Lindsey's right...

As difficult as it is to believe, I'm all for Lindsey's ideas. Anything but the abomination that is cap-n-trade. What he's talkin' makes a load of sense.

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - How the G.O.P. Goes Green - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Great article...

As loathsome as I generally find the Evangelical movement - this was truly eye-opening. In many cases, the church truly is doing God's work, as evidenced by World Vision. To think that we'd allow political ideals to shut something like this down is mystifying and wrong.

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Learning From the Sin of Sodom - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Another explanation?

"t should be a no-brainer to extend unemployment insurance when around 1 out of every 10 workers is unemployed. Standard unemployment benefits end at 26 weeks, yet 6.3 million workers have been out of work for more than 27 weeks. Congress has provided a series of extensions, and without another one, 400,000 people will lose their benefits in a matter of weeks."

Or, perhaps they think that we've spent enough goddamned money and we need to stop now?

in reference to: Editorial - Clueless in Kentucky - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Really?

"That means that it is up to the Democrats to fix the country’s dysfunctional and hugely costly health care system."

Where's the syllogism that allows me to draw this conclusion? Seems to me the Democratic "fix" involves spending trillions of dollars without addressing the costs of healthcare one iota. Gotta love the New York Times!

in reference to:

"That means that it is up to the Democrats to fix the country’s dysfunctional and hugely costly health care system."
- Editorial - After the Health Care Summit - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

A travesty...

Minimally, Bybee and Yoo should be disbarred. Yoo deserves the added punishment of receiving a good ass-kicking for no other reason than the fact that he's a pompous asshole.

Admit it though, there is a delicious irony in Yoo teaching at U.C. Berkeley!!!

in reference to: Editorial - The Torture Lawyers - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

So basically, what you're saying is...

Obama's a cowardly political hack? Thanks for the scoop Mr Obvious...

If he was serious, he would come out with a plan that would:

1) Cap malpractice payoffs for "pain and suffering" and embrace the idea of medical malpractice courts
2) Remove the tax break for all employer-sponsored health insurance, not just for the "Cadillac" plans

Get some real change we can believe in flowin'...

in reference to: On health care, Mr. Obama lets the next president do the hard stuff - washingtonpost.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Love that last sentence...

"the revenue from either proposal could all be returned in a fair and progressive way. "

So basically, what you're saying is that this is yet another way you'd like to give my hard-earned dollars to poor people, correct?

in reference to:

"the revenue from either proposal could all be returned in a fair and progressive way."
- Climate insurance - washingtonpost.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Just curious...

In the rush to pillory Anthem Blue Cross for raising their premiums for self-insured 39% (the horror), has anyone stopped to consider that the rate increase might be actuarially sound? I mean if healthy people are dumping their insurance for whatever reason, leaving a smaller pool of sicker people to cover, doesn't it stand to reason that the cost of caring for this smaller, riskier pool would go up?

I'm just sayin...

in reference to: Editorial - The President’s Plan for Health Reform - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Duh...

In the "no surprise to anybody" category, we find out that Bybee and Yoo are pieces of shit. Who knew?

in reference to: Justice Department Report Finds John Yoo and Jay Bybee Not Guilty of Misconduct - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

This sucks

Losing true centrists like Bayh only sets the table for more polarized political shenanigans going forward. I fear the only way out of this partisan mess we inhabit is via term limits. Let's face it, with few exceptions, the whole bunch of 'em needs to go.

in reference to: Bayh Decides Against Re-election Bid - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

The Times' moron alarm clock goes off again...

This time we're attacking second mortgage holders and asking them to give the embattled mortgage holders (morons) free money by abdicating their rights to principal owed them.

Two things - first of all, how did these guys get second mortgages and what where they used for? I'm betting you look in the garages and see new cars. Look in the living rooms and see big screen T.V.'s and I'm bettin' that most of this was financed with easy-to-get home equity.

Second - the telling sentence in the article is this one:

"For some borrowers, even a reduced payment is too onerous, leading to redefault."

The point is that in many cases, unless you reduce the loan balance to near zero these people can't afford the loans. It's because the majority of them are unemployed. If the feds wanna help out, they need to be looking at ways to create jobs.

in reference to:

"For some borrowers, even a reduced payment is too onerous, leading to redefault."
- Editorial - The Year in Foreclosures - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

We were wrong - let's 'fess up

I've said it before, Obama's every bit the mendacious piece of sh*t that Bush was with respect to torture and civil rights. We need to come clean. And, while it doesn't make sense to prosecute the felons in the Bush administration, it does make sense for us to acknowledge our mistakes and start to regain the moral high ground that we've lost over the last 9 years.

I'm surprised that Hillary will carry the administration's water in this fashion. She really is a team player apparently. A misguided, team player to be sure, but she's on board with it. I wonder where Biden comes down on this - he's usually the smartest guy in the room wrt to this stuff.

To see these sorts of threats against our allies (Britain) in order to hide one of the darkest (and unfortunately ongoing) periods of our nation's history is quite saddening. To think that Obama continues the assault on US citizens' liberties is chilling.

in reference to: Editorial - Seven Paragraphs - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Rooting for the court

Let's hope the Supreme court does hear this case and starts to put some limits on the executive branch. Obama has shown that he is just as untrustworthy as Bush with respect to executive powers. Now would be a fine time to put things back in balance.

in reference to: Saved by the Swiss - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

And your problem is?

What's wrong with phasing out a program that by some estimates, is besieged by upwards of $120 billion a year in fraud? Clearly the program, as constructed is going to go bankrupt - everyone agrees with this. Seems to me the Ryan plan offers a way out. We allow those who currently have Medicare to keep it, but phase it out for younger workers. Obviously, as I've said repeatedly, this will only work if we move to address the costs of health care, but it's a start for Chissakes!

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Republicans and Medicare - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Or maybe not do it at all?

So, along with the Times' monthly siren call for mortgage modification via principle reduction, we return once again to the idea of "aid for the states". Didn't the states get themselves into this trouble by living beyond their means? Why should they be rewarded with a bailout of my money? And guess what? Lot of layoffs going on out there, why should the states be exempt from what's hitting the private sector? They clearly have grown too large and the public unions are gonna have to get used to the fact that the spigot for benefits and pensions has been turned off.

in reference to: Editorial - How Not to Write a Jobs Bill - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

He won't be missed...

I toyed with titling this "Good Riddance", but thought it in poor taste. This guy represents everything wrong with Washington. All about spending on useless shit that meant only that his job became a sinecure. A master of Pork and Earmarks, he was also investigated for some shenanigans with appropriations a few years back - a true "Old Bull" of the House, and also a piece of garbage in my book. Sorry to whom I offend.

in reference to: John Murtha dead at 77; longtime Pennsylvania congressman - washingtonpost.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

How 'bout a tax on GSEs?

So, team Obama's got a hard-on for the Wall Street bankers - wants to levy fees and "windfall" taxes on their compensation. What sort of taxes are we gonna charge these stalward stewards of taxpayer monies? I mean, they're public companies too right? They contributed in no small way to the housing collapse as well - special aside of thanks to Barney Frank ( thufferin' thucatash!!! - let's roll the dice some more) - so why aren't we looking to fuck with them as well?

Oh yeah, that's right! These guys are the backdoor that's allowing the dog-assed progressives to renegotiate mortgages for the assholes who borrowed more than they cut afford. Ladies and gentlemen, team Obama and your tax dollars at work - God bless us every one.

in reference to: Mortgage giants GSEs in limbo: In housing, a dangerous policy vacuum grows. - washingtonpost.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Draconian my ass...

How about common sensible? How about living within your means? How about not going fuckin' nuts during the "good" year and out-spending inflation by 5 percentage points.

Total liberal, socialist horseshit.

in reference to: U.S. Economy - Salon.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Hey, let's let Mr. Fox guard the Henhouse!

Hard to believe an "academic board of inquiry" cleared Dr. Mann isn't it. I'm sure the burden of proof was quite high. Rubbish.

in reference to: Researcher on Climate Is Cleared in Inquiry - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Scary shit

This is why the Republican party won't do any better than the Democrats. Too much far-right bullshit. Palin is a raving lunatic. We need serious politicians who are willing to tackle serious problems and make extremely painful choices over the coming years. Consider:

• How do we reform our tax system to maintain progressiveness and maximize revenue? If you read me, you know I favor a flat tax like the "Fair Tax" but whatever we choose, we have to broaden the tax base, that means everyone pays something, even the poor. You cannot finance the requirements of a growing government sector on the backs of the wealthiest 10% of it's populace. All you do is cause that 10% to cease to exist - one way or another.
• How do we control the costs of health care? Before you figure out how to extend coverage to the uninsured by fucking the evil insurance companies (who do a pretty good job with margins thinner than most service industries) and the monstrous pharmaceutical firms (watch how quickly those designer drugs dry up when you tax the hell out of them) - you gotta figure out how to bring the costs down. What nobody wants to discuss is that this will inevitably lead to rationing. It's not a bad thing. Right now we're used to consuming healthcare in the manner of an all-you-can-eat buffet. All we'll be doing is moving to a more a la carte pricing strategy. And, we'll have to screw those saintly torte lawyers as well. Driving out costs means doing away with defensive medicine that comes from the fear of malpractice suits. It means capping damages, and putting in place a medical review board. It might mean medical courts (like those for bankruptcy) that specialize in reviewing malpractice claims
• How do we expand healthcare coverage to those who currently do not have insurance? I prefer a consumer-driven model, but something has to be done. We're crippling the country by not providing this basic safety net and it's not just the financial impact that's a threat. The real threat as I see it, is that this issue continues to drive a wedge between all ideological camps that's getting ever wider. Those of us who have healthcare tend to take it for granted and over-consume. Those who do not live in constant fear of an event that will leave them penniless, homeless, or worse, dead. Those on the left see it as a culmination of the Liberal dream state, while those on the right see it as the expansion of government that will become yet another permanent bureaucracy that will continue to grow until it crowds out all private investment. I'm much closer to those on the right, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what we choose as long as we attack the cost question separately.
• How do we "fix" Social Security? I favor some private pension component that's consumer-driven, but depending on who you believe, we're gonna go bankrupt somewhere around 2017 or so - then what? Since the ultimate solution probably means some type of increase in the FICA tax, why not compromise. Raise the income limit to, say something like 250K. And raise the tax rate by 2%, funded 1% by the employee and 1% by the employer. Let the employee self-direct 4% of his/her earnings in a private account with minimal conservative fund choices (mostly index funds). Most on the right will scream that this is a "massive" tax increase, but isn't the Holy Grail of conservatism privatization? Isn't this letting the camel's nose under the tent? If we know that the funding/benefits formulas have to change, and that there will be absolutely zero political chance of curtailing promised benefits, won't we be forced to grow the revenue stream? If increased taxes are an inevitability then, why wouldn't we leverage a private component as the cost of doing business with the Republicans?

At some point, the Scott Brown Republicans are going to have to shout down the John Boehner Republicans and the Harold Ford Democrats are gonna have to bitch-slap the Nancy Pelosi wing and get together and solve these hard problems. As I said, they require serious men and women who are willing to tell the people that sacrifices are going to be required, but that the country will be better for it at the end of the day. And, these public servants (in every sense of the word), cannot be swayed by special interests or the threat of losing their jobs. They'll be in it for something bigger - the chance to renew America and fix the difficult problems we face.

in reference to: Sarah Palin Is Vocal and Ready, but for What? - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Created or Saved

This was always bullshit, people. You can't prove a negative. And now, team Obama is trying desperately to count the number of angels on the head of a pin - an impossibility to be sure.

I'm not even arguing that the Porkulus didn't do some good, but let's not kid anyone that overall, it was nothing more than funding to shore up Democratic favorite programs like unemployment benefits, and aid to desperate states who couldn't control their own spending proclivities.

Very little has been released for actual job creation projects like road building, bridge repairs, etc. - most of that to come this year or next (if ever). And, yet, we continue to talk about spending more! It's mind boggling. Jobs bill my ass. Let's start serious talk about reforming entitlement programs - and no, you don't need to do this in the context of health care reform.

in reference to: At Issue - Counting the Jobs Created - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Same old collectivist bullshit...

So, basically, you want to transfer wealth from those of us who paid in at the maximum all our lives to those who didn't. Welcome to the Socialist view ladies and gentlemen - great friggin' idea, moron.

in reference to: Social Security Is a Fantasy and Ponzi Scheme; How to Fix It - US News and World Report (view on Google Sidewiki)

Screw the U.S. Treasury

Let the Swiss honor their sovereign banking laws. This "deal" always smacked of U.S. intimidation to me. If I were the Swiss, I would have told the U.S. negotiators to pound sand - Swiss banking secrecy laws are sacrosanct and will remain so.

Perhaps our government should focus on simplifying our astounding complex tax laws rather than attempting to coerce foreign nations into turning on their clients.

in reference to: Editorial - Is a Swiss Deal a Deal? - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)