Senator Franken

Originally posted by rwingett
With Franken in, that would put the Democrats up to 59. If they include Lieberman, Bernie Sanders, and manage to somehow finally fill Obama's vacant seat. One short of the magic number of 60. Well, there's always 2010.

There are enought RINOs in the Senate so that 60 isn't even and issue. The two gals from Maine vote more with Democrats than with their own caucus anyway.

Originally posted by lepomis
A tax credit, whatever the size, would be helpful, but candidates always seem to ignore the base of the problem. It should not be a question of how its paid for or who pays for it. The focus should be on why it's soooo damn expensive in the first place.

Steps should be made to:
decrease medical charges
decrease medical costs
increase consumer aware ...[text shortened]... g time and money.

Also, Franken is doing none of this... at least not according to his site.

All of the things you want to see happen with health care do happen when goods and services are sold in a free and competitive market. Saddly, health care has become too institutionalized, a large portion is already government run (Medicare, Medicaid), and a huge segment of the working population has third party payor coverage for virtually everything and anything.

Until a competitive, free market solution is tried, things will only get worse.

Originally posted by normbenign
Franken isn't a dummy as you point out. He is about as far left as you could imagine, which makes him good or bad according to your leanings.

Mmm. As far left as you could imagine? Bearing in mind that this "analysis" comes from a poster whose brand of political 'literacy' sees Barak Obama as beeing about as far right as you can imagine (a "kindred spirit of the Nazis", no less). Worth having this in the frontal lobe as we chew on normbenign's wisdom.

Originally posted by normbenign
All of the things you want to see happen with health care do happen when goods and services are sold in a free and competitive market. Saddly, health care has become too institutionalized, a large portion is already government run (Medicare, Medicaid), and a huge segment of the working population has third party payor coverage for virtually everything and anything.

Until a competitive, free market solution is tried, things will only get worse.

If you mean having limited insurance and more people actually paying for their care out of pocket... I would agree. It will be interesting to see how expensive pet care will get once more people have insurance on their animals.

Originally posted by normbenign
On his watch, the economy went from dismal, the absolute worst since the Great Depression, to the longest peacetime prosperity on record. On the side, his policies brought down the Soviet Union, and the Berlin Wall.

Hold that thought.

As real work goes into discovering the causes of our current financial meltdown, we will be hearing even from formerly conservative economists that monetarism is dead, and that the so-called growth in the 1980s was the beginnings of a quarter century illusion.

George Bush I had it right before he was offered the Vice Presidency: voodoo economics. Later, he became its high priest. Blaming his son will not last long, as we track the errors back through Clinton, Bush the Elder, to their source RWR.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
we will be hearing even from formerly conservative economists that monetarism is dead, and that the so-called growth in the 1980s was the beginnings of a quarter century illusion.

I dunno whatever else you people think we were inadequate at, but we Brits knew the Thatcherite monetarist[/i] thing was a crock before 1985. And the Tories as good as said so. Are you Americans still debating it?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Google Dino Rossi

Thanks. Another example of a GOP candidate losing a heartbreakingly close election and NOT whining about it.

http://www.dinorossi.com/

If only the Dems would learn...

Originally posted by sh76
Thanks. Another example of a GOP candidate losing a heartbreakingly close election and NOT whining about it.

http://www.dinorossi.com/

If only the Dems would learn...

??

The man's billboards in 2008 were focused on the number of votes he lost by in 2004, and said "Don't let Seattle Steal this election." If that's not whining, I've never heard any.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
??

The man's billboards in 2008 were focused on the number of votes he lost by in 2004, and said "Don't let Seattle Steal this election." If that's not whining, I've never heard any.

You want to know what whining is?

Here is whining:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10586714/was_the_2004_election_stolen

What you describe is use of a rallying cry (alas, not enough of one apparently) to achieve a different result in the next election, not useless whining about a previous one.

Originally posted by sh76
You want to know what whining is?

I already do.

Your example, however, reveals the sort of post-election analysis that is needed to correct and improve an imperfect system. Had they been so inclined, Rossi's crew could have offered similar analysis of the count in King County, where there are some legitimate questions. They did not do so in any more than a superficial beginning because they find whining more useful in the appeal to their constituents, who disproportionally think of Fox as "objective news".