| Author | Post |
|---|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 11:35 am |
|
[url=http://news.newsmax.com/?SK4RYTh71uM01auNRbhjw8QHGXlktJUAS&http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/accountable_america/2008/08/08/120255.html?s=al&promo_code=6789-1]Pro-Obama Group Threatens Republican Donors[/url]
A left-wing group plans a vicious attack campaign against private GOP donors who back support conservative organizations that criticize Barack Obama.[url=http://news.newsmax.com/?SK4RYTh71uM01auNRbhjw8QHGXlktJUAS&http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/accountable_america/2008/08/08/120255.html?s=al&promo_code=6789-1] Read the Full Story -- Go Here Now[/url]
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 927 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 10th, 2008 12:07 am |
|
Anything but fairness
Shortly before it recessed, the House passed the inaptly named “Paycheck Fairness Act.” This bill so dramatically amends the Fair Pay Act of 1963 that it should be called “The Small Business Destruction Act.”
Under current law, it is permissible for an employer to give male and female employees different compensation so long as the difference is based on “a factor other than sex.” Not so under the scheme devised by House Democrats. Under the new law, an employer would be liable for any difference in pay between male and female employees, unless the employer can show that a “legitimate” business reason exists for the differential, and, furthermore, that no “alternative employment practice” could prevent the differential. Democrats don’t want the employer and the labor market to make compensation decisions. Instead, they prefer that plaintiffs’ lawyers, the courts and juries decide what compensation is proper.
It gets worse. This law applies to virtually all employers, even businesses with as few as two employees. Employers would be liable, even if they did not intend to discriminate. Moreover, they face unlimited compensatory and punitive damages. This legislation, which Pelosi calls a “common-sense” measure, is a dream come true for the radical feminists who think wrongly that all wage disparities between men and women are the result of sex discrimination. It’s also a boon for trial lawyers—and a nightmare for the rest of us. Thankfully, the bill faces substantial opposition in the Senate, and President George W. Bush has vowed a veto.
PatriotPost.US <patriot-SK08207667@m1.PatriotPost.US>
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:52 pm |
|
The U.S. Senate will soon vote on a package of 35 bills that's designed to steamroll the objections of Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), a staunch defender of taxpayers and eight-time winner of NTU's Taxpayers' Friend Award. This so-called "Coburn Omnibus" would ram through more than $11 billion in spending and create at least 34 new programs without any debate or amendment.
Included in the package is the biggest earmark in history, for the Washington, D.C. Metrorail system, and pork-barrel projects like a botanical greenhouse in Maryland. Contact your Senators and tell them to support taxpayers and reject the Coburn Omnibus!
What's At Stake:
Though NTU does not necessarily oppose passage every piece of legislation contained within the Coburn Omnibus, it is stuffed with wasteful pork-barrel provisions that should not be allowed to pass without a debate about their costs and necessity. For example, it includes a massive $1.5 billion earmark for the Washington, DC Metro system. It also contains $12 million for the construction of a botanical greenhouse in Suitland, MD. The "PROTECT Our Children Act" is also included, despite credible claims that this $1.1 billion program is duplicative.
It also includes several pieces of legislation that could be characterized as low-priority at best. In a time of economic difficulty and high energy costs, the Coburn Omnibus addresses the vitally important issue of the sale of nonhuman primates with the text of the "Captive Primates Safety Act," costing American taxpayers $17 million. And because commemoration of the War of 1812 is such a burning concern right now, the Omnibus includes the text of the "Star Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission Act," with a price tag of $4 million.
This Omnibus also raises serious questions about how the Senate will proceed in the future. Will it be the habit of the Senate to avoid debate on measures that have significant effects on taxpayers? Will objections based on the over-expansion of government or the costs involved be ignored when some find them inconvenient? The Senate has been called the "world's greatest deliberative body," but that will cease to be true if objections are simply overruled in this manner.
(National Taxpayer's Union NTU)
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 927 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 21st, 2008 11:37 pm |
|
“Early last year, when the war was at its peak, [Barack Obama] proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. [Last week], with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might ‘refine’ his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq... ‘What’s missing in our debate,’ Mr. Obama said [last week], ‘is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq.’ Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome—that Iraq ‘distracts us from every threat we face’ and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That’s an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world’s largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq’s future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.” —The Washington Post **Yes, that is THE Washington Post.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 11:20 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Like I said, when you are ready for a discussion let me know.
You can't discuss things with someone who denies what he has just said.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 11:00 am |
|
| Like I said, when you are ready for a discussion let me know.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 12:49 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I forgot, Taos Eddy is always right and the rest of us are dumb as rocks. I'll remember now Eddy, er Terrance.
If you actually read my post I spoke of FDR leading us from the Depression and Rockefeller carrying on in the tradition of the effete elete on the Hudson.
When you are ready for an actual discussion, let me now.
"Rockefeller and FDR couldn't think beyond their class. From high in their palaces on the Hudson they devised what would be best for the little people. They took advantage of a nation rising from the Depression and made social programs so prevalent in the Northeast that the southern poor clamord there in search of someone to take care of them."
Listen Shorty, I read the above and it sounds like you are saying "they". You couldn't handle an actual discussion.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 11:56 pm |
|
I forgot, Taos Eddy is always right and the rest of us are dumb as rocks. I'll remember now Eddy, er Terrance.
If you actually read my post I spoke of FDR leading us from the Depression and Rockefeller carrying on in the tradition of the effete elete on the Hudson.
When you are ready for an actual discussion, let me now.
Last edited on Thu Jul 10th, 2008 11:56 pm by Playing the Game
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 07:23 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: On the contrary, it is quite relevant. It was the Liberal thinking of the effete elete in NY that has brought us to our knees with welfare. Rockefeller and FDR couldn't think beyond their class. From high in their palaces on the Hudson they devised what would be best for the little people. They took advantage of a nation rising from the Depression and made social programs so prevalent in the Northeast that the southern poor clamord there in search of someone to take care of them.
Rockefeller brought taxation to a new level to pay for social programs that the South could not afford. This action through the 50's fueled the "Great Society" of the 60's and Federalism was taken to heights never before seen. The wealth was still in the Northeast, but taxation began to drive business away and people away from the cities in droves. They were fleeing the Welfare State created by Liberals.
Tell me that the Northeast is better through welfare than it was during the first half of the 20th Century.
The poor I am speaking of did not just move to NYC as you claim, they flocked to the small cities and rural counties, because they could get the same hand out in Syracuse or Utica or Buffalo or Rochester that they could in Manhatten and the cost of living was lower.
Terrance wrote:
Playing the Game wrote: Having grown up in Western NY (Rochester), I can question your assertion with some authority. NYC had it's lions share, but I was discusssing normal life in the North East, not NYC. Can you get beyond that Liberal stronghold?
All the large cities in NY were impacted. NYC was impacted the most. What would have happened if you omitted you last sentence (Liberal stronghold) that was entirely irrelevant?
Talking to you is like talking to a rock. I should have known better. You need to study some history. You are so far out of touch with this issue and I have no time to educate you.
This has nothing to do with "effete elete". FDR died in the 40s. His policies got us out of the depression without a revolution.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 07:13 pm |
|
On the contrary, it is quite relevant. It was the Liberal thinking of the effete elete in NY that has brought us to our knees with welfare. Rockefeller and FDR couldn't think beyond their class. From high in their palaces on the Hudson they devised what would be best for the little people. They took advantage of a nation rising from the Depression and made social programs so prevalent in the Northeast that the southern poor clamord there in search of someone to take care of them.
Rockefeller brought taxation to a new level to pay for social programs that the South could not afford. This action through the 50's fueled the "Great Society" of the 60's and Federalism was taken to heights never before seen. The wealth was still in the Northeast, but taxation began to drive business away and people away from the cities in droves. They were fleeing the Welfare State created by Liberals.
Tell me that the Northeast is better through welfare than it was during the first half of the 20th Century.
The poor I am speaking of did not just move to NYC as you claim, they flocked to the small cities and rural counties, because they could get the same hand out in Syracuse or Utica or Buffalo or Rochester that they could in Manhatten and the cost of living was lower.
Terrance wrote:
Playing the Game wrote: Having grown up in Western NY (Rochester), I can question your assertion with some authority. NYC had it's lions share, but I was discusssing normal life in the North East, not NYC. Can you get beyond that Liberal stronghold?
All the large cities in NY were impacted. NYC was impacted the most. What would have happened if you omitted you last sentence (Liberal stronghold) that was entirely irrelevant?
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 12:14 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Which Federal Laws in the 50's are you speaking of that had a scope as regards the movement of southern poor to the North East?
The migration took place over a wider period. Welfare.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 12:12 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Having grown up in Western NY (Rochester), I can question your assertion with some authority. NYC had it's lions share, but I was discusssing normal life in the North East, not NYC. Can you get beyond that Liberal stronghold?
All the large cities in NY were impacted. NYC was impacted the most. What would have happened if you omitted you last sentence (Liberal stronghold) that was entirely irrelevant?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 01:53 am |
|
Which Federal Laws in the 50's are you speaking of that had a scope as regards the movement of southern poor to the North East?
Terrance wrote:
During the period you are refering to, all of the states were bound by the same Federal laws. The South was not adhering to those laws and the North was. Ergo, the migration of the Southern poor into Northern cities.
I disagree with how you portray this. Cities such as New York, had to attend to new problems that were introduced by the continuing migration.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 01:39 am |
|
| Having grown up in Western NY (Rochester), I can question your assertion with some authority. NYC had it's lions share, but I was discusssing normal life in the North East, not NYC. Can you get beyond that Liberal stronghold?
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 12:47 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: New York City was an entity on its own. I was referring to Upstate and Western NY. We were at the mercy of NYC and the Rockefeller Liberal machine.
The poor you are talking about moved into the city.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 12:29 am |
|
| New York City was an entity on its own. I was referring to Upstate and Western NY. We were at the mercy of NYC and the Rockefeller Liberal machine.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 12:27 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I grew up in Western NY in the 50's. We had a tremendous influx of southern poor to our cities when the Liberal Rockefeller machine introduced social legislation to take care of the poor. When the floodgates opened wide in the 60's the Liberal North East demanded of the Federal Government, that they intervene and force the South to provide the same level of service to their residents. The Southern states couldn't afford such programs and the great "equalization" process began in the US.
We now pay dearly for this Liberal process and we are none the better for it. I am for progress, but not at the expense of individual rights and states rights under the union.
Playing the Game wrote:
Fred - we are a union of states, some poor some rich. We have a union of principle, not a union of egality. There is nothing wrong with variance between states, it is actually kind of nice. I don't want what what Florida has, and New York doesn't want what Delaware has.
Our union is one of strength in numbers not in thought or way of life. We are there for each other, not to be each other.
To assume that the Federal Government was designed to make everything the same across state lines is a wrong assumption.
During the period you are refering to, all of the states were bound by the same Federal laws. The South was not adhering to those laws and the North was. Ergo, the migration of the Southern poor into Northern cities.
I disagree with how you portray this. Cities such as New York, had to attend to new problems that were introduced by the continuing migration.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 12:16 am |
|
I grew up in Western NY in the 50's. We had a tremendous influx of southern poor to our cities when the Liberal Rockefeller machine introduced social legislation to take care of the poor. When the floodgates opened wide in the 60's the Liberal North East demanded of the Federal Government, that they intervene and force the South to provide the same level of service to their residents. The Southern states couldn't afford such programs and the great "equalization" process began in the US.
We now pay dearly for this Liberal process and we are none the better for it. I am for progress, but not at the expense of individual rights and states rights under the union.
Playing the Game wrote:
Fred - we are a union of states, some poor some rich. We have a union of principle, not a union of egality. There is nothing wrong with variance between states, it is actually kind of nice. I don't want what what Florida has, and New York doesn't want what Delaware has.
Our union is one of strength in numbers not in thought or way of life. We are there for each other, not to be each other.
To assume that the Federal Government was designed to make everything the same across state lines is a wrong assumption.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 02:59 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: What is your point?
When it comes to you, my point is that you don't get the point.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 02:58 am |
|
| What is your point?
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 02:56 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Fred - we are a union of states, some poor some rich. We have a union of principle, not a union of egality. There is nothing wrong with variance between states, it is actually kind of nice. I don't want what what Florida has, and New York doesn't want what Delaware has.
Our union is one of strength in numbers not in thought or way of life. We are there for each other, not to be each other.
To assume that the Federal Government was designed to make everything the same across state lines is a wrong assumption.
Try handing out this pap to someone seriously ill and unable to afford health care.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 02:49 am |
|
Fred - we are a union of states, some poor some rich. We have a union of principle, not a union of egality. There is nothing wrong with variance between states, it is actually kind of nice. I don't want what what Florida has, and New York doesn't want what Delaware has.
Our union is one of strength in numbers not in thought or way of life. We are there for each other, not to be each other.
To assume that the Federal Government was designed to make everything the same across state lines is a wrong assumption.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 02:44 am |
|
Bixby wrote: Terrance wrote: The dummies who are against health care reform are probably among those who would benefit most. Hmmmm. Very broad statement and without meaningful specifics. Everyone I know is for health care reform. It just depends on what "reform" means. It's like the Omaba empty statement calling for "change." Doesn't mean much unless you klnow what "change" represents. Same goes for health care "reform."
Well, that is a change form when we started this discussion a few years ago, Bix. If we can agree that the system needs reform, we then can determine what needs to be fixed. We then can figure out how to fix it.
As for whether or not the federal government should run it...I am not saying they should. Mitt had a good program in his state....too good, perhaps, in that he had way more people who wanted it then the state could afford, but these were people who did not have any health care. I think the states can and should run health care,but some states are poorer then others....and I am not sure how we fix that.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 02:15 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Yep!
Good luck.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 02:12 am |
|
| Yep!
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 01:04 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Apparently only if you agree with the opinions expressed. He didn't pretend to say something about healthcare, he expressed an opinion that you disagree with. Argue with the point not the poster.
Terrance wrote:
If he had said something about health care that would be one thing, but he pretended to say something about health care in order to take a shot at Obama. Is it possible to discuss issues here?
I guess he can't speak for himself. Are you the hall monitor now?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 12:55 am |
|
Apparently only if you agree with the opinions expressed. He didn't pretend to say something about healthcare, he expressed an opinion that you disagree with. Argue with the point not the poster.
Terrance wrote:
If he had said something about health care that would be one thing, but he pretended to say something about health care in order to take a shot at Obama. Is it possible to discuss issues here?
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 12:43 am |
|
Rightwinger wrote: Terrance wrote:I bet you can't even articulate the issues in regard to health care in this country. I'm not surprised that you stumbled over a simple sentence. In your eagerness to get a dig in at Obama, you ran out into the street naked.
Must you always insult those that disagree with your point of view?
I wish you would stop with the nasty digs!
Go ahead correct my post! I know you can't help yourself, it is second nature to you.
If he had said something about health care that would be one thing, but he pretended to say something about health care in order to take a shot at Obama. Is it possible to discuss issues here?
|
Rightwinger
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 261 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 11:07 pm |
|
Terrance wrote:I bet you can't even articulate the issues in regard to health care in this country. I'm not surprised that you stumbled over a simple sentence. In your eagerness to get a dig in at Obama, you ran out into the street naked.
Must you always insult those that disagree with your point of view?
I wish you would stop with the nasty digs!
Go ahead correct my post! I know you can't help yourself, it is second nature to you.
|
no one else
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 347 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 10:38 pm |
|
Terrance wrote:I bet you can't even articulate the issues in regard to health care in this country. I'm not surprised that you stumbled over a simple sentence. In your eagerness to get a dig in at Obama, you ran out into the street naked. Oh, my. We have a lexicographer here. Beware the grammar police. Sure sounds like Taos Eddy to me.
|
Disgusted
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover |
| Posts: | 468 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 10:28 pm |
|
I fail to find any authorization in the US Constitution for the federal government to be involved in health care. Add housing, social security, and education to that, too.
Note that I'm not talking state, county, and municipal involvement. Just federal.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 08:39 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: Terrance wrote: The dummies who are against health care reform are probably among those who would benefit most. Hmmmm. Very broad statement and without meaningful specifics. Everyone I know is for health care reform. It just depends on what "reform" means. It's like the Omaba empty statement calling for "change." Doesn't mean much unless you klnow what "change" represents. Same goes for health care "reform."
I bet you can't even articulate the issues in regard to health care in this country. I'm not surprised that you stumbled over a simple sentence. In your eagerness to get a dig in at Obama, you ran out into the street naked.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 05:45 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: The dummies who are against health care reform are probably among those who would benefit most. Hmmmm. Very broad statement and without meaningful specifics. Everyone I know is for health care reform. It just depends on what "reform" means. It's like the Omaba empty statement calling for "change." Doesn't mean much unless you klnow what "change" represents. Same goes for health care "reform."
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 02:05 am |
|
Fred wrote: Well, I've got a pretty decent plan...could be better, but I don't have to use it that often and the cost is extremely reasonable (well, the cost to me....I am sure my employer would have a different point if view). I seriously doubt that my coverage would be changed in the slightest, but I have empathy for those that don't have as good of coverage.
I'm in the same boat. Although, our employers and us are also paying within our premium for those who don't have coverage. We also have no guarantees that the coverage will continue. Loss of a job, changes at the employer, etc., could render us uninsured. Cobra is expensive.Last edited on Tue Jul 8th, 2008 02:06 am by Terrance
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 01:38 am |
|
| Well, I've got a pretty decent plan...could be better, but I don't have to use it that often and the cost is extremely reasonable (well, the cost to me....I am sure my employer would have a different point if view). I seriously doubt that my coverage would be changed in the slightest, but I have empathy for those that don't have as good of coverage.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 01:31 am |
|
| The dummies who are against health care reform are probably among those who would benefit most.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2008 07:03 pm |
|
You mean every proposal to change our health care system can't be labeled "Hillarycare" any more? Somehow, "Obamacare" doesn't have the same ring.
Bill Krystol wrote something about health care reform that rings true...Starting back in 1993, he circulated a strategy document to kill health care mainly because he feared it's success would lead to a shift in the middle class to Democrats, and I think this fear continues today.
I think our health care system does need to be reformed, and have heard many different proposals. Tax credits for small businesses, prepaid tax credits for individuals who join programs, programs for uninsured kids are all ones that should be discussed without the bleating of "socialized medicine" drowning out any intelligent discussion.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 6th, 2008 10:16 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Explain the difference between Nationalizing and "Single Payer". Who becomes the single payer? Who sets the pricing and the rules?
Must be independent business that handles it..................................
Actually, neither Clinton nor Obama advocated for a single payer solution. Personally, I would favor a single payer solution, but that's not what the Dems have in mind. Try reading.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 6th, 2008 10:06 pm |
|
Explain the difference between Nationalizing and "Single Payer". Who becomes the single payer? Who sets the pricing and the rules?
Must be independent business that handles it..................................
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 6th, 2008 07:33 pm |
|
Rightwinger wrote: Observant wrote: One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson
Every American should learn to be fiscally responsible. This will happen only
when the government stops rewarding the irresponsible!
Gun Control does not work, Washington D.C. has proven that! They have had
gun control for years and it is still has one of the highest crime rates in the country.
The Dems want to nationalize health insurance!!! I would be the first to admit that
something needs to be done about the outrageous cost of medical care in this
country, however, a government run medical program would be a nightmare.
Actually, the Dems don't want to nationalize health insurance. Try reading something.
|
Rightwinger
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 261 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 6th, 2008 03:13 pm |
|
Observant wrote: One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson
Every American should learn to be fiscally responsible. This will happen only
when the government stops rewarding the irresponsible!
Gun Control does not work, Washington D.C. has proven that! They have had
gun control for years and it is still has one of the highest crime rates in the country.
The Dems want to nationalize health insurance!!! I would be the first to admit that
something needs to be done about the outrageous cost of medical care in this
country, however, a government run medical program would be a nightmare.
Last edited on Sun Jul 6th, 2008 03:14 pm by Rightwinger
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 01:38 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Pfffffffftttttttttt.......................... your opinion Eddy, just as mine is mine.
Terrance wrote:
This is an overly simplistic, distorted description of how things work that is of no practical value. The one thing worth disputing is that our founding fathers did want every action subject to legal examination if need be. That's why they created 3 branches of government which includes the Judicial Branch.
We are a nation of laws. That can be onerous at times, but the alternative is lawlessness, vigilantism and mob rule.
This is the clearest insight into what is behind your thinking that you have offered to date.
Democrats have no monopoly on wanting a lawful country. As the Democratic Party has its left wing extremists, the Republican Party has its right wing extremists.
No one benefits from either sided extremism.
Okay Shorty.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 01:24 am |
|
Pfffffffftttttttttt.......................... your opinion Eddy, just as mine is mine.
Terrance wrote:
This is an overly simplistic, distorted description of how things work that is of no practical value. The one thing worth disputing is that our founding fathers did want every action subject to legal examination if need be. That's why they created 3 branches of government which includes the Judicial Branch.
We are a nation of laws. That can be onerous at times, but the alternative is lawlessness, vigilantism and mob rule.
This is the clearest insight into what is behind your thinking that you have offered to date.
Democrats have no monopoly on wanting a lawful country. As the Democratic Party has its left wing extremists, the Republican Party has its right wing extremists.
No one benefits from either sided extremism.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 12:41 am |
|
| However, please understand that I have a preference to beer over Ketchup and pickles. Although they both have their place in time.
|
Disgusted
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover |
| Posts: | 468 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 12:04 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Well if your going to wonder how much of Kerry's is Kerry's, check to see how much of McCain's is McCain's. You can play the numbers however you choose.
PtG - Fair question. My apologies for the omission.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 10:02 pm |
|
| Well if your going to wonder how much of Kerry's is Kerry's, check to see how much of McCain's is McCain's. You can play the numbers however you choose.
|
Disgusted
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover |
| Posts: | 468 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 08:38 pm |
|
Runnerman - Three points.
1. I find it intellectually incredible that 7 of the 10 are Donkeyites who will support their fellow, Senator Obama, for the Presidency. As previously stated, he's a "soak the monied, they don't vote for us anyway" tax and spender.
2. You also have to wonder how much those folks have squirreled away in tax havens outside the reach of the US Government. It's the "I'll tax thee because me don't hafta pay" addy-tood.
3. Regarding Senator Kerry, I wonder how much of that is REALLY his, and how much emanates from Teresa's assets and investments.
|
Runnerman
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 04:46 pm |
|
It may interest you to know who the ten richest people are in the U.S.enate. When senators file their financial disclosure forms they do not require exact values but instead, a range of values for their assets. While it's difficult to calculate their exact wealth, the Center for Responsive Politics added the range of an individuals assets and subtracted the range of their liabilities, calculating the midpoint of the resulting range and using that figure to rank the senators. The only figures now available are from 2006. Here goes:
John Kerry (D-Mass) = $267,789,805
Herb Kohl (D-Wis) = $171,423,011
Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) = 102,822, 519
Jay Rockefeller (D-W Va) = $97,713,012
Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal) = $79,555,657
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) = $79,051,090
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) = $43,867,072
John McCain (R-Ariz) = $36,431,099
Hillary Clinton (D-NY) = $30,431,099
Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) = $27,800,155
|
Disgusted
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover |
| Posts: | 468 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 04:04 pm |
|
We have largely cut our own throats in America.
1. Too few of us who can vote do so on election day.
2. Too many who do vote don't know the issues and the stands of the candidates. And, we also don't properly assess their personal and professional morals. Sadly, we have many more characters serving in elected public office than we have folks of character. Take a look at the State Legislature.
America is about equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. God gives all of us certain talents. We all cannot be accountants, engineers, or landscapers. What we do with those talents is our gift back to God, and to each other in society.
We cannot progress when more folks prefer to be on the public dole than on the payroll.
The presumptive Democrat Party Presidential nominee is a full-blown socialist who wants to re-write federal tax policy primarily to re-distribute wealth. Senator Obama desires dialogue with those who would destroy us. (Senator, you can't negotiate with terrorists.) He wants to expand federal programs and make more folks dependent thereon. We've had those policies since the mid-1960s, thanks to LBJ. We still have poverty, and in many ways, it's worse. And, he believes that the way to energy independence is mandated cuts in use instead of drilling domestically now and developing new sources for later.
The presumptive Republican Party Presidential nominee is not a conservative thinker. He understands national security and energy needs far better than Senator Obama. And, his military service record, especially his perseverance while a PoW, is highly commendable. But Senator McCain is a lefty on many domestic issues, and his sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold legislation shows me that he has a problem with the free exercise of the 1st Amendment.
So, come November 4, I'm probably voting Constitution or Libertarian Party for the Presidency. Yes, a protest vote. IMO, neither Senator is fit for the Presidency. I don't believe them fit for their current offices, but that's for the Illinois and Arizona voters to decide, not someone from Delaware.
By "fit" I'm talking politics. Each may be a whale of a good person with whom you'd break bread at the dinner table or watch a baseball game with.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 02:50 pm |
|
I would like to agree with you, but I like to see the facts. I did a quick check, and see that the facts are manipulated to get your point of view.
My gut reaction is that the average worker is NOT better off then they were 20 or 30 years ago, but I don't think it is Reagan, Clinton, or Bush's fault, in and of itself. The average household might have more money, but that is because instead of one person making the equivalent of $20, you have two people making $10-15 an hour. I would also guess that benefits are not the same as they were 30 years ago...I work for a large company, and I consider myself lucky that I have a pension plan supplied by the company in addition to a 501K...we stopped the pension plan about 5 years ago for new employees.
My dad retired from an auto plant probably just in time. New workers coming in are making significantly less then existing workers...now, I suspect there will be some more jealous complaints about how they are overpaid, poor quality, etc....but the fact was that these good jobs allowed a certain standard of living. If you don't have that, you eliminate a certain group of people from getting good paying middle class jobs.
|
Current time is 02:27 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|