The U.S. Department of Interior announced yesterday that it is increasing water allocations for the Central Valley of California, a region that depends on these water allocations to support local agriculture and jobs. The region has recently been starved for water and as a result unemployment has soared. Not surprisingly, Cardoza and Costa had a hand in the announcement:
"Typically, Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Congressmen Costa and Cardoza."("Interior Announces Increased Water Supply Allocations in California," U.S. Department of Interior news release, 3/16/10)
Cardoza and Costa are now expected to change their votes to yes on the health bill.
Bribery....Pure and simple....
If you view it from the other angle. . ."If you don't vote yes, no water for your people."
I can't imagine that our government would threaten it's people with drought and continued unemployment for refusal to side on a political agenda.
Bribery, no.
Blackmail.
Fear.
Sorry but its not blackmail....It's Bribery....The two are very diffrent.....Blackmail is when yout threaten to reveal something damaging about someone to get them to do something for you and they get nothing in return....
Quote from: Breadburner on March 17, 2010, 04:15:03 PM
Sorry but its not blackmail....It's Bribery....The two are very diffrent.....Blackmail is when yout threaten to reveal something damaging about someone to get them to do something for you and they get nothing in return....
I stand corrected.
I never spent much time in Chicago. Don't know the lingo.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 17, 2010, 03:52:16 PM
If you view it from the other angle. . ."If you don't vote yes, no water for your people."
I can't imagine that our government would threaten it's people with drought and continued unemployment for refusal to side on a political agenda.
Remember, it's not the government. It's one, two, or a few people who make these decisions. It's not like our entire governing body gets together and decides one way or another.
The crazy, deceptive, or evil things perpetrated are done by someone that is listened to, not by the millions of people in our government.
I'm going to stop there because the more I type, the freakier I sound on this subject.
Quote from: Townsend on March 17, 2010, 04:24:32 PM
Remember, it's not the government. It's one, two, or a few people who make these decisions. It's not like our entire governing body gets together and decides one way or another.
The crazy, deceptive, or evil things perpetrated are done by someone that is listened to, not by the millions of people in our government.
I'm going to stop there because the more I type, the freakier I sound on this subject.
Freak! ;D
Quote from: Gaspar on March 17, 2010, 04:27:17 PM
Freak! ;D
Bazinga.
When I hear someone say "The government wouldn't do that." I have to think "well no, but a few of those bastards in charge would".
Guarandamnedtee you that sumbitch James Watts would've outlawed the Beachboys if Nancy Reagan hadn't gotten in there and yanked him by the short and curlies.
It's foobared up when 545 assholes get to make descisions that impact 300 million......
Quote from: Breadburner on March 17, 2010, 04:42:48 PM
It's foobared up when 545 assholes get to make descisions that impact 300 million......
545 people running a government that is spending $3.834 trillion the 2011 fiscal year.
That means each person has an over $7 billion say in our lives.
Imagine how many people would be hassling you for handouts, trying to corrupt you, trying to scam you if it were announced you just won the lottery for $1 million. Now multiply that corruptible influence by 7,000
I just came here to add that WTC 7 was totally brought down by a series of shaped charges planted by sleeper CIA agents. (http://nrcc.org/blog/blogitem.aspx?id=261)
And, me hearties, how shall we fix our representative democracy? Shall we add a couple more reps to get our average up? Say to 550? Or perhaps we should double up and use 1100? We could always use the tried and true and reduce it down to 1. I'm interested in what the golden ratio of representative-to-budget line item might be. Any suggestions?
Quote from: we vs us on March 17, 2010, 07:26:26 PM
I just came here to add that WTC 7 was totally brought down by a series of shaped charges planted by sleeper CIA agents. (http://nrcc.org/blog/blogitem.aspx?id=261)
Juh?
Quote from: we vs us on March 17, 2010, 07:26:26 PM
And, me hearties, how shall we fix our representative democracy? Shall we add a couple more reps to get our average up? Say to 550? Or perhaps we should double up and use 1100? We could always use the tried and true and reduce it down to 1. I'm interested in what the golden ratio of representative-to-budget line item might be. Any suggestions?
Well obviously we have too much power and money being controlled by too centralized of powers. If the federal government were not taking $3.8 trillion out of the economy, local authorities would not be relying on daddy government to give it an allowance for crucial things like water. We'd just get sh*t done with several fewer layers of bueracracy (Of course it won't be perfect, but it would be an improvement) - You can see clearly this is what the federal government does, it takes our money then puts conditions on us in order to get our money back. There are so many things the federal government does not have constitutional or legal authority to do, but it accomplishes them anyway by holding 1/3rd of the GDP as ransom.
I don't necessarily think having more representatives with today's increased population and economic considerations is a bad thing. The House is supposed to be more directly proportional to each state's population as a balance towards the Senate giving each state equal say regardless of size. Keep the Senate how it is (even though I think Senators are easily the most corrupt people in Washington) and decide on what number of people is too many for a US Congressperson to represent without being too large a concentration of say in one elected position. For example, if you pegged it at 500,000 people per representative instead of Population divided by 435, We would have about 600 reps in the House right now, and it would grow with the population as the power awarded each position remains stagnant.
Blackmail:
(http://msp260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/sgtspawn/fat_guy_in_diapers.jpg)
Bribery:
(http://skepticalbrotha.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/dollar-bill.jpg)
Quote from: YoungTulsan on March 17, 2010, 09:39:11 PM
Juh?
Sorry if that wasn't clearer. I only meant to point up that it's conspiracy-theory-mongering mainlined directly from the National Republican Congressional Committee. If you look at the actual press release from the Dept of the Interior, it's a little clearer that there's no quid-pro-quo and that congressfolk up and down the valley were part of the decision. The NRCC has cherry-picked a quote, Fox News-style, and turned that into a bribery accusation. (Also, the Code Red group the title of the NRCC blog post references is a branch group of the NRCC itself).
In the end it's not surprising (seeing who it's coming from) but very important to point out that the accusation itself can't even be charitably called flimsy.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- At a news conference in Washington, D.C. Thursday, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn vowed to block any special deals for House members who switch their vote from "no" to "yes" on the healthcare bill.
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12164486 (http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12164486)
Quote from: Townsend on March 18, 2010, 04:38:39 PM
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- At a news conference in Washington, D.C. Thursday, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn vowed to block any special deals for House members who switch their vote from "no" to "yes" on the healthcare bill.
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12164486 (http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12164486)
I'm surprised to hear there were deals he wasn't already blocking.
So the vote today is at 5:30pm EST. The breaking news crawl on MSNBC says that Pelosi has the 216 votes needed for passage. I haven't seen that on other news nets yet, but I expect to. I have a feeling Pelosi's known for awhile now that she has the votes, she's just letting momentum build by having undecided Dems each announce one at a time.
Politically, any bill at this point is good for the D's. It shows that Washington isn't as completely broken as it first looked and that the D's can in fact get it together enough to pass legislation. I will be interested to see if this tempers the R's momentum going into the midterms. There's a sense that maybe the R insurgency peaked too early, and that the D midterm losses might not be quite as bad as first thought. We're pretty far away, though, and there's much still that can happen. Like an immigration bill, for instance.
And the Tea Party? Still staying classy (by storming the Capitol building, calling Rep John Lewis a ni**er, Barney Frank a fa**ot, and spitting on other assorted Democratic congressfolk).
Well wevus, I think the implementation of this plan is gonna go down like the smoking ban in Chicago-- all the bars will have a few years to build outdoor decks before the law is actually fully implemented.... ;D
I was for either a plan that did NOT have an individual mandate or a public option.... or if a plan had an individual mandate, that there'd be a "public option".....
No individual mandate + no public option = Nixoncarehttp://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx
Quote...offer to every American the same broad and balanced health protection through one of three major programs:
--Employee Health Insurance, covering most Americans and offered at their place of employment, with the cost to be shared by the employer and employee on a basis which would prevent excessive burdens on either;
--Assisted Health Insurance, covering low-income persons, and persons who would be ineligible for the other two programs, with Federal and State government paying those costs beyond the means of the individual who is insured; and,
--An improved Medicare Plan, covering those 65 and over and offered through a Medicare system that is modified to include additional, needed benefits.
One of these three plans would be available to every American, but for everyone, participation in the program would be voluntary.
The benefits offered by the three plans would be identical for all Americans, regardless of age or income. Benefits would be provided for:
--hospital care;
--physicians' care in and out of the hospital;
--prescription and life-saving drugs;
--laboratory tests and X-rays;
--medical devices;
--ambulance services; and,
--other ancillary health care.
There would be no exclusions of coverage based on the nature of the illness. For example, a person with heart disease would qualify for benefits as would a person with kidney disease.
So..... over 35 years later.....
I think the only way Olympia Snowe would support this bill is if there were no individual mandates.....
I think the only way alot of the health industry's players would support this bill is with the inclusion of an individual mandate....
I think the only way liberal dems would support this bill is with the inclusion of a public option.....
After the smoke clears, what will we get?
Individual mandate + no public option = Romneycare.Rahmbo gets to do the happy dance....
If this thing passes, it's gonna be political "Waterloo" for somebody, alright.....
His name is...... Mitt Romney.
Romneycare Sure Looks Like ObamacareMarch 12th, 2010 at 12:20 am by David Frum
http://www.frumforum.com/defending-romneycare
Good luck explaining the subtle differences between Romneycare and Obamacare to the typical vitriolic-hyperbolic-activist primary voter in your race for the Republican nomination for 2012....
Romney is curiously silent if he's planning to run in 2012.
Under Romneycare, health care costs have gone up in Mass. No real surprise there.
"Mr. Romney's promise that getting everyone covered would force costs down also is far from being realized. One third of state residents polled by Harvard researchers in a study published in "Health Affairs" in 2008 said that their health costs had gone up as a result of the 2006 reforms. A typical family of four today faces total annual health costs of nearly $13,788, the highest in the country. Per capita spending is 27% higher than the national average. "
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575115691871093652.html
Quote from: Conan71 on March 22, 2010, 12:47:33 PM
A typical family of four today faces total annual health costs of nearly $13,788, the highest in the country. Per capita spending is 27% higher than the national average. "
I believe that was the case before Romney's plan, also. You can therefore state that in a risk pool as small as the State of Massachusetts, an individual mandate does not bring costs down nor prevent them from going up at the same rate they did before.
Were you the one screaming about a socialist takeover of health care, or was that Gaspar? Either way, this is certainly not that.