Comments for POLITICAL PARTY POOPER

Comment on TERM LIMITS by Mumphrey

Mumphrey — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:51:06 +0000

Well, jeez, I don’t know. Out of 100 senators, 47 have been in office for less than 10 years. 63 have been there for less than 15. There are only 2 who’ve been there more than 40 years, and only 5 more who have been there between 30 and 40 years. There are 3 more who are a year away from their 30 year mark, so let’s be generous and throw those guys in, too, so let’s say there are 10 out of 100 who have been there for 30 years. There are 14 more who’ve been there between 20 and 30 years, 15 if you count one guy who had a gap between some of his terms.
So all told, there are 25 senators out of 100 who have had 20 years or more in the U.S. Senate. That’s 1 out of 4. Almost half of them have been there less than 10 years. This hardly seems like a problem to me.
And really, if you think that it’s so bad that Byrd has been inCongress for 57 years, then move to West Virginia and vote against him. Or run against him yourself and make your case that it’s bad that he’s been there that long. Otherwise, what business is it of yours that West Virginians have chosen to have him represent them for that long?
The reason we amended the Constitution to hold presidents to 2 terms is that they hold a great deal of power while they’re in office. 1 senator out of 100, or 1 congressman out of 435 hardly wields this kind of power, so Byrd’s 40 years in office don’t give him disproportionate or dangerous sway over this country’s political life.

Comment on DEMOCRATS TAKE HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL TO THE HOUSE by Politicalpartypooper

Politicalpartypooper — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:40:15 +0000

You hit the nail on the head, Doc. If we can get the money out of lobbying and PACs, we can finally force these elected officials to get some balls.

Comment on DEMOCRATS TAKE HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL TO THE HOUSE by DocReason

DocReason — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:07:04 +0000

I try to be reasonable and accept that it’s impossible right now to pass a single-payer system (I’d actually prefer socialized medicine with private options, but that’s another story). But I can’t be exactly happy about this.

The vote was f*ing close, despite a huge dem majority. Our problem ISN’T that there are enough people against better healthcare. Our problem is that our elected reps are corporate puppets. THAT’S what we have to change first, and the rest will follow easily.

Comment on FORT HOOD, TEXAS by Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:21:59 +0000

It’s a sad day for psychiatrists around the world.

Comment on WHAT IS A POLITICAL PARTY GOOD FOR? by Politicalpartypooper

Politicalpartypooper — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:25:26 +0000

Hi Stevey! looks like they don’t work, though.

Comment on WHAT IS A POLITICAL PARTY GOOD FOR? by Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:12:24 +0000

The main purpose of political parties is to join people, who hold similar points of view about the government, together. These groups work to participate in and influence the government by having its members elected to a government position. There ya go .

Comment on CONGRESS, SENATE GET RICH OVER REFORM DEBATE by Connecticut Man1

Connecticut Man1 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:00:21 +0000

It does not matter what comes out of the Senate Finance committee. The plan that we end up with will likely be some kind of hybrid between the HELP committee in the Senate and the better bill that will come out of the House, that would be HR 3200 right now, I guess? You should keep your eyes on Rep. Weiner's amendment in the House. You might even want to call your reps and ask them to support it. It is an amendment to replace the entirety of HR 3200 with HR 676 - A Single Payer plan written by Conyers. They just announced today that the CBO is scoring the Weiner amendment. I hope it scores well because then we would have some serious artillery for single payer healthcare.

Comment on THE PUBLIC OPTION? a political solution or another boner? by Connecticut Man1

Connecticut Man1 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:48:14 +0000

I am not sure you get the “public option”. It is simply a nation wide not-for-profit plan that would be funded by the people that join it. (or that is what was as originally proposed in the “Hacker Plan”)

“This “choice” would give Americans the right to opt into a publicly funded health care plan that is similar to the ones that individual states utilize for their employees.”

You are confusing it with state exchanges that would include private plans and the public option. In the same way that FEBHP is run for the federal government, except it would add a public option not-for-profit plan as an added choice.

As for the rest on a single payer plan? Yes, it would be simpler, cheaper and the best way to go. I lived in Canada for about 20 years and the quality of the healthcare provided by Doctors and hospitals up there is just as good as here. The only differences? It costs less to cover everyone and nobody ever goes bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare.

Comment on REPUBLICANS: THE AXIS OF EVIL IN AMERICA by D.I.D.

D.I.D. — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:59:14 +0000

Health care would be good for your country, but how exactly are y’all going to PAY for it; I mean with two wars and expensive military equipment hemmoraging gazillions out of the US Budget (you can thank both parties and their corporatist collaboraters for this), and spending another couple gazillion to ‘bail out’ failed banks that went under as a result of their own greed and stupidity, where is Uncle Sam going to find the cash for healthcare for three hundred million people? Americans, wake up! Stop listening to the lies of both parties, and think of the practical for once.

Comment on CONGRESS, SENATE GET RICH OVER REFORM DEBATE by Joe White

Joe White — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:24:41 +0000

Yes, the funniest part was when Senator Baucus rolled out his ‘gem’, the head Dem in the Senate Harry Reid responded the next day ‘That plan won’t work in my state (Nevada).’

They are the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.