These days, two words are becoming increasingly part of the vocabulary when discussing the health care debate looming in the US Congress. These words are Filibuster and Reconciliation. Both only directly apply to the US Senate, but some constitutional and historical background is in order.
The Constitution of the US, Article I, Section 5 states, inter alia, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member." This means that both the House of Representatives and the Senate have their own set of rules for the conduct of debate.
In the House of Representatives, debate for each bill is decided in the rules committee and then the majority in the House then passes the Rule for that particular bill. Debate is often quite limited, and there hasn't been a filibuster in the US House of Representatives in over 150 years.
The US Senate is another matter. The US Senate has its own set of rules, which includes Rule XIV (The rule prescribing the conduct of debate, and stating that a Senator may not speak more than twice on a legislative day (which is not the same thing as a calendar day)). Rule XIV does not provide for any way to end debate, and it is that lack of an ending which allows a filibuster to continue as a way to obstruct or totally defeat legislation, even legislation which would pass if put to a simple majority vote. Filibusters used to require that the senator engaging in a filibuster stay on the floor and keep speaking during the term of the filibuster. However, that rule has been removed, and now a filibuster can simply be declared by a senator and it requires a cloture vote to remove. It would probably reduce considerably the number of filibusters engaged in by both parties if the senators were actually required to stay in attendance, on the floor of the senate, for the entire time of the filibuster.
Rule XXII, however, provides for a procedure known as cloture, whereupon the written motion of 16 senators, a vote upon cloture will be held. If 3/5 of the members of the senate vote in favor, then debate ends. Technically, debate can continue for up to another 30 hours, but members are then limited to 1 hour to speak on a bill. In actual practice, debate on the bill ends when cloture is approved, and the matter is then scheduled for a vote.
Until the passing of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Democratic party held a 60 vote majority in the senate, which meant that an almost certain Republican filibuster of the health care reform bill would supposedly fail. Yet, that is by no means certain. The Democratic majority in the Senate is not as united as the Republicans. This is due, in large part, to there being both conservative, moderate and liberal Democrats. There are also a number of fiscally conservative democrats who have grave questions about the health care proposal (as does this author). The Republican party, however, seems to be constantly getting more conservative, almost rabidly so, despite the claim of some of its leaders that its a party of inclusion. However, that is for a different topic. Its questionable at this time whether even were Sen. Kennedy still alive, that a vote on cloture would succeed. The Republican minority has, for the most part, been very vocal against the Democratic health care proposal, spreading a huge amount of misinformation and outright lies, and President Obama has not exhibited good leadership in pushing health care reform by placating wavering Democrats.
I do believe however, if a simple majority vote were taken, that the health care reform act, (some version of it anyway) would pass the US Senate.
The other word being brought forth from time to time is Reconciliation. Now, most of us, when we hear that word, understand its common meaning of to bring together. In the context of the current debate over health care reform, reconciliation would strip the Republicans of the ability to filibuster the health care reform bill(s). Thus, it would do anything except bring together, and would undoubtedly serve to further polarize the two parties.
Congress, acting under its authority in Article I, Section 5 to enact the rules of each house, introduced the concept of reconciliation in the Congressional Impoundment and Budget Control Act of 1974. The process is fairly simple: A concurrent resolution is passed which directs that a committee shall consider a bill that contains the provisions ordered in the resolution. Following that, the committee reports the bill to the Senate, and debate on the bill is then limited to no more than 20 hours. This effectively removes the ability to filibuster and guarantees a further vote on the bill. All bills are still subject to a simple majority vote in the US Senate.
Reconciliation was originally intended to allow budget matters to be passed over the objection of the minority party to help prevent budget impasse (Recall California's nightmare of recent memory) . However, any bill which is affecting revenues can be introduced under reconciliation, its not uncommon for bills to deal with a multitude of topics. The Byrd Rule (2 USC 644) provides areas which will normally allow an objection to parts of a bill under reconciliation. If crafted carefully, however, I believe that a health care reform bill could still be passed under reconciliation and survive the legislative process. The predicted court challenge to the bill would probably be denied by the courts as a political question, and our judiciary doesn't answer political questions such as this.
The Senate Democratic leadership has already given notice to the Republicans that reconciliation is an option if the Republicans do not cooperate. The Republicans, who will undoubtedly cry foul, will recall that it was the Republicans who have used, repeatedly, the process of reconciliation to pass matters relating to huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which little if any tax relief for the middle class. Further, fair notice was provided in April, 2009 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) informed the Senate Minority leader that he would consider reconciliation if the Republicans were not willing to compromise and to cooperate on health care reform. To date, the Republicans have seem to adopted a strategy they have tried to foist on millions of young Americans about drugs and alcohol: Just Say No! I can always hope that the Republicans will eventually realize that they must deal with this and not stick their fingers in their ears while screaming NO much longer, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
_________________________________________
Definitions: Inter alia Latin: Among other things
The Constitution of the US, Article I, Section 5 states, inter alia, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member." This means that both the House of Representatives and the Senate have their own set of rules for the conduct of debate.
In the House of Representatives, debate for each bill is decided in the rules committee and then the majority in the House then passes the Rule for that particular bill. Debate is often quite limited, and there hasn't been a filibuster in the US House of Representatives in over 150 years.
The US Senate is another matter. The US Senate has its own set of rules, which includes Rule XIV (The rule prescribing the conduct of debate, and stating that a Senator may not speak more than twice on a legislative day (which is not the same thing as a calendar day)). Rule XIV does not provide for any way to end debate, and it is that lack of an ending which allows a filibuster to continue as a way to obstruct or totally defeat legislation, even legislation which would pass if put to a simple majority vote. Filibusters used to require that the senator engaging in a filibuster stay on the floor and keep speaking during the term of the filibuster. However, that rule has been removed, and now a filibuster can simply be declared by a senator and it requires a cloture vote to remove. It would probably reduce considerably the number of filibusters engaged in by both parties if the senators were actually required to stay in attendance, on the floor of the senate, for the entire time of the filibuster.
Rule XXII, however, provides for a procedure known as cloture, whereupon the written motion of 16 senators, a vote upon cloture will be held. If 3/5 of the members of the senate vote in favor, then debate ends. Technically, debate can continue for up to another 30 hours, but members are then limited to 1 hour to speak on a bill. In actual practice, debate on the bill ends when cloture is approved, and the matter is then scheduled for a vote.
Until the passing of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Democratic party held a 60 vote majority in the senate, which meant that an almost certain Republican filibuster of the health care reform bill would supposedly fail. Yet, that is by no means certain. The Democratic majority in the Senate is not as united as the Republicans. This is due, in large part, to there being both conservative, moderate and liberal Democrats. There are also a number of fiscally conservative democrats who have grave questions about the health care proposal (as does this author). The Republican party, however, seems to be constantly getting more conservative, almost rabidly so, despite the claim of some of its leaders that its a party of inclusion. However, that is for a different topic. Its questionable at this time whether even were Sen. Kennedy still alive, that a vote on cloture would succeed. The Republican minority has, for the most part, been very vocal against the Democratic health care proposal, spreading a huge amount of misinformation and outright lies, and President Obama has not exhibited good leadership in pushing health care reform by placating wavering Democrats.
I do believe however, if a simple majority vote were taken, that the health care reform act, (some version of it anyway) would pass the US Senate.
The other word being brought forth from time to time is Reconciliation. Now, most of us, when we hear that word, understand its common meaning of to bring together. In the context of the current debate over health care reform, reconciliation would strip the Republicans of the ability to filibuster the health care reform bill(s). Thus, it would do anything except bring together, and would undoubtedly serve to further polarize the two parties.
Congress, acting under its authority in Article I, Section 5 to enact the rules of each house, introduced the concept of reconciliation in the Congressional Impoundment and Budget Control Act of 1974. The process is fairly simple: A concurrent resolution is passed which directs that a committee shall consider a bill that contains the provisions ordered in the resolution. Following that, the committee reports the bill to the Senate, and debate on the bill is then limited to no more than 20 hours. This effectively removes the ability to filibuster and guarantees a further vote on the bill. All bills are still subject to a simple majority vote in the US Senate.
Reconciliation was originally intended to allow budget matters to be passed over the objection of the minority party to help prevent budget impasse (Recall California's nightmare of recent memory) . However, any bill which is affecting revenues can be introduced under reconciliation, its not uncommon for bills to deal with a multitude of topics. The Byrd Rule (2 USC 644) provides areas which will normally allow an objection to parts of a bill under reconciliation. If crafted carefully, however, I believe that a health care reform bill could still be passed under reconciliation and survive the legislative process. The predicted court challenge to the bill would probably be denied by the courts as a political question, and our judiciary doesn't answer political questions such as this.
The Senate Democratic leadership has already given notice to the Republicans that reconciliation is an option if the Republicans do not cooperate. The Republicans, who will undoubtedly cry foul, will recall that it was the Republicans who have used, repeatedly, the process of reconciliation to pass matters relating to huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which little if any tax relief for the middle class. Further, fair notice was provided in April, 2009 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) informed the Senate Minority leader that he would consider reconciliation if the Republicans were not willing to compromise and to cooperate on health care reform. To date, the Republicans have seem to adopted a strategy they have tried to foist on millions of young Americans about drugs and alcohol: Just Say No! I can always hope that the Republicans will eventually realize that they must deal with this and not stick their fingers in their ears while screaming NO much longer, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
_________________________________________
Definitions: Inter alia Latin: Among other things
Thank you ToE for an excellent article, very timely given the immenent return of our federal legislators after the summer recess.
ReplyDeleteIndeed- in fact I will tell you there was a purveyor of lies named David Strom here in Minneapolis on the radio yesterday bemoaning the heavy-handed tactics of the Democrats, saying that they were 'for the first time' looking to blow up the filibuster. He did mention that the Republicans talked about it, but said that the Democrats were FAR worse, and were now using this NEW tool called Reconciliation to brow-beat the Republicans. He accused them of, unlike the Republicans, wanting to change the rules if they can't get their way.
ReplyDeleteOf course, such comments could hardly have been further from the truth. First, up front, absolutely the Democrats are going to attempt to strong-arm the Republicans, and without a doubt, they're considering reconciliation.
But let's discuss why. Reconciliation is NOT in any way new, it's been used dozens of times in the past, including during the Reagan years to pass many of his favorite economic program bills - it was done to AVOID the filibuster then no differently than it is being proposed to do so now.
As well, the Democrats have TALKED a little about voiding the filibuster, but the Republicans did MUCH more than talk, they planned it - and only the actions of the 'comprimise 14' (14 Senators 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats) thought such conduct an anethma to good government, and found a solution. Those 7 Republicans were PILORIED by their party for comprimising.
The truth is, during the Bush years, the Democrats were treated like dirt - their opinions didn't matter, they weren't invited to discussions. They couldn't get legitimate investigations (including into what happened in the lead up to 9/11/2001) started due to Republican strong-arming and grandstanding. President Bush and this brand of the Republicans were so callous and abusive of anyone who disagreed that two Senators left his party in protest.
Now, Obama invited Republicans to offer ideas, he brought in insurance companies, and made a lousy deal with them - namely, that he wouldn't propose universal coverage, but instead a 'public option' if they would simply not oppose him. He didn't offer up single-payor either. These were all MIDDLE GROUND positions (that he offered) going in. Yet, he couldn't get ONE, not one, Republican to side with him - or even close. Perhaps, if Arlen Specter hadn't left the Republicans in protest over his mistreatment, he'd have done so, but unlikely. The Republicans have made this their "mother of all" political battles, bussing in people to protest town-halls (as they did in Florida in 2001 during the recount). They simply will NOT budge, no matter what, no matter that the democratically elected President and majority congress was elected EXACTLY with this bill in mind - no matter, oppose, don't help, don't discuss - in short, continue to treat the Democrats like dirt, lie about them like Mr. Strom.
So, the Democrats after TRYING LIKE HELL to find common ground, are likely to use Reconciliation. My answer, I think both Parties are doing a lousy job of behaving reasonably, but when you can't get one person to talk to you about ANY other solution than doing effectively nothing - well, there comes a time when you have to move on, and this rule, as ALL the Republicans knew, existed, and has been in use for decades, so if it is used, YOU BROUGHT IT ON YOURSELF.
This was an interesting and informative article. I didn’t realize that a filibuster wasn’t really a filibuster anymore.
ReplyDelete“It would probably reduce considerably the number of filibusters engaged in by both parties if the senators were actually required to stay in attendence [sic], on the floor of the senate, for the entire time of the filibuster.”
I agree.
It reminds me of a science fiction story I once read – or was it a Star Trek episode? – where two societies had evolved beyond “war.” They found a much more efficient and humane way to solve their inter-social problems by using a commonly-agreed-upon computerized wargame. Each society played the wargame and developed strategic and tactical initiatives. Battles were won and lost. Whenever a wargame scenario was completed each society had to execute designated members of its population and turn over to the other designated parcels of land. That was the sole cost of war. Both cultures stood to gain property and wealth that was intact and not ravished by a real war. And finally, neither culture had to risk their social and economic structures in order to fight a war. Accordingly, this humane way of fighting a war became an integral part of their cultures and they found themselves constantly at war with each other (kind of like the Middle East, only worse).
Now the Senate can hold a filibuster whilst getting a full night’s sleep. The filibuster merely forces a cloture vote. Hmmm..., I can understand how this humane way of holding filibusters could increase their numbers.
We openly embrace our inner geek here; it WAS a Star Trek episode, from the original 60's tv series.
ReplyDeleteI know I will have ToE's article in the back of my mind when I watch the news in the next few weeks, if there is a filibuster.
Welcome, Leslie!
ReplyDeleteMy geekiness is proudly showing. I do indeed remember the Star Trek episode, and in fact, I can remember when the series was first on TV. My love of science fiction was kindled then, and hasn't gone away.
President Obama is/was hardly the far most liberal senator. I dare say that the late Ted Kennedy was unabashedly a claimant to that title, but not Barak Obama. Is he relatively liberal compared to some democrats? Yes. But his actions of recent haven't been that of a complete liberal.
ReplyDeleteA complete liberal, in my opinion, would have ordered a full investigation of the Bush administration, with no limits on who could be investigated, upon taking office. I will be writing more about the gross abuses of power and the fundamental crimes against our liberty by the Bush administration in an article to be released on September 11.
No Child Left Behind was a Republican idea, and it runs counter to the very nature of the idea behind Republicanism. No Child Left Behinds invents a large, bloated federal bureaucracy, which then tells states and local school districts how to operate. So much for local control over education. In our global and national culture these days, its not necessarily a bad thing, but its highly hypocritical for Republicans to criticize big government, and then boast about No Child Left Behind.
Campaign Finance Reform? Oh, Please.. you have to be kidding. Almost immediately after it was passed, Republicans and Democrats were trying to find ways to get around it, and for the most part, they have succeeded.
K-Rod, I warn you: Any further posts which I see in which you use Liberal Fascism on this topic will be deleted. Its not only a stupid phrase, but since its been explained over and over and over to you why, you also know that its an inappropriate usage of both words. Quite frankly, I've had it with you using words where you clearly know they're not proper in the context.
President Obama reached out to the insurance companies early on. He made major concessions to them to get their support. There has been plenty of evidence that the Democrats have been willing to listen to Republicans, but its rather difficult to figure out what the Republicans are saying when they are screaming NO at 120 decibels while holding their fingers in their ears.
This matter could have been passed long before now, had the Democrats truly wished to ram it through without discussion. It was purposefully held back for further discussion. Your accusation lacks proof and is without merit.
The next time you accuse someone on this thread of lying, K-Rod, you will find yourself deleted. I will then refer you to the blog administrator for whatever action he or she deems fit. This started as a civil discussion, and it will continue to be so, with or without your participation.
KR said,
ReplyDelete"Hello, Mr. Disinformation, problems with your memory of recent events like:
No Child Left Behind
Campaign Finance Reform
Penigma, report for remedial recent history lessons."
Actually, KR, those were exceptions, not the norm, and McCain-Feingold was passed prior to Bush's presence in 1400 Pennsylvania, you might want to check out what even Republicans said during the Bush years.
I'll give you one example of the lack of cooperation - Charlie Rengel wanted to conduct an investigation into the pre-war intel and buildup - the Republicans refused to allow him even to have a meeting - he had to hold the meeting in the basement of the Capital - effectively in a maintenance closet - because he couldn't get permission to have a meeting from the majority. This was the minority leader of the applicable committee.
There are dozens of examples of this - if you prefer, just as on Reagan's actual history - I'll provide several more.
"*pull*
"TRYING LIKE HELL to find common ground"
False! The Democrats haven't even tried to reach across the isle!!!!"
Just because you SAY it does not make it so.
First, Obama STARTED in the middle, he pissed off his base by doing so - if you don't think that's attempting to reach across the ilse we don't have the same view.
Second, he invited, several times, the Republicans to meet on health care. They DID meet, but never agreed even on the most basic of changes that might include a public option. Instead we got lies about death panels, lies about how Obama's intent is to put all private insurers out of business.
I'm sorry KR, but your comments simply lack real substance.
KR -
ReplyDeleteI rejected 4 of your comments, leaving the one directed at DG for her to decide (as it was the least abusive).
First, leave out the name calling.
Second, while I understand you don't think you've accused people of lying, saying they are purveyors of disinformation IS accusing them of lying, as the use of disinformation is the intentional misrepresentation of facts, since it is with intent, and stating something in the obverse of fact - it is a lie. Accusing someone of such, is accusing them of lying.
Thirdly, I suggest you refrain from questioning peoples religious correctness - it gets pretty ugly pretty fast. While I think it is very fair to draw a parallel between conduct and scripture, accusing someone of needing to go 'count rosary beads' is more than a little over the top, it means you are telling them they need to repent - and I certainly think neither you nor I know the mind of God, nor can we truly determine when dealing with issues 'at the edge' of what can be easily identified as sinful, of what God's position is about it.
Lastly, you need to step your comments up a bit - they are not making any counter argument, but merely making a statement (or demand) or asking what is seemingly a rhetorical question - and usually one which has no significant merit.
On several different discussion threads, K-Rod, it was explained over, and over, and over why the term "liberal fascism" were a contradiction in terms. It was also explained repeatedly why the terms are mutually exclusive, and why the inventor of the term has been thoroughly repudiated by respected political scientists liberal, conservative and moderate leanings. When you use it in this discussion, knowing that, it is therefore used as a pejorative and isn't acceptable for this discussion. I will remind you also that the Freedom of Speech requirements only constrain government action. They don't bind me nor do they bind the administrators of this blog.
ReplyDeleteYou should also be careful about the things for which you ask: You wanted a quote where you accused someone of lying. Here goes: (In a post just above) "in short, continue to treat the opposition like dirt, lie about them like Mr. Penigma.
You openly accused Mr. Penigma of lying. I have provided you the quote. I have also made my position on this crystal clear and I will not discuss it further.
KR,
ReplyDeleteMy apology, you are correct, it WAS passed during Bush's first term, however, over his DEEP reservations, and he didn't sponsor it or endorse it, he merely signed it - and signed it despite opposing it, so I'm sorry, it doesn't qualify as 'bi-partisan' at all. So, while this isn't a contest, your example is frankly, not applicable.
Here's the excerpt from Wiki..
"Provisions of the legislation were challenged as unconstitutional by a group of plaintiffs led by then-Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, a long-time opponent of the bill. President Bush signed the law despite "reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising."[1] He appeared to expect that the Supreme Court would overturn some of its key provisions. But, in December 2003, the Supreme Court upheld most of the legislation in McConnell v. FEC."
BTW, KR, congratulations on being factual correct on a point or date. It represents a first in my recollection regarding something in dispute. You were also factually correct in your description of certain heart ailments/arhythmia, but that was never in dispute. I wouldn't call it 'taking someone to task' but it's at least a start.
ReplyDeletePenigma said...
ReplyDeleteBTW, KR, congratulations on being factual correct on a point or date. It represents a first in my recollection regarding something in dispute."
I believe he corrected one of my statements regrding heart health and pacemakers. And he corrected me on Ted Kennedy although he used an incorrect term - charged means you only are accused. KR was correct in what he clearly intended, which was that he was in fact convicted, although he received a suspended sentence.
He never has answered those two pesky questions though, the ones I kept asking from the strib link he posted - where is there any indication that Obama spent $1million to suppress records; and where is there a confirmed Hawaii birth certificate for his half sister from Kenya?
I'm stilllllll waiting, LOL!
K-Rod has left a new comment on your post "Words Are Not Always as They Seem":
ReplyDelete"it doesn't qualify as 'bi-partisan' at all"
Then show us it was a party line vote, Penigma.
Bush signed it and it had support from both Rethuglicans and Democrats. It most certainly had bi-partisan support. You failed, again, Penigma."
A. Write commands to someone who cares to listen.
B. I never claimed there wasn't bipartisanship on that bill, so please don't try to change the discussion - what I said was, "The truth is, during the Bush years, the Democrats were treated like dirt - their opinions didn't matter, they weren't invited to discussions." In short KR, I said the DEMS weren't invited to discussions. Considering this was primarily a Democratic bill, and McCain was a maverick participating with Feingold, I'm sorry, you fail. The Republicans DIDN'T invite the Dems.
Attempting to claim they didn't treat the Dems with the back of their hand is a fiction, at best. Even Republicans acknowledged both at the time and now that they knew they had the power to run over the Dems, and so they did. Your complaints here smack of selective analysis or worse, pure hypocrisy. I have said I don't support the Democrats behaving like Republicans, but I ask YOU, do you support what the Republicans did from 2001-2006? Do you refute that they VERY often froze out the Democrats from discussion or consideration?
Ah, that's correct.. I did say it didn't qualify as bi-partisan, it did.
ReplyDeleteYet, KR, here's the thing, MY ORIGINAL POINT, the one you keep dancing around, was that the Republicans didn't invite the Dems to discuss things very often, didn't encourage civility or discourse. Your conduct on this point and this blog are pretty emblematic of the approach they took.
You've not EVER refuted the SEVERAL examples of crass conduct of both Bush and Congressional Republicans. While NCLB was accepted by Dems (more like forced down their throats) and has been an unmitigated flop, and while McCain-Feingold got a some Republican votes, and an unsupportive President to sign it, the conduct was still hyper-partisan and uncooperative. If the Reps (and you) don't like what is happening (TO YOU), perhaps you shouldn't have done it first.
Pick at irrelevant examples which in fact don't conform to the idea of 'working together' - overruse or misuse the term bi-partisan if you like (you see, I don't consider a bill which gets a handful of votes from the other party bi-partisan) - for that matter pick at words and ignore questions ALL you like, the people voted in 2008 AGAINST the hyper-partisanship of the Republicans. You can claim all you like that the Republicans operated in a bi-partisan way, and ignore all of the cogent examples of it, but that still won't make it untrue.
BTW, KR, you made some comments yesterday which were intolerable - for now, I think you need to take a rest. Had I put one of them in print, you possible could have been sued for libel. You don't go about calling people pedophiles (or IMPLYING IT so obviously that anyone would reasonably draw that conclusion when you say 'you don't swing that way'). Take a break for a while, really. Your examples of 'bi-partisanship' aren't very good.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNo one here has threatened your life, K-Rod. You have clearly taken words out of context, again.
ReplyDeleteYou accused Penigma of lying. I informed you that such comments are not acceptable, and you demanded proof that you had accused him of lying. I provided such proof for everyone to see. You also failed to prove that he has lied about anything.
K-Rod, here are some quick interrogatories for you:
ReplyDeleteDefinitions: Disinformation means information which is false and the sender knows (or should know it is false), and is spread intentionally. It is not the same thing as misinformation, which is information which is in error, but not deliberately false.
1) Please list at least 5 incidents of President Obama has allegedly spread disinformation. For each incident provide:
a) The date the alleged disinformation was provided;
b) A link to the complete article which in which the alleged disinformation was provided;
c) To whom the alleged information was provided. If a journalist, then name and credentials for such journalist.
d) The source for the alleged disinformation.
Please provide me with the information requested above so that I can verify accuracy of your statement.
KR wrote:
ReplyDelete" K-Rod said...
Dog Gone, I don't think I posted a link from the Star Trib on that subject and I am sure I didn't discuss these questions you pester me with and some how you seem to claim that I support."
Thank you for catching a typo on my part KR; you posted a link to the anti-strib (but I think you probably knew tht it was a typo, given the context.) I claimed that the anti-strib article made statements that were birther in nature (not the one, cherry-picked, out-of-context statement you wanted to discuss from that article).
You insisted the article was NOT birther in nature, in any part.
I have asked you repeatedly, politely (except for using caps because I had a problem with the html - which I explained to you) to prove the accuracy of the anti-strib site you linked.
Specifically, please document and validate the anti-strib site claim that Obama spent $1 million to hide his real documents; and please document and validate the claim on the anti-strib site that a real Hawaiian birth certificate exists for Obama's Kenyan half-sister. Both of those statements imply that Obama's birth certificate is invalid or at the very least questionable and that he is trying to hide the truth. IE birther statements.
I'm still waiting for you to address that ANTI-strib article's contents. Please?
Because let me now formalize a new rule here on Penigma: if anyone - and that includes myself, Pen, or ToE, as well as any commenter or guest writer - if ANYONE introduces a link to anther site, ALL the contents of that linked article become fair game for discussion as part of the topic.
If you don't want to introduce some parts of an article, don't introduce the site at all.
A special thank you to KR for his help in getting the html tags to work! Thanks KR!!!!
ReplyDeleteKR - yes, ABSOLUTELY, Obama should have used different words, but that isn't exactly something to get in a roil over. Bush made DOZENS of speaking errors, anyone in front of the camera every day is going to.
ReplyDeleteObama's intent was to say, and you left this context out, that someone who's over 100 is unlikely to materially be improved by a pace-maker, and in fact this would place her life at risk - perhaps said unartfully, but still undeniably correct. Ok, he was less than fully articulate - but that DOES NOT, by any means, constitute either disinformation or even error on the subject - yet, you persist in trying to claim this 'faux pas' was somehow attempting to do what exactly? Claim he wants death panels?
The error here is in leaping to an unreasonable extreme, further, in not grasping (or at least caring about) context, not Obama's.
In reply to a couple other points.
It is YOUR claim that 47M people don't have insurance, the US Census bureau says otherwise, and since they are the qualified expert, it is NOT disinformation to use it, and claiming it is is certainly disrespectful, and inaccurate verbiage at the very best. Other than that, can you please provide OTHER examples - because that one fails on it's face.
With respect to bi-partisanship on McCain-Feingold - first, my commment about MF not representing bipartisanship was, as I recall, in relation to BUSH not acting in a bipartisan way. However, I was ALSO talking about Republicans, so I understand the logical inference. Regardless, I see this as the vast exception which proves the rule. You've not yet provided ANY rebuttal to the point that Obama started in the middle ground, and called in Republicans to discuss. You've also NOT spoken to the half-dozen examples of outright crude conduct - hyper partisan conduct, by Republicans during 2001-2008.
You focus solely on behavior of Democrats, which I'm ok agreeing it's wrong, but when you consistently ignore acknowledging the equally poor conduct of Republicans, you don't appear credible because your comments are so decidedly one-sided and fail to address these items.
Finally, if you don't prefer being referred to as a foot soldier, I suggest to you that asking leading and suggestive questions that others are 'servants of Obama' is equally inapprorpriate. It is like asking someone "if they still beat their wife." The question itself carries the implication of truth of the query.
No I didn't.
ReplyDeleteI claimed, and still do claim, that the blog site owner is not a birther.
Sorry, but I consider calling someone a "birther" on this blog but not having the guts to do it on their own blog a bit cowardly."
KR, I never made any claim about the blog owner. I said the site, and specifically the article - and I was very specific as to which parts - were birther supporting. Had the article ONLY stated that they felt it would be useful or important for Obama to put to rest any crazy doubts by providing the original long form birth certificate, I would have agreed.
The owner or someone authorized to act for the owner, didn't do that. They put up a photo of the fake kenya birth certificate - without any identification that it was fake. They put AHEAD of the assertion Obama should provide his birth certificate, the assertions about his hiding information to the tune of 1 million dollars AND the assertion his half-sister had a Hawaiian birth certificate. That is a strong combination of 'pro-birther' items preceding the conclusive claim Obama should provide his birth certificate to answer questions -- after presenting what is effectively questions / challenges to Obama's legitimacy. THAT IS pro-BIRTHER.
Now, from there you claimed I was labeling all of the MOB as birthers - I did no such thing. You claimed I was labeling my friend Mitch a birther - I didn't do that either.
I DID assert that the pro-birther items made the call for Obama's birth certificate less worthwhile, less valid, less meritous of Obama providing it.
And I asked you, as the person who put forward that site by posting the link, to validate the statements made on it. You have not, to date done so.
K-Rod said...
ReplyDeleteDid you "Pledge to be a servant to President Obama"?
I haven't pledged to be a servant to anyone. I am confident Pen has not either. ToE presumably has pledged in some form to be a servant to god; can't and won't argue with the value of THAT.
KR wrote:" K-Rod said...
Obama should have known better to suggest prescribing a pain pill instead of a pacemaker."
I'd have to go back to the original statement, but I recall the question was should medical criteria be the determination for care, or should spiritual determinations also be used, and that the instance of the pacemaker was provided. My understanding was that Obama took the position that yes, ONLY medical criteria should be used, not spiritual criteria, and that it was in that context that the pacemaker statement was made. If medical criteria indicated a pacemaker was indicated then a pacemaker would be supported by Obama. IF however, a pacemaker was requested without any medical indication it would solve the problem, then other options such as painkillers are indicated, and NO pacemaker just to make someone feel they are doing something more to try to extend life without it having any medical justification is appropriate
I would use the appalling actions by republicans in the case of Terri Schiavo as an example of bad medicine, bad spiritual decision, and just plain wrong intrusion by government on the decision of the patient and the patient's immediate family.
"Many Obama followers are indeed making a pledge and asking others to do as much. Penn Teller mocks them as only he can do. ;-)"
ReplyDeleteWhat pledge is that, what is the verbiage, what is the context?
If it is a pledge to work toward a better America, wow, what a horrid thing.
KR, I frequently receive spam from Obama's camp, I have NEVER not one time, EVER, seen anything remotely akin to a loyalty pledge, or any other kind of pledge which would put anyone in a position of comprimising ethics, putting party before country, or any other thing.
So please, advise us what this pledge is.
BTW, I believe it is Penn AND Teller, two comedians.
"Penigma, Margret Martin has commented on the vile and abusive behavior of, presumably, Democrats toward Mr. Strom. I truly hope you are not part of that motley crew, but your comment suggests otherwise."
ReplyDeleteKR, unless you know what they have done or are doing, you owe those bloggers an apology - you have NO idea what they may be doing or saying other than Ms. Martin's comments that her husband is being treated poorly.
Certainly I doubt that anything being said about Mr. Strom is any more vile or shabby than things which pass the lips of Michael Brodkorb, Mitch Berg, or Joe Tucci (to name just a few). That's not an excuse, but where's your invective for them?
As regards my personal conduct, you also owe me an apology for even IMPLYING that I've treated Ms. Martin or Mr. Strom in any way other than above board. Such an assumption or implication through question is offensive on it's face. I've NEVER, not once, treated Strom or Martin poorly. I've interacted with him/them a grand total of ONCE - and at the end of it he thanked me for my cordial questioning, and interrupted his wife, cutting her off for interrupting ME repeatedly and as well being rather rude.
Your inference is grossly in error, your presumption is grossly in error, and you owe me an apology - you have NO idea of my history with them at all.
To clarify, I mean things which pass the lips of Berg, Tucci, and Bordkorb about Democrats.
ReplyDelete"you owe those bloggers"
ReplyDeletePenigma, what do you think you are talking about?
"IMPLYING that I've treated Ms. Martin or Mr. Strom in any way other than above board."
"treated Ms. Martin"? Penigma, what do you think you are talking about?
As for Mr. Strom, do you consider your above comment to be praise? You called him a liar and gave no reason for anyone to believe you.
Next time scream "BECAUSE I SAID SO" for an even more dramatic effect. ;-)
KR wrote:"K-Rod said...
ReplyDeletePenigma, Margret Martin has commented on the vile and abusive behavior of, presumably, Democrats toward Mr. Strom. I truly hope you are not part of that motley crew, but your comment suggests otherwise.
September 3, 2009 2:18 PM "
Where did Margret Martin, aka Mrs David Strom, post these things?
KR said, ""What pledge is that, what is the verbiage, what is the context?"
ReplyDeleteOne was to Pledge to be a servant to Obama.
I'm sure you can find it via google or you tube, if you bothered."
KR, I didn't ask you to tell me where to find dozens of claims about pledges, as you easily could be talking about something else. I asked you what YOU were talking about to avoid any confusion or ambiguity. What PLEDGE are YOU referring to that Obama supporters are making, what is the context, where is it from? Please clarify your source and context.
you owe those bloggers"
ReplyDeletePenigma, what do you think you are talking about?
I not only THINK I know, I believe you said, ""Penigma, Margret Martin has commented on the vile and abusive behavior of, presumably, Democrats toward Mr. Strom. I truly hope you are not part of that motley crew, but your comment suggests otherwise.""
Therefore, you are saying that thoee people who behaved in WHATEVER way are part of 'a motley crew' - you don't know thier behavior, yet, apparently on her word, will call them motley - you owe them an apology without knowing what they did.
Further, you abide (willingly and frequently) offensive conduct by the likes of Tom Swift (pairodice), Joe Tucci - Learned Foot - Mitch Berg, and Michael Brodkorb - a paid political operative of the MN Republican Party - who authors MDE. Where is your even-handed rebuke of their 'vile conduct' if by 'vile conduct' we mean people criticizing others.
"IMPLYING that I've treated Ms. Martin or Mr. Strom in any way other than above board."
"treated Ms. Martin"? Penigma, what do you think you are talking about?
You IMPLY that I am part of this motley crey by saying, "I truly hope you are not part of that motley crew, but your comment suggests otherwise" - which means, you think it is LIKELY or at least, my comments suggest I've done something to mistreat Ms. Martin, you are wrong, and you owe me an apology for the suggestion.
As for Mr. Strom, do you consider your above comment to be praise? You called him a liar and gave no reason for anyone to believe you.
Wow, so calling him a liar - when I have good evidence and personal information to support it is mistreatment - I suppose then YOU should be piloried for calling Obama a liar when your CLAIMS of lies are predicated on claiming a factually based study is wrong, something you have not substantively proven, but only claiimed.. ok, double-standard, meet Mr. KR, KR meet double-standard.
I will call Mr. Strom a liar based upon the word of two people I have very strong reason to trust, and if calling him a liar is somehow mistreating him, then color me so - but I beg to differ, he earned it.
Next time scream "BECAUSE I SAID SO" for an even more dramatic effect. ;-)
No, I'll leave that to your claims about Obama purveying disinformation - your claims are not credible - whether 47M are uninsured by psuedo-choice, are aliens (legal and otherwise) or for other reasons, there ARE 47M (or damnably close) people without insurance, you can carve the data down to segments, but they still total that number, and it is NOT disinformation.
Regardless, I have had reason to talk to Mr. Strom once, treated him well and FAR better than his wife treated me, and you were out of line to suggest I did otherwise. He DID lie, we all have, we all do, and calling him a liar is NOT in any way undeserved, your overblowing of the matter not withstanding.
K-Rod said...
ReplyDeletePenigma, Obama supporters were making pledges, one was to "Pledge to be a servant..."
No, KR, that's not what I asked you for, I asked you for the context, the source, and frankly the FULL pledge. Context matters - you said it was, "One was to Pledge to be a servant to Obama." ie.it was to be a servant TO OBAMA - now you're saying it was to be a servant.. which is it? So let's get the full quote, and the site and the context. I'll go search, but I am interested in what YOU were talking about as I don't want there to be any confusion about what YOU were referring to.
K-Rod said...
ReplyDeleteOff topic a bit, but I hope any of you won't try to bite off my finger if we discuss ObamaNationCare. OUCH!"
KR, what are you referring to? Are you implying we are rabid?
We've discussed health care reform at length with you, and never 'bitten your finger' - conversely, we often get only (in my opinion) inflamatory questions in reply.
This thread however is about the fact that Republicans (and their talking heads) have recently been fatuously claiming that partisanship is JUST NOW becoming an issue - and JUST NOW are we facing the use of reconciliation. Those claims are nonsense, which was what ToE was pointing out.
KR,
ReplyDeleteI will try to say this again clearly enough that you are not seemingly confused by it...
YOU said, "Penigma, Margret Martin has commented on the vile and abusive behavior of, presumably, Democrats toward Mr. Strom. I truly hope you are not part of that motley crew, but your comment suggests otherwise."
You accuse people - Democrats by presumtion on YOUR part - of vile conduct - you've accepted Martin's word for it. THEN you lumped ME in with them because I called Strom a liar based on personal experience - something I'm neither obligated to prove to you NOR constitutes 'vile conduct', especially considering your repeated use of the term regarding LOTS of folks, including Obama (and me). It's deragutory certainly, but if true, is merely that, the truth.
The THEM are those people you are presuming are Democrats and saying behaved 'vilely' - your word was vile.
The further implication is that you assume based on my comment about him being a liar that I'm one of the people to whom Martin was referring when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Ms. Martin was the rude one evincing shabby behavior, so shabby, in fact, her husband (David) had to cut her off.
Also, there may have been an Obama supporter bite someone (including taking off a finger) there was a Bush supporter who shot a doctor, another who shot two cops to death - or at least they HATED Obama, so I thiink there's plenty of mud and poor conduct on both sides, and you insult both DG and I (and ToE) to lump us in with them by asking us if we've taken pledges. Please do better.
K-Rod said...
ReplyDeletePenigma, Obama supporters are making pledges, one was to "Pledge to be a servant to the President."
Context: a pledge to be a servant
Source: Obama supporter in their own words and can be found on the internet.
Are you going to make a pledge like that to Obama?:
KR - on the one hand, thanks for one of the more cogent replies, you actually substantiated your point well, on the other, please don't lump anyone into that kind of silliness - I'll ask you the same question, are you going to make a pledge to Obama like that? DID you make one to Bush? You see, it's insulting.
An ObamaNationCare supporter actually bit off a persons finger over the issue. How's that for partisanship!
It's awful, read above - it ranks with shooting doctors, it ranks with screaming at liberals at town-halls and threatening their lives, it ranks with shooting police because "Obama was going to take my guns." It's nuts, but it's hardly unique. Don't you think our discussions should be above discussing such banality? Do you REALLY want to spend your time talking about the dregs of society and then attempting to claim that those of us on this blog would perform similarly ( such as taking oaths)? That's pretty lame - and a HUGE waste of air.
KR, honestly, let's go at it a different way.
ReplyDeleteCLEARLY there is bad conduct on both sides - I believe it's more weighted to one side than the other, perhaps you believe the reverse, that the Democrats are more at fault, but spending time on that kind of stuff is silly - meaningless, a huge waste of our time and energy.
Let me ask you, and for that matter Terry or Jas or Tuck - HOW would you cover the 5M or 10M you feel need coverage?
Further, given the rather overwhelming evidence that nationalized health-care has proven to be more cost effective and more effective at delivery than our current system, what prevents us from trying it on the (pick your number) who we really do need to cover (and yes, I believe it's higher than 10M as those folks who are either aliens OR are young and THINK they don't need coverage, that's a poor idea - if they wind up needing it, it's MUCH MUCH more costly to treat them, plus having them participate defrays costs).
So, how would you cover say half of those who don't, let's just use that as a number, 23M people or so, how would you do it?
K-Rod, your last comment is interesting and I agree with most of it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that insurance should be portable, I also believe that 521 plans should roll over, much like health savings accounts. 521 plans ARE pre-tax dollars, however. As long as the money in them is spent on qualified health care or day care, the money is never taxed.
I'm not sure what you mean about reform laws regarding health insurance from another state. If you mean do you think that health insurance plans should be able to cover people in multiple states in the same plan? If so, I agree.
You were doing good up until you got to the part about auto insurance. The health care matter is complex enough without throwing in additional complexities such as auto insurance.
Other than the auto insurance part, I think we are in pretty much agreement. However, reforming insurance isn't going to make much of a difference in costs without additional reforms to health care delivery.
KR wrote: "That said, it is quite logical to SIMPLY ask if you have taken any pledges like many other Obama followers."
ReplyDeleteI think the information that any such pledges have taken place is questionable, since you can't produce it. If you haven't been able to find it, what makes you think it is reasonable we have seen it either, much less taken any such pledge? But if you so strongly need to ask, if the answer will give you peace of mind, No.
KR wrote: "Oh, now now there Penigma, don't cry.
*slap*
And then snap out of it!"
KR, this is a perfect example of attempting to provoke a hostile reaction rather than to honestly exchange ideas. KR, I cherish the friendships of Pen and ToE, and I hope that I have yours as well to the extent that a medium such as blogging permits.
I don't cry easily or without cause, nor would I posit that for either gentleman. I'm going to put the best interpretation on this and assume you don't go around hitting people, least of all women.
In case you haven't figured this out for yourself (and you should have) in my experience I have found both ToE and Pen to be very intelligent men of personal integrity and personal courage. They both have my affection, my respect, my loyalty, my trust and my confidence because of it; none of which I give lightly. As I wrote over on SitD, I tend to leap to the defense of my friends; that includes these two men. I suspect they are as protective in turn of me.
One of the other things I most admire about both of them is their restraint when provoked or angered.
Differing with you on political ideas does not negate that they have earned and deserve more consideration and respect. It is something you should offer if you expect it.
This whole 'don't cry', and the 'slap'thing? Not appropriate, don't do it. My sole reason to publish your comment rather than delete it was to address this.
For the record, no one has suggested any similar thing towards you, nor would they. I would be as quick to write on YOUR behalf if anyone did.
The insult style blog may be what you are used to elsewhere; it is not on Penigma. An idea or statement or fact may be challenged, even challenged to the point where is verges on an attack.
People, instead of ideas - NO. You (usually) can manage to be critical of things I wrie without that kind of insult, although I'm not sure why I rate better treatment. Please demonstrate the same consideration to everyone else here. EVERYONE else.
As you know, I believe that people can have different views, different politics, and still be individuals of character; that people can be passionate about those differences but because of their qualities of character, they can still be friends. Please approach commenting here with that spirit of good will. Written words, without the additional cues of tone of voice or facial expression can more easily be misunderstood. Please - err on the side of not offending, while still asserting your views passionately. It takes more effort, but it is important.
I hope that by dialing down hostility, more people will read, and more people will join in commenting. With luck, maybe more women will post here and I won't be the only one. I think less hostility might encourage that.
KR wrote: "You three are big Obama supporters, you have criticized Bush programs but have yet to criticize Obama's initiatives."
ReplyDeleteI can only speak here for myself, not either ToE or Pen; my views may differ significantly from one or both of theirs.
I am concerned about the deficit. I believe that more should be done to investigate and prosecute possible war crimes; we need to take the moral high road. I believe that Obama should be doing more to stop the discrimination against gay members of our military, especially those who have put themselves in harms way to keep us safe, and who have served with distinction. I would like to see more done to regulate fraud and corruption in the financial sector. I would like to see more done to go after war profiteers who have cheated this country - Haliburton and Blackwater are only the larger; there are many smaller contractors as well. The entire contractor system, replacing our military, has been a bad bad idea; Obama needs to do more to correct that.
That enough for you KR?
KR said, "Oh Pen, don't cry"
ReplyDeleteNo worries there, nothing you could say could accomplish that - however I do note you again failed to provide the TEXT of this supposed pledge in it's entirety.
As well, it seems you have a very short and falible memory. ToE, DG, and I have each at times criticized Obama, and far moreso than I have seen you criticize Bush.
I have criticized Obama for being gutless about pushing health care reform in a manner it needed to be.
I criticized Obama for spending too much, even during a crisis.
I criticized Obama for putting up sham and false reforms in the financial services industry.
To date, I believe you've only ever directly criticized Bush for spending, and on that you gave him an out for the fact that we were "in a war" if I recall.
Sorry, but you've got your facts wrong. I'll keep my handkercheif stowed.
K-Rod, the only vow of servitude I have made is the vow of poverty, chastity and obedience when I became a priest. I have not and have no intention of making a vow to President Obama or any other politician. I don't serve them, I serve God.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I specifically reject the fact that I have not criticized Mr. Obama's policies. I have done so on several occasions. In case you have forgotten, I will list a few of them here:
1) I agree with my friend and colleague Penigma that Mr. Obama has been way too timid on pushing health care reform. The reason that the health care reform measure is in the trouble that its in now is not primarily due to republican opposition: its due to Mr. Obama's weak leadership on this issue, and quite frankly, I'm disappointed.
2) Mr. Obama has only paid lip service to the idea of investigating and perhaps prosecuting those who committed wholesale abuses of prisoners in connection with Guantamano bay and and other prisoners. His lack of leadership on that issue is disappointing.
3) I am very worried about his fiscal policies. I honestly don't see how he can fund the proposals he has made, on top of the ill advised (in my opinion) bail out of GM and Chrysler and the financial institutions without a tax increase, and honestly, that tax increase should not just be on the wealthy. I think all of American should feel the pain, so perhaps there will be demand that Congress work to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
4) I don't approve of Mr. Obama's continuation of the military tribunals at Guantanamo bay, albeit on a much more limited scale. US District Courts are perfectly capable of handling prosecutions and US Bureau of Prisons are capable of housing the prisoners if they are convicted. If the evidence against them is so flimsy that a conviction can't be obtained, then they should be deported.
Those are some of my problems with Mr. Obama. I hope this shows that I don't always agree with Mr. Obama.
Hmmm. This conversation certainly got off topic. Well maybe not. It was a good example of exchanges of words that apparently didn't seem to mean what they seemed to have meant. Actually, it was quite a good demonstration of a filibuster.
ReplyDeleteSomewhere in there I had a second post, but it must have gotten lost in the midst of the fray.
I'm looking forward to a nice weekend here in Minnesota. Then next week the K-12 children are back in school and for the next nine months life changes.
So...I move for cloture.
Have a great Labor Day weekend!
Dear KR:
ReplyDelete"I told you it is on you tube and can be found via Google."
Then KR, respectfully, please, as you are making the statement, would YOU please post the links?
" How can we have a discussion if you won't listen? Either is it due to embarrassment on your part, laziness, or blind adoration toward The Won, because you three are truly refusing to confront the truth."
None of the above actually. There is so much material, the good, the bad, and the indifferent, that we could easily be discussing at cross purposes if you do not post the specific link YOU wish to promote for discussion. I think it is fair to expect that as this is your 'fact' to put into discussion, it is fair to request you to document it to demonstrate the extent to which this pledge you refer to has been promoted.
While this is not one of the many topics I have been researching for blogging purposes and other reasons, I have a gut hunch - nothing more - that this pledge busines is overblown and exaggerated. So, I'm looking forward to seeing documentation of how widespread this really is.
"Implying that I am lying is unacceptable and I refuse to associate with such insulting people." KR, speaking for myself at least, I am NOT calling you a liar. Not at all. I believe that there is something out there; we simply disagree pretty dramatically about the significance and the degree to which this 'pledge' business is being followed. Given that we seem to follow very different sources of information, that does not surprise me. But be assured, such a disagreement about degree, even a dramatic one, well, this is NOT in any way an attack on your integrity.
Leslie wrote:
ReplyDelete"I'm looking forward to a nice weekend here in Minnesota. Then next week the K-12 children are back in school and for the next nine months life changes.
So...I move for cloture.
Have a great Labor Day weekend!"
Leslie, might we solicit you to write something about the presidential speech to school children? Given your position, I think you would have some worthwhile observations on the speech itself, fitting it into a first day of school, and the positive and negative views of parents. IF you can be persuaded, and perhaps a bigger IF you can fing the time during this busy week.
Thanks - and for better or worse, it is not unusual here or on any other blog to wander sometimes quite far afield off topic, LOL. Patience, and ...enjoy?
KR wrote:
ReplyDelete" K-Rod said...
"please post the links"
I don't know how to html link in these blogger comments, sorry. "
While there may be a better way - in which case I defer to the more cyber-savvy - KR, this works for me when I either comment or post, so it should work for you as well.
I use one of the search engines - doesn't seem to matter at all which one, google, bing, etc.- to find the item I want to use for a link, then just a simple cut and paste it into the comment, the same way you would include it in an email. If for any reason that doesn't work in posting a link to a comment directly, please email it to me at penigma2@yahoo.com, and I promise to do my best to post it on your behalf.
I'm sorry if our website gave you any difficulties in this regard. I'm a little confused, because I thought you recently posted a similar link to the anti-strib article? It should work the same for You-tube, etc. Please, do let me know if you continue to encounter any difficulties, and I will pursue a further answer with our website help personnel.
I'm learning this admin stuff as I go, so please be patient with my efforts. Thanks!
K-Rod, we agree on some parts, we disagree on others.
ReplyDeleteI agree that people should know what their health care costs, but quite frankly, most only find out when they see the bill from the hospital that shows what the insurance paid, (if they have insurance) and what they are responsible to pay. The problem is, most don't think about the amount that is paid by insurance, they only think about what they have to pay. If they are one of the unfortunate who don't have insurance, of course they're concerned.
Do I think this is a "Crisis of epic proportions"? No. Do I think we have severe problems with our health care financing and delivery systems in the US, and that we must fix them now rather than later? Yes, I do. I think the percentage that Americans pay for health care will continue to rise without a complete overhaul of the system.
I think that dental insurance should be part of any health care reform, because proper dental health can have a profound impact on one's overall health. However, I don't see it currently in the plans at this point.
K-Rod, I clearly stated that I disagree with President Obama's policies in a number of areas. When I said that I am disappointed in his lack of leadership in health care reform, for instance, he came up with the idea that we needed health care reform (I agree) and then he took a hands off approach and left it to congress. That was a policy that I think was a bad idea, and one that he is just now starting to fix, I think. When I said I'm disappointed in his financial policies, its because he has basically continued many of the policies of the Bush administration. I think that although the seeds of the problem were not caused by the Bush administration, the collapse was exacerbated by lack of oversight in the Bush administration. I think his policy of "look forward not back" on the treatment of detainees is blatantly wrong. While I agree we must look forward, we also must investigate and prosecute those who committed crimes in the Bush administration. Torture of prisoners is a crime under US law, and if prisoners were tortured, then those who ordered the torture should be investigated and charged with the crime. If nothing else, a charge under 18 USC 371 (conspiracy) could be lodged and probably brought to conviction. I also think that allowing ANY military tribunals at Guantanamo is a terrible policy. The military tribunals flout centuries of established law, and I have yet to see anything to show me that a US District Court can't try these prisoners equally efficiently. US District Courts routinely try, convict and sentence prisoners who are as dangerous or more dangerous than anyone being held at Guantanamo.
I don't hold a grudge against Mr. Bush and his administration. It appears to me that they committed serious crimes and should be charged, tried, and if proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, punished for those crimes. I feel the same way about Bill Clinton, by the way. I felt that he probably should have been removed from office, but not for the political witch hunt that was going on, but because he appears to have committed perjury.
ReplyDeleteRead what I said above. I disagree with policies of Mr. Bush AND Mr. Obama.
1) President Obama has kept a number of Bush administration policies. I disapprove of his policy of keeping a number of those, as I have stated earlier.
ReplyDelete2) He has been weak on health care reform. I disapprove of his policy of a hands-off approach.
3) I disagree with his policy of not being very interested (if at all) in prosecuting Bush era officials for serious crimes committed while in office.
I've given you your answers, and I won't discuss this further, its pointless.
Of the three policies I listed above, 2 are not bush era policies. Mr. Bush did not create health care reform. Mr. Bush is the problem with the military tribunals, not the solution.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama decided to do away with some of the Bush military tribunals, but not all. That's Mr. Obama's policy, not Mr. Bush's. Mr. Bush had nothing to do with health care reform, and as I said earlier, I'm disappointed at his (Obama's) lack of leadership.