and it can sell them to dirty energy producers. The current price of an REC is about $60 but it'll drop once CW floods the market with them.
Even if you can't find your research on Carbon Credits and Depreciation Credits perhaps you can describe them in general at least.
If you researched them years ago, it sounds like Carbon Credits are not the allowances created by Cap and Trade.
Anyway, please tell me what you can without killing yourself. EMail me if you like.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Carbon Tax, Not Cap-and-Trade
In response to: A Carbon Tax, Not Cap-and-Trade
Charles and Barbara,
What would you think of a Cap and Trade system that did not give away any allowances? Would that be beneficial?
I really like the idea of offsetting payroll tax with the carbon tax.
Last question: The political sun is blocked out right now by health care but the Congress is considering Cap and Trade right? Are we in danger of Cap and Trade passing without much public attention because of Health Care?
What would you think of a Cap and Trade system that did not give away any allowances? Would that be beneficial?
I really like the idea of offsetting payroll tax with the carbon tax.
Last question: The political sun is blocked out right now by health care but the Congress is considering Cap and Trade right? Are we in danger of Cap and Trade passing without much public attention because of Health Care?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Mihos campaign short in funds, but Ex- Bill Clinton crony backs "irreverent" Christy; State speeds up wind projects; DA says hospital death investigation could be lengthy; Upping insurance BEFORE the fire; Harvard buys wind; ‘Stealth' turbines avoid radar
In response to: Mihos campaign short in funds, but Ex- Bill Clinton crony backs "irreverent" Christy; State speeds up wind projects; DA says hospital death investigation could be lengthy; Upping insurance BEFORE the fire; Harvard buys wind; ‘Stealth' turbines avoid radar
Maverick,
What do you have against letting the FAA do its work on the Cape Wind turbines and seeing what they say?
And interestingly, the FAA has provided a fix for the problems that they said might exist last spring. The FAA said that Cape Wind "might" cause clutter at an outdated, analog radar installation on the Cape. It said that there were 2 possible solutions:
1. $3 million to upgrade the old system
2. $15 million to replace it with a digital system
Now, the FAA might find more problems and we'll have to wait for them to tell us.
But you asked for someone to provide a fix to the radar problems. The FAA gave it to you in the spring, that is, they provided solutions to the problems identified at that time.
Were you paying attention to this? It was front page news. Come on, if you're going to spout opinions like this you'd better at least read the front page Cape Wind headlines to have a bit of knowledge!
What do you have against letting the FAA do its work on the Cape Wind turbines and seeing what they say?
And interestingly, the FAA has provided a fix for the problems that they said might exist last spring. The FAA said that Cape Wind "might" cause clutter at an outdated, analog radar installation on the Cape. It said that there were 2 possible solutions:
1. $3 million to upgrade the old system
2. $15 million to replace it with a digital system
Now, the FAA might find more problems and we'll have to wait for them to tell us.
But you asked for someone to provide a fix to the radar problems. The FAA gave it to you in the spring, that is, they provided solutions to the problems identified at that time.
Were you paying attention to this? It was front page news. Come on, if you're going to spout opinions like this you'd better at least read the front page Cape Wind headlines to have a bit of knowledge!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Maverick,
I’ve been involved in the Cape Wind/Wind Power debate for a couple of years. The “wind energy is free” opinion must have been debunked before I joined in. I never heard it. Obviously, that position was a joke.
Re: the avian flyby: The MMS looked carefully at this. I can’t quote their logic chapter and verse but they concluded that there was no significant threat to migrating birds. Of course, part of the problem is the lack of data. But Cape Wind had to pay for a bunch of expensive studies. Still: No data to support significant bird kills.
That Ocean Policy is a state thing, right? I believe so. If that’s right, it wouldn’t apply to the federal waters where Cape Wind is planned. .
I’ve been involved in the Cape Wind/Wind Power debate for a couple of years. The “wind energy is free” opinion must have been debunked before I joined in. I never heard it. Obviously, that position was a joke.
Re: the avian flyby: The MMS looked carefully at this. I can’t quote their logic chapter and verse but they concluded that there was no significant threat to migrating birds. Of course, part of the problem is the lack of data. But Cape Wind had to pay for a bunch of expensive studies. Still: No data to support significant bird kills.
That Ocean Policy is a state thing, right? I believe so. If that’s right, it wouldn’t apply to the federal waters where Cape Wind is planned. .
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Well Maverick let's find out if you do understand how power is priced and sold in New England.
Do you understand that the market is competitive, that is, that a high cost producer cannot demand above-market prices for its power?
So, if it costs Cape Wind an arm and a leg to produce its power that high cost cannot be passed onto consumers via high prices.
Do you agree and thus understand?
Do you understand that the market is competitive, that is, that a high cost producer cannot demand above-market prices for its power?
So, if it costs Cape Wind an arm and a leg to produce its power that high cost cannot be passed onto consumers via high prices.
Do you agree and thus understand?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Hi Neil,
It's important to separate two different definitions of "success" when it comes to offshore wind.
The narrower definition might be called "operational success". Do the turbines spin? Do they handle bad weather? are they maintainable? Do they cause navigation problems (air and sea)? etc.
European experience has shown offshore wind to be operationally successful.
Quite separately we could talk about "financial success": Basically, does offshore wind generate power at reasonable cost? And there, the jury is definitely out.
Europe gives offshore wind subsidies that are not considered to be acceptable in the US. The poster child for offshore wind - Denmark - mandates that all of its power must be purchased (talk about government support!).
Closer to home, nobody understands how Cape Wind will make ends meet: The cost of offshore wind that we've seen elsewhere makes it seem that Gordon will take a bath.
So, if we're talking about "financial success" I definitely hear you. Operationally, however, offshore wind farms work.
It's important to separate two different definitions of "success" when it comes to offshore wind.
The narrower definition might be called "operational success". Do the turbines spin? Do they handle bad weather? are they maintainable? Do they cause navigation problems (air and sea)? etc.
European experience has shown offshore wind to be operationally successful.
Quite separately we could talk about "financial success": Basically, does offshore wind generate power at reasonable cost? And there, the jury is definitely out.
Europe gives offshore wind subsidies that are not considered to be acceptable in the US. The poster child for offshore wind - Denmark - mandates that all of its power must be purchased (talk about government support!).
Closer to home, nobody understands how Cape Wind will make ends meet: The cost of offshore wind that we've seen elsewhere makes it seem that Gordon will take a bath.
So, if we're talking about "financial success" I definitely hear you. Operationally, however, offshore wind farms work.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Carl,
There's a very interesting new article under the "Op Ed" blog today. It reviews a local NPR interview (by Mindy Todd) of RFK Jr. The writer says that RFK, who is an environmental lawyer, was very reasonable throughout the interview but that he did a Jekyll/Hyde transformation when Cape Wind came up. If the writer is accurate, I've never seen a larger string of anti-Cape Wind lies and distortions. RFK Jr. even makes Maverick look tame!
Check it out.
There's a very interesting new article under the "Op Ed" blog today. It reviews a local NPR interview (by Mindy Todd) of RFK Jr. The writer says that RFK, who is an environmental lawyer, was very reasonable throughout the interview but that he did a Jekyll/Hyde transformation when Cape Wind came up. If the writer is accurate, I've never seen a larger string of anti-Cape Wind lies and distortions. RFK Jr. even makes Maverick look tame!
Check it out.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Retort to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
In response to: Retort to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Carl,
Now that article is a keeper. Any reasonable person watching the Cape Wind debate knows that opponents lie, distort and exaggerate. But I personally have never seen so many lies uttered in a single interview. Thanks for pointing them out and then rebutting them.
What is it about Cape Wind that makes otherwise reasonable people into foam-at-the-mouth demagogues? You yourself said that you agreed with most of what Kennedy said until Cape Wind came up. Then, it seems that some switch was thrown and Kennedy underwent some Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde transformation.
Just on exaggeration: Kennedy would have us believe that the New England Grid, which accepts thousands of MW of power each day, couldn't accommodate one medium sized (440 MW) wind farm? Where does something as misguided as that come from within Kennedy?
Is Kennedy just blatantly defending the view from his family's compound? Is he that selfish?
Now that article is a keeper. Any reasonable person watching the Cape Wind debate knows that opponents lie, distort and exaggerate. But I personally have never seen so many lies uttered in a single interview. Thanks for pointing them out and then rebutting them.
What is it about Cape Wind that makes otherwise reasonable people into foam-at-the-mouth demagogues? You yourself said that you agreed with most of what Kennedy said until Cape Wind came up. Then, it seems that some switch was thrown and Kennedy underwent some Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde transformation.
Just on exaggeration: Kennedy would have us believe that the New England Grid, which accepts thousands of MW of power each day, couldn't accommodate one medium sized (440 MW) wind farm? Where does something as misguided as that come from within Kennedy?
Is Kennedy just blatantly defending the view from his family's compound? Is he that selfish?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Jane,
Carbon Credits will come from the Cape and Trade bill if it passes, right?
What do you know about how much Cape Wind can earn from that?
Don't forget one thing: Jim Gordon started this Cape Wind crusade LONG before Cape and Trade was even a glimmer in Barack Obama's eye. Heck, the Cape Wind saga started before Obama was even in the U.S. Senate.
Perhaps Gordon will milk Cap and Trade if it passes (still FAR from a sure thing) but he definitely didn't have that in his plans from the start.
No?
Carbon Credits will come from the Cape and Trade bill if it passes, right?
What do you know about how much Cape Wind can earn from that?
Don't forget one thing: Jim Gordon started this Cape Wind crusade LONG before Cape and Trade was even a glimmer in Barack Obama's eye. Heck, the Cape Wind saga started before Obama was even in the U.S. Senate.
Perhaps Gordon will milk Cap and Trade if it passes (still FAR from a sure thing) but he definitely didn't have that in his plans from the start.
No?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Ana,
Wise men and women are willing to learn from experience. Your comment is cute but if you're not willing to accept that these offshore turbines work then you're playing "blind man's bluff".
Now, if you want to doubt that they can turn a profit and prevent a company that employs them from going bankrupt then you're on more solid ground.
But they've been operating these turbines very successfully offshore for many years now in Europe.
Wise men and women are willing to learn from experience. Your comment is cute but if you're not willing to accept that these offshore turbines work then you're playing "blind man's bluff".
Now, if you want to doubt that they can turn a profit and prevent a company that employs them from going bankrupt then you're on more solid ground.
But they've been operating these turbines very successfully offshore for many years now in Europe.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Ana,
Alpha through Omega are operating quite well thank you in Europe and China.
Alpha through Omega are operating quite well thank you in Europe and China.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Tom,
One more thing: There's no question about the turbines working from an engineering perspective. Europe has hundreds of them in production.
One more thing: There's no question about the turbines working from an engineering perspective. Europe has hundreds of them in production.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Tom,
What you're really asking is: "What will happen if Cape Wind goes broke?". This is a good question because it's not obvious that the project is economically viable.
In order to obtain its lease of Horseshoe Shoals from the Feds, CW will have to obtain a Bond which is basically an insurance policy that insures the public against:
- Cape Wind not being able to complete construction.
- Bankruptcy, and the need to dismantle the wind farm after construction.
I tried to learn the details of this Bond requirement once but was unsuccessful. The most that I could learn is that the Cape Wind bond would be very similar to bonds that have been used by offshore oil drillers for decades.
By the way, if CW can't obtain such a bond, the wind farm won't be built. If it is built, the public will be protected by the bond.
One last thing: Nobody knows how Mark Gordon plans to make money from Cape Wind. Believe me, the bond companies will ask that question. If he can't show them that he can make money then: No bond and no wind farm.
What you're really asking is: "What will happen if Cape Wind goes broke?". This is a good question because it's not obvious that the project is economically viable.
In order to obtain its lease of Horseshoe Shoals from the Feds, CW will have to obtain a Bond which is basically an insurance policy that insures the public against:
- Cape Wind not being able to complete construction.
- Bankruptcy, and the need to dismantle the wind farm after construction.
I tried to learn the details of this Bond requirement once but was unsuccessful. The most that I could learn is that the Cape Wind bond would be very similar to bonds that have been used by offshore oil drillers for decades.
By the way, if CW can't obtain such a bond, the wind farm won't be built. If it is built, the public will be protected by the bond.
One last thing: Nobody knows how Mark Gordon plans to make money from Cape Wind. Believe me, the bond companies will ask that question. If he can't show them that he can make money then: No bond and no wind farm.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Wind energy is a must for America and for Cape Cod
In response to: Wind energy is a must for America and for Cape Cod
Maverick,
Well, I'm not a radar expert but I have carefully read every pronouncement from the FAA on Cape Wind and I've researched the FAA's process including its use of the Presumed Hazard designation.
Now, I know that may be hard for you to understand. That is, that it's possible to do one's homework on stuff like this. That's obviously not in your repertoire.
You mention radar for sea going vessels: Well, there's no outstanding issue there. The Coast Guard has stated that Cape Wind is not a significant threat to navigation.
For the benefit of others, I'll continue to point out your errors Maverick so go ahead and keep making them. It'll help me and other responsible posters to dispel the lies and exaggerations repeated over and over about Cape Wind.
Well, I'm not a radar expert but I have carefully read every pronouncement from the FAA on Cape Wind and I've researched the FAA's process including its use of the Presumed Hazard designation.
Now, I know that may be hard for you to understand. That is, that it's possible to do one's homework on stuff like this. That's obviously not in your repertoire.
You mention radar for sea going vessels: Well, there's no outstanding issue there. The Coast Guard has stated that Cape Wind is not a significant threat to navigation.
For the benefit of others, I'll continue to point out your errors Maverick so go ahead and keep making them. It'll help me and other responsible posters to dispel the lies and exaggerations repeated over and over about Cape Wind.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Everyone, let's try to be accurate when we talk about the current status of Cape Wind and radar/the FAA:
Whenever the FAA investigates something it announces a "Presumed Hazard" (PH). This does not mean that there is a hazard, but it's the FAA's way of being careful while it investigates. When the FAA completes an investigation it announces a hazard or it lifts the PH.
The FAA has announced a PH for Cape Wind. We won't know if there really is a hazard until they're finished.
The FAA has said that Cape Wind could cause "clutter" with one or more of the antiquated radar installations of the Cape and Islands. However, they've said that this problem should be correctable with either a $3 million or a $15 million investment by Cape Wind. Cape Wind would certainly pay this if necessary.
Of course, the FAA could announce further findings of a more critical nature. But so far, all the FAA has described is a very correctable problem.
In other words: This is NOT a big deal for CW. Don't believe those who make a big deal of this at this point.
Whenever the FAA investigates something it announces a "Presumed Hazard" (PH). This does not mean that there is a hazard, but it's the FAA's way of being careful while it investigates. When the FAA completes an investigation it announces a hazard or it lifts the PH.
The FAA has announced a PH for Cape Wind. We won't know if there really is a hazard until they're finished.
The FAA has said that Cape Wind could cause "clutter" with one or more of the antiquated radar installations of the Cape and Islands. However, they've said that this problem should be correctable with either a $3 million or a $15 million investment by Cape Wind. Cape Wind would certainly pay this if necessary.
Of course, the FAA could announce further findings of a more critical nature. But so far, all the FAA has described is a very correctable problem.
In other words: This is NOT a big deal for CW. Don't believe those who make a big deal of this at this point.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Maverick,
If Cape Wind is built, it will sell its power. First, it will only be built if it gets one or more PPAs. So, if it is built, it'll sell via those PPAs.
Then, on days when it has excess power, it will big $0 on ISO's day ahead market (because it has no fuel cost).
And, since all sales of power in New England are done competitively, if it's built CW will sell at market rates.
The relevant question is: "If it's built, will CW make any money from is sales?". And that is a very good question. Everything I've seen indicates that the cost of offshore power is too high to enable CW to be competitive. Of course, since it's a private company, CW does not have to publish its financial projections. So I don't know what Gordon has up his sleeve.
Overall: If it's built, CW will sell all or most of its power. But whether or not it'll be profitable is the question.
If Cape Wind is built, it will sell its power. First, it will only be built if it gets one or more PPAs. So, if it is built, it'll sell via those PPAs.
Then, on days when it has excess power, it will big $0 on ISO's day ahead market (because it has no fuel cost).
And, since all sales of power in New England are done competitively, if it's built CW will sell at market rates.
The relevant question is: "If it's built, will CW make any money from is sales?". And that is a very good question. Everything I've seen indicates that the cost of offshore power is too high to enable CW to be competitive. Of course, since it's a private company, CW does not have to publish its financial projections. So I don't know what Gordon has up his sleeve.
Overall: If it's built, CW will sell all or most of its power. But whether or not it'll be profitable is the question.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Wind energy is a must for America and for Cape Cod
In response to: Wind energy is a must for America and for Cape Cod
Re: the FAA and Cape Wind:
The FAA has issued a "presumed hazard" which it always issues while it's investigating something. The designation of "presumed hazard" does not mean that a hazard exists. Rather, it means that a potential hazard is being studied. We must wait until the FAA completes its investigation to understand this.
The FAA has said, however, that the radar problems caused by Cape Wind can be fixed for a maximum of $15 million which Cape Wind would pay. This would be a tiny expense for Cape Wind which will have to raise hundreds of millions in financing.
Now, the FAA continues to investigate and they could find more problems. But for now, what they've turned up is very small potatoes and easily addressable.
So, don't be misled into thinking that this radar thing is a dire safety problem. In typical fashion, the Alliance and company are exaggerating and misleading here.
The FAA has issued a "presumed hazard" which it always issues while it's investigating something. The designation of "presumed hazard" does not mean that a hazard exists. Rather, it means that a potential hazard is being studied. We must wait until the FAA completes its investigation to understand this.
The FAA has said, however, that the radar problems caused by Cape Wind can be fixed for a maximum of $15 million which Cape Wind would pay. This would be a tiny expense for Cape Wind which will have to raise hundreds of millions in financing.
Now, the FAA continues to investigate and they could find more problems. But for now, what they've turned up is very small potatoes and easily addressable.
So, don't be misled into thinking that this radar thing is a dire safety problem. In typical fashion, the Alliance and company are exaggerating and misleading here.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Wind energy is a must for America and for Cape Cod
In response to: Wind energy is a must for America and for Cape Cod
Yeah Bitter: If every form of fuel that we use for energy today had to undergo the withering critique that Wind has had to undergo in the Cape Wind debate, we'd still be living in the dark!
People seem to think that Wind must be a perfect fuel when our current fuels are far from that. Fossil fuels heat the planet and make us dependent upon the Middle East. Nuclear has storage and safety problems. Etc.
Only wind has to run the gauntlet of near perfection!
People seem to think that Wind must be a perfect fuel when our current fuels are far from that. Fossil fuels heat the planet and make us dependent upon the Middle East. Nuclear has storage and safety problems. Etc.
Only wind has to run the gauntlet of near perfection!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Wind energy is a must for America and for Cape Cod
In response to: Wind energy is a must for America and for Cape Cod
Maverick and others:
Your objections about the lights going out, cold showers, brown outs, etc. rest on one fundamental assumption: That wind will be used as a a dominant or majority source of power on a grid. That will never happen: Grid managers are too smart to do that to us.
Most experts in grid management believe that the maximum for wind on a typical grid is around 20%. Reasons for this include:
- Too much variability is introduced above that level
- The cost of backup skyrockets beyond that level
Grid managers know what they're doing: They'll limit the use of Wind to avoid problems associated with the variability of wind.
At or near 20% Wind will never be a panacea for our energy problems. But it can be a dependable, solid contributor.
Finally, Barbara ferrets out every single glitch that ever happened with wind and regurgitates them in her posts. Of course, all sources of energy have had their glitches too. She makes it sound like only Wind has ever had a problem. Silly of course. Don't believe her incredibly biased stuff.
Your objections about the lights going out, cold showers, brown outs, etc. rest on one fundamental assumption: That wind will be used as a a dominant or majority source of power on a grid. That will never happen: Grid managers are too smart to do that to us.
Most experts in grid management believe that the maximum for wind on a typical grid is around 20%. Reasons for this include:
- Too much variability is introduced above that level
- The cost of backup skyrockets beyond that level
Grid managers know what they're doing: They'll limit the use of Wind to avoid problems associated with the variability of wind.
At or near 20% Wind will never be a panacea for our energy problems. But it can be a dependable, solid contributor.
Finally, Barbara ferrets out every single glitch that ever happened with wind and regurgitates them in her posts. Of course, all sources of energy have had their glitches too. She makes it sound like only Wind has ever had a problem. Silly of course. Don't believe her incredibly biased stuff.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Cru,
I'm not much of a market watcher. The link you sent me seems to contain a bunch of speculation: Reading of tea leaves. That guy has no idea either.
I will say that I've been surprised how the market has gone up given the very poor long term prospects of the economy: Low growth without government stimulus, horrible job growth, incredible debt.
I'm not much of a market watcher. The link you sent me seems to contain a bunch of speculation: Reading of tea leaves. That guy has no idea either.
I will say that I've been surprised how the market has gone up given the very poor long term prospects of the economy: Low growth without government stimulus, horrible job growth, incredible debt.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Cru,
You probably won't like this, but the the existing bonuses are small potatoes compared to our $3 trillion budget. They really aren't that big a deal.
The important thing about those bonuses is the incentives that they establish for the future. That is: "Maximize short term profit no matter what!".
I worked in insurance for years and I just shook my head when I read about the money that 20 somethings were making in that London division of AIG that was selling all of those credit default swaps. They brought in hundreds of millions in premium year after year with no losses/claims while the real estate market was going up. Did anyone care to ask about an insurance market with no claims? If there was no risk, why would companies buy the swaps?
Oh, no: Nobody asked that kind of question because that would have messed up the gravy train: Massive bonuses for short term profit, long term risk be damned!
Fixing Wall Street compensation going forward is much more important than the existing bonuses.
You probably won't like this, but the the existing bonuses are small potatoes compared to our $3 trillion budget. They really aren't that big a deal.
The important thing about those bonuses is the incentives that they establish for the future. That is: "Maximize short term profit no matter what!".
I worked in insurance for years and I just shook my head when I read about the money that 20 somethings were making in that London division of AIG that was selling all of those credit default swaps. They brought in hundreds of millions in premium year after year with no losses/claims while the real estate market was going up. Did anyone care to ask about an insurance market with no claims? If there was no risk, why would companies buy the swaps?
Oh, no: Nobody asked that kind of question because that would have messed up the gravy train: Massive bonuses for short term profit, long term risk be damned!
Fixing Wall Street compensation going forward is much more important than the existing bonuses.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Cru,
I'll add that I agree with you that Wall Street is a complete, greedy, short term profit/bonus driven quagmire. I was talking about how to regulate all of that stuff with a friend last night and I have no idea how to get a regulatory handle on it. I sense that regulating Wall Street will be a lot like regulating campaign finance reform: Shut down one damaging channel and they come up with another. The guys on Wall Street are a lot smarter than campaign fundraisers!
After Health Care is behind us, I'll try to turn my mind to the financial markets. You're right: We need major and very tough regulation of those jerks.
I'll add that I agree with you that Wall Street is a complete, greedy, short term profit/bonus driven quagmire. I was talking about how to regulate all of that stuff with a friend last night and I have no idea how to get a regulatory handle on it. I sense that regulating Wall Street will be a lot like regulating campaign finance reform: Shut down one damaging channel and they come up with another. The guys on Wall Street are a lot smarter than campaign fundraisers!
After Health Care is behind us, I'll try to turn my mind to the financial markets. You're right: We need major and very tough regulation of those jerks.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Whatever I'm smokin' Crusader, it leaves me able to separate 2 distinctly different issues:
1. The abyss we were looking at last winter
2. The current situation where I will agree with you the Banks are back to their old tricks, etc. Hopefully financial market regulation will address that. I can't speak to that because I haven't followed it yet.
You've gotta separate those 2 things Cru. The fact that the banks are making out like bandits today does not mean that we should have rolled the dice last winter. If snake eyes had come up, we'd probably be at 8% negative growth and 15% unemployment today.
You and your Wall Street friend may want to gamble with our economy. Count me out.
1. The abyss we were looking at last winter
2. The current situation where I will agree with you the Banks are back to their old tricks, etc. Hopefully financial market regulation will address that. I can't speak to that because I haven't followed it yet.
You've gotta separate those 2 things Cru. The fact that the banks are making out like bandits today does not mean that we should have rolled the dice last winter. If snake eyes had come up, we'd probably be at 8% negative growth and 15% unemployment today.
You and your Wall Street friend may want to gamble with our economy. Count me out.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Nazi State Maverick? How about the state we had in 2003 when our president manufactured a reason to invade Iraq, used it to lie to the country, and used it as propaganda to convince the rest of the world?
Guess what German leader did that multiple times in the 1930s?
Guess what German leader did that multiple times in the 1930s?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
r-5,
Then I presume that you support the financial market reforms that Geithner discussed on Capital Hill that give the government greatly increased power over financial firms that receive government money.
Then I presume that you support the financial market reforms that Geithner discussed on Capital Hill that give the government greatly increased power over financial firms that receive government money.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Crusader,
All of the economists that I've read say that we were on the brink of an incredible collapse last winter and that saving the banks was absolutely necessary.
Boy am I ever glad we didn't have a gambling man like you at Treasury or at the Fed last winter. I guess you would have rolled those dice, let the banks fail and crossed your fingers huh?
Very few of us are such gamblers.
All of the economists that I've read say that we were on the brink of an incredible collapse last winter and that saving the banks was absolutely necessary.
Boy am I ever glad we didn't have a gambling man like you at Treasury or at the Fed last winter. I guess you would have rolled those dice, let the banks fail and crossed your fingers huh?
Very few of us are such gamblers.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Buzz,
Happy times are far off. This is the worst downturn since the Great Depression. It's been such a shock, employers will be very slow to rehire.
But, given that, do you or don't you agree that going from negative 6.5% growth to positive 3.5% growth in a single quarter is good news?
Happy times are far off. This is the worst downturn since the Great Depression. It's been such a shock, employers will be very slow to rehire.
But, given that, do you or don't you agree that going from negative 6.5% growth to positive 3.5% growth in a single quarter is good news?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
One more thing Buzz: I absolutely did not say that happy days are here. I did say, however, that a move from 6.5% negative growth to 3.5% positive growth in a single quarter is very good news and significantly better news than expected by economists.
Happy days are not here but it's impossible not to consider this growth very good news.
Happy days are not here but it's impossible not to consider this growth very good news.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Buzz,
Don't forget one very important thing about recessions and deficits: The former is a huge, probably the largest, driver of the latter. When GDP shrinks incomes shrink, tax revenues shrink, and deficits grow.
Sure, we've spent trillions bolstering our economy and nobody likes the debt that that has created. But since that spending had a great deal to do with today's GDP growth, it will help reduce the deficit via that growth (higher tax revenues).
Who knows how many quarters we'd have stayed in the red vis-a-vis growth if we hadn't spent on stimulus. And each negative quarter would have dumped more billions into the deficit.
I can't say that I'm sure if we should have spent as much as we did on stimulus and on bail outs. I'm just saying that we shouldn't forget the deficit benefits of the growth it's created when we discuss that spending.
Don't forget one very important thing about recessions and deficits: The former is a huge, probably the largest, driver of the latter. When GDP shrinks incomes shrink, tax revenues shrink, and deficits grow.
Sure, we've spent trillions bolstering our economy and nobody likes the debt that that has created. But since that spending had a great deal to do with today's GDP growth, it will help reduce the deficit via that growth (higher tax revenues).
Who knows how many quarters we'd have stayed in the red vis-a-vis growth if we hadn't spent on stimulus. And each negative quarter would have dumped more billions into the deficit.
I can't say that I'm sure if we should have spent as much as we did on stimulus and on bail outs. I'm just saying that we shouldn't forget the deficit benefits of the growth it's created when we discuss that spending.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
I know how the Obama haters out there love to criticize him for not snapping his fingers and fixing the worst economy inherited by a president since FDR in 1932. Yup, bad economic news for those people is like candy to a baby.
I wonder if those folks have noticed today's news that the economy grew a very respectable 3.5% in Q3. That's the average rate of growth for the economy over the last 80 years.
Now let me state the obvious before the knee jerk Obama critics do: Stimulus and rescue spending contributed greatly to this and jobs have not begun to appear.
Still, this growth is significantly larger than economists expected. There is absolutely no way that a reasonable person can see this as anything but good news and news that Obama had a large hand in generating.
OK, let's see how all the Obama haters fall all over themselves to make this turnaround in GDP growth into bad news. Should be fun to watch.
I wonder if those folks have noticed today's news that the economy grew a very respectable 3.5% in Q3. That's the average rate of growth for the economy over the last 80 years.
Now let me state the obvious before the knee jerk Obama critics do: Stimulus and rescue spending contributed greatly to this and jobs have not begun to appear.
Still, this growth is significantly larger than economists expected. There is absolutely no way that a reasonable person can see this as anything but good news and news that Obama had a large hand in generating.
OK, let's see how all the Obama haters fall all over themselves to make this turnaround in GDP growth into bad news. Should be fun to watch.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
That's it Peter. This inanity shows you deserve zero attention from here on in:
I was just reading this has been the deadliest month in the Afghanistan since the start of US involvement.Will the Messiah bring them back to life seeing how he left them to languish on the ground?
Obviously Commander in Chief is above his pay-grade.
You're beyond the pale. Absolute nuts.
I was just reading this has been the deadliest month in the Afghanistan since the start of US involvement.Will the Messiah bring them back to life seeing how he left them to languish on the ground?
Obviously Commander in Chief is above his pay-grade.
You're beyond the pale. Absolute nuts.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Maverick,
You say:
"Ike would look at America and state concerning Obama "you elected this racist with no voting record, no military record, no record with foreign diplomacy, no record at all."
Aren't you being just a little tough on poor George W. Bush? (his military record doesn't count).
You say:
"Ike would look at America and state concerning Obama "you elected this racist with no voting record, no military record, no record with foreign diplomacy, no record at all."
Aren't you being just a little tough on poor George W. Bush? (his military record doesn't count).
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Peter,
Do you give Obama credit for any of these?
1. Establishing a withdrawal plan for Iraq.
2. Tackling health care reform
3. Kick starting diplomacy after 8 years of none.
4. Reaching out to the Arab world.
5. Holding Israel's feet to the fire
6. Canceling more unnecessary military programs than any president in decades (ever?). Part of this is from today's news.
7. The Economy, while still poor, is significantly better than in on inauguration day.
Now, I will list some of his failures in a separate post if you want. That is, I am not saying that Obama is perfect. I'm just suggesting that he's not the total and complete failure that you apparently believe he is.
Does he deserve any credit for those things?
Do you give Obama credit for any of these?
1. Establishing a withdrawal plan for Iraq.
2. Tackling health care reform
3. Kick starting diplomacy after 8 years of none.
4. Reaching out to the Arab world.
5. Holding Israel's feet to the fire
6. Canceling more unnecessary military programs than any president in decades (ever?). Part of this is from today's news.
7. The Economy, while still poor, is significantly better than in on inauguration day.
Now, I will list some of his failures in a separate post if you want. That is, I am not saying that Obama is perfect. I'm just suggesting that he's not the total and complete failure that you apparently believe he is.
Does he deserve any credit for those things?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Peter,
OK, I'll drop the childish pissing contest if you will.
Back in February it seemed that Obama opponents waited about 2 weeks and then began blaming him for all the country’s problems. I exaggerate some, but you know what I mean. Of course, a president’s political opponents always have honest disagreements with him. I’m not saying that someone right of center should give Obama hugs and kisses. But to oppose him always and immediately? Automatically?
Initially, I favored Bush’s partial privatization of Social Security. I opposed him immediately on Iraq. I was lukewarm on his Medicare Drug program because he wouldn’t allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. I supported his tax cuts at first then changed my mind later. I’ll admit that, by the end, I’d seen enough: I opposed Bush across the board. But I gave him a chance!
Am I correct that you are unable or unwilling to give Obama credit when he does something right or do I exaggerate?
OK, I'll drop the childish pissing contest if you will.
Back in February it seemed that Obama opponents waited about 2 weeks and then began blaming him for all the country’s problems. I exaggerate some, but you know what I mean. Of course, a president’s political opponents always have honest disagreements with him. I’m not saying that someone right of center should give Obama hugs and kisses. But to oppose him always and immediately? Automatically?
Initially, I favored Bush’s partial privatization of Social Security. I opposed him immediately on Iraq. I was lukewarm on his Medicare Drug program because he wouldn’t allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. I supported his tax cuts at first then changed my mind later. I’ll admit that, by the end, I’d seen enough: I opposed Bush across the board. But I gave him a chance!
Am I correct that you are unable or unwilling to give Obama credit when he does something right or do I exaggerate?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
My goodness Peter, got a bit of anger going there, huh? Breath deeply...
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
r-5,
Oops, I did get that Taft/Neocon thing backwards.
We finally agree on the need to jettison neocon philosophy from the Republican platform. I cannot believe that all of those guys aren't in complete disgrace today. A bunch of them get to write on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Charles Krauthammer and Bill Crystal get to keep their jobs. I've never had a job that I would have kept if I'd done it as poorly as those guys did their Iraq War punditry.
Heck, as far as I know all leading Republicans support escalation in Afghanistan today. This isn't neocon, but it's reflexive GOP hard line defense policy, isn't it? Do you sign in blood that you will always take the hawkish side of defense issues when you become a Republican politician?
Well, I suppose I should chill some on criticizing Republicans. I'm so darned angry at them for automatic opposition to Obama. The Democrats have a bunch of flaws too.
Oops, I did get that Taft/Neocon thing backwards.
We finally agree on the need to jettison neocon philosophy from the Republican platform. I cannot believe that all of those guys aren't in complete disgrace today. A bunch of them get to write on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Charles Krauthammer and Bill Crystal get to keep their jobs. I've never had a job that I would have kept if I'd done it as poorly as those guys did their Iraq War punditry.
Heck, as far as I know all leading Republicans support escalation in Afghanistan today. This isn't neocon, but it's reflexive GOP hard line defense policy, isn't it? Do you sign in blood that you will always take the hawkish side of defense issues when you become a Republican politician?
Well, I suppose I should chill some on criticizing Republicans. I'm so darned angry at them for automatic opposition to Obama. The Democrats have a bunch of flaws too.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Wait a minute R-5: Taft was a stout isolationist. You said so yourself. He was the last man standing on opposition to our entering WWII. And now you're telling me that his philosophy was similar to the neocons who ran happily off to Iraq? You'll have to explain that "similarity" a bit more.
Beyond that, we're probably more in agreement than it may appear and - from my perspective - this quote from Wikipedia on Taft is why:
"However, he did not always follow conservative ideology; for instance, after investigating the lack of adequate housing in the nation he supported public housing programs.[5] He also supported the Social Security program."
I have no problem with a conservative who generally opposes a Democratic president's policies as long as he/she doesn't oppose them automatically for political reasons. By supporting housing and SS, Taft demonstrated that he was a thinking man acting from principle not politics. When it made sense, he was able to support progressive policies.
Today's GOP has none of that spirit. No, if it's from Obama it's opposed regardless of substance.
Beyond that, we're probably more in agreement than it may appear and - from my perspective - this quote from Wikipedia on Taft is why:
"However, he did not always follow conservative ideology; for instance, after investigating the lack of adequate housing in the nation he supported public housing programs.[5] He also supported the Social Security program."
I have no problem with a conservative who generally opposes a Democratic president's policies as long as he/she doesn't oppose them automatically for political reasons. By supporting housing and SS, Taft demonstrated that he was a thinking man acting from principle not politics. When it made sense, he was able to support progressive policies.
Today's GOP has none of that spirit. No, if it's from Obama it's opposed regardless of substance.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Temper, temper Peter. Looks like Ned touched a nerve. If you've got a "real life" and don't care about criticism from Ned, why take the time to write such a long, angry response?
I think most everyone but you knows that we can disagree in this blog without making it personal. And - If you dislike Richard's stuff so much - stop reading it!
I think most everyone but you knows that we can disagree in this blog without making it personal. And - If you dislike Richard's stuff so much - stop reading it!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
Buzz,
Yup, that's the attitude of today's GOP that I fight all of the time. That is, the "Everything the government does is evil so we oppose virtually any government activity" attitude.
Actually, let me amend that a bit to say:
"...we oppose virtually any government activity undertaken by a Democratic president or a Democratic Congress".
Government action initiated by the GOP is OK. Example: I don't recall any GOP screams of "socialism" and "over my dead body" when Bush added an expensive drug program to Medicare.
It's the total and absolute opposition to any action by a Democratic president that bothers me in today's GOP. Total opposition without exception.
Yup, that's the attitude of today's GOP that I fight all of the time. That is, the "Everything the government does is evil so we oppose virtually any government activity" attitude.
Actually, let me amend that a bit to say:
"...we oppose virtually any government activity undertaken by a Democratic president or a Democratic Congress".
Government action initiated by the GOP is OK. Example: I don't recall any GOP screams of "socialism" and "over my dead body" when Bush added an expensive drug program to Medicare.
It's the total and absolute opposition to any action by a Democratic president that bothers me in today's GOP. Total opposition without exception.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Oops that last one should have been to Peter.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Yeah r-5, I knew about the national defense motivation for the highway system. I believe Ike was very influenced by a cross country trip that he took with a group of military vehicles before WWII. They ran into dirt roads, bridges that wouldn't support the vehicles, etc. It may have taken 3 months to cross the country (but my memory may fail me there).
So, you're right. Still - he and his party approved the massive federal spending needed to build the highways. That was my point: I can't see the GOP touching anything like with a 10 foot pole today. If it involves government and if there's a Democrat in the Oval Office: Automatic "No" to government expenditure, regardless of the benefit.
So, you're right. Still - he and his party approved the massive federal spending needed to build the highways. That was my point: I can't see the GOP touching anything like with a 10 foot pole today. If it involves government and if there's a Democrat in the Oval Office: Automatic "No" to government expenditure, regardless of the benefit.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
r-5,
If it ever wants to be a majority party again, the GOP will have to broaden its appeal. There just aren't enough Americans who are conservative enough to sustain the party as currently constituted (as a majority party anyway).
I don't know much about Taft. A brief scan of his Wikipedia article seems to indicate, however, that he was anything but a conservative by today's definition. Wikipedia mentions a number of his moderate positions. He was also an isolationist: He wouldn't have supported the Iraq War in a million years.
Harking back to Goldwater means keeping the GOP too narrowly conservative and too hard line to return to the majority.
I think that today's conservative movement is a creation of Reagan and Reagan's descendants. The Republicans before Reagan, including "Mr. Republican" Robert Taft and of course Ike weren't nearly as narrow and hard line as today's conservatives.
The party needs to broaden its appeal by returning to the party of Taft and Ike.
If it ever wants to be a majority party again, the GOP will have to broaden its appeal. There just aren't enough Americans who are conservative enough to sustain the party as currently constituted (as a majority party anyway).
I don't know much about Taft. A brief scan of his Wikipedia article seems to indicate, however, that he was anything but a conservative by today's definition. Wikipedia mentions a number of his moderate positions. He was also an isolationist: He wouldn't have supported the Iraq War in a million years.
Harking back to Goldwater means keeping the GOP too narrowly conservative and too hard line to return to the majority.
I think that today's conservative movement is a creation of Reagan and Reagan's descendants. The Republicans before Reagan, including "Mr. Republican" Robert Taft and of course Ike weren't nearly as narrow and hard line as today's conservatives.
The party needs to broaden its appeal by returning to the party of Taft and Ike.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
j.madden,
Stevenson was very popular with the intellectuals and what some today call the "northeastern elites" wasn't he? Was Ike more popular with everyday folk? Did the elites look down their noses at Ike the common man kind of like the Dems looked down their noses at Bush II?
I didn't know that Stevenson died so young. Fortunately, he lived lone enough to do good work at the U.N. during the Cuban Missile crisis in '63. He must have been pretty young when he opposed Ike in '52.
Stevenson was very popular with the intellectuals and what some today call the "northeastern elites" wasn't he? Was Ike more popular with everyday folk? Did the elites look down their noses at Ike the common man kind of like the Dems looked down their noses at Bush II?
I didn't know that Stevenson died so young. Fortunately, he lived lone enough to do good work at the U.N. during the Cuban Missile crisis in '63. He must have been pretty young when he opposed Ike in '52.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: KUMBAYA!
In response to: KUMBAYA!
j.madden,
It's funny that you mention your recollection of Ike as being a do-nothing president. I recall an old friend who was about a decade older than I having the very same impression of Ike. I was too young to remember him from experience (born in '56) but that was my impression of him for awhile.
Then I read a biography of Ike (I believe by Stephen Ambrose) and came away with the idea that Ike's greatest accomplishment may have been not doing much. Let me explain: The author felt that Ike was under incredible Cold War pressure to take aggressive action against the Soviets. While there was definitely a military build up under Ike, it could have been much worse had someone with less credibility in national defense been president. Of course, Ike referred to that pressure in his final presidential speech when he described the dangers of the "military/industrial complex".
That was one author's opinion anyway.
It's funny that you mention your recollection of Ike as being a do-nothing president. I recall an old friend who was about a decade older than I having the very same impression of Ike. I was too young to remember him from experience (born in '56) but that was my impression of him for awhile.
Then I read a biography of Ike (I believe by Stephen Ambrose) and came away with the idea that Ike's greatest accomplishment may have been not doing much. Let me explain: The author felt that Ike was under incredible Cold War pressure to take aggressive action against the Soviets. While there was definitely a military build up under Ike, it could have been much worse had someone with less credibility in national defense been president. Of course, Ike referred to that pressure in his final presidential speech when he described the dangers of the "military/industrial complex".
That was one author's opinion anyway.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Peter,
I've read at least one full biography of Ike and, for a couple of years, I was especially interested in reading the history of the 50s.
There's no question that Ike supported peace through strength. At the same time, he was continually under extreme pressure by American reactionaries to undertake aggressive anti-Soviet action. And he continually refused.
Now, if you want to cherry pick examples of American military preparedness under Ike, you'll have a field day. You can do that forever. But you'll miss the big picture: Given the hysteria of the times, Ike was a moderate and calming influence.
By the way: Can you imagine any Republican today authorizing the domestic expenditure for a project like the highway system? Out of the question. The government can do no right!
Ike would have no place in today's GOP.
I've read at least one full biography of Ike and, for a couple of years, I was especially interested in reading the history of the 50s.
There's no question that Ike supported peace through strength. At the same time, he was continually under extreme pressure by American reactionaries to undertake aggressive anti-Soviet action. And he continually refused.
Now, if you want to cherry pick examples of American military preparedness under Ike, you'll have a field day. You can do that forever. But you'll miss the big picture: Given the hysteria of the times, Ike was a moderate and calming influence.
By the way: Can you imagine any Republican today authorizing the domestic expenditure for a project like the highway system? Out of the question. The government can do no right!
Ike would have no place in today's GOP.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Peter, I’m not sure you could provide a better example of conservative thinking gone awry. You say:
“I honestly don’t think Ike’s views would have remained consistent with the mind set of his era were he to be alive today”.
You’re right. Ike would have been even more moderate today. Consider Ike’s era: The absolute height of the Cold War. The Soviets had recently taken Eastern Europe and China had fallen to Mao. The term “Red Scare” literally defined the age. And what did Ike do? He preached calm and resisted unending calls for aggressive action. Talk about a moderate voice of reason in a sea of fear! At least when people shouted “Socialism” back then it was real.
Today’s GOP yells “Socialism” at the drop of a hat. Today’s Soviet Union is Health Care! What a joke.
No, Ike would howl in laughter at the GOP hysteria of today. He’d see the party as the bunch of nut jobs that they are. He’d be far, far to the left of today’s GOP.
“I honestly don’t think Ike’s views would have remained consistent with the mind set of his era were he to be alive today”.
You’re right. Ike would have been even more moderate today. Consider Ike’s era: The absolute height of the Cold War. The Soviets had recently taken Eastern Europe and China had fallen to Mao. The term “Red Scare” literally defined the age. And what did Ike do? He preached calm and resisted unending calls for aggressive action. Talk about a moderate voice of reason in a sea of fear! At least when people shouted “Socialism” back then it was real.
Today’s GOP yells “Socialism” at the drop of a hat. Today’s Soviet Union is Health Care! What a joke.
No, Ike would howl in laughter at the GOP hysteria of today. He’d see the party as the bunch of nut jobs that they are. He’d be far, far to the left of today’s GOP.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Peter,
Richard makes a very useful point: Someone with Ike's moderate views would not be welcome in today's ultra-right GOP.
Back when I was a Republican, I wanted Colin Powell to run for president. The problem was that he would have had no chance of winning the Republican nomination because the party activists absolutely demand conservative purity in the primaries. Nobody with a moderate bone in their body need apply.
So we got Bush instead. Ouch!
Richard makes a very useful point: Someone with Ike's moderate views would not be welcome in today's ultra-right GOP.
Back when I was a Republican, I wanted Colin Powell to run for president. The problem was that he would have had no chance of winning the Republican nomination because the party activists absolutely demand conservative purity in the primaries. Nobody with a moderate bone in their body need apply.
So we got Bush instead. Ouch!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Rich,
You mention that Ike would have no place in today's GOP and you're right. Have you seen the uproar about that special election in upstate New York where the GOP nominee has the temerity to be pro-Choice? Major Republicans from across the country are falling over themselves to repudiate the candidate. I guess GOP litmus tests abound.
How would you compare today's Democratic party to the Democrats of the 50s, 60s and 70s?
I'm pretty sure that the Dems are less liberal than they were in the 70s and 80s, when I started watching politics. Back then, the Senate was full of Kennedys, Metzembaums, Harkins, Wellstones, etc. There are fewer far left Dems because the Reagan revolution moved the whole political spectrum to the Right.
Thoughts?
You mention that Ike would have no place in today's GOP and you're right. Have you seen the uproar about that special election in upstate New York where the GOP nominee has the temerity to be pro-Choice? Major Republicans from across the country are falling over themselves to repudiate the candidate. I guess GOP litmus tests abound.
How would you compare today's Democratic party to the Democrats of the 50s, 60s and 70s?
I'm pretty sure that the Dems are less liberal than they were in the 70s and 80s, when I started watching politics. Back then, the Senate was full of Kennedys, Metzembaums, Harkins, Wellstones, etc. There are fewer far left Dems because the Reagan revolution moved the whole political spectrum to the Right.
Thoughts?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset
In response to: Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset
There's another reason that the Iraq War debate is important: President Obama is considering whether or not to commit 40,000 new troops to Afghanistan. The Iraq War is the most recent situation in which this country debated war.
Perhaps we should consider taking a few lessons from 2003 and applying them today. What do you think Buzz? A good idea?
War is very costly and the last thing in the world to be rushed into. Via Iraq, we got a great example of what happens when macho, red blooded politicians rush this country into war. Anyone criticizing Obama for taking his time on the Afghanistan decision should take a lesson from how rapid and shallow decision making worked out for us in Iraq.
Perhaps we should consider taking a few lessons from 2003 and applying them today. What do you think Buzz? A good idea?
War is very costly and the last thing in the world to be rushed into. Via Iraq, we got a great example of what happens when macho, red blooded politicians rush this country into war. Anyone criticizing Obama for taking his time on the Afghanistan decision should take a lesson from how rapid and shallow decision making worked out for us in Iraq.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset
In response to: Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset
Sorry Buzz,
Robert Kelly raised this issue by devoting the 1st half of his blog to it. And when someone says something ridiculous on a blog, they'd better expect a response.
I'll assume from your response that you agree that war in 2003 was not justified. That's progress, Buzz. Good work.
Robert Kelly raised this issue by devoting the 1st half of his blog to it. And when someone says something ridiculous on a blog, they'd better expect a response.
I'll assume from your response that you agree that war in 2003 was not justified. That's progress, Buzz. Good work.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset
In response to: Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset
What, are none of the Obama haters/Bush apologists willing to debate the 1st post to this blog from me that says that Iraqi WMD, even if they had existed, didn't come close to justifying war in 2003?
Perhaps even the most devout of that crowd now accepts that the 2nd Iraq was unjustified. If so, that's good and shows progress. 4,000 American lives, over 100,000 Iraqi lifes, and hundreds of billions of dollars to late, of course. But still progress!
Hopefully the country has learned some lessons:
1. Since war is hell we cannot let a misguided president lead us into war without a MAJOR national threat or interest.
2. If a president does argue for war, we must demand a truthful justification.
Perhaps even the most devout of that crowd now accepts that the 2nd Iraq was unjustified. If so, that's good and shows progress. 4,000 American lives, over 100,000 Iraqi lifes, and hundreds of billions of dollars to late, of course. But still progress!
Hopefully the country has learned some lessons:
1. Since war is hell we cannot let a misguided president lead us into war without a MAJOR national threat or interest.
2. If a president does argue for war, we must demand a truthful justification.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset
In response to: Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset
Cru and Esther,
If you want an example of how Bush had NO understanding of going to war in the Middle East, consider this:
Bush and company actually thought that, after invading in March, they would exit in large part in September. Remember Jake Garner, the 1st US Administrator (before Bremer)? Bush didn't bother putting a diplomat in there at first because he thought the job would be over in a couple of months.
What incredible ignorance! Wouldn't it have been nice if Bush had picked up a history book in his years before becoming president?
His father knew better: With Baghdad laying at his feet in 1990 he said "N0: If I take Baghdad, I'll own it. That's a bridge waaaaay too far".
Sadly, not his ignorant son.
If you want an example of how Bush had NO understanding of going to war in the Middle East, consider this:
Bush and company actually thought that, after invading in March, they would exit in large part in September. Remember Jake Garner, the 1st US Administrator (before Bremer)? Bush didn't bother putting a diplomat in there at first because he thought the job would be over in a couple of months.
What incredible ignorance! Wouldn't it have been nice if Bush had picked up a history book in his years before becoming president?
His father knew better: With Baghdad laying at his feet in 1990 he said "N0: If I take Baghdad, I'll own it. That's a bridge waaaaay too far".
Sadly, not his ignorant son.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset
In response to: Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset
To read this blogger, you'd think that Obama was making a speech every other day blaming all of his problems on Bush.
What a load of BS! Yes, Obama has mentioned that most of his largest problems were inherited from Bush. But this hardly a drum that he beats regularly. Occasionally? Yes. Regularly. Not even close.
The author of this blog is obviously one of those devout Obama haters that magnifies everything minutely negative about Obama. Reminds me of what Rush does for 4 hours each day.
I think that we can forgive a president who has inherited more problems from his predecessor than any president since FDR for mentioning that once in awhile.
But to say that this is an Obama mantra and then making believe that the angelic Bush NEVER did it shows the incredible bias of this blogger.
What a load of BS! Yes, Obama has mentioned that most of his largest problems were inherited from Bush. But this hardly a drum that he beats regularly. Occasionally? Yes. Regularly. Not even close.
The author of this blog is obviously one of those devout Obama haters that magnifies everything minutely negative about Obama. Reminds me of what Rush does for 4 hours each day.
I think that we can forgive a president who has inherited more problems from his predecessor than any president since FDR for mentioning that once in awhile.
But to say that this is an Obama mantra and then making believe that the angelic Bush NEVER did it shows the incredible bias of this blogger.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset
In response to: Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset
Peter,
Have you seen the "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Networks of al Qaeda" left by Clinton? That is, how do you know it wasn't worth the paper it was written on?
It's easy to criticize Clinton for not doing more to get al Qaeda and Osama. But, of course, that criticism comes with the benefit of hindsight (knowledge of 9/11). Nobody was calling for a war on al Qaeda or the equivalent before 9/11: Nobody (including all the experts).
And even if Clinton had desperately wanted to get Bin Laden, he had a nettlesome little thing called Democracy to worry about. Prior to 9/11 Clinton didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing the American people to invade Afghanistan to get al Qaeda. Clinton's hands were tied.
Just as Bush's hands were tied on Iraq until Bin Laden gave him a gift from heaven on 9/11: After that, Bush had no problem selling that unjust war.
Have you seen the "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Networks of al Qaeda" left by Clinton? That is, how do you know it wasn't worth the paper it was written on?
It's easy to criticize Clinton for not doing more to get al Qaeda and Osama. But, of course, that criticism comes with the benefit of hindsight (knowledge of 9/11). Nobody was calling for a war on al Qaeda or the equivalent before 9/11: Nobody (including all the experts).
And even if Clinton had desperately wanted to get Bin Laden, he had a nettlesome little thing called Democracy to worry about. Prior to 9/11 Clinton didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing the American people to invade Afghanistan to get al Qaeda. Clinton's hands were tied.
Just as Bush's hands were tied on Iraq until Bin Laden gave him a gift from heaven on 9/11: After that, Bush had no problem selling that unjust war.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Cru,
Much of what you say seems to relate to the years leading up to last year's crash. You'll get no debate from me there: Washington DC was hoodwinked by Wall Street and Greenspan.
But considering just where we were in October of last year: Are you saying that Bush and then Obama should have stood by and let Goldman, Merril, CTI, et. al. fail?
When I went to Business School years ago I had the following concept drilled into my head: "Always consider the absolute worst downside of a strategy. If the worst case means 'you're out of business' and there's any chance of that at all.... don't go there".
There's a significant chance that our whole economic system would have collapsed if we'd rolled the "let them fail" dice.
See what I'm saying?
Much of what you say seems to relate to the years leading up to last year's crash. You'll get no debate from me there: Washington DC was hoodwinked by Wall Street and Greenspan.
But considering just where we were in October of last year: Are you saying that Bush and then Obama should have stood by and let Goldman, Merril, CTI, et. al. fail?
When I went to Business School years ago I had the following concept drilled into my head: "Always consider the absolute worst downside of a strategy. If the worst case means 'you're out of business' and there's any chance of that at all.... don't go there".
There's a significant chance that our whole economic system would have collapsed if we'd rolled the "let them fail" dice.
See what I'm saying?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset
In response to: Bushitis, An Unproductive Mindset
Here’s the first half of Bush’s case for war:
“Iraq has WMD”
What Bush left unsaid, but implied, is the second half of the sentence:
“… and they justify going to war”.
Every intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMD so there’s no debate about the 1st half. The second half is a completely different story. The question is: “If Saddam had WMD, would they have been a threat that justified war?”. The answer is a resounding “NO”.
Saddam used chemical weapons twice: Against Iran and against the Kurds, both in the 80s. He had not used chemical weapons in over a decade (including Iraq War I) and he had not threatened to use them. So, there was no reason to expect Saddam to use WMD against us. That is, if Saddam had possessed WMD they would not have been a significant threat to the US and its allies.
War is always a very serious matter. The lives lost and the hundreds of billions spent show that to have been the case in Iraq. Saddam’s WMD, even if they had existed, didn’t come close to justifying war. Bush just used them to scare us all into his war of choice.
“Iraq has WMD”
What Bush left unsaid, but implied, is the second half of the sentence:
“… and they justify going to war”.
Every intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMD so there’s no debate about the 1st half. The second half is a completely different story. The question is: “If Saddam had WMD, would they have been a threat that justified war?”. The answer is a resounding “NO”.
Saddam used chemical weapons twice: Against Iran and against the Kurds, both in the 80s. He had not used chemical weapons in over a decade (including Iraq War I) and he had not threatened to use them. So, there was no reason to expect Saddam to use WMD against us. That is, if Saddam had possessed WMD they would not have been a significant threat to the US and its allies.
War is always a very serious matter. The lives lost and the hundreds of billions spent show that to have been the case in Iraq. Saddam’s WMD, even if they had existed, didn’t come close to justifying war. Bush just used them to scare us all into his war of choice.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
j.madden,
I guess the only reason to stay in Afghanistan is to prevent the collapse of Pakistan. I read a book awhile ago about Afghanistan and Pakistan called "Descent into Chaos" about the years that Bush ignored the area in favor of Iraq.
Until reading that book, I never understood what a mess Pakistan is. It's more dangerous than Afghanistan. And, of course, it has nuclear weapons.
One argument is that we can't leave Afghanistan and allow it to become a staging area for the overthrow of Pakistan.
We don't need 40,000 more troops for that, however. But it may be necessary to stay there for many years at a rather low level.
I guess the only reason to stay in Afghanistan is to prevent the collapse of Pakistan. I read a book awhile ago about Afghanistan and Pakistan called "Descent into Chaos" about the years that Bush ignored the area in favor of Iraq.
Until reading that book, I never understood what a mess Pakistan is. It's more dangerous than Afghanistan. And, of course, it has nuclear weapons.
One argument is that we can't leave Afghanistan and allow it to become a staging area for the overthrow of Pakistan.
We don't need 40,000 more troops for that, however. But it may be necessary to stay there for many years at a rather low level.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Cru,
Sounds like you're a gambling man. If the banks had failed, there would have been a very good chance that we'd be in economic oblivion right now. I mean 20% unemployment. A modern economy cannot operate without credit and there was NONE of that at this time last year even before the domino-like huge bank failures that we'd have seen without bailouts.
Perhaps you're right and the economy wouldn't have collapsed completely. But there's a good chance that you're wrong. Impossible to say because we can't rerun history.
But no president since Hoover would have done anything differently from Bush (remember - he did a bunch of bailing too) and Obama. And we know what happened when Hoover toughed it out.
If you'd been president, would you really have rolled the dice and let the banks fail?
Sounds like you're a gambling man. If the banks had failed, there would have been a very good chance that we'd be in economic oblivion right now. I mean 20% unemployment. A modern economy cannot operate without credit and there was NONE of that at this time last year even before the domino-like huge bank failures that we'd have seen without bailouts.
Perhaps you're right and the economy wouldn't have collapsed completely. But there's a good chance that you're wrong. Impossible to say because we can't rerun history.
But no president since Hoover would have done anything differently from Bush (remember - he did a bunch of bailing too) and Obama. And we know what happened when Hoover toughed it out.
If you'd been president, would you really have rolled the dice and let the banks fail?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
j and cru,
This Afghanistan decision will say much about Obama. It looks to me like it's a choice between:
a. Increasing troops in a big way and trying to achieve a great deal
b. Withdrawing
I'd be willing to bet that Obama will commit about half of the troops requested: Split the difference.
That won't be enough troops to pacify Afghanistan and it'll increase our losses. Next year, the Army will ask for more troops again. Just like Vietnam.
I'd say that Obama should escalate in a big way now or get out (and I'd prefer the latter). Just watch: He'll split the difference.
This Afghanistan decision will say much about Obama. It looks to me like it's a choice between:
a. Increasing troops in a big way and trying to achieve a great deal
b. Withdrawing
I'd be willing to bet that Obama will commit about half of the troops requested: Split the difference.
That won't be enough troops to pacify Afghanistan and it'll increase our losses. Next year, the Army will ask for more troops again. Just like Vietnam.
I'd say that Obama should escalate in a big way now or get out (and I'd prefer the latter). Just watch: He'll split the difference.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
j.madden,
I don't agree with all of your last post but I do agree that I wish that Obama had been tougher in many situations. And when I say "tougher" I mean more resolute in implementing left of center solutions to remedy the excesses of the Bush era. Example: He should fight for the Public Option in Health Care.
Let's face it - in many areas Obama has been a moderate and willing to go down the middle between left and right.
That's why I guffaw when I hear devout Obama haters accuse him of being a "socialist". He's been a moderate.
But the devout Obama haters have their preconceived notions AND they are allergic to a Democrat in the White House no matter how he governs.
I don't agree with all of your last post but I do agree that I wish that Obama had been tougher in many situations. And when I say "tougher" I mean more resolute in implementing left of center solutions to remedy the excesses of the Bush era. Example: He should fight for the Public Option in Health Care.
Let's face it - in many areas Obama has been a moderate and willing to go down the middle between left and right.
That's why I guffaw when I hear devout Obama haters accuse him of being a "socialist". He's been a moderate.
But the devout Obama haters have their preconceived notions AND they are allergic to a Democrat in the White House no matter how he governs.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
r-Five,
I have have not pointed out that "the entire health care system will ultimately have to come under government control...".
No. I have pointed out that only government can reform health care. The end result can still be and should still be largely non-government. In Germany, for instance, health insurers are non-profit.
And, as I said before, each of the superior systems of the other countries subsidize the poor and use "publicly levied monies". That is not close to unique to our system.
You betray your refusal to consider our government instituting fundamental reforms when you resort again to "Government intervention has wrecked yet another...".
And - once again - you've refused to answer my fundamental question:
"Are you willing to consider our government spear heading reforms like the ones that have made other health systems superior to ours?".
Why do you refuse to consider other countries? If government-led reforms have worked over and over elsewhere, why can't we consider that here?
I have have not pointed out that "the entire health care system will ultimately have to come under government control...".
No. I have pointed out that only government can reform health care. The end result can still be and should still be largely non-government. In Germany, for instance, health insurers are non-profit.
And, as I said before, each of the superior systems of the other countries subsidize the poor and use "publicly levied monies". That is not close to unique to our system.
You betray your refusal to consider our government instituting fundamental reforms when you resort again to "Government intervention has wrecked yet another...".
And - once again - you've refused to answer my fundamental question:
"Are you willing to consider our government spear heading reforms like the ones that have made other health systems superior to ours?".
Why do you refuse to consider other countries? If government-led reforms have worked over and over elsewhere, why can't we consider that here?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Alright r-Five, perhaps I've misread your posts. And, for now, I'll ignore your use of "nationalized health care" as a pejorative term.
So, let's test your words: Are you willing to consider incorporating aspects of the much more successful health care systems of other countries here? That is, are you willing to consider fundamental reform that would have to be spear headed by our government to reform our system?
You've never shown any willingness to do this. Rather, you always cop out by saying: "Tell me again why I shoudn't be angry".
Does that anger prevent you from considering government executed reforms that have helped other countries? That's been my thesis in all of this.
So, let's test your words: Are you willing to consider incorporating aspects of the much more successful health care systems of other countries here? That is, are you willing to consider fundamental reform that would have to be spear headed by our government to reform our system?
You've never shown any willingness to do this. Rather, you always cop out by saying: "Tell me again why I shoudn't be angry".
Does that anger prevent you from considering government executed reforms that have helped other countries? That's been my thesis in all of this.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
possee,
You've called me names numerous times. I don't think you've actually debated an issue with me on substance once.
YOu didn't say that I vilified you, but what way you've called me names for no good reason in the past I assumed that you were including me.
You've called me names numerous times. I don't think you've actually debated an issue with me on substance once.
YOu didn't say that I vilified you, but what way you've called me names for no good reason in the past I assumed that you were including me.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Buzz,
You're showering me with weak defenses of Rush. I am not about to devote significant time to listening to Rush today or reading today's transcripts. And hiding behind the fact that I won't do that to prove your point is weak. Very weak.
What do you think about what Rush said about the Bus incident?
You're showering me with weak defenses of Rush. I am not about to devote significant time to listening to Rush today or reading today's transcripts. And hiding behind the fact that I won't do that to prove your point is weak. Very weak.
What do you think about what Rush said about the Bus incident?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
One more thing r-Five: All of those better health care systems that I mention subsidize low income people. That does not prevent them from being successful.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
r-Five,
You ask: "How can you say that when the basics of the system operate in accordance with govt diktat?"
I don't know what "diktat" means. But I can say that the types of reform that I'm suggesting work BECAUSE THEY WORK IN MANY OTHER COUNTRIES. Why do you refuse to consider that? What don't you get about other countries with:
a. Better health care than ours
b. Half the costs
This is real and this is current: Much more current than 1970s era experiments with price controls.
People like you who basically say "Make fundamental reforms to our health care system over my dead body!" because you feel that government can never do anything right are the people who are standing squarely in the way of the types of reform other countries have undergone which have produced results vastly superior what what we experience here.
Why do you refuse to consider the success stories of other countries?
You ask: "How can you say that when the basics of the system operate in accordance with govt diktat?"
I don't know what "diktat" means. But I can say that the types of reform that I'm suggesting work BECAUSE THEY WORK IN MANY OTHER COUNTRIES. Why do you refuse to consider that? What don't you get about other countries with:
a. Better health care than ours
b. Half the costs
This is real and this is current: Much more current than 1970s era experiments with price controls.
People like you who basically say "Make fundamental reforms to our health care system over my dead body!" because you feel that government can never do anything right are the people who are standing squarely in the way of the types of reform other countries have undergone which have produced results vastly superior what what we experience here.
Why do you refuse to consider the success stories of other countries?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Actually Buzz, let me clarify something so that you can't pick at it:
I can't remember if it was a video or an audio clip. I heard the ridiculous rant, however.
I can't remember if it was a video or an audio clip. I heard the ridiculous rant, however.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Buzz,
I did you one better: I watched the rant on video. My abject apologies that I can't quote from it chapter and verse 6 months later.
Thanks, however, for the very weak defense of Rush. It helps demonstrate my point about equivalence. You're a master.
Watch the video!
I did you one better: I watched the rant on video. My abject apologies that I can't quote from it chapter and verse 6 months later.
Thanks, however, for the very weak defense of Rush. It helps demonstrate my point about equivalence. You're a master.
Watch the video!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Buzz,
Last spring, a camera on a school bus filmed a bunch of black kids beating up a white kid. Limbaugh must have spent 10 minutes on this. I'm paraphrasing, but he said things like:
- So this is Obama's post-racial America, huh?
- Of course, libs are saying that the kid deserved it because he was racist. Well, I guess he must be: He's white!
It was really incredible. As if the election of a black president was supposed to eliminate ALL such instances the day after inauguration. And nobody on either side of the aisle justified the beating because the white kid was racist.
Limbaugh makes this stuff up from whole clothe every day of every week. I've never seen anybody twist daily events to distort the way he does.
He ranted on this for a full 10 minutes and probably distorted it in 5 other ways too that I can't remember.
Despicable.
Last spring, a camera on a school bus filmed a bunch of black kids beating up a white kid. Limbaugh must have spent 10 minutes on this. I'm paraphrasing, but he said things like:
- So this is Obama's post-racial America, huh?
- Of course, libs are saying that the kid deserved it because he was racist. Well, I guess he must be: He's white!
It was really incredible. As if the election of a black president was supposed to eliminate ALL such instances the day after inauguration. And nobody on either side of the aisle justified the beating because the white kid was racist.
Limbaugh makes this stuff up from whole clothe every day of every week. I've never seen anybody twist daily events to distort the way he does.
He ranted on this for a full 10 minutes and probably distorted it in 5 other ways too that I can't remember.
Despicable.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
possee,
If you check out my posts in response to you, I mainly make substantive arguments against your positions. I don't think that I vilify you unless you do that to me first.
You've gotta be careful that you don't confuse disagreement with vilification.
But then I don't think you've ever debated substance with me. Rather, you skip the substance and leap to calling me names.
I'll be interested to see if this post causes you to call me a name.
If you check out my posts in response to you, I mainly make substantive arguments against your positions. I don't think that I vilify you unless you do that to me first.
You've gotta be careful that you don't confuse disagreement with vilification.
But then I don't think you've ever debated substance with me. Rather, you skip the substance and leap to calling me names.
I'll be interested to see if this post causes you to call me a name.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Buzz,
Go back and read my posts from a couple of days ago. I gave whoever I was debating Maher and I said that I dislike Olberman too: he's not a news guy - just high octane entertainment.
But, do you seriously equate Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter and the other worst pundits on the right with the worst on the left?
If so, you're engaging in a game of equivalence.
And it's impossible for me to prove that you're wrong because there's no definitive measuring stick for comparing.
If you can't see that there's MUCH more bile, venom, and lying from the top pundits on the Right then I've just gotta consider you to be deaf I guess.
Go back and read my posts from a couple of days ago. I gave whoever I was debating Maher and I said that I dislike Olberman too: he's not a news guy - just high octane entertainment.
But, do you seriously equate Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter and the other worst pundits on the right with the worst on the left?
If so, you're engaging in a game of equivalence.
And it's impossible for me to prove that you're wrong because there's no definitive measuring stick for comparing.
If you can't see that there's MUCH more bile, venom, and lying from the top pundits on the Right then I've just gotta consider you to be deaf I guess.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
In response to: Truth, Justice and The American Way, Or Pearls Before Swine
Buzz,
Do you remember the term "moral equivalency" that was used a lot during the Cold War?
This was where the communists and communist supporters equated the dirty deeds of the communist powers with our dirty deeds. Examples:
Our overthrow of Iran = Stalin's overthrow of all of Eastern Europe
U.S. poverty = millions of starvation deaths in Mao's Cultural Revolution
Don't get me wrong: Those equivalencies were never stated explicitly. However, whenever you tried to point out the incredible evils of the communist side, liberals always mentioned our problems and bad deeds as if they were equivalent.
And the problem was that, since there was no defined measuring stick for government evil, they got away with this.
Why do I mention this? Because that's exactly what people are doing when they act like the commentators on MSNBC and CNN are equivalent to Limbaugh, Beck and company.
You can get away with this because there's no defined measuring stick to compare pundits.
But reasonable people know what you're doing.
Do you remember the term "moral equivalency" that was used a lot during the Cold War?
This was where the communists and communist supporters equated the dirty deeds of the communist powers with our dirty deeds. Examples:
Our overthrow of Iran = Stalin's overthrow of all of Eastern Europe
U.S. poverty = millions of starvation deaths in Mao's Cultural Revolution
Don't get me wrong: Those equivalencies were never stated explicitly. However, whenever you tried to point out the incredible evils of the communist side, liberals always mentioned our problems and bad deeds as if they were equivalent.
And the problem was that, since there was no defined measuring stick for government evil, they got away with this.
Why do I mention this? Because that's exactly what people are doing when they act like the commentators on MSNBC and CNN are equivalent to Limbaugh, Beck and company.
You can get away with this because there's no defined measuring stick to compare pundits.
But reasonable people know what you're doing.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
r-Five,
Our entire system is not profit driven: Medicare does not turn a profit.
Wage controls are not needed.
we do need strict reimbursement rates. Yes - that's price control. The countries that out-perform us have done this.
How has that worked? Extremely well in other countries.
Of the 5 countries examined in "Sick Around the World" only one is what can be called "nationalized". That's England and it's the worst of the five. Yup, in England all the doctors work for the government and all of the hospitals are owned by the government.
In the others, government has set up the system by eliminating profit from health insurance and by setting reimbursement rates. But nobody works for the government.
"Nationalized Health Care" is one of those scary terms that are thrown around without understanding. Many use it to scare off rational discussion.
We do not need to and should not "Nationalize" our health care system. That does not mean, however, we can't reorganize the system via government effort as other countries have done.
Our entire system is not profit driven: Medicare does not turn a profit.
Wage controls are not needed.
we do need strict reimbursement rates. Yes - that's price control. The countries that out-perform us have done this.
How has that worked? Extremely well in other countries.
Of the 5 countries examined in "Sick Around the World" only one is what can be called "nationalized". That's England and it's the worst of the five. Yup, in England all the doctors work for the government and all of the hospitals are owned by the government.
In the others, government has set up the system by eliminating profit from health insurance and by setting reimbursement rates. But nobody works for the government.
"Nationalized Health Care" is one of those scary terms that are thrown around without understanding. Many use it to scare off rational discussion.
We do not need to and should not "Nationalize" our health care system. That does not mean, however, we can't reorganize the system via government effort as other countries have done.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
r-Five,
Yeah, but the countries I mention that are described in "Sick Around the World" all have much more government involvement than does our system. And - of course - they out-perform our system hands down. It's not even close.
I still can't agree with this:
"The present crisis is not a product of a free market system, but rather the direct result of government intervention in the form of subsidized demand."
Most of the current crisis is caused by the fact that the vast majority of our health insurance is "for profit". It's just a plain fact that the primary directive of a company is to maximize profit. In this case, the primary objective of a private health insurance company is to maximize profit NOT provide the best care possible.
That's the #1 common factor between the western country health care systems that out-perform ours: Nobody makes a profit on health insurance.
Profit must be taken out of health insurance and that means moving away from a private market driven system.
Yeah, but the countries I mention that are described in "Sick Around the World" all have much more government involvement than does our system. And - of course - they out-perform our system hands down. It's not even close.
I still can't agree with this:
"The present crisis is not a product of a free market system, but rather the direct result of government intervention in the form of subsidized demand."
Most of the current crisis is caused by the fact that the vast majority of our health insurance is "for profit". It's just a plain fact that the primary directive of a company is to maximize profit. In this case, the primary objective of a private health insurance company is to maximize profit NOT provide the best care possible.
That's the #1 common factor between the western country health care systems that out-perform ours: Nobody makes a profit on health insurance.
Profit must be taken out of health insurance and that means moving away from a private market driven system.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
r-Five,
The following statement does not hold muster in any of the health care systems around the world that deliver better care than ours at lower cost:
"A major reason for the cost is precisely due to govt programs pumping money into the system. Simple market economics dictate that prices will increase when demand is massively subsidized by taxpayer funding. As it stands, we have passed the tipping point, and, regardless of what is done now, we face the spectre of nationalized medicine in a decade. And you tell me not to be angry?"
Please, please see "Sick Around the World" from Frontline before you make such statements. The systems that beat the pants off of ours all have more government involvement than we do. Germany, Switzerland, Japan and Hong Kong still use private providers BUT with 2 provisos:
1. Nobody gets to make a profit off of health insurance.
2. Reimbursement rates are tightly controlled across the system.
Do the research r-Five: These systems are MUCH better than ours. Those governments built superior systems. We can too.
The following statement does not hold muster in any of the health care systems around the world that deliver better care than ours at lower cost:
"A major reason for the cost is precisely due to govt programs pumping money into the system. Simple market economics dictate that prices will increase when demand is massively subsidized by taxpayer funding. As it stands, we have passed the tipping point, and, regardless of what is done now, we face the spectre of nationalized medicine in a decade. And you tell me not to be angry?"
Please, please see "Sick Around the World" from Frontline before you make such statements. The systems that beat the pants off of ours all have more government involvement than we do. Germany, Switzerland, Japan and Hong Kong still use private providers BUT with 2 provisos:
1. Nobody gets to make a profit off of health insurance.
2. Reimbursement rates are tightly controlled across the system.
Do the research r-Five: These systems are MUCH better than ours. Those governments built superior systems. We can too.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
r-Five,
Your anger at government is excessive.
Take health care: Our system is so screwed up it's sick. What else can one call a system whose care is rated below most Western countries AND costs twice as much per capita as any of those systems.
Exactly who will change that system if not government?
Let's try to be serious r-Five: It's fine to disagree with a proposal from the government on an issue like health care, but if we're so against government that we prevent it from doing anything, serious problems will never be addressed.
We've gotta work with our government, that is: Examine what it proposes, acknowledge the good, and criticize the bad.
But just saying: If it's from the government, I oppose it is like a little kid stampings his/her feet.
Your anger at government is excessive.
Take health care: Our system is so screwed up it's sick. What else can one call a system whose care is rated below most Western countries AND costs twice as much per capita as any of those systems.
Exactly who will change that system if not government?
Let's try to be serious r-Five: It's fine to disagree with a proposal from the government on an issue like health care, but if we're so against government that we prevent it from doing anything, serious problems will never be addressed.
We've gotta work with our government, that is: Examine what it proposes, acknowledge the good, and criticize the bad.
But just saying: If it's from the government, I oppose it is like a little kid stampings his/her feet.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Maverick,
I'm with you: We need a new party. Unfortunately, we haven't had a new one since the demise of the Whigs and the rise of the Republicans in the 1850s. Until then, parties came and went fairly regularly. I'd love to talk to a Political Scientist to learn why that process stopped. I suspect that the 2 existing parties have been very codified in things like Congressional rules.
You say: "I am extremely disappointed that the repubs haven't proposed an honest solution in rebuttal."
Of course I agree. But the more important question is still: "Why didn't the GOP care to address health care between 2000 and 2006 when it controlled all of D.C.?".
I hear you when you criticize both parties. Heck, the Dems really are to liberal. BUT AT LEAST THEY'RE IN THE GAME! Not so the GOP which just sits on its hands in office and shouts "NO" out of office.
I'm with you: We need a new party. Unfortunately, we haven't had a new one since the demise of the Whigs and the rise of the Republicans in the 1850s. Until then, parties came and went fairly regularly. I'd love to talk to a Political Scientist to learn why that process stopped. I suspect that the 2 existing parties have been very codified in things like Congressional rules.
You say: "I am extremely disappointed that the repubs haven't proposed an honest solution in rebuttal."
Of course I agree. But the more important question is still: "Why didn't the GOP care to address health care between 2000 and 2006 when it controlled all of D.C.?".
I hear you when you criticize both parties. Heck, the Dems really are to liberal. BUT AT LEAST THEY'RE IN THE GAME! Not so the GOP which just sits on its hands in office and shouts "NO" out of office.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Peter,
Well, your challenge causes me to redefine my complaints about Beck, Coulter and company from "lies" to "vicious, over the top comments".
Let's start with the following from Beck:
"Obama is a "racist” who “has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.”
That's unsupportable and waaaay over the top. Despicable.
Ann Coulter. How about:
"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."
"Clinton masturbates in the sink".
Awhile ago, I listened to a Limbaugh rant about a bunch of black kids beating up a white kid on a bus. The jerk actually tried to blame Obama for this! "This is what happens in Obama's America". "Of course, in Obama's America the kid deserved it. He was racist, we know this because he was white".
These aren't likes. Rather they're despicable, viscous statements. These people make a living appealing to the angry Right with viscous stuff like this.
Well, your challenge causes me to redefine my complaints about Beck, Coulter and company from "lies" to "vicious, over the top comments".
Let's start with the following from Beck:
"Obama is a "racist” who “has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.”
That's unsupportable and waaaay over the top. Despicable.
Ann Coulter. How about:
"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."
"Clinton masturbates in the sink".
Awhile ago, I listened to a Limbaugh rant about a bunch of black kids beating up a white kid on a bus. The jerk actually tried to blame Obama for this! "This is what happens in Obama's America". "Of course, in Obama's America the kid deserved it. He was racist, we know this because he was white".
These aren't likes. Rather they're despicable, viscous statements. These people make a living appealing to the angry Right with viscous stuff like this.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
r-Five,
I agree with you: There's plenty of reason to be angry with gov't.
But should we be so mad that we just say "NO" to any gov't efforts to improve our society? That's what I see on the Right, at least when there's a Democrat in the White House.
Have I pushed the Front Line program "Sick Around the World" on you? It's at NetFlix or online at www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld.
This shows how 5 gov'ts built health care systems that out perform ours at much less cost. Most still rely upon the market. Switzerland rebuilt their system in the 80s.
My point: Reform like this can only be done by the gov't. If we are so angry with gov't that we just say "NO" to reform via gov't, we're screwed. In this case, Health Care costs will just eat us up.
You may say: I disagree with Obama's approach. OK, but why didn't the GOP tackle health care when it was in charge? I'd say: Because it's cynical about using gov't.
My point: The kind of blanket opposition to gov't action that I see from the GOP is excessive.
We can't allow anger to hamstring our gov't completely.
I agree with you: There's plenty of reason to be angry with gov't.
But should we be so mad that we just say "NO" to any gov't efforts to improve our society? That's what I see on the Right, at least when there's a Democrat in the White House.
Have I pushed the Front Line program "Sick Around the World" on you? It's at NetFlix or online at www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld.
This shows how 5 gov'ts built health care systems that out perform ours at much less cost. Most still rely upon the market. Switzerland rebuilt their system in the 80s.
My point: Reform like this can only be done by the gov't. If we are so angry with gov't that we just say "NO" to reform via gov't, we're screwed. In this case, Health Care costs will just eat us up.
You may say: I disagree with Obama's approach. OK, but why didn't the GOP tackle health care when it was in charge? I'd say: Because it's cynical about using gov't.
My point: The kind of blanket opposition to gov't action that I see from the GOP is excessive.
We can't allow anger to hamstring our gov't completely.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Jane Logan is right. Illegal immigration is an issue that the Right loves to rant about. So, it's natural that it be used against Health Care. While Obamacare does not address the aspects of the current system that allow illegals to get health insurance, it does not expressly provide it to them. These bills are neutral on immigration and those on the Right who argue this issue are just using their favorite, all purpose cudgel here.
Re: Left Wing pundits: Nobody is arguing that there aren't Lefties out there that deserve criticism. But the names that have come up from the Left show that there are no heavy hitters on that side to compare with Rush et. al. Who, in their right mind, could equate Michael Musto with Glenn Beck for instance. Ridiculous.
No, if we were to rank talking heads using a combination of their lies and their ratings, the top 5 would obviously be on the Right.
Of course it's probably not their fault. Rather, it's the fault of listeners and viewers on the Right that are so angry that they lap up lies and hate from people like Coulter.
Re: Left Wing pundits: Nobody is arguing that there aren't Lefties out there that deserve criticism. But the names that have come up from the Left show that there are no heavy hitters on that side to compare with Rush et. al. Who, in their right mind, could equate Michael Musto with Glenn Beck for instance. Ridiculous.
No, if we were to rank talking heads using a combination of their lies and their ratings, the top 5 would obviously be on the Right.
Of course it's probably not their fault. Rather, it's the fault of listeners and viewers on the Right that are so angry that they lap up lies and hate from people like Coulter.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Peter,
I hear you on having different perspectives of pundits on the left and right. Over time, however, as they come up I may find it necessary to bring some of the INCREDIBLE stuff uttered by the 4 from the Right that I've mentioned. Some incredibly vile stuff comes out of their mouths, especially Beck and Coulter. Blatant lies.
I hear you on having different perspectives of pundits on the left and right. Over time, however, as they come up I may find it necessary to bring some of the INCREDIBLE stuff uttered by the 4 from the Right that I've mentioned. Some incredibly vile stuff comes out of their mouths, especially Beck and Coulter. Blatant lies.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Peter,
I've gotta take a pass on that language. I read it 3 times and couldn't understand it.
Of course, it's just talking about who's covered by the individual mandate: Who must obtain insurance. That's quite different from providing insurance to illegal aliens.
I've gotta take a pass on that language. I read it 3 times and couldn't understand it.
Of course, it's just talking about who's covered by the individual mandate: Who must obtain insurance. That's quite different from providing insurance to illegal aliens.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Peter,
You've got some very small fish on that list: O'Donnell, Scheuster, Musto, Wolfe, Shultz. Those guys aren't in the same league at Rush, Hannity, Beck and Coulter.
Matthews is big enough but heck, he almost turned into the Hulk on Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Primary. Yeah, he's left of center but not close to how far Rush, et. al. are to the Right AND he doesn't like like those guys.
I'll give you Maher. He's pretty over the top. Not sure he's in Hannity's league, but I'll concede this one.
I can't really comment on Michael Musto. I've always assumed that the DailyKOS was too far out there on the left to be taken seriously. I don't follow it.
Overall, with the possible exception Maher and Musto that's a very weak batting order. Nobody lies like the big 4 or the Right do and most of them are small fry too.
You've got some very small fish on that list: O'Donnell, Scheuster, Musto, Wolfe, Shultz. Those guys aren't in the same league at Rush, Hannity, Beck and Coulter.
Matthews is big enough but heck, he almost turned into the Hulk on Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Primary. Yeah, he's left of center but not close to how far Rush, et. al. are to the Right AND he doesn't like like those guys.
I'll give you Maher. He's pretty over the top. Not sure he's in Hannity's league, but I'll concede this one.
I can't really comment on Michael Musto. I've always assumed that the DailyKOS was too far out there on the left to be taken seriously. I don't follow it.
Overall, with the possible exception Maher and Musto that's a very weak batting order. Nobody lies like the big 4 or the Right do and most of them are small fry too.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
r-Five,
You're darn right I'd be talking about moderation and rational discussion in the middle if McCain had won. I'd give McCain credit for ideas that I considered to be good and I'd criticize him for policies that I disagreed with. I absolutely would not have some blanket opposition to McCain which you guys on the left absolutely have for Obama. I was a Republican from 1978 to 2003 when Bush pushed me out of the ever shrinking GOP tent. I'd definitely have given McCain a chance.
I don't know your positions well enough so I've gotta generalize here: The vast majority of Obama critics I see on sites like this one have the attitude: "If it's from Obama, it's bad".
I would not have given McCain that ridiculous treatment.
You're darn right I'd be talking about moderation and rational discussion in the middle if McCain had won. I'd give McCain credit for ideas that I considered to be good and I'd criticize him for policies that I disagreed with. I absolutely would not have some blanket opposition to McCain which you guys on the left absolutely have for Obama. I was a Republican from 1978 to 2003 when Bush pushed me out of the ever shrinking GOP tent. I'd definitely have given McCain a chance.
I don't know your positions well enough so I've gotta generalize here: The vast majority of Obama critics I see on sites like this one have the attitude: "If it's from Obama, it's bad".
I would not have given McCain that ridiculous treatment.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Peter,
I may have missed the context of your last post. You're not saying that the CPS and CRS somehow affect the workings of the health care bills and thus enable them to provide health care to illegals are you?
If you are: How to the CPS and CRS affect the legislation? They're very separate things.
I may have missed the context of your last post. You're not saying that the CPS and CRS somehow affect the workings of the health care bills and thus enable them to provide health care to illegals are you?
If you are: How to the CPS and CRS affect the legislation? They're very separate things.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Peter,
Who said that? Olbermann? Whoever said it, it's way out of line.
I don't take Olbermann seriously. He's about 90% high volume shock entertainment and about 10% substance.
Unless Air America is still on the air (is it?) Olberman is about the worst talking head on the left. But even he doesn't come close to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Coulter in terms of blatant lying and misleading.
He's bad but tame by the Right's standards.
Hey, here's an interesting exercise if you think the Left is as bad as the right. I'd say that Rush, Hannity, Beck and Coulter are about the Right's worst talking heads. Who are the Left's 4 worst? If you or anyone can provide 4 names from the left that can stand up to those 4 lunatics on the Right, I'd like to see the names. Could be interesting...
Who said that? Olbermann? Whoever said it, it's way out of line.
I don't take Olbermann seriously. He's about 90% high volume shock entertainment and about 10% substance.
Unless Air America is still on the air (is it?) Olberman is about the worst talking head on the left. But even he doesn't come close to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Coulter in terms of blatant lying and misleading.
He's bad but tame by the Right's standards.
Hey, here's an interesting exercise if you think the Left is as bad as the right. I'd say that Rush, Hannity, Beck and Coulter are about the Right's worst talking heads. Who are the Left's 4 worst? If you or anyone can provide 4 names from the left that can stand up to those 4 lunatics on the Right, I'd like to see the names. Could be interesting...
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Buzz,
All I read was the summary but I couldn't find anything that says that HR 3200 extends health care coverage to illegal aliens.
The closest in there is the fact that the law does not prohibit illegal aliens from buying private insurance through the Insurance Exchange. BUT they would have to pay the premium. Nothing is provided to them. Also, private insurers check the citizenship of applicants. That'll happen through the Exchange too.
The next paragraph says that subsidies for low income people are only provided to individuals "lawfully in the United States".
I don't see HR 3200 providing health care to illegals. If you can show me where in that document I'm wrong, please do.
All I read was the summary but I couldn't find anything that says that HR 3200 extends health care coverage to illegal aliens.
The closest in there is the fact that the law does not prohibit illegal aliens from buying private insurance through the Insurance Exchange. BUT they would have to pay the premium. Nothing is provided to them. Also, private insurers check the citizenship of applicants. That'll happen through the Exchange too.
The next paragraph says that subsidies for low income people are only provided to individuals "lawfully in the United States".
I don't see HR 3200 providing health care to illegals. If you can show me where in that document I'm wrong, please do.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Maverick,
If you're just sitting there why don't you back up your contention that Obama would provide health care to illegal aliens? Until you do, I'll assume you can't back that statement up.
Then: Temper, temper Maverick. At 69 you should have enough maturity to take a couple of jabs. I don't think that I must have served my country by your definition to express opinions on public policy issues. In fact, both you and I know that I don't.
Take a deep breath and chill a bit Maverick...
...then consider backing up your statement on health care for illegals. Perhaps you'll be the rare Obama critic willing to do a bit of homework to back up your statements. The vast majority of Obama critics just think that hating him is enough: No need for fact or evidence.
If you're just sitting there why don't you back up your contention that Obama would provide health care to illegal aliens? Until you do, I'll assume you can't back that statement up.
Then: Temper, temper Maverick. At 69 you should have enough maturity to take a couple of jabs. I don't think that I must have served my country by your definition to express opinions on public policy issues. In fact, both you and I know that I don't.
Take a deep breath and chill a bit Maverick...
...then consider backing up your statement on health care for illegals. Perhaps you'll be the rare Obama critic willing to do a bit of homework to back up your statements. The vast majority of Obama critics just think that hating him is enough: No need for fact or evidence.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Maverick,
You should read Richard's most recent Latimer on the Law article. He has a ouiji board with all of the words and phrases that Obama opponents fall back on reflexively in health care "debate". I don't know if "health care for illegals" is on there, but it should be.
These bills try very hard to exclude coverage to illegals. Of course, with 5 separate bills it's a bit tough to provide detail. But my reading of the situation is that Obamacare will not make health care any more or any less available to immigrants than it is today.
Sure, there are ways today that illegals can scam the system. And, by state law in the vast majority of states, illegals do get Emergency Room care. Obamacare does not change any of that.
But that's about the only way one can argue that Obamacare covers illegals.
Unless you have information or evidence to the contrary which I'd love to see if you can point me to it.
Until then, you're just mouthing a sound bite that probably came from Rush, Hannity or someone similar.
You should read Richard's most recent Latimer on the Law article. He has a ouiji board with all of the words and phrases that Obama opponents fall back on reflexively in health care "debate". I don't know if "health care for illegals" is on there, but it should be.
These bills try very hard to exclude coverage to illegals. Of course, with 5 separate bills it's a bit tough to provide detail. But my reading of the situation is that Obamacare will not make health care any more or any less available to immigrants than it is today.
Sure, there are ways today that illegals can scam the system. And, by state law in the vast majority of states, illegals do get Emergency Room care. Obamacare does not change any of that.
But that's about the only way one can argue that Obamacare covers illegals.
Unless you have information or evidence to the contrary which I'd love to see if you can point me to it.
Until then, you're just mouthing a sound bite that probably came from Rush, Hannity or someone similar.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
I agree Bitter, it is hard to be in the middle when one side is so whacko. I've heard so many lies and distortions about Obama's health care reform that I automatically go on offense from further to the left then I'd be if the stuff I heard wasn't so wrong.
With Health Care, there are plenty of things to complain about with Obama's approach. First in my mind is the fact that he's putting a bunch of regulations on private insurance but, with the single exception of the Public Option which Obama seems more than willing to drop, there's not a single thing to prevent private insurers from increasing premiums. Obama says that rising insurance premiums is one of the 2 main problems with our health care system but he's probably going to increase cost, not reduce it.
But when I'm debating health care I don't have much time to discuss that kind of thing because I'm debunking the wild, crazy lies from the opposition. An opposition that can take Palin's "Death Panels" thing seriously.
Result: No reasonable discussion in the middle.
With Health Care, there are plenty of things to complain about with Obama's approach. First in my mind is the fact that he's putting a bunch of regulations on private insurance but, with the single exception of the Public Option which Obama seems more than willing to drop, there's not a single thing to prevent private insurers from increasing premiums. Obama says that rising insurance premiums is one of the 2 main problems with our health care system but he's probably going to increase cost, not reduce it.
But when I'm debating health care I don't have much time to discuss that kind of thing because I'm debunking the wild, crazy lies from the opposition. An opposition that can take Palin's "Death Panels" thing seriously.
Result: No reasonable discussion in the middle.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
In response to: Ouingnut Ouija
Hey, I've got a revolutionary idea: Rather than line up in lock step behind either the Wingnut Ouija players or the Moonbat Monopoly players, why don't we consider standing between them at times? Why can't we ever seem to occupy the rational middle?
Truth is seldom found on the extreme Right or the Extreme Left. If we all insist on standing on the far right or far left we end up so far away we can't hear each other, much less talk rationally about issues.
Let's try a bit of moderation!
Truth is seldom found on the extreme Right or the Extreme Left. If we all insist on standing on the far right or far left we end up so far away we can't hear each other, much less talk rationally about issues.
Let's try a bit of moderation!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Peter,
Nothing back from my friend yet. I'm sure he'll get to it.
Re: GOP attacks on Obama: Don't you agree that the GOP is much better at hating than is the Democratic party? Here's are some examples:
If Sarah Palin had been a Democrat, her "Death Panel" comment would have gone nowhere. With the GOP, that ridiculous comment got incredible traction.
Back in the Spring I was posting to the Cape Cod Times site and I couldn't believe the number of people on the Right who were trashing Obama, saying all of the country's problems were now his (not Bush legacies), and reveling in the fact that Obama hadn't corrected them in February and March.
Staffers at the Weekly Standard cheered Chicago's loss of the Olympics.
This stuff is much worse than anything from the Dems. The venom from the Right and its complete unwillingness to cooperate with a Democratic president is really hurting this country.
Nothing back from my friend yet. I'm sure he'll get to it.
Re: GOP attacks on Obama: Don't you agree that the GOP is much better at hating than is the Democratic party? Here's are some examples:
If Sarah Palin had been a Democrat, her "Death Panel" comment would have gone nowhere. With the GOP, that ridiculous comment got incredible traction.
Back in the Spring I was posting to the Cape Cod Times site and I couldn't believe the number of people on the Right who were trashing Obama, saying all of the country's problems were now his (not Bush legacies), and reveling in the fact that Obama hadn't corrected them in February and March.
Staffers at the Weekly Standard cheered Chicago's loss of the Olympics.
This stuff is much worse than anything from the Dems. The venom from the Right and its complete unwillingness to cooperate with a Democratic president is really hurting this country.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Bitter,
Let me anticipate what some will say to counter my last post: "Democrats were aggressively against Bush too".
First, it's kinda tough to compare early Bush to early Obama: What party wouldn't have been mad as heck after losing a presidential election in the Supreme Court after its candidate won the popular vote? Can you imagine how the GOP would have reacted?
Then we had 9/11 and almost everyone was united behind Bush for many months.
The lasting severe criticism only began when Bush started lying to the country about Iraq. That is, the loud criticism from the Dems came in response to Bush policies. The tax cuts and the deficit factored in as well.
But whacko, over the top criticism of Obama started on January 21st! The GOP didn't wait for policies or policy results. It got ugly almost immediately.
If Krugman is right, that's because a fundamentally wrong and immoral act had just occurred that justified GOP venom: The inauguration of a Democrat.
Let me anticipate what some will say to counter my last post: "Democrats were aggressively against Bush too".
First, it's kinda tough to compare early Bush to early Obama: What party wouldn't have been mad as heck after losing a presidential election in the Supreme Court after its candidate won the popular vote? Can you imagine how the GOP would have reacted?
Then we had 9/11 and almost everyone was united behind Bush for many months.
The lasting severe criticism only began when Bush started lying to the country about Iraq. That is, the loud criticism from the Dems came in response to Bush policies. The tax cuts and the deficit factored in as well.
But whacko, over the top criticism of Obama started on January 21st! The GOP didn't wait for policies or policy results. It got ugly almost immediately.
If Krugman is right, that's because a fundamentally wrong and immoral act had just occurred that justified GOP venom: The inauguration of a Democrat.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Bitter,
Referring to angry Republicans/conservatives, you said recently: "You act like a bunch of raving lunatics simply because you were voted out".
I agree and I've been wondering why Republicans act this way.
I referred to it in another recent post, but did you read the Paul Krugman editorial in the NY Times of 10/5? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html
Here's a snippet:
-------
The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.
-----
I think this part gets to this issue: "[Republicans] DO NOT ACCEPT ANYONE ELSE'S RIGHT TO GOVERN".
These zealouts just know in their bones that only they are right. The rest of us are immoral socialists. So, when we win the Presidency it's fundamentally immoral.
What do you think?
Referring to angry Republicans/conservatives, you said recently: "You act like a bunch of raving lunatics simply because you were voted out".
I agree and I've been wondering why Republicans act this way.
I referred to it in another recent post, but did you read the Paul Krugman editorial in the NY Times of 10/5? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html
Here's a snippet:
-------
The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.
-----
I think this part gets to this issue: "[Republicans] DO NOT ACCEPT ANYONE ELSE'S RIGHT TO GOVERN".
These zealouts just know in their bones that only they are right. The rest of us are immoral socialists. So, when we win the Presidency it's fundamentally immoral.
What do you think?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Peter,
You say: "I have to ask, who is denied "the right to an education and a decent job with benefits"?
Come on: The fact that something isn't expressly denied in the constitution doesn't come close to ensuring that that something is available. And this lack of availability can motivate government action.
Nowhere in the constitution is an education denied to a child. But many children were not educated until laws requiring education were written and enforced.
Nowhere in the constitution is income to the elderly denied. But many elderly lived in poverty until Social Security.
You're working awfully hard to justify your "no government action" philosophy Peter.
You say: "I have to ask, who is denied "the right to an education and a decent job with benefits"?
Come on: The fact that something isn't expressly denied in the constitution doesn't come close to ensuring that that something is available. And this lack of availability can motivate government action.
Nowhere in the constitution is an education denied to a child. But many children were not educated until laws requiring education were written and enforced.
Nowhere in the constitution is income to the elderly denied. But many elderly lived in poverty until Social Security.
You're working awfully hard to justify your "no government action" philosophy Peter.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Peter,
I've sent your post to a lawyer friend of mine who has explained constitutional stuff to me in the past. There will definitely be a clause in the Constitution that gives the Executive and Legislative branches the power to govern health care. There are simply too many things like this that the feds have done in the past and that have withstood Supreme Court muster: Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, workplace safety, food and drug regulation, and on and on. Not one of those is mentioned in the Constitution but there's no legal question of the federal government's power to regulate them.
I'm sure I'll have the answer soon.
I've sent your post to a lawyer friend of mine who has explained constitutional stuff to me in the past. There will definitely be a clause in the Constitution that gives the Executive and Legislative branches the power to govern health care. There are simply too many things like this that the feds have done in the past and that have withstood Supreme Court muster: Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, workplace safety, food and drug regulation, and on and on. Not one of those is mentioned in the Constitution but there's no legal question of the federal government's power to regulate them.
I'm sure I'll have the answer soon.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Karent2,
I have never once said that health care is a right. You're not saying that, unless something is defined as a right (I guess in the Bill of Rights) that government can't address it are you? Heck the Preamble says: "... promote the general welfare...".
No, providing for the health of citizens is a valid and important governmental role quite separate from whether or not Health Care is a right.
I have never once said that health care is a right. You're not saying that, unless something is defined as a right (I guess in the Bill of Rights) that government can't address it are you? Heck the Preamble says: "... promote the general welfare...".
No, providing for the health of citizens is a valid and important governmental role quite separate from whether or not Health Care is a right.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Peter Walker,
Are you seriously trying to say that a President and Congress trying to reform health care is unconstitutional? I'm afraid you'll have to point to the part of the Constitution that says that before that argument can be taken seriously. And I hope that you don't cover your tracks by saying that you're not a Constitutional Scholar because that would mean that you're spouting about something that you don't understand.
Where does the Constitution say that the Executive and Legislative branches can't reform health care?
Are you seriously trying to say that a President and Congress trying to reform health care is unconstitutional? I'm afraid you'll have to point to the part of the Constitution that says that before that argument can be taken seriously. And I hope that you don't cover your tracks by saying that you're not a Constitutional Scholar because that would mean that you're spouting about something that you don't understand.
Where does the Constitution say that the Executive and Legislative branches can't reform health care?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
What, no conservative/Republican wants to step up to explain why the GOP didn't try to fix health care its way back when it owned D.C. for 6 long years? Nope, better to set on their hands and then scream like hell when a Democrat tries to fix the problem.
Come on Republicans. Please give us an explanation!
Come on Republicans. Please give us an explanation!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Bitter, I hear you on the Right really hurting this country under Bush. The fact that people on the Right could sit idly by while Bush, Delay and company were doing all the awful things you mention is caused by the worse partisanship that I've ever seen. That is, political commitment to the GOP and hatred of the Dems blinded people to the evils of Iraq, unfunded tax cuts, torture, etc.
If it's from the GOP, support it. If it's from the Dems, including ANY Democratic president, oppose it.
And one last thing: If Republicans oppose Obamacare so fiercely, why didn't they try to fix health care their way when they controlled all of D.C. for 6 long years?
I've never gotten an answer to that one from a conservative. Does any conservative care to take a shot at that one?
If it's from the GOP, support it. If it's from the Dems, including ANY Democratic president, oppose it.
And one last thing: If Republicans oppose Obamacare so fiercely, why didn't they try to fix health care their way when they controlled all of D.C. for 6 long years?
I've never gotten an answer to that one from a conservative. Does any conservative care to take a shot at that one?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Jane,
The health insurance industry didn't have to do much convincing to get people to yell "socialism". Those that use that word to criticize health care reform are descendants of the Reagan Revolution and they believe in their bones that government is ALWAYS the enemy, no matter what challenge faces the country.
Actually, let me amend that: They're against any new government if there's a Democrat in the White House. Do you recall any cries of "Socialism" when Bush passed the huge Medicare Prescription program? I sure don't. How about the Department of Homeland Defense? Nope, not a peep. If a Democrat has proposed those programs, these people would have gone horse screaming the word "Socialism!".
Heck, these devout descendants of Reagan don't really believe that Democrats have a right to govern when they win the White House. That's how deeply they loath the Left.
They act like we elected Lenin in November, not Obama.
The health insurance industry didn't have to do much convincing to get people to yell "socialism". Those that use that word to criticize health care reform are descendants of the Reagan Revolution and they believe in their bones that government is ALWAYS the enemy, no matter what challenge faces the country.
Actually, let me amend that: They're against any new government if there's a Democrat in the White House. Do you recall any cries of "Socialism" when Bush passed the huge Medicare Prescription program? I sure don't. How about the Department of Homeland Defense? Nope, not a peep. If a Democrat has proposed those programs, these people would have gone horse screaming the word "Socialism!".
Heck, these devout descendants of Reagan don't really believe that Democrats have a right to govern when they win the White House. That's how deeply they loath the Left.
They act like we elected Lenin in November, not Obama.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Ah Maverick, you're a member in good standing of the "the world is black or white" party, huh? You ask my party affiliation: I'm definitely not in that party.
Let's try to be serious. There are hundreds of matters of degree. The U.S. without Social Security would be less socialist. But would it be a better country? Obviously not. Same for Medicare.
I am suspicious of enlarging government but when something as important as Health Care is being botched incredibly by private insurance as it is today, I'm willing to bend.
Seeing shades of gray is part of being thinking citizen Maverick.
Let's try to be serious. There are hundreds of matters of degree. The U.S. without Social Security would be less socialist. But would it be a better country? Obviously not. Same for Medicare.
I am suspicious of enlarging government but when something as important as Health Care is being botched incredibly by private insurance as it is today, I'm willing to bend.
Seeing shades of gray is part of being thinking citizen Maverick.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Obama and Communism
In response to: Obama and Communism
Yet another "all or nothing" view from Robert. Why must nearly all of today's political debate be framed as an all or nothing thing: Obama is either heaven on earth or Karl Marx reborn? Life, including politics is seldom that way.
Examples: Did Social Security and Medicare more this country along the scale from individualism to socialism? Sure. Did they make this country a socialist state? Of course not. More socialist, yes. Socialist, No.
It's perfectly reasonable to argue, as was done by FDR, that a partial move toward socialism via Social Security was worth it to lift millions of elderly from poverty. And it's perfectly reasonable to argue today that a similar step should be taken to address the mess that is out health care system. But that would hardly represent a sudden step into the abyss of Socialism.
Reasonable people can disagree on what level of increased government involvement is reasonable. But those who squawk "Socialism", implying that a proposed change will deliver us in to the arms of Marx, embarrass themselves.
Examples: Did Social Security and Medicare more this country along the scale from individualism to socialism? Sure. Did they make this country a socialist state? Of course not. More socialist, yes. Socialist, No.
It's perfectly reasonable to argue, as was done by FDR, that a partial move toward socialism via Social Security was worth it to lift millions of elderly from poverty. And it's perfectly reasonable to argue today that a similar step should be taken to address the mess that is out health care system. But that would hardly represent a sudden step into the abyss of Socialism.
Reasonable people can disagree on what level of increased government involvement is reasonable. But those who squawk "Socialism", implying that a proposed change will deliver us in to the arms of Marx, embarrass themselves.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Crusader,
What truth are you referring to (from which Obama will be hiding under rock)?
What truth are you referring to (from which Obama will be hiding under rock)?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
possee,
So, in hindsight, do you judge Bush by the neocons that he surrounded himself with? Those guys were in seriously senior posts: Secretary of Defense, all the Under Secretaries of Defense, United Nations, etc.
My memory may fail, but I don't think that there's anyone higher than assistant Deputy of a cabinet department or White House adviser that you Obama haters are complaining about. Perhaps I'm wrong. But they're not nearly as high as Bush's neocons.
More small potatoes from the Obama haters.
So, in hindsight, do you judge Bush by the neocons that he surrounded himself with? Those guys were in seriously senior posts: Secretary of Defense, all the Under Secretaries of Defense, United Nations, etc.
My memory may fail, but I don't think that there's anyone higher than assistant Deputy of a cabinet department or White House adviser that you Obama haters are complaining about. Perhaps I'm wrong. But they're not nearly as high as Bush's neocons.
More small potatoes from the Obama haters.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Maverick,
So what you perceive to be unfair media treatment justifies you saying that Obama is a Muslim plant without evidence?
Not in my book.
So what you perceive to be unfair media treatment justifies you saying that Obama is a Muslim plant without evidence?
Not in my book.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Maverick,
You say: "Obama is a Muslim plant to destroy America."
Hmmm... what country or organization planted him? What evidence do you have? Assuming that you have no evidence, why do you say things like this? You just make them up don't you?
Could it be that you just hate Obama to the marrow of your bones?
I know, that's enough to justify saying just about anything negative about Obama isn't it?
I'll stand corrected on that if you provide some evidence on Obama being a Muslim plant.
You say: "Obama is a Muslim plant to destroy America."
Hmmm... what country or organization planted him? What evidence do you have? Assuming that you have no evidence, why do you say things like this? You just make them up don't you?
Could it be that you just hate Obama to the marrow of your bones?
I know, that's enough to justify saying just about anything negative about Obama isn't it?
I'll stand corrected on that if you provide some evidence on Obama being a Muslim plant.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Maverick,
If you're an independent then you're in a good position to view the tactics of the Right and Left unemotionally.
Hasn't the Right unleashed an almost unprecedented flood of serious lies and exaggerations during this Health Care debate? Don't they dwarf the tactics of the Left?
One example: I think that they'd call virtually anything proposed by Obama "socialism".
If you're an independent then you're in a good position to view the tactics of the Right and Left unemotionally.
Hasn't the Right unleashed an almost unprecedented flood of serious lies and exaggerations during this Health Care debate? Don't they dwarf the tactics of the Left?
One example: I think that they'd call virtually anything proposed by Obama "socialism".
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Maverick,
Nothing in that web article comes close to the lies and exaggerations from the Right: Death panels, health insurance for illegals, federal funding of abortions, Obama's bill will outlaw private insurance, rationing for the elderly, government take over of health care (as if it was Single payer), etc.
I'm not going to say that Obama and the Left haven't lied and exaggerated some too. But this gets me back to "matter of degree" again: The lies and exaggerations from the Right dwarf those from the Left. I don't think I've ever seen a more cynical and untruthful campaign in my 30 years of watching politics (unless it was the Right against Health Care in 1994).
The Right is MUCH worse.
Nothing in that web article comes close to the lies and exaggerations from the Right: Death panels, health insurance for illegals, federal funding of abortions, Obama's bill will outlaw private insurance, rationing for the elderly, government take over of health care (as if it was Single payer), etc.
I'm not going to say that Obama and the Left haven't lied and exaggerated some too. But this gets me back to "matter of degree" again: The lies and exaggerations from the Right dwarf those from the Left. I don't think I've ever seen a more cynical and untruthful campaign in my 30 years of watching politics (unless it was the Right against Health Care in 1994).
The Right is MUCH worse.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Maverick,
I see you managed to avoid discussing the substance of an issue again. Better to use blanket statements like "Obama is a liar". Can you back that statement up with something significant?
Again, I know that it's much easier and more satisfying to just rant and rave.
Why is Obama a liar?
I see you managed to avoid discussing the substance of an issue again. Better to use blanket statements like "Obama is a liar". Can you back that statement up with something significant?
Again, I know that it's much easier and more satisfying to just rant and rave.
Why is Obama a liar?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Peter,
You've got one mistake in your last post: Obama didn't donate a dollar to ACORN. Rather, he hired them for a "get out the vote" effort. Now, I guess we can act like that's some window into Obama's soul, but it's not. It's a tiny little thing in a huge campaign.
My overall point is that these anti-Obama talking points add up to small potatoes. If we gave Bush or any other president the same treatment, we'd be able to do the same thing. I could have had a field day listing all of Bush's neocon appointments back in 2000 for instance, but there would have been one difference there: Those appointments turned out to be anything but small potatoes.
If you're worried about where Obama is taking us, you should pay attention to much larger issues. These things are peanuts and they make you look like you're bending way over backward to attack him.
You've got one mistake in your last post: Obama didn't donate a dollar to ACORN. Rather, he hired them for a "get out the vote" effort. Now, I guess we can act like that's some window into Obama's soul, but it's not. It's a tiny little thing in a huge campaign.
My overall point is that these anti-Obama talking points add up to small potatoes. If we gave Bush or any other president the same treatment, we'd be able to do the same thing. I could have had a field day listing all of Bush's neocon appointments back in 2000 for instance, but there would have been one difference there: Those appointments turned out to be anything but small potatoes.
If you're worried about where Obama is taking us, you should pay attention to much larger issues. These things are peanuts and they make you look like you're bending way over backward to attack him.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Maverick,
You say: "No! The economy collapsed under the Frank-Dodd watch."
In economics, it takes time for actions to have consequences. In macro economics, the lag time is always measured in years. The collapse of 2008 was not the result of policies enacted after the Congress changed hands in 2007. Rather, 2008 was caused by the policies of the previous decade and largely Bush's policies. Clinton is far more culpable than Frank/Dodd.
You say: "No! The economy collapsed under the Frank-Dodd watch."
In economics, it takes time for actions to have consequences. In macro economics, the lag time is always measured in years. The collapse of 2008 was not the result of policies enacted after the Congress changed hands in 2007. Rather, 2008 was caused by the policies of the previous decade and largely Bush's policies. Clinton is far more culpable than Frank/Dodd.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Well Maverick,
Rather than make blanket accusations, why don't you try criticizing something I say? Now, I know that's very challenging for those on the ever-angry Right where anger seems to replace reason. But you should give it a try. Look back at my recent posts and take issue with something I've said by explaining your opposing rationale.
Rather than make blanket accusations, why don't you try criticizing something I say? Now, I know that's very challenging for those on the ever-angry Right where anger seems to replace reason. But you should give it a try. Look back at my recent posts and take issue with something I've said by explaining your opposing rationale.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
It’s amazing how politics has become polarized. People pick a side and then defend it to the death and reason is lost. To put it another way, matter-of-degree is almost never considered.
Let’s take Rush Limbaugh as an example. Even back when I was a loyal Republican I couldn’t listen to Rush for more than 5 minutes because he insulted my intelligence too much. I was amazed at the lengths to which he went to distort the truth.
Of course, whenever one criticizes Rush one always hears “The Left lies too” from his supporters.
I’ve only come across one media outlet that could compare to Limbaugh’s lies and distortions: The original Air America. Those guys (are they still on the air?) were just as bad as Rush. Beyond that, the liberal pundits pale in comparison. Who, with a gun to their head, would equate Matthews, Maddow, NPR, etc. with Limbaugh? Throw in Hannity and Beck and you’ve got a triumvirate of pundits on the Right that dwarf the Left.
No, the Left is not lily white. They do their share of misleading. But nothing like Rush and company.
Let’s take Rush Limbaugh as an example. Even back when I was a loyal Republican I couldn’t listen to Rush for more than 5 minutes because he insulted my intelligence too much. I was amazed at the lengths to which he went to distort the truth.
Of course, whenever one criticizes Rush one always hears “The Left lies too” from his supporters.
I’ve only come across one media outlet that could compare to Limbaugh’s lies and distortions: The original Air America. Those guys (are they still on the air?) were just as bad as Rush. Beyond that, the liberal pundits pale in comparison. Who, with a gun to their head, would equate Matthews, Maddow, NPR, etc. with Limbaugh? Throw in Hannity and Beck and you’ve got a triumvirate of pundits on the Right that dwarf the Left.
No, the Left is not lily white. They do their share of misleading. But nothing like Rush and company.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Well Rich,
In no way did I mean to imply that Clinton performed down at Bush's level in general. Perhaps no other president has ever been at Bush's level.
But taking one issue at a time, if Clinton/Rubin did set the foundation for the deregulation of Wall Street, they should receive some of the blame there.
In no way did I mean to imply that Clinton performed down at Bush's level in general. Perhaps no other president has ever been at Bush's level.
But taking one issue at a time, if Clinton/Rubin did set the foundation for the deregulation of Wall Street, they should receive some of the blame there.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
You accuse Rich of quoting talking points of the left but you do the very same thing from the Right. Then you magnify these for political effect.
Bill Ayers: A single living room campaign event and the fact that Ayers and Obama were on a couple of boards together is made a huge issue.
ACORN: The fact that Obama once represented ACORN in a law suit is used to blow this tiny organization (what, $1 million/year of federal funding?) into a huge multi-headed menace.
Kevin Jennings: First, Jennings is an Assistant Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department of Education. Not the Deputy but an Assistant Deputy. Hardly a high level guy. Second the instance you mention (Brewster) was from the 80s. Boy, you’ve got a very large magnifying glass out here.
Black Panthers: This entailed 3 Panthers intimidating one voting station. I don’t know why Holder dropped this, but it’s hardly earth shaking.
It looks like you just hate Obama so much that you pick through to find anything to criticize and then magnify it beyond reason. Did you use the same fine toothed comb for Bush?
Bill Ayers: A single living room campaign event and the fact that Ayers and Obama were on a couple of boards together is made a huge issue.
ACORN: The fact that Obama once represented ACORN in a law suit is used to blow this tiny organization (what, $1 million/year of federal funding?) into a huge multi-headed menace.
Kevin Jennings: First, Jennings is an Assistant Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department of Education. Not the Deputy but an Assistant Deputy. Hardly a high level guy. Second the instance you mention (Brewster) was from the 80s. Boy, you’ve got a very large magnifying glass out here.
Black Panthers: This entailed 3 Panthers intimidating one voting station. I don’t know why Holder dropped this, but it’s hardly earth shaking.
It looks like you just hate Obama so much that you pick through to find anything to criticize and then magnify it beyond reason. Did you use the same fine toothed comb for Bush?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
In response to: A Columbus Day Reflection on Christianity and Corporatism in America
Rich,
I saw "Capitalism, A Love Story" tonight. Not Moore's best. Certainly his least funny in awhile.
You put all of the blame for financial deregulation at the feet of the GOP. There's no doubt that they deserve a lot of criticism (Phil Graham the most). But Moore says that deregulation started under Clinton/Rubin. If he's right, those guys deserve quite a bit of criticism too.
Now this is a first: Me using the repeatedly inaccurate Michael Moore as a source. But something tells me he's right on this one.
I saw "Capitalism, A Love Story" tonight. Not Moore's best. Certainly his least funny in awhile.
You put all of the blame for financial deregulation at the feet of the GOP. There's no doubt that they deserve a lot of criticism (Phil Graham the most). But Moore says that deregulation started under Clinton/Rubin. If he's right, those guys deserve quite a bit of criticism too.
Now this is a first: Me using the repeatedly inaccurate Michael Moore as a source. But something tells me he's right on this one.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Cape and state organizations pen letter to Salazar and Birnbaum on behalf of Cape Wind
In response to: Cape and state organizations pen letter to Salazar and Birnbaum on behalf of Cape Wind
Kinda funny that this NHPA issue came up when it did, don't you think? That is, at the very last minute when every other avenue of opposition had been exhausted.
If this was a serious issue, why did it take 8 years for it to come up?
If this was a serious issue, why did it take 8 years for it to come up?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: MurdochWatch Part 17~ Obama Says It's War...
In response to: MurdochWatch Part 17~ Obama Says It's War...
Speaking of all-or-nothing thinking, here's some from Buzz:
"The biggest enemy, the biggest obstacle that working middle-class America has is government spending."
Via that logic Buzz and his friends on the Right take the position that government can never do anything worthwhile.
Talk about an oversimplification!
Sure, government always grows. Sure, once it is expanded it's impossible to cut it. Sure, all of that stinks. But should that be justification for NEVER using government to solve a problem? With that logic we wouldn't have:
National defense, schools, workplace safety rules, enforcement against polluters, and hundreds of other things that make up a modern society.
Of course, today this "no government over my dead body" approach is being used to torpedo meaningful health care reform. Better to keep the government out and leave health insurance to those altruistic private insurance companies. Result: Health care inferior to almost all western nations at twice the cost.
But at least government isn't much involved. Whew!
"The biggest enemy, the biggest obstacle that working middle-class America has is government spending."
Via that logic Buzz and his friends on the Right take the position that government can never do anything worthwhile.
Talk about an oversimplification!
Sure, government always grows. Sure, once it is expanded it's impossible to cut it. Sure, all of that stinks. But should that be justification for NEVER using government to solve a problem? With that logic we wouldn't have:
National defense, schools, workplace safety rules, enforcement against polluters, and hundreds of other things that make up a modern society.
Of course, today this "no government over my dead body" approach is being used to torpedo meaningful health care reform. Better to keep the government out and leave health insurance to those altruistic private insurance companies. Result: Health care inferior to almost all western nations at twice the cost.
But at least government isn't much involved. Whew!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: MurdochWatch Part 17~ Obama Says It's War...
In response to: MurdochWatch Part 17~ Obama Says It's War...
Maverick says:
"The Repubs have Fox. The Dems, MSNBC and NPR. What's the big deal?"
That's like saying:
"My family has a murderer and yours has a shoplifter and a drunk driver. What's the difference?"
I know that it's seldom considered in today's all-or-nothing style of debate, but there remains an important thing called "matter of degree".
MSNBC and NPR have their slant, but their dwarfed by Fox's. Fox is clearly much more aggregious.
"The Repubs have Fox. The Dems, MSNBC and NPR. What's the big deal?"
That's like saying:
"My family has a murderer and yours has a shoplifter and a drunk driver. What's the difference?"
I know that it's seldom considered in today's all-or-nothing style of debate, but there remains an important thing called "matter of degree".
MSNBC and NPR have their slant, but their dwarfed by Fox's. Fox is clearly much more aggregious.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: A Hatful of Problems-No Solutions In Sight
In response to: A Hatful of Problems-No Solutions In Sight
This is my 1st time reading this blog and I only got as far as the description of Iran before I had to stop and post.
What would this writer have us do? Stay in Iraq forever? President Obama is doing exactly what he campaigned on: Removing combat troops by 2011. That is anything but a precipitous withdrawal. By that time, we will have been in Iraq for 8 years. At some point, Iraq has to step up and see if it can run its country on its own. And there's an economic argument too: With our economy in shambles, we need to stop spending billions over there. We just can't afford it!
And why must conservatives use the terms "win" and "victory"? Not only are those terms next to impossible to define in the absence of opposing conventional forces but they betray one of the things that is wrong with the Right today: Machismo. The Right routinely opposes any troop withdrawal by screaming "defeat" and "unpatriotic".
Pretty mindless.
What would this writer have us do? Stay in Iraq forever? President Obama is doing exactly what he campaigned on: Removing combat troops by 2011. That is anything but a precipitous withdrawal. By that time, we will have been in Iraq for 8 years. At some point, Iraq has to step up and see if it can run its country on its own. And there's an economic argument too: With our economy in shambles, we need to stop spending billions over there. We just can't afford it!
And why must conservatives use the terms "win" and "victory"? Not only are those terms next to impossible to define in the absence of opposing conventional forces but they betray one of the things that is wrong with the Right today: Machismo. The Right routinely opposes any troop withdrawal by screaming "defeat" and "unpatriotic".
Pretty mindless.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
Tom Martin,
Re: teachers' health insurance, the important word - and you use it - is "choose". The unions will have nothing to lose by allowing the Public Option (PO) as a choice. If a teacher doesn't want the PO, he or she can spurn it. On the other hand, as I said before, the PO might be ideal for young, healthy teachers. Offering a no frills, low cost option will be of benefit to teachers. AND teachers will also benefit if the other plans reduce their prices to compete with PO (to prevent young teachers from choosing the PO). That's exactly the kind of competition Obama is describing. Unions will eat it up!
Medicare is broke mainly because Bush sat on his hands for 8 years. Clinton left it in pretty good shape. But as the Baby Boom approached (fewer workers, more retirees) Bush did nothing. Sure it has future financial problems. Any insurance system would be strained by the Baby Boom. Private insurers have similar issues and they just raise their rates (at over 10% per year!).
Re: teachers' health insurance, the important word - and you use it - is "choose". The unions will have nothing to lose by allowing the Public Option (PO) as a choice. If a teacher doesn't want the PO, he or she can spurn it. On the other hand, as I said before, the PO might be ideal for young, healthy teachers. Offering a no frills, low cost option will be of benefit to teachers. AND teachers will also benefit if the other plans reduce their prices to compete with PO (to prevent young teachers from choosing the PO). That's exactly the kind of competition Obama is describing. Unions will eat it up!
Medicare is broke mainly because Bush sat on his hands for 8 years. Clinton left it in pretty good shape. But as the Baby Boom approached (fewer workers, more retirees) Bush did nothing. Sure it has future financial problems. Any insurance system would be strained by the Baby Boom. Private insurers have similar issues and they just raise their rates (at over 10% per year!).
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
Tom Martin,
Once and if the Public Option is opened to employers the size of a school, the Public Option could reduce town cost in 2 ways:
1. Teachers could choose it to reduce their monthly cost. This might be particularly attractive for young/healthy teachers.
2. Competition from the Public Option will reduce the rates charged by the other private options.
I have no idea where you're going with your Medicare stuff.
Once and if the Public Option is opened to employers the size of a school, the Public Option could reduce town cost in 2 ways:
1. Teachers could choose it to reduce their monthly cost. This might be particularly attractive for young/healthy teachers.
2. Competition from the Public Option will reduce the rates charged by the other private options.
I have no idea where you're going with your Medicare stuff.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
Hold on Hannah,
Can you explain this sentence?
"If you think costs are increasing now, wait till these people are government employees that only have to elect a liberal politician to increase pay and benefits."
This is a new issue for me. Is there something in the health care bills that will make SEIU members "government employees"? If so, I sure have missed it. I've seen absolutely nothing like this in any of the bills.
What are you referring to? Can you provide a source?
Can you explain this sentence?
"If you think costs are increasing now, wait till these people are government employees that only have to elect a liberal politician to increase pay and benefits."
This is a new issue for me. Is there something in the health care bills that will make SEIU members "government employees"? If so, I sure have missed it. I've seen absolutely nothing like this in any of the bills.
What are you referring to? Can you provide a source?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
R-Five,
Yeah, I knew that I'd taken your list in a different direction. You were making a political point about controversy and I was talking more about the substance of the issues.
But even using your political logic, I think you're overstating your case:
DOMA: Obama has reversed himself here so there will be no political fall out.
FOCA: Not going to happen either.
Cap and Trade: I agree. This could be controversial (especially given the tactics that the Right has shown it is willing to use in the health care debate).
Kyoto: Pure speculation here. I have a scientist friend who ensures me that Obama will not rashly pursue Kyoto unless China and the 3rd world make STRONG commitments. Who knows though?
Immigration: I suspect that Obama will scale back his goals here to reflect political reality. Still, no matter what he tries, the Right will pillory him. Will be controversial.
So, I'll give you Cap and Trade and Immigration. Yeah, he'll take hits on those. But the public may tire of GOP scare tactics. This could end up working the other way.
Yeah, I knew that I'd taken your list in a different direction. You were making a political point about controversy and I was talking more about the substance of the issues.
But even using your political logic, I think you're overstating your case:
DOMA: Obama has reversed himself here so there will be no political fall out.
FOCA: Not going to happen either.
Cap and Trade: I agree. This could be controversial (especially given the tactics that the Right has shown it is willing to use in the health care debate).
Kyoto: Pure speculation here. I have a scientist friend who ensures me that Obama will not rashly pursue Kyoto unless China and the 3rd world make STRONG commitments. Who knows though?
Immigration: I suspect that Obama will scale back his goals here to reflect political reality. Still, no matter what he tries, the Right will pillory him. Will be controversial.
So, I'll give you Cap and Trade and Immigration. Yeah, he'll take hits on those. But the public may tire of GOP scare tactics. This could end up working the other way.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
R-Five,
I can't get too excited about your list and its overall effect. Let's take a look (my comments in CAPS):
--Repeal of DOMA. OBAMA SUPPORTED THIS DURING THE CAMPAIGN BUT HAS REVERSED HIMSELF AS PRESIDENT. I DON'T THINK THIS IS IN THE CARDS.
--Passage of FOCA. OBAMA HAS SAID THAT THIS IS NOT A HIGH LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY (CODE FOR "THIS AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN").
--"Cap-and-TRADE". WHILE I'VE GOTTA AWAIT FOR THE DEBATE TO DRAW A CONCLUSION HERE, I DON'T THINK THIS IS AS EVIL AS PEOPLE IMPLY. POLLUTERS WILL LOSE, CLEAN PLAYERS WILL WIN. EUROPE HASN'T COLLAPSED UNDER THEIR CAPE AND TRADE REGIMES.
--Ratification of Kyoto follow-on. LET'S WAIT TO SEE IF THERE IS A FOLLOW-ON AND WHAT CHINA AND THE 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES AGREE TO.
--Immigration reform/amnest. IT'S HARD TO TELL HOW COMMITTED OBAMA IS TO "COMPREHENSIVE REFORM". I TEND TO DOUBT THAT HE'LL TRY TO RAM IT DOWN OUR THROATS.
I don't see this list as being that scary.
I can't get too excited about your list and its overall effect. Let's take a look (my comments in CAPS):
--Repeal of DOMA. OBAMA SUPPORTED THIS DURING THE CAMPAIGN BUT HAS REVERSED HIMSELF AS PRESIDENT. I DON'T THINK THIS IS IN THE CARDS.
--Passage of FOCA. OBAMA HAS SAID THAT THIS IS NOT A HIGH LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY (CODE FOR "THIS AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN").
--"Cap-and-TRADE". WHILE I'VE GOTTA AWAIT FOR THE DEBATE TO DRAW A CONCLUSION HERE, I DON'T THINK THIS IS AS EVIL AS PEOPLE IMPLY. POLLUTERS WILL LOSE, CLEAN PLAYERS WILL WIN. EUROPE HASN'T COLLAPSED UNDER THEIR CAPE AND TRADE REGIMES.
--Ratification of Kyoto follow-on. LET'S WAIT TO SEE IF THERE IS A FOLLOW-ON AND WHAT CHINA AND THE 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES AGREE TO.
--Immigration reform/amnest. IT'S HARD TO TELL HOW COMMITTED OBAMA IS TO "COMPREHENSIVE REFORM". I TEND TO DOUBT THAT HE'LL TRY TO RAM IT DOWN OUR THROATS.
I don't see this list as being that scary.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
Posse,
I agree with you about the GOP. Time was, you could disagree with the GOP but at least it stood for something: Small government and strong defense under Reagan. Fiscal discipline under Gingrich.
Today? I can't think of a thing that the GOP stands for except opposing Obama. They have nothing to offer but "N0".
I was a Republican for almost 25 years back when it stood for something. No more.
I agree with you about the GOP. Time was, you could disagree with the GOP but at least it stood for something: Small government and strong defense under Reagan. Fiscal discipline under Gingrich.
Today? I can't think of a thing that the GOP stands for except opposing Obama. They have nothing to offer but "N0".
I was a Republican for almost 25 years back when it stood for something. No more.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
R-Five,
You say: "The present health care reform debate is not nearly as controversial as other promised elements of Obama's programme,"
What are those elements?
You say: "The present health care reform debate is not nearly as controversial as other promised elements of Obama's programme,"
What are those elements?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
possee,
I'm not sure what point you're making about Congress under Bush but just to be clear, for the 1st 6 years - when the budget flipped from surplus to the largest deficit in history - the GOP controlled both houses. The budget and the national debt went to hell-in-a-hand basket under Bush and the GOP congress.
Barney Frank definitely contributed to the mortgage mess but don't forget: He was in the minority in the Banking committee for those same 6 years when most of the damage was done. Frank never controlled the Banking committee: The GOP had control.
There's absolutely no way of avoiding the fact that the financial health of the country cratered under GOP hegemony. Please tell me where I'm wrong.
I'm not sure what point you're making about Congress under Bush but just to be clear, for the 1st 6 years - when the budget flipped from surplus to the largest deficit in history - the GOP controlled both houses. The budget and the national debt went to hell-in-a-hand basket under Bush and the GOP congress.
Barney Frank definitely contributed to the mortgage mess but don't forget: He was in the minority in the Banking committee for those same 6 years when most of the damage was done. Frank never controlled the Banking committee: The GOP had control.
There's absolutely no way of avoiding the fact that the financial health of the country cratered under GOP hegemony. Please tell me where I'm wrong.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
Chaco,
When you say "while ignoring that the same economic policies complained of were full supported by the Clinton Administration" I have to wonder what game you were watching back then. Clinton had the same economic policies as Bush and the GOP? Au contraire Chaco: Clinton's #1 economic policy was deficit reduction. By the latter half of his 2nd term he'd balanced the budget and even created a surplus! Bush eliminated that overnight with his unfunded tax cuts and his unfunded war in Iraq.
How can you say that Clinton and Bush had basically identical economic policies? That couldn't be further from the truth.
When you say "while ignoring that the same economic policies complained of were full supported by the Clinton Administration" I have to wonder what game you were watching back then. Clinton had the same economic policies as Bush and the GOP? Au contraire Chaco: Clinton's #1 economic policy was deficit reduction. By the latter half of his 2nd term he'd balanced the budget and even created a surplus! Bush eliminated that overnight with his unfunded tax cuts and his unfunded war in Iraq.
How can you say that Clinton and Bush had basically identical economic policies? That couldn't be further from the truth.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
Jane,
If, for whatever reason, we have to stay with private health insurance the government will have to control its profits as is done in the utilities industry.
You're right. The following equation is what we're heading for at this point:
Private costs that grow 10%/yr today + No declines for prior conditions + No terminations due to illness + No lifetime maximums + Limits on deductibles = Unbelievable increases in the cost of private health insurance
And all because of anti-government hysteria in this country. Thank goodness we didn't have this political climate when Social Security and Medicare were launched. Half of our elderly would be living in poverty!
If, for whatever reason, we have to stay with private health insurance the government will have to control its profits as is done in the utilities industry.
You're right. The following equation is what we're heading for at this point:
Private costs that grow 10%/yr today + No declines for prior conditions + No terminations due to illness + No lifetime maximums + Limits on deductibles = Unbelievable increases in the cost of private health insurance
And all because of anti-government hysteria in this country. Thank goodness we didn't have this political climate when Social Security and Medicare were launched. Half of our elderly would be living in poverty!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
Jane,
You ask: "Why can't we take the best ideas from all these other countries and actually reform health care in this country?!".
The answer is political. Too many people in this country are paranoid about the "G" word: Government.
It's fine for Americans to be suspicious of big government. That's part of who we are as a people. But people need to understand that there are exceptions to every rule: Some things cannot be done better by the free market.
That's why I'd like health care opponents to see "Sick Around the World". It would help them to see that the sky will not fall if government plays a larger role in health insurance.
But for the foreseeable future, the paranoia of big government will block fundamental health care reform. Obama will get his shallow bill, we'll put health care reform on the shelf for another decade, and then wake up in 2020 with health care consuming 25% of our GDP.
And all because of the fear of government even in the face the world's most inefficient health care system.
You ask: "Why can't we take the best ideas from all these other countries and actually reform health care in this country?!".
The answer is political. Too many people in this country are paranoid about the "G" word: Government.
It's fine for Americans to be suspicious of big government. That's part of who we are as a people. But people need to understand that there are exceptions to every rule: Some things cannot be done better by the free market.
That's why I'd like health care opponents to see "Sick Around the World". It would help them to see that the sky will not fall if government plays a larger role in health insurance.
But for the foreseeable future, the paranoia of big government will block fundamental health care reform. Obama will get his shallow bill, we'll put health care reform on the shelf for another decade, and then wake up in 2020 with health care consuming 25% of our GDP.
And all because of the fear of government even in the face the world's most inefficient health care system.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
r-Five,
So are you saying that you refuse to check out what other countries have done? That is, that it's not possible that we can learn something from them and incorporate that learning here?
Why must these debates always be so all-or-nothing? In this case:
All: A health care system just like another country's.
Nothing: Nothing that another country has done could possibly be helpful here.
The truth is in the middle, not at either extreme. I've already acknowledged that, since we're unique it's unlikely that any other country's system would work here in totality. That is, I'm not at the "All" position. But, by remaining completely unwilling to consider what other countries have done you are at the "Nothing" position.
Truth is not normally found at the extremes.
Why are you resistant to seeing that movie and considering what other countries have done?
So are you saying that you refuse to check out what other countries have done? That is, that it's not possible that we can learn something from them and incorporate that learning here?
Why must these debates always be so all-or-nothing? In this case:
All: A health care system just like another country's.
Nothing: Nothing that another country has done could possibly be helpful here.
The truth is in the middle, not at either extreme. I've already acknowledged that, since we're unique it's unlikely that any other country's system would work here in totality. That is, I'm not at the "All" position. But, by remaining completely unwilling to consider what other countries have done you are at the "Nothing" position.
Truth is not normally found at the extremes.
Why are you resistant to seeing that movie and considering what other countries have done?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
r_five
I'm not missing your point when you say: "...to come close to replicating these countries' experience, *we* would *have* to implement service reductions--some of which are politically unacceptable."
I just disagree and I offer the systems of other countries as evidence. Those countries offer more for less and this proves that it can be done.
You've never heard me say that reforming health care is a panacea. I do say, however, that the 16% of the GDP that we devote to health care is a huge drag on the economy.
"pay for itself"? I'm not sure what that means. I believe that fundamental reform could bring huge cost reductions with better care again because other countries have done that. If we want to call reducing the cost of health care from 16% to say 10% "paying for itself" so be it. I just see it as better care at lower cost.
You know r_five, it's opposition like you're displaying here that prevents the country from undertaking fundamental reform. All you've got is "No, No, No". And that will lead us to ruin.
I'm not missing your point when you say: "...to come close to replicating these countries' experience, *we* would *have* to implement service reductions--some of which are politically unacceptable."
I just disagree and I offer the systems of other countries as evidence. Those countries offer more for less and this proves that it can be done.
You've never heard me say that reforming health care is a panacea. I do say, however, that the 16% of the GDP that we devote to health care is a huge drag on the economy.
"pay for itself"? I'm not sure what that means. I believe that fundamental reform could bring huge cost reductions with better care again because other countries have done that. If we want to call reducing the cost of health care from 16% to say 10% "paying for itself" so be it. I just see it as better care at lower cost.
You know r_five, it's opposition like you're displaying here that prevents the country from undertaking fundamental reform. All you've got is "No, No, No". And that will lead us to ruin.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
r-Five,
You say: "no tax-payer subsidized program does that without demand/service reduction"
Me: See the movie. 5 other countries have done this without service reduction (most provide more service).
You say: "Other countries' experiences don't apply to the issue."
Me: Another cop out r-Five. It's never reasonable to seek exact duplicates of situation and then, when those don't exist, to say: "Those situations are different". Believe me there's PLENTY to learn from what those other counties have done. Can we replicate any one of them exactly here? No. We do differ. That does not mean, however, that we can't incorporate parts of those systems? No again. We can learn from them.
You say: "-just that it's unrealistic to expect meaningful overall savings from this exercise"
I agree if by "this exercise" you mean the current bills. Politics has caused the exclusion of the fundamental reform we need. But can you imagine the opposition that would exist to the real reform we need?
Check out the movie!
You say: "no tax-payer subsidized program does that without demand/service reduction"
Me: See the movie. 5 other countries have done this without service reduction (most provide more service).
You say: "Other countries' experiences don't apply to the issue."
Me: Another cop out r-Five. It's never reasonable to seek exact duplicates of situation and then, when those don't exist, to say: "Those situations are different". Believe me there's PLENTY to learn from what those other counties have done. Can we replicate any one of them exactly here? No. We do differ. That does not mean, however, that we can't incorporate parts of those systems? No again. We can learn from them.
You say: "-just that it's unrealistic to expect meaningful overall savings from this exercise"
I agree if by "this exercise" you mean the current bills. Politics has caused the exclusion of the fundamental reform we need. But can you imagine the opposition that would exist to the real reform we need?
Check out the movie!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
Jane,
I guess you've seen SATW. At the end of the movie the host listed 3 things that were common to all of 5 systems that beat the pants off of our system. I can remember 2 of them:
1. Everyone is part of the system (covered and pays in if they can afford to).
2. Nobody makes a profit off of health care.
The 3rd may have been that nobody can go bankrupt via health care costs.
To me the most important is #2: It is just so wrong to hand our health over to for profit entities whose #1 priority is, by definition, maximizing profit. There's just a huge misalignment of goals there.
I guess you've seen SATW. At the end of the movie the host listed 3 things that were common to all of 5 systems that beat the pants off of our system. I can remember 2 of them:
1. Everyone is part of the system (covered and pays in if they can afford to).
2. Nobody makes a profit off of health care.
The 3rd may have been that nobody can go bankrupt via health care costs.
To me the most important is #2: It is just so wrong to hand our health over to for profit entities whose #1 priority is, by definition, maximizing profit. There's just a huge misalignment of goals there.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
r-Five,
Costs can come down with subsidization in single payer because the fees for service are strictly controlled. If you control what is paid, you control cost by definition.
Now, that will cause dislocation (doctor salaries, etc.) but what difficult social change ever comes without dislocation? Never happened, never will. The fact that moving to a Single Payer system would involve pain absolutely does not mean that it shouldn't be done. We're in for the ultimate pain in health insurance on our current track.
I'll tell you one way to reinvigorate our economy: Stop devoting 16% of GDP to health care which is twice as high as any of the 5 countries described in "Sick Around the World". Reducing expenditure on health care would be a huge boon to the economy.
"Other countries have a fraction of our problems". Should I interpret that as: "So it's not worth trying to solve them?".
Are you suggesting that we punt on health care?
Costs can come down with subsidization in single payer because the fees for service are strictly controlled. If you control what is paid, you control cost by definition.
Now, that will cause dislocation (doctor salaries, etc.) but what difficult social change ever comes without dislocation? Never happened, never will. The fact that moving to a Single Payer system would involve pain absolutely does not mean that it shouldn't be done. We're in for the ultimate pain in health insurance on our current track.
I'll tell you one way to reinvigorate our economy: Stop devoting 16% of GDP to health care which is twice as high as any of the 5 countries described in "Sick Around the World". Reducing expenditure on health care would be a huge boon to the economy.
"Other countries have a fraction of our problems". Should I interpret that as: "So it's not worth trying to solve them?".
Are you suggesting that we punt on health care?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
r-five,
You can't be laying the vast majority of blame for our horrible health care system at the feet of tort reform and illegals can you? With all due respect, those are the red herrings of the Right. I can't tell you how many conservative opponents of health care reform that I've talked to that claim that those small potatoes will bring the level of reform that we need in this country. Together, they make up a very small fig leaf.
You are absolutely right: Costs are going to rise. All the more reason for fundamental changes to health care, as opposed to the window dressing that we're getting in the current bill.
Do you have Netflix? If so, try "Sick Around the World". Other governments have solved health care at a fraction of our cost.
You can't be laying the vast majority of blame for our horrible health care system at the feet of tort reform and illegals can you? With all due respect, those are the red herrings of the Right. I can't tell you how many conservative opponents of health care reform that I've talked to that claim that those small potatoes will bring the level of reform that we need in this country. Together, they make up a very small fig leaf.
You are absolutely right: Costs are going to rise. All the more reason for fundamental changes to health care, as opposed to the window dressing that we're getting in the current bill.
Do you have Netflix? If so, try "Sick Around the World". Other governments have solved health care at a fraction of our cost.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
In response to: The Ten Million Pound Gorilla At Town Meeting
Rich,
Recently, a friend of mine recommended the Frontline program "Sick Around the World" to me. I rented it and, boy, is it ever illuminating.
The host travels to 5 countries that rank above the U.S. in the WHO ranking of health care systems that also spend significantly less on health care than does the U.S.: England, Germany, Switzerland, Japan and Taiwan. At each stop we see different approaches to providing health care to ALL citizens that involve more government that we have in the U.S.
Anyone with an open mind who watches this movie will come away mad as heck at the politics and the irrational fear of socialized medicine that prevents us from doing the things that these countries have done at a fraction of what we spend on health care in this country.
This show is available via NetFlix. I strongly recommend it for anyone who thinks that our private system is anything but a disgrace.
Recently, a friend of mine recommended the Frontline program "Sick Around the World" to me. I rented it and, boy, is it ever illuminating.
The host travels to 5 countries that rank above the U.S. in the WHO ranking of health care systems that also spend significantly less on health care than does the U.S.: England, Germany, Switzerland, Japan and Taiwan. At each stop we see different approaches to providing health care to ALL citizens that involve more government that we have in the U.S.
Anyone with an open mind who watches this movie will come away mad as heck at the politics and the irrational fear of socialized medicine that prevents us from doing the things that these countries have done at a fraction of what we spend on health care in this country.
This show is available via NetFlix. I strongly recommend it for anyone who thinks that our private system is anything but a disgrace.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Christy Speaks Out on Governor Patrick's Senate Appointment
In response to: Christy Speaks Out on Governor Patrick's Senate Appointment
Bittersweet,
I'm with you. It's kinda tough to take Republican opponents of Obamacare seriously isn't it?
First, while it can't absolutely proven, the GOP would oppose ANYTHING from Obama on health care. This is politics pure and simple in the face of a critical national problem.
Second, if they're so against Obama's approach, why didn't they try theirs when they controlled all of DC for 6 years?
To Obama opponents: Elections have consequences. The time for libertarian, free market approaches to health care was during the Bush administration. The country elected a progressive in November so they're getting a more progressive approach. The GOP sat on its hands for 8 years and now they say "NO" no matter what.
What a disgraceful GOP performance.
I'm with you. It's kinda tough to take Republican opponents of Obamacare seriously isn't it?
First, while it can't absolutely proven, the GOP would oppose ANYTHING from Obama on health care. This is politics pure and simple in the face of a critical national problem.
Second, if they're so against Obama's approach, why didn't they try theirs when they controlled all of DC for 6 years?
To Obama opponents: Elections have consequences. The time for libertarian, free market approaches to health care was during the Bush administration. The country elected a progressive in November so they're getting a more progressive approach. The GOP sat on its hands for 8 years and now they say "NO" no matter what.
What a disgraceful GOP performance.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Is this governor completely tone deaf?
In response to: Is this governor completely tone deaf?
Well said karent2. Where else in society does a terminally ill, unable-to-work person retain a job? Nowhere.
Bowing out probably never occurred to Teddy because he and his clan long ago came to believe that that Senate seat belonged to them, not to the Commonwealth.
Bowing out probably never occurred to Teddy because he and his clan long ago came to believe that that Senate seat belonged to them, not to the Commonwealth.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
In response to: On Birthers, Truthers and Political Paranoia
Rich,
As you and I discussed recently, I don't take the fact that Richard Clark "told" Bush about the Al Qaeda threat seriously for a couple of reasons:
1. It's unbelievable how much work is being done and how many people are fighting to be heard in a new presidential administration: I wonder how many tens of thousands of memos were written in Bush's 1st 6 months. Clark surely just got overlooked.
2. Even Clark's warnings weren't specific to any degree: They were in no way warnings against the specific threat.
Also, and this is an example of Bush team incompetence, I've read that Clark was ignored in part because he was an old Clinton hand. You know, the old attitude: If it's Clinton it's bad.
Overall, Bush's failure to take more serious steps regarding Al Qaeda was a priority and an incompetence thing.
As you and I discussed recently, I don't take the fact that Richard Clark "told" Bush about the Al Qaeda threat seriously for a couple of reasons:
1. It's unbelievable how much work is being done and how many people are fighting to be heard in a new presidential administration: I wonder how many tens of thousands of memos were written in Bush's 1st 6 months. Clark surely just got overlooked.
2. Even Clark's warnings weren't specific to any degree: They were in no way warnings against the specific threat.
Also, and this is an example of Bush team incompetence, I've read that Clark was ignored in part because he was an old Clinton hand. You know, the old attitude: If it's Clinton it's bad.
Overall, Bush's failure to take more serious steps regarding Al Qaeda was a priority and an incompetence thing.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: "YOU LIE"
In response to: "YOU LIE"
Talk about a typical Right wing mountain made of a mole hill. ACORN?
This is a classic example of the vindictive Right latching onto something tiny and magnifying it a thousand fold for angry headlines. Who the heck cares about little ACORN? They got a whopping $3 million (not billion) in federal funding this year.
Of course, the poster child of Right Wing magnification was last week's Obama speech to schools WHICH EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE REAGAN HAS DONE. Talk about creating something out of nothing!
But that's the job of the Right these days: Find hang nails and promote them into mortal wounds. The politics of fear and anger.
This is a classic example of the vindictive Right latching onto something tiny and magnifying it a thousand fold for angry headlines. Who the heck cares about little ACORN? They got a whopping $3 million (not billion) in federal funding this year.
Of course, the poster child of Right Wing magnification was last week's Obama speech to schools WHICH EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE REAGAN HAS DONE. Talk about creating something out of nothing!
But that's the job of the Right these days: Find hang nails and promote them into mortal wounds. The politics of fear and anger.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: "YOU LIE"
In response to: "YOU LIE"
One teensy problem with your friends paying cash for health care Maverick: There's no insurance in that approach.
Answer this: What will your friends do if one of them gets cancer? Actually, I'll answer it for you: They'll end up in the hospital running up tens of thousands of dollars of charges that the rest of us will pay for.
What's the source of your quote about the fines? I'd like to learn more about that. I'm not that comfortable with that either.
And by the way congratulations: You may be the 1st reform opponent that I've talked to that has come up with something real to criticize.
Answer this: What will your friends do if one of them gets cancer? Actually, I'll answer it for you: They'll end up in the hospital running up tens of thousands of dollars of charges that the rest of us will pay for.
What's the source of your quote about the fines? I'd like to learn more about that. I'm not that comfortable with that either.
And by the way congratulations: You may be the 1st reform opponent that I've talked to that has come up with something real to criticize.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: "YOU LIE"
In response to: "YOU LIE"
Maverick,
Why do you call this reform package socialism?
As you can tell, I'm trying for about the umpteenth time to get a reform opponent to actually say what it is that he/she opposes. I've had very little luck with this so far. I must have asked 25 opponents this question and I've never gotten a substantive response. All opponents seem to know is that if it's from Obama they hate it.
Why does this reform represent socialism? What in the plan is so socialist?
Why do you call this reform package socialism?
As you can tell, I'm trying for about the umpteenth time to get a reform opponent to actually say what it is that he/she opposes. I've had very little luck with this so far. I must have asked 25 opponents this question and I've never gotten a substantive response. All opponents seem to know is that if it's from Obama they hate it.
Why does this reform represent socialism? What in the plan is so socialist?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: "YOU LIE"
In response to: "YOU LIE"
possee,
Thanks for bringing this tax ON INSURANCE COMPANIES to light in this blog. Even though the article that you reference says: "Health economists believe a tax on high-priced benefits could help slow the growth of health costs by making consumers more sensitive to prices."
... this approach should be discussed and debated thoroughly.
What I can't understand is your conclusion:
"So now even some Democrats are racists and liars?"
That's a non sequitur if I ever read one. Can you explain how Baucus's tax on insurance companies leads to that conclusion?
Thanks for bringing this tax ON INSURANCE COMPANIES to light in this blog. Even though the article that you reference says: "Health economists believe a tax on high-priced benefits could help slow the growth of health costs by making consumers more sensitive to prices."
... this approach should be discussed and debated thoroughly.
What I can't understand is your conclusion:
"So now even some Democrats are racists and liars?"
That's a non sequitur if I ever read one. Can you explain how Baucus's tax on insurance companies leads to that conclusion?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Blue H USA seeks permit from Army Corps of Engineers to test viability of offshore windpower
In response to: Blue H USA seeks permit from Army Corps of Engineers to test viability of offshore windpower
Blue H employs a technology used for years in the offshore oil/gas drilling field called Tension-Leg technology. Floating platforms are tethered to the ocean floor.
While this technique has great potential for offshore wind, it's important to understand that Blue H is still in development. They have one platform with a very small KW 80 KW turbine off of Italy (that's 0.2% of the size of a Cape Wind turbine). They have applied for a license to build one platform with a Cape Wind sized turbine off of England.
Major questions remain as to the feasibility of this technology for Wind. The primary question appears to be economic: Can a turbine ever produce enough power to justify the expense of a platform (note that oil gushers produce much more energy per platform).
So, while we should keep our fingers crossed on Blue H, we should not consider this to anywhere near feasible at this time.
While this technique has great potential for offshore wind, it's important to understand that Blue H is still in development. They have one platform with a very small KW 80 KW turbine off of Italy (that's 0.2% of the size of a Cape Wind turbine). They have applied for a license to build one platform with a Cape Wind sized turbine off of England.
Major questions remain as to the feasibility of this technology for Wind. The primary question appears to be economic: Can a turbine ever produce enough power to justify the expense of a platform (note that oil gushers produce much more energy per platform).
So, while we should keep our fingers crossed on Blue H, we should not consider this to anywhere near feasible at this time.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: "YOU LIE"
In response to: "YOU LIE"
Sorry Buz, Bush himself had 2 much bigger budget busters than Obama's health care:
1. First term tax breaks (about $1.6 trillion)
2. The Iraq war
And what about the statement "will not add a dime to the deficit" don't you understand? As Obama said in his speech last week: This bill will be funded and budget neutral. He's not going to repeat Bush's budget busting via taxes and Iraq.
1. First term tax breaks (about $1.6 trillion)
2. The Iraq war
And what about the statement "will not add a dime to the deficit" don't you understand? As Obama said in his speech last week: This bill will be funded and budget neutral. He's not going to repeat Bush's budget busting via taxes and Iraq.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: "YOU LIE"
In response to: "YOU LIE"
That's not very constructive possee: You just oppose everyone, huh?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: "YOU LIE"
In response to: "YOU LIE"
tadthebad,
You're making my point when you say:
"Given that illegal aliens already have access to welfare"
The key word being "already". If you're right, and illegals have access to welfare today, that is not caused by the health care reform bill which can't solve all of the problems of the world.
On a related note: The feds have an elaborate process for checking citizenship for welfare. Illegals don't qualify.
You're making my point when you say:
"Given that illegal aliens already have access to welfare"
The key word being "already". If you're right, and illegals have access to welfare today, that is not caused by the health care reform bill which can't solve all of the problems of the world.
On a related note: The feds have an elaborate process for checking citizenship for welfare. Illegals don't qualify.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: "YOU LIE"
In response to: "YOU LIE"
Maverick,
What's your #1 issue with the the reform package as it stands today?
By the way, I'm new to this site. Is what we're doing "back and forth banter" and not allowed here?
What's your #1 issue with the the reform package as it stands today?
By the way, I'm new to this site. Is what we're doing "back and forth banter" and not allowed here?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: "YOU LIE"
In response to: "YOU LIE"
The important point here is that Obama did not lie. His reform WILL NOT cover illegals.
- No subsidies will be given to illegals
- Illegals cannot buy any insurance through the Insurance Exchange
That stuff, and other prohibitions, are in the various bills.
Now, do those bills eliminate all current access by illegals to health care? No.
The laws requiring that ERs provide coverage to everyone are not repealed. Private insurers can sell to illegals OUTSIDE the Insurance Exchange. Children born in the U.S. to illegal parents continue to receive care.
But use your heads people! Does this mean that Obama's reform itself covers illegals? Obviously not. Don't fall prey to the Right's "Obama-doesn't-fix-all-of-our-problems-with-illegals-so-his-bill-should-be-opposed" rhetoric. It's ridiculous.
- No subsidies will be given to illegals
- Illegals cannot buy any insurance through the Insurance Exchange
That stuff, and other prohibitions, are in the various bills.
Now, do those bills eliminate all current access by illegals to health care? No.
The laws requiring that ERs provide coverage to everyone are not repealed. Private insurers can sell to illegals OUTSIDE the Insurance Exchange. Children born in the U.S. to illegal parents continue to receive care.
But use your heads people! Does this mean that Obama's reform itself covers illegals? Obviously not. Don't fall prey to the Right's "Obama-doesn't-fix-all-of-our-problems-with-illegals-so-his-bill-should-be-opposed" rhetoric. It's ridiculous.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: "YOU LIE"
In response to: "YOU LIE"
Peter,
You say: "The left it seems, is completely devoid of the ability to accept any disagreement on issues."
Let me reword that a bit for you: "..devoid of the ability to accept outright lies and distortions..."
Your side of the debate is embarrassing itself with the stuff that it's cooked up to oppose health care reform. There are so many lies and scare tactics out there that we can't have an intelligent debate of Obama's plan. It might actually be flawed, but all of our attention is focused on death panels, coverage of illegals, etc.
One has to wonder: Why, if the GOP is so energized about Health Care today, didn't it do a single thing about it for 8 long years? The GOP had its chance.
You say: "The left it seems, is completely devoid of the ability to accept any disagreement on issues."
Let me reword that a bit for you: "..devoid of the ability to accept outright lies and distortions..."
Your side of the debate is embarrassing itself with the stuff that it's cooked up to oppose health care reform. There are so many lies and scare tactics out there that we can't have an intelligent debate of Obama's plan. It might actually be flawed, but all of our attention is focused on death panels, coverage of illegals, etc.
One has to wonder: Why, if the GOP is so energized about Health Care today, didn't it do a single thing about it for 8 long years? The GOP had its chance.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
j madden
I have a question: What have you seen in the bill or bills that should bring significant cost reductions?
The Public Option would provide competition for private insurers so that might help keep their premiums down. But beyond that, I haven't seen much.
And, of course, that the new regulations on private insurance (no denial for pre-existing conditions, no dropping for high claims, no lifetime limits, etc.) will cause private premiums go jump.
Have you seen much that would reduce cost?
I have a question: What have you seen in the bill or bills that should bring significant cost reductions?
The Public Option would provide competition for private insurers so that might help keep their premiums down. But beyond that, I haven't seen much.
And, of course, that the new regulations on private insurance (no denial for pre-existing conditions, no dropping for high claims, no lifetime limits, etc.) will cause private premiums go jump.
Have you seen much that would reduce cost?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
j.madden,
What was that "time out" thing in the 60 minutes interview?
Here's my prediction on health care:
The Public Option goes down. Most of the rest stays. It ends up being a pretty bad bill that at best doesn't change/improve much. Obama takes this watered down bill, waves it as a success, and exits the Health Care debate stage right, never to enter it again.
Overall, the time bomb called "crushing health care costs" continues to tick. The political mess that we experienced this year puts off another shot at health care reform for at least a decade during which the profits of private insurers skyrocket.
What was that "time out" thing in the 60 minutes interview?
Here's my prediction on health care:
The Public Option goes down. Most of the rest stays. It ends up being a pretty bad bill that at best doesn't change/improve much. Obama takes this watered down bill, waves it as a success, and exits the Health Care debate stage right, never to enter it again.
Overall, the time bomb called "crushing health care costs" continues to tick. The political mess that we experienced this year puts off another shot at health care reform for at least a decade during which the profits of private insurers skyrocket.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
J.madden,
I would have agreed with Frank Rich 100% on Obama passivity followed by last minute oratory until I heard Obama on 60 Minutes tonight.
He said: "When I started this process and was talking to an adviser on Health Care, he said to me: 'Before this is done, and even if we're successful, Health Care reform will be pronounced dead at least 4 times'".
Perhaps Obama realized this and decided it wasn't worth riding to the rescue earlier in the process: Health Care was going to be pronounced dead multiple times no matter what he did early. Better to ride to the rescue late.
I'm just thinking out loud: I still tend to agree with Rich.
I would have agreed with Frank Rich 100% on Obama passivity followed by last minute oratory until I heard Obama on 60 Minutes tonight.
He said: "When I started this process and was talking to an adviser on Health Care, he said to me: 'Before this is done, and even if we're successful, Health Care reform will be pronounced dead at least 4 times'".
Perhaps Obama realized this and decided it wasn't worth riding to the rescue earlier in the process: Health Care was going to be pronounced dead multiple times no matter what he did early. Better to ride to the rescue late.
I'm just thinking out loud: I still tend to agree with Rich.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
Ana,
Back in the 80s, I believed exclusively in the "raising all boats" theory. I still believe that's important, but I also believe that we need to target help for certain segments of the population. For me, Health Care is one of those areas.
Still, there's no doubt that - after this recession ends - Obama should attack the budget and probably even raise taxes to address our incredible debt problems. If he remains a progressive, and ignores our debilitating debt, all boats will be stuck in shallow water for a generation or perhaps forever! This much debt cannot be carried.
Back in the 80s, I believed exclusively in the "raising all boats" theory. I still believe that's important, but I also believe that we need to target help for certain segments of the population. For me, Health Care is one of those areas.
Still, there's no doubt that - after this recession ends - Obama should attack the budget and probably even raise taxes to address our incredible debt problems. If he remains a progressive, and ignores our debilitating debt, all boats will be stuck in shallow water for a generation or perhaps forever! This much debt cannot be carried.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
Jane,
I only disagree with one thing that you say: The insurance companies will know darn well how to price the new, more regulated plans. Heck, I bet that the actuaries of many private ensurers have already updated their pricing models to include some of the proposed regulations. They'll know exactly what to do: Jack up rates EVEN BEFORE the new regs go into effect on 1/1/2013. They'll start recouping the new costs so fast, our heads will spin.
I only disagree with one thing that you say: The insurance companies will know darn well how to price the new, more regulated plans. Heck, I bet that the actuaries of many private ensurers have already updated their pricing models to include some of the proposed regulations. They'll know exactly what to do: Jack up rates EVEN BEFORE the new regs go into effect on 1/1/2013. They'll start recouping the new costs so fast, our heads will spin.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
Anna Pauline,
I don't know how far Obama's subsidies will got to cover insurance for the most needy. Perhaps for them, insurance will be basically free.
Regardless, they'll be MUCH better off under Obama's plan than they are today. No?
I don't know how far Obama's subsidies will got to cover insurance for the most needy. Perhaps for them, insurance will be basically free.
Regardless, they'll be MUCH better off under Obama's plan than they are today. No?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
In response to: Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!
Rich,
I agree with you on the excellence of Obama's speech, but the future of the Public Option - which looks more and more in doubt - worries me.
First in general, if Obama delivers a passionate speech on Health Care but then turns around and bargains away the only controversial part of his plan what message is sent? I'd say: "I have it in me to be tough in a speech but not 'on the ground' ".
Second, I'm worried how the loss of the Public Option could affect the already skyrocketing cost of private insurance. That's because, private insurers will increase premiums so fast that it'll make our heads spin if Obama's new regulations on pre-existing conditions, etc. go into effect ABSENT competition from a strong Public Option. Without the Public Option, those new regulations will throw gasoline on the already very hot fire of skyrocketing private insurance premiums.
Yes, it was a great and passionate speech. But words aren't nearly enough. Previously unseen Obama backbone "on the ground" will be necessary too.
I agree with you on the excellence of Obama's speech, but the future of the Public Option - which looks more and more in doubt - worries me.
First in general, if Obama delivers a passionate speech on Health Care but then turns around and bargains away the only controversial part of his plan what message is sent? I'd say: "I have it in me to be tough in a speech but not 'on the ground' ".
Second, I'm worried how the loss of the Public Option could affect the already skyrocketing cost of private insurance. That's because, private insurers will increase premiums so fast that it'll make our heads spin if Obama's new regulations on pre-existing conditions, etc. go into effect ABSENT competition from a strong Public Option. Without the Public Option, those new regulations will throw gasoline on the already very hot fire of skyrocketing private insurance premiums.
Yes, it was a great and passionate speech. But words aren't nearly enough. Previously unseen Obama backbone "on the ground" will be necessary too.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Boston Globe urges President to back Cape Wind
In response to: Boston Globe urges President to back Cape Wind
Rasputin,
The Obama Administration will definitely approve Cape Wind. There's no way that Mr. Green Obama could do any differently.
Then, I believe the only remaining work for BDurkin and company will be an attempt to get the SJC to review the recent decision to uphold the EFSB.
BDurkin's work is nearing an end.
The Obama Administration will definitely approve Cape Wind. There's no way that Mr. Green Obama could do any differently.
Then, I believe the only remaining work for BDurkin and company will be an attempt to get the SJC to review the recent decision to uphold the EFSB.
BDurkin's work is nearing an end.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Boston Globe urges President to back Cape Wind
In response to: Boston Globe urges President to back Cape Wind
Barbara, life doesn't stop just because Teddy was buried yesterday. So now we can add pulling on heart strings to your bag of tricks, huh? Sadly, that doesn't lower the average quality of your tactics.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Boston Globe urges President to back Cape Wind
In response to: Boston Globe urges President to back Cape Wind
Bobcat: If you know the Math is wrong, then please do the correct math and show us. If you can't do that, ho can you criticize?
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: 21st Century Cape Cod Tories sink to new depths
In response to: 21st Century Cape Cod Tories sink to new depths
CapeGirl,
You and the windstop.org guy seem to think you're long distance mind readers. How do you know why Cronkite changed his mind? Unless we have direct evidence to the contrary, we should take Cronkite's words at face value: He made a mistake initially, dislikes the Alliance, and has changed his mind on the wind farm.
You and the windstop.org guy seem to think you're long distance mind readers. How do you know why Cronkite changed his mind? Unless we have direct evidence to the contrary, we should take Cronkite's words at face value: He made a mistake initially, dislikes the Alliance, and has changed his mind on the wind farm.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Mary Jo Kopechne died 40 years ago today
In response to: Mary Jo Kopechne died 40 years ago today
This 3 person theory is just that: A theory. But there's no arguing with the fact that Kennedy's story is so full of holes that it wouldn't hold an "air pocket".
I wasn't living in Mass back then. What I want to know, is how the heck did the citizens of Massachusetts return Teddy to the Senate in the next election? Talk about being star struck by the Kennedy mystique! Amazing.
I wasn't living in Mass back then. What I want to know, is how the heck did the citizens of Massachusetts return Teddy to the Senate in the next election? Talk about being star struck by the Kennedy mystique! Amazing.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
In response to: Cindy Sheehan - A Sarah Palin Of The Left?
I guess I'm a bit surprised that Mr. Latimer was disappointed in Sheehan. I mean, what credentials does she have to be commenting on public affairs? Her son died and she protested outside of Crawford. I think that's about it.
So now Ms. Sheehan is trying to be a commentator on political affairs, huh? Why should we expect her to any good at that? I'd be surprised if Mr. Latimer wasn't disappointed in her.
So now Ms. Sheehan is trying to be a commentator on political affairs, huh? Why should we expect her to any good at that? I'd be surprised if Mr. Latimer wasn't disappointed in her.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Enough already with the Michael Jackson distortions
In response to: Enough already with the Michael Jackson distortions
Brooks is right that we should focus on Jackson's music because Jackson's incredible talent did not make him a great man.
CapeConservative is right when he draws attention to Al Sharpton's ridiculous comments. Of course, Sharpton views everything in life through the race lens so we can discount him.
But the article writer goes too far when he says we should disdain Jackson. Re: accusations of child abuse, Jackson was exonerated there. Re: dangling a baby I wonder: If Mr. Brooks had a camera on him 24/7 for decades would he escape without a single embarrassing image? Would Brooks want his whole life judged by a single stupid action?
Brooks is right: We shouldn't worship Jackson as some inspiring human being. But calling him a degenerate is over the top.
CapeConservative is right when he draws attention to Al Sharpton's ridiculous comments. Of course, Sharpton views everything in life through the race lens so we can discount him.
But the article writer goes too far when he says we should disdain Jackson. Re: accusations of child abuse, Jackson was exonerated there. Re: dangling a baby I wonder: If Mr. Brooks had a camera on him 24/7 for decades would he escape without a single embarrassing image? Would Brooks want his whole life judged by a single stupid action?
Brooks is right: We shouldn't worship Jackson as some inspiring human being. But calling him a degenerate is over the top.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Gov. Patrick hails Cape Wind permit approvals
In response to: Gov. Patrick hails Cape Wind permit approvals
Voiceofreason22,
I stopped reading the post that you provided when it said this:
---------------
The climate-change industry — the scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most importantly, the multinationals that work behind the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake — has emerged as the world’s largest industry.
---------------
Is the writer actually trying to say that more money is spent on Global warming than is generated by the sale of energy? Than the sale of arms? Than the sale of automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and electronics?
-------------
I don't know where or if that writer studied economics, but he's waaaaay out there on that one.
I stopped reading the post that you provided when it said this:
---------------
The climate-change industry — the scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most importantly, the multinationals that work behind the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake — has emerged as the world’s largest industry.
---------------
Is the writer actually trying to say that more money is spent on Global warming than is generated by the sale of energy? Than the sale of arms? Than the sale of automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and electronics?
-------------
I don't know where or if that writer studied economics, but he's waaaaay out there on that one.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind: Final State Approval to Begin Development
In response to: Cape Wind: Final State Approval to Begin Development
I stand corrected on the spelling of the name of the General from Dr. Strangelove. I knew the play on words but didn't put the effort into the spelling.
Great post jimboosb. I laughed out loud.
Great post jimboosb. I laughed out loud.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind: Final State Approval to Begin Development
In response to: Cape Wind: Final State Approval to Begin Development
Another loss for the Alliance. What's the losing streak up to now? A pretty high number and without a single win. Note that the siting board voted unanimously. It wasn't even close.
The Alliance says that it will appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court. I wonder what the probability is that the SJC will overturn a unanimous decision like this. To quote General Buck Turgesen from the movie Dr. Strangelove: "A very low order of probability".
Give it up Alliance!
The Alliance says that it will appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court. I wonder what the probability is that the SJC will overturn a unanimous decision like this. To quote General Buck Turgesen from the movie Dr. Strangelove: "A very low order of probability".
Give it up Alliance!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Kennedy at War against Danish Wind Turbines
In response to: Kennedy at War against Danish Wind Turbines
The most important parts of this article:
"On a clear day, you can get a faint glimpse of the 110 meter high wind turbines, when you look out over the ocean."
"They are beautiful to look at, when you are lucky enough to see them,"
Both refer to Danish wind farms identical to Cape Wind.
If Cape Wind is ever built, we will look back and howl in laughter at the Alliance for making a huge mountain out of a tiny mole hill. These turbines will not ruin the view.
"On a clear day, you can get a faint glimpse of the 110 meter high wind turbines, when you look out over the ocean."
"They are beautiful to look at, when you are lucky enough to see them,"
Both refer to Danish wind farms identical to Cape Wind.
If Cape Wind is ever built, we will look back and howl in laughter at the Alliance for making a huge mountain out of a tiny mole hill. These turbines will not ruin the view.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Stop the Industrialization of Nantucket Sound
In response to: Stop the Industrialization of Nantucket Sound
Gonzo,
Re: hurricane damage: By your logic, this country should never have built anything significant in the areas of the country vulnerable to hurricanes. The whole southeast and gulf coasts would be undeveloped. Of course that hasn't happened and what makes it possible is insurance. Cape Wind will be no more vulnerable to hurricane damage than hundreds of facilities in hurricane land. If it's destroyed, insurance will pay to rebuild or the project bond will pay to dismantle it.
This is all basic stuff from the world of business. It applies to Cape Wind just as it does to thousands of other businesses in the U.S.
Re: hurricane damage: By your logic, this country should never have built anything significant in the areas of the country vulnerable to hurricanes. The whole southeast and gulf coasts would be undeveloped. Of course that hasn't happened and what makes it possible is insurance. Cape Wind will be no more vulnerable to hurricane damage than hundreds of facilities in hurricane land. If it's destroyed, insurance will pay to rebuild or the project bond will pay to dismantle it.
This is all basic stuff from the world of business. It applies to Cape Wind just as it does to thousands of other businesses in the U.S.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Barnstable County has spent over a quarter million to stop Cape Wind - Has town-sized legal bills
In response to: Barnstable County has spent over a quarter million to stop Cape Wind - Has town-sized legal bills
While I suppose that the CCC had to spend some money on the mandatory MEPA referral I would think that - if active opposition wasn't involved - work on that would have cost a lot less than $300K.
Pretty disgraceful!
Pretty disgraceful!
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Another House chairman urges Cape Wind delay
In response to: Another House chairman urges Cape Wind delay
Peter Kenney,
On what basis do you call the Coast Guard study ridiculous? Please provide something substantive rather than your unsupported conjecture.
Who made that call to the Energy Committee (you?) and how did you draw your conclusions? Did you ask: What did you thing about Appendix E, paragraph 10? Given how you appear to have jumped to the conclusion that the USCG study is "ridiculous" a reasonable reader should question this conclusion as well.
What work does the EPA have to complete?
Yes, we are awaiting an FAA study triggered by a Delahunt request but they've opined on this multiple times in the past and found no problems. That'll happen again very soon.
On what basis do you call the Coast Guard study ridiculous? Please provide something substantive rather than your unsupported conjecture.
Who made that call to the Energy Committee (you?) and how did you draw your conclusions? Did you ask: What did you thing about Appendix E, paragraph 10? Given how you appear to have jumped to the conclusion that the USCG study is "ridiculous" a reasonable reader should question this conclusion as well.
What work does the EPA have to complete?
Yes, we are awaiting an FAA study triggered by a Delahunt request but they've opined on this multiple times in the past and found no problems. That'll happen again very soon.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Another House chairman urges Cape Wind delay
In response to: Another House chairman urges Cape Wind delay
Voiceofreason,
There's a federally established procedure for leasing sections of the continental shelf. This has been done for years (example: oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico). I don't know the details but perhaps Buzz is correct and the 2005 act provides the current rules.
In any case, there's vast precedent for private companies leasing land/waters of the continental shelf.
There's a federally established procedure for leasing sections of the continental shelf. This has been done for years (example: oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico). I don't know the details but perhaps Buzz is correct and the 2005 act provides the current rules.
In any case, there's vast precedent for private companies leasing land/waters of the continental shelf.
dkfalmouth [Member]
In response to: Groups question how MMS is handling Cape Wind historic preservation issue
In response to: Groups question how MMS is handling Cape Wind historic preservation issue
Gonzo,
Re: a hurricane damaging the wind farm, I have a single word for you: Insurance.
Cape Wind will not get built without insurance against catastrophes like hurricanes. If that risk is too large then CW either won't get insurance it won't be able to afford it. In either case, the project won't get built. If it is built, it'll be insured just as were:
- The oil platforms damaged by Katrina
- The World Trade Center
The commercial insurance market will absorb Cape Wind without missing a heart beat if Cape Wind can afford the premium.
Re: a hurricane damaging the wind farm, I have a single word for you: Insurance.
Cape Wind will not get built without insurance against catastrophes like hurricanes. If that risk is too large then CW either won't get insurance it won't be able to afford it. In either case, the project won't get built. If it is built, it'll be insured just as were:
- The oil platforms damaged by Katrina
- The World Trade Center
The commercial insurance market will absorb Cape Wind without missing a heart beat if Cape Wind can afford the premium.
About This Blog
What's Blog Chowder?
Local ideas, opinions, humor, politics, musings & a few old salts thrown in for good measure. Thick, tasty and often pungent! You can visit all the Cape Bloggers below, browse blog archives, & even search our blogs. If you're interested in setting up a blog, it's free and easy. Just email us & we'll get you started.
Recent Comments
- At this point:
"And here's another thing Uncle ronnie did as
2 hrs, 42 mins ago - Sure you don't want to add anything more?
2 hrs, 50 mins ago - Unlike Obama, who can't blow his nose without being harangued
2 hrs, 55 mins ago - Hi, Buzz
Khalid will get as fair a trial in NYC
4 hrs, 4 mins ago - Troy, You look like you were pwned on the email
5 hrs, 25 mins ago
- site sponsors -
CCT Blog List
Blogs with posts in the past 60 days are listed here in order of newest posts. For a list of all blogs, visit Blogs A to Z
- Newest Blog Posts
- Newest Comments
- Cape Cod History
- Entering Falmouth
- Long Bridge Runner
- Bill Snowden's Blog
- Police and Fire News
- Cape & Islands News
- Latimer on Law
- Entering Bourne
- Cape Yoga
- Wellfleet Bay Sanctuary
- The Ballyard
- EXTRA...
- The Poet's Perspective
- Cape Cod Rock Hopper
- Editorial
- Media Watch
- Mr. Mom I am not
- Politicalendar
- Cheap Eats
- Rep. Jeff Perry in His Own Words
- The Belly Check
- Conservative's Conscience
- Mahler's Music Notes
- Historic Harwich
- Off-the-Shelf
- Ned Sonntag
- Literary Pop
- Boston Bureau
- Frugal Internet Marketing
- Cape Native
- Sea Street
- Rog's Gallery
- State of Cape Cod
- Town Notes
- Solon Economou
- Cape Cod Barrister
- Cape Eyes
- CapeCodToday Arts Calendar
- One Day at a Time
- Cape Cod Tracker
- DIY Marketing
- Trail Hound
- Letters to the Editor
- Project I.E.P.
- Op-Ed
- Through a Washashore's Eyes
- Travel Tales
- CapeCodToday Featured Event
- Off Cape
- Bismore Park
- My day
- The Natural
- Buckley's Blog
- Eastham Windmill
- Washington Window
- Seufert's Scenes
- Massachusetts Paranormal Institute
- Cape Cod Pets
- Reflections on a Quarter-life Crisis
- Myrbie & Dax
Archives
- November 2009 (204)
- October 2009 (275)
- September 2009 (271)
- August 2009 (273)
- July 2009 (284)
- June 2009 (260)
- May 2009 (281)
- April 2009 (289)
- March 2009 (311)
- February 2009 (264)
- January 2009 (281)
- December 2008 (294)
- November 2008 (270)
- October 2008 (299)
- September 2008 (288)
- August 2008 (269)
- July 2008 (277)
- June 2008 (249)
- May 2008 (265)
- April 2008 (276)
- March 2008 (325)
- February 2008 (299)
- January 2008 (331)
- December 2007 (300)
- November 2007 (285)
- October 2007 (301)
- September 2007 (284)
- August 2007 (252)
- July 2007 (255)
- June 2007 (234)
- May 2007 (237)
- April 2007 (235)
- March 2007 (225)
- February 2007 (199)
- January 2007 (211)
- December 2006 (188)
- November 2006 (211)
- October 2006 (290)
- September 2006 (270)
- August 2006 (237)
- July 2006 (244)
- June 2006 (229)
- May 2006 (195)
- April 2006 (195)
- March 2006 (214)
- February 2006 (219)
- January 2006 (247)
- December 2005 (106)
- November 2005 (67)
- October 2005 (62)
- September 2005 (47)
- August 2005 (40)
- July 2005 (41)
- April 2005 (1)
Become a CapeCodToday Blogger!
Are you passionate about your community? Do you blog or at least harbor thoughts of doing so?
If so, CapeCodToday.com would like to host your blog on our CapeCodToday weblog publishing platform.
Blog Newsfeed
CapeCodToday uses standard web "newsfeeds" (RSS) to automatically update the latest blog entries in your browser or newsreader.
Use any of the links below in your newsreader or web browser to get "CapeCodToday Blog Chowder" postings delivered to you, or use the RSS icon in your browser's address bar.
In response to: ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!
Where's the Capuano event?