The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

[hermhater]

Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary



WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. greets a familiar face. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/Elise Amendola

Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.






http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080108/w0108115A.html

Crap.

[wichitaj]

sorry i was looking for the "flo" from the progressive insurances commercials thread, stumbled in here, so ... we romney peeps or what?

[TopekaRoy]

sorry i was looking for the "flo" from the progressive insurances commercials thread, stumbled in here, so ... we romney peeps or what?

What?

Here's one I haven't seen on TV, yet.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuWUhSPTHyY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuWUhSPTHyY[/ame]

[TopekaRoy]

Okay, while I am waiting for Chief31 to respond to pages 4-8 of my most recent multi-post, I will get started on my replies to his responses to pages 1 through 3.

I still don't see any threat. You are just going to spin around like mad and hope you can translate it into one.

It was a threat and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Google "Obama threatens the Supreme Court" and you will come up with about 6,500,000 hits!
I googled that for you here.

The human element would be the effect of the law on human beings. And you act as if it President Obama specifically wants them to rule against the Constitution, because he knows it isn't constitutional, which is just ridiculous.

He does want them to rule against the Constitution because he studied constitutional law at Harvard and he knows it isn't constitutional. You tell me: what other motive would he have for saying what he said?

You abandon every single morsel of reasoning to invent a threat that was never made.

I showed you explicitly where the treat was made (not just implied) and you are so determined to defend Obama that you refuse to acknowledge the facts. At least 6 and 1/2 million people disagree with you. Will you at least admit that his comments were intended to influence the SCs decision and inappropriate for a sitting president to make?

As for the argument for life terms, we are just flat out going to disagree. You seem to think that not having to answer to the people means that they will vote according to law, and not for personal reasons, or anything else. It's just way off base.

You still haven't told me how you would make it better. Do you want SC Justices to be politicians who just "vote" republican or democrat? You want justices to rule in a way that satisfies the constituency who voted them into office whether or not it violates the Constitution? Tell me how that would be better.

[TopekaRoy]

Nobody has to buy the health insurance. Nobody.

If someone does not want to participate, then then they just don't participate, and pay a tax.

Vern already addressed this. It's not a "tax." It's a fine. But you are right. Nobody "has to" buy "mandatory" health insurance. They can break the law, pay the fine, and acquire a criminal record.

The funny thing is, for employers, the fine is a maximum of 10% of payroll, (Health Care plan Pg. 164, Sec 2793 (f)(2)(c)(i)) or (ii) $500,000 whichever is less. For many employers, it will be cheaper to pay the fine than it will be to offer or continue coverage. These employers will drop healthcare coverage for their employees (because it is financially prudent and the government has given them an "out"). Their employees will be forced to get individual coverage (because of the unconstitutional individual mandate) and pay higher premiums.

They can't do that without eliminating private insurance? That's exactly what this law does.

When employers are no longer paying 80% of the premiums (as most of them do now) insurance companies will go broke, because people who now pay $120 per month for coverage won't be able to afford to pay $600 per month.

[TopekaRoy]

There it is? Because I made some secret of wanting to socialize medicine?

No, no secret. I was just pointing out that you favor socialism, at least so far as healthcare is concerned.

I guess I will just hope that you realize that is limited to healthcare, and not try to pin it on me for a basic political view.

Here you say you only favor socialized medicine, but elsewhere you have also favored socializing at least part of the auto industry, banking and anything else that everyone uses which, I guess, would include food, energy and toilet paper!

Any time you mandate that an industry serve all, the industry is no longer going to work without government to balance it out.

You do understand the definition of the word "mandate," don't you?

If McDonalds had to feed everybody, even if they were unwilling to pay, then they would go broke in a hurry.

They would try to survive by raising prices on those who do pay, but that will only get more people who are unwilling to pay.

And that is exactly what has happened with the healthcare system. Prices have gone berzerk, and fewer and fewer are able to afford it.

Your analogy doesn't work because McDonalds is not the only source of food. If Allstate was the only provider of healthcare then you might have a valid argument.

Increase competition. They will all still have to raise prices, to counter those who do not pay. And the result will be the same. Competition in that atmosphere will not change it.

Or we could do some of the things that I have already suggested to reduce the cost of healthcare. Right now Insurance and the government already cover the cost of the uninsured. It's not like 'all of a sudden' they are going to have to start covering the uninsured, which will raise prices.

You mention that mandatory auto insurance hasn't hurt the auto insurance industry, but that is different, aside from the fact that driving is a privilege and not a right and nobody has to buy it.

For one thing, the auto insurance industry can sell coverage to anybody in the country. Because there are so many different government regulations regarding health insurance and they differ from stat to state, consumers are not free to buy the cheapest policy. Increased interstate competition would bring down costs.

Second, your auto insurance company is still free to drop your coverage if you are a high risk. There are companies that have built their niche by specifically targeting "high risk" drivers, but if you can't afford auto insurance, too bad. You can't drive.

Under "Obamacare," not only are insurance companies prohibited from dropping high risk clients, but they are also forced to take patients with pre-existing conditions. This will bankrupt the health insurance industry, individual mandate or not, and lead to a single-provider government plan (socialism) which is precisely the goal of "Obamacare" (and yourself).

And "Obamacare" is the ideal compromise because it keeps the private industry alive, while getting the unable/unwilling to pay in.

As I have already illustrated "Obamacare" will kill private insurance; not keep it alive. The "unable" won't be able to pay for the individual mandate (because they are unable to). The government will have to subsidize them and they already do that through medicare/medicaid. And the "unwilling" shouldn't have to pay in to it because it is unconstitutional. By the way, they already pay in through FICA taxes.

And that's what I dislike about it. Those who struggle for every dollar will still struggle to get the coverage, and will be further demonized for their hardships.

And under "Obamacare" they will pay more or pay a fine or go to jail.

There you go. Don't like my stance? Just make one up for me.

I have made up nothing. You said you favored "Obamacare" which will lead to "long waits, rationing of healthcare and requirement for govt approval." What have I made up?

A.) The USA does not have the best healthcare in the world. It has the best healthcare for the rich, maybe.

So it is not the best because not everybody has access to it? Is that your twisted logic? Okay, you tell me. Which country has the availability of better healthcare than the US? Canada? France? Great Britain? Russia? China?

B.) Just like education, you can socialize medicine, and still have a private industry. So the exceptional healthcare for the rich would continue.

1) There is no individual mandate forcing people to pay for a private education and 2) "Obamacare" will put private insurance companies out of business. Name one country that offers "universal" healthcare that also has private insurance. You can't because there aren't any. It can't be done.

C.) Socialized medicine does not have to eliminate private insurance either. When you want better protection than the society provides, you can still play the game that is currently robbing millions, except that those who are robbed do not have to play, and those who are robbing the system can't afford to play.

It will eliminate private insurance, though. It is set up that way by design.

Genius.

Getting every American to pay the insurance companies is going to kill their business?

No, but forcing them to cover people with pre-existing conditions and not allowing them to drop anybody, no matter what it is costing them will. Just do the math.

That's the same, complete reversal of logic, that has been used with the mandatory car insurance laws across the nation.

Yeah. It hurt them really bad-like.

I already explained how car insurance is different, so I won't go over it again. But it's different.

Again though.... Nobody has to buy.

Don't want it? Don't buy it. But stop screaming about being forced to buy something that you don't have to buy.

Right. Don't buy it. Break the law. pay the fine. Go to jail.

Nobody "has to" pay for a loaf of bread, pay their taxes, or obey the speed limit, either. It's a pretty good idea, though. You do understand the definition of the word "mandate," don't you?

[TopekaRoy]

Come on. Stop with the dishonesty.

Where were you when he fought against Republicans to extend the tax cuts to the middle class, and eliminating it from the top earners?

Twisting that truth into something else?

As I recall, the republicans were in favor of extending the middle class tax cuts, but they wanted to tie it to cutting costs to reduce the deficit. This is called "fiscal responsibility' which is something that both republicans and democrats have lacked over most of the last 30 years. We could get away with spending like a drunken sailor when the economy was good, but we have to cut spending in a recession and democrats refuse to do that. Under Obama (and a democrat House and Senate) the National debt has now increased more in Obama's first 3 years in office than it did under Bush's entire 8 year term.

(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

... The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

... If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.

This is the first time since 1945 (WWII) that the Budget deficit has exceeded 100% of GDP when it was at 120%

Admittedly this is due in large part to the fact that Obama and democrat policies have failed to end or lessen the impact of the recession at a time when we are paying for the added costs of 2 wars.

Cutting taxes would put more money in the hands of consumers, allowing them to spend more and stimulate the economy, which, along with offering tax incentives for small businesses, would create jobs, which would in turn increase tax revenues. When Reagan cut taxes, during his 8 years as President tax revenues went up 91.665% from $517.1 billion in 1980 to 909.1 billion in 1988 (in current dollars).

It did not work.

It did exactly what it always does. It gave us "The Roarin' Twenties", which always leads to economic ruin.

Thankfully, Republican domination did not withstand. But they got it back and the de-regulation/tax cut theory ruined the economy then.

Oh, so now we are blaming the current recession on Ronald Reagan?

So you are comparing the Roarin' Twenties to the Roarin' 80s, 90s and 2000s? Maybe you know more about economics than I do. Please explain to me how the Bush tax cuts caused the current recession.

However, Reagan had the advantage of inheriting a high tax rate, that could be cut, and a national debt situation that was ripe for abusin'.

When you lower your revenue, you guarantee that you are going to send your debt through the roof.

I don't think you understand economics. You seem to be under the impression that there is a fixed number of dollars in the US economy, and those dollars are either in the hands of the poor, the rich or the government. It doesn't work that way. The GDP always goes up in a robust economy and down in a weak economy. It is not a fixed dollar amount. Wealth is created and destroyed all the time.

It doesn't matter that the tax rate is lower now than it was when Reagan took office. Cutting taxes would have the same net effect of stimulating the economy and increasing GDP. Historically, total revenues have always gone up following a tax cut.

By the way, your argument that taxes were higher when Reagan took office isn't even valid. In 1980, the overall tax rate was 19.0% of GDP. In 2000, when Bush took office it was 20.6% of GDP. (source)

One of the reasons the deficit is so high is because we keep increasing the amount under which Americans don't pay any taxes. Today 49.5% of Americans pay 0 federal income tax. (source)

If you really want to balance the budget, go after the top end of the 0% tax bracket. That's where the most money is.

The so-called "Warren Buffet tax" would only cut the deficit by 3.62%. (source) There simply aren't enough people making more than $1 million per year for it to have a significant impact on federal revenues. But that's not really what this is about, anyway. It's not about reducing the deficit. It's about class warfare; making the poor feel better by "sticking it" to the rich.

I like this analogy. It reminds me of the store Khol's, where there is no item at regular price.

And that is what happens when you keep your items on sale, is that there really is no sale anymore. And you can not afford to run a real sale anymore, because everything is already at the low prices.

And that is the disadvantage of our current situation. Are we just going to eliminate taxes and watch anarchy take over?

Tax rates are already at the sale prices. Our "business" is going to go broke from debt.

Lowering revenue at this point is willing suicide.

Wal-mart "always" has the low price (well, usually) and they don't seem to be going broke.

Nobody ever said anything about "eliminating" taxes. Now you are just making stuff up. But lowering taxes would not decrease revenue, it would increase it. At least it always has in the past. We still have the same free-market, "supply and demand" economy we have always had. We are not a socialist nation---yet. And as I already pointed out, taxes aren't significantly lower than they were when Reagan took office. The base rate is lower but a lot of loopholes have been eliminated. As a percentage of GDP taxes are about the same. It's just that now nobody who makes less than the median incomes pays any federal income taxes.

So, you prefer that he allow those who are looking for work, but not finding it, to go homeless and starve because the economy is bad, and there are some folks who will take advantage of the benefits?

I just can't hate Americans that much. How many of those people that you don't want to help have children?

Saving innocents from living on the streets is one thing that I insist upon, debt, or no debt.

I never said that. What I prefer is implementing policies that would create jobs so those people (and myself) could go back to work instead of being dependent on the government for their daily sustenance.

[TopekaRoy]

You presented the higher statistic, to show it as bad, and showed the lower statistic, to show how good it was.

Use whatever statistic you want. The fact is that the total number of people out of work has continued to go up since Obama took office. Look at this chart:


(source: explaining the chart ShadowStats.com)

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started using U-3 (red line) stats in 1994 when they defined the long term unemployed (blue line) out of existence. But notice that the 3 lines were virtually parallel from 1994 to Oct 2009 when the BLS unemployment rate peaked at 10%. Although the BLS numbers have come down slightly to 8.2, the total number of unemployed has continued to rise. This makes sense when you realize that many of those people from Oct 2009 are still unemployed. They have just been moved from the red line to the blue line!

You talk about 16 months of sustained growth. You're talking about DEC 2010 when UE went down from 9.8% to 9.4% then to 9.1% the next month. 7 months later (Aug 2011) it was still at 9.1%! That's not growth. We had a little improvement at the end of last year with 8.9, 8.7, and 8.5%. But since January the UE rate has stalled at 8.3, 8.3 and 8.2%. That's not growth. As you can see from the above chart, we've just stopped counting people.

Of course [free trade] is [bad].... for The USA.

How is the job market now that we removed real work?

Define "real work."

NAFTA hasn't been all good for everyone. A lot of menial labor (assembly line, textiles, etc) jobs were lost. These were mostly low paying, unskilled labor jobs. but some well paying union factory jobs were lost as well. Most of these people learned a new skill or found work in the service sector which can't be outsourced to foreign companies.

The net result was lower costs for these "outsourced" goods which means lower prices and more money in your pocket. It also led to more buying power in foreign countries, that is, more money coming into the United States and stimulating the economy. As I pointed out earlier, exports have skyrocketed.

Just like the cut taxes/raise debt Republican platform. It makes money at the top, which trickles down a little bit, for a while, but the long-term, obvious as can be, problem will come to fruition.

And now we have millions out of work, because we employ everybody but our own to do the work.

Is that a bad thing for us?

Oh yeah. It's a bad thing.

In 1993 the UE rate was 7.1%. Here is what happened to those numbers after NAFTA took effect on Jan 1, 1994.

1994 6.1%
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0

What lost jobs?

Long term problems? Like 25 years of sustained economic growth? I'll take that. It might lead to another recession in 2037, when more than half of the currently employed between the ages of 16 and 65 will be retired, but I think most people would be okay with that.

The economy is cyclical. There will always be ups and downs. You want the ups to be as long as possible and the downs as short as possible. The thing is we know how to fix the economy because we've done it before. But Obama and many democrats don't want to do what works because their political base is the poor and needy. They need to keep that number high to retain their power.

I really don't endorse turning billionaires into trillionaires at the cost of American middle class workers.

Never have, never will.

I don't know of any trillionaires. The richest man in the world, Carlos Slim Helu is worth $64 billion and he is a Mexican business man so our economic policies won't really help him get that other $936,000,000,000 that he needs to hit the trillion mark.

But Bill Gates who is largely responsible for that computer you are using right now, sits at #2 with $56 billion so he is already over 1/20th of the way there!

What about making millionaires into billionaires, or making 100 thousandaires into millionaires? How about making it easier for someone who is worth 100k (most homeowners) get to 200k? There is nothing inherently wrong with making money. I sure wish I made could make more. Don't you wish you could?

And who do you think employs all those middle class workers? I've never worked for a poor person.

But hey... Why not let those ultra-rich pay even less taxes than they do now, while shifting that burden to the workers instead?

Now rich people aren't workers? How do you think most of them got rich? Donald Trump didn't acquire his massive wealth by selling real estate to people on welfare.

[chief31]

I am working on getting back to you, but I work six days a week and have four kids. It is a pretty big task. I am probably going to have to narrow it down some.

[chief31]

But the Obama administration pushed through this unsecured loan without doing their do diligence to make sure that the money would keep the company afloat. It was done purely for political purposes. It was well known at the time that China was producing similar solar cells at a much lower cost, and Solyndra still wouldn't be able to compete. It didn't create a single job and, yes, it is over half a billion dollars of the taxpayers money that went down the drain. That money could have provided 1,337 people with $40,000 per year jobs for 10 years if it hadn't been thrown away!

The Energy Department’s loan-guarantee program, enacted in 2005 with bipartisan support, has backed nearly $38 billion in loans for 40 projects around the country. Solyndra represents just 1.3 percent of that portfolio — and, as yet, it’s the only loan that has soured.

Still.... You focus on the sole mistake, amid a very successful program.

Were did I say that? I'm okay with loaning the money to GM (like we did with Chrysler), but not with the country taking over control of the auto giant. This was nothing more than a shameless power grab, and a payback for the AFL-CIO union members who supported Obama in the election. You worry about politicians being beholden to large investors who support their campaigns by exercising their first amendment rights. Well, it's already happening. there is your quid pro quo!

The first Amendment still does not cover foreign investors

Oh wait, The SCOTUS said it does now.

As for the "government takeover", the government bought stock, and gave it to the workers, right?

I don't see a problem. The workers have been working for that company for a very long time.

As for investors buying campaigns, good. Get rid of the lobbies and all the other forms of financial influence on our politics and this might not happen.

I am in favor of that.

So you are okay with people standing on a street corner and telling whoever is within earshot who they support? You just don't want them buying television ads? Campaign ads on television and radio have always been a form of free speech, but they aren't free. They have to be paid for. You know that. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, here.

And corporations are made up of people. They have to be afforded the same first amendment rights as unions.

Yes. The same. Neither is a US citizen, and neither was granted rights by the 1st.

Either way, the people who are a minority of the group is having their rights trampled, because the majority says so.

If I own stock in a specific corporation, or am a member of a union, and they use my free speech to make a political claim that I don't agree with, then my right has been revoked.

And that is the case with every single corporation or union out there.

I could make the same argument that the teachers union is not US citizens, but that argument would fail for the same reason your does. The Supreme Court and the Constitution disagree with you.

Of course a union is not a US citizen.

I

[chief31]

No you are wrong. Many large companies self-insure. They pay for their employees health care directly, not through an insurance company. And The Obama administration would have required religious bodies (like catholic universities and hospitals) to pay for not just contraceptives, but also abortion procedures and abortifacients (morning after pills.) That's why there was such a flap over it and why they backed down.

So the government is forcing churches to self-insure?

Insurance is not religion. If your religious group ventures into the world of business, then it is not going to be protected by Freedom of Religion.

Practice your religion, but don't try to take your religious freedom outside of the religion for protection.

That entire argument is void. The HC bill does not force any church to stay in the insurance game.

Wrong again. Small businesses who employ fewer than 10 people (which accounts for over half the employed in the US) have no requirement to provide healthcare to their employees. I have also worked for telemarketing agencies as an "independent contractor" in the past and received no healthcare benefits, even though these companies employed around 50 and around 200 people.

What page of The US Constitution grants the right to deny Americans of health insurance?

It does not sound American to me. Maybe that was meant for slaves, who weren't even considered Americans.

I want to see the "employers have the right to deny health insurance..." amendment. Or even the "Employers have the right to not PAY FOR employees' health insurance..." Amendment.