As an aside, I noticed that no one seems to mind such government intrusion.. Go figger...

Anyways, I thought it might be a few years before the government moved on to other regulations..

Seems it's happening now..

FDA plans to limit amount of salt allowed in processed foods for health reasons
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/19/AR2010041905049.html

Once again, the wisdom of Edgar Friendly shines thru...

"I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal?"
-Edgar Friendly, DEMOLITION MAN

Ya'all can argue and whine and cry about all the Bush regulations and such. But at least there was a valid reason for those actions.

This is simply nothing but crap.

If I want a lot of salt in my food, who is the government to tell me I can't!!???

I honestly can't believe ya'all are fine with this. I really can't...

Michale.....

It is indeed.. I'll forgive you this little nit because I have always wondered that myself.. :D

Much of the rest of your arguments rest on the logic I addressed in today's (Monday, 4/19/10) article, so I guess we can continue that conversation in that comment thread. Not ducking you, just trying to get caught up here in my responses (call me lazy, I won't argue...)

OK yer lazy.. :D hehehehehe

Yea, I noticed your new post and responded accordingly. :D As I am wont to do.. again and again and again and again.. :D

As for the rest of it, I will bet, sight unseen, 100 quatloos that the bill the Senate actually passes on Wall Street reform, gets over 10 Republican votes. Or are you still smarting from the HCR bet? Heh heh.

OUCH.. And the ref takes a point away!!! :D

Yea, yea bite me.. :D

I'll adopt a wait and see approach. It's possible that the DP is actually capable of passing legislation that is common sense, effective and does what it says it will do. Yea, I know.. What have I been smoking..

But, I concede the possibility so I'll wait and see what they come up with..

Considering what's in the legislation now, I can't see how ANYONE could vote for it.. Basically it creates a slush fund that comes indirectly, from the American Public in the form of higher prices and taxes... Oh wait, Obama jettisoned that idea.. Right???

Michale.....

Michale [1] -

Isn't it (more properly) "FOAD"? Or am I misreading you? Or perhaps it is my own preoccupation with capitalizing words of three letters or less... I fully admit, this could be it...

[2] -

OK, I'm going to reprint a comment from DU here, that I made:

As I see it, the choice for Democrats is thus:

It's a risky choice, but A. still seems like the best one to me, that's all I'm saying here, really.

Remember, Fridays are heavily partisan, here.

nypoet22 -

This is a curiousity for me, too. During the HCR debate, news media started reporting on "reality versus what the polls show people believe about reality." But the fact remains, 95 (or even 98) percent of Americans got a tax break, and yet polls show only 12 percent believe their taxes have been lowered. This is a massive communications failure on the Democrats' part. I considered titling (and running with the metaphor) this article "What we have here... is a failure to communicate..." personally.

Michale -

Much of the rest of your arguments rest on the logic I addressed in today's (Monday, 4/19/10) article, so I guess we can continue that conversation in that comment thread. Not ducking you, just trying to get caught up here in my responses (call me lazy, I won't argue...)

highplainswoman -

First off, welcome to the site. I apologize for taking a while to post your comment, as this weekend I was rather busy with other things. Your point about forgetting what our parents taught us is indeed valid. And you are right, what the Dodd bill proposes is very much like the FDIC, which would dismantle companies (and NOT "bail them out") with a fund paid for by Wall Street banks. But that reality is fighting its way upstream, currently, against Republican talking points. We'll see how it all works out.

Michale [9] -

Aha! The dreaded VAT! See today's article...

As for the rest of it, I will bet, sight unseen, 100 quatloos that the bill the Senate actually passes on Wall Street reform, gets over 10 Republican votes. Or are you still smarting from the HCR bet? Heh heh.

-CW

Who do we find out was Obama's 2nd TOP Campaign Contributer??

None other than Goldman Sachs... At almost a million dollars in campaign contributions...

Geee.... Who woulda thunked it, eh??

Michale.....

Please explain to me how the Dodd/Obama legislation is not a recipe for more bailouts for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street, when even Democrats are saying it is???

Anyone??? Anyone??? Beuhler???

Michale.....

On financial reform, I'm just a bit mystified as to why nobody but nobody has pointed out the proposed "funds" would be coming from the banks themselves much in the same way the banks now contribute to the FDIC, and for approximately the same reason: to protect consumers from their own misbehavior.

This is not correct..

To top it off, the fees for the Dodd bill’s resolution fund that would pay off a failing firm’s creditors would come not just from banks but from a broad array of Main Street businesses. Stable life, auto and home insurance companies would have to pay into this fund to subsidize the failure of the next high-roller, and the fees they pay would likely be passed on in the premiums their policy holders pay. And the bill’s definition of “nonbank financial company” is so broad that it could cover manufacturers only tangentially involved in extending credit, such as those that lease equipment to their customers. This would raise prices and cost Main Street jobs.

http://www.openmarket.org/2010/04/16/obama-dodd-financial-bill-would-futher-enrich-goldman-sachs/

The Obama/Dodd legislation is simply another pretty handout to Wall Street to reward their bad behavior at the expense of John Q Public. Much like CrapCare was a pretty handout to the Drug companies and the Insurance companies..

Michale.....

I have answered my own question to David in a previous commentary.

David had mentioned the slush fund that Dodd's bill wants to create..

It doesn't come from the financial giants that will benefit, but rather from ordinary small businesses, in the form of new taxes.

To top it off, the fees for the Dodd bill’s resolution fund that would pay off a failing firm’s creditors would come not just from banks but from a broad array of Main Street businesses.

http://www.openmarket.org/2010/04/16/obama-dodd-financial-bill-would-futher-enrich-goldman-sachs/

And, it STILL is a bailout because it has the government (meaning you and me and every other American) footing the bill for a sweet quasi-bankruptcy.

The failing company would get a much sweeter deal from the Government (you, me, etc etc) than they would get if they went thru normal bankruptcy..

In short, the very companies that the legislation is allegedly designed to regulate and rein in, would be the largest benefactors from the bail outs..

And ya'all are on board with this???

Michale......

That was before it was learned how funky the accounting was that Obama and the Democrats used.
Income from a cut here and a cut there was spent twice, even thrice...

That was before more than 3/4ths of the states have pending litigation for opting out of CrapCare as unconstitutional.

That was before there began some real discussions about the Value Added Tax.

no, only those who can afford it and choose not to.

And you think it's perfectly OK for the government to force you to purchase something, simply for the good of the people??

Where does that slippery slope take us??

Would you be OK with the Government telling you what car to drive? What food to eat??

All for the "good of the people"???

What about when the GOP takes back Congress and the White House??

Will you be happy with a GOP government telling you what to purchase?? What to drive?? What to eat??

Somehow, I don't think you would be OK with that..

the extra $400 in your wallet...

As I have shown, it's probably better for everyone to hide that extra $400 under the mattress to help defray the costs that all the taxes that will be coming down the road.... :D

Obama has broken/stalled/compromised more promises than he has kept..

Do you honestly believe his "Read My Lips" moment that no one making less that $250K/yr won't see any new taxes??

Seriously???

Michale.....

it is, but one of its many problems is the delayed schedule for implementation.

I guess I was wrong again...

that wouldn't be anything new... but then, perhaps i haven't heard of sarcasm either. ;)

do you believe that [the new law] can be paid for without ANY raising of taxes or prices anywhere??

i don't have to believe it, the CBO and OMB analyses say it's the case.

So, what you are saying is anyone who chooses NOT to purchase insurance is a "freeloader"...

no, only those who can afford it and choose not to. we've been through this before. this is not to say i think the bill is any good; i'm already on record that it's scarcely better than nothing - but it's budget neutral. which brings us back to the initial topic of this discussion - the extra $400 in your wallet...

Secondly, doesn't it only make sense to set aside a certain amount for "rainy days"? That used to be a "common sense" idea that was abandoned at some point in the past. As a moderate liberal Democrat, I would like to point the blame in the Republicans' direction; however, I'm not sure that would be entirely accurate. All I know is that sometime in the last 15-20 years, all of us in the baby-boomer generation somehow forgot the things our parents taught us.

It's hyperbole... :D Perhaps you've heard of it..

secondly, the new health insurance law has not yet been implemented,

Really?? I could have sworn Obama signed it and it is now the law of the land..

I guess I was wrong again...

and the tax penalty for refusing to carry health insurance doesn't go into effect for years.

I wasn't referring to the tax penalty, I was referring to taxes in general. Or do you believe that CrapCare can be paid for without ANY raising of taxes or prices anywhere??

Is THAT what you are saying??

Especially when you consider how many states are going to opt out of CrapCare as far as paying for it goes.

you yourself said it was far too low - barely more than the tax cuts already in place.

I said it was too low to provide a deterrent, which it is..

thirdly, this incredibly small tax penalty, assuming it is ever actually implemented, would only be levied on the freeloaders who pay nothing to use the hospital services your taxes and mine provide.

So, what you are saying is anyone who chooses NOT to purchase insurance is a "freeloader"...

WOW... A quite "un liberal" statement...

What about the very poor who can't afford CrapCare even with government hand-outs...

Are they "freeloaders"??

fourth, and i'm just guessing you don't make more than a quarter million a year, would you rather have the money or not?

I would rather have a system that makes sense.

As we ALL agreed (before CrapCare became a plus for the Democratic Party only) CrapCare doesn't make sense and it's not good for the country...

Michale.....

michale, i know you pride yourself on factuality, so please reply factually. first of all, please either provide evidence of the $4,000,000 per person tax hike, or revise your figures to reflect something factual.

secondly, the new health insurance law has not yet been implemented, and the tax penalty for refusing to carry health insurance doesn't go into effect for years. you yourself said it was far too low - barely more than the tax cuts already in place.

thirdly, this incredibly small tax penalty, assuming it is ever actually implemented, would only be levied on the freeloaders who pay nothing to use the hospital services your taxes and mine provide.

fourth, and i'm just guessing you don't make more than a quarter million a year, would you rather have the money or not?

Explain to me how a $400 "tax cut" can be a cut, when the DPers are going to take back that x 10,000 in new taxes??

Do you HONESTLY believe that CrapCare is revenue neutral??

Doesn't seem much of a "cut", does it? :D

Michale

"the president says he cut your taxes. does anybody here actually believe that?"

how can someone believe or disbelieve a tax cut? it's not a point of belief, it's a point of fact; either you get more money back from the government, or you don't. so, the teabaggers may not believe in the tax cut, but i don't think they'll be sending it back.

"Mr President... That is not entirely accurate"
-Secretary Nimzicki, INDEPENDENCE DAY

:D

Jobless Claims in Another Surprise Surge
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The number of Americans filing for unemployment insurance for the first time jumped for the second week in a row, according to government data released Thursday.
http://www.wibw.com/nationalnews/headlines/90934384.html

Because if things do get noticeably better by election day, Democrats really need to "brand" it as a victory for their economic policies.

Of course, the flip side to that is also true.

If unemployment doesn't show any improvement (which is possible) or actually gets worse (which is likely) you know who will get the blame for it.

Michale.....

Democrats are AFRAID to "brag"... And rightly so..

Because the only thing, the only REAL "accomplishment" that Democrats really have to brag about is the one thing that 75% of the American public was against...

An "accomplishment" that was done in SPITE of the harm it will do this country.

An "accomplishment" that was done SOLELY for the sake of the Party.

In essence, Democrats told the American people to F.O.D.

Not much of a thing to brag about, eh??

Michale....