|
11/4/2009 10:32:57 AM
|
T Radigan
Posts 505
|
Try to weasel your way out of this one:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091104/pl_politico/29116
|
|
11/4/2009 12:27:06 PM
|
madoc
Posts 400
|
Wow.
Interesting indeed the similarities to '93. Big swing with the independents. I think Obama's Health Care Package died yesterday. The moderate Democrats upon which he depends for its passage are taking this election to heed and will not screw themselves out of reelection come next year by continuing to support Obama's travesty.
The election results and the calendar crowded with the Holidays will be the excuse to take no further action on the Health Care thing this year. And come January it will be election campaign time and thus even less of an incentive to do anything with the Health Care package nor with the Cap & Trade travesty either. I'm also quite sure that 4th quarter economic results will only be adding to the misery and disincentive to further wreck the economy by following the Zero's lead.
Nicely done Obama! In but nine months and a few days Team Obama has screwed everything up do badly that they've blown their election lead, pissed off the electorate, given the initiative to the Republicans and set themselves up for another three years of failure.
Madoc
|
|
11/4/2009 2:09:29 PM
|
jimbraiden
Posts 1755
|
Guys these were not defeats, they were in fact wins for the Left
You see the problem is you don't understand Obamamath.
Let me give you an example.
"President Barack Obama’s economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there.
The Georgia nonprofit’s inflated job count is among persisting errors in the government’s latest effort to measure the effect of the $787 billion stimulus plan despite White House promises last week that the new data would undergo an “extensive review” to root out errors discovered in an earlier report.
About two-thirds of the 14,506 jobs claimed to be saved under one federal office, the Administration for Children and Families at Health and Human Services, actually weren’t saved at all, according to a review of the latest data by The Associated Press. Instead, that figure includes more than 9,300 existing employees in hundreds of local agencies who received pay raises and benefits and whose jobs weren’t saved."
There you go, Obamamath in action.
|
|
11/5/2009 7:06:12 AM
|
T Radigan
Posts 505
|
Jeff won't like this either:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/04/big-drop-in-number-of-americans-who-believe-obama-is-keeping-pro/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link7|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2009%2F11%2F04%2Fbig-drop-in-number-of-americans-who-believe-obama-is-keeping-pro%2F
|
|
11/5/2009 8:26:36 AM
|
Jeffhaas
Posts 1939
|
Try to weasel your way out of this one:
My pleasure. The Virginia and New Jersey elections were about local issues, they were not a referendum on Obama. The really interesting race was NY-23, where Sarah Palin helped elect a Democrat for the first time in 135 years while simultaneously stoking the fires of the Republican Civil War. Should be interesting to watch the Republicans disintegrate by the 2010 election!
edited by Jeffhaas on 11/5/2009
--
"A desk is a dangerous place from which to watch the world."
|
|
11/5/2009 11:03:56 AM
|
madoc
Posts 400
|
Jeff & all,
Jeffhaas wrote:
The Virginia and New Jersey elections were about local issues, they were not a referendum on Obama. The really interesting race was NY-23, where Sarah Palin helped elect a Democrat for the first time in 135 years while simultaneously stoking the fires of the Republican Civil War.
Wow. If ever anyone needed proof that all Jeff does is regurgitate White House Press Releases then this here is it. Amazing. In just two sentences Jeff managed to capture all the Obama Administration's "talking points" that they've scrambled to come up with in their attempt to run away from Tuesday's results.
The "elections were about local issues" line is always trotted out when an election result goes against what the national party had wanted, needed, or expected. It's true but only in the sense that all politics are local on election day. In these two cases what gives the lie to Jeff's DNC repetition is that the Obama administration did its best to run away from the Virginia Democrat while also doing its best to run toward the New Jersey one.
As to New York and the 23rd District, that is a wonderful thing. New York is traditionally a liberal state. Even if you compared a New York Republican to most any Texas Democrat the New Yorker would come out much more liberal than the Texan. In the 23rd's case, Scozzafava's voting record put her to the left of even most Democrats in New York. So, it was no surprise that many in the Republican party were disgusted by the idea that this ultra-liberal would be running under the Republican banner. It was rather telling that when Ms. Scozzafava was called about her Republican ideology she threw her support behind the Democrat candidate for that seat. Even though the Republicans lost that election I think they're better off without the likes of Ms. Scozzafava.
And I'm surprised that you don't think that Jeff. Ms. Scozzafava was about the same sort of Republican as was Bush - she supports fiscal irresponsibility and massive government growth and those are the same things you've long damned Bush for. Hers is exactly the type of Republican that would support Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in their attempts to crash the US economy through forcing deliberate negligence in lending policies.
It is only through the prism of desperation that Scozzafava's rejection by the Republican majority would be viewed as a "Republican Civil War." More likely, it's the majority of Republicans tiring of having to endure candidate's who's only claim to actually being Republican is their appropriating the label of it while doing everything else in as liberal a manner as possible.
Madoc
|
|
11/5/2009 2:40:04 PM
|
hal maclean
Posts 102
|
I didn't click on the link but the one thing I can't figure out (besides America's collective freak out over something as inocuous as state sponsored health care) is how Democrats think doing nothing is going to better serve their electoral chances than doing something?
The people most opposed to this health care package aren't going to vote for them anyway.
The people who want it are less likely to bother voting next time around if the Democrats squander 60 seats in the senate. Which it looks like they are doing.
Some of the people who say they don't want it are likely reacting to either (a) the negativity or (b) the gridlock. Give them a healthcare bill, show them that communist vampires won't descend from the night sky and devour them (or whatever constitutes the latest version of death panels  ) and some of them should come home.
But sitting around and arguing nonsense with each other? That just seems stupid to me.
edited by hal maclean on 11/6/2009
|
|
11/5/2009 8:28:16 PM
|
T Radigan
Posts 505
|
hal maclean wrote:
I didn't click on the link but the one thing I can't figure out (besides America's collective freak out over something as inoculous as state sponsored health care) is how Democrats think doing nothing is going to better serve their electoral chances than doing something? The people most opposed to this health care package aren't going to vote for them anyway. The people who want it are less likely to bother voting next time around if the Democrats squander 60 seats in the senate. Which it looks like they are doing. Some of the people who say they don't want it are likely reacting to either (a) the negativity or (b) the gridlock. Give them a healthcare bill, show them that communist vampires won't descend from the night sky and devour them (or whatever constitutes the latest version of death panels ) and some of them should come home. But sitting around and arguing nonsense with each other? That just seems stupid to me.
I believe you subscribe to some myths about the American political culture.
For one, you don't seem to realize that American politicians want to keep their jobs and will tend to vote for what they believe their constituents want. Also, Democrats aren't uniformly liberal and Republicans aren't uniformly conservative. Few politicians are willing to vote for something that might cause them to lose their next election.
For another, we Americans don't necessarily view national health care as a good thing, especially if it's done wrong. What most of us want is to not have to pay so much for health care, and months ago, when Obama first proposed his plans, it was determined by none other than the Congressional Budget Office that national health care would cost Americans not less but more. We already have huge budget deficits, and the last thing we want is to add to them with getting no benefit in return.
|
|
11/5/2009 8:41:14 PM
|
Jeffhaas
Posts 1939
|
What most of us want is to not have to pay so much for health care, and months ago, when Obama first proposed his plans, it was determined by none other than the Congressional Budget Office that national health care would cost Americans not less but more. We already have huge budget deficits, and the last thing we want is to add to them with getting no benefit in return.
1) Obama didn't "propose his plans," Congress did, and those costs have come down significantly since the original plans were announced and modified.
2) Your budget deficit concern is touching considering the Republicans kept two wars off the books for eight years. Where was the outrage then?
3) Please exclude me from your definition of "most of us." Actually, I would prefer a single-payer system of universal healthcare coverage that removed the profit motive from medicine forever. However, I'm willing to compromise to get a somewhat sane healthcare system in this country.
edited by Jeffhaas on 11/5/2009
--
"A desk is a dangerous place from which to watch the world."
|
|
11/5/2009 9:09:07 PM
|
madoc
Posts 400
|
Jeffhaas wrote:
1) Obama didn't "propose his plans," Congress did, and those costs have come down significantly since the original plans were announced and modified.
Really? So all those promises about healthcare reform being one of the things he would implement once in office were but more lies from Obama? Or is this an attempt to "distance" your beloved Zero from any responsibility for the Healthcare Reform Bill's failing? Ah, but if this train wreck of a bill does pass then I'm sure you'll be right out in front claiming it was Obama's plan all along.
Jeffhaas wrote:
2) Your budget deficit concern is touching considering the Republicans kept two wars off the books for eight years. Where was the outrage then?
Off the books? My, what a strange world you live in Jeff. As I recall, the cost of fighting those two wars was something examined in minute and continuous detail. So much so that you and your ilk were at constant pains to shout and scream over every dollar that was spent. Odd though, that all those Democrats in Congress kept on allocating funds to fight those wars. Even when in the majority after '06 they still made sure to keep funding those wars. Kinda hard to say they were "off the books" when they were so thoroughly examined and debated. Even harder to blame the GOP for that when Democrats fell all over themselves to keep those wars funded as well.
Jeffhaas wrote:
3) Please exclude me from your definition of "most of us." Actually, I would prefer a single-payer system of universal healthcare coverage that removed the profit motive from medicine forever. However, I'm willing to compromise to get a somewhat sane healthcare system in this country.
"Remove the profit motive?" Damn, what an exceptionally cold, callous, and inhumane thing to advocate there Jeff. You do realize that if your desires were implemented then you'd be consigning millions of people to death? Coming up with new treatments and new cures is an expensive and time consuming thing. The only reason that we here in the West have been so successful at it is because we've put such value upon doing so that the individuals and companies who do find those new treatments and new cures can make lots of money in so doing. It's that profit motive which really inspires. All that pure and noble and non-profit stuff? Well, it sounds nice and utopian but in the real world it's an abysmal failure. Just look at where socialist healthcare has been fully implemented. Cuba and the former Soviet Bloc nations are good examples of this. Medical innovation essentially came to a standstill under the "no profit motive in medicine" set up. And lots of people died from that. People who, in the West with its e-vile money grubbing profit loving capitalists, would otherwise have lived due to all those nifty and profit inspired treatments.
Ah, but that doesn't fit with your utopian vision now does it Jeff. You expect all those medical researches and doctors and staff to keep doing all that hard, long, and tedious work just for the sheer nobility of it, right? Wonderful Jeff. Just wonderful. Such a scheme only produces misery and impoverishment of all. But hey, if you wanna try it on your own then go knock yourself out. But please, don't mess around with my healthcare as you commit mass suicide in your utopia.
Madoc
|
|
11/5/2009 9:33:29 PM
|
Jeffhaas
Posts 1939
|
Thanks, Madoc. I'll wait till TRad responds.
--
"A desk is a dangerous place from which to watch the world."
|
|
11/5/2009 10:08:21 PM
|
madoc
Posts 400
|
Jeff,
Jeffhaas wrote:
Thanks, Madoc. I'll wait till TRad responds.
Ah, running away in place is it?
|
|
11/5/2009 10:28:29 PM
|
RandyBeck
Posts 1383
|
Well, Jeff isn't an idealist about the profit motive.
Apparently, some people believe all those doctors are going to be working for free after Obama straightens everybody out.
--
"It is this or that -- all the universe or nothing. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?"
|
|
11/6/2009 7:33:33 AM
|
Jeffhaas
Posts 1939
|
Ah, running away in place is it?
Nope, I wasn't addressing you and I'm not going to read your post. You're verging on becoming a cyberstalker, Madoc.
--
"A desk is a dangerous place from which to watch the world."
|
|
11/6/2009 10:36:10 AM
|
Madison
Posts 142
|
Oh my God why do I keep coming in this forum. Please to stop militant politics.
--
The next statement is true.
The previous statement was false.
|
|
11/6/2009 10:55:17 AM
|
Lukas Jackson
Posts 525
|
Madison, at the main forum page don't click on Political/Religious Discussion!
--
http://darkerblogistan.livejournal.com
|
|
11/6/2009 11:01:02 AM
|
hal maclean
Posts 102
|
T Radigan wrote:
I believe you subscribe to some myths about the American political culture.
For one, you don't seem to realize that American politicians want to keep their jobs and will tend to vote for what they believe their constituents want. Also, Democrats aren't uniformly liberal and Republicans aren't uniformly conservative. Few politicians are willing to vote for something that might cause them to lose their next election.
For another, we Americans don't necessarily view national health care as a good thing, especially if it's done wrong. What most of us want is to not have to pay so much for health care, and months ago, when Obama first proposed his plans, it was determined by none other than the Congressional Budget Office that national health care would cost Americans not less but more. We already have huge budget deficits, and the last thing we want is to add to them with getting no benefit in return.
Sure they want to keep their jobs. My point was that doing nothing isn't going to help the Democrats do that. It's bad tactics to placate the people who won't vote for you at the expense of the people who just might.
This whole argument about cost is silly. If you continue to let your economy decay everything is going to cost much more. Just look at how the fall of your dollar affected oil prices last year. Is America too big to fail?
Your only hope to get out of the hole you guys dug over the last eight years when you went from huge surplus to huge deficits is growth. Counting pennies isn't going to do it.
Plus, everybody runs deficits during a recession. The fact that you ran deficits when times were good instead of paying down your debt doesn't mean you should cut spending now.
edited by hal maclean on 11/6/2009
|
|
11/6/2009 11:05:02 AM
|
RandyBeck
Posts 1383
|
Lukas Jackson wrote:
Madison, at the main forum page don't click on Political/Religious Discussion!
Most people go through recent topics or recent posts, and not via section.
I can't imagine going through the board one section at a time.
--
"It is this or that -- all the universe or nothing. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?"
|
|
11/6/2009 11:05:26 AM
|
hal maclean
Posts 102
|
Note, should have made this clearer in my post above, my mini-rant about American's recent twittering over deficits was a seque from the argument about health care. It just annoys me that you guys didn't worry about deficits when you had the fiscal room to maneuver but now, with your backs to the wall, are getting worked up over at exactly the wrong time.
edited by hal maclean on 11/6/2009
|
|
11/6/2009 11:17:49 AM
|
RandyBeck
Posts 1383
|
hal maclean wrote:
Note, should have made this clearer in my post above, my mini-rant about American's recent twittering over deficits was a seque from the argument about health care. It just annoys me that you guys didn't worry about deficits when you had the fiscal room to maneuver but now, with your backs to the wall, are getting worked up over at exactly the wrong time.
edited by hal maclean on 11/6/2009
I think you overestimate that "fiscal room to maneuver." We had a good bump at the end of the '90s, but that was a tech bubble that popped right around the same time as 9/11, and then Afghanistan and Iraq. Then we had Katrina a few years later.
I also think you overestimate the value of universal health care as being a solution to fixing the economy. Keep in mind that Democrats care about political power first. They don't want health care programs if they don't also add to their power.
--
"It is this or that -- all the universe or nothing. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?"
|
|
pages:
1 2 |
|---|
