Mns wrote:
You're aware that it only takes one senator to filibuster something, right? Also, I'm going to blame "Blue Dog" Democrats for valuable concessions in the healthcare debate (ex. the public option), but if you don't believe the the republicans haven't been doing everything they can to stick thorns in Obama's sides, you're more jaded than I thought. He was on the Daily Show last week and was talking about how he couldn't even get a deputy financial director in the middle of a RECESSION due to filibusters.
After eight years of Bush making recess appointments because Dems filibustered and stalled, you don't get to complain when his successor suffers through the same bullshit.
The republicans couldn't stop the train wrecks of stimulus and healthcare, and after people started bitching, they didn't have to stop any other train wrecks, because those "blue dogs," many of whom are losing their jobs tonight thanks to their support of Obama's policies, pulled the brakes and wouldn't back any more contentious bullshit.
Mns wrote:
Can you show me exactly in the healthcare bill where it says you need perscriptions for OTCs?
The Health Care Reform Law (HCR) at Section 9003 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) repeals the tax-favored status of Over-the-Counter (OTC) drug purchases as of January 1, 2011.
IRS Revenue Ruling 2010-23 and
IRS Notice2010-59 officially end the tax-favored status. Exceptions are granted with a doctor's prescription.
Mns wrote:
Because the "vast" (the last CNN poll said something like 47% of people thought it was a failure) majority of people are just like you: angry, misinformed, and perfect puppets of corporate america's narrative of socialism and the destruction of life as we know it.
Considering that "corporate America" is a) looking forward to passing the insurance burden off on the government and b) is about as popular as Obama and Congress smothered in leprosy, what you just said is the sort of moronic pabulum I've come to expect. In your little world, it's impossible for those of us that disagree with you to come to our own conclusions (unless we're doing it to hate brown people) unless we're being told to do so.
Mns wrote:
I suppose they inflate social programs too. The only thing is that democrats will offset this by tax increases on the wealthiest 10% (REMINDER: Appx 40% of the failed "stimulus" bill were tax cuts for the middle class), whereas the republicans will cut taxes on the 10% and either force it on the middle class or put it on the credit card.
I'm glad you can admit that giving tax cuts to the middle class did exactly jack squat to stimulate the economy.
You're not talking about the "wealthiest 1%." You're talking about the top 1% of income earners. "Wealthiest" is just a buzzword to conjure images of spoiled trust-fund assholes (who democrats pretend to hate while electing every possible Kennedy they can find) to justify disproportionate taxation of a small group of people to the voting public...and isn't it funny that our "corporate masters," who are most likely the very people this effects, are not telling us to turn that around? As much as you may not like it, those people are the ones that drive the economy. They are the ones that provide investment capital for new/expanded endeavors. They are the ones that own businesses that hire people. You know what those people do when their tax future is uncertain, or, as it is in this case, certainly bad? They clamp down and hold onto their money.
JFK turned around a down economy by cutting the marginal tax rate. Not only did it spur economic growth, it increased tax revenues to the treasury. Reagan copied that same success in the 80s. It is proven historical fact that cutting the tax rates spurs economic growth and feeds the treasury. What Obama has been trying is increasing taxes and spending, and it hasn't worked. He should cite JFK as an example and adopt his policies, and reap the rewards. If anything, it should be easier for him to do that with republicans running the House and the Senate split almost 50/50.
Mns wrote:
If you go up to any republican senator harping about the stimulus package and ask them what spending they'd cut in their state, you'd get the same answer from all of them, which is "zero".
Which is why so many of them had to look for a new job during the last election cycle when the democrats took control of the House and Senate. It's not likely the incumbents still in DC have learned their lesson, but there's hope for the new guys.
Mns wrote:
Is this supposed to come from the same party of people who got pissed when Obama gave BP the bill for the oil disaster?
No one was "pissed he handed him the bill." They were liable for the damages and lost wages under the law as it stood. What they were not down with was ordering a command performance at the White House and strong-arming a private company into concessions outside what was mandated by law.
Mns wrote:
What about the party of Cheney, who gave billions of dollars in contracts to his Halliburton bros? There's corruption on both sides, sure, but until Obama gives his professor pals at Harvard a monopoly on the education system, I'm gonna go with the Democrats.
Haliburton is only one of two companies on the planet that does some thing that Haliburton does. The other company up for the bids you're referring to was Schlaumberger, which is a French company. Aside from the political calculations of choosing an American company over a French one, there is also the whole "fuck you" to France for obstructing (which you guys seem to think is a bad thing) American action against Iraq for, among other things, breech of Gulf War cease-fire agreement.
Mns wrote:
This is, in a nutshell, the Republican party:
"Fuck You, Got Mine" (tm)
Which is still more honest and respectable than the "Fuck you, I'm taking your shit to give to other people, because I shouldn't have to use my own time and effort to show everybody how much I care." ® that we get from the other side of the aisle.
Your Pal,
Jubber
