The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

What possible benefit do you think it's actually providing now for the public?

Wealthy banks. That's the #1 goal.

[southsider2k5]

I think that the government isn't going to eliminate s*** in these costs. But you all view it as the savior of all things market related, so wallah, it must be so.

 

The funny part is the subsidy isn't really going away, it just isn't called a subsidy anymore when the government lends out money at below market rates. The reason that this subsidy even came into being is that it was making companies lend out money at interest rates way below market rates so no one wanted to do it. The only way this program existed was because the government paid banks to undercut even the fed rates at points in the past.

 

It also means the government is going to keep all of the collections fees instead of the banks that were making the loans. There will still be excess administration costs as the probability is that it will take more expensive unionized government workers to run his program into the ground, instead of their cheaper private sector counterparts who had been running the program.

 

This is all accounting tricks which the private sector couldn't get away with, but since the government absolves themselves from following most laws, including Sarbane's Oxley in this case, no one really is the wiser.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Facebook Comment of the day:

finds it sad that the Democrats are hailing the passage of the health care bill as being on a par with Social Security and Medicare, two more entitlements that are bankrupting the US.

 

I'm gonna bet he wont be returning his military pension or Social Security when he's 75. If it's so evil, dont take the money.

[Cknolls]

So i kept seeing these off-hand comments about student loans, and was like, what happened? I thought the loan thing was dead in the water.

 

Apparently, in the sidecar going through reconciliation, that student loan reform to make the gov't directly give loans to student is in it. If that passes, that's huge! It saves so much money that frankly, I hope they just put right back into loans for students, lots more pell grants, etc. I'm really pleased with this. I'm really pleased right now with the House, I'm going to help my local congressman for 2010.

 

 

It should be noting that student loans was a privatization program that was way more wasteful than doing it themselves.

 

 

I think the fact that you think it's a terrible idea to eliminate a $50 billion subsidy to the banks that gets the country absolutely no benefit because the government is evil says a lot.

 

 

Wealthy banks. That's the #1 goal.

 

 

Sallie Mae floating (selling) debt higher than the rate they charge for the loan. Good business model there.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Cknolls

[BigSqwert]

Something must be wrong with the website. Cknoll's sig isn't working properly. I don't see the LOL emoticon.

[southsider2k5]

Facebook Comment of the day:

 

 

I'm gonna bet he wont be returning his military pension or Social Security when he's 75. If it's so evil, dont take the money.

 

As long as the federal government gives me back the money I paid for them, and doesn't take any more of my money, its a deal. I would opt out in a heartbeat.

[BigSqwert]

LOL

 

 

Poor Republican Reps. Mike Pence and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, no one gave a s*** what Republicans had to say today.

 

LINK

[HuskyCaucasian]

Vice President Joe Biden, perhaps overcome with excitement during his speech congratulating President Obama at the health care reform signing ceremony, dropped the F-bomb on live television when he introduced the president on Tuesday. Leaning in to shake Obama's hand, he says what clearly sounds like, "This is a big f***ing deal."

 

[BigSqwert]

He's right.

[KipWellsFan]

Politics aside, Joe Biden rules.

[Balta1701]

He's our Principal Skinner.

[HuskyCaucasian]

For just pure debate purposes: Should Biden run again as VP, or should Obama look for another person?

 

I dont say this because Biden is bad at his job. I am fairly sure he was picked to "balance" the ticket (age, experience). But with the passing of health care, and their next efforts of Environment and Financial reform, i am wondering if he needs Biden the next time around.

[bmags]

Um, I think Obama realizes you don't want to tap any more people out of the senate. I really don't think it matters to replace Biden. I guess he could look for a southern personality, but f*** the south. They've had overrepresentation in the exec branch for too many years.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Um, I think Obama realizes you don't want to tap any more people out of the senate. I really don't think it matters to replace Biden. I guess he could look for a southern personality, but f*** the south. They've had overrepresentation in the exec branch for too many years.

I'm thinking more along the lines of finding the next president that can run having been the VP for the last 4 years. I know that guy out in Montana was well received at the convention.

[bmags]

Oh.

 

Well, I say if the denver mayor wins the Colo. gov race, then that's who you look at for the next dem pres.

 

Ha, wouldn't it be funny if petraeus ran as a democrat. haha.ahhhh

[StrangeSox]

Open letter to conservatives (Republicans, really):

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/...e.php?ref=recdc

[Balta1701]

[BigSqwert]

[HuskyCaucasian]

Open letter to conservatives (Republicans, really):

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/...e.php?ref=recdc

There is a reason I call myself an independent: I really want to support some portions of the GOP, but they have done NOTHING since 2001 that has endeared me to them. In a period of my life when I was a political "jump ball", the Dems went up to get me while the GOP stood on the ground and said "no".

[bmags]

yglesias.thinkprogress.org

 

So, what do you think of this:

"The End of Big Government Liberalism

 

For the past 65-70 years—and especially for the past 30 years since the end of the civil rights argument—American politics has been dominated by controversy over the size and scope of the welfare state. Today, that argument is largely over with liberals having largely won. The size of the US public sector is still going to look low by international standards, but this will be a bit misleading since the way the structure of the Affordable Care Act works is to use public money and public regulation to leverage a lot of formally private money. In practice, the United States will still be a small government country compared to Sweden or Denmark or France (which combines Danish-style taxes with a below-the-waterline iceberg of hidden state-directed economic activity), but not compared to the United Kingdom or Spain.

 

Due to the bill’s almost comically delayed implementation, for several years we’re still going to have a lot of political tussling over it. And even once it’s in place, the system will continue to be debated and tweaked for years to come. But over time, I think American politics will come to look quite different and we’ll look back on this day as a turning point.

 

The crux of the matter is that progressive efforts to expand the size of the welfare state are basically done. There are big items still on the progressive agenda. But they don’t really involve substantial new expenditures. Instead, you’re looking at carbon pricing, financial regulatory reform, and immigration reform as the medium-term agenda. Most broadly, questions about how to boost growth, how to deliver public services effectively, and about the appropriate balance of social investment between children and the elderly will take center stage. This will probably lead to some realigning of political coalitions. Liberal proponents of reduced trade barriers and increased immigration flows will likely feel emboldened about pushing that agenda, since the policy environment is getting substantially more redistributive and does much more to mitigate risk. Advocates of things like more and better preschooling are going to find themselves competing for funds primarily with the claims made by seniors."

 

After reading the comments, I think it's easy to misunderstand what he's saying. It's over, in the sense that, yes, government is going to be in health care. So yeah, I say in 20 years...it's basically done. Most every liberal program I wanted will have been implemented in some way or another.

[HuskyCaucasian]

yglesias.thinkprogress.org

 

So, what do you think of this:

"The End of Big Government Liberalism

 

For the past 65-70 years—and especially for the past 30 years since the end of the civil rights argument—American politics has been dominated by controversy over the size and scope of the welfare state. Today, that argument is largely over with liberals having largely won. The size of the US public sector is still going to look low by international standards, but this will be a bit misleading since the way the structure of the Affordable Care Act works is to use public money and public regulation to leverage a lot of formally private money. In practice, the United States will still be a small government country compared to Sweden or Denmark or France (which combines Danish-style taxes with a below-the-waterline iceberg of hidden state-directed economic activity), but not compared to the United Kingdom or Spain.

 

Due to the bill’s almost comically delayed implementation, for several years we’re still going to have a lot of political tussling over it. And even once it’s in place, the system will continue to be debated and tweaked for years to come. But over time, I think American politics will come to look quite different and we’ll look back on this day as a turning point.

 

The crux of the matter is that progressive efforts to expand the size of the welfare state are basically done. There are big items still on the progressive agenda. But they don’t really involve substantial new expenditures. Instead, you’re looking at carbon pricing, financial regulatory reform, and immigration reform as the medium-term agenda. Most broadly, questions about how to boost growth, how to deliver public services effectively, and about the appropriate balance of social investment between children and the elderly will take center stage. This will probably lead to some realigning of political coalitions. Liberal proponents of reduced trade barriers and increased immigration flows will likely feel emboldened about pushing that agenda, since the policy environment is getting substantially more redistributive and does much more to mitigate risk. Advocates of things like more and better preschooling are going to find themselves competing for funds primarily with the claims made by seniors."

Well stated

[StrangeSox]

So, if the Republicans get the Congress and the WH back in 2012, do they just repeal the whole damn thing before most of the provisions have even gone into effect?

[bmags]

So, if the Republicans get the Congress and the WH back in 2012, do they just repeal the whole damn thing before most of the provisions have even gone into effect?

 

My guess is this: "not bloody likely"

 

Seriously, it's really hot right now, but in 2 years, they would be repealing really popular things.

[Balta1701]

My guess is this: "not bloody likely"

 

Seriously, it's really hot right now, but in 2 years, they would be repealing really popular things.

Campaigning on "you should lose your insurance" is probably not going to be a winning issue.

[bmags]

Campaigning on "you should lose your insurance" is probably not going to be a winning issue.

 

I will say this as a caveat...since it is before 2014, i would guess not a substantial amount have gained insurance by then.