It amazes me how so called progressives are supporting a candidate who is so beholden to the special interests and PACs that you profess to abhor. Just take Tsongas’ recent FEC 48 hour report.
She raised $36,000 on Thursday in $1000 or more donations. Of this $36,000 only one donation was from the district, one donation. Who made up the bulk of these donations? PACs and special interests, including Anti-Castro PAC USA-Cuba Democracy PAC which is pro-embargo, not exactly the progressive position.
The people of the 5th District are seeing right through this. They want a congressman from the district, not one from outside the district bought and paid for with outside money.
Please share widely!
came from a PAC you have a specific problem with and this is your issue? This while your Pres is threatening to veto health care for kids?
1/36 of one Day’s fundraising CAME FROM the EFFING DISTRICT
<
p>
The rest came from outside the District and from PACS and Congresscritters(with all due respect to raj). I put one particular PAC that I thought you’d all be upset with.
<
p>
Follow the link my friend. Niki is paid for and bought lock stock and barrel by Special Interests. She will not represent the people of the 5th District she will represent the interests of Insiders.
with all due respect to raj
<
p>
…supposed to refer to?
congresscritter, I was attributing it to you. It might be someone else on the blog.
I thought you trademarked the term
<
p>
I don’t know if I have even used the term here. But I have seen it used on more than a few message boards and blogs.
…but I’m certain I got it from someone else. I like to use it because it’s gender neutral and sounds so much better to Congresspeople and is somewhat condescending to the powers that be.
It’s been around a while. Only problem is that it’s so long.
<
p>
Can we agree on simply “Congresser”?
calm down. this race is important, but not the end of the world. certainly not worth becoming uncivil over.
every single egg the MA GOP has is in the MA-05 basket. That’s why EaBo and his cohorts become apoplectic every time there’s even the teensiest bump in the road or the most minor criticism leveled at their candidate — to say nothing of the emergence of a major issue on which their candidate is obviously wrong and out of step with mainstream America and mainstream MA-05.
<
p>
If they lose this one, the state party is dead, dead, dead. What else have they got to live for? That’s what explains the spittle all over EaBo’s screen.
…in this case I tend to agree with EaBo. I, for one, believe that campaign donations should not come from outside the district, state, or country (depending on the office).
<
p>
I also believe that people who are pushing initiative petitions should be allowed to use paid signature gatherers to gather signatures for the petitions.
<
p>
Fairly consistent.
<
p>
One wonders, just how much money Ogonowski has raised from the district, in comparison with Tsongas. Maybe EaBo knows. I don’t live in the district (I live in Frank’s district) so I haven’t been following the campaign or its issues.
<
p>
Sorry.
<
p>
I gave $25 to Jim the other day and I moved out of Mass last year.
<
p>
My bad.
My belief, not yours.
I also believe that people who are pushing initiative petitions should be allowed to use paid signature gatherers to gather signatures for the petitions.
<
p>
should be
<
p>
I also believe that people who are pushing initiative petitions should not be allowed to use paid signature gatherers to gather signatures for the petitions.
But I am helping in this race to win. We’ve not put all our eggs in this basket. But Jim Clearly the better candidate, and would be best for the district I called home for the first 32 of my 34 years. Electing Niki Tsongas gets you more of the same.
<
p>
As far a SCHIP goes, institute identification requirements. It’s simple and easy. Even Niki in the debate said she understood that the door is open to illegal immigrants to abuse the system.
<
p>
I have other problems with SCHIP that Jim doesn’t necessarily share. I don’t believe the government should be involved in giving healthcare to families making $82,000 a year.
This $82K nonsense is made up, and you know it. We’ve already been through this once, and you didn’t respond on that thread — you just keep repeating the same Bush-approved mantra.
<
p>
Actually, I’ve noticed that that’s a pattern with you. You put out some incendiary “fact,” someone calls you on it and provides actual information showing that your “fact” was wrong, and then you go away. No apology, no retraction, no “hey, thanks for the info.” Just radio silence. Poor netiquette, at best.
<
p>
And of course all the state GOP’s eggs are in this basket. You haven’t got a prayer anywhere else until 2010 at the earliest, when maybe you’ll convince Charlie Baker to run for Governor — if you can interest him in the massive pay cut and get him to control his temper. Good luck with that.
This is from the Commonwealth Forum. An organization which supports SCHIP.
<
p>
<
p>
There it is plain and simple 400% of poverty level. It’s not full coverage but is subsidized. Take out that language and I’m there.
Did you even READ the comments on the other thread, where I went to the trouble of digging out the relevant section from the bill and explaining how it works, and why it’s not an across-the-board expansion to 400% FPL?
<
p>
Obviously not. OK, here we go, nice and slow.
<
p>
1. The SCHIP bill raises eligibility from 200% FPL to 300% FPL.
<
p>
2. However, at least one state — New York — has already gone to 400% FPL, I think via a waiver process.
<
p>
3. Those states (I don’t know if New York is the only one, or if there are others) are grandfathered in.
<
p>
4. Therefore, New York can continue to provide subsidized coverage up to 400% FPL. Most (all? I’m not sure) other states cannot.
<
p>
5. The article you link to is by Eliot Spitzer.
<
p>
6. Eliot Spitzer is the Governor of — that’s right! — New York, and he’s talking specifically about how SCHIP is going to work in New York.
<
p>
If you want to argue “the facts” with me, please don’t just cite opinion pieces, regardless of where they’re from. Cite to the bill, as I did. Quote the language, as I did, and explain why it does what you say it does, rather than what I say it does. In short, do the work. Otherwise, I cannot take you seriously.
<
p>
You said “[t]ake out that language and I’m there.” The language you’re worried about doesn’t exist. So, are you with us?
<
p>
I admit your statement without comment as to its irrelevancy.
<
p>
<
p>
Waiver process, macy’s day parade, march on the capital. Again, why relevant? NY takes families earning in excess of $80K and they’re entitled to welfare. Lament the kids, think of the children but call schip what it is: welfare.
<
p>
You do admit, that with the passage of the bill, families in NY earning in excess of $80K per year qualify then for welfare? If you have no problem with this, then sally on; we have to agree to disagree.
<
p>
New Jersey entitles families earning over $72,275 to be on welfare. Oh, you’ll say: 1) grandfathered in 2) waiver process 3) winner of the lamest state award 4) think of the children 6) look at all the EPA dump site Jersey has 5) all of the above.
<
p>
You seriously have no problem with obvious middle to upper class families being on welfare?
<
p>
NJ link: http://www.washingto…
<
p>
<
p>
Well, excuse me. Grandfathered in. There go all reasonable opposition arguments out the door, because if it’s grandfathered in, it must be right.
<
p>
<
p>
Right! Ny has 400% (families up to $80K); NJ has 350% (families up to $70K); MA, 300% (families up to $62K).
<
p>
<
p>
Spitzer is an ass. I know, my statement isn’t relevant, but I enjoyed typing it. Yours neither. Moving on.
<
p>
<
p>
There’s not a governor in the US who’ll oppose SCHIP expansion without other motives: it’s Federal largess at no state expense.
<
p>
I’ll give you this: the “think of the children” is great
con job, PR. First, create a wave of imaginary children of a family earning $40K, $50K, $60K or more; lament this imaginary child’s plight; point to a program that will save him, wrap yourself in a SCHIP flag. Repeat.<
p>
But, I’m nearly persuaded, you’re right. This tragic story:
<
p>
Think of the children and families who, earning only $56K per year, can only afford BASIC CABLE. http://www.bloomberg…
<
p>
For God’s sake! Pass the SCHIP bill Mr. Bush, it’s BASIC CABLE!
<
p>
when I got to the bottom of this comment and saw who its author was. For a while, there, I was thinking that maybe EaBo had at least tried to engage the facts, and I considered that to be progress. But no such luck!
<
p>
On the merits: if you think two parents in (relatively expensive) NJ, each working full-time making $36K to support themselves and their two kids, is “obvious middle to upper class,” then we must, as you say, “agree to disagree.”
<
p>
As for SCHIP being “welfare,” call it what you want. If you think every instance in which the government supplies a benefit is “welfare,” then that’s what you think. But that is irrelevant to the merits of the argument. It’s just an “oogity-boogity” bad word tactic.
<
p>
You can make all the “think of the children” cracks you want, but this one actually is about whether sick kids in families who don’t have a lot of money will have health care.
It would be refreshing, wouldn’t it?
<
p>
It’s obvious middle class because it’s more than the median family income in Jersey, which is $57K. If you think otherwise, then somehow, you’re concluding that most of Jersey’s families are not middle class. Strange logic when median isn’t equal to middle, but…sally on.
<
p>
As the linked story says, the family earning $72K needs welfare to subsidize their Basic Cable. Oh, the humanity. No HBO.
<
p>
New Jersey data: http://quickfacts.ce…
It’s “median household income,” and the “median household” is 2.68 people. What’s the median income for a family of 4? That would be much more relevant data. The stuff you cite is basically useless.
<
p>
By the way, “Basic Cable” doesn’t include HBO. Just for the record. “Basic” is about 10 channels, at least where I live.
<
p>
My data basically worthless? The data you present is non-existent. Worthless v. nonexistant. Point remains that the poor family in the linked story with a basic car, basic cable, home ownership, private school tuition at a local catholic school needs welfare.
<
p>
Private school tuition?
<
p>
<
p>
HBO is a right not a privilege. Go SCHIP. For god’s sake we must, for the sake of the children, subsidize cable and private school tuition.
<
p>
by special interests?
Niki is right on most of the issues I care about, and Ogo is wrong on them. I’ll take the former over the latter any day of the week. Personally, I don’t much care whether the money comes from inside or outside the district, nor do I have any idea whether the little snapshot you gave us is representative.
My union did not endorse in the Democratic or Republican Primaries.
<
p>
We looked at the winners of both and chose to endorse Niki. My union’s federal PAC gets its money froma voluntary check off by members. So the 5 cents an hour they contribute goes into the PAC and the check goes to endorsed candidates. Candidates that support, oh lets see, issues like health care for children, reguiring corporations to pay their fair share of taxes, stronger enforcement of wage and labor laws, funding public safety, health care for all – -you know the small stuff that makes us a special interest.
or are they forced to give money?
When a member joins the union they fill out an application. Included in the paperwork is a voluntary checkoff for the PAC.
a single union that forces its members to contribute to a PAC? I think that’s illegal, but I could be wrong.
And another right-wing bogeyman bites the dust.
…self-described conservatives probably consider the expansion of SCHIF as a camel’s nose under the tent for “socialized medicine.” The rather large increase in the max income for entry into the program will probably mean that company-based health care insurance family plans will eventually exclude most minor children, who will get coverage under SCHIF. That will, of course, unburden companies from most minor child insurance care expenses under their health care insurance plans.
<
p>
There is still the issue of insurance costs for spouses but (a) a lot of spouses work (outside the home) and (b) it is not usual, but it is not unusual either, for a company to not subsidize insurance for spouses. I don’t know what companies do regarding spouses after retirement, but by retirement time, it is unlikely that there will be dependent minor children for the companies to concern themselves with.
<
p>
The problem that conservatives have is that the camel’s nose is already under the tent: Medicare and Medicaid are only two examples. Eventually, the US is going to have to adapt it self to either a government organized financing system such as in Germany, or a single payer financing system in other countries.
Excellent point! Socialized medicine is already in practice here. It's called the VA system. Single payer health care is also already in practice in the form of Medicare / Medicaid.
I wish that when they mount their criticism against what they choose to lump all plans together under the header of “socialized Medicine”, that they were to recognise this reality and use specific examples of what they think is so terrible from one or the other of these two systems.
I find myself wondering recently about the term “socialized medicine” while talking to a conservative friend. I ended up telling her that we already have it. We belong to Blue Cross, whose HMO’s have as many subscribers as smaller government plans in Europe.
<
p>
So here I am, forced to pay premiums out of my job by contract, which go into a larger pool and essentially go toward sick people (I haven’t seen a doctor outside a regular physical in years). Sure, it’s run out of a private office rather than a government one, but that change wouldn’t affect me differently, or I’d daresay many others.
It would likely save you money. A public system would not have to cover the costs of paying dividends to shareholders, nor would it have to cover the costs of billion dollar executive compensation packages, or advertising, or any other ineffeciencies that are inherent in todays modern businesses.
The bottom line is that it would likely be much cheaper to provide the same services in the public sector, and the business lobby is terrified that the American public might discover this simple fact.
Hence, we have the scary phrase “socialized medicine”, which is clearly framed specifically to invoke image of the most repulsive aspects of the Soviet Union.
As far as I can tell, the phrase “median household income” contains two adjectives “median” and “household” both of which modify “income.”
<
p>
“Median” does not nodify “household.” Otherwise stated, it is the statistic of the median income of households, irrespective of the number of persons in the household.
<
p>
Usually, the statistics are quoted as “for a family of four (or so).”
For purposes of SCHIP expansion, through the miracle of statistics, the median household income is amazingly below average.
<
p>
Seriously, did you read that Bloomberg article linked above? The woman sends the kid to private catholic school, and therefore foregoes public education tax dollars, but will qualify for free child health insurance.
<
p>
Isn’t SCHIP, in this case, simply a subsidy for private school?
…through the miracle of statistics, the median household income is amazingly below average.
<
p>
And review the difference between median and mean (average). Tell me, what are the median and mean of a series of numbers 1, 2, 3. 4. 5, 6, 100? I know the answers, apparently you do not. Of course averages will differ substantially from medians, particularly if there are outliers such as in my example.
<
p>
Regarding your 2d paragraph, apparently you still do not understand what is going on from a political point of view. Companies want to unload as much of their health care obligations onto a 3d party–the most obvious candidate being the government. It is they who are pushing for this increase in the max income for SCHIP, because they don’t want to have to pay for health care financing for whomever they can foist onto someone else.
<
p>
Parse the sentence, think about it before you type, then, think some more. The sentence has nothing to do with the meaning of average versus median.
<
p>
i.e. If all of your posts were scored for quality, then the replies that make up the median are well below average.
…the issue was your use of “amazingly” to describe the difference between “median” and “average” (mean). The point that you wish to ignore, and the point that I was making–and that what was apparently lost on you–is that it is not “amazing” that there would be a difference between median and mean from the same data set.