How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 A Loss of Cool???   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

A Loss of Cool???

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


25 posted 02-05-2010 09:20 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The bill is there and has been there for anybody to look at for as long as you've been talking about it not being there.  You may keep up with it or not, as you choose.  Don't pretend it's locked away in a vault someplace.  The Republicans are not involved because they don't choose to be involved other than to slow things down until they can make sure that no bill passes on the subject except one that continues the status quo.

Ah, Bob, you live in a world of denial. The bits and pieces have been there but the final actions of putting together the bill has been nowhere except for the vault behind closed doors you claim doesn't exist, the one the Republicans are not involved in because it was by invitation only, no democrats, no C-span and no press.

The question isn't who instituted it,

I'll agree but your earlier comment seems to point toward republicans as it's creators. That makes the question valid.


Suggesting that a bill that affects 1/6th the GNP is worth filibustering certainly is not my call.

No, but apparently suggesting that it is not is your call. Suggesting tha such a bill with such ramifications is not worthy of achieving filabuster status is quite a statement.

I would want to know why the Party that says it's for financial conservatism wants to scuttle a money saving bill of this magnitude.

Simple. No one believes that it is a money-saving bill. They don't go with the trumped-up, unrealistic figures Obama has tried to get them to digest. They believe it will be the same scenario as the stimulus package where Obama claimed the unemployment rate wouldn't pass 8% and, when it did, he simply claimed extenuating circumstances beyond his  control and looked for others to lay the blame on. How can I say that? Look at the polls of thousands who states that the bill would indeed cost Americans more. You want to insult the republicans for not buying this dog and pony show? Be my guest.

My thinking is that The Republicans are trying to take over health care for the Insurance industry, and that they've duped the democrats into going along.

Actually, the republicans have shown nothing to indicate they want to take over health care. They don't WANT the government, or the democrats, to take it over at all, hence the opposition. While I acknowledge it is not difficult to dupe democrats, I suppose what you are trying to say here is that democrats didn't want to take over health care - they were fooled by republicans into trying to take it over. I shall look for a planet named Denial so I can get a glimpse of your home.  

You seem to keep coming back to the fact that I am honest about saying that I don't think the filibuster is in itself a bad thing.  That's true, I don't, only abuse of the tactic.  Why do you keep coming back to this statement of mine?

Simple enough. You claim it's not a bad thing but unworthy of being used on the largest and most impactful bill in our recent history. You denounce the use of it while claiming it is an acceptable tool.

In this country, you don't actually have to win your own state to win the Presidency, though you'd think it would be so.  

Good  attempt at a twist....well, actually it's not. My point was that, if Gore had carried his own state, he would have won. Those were the people who know him best. Instead of bemoaning the fact that he couldn't even carry his own state, they decided to go after hanging chads and the court system. The health care vote is the same. Instead of recognizing that they can't even win over their own fellow democrats, they blame the republicans for their ineffectuality. I understand that you will continue to deny there is any comparison and that's ok. Anyone else reading these entries (if there are any still foolish enough to do so) will make the connection.

Make up your mind about your thoughts on the subject, so that we can talk about the issue straight on, if you will.

You have shown you are not interested in talking about issues straight on, Bob. You are exercizing damage control for a party that has really screwed things up and are spinning out of control. I understand that that's what you have to do and symphathize with your position but playing dodgeball is not talking straight.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


26 posted 02-05-2010 09:39 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The current government's interest is in controlling the  outrageous profits of the insurance industry

Really? If you check the profits of the major industries in the United States, you will find that the insurance company does not even come close to leading that list. They DO make big profits, I'll grant you and you will not find me rising to their defence, but you avoid the actual point. The government can control the profits without taking over the health care system...which is their only goal.

I understand that, to get power in their favor, democrats bring out the "bad guys".....insurance companies, the rich, the successful companies, the banks...anyone who can raise the ire of the lower classes...nothing new there.

How about lobbyists abd special interests, Bob? Seems to me one of Obama's changes was to boot them out or, at least, control them (while he wasn't taking money from them for his camopaign). How's that change been going?

HAMPTON, NH -- Health insurers block progress toward universal health care. Big Oil corrupts our energy policy. Banks and lenders make money on the backs of college students forced to repay huge loans. Agribusiness benefits from government subsidies at the expense of small farms.

This was Barack Obama's populist message this morning at the Adeline C. Marston Elementary School here, one of three public campaign stops in the last two days in New Hampshire. To Republicans, casting business as an enemy of change may sound like a tired trope of the left. But Obama laid the blame for inertia on health care, energy independence, and other issues squarely at the feet of select industries and their lobbyists.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/07/obama_big_busin.html[/ URL]

There's a great example of bring out the "bad boys". ANd those darned lobbyists? What has he done with them?

WASHINGTON — The recession has battered the U.S. economy, but the lobbying industry is humming along in the nation's capital, even for companies that have shed thousands of jobs in the past year.

The 20 trade associations and companies that spent the most on lobbying increased their spending by more than 20% in 2009 to $507.7 million, up from $418.2 million a year earlier, according to a USA TODAY analysis of reports compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The top 20 include oil giant ConocoPhillips, which announced nearly 1,300 layoffs in January 2009, and drugmaker Pfizer, which shed 4,200 jobs since completing its merger with drug company Wyeth last fall.
[URL=http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-04-lobbying_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+%28News+-+ Washi]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-04-lobbying_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+%28News+- +Washi
  ngton+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo


Wow....not going to well, it seems. Obama will have to find someone to blame for that, too.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


27 posted 02-05-2010 11:08 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

A pity the Bush Administration chose to spend the trillion that would have paid for the proposed healthcare program for the next ten year on killing people in Iraq.  And, the last time I checked, the projected cost of care for wounded troops would be in that same trillion dollar range.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


28 posted 02-05-2010 04:59 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health-care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a “jobs bill.”

This being a democracy, don’t the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don’t they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid, and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/423992/the-great-peasant-revolt-of-2010/charles-krauthammer


.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


29 posted 02-05-2010 06:25 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear John,

         Interesting to know what the National Review thinks, but I do actually have a look at them from time to time.  The onlyu chance I get to know what you think is here.  Sometimes your opinions take me by surprise, and I learn something from them.  I find The National Review predictably savage about those who disagree with them and slow to offer new insight into conservative thinking that allows me to understand it.

     Some things about George Herbert Walker Bush I thought were thoughtful and decent, especially his willingness to raise taxes and put his Presidency on the line at the end of his administration.  Some things about President Clinton, I don't particularly admire in retrospect, for example I'm not sure that his trade agreements were all that good for the country.   I try not to dismiss along party lines, though I am clearly a Liberal.

     I can understand the occasional commentless quotation, but I'm really more interested in what you think.

Bob Kaven
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


30 posted 02-05-2010 07:21 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:


The question isn't who instituted it,

I'll agree but your earlier comment seems to point toward republicans as it's creators. That makes the question valid.




     Perhaps you missed the place where I actually said that I didn't know who instituted it.  It came before I said "The question isn't who instituted it"  If you could in fact point out to me the place where I actually said the Republicans did any such thing, I'll correct that.  As for your inference, if you can show me the words I used that prompted you to draw that inference, I shall attempt to address that more directly.  I do not like to be unclear.  

     Have we clarified this?

     To be absolutely clear, the Republicans have used only the threat of filibuster so far.  The Democrats have shown a notable lack of spine by refusing to call them on it.  The Republicans would then actually have to make a decision as to where their actual interests were.  They would have to decide whether they were willing to hold up the business of the country for an indefinite amount of time during a time a war and financial crisis, or whether they would either pass the bill or negotiate in good faith.

     I believe that the Democrats should call their bluff and stop p;laying softball, allowing themselves to be jerked around by a threat that the Republican keep pulling out of their pockets like it were garlic for use against vampires.  I think the tactic stinks that badly, and the Republicans need to understand that it is a two edged sword, that can cut just as deeply in either direction.  The last time it was used was by Newt Gingrich on the budget against President Clinton.  Gingrich was voted out of office and the Republicans became, at least briefly, very unpopular.  It may happen again, it may work the other way.  In either situation it is a stupid threat, and the Democrats are stupid to react to it in this way, by caving in to it.

quote:


Simple. No one believes that it is a money-saving bill. They don't go with the trumped-up, unrealistic figures Obama has tried to get them to digest. They believe it will be the same scenario as the stimulus package where Obama claimed the unemployment rate wouldn't pass 8% and, when it did, he simply claimed extenuating circumstances beyond his  control and looked for others to lay the blame on. How can I say that? Look at the polls of thousands who states that the bill would indeed cost Americans more. You want to insult the republicans for not buying this dog and pony show? Be my guest.
[


     Fox cut away from the President's telecasted session with the House Republicans.  They tried to sneak this one by him then, too.  Unfortunately, he nailed them with his response.  The trumped up figures are apparently accurate, and have been fact checked.  The plans that the Republicans have proposed have apparently not gotten by the fact checkers and nobody among the house Republicans could come up with word one or fact one face to face with his to disprove him.  He confronted them about it on national TV and the whole bunch of them backed down.  They had zip to say about that.  Nada. Nothing.  They changed the subject.  But as a Fox news watcher, you probably didn't see that.  Fox probably didn't think it was fair to show you that.

     As for the thousands who didn't buy that in polls, I'd like to remind you that there is a substantial divide between opinion and fact.  Opinion can vary dramatically over time.  Fact tends to pretty much stay the same.  For you to offer a matter of opinion as a way of addressing a matter of fact is a category mistake, like trying to stuff a pocket patch into the coin slot of a gum ball machine.  It might be a very valuable and interesting pocket watch, but the gum ball machine won't give you a gum ball for it.

quote:



Actually, the republicans have shown nothing to indicate they want to take over health care. They don't WANT the government, or the democrats, to take it over at all, hence the opposition. While I acknowledge it is not difficult to dupe democrats, I suppose what you are trying to say here is that democrats didn't want to take over health care - they were fooled by republicans into trying to take it over. I shall look for a planet named Denial so I can get a glimpse of your home.  




     Please forgive me in advance, but with a set-up like you're providing a ham like me, this simply must be said, Mike.  

NO, MIKE,  YOU'RE WRONG.  DE NILE IS A RIVER IN EGYPT.

     Had to get that out of my system.  Forgive me.

     On a more serious note, my understanding is that the bill as it reads now, wants a single payer option available for people who do not have any insurance right now.  The government will be the folks who will be that insurer. The government will serve as the insurance company for those people.

     For this to be a takeover of the health care system, the government would have to be owning hospitals, equipment, be employing the doctors, the pharmacists, the whole health care system.  The legislation suggests that the government only function as one health insurance carrier among many, and then only for people who have no other health care at all.  People with other health care couldn't get it.  You would be able to continue your current health care insurance as long as you want.

     This would cost money.  It wouldn't be free.  It's a lot less than what I, for one, would like; but that's all that I understand to be on the table, and this is what I understand the Republicans to be furious about.  

     I am willing to be corrected by any of my Republican friends.  If Grinch, the ever helpful and informed, has information about this, I'd welcome that as well.

     The insurance Companies want a lot more than this in the other direction, and they seem to be very much on the road to getting it.  I'd be interested if other people would care to contribute any information they have about what the insurance companies have to gain from this legislation.

     I have no desire to call Mike any names around this.  I do have a desire to get our facts straight and to come out from the partisan masks and to look at what the country needs in the matter.  That much, I believe we all agree on.

    

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> A Loss of Cool???   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors