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.

[chief31]

page 2 ...
They can't do that without eliminating private insurance and putting all of those people out of a job.

We already have a 'healthcare' tax. It's called medicare for the elderly/disabled, and medicaid for the poor. I have no problem with that.

You seem to think that as a conservative, I don't want to pay any taxes. That's not true. I think there are a lot of things that the Federal Govt can do for us and healthcare for the truly needy is one of them.

What I object to is the Govt telling the wealthy and the healthy that they have to buy a product from a private company or they are breaking the law. It's beyond the scope of authority granted to the Federal govt by the Constitution.

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.

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

[kcvet]

Make no mistake gentlemen, regardless of who wins, we will be no better off than we are now. Personally I think Obama will take it in a land slide.

after this if he does win then we deserve what we get. shoved right up our ahole

[chief31]

And there it is. You favor socialism. I favor increased competition, medical savings accounts, personal responsibility, other measures that can be done to reduce costs and subsidies for the truly needy.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

The US has the best medical care in the world.

Anyone who is subjected to socialized medicine and the long waits, rationing of healthcare and requirement for govt approval can tell you how much better our health care is. The wealthy who can afford it (because they don't allow private insurance in countries with socialized medicine) always come to the US when they want or need the best care. And you want to eliminate that.

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

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

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

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.

One of the goals of Obamacare is to run private insurance companies out of business. They know that the individual mandate won't cover the increased costs of covering people with pre-existing conditions, and eventually insurance companies will go broke --and you will get your inferior socialized medicine.

Genius.

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

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 assume you are being facetious here. They can't tell everybody what food to buy or even that they have to buy it.

Okay, if they are saving my life, I'll eat what they tell me to, but don't force me to buy a product I don't need!

continued ...

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.

[Hayvern]

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.

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

Actually, they do have to buy. If they do not then they are FINED, that is the wording in the document. It is called a fine. What that implies is that if you do not pay for health insurance, then you are a criminal and have to pay a fine.

Either way, you are going to pay whether you want to or not, and this is unprecendented in the history of the Federal Government. Never before has the Federal Government ever made a law that says that everyone has to buy a particular product simply to be a citizen of this country. You have no choice in the matter, you pay the insurance, or you pay the fine.

With everything else, and yes, even the impending medical product that you may have to purchase if you do not have insurance, you have a choice. If I do not want to buy car insurance, I do not have to drive a car, if I do not want to pay for medical care, I do not have to go to the Doctor. There is no law that says I have to do these things, to the contrary, there are laws that explicitly state I do not have to buy these things, that is until this particular law got put on the books.

There are a number of areas where there are problems with this law and I think you are going to see the entire thing struck down when the Supreme Court rules. Obama stepped over the edge with his remarks and he even knows it now.

[chief31]

The problem is not so much that the economy is still bad (and it is), but that he is doing the wrong things to fix it. Reagan cut taxes and (at least initially) reduced federal spending to stimulate the economy. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and eliminate the middle class tax cut.

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?

The FICA tax cut is also set to expire at the end of the year. Conservatives are calling it 'taxageddon.' The press called Reagan's plan 'trickle down' or 'voodoo' economics, but it worked. Even JFK (a democrat) knew that you reduce taxes to stimulate the economy.

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.

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.

When San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) was facing bancrupcy, they saved public transportation by reducing fares. More people started riding, the cost per mile went down and overall revenues went up. Why do you think stores run sales? It's not just to be nice to their customers or to reduce overstock. It's because they make more money.

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.

There is a percentage of people who will not look for work until the UE benefits run out. But Obama has supported those extended benefits, thereby increasing both the number of unemployed and the deficit.

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.

[chief31]

You will have to show me where I am being inconsistent here because I don't see it. When Obama took office the difference between the reported UE rate and the real (U6) rate was less than 2% because the number of long term unemployed was much smaller as a percentage of the total. Now the difference is 6.4% (8.2% reported, 14.6% real U6 numbers).

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

Not here in Topeka. I have been unemployed for almost 29 months now, and it's not from lack of trying. You just think it is improving because more and more long term unemployed (like me) are no longer being counted.

And Free trade is a bad thing?

Of course it is.... for The USA.

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

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.

Yeah, it would be so much better to impose tariffs to artificially restrict trade. We don't want American companies making more money!

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

Never have, never will.

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

[chief31]

No it hasn't. it just appears that way because we have stopped counting people whose UE benefits have run out. As it turns out, many analysts believe that the reason more jobs were created in January and February was because of the unusually warm weather. More people were going out and spending money on entertainment and recreation. This led to an unrealistic expectation for March job figures and naturally those expectations weren't met.

And that's putting a positive spin on it.

Right, neglecting sixteen months of growth to over-emphasize a single slower month is certaintly what anybody would call putting a positive spin on it.

March was the warmest month, which tears the guts out of that "warm weather" theory.

And, since Summer happens every year, I am guessing that there is such a significant jobs spur every Summer?

I will concede that the economy is slowly improving. It has nowhere to go but up! But I still contend that Obama and the democrats are impeding the recovery. There is much they could have done to accelerate it and they haven't.

I will give you that. But, when your policies have created the disaster, your opinion about how the other guy is doing in cleaning up your mess just doesn't carry a whole lot of weight. Especially when your ideas are the more of the same that caused it.

Lower taxes? Yeah. Because that has been so effective in reducing the national debt.

Actually, gas prices just went down by 10 cents a gallon, today, but I'm sure that's an anomaly, No the government doesn't control the oil markets but there are things they can do to influence it. Approving legislation for the Keystone pipeline would be a good start:

Are you kidding?

Will I have to get a graph to show you how gas prices are always on the rise, even though it drops a little here and there, it is always in the process of an upward, long-term, trend?

How long do you think it would take Republican policies to reverse the natural flow of gas prices to get us back under $1 a gallon?

How would blocking offshore drilling and other increased drilling help the USA become the world leader in oil distribution? That makes no sense.

Alright, I guess you insist that I pretend like you have no clue here...

The price of oil goes up, and it continues to go up, because the supply goes down with usage.

As the supply gets lower, and the value gets higher, as a result.... then what happens to a new supplier? He controls the market, because he has the supply.

It's not like this is some advanced economic lesson.

You knew this. Why did you make me explain it to you?

The stock market was overvalued and there is a lot of buying now because many investors believe it has bottomed out and stocks are a good buy (buy low; sell high). The market generally overreacts to other leading economic indicators. A run in the stock market always precedes a recovery, but a recovery doesn't always follow a run in the stock market. This is because in a real recovery the stock market will continue to go up, but sometimes the market improves in anticipation of a recovery that doesn't occur.

The market is highly speculative and it's not real money, anyway. Those gains are only realized if the stock holder sells and, of course, selling stock puts downward pressure on the market. It's an indicator of a potential economic recovery, but not a highly reliable one like reduced unemployment, increased industrial productivity and increased consumer spending are.

It is not a highly reliable indicator.... like the exception to the rule is?

A big reason for that collapse was that banks were under pressure to approve home loans to people who couldn't afford it. The belief was that neighborhoods are improved when people own, instead of renting their homes. That's true but it doesn't justify extending loans to people who don't have the income to make their payments. It was thought the the value of the homes would continue to go up so there was little risk to the banks (because of the equity in the homes.) The banks screwed up and houses were artificially overvalued. That is not Obama's fault, but a lot of liberal programs were to blame. (see Community Reinvestment Act, Graham-Leach-Bliley Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Barney Frank.)

Nonsense.

The banks screwed up. But it was no accident. Those "high risk" loans were purposely sold off at inflated values. They were lemons that the insurance holder, who sold them, specifically wanted to see fail, so that they would gain on both ends. Maximum sale price, and the federal insurance that they go to keep when they sabotaged their own customers, on both ends.

The Community Reinvestment Act had done well for decades, until de-regulation led to this kind of sabotage.

Here is what I will grant you on that... The vote for the repeal of Glass-Steagal was heavily bipartisan.

Democrats, the minority at the time, joined in for the lobby money, and to not be obstructionists. That's what you do when America's people make you the minority in Washington.

But they were just as foolish as anybody on this matter.

We make most laws for a good reason. Because, left to their own decisions, man have proven, without a doubt, over the course of man's entire history, that they will destroy each other.

Laws restrict wrong-doing. Repeal re-legalizes wrong doing, unless it is done very, very carefully.

[chief31]

Actually, they do have to buy. If they do not then they are FINED, that is the wording in the document. It is called a fine. What that implies is that if you do not pay for health insurance, then you are a criminal and have to pay a fine.

Either way, you are going to pay whether you want to or not, and this is unprecendented in the history of the Federal Government. Never before has the Federal Government ever made a law that says that everyone has to buy a particular product simply to be a citizen of this country. You have no choice in the matter, you pay the insurance, or you pay the fine.

With everything else, and yes, even the impending medical product that you may have to purchase if you do not have insurance, you have a choice. If I do not want to buy car insurance, I do not have to drive a car, if I do not want to pay for medical care, I do not have to go to the Doctor. There is no law that says I have to do these things, to the contrary, there are laws that explicitly state I do not have to buy these things, that is until this particular law got put on the books.

There are a number of areas where there are problems with this law and I think you are going to see the entire thing struck down when the Supreme Court rules. Obama stepped over the edge with his remarks and he even knows it now.

It is not unprecedented.

You purchase SS insurance from the government. Medicare, etc.

And you will use medical care, no matter how hard you try not to.

Without a Dr declaring you dead, you are eternally alive. And nobody has gotten away with that one yet.

You use it at birth, you get your vaccinations.

Nobody doesn't use the healthcare system.

It will be struck down. But not justly. When you get to the bottom of the dicussion, it is not unconstitutional. You have to follow a lawyers disgusting path to get there.... But, in the end, it is Constitutional.

[chief31]

As one of the long term unemployed, who is 21 months behind on my rent (my roommate has been very understanding!) the last thing I am doing is rooting against the recovery. I understand what helps the economy recover. I was 18 when Reagan took office and I well remember the worse recession of the late 70s. I also remember the minor recession that occurred when Bush, SR went back on his promise to not raise taxes. The Obama administration is NOT doing what it takes to improve the economy. The "food stamps" President and democrats in general need a populace who is dependent on govt support for votes. Their political base is people who want the govt to give them stuff.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

Continued ...

He is "The food stamps President" because Republican policies decimated the economy.

Lower taxes, and go fight war?

Lower taxes and go fight two wars?!?!?!

Democrats may be spenders. But they bring in more revenue, in order to spend.

Republicans however, have become bigger spenders than Democrats, and they bring in less revenue.

By the way.... What was the tax rate for the top bracket during the 1950's? 91%? Ouch.

And yet the rich were still filthy rich.

[TopekaRoy]

Chief31,

Dude! You didn't let me finish! I will respond to your latest posts, but not until I have finished responding to your previous posts. I told you I wouldn't get done with that until Wednesday. Give me a chance to get through your previous arguments before staring new ones!