According to an editorial in today’s Seattle Times…
Reichert is a conservative — maybe too conservative for his district.
Reichert a conservative? Who knew?
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Hmmm…this must have been in the Times’ “conservative” edition.
He has televangelist hair.
BREAKING – the Democratic – led Congress has just helped push the stock market above 14,000 for the first time. If America wants true financial wealth, it will continue to elect Dems.
I thought that was a pretty shocking statement as well. Until now they would fall over themselves calling him a “moderate”. Now that Rodney Tom is in the race they’ve decided that Reichert is a “conservative” who may be “too conservative”.
At this point I think we’ve established their complete and utter lack of credibility on this race.
Then at the PI, who can forget their endorsement of Esser over Tom at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....sened.html?
Hmmm, I guess you guys don’t like this guy Reichert.
RightEqualsStupid says:
BREAKING – the Democratic – led Congress has just helped push the stock market above 14,000 for the first time.
===
RightEquals,
The political climate doesn’t have much of an effect on the stock market. Sure, some dramatic or catastrophic politcal even may have an effect on the market for a short time, like maybe a week, but politics doesn’t have much sway in the market. No political party can claim responsiblity for the market going up, and no political party can be blamed for the market going down.
“Reichert is a conservative — maybe too conservative for his district. Yet, he has been willing to stretch himself to independent votes on such matters as the environment and on the absurdity of the government intervening in the Terri Schiavo case. Schiavo was the severely brain-damaged Florida woman.”
Goldy Goldy Goldy…..
Shame shame.
Oh and you forgot to mention that the article is more about Tom and his appeal to voters…
6. We know the Libertarians can’t take credit for anything because they don’t DO anything.
3 Unfortunately, what pushed the market that high is the fat cats’ drooling excitement over the prospect of profiteering on a war in Iran, and possibly direct US intervention in Palestine, in addition to the ongoing festivities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Re #7,
What “shame” should Goldy feel? He pointed out that the Seattle Times finally called Reichert a conservative and pointed out that he’s more conservative than his district. The article indeed said that. The portion you quote doesn’t change that in the least; it just shows that the Times is still the Times.
I’m tempted to conclude you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.
@3, @9
or,
Those evil CEO’s did their jobs and better than expected earnings are being reported, along with very low inflation and the fed maintaining current rates…
@6
Libertarian is actually quite right on that. But I will add the fact that the DJIA going up is also far from an indication that the economy overall is healthy. It’s only an indication of the health of an aggregate of its most prominent corporations.
@5
Hmmm, I guess you guys don’t like this guy Reichert.
Well, he’s voted for taking away habeas corpus rights, voted to authorize record amounts of government spending on the most obscene military boondoggle in our nation’s history, voted for the Patriot Act, voted to allow federal money to be spent on arresting legal medical marijuana patients, supports the President’s programs to illegally spy on its citizens without warrants, remains close to a Vice President whose secrecy borders on paranoia, has never said a word about our secret prisons or the allegations of torture happening there.
What not for a Libertarian to like?
12 Since 1987, the relationship between the Dow and the general state of the economy (at least the one we mortals earn wages, buy groceries and make house payments in) is tenuous at best.
Sez Lee:
And only a tiny proportion of them. The DJIA, remember, is the weighted sum of the share prices of thirty huge multinational corporations. Not at all representative of the stock market as a whole, much less the real day-to-day economy out here in the real world beyond arbitrage, hedge funds, derivatives, and speculation.
The ultra-rich continue to get ultra-richer, while the great majority are one major illness or disability or decreasing credit score away from ruin (unless they’re already in ruin).
RightEqualsStupid says:
6. We know the Libertarians can’t take credit for anything because they don’t DO anything.
============
You can do ad hominem attacks all day long, but it doensn’t change the fact that poiticians and their acts do not infuence the stock market. The 14,000 Dow close has no more to do with the Democrats having control of the Senate and House than it doeswith the Republicans having control of the White House does.
In short, political parties and their agenda do not matter to the stock market. Stating otherwise is lying.
You got that fucking right. We’re taking the 8th.
Lee said,
“What not for a Libertarian to like? ” about Reichert.
===
Reichert does not concern me since he’s not the representative from my district: Norm Dicks is.
N,
Do you know what arbitrage is and what derivatives are? do you know how derivatives can be used to reduce risk for an insitutional innvestor, such as a union’s pension?
What does arbitrage do for the overall market?
OK, using puts and calls (derivatives) is a good way to protect a portfolio from drastic market moves. Derivatives are not necessarily risky and can be used quite prudently to manage and protect wealth.
Arbitrage is simultaneous buying and selling across markets. It insures an efficient market place where willing buyers and sellers can do business. It is no more inherently “evil” that using derivatives.
When I hear the news flunkies use term like “those risky derivatives” it makes me cringe. It show an ignorance of the modern securities market place that is astounding. When the newies use terms like “risky derivaties” they are truly showing their ignorance and lack of education.
N in Seattle says:
What do you mean by “great majority”? Are you really saying that 60% (or more) of the people in this country are on the edge of ruin?
to Libertarian…
Arbitrage is acting as a middleman in someone else’s deals, thereby making vastly more money than the people who produce the products and staff the companies with which the arbitrageurs are toying.
Derivatives, in and of themselves, can indeed be instruments for reducing risk. Since they are (even) less regulated than corporate securities and mutual funds, they can be manipulated so that the shady purveyors thereof profit far more from them than do the people whose risk is (supposedly) being reduced. And when those overmanipulated instruments have been sucked dry and collapse, the managers thereof demand recompense from the federal government (i.e., us taxpayers) for their thievery.
C-First asks:
Yep, that’s what I’m saying. They (we) may not know it, but one untoward event will bring their (our) entire lives and liveihoods down on their (our) heads.
And the corporatist leeches won’t give a good goddamn, since they’ll be profiting mightily from it.
@23
I’m amazed at how few people still don’t understand this after all that’s been happening. Some people don’t learn until things happen to them.
N in Seattle says:
Do you have a source for this “fact”?
Sure:Percent without health insurance upPercent with inadequate health insurance upMortgage forclosures upIncome disparity between executive suite and workers way upThat’s just off the top of my head. Anyone with eyes and ears can see and hear it. Oh, I suppose it takes a brain too, so that excuses you.
Ugh… Formatting looked right for my bullet list in preview. Let’s try it again:
Sure:
— Percent without health insurance up
— Percent with inadequate health insurance up
— Mortgage foreclosures up
— Income disparity between executive suite and workers way up
That’s just off the top of my head. Anyone with eyes and ears can see and hear it. Oh, I suppose it takes a brain too, so that excuses you.
N,
And Congress last year made it harder to cut your losses when something catastrophic comes up by making it harder to declare bankruptcy.
@25
Do you have a source for this “fact”?
Please don’t see Sicko. I don’t think you’ll be able to afford the medical bills when your head explodes.
Lee @29
C’mon Lee.
Michael Moore is a joke. He’s been debunked over and over.
I will give him credit for igniting the debate on the issue.
Like Social Securtiy, we can’t just pretend the problems don’t exist….
Michael Moore is a joke. He’s been debunked over and over.
I disagree with some of his opinions, but he gets his facts straight. I haven’t seen Sicko yet myself, but I’m familiar with the types of cases he chronicles and I’ve yet to talk to anyone (right or left) who hasn’t been blown away by it. We have a severe problem in this country where people can go bankrupt even when they’ve done all they could be expected to do to protect themselves through insurance. When commenters like ConservativeFirst snicker at it, it’s a reminder that he’s AmericaSecond.
N in Seattle says:
1) These aren’t sources, since it’s just your assertion.
2) Even if you could prove these assertions, then don’t show that 60% or more of Americans are on the edge of financial ruin.
Here are some real facts (from the U.S. Census Bureau):
http://www.census.gov/Press-Re.....07419.html
Over 84% of Americans have health insurance. Now that’s a “great majority”.
I’m not sure how you measure “adequate” for health care. If you can provide a source for this claim, I’d love to see it.
As far as foreclosures go. Yes rates are up. But even in the hardest hit states, the foreclosure rate is on the order of 1 in 300 to 1 in 400 households, which hardly shows that a “great majority” are teetering on financial ruin.
While I agree executive pay seems out of whack, even taking away the highest paid executives huge salaries and bonus and distributing it evenly to their workforce would add little to the workers’ pay. So your argument is just a red herring and really boils down to economic envy.
Lee says:
I don’t watch propoganda. If you want to use any of the “facts” Moore presents in his movie here, please do so.
Lee says:
Hmmm, disagreeing with someone’s grandiose, and inaccurate, claim is “snickering”.
Interesting argument.
re 6: When a Democrat makes that claim, it just brings out the schoolmarm in you, doesn’t it?
After the DOZENS of times Wingnuts have made that claim, you have been entirely mute on the subject, but now , you point out in your petulant way that politics doesn’t have a lot to do with the stock market.
Let me break it to you gently: The guy was joking and mocking Wingnuts.
re 32: The “coverage” isn’t very good, and you can lose it if you get sick and can’t work. Lot’s of things aren’t covered.
The problem is that millions of people use hospital emergency rooms as their de-facto insurance. Someone’s gotta pay for all that free care.
Guess who that someone is?
re 30: The “problem” with social security is that Ronald Reagan raped the system to take the tax burden off the rich.
Simple solution: Raise the ceiling — and fuck you, buddy.
One of the wingnut talking points about socialized medicine is that you “won’t be able to choose your own doctor.” But you can’t do that now! So how you gonna twist the yokels’ minds this time around.
Point an accusing finger at Michael Moore and yell: “BLASPHEMER!”
Bush Supporting, RubberStamping Republicans aren’t conservatives.
Robert @38:
You may be right, but it seems to me that if Conservatives don’t want Bush’s “conservative” values glued to them, they should start making that publicly known. I’m not a conservative, but it really has me puzzled why, if Republicans and other Conservatives don’t want to be tarred with his brush, they are stampeding over the cliff with him.
39:
You really should read Andrew Sullivan. If there were more people like him on the other side….hell, in the reality that is the Resistance Movement against the Bush Crime Family, he’s on OUR side, pretty much the first one to jump ship when he endorsed Kerry in ’04. If the other side was more like him, at least the argument would be a lot more genial.
@32
Wow, you’re not quite grasping this at all. The fact that only 16% of the people in this country don’t have health insurance does not mean that only 16% of the people can go bankrupt from medical problems. Most people who go bankrupt HAD insurance.
I don’t watch propoganda. If you want to use any of the “facts” Moore presents in his movie here, please do so.
OK, sport. Here you go:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/
BOSTON – Costly illnesses trigger about half of all personal bankruptcies, and most of those who go bankrupt because of medical problems have health insurance, according to findings from a Harvard University study to be released Wednesday.
Researchers from Harvard’s law and medical schools said the findings underscore the inadequacy of many private insurance plans that offer worst-case catastrophic coverage, but little financial security for less severe illnesses.
“Unless you’re Bill Gates, you’re just one serious illness away from bankruptcy,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, the study’s lead author and an associate professor of medicine. “Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick.”
…
Most of those seeking court protection from creditors had health insurance, with more than three-quarters reporting they had coverage at the start of the illness that triggered bankruptcy. The study said 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy, with illness frequently leading to the loss of both a job and insurance.
Now, what this means is that if the 16% of people who did not have coverage at all represent only 1/4 of the total people going bankrupt for medical reasons, then that means that approximately 64% of American citizens are one serious illness away from bankruptcy.
Got it, dumbshit?
Lee @ 41:
Good job! You made your case.
@42
I should’ve swatted that bullshit down earlier, but I was busy yesterday and was out last night. It takes about 10 seconds with Google to find the facts he was claiming don’t exist…what a fucking idiot.
Rigth Stuff @ 30:
The problem with Social Security is simple.
A) If most Americans can afford to pay the tax all year long, than so, too, can folks like Paris Hilton.
B) Or, have a gap where it maxes out now, and then no tax up to $250,000 per year, then at $250,001+ the tax kicks in again.
Credit to Al Franken for his “dough nut hole therory” to fix the SS problem.
Lee,
Naahhhhhh, you did a great job.
I have found that when you are debating someone who is coming from and “ideaological driven point of view” instead of truth and reason you have to let them run with the line, then, BAM, set the hook, line and sinker.
What their counter arguement demonstrates is how gullible they are to the propoganda handed out by the RNC, Conservative talk radio, and FIX’d News.
To believe Conservative First believes that “Over 84% of Americans have health insurance. Now that’s a “great majority”.” is to ignore the fact that in every other industrialized nation the percentage that have health coverage is 100%. And, declaring bankruptcy over medical issues ONLY happens in America.
@46
What their counter arguement demonstrates is how gullible they are to the propoganda handed out by the RNC, Conservative talk radio, and FIX’d News.
No doubt. My best friend in high school was the son of a prominent health care exec. They know exactly what they’re doing and exactly how stupid the ConservativeFirst’s in this country are. They’ve pulled off one of the most impressive con jobs you can possibly imagine.
Sorry, that was a response to #45… :)
Lee @ 46:
Yeah, they pulled it off, but they couldn’t do it without the help of conservatives. Tax breaks to these companies and changing the advertising laws have put them in positions with the media to do some heavy advertising. Now that newsroom have to be profitable, they dare not upset the Pharma industry fearing reprisals by yanking their ads.
I hope the next president reinstituties the ban on pharma advertising and starts taxing them and the oil companies again, instead of funding their multi-billion dollar profit margins with tax breaks placed on the back of middle income America.