TBD on Ning
seems people are wising up.....
and realizing just what an astro-turf moment the tea party really was
Boehner to Tea Party: Shut Yourself Down
“Thank you, Mr. President. Signed, John Boehner.”
Deep beneath the year-round tan, the Camel Ultra Lights and the merlot, there beats a grateful heart. Somebody had to take on the Tea Party that has turned Boehner’s tenure as House speaker into a living hell.
About Margaret Carlson»
Margaret Carlson is a Bloomberg View columnist appearing on Wednesdays. A former White House correspondent for ... MORE
FOLLOW ON TWITTERToo bad for Republicans, that someone was a Democrat rather than one of their own, which would have signaled that the party is fit to govern. By calling the bluff of a tiny band of burn-the-place-down Tea Party activists leading their colleagues over domestic (the government shutdown) and global (the debt ceiling) cliffs, Barack Obama exposed the fact that they didn’t come to Washington to fix anything, only to tear everything but air-traffic control down.
The meltdown on Capitol Hill doesn’t mean the end of the Tea Party. In fact, most of those lawmakers accurately point out that they are doing what the constituents in their painfully drawn, one-sided, overwhelmingly white, aging, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, science-denying districts want. Still, there are emerging signs -- from declining poll numbers to the breach with the Republican Party’s traditional business allies -- that the act is getting old. Mess with Democratic totems such as Social Security and nutritional programs for pregnant mothers, send Sarah Palin to Washington periodically to pour salt on open wounds, but don’t mess with Treasury bills and the markets.
Brain Freeze
There was no convincing extremists ahead of time. Like excited children at the fair, the Tea Party had to eat too much ice cream and see the whole party get sick, and even then, they couldn’t stop themselves. But some of them had to be queasy when they saw an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll last week: Only 24 percent of Americans had a favorable view of the Republican Party, the lowest ever. By eight points, the public said it preferred a Congress controlled by the Democrats over one in Republican hands. Positive feelings toward the Tea Party fell to an all-time low.
That would turn the stomach of the heartiest anarchist. Rather than be an enduring movement of concerned grass-roots activists, the Tea Party has become a well-financed faction of the Republican Party bankrolled by business interests such as the Koch brothers to push a narrow agenda of regressive taxes, opposition to unions and the rollback of regulations.
They went too far. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a letter signed by about 250 business groups asking members of Congress to stop their shenanigans. Wall Street titans such as JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) Chairman Jamie Dimon and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein, alarmed that a small band of extremists is blithely considering bringing down the global economy, are pleading with the Republican leadership to rein in the renegades.
Voters may do that for them. Evidence of a declining Tea Party is also apparent in a few of the movement’s strongholds. Take the prince of the Tea Party, Michigan Representative Justin Amash. He tried to depose Boehner as speaker and considered a measure to defund Planned Parenthood not draconian enough. Rather than having to face a challenge from the far right, here comes one from a mainline conservative and pro-business investment adviser, Brian Ellis, who says the way Amash governs is “disruptive and chaotic” -- two words businessmen dislike more than taxes or regulation.
And look what has happened to Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a Tea Party darling since his surprising defeat in 2010 of Robert Bennett, a beloved conservative senator. He’s become sidekick to Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, chiming in during the recent filibuster about a childhood accident and his dream of being a pirate.
‘Wacko Birds’
Lee is one of the new lawmakers who have been dubbed “wacko birds” by Senator John McCain of Arizona. Karl Rove said Lee’s scorched-earth strategy was “the one tactic that might be able to guarantee that the Democrats pick up seats in the Congress in 2014.” Even Lee’s friend and Capitol Hill roommate, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, refused to back his plan to defund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Lee’s favorable rating has dropped 10 percentage points since a June Brigham Young University poll, which doesn’t skew liberal. More than half of Utah voters see him unfavorably; 57 percent said he should be more willing to compromise. In a separate survey, a majority of Utah voters now disapprove of the Tea Party’s influence.
Like Amash, Lee will be challenged from his left. Josh Romney and Dan Liljenquist are waiting in the wings. If Lee survives that primary contest, there’s an excellent chance that Democratic Representative Jim Matheson -- who’s been gerrymandered into unwinnable districts twice but still wins -- could win a statewide race in the reddest state in the country.
Utah Republicans have been heading toward buyer’s remorse for some time. At last year’s convention in Salt Lake City, a robust 125,000 Republicans turned out. This was a reaction to the 2010 convention, when 50,000 Tea Party activists took over and eliminated Bennett in favor of Lee. By 2012, the establishment was back in charge, and Bennett got a long and loud standing ovation. At that same convention, Senator Orrin Hatch easily won the nomination and re-election.
Here’s another suggestion for thank-you notes: “Dear Senator Bennett, thank you for taking one for the establishment. Signed, Senator Hatch.”
And Senator Lee, watch out. Jim Matheson may have a note for you in 2016.
(Margaret Carlson is a Bloomberg View columnist.)
Views: 95
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by A4L on
-
All politics all the time.
Polls and influence.
The ideas of the Tea Party are not represented. And so they are not debated.
Just the endless work to attack them and defame them and "dehumanize" them! Then one can avoid talking with them.
"They want to tear up the place." "They are anarchists."
I suppose the same things might have been said of John Adams in his day.
He and his ideas used to be appreciated and revered by many in this country.
Now it is all about distraction and never dealing with the Constitution unless it serves a previous agenda. -
-
Permalink Reply by ProblemAgain on
-
perhaps you should explore the financing of the tea party....and that financing is why the european press termed it an astroturf movement, an ironic twist upon a grassroots movement. the tea party was essentially financed by our very own robber barons in order to drum up support for actions that would benefit corporations and large wealth even at the expense of the poor and deluded folks who got caught up in the fever of dumbness
-
-
-
My honest opinion is that financing for democrats and republicans and each various faction come from many people and organizations, some with prurient interests and others because they are honest and sincere and want to do what they feel is best for their country.
My interest is in the ideas that to me make sense. I consider myself in line with the Tea Party as far as the Tea Party represents a return to the original ideas and spirit that helped to form this country, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The awareness of human nature that people with power tend to let that power go to their heads.The emphasis on individual freedoms and liberty. And limited intrusion from a governing body that recognizes that it derives it's power from the people (or a federal government deriving it's power from the various states).
If there are crimes that people commit and they are connected to the Tea Party I abhor it.If the strategy may be considered wrong, I can understand that. But I also understand that the Tea Party wants a voice and seeks to be represented.
I know many people that see things similarly to me and identify with the Tea Party.
Any specific points of deceit or illegal activity I would oppose.
To me I am highly interested in having people agree on things like getting rid of corruption and crony capitalism. The lobbyist. Of lowering taxes. Of doing things that help people to do their best, and produce the most. I am not opposed to the government lending a helping hand to those who are truly needy or incapacitated. I do not think that we should spend money without any limit because the cause seems good. If that was taken completely to heart, we would not stop until every soul in every country was fed and clothed and taken care of. We do not do that. We don't legislate goodness or selflessness or love. If we did all of our leaders would give away their riches and wealth until everyone had something equal. We have a mixture of many things. I can live with that, until we start dividing people into groups and instruct others who to hate.
What if we don't hate anyone but just try to argue which ideas are the most beneficial? And look at what is, and has been?I abhor politics and I love common sense and communicating simple ideas that are easy to understand.
I agree with these thoughts from Adams:"We ought to consider, what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all Divines and moral Philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government, which communicates ease, comfort, security, or in one word happiness to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best."
"If there is a form of government then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?"- John Adams
This aspect of "virtue" is lacking today and the opposite is rampant in so much of our present political machine.
Get that back and I will be profoundly hopeful and turned around from my suspicions.
So why not more transparency? More open debates? Why is Obamacare so defended like a perfect unblemished darling and yet many have been exempted contrary to the way the law was originally written? No flexibility?
I totally get how people argued that if we did not get this thing passed that nothing would be done. That to me was the most powerful argument for Obamacare. In that I do believe that getting it passed was hard and many of those who felt so strongly about it admitted that it had problems but the possibility of going this way was very important to some.So why not try to improve it? Why not find middle ground?
Why should congress be exempt and not less fortunate individuals?I just think that there are so many things that could find some bipartisan solutions but it can't happen if we are in the demonizing game so that no one talks "ideas." And it is all about who has evil and ill intentions.
It is what you demonstrate.
Demonstrate that you want to be inclusive if that is your true being.
That is my opinion
-
-
-
neatly skirted but it still doesn't address the actual issue. the problem is that the far right has, since the big win by gingrich et al in the last century, become less a set of political beliefs and more a religion of true believers whose credo would seem to be 'the end justifies the means'. thus you have phony advocacy groups financed by big business interests to make a different and illusory reality manifest for lawmakers to be goaded or go along willingly in ceding to the wants and demands of big money...your beliefs may be well and truly noble and good but they are being hijacked to achieve ends which are definitely NOT in the interests of anyone who actually has the good of the country at heart
" we don’t repeal laws in this country by holding hostage the entire government of the United States.
The bullies are a faction inside the Republican Party – extremists who are threatening more reasonable Republicans with primary challenges if they don’t go along.
And where are the Tea Party extremists getting their dough? From even bigger bullies – a handful of hugely wealthy Americans who are sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into this extortion racket.
They include David and Charles Koch (and their front group, “Americans for Prosperity’); Peter Thiel, leverage-buyout specialist John Childs, investor Howie Rich, Stephen Jackson of the Stevens Group, and executives of JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, (all behind the “Club for Growth”); and Crow Holdings’ Harlan Crow, shipping magnate Richard Uihlein, and investment banker Foster Friess; executives of MetLife and Philip Morris, and foundations controlled by the Scaife family (all bankrolling “FreedomWorks.”)
Their game plan is to not just to take over the Republican Party. It’s to take over America. The showdown over the budget and the debt ceiling is a prelude to 2016, when they plan to run Texas Senator Ted Cruz for President."
-
-
Permalink Reply by Ioruach on
-
I've got to agree with Joe Klein in the current issue of Time, who writes, "It isn't hard to locate the immediate cause of the shutdown and impending debt-ceiling debacle: the radical nihilist minority of the Republican Party and the GOP's craven leadership. Words should not be minced here. These radicals-it is wildly inaccurate to call them conservatives-are a pestilence feeding on ignorance and cynicism, preying on fear as a period of unprecedented prosperity wanes. They are not the apocalypse but represent the desperate last gasp of the white majority and of an era."
-
-
-
here's a great example.....that political selfserving whore ted cruz who a short time ago filibustered against a bill to get publicity and then voted FOR the bill comes out after the deliberations and spews this absolute backwash of bullshit jampacked with errors of fact in order to scare people into supporting his knight with no codpiece posture
The transcript was provided by Federal News Service.
SENATOR TED CRUZ (R-TX): Unfortunately, once again, it appears the Washington establishment is refusing to listen to the American people. The deal that has been cut provides no relief to the millions of Americans who are hurting because of “Obamacare.” The deal that has been cut provides no relief to all the young people coming out of school who can’t find a job because of “Obamacare.” It provides no relief to all the single parents who have been forced into part-time work, struggling to feed their kids on 29 hours a week. It provides no relief to all the hard-working families who are facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums. And it provides no relief to all the seniors, to all the people with disabilities who are right now getting in the mail notifications from their health insurance companies that they’re losing their health insurance because of “Obamacare.”
It is unfortunate that Washington is not listening to the people.
And I want to commend the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives has taken a bold stance listening to the American people. But unfortunately, the United States Senate has refused to do likewise. The United States Senate has stayed with the traditional approach of the Washington establishment of maintaining the status quo and doing nothing to respond to the suffering that “Obamacare” is causing millions of Americans.This is unfortunate, but nobody should be surprised that the Washington establishment is pushing back. Nobody should be surprised at the resistance to change. Let me say the American people in the last few months have risen up in overwhelming numbers. We’ve seen millions of Americans all over this country working to change Washington. That has been incredible progress.
And this fight, this debate will continue until collectively the American people can make D.C. listen, can get real relief for all of the people who are hurt because of “Obamacare.”
You want to know what this fight is about? It’s about one thing. It is about all of the people across this country who are right now facing terrifying decisions because they’re losing their health care, they’re losing their jobs, they’re being left in the cold, and sadly, the United States Senate has said Washington will do nothing.
It has created the problems you’re facing, but Washington will do nothing to address the suffering you’re feeling. That is unfortunate, but this debate and this fight will continue in the months ahead.
Q: Senator, a two-part question here. Number one, will you filibuster?
SEN. CRUZ: What’s the second part?
Q: The second part is if you’re not going to filibuster, will you take a significant amount of time that is not a true filibuster to punt this into tomorrow?
SEN. CRUZ: There have been many questions about the timing of this vote. The timing of this vote, it is my understanding from leadership, is likely to occur today. I have no objections to the timing of this vote, and the reason is simple. There’s nothing to be gained from delaying this vote one day or two days, the outcome will be same.
Every Senator, every member of the House is going to have to make a decision where he or she stands, but there’s no benefit — I’ve never had any intention of delaying the timing of this vote, and indeed, I thought it was interesting reading in the papers that much speculation about whether we might delay the timing of the vote, Republican leadership never asked if I intended to delay the timing of the vote.
My focus is on the substance. My focus is, I think, where the American people’s focus is, which is what are we doing to provide real relief to the people who are hurting because of “Obamacare.” And unfortunately, today, the answer is the United States Senate and the Washington establishment is doing nothing to provide relief for the millions of people who are hurting because of “Obamacare.”
Q: Senator, I’d like to talk to you about where we are right now. As you well know, you have a lot of fellow Republicans really downright angry at you because here we are almost three weeks later, the strategy that you started out on, to defund “Obamacare,” as part of funding the government they never felt was going to work because the votes aren’t there.
And here we are reopening the government after a lot of bruising political warfare internally, and you’ve got nothing for it.SEN. CRUZ: Well, Dana (sp), respectfully, I disagree with the premise of that. I think we have seen a remarkable thing happen. Months ago, when the — when the effort to defund “Obamacare” began, official Washington scoffed — they scoffed that the American people would rise up. They scoffed that the House of Representatives would do anything, and they scoffed that the Senate would do anything.
We saw, first of all, millions upon millions of Americans rise up all over this country. Over two million people signing a national petition to defund “Obamacare.” We saw the House of Representatives take a courageous stand listening to the American people, that everyone in official Washington just weeks earlier said would never happen. That was a remarkable victory, to see the House engage in a profile in courage.
Unfortunately, the Senate chose not to follow the House. And in particular, we saw real division among Senate Republicans. That was unfortunate. I would point out that had Senate Republicans united and supported House Republicans, the outcome of this, I believe, would have been very, very different. I wish that had happened, but it did not.
But it does give a path going forward, that if the American people continue to rise up, I believe the House will continue to listen to the American people, and I hope, in time, the Senate begins to listen to the American people also, because, look, lots of people in Washington love to focus on the politics. It is, unfortunately, the game of this town. But what matters more than any politicians in Washington is all of the people across this country who are hurting right now, who are getting in the mail a notification that the health care they’re relying on for their care, for their parents’ care, for their childrens’ care, that it’s being canceled because of “Obamacare.”
President Obama promised the American people “Obamacare” would lower your health insurance premiums. I would venture to say virtually every person across this country has seen exactly the opposite happen, has seen premiums going up and up and up, and everyone who clicks on “Obamacare” and sees the premiums sees the premiums going up and up and up. President Obama promised the American people, if you like your health insurance, you can keep it. We now know that statement was flat-out, categorically false.People all over this country are losing their health insurance. Fifteen thousand UPS employees got a notification in the mail that they were losing spousal coverage, that their husbands and wives were all losing the health insurance that they wanted and they liked. That is happening all over the country. It’s wrong.
And the focus in my view should not be on the politics of Washington. The politics of Washington at the end of the day doesn’t matter. What the focus should be is on making Washington, D.C., listen to the American people and respond to the very real harms that “Obamacare” is causing to millions of people.
Thank you very much.
-
-
-
come on people...if your underwear is tight, it must be obamacare! this man is a fricking opportunist looking to corral the loonie base that palin and bachman had....and if the republicans fall for his huckstering they will once again look like a clowncar in search of a circus
-
-
-
Problem and Lorouch I read through your responses, and first I want to say that I appreciate them. It may take me a while to try to absorb everything. I still watch a 6 year old, and a special needs 17 year old and try to keep up with my 96 year old mom who has Parkinson's who is living with us along with her care givers, and her state of affairs. Not to mention my wife and two other kids that I endeavor to keep up with and I am also suppose to be working.
My point is not as an excuse, but just to say that I think when you take the time and thoughtfulness to respond as you have, that I do want to do they same in kind, but I just can not be at the computer to do this always at regular intervals.
I still see much of this effort in the media and with the democrats and the establishment republicans and within these blogs to demonize or dehumanize numerous people, especially Ted Cruz. And by all means you have the right, and I accept that you tend towards this because you see him and the Tea Party as something extreme and (you feel I believe) honestly a contradiction to being constructive towards what you think is in the best interests of the country. At least that is my guess.
But What I like to do is try to open my brain and let you see inside what I find attractive and positive in those very same groups only in so far as they put forward "ideas" that resonate with me.
Here are a couple of Alinsky's Rules:
"* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"
In the political game this is very effective and I see it being used.
To me I am most impressed with people that I feel are sincere and try to avoid using anything like these tactics. Again the point is that it is like putting the cart before the horse.
Win the ideological case and if someone is guilty of a real crime or wrong doing, prove it and then throw out the appropriate language to help solidify the point.I want to talk ideas, and discuss criticism based on specific things that can be established apart from a partisan opinion if at all possible.
Why am I this obsessed with this aspect? Because I can talk to a hundred people that agree with me and feel great about what I think or believe. But the people that see things differently can not necessarily be persuaded or affected by my understanding. And as well the facts and views that I hear if I only want to listen to many who side with me is of course "one sided." So it narrows my entire perspective which I see to be a very flawed way to get to the truth or discover more of it.
When I hear people bash the Tea Party or conservatives it does nothing to persuade me, but to make me imagine that there may be a lack of facts on the side of the one doing the bashing.
Do you not feel the same? If I come out shooting down anyone and everyone that represents views that you hold, would that some how convince you? I just doubt it sincerely. Mainly because I understand my own sensibilities.
I feel this entire energy does much harm to us all in that it moves us farther and farther apart because each side is going from viewing the other as misguided to malevolent. Hence trying to have open and civil discussions is more difficult and in no way enhanced.
Yet when I listen to your words in my head as I read, although some I disagree with many I can see myself feeling much as you do from the opposite end. You mentioned: "become less a set of political beliefs and more a religion of true believers whose credo would seem to be 'the end justifies the means."
I have heard from many whether left and right their acceptance of the political realities and how they must be accepted. In the element that it is a game to be won.
When Obama spends exceeding time campaigning I rarely hear anyone on the left say, Oh come on, that is too much politicking. Or when Obama does numerous things to gather support whether monetary or other political capital, I also do not hear to many complaining on the left. So if the ACA was pushed through using any possible bit of political leverage and maneuvering it was felt ok by many because of the "importance" of the goal.
And I hated that, but yet I could comprehend the realities as I said before that people had a recognition that if nothing was passed that zero progress would have been made and even a possible deficit may result (to those that were convinced that something needed to be done). Such seems to be the nature of this political game that I hate. So conversely, when I see republicans trying to take heed to the many that still felt seriously unsettled about the bill, and were pressured to try and take a stand by using their constitutional powers to do what they could to pass a budget that did not fund Obamacare, I see this as on a par with the latter.
To me quite a number of Americans would have felt that the original ACA bill should have not been so long that people voting for it could not possibly know what they were in fact enacting. And that the process should have been transparent and above board as possible. That is just common sense. Do you not agree with me that having professionals do things that they are trained to do is logical? You study something for years and work with it, and then you hopefully learn something that translates into a more productive result than by just flying by the seat of your pants and blindly stabbing at making changes that you can't foresee what the future results may become.
So, yes I think that it is quite true that when one starts to follow the ends justifies the means that it is a horrible precedent to set or to follow. But I also see how in the political world these realities can bend and take different shapes since there are often more than just a two dimensional problem to address or solve.
But saying that, this is why I am very interested in finding common ground things that both left and right could find agreement on with the thought to improve the problems associated with politics.
Anyone that I know is sincere would agree that if we could reduce corruption and cronyism in Washington it would be good for all concerned. That to me would be an area that left and right could agree on. And another one is finding any way possible to make sure that people can know the truth of all major matters of importance. Right now the truth is usually quite different when it is expressed from the left then when it is expressed from the right.
If you can't do something to help anyone on any side to detect the truth that is a flaw that debilitates good results.
Let me just ask one specific question. It seems apparent that you do not hold Ted Cruz up as your ideal public servant based on what you seem to have been indicating.
Cruz said this (in your post):"People all over this country are losing their health insurance. Fifteen thousand UPS employees got a notification in the mail that they were losing spousal coverage, that their husbands and wives were all losing the health insurance that they wanted and they liked. That is happening all over the country. It’s wrong."
Is this true, false or somewhat true? Do you know?
That is a significant number. If this is patently false with no connection to the truth that would definitely lower my consideration of giving Cruz the benefit of the doubt, at the very least to his knowledge of the facts and maybe also to his integrity.
This would be helpful to me.
The only thing that I think helps is having more truth and accuracy and sharing it with one another.
It is not the condemnation I hear of Cruz, but the simple facts that could help me become more enlightened as to the actual state of things. -
-
-
I found this on the web. I am guessing that it is probably a left leaning outlet, but it was the first one I found. It addressed the quote.
I see that it was informative and while it did not say that Cruz's comments were false, they explained why they were in essence not telling a whole story. So, I can consider that it is entirely possible that Cruz heard this info from a right leaning source and went with it, and it may not have at all been considered to him to be inaccurate, but helpful in solidifying his views.
But again this is why, I am so interested in ignoring and forgetting all of the sensationalizing attacks on people. Because if I go to a right leaning group of bloggers that don't trust a publication like the "Nation" I won't hear this side of the story.
I do not wholeheartedly take this mans opinion as purely objective, but I find the info that he added to be exceptionally important in helping to sort through and balance the facts.
You please read on and see what you think. Maybe you will agree with him 150%. But what I am wondering is if anyone here gets what it is I am sort of trying to push towards?The last thing that I want is for people to be made more ignorant.
I know what I am attracted to about the Tea Party, and it is nothing I should be ashamed of, and everything that I should be proud of and appreciative about.
But I feel that we need each other to make all of the people more better equipped to bring about much needed reform to how Washington does in fact do business.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/176711/nothing-ted-cruz-said-about-ac...
"CRUZ: People all over this country are losing their health insurance. Fifteen thousand UPS employees got a notification in the mail that they were losing spousal coverage, that their husbands and wives were all losing the health insurance that they wanted and they liked. That is happening all over the country. It’s wrong.Indeed, UPS said in August that it was ending spousal coverage for 15,000 employees and blamed, in part, the ACA. But Cruz isn’t telling even one-tenth of the story.
Once again, we turn to Jonathan Cohn. Here’s what’s important to understand: first, long before Obama became president, companies were jettisoning spousal coverage plans. That type of dual-coverage was a relic of the days when only one spouse (usually the man) worked, but as more women headed to the workplace, such plans became an increasingly expendable option.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just ...
No doubt the health law is imposing some additional costs on employers, though once again Cruz elides any debate over the benefit trade-offs involved. But even UPS is emphasizing (not that Republicans will listen) that the ACA isn’t a controlling factor in ending spousal benefits. “One way of saying this is that we are restructuring our benefits ‘because of the ACA’—but that’s not accurate,” Andy McGowan, a UPS spokesman, told Cohn. “We are doing this because we are looking at many different factors adding to our costs, and ACA is one of them.”
Finally, you might have wondered if UPS only has 15,000 employees. It does not! The company is only ending the benefits of spouses who already have a job where they can get health insurance. In other words, not a single person is actually losing coverage because of this move. Cruz doesn’t mention that"
"a UPS spokesman, told Cohn. “We are doing this because we are looking at many different factors adding to our costs, and ACA is one of them.”
So it is accurate, but absolutely could be considered to be overstated.
But consider that we were told that our insurance premiums would not go up.
Mine did. Others that I have talked to had similar experiences very soon after the ACA bill was enacted.
So if saying things that are inaccurate is all that is needed to blast major epitaphs at politicians, then one should be consistent with that principle.
Anyway thanks again for your input because I definitely learn much more here then in an echo chamber!!! -
-
Permalink Reply by exedir on
-
After the victory lap on the end of the shutdown and debt extension for 2013, what is happening and going to happen to ObamaCare will take the center stage of the media and chattering class much less, by the politicians, and no this isn't done, not by a long shot.
As to the echo chamber, unavoidable with 24/7 coverage by at least three major cable news networks(yes, you could throw in CNBC as a fourth) that attempt to segment the viewing audiences. And yes, it is all about the entertainment value and commercial revenue as to what is presented as the factual content and context be it fair and balanced, or not. Beliefs and opinions are used as expressions of facts, useful to the talking heads to support viewpoints, if not of themselves, their viewers.
As my favor saying goes...
Liars, Damn Liars and Statistics...
-
-
-
american employers have been cutting back on worker's benefits for the last 20 years. therefore we are seeing the vanishing of defined benefit plans for retirement (those essentially are being replaced by the 401-k's which is an underwriting of the market value of the company by the employees as it helps to drive stock values up by 'demand').
another cutback has been in medical or health insurance where employers have reduced the coverage to only the employee unless the employee signs his family up and then is billed the extra amount charged in the premiums. this has even gone down to employees of government in some cases where only the particular employee is covered and to cover the spouse or children is an out of pocket expense. and this was all way BEFORE the ACA. but the demonizing that you speak of has been the republicans hurling accusations and charges about the ACA in an attempt to turn healthcare back over to the large corporations without regulations for fair treatment. to believe otherwise is to deny actual facts and to believe that the insurance companies are not actually for profit businesses run to reward the executives and the stockholders with healthcare comprising only the goods they are selling at a profit.
i notice you did not address the funding of the teaparty, the heritage foundation, americans for prosperity etc.
and i stand by my view of ted cruz as an opportunistic schmuck who seeks fame and fortune for himself by running out in front of the pack and declaring himself the leader of the parade. he is an embarrassment to texas in the same vein as david dewhurst, rick perry , louis gohmert and others..
-
-
-
"but the demonizing that you speak of has been the republicans hurling accusations and charges about the ACA"
I put the Alinsky rules there to make the connection of the use of demonizing or dehumanizing in order to win at pretty much all costs. Again end justifies the means.
If you demonize someone in order to bypass talking about what they say it is an avoidance tactic and not an attempt to open up a debate or a discussion.
calling people names is not of much significance in trying to learn what the truth is about them or their ideas and create more understanding.
Being critical but pointing out what you feel is wrong is often legitimate in order to explain a position or idea. -
© 2024 Created by Aggie.
Powered by
