PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gaborn said:
Even if the study has methodological problems it still raises a point I made before the law passed - that there is absolutely no incentive for employers to offer health insurance, and if they DO offer health insurance there is little to none to do so above and beyond what the government mandates them to offer.
Click to expand...
This is such a strange argument for you to make, Gaborn. In addition to the incentives they had before the bill (employees don't pay income tax on health benefits, incentivizing employers to pay more for benefits than they otherwise would), PPACA adds a $2000 per employee fine to companies that don't provide health insurance.

Health care reform would have been much better if it had decoupled health insurance from employers. The unchanged incentive for employee-based insurance is one of the major critiques just about every economist has of our health care system. I would think you of all people would want this bill to do that - but it doesn't.
 
Gaborn said:
... Are you high? It's a corporatist Democratic plan.
Click to expand...

Otherwise known as a conservative Republican? The health care law is a Republican health care plan through and through. That's why progressives opposed it. If Obama weren't so busy generating a mass reactionary movement on account of his being black, I suspect it would have passed with strong bipartisan support.
 
Gaborn said:
We were both partially right, except I was a couple of months off

And it matters for the same reason the census worker spike is meaningless. McJobs are typically not multi-year careers.

Ghaleon - Fine, but the Urban Institute predicted the same thing back in October
Click to expand...
No I think you misunderstood my point. The BLS report averages out the monthly report. So it's not like every single one of those jobs were directly counted in this report.

It doesn't work that way. If it did, the report would be crazy volitile.
 
empty vessel said:
Otherwise known as a conservative Republican? The health care law is a Republican health care plan through and through. That's why progressives opposed it. If Obama weren't so busy generating a mass reactionary movement on account of his being black, I suspect it would have passed with strong bipartisan support.
Click to expand...
The plan Obama passed was first proposed by Republicans as their counter offer to Clinton when he was pushing a much more progressive healthcare bill. Now their own market based ideas are some kind of government takeover of healthcare - because they were taken up by a Democrat.
 
Telosfortelos said:
This is such a strange argument for you to make, Gaborn. In addition to the incentives they had before the bill (employees don't pay income tax on health benefits, incentivizing employers to pay more for benefits than they otherwise would), PPACA adds a $2000 per employee fine to companies that don't provide health insurance.

Health care reform would have been much better if it had decoupled health insurance from employers. The unchanged incentive for employee-based insurance is one of the major critiques just about every economist has of our health care system. I would think you of all people would want this bill to do that - but it doesn't.
Click to expand...

The $2000 fine per employer would only act as a disincentive to employers that are currently spending less than $2000 on insurance. And the fine only applies to businesses with... I believe it's more than 20 workers? Something like that anyway. Most people work at smaller businesses than that.


empty vessel said:
Otherwise known as a conservative Republican? The health care law is a Republican health care plan through and through. That's why progressives opposed it. If Obama weren't so busy generating a mass reactionary movement on account of his being black, I suspect it would have passed with strong bipartisan support.
Click to expand...

You know, you seem to have a very oddly binary world view, that if something isn't a progressive plan it's a "conservative republican plan" well, I can't speak for "conservative republicans" but as a conservative libertarian I'm pretty sure the plan is more liberal than conservative.

gcubed - I still think other alternatives than default on our creditors obligations are likely, such as deferring or cutting medicaid or social security payments until the debt ceiling is raised. There will certainly have to be some hard choices made by the administration though as the result of DECADES of profligate spending.

mckmas - Ok.
 
GhaleonEB said:
The plan Obama passed was first proposed by Republicans as their counter offer to Clinton when he was pushing a much more progressive healthcare bill. Now their own market based ideas are some kind of government takeover of healthcare - because they were taken up by a Democrat.
Click to expand...
And has the country moved that more right? I don't think so.
 
Gaborn said:
The $2000 fine per employer would only act as a disincentive to employers that are currently spending less than $2000 on insurance. And the fine only applies to businesses with... I believe it's more than 20 workers? Something like that anyway. Most people work at smaller businesses than that.
Click to expand...
50, actually. I was under the impression that most people work for large employers, but I don't have any numbers one way or the other just now.

Regardless, the incentives for employee-based health insurance have existed since the 40s, and they're only made stronger by the bill. I would have thought your position would be to dissolve those incentives.
 
Telosfortelos said:
50, actually. I was under the impression that most people work for large employers, but I don't have any numbers one way or the other just now.

Regardless, the incentives for employee-based health insurance have existed since the 40s, and they're only made stronger by the bill. I would have thought your position would be to dissolve those incentives.
Click to expand...

No, it's definitely small businesses that drive the economy and provide most of the jobs.

And yes, of course my position would be to dissolve those incentives. However, my position isn't this bill. We're talking about policy, not philosophy. In policy terms this is going to negatively effect employees health care and drive larger numbers of people to the exchanges. The math on the plan's costs only work based on assumptions about how many people will enter the subsidized exchanges. If demand is higher for them costs will rise dramatically.
 
Telosfortelos said:
50, actually. I was under the impression that most people work for large employers, but I don't have any numbers one way or the other just now.

Regardless, the incentives for employee-based health insurance have existed since the 40s, and they're only made stronger by the bill. I would have thought your position would be to dissolve those incentives.
Click to expand...

cant find numbers for 50. 20+ though is 82.2% of the workforce as of 2008. http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html

so no gaborn if your thoughts are under 20 provide most of the jobs as in your original post you are mistaken
 
Gaborn said:
You know, you seem to have a very oddly binary world view, that if something isn't a progressive plan it's a "conservative republican plan" well, I can't speak for "conservative republicans" but as a conservative libertarian I'm pretty sure the plan is more liberal than conservative.
Click to expand...

If you can't speak for conservative Republicans, why are you seemingly taking offense to my calling the plan a conservative Republican plan? It is that. It was literally proposed by conservative Republicans. The only part of it that is even arguably progressive is the subsidies to insurance companies in exchange for their covering lower income households. And, quite frankly, subsidizing private profit isn't a progressive policy at all.
 
GhaleonEB said:
The plan Obama passed was first proposed by Republicans as their counter offer to Clinton when he was pushing a much more progressive healthcare bill. Now their own market based ideas are some kind of government takeover of healthcare - because they were taken up by a Democrat.
Click to expand...

You also need to add 20 years and the Deification of Reagan.

Both your post and empty vessel's offensive post on race simplifies it into racism and hypocrisy, and it's really just as bad as some nutter calling you a libtard.

Some very smart people saw the ideological demography of the country and the death of the northern countryclub Republicans who have since gone to the Democratic party in droves and decided they could get away with murder.

Obama's entire approach to healthcare reform was a disaster and it's too simple to simply pin it in teh racism and teh hypocrisy.
 
Gaborn said:
No, it's definitely small businesses that drive the economy and provide most of the jobs.

And yes, of course my position would be to dissolve those incentives. However, my position isn't this bill. We're talking about policy, not philosophy. In policy terms this is going to negatively effect employees health care and drive larger numbers of people to the exchanges. The math on the plan's costs only work based on assumptions about how many people will enter the subsidized exchanges. If demand is higher for them costs will rise dramatically.
Click to expand...
"Small Business" according to Wikipedia, in the US, is any business with less than 500 employees.

Which is hardly a small business. Anyway, they make up just a smidge more than half of all employment.

If we looked at businesses with less than 50 employees, the amount of percentage of employment would probably be a bit under half.

Not to say small businesses don't help to drive the economy, it's just their impact seems very overstated because the US's definition of a small business includes businesses that are obviously not very small at all.
 
empty vessel said:
If you can't speak for conservative Republicans, why are you seemingly taking offense to my calling the plan a conservative Republican plan? It is that. It was literally proposed by conservative Republicans. The only part of it that is even arguably progressive is the subsidies to insurance companies in exchange for their covering lower income households. And, quite frankly, subsidizing private profit isn't a progressive policy at all.
Click to expand...

I'm not offended, and I didn't think I implied it was. I disagreed with you and characterized it as a corporatist democratic plan. That's hardly taking offense. I guess you could say I was peeved with my "are you high?" comment but that was more surprise by the claim. I assume you're talking about John Chaffee's plan but Chafee was hardly what I'd call a particularly conservative Republican.
 
Deku said:
Both your post and empty vessel's offensive post on race simplifies it into racism and hypocrisy, and it's really just as bad as some nutter calling you a libtard.
Click to expand...

That's the second time today I've been called offensive for calling out racists!
 
empty vessel said:
That's the second time today I've been called offensive for calling out racists!
Click to expand...

If you follow my post history in just this thread, you'll find I support Obama over generic Republican candidate X and prefer the little bit of progressive thinking in the Democratic party over the crazy shit heads in the Republican party.

That said, I was pointing out the fallacy of simplifying being outmaneuvered by an aggressive opposition as purely an issue of Obama being a black person or the Republicans having a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Or rather continue believing that at your own peril and hope Obama will win 2012 by calling people who are against him racists and hypocrites. It almost goes down as well as Dubya's 'with us or against us' line.
 
I bet someone could make a pretty penny selling shirts that say "You don't have to be a racist to dislike Obama" and then on the back is says "...but it helps." Supporters and racists alike would feel it was speaking to them and mock the other side for wearing it.
 
Gaborn said:
I assume you're talking about John Chaffee's plan but Chafee was hardly what I'd call a particularly conservative Republican.
Click to expand...

That's because we're now calling reactionaries conservatives for the sake of politeness. Doesn't make Chaffee or any of the other numbnuts in the Republican party circa 1993 not conservatives.

Note that Chaffee's bill had 21 co-sponsors, 19 of them Republicans including Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett.
 
empty vessel said:
Otherwise known as a conservative Republican? The health care law is a Republican health care plan through and through. That's why progressives opposed it. If Obama weren't so busy generating a mass reactionary movement on account of his being black, I suspect it would have passed with strong bipartisan support.
Click to expand...
this man speaks truth here.

Obama is failing because of his inability to lead he is black. There is no other explanation for all the crazy shit we have seen from the tea parties, because they didn't care about any of the same shit going on when Bush was in office.
 
empty vessel said:
That's because we're now calling reactionaries conservatives for the sake of politeness. Doesn't make Chaffee or any of the other numbnuts in the Republican party circa 1993 not conservatives.

Note that Chaffee's bill had 21 co-sponsors, 19 of them Republicans including Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett.
Click to expand...

Bob Dole also supported many of that health care bill's general ideas
 
George H.W. Bush also flirted around with a Health Care mandate.

Course, he raised taxes too, soo...
 
Dr. Pangloss said:
I would say Obama went too far in this extreme. He gives Congress a lot of room, especially Democrats. Clinton was dealing with a Democratic Senate that had been there since the 1930s. They looked down on the rubes from Arkansas. Obama on the other hand (this is what has pissed me off the most of anything he has done) allowed Joe Lieberman to dictate the terms for healthcare. Hey Joe, sorry that your buddy McCain lost and you aren't the head of Defense or State. But that doesn't mean you can be a dick and say no to the public option and then no to the option in to Medicare for those 55 and up. There is a reason this fucker is retiring next year. Obama should have taken his chairmanship away, as well as withhold DSCC campaign funds from those that are being totally ridiculous. Its one thing for the right to call you a commie, socialist, and another when your own members do.
Click to expand...
I do not think your assessment of Clinton's situation is accurate. Regardless, his failure to include these senators in the process and foster support was a mistake. His imperious approach only engendered opposition.

Obama may have went too far, but he wanted to ensure support for his preeminent policy initiative. Moreover, it was effective. And Lieberman did not solely dictate the terms. Other Senate Democrats (B. Nelson and Landrieu, specifically) were opposed to those measures. Really, even Baucus was, at best, lukewarm to a public option. And I do not think threatening such punitive actions would have been prudent.
 
Jackson50 said:
I do not think your assessment of Clinton's situation is accurate. Regardless, his failure to include these senators in the process and foster support was a mistake. His imperious approach only engendered opposition.

Obama may have went too far, but he wanted to ensure support for his preeminent policy initiative. Moreover, it was effective. And Lieberman did not solely dictate the terms. Other Senate Democrats (B. Nelson and Landrieu, specifically) were opposed to those measures. Really, even Baucus was, at best, lukewarm to a public option. And I do not think threatening such punitive actions would have been prudent.
Click to expand...

Lieberman may have had some friends going against the Public Option but he was all alone on opposing having a buy in into medicare at age 55. From all reports, the sole reason he opposed it is because he was still pissed about getting primaried
 
Lefty said:
Lieberman may have had some friends going against the Public Option but he was all alone on opposing having a buy in into medicare at age 55. From all reports, the sole reason he opposed it is because he was still pissed about getting primaried
Click to expand...
I think others were at least lukewarm to the option. Otherwise, he did come out most strongly opposed. I think his filibuster threat scuttled a potential deal before anyone else had a chance to opine. Still, my point was that he did not solely dictate the terms. Obama and the Democratic leadership also had to placate other members.
 
Well, abortion is now all but illegal in Ohio.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-abortion-ohio-heartbeat-idUSTRE75R7NC20110628

And if you're wondering if Kasich's worried about being electable after this and some of his other decisions that are a bit controversial ... he's pretty much said he only wants one term (as that's all he needs to fix the state's problems), so he doesn't really care.

If you also wondered if this is going to the Supreme Court: almost certainly. The bill's author wants exactly that (she's one of those Dominionist types, literally), and even Ohio Right to Life came out against this as being possibly hurtful to their cause.
 
NihonTiger90 said:
Well, abortion is now all but illegal in Ohio.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-abortion-ohio-heartbeat-idUSTRE75R7NC20110628

And if you're wondering if Kasich's worried about being electable after this and some of his other decisions that are a bit controversial ... he's pretty much said he only wants one term (as that's all he needs to fix the state's problems), so he doesn't really care.

If you also wondered if this is going to the Supreme Court: almost certainly. The bill's author wants exactly that (she's one of those Dominionist types, literally), and even Ohio Right to Life came out against this as being possibly hurtful to their cause.
Click to expand...

I applaud the man for having balls, taking unpopular positions, and following through.
 
Pawlenty, Bachman, and now Lynne Torgerson. WTF Minnesota?

Torgerson states, flat out, that congressman Keith Ellison refuses to acknowledge the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and accuses him of associating with extremist terrorist organizations. BTW, Ellison is Muslim.
 
NihonTiger90 said:
Well, abortion is now all but illegal in Ohio.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-abortion-ohio-heartbeat-idUSTRE75R7NC20110628

And if you're wondering if Kasich's worried about being electable after this and some of his other decisions that are a bit controversial ... he's pretty much said he only wants one term (as that's all he needs to fix the state's problems), so he doesn't really care.

If you also wondered if this is going to the Supreme Court: almost certainly. The bill's author wants exactly that (she's one of those Dominionist types, literally), and even Ohio Right to Life came out against this as being possibly hurtful to their cause.
Click to expand...
Ohio Right to Life also has expressed concerns about the heartbeat bill. The organization said the bill is unconstitutional and believes it is not wise to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer's dollars defending it.
Click to expand...
HAHAHA! try millions.
 
PhoenixDark said:
I applaud the man for having balls, taking unpopular positions, and following through.
Click to expand...

Just like the Governor in Wisconsin, many of these types know they'll only barely make it through one term but will have secured themselves in the long run by pushing the agenda of many wealthy and powerful conservatives. They folks are bought and paid for. I can see most of them getting lucrative consulting jobs once they're out of office. Isn't that normally the case after they've pushed legislation favoring specific companies/industries?
 
TMW2011-06-22colorlowres.jpg
 
Senate Democrats Renew Push For DREAM Act
Seeking to breathe new life into its prospects, on Tuesday Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) chaired the first-ever Senate hearing on the DREAM Act. The bill, which was initially proposed in different form in 2001, would grant citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants who "have maintained good moral character since entering the U.S.," and who either attend college or serve in the U.S. armed forces.

Three representatives of the Obama administration, a DREAM student, and the Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies were among witnesses who testified before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.
Click to expand...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ts-renew-dream-act-despite-gop-opposition.php
 
Bernie Sanders has an online petition, those things never fail!

(seriously though, it's nice).


Dear Mr. President,

This is a pivotal moment in the history of our country. Decisions are being made about the national budget that will impact the lives of virtually every American for decades to come. As we address the issue of deficit reduction we must not ignore the painful economic reality of today - which is that the wealthiest people in our country and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well while the middle class is collapsing and poverty is increasing. In fact, the United States today has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth.

Everyone understands that over the long-term we have got to reduce the deficit - a deficit that was caused mainly by Wall Street greed, tax breaks for the rich, two wars, and a prescription drug program written by the drug and insurance companies. It is absolutely imperative, however, that as we go forward with deficit reduction we completely reject the Republican approach that demands savage cuts in desperately-needed programs for working families, the elderly, the sick, our children and the poor, while not asking the wealthiest among us to contribute one penny.

Mr. President, please listen to the overwhelming majority of the American people who believe that deficit reduction must be about shared sacrifice. The wealthiest Americans and the most profitable corporations in this country must pay their fair share. At least 50 percent of any deficit reduction package must come from revenue raised by ending tax breaks for the wealthy and eliminating tax loopholes that benefit large, profitable corporations and Wall Street financial institutions. A sensible deficit reduction package must also include significant cuts to unnecessary and wasteful Pentagon spending.

Please do not yield to outrageous Republican demands that would greatly increase suffering for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. Now is the time to stand with the tens of millions of Americans who are struggling to survive economically, not with the millionaires and billionaires who have never had it so good.

Respectfully,


Sen. Bernie Sanders;
and Co-signers
​
 
PhoenixDark said:
I applaud the man for having balls, taking unpopular positions, and following through.
Click to expand...
Uh, "having balls?" The ultimate goal is to send this to the SCOTUS. This bill is a giant pile of shit, and the sheer number of these scare the shit out of me. The government should not be infringing upon a woman's right to choose. This guy is an idealogue, and he should be told to ram this anti-choice piece of legislation up his ass.
 
max_cool said:
Pawlenty, Bachman, and now Lynne Torgerson. WTF Minnesota?

Torgerson states, flat out, that congressman Keith Ellison refuses to acknowledge the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and accuses him of associating with extremist terrorist organizations. BTW, Ellison is Muslim.
Click to expand...
I am utterly clueless as to who Lynne Torgerson is, but I like Keith Ellison. I enjoy listening to him. Moreover, I respect him. And such claims are baseless and ignorant. Irrespective of who Lynne Torgerson is, and I suspect she is a marginal, irrelevant figure, her mindset is another lamentable occurrence of anti-Muslim hysteria.
Dr. Pangloss said:
I would say Obama went too far in this extreme. He gives Congress a lot of room, especially Democrats. Clinton was dealing with a Democratic Senate that had been there since the 1930s. They looked down on the rubes from Arkansas. Obama on the other hand (this is what has pissed me off the most of anything he has done) allowed Joe Lieberman to dictate the terms for healthcare. Hey Joe, sorry that your buddy McCain lost and you aren't the head of Defense or State. But that doesn't mean you can be a dick and say no to the public option and then no to the option in to Medicare for those 55 and up. There is a reason this fucker is retiring next year. Obama should have taken his chairmanship away, as well as withhold DSCC campaign funds from those that are being totally ridiculous. Its one thing for the right to call you a commie, socialist, and another when your own members do.
Click to expand...
This just dawned on me. Of all Lieberman's censurable, deplorable actions, his tenure as Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs may be the worst. This dude is terrible. Good riddance.
 
Loudninja said:
Senate Democrats Renew Push For DREAM Act

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ts-renew-dream-act-despite-gop-opposition.php
Click to expand...
Hmm...maybe something to do with Fareed Zakaria's push on Immigration? It's no secret that Zakaria and Obama hold meetings.

Fareed Zakaria: America risks losing its immigration advantage
So it is in everybody’s interest that this problem gets solved sooner rather than later.

It seemed as though Washington had finally found a way to get its act together and come up with the only solution that could work - which would be a compromise. That is why the Dream Act was sponsored by Republican John McCain and the late Democratic senator Teddy Kennedy.

The Dream Act gave something to every side. It was a great compromise bill in the grand tradition of bipartisan bills that Congress once passed to deal with big issues on which people in our country of 300 million disagreed.

So what happened to the bill?

It got eaten up on both sides.

Labor unions destroyed it from one end. The people who oppose any kind of immigration reform on the hard right destroyed it on the other end.

The result was that the Dream Act collapsed even though George Bush supported it. Now President Obama is trying to revive the Dream Act in a different form and he can’t find 10 Republicans who will support it. Not even John McCain, the bill’s original supporter, will get behind it now. McCain is now backing away from his own creation!

We think we have all the time in the world to play around with this issue because we are so far ahead of the rest of the world. We think we are so enlightened and that we do immigration so much better than the rest of the world. And it’s true, but only as a backward-looking statement.
Click to expand...
 
RustyNails said:
Hmm...maybe something to do with Fareed Zakaria's push on Immigration?
Click to expand...

Nah, the Dems are more than likely going into campaign mode. None of this shit has a snowball's chance in passing, it's all pretty much for show (as I think someone in this thread might have mentioned).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Season 8 of Rick and Morty premiered today
2
59
2K
Rentahamster replied
Biggest tech trend of each decade and predictions?
9
496
lachesis replied
Reading Lord of the Rings again, and Tolkien is just a master of world building
43
852
jason10mm replied
Netflix previews new UI changes (and AI, because of course, everything needs AI)
12
773
Bojji replied
With Love, Meghan (Netflix) is everything I dreamed of and more
44
3K
Days like these... replied
Top Bottom