Politics

[chicago51]

I've read a great deal of the health care law as it is going to affect my future and I got mixed views about the ACA.

I am all but certain at least in the short term it is going to make health insurance more affordable for those within 400 percent of the poverty line which for a family of 4 is 93k. My issue with the subsidies on the exchange is once you hit 401 percent of the poverty line so about 94k for a family of 4 you get blasted for the full cost so you be better making less money. Now most 94k and above workers probably have employer insurance and wouldn't be on the exchange or they own a small business and can get tax credits but wish the subsides were phased out better.

I think Buster competition position is valid as it eliminates new players joining the market. I wish the exchange was set up to allow more competition. My philosophy for any market is that is deregulated to allow as much competition as possible but that it comes along with consumer bill of rights appropriate for that market.

I am unsure how this pay for value is going to work but if done right it could work. Hospitals are just as guilty for the high cost the provider. It is pointless to do things like refer a patient for physical therapy services when you know it won't work because they will need surgery or sending the patient for a test they don't need just to try to work the insurance.

I think increased people ensured will eliminate the bad debt free care given in the ER so it will help keep cost down.

I like the emphasis on preventive care.

Overall there are many things I like and some things I don't like. I am kind of wait and see on it before render my full judgement.

It would be nice if we stop subsidizing junk food but that is a different area.

 

[chicago51]

No doubt the 47% comments were devestating to Romney, but I don't think he would have won even if he didn't say them. And really it comes down to something really simple ... people didn't like him. They didn't like his "say anything" campaign and his painfully out of touch moments when he tried to talk to regular folks. The resented his constant references to his wealth and thought he was lying about his taxes when he wouldn't release his returns. Let's face it, there are a lot of voters out their who cast their ballots and don't know anything about politics at all. They just go by if they like you or not, and people didn't like Romney.

Obama would have had to make a big mistake (the 1st debate cost him some points, for sure) or Romney would have had to do much, much better as painting him as an incompetent socialist who is wrecking the economy for him to lose. People like Obama and he was probably fortunate to be running against a guy who was so disliked.

Obama may have won the Democrats have a certain advantages in presidential elections. The GOP has much harder path with current layout to get 270 votes.

I don't blaim Obama for the unemployment. I blame the recession American Jobs Act filibuster and the continued rise technology but I think Americans may have blamed Obama if they didn't see Romney as the rich Bane Capital guy that brought up companies and moved jobs to China.

Obama got elected with highest unemployment since FDR. When FDR got reelected in 36 with an unemployment in low teens it was down from 23 percent so he had taken a big chunk out of it.

 

[GoIrish41]

Obama may have won the Democrats have a certain advantages in presidential elections. T GOP has much harder path with current layout to get 270 votes.

I don't blaim Obama for the unemployment. I blame the recession American Jobs Act filibuster and the continued rise technology but I think Americans may have blamed Obama if they didn't see Romney as the rich Bane Capital guy that brought up companies and moved jobs to China.
Obama got elected with highest unemployment since FDR. When FDR got reelected in 36 with an unemployment in low teens it was down from 23 percent so he had taken a big chunk out of it.

Yes. We can talk about policy and politics all we want. Most people don't have the kind of interest that folks on this thread have. Most folks -- the ones are not aligned strongly with one party or another -- figure out if they like a guy or not and vote for him. The guy they like gets the benefit of the doubt with them and the guy they don't like does. If the GOP would have had a decent candidate -- say a Christie -- Obama would have been in big trouble. But, I'm not sure Christie could have won the nomination in the GOP. He's too moderate for the Tea Party types who are running that party these days. As a leftie, I'm glad they can't seem to get their sh*t together.

 

[chicago51]

Yes. We can talk about policy and politics all we want. Most people don't have the kind of interest that folks on this thread have. Most folks -- the ones are not aligned strongly with one party or another -- figure out if they like a guy or not and vote for him. The guy they like gets the benefit of the doubt with them and the guy they don't like does. If the GOP would have had a decent candidate -- say a Christie -- Obama would have been in big trouble. But, I'm not sure Christie could have won the nomination in the GOP. He's too moderate for the Tea Party types who are running that party these days. As a leftie, I'm glad they can't seem to get their sh*t together.

I don't get the whole deal on Christie. He vetoed a min wage increase attacked unions but yet a liberal state loves him.

Christie would have beat Obama in 2012. The good news is that if Christie runs as the GOP nominee it will likely be against Hillary. While Obama is popular with the base independents are lukewarm on him. Hillary though has tons of cross over appeal I think she would handle Christie or anyone the GOP throws out there. If she runs I am calling a landslide no matter who the GOP nominates. A new poll came out apparently she kills Rubio with Hispanic voters so I think that says something.

 

[chicago51]

While I'm on the subject political forecasting I am saying the 2016 election will be Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush.

 

[GoIrish41]

While I'm on the subject political forecasting I am saying the 2016 election will be Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush.

All she would have to do is tie Bush's idiot brother to him, a very easy lift, and that would seal the deal. I think the GOP wishes they could have done some damage to Hillary over the Libya embassy attack, but I think she actually scored points on the issue when she testified in Congress. It is difficult to see anyone the republicans have to give her much of a race.

 

[chicago51]

For any poor person that votes GOP because they want a tax cut you have to read this.

Tax policy center on Ryan Tax plan.

The poorest 20 percent get a tax cut of $20 on average in Ryan's budget. The 1 percent gets over 220k on average and the 0.1 percent gets 1.2 million from Ryan's cut.

It is totally skewed in who gets the cut. As Obama said in 2011 debt ceiling crisis "the Republicans want give me (Obama) a 200k tax break while asking 33 seniors each to pay another 6k in health care cost, that's not right and it is not going to happen as long as I'm President."

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

While I'm on the subject political forecasting I am saying the 2016 election will be Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush.

I just don't see her running. She will be close to 70 years old.

 

[GoIrish41]

I just don't see her running. She will be close to 70 years old.

Lots of candidates ran at that age -- Reagan, Bob Dole, McCain to name a few.

 

[chicago51]

I just don't see her running. She will be close to 70 years old.

Demcrats don't have many backup plans if she and Biden don't run.

Andrew Cuomo maybe?
Rahm Emanuel? He is linked to Obama if the economy is better he can run on the idea of a third Obama term

If Hillary and Biden don't run I guess then I hope Elizabeth Warren decides to run then.

Just the thought of an Elizabeth Warren presidency has got to scare the hell out of the banks.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Demcrats don't have many backup plans if she and Biden don't run.

Andrew Cuomo maybe?
Rahm Emanuel? He is linked to Obama if the economy is better he can run on the idea of a third Obama term

If Hillary and Biden don't run I guess then I hope Elizabeth Warren decides to run then.

Just the thought of an Elizabeth Warren presidency has got to scare the hell out of the banks.

Thus, she wouldn't have a chance in hell.

 

[Buster Bluth]

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4ZNvC_-RW2Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

lol wut

 

[RallySonsOfND]

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4ZNvC_-RW2Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

lol wut

being from Michigan, this is hysterical to me.

 

[BobD]

I just don't see her running. She will be close to 70 years old.

Not sure if anyone has posted this?

Hillary Clinton Launches A New Website, But What Is It For? - Forbes

 

[chicago51]

being from Michigan, this is hysterical to me.

Do you support the Republican big government and Rick Snyder taking over local democracy in Detriot?

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Do you support the Republican big government and Rick Snyder taking over local democracy in Detriot?

I have mixed feelings about Emergency Managers.

On one hand I see the reason behind them, there are cities in Michigan that were/are in complete disaster from poor local governments and Detroit is/was tops. Yeah the turmoil with GM and Chrysler played a part, but was not the entire cause. The surrounding cities are doing pretty well.

Then I get the whole 'they lose their right to vote' thing too.


Snyder is doing some good things, Michigan is starting to turn around.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Do you support the Republican big government and Rick Snyder taking over local democracy in Detriot?

This is a horrible, horrible way to phrase that.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

This is a horrible, horrible way to phrase that.

How else is a leftie gonna phrase it Buster!?

Not skewed at all...

 

[Buster Bluth]

On one hand I see the reason behind them, there are cities in Michigan that were/are in complete disaster from poor local governments and Detroit is/was tops. Yeah the turmoil with GM and Chrysler played a part, but was not the entire cause. The surrounding cities are doing pretty well.

1000x this.

Detroit is the example of what happens when sprawl is left to work itself out. Quite literally all of the wealth moved out of the city and it turned into a gigantic ghetto. The suburbs are doing fine, the city of Detroit is an abomination.

The only viable solution, that I hope the state enforces, is a suburban growth boundary and the creation of a regional government. I am a proponent of regional governments everywhere, but especially so around Detroit.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Not sure if anyone has posted this?

Hillary Clinton Launches A New Website, But What Is It For? - Forbes

Interesting.

 

[Black Irish]

I'm not really sweating Hillary for Prez in 2016. Sure, she will be a strong candidate with a lot of muscle behind her and she has benefitted from having the best lead up job as Sec State. State is a high profile position that is not as bogged down in politics as the other big Cabinet positions (e.g. AG & Defense Sec). Sure, Secretary of State can't avoid all the flare ups, like Bengazhi, but Hillary has largely been able to play diplomat rather than politician for the last 4 years.

However, once Hillary jumps back into the fray as a candidate, lots of people will remember why they didn't like her. She is of course very smart and dedicated, but she also is condescending, arrogant, and generally unlikable. She doesn't have the personality or speaking talent of people like hubby Bill or Obama. Hillary tends toward doctrinaire preachiness and then quickly turns nasty when she is questioned or contradicted. And, of course, the fact that she's a woman can easily be counteracted if there is a woman, either as prez or VP, on the GOP ticket against her. And there is all of her ample baggage from 20 years in the public eye. Hillary is far from a landslide candidate.

Oh, and as far as Biden for president in 2016?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm not really sweating Hillary for Prez in 2016. Sure, she will be a strong candidate with a lot of muscle behind her and she has benefitted from having the best lead up job as Sec State. State is a high profile position that is not as bogged down in politics as the other big Cabinet positions (e.g. AG & Defense Sec). Sure, Secretary of State can't avoid all the flare ups, like Bengazhi, but Hillary has largely been able to play diplomat rather than politician for the last 4 years.

However, once Hillary jumps back into the fray as a candidate, lots of people will remember why they didn't like her. She is of course very smart and dedicated, but she also is condescending, arrogant, and generally unlikable. She doesn't have the personality or speaking talent of people like hubby Bill or Obama. Hillary tends toward doctrinaire preachiness and then quickly turns nasty when she is questioned or contradicted. And, of course, the fact that she's a woman can easily be counteracted if there is a woman, either as prez or VP, on the GOP ticket against her. And there is all of her ample baggage from 20 years in the public eye. Hillary is far from a landslide candidate.

Oh, and as far as Biden for president in 2016?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I can't think of a single Republican candidate who could do well in the general but also make it thorough the primaries.

 

[Black Irish]

Putting all the political and partisan differences aside, I just want to wish all the constant posters here a fun and enjoyable Saint Patrick's Day.

And that even applies to you Godless, pinko liberals who want to take away my guns and bible and tax me into poverty to pay for gay infrastructure projects.

Slainte!

 

[chicago51]

This is a horrible, horrible way to phrase that.

How else should it be phrased? My post was not about Detriot's problems and I agree with the post about sprawl.

The fact though this emergency manager thing essentially overrides the authority of local elected officials. This has happened all Michigan not just Detriot; the governor has been doing this quite frequently.

The thing I find most disturbing is that the citizens of Michigan repealed the law through a ballet inactive but the state just went ahead and passed the same law with an amendment that it couldn't be repealed that way.

So basically instead of the Thomas Jefferson / John Locke view government that government should be by the people for the people it takes Hobbes view. Hobbes said that the role of government was essentially to protect people from themselves which I completely disagree with it.

I am not going to even get into how areas where emergency managers have been appointed clearly seem to be disenfranchising the African American vote in local elections.

 

[chicago51]

Washington Post

 

[GoIrish41]

It is fairly outrageous that anyone would support emergency managers no matter their political affiliation. This process is anti-democratic and the fact that the law was voted down by the public and then reinstated by the legislature is a troubling at best.

 

[Buster Bluth]

You really don't get how bad it is in Detroit then, do you?

 

[chicago51]

You really don't get how bad it is in Detroit then, do you?

I am not saying it isn't bad in Detriot. I don't think a crisis should bring an to the local democracy there. The state should be working with local government to improve things. I am okay with state creating a regional government being created but then it should be regionally elected. I think having a guy come down take over everything is wrong.

By agreeing with this one is essentially making the argument that it is okay to surrender democracy in times of crisis.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I am not saying it isn't bad in Detriot. I don't think a crisis should bring an to the local democracy there. The state should be working with local government to improve things. I am okay with state creating a regional government being created but then it should be regionally elected. I think having a guy come down take over everything is wrong.

By agreeing with this one is essentially making the argument that it is okay to surrender democracy in times of crisis.

This isn't the federal government coming in and taking over. Speaking of which, were you okay with President Eisenhower sending federal troops into Little Rock in 1957? What about when Truman nationalized the Steel industry in 1952? What about when FDR signed the Emergency Banking Act that outlawed all banks not approved by the federal government?!

If you want serious overreaches of governmental power, you're going to need to look past a state government taking emergency control of city that has proven it cannot manage itself, and look at the federal government.

When the federal government steps in, then I'll be on your side in this scenario.

 

[GoIrish41]

Detroit will be one of six cities under emergency managers, leaving nine percent of the state's population without democratically elected leadership. Most of the cities are majority African-American. With the Detroit appointment 49 percent of the state's African-American population is under emergency managers. The fact that the people overturned this law when given an opportunity to vote against it and the republican legislature brought it back against their will is bad enough. That they used that authority to nullify the votes of half of the African Americans in the state is incredibly disturbing, no matter how bad things are in Detroit. At best this looks terrible politically.