Primary Obama Immediately

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, but the problem isn't quite as bad and at least with more specific polls you can find out if the people support or oppose some policy in particular or the administration in general, which is an important thing to consider. When the administration in particular suffers a loss during an election, the opposing party takes this as "proof" that the people oppose some policy in particular. This is an inapporpriate inference.


You don't pay attention to the news, do you? The GOP had a standing filibuster on everything. They were even blocking basically Republican proposals.


Yet another example of the McCain flip flop. He was opposed to those tax cuts and called them irresponsible before.


Well fine. I also support spending cuts and a better policy on balanced budgets. I wouldn't go so far as to demand a constitutional amendment on the topic (and I think very few mainstream economists would either) but if we're going to raise taxes to help pay off the debt, it is reasonable to ask for some sort of guarantee that they'll be responsible this time.

I've never had the impression that Jacoby was unintelligent, immoral, or insincere. I disagree with him on plenty of issues, and I think he's probably misinformed on several issues, but that does not make him stupid or a bad person.

You are incorrect, up until Scott Brown took office the Democrats could pass anything they wanted to because they had 60 votes in the Senate. The fact they had problems getting their own party to agree with Obamacare should tell you something. Further, all the Dems needed to do afterward was get 1 Republican to vote with them to pass whatever they wanted passed. The fact they had problems indicates how bad their legislation was.

Additionally, Obamacare is arguably unconstitutional, if it isn't ruled unconstitutional it would give the Government unlimited power.



Yes, let's raise taxes in the middle of a recession and turn it into another Great Depression. McCain can adjust his stance based on the situation, not mindlessly stay on a particular stance to the detriment of the American people.



Well, I for one won't trust them on the issue until they earn that trust.

Why do polls find such different results on the same issues from poll to poll? I've seen polls that said support for the public option was something like 65% but then saw another poll that had support at 35%. It really has to do with how the question is phrased to them and who they are sampling. Being too specific could make it a leading question. I think we should just agree to disagree on this. I just don't find issue polling to really be all the reliable and the only poll that really matters is the one that they take on election day.

Before Scott Brown took office last February the democrats had a 60 vote filibuster proof majority and could pass anything they wanted unless 1 of the democrats broke ranks. Not to mention there are other options which the democrats did indeed explore. The "nuclear option" could of been used in the senate to extend the tax cuts for everyone making under 250k if it really was that important but the political capital for that dried up. The democrats didn't want to go into these fall elections with a tax hike(even if only for the "richest" Americans) being held over their head by their republican opponents.

Yes, McCain is a funny man with his flip flopping. Even more funnier is that he tries to come off as some sort of budget hawk when he's the complete opposite. I actually agree that he probably would of gotten more of Obama's agenda done than Obama did however we'd also probably be in two or more wars. What a terrible president he would of been.

Why wouldn't you support a constitutional balanced budget amendment? It's not completely rigid, it would obviously have exceptions for formal declarations of war and when 3/5ths of both houses deem it necessary.(At least that's what has been proposed previously.) There has to be a way to force these politicians to make these cuts because they will be painful and will likely end careers but there is no other way.

Yes it tells me that Democratic Senators huge campaign contributions from private healthcare companies are at least equal to their republican counterparts.

It's just that the majority of americans were in favour of socialised medicine. Even the majority of registered Republicans were. This was before the huge misinformation campaign set in stone by Fox News and others as it threatened the business interests (i.e the bottom line) of the healthcare companies. Now you have most americans beleiving the patent falsehood that government run healthcare is somehow a threat to the citizenry. An untruth that anyone who lives in another industrialised nation can avow.

Since you locate yourself in Lincoln, I will hardly accuse you of ignorance.

So I will ask, seeking to learn:

When last I lived in London, the attitude of doctors to NON-private patients, which was close to the level of concern in University Student Health Care. Has that changed since the 1980s?

The farmer husband of an acquaintance - this is Scotland. Broke his leg, it was set wrong. Years later, they decided it needed to be REbroken and REset. About 5 years later, they had a hospital slot to do the procedure. He lived about four years after that. Is that sort of thing rare these days?

MasterPedant, if you are out there, please an analysis of the current Canadian system - of which I know only what the system in BC has done to our Parkinsons friend [another NDP guy].

Other polls "matter" in that they inform politicians on how to act, provide ammunition for defending or opposing a given policy, and can be somewhat more informative than the sort of decision one is asked to make on election day.


If it's not completely rigid (and the exceptions aren't only for military spending; ideally I would like to see strict limits on military spending except in the case of an actual crisis) then my support or opposition would depend on the specific details of the proposal. I would not be likely to support it, though, because a ban on deficit spending would preclude Keynesian economic policy, and, well, the majority of people better-informed than me on economics think that Keynesianism is the way to go, so I would be hesitant to ignore their advice.

You noticed that both Democrat whores and Republican whores make the same moaning sound.

ruveyn

A pol is a pol and that is a reference to parrots.

A balanced budget amendment would destroy the economy. That's right, it would destroy the economy. A country with a trade deficit must have a budget deficit otherwise the private sector will be loaded with debt and when it can't take any more, the economy will collapse. The Clinton surpluses were not healthy and recession hit soon after.

It I was Usama bin Laden I'd support the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Let's get one thing straight, I trust government even less than I trust an insurance company when it comes to my health care. Further, socialized medicine is arguably a government powergrab and furthermore is arguably unconstitutional. The Democrats used words they knew would mislead the public and Fox News nailed them on it, admit it.

When people are told the government runs something they make it sound as if the police run it, the spies run it... if it's a company in the public sector then it has nothing to do with the police or the eavesdropping spies and spooks. This is why "public option" was correct.

The only things that ought to be in the "public sector" are the police, the army and law courts. Everything else should be private.

Why? Because the three I mentioned require a monopoly of force or authority. Nothing else does.

ruveyn

Thank you for having the sense to exclude the educational system.

Not to mention roads. And public utilities. And FDA regulations to ensure our food and medicines are safe to consume. And FAA regulations to keep our jet aircraft safe. And public health efforts. And the aqueduct.