In the market for a new home? Don’t miss the Open House guide in the paper Saturday and Sunday.
Sign in Mac and Bob’s in Salem. | Shot by Dan
“Men who consistently leave the toilet seat up secretly want women to get up to go the bathroom in the middle of the night and fall in.”
Rita Rudner
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
116 COMMENTS
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Regarding the quote today: I fail to understand why the seat up or down is not contingent on who has entered the bathroom. Why is it a man’s responsibility to put the seat down anymore than it’s a woman’s responsibility to put the seat up? Yet another silly thing that seem to help further complicate human relationships.
haha! toilet seats, up, or toilet seats, down? I’m with you, Miriam.
hey folks,
didja hear that hillary is back on the job today? ahh, what job is that by the way? i betcha hillary is doing as much “work” as she put into “dodging”, ah, sniper bullets, in Bosnia.
And, i betcha she …purposely… leaves the toilet seat UP, and fusses at bill when he leaves it down…
Miriam, you raise a good point. I had this debate with an ex of mine once. I asked her if she was willing to compromise and she said yes. I said that one week I would put the seat back down and for the next week, she’d put it back up when she was finished. The look she gave me was as if I had wished something deeply pornographic upon her mother. I was called an idiot for such a stupid idea. I immediately started lowering both lids, which got a lot of mumbling and the retaliation of her taping the lower lid down to the toilet. This, of course, was an marked escalation of tensions between the two superpowers of the household.
I took the toilet lids off completely after she fell asleep that night. After me nearly dying laughing and quickly feigning sleep when she returned to the room, she put her still-wet rear against me and said, “You win. Good night.” The matter was never discussed again. I still continue to put both lids down to this day, though.
I’ve determined that, for one day anyway, I’m not going to talk about guns. Instead, I’ll focus on economics. E.J. Dionne had a great column, in my view, today in the Washington Post. The link is given below. I suspect not all of you will agree with Mr. Dionne, but I think he’s hit the nail on the head with this one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-jr-the-real-deficit-argument/2013/01/06/7e07b314-5830-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_story.html?hpid=z3
I put both lids down 100% of the time regardless of my wife’s preferences. The sole reason is this – just think of the germs that are being thrown about with the force created when you flush? What typically is setting just a few feet away from the toilet??? your toothbrush! I’d rather keep the toilet germs as confined to the toilet as possible. Both lids down before flushing is the best way to do this.
hey Ron,
Thanks for posting the EJD piece.
I note that EJD’s second question is framed thusly, “will the establishment including business leaders and middle-of-the-road journalist opinion stand by silently as one side in the coming argument risks cratering the economy in an effort to reverse the verdict of the 2012 election?”
Ron, is that a reasonably phrased question, one that invites engaging discussion….or, is it designed to impugn any thought contrary to EJD’s opinion and obama’s policies, and therefore is designed specifically to stifle any meaningful discussion and exchange of ideas?
I also note that there might have been some rather dubious progress made with the 2012 election, in that EJD hasn’t suggested that those who don’t agree with obama’s policies are “racists”, any longer. Nope. …we’re just going to “crater the economy in an effort to reverse the verdict of the 2012 election….” Sheesh.
And, regarding econmists…of all political persuasions…i’ve heard it said that “economists were invented to make us better appreciate weather forcasters”.
“Ron, is that a reasonably phrased question, one that invites engaging discussion….or, is it designed to impugn any thought contrary to EJD’s opinion and obama’s policies, and therefore is designed specifically to stifle any meaningful discussion and exchange of ideas?”
Frank! I owe you one, buddy.
That is a beautifully framed question. It’s the PERFECT question.
Now I think I’ll go apply it to Rep. Morgan Griffith’s recent seven-question questionnaire to his Ninth District constituents, which includes the question:
“Do you support or oppose regulations enacted by the EPA that make it harder to mine coal and use coal as an energy source, resulting in higher electricity rates?”
And here I was, fumbling around without a good column topic for tomorrow’s. And you have laid a great one on me.
Thank you so much, Frank. If I could dedicate Tuesday’s column to you, I would.
Frank,
I can’t speak for Mr. Dionne, but I’m open to a good discussion.
FWIIW, around noon today, I drove up Main st Radford on the way home from an appointment.
I noticed that the Cafe 24, which was the highly publicized host of the Democrats, in October, appears closed. All the windows were covered w/ newspaper.
Next door, the Cookie Baker, which was the highly publicized host of the Republicans, in October, appeared open but sans customers. Wonder how long it will stay open?
Might there be a rule of business that one should not unnecessarily alienate approximately 50% of one’s prospective or existing customer base?
FWIIW2, I had eaten at Cafe 24 quite a few times. At first, I was happy to have them as an option. However, the quality of food & service became spotty over time and I had already written them off before the election brouhaha. So, that round may have been irrelevant.
Dave Hicks, from what I’ve understood, the original owners of Bar/Cafe 24 sold the business to someone else so they could focus on a different business of theirs. We noticed that after that change, the food quality was not as good. We also saw the paper on the windows and wondered if they had closed, or were maybe renovating while students were gone. I guess we’ll find out at some point.
But, it does raise the point you made about political endorsements in a business arena. I typically do not patronize businesses that openly endorse political candidates or political issues one way or another. I’ve noticed that since the push of publicity for Crumb & Get It, that they have largely been devoid of customers when I’ve driven past there.
Part of the problem is that on that end of downtown Radford, close-by parking is hard to come by. Not that parking behind Taylor Office Supply on 3rd Street or over in the Farmer’s Market lot is that much of a walk…but having known a couple people who have tried to run businesses in downtown Radford (and failed), there is a difficulty in getting local residents to patronize the downtown businesses with reliable regularity (they are downright fickle, honestly)…and that far end of downtown is a tough draw for RU students to walk that far most of the time.
I think a more pressing bathroom issue is the over or under toilet paper roll debate.
As for the up or down toilet seat issue, when I lived with my parents, my Mom’s rule was that whomever cleaned the toilets the majority of the time got to set all rules concerning said toilets. (In reality though, we always had to put the seat and lid down because we always had pets we wanted to keep out of there!)
hey dan,
soooo, i take it that you think only “biased as hell” opinion journalists like you and ejd are smart enough to ask “biased as hell” questions? are you serious? why are you so defensive when politicians whom YOU have no use for (who, like you and ejd), feel they are smart enough to ask the same type “biased as hell” questions as you folks do? eh?
yeah, i know, this type of banter only furthers the partisan divide…which appears to be what Ron desired when he posted the ejd piece, and certainly appears to be what you foment when you rail on about the US Rep from Virginia’s 9th District’s “questionnaire”. seriously, isn’t that what you want? if it isn’t, why don’t you break the cycle, and drop your “biased as hell” outlook on things? yeah, i know, it wouldn’t do for the career, eh?
and, i certainly don’t look to see any politicians break the cycle. it’s all up to you and ejd, dan.
well, ron,
you posted ejd’s article, saying he had a “great” column. why don’t we start there. Why is ejd’s column “great”, in your opinion?
Lid up or lid down, honest men will admit to the evil temptation to use aural range finding during middle of the night bathroom use. Honest women will remind them of the accuracy of aural range finding.
The roll over the top makes tearing easier and less likely to waste.
Wouldn’t it have been interesting if Frank @12:56 had actually have read the whole Dionne piece and recognized the very next paragraph after the two questions which reads thusly:
My first questions are, admittedly, loaded. They refer to a difference of opinion we need to face squarely.
It is entirely true that in the wake of two budget agreements, in 2011 and the just-passed deal on the “fiscal cliff,” we have not reduced the deficit enough. The issue is: How much is enough?
And then Frank could have gone on to discuss the actual issue instead of carping at the questions. These include : How much harm will the Republicans in Congress do to the recovery of the economy by holding a debt ceiling increase which they know will have to be made hostage and creating uncertainty in the world markets all over again? How much cuts are actually necessary to deal with the current annual deficit and how fast should these cuts be phased in to avoid creating another market crash? Specifically, where should cuts be made? Does there not still remain the need for balancing some of these cuts with additional revenue
at least in the form of eliminating deductions and corporate welfare like that which we give to oil companies, agribusiness, and big pharma?
Dionne recognizes that his questions are loaded with a point of view, unlike the garbage that comes out at taxpayer expense from Griffith, Goodlatte, an d others. And he invites opinions, whether they agree with him or not. So Frank and others with his mindset can ignore the issues by attacking the question but that is useless and intellectually dishonest.
Each person must make the seat decision themselves. The last thing you want to do is train people to rely on others. That’s a good way to end up in the bowl at a public restroom because you ASSUMED the seat was down because the girly, toilet-sitting men in your house put it down.
hey contra,
i don’t re-call ever having encountered a roll coming at me from down under. hotels, (high-end and low-end), hospitals, etc. all seem to be over-the-top. i guess there’s less potential hand contact with the surrounding wall that way.
frankly, i’m happy to have in-door plumbing.
From what I have heard from people working in Radford, you have to keep the local people coming in, a business won’t make it just catering to the students. I don’t see how the cookie guy stays open … his prices are too high for that market.
Frank, thanks again for the inspiration!
Thank you wayne goodman. Given that Frank, why don’t you start off the discussion with reasons you disagree with Dionne and some facts to go with those reasons?
Both lids down…..end of discussion…..Why, as most people do put a toilet lid cover on that goes with the carpet in the bathroom, would you then leave the lid up..Also with lid down, makes a neat, clean appearance should company or guest walk by an open bathroom door.
Ron, if I read ejd’s article correctly, he must be assuming that there will be no budgetary increases in years to come. But, the fatal flaw to his article is his choice to ignore the total unfunded liabilities we have, which are $87 trillion. If government had to account for liabilities when they occur (like business does), we would add $8 trillion to our debt this year.
As if trying to drive our economy off a cliff isn’t enough, the Republican Right Wing is now committed to trying to paralyze our government even more. No wonder the Republican Party is well on its way to irrelevancy.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/wnd-roberts-should-refuse-swear-obama
Bathroom tissue, over, OJ. My dad left the toilet seat up one time when my daughter was 3 years old. She came running in the house from playing and ran to the bathroom without checking the toilet. She fell in and the whole house heard about it. She hollered, Grandpa I coulda drownded!
Oops, sorry OJ and Contra, my comment at 4:37 was to the wrong person.
Some interesting observations about McConnell from Slate. For one, Republicans once said Obama’s defeat would be a mandate to enact their agenda, but now McConnell is claiming his re-election “confers a duty to enact their agenda.”
In another, McConnell is claiming that Obama has gotten his tax hikes so now he needs to talk only about spending reductions. But when he talks to Republicans, he tells THEM that Obama didn’t get any tax hikes. So which is it, Mitch?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/01/mitch_mcconnell_s_empty_fiscal_threats_debt_ceiling_sequester_and_shutdown.html
People who leave the toilet seat up have never owned pets, obviously. (And never saw that episode of MythBusters with the toothbrushes.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/business/economy/companies-exploit-tax-break-for-asset-exchanges-trial-evidence-shows.html
The largest corporation cited in the case, General Electric, had unrestricted access to nearly $300 million from transactions made by its equipment finance subsidiary from 2007 to 2009, according to testimony, documents and company officials. The money — which saved G.E. $3 million to $4 million a year in interest because of tax deferrals, according to company estimates — was kept in G.E.’s internal computer system, WebCash, which is controlled solely by company employees rather than by an intermediary.
This is for you, Dan.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/4-copy-editors-killed-in-ongoing-ap-style-chicago,30806/
Comment by Debbie — January 7, 2013 @ 4:49 pm
We’ve added special security on our campus just to combat these two gangs amongst our faculty on campus. Additionally, we are requiring all faculty to go through a debriefing regarding the dispute in order to help them learn more peaceful ways to resolve the differences of opinion on the issues.
Way to be pro-active, Ron!
Re: Contrasuzie @ 2:10 pm
LOL, that is one disagreement with she-who-must-be-obeyed that I won.
.
This whole toilet lid thing has been argued about in Ann Landers for at least 60 years. I think that’s hilarious, with all the other stuff there is to worry about.
Speaking as someone who’s been bruised and bloodied in more than one Chicago-vs-MLA rumble (and people think the toilet wars are bad!), that Onion article cracked me up, Debbie. Thanks for linking it.
Chicago roolz, MLA droolz, by the way.
Frank’s question reminds me of that old Groucho line, “answer yes or no, do you still beat your wife?”
You’re welcome, Laura.
There is an interesting article in the RT today about all the special tax perks that Virginia has handed out. Most are secret and in total add up to an amount equal to the State of Virginia’s tax income. Also, if McConnell et all what to cut, cut, cut they should go after Corporate Welfare which is twice the amount of social welfare programs. For the life of me, why would the Federal Government give handouts to a corporation that is paying it’s CEO $15 million plus per year?
Dan, I tossed Griffith’s questionnaire because the questions were either leading or poorly written.
“For the life of me, why would the Federal Government give handouts to a corporation that is paying it’s CEO $15 million plus per year?”
Bill, you might be interested to know that Mark Around the World returns Wednesday morning with a screed about the immorality of corporate executive compensation.
“Dan, I tossed Griffith’s questionnaire because the questions were either leading or poorly written.”
–Comment by Newman
Which is pretty much the point of the column, Newman. For that reason, I think you’ll enjoy it.
This link provides a little perspective on spending by the respective parties.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
hey Wayne,
I read the whole article. Then went back and read it, again. Ol’ ejd presents his biased view in the exact same manner as does Roanoke’s own “biased as hell” opinion-journalist, good ol’ Dan. I’m sure you remember the HUGE column ol’ Dan bragged about writing on “what obama really meant to say”, back when obama strayed off message while preaching in downtown Roanoke last summer.
That was the column where ol’ Dan spent almost the entire column extolling the virtues of how Roanoke’s gov’mint recently made a couple of rich guys even richer by given’em tax dollars, and then tried as hard as they could to make the valley’s largest corporation ever-richer by taking a successful business’s land by force of law, to “give” to Carilion….which didn’t and doesn’t even want the land. Yes, those examples comprised the thrust of ol’ Dan’s efforts with his HUGE defensive column written on obama’s behalf. Seriously. I can’t make this stuff up.
However, as we all know, ol’ Dan is a “biased as hell” (those are ol’ Dan’s very words…) opinion writer, and consequently was duty-bound to exclude from his HUGE article any mention of what the same gov’mint entities did to the neighborhood of Gainesboro…by force of law. You’ve been around long enough to know, Wayne, that the Wometco facility in Gainsboro did huge damage to an established neighborhood, and ruined peoples’ lives for generations. The reason ol’ Dan purposely left that tidbit out of his HUGE article in defense of obama’s ill-made remark, was that it didn’t fit ol’ Dan’s already established, “biased-as-hell” political narrative.
As opinion journalists, ol’ Dan and ejd are cut from the same ideological cloth. They write with absolute bias. There are those on the right-side of things who do the exact same thing. Consequently, opinion pieces written by ejd and ol’ Dan, are expected by learned people to be biased. Duh.
For some folks, they may be fun to read, and like Ron, many think such biased columns are “great” reading. For others, they are read with skepticism, much like anything Dan Rather “reported”….except, I’m not ready to say that ol’ Dan and ejd actually fabricate things, like
Dan Rather did, and even after Dan Rather was exposed, the lib-media still gave him some lifetime achievement award! Yeah, like Dan Rather got caught the VERY first time he made up the news he reported….
Yeah, right.
And Wayne, I hope the repubs hold firm on no further tax increases, and hold firm as well for meaningful spending cuts.
Frank, indeed we remember that column, Obama saboteurs twisting the truth. It ran in July and it was one of the best ones I wrote all year!
And — it was factual. That’s why you’re still so upset about it!
Obama’s re-election: guys like Frank built that!
I guess you are so lucky Frank, that no biased columns, commentary or books are ever written by anyone on the right.
Right Warren! And it bugs the hell out of them!!
Frank…do yourself a favor..
Look up the meaning of the word “opinion”.
You just wasted a helluva lot of space..
But at least you are consistent.
+1 Warren, and he continues to build a solid foundation for why it was the right choice.
EJ Dionne is educated, articulate and a very good writer. So is Dan. I can see that sort of thing bothers Frank unless of course they are right wingers. Go ahead Frank, prove you are not a hypocrite, criticize Roanoke’s own “biased as hell”, John Long or National columnist George Will? You won’t, you don’t and you are proving to be a royal hypocrite.
no sandi, you are wrong again. i agree with George Will much of the time, but not all the time. I agree with dan very little, but do not disagree all of the time.
Hey you libs,
Since Ron posted ejd’s column, and pronounced it “great”, he should be able to pretty easily articulate why he believes it to be described as “great”. I called the column “biased as hell”, to use a term which we can all agree with, which often if not always applies to columns writted by “opinion journalists.”.
Would any of you libs like to articulate the reasons why ejd’s “great” column isn’t “biased as hell”? Ron?
ahh, dan,
Your column was admittedly, in your words “biased as hell”. Tell us again why you chose to ignore the gov’mint-led multi-generationally destructive land-grab tragedy of Gainesboro. C’mon, it’s good for a few laughs, right?
Isn’t that what you libs do? You laugh at things which make you feel uncomfortable?
Frank,
All of my columns are “biased,” as YOU put it, inasmuch as I write opinion. But like most of the others, that one was chock full of FACTS, Frank. And that’s why you hated it so much that you’re still remembering it to this day, Frank. You couldn’t debate those FACTS — because you knew they were correct. All you could do was whine “biased! biased!” That’s the cowardly critic’s siren when it comes to journalism.
I want to thank you, though, for bringing it up, Frank. I’d almost forgotten about it. Sometimes I can’t even recall the stuff I wrote last week, much less 6 months ago. With 3 quality opinion columns to write a week (not to mention this blog), I need to keep my eyes trained forward.
So thanks for the memories, Frank!
hey sandi,
In this day and time, hypocracy infects virtually all political opinion writers. The better ones do make more effort to source their “facts”. Few if any make any effort to provide any balance of view point, as evidenced by ejd and of course Roanokes’ own “biased as hell” Dan Casey. What’s your problem with what I’ve said? Is Dan’s writing NOT biased?
Hey Dan, would the RT under the freedom of information act would be willing to identify people by name and address who receive welfare and food stamps? Then, the RT could put its unbiased staff to work correlating the percentage of Obama voters per precinct that receive tax dollars vs non-Obama voters in the same precincts. This study could shed some light on whether or not folks are voting themselves “free stuff.” I would find that study to be more interesting and telling than the identification of the liberal papers that identified the gun owners in the NY area.
your welcome, dan.
I especially enjoy bringing up that sorry column, because it saddens me to see a lib try so hard to please obama that he espouses the positive benefits that “giv’mint” financial assistance was given to 2 already rich white businessmen, and a successful private business was kicked off their land so that that same “gov’mint” could give that land to Carilion…who didn’t even want the land!
Please, Dan, tell us why those 2 things were the right things to do. While you are at it, please tell us why you left out any mention of the Gainsboro tragedy.
Hate to say it, but it looks like Notre Dame had too much Guinness before the game.
Yeah, Ron, too bad. I was hoping for a decent game.
A.J. as thrown some real beauties…..hitting his targets right on.
Watch for my response tomorrow Frank. I’m sure you will absolutely love it.
Hey! Ron May! I agree! Too much Guiness. Too heavy. Too bad. Too slow.
I’m looking forward to it, Ron!
Dan,
I just saw this link about a fella out in California who got pulled over in the carpool lane because it was just one person in the car.
The twist: He whipped out a corporation paperwork and claimed that the corporation was the second person, making his car a true carpool because he was carrying “two persons.”
Obviously this is an obtuse stab at Citizens United and the Supreme Court. I looked the guy up, and his ticket was upheld, and therefore a traffic court judge has ruled that a corporation is not a person.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/05/16372432-california-man-says-he-can-drive-in-carpool-lane-with-corporation-papers?lite
I personally cant wait until corporations have to get fondled by the TSA before they get on a flight. One can only hope.
Frank@41
Nice job of dodging the questions Frank. Given an opportunity to tell us why you think EID is wrong and to detail how you think cuts could be made specifically and how you think the fiscal crisis could be handled—and given the opportunity to answer whether or not holding the debt limit hostage to force deficit reduction might be harmful to confidence in the dollar and harmful to the world economy (or not), you chose to revert to the Gomer Pyle persona and to drag up some old Dan Casey column that you disagreed with but had no facts to back up your disagreement., When you’ve got nothing try to change the subject and dodge the question. Sadly that seems to be your MO on most topics. The Mayberry schtick is old,tiresome, and overworked. You need some new material and some real thoughts for a change.
You shore are spectin’ a lot of Frank, there, wayne.
Wayne Goodman
Hey Frank doesn’t believe EJD is wrong in any articulable way. He merely thinks EJD is biased. In Hey Frank’s book, even if you are right it doesn’t matter, because if you have any bias whatsoever (as all humans do) then that totally subsumes your rightness.
hey Dan,
you know, i don’t think you are wrong about the bias thingy. thanks for ‘splaining it to your posse. ejd epresses his biased political partisanship opinions pretty well. as do you.
Dan, I always look forward to Mark’s column and am especially looking forward to one on this topic.
Frank, do you consider Fox News biased, how about the Wall Street Journal?
Bill Perdue,
Mark did a good job on this one. I have no doubt that he’ll be eagerly awaiting your reaction, from his hotel room in Istanbul, where he’s been dispatched for the foreseeable future.
Make sure you get a Turkish bath, Mark!
Frank, your poor poor man, the point is not what you “agree with” it is what you call out and scream “bias” over. George Will is every bit as biased and insulting and one sided and every other critique you used on EJ Dionne. John Long is every column inch as biased, one sided, and every other critique you have used on Dan Casey. You consistently ignore anything that agrees with you and consistently whine about anything that doesn’t. No one makes you read anything Dan writes. No one makes you give his site hits and foolish comments for us to respond to. You live in a self inflicted wound world and whine about it. It is more than getting old.
First Frank, as I think you know the Dionne piece that I linked yesterday was an opinion and was on the opinion page of the Wash. Post. It happens to express opinions with which I agree for the most part.
For example, Mr. Dionne, in the second paragraph, made it clear he was talking about the debt ceiling issue being used as a political tool. He was correct when he said the debt ceiling issue had never, prior to the summer of 2011, been used as a political tool. Time after time, since the 1980s, Congress approved raising the debt ceiling without much debate. It seems as though those Congresses, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, understood that they had approved the spending bills which lead to the debt being incurred. As a result they had to approve increasing the debt ceiling. We can argue whether the issue should have been the subject of debate previously, but the reality is that increasing the debt ceiling is the only alternative when you’ve already spent the money or authorized its spending.
It is known that the August 2011 debt ceiling disaster caused the markets to tank and led to a downgrading of the U.S. debt rating. Those are facts.
What I believe Mr. Dionne is calling for, and I agree, is having an adult conversation about what, in addition to the increased revenues ($600+ billion over 10 years) the fiscal cliff agreement secured, reductions in spending are needed to put our economy on a sustainable path so that we can deal with the real issues we are confronting right now. Included among those are “…shared economic growth, spurring the creation of good jobs, dealing with gun violence, reforming immigration laws, improving our education system and taking steps on climate change.”
I agree with Mr. Dionne’s opinion that this is what needs to be done. I happen to believe the budget cuts over 10 years need to be closer to $1 trillion than $600 billion. I also agree that we need make the cuts in ways that don’t gut social security & medicare 10+ years or more out. I also agree that there a number of ways available to getting control of health care costs.
Liabilities in social security, for example, can be pretty much dealt with by removing totally or partially the income cap on earnings subject to SSI.
My executive experience has taught me that sometimes small steps are the first ones needed as you begin the process of rebuilding an organization back to health.
Finally, I agree with Mr. Dionne when he implies that we need the “respectable” people to step up and take control. I would use the work “reasonable” people instead. We cannot afford to let the extremists on either side to control this debate. Our economy is healing. It doesn’t need brinksmanship. It needs reason and calm.
hey Hillary,
I believe that the commentators on FOX News are as biased as the commentators on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC. What separates FOX News, in my opinion, from many of the others is FOX’s appreciation for presenting more than there own view of things, which is why those of us who watch FOX get to see views expressed by libs.
Now, for the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ’s editorial page “bias” is not dissimilar to the bias eminating from the editorial pages of the NYTs, WP, and the Roanoke Times. As for the WSJ columnists, they have their own point of view, which they express pretty well, much like the WP’s EJD and Roanoke’s own Dan Casey.
Also, concerning the WSJ’s news reporters…I have the opinion that they have a bent toward the lib side of things.
And, since I suspect that at least part of the reason for the WSJ’s popularity is that it’s readers have a good faith belief that it’s business news reporters are pretty accurate regarding the news they report…I have more reason to trust their news reports than, say, the sometimes awful stuff from the AP, and from “wire reports”, that the Roanoke Times purchases for it’s readers.
Hey Ron,
Nicely done. I found my head nodding along with some of the points you make, and even the ones I disagree with, make some sense. I’ll respond more fully in a little while.
By the way, the BCS game last night was, in my opinion, a testiment to Nick Saban’s leadership and management skills (even though I grew up a Penn State and ND fan). I thoroughly enjoy reading about, and watching, successful people succeed, over and over again, and regret that same success can’t fall over into politics.
well, golly sandi,
please take a deep breath, and calm yourself.
you know, i actually think you are getting it. the meaning of bias, i mean. just ’cause a bent-lib opinion columnist writes something, doesn’t make it true. in fact, the truth is very often often missing from biased columns written by ALL political opinion journalists.
yet you libs profess to “believe” everything ol’ Dan, and ejd, feed you, hook-line-and sinker…because of your political bias. doesn’t that about sum things up? eh?
OMG Frank, bias has nothing to do with whether anything is true or not. You are conflating the two for your purpose of slander and it is not working. I am calm, although I think you would try the patience of Job.
Hey Frank,
I believe homicide should be against the law. Underground meth labs, too. I also believe that Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents in the history of this country.
You probably believe the same things, too, Hey Frank. Which means you are (prepare yourself) BIASED! Did you get that? You’re BIASED!!!!!
Which necessarily means the truth is often absent from your posts on this blog. Right, Hey Frank?
hey Dan,
there are some things we can all agree with. my “biased” posts are just as “biased” as your’s, and Rush’s, and ejd’s. were’s the problem in that?
you likely won’t find me making arguments supporting a lib belief, unless i happen to agree with that particular lib belief. and, i sure as heck don’t expect to see you post anything in your “biased as hell” (your words) opinion columns which detract from the lib-point you are advocating at that particular moment. when i post something in response to your lib-view, i am simply offering another opinion…to your opinion.
i think we can both agree on that, don’t you?
Then why do you have the need to pretend Dan’s and every other “lib-point” or “lib-view” is not honest, true or “unbiased”? Can’t you just make your opinion known without denigrating that of Dan or anyone else? Why can’t you look at us as potential converts instead of the enemy? If you are right, why would anyone disagree with you?
sandi,
first of all, a lib viewpoint can’t be un-biased. nor can a conservative view point. i just try to provide another perspective, or “the rest of the story”, if you will, to what you libs try to pass off as the only correct way to view things.
nothing more, nothing less. just like dan.
Hey Ron,
To begin, I think EJD presents his case, such as it is, very well. And I have full realization that EJD is an opinion columnist who expresses opinions with which you, and many libs, agree.
I whole-heartedly agree with EJD, and you, that our politicians (which in my opinion include the President, the Senate, and the House) “should dedicate themselves to solving the problems we face now.” I also hope those politicians “don’t spend their time constructing largely theoretical solutions for years far in the future to satisfy certain ideological and aesthetic urges.”
To your point in the first paragraph, let’s note Obama’s words spoken on the floor of the Senate in 2006, where he clearly was “politicizing” raising the debt limit by urging Congress not to pass an increase in the debt ceiling limit. Which at the time was $9 trillion, a much less debt load than we currently bear today…which is $16.450 trillion (83% larger than in 2006), and an increase of 2% since October, 2012…or only three months. Obama’s words on the US Senate floor:
“The fact we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can’t pay it’s bills.” It is a sign that we now depend on on-going fiancial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies.”
“Increasing America’s debt weakons us domesticaslly and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grand children. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. American’s deserve better.”
EJ Dionne, in his effort to spin as best he possibly can the political argument in support of what Obama now wants to do, not only left out any mention of Obama’s hard-hitting speech on the Senate floor just 6 years ago…he somehow managed to “forget” even to mention to his readers what the size of the debt actually is, and what it was even three months ago.
I’d say that ejd is giving his readers a heavily filtered view of the facts, on which he relies to support his one-sided opinion.
I’ll provide some additional feedback later this afternoon, and I’ll close with a question: do you agree with Obama’s stated political position in 2006 concerning what he thought needed doing vis-a-vi the debt ceiling?
Hey Frank, quoting then Sen. Obama in 2006:
“The fact we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can’t pay it’s bills.” It is a sign that we now depend on on-going fiancial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies.”
“Increasing America’s debt weakons us domesticaslly and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grand children. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. American’s deserve better.”
Hey Frank, you left out “the other side” that you’ve been preaching about so much lately.
President Obama regretted the 2006 vote he took as a freshman senator.
So, you see Hey Frank, Obama’s not a hypocrite. He’s acknowledge those statements, said he’s learned more about this issue since then, and changed his mind.
You’re the hyprocrite, Hey Frank. Because you don’t practice what you preach others should.
“first of all, a lib viewpoint can’t be un-biased. nor can a conservative view point. i just try to provide another perspective, or “the rest of the story”,
What viewpoint is that, frank.
Hey Ron,
On to a little more commentary on the debt ceiling. I must give credit for the following analogy to a commenter on EJD’s column:
“say you come home from work one evening, and you find that there is a sewer line break in your neighborhood. The sewage is almost to the ceiling of your basement. So, what do you do, or, what do you ask those charged with “fixing” the situation to do? Is “raising the ceiling” in your house at the top of the list? Well, for some of us, we’d probably want to stop the cause of the flooding sewage in the first place.”
Now, off the sewage of debt and on to some other points.
I agree with your point on Social Security. I think raising the income ceiling levels to somewhere at or even above $250,000 is a good place to start. I think the pay-outs should go only to folks who are in this country legally. By the way, I believe that the folks will miss the extra 2% in take-home pay which ended last week…those who make about $50,000 in annual salary are gonna really miss the additional $1000/annum that they’ll have deducted from their paychecks each week.
I’m in favor of means-testing for Medicare benefits. However, I think all legal Americans should have access to the same Medicare benefits, and can individually choose to “buy-up” the benefits should they desire, at increased premiums.
I’m in favor of increasing the age requirements for both SS and Medicare to 68-70. I am in favor of grand-fathering in folks who are aged 50 and and above…should they so chose.
I don’t yet know how we can possibly know what the actual impact of the aca will be. I don’t think that EJD nor Dan know, nor do I think that Rush knows. So, there you go. Oh, one more…I don’t think Obama knows, either.
What I do know is our debt is extremely high, our already-existing entitlement programs are extreme drags on our economy, …and that doesn’t even include what the aca impact might be. And, I know that EJD, and you, seem to believe that all will be well if Congress goes along with whatever it is that Obama wants them to go along with. Those who, heaven forbid, might not agree with the President, well, those folks must be the “one side in the coming argument that will risk cratering the economy in an effort to reverse the verdict of the 2012 election.” Imagine that. If we throw our support to the only political bodies in the past 5-6 years that haven’t even passed a budget…well, that would be senseless, wouldn’t it?
Well, at least EJD didn’t call us racists. Yet.
Yeah, right Dan.
For sure. Obama “regrets” his vote. Duh. Ok, wow, what a smart, brilliant savior that man is! Yeah, boy, I’m with you!
Yeah, right. Is THAT the best you can do, Dan? Seriously? Sheesh.
Yep. You libs gave obama a pass on the tony resco land deal, where the dashingly young and brilliant politician said he did something he later called “bone-headed”. Yep. Right. End of story. Just like you did with ol’ bill, when he wagged his bony finger at us on tv and said, “i did not have sex with that woman”. Lib-media folks give lib politicians passes. Period. So, anything new there?
Then, you’ve got dan rather commenting on FALSIFIED documents on the near-eve of the 2004 Presidential election…and the lib-media turns around and gives that liar a “lifetime achievement award.” Yep, all is ok, if you’re a lib.
hey dan,
Wow! I am impressed! ol’ obama has sure tried to bail you out in our little exchange, eh? So, what did you do, huh? Send him an email, sayin’ he owes you one for your having his back after his faux pauw in Roanoke back in July? Is that it? A little political pay back for that protective and adulatory column you inked for him back then? Well, he sure came through for you, today, eh?
Yeah, right. He regrets his “vote” in 2006. Sure. Uh huh.
That guy is sooo smart!
Frank
Except for the stupid analogy you were actually doing ok until you got to here:
And, I know that EJD, and you, seem to believe that all will be well if Congress goes along with whatever it is that Obama wants them to go along with. Those who, heaven forbid, might not agree with the President, well, those folks must be the “one side in the coming argument that will risk cratering the economy in an effort to reverse the verdict of the 2012 election.” Imagine that. If we throw our support to the only political bodies in the past 5-6 years that haven’t even passed a budget…well, that would be senseless, wouldn’t it?
And that isn’t what RonMay or EJD or anyone else that comments here says about the things needed to resolve the problems. What we, all of us, are saying is that Republicans need to come to the table in a realistic spirit of compromise. All of the President’s ideas can’t and won’t be automatically accepted. Neither will or should all of the proposals by Republicans to do nothing but cut their way out of the problem. That won’t work. It takes some give from both sides. And holding hostage the national debt which both sides know will have to be increased at least for the time being will not help. More revenues are still required. Entitlement changes are required. Serious cuts in military spending and foreign aid are required. The US with 5 per cent of the world’s population, spends 41% of all the money that is spent on military items in the entire world. We spend more money annually on military spending than the combined totals of the next 13 highest spending countries.And apart from that, almost 40% of the money we spend on foreign aid goes to supply arms to other countries, at least some of which gets used against us. So entitlement changes alone cannot be the solution for all the problems. That is all we hear from the Paul Ryans and the Mitch Mcconnells and the John Boehners and the tea party Republicans. And you and the Republican extremists refuse to acknowledge that there are other steps that must be taken as well.
Until about 6 to 8 months ago, I always enjoyed watching an occasional rerun of the Andy Griffith Show with its homespun philosophy. Now every time it comes on I automatically change the channel because Frank’s
hey y’all Gomer schtick and imitation has become so irritating that I can’t even stand to watch the show. Thanks Frank.
Do my eyes fail me?
Has she-who-speaks-for-all-Roman-Catholics not proclaimed the game stolen?
Is it on another thread?
Well, at least EJD didn’t call us racists. Yet.
Comment by Frank — January 8, 2013 @ 2:50 pm
He wouldn’t have to do that. All he’d have to do is read your posts.
Frank & others,
In my comment on 1/8/13, among other things, I proposed that budget savings close to $1 trillion over the next 10 years would put our federal budget on a path to sustainability. Unlike most politicians in Washington, I’m prepared to be rather specific in how I would get to that $1 Trillion. Below are some of my thoughts, which I have gleaned from a variety of sources, which apply to just one federal program. Medicare.
There are two major reasons for Medicare’s rising costs. First, the program’s design, which is essentially the same as in 1965. That design pays doctors & hospitals fixed fees for whatever they do. The incentive for doctors & hospitals is to provide more and more expensive care. That’s a primary reason why, in 1965, it was projected that Medicare would cost $9 billion annually in 1990. That projection was only off by about $60 billion. In 2012 the costs were $555 billion. The second reason costs continue to rise is that the Medicare succeeded. The elderly are living longer and there are more of them to take care of. By 2030 the number of beneficiaries will rise from today’s 50 million to 78 million. So how can we deal with such challenges and achieve savings.
First, many suggest & I agree that gradually increasing premiums that beneficiaries pay for physician & other outpatient services to cover 35% of the programs’ cost could generate approximately $250 billion over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office. That could be done without imposing additional burdens on the poorest 18% of seniors.
Second, the current Medicare program includes a host of cost-sharing requirement that neither incentivize participants to limit consumption of services nor shield them from catastrophic expenses. The CBO estimates that establishing uniform cost-sharing and restricting Medigap plans could save $90+ billion over 10 years.
Third, Simpson Bowles found that Medicare could save $46 billion over ten years by reducing reimbursements to providers for their patients’ unpaid deductibles & co-payments and by reducing the overcompensation of teaching hospitals for treating Medicare patients.
Fourth, the fastest growing Medicare cost is home health care which is projected by the CBO to rise to $52 billion in 2021. Imposing a 10% co-pay-about $600 on average-for each 60 day episode would save $40 billion over 10 years.
Those 4 steps, if my math is close, saves nearly $420 billion over 10 years. And, I haven’t even mentioned replacing administered prices for such things as durable medical equipment & orthotics with competitive bidding. That bidding process could be extended to more items, such as lab tests & prescription drugs and would save somewhere between $35 & 40 billion over 10 years.
So Frank, I’ve examined only one federal program and I’m more than 40% toward my goal of cutting $1 Trillion. My cuts are specific and I’m sure not everyone agrees with them. Making the cuts preserves Medicare and don’t require raising the eligibility age.
I’ll talk about other ways to balance the budget in the days ahead.
Frank, if indeed you actually believe you “just try to provide another perspective, or “the rest of the story”“, then you need to face the reality that you are a miserable failure at that endeavor.
IMO, Obama was correct in what he said about the debt when he was a Senator. In normal economic times (before the economic crash), it is absolutely a “sign of leadership failure”, it is what led us to the economic crash. The economy is supposed to work such that we (like all who can) should have been saving money for the “rainy days” and paying down our debt, not accumulating it rapidly such that when the crash hit all of the emergency spending was done with debt. It was terribly bad leadership for 8 long hard years. We started the economic crash in deep debt, where the hell else was there to go?
This GOTP effort to take the nation’s credit hostage is despicable behavior. Obama used rhetoric and a symbolic vote, the Congress he was in, did not take any hostages or mess with the full faith and credit of the United States.
Thanks to Bush and his financing everything with “assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies” and a Congress devoid of leaders, we are in this terrible predicament after our economic crash and “torpid” recovery.
Bush and Congress continuing to increase America’s debt, did weaken us “domestically and internationally”. Bush and Cognress chose to kick the can down the road and let the nation suffer for it.
Washington did shift “the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grand children”. America did have “a debt problem and a failure of leadership” and Bush, nor Congress did anything to fix it, they only made it worse. Since the economic crash, the GOTP has done nothing but continue that failed leadership, flout Obama and further harm the American people.
Obama was right then and he is right now. The 112th Congress will go down in history as one of the worst ever in this nation. Leadership is about a lot more than just who is in the White House. Why are you pretending the 535 members of Congress do not matter? They ARE “the rest of the story”. Tell it or stop being dishonest.
then why when he spent 5trillion dollars didnt it help and didnt solve one problem sandi….so HE increased the spending and debt
Ron,
Well done, sir. You have dissected what I think is the most complex Program and related cost issue that our government has ever foisted on us, in a reasonable and concise manner.
Comments on your comments:
1. Agree whole-heartedly.
2. I don’t know enough about the issue to comment.
3. I couldn’t agree with you more. As an example, several years ago, I was asked to assist an elderly friend in their “fight” against a huge local hospital system which was suing her for non-payment of multiple hospital bills. After about 2 minutes of reviewing her records, I determined that the idiot local hospital system was sending her bills to “Medicare”, instead of the the VA/Medicare Program (or, whatever it was) which she had opted for many years ago. I called the hospital system to explain this, and the system asked me, “why did I care, they were just gonna write-it off after the court proceedings anyhow…”. Suffice it to say, the hospital system then billed the right payor, and the tax-payers avoided footing the bill.
4. Agree again. Over the years, I’ve heard repeatedly “why do you care, she’s entitled to the benefit…”, the words left unspoken were “even if she doesn’t need it…” Soak the tax-payers.
I look forward to more on this.
Continuing with federal budget cutting ideas, here’s what some folks think we should do to save money in the defense department.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/15/15194879-alleging-republican-blind-eye-on-defense-spending-gop-senator-proposes-cuts?lite
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/military/report/2012/12/06/47106/hundred-billion-in-politically-feasible-defense-cuts-for-a-budget-deal/
In addition to the links above, the Obama administration has proposed reductions in the neighborhood of $450 billion over 10 years. Those are, for the most part, reductions in the rate of current spending. At any rate, if implemented would add less to the deficit.
So, totalling up these three ideas, and accounting for some overlap between the three, you have $550 billion in defense department reductions over 10 years.
So Frank, I’ve just looked at 2 federal programs and accounted for nearly the $1 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years. As the late Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois said, “A billion here & a billion there. Eventually you get to real money.”
My guess is that if we continued to dig, we could find another $25 to 50 billion a year in cuts without much difficulty. That would bring the total cuts, over 10 years, to $1.2 to 1.5 trillion. I think that would give us time to seriously attack the problem and solve it over the next 25 to 30 years.
Ron,
I’m with you, conceptually.
sandi,
somehow, i think beau is jealous of you…
Ron, your well-reasoned and well-researched arguments rise above the rest. As an economic novice, it is gratifying that I do not have to sift through the poor grammar, overdone partisanship, and overt condescension to understand your point. I learned from your post. Thank you!
Is that some weird cross between Suzie’s evil and pammala’s inability with the English language Frank? When you cannot even deliver an insult correctly, it sure removes most of the “punch”.
Pammala,
It’s always a head-scratcher when these leftwingers rail about Bush’s spending.
“Remove the plank in one’s own eye, first.”
Ron, did I read your post above correctly to mean that Medicare reimburses providers for unpaid deductibles and co-pays? Why the heck are they doing that?
“then why when he spent 5trillion dollars didnt it help and didnt solve one problem sandi….so HE increased the spending and debt”
Tell us, pammala, exactly what the unemployment rate would have been and how long the recession would have lasted without the spending. Please provide links to your proof.
We’ll wait.
Inability? because I dont use capital letters..boy sandi, its too bad that my lack of punctuation makes you unable to comprehend…sorry for your inability dear..how lame
sandi, i see your point. I frenchified Bo’s name. Sorry.
sandi, i think obama’s dog is jealous of you…
Why the heck are they doing that?
Comment by Kristen — January 9, 2013 @ 10:55 am
Because they can Kristen. And it costs us nearly $5 billion a year. My sister in law is a CFO at a small not for profit hospital corporation and she put me on to this practice.
until you understand what the real unemployment rate is currently g, no point in discussing anything with you sweetie
no its the other way around, sandi is jealous of bo
Frank, we can always count on you to keep it classy.
Careful Ron, if you start talking about rewarding better outcomes and less procedures you will be accused of endorsing “death panels”.
And your faithful sidekick too. What a classy couple you make. Come on in Suzie, their bile is fine.
hey kristen, and ron,
the practice was begun so hospitals would be able to get some relief from absorbing the un-paid cost of services they are required to provide for the uninsured. Ron knows that, and I’m a little suprised that it had to come to you from me. the grand plan is, that cost “goes away” when more people get insured. in other words, there will still be a cost, but it will go under a different name.
how close am i on that, Ron?
hey pammela, sheesh, how’d i miss that?
I guess that’s just a risk that goes with the territory Sandi.
Ron, my understanding of co-pays is that they are collected at POS. I also thought there was a law in place compelling providers to collect it.
Once you stop making patients pay copays or their deductible, there’s nothing keeping them from running to the doctor every time they get a hangnail.
Pammala, allow me to rephrase gdad’s question:
“Tell us, pammala, exactly what the real unemployment rate would have been and how long the recession would have lasted without the spending. Please provide links to your proof.”
See? Really the same question. One you will never answer.
Personally, “sweetie,” I will NOT be waiting.
I’mm not sure what the exact Medicare rule on co-pays & deductibles is Kristen. I know, for example, that my doctor visit co-pay is $25. So I either right a check when I’m leaving the doctor’s office or swipe my credit card. Apparently this is not always the case with Medicare patients. According to my sister in law, it’s pretty frequent at hospitals. If they are not able to collect the co-pays or deductibles, the rest of us will pay them through the rates for service we pay.
I think there are many ways the medical community gets too much from Medicare.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/09/15/10810/how-doctors-and-hospitals-have-collected-billions-questionable-medicare-fees
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/09/19/10812/growth-electronic-medical-records-eases-path-inflated-bills
“until you understand what the real unemployment rate is currently g, no point in discussing anything with you sweetie”
Im proud to be able to tell the difference between “42″ and “52.”
Anyway, thanks for admitting you can’t answer my question.
ron,
hospitals are able to write off uncollected bills of virtually any sort, the largest of which we are led to believe is the cost of providing service to the uninsured. however, they routinely took advantage (and the biggest one in this area to do so is the biggest non-profit hospital in town) by trying to write off even more easily collectible charges and co-pays. that’s what they wanted to do with my elderly friend. they wanted her in court, so they could “show” they tried to collect her charges. they didn’t care to realize that they had the correct billing information…so they could have been collecting their money all along…and they wouldn’t “listen” to her, i guess ’cause she was elderly, ya know. they WANTED to write it off!