In an appearance on The Ed Show Wednesday, Howard Dean compared the Republican strategy to muddy the waters on Medicare to "propaganda techniques" used by the Soviet Union.
"What they're using is old propaganda techniques that were actually used by the Soviets many years ago," Dean, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee, told Ed Schultz. "They say something that's not true, and then they're gonna spend $200 million saying it again and again and again hoping that somebody beleives it."
Lately, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have been claiming that President Obama cut $716 billion from Medicare. As we and many others have noted, the claim is deeply misleading: Those cuts affect providers and insurance companies, and leave seniors' care untouched. Meanwhile, Ryan's own plan for Medicare would end the program as we know it, turning it into a system of vouchers, and leaving many seniors unable to foot the bill for coverage, studies have shown.
Dean, who came close to capturing the Democratic nomination in 2004, argued that Romney and Ryan will have trouble convincing Americans that they're the defenders of Medicare, because the party's reputations on the issue are so well-established.
"Here's the problem that they have: Very few people in America believe that the Republicans care about Medicare, because they've tried to hurt it in so many ways," he said. "Nor do they believe that they care about middle-class people. They do believe that whatever the faults of the Democrats, they have stood up for Social Security and Medicare."
Dean concluded: "So propaganda didn't work in Russia and it's not gonna work here. It generally does not work when people know that it's a lie."
Leave a Comment:
Howard Dean is right. It's the same technique Fox has been using for years. Murdoch must have read the Soviet playbook and thought, Hey! That could work! And it does, but only with the feeble-minded.
Actually, it's the Hitler/Himmler "Big Lie" technique, which the Repugs have been using for the past 5 years. "It ain't Us good little boyz and girlz, it's them soshuleest Bullies that did it."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^RE-REG^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://www.politicususa.com/fight-epic-gop-lie-social-security-medicare-entitlements.html
A label is a classifying phrase, or a name, that is applied to a person or thing that should be relatively precise, but is often used inaccurately or restrictively for the purpose of subterfuge. The problem with labels is they can impact an object or person negatively when used by a group with an ulterior motive, and politicians spend no small amount of time mislabeling a program or agenda they oppose. Republicans are masters of attaching misleading labels to convince ignorant Americans to vote against their own self-interest, and now that Willard Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running mate, the GOP are misleading voters with a term that is not only inaccurate, it is an epic lie.
Yesterday, during an interview, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell praised Paul Ryan as a courageous budget guru because the Heritage Foundation budget he champions includes reining in entitlement spending he claims President Obama is increasing at an alarming rate. McDonnell made a rash of baseless claims about the President, and posited that the economy is worse today than in January 2009 when President Obama was inaugurated. He also parroted the fallacious assertion that Social Security is an entitlement program that is increasing the deficit, and it is a claim Republicans repeat often in hopes of garnering support to privatize the program. Most Americans understand that the nation’s economy is not worse than it was four years’ ago, but apparently there are ignoramuses who believe the retirement program is an entitlement and it is incumbent on Democrats to remind Americans exactly what, and how, Social Security and Medicare work.
mjb...... Your smarter than this. Howard Dean is a laughing stock of both parties. The guy is in his own world. I'm surprised you took the bait
Doesn't make any difference how stupid you think he is just compare him to romney and ryan and we are even anyway. But you might want to consider that he does have a point about R & R it being communist in theory.
The ones in their own world is the tea bagged republicans who believe that voting for robmehood they will become one of the 1% delusional at its best.
therethegopgoesagain, MJB is 100% correct. If you tell a lie long enough, everyone will believe it sooner or later. Apparently you are the one that took the bait.
I knew it! The Republicans are all commies! Protect America! Vote Democratic!
"The ones in their own world is the tea bagged republicans who believe that voting for robmehood they will become one of the 1% delusional at its best."
Well young whomitmay, there you go again; Those of us who work for a living work for the 1% for the most part; If you take from them, then you are taking from us !
Weasel - Nazi -----^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Go Back to the Swamp GOMER .........
Another intelligent, articulate rebuttal from the left ! Wow, how impressive! No wonder you people are takers, you really do need to be taken care of by the government.
Rebuttal? You have yet posted anything worth the effort to rebutt all we get from you lying tea bagged republicans are lies and fake outrage so its more fun to rub your noses in the GOP's diapers. GOP the party of whiners and insane.
No, actually he's a dimwit and is completely wrong. You must have taken history classes from a public school.
The extreme right would be leaning fascist not communist.
The extreme left is communism.
Reading and thinking is not illegal... yet.
Just wait Prez Milk Chocolate and his chicago thugs will get around to that soon enough. As long as it written with adoration of the left and bashes the right you will be fine.
Bash Prez Nestle and you are banned for life.
Well whomitmay, there you go again. Question young man, why is Europe teetering on going broke ?
A. Their taxes aren't high enough ?
B. It's Reagan's fault
C. They have top-heavy welfare states that cannot be supported no matter how much the rich are taxed.
If you answered C, there is hope for you; Obama is striving to make this country a gargantuan welfare state, and you takers actually support him.
Finally, right, Ed, Rachal, and Lawrence tell the truth ! O.K., kid.What ever floats your welfare dreams!
No one on this blog outside of the tea bagged republicans are going to vote for robmehood and boy blunder. Really still can't grasp that there is no more welfare program in the US it ended in the 1990's. So you are trying to blame a program that ended shows how out of touch you are with reality.
Nice try but you obviously aren't aware that the Obama administration gutted welfare reform by offering states waivers for the work requirements in June. These waivers allow states to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component.
So we can thank Obama for once again allowing able bodied deadbeats to collect free money without having to do anything to earn it.
A lie that has already been debunked as well as it has been proven robme wanted the same waivers that the tea bagged republicans is now whining about. No matter how many times you repeat a lie it will never be anything more then a lie so re reg stop lying.
tates administering the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program and other interested parties
SUBJECT:
Guidance concerning waiver and expenditure authority under Section 1115
REFERENCE:
Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. [42 U.S.C. 1315]; Section 402 of the Social Security Act. [42 U.S.C. 602]
BACKGROUND:
Section 1115 of the Social Security Act provides authority for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to consider and approve experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects which, in the Secretary’s judgment, are likely to assist in promoting the objectives of Title IV-A. Section 1115 allows for waiver of compliance with section 402 of the Social Security Act to the extent and for the period necessary to enable a state to carry out an approved project. The statute also provides authority for costs of such projects which would not otherwise be an allowable use of funds under Part A of Title IV to be regarded as an allowable use of funds, to the extent and for the period approved.
As specified in statute, the purpose of Part A is to increase the flexibility of states in operating a program designed to: (1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
PURPOSE:
HHS is encouraging states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment. Therefore, HHS is issuing this information memorandum to notify states of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.
States led the way on welfare reform in the 1990s — testing new approaches and learning what worked and what did not. The Secretary is interested in using her authority to approve waiver demonstrations to challenge states to engage in a new round of innovation that seeks to find more effective mechanisms for helping families succeed in employment. In providing for these demonstrations, HHS will hold states accountable by requiring both a federally-approved evaluation and interim performance targets that ensure an immediate focus on measurable outcomes. States must develop evaluation plans that are sufficient to evaluate the effect of the proposed approach in furthering a TANF purpose as well as interim targets the state commits to achieve. States that fail to meet interim outcome targets will be required to develop an improvement plan and can face termination of the waiver project.
The demonstration authority provided by section 1115 and sound evaluation of approved projects will provide valuable knowledge that will help lead to improvements in achieving the purposes of the TANF program.
INFORMATION:
Scope of Authority
Section 1115 authorizes waivers concerning section 402. Accordingly, other provisions of the TANF statute are not waivable. For example, the purposes of TANF are not waivable, because they are contained in section 401. The prohibitions on assistance are not waivable, because they are contained in section 408.
While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.
Moreover, HHS is committed to ensuring that any demonstration projects approved under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes and contributing to the evidence base for effective programs; therefore, terms and conditions will require a federally-approved evaluation plan designed to build our knowledge base. TANF funds may be used to fund an approved evaluation and state funds spent on an approved evaluation may be considered state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) expenditures. In addition, terms and conditions will require either interim targets for each performance measure or a strategy for establishing baseline performance on a set of performance measures and a framework for how interim goals will be set after the baseline measures are established. The terms and conditions will establish consequences for failing to meet interim performance targets including, but not limited to, the implementation of an improvement plan and, if the failure to meet performance targets continues, termination of the waivers and demonstration project.
HHS Priorities
In exercising her broad discretion for waivers, the Secretary is interested in approaches that seek to improve employment outcomes. Accordingly:
Note that this is not a comprehensive list, and HHS will consider other projects consistent with the statute and the guidance provided in this IM. HHS is especially interested in testing approaches that build on existing evidence on successful strategies for improving employment outcomes.
Terms and conditions will require periodic reporting on how the implementation and operation of the demonstration is progressing, including reporting on the performance measures, in addition to evaluation reports. To support learning and knowledge development, ACF staff may conduct on-site visits to observe demonstration operations and meet with relevant managers and staff.
INQUIRIES:
Inquiries and applications for projects involving waiver requests should be directed to the appropriate Regional TANF Program Manager.
/s/
Earl S. Johnson
Director
Office of Family Assistance
Fresh, According to this link, your statement is untrue. (Remove the space between the //'s when you copy and paste it to your search engine.)
http:/ /illinois.edu/lb/article/72/65301
In part, it states:
The state waivers will give states more control and greater flexibility in developing demonstration projects that meet work requirements under TANF and are more effective strategies for assisting welfare recipients to "prepare for, find and retain employment." Moreover, the state waivers would help states "focus on improving employment outcomes" for participants. These goals are consistent with the work focus of recent welfare reforms.
These waivers also represent a significant milestone because the current welfare system has focused too much on tracking work participation rates instead of assisting participants in finding and sustaining jobs that can support their families. My previous research and other studies demonstrate that although employment rates for low-income workers and welfare recipients have increased since the 1996 welfare reform, many have low-paying or part-time jobs, are unable to sustain employment, and lack stable earnings that lift them out of poverty.
Therefore, it would be helpful to modify the current system by allowing states to develop more innovative programs that can help participants clear barriers that impede employment gains and improve their earnings. Such innovations might include redefining the work requirement by considering education and vocational training as types of work activities that aim to improve employment outcomes of participants.
In addition, the announcement states that "the HHS is committed to ensuring that any demonstration projects approved under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes and contributing to the evidence base for effective programs." This evaluation requirement would mandate states to measure outcomes in more meaningful ways and to assess the effectiveness of innovative and effective initiatives related to employment, training and education.
Overall, these new changes are needed not only to meet the work goals of TANF but also to strengthen the safety net for welfare recipients and low-income families and help them succeed in employment, thus increasing their self-sufficiency.
^^^ see above ^^^
That verbiage is straight from the HHS website.
And who gives a damn if Romney wants these waivers?
Just because Obama ain't my homeboy doesn't mean Romney is.
Caregiver why don't you youtube the clip that Pelosi's daughter shot with able-bodied bums collecting welfare benefits right across the street from where she lives.
Or the news clip from Detroit where these professional losers lined up for miles to get "free Obama money."
Then you can explain to me how effective this work for welfare thing is working.
Yup and you know what they do then? They enroll for one class in college and take out the maximum student loan amount to pocket the overage. So not only are they collecting welfare, they are now getting a refund check every semester from the Department of Education.
Since you can go on Obama's Income Based Repayment option, where your payments will never be more than 10 percent of your gross, we get to carry their financial burden for 25 years, at which time the loans are forgiven.
Fresh, so why then would passing the responsibility to the states be a bad thing?
Because it's only passing the responsibility to the states to dole out federal funds. That doesn't solve the problem when the source of funds comes from the federal government.
If this were left to the states completely (as in the states provide the funding from their own budgets and determine their own guidelines) I'd have no problem with it.
Care because Obama supports it, rather then keeping it simple the re reg tries to cover up his reason with words.
Maybe not, Whom.
Fresh, Ok, I can understand and appreciate that. So what you're saying is the waivers aren't necessarily a bad thing, they just don't carry the idea far enough.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter which party you belong too, there are always going to be people who are going to work harder at getting out of work than it would take them to actually work. I've even run across that type of person in the work environment. The problem is, how do you change that that kind of mentality?
And Fresh, this didn't just happen when Obama became President. My DH has a half sister he doesn't have anything to do with because she's a "Professional Student". (Well, there are other reasons too but I won't go into that.) The government has been supporting her for around 35 yrs. How do you cut out people like that without hurting the ones who truly want a chance?
Sort of. What I'm really saying is that the Federal government should be deferring legislation to states in general across the board rather than federally mandating and/or regulating and/or funding things. This nation was founded on that principle.
The role of the federal government should be limited to infrastructure and defense and not much more than that.
I agree with you that there will always be people who are looking to get out of work rather than actually put forth any effort. I've seen this in the workplace as well - people doing just enough to not get fired.
As for changing that mentality it would be a good start to remove incentives that allow people to do it.
A perfect example of this is public education and the teacher's unions. This system by it's very nature protects slackers by virtue of automatic tenure and doing away with performance based pay. A system that treats everyone the same with regard to pay removes any incentive for an employee to do more, while at the same time protecting slackers who do exactly what you stated needs to be reformed.
For every 10 teachers there are 8 that go to work only to collect a paycheck. Don't think for a minute that kids don't pick up on this. They are raised in a system that tells them by example that there's no point in working hard because it's easier and there's no incentive to do more than skate by.
These kids grow up to be slacking whiners and losers who believe people who do better in life got there because of luck or because they were born into it. They believe that anyone who works hard and thinks they'll be better off for it is a chump.
Yes I'm totally aware that this didn't start with Obama.
The problem here is that education is substandard and overpriced because the Department of Education is involved in it.
Part of the solution would be to abolish federal loans for colleges completely. While some will scream that it punishes those who really want the chance, I say saddling someone with debt fresh out of college is doing more harm than help.
Remove the funding and colleges will be forced to lower their prices, because the bulk of revenue they receive via borrowed federal money will be gone. Enrollment will drop, and so will prices. It's a whole lot easier to make education more affordable (by forcing the hand of the market) than it is to issue loans that only artificially inflate prices and enslave students in debt.
It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. What you call incentives, a lot of people out there call necessity. For all we know, a kid whose parents are on welfare and food stamps now, might grow up to become a world renown doctor or a nurse who is going to be taking care of one of us when we end up in a nursing home. I also don't believe people become teachers because they think it's a gravy job. I live in a small college town right outside of one of the largest public school systems on the East coast. The last 4-5 superintendents they hired quit before their contract was up. The last one really made a mess of things. When the city council finally picked their final 3 to fill the position, one of them was a teacher. I thought that was great; FINALLY they found someone who might be able to boost teacher moral. (If you ever had an incompetent boss, you know what I'm talking about.) But alas, I was wrong. Once again, they picked an outsider. The only good thing that has come out of it, so far, is the teachers finally got a raise after 4 years of not getting one. Do you have any idea demoralizing it can be to try and teach a bunch of gangbangers without any moral support??
I also disagree with you in regards to abolishing federal loans for colleges completely. While I can understand why you might think it could lower costs, I don't believe it will. I think the colleges that will be hurt the most by abolishing federal loans would be community colleges. That would mean only the rich would be able to afford to go to (private) college. And since I believe there are a lot of poor/middle class kids out there whose IQ is just as high, if not higher, than a lot of rich kid's IQ, they deserve just as much of a chance to go to college than they do. I do agree the cost of going to college is way too high; especially private college tuition.
Bottom line for me is, no one has the right to tell someone if they want better life then get a better job unless that person has a way of getting a better education first. If financial aid is available but they're too lazy to go for it, then I have no sympathy for them.
And FWIW,
In 2010, Congress passed and the President signed into law a bill that eliminated the FFEL program for all new loans made as of July 1, 2010. All federal student loans have been made under the Direct Loan program as of that date. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the elimination of the FFEL program under the law would generate $68.7 billion in savings over the next ten years. These savings were used to increase funding for the Pell Grant program.
(http:/ /febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/federal-student-loan-programs-history)
Remove the space between the //'s after you copied and pasted the link to your search engine in order to get it to work.)
It is a fallacy that a higher education will offer you a better life. Education in and of itself does not determine if a person will have a better life, or a higher salary.
Many of the most successful people in America, pioneers of technology, etc, never finished college. The high ratio of those who did not attend college does not support your theory that a higher education (or a high IQ for that matter) is in and of itself a determining factor of success. Statistics show that it doesn't have much bearing at all on it.
Since ED was formed the cost of education has gone up exponentially and disproportionate to everything else. The minute the government gets involved in anything, costs go up. I predict that student loans will be the next bubble.
Right now with unemployment high, there are a lot of people who are electing to go back to college to retrain themselves. This has resulted in a glut of college grads who are getting their degrees and entering a work force that does not have enough entry level jobs to meet the supply.
So they graduate to debt and no means to pay it. Worse yet they are overqualified for any job that doesn't require a degree.
Romney had to prove how far right he is (fake) by picking Ryan. Seniors, middle class and working poor need to know that they are the enemy. Medicare and SS are two of the most popular social programs, and and a winning Romney/Ryan ticket will dismantle them.
Howard Dean......PAC....Democrats for America:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/
Who We Are and What We Do
Democracy for America, the people powered PAC, has over one million members nationwide. DFA is a grassroots powerhouse working to change our country and the Democratic Party from the bottom-up. We provide campaign training, organizing resources, Tell Us What Fights You
Want DFA to Tackle! and media exposure so our members have the power to support progressive issues and candidates up and down the ballot.
I feel for the seniors who fought for the vote and may go to there maker with that taken from them ,just to win an election you would brake the hearts of those who gave you the right to do this .For what is going on in this world today America should be the light but we FALL, I'm shamed to be an american, to think that republicans are celebrating this, we have to say God save America not bless
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1 RE-REG + 1 GOMER - well 2 GOMERS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This Is NOT OUR Larry 74 ----- Notice the {47.} - Imposter RE-REG ..........Come ON People
Saw that last fake last night, MD. Plus no avatar.
X, some of us patriotic Americans are ashamed some so called Americans operate, and for me you fit that catagory. "And You Can't take that freedom away from ME!"
Morning everone. No that's not me. When I first saw the name I had to do a double take.
Unless your barrys preacher then it is god d*mn america
Unless you're Bush and you murdered 5,000 troops for a lie.
Sure this $716 billion cut from Medicare under the ACA is not really a cut as it is an administrative change in funding that will have no real impact for Seniors. Savings were made to certain types of payments to insurance companies and certain wasteful practices within Medicare itself were changed. It should be noted that I believe we are talking about changes to Medicare that will come over a number years typically five or ten. The point is most of us are not Medicare administrators. Medicare is complicated and there were changes made in the ACA that only impacted reimbursements to insurance companies regarding specific types of services. When idiots throw out these big numbers, the numbers have to be qualified by other information otherwise the numbers become really meaningless.
So Howard Dean has this one correct. Tell a big GOP lie about Medicare often enough with enough money behind it and no doubt certain people may believe it. On the other hand, I am pretty sure most voters know that Republicans are openly hostile to Medicare and Social Security. Most voters know that Democrats will defend and strengthen Medicare. So if the GOP wants to spend hundreds of million of dollars on Medicare attacks let them do so. I am not sure that as long as the White House and Democrats fight back hard that it will be a winning formula for them come November.
Medicare Advantage, not Medicare, was substantively desubsidized.
One more thought that was on Ed's show tonight. Most people in Massachusetts really like the health insurance program instituted by none other than Mitt Romney. The individual mandate is also liked. Two officials that were responsible for writing the insurance plan in Massachusetts say that 98% of the people in the state are covered. Insurance premium costs have also been stabilized by the competition at the insurance exchanges. So maybe this Affordable Care Act will greatly help stabilize health care in America. The bottom line is that "Romneycare" has been a really big success and Mitt Romney does not want to run on his biggest achievement as governor!
Our biggest problem right now are those 50 million uninsured. Normal average families in America need access to a family doctor known as a family care provider. This is the single most important reform that we can make is to get ordinary people en mass universal coverage and into a clinic with a family doctor and nurse for regular checkups and routine treatments. For young women with children this will be a godsend because the amount of money we save will be simply staggering. There is nothing more expensive to society than a sick kid that turns into a sickly adult. These types of kids do poorer in school and poorer in the work world too. People with lots of untreated medical problems are more likely to end up with lots of other problems as adults. Getting out of the lower socioeconomic layer also gets more difficult when you have poor health. Employment especially becomes a major struggle for these untreated kids who become adults. So from a societal standpoint getting universal coverage is not only morally the correct thing to do it also saves lots of other costs later on.
@Rex
You are absolutely correct.
Another thing about the ACA that I have been thinking a lot about lately is how BAD it is to have affordable health insurance available only through an employer.
If you get health insurance benefit from your employer you are fine.
If you are self-employed, or un-employed or work for a company that doesn't offer health insurance you are pretty much screwed.
How many people stick with (are "chained to") a job they hate because of the health insurance benefit?
But, maphi, if you work for a business that doesn't care enough about its employees to provide health insurance, chances are that's not going to be the ideal place to work anyway. Unless it's a new, struggling business that hasn't gotten on its feet yet, that would be the only excuse I see not to provide it. But a bigger, successful business that's been around awhile really doesn't have an excuse not to provide coverage.
@mjb
True but...
As I understand it, companies started offering health insurance as a benefit to attract and keep good employees.
But now - too often - employees are expendable. There isn't the expectation that you get a good job and devote your career to that company. You can lose your job at the drop of a hat.
Workers know that they can't ask for or expect raises - especially now. And the health insurance "stick" is just one more thing the company can use to keep the workers in line.
What would happen if we got Health Insurance completely away from Employer based?
Neo-con-Nazi.............................................
maphi, DH calls that "Golden Handcuffs". Also, what a lot of people don't understand, a for-profit insurance company can drop you even if it's through your employer once you turn 65 and there are a lot of people out there who are needing to work past that age.
XEP: As usual you seek to mock others while offering no solutions for real problems in the real world. Where is your GOP health care plan to help 50 million uninsured? I served 20 years on active duty including war service during the Persian Gulf War and directly supported five other major military conflicts and several minor ones. I gave you a country to get rich in. So your arrogant attitude of "I have mine and the hell with everyone else" is really sickening. You offer no solutions to problems except to offer an arrogant self righteous attitude. "I have mine and the hell with everyone else." Well guess what you did not get rich by yourself because lots of other people work hard to provide a country for you to live in and a functioning system so you can be fat and happy. Your life is dependent upon the rule of the law provided by the government. The government also provides the infrastructure, the public sector such as schools and colleges, and lots of hard working blue collar workers working in Main Street businesses and factories all contribute to your welfare.
Those who work hard to make the whole capitalist system work deserve health insurance for themselves and their families because they earn it. No one will miss you on this blog sphere. Ever notice all your friends on this blog? Why do you blog here when most everyone here considers you nothing but a maggot in a manure pile? If you suddenly disappeared from the face of this earth, no one on this blog would shed a tear for you.
And importantly, 99% of children are covered under the Mass.Health Ins.Plan. The authors of this plan have the facts. Those facts need to be broadcast daily to the public. 98% of people in Mass are HAPPY with the healthcare act they have had for the past 8 years. We have to help get the facts out and the lies by Rethugs exposed.
Rufus just loves to show his lack of intelligence. He thinks the two pigs and a goat he has stashed away at the Cayman Islands makes him another Romney.
Everything that I've seen and heard since learning who Mitt Romney is, reminds me, very scarily I must add, of the Oman movies. Mitt is the embodiment of Damien. Way WAY too many parallels. And I'm an atheist.
That was funny.
Really? I just find it of no value!
As are the vast majority of your posts. Just obscure youtube videos and huffpo OPINION peices you try to pass off as facts. SMH.
Bugs if you and the rest of the teabaggers didn't have fake news of Glenn beck doing your thinking for you, your heads would fill with dust.
Romney and Ryan are liars telling lies upon lies. They are void of values and any core decency.
They have looked at the favorability ratings of President Obama and determined that the only way they can damage him - is to tell straight out lies!
President Obama has demonstrated more class, decency, patriotism and values than Romney or Ryan by far.
In fact, Ryan supports and is a disiciple of Ayn Rand who was an athiest who supported abortion rights! Now ain't that something?!
This is Ryan's philosphy....
Philosophy
At a D.C. gathering celebrating what would have been Ayn Rand's 100th birthday, Ryan credited Rand as inspiring him to get involved in public service, stating that "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,"[54] In a 2005 speech at the Atlas Society, he said he grew up reading Rand, and that her books taught him about his value system and beliefs.[55][56] Ryan tried to get all of the congressional interns in his office to read Rand's writing. He also gave copies of her novel Atlas Shrugged to his staff as Christmas presents, he told the Weekly Standard in 2003.[57][58]
In 2009, Ryan said "What’s unique about what’s happening today in government, in the world, in America, is that it’s as if we’re living in an Ayn Rand novel right now. I think Ayn Rand did the best job of anybody to build a moral case of capitalism, and that morality of capitalism is under assault."[59]
Yeah both Robmehood and boy blunder are welfare queens why if it were not for handouts both candidates wouldn't be candidates or wealthy. Seems jerry doesn't mind welfare for the wealthy.
Right jerry only in Reagans make believe land do the wealthy work hard for wealth. But then there is reality, they are not called the idle rich because they work hard. Here is a clue jerry the wealthy spend more time on vacation and the golf course then the republican congress.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/07/the-401k-scam/
Yeah those 401ks are doing exactly what the GOP designed them to do, make Wall street fat cats a boat load of money and sticking it to the person who has the 401k, another words just another GOP scam to part you from your money and give to those who already have money.
"Right jerry only in Reagans make believe land do the wealthy work hard for wealth. But then there is reality, they are not called the idle rich because they work hard. Here is a clue jerry the wealthy spend more time on vacation and the golf course then the republican congress."
Well young, whomitmay, there you go again! Kid, you don't have the energy, or ambition to keep up with the 1 %, because most of them work 80-100 hours a week! One does not get to the 1 % by dragging their feet, and looking for other people to take care of them like you, and the other takers on this board! Get off your rear and try to do something. When you are so tired at the end a a work day that you drop into bed, then you will eschew the lazy, liberal credos!
And we get proof that there is no lie the tea bagged republican will repeat.
Rufus you make a fool out of yourself daily...lol
Romney and Ryan look like a couple of used-car salesmen. Who would buy anything from them?
Almost 50% of the American population?
If that were true, the Republicans wouldn't be trying every voter-suppression and vote-rigging tactic they can think of.
in order to get the truth you must check multiple sources of info, not just msnbc or fox, read and educate yourself and you too will be awakened.
ANOTHER ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^RE-REG^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
They are so ignorant, they try to tell us how to gather facts.....and they havn't brought one to the page yet. Maybe, you are the one who is unpluged and need to get pluged in.
One could easily compare the Obama Administration to the Hugo Chavez regime. Seizing control of industry and seizing control of the media.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ GOOFBALL^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^RE-REG
ROTFFL.
there is plenty of video of mitt flip-flopping,some of obamas ideas were originally republican ideas there orders are to just oppose obama period.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Maggot ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^RE-REG
Those cuts affect providers and insurance companies, and leave seniors' care untouched.
What a joke!!!! How can you make cuts like that to the program and direct them to the providers and insurance companies and claim 'care" will be untouched. First off the providers provide the care. Cutting their money means that care will be affected or are you expecting them to provide the same care with that much money being cut out????Really?!!! And insurance companies always make sure they get their's.
The whole arguement is ridiculous. Medicare is going to run out of money. Obama may have kept it solvent for a projected 10 additional years but he didn't solve the problem. That's what is needed.
Truthseeker65 claims the reduction in funds taken from medicare by Obama for obamacare is true and therefore President Obama is the only candidate to actually take funds from the program.
Ive got five seconds to spare, tell us everything you know about those cuts. Times up
Howard Dean is a total moron.
Like all leftwingnuts he thinks the money you make is his.
One more loser from the green mountain state along with sanders the drooling senator every time he opens his pie hole he slobbers all over him self.
You are an expert on morons you live with one. I agree robmehood and boy blunder are the biggest morons the GOP has ever tried to elect. Your are also right when boy blunder spoke in congress he often drooled and babbled like a moron on speed.
Like a broken record, ssssssssssssssseeeeeeeee clicklclickclick zzzzzzziiip pop
Well if it's not the moron thats says 'let the uninsured use the emergency room for healthcare'. Genius! You have a gift Holycrap.
The uninsured are already useing the emergency room for health care. Along with all the rest of America.
Have you ever gone to the ER?
Ed - Wanted to share this thought with you -
Why doesn't Mitt release his second set of tax returns NOW? Why is he waiting until mid-October? Instead of waiting for his 2011 returns to be completed, Mitt could release his 2009 returns today!!
Mitt has said he will release two years of tax returns.
So far, Mitt has released just one year of returns - 2010. He says he will release his 2011 returns "later" - he filed for an extension with the IRS which means that he has until October 15 to file.
So Mitt - Why wait 9 weeks - until October 15, just 3 weeks before the election - to release your second set of returns?
Mitt, why don't you release your 2009 returns TODAY? Or TOMORROW? They are sitting there all complete - just waiting to be released! That would satisfy your standard of releasing just two sets of returns.
And it would satisfy the curiosity of many who have questions about your 2009 returns - you know, Mitt, about whether you did not pay ANY taxes that year because of the crash in 2008.
How about it Mitt?
Release your second set of returns as you promised you would do - but don't wait 9 weeks - do it now!
Release your 2009 tax returns today!!
Must be a real pain to have so much money, you can't account for it. So sad. I'll show him my tax returns if he'll show me his......I can accoount for every cent.
Howard Dean is a goofball. How anyone would pay attention to what He has to say is beyond comprehension.
Speaking of goofballs....willard and paul have a corner on the market for that....LOL
They are the ones beyond all comprehension......Greedy and lies. Who's money do they want to get their hands on this time.....well, try the poor and elderly!
ED, It is ridiculous to believe a 700 Billion dollar cut will not affect existing levels of service to the elderly. Say you currently have 100 doctors in a given area providing Medicare Services. Now you implement Obama's cuts and 20 of those Doctors stop participating in Medicare. You go from 100 service providers to 80, the number of those seeking care from the service providers has not decreased, there for although the recipients benefits remained the same the level of care has diminished. It is not propaganda, it is a reasonable conclusion. Many Doctors have already stopped providing Medicare Coverage and the Obama cuts have only started. Obama is destroying Medicare. Even a Liberal could understand this.
Except everything you posted is built around a GOP lie. Here is a fact Ryans plan takes the 700 billion and gives it away to the wealthy in tax cuts, gee medicare under Ryans plan would benefit the Koch brothers.
They havent stop me?????? yet??
Whom, Yet another great response, point the finger elsewhere to divert attention from the point. As I have said many times, Liberal fear what Republicans "MAY DO", while they excuse or praise Obama for "ACTUALLY DOING IT". The Left is afraid of Republicans cutting Social Security, when in fact Obama has already cut the program by reducing the Pay Roll Taxes that fund it. You have no problem with Obama actually cutting funding for the so called Safety Net, but your afraid Republicans may cut them. You guys can't see the forest through the trees.
Aren't you here to divert the attention else where.....Republicans fear that Obama and the Democrats are ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING, even though they have been obstructive at every turn.....
Cutting Medicare, reducing funding for Social Security, refusing to reinstate the Glass Steagul Act to get Banks under control and out of speculation..... Yeah Democrats are doing something alright, destroying the economy and the Social Safety Net. I hope you remember your die hard and blind obedience to Obama when your Medicare Provider drops out of the program and you have to wait in line for medical services by the few Doctor that continue to participate in Medicare.
2ez, you made the statement that dems are refusing to reinstate glass-steagal. Wanna prove that? Everything you just accused the dems of doing is what the teabaggers have done all along. I know you're smarter than that.
John, Chris Dodd refused to include reinstatement of the Act in the Frank Dodd Act?
what has dean done ?
He expressed an opinion! That makes all righty protest!
Just think<<<<>>>>when ever have the GOP ever-ever thought of helping anyone on medicare - -----------dag! they dont even they dont Like It?????
The latest gunman who shot a security guard said "I don't like your Politics"....seems strang that a security guard who is doing a job, has automatic politics?
Oh by the way his back packs were full of "Chick-a-filet" sandwiches.....What?
Just think of your OLDER family members and vote your mind>>>>>
G that would leave our tea bagged republicans out of the voting system, they have no minds they have 34 year old GOP talking points.
Well when their grannies don't get their checks in the mail and can't pay the rent for them anymore, and buy them food, they will be the ones out on the street. Just quoting what they are always saying, when it applies to them.
There is a new Koch ad using nice people speaking about how they are just average citizen and then speaking that Obama is not their man......Whine....guess they needed the acting job.
Still not advertising what willard is going to do?????
Willie is trying to pull a Dewy.
In the three days after Romney picked Ryan as his running mate, Romney/Ryan collected 7.4 million. On the flipside, Obama supporters are asking for refunds.
Just more 'opinions' from a blogger or your own, with no facts again bugs? Or is this just another driveby BS hit?
I think you are nothing more than just a drive-by BS hit.
Yeah lots of credibility with Howard Dean. THE ye haaaaa guy. What a jerk! Looks like Obama is getting ready to dump Biden for Hillary. Hope she is not stupid enough to accept. Tougher for her to run in 2016 when she loses in 2012.
The only people voting for robmehood and boy blunder are the people to stupid to stand out side in the rain without drowning themselves. As well as Dean has 300 times the credibility that you have.
Guaranteed if Obama changes over to Hillary, ole Joe will say it is his choice to step down and spend time with family. The truth is Obama is tired of ole Joe slipping the true values of the administration and the Democrat party as a whole. Maxster, you are correct, though. Hillary would be stupid to accept a nod guaranteed to lose in November.
Really...It's not about the VP selection, it is about the President and his failing, er, failed policies that are dragging this country closer to being a third world country.
Now, start the slander you libs. Whomi, I know it is shift change in the Ed studios, so I don't know if you are gong to be Whomi first shift or whomi second shift. Let us know.
Hey Bugsy, You have Whom nailed right. However I have my suspicions that he is in the closet as a Reagan fan.
For someone who references Reagan in EVERY post, I do believe you are correct.
You are right Reagan is doing a great job of being worm food, to bad he didn't try it in 1979.
I remember some time ago whomi was challenged to not reference reagan in any of his posts for one day. It lasted a total of two posts. Of course, since then, that challenger has been banned. He's just mad that Jimmy Carter did not give him everything he wanted then and is hoping Obama will be his savior. Sad, really.
BTW, is this whomi second shift? I know you all have a long list of whomisms, each referencing reagan, tea baggers, and 34 years of GOP lies. Hard to tell which one you are when all three of you post the same thing.
Reagan WAS a piece of sh** that created the neocons which eventually had a bawl moment and gave birth to the teabaggers we are infected with today. I guess Whom was right all along, 'eh?
ED do you really want to go there?
let me give you a short history lesson on the Soviets and how they came to power
See this was a guy name Lenin who read and studied Carl Marx you probably herd of him its the same Marx who wrote the Communist manifesto which Obama studied and his mentor Frank Marshall Davis taught and believed in
Lenin through propaganda and hate speech ( class warfare ) convinced to Russian people to rise up against the Rich land owners ( you know the 1% ) he blamed the oppression of the people on them and told them to take their land away and if they did that he would redistribute the land amongst them ( kinda like the rich paying their fare share ) he told them they could have the land for them selves to work. but instead he government kept the land and made the people work the land on behalf of the government as dependent slaves ( kinda like Obama is making the people on government assistants dependant slaves to the Democrats)
So if any body is using Soviet style propaganda it is Obama
Obama is using the same tactics as Lenin its much more subtle but the same get the people to hate the rich get them to believe their problems are caused by the rich so they would agree with the government to take away from the rich and give it to them
TRFjr That ia a great analogy. It is time to get rid of Obama/Biden who are indeed an anomaly to the free enterprise system
Its an old tactic used by many to get power and to stay in power
You create an enemy (like the rich) and then you blame all the problems in a society on that enemy then you convince the people through propaganda hate speech and scare tactics that the only way to solve the problem is to give them power and make sure they stay in power to get rid and protect them from that enemy
We didn't create the enemy, some....not all of the rich like so many supporting romney and his PAC's are the enemy and the sooner you realize it the better off you will be. I'm really concerned for those who support this republican party.
TRFjr: It was the failures of the Tsarist government that led Russia to Revolution. The Tsarist government was corrupt, incompetent, and failed miserably to provide its people with a decent standard of living. The Tsarist government also did not develop industrial strength to deal with modern enemies like Japan or Germany. If Lenin had dropped off of the face of the earth there still would have been some kind of massive revolution against the Tsarist capitalist system in 1917. History is obviously not one of your strengths. If you are going to write about history did you ever think that maybe you should have read some books about WW I, the eastern front in WW I, and the history of the Russian Revolution or literature about the Russian Revolution? You should ask yourself why the Tsarist government failed its people so miserably? Then you can understand why Lenin came to power followed by Stalin. Here is an extremely abbreviated version of a complex subject you fail to understand by your extremely poor writing and thinking.
The Russian Revolution is a complicated political affair that started with the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-1905. This war was vicious with hundreds of thousands of casualties caused by modern weapons, machine guns, bolt action rifles, and modern artillery. The 1905 Russian Revolution nearly toppled the Tsar. Russia had many revolts from this defeat. Russia also failed to develop modern industry under the inept Tsar Nicholas II. World War I saw huge Russian losses at the battle of Tannenburg against the Germans and later on in fighting in Poland in 1915. Russia was able to fight the Austrians to a standstill but the Germans could always use their massive artillery to blast the Russians back after tough trench battles. General Brusilov made some gains against the Austrians nearly driving the Austrians out of the war in 1916 but the enormous casualties suffered made the gains meaningless at best. Russia fought hard but the human cost was high, nearly seven million casualties by 1917. Tens of millions of Russians were starving to death and had little food or fuel to stay warm in the winter because the economy of Russia broke down.
There was the February Revolution when the Kerensky government took over following the Tsar's abdication. Kerensky stupidly decided to continue the war despite Russia's obvious exhaustion and critical economic and food supply problems. The October 1917 Revolution started when Lenin was smuggled back into Russia by the Germans from Switzerland. The Soviets took over in St. Petersburg and Moscow. The withdrawal of Russia was accomplished by the Treaty of Best-Litovsk in early 1918. The Red-White Civil war lasted from 1918 until 1920 generally following the path of major railroads with hundreds of armored trains being used by both sides. Millions of people were killed in this very vicious civil war. Lenin promised the starving Russian people two things they desperately wanted: peace with Germany and bread to eat. We should note the United States and the Allies dispatched troops to occupy Archangel in the north of European Russia and Vladivostock in the far east for several years during the Red-White civil war. These American, British, French, and Japanese troops got involved in combat against Red Army troops. There were considerable casualties even after WW I officially ended. Russians today still remember the time when American troops were waging war on Russian soil against Russians.
Revolutions like the Russian Revolution start when the whole economic system breaks down and people start starving to death. Also, WW I casualties and the economic strain of total industrial warfare, tore the guts out of the Tsarist economic system which was not ready for such an industrial undertaking. Food, fuel, commerce, jobs, and basic commodities such as clothing and essential services all came to a halt because of the terrible economic crisis brought about by WW I. The rich in Russia also were vile and miserable land owners who still treated tens of millions of Russians no better than serfs. Russia was a backward, corrupt, and miserable country ripe for Revolution in 1917.
When Tsar Nicholas II declared war on Germany in August, 1914 he literally committed an act of national suicide for his capitalist system of government. You can not have seven million casualties and expect there to be much of a country left. Stalin took over Russia after the death of Lenin and the vicious Civil War of 1918-1920. Stalin's methods were brutal and vicious but he successfully industrialized the Soviet Union on a massive scale. When the Germans attacked Stalin in 1941 the Red Army at first failed miserably but the industrialization of the Soviet Union east of the Urals kept the Soviets in the war. Red Army weapons like the T-34 tank, the Shturmovick Illyushin-2 attack bomber, and artillery pieces were on par or better than anything in the West. Russian WW II artillery pieces were still being used 50 years later because of their simple but reliable design. The truth is that the Soviets beat the Nazi Army by themselves with only marginal Lend Lease aid from the West. Winston Churchill said the Red Army tore the guts out of the German Army and he was correct. The huge Battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kursk, and Operation Bagration all speak for themselves. The Russians in many ways developed a system of warfare in WW II that was superior to the British and American tactics. The Soviets used massive artillery bombardments, tanks with submachine gun battalions on them followed by waves of infantry supported by more tanks attacked. The Shturmoviks circled overhead bombarding German tanks and armored units from the air in the infamous "circle of death". The Soviets would attack all along the line for hundreds of miles grinding up German Army units in a giant mincing machine of death on a scale unseen in human history. Many of the same tactics developed such as the bear hug tactic used by General Giap in the Vietnam war were first used by the Russians in WW II. Don't sneer at the Soviet Army. When the Chinese and Vietnamese used Red Army equipment and bear hug tactics in Korea and Vietnam they pretty much fought Americans to a standstill despite alleged "American superiority" of technology.
The simpler but deadlier Soviet tactics actually worked better for massed peasant armies. General Giap's deadly bear hug tactics came from WW II Red Army submachine gun battalions riding on the back of advancing T-34 tanks. These assault troops got right on top the German positions and hosed them down at close range with Ppsh submachine automatic fire and grenades supported by the tanks. These bear hug tactics were used in Korea and Vietnam against the Americans and we were nearly always fought to a standstill by them. The Russians found that once you closed the distance at short range submachine guns, and later AK-47's were better for peasant soldiers who could simple point and hose down the enemy with deadly close ranged automatic rifle fire and grenades. Western superiority in technology did not matter once you are fighting at 50 meters or less.
The analogy between Karl Marx and President Obama is a totally bogus one. If you are going to write about something on a public blog do your damned research first. Don't sneer at the Soviet Union either. The Soviet Union may not have been a fun place to live, but when it came time to wage war they did it better than anyone else did, once they got over the rough patches. Go read about Marshal Zhukov, Mao Zedung, and General Giap. All of these men are great leaders of men and excellent infantry commanders who fought stronger enemies to stand still or defeated them.
Nope, not almost anyone. Many can not even get a start. What use to work is not working for "the working class" anymore. The republican greedy and powerful are trying to take charge. Do you know how many judges there are in this country and who gets them appointed?
Read up! Pretty soon you will no longer have that right......
http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/electorappoint_08a.htm
A number of influential organizations and individuals are campaigning to
convince Americans that judges should be appointed rather than elected, and they
are preparing the public for this judicial coup through revelations of how
judges have been corrupted by the process of running for election. Their mantra
is that institutions and wealthy trial lawyers who contribute to the election or
reelection of judges tend to receive favorable treatment when they are parties
in a court proceeding or appear before them when representing a client. This
two-tier system of justice in this country — based on the relative
status of the involved parties — is nothing new and has become part of American
folklore. What has changed is the willingness of lawyers and the media to
openly promote the notion that judicial corruption is an inevitable consequence
of an electoral process that must be eliminated, even if it means trampling on
the rights of voters
Too late, this is happening now and getting harder to stop, if people don't wake up!!!!
"I've done pretty damn good in this country"
That's why they hate you so much. You did not just hand it over to them.
XEP: My point was that the Soviet Communist state won WW II for us. Stalin had many enemies who wanted to do him in but he triumphed over all of them by ruthless industrialization and the development of a new kind of warfare emphasizing huge peasant armies armed with automatic weapons, massed artillery, huge numbers of tanks, and tactical bombing planes. The new kind of industrial-guerrilla warfare worked well for developing Third World countries coming out of colonialism. The Soviets made lots of AK-47's that were simply, robust, and made from cheap stamped parts. The brilliance of the Soviets are their excellent weapons that are cheap, simple, reliable and made by the tens of millions for peasant armies. An AK-47 pours out a wall of lead and is tough, reliable, and does not jam in battle unlike the M-16 that always seems to want to jam because of all its complicated machined parts. The AK-47 is simple with only a small number of parts in the bolt. All Russian weapons are like this they are simple, effective, rugged, cheap to produce in huge volumes, and give their users huge amounts of lethal firepower. No one in the West has really figured out how to stand up to this type of warfare without resorting to nuclear weapons.
You really do not read much history do you? Ronald Reagan did not beat the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed because of the inherent problems with absurdities of a communist state. The Russians spent way too much on their military to the neglect of consumer industries such as agriculture, and civilian appliances and that killed them off. The Soviet Union was essentially a spent power by the 1970's because of the severe internal problems that our CIA missed completely. If you knew anything else about the military which you do not, most of the strategic weapons deployed by Reagan such as the land based cruise missile and the U.S. Army Pershing II intermediate ranged ballistic missile were developed under the direction of the Carter Administration. Carter was much smarter than Ronald Reagan. In fact most of Reagan's money spent on "Star Wars" and the B1 bomber have largely been a complete waste. We would have been smarter and just built more cruise missiles and intermediate ranged ballistic missiles such as the Pershing II that was highly precise. We would have saved huge amounts of money but the safety of the country would have been secured. Carter also developed the nuetron bomb that delivers a high dose of lethal radiation on tactical targets. Carter worked with Admiral Highman Rickover who developed the nuclear powered submarines in the 1950's. Carter was an engineering officer and Ronald Reagan was a cowboy.
You obviously know nothing about military history either. Go read about the Chosin Reservoir, the battle of Kunuri, and the many hard fought battles in Vietnam where large U.S. troop formations were virtually wiped out by communist troops armed with submachine guns or AK-47's. These communist guerrillas used bear hug tactics and guerrilla tactics that emphasized reconnaissance, planning, surprise, ambush, and quick retreat. US bombing was ineffective because the communist guerrillas most of the time were hiding in deep bunkers and caves because Asians love to dig tunnels. In Vietnam multimillion dollar high performance jets were bombing peasants pushing $20 French bicycles. When there are millions of peasants the bombing is not very effective either tactically or strategically. XEP you desperately need to go to the library because you are an amateur on this blog.