It's Official - Reconciliation It Is (1 Viewer)

[champ76]

This makes absolutely no sense. I see nothing that tells me we're headed for anything except corporate socialism at the hands of the Republicans. Or, maybe they really intend on making a corporate oligopoly where only business interests have votes and rights, but you're just wrong.

Your insistence on repeating the tired old mantra that corporations are in the pockets of the Republicans is so, well, 80's. Corporations give to whoever is in power or who they think will be in power. Their attempts to influence knows no party identification. Isn't it Obama making the deals with the drug companies and insurers to get his watered down bill passed?

And corporate donations pale in comparison to other special interest groups, as seen by this link from OpenSecrets.org. Here's the top 25(Federal and State elections 2008):

1 National Education Assn $56,418,526
2 Pechanga Band of Mission Indians $43,960,451
3 Penn National Gaming $40,522,947
4 Morongo Band of Mission Indians $39,053,909
5 Service Employees International Union $35,708,486
6 National Assn of Realtors $28,627,919
7 Lakes Entertainment $25,694,898
8 TRIBES FOR FAIR PLAY NO ON 94 95 96 & 97 $24,754,413
9 ActBlue $23,183,948
10 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians $22,079,201
11 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $21,048,926
12 Community Financial Services Assn $20,165,520
13 Clean Energy Fuels Corp $18,851,800
14 PG&E Corp $16,549,500
15 Edison International $15,140,061
16 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $14,975,279
17 ARIZONA COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES *** $14,675,023
18 AT&T Inc $14,574,065
19 Laborers Union $14,506,361
20 Pala Band of Mission Indians $13,180,519
21 United Auburn Indian Community $13,126,035
22 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $13,093,618
23 Altria Group $12,826,348
24 CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY $12,355,252
25 American Federation of Teachers $12,035,63

Here's a top 10 "Heavy Hitters" list for 1989-2010 from the same website with the percentage of their donations given to each party. (Note the corporations pretty much spread their money around evenly, at least in the top 30). The unions and trial lawyers, not so much:

Donor Dollars D% R%

1 AT&T Inc $44,228,138 44% 55%
2 Am Fedn of State, County & Muni Empl $41,945,511 98% 1%
3 National Assn of Realtors $35,643,323 48% 51%
4 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $31,544,407 97% 2%
5 Goldman Sachs $31,544,275 64% 35%
6 American Assn for Justice $31,465,429 90% 9%
7 National Education Assn $30,162,867 92% 6%
8 Laborers Union $28,993,900 92% 7%
9 Teamsters Union $27,992,624 92% 6%
10 Service Employees International Union $27,933,732 95% 3%

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A

 

[dtc]

Dtradin, you make some interesting points. I'm really starting to come around to your way of thinking re: the bill.

But someone still needs to explain to me how this bill, which is so unpopular with so many Americans, and is being passed through a controversial method, is not going to lead to a serious Democratic defeat in the mid-term elections.

It might. Republicans have done a great job trying to do what's best for their true constituency - doctors, medical providers, big pharma and, in particular, insurance companies while they've actually convinced their patrons that they're fighting for their freedom and against socialism. They've taken the strategy to oppose everything no matter what as evidenced by them now disliking the tax cuts proposed. They preach reconciliation as controversial, but they're the ones who have used it 70% of the time.

Oh well. Doing what is right for the country in the long run is more important to me than elections. Frankly, if others had been taking that view instead of kicking the can we'd not be where we are now.

 

[dtc]

1500 per month -- I dont know what kind of health care that is but mine certainly is not that much and I go through blue cross -- but I guess you need to come up with a number that makes your case -- but since you seem to be even further left then Rachel Madow there is nothing that will satisfy you except for every democratic idea no matter how stupid or harmful gets passed.

Small group family of 3. I am my employer so nobody's paying half except me when I pay it for my employees. It has increased 15-20% per year forever. In fact, I still have one employee around who originally cost $83/month.

 

[4saintspirit]

Small group family of 3. I am my employer so nobody's paying half except me when I pay it for my employees. It has increased 15-20% per year forever. In fact, I still have one employee around who originally cost $83/month.

If I were you i'd look around - I know a lot of people who are now unemployed and they get family insurance for 4 for a lot less then 1500 per month --

 

[dtc]

If I were you i'd look around - I know a lot of people who are now unemployed and they get family insurance for 4 for a lot less then 1500 per month --

As if I hadn't already looked, but thanks.

 

[daybreaker]

But someone still needs to explain to me how this bill, which is so unpopular with so many Americans, and is being passed through a controversial method, is not going to lead to a serious Democratic defeat in the mid-term elections.

Because its unpopularity, as shown by previous polls, has a large number of people who dont like it because it doesnt go far enough. These people, who dont like the bill because it isnt liberal enough, will not be voting Republican come November.

If healthcare gets passed, and they can actually get one or two serious amendments to it passed before November, they have a much greater chance of getting these voters back to the polls in November.

Whereas if the bill completely fails, it's a good bet these voters wont be voting at all.

But Republicans dont like to point out this fact about the bill's unpopularity. They just like to say "65% of America hates it, and therefore, we should start over"... But they conveniently leave out the part that 40% of that 65% wants a public option or single payer.

Because if you split it up into 35% approve, 35% too liberal, 30% not liberal enough, all youre doing is admitting your party is the one thats out of touch with bad ideas.

 

[dagimlet]

Because its unpopularity, as shown by previous polls, has a large number of people who dont like it because it doesnt go far enough. These people, who dont like the bill because it isnt liberal enough, will not be voting Republican come November.

If healthcare gets passed, and they can actually get one or two serious amendments to it passed before November, they have a much greater chance of getting these voters back to the polls in November.

Whereas if the bill completely fails, it's a good bet these voters wont be voting at all.

But Republicans dont like to point out this fact about the bill's unpopularity. They just like to say "65% of America hates it, and therefore, we should start over"... But they conveniently leave out the part that 40% of that 65% wants a public option or single payer.

Because if you split it up into 35% approve, 35% too liberal, 30% not liberal enough, all youre doing is admitting your party is the one thats out of touch with bad ideas.

I really think you're just playing with the numbers here. The bill is vastly unpopular among Republicans.

 

[4saintspirit]

As if I hadn't already looked, but thanks.

i guess thats why allowing insurance companies to cross state lines may be a good idea.

 

[4saintspirit]

Because its unpopularity, as shown by previous polls, has a large number of people who dont like it because it doesnt go far enough. These people, who dont like the bill because it isnt liberal enough, will not be voting Republican come November.

If healthcare gets passed, and they can actually get one or two serious amendments to it passed before November, they have a much greater chance of getting these voters back to the polls in November.

Whereas if the bill completely fails, it's a good bet these voters wont be voting at all.

But Republicans dont like to point out this fact about the bill's unpopularity. They just like to say "65% of America hates it, and therefore, we should start over"... But they conveniently leave out the part that 40% of that 65% wants a public option or single payer.

Because if you split it up into 35% approve, 35% too liberal, 30% not liberal enough, all youre doing is admitting your party is the one thats out of touch with bad ideas.

the only group really important in the november elections are the independents and its vastly unpopular with them ===

 

[daybreaker]

I really think you're just playing with the numbers here. The bill is vastly unpopular among Republicans.

And? Republicans and Democrats each only take up about 35-40% of the total voting population. So even if 100% of Republicans had disapproval of the bill, that leaves another 20-25% that has to come from Independents + Democrats.

And if even half of those disapprove because the bill isnt liberal enough, we have a 50/50 split between those who would rather have Obama's bill, and those who would rather have nothing.

And, given the polls showing that when you show individual pieces to people who disapprove of the bill, they actually approve of a majority of the pieces, I think at least half of the Republicans who disapprove of it are doing so only because theyre being told to disapprove of it because it's coming from a Democrat.

I think if we avoided hyperbole and partisan whining, the bill would have at least 60% approval.

 

[dtc]

i guess thats why allowing insurance companies to cross state lines may be a good idea.

Sure, as long as they're regulated properly. BTW, isn't that now part of the plan?

 

[champ76]

And? Republicans and Democrats each only take up about 35-40% of the total voting population. So even if 100% of Republicans had disapproval of the bill, that leaves another 20-25% that has to come from Independents + Democrats.

And if even half of those disapprove because the bill isnt liberal enough, we have a 50/50 split between those who would rather have Obama's bill, and those who would rather have nothing.

And, given the polls showing that when you show individual pieces to people who disapprove of the bill, they actually approve of a majority of the pieces, I think at least half of the Republicans who disapprove of it are doing so only because theyre being told to disapprove of it because it's coming from a Democrat.

I think if we avoided hyperbole and partisan whining, the bill would have at least 60% approval.

If this were true, wouldn't there be a Sen. Coakley instead of a Sen. Brown?

 

[DadsDream]

Henry Payne, The Detroit News, Michigan

John Cole, Scranton, PA -- The Scranton Times

 

[daybreaker]

If this were true, wouldn't there be a Sen. Coakley instead of a Sen. Brown?

You mean Martha "I decided to run one of the worst campaigns ever" Coakley? If you want to think that, go ahead.

If the healthcare bill is such poison for the Democrats, why not let them pass it? The Republicans would then easily be able to take things back over in 2010 and 2012 and stop it, since most of it wouldnt go into effect til 2013.

No, its because they know passing the bill will be a victory for the Democrats, and once passed, they will be able to pass fixes to put back in all the pieces they had to initially take out in their failed attempts at bi-partisanship.

Approval will then continue rising for Democrats and falling for Republicans.

No- Republicans know the only way they win is to make the bill fail. This has been their admitted strategy since last year. They have never been interested in bipartisanship.

 

[Galbreath34]

I just kind of wish Obama would grow a pair and say, if we're going through reconciliation, let's go ahead and remove any bones we tossed the Republicans' way to make them like the bill. Make it 100% Democrat and make them face losing the concessions they gained along the way as punishment for the filibuster. It'd make the Republicans accountable to voters for not at least getting their input on the bill locked in, and it would make the filibuster have a real consequence, but we're not gonna see that happen.