According to this article at HuffPo, Sen.Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., will vote for a plan that includes the public option if it gets to the floor using reconciliation. The article says she is the 35th senator to so pledge.
UPDATE 10:7 AM PST–According to Open Left, 45 senators (this includes Cantwell) say they are “open to using reconciliation to finish health reform,” while 35, also including Cantwell, have signed a letter asking that the public option be included in a reconciliation bill.
The upshot is both of our U.S. Senators are listening to regular people and doing the right thing.
I just called both our Senators to say thank you (hint, hint).
Cantwell: 202-224-3441
Murray: 202-224-2621
I marvel at the KLOWNishness of you KLOWNS!
It’s amazing you are prepared to literally put the nail in the “Progressive” Coffin.
Never, ever has a significant Social Program been voted thru without bi-partisan support. Social Security, Medicare…even the Civil Rights Act….all huge bi-partisan support.
If Republicans gain control of the House or Senate, they will simply stop the funding on this debacle. What, 4 years of taxes….then benefits?? Lots of time to undo this cluster….
Hey, tell me the Budget impact of the plan 14 years out? $1-2 TRILLION defict??
Democrats must really think folks are stupid to merely look at 10 years of taxes/funding vs. 6 years of benefits and buy that this is a great deal.
’bout damn time, Maria.
Yay!
@2
Well then you should have nothing to worry about.
Does this mean I can stop my hourly e-mails to the Senators’ offices?
@2 “If Republicans gain control of the House or Senate, they will simply stop the funding on this debacle.”
Sure, after you guys win a 60-seat majority in the Senate. You have only 19 seats to go.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
By the way, if you see my avatar change sometime in the next few weeks, don’t be surprised. The picture I’ve been using is very dated, and I need to either use a new one or find an avatar which is a bit more symbolic/imaginative.
How come Cynical and other wingnuts are only concerned about deficits/federal debt when a Democrat is President?
Did he utter a peep at George W. Bush’s Medicare Part B plan? Did he protest that the Bush-era tax cuts, combined with an unfunded war effort, would wipe out all the gains against the federal debt that it took us two decades to overcome?
The House has already passed a bill with public option. It wasn’t in the Senate bill because Democrats didn’t have 60 votes for it. They do, however, have a majority in both houses. So, if Republicans want to filibsuter a conference bill that doesn’t contain the public option, leaving reconciliation as the Democrats’ only alternative, then I say put it back in and pass it with the votes of 51 senators and let the GOPers eat shit. I’m willing to lose the 2010 elections to get public option, just as I was willing to lose the South to get civil rights legislation passed. Fuck ’em, let them stew in their bayou shanties!
Never, ever has a significant Social Program been voted thru without bi-partisan support. Social Security, Medicare…even the Civil Rights Act….all huge bi-partisan support.
Really? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was strong supported in the north, and strong opposed in the south.
For/Against
The original House version:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)
@10, Not so much a partisan split but a South vs Everywhere Else split.
By the way, the new Republican plan being floated for taking control of Congress is to double the size of each house of Congress. The argument is that the increase in the size of the population requires more members of Congress to be more responsive to their needs.
http://www.chattanoogan.com/ar.....170199.asp
I’m guessing that they figure that by giving each state four Senators, the red states with the smaller populations would have more weight in the Senate (and in the Electoral College). I’m not sure how this helps them in the House, but I’m guessing they figure that anything which mixes it up and makes every seat a new “oontested” seat, giving them at least a shot at some seats which were previously safe from challenge.
Of course, the odds of them having sufficient numbers in Congress or the state legislatures to get this adopted are virtually nill. And all the Democrats have to do to defeat this is point out that adding more Congress members would at least double the expense, while making it increasingly less efficient.
@ Brawny Towel Guy
What could be more symbolic that the Brawny Towel Guy.
Blue John @ 10
Ummmmm…are you trying to be an idiot??
Here is the definition of Bipartisan–
Interesting that you point out however, how the Democrats dominated the South and dominated racism.
You are are idiot Blue John.
Cynical @ 14: “Interesting that you point out however, how the Democrats dominated the South and dominated racism.”
Democrats fixed that problem back in the mid-1960’s – Democrat politicians had to either reform or leave the party. A bunch of them temporarily joined George Wallace’s third-party, but by 1972 most of them were firmly entrenched in the Republican party.
Interesting that you point out however, how the Democrats dominated the South and dominated racism.
If you read history, the democrats of back then, are rather much the republicans of now. A bunch of closet and overt racists and homophobes.
Why is it so hard for you to remember history and the concept that people and parties change?
Thanks for the textbook definition of Bipartisan. Did you bother to read my comment at @11 before you started name calling and sounding like a fool?
@16 “Did you bother to read my comment at @11 before you started name calling and sounding like a fool?”
Um, you’re talking about the Klynical KLOWN, you know.
Cuntsmell will never learn….
@18 “Cuntsmell”
How clever of you! You’re undoubtably one of the smarter and more eloquent trolls we have here.
@14 Civics 101, Cynical: It takes both parties to make bipartisanship work. That involves negotiation, compromise, and give-and-take. The Republican model of “my way or the highway” doesn’t count.
Steve @ 19
Can you believe such childishness? Of course, in wingnuttia, such slurs count as substantive political commentary.
@19:
Thanks Stevie. Now run along back to your little goat farm.
Little Markie is projecting again. Just because he and his troll buddies keep goats does not mean everyone else does.
@21 and 23 Some of these wingnuts who show up here are dumber than a box of rocks. Mark, of course, is one of the smarter ones. So let’s all of us give him some respect.
heh- Just kidding.
“Now run along back to your little goat farm”
Hmm, somebody’s got issues. Project much? I hear it’s a Psych 101 thing.
23
Wouldn’t you think that Markie could come up with something else? Ah, but that would require imagination and original thought. Markie lacks access to such mental agility. Still, I’m guessing he’s happy enough in his narrow, repetitive, constrained little world.
The Economist, a U.K.-based conservative newsmagazine, reports the decade of 2000-2009 — under George W. Bush and the GOP — was the worst since the 1930s.
“Taking the decade between 2000 and 2009 as a whole, growth was slower than in previous decades” The Economist says. “Real GDP in America grew by an average of 1.9% a year … the economy’s worst performance for a long time. During the previous six decades, average growth was 3.9% a year. … The story is much the same when the growth in Americans’ personal consumption during the ten years to the end of 2009 is compared with previous decades. Again, only the 1930s were worse. In terms of employment growth, the 2000s were also a lost decade. In the years between 1940 and 1999 the number of Americans employed outside farming grew by an average of 27% each decade. In the one just past it fell by 0.8%.”
http://www.economist.com/world.....8;fsrc=rss
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Those are statistics, folks, hard numbers — not somebody’s opinion. Given this record, why vote for Republicans? Any CEO who turned in a performance like this would be canned.
“Any CEO who turned in a performance like this would be canned.”
Well, an average working stiff would certainly be canned. The management will tell them they aren’t being productive enough, and lay off the entire lot, and outsource the jobs overseas.
But as for CEO’s, I think recent experience will show that except for a few notable exceptions, most will get huge golden parachutes, “bonuses”, and go on to run another company into the ground.
Support Your Non-Local Democrats!
In another article, The Economist points out that Republicans are making a push to win several Democratic seats in Arkansas. Among those running is Tim Griffin, who ran the RNC’s criminal “caging” operations to bar black voters — including soldiers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan — from voting in the 2004 presidential election.
(For details of this sordid story, see http://www.gregpalast.com/mass.....-soldiers/)
So why am I posting this? Because, as The Economist says, “A little money goes a long way here. Media coverage is comparatively cheap, and the state is small, allowing door-to-door campaigning. A swing of several thousand votes can make a difference.”
http://www.economist.com/world.....8;fsrc=rss
So, let’s keep an eye on these races, and help our Arkansas friends with donations. This is where we could have a big impact. It’s especially important to keep that bastard Griffin out of Congress.
@27 Short of owning millions of dollars’ worth of stock, we don’t get to vote on CEOs, but we do have the opportunity to keep the management of our government from falling into incompetent Republican hands again. See #28.
@ 26: One of the things which isn’t discussed much is that depending upon the age of the person, the effects of economic downturns such as the current one last long beyond the economic recovery. The hardest hit are the oldest and youngest workers.
Take the youngest workers, for example, especially those who have just completed their college education. The fastest way for them to progress quickly, on a financial and professional level, is to get a good job at an established company in a growing field. The rising tide allows them to quickly move through the lower ranks of the company, reaching lower management levels in just a few years, and by their early-30’s establishing themselves among the higher wage-earners with all the financial benefits which accrue therefrom, at a relatively early age. They can afford to buy the larger houses (thereby benefiting from greater appreciation in a good market), invest money which would allow them to weather temporary downturns, and perhaps allow them to start their own business someday.
But in a bad economy, young people first starting out find themselves taking whatever jobs are available. They may find themselves in the last-hired, first-fired cycle, taking jobs at a series of small struggling companies instead of secure growing ones, which doesn’t look good on their resumes and tends to perpetuate the cycle. Instead of working in an industry learning new technologies and skills, they may be using increasingly obsolete equipment and techniques which render them particularly vulnerable in future downturns. In short, they may never be able to overcome the disadvantages caused by the limited choices they had when they first started out.
For older workers (age 50~ 65) in a good economy, it’s a time to enjoy their highest-earning years with relatively low expenses (the kids are moved out, college expenses are over, etc.). They can stash away large amounts of money to fund their upcoming retirement, and have free time for vacations or hobbies. But in a bad economy, they might find their high salaries a brick around their necks as they are among the first laid off in favor of younger, less expensive workers. Finding a new job with gray hair with a good company is extraordinarily hard, and often only temp or contract work is available – leaving the older workers and their spouses without affordable medical insurance just when they are most likely to need it. Many 50+ year old workers who are laid off from companies they have worked at for decades find that they will never again find permanant employment, and are forced to take a series of low-paying jobs and contribute nothing more towards their retirement.
Note that workers who started their careers in the early 1980’s (and struggled through that recession), are now in their early 50’s and facing layoffs again – sometimes requiring complete career changes just a little more than a decade before retirement.
Certainly there are individuals who manage to buck these trends and overcome these difficulties. But their numbers are relatively few in comparison with the general population.
Of course, those who started their careers in the good years, or ended them in good years, tend to attribute their good fortune on hard work, superior intelligence, and greater moral strengths. Those who started their careers in bad years, or ended them in bad years, tend simply to be frustrated, and wonder what they did wrong to account for the difficulties they faced.
Confirmed at whipcongress.com.
@30 You’re right, and I posted about this a few days ago, because one of the magazines I regularly read did a feature article on it. An entire generation’s earning potential will be impaired because of this recession. And the Repukes are already trying to figure out a way to convince them it’s the Democrats’ fault.
Sarah Palin Is A Dangerous, Immoral Idiot
Journalist Fareed Zakaria, writing in Newsweek, reminds us how dangerously LOONY she is:
“Sarah Palin has a suggestion for how Barack Obama can save his presidency. ‘Say he decided to declare war on Iran,’ she said on Fox News last week. ‘I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he’s tougher than we think he is today.'”
Aside from the obvious immorality of Palin’s thought process — wars, after all, KILL people — Zakaria points out its idiocy from the practical point of view:
“It is important to recognize the magnitude of what people like Sarah Palin are advocating. The United States is being asked to launch a military invasion of a state that poses no imminent threat to America, without sanction from any international body, and with few governments willing to publicly endorse such an action. Al Qaeda and its ilk would present it as the third American invasion of a Muslim nation in a decade, proof positive that the United States is engaged in a war of civilizations. Moderate Arab states and Muslim governments everywhere would be on the defensive. As Washington has surely come to realize, wars unleash forces that cannot be predicted or controlled.”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233854
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Sarah Palin isn’t merely stupid and immoral, she’s dangerous and incompetent, as well. That’s why she should never, ever, hold another public office.
The Face Of The Militia Movement
Charles Dyer, a Marine sergeant at Camp Pendleton, was court-martialed for posting allegedly “disloyal” videos on YouTube. He is part of a rightwing movement trying to persuade soldiers to disobey orders. (The leader of this movement is a former aide to Rep. Ron Paul.) After leaving the military, Dyer was charged with raping a 7-year-old girl, and also faces federal weapons charges in connection with a stolen military grenade launcher police found in his home.
http://motherjones.com/politic.....th-keepers
33
I cannot understand, aside from the woodies that she produces in Viagrafied old men, Palin’s popularity. It is frightening that she is considered a serious presidential candidate. She froths at the mouth like Father Coughlin. She hasn’t traveled. She hangs with teabaggers. She is snitty. Her husband is a dolt. I doubt she could distinguish Iraq from Iran on a map. What the hell is wrong with conservatives that they take her seriously?
2000 to 2010 America’s lost decade? Why? We all know. G.O.P.
I mean for those of us that are not in the top 1%. For them, they kicked ass. Bush’s base. The haves and the have mores.
I called Cantwell’s office and thanked her staff today for not making me go protest her office Sunday….
Forcing people to by for profit insurance is bad news come November. Any idiot can see that. Public Option or lose mass seats come election time. Simple, even for idiot dems.
a couple of senators belatedly endorsing a public option ain’t jack.
they shoulda been out there fighting for it, leading for it, demanding for it, holding rallies for it, getting on national tv like weinert for it, etc.
they should be out there demanding stopping the fillibuster system of the senate if they want real change.
wake up. these senators are not leading for change. they are waiting to see where the wind blows…they know there is no chance of a public option….sure they say they’re for it…..we’re going to hit a ceiling of about 40 or 44 on it, so this counting public option supoprters is totally meaningless.
why don’t you go count the votes in the house where we don’t even have enough votes for the obama plan on the table that does not even have a public option?
btw the fact that the baird replacements can’t even come forward on how they would vote on it is telling, they’re just as spineless as the rest of them.
these people should be the ones leading, not following. we set the bar sooooooo low.
Here is the most significant trend Obam-Mao and the Dummocrats are trying to buck with Government Health Care–
Thursday, March 04, 2010
RR – you really are a raving loon. Why should the general public get to vote on individual CEOs?
@30 To put it in simpler terms to match the attention span of the average troll, a rising tide lifts all yachts, while a falling one sinks all dinghies.