Blue Dogs Preventing Dems from Progressive 'Slam Dunk'?

[whowaaa]

communist manefesto..thats what this guy is following

[PlkoiBnhgy]

Meet Russian women **leefoxnow.info**

[IWashMyOwnBrain]

Ha Ha dems are in and still bitching LOL

[Mysterwright]

Blue dogs are Republican-friendly. The problem isn't Democrat or Republican. The problem is economics. How can we "bring it" as they say, in this case for a resolution to problems facing Washington, and make a profit for everyone? Perhaps if you can vaguely solve both obstacles with a formula, a game plan, then maybe you can help inspire a product with positive results. It is a tricky science but logically, one only needs to break down want, the need, and what works in getting each. Tapestry.

[SCOPESTV]

democrats need to vote these scumbag traitors and snakes out of office.

[hoomelemele1]

are there any channels that don't promote communism?

[DarthByss]

Perhaps it's because your ideas are bad and and have never worked anywhere they are tried. Constitution does not give them any authority over healthcare. They can only break up the monopoly by opening up state borders and allow people to buy plans across statelines. The states then have to do TORT reform. The tyranny of big unions and trial lawyers is finally coming to an end. Get with the program!

[reginaron]

The prez gets eight yrs. max, so why not do something similar to the senate?

Career politicians are usually the worst.

The is a difference between : I'm here to get something done for my constituants, or I'm to enjoy my new lifestyle.

[Dewdat1]

Agreed

[boxant]

man I can't wait till 2010 when we vote everyone out of office.

[studio7manga]

Keep telling yourself that, I'm suuuure it will happen.

[boxant]

peeeerhaps it will, peeeerhaps it wont.

[GuppyPal]

The democrats have a super majority and the presidency, and they still can't get legislation passed? wtf? They should be passing bills like mad.

[GOPequalsBernays]

Big difference between Democrats and Republotards, Democrats believe in freedom while repukes are all very lock step and corporate......can't go against the herd

[GuppyPal]

I don't know as if I totally agree with you there. Though I've noticed almost all conservatives just "follow the herd," I've known and seen a lot of liberals the same way, though liberals do seem to be more independant in general.

[mmingione]

This is one of the worst presentations I have heard from either side.

Democrats have a strong majority in part due to the number of coalitions that they stitch together -- including Blue Dog Democrats. To tell them to go away and be Republicans means that Dems can say goodbye to the filibuster proof coalition. So, I suppose he really means to say is that the liberal wing does not care what others think even inside their own party and they have no intention of seeking compromise solutions?

[eirefrance]

I can't agree with you at all. He very clearly says "we" should pressure them. He clearly thinks most Democrats want the things he mentions. The implication is that lobbyists and other special interests, along with the blase attitide of progressives towards politics, keep these things from passing. You may disagree with him, but to imply that he wants to shove laws down the people's throat is an uncalled for insult.

[mmingione]

His quote is this ... "they should act as Democrats or change parties." My guess is that the Blue Dogs think they are Democrats and don't believe that other wings of the party should force litmus tests. But that is just my opinion.

[dollaresque]

How are they Democrats if they are holding back progressive reforms and act more in unison with Republicans!? Heath care, climate, gay marriage, gun control - all these are dem issues and if the so-called blue dogs don't see this as dem issues, they they don't know what Democrats have been elected for.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

the answer to your question M. hilderbrand, is ebcause there are not enough progressives in the United States, and if you want progress, move elsewhere and satisfy your soul.

[TempestWriter]

I love watching the democrats shoot themselves in the foot. It's great.

[ferrozm]

haha yay!! i love obstructionism

[thesparitan]

i am so glad that someone from the past obama campaign saying this. this tells me that obama might actually be a liberal

[glennd7962]

What an arrogant putz! He should try running for office himself, and be responsible to a constituency in a district, not some notional constituency. The truth is that only 22 pct of the country identifies with his liberal agenda, the rest of the democrats aren't in agreement. To mix gay marriage, cap & trade and health care reform is silly and to call them slam dunks is to ignore the reality of what the American people want.

[studio7manga]

Bunch of conservabots in here.

[Mastikator]

Fuck you faggot liberal piece of shit. The reason you spineless liberals can't get shit done is because you're a bunch of weak cowards.

The reason health care reform isn't going to pass is because you're losers.

Either you grow a pair or you shut up while sucking Obama's cock.

[zbambam5]

Wow. The amount of insight you've just provided is staggering. I can't believe nobody has ever thought of what you just said.

[studio7manga]

Lol, conservafaggot. Spinless aye? 50 bucks on being able to out shoot your pussy ass any day of the week.

[GOPequalsBernays]

Try Conservapathic. Since it is a mental disorder, you should treat and address it as such. And isn't it cute how all Conservabots think that Liberals are exactly like the buffoon's try to stereotype us as? They think we will break out in a rash if we ever handle a gun.

[studio7manga]

Indeed, they underestimate us at their peril.

[Mastikator]

Nope. Not a conservative. I tend to agree with liberals more often than conservatives.

[studio7manga]

Way to backpedal pussy.

[Mastikator]

Still nope.

I never said I disagreed with liberals, only that they are spineless fagots.

If you grew a pair and stopped sucking Obama's dick you'd probably have a lot more progress.

[studio7manga]

Seems you are the spinless faggot. Nice projection though, oh and also baseless assumptions but that's par for the course with your type.

[Mastikator]

Sorry about being such a dick the other day.

[Gkklein]

This guy has some serious psychological issues.

[freesk8]

Equality for gays and lesbians is a good thing.

But cap and trade will hurt the poor much more than the rich by destroying jobs.

Single payer health care will hurt the poor by increasing waiting lines and decreasing the quality of care.

Obama should end the war in Afghanistan, not send more troops.

He has done nothing to end the war on drugs. Why not? He could make an exec. order to stop prosecuting med marijuana users in states where it is legal.

Why did Obama strengthen the USA PATRIOT Act?

[UncommonThinker]

Yes, we all want reform. But this fool doesn't realize most people do not want the reforms washington is proposing.

[youngschwartz]

Eh this guy is just as annoying as radical conservatives who want to just push through whatever whacky legislation they support. I'm sick of people who consider their opinion to be the only/correct opinion.

[JAROSLAVAGINA]

This man is a fool. Period. Why are the blue dogs "blocking" the slam dunks in health care reform and climate change legislation? because, unlike the "liberal progressives" (which is an oxymoron of sorts), the blue dogs have decent understanding of economics, and fear the economic repercussions of blindly slamming legislation through, with out fully looking at the possible side effects.

I swear, its like the liberal progressives think the best treatment for cocaine overdose is more cocaine

[llandshark]

agreed... lol

[theneedledrop]

What's up with this sniveling liberal, here?

[vr00m123]

Nothing, specially something like this, should be slam dunked.

[bradwatson7324]

Am I wrong about the concept of state's rights? It seems to me that if government is involved in health care at all, it should only be at the state level. That way, people who don't want government run health care have the option of moving to a state that doesn't have it. Or, vice-versa, people who want it can move to a state that has it.

[KeeperOfTheWord]

First, you don't respect Blue Dogs. Why would you? They lack the strength of their stated convictions. Second, Team Red wrote the book on fiscal irresponsibility. Third, it may well end that public option health care happens on a state by state basis. Fourth, what will you do when progressives conclude that they really don't have anything vested in the state, and turn their back on America. The Right quit America long ago. The center cannot hold.

Think this through.

[fzqlcs]

Thank God for Blue Dogs! All the crap this tiddly wink wants mean big Big BIG GOVERNMENT. Go ahead and cry for government to give you all you want, you big P. I will go out and earn enough to get what I need just like the freedom-loving people who built this country.

[migkillertwo]

"They're more concerned with reelection than doing the right thing"

good. Congressmen SHOULD be looking out for the interests of those who elected them. Congressmen SHOULD be reminded that they are accountable to the people who put them on Capitol Hill in the first place.

That being said, I recommend that this Steve Hildebrand take a crash course in constitutional law.

[freesk8]

I basically agree, but I would RATHER congressmen and women just live up to their oaths of office by never voting for any bill that assumes to congress powers not specifically granted by the Constitution.

[studio7manga]

What like passing laws? Fuck yourself.

[freesk8]

Congress has limited powers explicitly delegated in the Constitution. Legislating in areas not explicitly delegated violates the oaths of office of members of congress: "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the US."

Please be nice. It only makes you look bad when you call people names.

[studio7manga]

You're an idiot, and there is no nice. Even if I accept your argument (which I wouldn't as you can't provide an example at all) lot's of things didn't exist over 200 years ago when the document was written.

Now go scream about death panels more Mr "constitutional scholar".

[freesk8]

Our rights are the same now as they were 200 years ago.

If you were nicer, maybe more people would like you. Calling people names only makes you look bad.

Go ahead. Read the Constitution. You may find interesting things. Try especially the 10th amendment. What do you think it means? Why do you think it was considered important enough to be included in the Bill of Rights?

[studio7manga]

No they aren't, rights have been greatly expanded or did you miss all those amendments? Duh...

I only call morons names, and I live in a city filled with educated people so it's not really a problem for me but that's for your faux concern.

Is the 10th amendment the only one you know? Seems you're missing quite a lot of the government's responsibilities and subsequent lawmaking over the last 200+ years, but then again you are a conservative...

[freesk8]

Rights don't come from governments.

They come BEFORE govt. Good govt defends rights. Bad ones violate them.

Think about it: if rights just came from govt, that means that people in N. Korea have no rights, so their govts are doing nothing wrong because their people have no rights to violate! That's clearly absurd.

Our rights come from self-ownership. Life, liberty and property are our natural rights. Same today as in 1789.

10th am. is just mostly overlooked these days. Ever read it?

[freesk8]

And I am NOT a conservative: I am in favor of marriage equality I'm pro choice on abortion I'm against Middle East war (even against Obama's sending more troops to Afghanistan...) I'm against the USA PATRIOT Act I'm an out of the closet atheist I'm against corporate welfare, especially the TARP spending and wall st bailouts I defend free speech I oppose the drug war Some conservative I am... You've jumped to conclusions and insulted me. Kinda makes you look bad to insult people.

[studio7manga]

Who said anything about rights coming from government? What good is a right if society doesn't acknowledge it? There is the philosophical existence of rights and the practical existence of rights.

"Life, liberty..."

"Life"

"Life"

Yup. Also it's pursuit of happiness. Nice try though.

At best you're a conservatarian or Liberservative if you prefer. Save your outrage, I care nothing for it.

[freesk8]

You wrote: "rights have been greatly expanded, or did you miss all those amendments..."

This assumes that govt can expand or create rights.

You are right that rights must be defended to be in effect, but they have value as moral benchmarks even if they are not defended by a govt.

Life, Liberty and Pursuit of H. is in the DOI, not the Const. DOI has only moral force, no legal force. The Const. has "Life, Liberty and Property" in 2 places: Amendments 5 and 14 list the trio including property.

[freesk8]

The right word for me is "Libertarian."

I am socially liberal, against foreign wars such as Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan, but fiscally conservative in the sense of being pro free-market, NOT in the sense of being for big corporations. I am against corporate bailouts and other handouts.

I have no outrage for you.  I am merely pointing out that calling people names makes you look bad. Consider it a service that I provide to you for free, my friend.

[studio7manga]

You should be pleased with all the neoliberal reforms that have resulted in the current economic mess in that case. And before you take exception with that statement I'll remind you again of the distinction between the philosophical realm and the practical realm.

[freesk8]

If your philosophy reflects reality, then the philosophical and the practical are one.

I am pleased with neoliberal reforms, but I can't think of many that have happened in the last ten years. Under Bush and Obama, the US has moved away from free markets, and towards a form of soft fascism in which oligopoly and monopoly are protected, corps bailed out instead of allowed to fail, spending and taxes increased, and trade restricted.

The collapse was caused by bad regulation, not the free market.

[studio7manga]

Missed the point.

Oh gee that's why real wages have stagnated, benefits reduced, democratic institutions weakened, gini index the highest it's ever been, sounds great!

"regulation" "free market"

That was amusing. I'm pretty sure you're wearing that label without knowing what it means.

[freesk8]

? You or me? Which point?

Real wages increase with free trade and lower taxes. They increase with better competition and decrease when govts protect monopolies. Gini index measures spread from rich to poor, but a much more important index is the absolute living std of the poor, which increases under freer markets.

The only good regulations are the ones that punish the use of force or fraud.  All others make the poor poorer and violate rights.

Which label are you referring to?

[studio7manga]

Speaking of being at odds with reality, most everyone agrees it was the lawlessness on the derivatives market that caused the collapse. Whats that? Self regulation? Free markets? Government not needed? Oh but then you turn around and say bad regulation, not very free market of you. Bad regulation? Try no regulation.

Get educated...

[freesk8]

You are wrong that most everyone agrees that the collapse was caused by insufficient regulation of the deriv. mkts.

Instead, the collapse was caused by the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates too low, creating mal-investment in residential real estate, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushing banks to lend to people who shouldn't take out home loans, the CRA, and the govt's implicit guarantee of bailouts to bankers that created moral hazard.

Govt should let banks and other corps fail.

Bad regs.

[studio7manga]

That's part of it, but only part, ie. multiple contributing factors.

The government repealed laws set up to ensure banks wouldn't be "to big to fail" which lead to the concentration of capital into a few banks on wall street. Ironically, it was the free market reforms where the government stepped back from it's role as regulator that caused it. So yeah the government did cause it, by implementing free market reforms...

[freesk8]

The real thing that lead to the concentration of capital in a few banks was the amount and burden of regulation. Heavy regs are dealt with by large banks by hiring more lawyers, and by performing expensive lobbying. But these are not possible for small banks. Hence, large banks welcome reg burdens because they serve as barriers to entry of new, small banks, which would provide better cust service at lower costs. Regs help create oligopoly and monopoly.

Excess regs caused the problem.

[studio7manga]

Oh please, there was virtually no regulation. Most of the consolidation was organic owing to economies of scale that would exist with or without regulations.

[freesk8]

Economies of scale to selling derivatives?

I doubt there really are any, other than the regulatory burdens.

[studio7manga]

No to banking in general.

[freesk8]

There are thousands of small banks, not to mention credit unions.

What are the barriers to entry for starting a bank or credit union?

Rent a building, hire bankers, buy software and computers, solicit deposits, sell some home or auto loans.

It is a service industry, so the capital requirements are low. There are lots of bankers out of work these days, so hiring should be easy.

Almost all the hurdles are regulatory.

[studio7manga]

Kind of pointless to have a discussion with someone so duplicitous as to conflate such small lenders with speculative investment banks.

[freesk8]

I never conflated these two. The question was, were the barriers to entry in the banking industry low or high, apart from regulatory hurdles.

I argued that they were low, and that the regulatory hurdles were the big ones.

Kinda pointless to have a discussion with someone who can not understand (or purposefully misconstrues) a simple argument.

[studio7manga]

It's not a matter of entering the banking industry in general it's the question of scale needed to be successful on the stage of international investment banking.

Yet you declined to state what regulations in particular.

[freesk8]

Again, the barriers to entry are low in setting up a managed stock fund. Day traders are basically running personal international investment banking funds. You can trade stocks for $7 through Scottrade. Just start doing it for your friends and selling shares in your investment vehicle. It would be easy to do but for the SEC and other regulations. The govt is again the greatest hurdle. It protects the big banks from start ups, and makes them bigger, so we feel they are "too big to fail."

[studio7manga]

Still waiting for that list of evil regulations...

[freesk8]

I'm too lazy to look them up.

But I'll tell you what: if you can list the non-regulatory barriers to entry for starting an international investment banking company, I'll look up the regs you seek.

[studio7manga]

He's talking about campaign donations from special interest twat.

[arequipa1]

bahahahaha.

[migkillertwo]

I'm thinking its time to break up the United Staes.

[Vogter2100]

Yeah grow a heart and some balls!

[CRAPCANNONS]

Aren't the Blue Dogs canceled out by the RINOs?