ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [312] -- Democrats' "Middle Class Jumpstart" Agenda

[ Posted Friday, July 18th, 2014 – 18:08 PDT ]

The media, quite obviously, is currently in a frenzy. Actually, two frenzies, since they've now got two wars to cover, one of which has provided shots of a grisly plane crash. This all meant that a lot of oxygen was sucked from the normal political news scene, meaning this week's column will be somewhat abbreviated. Both wars didn't really impact America all that much, so there's not a lot to add to the media cacophony on either one, to put this another way.

The biggest political event of the week (for Democrats, at any rate) was Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats rolling out a new campaign agenda -- the "Middle Class Jumpstart" -- in the tradition of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America." But we'll have much more on this later, as we're turning over the whole talking points portion of the program to this rollout.

In other Democratic campaign agenda news, Carl Gibson of the Huffington Post wrote a great article which starkly lays out the difference between two states that charted separate ideological budgetary paths during the recession: Kansas and California. In a nutshell, Kansas decided to massively cut taxes and California not-so-massively raised taxes on the wealthiest. The result? California's economy (and budget) is now almost fully recovered, and the Kansas economy is now in the toilet. Kansas saw its incoming revenues plummet, and their bond rating was downgraded as a result. This is one of the best evidence-based articles on the aftermath of the philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats, and is well worth reading in full.

The annual liberal blogger/activist Netroots Nation conference is happening this week, but sadly we decided not to attend, so we have no news from Detroit for you (sorry about that).

The Senate effectively got within three votes of essentially overturning the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision. Senator Barbara Boxer wrote a wonderful piece on the issue this week, as well. The House -- astonishingly -- actually passed a much-needed bill to continue funding highway and infrastructure projects, even if it was nothing more than another short-term stopgap bill. Hey, a stopgap is better than stopping the government, right? This should be seen as a clear victory for the Establishment Republicans over the Tea Party, it's worth mentioning.

In funny candidate news, Republican Scott Brown verbally tripped over his carpetbag, once again. Hey Scott, it helps when running for office to remember what state you're actually in! Ask any rock star, they'll tell you the crowd does indeed notice when you blow this line. Heh.

In Arizona, a Republican congressional candidate was trying to fan the flames of the immigration issue, but instead wrongly identified a busload of Y.M.C.A. campers as Central American children. Whoops!

In Kentucky, voters have a fake Senate candidate to consider: Gil Fulbright. His ad his hilarious, and starts with:

Hi, I'm Gil Fulbright. The people who run my campaign, they've made this commercial -- and I'm in it. This campaign -- it's not about me, it's about crafting a version of me that will appeal to you. A version that visits random worksites with paid actors pointing at things. A version of me that doesn't find old people loathsome or pointless.

The people behind the effort are making a strong point about money in politics, and doing so in a very funny way, we have to say.

Not-as-fake (but still pretty laughable) candidate Thomas Ravenel is running for Senate down in South Carolina. He's not only been on reality television, but he's also been previously convicted of drug trafficking. I don't think Lindsey Graham's very worried, personally.

Speaking of politicians (well, "ex-politicians") and drugs, there are some highly amusing photos of Tom Tancredo joshing around with some legal marijuana in Colorado, if you haven't yet seen them.

Which brings us to the week's weed news. Sam Tracy has a great summary of the most-important legislative marijuana news of the week (which is worth checking out) up on Huffington Post, if you're interested in more detail. Washington, D.C. is still locked in a struggle with Congress over decriminalization, and the White House weighed in strongly on the local government's side. A unanimous decision was just announced by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that new sentencing standards for non-violent federal drug offenses will actually be applied retroactively -- which could give tens of thousands of prisoners shorter sentences to serve. And, finally, a research scientist at the University of Arizona was just fired -- coincidentally, right after she received federal approval to study marijuana's effect on P.T.S.D. in returning soldiers. She describes herself thus: "I am a lifelong Republican, and I am very conservative." But that hasn't stopped plenty of liberals from supporting her, by signing a petition to get her reinstated in her job. As of this writing, there are close to 32,000 signatures on the petition, so why not take a minute and add yours to the list?

Let's see, what else? The majority of the American public already thinks John Boehner's idea of suing the president is a gigantic waste of time (and the lawsuit hasn't even really begun, mind you). Oh, and just about anybody can automatically now become a political non-profit group, because the I.R.S. just totally threw in the towel and admitted that they weren't even going to screen all but the largest new tax-exempt organizations. So maybe we should form a "Friday Talking Points" non-profit, so we can get lotsa money that our donors can write off on their taxes. After all, there's nothing really stopping anyone from doing exactly that, now. Only in America!

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Joe Biden deserves at least an Honorable Mention this week, for singlehandedly raising the profile of the annual Netroots Nation liberal conference. Because Biden's speech coincided with the Malaysian Airlines crash (Biden's was one of the first official statements on the crash), there were a whole lot of clips on the news with the "Netroots Nation" background.

Alan Grayson also deserves an Honorable Mention, for his efforts to force the House to vote on increasing the minimum wage for federal employees. Keep fighting the good fight, Alan!

We have two Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out this week, and the first goes to Shenna Bellows, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Maine. Now, Bellows is a longshot, since Susan Collins is one of the more reasonable Republicans in the Senate, and she is well-loved in her home state. So Bellows decided to stage a political stunt of sorts, but an impressive one nonetheless: she's going to personally walk the length of Maine, to meet the voters. The best line from the story: "She will reportedly be outfitted in Maine-made New Balance sneakers and an L.L. Bean raincoat." Nice. Now, this sort of small-town campaigning wouldn't work in a larger state, and her chances for victory in November are slim, but we have to say that it does show an astounding amount of personal dedication to walk over 300 miles in a bid to get elected. Even if she loses, she deserves a MIDOTW for her long walk.

The second MIDOTW goes to none other than House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is just about the only Democrat showing some optimism about their chances in House races this year, but then that's actually just part of her leadership job. But she really earned the award for rolling out a "Contract With America" sort of campaign platform for Democrats to support this year. It is called the "Middle Class Jumpstart" agenda, which is a pretty good name for what Democrats stand for in general. Pelosi unveiled the agenda with other House leaders in a press conference, which we're going to quote from in a moment.

Pelosi has a tough row to hoe in this year's midterms. The sixth year of any president is a tough one for his party in Congress, traditionally, but Pelosi is going to give it all she's got to try and pick up seats for Democrats this year. Whether she's ultimately successful or not, the fact that she's fighting hard is a lot better than if Democrats had just decided to roll over and give up.

So, for both her eternal optimism and for providing a ready-made platform for Democratic candidates this fall, Nancy Pelosi has earned herself another Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Shenna Bellows is a candidate for office, and it is our standing policy not to link to candidate web pages. Congratulate House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi on her House contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

We had no candidates this week for the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, since no Democrat uttered a cringe-worthy line all week long. At least, that we are aware of -- if we've overlooked some disappointing behavior, please feel free to make nominations in the comments, as always.

Instead, we have an award in the technical category. We're not sure who's responsible, and it is likely some non-partisan technical official, but we have to create a "Back To The Drawing Board" award for whoever was responsible for the microphones in the White House press room. The press room was recently refurbished and upgraded, to the delight of the White House press corps. But, after watching this morning's press conference, we have to wonder who is responsible for the sound quality in the room. Because instead of hearing the president and the press interacting, what you instead mostly hear is: "CLICK! CLICK! CLICK! CLICK! CLICK!" The still photographers' cameras are the loudest I think I've ever heard, which is likely due to choosing omnidirectional microphones for the podium and the questioners' microphone. The annoying camera sounds were so loud that it was impossible to hear some of the questions, in fact.

This is after, mind you, spending a whole bunch of money upgrading the room. So, to whoever is responsible for the sound quality, please either get directional microphones or install a sound filter to dull the loudness of the camera clicking. And enjoy your "Back To The Drawing Board" award.

[Since we have no idea who is responsible for this sort of thing, we cannot provide any contact information, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 312 (7/18/14)

Political historians differ over the relative influence that Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" actually had on the voting public. Some say not many people even knew what Newt was talking about, and some say it was the theme that won Republicans a big victory.

Historical quibbles aside, though, it is indeed a tactic well worth emulating. Political campaigns are supposed to be all about drawing contrasts between the political parties. Not very many people actually ever read the political parties' official platform documents, so highlighting a few specific legislative agenda items is worth attempting. It gets the message out in a concrete way: "this is what we will do if elected." In true Gingrichian fashion, Democrats are promising to achieve all of these things "in the first 100 days" of the new Congress, should they regain control of the House.

So the Democratic leadership held a press event, to announce their 2014 campaign agenda. Here is Representative Steve Israel, giving an overview of what this will include, by way of an introduction:

This is the "Middle Class Jumpstart." It is to jumpstart the middle class -- 100 days of action to put the middle class first, ahead of the special interests. Now, you couldn't have a more vivid contrast in priorities. They [Republicans] have passed maximum subsidies for the special interests. In the first 100 days, we [Democrats] will increase the minimum wage for America's workers -- first 100 days.

They have protected the profits of the big banks. In the first 100 days, we will allow every student in the middle class and working families to refinance their student loans. In their House majority, they have supported putting bosses in charge of women's health freedoms. In the first 100 days, we will require bosses to pay a woman the same as a man for equal work.

That's the difference between them and us: 100 days. Putting the middle class first. More jobs, not more subpoenas. More jobs for the middle class, not more jobs for partisan lawyers. Supporting women and families, supporting affordable and accessible education.

This quote (and all the talking points below) come from the transcript of this press event, which was held this week on the steps of the Capitol (again, matching Newt's rollout idea). This is a ready-made campaign platform for any Democratic House candidate to use this year, and it deserves more attention than it has so far received. Which is why we're turning the entire section over to the rollout event.

Nancy Pelosi herself came up with a few snappy lines that are even shorter than "talking points," being more in the "bumpersticker slogan" category. For instance, in touting a "Make It In America" idea, Pelosi came up with a simple refrain: " 'A' and 'B': American-made; Build it in America." This was probably the best she came up with, although she also contributed "Children learning, parents earning," which has a nice rhyming quality but is less overtly political upon first glance. And then there was one for the inside-the-Beltway types: "Republicans are about process, Democrats are about progress" (this, in reaction to "partisan lawsuits against the president" -- hey, I warned you it was wonky). She also led a call-and-response towards the end, which consisted of her prompting: "When the middle class succeeds... when families succeed... when women succeed" which was followed by rousing choruses of "America succeeds!" from her fellow Democrats.

But we're going to use seven longer excerpts from the event (longer than soundbites, in other words), so let's get on with it. Here are the best talking points from the rollout event, in the order they were delivered.

 

1
   Draw a sharp contrast

Representative Xavier Becerra got things rolling, by drawing a clear and sharp contrast between the two parties.

[W]e are gathered here today to send a very clear message to America: you can either sue the President of the United States, or you can do your job here in the House of Representatives and pass laws that help the middle class and working families.

You can shut down the government, taking 800,000 workers and 24 billion taxpayer dollars with you; or you can enact the president's jobs agenda. You can vote more than 50 times to tear down America's new health security and patients' law, or you can make the law even better so every working family in America has a doctor and the peace of mind that comes with it.

You can pass stopgap measures that merely kick the can down the road on our nation's budget or on the construction and repair of our roads, rails, and bridges, or you can do it the right way and pass stable, long-term laws that give our businesses and employers the confidence to hire and grow. You can do nothing other than block a vote to fix a broken immigration system, or you can pass the bipartisan fix that the Senate voted out 384 days ago.

 

2
   A Republican do-nothing and do-bad-things Congress

Minority Whip Steny Hoyer began introducing the specific pieces of legislation that make up the Middle Class Jumpstart plan. He also got in a real zinger, at the end.

The "Make It In America" plan is a broad agenda for jobs and competitiveness and is a central part of this "Middle Class Jumpstart." We want to provide tax incentives to encourage companies to bring jobs home, rather than send jobs overseas.

We want to invest in increased exports, improved infrastructures and skill-training programs that attract jobs and promote a strong manufacturing base. Democrats have a real plan to get things done. And if we have the majority in January, as I fully expect us to have, we will be introducing the "21st Century Make It In America Act."

Americans are tired of a Republican do-nothing and do-bad-things Congress focused simply on partisan divisions.

 

3
   Build America

Representative Jim Clyburn wasn't as focused, but did introduce the Democratic infrastructure agenda item.

Republicans voted to give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. House Democrats will pass the "Build American Bonds Act" to boost job growth and modernize American infrastructures by building roads, bridges, broadband technology, and investing in clean energy. And we will pay for it by closing corporate tax loopholes.

Republicans have blocked legislation to make long-term investments in our nation's aging highway system and oppose creating clean energy jobs for the future. House Democrats will raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and pass the "Tax Fairness Act" to deny CEOs the ability to claim tax deductions for pay over $1 million, unless they give their employees a raise.

Republicans refused to raise the minimum wage, but give massive tax giveaways to corporate special interests and the ultra-wealthy.

 

4
   It's pretty simple. It's pretty fair.

Congressman Chris Van Hollen went next, and provided a bit more detail.

[T]wo things we're going to do in those first 100 days. The first is end the scandal that in America, you can work 40 hours a week all year long and still have to raise your family in poverty. That is simply wrong. We need to make sure we raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and get that done once and for all.

But we cannot stop there. We need to make sure all of America has a shot at a wage. What we've seen over the last several decades is large increases in worker productivity. We have seen skyrocketing increases in CEO pay and bonuses. What we have not seen is increases in the employee pay. They have been left behind even though they are working to boost that productivity and boost those corporate profits.

So, we have a very simple proposition. We have a proposition called the "CEO-Employee Pay Fairness Act," and that is this: if you're a corporation, you cannot give your CEO and top executives -- you cannot take a deduction for their pay over $1 million unless you're going to give your employees a raise. It's pretty simple. It's pretty fair.

 

5
   Whose side are you on?

Representative John Tierney introduced his bill to allow all students and former students to refinance their student loan debt.

What this bill does is provide existing student loan borrowers the opportunity to refinance their debt at a lower rate. Banks can do it. Businesses can do it. Families can do it with their home ownership. And students should be able to do it. It would save students and parents and graduates thousands of dollars on their loans. And that savings no doubt will get spent right back into the economy, giving it a boost. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says clearly that it would reduce the deficit by $22 billion in 10 years, so taxpayers also benefit from it.

Right now, the House Republicans are in there trying to find out how to sue the president. We're out here making sure that we're fighting for tens of millions of parents and students and graduates to make sure that they have an equal chance. This is all about: whose side are you on? And we're on the side of students and graduates and parents.

 

6
   From Day One

Representative Joe Crowley went next, expanding on the education theme.

[E]ducation doesn't start at college. And we also know that our children only have one real shot -- one real shot at a quality education. And it's imperative that they get off to the right start, the right jumpstart. Decades of studies have found that quality pre-school not only leads to higher academic achievement and stronger job benefits, but it also lowers crime and delinquency levels -- and even more importantly, it reduces poverty, which really is the cause for the prior two issues.

So while House Republicans voted to limit access to early childhood education and essentially squashed the hopes and dreams of America's children, House Democrats will pass legislation to expand access to education and make the investments needed to set our children on a path of future success. Our legislation, the "Strong Start for America's Children Act"... is a bold, ten-year, federal/state partnership to expand and improve early learning opportunities for our children. This bill will expand access to pre-school for four-year-olds and make critical investments to improve the quality of child care for infants and toddlers. We want to jumpstart the middle class, and that must include jumpstarting our children's education -- not when they're going to college, but from Day One.

 

7
   When Women Succeed, America Succeeds

Majority Leader Pelosi finished up the laundry list, with a measure targeted directly at women voters. This one has a snappier title than other agenda items, which could make it more memorable to the voters. Pelosi, in general, is a lot better at presenting complex legislative ideas as snappy soundbites.

But one of the best actions that we can take to increase and grow our economy is to increase the role of women in our economy. Our agenda for women and families is "When Women Succeed, America Succeeds." This is not just the title of our agenda; this is a statement of absolute fact. And our agenda presents a stark contrast to what the Republicans have done to roll back women's rights and limit women's opportunities.

You've heard our three categories: (1) Make It In America. (2) Affordable Education to Keep America Number One. This is all about our country. And (3) When Women Succeed, America Succeeds -- when Republicans have refused to ensure equal pay for equal work, reduced access to affordable child care and voted against paid sick leave for men and women.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

97 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [312] -- Democrats' "Middle Class Jumpstart" Agenda”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why the asinine concepts of the Republican cult of economic failure still have resonance in some quarters is beyond me.

    And, if the comparison between the Clinton era and the second Bush era didn't provide enough evidence for the electorate of what works and what doesn't in the realm of tax policy and "trickle down" economics then I'm sure I don't know what will.

    More surprising still is how the Democrats - from Obama on down - have failed miserably in capitalizing on the vacuous economic ideology of the Republicans.

    The only member of this administration who consistently made a cogent case against the Republican cult of economic failure and who did more for the middle class, almost single-handedly, than anyone else in the Obama administration ever did was none other than former treasury secretary, Tim Geithner. Unfortunately and ironically, most, if not all, of the electorate was too busy planning how to tar and feather him and run him out of town on the rails to bother to listen to him, much less support him in their own best interests.

    But, then again, not looking out for one's own best interests is pretty par for the course for most of us ...

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    #8 - Gimme a terrist fist jab for equal rights for gay people!

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There is no number eight.

    Don't you know that?

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    What a shame that Gil Fulbright is fake. His message really resonates. I'd like to vote for him, but I suppose I'll just have to settle for voting against that traitorous Mitch McConnell.

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM - why can't we have eight? We could pay for it with tax cuts.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There are certain rules which must be followed, at all costs.

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Color me unprincipled.

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    John From Censornati -

    Heh. The gay joke/terrorist fist jab got lost in the shuffle this week. The ENDA decision didn't happen until after I had written and posted.

    Yeah, that Fulbright thing was pretty funny. Click on the link, if you want a laugh, folks... it's very clever and actually pretty non-partisan.

    LizM -

    Hey, there are seven and only seven (as we all know) but everyone's free to suggest a #8...

    :-)

    In other words: "there's always next week, you never know what'll carry over, and it helps Chris with his weekly research!"

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's see, what else? The majority of the American public already thinks John Boehner's idea of suing the president is a gigantic waste of time (and the lawsuit hasn't even really begun, mind you).

    Come on now, let's be accurate..

    The majority of Americans who READ HuffPoop think that suing the POTUS is a gigantic waste of time..

    The majority of Americans who read HuffPoop have their heads so far up Obama's ass that they haven't seen the light of day in eight years...

    The majority of Americans who read HuffPoop are no-information ideologically enslaved morons..

    "Present company excepted, of course."
    -General Chang, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country

    :D

    Does anyone really CARE what the majority of Americans who read HuffPoop think???

    SHOULD anyone really case what the majority of Americans who read HuffPoop think???

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way..

    HuffPoop is about as reliable a source for politics as Brietbart is.. :D

    "Oh please! Teleportation is about as likely as... as time travel!"
    -Jeannie Miller, STARGATE ATLANTIS, McKay & Mrs Miller

    :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Both wars didn't really impact America all that much, so there's not a lot to add to the media cacophony on either one, to put this another way.

    Really???

    Putin Poised to Retaliate Against Obama by Trashing Iran Deal
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/18/putin-set-to-retaliate-against-obama-by-trashing-iran-deal.html

    So much for the BS claim that the downing of the Malaysian Airliner "doesn't have anything to do with Amurikkka."

    You can bet that the Ukraine/Russia war just boiled over and we are DEFINITELY going to feel the heat here at home...

    As far as the OTHER war???

    As I am wont to do, I have to give credit where credit is due..

    Obama appears to have really come down on the side of Israel and put the full onus of responsibility where it belongs..

    On Hamas...

    While it IS late in the game to realize this ("Hamas are the bad guys here??? Who knew!!??") better late than never, I always say..

    Kudos to Obama for supporting Israel...

    Bout frakin' time....

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, if the comparison between the Clinton era and the second Bush era didn't provide enough evidence for the electorate of what works and what doesn't in the realm of tax policy and "trickle down" economics then I'm sure I don't know what will.

    The Clinton economic boom was caused by the Dot Com bubble..

    An outlier by ANY stretch of the definition...

    Having said that, one could EASILY make the case that it was the Republican Congress that made the economy good, not any of Clinton's policies...

    It's all in the spin... :D

    More surprising still is how the Democrats - from Obama on down - have failed miserably in capitalizing on the vacuous economic ideology of the Republicans.

    There's a reason for that.. :D

    The only member of this administration who consistently made a cogent case against the Republican cult of economic failure and who did more for the middle class, almost single-handedly, than anyone else in the Obama administration ever did was none other than former treasury secretary, Tim Geithner.

    Correct me if I am wrong (as I am sure you will.. :D) but wasn't Geithner one of the ARCHITECTS of the economic meltdown??

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    #8 - Gimme a terrist fist jab for equal rights for gay people!

    Once again, I am gabber-flasted that the Left wants to create an entire race solely and completely based on someone's sexual preference...

    A person just can't be a person. He/she has to be a "gay" person..

    It's mind-boggling...

    Where's the representation for the Tri-Sexuals???

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I know that.

    I was just trying to be funny.

    Sheesh.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Giethner saved you from financial disaster ... you should show a little more gratitude and thank him for it.

    Americans really should try to forget about who's to blame for the financial crisis - for one minute - at least until y'all look closely in the mirror and understand what was done to avert a major catastrophe.

    People tend to be so self-centered that they refuse to see what is happening around them beyond their own disjointed noses.

    Who among those in the vast financial, regulatory and government sectors are without blame for the financial crisis and what did they do to correct their mistakes?

    What do you mean when you say Geithner was one of the architects of the financial crisis and does that negate all that he did to correct the situation?

    I'm tired of the simplistic way in which complex issues are "analyzed" by those who wish to ignore the facts of the matter.

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Explain to me how "trickle-down economics" has ever worked in real world.

    Come on! I'm all ears ...

  17. [17] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It's really just a matter of who the tinkle-down voodoo economics work *for*, no?

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, it really is a matter of understanding that it doesn't work for anyone and whether or not the Obama administration is capable of communicating that.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry, John ... but, I'm done with the wise cracks.

  20. [20] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I think that they absolutely do work for the one percenters. I don't know what the administration is capable of (besides lawlessness of course), but I doubt the public's ability to comprehend the subject even if it were possible to get their attention.

    BTW - I think that CW knew that you were just kidding.

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    BTW - I think that CW knew that you were just kidding.

    Yep, that' all I do around here, you know.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Explain to me how "trickle-down economics" has ever worked in real world.

    If I knew enough about economics, I am sure I could..

    But I don't..

    All I DO know is that what Democrats are doing is NOT working in the here and now..

    This is simply undeniable..

    I am not saying that Republicans are the end all get all....

    But I *AM* saying is that Democrats haven't done crap for the economy...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I *AM* saying is that Democrats haven't done crap for the economy...

    Maybe if Democrats were more concerned about the American people and less concerned about their Party agenda, things would be different..

    But they're not so it's not..

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    But I *AM* saying is that Democrats haven't done crap for the economy...

    This is completely false and utter nonsense. You simply cannot be allowed to litter these comments with trash like that.

    But, you're right about one thing - you do need to learn more about the economy and, until you do, you need also to refrain from making any comments about what makes it tick and what runs it into the ground.

    As you can clearly see, my patience is running on empty. :(

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is completely false and utter nonsense. You simply cannot be allowed to litter these comments with trash like that.

    It is NOT false..

    I can personally attest that MY life is worse off since Democrats have been in power.. As are my contemporaries...

    I can also point to each and every poll that shows that Americans are not happy with the Democrats and how they run things...

    Things are worse today than they were 6 years ago..

    But, you're right about one thing - you do need to learn more about the economy and, until you do, you need also to refrain from making any comments about what makes it tick and what runs it into the ground.

    I am a simply ground-pounder.. I don't know hi-level finance from a hole in the ground..

    But I DO have an abundance of common sense...

    And common sense indicates that Americans are WORSE off now than they were before...

    Dems da facts..

    As you can clearly see, my patience is running on empty. :(

    I see that..

    Have a cold beer..

    it will pass... :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donkey suicide bomb stopped by Israeli troops in Gaza
    Troops say they were forced to open fire on the animal as it approached their position in the southern city of Rafah, near the Egyptian border

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10977818/Donkey-suicide-bomb-stopped-by-Israeli-troops-in-Gaza.html

    OH THE HORROR!!!!! OH THE INHUMANITY

    OH MY GOD!!! THINK OF THE DONKEYS!!!!

    :D

    hehehehehehehehehehe

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And common sense indicates that Americans are WORSE off now than they were before...

    Before what? Before the congressional Republicans demonstrated their utter contempt for the economic well-being of America and Americans?

    Have a cold beer.. it will pass... :D

    It's going to take more than that, I'm afraid ...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Before what? Before the congressional Republicans demonstrated their utter contempt for the economic well-being of America and Americans?

    Congressional Democrats share the blame...

    THAT is my point...

    You can point fingers at Republicans until the cows come home..

    But Democrats share the blame...

    It's going to take more than that, I'm afraid ...

    "You want a beer???"
    "It's seven o'clock in the morning!!"
    "SCOTCH!!????"

    -Mr Mom

    :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Unfortunately for me, the scotch and soda cabinet is dry.

    You like to divide up the blame so that everyone gets an equal share. Whatever floats your boat.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    You like to divide up the blame so that everyone gets an equal share. Whatever floats your boat.

    Comes from my political agnosticism... :D

    I wouldn't say "equal" blame...

    But it IS undeniable that both Partys share the blame for the mess this country is in...

    We simply don't have all the facts to ascertain the exact proportions..

    To blame one without acknowledging the responsibility of the other simply isn't fair..

    Of course, life ain't fair, so...... :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Thomas Ravenel is running for Senate down in South Carolina. He's not only been on reality television, but he's also been previously convicted of drug trafficking."

    This patriot is already *out there*. Your politics of personal destruction will be ineffective against him. It's shocking that laws intended for thuggish Democrats were used against a principled blue blood like him. Despite being persecuted by the Establishment and the lamestream media, he still has his personal fortune and can get his message out. He's liable to say anything now that he's been emancipated from the GOP and Lindsey may indeed be clutching her pearls.

  32. [32] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "no Democrat uttered a cringe-worthy line all week long"

    Actually, I hear ALG say something cringe-worthy almost daily, but maybe not live. Maybe it's the commercials. Regardless, she looks hot holding a rifle. Miss Mitch, not so much.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:
  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thomas Ravenel is running for Senate down in South Carolina. He's not only been on reality television, but he's also been previously convicted of drug trafficking.

    Shall I start listing Democrats who have run for office after being busted for drugs??? :D

    "Pot.... Kettle..."

    "Ant?? Boot..."
    -Nick Fury, THE AVENGERS

    :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It is important for Hamas to now step up and be reasonable and understand that you accept the cease-fire, you save lives."
    -SecState John Kerry

    As usual, Kerry is clueless..

    Hamas doesn't WANT to save lives.

    The ONLY way that Hamas can have ANY kind of "legitimacy" (if you want to call it that) is by having Palestinians killed...

    Israel uses missiles to defend her people.. Hamas uses it's people to defend their missiles....

    No moral ambiguity there whatsoever...

    I have said it before and I'll say it again..

    As long as the Palestinian "people" support terrorism against Israel, Israel will ALWAYS have the moral, ethical and legal high ground and will have nearly carte blanche in dealing with the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah et al...

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hey CW-

    Biden at Netroots was outstanding even though he took the stage an hour late because he was dealing with the Malaysian crisis.

    Based on his appearance and speech at the conference, I think he's going to make a Presidential run.

    Netroots also did a lot to raise the issue of the Detroit water crisis.

    http://www.freep.com/article/20140718/NEWS01/307180136/Water-protest-Detroit-arrest

    Mike Duggan, Democratic mayor of Detroit, appears to be from the Rahm Emmanuel side of the Dem party. It looks like he's trying to privatize Detroit's water department using the "crisis" as fuel.

    *sigh*

    Hopefully, the protests will help put an end to this.

    -David

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    David,

    I wish I could have been there to hear Biden speak.

    Unfortunately, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell to win the Democratic nomination if Hillary is in it. If she's not, then that MAY be a whole other story but, sadly, he doesn't have a good history of raking in the votes in a presidential primary.

    In any case, I think he knows it and that is why I will be extremely surprised - though pleasantly so - if he decides to run.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I think your sense of balance and that Democrats and Republicans have equally bad ideas about how to improve the country is severely skewing your analysis of all issues.

    I hope you don't subscribe to the notion that the truth and facts of a matter can be found somewhere between right and wrong.

    Though both parties engage in political spin, one party is more often wrong about what is the truth and facts and it ain't the Democrats.

    You need to be able to distinguish between the two parties on any particular issue and not start with the misguided assumption that both are bad or wrong. If you can do that, then conversations here will be far more fun, not to mention enlightening.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope you don't subscribe to the notion that the truth and facts of a matter can be found somewhere between right and wrong.

    Truth?? Yea..

    Facts?? Not even close...

    Though both parties engage in political spin, one party is more often wrong about what is the truth and facts and it ain't the Democrats.

    We'll just have to disagree on that.. :D

    You need to be able to distinguish between the two parties on any particular issue and not start with the misguided assumption that both are bad or wrong.

    On any given issue, I would agree with you..

    On their actions taken in totality??

    They ARE, overall, bad and wrong??

    Why??

    Because neither care about their country more than they care about themselves and their Party...

    THAT is my entire point..

    It's always "Party Uber Alles"....

    If you have any facts that disproves this, I would be happy to entertain it...

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Though both parties engage in political spin, one party is more often wrong about what is the truth and facts and it ain't the Democrats

    Can you point to anything that Democrats have been right about in the last 6 years??

    I mean "right" in the sense that it has helped the country and not just their Party??

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because I can sure list HUNDREDS of things that Democrats have been wrong about...

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what's so funny around here.

    EVERYONE wants to talk about when the Republicans scroo up...

    NO ONE wants to talk about when Democrats scroo up...

    I can count on ONE hand how many Weigantians will actually concede that Democrats even scroo up at all...

    The vast majority around here think that EVERYTHING is the fault of the Republicans and Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..

    You can see why I have my work cut out for me.. :D

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If the congressional Republicans and their supporters - and that includes you, my friend - weren't always so quick and so exclusively against everything that this administration is trying to achieve to improve the country and its standing in the world, then I - for one - would be more inclined to be more publically critical of the administration and how they are handling certain domestic and international issues.

    But, as long as you continue with your unsupportable criticisms, ad nauseam - that is to say 24/7/12/365, for years on end - I am not at all ready to waste time in a conversation about specific issues that I know will go nowhere.

    Contrary to popular belief, I'm no fan of political ping pong in lieu of fun and enlightening conversation.

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You have to help me understand one thing about your way of thinking ...

    What is the difference between what the simple truth of the matter is and what the facts are? To my way of thinking they are one and the same.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the congressional Republicans and their supporters - and that includes you, my friend - weren't always so quick and so exclusively against everything that this administration is trying to achieve to improve the country and its standing in the world

    You mean, how Democrats were during the Bush years???

    then I - for one - would be more inclined to be more publically critical of the administration and how they are handling certain domestic and international issues.

    That's funny, because that's exactly how I feel??

    If Weigantians would be inclined to be more critical of Democrats and their bone head moves, I would be inclined to be LESS critical.. :D

    But, as long as you continue with your unsupportable criticisms, ad nauseam -

    I can point to DOZENS of comments I have made, giving credit where credit is due, complimenting Obama and Democrats when they had done good.. I have also posted DOZENS of comments taking the GOP to task for when they have scrooed the pooch..

    No one else here (save the Grand Poobah hisself) can point to ANY reciprocation...

    What is the difference between what the simple truth of the matter is and what the facts are? To my way of thinking they are one and the same.

    Truth is not necessarily fact....

    The best example is religion... To a Christian, it's "truth" that god exists..

    Facts would seem to indicate otherwise...

    Another good example is politics..

    What is "truth" to a Democrat is likely not "truth" to a Republican...

    That's why I deal exclusively in facts....

    Truth is subjective...

    Facts are not...

    "THEIR TRUTH IS NOT YOUR TRUTH!!!"
    -The Oracle, STAR TREK, For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Unfortunately, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell to win the Democratic nomination if Hillary is in it. If she's not, then that MAY be a whole other story but, sadly, he doesn't have a good history of raking in the votes in a presidential primary.

    Idunno, Liz. Among progressives Hillary is not popular. There are many people who will fight like hell to make sure she isn't the Democratic nominee.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd vote for her in the general if she were the choice. But I'd much rather see Elizabeth Warren or even Joe Biden.

    -David

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I don't think it's anything to worry about..

    Hillary likely won't run... And if she does, it's unlikely that she will win...

    Bill has too much to lose....

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Can you point to anything that Democrats have been right about in the last 6 years?

    Wow. Sometimes you make it too easy ...

    - The economy
    - Financial regulations
    - Equal rights
    - Getting Osama bin Laden
    - Avoiding war in Iran
    - Winding down the war in Iraq
    - Health care
    - Repealed "Don't ask, don't tell"
    - Got rid of Qaddafi
    - Expanded student loans
    - Passed credit card reform
    - Invested heavily in sustainable energy/energy independence
    - Killed the F-22 program saving $4 billion

    I could go on.

    Mostly though, he's governed for everyone. A sign of this is that not everyone gets what they want.

    I had a great conversation with an economist yesterday. He was here on business from out of town. I have no idea what his political affiliation is because we only talked about economics. In his words though: "Obama is the best Republican president we've had for 30 years."

    What he meant by this is that from an economic perspective, he thought Obama was doing everything right. I disagree with him in several areas but it was interesting to hear an economist say this.

    -David

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mostly though, he's governed for everyone. A sign of this is that not everyone gets what they want.

    Oh now THAT's just a load of crap....

    Obama is only on the side of the people that vote for him...

    I could go on.

    And often do.. :D

    - The economy

    Yea?? Howz that "recovery" coming along??

    Are Joe and Jane Sixpack better off now than before Democrats came to power??

    They will tell you, not even close...

    - Financial regulations

    For example???

    - Equal rights

    Only for those who toe the Democrat Party line..

    - Getting Osama bin Laden

    I'll give you that one..

    - Avoiding war in Iran

    Yea, by letting Iran get a lot further along in completing their nukes...

    That's one of the BIGGEST bonehead mistakes Obama has made...

    Peace at ANY cost is tantamount to slavery..

    - Winding down the war in Iraq

    Another HUGE bonehead move.. How are things in Iraq now???

    You are making this WAY to easy for me, my friend.. :D

    - Health care

    Another total colossal cluster f*ck...

    - Repealed "Don't ask, don't tell"

    And morale in the military is at an all time low..

    - Got rid of Qaddafi

    Obama didn't have anything to do with that.. His Lead From Behind AKA Coward Of The Country made things a LOT worse...

    - Expanded student loans

    Putting more people in debt.. Good call...

    - Passed credit card reform

    Yea??? For example...???

    - Invested heavily in sustainable energy/energy independence

    And lost every penny of it to bankruptcies and incompetence..

    - Killed the F-22 program saving $4 billion

    leaving our Air Force stuck in the 20th century...

    You got ONE... Out of all that, Bin Laden is the ONLY thing Democrats have done right...

    What he meant by this is that from an economic perspective, he thought Obama was doing everything right. I disagree with him in several areas but it was interesting to hear an economist say this.

    Like I told CW.. Yea, if you cherry pick a stat here or a stat there, your guy walks on water...

    But, if you look at the REAL people, the REAL facts....

    Americans say overwhelmingly that they are not better off...

    If Obama is doing such a great job as you claim, why are his poll numbers in the toilet??

    A poll here or a poll there... yea, you can make an argument for inaccuracy...

    But poll after poll after poll after poll is underwater...

    Are they ALL wrong???

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    - Getting Osama bin Laden

    I'll give you that one..

    I am also constrained to point out that the ONLY way that Obama got Osama was because of the CT policies put into place by President Bush. Policies including torture, rendition, surveillance and a whole slew of other programs that ya'all screamed hysterically about when Bush deployed them..

    Obama gets credit for ignoring his base and doing what's best for the country....

    But Bush gets the credit for CREATING the policies despite brutal and overwhelming hysteria from Democrats....

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    "AND THE QUARTERBACK IS TOAST!!!!"
    -Theo, DIE HARD

    Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065

    The beginning of the end of TrainWreckCare.....

    Once you get rid of the subsidies, Health Insurance Premiums will be almost 80% higher than they were before TrainWreckCare...

    So much for "Affordable", eh????

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama’s Law Professor: ‘I Wouldn’t Bet’ on Obamacare Surviving Next Legal Challenge
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/382550/obamas-law-professor-i-wouldnt-bet-obamacare-surviving-next-legal-challenge-joel

    It's long overdue...

    TrainWreckCare is an abomination...

    It was a lie from start to finish...

    A political stunt designed to serve a political agenda at the expense of the American people...

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    LewDan wrote:

    The Appeals ruling on Obamacare subsidies is exactly what's wrong with our federal court system. SCOTUS ignores the constitution and decrees States aren't bound by federal law. Then a federal court rules that the subsidies are only legal for state exchanges because the law says "states." It conveniently ignores the fact that the law intended all states to have exchanges.

    So first SCOTUS rewrites the law, unconstitutionally. And then the appeals court rewrites it some more, unconstitutionally, based on faulty logic and a patently false reading of statutes. Congress didn't intend for only state exchanges to offer subsidies. Congress intended for all states to both offer subsidies and have exchanges.

    First SCOTUS allows states to opt out. Then an appeals court pretends only state exchanges can offer subsidies, extending "states rights" to determine federal policy as well! Clearly not the intent of Congress. Courts once again unconstitutionally rewrite the law. Subsidies were not conditioned on state exchanges, state exchanges were not optional!

    Our courts use faulty logic and intentionally misrepresented "precedent" readings of statutes to arbitrarily write law, unconstitutionally. And it will keep getting worse, and our country increasingly lawless, until we start enforcing the constitution by impeaching these partisan judges and justices who are violating their oaths and abusing their offices.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    So first SCOTUS rewrites the law, unconstitutionally.

    I noticed you didn't mind when the SCOTUS rewrote the law to make it a tax, thereby allowing TrainWreckCare to survive...

    I honestly can't believe you are blind to the blatant hypocrisy....

    Clearly not the intent of Congress

    Apparently, the courts disagree with you.... :D

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, the courts disagree with you.... :D

    And, apparently so does Laurence Tribe, Obama's Constitutional Law Professor... :D

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    The law’s latest legal problem is that, as written, people who enroll in Obamacare through the federal exchange aren’t eligible for subsidies. The text of the law only provides subsidies for people enrolled through “an Exchange established by the State,” according to the text of the Affordable Care Act. Only 16 states decided to establish the exchanges.

    The IRS issued a regulation expanding the pool of enrollees who qualify for the subsidies. Opponents of the law, such as the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and Jonathan Adler, argue that the IRS does not have the authority to make that change. (Halbig v. Burwell, one of the lawsuits making this argument, is currently pending before the D.C. Circuit Court; the loser will likely appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.)

    “There are specific rules about when and how the IRS can deviate from the plain language of a statute,” Cannon explained to National Review Online, arguing that the subsidies regulation fails to comply with those rules.

    The IRS can deviate from “absurd” laws, in theory, but the subsidies language is not absurd. “It might be stupid, but that’s not the test for absurdity,” Cannon says. Similarly, the IRS can deviate in the case of scrivener’s errors — typos, basically — but this is not a typo, Cannon says, because the language was written into repeated drafts of the law.

    “They not only keep that language in there, but they even inserted it, this same phrase again, right before passage while the bill was in [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid’s office,” Cannon says. “So, it’s not a scrivener’s error, either.”

    Finally, the IRS could fill in ambiguous gaps in a law. The problem for the IRS, though, is that the subsidies language is not ambiguous. Even Tribe acknowledged that the language is clear, according to the Fiscal Times.

    “Yet in drafting the law, Tribe said the administration ‘assumed that state exchanges would be the norm and federal exchanges would be a marginal, fallback position’ — though it didn’t work out that way for a plethora of legal, administrative and political reasons,” the Fiscal Times writes.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:
  58. [58] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Your reasoning, and the courts, is bullshit. The ACA refers to exchanges established by the states because Congress was requiring state exchanges but providing states flexibility. It was not a limitation to only exchanges established by the states. When written all exchanges were to be established by the states and all states were to establish exchanges, the subsidies were obviously intended to be universal.

    ACA did not limit exchanges to only those established by the states. That "interpretation" is a misrepresentation, an intentional misrepresentation of the statute. SCOTUS' claim states have the right to opt out in no way gives states the right to control distribution of federal subsidies by opting out. SCOTUS' opinion that states have the right to opt out in no way alters the intent of Congress in the statute to to provide subsidies to all states. You, like the court, are taking the literal text out of context and "interpreting" it based on a SCOTUS decision that didn't exist when the statute was written. That's a clearly false interpretation. The Appeals decision is yet another example of a court lying to justify rewriting law to suit themselves, unconstitutionally.

    Your unsubstantiated and irrelevant claims of partisan bias don't change the simple fact that conservative courts are rogue, are betraying their oaths, are acting arbitrarily and unconstitutionally, and are violating the law because of the contempt for the constitution, and the law in general, shown by SCOTUS.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your unsubstantiated and irrelevant claims of partisan bias don't change the simple fact that conservative courts are rogue, are betraying their oaths, are acting arbitrarily and unconstitutionally, and are violating the law because of the contempt for the constitution, and the law in general, shown by SCOTUS.

    Once again, I am constrained to point out that you didn't mind the SCOTUS's ruling when it save yer precious TrainWreckCare....

    Why is that???

    Regardless, the court has ruled... TrainWreckCare is going down...

    Just a matter of time...

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Actually, no, Michale,

    The court has not ruled. Two biased Republican appointees have issued an obviously absurd partisan opinion. Why is it that you conservatives can never discuss an issue without lying?

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    The court has not ruled. Two biased Republican appointees have issued an obviously absurd partisan opinion. Why is it that you conservatives can never discuss an issue without lying?

    And yet, Obama's own Constitutional Prof has stated that TrainWreckCare is unlikely to survive..

    The writing's on the wall, my friend...

    Get ready for the demise of CrapCare.... :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Two biased Republican appointees have issued an obviously absurd partisan opinion.

    And the Democrat appointees are completely free of bias, right??? :D

    Again, I am amazed you can type that crap with a straight face... It's fascinating...

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, let's face reality here, LD..

    If the SCOTUS hadn't done EXACTLY what you are bitching and moaning about them doing, your precious TrainWreckCare would have been tossed on the trash heap of history...

    "I think a modicum of gratitude would not be outta line here."
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    You never present factual arguments and I'm not interested in debating your winger conspiracy theories. I've given my opinion and the facts and logic their based upon. All you've got, all you've ever got, is wild unsubstantiated accusations and vague unsupported generalizations. None of which have any bearing on the ACA decision.

    Maybe you can find a second grader to converse with? Since that's the level of your arguments. I'm just not interested in your spurious fantasies of partisan bias.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    You never present factual arguments

    Who you kidding..

    That court ruled that TrainWreckCare subsidies are illegal..

    THAT is fact..

    The SCOTUS that you whine and cry and bitch and moan about??? They saved your precious TrainWreckCare and you didn't raise a SINGLE objection THAT time.

    THAT is also fact...

    And, in addition to being FACT, it's also hypocrisy...

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    All I am asking for is a little consistency...

    Apparently, you can't forget your partisan enslavement long enough for that...

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    When written all exchanges were to be established by the states and all states were to establish exchanges, the subsidies were obviously intended to be universal.

    To be universal amongst those exchanges established by the state...

    The subsidies were an incentive for the states to run their own exchanges... Those states that let the federal government run the exchanges are NOT eligible for the subsidies..

    THAT is the wording of the law...

    It's not rocket science. The wording is clear, unequivocal and unambiguous..

    Yer guys pushed thru a frak'ed up law without even the HINT of bi-partisanship...

    Democrats OWN TrainWreckCare, utterly and completely...

    And Democrats will also own the fallout....

    This is fact...

    Here's another FACT for you...

    At NO TIME in TrainWreckCare's *ENTIRE* existence has it enjoyed ANY majority support of the American people.. Even today, the majority of Americans oppose TrainWreckCare...

    Ya'all put an Edsel in.... A dodo bird...

    And like the Edsel and the dodo, TrainWreckCare is going to die an ignoble and unflattering death...

    That's the long and short of it..

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    (2) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNT.—The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—

    ‘‘(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,

    Very clear..

    Completely unequivocal...

    Totally unambiguous...

    You see, Obama and the Democrats figured they would pressure the states to set up their own exchanges.. So they offered incentives for the states to do so, in the form of these subsidies...

    Obama and the Democrats were saying, in effect, "Look, you states HAVE to set up your own exchanges or you don't get these subsidies. THAT is the law.."

    When the states gave a great big and mighty F.U. to The Messiah and the Democrats, the states LOST the access to those subsidies.

    THAT was the wording of the law and the intent of the law makers...

    Yer entitled to your own opinions, LD.. But you are simply NOT entitled to your own facts..

    And the facts clearly show that states that DIDN'T set up their own exchanges are simply NOT eligible for the subsidies..

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are {indisputable}.."
    -Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    You want more nails in the TrainWreckCare coffin??

    The rulings that dissent from the DC Circuit Court ruling ignore the rule of law and concentrate on the motivations of the plaintiffs...

    To put a legalese spin on it, that is completely and utter bullshit...

    The motivations of the plaintiffs are completely and utterly irrelevant to the rule of law...

    The ONLY thing that the courts must look at is the wording of the law and any evidence of the intent of the lawmakers..

    The wording of the law is clear..

    Do ya'all have any evidence of the intent of the lawmakers??

    Is there any statutory language within TrainWreckCare that states that subsidies would be available to ALL exchanges, State and Federal??

    No, there is not...

    Is there any statement from Democrats at the time that they intended for ALL exchanges, State and Federal to be eligible for the subsidies??

    No, there is not..

    Is there ANY evidence, ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, that supports the claim that Congress intended subsidies to be available to BOTH State and Federal exchanges??

    No.. There... Is.... Not....

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA....

    NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support the claim that subsidies were to be made available to State AND Federal Exchanges...

    There's yer facts, people...

    NO.... EVIDENCE.... WHATSOEVER...

    The DC Circuit got it right..

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But poll after poll after poll after poll is underwater.

    I thought you hated polls?

    Approval rating of everyone in government is low. Especially the Tea Party Congress.

    But, if you look at the REAL people, the REAL facts....

    I'm a real person. I'm better off. Health insurance used to cost close to $900/month for me as an independent contractor.

    Now it's only $300. That's real.

    I know you hate Obama. Fair enough. He's not perfect. But he's a helluva lot better than any of the Republicans we were offered.

    It's hard for me to understand why you want to put people back into office who are going to give more handouts to wealthy people who don't need them.

    For me, the question is simple.

    Do we want an America for everyone? Or do we want an America for the .01%?

    -David

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought you hated polls?

    "Hate"?? Naw, I don't "hate" polls.. I don't think they are indicative of anything other than bias of the poll takers..

    And I stand by that...

    Having said that, when you have poll after poll after poll after poll saying the same thing, then that lends more credence to the polls...

    Wouldn't you agree???

    I'm a real person. I'm better off. Health insurance used to cost close to $900/month for me as an independent contractor.

    OK.. So we have 1 person who is better off...

    What about the millions and millions who are not??

    Don't they count??

    I know you hate Obama. Fair enough. He's not perfect. But he's a helluva lot better than any of the Republicans we were offered.

    Given what we know now, the Majority of Americans would disagree with you...

    Do we want an America for everyone? Or do we want an America for the .01%?

    Do we want an America for everyone?? Or do we want an America for just Democrats??

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Approval rating of everyone in government is low. Especially the Tea Party Congress.

    Actually, since Dems have the Senate, it's considered a Democrat Congress...

    Next year, when the GOP owns both House and Senate, then it will be a Republican Congress...

    At least then we will have a Congress that is "effective"...

    By ya'all's own admission.. :D

    Ain't karma a bitch??

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What about the millions and millions who are not?

    Most people are better off under the ACA.

    If there were "millions and millions" of people who aren't, don't you think Fox would have found them?

    It's a good scare tactic though. But one which even the GOP is starting to abandon.

    Actually, since Dems have the Senate

    Thank you. I should have said Tea Party House.

    -David

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most people are better off under the ACA.

    Bull puckies..

    SOME people are better off under TrainWreckCare...

    Millions and millions more are not..

    If there were "millions and millions" of people who aren't, don't you think Fox would have found them?

    ALL of the MSM have "found" them.. Where do you think all the horror stories came from?? The sky!!??? :D

    "WHERE DO YOU THINK ALL THIS IS COMING FROM!!!??? THE SKY!!!????"
    -Bill Murray, GHOSTBUSTERS II

    Thank you. I should have said Tea Party House.

    Even that, the accuracy is debatable..

    However, in the interests of inter-species amity, I won't nitpick.. :D

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Where do you think all the horror stories came from?? The sky!!???

    OMG!!!

    I now have decent health insurance instead of cut rate junk coverage.

    The humanity!!!!!!!!! Please God, save us from these never ending inconveniences!!!!

    Puh-leez.

    -David

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    I now have decent health insurance instead of cut rate junk coverage.

    I like you David. So I really hate to bring ya down to earth.. :D

    It's NOT about you...

    It's about the millions who got scrooed over by TrainWreckCare.. The millions who LIKED their "cut rate junk coverage" and were PROMISED that they could keep it..

    It's about people like Goode Tickle here in Weigantia who LIKED his/her insurance and had it cancelled because of TrainWreckCare...

    Contrary to what you and the Democrats think, THOSE people are Americans too..

    THOSE people don't deserve to be scrooed over so that Democrats can further their partisan agenda...

    And, if you could step away from the ideological slavery, you would see that I am right...

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    akadjian wrote:

    "I now have decent health insurance instead of cut rate junk coverage."

    That was to be read in a raging right-wing voice about the "horror" of health care.

    Anyone who thinks having good health care insurance is a "horror" doesn't really know what "horror" is.

    Contrary to what you and the Democrats think, THOSE people are Americans too.

    I'm glad to hear you care about people. What's your plan then?

    I mean after you repeal the plan that helped millions of Americans.

    -David

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean after you repeal the plan that helped millions of Americans.

    You mean, after I repeal the plan that HURT millions of Americans??

    You can't even acknowledge that they exist..

    In your world, everything is pixie dust, unicorns and rainbows.. No one has EVER been hurt by TrainWreckCare..

    Except, of course, our very own Goode Tickle and millions and millions of other Americans..

    That's the problem with your Messiah and your Democrats..

    They ONLY care about the Americans who think the way they do and support what they do..

    The rest of the Americans???

    They can go pound sand...

    It is THAT exact attitude that is causing Obama's approval ratings to slide down into the toilet...

    Don't take my word for it. Listen to the people the first week in November.... :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean, after I repeal the plan that HURT millions of Americans?

    For the record, I am not going to REPEAL anything...

    It's likely that Republicans won't repeal anything either...

    TrainWreckCare is going to collapse under it's own incompetence, graft and corrupt nature...

    It's likely going to be DEMOCRATS who stick the fork in CrapCare and declare, "It's Done!!" in a vain attempt to save their own worthless hides...

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you know how I KNOW for a fact that TrainWreckCare is a bad law and bad for this country??

    Because YA'ALL said it was...

    Right up to the point that it became law, ya'all were saying the EXACT same things about TrainWreckCare that I am saying now...

    But, once the Messiah and the Democrats passed it, ya'all were COMPLETELY and UNABASHEDLY on board, a bone crushing One Eighty from one day to the next...

    "We're at war with East Asia. We have always been at war with East Asia."

    What's so astounding is that ya'all are completely oblivious to the completely blinded partisanship... Ya'all see absolutely NOTHING wrong with being totally against something (or someone) one day and then be totally FOR that same thing (or same person) the next day...

    Party Uber Alles...

    THAT is what is wrong with this country in the here and now...

    People are Democrats/Republicans first and foremost and Americans a distant, VERY distant 2nd...

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way..

    Would you agree that those who are partisan to the exclusion of all else; those people are part of the problem and not part of the solution...

    Would you agree with that??

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sadly, I think what you are largely engaged in here, Michale, is also part of the problem and contributes little, if anything, to the solution.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sadly, I think what you are largely engaged in here, Michale, is also part of the problem and contributes little, if anything, to the solution.

    Simply not true..

    I am willing to discuss things and willing to concede that I might be wrong..

    Most everyone else here is content to refer to Republicans as "terrorists" and "arsonists" and other assorted criminals...

    So, you tell me..

    Is someone who refers to people as "terrorists" SOLELY because of a difference in political ideology...

    Are they part of the problem???

    Or part of the solution??

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am willing to discuss things and willing to concede that I might be wrong..

    It's not a stretch to imagine that many who visit here and read the comments and conversations may not be left with that impression.

    But, here's a challenge for you ... I invite you to discuss an issue with me - let's make it the next foreign policy issue that Chris writes about - without any reference to Democrats or Republicans or party or non-party affiliation or partisanship etc. etc. etc.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not a stretch to imagine that many who visit here and read the comments and conversations may not be left with that impression.

    Most, if not all, of those types of people are simply looking for echo chambers where they can post something witty and have people fall all over themselves to "uh hu... huh... Ditto... Ditto uh huh... uh huh"

    Weigantian's latest addition is evidence of this..

    But, here's a challenge for you ... I invite you to discuss an issue with me - let's make it the next foreign policy issue that Chris writes about - without any reference to Democrats or Republicans or party or non-party affiliation or partisanship etc. etc. etc.

    The Gaza issue seems to be perfect for such a discussion...

    We'll see what CW has up his sleeve... :D

    But I am definitely game... :D

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Excellent!

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oooohhhh David???? :D

    Survey: Fewer than 1 in 5 better off because of Obamacare; many more worse off

    Eighteen percent of Americans, or fewer than one in five, say they or someone in their family is better off because of the Affordable Care Act, according to a new poll by CNN. Nearly twice that number, 35 percent, say they or someone in their family is worse off. A larger group, 46 percent, say they are about the same after Obamacare as before.
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/survey-fewer-than-1-in-5-better-off-because-of-obamacare-many-more-worse-off/article/2551199

    I'm just sayin'.... :D

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in the OUCH!! That's GOTTA hurt!! segment..

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/23/darth-vader-is-polling-higher-than-all-potential-2016-presidential-candidates/

    Barack Obama polls two points BELOW Emperor Palpatine... :D

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You mean, after I repeal the plan ...

    Correct. What's your plan? If Americans are really so much worse off, what could we do to fix things?

    I mean other than rage against Obama. Can we call your plan "Rage and Repeal"?

    If you want to talk about fixing specific problems, great.

    I don't see it though.

    -David

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you want to talk about fixing specific problems, great.

    I *HAVE* talked about specific plans..

    Eliminate Waste & Fraud

    Tort Reform..

    Those two things alone will more than HALF the costs of healthcare..

    But you and Democrats don't WANT to hear things like that..

    Ya'all would MUCH rather have a system that is rotten with fraud and abuse and give the Dem's lawyer buddies fat paydays...

    Ya see, there are PLENTY of good ideas out there..

    But they are good for the COUNTRY and good for the American people..

    Which is why Democrats IGNORE them....

    Regardless, the current crapcare is not sustainable...

    THAT much is certain...

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's yer take on the subsidies issue, David??

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Those two things alone will more than HALF the costs of healthcare.

    According to which economic expert?

    Outta Mai Ass? :) Seriously though. I don't think even the most conservative hack of conservative hack economists would make this claim.

    And capping wrongful injury/death cases would simply incentivize shittier care.

    Eliminate Waste & Fraud

    Obamacare makes sure 80% of healthcare spending goes for patient care. That sure sounds like eliminating waste and fraud to me.

    Now I know. We could have done much better under single payer. It's too bad so many people in our country hate self-rule.

    What subsidies issue? Helping needy people pay for health care?

    -David

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obamacare makes sure 80% of healthcare spending goes for patient care. That sure sounds like eliminating waste and fraud to me.

    Yea???

    GAO Launched an Obamacare Sting Operation—and Almost All Fake Insurance Applications Were Approved
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/the-gao-launched-an-obamacare-sting-operation-and-almost-all-fake-insurance-applications-were-approved-20140723

    Like everything else TrainWreckCare does... It sucks...

    What subsidies issue? Helping needy people pay for health care?

    No, violating the law... Ya know, the law?? That thing that is so sacrosanct when it suits the Democrats agenda???

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    According to which economic expert?

    Outta Mai Ass? :) Seriously

    The same expert that said "most people are better off under the ACA"... :D

    I proved that wrong in comment #87... :D

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pivoting to money and Super PACs..

    Ya'all rail against the money influence in politics..

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/barack-obama-locks-out-the-press-again-109316.html

    Yet, ya'all are COMPLETELY silent when it's YOUR guys and gals who gets their hands caught in the SUPER PAC cookie jars....

    Why is that???

    This is why it's hard not to laugh when ya'all get so self-righteous about Republicans being bought by Corporate entities..

    Yer Democrats are JUST as bought and you don't say squat about it...

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/24/obamas-motorcade-blocks-pregnant-womans-path-to-hospital/

    It's a DEMOCRAT WAR ON WOMEN I tell ya!!!! :D

    Too bad this woman was actually an American... If she had been an illegal immigrant, she would have had a Secret Service escort to the hospital and all her medical bills paid for, courtesy of American taxpayers....

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtREAqSCMAAUmel.jpg

    Why didn't the pregnant lady cross the road??

    Because The Messiah was due to drive by in the next few hours....

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.