You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (14)

PLAYS: (41)

Can we get another stimulus package and ignore the Republicans and their tax cuts this time please? From This Week, Paul Krugman agrees with his fellow Nobel laureate, Joseph Stiglitz that there is a good chance that the economy is going to contract in the second half of 2010.

TAPPER: OK, we are getting close to short on time but I do want to ask you a question about the economy for 2010. Your fellow laureate, Joseph Stiglitz has said there's a significant chance the U.S. economy will contract in the second half of 2010. He's calling on the government to prepare a second stimulus. Do you think that's possible?

KRUGMAN: Yes, it's a reasonably high chance. I don't think it's more -- it's less than 50/50 odds, but you know, what we've got right now is a recovery that first of all is not showing up very much in jobs yet. It's being driven by fiscal stimulus which is going to fade out in the second half of next year and by inventory bounce. You know, production was low because companies were running on their inventories. They're stopping doing that so now you've got a bounce in the economy.

But that's also going to run out. So the things we know about are all going to be negative in the second half of next year. Now the financial markets, the last month, the financial markets have gotten really optimistic. You look at things like the term spread on bond rates. They suggest that the financial markets really think there is going to be a much more vigorous recovery. I don't see where it's supposed to come from, so the range is huge here. I would basically go with Joe Stiglitz. I'm really worried about the second half.

From Digby:

Boy I hope he's wrong about this.

[...]

Atrios agrees.

Tim Geithner, on the other hand, is confident that everything's coming up roses. Take your pick.

Digby and I have talked a lot about the mandate issue being presented by the health-care bill for months now, and a lot of great blogs have been hitting it too. A new poll done by Research 2000 for the PCCC and DFA says American voters will hate this bill if there are mandates and no public option.

If American voters aren't going to see any immediate pluses to their overall health care and are forced to pay into the mandates of the health care bill then how will the voters feel about the new outlay of cash? A good many will probably just pay the penalty instead of signing up and will be just as pissed, and that's coming from the left. The right-wing crazies will hate it even if it significantly helped their lives. so the debate has really focused on the differences on the left. We have captured the debate.

Duncan writes:

I know I'm a broken record on this subject, but I do think it's the thing most lacking from the insider conversations on HCR. Not that I really know, because I'm not an insider, but occasionally I get a wee sense of what's actually occupying staffers in various places. "Voters liking this thing" seems to be at best an afterthought.

It's sorta weird, really, because on most subjects it's the first thing they think of, both about the policy itself and the myriad imaginary attack ads that can be run based on the policy. If voters don't like this thing, it'll likely be repealed before most of it even takes effect, either because Republicans take over or because frightened members of a Dem controlled Congress do so. Sure, there's the optimistic view that it could be "made better" instead of repealed, but I'm not really feeling all that hopey.

No matter what the tosser Ron Brownstein says, liberal activists want health-care reform much more than Villagers can imagine, but we don't want it if it does nothing more than enrich insurance corporations and in the end never accomplish much of the goals that the defenders of the Senate bill are saying.

Lieberman and the Villagers are more interested in protecting the DC insider crowd than they are reforming health care for America.

And to show how lacking his argument is, Brownstein tries to paint us as the racists. Brownstein should check out a few teabagger rallies. And to dismiss the complaints we have as "ideological" shows how petty the elitists truly are.

There's only a few hours left. I love all the contestants, but if you have a minute please vote for Digby to win the Air America Cruise contest. She's my friend and a great thinker for the progressive movement.

She's behind by a lot of votes because she has never written anything about the contest, so click on through and vote.

The debate rages on as to whose fault it is that we find ourselves in the situation that Joe Lieberman can decide to cut whatever he likes out of the health-care reform bill and tongue kiss Dana Bash while doing it. Was the Obama administration so naive that they didn't think they needed to cut a deal with Lieberman on health care as soon as he won the election? Joe actually supported John McCain to the bitter end and bloggers made the argument that Joe should go from the beginning of his term, but the leadership decided to keep him on board.

Yes, the health-care fight was never going to be easy so why didn't David Axelrod secure Joe's vote on health-care before it got off the ground? It boggles the mind. We all know what prima donnas conservative Democrats are in the Senate. It's quite clear that Lieberman is only interested in punishing liberals and not helping Americans. They knew who he was. He wasn't f*&king hiding. He was stumping for McCain!

Howie Klein, Digby and I all thought that the Senate was ultimately going to call the shots at the end. I always figured the House would pass a fairly progressive bill, but it was the ConservaDems in the House of Lords who would be the problem. So that's why Blue America targeted Blanche Lincoln. She was the only senator up for re-election and had to face the voters in 2010.

Matt Yglesias makes a good case as to why this mess isn't really Obama's fault, but I don't agree with all of it.

I think there’s something perverse in the very strong desire I see among liberals to make problems in congress be about anything other than congress. It’s just not in the power of Barack Obama to make the senate anything other than what it is. To pass a bill, you need sixty votes. To get sixty votes you need Ben Nelson or Olympia Snowe to back your bill. Neither Nelson nor Snowe is especially liberal, and the President doesn’t have a great deal of leverage over either of them. You can try to change the rules, or you can accept that you’re at the mercy of Nelson and Snowe and maybe a few other moderate members.

And it’s crucial to remember that these people—each and every member of congress—is an adult human being, capable of making up his or her own mind, responsible for his or her own decisions, and possessed of moral agency. These are men and women who have amassed a great deal of power, and who ultimately need to decide on a daily basis what it is they want to do with that power. If they choose to use it for bad ends, then blame them for that, not Obama or his team’s alleged lack of familiarity with the United States Senate.

I really like Matt's writing. First, I never thought Tom Daschle was the guy for the job because he whipped the Dems to vote for the war in 2002, but maybe I'm wrong there. Obama is still the president and he won a mandate with health-care reform on the table. I think part of the problem is their inexperience in real-world governance and especially in handling a piece of legislation this massive and this momentous.

I believe that President Obama does want to pass good health-care reform, but you can't use the same tactics that were used for running a general election campaign and apply them to legislation. Not with the Senate vacant of any decent Republican human beings. The president is a wonderful speaker and a great communicator, but there was no way he could swoop in at the end and save the day like he was able to do in the general election. Policy does not work like that as we've just seen.

Digby writes:

I'm not sure how that will all work out in the end. But I'm fairly confident that the deficit scolds are getting ready to launch a full scale offensive on government spending, so "improving the bill" in any financial way is probably not going to be on the agenda any time soon, certainly not with a looming election and tanking poll numbers. And with the president's approval rating suffering not simply due to health care reform, but because of unemployment and economic torpor, what we get in this health care reform bill had better be enough to last us for quite a while.

Since the media loves Lieberman and everything he stands for, no matter what bill is passed he'll suddenly be the face of it and the Villagers will rejoice.

And Duncan adds:

I feel like those more supportive of this bill are attacking anti-mandate strawmen. The reason for thinking that without a public option or similar mandates are going to be a disaster is that without competition or sufficient affordability (due to not quite generous enough subsidies), you're forcing people to buy shitty insurance that they can't afford. Mandates aren't bad in and of themselves, but they're bad if they aren't part of a comprehensive plan which is... good!

Cohn:

Now, the reforms moving through Congress won't produce a system as comprehensive as what the Netherlands or Switzerland has. But that's not because of the individual mandate, which actually makes a lot of sense. (Read here if you want chapter and verse on that.) That's because the subsidies and regulation in these bills aren't as generous and strong as they could be.

In other words, you're forcing people to buy shitty insurance that they can't afford. Why would anyone possibly object to that?

The sickness known as "teabaggers" are preparing another shameful display of their utter contempt for the American people.

Via Digby:

This is lovely:

So here’s the plan. On Tuesday, December 15 at 8:45 AM thousands of us will meet in Washington, DC at the fountain in Upper Senate Park. From there we will march to the Senate offices, go inside, and demonstrate our opposition to the government takeover of health care. We call this plan “Government Waiting Rooms”. The intention is to go inside the Senate offices and hallways, and play out the role of patients waiting for treatment in government controlled medical facilities. As the day goes on some of us will pretend to die from our untreated illnesses and collapse on the floor. Many of us plan to stay there until they force us to leave. A backup location for this demonstration will be announced if they block us from entering the offices.

We need as many of you as possible to be there to make our point loudly and clearly. Please make plans to attend. We know it’s a sacrifice to do this right before Christmas. But throughout history American Patriots have made far greater sacrifices than this to protect our liberty. Now the burden (and the honor) falls on us.

Of course, they don't actually have to stage some demonstration of the horrors of health care rationing. We have examples of exactly that happening in real life right this minute. Here's one in Kansas City

--
Maybe these teabaggers think that those people don't count and that somehow they'll personally all be spared from these circumstances if they lose their jobs or get sick. I hope for their sake it's true. But the truth is that among those who are staging this little stunt, it's extremely likely that a percentage of them are going to be participating in this rationing in real life at some point. And there is no way of predicting which ones it will happen to. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...

When karma hits, these psychos will surely face the same fate as all those Americans who went to the Kansas City Free Clinic. Someday they will witness the health of people they care about collapse, and without decent insurance, and they won't be laughing about it. But they are so hypnotized by the wingnut propaganda that when their own loved ones face the same fate at a later date, they then will blame the federal government for doing nothing. These are dangerous idiots.

The Mahablog: Is America irrevocably ungovernable?

digby: Legal sanity in NY

Charles Rowley's Blog: The Dog That Does Not Bark

AverageBro: I guess I'm a racist, too

Guys from Area 51: Ignoble Prizes

Newshoggers: Chuck Kramer's Ode to Christmas

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (67)

PLAYS: (208)

Glenn Beck makes Ed Schultz's Psycho Talk segment for this nonsense--Beck: We Should ‘Just Abolish Medicare’:

Yesterday, Senate Democrats working on health care reform reached a compromise on the public option that will create a network of nonprofit insurers and allow Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 to buy into Medicare. The right has hypocritically opposed a government-run public-option while simultaneously defending Medicare. On his radio show today, Fox News host Glenn Beck called Medicare what it is — a “government-run health care plan.”

Beck attacked the new compromise and proposed a simple solution of his own — “abolish Medicare”.

Continue reading...

Digby had this to say about it--Why Don't They All Get Jobs?:

You have to wonder if Beck is aware of the average age of his audience demographic? [...]

Update: Attatuk thinks it probably doesn't matter --- and he's probably right.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (182)

PLAYS: (568)

This whole "White House Party Crasher" story is a look into the minds of the media elites that are promoting it. The Villagers certainly have their knickers in a bunch over this dastardly couple who got into the State dinner. Howard Kurtz did a segment on it today which looked like it was going to delve into the media's obsession of this story, but it quickly turned into a justification of their actions. Two WaPo reporters were on CNN today discussing how they broke the story, but even they didn't believe it would amount to more than a few days of news. The Villagers would have none of that.

Here's Roxanne Roberts and Amy Argetsinger telling us what's what.

KURTZ: And not just yours. As we saw, everybody was talking about it.

Look, in the first 48 hours, it seemed to me, there was a legitimate concern about security. The Secret Service apologized. People -- anyone said, gee, how could somebody who wasn't invited get so close to the president of the United States? But now, it seems to me, that's kind of a fig leaf for our interest in the more gossipy aspects of this story.

Howard Kurtz made a point about the seriousness of this idiocy. I'd say resentment should be part of his analysis too. How dare these bumpkins get into their very private elitist party. They must pay, and so does anyone from Obama's administration who dared let them in.

ARGETSINGER: But they are under investigation now by the state of Virginia, not just because of allegations about their charity, but because of allegations about their entire polo match that they've been throwing the past three years.

They're in some pretty serious trouble. And this is the thing, we don't really know. They seem to be enjoying themselves in front of the cameras, but they may be well aware of the fact that they're in very grave trouble right now.

KURTZ: But at the same time, they're sort of milking this. I mean, they go on "The Today Show" and they make themselves available for the cameras. I mean, if they skate by without any legal complications, they could be one of the most famous reality show couples.

ARGETSINGER: Well, this is the big question.

KURTZ: We're aiding and abetting this by talking about it now.

ARGETSINGER: This is a big question. I mean, does Bravo have a liability on their hands, or is Bravo sitting on a gold mine with this footage? They've had this couple on film for the past three months.

KURTZ: If it was just Tareq Salahi, and his blonde wife was not part of the picture, would we still be talking about this?

ROBERTS: It wouldn't be nearly as interesting. I mean, what makes this story, what takes this from sort of an interesting one-or- two-day story, is the fact that this couple is so over the top and so flamboyant.

There are so many stereotypes -- the thin, ambitious blonde, who was never, in fact, a Redskins cheerleader. All the tall tales that they've told, all those things, that's what makes it so fascinating.

KURTZ: Maybe that's why the media aren't letting this go. And, of course, this hasn't fully played out, so we'll get to talk about it maybe next week.

The Villagers need to keep going with the story because this couple is just too damn flamboyant. The media have taken it to the max and it doesn't look like they'll let it go any time soon. Their rage is focused on the White House social secretary named Desiree Rogers---so in essence it's actually directed at Michelle Obama. With all that is happening in America today, these nitwits are screaming on and on about this couple that they find odious. The security breach should be thoroughly checked out, but this couple appear on every damn news show like they have stolen national security secrets. And we're told that the reason they still are a big story is because they keep on lying and being weird.

Digby has been following this story and it reminds us of the time the media went ballistic against Hillary Clinton:

The fatuous gasbags were all atwitter yesterday that the White House is "stonewalling" to protect their "old Chicago pal" Desiree Rogers, the White House social secretary. As I said the other day, this is rapidly turning into a "travelgate" type Village scandal and someone is going to have to go down, preferably one who falls under the auspices of Michelle Obama, who has clearly made some kind of social error.

Just as Travelgate was about Hillary Clinton failing to respect the social pecking order by installing old Arkansas friends in a job in which the press had a personal stake, (Ryan's comments about "overshadowing" notwithstanding) I'm pretty sure this is about Michele and "her pal" somehow not respecting the pecking order and failing to understand just how sacrosanct are the invitation lists to the White House. (You'll recall that Michelle had a press avail the day of the state dinner and mentioned that she regretted not being able to invite everyone, which I thought was rather odd at the time.)

The lesson has long been clear. You do not mess with the Village tabbies. They have far more power than you might think.

Calculated Risk: Fed Chairmen never learn. Meanwhile, in the UK the gubmint is trying to rein in the bankers...

Little Green Footballs: Has seen the light!

Pulp Friction: America has become one big, crappy reality show

Pressing Issues: No terrorist angle, not news

Legal Schnauzer: A "Deep Throat" emerges in the Mike Connell plane crash

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: Journalism 2009...Dana Milbank is an ass...Politico reports wingnut talking points as news...Cato rips Fox...Politico deep in the tank..."Bold Strategy"...Moonie Times to lay off 40% of 'staff'...WH Mainstream hacks object to bloggers...Watching America...Steyn/Beck's Fakes of Wrath...Celebrity Nonsense...Don't think, kill!...Ask This

The Villagers obsess about the mythical "independent" voters. This time we have Tweety and his crew discussing over and under fifty five year old crowd. And guess where they stand.

Did you know that Luke Russert is the new political It Girl?" From now on, I'm calling him Clara Bow.

Digby explains.

Little Luke:That's what all signs are point to right now. But the interesting thing we can take away from this is a point that NBC producer Ken Strickland made that I think is great. It's that Harry Reid, no matter what happens, he is showing to the liberal base that he has done everything in his power to get a bill with a public option to the floor at least up for debate.

This satisfies the liberals, this satisfies the MoveOn.org crowd, and really, I think it will show him to be the standard bearer of the liberal cause, Andrea.

Andrea Mitchell: Luke Russert, you're in the right place with the best story in town. Thanks so much.

Young Luke is quite the analyst. You can see why he was vaulted to the top of the American news business over the heads of others who have far more training, brains and ability. It's in the blood.

Just in case anyone missed it, Little Luke thinks that actually getting a public option in the bill isn't important to liberals -- the real victory is that the public option got to the floor. Apparently, Villagers think this whole thing was simply a bid for attention and now that the savvy Reid has delivered that, it doesn't matter what the bill has in it, we just love him to death. After all, liberals would certainly would never be so bold as to forget our place and think we might actually win something. How silly.

To the wise and worldly Little Luke, liberals are children to be appeased with gestures and shiny objects. I wonder where he learned that?

The Villagers are covering their asses because they declared the public option dead a long time ago, so now the story is that we're all happy little Cheeto-eaters because Harry Reid got it this far. What morons. And they wonder why blogs are cutting into their world. Maybe Luke is just looking for more college football tips.

Gawker has a little more.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (47)

PLAYS: (218)

I'll refer to Digby for more on this one. I heard Jessica Yellin call anyone who doesn't like Dick Cheney a "hater" and couldn't believe my ears, but Digby summed up the entire segment much better than I could ever hope to so I'll let her take it from here...Moonbeams And Starshine.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1233)

PLAYS: (3840)

I want to propose a new amendment be added during the conference committee when the House and Senate get together to merge the health-care reform bills. I know the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will love it, since they are officially members of Congress now. Here it is.

All pro-life male members of Congress who ejaculate without the express intent of making a baby will be considered to have had an abortion. (This will include airport-bathroom encounters.) Under this new rule, the male pro-life members then must fall in line with the same restrictions to health care as women will have to under the Stupak Amendment. Then starting in 2013, all pro-life men in America will be covered under this provision as well.

Remember, sex is for one thing and one thing only. I believe a man has an even greater responsibility than a women does just by the fact that the Congress is made up of mostly men.

Out of the 56 women in the Democratic caucus, only two voted for Stupak. All 17 Republican women voted for it.

What this adds up to is that 97% of the Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment were male. 90% of the Republicans were male.

I would have to guess that if more than 17% of the congress were women, there would be a little bit less likelihood that women's rights would be so often used as a handy tool to placate neanderthals.

If men want to lead this country in the debate about abortion, then they should show real leadership and take responsibility for their behavior. Are you with me, Bishops? A woman can't just stand around and get pregnant. She needs our seed to be planted in her garden, so why should a woman be held to a higher standard than a man? Is that the democracy and freedom our troops are fighting for?

I'm sure the USCCB will gladly jump on board with this because they are in the sex business and are considered the world's No. 1 experts in that field. They understand better than any living person how a baby is made -- after all, they are Bishops. Imagination is a wonderful thing and can inform and educate people who have never experienced sex. Wow, who knew?

Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog!: Lying runs in the family

The Hunting of the Snark: Greasing the Skids

Calculated Risk: Unofficial Problem Bank list grows to 500

La Gringa's Blogicito: Possible resolution to political crisis in Honduras

Ken Silverstein: Six questions for Desmond Travers on the Goldstone Report

The Impolitic: Big Friday news dump

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association has released their own version of the AHIP propaganda report.

By releasing a transparently hyperbolic and self-serving study on the effects of health reform, the insurance industry appears to have blundered in a big way. They discredited themselves in the eyes of the media elite, alienated potentially sympathetic members of Congress, and rallied Democrats around a common foe.

So what are they doing now? They seem to be trying the same stunt again, with a brand new study. It's not as deceptive as the last one. But it's not going to win any points for intellectual honesty, either.

This time the study's sponsor is the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA), rather than America's Health Insurance Programs. The hired gun accounting firm is Oliver Wyman, instead of PriceWaterhouseCoopers. But the message is the same as before: Pass reform, as currently envisioned, and insurance premiums will go way up...read on

Cohn thinks this report is slightly better than the last one, but they both end the same. If we implement health care reform they promise to raise your rates. Why isn't the media reporting this? They are threatening American lives and families and this should not be tolerated.

Digby also catches this and is not a happy camper about it either.

Can someone please explain to me why this isn't a blatant threat? Nice little health care system you have here. Be a shame if anything happened to it.

In a normal country, this kind of corporate threat, in which they openly say that unless they get their way, they will raise premiums sky high and make everyone suffer, would be considered criminal. After all, premium pricing is entirely in their hands --- and that's why we are in the terrible situation we are in today.

This is f*&king criminal. I'm sitting here and having a nice dream. I see Harry Reid acting like a real majority leader telling Congress that this is unacceptable. And then he fades to black and I'm transported to the House of Representatives. They are spending the day rebuking these reports for the phonies that they are and they pass legislation that makes it a criminal offense with a maximum of up to three years in jail for any lobby-bastards who put out bogus reports that are circulated to intimidate Americans. Now this is a fantasy I know, but they do spend hours of time making dedications of parks to the rich and famous people and in my fantasy they spend a couple of hours and threaten all groups that actively work to undermine legislation with lies.
And Alan Grayson leads the charge.

By the way, PricewaterhouseCoopers took so much heat for their frakked up AHIP report that they issued this statement.

PricewaterhouseCoopers, the authors of AHIP's report, put out a statement last night that basically said, "Hey, we weren't paid to evaluate the effects of the entire bill, but rather a small slice of it." The statement only seems to reinforce critics' view that the report is skewed precisely because it doesn't take into account the totality of reform. PwC's report estimates that insurance premiums will rise faster under the proposed reforms than under the current system.

The last, and key, line from the statement: "If other provisions in health care reform are successful in lowering costs over the long term, those improvements would offset some of the impacts we have estimated.”

In other words, PwC is saying if reform's cost containment measures work, their estimate could be wrong.

So they are admitting that AHIP were liars. Nice.