PDA

View Full Version : For Palin, A Good Election Night.



Parihaka
26 Aug 10,, 02:52
For Palin, A Good Election Night. (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/25/for-palin-a-good-election-night/)


By Louise Radnofsky
It may be several days before the outcome of Alaska’s Republican Senate primary is known. But it’s already clear that another Alaska Republican – Sarah Palin – had a good night Tuesday.

Palin took the unusual step of endorsing a challenger to a sitting senator of her own party and in her home state. The long-shot bet is close to paying off: The challenger, Joe Miller, is leading Sen. Lisa Murkowski in nearly complete returns. The final outcome may not be known for days.

Whatever happens in that race, Palin had a good night: all four of her other endorsements won. By WashWire’s count, her record now stands as 12 endorsed candidates going on to win their primaries and 10 losing, not counting Miller.

Palin’s Tuesday night wins:

In Arizona, she had backed Sen. John McCain, her running mate in the 2008 presidential election. That endorsement earned her the wrath of some supporters, who argued that McCain was less conservative than his challenger, J.D. Hayworth. She also endorsed congressional candidate Paul Gosar.

In Florida, Palin endorsed congressional candidate Allen West, and Pam Bondi, a candidate for attorney general.

dalem
26 Aug 10,, 04:48
I still love her. I don't want her to run for President, but I love her style and effect.

-dale

Bluesman
26 Aug 10,, 08:45
And I love that 'They' absolutely LOATHE her. You can tell when the Democrats fear someone as much as they obviously fear her, because they go all-out to destroy that person utterly.

And STILL she's kickin' their asses.

dalem
26 Aug 10,, 08:46
And I love that 'They' absolutely LOATHE her. You can tell when the Democrats fear someone as much as they obviously fear her, because they go all-out to destroy that person utterly.

And STILL she's kickin' their asses.

Exactly. ALL the right people hate her, from both sides.

-dale

Red Seven
26 Aug 10,, 22:05
She is a breath of fresh air. She gave my wife a big hug during the campaign (unfortunately I was OCONUS and not there to get one, too). She will be a force in the years to come. The MSM has tried its hardest to paint her as "stupid" but from what I've seen she's shrewd...smarter than many of those in Congress and the present Administration...and definately smarter than most of the reporters I've met.

Roosveltrepub
26 Aug 10,, 22:29
I understand the attraction of her rhetoric. I just don't understand why she has pull and no actual policy positions.

KRON1
26 Aug 10,, 22:47
I want to know why her daughter is going on "Dancing with the Stars."

gunnut
26 Aug 10,, 22:56
I understand the attraction of her rhetoric. I just don't understand why she has pull and no actual policy positions.

It's the people's "hope" for "change."

Marko
26 Aug 10,, 23:56
I can see her populist appeal, and how she galvanises her base.. but can you guys really see her as a serious politician?
Would she really have the tact for diplomacy?
she strikes me as an amazing pundit, but she doesn't have the head for government.

dalem
26 Aug 10,, 23:58
I understand the attraction of her rhetoric. I just don't understand why she has pull and no actual policy positions.

... that you have listened to or read.

-dale

MIKEMUN
27 Aug 10,, 02:27
I can see her populist appeal, and how she galvanises her base.. but can you guys really see her as a serious politician?
Would she really have the tact for diplomacy?
she strikes me as an amazing pundit, but she doesn't have the head for government.

She is much better than President Hopey changey for me.

MIKEMUN
27 Aug 10,, 02:32
I understand the attraction of her rhetoric. I just don't understand why she has pull and no actual policy positions.

Against "big government", against abortion, for guns....etc... She seems to have well defined positions for me. As for policy...hmmmm, well... She can't do worse than the gentleman in the White House now. And no, calling it the White House is not racist.:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

Marko
27 Aug 10,, 02:40
Against "big government", against abortion, for guns....etc... She seems to have well defined positions for me. As for policy...hmmmm, well... She can't do worse than the gentleman in the White House now. And no, calling it the White House is not racist.:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

those principles are fine. but if she was in power would you not think she shout her mouth off and undermine careful diplomacy in north east asia and the middle east? Shotgun politics plays well at home, but its detrimental for foreign policy.

MIKEMUN
27 Aug 10,, 02:52
those principles are fine. but if she was in power would you not think she shout her mouth off and undermine careful diplomacy in north east asia and the middle east? Shotgun politics plays well at home, but its detrimental for foreign policy.

That's why Presidents have advisers. They do not make policy in isolation. And I do not see careful diplomacy working so well for the Obama administration either.

Marko
27 Aug 10,, 10:18
I think hes managed to keep a lid on things fairly well. No major breakthroughs with Korea or Iran, but could you really have seen Palin do any better?
Shed have been a major liability for the foreign office or whatever your equivalent is.

dalem
27 Aug 10,, 10:25
I think hes managed to keep a lid on things fairly well. No major breakthroughs with Korea or Iran, but could you really have seen Palin do any better?
Shed have been a major liability for the foreign office or whatever your equivalent is.

But she's not a whiney, arrogant, ignorant punk bitch who despises America. So that would be better than the president we have now.

-dale

Marko
27 Aug 10,, 10:33
On what basis does Obama 'Despise america'?

bigross86
27 Aug 10,, 11:56
Kowtowing to her enemies, his complete and total lack of anything that resembles patriotism, driving the economy into the shitter faster than anyone though was possible, passing unconstitutional laws, challenging constitutional laws.

Take your pick

Marko
27 Aug 10,, 12:04
Kowtowing to her enemies, his complete and total lack of anything that resembles patriotism, driving the economy into the shitter faster than anyone though was possible, passing unconstitutional laws, challenging constitutional laws.

Take your pick

right.
you forgot planning 9/11, being born in Saudi Arabia and being a muslim.

bigross86
27 Aug 10,, 12:22
No, I'm just sticking to facts

Besides, Obama wasn't even a US Senator when 9/11 occured. 9/11 was all Bush's fault. Everyone knows that...

Marko
27 Aug 10,, 12:44
of course theyre facts. Doesnt sound even remotely paranoid.

bigross86
27 Aug 10,, 15:24
Okay, let's take them one by one:

Kowtowing to her enemies: His speech in Cairo, amongst many others in which he does everything to apologize to Muslims and to Islam, blames the US and Israel for the state of the world today, basically bends over and drops his trousers and says "here, come bumfcuk me"

his complete and total lack of anything that resembles patriotism: It seems that Obama is going out of his way to harm America and America's standing all over the world, by doing idiotic things like giving the Queen an iPod full of his speeches, almost completely ignoring the special relationship between the US and the UK, bowing to the Saudi king, amongst other things

driving the economy into the shitter faster than anyone though was possible: Open your newspaper

passing unconstitutional laws: Obamacare is unconstitutional. Example: People whose religion forbids them from going to a hospital or seeking medical attention (e.g. Scientology) are exempt from health insurance, which means that people that don't belong to one of those religions have to pay the tax, which makes the tax itself a tax based on religious grounds, which is government discrimination on a religious basis, going against the First Amendment

challenging constitutional laws: The Arizona Immigration law is a law whose sole intent and purpose is to take Federal laws and apply them to state level, therefore allowing the state to enforce it's own international borders. The law was written specifically to fall within every single guideline and letter of the law, and still the Obama Administration is challenging it and has filed suit against it (or is planning to).

There, I've backed up every single thing with facts and examples. Like I said, I stick to the facts, no paranoia involved.

Marko
27 Aug 10,, 15:53
Nope, your giving me your opinion and calling it facts.

His cairo speech -
He didnt apologize to Al Queda. Islam is not Americas enemy - you may think it is, but even Bush said it wasnt. He tried to repair relations - its called Diplomacy. As for blaming Israel, I seem to recall him saying the bond between Israel and America was 'unbreakable'.

His lack of Patriotism -
Good for him. Ive voted Conservative all my life, but if David Cameron started that mindless chest beating, flag waving drivel that some politicians put on Id drop them like a hotrock. As for his ipod gaff - who cares? really? If the special relationship can't survive petty crap like that then its not worth having. I can see how a black 2nd generation kenyan brought up in Indonesia and Hawaii might me more Asia-Pacific centered than towards Europe with its colonialist history, but hey so what? Bowing to the Saudi King? Youd rather hed insult a strategic ally in the region? Perhaps he should have given him his ipod and bowed to the queen instead.

The economy
You may be right or wrong about that - I wouldnt presume to know, as economists cant seem to agree. Its your opinion though, dont call it a fact.

passing unconstitutional laws
Well if thats unconstitutional then the Military is too. There are roughly 100,000 Jainists in the USA, whos religion forbids any form of violence, even in self defence. They dont have a choice but to fund the military.


All of the above is my OPINION.

Marko
27 Aug 10,, 16:21
ill concede the ipod was rather obnoxious, not out of disrespect to the queen - just giving ANYONE an ipod full of your own speechs deserves a twating.

dalem
27 Aug 10,, 17:59
On what basis does Obama 'Despise america'?

There's a whole thread in this forum loaded with facts and opinions on that very subject.

-dale

edit: and here it is (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/american-politics/55895-does-obama-hate-america.html).

zraver
28 Aug 10,, 09:21
Bowing to the Saudi King? Youd rather hed insult a strategic ally in the region? Perhaps he should have given him his ipod and bowed to the queen instead.

He could have shook hands, only subjects bow to a sovereign. As an American possessing the sovereign vote, he and all Americans should bow to no one.


passing unconstitutional laws
Well if thats unconstitutional then the Military is too. There are roughly 100,000 Jainists in the USA, whos religion forbids any form of violence, even in self defence. They dont have a choice but to fund the military.

incorrect, if they are immigrants, then they willing agreed within themselves to buy into the social contract of America. Unlike natural born citizens, immigrant taxes are voluntary in that the person chose to come here.

If they are natural born, they or Quakers made a similar compromise heading into adulthood or on conversion. With the ability to emigrate and renounce citizenship, no adult citizen in America is forced to support the military. They have have the selfsame and equal chance to win converts in the battle of ideas and national direction. As an example, Liberals have long been pushing for federal subsidies for elective abortions but have been blocked so far by the majority.

In contrast, the health care law gives special and direct tax, criminal and regulatory relief to a specific religious group denied to other religious groups. This overt financial, regulatory and legal support amounts to an establishment of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Congress gave Scientology special breaks and thus elevated it above other religions. Moreover, paying a tax does not equal accessing the production of that tax. The law only requires you get health care coverage, not that you make use of it.

This brings up the other big constitutional issue, can Congress force people to engage in commerce. In a free society, the individuals control of the personal pocket book is as critical to liberty as freedom of speech.

Marko
31 Aug 10,, 11:15
Im sorry zraver, I really cant follow your logic, it sounds like your twisting yourself in knots to come to your desired conclusion. What breaks did Scientology get?

bigross86
31 Aug 10,, 11:33
Scientologists don't believe in medicine and don't go to hospitals or doctors. They are exempt from some of the taxes incurred under Obamacare

Marko
31 Aug 10,, 11:42
Well that is truly retarded, how the hell did they wrangle that?

bigross86
31 Aug 10,, 12:07
Obamacare as a whole is stupid. It stands to reason that a large steaming pile of stupidity is made up of tiny pieces of stupidity

Marko
31 Aug 10,, 12:17
Well I cant say I understand how it works, so wont say your wrong. But I do applaud the attempt to get universal coverage, even if it did produce a mess as you say.

bigross86
31 Aug 10,, 12:20
Universal coverage wouldn't be such a bad thing if everybody pulled their own way, like we do here in Israel. It's when I start forcing you to pay for his health insurance that it starts going south

Marko
31 Aug 10,, 12:24
How does it work in Israel?
Is it voluntary insurance?
Surely there are people that choose not to/cant afford to buy it? How are theyre bills paid?

bigross86
31 Aug 10,, 12:43
In Israel it's simple. There are four government HMO's. If you want to be eligible for these HMO's you need fulfill 2 conditions: You must pay the government for social security, and you must pay the HMO itself on a monthly basis. You can pay the HMO's for more or less, for more basic or comprehensive plans, but you must be a member of an HMO to receive treatment and have them cover it.

If you don't belong to an HMO, you're paying for your own shit yourself. Sorry, dude.

Marko
31 Aug 10,, 13:14
Sounds efficient, but is there no safety net for the poor?
Are people left to die if they could afford, but foolishly chose not to participate?
How about the Palestinians? Are they allowed to use this system?

bigross86
31 Aug 10,, 14:41
I don't know about the Palestinians. There is no way to choose not to participate. Social Security is taken automatically off your paycheck, and it's the law that you need to belong to an HMO

Marko
31 Aug 10,, 15:04
Well that is a good system then. Simple and effective.
I really cant understand why the Americans insist on making it so bloody complicated!

dalem
31 Aug 10,, 17:53
Well that is a good system then. Simple and effective.
I really cant understand why the Americans insist on making it so bloody complicated!

Because most of us don't want our government making decisions about our health care for us. We prefer to do it ourselves, and pay for it ourselves. That's in addition to the tremendous waste and inefficiency you get with a government the size of ours.

-dale

bigross86
31 Aug 10,, 18:00
Israel has 7 million citizens, and our government keeps screwing stuff up, even the simple stuff. How much damage do you think a government for 35 times the people can do?

McFire
01 Sep 10,, 10:57
Israel has 7 million citizens, and our government keeps screwing stuff up, even the simple stuff. How much damage do you think a government for 35 times the people can do?


Exactly right.

Zinja
01 Sep 10,, 14:54
I think the US health care issue is a paradox. Some people don't want to pay, but somehow when they get sick they MUST be treated. Who is going to pay for their treatment.?

I think Americans should choose between paying and some people paying for other for that matter, and everybody gets treatment. Or you pay you get treatment, you don't pay you are left lying dying in hospital pews. If you drop on the streets from a heart attack, the ambulance will pass you to pick up a paying someone next door suffering from a bruised toe.

highsea
02 Sep 10,, 03:57
Zinja. It's not that people don't want to pay for health care or health insurance. But they want some control over the decisions. And they want reasonable costs.

Most people are insulated from the cost of the insurance by their employers or the gov't. People who don't get it from their work have really high costs. You're making 40-50K a year, you can't just hand over what can easily be 1/4 of your income to an insurance company.

Absolutely there needs to be some changes. But I want to pick my own level of coverage and deductibles with a Medical Savings account, and I want to be able to self-insure for minor things like a broken bone. That alone would cut the cost to me by half, and it would gain in value if I didn't need it. But that type of insurance will no longer be available to me.

I want to be able to buy it from anyone, just like my car insurance. I don't want a monopoly of 2 or 3 providers who all charge the same price for the same policy.

I sure don't want the gov't telling me what I have to buy and from whom. As far as that goes, they can kiss my ass.

Marko
02 Sep 10,, 09:03
Can you tell me specifically how Obamacare has changed your healthcare from an end user perspective? Has it even started yet? Ive tried to find some meaningful information on how it actually works, but all I can find is highly politically charged denunciations of it or partisan promotion. Id like to know the cold hard process - how you pay - what happens if you dont - who you pay, and what kind of care you can expect compared to the old private insurance scheme.

dalem
02 Sep 10,, 09:35
Can you tell me specifically how Obamacare has changed your healthcare from an end user perspective?

No. No one can - that's half the point. Speaker Pelosi herself was proud to say that they'd have to "pass the bill to see what's in it" and all the arse sucking Democrats who voted for it were proud to do exactly that. Every week they find something unexpected and stupid in it that does nothing to address perceived health care issues in this country, but instead is illegal, inconvenient, or ill-conceived.

-dale

Marko
02 Sep 10,, 10:49
No. No one can - that's half the point. Speaker Pelosi herself was proud to say that they'd have to "pass the bill to see what's in it" and all the arse sucking Democrats who voted for it were proud to do exactly that. Every week they find something unexpected and stupid in it that does nothing to address perceived health care issues in this country, but instead is illegal, inconvenient, or ill-conceived.

-dale

So it hasnt started yet I take it?

Zinja
02 Sep 10,, 18:54
Zinja. It's not that people don't want to pay for health care or health insurance. But they want some control over the decisions. And they want reasonable costs.

Ok, the issue of reasonable costs cannot be levelled at the Obamacare because those high costs were already the problem which triggered this reform.

The control over the decision issue is a valid arguement, and i feel for you and hardworking Americans who have been short changed by the Obamacare here.

However, may i say that let us remember that the whole issue of the health reform was not because of 'control over decisions'. The issue has been rising costs due to ever increasing premiums mainly because of people who do not have health cover but are still being treated in hospital, thus the insured end up having to pay for the uninsured in the premiums.

This is the part i then do not understand. A lot of the noise I am hearing is Obama cannot force people to sign up for their health care, its unconstitutional, they say. If people were arguing that 'ok, everybody will contribute his/her health cover mandatorily but they want to chose what is to be covered and who they should sign up with', then i wouldn't be so confused. If people want to be treated for an ailment for which they are not covered, tough, they should dig into their pockets and pay for themselves and not burden tax payer's funds.

My gripe is the same people who complain about compulsory coverage have not offered any meaningful solution of what should be done when they turn up at the A&E. I bet you they will still want to be treated. If those people turned up at the A&E and they are left to die, it would be breaking news all over the country and the same people will be screeming blood against the government.

gunnut
02 Sep 10,, 19:23
So it hasnt started yet I take it?

Depends on what you mean by "started."

The "coverage" as in providing health care service to people, no, it won't start until the year 2014.

The taxes to pay for this coverage is already underway. One of them is the racist "tanning" tax. There is now a 10% (I think) excise tax on tanning salons to pay for Obamacare. The rationale is tanning booths cause skin cancer, so these users have to pay into the system which will eventually take care of them. :rolleyes:

Here's a flow chart prepared by a republican congressman (partisan take on things) but it's telling on what the 2400 page "law" does.

http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf

It will create no less than 150 government agencies/commissions/offices to regulate the various aspect of medicine.

dalem
02 Sep 10,, 19:30
Ok, the issue of reasonable costs cannot be levelled at the Obamacare because those high costs were already the problem which triggered this reform.

WTF?

If I decide that I want to solve flooding problems in my state by building a dam and that dam causes un-planned-for floods upstream than I can damn-well point to flooding as a problem with the dam project.

What are they teaching in schools these days????

-dale

Marko
02 Sep 10,, 23:38
Depends on what you mean by "started."

The "coverage" as in providing health care service to people, no, it won't start until the year 2014.

The taxes to pay for this coverage is already underway. One of them is the racist "tanning" tax. There is now a 10% (I think) excise tax on tanning salons to pay for Obamacare. The rationale is tanning booths cause skin cancer, so these users have to pay into the system which will eventually take care of them. :rolleyes:

Here's a flow chart prepared by a republican congressman (partisan take on things) but it's telling on what the 2400 page "law" does.

http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf

It will create no less than 150 government agencies/commissions/offices to regulate the various aspect of medicine.


That looks absolutely crazy, but i don't doubt if someone mapped out our NHS system in Britain it would look similar.
I know you've a hundred anecdotes to show how shite our system is, but the general consensus is that its ok. Could be worse, could be better. Sometimes its awesome, sometimes it fails miserably. Tremendously expensive of course, but also ****ing good when you need it.

PS. Bring on the 'tanning tax' , lets have some o that here. If stupid idiots wanna microwave themselves let em pay for it.

gunnut
02 Sep 10,, 23:50
That looks absolutely crazy, but i don't doubt if someone mapped out our NHS system in Britain it would look similar.
I know you've a hundred anecdotes to show how shite our system is, but the general consensus is that its ok. Could be worse, could be better. Sometimes its awesome, sometimes it fails miserably. Tremendously expensive of course, but also ****ing good when you need it.

PS. Bring on the 'tanning tax' , lets have some o that here. If stupid idiots wanna microwave themselves let em pay for it.

Yeah, but tanning tax is racist. How often do black and brown people go to the tanning salon? That's like an excise tax on basketball player's salaries. How many white people get paid to play basketball? More than black people going to the tanning salon.

Zinja
02 Sep 10,, 23:54
WTF?

If I decide that I want to solve flooding problems in my state by building a dam and that dam causes un-planned-for floods upstream than I can damn-well point to flooding as a problem with the dam project.

What are they teaching in schools these days????

-dale If there were floods already upstream before you built the dam, the only arguement you will have is that the dam did not resolve the problem NOT that the dam created the problem.

highsea
03 Sep 10,, 00:37
Ok, the issue of reasonable costs cannot be levelled at the Obamacare because those high costs were already the problem which triggered this reform.And yet Obamacare does not address the costs. It will actually raise the cost of coverage to individuals.


However, may i say that let us remember that the whole issue of the health reform was not because of 'control over decisions'. The issue has been rising costs due to ever increasing premiums mainly because of people who do not have health cover but are still being treated in hospital, thus the insured end up having to pay for the uninsured in the premiums.Uninsured people is a red herring. The real problem is rising cost to the gov't of medicare.

You better believe control of health care decisions is an issue among Americans. If you don't understand that much, you were absent the entire debate.


My gripe is the same people who complain about compulsory coverage have not offered any meaningful solution of what should be done when they turn up at the A&E. I bet you they will still want to be treated. If those people turned up at the A&E and they are left to die, it would be breaking news all over the country and the same people will be screeming blood against the government.No one was left to die before Obamacare, so that's a strawman.

The problem is the COST. Fix that, and most of the other problems fix themselves.

Marko
03 Sep 10,, 00:39
oh I think us poor oppressed white folk will get over the terrible racism of a sunbed tax.

dalem
03 Sep 10,, 01:00
If there were floods already upstream before you built the dam, the only arguement you will have is that the dam did not resolve the problem NOT that the dam created the problem.

Are you kidding me? You're reconstructing my example? I'm totally fed up today - WHERE did you people learn to think? Did you ever?

-dale

gunnut
03 Sep 10,, 01:05
oh I think us poor oppressed white folk will get over the terrible racism of a sunbed tax.

But it's not constitutional. That's the real problem.

I don't care if it happens in the UK. That's for the britons to figure out. As long as it happens here, it will have to deal with our Constitution, lest it sets a bad precedent.

highsea
03 Sep 10,, 01:20
You got it backwards gunnut. It's the tanning salon that's racist you see, because their clientele is 'overwhelmingly white'. :rolleyes:

Marko
03 Sep 10,, 01:26
But it's not constitutional. That's the real problem.

I don't care if it happens in the UK. That's for the britons to figure out. As long as it happens here, it will have to deal with our Constitution, lest it sets a bad precedent.
oh come on.. be honest..

you dont really think its racist do you?

You dont like it cause its a nanny state tax.

Zinja
03 Sep 10,, 01:59
And yet Obamacare does not address the costs. It will actually raise the cost of coverage to individuals.

I agree that the Obamacare does not solve the cost problem. My gripe is that the overhaul somehow created costs (in monitory terms) that are more than it already cost.



Uninsured people is a red herring.
I doubt if the rising premiums are a red herring.



You better believe control of health care decisions is an issue among Americans. If you don't understand that much, you were absent the entire debate.

Whilst i do not have a protest-O-metre, a very significant portion of the protest im seeing is about 'forced' contributions into the new system. What im hearing from people 'no one should force me to engage in a commercial transaction'. People are threatening the take the government to court because it has (supposedly), 'violeted' the constitution. And i ask you HS, is the violation over 'control of medication' or 'forced' sign ups?



No one was left to die before Obamacare, so that's a strawman.

That is my point. No one was left to die because the got the treatment still, and the government picked up the bill. It is ok when the government is picking up the bill (and bankrupt it in the process), but it is unfair when citizenry and employers are asked to pick up the bill for a change and pay for themselves. My gripe HS is with those people who simply don't want to be 'forced' to make a contribution.

Having said all this HS, you will be surprised to know that I do not support the Obamacare myself, infact i loathe it. But my reasons are different from yours.

Zinja
03 Sep 10,, 02:04
I'm totally fed up today
Take a chill pill, it helps sometimes.


WHERE did you people learn to think? Did you ever?
-dale
If just one sentence causes someone to climb up the wall, i would say there is a fair bit of thinking that has been put into the sentence. No hard feelings Dalem :).

gunnut
03 Sep 10,, 02:31
oh come on.. be honest..

you dont really think its racist do you?

You dont like it cause its a nanny state tax.

You are exactly right. It's not really racist. It's just a nanny state tax. I am against any tax that's not uniform or too specific.

But, since the leftist liberals like to hide behind their "equal rights" amendment, here's a good one to throw back at their faces.

gunnut
03 Sep 10,, 02:31
You got it backwards gunnut. It's the tanning salon that's racist you see, because their clientele is 'overwhelmingly white'. :rolleyes:

Wait...I thought whites are racist because they go to tanning salons in overwhelming numbers. :tongue:

highsea
03 Sep 10,, 04:45
I agree that the Obamacare does not solve the cost problem. My gripe is that the overhaul somehow created costs (in monitory terms) that are more than it already cost.It creates 150 new bureaucracies, thousands of new rules. Companies have to comply with all that. There's a huge regulatory burden for companies, and the taxpayer has to pay for the bureaucracy.

It shoves 16 million more people onto medicaid, which increases the costs to the states, meaning higher state taxes.

It raises insurance premium costs because it takes away the choices like the policy I described earlier. It forces me to pay for certain coverages I don't want or need.

It taxes medical devices- that will be passed on by the manufacturers to the providers and on to the patients.

It hikes payroll taxes for more medicare money, which they divert to exchange subsidies while at the same time claiming to be "saving" medicare..

It forces companies to 1099 all subcontractors- a huge compliance cost for businesses and a huge bureaucratic cost to process what could easily be a billion new tax forms.

Companies will have to setup private "lactation rooms" for their female employees so they can pump breast milk at work.

I could go on and on.


I doubt if the rising premiums are a red herring.No one disputes the rising costs of insurance. But that is born by the private sector, it doesn't cost the gov't a thing. The gov't doesn't foot the bill for the uninsured, that is pushed down to the private insurance companies and individuals. The gov't sets the price they pay for medical services by fiat, not a damn thing the providers can do about it.

It's the medicare costs they are having problems dealing with, they have pissed away the trust fund, the population is getting older and living longer. Hence the $500 Billion in new taxes Obamacare imposes. Most of those medicare costs are consumed in the last 6 months of life, there's a need to get a handle on that. Obamacare doesn't even attempt to do that.

Look, there's lots of problems. Obamacare isn't the solution, and everyone knows that. It was just stupid demagoguery and marshall law by the democrats in power to pass Obama's "signature" policy.

It's a complete crock, from page 1 to page 2700, and it needs to go into the trash bin, and we need to start over. There's just too much wrong with it to try to fix it.


Whilst i do not have a protest-O-metre, a very significant portion of the protest im seeing is about 'forced' contributions into the new system. What im hearing from people 'no one should force me to engage in a commercial transaction'. People are threatening the take the government to court because it has (supposedly), 'violeted' the constitution. And i ask you HS, is the violation over 'control of medication' or 'forced' sign ups?If I'm not forced to participate, my choices remain intact.

If the gov't mandates coverages and makes me buy a gov't approved policy, then they are making the decisions, not me. They are using an unconstitutional interpretation of the Commerce clause as their authority under our laws, to compel me to hand over my freedom to make my own health care decisions to the gov't.

So it's both.


That is my point. No one was left to die because the got the treatment still, and the government picked up the bill. It is ok when the government is picking up the bill (and bankrupt it in the process), but it is unfair when citizenry and employers are asked to pick up the bill for a change and pay for themselves. My gripe HS is with those people who simply don't want to be 'forced' to make a contribution.The gov't didn't pick up the tab. Unreimbursed expenses are shifted to the private side. Employers and private citizens were already the ones paying. In fact, we are paying for the part that the gov't doesn't pay under medicare and medicaid- some 20-30% of the actual cost under the existing gov't insurance is already shifted to the private sector.

The gov't specifies what they will pay for each service, and that's all they pay. If you're poor, you get medicaid for free and the state picks up a portion, the fed gov't picks up the rest. IOW, it is paid by taxpayers.

So what was needed was medicare reform to root out fraud (a huge cost to medicare), more competition between insurance companies and providers, more choices in coverage, lower taxes for medical device makers and providers, transparency in prices charged by providers (so consumers can shop for services), group policies for small businesses and associations, and controls on end-of-life costs under medicare (if your 90 year old granny wants an elective surgery, she pays for it herself).


Having said all this HS, you will be surprised to know that I do not support the Obamacare myself, infact i loathe it. But my reasons are different from yours.Oh, there's about 2700 reasons I loathe it.

Julie
12 Sep 10,, 18:08
If Palin Runs for President

September 12, 2010
By Steve Chapman

It turns out Sarah Palin left the governorship of Alaska for a better position. She's become king -- King Midas, to be exact. Everything she touches turns to gold.

Her memoir, "Going Rogue," was the best-selling hardcover nonfiction volume of 2009. She's got a TV gig with Fox News that reportedly pays $1 million a year. She commands $100,000 for a speaking appearance.

But it's not all about the money. Palin has also become the fairy godmother of the Republican Party. In the Aug. 31 primaries, all five candidates she tapped with her wand came away victorious -- including Joe Miller, who upset incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Those she passed over turned into pumpkins.

"Sarah Palin has special medicine," wrote John Dickerson of the liberal online magazine Slate after the primaries. "The Palin brand now grows ever stronger because other Republicans will want to access that magic."

All that looks like the perfect prelude to something even bigger. After steadfastly refusing invitations for political gatherings in Iowa, site of the first presidential contest in 2012, she's going to Des Moines Sept. 17 for the Republican Party's annual Reagan Day dinner. To run for president, one local GOP official was quoted saying, "she needs to be here -- and she's doing that with a big, high-profile event."

If she enters the race, Palin will have the inside track. A recent Gallup poll found that among Republican voters, she's more popular than Abraham Lincoln, with a 76 percent favorable rating -- higher than any other potential GOP presidential candidate listed by Gallup. The nomination is starting to look like it's hers for the asking.

But appearances are deceiving. Palin would more likely be one of those outwardly formidable candidates whose campaigns peak on the day they announce. The qualities that have made her a media star threaten to make her a dismal candidate.

It's obvious that Palin would have serious weaknesses in a general election campaign, starting with her raging unpopularity among swing voters. In a new Harris Poll, 47 percent of independents say an endorsement from President Obama would make them less likely to vote for a candidate -- but 62 percent would be put off by a Palin blessing.

What is overlooked is that she would have big handicaps in a Republican presidential contest as well. Palin has made her name railing against Obama, congressional Democrats, mosque-builders, the news media and other conservative targets. In a GOP primary, those positions would make her stand out about like one Cheerio stands out from the others. So other considerations -- competence, experience, temperament, judgment, electability -- would dominate, not to her advantage.

Instead of making the case that she would be an improvement on Obama, she'd have to explain why she would be preferable to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty or former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, among other possible contenders.

It's one thing to Tweet your thoughts about Obama and Nancy Pelosi or endorse candidates on Facebook while hiding from skeptical reporters. It's another to match wits on issues with smart, well-informed, politically savvy conservative opponents who are determined to expose your shortcomings.

If Palin couldn't handle an interview with Katie Couric, how would she handle debates? Those come fast and furious in the primaries -- and both Romney and Huckabee can draw on their 2008 experience.

In that kind of setting, winks and one-liners won't take you far. Her opponents will ask her questions she would rather not answer, such as "Why were you for the Bridge to Nowhere until you were against it?" and "If you walked away from the governorship, how can we count on you not to quit the presidency?" They will also display a grasp of substance that Palin doesn't have and shows no interest in acquiring.

This last reality is a clue that those who want her to run will be disappointed. If she were serious about a White House bid, she would have spent the past two years making herself plausible as president. All Palin has done is make herself a major media phenomenon, as well as a wealthy woman.

Right now, she's a hot commodity that has soared in value and seems destined to get even hotter. But the same was once true of housing. Palin is another bubble, which a race for president would soon burst.

RealClearPolitics - If Palin Runs for President (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/12/if_palin_runs_for_president_107115.html)

dalem
12 Sep 10,, 21:44
I would vote for her joyfully if she were the Republican candidate, but I don't think she can win at the national level - she's too polarizing. I think her best work right now is as a voice, an organizer, AND a lightning rod for Liberal fear and hatred, but not as a presidential candidate.

-dale

Julie
13 Sep 10,, 05:03
I would vote for her joyfully if she were the Republican candidate, but I don't think she can win at the national level - she's too polarizing. I think her best work right now is as a voice, an organizer, AND a lightning rod for Liberal fear and hatred, but not as a presidential candidate.

-daleI agree. I would like to see her in some political office in Washington, cuz she has a strong reform policy that I think she would stick to which is what Washington needs alot of.

gunnut
13 Sep 10,, 21:08
What is overlooked is that she would have big handicaps in a Republican presidential contest as well. Palin has made her name railing against Obama, congressional Democrats, mosque-builders, the news media and other conservative targets. In a GOP primary, those positions would make her stand out about like one Cheerio stands out from the others. So other considerations -- competence, experience, temperament, judgment, electability -- would dominate, not to her advantage.

Interesting...the nation selected a guy without competence, experience, temperament, and judgment to the White House. The only thing Obama had was "electability," and only because of his skin color.

I don't think Palin would work as a president. She's just ever so slightly more competent than Obama. I don't want to elect a president based solely on gender or skin color.

highsea
13 Sep 10,, 21:26
She'd be good to head up the EPA or Dept. of Interior. That would make liberals writhe in agony, lol.

Roosveltrepub
13 Sep 10,, 21:32
Interesting...the nation selected a guy without competence, experience, temperament, and judgment to the White House. The only thing Obama had was "electability," and only because of his skin color.

I don't think Palin would work as a president. She's just ever so slightly more competent than Obama. I don't want to elect a president based solely on gender or skin color.

So, He was elected because He is black??????????? I thought He got damn near the same percentage of the African American vote Clinton got. Do you think maybe his doing so much worse in Applachaia than Clinto had something to do with his race? I think He got elected because we were on the precipice of a possioble Depression and not only did swing voters blame Republicans as they are blaming democrats now for today's conditions but John McCain ran a horrendous campaign. As to Palin she was Gov. of a state with the population of a NY neighborhood which although financed entirely by corporate taxes she managed to leave with a deficit. Incidentally her performance as Mayor was about the same. Anyone with any concern about deficits that approves of her governance is ignoring the record. She does give good rhetoric though .....

Ahhh yes Alaska a tough place to govern what with it recieving 130 percent in federal spending as it pays in taxes and financed entirely by Oil taxes.....and still she left it in debt

highsea
13 Sep 10,, 21:53
So, He was elected because He is black??????????? I thought He got damn near the same percentage of the African American vote Clinton got. 1984 Walter Mondale 90% Ronald Reagan 9%
1988 Michael Dukakis 90% George H.W. Bush 10%
1992 Bill Clinton 83% George H.W. Bush 10%
1996 Bill Clinton 84% Bob Dole 12%
2000 Al Gore 90% George W. Bush 9%
2008 Obama 96% McCain 3%

Roosveltrepub
13 Sep 10,, 21:58
1984 Walter Mondale 90% Ronald Reagan 9%
1988 Michael Dukakis 90% George H.W. Bush 10%
1992 Bill Clinton 83% George H.W. Bush 10%
1996 Bill Clinton 84% Bob Dole 12%
2000 Al Gore 90% George W. Bush 9%
2008 Obama 96% McCain 3%

So He got 6 percent more than Gore of what was what 15 percent of the total or so? What's that equate to 1 percent overall or so? That's still far less than the margin of victory. Factor in how much poorer He did in white applachachia and it's probably close to a wash. He won because we were on the precipice of a depression and McCain ran a crappy campaign to boot.

highsea
13 Sep 10,, 22:04
I was just answering your question wrt Clinton vs. Obama % of black vote.

Wasn't making commentary on the dems marketing campaign for BHO. Agree McCain ran a terrible campaign.

gunnut
13 Sep 10,, 22:43
So, He was elected because He is black??????????? I thought He got damn near the same percentage of the African American vote Clinton got.

My words were "he was elected because of his skin color." No where did I say he was elected because of the skin color of the voters. White liberal appologists voted in droves for him along with other so-called minorities. How else do you think he beat out Hillary in 2008?



Do you think maybe his doing so much worse in Applachaia than Clinto had something to do with his race? I think He got elected because we were on the precipice of a possioble Depression and not only did swing voters blame Republicans as they are blaming democrats now for today's conditions but John McCain ran a horrendous campaign.

All true. But do you think he could have had nearly the same draw had he been another run-of-the-mill white guy? People weren't flocking to John Edwards or Joe Biden. Edwards was at least as liberal as Obama and Biden as incompetent.




As to Palin she was Gov. of a state with the population of a NY neighborhood which although financed entirely by corporate taxes she managed to leave with a deficit. Incidentally her performance as Mayor was about the same. Anyone with any concern about deficits that approves of her governance is ignoring the record. She does give good rhetoric though .....

Ahhh yes Alaska a tough place to govern what with it recieving 130 percent in federal spending as it pays in taxes and financed entirely by Oil taxes.....and still she left it in debt

Well, that means you should gladly vote for her.

1. She's ran a deficit
2. Her jurisdiction was funded by corporate tax
3. Her jurisdiction gets more money back from the feds than paying out

I thought all rank-and-file democrats like these characteristics in their politician.

I, on the other hand, have said that I would not vote for her as president. I have said that about McCain. I didn't vote for McCain in 2008.

highsea
14 Sep 10,, 21:58
...Ahhh yes Alaska a tough place to govern what with it recieving 130 percent in federal spending as it pays in taxes and financed entirely by Oil taxes.....and still she left it in debtLol. A 1 year deficit due to low oil prices. They have a $2.2 Billion surplus this year. They paid back the $400 million they borrowed last year. They have a $10 Billion reserve fund plus $30 Billion in the permanent fund. Alaska isn't in debt, and has AA ratings.

Don't think we'll have to hold any charity benefits for Alaska soon. Oh, still no state income or sales taxes.... :biggrin:

Federal spending per capita is a reflection of Alaska's having a small population scattered over a very large area, and the largest per capita population of natives coupled with the remoteness of the villages- you have to fly in and out if someone gets sick. Health care costs in Alaska are the highest in the nation for that reason.

Roosveltrepub
14 Sep 10,, 22:01
Lol. A 1 year deficit due to low oil prices. They have a $2.2 Billion surplus this year. They paid back the $400 million they borrowed last year. They have a $10 Billion reserve fund plus $30 Billion in the permanent fund. Alaska isn't in debt, and has AA ratings.

Don't think we'll have to hold any charity benefits for Alaska soon. Oh, still no state income or sales taxes.... :biggrin:

Federal spending per capita is a reflection of Alaska's having a small population scattered over a very large area, and the largest per capita population of natives coupled with the remoteness of the villages- you have to fly in and out if someone gets sick. Health care costs in Alaska are the highest in the nation for that reason.

Yeah, we should fund the whole country on Corporate taxes! The fact remains she was Gov of a state with a population of a small city financed by corporate fees. I hope Palin has a good night in Deleware!

Julie
14 Sep 10,, 22:13
I thought Alaska had a budget surplus??? What is all this talk about a deficit?

gunnut
14 Sep 10,, 22:44
I thought Alaska had a budget surplus??? What is all this talk about a deficit?

Roose uses "government accounting." Surplus is a deficit; deficit is a surplus; spending is saving; saving is spending.

gunnut
14 Sep 10,, 22:45
Yeah, we should fund the whole country on Corporate taxes! The fact remains she was Gov of a state with a population of a small city financed by corporate fees. I hope Palin has a good night in Deleware!

What we really should have is a 50% excise tax on all pensions.

highsea
14 Sep 10,, 23:43
I thought Alaska had a budget surplus??? What is all this talk about a deficit?I think they ended up at something like a $411 Million budget deficit last year. They borrowed the money from their reserve fund and paid it back this year.

They're not like the rest of the states, they actually have a reserve fund (with money in it) and actually pay the money back if they tap into it.

Gun Grape
15 Sep 10,, 02:35
I think they ended up at something like a $411 Million budget deficit last year. They borrowed the money from their reserve fund and paid it back this year.

They're not like the rest of the states, they actually have a reserve fund (with money in it) and actually pay the money back if they tap into it.

State to repay debt to itself - Juneau Empire (http://juneauempire.com/stories/033110/sta_598534194.shtml)

highsea
15 Sep 10,, 03:21
^^^ Thanks GG. It was $401 million they paid back. And it was from previous years, not last year.

A couple excerpts for Rosie:


The supplemental bill passed 40-0, with support from both Republicans and Democrats.

The only discussion on the House Floor came from Rep. Woodie Salmon, D-Chalkyitski. "This bill is made possible by the 2007 oil tax reform. Thank you, Mr. Speaker," was all he had to say to make his point.

In November 2007, Salmon and a majority of legislators joined with then-Gov. Sarah Palin to adopt a new oil tax system to replace the corruption-tainted Petroleum Profits adopted earlier.

.....

The state currently has more than $8.6 billion in the Constitutional Budget Reserve, an amount that will total more than $9 billion after the additional contribution. That money is intended to help soften the blow of future oil revenue declines.

The state also projected another budget surplus this year, for the fourth year in a row, which will lead to additional savings.

Julie
15 Sep 10,, 04:06
So compared to California, Alaska is sitting pretty good economically, eh?

highsea
15 Sep 10,, 04:34
For now. Who knows what havoc the dems will unleash next....

Roosveltrepub
15 Sep 10,, 21:50
So compared to California, Alaska is sitting pretty good economically, eh?

Imagine if California got 50 cents more back from the federal goverment for every tax dollar they are paying now?

Roosveltrepub
15 Sep 10,, 21:54
WOOT for NY democrats now running against Repubblicans who will be down ticket from someone who wishes to house welfare recipents and Jail and all Dems with a Senate candidate to point to as the Republican idea of a soloution running on fiscal responsibility and family values who ran a movement to stop teen Masturbation and has a record of personal fiscal irresponsibility

highsea
15 Sep 10,, 23:22
You are completely incoherent. Will you ever learn to format a sentence?

p.s. if California got another 50 cents back they would just spend another dollar....

Julie
15 Sep 10,, 23:25
You are completely incoherent. Will you ever learn to format a sentence?

p.s. if California got another 50 cents back they would just spend another dollar....Aint that the truth !

gunnut
16 Sep 10,, 00:00
WOOT for NY democrats now running against Repubblicans who will be down ticket from someone who wishes to house welfare recipents and Jail and all Dems with a Senate candidate to point to as the Republican idea of a soloution running on fiscal responsibility and family values who ran a movement to stop teen Masturbation and has a record of personal fiscal irresponsibility

:confused:

highsea
16 Sep 10,, 00:06
:confused:Rosie just types a bunch of random words- I think he expects us to form them into a legible sentence for him....

gunnut
16 Sep 10,, 00:47
Rosie just types a bunch of random words- I think he expects us to form them into a legible sentence for him....

I was about to tell him to lighten up on the coffee...:tongue:

Julie
16 Sep 10,, 05:58
WOOT for NY democrats now running against Repubblicans who will be down ticket from someone who wishes to house welfare recipents and Jail and all Dems with a Senate candidate to point to as the Republican idea of a soloution running on fiscal responsibility and family values who ran a movement to stop teen Masturbation and has a record of personal fiscal irresponsibilityUmm...good luck with that.
:deadhorse:

Roosveltrepub
16 Sep 10,, 22:20
I couldn't even understand it... I was rushed for time and so excited by the news in NY and DE. Ny, the guy sends racist emails and proposes moving welfare recipients to jails upstate for job and HYGEINE training. HAHAHAHAHA. Deleware, hell you have to live in a cave in Afganistan not to realize she is a religous nutter and a gift to the Democrats. You watch, those two and Angle will be the type of folks pointed out as examples of what a Republican majority means.


Hey see Boehner claiming those with net incomes over 250k were hardest hit by the recession today? Wow, talk about tone death. At least newt pretended to care about regular folk in 94

Roosveltrepub
16 Sep 10,, 22:22
Umm...good luck with that.
:deadhorse:

How is it a deadhorse

YellowFever
16 Sep 10,, 22:41
^ Let me guess. You'll soon promise you won't post here for a year if she wins the Delaware seat, right? :rolleyes:

highsea
16 Sep 10,, 22:45
The delaware election should provide for some good comic relief though- the "Bearded Marxist" against the "Anti-masturbation" candicate. lmao.

gunnut
16 Sep 10,, 23:02
I couldn't even understand it... I was rushed for time and so excited by the news in NY and DE. Ny, the guy sends racist emails and proposes moving welfare recipients to jails upstate for job and HYGEINE training. HAHAHAHAHA. Deleware, hell you have to live in a cave in Afganistan not to realize she is a religous nutter and a gift to the Democrats. You watch, those two and Angle will be the type of folks pointed out as examples of what a Republican majority means.


Hey see Boehner claiming those with net incomes over 250k were hardest hit by the recession today? Wow, talk about tone death. At least newt pretended to care about regular folk in 94

How dare you calling California a "cave in Afghanistan?"

:tongue:

We are about as broke, though...

highsea
16 Sep 10,, 23:16
...Hey see Boehner claiming those with net incomes over 250k were hardest hit by the recession today? Wow, talk about tone death. At least newt pretended to care about regular folk in 94I didn't see that, but I suspect you are misquoting.

I did catch Obama on the White House lawn yesterday claiming that he wanted to cut taxes to the middle class and repubs were blocking it.

Lol. You probably don't see the irony in this- he is now claiming that not raising taxes is a "tax cut". :rolleyes:

I hope he gets his way- let's hike the top marginal rate, hike cap gains, hike dividends. Then we can sit back and watch the exodus of private capital to China. Now that will be good for the Oconomy....morons.

Roosveltrepub
16 Sep 10,, 23:25
I didn't see that, but I suspect you are misquoting.

I did catch Obama on the White House lawn yesterday claiming that he wanted to cut taxes to the middle class and repubs were blocking it.

Lol. You probably don't see the irony in this- he is now claiming that not raising taxes is a "tax cut". :rolleyes:

I hope he gets his way- let's hike the top marginal rate, hike cap gains, hike dividends. Then we can sit back and watch the exodus of private capital to China. Now that will be good for the Oconomy....morons. LAWL Capital didn't flee to China when the rates were cut and people cashed in? Obama did not vote to nor sign into law any bill raising those taxes. Those tax increases were voted for and signed by republicans. It isn't not raisinf taxes it's preventing REPUBLICAN tax increases to be technical isnt it? See how few Republicans voted for those small Biz breaks?
Damn liberal rag Citing "Mental Anguish," Christine O'Donnell Sought $6.9 Million in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Conservative Group | The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/citing-mental-anguish-christine-odonnell-sought-69-million-gender-discrimination-lawsuit-again)

highsea
17 Sep 10,, 00:02
Rosie, I'm not going to waste my time on you if you can't compose your thoughts into something coherent.

Read:


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The economy grew at a slightly faster pace in the fourth quarter than initially estimated, the government said Friday, as robust business investment offset sluggish consumer spending and a wider trade gap.

The Commerce Department said gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of the economy, grew at a revised 4.1 percent annual rate in the quarter, compared with its initial estimate of 4 percent.

An increase in imports, which subtract from GDP, was expected to drag total GDP lower, but business investment was stronger than most economists expected.

"We ended last year with a good bit more momentum on the capital investment front than we thought," said David Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities. "We have an optimistic view about this year as a whole."

In all of 2003, GDP rose at a pace of 3.1 percent, compared with 2.2 percent in 2002. Most economists expect GDP growth of about 4.6 percent this year, according to many recent polls.

Friday's GDP report was a preliminary number, based on incomplete data. It will be revised at least once, possibly more.

The report, along with separate, stronger-than-expected reports on Chicagoland manufacturing and consumer confidence, at first helped lift stock prices, but those gains were reversed in midday trading. Treasury bond prices rose.

Businesses took up slack from consumers

The department said consumer spending growth, which accounts for more than two-thirds of GDP, was revised up to 2.7 percent from an initially reported 2.6 percent. The pace of growth was a strong 6.9 percent in the third quarter.

But the surprising upward revision to total GDP was driven by a dramatic rise in business investment, which surged at a 9.6 percent annual rate in the quarter. The Commerce Department's initial estimate was 6.9 percent. Business investment grew at a 12.8 percent pace in the third quarter.

The surge in business investment was driven mainly by a 15.1 percent growth rate in purchases of equipment and software. That pace was initially estimated at 10 percent, compared with 17.6 percent in the third quarter.

Though many economists expect consumer spending will get a boost in the first half of 2004 from income-tax refund checks, they also believe that spending could slow later in the year, meaning businesses will have to provide most of the impetus behind economic growth this year. Friday's report offered some hope that business spending has gained momentum.

"We've been talking for a long time about capital spending growth being a key component of the sustainability of this recovery," said Joshua Feinman, chief economist at Deutsche Bank Asset Management. "You have to be encouraged about what we've seen."

Adding nearly a full point to fourth-quarter GDP was stronger-than-expected growth in business inventories, which rose at a $14.9 billion rate in the quarter, following a decrease of $9.1 billion in the third quarter.

While higher inventory levels could mean businesses have less need to boost production in the first quarter, analysts nevertheless took heart since shelf restocking is a sign of growing business confidence.

"If companies are willing to step up capital spending and increase the level of inventories they are holding, we have to believe that a rise -- even if it's gradual -- in the pace of hirings cannot be too far away," said Anthony Chan, chief economist at Banc One Investment Advisors.

U.S. GDP growth revised higher in fourth quarter - Feb. 27, 2004 (http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/27/news/economy/gdp/index.htm)
You want to stagnate the economy even more, kill private investments. This is what the dems are doing.

Like I said, fine by me. The worse they make it, the sooner they will get their asses booted out of D.C.

Roosveltrepub
17 Sep 10,, 09:40
You don't think allowing a 100 percent right off on Capital INVESTMENTS the next year will do anything? This tax increase passed 8 years ago didn't it? Didn't Republicans support it and sign it into law?

dalem
17 Sep 10,, 10:52
I didn't see that, but I suspect you are misquoting.

I did catch Obama on the White House lawn yesterday claiming that he wanted to cut taxes to the middle class and repubs were blocking it.

I still want to know how the Repubs are blocking ANYTHING since they are extreme minorities in both houses, and the Prez is a Democrat too. Anyone care to explain that to me?

-dale

astralis
17 Sep 10,, 15:06
dale,


I still want to know how the Repubs are blocking ANYTHING since they are extreme minorities in both houses, and the Prez is a Democrat too. Anyone care to explain that to me?

-dale

speaking on this issue alone, anyone with even a passing knowledge of senate rules and function knows that it's remarkably easy to hold things up. that's what the senate was designed to do, after all.

bigross86
17 Sep 10,, 15:53
Then how were they not able to hold up Obamacare?

Julie
17 Sep 10,, 15:56
Then how were they not able to hold up Obamacare?You beat me to it !

Haven't the Dems had control since 2006? Doesn't that mean they "guide the agenda?" Looks like they could have guided us somewhere better in the last 4 years. Bahhh! It's just about over and come November, I'm voting against EVERY incumbent. :hammer:

astralis
17 Sep 10,, 16:59
BR,


Then how were they not able to hold up Obamacare?

it WAS held up. but being held up doesn't mean quashing it.

perhaps you didn't notice how it was an amazingly grinding process for dems to push this through. part of the reason why the bill became so ugly at the end was because the republicans successfully held party unity and decide to strategically oppose the bill in its entirety instead of seeking to reform it. (and to be fair, dems played quite a bit of politics with the repubs here too.)

which meant that instead of getting conservative ideas into the reform bill, we were treated to the wonderful spectacle of dems bribing their own factions to ensure THEIR party unity.

a good case of a pox on both houses.

Julie
17 Sep 10,, 17:35
BR,
which meant that instead of getting conservative ideas into the reform bill, we were treated to the wonderful spectacle of dems bribing their own factions to ensure THEIR party unity.Wrong. I seen this on televsion now. Republicans DID offer very good ideas into the reform bill, but as usual, Democrats brushed them aside. Meaning, they brushed aside over half of what United States citizens wanted in the bill which is why the polls are showing the majority of Americans want Obamacare repealed.

astralis
17 Sep 10,, 17:51
julie,


Wrong. I seen this on televsion now. Republicans DID offer very good ideas into the reform bill, but as usual, Democrats brushed them aside. Meaning, they brushed aside over half of what United States citizens wanted in the bill which is why the polls are showing the majority of Americans want Obamacare repealed.

note that i wrote:


(and to be fair, dems played quite a bit of politics with the repubs here too.)

but as far as i see, the republicans were more interested in proposing their ideas through their own individual bill, vice editing the democratic one. seeing that effort go down in defeat, republicans decided to close ranks and oppose the bill in its entirety. as david frum, no democrat he, noted-- this was a strategic decision to go for an all-out win or defeat. if the bill went down in flames, so would the obama presidency. they lost that bet.


Meaning, they brushed aside over half of what United States citizens wanted in the bill

considering republicans disagreed within their own ranks about what should or shouldn't be in the bill, not sure how accurate this statement is.

highsea
17 Sep 10,, 18:09
You don't think allowing a 100 percent right off on Capital INVESTMENTS the next year will do anything?First there has to be confidence that the investment itelf will be worthwhile. THEN you decide how you will treat it for tax purposes.

Businesses will think twice about expensing 100% if their cap gains and marginal rates are going up- once you've expensed that investment, you've lost your depreciation. So it's not a tax cut, it's a pulling forward of the deduction value.

The decision to expense or depreciate has long term consequences- if you take the deduction all at once when marginal rates are low, you will pay a lot more taxes later in net profits (and cap gains if you sell). For anything less than C corp, you don't want to expense more than your profits, you just lose the deduction next year. (C corps can retain earnings/losses, S corps and LLC's can't).

So whether it results in more private investments depends on whether or not the investor believes he will be seeing tax increases in the future, and whether or not he thinks there will be demand for the additional capacity, and whether or not you had sufficient profits to need the deduction.

I have no problem continuing it (it's allowed now), but you shouldn't confuse it with a tax cut. It can help some companies with cash flow, but it's not going to spur large amounts private investments all by ltself.


This tax increase passed 8 years ago didn't it? Didn't Republicans support it and sign it into law?I still can't figure out what you're talking about. The repubs cut taxes. Obama wants to raise them.

So let's raise them. Reverse ALL of them. The Bush tax cuts were only for the wealthy, right? That's what you guys have been saying all along.

highsea
17 Sep 10,, 18:21
Wrong. I seen this on televsion now. Republicans DID offer very good ideas into the reform bill, but as usual, Democrats brushed them aside. Meaning, they brushed aside over half of what United States citizens wanted in the bill which is why the polls are showing the majority of Americans want Obamacare repealed.You're absolutey correct Julie. The bills were written in committees that were stacked heavily democrat. There were a few repub amendments allowed (the committee chairman gets to decide which ones will get a vote), but they were all voted down in committee along straight party lines. I too watched the entire thing on C-Span. Anyone can go to their video library and see the hearings.

The final Senate vote was held around midnight on Christmas eve, a bill that everyone thought would go to conference. But that didn't happen- they lost their 60th man when Massachusetts elected Scott Brown. So they had to come up with the scheme they used, which was the reconciliation process that only needed 51 votes.

The exact bill that Obama signed would not have passed the Congress the day he signed it.

It was a blatant abuse of the legislative process, and no one was fooled by it, as the dems will find out in November.

Roosveltrepub
18 Sep 10,, 00:09
First there has to be confidence that the investment itelf will be worthwhile. THEN you decide how you will treat it for tax purposes.

Businesses will think twice about expensing 100% if their cap gains and marginal rates are going up- once you've expensed that investment, you've lost your depreciation. So it's not a tax cut, it's a pulling forward of the deduction value.

The decision to expense or depreciate has long term consequences- if you take the deduction all at once when marginal rates are low, you will pay a lot more taxes later in net profits (and cap gains if you sell). For anything less than C corp, you don't want to expense more than your profits, you just lose the deduction next year. (C corps can retain earnings/losses, S corps and LLC's can't).

So whether it results in more private investments depends on whether or not the investor believes he will be seeing tax increases in the future, and whether or not he thinks there will be demand for the additional capacity, and whether or not you had sufficient profits to need the deduction.

I have no problem continuing it (it's allowed now), but you shouldn't confuse it with a tax cut. It can help some companies with cash flow, but it's not going to spur large amounts private investments all by ltself.

I still can't figure out what you're talking about. The repubs cut taxes. Obama wants to raise them.

So let's raise them. Reverse ALL of them. The Bush tax cuts were only for the wealthy, right? That's what you guys have been saying all along.

You mean Republicans didn't author and pass a bill without democrat support cutting taxes for a fixxed period of time and setting the corresponding increase to old rates for 12/31/10?
It's great that capital investment went up as you pointed out. Manufacturing surely benefitted but do you really think that was because of those tax cuts? Other than Aircraft and Autos what high end manufacturing do we depend on that taxcuts to the wealthiest Americans would of equated to the need to make capital investments in manufacturing? Most consumer goods are not made in the USA in large part due to the grossly undervalued Yuan meaning American Producers can't compete.
All the increased investment in Constructiuon equipment was driven by a housing bubble. Capital seeks to maximize it's return correct? How much of the freed up capital ended up in Investment banks and fueled the bubble? I recognize the Maes had something like a third of the subprime insane mortgages written in the last decade but investment banks had the vast majority and that capital they used to make the loans came from somewhere other than the the Maes. How much construction equipment was bought to build now empty box stores for which the only business model that had them profitable was Americans using their homes as credit cards infinitum? That bubble wiped out damn near 6 years of gains
Before you knee jerk react think a second. Which is safer a triple A bond with a guarenteed return of 10, 11, 12 percent for 5 years or purchasing a new metal stamp machine to produce consumer goods and compete against a factory in China with a 40 percent production discount due to currency valuation? If you were set on investing in consumer manufacturing because you were already in that business and you got a big chunk of captal would you invest where you had a huge price advantage and could put off paying taxes on earnings or invest where your costs needed to be 40 pecent cheaper to break even? Are you sure that freed up capital didn't mostly finance a bubble and plant construction in China?

Don't you think the fact we were in 2 wars and high end defense Manufacturers rightly saw orders go way up to meet a very real need had something to do with large capital purchases? I know where I work a large amount of capital investment was needed to retool to support our forces. Hell, above and beyond the Capital investment we did what American Manufacturing has always excelled at we innovated reinventing fixturing, cutting tools, as well as pushing manufacturing agility to close the gap between demand and capacity with productivity gains. I'd bet you made some process breakthroughs and improvements to increase productivity as well. I assume you saw increased orders to support the war effort? I know from previous conversations on the next generation Medivac you were contributing signifantly to the ship. I assume that created some demand in your shop and was not a one off event. Ironically, a very John Maynard Keynes sort of stimulus financed entirely by defcit pending not taxcuts. What give me som pause is how d we support a strong military ten years from now if we reduce federal revenue 4 trillion dollars over ten years as McConnel proposes( it was he not Boehner who made the tone death remark)

i found your previous statement wishing economic disaster to insure a 2012 Republican victory ironic. Isnt that what the democrats have accussed Republicans of? Thefact they oppossed the small business taxcuts, capital write offs, low cost loans after calling for virtually the same thing despite the Chamber of Commerce seal of approval is all the proof I needed they are seeking power not economic recovery.

Also 98 percent of small business owners will not be affected by the high end increase. After all it isnt 250k gross it's 250k after all business and personal deductions are made. Do you hire based on need or on how much you clear after taxes? No one seems to remember they still benefit from all the middle class taxcuts.

gunnut
18 Sep 10,, 00:16
You mean Republicans didn't author and pass a bill without democrat support cutting taxes for a fixxed period of time and setting the corresponding increase to old rates for 12/31/10?

Do you think it would have been possible if the Bush tax cut was written to be permanant to begin with? Democrats fought tooth and nail against cutting taxes back then. The compromise was to have an expiration date of 2010. That's how the dems hopped on board. Given a choice, the Bush tax cut would have been permanent to begin with.

Go ahead. Tell me how democrats wanted to have a permanant tax cut in 2001 and 2003.

Roosveltrepub
18 Sep 10,, 00:19
You're absolutey correct Julie. The bills were written in committees that were stacked heavily democrat. There were a few repub amendments allowed (the committee chairman gets to decide which ones will get a vote), but they were all voted down in committee along straight party lines. I too watched the entire thing on C-Span. Anyone can go to their video library and see the hearings.

The final Senate vote was held around midnight on Christmas eve, a bill that everyone thought would go to conference. But that didn't happen- they lost their 60th man when Massachusetts elected Scott Brown. So they had to come up with the scheme they used, which was the reconciliation process that only needed 51 votes.

The exact bill that Obama signed would not have passed the Congress the day he signed it.

It was a blatant abuse of the legislative process, and no one was fooled by it, as the dems will find out in November.

What were all these Republican ideas that were rejected? Tort reform? failed to have any impact in Texas. Taking away State's rights to regulate? Wht other ideas? Julie do you realize medicare costs will drop because of Obamacare?

Roosveltrepub
18 Sep 10,, 00:31
Do you think it would have been possible if the Bush tax cut was written to be permanant to begin with? Democrats fought tooth and nail against cutting taxes back then. The compromise was to have an expiration date of 2010. That's how the dems hopped on board. Given a choice, the Bush tax cut would have been permanent to begin with.

Go ahead. Tell me how democrats wanted to have a permanant tax cut in 2001 and 2003. The expiration date was due to CBO estimates showing it ....surprise broke the budget beyond the sunsets and that was when we expected iraq to be cost neutral and to be near finished in Afganistan. tell me where you are cutting the 4 trillion to pay for all to be extended. Obama is calling for a 2 trillion dollar taxcut and Mc Connell a 4 trillion dollar one. Are Republicans anti deficit or just pro tax cut?

Roosveltrepub
18 Sep 10,, 00:32
You're absolutey correct Julie. The bills were written in committees that were stacked heavily democrat. There were a few repub amendments allowed (the committee chairman gets to decide which ones will get a vote), but they were all voted down in committee along straight party lines. I too watched the entire thing on C-Span. Anyone can go to their video library and see the hearings.

The final Senate vote was held around midnight on Christmas eve, a bill that everyone thought would go to conference. But that didn't happen- they lost their 60th man when Massachusetts elected Scott Brown. So they had to come up with the scheme they used, which was the reconciliation process that only needed 51 votes.

The exact bill that Obama signed would not have passed the Congress the day he signed it.

It was a blatant abuse of the legislative process, and no one was fooled by it, as the dems will find out in November.

Well the Bush taxcuts wouldnt pass now does that mean high end rates should go up?

gunnut
18 Sep 10,, 01:17
The expiration date was due to CBO estimates showing it ....surprise broke the budget beyond the sunsets and that was when we expected iraq to be cost neutral and to be near finished in Afganistan. tell me where you are cutting the 4 trillion to pay for all to be extended. Obama is calling for a 2 trillion dollar taxcut and Mc Connell a 4 trillion dollar one. Are Republicans anti deficit or just pro tax cut?

Simple, go back to the failed policy of the Bush administration. What was the budget deficit in 2003? What is the budget deficit in 2010? Why can't we operate the federal government at 2003 levels? Or let's be generous, why can't we operate the federal government at 2008 level?

Roosveltrepub
18 Sep 10,, 03:07
Simple, go back to the failed policy of the Bush administration. What was the budget deficit in 2003? What is the budget deficit in 2010? Why can't we operate the federal government at 2003 levels? Or let's be generous, why can't we operate the federal government at 2008 level? Well for one we were running a huge deficit in 2003 especially when you consider the war costs were not included. That deficit was after the enormous social security surplus which was peaking then and has steadily declined since then. Unless you propose raising social security taxes on the working class till we generate an equal suplus today what you proposed is just BS. Also in 2003 we weren't in the worst recession in 60 years. Is that an inflation adjusted number?What about the organic growth in Social security costs due to the boomer retiring? What about the huge jump in Medicare costs due to that as well as runaway healthcare inflation? What about the cost of the Republican prescription drug plan?

gunnut
18 Sep 10,, 03:49
Well for one we were running a huge deficit in 2003 especially when you consider the war costs were not included. That deficit was after the enormous social security surplus which was peaking then and has steadily declined since then. Unless you propose raising social security taxes on the working class till we generate an equal suplus today what you proposed is just BS. Also in 2003 we weren't in the worst recession in 60 years. Is that an inflation adjusted number?What about the organic growth in Social security costs due to the boomer retiring? What about the huge jump in Medicare costs due to that as well as runaway healthcare inflation? What about the cost of the Republican prescription drug plan?

How big was the deficit in 2003?

How big is the deficit today?

I agree with the medicare drug plan. Let's repeal it.

Roosveltrepub
18 Sep 10,, 04:58
How big was the deficit in 2003?

How big is the deficit today?

I agree with the medicare drug plan. Let's repeal it.

In 2003 the govt was collecting twice what it paid out in Social Security and the defict did not include the war costs. Are you advocating raising revenue to have social security once again collect twice what it pays out as in 2003?

dalem
18 Sep 10,, 06:28
dale,

speaking on this issue alone, anyone with even a passing knowledge of senate rules and function knows that it's remarkably easy to hold things up. that's what the senate was designed to do, after all.

Don't be insulting. It's incredibly HARD for a party in such minority to accomplish ANYTHING in the House, and equally hard in the Senate when the majority party abdicates its public responsibility and forgoes debate and rules on a non-budgetary with reconciliation.

-dale

Roosveltrepub
18 Sep 10,, 12:16
Simple, go back to the failed policy of the Bush administration. What was the budget deficit in 2003? What is the budget deficit in 2010? Why can't we operate the federal government at 2003 levels? Or let's be generous, why can't we operate the federal government at 2008 level?

not unless you are going to freeze medicare, medicaid, VA payouts and start cutting retiree social security checks.

astralis
18 Sep 10,, 15:51
Don't be insulting. It's incredibly HARD for a party in such minority to accomplish ANYTHING in the House, and equally hard in the Senate when the majority party abdicates its public responsibility and forgoes debate and rules on a non-budgetary with reconciliation.

-dale

perhaps you're right-- that's how republicans passed a "deficit-neutral" 2001 tax cut.

Roosveltrepub
18 Sep 10,, 16:16
perhaps you're right-- that's how republicans passed a "deficit-neutral" 2001 tax cut.

or taxcuts 2 years later through reconciliation so irresponsible in relation to budget forcasts they were ticking time bombs set to go off in 7 years?

dalem
18 Sep 10,, 18:26
perhaps you're right-- that's how republicans passed a "deficit-neutral" 2001 tax cut.

Tax cuts are always deficit-neutral. It's the spending that blows up deficits, not taxation. You want to argue that Republicans have been almost as bad as Democrats with regard to spending, you won't get a peep out of me.

-dale

astralis
18 Sep 10,, 21:51
dale,

i've already had that argument too many times with highsea and gunnut, and in any case, that wasn't my pt.

the point of my statement is that it wasn't so long ago where the minority in congress managed to hold things up to the point where the majority needed to play political games.

dalem
19 Sep 10,, 20:43
dale,

i've already had that argument too many times with highsea and gunnut, and in any case, that wasn't my pt.

the point of my statement is that it wasn't so long ago where the minority in congress managed to hold things up to the point where the majority needed to play political games.

Well, what you're describing is called politics - it's compromise. When the majority party won't compromise, why should the minority party come to play?

Again, the minority party can rarely hold things up to any real degree and certainly not in THIS House over the last few years.

And where's this year's budget? Still missing in action?

-dale

astralis
20 Sep 10,, 15:38
dale,


Again, the minority party can rarely hold things up to any real degree and certainly not in THIS House over the last few years.

if you think so, then i hope you're as critical when republicans hurry to use the word "obstructionist" in reference to their political opponents-- something which i heard plenty a-time back in 2005-6.

dalem
20 Sep 10,, 20:03
dale,



if you think so, then i hope you're as critical when republicans hurry to use the word "obstructionist" in reference to their political opponents-- something which i heard plenty a-time back in 2005-6.

Senate House
Congress Years Total Dems Reps Others Vacant Total Dems Reps Others Vacant

107th 2001-2003 100 50 50 -- -- 435 212 221 2 --
108th 2003-2005 100 48 51 1 -- 435 205 229 1 --
109th 2005-2007 100 44 55 1 -- 435 202 231 1 1
110th 2007-2009 100 49 49 2 -- 435 233 198 -- 4
111th 2009-2011 100 57 41 2 2 435 256 178 -- 1

Notice anything about those numbers? Especially the splits?

-dale

astralis
20 Sep 10,, 20:34
yeah, and like i said, back when republicans were crying democratic obstructionism they were ahead 11 seats in the senate. now democrats are crying when they're ahead 13.

either both of them are justified in their whining or neither of them are.

dalem
20 Sep 10,, 21:17
yeah, and like i said, back when republicans were crying democratic obstructionism they were ahead 11 seats in the senate. now democrats are crying when they're ahead 13.

either both of them are justified in their whining or neither of them are.

Neither, of course, although I was focused on the House numbers and I don't expect the Repubs to actually do better than a tie in the Senate this year.

My personal hate is when Republicans attach something weird to a defense bill and then act outraged when Dems object. I expect that kind of thuggishness from Dems. :) Republicans should know better. But seriously, I actually hate all attachments of all bills - I think everything should be voted on on its own.

-dale

astralis
20 Sep 10,, 21:55
fair enough, i do too. that type of "waving the bloody shirt" riles me, as well. what's needed are term limits, an end to gerrymandering, PAYGO, and single subject bills; that'd end probably half the shenanigans.

highsea
20 Sep 10,, 22:41
yeah, and like i said, back when republicans were crying democratic obstructionism they were ahead 11 seats in the senate. now democrats are crying when they're ahead 13.The only charges of obstructionism I can recall from repubs was on judicial nominees and social security reform. Unless you're referring to the Iraq surge, when Reid and Obama said the war was already lost...

The two independents (Lieberman and Sanders) caucus with the dems, so it's 19 seats ahead, not 13. Before Brown it was 20 ahead. 60/40- a fillibuster-proof majority for dems. And with a 38 seat majority in the House, there was absolutely no way to block any bill the dems were in agreement on.

As it stands today, they only need to pick off one republican. Just one. That's the level of compromise they need to reach, assuming they can agree among themselves. That's a mighty low bar.

Not one single spending bill has gone through the house in this entire congress under an open debate process. Not one. Every bill has been limited to an hour or two of structured debate, no amendments allowed other than the motion to recommit. Calling up the bills at all has been nothing but a formality. Kind of like an Iranian election when it comes right down to it.

It hasn't been a legislative process, it's been Marshall Law.

But the problem is, the dems have had trouble agreeing among themselves, and the leadership hasn't wanted to compromise. So the repubs are called "the party of no", and accused of obstructing Obama's agenda since they won't provide the votes to overcome recalcitrant dems.

And when a repub signals a willingness to compromise- Boehner said he would go along with Obama's plan to hike the highest marginal rate- what does he get in return? Snarky remarks from Robert Gibbs.

Screw them.

Thank God someone is willing to stand up against it. I for one do not want any repubs going along with the Obama agenda- Obamacare, Cap and Trade, massive expansion of the federal government? No thanks, none for me.

I will vote against any republican that goes along with any of that agenda.

Roosveltrepub
20 Sep 10,, 23:38
The only charges of obstructionism I can recall from repubs was on judicial nominees and social security reform. Unless you're referring to the Iraq surge, when Reid and Obama said the war was already lost...

The two independents (Lieberman and Sanders) caucus with the dems, so it's 19 seats ahead, not 13. Before Brown it was 20 ahead. 60/40- a fillibuster-proof majority for dems. And with a 38 seat majority in the House, there was absolutely no way to block any bill the dems were in agreement on.

As it stands today, they only need to pick off one republican. Just one. That's the level of compromise they need to reach, assuming they can agree among themselves. That's a mighty low bar.

Not one single spending bill has gone through the house in this entire congress under an open debate process. Not one. Every bill has been limited to an hour or two of structured debate, no amendments allowed other than the motion to recommit. Calling up the bills at all has been nothing but a formality. Kind of like an Iranian election when it comes right down to it.

It hasn't been a legislative process, it's been Marshall Law.

But the problem is, the dems have had trouble agreeing among themselves, and the leadership hasn't wanted to compromise. So the repubs are called "the party of no", and accused of obstructing Obama's agenda since they won't provide the votes to overcome recalcitrant dems.

And when a repub signals a willingness to compromise- Boehner said he would go along with Obama's plan to hike the highest marginal rate- what does he get in return? Snarky remarks from Robert Gibbs.

Screw them.

Thank God someone is willing to stand up against it. I for one do not want any repubs going along with the Obama agenda- Obamacare, Cap and Trade, massive expansion of the federal government? No thanks, none for me.

I will vote against any republican that goes along with any of that agenda.

Well, that would require republicans who wanted to govern not stymie

highsea
20 Sep 10,, 23:55
If republicans wanted to govern, democrats could agree with each other? They'd allow debate on spending bills? :confused:

As usual Rosie, you're post has no content. Try following the thread, see where I was responding to Astralis's comment wrt the charge of obstructionism and party majorities.

Try to envision how my reply was actually addressing the parts of Astralis's post that I quoted. Sure, I could have just quoted his entire post and then replied with a non-sequitur, but I imagine he would have a hard time understanding what point I was trying to make. :rolleyes:

Roosveltrepub
21 Sep 10,, 00:05
If republicans wanted to govern, democrats could agree with each other? They'd allow debate on spending bills? :confused:

As usual Rosie, you're post has no content. Try following the thread, see where I was responding to Astralis's comment wrt the charge of obstructionism and party majorities.

Try to envision how my reply was actually addressing the parts of Astralis's post that I quoted. Sure, I could have just quoted his entire post and then replied with a non-sequitur, but I imagine he would have a hard time understanding what point I was trying to make. :rolleyes:

SO, you don't believe the Republicans are practicing obstructionism?

highsea
21 Sep 10,, 00:08
...But seriously, I actually hate all attachments of all bills - I think everything should be voted on on its own.

-daleWell dale, you are going to love the lame duck session this year. Not only have they failed to pass a budget, they have failed to pass a single appropriations bill. They are supposed to be done with all 12 of these by September 30- the end of the fiscal year.

We're going to see the mother of all omnibus bills this year, it could be all 12 appropriations bills bundled into a gigantic $4 trillion spending package, 20,000+ pages long, that no one will read and no one will know how many earmarks are stuck in there in the various committees.

It's like they just took the year off. They're so worried about the election that they won't even pass an appropriations bill, let alone a budget.

9 months of grandstanding and haven't gotten a single piece of work done. :mad:

highsea
21 Sep 10,, 00:25
SO, you don't believe the Republicans are practicing obstructionism?They don't have the votes to obstruct anything, haven't you been paying attention? All the dems have to do is agree among themselves, and pick off one republican in the Senate. That's it.

dalem
21 Sep 10,, 00:30
fair enough, i do too. that type of "waving the bloody shirt" riles me, as well. what's needed are term limits, an end to gerrymandering, PAYGO, and single subject bills; that'd end probably half the shenanigans.

I like all of those things. I've heard some good counters to the term limit argument but I'm still in favor of them, and I have slowly come to believe that gerrymandering is the rottenest plank in the whole affair - fix that, make no district "safe" and I think a lot more than half of the shenanigans would go away.

-dale

Roosveltrepub
21 Sep 10,, 00:33
I like all of those things. I've heard some good counters to the term limit argument but I'm still in favor of them, and I have slowly come to believe that gerrymandering is the rottenest plank in the whole affair - fix that, make no district "safe" and I think a lot more than half of the shenanigans would go away.

-dale I agree with the gerrymandering. Districts should be mandated to be square shaped. Term limits seems undemocratic. Everyone wants someone elses Representative to be limited snd votes their own in time and again.