Democrats versus Republicans - Page 734

craigimass · #**7331** (**permalink**) 06-30-2009

Typical move saying that Heritage lies because Greenpeace exaggerates. However, since the Heritage figures were designed to mislead and off by a factor of 10X, you cannot put even a drop of stock in them.

As to people (oil and gas and wind and solar) getting what they want out of a bill.........

Wow, this may come as a real surprise - so hold onto your seat!

THAT IS HOW ALL LEGISLATION IS CREATED IN THIS COUNTRY.

I should leave you the rest of the morning to soak that one in, but yes - legislation is made by the INTERESTED PARTIES all getting a seat at the table and hashing out the details. Republicans believe strongly in free speech for corporations - money=votes. In fact, that is a lot of the work of the Heritage Foundation and other rightie think tanks...to make sure corporate speech (money, lobbyists) has the largest possible effect.

Now, when it actually might work, you are against it?

Me thinks that you like democracy when it goes your way, but dislike it when it does not - and that is NOT DEMOCRACY AT ALL.

ssneade · #**7332** (**permalink**) 06-30-2009

but,...this isn't a democracy. it's a republic the last time i checked....

ssneade · #**7333** (**permalink**) 06-30-2009

Nine out of 10 people fear that NHS services could be cut and waiting times rise as the government tackles the recession, a survey suggests.

The British Medical Association poll of 1,000 people also found three quarters believed that other public services should take a financial hit instead.

The union said it showed the depth of feeling about the NHS.

Managers have warned the health service is facing a funding shortfall of up to £10bn for the three years after 2011.

NHS spending is already guaranteed until then, but many predict the government will be forced to rein back on public spending after that date to pay off the debts incurred in bailing out the banks.

The survey, which was carried out by an independent firm of pollsters, even showed four in 10 people were prepared to pay higher taxes to safeguard the health service.

'Huge mistake'

British Medical Association chairman Dr Hamish Meldrum said: "The results show how anxious the public is about the effects of the recession on the health service.

"While we appreciate that the government needs to steer the country through this difficult economic period, we urge it not do do so at the expense of NHS funding.

"People always need good quality healthcare and it would be a huge mistake to try and make savings by squeezing the NHS."

However, the poll also showed 59% of people felt that involving the private sector more in the health service could protect services.

The view is at odds with the BMA position. The union has campaigned for years against such moves, warning they risk fragmenting care.

Dr Meldrum said the survey, issued on the eve of its annual conference in Liverpool, threw up mixed messages on the issue.

He pointed out that the public had also showed a dislike for the private sector in other questions.

But he admitted the union had failed to fully persuade people.

He said: "We have got a degree of educating to do."

ssneade · #**7334** (**permalink**) 06-30-2009

Presented as a bonfire of the micro-managed targets that characterised the Blair era, the new list of "personal entitlements" unveiled today could impose fresh obligations and demands on the NHS.

Most of the commitments are familiar – already, or in the process of, being put in place. Others offer a fresh emphasis that may raise public expectations.

The government statement says: "Patients will have enforceable rights to high standards of care, including hospital treatment within 18 weeks, access to a cancer specialist within two weeks, and free health checks on the NHS for people aged 40-74.

"We will look closely at where we can go further, to establish new rights: for example to NHS dentistry, to evening and weekend access to GPs, to an individual budget for those with long-term or chronic conditions, and whether we can create a right to choose to die at home as further progress is made in implementing the end-of-life care strategy."

The promise that patients will be able to obtain free dental treatment was foreshadowed last week by the health secretary Andy Burnham, when he announced radical reform of dentists' contracts.

Many of the government's promises will sound attractive to those concerned about health issues: promising patients the right to treatment within 18 weeks of seeing their GP, enabling the elderly to die at home if they wish, giving free health check-ups to those aged over 40, and ensuring cancer patients see a specialist within two weeks.

Responding to the "entitlements", Dr Hamish Meldrum, the chairman of the British Medical Association, commented: "What I have seen does not suggest there's an awful lot new. 'Targets' may now become 'pledges'. Whether it's a target, a pledge, or a guarantee, it's essentially the same."

In terms of the two weeks for cancer treatment, he remarked: "There are other [priorities] in terms of cancer treatment. Doctors are not telling us that the two-week wait is a major issue. It's not something we are getting a lot of shouts about from GPs."

this is better?

ssneade · #**7335** (**permalink**) 06-30-2009

Congress's unrelenting efforts to rid the world of fossil fuel have now produced a North American trade war over an obscure substance called "black liquor." Let us explain.

This story begins with Congress's 2005 highway bill. It included a subsidy to encourage businesses to power their motor vehicles with "alternative fuels" such as ethanol, rather than fossil fuels such as diesel. Congress said businesses could receive a 50-cent tax credit for every gallon of gasoline if they used a blend of a traditional fossil fuel and an alternative fuel.

Then in 2007, Congress extended this largesse beyond highway vehicles to a wider range of alternative fuel users. Enter "black liquor," a carbon-rich substance the paper industry has used for decades to power its mills. It also qualifies as an alternative fuel. All the paper industry had to do was blend some fossil fuel in with their alternative fuel and -- voila! -- billions of dollars in federal subsidies were within reach. So they did.

Adding diesel to the paper production process might not be in the anti-fossil fuel spirit of Congress's tax credit, but it was legal, and lucrative. The American paper industry is on pace to pocket some $6 billion in tax credits this year, enough to cut production costs by 60% and reduce the price of some U.S. paper goods by 25%.

Not surprisingly, Canadian paper companies are miffed at this subsidized windfall to their competition. Now they've gotten their Parliament to do something about it. Following the two-wrongs-make-a-right logic of trade wars, Canadian lawmakers recently passed a subsidy worth $882 million for their domestic paper industry.

Canadian paper producers defend the counter-subsidy in the classic language of trade warriors. "This will save tens of thousands of jobs," says Avrim Lazar of the Forest Products Association of Canada. "When the U.S. government is stepping in," Mr. Lazar adds, "creating a massive advantage for American jobs, it's the [Canadian] government's job to step up to the plate."

Senators Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley are trying to end the American black-liquor subsidy ahead of its scheduled expiration on December 31. Don't expect this to satisfy Canadian paper producers. Cue Mr. Lazar: "Even when they stop the tax credit, we'll be way behind the starting line when the new race starts." Translation: We like subsidies, too.

So a sloppily written green provision in a federal highway bill has triggered an enduring cross-border subsidy war. No word yet on whether ethanol is being written into the health-care bill.