Well the Republicans won back the House in Congress and gained seats in the Senate. In Minnesota we will have to wait for the official results of our Governor's race as 9000 votes differ between Dayton and Emmer. Surprisingly both chambers of the Minnesota State Legislature will be in the control of Republicans. On a personal note I did win election for City Council to which I appreciate all those that voted for me.
It was entertaining to watch the pundits interpret the national and state results over the past couple of days. While many on the Left point to this being a referendum on the economy those on the Right contend it's the policies enacted by Obama. Which do you think it was? For those in Minnesota, no matter how the recount comes out will either side raise concern over the findings?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
CNN Poll has a pool that shows 52% say the economy is the most important thing. The next highest is 8%. So I would say the economy is the number one issue. The number of independents that voted for Obamam in 08 was almost exactly flipped for votes for the GOP this year. Their biggest concern was the economy.
ReplyDeleteSince Emmer's team has already said they won't be out lawyered, among other things, yes there will be concerns raised.
I'm not sure what Emmer's team hopes to accomplish. MN has one of the cleanest, least fraudulent election processes in the country. If he had a 1000 vote margin, I'd think the gap could be closed. But 9k, not likely. So we'll likely have a Dem Gov and Rep Legislature which will make things thankfully gridlocked so that neither party can screw things up too badly.
ReplyDeleteAnd the economy was the issue of the election. It was not a mandate to republicans, because a large majority of the voters were voting in "protest" of the current congressional members, not in favor of republicans. (Since most were democrats, the alternative in protest is obviously the opposite)
I think if Republicans think this is a mandate, they're sorely mistaken. And they may find themselves facing a revolt with Tea Party members obviously thinking this IS a mandate and trying to over-reach.
They need to remember, they won 1 house of a bicameral congress and do not hold the executive branch. Compromise is the best option, but not one that tea partiers could stomach I'm afraid.
Should make for an interesting 2 years.
Yes, the economy is problem #1, #2, and #3. All of the promises made by obama on how his polices would bring the economy back have failed. That is how I read the results.
ReplyDelete"All of the promises made by obama on how his polices would bring the economy back have failed."
ReplyDeleteNot to split hairs, but his promises failed as compared to what he promised, yes. As compared to what probably would have happened, no. Even conservative economists agree with that assessment.
He was just stupid and over-promised in his projections. He should have under-promised and over-delivered like a smart person.
Hold the phone. I thought obama was the smartest president EVER!
ReplyDeleteThat would have been Bill Clinton.
ReplyDeleteYeah. it's interesting to see how uneducated a vast majority of the electorate is. To Blame the democrats for problems that began as far back as 1996 under a Republican congress, is ludacris. Basically the voters said, we gave you 2 years to fix a problem 12 years in the making, you didn't so let's give it back to the party that started the whole mess. In case some people need an example of that Republican mismanagement here is just 1 of many: Bush and a Republican congress decided to go to war in 2001. The 1st time in recorded history that a nation or leader went to war without raising taxes to pay for it. Than not only did they do that, they cut taxes and figured they would claim the budget was balanced by just not including the costs in the budget until the democrats took charge and did the proper thing and put those costs in the budget.
ReplyDelete@Anon,
ReplyDeleteSmartest as compared to what? GWBush, then yes, he's a rocket scientist. Smartest as compared to Clinton? Not even in the ballpark.
Paul
ReplyDeletePlease point to the piece of legislation that declared war and created the funding to do so. Also, if that piece of legislation exists, which I doubt it, was it voted in a bipartisan manner or did Democrats all vote against it?
Truman
Per Chris Matthews and his ilk, Jesse Jackson included, are all on the record in explaining that Obama is the smartest President ever to hold office.
@Paul,
ReplyDeleteFYI, the war did not spend 13.8Trillion dollars (the current deficit) so the war is not the reason we are in a tough financial spot.
I'm not for the war, but to claim that the war is the reason is blatantly false.
Now, if you want to point to mismanagement with tax cuts/prescription drug plans, etc I'm all for it. But the democrats did the same thing once they took office with their Healthcare and subsequent bailouts of businesses.
I don't mind the electorate being fiscally conservative, but they are definitely hypocritic in that stance since the republicans are just as guilty as democrats of excess spending.
Unfortunately, while most americans are quite bright individuals, as a group, they're moronic sheep bleating at the moon in the hopes things will be different tomorrow. And periodically they wonder why one of their flock disappears - as the wolves snack.
Anon, "Per Chris Matthews and his ilk, Jesse Jackson included, are all on the record in explaining that Obama is the smartest President ever to hold office."
ReplyDeleteWhat's your point? Who cares what they say? Smart people don't make miscalculations? Especially when it comes to an economy of our size with dozens of inputs that change things and an economic crisis that wasn't seen in decades.
Do you want someone who isn't smart being president?
Again, what's your point?
Other anonymous
ReplyDeleteMy point is that he policies have failed and kept companies from adding employees out of fear of future expenses - when companies started talking about health mandate affect on costs and they Needed to drop it, the obama administration granted temporary exceptions to the rule.
So that makes him not smart or a smart person wouldn't have done that?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to disagree with his policy, fine, but I'm not sure why the attack on his intelligence or why your original comment was necessary. As far as the rest of your response, I can't really tell what you are trying to say.
Let me pose a question though: If companies were concerned about future expenses, wouldn't we expect to have seen an increase in layoffs after the health care reform bill was passed? Unemployment has remained pretty steady throughout.
Could it be that companies aren't higher because consumers aren't buying anything? So if there is no demend, why add staff and build new production facilities?
I guess my larger point is that to say companies aren't hiring because of health care reform only ignores numerous other factors.
Anon - Businesses like McDonald's, Verizon, Coke, AT&T, CAT, and Deere have all come out and said they are or will be dumping health coverage due to the increased costs due to ObamaCare.
ReplyDeleteThe Politico reported a while back that, "AT&T, for instance, calculated that it spends $2.4 billion a year providing health insurance, but would only spend $600 million if it chose to pay the penalty."
Remember the real meat of ObamaCare does not take hold for a few more years but companies, per language in the bill, must disclose how changes in premiums and new regulations will affect the bottom line. The Board that oversees this, established by ObamaCare, has granted many companies exceptions to new regulations and rules.
That limbo is what is keeping companies from hiring new employees. Remember the unemployment number does not include the 99ers or others that have given up looking for work or taking part-time work. Companies are flush with cash and are making money too.
The two biggest factors keeping companies from hiring are: ObamaCare and tax uncertainty. The lower demand is not a large factor because companies are making money. 3M just bought their third company and plans to buy another before the year is out.
Viper, please provide a citation or source for your statement that "businesses like McDonald's, Verizon, Coke, AT&T, CAT, and Deere have all come out and said they are or will be dumping [employee] health care coverage".
ReplyDeleteWe'd like to see definitive proof of their actions that are either currently taking place to dump employee health insurance or the specific plans that they have to dump employee health insurance.
Viper, you of all people should know that a good number of "companies are making money" in part because they trimmed their payrolls. How else does the unemployment rate go up?
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget some other cost cutting measures that companies have taken since the start of the Great Recession: consolidating or closing factories; mandatory unpaid furloughs; wage freezes; wage reductions; cuts to discretionary spending; elimination of travel and entertainment budgets; freezes on capital spending; etc.
It's not as if demand has shot back up to pre-Great Recession levels. You're seriously delusional if you think that's the case.
The Founding Fathers - I take it your Google Search doesn't work or you don't read. I cited the AT&T quote from Politico. Here is a Wall Street Journal article on McDonalds http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703431604575522413101063070.html
ReplyDeleteI will let you do your own research for the rest as I had already done mine when I wrote my response.
Slick Willie - I do know that many companies used payroll to increase the bottom line but that only goes so far. Yet that is not the only way to increase the bottom line. That fact does not deter the fact that companies are making money as well. Many companies, see Q3 reports of various companies, are making money and increases Sales. Increase in Sales is not from trimming employees.
ReplyDeleteRemember we live in a Global economy as well. While we may still languish in discretionary funds, places like China, India, Brazil and Russia do not.
To bring back jobs here we need to increase consumerism and that is not something a bailout, handout or Build America Bonds will do. Consumers need to have money in their hands and that means lower taxes.
Viper, we find your tone a bit disrespectful; especially considering your supposed devotion to our ideals. Nevertheless, we wonder whether you understand the importance of precision in language.
ReplyDeleteYou stated that several companies have "come out and said they are or will be dumping health coverage".
Let's focus on two words in that statement: "are" and "will". The word "are" is a word that describes something that is currently taking place. According to your statement, some of the companies you listed "are dumping health coverage". Nowhere have we read about any of these companies actively dumping health care coverage.
Let's move on to the second word: "will". That word, which when paired up with the rest of your statement implies a firm decision that these companies will be dumping health coverage. Again, we find no firm decision on whether any of these companies will be dumping health coverage.
If you would read perhaps the headline of the Politico story, you might notice that they use the word "mulled". The first line of the article uses the word "weighed". Nowhere in this May 7, 2010 article does it say that these companies have dumped or will dump their health coverage. Please tell us if you see something differently. Our eyes are terribly weak.
We would point to similar language in the Wall Street Journal article. Just like the Politico article, the headline uses a less declaratory word than what you apparently read. "McDonald's MAY Drop Health Plan". The first sentence says that McDonald's "COULD" drop it's health coverage. The second paragraph says that the new health care law "MAY" disrupt workers' health care plans. The third paragraph says that low wage employers "MIGHT" halt their coverage.
Again, where do you see definitive proof that the companies you listed are either actively dumping health care coverage or have clear dates set to dump health care coverage?
Finally, why would Congress and the President sit idly by if, for the sake of argument, half of the nation's private employers were going to drop employee health insurance plans?
McDonald's, and others, have already received waivers to the health care mandate for now. The exceptions the companies have received expire in 2014 when the government insurance is set up. Now, I do not see where Viper is being disrespectful. Many that comment here do so without citing yet demand that Viper provide citation at every post.
ReplyDeleteThe companies getting exceptions used to be posted on the white house site but I was not able to find them while writing this comment. Ask yourself, why are companies getting exemptions?
@Viper,
ReplyDeleteMcDonalds quickly withdrew that story that they were looking at dumping their health insurance, FYI. I'm sure you missed that retraction because you only were looking for the proof, not the entire story. ;)
I'm all for companies being able to dump their health insurance though. But they'll find that the most qualified employees will leave them for those companies that do care about more than their bottom line. Because let's look at that list of companies and see how much profit they made last year.
McDonalds - 4.3Billion
Verizon - 2.89Billion
Coke - 7.189Billion
AT&T - 2.4Billion
CAT - 1Billion
Deere - 1.5Billion
And so we're clear, Health benefits cost about 10% of an employees salary annually for a corporation (varying by plan but that's a standard estimate analysts use), so to have 2.6Billion in expense with an estimated average salary of $80,000 (well above the national average) you would need to have 325 thousand employees.
So I gotta tell you, I call BS on that 2.6Billion number you got from that article since AT&T's total employees for 2009 was 189k. So to have 2.6Billion in expense you need to double the standard that analysts use to 20% of salary or double the average salary, both of which are unlikely. Since most corporations total investment in an employee annually is roughly 26% of salary which includes unemployment tax, social security, health, dental, life, 401k, etc that seems like an excessively high insurance expense.
And given that I have friends who work for AT&T who claim their insurance sucks, I suspect that this is a BS article or BS data used to support the article.
Sorry, but you can't always believe what the press tells you - sometimes you have to do your own math to see if it's valid or not.
Truman - I know McDonald's retracted but that was not until after they received an exemption. That was something that the wall street journal reported about a week or so after McDonald's announced they will be cutting. As the other anonymous pointed out whitehouse.gov used to post the exemptions but it appears no more.
ReplyDeleteAs for AT+T numbers - it was not only politico that reported but yes we do need to be leary of what is reported.
ReplyDeleteThe founding fathers - the goal of obamacare is single payer. They just did not think companies would opt for the penalty this early. The reason why exemptions are being handed out is due to the exchanges not being set up. Again the goal is single payer and to socialism.
ReplyDeleteViper, we're still waiting for you to provide proof that several companies have come out and said they are or will be dumping health coverage. Again, you used the words "are" and "will"; our research had not turned up anything like that. We've only found articles stating that companies may, could or might male changes to their health coverage. Please do cite your source.
ReplyDelete"As for AT+T numbers - it was not only politico that reported but yes we do need to be leary of what is reported."
ReplyDeleteYes, but you repeated them without even questioning them. That's mis-information by proxy, IMO. It took me 2 minutes to prove those numbers at least questionable. Simply go to AT&T's financial page to see the # of employees and figure out what AT&T is spending per employee based upon that financial number. It makes no sense, so why repeat it?
"The founding fathers - the goal of obamacare is single payer."
Ok, I spent some time reading through the summaries of this law to try to find the references to single payer that you say this law advocates as a goal. I can't find it.
Would you care to educate me as to your source for this information? Single payer may have been the original goal of the Dem's but that is different than the bill they passed, which has NO REFERENCE to single payer what-so-ever.
So again, where is your source for this? Glenn Beck?
Truman - The point is not the actual numbers rather the fact that AT&T is looking to drop coverage. I didn't quote it because of the numbers.
ReplyDeleteThe single payer plan it the government run exchanges. That is the start of converging to a single payer plan because the government sets the rules and regulations of who can and cannot be on the exchange. Once all coverage is through the exchange the government will squeeze enterprise out till we are left with US Government Insurance Inc. That is the goal of the ideology of Obama, Sorros, and their ilk; Socialism.
Founding Fathers - All the companies listed above were on the road to dropping coverage until they were given exemptions from the new law until 2014. Are you connecting the dots? If the exemptions were not made then they would have dropped coverage.
ReplyDelete"The point is not the actual numbers rather the fact that AT&T is looking to drop coverage."
ReplyDeleteOr they were fishing for an exception so they wouldn't be held to the rules the law imposes. That's the more likely probability isn't it?
"The single payer plan it the government run exchanges....Once all coverage is through the exchange the government will squeeze enterprise out till we are left with US Government Insurance Inc."
Really? This is in the law? Can you cite chapter and verse? Because like I said, I reviewed the summaries of the law and can't find single payer listed, detailed or itemized anywhere in it.
How about you be honest and say that this is the doomsday GOP scenario that has been drummed up to build support through fear? Again, all you have is theory, to which I'm sure there are counter theories. What makes your theory more believable than one from the Democrats? After all, neither are based upon facts.
No, your statement is based upon supposition, innuendo and conjecture, not fact. That's because there are no facts to support this yet. So you have no way of "knowing" what the end of this will be.
So why keep repeating things that aren't factual? They don't buttress your argument, only show that you are arguing from a position of ignorance.
Truman - Fact - Government exchanges are to be established by 2014. Companies that do not provide insurance coverage to their employees will pay a fine. That fine, as it sits now, is pennies compared to the amount an employer pays for coverage per employee. Fact - companies, i.e. AT&T and McDonald's, are getting exemptions - used to be posted on whitehouse.gov but no longer (transparency ?).
ReplyDeleteIt all leads to single payer. Just as Social Security was not meant to be the savings, nest egg or retirement plan for the elderly but it has become that. People will become conditioned by the Ruling Class to believe they are entitled to "free" health care. Further enslaving our nation. While I do admit that I am drawing conclusions that have not materialized; yet I am not far off since we are dealing with Liberal, dare I say Socialists, tendencies. One can draw similar conclusion if they see the bill from that perspective. But I understand it is hard to admit ones fault in the mirror.
"It all leads to single payer."
ReplyDeleteYou are assert what MAY happen not what will happen. The difference is profound and distinct. Unless you are Nostradomus, you can't see the future, so you are must making things up that suit your political ideology.
Again, your statements that it all leads to a single payer system are based upon supposition and conjecture, not fact. What annoys me is that it's incredibly difficult to have a discussion with someone who will base their entire argument on make believe scenarios.
How about we deal with the hear and now, with facts? Because I don't buy into either parties dogmatic propaganda.
"While I do admit that I am drawing conclusions that have not materialized; yet I am not far off since we are dealing with Liberal, dare I say Socialists, tendencies."
So you admit that you are making assumptions. Well, it's all very scary hypotheticals, but that's not fact. At least you admit that you are making things up and not stating facts. But the fact that you assert them as such, is almost as bad in my opinion.
PS - This obsession with the Healthcare Bill will sink the Tea Party and GOP, IMO. You can't repeal it, because you hold one house in a bicameral legislature and have no executive power. So forcing the american public to watch as you pander to an incredibly small voting block will only upset the rest.
We all care about jobs, not healthcare. We have 3+ years to address the healthcare bill and the SCOTUS will likely rule before it goes into effect thereby removing the issue altogether.
This obsession is unhealthy from a political standpoint.
Truman - Are you saying that you cannot connect the dots of what is written for the exchanges and what the Socialist agenda is? What is Socialism?
ReplyDeleteThat point aside, you are correct that repeal of the health care bill will be difficult. The interesting part will be all the bills and riders to Senate passed bills that will include language to defund agencies established by Obamacare. That is they way it will be attacked.
I think the problem is that you want to believe they are socialist so you view things with that eye. Just the fact that you used Socialist agenda is concerning. To think that their is a grand left conspiracy to move to socialism, that they all have bought into, and that nothing has come out to prove it. You don't agree with them so they must be some evil group who disregards the constitution they swore to uphold.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what happened in your life to be so skeptical and jaded. You certainly didn't mind the big bad socialist government that was sending you unemployment checks. Or that educated your kids. Or that protects our borders and streets.
"Are you saying that you cannot connect the dots of what is written for the exchanges and what the Socialist agenda is?"
ReplyDeleteYou aren't connecting dots, you are making up hypothetical scenarios of what MAY BE and asserting them as factual. That's like saying that just because Peter Pan could exist, therefore he does.
Can you understand that?
"What is Socialism?"
Socialism, in a nutshell, is government ownership of enterprise. That is not what the exchanges are, and you know it. The exchanges are government oversight, not ownership. The fact that you jump 5 steps ahead in your make believe scenario doesn't make it so.
To equate the exchanges to socialism is like equating the patriot act to fascism. The only difference is that the Patriot act does have some very overtly fascist (and unconstitutional) aspects to it.
These exchanges, as they exist in this legislation ARE NOT SOCIALISM. You fear that they may be transformed into a single payer system, and that may be a rational fear. But that does not equate to what they currently are.
So to assert otherwise is both false and disingenuous. Moreover, it's intentionally so on both counts, which is why discussing it in a reasonable debate is pointless and why I called it out.
"That is they way it will be attacked."
At which point we will be back at gridlock. People don't like those types of stunts. If you want to defund obamacare, defund it openly. Sneaking those types of riders in is not an honest form of legislation and I would suspect Obama will veto them. Which accomplishes nothing except appeasing the base - which is the point in the first place.
The other 80% of americans will just get pissed off by it.
Anon - you realize that the US Constitution allows for Socialists to live, breathe, vote, and an enjoy all the freedoms living in America that others have? No one said Change was going to be easy.
ReplyDeleteTruman - one option in the government run exchanges is a government insurance. That was the big beef and why some states were "granted" exemptions - i.e. Cornhusker kick back.
I do agree that Legislators should not take on riders, i.e. Hate Crime rider to the Military Spending bill, to bills. If we cannot have a straight up and down vote then it shouldn't be something to be discussed or who are the wrong person in office.
For those interested here is an article talking about the exemptions: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm
ReplyDeleteHope this helps The Founding Fathers out and Viper too!
Thank you for the article. That is informative. In our view, this is an indication of government making a good decision. In order to preserve the employees' access to health care, they had to grant these waivers. Once the exchanges are up and running, these same individuals will be free to shop around for different coverage. It's a common sense approach.
ReplyDeleteWe are still wondering though where the proof is of companies actively dismantling their health care systems.
I think the Founding Fathers have dustmites and need to refocus.
ReplyDeleteIn the article I posted it states:
"The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether."
What more proof does one require? The reason the Department of Health is granting exemptions in the first place is "so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage".
Now I have seen Viper defend indefensible positions before, but, come on, Viper is correct in his assertion that people were given exemptions in order for coverage not to be dropped and that is being said by the Department of Health.
We simply ask that Viper be more clear in his statements. He used the words "are" and "will be". Nowhere in the articles that he cited were those words used. Even in this article that you site, they use the word "might". I suppose though those statements of intent about what may come to pass don't fit well in the doomsayers vocabulary.
ReplyDeleteWow,I see, the Founding Fathers cannot debate the exemptions on merit so they must muddy the waters with semantics. Do you honestly believe that the Department of Health would just pass out exemptions without just cause or the threat of a company making changes? Really, are you that dense or has the years in the pine box simply rotted your capacity to think?
ReplyDeleteSnap, Anonymous beat me to the punch. When I saw the Founding Fathers last comment come across the black berry I had to pause to respond.
ReplyDeleteThe White House took flak over the exemptions as it left people without coverage. Wasn't the goal of Obamacare to give all coverage, if so, why issue exemptions? Oh that's right, Obama promised that if you like your health care you can keep it. Instead companies are telling Obama that they cannot afford or the penalty is a better alternative.
I vote for the pine box affect clouding the Founding Fathers ability to interpret the article or admit that they lost this point of the debate.
"Do you honestly believe that the Department of Health would just pass out exemptions without just cause or the threat of a company making changes?"
ReplyDeleteThe key to this discussion is that the companies MIGHT have cut benefits. None of them had actually begun the process, but merely threatened it.
Do you really think that companies won't bluff the Fed in order to get an exemption? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.
"Instead companies are telling Obama that they cannot afford or the penalty is a better alternative."
Or the companies got legal advice to play chicken with the Fed knowing that the Fed would cave and give an exemption, at which point they don't have to abide by the law.
I always find it amusing how people think there are only two options in any debate. Sorry, but it's never that black and white, because the world is very very gray.
Odd, I had an email notification that The Founding Fathers posted two comments but I see neither here. Did anyone else that has email notifier on get them as well?
ReplyDeleteIt appears the Founding Fathers are still splitting hairs over "are, will and maybe" when it came to the companies listed above were looking to drop coverage. I understand Truman's point that companies may be gaming the system but if we think they are then call their bluff.