Journaling on estrip is easy and free. sign up here

Dcoffee's Journal

dcoffee
My Podcast Link

01/17/2007 23:17 #37752

Bush Thinks You're Stupid
Category: politics
I know, it's a provocative title, and this post definitely too short to prove anything about how or what Bush thinks.

But after watching Bush's interview with Jim Lehrer that's one of the big things that stuck out to me, he thinks you and I are a bunch of idiots whose opinions are worthless.

He says things like "this is what is hard, I think, for the American people to understand", he mentions us a lot, the "American People" you get a concept for his idea of We the people.

He always talks about convincing us, and teaching us to see things his way, like we're misguided children and he knows everything. Well, I'm sorry, but who the fuck believes this guy knows what he is talking about anymore? He has failed at everything, But now we are supposed to have faith in his judgment? Bush has zero credibility, but he is still an arrogant fuck who doesn't give a damn if we agree with him or not, because he is "the Decider". That's the perfect Bush-ism that says, "I don't give a fuck what you think, because I'm going to get my way no matter what, you are all coming along with me whether you like it or not.

I'm a believer in democracy. I know it's messy, compromise and consensus, and finding common ground upon which we can all agree to move forward. You have to be able to see things from the other perspective, to empathize with the other person because we all have very serious reasons for feeling the way we do. And you also can't have a hidden agenda, something you don't want to bring into the open because the reasons behind it are greedy or selfish. But I digress..

If you want to get a handle on the real Bush, watch this interview. I think Bush feels pretty safe, I mean it's just Jim Lehrer, nobody watches the News Hour on PBS, Jim Lehrer is pretty mild mannered, what's to be afraid of? Bush takes this interview less seriously than his weekly radio address.

Jim Lehrer rocks, He's probably the last real reporter on TV, he asks the questions that a journalist is supposed to ask... like this "But to be very direct about it, Mr. President, you had a few years here and you've been in charge. And you've made a lot of decisions; you've made a lot of judgments about things and they haven't worked. And so now you've made a new one. So why should anybody expect the new ones to work when the prior ones did not?" RIGHT!!! You see what I'm saying?!?! You're going to have to watch the video to get Bush's response.

I like Jim Lehrer because he has standards, he knows his job as a journalist is very important to the survival of democracy. That's why the Press is protected by the constitution, not so they can make a bunch of money, the purpose is to make them the watchdogs of democracy. We protect their right to ask difficult questions of those in power, for the sake of protecting the public from tyranny.

So at long last, Here is our commander in chief, with no clothes. definitely watch the video,

PBS Jim Lehrer News Hour, Interview with President Bush.

Enjoy!
dcoffee - 01/18/07 19:53
Good article Jason, that's what I like about FAIR their reports are always loaded with research and emperical evidence. This may play into my ideas about campaign finance reform. THe government can mandate a certain abount of radio or TV time for candidates and eliminate or reduce the amount of political TV adds. I mean seriously, do you learn anything from political TV adds nowadays? 30 seconds is not enough time to explain a campaign platform. I'll keep reading.
jason - 01/18/07 13:34
Hey there,

Check out this article from Common Dreams on the Fairness Doctrine. I don't agree with some of the ways in which they spin it, but there is oodles of good information:

:::link:::
dcoffee - 01/18/07 13:08
Josh, it looks like we were typing at the same time! You should check my comment about the president's Iraq Speech. I realy am the type of guy who will change his opinion, or disagee with my liberal friends about things. I'm not a partisan. My approach to the interview was "Hmm, Jim Lerher interviewed Bush, I gotta check this out." I just expected some good quality journalism, maybe some insight into the president's thinking.

I don't disagree with you though, some people will never agree with Bush simply because he is Bush. but as for me, I kinda want him to get something right, I don't like having to live with catastrophe, and the more he screws up the more i get screwed. If he makes a good decision I'm right behind him. Like with the Iraq speech, I was behind him for a few hours, till I realized this plan requires people to trust us and work with us, yet we have no credibility. how can we expect the world or the Iraqis to believe one thing we say, and that's exactly what the bush plan expects. I think the first step toward establishing trust would be to close Guantanamo and outlaw torture. The Iraq plan makes sense in a vacuum, but there are variables out there that make it a failure.

I'd like to get help from other countries instead of calling on additional American soldiers. And to get help from anyone, for anything, we need to demonstrate that we are not a Rogue nation. You can insist that we mean well till you're blue in the face, but the fact is that actions speak louder than words. Close Guantanamo and follow international law first, then we will be able to inch our way toward success.
joshua - 01/18/07 10:03
President Bush wasn't trying to convince you - you are among those who are unconvincible due to your sharp diametrically opposite views. I have to ask the question - why did you watch the interview?

I'm not picking on you here. I'm simply curious about your approach to the interview before you watched it.

Speaking of people being taken for fools and having all kinds of nasty things being said about them - anybody remember "Jesusland?" I find it intriguing that people who consistantly find President Bush intolerable and allege that he is insulting their intelligence are the same people who impuned, lampooned and insulted the intelligence of those who voted for President Bush.

The media gets absolutely no sympathy from me. For years the newsrooms of major media outlets have been slanted and there is absolutely no debating that fact. There have been numerous studies done on this subject, among the best being the ones done by Jim Kuypers of Dartmouth College and the original 1986 study called "The Media Elite." Whether or not Jim Lehrer "stuck it" to the Prez is another issue... I tend to doubt it since I don't really see Jim Lehrer as a liberal firebrand, like Bill Moyers.

The difference between the major networks and PBS/NPR is not ideological but financial - with NPR I get spoon fed liberalism on a daily basis and my tax money is given to them for the pleasure. There is no pretense of balance and I am constantly finding irony in the fact that there are people who fiercely deny obvious bias then immediately criticize the news outlets whose slant is different to their own ideological views. NPR and PBS are *not* ideologically neutral.

All news has an angle to it.
dcoffee - 01/18/07 09:49
Hmm, the fairness doctrine is an interesting piece of legislation. I wonder if we might need to also get the FCC to reduce the size of media conglomerates so that we can separate News outlets from entertainment.

I should mention that I wanted to believe Bush's Iraq speech the other night. I don't want this problem to persist, and I always hope that the president has come up with a good plan. But after a few hours I realize that no matter what we say, nobody believes we have good intentions. And until we take action on things like Guantanamo, torture, Israel, war profiteering, human rights, international law and etc. We can't expect anyone to work with us.
libertad - 01/18/07 09:06
Wow. This is the first time I have seen you get so heated. I like it! I'll watch the interview later when I get some strength to watch. Usually it is too painful for me to watch him speak.
jason - 01/18/07 08:42
I'll have to watch it later.

If the tone is like you say it is, I would definitely disagree with the way Bush handled the interview. I think it's true that there are some things Americans don't fundamentally understand as a group, but I wouldn't quite say it that way. I don't believe he thinks we're all stupid. The American people have been called stupid overtly many times in the past few years and I don't think he is trying to be a copycat.

Anyway I will have to see how the interview shakes down. I agree that Lehrer is a solid guy and good at his job.

Z, I love the muppet avatar by the way. By now it is (or should be) clear enough already where the public media stands. With a Democratic Congress in place the public media is 100% safe. What will be interesting to see is if the Fairness Doctrine is actually put in place, and how that will affect the already homogenous nature of the messages the media gives us.
zobar - 01/18/07 07:31
It won't be long before someone uses this to prove the public media's liberal bias and use it as a justification to pull the plug on PBS & NPR. Keep shooting the messengers until there aren't any left.

- Z [from the actual liberal press]

01/12/2007 11:58 #37660

I smell corruption
Category: politics
As all of you know the Democrats are now in controll of congress. The house of Representaves is busy passing legeslation that the people support, but the Republicans have ignored. They call it a 100 hours agenda, and there are at least 8 key pieces of legeslation they are working on.

So far Democrats have passed bills to raise the minimum wage, fund stem cell research, and inspect cargo coming into the US.

Today they are trying to fix the medicare perscription drug plan and make it less expensive. And the Republicans are trying to protect their corporate sponsors.


This is one of those programs that is so corrupt and harmful to the taxpayer that everyone I tell about the program is appalled. Whether they vote republican or Democrat, or don't vote at all. This plan is a huge giveaway to the pharmicutical companies. (funny, the pharmicutical industry gives the most money to political campaigns). The program costs more than tripple what they originally projected. It is just funneling government money into the pockets of corporate doners.

The biggest problem with the program is this; our government is prohibbited from negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices. There is a clause in the bill explicitly forbidding the government from negotiating prices. Why? In any normal market situation companies bid on contracts. When you are spending a lot of money, say providing 23.5 million seniors with perscription drug coverage, companies try to get that contract by offering a competitave price. I thought republicans liked the free market? Maybe not when it prevents them from funneling taxpayer money to their campaign doners.

The government already negotiates lower prices for the Veterans Administration, why not the medicare perscription drug plan? Shouldn't we be concerned about saving the taxpayers money? Spending responsably?


The Republicans are trying to block this reform of the medicare drug bill. The Democrats are going to pass a bill opening the door for the government to start negotiating lower drug prices, getting rid of the loophole. but the republicans are threatening to filabuster, and the president it threatening to veto the bill. Thanks George, I can see you realy have my best interests at heart.

I find it amusing that this is the first thing the republicans are actively trying to block. They must figure that money is worth more than votes. Corporate sponsors are worth more than popular support. When it comes to getting reelected, they would rather hyponotize voters with TV commercials, instead of getting support based on responsably looking out for the interests of the taxpayer.

The republicans who vote against this bill will give you a long line of bullshit, but essentially they can't vote against the bill because they will lose their corporate sponsors.
libertad - 01/13/07 18:26
holy shit I dont have enough time to read all these comments! Sorry guys. Interesting stuff though. Drug prices are outrageous and unfair...period. My friend got billed for $600 for a tube of psoriasis cream. Is this all going into research for developing drugs or going to politicians and executives? You don't have to answer that, but it would be interesting to see where it all goes with like a pie graph or something.
metalpeter - 01/13/07 13:22
I will admit that I think perscription drugs are too expensive. That being said though if the drug companies don't make enough money then they will stop looking into cures for dieases. The real question is do they over inflate prices. I think that they may (not sure don't have all the facts). As I think Josh said R&D does cost a lot of money.

I don't have a problem with the importation of drugs from other countries. The question is who should pay for the FDA to inspect them and see if they fall into US standards and who will oversee that to make sure that there isn't corruption. For example some Japanese drugs use ingreidants that arn't legal here. How do you deal with that are those products banned or do you give them a not tested by FDA mark. Or would the FDA run tests on them.

If a company in Canada can make a drug for cheaper then good for them. But what if they pay there employees less or do other unetical things to cut corners? If that is the reason they are cheaper then we don't want them here. But the other question is would cheaper drugs by competeators cause us companies to cut there profit margin on drugs they sell or would they figure lets fire people or not do as much R&D? You don't want greed in the drug business and companies do need to have etihics after all you are trying to help people but it is still a business. It is a delicate balance between lowering drug costs and still making sure the medicine is good. Off course if everyone in the country had good insurance then the insurance companies would pay most of the cost of medicines.

I'm kinda agaisnt bidding on drug prices for the government. I think it is a good idea. But the reason i'm not for it is how bidding usaly works. Most times us humans go with who ever gives us the best price. That is a bad idea you need to follow who gives the best service for the price. For example what if I said I could get your package to some place for half the price of Fedex or UPS. You would say great and pick me instead. But what I don't tell you is that all my packages I send with drug cartells who are going to that area allreday.

I also don't like the concept of the first 100 hours. It is the wrong mindset they should concentrate on doing what they think is right not some agenda in a short amount of time so they can say they did something.
ajay - 01/12/07 17:05
Can some Republican please explain to me how a _prohibition_ on government negotiation of prices for drugs that the government is buying somehow fits in with the "core" Republican principles of free markets, meritocracy, yadda yadda....
jason - 01/12/07 16:45
Sure, I'd love a beer sometime.

I'm not trying to be critical of you, so I hope I didn't come across that way. The important thing for me is that we do the right thing (offer everyone basic health care). It is far too important to let the politicians BS us over it. I'm sure there are plenty of other articles and studies out there, so if you find some more with some information that contradicts what the CBO says I'd be happy to give it a look.
dcoffee - 01/12/07 16:01
We're all going to have to have a beer together one of these days.

Jason, thanks for the correction, both parties are corrupt! I didn't mean to infer that the democrats are purely concerned with the will of the people, they're self interested contribution hoggs too.
you found some interesting studies on the perscription drug program. I know that fixing this loophole won't fix the problem, but I'd like to stop wasting more money than we have to. Thanks for the empirical articles though, I'll check them out more.

Josh, I also like the idea of bipartisanship and cooperation. The democrats are just trying to show off now. They almost need to though, in this type of short attention span culture.
I am worried about the likelihood of bipartisainship too. If you read Matt Tiabbi's "Worst Congress Ever" he talks about how cold the attitude has become in congress. people on opposite sides of the aisle don't develop friendships anymore. It's disappointing, and I hope we can get less confrontational.
joshua - 01/12/07 14:35
I generally agree with what the Democrats want to achieve in the so-called "100-hour" agenda.

I also agree with what (e:jason) just wrote concerning the Republicans and their desire to block Medicare reform. Its wrong, plain and simple. The consequences of not giving the medical industry what they want, however, remains to be seen. They can simply choose not to produce and develop drugs if they don't get the price point they want, which is cynical but ultimately very likely. I'm no fan of the drug industry anyway, but its absolutely true that these companies sink upwards of $1b into development of a drug. As such they are entitled to recouping what they invested into R&D, and perhaps *gasp!* make a profit. That is a separate issue though - ultimately, why is it bad for the government to negotiate with these companies and possibly save taxpayer dollars? Aren't the politicians supposed to be stewards of our coffers?

The problem I have with what the Democrats are currently trying to do with the 100-hour agenda is that they are trashing a campaign promise they paid to the American people concerning a "new era of bipartisan cooperation." You cannot say this, then when you win the election ultimately say "Well, we have a 100-hour agenda now, and we'll bring in our 'new era of bipartisan cooperation' at a later date, when we've rammed through what we want to ram through." Similarly, "bipartisan cooperation" doesn't mean "approve our bills or you are not cooperating."

Believe me, I know why the Democrats are doing what they are doing, and I don't necessarily disagree with them. However, what they are doing now is going to create an impetus for the exact OPPOSITE - zero bipartisan cooperation. And Democrats ultimately are going to need some cooperation from Republicans to pass bills. Republicans never really cared about bipartisanship, but its also true that they never claimed to like the Democrats now are.

For years I have been a voracious reader of online political commentary from left, right and center perspectives. A common complaint for years from liberals brought about the suggestion that when Republicans passed bills they wanted (that included full votes, by the way) this was tantamount to 'mob rule.' Now that Democrats are doing what they are doing now, is it fair to characterize it as 'mob rule?'

jason - 01/12/07 12:39
"We estimate that striking that provision would have a negligible effect on federal spending because CBO estimates that substantial savings will be obtained by the private plans and that the Secretary would not be able to negotiate prices that further reduce federal spending to a significant degree. Because they will be at substantial financial risk, private plans will have strong incentives to negotiate price discounts, both to control their own costs in providing the drug benefit and to attract enrollees with low premiums and cost-sharing requirements."
jason - 01/12/07 12:38
Hmm, no, I was wrong, after reading the second one it doesn't say that at all. They are avoiding making recommendations.
jason - 01/12/07 12:33
And, here is another CBO report (PDF, warning) that says Medicare CAN save billions a year:

:::link:::

jason - 01/12/07 12:30
David,

I found this analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. It is entitled "Would Prescription Drug Importation Reduce U.S. Drug Spending?"

Take a look at it, and if you don't have time right now I'll give you the conclusion at the bottom:

"On the basis of its evaluation of proposals to date, CBO has concluded that permitting the importation of foreign-distributed prescription drugs would produce at most a modest reduction in prescription drug spending in the United States. H.R. 2427, for example, which would have permitted importation from a broad set of industrialized countries, was estimated to reduce total drug spending by $40 billion over 10 years, or by about 1 percent.(14) Permitting importation only from Canada would produce a negligible reduction in drug spending."

Very interesting. Why would the Democrats propose this as the be-all, end-all when the savings are going to be minimal? It sounds more like wanting to score political points than to actually save us money. This deserves further research and consideration.
jason - 01/12/07 12:22
I wondered when you would get around to making another entry. I thought for sure it would be about Bush but this is a surprise.

I wouldn't be so quick to make assumptions about who is corrupt and who is not corrupt. You seem to be falling into the trap of assuming one party is corrupt, or owned by special interests, and the other is not.

An example: Kennedy's proposal for Medicare is to make THAT the Universal Health Care system. I assume by reading your comments on Medicare that you're not a fan, so I would assume you can agree what a financial disaster that would be, especially in a place like New York where Medicare is so bloated.

I support lowering drug prices, and allowing the government to negotiate. I think the fact that we can't is wrong. I don't think of it as a situation where we can just soak the Pharm corporations, and assume that everything will be fine. It won't - there are a lot of factors other than drug prices that determine how expensive our health care is.

The whole system needs to be overhauled and leaned out so it can be what it is intended to be - a system that gives people access to the basic health care staples that everyone needs. The 100 hours really is a bunch of nonsense - Medicare could never be fixed so fast. If it is done quickly, but with little thought or consideration, we will just be back at the drawing board again in a couple of years.

11/08/2006 23:58 #21758

America Saves itself
Category: politics
I have been so worried about the fate of this country. We have been traveling down a very dangerous path.

The manipulation of fear and prejudice for political gain is a recipe for disaster, it is the most severe challenge democracies face. The manipulation of fear, and the demonizing of a shadowy enemy is a classic tactic for the strangling of democracy. This has killed democracies in the past, and it was very alarming to see it's ugly head in America again.

Thank you America for stepping back from the brink of fascism. I had a feeling that we would not be so easily fooled into submission. I knew that there were certain things that America would not stand for like suppression of the freedom of speech, and our right to demand answers and accountability from the government. I had a feeling that these strengths would carry us through this radical un-American regime. And I'm happy to say we still have the will and the power to save ourselves.

We have a lot stacked against us. The bush administration broke a lot of constitutional boundaries designed to protect us. They showed no regard for checks and balances, they even flaunted the subversion of the constitution and the rule of law openly, and sadly some Americans fell for it.

This is one of the most secretive administrations in history, information control is a high priority for Bush and company, and that is very dangerous. National security was the excuse, but saving face or avoiding retribution was often the real motive. Thankfully some whistleblowers had the courage to release the information about Abu Graib, the NSA spy program, the manipulation of Iraq intelligence, and countless others.

This is also one of the most manipulative administrations in history. They are not afraid to lie in our face. to say things like "Saddam Hussein harbors terrorists. And there are al-Qaeda in Iraq" Bush conveniently left out the fact that those al-Qaeda were trying to overthrow Saddam so he couldn't possibly give them WMD. But this was one of many manipulative sales pitches. lip service to renewable energy and handouts to oil companies. He read the CIA report that the war in Iraq was making us less safe and he lied to us about it before the report was leaked. Uranium from Africa was obviously false, he lied about it.

Subverting the rule of law. Abandoning treaties like the ABM treaty, Kyoto, small arms trade limiting treaties. Calling the Geneva conventions "quaint" the list goes on. This executive branch put itself above the law, that's not how America works.

Wonton destruction of international ties, disregard for allies and other nations. I don't know about you but I wish we had some friends left in this world.

Starting another Arms Race, by trying to scare the world into submission. it doesn't work that way. You need allies, friendships make you safer because you have more people watching your back. All you fuckers who were talking about letting France and the UN dictate American foreign policy.. "oooh nobody can hold us back.. we won't let anybody tell us what to do.. we know everything.. our ideas are better than everyone else.. we don't need to have a conversation or ask for advice.. or check with people who know more about the middle east than we do..." How do you feel now? We invaded Iraq, kicked out the inspectors, and said, bombs are better, we need to kill first and look for WMD later. hey, good fucking job asshole. next time all you Bill Kristols of the world Shut The Fuck Up!!

Man did we lose a lot. We really have. What a shame we don't learn from history. It took us this long to figure stuff out.

Now we have a health care system that serves the drug companies before the people. the Medicare prescription Drug giveaway, you know the government can't negotiate for lower prices? Why not the Veterans Administration drug plan does? oh, right, corruption, line the pockets of the richest Americans.

That explains why we're giving tax breaks to the richest companies in the world, the oil and gas companies. Hello!! they're making record profits, they don't need any subsidies, or any help, they need to be taxed!

Let's spend billions on a war, where all the money goes into the pockets of defense contractors who aren't doing their job. They are charging us tax payers $80 for a case of Coca Cola! They are driving around with empty trucks because they get paid by the trip, they don't have to deliver anything.

Yea global warming doesn't exist, how come the only people who believe that crap are scientists that are paid by the energy industry or the Republican party.

and the deficit, what happened to fiscal responsibility? Bush DOUBLED the deficit in just 6 years, sending us 600 billion more in debt, way to go you fiscal conservative you.

I think the internet helped us a lot. We quickly found out if somebody was lying by doing a Google search and finding the transcript or video of the lie. Tons of concerned people were linking back and forth, pointing to official documents and mind blowing investigations. Secrecy is not so easy nowadays.

We have just overcome something big. This Republican government war drunk with power.

What does a Democratic Congress Mean

Contrary to Republican scare tactics, I don't think it is going to be payback time. I don't think the most liberal policies are going to be suddenly thrust down the throats of an unwilling electorate. and I don't think the democrats are going to be the congressional bullies. Although no matter what they do they couldn't possibly top the last 4 years of republican rule.

It boggles the mind when conservatives warn against polarizing the country. Does "you're either with us or your with the terrorists" ring a bell? how about straight party line votes in congress, and wedge issues like flag burning and gay marriage. I have the scream when republicans talk about Democrats being divisive.

But back to the point, I think Democrats know that a lot of people should be on their side, and they're going to show it. They aren't going to be divisive, there are so many issues ahead of things like abortion and gay marriage, they won't have time for those, nor do they want to bother calming oppositional voices. Republican citizens have been voting against their best interests for a long time. And over the past 6 years Republicans have become the party of the Super Rich, while the middle class has shrunk. The Democrats are going to go for those broadly supported yet long neglected issues that everyone agrees upon.

The democrats will work on raising the minimum wage. They got a bill to the floor but the Republicans put abolishing the estate tax on the same bill so it failed. Anyone have an estate worth over $7 million? ok none of you will pay the estate tax, only .5% of estates pay any tax whatsoever. gee sounds like a pressing issue

They will also work on Energy independence. Scary huh? too bad everyone supports that. getting rid of fat oil companies and high gas prices, sound's like a far left fringe issue to me.

They will also investigate where our tax money is being wasted. Hmm I thought that used to concern republicans.. I guess power and campaign contributions made looking after our tax dollars a non-issue, wasting tax money became a great policy when it went to their friends in the oil and pharmaceutical industries.

There will be investigations on waste and fraud in Iraq.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Plan will be amended so that the government can buy in bulk and negotiate for lower prices. Hmm saving my money.

Social Security is not in as much danger as the Republicans made you believe, small changes will be put forward eventually.

Taxes, you have to face it, the whole mantra of lower taxes is a bunch of bullshit that republicans pay lip service to. How come the middle class hasn't felt any tax relief? and how come our jobs pay less, and our money buys less than it has since the 60s? The Republicans have lowered taxes all right, on the top 1% of America. And guess what it hasn't stimulated the economy at all!!!

There is a simple equation for this economic taxation mumbo jumbo. If you want to stimulate the economy, you give money to the people who are most likely to spend it. Wow, that's not so hard, how come nobody told the president? The people most likely to spend money are Those who need new cars, a new water heater, a new roof, a paint job, a new TV, to pay off their credit card, go out to dinner for once, a new house, maybe they stop renting and buy a house, new shoes, a winter jacket, a new computer on and on. It's an indisputable fact that the middle and lower class spend money, not the richest 1%. We have given all the tax breaks to the top 1% they put it in the bank, the end. No seriously someone has $4 million in assets, you give them an extra $8,000, they might expand their business and hire new employees, but most likely it's going to the bank to earn interest. They don't really need that money, they're ok as it is, they can choose to spend it or not. Unlike you and me, who really need that new car but we can't afford it, we really need to do some home repair, and we need to buy a house and stop living paycheck to paycheck. We will spend the money, that stimulates the economy.

So eventually we're going to have to get some money into the pockets of the middle class and the working poor. We will have to raise taxes on the rich... go cry me a river, I said we're going to have to raise taxes on the rich. Sorry, the democrats won't be acting on that one any time soon, they can't cause the Republicans will manipulate it for all it's worth, "high taxes, kill jobs, hate America" you know, the usual. Bush's tax cuts will expire in 2010 but that's the best that can happen, and you know the Republicans will cry foul, even though it's the middle class that has been fouled for so long.

I just feel bad that the Democrats have to deal with Iraq, they were all lied to by Bush, and he knew it all along. Now we have a horrible mess, and those who aren't responsible will have to deal with it.



kookcity2000 - 11/11/06 17:00
I still don't feel all that saved
dcoffee - 11/09/06 21:11
Josh, I agree with you "What is good for corporations is rarely good for the average guy on the street" let's start there and protect jobs from going over seas to countries with questionable human rights records. Fact is if Americans got paid better Wal-Mart wouldn't be necessary. Funny thing, business always tries to argue that raising wages hurts the economy, but in every american state that has raised the minimum wage the economy has gotten better as a direct result, because you are doing exactly what I said, giving money to the people who are most likely to spend it. Maybe raising takes on the rich isn't necessary if you can find some other way to funnel money downward through wages and reducing expenses.

And by the way, health care is a big expense for American corporations, let's reduce their bottom line and enable them to sell for less by getting rid of the burden of healthcare. This is a big fish to fry, but the benefits are obvious. it's unfair that american corporations have to pick up the tab for healthcare. It's shocking that so few corporations are advocating for a single payer government healthcare system. Also the burden is shared by the employees who pay a premium for coverage, they would have more money in their pockets if healthcare was covered through taxes rather than out of pocket every month. I don't know what the specific solution to this is, but I'm sure we could come up with a system that pleased both you and me. We have the most expensive healthcare system but we are ranked about #25 for health. This is a problem that won't be solved without government intervention. And I'm sure we could come up with a fair solution that you and I, and rational people everywhere could agree upon.
mmtornow - 11/09/06 17:25
HEELLLLL YEAAH!!!
Very nicely written... Sarcastic and Entertaining- But all so very true.
Now I see why you were up all night writing this... :-)
joshua - 11/09/06 17:10
The bottom half of Americans pay exponentially less in taxes than the top half - if the only way to make middle class people "feel it" is by taking from the rich to give to the poor I am 100% against it. Where I'm absolutely gagging to see tax reform is the so-called corporate welfare. Nobody in their right mind believes that oil companies need tax breaks, and I hope that the Democrats end it ASAP. Prepare for the oil companies to throw a fit and threaten higher gas prices, however.

When you aren't in power, you don't get to run the agenda - this is why Democrats (up until now!) have not had much of a say in having hearings and getting bills to the floor. Theres no dirty tricks involved there - if you don't run the comittees then you cannot call hearings and getting opposing legislation through is very difficult. Matt Taibbi's piece was amateurish, and the only reason why it got published in RS was because of the fierce anti-Republican rhretoric. RS is worse for having a little bit of the Beast in it.

I'm all for people having more money in their pockets, but it is wrong to rob Peter to give to Paul. Whether or not they really need the money is irrelevant - the richest pay the most taxes and as a result receive substantially more back when taxes are cut. Doing what I do for a living, however, I can tell you that the erosion of the middle class is real - I've seen it up close in 32 states.

The economy is fantastic - that is, if you have money invested in the stock market. You are incorrect about whether or not the tax cuts have stimulated the economy. If you look at the statistics, everything looks great - low unemployment, market highs, more home owners than any time in American history, etc. - much like everything else, from what I've seen with my own eyes, I don't think stats tell the whole story. Trickle down economics does work, to an extent - taxes have been cut yet receipts are high. Middle class Americans HAVE gotten more tax money back then they had previously. The economy *has* been stimulated to a great extent as a result of the tax cuts.

Where the Republicans failed, and I hope the Democrats suceed, is in protecting American jobs from going overseas and begin doing less business with countries with questionable human rights records. What is good for corporations is rarely good for the average guy on the street. The bottom line is this, who do you trust more to be benevolent to the middle class - corporations or government? Its a global economy, and similarly Americans should expect to have to compete in the global marketplace. This means, unfortunately, that unless you want to pay $30 for a white t-shirt and $130 for a pair of Levi's, Americans will have to adapt.

It is basically the Wal-Mart paradox - people love Wal-Mart, particularly in rural areas, because their money goes further. Wal-Mart achieves this by being ruthless in negotiating price, which trickles down to the manufacturers... the people I visit. The #1 controllable cost for manufacturers is labor, which is why production has been going overseas. As long as Americans want cheap stuff (and demand for cheap stuff is extraordinarily high), its going to have to be made overseas in order for people to continue paying low prices. Very few of the American manufacturers that I've visited pay extraordinarily high wages. Some places I've visited pay on average $50k a year, while others pay strictly minimum wage - in order for American companies to compete, you can guess which end of the spectrum the majority lies in if they aren't in a niche market.

I'm interested to see if Democrats have a solution for this.
jason - 11/09/06 12:50
Sure David, if you want a little back and forth I'm willing to oblige. We've always gotten along and I know we can learn from each other.
dcoffee - 11/09/06 12:13
I don't care if ALL the issues I support are addressed, what I am happiest about is that we will no longer be unilaterally ruled by dangerous extremists. Bush and the neo-cons represent a radical regime and I'm glad Americans have woken up. I don't think it's right to shove your agenda down anybody's throat. Bush was constantly saying "HaHa Fuck You" to the democrats when he used his signing statements, and the republicans twisted people's arms to get some radical legislation passed on a party line vote. They used every dirty trick in the book to prevent democrats from having Hearings, getting bills to the floor, having a say on committee reports and etc, if you want to know how much the democrats were bullied by the Republicans I'd like you the Read Matt Taibbi's piece in Rolling Stone, "The Worst Congress Ever" :::link::: Matt did a lot of research and interviews, there are some amazing stories told by congress people about republican bullying. I'm happy to end that era.

This is my position on Democracy. I don't believe in any particular team, I believe that if you have a diverse group of people rationally discussing how to handle an issue, if people aren't stubborn, and are willing to see the issue from somebody else's perspective, you will get good policy. I don't think good policy comes from one team or another, it's the thoughtful democratic exchange that creates good policy. The congress isn't at a point where it can impeach bush or raise taxes, oh well, I still think we are going to have a more democratic discussion there (democratic with a small 'd') more civility, more open and honest, and that is a big deal.

PS I'd love to hear your criticisms if you get a chance. I always want to know what king of holes are left in my arguments.. it's that whole democratic exchange thing.
jason - 11/09/06 08:46
Actually I do have a question for you David. You say you want taxes raised, and Ajay says he wants impeachment. Have you been watching what Pelosi, et al have said? Neither are going to happen, if you believe politicians anyway, so why would Liberals like yourself and Ajay cheer on policies that, at the core, you disagree with? Is it a case of, well at least we aren't run by the far right anymore?
jason - 11/09/06 08:37
I vehemently disagree with a lot of this rhetoric, but I'm glad that you're passionate and involved, because most young people aren't. Good for you.

12/20/2006 13:11 #21759

Changing the war debate
Category: war
It is time to change the tearms of the debate from, "Winning", "Victory", or "defeating the terrorists", to this... Ending the violence.

Iraq has become a cesspool of revenge killings and hatred. The US is in a situation where our millitary is essentially just another Millitia battling for controll of Iraq. That is nothing but a recipe for disaster.

This is not a battle in which we can simply allign ourselves with one side of the struggle and try to defeat the other. This is a country in crisis, where neighbors are killing eachother for the sake of revenge. You kill my family I kill yours. And the more killing that goes on, more hatred is created, and the more evil the other side seems.

There is a solution, but it has very little to do with military strategy. Talking about a surge in troops, or attacking this militia or that one, or reoccupying this city or that city is meaningless without addressing the real problem, Violence. Stop the killing and you will have success. All of our involvment sohould be focused on reconcilliation, and easing the tensions, and establishing a system of justice that does not come from the barrel of a gun.

No sir, this is not about "winning" it's about Ending the Violence.
metalpeter - 12/20/06 19:37
The Real problem with Iraq is that they didn't want to be free. No one ever tried to rise up agasnt Saddam his army being so powerfull is not the only reason. Was he evil yes but, if there was any killing him and his army where the only ones to do it. You have 3 gruops of people who don't like each other and as long as they live in the same country there will always be war. Sadam didn't let them get away with that they where one Iraq. Did he let terrorist stay there, yeah sure but they knew not to fuck with him and his country. When we got to iraq we disbandend therer amy that was a mistake. The only way there will be peace in Iraq is if the US pulls out and the country is split into 3 seperate countries and each group gets there own part based on where they live, otherwise this violance will never end.

11/07/2006 21:07 #21757

To Josh, Faith Based Voting
Category: elections
This is for (e:joshua)#207 and anyone else who believes we don't need to verify that votes have been correctly counted in America.

Do you doubt that politicians cheat in elections? You think nobody in America has ever intentionally cheated voters? Rigged voting counts, under-supplied voting machines in districts not favorable to them, jammed phone lines of the opposition party, called voters on the other side with misleading information to frustrate them and prevent them from voting?

Sorry to burst your bubble but all of these things happened in 2004, and in past elections. In 2004 some people went to jail for it. And guess what, most of the time the cheating was on the Republican side. I'm not saying nobody else has ever cheated, but the Republicans insult my intelligence on a daily basis, and I don't trust that they will respect me or my vote. Nor would I demand any fewer protections from Democratic or any type of cheating.

And I certainly don't trust paperless electronic voting machines. As far as I'm concerned that's like "faith based voting". No government Ever deserves that leisure. Honest, verifiable, and open elections, that's the basis of democracy. That's the principle of America, the idea of checks and balances, and the idea of a government ruled by the people. If the Executive or Legislative branch cheats, the judicial branch is there to enforce the rules, and make sure the interests of the people prevail. What better example than making sure votes are counted. This is an imposable task if the only record of the vote is a number on a computer screen, we all know how easy that is to manipulate.

Foul play happens, and we need to safeguard against it right away, or else we will be throwing away the dream of America, and pissing on the graves of our founding fathers and all the men and women who have died to preserve our noble democratic system.

I you don't want the election to drag on for days, get rid of Faith based Voting, and have stricter penalties for misleading or lying advertisements, voter intimidation, fake phone calls, and voter help line jamming.

And by the way, if the exit polls don't match the vote count, trust the exit polls, the vote count is wrong. Don't bullshit me, I'm a Political Science major, and half of that field is statistics. Exit polls are the one true check against corrupt vote counts, even in this country. We scrutinize power to make sure it is not abused, that's America. Don't stop now, or we'll lose everything.


ajay - 11/09/06 01:54
(e:Joshua), sampling is a basic part of our daily lives. That computer you're typing on? Its components weren't tested; only a sample of the batches were tested. The reason people cried foul about the discrepancy between exit polls and the real results is because HISTORICALLY exit polls have not been far from the final results. If suddenly you start seeing huge deviations from the norm, then there must be something wrong somewhere (either in the polling methodology, or the actual polls).

You say "when Democrats are winning, they aren't complaining about cheating". I think what you wanted to say was "when the Republicans are cheating, they aren't complaining about cheating".

Read about the New Hampshire phone jamming scandal which resulted in convictions: :::link:::
Why did the RNC spend over $2.5Million defending their operative in this case?

Why was the NRCC harassing Democratic voters with robocalls :::link::: ?

I'm not saying Democrats are saints; but compared to the Republicans, they don't have to be. ;-)

PS: Watch this :::link:::
dcoffee - 11/08/06 20:47
Josh, you just contradicted yourself in the 3rd sentence. You said that democrats think that if they lose the "only possible" answer is that somebody cheated. That assumption about the Democrats is "cynical and unrealistic", not the assumption that people sometimes cheat in elections. Democrats know that they can run a bad campaign and lose fair and square, shit happens.

On the contrary, Ken Blackwell fucked the democrats in 2004 on purpose, and that type of partisan electioneering should not be permitted by any party or any citizen.

There were lots of problems with electronic voting machines on election day and before, on both sides, and everyone complained. And the fact is that some ballots in florida that were intended to be straight democrat registered as straight republican, that is a legitimate reason for concern, and those who are concerned about it do not disserve to be labeled as loony conspirists. All of this makes it imperative that machines have some way of verifying the vote.

It is also a legitimate concern that when republicans enacted HAVA they didn't care if the companies who owned the machines were the only ones who could see the votes after the election, that borders on atrocity.

My comment on exit polls was this. When they don't match the vote count Americans tend to discard the exit polls without much second thought. Don't do that. Statistics are by nature imperfect, but exit polls are one of the most reliable. if there is a 3-5% difference that election disserves a second look. We need safeguards on our voting, for the sake of all americans, not just democrats.
joshua - 11/08/06 15:59
Dcoffee -

In general Democrats have been crying foul about elections ever since GWB won in 2000. While I don't doubt that some shady business goes on in elections, lets not pretend for a second that somehow this is a Republican only problem. The fact of the matter is that when Democrats are winning, they aren't complaining about cheating; when they are losing, cheating must be the only possible method by which they lost. Its a cynical and unrealistic viewpoint, and in every single election since, Democrats have attempted to discredit America's democratic voting process. While I'm certain that some dirty biz was going down, its equally true that Democrats have been crying wolf about just as many contested votes. I'm sorry, but having to wait in a long line to vote does not constitute an impropriety.

By the way, JFK lost to Nixon in 1960 with 300,000 votes being the deciding factor. Historically Republicans have done far less complaining than Democrats have about losing elections - should Nixon have challenged the vote in 1960, or is it that because JFK won there couldn't have possibly been any um.. "indiscretions?"

I tend to agree that I do not trust paperless balloting - however, guess who was complaining yesterday when in some states the machines weren't working so they had to resort to paper balloting? I'll give you one guess.

About your statement about exit polls - this is the holy grail of Poly Sci. Not to burst YOUR bubble, but its about as accurate as predicting the weather. 2004 proved beyond argument that exit polls are not to be trusted - nobody outside of a PS department (or liberal kook land!) believes they are credible, which is why most networks declined relying solely on them when making calls last night. Trust the exit polls but don't trust the actual votes? That is absolutely inane.

As you say, "preserving our noble democratic system" is important. What I absolutely reject is the idea that somehow this means that Republicans are to blame for the absolute joke that our electoral process appears to be at times. Democrats are just as guilty and that is an absolute.

By the way, since you did mention that you believe that Republicans don't respect you or your vote (I should remind you that voting does not equal getting your way) - the sole reason why Democrats won the House yesterday was because a series of moderate and even conservative Democrats swept several elections in the midwest. When Speaker Pelosi starts towing the extreme far left line in the House, I have to ask - those moderate and conservative Democrat votes that sent their elected officials to office - are those people and their votes going to be disrespected?
jason - 11/08/06 09:16
You know what, I'll be the first to say that I agree with you concerning harsh punishment going to people who do shady things concerning the vote. You're absolutely right about it, it has to be done this way or things will continue down the same path.

If there's one thing I know about you from your writing, it's that you are absolutely sincere in what you say. The problem I see is that you're basically the only one! Sketchy, criminal behavior is absolutely acceptable to most politicos when it benefits their political faction. When Democrats win elections by the skin of their teeth they do not flail their arms and yell about these things, nor are they demanding recounts for the sake of a valid vote. When a Democrat candidate in San Diego urges illegals to vote, and tells them how they can get away with it, people are utterly silent, and why? Anyone who is sincere, and who wants an honest vote would never give this person a chance. I don't like it any more than you do, but sketchy, illegal tactics will continue to be used by the political class until WE decide it's over, but I'm not holding my breath.

You have an iPod, right? I found some cool podcasts - Instapundit and Left, Right, and Center. Listening this week has opened my eyes to what exit polls really are, and I don't think you should trust them like you do based on what I've heard. They are NOT the same as a real vote count. At best, they are a snapshot based upon a very small sampling. They are also on occasion released before all polls are closed, and why do you think this is? In some countries this is a criminal offense! It is only one tool that we have, and it's far from perfect. I think our energy is best spent on perfecting methods of tabulating votes based on both paper and technology.
mrmike - 11/07/06 21:18
Not to mention, that the first official complaint was launched by the Pennsylvania GOP, their machines didn't work....poor bastards