Exclusive: The Rest Of That Barney Frank Town Hall Meeting With The Teabaggers
By dday Thursday Aug 27, 2009 6:00pm
Anyone who is aware of all Internet traditions has by now seen the footage of Barney Frank taking down the Larouchie who asked him if he would support a "Nazi policy" by asking her, "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" But Rep. Frank was in rare form that night, standing up to the uninformed shrieking of the right and offering a real lesson in how to argue with conservatives. Rep. Frank's office provided C&L with the tapes of that town hall meeting in Dartmouth from last week, and I put together a sort of greatest hits reel.
Frank explains what deficit hawks should concern themselves with:
"I am struck by those who say, well, you don't care about the deficit. No, I do. I do care about the deficit. That's one of the reasons, not the only one, why I voted against the single most wasteful expenditure in the history of America. The Iraq war. If we hadn't gone to the war in Iraq, which I thought was a terrible mistake and voted against, we would have had more than enough money to pay for health care."
He argues with a "tenther" who thinks that Congress isn't authorized to provide health care for their citizens:
Frank: Do you think Medicare is unconstitutional, sir?
Teabagger: I think that Medicare needs to be reformed.
Frank: Do you think it's unconstitutional? You said that the Constitution doesn't give us the authority to do it, but Medicare was done. And, do you think Medicare is unconstitutional?
Teabagger: I think that Medicare needs to be reformed.
Frank: But you won't tell me whether you think it's unconstitutional, which you said--
Teabagger: I am not a Constitutional scholar-
Frank: Then why did you start off arguing about the Constitution?
That's really a fantastic exchange, where Frank digs an inch below the surface and finds nothing. He insists on having this questioner back up the rhetoric he cribbed off of Free Republic or wherever he got it, and the guy just couldn't do it.
And this is my favorite part:
Teabagger: Can you pledge to all of us here tonight, that if a new government single-payer system is instituted, that you will opt out of your Cadillac insurance?
Frank: Yes I am in favor of single payer, and that's why I like Medicare. (yelling) You act as if you people have discovered it is August. I have been a co-sponsor of the single payer bill, I think it would be better...
Teabagger #2: But we watch tapes of Obama and everyone else secretly say they're in favor of an eventual single pay system.
Frank: I haven't... sir, it's been 21 years since I've had a secret. (Laughter) And I don't have one now! You have discovered that I'm for single payer! I've been a sponsor of single payer for years!
What you see here is several things: 1) Rep. Frank is always in control; 2) he concedes nothing; 3) he allows his opponents to hang themselves with the outlandish logic of their own claims; 4) he knows when to throw in a well-timed bon mot. At one point, Frank says, "When you say things that people can't refute, they try to drown you out. That's understandable." That's someone who is confident in their beliefs. Democrats could learn something from that.
Login or Register to post comments.
I hope they appoint Barney as Senator.
Now there's a LIBERAL you can believe in!
I think Teddy would be proud.
No shit. Barney always leaves the wackos just enough rope, but he lets them corner themselves--and he never apologizes for it.
i bet he was one hell of lawyer n/t
Love the guy doing FacePalm during Barney's reply about the death panels, LOL!
to call yourself a teabagger.
Badum-pish!
I'm here all week - tip your waitress - the veal is fantastic...
This is the best I've seen Barney Frank flex his political/democratic muscles trying to talk some sense into those teabaggers (who were likely paid by Rick Scott in order to attempt to derail health care).
I'll bet many of these teabaggers have rusty old 15+ year old cars and trucks with "hands off my medicare" and "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun" - no hard feelings to the late Ted Kennedy, but there are such people in America who seem to have a louder voice in wanting government to be off their backs because Ronald Reagan said that was okay, where Reagan is usually intertwined with Jesus when it comes to these poorly educated people/rednecks.
As one of the evil people that don't agree with the Healthcare bill.
I find it interesting that you need to create an image in your mind of what these "teabaggers" are like. Most of the people that attend these meetings, and are against this massive debt ridden bill that the Far left is trying to sell to the masses, are From all walks of life. I have seen white folks and black folks, blue collar and white collar Republicans and Democrats and many have children that they are concerned for. I am an independent atheist and hardly a redneck. The media will never show you the normal folks because it does not fit into the agenda that they have set for themselves.
That being the case, you can't really trust the corporate media unless you listen to people like Olbermann, Maher, Stewart, and Colbert. In order to get the real news stories, it's best to go online to progressive websites.
First off, Olbermann is as corporate as they come. He works for G.E. One of the largest corporations in the world. Not only is G.E. corporate, the head of G.E. has a position at the Federal Reserve. Bill Maher,John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are Comedians. Maher tries to legitimize himself but he is now at a stage where he seems to say things just to get a reaction and nothing more. Stewart and Colbert's shows are "fake News programs". All the people that you site as examples of trustworthy news sources are heavily slanted. I do go to progressive websites but, I find that most are more concerned with spitting at conservatives and pointing out their faults and spend no time looking at what the Government is doing to us. When George Bush was in office I could be sure that if he so much as farted, the media would report on it. Why is the media now so in love with everything that the current administration does that they have zero objectivity.
It all depends on what's true. Obama is hardly a liberal so he can't in any way be socialist. It doesn't make sense to think that just because he inherited a massive debt automatically makes him a socialist - to some people. BTW, FOX News is all-corporate media - how could they be any less of that than MSNBC or CNN?
I don't know what you were watching, but the media was not questioning a thing that Bush and his Mafia did. Are you just now concerned? I've been concerned since that brain-dead excuse for a president, Reagan, assumed the office. Were you concerned when we were lied into a war? Were you concerned when they started spying on citizens? Surely you don't think the issues with government just started?
Steel - You're obviously seeing things through partisan glasses. Just like when you purchase something and then notice a bunch of other people with it that you never noticed before... it's all about perspective and what out of all the sh!t we hear everyday stands out to you.
That said, a whole lot of progressive sites are doing the same things, even this one. We're all pretty guilty of it I suppose, you just have to realize you are and see if you can catch it.
Blogs are a good backup source of information, but probably not a good primary source (as most can attest to since most posts are usually just links to those primary sources).
I also agree Olbermann isn't the best source of news - nor stewart or colbert (although the news they do cover, they usually do it pretty accurately). I see Olbermann and the new guy (I forget his name... used to be on radio now on msnbc... ahh, Ed Schulz) as the same bad source of information as fox. Schulz bugs me a lot, Olbermann I think just got carried away but meant well at first.
Ok, so I agree with a lot of what you said... Now, the part about the media agreeing with everything Obama does and being anti-bush and all that great stuff - That's fabrication. You have to look again and realize your prejudices. If you can, look back at all the stories during Bush's administration and the leadup to the Iraq war. You'll see the media being `tools` basically. They put out all the stories Bush wanted them to and they threw in a few dissenting pieces here and there but basically did nothing. We were about to go to war!! That's the time the media is supposed to be in overdrive and they were on cruise control. I think you'll find Fox and Msnbc are the only two partisan networks - and msnbc only recently. The rest of them might have hints of real journalism, but their mainly corporate sponsored reactionaries.
Think logically about the differences in the situations they are facing, if that is at all possible. Bush created a massive deficit while the economy was (at least on an aggregate level) expanding. He did so without creating a single net job in the private market until almost the end of his first term. Bush created the crony, overpriced Medicare prescription drug bill (written by drug company lobbyists for drug companies) in which his administration lied about the price tag until after the elected representatives passed the bill (threatening people who knew the truth with their jobs if they said anything), he presided over an economic policy that allowed the bubble to balloon in size (Greenspan admitted how bad he screwed up and also admitted his childish Rand nonsense might not work in practice like it does in theory, which is all people like you have), he oversaw a further suppression of wages (much the same for every president really since the early 1970’s, adjusted for inflation, outside of the richest of the rich) which has coincided with a ballooning of debt and an explosion in the size of the financial markets, he started the wars that have now cost over a trillion dollars and is going to pass that on to us for years to come, did a round of tax cuts during war (first time in US history, how can you say it was anything but passing it on to Americans in the future?), amongst other things. Now, thanks in large part to your intellectually bankrupt philosophy and policies the economy has bottomed out completely. What would you suggest instead of counter-cyclical measures that have EVER worked in economic history? Give us an example. Did Japan just go through a “lost decade” because they spent like crazy or because they refused to until recently? Spending is not bad, and counter cyclical measure are all that has EVER worked to pull countries out of messes like this (and this one is massive in size). Obama has messed up on how he has spent it and he is messing up by listening to his advisors, who give him ideas people like you just love. Sure, they’ve failed without exception in practice. Latin America tried them, well had them forced on them, they were miserable failures, it is now impossible to be elected in the region if candidates are in favor of neo-liberalism, the IMF being attached to a candidate alone can sink his run for office, but you sure like the IDEA of “individual liberty” and “economic freedom”, don’t you? Countries in Latin America have tried your ideas more than we in the US have, what do they think of the effects?
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N144...
"According to the annual Latinobarometro survey, more than 80 percent of those living in continental Latin America and the Dominican Republic -- a region of 400 million people -- believe the government should control and oversee public services such as pensions, health and education, the annual survey showed."
"...In Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, some 90 percent believe that pensions should be in the hands of the state. All currently have private pension systems. Seventy-eight percent of respondents in Chile also believe the telecoms system, privatized 20 years ago, should be in state hands."
Obama is also messing up by not adopting radically different policies. Policies people like you favor don’t work and are not sustainable in the long run and he refuses to be able to see this, just like you.
If we didn’t go through irrational and failed deregulation this would have had a far less chance of happening. If we didn’t repress wages (because inflation is horrible, always, so much so that it doesn’t have to be logically defended) debt wouldn’t have exploded like it has. If debt didn’t explode neither would the size of the monstrous financial markets, the leaders of whom form what amounts to an invisible government. We have to create a good investment climate right? These people, and their banks, control most governments around the world, those that they don’t control are attacked endlessly in the press.
I am not against opposing this horrible health care bill, more than anything because it has been watered down to nothing thanks to people like you in government. You elect people to government who have an ideological opposition to government, they do all they can to make government fail. When it fails you point to how horrible government is and use that failure to vote someone else into office to affirm your immovable beliefs. We don’t have anything approaching single payer or any other type of universal health care system (like every other country in the West and many in the developing world), thanks to free market fundamentalists and we are all paying for it. We pay far more than anyone else for a far worse system. People like you are dragging us all down with you thanks to the failure of your ideas and no failure will get you to reconsider them.
Your last paragraph is a good summary.
But, the Blue Dogs (which I think most are noticing now?) are very much corporate shills. The watering-down is the compromise between them and the starve-government wing of the Republicans.
This bill is crap. It is worse than Medicare D, by far. The public option needs to not just be passed via reconciliation, but be totally rewritten. The sad part is we, the people, desperately need health care reform. Single payer for basic services, as countless other countries have proven, is the most economical. Why can't so called fiscal conservatives understand concepts such as economies of scale savings due to efficiency by eliminating redundant parts of the system?
What can we do to break the alliance between the corporate shills and the people that have no idea how the government works and spends? If we can't then the next bill, and the next, will not provide health care people can afford.
The industry lobbies are the only ones who can afford the campaign money and "education" on the issues. They do write these bills (I do mean literally in many cases). Who can counter their contributions and "education"? They then run ad campaigns to "educate" the public. Who else is educating the public?
Your last paragraph is right. How did we get here? Can we find a way back?
Most of the deficit happened under the watches of Reagan and both Bushes.
At it's worst the deficit under George W. Bush was $500 billion. The latest estimate of what the deficit will be due to the current situation is approaching $10 trillion. These numbers are from the Congressional Budget Office.
they never accounted for the wars. Just hiding the cost. Just say you really don't like Democrats and be done.
the corporations and Wall St. execs need to be taxed 90% like they were roughly 50 years ago so that there will be no need to give them any more bailout money. This country has one of the most disproportionate spreads of wealth. Trickle-down economics doesn't work - the middle, working class from the bottom-up are the backbone to this economy, and sadly many of their jobs are being replaced overseas over these past 8 years. The more jobs that are back for American workers, the more payroll taxes can go to pay down the deficit, along with the 90% corporate execs should be paying.
cut the hell out of Govt spending. There was a part of the stimulus bill (that was thankfully cut, but it will be put in somewhere else) that called for I think 3-4 million dollars for new grass around one Govt building. Which that is chump change compared to what the Govt spends, it all adds up. Schumer is on record saying that yes there is pork in the stimulus bill, but the people don't care. And he said it with his trademark smirk. Unfortunately he is right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw
ETA also that 90% fractional tax was put in place to pay for WW2 which in todays dollars would of cost about 5 trillion, where the current war is estimated by the CBO(2008 figures I don't have the 2009 at the moment) to cost between 1.2 and 1.7 by 2017, current congressional allocations to it are just under .7 trillion.
Cut government spending. Wages are declining, have been for decades, or at least stagnating. Overall, demand is declining, people are being laid off, so what is your plan? Give an example of policies (that are sustainable, in other words that didn't cause LARGER problems in future) that can fix the situation we're in. How will tax cuts grow the economy but not increase debt? Wages have to increase too, which would eat into profits and capital accumlation, right? There is no answer, which is why your policies NEVER work. I fear government when it is run by people like you or run by people who follow the advice of people like you. A democratic government, in which people have direct control, is nothing to fear. We don't have that, THAT is the problem. We never will have a government thought where policy matches public will on the issues as long as people in government have an ideological objection to doing their job well. It's as if you put a CEO in place who disagrees with the corporate structure and the ideology it is built on. Of course he wouldn't do a good job and when he caused the corporation to fail he could claim its failure validated his ideas and actions. The private is better mentality is a religion, articulate what private enterprise does better and we can start an actual conversation that is factual, logical and historically accurate.
did I mention tax cuts? I would be in favor of modest tax increases, and/or cutting deductions. Included in that would also be a minimum tax for everyone, no matter how many deductions or credits you have, you still have to pay x% income tax. Something like a 5% flat tax, along with something along the lines of the current fractional income tax added on. That would get a much larger percentage of the people interested in govt spending, who cares how much they spend if you don't have to pay for it. It would also increase the amount of money coming into the treasury. What is it something like 40% of the working people in this country pay no federal income tax?
Also give businesses deductions/credits for improving infrastructure and adding jobs. For instance they can currently claim up to x% for adding new machinery/building. Keep that and add a credit for another x% of the cost, it would add incentive to business to expand. With the minimum tax as I mentioned above to help keep them honest.
And your right we don't have a strictly democratic government, it was never set up to be one. The founding fathers realized the foolishness of such a thing. Same with having a strict republic, the best way that I can put what they intended for us to have is a democratic constitutional republic. We vote(democratic) for our representatives (republic) and they are bound by the law (constitution). I fear a strict democracy. What do you think would happen if everyone was allowed to vote for everything? How many would vote for everything to be handed to them? And how many would vote to pay for it themselves?
As an example look at CA, people vote for all sorts of benefits, but a popular vote by the people put in place a constitutional amendment, strictly limiting how much they can be taxed for it. And none of the politicians dare go against it because that would be the death of their career.
But to be fair I fear a strict republic as much.
Most people in the U.S. work for small business. The current tax structure penalizes the very people that employ those folks. These are the people that are in the $250,000 tax bracket. They also are the ones that are the best chance to revive the economy. These are not the people that have offshore accounts or tax shelters. That $250m isn't personal income that affords them lavish lifestyles. That is the money they keep to cover expenses and allows them to hire new workers. No one talks about them because they are not getting bailouts but, they are being crippled by the current round of bills that are being pushed through congress by millionaires living off the taxpayers.
on the importance of small business in the U.S.:
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/08/...
The U.S. lags most other major industrialized countries. If we really wanted to help small business, one way we could do so is through having national health care.
"In the rest of the world, entrepreneurs who want to start a new business don't have to think twice about where they and their employees will get health insurance," said Schmitt. "In the United States, talented people thinking about starting a new business often have to choose between following their dream or going without health insurance."
I have started a small business. The current health care system is huge negative.
I know of at least two small businesses that want to add staff right now. They have the income and the need. They are afraid to add anyone to their health care plans, so will hold off on hiring for a while. The way the current bill is written, the disincentive to expand and add new employees is worse!
The current system discourages small business start ups, and causes them to limit their own growth when successful.
Employer mandate needs to go. Public option needs to be strong enough that start ups can not worry about health care just like they don't have to worry about it in all those economies who are recovering faster than ours don't have to worry about it.
I don't know where common cause got their statistics or if they just made them up to suit their cause but, according to the U.S. Dept. of Labor"99.7% of employment" is in small business and their are 17 million small businesses in the United States. As far as your quote about small business following their dreams or providing healthcare. It is not mandatory to provide healthcare for employees so I don't see how that will stop the "dream". I have been without health insurance for years and haven't needed it. If I need to go to the doctor I just find a General practitioner that will work with me on a cash basis, which many will do because they can get paid quicker instead of waiting for insurance to pay them. By the way, have you ever been to a VA Hospial? I used to work in one. If this is an example of how The Federal Government handles a hospital, I would rather proform a surgury on myself. Do you know how you get a job promotion in a V.A. Hospital? You kill a patient. See they can't fire you. So they have to find you a job with no patient contact which all pay better than the patient care positions.
>""99.7% of employment" is in small business"
Not true, slightly over 50% are employed by 'small businesses', and that's only true if you define small business as less than 500 employees.
The SBA generally defines it as less than 100 employees.
It's a good thing you and your family've been lucky and never had a serious illness or injury.
p.s. Ask vets how they feel about their health care, they generally approve and could never afford it otherwise.
You say that 99.7% of employment is in small businesses? You are going to have to lie more convincingly than that. Wal-Mart alone has 2.1 million employees, and the workforce of the United States is 140 million. Do the math.
Less than 470 of this world's 6.7 billion people control better than 45% of the world's resources!!!
This is a direct result of free market capitalism and it is now a worldwide affliction. 'Free Market Capitalism' is a deliberately benign description for the giant Ponzi scheme that benefits a miniscule percentage of our species at the expense of an enormous group of those among us who live in or near poverty.
I would like to see you defend this system to a child who has to go to bed without having eaten a shred of food all day. If you think such a child does not exist, go to south Texas and visit some of the tent cities there. Or, go to any inner city housing project, and see what you find.
And, if your tiny (and likely slammed shut) mind starts rationalizing that I've just identified a bunch of illegal immigrants, or druggies, you can simply disregard everything I've just posted since you won't possibly get it anyway.
Do you just make them up or pull them from an anti capitalist website. As far as the poor staving children in south Texas. I dare you to find a "starving child in the United States". First off any child found by Child protective service in said condition would be taken in and fed with my tax dollars. Aside from that. in the United States we have some of the best "private homeless relief programs" in the world. Here in San Diego we have Father Joe's Village which provides food for the homeless and possible housing as well as relief in the form of donated tents and sleeping blankets. This is done not by Government but by the good will of the people as well as by huge donations by some of the evil corporations thats many on this board speak ill of.
are beyond help, as I suspected.
First of all I did the research myself, culling the information from a variety of sources, including remarks made in 1996 by James Gustave Speth, administrator of the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP).
With a Master's in Sociology, and an inordinate fascination with Economic Anthropology from my early years as an undergraduate, I am fully capable of gathering together the information that I need to make informed assertions. You might try that sometime.
Furthermore, I spent better than three years working for a child protection agency in a state I need not disclose, since the issue I'm about to raise affects every agency in every state.
During the years I was a social worker, our agency was overwhelmed with cases and seriously underfunded. That was about twelve years ago. We 'founded' an average of 30% of the reports we received. I would leave many a home unable to advocate for the child(ren) in that home, despite knowing that their abject poverty alone would erect almost insurmountable barriers to success.
Today's child protection agencies are grossly underfunded and deleteriously understaffed. Take into consideration the fact that someone must report child abuse/neglect before a case can be founded, and you have a glimpse at how many children nationwide are going to bed hungry and/or how many children are being abused each and every second of each and every day.
You, sir, are part of the problem, not the solution. If you want to be an activist rather than a slacktivist, invest some of your energy in research, then take whatever steps are necessary to help effect change. Be forewarned--you might have to get your hands dirty.
In the words of one of the greatest pacifists our species has yet produced, "Be the change you wish to see in the world."
And, unless you've been to more than one town hall event in at least thirty or more major urban areas, you lack the statistical sample necessary to make any kind of valid assertion about the people who are attending these events.
Good luck with your cranial-rectal disorder.
to draw back from a downward spiral that was created by the Bush wars. I notice you neglected to mention the surplus that was created by Clinton which can also be checked on the congressional budget office site, but that's par for the course with you right-wing loons.
So let me get this straight:
you're saying that in the 7 months that he's been in office that Obama has managed to increase the annual operations deficit from the $500Billion/year under Bush when we started 2 new wars, cut taxes and issued rebatesto 10 Trillion/year?
Are you sure you're not confusing the annual budget deficit and the national debt? I think you may need to check out your numbers and then try again. Your numbers may be from the CBO, they sound right to me, but you're comparing numbers that are not comparable. Ooops. Let's try it this way:
The current national debt is about $10T, the highest annual deficit during GWB was $500B, though it was lower during the year before 9/11... let's say it averaged 350B and he was in office for 8 years... that would make his impact on the national debt a total of 2.8T that he added. Of course the debt was that much lower to start so he increase it from ~$7.2T to the current (the debt doesn't include current fiscal year yet) Unless my calculator is wrong that would be a 38.89% increase.
What does worry me is that Obama HAS raised the annual deficit to 1.6T for this year, triple of what Bush did. Of course Bush really didn't do shit to fix the economy did he? If Obama has to raise the national debt by 16% to fix it, we'll find out down the road if it was the right cost. Only time will tell, but you should know your numbers better before getting snarky.
I am giving the projected debt if the current bills are passed. I only go by the numbers given by the CBO. I agree that George Bush didn't do shit to fix the economy. He grew government at a rate that made me sick and spent like we were never going to have to pay it back.
and I'll admit I'm too lazy to look it up right now. But I have seen a study/report (probably biased) that at the current rate of spending, there will be a 10T deficit per year at the end of 8 years. If it doesn't change.
I am not a registered Republican or a right wing religious extremist. I am simply wondering why this particular administration is getting away with the things that they are and most of the media say nothing. I understand that many on the Democrat side are mad about Corporate bailouts and I am pissed about the same thing, but why is it that the bailouts are being given to corporations that are huge financial contributors to the administration. ie. G.E., Chrysler which is now owned by the U.A.W. which was a huge contributor, AIG and more. I hear people saying that insurance companies are stopping the Health Care Bill but, why are they having meetings and contributing money to the cause of advancing the bill. This does not feel like a push to help the common man. It feels like a push to help the connected man.
The Mark Steel Lectures-Karl Marx
About the bills being written by the very interests we need to confront to improve healthcare. Where you are off is the the near religious fear of GOVERNMENT. Government, if it is democratic and if people have a DIRECT say (not electing someone to office and begging them to listen to who voted them into office) in the government policy, and if they have direct controls of who they put into office, is not something to fear. Government run by corporate interests for corporate interests is something to fear. If you elect someone into office who has an ideological objection to government guess what they do? They go to the only logical altnerative, giant corporations. This is a mess of the capitalists making. There ARE alternatives, but they are too "radical" to try and are outside the mainstream (like economic democracy, various forms of universal healthcare, particpatory economics and democracy, etc). If you accept the views that that fit into the narrow range of "acceptable" opinion that the two parties and the right wing/conservative working class folks in the US accept (usually harking back to a US in the past that never existed) you will never solve these problems and will always be stuck with having your lives run by an undemocratic government or large multi-national corporations. Again, there are alternatives, but the alternatives would necessitate a radical break with traditions in the US, and many people in the US have a reactionary and irrational fear of new ideas that fundamentally change US policy, the constitution, economics or social relations. Even if you can prove that the changes would be far better for working people, it really doesn't matter. THAT is the problem, and nothing will change until that is overcome. The left, and I am a proud leftist myself, has utterly failed to organize the working class in the US and to provide alternatives. The lack of a true leftist alternative, party or mass social movements in the US allows working class people to drift aimlessly. The right wing uses this by having them cling to ideas which in the end harm working people, but do so by appealing to their emotions and re-directing working class anger away from the very people screwing them over.
If too much of the government is "owned" or beholden to the capitalists" that is a problem.
The deficit is too large, and that is a problem. Single-payer is the best way to rein in health care costs, esp, for the government. Between VA, DoD, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and Indian Affairs the government *already* accounted for well over 40% of health care spending in 2007. I don't see any of those programs going away, so we need to reform the system.
The current bill mandates everyone buy coverage, then gives government subsidies since most people that don't have insurance can't afford it. It does not combine the current parallel government run plans for efficiency (like HR 676 proposes). This combination will bankrupt the country quickly.
We aren't getting real reform since the insurance lobby is indeed writing the relevant bills and lobbying congress. Steel has a point that you can't trust that.
We need to reform congress so it will vote in the best interests of the people more often.
You have GOT to get help for your cranial-rectal inversion, before it's too late!!!!!!
Bipartisan red herrings are NOT a cure!!!
The Bush cabal added better than two trillion to the debt and enabled the deleterious subprime mortgage fiasco that has resulted in so many foreclosures on so many trusting, ill-informed people.
BTW, the Corporatists (your actual oppressors) are sneaking around under the radar trying to staunch the blood flow from that massive subprime wound by rewriting bad loans before the CDOs disintegrate and cause a worldwide financial panic (which is--ironically-- what economists called 'depressions' before they got a clue about the psychological downside of such a negative descripion).
The Bush Cabal that you speak of is interesting. You do know that it is Congress that has the power to spend money right? The Democrats under Nancy Pelosi have been in control of the congress since 2007 when many of the problems that " Obama stepped into" were created. Now don't misunderstand me I don't let Republicans off on this either. The Federal Government is by it's very nature a self involved and self interested entity that cares very little for what happens to the little guy. The primary purpose of politicians is to tell you what you want to hear so that you re-elect them and then they will blow smoke up your a$$ and tell you how much they are on your side while catering to Big Businesses and whom ever is putting money in their collective War Chests.
"The Federal Government is by it's very nature a self involved and self interested entity that cares very little for what happens to the little guy."
You have no clue what you're talking about. I have a degree in economics, I was taught how wonderful the market is, how wonderful private enterprise is. Everyone is supposed to do what is in their "enlightened self interest". If we all do that, if we think of ourselves only, it will benefit society as a result of positive externalities. US corporate law says that the heads of the corporations have ONE legal responsibility, to increase profits for their shareholders. That is it. Everything they do outside of that has to at least indirectly benefit a corporation's bottom line. If a corporation gives money to a charity they have to justify it by saying it will be good PR, otherwise you are giving away company revenues. A corporation is giant, powerful legal person who is a sociopath. A sociopath with "limited liability". So if it is profitable and legal to pollute a river that you and I drink from a corporation should (and does) do it. If it is profitable to cut wages as low as possible (and it is) a corporations will attempt to do so. The government is the only thing that can gurantee basic social rights is a government or some other social institution.
"The Democrats under Nancy Pelosi have been in control of the congress since 2007 when many of the problems that " Obama stepped into" were created."
I hate both parties, they're both right wing sellouts, with a few exceptions. However, you can't possibly think this crap if you have a passing knowledge of the issues this country is facing. Our health care problems are literally decades in the making. Truman wanted national health insurance, we've been having this debate ever since, it got much worse thanks to Nixon and his damn HMO's. As countries like Canada fought for and improved their health care system by moving away from systems like ours (Douglas, the politician who brought that to Canada is overwhelmingly the most popular Canadian according to polls and over 80% of Canadians would rather have their system over ours), we stayed and got worse. The happiest people in the country, health care wise, are the elderly in Medicare. The problems in our economy really started during the Vietnam war, worsened during the 70's (including the crisis in the West as far as increasing profits, which were stagnating thanks to increased living standards for the much more unionized and organized working class, leading to what is now called neo-liberalism), got worse in the 80's thanks to Reagan and have gotten progressively worse the closer we've gotten to the neo-liberal utopia. Same goes with our environmental policy, in which we are as usual behind the rest of the world, the out of control military spending (and economic reliance on the military) amongst other things. All of these issues, again, are decades in the making, far before Obama or Bush Jr. took over. Bush was a horrible disaster on all levels, but we can't entirely blame him for this mess, no matter how bad he was.
Congress is both the house and the senate. Dems aren't in control of the senate and both have to agree on budgets.
reveals that you have not one clue what is a bipartisan red herring. If you persist in defining this condundrum as "republican vs. democrat," you are mired in the red herrings. This either/or dichotomy is not helpful, nor is it accurate. Each and every politician who makes decisions based on their corporate sponsorship is a part of the problem.
Furthermore, I use the term "Bush cabal" to describe those members of the Bush administration and all other politicians involved in that administration who were complicit in the further erosion of our nation's government by the vile Corporatists who are bent on securing absolute worldwide power and control. Bush and his buddies have been the most willing to cater to this group of corporate criminals.
Not that you have a snowball's chance of getting a clue, since your mind is slammed shut in its wee little rectal cocoon.
Incredibly inaccurate statement: What? Do you think that Obama started with a clean slate?
Did you not READ the blog you're commenting on? It seems like the only time the teabaggers get upset about debt only when it's Democratic death meant to help people. What about the debt of the Iraq invasion? So unpopular that Bush hid it with supplemental spending bills. National health care reform = BAD! Medicare Plan B, which prevents the government from negotiating RX prices = GOOD!
I'm not creating images "in my mind" of the teabaggers; I went to their little hoe-down in Olympia. I haven't seen so many missing teeth since my last visit to the locksmith's. Posters of Obama with Hitler-style mustache, anti-government t-shirts and of course, old reliable, the Confederate flags (in a state that wasn't in the union during the time of the civil war). Can you say REDNECK? Most of the people are NOT against the "massive debt" you mention; they are just against having a darkie in the White House.
And as for your right-wing talking point about "the Far left" health care bill...I call bullshit! When the MAJORITY of the people in this country voted for Obama, and the VAST MAJORITY are in favor of health care reform, it is, by definition, NOT left wing, fringe, wingnut or radical. It is mainstream.
The projected cost of this bill as stated by the President himself is over 9 trillion dollars. The war in Iraq cost us $500 billion, which Pres. Obama still has not pulled out of as he promised and he is ramping up the engagements in Afghanastan. I am all for healthcare reform I just don't like the way it's being done. The insurance companies prices are kept artificially high due to Government intrusion. The Government has set the bars as far as haw the insurance companies can price themselves. They have kept real competition from happening by not allowing the individual to buy out of their own state. The fact that Congress will not go after Tort reform because they are scared of the trial lawyers lobby is simply pathetic.
On your last point that the bill is not far left because the majority voted for Obama, that is plain false. Obama won not because so many were for him they just didn't like what the Bush administration had done to the country during the past 8 years. If this bill was so popular than why do most polls show that a majority of Americans are not in favor of it. Why has the Presidents poll numbers fallen faster in his first 6 mos. in office than any other President. Most of this bill was in fact drafted not by the Congress and Senate but, outside special interests and then the official seal was put on it.
Every industrialized country in the world provides UHC for its citizens, AND they are paying less per capita and less as a percentage of their GDP. We're not reinventing the wheel here. There are many systems out there, some most private, some public, some a mixture of the two. I find it hard to believe that we can't come up with something that will work for this country. The insurance companies are raping the public. No other country allows insurance companies to operate for profit, so they have plenty of non-profits who are quite competitive. Tort reform is a total canard. Malpractice is a tiny percentage (1%) of healthcare cost. I know how right wingers love to throw that one out there, as if it would do anything. The fact is, if everyone had access to healthcare, people wouldn't have reason to sue because they wouldn't have to worry about losing everything to pay for huge medical bills. Contrary to popular belief, there are not a lot of frivolous malpractice lawsuits. Besides which, people should be compensated when they are injured by negligence or substandard care.
I hope you don't mind if I use some of your post in other venues, since you've articulated this issue so well, and so succinctly! I promise I will attribute your words to you.
And, at the risk of sounding repetitive: people should be compensated when they are injured by negligence or substandard care!
$500 billion is made up like your other numbers.
>"The fact that Congress will not go after Tort reform because they are scared of the trial lawyers lobby is simply pathetic."
By tort reform you mean letting doctors get away with murder and incompetence.
Payout for the above are a very small part of the cost of health care, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending.
You may not be a republican but you sure know every play in their book of myths.
If the republicans can steal 25 trillion for themselves and their Wall Street cronies, then we can afford health care!
Furthermore, health care isn't far left. What an idiotic statement. If that were the case, then the U.S. must be one fucked-up rightwing lunatic asylum, considering we are the only ones without universal care.
Finally, being independent means you still haven't figured out how evil the republicans are after 8 years of GWB. That is pathetic. Personally, I am anti-republican.
In case you haven't been paying attention. The Obama administration has working for them right now: several CEOs of Goldman Sachs,The president of G.E. and the one of the richest men in the world,George Soros. These are just the ones that I can name off the top of my head at 2am.
If you listen to the news you will hear of the failure and impending collapse of many of the utopian countries that you praise. Canada's healthcare system is on the verge of collapse as is Great Britain. Healthcare is expensive When you have to provide it to everyone all the time it is not financially feasible. Right now the majority of Americans without healthcare are people that are not in dire need of it. People that have left home and are no longer under their parents systems. Many folks in their 20 and early 30s do not require a lot of healthcare and if it was not provided would not worry about it but, when you give it for free they figure why not take advantage of it because its free. The rest of the people that dont fit that demographic are still eligible for Medicare or Medicade which is going broke as we speak.
On your last point. The Republicans are not evil. They are self interested just like the Democrats and if you can't see that you are seriously naive.
How about, if someone steals 25 trillion from the taxpayers they are held accoutable for their actions? Why instead must we use the criminal actions of others to justify getting what we want? Don't you see how wrong that is?
It is "logic" like that is bankrupting this nation.
As far as being Independent goes, usually it means you've realized the two parties are just different faces of the SAME beast.
All the Media (MSM, partisan blogs) needs to do is get the mindless (R) and (D) sheep whipped up into a frenzy, a frenzy were no logical thought or debate can take place, and the beast can push forth whatever agenda it wishes.
Exactly!
And people pay over $100.00 to see Jerry Seinfeld? I'd pay $1000.00 (if it went to health care) to be at one of Barney's townhalls. "I haven't had a secret for 21 years". Classic.
I watched a replay of this on CSPAN. The part that really made me burst out laughing is when some in the crowd started blaming Obama for their water bills going up. Seriously!
So easy to blame the first "colored" president...
Between the Kennedys and Barney Frank, i have great pride in those who represented my state (except for the empty Republican suit Mittens)
... to a gun fight. Even an intelligent adversary had better do their homework before going at loggerheads with Rep. Frank. Denizens of the Beck-o-copter brigade are sloven, sickly fish in a shallow barrel. He is a master of disarming argumentation, as you say. His positions are sturdy, researched, and unyielding, and his coup de grace is letting the individual immolate themselves, which they do with apparent glee. Tis a strange country this.
Sadly, most Democrats are sloven, sickly fish as well and just get rolled by teabaggers.
the corporatists have had a central role in producing a citizenry that cannot think their way out of a paper bag. Most teachers I know struggle with the contemporary NCLB nonsense that insures an undereducated, compliant crop of factory fodder.
If you disagree, talk to any teacher in public education, and find out if their students have more than rudimentary math skills. Granted a given percentage of our youth are smart enough to overcome the system, but most do not have the stamina to keep up the effort.
outstanding thats how its done
Teabaggers getting into a battle of wits with Barney Frank come unarmed.
There was an interesting cartoon in the Washington Post last week of John Wilkes Booth with a gun strapped to his leg and a sign saying "Lincoln = Hitler" outside of Ford's Theatre where Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln leave for the evening - imagine if these same people had an advantage like that in the 19th century in order to fight the same change and progress that's trying to be made today!
It's the only ammo they have. Frank is a Ninja. Teabaggers Fung Fu is weak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KtHhIePpZg&fe...
you cant talk sense to the senseless
Yep, they may even contradict themselves by screaming "hands off my medicare!"
38
On the Thursday on that same week, CSPAN was doing a re-run at about 10PM or so. I was only surfing through the channels and happened to wonder onto it. It was one of the very few cases where I watched a CSPAN program all the way to its end.
Barney Frank owns. I didn't really know the guy well before, but now I love this guy!
Silly teabaggers.
Sure, they think it's all fun and games until some one loses a gonad.
And Barney's just the one to do it!
I wish more Democrats had a spine like Barney frank.
I love it- 'Who do you think paid for the war in Iraq, Santa claus'?
I love that northeast toughness..
The gay guy is one of the only reps with balls...
why am I so amused by that?
Feel free to delete, but:
Barney has experience dealing with nuts.
Bada Bing!
Way to go Barney. That kind of ignorance needs to be checked and kicked to the curb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KtHhIePpZg&fe...
Total healthcare recall! Seemed like Frank was alone defeating hundreds of friggen' idiots!
I attended a town hall hosted by PA-Rep Joe Sestak, whom I like, but he went out of his way to be civil to the LaRouchers and the screamers and ended up convincing no one anyway. Dems like Frank and Anthony Weiner not only sound good to committed liberals, but they make a much stronger case for health care or anything else and do more to change undecided opinion than faint-hearted democrats ever do.
is that he is a douchebag
compared to arlen and i might add 90+% of these critters should have a ****** on the arse .
"What you see here is several things"
Certainly not the least of which being "courage of conviction".
It is the belief in the inherent rightness of the Progressive cause.
jew always wins
redneck knuckledragger vs. anyone would loose on merits. Jew has really nothing to do with it otherwise Joe Lieberman would always win the argument on merits. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
you get a redneck knuckledragger jew. :) Yes there are some, I know one or two. Talk about scary.
Go back to the '08 Presidential election and these town hall people were the McCain / Palin whackos.
You didn't hear a peep out of these idiots during the Bush / Cheney years and now they want their country back?
Bill Maher suggests that these teabaggers want their country back from a "black man" running it now.
"When you're through yelling, call me."
Teabagger takedown!
Frank 1
Teabaggers 0
As soon as those Teabaggers face a big insurance death panel they'll change their tune quick. They'll be knocking down Michael Moore's door to appear in his next movie.
When you the the facts on your side,You can never lose an argument.
Just a matter of capitalizing on truth to stupid.
n/t
"why do you worry that you would voluntarily choose what you think would be the worse plan..."
Jesus! this was Godzilla v. Bambi night.
Unfortunately, there are people who actually DO worry about having to choose the best health care plan because it means they may have to READ something longer than " Obama=Hitler " or "Dems want to kill grandma ", or for that matter, a kraft dinner recipe. Some people would rather trust other people to make all their decisions for them, including what to say at a town hall so they don't have to make any decisions about health care other than pay through the nose or die.
... but anyone with half a brain knows that we don't want to be left to the tender mercies of the insurance companies—aka the Healthcare Profiteering Monopoly (HPM).
every moment of this particular 'skinning' session 'cause he sure skinned some thick dudes.
Wow. Those knuckle-dragging plebeians went home with several new arseholes to shit out of. Nice job, Barney. The rest of you Democrats, take notes.
Why isn't Barney Frank either Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader??
Maybe Bernie Sanders could be one or the other from Barney Frank - why won't Reid and Pelosi step down due to all their ineptitude to lead progressively?
... or take in enough corporation money to buy the votes of other Reps (like Hoyer does).
don't be nice to stupidity. If you have the facts, and you know you are right, take them down and show no mercy. Period.
The problem is, "Liberals" are always willing to see the "other side" at least insofar as it merits a hearing.
In my view, this is BS. you fight stupidity with the facts and derision. And it is a fight. And it always will be. And if you think it's ever going to be easy or fair, you're kidding yourself.
The knuckle draggers will crush you without even thinking twice. Or even once for that matter.
You have to stand up and pound them. Hard. They understand force, and the force of fact and reason, when combined with derision and disgust, is a powerful thing.
It takes a gay man to show these latte liberals how to be a real man. GO. Mr Frank. I wish all the democrats had half as much back bone as you do.
it's not the bone in his back that makes him stand up! (Err maybe it is!) ;-)
Late,
QSE32
where it would be possible, I think he would be a great president, or at least a spokesman way better than Gibbs.
He is so very good at appearing on even the Faux news station and giving them a what for...
I can see Al Franken in the same position some day as well.
Barney Frank may now be Ted Kennedy's heir to being the "liberal lion" in the senate.
Frank should be a textbook example to other dems on how a progressive should act and respond.
He should be rude and abrasive. Barney Frank is one of the biggest reasons that the economy is in the poor shape that it is in.
...More in responding how he did in this town hall meeting is a textbook example for other dems and progressives.
Barney Frank, simply by being a politician, may be one element of a cesspool of reasons for the poor economy, but one of the biggest reasons ? Don't make me laugh. The crap economy has GOP written all over it, going all the way back to Ronald Jesus Reagan's deregulation and finishing with a flourish as GWB ducked flying shoes on his way out of office. Clinton, by the way, presided over one of the best economies the U.S. has ever seen. Yet all the teabaggers hate his guts 'cause he got a blowjob. I'll take Barney over anything the GOP has offered up since the days of Eisenhower.
It was Barney that pushed the idea of allowing Mortgages to be sold to people that could not afford them through Fannie Mae And Freddy Mac. It was the collapse of these Government sponsored enterprises that led to the overall collapse of the housing industry. Barney had a serious conflict of interest in that he was in a romantic relationship with Herb Moses,the executive of Fannie Mae.
Clinton was fortunate to have stepped into his term at a point while the economy was in an upswing. I personally had no problem with Clinton, hell I voted for him twice.
...of Rule #11 in my list of right-wing debate tactics: "When a claim of yours has been debunked, continue to use it nonetheless. When it has been debunked so thoroughly and completely that continuing to use it is counterproductive, stop claiming it for a time, perhaps a few months, after which assert it again as if the debunking had never happened."
First, there was never a proposal from Barney Frank, or anyone else for that matter, that "pushed the idea of allowing Mortgages to be sold to people that could not afford them." That is not only false, it is inane on its face. It was the commercial mortgage industry that was pushing people into unaffordable mortgages because, wrapped up in their fantasy world of derivatives of derivatives of derivatives, lenders had convinced themselves that risk was spread so thinly that there really wasn't any to speak of because "housing always appreciates." As a result, Fannie and Freddie were losing business and market share and so were allowed to loosen their standards a little by being allowed to consider aspects of an applicant's situation which they couldn't before. But being allowed, indeed "pushed," to sell mortgages to people they knew couldn't afford them? Not even close.
Second, it is also false to claim "it was the collapse of these Government sponsored enterprises that led to the overall collapse of the housing industry." The collapse of Fannie and Freddie followed and was caused by the collapse of the housing market, not the other way around.
Third, the claim of "a serious conflict of interest" is just a personal smear unworthy of further response.
Well I guess that you avoid reading the newspapers because, in the September 9th issue of the WSJ there is a story about the Congressman's involvement in influencing Fanny Mae to issue loans to folks that could not afford them going back to as far as 1992. He stood against any sort of reform of either Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac. While I do not disagree that private lenders were also involved in this behavior I would like to point out that the lending industry is federally regulated as is the demonic insurance industry. The government sets the rules on how loans are made so ultimately if bad loans were being made the government should have caught it.
As far as the "serious conflict of interest" statement, I stand behind that fully. Congressman Frank is in a position to represent the people. If he lets a personal relationship get in the way of his job than that is a conflict. If your allegations of smear are in reference to the sexual nature of his relationship, I couldn't care less if the Congressman is gay or not. If he was a straight married guy that allowed his wife to profit over the needs of the people ,I would feel the same way. So get off your high horse.
Sorry, you lose, but thanks for playing.
The September 9 WSJ? Of what year? (I note no link even to a digest version.)
loans to people who could not afford them
I'm sorry, but just how dense are you? No one ever has or ever would seriously proposing "pushing" any lender to extend mortgages to people the lender knew could not afford them. That would be business idiocy - which is why private mortgagers got such flak when it turned out they were doing exactly that in order to have mortgages to bundle and resell.
Frank (and many others) did support Fannie and Freddie being able to get into the so-called "subprime" market - but unlike what Monday-morning (actually more like Wednesday-morning) quarterbacks like you apparently imagine, "subprime" does not equal "unable to afford."
He stood against any sort of reform
Utter nonsense. For one thing, as a member of the minority he supported in committee a Republican-pushed reform to Freddie and Fannie. But when the bill came to the floor, it carried with it a manager's amendment (which is supposed to be used only for minor or necessary last-minute changes) that limited the ability of non-profits to be involved in various federal programs of housing aid unless doing so was "the primary purpose" of the organization.
Frank noted that this would prohibit a number of organizations, including faith-based ones, from taking part and proposed changing it from "the" to "a" primary purpose. When that change was refused, he said he could no longer support the measure.
As a member of the majority and chair of the House Banking Committee, he sponsored a reform bill. It passed the House only to be blocked by the "just say no" GOPpers in the Senate.
The government sets the rules ... so ultimately if bad loans were being made the government should have caught it.
So it's the fault of the government, not the fault of the people who were doing it? So if someone breaks into your house, that's the fault of the cops, not the thieves?
And you do realize, I hope, that your argument here comes down to complaining that the government did not regulate enough, it did not maintain a close enough watch over the industry.
If he lets a personal relationship get in the way of his job than that is a conflict.
And that is exactly the smear: the wholly unsubstantiated claim that a relationship which ended over 10 years ago drove (and, it would seem, continues to drive) how he did (and does) his job.
get off your high horse
Sorry, no horses here. Although from reading your comments, I can see where I could find part of one.
total waste of time.
but from the Washington Post 1989, it is actually a very positive article about Frank, and it does mention his 10 year relationship with Herb Moses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics...
Oh and do you know that just this past june he was trying to get franny and freddy to relax their guidelines?
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Housing/id...
he was trying to get franny and freddy to relax their guidelines
Did you notice that this was in response to recently-tightened guidelines that Frank suggested may have gone too far? And that therefore it did not involve any loosening of the restrictions from what they had been?
they tightened guidelines after they crashed and burned from too loose of regulations, so shortly after that he wants them to ease up rather than waiting to see how it goes? What was it 6mos? Give me a break. They operated under the previous regs and guidelines for how long before they self destructed, but after 6 mo. he can tell that the guidelines are too strict. This from the man who a year before they went under, stated that there was no problem.
...do you have anything other than right-wing talking points rattling around in there?
First, your accusation clearly implied that Frank wanted to cut the regulatory requirements from what they had been. In the context of the exchange as it had developed, there is no other reasonable reading. That charge was flatly false.
Second, there is no evidence that the particular regs in question had been "too loose" or had "crashed and burned." More importantly, there is nothing - nothing - in the article to say that Frank objected to any tightening of those regulations, only that the new ones had gone too far.
And if you'd read with your eyes instead of your biases you would have noticed that the concern was that the degree of tightening could slow the recovery of the condo housing market.
Finally, there is this:
This from the man who a year before they went under, stated that there was no problem.
I know the quote you speak of, assuming it's the same one the right wing always pulls out.
An analysis by the staff of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System concluded that "the crisis is rooted in the poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007." The quote the wingers pull out was from 2004 - at which time there was no crisis.
The worst that can be said about Barney Frank in this regard is that he was not more prescient than the collective wisdom of the mortgage industry and the rest of the Free Market (pubi). It's - I started to say "odd," but it isn't really, is it? Rather, I'd say, it's predictable that you would choose to direct your ire against him rather than either of the latter.
What I do find it odd that again the complaint comes down to the charge that the federal government was not regulating enough, that more regulation was what was needed.
this blog, I see.
I'm not surprised you haven't realised you've received no points.
Since I have heard nothing from you that impresses me in regards to your incredible powers and you only reply in order to insult I will cease any conversation with you.
Since I have heard nothing from you that impresses me in regards to your incredible powers and you only reply in order to insult I will cease any conversation with you.
the department of Redundancy department, er, that is...
Good on you, Steel, for being an activist. However, you are digging yourself into an abyss when you make unsupportable claims.
Are you aware of Anthony (nee Angelo) Mozilo? Do you know exactly which corporatists pushed the concept of subprime loans until the feds acquiesced?
BTW, it's all well and good to point fingers and play the blame and shame game, but we all share responsibility for our nation's current state of dire economic distress. Corporate Megalomania is simply human greed writ bigger and badder.
If you sit there bristling at the charge of your own personal sense of entitlement, then perhaps you should embrace that which you strive to push away--why would you expend so much energy on denial if it were not a measurable part of you?
I agree being rude and abrasive is not how progressives should act. I also agree Mr. Frank has been on numerous occasions.
I'm not so sure you have the full set of facts about why the economy is in the shape it's in, maybe if you shared what led you to believe that we could see if there's more to it or not?
I think you're lost..
Who's your man? Ron Paul, GWB, who?
Why can't Republicans be more like the last decent GOP president - Eisenhower and his warning against the military industrial complex (as opposed to Ronald Reagan)?...Not only do we now have a military industrial complex, but an economic and medical industrial complex to add insult to injury courtesy of corporate America.
Need more Barney Frank coverage! I say again THANK YOU BARNEY FRANK
Late,
QSE32
It really is simpler than that... we need more Barney Franks. If he gave a course to the Dems in Congress on "How to Talk to Idiots" we might actually get some things accomplished.
D
Truth always beats BS, lies and rumors. There is a tidal wave of BS going around and these knuckle-draggers are swept in it. Barney Frank faced the lies down and won. The losers hung themselves with their own rope.
"Teabagger #2: But we watch tapes of Obama and everyone else secretly say they're in favor of an eventual single pay system." You watch secret tape of Obama? What q big secret this is. He talked about it at t "Town Hall meeting in Vermont or New Hampshire a few weeks ago. They try to make everything into a big secret conspiracy by the "Left" to take over the US.
Can I have one? California REALLY needs someone like this. You would think it wouldn't be hard for us to find an obnoxiously confident gay man, but where are they?
Barney is awesome - every time I hear him speak he impresses me.
This wasn't his shining moment though, because no matter how nice it feels to belittle people who seemingly have it coming, it's not altogether productive.
I did like his openness, but too often that turned into one liners... too many I think.
*The lady at the end - I think the person who made this video thought it would be a nice ending having her up there saying "We won, so obviously most of the country agrees with us". I couldn't agree less - that's one of the worst arguments ever used and for some reason both sides love it. It's meaningless. It's apparently used in an attempt to grant free reign to whoever wins an election, and the republicans/fox used it commonly during their rule. Beside the fact that elections don't truly represent the majority opinion (what percent of the legal voting populace actually voted again?), people who do vote aren't usually voting on specific issues (besides those who feel strongly about abortions), the vote commonly is on vague notions of who the person is and what they stand for. To use that argument to say that even the voting majority agrees with a certain bill because they voted for democrats is ridiculous.
Also, the video got all the one liners in... nice... next time how about just putting the full thing up there? I would have liked to see it in its entirety.
It's a nonsensical argument, but it's the same nonsensical argument that neocons pushed so frequently during their reign. She seemed to simply be throwing it back in the teabaggers' faces.
But as a conservative of just moderate (imo) intelligence. Here is where the two posted examples went wrong.
Instead of trying to dance (bad idea to get into a dance off as a amateur against a pro) around the question about if medicare was unconstitutional, I would of answered honestly. Yes it is, it should of been instituted as a state ran program at the most in the beginning, but it has been enshrined in this country for too long to change that, just like the national parks. Then ask "why do you want to continue to break the law by exceeding the constitutional limits placed on congress?" And then go from there depending on his answer.
For the second, take a page from the same book that Frank used, continue to press the question of "Will you give up your current congressional insurance for the single payer insurance" which from the clip he didn't answer. He danced away by stating he's been for single payer for years, and making a joke. Again don't dance with a pro, make him stand still.
So where's the unconstitutionality in medicare? I'm very vague on the idea that it's actually unconstitutional. I understand people saying where in the constitution does it say everyone gets health care, because obviously the constitution wasn't specific (that's what courts are for)... But I don't understand where people imply that it's actually in the constitution that the gov shouldn't be doing it... where's that? <- serious question, is there really something in there?
in the constitution that the federal govt shouldn't be doing it, it's that the constitution lays out strictly the powers of the federal govt. Article 1 sec 8 specifies what powers congress has, and those are the only powers they have unless changed by a constitutional amendment. They get around it through the abuse of two of the clauses, the interstate commerce clause being the biggest and the general welfare clause being the second. The constitution is unlike most other rules of law in that if it isn't specified it is not allowed, where most other rules are that if it isn't specifically disallowed it is allowed. It was written specifically to limit the powers of the federal gov.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/const...
Article I section 8 is a bit narrow in scope don't you think? Things like the general welfare clause are necessary to allow legislation outside the narrow scope -
Work with me here for a second - We all agree the government should protect its citizens right? We do this eagerly by supporting the military. If you get a disease or cancer or something that is drawn out and costs millions of dollars (because pharmaceuticals and insurance companies are making obscene profits off of public necessities (we can all assume medicine is a necessity right?)), would it not be the government's responsibility to ensure that person does not have their financial livelihood stripped from them so that they can continue their pursuit of happiness? Wouldn't it also be the government's responsibility to ensure the person got proper care in the case that private insurers deny them?
I think it is. I don't think this should be a state issue because there shouldn't be variations of quality state to state... All U.S. citizens should be treated equally imo.
Just curious - Are you pissed that we're all required to buy private car insurance if we drive?
limited in scope, the founding fathers feared an overreaching federal govt and put in place limits on its powers. The general welfare clause, was intended to not add to the powers but to provide funding for the powers. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;" If it were to add to the powers of the govt. the sections regarding the power to raise an army, navy, call forth the militia, to declare war etc. would not be needed because of the general defense section of the clause.
The best way to read and interpret the original constitution is with a laymen view and a copy of blacks law from the 17th century for the definitions of words as they were used then. It was written to be understood by the common man unlike most laws today.
ETA About the auto insurance, while I believe in personal responsibility, not govt mandated. It is legal under the 10th amendment.
Ok, thanks for that - I am learning things.
I think what Captainapathy stated below speaks to that though. Unless the supreme court challenges it, it can move through (Or since you shot that down a bit, maybe it's the 14th that allows it?). So the question would be, since technically it would be legal, should it be done through the states or through the feds?
I think this is a necessity, something akin to a military in terms of protecting life itself (or at least saying that - in regards to the military). Look at public schools - They vary from state to state, city to city. Do we really want health care to vary state to state?
I also think it would be more fair to individuals, as however it would be paid for would end up being equal no matter where you lived. Getting a job in a new state wouldn't mean a whole new health system with different fees and practices - you'd just keep doing what you've been doing.
It's a simple argument really. I think everyone is entitled to the same quality health care at the same price as everyone else.
The auto insurance: So who keeps the state's in check? They pass this law that is clearly aimed at helping the insurance companies make large profits, don't give us a public option, and will take away your right to drive if you don't abide - and we just all sit back and take it? There could clearly be a better and cheaper system in place if anyone tried.
I don't know what I'm trying to say here, but I'm saying something anyway...
**Ignorance forming questions: I don't see how the founding fathers would fear an overreaching federal government but not an overreaching state government? Why would a state have the right to provide health care but not the Fed? Does the reasoning still apply today?
For the supreme court/14th/10 amendment please read my post below, I'm not sure if I could type all of that again. :)
But for the military/health care question, I'll try to answer the best that I can. The military is to protect the country as a whole not individuals. Just like the police are not responsible for any person, they are only responsible for the general population. Yes health care may be a necessity/right, so is lets say transportation, is it the Fed govt responsibility to provide it? Interstate travel has been ruled to be a right under the 9th amendment, but how you exercise that right is up to what you can provide, shoe leather vs a private lear jet. Or lets go with some specifically listed rights, under the 1st amendment you have the right to free speech, but how you can exercise that right is limited to what you can provide or what you can get others to provide for you, whether it is a soap box on the corner, or a bull horn with the soap box, or a newspaper, or a radio/television station its up to you to provide it. You have a right to assemble but the Govt does not provide you with the group to do so. Same with the 2nd amendment you have a right to keep and bear arms, but the govt does not provide you with the arms unless you are acting in the military.
As for fair this is going to sound cruel but its the truth, life isn't fair and all men are not created equal, except that you have the chance to excel (or fail) to the best of your ability.
Yes people are entitled to the same health care at the same price as everyone else. But to use an analogy, look it like cars, if you can only afford a Hyundai or KIA (or a 20 year old yugo if any are still on the road), why should you have a Ferrari? They are the same price to all, its just a matter of what you can afford. Same with health care. Health insurance can be compared to auto or homeowners insurance, you pay for what you own and what the risks are, I pay extra on my homeowners insurance because I have a fireplace, a dog, and my house is over 100 years old and would cost well more than what it is worth to rebuild. Should I pay the same as someone who doesn't have those? Or for pre-existing conditions compare it to auto insurance if I have a history of getting into accidents every year should they charge me the same as someone who hasn't had an accident in 20 years?
Who is supposed to keep the states in check? The people living there and to a small degree the feds, hence the reason for the powers reserved to the federal govt and the 14th amendment.
And there is no such thing as an ignorant question although all question are based in ignorance. If you knew the answer you most likely wouldn't ask the question, that is part of how you learn. The only ignorant question is one unasked. And lord knows I have asked enough questions in my life(and not asked) and will continue to do so.
The state could have the power (not right, rights are reserved to the people not govt) because they are not restricted from doing so by the US Constitution, depending on the States Constitution.
Why would they be more concerned about Fed than State? If you look at Govt at the time, the Crown(fed) had the majority of the power and what they said went, if the people didn't like it they could draw manpower from across the country to squash it bit by bit, where if the people revolted against a local lord or mayor (state) they couldn't draw others into it as easily. So it was easier to stop and oppressive govt on a local level rather than federal.
Which still holds true to today only instead of firepower or pitchforks (hopefully) its votes, if the people of the state don't want it, its up to them not to the people in the other 49, except that the feds have even more sway over the states with federal funding which comes from the people of the states.
Article III, section 3 shoves this all out the window on the say-so of the Supreme Court; if they have nothing to say about the powers being exercised, then there is no violation of the constitution, by combined application of this principle, as well as those espoused in the 10th and 14th Amendments, along with the general welfare clause. The 10th only preserves powers for the states that are not denied the states by the constitution; the 14th leaves this a little broad, denying the states the specific power to deny or abridge the rights of the citizenry, specifically when it comes to Federal (not necessarily constitutional) guarantees. A bit of dogmatic relativism, I know, and roundabout as hell, but a solid legal argument all the same.
In short, if the Congress passes a law that does not infringe upon a specific guaranteed power held to the States, and the Supreme Court says nothing, it is held in law as tacit approval of the action, but only insofar as the legislation is uniform to the states and their populations, and held specifically domestic.
On a side note, the president can decide what constitutes a militia, and subsequently be in direct control of it. Again, unless the Supreme Court has a problem with the individual case.
So i feel rather ignorant when someone like you spouts all that stuff out like it aint sh!te.
So how did you know all of that? Lawyer? Or did you just look it up real quick? Who teaches that and actually remembers it unless they have to put it in practice everyday?
I just read an awful lot. I do have to look things up on occasion, but usually only to cite the place I found it. I had written a paper on this very subject in college, though, so it's kinda stuck with me...
Well I'm impressed. I can't keep it all straight and will cite wrong amendments and the like quite often. I just don't use them enough in everyday life to keep it all straight I guess. A college paper would probably help too...
good on you )
meant art 3 sec 2, sec 3 is treason.
Article 3 sec 2 does grant the supreme court with the final say so, but that usually only happens when someone bring suit. Just because the supreme court has not brought forth judgment does not mean it is constitutional. When was the last time that the supreme court sat in hearing on something that was not brought before them as a result of a suit? If congress passed a law that said a search warrant was not needed, and no one brought suit against it(yes it will never happen, just a hypothetical) would that make it constitutional? After all it could be for the general welfare of the people.
And the 10th does not only preserve the powers of the states that are not denied them, it also grants them the powers that are not reserved to the Fed Govt. If the constitution does not specifically grant the power to the Feds it is up to the states.
The 14th does leave it a little broad, it states that congress can pass laws to make sure that the states cannot infringe upon the the rights and privileges of its citizens of the United States. And to make sure all get equal treatment.
And for the general welfare clause, please see my post above.
And on your side note, the President cannot decide what constitute the militia that is up to congress under art 1 sec 8, but yes he is in direct control of it when called up in service to the Fed Gov by congress.
So, assuming that the current congress isn't planning on breaking the law and passing something that's unconstitutional only to have someone bring it to the SCOTUS and have it deemed unconstitutional and thrown out... what exactly are they planning to do?
I would think common sense would dictate that they're pretty confident that what they're doing is constitutional. Do you know why they would think that? Is it the 14th that you stated above allows them to make sure everyone gets equal treatment and protects their `rights`?
that they hope that the supreme court would either refuse to hear it, or that it would be decided in their favor or that it never gets to the supreme court for lack of standing.
The 14th allows them to make laws to ensure that the states don't infringe on personal rights, ie the states cannot restrict free speech or other rights and privileges between people depending on race, creed, color or sex or whether they are a citizen of the state or not. The 14th amendment was enacted due to regulations on the newly freed slaves. It was intended to stop discrimination by the states.
Edited to add
How often does the supreme court find something unconstitutional, or state supreme courts? It actually happens somewhat frequently, look at the US supreme court ruling on the DC gun ban, it was considered legal for how many years? Until someone finally took it up to the supreme court. Does that mean it was constitutional until then? Or just that it hadn't been struck down as unconstitutional?
That pretty much sums up 'single payer' UHC NHS health care for all.
Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution which is what defines the powers of the Fed Govt. You would have better luck with the general welfare clause in art 1 sec 8.
I think the declaration of independence pretty much guides how the constitution was intended to be framed right? And it states that there are certain "unalienable" rights... I certainly would hope our constitution wouldn't contradict those "unalienable rights" that played such a large role in the creation of this country.
Login or Register to post comments.