>> ^possom:

http://www.politifact.com/truth
-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/316/increase-the-minimum-wage-to-950-an-hour/


Politifact is almost trustworthy if you ignore their topline ratings, and just read the associated analysis.

From that link:

There are at least two House bills that would increase the minimum wage in some respect. The WAGE Act would set a base minimum wage for tipped employees such as waiters and bartenders. If enacted this bill would raise the minimum cash wage of such employees (excluding tips) over time from $2.13 to $5.50 an hour. Meanwhile, the Living American Wage Act of 2011 would tie the minimum wage level to the poverty threshold for a family of two individuals. Both bills were introduced early in the year and seem to be stalled in committee. The chances of either passing in committee, much less in a full vote in the House, are remote given the Republican majority.

Emphasis mine.

Politifact (and Cenk) then rate this as Obama "breaking a promise," even though it's more like "he tried but was stopped by assholes in Congress."

>> ^hpqp:

The reason for adding qualifiers is because some teachers share qm's idea that certain types of abuse (especially verbal/psychological) are not bullying but simply "free speech".
>> ^xxovercastxx:
"House Bill 370 prohibits the bullying because of a student's sexual orientation, race or religion."
Wait, wait, wait... We're only prohibiting certain types of bullying? So it's perfectly ok to bully a kid based on his weight, height, clothes or family's wealth?
Why the fuck are we quantifying bullying? Teachers should be required to stop bullying. The end.



They should reword the bill, then, if it's worded the way it was said by the anchor. The way he said it, it would not apply in any of the examples I gave above.

The reason for adding qualifiers is because some teachers share qm's idea that certain types of abuse (especially verbal/psychological) are not bullying but simply "free speech".

>> ^xxovercastxx:

"House Bill 370 prohibits the bullying because of a student's sexual orientation, race or religion."
Wait, wait, wait... We're only prohibiting certain types of bullying? So it's perfectly ok to bully a kid based on his weight, height, clothes or family's wealth?
Why the fuck are we quantifying bullying? Teachers should be required to stop bullying. The end.

"House Bill 370 prohibits the bullying because of a student's sexual orientation, race or religion."

Wait, wait, wait... We're only prohibiting certain types of bullying? So it's perfectly ok to bully a kid based on his weight, height, clothes or family's wealth?

Why the fuck are we qualifying bullying? Teachers should be required to stop bullying. The end.

[edit: used "quantifying" instead of "qualifying"]

Not everything is about you Netrunner. The statement talking about balancing government's role as a "threat of violence" versus versus the need to remove a government that stops respecting freedom was a fair one. I was waxing prolix on leftist tyranny creep - I.E. the process of using government to implement leftist social philosophy. I used your comment to show how our government has stopped 'respecting freedom' via tyranny creep. I never recall even mentioning your name. Where did I call you facist? You could only infer that secondarily if you felt that the leftist interpretation of 'social justice' actually should be forced on the people via government edict, and you were mad that I identified such a philosophy as tyranny.

Regardless, I don't see any refutation my position - only protestations that the argument was made. Leftist political philosophy is inherently tyrannical in nature. Modern U.S. governance is drifting more and more leftist every year whether under the GOP or Democrats, and the end result is less freedom and more tyranny. The recent congress is a great example. The American people rejected Obamacare in all its forms... Obama's plan, the House bill, the Senate revisions... All rejected. What did government do? They used tyranny. They rammed the bill through via an unconstitutional, arguably illegal budget reconciliation Tyranny. That's how the left works. When Democracy fails to allow them to get their way, they use force.

Do you have a link to the CBO report? I can't find that one on the CBO web site.

Here is the article...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25415.html

And Rangal's original letter.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

Now - the report is pretty plain. There are no ACTUAL savings found. It theorizes that there MIGHT be savings down the line, but that is based on projections. Historically, the government's budget projections are highly unreliable. The upshot is that the CBO found no support for the claims that the House bill would result in savings. Obama's and Weiner's claims are all based on thier opinions or on speculative projections which may be less reliable than a 10 year weather projection.

WP - Jon Stewart is a comedian?????? OMG WTF why didn't somebody tell me?? Of course he's a f**king comedian. Only a moron wouldn't know that. And only a moron would jump to the conclusion that a casual pop culture reference is an admission of that being one's only media source. After reading a number of your comments and the responses of others I have to conclude that you are probably an expert on joining serious discussions and having people point at you and laugh.

Even the most cursory reading of the house bill clearly shows that is deceptive. The bill would kneecap private plans down to under 10% of the market within 5 years, and the Democrats know it.

Analysis: Assertion that lacks substantive, factual evidenciary support. Conclusion: Opinion. Status: Discarded.

I don't approve of anyone evoking the Hitler thing. It's just provokative and stupid. There's plenty of stupidity in the house bill to argue against without this kind of baloney. It gives neolibs like Frank an excuse to pretend that the opposition to the bill is limited to a few lunatics, when in fact the opposition is a huge national groundswell which is against the creation of an unconstitutional federal entitlement in a time of economic recession and unprecedented national debt.

Newest news stories indicate Democrats are going to 'go it alone' now. What courage that must take when you have supermajorities in the House and Senate. You couldn't ask for a better recipie for losing Congress in 2010 than to pass this stupid House bill over the objections of the majority of the American people. Might as well just give the Republicans the congress right now and accept the concept of Obama as a one term lame duck.

But I must note with delicious irony the absolute hypocrisy of Frank and the neolibs on this Hitler thing. It wasn't too long ago that calling your President "Hitler", making movies about assassinating him, wishing he & his family were dead, and all kinds of other awful stuff was considered the 'new patriotism'. Now according to Frank it is, "vile, contemptible nonsense"... Ah - sweet hypocrisy... How you neolibs do so revel in it.

nobody other than John Stewart calls them on it

If that's where you get your information then you'll never want for moonshine. Stewart's a comedian - nothing more. If you want to go ahead and stake out the position that you get your talking points from a comedy show then go ahead. Just don't act all surprised when you join a serious discussion and people point at you and laugh.

As far as 'lying' about things - that's what politicians do. I don't like it, but it happens. But I note with dry, distant amusement that you confine your 'lying' accusation only to Republicans. Fact of the matter is, that the bulk of the actual lies in this discussion are coming from the liberal Democrat side of the aisle. "If you like your plan, you can keep it" indeed. Even the most cursory reading of the house bill clearly shows that is deceptive. The bill would kneecap private plans down to under 10% of the market within 5 years, and the Democrats know it.

facts to ignore

The NCHC is a fronted neolib pro-government group. It's easy to ignore crap that sluices out that particular trough. Follow the money. NCHC is run by the AARP, the AFL/CIO (unions), GE, and a bunch of other groups that want a public health care option for political reasons. This bunch of clowns doesn't care what stillborn plan flops out of the government's womb as long as it has the word 'reform' stuck on it.

'Force'... Just the word we all like to hear from our oh-so-wise and benevolent Federal government... :eyeroll:

I do agree that the only way Obama is going to get what HE wants (single payer system) is by force. That's because the American people don't want the bull he's slinging and they are rejecting it. Everyone who even gives the the House bill a cursory examination rapidly concludes that it's a pile of steaming crap. The bill under debate has NOTHING to do with the platitudes and fantasy stories Obama is spewing out his pie-hole.

So go ahead. Force it. Do it and prepare for 1994-squared in 2010. Obama would be a fool to take this path. That's the same kind of idiocy and out-of-touch-with-the-electorate elitism that devastated the Bush presidency. It would annihilate Democrat party in the house & senate, and turn Obama into a single election president who was a lame duck for 50% of his term.

What could be more important? In the near future, health care will be 16% of our GDP, far more than any other first world country. We're going to piss the riches of our nation down the toilet to prop up an insurance industry that does nothing but push paper around?

You - like Obama - offer a false choice. Health care costs are increasing. This is true. Something should probably be done to help reduce costs. This is also true. What is NOT true is that the proper, correct, wise course of action is to accept Obama's plan.

In fact, it is something of a misnomer to even call it "Obama's Plan". Obama doesn't really have a plan. For all his rhetoric and his speechifying, Obama has never once put forward a concrete, solid "plan" that is written down on paper for people to discuss. The plans we are discussing today are the House plans (of which there are 4 or 5 different ones in 'draft' form) and to a lesser extent the Senate plan (which is largely unknown and unwritten).

Now - there are some pretty alarming provisions in the House bill. Page 18 is a provision that will essentially put private insurance offerings out of business within a few short months to years. Page 838 has language that suggests government will be required to visit the homes of new parents to advise and consent on educational and social choices. Page 22 mandates audits of all companies who self-insure. Page 30 establishes a government committee to decide on patient health care options. Page 59 gives the Federal government involuntary, uncontested access to your personal checking accounts in order to draft for payment. Page 65 ensures taxpayer subsidization of Union health care in perpetuity. Page 72 and 84 forces all private insurance to use the government's rules, and also forces them to be 'part' of the government system (effectively making 'private' insurance an 'in name only' option). Pages 95 turns ACORN and other liberal interest groups into an army of 'enrollers' to recruit people into the plan. Page 102 automatically enrolls any Medicaid qualifier into the national plan. Page 124 shuts the door on suing the government plan for malpractice, price fixing, or any other consumer recourse for mistakes & constested decisions. Page 127 gives the government panels the right to set doctor wages. Page 145 forces all companies to auto-enroll employees in the system whether they participate or not. Page 149 forces all companies to pay health care for part time employees and family members. Page 150 forces anyone with a salary of 250K+ to pay a 6% tax if they don't participate in the national "option". Section 1233 gives the doctor the mandate to 'initiate' so-called 'end of life couselling' to patients, and who is to say that at some point the government won't apply pressure to doctors to do this less as an 'option' and more as a 'you really should do this...' approach? For government to even brush against these kinds of issues is creepy beyond belief.

Now - the neolibs of Congress and the Senate are defending the umbrella term "health care reform" by saying that the bill really DOESN'T do all these things. The problem is, there is concrete language right there in the bill that says YES the government IS going to get involved in these things. The American people have seen it, and they don't like it. The language in the bill is vague, indeterminiate, and smacks of the 'public option' really being a Trojan Horse to a nationalized, mandatory, compulsory system. And what is more - Barak Obama (and the neolibs) have for YEARS said that what they are really after is a nationalized system. Why in the world should we believe them when they say they DON'T want a national system when (A) the bill is leading towards nationalization and (B) they have said that's what they want?

The fact is that the Health Care plan that is going through Congress is a horrible plan, and the American people have seen it for what it is. They don't want it. And they are NOT satisfied with politicians who make vague, non-committal excuses that the bill really ISN'T what the people think it is (when all evidence contradicts them). Should health care be reformed? Probably. Should the government be solution to the problem? Pht - not in a BILLION years.

The demand being made by Obama and the neolibs that THIS PLAN be passed now now now now now NOW over the objections of the majority of the American people is not flying. There is no reason to be so hasty. It makes the neolibs look shifty, desperate, and untrustworthy - and the American people as a whole are not falling for it. If it is SOOOOOO all-fired important, shouldn't Obama have a plan on paper? Shouldn't Congress be willing to address the SPECIFIC objections over language in the bill rather than just whining "No no no - you're wrong!" Can't we just admit the House bill is crap and broom the whole thing and start over with a bill that DOESN'T contail all these suspicious provisions? If you're answer is "NO NO NO - we need THIS bill NOW!" then I have no choice but to conclude that you're a partisan zombie. Something this important should be done slowly, carefully, with rigorous testing, and with the consent of the majority of the American people.

Wow, you are seriously overblowing an already overblown title.

Here's an oversimplified rendition of the steps healthcare reform will need to go through:

House:

1. Bill introduced in House (complete)
   
2. Bill referred to each House committee with jurisdiction (complete)
   
3. Bill voted on and reported by House committees (complete)
   
4. Bill opened to amendments in the full House
   
5. Bill voted on by full House
   

Senate:

1. Bill drafted by each Senate committee with jurisdiction (50% complete)
   
2. Bills voted on by Senate committees (50% complete)
   
3. Bills introduced in the Senate
   
4. Bills merged/selected from on floor of Senate
   
5. Bill opened to amendments in full Senate
   
6. Bill subjected to permanent Republican filibuster, requiring 60 votes to invoke cloture
   
7. Bill voted on by full Senate, requiring 51 votes to pass
   

Inevitably the two bills will be different, at which point you have...

Conference committee:

1. Lots of backroom arm twisting and horse trading
   
2. Conference committee reaches a compromise agreement on the bill
   
3. Bill reintroduced in House
   
4. Bill voted on in the House
   
5. Bill reintroduced in Senate
   
6. Bill subjected to permanent Republican filibuster, requiring 60 votes to invoke cloture
   
7. Bill voted on by full Senate, requiring 51 votes to pass
   

The easiest way to guarantee the public option makes it to the final bill? Make sure it's in all the bills coming out of all the committees. It's in the House bill that's cleared the committees. It's in the Senate H.E.L.P. committee bill. The Senate Finance committee seems to be stalled by Max Baucus trying really hard to see how angry he can make Democrats by trying (in vain) to get Republican support for his version of the bill.

Despite that, the latest draft still has a public option, though it's the watered-down co-op version.

Right now I'm feeling pretty good about the public option making it into the final bill, because I think if there's a strong public option in the House bill (and I'm essentially certain it will be in the House bill that goes to conference), and the two drafts entering the Senate both have a public option (one strong, one weak), chances are the conference committee bill will include a strong public option.

Democrats might still trade away the public option in some stupid pursuit of a token Republican Senate vote, but at this stage I doubt they will.

Durbin's statement sounds like he's mimicking the Obama line on the topic; he wants a public option, but won't draw a hard line in the sand about it before the negotiations have really begun. Right now we're just working on foreplay as far as the politics are concerned. The real negotiations will happen once we've found out what the Senate can pass.

Socialism is terrible outside of bare-bones essential services.

And im not in the US

Capitalism is the best we got for society, but it needs regulation to ensure corrpution and excessive greed dont self-destruct the entire shebang, ala. the current situation.

Had Clinton not revoked the regulations put in place by hoover, had Phil Gram and all his republicronies not pushed for further deregulation, and bush not pushed foward the housing bill basically forcing banks to give shitty loans, none of this would of happened.

The gap was actually shrinking post hoover pre-clinton. The wealth was being spread out in a capitalist society, whoda figured.

Unfettered capitalism is just as bad as tightly wound, wide-scope socialism. Capitalism needs regulations to keep it going.
Socialism puts you into the same boat as China, North Korea, Russia....etc.
Economically the nations (except NK) seem to be doing not so bad, but the standard of living is shithouse.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ron paul, freddie mac, fannie may, housing bill, congress, constitution, freedom' to 'ron paul, freddie mac, fannie mae, housing bill, congress, constitution, freedom' - edited by my15minutes

Would things like this be newsworthy or no?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-on-the-Housing-Bill-72308