The Many Faces of US Politics...

[whitey]

Wised up = tone down the rhetoric.  It doesn't mean a change in policy. Their victory in IL says more about the corruption and ineptitude of the Democratic party and that candidate there than it does about the GOP.

As for Obamacare,  the constituent parts are popular,  so popular in fact that the GOP didn't campaign on it anywhere near as much as two years ago. Sure, Fox News and Limbaugh and his clones rail against it constantly,  scaring the f**k out of the old white b**tards who constitute their main, dependable base, but the component parts are popular.  It was a Republican idea from 20 years ago FFS.

Jaysus you have all the MSNBC talking points down to a tee.

Wait until next years premiums are published in the nex month or so and well soon see how popular it is

[whitey]

According to the FT the Scrooge McDuck twins aka the Koch bros spent 300 million on Republican candidates who signed up to climate change denial. Dumb f**kers. US gdp contracted by 0.75% in q1 2014 because of the polar vortex caused by melting arctic ice.

Ever hear of Tom Steyer?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/tom-steyer-spent-74-million-on-the-election-he-didn-t-get-much-to-show-for-it-20141105

Or George Soros  for that matter?

http://m.cjonline.com/blog-post/kevin-mcginty/2014-02-09/koch-brothers-are-amateurs-compared-george-soros#gsc.tab=0

It's great to see the Democrats get a dose of their on medicine

[heganboy]

@whitey

I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't donors on both sides in the US. However may I suggest that you broaden your reading list, here's a quote from your second article...

Amnesty International: Yet another open borders and pro amnesty group.

[seafoid]

According to the FT the Scrooge McDuck twins aka the Koch bros spent 300 million on Republican candidates who signed up to climate change denial. Dumb f**kers. US gdp contracted by 0.75% in q1 2014 because of the polar vortex caused by melting arctic ice.

Ever hear of Tom Steyer?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/tom-steyer-spent-74-million-on-the-election-he-didn-t-get-much-to-show-for-it-20141105

Or George Soros  for that matter?

http://m.cjonline.com/blog-post/kevin-mcginty/2014-02-09/koch-brothers-are-amateurs-compared-george-soros#gsc.tab=0

It's great to see the Democrats get a dose of their on medicine

Steyer was the big loser.
Goppers saying they couldn't comment on CX because they are not scientists while taking money from the Kochs.
Sick.
As if red states can avoid drought and changes to weather patterns .
How's the California drought going ?

[whitey]

@whitey

I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't donors on both sides in the US. However may I suggest that you broaden your reading list, here's a quote from your second article...

Amnesty International: Yet another open borders and pro amnesty group.

LOL....the result of a quick google search Im afraid.

[heganboy]

LOL....the result of a quick google search Im afraid.

no shit!

here's the NY Times editorial board's (a bit left of center for some) view of money in US politics published this week:

I have an issue with how political donations are made in the US in general, and the role of lobbyists, but the money being spent on advertising by secret groups is absolutely disgraceful, and I think calls into question the validity of the claims of democracy and openness.

The next Senate was just elected on the greatest wave of secret, special-interest money ever raised in a congressional election. What are the chances that it will take action to reduce the influence of money in politics?

Nil, of course. The next Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has long been the most prominent advocate for unlimited secret campaign spending in Washington, under the phony banner of free speech. His own campaign benefited from $23 million in unlimited spending from independent groups like the National Rifle Association, the National Association of Realtors and the National Federation of Independent Business.

The single biggest outside spender on his behalf was a so-called social welfare group calling itself the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, which spent $7.6 million on attack ads against his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes. It ran more ads in Kentucky than any other group, aside from the two campaigns.

What is its social welfare purpose, besides re-electing Mr. McConnell? It has none. Who gave that money? It could have been anyone who wants to be a political player but lacks the courage to do so openly — possibly coal interests, retailers opposed to the minimum wage, defense contractors, but there's no way for the public to know. You can bet, however, that the senator knows exactly to whom he owes an enormous favor. The only name associated with the group is Scott Jennings, a deputy political director in the George W. Bush White House, who also worked for two of Mr. McConnell's previous campaigns.

The $11.4 million spent anonymously for Mr. McConnell, though, didn't even make him the biggest beneficiary of secret donations, a phenomenon that grew substantially in this election cycle. In the 2010 midterms, when this practice was just getting started, $161 million was spent by groups that did not disclose donations. In this cycle it was up to at least $216 million, and 69 percent of it was spent on behalf of Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In Colorado, at least $18 million in dark money was spent on behalf of Cory Gardner, the Republican newly elected to the Senate; $4 million was spent on behalf of Senator Mark Udall, the Democratic incumbent. In North Carolina, $13.7 million in secret donations was spent for Thom Tillis, the new Republican senator; $2.6 million went to Senator Kay Hagan, who was ousted.

Dark money wasn't the only type of spending that polluted the cycle; this year there were 94 "super PACs" set up for individual candidates, all of which are attempts to bypass federal limits and allow big givers to support the candidates of their choice. (These donations have to be disclosed.) Of the $51.4 million these groups spent, 57 percent were on behalf of Democrats. Overall, of the $525.6 million in independent expenditures this cycle (excluding party committees), about 57 percent was for Republicans.

That money wasn't just spent on attack ads. As Nicholas Confessore of The Times reported, it was used for tracking opponents and digging up damaging information, and expanding the ground game to turn out voters. Republicans used the money to set up a "research" group called America Rising, which existed only to sell embarrassing information and footage about Democratic candidates to Republican campaigns and super PACs.

Political operatives say this year was just a dress rehearsal for 2016, when there will be even more money, much of it secret, all benefiting the interests of the richest and best connected Americans. Given big money's influence on Tuesday, the chances for limiting it are more distant than ever.

[J70]

Wised up = tone down the rhetoric.  It doesn't mean a change in policy. Their victory in IL says more about the corruption and ineptitude of the Democratic party and that candidate there than it does about the GOP.

As for Obamacare,  the constituent parts are popular,  so popular in fact that the GOP didn't campaign on it anywhere near as much as two years ago. Sure, Fox News and Limbaugh and his clones rail against it constantly,  scaring the f**k out of the old white b**tards who constitute their main, dependable base, but the component parts are popular.  It was a Republican idea from 20 years ago FFS.

Jaysus you have all the MSNBC talking points down to a tee.

Wait until next years premiums are published in the nex month or so and well soon see how popular it is

I can't stand cable news, but go ahead if you think that strengthens your point.

But anyway, you don't think coverage of kids till 26, prohibition of previously existing conditions denial etc are popular?  Are you disputing that the mandate was a Republican idea prior to Obama co-opting it and the GOP opposing it for purely political reasons?

[whitey]

LOL....the result of a quick google search Im afraid.

no shit!

here's the NY Times editorial board's (a bit left of center for some) view of money in US politics published this week:

I have an issue with how political donations are made in the US in general, and the role of lobbyists, but the money being spent on advertising by secret groups is absolutely disgraceful, and I think calls into question the validity of the claims of democracy and openness.

The next Senate was just elected on the greatest wave of secret, special-interest money ever raised in a congressional election. What are the chances that it will take action to reduce the influence of money in politics?

Nil, of course. The next Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has long been the most prominent advocate for unlimited secret campaign spending in Washington, under the phony banner of free speech. His own campaign benefited from $23 million in unlimited spending from independent groups like the National Rifle Association, the National Association of Realtors and the National Federation of Independent Business.

The single biggest outside spender on his behalf was a so-called social welfare group calling itself the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, which spent $7.6 million on attack ads against his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes. It ran more ads in Kentucky than any other group, aside from the two campaigns.

What is its social welfare purpose, besides re-electing Mr. McConnell? It has none. Who gave that money? It could have been anyone who wants to be a political player but lacks the courage to do so openly — possibly coal interests, retailers opposed to the minimum wage, defense contractors, but there's no way for the public to know. You can bet, however, that the senator knows exactly to whom he owes an enormous favor. The only name associated with the group is Scott Jennings, a deputy political director in the George W. Bush White House, who also worked for two of Mr. McConnell's previous campaigns.

The $11.4 million spent anonymously for Mr. McConnell, though, didn't even make him the biggest beneficiary of secret donations, a phenomenon that grew substantially in this election cycle. In the 2010 midterms, when this practice was just getting started, $161 million was spent by groups that did not disclose donations. In this cycle it was up to at least $216 million, and 69 percent of it was spent on behalf of Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In Colorado, at least $18 million in dark money was spent on behalf of Cory Gardner, the Republican newly elected to the Senate; $4 million was spent on behalf of Senator Mark Udall, the Democratic incumbent. In North Carolina, $13.7 million in secret donations was spent for Thom Tillis, the new Republican senator; $2.6 million went to Senator Kay Hagan, who was ousted.

Dark money wasn't the only type of spending that polluted the cycle; this year there were 94 "super PACs" set up for individual candidates, all of which are attempts to bypass federal limits and allow big givers to support the candidates of their choice. (These donations have to be disclosed.) Of the $51.4 million these groups spent, 57 percent were on behalf of Democrats. Overall, of the $525.6 million in independent expenditures this cycle (excluding party committees), about 57 percent was for Republicans.

That money wasn't just spent on attack ads. As Nicholas Confessore of The Times reported, it was used for tracking opponents and digging up damaging information, and expanding the ground game to turn out voters. Republicans used the money to set up a "research" group called America Rising, which existed only to sell embarrassing information and footage about Democratic candidates to Republican campaigns and super PACs.

Political operatives say this year was just a dress rehearsal for 2016, when there will be even more money, much of it secret, all benefiting the interests of the richest and best connected Americans. Given big money's influence on Tuesday, the chances for limiting it are more distant than ever.

NY Times is full of crap-all this faux indignation just because their side had their asses handed to them. 

Its okay for Democratic Billionaires and Unions to attempt to buy elections, but they dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2014&disp=R&pty=A&type=A

[whitey]

Wised up = tone down the rhetoric.  It doesn't mean a change in policy. Their victory in IL says more about the corruption and ineptitude of the Democratic party and that candidate there than it does about the GOP.

As for Obamacare,  the constituent parts are popular,  so popular in fact that the GOP didn't campaign on it anywhere near as much as two years ago. Sure, Fox News and Limbaugh and his clones rail against it constantly,  scaring the f**k out of the old white b**tards who constitute their main, dependable base, but the component parts are popular.  It was a Republican idea from 20 years ago FFS.

Jaysus you have all the MSNBC talking points down to a tee.

Wait until next years premiums are published in the nex month or so and well soon see how popular it is

I can't stand cable news, but go ahead if you think that strengthens your point.

But anyway, you don't think coverage of kids till 26, prohibition of previously existing conditions denial etc are popular?  Are you disputing that the mandate was a Republican idea prior to Obama co-opting it and the GOP opposing it for purely political reasons?

Theres some good elements of the plan but the implementation has been a disaster. I live in Massachusetts, and we had already Romney care, which was passed by a Republican Governor.  The disastrous rollout of the ACA exchange has since cost the taxpayers, of which I am one, a cool $1B.

I have included a link that addresses your assertion that this was originally a Republican idea:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/

[heganboy]

NY Times is full of crap-all this faux indignation just because their side had their asses handed to them. 

Its okay for Democratic Billionaires and Unions to attempt to buy elections, but they dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2014&disp=R&pty=A&type=A

I don't agree that it is ok for anyone to buy elections

I have a serious problem that the people who decide how much money that can be spent on elections are those in (indirect) receipt of the funds

"All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law"

Theodore Roosevelt 1905

[J70]

Wised up = tone down the rhetoric.  It doesn't mean a change in policy. Their victory in IL says more about the corruption and ineptitude of the Democratic party and that candidate there than it does about the GOP.

As for Obamacare,  the constituent parts are popular,  so popular in fact that the GOP didn't campaign on it anywhere near as much as two years ago. Sure, Fox News and Limbaugh and his clones rail against it constantly,  scaring the f**k out of the old white b**tards who constitute their main, dependable base, but the component parts are popular.  It was a Republican idea from 20 years ago FFS.

Jaysus you have all the MSNBC talking points down to a tee.

Wait until next years premiums are published in the nex month or so and well soon see how popular it is

I can't stand cable news, but go ahead if you think that strengthens your point.

But anyway, you don't think coverage of kids till 26, prohibition of previously existing conditions denial etc are popular?  Are you disputing that the mandate was a Republican idea prior to Obama co-opting it and the GOP opposing it for purely political reasons?

Theres some good elements of the plan but the implementation has been a disaster. I live in Massachusetts, and we had already Romney care, which was passed by a Republican Governor.  The disastrous rollout of the ACA exchange has since cost the taxpayers, of which I am one, a cool $1B.

I have included a link that addresses your assertion that this was originally a Republican idea:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/

Ok, split hairs if you want... the mandate was still supported by SOME republicans, including the likes of Gingrich and Romney more recently.

The point is it is hardly the epitome of Soviet - style totalitarianism that the GOP hype would have one believe.

And yeah, the roll-out was appalling,  but that is a separate issue.

BTW, why do conservatives always need to proclaim themselves as tax-payers?

Big swing. We all pay taxes. Those taxes are used to pay for stuff some of us are bound to dislike.

[J70]

NY Times is full of crap-all this faux indignation just because their side had their asses handed to them. 

Its okay for Democratic Billionaires and Unions to attempt to buy elections, but they dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2014&disp=R&pty=A&type=A

I don't agree that it is ok for anyone to buy elections

I have a serious problem that the people who decide how much money that can be spent on elections are those in (indirect) receipt of the funds

"All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law"

Theodore Roosevelt 1905

TR was a great man!

[whitey]

Wised up = tone down the rhetoric.  It doesn't mean a change in policy. Their victory in IL says more about the corruption and ineptitude of the Democratic party and that candidate there than it does about the GOP.

As for Obamacare,  the constituent parts are popular,  so popular in fact that the GOP didn't campaign on it anywhere near as much as two years ago. Sure, Fox News and Limbaugh and his clones rail against it constantly,  scaring the f**k out of the old white b**tards who constitute their main, dependable base, but the component parts are popular.  It was a Republican idea from 20 years ago FFS.

Jaysus you have all the MSNBC talking points down to a tee.

Wait until next years premiums are published in the nex month or so and well soon see how popular it is

I can't stand cable news, but go ahead if you think that strengthens your point.

But anyway, you don't think coverage of kids till 26, prohibition of previously existing conditions denial etc are popular?  Are you disputing that the mandate was a Republican idea prior to Obama co-opting it and the GOP opposing it for purely political reasons?

Theres some good elements of the plan but the implementation has been a disaster. I live in Massachusetts, and we had already Romney care, which was passed by a Republican Governor.  The disastrous rollout of the ACA exchange has since cost the taxpayers, of which I am one, a cool $1B.

I have included a link that addresses your assertion that this was originally a Republican idea:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/

Ok, split hairs if you want... the mandate was still supported by SOME republicans, including the likes of Gingrich and Romney more recently.

The point is it is hardly the epitome of Soviet - style totalitarianism that the GOP hype would have one believe.

And yeah, the roll-out was appalling,  but that is a separate issue.

BTW, why do conservatives always need to proclaim themselves as tax-payers?

Big swing. We all pay taxes. Those taxes are used to pay for stuff some of us are bound to dislike.

Split hairs???   LOL...keep digging.

"Policy differences aside, health care scholar and former Clinton adviser Paul Starr at Princeton University said the Affordable Care Act is distinct in one other important way.

"The Chafee plan did not spell out how increased coverage would be financed," Starr said. "It was more of a symbolic bill than an actual piece of legislation."

[heganboy]

"The Chafee plan did not spell out how increased coverage would be financed," Starr said. "It was more of a symbolic bill than an actual piece of legislation."

American politicians aren't exactly fond of explaining in detail how any initiative is going to be funded. That's as bipartisan as they get. They also are not big fans of basic economic principles, or maths or indeed any science...

[seafoid]

Wised up = tone down the rhetoric.  It doesn't mean a change in policy. Their victory in IL says more about the corruption and ineptitude of the Democratic party and that candidate there than it does about the GOP.

As for Obamacare,  the constituent parts are popular,  so popular in fact that the GOP didn't campaign on it anywhere near as much as two years ago. Sure, Fox News and Limbaugh and his clones rail against it constantly,  scaring the f**k out of the old white b**tards who constitute their main, dependable base, but the component parts are popular.  It was a Republican idea from 20 years ago FFS.

Jaysus you have all the MSNBC talking points down to a tee.

Wait until next years premiums are published in the nex month or so and well soon see how popular it is

I can't stand cable news, but go ahead if you think that strengthens your point.

But anyway, you don't think coverage of kids till 26, prohibition of previously existing conditions denial etc are popular?  Are you disputing that the mandate was a Republican idea prior to Obama co-opting it and the GOP opposing it for purely political reasons?

Theres some good elements of the plan but the implementation has been a disaster. I live in Massachusetts, and we had already Romney care, which was passed by a Republican Governor.  The disastrous rollout of the ACA exchange has since cost the taxpayers, of which I am one, a cool $1B.

I have included a link that addresses your assertion that this was originally a Republican idea:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/

Ok, split hairs if you want... the mandate was still supported by SOME republicans, including the likes of Gingrich and Romney more recently.

The point is it is hardly the epitome of Soviet - style totalitarianism that the GOP hype would have one believe.

And yeah, the roll-out was appalling,  but that is a separate issue.

BTW, why do conservatives always need to proclaim themselves as tax-payers?

Big swing. We all pay taxes. Those taxes are used to pay for stuff some of us are bound to dislike.

Health care spending  in the US already accounts for 17% of GDP and with the ageing of the population it could easily head towards 30% over the next 30 years.
The problem is parasitical companies who feed off the cashflows and sponsor politicians in DC.   
It's not even like US health outcomes are particularly impressive - life expectancy is lower than in many Euro countries where health spending per capita is less.
So something has to be done before healthcare bankrupts the US.