PDA

View Full Version : 2010 General Election Thread


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Garcia Bronco
11-03-2010, 12:38 PM
I agree with much of your post but two comments...



The notable problem here is that moderates, particularly GOP moderates, have almost all been run out of office.




Fair to question how Obama will work with a divided congress but have to disagree with the above. Beating the Clinton machine and then winning the presidential election were certainly no small feats. And I think Obama is a lot more shrewd than many want to give him credit for. It's going to be interesting for sure.


bill Clinton didn't run. His wife did. Not the same by a mile.

Requiem
11-03-2010, 12:39 PM
And what exactly was your point, Darin?

You just provided sounding evidence that the letter tagged next to their name has everything to do with their reason for electability in the South, and that by nature, those seats are hardly ever competitive.

Bobby J. isn't from South Carolina either.

And you should take a look at the races and districts you mentioned, and find out more about the exit polls and how that impacted electability.

Rohirrim
11-03-2010, 12:45 PM
I agree with much of your post but two comments...



The notable problem here is that moderates, particularly GOP moderates, have almost all been run out of office.




Fair to question how Obama will work with a divided congress but have to disagree with the above. Beating the Clinton machine and then winning the presidential election were certainly no small feats. And I think Obama is a lot more shrewd than many want to give him credit for. It's going to be interesting for sure.

Another interesting dynamic is kicking in too. Many of the seats won by the GOP were previously held by moderate Dems in conservative districts. Now, they've been replaced by out and out Republicans. That means there are even fewer moderate or conservative Dems left.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 12:46 PM
Another interesting dynamic is kicking in too. Many of the seats won by the GOP were previously held by moderate Dems in conservative districts. Now, they've been replaced by out and out Republicans. That means there are even fewer moderate or conservative Dems left.

Yeah, the blue dogs were pains in the asses in government and, well, they sure paid the price

ColoradoDarin
11-03-2010, 12:46 PM
Then, pray tell, what was your point?

You seem smart enough, I bet if you think about it, it will come to you.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 12:49 PM
You seem smart enough, I bet if you think about it, it will come to you.

I made the point that race plays a role in politics, especially the venom spit by certain fringe right wing groups that have been co-opted by the GOP...and you came back with your evidence that i might be wrong, and i asked you if you think the election of a handful of minorities completely disproves my point, to which you said I missed your point entirely...so seriously, what was your point?

Kaylore
11-03-2010, 12:50 PM
No, my statement still stands.

We have one of the lowest turnouts for voting for democracies across the world. Our Founding Fathers would be absolutely ashamed of the state of politics today and the lack of knowledge and education shown by our populous regarding it.

I love these comments because they display a complete ignorance to history. When our founding fathers were running things, only white male land owners could vote. 92% of the country was illiterate. Many states had provisions keeping Jews and Catholics from voting whether they owned land or not. We couldn't even vote for Senators at all and the electoral college ignored the popular vote. This idea that the founding Fathers wanted everyone to vote and is ashamed is hilariously wrong. They built a Republic, not a Democracy. Even Jefferson, very pro-democracy by nature, knew that until the populace became educated that universal suffrage was not only impractical, it was dangerous. That's how you got racists like Andrew Jackson in offense with dark deeds like the trail of tears or telling the Marshall Court to go **** off.

Rock Chalk
11-03-2010, 12:51 PM
Youre really going to sit here and tell me race has nothing to do with party division and the hatred for Obama just because a few minorities were elected here and there? I didnt say ALL southerners were poor white and racist...but the ones who are, well, they are republican. And alot of the obama hate (as seen through the tea party or the birther movement comes from deeply seeded racism. I dont know how this is remotely deniable.

You sir, are a bigoted idiot.

I am a tea party member and in fact many people I know are and not a single one of us is racist but every single one of us hates Obama. Not because of the color of his skin, but as Dr King Jr would have said, because of the content of his character.

The tea party does not come from racism you ****ing moron, it comes from betrayal of government and interference into our daily lives and it has been seeping and lying under the surface for 30 effing years.

ColoradoDarin
11-03-2010, 12:54 PM
I made the point that race plays a role in politics, especially the venom spit by certain fringe right wing groups that have been co-opted by the GOP...and you came back with your evidence that i might be wrong, and i asked you if you think the election of a handful of minorities completely disproves my point, to which you said I missed your point entirely...so seriously, what was your point?

When Republican elect minorities it's in majority white districts (or states), when Democrats elect minorities, its only in majority-minority districts. The facts show that white Democrats seem to have a problem with minorities.

Killericon
11-03-2010, 12:56 PM
When Republican elect minorities it's in majority white districts (or states), when Democrats elect minorities, its only in majority-minority districts. The facts show that white Democrats seem to have a problem with minorities.

Wait, what?

TonyR
11-03-2010, 12:59 PM
Depressing read from George Packer:

I predict that there will not even be a gesture toward centrism and bipartisanship on the part of Republican leadership. They’re too scared, and too eager. Pace David Brooks, the level of extremism and partisanship I described will go up—way up. This midterm is the party’s first salvo in its first order of business, to end Obama’s Presidency. There will be little mercy and a great deal of rancor. Tomorrow we’ll find out how Obama sees the next two years. I see one of the ugliest political periods in my lifetime, which has seen a few.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/11/tom-perriello-went-down-to.html#ixzz14FOxeR7f

Old Dude
11-03-2010, 12:59 PM
I don't think the tea party has been under the surface for thirty years. I think it's been there the entire time. It's simply the more conservative branch of the GOP. Nothing more, nothing less.

Moderate and conservative Republicans have been squabbling with each other for as long as I can remember - - just the same as ultra-liberal and moderate Dems on the other side.

If the tea party represents something more than the far right wing of the GOP, I'd like to know what it is.

Mile High Shack
11-03-2010, 01:00 PM
So where are we "cutting spending"? If it's not military, social security, medicare, medicade...what?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

I want specifics on what they want to cut

Old Dude
11-03-2010, 01:02 PM
MHS, we've seen this whole thing before back in the mid-90s with Newt's "contract with America." (And very similar off-year election results.)

Everyone was all for cutting "entitlements" .. until ... most of them realized that the entitlements that were being targeted were their own. Then phhhtttt.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 01:04 PM
I made the point that race plays a role in politics, especially the venom spit by certain fringe right wing groups that have been co-opted by the GOP...and you came back with your evidence that i might be wrong, and i asked you if you think the election of a handful of minorities completely disproves my point, to which you said I missed your point entirely...so seriously, what was your point?

You really should take off your 'everyone makes decisions based on their race' glasses for just a few seconds. Someone has filled your head with garbage.

Probably the most popular Tea Party leader is Rubio in Florida, who is the son of Cuban immigrants.

Black conservatives were elected for the first time in over a century in South Carolina and Florida. They were Tea Party endorsees.

Not to mention the Tea Party endorsee who won the Governorship in New Mexico who is the first latina ever to be elected governor in the United States.

The most powerful voice in the Tea Party is a woman.

The most attacked, villified Tea Party members were both women.


The Glenn Beck rally asked its members to emulate Martin Luther King, and King's neice Alveda King is a major piece of the movement.

It was conservatives, not democrats, who came to the rescue of black, inner-city-born-and-raised Juan Williams when the super white elitist NPR snobs fired him unfairly.

TonyR
11-03-2010, 01:07 PM
bill Clinton didn't run. His wife did. Not the same by a mile.

Come on, Garcia. No, obviously Hillary isn't Bill. But a year or so before the election Hillary was the beloved, establishment Dem candidate. And she had the same powerful machine behind her that Bill did. Great at influencing, great at raising $, etc. Obama came along and stole the party right out from under them. A lot of the Dem establishment was furious and claimed they wouldn't support Obama, but clearly they ended up doing so.

Mile High Shack
11-03-2010, 01:08 PM
MHS, we've seen this whole thing before back in the mid-90s with Newt's "contract with America." (And very similar off-year election results.)

Everyone was all for cutting "entitlements" .. until ... most of them realized that the entitlements that were being targeted were their own. Then phhhtttt.

THAT is what has turned me off from that side, the shear hypocritical nature.

"We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem" - Ok, so what are you going to cut?....silence

"We hate the deficit" - ok so you were ok with it for 8 years with GW2?

just gets old...not that dems are any better.....this whole political process needs a friggin' reboot

Garcia Bronco
11-03-2010, 01:08 PM
So where are we "cutting spending"? If it's not military, social security, medicare, medicade...what?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

I want specifics on what they want to cut

Those are the only 4 things to cut really. They along with other health entitlments take up 95 percent of our budget.

Mr.Meanie
11-03-2010, 01:09 PM
It was conservatives, not democrats, who came to the rescue of black, inner-city-born-and-raised Juan Williams when the super white elitist NPR snobs fired him unfairly.

:rofl: I can't tell if you're joking, but that was pretty funny

TonyR
11-03-2010, 01:09 PM
Interesting that we're discussing race and today there is not a single African American in the Senate. Not one.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 01:09 PM
You sir, are a bigoted idiot.

I am a tea party member and in fact many people I know are and not a single one of us is racist but every single one of us hates Obama. Not because of the color of his skin, but as Dr King Jr would have said, because of the content of his character.

The tea party does not come from racism you ****ing moron, it comes from betrayal of government and interference into our daily lives and it has been seeping and lying under the surface for 30 effing years.

uh huh. Keep telling yourself that. I'm not accusing you as a racist, but the tea party and birther movement painted Obama as an "other" from go. They used words like communist, marxist, when he clearly is not. They call him un-american, they commonly referred to them as not "one of us" and someone we need to "take our country" back from. Yeah, theres no racism there...not at all. Government interference in our daily lives? Look at the ****ing patriot act, that was the biggest government interference in daily lives, yet the tea party didnt sprout up until Obama took office and the GOP co-opted it. Obama wanting to raise taxes on rich people (to a whole ****ing 39 percent) is not reason for revolt. Him suggesting that all americans should have a base and promoting a deficit neutral healthcare bill (that wont really even go into effect until 2014) is a horrible misuse of the office (esp. when our healthcare is severely flawed)? Please. There was a recent poll that suggested 98 percent of the tea party movement didnt even know their own tax rate. Thats right. 98 percent of a movement that is named after a tax revolt didnt know their own tax rate. So they don't give a **** about deficits and debt. Its horse****.

I understand the venom, i understand people are pissed because of the economy...but to think that this has NOTHING to do with race? Please. This has had to do with race since the civil rights movement.

Garcia Bronco
11-03-2010, 01:10 PM
Come on, Garcia. No, obviously Hillary isn't Bill. But a year or so before the election Hillary was the beloved, establishment Dem candidate. And she had the same powerful machine behind her that Bill did. Great at influencing, great at raising $, etc. Obama came along and stole the party right out from under them. A lot of the Dem establishment was furious and claimed they wouldn't support Obama, but clearly they ended up doing so.

Hillary has never been beloved in any kind of national sense. Even when we caught her dip**** husband cheating on her it was more pity. More to the point, Hillary was going to lose.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 01:10 PM
You really should take off your 'everyone makes decisions based on their race' glasses for just a few seconds. Someone has filled your head with garbage.

Probably the most popular Tea Party leader is Rubio in Florida, who is the son of Cuban immigrants.

Black conservatives were elected for the first time in over a century in South Carolina and Florida. They were Tea Party endorsees.

Not to mention the Tea Party endorsee who won the Governorship in New Mexico who is the first latina ever to be elected governor in the United States.

The most powerful voice in the Tea Party is a woman.

The most attacked, villified Tea Party members were both women.


The Glenn Beck rally asked its members to emulate Martin Luther King, and King's neice Alveda King is a major piece of the movement.

It was conservatives, not democrats, who came to the rescue of black, inner-city-born-and-raised Juan Williams when the super white elitist NPR snobs fired him unfairly.

I cannot believe im even listening to this. You guys are ****ing BLIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ColoradoDarin
11-03-2010, 01:11 PM
Interesting that we're discussing race and today there is not a single African American in the Senate. Not one.

I blame Obama, he should have just stayed there :rofl:

Garcia Bronco
11-03-2010, 01:11 PM
uh huh. Keep telling yourself that. I'm not accusing you as a racist, but the tea party and birther movement painted Obama as an "other" from go. They used words like communist, marxist, when he clearly is not. They call him un-american, they commonly referred to them as not "one of us" and someone we need to "take our country" back from. Yeah, theres no racism there...not at all. Government interference in our daily lives? Look at the ****ing patriot act, that was the biggest government interference in daily lives, yet the tea party didnt sprout up until Obama took office and the GOP co-opted it. Obama wanting to raise taxes on rich people (to a whole ****ing 39 percent) is not reason for revolt. Him suggesting that all americans should have a base and promoting a deficit neutral healthcare bill (that wont really even go into effect until 2014) is a horrible misuse of the office (esp. when our healthcare is severely flawed)? Please. There was a recent poll that suggested 98 percent of the tea party movement didnt even know their own tax rate. Thats right. 98 percent of a movement that is named after a tax revolt didnt know their own tax rate. So they don't give a **** about deficits and debt. Its horse****.

I understand the venom, i understand people are pissed because of the economy...but to think that this has NOTHING to do with race? Please. This has had to do with race since the civil rights movement.

Usually people that accuse others of being racist are racists themselves

"The louder he spoke of his honor; the faster we counted our spoons."

-Emerson.

Mile High Shack
11-03-2010, 01:12 PM
Those are the only 4 things to cut really. They along with other health entitlments take up 95 percent of our budget.

I'm with you, but the GOP won't commit to cutting any of those...zero, they have been asked over and over and over and over again what they are cutting and they say "discretionary"

it's a stupid word shell game and I am sick of it

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 01:13 PM
You really should take off your 'everyone makes decisions based on their race' glasses for just a few seconds. Someone has filled your head with garbage.

Probably the most popular Tea Party leader is Rubio in Florida, who is the son of Cuban immigrants.

Black conservatives were elected for the first time in over a century in South Carolina and Florida. They were Tea Party endorsees.

Not to mention the Tea Party endorsee who won the Governorship in New Mexico who is the first latina ever to be elected governor in the United States.

The most powerful voice in the Tea Party is a woman.

The most attacked, villified Tea Party members were both women.


The Glenn Beck rally asked its members to emulate Martin Luther King, and King's neice Alveda King is a major piece of the movement.

It was conservatives, not democrats, who came to the rescue of black, inner-city-born-and-raised Juan Williams when the super white elitist NPR snobs fired him unfairly.

You keep cherry picking a handful of incidents that DO NOT suggest thats my point is wrong. Politcal divide has been race fueled for a while. its not the ONLY reason, but my god, its ****ing there. We do not live in a post racial society and theres a reason why these groups are white by the vast majority.

And i wasnt speaking to gender, i was speaking to race. Sharron Angle, a woman, is as racist as they come.

Rohirrim
11-03-2010, 01:13 PM
I doubt the American people will be too happy with the Republicans either. McConnell says the number one priority is to make Obama a one term president. So, I guess that means two more years of attack politics. I'm sure voters think the number one priority is jobs and the economy. Boehner says the focus will be on repealing health care reform and cutting taxes. Of course, he already knows that repeal is out of the question. He can't overcome a filibuster or a veto and has no power to even bring a bill to the Senate floor, so that's a waste of breath. And cutting taxes is totally ridiculous because we are already underwater when it comes to non-discretionary spending. The spending is going to continue, no matter what any politician says, and more tax cuts, for all intents and purposes, will simply be more deficit spending. Plus, we are still fighting (or at least, funding) two wars.

The reality is, we have to massively cut spending and increase taxes to get out of this mess. The first thing we should do is drop a 70% capital gains tax on hedge fund managers and slow their little casino down. We need to reregulate Wall Street so that markets get reconnected to Main Street and the money the market generates stimulates the economy, instead of going into the offshore accounts of the uber-rich. Reward those who invest capital in the nuts and bolts of our economy and punish those who are simply paper traders. Return to pre-Reagan tax structures. We have to install new tax policies that end subsidies to corporations and end tax breaks for companies who move jobs offshore. In fact, we should install new tax policies that encourage companies to keep jobs here at home and bring others back that went offshore.

But just try to cut any government program. Every program has a constituency. You think Republicans are going to cut military bases or government jobs in their home districts? Never happened. So get back on the merry go round while we all act like children and hide from reality.

Oh, and BTW, expect articles of impeachment from the GOP. The crazies won't be able to stop themselves.

Mr.Meanie
11-03-2010, 01:14 PM
uh huh. Keep telling yourself that. I'm not accusing you as a racist, but the tea party and birther movement painted Obama as an "other" from go. They used words like communist, marxist, when he clearly is not. They call him un-american, they commonly referred to them as not "one of us" and someone we need to "take our country" back from. Yeah, theres no racism there...not at all. Government interference in our daily lives? Look at the ****ing patriot act, that was the biggest government interference in daily lives, yet the tea party didnt sprout up until Obama took office and the GOP co-opted it. Obama wanting to raise taxes on rich people (to a whole ****ing 39 percent) is not reason for revolt. Him suggesting that all americans should have a base and promoting a deficit neutral healthcare bill (that wont really even go into effect until 2014) is a horrible misuse of the office (esp. when our healthcare is severely flawed)? Please. There was a recent poll that suggested 98 percent of the tea party movement didnt even know their own tax rate. Thats right. 98 percent of a movement that is named after a tax revolt didnt know their own tax rate. So they don't give a **** about deficits and debt. Its horse****.

I understand the venom, i understand people are pissed because of the economy...but to think that this has NOTHING to do with race? Please. This has had to do with race since the civil rights movement.

To be fair, I don't think the movement is about race. I think the movement is about the GOP grabbing back power, and they are using fear and hatred to do it. Whether it stems from fear and hatred from race, religion, socialism, abortion or politics doesn't matter. What matters is firing up the voters by using whatever means at hand to change the balance of power.

bronco militia
11-03-2010, 01:14 PM
racist?!?! I have plenty of friends that can't swim!

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 01:15 PM
To be fair, I don't think the movement is about race. I think the movement is about the GOP grabbing back power, and they are using fear and hatred to do it. Whether it stems from fear and hatred from race, religion, communism, abortion or politics doesn't matter. What matters is firing up the voters by using whatever means at hand to change the balance of power.

Well i agree with that, but race has definitely been used here. Anytime they paint him as an "other" read between the lines.

ColoradoDarin
11-03-2010, 01:15 PM
I'm with you, but the GOP won't commit to cutting any of those...zero, they have been asked over and over and over and over again what they are cutting and they say "discretionary"

it's a stupid word shell game and I am sick of it

It's funny, if you never look for something, you won't find it. Here is a small starting point of a few plans going around right now.

What spending should the GOP cut? (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/what-spending-should-the-gop-cut/)

My starting point would be roll everything back to the 2005 level (we would almost balance the budge right there) and then look at individual programs that need to go completely away.

TonyR
11-03-2010, 01:18 PM
Hillary has never been beloved in any kind of national sense. Even when we caught her dip**** husband cheating on her it was more pity. More to the point, Hillary was going to lose.

LOL You clearly know very little to nothing about the national Dem party, and perhaps national party politics in general. I'm not going to argue with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, it's pointless. If you want to stick with your argument whose conclusion is that Obama didn't accomplish anything by winning the presidency then I don't know what to tell you.

Requiem
11-03-2010, 01:18 PM
This idea that the founding Fathers wanted everyone to vote and is ashamed is hilariously wrong.

I never stated that at all. Good try though.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 01:20 PM
Those are the only 4 things to cut really. They along with other health entitlments take up 95 percent of our budget.

1) You address the immigration situation. You either naturalize those who are here and close the border or you develop a work visa program. Within the framework of either of those solutions is an address of illegal immigrant useage of public services including medical care and infrastructure. This right now is a massive drain on state, county, and federal budgets.

If you naturalize the illegals, you charge them for the naturalization education and process.

TonyR
11-03-2010, 01:20 PM
Bachmann and DeMint may be content to leave Boehner and McConnell their titles and offices. But the latent power of Bachmann and DeMint shapes the environment in which Boehner and McConnell operate. And behind both Bachmann and DeMint are even more powerful forces: the big radio talk show hosts and Fox News – media organizations that thrive on anger and conflict.

When you hear John Boehner announce there can be “no compromise” with President Obama – when Mitch McConnell declares that his supreme legislative priority is to make Obama a one-term president – you are not hearing the voice of authentic radicalism. You are hearing the voice of second-hand radicalism. …

http://www.frumforum.com/who-really-leads-the-gop

Rohirrim
11-03-2010, 01:23 PM
Bachmann and DeMint may be content to leave Boehner and McConnell their titles and offices. But the latent power of Bachmann and DeMint shapes the environment in which Boehner and McConnell operate. And behind both Bachmann and DeMint are even more powerful forces: the big radio talk show hosts and Fox News – media organizations that thrive on anger and conflict.

When you hear John Boehner announce there can be “no compromise” with President Obama – when Mitch McConnell declares that his supreme legislative priority is to make Obama a one-term president – you are not hearing the voice of authentic radicalism. You are hearing the voice of second-hand radicalism. …

http://www.frumforum.com/who-really-leads-the-gop

I'm thinking we're moving into "burn the house down" territory. The crazies are rising to the top. This is the breath before the plunge. The Right Wing crazies are going to realize they can't do anything about the economy so their only option will be diversionary attack politics.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 01:24 PM
You keep cherry picking a handful of incidents that DO NOT suggest thats my point is wrong. Politcal divide has been race fueled for a while. its not the ONLY reason, but my god, its ****ing there. We do not live in a post racial society and theres a reason why these groups are white by the vast majority.

And i wasnt speaking to gender, i was speaking to race. Sharron Angle, a woman, is as racist as they come.

Racism exists for you because you still live in a world (in your mind) where things are divided along racial lines. That's your own hang-up.

Whats funny (in an annoying way) about it is that you project your own bigotry onto what you term "poor white southerners", which is proof positive that you see people along generic racial lines and stereotypes instead of as individuals with varying degrees of character.

Have you ever thought that maybe its you who's the problem?

Rohirrim
11-03-2010, 01:31 PM
BTW, did anybody see Bachmann last night on MSNBC when Chris Matthews was interviewing her? That woman is bat **** crazy. Even Matthews, when he was done with the interview, said she looked like she was in a trance.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 01:31 PM
Racism exists for you because you still live in a world (in your mind) where things are divided along racial lines. That's your own hang-up.

Whats funny (in an annoying way) about it is that you project your own bigotry onto what you term "poor white southerners", which is proof positive that you see people along generic racial lines and stereotypes instead of as individuals with varying degrees of character.

Have you ever thought that maybe its you who's the problem?

It's called living in the real world and realizing race still plays a role in human visceral reaction. Ignore it at your own peril. I yearn for a post racial society as you do, but we've regressed after taking giantleaps forward. There have been racial undertones all throughout this campaign, and as with the case of Angle, just overt racism.


But whatever I'm goin to lunch

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 01:32 PM
Oh, and about the issues concerning Obama, it doesnt take a genius to see why people would wonder how far left he really is. He was ushered through the campaign by an adoring media who in their zeal for electing the first black president refused to provide any real coverage to the vetting process.

Questions began to emerge about his church of 20 years, which is known to spout anti-American rhetoric and adheres to Marxist philosophy. Questions also began to emerge based on his ultra-liberal voting record in the Senate. Questions also began to emerge based on his associates like Bill Ayers and Van Jones, both militant communists. Questions also emerged due to the fact he wouldnt release his educational information. Questions also emerged due to his own writing in his memoirs about his communist associates, and the fact that he wanted to emulate his Marxist revolutionary father.

Those are all legitimate questions that were not addressed by Obama (other than the fact he fired Van Jones) or the media at large, so it should be obvious why people would be concerned. A guy who campaigned on transparency was hiding his background and his associations. Why would he need to hide them?

Im not saying that hes a subversive communist, but I am saying that his campaign intentionally hid his extreme background because if it would have been made public, he wouldnt have been elected.

Mr.Meanie
11-03-2010, 01:33 PM
1) You address the immigration situation. You either naturalize those who are here and close the border or you develop a work visa program. Within the framework of either of those solutions is an address of illegal immigrant useage of public services including medical care and infrastructure. This right now is a massive drain on state, county, and federal budgets.

If you naturalize the illegals, you charge them for the naturalization education and process.

I would love to see those drains quantified, and then compared to the added value of low-wage labor work forces keeping costs down in industries like agriculture, construction, food and cleaning services, etc.

Illegal immigration is a problem, but I doubt the effect on the budget deficit is as big of a bogeyman as it's made out to be. I am interested in real quantifiable budget deficit reductions, not just blue-sky generalizations like "well if we get rid of all the illegals and stop welfare and Obamacare we fix the deficit".

Garcia Bronco
11-03-2010, 01:34 PM
LOL You clearly know very little to nothing about the national Dem party, and perhaps national party politics in general. I'm not going to argue with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, it's pointless. If you want to stick with your argument whose conclusion is that Obama didn't accomplish anything by winning the presidency then I don't know what to tell you.

No one said he didn't accomplish anything. What was said was that it wasn't that difficult for him. Soon though th only thing he'll be able to do is convert O2 to NO2 because his agenda comes to a halt.

Old Dude
11-03-2010, 01:35 PM
Strangely, I'm an optimist.

I don't know how much we've pumped into Iraq over the last decade. Some estimates have the cost of that military action as high as 740 billion. Whatever it was, we'll hopefully get some breathing room.

I blame both parties for the mortgage crisis. You had to be blind not to see the problems coming down the pike with all the balloon deals, and people just blindly assuming that the market would keep going infinitely up while interest rates, that were already minimal, continued to fall.

Locally, the airlines industry took a massive hit with 911.

Health care costs are out of control. Part of the problem is that people are living longer. Part of it is pure insanity. There is no rational reason why an aspirin should cost $20 just because you get in in-patient instead of over the counter. Other meds can cost over a thousand times what you're charged if you belong to the right "group."

We had large numbers of people plan their retirements around their 401Ks. Boom. Now we want to privatize social security? Good luck with that.

Toss in the mess with oil and energy prices - like we didn't see that coming, either.

I think that this stuff can be dealt with but not overnight. It wasn't created overnight. But we'll manage to dig our way out eventually. We always do.

And then we'll do something stupid again, because we always do that too.

Requiem
11-03-2010, 01:35 PM
Obama. . . super far left? Lol.

Rohirrim
11-03-2010, 01:35 PM
Oh, and about the issues concerning Obama, it doesnt take a genius to see why people would wonder how far left he really is. He was ushered through the campaign by an adoring media who in their zeal for electing the first black president refused to provide any real coverage to the vetting process.

Questions began to emerge about his church of 20 years, which is known to spout anti-American rhetoric and adheres to Marxist philosophy. Questions also began to emerge based on his ultra-liberal voting record in the Senate. Questions also began to emerge based on his associates like Bill Ayers and Van Jones, both militant communists. Questions also emerged due to the fact he wouldnt release his educational information. Questions also emerged due to his own writing in his memoirs about his communist associates, and the fact that he wanted to emulate his Marxist revolutionary father.

Those are all legitimate questions that were not addressed by Obama (other than the fact he fired Van Jones) or the media at large, so it should be obvious why people would be concerned. A guy who campaigned on transparency was hiding his background and his associations. Why would he need to hide them?

Ooops! There goes the drama llama, spinning out into la la land again.

Quoydogs
11-03-2010, 01:36 PM
racist?!?! I have plenty of friends that can't swim!

zowie!

TonyR
11-03-2010, 01:37 PM
I'm thinking we're moving into "burn the house down" territory. The crazies are rising to the top. This is the breath before the plunge. The Right Wing crazies are going to realize they can't do anything about the economy so their only option will be diversionary attack politics.

Yup, it's actually a little bit frightening. I'd be perfectly fine with a sane, moderate GOP taking over the House. Unfortunately we're not getting anything close to that. The next two years will be about getting a Republican in the White House in two years. Very little to nothing will be accomplished for the good of the country in the interim. And what's even more frightening to ponder is if they succeed.

TonyR
11-03-2010, 01:41 PM
Ooops! There goes the drama llama, spinning out into la la land again.

He really is a train wreck. Hard to look away, I have to admit.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 01:42 PM
I would love to see those drains quantified, and then compared to the added value of low-wage labor work forces keeping costs down in industries like agriculture, construction, food and cleaning services, etc.

Illegal immigration is a problem, but I doubt the effect on the budget deficit is as big of a bogeyman as it's made out to be. I am interested in real quantifiable budget deficit reductions, not just blue-sky generalizations like "well if we get rid of all the illegals and stop welfare and Obamacare we fix the deficit".

Illegal immigration is closing hospitals all over the southwest and in California.

The drain on the medical community is massive.

ER's have become illegal immigrant general practitioners...they are taking advantage of the law that keeps ER's from turning away patients.

TonyR
11-03-2010, 01:42 PM
Douthat with some good points:

[A]ll the ground the Republicans regained ... doesn’t change the fact that what liberals achieved in Barack Obama’s first two years in office was more consequential than any conservative victories in recent memory.

The question is what happens next. If the backlash persists into 2012, if the Republicans get serious about policy, if this cycle’s conservative gains are a prelude to conservative legislative successes down the road, then the Democrats’ decision to gamble their majority on health care reform may come to look reckless and self-destructive, and the victories of the 111th Congress will seem pyrrhic rather than enduring.

But that’s a lot of “if”s. For now, for tonight, Republicans need to keep a lid on their euphoria and recognize that while they’ve come out on top in this election, in the most important sense they haven’t won anything just yet.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/was-it-worth-it/

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-03-2010, 01:44 PM
Ooops! There goes the drama llama, spinning out into la la land again.

Why argue on real points when he can just rehash the same old tin-foil hat bull**** the right always uses? Why ask interesting questions that matter when you can bog down the process by discussing garbage like this? Why go for the news when Americans want TMZ?

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 01:45 PM
Ooops! There goes the drama llama, spinning out into la la land again.

So instead of attacking me personally, why dont you address the issues raised in the post?

Whether or not you like the fact that people have those questions, they exist.

Your party is just now seeing the result of not addressing the issues raised by the citizens of this country. If you guys continue with this pattern of 'we dont have to tell you anything', the president will be tossed alongside Jimmy Carter in the anals of one-term failures.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-03-2010, 01:45 PM
So instead of attacking me personally, why dont you address the issues raised in the post?

Whether or not you like the fact that people have those questions, they exist.

Your party is just now seeing the result of not addressing the issues raised by the citizens of this country. If you guys continue with this pattern of 'we dont have to tell you anything', the president will be tossed alongside Jimmy Carter in the anals of one-term failures.

Demanding a birth certificate in 3... 2... 1...

Especially coming from you, this is remarkably funny: "If you guys continue with this pattern of 'we dont have to tell you anything', the president will be tossed alongside Jimmy Carter in the anals of one-term failures." Uh, didn't you vote for Bush? Twice? HURRRRRRRRRRR DA HURRR HURRRR.

Garcia Bronco
11-03-2010, 01:48 PM
Seriously. Llama owns you guys most of the time in your debates because you guys end up reducing yourselves to childish taunts and what not. When you do that...you lose.

Mr.Meanie
11-03-2010, 01:48 PM
Illegal immigration is closing hospitals all over the southwest and in California.

The drain on the medical community is massive.

ER's have become illegal immigrant general practitioners...they are taking advantage of the law that keeps ER's from turning away patients.

So what I'm saying is quantify it. Just saying "I'm positive it's really really big" and relating anecdotal experiences to try to reinforce your point doesn't mean anything. If you can show the actual budget negatives vs. the actual positives, you can clearly articulate the argument for budget deficit reduction via fixing the illegal immigration problem.

Paladin
11-03-2010, 01:49 PM
Ooops! There goes the drama llama, spinning out into la la land again.

Please don't pick on the Drama LLama. He is the 2nd tallest midget here.....

Rohirrim
11-03-2010, 01:54 PM
So instead of attacking me personally, why dont you address the issues raised in the post?

Whether or not you like the fact that people have those questions, they exist.

Your party is just now seeing the result of not addressing the issues raised by the citizens of this country. If you guys continue with this pattern of 'we dont have to tell you anything', the president will be tossed alongside Jimmy Carter in the anals of one-term failures.

Arguing with you has a "Memento" quality to it. All of the tea party candidates who won ran on a platform of not talking to the press, not doing interviews and saying, literally, "We don't have to tell you anything." The key issue in the polls two years ago was health care costs. But you say Obama didn't address that?

See what I mean? Memento.

bronclvr
11-03-2010, 01:54 PM
Garcia speaks the truth-

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 01:56 PM
So what I'm saying is quantify it. Just saying "I'm positive it's really really big" and relating anecdotal experiences to try to reinforce your point doesn't mean anything. If you can show the actual budget negatives vs. the actual positives, you can clearly articulate the argument for budget deficit reduction via fixing the illegal immigration problem.

In 2006, the Texas Comptroller reported 1.6 billion spent on illegal immigrant care.

2006, California reported 1.4 billion

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_N.htm

"If you want to do something that will have a meaningful impact on the problem of the uninsured, then you must talk about undocumented immigrants," says James Smith, a senior economist at the RAND Corp.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 01:58 PM
Texas Facing Rising Costs for Illegal Immigrant Care

http://www.kfdm.com/articles/texas-39086-million-care.html

Rohirrim
11-03-2010, 02:00 PM
This thread was going along nicely. I guess it's time for the drama llama to derail it.

Garcia Bronco
11-03-2010, 02:04 PM
Absolutely. I am all for coming up with a better solution for healthcare, but until we address the illegal problem it's moot. Also, if you want to lower costs the first thing you have to look at in the foundation for increased costs. Is it insurance? No. It's the Hospitals and Doctors bleeding us dry. So until you do something about what they can charge...costs will always go up.

Old Dude
11-03-2010, 02:05 PM
Okay - update on Bennet & Buck.

Arapahoe now apparently has 85% of its precincts reporting. Same for Boulder County. Everyone else is done.

Bennet has 15,444 vote lead. (794,724 to 779,280) He's continuing to blow away Buck in Boulder and still maintains a 3% edge in Arapahoe.

http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2010/colorado/senate


Edit: MSNBC now calling the race for Bennet.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 02:05 PM
This thread was going along nicely. I guess it's time for the drama llama to derail it.

You know, you could always address the post instead of going all ad hominem.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-03-2010, 02:06 PM
Okay - update on Bennet & Buck.

Arapahoe now apparently has 85% of its precincts reporting. Same for Boulder County. Everyone else is done.

Bennet has 15,444 vote lead. (794,724 to 779,280) He's continuing to blow away Buck in Boulder and still maintains a 3% edge in Arapahoe.

http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2010/colorado/senate

http://www.bytelove.com/images/uploads/Bytelove/Generic/excellent%20-%20zoom.jpg

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 02:07 PM
Absolutely. I am all for coming up with a better solution for healthcare, but until we address the illegal problem it's moot. Also, if you want to lower costs the first thing you have to look at in the foundation for increased costs. Is it insurance? No. It's the Hospitals and Doctors bleeding us dry. So until you do something about what they can charge...costs will always go up.

The doctors and hospitals are bleeding you dry because malpractice insurance is unreasonably high. The cost of doing business is very high.

Tort reform is needed.

TonyR
11-03-2010, 02:08 PM
Llama owns you guys most of the time in your debates...

Debates? When has he debated? He makes speeches which are largely regurgitation of Fox News and right wing radio personality talking points. It's questionable whether he even reads people's responses because he ignores the more pointed responses he gets. He's like arguing with Rain Man, he's not going to listen and he's going to keep blabbing back the same nonsense. But maybe if he can count cards like Ray Babbit he'd be useful in Vegas...

ColoradoDarin
11-03-2010, 02:08 PM
Absolutely. I am all for coming up with a better solution for healthcare, but until we address the illegal problem it's moot. Also, if you want to lower costs the first thing you have to look at in the foundation for increased costs. Is it insurance? No. It's the Hospitals and Doctors bleeding us dry. So until you do something about what they can charge...costs will always go up.

And it's the lawyers who bleed the doctors dry, who pass along that cost to us. My father in law is a doctor in NC, he pays over half of his income in malpractice insurance (he's only been sued once in 25+ years and won that case). Imagine paying half of your income out just to do your job!

Mr.Meanie
11-03-2010, 02:10 PM
In 2006, the Texas Comptroller reported 1.6 billion spent on illegal immigrant care.

2006, California reported 1.4 billion

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_N.htm

"If you want to do something that will have a meaningful impact on the problem of the uninsured, then you must talk about undocumented immigrants," says James Smith, a senior economist at the RAND Corp.

From your article:

Because most illegal immigrants are relatively young and healthy, they generally don't need as much health care treatment as U.S. citizens, studies show. But while they account for less than 2% of national medical spending, their growing presence is a problem in places such as eastern North Carolina, one of the nation's poorest areas.

So illegal immigration accounts for less than 2% of national medical spending, and how much of that effects the Federal budget deficit? And how much value added back into the economy and thus federal taxes are resulting from illegal immigration? I would bet the effect on the federal budget deficit is relatively quite small, while the effect on certain state budgets is larger.

There are many reasons and ideas for fixing the illegal immigration problem in the U.S. But using that as your cure-all for the budget deficit is clearly misguided.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 02:10 PM
Low Cost States

<LI id=jsArticleStep1 itxtvisited="1">Minnesota has some of the lowest malpractice costs for doctors. However, the cost of insurance in Minnesota varies widely by specialty. Internal medicine, general surgery and obstetrics are three of the areas monitored by groups like the Government Accountability Office. As of 2009, the average cost for malpractice insurance for general surgeons hovered around $10,000 per year; for internal medicine, $4,000 per year; and for OB/GYNs, up to $17,000 per year.

Malpractice liability insurance rates in California, on the other hand, depend largely upon demographics, and so average rates may vary from place to place. Some of the largest insurers also deviate from one another widely in terms of how much insurance costs. At the low end, doctors in internal medicine may only pay $6,000 per year from premium coverage. However, in 2009, OB/GYNs could end up paying more than $55,000 per year for insurance coverage (http://www.ehow.com/about_5514154_average-cost-medical-malpractice-insurance.html#). Insurance for general surgeons can cost between $22,000 per year and $34,000 per year.

Average Cost States

<LI id=jsArticleStep1 itxtvisited="1">Pennsylvania malpractice insurance falls in the middle with respect to average cost. Rates differ between the major insurers due to demographic and claims differences. In 2009 base rates for general surgery could be as low as $28,000 annually or as high as $50,000. Internal medicine malpractice insurance costs varied between around $6,000 to $11,000. Obstetricians/gynecologists could find themselves paying up to $64,000 or more for coverage.

High Cost States

<LI id=jsArticleStep1 itxtvisited="1">While Nevada malpractice insurance rates are between middle to high in comparison with all other states, doctors of many types in Nevada---including general internists, pediatricians, and general practice doctors---earn a higher average salary than doctors in any other state. In 2009 one of the highest rates of insurance in Nevada is for OB/GYNs, who may pay between $85,000 for malpractice liability insurance per year up to $142,000 per year for a premium plan by a prominent insurance company. Although the average annual salary for such doctors is around $180,000 in 2009, malpractice insurance can still be a huge financial burden.

Florida has some of the highest rates of liability insurance. Moreover, the deviation between low and high averages varies in Florida more widely than in almost any other state. For instance, a doctor in internal medicine in Florida could expect to pay in excess of $56,000 per year for insurance as in 2009, in contrast with Minnesota's $4,000. General surgeons paid in between $90,000 per year and $175,000 per year or more. OB/GYNs once again could expect the highest rates, with liability coverage ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 per year

Read more: The Average Cost for Medical Malpractice Insurance | eHow.com (http://www.ehow.com/about_5514154_average-cost-medical-malpractice-insurance.html#ixzz14FgrYfAF) http://www.ehow.com/about_5514154_average-cost-medical-malpractice-insurance.html#ixzz14FgrYfAF

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 02:14 PM
From your article:



So illegal immigration accounts for less than 2% of national medical spending, and how much of that effects the Federal budget deficit? And how much value added back into the economy and thus federal taxes are resulting from illegal immigration? I would bet the effect on the federal budget deficit is relatively quite small, while the effect on certain state budgets is larger.

There are many reasons and ideas for fixing the illegal immigration problem in the U.S. But using that as your cure-all for the budget deficit is clearly misguided.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that it was the cure all.

Its time to start looking at trimming around the edges.

States get federal funding that gets shuffled around to help account for losses like the aforementioned illegal immigration expenditures.

Every 1.6 billion dollars you can trim is 1.6 billion that doesnt add to the debt, and 1.6 billion that doesnt have to be written into the tax code.

Garcia Bronco
11-03-2010, 02:15 PM
Okay - update on Bennet & Buck.

Arapahoe now apparently has 85% of its precincts reporting. Same for Boulder County. Everyone else is done.

Bennet has 15,444 vote lead. (794,724 to 779,280) He's continuing to blow away Buck in Boulder and still maintains a 3% edge in Arapahoe.

http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2010/colorado/senate


Edit: MSNBC now calling the race for Bennet.

It's over then.

Garcia Bronco
11-03-2010, 02:16 PM
Debates? When has he debated? He makes speeches which are largely regurgitation of Fox News and right wing radio personality talking points. It's questionable whether he even reads people's responses because he ignores the more pointed responses he gets. He's like arguing with Rain Man, he's not going to listen and he's going to keep blabbing back the same nonsense. But maybe if he can count cards like Ray Babbit he'd be useful in Vegas...

Again with the personal attacks.

Mile High Shack
11-03-2010, 02:22 PM
The doctors and hospitals are bleeding you dry because malpractice insurance is unreasonably high. The cost of doing business is very high.

Tort reform is needed.

Tort reform would only shave off about 2% of the cost of health care

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/09/would_tort_reform_make_much_di.html

it's going to take a lot more work than that to get rising health care costs under control

TonyR
11-03-2010, 02:25 PM
The Tea Party is coming up big.

Tea Party Republicanism had a big outing tonight, much bigger than I’d have thought possible. So it’s fair to say to me: You were wrong. You thought that nominating people like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell and Ken Buck would be a formula for disaster, but see – we got away with it, more or less. Except we didn’t get away with it. The people who inflicted Angle and O’Donnell on the GOP threw away ridiculously winnable Senate seats. ...

Will there be accountability for these self-inflicted disasters? It’s one thing to lose an election over principle. But what principle requires the nomination of the inept and the arrogant? Here are candidates who declare that they are running to defend freedom from Kenyan Marxist fascism and then refuse to answer questions from reporters – or outright order reporters arrested.
http://www.frumforum.com/congrats-now-our-real-work-begins

This was Angle’s race to lose, and boy, she lost it. She was the worst major Republican candidate in the country — who talked rather freely over a long political career on unusual and peculiar topics — and only went under the media radar in September because Christine O’Donnell emerged in Delaware. Reid turned the race into a referendum on Angle, and took it.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/380126

Garcia Bronco
11-03-2010, 02:26 PM
Tort reform would only shave off about 2% of the cost of health care

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/09/would_tort_reform_make_much_di.html

it's going to take a lot more work than that to get rising health care costs under control

The payouts amount to 2 percent

the malpractice premiums are significantly more.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 02:27 PM
Tort reform would only shave off about 2% of the cost of health care

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/09/would_tort_reform_make_much_di.html

it's going to take a lot more work than that to get rising health care costs under control

Exactly.

In terms of your numbers, 2% looks small on paper, but if you turned that 2% around and invested it into R & D to develop new, cheaper imaging technology (CT scan costs about 5K a pop on the consumer end) would it not serve a better purpose?

Or you could let the doctors use that money to address the needs of their patients since its coming out of their pockets.

But why stop there and call it a day? Why not actually address the inefficiencies in our government and repair them for everyone?

Mile High Shack
11-03-2010, 02:28 PM
The payouts amount to 2 percent

the malpractice premiums are significantly more.

it's still a fraction of the total expense

we need to get costs (drug, doctor, etc) under control

need to get insurance premiums under control

a LOT of work needs to be done, tackling tort reform first is like picking the head off of a zit on a person with leprosy

Tombstone RJ
11-03-2010, 02:30 PM
Whether people like the Tea Party candidates and political agenda or not, the Tea Party has done one very profound thing: it has put the Republican party on notice.

I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican. My disdain for the Republicans is only matched by my utter contempt for the clueless Democrats. That being said, I'm all for less government, less government and more less government.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 02:30 PM
it's still a fraction of the total expense

we need to get costs (drug, doctor, etc) under control

need to get insurance premiums under control

a LOT of work needs to be done, tackling tort reform first is like picking the head off of a zit on a person with leprosy

Its one inefficiency amongst many.

And its insane how much money is wasted in each inefficiency.

We're talking about unemployment at 10%, and underemployment at God knows what number. We should be looking at ways to contract the cost of government because the economy has contracted. You cant keep paying on your Corvette when you lose your 100k job and get another one that earns 35k.

They all should be addressed.

There should be a congressional comittee on government waste, and they should look at these issues before every budget. Our representatives should be about the peoples' business and not their own.

TonyR
11-03-2010, 02:33 PM
This is interesting:

John Boehner said this:
"While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people's House, we must remember it's the president who sets the agenda for our government."

William Saletan notes:

Gingrich set the agenda. He put forward a platform, treated the election as a referendum on it, and tried to implement it. He governed. He played quarterback, or at least head coach. For this, Gingrich paid a steep price. Against his offense, President Clinton played middle linebacker. In 1995 and 1996, Clinton ran against Gingrich's agenda and beat it.

From this episode, Boehner seems to have learned a political lesson: Don't play offense. Stay in the role of middle linebacker. Let the president set the agenda. For two years, with an eye on the midterms, Boehner has followed this strategy, refusing to put forward a clear program that President Obama could attack. What's surprising is that Boehner is sticking with this defensive posture even after winning power. He has been thrust into leadership but doesn't want it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2273344/

This makes it all the more clear how the GOP is going to play it. They're not going to govern. They're going to attack Obama's every move.

Rohirrim
11-03-2010, 02:36 PM
Tea Party Republicanism had a big outing tonight, much bigger than I’d have thought possible. So it’s fair to say to me: You were wrong. You thought that nominating people like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell and Ken Buck would be a formula for disaster, but see – we got away with it, more or less. Except we didn’t get away with it. The people who inflicted Angle and O’Donnell on the GOP threw away ridiculously winnable Senate seats. ...

Will there be accountability for these self-inflicted disasters? It’s one thing to lose an election over principle. But what principle requires the nomination of the inept and the arrogant? Here are candidates who declare that they are running to defend freedom from Kenyan Marxist fascism and then refuse to answer questions from reporters – or outright order reporters arrested.
http://www.frumforum.com/congrats-now-our-real-work-begins

This was Angle’s race to lose, and boy, she lost it. She was the worst major Republican candidate in the country — who talked rather freely over a long political career on unusual and peculiar topics — and only went under the media radar in September because Christine O’Donnell emerged in Delaware. Reid turned the race into a referendum on Angle, and took it.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/380126

The tea party certainly didn't do the Republicans any favors. It completely lost them two sure seats in Delaware in the House and Senate. The Republicans top goal was to toss Reid and Pelosi. They got Pelosi just because they were able to turn over conservative seats in Republican districts held by Dems. Angle completely collapsed in the effort against Reid. And now, the Republicans are sitting there with a bee hive of tea party radicalism in their laps. If not for the tea party, the GOP probably would have taken the Senate too, but the voters were turned off by all the nutjob candidates.

Rohirrim
11-03-2010, 02:37 PM
This is interesting:

John Boehner said this:
"While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people's House, we must remember it's the president who sets the agenda for our government."

William Saletan notes:

Gingrich set the agenda. He put forward a platform, treated the election as a referendum on it, and tried to implement it. He governed. He played quarterback, or at least head coach. For this, Gingrich paid a steep price. Against his offense, President Clinton played middle linebacker. In 1995 and 1996, Clinton ran against Gingrich's agenda and beat it.

From this episode, Boehner seems to have learned a political lesson: Don't play offense. Stay in the role of middle linebacker. Let the president set the agenda. For two years, with an eye on the midterms, Boehner has followed this strategy, refusing to put forward a clear program that President Obama could attack. What's surprising is that Boehner is sticking with this defensive posture even after winning power. He has been thrust into leadership but doesn't want it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2273344/

This makes it all the more clear how the GOP is going to play it. They're not going to govern. They're going to attack Obama's every move.

No kidding. Last night he was talking about all he was going to do. This morning, it's hands off. You're right. They're going to do nothing but attack.

Tombstone RJ
11-03-2010, 02:37 PM
This is interesting:

John Boehner said this:
"While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people's House, we must remember it's the president who sets the agenda for our government."

William Saletan notes:

Gingrich set the agenda. He put forward a platform, treated the election as a referendum on it, and tried to implement it. He governed. He played quarterback, or at least head coach. For this, Gingrich paid a steep price. Against his offense, President Clinton played middle linebacker. In 1995 and 1996, Clinton ran against Gingrich's agenda and beat it.

From this episode, Boehner seems to have learned a political lesson: Don't play offense. Stay in the role of middle linebacker. Let the president set the agenda. For two years, with an eye on the midterms, Boehner has followed this strategy, refusing to put forward a clear program that President Obama could attack. What's surprising is that Boehner is sticking with this defensive posture even after winning power. He has been thrust into leadership but doesn't want it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2273344/

This makes it all the more clear how the GOP is going to play it. They're not going to govern. They're going to attack Obama's every move.

Yah, they are gonna let Obama hang himself. So be it. Obama is the worst president I've ever had the non priviledge of knowing.

Old Dude
11-03-2010, 02:38 PM
Issues I see with health care.

Most of the so-called "Obama-care" doesn't even kick in until 2014. There are some exceptions, mostly for seniors who have maxed out their normal coverage, but the bulk of it isn't even in place yet.

The biggest issue I have with the package is the low penalty for opting out. The whole idea behind this thing is that greater numbers of people will basically form larger groups and their combined contributions will spread around the costs. In addition, administrative fees should drop due to unification in the programs. So a lot of its success depends on how many people get on board.

As I understand it, the penalty for not pitching in - for the average young adult - is only about $95 per year. The premiums are going to run a lot higher than that, so if I'm in good health, single and in my 20s, I say screw it and just pay the fine. Then, a few years down the road, when I start wanting coverage for my family, or when I start developing medical issues, I join in with the other needy folks. If anything, it's TOO voluntary.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 02:39 PM
This tidbit astounds me:


CNN exit polls report that when asked who is to blame for the economy, the number one answer was Wall Street, then President Bush, then Obama. And that the ones who blamed Wall Street voted for the GOP by 11 percentage points.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 02:42 PM
Yah, they are gonna let Obama hang himself. So be it. Obama is the worst president I've ever had the non priviledge of knowing.

You've proven to know SOOOOOO little about politics over the course of the past two years, but still come here and spew your bull****

cutthemdown
11-03-2010, 02:42 PM
It's still up to Obama to be the leader. All this does is kill his rubber stamp and forces him to pick some more middle of the road issues to work on. 2 years goes by so fast it's hardly enough time to do much. In less then a yr the election cycle kicks in again and we will have a Presidential election to deal with.

Obama and the repubs will battle it out over the Bush tax cuts and how much of them get extended as the first issue. By the time that's over a bunch of months will have passed and those 24 months we had until the election won't seem very far away.

Tombstone RJ
11-03-2010, 02:43 PM
You've proven to know SOOOOOO little about politics over the course of the past two years, but still come here and spew your bull****

LOL

eh, ok.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 02:44 PM
It's still up to Obama to be the leader. All this does is kill his rubber stamp and forces him to pick some more middle of the road issues to work on. 2 years goes by so fast it's hardly enough time to do much. In less then a yr the election cycle kicks in again and we will have a Presidential election to deal with.

Obama and the repubs will battle it out over the Bush tax cuts and how much of them get extended as the first issue. By the time that's over a bunch of months will have passed and those 24 months we had until the election won't seem very far away.

Im still curious as to who the GOP will trot out in 2012.

cutthemdown
11-03-2010, 02:44 PM
This tidbit astounds me:


CNN exit polls report that when asked who is to blame for the economy, the number one answer was Wall Street, then President Bush, then Obama. And that the ones who blamed Wall Street voted for the GOP by 11 percentage points.

That tells me Obama has really done a poor job. Also it tells me it's easier to hate a person then an entity like a corp or wall street.

Bush was smart to lay low. The fact he has been silent for 2 yrs has made Obama have to own the economy earlier then he may have had to if Bush went around defending his record.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 02:44 PM
The tea party certainly didn't do the Republicans any favors. It completely lost them two sure seats in Delaware in the House and Senate. The Republicans top goal was to toss Reid and Pelosi. They go Pelosi just because they were able to turn over conservative seats in Republican districts held by Dems. Angle completely collapsed in the effort against Reid. And now, the Republicans are sitting there with a bee hive of tea party radicalism in their laps. If not for the tea party, the GOP probably would have taken the Senate too, but the voters were turned off by all the nutjob candidates.

Angle and O'Donnell accounted for 2 of 110+ Tea Party candidates.

In terms of the Senate, they accounted for 2 of 15 Tea Party candidates.

The Tea Party won 10 of 15 attempted Senate races. That's a better percentage than the democrats achieved.

cutthemdown
11-03-2010, 02:46 PM
Im still curious as to who the GOP will trot out in 2012.

I don't think even they know. One thing is for sure the repub primary is going to be crazy. What would really be crazy is if some dem decides to run against Obama.

If Hilliary was smart she would resign right now, then say that admin is really messed up and she can no longer work for a bad leader, lol, then start raising money to run for President again. Now that would be a first, and really fun to watch.

Has any party every had a sitting incumbent seriously challenged in a primary?

Mr.Meanie
11-03-2010, 02:47 PM
Issues I see with health care.

Most of the so-called "Obama-care" doesn't even kick in until 2014. There are some exceptions, mostly for seniors who have maxed out their normal coverage, but the bulk of it isn't even in place yet.

The biggest issue I have with the package is the low penalty for opting out. The whole idea behind this thing is that greater numbers of people will basically form larger groups and their combined contributions will spread around the costs. In addition, administrative fees should drop due to unification in the programs. So a lot of its success depends on how many people get on board.

As I understand it, the penalty for not pitching in - for the average young adult - is only about $95 per year. The premiums are going to run a lot higher than that, so if I'm in good health, single and in my 20s, I say screw it and just pay the fine. Then, a few years down the road, when I start wanting coverage for my family, or when I start developing medical issues, I join in with the other needy folks. If anything, it's TOO voluntary.

It's $95 or 1% of your income, whichever is greater, for the first year. After that it goes up to the greater of $695 or 2% of your income.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/your-money/health-insurance/22consumer.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Health+care+bill+will+affect+everyone&st=nyt)

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 02:47 PM
That tells me Obama has really done a poor job. Also it tells me it's easier to hate a person then an entity like a corp or wall street.

Bush was smart to lay low. The fact he has been silent for 2 yrs has made Obama have to own the economy earlier then he may have had to if Bush went around defending his record.

Yeah, somethings really amiss. Also, polls said a plurality of the public trusted dems more the reps, but were more willing to vote for republicans...so i dunno, the electorate is weird. Im not sure what to make of either of these stats

cutthemdown
11-03-2010, 02:47 PM
The house can fight Obama's healthcare by refusing to fund it maybe? That's if he won't cave on provisions they want changed etc etc. Pretty sure more money still has to be put in the budget for it. Can't they just not fund it and make Obama veto the budget?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-03-2010, 02:48 PM
This is interesting:

John Boehner said this:
"While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people's House, we must remember it's the president who sets the agenda for our government."

William Saletan notes:

Gingrich set the agenda. He put forward a platform, treated the election as a referendum on it, and tried to implement it. He governed. He played quarterback, or at least head coach. For this, Gingrich paid a steep price. Against his offense, President Clinton played middle linebacker. In 1995 and 1996, Clinton ran against Gingrich's agenda and beat it.

From this episode, Boehner seems to have learned a political lesson: Don't play offense. Stay in the role of middle linebacker. Let the president set the agenda. For two years, with an eye on the midterms, Boehner has followed this strategy, refusing to put forward a clear program that President Obama could attack. What's surprising is that Boehner is sticking with this defensive posture even after winning power. He has been thrust into leadership but doesn't want it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2273344/

This makes it all the more clear how the GOP is going to play it. They're not going to govern. They're going to attack Obama's every move.

Awesome. Can't ****ing wait.

Tombstone RJ
11-03-2010, 02:48 PM
It's still up to Obama to be the leader. All this does is kill his rubber stamp and forces him to pick some more middle of the road issues to work on. 2 years goes by so fast it's hardly enough time to do much. In less then a yr the election cycle kicks in again and we will have a Presidential election to deal with.

Obama and the repubs will battle it out over the Bush tax cuts and how much of them get extended as the first issue. By the time that's over a bunch of months will have passed and those 24 months we had until the election won't seem very far away.

Yep, and guess what Obama is gonna be doing for last year of his presidency, that's right, he's gonna be compaigning the whole time. He's the most worthless "leader" I've ever seen. He's good at two things: running around campaigning, and being told what to do by his flunkys. He's not a leader, he's a spineless politician who lacks fortitude and vision.

Mr.Meanie
11-03-2010, 02:49 PM
I don't think even they know. One thing is for sure the repub primary is going to be crazy. What would really be crazy is if some dem decides to run against Obama.

If Hilliary was smart she would resign right now, then say that admin is really messed up and she can no longer work for a bad leader, lol, then start raising money to run for President again. Now that would be a first, and really fun to watch.

Has any party every had a sitting incumbent seriously challenged in a primary?

I'm betting Biden "steps down", and Hillary runs as VP with Obama. She would be positioning for 2016.

Old Dude
11-03-2010, 02:49 PM
Angle and O'Donnell accounted for 2 of 110+ Tea Party candidates.

In terms of the Senate, they accounted for 2 of 15 Tea Party candidates.

The Tea Party won 10 of 15 attempted Senate races. That's a better percentage than the democrats achieved.

I think the counter argument is that the GOP might have won even more senate seats if they hadn't been driven to the right by their tea party wing.

I don't know about the nation as a whole, but a more moderate Republican, such as Norton, would probably have beaten Bennet in Colorado. So it's kind of a mixed bag.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-03-2010, 02:50 PM
That tells me Obama has really done a poor job. Also it tells me it's easier to hate a person then an entity like a corp or wall street.

Bush was smart to lay low. The fact he has been silent for 2 yrs has made Obama have to own the economy earlier then he may have had to if Bush went around defending his record.

Bush is a coward, and knew nobody would buy him "defending his record." Give me a break.

That's like saying Clinton was brave to "come forward" about Lewinski when he'd already been caught. ****ing retarded.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 02:51 PM
Yep, and guess what Obama is gonna be doing for last year of his presidency, that's right, he's gonna be compaigning the whole time. He's the most worthless "leader" I've ever seen. He's good at two things: running around campaigning, and being told what to do by his flunkys. He's not a leader, he's a spineless politician who lacks fortitude and vision.

Ummm Obama and the last congress has been the most active congress in the past 40 years.

http://whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com/

cutthemdown
11-03-2010, 02:52 PM
Yeah, somethings really amiss. Also, polls said a plurality of the public trusted dems more the reps, but were more willing to vote for republicans...so i dunno, the electorate is weird. Im not sure what to make of either of these stats

It makes sense if you think about it. It's not like voters gave repubs all 3 entities. Dems still have senate and president. All repubs have is the house. If anything this is the American way. We don't every let one party have the power trifecta for long. Why? because when that happens the checks and balances are lost and we fly to far right or left.

So dems should take a deep breathe. Not often is it as easy to pass big law like it was for them on healthcare. They simply said we don't need repubs because we have so many seats.

Now they will be forced to compromise just like all the other adminstrations have had to do at some point in there 4 yrs.

If Obama thinks he can still pull off far left legislation then he will crash and burn like Carter. If he comes to the right like Clinton did he can still be very successful. This is the best thing Obama could have hoped for. Now at least dems have some chance of not taking all the blame.

But if economy now take off over next 2 yrs, you know repubs will be trying to take credit. It really is pretty funny.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 02:52 PM
The house can fight Obama's healthcare by refusing to fund it maybe? That's if he won't cave on provisions they want changed etc etc. Pretty sure more money still has to be put in the budget for it. Can't they just not fund it and make Obama veto the budget?

There are certain parts they can obstruct, but they cant repeal it...itll be a push and pull for a while.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 02:53 PM
It makes sense if you think about it. It's not like voters gave repubs all 3 entities. Dems still have senate and president. All repubs have is the house. If anything this is the American way. We don't every let one party have the power trifecta for long. Why? because when that happens the checks and balances are lost and we fly to far right or left.

So dems should take a deep breathe. Not often is it as easy to pass big law like it was for them on healthcare. They simply said we don't need repubs because we have so many seats.

Now they will be forced to compromise just like all the other adminstrations have had to do at some point in there 4 yrs.

If Obama thinks he can still pull off far left legislation then he will crash and burn like Carter. If he comes to the right like Clinton did he can still be very successful. This is the best thing Obama could have hoped for. Now at least dems have some chance of not taking all the blame.

But if economy now take off over next 2 yrs, you know repubs will be trying to take credit. It really is pretty funny.

Good point...except he's never even approached on "far left" agenda. His healthcare bill looked awfully similar to the one romney made in Mass and the repubs made in 94

Mile High Shack
11-03-2010, 02:55 PM
Yeah, somethings really amiss. Also, polls said a plurality of the public trusted dems more the reps, but were more willing to vote for republicans...so i dunno, the electorate is weird. Im not sure what to make of either of these stats

it means this

"where's my stuff"

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/92/92anightline.phtml

cutthemdown
11-03-2010, 02:55 PM
Bush is a coward, and knew nobody would buy him "defending his record." Give me a break.

That's like saying Clinton was brave to "come forward" about Lewinski when he'd already been caught. ****ing retarded.

It was a planned strategy by Bush to lay low. He made a decision to hardly talk at all for the past 2 yrs. It worked out well because out of sight, out of mind, really is a true statement.

I didn't say anything about bravery so not sure how you went off on that. Not surprised though you rarely say anything that logically makes sense. At least not when you are on the attack like you always want to be with me.

Go ahead make some english corrections you female sex organ.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-03-2010, 02:57 PM
Good point...except he's never even approached on "far left" agenda. His healthcare bill looked awfully similar to the one romney made in Mass and the repubs made in 94

True. In fact, it's a bit more centered than the Romney bill in Mass.

And when the Republicans start coming to the table with something other than "no," with a real answer for something -- ANYTHING -- we can stop talking about them having no vision or leadership. Fact is, healthcare wasn't going to get done, period, because they would rather obstruct and consolidate power than help people in this country.

Dems see the glass as half full. Repubs see the glass as theirs.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 02:57 PM
I think the counter argument is that the GOP might have won even more senate seats if they hadn't been driven to the right by their tea party wing.

I don't know about the nation as a whole, but a more moderate Republican, such as Norton, would probably have beaten Bennet in Colorado. So it's kind of a mixed bag.

Sure.

An issue with the senate races is that they turned into national races. As far as O'Donnell's campaign, the repubs initially refused to fund it. When they began funding it, she made up some ground in the polls.

Not to say that she would have won, but exit polling in Delaware suggested that any republican would have lost. It may have been a more competitive race, but Delaware is a blue state. It didnt help that Castle squabbled with her from the get go.

It could be said that the republican opposition was just as destructive as the democrat opposition to O'Donnell.

I think you're also looking at what inexperienced politicians look like in major races. People usually get their feet wet in local positions and work their way through. These werent savvy candidates, and they dont look good on SNL or the Jon Stewart show.

BroncoLifer
11-03-2010, 02:59 PM
Has any party every had a sitting incumbent seriously challenged in a primary?

Do the names "Gerald Ford" and "Ronald Reagan" ring any bells?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-03-2010, 03:00 PM
It was a planned strategy by Bush to lay low. He made a decision to hardly talk at all for the past 2 yrs. It worked out well because out of sight, out of mind, really is a true statement.

I didn't say anything about bravery so not sure how you went off on that. Not surprised though you rarely say anything that logically makes sense. At least not when you are on the attack like you always want to be with me.

Go ahead make some english corrections you female sex organ.

Aren't you just adorable. Getting personal when I did nothing of the sort. You little cutie pie.

He made that decision because he was afraid to face his record. Because he knew what the reaction would be. Because he's a coward. That's not attacking you.

Calling YOU a ****ing retard would be attacking you. IN this instance, you're a ****ing retard.

Go blow on something.

Tombstone RJ
11-03-2010, 03:00 PM
Ummm Obama and the last congress has been the most active congress in the past 40 years.

http://whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com/

like passing a 2000 page health care bill full of pork and crap and payoffs, written by the health insurance industry? You mean busy like that? Or busy like growing the fed gov., bailing out failing corporations (big business), and giving money to unions via a stimulis package that is full of waste?

You mean busy like that?

Thanks for nothing.

With this kind of leadership who needs enemies? Our fed gov. is more interested in growing the deficit than growing the economy. Obama is a puppet whose strings are pulled by a corrupt system.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 03:01 PM
like passing a 2000 page health care bill full of pork and crap and payoffs, written by the health insurance industry? You mean busy like that? Or busy like growing the fed gov., bailing out failing corporations (big business), and giving money to unions via a stimulis package that is full of waste?

You mean busy like that?

Thanks for nothing.

With this kind of leadership who needs enemies? Our fed gov. is more interested in growing the deficit than growing the economy. Obama is a puppet whose strings are pulled by a corrupt system.

<sigh> youre embarrassing yourself.

24champ
11-03-2010, 03:02 PM
I think the counter argument is that the GOP might have won even more senate seats if they hadn't been driven to the right by their tea party wing.

I don't know about the nation as a whole, but a more moderate Republican, such as Norton, would probably have beaten Bennet in Colorado. So it's kind of a mixed bag.

I don't think the so called moderates would have been that much different and voters weren't looking for compromise on fiscal sanity. That message was pretty clear last night to the Democrats.

Republicans have gained a significant strategic advantage for 2012 last night and a lot of that is a credit to the tea party.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 03:03 PM
I don't think the so called moderates would have been that much different and voters weren't looking for compromise on fiscal sanity. That message was pretty clear last night to the Democrats.

Republicans have gained a significant strategic advantage for 2012 last night and a lot of that is a credit to the tea party.

And, of course, the democrats complete inability to rally their base. Check out the stats of who voted this time from who voted in 08. ALL the young peeps stayed home.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-03-2010, 03:04 PM
I question the sanity of electing Republicans on the basis of fiscal sanity. Those folks must have been in a coma for the last 12 years.

Tombstone RJ
11-03-2010, 03:06 PM
<sigh> youre embarrassing yourself.

Oh yah, I forgot about the Banks not lending money, even after the fed gov. bailed them out. My bad.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 03:08 PM
I don't think the so called moderates would have been that much different and voters weren't looking for compromise on fiscal sanity. That message was pretty clear last night to the Democrats.

Republicans have gained a significant strategic advantage last night and a lot of that is a credit to the tea party.

40% of the people who voted yesterday identified with the Tea Party.

That's a huge number.

The Tea Party message is simple and crosses cultural lines. Its easy to understand.

Over the next 2 years, I would expect think tanks to refine the message. I would also expect this past election to refine the candidates.

The repubs will try to put the movement under thumb, but this movement isnt beholden to the republicans. They are just as much opposed to Bush as they are to Obama. They see them as progressive opposition to what essentially is a watered-down libertarianism.

If the repubs try to bow up to the tea party, expect fireworks and expect Obama to be re-elected.

I would also expect that a major strategy of the dems this election cycle will be to try to divide the tea party from the GOP.

24champ
11-03-2010, 03:09 PM
And, of course, the democrats complete inability to rally their base. Check out the stats of who voted this time from who voted in 08. ALL the young peeps stayed home.

Traditionally, young voters shouldn't be counted on to vote...they are very unreliable group of voters.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 03:10 PM
Oh yah, I forgot about the Banks not lending money, even after the fed gov. bailed them out. My bad.

On this i'll agree, the banks are irresponsible, though TARP was a maligned policy that actually worked for what it was supposed to do and taxpayers will make money on it.

I have a problem with the FEDS inflation fear, we're just repeating japan's mistakes

Rohirrim
11-03-2010, 03:11 PM
40% of the people who voted yesterday identified with the Tea Party.

That's a huge number.

The Tea Party message is simple and crosses cultural lines. Its easy to understand.

Over the next 2 years, I would expect think tanks to refine the message. I would also expect this past election to refine the candidates.

The repubs will try to put the movement under thumb, but this movement isnt beholden to the republicans. They are just as much opposed to Bush as they are to Obama. They see them as progressive opposition to what essentially is a watered-down libertarianism.

If the repubs try to bow up to the tea party, expect fireworks and expect Obama to be re-elected.

I would also expect that a major strategy of the dems this election cycle will be to try to divide the tea party from the GOP.

The question is, what is the Tea Party message? Keep your government hands off my Medicare?

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 03:11 PM
I think theres only one thing that will ever unite America from this point in...and thats an Alien attack...and im only partially playing around.

Old Dude
11-03-2010, 03:11 PM
I don't think the so called moderates would have been that much different and voters weren't looking for compromise on fiscal sanity. That message was pretty clear last night to the Democrats.

Republicans have gained a significant strategic advantage for 2012 last night and a lot of that is a credit to the tea party.

How so? I don't see it as any different than 1994, and the GOP did not fare all that well in 96. In fact, Gingrich and his gang actually went in with a bigger advantage, because they won both the House and the Senate, which the GOP failed to do here. How can they hope to implement any of their policies when the party is split and they control only one house? In 1994 to 1996, they were unable to accomplish anything, even with majorities in both houses.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 03:12 PM
The question is, what is the Tea Party message? Keep your government hands off my Medicare?

They have none...its just general anger. And the tea party is just the GOP...theres really no difference. 130 something tea party candidates, all republican

Tombstone RJ
11-03-2010, 03:12 PM
On this i'll agree, the banks are irresponsible, though TARP was a maligned policy that actually worked for what it was supposed to do and taxpayers will make money on it.

I have a problem with the FEDS inflation fear, we're just repeating japan's mistakes

Wow, we agree on something! ^5

Old Dude
11-03-2010, 03:12 PM
I think theres only one thing that will ever unite America from this point in...and thats an Alien attack...and im only partially playing around.


Architects of Fear! Greatest Outer Limits Episode Evar.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-03-2010, 03:15 PM
How so? I don't see it as any different than 1994, and the GOP did not fare all that well in 96. In fact, Gingrich and his gang actually went in with a bigger advantage, because they won both the House and the Senate, which the GOP failed to do here. How can they hope to implement any of their policies when the party is split and they control only one house? In 1994 to 1996, they were unable to accomplish anything, even with majorities in both houses.

The difference is Boehner. Say what you want, but the guy's not dumb. He knows Gingrich pursued an agenda and was defeated by Clinton. Boehner is not going to have an agenda. He's not going to have any answers or any solutions. He's simply going to say no.

Great way to get re-elected. Excellent way to vanquish your enemies. Does horrible collateral damage to the country.

But these are Republicans we're talking about here. It's not like they give a **** about America anyway.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 03:17 PM
The question is, what is the Tea Party message? Keep your government hands off my Medicare?

Cut. Back. The. Federal. Government.

Simple.

It means lop off as much as you can and put it back in the hands of citizens so that they can rebuild their lives and the economy in the process.

You shouldnt take that to the extreme libertarian view, because this is not a purely libertarian movement. It is a fiscally responsible movement, and there's nothing bad or scary or weird about that at all. Its something that we should always be concerned with.

24champ
11-03-2010, 03:20 PM
How so? I don't see it as any different than 1994, and the GOP did not fare all that well in 96. In fact, Gingrich and his gang actually went in with a bigger advantage, because they won both the House and the Senate, which the GOP failed to do here. How can they hope to implement any of their policies when the party is split and they control only one house? In 1994 to 1996, they were unable to accomplish anything, even with majorities in both houses.

I don't think they are going to implement any policies, instead they will use their power to teach Americans about their agenda. They have been given a second chance, and they need to take their case to the American people. They weren't voted in to compromise and work with Democrats.

First thing they need to do is extend the tax cuts and assuming the Senate has the votes, it will force Obama to sign or veto it. Next step is a balanced budget, like they did in 1994 and so forth. Fiscal responsibility is coming to Washington, there's no compromise to be had on that issue.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-03-2010, 03:22 PM
I don't think they are going to implement any policies, instead they will use their power to teach Americans about their agenda. They have been given a second chance, and they need to take their case to the American people. They weren't voted in to compromise and work with Democrats.

First thing they need to do is extend the tax cuts and assuming the Senate has the votes, it will force Obama to sign or veto it. Next step is a balanced budget, like they did in 1994 and so forth. Fiscal responsibility is coming to Washington, there's no compromise to be had on that issue.

Four More Wars! Four More Wars! Four More Wars!

Can't wait for that Republican fiscal responsibility to hit. Gonna be awesome.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 03:23 PM
I don't think they are going to implement any policies, instead they will use their power to teach Americans about their agenda. They have been given a second chance, and they need to take their case to the American people. They weren't voted in to compromise and work with Democrats.

First thing they need to do is extend the tax cuts and assuming the Senate has the votes, it will force Obama to sign or veto it. Next step is a balanced budget, like they did in 1994 and so forth. Fiscal responsibility is coming to Washington, there's no compromise to be had on that issue.

Republicans have zero interest in cutting the deficit. As mentioned, they only had one president in recent memory who did so (Bush 1) and he's maligned. Its just their latest thing to bitch about. But trust me, they have no interest in cutting it. Its just their rallying cry to throw the dems out.

Mile High Shack
11-03-2010, 03:24 PM
Cut. Back. The. Federal. Government.

Simple.

It means lop off as much as you can and put it back in the hands of citizens so that they can rebuild their lives and the economy in the process.

You shouldnt take that to the extreme libertarian view, because this is not a purely libertarian movement. It is a fiscally responsible movement, and there's nothing bad or scary or weird about that at all. Its something that we should always be concerned with.

politicians aren't going to do that....you do realize this...right?

They aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them

both sides are corrupt as hell

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-03-2010, 03:27 PM
politicians aren't going to do that....you do realize this...right?

They aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them

both sides are corrupt as hell

Republicans are like beaten wives. "They'll be different this time! They really love me! They promise!" Sad.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 03:28 PM
Republicans have zero interest in cutting the deficit. As mentioned, they only had one president in recent memory who did so (Bush 1) and he's maligned. Its just their latest thing to b**** about. But trust me, they have no interest in cutting it. Its just their rallying cry to throw the dems out.

It was also the rallying cry to throw the repubs out.

The Tea Party movement was born during the last couple of years of Bush's last term as an anti-republican movement. Particularly an anti-Bush administration movement.

Dont you remember how the early Tea Party conversations were about the bailouts, and then about how McCain was not a viable presidential candidate?

This is two elections now that have been influenced by the Tea Party.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 03:31 PM
It was also the rallying cry to throw the repubs out.

The Tea Party movement was born during the last couple of years of Bush's last term as an anti-republican movement. Particularly an anti-Bush administration movement.

Dont you remember how the early Tea Party conversations were about the bailouts, and then about how McCain was not a viable presidential candidate?

This is two elections now that have been influenced by the Tea Party.

Right and the GOP co-opted the grassroots movement, made it astroturf and now you just have a bunch of republicans in office.

24champ
11-03-2010, 03:32 PM
Republicans have zero interest in cutting the deficit. As mentioned, they only had one president in recent memory who did so (Bush 1) and he's maligned. Its just their latest thing to b**** about. But trust me, they have no interest in cutting it. Its just their rallying cry to throw the dems out.

Good points, and I think it's something the Republicans AND Democrats can figure out to lower the deficit as well as balancing a budget. It worked in the 90s and it can be done again.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 03:33 PM
politicians aren't going to do that....you do realize this...right?

They aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them

both sides are corrupt as hell

That's exactly what the Tea Party is about. Its called the Tea Party for a reason. Its a direct reference to the Boston Tea Party, where "no taxation without representation" was born. Where the overtaxed Americans who had no recourse to address the corruption that governed and impeded on their ability to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness finally drew a line in the sand. They finally were motivated enough to begin to pursue their own interests, their own outcomes. Outcomes that were not dependent on what was dispensed to them by out-of-touch (literally), greedy government.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 03:34 PM
Right and the GOP co-opted the grassroots movement, made it astroturf and now you just have a bunch of republicans in office.

The people who voted them in still dont trust them, and will vote them right back out.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-03-2010, 03:36 PM
The people who voted them in still dont trust them, and will vote them right back out.

Perhaps, time will tell.

Mile High Shack
11-03-2010, 03:37 PM
That's exactly what the Tea Party is about. Its called the Tea Party for a reason. Its a direct reference to the Boston Tea Party, where "no taxation without representation" was born. Where the overtaxed Americans who had no recourse to address the corruption that governed and impeded on their ability to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness finally drew a line in the sand. They finally were motivated enough to begin to pursue their own interests, their own outcomes. Outcomes that were not dependent on what was dispensed to them by out-of-touch (literally), greedy government.

then as usual, people with tons of $$ took over and co-opted the movement for their gain

cutthemdown
11-03-2010, 03:51 PM
Do the names "Gerald Ford" and "Ronald Reagan" ring any bells?

What republican ran against Reagan after his first term?

Chris
11-03-2010, 03:56 PM
I don't think they are going to implement any policies, instead they will use their power to teach Americans about their agenda. They have been given a second chance, and they need to take their case to the American people. They weren't voted in to compromise and work with Democrats.

First thing they need to do is extend the tax cuts and assuming the Senate has the votes, it will force Obama to sign or veto it. Next step is a balanced budget, like they did in 1994 and so forth. Fiscal responsibility is coming to Washington, there's no compromise to be had on that issue.

Obama has actually lowered taxes for the middle class so unless republicans have gone bipolar you're basically asking for more money to go to the wealthiest Americans.

Old Dude
11-03-2010, 04:07 PM
Obama has actually lowered taxes for the middle class so unless republicans have gone bipolar you're basically asking for more money to go to the wealthiest Americans.

That's what the GOP always wants. The idea is that tax cuts for businesses (and the wealthy) allow them to create more jobs so that more people pay taxes (but less per person) and or GNP grows like mad and we can balance the budget with money for a couple wars to spare.

Except that only goes so far before you start getting diminishing returns and we may have passed that point more than a decade ago.

cutthemdown
11-03-2010, 04:10 PM
Obama has actually lowered taxes for the middle class so unless republicans have gone bipolar you're basically asking for more money to go to the wealthiest Americans.

Yep. Really all Obama has done is printed money, cut the fed loose to do there lil bond thingy they do, and spend a ton of that printed money all over the country.

Problem is that now we have to worry about inflation. If the economy doesn't pick up soon Obama's gamble to flood the world with new dollars won't work.

If it does pick up, and tax revenue increases, people go back to work, he can still look really good in 2 yrs.

Mile High Shack
11-03-2010, 04:10 PM
That's what the GOP always wants. The idea is that tax cuts for businesses (and the wealthy) allow them to create more jobs so that more people pay taxes (but less per person) and or GNP grows like mad and we can balance the budget with money for a couple wars to spare.

Except that only goes so far before you start getting diminishing returns and we may have passed that point more than a decade ago.

ding ding ding
winner, winner, chicken dinner

BroncoLifer
11-03-2010, 04:11 PM
What republican ran against Reagan after his first term?

Not what I meant. Ex-Governor Reagan took on President Ford during the '76 primary season and only narrowly lost -- that's the last time an incumbent President had a truly serious fight to get renominated.

Ted Kennedy took on Carter in '80 but in the end wasn't a serious threat to Carter.

I think the Reagan/Ford battle has some lessons. An incumbent president (Ford) who only had a "meh" standing in his party was still able to beat the man who turned out to be the most potent force in presidential politics of the 2nd half of the century. Part of the reason may have been that Republicans weren't quite ready for Reagan's message but it also shows just how potent the power of incumbency really is.

cutthemdown
11-03-2010, 04:52 PM
Not what I meant. Ex-Governor Reagan took on President Ford during the '76 primary season and only narrowly lost -- that's the last time an incumbent President had a truly serious fight to get renominated.

Ted Kennedy took on Carter in '80 but in the end wasn't a serious threat to Carter.

I think the Reagan/Ford battle has some lessons. An incumbent president (Ford) who only had a "meh" standing in his party was still able to beat the man who turned out to be the most potent force in presidential politics of the 2nd half of the century. Part of the reason may have been that Republicans weren't quite ready for Reagan's message but it also shows just how potent the power of incumbency really is.

Ahh ok. So it is pretty rare and won't happen. I think Hilliary screwed up. She should have waited in the wings to pounce on Obama. Especially after the way he dissed her in election.

If anything Obama offered her a position to diminish her on the national scene for 4-8 yrs.

Garcia Bronco
11-03-2010, 04:52 PM
Obama has actually lowered taxes for the middle class so unless republicans have gone bipolar you're basically asking for more money to go to the wealthiest Americans.

That's not going to happen. They don't have the power.

Read Federalist paper 10

It talks about liberty and political factions and self interests. Even Madison didn't have an answer but he created it in thE text of the Constitution. Compromise. These guys have to compromise now. No more closed meetings where the other side is excluded. No more voting down every amendments for bills.

This is a good day.

cutthemdown
11-03-2010, 04:57 PM
Good points broncolifer. Having the bully pulpit and the machine in place is a huge advantage. I think this turnout is really good for Obama. With total power he has no excuses. He owns everything. Now he can at least have some republicans to blame.

Also we will now see how serious repubs are to really cut spending. Let's see some cuts gentleman. No energy bill BS, just show us where you are going to spend less.

The scary thing is America has one good thing to export. Weapons, jets, tanks etc etc. If Brazil/Iran/Venz seem bent on some sort of partnership to screw America we have no choice really but to meet them head on. Look for us to send even more weapons to the Saudis, Colombians, Mexico, Israel, hell maybe even Egypt.

Obama just made a huge approval to send what 60 billion in weapons to the Saudis? That's a lot of hardware.

bombay
11-03-2010, 05:00 PM
Architects of Fear! Greatest Outer Limits Episode Evar.

"It's a cookbook!"

Oh, wait, that was the Twilight Zone.

broncocalijohn
11-03-2010, 06:06 PM
I'm not talking about all charitable acts (obviously); but the specific notion of "don't tax me and I might give a dollar to poor person on my own accord bs"

The act of giving a guy a dollar on the corner is the act that keeps the guy on the corner. People do it--not to help the guy out--but to alleviate their sense of guilt.

Maybe the liberal quote should be "DO tax me so I dont have to give more than a dollar to a poor person on my own accord bs".

troya900
11-03-2010, 06:24 PM
Ummm Obama and the last congress has been the most active congress in the past 40 years.

http://whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com/

You say that like it's a good thing, unfortunately almost everything the government puts their hands on is a total wasteful **** up after **** up.

TonyR
11-03-2010, 06:31 PM
Cut. Back. The. Federal. Government.

Simple.

Simple except that when asked what they're going to cut they won't answer. Other than taxes they won't get specific about what they want to cut. So the jokes on us, especially you fools who voted for them.

Skillet, why do you think tea party candidates have largely avoided the media? Do you think it might be because they learned from Sarah Palin that when you can't answer questions you come out looking like an idiot? Seriously, if they have such a great and popular message why won't they talk to the media about it beyond generalities?

baja
11-03-2010, 06:47 PM
I'm thinking we're moving into "burn the house down" territory. The crazies are rising to the top. This is the breath before the plunge. The Right Wing crazies are going to realize they can't do anything about the economy so their only option will be diversionary attack politics.

You were calling me a conspiracy fool for telling you this two years ago.

Want to know how bad it will get?

DarkHorse30
11-03-2010, 07:01 PM
Simple except that when asked what they're going to cut they won't answer. Other than taxes they won't get specific about what they want to cut. So the jokes on us, especially you fools who voted for them.

Skillet, why do you think tea party candidates have largely avoided the media? Do you think it might be because they learned from Sarah Palin that when you can't answer questions you come out looking like an idiot? Seriously, if they have such a great and popular message why won't they talk to the media about it beyond generalities?

.....because the "media" ignores them, except for when they are slamming them. I'm surprised that most moderates (I would include you in that group, maybe I'm mistaken) don't recognize that conservatives are consistently attacked by the MSM(main stream media)....which is why they usually ignore the media, if they can. There are so many more options for getting messages out these days. Who really wants to talk to all of the former Democratic operatives that have turned into "news" people? Look at how popular Fox is compared to the other 3.....I would guess that there is a larger silent majority of conservatives than most would care to admit.

Rand Paul had a great answer for Wolf Blitzer when he badgered him about "tax cuts for the wealthy"....you should look it up if you're interested, but he basically said nailing only the wealthy only hurts everybody, because mostly the rich people are the ones that are hiring. He pointed out the luxury boat tax that gov't tried failed miserably http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=5747 http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/falling-tax-would-lift-all-yachts.html
Interesting to me that the "soak the rich" lefty's never gets it.....and a lot of moderates blindly follow them like lemmings.....until yesterday, thank God.

If you do the research, most people don't really pay that much taxes because the progressive tax intentionally targets rich people exclusively. If we went to a flat tax, most americans would get a real taste for how much "the rich" get hosed by the gov't.

So you work really hard, start new businesses and the gov't takes half of your pay.......so you could probably target an income where you would equal your same takehome; while working half as hard. A progressive tax INTENTIONALLY targets the rich, AND punishes excellence. It is what it is.

This election gives a lot of conservatives hope that they can step back into power and basically ignore the media.....while doing the will of the people. The Obama/Pelosi/Reid apologists should recognize that a majority of Americans don't like what they are doing to the country, with the Health-care shove down, etc.. I'm just glad that Obama is forced into the same thing Clinton was forced into......listening to the voices of the people. Cool beans.

gyldenlove
11-03-2010, 07:19 PM
.....because the "media" ignores them, except for when they are slamming them. I'm surprised that most moderates (I would include you in that group, maybe I'm mistaken) don't recognize that conservatives are consistently attacked by the MSM(main stream media)....which is why they usually ignore the media, if they can. There are so many more options for getting messages out these days. Who really wants to talk to all of the former Democratic operatives that have turned into "news" people? Look at how popular Fox is compared to the other 3.....I would guess that there is a larger silent majority of conservatives than most would care to admit.

Rand Paul had a great answer for Wolf Blitzer when he badgered him about "tax cuts for the wealthy"....you should look it up if you're interested, but he basically said nailing only the wealthy only hurts everybody, because mostly the rich people are the ones that are hiring. He pointed out the luxury boat tax that gov't tried failed miserably http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=5747 http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/falling-tax-would-lift-all-yachts.html
Interesting to me that the "soak the rich" lefty's never gets it.....and a lot of moderates blindly follow them like lemmings.....until yesterday, thank God.

If you do the research, most people don't really pay that much taxes because the progressive tax intentionally targets rich people exclusively. If we went to a flat tax, most americans would get a real taste for how much "the rich" get hosed by the gov't.

So you work really hard, start new businesses and the gov't takes half of your pay.......so you could probably target an income where you would equal your same takehome; while working half as hard. A progressive tax INTENTIONALLY targets the rich, AND punishes excellence. It is what it is.

This election gives a lot of conservatives hope that they can step back into power and basically ignore the media.....while doing the will of the people. The Obama/Pelosi/Reid apologists should recognize that a majority of Americans don't like what they are doing to the country, with the Health-care shove down, etc.. I'm just glad that Obama is forced into the same thing Clinton was forced into......listening to the voices of the people. Cool beans.

How many people are employed personally by a rich person? How many people do Walmart employ?

Lowering taxes on rich people is not going to do anything for unemployment rates, rich people invest their money, they don't spend it, that is how they stay rich.

I don't think you understand a progressive tax rate, under a truly progressive tax rate, higher gross salary equates higher net income. The net income increase becomes slightly more shallow as the gross income increases, but it will always increase. Only in situations where the tax rate increases stepwise can you have situations where an increased gross salary does not yield an increased net income and only for specific salaries and salary increases that are not significant.

Sheez, people stop buying things if there is a sudden price increase? who knew. If government weren't so full of chicken****s they would have realized that numbers would normalize over a period unless you phase something like that in gradually. Did people stop buying gas when it got more expensive? no, they just cut back for a while - did people stop buying SUVs and trucks? no. The market always reacts negatively to sudden price jumps, and it always recovers later on.

TonyR
11-03-2010, 07:19 PM
I could spend hours responding to your post but in the interest of time I'll just hit a few points:


...because the "media" ignores them..

So you're going with the story that the MSM ignored perhaps the biggest story of this year's election? That's preposterous. The most covered candidate was Christine O'Donnell, followed by Meg Whitman, Rand Paul, Joe Sestak, and Sharron Angle. ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101102/el_yblog_upshot/odonnell-receives-most-coverage-of-2010-candidates ) The media is in the business of making money, not being political, so they're going to cover the stories that sell. So there goes your theory about tea party candidates being ignored. Preposterous!


...conservatives are consistently attacked by the MSM...

The "liberal media bias" meme is really overdone. The media is more statist than it is liberally biased. Read this article. The whole thing, not just the first two sentences.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/01/the-media-arent-liberal

Here's an excerpt for the lazy:

It's telling that the loudest voices opposing pot legalization are coming from the mainstream media, politicians, and law enforcement. The three have a lot in common. Indeed, the Prop. 19 split illustrates how conservative critics of the mainstream media have it all wrong. The media—or at least the editorial boards at the country's major newspapers—don't suffer from liberal bias; they suffer from statism. While conservatives emphasize order and property, liberals emphasize equality, and libertarians emphasize individual rights, newspaper editorial boards are biased toward power and authority, automatically turning to politicians for solutions to every perceived problem.


...the progressive tax intentionally targets rich people exclusively.

Wow, I could go on and on about this one but this "oh the poor rich pay all the taxes" thing is also really over played. The rich have huge advantages in this country and for all their privileges they pay slightly higher tax rates on every dollar of their incomes above certain levels. They pay the same rate on their first $100,000 of income that you and I do. The system is totally rigged in favor of the wealthy, and the wealthy own a growing percentage of assets and make a growing percentage of income. They also have numerous methods of avoiding taxation that the average person doesn't have. Please put down the violin you're playing in honor of the overburdened rich.

TailgateNut
11-03-2010, 07:25 PM
I don't think they are going to implement any policies, instead they will use their power to teach Americans about their agenda. They have been given a second chance, and they need to take their case to the American people. They weren't voted in to compromise and work with Democrats.

First thing they need to do is extend the tax cuts and assuming the Senate has the votes, it will force Obama to sign or veto it. Next step is a balanced budget, like they did in 1994 and so forth. Fiscal responsibility is coming to Washington, there's no compromise to be had on that issue.


You just made chili come out of my nose.

You forgot to add that along with keeping the tax cuts they should start a few expensive wars.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-03-2010, 07:28 PM
You just made chili come out of my nose.

You forgot to add that along with keeping the tax cuts they should start a few expensive wars.

THiS.

TailgateNut
11-03-2010, 07:29 PM
It was also the rallying cry to throw the repubs out.

The Tea Party movement was born during the last couple of years of Bush's last term as an anti-republican movement. Particularly an anti-Bush administration movement.

Dont you remember how the early Tea Party conversations were about the bailouts, and then about how McCain was not a viable presidential candidate?

This is two elections now that have been influenced by the Tea Party.


Tea party, smea party. ****ing GOP lite incognito.

ColoradoDarin
11-03-2010, 07:36 PM
Simple except that when asked what they're going to cut they won't answer. Other than taxes they won't get specific about what they want to cut. So the jokes on us, especially you fools who voted for them.

Skillet, why do you think tea party candidates have largely avoided the media? Do you think it might be because they learned from Sarah Palin that when you can't answer questions you come out looking like an idiot? Seriously, if they have such a great and popular message why won't they talk to the media about it beyond generalities?

Read the thread, I already posted several plans out there a while ago, and yet everyone just skipped over it. Not surprising given the level of discourse here (and usually why I don't bother with these things on a Broncos board, football knowledge is lacking enough, politics involves reasoning, math, history and general common sense, all of which are minimal on the interwebs).

Here's a quick tip - no one gives detailed plans when they run for office, that's political suicide. They give generalities and fill in the specifics when the time comes to put legislation together. It's just a way of saying "I won't vote for your side" hypocrisy. Visit my website is about as specific as it gets, and if you don't know why - specific plans have drawbacks and tradeoffs. Those things can be attacked. Generalities don't suffer that. You are advocating one side disarm politically because it suits your bias, then you shout from the rooftops "they don't have a plan"! It's a heads I win, tails you lose child's game.

Requiem
11-03-2010, 07:41 PM
McSkillet doesn't know what he is talking about.

He talks Tea Party, then brings up politicians who don't even identify within the movement as support for them doing well in November.

Like John Thune for example. :rofl:

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-03-2010, 07:45 PM
McSkillet doesn't know what he is talking about.

He talks Tea Party, then brings up politicians who don't even identify within the movement as support for them doing well in November.

Like John Thune for example. :rofl:

Yep. Out of 140 or so candidates, MAYBE 50 will be elected to office.

Not exactly a tidal wave.

And the biggest name candidates? Most of them didn't make it because people didn't identify with their extreme agendas. Oh, gee, you got Rand Paul elected in ****ing KENTUCKY. Ken Buck? No go in Colorado. Witchy Woman? No go. That crazy-ass woman in Nevada, against a historically weak Dem candidate? Nope, too crazy.

But yeah. The Tea Party is taking the world by storm. /rolleyes

Give me a break.

epicSocialism4tw
11-03-2010, 08:11 PM
Read the thread, I already posted several plans out there a while ago, and yet everyone just skipped over it. Not surprising given the level of discourse here (and usually why I don't bother with these things on a Broncos board, football knowledge is lacking enough, politics involves reasoning, math, history and general common sense, all of which are minimal on the interwebs).


Your link was quite extensive in giving ideas as to where the budget could start to be trimmed.

We also had a multi-post exchange about waste in health care.

TonyR
11-03-2010, 08:32 PM
Read the thread...

You've dodged the question about as deftly as a politician. Seriously, again, what are they really going to cut? Just give a few examples. I don't have time to search for previous posts of yours in this thread that I may have missed. And if they really have such big ideas, why can't they mention them when asked by the media? I'll give you the answer you don't want to hear: because they're lying like most politicians! They're not going to do much of anything! They jumped on a bandwagon fueled by fools who believe in this tea party nonsense. "We're going to save the world! Vote for us!"

DarkHorse30
11-04-2010, 01:07 AM
So you're going with the story that the MSM ignored perhaps the biggest story of this year's election? ....ignored, or slammed. They rarely slam democrats. RARELY. Biden is the biggest **** up VP I've ever seen. He can't open his mouth without sticking his foot in it. Do you see his gaffs in the same manner that Quayle was ripped? Just for a misspelling? Most people can't spell very good, just ask some on this board about Denver's "loosing" record. I would say that the MSM should probably LEARN to show the other view....maybe it would help their ratings.

The "liberal media bias" meme is really overdone. The reason conservative talk radio and Fox are so popular in America is because tens of millions agree with their viewpoint.....and feel vilified by the MSM. What happened to Juan Williams when NPR didn't like him being on Fox? They fired him.....even though Totenburg spouts her liberal opinions all day long. Laughable? I don't think so, really. Predictable? Yup.

Wow, I could go on and on about this one but this "oh the poor rich pay all the taxes" thing is also really over played. The rich have huge advantages in this country and for all their privileges they pay slightly higher tax rates on every dollar of their incomes above certain levels. if you make 80k you are taxed at 25% - if you make 175K it's 33% - 2011 it raises to 36% - 375K income is 35% tax rate....in 2011 it goes back up to 39.6%. How is raising taxes going to help people find jobs? The people that make 175K and above are going to be hiring more people than those making 50-150K. I'm not talking about millionaires here......375K is a lot, but consider giving up 140K of that?

Again, many low to middle income families do not pay a 25% cut, largely because of EITC and and per-child deductions. By the time we add them up, we are probably looking at 10% max for a lot of families. So if most AREN'T paying because of these "loopholes" (interestingly expanded by republicans Contract with America) should we raise tax rates for the weathy to make up the difference? Why not just raise it back up to 85% like in 1960?

The bottom line to me (and to most fiscal conservatives) is that gov't spending must be decreased, and a laffer curve should be arrived at that will limit taxes as much as possible.

driver
11-04-2010, 03:59 AM
First of all, all the politicians in California suck, so none are getting my vote. Although I am amused by the mentally crippled fight in Jerry Brown vs Whitman.

Secondly, I am looking forward to seeing what Obama does after the election. Wonder if the President follows the Clinton model, or follows the Jimmy Carter model with a "crises of confidence" type speech. It will be interesting to watch all of it unfold.

OH NO NOT ANOTHER ONE the 1st caused me to start drinking again.LOL

ColoradoDarin
11-04-2010, 06:59 AM
You've dodged the question about as deftly as a politician. Seriously, again, what are they really going to cut? Just give a few examples. I don't have time to search for previous posts of yours in this thread that I may have missed. And if they really have such big ideas, why can't they mention them when asked by the media? I'll give you the answer you don't want to hear: because they're lying like most politicians! They're not going to do much of anything! They jumped on a bandwagon fueled by fools who believe in this tea party nonsense. "We're going to save the world! Vote for us!"

Ahhhh yes, the old "I'm going to bury my head in the sand and pretend that nothing exists contrary to my beliefs" gambit. I already posted it, if you're too lazy to go back in the same thread and look it up, I'm going to be too lazy to post it again :-*

TonyR
11-04-2010, 07:44 AM
Everybody will be talking in the next few days about the “message” of the elections... But my colleague Joe Scarborough got it right in these pages last week when he argued that the 2010 elections, for all their passion and vitriol, are basically irrelevant.

Some people are voting Tuesday for calorie-free chocolate cake, and some are voting for fat-free ice cream. Neither option is actually available. Neither party’s candidates seriously addressed the national debt, except with proposals to make it even worse. Scarborough might have added that neither party’s candidates had much to say about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (except that they “support our troops,” a flabby formulation that leaves Americans killing and dying in faraway wars that politicians won’t defend explicitly). Politicians are silent on both these issues for the same reason: There is no solution that American voters will tolerate. Why can’t we have calorie-free chocolate cake? We’re Americans!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44500.html

Drek
11-04-2010, 07:47 AM
The reason conservative talk radio and Fox are so popular in America is because tens of millions agree with their viewpoint.....and feel vilified by the MSM. What happened to Juan Williams when NPR didn't like him being on Fox? They fired him.....even though Totenburg spouts her liberal opinions all day long. Laughable? I don't think so, really. Predictable? Yup.
Conservative talk radio has a significantly larger audience than NPR and "progressive" talk radio combined. Fox News is the most watched cable news channel. Those two statements and the claim of "mainstream media" being liberal do not at all jive. Fox News and conservative talk radio are the mainstream media, by definition, because they hold the largest portion of the audience in their respective sectors of the media.

We can debate if that is a representative depiction of the general populous (I'd argue no, since the majority of this nation ignores both media formats as a rule of thumb) but the far right forms of news/political media are the mainstream format.

if you make 80k you are taxed at 25% - if you make 175K it's 33% - 2011 it raises to 36% - 375K income is 35% tax rate....in 2011 it goes back up to 39.6%. How is raising taxes going to help people find jobs? The people that make 175K and above are going to be hiring more people than those making 50-150K. I'm not talking about millionaires here......375K is a lot, but consider giving up 140K of that?
Small to middle businesses that are ran with anything resembling intelligent tax reporting will always pay well below 39.6%. All of the larger businesses in this country pay a lower percentage of taxes on income than anyone short of welfare recipients as well.

What you've constructed is a straw man under the perception that the "wealthy" hire everyone. Akin to Rand Paul's half wit argument that "hey, we all work for rich people so if we tax them less they'll have more money to hire". It doesn't work that way. Most people are smart enough to incorporate and have their business file separately from themselves. To that end businesses then get a massive amount of tax write offs and subsidies from the federal government. In fact one such way to reduce their total taxable income is through hiring. If you raised taxes on the largest corporations in this country you would not see an increase in tax revenue from them because they would simply reinvest it into greater R&D/marketing/etc.. Positive moves that also double as write offs to reduce tax liability.

The single best way to strengthen our economy, which was proven out in the 40's, 50's, and 60's, is to empower the middle class through the double pronged attack of higher wages and greater leisure time. The middle class saves at much lower percentage of annual income than the wealthy, the vast majority of their income is poured directly back into our economy. This increases the market for businesses by creating larger demand for services and products (which obviously requires more workers).

What you're describing, and what Rand Paul tried to espouse to Blitzer, is the trickle down economics of Reagan's advisers. The plan which George H.W. Bush described as "voodoo economics" because it simply doesn't work. What I described is trickle up economics and was proven to work throughout a 30+ year window of prosperity in this country that likely wouldn't have been broken if we didn't enter back to back wars coupled with radical changes to our previously effective policies.

The bottom line to me (and to most fiscal conservatives) is that gov't spending must be decreased, and a laffer curve should be arrived at that will limit taxes as much as possible.
But what do you decrease? Medicaid/Medicare? A promise that almost all living people in this nation have purchased through weekly withholdings in their paycheck? Social Security? Yet another program that the American people pay for.

Whenever people attack these I wonder if they understand what that fully entails. Will we suddenly stop seeing withdraws for them from our checks? If so that will not help balance the budget. Will those withdraws be transfered over to the general federal withholding? If so then that is by definition a tax increase, since we pay at the same rate for less service.

The fat of our government that can be cut while still keeping our competitive edge globally is the military, and it can be cut by large margins. We've already implemented a program of mutually assured destruction with the entire rest of the world through our unprecedented and unrivaled nuclear power, which we have openly declared to the rest of the world. This as put in place a Nash equilibrium that no longer requires us to spend more than 50 times the next largest military nation. Rebalancing and refocusing the military budget is imperative to this nation's long term success.

TonyR
11-04-2010, 07:59 AM
But what do you decrease?

Yup, exactly the question I'm trying to get these frauds to answer. They want to "decrease the size of government" but they won't tell us anything realistic they're going to do to accomplish this. And the reason for this is that they won't. Too difficult politically to do this, and the GOP won't do it because they don't want to hurt their chances in '12. Watch this fraud dodge the question in the video below. They're going to pay for the tax cuts they want with discretionay spending cuts? Seriously? What a crock.

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3Z-TGYWx5PE&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3Z-TGYWx5PE&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

ColoradoDarin
11-04-2010, 08:27 AM
Yup, exactly the question I'm trying to get these frauds to answer.

Already answered above, just go look for it. You don't because you don't want to find the answer that goes against your bias.

Okay, fine lazy, here are some plans (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/what-spending-should-the-gop-cut/). Read (and read all the links in the article).


I don't know if you can handle clicking that link and then a few links more, I mean you couldn't be bothered to click a couple of links to find the answer I had already given upthread. I can pretty much guarantee that you will barely read the first link, let alone all the plans.

TonyR
11-04-2010, 09:11 AM
Okay, fine lazy, here are some plans (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/what-spending-should-the-gop-cut/).

LOL So because think tanks have come up with some good plans you think this means the GOP is actually going to act on them? You think that's how it works? My god the level of naivete some of you demonstrate is mind blowing. Allow me to give you an example:

The post election demographics suggest that the elderly vote was largely responsible for the success of the GOP. Other than defense the biggest thing that need to be addresed is Medicare. Well, guess what genius? If the GOP touches Medicare what do you think the reaction of the dominant voting bloc that gets them elected will be? Do you see where I'm going here? The GOP is going to act in its own self interest first, the country's a distant second. Why do you think what appear to be obvious spending cuts are so difficult? Do you think it's perhaps because people want cuts until they are impacted by them? You need to step into the real world here. Until both parties are willing to work together to solve these problems there will be little if any forward progress, and don't expect that to happen any time soon. I hope I'm wrong.

bowtown
11-04-2010, 09:12 AM
Already answered above, just go look for it. You don't because you don't want to find the answer that goes against your bias.

Okay, fine lazy, here are some plans (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/what-spending-should-the-gop-cut/). Read (and read all the links in the article).


I don't know if you can handle clicking that link and then a few links more, I mean you couldn't be bothered to click a couple of links to find the answer I had already given upthread. I can pretty much guarantee that you will barely read the first link, let alone all the plans.

You do realize that most of these have plans for defense, medicare and medicaid cuts, right? The exact thing that the republicans will absolutely not cut going in to 2012. Think tanks can sit around and think stuff up all day. Show me someone in office--new or old--who is actually willing to stand up and put one of these plans to the voters.

Old Dude
11-04-2010, 09:12 AM
Already answered above, just go look for it. You don't because you don't want to find the answer that goes against your bias.

Okay, fine lazy, here are some plans (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/what-spending-should-the-gop-cut/). Read (and read all the links in the article).


I don't know if you can handle clicking that link and then a few links more, I mean you couldn't be bothered to click a couple of links to find the answer I had already given upthread. I can pretty much guarantee that you will barely read the first link, let alone all the plans.

Interesting stuff. Just started reading, but so far, I'm not too impressed.

Let's start with the Heritage Foundation Proposal, which purports to save $343 BILLION.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-04-2010, 09:15 AM
Simple except that when asked what they're going to cut they won't answer. Other than taxes they won't get specific about what they want to cut. So the jokes on us, especially you fools who voted for them.

Skillet, why do you think tea party candidates have largely avoided the media? Do you think it might be because they learned from Sarah Palin that when you can't answer questions you come out looking like an idiot? Seriously, if they have such a great and popular message why won't they talk to the media about it beyond generalities?

Not to mention, Tea partiers are fighting a fight that was maybe worth it 50-60 years ago. Not only has the american economy become so incredibly complicated due to wall street (and i can list a set of numbingly boring terms that will mean nothing to any of us) because we also exist in a global economy and have to deal with other countries regulations, we cant just say "hands off government!"

We live in a global community where we all rely on each other. The sooner you realize it, the better

missingnumber7
11-04-2010, 09:17 AM
You just made chili come out of my nose.

You forgot to add that along with keeping the tax cuts they should start a few expensive wars.

Just as long as they are in nice places to go and no more friggen sand dunes i might could be for this.










Wait on second thought...no more wars please.

TonyR
11-04-2010, 09:29 AM
It's either policy or politics.


...both parties had to choose between politics and policy. Democrats could have minimized their losses at the cost of sacrificing the health reform they wanted. Or Republicans could have minimized the scope of health care reform, at the cost of minimizing their potential wave. Democrats chose the best policy, and Republicans chose the best politics. I'm happy with the choice. Mitch McConnell won his election, and Democrats won health care reform. The latter is going to [be] around a lot longer than the former.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/78910/was-it-worth-it

Old Dude
11-04-2010, 09:39 AM
The first thing that strikes me is that not a single penny of those cuts (from the Heritage Proposal) come from one of our biggest expenses - national defense.

The second thing that strikes me is that many of the proposed federal budget cuts simply involve shifting the expenses from the feds to the individual states. For example, the second largest item on the whole list is to eliminate 45 billion from the federal highway program and to shift it and most of the transit programs to the states. Well, that doesn't make the expense go away. It just shifts it to the States.

Likewise, we're going to eliminate 7 billion from Justice Department grants "enabling the states to finance (pay for) their own justice programs.

We're going to cut a couple billion from Homeland Security aid to the States, and let them pay for their own.

We're going to cut several billion in educational assistance to K-12 schools, and let the states deal with that. Etc., etc.

None of this is tax reduction; it's just tax shifting. Maybe there is an argument that in some areas States can manage some of these programs in a more efficient way than the feds. But this proposal doesn't argue that.

Another huge chunk comes from elimination of 15 billion in farm subsidies, replacing them with crop insurance. I'd be really interested to see how that plays out in Republican strongholds like Nebraska and Kansas.

One thing that is intriguing is that the proposal purports to save 44 billion a year by "halting" federal screwups in medicare payments and tax credits by spending 5 billion on improved computer systems. That doesn't strike me as particularly partisan. But you have to wonder where they are getting their data.

The biggest single chunk in the whole proposal is to repeal 60 billion in unspent stimulus money.

So what it basically boils down to is repealing that, shifting hundreds of billions of dollars of valid needs to the states to pay for, and some ideas about medicare reform that no one would seriously oppose if really true.

Rohirrim
11-04-2010, 09:41 AM
Conservative talk radio has a significantly larger audience than NPR and "progressive" talk radio combined. Fox News is the most watched cable news channel. Those two statements and the claim of "mainstream media" being liberal do not at all jive. Fox News and conservative talk radio are the mainstream media, by definition, because they hold the largest portion of the audience in their respective sectors of the media.

We can debate if that is a representative depiction of the general populous (I'd argue no, since the majority of this nation ignores both media formats as a rule of thumb) but the far right forms of news/political media are the mainstream format.


Small to middle businesses that are ran with anything resembling intelligent tax reporting will always pay well below 39.6%. All of the larger businesses in this country pay a lower percentage of taxes on income than anyone short of welfare recipients as well.

What you've constructed is a straw man under the perception that the "wealthy" hire everyone. Akin to Rand Paul's half wit argument that "hey, we all work for rich people so if we tax them less they'll have more money to hire". It doesn't work that way. Most people are smart enough to incorporate and have their business file separately from themselves. To that end businesses then get a massive amount of tax write offs and subsidies from the federal government. In fact one such way to reduce their total taxable income is through hiring. If you raised taxes on the largest corporations in this country you would not see an increase in tax revenue from them because they would simply reinvest it into greater R&D/marketing/etc.. Positive moves that also double as write offs to reduce tax liability.

The single best way to strengthen our economy, which was proven out in the 40's, 50's, and 60's, is to empower the middle class through the double pronged attack of higher wages and greater leisure time. The middle class saves at much lower percentage of annual income than the wealthy, the vast majority of their income is poured directly back into our economy. This increases the market for businesses by creating larger demand for services and products (which obviously requires more workers).

What you're describing, and what Rand Paul tried to espouse to Blitzer, is the trickle down economics of Reagan's advisers. The plan which George H.W. Bush described as "voodoo economics" because it simply doesn't work. What I described is trickle up economics and was proven to work throughout a 30+ year window of prosperity in this country that likely wouldn't have been broken if we didn't enter back to back wars coupled with radical changes to our previously effective policies.

But what do you decrease? Medicaid/Medicare? A promise that almost all living people in this nation have purchased through weekly withholdings in their paycheck? Social Security? Yet another program that the American people pay for.

Whenever people attack these I wonder if they understand what that fully entails. Will we suddenly stop seeing withdraws for them from our checks? If so that will not help balance the budget. Will those withdraws be transfered over to the general federal withholding? If so then that is by definition a tax increase, since we pay at the same rate for less service.

The fat of our government that can be cut while still keeping our competitive edge globally is the military, and it can be cut by large margins. We've already implemented a program of mutually assured destruction with the entire rest of the world through our unprecedented and unrivaled nuclear power, which we have openly declared to the rest of the world. This as put in place a Nash equilibrium that no longer requires us to spend more than 50 times the next largest military nation. Rebalancing and refocusing the military budget is imperative to this nation's long term success.

Everybody should read this. Three times. Let it sink in. Supply side economics is a disaster. Wake up. More supply side economics is not the answer. Drunks in Vegas always think that doubling down is the way to recoup their losses. They go home broke.

DarkHorse30
11-04-2010, 11:00 AM
Conservative talk radio has a significantly larger audience than NPR and "progressive" talk radio combined. Fox News is the most watched cable news channel. Those two statements and the claim of "mainstream media" being liberal do not at all jive. Fox News and conservative talk radio are the mainstream media, by definition, because they hold the largest portion of the audience in their respective sectors of the media.

We can debate if that is a representative depiction of the general populous (I'd argue no, since the majority of this nation ignores both media formats as a rule of thumb) but the far right forms of news/political media are the mainstream format. ONE network with a conservative bent vs. 4+ (depending on how many CNN channels you have) moderate to left is NOT jaded to the right....it's still a media MASS on the left and ONE on the right. It's funny to me that most lefty news guys can't figure out an easy way to "copy" Fox's formula for showing the other side of the arguement - you'd think they'd want ratings. Also, most people don't count talk radio as news, just like we don't count Olberman or Matthews as news either. But they are on ALL the TIME (including Maddow and other lefty hacks).

Fixing Medicare and SS are painful, but they have to be done. Bush tried to get congress to address SS and the Border in 2006, but Nancy was too busy writing a 2000 page health care mess that no one wanted. Brilliant.

You can argue supply-side vs. Keynes all day long - both sides are convinced they are right.

Fixing the economy by raising income and leisure time for the middle class is easier said than done. What happened after the war was directly related to the boom after the war....not on gov't policies. The tax rates during those times were atrocious....and the spending on entitlements was nothing compared to the mess we have today.

Yes it will be painful to cut spending, but we have to buckle down and do it.....and we need people in there that don't care about getting re-elected. Tough job, but the tea party is the closest thing we have to a legit third party. Ignoring it, or laughing at it seems more ridiculous than most of your arguements.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-04-2010, 11:11 AM
ONE network with a conservative bent vs. 4+ (depending on how many CNN channels you have) moderate to left is NOT jaded to the right....it's still a media MASS on the left and ONE on the right. It's funny to me that most lefty news guys can't figure out an easy way to "copy" Fox's formula for showing the other side of the arguement - you'd think they'd want ratings. Also, most people don't count talk radio as news, just like we don't count Olberman or Matthews as news either. But they are on ALL the TIME (including Maddow and other lefty hacks).

Fixing Medicare and SS are painful, but they have to be done. Bush tried to get congress to address SS and the Border in 2006, but Nancy was too busy writing a 2000 page health care mess that no one wanted. Brilliant.

You can argue supply-side vs. Keynes all day long - both sides are convinced they are right.

Fixing the economy by raising income and leisure time for the middle class is easier said than done. What happened after the war was directly related to the boom after the war....not on gov't policies. The tax rates during those times were atrocious....and the spending on entitlements was nothing compared to the mess we have today.

Yes it will be painful to cut spending, but we have to buckle down and do it.....and we need people in there that don't care about getting re-elected. Tough job, but the tea party is the closest thing we have to a legit third party. Ignoring it, or laughing at it seems more ridiculous than most of your arguements.

If you really believe that the tea partiers don't care about re-elected, first I think that's adorable, but second, I have some REALLY bad news for you. They're already going to simply oppose anything Obama sends down, regardless of whether it's along their campaign lines or not, since it will better allow them to win in 2012. That's ALL they care about.

24champ
11-04-2010, 11:18 AM
You just made chili come out of my nose.

You forgot to add that along with keeping the tax cuts they should start a few expensive wars.


Republicans don't have the power to start a war. They do however have the power to stop Government from growing and its massive spending habits it has been doing in the last decade.

TonyR
11-04-2010, 11:35 AM
Republicans don't have the power to start a war. They do however have the power to stop Government from growing and its massive spending habits it has been doing in the last decade.

LOL You mean like the GOP that started two wars, passed unfunded Medicare Part D, created the Dept of Homeland Security, etc. all coupled with tax cuts? That kind of power?

Old Dude
11-04-2010, 11:39 AM
Still reading through the links supplied by ColoradoDarin.

Next up, the Maya MacGuineas prposals.

I have to seriously wonder whether she's really been embraced by the Tea Partiers - reason being that she calls for INCREASED taxes as well as spending cuts.

And in any event, she's talking about trying to balance things out by 2018-2020.

I'll give her credit for being straightforward about the proposal to vastly reduce medicare and social security benefits. And, unlike the Heritage foundation, a big part of her overall proposal is to cut 80 billion annually from defense.

Again, though, a lot of this stuff involves tax INCREASES both directly and indirectly (by eliminating certain tax exemptions.) I don't think that's what the Tea Party has in mind.

Old Dude
11-04-2010, 11:54 AM
Meanwhile - - a little off topic but:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110306910.html

(Colorado expected to be a huge battleground in 2012.) Millions more in ad revenue pouring into the state.

cutthemdown
11-04-2010, 12:46 PM
The first thing that strikes me is that not a single penny of those cuts (from the Heritage Proposal) come from one of our biggest expenses - national defense.

The second thing that strikes me is that many of the proposed federal budget cuts simply involve shifting the expenses from the feds to the individual states. For example, the second largest item on the whole list is to eliminate 45 billion from the federal highway program and to shift it and most of the transit programs to the states. Well, that doesn't make the expense go away. It just shifts it to the States.

Likewise, we're going to eliminate 7 billion from Justice Department grants "enabling the states to finance (pay for) their own justice programs.

We're going to cut a couple billion from Homeland Security aid to the States, and let them pay for their own.

We're going to cut several billion in educational assistance to K-12 schools, and let the states deal with that. Etc., etc.

None of this is tax reduction; it's just tax shifting. Maybe there is an argument that in some areas States can manage some of these programs in a more efficient way than the feds. But this proposal doesn't argue that.

Another huge chunk comes from elimination of 15 billion in farm subsidies, replacing them with crop insurance. I'd be really interested to see how that plays out in Republican strongholds like Nebraska and Kansas.

One thing that is intriguing is that the proposal purports to save 44 billion a year by "halting" federal screwups in medicare payments and tax credits by spending 5 billion on improved computer systems. That doesn't strike me as particularly partisan. But you have to wonder where they are getting their data.

The biggest single chunk in the whole proposal is to repeal 60 billion in unspent stimulus money.

So what it basically boils down to is repealing that, shifting hundreds of billions of dollars of valid needs to the states to pay for, and some ideas about medicare reform that no one would seriously oppose if really true.

The single biggest thing feds are responsible for is defense. It needs to be cut some, but really it's all the things they aren't supposed to do that need to go. Leave it to the states. If you're a poor state with no way to raise revenue then your roads will stink. It's not feds job to take tax money from another state to pay for that.

Rohirrim
11-04-2010, 12:55 PM
The single biggest thing feds are responsible for is defense. It needs to be cut some, but really it's all the things they aren't supposed to do that need to go. Leave it to the states. If you're a poor state with no way to raise revenue then your roads will stink. It's not feds job to take tax money from another state to pay for that.

Yeah, and then we become a third world country.

Old Dude
11-04-2010, 12:55 PM
The single biggest thing feds are responsible for is defense. It needs to be cut some, but really it's all the things they aren't supposed to do that need to go. Leave it to the states. If you're a poor state with no way to raise revenue then your roads will stink. It's not feds job to take tax money from another state to pay for that.

If you cut all of those federal programs and put the responsibility for them on the states, we'll all be poor states.

I think you need to be upfront about it and say that we're willing to let our highways and infrastructure go to hell. We're willing to gut education at all levels. We're willing to throw out various law enforcement and homeland security programs. We're willing to throw out social security and medicare.

Be honest about it and don't play shell games by shifting the pea to the states, because they can't afford any of that without raising taxes as high or higher than the feds.

Drek
11-04-2010, 01:23 PM
ONE network with a conservative bent vs. 4+ (depending on how many CNN channels you have) moderate to left is NOT jaded to the right....it's still a media MASS on the left and ONE on the right. It's funny to me that most lefty news guys can't figure out an easy way to "copy" Fox's formula for showing the other side of the arguement - you'd think they'd want ratings. Also, most people don't count talk radio as news, just like we don't count Olberman or Matthews as news either. But they are on ALL the TIME (including Maddow and other lefty hacks).
1. When that one news channel has a larger share of the ratings pool than the other 4+ combined then yes, it is still the mainstream.

2. MSNBC is gradually copying Fox News' formula of scare tactics followed by red meat finger pointing, followed by slanted "analysis" itself. They've also seen their ratings surpass those of CNN's as a result. Hence why they keep adding more and more 1 Hr. political/news "entertainment" programs with progressively more extremely liberal hosts. And FYI, while Maddow is extremely far left she is honest about it, not to mention a very intelligent woman who allows for fair and open discourse of all sides on her show. She is the antithesis of Fox News as well as her own colleagues (Olberman and Matthews for example). Balanced? No, but she is fair.

Talk radio is a news/poltiics based entertainment format, just like the entirety of Fox News and MSNBC's daily broadcasts.

Fixing Medicare and SS are painful, but they have to be done. Bush tried to get congress to address SS and the Border in 2006, but Nancy was too busy writing a 2000 page health care mess that no one wanted. Brilliant.
Bush pushed to privatize SS which in retrospect would have only served to completely destroy it when the market tanked. That is not a viable solution. Bush also never put up any legitimate alternatives to closing the border. He never would as it goes against his agenda (allowing business to subvert the minimum wage and workers rights with illegal labor).

You can argue supply-side vs. Keynes all day long - both sides are convinced they are right.
You know that this makes no sense right? Keynesian economics are in no way tied to supply or demand side policies. It is at its core the belief that a nation should drive debt into any facet of the economy to stimulate economic growth. This is why George W. Bush was the most prominent Keynesian president of all time and pushed through the greatest Keynesian bill of all time, TARP, despite being a devout "supply-side" advocate.

Fixing the economy by raising income and leisure time for the middle class is easier said than done. What happened after the war was directly related to the boom after the war....not on gov't policies.
No, it was directly related to the empowerment of our labor unions, which created the post-war boom.

The tax rates during those times were atrocious....
And yet that time period was the birthplace of most of our major corporations of today. So the claim that taxes prevent economic expansion really doesn't hold water (the core tenant of "trickle down" or "supply side" arguments).

and the spending on entitlements was nothing compared to the mess we have today. Yes it will be painful, but we have to buckle down and do it.....and we need people in there that don't care about getting re-elected.
Agree completely and the entitlements we take away need to start with a bloated defense industry and handouts to corporations that off-shore jobs.

Tough job, but the tea party is the closest thing we have to a legit third party. Ignoring it, or laughing at it seems more ridiculous than most of your arguements.
How is the tea party a legit third party when they ran in republican primaries and you have GOP lifers like Michelle Bachman claiming to lead the "tea party caucus"?

Maybe it could've been a third party if it wasn't completely co-opted by the extreme right fringe. That would've been nice. If the Tea Party really stood for what it claims though they would've been the biggest Prop 19 proponents around and would campaign on reduction of the military machine/ending foreign wars as much or more than anything else.

Drek
11-04-2010, 01:31 PM
The single biggest thing feds are responsible for is defense. It needs to be cut some, but really it's all the things they aren't supposed to do that need to go. Leave it to the states. If you're a poor state with no way to raise revenue then your roads will stink. It's not feds job to take tax money from another state to pay for that.
The single most naive post I've ever seen on here. Congrats.

Rohirrim
11-04-2010, 01:38 PM
1. When that one news channel has a larger share of the ratings pool than the other 4+ combined then yes, it is still the mainstream.

2. MSNBC is gradually copying Fox News' formula of scare tactics followed by red meat finger pointing, followed by slanted "analysis" itself. They've also seen their ratings surpass those of CNN's as a result. Hence why they keep adding more and more 1 Hr. political/news "entertainment" programs with progressively more extremely liberal hosts. And FYI, while Maddow is extremely far left she is honest about it, not to mention a very intelligent woman who allows for fair and open discourse of all sides on her show. She is the antithesis of Fox News as well as her own colleagues (Olberman and Matthews for example). Balanced? No, but she is fair.

Talk radio is a news/poltiics based entertainment format, just like the entirety of Fox News and MSNBC's daily broadcasts.


Bush pushed to privatize SS which in retrospect would have only served to completely destroy it when the market tanked. That is not a viable solution. Bush also never put up any legitimate alternatives to closing the border. He never would as it goes against his agenda (allowing business to subvert the minimum wage and workers rights with illegal labor).


You know that this makes no sense right? Keynesian economics are in no way tied to supply or demand side policies. It is at its core the belief that a nation should drive debt into any facet of the economy to stimulate economic growth. This is why George W. Bush was the most prominent Keynesian president of all time and pushed through the greatest Keynesian bill of all time, TARP, despite being a devout "supply-side" advocate.


No, it was directly related to the empowerment of our labor unions, which created the post-war boom.


And yet that time period was the birthplace of most of our major corporations of today. So the claim that taxes prevent economic expansion really doesn't hold water (the core tenant of "trickle down" or "supply side" arguments).


Agree completely and the entitlements we take away need to start with a bloated defense industry and handouts to corporations that off-shore jobs.

How is the tea party a legit third party when they ran in republican primaries and you have GOP lifers like Michelle Bachman claiming to lead the "tea party caucus"?

Maybe it could've been a third party if it wasn't completely co-opted by the extreme right fringe. That would've been nice. If the Tea Party really stood for what it claims though they would've been the biggest Prop 19 proponents around and would campaign on reduction of the military machine/ending foreign wars as much or more than anything else.

Politically speaking, that's the low hanging fruit right there. The Dems, if they had half a brain (debatable) should immediately forward a bill that takes away subsidies and tax breaks to corporations that offshore jobs. Let the Republicans vote that down.

Mile High Shack
11-04-2010, 01:41 PM
Conservative talk radio has a significantly larger audience than NPR and "progressive" talk radio combined. Fox News is the most watched cable news channel. Those two statements and the claim of "mainstream media" being liberal do not at all jive. Fox News and conservative talk radio are the mainstream media, by definition, because they hold the largest portion of the audience in their respective sectors of the media.

We can debate if that is a representative depiction of the general populous (I'd argue no, since the majority of this nation ignores both media formats as a rule of thumb) but the far right forms of news/political media are the mainstream format.


Small to middle businesses that are ran with anything resembling intelligent tax reporting will always pay well below 39.6%. All of the larger businesses in this country pay a lower percentage of taxes on income than anyone short of welfare recipients as well.

What you've constructed is a straw man under the perception that the "wealthy" hire everyone. Akin to Rand Paul's half wit argument that "hey, we all work for rich people so if we tax them less they'll have more money to hire". It doesn't work that way. Most people are smart enough to incorporate and have their business file separately from themselves. To that end businesses then get a massive amount of tax write offs and subsidies from the federal government. In fact one such way to reduce their total taxable income is through hiring. If you raised taxes on the largest corporations in this country you would not see an increase in tax revenue from them because they would simply reinvest it into greater R&D/marketing/etc.. Positive moves that also double as write offs to reduce tax liability.

The single best way to strengthen our economy, which was proven out in the 40's, 50's, and 60's, is to empower the middle class through the double pronged attack of higher wages and greater leisure time. The middle class saves at much lower percentage of annual income than the wealthy, the vast majority of their income is poured directly back into our economy. This increases the market for businesses by creating larger demand for services and products (which obviously requires more workers).

What you're describing, and what Rand Paul tried to espouse to Blitzer, is the trickle down economics of Reagan's advisers. The plan which George H.W. Bush described as "voodoo economics" because it simply doesn't work. What I described is trickle up economics and was proven to work throughout a 30+ year window of prosperity in this country that likely wouldn't have been broken if we didn't enter back to back wars coupled with radical changes to our previously effective policies.


But what do you decrease? Medicaid/Medicare? A promise that almost all living people in this nation have purchased through weekly withholdings in their paycheck? Social Security? Yet another program that the American people pay for.

Whenever people attack these I wonder if they understand what that fully entails. Will we suddenly stop seeing withdraws for them from our checks? If so that will not help balance the budget. Will those withdraws be transfered over to the general federal withholding? If so then that is by definition a tax increase, since we pay at the same rate for less service.

The fat of our government that can be cut while still keeping our competitive edge globally is the military, and it can be cut by large margins. We've already implemented a program of mutually assured destruction with the entire rest of the world through our unprecedented and unrivaled nuclear power, which we have openly declared to the rest of the world. This as put in place a Nash equilibrium that no longer requires us to spend more than 50 times the next largest military nation. Rebalancing and refocusing the military budget is imperative to this nation's long term success.

everyone please re-read this...it is 100% correct and unless we fix this, the only thing we are trickling down is the blood of the ones running the show

24champ
11-04-2010, 01:59 PM
LOL You mean like the GOP that started two wars

It's pretty basic, GOP only controls the house, its not enough power to start a war. I think the left can calm down on that front.

passed unfunded Medicare Part D, created the Dept of Homeland Security, etc. all coupled with tax cuts? That kind of power?

I agree with your point, and it is reasonable to be skeptical about the GOP doing the things they claim to believe in. I am glad everyone is asking for specifics on what the GOP will do. Puts the pressure on them to put a plan forward to the American people.

Rock Chalk
11-04-2010, 02:23 PM
Politically speaking, that's the low hanging fruit right there. The Dems, if they had half a brain (debatable) should immediately forward a bill that takes away subsidies and tax breaks to corporations that offshore jobs. Let the Republicans vote that down.

One of the biggest offenders of offshoring jobs is Heinz which is owned by John Kerry's wife.

Look, off shoring jobs keeps american business competitive in the global market and keeps prices low here.

People don't like it, but that's the way it is. Get a ****ing education, and quit relying on manual labor because other people in other parts of the world are going to do it cheaper, with more pride and faster than Americans will.

The PEOPLE in America are now so entitled. Auto industry is a mess because a stupid, no-education, assembly line worker thinks he should make 25$ an hour with full health benefits when in reality he should be making just over minimum wage and have a basic health care package. Its a menial job that can be quickly taught to any idiot.

Manufacturing is dead or dying and there is NO WAY to get it back and keep America competitive. That's the deal. Unions have destroyed any chance of manufacturing being done cheaply in America. From a business stand point, why pay an American worker 20 an hour, have to pay for full heath benefits AND a retirement plan for that guy that is going to do a half assed job and bitch in 5 years and possibly go on strike when you can pay a Mexican or Chinese person 1/10th that money and they will work hard for you because they are actually GRATEFUL they have a job? **** that lazy American, Im sending my jobs offshore too.

Mile High Shack
11-04-2010, 02:26 PM
what about all the computer programmers, who are well educated btw, that are getting their jobs moved to India b/c they will work for 20K a year and do 1/2 as good of work?

bowtown
11-04-2010, 02:28 PM
One of the biggest offenders of offshoring jobs is Heinz which is owned by John Kerry's wife.

Look, off shoring jobs keeps american business competitive in the global market and keeps prices low here.

People don't like it, but that's the way it is. Get a ****ing education, and quit relying on manual labor because other people in other parts of the world are going to do it cheaper, with more pride and faster than Americans will.

The PEOPLE in America are now so entitled. Auto industry is a mess because a stupid, no-education, assembly line worker thinks he should make 25$ an hour with full health benefits when in reality he should be making just over minimum wage and have a basic health care package. Its a menial job that can be quickly taught to any idiot.

Manufacturing is dead or dying and there is NO WAY to get it back and keep America competitive. That's the deal. Unions have destroyed any chance of manufacturing being done cheaply in America. From a business stand point, why pay an American worker 20 an hour, have to pay for full heath benefits AND a retirement plan for that guy that is going to do a half assed job and b**** in 5 years and possibly go on strike when you can pay a Mexican or Chinese person 1/10th that money and they will work hard for you because they are actually GRATEFUL they have a job? **** that lazy American, Im sending my jobs offshore too.

And that's your perogative, but you shouldn't be rewarded by the government for doing it.

24champ
11-04-2010, 02:43 PM
And that's your perogative, but you shouldn't be rewarded by the government for doing it.

Exactly, like Maytag just moved a bunch of jobs to Mexico and got government incentive to do so.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/28/60minutes/main6999868.shtml

Drek
11-04-2010, 02:48 PM
One of the biggest offenders of offshoring jobs is Heinz which is owned by John Kerry's wife.

Look, off shoring jobs keeps american business competitive in the global market and keeps prices low here.

People don't like it, but that's the way it is. Get a ****ing education, and quit relying on manual labor because other people in other parts of the world are going to do it cheaper, with more pride and faster than Americans will.

The PEOPLE in America are now so entitled. Auto industry is a mess because a stupid, no-education, assembly line worker thinks he should make 25$ an hour with full health benefits when in reality he should be making just over minimum wage and have a basic health care package. Its a menial job that can be quickly taught to any idiot.

Manufacturing is dead or dying and there is NO WAY to get it back and keep America competitive. That's the deal. Unions have destroyed any chance of manufacturing being done cheaply in America. From a business stand point, why pay an American worker 20 an hour, have to pay for full heath benefits AND a retirement plan for that guy that is going to do a half assed job and b**** in 5 years and possibly go on strike when you can pay a Mexican or Chinese person 1/10th that money and they will work hard for you because they are actually GRATEFUL they have a job? **** that lazy American, Im sending my jobs offshore too.

You do know that this is complete bull**** right?

The heyday of unionization never coincided with mass exodus of manufacturing jobs. Instead the heyday of "free" trade has a direct, 1:1, correlation to it.

There were no problems with the pricing of goods and services when we did not give every other nation a free pass to steal our manufacturing jobs. We did just fine all through the 40's to the mid-80's. Then we started to soften up the borders. Then Clinton decided that he wanted to be an international folk hero and gave out free trade agreements like they were candy and he was riding on a homecoming day float. George W. Bush followed his lead and gave out even more.

Uncle Sam is letting the "global market" run a train on Lady Liberty and both the extreme right and extreme left are happy sitting in the corner jerking off to it. Just like how they all view illegal immigration.

Mile High Shack
11-04-2010, 02:50 PM
You do know that this is complete bull**** right?

The heyday of unionization never coincided with mass exodus of manufacturing jobs. Instead the heyday of "free" trade has a direct, 1:1, correlation to it.

There were no problems with the pricing of goods and services when we did not give every other nation a free pass to steal our manufacturing jobs. We did just fine all through the 40's to the mid-80's. Then we started to soften up the borders. Then Clinton decided that he wanted to be an international folk hero and gave out free trade agreements like they were candy and he was riding on a homecoming day float. George W. Bush followed his lead and gave out even more.

Uncle Sam is letting the "global market" run a train on Lady Liberty and both the extreme right and extreme left are happy sitting in the corner jerking off to it. Just like how they all view illegal immigration.

you are on a freakin' roll

DarkHorse30
11-04-2010, 02:56 PM
If you really believe that the tea partiers don't care about re-elected, first I think that's adorable, but second, I have some REALLY bad news for you. They're already going to simply oppose anything Obama sends down, regardless of whether it's along their campaign lines or not, since it will better allow them to win in 2012. That's ALL they care about.

Can you really buy ANYTHING any of these politicians say? Pelosi's house was going to be "transparent", and Obama's unemployment rate wouldn't ever dream of going above 8%. In the end, blame bush.....blame bush.....but maybe that isn't working so well anymore.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-04-2010, 03:00 PM
Can you really buy ANYTHING any of these politicians say? Pelosi's house was going to be "transparent", and Obama's unemployment rate wouldn't ever dream of going above 8%. In the end, blame bush.....blame bush.....but maybe that isn't working so well anymore.

Well, make up all the nonsense you want. Fact is, the information you're looking for -- that transparency -- is there if you're willing to get off your ass and look for it. Never was before.

And the unemployment rate creeped up, there's no question. There's also very little question that it would have been 13-15% had Obama's stimulus not gone through. And I say this as someone who was downsized due to a ****ty economy. /shrug It's a part of life, and I'm certainly not stupid enough to blame a President who had been in office a whopping 8 months when it happened.

So Bush gets none of the responsibility, huh? None of it? That's not an acceptable place to look?

It's not about laying blame. It's about reversing the severe damage done. You have to look to the past to find where the damage was done, then change how you do things in the future. I suppose that's just "blame Bush" to you, right?

DarkHorse30
11-04-2010, 03:13 PM
1. When that one news channel has a larger share of the ratings pool than the other 4+ combined then yes, it is still the mainstream. No, you are dead wrong. When you have 59 channels of cable, and ONE fox new channel and TWELVE abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, msnbc channels it is ONE against TWELVE.......The fact that everybody watches Fox instead of that other crap only means that the "main stream" is filled with idiots that ignore ratings. How else would Matthews even have a show? Tingle up your leg.....good grief. You think Maddow is fair? You probably join Dan Rather in thinking that the NYT is middle of the road.

No, it was directly related to the empowerment of our labor unions, which created the post-war boom. Labor unions WERE an important part of America. I would guess you are joined with them at the hip. I don't see them as being as important nowadays because instant news cycle can expose corruption everywhere......except in the union that is completely protected by the left and MSM. Just my opinion. Your hearkening for the old union days and higher wages and more leisure time for the middle class is a bit naive. The worst union right now, IMO is the teachers union.

How is the tea party a legit third party when they ran in republican primaries and you have GOP lifers like Michelle Bachman claiming to lead the "tea party caucus"? did I say "the closest thing we have had to a 3rd party"? Indepent isn't a party.....and neither is "moderate" and neither is "union thug that wishes everything was like the old days". Do you read posts, or just automatically regurgitate your party politics?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-04-2010, 03:17 PM
No, you are dead wrong. When you have 59 channels of cable, and ONE fox new channel and TWELVE abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, msnbc channels it is ONE against TWELVE.......The fact that everybody watches Fox instead of that other crap only means that the "main stream" is filled with idiots that ignore ratings. How else would Matthews even have a show? Tingle up your leg.....good grief. You think Maddow is fair? You probably join Dan Rather in thinking that the NYT is middle of the road.

Labor unions WERE an important part of America. I would guess you are joined with them at the hip. I don't see them as being as important nowadays because instant news cycle can expose corruption everywhere......except in the union that is completely protected by the left and MSM. Just my opinion. Your hearkening for the old union days and higher wages and more leisure time for the middle class is a bit naive. The worst union right now, IMO is the teachers union.

did I say "the closest thing we have had to a 3rd party"? Indepent isn't a party.....and neither is "moderate" and neither is "union thug that wishes everything was like the old days". Do you read posts, or just automatically regurgitate your party politics?

So more channels with fewer viewers = mainstream, while fewer channels with more viewers = anti-establishment? Good one. Maybe the dumbest thing I've ever read.

MAINSTREAM MEANS "WHAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WATCH," not "how many channels there are."

bowtown
11-04-2010, 03:31 PM
No, you are dead wrong. When you have 59 channels of cable, and ONE fox new channel and TWELVE abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, msnbc channels it is ONE against TWELVE.......The fact that everybody watches Fox instead of that other crap only means that the "main stream" is filled with idiots that ignore ratings. How else would Matthews even have a show? Tingle up your leg.....good grief. You think Maddow is fair? You probably join Dan Rather in thinking that the NYT is middle of the road.

Labor unions WERE an important part of America. I would guess you are joined with them at the hip. I don't see them as being as important nowadays because instant news cycle can expose corruption everywhere......except in the union that is completely protected by the left and MSM. Just my opinion. Your hearkening for the old union days and higher wages and more leisure time for the middle class is a bit naive. The worst union right now, IMO is the teachers union.

did I say "the closest thing we have had to a 3rd party"? Indepent isn't a party.....and neither is "moderate" and neither is "union thug that wishes everything was like the old days". Do you read posts, or just automatically regurgitate your party politics?

Just because it has the word party at the end, doesn't make it a party. It's an extreme wing of the GOP, nothing more. The Green Party is more of a party than the Tea Party. Hell, the Rent is Too Damn High Party is more of a legit 3rd party than the Tea Party.

DarkHorse30
11-04-2010, 04:19 PM
Just because it has the word party at the end, doesn't make it a party. It's an extreme wing of the GOP, nothing more. The Green Party is more of a party than the Tea Party. Hell, the Rent is Too Damn High Party is more of a legit 3rd party than the Tea Party.

what is extreme about trying to make gov't accountable? Seriously.....define extreme, and tell me why forcing people to buy health insurance if they don't want to isn't extreme, but wanting to lower taxes is.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty"
Thomas Jefferson

ghwk
11-04-2010, 04:31 PM
what is extreme about trying to make gov't accountable? Seriously.....define extreme, and tell me why forcing people to buy health insurance if they don't want to isn't extreme, but wanting to lower taxes is.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty"
Thomas Jefferson

Forcing peoplke to buy health insurance is supposed to make it cheaper for YOU. Do you get that? YOUR premium subsidizes the uninsured who use the ER for sniffles. If they are forced to buy health insurance then they start to pay for themselves rather than you and me paying for them. The fly in the ointment here is the insurance co's are under no obligation to lower your premium because there is no competition in health care and therefore no efficiencies driven from competition that would lower costs. Instead it is a giveaway to the insurers. STOP confusing political ideology with economics. Unless you want to continue to subsidize the uninsured that is.

TailgateNut
11-04-2010, 04:36 PM
what is extreme about trying to make gov't accountable? Seriously.....define extreme, and tell me why forcing people to buy health insurance if they don't want to isn't extreme, but wanting to lower taxes is.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty"
Thomas Jefferson


What is it with you fuqwads and your obsession with lowering taxes when we are eyebrow deep in debt.

It's akin to asking for a reduction of income with collection agencies knocking down the doors.

****ing Repuklibaggers

DarkHorse30
11-04-2010, 04:43 PM
Forcing peoplke to buy health insurance is supposed to make it cheaper for YOU. Do you get that? YOUR premium subsidizes the uninsured who use the ER for sniffles. If they are forced to buy health insurance then they start to pay for themselves rher than you and me paying for them. The fly in the ointment here is the insurance co's are under no obligation to lower your premium becuase there is no competition in health care and therefore no efficiencies driven from competition that would lower costs. Instead it is a giveaway to the insurers. STOP confusing political ideology with economics. Unless you want to continue to subsidize the uninsured that is.

My extremely good insurance rate is going to be wrecked by obama-care. I have skin in this game. The "30 million uninsured" and the "pre-existing condition" selling points worked ONLY on the congressman and women. The people of this country did not WANT Obamacare. You'd think he would have learned by Clinton's mistake before 94'. Duh.

Repealing it would be the first step in listening, but I doubt Obama will do it. He seems like a very talented politician/idiot.

ghwk
11-04-2010, 04:47 PM
My extremely good insurance rate is going to be wrecked by obama-care. I have skin in this game. The "30 million uninsured" and the "pre-existing condition" selling points worked ONLY on the congressman and women. The people of this country did not WANT Obamacare. You'd think he would have learned by Clinton's mistake before 94'. Duh.

Repealing it would be the first step in listening, but I doubt Obama will do it. He seems like a very talented politician/idiot.

Your extremely good insurance rate will be shortly outpaced by the average 9% increase annually in health care premiums than Obama care will cost you.

DarkHorse30
11-04-2010, 04:57 PM
Your extremely good insurance rate will be shortly outpaced by the average 9% increase annually in health care premiums than Obama care will cost you.

......thanks to passing obamcare. Look, America has the best healthcare in the world.....and Obama seems pressed into destroying it with his 2000 page "plan".

I don't want Cuba's plan, or the French plan, or Canada's plan. They are all terrible and everybody knows it.

ghwk
11-04-2010, 04:59 PM
......thanks to passing obamcare. Look, America has the best healthcare in the world.....and Obama seems pressed into destroying it with his 2000 page "plan".

I don't want Cuba's plan, or the French plan, or Canada's plan. They are all terrible and everybody knows it.

Wow so you are just in the "bury my head in the sand and ignore the cost of health care crowd." So be it, although I don't see where you were forced to take anyones plan. You still have yours.

gunns
11-04-2010, 05:09 PM
My extremely good insurance rate is going to be wrecked by obama-care. I have skin in this game. The "30 million uninsured" and the "pre-existing condition" selling points worked ONLY on the congressman and women. The people of this country did not WANT Obamacare. You'd think he would have learned by Clinton's mistake before 94'. Duh.

Repealing it would be the first step in listening, but I doubt Obama will do it. He seems like a very talented politician/idiot.

Wow, your first sentence is the apt describtion of the tea party. The only thing they want to hold the government accountable to is themselves. The Federal government is for everyone and you don't want something that will benefit everyone because your insurance is going to be wrecked? Ok, then don't cry when you have your excellent insurance, they get rid of "Obama care" and your excellent insurance gets wrecked because your premiums and copays are raised as hospitals and Dr's raise their rates because of the influx of baby boomers retiring and the amount of uninsured rises and medicare and medicaid don't quite pay the bills for them. But I can guarantee you will be, because it'll be worse than "Obama care".

DarkHorse30
11-04-2010, 05:11 PM
Wow so you are just in the "bury my head in the sand and ignore the cost of health care crowd." So be it, although I don't see where you were forced to take anyones plan. You still have yours.

not for long.......every insurance company will have to redo their rates, and they will GO UP. Every time the gov't touches anything the cost increases......meanwhile the quality will go down.

Remember when LBJ declared war on poverty? How'd that turn out? You can't legislate away poverty, and I would argue that healthcare for Americans is the same animal. There is nothing to "fix" so stay away from it. It is the best in the world.....leave it alone.

ghwk
11-04-2010, 05:19 PM
not for long.......every insurance company will have to redo their rates, and they will GO UP. Every time the gov't touches anything the cost increases......meanwhile the quality will go down.

Remember when LBJ declared war on poverty? How'd that turn out? You can't legislate away poverty, and I would argue that healthcare for Americans is the same animal. There is nothing to "fix" so stay away from it. It is the best in the world.....leave it alone.

LBJ isn't relevant here as this isn't a war on poverty. Govt. hasn't touched rates for the last 20 years and what direction have they gone in? It sure wasn't down. Have you really thought about this at all in any type of historical or future sense or is it just easier to spout the party line?

TonyR
11-04-2010, 08:16 PM
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in proportion."

--Adam Smith

Dukes
11-04-2010, 08:24 PM
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in proportion."

--Adam Smith

Forcibly or willingly?

Kid A
11-04-2010, 08:35 PM
Forcibly or willingly?

Well, Smith did say that quote in the context of taxes. Here is a longer portion of it:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."


Total commie.

bowtown
11-04-2010, 09:55 PM
Well, Smith did say that quote in the context of taxes. Here is a longer portion of it:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."


Total commie.

Screw the founding fathers! Who cares about them, we should follow the constiution!

DarkHorse30
11-04-2010, 10:33 PM
LBJ isn't relevant here as this isn't a war on poverty. Govt. hasn't touched rates for the last 20 years and what direction have they gone in? It sure wasn't down. Have you really thought about this at all in any type of historical or future sense or is it just easier to spout the party line?

What party is that? GW (1 or 2)'s party? That one hasn't existed since 94. GW's reach across the aisle landed us in the mess we are in. The first Stimulus package sent us down this road, instead of fixing it. 2 more "stimulus" packages merely added to the debt.

The tea party movement, IMO moved the republicans to the right. Call it "extreme" if you want to try the MSM approach, but the bottom line is debt, entitlement spending and taxes. Tea party candidates want to limit debt, entitlement spending and taxes. I'm FOR that.

The reference to LBJ's war on poverty is to illustrate that the gov't CAN'T eliminate poverty, nor can it influence American's behavior in areas that it can't control. Healthcare is a PERSONAL expenditure. It is not up to the gov't to "provide" healthcare because it is ill-equipped to do it. Market forces have to influence healthcare costs and providing ways for insurance to COMPETE across state boundaries will help. Will it all get "fixed" in one bill? No. To expect it to is naive, because gov't programs RARELY perform as advertised. Witness SS and Medicare. They didn't work AS gov't predicted they would.

TonyR
11-05-2010, 06:45 AM
And the marginalization of the tea party begins...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Self-proclaimed tea party leader Michele Bachmann’s bid for a top Republican post in the House received a cool reaction Thursday from Speaker-to-be John Boehner, an early test of how GOP leaders will treat the antiestablishment movement’s winners in Tuesday’s elections.

“Constitutional conservatives deserve a loud and clear voice in leadership!” Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded the Tea Party Caucus, said in a one-paragraph Facebook announcement that she is running for GOP conference chairman.

House Republican leaders don’t disagree. But that doesn’t mean they want the hyperbolic Bachmann being a spokeswoman for the new majority during the 2012 election cycle.

Boehner, aware of the role tea partiers played in making him the next House speaker, is endorsing no one. His lieutenants are lining up behind Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, leaving no doubt that Hensarling — and not Bachmann — is the leadership favorite to chair the GOP conference.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/briefs/x719771766/Bachman-bid-for-GOP-leadership-gets-cold-shoulder

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-05-2010, 07:27 AM
Look, America has the best healthcare in the world......

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH A

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHA

HAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Hoo... HAHAHAHA...

Oh man... hahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

That is ****ing HILARIOUS. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

OH man, I haven't laughed that hard since I was a little girl, thank you.

Drek
11-05-2010, 07:34 AM
No, you are dead wrong. When you have 59 channels of cable, and ONE fox new channel and TWELVE abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, msnbc channels it is ONE against TWELVE.......The fact that everybody watches Fox instead of that other crap only means that the "main stream" is filled with idiots that ignore ratings. How else would Matthews even have a show? Tingle up your leg.....good grief. You think Maddow is fair? You probably join Dan Rather in thinking that the NYT is middle of the road.
You do realize that thinking "we're right, everyone else is on the take!" is the first and foremost sign that you're part of the tinfoil hat club right?

Again, mainstream = most watched. And you obviously are incapable of viewing this with any sort of unbiased perspective because the network news is generally as impartial as you're going to get.

Also, point out some time when Maddow was unfair to a conservative willing to come on her show. She has an open door policy to Republican congressmen and senators and gives them a platform, in exchange she looks to engage them in debate, nothing more. Is she extremely far left in her views? Of course. But it doesn't compromise her willingness to give the opposite viewpoint a chance to speak their mind.

There is a difference between presenting the facts as-is (what the basic network news does), having a debate (what Maddow primarily shoots for in her interviews) and pontificating to base of either extreme (what Fox News and conservative talk radio as well as Olbermann, Matthews, etc. do).

Labor unions WERE an important part of America. I would guess you are joined with them at the hip. I don't see them as being as important nowadays because instant news cycle can expose corruption everywhere......except in the union that is completely protected by the left and MSM. Just my opinion. Your hearkening for the old union days and higher wages and more leisure time for the middle class is a bit naive. The worst union right now, IMO is the teachers union.
Great. Your "opinion" is completely uninformed conjecture. I do work with unions, on the side of a corporation that employs them. You know, the guys you claim unions are hindering. It doesn't hinder our work in the least. Unions aren't about "exposing corruption". This isn't the 1930's anymore. The biggest unions have given the American people over the last half century is to promote wages keeping up with corporate profits over the years.

Again, point out to me how unions have debilitated any field. I'd love to see this smoking gun your mind has constructed in which unions are killing business.

did I say "the closest thing we have had to a 3rd party"? Indepent isn't a party.....and neither is "moderate" and neither is "union thug that wishes everything was like the old days". Do you read posts, or just automatically regurgitate your party politics?
Neither is being a subset within one of the two dominant parties. Libertarian, Green Party, etc. are third parties. The Tea Party ran in Republican primaries and ran on the general election ballots as Republicans. Therefore they are REPUBLICANS. Not some magic third party.

Your response depresses me. I enjoy good debate but all I'm getting from you is uneducated conjecture and obtuse opinion spewing. Why don't you try applying logic to the discussion and see where that gets you, because just saying "NUH UH! I DON'T AGREE" is what 5 year olds do.

Paladin
11-05-2010, 05:31 PM
Repealing it would be the first step in listening, but I doubt Obama will do it. He seems like a very talented politician/idiot.

Okay, nitwit. Which of the following parts of the Insurance Reform bill would you cut?

Within one year of enactment (2010–2011)
• Insurance companies barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick, ending the practice of rescission. Lifetime coverage limits eliminated and annual limits restricted.
• Young adults able to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.
• Uninsured adults with pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.
• Insurance companies cannot deny group or new (non-grandfathered) individual coverage to children under age 19 due to a pre-existing condition.
• A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.
• Medicare drug plan beneficiaries who fall into the Medicare Part D coverage gap (the so-called "doughnut hole") will get a $250 rebate. The new law eventually closes that gap completely. (The old law required the sick person to pay 100% of their own annual medicine costs after $2,700 was spent in the coverage year and did not start again until after $6,154 was spent).
• A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
• A 10% tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.

Effective during 2011
• Medicare provides 10% bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.
• Medicare will cover the full cost of annual wellness visits and personalized prevention plan services for beneficiaries. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.
• A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.
• Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.
• Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 tax forms.
• An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $5 million or less.

Effective as of 2012
• Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.
• An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.
• The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begins tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.
• Companies will be required to issue 1099 forms to any vendor of services or rental property to which the business has paid more than $600. Form 1099 is also sent to the IRS. Under the existing law, businesses issued the Form 1099 only to individuals who provided services or property to a business. The health care law included the same form be issued to corporations as well, and that the form be issued to individuals and corporations that provide property to the business. Only business related payments are reportable, personal payments not. There are a number of exceptions. For example: payments for merchandise, telephone, freight, storage, payments of rent to real estate agents are excepted. The health care bill mandate aims to collect lost revenue from companies that under-report on their tax returns. The provision is expected to raise $17 billion over 10 years.

Effective as of 2013
• A national pilot program is established for Medicare on payment bundling to encourage doctors, hospitals and other care providers to better coordinate patient care.
• The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10% from 7.5% of income. The threshold remains at 7.5% for the elderly through 2016.
• The Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA) is raised to 2.35% from 1.45% for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group.
• A 2.9% excise tax is imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.

Effective by January 1, 2014
• State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.
• Individuals with income up to 133% of the federal poverty level qualify for Medicaid coverage.
• Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.
• Premium cap for maximum "out-of-pocket" pay will be established for people with incomes up to 400 percent of FPL. Section 1401 of PPACA explains that the subsidy will be provided as an advancable, refundable tax credit and gives a formula for its calculation. Refundable tax credit is a way to provide government benefit to people even with no tax liability. (example: Child Tax Credit). According to White House and Congressional Budget Office figures, the maximum share of income that enrollees would have to pay for the "silver" healthcare plan would vary depending on their income relative to the federal poverty level, as follows: for families with income 133–150% of FPL will be 4-4.7% of income, for families with income of 150–200% of FPL will be 4.7-6.5% of income, for families with income 200–250% of FPL will be 6.5-8.4% of income, for families with income 250-300% of FPL will be 8.4-10.2% of income, for families with income from 300 to 400% of FPL will be 10.2% of income. In 2016,the FPL is projected to equal about $11,800 for a single person and about $24,000 for family of four.
• Most people required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a tax if they don't.
• Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
• Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.
• Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.

Effective 2015
• Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.
Effective 2018
• An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $27,500 of a family plan and $10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions.

I posted this because o wanted to give you a chance to read a "Cif';s Notes" version before you spout any more BS about the Insurance Reform Bill. So, which would you cut? There is one provision I would agree to a modification. See if you can spot it.....

Go fot it.....

cutthemdown
11-05-2010, 08:23 PM
So hard to address those provisions because even though a lot of it sounds good there isn't the money to pay for it. Already Obama had to give a bunch of exemptions or companies threatened to drop providing healthcare.

The no lifetime limits just exposes insurance to paying out tons of money. Also the mandate making people buy it seems like a tax to me but they didn't call it that.

Seems like companies that had 55 employees would just fire 5 of them and cut insurance so as to not pay the fine if they are over 50.

I agree with people that say the healthcare reform is really hard to understand.

cutthemdown
11-05-2010, 08:23 PM
Also taxing tanning salons seems like a joke considering all the things that are bad for peoples health.

baja
11-05-2010, 08:31 PM
It should be called sickness care.

Why not educate, facilitate and subsidize people toward adopting healthy lifestyles.

The reason it will never happen is because illness is a trillion dollar business.

If you ain't sick they ain't getting paid.

TailgateNut
11-05-2010, 09:23 PM
Also taxing tanning salons seems like a joke considering all the things that are bad for peoples health.


Like cigarettes and alcohol, it's an unhealthy choice which raises costs to the public.

cutthemdown
11-05-2010, 09:43 PM
Like cigarettes and alcohol, it's an unhealthy choice which raises costs to the public.

What about sports then? Don't athletes get hurt a lot? People who play adult league sports? What about people who go hiking and rock climbing? Should they get taxed because they will get injured more? Do we tax risky behavior all over or just things you eat and smoke?

WHat about drug testing people and saying if you test positive you pay more for insurance?

What about tattoo's and piercings? they have a lot of infections ( at least according to my doctor who is in to tattos) should that get taxed? Those type of businesses already hurting.

What about people who just go lay in the sun. If tanning is bad the real thing even worst. Should people who go and lay in the sun pay something? like a beach tax?

I'm not really arguing as much as I am saying I found it curious tanning salons were thrown in there like that. Not like it even raised any revenue in the big picture.

I bet it could really hurt some small tanning salons though. 10% more could mean 10% of customers stop going.

Dukes
11-05-2010, 10:28 PM
It should be called sickness care.

Why not educate, facilitate and subsidize people toward adopting healthy lifestyles.

The reason it will never happen is because illness is a trillion dollar business.

If you ain't sick they ain't getting paid.

One of the conspiracy theories I subscribe to. The cure for cancer and many other diseases have been found but companies will not cure people. Illness is in fact big business.

epicSocialism4tw
11-05-2010, 10:37 PM
One of the conspiracy theories I subscribe to. The cure for cancer and many other diseases have been found but companies will not cure people. Illness is in fact big business.

I know several people who are working on cancers.

They are getting closer every day, and new ideas are being worked all over the place.

I wouldnt be too worried about whether or not people are trying, because they are.

epicSocialism4tw
11-05-2010, 10:39 PM
It should be called sickness care.

Why not educate, facilitate and subsidize people toward adopting healthy lifestyles.

The reason it will never happen is because illness is a trillion dollar business.

If you ain't sick they ain't getting paid.

Tons of money goes into patient education.

Talk to your doctor about patient compliance and you'll likely get a cynical answer about people not listening to their advice.

Most people do not listen to their doctors.

epicSocialism4tw
11-05-2010, 10:47 PM
Like cigarettes and alcohol, it's an unhealthy choice which raises costs to the public.

This idea feeds into the Orwellian sense of government control in every aspect of life.

You cant be trusted to be responsible at crossroads, so someone makes red lights that control behavior and limit choices. You cant be trusted to stop at red lights, so you place cameras and flash bulbs that fine everyone who sets off the camera mechanism. There's an inevitable sequence of diminshing choices, and in turn diminishing freedom. Whats next? You dont pay the fines and they show up and put a boot on your car?

Individual freedom is literally the foundation of our country, of our culture. Bureaucrats in ivory towers who are trying to figure ways to funnel special interest monies into their other interests cannot and should not be trusted to make your decisions for you. Every shackle that they try to contain you with should be resisted.

If you want to be a loudmouthed jerk, thats your right. But someone somewhere can put together a convincing argument that loudmouthed jerks are a risk to general wellness and should be placed on tranquilizers to prevent you from impeding on the general wellness of others.

Fitter. Happier. More productive. A pig. In a cage. On antibiotics.

baja
11-05-2010, 10:49 PM
Tons of money goes into patient education.

Talk to your doctor about patient compliance and you'll likely get a cynical answer about people not listening to their advice.

Most people do not listen to their doctors.

On average doctors get 8 hours of schooling on nutrition.

Just look at what hospitals feed their inmates and get back to me about preventive medicine.

here read the archived articles;

http://www.naturalnews.com/

epicSocialism4tw
11-05-2010, 11:01 PM
On average doctors get 8 hours of schooling on nutrition.

Just look at what hospitals feed their inmates and get back to me about preventive medicine.

Dude, thats insane.

Every doctor has a foundation that includes an in-depth understanding of the fundamentals of nutrition. O Chem, Biochem, Human phys, human anatomy, cell phys, general zo, etc. all come even before med school. Med students have to have a pretty firm grasp of those subjects to get into med school. The MCAT tests mastery of those subjects and more.

Then once you get to med school, you get even further in depth studies of the above subjects and you learn them in terms of disease states and practice.

You cant be a doctor and not know how substrates are metabolized in cellular systems throughout the body. You wouldnt be able to treat many diseases including widespread diseases like diabetes if you didnt understand nutrition.

baja
11-05-2010, 11:06 PM
(NaturalNews) Most people probably assume that their doctors know everything there is to know about health because, after all, they went through many years of medical school. But according to a recent New York Times piece written by a doctor, most medical schools teach few, if any, courses in nutrition, and most students graduate and become doctors with no sense of how nutrition plays a vital role in maintaining good health.

Even though most of the chronic diseases people face are related to poor diet, medical school training focuses largely on drugs, surgical procedures and other reactionary interventions instead. In fact, some medical schools do not even teach a single course in nutrition.

Back in the mid-1980s, the National Academy of Sciences published a report about the lack of nutrition education in medical schools, and advised that such schools begin offering at least 25 hours in nutrition education to their students. But a recent study published in Academic Medicine, a Journal of the Association of American Medical College, reveals that conditions have either remained unchanged or actually gotten worse.

Researchers from the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill found that the average number of nutrition education hours offered by most medical colleges today has actually dropped by nearly half since six years ago. Today, only 25 percent of medical schools even offer the minimum recommended number of hours in nutrition education.

"Nutrition is really a core component of modern medical practice," emphasized Kelly M. Adams, registered dietitian at UNC and lead author of the study. "[Students] aren't getting enough [nutrition] instruction while in medical school."

For the past 15 years, UNC has been offering an online- and CD-ROM-based program that students can used to supplement their medical education. While the program has helped some, many medical school students still end up graduating with dismal knowledge in proper nutrition.


http://www.naturalnews.com/029934_doctors_nutrition.html

baja
11-05-2010, 11:07 PM
want more articles? I got um.

baja
11-05-2010, 11:10 PM
http://www.home-business-comparison.info/6extras/Why%20are%20doctors%20ignorant%20about%20nutrition %20V4.pdf

epicSocialism4tw
11-05-2010, 11:14 PM
want more articles? I got um.

Doctors (MD's) are extremely well educated in what amounts to the biochemical machines that contribute to homeostasis. DO's are even moreso concerned with things on the organ system-to-organism level.

Nutrition is part of what contributes to that homeostasis.

Most of the clinics that deal with the patient population who tend to have problems with nutrition deal with the demographic below the poverty level. Those clinics have points of emphasis on nutrition. Many times they have staff nutritionists that they use to handle that aspect of patient care.

The conspiracy theory idea where you think doctors allow their patients to eat poorly so they keep coming back to the clinic is crazy. Those visits become more of a hassle than anything else because you have to deal with noncompliance.

baja
11-05-2010, 11:16 PM
The conspiracy theory idea where you think doctors allow their patients to eat poorly so they keep coming back to the clinic is crazy. Those visits become more of a hassle than anything else because you have to deal with noncompliance

I didn't say that I said most doctors are ignorant when it comes to nutrition.

epicSocialism4tw
11-05-2010, 11:17 PM
I didn't say that I said most doctors are ignorant when it comes to nutrition.

Which is just not true at all.

baja
11-05-2010, 11:18 PM
http://4businessbangkok.com/natural-health-nutrition/what-doctors-dont-know-wake-up-america-4

baja
11-05-2010, 11:19 PM
Which is just not true at all.

Do a little research I'e given you some links to get you started.

If you do you will be appalled

baja
11-05-2010, 11:20 PM
What Doctors Don’t Know, Wake Up America #4

21
FEB
Be My Friend – http://www.myspace.com/psychtruth

What Doctors Don’t Know, Wake Up America #4

We normally expect doctors to know everything about health but you would be surprised at what they donâ??t know. Chances are your doctor has little or no education on nutrition, complimentary or alternative medicine whatsoever. Is your doctor really qualified to give you advice at fitness or nutrition?

Related Videos
Wake Up America # 1, Food Supply and Health Care Conspiracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at7RZMo9IP0

Wake Up America #2, Science of Profit, Corporate Takeover of Science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OWNdHgDmAY

Wake Up America # 3, GMO Foods, Genetically Modified Organisms,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9JHHGTvO2Y

Wake Up America #4, What Doctors Don’t Know

Visit Radhia’s Website at
http://www.advancedhealthinstitute.com/
http://www.aimmd.com/

Visit Peter McCarthy’s website
http://www.lifeenergyholisticcenter.com/

Visit Texas Health Freedom Coalition
http://www.texashealthfreedom.com/

Peter McCarthy is the Chief Executive Officer and Wellness Director of Life Energy Holistic Partners, Inc. and holds the degree of Doctor of Naturopathy from Trinity College of Natural Health. He is a Nationally Board Certified Traditional Naturopath and is a member of the Advisory Committee of the American Naturopathic Certification Board.

Radhia Gleis is certified in Clinical Nutrition, C.C.N. She is also a Certified BioNutritional Analyst. She has a Ph.D. in pastoral counseling and a M.Ed. in nutrition. She is a professional member of the International and American Association of Clinical Nutritionists, (I.A.A.C.N), and the American Naturopathic Medical Association (A.N.M.A.) and specialized in complementary and alternative medicine.

Music by John Richter
http://www.injoysolutions.com

This video was produced by Psychetruth
http://www.myspace.com/psychtruth
http://www.youtube.com/psychetruth
http://psychetruth.blogspot.com/

baja
11-05-2010, 11:22 PM
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/what-doctors-dont-know-about-nutrition/

epicSocialism4tw
11-05-2010, 11:27 PM
Do a little research I'e given you some links to get you started.

If you do you will be appalled

http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/utsw/cda/dept24681/files/545351.html

baja
11-05-2010, 11:34 PM
http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/utsw/cda/dept24681/files/545351.html

This is Biochemistry not diet as it relates to health.

Do more research I showed you the way and now I'm out of this one until you do.

Paladin
11-06-2010, 12:03 AM
Also taxing tanning salons seems like a joke considering all the things that are bad for peoples health.

Was there not some info put out lately that people who use tanning beds have a much higher risk for skin cancer? Perhaps there some actuarial data backing the logic for the provision?

What I am hearing is that there is not a lot of objections to the provisions.

I do think the requirements on businesses of less than a certain number of people should be tweaked a bit. But the corporations should not be allowed to look for ways to game the law.

Frankly, I don't really worry about it. I am presently on a Government sponsored Insurance program for which I pay premiums (now and in the past) and I pay premiums for the drug insurance. (The costs are sort of like capitation.) Further, for you follks who don't know the SS laws, I also pay income tax on a portion of the SS benefits I recieve. I go over the income limits because I take some funds from my 401(k) to supplement the SS.

I am afraid that most people have very little understanding of the Insurance Reform law, and that's why it gets called - erroneously - "Obamacare". It will save a boatload of money as it gets fully implemented, and far more people will be covered. In Colorado, I heard that upwards of 50% of the people do not have health insurance. That is sad. If adults want to chance it, okay, but Children need a fair shot at decent hearlthcare services.....

BTW, there are provisions for providing information on healthy choices. There are no "death panels". As the law gets implemented. the docs and community clinics will be reqarded by increased Medicare and Medicaid paymetns for providing quality, health-enhancing care.

epicSocialism4tw
11-06-2010, 12:10 AM
This is Biochemistry not diet as it relates to health.

Do more research I showed you the way and now I'm out of this one until you do.

Um...guy...biochemistry is the study of the metabolism of macromolecules. Fatty acids, amino acids, proteins, lipids, etc, etc,

Its the study of the systems in cells that deal with those molecules. Where they come from, how they are manipulated, and where they go.

If you eat 5 grams of fat, a biochemist can tell you which chemicals in your stomach react with that fat, what relative ratios of macromolecules of fat enter the tissues, which tissues process them, and then the systems that deposit those macromolecules in various places throughout the body.

I dont think you understand what nutrition really is.