Single payer health care as necessary? And this is said to "cross political lines"?
CL, you're a laugh a minute!
"His only strength was political." Hmmm, now how would that come in handy in Washington???
"Running the senate is nothing like running a business" We're talking about running government (which the Senate is) not business, who said anything about business?
But as always your opinion is valuable to us, please stay on the line and speak to someone who cares.
The remarkable thing about this thread is the agreement across political lines, that single payer health care is necessary. I should say philosophical lines, because politicians don't seem to realize that the options exist.
Running the senate is nothing like running a business. Being chosen to be the head general of an Army, after being picked by the president, is not the same as successfully running a business. As for wartime Generals, Ike was very weak. His only strength was political. The other actual wartime generals didn't think too much of his military prowess. The only reason they had to bow to him was because they needed the American manpower, arms and weapons, technology and production. Without the U. S. in the war, they could not have defeated Hitler and the Germans.
There is no comparable job in the private or public sector that actually qualifies, by experience, to be president of the U. S.
Comparing the way previous white presidents were treated and the way Obama is treated is valid. Now, I wonder what will happen when Jose becomes president?
CLMullins, stick to your puns and cutting posts, for when you attempt to post something serious, you fail miserably.
LBJ ran the Senate, Ike ran the allied armies, and Washington ran the Continental Army, oh, and JFK ran after anything in skirts.
Don't weaken the argument with sloppy history. And to referring to prior presidents as white is redundant. C'mon, as Archie Bell said....
What we have in Obama, following the standard of Bush 2, is a cardboard cutout leader, best one ever, but still just a facade.
I see that I have whittled you down to, Obama is not a leader, he never managed anything. Well, let us debunk what you posted for the lie that it is.
There have been a many presidents that have never ran anything prior to being elected. LBJ never ran anything, JFK, never ran anything, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike Eisenhower, Abe Lincoln, George Washington, etc. These men were never CEO's of anything. That has nothing to do with being president. Having a grand vision is a over-hyped talking point of politicians adversaries.
You say that previous presidents, Clinton, the Bush's, etc had opposition, but they still led. This is about the only half-truth that you have posted. When these prior, white, presidents were having their inauguration event, the other party was not holding a secret meeting, vowing to oppose the incoming presidents every proposal and to agree to nothing. Obama was the only president in history that the opposing party's' leader of the senate stood on the senate floor and said that all he would do as senator is to make sure Obama was a one term president. No president of the republic has endured more filibusters than Obama. No president in the history of the republic has been called illegitimate and had his citizenship, religion and loyalty to this country questioned. No president has publically faced the hostility and disrespect that Obama has endured, and this from fellow senators and congressmen. I could go on, but, I think that just about shoots down your comparison of the prior white presidents that still got things done even with opposition.
The other reason why you got a F from me in civics. Do you realize that the weakest office in our tricameral form of government is the office of the presidency? The president is, by law, the chief executive officer of the United States; in that role, his duty is to uphold the constitution and to faithfully carry out the laws that congress enacts. He is also the Commander in Chief of all the armed forces, however, he does not have the power to declare war, only congress can do that. He makes treaties, appoints to his cabinet, appoints justices of the federal courts including the supreme court, but with the following restraint, he must have the advice and consent of the senate to do any of these things. He can propose a budget and must submit his proposal to congress, but, it is the duty of the congress to set a budget, not the president. The president can't bring any bill for consideration on any floor of the legislature. Only sitting senators and representitives of the house can do this in their respective entities.
In other words, you and others are constantly blaming the office of the presidency over things that this office has no control over. Congress gets a free pass for it's ineptness while the powerless president gets all of the blame.
So, thecatsmeow, the more you write about government, the more it is shown that you know very little of how the government works. Keep it up; then I can blow you away and expose you shallow knowledge of anything. It will also show your hidden bias against this particular president.
Thank you for showing yourself up, keep it coming!
Didn't say much or refused to hear?
"Fair pay can and should be enacted by congress. "
It was in 1963.
"Yes, food stamps increased under Obama, but, through no fault of the Obama..."
Reagan, Bush1 and Clinton all had opposition Congresses. All moved the country forward. This President cannot, I wish he could. He is an American born Christian great husband and father, who has never led anyone in his life, not his law firm, his State, his Party, or our Country. He has no "Vision" because getting elected was the goal. He has achieved it twice. Isn't that great.
You typed a lot but you really didn't say anything.
The Reagan tax cuts were a horrible mistake that he even realized. Regan re-raised taxes 17 times during tenure in the white house.
Fair pay can and should be enacted by congress. Remember the little thing in the constitution about the commerce clause. that explicitly gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerces, which, would include fair pay and under the promoting the general welfare also gives the congress to legislate wages.
Yes, food stamps increased under Obama, but, through no fault of the Obama administration. Foods stamps are tied to wages. When Obama was sworn, the U. S. was losing jobs at the rate of 750,000 per month, all caused by policies under the Bush administration. Just because the fruition of Bush's policies didn't fully finish itself until after Bush left office still does not mean they can be tied to his successor.
It is just like trying to blame the fire department for not extinguishing a fire that started previously and had been burning for quite a while. Had the fire not been started or a fast response taken, the fire would not have gotten out of hand in the first place.
Whenever jobs are lost, food stamp use increases and that is irrespective of who is the president. It is the cause for the job losses that are and can be tied to the Bush policies, so the jobs lost during this recession and the subsequent increase in food stamp demand belongs to Bush also.
The 1963 equal pay bill was and is not the same bill that the gop blocked in 2012. The bill that the gop blocked had more teeth in job classifications and enforcement.
Thecatesmeow, you would do fine in a debate in a conservative setting, but, you would surely lose if that debate took place in front of a neutral audience. Nice try!.
Be careful what you wish for. Men far wiser than you guys put it in play.
Just heard we lost Nelson Mandela, the world should mourn our loss of one who quite literally took the slings and arrows upon himself for so many. Rest in your reward.
I have addressed the Obama/Bush tax cuts, returning io the rates under the Reagan administration would be a good starting point. True Conservatives pay their bills
Equal pay for equal work has been the law since 1963. Liberal jumping up and down does not change it. Is it in practice everywhere? No, not everywhere, not even in the Obama White House, want citations? Many Liberals fail to realize you can't legislate morality and wisdom upon the people. Like many Conservatives, many also fail to practice what they preach. (consider it part of Cat's: don't tell me how less you are failing dictum)
The middle class has lost more income under President Obama's "jobless recovery" than under the Bush recession Sixteen million more have been added to the SNAP rolls 1/2 again as many, since he was first elected.
Banks which were "to big to fail" have only gotten bigger. President Obama has received more "Wall Street" money than anyone in history.
When signing HIS extension of the Bush tax cuts he said. passage of the law was propelled "by the fact that tax rates for every American were poised to automatically increase on January 1st." If that had happened, "the average middle-class family would have had to pay an extra $3,000 in taxes next year," he said. "That wouldn't have just been a blow to them; it would have been a blow to our economy. He didn't claim it was to fund a "stimulus" and indeed it wasn't. liberals can't have it both ways.
But, I support tax reform in increasing the rates and shutting loopholes and deductions, as I said Conservatives pay their bills, They, or their children, also end up having to pay the deficit spending of Liberals. Yep, I am aware of the Bush administration's spending like drunken Democrats on shore-leave and railed against it at the time.
We all bemoan the loss of many "blue collar" manufacturing jobs, it was the essence of our middle class for a century. "revolutions" happen, industrial, Information technology and others. In a competitive world market, many of our manufacturing jobs of the past are not coming back and their loss was mot due to past or future legislation. It is what it is.
I thought you were better than what you shown in your last post. Instead of refuting what I posted, you try to turn it around to include the democrats. It just won't work.
On equal pay for women. That bill was blocked by a gop filibuster on, June 5, 2012. It takes 60 votes to brak a filitbuster, the vote was dem 52, rep 47, thus the dems could not get the 60 votes to move the bill forward. Yes, the gop is against equal pay. Google that vote.
White House and Congressional jobs are exempt jobs and the pay is based on negotiations, etc. In the corporate, it is the same, executive positions are exempt from a structured wage schedule. That is why they sign contracts, unlike rank and file employees. In the private sector, women make only 77 cents to the dollar for men.
Social Security and Medicare is solvent for 33 and 26 years. Social Security is the easier fix, very simple. Without cutting benefits, you only have to raise payroll taxes by 2.1 percent and that would add 75 years on the life of Social Security paying 100% of the benefits or, you could take the cap off of earnings for social security and that will take care of it. But, the gop say no, we have to cut the benefits for this program. Nows if you raised the payroll taxes by 1.1% and take the cap off of earnings for social security, you could actually raise the amount that recipients receive and still have 75 years worth of stability.
Trickle down economics, Supply-Side Economics is the mantra of the gop. It has been a colossal failure. The Center for American Progress did a comprehensive study of supply-side economics and it's effect over the last 30 years. Their study, which has never been refuted by the gop, says that 3 decades of empirical data shows that supply-side economics doesn't work. You can easily review this report: Middle Class Series: The failure of Supply-Side Economics.
The reason Obama went along with most of the Bush tax cuts was because the gop would not pass his stimulus and other bills to help the economy unless they were left in place. The reason that he opted for a chained CPI (cost of living index) was to counter the Ryan proposal to actually cut and/or privatize social security. Going to a chained CPI would not have cut benefits for recipients like the gop wanted to do, it would have merely slowed the rate of the cost of living increases.
This stuff is available online for anybody to see. Why do you think the gop is steadily losing statewide and national elections? The American people are no fools.
Btw, I didn't forget medicare because you already believe in universal healthcare. but, actually, that is the simple way to fix medicare, have a public option, in other words, medicare for all..
I don't have all the answers OTP, but I do know that private companies speak in one language, money.
If you had intelligent leaders, it SHOULD be pretty easy to manipulate corporations to do what you want them to do to stimulate the economy. Just make it worth their while.
Now, it doesn't really matter that much which party is in office when it comes to big business, because pretty much all politicians are in the pocket of the business lobbies. All I'm saying is that it should be pretty easy to manipulate business leaders if you are smart with policy structure.
Well "edits" caught me again. such is life. shoot. It happems.
a single payer system is the answer. It provides the best outcomes for the most people at the least cost. So shoot me, just don't tell C.L. iI said that 8o)
First, let's get some things straight.
President Obama extended all of the Bush tax cuts once, and made 98% of them PERMANENT, later. So, they are the Obama/Bush tax cuts. Do you not agree, that is fair?
Second, "They are against equal pay for women who do the same job as men." Who told you that? This Guy?:
Gender wage gap at the White House: Female staffers are paid less than 87 cents for every dollar paid to men.
Stupidity, may run rampant as to equal pay for women, it isn't a partisan issue. Yes, weak liberals will be disappointed we cant blame conservatives. But. tell them to check the facts.
Third, ",,,want to cut social security and medicare..." again who told you this lie?" Conservatives don't want to eliminate benefits, Heavan forbid, we want to ensure them, but put them on sound financial footing, It is called being responsible.
Ask those who told you, conservatives are evil, how they will maintain the payments? we aren't trying to deny anyone. We are trying to ensure those who deserve it get it.
"The conservatives believe in supply side economics, you know, give tax breaks to the rich so that they will create jobs and the money will trickle down to the poor."
Yeah, y'all have gotten miles out of "trickle down" theory. Justly and not so just. The economics theory isn't far from this man's:
Ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country,
Health care is where I do diverge from some conservative friends, If Universal coverage is a given, and I think it should be
The GOP "direct cause of the imbalance in wealth" all by their lonesomes?
How about grabbing the corporations by their scrotums (since they are defacto persons) and tell them you sell here, you produce here. Not something the Clintons would ever do of course. Hell, Hillary may not even be able to find that tipping point.
I wish you would stop using that conservative talking point word, redistribution. You make it sound like we are actually taking money out of peoples pocket and putting it into others. That is not what is happening. People pay takes, uniformly, a very small percentage of the taxes collected, 6.4% goes to social programs. Some big redistribution, isn't it? Yes, 6.4% of the trillion dollar federal budget pays for all of the government social, safety net programs; that is all. What you need to be asking is, where does the other money go to? So, in reality, there is no physical redistribution of wealth downward.
Every plan the democrats come up with, like giving tax incentives to companies that pay a certain amount, the gop shoots it down and say we need to give tax incentives to all business to be fair. Then the companies take the tax incentives, create low paying jobs, and when that runs out, those same companies take another tax incentive and move those jobs overseas. I remember when the government, gop, made Puerto Rico a free haven for companies, a giant free enterprise zone and gave tax breaks for companies to locate there. What happened? Well, the pharmaceutical companies moved out of NJ and the other northeastern seaboard states and ran as fast as they could to Puerto Rico. So much for that idea. No taxes on profits of corporations with investments overseas until the money comes back to the states. What a joke? Bermuda, I think it has over 1,200 mailboxes, each called a U. S. Corporation and the money is stashed there.
No, Grove, you must tell it like it is. The gop is the direct cause of the imbalance in wealth in the U. S.
When you respond, I'll tell you exactly how to improve things here and it is very simple.
The best plan is somewhere in the middle.
Truly free markets with no regulation would be bad. As you see with the banking industry in particular, regulation is needed, or else the greedy will implode the whole system. You'd have a handful of people who continually take advantage of the rest of the country.
However, simple redistribution isn't a solution either.
Redistribution that's aimed in a way to encourage productivity from society is the best possible solution.
What about giving tax incentives to companies that add jobs to the rolls in different pay grades in order to try to actually decrease the number of people living off the government directly?
As usual, the best answer is somewhere in the middle.
You got one more reprieve. Tell us exactly why Obamacare will implode? It is modeled after the conservative Heritage Foundation plan introduced in 1993 and implemented by Mass. In Mass it is working quite well. The people there love it. The people that are getting it, in of all places, Kentucky are loving it.
So, nightcrawler, don't give me talking points, just tell us why it will fail? I don't care what you think, for the way you post, your thoughts are not only small, but, also bigoted.
You have the floor now, so tell us how it is going to implode!
By Joe Boone
download this issue
click here to see more »