They may be able to delay certifying Brown, but Kirk will not be able to provide the sixtieth vote after election day. So it won’t matter what kind of games they want to play with the Brown certification.
The latest rumor is that the last-ditch ploy will be to tell the House that they have to just vote for the Senate bill, so it won’t need the sixty votes after reconciliation.
The problem with that is, I’ll bet they don’t have 218 votes for that. Particularly after the now-expected outcome in Massachusetts on Tuesday. They won’t get Stupak’s vote, for sure.
I have to say that there’s another good outcome of this whole thing. I’ve finally learned how to spell Massachusetts reliably. I could never figure out whether there were supposed to be two esses in the second one, or two tees, or both. Of course, I’ve never made the stupid mistake that the Coakley people did. And they live there. Supposedly…
[Update a few minutes later]
Patrick Kennedy is a big fan of “Marcia” Coakley. Do all of these Democrat morons need remedial spelling lessons? Or is it that they just have a problem with names? Either way, hilarious, and it just adds to the fun.
[Monday morning update]
Intrade now has Brown at 66, Coakley at 35.
IMHO the chickens haven’t hatched yet. Per Instapundit, let’s not get cocky.
But you’re right about MA pols. If Massachusetts shared a border with Mexico, the political establishment would have gotten us into a worse condition than California’s.
All of these possible outcomes are good. I think the tipping point has been reached, and every cutting of the political corners that the Democrats do will solidify the degree of contemptuous rejection they get this fall. I think the only way they could avoid a thorough rogering is by starting to act gracious at every turn, starting with a gracious concession when Brown burns Coakley, and a humble agreement to go back to square one with health care reform.
If they did that, they could actually produce some incremental reform bill that would do lots of stuff they love — pay off unions, mostly protect trial lawyers, boost some coverage for the “uninsured” — as well as do stuff that is genuinely broadly popular — and probably cement their majority this fall for a decade.
But I don’t think they will. This is why I was pretty happy at the accession of Team Obama. These people are megalomaniacs. They are really going to drive the bus right off the cliff. They really don’t give a damn if the Democratic Party is ruined.
What I wonder, still, is how many will go down with them, and how many will try to save themselves. If only the Democrats hadn’t been out of power so long, I think more would have jumped off the speeding bus by now. They just can’t bring themselves to believe that the driver is so heedless of stop signs and red lights not because he’s really Jesus Christ and has a magic power over them, but because he is psychotic.
I clicked the link and the article I saw doesn’t mention Massachusettes.
This may be the intended link.
Link fixed, thanks.
Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!
@Carl Pham (and K): In the October 2009 issue of Esquire magazine there is an interview with Bill Clinton. I found this part very interesting:
The second thing was President [George W.] Bush was elected with a Senate majority that would do whatever he asked. So for the first time since Richard Nixon won on the silent majority and Ronald Reagan won on his version of dividing America, the public got to see what would happen if they did what they’d been talking about. You know, that old Arab proverb that “Life’s greatest curse is answered prayers.”
So they were preaching to a less-receptive electorate, and they actually had a record where people had seen what had happened when they did what they promised to do. And I think those two things made a huge difference. And that’s what you saw in the narrow re-election of ’04, the stunning size of the Democratic victory in ’06, and the big victory in ’08. We had a better candidate, we had better conditions for the challenging party, but the culture had changed. See, we never knew what would really happen if they got to do what they talked about, and Bush and his Congress gave ’em the whole dose. It was no different than Reagan promised, it was just that Reagan couldn’t do it.
–“Bill Clinton Now,” Esquire Magazine, October 2009, p. 100. http://www.esquire.com/features/bill-clinton-interview-1009
I’m sure Jim will assure us that this has no resemblance with any current political situation.
I’m sure Jim will assure us that this has no resemblance with any current political situation.
The biggest difference I see is that the GOP failed on its own terms: it claimed to be against corruption, an for smaller government, fiscal responsibility and individual liberty, but it delivered the opposite on every count. If the Dems go down they will go down trying to do the very things they promised: health care reform, action on climate change, a tax system and economy that isn’t so tilted in favor of the rich.
Jim, so you’re saying Bill Clinton is wrong in thinking that the Republicans did what they said they were going to do.
“…the public got to see what would happen if they did what they’d been talking about. You know, that old Arab proverb that “Life’s greatest curse is answered prayers.””
Actually, Jim, the Democrats are going down (and will continue to do so) for one reason: Hubris. They really believed they are far more knowledgable on how to live YOUR life than you are. They will continue to push for MORE power over how you live your life (dressed up in things like Health Care, Environment, Taxes). Amazingly, they are so arrogant that it took less than two years in power for the American public to catch on.
For God’s sake, Jim, where’s the tansparency?
…” a tax system and economy that isn’t so tilted in favor of the rich.”
So what percentage of the population should not have to pay income tax? Isn’t 50% enough? Isn’t 20% of the population paying 80% of the burden enough? That crap about taking away from the rich is BS. They earned it, they should get to keep it. You just proved how you’re no different than Hugo Chavez and every other Socialist thief.
Tax season is here. Who’s paying the most federal income tax?
* Top 1% of taxpayers paid 33.9% of all individual income taxes
* Top 5% of taxpayers paid 53.3% of all individual income taxes
* Top 50% of taxpayers paid virtually all individual income taxes
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm
Who’s paying the most federal income tax?
Wrong question. The real question is, who’s paying the most taxes, period? The answer: everyone. When you include all taxes, the five quintiles of Americans (by income) all pay between 14% and 19% of their income in taxes. The poorest quintile is on the high side, at 18%.
Only because the answer doesn’t help the Obama-approved narrative.
Shill.
In fact, when Dead Ted was shilling for Barbara Kennelly (CT-1) in the 1980s, he repeatedly referred to her as “Barbara McNelly”. Mangling peoples’ names seems to be a family trait.
Only because the answer doesn’t help the Obama-approved narrative.
No, because it’s a highly misleading way to approach the question of who carries the burden of paying for public services. When you only look at the federal income tax you encourage the wealthy to see themselves as horribly put-upon, when in reality they’re only paying the same share as the poorest among us (a share that matters less to the wealthy than to the poor).
“When you only look at the federal income tax you encourage the wealthy to see themselves as horribly put-upon, when in reality they’re only paying the same share as the poorest among us…”
A 19% share of 100k is 19k, a 14% share of 32k is 6k. One of these is not like the other.
I’ll tell you one thing more, Jim, I’m tired of people like you telling me I need less money and I should give it to people like you to distribute.
a 14% share of 32k is 6k
Actually it’s 4,500; I think you meant 19%.
A 19% share of 100k is 19k, a 14% share of 32k is 6k. One of these is not like the other.
That’s true. Having one’s income fall from $100k to $81k does not make a big difference in a person’s standard of living; having it fall from $32k to $26k does. The marginal utility of money is greater the closer you are to poverty.
Again I ask, Jim, who the hell do you think you are, to tell someone else how to live their life? To say to someone making 100k a year, he can simply make do with 81k? If he’s spending at a rate of, pick a number, 90k/year (and banking the other 10), then you’ve not only wiped out the savings cushion he’d use if he does have an unforseen rough time of it (going underwater on a house, say?), but also the 9k a year he’d use to buy random miscellaneous things that you or I would probably think of as “unnecessary crap.” What happens then, to the job of the guys earning 20k/year who make that “unnecessary crap” that the wealthy are no longer able to buy? And what impact will it have on those who don’t make 100k/yr, but would someday like to? No production, no prosperity; I see no reason to bust my ass to make something if I get no compensation to the level I demand. See also: Production quotas of Glasnost/Perestroika-era factories in the USSR and Warsaw Pact nations.
To combine the social commentary here with the astroblogging, if the early-adopter wealthy are kneecapped by class-warfare taxes, bills-of-attainder de facto if not de jure, then the private spaceflight community is finished. And if we let the class-warriors dictate to us how we shall live our lives, then we deserve what we get – a focus on the mud instead of the stars.
And what if the person making 100k is making it because of grossly incompetent and greedy playing around with other people’s money? The key word here is “earn”. Banking is an essentially clerical function – redistributing money from savers to borrowers, at least some of the latter using it to invest.
Banks should not be casinos. They should especially not be casinos in which the money that the gamblers are risking isn’t theirs. And shuffling electrons from one database to another is not worth a million a year.
In the UK, we have one especially disgusting example. Royal Bank of Scotland is 84% owned by the British Government, having been bailed out during the crisis – and is still planning to pay out £1.5 billion (around $2.5 billion) to its investment bankers, the very people who caused this mess in the first place. Apparently, this is required by their employment contracts.
I can see several ways around this. One is to simply fire all the Wunch responsible – if bankrupting your employer isn’t gross misconduct, what is? Another is to do something that I am not normally in favour of. It may be contractually necessary to pay these bonuses – but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly at liberty to create a new tax specifically on banking industry bonuses. My suggested level for this would be 100%, retrospective for the maximum allowed by law – which is six years. Yes, that would likely bankrupt some of the Wunch. What a shame.
Fletcher, something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. As a result, banking is worth a lot. So is trading, managing funds, etc.
The latest Rasmussen poll (January 18) shows continued opposition to the health care plan. They also have an extensive polling history for this. Looks like the same level of opposition as last November. An interesting little part of the poll is that 78% of voters expect the plan to cost more than expected. I’m sure someone will find it odd that the US public does not trust the ultra-credible CBO and its projections on the matter.
The latest Rasmussen poll (January 18) shows continued opposition to the health care plan.
But it does not indicate whether opposition is from people who think it will do too much, or too little. One hint: Rasmussen finds 34% support for single-payer (vs. 38% support for the bills in Congress).
Voters don’t like sausage-making; they do like sausage. Approval for health care reform will grow once it’s been passed.
Again I ask, Jim, who the hell do you think you are, to tell someone else how to live their life?
I’m a citizen who thinks we should have a government. If that description fits you as well, then you too are in the business of telling others how to live their lives. I’m not sure why you want to turn a question of policy into one of personal outrage, but it doesn’t strengthen your argument.
And what impact will it have on those who don’t make 100k/yr, but would someday like to?
Well, to start with they will immediately get a bit closer to 100k/yr.
“Don’t take dessert from the well-fed to feed the hungry, they may want to be well-fed someday too.”
if the early-adopter wealthy are kneecapped by class-warfare taxes, bills-of-attainder de facto if not de jure, then the private spaceflight community is finished
Such drama. Would it surprised you to hear that there was entrepreneurship, and high-end luxury tourism, even in the pre-Reagan days with a 70% top tax bracket?
Actually, if this beast goes through, being “hungry” is starting to look pretty good — most of the perks of being rich, but a shitload of free time. Why bust my hump and waste my limited time on this Earth if work is, effecitvely, optional?
Indeed, the Dark side is very seductive…
Karl – Which people? This whole affair is about a gang of thieves paying each other ridiculous amounts of other people’s money. Maybe that’s why bankers and politicians like each other so much.
I for one am not willing to pay for the next Porsche that will be bought by someone who, right now, would be unemployed if he hadn’t been bailed out with my taxes. Are you? But nobody has asked either of us.
Invest your money at a credit union or a local bank. Problem solved.
Titus, it doesn’t matter. This particular gang of thieves are paying each other with taxpayers’ money. So regardless of where my money is (much less of it since this bunch of clowns wrecked the economy), I’m still paying for the bonuses. And I imagine you are too.
One of the few things that Barack Obama is doing of which I approve is to claw back all the bailout money.
Well, that aspect of it I cannot help you with, but I’m not here to tell you what you can’t do.
Everyone is living at the expense of everyone else. That is the zeitgeist. It is a moral fiction in contradiction to Man’s nature. Consequently, there’s going to be a lot of anger. I recommend finding a way to make peace with that fact because, while it cannot go on forever (the US Fedgov will eventually run out of credit and/or foreign resources to exploit), it may continue for our lifetimes.
“Dems go down they will go down trying to do the very things they promised”
ROFLMAO
oh yeah, when the democrats said reform, I’m sure what they really meant was handouts for big industry insiders. What they campaigned on was “we are going to give tons of money to pharma and insurance companies” because that’s what this bill is.
And I remember Democrats also making campaign promises about giving tons of money to wall street and banks. Don’t you? I sure do!
Obama campaigned on spending us into the poorhouse. he said over and over Bush did it and it was a huge mistake, so let’s double down on over spending! I distinctly remember that.
Yeah, they are keeping their promises all right. Keeping the ones they made to the insiders who bankroll their campaigns.
What they campaigned on was “we are going to give tons of money to pharma and insurance companies” because that’s what this bill is.
The bills increase coverage, protect patients, cut costs, and reduce the deficit. Exactly as promised.
Obama campaigned on spending us into the poorhouse. he said over and over Bush did it and it was a huge mistake, so let’s double down on over spending! I distinctly remember that.
He said there’d be stimulus spending to deal with the recession, and there is. He said that he’d cut the deficit over his term in office, and that’s on track. This “over spending” is in your mind — you might ask yourself who put it there, and why.
Actually, if this beast goes through, being “hungry” is starting to look pretty good — most of the perks of being rich, but a shitload of free time
Go ask a poor person if they feel like they have “most of the perks of being rich.”
Why don’t you go ask a poor person in a genuinely poor nation if they feel like they have all the perks of our poor?
More to the point, if I’m already living like a poor person, why should I continue to pay for it if I don’t need to? Obamacare is a big step in that direction. Read the bill, Jim. The subsidies are quite generous close to the poverty line. Overworking is overrated.
Fletcher, regarding the fiscal manipulators…
Full disclosure: I did invest small amounts – in carefully selected companies, working in industries closely related to my own, after consideration of what I observed in market trends and the behavior of these companies. Far from taking other people’s money and gambling with it, I foresaw rising stock prices for these specific firms, and was able to help them meet the demands of their potential customers – with a healthy profit for myself, of course, which was then plowed into further investment. If you are enough of an info-junkie, the process is not difficult.
That said, I don’t understand the financial trading market (as opposed to the above stock market). For that reason, I refused to give them any of my money (that includes mutual funds, 401ks, IRAs, etc). Until TARP, that is, when my consent was apparently no longer required. Up until the meltdown in the fall of 2008, they did quite well doing their thing, while I did mine.
You know, live and let live. It’s amazing how well a society turns out when it uses that concept as its primary guidepost.
In that vein, Jim, simply because a government CAN do something does not mean it SHOULD do something. Telling others how to live the minutiae of their lives is one of those things that a free people will not tolerate. If you are physically unable to get by, and can prove the same whenever asked (frequently, to discourage fraud and abuse, with stiff penalties for same), then by all means, go on the public dole. But that’s not what we’re talking about now, is it? We’re talking about increasing the role played by insurance – the insulation between supply of medical care (doctors) and those who demand it (patients). You cannot do that without destroying the market as it now exists (to the satisfaction of 80% of customers, and with the remaining 20% still getting treatment in compliance with the law). You will do this either by decreasing supply as discouraged doctors leave or refuse to enter the medical field in the first place, or by boosting demand to infinity via unnecessary subsidies. In that case the public dole becomes a trap, where you have the government telling the population that it will purchase through subsidies (“other people’s money”) all the poverty they care to produce. This insatiable demand from government is, as we found out from the Great Society programs, a great way to destroy whatever prosperity existed among that population (see also Thomas Sowell’s comments on increasing prosperity among the black community during the 1950s, prior to the passage of Johnson’s Great Society – and how after it, that prosperity was swiftly destroyed).
As for myself, I recognize that governments produce nothing. Let me repeat that. Governments. Produce. Nothing. Everything they have comes from someone else who produced it as part of their own pursuit (career) of happiness, paid for by the same. If you buy too much, then one day you run out of everyone’s money. At current rates and with the upcoming expansion of payouts to SSI from an empty so-called “lock box,” that day will come for the US Government before the decade is out.
What then, Jim? What happens when the dollar isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, and you propose to pay retirees and government workers out of the empty national kitty? How will you pay for the new programs you propose, on top of the old ones that we already cannot afford? Heck, how do you propose to pay for those old programs in the first place?
Governments. Produce. Nothing. Everything they have comes from someone else who produced it….
You might as well say that Google produces nothing. There’s nothing that comes from Google that you can eat, or burn, or build a shelter with. Everything that Google has — all its data centers, all the money they pay their employees — comes from someone else. Yet the world is richer because Google exists.
Yes, Government takes money from its citizens. And yet the country is richer than it would be if we had that money in our pockets, and no government.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, “taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” He could just as well have said “rich society.”