At a rally promoting healthcare reform, Obama said that with the reform legislation that employers could see a 3000% reduction in premiums enabling them to give you a raise.
Well, the conservatives have flooded the internet with all sorts of comments about this gaffe, really believing that Obama meant to say 3000%.
It is obvious that he meant dollars.If you think he really meant percent, you are an idiot and an example of what is wrong in politics.
You say that the Democrats should not use options that get around a filibuster to pass healthcare reform.
If they do, and if as Eric Cantor suggested, the Democrats lose their majorities because of it… would you use options that bypass the filibuster to overturn the legislation?
Rachel Madow criticized GOP Representative Shock for his attacking the stimulus and then taking credit for projects funded by the stimulus. His response?
With all due respect, Rachel, does that mean you’re going to give back your Bush tax cuts that you continue to rail against?
This was a lame argument when he made it himself. But then I started reading it all over the place. Politico mentions Garrett saying pretty much the same thing.
Garrett said Democrats have accepted the Bush-era tax cuts although many voted against them.
But that really isn’t true. Democrats supported Barack Obama for President. Barack Obama, as a candidate for President, said that he would roll back the Bush tax cuts for people making $250,000 or more. Obviously the people who are Democrats who are exposing the GOP hypocrisy want those tax cuts rolled back. But they have to file their taxes just like anyone else. So until those taxes are rolled back, they are required by law to fill out their tax forms that include those cuts.
And remember, we are not criticizing the GOP for actually spending the funds. The funds are there and have a purpose, to create jobs and put Americans back to work. What we are criticizing is the constant claims that the stimulus didn’t create jobs and is bad for the economy and then turning around and using the projects created by the stimulus to propel your political career.
So not only do the GOP fail for their hypocrisy, they fail again in trying to expose a supposed hypocrisy (that does not exist) on the part of the Democrats.
So let me get this straight. The circuit that is seen by most conservatives as being the most liberal in the US judicial system today ruled that a sentence against a convicted terrorist was too lenient AND the guy who conservatives claimed wouldn’t talk because he was able to lawyer up (instead of getting water-boarded) actually talked.
Do the conservatives who support this ruling realize:
A) Non-profits can now make unlimited contributions as well. People can now contribute to non-profit organizations and get a tax deduction for their political activity.
B) For profit corporations can also make political expenditures tax free, since their commercial advertising will come out of their gross revenue.
C) People who control corporations will get the benefits of free speech without the responsibility of free speech, since any slanderous ad will cause a lawsuit against the corporation and not the person directing those ads.
D) Since the limitations on campaign contributions did not get applied to corporations, the corporations now have more free speech rights than citizens (who are restricted on how much they can contribute to support any particular federal candidate).
Finally, the ruling didn’t specify if the free speech rights apply to US based corporations or all corporations,. However, let’s just assume that the supposed free speech rights only apply to US based corporations. Citgo is a US based corporation (incorporated in Texas). Citgo is owned by Venezuela (i.e. Hugo Chavez). The Supreme Court has just given Hugo Chavez carte blanche to spend unlimited funds to try and influence our elections.
Good job conservatives! Way to fight for the rights of Hugo Chavez and give him more of a say in US politics than US citizens have.
Tonight America saw a leader, someone who didn’t just run to what his party wants in the face of political defeats. We saw a president who doubled down on the bipartisanship he called for when he ran for President.
In the start of the debate (and towards the middle) he did make a point of reminding everyone that the horrible economy we are currently facing was inherited by Obama and not created by him and that any short term deficits created by the recovery act was needed to make sure to plug the hole in this economy.
The mention of the recovery act reminded me of my drive to MD recently. I drove through MS and AL, conservative states with GOP governors that publicly opposed the stimulus bill. Of course this did not stop them from accepting funds to improve the infrastructure (like highways) and erecting signs taking credit for spending the “recovery money”.
Obama also called out the GOP members who scoffed at the idea that the spending freeze wouldn’t take place until next year, reminding them how their jobs work and the spending bill that they pass will take effect in 2011.
But criticizing the GOP was not the focus of the address. Obama focused on truly calling for bipartisan solutions on how to fix the problems we face.
On healthare, he stood firm on the need to pass reform, but called on others to propose alternatives if they had them.
On energy, not only did he push for his clean energy bill, but he welcomed drilling offshore for oil and gas, manufacturing safer nuclear power plants, and developing clean coal technology.
Of course, the GOP stood for all the things they want in energy legislation, but sat down for what they didn’t want. I guarantee you that if Obama puts up a clean energy bill that includes drilling for oil and gas, developing clean coal, and building safer nuclear power plants, that the GOP will STILL vote against it. Why? Because they just do not want to pass anything that Obama can claim a political victory on… even if he comes halfway and gives them what they want when it comes to policy.
Obama could pass healthcare legislation that includes tort reform and all the other things they want and the GOP would still vote against it.
So while Obama is making the call for bipartisanship, I am not sure there is any GOP Senator with the integrity to answer that call and do what is right for America. And if they do not answer that call, perhaps it is time to drop the carrot and use the stick.
Finally, Obama called for the repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” because as he said earlier, what is right isn’t always what is popular. Why people who want to risk their lives to defend our country should be forbidden to do so because of who they have relationships with is beyond me. Of course, Obama has been slow on pushing equal rights for our GLBT citizens so I will believe this call for increased equality when I see action on it.
The GOP response was, of course, full of crap. Health insurance can already be sold across state lines. What the GOP proposes is to allow insurance companies to circumvent state laws by basing themselves in a home state with easy regulations and having the customers who purchase those policies in other states fall under the jurisdiction of the state the insurance company is based in. That just makes no sense.
What I didn’t hear from the GOP is proposals that show they will come halfway.
And it is obvious the Governor of VA has not read his constitution in a while. The fifth amendment applies to all people, whatever the crime, and not just citizens. If we start picking and choosing who gets due process, the terrorists win.
A final thing to point out is that we had a minor Joe Wilson moment tonight. It was not as loud or disruptive as Senator Wilson was last year but I do not recall seeing what I saw tonight in past addresses.
When criticizing the ruling by the Supreme Court giving corporations the ability to spend unlimited funds supporting or opposing any political candidate, Activist Alito visibly shook his head and said that it was “not true”. I do not recall ever seeing any member of the SCOTUS do anything but sit there. They never stand, they never clap, and they never respond to anything that is said. They just sit there like 9 little statues. That is, until tonight. I guess his ruling wasn’t activist enough and he needed the American public to see his activism.
Swift made his modest proposal to prevent the poor from being a burden on Ireland as satire. His “solution” was to use baby meat to both feed the poor and provide income to them.
Unfortunately, for the people of South Carolina, their Lt. Governor has another solution… don’t feed them because “they breed“.
I guess Tim Tebow was so impatient to be seen in the Superbowl that he couldn’t wait to get drafted and take his team there. Apparently, he will be staring in a commercial sponsored by Focus on your own damned the Family. Word has it that Tim will be reading a thank you note to his mother for not aborting her pregnancy when she fell ill (even though her doctors told her that it was dangerous to remain pregnant).
Now, that decision was her choice to make and she was free to either take that risk or not because of Roe v Wade. Women’s rights groups are taking the angle that CBS should not be helping to promote a group that they feel is anti-woman and anti-gay. I would take a different approach though. The choice to have an abortion is one that I will never have to face and it is a choice that I would not wish on anyone. Women who have to make that decision are likely having a hard enough time of it as it is, they do not need people telling them what choice they should make… pro or con.
The only people that should be giving advice on a medical procedure, unsolicited, are doctors. Any other advice on abortion should be given when requested only. And to encourage women to not obtain abortions when their lives are in danger is absolutely and 100% irresponsible! Imagine a woman who is given false hope of life from a Superbowl commercial. She goes against her doctors recommendations and decides to not abort her pregnancy. She then dies because Tebow thanked Mommy and her family (perhaps her other children) have to go on without her… all because some extremist conservatives decided that it was a good idea to guilt women into the choice that was not best for them or their families.
Instead of calling for the commercial to be pulled, perhaps a counter-commercial should be aired to confront this one instead. A commercial both proclaiming the support of the ability of Tim Tebow’s mother to make that choice and showing how irresponsible it is for people without medical degrees to be convincing sick people to not get treatment.
Conservatives, during the aftermath of the “fruit of the boom” incident, had their own panties in a bunch over the idea that we were “giving rights to terrorists” and that “the Constitution only applies to citizens”.
Well, now they are singing a different tune with this new Supreme Court ruling. Now they are saying that corporations should be covered by the freedom of speech clause of the 1st amendment and that there is nothing wrong with the ruling.
But wait a second conservatives!!!!! I thought that the rights enumerated in and protected by the Constitution were only for U.S. Citizens! If corporations have free speech rights then they must believe that corporations should be considered citizens as well! If that is the case, corporations must also be given the right to vote and to run for political office. I can’t wait until Senator Exxon-Mobile takes the floor to filibuster the legislation sponsored by Senator JP Morgan Chase. Maybe our conservative activist court will rule that the formation of a corporation is the legal equivalent of a “birth” so that any corporation formed in the US will be considered a “natural born citizen” and thus be eligible to run for President. President Halliburton, here we come.
Of course this is absurd. Corporations will not have the right to run for office or vote, because they are not citizens. But if a corporation is not a citizen, under the conservative logic that was used just weeks ago for the undie-bomber, they would not have any constitutional rights period (including free speech).
Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling just handed our government over to huge corporations and will prevent the ability of any real meaningful candidacy to oppose the candidates selected by the corporations.
In 2007, Exxon Mobile made over $40 billion in profit. There are typically 33-34 Senatorial elections every 2 years. If they set aside just over $1.5 billion per year for Senatorial elections, they could literally fund $80 million of advertising per hand selected candidate in each election year.
Before this decision, the RCCC only had $2 million on hand to support candidates this year. Now, big oil can put up $3 billion every 2 years and pay for $10 million in advertising for 300 GOP congressional candidates, more than enough to control the House of Representatives.
Sure, that assumes that Exxon Mobile would spend $3 billion of its net profits a year on elections. But why wouldn’t they if they would then own Congress and our their Government.
Anyone who claims that only liberal courts can be “activists” is an idiot. And what the hell ever happened to the idea of Stare Decisis that Justice Alito supposedly respected?
