Well said Hopi! Strange how this thread has devolved into another healthcare/terrorism/Democrat vs.republican argument...

i should have known better than to think a completely non-partisan topic could actually be discussed without the politics. i guess because it was a HuffPost article that was initially sited for the story, that was that.
One of the few people in the Senate who still seem to have a brain that functions independently and with an understanding of public service agrees that this is a real problem.
Here's what Al Franken wrote a few days ago:

"You may have heard that, a few weeks ago, Google and Verizon announced a proposed policy framework that they claimed would protect net neutrality.

Unfortunately, that's simply not the case.

The Google-Verizon "framework" was written so as not to apply to wireless Internet services. If you use wi-fi or access the Internet on your phone, this is a serious problem. Their framework could even allow for corporations to pay for premium access to the "wireline" Internet.

This framework doesn't protect net neutrality -- it undermines it.

This evening, I'll be speaking at an FCC hearing in Minneapolis. I'll urge the commissioners to reject the Google-Verizon framework, stop the Comcast/NBC merger, and take action to keep the Internet free and open.

We can't let corporations write the rules they're supposed to be following. Corporations are responsible only to their shareholders, and they will always act to maximize profits. The government -- which is responsible to the public -- has to write tough rules to protect net neutrality and reverse the trend towards media consolidation. And you and I might have to be the ones to force the government to do it."

This last paragraph is the part I attempted to put up for discussion, which has nothing to do with partisanship in my eyes. Perhaps the lines are drawn such that all repugnicans are rooting for the corporations OVER the people. It does sort of seem that way, particularly with the way the wrong wing reacts to practically every issue that has to do with people's rights OVER the corporations: insurance, healthcare, banking, GMO's, the EPA, the FDA, the environment... i could go on - guess i answered my own bewilderment.

these fuckheads don't care about anything or anyone but themselves and the almighty dollar.

how's all of that working out for you?

The threat level is currently at orange.

Did you miss the point?

She wants to investigate who is financing the voices of opposition....!

You can't be frigging serious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Michael..... You guessed right - I don't like Al Franken, but I do agree with him on this issue, as it's presented. But I do want to learn some more about it.

Fuck that.

Krugman is one of the brightest voices in the country. He isn't talking out his ass at all, he's saying that all the arguments against Keynesian economics are false (or v.v.) - and he's absolutely right. Every time someone tries to bring up a historical example of why he's wrong, he is ready with the answer for exactly how that situation is totally different. And his answers include hard analysis of the economics of the time, not just shouting like you hear on the right (because they're wrong and have nothing else left to do). The same applies to arguments in principle - he has totally sound arguments to support what he says.

It's arrogance to call that arrogance, because it's absolutely true: the ONLY way out of this mess without waiting for years and years is Keynesian.

If you have real arguments with what he's saying then fine. You'll be wrong, but at least we'll have a discussion. But saying Krugman is a fool is an indication of the poster's lack of understanding, not anything about Krugman.

And by the way, it's not like he's some lone lunatic out on the fringes. There's no shortage of other economists who say the same thing - and the reason is that it's reality. They may disagree about some things, for example Jamie Galbraith argues that the government could simply write checks to people, preferably to do something useful; the only difference if they issue a bond to cover it is that the banks make some interest. Krugman disagrees with that, because eventually - and not now! - it will lead to inflation. But they both understand that the government needs to spend money to create jobs right now, since monetary policy has reached its limit.

And Knife is an idiot in any case. The sum total of his arguments is that Krugman has an agenda and invents facts. Not only is that moronic, saying that is the exact definition of a stupid asshole.

Meanwhile the argument over the Moslem cultural center near the WTC is a national embarrassment.

Robert Reich expands upon exactly what I've been thinking all along:

http://robertreich.org/post/984323698/the-anatomy-of-intolerance

Reich: Most Americans approve of Arizona’s new law allowing police to stop anyone who looks Hispanic and demand proof of citizenship.

You do realize that the above is a filthy lie. Right? I'm kind of tentative to read the rest of his well assembled words.

SB1070


You knew I would :-) ... but of course bad economy makes people jittery. One doesn't need to be a Harvard scholar to realize that.

What about that statement is a filthy lie?

It's not a filthy lie, but the bigger point is that times get tough and people look for scapegoats. You can't deny that this law is exactly about that.