Support NeoGAF

[GhaleonEB]

Car insurance mandate is imposed by the states, is the actual difference. A state could impose a mandate to buy health insurance.

For example, Massachusetts!

 

[Deku]

And now, you have Rick Perry trailing Obama by two points in Texas. I doubt the numbers were this close during Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry elections at this time of year.

I find Perry all razzle dazzle. No denying the fact that Mitt Romney is the most electable of the bunch and GOP would be foolish to fall for Perry's charm. But then, it's the GOP and the evangelical base always has the biggest weight in GOP politics.

Let's pray for Perry

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

For example, Massachusetts!

Can states still opt out of the new HCR law? If so, it'd be interesting to see uninsured voters pissed at their governor for opting out.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

For fiscal conservatives who oppose universal healthcare on principle: Would you be willing to accept some sort of Medicare-for-All system for the demonstrably true reason that it would be vastly cheaper than anything we're doing now (with better outcomes)?

Can states still opt out of the new HCR law? If so, it'd be interesting to see uninsured voters pissed at their governor for opting out.

The law requires that in order for a state to opt out, the coverage its citizens receive must be at least as comprehensive as it is under PPACA.

 

[mckmas8808]

Health Insurance mandate is predicated on existence...

And your existence means that you will go to the hospital many times right?

 

[Clevinger]

Car insurance mandate is predicated on the privilege of driving a vehicle on state owned roads.

Health Insurance mandate is predicated on existence...

Except the large portions of the country that requires a car for a person's continued existence...

 

[cartoon_soldier]

For fiscal conservatives who oppose universal healthcare on principle: Would you be willing to accept some sort of Medicare-for-All system for the demonstrably true reason that it would be vastly cheaper than anything we're doing now (with better outcomes)?

I don't think those two are connected, otherwise fiscal conservatives would support the public option as that increased the savings US government got from the HCR Law.

 

[Dude Abides]

Car insurance mandate is predicated on the privilege of driving a vehicle on state owned roads.

Health Insurance mandate is predicated on existence...

Which has nothing to do with the constitutional issue, which is the scope of the Commerce Clause.

Skimming the opinion now. It's 304 pages!

 

[GaimeGuy]

can't believe people are fretting about perry. bring him on, i say. it seems his 'response' event managed to answer obama's prayers, too!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...dismantling-social-security-and-medicare.html



general election gold!

The states are already allowed to come up with their own alternatives to all federal health care programs and provisions. One of the aspects of the PPACA was that the feds will even help subsidize it if it can be proven to improve coverage and reduce costs.

I believe the states are also free to institute their own retirement programs independent of social security and opt out of social security. I'm not sure if the opt-out applies if you aren't a government worker though, but there's no reason a state can't design a system where all residents are classified as employees for the purposes of retirement planning to get around that.


Anyways, perry is calling for something that can already largely be done.

basically:
Social Security: Opt-out for certain religions (like the Amish), state/local and various federal government employees whose employers have their own retirement plans (includes USPS workers), and a few other exceptions.
Medicaid: Completely opt-out by the states
Medicare: Opt-out by the states if they can provide cheaper alternatives while maintaining federal coverage standards. Proposals for new health care systems or just modifications to existing ones/supplements may be subsidized by the feds.

If states want to, they can do it

I know in canada, they have systems similar to union and province-managed 401ks. You pay taxes to retirement funds, which are given to your union or your province for management as 401k-like programs. It's basically taxpayer funded mutual funds used for retirement. Sort of a merger between social security and 401ks, but it's diversified since different industries can manage their retirement investments differently.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I don't think those two are connected, otherwise fiscal conservatives would support the public option as that increased the savings US government got from the HCR Law.

That's exactly my point. But unless my definitions are confused, believing that government intervention in the marketplace should be as limited as possible (the principle in question) is fairly important to fiscal conservatives, so I'm interested in their thoughts on the matter.

 

[Jeels]

So submission = respect?

Was slavery about respect then? This was a dumb answer but I guess I'm not her audience.

I don't want to turn this into a religious debate but the bible doesn't tell wives to be slaves to their husband. It's a matter of language.

 

[RustyNails]

Car insurance mandate is predicated on the privilege of driving a vehicle on state owned roads.

Health Insurance mandate is predicated on existence...

But your body itself is a vehicle and you can cause harm to others with it!

 

[KtSlime]

I don't want to turn this into a religious debate but the bible doesn't tell wives to be slaves to their husband. It's a matter of language.

It also says for women to leave the camp/village when they are having their period so that 'God' can stay pure or something like that.

I wouldn't place too much value in that book, modern interpretations of the language used or not.

It was an unfortunate question, and will end up getting her sympathy rather than pointing out the character flaw that she is a person that will likely base many of her decisions off of some arcane text. A person that makes decisions based on such a text should not be an elected official.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I don't want to turn this into a religious debate but the bible doesn't tell wives to be slaves to their husband. It's a matter of language.

I think anyone with a mite of intelligence or has ever been married knows what is meant by submission. deference....courteous respect, etc.
It was an asinine question. My guess is that York asked it to try to help her explain herself. Such a stupid issue.

 

[empty vessel]

That's exactly my point. But unless my definitions are confused, believing that government intervention in the marketplace should be as limited as possible (the principle in question) is fairly important to fiscal conservatives, so I'm interested in their thoughts on the matter.

It is incoherent regardless, and conservatives cannot escape that. There is no market for health care because an essential quality of a market is voluntary entrance and freedom of selection, not coerced presence and third-party prescription. There's another word for that. It's called robbery. And that's why we have the highest health care costs in the world.

Conservative support for unregulated private allocation of health care goods and services is based on irrational emotion and manipulative conditioning, period.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I'd take that gamble.

How did your guy Huntsman do last night?

 

[Clevinger]

I think anyone with a mite of intelligence or has ever been married knows what is meant by submission. deference....courteous respect, etc.
It was an asinine question. My guess is that York asked it to try to help her explain herself. Such a stupid issue.

Going into a career path you loathe because your husband told you to is not courteous respect, it's a weird and creepy submission. The question was valid for someone seeking the highest office, whose decisions could effect billions world-wide.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

It is incoherent regardless, and conservatives cannot escape that. There is no market for health care because an essential quality of a market is voluntary entrance and freedom of selection, not coerced presence and third-party prescription. There's another word for that. It's called robbery. And that's why we have the highest health care costs in the world.

Conservative support for unregulated private allocation of health care goods and services is based on irrational emotion and manipulative conditioning, period.

Let me get there! Gun-jumpers, the lot of you.

I agree with you pretty much entirely. I think the question: "Can you support universal healthcare because it is the cheapest available option?" is still worth asking.

 

[Dude Abides]

I think anyone with a mite of intelligence or has ever been married knows what is meant by submission. deference....courteous respect, etc.
It was an asinine question. My guess is that York asked it to try to help her explain herself. Such a stupid issue.

Then why does it only go one way?

 

[mckmas8808]

Then why does it only go one way?

Both are supposed to be courteous. But submission goes kids ->wife ->husband ->Jesus-> God

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Then why does it only go one way?

It doesn't in my marriage. I can't speak for that goddess Bachmann.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

It doesn't in my marriage. I can't speak for that goddess Bachmann.

You are a Jedi master of question deflection.

 

[Dude Abides]

It doesn't in my marriage. I can't speak for that goddess Bachmann.

You just did speak for her.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

You just did speak for her.

Hey, my wife would say the same thing as Bachmann. I speak for her too. She's submissive.

An interesting take by a woman in the Washington Post
Bachmann versus the sluts

 

[hellclerk]

It also says for women to leave the camp/village when they are having their period so that 'God' can stay pure or something like that.

I wouldn't place too much value in that book, modern interpretations of the language used or not.

It was an unfortunate question, and will end up getting her sympathy rather than pointing out the character flaw that she is a person that will likely base many of her decisions off of some arcane text. A person that makes decisions based on such a text should not be an elected official.

That "arcane text" also contains alot of passages that Republicans tend to ignore (Matthew 19:21, Matthew 22:36-40, pretty much everything that says "help the poor, help your neighbor, and don't judge people lest you be judged yourself). So I wouldn't put much stock into her belief in it much less the actual book. It's not a political tool, it's a piece of religious primary revelation that certain people tend to pick and choose from.

On that same note, it was a just a dumb question to ask in the first place. They're asking a woman with the AMBITION to become the leader of the most influential if not most powerful country on earth. Asking her if she's going to be "submissive" is inane and absurd even with the religious context.

 

[Oblivion]

Newt certainly was the winner last night. No, he doesn't stand a chance of winning . . . but he did prove that he was a better debater than everyone else on stage and was able to think on his feed instead of just spew talking points.

I keep hearing this from everyone but I just don't see it. Granted, I didn't see the entire debate, but from the clips that I've seen of Newt 'owning' Wallace and Braier were not what I'd call impressive in the least. He didn't say anything clever or insightful, and kept going on the defensive with the 'gotcha' questions BS, and the rest was just him going 'bububububu I was originally against it before I was for it then against it again!".

I'm guessing this is another case of super low expectations. The fact that Newt didn't faint, throw up, or run out of the room crying was enough to declare him the 'winner'.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Guy on my Facebook put this as his status:

If the unemployed people today *were allowed to* and could get full-time jobs at $4/hour instead of being unemployed and we taxed them 10% of that income, we'd increase revenue by 28,321,280,000 per year. Twenty-eight billion dollars. $4/hour is a lot better than $0/hour.

I responded with:

I don't think a family with 2.5 kids could survive with both parents making that much an hour even if they were on every government program available.

Evaluate my statement PoliGAF. Do you agree with me?

P.S. Dude is a Tea Bagger.

 

[Clevinger]

On that same note, it was a just a dumb question to ask in the first place. They're asking a woman with the AMBITION to become the leader of the most influential if not most powerful country on earth. Asking her if she's going to be "submissive" is inane and absurd even with the religious context.

No, it's not. At all. She said she gladly submitted to him in a major life choice that she hated because that's what God tells women to do. Why should we assume she won't submit to him in the White House? She's lucky to not be laughed out of the room, let alone asked a simple question about her insane religious beliefs.

 

[mckmas8808]

On that same note, it was a just a dumb question to ask in the first place. They're asking a woman with the AMBITION to become the leader of the most influential if not most powerful country on earth. Asking her if she's going to be "submissive" is inane and absurd even with the religious context.

It's not the religious context that they are asking. It's because she choose her career based on what her husband wanted her to do. She said she was being submissive. So FoxNews wanted to know if that would stop or continue if she was President.

Not a dumb question.

 

[Oblivion]

Bachmann became a tax lawyer, a job she supposedly hated, because he husband TOLD HER TO. That's what we call being 'submissive'.

 

[Jeels]

Guy on my Facebook put this as his status:



I responded with:



Evaluate my statement PoliGAF. Do you agree with me?

P.S. Dude is a Tea Bagger.

Your argument is fine but his statement is useless in the first place is because twenty eight billion dollars in revenue is not going to do much at all.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Evaluate my statement PoliGAF. Do you agree with me?
P.S. Dude is a Tea Bagger.

You don't understand how the free market works. If everyone is poor, goods will become cheaper. duh.

 

[Jackson50]

No worries. I'm still watching the footage of the debate from last night, and he is just... bleh.

Also, did Santorum really accuse Iran of "trampling the rights of gays?" Really, Rick?

Did Santorum suggest the U.S. overthrew Mosaddeq to instill freedom? Yes. He is an ignorant clown.

Actually it was discussed before the new census numbers were revealed, because it was pretty obvious that the south would pick up electors and the north would lose some. It's made it a slightly more welcoming environment for Republicans, and increased the importance of winning Texas. The problem is in assuming that what were red states last time will stay red states. Texas voted 44% for Obama last go around. Since then the number of Hispanics who are more likely to vote Democratic have only increased in the state. In addition, the rest of the new Texas population came from outside the state, many from what are traditionally considered blue states. Honestly, it's probably going to take a few elections before anyone knows what's up.

As for redistricting, that's going to depend on various redistricting plans which haven't finalized yet. In Texas, in particular, that's hard to guess, because the Republicans will almost certainly overreach and then have a court battle. If history is a guide, they'll have to refactor once the court slaps them down. The only thing that seems certain down here is that they'll finally force Lloyd Dogget out, and that they're doing away with Ron Paul's district. The map that's been released down here is a negotiating map, and will certainly change before they finalize it. I think more than 30 states haven't even produced a map yet.

Overall, I suspect that people who think they know what the swing states will be in this election will turn out to be wrong. Because you're right, very few people have incorporated the electoral changes into their thinking. Ohio, for example, lost two electoral votes, reducing its importance. Florida picked up two, Texas picked up four. Most of the gains were in the south, which under traditional paradigms greases the wheel for Republicans, but many of those same states are in the middle of big demographic shifts.

It's a lot of text to say no one really knows how it's going to play out. First elections under new electoral schemes are always a little surprising.

Additionally, the Republicans are going to encounter an intractable problem because of their massive gains from 2010. They must either create more insular districts to protect their incumbents or dilute their base to compete in more districts. It is a catch-22. And this is only exacerbated by the demographic problem you noted. Now, they will likely benefit from redistricting. But their potential gains are being overstated.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Did Santorum suggest the U.S. overthrew Mosaddeq to instill freedom? Yes. He is an ignorant clown.

What do you have against clowns?

 

[Jackson50]

It's not the religious context that they are asking. It's because she choose her career based on what her husband wanted her to do. She said she was being submissive. So FoxNews wanted to know if that would stop or continue if she was President.

Not a dumb question.

True. But her husband is submissive to Jesus. And Jesus is submissive to the Father. Thus, God ultimately decided her career. So, if she were president, God would effectively be the POTUS.

What do you have against clowns?

One killed my younger brother. I have harbored hate ever since.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Evaluate my statement PoliGAF. Do you agree with me?

P.S. Dude is a Tea Bagger.

It's a bullshit scenario. Because the current tax code would make it where those people making 4 dollars/hr would not have to pay any tax. That's why 47% of Americans don't pay income tax currently.


The only answer is repealing ALL Bush tax cuts.

 

[Souldriver]

I'm watching the republican debate now, and it's just ridiculous.

I know, full of soundbites and non-answers, and I know that's basically a necessity for candidates to get some airtime and recognition in the campaign. But it still bothers me that there isn't any kind of content actually discussed in these debates.

Oh, and the questions/hosts were ridiculous as well. You'd expect them to be above the vitriol, but instead they seemed to be part of this big verbal diarrhea fight.

Ah well...

 

[Clevinger]

Oh, and the questions/hosts were ridiculous as well. You'd expect them to be above the vitriol, but instead they seemed to be part of this big verbal diarrhea fight.

Ailes wants to make room for Perry.

 

[TacticalFox88]

True. But her husband is submissive to Jesus. And Jesus is submissive to the Father. Thus, God ultimately decided her career. So, if she were president, God would effectively be the POTUS.One kill.

And since those likely don't exist who's in control??? Madness I tell you

 

[hellclerk]

It's not the religious context that they are asking. It's because she choose her career based on what her husband wanted her to do. She said she was being submissive. So FoxNews wanted to know if that would stop or continue if she was President.

Not a dumb question.

No, because if Bachmann wouldn't have gotten into politics if she wasn't already interested in the idea. That ambition didn't come from her husband. I mean, you seriously think that President Obama doesn't defer to his wife every now and then? That Hillary Clinton never gave Bill advice or vice-versa? Mr. Bachmann doesn't seem to be very involved in his wife's political life, beyond just being married to her.

Now don't get me wrong, I LOATH Mrs. Bachmann. She's an idiot, a hypocrite, stubborn as a mule, and gives a bad name to Christianity, but that question was dumb as shit and lost the entire context of the original statement. The context being her audience.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I'm watching the republican debate now, and it's just ridiculous.

I know, full of soundbites and non-answers, and I know that's basically a necessity for candidates to get some airtime and recognition in the campaign. But it still bothers me that there isn't any kind of content actually discussed in these debates.

Oh, and the questions/hosts were ridiculous as well. You'd expect them to be above the vitriol, but instead they seemed to be part of this big verbal diarrhea fight.

Ah well...

Well, to be fair, most of these early debates in primaries are always light on substance. Too many people, too many topics, too short of time. They are usually more entertaining, but not very informative.

But, it was ridiculous how every candidate said s/he favored spending cuts, but NO ONE was pressed on the issue. Even the post-debate Fox analysts were complaining about it.

 

[Xapati]

No one was really debating with Ron Paul in this "debate" and considering his poll numbers saw no benefit in truly engaging with him other than that hilariously disingenuous polygamy bit (at least from what I saw, I fell asleep a while after that). His whole libertarian belief system has holes you could drive a Mack Truck through and anyone who tries engaging in a real debate with him who has even a bit of sense can make him look pretty bad. Someone like Obama could really expose him for the fringe lunatic he is.

Ron Paul can make himself sound like he's a common sense guy on the surface when discussing certain specific subjects, it's not until you really put his entire philosophy under a bit more scrutiny that you realize he really is a wacko.

Couldn't Ron Paul call out Obama on a lot of things though? The whole war in Iraq, the patriot act etc.? I'd love to see Obama get called out on this.

That said, if Ron Paul wants to reintroduce the Gold Standard, that is pretty out there.

 

[GhaleonEB]

The only answer is repealing ALL Bush tax cuts.

I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but I agree with this. (Well, not that it's the only answer, but that they should all expire.)

 

[SecretMoblin]

I'm watching the republican debate now, and it's just ridiculous.

I know, full of soundbites and non-answers, and I know that's basically a necessity for candidates to get some airtime and recognition in the campaign. But it still bothers me that there isn't any kind of content actually discussed in these debates.

Oh, and the questions/hosts were ridiculous as well. You'd expect them to be above the vitriol, but instead they seemed to be part of this big verbal diarrhea fight.

Ah well...

Wait until the general election debates! Those will be all about substance and meaningful solutions, at least from whatever candidate you plan on voting for. Honestly, I haven't seen one genuinely fascinating political debate among major party candidates in the last decade (including intraparty debates).

If debate organizers had any balls, they would have leftist and socialist intellectuals asking questions to Republicans, and have conservative and libertarian intellectuals ask questions of the Democrats.

Spoiler

lol *insert ideology here* aren't intellectuals haha its an oxymoron

These things are so finely coached that there needs to be provocative, ideologically-driven questions to attempt to drive out their true thoughts and feelings, assuming any of the candidates actually have a belief system anymore.

 

[sc0la]

I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but I agree with this. (Well, not that it's the only answer, but that they should all expire.)

Don't think he is kidding, he has stated as much before. TA gets along politically with a lot more folks here than people realize. (climate change aside )

 

[Chichikov]

Guy on my Facebook put this as his status:



I responded with:



Evaluate my statement PoliGAF. Do you agree with me?

P.S. Dude is a Tea Bagger.

4$ an hour is -

• 32$ a day (assuming 8 hours work day)
• 160$ a week (assuming 5 days a week)
• 8320$ a year, before taxes.

So I think it's pretty damn safe to say that -
a. most people will not want to work in those jobs.
b. those who do, will find it very hard to live on those wages.

It's a bullshit scenario. Because the current tax code would make it where those people making 4 dollars/hr would not have to pay any tax. That's why 47% of Americans don't pay income tax currently.

As I understand it, this scenario calls for a 10% tax bracket starting at $0.

The only answer is repealing ALL Bush tax cuts.

Agreed.
By the way, do you support that?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Don't think he is kidding, he has stated as much before. TA gets along politically with a lot more folks here than people realize. (climate change aside )

I know he is, but I couldn't remember his stance on that one. My sarcasm detector has long been busted.

 

[mckmas8808]

I know he is, but I couldn't remember his stance on that one. My sarcasm detector has long been busted.

I've come to the point lately where I also believe all the Bush tax cuts need to be done away with. I personally wish we could slowly raise them, but I don't think we could be a bill doing that.

So I'm actually hoping nothing gets done in 2012 when it comes to those tax cuts.

 

[Black Republican]

what would u guys say is the reddest blue state? NH? Iowa?

 

[littleworm]

what would u guys say is the reddest blue state? NH? Iowa?

If your looking just at the last election probably North Carolina.