June 14, 2006
IT'S NOT A DIRECTION, IT'S A CHINESE MENU:
'New Direction' is new theme for Democratic plan (Kathy Kiely, 6/13/2006, USA TODAY)
Democratic House and Senate leaders are planning to reduce the cost of student loans and prescription drugs, raise the minimum wage and launch an effort to develop alternative fuels if they win back control of Congress.In an interview Tuesday with USA TODAY, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi previewed the "New Direction for America" platform hammered out by Democratic members of Congress, mayors and governors. She and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid plan to formally unveil the plan today. [...]
Pelosi discouraged comparisons with the Republican "Contract With America," a 10-point pledge that GOP lawmakers and candidates signed six weeks before the 1994 election. That campaign manifesto helped the GOP win control of both the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years.
Because the 10 points in the Contract were specific popular proposals on issues that the Democrat Congress wasn't acting on, whereas the only item here with broad support and GOP resistance is the minimum wage hike? Posted by Orrin Judd at June 14, 2006 7:24 AM
And now we wish to share our revised, redacted, fine-tuned, amended, restated, enhanced, restated, tinkdered with, freshly rewritten, thrice modified, altered, revised(did I say revised), and twice reconsidered, revedup and newlyre-enhanced compact, not a contract, with America...at least our America!
Posted by: Dave W at June 14, 2006 8:16 AMDon't forget "focus-grouped."
Posted by: erp at June 14, 2006 8:40 AMAmerica didn't want the drug plan because it's going to cost too much and they want to increase the cost to the taxpayer?
More intergenerational warfare.
Posted by: Sandy P at June 14, 2006 1:01 PMReally? Alternative energy sources (we're not talking coal, people) has broad Repug support in congress. Is Cheney aware of that?
Also, Cogress has cut finacial aid assistance for education every year since 2000. Has anyone tried to get a Pell recently? I assume not...
Posted by: JT at June 14, 2006 1:31 PMAmerica wanted the drug plan and likes it.
Posted by: oj at June 14, 2006 2:08 PMThe corporate written drug plan is a horrid failure and benefits nobody except drug makers...while we all know you would blow a corporate officer just for the opportunity to bask in his shadow, it doesn't really help the seniors who are hitting the "doughnut hole"
Find me a positive quote by any non political senior about the plan...go on I dare you.
Posted by: madmatt at June 14, 2006 2:43 PMHere's an endorsement from two former highly skeptical 71+ year olds. Not only is it working, but working very well. Each month we get a statement showing the actual costs we had been paying before purchasing the Medicare Park D insurance, the amount we pay now and our savings. It is considerable even with the almost $50 per month we each pay in premiums.
Lots more endorsements from the land of geezers. You gotta get outside of your academic redoubt and talk to some of us regular folks.
Posted by: erp at June 14, 2006 4:18 PMRight Wing dogma insists it was bad so no amount of data and electoral success will ever convince them otherwise.
Posted by: oj at June 14, 2006 4:27 PMmadmatt,
Here's a link to an article with quotes and another article that shows 72% of seniors are spending less or the same amount for prescriptions as before entering the plan.
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2006/02/blame_w_via_tim.html
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2006/06/the_third_way_i_1.html
Posted by: Patrick H at June 14, 2006 4:32 PMOne of the the points in the Democrat plan is to fund and enact the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. What parts of these recommendations -- to keep American safer -- do you oppose? What parts are not popular?
Posted by: Winston Smith at June 15, 2006 9:07 AMFunding them. We're already wasting way too much on the WoT, which we won.
Posted by: oj at June 15, 2006 9:21 AMWinston: Which ones are good?
Posted by: David Cohen at June 15, 2006 10:36 AMAs for alternative fuels, the president is wasting millions of dollars on ethanol and it was Ted Kennedy who just torpedoed wind power.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 15, 2006 10:37 AMJT: Since 2001, the federal budget for Pell grants has increased from $8.8 billion to $13.7 billion. The number of recipients has increased by about 1 million. One of the problems fiscal conservatives have with the president has been the huge increase -- as they see it -- in federal education spending.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 15, 2006 10:58 AMIt's not a blog, it's a paid right wing propaganda outlet.
Posted by: KC at June 17, 2006 4:42 PMIf only we got paid....
Like Kos:
www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=21086
Posted by: oj at June 17, 2006 4:48 PM