Revolution In Massachusetts

[vbnautilus 48]

I think that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if no successful person in a country of 300,000,000 people thinks an idea is worth spreading, then that idea is pretty much useless.

Wow, I am pretty convinced that is not true. Interesting.

On the other side of the coin, over the long run, better ideas and clearer thinking is more likely to spread among successful people than bad ideas and weak thinking.

I guess a lot of this hinges on what you define as successful, and since we are talking about money buying political time, I read you as meaning people who have earned lots of it. I think that certain kinds of ideas are likely to spread amongst those kinds of people, and certain ideas which may be very good and useful, are not likely to spread among them. More specifically, ideas that serve their interests are likely to spread, and ideas which do not are likely to be suppressed.

[hblask 1]

Wow, I am pretty convinced that is not true. Interesting.

Name one good idea that is supported by NO rich people.

I guess a lot of this hinges on what you define as successful, and since we are talking about money buying political time, I read you as meaning people who have earned lots of it. I think that certain kinds of ideas are likely to spread amongst those kinds of people, and certain ideas which may be very good and useful, are not likely to spread among them. More specifically, ideas that serve their interests are likely to spread, and ideas which do not are likely to be suppressed.

Do you believe that the ability to reason and understand ideas is useful to an individual's financial success in life?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Name one good idea that is supported by NO rich people.

The fact that poverty and self denial is the only path to true happiness.

[vbnautilus 48]

The fact that poverty and self denial is the only path to true happiness.

See, this guy probably has better ideas and is poorer than both of us.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

See, this guy probably has better ideas...

Probably not

... and is poorer than both of us.

Almost certainly

[hblask 1]

The fact that poverty and self denial is the only path to true happiness.

LOL, let's be serious.OK, just kidding, we don't need to be serious. I enjoyed your little humor attempt.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

The fact that poverty and self denial is the only path to true happiness.

You ought to become a priest

[dabetka 0]

Not always, George Soros and Oprah, for example, don't support the best ideas.

LOL... But, I mean, c'mon... IT'S THE O! On a more serious note, I never really seem to hear the lefties talk much about Soros and company... It's like they pretty much pave the road for Obama, Pelosi, Dingy Harry, etc. and then fund it, but we never really hear the Dems speak about Soros. Any thoughts?

[Zealous Donkey 0]

LOL... But, I mean, c'mon... IT'S THE O! On a more serious note, I never really seem to hear the lefties talk much about Soros and company... It's like they pretty much pave the road for Obama, Pelosi, Dingy Harry, etc. and then fund it, but we never really hear the Dems speak about Soros. Any thoughts?

I think it is ridiculous that people are throwing a fit about this. It is Ok for Oprah to have on a bunch of radical lefties like Michael Moore, on everyday for a week or more leading up to the election, but it is not Ok for someone to make a documentary about Hillary Clinton. Why is Soros money better than that of Corperations, isn't he "drowning out the voice of the average american too" I simply can't respect that position. The SC got it right finally. Soros has so much money that he now is pursuing power/influence. If you are looking for some diabolical agenda, it would be with someone like Soros. Corporations are just trying to keep the costs and regulations down enough to where they can turn a profit and not have to relocate out of the country. The rules of the game were set up by politicians, the corperations just play it the way they have to. If the politicians weren't corrupt then it wouldn matter. Banking is a good example, first they pass a law making banks give risky loans or pay large fines. Then they encourage banks to do this even more, and offer to bail them out if things go bad. (btw Obama was front in center in this, along with Dodd and others dems and repubs) Now Obama is trying to place new regulations on the Banks because they did what the govt told them to do in the first place. Absolutely astonishing.

[hblask 1]

The fact that poverty and self denial is the only path to true happiness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/24kristof.htmlAny other guesses?

[gobears 0]

I think the SC got it right in terms of allowing corporations and unions to spend money as they see fit.Of course, we then get my local utility PG&E spending millions of dollars on the following ballot measure. They want to limit competition to keep their monopoly. Nice.A ballot measure, backed by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., that would limit the ability of California cities to go into the public power business has qualified for the June election, according to the secretary of state.The measure would force local governments that want to compete with PG&E to win the approval of two-thirds of their voters first. The utility, California's largest, is fighting efforts by San Francisco and Marin County to start buying electricity on behalf of their residents, taking over a role long held by PG&E.

[hblask 1]

I think the SC got it right in terms of allowing corporations and unions to spend money as they see fit.Of course, we then get my local utility PG&E spending millions of dollars on the following ballot measure. They want to limit competition to keep their monopoly. Nice.A ballot measure, backed by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., that would limit the ability of California cities to go into the public power business has qualified for the June election, according to the secretary of state.The measure would force local governments that want to compete with PG&E to win the approval of two-thirds of their voters first. The utility, California's largest, is fighting efforts by San Francisco and Marin County to start buying electricity on behalf of their residents, taking over a role long held by PG&E.

Yeah, we'll see a lot of that, probably. The real question, though, is whether you (well, not you personally, since you said you agree with the SC... the generic 'you') want them to do their lobbying in private and behind closed doors, or whether you want the debate to take place on the airwaves so everyone can be informed.That's why I don't understand all the opposition to this decision.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption?By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICKWASHINGTON — “There are two things that are important in politics,” Mark Hanna, the great Republican kingmaker of the late 19th century, once said. “The first thing is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.”What was true in Hanna’s century remained true in the next, and since the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, Congress has imposed stricter regulations on money in politics. Advocates of those rules argue that they rein in corruption and increase public trust in government.But after more than three decades, has the system made a difference?The question took on new urgency last week as the Supreme Court threw out regulations that prohibited corporations from buying campaign commercials that explicitly advocate the election or defeat of candidates. Democrats called the ruling a threat to democracy; Republicans cheered it as a victory for free speech.Legal scholars and social scientists say the evidence is meager, at best, that the post-Watergate campaign finance system has accomplished the broad goals its supporters asserted.Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in his opinion that no evidence was marshaled in 100,000 pages of legal briefs to show that unrestricted campaign money ever bought a lawmaker’s vote. And even after Congress further tightened the rules with the landmark McCain-Feingold law in 2002, banning hundreds of millions of dollars in unlimited contributions to the political parties, public trust in government fell to new lows, according to polls.And what about the corporations that contributed so much of that money? A review of the biggest corporate donors found that their stock prices were unaffected after they stopped giving to the parties. The results suggest that those companies did not lose their influence and may have been giving “because they were shaken down by politicians,” said Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School who has studied the law’s impact.“There is no evidence that stricter campaign finance rules reduce corruption or raise positive assessments of government,” said Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “It seems like such an obvious relationship but it has proven impossible to prove.”It is not merely an academic question. The Supreme Court has consistently said that only fighting corruption or the appearance of corruption justifies laws that restrict political spending. Other rationales — like leveling the playing field between the haves and have-nots — are not enough.Defenders of the rules say their case for tighter restrictions on campaign money is obvious to anyone who knows Washington. Private influence-seekers shower big contributions on politicians because they want to gain access and shape policy; they would not spend the money if they got nothing in return.But even supporters of the rules acknowledge that the benefits can be hard to measure. “I happen to think the campaign finance laws have done some modest good,” said Richard L. Hasen, an expert on political law at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “How much good? We may soon find out,” he added, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission.Supporters of the restrictions point to Britain to show that governments can police corruption without imperiling free speech. Britain started regulating political spending as far back as 1883 and has tightened the rules steadily ever since.Those British restrictions would violate the Supreme Court’s view of the First Amendment, yet Britain’s political debates are as robust as they are in the United States.Opponents of restrictions, on the other hand, point out that Australia barely regulates political money. Individuals and corporations can give without limit. Parties can spend freely. And there is not much disclosure about who gives what to whom. But political corruption has not threatened a vibrant democracy there.In the United States, studies comparing states like Virginia with scant regulation against those like Wisconsin with strict rules have not found much difference in levels of corruption or public trust, several scholars said. Jeff Milyo, an economist at the University of Missouri, has compared states with strict bans on corporate contributions to political parties against those with no limits at all. “There is just no good evidence that campaign finance laws have any effect on actual corruption,” he said.The most insistent advocates of the campaign finance laws argue that the benefits are real even if academics can’t measure them. Fred Wertheimer, the dean of campaign finance “reformers,” pointed to the presidential campaign finance system as the best example of success. For five elections beginning in 1976, the presidential candidates of both major parties took public financing and did not receive private campaign contributions. “You can’t prove a negative,” Mr. Wertheimer said, “but in the Carter and Reagan presidencies there were no news stories about campaign contributions influencing presidential decisions.”By the 2008 election, however, that system had grown obsolete. Candidates could raise far more from private donors, and President Obama became the first major candidate since Richard M. Nixon to win election without public money.Polls have shown that relatively few people understand or are even aware of the campaign finance rules. Those who are aware of them usually assume that smart donors will be able to steer around the rules. But Mr. Wertheimer said that a cat-and-mouse game of election rule-makers forever trying to catch up with the latest evasions by big money donors was only natural, “part of the ongoing battle to prevent government corruption.”But some politicians say reformers like Mr. Wertheimer are unrealistic about how money and politicians mix. They cite an old political maxim, attributed in a more vulgar form to the onetime California kingpin Jesse Unruh: If you can’t take their money and vote against them, you don’t belong in politics.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Okay, so here's my idea.Let's say I'm a Democrat and I'm interested in passing health care. In the event that we lose a Senate seat, we no longer have our immortal 60 senators to block a filibuster. But, the Senate has already passed a health care bill. If the house votes in favor of that bill, it does to the President's desk and can be signed into law. The house is already saying that it may simply sign the senate version if they lose their 60th vote because that bill is better than no bill.Here's my idea. Have the house vote in favor of the senate bill. Send the senate bill to the President's desk to be signed into law. Obama will then leave the bill on his desk and not sign it, at least not at first. He will pocket veto the bill until a time of his choosing. Then, have the house and senate continue negotiations on how to consolidate senate and house bills. This means that, no matter what happens, a health care bill will be passed. So, filibustering negotiations does nothing, because there's already a bill on Obama's desk waiting to be signed. This will force Republicans and Democrats to get together to actually make a bill that is BETTER instead of worrying about getting 60 votes by one party and trying to sabotage the bill by the other party.In the event that the house and senate come together to make a better bill, Obama signs that and tears up the first one.Genius? Is this politically feasible?

So, basically this is what they are doing as we speak. The house is passing the Senate bill, and then they are going to pass a reconciliation bill which should make the Senate bill better. Which is once again evidence that congress takes its advice from a poker forum.

[85suited 0]

So, basically this is what they are doing as we speak. The house is passing the Senate bill, and then they are going to pass a reconciliation bill which should make the Senate bill better. Which is once again evidence that congress takes its advice from a poker forum.

congratulations, you have now f***ed up America for generations.

[akoff 0]

According to some reports there are 30 some states with law suits ready to go after this gets approved…there are also several private cases being generated. All based on the bill that is to be signed into law is und constitutional…I guess we’ll see. Look at it this way, if this does get approved we will have the perfect example of how good intentions by Democrats hurt the very people they are intending to protect. Employees everywhere should get used to holding their ankles and don’t bother asking for a kiss…cause Barak and Nancy already gave it to them.

[Jeepster80125 0]

So, basically this is what they are doing as we speak. The house is passing the Senate bill, and then they are going to pass a reconciliation bill which should make the Senate bill better. Which is once again evidence that congress takes its advice from a poker forum.

What do you have to say about the cost of health insurance in Mass. since they started doing this?How will the national reform plan be any different than what's going on in Mass.?

[85suited 0]

What do you have to say about the cost of health insurance in Mass. since they started doing this?How will the national reform plan be any different than what's going on in Mass.?

Because Obama,Pelosi & Reid said so.. isn't it obvious

[nutzbuster 7]

The state of Hawaii tried their own version of socialist Obama care a while back.It was a wild success and completely voluntary.Many folks hated the idea of Gov. run health care kept their private plans ... until their premiums started rising to ridiculous levels.When that happened those folks dropped their private plans and ran to the Gov. health care deal which strained it to the breaking point.Just a few months later the experiment failed. The program was bankrupt and the State abandoned it.for what it's worth

[akoff 0]

The state of Hawaii tried their own version of socialist Obama care a while back.It was a wild success and completely voluntary.Many folks hated the idea of Gov. run health care kept their private plans ... until their premiums started rising to ridiculous levels.When that happened those folks dropped their private plans and ran to the Gov. health care deal which strained it to the breaking point.Just a few months later the experiment failed. The program was bankrupt and the State abandoned it.for what it's worth

well that makes me feel warm and fuzzy....please pass the kool-aid

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The state of Hawaii tried their own version of socialist Obama care a while back.It was a wild success and completely voluntary.Many folks hated the idea of Gov. run health care kept their private plans ... until their premiums started rising to ridiculous levels.When that happened those folks dropped their private plans and ran to the Gov. health care deal which strained it to the breaking point.Just a few months later the experiment failed. The program was bankrupt and the State abandoned it.for what it's worth

Hawaii at one point offered a universal health care program for children. It lasted 7 months until it was taken away.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440561,00.htmlOf course, aside from that, Hawaii has among the best health care in the nation. Why? Because, since the 70's, they have had a law that requires all business to give their employees health care (if they meet certain requirements). As a result, more than 95% of all Hawiians have health care, and it's one of the healthiest states in the county, and premiums are among the lowest.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/health/p...y/17hawaii.htmlSo, thank you for bringing up Hawaii.

[hblask 1]

Hawaii at one point offered a universal health care program for children. It lasted 7 months until it was taken away.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440561,00.htmlOf course, aside from that, Hawaii has among the best health care in the nation. Why? Because, since the 70's, they have had a law that requires all business to give their employees health care (if they meet certain requirements). As a result, more than 95% of all Hawiians have health care, and it's one of the healthiest states in the county, and premiums are among the lowest.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/health/p...y/17hawaii.htmlSo, thank you for bringing up Hawaii.

I was going to point this out, but figured people would jump to the conclusion that it means the US should adopt Hawaii-care, and I didn't feel like explaining why that's a bad leap. But you've forced my hand, dammit.Native Hawaiians are descended from an exceptionally healthy ethnic group. The live where the weather is good and fresh local produce is cheap and available year round. Since it is nice out all the time, exercise is way more common than in most of the US.But the biggest reason we can't just assume we can export their program is that their health care is basically paid for by a tax on businesses. What is their primary industry? Tourism.In the real US, if you tax a business too much, they leave and go to another state or country with a lower cost structure, and you miss out not only on the additional tax, but also on any taxes they were paying before.When your only industry is tourism, it's not so easy to pick up and leave. Somehow, I don't think that Hula Luau is going to go over so big in Duluth.A tax on businesses like the one that Hawaii has would decimate the US economy. And no, that's not hyperbole, it's simple economics.

[gobears 0]

I was going to point this out, but figured people would jump to the conclusion that it means the US should adopt Hawaii-care, and I didn't feel like explaining why that's a bad leap. But you've forced my hand, dammit.Native Hawaiians are descended from an exceptionally healthy ethnic group. The live where the weather is good and fresh local produce is cheap and available year round. Since it is nice out all the time, exercise is way more common than in most of the US.But the biggest reason we can't just assume we can export their program is that their health care is basically paid for by a tax on businesses. What is their primary industry? Tourism.In the real US, if you tax a business too much, they leave and go to another state or country with a lower cost structure, and you miss out not only on the additional tax, but also on any taxes they were paying before.When your only industry is tourism, it's not so easy to pick up and leave. Somehow, I don't think that Hula Luau is going to go over so big in Duluth.A tax on businesses like the one that Hawaii has would decimate the US economy. And no, that's not hyperbole, it's simple economics.

So I checked their taxes Local/State Tax - 5th Highest in USBusiness Tax - 24th (so about the middle)Corporate Income tax - 33rd HighestSales Tax - below national median but collections high (due to all the tourists I'm sure)No Property Tax (really?)Not that I don't believe you Henry, but it doesn't seem like their taxes are that highTax Foundation

[vbnautilus 48]

Native Hawaiians are descended from an exceptionally healthy ethnic group.

I don't think that's true. Obesity and diabetes are a major problem for polynesians, and there is an interesting theory as to why... the idea is that those who were able to survive the long ocean journey to reach the islands were those that processed sugars very slowly. Now that artificial sugar has been introduced, they are terribly obese. While Hawaii as a state has the longest life expectancy in the U.S, Native Hawaiians make up a minority in Hawaii and "have one of the shortest life expectancies in Hawaii, about equal to the average U.S. life expectancy."¹I don't think you can attribute the success of their health care to ethnic healthiness. ¹http://www.stanford.edu/group/ethnoger/nativehawaiian.html

[akoff 0]

I don't think that's true. Obesity and diabetes are a major problem for polynesians, and there is an interesting theory as to why... the idea is that those who were able to survive the long ocean journey to reach the islands were those that processed sugars very slowly. Now that artificial sugar has been introduced, they are terribly obese. While Hawaii as a state has the longest life expectancy in the U.S, Native Hawaiians make up a minority in Hawaii and "have one of the shortest life expectancies in Hawaii, about equal to the average U.S. life expectancy."¹I don't think you can attribute the success of their health care to ethnic healthiness. ¹http://www.stanford.edu/group/ethnoger/nativehawaiian.html

so stanford did a study. Great. Can I asume that it is now safe to say that blacks are more athletic?