Is this true about the healthcare bill?

[Audrey]

What people are talking about is not "spin," from Fox, it's *total* falsities.

 

 

I'm sorry.... I just kept reading that as "total falsies" and couldn't, for the life of me, figure out why you were ragging on those poor strippers. They deserve decent health care, too.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm sorry.... I just kept reading that as "total falsies" and couldn't, for the life of me, figure out why you were ragging on those poor strippers.

 

I thought maybe you were mixing it up with my Victoria's Secret posts in the swimsuit thread until you got to strippers. :lol:

[MSNative]

I'm a Democrat and I have pictures of myself at a pro-war rally. Democrats in Congress overwhelming voted for the war.

 

I disagree. The Republicans were *never* going to vote for it. Never. It didn't ever matter that many of the ideas were very similar to McCain's plan, except that isn't taxing insurance as part of your income.

 

I can't watch Glenn Beck because he makes my physically ill. But, I don't watch Olberman either. What people are talking about is not "spin," from Fox, it's *total* falsities. Things people on the board have said "what about this? I'm mad about this!!" And others have said "that's not true, here's the text of the bill."

 

 

I wasn't trying to say that Democrats who voted against the war or didn't support it were bad or that all Democrats were against it. Those on both sides who are against it are vocal about it- as I'd expect them to be. People vote one way and shouldn't be expected to change their values just because a bill was passed. People who were against the war did not switch to being for it simply because a bill passed. I was trying to show that it was a normal human reaction.

 

 

As far as the comment that Republicans were never going to vote for it. I agree. So does that mean it would be ok to ram a bill thru that all Democrats dislike just because it should be passed and they'd never vote for it? Well, if the Reps. have enough votes, then yes, it's legal. Does it mean that the Reps. should expect everyone to be zippy skippy about it? No. They should expect that some people are going to feel frustrated and upset. It makes sense. Personally, I would have preferred a more bipartisan solution, even if it took more time. As you stated, there were some parts of the bill that Republicans could have supported. But those parts were smooshed into a bill that contained parts that they couldn't support.

 

This reinforces my belief that bills should be limited in size and scope. We could deal with problems more efficiently, reduce pork (or at least make it more obvious) and promote more bipartisan solutions. I truly do believe that most Americans share many common goals and common values. If bills were smaller and more focused, I think we could find a lot of common ground.

 

Below I pasted a Pew Research survey showing that a majority of Americans think that the media is biased and inaccurate. There have been many examples of inaccuracy, bias and fraud from every media outlet. Google any media outlet name and variations on the word lies and you'll come up with tons of examples. (some are wackos, but there are too many legitimate examples for each and every news outlet) I do not condone or excuse it. If any media outlet gets it wrong, they should man up and say so. Phooey on all those that do not. I don't watch fox. If they are knowingly promoting falsehoods, that is wrong. I've had friends send me articles on this issue from other news outlets that are also demonstrably false. It makes me sick to see this much biased and yellow journalism. (though in true homeschool fashion, I am using it as part of our study of yellow journalism in the Spanish American war. So nice of the media to give me a history project)

 

In this particular matter, I'm not surprised that there are inaccuracies. The Representatives themselves didn't read this entire bill. Staffers have inaccurate/incomplete info and are passing that on to reporters. There is stuff in there that we are only just now learning about. (I'm still learning about what was in laws that were passed years ago. Go back to my rant above on why bills should be short) I predict there will be several inaccurate stories out because someone will read one part of the bill, report something and then someone else will read some other part that addresses or adjusts or opposes the first part. Then on top of that there is the reconcilliation that is supposed to address problems and that may or may not pass. It's confusing.

 

In short, I believe that media is biased, bills should be shorter, there are wackos on both sides and that we can be on either side of this issue and still be good people. :) I love that we can all delve into this and learn from each other. If we spend our time researching the bill and sharing what we learn, and politely questioning, I think we can all come away with a much more complete understanding of not only the health care bill, but also the many diff. perspectives that people have about it.

 

I hate to post and run, esp. on a hot button issue but I have a good excuse - I'm moving tomorrow! Yay! However, that means that I may or may not have internet for the next few days. So, if I don't respond I'm not pouting, ignoring or in any other way getting my big girl panties in a wad. :) Due to this, please let me repeat - I do not think Democrats or Republicans are bad. I am not intentionally trying to slam anyone on the board in my response. If it comes across that way, I apologize.

 

Pew Research survey:

 

"The public’s assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades of Pew Research surveys, and Americans’ views of media bias and independence now match previous lows. Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate. In the initial survey in this series about the news media’s performance in 1985, 55% said news stories were accurate while 34% said they were inaccurate. That percentage had fallen sharply by the late 1990s and has remained low over the last decade.

Similarly, only about a quarter (26%) now say that news organizations are careful that their reporting is not politically biased, compared with 60% who say news organizations are politically biased. And the percentages saying that news organizations are independent of powerful people and organizations (20%) or are willing to admit their mistakes (21%) now also match all-time lows"

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

I just found this. Says they still wont use their own health care bill. A brand new article since the bill "passed"

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/congressional-staffers-complain-double-standard-health-care-law/

[Aggie]

If only this many people got so interested in every bill passed in previous years.

 

This is so true.

 

However, imo, Congress doesn't want us interested and involved. Look at how this has affected some of their re-election campaigns.

 

We need more transparency in DC and more involved constituents all the time.

[Cammie]

I just found this. Says they still wont use their own health care bill. A brand new article since the bill "passed"

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/congressional-staffers-complain-double-standard-health-care-law/

 

 

Pretty sure, if you read the above posts, you will see that many people here feel that Fox news may not be the most accurate source on this particular issue.

 

Plus, this will probably get deleted as it is a link to a non-government site.

[Renee in NC]

It was put into the bill (one of them, anyway), but some in Congress are moving to have it stricken. Also, I have heard on the news that President Obama has agreed to be subject to it. I don't know that this means that later Presidents would also have to agree to that, but he has.

 

Congress has never paid into social security, why would we expect them to be part of this health care plan?

 

That isn't true either - Congress has been paying social security since 1984. Before that they were part of the pension plan for federal employees.

[Renee in NC]

Actually the issue with the three companies that I have seen in the last couple of days saying their costs are going to go up has to do with a change to retiree drug benefits. Here are some quotes from a WSJ article (I won't link it but it is called ObamaCare Day One.)

 

Mr. Reed (Verizon VP) specifically cited a change in the tax treatment of retiree health benefits. When Congress created the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003, it included a modest tax subsidy to encourage employers to keep drug plans for retirees, rather than dumping them on the government. The Employee Benefit Research Institute says this exclusion—equal to 28% of the cost of a drug plan—will run taxpayers $665 per person next year, while the same Medicare coverage would cost $1,209..... Democrats decided that this $665 fillip should be subject to the ordinary corporate income tax of 35%. Most consulting firms and independent analysts say the higher costs will induce some companies to drop drug coverage, which could affect about five million retirees and 3,500 businesses.

 

U.S. accounting laws also require businesses to immediately restate their earnings in light of the higher tax burden on their long-term retiree health liabilities. This will have a big effect on their 2010 earnings. (Which is why these big companies are restating their numbers for 2010.)

 

While the drug tax subsidy is for retirees, companies consider their benefit costs as a total package. The new bill might cause some to drop retiree coverage altogether. Others may be bound by labor contracts to retirees, but then they will find other ways to cut costs. This means raising costs or reducing coverage for other employees.

 

There is a 40% tax on high end plans, unless it was dropped in the reconcillation bill.

 

‘‘SEC. 4980I. EXCISE TAX ON HIGH COST EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH COVERAGE.

‘‘(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX.—If— ‘‘(1) an employee is covered under any applica ble employer-sponsored coverage of an employer at any time during a taxable period, and ‘‘(2) there is any excess benefit with respect to the coverage, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 40 percent of the excess benefit.

 

There is a whole section on this tax in the bill -- most of which I don't understand!!

 

 

Yvonne in NE

 

Ok, makes sense now. That is the Cadillac provision - there is going to be a tax on medical plans that are employer-provided that the employer pays more than $27,500 per year for a family. The 40% will be on the excess over $27,500. These Cadillac plans are ways to provide non-taxable compensation to the employee.

[Renee in NC]

I am not a Bush fan, however I am curious if you were this fired up over how rude the press was to Bush? Seriously, I can't take this seriously.:tongue_smilie:

 

I was. The fact that so many called him "Bush" instead of "President Bush" was terrible. I would feel the same about President Obama. The president is the president is the president as fas as I am concerned, even if I don't like him *or her.)

[theresatwist]

This was addressed in the other thread. Post number 312.

 

From the text of the bill:

 

What's further true is that the same members of congress who have been railing about government-run health insurance for almost a year now receive government-run health insurance as do their families, paid for by taxpayers. If you think it's so horrible return the money to the taxpayers and buy your own on the private market. Strange how not one member of congress has done that--says something. I recently read court documents (that I wish the Palin's hadn't been forced to release for the baby's sake, but they were published in an Alaskan newspaper) showing that Tripp Palin, Governor Palin's grandson receives government-run health insurance, which he is eligible for because he is part Native American and which is heavily subsidized by taxpayers. If the death panels were going to kill off the babies you'd think Governor Palin would pay for private insurance for her only grandchild.

[TXMary2]

What's further true is that the same members of congress who have been railing about government-run health insurance for almost a year now receive government-run health insurance as do their families, paid for by taxpayers. If you think it's so horrible return the money to the taxpayers and buy your own on the private market. Strange how not one member of congress has done that--says something. I recently read court documents (that I wish the Palin's hadn't been forced to release for the baby's sake, but they were published in an Alaskan newspaper) showing that Tripp Palin, Governor Palin's grandson receives government-run health insurance, which he is eligible for because he is part Native American and which is heavily subsidized by taxpayers. If the death panels were going to kill off the babies you'd think Governor Palin would pay for private insurance for her only grandchild.

 

Her grandson is perfectly healthy.....what would a "death panel" have to do with him?

[3andme]

What's further true is that the same members of congress who have been railing about government-run health insurance for almost a year now receive government-run health insurance as do their families, paid for by taxpayers. If you think it's so horrible return the money to the taxpayers and buy your own on the private market. Strange how not one member of congress has done that--says something. I recently read court documents (that I wish the Palin's hadn't been forced to release for the baby's sake, but they were published in an Alaskan newspaper) showing that Tripp Palin, Governor Palin's grandson receives government-run health insurance, which he is eligible for because he is part Native American and which is heavily subsidized by taxpayers. If the death panels were going to kill off the babies you'd think Governor Palin would pay for private insurance for her only grandchild.

You are conflating government run programs which are legislated by the government for all citizens with programs run by the federal government as an employer. Members of Congress can choose from a wide variety of private insurance plans. Yes, it is government run in the sense that the the federal government happens to be their employer and therefore chooses the insurers who will participate and the levels of coverage just like other employers would. The insurance is related to the government only by dint of their employment.

 

This is very different from a government funded program like Medicare or Medicaid which are not related to their immediate employment. It is also quite distinct from a government panel or bureaucracy proscribing a single plan of benefits for everyone in the country (with a few slight variations in ded./copay/abortion) and then demanding that everyone purchase that plan.

[theresatwist]

Her grandson is perfectly healthy.....what would a "death panel" have to do with him?

 

I just think if she really thought government-run health insurance programs were so dangerous she wouldn't allow her grandson to be on such a plan. Plus, you buy insurance in case you become sick. Most people who have insurance are generally healthy. Given that I do not believe that death panels exist or will exist I don't think they have anything to do with anybody, but Governor Palin thinks differently.

[theresatwist]

You are conflating government run programs which are legislated by the government for all citizens with programs run by the federal government as an employer. Members of Congress can choose from a wide variety of private insurance plans. Yes, it is government run in the sense that the the federal government happens to be their employer and therefore chooses the insurers who will participate and the levels of coverage just like other employers would. The insurance is related to the government only by dint of their employment.

 

This is very different from a government funded program like Medicare or Medicaid which are not related to their immediate employment. It is also quite distinct from a government panel or bureaucracy proscribing a single plan of benefits for everyone in the country (with a few slight variations in ded./copay/abortion) and then demanding that everyone purchase that plan.

 

What you said about members of congress being able to choose from a wide variety of private plans will be true for the vast majority of Americans under this new health care bill as well. The government is requiring that you buy insurance, but for most Americans the provider will still be a private provider. When I say "government-run" that's what I mean. The liberals did not get a public option. The government contracts out the work of medicare and medicaid to private companies as well.

[TXMary2]

I just think if she really thought government-run health insurance programs were so dangerous she wouldn't allow her grandson to be on such a plan. Plus, you buy insurance in case you become sick. Most people who have insurance are generally healthy. Given that I do not believe that death panels exist or will exist I don't think they have anything to do with anybody, but Governor Palin thinks differently.

 

I am by no means a Palin cheerleader, but I think it is a bit disingenious to say her comments applied to any/all government health care. I believe she has been specifically speaking out about the end of life counseling discussed in this bill and she interpreted that to be like a death panel. Surely you do not think she really believes all government healthcare plans just pick off babies for no reason.

[Mrs Mungo]

As far as the comment that Republicans were never going to vote for it. I agree. So does that mean it would be ok to ram a bill thru that all Democrats dislike just because it should be passed and they'd never vote for it? Well, if the Reps. have enough votes, then yes, it's legal. Does it mean that the Reps. should expect everyone to be zippy skippy about it? No. They should expect that some people are going to feel frustrated and upset. It makes sense. Personally, I would have preferred a more bipartisan solution, even if it took more time. As you stated, there were some parts of the bill that Republicans could have supported. But those parts were smooshed into a bill that contained parts that they couldn't support.

 

I really don't think you are getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that it would not have ever, ever, ever mattered *what* was in the bill, the Republicans *would not* have voted for it because they *knew* it was *THE one thing* the Democrats were going to pass, no matter what. So, they were going to use it as political fear tactic no matter *what* was in the bill. They would have done the same thing even if the Democrats had followed McCain's plan to the letter.

[Slartibartfast]

I really don't think you are getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that it would not have ever, ever, ever mattered *what* was in the bill, the Republicans *would not* have voted for it because they *knew* it was *THE one thing* the Democrats were going to pass, no matter what. So, they were going to use it as political fear tactic no matter *what* was in the bill. They would have done the same thing even if the Democrats had followed McCain's plan to the letter.

 

 

Well actually I thought this bill was actually pretty similar to what the Republicans proposed when the Clintons were trying to get health care passed wasn't it?

 

I mean...one could look at the two plans and this bill is *more* similar to the Republican bill then than the Clinton bill.

[Mrs Mungo]

Well actually I thought this bill was actually pretty similar to what the Republicans proposed when the Clintons were trying to get health care passed wasn't it?

 

I mean...one could look at the two plans and this bill is *more* similar to the Republican bill then than the Clinton bill.

 

I agree. I also think it's closer to McCain's plan than it is to Obama's, given no public option. McCain's was funded by taxing health care as income tax, something that is not happening and he used more carrots than sticks as far as compliance but, otherwise, pretty similar.

[Slartibartfast]

I agree. I also think it's closer to McCain's plan than it is to Obama's, given no public option. McCain's was funded by taxing health care as income tax, something that is not happening and he used more carrots than sticks as far as compliance but, otherwise, pretty similar.

 

Yeah, I do like this plan more than McCain's but I have preferred a public option.

 

Given the shock and dismay people are reacting to healthcare being passed I have to wonder if McCain was only faking a healthcare plan much like he was faking being a conservative. :lol:

Edited March 26, 2010 by Sis

[Mrs Mungo]

much like he was faking being a conservative. :lol:

 

I think this is something everyone can agree upon. If he was a better actor he might have won. Too bad he looked so dang disgruntled all the time.

[stripe]

Too bad he looked so dang disgruntled all the time.

Actually, I prefer it when he frowns. I find his "smiles," "chuckles," and the like to be somewhat unsettling.

[Mrs Mungo]

Actually, I prefer it when he frowns. I find his "smiles," "chuckles," and the like to be somewhat unsettling.

 

:smilielol5: His real ones are okay, it's the fake ones that make me all :leaving:

[mcconnellboys]

I'm very happy to hear this. I did not know that their system had been changed. I don't think they should pass plans for the rest of us that they do not participate in, so I am glad that many are looking to insure that they participate in the same health care system they set up for the rest of us.

[Slartibartfast]

:smilielol5: His real ones are okay, it's the fake ones that make me all :leaving:

 

Yeah...you can tell when he is faking cause it is creepy. He also wasn't doing well at snark because again he would seem creepy..

 

He just doesn't seem to me to be someone who is very good at saying things he doesn't believe, which isn't a bad trait but when a lot of people don't think you believe what you are saying a Presidential Election isn't the best timing for that to come out.

 

I am not a very good liar either..I do start chuckling and rolling my eyes but I don't ever plan to run for office. :lol:

[Oak Knoll Mom]

I never heard of any such movie.

 

astrid

 

It was a British mockumentary. Google "Death of a President" movie and you can read all about it.

 

ETA: I should have read further before I responded.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Oak Knoll Mom

[justamouse]

Actually, I prefer it when he frowns. I find his "smiles," "chuckles," and the like to be somewhat unsettling.

 

 

LOL! Daughter and I used to call it the Creeper Laugh. heh-heh-heh. I used to imitate him all the time and we'd die laughing. His real laugh is good, though. It was funny, he'd creeper laugh when Sarah P said something particularly stupid and I kinda got the feeling he really wanted to smack her but was trying to laugh instead.

[5kidsforME]

I really don't think you are getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that it would not have ever, ever, ever mattered *what* was in the bill, the Republicans *would not* have voted for it because they *knew* it was *THE one thing* the Democrats were going to pass, no matter what. So, they were going to use it as political fear tactic no matter *what* was in the bill. They would have done the same thing even if the Democrats had followed McCain's plan to the letter.

 

 

Aren't you assuming a lot here? have you talked to each and every republican congressman?

[justamouse]

Aren't you assuming a lot here? have you talked to each and every republican congressman?

 

There's the site called Megavote. You can have all of your representatives votes e-mailed to you.

 

Mine, a republican, has voted NO on everything so far. EVERY. THING. (And my Dem Senators have voted YES on everything)

 

I have seven kids. I know these symptoms well. They're called a tantrum. Step over the screaming baby and keep working.

[Mrs Mungo]

Aren't you assuming a lot here? have you talked to each and every republican congressman?

 

It's a logical conclusion based on the fact that this bill is much closer to past Republican health care plans than anything the Democrats have pushed in the past.

[Laurie4b]

You should probably read a variety of Media.

 

Was that meant to be snarky or funny?

 

I read a variety of media and some subjects covered in a "conversative" site are not even touched in a "liberal site" and vice versa. It's not like you can necessarily even find the other side of some issues without seriously digging. So if one site said Congress is not covered by it and your typical opposing viewpoint site doesn't even mention it, well <shrug> of course some people won't know both sides of every issue.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Laurie4b

[5kidsforME]

It's a logical conclusion based on the fact that this bill is much closer to past Republican health care plans than anything the Democrats have pushed in the past.

 

I really don't think you are getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that it would not have ever, ever, ever mattered *what* was in the bill, the Republicans *would not* have voted for it because they *knew* it was *THE one thing* the Democrats were going to pass, no matter what. So, they were going to use it as political fear tactic no matter *what* was in the bill. They would have done the same thing even if the Democrats had followed McCain's plan to the letter.

 

You can try to call it logical all day long but what it comes down to is your opinion or your guess as to what republicans would've done. No one can assure something that never happened.

[theresatwist]

I am by no means a Palin cheerleader, but I think it is a bit disingenious to say her comments applied to any/all government health care. I believe she has been specifically speaking out about the end of life counseling discussed in this bill and she interpreted that to be like a death panel. Surely you do not think she really believes all government healthcare plans just pick off babies for no reason.

 

I don't know what she believes. When I hear her speak on Fox it certainly sounds to me like she's against all government involvement in health care.

 

End of life counseling as I understand it is extremely common (if not universal) and is something Republicans have advocated in the past.

 

That said, I'm not interested in debating what Palin believes. My main point was that the same Republican members of Congress (and other Republican leaders) who have been railing against "government-run" health care receive government-run health care themselves.

 

Although I supported Obama and I generally support health care reform, I agree with the conservatives that we need to turn to worrying about the national debt now and I very much hope Obama will do that.

[theresatwist]

You can try to call it logical all day long but what it comes down to is your opinion or your guess as to what republicans would've done. No one can assure something that never happened.

 

If you look at old proposals on health care reform from the Brookings Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, what they proposed is strikingly similar to what has just been passed. (I'd add a link, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to???) The right, I think, has moved further to the right since those proposals were written, but once upon a time this proposal would have been considered at least conservative-leaning. It's pretty darn similar to what Mitt Romney did in MA as well. Things have clearly changed.

[Mrs Mungo]

You can try to call it logical all day long but what it comes down to is your opinion or your guess as to what republicans would've done. No one can assure something that never happened.

 

Absolutely. However, I have given proof and reason for my opinion. Others have offered similar proof.

 

Do you have proof of any kind that Republicans currently in office could have been persuaded to vote for a bill of this kind, which was a major part of the platform Obama ran on? Especially given the political climate of extremism and frenzy which they are currently fostering?

 

If you look at old proposals on health care reform from the Brookings Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, what they proposed is strikingly similar to what has just been passed. (I'd add a link, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to???) The right, I think, has moved further to the right since those proposals were written, but once upon a time this proposal would have been considered at least conservative-leaning. It's pretty darn similar to what Mitt Romney did in MA as well. Things have clearly changed.

 

Exactly.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Slartibartfast]

If you look at old proposals on health care reform from the Brookings Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, what they proposed is strikingly similar to what has just been passed. (I'd add a link, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to???) The right, I think, has moved further to the right since those proposals were written, but once upon a time this proposal would have been considered at least conservative-leaning. It's pretty darn similar to what Mitt Romney did in MA as well. Things have clearly changed.

 

Good point about Romney. I wonder what he has been up to.

[Slartibartfast]

Awkward headlines...

 

"Romney attacks health care law similar to his own"

[KidsHappen]

It is only the reconciliation package that is held up due to the student loan issues.

 

What are the student loan issues?

[KidsHappen]

Ah....like the cartoonish' date=' redneck, heartless, racist teabaggers that those of us on the right are routinely pictured as?[/quote']

 

I'm a teabagger and I am neither heartless, racist or on the right. I might be cartoonish and redneck though. :tongue_smilie:

[LisaKinVA]

I'm a teabagger and I am neither heartless, racist or on the right. I might be cartoonish and redneck though. :tongue_smilie:

 

Before you refer to yourself as a teabagger... you might want to find out what the term refers too:blush: The original reference was meant to be derrogatory... people "jumped" onto the reference, and others accepted it without realizing the negative connotations.

 

okay...jumping offline because I *know* google is going to get busy.

Edited March 27, 2010 by LisaK in VA

[KidsHappen]

Before you refer to yourself as a teabagger... you might want to find out what the term refers too:blush: The original reference was meant to be derrogatory... people "jumped" onto the reference, and others accepted it without realizing the negative connotations.

 

okay...jumping offline because I *know* google is going to get busy.

 

I know the original meaning but I appreciate the the heads up as I know many people are not aware. ;)

[Jugglin'5]

Before you refer to yourself as a teabagger... you might want to find out what the term refers too:blush: The original reference was meant to be derrogatory... people "jumped" onto the reference, and others accepted it without realizing the negative connotations.

 

okay...jumping offline because I *know* google is going to get busy.

 

Oh, I KNOW very well what it means. It was applied to Tea Partiers by Andersen Cooper, one of those fair, non-Fox, mainstream reporters. :glare:

 

I used the term in keeping with with the general tone of the rest of the sentence. I was trying to demonstrate the pot-calling-the-kettle-black irony of liberal attempts to decry how awful conservatives are to typecast and make assumptions about liberals.

[LisaKinVA]

Sorry, I guess I just sort-of cringe any time I see someone referring to themselves as a teabagger... My husband had to tell me (a while back, granted, but I was still agast).

[wapiti]

What are the student loan issues?

A federal takeover of student loans was included in the reconciliation package. The reason, supposedly, is that cutting out the private-lender middlemen will save money. (The supposed savings were necessary to make it appear as thought the reconciliation package wouldn't raise the deficit, I believe.) As explained in the WSJ:

 

Currently, for loans that the government makes directly to students, the Department of Education conducts competitive bidding and hires private companies to service the loans. But in the pending bill, several dozen nonprofit firms will be eligible to receive no-bid servicing contracts on up to 100,000 student accounts for each firm.

Which nonprofit organizations will qualify? California’s ALL Student Loan looks to be a big winner, thanks to language written by Representative George Miller of California. ALL Student Loan may have helped its cause by retaining the services of Vincent Reusing, a lobbyist whom the Chronicle of Higher Education has described as a “personal friend†of Mr. Miller.

....Mr. Reusing has been very friendly to more than one left-leaning politician over the years. According to OpenSecrets.org, Mr. Reusing has contributed more than $80,000 to various Democratic campaigns, including Mr. Miller’s.

 

No bid service contracts, sounds great :glare:. There are plenty of news articles to google if you're interested in further info.

[Jugglin'5]

Sorry, I guess I just sort-of cringe any time I see someone referring to themselves as a teabagger... My husband had to tell me (a while back, granted, but I was still agast).

 

 

It IS a rather disgusting thing to label your political enemies, isn't it?

 

Yankee Doodle was originally written to mock the Americans, and they adopted it anyway, so I figure it is tradition. :D Many political movements and parties throughout history have adopted names originally intended to be insulting, so I figure we're in good company. I have not actually attended any Tea Party functions myself, though I am in general sympathy with them.

[justamouse]

Oh' date=' I KNOW very well what it means. It was applied to Tea Partiers by Andersen Cooper, one of those fair, non-Fox, mainstream reporters. :glare:

 

I used the term in keeping with with the general tone of the rest of the sentence. I was trying to demonstrate the pot-calling-the-kettle-black irony of liberal attempts to decry how awful conservatives are to typecast and make assumptions about liberals.[/quote']

 

Um. You would be wrong on that.

 

First national Tea Party protests

On February 19, 2009,[46] in a broadcast from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CNBC Business News Network editor Rick Santelli loudly criticized the government plan to refinance mortgages, which had just been announced the day before, as "promoting bad behavior" by "subsidizing losers' mortgages" and raised the possibility of putting together a "Chicago Tea Party in July"[65][66]. A number of the stock brokers around him cheered on his proposal, to the apparent amusement of the hosts in the studio. It was called "the rant heard round the world"[67] and quickly went viral after it received a big "red siren headline" on the popular conservative blog, drudgereport.com.[68] According to The New Yorker writer Ben McGrath[69] and New York Times reporter Kate Zernike[70], this is where the movement was first inspired to coalesce under the collective banner of "Tea Party." By the next day, guests on Fox News had already begun to mention this new "Tea Party." [71]

In response to Santelli, websites such as ChicagoTeaParty.com, registered in August 2008 by Chicago radio producer Zack Christenson, were live within twelve hours.[8] About 10 hours after Santelli's remarks, reTeaParty.com was bought to coordinate Tea Parties scheduled for July 4, and as of March 4, was reported to be receiving 11,000 visitors a day.[8]

 

Wiki -Tea Party protests.

 

THEN if you go to wiki and search the term tea bagging (Which is NSFW) way down at the bottom you have this:

 

In 2009, the Tea Party movement were formed by conservative anti-tax activists protesting against United States tax and spending policies. The activists referenced the Boston Tea Party protests for their name. The appellation tea bagger emerged after protesters displayed placards using the words "tea bag" as a verb.[13][14] The label has prompted puns by both commentators and protesters[15] based on its sexual connotation.[16]

So, it wasn't that liberal Anderson Cooper. :001_smile: And he's a pretty good journalist and very fair. If you really want liberal journalism watch Rachel and Keith. Anderson not so much. And I believe it was after the party had coined the term themselves that the younger, more Urban Dictionary smart kids started laughing. It was kinda ironic.

[Slartibartfast]

 

So, it wasn't that liberal Anderson Cooper. :001_smile: And he's a pretty good journalist and very fair. If you really want liberal journalism watch Rachel and Keith. Anderson not so much. And I believe it was after the party had coined the term themselves that the younger, more Urban Dictionary smart kids started laughing. It was kinda ironic.

 

I always kind of thought Rachel was more moderate than Andersen Cooper, perhaps not though. Both are more moderate than Keith anyways. :lol:

[TXMary2]

A federal takeover of student loans was included in the reconciliation package. The reason, supposedly, is that cutting out the private-lender middlemen will save money. (The supposed savings were necessary to make it appear as thought the reconciliation package wouldn't raise the deficit, I believe.) As explained in the WSJ:

 

 

 

No bid service contracts, sounds great :glare:. There are plenty of news articles to google if you're interested in further info.

 

And what exactly do student loans have to do with healthcare? :glare:

[TXMary2]

Oh' date=' I KNOW very well what it means. It was applied to Tea Partiers by Andersen Cooper, one of those fair, non-Fox, mainstream reporters. :glare:

 

I used the term in keeping with with the general tone of the rest of the sentence. I was trying to demonstrate the pot-calling-the-kettle-black irony of liberal attempts to decry how awful conservatives are to typecast and make assumptions about liberals.[/quote']

 

The first person I heard using it was that foul mouth trashy "actress" Jeanne Garafalo - and she spit the word out with much venom.

[Jugglin'5]

Um. You would be wrong on that.

 

Wiki -Tea Party protests.

 

THEN if you go to wiki and search the term tea bagging (Which is NSFW) way down at the bottom you have this:

 

So, it wasn't that liberal Anderson Cooper. :001_smile: And he's a pretty good journalist and very fair. If you really want liberal journalism watch Rachel and Keith. Anderson not so much. And I believe it was after the party had coined the term themselves that the younger, more Urban Dictionary smart kids started laughing. It was kinda ironic.

 

Um, I understand that "Tea Party" was coined by the protesters themselves, and that teabagging was a nasty play on that appellation. What I was referrring to was Cooper's "It's hard to talk when you're teabagging" and MSNBC' s Shuster saying "But in our fourth story tonight: It's going to be teabagging day for the right-wing and they're going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals." Ahhh, yes, objective journalism from those bastions of fairness, CNN and MSNBC!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lovemyboys]

I just loved being called a "Nazi" by Nancy P. Hey wasn't there a film about the "assassination" of Bush? The Left sound silly complaining about right-wing nuts' date=' when they have plenty of their own[/b'].

 

You and me both. Now anyone who disagrees or goes to a rally is a domestic terrorist. Give me a break.

 

All one has to do is google various phrases and there's plenty of evidence of the vilification of Bush and other conservatives. A couple years ago, I remember seeing a series of posters and images that were vile.

 

Most of the people on either side are not extreme, violent or ugly. But it goes both ways, there are whack-os on both sides. To ignore that is just ... well, it would be just like being a member of the mainstream media! :lol: