Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » October 1st Predictions? (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  9  10  11   
Author Topic: October 1st Predictions?
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati, do you think that one party threatening to shut down the government when it can't amass the votes to repeal laws passed by the other party is a winning tactic, or, as seems to be the case here, a viable long term strategy?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It still baffles me that when neither party will budge an inch, people claim that its only the other party that's at fault.
The idea that "neither party will budge an inch" on the ACA is ludicrous; we Dems started from a very slightly modified version of the opposition position, which is why people keep bringing up that whole "it was originally a Republican plan" thing that frustrates you.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really, Tom. Then you can show the party plank on this? Or you can show evidence that it was widely supported by the party membership?

And Donald, I think I expressed myself in my first post on what I thought of this a bad tactic, didn't I?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Depends who's looking. I don't think much of a government in power that refers to its political opposition is terorists, with no laws have been broken.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"How many budgets has the house passed versus the senate in the last decade?"

Why do you keep shifting your argument when you are cornered and have no response?

The longer this goes on, the more Republicans are going to look like spoiled brats who only want what they want. But they've been acting like brats ever since Obama took office by filibustering, blocking his appointments and doing everything possible to derail his agenda. Whatever principles were driving some members of the party at some point this looks more and more like an ongoing siege to stop government from doing what is authorized to do.

Obama hasn't called the GOP fringe terrorists, but the definition of a terrorist is someone who attacks innocent people in order advance a political agenda that they have no power to advance through the normal political process.

G3 says nobody will be harmed by the government shutdown just like nobody has been harmed by the sequester. Since the facts are well-reported that many people *have* been harmed by the sequester, I can only assume that he chooses to ignore that harm as he supports Republicans who are trying to carry out their political agenda that they have no power to advance through the normal political process. If he is unaware of the harm that has been done I would be happy to point him to resources that will give him that information.

If Seneca will agree with G3 that nobody has been harmed by the sequester I will include him in that same group.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Seriati, do you think that one party threatening to shut down the government when it can't amass the votes to repeal laws passed by the other party is a winning tactic, or, as seems to be the case here, a viable long term strategy?

When the will of the people shows that the law should not have been passed in the first place this is absolutely ok. If the senate was on a 2 year election cycle the polls show the democrats would have lost that too.

The "great peasant revolt of 2010" was a clear indicator of the will of the people.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
When the will of the people shows that the law should not have been passed in the first place this is absolutely ok. If the senate was on a 2 year election cycle the polls show the democrats would have lost that too.

The "great peasant revolt of 2010" was a clear indicator of the will of the people.

Seneca, it really isn't okay. The proper way to fix bad laws is to win the next election and keep doing it untill you can change the law. This kind of procedural bullying only enshrines further politics for politics sake.

Like it or not, there is no good result from this for the Republican party, and they should never have backed themselves into the corner.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The shutdown likely won't affect me at all, so my first reaction is to say "Another government shutdown, whatever, it'll blow over like all the previous ones."

But there are a LOT of people who really are being harmed by this. People who are literally filling out job applications and filing for unemployment RIGHT NOW.

Eventually the government will start up again, but we will have WASTED millions of dollars.

And for what? So Republicans can fight some more against a law that already passed.

Obamacare is not going away. It passed. It's the law. They tried to kill it. They failed. It's over. Let it go. Now they want to try to just not fund it - that's just a slimy way of trying to win after already losing. But they can't do it directly - as the gov't shuts down, the ACA marches on anyway.

So they are literally committing extortion right now, harming real people, wasting real money, to try to get concessions on stuff that's already over and done with.

I didn't support Obamacare. I have no dog in this fight at all, actually.

But the Republicans are behaving reprehensibly, and it boggles my mind that anyone is defending them.

This "my party, right or wrong" mentality is what's killing America. And it may be inconvenient, but it's still a fact: Obamacare started as a Republican plan.

It's amazing that Republican politicians and their supporters can claim to stand on principle when even a cursory examination shows they don't have any, and just want to win.

I think I can stand an out-and-out power grab a lot more than when someone claims to be doing it for a noble cause.

Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So here's the bottom line for me:

Both houses passed a continuing resolution last night. The House version had a provision to delay ACA while the Senate version did not. The Senate voted on the House version and it failed to pass. The House leadership refused to bring the Senate bill up for a vote because it would have passed.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only reason the senate didn't flip in 2010 was because it was numerically impossible, same with 2012.

Doesn't matter though. The Americans had a chance to say they liked obamacare in 2012 but instead chose a house based on the house promising to stop obamacare.

The only thing keeping many gop in office is this fight. If they cave in they know they will lose their next primary.

The line must be drawn here, no further. If it means a partial shut down for years or even decades then so be it. This is about liberty. Also don't buy the scare tactics about the debt ceiling. The government will be able to make monthly payments on the debt for years to come even without raising the debt limit. That's a nice side benefit of the partial shut down that the MSM is not reporting.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red wrote
quote:
Dismiss any argument that states the taxation level is too low .
Wow. Just wow. I don't think I have ever read a post that sets out so clearly the poster's willingness to consider new ideas.

As far as negotiating on the CR - the Republicans wanted spending below the sequester. The Democrats in the Senate agreed to that sub-sequestration spending limit in the CR.

Yes, the Republicans won on the fiscal aspects of the CR. Had Boehner put that clean CR, approved by the Senate, to the floor for a vote, it would have passed. But he was too cowardly to do that, because the Tea Party would take him down. His job, or his country.....

Cowardly.

And after weeks (months?) of the Senate requesting a conference, and the House refusing, Boehner asks for a conference just before midnight last night. Too little, too late.

This is the leader of the Republican House.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Hatch-Chafee health care plan from 1993, based on a Heritage Foundation proposal) had many elements in common with the ACA. One difference is that the 1993 GOP plan included an individual mandate. The plan's sponsors argued back then that their plan provided "the secret to a well-functioning national health-care system."

The argument the GOP uses today is that they only came up with it as a counter-proposal to the Clinton plan is irrelevant. Yes, but a lot of Republicans liked it back then, and it even became the foundation for Republican Romney's health care law in Massachusetts.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

Please acknowledge this fact: more people voted for Democratic candidates in the 2012 Congressional elections than voted for Republicans. It is a numerical fact. Please acknowledge it.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is "a lot" pray tell?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The only thing keeping many gop on office is this fight. If you they cave in they know they will lose their next primary."

In other words, they want to keep their jobs so bad that they will refuse to admit they made a mistake, no matter the harm it caused. I wouldn't expect you to want leaders in the government to have that kind of corrupt mindset.

"If it means a partial shut down for years or even decades then so be it. This is about liberty."

No, it's not. I find it stunning that you would be willing to risk destroying the entire economy just to win this battle. I would bet that less than 2% of the population would support your "liberty" agenda if you put it up for a vote.

"What is "a lot" pray tell?"

You're ducking again. Did the Republicans propose that legislation or did they not?

[ October 01, 2013, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Seneca,

Please acknowledge this fact: more people voted for Democratic candidates in the 2012 Congressional elections than voted for Republicans. It is a numerical fact. Please acknowledge it.

Good thing we don't live in a majoritarian mob state. Or are all the arguments that racism was accepted by most back in the day suddenly going to become valid?

We live in a Constitutional Republic.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought the House was supposed to represent the Will of the People. How does that reconcile with the fact that a party has a majority of the seats with a minority of the vote?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How many is a "lot?" Enough for passage? If not the point is moot.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I thought the House was supposed to represent the Will of the People. How does that reconcile with the fact that a party has a majority of the seats with a minority of the vote?

Constitutional Republic. And yes, they do represent the will of the people.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, I'm fine with that fact that there isn't necessarily proportional representation. That's bound to happen sometimes even without heavy gerrymandering. But I just wish the Republicans wouldn't then go on about the will of the people because that's a decidedly more complicated calculus than which party has a majority of seats.

Besides, if we go with the strict will of the people, polling does show a majority opposed to Obamacare, but it also shows a majority opposed to a shutdown over Obamacare.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You don't think that calls into question the legitimacy of the House?

I know Canadians would get pretty upset if a party had a majority in Parliament with an actual minority of the votes. Our systems both allow for the theoretical possibility but I don't think it should be an expected or acceptable result.

I certainly don't think it would provide the legislature with the moral authority to be as obstructionist as the House is being.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The founders thought that between the two houses that the House of Representatives more clearly demonstrate the will of the people since they would be elected every two years versus every 4 or every 6 years.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
You don't think that calls into question the legitimacy of the House?

I know Canadians would get pretty upset if a party had a majority in Parliament with an actual minority of the votes. Our systems both allow for the theoretical possibility but I don't think it should be an expected or acceptable result.

I certainly don't think it would provide the legislature with the moral authority to be as obstructionist as the House is being.

Since Canadians don't seem to get upset when the Queen unilaterally dissolves their parliament or when the Parliament uses a section 33 override to violate their rights I don't see how the comparison is useful.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sweet mother of cod.

The Queen can't do that. The Gov General theoretically could (I think, I don't know if the constitution requires Prime Ministerial advice on the matter), but won't. It's been established that the Prime Minister can "unilaterally" dissolve or prorogue Parliament, but our system has a much stronger head of government than yours. And considering that your federal government seems to be doing as much governing as the Queen these days, I can't say I'm displeased with our system (even if it's being run by Harper).

And the Parliament has never used section 33. Nor have most of the Provinces and only Quebec has ever really gotten away with it. The rest were overtaken by events.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The governor general is the Queen's representative and I am fairly sure that they have actually dissolved Parliament several times in history, I'll research that more later. I know they usually only do that at the request of the Prime Minister but I am pretty sure I remember a few times when the Queen just did it anyway probably near wartime or something similar.

As to the section 33 override it has been used several more times than just the Quebec issue.

http://mapleleafweb.com/features/notwithstanding-clause-section-33-charter

[ October 01, 2013, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just successfully piloted my car across town without the guiding hands of federal government. I admit, it was every bit as frightening as my liberal friends envisioned. At one red light, I saw dozens of people in obvious shocked amazement they'd survived to that point. Some were laughing with giddy excitement.

On the other hand, the panda cam at the national zoo is down. Tragedy abounds.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Velcro look at the rate of tax increases in both rates actually paid and revenue increases that have resulted.

The federal government reports high rates and higher taxes.

The states report the same.

So the argument has been repeated by the left that our rates are too low and our resulting revenues are too low. The argument has been we need to raise rates so we can stave off the revenue declines.

Reality is we did raise rates. Reality is we lowered the taxation threshold where people are obligated to pay a tax. We have seen an marked increase in revenue collected.

So if the Democrat argument remains that tax rates are too low and revenues are too low, when the reality is we raised the rates, made those rates apply to more people, and are generating record revenue, when is it appropriate to point out that their solution is not working?

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
The Hatch-Chafee health care plan from 1993, based on a Heritage Foundation proposal) had many elements in common with the ACA. One difference is that the 1993 GOP plan included an individual mandate. The plan's sponsors argued back then that their plan provided "the secret to a well-functioning national health-care system."

The argument the GOP uses today is that they only came up with it as a counter-proposal to the Clinton plan is irrelevant. Yes, but a lot of Republicans liked it back then, and it even became the foundation for Republican Romney's health care law in Massachusetts.

Again, nonsense. This was never an adopted plank of the party or a widely accepted plan, it was one of many alternatives that were all jettisoned as soon as became clear that Hilary was going to fail to get her plan implemented. It's revisionist history to try and claim more. And frankly, bringing it up in this manner, notwithstanding that NOT ONE SINGLE poster on the conservative side has endorsed it or argued it, is nothing more than a ridiculous attempt at a straw man.

Last time I looked wasn't "Romneycare" passed by, written by and modified by (over Romney's objections) by an veto proof Democratic majority of the Massuchusetts legislature?

Really, make your own arguments and let the other side make theres. Even at the best its nonsense to argue that a 25 year old position that has only very rudemntary elements in common with a modern policy is limiting to debate.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The governor general is the Queen's representative and I am fairly sure that they have actually dissolved Parliament several times in history, I'll research that more later. I know they usually only do that at the request of the Prime Minister but I am pretty sure I remember a few times when the Queen just did it anyway probably near wartime or something similar.

As to the section 33 override it has been used several more times than just the Quebec issue.

http://mapleleafweb.com/features/notwithstanding-clause-section-33-charter

Right, Alberta, the Yukon, Quebec, and Saskatchewan have all tried to use it.

The Yukon statute was never brought into force; Saskatchewan tried to head off a court decision they won anyways; Alberta didn't have jurisdiction on the definition marriage so the Notwithstanding clause was never invoked. Then there's Quebec, which is Quebec.

The Governor General has refused to dissolve Parliament (notably the King-Byng Affair) but has only ever dismissed Parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister.

ETA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power#Canada

[ October 01, 2013, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
So here's the bottom line for me:

Both houses passed a continuing resolution last night. The House version had a provision to delay ACA while the Senate version did not. The Senate voted on the House version and it failed to pass. The House leadership refused to bring the Senate bill up for a vote because it would have passed.

Can we all just look at this again, and think about what an accurate description of the situation it is?
Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red,

we have lowered capital gains taxes, especially the top rate; we have lowered taxes on the top income rate; we allow major corporatiosn to largely escape taxation.

If you lower taxes on the billionaires, and raise taxes on those with low income - the net effect will be less revenue.

If we returned the tax codes to what they were at any point in US history for the past 100 years or so prior to GW Bush, there would be far higher tax revenue and lower taxes on the middle class.

You can only reach your conclusion by ignoring the extremely favorable treatment given to capital gains in recent history; the extremely favorable treatment given to large inheritances in recent history; the massive tax cuts given to high net worth individuals in recent history; the ridiculous loop holes that allow major corporations to escape taxation etc. Ie by ignoring the vast majority of the sources of historical tax revenue.

We have the lowest taxes on the wealthy in history, probably the equivalent tax rate on wealth about 1/4 or less than historical rates.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"How many is a "lot?" Enough for passage? If not the point is moot."

Make up your mind. In other words, you agree that it was a GOP proposal, but it didn't have enough votes to pass. I keep getting confused when you switch back and forth between the will of the people and the GOP controlling the house. Are you for majority rule in a democracy or just for counting votes when you agree with the outcome? Clearly both Democrats *and* Republicans put forward proposals for universal health care, but neither had enough support to pass.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3: "I just successfully piloted my car across town without the guiding hands of federal government."

It's interesting to see that this is just a joke for you and how little you care about what harm can come from it.

Seriati: "Again, nonsense. This was never an adopted plank of the party or a widely accepted plan, it was one of many alternatives that were all jettisoned as soon as became clear that Hilary was going to fail to get her plan implemented. It's revisionist history to try and claim more. And frankly, bringing it up in this manner, notwithstanding that NOT ONE SINGLE poster on the conservative side has endorsed it or argued it, is nothing more than a ridiculous attempt at a straw man.

Last time I looked wasn't "Romneycare" passed by, written by and modified by (over Romney's objections) by an veto proof Democratic majority of the Massuchusetts legislature?

Really, make your own arguments and let the other side make theres. Even at the best its nonsense to argue that a 25 year old position that has only very rudemntary elements in common with a modern policy is limiting to debate."

You're parsing very carefully. So what if health care wasn't in the 1992 GOP platform? As I recall, McCain ran away from the 2008 GOP platform, and Bush only gave both of his passing references.

A Republican governor proposes a piece of sweeping health care legislation that Democrats embrace. So?

There are a number of elements in common between the 1993 Republican proposal and Romney's and Obama's. It's too dismissive to claim that time has made the earlier proposal incomparable.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
You're parsing very carefully. So what if health care wasn't in the 1992 GOP platform? As I recall, McCain ran away from the 2008 GOP platform, and Bush only gave both of his passing references.

If you want to claim something is essentially a Republican plan, you need something more wide spread that just a reference to some Republicans at some time in history made a comment that sounds like it.

The obsession on this from left serves no legitimate purpose in debate, its pseudo-propaganda (just enough of a kernal of half truth to not be easily dismissable) designed to kill legitimate debate.

Fact is Obamancare is plan from left and by the left that the right objected to, opposed and was overruled on. Citing to a non-majority position from 25 years ago doesn't change that.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A quick rundown of the latest polling:
quote:
American voters oppose 72-22 percent Congress shutting down the federal government to block implementation of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare … Voters also oppose 64-27 percent blocking an increase in the nation’s debt ceiling as a way to stop Obamacare … American voters are divided on Obamacare, with 45 percent in favor and 47 percent opposed, but they are opposed 58-34 percent to Congress cutting off funding for the health care law to stop its implementation. Republicans support the federal government shutdown by a narrow 49-44 percent margin, but opposition is 90-6 percent among Democrats and 74-19 percent among independent voters. President Barack Obama gets a negative 45-49 percent overall job approval rating, [statistically unchanged from] 46-48 percent score August 2. American voters disapprove 74-17 percent of the job Republicans in Congress are doing, their lowest score ever, and disapprove 60-32 percent of the job Democrats are doing.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1958
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm glad to see that the GOP is at least paying a price in the polls, but I'm rather dismayed that there is more opposition to the shutdown than to locking down the debt ceiling. The shutdown is harmful but survivable; a voluntary default on U.S. government debt would be a global catastrophe.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm glad to see that the GOP is at least paying a price in the polls, but I'm rather dismayed that there is more opposition to the shutdown than to locking down the debt ceiling. The shutdown is harmful but survivable; a voluntary default on U.S. government debt would be a global catastrophe.
The shutdown is what's happening now. The debt ceiling is tomorrow's problem. In both cases I fear the best we can do is weather whatever harm occurs and that the blame for causing that harm continues to accumulate to the Republican party making it that much less likely that they'll be in a position to cause it again in the future.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR

Our capital gains tax level is the third highest in the world. Our revenues from them are record.

Our income tax rates are 16 th as of 2011 among OECD countries. Meaning we are one of the highest taxed in the world.

We are taxed massively. If you live in California and cross 400k in income you will pay 51% back to the fed and state.

Even Imperial Rome taxed only 5%. So with our tax level of 40%+ we are now low balling what empires levee on individuals?

I'm sorry but stating that tax rate maximum has been higher offers no coverage from the fact that the rates applied to almost no one fifty years ago. Has the rate been higher? Sure. Was it as broadly applied? Not at all.

So what you have said is true in a very limited scope of argument. The Rockefellers were indeed taxed at a higher rate fifty years ago. They are also now taxed at a lower rate today but pay more in taxes as a result of the fact that there are almost no direct individual deductions anymore.

So yeah we don't have deductions and sky high rates. We do have some of the highest taxes in the world.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I doubt those polls are correct but hey I guess we'll find out Nov 4th right? If the house is going against the public will then surely they'll be voted out...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is there a problem with their methodology, or does it just not "feel" right?

quote:
If the house is going against the public will then surely they'll be voted out...
Depends on the district. This is a national poll which leaves plenty of room for individual districts in which a plurality of active voters support the status quo. It's more likely to be reflected noticeably in senatorial and presidential elections.

[ October 01, 2013, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  9  10  11   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1