2009.11.09
Monday open thread
Of course it's horrible. It's suffering and it's pain and it's... You know, you lose weight and then you put back on weight, and then you, you know, you call them a bunch of times and you try and e-mail, and then they move or they change their e-mail, but that's just love.
Are you feeling the love today?
RSS feed 
Rep. Boucher, if anything, is not stupid. He knows that the House health care reform bill is DOA in the Senate and any reform has at best, an even chance of passing. If the Dems had the votes in the Senate, they would vote on it this week.
Why risk your seat by ignoring your constituents and voting for a bill that may never pass? A bill he can support may be hammered out next year. What a politician!
Perriello is a dead man walking politically.
Comment by John R — November 9, 2009 @ 9:09 am
House passes socialist healthcare reform bill against the will of the people. We'll just have show our appreciation at the polls in 2010.
Comment by Jim — November 9, 2009 @ 10:21 am
Yep, Jim. I think Virgil Goode ought to come out of retirement and get his seat back. I don't think there is any doubt he would win handily.
Comment by Suzie — November 9, 2009 @ 10:24 am
The Senate is going to be MUCH tougher for the Left. But, money talks.
Comment by T Witten — November 9, 2009 @ 10:45 am
I just read that McDonalds is going to start a program similar to Obamacare. You get to order anything you want and the guy behind you has to pay for it.
Comment by Patrick — November 9, 2009 @ 11:11 am
DOW at 10172 just a minute ago. That's up 2221 points or roughly 28%since President Obama went into office, which obviously gives him a good feeling I bet.
Comment by Gary — November 9, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
Gary, are you buying any securities? I'm not. The individual trader is not in the market.
Comment by John R — November 9, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
Yes Gary...looks like another trillion, that if he hurries, needs to be redistributed.
Comment by BUD — November 9, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
@5
Awesome...except with McDonald's YOU might actually WANT what they have to offer.
Comment by T Witten — November 9, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Isn't this thread OPEN to write anything you want?
Comment by T Witten — November 9, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
The same standards apply to the open thread as to any other. Posts that violate our Terms of Service will be deleted on open threads, also.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 9, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
St. Patrick's Breastplate is a Christian hymn whose original Old Irish lyrics were traditionally attributed to Saint Patrick during his Irish ministry in the 5th century.
We read it yesterday at church. Pretty damn cool. It would be a good power speech for every day when you wake up.
Much better than “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like me.”
The Breastplate of St. Patrick (The Lorica)
I arise today through a mighty strength
Through the invocation of the Trinity
Through belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness
Of the Creator of Creation
I arise today through the strength of Christ’s birth and His baptism
Through the strength of His crucifixion & burial
Through the strength of His resurrection and ascension
Through the strength of His coming again in judgment
I arise today
Through God’s strength to pilot me
God’s might to uphold me
God’s wisdom to guide me
God’s eye to look before me
God’s ear to hear me
God’s word to speak to me
God’s hand to guard me
God’s way to lie before me
God’s shield to protect me
God’s host to save me
From snares of devils
From temptations of vices
From everyone who shall wish me ill
Near and far, alone or in multitude
Christ to shield me today.
Christ with me;
Christ before me;
Christ behind me;
Christ in me;
Christ beneath me;
Christ above me;
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I rise,
Christ in the heart of every man that thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.
I arise today through a mighty strength
Through the invocation of the Trinity
Through belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness
Of the Creator of Creation
Comment by T Witten — November 9, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
#10 Not just anything and thanks #11 it is a good point and should maybe be read by us once a week.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 9, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
@12...T Witten
If that gives you your strength, then I'm delighted that it helps you get through your days.
Others may have other means that are just as important.
At the end of the day, we all have to find those things that help us individually see more clearly the day ahead of us as well as those that are behind us. It's easy to become blinded by a lot of the noise that we're all subjected to day in and day out.
Comment by Will — November 9, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
@1,2,3
Don't know where you're getting your information but polls have consistently shown solid majority support for both reform and the public option. Rep. Boucher has an excellent record of service to his constituents, but he sure let them down on this one.
Comment by Art Hill — November 9, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Thanks Will.
I agree that reflection is important. However, I also think that one of the biggest problems with our society/culture is that we don't make TODAY a focus. Many of us focus on the "weekend" or look back at yesterdays.
TODAY is the day, tomorrow may never come.
Comment by T Witten — November 9, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
I am guilty of looking FORWARD as well.
Comment by T Witten — November 9, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Nice speech by Obama to the crowd in Berlin. I wonder why he didn't mention Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher?
Actually, I do and it doesn't surprise me a bit.
What a fraud.
Comment by Patrick — November 9, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
@15 Art, Rep. Boucher on his Web site says he voted against it because he wants to better protect rural hospitals and raise the reimbursement rates for Medicare.
He expects that these issues will be dealt with in conference and that he will vote for the final bill.
Comment by Luanne T. — November 9, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
@19 Luanne
Whatever the issue, the bill barely passed. If it had not, it would have emboldened the Republicans and given yet more time for big insurance to kill it outright. I have tremendous respect for Rep. Boucher, but I'm very disappointed with his vote.
Comment by Art Hill — November 9, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
I thought this was good from the Politico.
"Federal prosecutors are seeking the harshest prison sentence ever handed out to a member of Congress for former Rep. William Jefferson (Democrat-La.), arguing that his “stunning betrayal of public trust” warrants what could be a life sentence for the long-time lawmaker."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29328.html
Comment by T Witten — November 9, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
Even more than that last article...I REALLY enjoy this one.
"AP: Public option is dead
Nancy Pelosi may have been all smiles on Saturday, but the difficulties encountered in her full-court press on the ObamaCare bill will only get worse, the AP reports this morning. The AP declares the public option dead, thanks to skeptical Democrats, and Joe Lieberman pledges to stop the bill from coming to the floor with one included. The LA Times concurs:"
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/09/ap-public-option-is-dead/
Comment by T Witten — November 9, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
DOW at 10172 just a minute ago. That's up 2221 points or roughly 28%since President Obama went into office, which obviously gives him a good feeling I bet.
Comment by Gary — November 9, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
More likely is the fact that wall street sees Obama's socialist agenda is not going to fly with the American people after all. Watch what happens to Wall Street if Cap and Trade and obamacare passes.
Comment by Jim W. — November 9, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
#23 - The Dow also has a long way to climb yet, before it gets back to the record highs it reached during the so-called "economically disastrous" Bush presidency. And Jim, like you I don't see that happening - especially if Cap & Trade and 0bamacare passes.
Comment by Rick — November 9, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
#6 ,and it closed at 10266 up 203.5 points, which is up 29% from Obama's start. BTW #s 7,8,23 & 24 - no surprise.
Comment by Gary — November 9, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
Gary 25,
Gee, that's only about 4000 points less than where Bush had it last year. Call me when we get to 14000 again.
Comment by Suzie — November 9, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
Guess again, Suzie. Last year at this time the Dow was at 8943.
If you're going to judge things by the peak of the presidency, then you're going to have to wait for Obama's final numbers.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 9, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
24 The Wall Street Journal expects the S&P 500 to surpass 1200 this quarter. Be assured Rick, Wall Street has factored Cap and Trade, Obamacare, and many other factors into their plans.
Comment by Richard — November 9, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
Suzie, a quick quiz, there have been five recessions since 1975. Who was President during each of them?
Comment by Richard — November 9, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
Roanole Reagan 2, G H Bush 1, GW Bush 2
Nothing like that Conservative economics to brighten the day
Comment by Richard — November 9, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
Just judging Bush's peak last year and 0bama's peak this year, and there's nearly a 4000 point difference. Oh, and how does 10.2% unemployment fit with 0bama's predictions? God, Americans wish they had Bush back.
Comment by Suzie — November 9, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Suzie, there were 5 recessions prior to the most recent 5. Who were the Presidents for those 5?
Comment by Richard — November 9, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
Right again, Republicans - Eisenhower - 3; Nixon - 1; Ford = 1
Those liberals just can't seem to get it right.
Comment by Richard — November 9, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
Suzie, GW took eight years to bubble up to his peak with several crashes in 2003 and 2008. His crash in 2008 of 7,000 breaks every recod for the DOW. The concensus is the Stock Market leads the economy by six months ehile employment lags recovery. Obama's Administration has conisistently statedd that employment would be slow to recover. They have also had to deal with problems so unusual and so large that they were unprecedented in our history. Accordingly, their original guesses for employment were indeed low. However,the turn around has occurred much faster than expected so their prediction rate is break even.
Comment by Richard — November 9, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
The W years - feb 2000 Dow at 11500; feb 2003 Dow at 8400; Sept 2007 Dow at 13,800: Jan 2008 Dow at 8000; chart these and you will see W was indeed placing his mark on Wall Street.
Comment by Richard — November 9, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Richard,
Every recession you mentioned has been caused by government meddling except for the one caused by 9-11.
Comment by Suzie — November 9, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Richard, I didn't know Bush was president in Feb 2000.
Comment by Suzie — November 9, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
0bama is now throwing around numbers of additional troops to send to Afghanistan. It's nowhere near what his advisors recommended.
I think we have reached the competence tipping point with 0bama. It reminds me of the tile guy I hired for our bathroom. Three of the tiles he put up fell off and scratched the tub, he got water and grout on our living room carpet, and the tiles were misaligned. The company offered to have him come out and repair his mess, but I said he wasn't to ever set foot in my house again. It's sort of the same with 0bama. He's failed in every area of his presidency so miserably, it almost doesn't matter what he tries now; America just wants him OUT. Don't try to "fix" it. Don't do anything. Just GO.
Comment by Suzie — November 9, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
I just adore the whining by conservatives that unemployment is at 10 percent.
Here's a nice comparison:
On average, Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per year.
On average,Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
Now, President Obama, just 10 months into the job, heading into the worst recession since the depression, hasn't yet tamed the job killing monster created by Bush/GOP polices over eight years of mismanagement, Yet These conservative whine about the lack of jobs -after protesting every effort made by the government to create conditions that would produce a sustainable job market.
The unemployment rate under Reagan went from 7.6% to 9.7-9.8% in the summer after his inaugural, and remained at that level for two years, before it began to decline in the summer of 1983.
Hmnnnn More than 730 days Before Reagan, the GOP God's high unemployment began to recede. 24 plus Months.
So, by historical data, unemployment climbed during Reagan's first year, From February 1981 until July of 1983.
And yet Conservatives expect President Obama to cure unemployment in only 10 months?
Who do they think he is? God?
Considering their own God Reagan had more than 2 years of rising unemployment, the fact they expect President Obama to turn the economy around in just 10 months is high praise indeed.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 9, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
I did this DJIA argument on a post a few months ago...
Clinton 1/20/93-1/20/2001: 3256.81 -> 10587.59 +7330.78
Geo. W. 1/20/01-1/20/2009: 10587.59 -> 8077.56 -2509.44
Obama 1/20/09-CURRENT: 8077.56 -> 10226.94 +2149.38
If you're going to use the DJIA as a gauge for growth and prosperity in America, (not exactly a great idea) at least look at the numbers from beginning to end. Picking an arbitrary data point in the middle that better serves your argument is not an appropriate or accurate way to defend your argument. Simply put, Clinton was in office when the dot com boom began and electronic revolution took place. Bush was in office when the dot com boom ended and the largest accounting scandals in the history of the world took place. He also was able to use the military industrial complex to stimulate the market through wars overseas. Obama was given a sinking market, and told to fix it.
Also, for the nitpickers: i know the dates aren't EXACTLY the date the presidents took office, but I took the closest closing date to inauguration date. This date is also pretty skeptical to use, because forecasting for the future is made by the traders as soon as election results are in, and by and large don't settle down until a new change in administration has had an opportunity to make their policies known.
Comment by scott — November 9, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
Ten months into Obama's hope and change and people are still blaming Bush for Obama's 10% unemployment. Funny, I remember unemployment being around 5% under most of Bush's term.
Comment by Henry — November 9, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
Hmmm. Yes. One year after Reagan took office, unemployment was at 8.3 percent. Two years after Reagan took office, unemployment was at 10.8 percent. But that was all Carter, wasn't it? Two years into Reagan's presidency, you certainly could not expect him to be accepting responsibility yet, could you?
Conservatives believe Reagan was a god compared to Obama. After all, he followed four years of Carter, who totally tanked the economy. Do you have any clue how long it takes to recover from four whole years of a bad president?
Obama is trying to make up for eight years of Bush. Let's see where he has unemployment by next year before we judge him too harshly.
Surely, conservatives want to be consistent and at least give Obama the same opportunity they gave Reagan, right?
Or were conservatives in 1982 fervently wishing America had Carter back with his 5.6 unemployment rate (going, as conservatives today are, from the best month Carter ever had).
This is, after all, how the game is played. Right?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 9, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
Scott,
The more consistent pattern of growth was from 1995 to 2007. And which party controlled Congress those years?
Comment by Suzie — November 9, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
42 "Obama is trying to make up for eight years of Bush."
Yeah, he's making up for it all right. Bush had a 4.4% unemployment rate and a DOW of 14,000. 0bama has turned that around in a very short time.
It's my bedtime.
Comment by Suzie — November 9, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
I was just thinking..Nobody can deny George W. Bush's economy achieved incredible numbers at less than 5% unemployment and record setting DOWs. Both were achieved in the second half of his term, so you'd have to give him the credit. He achieved the heights the same way Reagan and the GOP Congress of the 90s did it; he cut taxes.
So my question to leftwingers is, exactly what Bush policy caused these numbers to plummet? Did he suddenly forget how to govern? You can't put the bank failures on him because he was the one sounding the alarm about Fannie and Freddie on deaf Democrat ears. And you can't put it on tax cuts, because they were put into effect much earlier and were successful. So...what was it? The short answer is....it wasn't Bush or his party that caused the plummet.
I'll be interested to wake up and see what half-baked reasons you guys cook up.
Comment by Suzie — November 10, 2009 @ 12:08 am
Suzie,
It's called a recovery. It often happens (actually, it always happens) following a recession. The thing about Bush's recovery following the March 2001 recession is this: It was the weakest recovery in the post-World War II era. It created the fewest jobs of any post-war recovery, and for the first time ever, middle-class Americans were actually earning less at the end of a recovery than they were at the beginning.
In other words, George W. Bush's economic record is absolutely nothing to be proud of.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 10, 2009 @ 7:05 am
Dan
Tell that to 10% unemployed. I bet they would really like to go back to Bush's 5% unemployment.
Comment by Henry — November 10, 2009 @ 7:09 am
Yeah, Henry, just like everyone was clamoring to dump Reagan and bring Carter and his 5.6 percent unemployment back in 1982?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 10, 2009 @ 7:14 am
The difference is, Reagan and Bush both showed they knew how to bring an economy back. Carter didn't. 0bama hasn't, and 0bama is following the same failed Carter model.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/24/opinion/main4544140.shtml
Comment by Suzie — November 10, 2009 @ 7:28 am
Suzie wrote "Yeah, he's making up for it all right. Bush had a 4.4% unemployment rate and a DOW of 14,000. 0bama has turned that around in a very short time.It's my bedtime."
-----------------------------------------
With Bush given a 4.2 unemployment rate, one of the best for an incoming president, his economic policies crashed the system and he left office with an unemployment rate of 7.2 percent. Anyone who thinks this type of "growth" is good, NEEDS to go to bed.(and back to school, because growth means up, not down)
1992 Bill Clinton inherited an Unemployment rate of 7.5 percent
2000 Bill Clinton gave Bush an Unemployment rate of 4.2 percent
2000 George Bush inherited an Unemployment rate of 4.2 percent
2008 George Bush gave Obama an Unemployment rate of 7.2 percent
http://blogs.payscale.com/salary_report_kris_cowan/2008/11/post.html
Excerpt:
U.S. unemployment rates under President Bush have reached a 14-year high. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment climbed to 6.5 percent in October, as the country shed 240,000 jobs. U.S. unemployment rates under President Bush have certainly increased--for example, the unemployment rate for October 2007 was 4.7 percent. So far this year, the country has lost 1.2 million jobs, and over half of the decrease took place in just the last three months. Some suggest the situation could grow more bleak: Goldman Sachs projects the unemployment rate will reach 8.5 percent by the end of 2009. Another source I spoke with recently believes it could soar as high as 10 percent in the near future.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6946196
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 10, 2009 @ 7:35 am
Joe 50
"1992 Bill Clinton inherited an Unemployment rate of 7.5 percent
2000 Bill Clinton gave Bush an Unemployment rate of 4.2 percent
2000 George Bush inherited an Unemployment rate of 4.2 percent
2008 George Bush gave Obama an Unemployment rate of 7.2 percent
Easily explained. Clinton had a Democrat Congress going in and a GOP Congress going out. Bush had the opposite.
Comment by Suzie — November 10, 2009 @ 7:55 am
I'll take 6.5% unemployment over Obama's 10% unemployment.
What was the unemployment rate when the Democrats took over Congress? About 5%. Now they have brought us up to 10.3% in just a few short years. Hope and change.
Comment by Henry — November 10, 2009 @ 8:24 am
#51 - Suzie, that was spot on!
Comment by Rick — November 10, 2009 @ 8:34 am
45 Suzie the policy that dumped the Bush economy was the same that caused the recessions for Mr. Reagan, they cut taxes for the wealthy, increased taxes on the middle class, dumed all regulation, and borrowed us into submission with excess military spending. The biggest factor was their wonderful drip down from the top philosophy. Never worked, never will. Their military spending and lack of regulation was all that made their economy work at all and that produced the bubbles that keep on bursting.
That's what we need all right a Reagan and a Junior. LOL
Comment by Richard — November 10, 2009 @ 8:49 am
Suzie wrote: Easily explained. "Clinton had a Democrat Congress going in and a GOP Congress going out. Bush had the opposite."
Bush had a GOP Congress for 6 of his eight years, yet his yearly employment addition was less than 400,000 at any time.
Clinton started with a Democrat Concress, , And Clinton's economic policies added 6 million jobs in 1993 to 1994 Then went under a GOP Congress, so Clinton's economic policies began adding Jobs 2 years BEFORE a GOP takeover in january of 1995
http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/new/html/Fri_Nov_3_134817_2000.html
Excerpt.
22.4 Million New Jobs Created Under the Clinton-Gore Administration. Since January 1993, the economy has added 22.4 million new jobs. That’s the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. Under President Clinton, the economy has added an average of 240,000 jobs per month, the highest of any President on record. This compares to 52,000 per month under President Bush and 167,000 per month under President Reagan.
92 Percent -- 20.6 Million -- of the New Jobs Have Been Created in the Private Sector. Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, the private sector of the economy has added 20.6 million new jobs. That is 92 percent of the 22.4 million new jobs -- the highest percentage since Harry S. Truman was President and presiding over the post-World War II demobilization
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 10, 2009 @ 8:53 am
Ok Suzie,
Again, you need to be consistent, is your contention that Congress is solely responsible or the President? At some point you need to analyze the role of the President in the checks and balances and the actual decisions made. Were the decisions not veto'ed by the president and why? Did the president dictate the policy that the government should follow?
It seems you're placing blame in places just to support your side, without looking at data as an objective source. I'd be more inclined to believe your statements if you were a little more consistent in presenting your case.
Joe, on the other hand is at least backing up a position with data.
Comment by scott — November 10, 2009 @ 10:24 am