Martha Coakley-Scott Brown Election (MA)

Remove all ads!

Ragusa,

I largely agree. I don't see this special election as a sea-change in American politics. If the two candidates ran similarly competent campaigns, one could possibly draw that conclusion. The fact is, as you pointed out, Coakley was a terrible candidate, who ran a bad campagin. (Technically, that's a bit of an overstatement - to say she ran a bad campaign suggests she ran a campaign to begin with.)

What it does show is that a competent Republican who runs on an actual platform, can defeat a Democrat who acted like she may not really care whether or not she won. Brown should be commended for his performance - most of the time in Massachusetts a pulse is all that is required for the Democrat to defeat a Republican. This time it would have required a pulse and a modicum of effort - Coakley had the former but not the latter.

 

Why? They can break people's packages as well as UPS can. BTW, I believe that private companies do not allow the govrnment to compete; their "friends" in Congress make sure of that....

But of course they sued. They didn't have enough lobbyists in Congress, I assume, to block it in the first place.

It's always good to see you, Darkwolf. I hope everything is fine with you. And yes this is a huge event for the Republicans. They are actually outside of the South now...

And, I for one don't care if the private insurance companies continue or not. The public option would have been the stake to drive into the hearts of those vampires.

Ok, Willie.

Again, which measure was that? I would really like to take a look at it, since I have a real interest in this event, from a historical perspective, not only political.

 

I'll actually have to agree with T2, Darkwolf and crucis here (at least to a degree) and say that the public option would probably change the private health care. I doubt the competition between a private and public option would last too long without one of them changing dramatically. The private option would likely become a complement to the basic public coverage adding new options and benefits (like it does in Germany). So eventually the public option would lead to a form of universal healthcare and I think some dems are being a bit intellectually dishonest about it, since I believe most of them know that.

 

I almost forgot colleges, which are not consumer based organizations - yet. Private corporations have not gotten their hands on our state colleges and universities, despite having their fingerprints all over them. I don't have a problem with them doing business in this area (heaven knows, they are already all over our public schools), but I'm opposed to a business take over of our system of education in principle. But colleges aren't consumer based, except for those that you are probably seeing on your computer screens online. But give it sometime....

Of course it would! That's the whole idea. I don't understand the argument here.

 

While discussing the pros and cons of the public option can be an enjoyable mental exercise, everyone is aware that we aren't getting one, right? Crusis can rest easy - the only medical insurance that will be made available to Americans will be by the same private insurance companies that have been providing us exemplary service at surprisingly low prices for decades now. We should be proud of the Congressional visionaries that have constructed such a well though-out, comprehensive plan.

I also agree that Congress should be held partially responsible for the banking meltdown. The only point in which I would disagree with crusis is that is due to Congressional deregulation not additional rules placed on bankers by Congress that lead to this mess.

At first the deregulation seemed to be working fine. Under Reagan, interest rates dropped and home ownership rose. Further deregulation under the first Bush had similar results. Even further deregulation under Clinton saw similar results. Unfortunately, there appears to be a critical tipping point that was reached under the Bush administration, where if you deregulate too much, it will allow banks to make loans to people that should not have them.

Congress did not see foresee this as a problem, because most members of Congress assumed that banks still held onto mortgage loans like they used to in bygone days. When the mortgage you took out from a bank was held by the bank through the entirety of the loan, the bank took the financial hit, and therefore they were reluctant to make these loans. However, banks were actively selling these loans after they were certified by underwriters as very low-risk securities (which they were anything but).

Still, while Congress should bear partial responsibility for this, it is ultimately the banks that made the loans. Selling high-risk investments as low-risk securities is, IMO, boarderline criminal. At best, it's bait-and-switch, and at worst, it's flat out fraud (in that you are falsely representing to the investor what he is purchasing).

 

I actually brought it up and cited it and everything back in the meltdown thread, but I don't even know where to find it now. You looked at it at the time, but I don't remember what your response was.

Aldeth, the problem-point had been reached long before Bush II, it just hadn't been triggered. The whole system was fine as long as the bubble lasted, it was only the burst of the bubble that crumbled it all.

 

When I bought the new house in 2006, I went through my banker, which took about 2 weeks time (and the loan is still sitting with my bank). But along the way, I called one of those start-up loan companies that was not a bank, Dietech - or something like that; one of those that always did heavy promotions on the cable channels. They were actually willing to do my loan over the phone and I got an approval in just a few minutes. But I was told that they would have to assemble the paperwork and have it faxed or sent to me.

Also, Countrywide (we know what happened to them) wanted to do my loan, and I didn't even apply. I had forgotten about them, because my builder told me that they went through them. But I never talked to them until 7 months later, when my house was finished and I was ready to close. They called me out of the blue and told me that my loan was ready. And I never even applied with them! My wife did tell me that we had filled out some paperwork with the builder when we bought the house that went directly to Countrywide, but that was it.

It's hard to blame the government when this how these guys did business (the private sector). It was shoddy and incompetent, but these companies didn't really care, because companies like AIG (which is not a bank), and Lehman, were buying up these loans.

I remember you commenting on it, but never any details, NOG. Do you remember which Congressional year it was? There will be a record of it being introduced. Was it the House or the Senate?

---------- Added 0 hours, 34 minutes and 54 seconds later... ----------

No, it had not, NOG. The ACTUAL meltdown was caused by a number of different factors that came together after 2001. It's not one person's fault, but it's what happens when you leave the "foxes in charge of the henhouse."

 

McCain sponsored a bill like that a while ago, perhaps it's in his bio.

 

Guys, everything will be okay. Brown drives a truck; he's just a regular guy, he can relate to us!

 

Found it. It was S.190. It was a bill to regulate secondary mortgage lenders. Mac & Company went specially after Freddie and Fannie (no surprise there). It was the "FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005."

2005 would be a Republican Senate, and nevertheless Dems voted against, as NOG claims (Democrats took over in 2007, after the 2006 elections).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/rec...x002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m

Here's what Mac had to say, in part:

The problem is that this rhetoric is highly political, which does not invalidate it in the least, but would cause push-back by the Bush administation (Greenspan) and others who supported Fannie and Freddie in Congress. In hindsight, Mac should have opened his rhetoric to encompass a wider spectrum of lenders than just Freddie and Fannie, since they are viewed by some in a partisan light, to say the least.

And this is not about the loans being made, but about the acounting of government sponsered companies (GSEs). Most of the fraud was in private companies, as well as government-sponsered institutions (Freddie and Fannie did their share of fraud, which came a bit later after the subprime mania began with the start-up companies in California).

One of these companies, Quick Loan, actually had pizza delivery guys working as "loan specialists" in Cali. Talk about the need for regulation!

Yeah, and, most important of all, drumroll please, he knows who plays on the baseball team! Americans wonder why they have such crappy government.

 

Well now, I have to say that I partially disagree with you there T2. Where the private sector can definitely compete with the government, USPS competes very well vs UPS and Fedex on a Domestic level. Internationally, they don't stand a chance. Domestically, they offer a cheaper option when time constraints are not an option. I have worked for the Post office in a few different positions and otherwise have been in the logistics and supply chain field for other companies. When shipping anything domestically, I would recommend USPS 1st everytime, if there are no time constraints and the packages are small. If there are time constraints, FedEx would be the next option, they are definitely more customer friendly and are the most consistant on making nextday delivery, especially when considering the bang for the buck they provide. UPS would be next, they provide a very similar sevice as compared to FedEx, but they seem to lose/damage packages more often. But both FedEx and UPS have the dollars behind them to grow, since they make a killing in the international trade to/from the US. USPS can't compete on that end and doesn't have the dollars to expand. Instead, they are shrinking and will be non-existant in a decade.

 

My experience is not my own and I'll rely on a Coakey comment -- my sister is a postmaster and has been with the USPS for over 20 years... and she can see Russia from her post office (not really but I had to add the comment).

Time constraints are a very important aspect to UPS and FedEx. USPS only states approximate delivery dates while the others guaranty the delivery date. So the USPS is trying to find a niche as well (not really a niche, it's what they've always done -- even their special delivery days didn't guaranty delivery on a specific date).

The USPS is good at bulk, low cost, low profitability deliveries -- things the private sector does not want to do. As such they will still be around for many decades. I think they'll cut out Saturday deliveries and perhaps shift to a scaled cost system (which congress is against) in order to survive, but they don't need to make a profit to survive.

 

The housing bubble with run-away rising costs of homes began in 2003, and continued through most of 2008. I got lucky in that I purchased my current home in 2002. By 2008, my home had nearly tripled in value with only minor improvements made by me. While it is true that some of the previous deregulations allowed the final ones that occurred in the Bush administration, all of the previous deregulations, even working in concert, did not cause the housing bubble. It is simply not true to state that the deregulation that took place from Reagan-Clinton would inevitably lead the housing bubble. In fact, the deregulation during Clinton's presidency occured in 1994, so the housing market bubble did not start until nearly a decade later.

I concede that I simplified my previous point, but it is not overstating the case to view the deregulation of the Bush II presidency as the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Which was pretty much par for the course with that administration. Bush wasn't the worst president ever - but he was the worst of the past 80 years or so.

 

Losing Saturdays is just about a given, cutting back on paying out all of the OT will help. They couldn't do this a couple of years ago, as the processing plants need to run daily and it would be impossible for them to process 3 days of mail for Monday delivery. Their automation couldn't handle it. But with the Internet killing their 1st class mail volumes, it is now a possibility.

 

I only came to say that I'm glad Brown offered his daughter up. She can sing, plays college ball, and certainly isn't bad looking.

If she worked as a waitress I'd be in love

 

This indicates to me that there are still enough intelligent voters in the US to make a difference -- they didn't vote only on partisan lines, they voted based on the campaigns -- from all accounts, Martha's campaign sucked big hairy ones.

This is the problem in my province -- here in Alberta, the Progressive Conservatives could run a dead monkey in an election, and that monkey corpse would take over 60% of the vote. I happen to be a conservative myself, but even I see the total lack of any thought in the voting process as a very, very bad thing.

 

She probably does.

The American Voter Speaks:

"I have some great questions for the candidates gathered here. First question: Do any of you know the roster of the local baseball team? Yes, the regular looking white, middle-aged, male over there."

"Ow! Ow! I know that one!"

"Good for you. You qualify to be Senator from a blue state - maybe soon to be red. Congratulations, Home Boy. Next question: Do any of you know what Russia looks like from a window? You there, the gorgeous lady, who just winked at me."

"I've seen Russia from my house many times. And I think we should support the troops no matter what."

"Great. You qualify to be governor of a state hardly anyone lives in. Here's a tough one: Would you stand outside in the cold to shake hands with the citizens of your state, and actually ask them for their votes? Yes, the bad looking, angry, woman over there."

"Hell no. I'm not standing out in the cold and freezing my ass off for those bastards, let alone ask them for anything. In fact, I'm going on vacation. So screw them."

"Well, you seem as if you don't like anyone, so Attorney General would be a great job for you. Enjoy! Last question: How would you reform the American health care system? Yes, the thin, black guy, with the ears, over there."

"I would give the task of reforming health care to the Senator who takes the most money from the health care industry to write my health care bill. Why should I write it myself when I have a guy like that just hanging around, with over $3 million from corporate fat cats. In America, everyone earns their way and he should start earning some of that easy money."

"What a fantastic answer - and so American! So, you Sir, get the best of all and be THE PRESIDENT! And I just want to thank all of you for being such great candidates!"

 

Where I come from, we call that competition. Businesses compete with each other not by offering the same exact services for the same exact prices, but by providing something their competitor's cannot. It can be a better price, better branding, better customer service, more personalized attention, online options, or even a guaranteed delivery date. That is the essence of competition.

That said, my main point was that crucis was talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he was saying we would be better served by the private sector. On the other, he argued that there is no way private insurance could compete with public insurance. If private insurance really does provide a better deal, people wouldn't take the public option. 15% of Germans use non-supplemental private insurance in lieu of the public plan -- proof positive that public and private insurance plans are perfectly capable of co-existing. The idea that you can only have one or the other is demonstrably false. A public option wouldn't automatically kill the insurance industry. The crappy milquetoast option put forth by the Senate wouldn't even have damaged it, since the only people who can take the coverage aren't buying insurance, anyway.

 

Drew, competition is filling the same need, whether better done, done with a different product, done at a lower price, whatever. If one company ships large boxes and the other ships letters, they're not in competition. It's only when the second starts shipping large boxes as well that they get into competition.

As for whether the public option would kill the private, even if it's worse, it depends entirely on how the laws are written. If the public option is tax-funded, they could be terrible, but they have an infinite supply of money. If the law places different restrictions on the private and public options, things go wonky. Even if the same regulations are technically set, but the regulators favor the public option, the private option can be better but still die.

 

NOG, your argument isn't convincing me. As was said before in iirc this thread, in Germany private insurers and the public option coexist peacefully, and both prosper.

In Germany the public option is mandatory for employees unless they earn more than a given amount of money, after which it is assumed they can cover their own costs and go private. Business owners and freelancers can every time choose the private insurance or the public option. In addition to that, there is competition between the providers for the public option.

It works, reasonably well I like to add, and there is no reason why the US can't create a comparable system, unless, of course 'not invented here' is indeed the final obstacle that cannot be overcome.