0

Crap.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.
Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. greets a familiar face. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/Elise Amendola
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are you man enough? Eric Berry? Apparently Not!
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?
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.
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.
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.
You presented the higher statistic, to show it as bad, and showed the lower statistic, to show how good it was.
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.
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?
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 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.![]()
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?![]()
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?
It is not a highly reliable indicator.... like the exception to the rule is?
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.
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.
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.
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!![]()
***Official Chiefs Crowd Game Thread Starter***
This space is reserved for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with MatthewsChiefs. (Whoever THAT is!)
Bookmarks