Anything that keeps Obama from the negotiating table is a good thing. He’d probably offer to eliminate Social Security and Medicare in exchange for some meaningless concession on the Republicans’ part.

The folks at Goldman should know. Nobody is more responsible for the mess we’re in than they are.

John Rash is completely clueless.

We have Faux News Channel, a network completely dedicated to one political party. it advances the Republican agenda, using whatever lies, distortions, and misrepresentations are necessary.

If that isn’t at least as noxious as the reckless, partisan journalism found in the U. K., I don’t know what it.

Yeah, sure, Barack. You won’t agree to anything unless they “compromise.” (And such a weak compromise you’re asking for!) But if they don’t “budge,” you’ll just give in and do whatever they want anyway. After all, you’re the “adult in the room” who demonstrates “bipartisanship.”

Quit giving away the store and stand up for the middle and working classes.

The 60-vote “supermajority” requirement to pass legislation has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is a U. S. Senate procedural rule, and hasn’t really even been in effect that long.

The Dems’ proposal was made in response to the change in the way Republicans act in that body. Up until just a few years ago, U. S. Senators were known for exercising independent judgment, despite their party affiliations. Now, Republicans all act in lockstep, which makes it all but impossible to not only pass legislation, but also to confirm appointments to the court system and other federal posts.

“A university worthy of the name, public or private, would not grant a donor – even one donating orders of magnitude more than $1.5 million – a veto power on faculty and other appointments, even for theoretically so narrow a program. (Veto power, like mold, tends to spread, leveraging a small donation even further.)”

You’re assuming that FSU is a university worthy of the name. If it accepts this donation, that’s put into question.

You must not have been watching the debate over public employee pensions. Republicans have taken note of how easy it is to generate hostility toward those who get “privileged benefits.” They won’t miss the opportunity to use this successful strategy against another group of elderly “elites” who have something younger people won’t be able to get.

You’re assuming that everybody has parents still living, or that they’ll be smart enough to see the connection between maintaining traditional Medicare benefits and their own self-interest. You’re also forgetting just how effective the conservative media machine is. Corporations don’t have children.

People are crazy to believe that things won’t change for people over 55. The initial proposal may not involve changes to their benefits, but that will change quickly.

Those under 55 will be paying the same level of taxes and will eventually receive reduced benefits. There will be antagonism toward those “privileged seniors” who get traditional Medicare with better benefits. Republicans will be at the forefront, egging on those resentful under-55 folks who will be calling for cuts in benefits for those on the traditional program. The majority of working Americans will be paying taxes to support people who get more than they will. That’s a recipe for disaster for Medicare. Just watch conservatives use Koch-funded groups like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity to generate plenty of rallies designed to vilify those over 55 and to put political pressure on lawmakers.

Another possibility is that, since benefits will be reduced, so will contributions through the Medicare portion of FICA. If that happens, there won’t be enough money to fund full benefits for seniors–and guess what happens next. You’re right, lots of benefit cuts for this “unsustainable” program.

Either way, those on traditional Medicare will lose and the program as we now know it will be gone–even for those over 55.

Thanks for your assessment, Uncommoner. I will root for the common sense and good judgment that I always ascribe to Canadians to win the day.

Let’s hope that doesn’t happen. I live on the West Coast and have been able to hear some debates on a couple of fairly powerful BC radio stations.

I’ve always thought that Canadians were much more sensible than people down here. They wouldn’t actually be so careless as to allow Harper and his minions to have unfettered control, would they?

I don’t know enough about the inside politics to forecast anything, but it seems that Canadians enjoy their left-of-center society’s benefits, including the health care system, too much to jeopardize it. l

One question: It seems like whoever wins big in Toronto would seem to have a big advantage. Which party is stronger there? I know that Harper is from Calgary, and his Conservatives would seem to appeal more to rural Canadians, but I may be wrong about that.

Aren’t these (usually conservatives) the same people who demand to know where every dollar of government spending goes? They’re up in arms if there isn’t some web site showing every purchase of paper clips and computer supplies by state or federal government agencies. We always get, “It’s the public’s right to know!”

OK. We’re agreeing with you. The public certainly does have a right to know.

The NFLPA disbanded (temporarily) on its own. It will re-form when it’s legally convenient.

They’re not going after the baseball players union. Most of the MLB players are millionaires and Republicans.

Your typo, “every singe union” actually says a lot. Unions, just like those in the middle class, have certainly been “singed” by thirty years of attacks by conservatives and, in too many cases, the Dems who should have been protecting them. However, they haven’t been burned to the point where they can’t recover. This recall process is part of the recovery.

Remember that this was made prior to the 2010 elections, and was intended as a smear against the Democratic party and its priorities. Much of the goal was to influence the 2010 elections. Cheers to the History Channel for not wanting to air sheer fiction. They’re right about the fact that it would have sullied their brand.

It will be there on whatever this channel is (I’ve never heard of it, and certainly would never pay to have it on my TV). This will keep the creeps that produced it from being able to claim that their “rights of free speech” were abridged.

Well, Jeb, if your party wasn’t constantly telling Hispanics to get out of the country, maybe they’d pay more attention to what Repubs are saying.

I don’t know there Margaret. You might be a little optimistic with that 2712 thing. (Though, in all seriousness, Tejas will be a blue state within the next 20 years, based on its demographic changes.)

The most important state to get on board with single payer is California.
With about 1/8 of the U. S. population, the nation eventually goes where the Golden State goes. Since all three states have Dem governors and Dem legislatures, I’m kind of hoping that California, Oregon, and Washington work together to enact a regional single payer system.

Why is this a surprise? Ever since Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court has been a fully-owned subsidiary of the conservative right-wing. This is just a tacit acknowledgement that the state courts are nothing more than Republican lap dogs, too.

It will be hard to keep from falling down laughing when the Repubs talk about respecting the law from now on.

At the rate Wisconsin is going, it’s going to turn itself into the Mississippi of the northern Midwest.

If that many homes are vacant, wouldn’t principles of supply and demand suggest that sellers should lower the prices until the market clears?