US Politics XXXVIII

[Foreverlad]

Eric Cantor (minority whip) just held a press conference. Cantor is claiming a bullet was shot through his campaign headquarter's window last night, but he isn't going to talk about it. Haven't found any other media postings about it yet, but, from what I heard live, he was blaming 2 democratic chairman for inciting the violence in the first place.

Mind you, I could have misunderstood what he was saying, but I kid you not, he did indeed name 2 DNC members in reference to violence.

[Shryke]

Here's an article on it:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/house-gop-no-2-someone-shot-at-my-office/

Rep. Eric Cantor, the number two Republican in the House of Representatives, said Thursday that a bullet had been shot through a window at his district office in Richmond, Virginia. He also said he had received threatening messages.

He said he would not publicly release the messages out of concern that doing so would only incite further violence.

He also accused Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine and Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland - a member of the Democratic House leadership - of "fanning the flames" of violence by using threats that have been made against Democratic members "as political weapons."

"Enough is enough," Cantor said. "It has to stop."

More than 10 Democrats have reported trouble since the weekend health care vote, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, told reporters on Wednesday.

I can't figure out where the hell this bolded part even comes from...

[The Progressive]

I want to make a comment here about a particular groupthink/meme from the teabagger apologists from the previous thread, which is that the teabaggers' manifested rage is a reasonable reaction against the bailout of the financial sector.

Where were all the rage when the saving and loans sector was bailed out under Reagan?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

I want to make a comment here about a particular groupthink/meme from the teabagger apologists from the previous thread, which is that the teabaggers' manifested rage is a reasonable reaction against the bailout of the financial sector.

Where were all the rage when the saving and loans sector was bailed out under Reagan?

Building?

http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/p/89_Bank_Crisis.htm

The legislation regarding the S&L Crisis was in 1989 regarding problems and failures that started in the early 1980s. We're pushing a quarter century since that happened. The anger that exists is lots of different things building to people being pissed now. Put, on top of that, earlier scandels like Watergate, ABSCAM, and other's I don't recall now damaging people's trust in government generally.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Not really (egg in the face). This was a tiny mistake - 16 lines out of a 2000+ page bill.

Well, that's one way to look at it. The other way is that if they screwed up something like this that was apparent on the face of the bill itself, how much confidence should anyone have that they've clearly though through all the intended and unintended consequences of this bill as a whole?

I think they pretty obviously haven't, because that is inherently impossible. Which is why I think the Feds shouldn't do something like this to begin with. Division of Knowledge and all that, don't ya know?

[dalThor]

Regarding the threats and attacks going on:

U.S. Rep. Stupak, other Dems get threats over health care reform vote. From the Detroit Free Press.

This is just one example from the article:

In Virginia, someone cut a propane line leading to a grill at the Charlottesville home of U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother after the address was posted online by activists angry about the health care overhaul. Perriello also said a threatening letter was sent to his brother’s house. The FBI and local authorities were investigating.

Tea party activists had posted the brother’s address online thinking it was the congressman’s home. The post urged opponents to drop by and “express their thanks” for the Democrat’s vote in favor of the sweeping health care reform.

Nigel Coleman, chairman of the Danville Tea Party, said he re-posted the comment that originated on another conservative blog, including the address, Monday on his Facebook page. The posts were taken down after the mistake was discovered.

“We’ve never been associated with any violence or any vandalism,” he said. “We’re definitely sorry that we posted the incorrect address.”

Still, Potok compared the online posting of a public official’s address to tactics used by hate groups.

“This is what neo Nazi leaders in America do today,” Potok said. “They post personal information about their enemies and sit back and wait for somebody else to act.”

It also includes this tidbit:

Gun imagery was used in a posting on the Facebook page of Sarah Palin urging people to organize against 20 House Democrats who voted for the health care bill and whose districts went for the John McCain-Palin ticket two years ago. Palin’s post featured a U.S. map with circles and cross-hairs over the 20 districts.

Way to go Sarah...

[Shryke]

Well, that's one way to look at it. The other way is that if they screwed up something like this that was apparent on the face of the bill itself, how much confidence should anyone have that they've clearly though through all the intended and unintended consequences of this bill as a whole?

I think they pretty obviously haven't, because that is inherently impossible. Which is why I think the Feds shouldn't do something like this to begin with. Division of Knowledge and all that, don't ya know?

Um, dude, there was a problem with some of the wording. That's it.

The substance of the bill hasn't even changed.

Also, are you advocating the government should never do anything because they can't perfectly predict the outcome of any action? Seriously?

[alguien]

Here's an article on it:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/house-gop-no-2-someone-shot-at-my-office/

I can't figure out where the hell this bolded part even comes from...

Someone shooting through windows!?! Jesus, that's quite serious.

Something feels off to me. We have in the article linked above reports of FBI investigating the other incidents, even in Virginia. As Cantor himself says, its a security concern and you report it to the police. Why am I hearing it from him instead of from another news source? Is that type of thing common? Until I see police reports on this, I remain skeptical.

I love this bit, "It is reckless to use these incidences as media vehicles for political gain."

Does he even listen to himself talk?

[Foreverlad]

Pretty decent bit encapsulating the threats and violence.

Found this in the same article:

UPDATE: The AP reports that the bullet was actually fired at a building where one of Cantor's consultants works.

D'oh! :rofl:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Um, dude, there was a problem with some of the wording. That's it. The substance of the bill hasn't even changed.

You'll figure it out someday. Hey, by the way, did the CBO estimates include this mistake, or not?

Also, are you advocating the government should never do anything because they can't perfectly predict the outcome of any action? Seriously?

No. I've explained this to exhaustion in another thread, and it inevitably get misinterpreted, but what the hell....

I'm saying that any attempts by the government to actively manage any sector of the economy for the purpose of making it more efficient are doomed to failure, so they shouldn't do any of that shit.

Now you need to read that carefully, even though its somewhat of an off the cuff statement I'm sure I'd need to tweak to defend properly. But there clearly are some things only government can do, and it should do those things. It's just the "efficiency" argument I think is a crappy one. The best example I can give to lefties is environmental regulation. The justification for that isn't "we're going to make that industry more efficient", its "we've got to stop them from poisoning things." I'm okay with that.

In this health care bill, if you're going to say "we need this bill to provide everyone with insurance", okay. Just DON'T tell me that the government has figured out some way to make it all work more efficiently via a 2700 page bill, because I'm not going to believe it.

[Shryke]

You'll figure it out someday. Hey, by the way, did the CBO estimates include this mistake, or not?

Figure out what? You aren't making any sense boy. Think before you type.

They screwed up some minor wording. They fixed it. The bill hasn't really changed at all. CBO estimates aren't gonna change because the thing that changed was with the STUDENT LOANS, not Health Care.

It's being voted on RIGHT NOW by the Senate. Then it heads back to the House for 1 more vote and the whole thing is done.

No. I've explained this to exhaustion in another thread, and it inevitably get misinterpreted, but what the hell....

I'm saying that any attempts by the government to actively manage any sector of the economy for the purpose of making it more efficient are doomed to failure, so they shouldn't do any of that shit.

Now you need to read that carefully, even though its somewhat of an off the cuff statement I'm sure I'd need to tweak to defend properly. But there clearly are some things only government can do, and it should do those things. It's just the "efficiency" argument I think is a crappy one. The best example I can give to lefties is environmental regulation. The justification for that isn't "we're going to make that industry more efficient", its "we've got to stop them from poisoning things." I'm okay with that.

In this health care bill, if you're going to say "we need this bill to provide everyone with insurance", okay. Just DON'T tell me that the government has figured out some way to make it all work more efficiently via a 2700 page bill, because I'm not going to believe it.

The government is already more efficient in the Health Care market.

Both in the US and everywhere else.

Your argument fails due to data.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Figure out what? You aren't making any sense boy. Think before you type. [emphasis added]

"boy"?

[Shryke]

And it passes the Senate and they shot down every single bullshit Republican amendment to it.

On to the House!

Also:

A few hours after accusing Democrats of "fanning the flames," Cantor was the featured guest on a conference call held by the "S.T.O.P. Obama Tyranny National Coalition."

:facepalm:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Figure out what? You aren't making any sense boy. Think before you type.

Tell you what. You remember this debate we had here, about the projections, the costs, the effects, the benefits, etc., and check in with me in 10 years and tell me if the projections of the proponents were accurate.

They screwed up some minor wording. They fixed it.

The problem is all the other drafting, conceptual, analytical, assumptive, etc. errors that they've made about which we will have no clue until they bite us in the ass.

The bill hasn't really changed at all. CBO estimates aren't gonna change because the thing that changed was with the STUDENT LOANS, not Health Care.

You mean that they made ANOTHER mistake? Gee, I thought this was about the mistake they made with respect to children's preexisting conditions. Or haven't you heard about that one yet?

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Huge-loophole-allows-insurance-companies-to/y7qbDel9Wk6z62ekWCtJEA.cspx

And of course, that lead to my question about the CBO. Did the CBO's estimate include consideration of this loophole, or not?

The government is already more efficient in the Health Care market. Both in the US and everywhere else. Your argument fails due to data.

I could argue this, but I don't care to. The relevant points already have been brought up in all the previous threads. Believe what you want on that score.

[The Progressive]

Lev,

Building?

http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/p/89_Bank_Crisis.htm

The legislation regarding the S&L Crisis was in 1989 regarding problems and failures that started in the early 1980s. We're pushing a quarter century since that happened. The anger that exists is lots of different things building to people being pissed now. Put, on top of that, earlier scandels like Watergate, ABSCAM, and other's I don't recall now damaging people's trust in government generally.

So you're arguing that the rage is building up for a quarter of a century? Until the day it can't be contain anymore, and erupted under a Black president?

Seriously?

Why didn't it erupted under Bush Jr. then? The deficit grew and grew, and the bailout was started by the Bush admin; some major financial/accounting/lobbying scandals also came to light during this period as well.

Tell you what. You remember this debate we had here, about the projections, the costs, the effects, the benefits, etc., and check in with me in 10 years and tell me if the projections of the proponents were accurate.

Lol, oh FLOW, have you already forgotten the arguments you made in support of the Iraq invasion in your previous incarnation on this board? It's only been 7 years. ;)

I oculd argue this, but I don't care to. The relevant points already have been brought up in all the previous threads. Believe what you want on that score.

It's not what he believes, it's just that your arguments were debunked as groundless or contradictory. I could see the wisdom in the empty face-saving pretension not to care anymore though.

[Shryke]

Tell you what. You remember this debate we had here, about the projections, the costs, the effects, the benefits, etc., and check in with me in 10 years and tell me if the projections of the proponents were accurate.

Alright.

Till then, you've still got nothing, whereas the CBO says alot about savings and such.

The problem is all the other drafting, conceptual, analytical, assumptive, etc. errors that they've made about which we will have no clue until they bite us in the ass.

In what way? What errors are you assuming exist here?

This is a boogeyman you've conjured from the dark recesses of your closet.

You mean that they made ANOTHER mistake? Gee, I thought this was about the mistake they made with respect to children's preexisting conditions. Or haven't you heard about that one yet?

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Huge-loophole-allows-insurance-companies-to/y7qbDel9Wk6z62ekWCtJEA.cspx

And of course, that lead to my question about the CBO. Did the CBO's estimate include consideration of this loophole, or not?

You need to read much more carefully son.

Here's a better article: http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/health-reform-currently-leaves-kids-coverage-incomplete/2010-03-24

Although the Obama Administration interprets the new bill to cover all children for pre-existing conditions already, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius plans to issue new regulations within the next month that unambiguously state that "the term 'pre-existing exclusion' applies to both a child's access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan for all plans newly sold in this country six months from today," HHS spokesman Nick Papas said.

Firstly, this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RECONCILIATION BILL. NOTHING.

The article you linked is about the ORIGINAL bill. The one that's already law. There's a potential loophole in it and the Obama Administration is issuing some regulations to make sure it's interpreted the way the makers of the bill intended it to be. (Which is also, to answer your other question, the way the CBO would interpret the bill. So the projections remain unchanged)

The Reconciliation bill is what's being passed right now and is full of fixes to the original bill that they didn't think they could get a super majority of votes for.

It already passed the House, but then someone found a slight wording issue in the Student Loan Reform section, so they changed that, the Senate approved the new bill and as we speak it's headed back to the House for a quick revote and then it's on to Obama's desk.

So, to sum up, the issue you linked is neither serious nor does it effect the CBO estimates nor does it even have anything to do with the Reconciliation bill in question.

I could argue this, but I don't care to. The relevant points already have been brought up in all the previous threads. Believe what you want on that score.

I'm glad you concede the point then.

[Shryke]

Also, some good news outta Cali:

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/california-voters-to-decide-whether-to-legalize-marijuana/19413976

California voters will decide in November whether to legalize personal use of marijuana and impose a tax that could raise more than $1 billion for financially struggling state and local governments.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced Wednesday that an initiative known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 has qualified for the ballot. Sponsors of the measure submitted 694,248 signatures, far more than the 433,971 they needed to win a place on the Nov. 2 ballot.

The initiative would allow anyone 21 or older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and cultivate plants in an area up to 25 square feet. It also would allow local governments to regulate and tax the cultivation, distribution and sale of marijuana in their jurisdictions.

At the same time, the measure would prohibit the possession of marijuana on school grounds; outlaw providing marijuana to anyone under 21; and ban smoking marijuana in public or in front of a minor. It would not overturn the conviction of anyone who violated marijuana laws before the initiative's passage.

[Shryke]

Also, remember Frum? Bush guy, called the GOP's strategy on Health Care stupid the day after HCR passed?

While, he's already fired from his Think-Tank/whatever job: http://www.frumforum.com/aei-says-goodbye

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

You need to read much more carefully son.

Is there a particular reason you are refering to FLOW as "Boy" and then "Son"?

[Maithanet]

Shryke,

Is there a particular reason you are refering to FLOW as "Boy" and then "Son"?

Yeah, I agree, I don't think that is called for. FLOW has always been polite enough from what I've seen, and that isn't easy being outnumbered the way he is. I don't agree with a lot of what FLOW is saying, but I do think I have a better understanding of the debate with him here, so I will thank him for that.