34 ms·

If someone's going to make this case, could they please do so from somewhere without a paywall and if at all possible, from a source who's logic is more honest

by jbooth 17y ago

If someone's going to make this case, could they please do so from somewhere without a paywall and if at all possible, from a source who's logic is more honest than "are republicans or democrats in office right now"? IF the claims are correct though, then that needs to be fixed in the bill, particularly the part about filing with the SEC.

jessriedel 17y ago
Agreed that a second source is sorely needed. FYI: you can always access WSJ (and most other news articles) by doing a google search of "<article title> site:wsj.com". News sites aren't allowed to show article text to the Google crawler without allowing the user to access the article.
hga 17y ago
Second source??? These provisions of Dodd's bill have been discussed extensively on Hacker News: http://www.google.com/search?q=dodd+site%3Anews.ycombinator.com http://www.google.com/search?q=dodd+site%3Anews.ycombinator.... And I think you underestimate the significance of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal taking a strong position on this issue in a house editorial.
- jbooth 17y ago
  The Wall Street Journal's opinions are driven entirely by which political party controls Congress. After 8 years of the "deficits don't matter" administration, all of a sudden these guys turn into budget hawks 1 month after Obama inherits their fiscal situation. They're against quote "socialized" healthcare even though the bill didn't socialize anything that wasn't already a government program.. but the more expensive Medicare Part D program was just ducky with them. Etc, etc etc. I have no problem believing there are problems with the bill that would accidentally affect startups. But if we're talking pithy 2-sentence characterizations from a source with a history of partisanship? Citation needed.
  - hga 17y ago
    http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/obama_budget_deficit_2010.jpg http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/obama_budget_def...
    - jbooth 17y ago
      Hang on, I mention the fact that WSJ is hopelessly biased, and you respond with a link to an even more biased source? Ok, let's back up and try to engage your brain for a second. So you have a set of 10 year projections there. Those are predictions about the future. With me so far? Now think about what they were on January 15, 2009 as opposed to January 25, 2009. Do you think that the act of Obama taking office changed the future and mandated a ton of future government spending? Or do you think these might be fundamentals that we were going to have to deal with regardless? For bonus points: How much of those future deficits would you guess have to do with the increasing cost of healthcare? And I'll leave out entirely what they might look like if we hadn't just endured 8 years of studied fingers-in-the-ears idiocy from the Bush administration. Remember that surplus in 2000? Heritage and WSJ are concerned about deficits. Who did they support in 2000 again?
      - yummyfajitas 17y ago
        You asked for a second source, you have it: the CBO and the White House. The fact that heritage put CBO numbers onto a graph does not make them invalid.
        jbooth 17y ago
        I asked for a second source regarding the financial reform bill. I'm well aware of the approximate projected size of our federal deficit, thanks. The fact that Heritage supported Reagan, opposed Clinton, supported Bush and now claim to be concerned about deficits says a lot about the Heritage Foundation. EDIT: Awesome, downvoted for clarifying a willful misinterpretation of my original comment. Ladies and gentlemen, your conservative movement -- it's not about facts, it's about which side you're on.
htsh 17y ago
I'm also waiting for a second source. The only other story I've seen on this bill was also from WSJ, and also written with a heavy spin on it. This paper's editorial page will argue against anything the current majority party does. Their news reporting is fine, but it's widely known that the editorial page leans strongly to the right. This same editorial page argued that the healthcare bill contained death panels. Republican politicians, including Palin and Dick Cheney, are regular writers.

by jbooth 17y ago

jessriedel 17y ago

Agreed that a second source is sorely needed. FYI: you can always access WSJ (and most other news articles) by doing a google search of "<article title> site:wsj.com". News sites aren't allowed to show article text to the Google crawler without allowing the user to access the article.

hga 17y ago

Second source??? These provisions of Dodd's bill have been discussed extensively on Hacker News: http://www.google.com/search?q=dodd+site%3Anews.ycombinator.com http://www.google.com/search?q=dodd+site%3Anews.ycombinator.... And I think you underestimate the significance of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal taking a strong position on this issue in a house editorial.

jbooth 17y ago
The Wall Street Journal's opinions are driven entirely by which political party controls Congress. After 8 years of the "deficits don't matter" administration, all of a sudden these guys turn into budget hawks 1 month after Obama inherits their fiscal situation. They're against quote "socialized" healthcare even though the bill didn't socialize anything that wasn't already a government program.. but the more expensive Medicare Part D program was just ducky with them. Etc, etc etc. I have no problem believing there are problems with the bill that would accidentally affect startups. But if we're talking pithy 2-sentence characterizations from a source with a history of partisanship? Citation needed.
- hga 17y ago
  http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/obama_budget_deficit_2010.jpg http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/obama_budget_def...
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Hang on, I mention the fact that WSJ is hopelessly biased, and you respond with a link to an even more biased source? Ok, let's back up and try to engage your brain for a second. So you have a set of 10 year projections there. Those are predictions about the future. With me so far? Now think about what they were on January 15, 2009 as opposed to January 25, 2009. Do you think that the act of Obama taking office changed the future and mandated a ton of future government spending? Or do you think these might be fundamentals that we were going to have to deal with regardless? For bonus points: How much of those future deficits would you guess have to do with the increasing cost of healthcare? And I'll leave out entirely what they might look like if we hadn't just endured 8 years of studied fingers-in-the-ears idiocy from the Bush administration. Remember that surplus in 2000? Heritage and WSJ are concerned about deficits. Who did they support in 2000 again?
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      You asked for a second source, you have it: the CBO and the White House. The fact that heritage put CBO numbers onto a graph does not make them invalid.
      - jbooth 17y ago
        I asked for a second source regarding the financial reform bill. I'm well aware of the approximate projected size of our federal deficit, thanks. The fact that Heritage supported Reagan, opposed Clinton, supported Bush and now claim to be concerned about deficits says a lot about the Heritage Foundation. EDIT: Awesome, downvoted for clarifying a willful misinterpretation of my original comment. Ladies and gentlemen, your conservative movement -- it's not about facts, it's about which side you're on.

htsh 17y ago

I'm also waiting for a second source. The only other story I've seen on this bill was also from WSJ, and also written with a heavy spin on it. This paper's editorial page will argue against anything the current majority party does. Their news reporting is fine, but it's widely known that the editorial page leans strongly to the right. This same editorial page argued that the healthcare bill contained death panels. Republican politicians, including Palin and Dick Cheney, are regular writers.