The other day, after posting Extreme wings of GOP denying culpability in loss, some of our readers felt that it was a case of liberals telling conservatives how to win elections. Part of me wanted to snidely and snarkily say,” well, it looks like you guys need a little help here.” I resisted and have been thinking about it ever since.
Let’s move the shift away from conservatives vs. liberals. Conservatives and liberals are NOT posts, but political positions on a continuum. What’s a liberal? What’s a conservative? Are there positions in between? Of course. Let’s deal with the terms Republican and Democrat since those words can be exact. You either vote Republican or Democrat. You don’t vote sorta.
Republicans had jolly well better decide ways to attract people to the party and I mean people like me. I sure fit their demographic. Older, white, economics, etc. In fact, I am an escapee from the party, granted, some 30 years ago. Republicans just aren’t going to be able to rely on the southern white vote any longer, at least along the Atlantic seaboard. According to the Washington Post:
Obama’s 2012 numbers in the Southeastern coastal states outperformed every Democratic nominee since Carter and significantly narrowed past gaps between Democratic and Republican candidates. The lone possible exception is Georgia in 1996, which gave Arkansas native Bill Clinton 45.8 percent in 1996; Obama fell 0.4 percent short of that mark in tentative 2012 results, but ongoing revisions could close the gap.
The proportion of white voters in the South is also shrinking. Southern whites voted overwhelmingly for Romney, but in six Southern states, far fewer of them appear to have gone to the polls on Nov. 6 than the number who voted for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008.
In Florida, the share of votes cast by whites this year fell to 66 percent, down from 73 percent in 2000. In Georgia, the number of white voters declined while African American registration increased nearly 6 percent and Hispanic voters grew by 36 percent.
“Republicans can focus all they want on Hispanics,” said John Anzalone, a Montgomery, Ala., pollster who helped analyze swing states for the Obama campaign. “But they also have a problem with whites, in this election cycle, just showing up.”
Shifting demographics are part of the change along the Atlantic coast.
In every Southern state except Louisiana, the population of African Americans grew substantially faster than that of whites over the past decade. The growth is fueled by black retirees from the north and rising numbers of young, well-educated blacks in prosperous cities such as Atlanta, Norfolk, Charlotte and Charleston, S.C.
Other factors were expected to pull Blacks across the aisle. Republicans expected a rift within the black church over gay marriage and abortion. They counted on those social issues to pull votes over to Romney. It wasn’t going to happen. Those who have lived in the south and who aren’t political numbers wonks knew better in the first place. Some reactions to such a suggestion are as follows:
Black pastors — some of whom had preached against gay marriage in the past — rallied to the president. Romney also hit a number of sour notes with minorities during the campaign, including his apparent suggestion that blacks who support Obama want “more free stuff” from government.
“Romney was real disrespectful,” said Rodney Collier, 58, a black stylist at Haywood’s Hair Images in Richmond. “How can you be so negative and nasty to a sitting president?”
Contrary to the expectations of many Republican pollsters, black voters came out in droves on Election Day and voted overwhelmingly for Obama — near or above 95 percent in most parts of the South.
Republicans are still reeling from the results of that election. They didn’t see it coming. I just don’t understand why not. I knew it all along and I didn’t say anything here because I am superstitious. No jinxing! I think other people here knew it too. I sure didn’t hear any betting going on!
What I don’t know is how the Republicans can expect people to be attracted to a party that wants to nix women’s reproductive rights, cut back social security and Medicare, round up immigrants to deport, do away with any vestiges of gun control, tear down the wall between church and state, reduce services for poor people and kill off a health care program it took over a half century to bring to fruition. You either care about these things or you don’t. The Republican Party can’t change how you think about these things. If they got rid of their platform, that might fix the problem but I don’t think that is going to help all that much because the people are still going to have their core beliefs that are on a collision course with those who don’t vote Republican.
I disagree on both points, Kelly, but mostly on the second.
There have been some knee-jerk reactions to Obamacare so far, mostly for the publicity aspect (think Papa John’s Pizza). When the state exchanges are set up, the costs should go down for everyone. There’s strength in numbers, and the exchanges will allow more folks to buy insurance as part of a group. There are also a lot of cost controls in the Act that will take effect as the Act is implemented. The devil’s in the details, and this is a work in progress, as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. and everything else is.
As for taxes on the wealthy, you’re absolutely right- you can’t tax the rich enough to significantly reduce the debt/deficit. We will need to deal with Medicare, Medicaid and the military to really bend the curve and begin to lower the debt. Means testing for Medicare and Social Security, eliminating the cap on FICA deductions, and eliminating unneeded military programs would be a great start. Returning cap gains tax to the same as earned income is another needed step. Seriously attacking the explosion of disability claims is a no-brainer.
There’s a lot more, but the point is we can get this thing under control without class warfare or leaving people in the street to die if we just get together and try. Let’s get started!!
I hope the capital gains cap works the same way ($250k). I don’t want the little guy to lose his/her ability to invest profitability.
@middleman
The great thing about your statement is that it is testable. We will find out very shortly whether government involvement will bring costs down. In my experience, government takeover equals higher cost and lower quality. You BELIEVE that all this will work, but there is certainly no justification for that belief. None of Obama’s programs were successful during his first term, but that will probably all magically change in his second. If it does not work, I am sure there will be an excuse, er … explanation.
I do agree with you on one thing, which is that the devil is in the details. Government bureaucrats almost never get the details right, but maybe this time will be an exception.
NOne of his programs were successful? Are you including GM in that list of failures? Additionally, where’s the depression? ALL his programs were failures? What planet are you on these days?
For Middleman and the rest: What a crock! For once, pick up your heads and smell the septic tank of your politics. The conflageration of combining the supposed fear of the religous right with ” efforts to limit contraception, limit women’s choice, limit teaching of evolution, limit civil rights for gays/lesbians, limit public school funding in favor of charter (religious) schools, really is crazy talk. Its not about limiting contraception — its about government funding of contraception and, worse, the requirement to force religous organizations to do so as employers. Its not about limiting the teaching of evolution (darwinism) its about allowing other theories into the classroom. Its not about civil liberties for gays – its about a chipping away at a society’s fundemental moral code. Charter schools vs public schools – do you really want to compare any achievment statistic or just ignore that this is only about teachers, accountability, unions and pensions.
Keep drinking the kool aid and, yes, I understand Middleman why you “fear religion.” Its about who you are an advocate for and the possibility that over the last 5,000 years (1) they got it right and (2) it matters.
I have feared the religious right for about 40 years and every time I relax, I am sorry.
Middleman is right on. Blue, your brand not something I want as standard in my country for so many reasons.
No theocracy here.
@kelly_3406
Middleman and the Deomogods do not beleive in religion but boy are they beleivers in Santa Claus. Tis the season for cheaper and wider access to better health care through not just government regulation but government intervention – displacment of another industry. Controlling doctors wages in return for reduced malpractice and liability is a faustian contract that has already begun to reduce the supply of doctors willing to take medicaid and more and more medicare patients. It wil expand. And its not just about the doctors, it is also the management of costs related to the purchase of technology. OK, you are betting that Santa.gov will keep up with technology too- Ok I get it. Obamacare is really nothing more than a ruse for more dependency and for more taxes on the mioddle class to allow the progressive welfare state to grow even more – while the debt goes up even faster. Yesterday for example the Treasury borrowed $20 trillion more, just to meet current obligations and on the same day – there was Mr. Reid saying no spending cuts.
Blue, you have no idea what the beliefs of the readers here are. No idea what so ever. Who areyou to say they don’t believe in religion? Som do, some don’t. That’s up to them. You won’t denigrate them for either. Not here.
If you don’t like Obama care, tough. Keep what insurance you have and be done with it. MOst folks won’t even notice a change. The insured isn’t what it was all about.
I guess you won’t be sleeping real well at nights if you think that is what it was all about. Your arguments are all white noise.
Don’t know what “Obamacare” is, but nothing in the Affordable Care Act controls doctors’ wages.@blue
@Blue,
Words with lots of syllables don’t bring credibility to your point my dear. Germany has a very successful economy that blends private and public money to make their economic engine run. It isn’t communism, it’s smart business.
Your suppositions are black and white, the worst vs best, which, in reality, is not how most problems exist in the world. There is a large gray area.
Now, I could contend that women should pay a minimal co-pay for contraception, like 5 or 10 dollars. I would agree with that, but allowing employers, no matter who they are, to dictate whether contraception is covered are not is authoritarian in my opinion.
As long as you are not forcing someone to actually ingest the birth control themselves, it should not be up to you to determine if women and men have access to reproductive health care if you offer insurance through your company.
Standing ovation for Elena.
Can you imagine corporate American getting to be the “Decider” on who gets contraception and who doesn’t? They would be growing their own workers faster than you could say Jack Robinson. DelMonte would be out there withholding from the migrant workers community. Coal mining would be making certain West VA and PA got no contraception. I can see it now. Bring back Chris Carter for a new Xfile series.
blue, you sound like a mindless bimbo with all that stuff you are handing out. You surely don’t believe it for real, do you? We will send the truth squad to you. Deomogods? Is that what we are? bwaaahahahahahahahahahahhaha
Why not look at Massachusettes as your direct example of whether Obamacare will work!
@Starryflights
ObamaCare is President Obama’s name for the Affordable Care Act. He has used it many times.
It wasn’t his name. He said he would gladly call it that. Big difference.
@Elena
Freedom of contract is dead in this country now that the government can demand that, not only should companies be forced to have sell mandated things….but other companies must be forced to buy them.
Do you live in a house? Do you own a car? I rest my case. You have to have insurance.
Um, do you drive a car? Own a home? You are required to have insurance on both. Do you inhabit a human body? Same applied in my mind.
@Elena
Oh no you don’t. I am all for public-private partnerships. Nobody in that field has ever called Obamacare a public-private partnership. Not even the Administration.
Obamacare is national socialism, nothing more. And I think you have it backwared: its not that employers are auhtoritarian because they can negotiate whether contraception is covered in their benefits agreements with their employees/unions, it is the government – in this case the Party – your Party – who now dictates/decrees my health coverage, mandates what must be covered as a political entitlement and interjects itself between me or my unions insurance company and my doctor – while increasing taxes – per the SCOTUS – to provide that coverage to those who do not pay. That they have done so sets the precedent for more intervention in private- personal contractual agreements that do not involve the interests of the State.
Just to be clear. If you want to argue that it is in the State’s interest to take care of those who do not otherwise have health care – fine, but what Obamacare does first is interfere with my right to purchase healthcare on the open market. Was there an off-setting tax reduction for the cost of providing heath care to those who do not currently have it by shifting to Obamacare? I did not think so.
@blue
You’d probably explode if you heard what I’ve heard from many of my doctors – they prefer a single payer system. I guess they’re all Commie Pinko Socialists. And, to think, most of them practice in Prince William County.
Analysis on Mass healthcare reform, which is what the affordable care act is modeled after…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/20/romney-care-massachusetts-healthcare-reform/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-26/romneycare-s-98-success-rate-defies-gripes-on-obama-law.html
Blue,
Oh yes I did (best z snap impression here)……..
Insurance companies are private, for profit(lord knows), corporations. I am pretty sure that qualifes as the “private” in private/public partnerships.
My recommendation is you read the articles regarding Romnycare and you may feel as tad less desperate and hysterical over the impending demise of Democracy as we know it 😉
Back to the original topic. Not only are the demographics of the Bible Belt changing, but many small Mid-western towns that were Republican strongholds are losing population to the larger cities. And with the growth of cities comes a more moderate or liberal mindset.
@Moon-howler
So typical. Make and argument for free enterprise in personal decisions regarding your health and for not violating the 1st Amendment by forcing recognized religous organizations to violate their tenents and its now a theocracy. Boogy man , boogy man. HaHa thats rich. The Church of the what happnin now – not so much an issue.
Blue, I am going to give you an opportunity for a Do-over on that last comment. Here’s your chance to restructure that sentence so I get the full impact of that insult.
ppppst- churches are exempt. religious institutions who own businesses aren’t, nor should they be. Susie Jones who works for Georgetown university should be able to have her insurance pay for a tubal ligation just as quickly as Rhoda Johnson who works for American University.
The church can suck it up and get over it. Most of them were paying for full service insurance anyway and weren’t whining until all “contraception who pays for what” came up.
If churches don’t want to pay for contraception then they need to stay other businesses other than being a Church. They can outsource their good intentions and charities.
On a seperate topic Blue, how is the search for a “Chief Joe” going?
@Elena
Huh?
@Moon-howler
So they are exempt under your conscript but they just don’t get it since all they really have to do is get out of the business of education, hospitals, transportation, care for the elderly, orphans, feeding the hungry, and who knows what – if they hire anybody to help them manage and do that — is that about right? Gee I am glad you are here to clear that up. Because what I hear you saying is that if they do hire anybody to help them perform these missons they just have to give up their principles and adherence to doctrine. And I also hear you saying that that is reasonable in order to give more women free contraceptives.
And more, shoud I understand that you support Obama’s ability to retroactively tax – again see SCOTUS, and impose a set of employee benefits on a private organizartion much less a long-standing Church enterprise that has not otherwise sought governmenrt work or subsidy without limit?
BTW, I think American is owned by the Methodists.
I guess that’s about right if they don’t want have insurance pay for contraception. they all do pay for those things anyway. Now its become something to whine about.
If you serve as an employer then act like one. Since when do we get to exempt ourselves from what most of us consider standard medical practice because of some religious beliefs?
Would you approve of going through a grocery store and having a Muslim refuse to handle your booze or your pork? What if they just told you to get in another line? You would be hopping mad.
Got bacon? Get in another line. Bull crap on that. Want a vasectomy? Go work for someone else. Bull crap on that also.
Why does “Church” get a capital letter? I don’t think I understand the question.
The Methodists might wish they owned America. I would prefer that no religious organization own the country but if one did, the Methodists would be one of the least offensive. They are pretty much live and let live.
Man, we got some cranky conservatives on this blog!
First Kelly- be careful about wanting justification for beliefs- the entire conservative platform will collapse! The conservative Heritage Foundation certainly justified the Obamacare idea when they created it. The fact that Massachusetts has the same program working very well just may be a justification for my beliefs. Really, Kelly- this is just too easy…
On the other hand, how do conservatives justify their belief in Noah’s Ark, human creation 6,000 years ago, supply-side economics, tax cuts that spur the economy, self-deportation, sea-level rise and glacier melting and temperature rise and unprecedented build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere but no human-caused global warming, and on and on.
Republicans were once staunch supporters of environmental protection and human rights and a social safety net and they left their bibles at home or in the church. Men like Eisenhower and George Romney would not recognize what their party has become.
I have been waiting for 12 years for those tax cuts to spur the economy. Is there a time limit on that?
Eisenhower and Romney senior would be running their fingers down their throats.
You ought to see how some conservatives bastardize the Grand Canyon with that 6,000 year old fairy tale. It just makes you want to cry.
@Moon-howler
I don’t have to have insurance by government mandate. I have to have insurance on the house if I have a loan. Its part of the agreement to get the loan. I don’t have to have car insurance if I don’t drive off of private property, nor do I have to buy it if I don’t own a car. Health insurance is being mandate for the fact that you are alive. And the companies are force to offer types that people don’t want.
In Virginia, I believe you need to have that car tagged, at least in PWC. You aren’t going to be able to buy tags if you don’t have insurance have paid the uninsured motor vehicle fee.
Do you resent that also?
I would say that pretty much covers it. Stop being petty and looking for “yes but….” Its settled law.
Who cares? People get sick, injured or in an accident and they will be glad they aren’t having to file for bankruptcy.
@Moon-howler
Waiting for the boom due to the tax cuts….really>
5% unemployment ring any bells?
Pulling out of an even worse jobs crash after multiple disasters between 2001 and 2003?
But hey…lets raise taxes. That’s what people want. If the purpose for the taxes are to spur the economy and fix the deficit/debt, lets raise everybody’s taxes…yours, mine, everyone’s.
No more free rides. Tax the assets of the rich…hit those tax free foundations. Cancel the IRA’s. No more tax free. Deductions…what good are they? Just rich people using loopholes. Tax dividend and capital gains as real income.
Would that make you happy, Cargo?
You need to differentiate between people who are comfortable or even semi comfortable and the wealthy.
Otherwise the conversation becomes just plain silly.
Not rich people own IRAs and 401Ks and stocks. How the benefits from those are handled should be also dealt with on wealth assessment.
If I pull in a million bucks a year from dividends, I would say I should pay at a higher rate than some poor chump who brings in $5k from dividends during his retirement years.
On the other hand, how do conservatives justify their belief in Noah’s Ark, human creation 6,000 years ago, supply-side economics, tax cuts that spur the economy, self-deportation, sea-level rise and glacier melting and temperature rise and unprecedented build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere but no human-caused global warming, and on and on.
Hate to tell you but there are some religious Democrats that believe those things too.
But, lets get away from religion…those beliefs are so…1950’s.
Supply side works. There’s been a boom each time. tax cuts spur the economy: not just a conservative statement – pure Keynesian economics. Self-deportation is the liberal idea…..remember conservatives want to “round ’em up.” But, there is self-deportation going on…Mexico’s economy is doing better than ours.
Sea-level rise has been ongoing for thousands of years and is not increasing in speed.
Glaciers ARE melting. Glaciers are also growing.
According to many meteorologists…temperatures stopped rising in 1998.
Unprecedented CO2 – I don’t think that means what you think it means…there have been higher concentrations. BUT, in human history…. temperatures have been higher. The Roman and Medieval warm periods. CO2 is a problem only if it can be proven to be a problem. So far, that has not been done. And according to glacier studies, CO2 rises approximately 700-900 years AFTER major periods of warming. When was that Medieval warming….oh yeah 900 years ago.
But, let’s say you are right. CO2 is making the globe warm. Swedish climate scientists are now saying that manmade warming is preventing a cooling off period…possibly a little Ice Age.
So, before you get all high and mighty on the intellectual powers of liberals…go take a look around at some of them. They believe things like….Rising C02 causes earthquakes, you can spend your way out of debt, the government cares about them, and socialism works.
NO one cares if Democrats or Republicans believe that the earth is 6000 years old. That belief just doesn’t have any place in deciding policy.
Frankly, that is a belief people should probably keep to themselves. No, it isn’t 1950’s.
I knew all sorts of people in the 1950s who weren’t members of the flat earth society. They were also people of faith. Imagine that.
Your continual attempts to paint Democrats and irreligious is just insulting.
Your continual attempts to paint all REpublicans as flat-earthers is also insulting. I know plenty who are not.
I haven’t mentioned CO2 all day. I also haven’t mentioned the intellectual powers of liberals. I also don’t know a single liberal who believes rising CO2 causes earthquakes and neither do you.
Now Blue. Where do I start? I think Elena and Moon have already covered a lot of it and I have no interest in piling on. I’ll just address some key items below:
1. No one has proposed that the government FUND contraception, only that it be part of the women’s preventative health package.
2. No one is saying churches have to provide contraception coverage, only subsidiary businesses that receive federal funding. Seems fair to me…
3. “Allowing other theories into the classroom.” Sounds ok, but you’re equating scientifically documented explanations with religious beliefs. It’s fine to have beliefs, but they are just that- beliefs with no scientific backing. The whole point of faith is that you believe in things, like Noah’s Ark, because you have faith in your religion, which is fine, but that doesn’t equal the scientific method. Schools are places to teach science, not religion. Church is where religion is taught.
4. “Civil liberties for gays is chipping away at our moral code.” Wow. I would consider not providing medical care for millions of children or not providing low cost daycare or not guaranteeing an adequate minimum wage or not providing adequate guaranteed paid maternity leave or generally not helping the least advantaged among us to put a big chip in our moral code.
But that’s just me, and I’m apparently a “Deomogod”(@Blue). Actually, I kinda like that, although I might change the spelling to “Demogod.”
@Censored bybvbl
Of course they would prefer a single payer system. The current government mandated mess on Medicare/medicaid/insurance law is a regulatory nightmare. And who made those regulations again? At least with single payer….on one person is asking for money. Now, ask those doctors if they want to work for the government while doing medicine.
@Moon-howler
OR they can buy insurance that doesn’t provide it. That is what freedom of contract is all about. And those employees don’t have to work there.
OR the companies can just drop employee insurance.
@Moon-howler
If a Muslim didn’t want to sell me booze….ok. I talk to his employer. Again…contract. He signed one out of his free will. It is not government mandated that he sell me that booze/bacon. Of course, if it is government mandated that I have to buy that booze from him, he must sell it to me. ANd that makes the government his boss.
And if the government is the boss….that is not freedom.
If my health insurance doesn’t cover vasectomies….ok. I took that job knowing what my benefits were.
Insurance should cover vasectomies. If it doesn’t then something is wrong.
I doubt most people take jobs knowing what all the benfits are. Benefits can change yearly as things are added and subtracted.
Cargo,
Let me know how disengaging yourself from your body works out! hahahahaha
Hey, when people no longer walk around in human form than I will no longer care about paying for their uninsured butts (along with the rest of their body).
And, the state mandates car insurance, along with lots of other must haves if you choose to participate in a civilized society. Want to “go off the grid” then live in the mountains as a hermit.
Cargo- where the heck do you get this stuff?
“Self-deportation is the liberal idea.” What liberal ever proposed that?
“Sea-level rise has been ongoing for thousands of years and is not increasing in speed.” According to whom? Exxon-Mobil? Koch brothers?
“According to many meteorologists…temperatures stopped rising in 1998.” Meteorologists? Ignoring the fact that meteorologists are mostly just news readers with a greenboard behind them, All CLIMATE SCIENTISTS agree that the planet is warming. No credible scientist disputes this anymore.
WHEN were there higher CO2 concentrations? WHO claims this?
Cargo, it’s not the intellectual powers of liberals- it’s the intellectual powers of scientists. They’re the folks who spend their lives studying these things. But I guess you (and Exxon-Mobil) know better…
@MIDDLEMAN
I am going to join you and roll my eyes appropriately.
🙄
Cargo, where do you get this stuff? Is that more gateway pundit flat earth stuff?
@Moon-howler
If you make that much money..nothing stops you from doing so. I’m just being egalitarian in taxation. And I keep hearing that taxes increase wealth and help the economy, so why does it matter if poorer people are taxed at higher rates? If the people that provide over 30% of the jobs and GDP growth aren’t going to change the way they do things..then why should poor people? I’m just following the Democratic logic. And supporting what the voters want.
I want the voters that vote for more government give aways and programs to pay for them. If we must keep hearing about “unfunded wars” well, how about all this “unfunded” domestic spending. Taxing the rich won’t do it. Confiscating their entire wealth won’t pay down one year’s deficit. So, I’m being realistic. Since the voters voted for more spending….let them pay for it.
I don’t want to stop people from making as much money as they want. I just don’t want to cut them a big break on their taxes.
10% to me is huge. 10% to them is chump change.
taxing whittles away. So do nothing. Keep the freaking debt.
You seem to want it both ways. Keep the effen debt and don’t tax the rich at all. Make us all their slaves.
That is the direction this conversation is going.
Meanwhile I hear fifes and drums beating out the syllables of STOP SPENDING.
Simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would lead to significant deficit reduction.
@middleman
Self-deportation….you’re right. It’s the Republican compromise…therefore, liberal, because compromise is “doing it the democrat’s way,” to NOT deporting them.
Sea-level rise… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
Sea level has been rising since the last Ice Age, and was, in fact, at times higher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Ok…climate scientists…including some of the AGW crowd have shown that there has been no warming since 1998 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
ALL climate scientists DO NOT agree that there is warming. Some claim that there is no warming. Others claim that if it is warming, it is not man made. Others claim that its man made and we’re all going to die. There’s not only disagreement that CO2 can cause what the climate alarmists are saying but that CO2 doesn’t even act the way the “greenhouse” theory says.
I was tweaking you on the use of Unprecedented. When speaking of global climate, one cannot just use recorded human history. The earth has had periods of higher CO2. And human history has had higher temperatures without it. See Medieval warm period and Roman Warm period.
So…Al Gore is a scientist that has spent his life studying these things instead of a capitalist that has used his demagoguery to make millions…. ok then.
Please, show me the proof of a single one of their predictions. The people that you are claiming are so smart blame global warming for earthquakes, lack of snow, too much snow, rain, drought, increased hurricanes…until they don’t show up. Everything on this list has been claimed to be caused by AGW: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/everything_is_caused_by_global.html
Notice…I have not said that the earth is not warming or is warming in my statements. I have just stated that what you are claiming is not necessarily right.
@Starryflights
You are absolutely right! Let’s allow the Bush tax cuts to expire! All of them, right, Starry? Because if its for deficit reduction….we need to do it.
Ending the tax cuts will finance, supposedly, 580 billion dollars over the next 10 years.
58 billion per year!
Of course, the government already has a budget deficit of 120 billion dollars for October, so we need to get taxing now!
@Moon-howler
Keep the debt? Where do you see me saying that?
How can we cut the deficit and lower the debt by taxing if we keep adding new spending faster than we can tax it?
We must cut spending. Somewhere. And not DC “cut spending” which means a smaller increase. Real cuts.
We borrow 42 cents on every dollar spent. That means that our entire discretionary spending is borrowed. Our tax dollars go for our entitlements.
But we can’t reform a thing. God forbid.
So, since the politicians are cowards and corrupt and the citizenry voted to increase spending by returning Obama to office…. I say go for it. Give everyone what they want.
But pay for it. Tax everybody.
I want the 99% to become the slaves of the 1%. Would that make you happy? You seem to want to defend the rich at a=ny cost.
What is important to you is obviously not important to Team Obama that won the election.
@Moon-howler
Why should all insurance cover vasectomies? Usually, vasectomies are an elective surgery. Insurance is to cover medical bills in case of illness.
What century do you live in? Most insurance companies prefer to cover that kind of surgery, It saves them money in the long run. Fewer kids, no deliveries, etc etc.
Is labor and delivery elective? After all, you had the choice whether to be pregnant or not.
@Moon-howler
Basic research. Except that I don’t just follow liberal talking points.
Just read. I dont look for taking liberal points.
Your basic research isn’t passing the test this time. Seriously, do you think the you are going to bring back the dead or get the Prez fired? Anything less than that isnt worth it.
Cargo,
Serious question, do you consider almost everything liberal talking point? Do your eyes start itching and burning if you get hold of liberal talking point?
I try to get my news neutral. Its a nasty habit, I know.
@Moon-howler
Really, so finding out who the incompetent isn’t worth it? I guess we can just sweep any government incompetency unless it gets the President fired or brings back the dead.
@Moon-howler
No…but THOSE were liberal, talking points and opinions. And wondering where I got my information…truly, just basic research that anyone can do that isn’t locked into the narrative put out by the mainstream press and liberal propaganda.
@Moon-howler
But it is important to me…NOW. Obama won. The majority spoke. They want more spending. They want more government involvement and regulation. So, lets pay for it..
As for pregnancy being covered…. why should I have to pay for that coverage as a male? OR if I was a single male? It would just cost more. I should have the freedom to negotiate what I pay for. Now…as a married man…sure. Let it be covered, if that is offered. But, why should these things be mandatory? Open up the market.
cargo,
What kind of silliness are you proposing. Should I have to pay for cancer treatment, diabetes treatment, Lupus treatment, high blood pressure, and any other medical issue if I don’t have to use it?
Well, because one day I might, or someone I love might need that coverage. Futhermore, if you want private singular coverage that only covers serious illness, you can get that. I’m not even sure what you are talking about. However, in a health insurance exchange, the premise is that premiums are reduced to do the number of people paying for coverage. It’s like buying in bulk, you tend to get a better deal.
@Elena
OMG, I never thougth of that — bulk pools, except that Obamacare has nothing to do with that. It is rather about tens of millions more joining into the pool without paying a dime to be in the pool — which means that somebody has got to pay more. (you really are not going to suggest that the economies of scale off-set those additional costs / participants are you) And as noted above, if you want me to pay more and to give up my ability to select the plan I want and the doctor I need through Obamacare, where is my tax off-set for the way it has been handled for-oh – the last 50 years through the general fund?
You see its not more health care for more people, so much as its broader health care beyond the emergency room and then doing it via this insurance rather than as direct welfare payment. Its certainly not going to be better healthcare for those who have it now and the older you are the more you are going to realize that — soon.
You know Blue, I dont even bother reading your posts. They are just innane. If only you spoke with some semblence of reality we might be able to have a debate. At a bare minimum, we have to agree on the basic facts.
Like I said, read about Romney care and then we can talk.
Oh brother…. Corey’s toast. 😉
@Elena
I’m not proposing silliness. I’m talking about being able to pick what I want covered.
You can’t do that now. It defeats the entire idea of insurance. They need a few gall bladders to offset major heart attacks. I am being feticious but you get the general idea. There is no way you can go in and order off the a la carte malady menu. Self insured situations like PWC School board have a little better luck but even that is limited.
Blue- once again, look at Massachusetts. It Obamacare works! What can’t you understand about that???
@Cargosquid Cargo, I know I’m wasting my time, but I’ll do this once more. You could do this for yourself if you were really interested in knowing the reality of the situation.
It took me five minutes to research this. The link you sent on sea level rise is a blog for a meteorologist, not a climate scientist, who is funded by the Heartland Institute- http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=193149&p=irol-irhome. The Heartland Institute is a conservative organization that supports climate deniers and in the past has worked with Phillip Morris to dispute the science behind second-hand smoke. See a pattern?
The author, Anthony Watts- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger) has done some studies on government climate stations that has been evaluated by actual scientists that dismissed his findings. His “work” is junk.
I could go through the other links you sent, but what’s the point? I doubt this will change your mind- some people believe what they want to believe, and what fits their belief system, no matter what the science says. Actual climate scientists that are independent from oil companies, conservative organizations and industry groups are in agreement- the planet is warming, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere (and in the oceans- ocean acidification is now a major problem) than ever, and the sea level is rising more rapidly than ever. That is why the U.S. military is paying for studies to see how to handle sea level rise and global warming. You can believe scientists or oil companies- your choice.
@middleman
I assume you want to discuss the technical differences beyond the fundemental fact that one is a massive federal program without cost controls in a deficit environmet and will eventually result in important service losses elsewhere – like Defense – that requires a vast new federal and state bureaucracy to operate versus the other more modest private plan that constitutes less than 1 percent of the state budget and was decided by the people of a single state, by and for themselves while the other – your option – represents a mandatory dictate from a single political party as to what all states and all individuals must now do.
Romney care: (1) no mandated svcs, (2) catestrophic only), (3) no cuts to Medicare, (4) no new taxes, (5) no penalties (6) can opt-out and (7) is estimated to cover all but 0.2 % of the State’s children (8) represents 1% of state budget in a blanced budget. A good start.
Obamacare: (1) mandated svcs, (2) expansive and new preventative, recurring and catestrophic care all the way to free condums, (3) no adjustment for pre-existing care for non catestrophic items in (2), (4) $750 million in cuts to Medicare, (5) $500 billion in new taxes, (6) major penalties to opt-out, (7) omits not less than 11% of children nationwide, (8) creates a 15 member board with control over health care benefits,plan costs and risks rationing health care to individuals. And remember the SCOTUS only found it constitional as a tax bill not a health bill — could that be because noone could read or vet it until after it was passed. This is really is national socialism at its start-up best– where the force of the government and the restrictions come later..
The real problem is with the “wouldn’t it be wonderful crowd” and the political corruption that is now a greater concern under Obamacare, to get it passed and in the future as a new government – political entitlement. But hey if only those 1 percenters were not so greedy
@blue
I am taking those paragraphs and copying them to a word file. Best comparison I’ve seen.
Also..don’t forget. ROMNEY’s version was even more streamlined. After he left office, the program was “improved” by the Democrats to make it what it is today.
@Cargosquid
No, not a word file. It will crash it. The Obamacare statute alone is some 2,700 pages and in my experience that means 15-20 pages of HHS regulation per each statutory page plus the IRS determinations plus the legal/Court language that will further define the regulations and the intent of the law. Like all such document they do not print them in 12 font– more like 6-8 so the 2,700 is really more like 5,000 pages. The Romney bill was 70 pages long. Hmm , I guess Obamacare is a job creater for public employees and lawyers – imagine that.
Oh you mean just the comparison — whew – ok, never mind..
i