Politics Shmolitics

[Garyhoov]

And here's something to think about: In an economy in which the real problem is that a lot of people don't have jobs, isn't a payroll tax-cut a "Tax Cut for the wealthy"?

[BeeJay]

As much as I think ending the payroll tax holiday would be a sound fiscal move, it's political kryptonite for the Republicans. They've spent the whole debt ceiling/supercommittee fight resisting another penny in taxes for the wealthy. If they turn around and allow taxes to go up on the working class after all that, they're just handing Obama a set of boxing gloves and throwing their chin out. You can see it now...Obama gives a speech in front of a bunch of firefighters or teachers in Ohio and says "Republicans spent all year arguing that Donald Trump and Warren Buffett can't afford any more taxes. But apparently they think you can!"

This is (I think) the unfortunate outcome of making the case that tax increases always kill jobs and damage the economy: When it comes time to raise taxes in a way that will probably help the country, you've prevented yourself from being able to make the case for it.

[Garyhoov]

As much as I think ending the payroll tax holiday would be a sound fiscal move, it's political kryptonite for the Republicans. They've spent the whole debt ceiling/supercommittee fight resisting another penny in taxes for the wealthy. If they turn around and allow taxes to go up on the working class after all that, they're just handing Obama a set of boxing gloves and throwing their chin out. You can see it now...Obama gives a speech in front of a bunch of firefighters or teachers in Ohio and says "Republicans spent all year arguing that Donald Trump and Warren Buffett can't afford any more taxes. But apparently they think you can!"

This is (I think) the unfortunate outcome of making the case that tax increases always kill jobs and damage the economy: When it comes time to raise taxes in a way that will probably help the country, you've prevented yourself from being able to make the case for it.

You're absolutely right and I wish the Republicans would get real with their tax plan. Didn't a very wise man once say: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."?

. . . but the same thing that makes this bass ackwards from a Republican point of view could also be turned on the Democrats.

Who benefits most from this pay-roll tax suspension? People who make a good wage. Who are hurt by it? Those who depend on Social Security.

Simpson Bowles, damn it!

[BeeJay]

Simpson Bowles, damn it!

One interesting thing that a few writers brought up after the supercommittee flameout is how close our national policy has drifted toward a Simpson-Bowles type plan just by default. Think about it: The consequence of no supercommittee plan is a trillion dollars in automatic cuts from defense and entitlement spending. In addition, the Bush tax cuts are all set to expire at the end of 2012. All of these were the types of things panels like Simpson-Bowles and the Gang of Six have concluded we need to do to tackle the deficit.

That means that if the government does literally nothing for the next year, our long-term fiscal situation in this country will probably improve quite a bit. Does Obama have the guts to veto any attempt to water down the spending cuts? Does he have the spine to call Republicans' bluff if they won't approve extending the tax cuts for just the middle class, allowing taxes to go up on everybody? If he can be a real leader in this next year, he has a chance to seriously tackle the deficit just by the way things have come together here.

[Garyhoov]

One interesting thing that a few writers brought up after the supercommittee flameout is how close our national policy has drifted toward a Simpson-Bowles type plan just by default. Think about it: The consequence of no supercommittee plan is a trillion dollars in automatic cuts from defense and entitlement spending. In addition, the Bush tax cuts are all set to expire at the end of 2012. All of these were the types of things panels like Simpson-Bowles and the Gang of Six have concluded we need to do to tackle the deficit.

That means that if the government does literally nothing for the next year, our long-term fiscal situation in this country will probably improve quite a bit. Does Obama have the guts to veto any attempt to water down the spending cuts? Does he have the spine to call Republicans' bluff if they won't approve extending the tax cuts for just the middle class, allowing taxes to go up on everybody? If he can be a real leader in this next year, he has a chance to seriously tackle the deficit just by the way things have come together here.

Part of me was hoping they'd fail because I had a feeling the super-committee would have come up with a convolted plan. I'm still not convinced congress won't screw with it and I don't trust Obama to really veto it if the do (I expect them to structure it in a way that it will be difficult for him to veto.

And your point about the default tax increase is a big deal that nobody's talking about and the key reason the Republicans need to be more rational.

Unless the Republicans craft a reasonable tax increase, taxes will go up by default, and they'll be in the position of trying to find 60 votes to prevent it.

If the Republicans really don't want taxes to go up . . . well, they're going about it in an idiotic way and the long term result is VERY likely to be a bigger tax increase than they might have had with a reasonable plan.

[Doug11]

Sadly, I don't trust that the Republicans don't secretly want the taxes to go up because when they held Congress they showed they like to spend money just as much as the Democrats, if not more. :no

Thought someone would be commenting on Herman Cain suspending his presidential bid. As funny as he was, I feel bad for people who thought he would pan out as a serious candidate. Admittedly, I am a cynic.

[Garyhoov]

Sadly, I don't trust that the Republicans don't secretly want the taxes to go up because when they held Congress they showed they like to spend money just as much as the Democrats, if not more. :no


You've probably got a point and, unfurtunately, I think it's become all about who you can point your finger at rather than what's best for the country. The Republicans pay lip service to lower taxes and, if they truly believe that's what we need, they should be doing things now to prevent the default raise. But they're likely less interesting in keeping taxes low than they are interested in saying: "Obama raised your taxes!"



Thought someone would be commenting on Herman Cain suspending his presidential bid. As funny as he was, I feel bad for people who thought he would pan out as a serious candidate. Admittedly, I am a cynic.

I think the Cain story says more about the media than it does Cain.

We all knew Cain wasn't a serious candidate when he couldn't articulate any policy philosophy beyond "9/9/9"

But the media turned him into a contender. When the first allegations broke, he actually gained ground because he was suddenly getting real face time and that helps in a field of faceless candidates. But that wasn't enough to make him into a real candidate and he still had no real ideas.

When the latest allegations broke, he was already dead, but the media treated it like it was a real story. I posted this on my twitter account on the day the affair story broke: "Nato kills 24 Pakistanis. Quickly falling, irrelevant candidate accused of affair. Which story will CNN spend all day talking about?"

So the end of the story is the same as it would have been without the media involvement - Cain will not be president. But they spent a whole lot of time talking about nothing . . . because that's what they seem to like to do.

[Computer Magic]

The Nato kills 24 Pakistanis is a real story. Information coming out is Pakistanis fired first on Nato and US troops. I see huge issues between Pakistanis and US.

[Garyhoov]

The Nato kills 24 Pakistanis is a real story. Information coming out is Pakistanis fired first on Nato and US troops. I see huge issues between Pakistanis and US.

. . . and we just had a drone shot down over the Iranian border.

. . . and Russia is more distrustful of us than they've been since the cold war.

It seems like if we could have expected one thing from the Obama administration it would be that world tensions would be reduced with a Nobel Peace Prize winner in office going around bowing and apologizing to the leaders of other countries, but even that doesn't seem to be playing out. :shrug

[Doug11]

I mentioned one time before that I like Kathleen Parker, the journalist and former personality on one of the networks I don't watch - CNN? Anyway this column is a good expression of what I like about her: Pointing out the obvious that many conservatives don't like to acknowledge (Gingrich is a grinch), suggesting a potential alternative rather than just pointing out what is wrong, and then finishing with a zinger (her last paragraph):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gingrichs-poor-excuse-for-a-big-idea/2011/12/06/gIQAXDvpaO_story.html?tid=sm_btn_twitter

[Garyhoov]

I mentioned one time before that I like Kathleen Parker, the journalist and former personality on one of the networks I don't watch - CNN? Anyway this column is a good expression of what I like about her: Pointing out the obvious that many conservatives don't like to acknowledge (Gingrich is a grinch), suggesting a potential alternative rather than just pointing out what is wrong, and then finishing with a zinger (her last paragraph):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gingrichs-poor-excuse-for-a-big-idea/2011/12/06/gIQAXDvpaO_story.html?tid=sm_btn_twitter

It's getting to the point of almost being silly now. I'd be surprised if Gingrich can win the nomination but even more surprised if he could win the general election.

It's getting to the point that it just seems the Republicans wil throw their support behind just about anyone. I like Huntsman and I hope he'll get a chance, but the scary thing is that besides Huntsman, the only other one who's waiting in the wings is Santorum. I've never liked, Santorum, but in the eternal quest for anyone besides Romney, I'm afraid conservatives could latch onto the fact that he has consistently supported the superficial issues that conservatives get conservatives worked up. Problem is, he's not very bright, but in this climate, that might be overlooked as a minor flaw.

[BeeJay]

Less than two weeks from the Iowa caucuses, any thoughts on the GOP primaries? Barring some kind of Hollywood-style late entry from a player to be named later, one of these 7 people is going to be the party's nominee:

Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Rick Perry
Ron Paul
Jon Huntsman
Michele Bachmann
Rick Santorum

Honestly, I don't think Huntsman, Bachmann or Santorum have any real chance, but they are all running hard in either Iowa (Bachmann, Santorum) or New Hampshire (Huntsman), so there's still an outside chance any of them could finish strong enough in one of those primaries to get a boost in exposure and fundraising and continue on. And if that happens, anything is still possible. My guess: All 3 of them will be out after Iowa and New Hampshire vote.

Perry appears to be nowhere in the polls, but he should have enough money to stay in for a little while if he wants, and it's just hard for me to believe that Republican voters are going to chase him off this quickly. I predict Perry will hang in past the early states and try to make a run at Super Tuesday in March before packing it up and heading back to Texas.

Ron Paul is a very interesting case. His supporters are white-hot in their fervor, but his message of isolation in foreign affairs and libertarianism on social issues is vinegar to a lot of Republican voters. He looks poised to win the Iowa caucuses simply because the caucus format rewards candidates with strong organization and devoted supporters, which he has. He's also set up campaign operations in later voting states, which very few of the others have. My prediction: Paul will win Iowa (or take a close second), get a big boost in the media, then fall victim to a counter-campaign as the party rallies around a more traditional candidate to stop him. He could end up mounting a third-party campaign for the general election.

Newt Gingrich has made a strong surge in the polls lately and looks to be a real contender for the nod, but I just can't convince myself he can really win. While the more...animated...members of the party love the way he bashes Obama and GOP elites, he has way too much baggage for more strategically-minded Republicans to trust him with the nomination. Right? That's what I'm going with. Gingrich will stick around for a while, but in the end, my gut tells me Republicans will go with their heads over their hearts. But that is still an open question. It may be THE QUESTION of this primary season, in fact.

That leaves Romney. He's been perpetually stuck at around 25-30% in the polls despite essentially having been running for president since 2006. He signed a healthcare law that contained an individual mandate just like the one Obama signed that has incensed conservatives. He has changed positions on practically every issue that gets discussed in these campaigns, from the environment to abortion to gay rights. Beyond that, even Republicans seem to agree that he just doesn't seem "real". A lot of people think of him as what an actor portraying a guy running for president would look like. So can he really be the GOP nominee?

My gut says yes...if simply by default. Every other candidate is so deeply flawed, and Romney has invested so much effort and money into this campaign, that I think GOP voters will...perhaps reluctantly, but all the same...send him into battle in the fall to take on Barack Obama.

And while we're on predictions, I'm also going to say that Obama emerges in a close-fought election to be re-elected next November. But there's a long way to go until then.

Thoughts?

[Garyhoov]

Less than two weeks from the Iowa caucuses, any thoughts on the GOP primaries? Barring some kind of Hollywood-style late entry from a player to be named later, one of these 7 people is going to be the party's nominee:

Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Rick Perry
Ron Paul
Jon Huntsman
Michele Bachmann
Rick Santorum

Honestly, I don't think Huntsman, Bachmann or Santorum have any real chance, but they are all running hard in either Iowa (Bachmann, Santorum) or New Hampshire (Huntsman), so there's still an outside chance any of them could finish strong enough in one of those primaries to get a boost in exposure and fundraising and continue on. And if that happens, anything is still possible. My guess: All 3 of them will be out after Iowa and New Hampshire vote.

Perry appears to be nowhere in the polls, but he should have enough money to stay in for a little while if he wants, and it's just hard for me to believe that Republican voters are going to chase him off this quickly. I predict Perry will hang in past the early states and try to make a run at Super Tuesday in March before packing it up and heading back to Texas.

Ron Paul is a very interesting case. His supporters are white-hot in their fervor, but his message of isolation in foreign affairs and libertarianism on social issues is vinegar to a lot of Republican voters. He looks poised to win the Iowa caucuses simply because the caucus format rewards candidates with strong organization and devoted supporters, which he has. He's also set up campaign operations in later voting states, which very few of the others have. My prediction: Paul will win Iowa (or take a close second), get a big boost in the media, then fall victim to a counter-campaign as the party rallies around a more traditional candidate to stop him. He could end up mounting a third-party campaign for the general election.

Newt Gingrich has made a strong surge in the polls lately and looks to be a real contender for the nod, but I just can't convince myself he can really win. While the more...animated...members of the party love the way he bashes Obama and GOP elites, he has way too much baggage for more strategically-minded Republicans to trust him with the nomination. Right? That's what I'm going with. Gingrich will stick around for a while, but in the end, my gut tells me Republicans will go with their heads over their hearts. But that is still an open question. It may be THE QUESTION of this primary season, in fact.

That leaves Romney. He's been perpetually stuck at around 25-30% in the polls despite essentially having been running for president since 2006. He signed a healthcare law that contained an individual mandate just like the one Obama signed that has incensed conservatives. He has changed positions on practically every issue that gets discussed in these campaigns, from the environment to abortion to gay rights. Beyond that, even Republicans seem to agree that he just doesn't seem "real". A lot of people think of him as what an actor portraying a guy running for president would look like. So can he really be the GOP nominee?

My gut says yes...if simply by default. Every other candidate is so deeply flawed, and Romney has invested so much effort and money into this campaign, that I think GOP voters will...perhaps reluctantly, but all the same...send him into battle in the fall to take on Barack Obama.

And while we're on predictions, I'm also going to say that Obama emerges in a close-fought election to be re-elected next November. But there's a long way to go until then.

Thoughts?

I agree with everything you say and I think it will be Romney vs. Obama but I'll make the slight exception that I think Obama may win more comfortably than you predict.

Forget all the BS that the candidates and media have spent so much time talking about, come Nov. 2012, the economy will be showing clear signs of strengthening through normal cycles. Republicans won't turn out for Romney and that will be it.

If Vegas gave me 50/50 odds, I'd put $1000 on Obama winning.

In terms of what interesting things might happen, I think there is an outside chance that this could be Paul's year - for the Republican nomination but not the presidency. I think people are so frustrated with the weakness of the rest of the field they could just say: "Screw it, I'm voting for Paul"

I also think there's a slim, slim chance that *shudder* Santorum could make a move. At this point, everybody but Huntsman and Santorum have had their moment. I think Huntsman is seen as a freak by many within the party because he believes in science (not to mention his experience with China and general eclectic abilities . . . which smell of leftism to a lot of the nuts) and that could (very slim chance) leave Santorum as the 'True Conservative' everyone is looking for.

I'd put the odds at something like:

Romney: 40%
Gingrich: 30%
Paul: 10%
Santorum: 8%
Huntsman: 6%
Bachman: 3%
Perry: 3%

[Hooker]

I think Romney gets the nod. And in an election that Obama is clearly beatable, the GOP has nobody viable to run against him.

[Garyhoov]

So the Democrats just pushed for and got - a tax break for the rich
They also pushed for and got continued under-funding of social security
And they insisted that that getting those things were vitally important . . . but they also insisted that it only last a meaningless 2 months rather than a year. . .

And now they're pleased with themselve for passing this IDIOTIC, IDIOTIC legislation.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the situation is hopeless.:no

[Doug11]

The Republicans have nobody who can win because . . . just like the Democrats . . . the Republicans are hugely divided.

The biggest problem I see with the Republicans is that those who control the party with their big money are not making it a fun place to be. :shrug

[Garyhoov]

I'm sitting here fuming at how the media is selling this turd of a bill as some sort of good thing. Why not just discontinue taxes altogether and give us all more free money while we're at it?

NOBODY seems to give a shit about our $15 trillion dollar debt or a social security system that was already in real trouble before we decided to stop putting money into it.

And now they're playing a game over the length of the extension with both sides seemingly anxious to continue this extremely irresponsible path while trying to gain some sort of political ground from the ignorance of the masses.

With the way the concept of this is being pushed by the president and the media, how will it ever end? They'll almost certainly extend it through next year, and then who will have the balls to end it after that? Nodbody has the balls to put any limits on unemployment comp, will anybody grow a set by this time next year?

BJ, are you around? How do you feel about the fact that these cowards are using Social Security funds to buy me a motorcycle while, I assume, you're getting next to nothing?

I'm starting to feel like Warren Buffet - tax me more.

[Garyhoov]

The Republicans have nobody who can win because . . . just like the Democrats . . . the Republicans are hugely divided.

The biggest problem I see with the Republicans is that those who control the party with their big money are not making it a fun place to be. :shrug

I wonder how many people the Republicans could draw into the party if they started saying: "We believe in limited government not just in terms of spending but also in terms of 'social issues'. Many of us believe in traditional Christian values, but we don't believe it's the government's place to force those values on others."

[Doug11]

I
With the way the concept of this is being pushed by the president and the media, how will it ever end? They'll almost certainly extend it through next year, and then who will have the balls to end it after that? Nobody has the balls to put any limits on unemployment comp, will anybody grow a set by this time next year?

BJ, are you around? How do you feel about the fact that these cowards are using Social Security funds to buy me a motorcycle while, I assume, you're getting next to nothing?

I'm starting to feel like Warren Buffet - tax me more.
And you can contribute as much of your money as you want on your tax return, just like Warren Buffet. So don't be a sucker. Why give up more of your money just to feed a selfish child (the govt) who doesn't care whether the checkbook bounces?

I feel that the political party in charge of extending the benefits doesn't care about the economy as long as it can buy votes to stay in power. It is getting harder to determine which party we are talking about.

[Garyhoov]

And you can contribute as much of your money as you want on your tax return, just like Warren Buffet. So don't be a sucker. Why give up more of your money just to feed a selfish child (the govt) who doesn't care whether the checkbook bounces?


I don't have $15 trillion lying around.:lookaroun

And I certainly don't like the idea of giving more money to the government, but unless someone, somewhere stands up to this craziness - and starts demanding fiscal responsibility in the form of higher taxes combined with less spending - our kids are royally screwed.

[Doug11]

I agree - spend less and tax us a little more, but ONLY if we have responsible leaders who will pay down the debt and make our currency strong (again). I don't have the same faith that such leadership abounds as I once did.

The guy from here who got himself elected riding tea party votes to kick out the no good Democrat using such slogans as "a vote for me is a vote against Pelosi" is having problems of his own. Drunken staffers and improper use of staffers as babysitters. He is looking like a 1 term representative, but he was part of that Republican majority in the house. The guy is not much better than an idiot to this point. This is the guy in charge of getting our country turned around? :no

[Garyhoov]

I agree - spend less and tax us a little more, but ONLY if we have responsible leaders who will pay down the debt and make our currency strong (again). I don't have the same faith that such leadership abounds as I once did.

The guy from here who got himself elected riding tea party votes to kick out the no good Democrat using such slogans as "a vote for me is a vote against Pelosi" is having problems of his own. Drunken staffers and improper use of staffers as babysitters. He is looking like a 1 term representative, but he was part of that Republican majority in the house. The guy is not much better than an idiot to this point. This is the guy in charge of getting our country turned around? :no

So when are you going to run for public office? It seems like you've got some connections, the kids are out of the house. Why don't you go for it? ;)

[Garyhoov]

And one thing that absolutely baffles me about this crap legislation is CNN is falling all over themselves saying how great this is for Obama.

How's that? Obama's campaign theme has been: "Re-elect me because I would be doing great things if congress wasn't getting in my way." But now congress has given him exactly what he said he wanted - a bad bill that puts us deeper in debt and doesn't do a damn thing to fix the real problems that need to be fixed.

Now what will he campaign on?

[BeeJay]

BJ, are you around? How do you feel about the fact that these cowards are using Social Security funds to buy me a motorcycle while, I assume, you're getting next to nothing?

I'm starting to feel like Warren Buffet - tax me more.

Since I'm only working part time while I go to school these days, you're right that this doesn't mean jack to my personal finances.

I'm not too concerned about the impact on the Social Security fund for one year (now two, if they get the full extension through). My biggest issue with extending the tax holiday is, as you point out, the difficulty of undoing it after next year. If Obama is re-elected and decides it's time to end the holiday, the Republicans have no motivation to go along (assuming they hold the House).

And given that the entire point is to do exactly that, then the sob story "What $40 buys" campaign from the White House just seemed really phony and manipulative to me. If working families "need" this tax cut to buy gas this year, then what's going to be different a year from now? Casting something that's being sold as temporary as vital to people's lives is ridiculous.

And while Obama might have gotten an image boost from looking tough in standing up to the Republicans (who somehow pulled off the miracle of looking even more ridiculous by first saying the tax cut shouldn't have been extended at all, then saying the extension favored by the Senate wasn't long enough), any afterglow from this rather minor political episode is going to be long forgotten by voters 10 months from now.

[Garyhoov]

And given that the entire point is to do exactly that, then the sob story "What $40 buys" campaign from the White House just seemed really phony and manipulative to me.

Not to mention it raises the broader question: "What could your entire tax bill buy?":lookaroun


It looks like Gingrich may be imploding which leaves an interesting dynamic. Are we down to Romney, Paul, Santorum and Huntsman?

Is the next question: "Why not Ron Paul?":huh

I've been hearing a lot of right-wingers complaining about Paul's comments on Iran, but, realistically, what is anyone else going to do? If Obama is president, Iran will have nukes. If Romney is president, Iran will have nukes. Bachman, Perry, Santorum . . . the result is still the same.

There's a lot of talk about how crazy Paul is for suggesting we should let other countries establish their own policies, but how crazy it is it if any of the other candidates believe they're going to prevent Iran from having nukes?

I'm pretty sure they have them now, and I am not going to support any candidate who wants to go to war to prevent their further development.

[Doug11]

Why not Ron Paul?

Because he is too crazy, maybe?

[Garyhoov]

Why not Ron Paul?

Because he is too crazy, maybe?

I don't know. If he looks crazy in a political environment that is, itself, crazy, maybe it's because he's the sane one.

Is anything he has said crazier than . . . I don't know . . . how about pushing for spending increases and tax cuts when we've got a debt going on 16 trillion?

I think it's crazy . . . and scary . . . that the other candidates seem to think they can prevent Iran from getting nukes. What sound, responsible, sane plan have any of them articulated to do that?

To me, it's like two candidates talking about poverty:

Candidate A: Vote for me, and with my leadership, we will END POVERTY!!

Candidate B: Eh, there will always be poverty, deal with it.

In the political world, Candidate A is a strong candidate while Candidate B sounds crazy, but in the real world, Candidate B is just being real and rational.

I see Ron Paul like Candidate B - crazy on the political stage, but sane in the real world. How long do we want to insist that our candidates have to be irrational if they want the chance to win?

[Doug11]

When I read of Ron Paul's positions, I like them. Well, most of them. When I see him on TV speaking, he comes across as a loony nutjob, too old and out of touch. So, :shrug

[Garyhoov]

When I read of Ron Paul's positions, I like them. Well, most of them. When I see him on TV speaking, he comes across as a loony nutjob, too old and out of touch. So, :shrug

My biggest disagreement with him is his ranting about the Federal Reserve. I think we should be using a strong and competent fed to regulate money supply, control the value of the dollar and limit inflation and economic downturns as much as possible. But I think the Fed should be the ONLY entity performing those tasks. When congress steps in and attempts to perform 'stimulus' the whole thing becomes a mess. And I also think the Fed should be tougher and more independent. With the current system, the Fed bows to political pressures and seems to always err on the side of more money supply. Then, once your interest rate is zero, there's nowhere else to go. And politicians can't deal with that. They're always trying to pump more money into the system.

But getting off specific policy issues, I do think he's got a snowball's chance in hell of winning the general election for the simple reason that he doesn't look and sound presidential. You can take one look at Ron Paul and Joe Lieberman and immediately cross them off your list of serious presidential candidates.

I wish more voters supported candidates with real management experience and capability, but they don't. They vote on very superficial things. And when they're not fixated on the apearance and mannerisms of candidates, they're more concerned with "Can he or she relate to the troubles of the 'common man'?" I, frankly, don't give a shit if candidates can relate to the problems of the common man. I want to know that they can manage ENERMOUS assets and liabilities in a logical, rational way. And no president has been able to do that in my lifetime.

And I have no reason to believe Ron Paul could do that either. Give me Jack Welch over anybody who has been nominated in the past 40 years.

Voter's focus on things that have nothing to do with a candidate's ability to actually do the job has always seemed the craziest thing to me. I don't know if I would seriously vote for Ron Paul, but I have a certain romantic notion of a candidate who seems too crazy because I think the system is so crazy that the person who seems most out of place on the stage is likely the sanest one.

[Garyhoov]

http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/4062/662542.jpg

[Garyhoov]

I also think there's a slim, slim chance that *shudder* Santorum could make a move.

So of all my predictions, it seems like this may be one that's coming true. I think from now on, I should only predict things like: "Scarlett Johanson is going to give me one heck of a blow-job."


:lookaroun



:lookaroun

. . . yeah, moving on. Since Santorum is from Pennsylvania and since I get all the Philly radio stations, I've heard plenty from him over the years, and, in my opinion, he is a simple-minded tool. I wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances.

But when it comes to 'True Conservatives', he checks all the right boxes and I'm afraid many people will put those meaningless opinions above intelligence or ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I feel very confident that, 20 years from now, the following three things will be true:

1. Guns will be legal and relatively easy to obtain.
2. Abortions will be legal and relatively easy to obtain.
3. Same sex marriages will be legal and relatively easy to obtain.

I base those predictions on simple historical trends and common sense. And I don't think those three things will change no matter who is elected president in 2012.

Those issues have very little to do with the primary job of the president which should be much more focused on managing the resources of the country and defending the constitution (whether that individual believes in this detail or that detail of the Constitution or not).

My biggest fear if Santorum is nominated is that, once again, voters on both sides of the aisle will completely lose sight of the ball and fixate on that meaningless BS.

We have a serious debt and spending issue that nobody seems interested in really addressing, and, if Santorum is nominated, I think it will just make it that much easier to ignore the real problems facing our country.

[BeeJay]

I was always surprised Santorum was at the back of the pack before now. Like you say, he says all the right things and seems to be a reasonably competent public speaker. But I'm sticking with my prediction of a Romney nomination. Consider that Santorum got pounded in his last election in Pennsylvania...one of the prototypical "must have" swing states in a general election...and I think you get a preview of what a disaster he'd be as a nominee. And there are enough Republicans who realize that to stop him. I think.

One thing this Santorum surge (and Ron Paul's surge last week) has shown: Paying attention to presidential polls months before the primaries begin is pointless. Voters are just now tuning in, it appears. The entire last year of debate analysis and Bachmann/Perry/Cain boomlets looks so meaningless right now. We've always known this, but somehow it's easy to lose sight of. I feel silly for even giving this campaign the minimal attention I did before now. :lol

[Garyhoov]

One thing this Santorum surge (and Ron Paul's surge last week) has shown: Paying attention to presidential polls months before the primaries begin is pointless. Voters are just now tuning in, it appears. The entire last year of debate analysis and Bachmann/Perry/Cain boomlets looks so meaningless right now. We've always known this, but somehow it's easy to lose sight of. I feel silly for even giving this campaign the minimal attention I did before now. :lol

Oh come on. For entertainment value, could it get any better than this?:lol

But here's something to make you go 'hmmmm'. Think about this Republican field and how thin we knew they'd be.

. . . now think about the Democratic field for 2016.:huh

Hillary has indicated she won't run. Biden has done nothing but put his foot in his mouth since becoming veep.

The Democrats won't even have a Romney.

[BeeJay]

. . . now think about the Democratic field for 2016.:huh

Hillary has indicated she won't run. Biden has done nothing but put his foot in his mouth since becoming veep.

The Democrats won't even have a Romney.

Oh, come on. They'll just find an unknown state senator to introduce Obama at next year's convention, and that person will become president 4 years later. That's reasonable to depend on, right? :lookaroun

Early, early speculation is that Andrew Cuomo might try to use the gay marriage legislation in NY as a springboard to the nomination. You heard it here first. Or maybe you didn't. :lol

[Garyhoov]

Oh, come on. They'll just find an unknown state senator to introduce Obama at next year's convention, and that person will become president 4 years later. That's reasonable to depend on, right? :lookaroun

Early, early speculation is that Andrew Cuomo might try to use the gay marriage legislation in NY as a springboard to the nomination. You heard it here first. Or maybe you didn't. :lol

Would you believe that's the one name that popped into my mind?

But if he's as smart as his father, he'll spend his career basking in the glow of having people want him to run and never ruin it by stepping into the cold, harsh reality of actually running.

[Garyhoov]

What if Quomo and Chris Christie both didn't run in 2016? Wouldn't that be a great unrace?:lol

[Garyhoov]

And the BIG news tonight - Newt Gingrich got choked up for a few minutes as he was speaking.:rollseyes

Good lord, when CNN reports that as news, it's no wonder we keep getting idiots for candidates.

[Garyhoov]

I think these Iowa results bode very well for Romney.

Once Santorum has his moment in the sun, people wil realize what I've known from listening to him speak over the past few years - he's a simpleton.

He's the kind of kid who did okay in school because he took the easier classes, had a good relationship with the teachers and studied hard. But when the teacher started talking about concepts, rather than names and dates, he got lost. When someone told a joke, he laughed - because he knew he was supposed to - but he never really got it.

Because he rose so quickly in Iowa, no one really got to know him and they just voted for the hottest 'anti-Romney'. But if the primary simplifies into a two-person race, Santorum won't be able to match Romney. It's still possible that Republicans are so distrustful of Romney and so willing to vote for anybody who says the right things on the meaningless, button-pushing issues that Santorum could actually get the nomination. But if that happens, I can't believe he has a chance against Obama.

Remember Dan Quayle? I think he was brighter than Santorum.

I might vote for Romney over Obama, but if it's Santorum, I'll be forced to hold my nose and vote for Obama.

[Christy]

Andy got up this morning and said to me "Do you know who won?" and I thought he was talking about Michigan/WV :blink

:rotfl

NO idea this was going on last night. None. :blush :goofy

[Doug11]

Andy got up this morning and said to me "Do you know who won?" and I thought he was talking about Michigan/WV :blink

:rotfl

NO idea this was going on last night. None. :blush :goofy

:lol I am grateful for this thread. Otherwise, I would not know who half the Republican candidates were, much less their issues.

It scares me to think Gary is probably right that people don't care about how a person will govern or handle presidential issues. I was thinking about that while driving into work today and it probably all stems from prosperous times when we had it pretty good as a country, but the people not in power wanted to be in power so they came up with a lot of "yeah, but . . . " election issues.

Now we live in not-so-prosperous times and people are more focused on the "yeah, but . . . " issues than on how to return the country to prosperity.

[Garyhoov]

:lol I am grateful for this thread. Otherwise, I would not know who half the Republican candidates were, much less their issues.

It scares me to think Gary is probably right that people don't care about how a person will govern or handle presidential issues. I was thinking about that while driving into work today and it probably all stems from prosperous times when we had it pretty good as a country, but the people not in power wanted to be in power so they came up with a lot of "yeah, but . . . " election issues.

Now we live in not-so-prosperous times and people are more focused on the "yeah, but . . . " issues than on how to return the country to prosperity.

I've been putting a lot of thought into this to try to see if there may be some sort of answer and I'm stumped.:shrug When asked, most people seem to have rational things they're looking for in candidates, but when it comes to the actual choices, none of he candidates seem to have those traits. The concepts of 'pushing on a string' and 'herding cats' comes to mind when I think about our political system. Politicians don't seem responsive to the real interests of the people. They try to tell us what we want rather than actually responding to what we say we want.

I think part of the problem is that it's much easier for the politicians to talk about simple things than solutions to complex problems. And I think the media allows them to control the discourse rather than keeping the focus on the will of the people. The media should be a defender of public interest, but they seem to dance to the tune the politicians play rather than confronting them.

And the whole system has gotten to a point that it seems nearly impossible for the person we want to make it through. It's hard to find anyone in that whole, broad, Republican field who truly seems worthy, so we sit back, wait to see which bums make it through and then vote for the lesser of whichever two evils we're presented with.

[Hooker]

All I can say is that I'll be glad when 2012 is over politically. After the Iowa caucus, you would think that Romney has just been elected president with as much coverage it is getting...and we've just begun! :circles Maybe by the end of the month Romney will take Florida so big that it becomes a moot point.

[BeeJay]

All I can say is that I'll be glad when 2012 is over politically. After the Iowa caucus, you would think that Romney has just been elected president with as much coverage it is getting...and we've just begun! :circles Maybe by the end of the month Romney will take Florida so big that it becomes a moot point.

That's what Romney is banking on. He's likely to get a big win in New Hampshire, and his money will give him a big advantage in a large state like Florida. If he can squeeze out a win...any win, by any amount...in South Carolina in between those two, he'll have won the first four states, including two deeply conservative places (Iowa and S.C.), and his momentum will become overwhelming.

I really think South Carolina is the last chance for voters to get behind one single alternative candidate on the right. If that happens, we might be in for a long primary season. If it doesn't, Romney will be all but assured of the nod. I wouldn't be surprised to see the pressure on Perry and/or Gingrich to drop out before S.C. and encourage voters to get behind Santorum because of that. The problem could be that both Perry and Gingrich (rightfully) see themselves as better equipped financially to go the distance against Romney than Santorum, but because of Santorum's strong showing in Iowa, he can't be the one expected to "take one for the team" and drop out. The more you look at the dynamics, the more you have to think having Santorum on his heels in Iowa was the best possible outcome for Romney.

[BeeJay]

:lol I am grateful for this thread. Otherwise, I would not know who half the Republican candidates were, much less their issues.

It scares me to think Gary is probably right that people don't care about how a person will govern or handle presidential issues. I was thinking about that while driving into work today and it probably all stems from prosperous times when we had it pretty good as a country, but the people not in power wanted to be in power so they came up with a lot of "yeah, but . . . " election issues.

Now we live in not-so-prosperous times and people are more focused on the "yeah, but . . . " issues than on how to return the country to prosperity.

I think this says a lot, Doug. The last 2 presidential elections (soon to be 3) have been overshadowed by serious topics, like terrorism, war, or the survival of the economy. Yet I can think back to the 2000 election, where people in my part of the country were desperate for an end to the Clinton years, and really thought IMPORTANT things were at stake. I'm sure those of you who are older can remember similar situations around people opposing Reagan and the elder Bush. When I think back to that 2000 election, I have to think what a luxury it was for voters to be able to get fired up over whether the president lied under oath, or talked with an accent they liked, or whatever issues were so important before 9/11, Iraq, the housing crash, etc.

[BeeJay]

Because he rose so quickly in Iowa, no one really got to know him and they just voted for the hottest 'anti-Romney'.

That was my feeling too...Santorum was blessed by perfect timing, in that he got hot too close to the caucuses to have time to come back down.

Does anybody else get the sense Newt Gingrich is almost throwing in the towel on his own campaign? His speech in Iowa attacked Paul and Romney, while praising...Santorum. Wouldn't you think Santorum's voters are exactly the kind of people Gingrich is going to have to win to have a chance? Nobody supporting Ron Paul or Mitt Romney is going to switch to Newt, so why sing the praises of the guy standing between you and a chance at winning? I've heard this idea that Newt is going to be more of a "blocking back" for Santorum, just going after Romney mercilessly because he's more interested in seeing Romney lose than winning himself. But if that's the case, why not drop out, endorse Santorum, and then go on a tireless campaign as the #1 bad cop surrogate for the Santorum campaign...instead of possibly splitting the anti-Romney vote in the coming states? It's a very strange dynamic with Newt right now.

[Garyhoov]

That was my feeling too...Santorum was blessed by perfect timing, in that he got hot too close to the caucuses to have time to come back down.

Does anybody else get the sense Newt Gingrich is almost throwing in the towel on his own campaign? His speech in Iowa attacked Paul and Romney, while praising...Santorum. Wouldn't you think Santorum's voters are exactly the kind of people Gingrich is going to have to win to have a chance? Nobody supporting Ron Paul or Mitt Romney is going to switch to Newt, so why sing the praises of the guy standing between you and a chance at winning? I've heard this idea that Newt is going to be more of a "blocking back" for Santorum, just going after Romney mercilessly because he's more interested in seeing Romney lose than winning himself. But if that's the case, why not drop out, endorse Santorum, and then go on a tireless campaign as the #1 bad cop surrogate for the Santorum campaign...instead of possibly splitting the anti-Romney vote in the coming states? It's a very strange dynamic with Newt right now.

I think Gingrich is sounding more and more crazy, but on that particular point, there could be method to his madness.

This appears to be quickly developing into a two-candidate race: Romney and Santorum

Santorum says all the right things to appeal to those who can't stomach Romney, but Santorum has some problems that haven't been exposed yet - he's not real bright and he has no personality.

The more people start to look at Santorum, the more they'll realize that he just doesn't have 'it'. If Gingrich can hang out in the wings long enough as all the other candidates fall away while tossing a few compliments Santorum's way, he may be able to position himself to snatch the Santrum supporters when they become disillusioned. With some money and patience, he could be the last non-Romney standing.

It's still a long-shot for Gingrich, but he has no chance but to try the Hail-Mary.

And yes, BJ, in case you missed it earlier, if Santorum does somehow grab the nomination, you can count on my vote for your guy. ;)

[BeeJay]

And yes, BJ, in case you missed it earlier, if Santorum does somehow grab the nomination, you can count on my vote for your guy. ;)

I did notice that, you swayable independent. :lol

You and I aren't that far apart. I do think Obama's the best choice available (whatever that counts for), but I could live with Romney. If he's the nominee and Ron Paul runs a third-party campaign, I might consider voting for Paul just as a big FU to the two-party system.

If it's Santorum, Gingrich, or Perry, I'd have to forget about any kind of statement and back Obama.

[BeeJay]

Andy got up this morning and said to me "Do you know who won?" and I thought he was talking about Michigan/WV :blink

:rotfl

NO idea this was going on last night. None. :blush :goofy


I'm not sure who gave you permission to have a life, but we'll be having none of that here! :chair (Didn't we used to have a finger-wagging smiley? Hitting you with a chair seems a bit over the top here.)

[Christy]

:tongue We still have that guy!

For the record, I pretty much consider lying under oath a big deal. :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

For the record, I pretty much consider lying under oath a big deal. :lookaroun

I agree. Unfortnately, I also believe that nearly any presidential candidate would lie under oath if they felt it would help their chance of being president. Is that overly cynical or simply realistic?:lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

I did notice that, you swayable independent. :lol

You and I aren't that far apart. I do think Obama's the best choice available (whatever that counts for), but I could live with Romney. If he's the nominee and Ron Paul runs a third-party campaign, I might consider voting for Paul just as a big FU to the two-party system.

If it's Santorum, Gingrich, or Perry, I'd have to forget about any kind of statement and back Obama.

One thing that annoys me is when people like Rush Limbaugh say: "Indepenents hve no core beliefs." I have core beliefs. I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal and I have a funny feeling that if the proper poll were devised a large percentage of the population would realize they are too.

I think it's the Rupublican party that has an issue with core beliefs. They need to decide if their ideals of small government extend to the government not telling people how to live their lives. If they could figure that out and move away from Jerry Falwell's idea of what the Republican party should be, I could be brought into the fold.

[Garyhoov]

So now that the country has seen Santorum for a couple days, does anyone doubt he's as dumb as I've said?

In just the last couple days, he has:

1. Tried to explain that he didn't actually say "black people" when referring to welfare recipients but actually said "blah people" - the "blah" representing some word that he no longer remembers intending to say. Clearly he started to say "black people" but realized, mid-sentence, that he'd get in trouble for that so he stopped himself before ennunciating the word fully. Why not just admit it?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rick-santorum-to-john-king-i-didnt-say-black-people-i-said-blah-people/

2. Argued with students regarding marriage in a state that has legalized gay-marriage. Explaining, in condescending terms, that they are wrong and he is right and his arguments are so idiotic I don't even know where to start.

He starts off by asking the question (paraphrased): "Who wants to change the law? Don't they have to justify their changing of the law." His point being that they want to change the law and he doesn't.

But what the nimrod didn't consider is that he's standing in New Hampshire - a state in which gay marriage is legal - so the whole genesis of his argument is false. He, as president, would want to change their law - they aren't proposing any changes over existing law.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rick-santorum-booed-college-students-hampshire-comparing-gay-marriage-polygamy-article-1.1001802

Then he goes on to the idiotic and false concept that marriage is about having kids.

"Because I believe we are made the way God made man and woman, and man and woman come together to have a union to produce children which keeps civilization going and provide the best environment for children to be raised," Santorum said.

"I think that is something society should value and should give privileged status over a group of people who want to have a relationship together."

How does that make you feel, Sherman? Should the rest of us have 'privileged status' over you? How does Santorum feel about people over 45 getting married? How does he feel about people who have had ovarian or testicular cancer getting married? Is Santorum saying that, as president, he would not support married couple's rights to choose to not have chuldren? Would they lose their 'privileged status' after a certain period if they don't come through with the goods? What happens to the 'priviliged status' when the kids are grown? It seems that Linda and I may no longer be married under Santorum's very specific idea of a marriage as a baby machine.

And it's not just that his arguments are idiotic and designed to justify his belief system rather than logically addressing the issue. He is also illustrating his arrogance by condescending to his audience. As president, he will represent his constituancy. A president isn't a dictator - forcing people to believe what he does. In this setting, he should be listening rather than lecturing. A thoughtful person may disagree, but he should at least listen. Rick Santorum is not a thoughtful person.

Bottom line is I think this leaves us with a situation in which the only two candidates who have any realistic chance of winning this thing are Huntsman and Romney. And since Huntsman is still invisible, the primary will basically be over unless Huntsman can make a strong showing in NH. If Huntsman doesn't have a strong second or at least third, I think this thing is over.

[Garyhoov]

I'd say you can just about give it to Romney now. Not necessarily because he won, but more importantly because no clear anti-Romney emerged. Gingrich, Huntsman, Santorum and Paul are all likely to stay in for a few more rounds - dividing the anti-Romney vote 4 ways and allowing Romney to rack up wins until it will be pointless for anyone else to stay in.

[Computer Magic]

I'd say you can just about give it to Romney now. Not necessarily because he won, but more importantly because no clear anti-Romney emerged. Gingrich, Huntsman, Santorum and Paul are all likely to stay in for a few more rounds - dividing the anti-Romney vote 4 ways and allowing Romney to rack up wins until it will be pointless for anyone else to stay in.I may watch this election from the sidelines. I don't see a good candidate.

[Garyhoov]

I may watch this election from the sidelines. I don't see a good candidate.

I think that's why Obama is set up for a second term. The combination of improving economy and lack of Republican enthusiasm is going to make him hard to beat - despite some very questionable leadership in his first term.

[Roxxy]

Can we be like Richard Pryor in "Brewster's Millions" and vote none of the above?

[Christy]

Can we be like Richard Pryor in "Brewster's Millions" and vote none of the above?

:goofy

[Computer Magic]

Can we be like Richard Pryor in "Brewster's Millions" and vote none of the above?:lmao Looks who shows up...

[Doug11]

My governor went wild in his last days in office - pardoned 200+ criminals.

Yep, he can't run again. :lol term limits

Oh yeah, so voting for a president. . . Doesn't baseball start soon?

[Garyhoov]

My governor went wild in his last days in office - pardoned 200+ criminals.

Yep, he can't run again. :lol term limits

Oh yeah, so voting for a president. . . Doesn't baseball start soon?

That was crazy. I've actually heard his name suggested as a potential VP. And while that may have been a long-shot, he could have at least landed a cushy appointment somewhere. But he's going to have a lot harder time now.

What was he thinking? Did he think he could just skate under the radar?:shrug

[Christy]

Kaitlyn is turning 18 about 3 weeks after the election :lol She's bummed. I hope she isn't jaded by the time the next one rolls around :goofy

[Hooker]

Let's begin our Hoover in `16 campaign now. :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

Let's begin our Hoover in `16 campaign now. :lookaroun

This is retaliation for me suggesting you run the Boston Marathon, isn't it?:goofy

[Hooker]

This is retaliation for me suggesting you run the Boston Marathon, isn't it?:goofyEither that or refusing to send out Christmas cards. :lol

[BeeJay]

Looks like we've been seeing a preview of the general election the last few days, with Mitt Romney having to defend his time at Bain Capital. So far, I don't think it looks good for Romney.

I'm not going to pretend I'm informed enough on the workings of private equity to say what they do is "good" or "bad" in a larger economic sense. But I do think I can judge how things are likely to play politically.

Romney's response so far to all the criticisms that Bain threw people out of work and looted companies is that the people criticizing him oppose the free market. That's probably not such a bad comeback in a Republican primary. But how's it going to play in a general election, where Romney won't just be preaching to the choir? I think he's going to be obligated to explain what his firm did -- and how it benefited the larger economy, if indeed it did so -- in specific terms. When the Obama PACs start trotting out people Romney's firm laid off, Romney's dead if his response is just to say they're being anti-capitalist. I read a story earlier today that said this could be a challenge for Romney, because he's tried to make the argument that his firm created jobs, but that's a hard thing to demonstrate and isn't really the point of private equity investments in the first place, which are all about generating profits for their investors, regardless of whether it creates or costs jobs. One line of attack I saw suggested for him was to point out that private equity investors include pension funds, which means cops and firefighters can retire more securely when a company like Bain makes a lot of money. This is a complicated issue, and Romney is going to need to get better at explaining it.

Another thing that I think could bite Romney: His response this week that questions about income inequality are all about "envy." The stagnation of working class wages combined with the consolidation of wealth at the top of the earning scale in America over the last 30 years or so is a serious issue. To just glibly suggest that anyone who brings it up is jealous is annoying. To make that suggestion when you're Mitt Romney, quarter-billionaire and son of a former governor, seems clueless. And to do it when you fit the above description AND want to be elected president during a down economy, just seems...stupid.

I'm not even touching the "I like being able to fire people" line, because I do think that was unfairly used against him. The worst that could be fairly said about it is it was a poor choice of words that reinforced an already existing perception about him.

Romney is almost certainly going to be the nominee at this point, but he's going to have to get better in how he talks about issues related to wealth, jobs, and the economy if he wants to have a shot. Just my view.

[Garyhoov]

Looks like we've been seeing a preview of the general election the last few days, with Mitt Romney having to defend his time at Bain Capital. So far, I don't think it looks good for Romney.

I'm not going to pretend I'm informed enough on the workings of private equity to say what they do is "good" or "bad" in a larger economic sense. But I do think I can judge how things are likely to play politically.

Romney's response so far to all the criticisms that Bain threw people out of work and looted companies is that the people criticizing him oppose the free market. That's probably not such a bad comeback in a Republican primary. But how's it going to play in a general election, where Romney won't just be preaching to the choir? I think he's going to be obligated to explain what his firm did -- and how it benefited the larger economy, if indeed it did so -- in specific terms. When the Obama PACs start trotting out people Romney's firm laid off, Romney's dead if his response is just to say they're being anti-capitalist. I read a story earlier today that said this could be a challenge for Romney, because he's tried to make the argument that his firm created jobs, but that's a hard thing to demonstrate and isn't really the point of private equity investments in the first place, which are all about generating profits for their investors, regardless of whether it creates or costs jobs. One line of attack I saw suggested for him was to point out that private equity investors include pension funds, which means cops and firefighters can retire more securely when a company like Bain makes a lot of money. This is a complicated issue, and Romney is going to need to get better at explaining it.

Another thing that I think could bite Romney: His response this week that questions about income inequality are all about "envy." The stagnation of working class wages combined with the consolidation of wealth at the top of the earning scale in America over the last 30 years or so is a serious issue. To just glibly suggest that anyone who brings it up is jealous is annoying. To make that suggestion when you're Mitt Romney, quarter-billionaire and son of a former governor, seems clueless. And to do it when you fit the above description AND want to be elected president during a down economy, just seems...stupid.

I'm not even touching the "I like being able to fire people" line, because I do think that was unfairly used against him. The worst that could be fairly said about it is it was a poor choice of words that reinforced an already existing perception about him.

Romney is almost certainly going to be the nominee at this point, but he's going to have to get better in how he talks about issues related to wealth, jobs, and the economy if he wants to have a shot. Just my view.

His lack of personality doesn't bother me personally - though I do think it will hurt him in the general election.

But the real problem, as you point out, is his inability to articulate any real plan or intelligently counter the vague and irrational attacks against him.

He should have jumped on the 'vulture' analogy and pointed out how accurate it was. "Yes, we acted like vultures. Vultures don't kill. Bad management - like the management we've seen from Barack Obama - kills jobs. Good managers then need to come in and salvage the value we can after people like Obama did the killing."

But he doesn't articulate anything like that. He hims and haws and seems afraid to take a stand. It's not just that he's socially awkward but that he's so aware of his awkwardness that he's afraid to stand up for the things he actually is right about.

He shouldn't have run away from his "corporations are people" comment. He should have turned it around on those on the left who don't seem to understand how corporations work and how important they are to the prosperity of this country.

Corporations may not be 'people', but they employ people and they're owned by people and people are completely responsible for what corporations do or don't do.

He's not charismatic or a smooth 'people person', but he is a wonky and (apparently) competent manager, but he seems afraid to play to his strengths. He tries too hard to be something he's not and that just doesn't work.

With a population that seems to be getting more and more ignorant of how things work, he may not win, but he could at least take a stand for truth and knowledge over ignorance. And who knows. If he actually allowed himself to be what he really is, it might actually get him elected.

[Christy]

His lack of personality doesn't bother me personally - though I do think it will hurt him in the general election.

But the real problem, as you point out, is his inability to articulate any real plan or intelligently counter the vague and irrational attacks against him.

He should have jumped on the 'vulture' analogy and pointed out how accurate it was. "Yes, we acted like vultures. Vultures don't kill. Bad management - like the management we've seen from Barack Obama - kills jobs. Good managers then need to come in and salvage the value we can after people like Obama did the killing."

But he doesn't articulate anything like that. He hims and haws and seems afraid to take a stand. It's not just that he's socially awkward but that he's so aware of his awkwardness that he's afraid to stand up for the things he actually is right about.

He shouldn't have run away from his "corporations are people" comment. He should have turned it around on those on the left who don't seem to understand how corporations work and how important they are to the prosperity of this country.

Corporations may not be 'people', but they employ people and they're owned by people and people are completely responsible for what corporations do or don't do.

He's not charismatic or a smooth 'people person', but he is a wonky and (apparently) competent manager, but he seems afraid to play to his strengths. He tries too hard to be something he's not and that just doesn't work.

With a population that seems to be getting more and more ignorant of how things work, he may not win, but he could at least take a stand for truth and knowledge over ignorance. And who knows. If he actually allowed himself to be what he really is, it might actually get him elected.

"Hope and change" were enough for enough people last time :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

Here's something to think about: Newt Gingrich is currently getting some traction by going negative (something he said he wouldn't do) against Romney and his key point is that people lost jobs when Bain Capital re-structured some organizations.

If Gingrich believes that, what would he do as president? Are we to infer that he wouldn't allow any government workers to lose jobs? Doesn't his base expect him to downsize government and do just that? How can those two concepts possibly exist in the same universe?:huh

And how many people lost jobs back when Gingrich was cutting government spending as speaker?


And one of the big knocks against Romney is he's not good at relating to people. So should the Republicans push him aside and replace him with warm, cuddly . . . Newt Gingrich?

Again, :huh

Just when you thought things couldn't get crazier. . .

[Doug11]

And one of the big knocks against Romney is he's not good at relating to people. So should the Republicans push him aside and replace him with warm, cuddly . . . Newt Gingrich?

Again, :huh

Just when you thought things couldn't get crazier. . .

Speaking of crazy, I was watching a little TV last night and out of nowhere an anti-Newt Gingrich ad came on. I thought it was the local (MS) station, but it could have also been either Alabama or Louisiana. All you hear about right now is the South Carolina primary, so that was really odd. It was sponsored by some PAC, and it got me to wondering who is spending money at this point specifically to tear down Gingrich? Wow!

And one of the GOP moderates has dropped out and thrown his support to Romney, which I saw something which said Romney would want the support, but would not want to stand next to a moderate (as if we don't know he's a moderate! :no ).

Crazy politics. :circles

[Christy]

I'm confused... moderate is a bad thing now?

[Garyhoov]

I'm confused... moderate is a bad thing now?

Romney seems to think so and I think that's one of the big problems he has. He seems to want to pretend he's farther right than he is, but I think people on the right would be more accepting of him if he just allowed himself to be himself. I saw a really awkward clip last night of him trying to pretend he likes hunting.

I would much rather vote for someone who disagrees with me on some points but is honest and genuine than someone who agrees with me but doesn't seem consistent or trustworhy.

[Christy]

Well, haven't we learned by now that people whose ideas are extremes (either way) really screw things up? :lol Who still wants someone that far either direction? :dunno

[Doug11]

Well, haven't we learned by now that people whose ideas are extremes (either way) really screw things up? :lol Who still wants someone that far either direction? :dunno

I'm guessing the big money donors. T

[BeeJay]

Newt Gingrich can play innocent all he wants, but I know what's being implied when white southerners talk about people on food stamps, and as someone who represented Georgia in the House, so does he.

Eh...I guess it's not the most important topic, and Gingrich isn't going to win anyway, but seeing him get a standing ovation in South Carolina on MLK Day with an extended diatribe about the first black president being the "food stamp president" just stuck in my craw. I normally try to keep an open mind when these racial accusations come up related to Obama's critics, but that's as crude a dog whistle you're ever going to hear.

[BeeJay]

By the way, there's still another moderate Republican in the race who could challenge Romney. He just happens to be running as a Democrat. :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

Newt Gingrich can play innocent all he wants, but I know what's being implied when white southerners talk about people on food stamps, and as someone who represented Georgia in the House, so does he.

Eh...I guess it's not the most important topic, and Gingrich isn't going to win anyway, but seeing him get a standing ovation in South Carolina on MLK Day with an extended diatribe about the first black president being the "food stamp president" just stuck in my craw. I normally try to keep an open mind when these racial accusations come up related to Obama's critics, but that's as crude a dog whistle you're ever going to hear.

I didn't get that until people kept talking about 'code-words' and saying what you're saying.

But I also think there has to be a limit to what polital correctness can expunge. If we start saying that comments that would have racial overtones to some but not others are now off limits, where does that leave us? If I use a 'code phrase' unwittingly, will I be percieved as a racist?

I think the sort of draconian 'any hint of racism is a crime against humanity' is far more harmful than a small residual racism. The attitudes of people like Al Sharpton breed contempt, resentment and paranoia for the smallest (and sometimes non-existent) offenses and that tears our society apart more than actual racism.

People are inherently tribal. They tend to stick with and associate with people similar to themselves and that shouldn't be a crime as long as there isn't an overt, organized effort to deny any groups rights.

Eventually, the whole concept of race will become irrelevent, and when that happens, I'm sure we'll find other eays to group ourselves (people who like flying cars vs. people who think only damn kids have flying cars?).

Until that day, I think the rational among us should strive to be open-minded and not hate because of the color of ones skin AND also not hate based on a wink or nod at the wrong time.

[Christy]

Lesson learned, if you're white and from the south, you aren't allowed to talk about people on food stamps :lookaroun

Also, I hate that you can't talk about food stamps and Obama in the same sentence without being a racist. Now, granted, I have paid Newt Gingrich no attention whatsoever, so maybe there's something there, but come on BJ :lol

Again, part of me can't help but think that most of Obama's supporters love having him in there simply because it's an easy, lazy way to defend him when you can scream "racist" every time someone criticizes what he's doing. :lol "You're a racist, and look what Bush did all those years!" is mostly what I hear about his accomplishments.

[BeeJay]

It's all about intent, guys. Someone who makes a well-meaning comment without realizing all the baggage that society and history have piled onto it doesn't deserve to be pilloried, and I don't like it when Sharpton and his ilk go after people just for making an offhand comment in the "wrong" way.

The chances that Newt doesn't know what's up here are about zero, though. The man has a Ph.D and lived here for decades. I just can't accept that he's that clueless. And his decision to double down on the comments without acknowledging even the possibility that it could be interpreted the way I'm talking about shows that it wasn't a "one-off" type situation.

I DON'T think Newt is a racist. It's worse than that. He's knowingly exploiting racial anxiety among voters in a cute, "who me?" way to try to win a primary. In some ways, a flat-out racist would be preferable.

[BeeJay]

Again, part of me can't help but think that most of Obama's supporters love having him in there simply because it's an easy, lazy way to defend him when you can scream "racist" every time someone criticizes what he's doing. :lol

For what it's worth, the moderator trying to get Newt to recognize why his remarks were seen as offensive by some in the exchange I 'm talking about was Juan Williams (aka Fox News' favorite black guy, the guy who NPR fired for making comments seen as insensitive to Muslims). Not really your run-of-the-mill Obama/Democrat flunkie.

I can only speak for myself, and I've tried to mostly avoid all the flareups you're talking about, because I feel like the comments have been either well-meaning or too subtle to say there's really something there. This feels different to me.

[Garyhoov]

It's all about intent, guys.

First off, to borrow a couple colorful lines from the Sopranos: "If Newt were drowning, I'd throw him a cinder-block." "I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire."

So I'm not going to go out of my way to defend him, and I'll assume, since you're much more familiar with the culture than I am, that there is more to his comments than immediatley meets the eye.

But, in principle, I become uncomfortable when we start judging people by our perception of their intent rather than their more direct words or actions. In these days, when candidates are chosen not for their qualifications but rather by who can have the fewest irrelevant negatives attached to them ( I really wouldn't mind if I never again have to listen to tales of how a particular candidate one-time transported the family dog ), I'd like to at least limit those negatives to things they've actually done or said rather than getting into the minutiae of what the intent of an otherwise innocent comment might have been.

I'm reasonably certain I won't vote for Gingrich under any circumstances. With that qualifier in place, I feel comfortable in saying: "I won't allow what Gingrich did or did not intend by his comments to change my vote one way or another.":lookaroun

[Christy]

:rotfl

I've been completely detached from these primaries, so I don't know if he's spouting nonsense or not, but tell me, has Gingrich brought up anything about marriage laws? :lookaroun

[BeeJay]

:rotfl

I've been completely detached from these primaries, so I don't know if he's spouting nonsense or not, but tell me, has Gingrich brought up anything about marriage laws? :lookaroun

Nah, that's Santorum's pet issue. :p

[BeeJay]

But, in principle, I become uncomfortable when we start judging people by our perception of their intent rather than their more direct words or actions.

You realize adhering to this will put the entire political talk industry out of business, don't you? :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

You realize adhering to this will put the entire political talk industry out of business, don't you? :lookaroun

:lol

Yeah, wouldn't it be awful if they went back to actual journalism and reporting facts instead of simply turning over all their air-time to people affiliated with either the democratic or republican parties so they can argue inane details.:lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

:rotfl

I've been completely detached from these primaries, so I don't know if he's spouting nonsense or not, but tell me, has Gingrich brought up anything about marriage laws? :lookaroun


Nah, that's Santorum's pet issue. :p

:lol

Gingrich has been so all-over-the-place, I'd have a hard time telling you where he stands on anything.:shrug

[Garyhoov]

CNN seemst to be trying to manufacture a story out the idea that Santorum actually 'won' Iowa, but who cares?:shrug

What? Now all of the sudden Santorum is the front runner? I don't think so. The simple fact is, now that Huntsman is gone, none of the remaining candidates have a chance (barring the discovery of a video of Romney having sex with a goat) of beating Romney in a national race.

Gingrich is "gaining ground in SC" . . . ooooooh, aaaaaaah, big freakin' deal. If we're now fixated on Iowa and saying previous states are vitally important, what did Gingrich do in those previous states? Answer: He wasn't even on the radar.

Gingrich is a crazy loser and the more he talks, the more obvious that becomes. He has no chance at the nomination and the better he does in SC (his home region), the more he solidifies Romney's position.

I think the funniest thing is that CNN was trying to write the end of this before it began and, now that they realize the rest is going to be a big yawn and their ratings will suffer, they're trying to bring it back to life.

[Garyhoov]

So let me get this straight:

Newt Gingrich is vehemently against government getting involved in mortgages . . . and he used to work for Freddie Mac.

He's a huge proponent of free-market capitalism . . . except when it comes to Mitt Romney.

He thinks taxes are too high . . . but doesn't think Romney pays enough.

He said he would run a positive race . . . before running one of the nastiest campaigns in recent memory.

He believes in "traditional family values" . . . and open marriage.

How can anyone take this guy remotely seriously.:shrug

[Christy]

I don't know of anyone who is...? But I'm sure they're out there :lol

His whole marriage situation makes me madder than anything. How many times can you make that vow and still be serious about it. "Til death do us part... er, til death do US part. Wait! I meant til death do US part, this one here!" :lol :lookaroun Which yeah, we're not electing a theologian, blah blah blah, but that is a personal thing that I think is fair for me to use to judge him...
:lookaroun

:lookaroun

Or I just don't like him, just because, if that makes anybody happier.

[Garyhoov]

I don't know of anyone who is...? But I'm sure they're out there :lol

His whole marriage situation makes me madder than anything. How many times can you make that vow and still be serious about it. "Til death do us part... er, til death do US part. Wait! I meant til death do US part, this one here!" :lol :lookaroun Which yeah, we're not electing a theologian, blah blah blah, but that is a personal thing that I think is fair for me to use to judge him...
:lookaroun

:lookaroun

Or I just don't like him, just because, if that makes anybody happier.

:lol

The reason I brought it up is, stupid me, I turned on CNN again and they seem determined to try to paint him as a serious candidate (my cynical side tells me it's all about ratings and trying to make something of this nothing race).

I try not to hold personal lifestyle choices against candidates and if he simply had a few marriages, I think I'd be okay with that. But the nature of his behavior in those marriages combined with his lip-service paid to "family values" just adds to his impressive body of work in the hypocrisy department.

It just seems clear that this guy will say and do absolutely anything and seems to have no guiding principles at all.

[BeeJay]

:lookaroun


I can't stand Gingrich (if not made clear earlier in the week :lol) but I am rooting for him tomorrow...for basically the same reason the media is, which is to manufacture some sense of drama in this race. (You're right about this one, Gary. The reporters following these campaigns don't want it to end right away, which is another reason to play up Santorum's "win" in Iowa. If Gingrich wins S.C., suddenly you have a narrative where three candidates have won the first three primaries.)

I don't think Newt has a prayer of winning the nomination, but I would be interested in seeing how Romney reacts in having to actually fight for the nomination instead of walking right to it. This stuff is actually entertaining to me. :goofy

[BeeJay]

Also, how awkward did Romney seem with his "maybe" answer to whether he'd release multiple years of his tax returns? (Here, if you missed it. http://bcove.me/95zp8wna) Forget the substance or the fairness of the issue...the answer and that weird little laugh he did are just plain uncomfortable to watch.

At this point, I think Santorum might be the best public speaker the Republicans have left. Gingrich just comes off like a foaming pitbull, Romney is awkward and plastic, and Paul has a tendency to give off the "rambling weird uncle" vibe. But of course, Santorum is batshit crazy. What a Sophie's choice. And what a gift to Obama (unless Romney somehow becomes more comfortable in his own skin between now and the fall).

I know you hate focusing on superficial stuff, Gary, but you also know this stuff tends to decide elections. I look at all of these guys, and wonder how on earth any of them could hope to be elected. I still give Romney at least an outside shot because his flaws seem the most correctible through practice, but that's all I can see.

[Garyhoov]

Also, how awkward did Romney seem with his "maybe" answer to whether he'd release multiple years of his tax returns? (Here, if you missed it. http://bcove.me/95zp8wna) Forget the substance or the fairness of the issue...the answer and that weird little laugh he did are just plain uncomfortable to watch.

At this point, I think Santorum might be the best public speaker the Republicans have left. Gingrich just comes off like a foaming pitbull, Romney is awkward and plastic, and Paul has a tendency to give off the "rambling weird uncle" vibe. But of course, Santorum is batshit crazy. What a Sophie's choice. And what a gift to Obama (unless Romney somehow becomes more comfortable in his own skin between now and the fall).

I know you hate focusing on superficial stuff, Gary, but you also know this stuff tends to decide elections. I look at all of these guys, and wonder how on earth any of them could hope to be elected. I still give Romney at least an outside shot because his flaws seem the most correctible through practice, but that's all I can see.

I agree. I think Romney is going to get the nomination by default and I also think he's just too awkward to go all the way. If things continue the way they're going, I think Obama wins it fairly easily. I don't think Romney can win it, so he has to hope Obama loses it.

Unless the economy begins to slide again or something else unexpected happensm I think Obama will get (a not particulary earned) second term.

The shame of it is, before Romney began pandering to those on the right, he had some talents and unique experiences that would make him an interesting president. But since he's been trying to claim he believes things that he doesn't trulym he hasn't been able to maintain a groove.

There is still a chance that, once he seems inevitable and Republicans rally around him, he could begin to regain his confidence, but I'm not sure if it's too late for that.

[Garyhoov]

I was surprised by last nights results, but I think it's less about a real interest in Gingrich than a focal point for the anti Romney vote.

If the Republicans go with Gingrich, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot, but at least we may have some entertainment left.

When I vote, I have a set of 4 priorities that I think about before getting into the smaller details:

1. The candidate, first and foremost, should be a strong defender of the Constitution.
2. The candidate should have some history that illustrates an ability to manage, define and communicate objectives, create sound plans to achieve those objectives and then implement those plans with the resources available.
3. The candidate should be a strong proponent of individual freedom and liberty.
4. The candidate should understand, believe in and defend capitalism.


On the Constitution, Gingrich threatens to send marshals after judges who rule in ways he doesn't like.

On management, Gingrich doesnt have any experience.

On freedom and liberty, Gingrich pays some lip service to it, but his words and actions are so random and so concerned with Newt Gingrich above all, I don't have a high level of confidence that he has any ideals or will defend anything that's right if he's not sure there's something in it for him.

Gingrich's recent comments regarding Romney give me serious concerns about his respect for the principles of capitalism.

Add to that the fact that Gingrich just doesn't seem like a guy who has any guiding principles and I can't vote for him. If the Republicans nominate him, I'll have no choice but to vote for Obama. I won't even have the option of voting for a libertarian because the thought of president Gingrich concerns me too much to risk and I'll have to use my vote to block him as directly as possible.

[Christy]

http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/internet-memes-happy-to-be-protected-by-the-st-amendment-so-i-can-protest-the-nd.png

[BeeJay]

I was surprised by last nights results, but I think it's less about a real interest in Gingrich than a focal point for the anti Romney vote.

If the Republicans go with Gingrich, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot, but at least we may have some entertainment left.

When I vote, I have a set of 4 priorities that I think about before getting into the smaller details:

1. The candidate, first and foremost, should be a strong defender of the Constitution.
2. The candidate should have some history that illustrates an ability to manage, define and communicate objectives, create sound plans to achieve those objectives and then implement those plans with the resources available.
3. The candidate should be a strong proponent of individual freedom and liberty.
4. The candidate should understand, believe in and defend capitalism.


On the Constitution, Gingrich threatens to send marshals after judges who rule in ways he doesn't like.

On management, Gingrich doesnt have any experience.

On freedom and liberty, Gingrich pays some lip service to it, but his words and actions are so random and so concerned with Newt Gingrich above all, I don't have a high level of confidence that he has any ideals or will defend anything that's right if he's not sure there's something in it for him.

Gingrich's recent comments regarding Romney give me serious concerns about his respect for the principles of capitalism.

Add to that the fact that Gingrich just doesn't seem like a guy who has any guiding principles and I can't vote for him. If the Republicans nominate him, I'll have no choice but to vote for Obama. I won't even have the option of voting for a libertarian because the thought of president Gingrich concerns me too much to risk and I'll have to use my vote to block him as directly as possible.

Part of me wants Gingrich to be the nominee, because I think it would be a good chance to weed candidates like him out of the GOP bloodstream. Some political problems are truly bipartisan, but I think the tendency toward elevating intemperate bomb-throwers with little interest in actually governing has become a uniquely Republican problem of late. (The Democratic counterpart to someone like Gingrich is Al Sharpton, who never has come close to being nominated for president.)

It's become an article of faith in the talk-radio circuit that moderate nominees (or "RINOs," like Bob Dole, John McCain, and possibly Mitt Romney) always lose, because voters want someone to present a bold conservative vision. Gingrich would do exactly that...and be lucky to win a single state outside the South. Maybe a result like that would bring back a Republican party that stood on ideas like sensible cuts to government, strong but smart foreign policy, and fiscal policy that recognizes cutting deficits and cutting taxes aren't always the same goal, and paid less credence to all the irrelevant squawking that people like Gingrich represent.

[Doug11]

Did McCain win a single state outside the south? I can't remember - maybe his home state, but that doesn't count. :lol

I disagree that the problematic candidates have no interest in governing. They just stand for the proposition of governing better by providing less government, leaving things to states. Still, I would not vote for Gingrich. If he gets the nomination, I'm going to have to go on a vacation the first Tuesday in November and just forget to fill out an absentee ballot, I guess. :no

[Computer Magic]

Let the debates begin:


An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never fai...led a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.See More
By: Ed Will

[Christy]

I've read it all before, and it all seems like common sense to me... which means BJ will obviously have a problem with it :lol

:lookaroun

j/k Beej :goofy

[Garyhoov]

Let the debates begin:

To me, the flaws of socialism are so obvious and so glaring and so clearly illustrated by history that I'm baffled that there always seem to be supporters of the principles.:dunno

But with that said, let's play devil's advocate and turn the story around. What if the professor took the pure capitalist route and sold grades to the highest bidders?:whistle

[Christy]

Is that how it would be? :lol I was seeing grades as being equated to income, and, shouldn't plain old work get you your grade? You don't buy your wealth in a capitalist system.

Do you? :lookaroun (no seriously, maybe I'm misunderstanding)

It would have to be some sort of risk/reward entrepreneurial scenario, I would think. The whole class could take standard tests, not too hard, not too easy, and get what they get on it, and go on with life. For a ballsy few, they could take an ultra risky test, high stakes, no real guarantees what would be on it, just a general idea, and if they pass, they get a "free" pass the rest of the semester, if they fail, they still have to take the tests the rest of the semester like everybody else, minus some points for taking the big risky test, having to make up for their risk now.

:lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

Is that how it would be? :lol I was seeing grades as being equated to income, and, shouldn't plain old work get you your grade? You don't buy your wealth in a capitalist system.

Do you? :lookaroun (no seriously, maybe I'm misunderstanding)

It would have to be some sort of risk/reward entrepreneurial scenario, I would think. The whole class could take standard tests, not too hard, not too easy, and get what they get on it, and go on with life. For a ballsy few, they could take an ultra risky test, high stakes, no real guarantees what would be on it, just a general idea, and if they pass, they get a "free" pass the rest of the semester, if they fail, they still have to take the tests the rest of the semester like everybody else, minus some points for taking the big risky test, having to make up for their risk now.

:lookaroun

It may not be a direct analogy, but my point was to illustrate how a purely capitalistic system could have inherent flaws (your analogy was probably much better in doing a compare/contrast).

In a purely capitalistic system, will 'money' always be equated with 'work'? We like to believe that tends to be the case, but without regulation in some form, things can fall apart.

Unregulated capitalism will often lead to monopolies and monopolies don't have any incentive to provide the best services for the best prices. Kick-backs, bribes etc. could all be part of an unregulated capitalistic system. When those things start happening, is money always flowing to the people who truly deserve it?

What about the environment? With no regulations other than who's paying whom, what protections are there for society at large? There needs to be some form of 'socialism' in the form of regulation to prevent big money from taking whatever it wants.

Going back to the analogy of the class-room, the professor has a good or service (grades) that are in limited supply and could therefore, theoretically, be offered on the market at whatever price his customers (students) are willing to pay. Without the structure and regulation of the university system and the rules regarding what grades stand for, the whole system could break down. Those rules of fairness imposed on the classroom could be seen by an extremist as 'socialism'.

In theory dollars equal work, value, effort etc., but in reality money doesn't always go to the most deserving people in unrestricted capitalism. In reality, the rich get richer and can use leverage gained from the money they already have to get things they haven't truly earned.

Imagine a dumb, selfish, lazy kid. His parents have money so they send him to good schools. Because he went to good schools, he got a decent job. He is now telling other people what to do and those people may be smarter and harder working than him, but he makes twice as much as them. That's capitalism. We like to view capitalism on a broad scale and when viewed from the appropriate distance, it works. But in the real world, the best, brightest and most useful don't always make the most money.

There's no inherent sense of 'fairness' built into capitalism. We, as a society, have to impose restrictions on capitalism and we do so every day, but those restrictions have become invisible because we are so used to them.

I'm still one of the biggest fans of capitalism going, but I think we have to recognize that any single system has flaws. Our society has become very complex and we can't deal in terms of black and white but must deal with an infinite number of shades of gray.

. . . oh crap, did I just give BJ a whole mess of ammunition to shoot me down next time something like this comes up?:lookaroun

[BeeJay]

I've read it all before, and it all seems like common sense to me... which means BJ will obviously have a problem with it :lol

:lookaroun

j/k Beej :goofy

:goofy

The logic of pieces like that I get. What I don't get is how it has anything to do with Obama or anything he's called for in the real world. Increasing capital gains taxes so guys like Donald Trump are only 5,000 times richer than the middle class instead of 10,000 times richer (yes, I pulled those numbers out of my butt) equals "averaging wealth"? Anytime somebody calls Obama a socialist, it just sounds like calling him a carrot to me. :shrug

[BeeJay]

. . . oh crap, did I just give BJ a whole mess of ammunition to shoot me down next time something like this comes up?:lookaroun

*screen grab* :lookaroun

Nah, the reason I enjoy hanging out here is we usually get past the empty cheerleading and get a good look at the pros and cons of whatever issue is on the table. Being in favor of an essentially capitalist system with reasonable regulation sounds good to me. (Now maybe someone can asplain to me how it's much different from what we have now, or would have if Obama is re-elected.) :lookaroun

PS: Other than the bailouts, which admittedly were a deviation from that standard, but if anything were due to NOT ENOUGH regulation.

[Christy]

There isn't much I can say without saying too much, but Gary, I see your point :lol

[Hooker]

We vote on Tuesday and about the only ads I've seen down here are anti-Newt ads by Romney basically saying that if Newt wins, so does Obama. I've not seen one ad run by Newt yet and I've seen one Santorum sign on the street. Surprised at how quiet it has been.

[Christy]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt

Someone should tell them that. :lol

[Garyhoov]

We vote on Tuesday and about the only ads I've seen down here are anti-Newt ads by Romney basically saying that if Newt wins, so does Obama. I've not seen one ad run by Newt yet and I've seen one Santorum sign on the street. Surprised at how quiet it has been.

Newt's ad - If Romney wins, so does Obama.

:lol

[Garyhoov]

:goofy

The logic of pieces like that I get. What I don't get is how it has anything to do with Obama or anything he's called for in the real world. Increasing capital gains taxes so guys like Donald Trump are only 5,000 times richer than the middle class instead of 10,000 times richer (yes, I pulled those numbers out of my butt) equals "averaging wealth"? Anytime somebody calls Obama a socialist, it just sounds like calling him a carrot to me. :shrug

My concern on this specific issue is not the specifically proposed legislation, but the tone and direction.

Obama keeps talking about 'fairness' rather than necessity and, as we've discussed, I have an issue with the idea that it's fair for wealthy people to pay huge percentages of their income while many pay nothing.

If Obama were saying: "Look, we've got a real problem here. We were in debt when I came into office but we also had a failing economy so I spent far more than we could afford in a desperate attempt to prevent us from sliding into a deep depression. But now things are starting to look up and we need to create a responsible plan for getting out of this debt. With that in mind we will cut spending on X and Y and Z and we will be increasing taxes. The greatest burden will be imposed on those who currently pay the most - the wealthy, but I also want everybody chipping in and sharing in the pain that we must go through to get us back on track. In addition to raising taxes on the wealthy, we will also be eliminating deductions and asking ALL Americans to pay their fair share. I would like to bring payroll taxes back up to their former levels quickly so that Social Security will not go underfunded any longer than necessary . . . "

But he's not saying that. He's framing it as if the solution to all our problems it to tax bastards like Mitt Romney. And while the specific legislation proposes increasing taxes on 'millionaires', the broader discussion has already started that capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the same rate as income.

If he gets what he wants with the 'Buffet Rule', what's the next step? Soon everybody will realize that there aren't nearly enough Donald Trumps to pay off an out-of-control debt. The broader rhetoric seems to be leading toward the idea that anybody who has dividend or capital gains income is 'rich'. In a country that saves far too little and with a president who sees wealth as more of a negative than a positive, I don't think that's too far-fetched. (don't agree with my comment about Obama's position? Bet me that he won't play the 'rich bastard' card against Romney)

As for the 'socialist' tag, I don't see why it's a problem.:dunno

If we draw an imaginary line that represents our current system and then imagine socialism on one side and capitalism on the other, which direction does Obama want to push that line? I think it's clear that one of the primary differences between democrats and republicans is that they see solutions on one side or the other of that imaginary line.

'Socialism' shouldn't be a dirty word. It's a valid political system and those that believe in the idea that government is better than markets at fixing the problems of society should proudly embrace it.:dunno

[BeeJay]

As for the 'socialist' tag, I don't see why it's a problem.:dunno

If we draw an imaginary line that represents our current system and then imagine socialism on one side and capitalism on the other, which direction does Obama want to push that line? I think it's clear that one of the primary differences between democrats and republicans is that they see solutions on one side or the other of that imaginary line.

'Socialism' shouldn't be a dirty word. It's a valid political system and those that believe in the idea that government is better than markets at fixing the problems of society should proudly embrace it.:dunno

The issue with that is that it's impossible to talk about it rationally. People hear socialism and automatically jump to the conclusion that it means everybody makes the same amount and the profit motive is destroyed, instead of more moderate applications of the principles like Social Security and Medicare. We've lived in a hybrid capitalist-socialist system for at least 80 years (with a lot more weight toward the capitalist side), but it's easier to cut campaign ads when you pretend you're in favor of a system that's 100% one way and your opponent is 100% the other way.

[BeeJay]

He's framing it as if the solution to all our problems it to tax bastards like Mitt Romney. And while the specific legislation proposes increasing taxes on 'millionaires', the broader discussion has already started that capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the same rate as income.

If he gets what he wants with the 'Buffet Rule', what's the next step? Soon everybody will realize that there aren't nearly enough Donald Trumps to pay off an out-of-control debt. The broader rhetoric seems to be leading toward the idea that anybody who has dividend or capital gains income is 'rich'. In a country that saves far too little and with a president who sees wealth as more of a negative than a positive, I don't think that's too far-fetched. (don't agree with my comment about Obama's position? Bet me that he won't play the 'rich bastard' card against Romney)

Gary, I think phrases like "What's the next step?" define the "argument" (to the extent we're disagreeing on anything here). This issue is one that matters so much to you that it causes you to look beyond what's actually proposed and engage in speculation (whereas I feel you're typically a more straightforward, empirical "It's this or that" guy).

Honestly, any piece of legislation or policy proposal can be followed by some pretty scary follow-ups, if you carry whatever logic is behind it to its extreme. And it's probably impossible to pass anything in a democracy without enlisting the support of people who would like to see that particular idea carried MUCH FURTHER, so maybe it's not irrational for people who are only mildly opposed to one particular proposal to get spooked by what the demagogues favoring it might do someday.

Maybe at some point the populist instinct will start going after lawyers and doctors and our entire civil fabric will unravel...but for now, I don't see that POSSIBLE outcome as being a reason we shouldn't deal with an ACTUAL issue of corporate titans paying ridiculously low taxes because they happen to get dividend checks instead of paychecks. Obama doesn't really have to demagogue on Warren Buffett paying lower taxes than his secretary. It's a bright red target that the system has created.

[Hooker]

Newt's ad - If Romney wins, so does Obama.

:lol
ZERO ads from Newt.

[Garyhoov]

Gary, I think phrases like "What's the next step?" define the "argument" (to the extent we're disagreeing on anything here). This issue is one that matters so much to you that it causes you to look beyond what's actually proposed and engage in speculation (whereas I feel you're typically a more straightforward, empirical "It's this or that" guy).



That's a good point and I think it's a variation of the 'slippery slope' argument that I generally don't subscribe to as a rationalization for draconian policy.

But while Obama isn't specifically saying it, I have been hearing his surrogates saying things like: "Capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the same rate as income." and if that becomes the prevailing philosophy, my retirement is screwed.

I may have to actually cash the Social Security checks that I was planning to do without.:lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

ZERO ads from Newt.

I was just kidding, but that's an interesting point. Does Newt just not have the cash to spend . . . or has he written off Florida . . . or does he think he can take it without spending on ads? . . . or maybe he's just not hitting your area.

I saw a commentator the other day say that Florida was all about ads. He says that the state is so big, populated and diverse that you can't do it by visiting diners. If Newt loses Florida, that could kill his momentum, so I'd think he'd be spending everything he can.:dunno

[BeeJay]

I read something a few days ago saying Romney had spent x million in Florida ads before this week, and Newt had spent $800. The writer clarified that that wasn't $800 THOUSAND...but 800 bucks. :shrug

[Garyhoov]

You know, most of the people who post here are Republicans, but very few seem to be offering much in terms of any favorites. Does that indicate a general disinterest . . . or do BJ and I scare you all away . . . or is it something else?

I have a feeling Newt will collapse under the weight of his own Newtness soon and I think Romney is still likely to be the candidate. If that happens, will Rupublican faithful vote for him, stay home, vote Obama or vote third party?

Anyone willing to say where you stand? I think, personally, I will probably vote for Romney over Obama, Obama over Gingrich, Paul over Obama and Obama over Santorum. Of the remaining Republicans, I would vote for Romney in a primary.

Anyone else willing to list their preferences? BJ may be the only one who knows for certain who he will be voting for in Nov.:lookaroun

[Hooker]

I have heard that Newt doesn't have the finances to make it through the entire race. Last I heard, Romney was leading him in Florida 36% to 34%. A lot of early voting has already taken place and I have a feeling that Romney has most of those votes. We may go early vote on Saturday--for Romney.

Romney over Obama
Paul over Obama
Santorum over Obama
Obama over Gingrich

Gingrich would be the biggest disaster the GOP could roll out there and guarantee an Obama win.

[Christy]

:rotfl I'm with Scott. I do not like Newt Gingrich, adn I don't know a darned thing he "stands for". :dunno

Let me add...

Gary over Obama

Eva over Obama

:lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

:rotfl I'm with Scott. I do not like Newt Gingrich, adn I don't know a darned thing he "stands for". :dunno

Let me add...

Gary over Obama

Eva over Obama

:lookaroun

:rotfl

Would you vote for that Marxist BJ Corbitt over Obama?:lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

I have heard that Newt doesn't have the finances to make it through the entire race. Last I heard, Romney was leading him in Florida 36% to 34%. A lot of early voting has already taken place and I have a feeling that Romney has most of those votes. We may go early vote on Saturday--for Romney.

Romney over Obama
Paul over Obama
Santorum over Obama
Obama over Gingrich

Gingrich would be the biggest disaster the GOP could roll out there and guarantee an Obama win.

There's a lot of talk about 'electibility' of Gingrich and Romney and it seemed that some of the SC voters were swayed by the belief that Gingrich may be 'electible', but I just can't believe Gingrich can win a general election.:dunno

[Doug11]

:rotfl

Would you vote for that Marxist BJ Corbitt over Obama?:lookaroun

That's crazy talk right there. :lol

There are certainly Republicans who would be disappointed with Mitt Romney as the nominee, but I am not one of them. The question I ask myself is what will Romney do to make things better for the next generation. I'm still waiting for some insights there.

[Hooker]

That's crazy talk right there. :lol

There are certainly Republicans who would be disappointed with Mitt Romney as the nominee, but I am not one of them. The question I ask myself is what will Romney do to make things better for the next generation. I'm still waiting for some insights there.
Working in a church and rubbing elbows with a "Christian" circle, someone said (and I posted this on Facebook), "We are not electing a theologian, but a commander in chief." So true. I don't care if he's Mormon, Muslim, Moonie, or Methodist, if he's/she's got the characteristics of what I'm looking for in a candidate, I'm gonna vote for them.

And, Gingrich is not gonna win because Fancy Nancy Pants said he won't. So there.

[ogryn]

The issue with that is that it's impossible to talk about it rationally. People hear socialism and automatically jump to the conclusion that it means everybody makes the same amount and the profit motive is destroyed, instead of more moderate applications of the principles like Social Security and Medicare. We've lived in a hybrid capitalist-socialist system for at least 80 years (with a lot more weight toward the capitalist side), but it's easier to cut campaign ads when you pretend you're in favor of a system that's 100% one way and your opponent is 100% the other way.

That's what always makes me chuckle. It's not black & white. It's not a choice between 1950's Russia and 2010's America. You can have welfare and capitalism but you need responsibility and accountability, something I fear short-term politics (4-5 year terms) will never bring.

[Garyhoov]

The question I ask myself is what will Romney do to make things better for the next generation. I'm still waiting for some insights there.

I've given up on expecting that much. I'll be happy with the candidate who will screw things up least for the next generation.:lookaroun

[BeeJay]

I think I might have a shot at getting Christy's vote, if I can somehow work Jim Gaffigan tickets into my campaign platform. :lookaroun

[BeeJay]

I would not vote for Gingrich.



Obama over Gingrich



I do not like Newt Gingrich

This is a heartening display. I think Gingrich is easily the most noxious candidate running, and the country will be better off when he packs it in. It's nice to see a sample of rock-ribbed GOPers in unanimous opposition...but then WHO THE HELL IS VOTING FOR THIS GUY?? :huh

[Christy]

I think I might have a shot at getting Christy's vote, if I can somehow work Jim Gaffigan tickets into my campaign platform. :lookaroun

That's right, she can be bought!

[Garyhoov]

This is a heartening display. I think Gingrich is easily the most noxious candidate running, and the country will be better off when he packs it in. It's nice to see a sample of rock-ribbed GOPers in unanimous opposition...but then WHO THE HELL IS VOTING FOR THIS GUY?? :huh

I think there's a creeping realization among the Republican faithful that none of these guys may be able to beat Obama and the move toward Gingrich was probably largely motivated by a "what are we going to do?!?!" sort of desperation.

Also, SC was, for all practical purposes, Gingrich's home turf.

And, probably the biggest factor, people weren't so much voting for him as voting against CNN. It's not rational, but voters often aren't rational. I have to admit that when he was going after King, I was in general agreement with the sentiment. But I'm also rational enough to realize that if Gingrich had the opportunity to say Hitler was a bad guy, I'd agree with him there . . . but that's no reason to vote for Gingrich. Others likely weren't so rational.

Florida will be the big test. Voters like to vote for a candidate they view as a winner and right now Gingrich is riding that SC wave. If he can string two together, he may be able to maintain some momentum in a very weak field and this thing could drag on.

If Romney wins by any convincing margin, then I think Gingrich will be on his way out.

[Christy]

I'm sure BJ has seen this, but for everybody else, give it to the end :rotfl http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/jon-stewart-newt-gingrich-south-carolina-debate-hypocrisy_n_1227547.html?ref=mostpopular

[Garyhoov]

I'm sure BJ has seen this, but for everybody else, give it to the end :rotfl http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/jon-stewart-newt-gingrich-south-carolina-debate-hypocrisy_n_1227547.html?ref=mostpopular

Oh, heck, I have to wait until I get home for the sound. There was a really funny Conan Obrien piece where he edited pieces of Obama's state of the union speech. I'll see if I can find that.

[Garyhoov]

Can't find it, but it was a video Conan put together that was seamlessly edited from Obama's speech and went something like:

'My fellow Americans, the state of the union is inexcusable. We have roads and bridges crumbling, people out of work and struggling, and nothing will be done in Washington in the coming year to address any of those issues.

. . . but none of that matters.

Because I killed Osama Bin Laden.'

I can't really do it justice because it was so well done and flowed so perfectly, but it was great.:rotfl

[Christy]

Romney wins Florida in landslide is what my AOL homepage is telling me.

So suck on that, various media people. You can try all you want to make it a "race" but it just doesn't exist :lol

[Hooker]

Problem is that the nominee needs 1,144 delegates to win the nomination.....Romney now has around 80. :blink

It's gonna be long and nasty.

And, for the record, I voted for Romney. Had quite a few friends who voted for Santorum because they wanted to cast their vote for a staunch conservative, knowing he had no chance of winning. Ahh, the beauty of a primary election.

There was a Gary on the ballot--i read all the names and got really excited when i saw the name Gary, but the guy's last name was Johnson. i had no option to scratch it out and write in Hoover. :D

[Christy]

I know, but as BJ pointed out, if you and I are so anti Gingrich (rock ribbed as we are... I think he was looking at our abs, actually :lookaroun ) WHO is voting for this guy? :lol

[BeeJay]

I know, but as BJ pointed out, if you and I are so anti Gingrich (rock ribbed as we are... I think he was looking at our abs, actually :lookaroun ) WHO is voting for this guy? :lol

"In just 20 minutes a day, you can develop the kind of Democrat-busting physique that's guaranteed to lower your taxes and be the envy of swimsuit season. Don't delay; order our video in the next 10 minutes and get a FREE NRA membership!"

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uWwUazwQLjE/TfVro3GtkLI/AAAAAAAAADk/pBQn-Yrsz1Y/s1600/abs11.jpg

[Christy]

:rotfl

My dad joined the NRA... then cancelled his membership when he got his hat, and found the label said it was made in China.

:blink

:lol

So yesterday I was listening to NPR (:lookaroun ) some bit about racial inequality in the US, anyway, one caller came up with the idea that until taxes are lowered on people living in the ghetto, black people won't ever have a chance to catch up with the rest of the country, as a whole.

:lookaroun

What exactly do you suppose the average tax rate of people living in ghettos is?

:lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

There was a Gary on the ballot--i read all the names and got really excited when i saw the name Gary, but the guy's last name was Johnson. i had no option to scratch it out and write in Hoover. :D

:rotfl


Problem is that the nominee needs 1,144 delegates to win the nomination.....Romney now has around 80. :blink

It's gonna be long and nasty.



Nasty yes. Long? I think Gingrich would have to get an unexpected injection of cash from somewhere for this to realistically go much longer.

Look at it this way: I climb into the ring with Mike Tyson. I somehow survive the first round and say - "Okay, he might have won that first round, but there are still 11 left, so this fight is going to go on for a long time.":lookaroun

Gingrich is going to have to get off the ropes quickly or he could be facing a TKO soon.

[Garyhoov]

"In just 20 minutes a day, you can develop the kind of Democrat-busting physique that's guaranteed to lower your taxes and be the envy of swimsuit season. Don't delay; order our video in the next 10 minutes and get a FREE NRA membership!"

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uWwUazwQLjE/TfVro3GtkLI/AAAAAAAAADk/pBQn-Yrsz1Y/s1600/abs11.jpg


:rotfl

My dad joined the NRA... then cancelled his membership when he got his hat, and found the label said it was made in China.

:blink

:lol

So yesterday I was listening to NPR (:lookaroun ) some bit about racial inequality in the US, anyway, one caller came up with the idea that until taxes are lowered on people living in the ghetto, black people won't ever have a chance to catch up with the rest of the country, as a whole.

:lookaroun

What exactly do you suppose the average tax rate of people living in ghettos is?

:lookaroun

:rotfl:rotfl:rotfl

[BeeJay]

Gary, you must feel so out of the loop after being on that boat for a week. Let me try to catch you up on all the big news that you missed:

1.) Mitt Romney made a bone-headed remark and got accused of not being conservative enough by Rush Limbaugh.

2.) Democrats and the media took the remark out of context and spent a lot of time saying how much the remark was going to hurt Romney.

3.) Newt Gingrich ran a listless, floundering campaign in a couple of early primary states.

4.) The economy improved a little. People argued over whether Obama deserves any credit.

5.) In a major political development, Donald Trump got on TV.

As you can see, it's been a WILD and UNPREDICTABLE few days! :uh

[Garyhoov]

Gary, you must feel so out of the loop after being on that boat for a week. Let me try to catch you up on all the big news that you missed:

1.) Mitt Romney made a bone-headed remark and got accused of not being conservative enough by Rush Limbaugh.

2.) Democrats and the media took the remark out of context and spent a lot of time saying how much the remark was going to hurt Romney.

3.) Newt Gingrich ran a listless, floundering campaign in a couple of early primary states.

4.) The economy improved a little. People argued over whether Obama deserves any credit.

5.) In a major political development, Donald Trump got on TV.

As you can see, it's been a WILD and UNPREDICTABLE few days! :uh

:rotfl



:thumbs

I was gone last week. I think you wrote this a couple weeks ago.

[BeeJay]

Three wins for Santorum tonight. Can't say I saw that coming. :huh

Looks like Republicans are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into nominating Mitt Romney. This primary has become interesting not because of any real drama (I still can't see anyone winning but Romney), but in how determined voters seem to make him work his ass off for it.

[Christy]

Bleh :lol Congrats, Obama lovers. You'll win again :goofy

[Garyhoov]

Three wins for Santorum tonight. Can't say I saw that coming. :huh

Looks like Republicans are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into nominating Mitt Romney. This primary has become interesting not because of any real drama (I still can't see anyone winning but Romney), but in how determined voters seem to make him work his ass off for it.

That was an interesting development, but I think it's better for Romney than a Gingrich win which could have given Gingrich a more solid position.

I still think Santorum is just too dumb to win. He's the kind of candidate that will seem appealing to conservative voters who read his positions on his website, but once the light is shone on him (as it will be now) it's clear he's just not much of a thinker.

But this might make things interesting for a while.

[Garyhoov]

And this is way off topic, but does anyone else think Michelle Obama should learn to do a real push-up if she wants to continue to be so ****ing preachy?:sealed

[Christy]

And this is way off topic, but does anyone else think Michelle Obama should learn to do a real push-up if she wants to continue to be so ****ing preachy?:sealed

:rotfl

[Doug11]

I spent time in Florida last week with a friend couple. The husband is a Democrat who will vote for Romney. The wife is a Republican who will vote for Obama. :circles :lol

[Garyhoov]

I spent time in Florida last week with a friend couple. The husband is a Democrat who will vote for Romney. The wife is a Republican who will vote for Obama. :circles :lol

:lol

That raises an interesting point. I think there are a lot of disillussioned Obama voters out there who (probably somewhat irrationally) were expecting to get much more than they did. Romney's probably the most likely candidate to be able to take some of those voters.

If nothing else, I hope Romney - even if he loses - can break up some of the red-state/blue-state patterns that we've become used to. That trend toward two Americas is disturbing and maybe a positive that could come out of a Romney loss would be a slightly less vitriolic electorate.

. . . of course I was hoping that was the big thing Obama would bring to the table, but he seems more interested in gaining political ground at all costs than bringing the country together.:lookaroun

[Christy]

Well, things are starting to trickle in to the hospital now, new rules and regulations. So many that I can't keep track, but I do not see the logic in claiming it will make anything more affordable :blink (Sure as heck won't improve quality of care in any way) From today: Techs can no longer remove caps from PIC lines, a doctor has to do it. I can't say for sure, but I'd guess there's a 6:1 tech to doctor ratio, so if we are pulling the doctors in for crap like that, that a tech is perfectly capable of doing... I'm sorry, but what? :blink Also, techs can't even apply lidocaine cream before procedures, it has to be a nurse or a doctor. They aren't allowed to do anything with any drugs of any type, including the numbing creams, now.

Welcome to affordable, quality care :goofy

[Garyhoov]

Well, things are starting to trickle in to the hospital now, new rules and regulations. So many that I can't keep track, but I do not see the logic in claiming it will make anything more affordable :blink (Sure as heck won't improve quality of care in any way) From today: Techs can no longer remove caps from PIC lines, a doctor has to do it. I can't say for sure, but I'd guess there's a 6:1 tech to doctor ratio, so if we are pulling the doctors in for crap like that, that a tech is perfectly capable of doing... I'm sorry, but what? :blink Also, techs can't even apply lidocaine cream before procedures, it has to be a nurse or a doctor. They aren't allowed to do anything with any drugs of any type, including the numbing creams, now.

Welcome to affordable, quality care :goofy

:huh

Are those things actually dictated by the health-care bill?

That actually touches on a big concern I've had over the past couple days.

Consider the recent concern with contracetpion and the Catholic church. The big discussion seems to be about the governments rights to dictate something that goes against the religious beliefs of citizens - and I think that's a valid discussion point - but I also think there's a broader problem.

When Democrats were pushing this health care bill, their primary argument was:

"Uninsured people are costing the system money and we have a legal and ethical requirement to help provide quality medical care to all citizens. Since people can show up at the emergency room now and not be turned away, it makes sense to cover them with plans that will prevent that. Done right, this will bend the cost curve down."

Okay. I'm with them so far. There's some logic and common sense there. But rather than addressing that simple concept and trying to achieve those basic, common-sense goals, Obama and the Democrats over-reached with a bloated, cumbersome, incomprehensible plan that not only allows, but seems to encourage bureaucratic micro-management.

And now, with the birth control issue, the Democrats seem to be showing their hand. This isn't being used to reduce health care costs, but rather seems to be being used to implement a political agenda.

If someone storms into an emergency room and says: "I need condoms . . . NOW!", is the emergency room obligated to give them condoms?

Does forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control shift the cost curve up or down? (and yes, I know some will argue that birth control is less expensive than babies, but there's no reason that unfunded birth control equals babies - people can still buy birth control, people can choose to not have sex, people can still engage in types of sex that won't result in pregnancy . . . the rights and responsibilities related to reproduction should lie with individuals and not the government in a sane world. There are a LOT of things that the government could potentially stick their nose in that would save our health system money . . . but they have absolutley no right to involve themselves.)

And here's the really scary part:

Imagine a hypothetical in which Rick Santorum and like-minded Republicans are in power. What if they decide that AIDS is the result of immoral acts of homosexuals and also a big health-care cost and, therefore, should not be covered by the health insurance mandated by the government?

Far-fetched? Probably. But if we allow the government to take the power they are now claiming for themselves, what barriers stand in the way of such action? Once governments have power, they don't give it up. Their authority grows and spreads. We are setting things in place right now that could, very realistically, lead to a future in which diets, exercise and other activities are controlled by the government.

[Christy]

Well, I haven't read the thousand or two pages of the bill, but I found this timeline:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html

So, last month is when these people came in to the hospital, and meetings were being held about the new laws and regulations, so if it isn't a part of it, it is certainly timed to coincide with what is supposed to be taking place now.

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/03/accountablecare03312011a.html

My hope is this goes the way of the HMO. It happened, people realized it was bullshit, and now they are, for the most part, done.

[BeeJay]

Mitt Romney is trailing Rick Santorum by 15 points in Michigan, according to a new poll. That would be the same Michigan where Romney was born, and where his father was governor. He's a huge favorite to win there.

There's still two weeks before the primary, so things might change, but if Romney loses Michigan, I think all bets are off. Yes, he'll still have scads more money than Santorum, but Santorum is going to be a much harder target to smear than Newt Gingrich was. What's he going to say? He's too anti-gay? Good luck with that in a GOP primary.

Stay tuned...

[Garyhoov]

There's still two weeks before the primary, so things might change,

Santorum has yet to win a primary in which voters have given him a good, hard look. His strategy seems to be to swoop in as a 'stealth' candidate and grab voters who take him without knowing more than the most superficial facts. His own ignorance is his biggest enemy. Can he keep his mouth shut for two weeks?:lookaroun

I think that will be the thing to see.

[Garyhoov]

CNN is driving me crazy. They keep reporting 'good news' (Their actual words) - the payroll tax 'holiday' will be extended and Republicans aren't going to demand cuts elsewhere.

Isn't that great?

:huh

Free money! Whoopie! At least it helps explain how we've gotten to this point.

And apparently Obama wants to make it permanent.:shocked


So what happens to Social Security? Whay isn't anyone asking that question? Does anybody care?

This could be a deal breaker for me. If Obama really pushes to de-fund social security without any kind of long-term plan, I don't think I can vote for him.

Would I vote for Santorum over him? The thought makes me sick, but I can't ignore the fact that Obama seems oblivious to our problems.

[Doug11]

Gary, do you expect to draw SS retirement? And if so? For what purpose?

We have been told for a generation that money won't be there for us. The people I know who have worked their whole lives see their SS check as a pittance of what is needed in retirement. I don't know :shrug

[Garyhoov]

Gary, do you expect to draw SS retirement? And if so? For what purpose?

We have been told for a generation that money won't be there for us. The people I know who have worked their whole lives see their SS check as a pittance of what is needed in retirement. I don't know :shrug

No. I have absolutely no expectation of ever seeing a SS check, but I'm in the minority. Unfortunately most people don't pay as much attention as I do and they expect (partly because their 'leaders' keep telling them that there's nothing to worry about) that the money will be there when they need it.

I would be all for a phase-out of Social Security so that it becomes an emergency fund only for the neediest as opposed to a middle-class retirement plan, but that's not happening. As long as politicians refuse to address the real problem they need to at least make some efforts to ensure there is some solvency to the system. A collapse could be catastrophic to millions of families.

If we decide, as a society, that we want Social Security to last for the next thousand years - fine, but drastic steps that aren't happening are going to need to begin almost immediately for that to be a realistic possibility.

If we decide we want to phase out Social Security that's also fine (and preferable to me, personally).

So either one of those options are acceptable.

What is completely unnacceptable is the path Obama is taking - telling the American people that Social Security is fine while robbing it to score political points from the ignorant masses.

I keep hearing Obama and his supporters say: "Don't forget, we inherited a mess." I haven't forgotten that, but it's one thing to inherit a mess and methodically work toward improving things and another thing to inherit a mess and then do all the wrong things.

We need some sort of fiscal sanity and I don't see anybody, anywhere pushing for it with the effort needed to really get us on track.

[Garyhoov]

This is interesting. Obama keeps asking: "What could you do with an extra $40?" Maybe the question should be "What could you do with an extra $17,000."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/painful-cost-obama_629745.html

[Doug11]

This is interesting. Obama keeps asking: "What could you do with an extra $40?" Maybe the question should be "What could you do with an extra $17,000."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/painful-cost-obama_629745.html

I don't think I received the full value of my $17,000. Can I just go shake down some old or physically infirm person for my money?

[BeeJay]

I really don't care for how Obama has dealt with this payroll tax extension. The idea that any kind of ostensibly temporary cut represents a vital cash infusion that working families can't do without doesn't make a lot of sense. If families "can't do without" it now, what's going to be different a year from now when it comes time to restore the tax?

It's such a naked political push by the Dems, simply because the Republicans (IMO) look even worse on it. They've finally found a tax cut they're willing to be responsible and push for an offset on, after arguing for years that tax cuts on top earners don't have to be paid for because it was never the government's money to begin with. That's having the right idea at the worst possible time. To their credit, they seem to have realized what a disaster that argument would be to drag out and just raised the white flags. I say to their credit not because it's good fiscal policy, but because it shows they're somewhat self-aware of the consequences their own rhetoric has forced on them.

Nobody looks good on this fight to me. I haven't heard any talk of making it permanent, but that would be very troubling to me if it's the case.

[Garyhoov]

I really don't care for how Obama has dealt with this payroll tax extension. The idea that any kind of ostensibly temporary cut represents a vital cash infusion that working families can't do without doesn't make a lot of sense. If families "can't do without" it now, what's going to be different a year from now when it comes time to restore the tax?

It's such a naked political push by the Dems, simply because the Republicans (IMO) look even worse on it. They've finally found a tax cut they're willing to be responsible and push for an offset on, after arguing for years that tax cuts on top earners don't have to be paid for because it was never the government's money to begin with. That's having the right idea at the worst possible time. To their credit, they seem to have realized what a disaster that argument would be to drag out and just raised the white flags. I say to their credit not because it's good fiscal policy, but because it shows they're somewhat self-aware of the consequences their own rhetoric has forced on them.

Nobody looks good on this fight to me. I haven't heard any talk of making it permanent, but that would be very troubling to me if it's the case.


:yes

I'm angry at Obama and the Democrats for pushing this, but I'm just as angry or more at the Republicans for not standing up to it.

The Republicans are slowly strangling themselves with their lack of direction, leadership and purpose. They took too strong a stand on the tax issue when they had the opening to stand for fiscal sanity and accept some increased taxes while demanding real spending cuts.

But, instead, they took a hard-line stand on taxes when we need to be looking at working the debt problem from all angles. Now the Republicans are just deers caught in the headlights.

The Democrats have done some simply insane spending over the past several years and the Republicans should be in a position to sweep them out of office with a mantra of fiscal responsibility . . . but they just seem too disorganized to do that.

And the country will suffer for it.

[BeeJay]

Obama: Extend the payroll tax cut....or this little girl will DIE! :huh

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/02/wh-pass-the-payroll-tax-cutand-nobody-gets-hurt-114503.html

[Christy]

It will be $40 less for the data package for your smartphone :(

:lookaroun

[Christy]

Status from a fb friend:

"With all the problems this country has, birth control is the biggest issue? What is wrong with these people?"

So my question to her is... which people. Waiting to see who SHE thinks the morons are :lol :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

This is why I think, the more people know Santorum, the less they'll like him:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/19/santorum-prenatal-testing-is-to-encourage-abortions/

When he says things like this, and when he suggests that Social Security can be fixed by reducing abortions, it's clear that he's obsessed with abortion and tries to turn everything into comment on abortion. (maybe Iran would not be as interested in developing nuclear weapons if we had fewer abortions:lookaroun )

I respect his religious beliefs . . .


It's the stupidity that I have a hard time respecting.:goofy

[BeeJay]

From Bill Maher's Facebook:

"Half of me sees Rick Santorum and says, bring it on, he could never win! Other half says, Fuck, I don't put anything past this stupid country." :lol

For the record, I'm a little more confident in the US than Bill on this one. But just a little. :lookaroun

[Christy]

Where are my rock ab-ed (:lookaroun) Republicans?

I will pass on Santorum, myself :lol

[Doug11]

Why does Bill Maher have a voice, other than just being another smug smartass who has done exactly what, again?

[BeeJay]

Why does Bill Maher have a voice, other than just being another smug smartass who has done exactly what, again?

I guess the most that can be said of any political commentator's credentials is that a certain amount of people enjoy listening to them. Maher is a seething ball of anger and hate, but he has always cracked me up since his PI days. (Although I prefer Jon Stewart.)

[Christy]

I guess the most that can be said of any political commentator's credentials is that a certain amount of people enjoy listening to them. Maher is a seething ball of anger and hate, but he has always cracked me up since his PI days. (Although I prefer Jon Stewart.)

Maher has only gotten this far because of his looks.

:lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

Maher has only gotten this far because of his looks.

:lookaroun

:rotfl

I get John Stewart and Stephen Colbert - they're funny. I've watched Maher and he gives me a smile at moments, but he takes himself too seriously 90% of the time. And I loved Christy's comment on facebook a while back about how he talks more about God than most Christians. (I'm probably butchering the actual quote)

As for Santorum, I'm trying to think positive: The Republicans have little shot at this thing and, with that in mind, maybe he's the best thing. It would be a like a drug addict hitting rock bottom.:lookaroun

Seriously, when McCain ran, we all knew that a nameless Democrat would win over him because the country was sick of Bush. McCain was my kind of Republican. He was clearly focused on fiscal responsibility and didn't allow himself to get distracted by the other BS. He also wasn't very personable and he was following Bush.

But the whole time he was running I was thinking: "Oh crap. Republicans are going to mis-interpret his loss as a sign that a sane Republican can't win." And, sure enough, we heard a lot of that in the run-up to this primary.

So part of me hopes that Santorum will win the nomination and then get blown out of the water just to show people that what the Republicans need is a candidate that focuses on fiscal responsibility - not gay marriage and abortion.

[Hooker]

Where are my rock ab-ed (:lookaroun) Republicans?

I will pass on Santorum, myself :lolIf Santorum win the nomination, I don't know what I'll do. He doesn't have a snowball's chance against Obama.

[Doug11]

I thought McCain was a good candidate before Bush, but when it came time to run against Obama, time had passed him by. Ron Paul, minus his nutty fringe ideas, is sort of the same. He's too old to be seriously considered but he brings some good ideas to the discussion.

Santorum is just the flavor of the week, seems to me.

[BeeJay]

So part of me hopes that Santorum will win the nomination and then get blown out of the water just to show people that what the Republicans need is a candidate that focuses on fiscal responsibility - not gay marriage and abortion.
This. I wouldn't take a lot of pleasure in seeing Santorum get creamed (OK, I would take some pleasure in it), but mostly I would hope it might back the Republicans away from the cliff they seem to be rushing toward by even considering someone like Santorum. There was an academic paper recently that showed both parties have moved away from the center in recent years, but Republicans have moved right about 2-3 times faster than Democrats have moved left.

[Christy]

This. I wouldn't take a lot of pleasure in seeing Santorum get creamed (OK, I would take some pleasure in it), but mostly I would hope it might back the Republicans away from the cliff they seem to be rushing toward by even considering someone like Santorum. There was an academic paper recently that showed both parties have moved away from the center in recent years, but Republicans have moved right about 2-3 times faster than Democrats have moved left.

I was just thinking about this (and was on the verge of texting it... :lookaroun ) It's kind of scary how far each side seems to swing to "their" side with each passing election. It's like everybody wants to out crazy the other guys? :lol I don't know.

By the way, if you guys don't know when your primaries are, BJ does :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

By the way, if you guys don't know when your primaries are, BJ does :lookaroun

:rotfl

I think something that would be really interesting to see is a Republican Candidate who has a strong faith but doesn't stick it in other's faces.

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. "

Mathew 6:5-8

. . . I guess Romney might qualify . . . if he didn't have that whole, nutty, Mormon thing going on.:lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

When I read the bible, I saw passage after passage about being humble, being generous, being honest, being peaceful, being thoughtful. Then I see someone like Santorum and think: "What bible was he reading?"

Would a truly righteous man - one that actually follows the teachings of Jesus - even engage in the vain, dishonest endeavor that is a presidential campaign?:shrug

[Garyhoov]

Just joined African Americans for Obama.:lookaroun

[Christy]

:rotfl

See if he tells them anything different than the white folks :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

:rotfl

See if he tells them anything different than the white folks :lookaroun

Don't think you're getting any inside info. from me, cracker.:whistle

[Christy]

OMG :rotfl

[BeeJay]

:lol

Hey, if they try to give you crap, you can always make the anthropological argument that we're all African American.

[BeeJay]

The Daily Show: Santorum's biggest problem is that he actually says what Republicans really think. :lol

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-23-2012/indecision-2012---rick-santorum-s-conservative-rhetoric?xrs=synd_facebook

[Garyhoov]

So on one hand, if Santorum wins Michigan, that would seem a big win for him . . . but if he does so by getting Democrats to vote for him because they know he'll get his butt kicked in the general election, does that still help him?:shrug

[Christy]

:huh I thought you had to vote for your registered party in a primary. Where'd I come up with that one :lol

[Garyhoov]

:huh I thought you had to vote for your registered party in a primary. Where'd I come up with that one :lol

Each state can do whatever they want. In Jersey (I believe) the way it works is you can register as either Rebublican, Democrat or Independent and then you can choose what primary you want to vote in (without changing your registration). I believe (and I don't want to sound too sure of it because I may have the details wrong) that you can be registered as a Democrat and only vote in Republican primaries. If, at some point, you want to switch, you submit a simple form before a certain deadline prior to the primary - but then you can only vote in that party's primary until you switch again.

I need to investigate this more, because I think right now I'm signed up to vote in Democratic primaries (I voted for Obama in the primary of '08).

Time to do some googling . . . :lookaroun

[Christy]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/22/business/la-fi-obama-corporate-tax-20120223

So what do you think? I heard this first on the radio, where they said while the rate would be lowered, the loopholes would also disappear (which I couldn't find in all those... words I had to read :lookaroun )

So :dunno makes sense to me.

[Garyhoov]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/22/business/la-fi-obama-corporate-tax-20120223

So what do you think? I heard this first on the radio, where they said while the rate would be lowered, the loopholes would also disappear (which I couldn't find in all those... words I had to read :lookaroun )

So :dunno makes sense to me.

I think it's a move in the right direction and I'd like to see personal taxes also follow this lead. There has been a lot of talk that the rate is actually going up because of the elimination of those deductions, but let's start there and then we can adjust the rate as appropriate.

[Computer Magic]

I need to investigate this more, because I think right now I'm signed up to vote in Democratic primaries (I voted for Obama in the primary of '08).

Time to do some googling . . . :lookarounI change to Democratic for the primaries in 08. Yes, hated Hillary that much. I bet this will come back to haunt me if I ever run for elections....

[Computer Magic]

I think it's a move in the right direction and I'd like to see personal taxes also follow this lead. There has been a lot of talk that the rate is actually going up because of the elimination of those deductions, but let's start there and then we can adjust the rate as appropriate.

Good point. My offical paid tax was "13%" according to Turbo Tax far less then the bracket I was in. So the listed tax bracket is a fluff, but I paid more than Buffet.

[Christy]

:lol Can't repin this or put it on facebook, my kids are there :lookaroun

But, if I were president, my healthcare plan:

http://media-cdn.pinterest.com/upload/248472104411323557_2iY4PkAF_f.jpg

:lookaroun

Then I'd have something in there like "Then, if you get cancer or something that isn't your own stupid fault, I suppose we can foot the bill"

Vote for Christy! :goofy

[Garyhoov]

:lol Can't repin this or put it on facebook, my kids are there :lookaroun

But, if I were president, my healthcare plan:

http://media-cdn.pinterest.com/upload/248472104411323557_2iY4PkAF_f.jpg

:lookaroun

Then I'd have something in there like "Then, if you get cancer or something that isn't your own stupid fault, I suppose we can foot the bill"

Vote for Christy! :goofy

:rotfl

[Computer Magic]

:lol Can't repin this or put it on facebook, my kids are there :lookaroun

But, if I were president, my healthcare plan:

http://media-cdn.pinterest.com/upload/248472104411323557_2iY4PkAF_f.jpg

:lookaroun

Then I'd have something in there like "Then, if you get cancer or something that isn't your own stupid fault, I suppose we can foot the bill"

Vote for Christy! :goofynice Pepsi logo.

[BeeJay]

Each state can do whatever they want. In Jersey (I believe) the way it works is you can register as either Rebublican, Democrat or Independent and then you can choose what primary you want to vote in (without changing your registration). I believe (and I don't want to sound too sure of it because I may have the details wrong) that you can be registered as a Democrat and only vote in Republican primaries. If, at some point, you want to switch, you submit a simple form before a certain deadline prior to the primary - but then you can only vote in that party's primary until you switch again.

I need to investigate this more, because I think right now I'm signed up to vote in Democratic primaries (I voted for Obama in the primary of '08).

Time to do some googling . . . :lookaroun


I change to Democratic for the primaries in 08. Yes, hated Hillary that much. I bet this will come back to haunt me if I ever run for elections....

Georgia just doesn't give a crap. We have completely open primaries and no party registration, so...come one, come all. Pick a primary, any primary. :lol

I voted in the Republican primary in '08. As I recall, my logic was that McCain needed more help here than Obama did. Our primary is next Tuesday, and I'll go out and pull the lever for Ron Paul just to feel like I made some effort to provide Obama with a halfway decent opponent.

[Garyhoov]

Georgia just doesn't give a crap. We have completely open primaries and no party registration, so...come one, come all. Pick a primary, any primary. :lol

I voted in the Republican primary in '08. As I recall, my logic was that McCain needed more help here than Obama did. Our primary is next Tuesday, and I'll go out and pull the lever for Ron Paul just to feel like I made some effort to provide Obama with a halfway decent opponent.

:thumbs

It's interesting that I keep hearing people mention Georgia as the point where Gingrich will resurge.

Yes, he probably has a good shot in Georgia, but I don't see how winning your home state in an otherwise lifeless campaign is . . . anything more than winning your home state in an otherwise lifeless campaign.:shrug

[BeeJay]

:thumbs

It's interesting that I keep hearing people mention Georgia as the point where Gingrich will resurge.

Yes, he probably has a good shot in Georgia, but I don't see how winning your home state in an otherwise lifeless campaign is . . . anything more than winning your home state in an otherwise lifeless campaign.:shrug

Totally agree. Winning Georgia is the MINIMUM he should do if he's a serious competitor. He's trying to make it a big deal because it has the most delegates next Tuesday (only true because the GOP "rewards" deep-red states with more delegates, not because Georgia is the biggest state voting on Tuesday), but regardless, they'll be handed out proportionally, so even a win there won't net him a big influx of delegates. I think he's well on his way to irrelevance at this point.

[BeeJay]

Santorum has yet to win a primary in which voters have given him a good, hard look. His strategy seems to be to swoop in as a 'stealth' candidate and grab voters who take him without knowing more than the most superficial facts. His own ignorance is his biggest enemy. Can he keep his mouth shut for two weeks?:lookaroun

I think that will be the thing to see.

We haven't talked much about the Michigan primary here, but I was reminded of this post. I think it might be the most dead-on prediction any of us have made so far.

Santorum went from leading Michigan by 14 points to losing by 3 in 2 weeks. In the meantime, he talked about the evils of birth control, said JFK's promise not to take orders from the pope made him want to throw up, called Obama a snob for suggesting all kids get some education beyond high school, and defended an old speech warning people about Satan. Granted Romney's Super PAC unloaded on him with both barrels during that time, but it can't have helped that so much of what he says just makes him seem...weird.

Polls show Santorum up by 4 in Ohio ahead of next Tuesday. That might be his last chance to really challenge Romney. The race might not actually end next week, but if Romney wins Ohio, I think it's effectively over.

[Garyhoov]

We haven't talked much about the Michigan primary here, but I was reminded of this post. I think it might be the most dead-on prediction any of us have made so far.

Santorum went from leading Michigan by 14 points to losing by 3 in 2 weeks. In the meantime, he talked about the evils of birth control, said JFK's promise not to take orders from the pope made him want to throw up, called Obama a snob for suggesting all kids get some education beyond high school, and defended an old speech warning people about Satan. Granted Romney's Super PAC unloaded on him with both barrels during that time, but it can't have helped that so much of what he says just makes him seem...weird.

Polls show Santorum up by 4 in Ohio ahead of next Tuesday. That might be his last chance to really challenge Romney. The race might not actually end next week, but if Romney wins Ohio, I think it's effectively over.

Do you remember me saying how dumb he was?:lookaroun

I think there are a lot of conservatives who like his positions and like the idea of him, but the simple fact is, he's not a bright, thoughtful guy. The more voters get to know him, the less they like him. That's been true throughout the primaries and that's why he lost his Senate seat in PA. As we know, most Senators are in for life once they get their foot in the door, but not Santorum. He's just dumb. I don't know any better way to put it.

I think a lot of people are trying to paint him as an extremist and blaming that on his inability to connect. But I don't think the problem is his catholicism. I know plenty of Catholics who can discuss their religion in much broader terms than he seems to be able to deal with. He just doesn't seem to be able to understand and conceptualize and think about his faith in broad philosophical terms. He needs to break it down into very simple, and often dim-witted concepts because he's just so . . . dumb.:huh

[Garyhoov]

Why the :mad does CNN :mad think we :mad care about Rush :mad Limbaugh?!?!?!

We've got a debt of over 15 TRILLION dollars and all CNN wants to talk about is Rush :mad Limbaugh.






. . . sorry:blush:lookaroun

[Christy]

So... what happened. :lookaroun

FINE! I'LL LOOK FOR MYSELF!

[BeeJay]

So... what happened. :lookaroun

FINE! I'LL LOOK FOR MYSELF!

:lol

Romney continues to take the most torturous path possible to the nomination, everybody else continues to prove unable to beat him.

Ya know, basically what we've been talking about since January.

[BeeJay]

So... what happened. :lookaroun

FINE! I'LL LOOK FOR MYSELF!

Or....did you mean....about Limbaugh? :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

:lol

Romney continues to take the most torturous path possible to the nomination, everybody else continues to prove unable to beat him.

Ya know, basically what we've been talking about since January.

I would be interested in seeing numbers for previous primaries to see how different this is. I am tending to believe - more and more - that the idea that anybody other than Romney has a real chance is just being manufactured by CNN and MSNBC to keep viewers watching.

Consider this delegate count:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates


Mitt Romney - 415
Rick Santorum - 176

Does that really look like a nail-biter?:shrug

If Romney is in trouble, where's that leave Santorum?

Sure, Romney hasn't locked it up yet. How could he? Even if he had ALL the delegates, he wouldn't have a mathematical lock because more than half the country hasn't voted yet.

I guess if everyone votes for Santorum and nobody votes for Romney in all of the remaining primaries, Santorum could win. But that's not going to happen.

Romney needs fewer than half of the remaining delegates. He's the clear front-runner and has more than half of all the delegates that have been distributed so far. So he simply needs to continue what he's doing. Right? Am I missing something? It seems like he has about as good a position as anybody could realistically expect at this point.

Has anybody EVER gone from the deficit Santorum has to win the nomination? I'd be amazed. And now that Romney seems inevitable, I think people will jump on his band-wagon and we'll see him winning by larger and larger numbers.

I'm ready to call this for Romney.

[BeeJay]

I think by any reasonable measure, Romney is as close to a sure thing as you could want. Santorum would have to basically catch fire and start winning everything to have a chance to catch him.

The reason this primary feels different might be that the GOP has gone from a winner-take-all scheme in most primaries to a proportional one, so losing candidates can still look like they're making progress. Also, the Super PACs have made campaign fundraising less important. Santorum and Gingrich are basically living off the largesse of large donors to their PACs at this point, when in a previous race they'd be tapped out by now. It all creates an illusion of a contested race (and forces Romney to spend more time and money on the primaries, which IS a real effect), but it's all basically theater from here IMO.

On another topic: appaently Obama got more votes in the Ohio primary than Romney...in an uncontested race. I know there are different ways to explain that (Dems had statewide races to come out for, and the total Republican share was still larger than the Dem share), but that's still pretty remarkable. :huh

[Christy]

Or....did you mean....about Limbaugh? :lookaroun

Ugh, why doesn't he just go away? :lol

Someone had a thing on facebook about him, picture of him looking like an ass with a cigar sticking out his big fat head :lookaroun and it said "4 marriages, no kids... birth control, impotence, or infertility?" :lol :lookaroun

[Christy]

http://media-cdn.pinterest.com/upload/47921183505008612_IUqQSniZ_f.jpg

[Garyhoov]

I think by any reasonable measure, Romney is as close to a sure thing as you could want. Santorum would have to basically catch fire and start winning everything to have a chance to catch him.

The reason this primary feels different might be that the GOP has gone from a winner-take-all scheme in most primaries to a proportional one, so losing candidates can still look like they're making progress. Also, the Super PACs have made campaign fundraising less important. Santorum and Gingrich are basically living off the largesse of large donors to their PACs at this point, when in a previous race they'd be tapped out by now. It all creates an illusion of a contested race (and forces Romney to spend more time and money on the primaries, which IS a real effect), but it's all basically theater from here IMO.

On another topic: appaently Obama got more votes in the Ohio primary than Romney...in an uncontested race. I know there are different ways to explain that (Dems had statewide races to come out for, and the total Republican share was still larger than the Dem share), but that's still pretty remarkable. :huh

:yes

All great points and very well summarized.

I think it's very analgous to the Phillies last year. There was a point at which they simply needed to win half the games remaining to guarantee the division and I felt pretty good at that point. Sure, it wasn't definite, but if they couldn't do that, they didn't deserve it. But there was no reason to be nervous as a fan at that point when they had everything going their way.

The race is Romney's to lose and he would have to have some sort of unprecedented collapse to not win it at this point.

[Garyhoov]

http://media-cdn.pinterest.com/upload/47921183505008612_IUqQSniZ_f.jpg

:rotfl

[BeeJay]

The race is Romney's to lose and he would have to have some sort of unprecedented collapse to not win it at this point.

I thought of the quote last night that goes somewhat along the lines that "capitalism is the worst economic system humans ever came up with, except for all the others."

That might be a good analogy for Romney's campaign right now. :lol

[Garyhoov]

Well at least they admit it:

I was watching CNN this morning and there was a guy 'on the ground' in Illinois reporting about how important this primary is for both candidates.

The woman in studio asked: "Is it often that someone overcomes a 14 point deficit to win a primary."

He responded: "Well . . . no . . . but give me a break here, I'm trying to make this interesting."

Remember when there was a concept that it was the responsibility of the media to 'report' news rather than 'make it interesting'?:blink

[BeeJay]

^ Well, that was before they had to fill 24 hours. :lol


On the primaries, it's hilarious to me that Gingrich is still running. He's basically admitted he has no chance to win a majority of delegates, but he seems convinced he (with Santorum) can keep Romney under 50% and then somehow convince the delegates to nominate him on the convention floor. It's like he reads John Grisham novels where politicians double as superspy detective heroes, and thinks "Yeah...that kinda sounds like me." :lol

[Doug11]

I may be unduly cynical, but read or heard somewhere that Newt will stay in the race until Romney clinches for no reason except to increase his rate as a paid speaker when this is all over. He got a whopping 10% today. Whoopie.

[BeeJay]

I may be unduly cynical, but read or heard somewhere that Newt will stay in the race until Romney clinches for no reason except to increase his rate as a paid speaker when this is all over. He got a whopping 10% today. Whoopie.

Which is interesting, because I would think he would be a more attractive, statesman-like figure if he stepped aside now. I get the feeling from my reading that a lot of Very Important People in the party are getting annoyed with him, because it looks like he's just out to make life tough for the eventual nominee.

[Christy]

Plus, from a practical standpoint, isn't this costing, like, tons of money? :lookaroun I mean, I know they all have cash to burn, but jeez :lol

[Garyhoov]

Which is interesting, because I would think he would be a more attractive, statesman-like figure if he stepped aside now. I get the feeling from my reading that a lot of Very Important People in the party are getting annoyed with him, because it looks like he's just out to make life tough for the eventual nominee.

People who are interested in seeing a statesman like figure are going to see Condoleeza Rice. Those who want to see someone who claims he's building a rocket ship powered by Froot-Loops® are going to see Gingrich. :lookaroun

I'm curious how Gingrich's withdrawal would affect Santorum. I think Santorum probably wants him out with the idea that he will pick up all the anti-Romney votes that are currently going to Gingrich.

But I think that's short-sighted. Santorum has no chance to actually win, so his biggest hope is that Romney goes into the convention with fewer than 50% of the delegates. And part of the reason Romney hasn't been able to consitently get more than 50% of the vote has been the voters have been split four ways.

In a Romney to Santorum head-to-head, I think we'd start seeing Romney 60-70% vs. Santorum 30-40% returns and that would lock it up for Romney.

[BeeJay]

I'm curious how Gingrich's withdrawal would affect Santorum. I think Santorum probably wants him out with the idea that he will pick up all the anti-Romney votes that are currently going to Gingrich.

But I think that's short-sighted. Santorum has no chance to actually win, so his biggest hope is that Romney goes into the convention with fewer than 50% of the delegates. And part of the reason Romney hasn't been able to consitently get more than 50% of the vote has been the voters have been split four ways.

In a Romney to Santorum head-to-head, I think we'd start seeing Romney 60-70% vs. Santorum 30-40% returns and that would lock it up for Romney.

That's come to be my view too. Santorum would get most of Gingrich's votes, but you can't say he'd get them all, which is basically what he would need. If Gingrich had dropped out before now, Santorum might have been able to win a state that was close like Michigan or Ohio, which might (only MIGHT) have re-colored the race and made him a viable contender to get more delegates than Romney. But it's too late for that now.

Plus, it looks like voters might just be done with Gingrich at this point. He got less than 8% in Illinois, and Santorum lost to Romney by more than 11%. Can't whine about any spoiler effect there.

[BeeJay]

Plus, from a practical standpoint, isn't this costing, like, tons of money? :lookaroun I mean, I know they all have cash to burn, but jeez :lol

Newt actually has more debt than cash on hand, according to the most recent campaign filings. I'm telling you, he thinks he's Batman. :lol

(Ya know...if Batman was a little less of a pussy, and had the vision and courage to build Froot Loops rockets.) :lookaroun

[Christy]

So nobody is going to talk supreme court stuff? :lookaroun :lol

I listened to quite a bit, it was all fascinating to me, the laws are all so complicated. I can't even tell you now specifics, but I learned more about the whole federal/state lines thing in the past week than I had in my whole life put together before. :lookaroun :blush

Anyway, sounds like we should know sometime in June :blink what's going to go down. It will be interesting to see who votes what.

[Hooker]

It doesn't look like it's going to hold up from things that I have read. Justice Ginsburg said that they should at least do a salvage job, which seems to indicate that the left-leaners know it's in trouble. I've heard there are five conservative votes that would disband the entire thing, but you never know what they will do or rule when it comes right down to it. Also heard Justice Kagan kinda stuck her foot in her mouth a little too. I'll find a link if anyone is interested.

[Christy]

I'd be interested :goofy

Yeah, I guess going along with the "salvage job"... I guess if this particular aspect is completely scrapped, then it would mean the pre-exisiting conditions stuff has to go, too...

I wish they'd just come up with something simpler, and better, in the first place. :lookaroun :lol

[Christy]

:lookaroun

http://media-cache2.pinterest.com/upload/220957925437987939_Ug0SnHq6_f.jpg

[BeeJay]

If they do overturn the mandate, I think we should also overturn the law that says ER's have to treat everybody who comes through the door. Seriously. As much as I hate that idea, it's completely unfair to require hospitals to treat patients if people can avoid buying insurance and force insured people to pay higher premiums to cover their medical bills.

I didn't listen to the audio, but I followed the arguments pretty closely online. It sounds like a lot of the conservative justices are swayed by the argument that if the government can force you to buy health insurance, what can't they make you buy? I just feel like that line of thinking has a lot of obvious holes in it if you try to compare the nature of the health insurance market to any other product, but I don't get a vote. :shrug

As is so often the case, it sounds like a major point of constitutional law might come down to the median justice (these days, Anthony Kennedy). What's interesting to me is that if Sandra Day O'Connor hadn't retired in 2005 to care for her husband (who ended up in a nursing home not long after because his situation degenerated too badly for her to care for him anyway), this whole thing could have ended up a lot different...assuming the mandate does get struck down.

[BeeJay]

What's really interesting about this case is the variety of options available to the justices, none of which apparently they sounded very excited about.

They could uphold the entire law, strike it all down, strike down just the mandate, or overturn the mandate and any provisions they conclude are inseparable from it.

Some of the people I read seem to think that taking out the whole law might be too radical, even for the conservative judges. Scalia said at one point there was no way that everything in the law was meant to be tied to the mandate (pointing out some local subsidies that were meant to be included just as a way to get a senator from Nebraska's vote), and Roberts pointed out that some aspects of the law are already implemented (like letting kids up to 26 stay on their parents' insurance), meaning Congress intended some parts to function independent of the mandate.

Taking out the mandate and anything related to it didn't seem to be too popular either, since Scalia said it was unreasonable to ask them to comb through a 2,700 page law to find out how everything in it related to the mandate. (Of course, Breyer responded that they couldn't avoid that route if they thought it was the right decision just because it was too much work.) :lol

Then there's Roberts' past statements about wanting large majorities on these kinds of cases, so the court doesn't look like a political body. If that's his motivation, he and some of the more moderate judges might be willing to vote to uphold the mandate on very narrow grounds (making it clear that this doesn't mean the feds can make you buy broccoli, since that seems to be a concern) if that means the difference between a 5-4 decision and a 7-2 one.

So all of those things make me at least somewhat hopeful that the mandate might survive...but if I had to bet, I'd say they take the mandate and just the most obviously connected provisions, like requiring insurance companies to sell policies to people with pre-existing health problems.

If that DOES happen, that leaves Obama and Congress with a mess. Assuming Obama gets re-elected and the Republicans keep the House, you have a partial law that Obama will want to try to salvage and which the Repubs will have zero motivation to try to fix up. At the same time, voters will expect the most popular provisions that already kicked in (like the age 26 stuff) to be preserved somehow. What happens to the rest of the healthcare law in that context?

Another question: If the mandate gets tossed, what route do we have for actually solving this problem down the road? Maybe the next time Democrats have a majority, they'll just turn Medicare into a single-payer program (which would definitely be consitutional) and say we officially have socialized medicine now. If that happens, it would be ironic that conservatives who tried to fight socialist healthcare actually helped bring it about by removing an option (the mandate) that tried to address the problem through the private insurance market.

[Garyhoov]

If they do overturn the mandate, I think we should also overturn the law that says ER's have to treat everybody who comes through the door.

Isn't this really the whole problem? :shrug

Here's how you get universal coverage constitutionally - require people to pay for their health care in one form or another. Wouldn't that be more of a motivating force than a tiny tax? :shrug

Nobody is coming out and discussing this common sense point, but Congress created this problem for themselves by requiring hospitals treat everybody without funding that mandate. . . . and without that unfunded mandate, more people would have insurance . . . because they'd simply need it.

On the broader issue, I support the idea of insurance reform. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't fix the real problems and it is BLATANTLY unconstitutional. The thing that scares me is that it's even being debated.

If this law is ruled constitutional, the constitution and it's clearly intended limits on government power becomes meaningless. If this law passes, there's no reason to even have a Supreme Court because they will have basically said: "The federal government can do anything it damn well pleases as long as it can be argued that there's a societal benefit."

The idea that any justices might even consider allowing it is deeply disturbing to me. It's not about if the law is a good idea or not, it's all about the constitution and even the best law in the world has to be struck down if it's not constitutional.

This is an issue that should be adressed by the states and I hope congress will have the common sense (surely that's an oxymoron) to craft a bill that calls on the states to create their own plans with clearly defined guidelines coming from the federal government.

[Garyhoov]

What's really interesting about this case is the variety of options available to the justices, none of which apparently they sounded very excited about.

They could uphold the entire law, strike it all down, strike down just the mandate, or overturn the mandate and any provisions they conclude are inseparable from it.

Some of the people I read seem to think that taking out the whole law might be too radical, even for the conservative judges. Scalia said at one point there was no way that everything in the law was meant to be tied to the mandate (pointing out some local subsidies that were meant to be included just as a way to get a senator from Nebraska's vote), and Roberts pointed out that some aspects of the law are already implemented (like letting kids up to 26 stay on their parents' insurance), meaning Congress intended some parts to function independent of the mandate.

Taking out the mandate and anything related to it didn't seem to be too popular either, since Scalia said it was unreasonable to ask them to comb through a 2,700 page law to find out how everything in it related to the mandate. (Of course, Breyer responded that they couldn't avoid that route if they thought it was the right decision just because it was too much work.) :lol

Then there's Roberts' past statements about wanting large majorities on these kinds of cases, so the court doesn't look like a political body. If that's his motivation, he and some of the more moderate judges might be willing to vote to uphold the mandate on very narrow grounds (making it clear that this doesn't mean the feds can make you buy broccoli, since that seems to be a concern) if that means the difference between a 5-4 decision and a 7-2 one.

So all of those things make me at least somewhat hopeful that the mandate might survive...but if I had to bet, I'd say they take the mandate and just the most obviously connected provisions, like requiring insurance companies to sell policies to people with pre-existing health problems.

If that DOES happen, that leaves Obama and Congress with a mess. Assuming Obama gets re-elected and the Republicans keep the House, you have a partial law that Obama will want to try to salvage and which the Repubs will have zero motivation to try to fix up. At the same time, voters will expect the most popular provisions that already kicked in (like the age 26 stuff - though honestly I think even that would be on shaky constitutional grounds from true constitutionalists) to be preserved somehow. What happens to the rest of the healthcare law in that context?

Another question: If the mandate gets tossed, what route do we have for actually solving this problem down the road? Maybe the next time Democrats have a majority, they'll just turn Medicare into a single-payer program (which would definitely be consitutional) and say we officially have socialized medicine now. If that happens, it would be ironic that conservatives who tried to fight socialist healthcare actually helped bring it about by removing an option (the mandate) that tried to address the problem through the private insurance market.

I would like to believe (maybe I'm crazy and/or naive) that congress could actually pass some of the smaller, more popular elements (such as the inclusion of children up to 26). It really does seem impractical to keep the law without the mandate (The idea of allowing pre-existing conditions without universal coverage could bankrupt insurance companies).

And assuming the whole house of cards does collapse, I think we should blame congress for not passing smaller, piecemeal laws as they should have from the very start. The Democrats had a once in 100 year opportunity and I think the ultimate story is they blew it by over-reaching.

[BeeJay]

If this law passes, there's no reason to even have a Supreme Court because they will have basically said: "The federal government can do anything it damn well pleases as long as it can be argued that there's a societal benefit."


I don't think the best argument for the mandate has anything to do with societal benefit (which is apparently what has some of the justices worried about a broccoli mandate). The government isn't saying everybody has to buy health insurance because they're nice people and want us all to be taken care of; they're saying it because A.) We're all going to purchase healthcare at some point anyway and B.) If we don't buy insurance before we get sick, we can force our neighbors to pay our medical bills. I can't think of any other product that's true for. You can't walk into a grocery store, grab some broccoli, say you can't afford it, and then expect me to pay for it.

But we were discussing the mandate for unpaid emergency treatment, and everything I said above is only true because THAT mandate exists in the first place. So maybe we should discuss this on a more basic level, as if everything is up for discussion. Forgive me now, but I'm going to take off on a bit of a lengthy free-association philosophical tangent.

I appreciate the logic behind saying people without insurance should go untreated, but I can't support the idea myself. I think sometimes people make stupid decisions (like not buying health insurance), and I don't want to live in a society that says they should die for those decisions if the means to prevent death is available and the only barrier is economic. That doesn't seem far removed from the State of Nature to me, and makes me wonder what the point of gathering into societies is to begin with. :shrug

BUT...I also appreciate the idea that our current system punishes individual responsibility (in the form of higher premiums for the insured), and rewards recklessness (in the form of guaranteed free treatment for the ininsured). So I've been thinking about a way to deal with this if the court says a mandate is unconstitutional, given the absolute impossibility (and to my mind, moral repugnance) of passing a law that allows hospitals to turn away uninsured patients.

Let's start with subsidies that would allow anyone who wants to buy health insurance to do so. This is already in the healthcare law, and it seems to be vital to me, since a system that allows hospitals to turn away patients and provides no means for purchasing insurance for the poor is turning healthcare into a commodity for the well-off.

Keep the subsidies that are currently in the law, and introduce a new wrinkle in treatment for the uninsured. Anyone who walks in off the street with a serious injury/illness and no insurance has to purchase health insurance on the spot. They fill out the paperwork in the waiting room, and are guaranteed a policy. The insurance company can't deny them coverage, even though they're about to undergo intensive treatment.

The insurance companies in turn can charge these people a penalty for waiting until they got sick or hurt to buy insurance: A "Point of Treatment" surcharge or something that results in higher premiums for a set period, based on the seriousness of the treatment they sought at the time they bought insurance.

For those who can't afford this more expensive insurance, they could apply to the government for an additional subsidy on their premium. In the event this was awarded, that individual would then have to pay a tax penalty spread out over many years that would help offset the extra cost to the government for insuring them. The penalty would be capped at a percentage of income, and would take a long time to expire. Some people might even pay it for life, if their income-to-insurance ratio is very low.

Now...all of this sounds reasonable to me, but if you jump back up to the very top, I see the potential for it to unravel. If the healthcare law is struck down completely, then the subsidies to encourage people to buy insurance would also be nuked. That means they'd have to be reauthorized. And honestly, I have no faith in the current Congress to do that. We seem to have entered a phase where increasing spending on anything but the military is automatically "wasteful government spending" and has no chance to be implemented. So for something like this to even have a chance, I think the court would have to leave the rest of the law in place if they strike the mandate.

[Christy]

When I opened the floor for discussion, I meant everybody but BJ. I thought that was a given. :lookaroun

[Computer Magic]

When I opened the floor for discussion, I meant everybody but BJ. I thought that was a given. :lookaroun:lmao

[Garyhoov]

Let's start with subsidies that would allow anyone who wants to buy health insurance to do so. This is already in the healthcare law, and it seems to be vital to me, since a system that allows hospitals to turn away patients and provides no means for purchasing insurance for the poor is turning healthcare into a commodity for the well-off.

Keep the subsidies that are currently in the law, and introduce a new wrinkle in treatment for the uninsured. Anyone who walks in off the street with a serious injury/illness and no insurance has to purchase health insurance on the spot. They fill out the paperwork in the waiting room, and are guaranteed a policy. The insurance company can't deny them coverage, even though they're about to undergo intensive treatment.

The insurance companies in turn can charge these people a penalty for waiting until they got sick or hurt to buy insurance: A "Point of Treatment" surcharge or something that results in higher premiums for a set period, based on the seriousness of the treatment they sought at the time they bought insurance.



I think the subsidy is one of the key first points. The broad issue is that insurance is becoming too expensive and there has to be some route to help those who want but can't afford insurance.

Unfortunately, I think your second idea has some practical difficulties. Unless you allow your penalty to be extremely high, you will be putting insurance companies in the position of paying out hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars worth of services for a few thousand dollar penalty.

I think the real problem won't be addressed until we all accept an unpleasant fact that very few seem willing to discuss openly and honestly.

No matter how much we spend on health-care, people will get sick and die. That will be true even if we spend all of our GDP on health care. As long as people are actually paying for their health-care the amount they are willing to pay becomes the limiting factor (though we still see that cost continue to push up and people absorb it).

If health-care becomes 'free' there will be nothing (other than those pesky 'death-panels') keeping gross costs in line.

To simplify the discussion, let's use cars in place of insurance. If we say: "Owning a car is a right", okay, let's give every American a Malibu.

But wait, I'm not happy with a Malibu, I want a Ferrari. Okay Mr. Snotty Pants, you can buy your Ferrari.

But if Mr. Snotty Pants gets a Ferrari, everybody wants a Ferrari and since cars are a right, even the 80 year old grandmother in North Philadelphia should get the Ferrari. And once we start buying Ferrari's for everybody, we will go quickly broke.

The current difficulty seems to be that, because we're talking about health care instead of cars, we're trying to give everybody Ferraris and we simply can't afford that.

I would like to see a system that provides subsidies and systems to help everybody who wants it get basic coverage. And if it's available and they don't get it, yes, let's take the step of allowing hospitals to turn them away. There needs to be some level of personal responsibility injected into the system. As long as steps have been taken to make it easy for everyone to get basic coverage, any hold-outs can live (or die) with the consequences.

[Christy]

Well, and let me throw in tort reform...please. :lookaroun

:lol

Not even saying that malpractice rates are what is killing us, I know that's not the case. But I wonder how the numbers would actually be if healthcare providers didn't have to practice defensive medicine.

And back to the Ferraris vs Malibus, patients need to remember they are the patient, and just because you think you should get a $5000 series of tests, doesn't mean its necessary :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

Well, and let me throw in tort reform...please. :lookaroun

:lol

Not even saying that malpractice rates are what is killing us, I know that's not the case. But I wonder how the numbers would actually be if healthcare providers didn't have to practice defensive medicine.

And back to the Ferraris vs Malibus, patients need to remember they are the patient, and just because you think you should get a $5000 series of tests, doesn't mean its necessary :lookaroun

I'm a big fan of tort reform - not just for Drs, but across all areas.

But as this debate has gone on and as I've thought more and more about it, I've become convinced, while it would certanly help, it's far short of a real solution.

I think the real solution involves beating some common sense into the American people.

If individuals really value health in the way we say we do,the answer isn't to have a broke government throw money at it. If individuals really value their health they should eat wisely, excercise, not smoke etc.







. . . and when your time comes, don't be a whiney pussy and expect everybody else to spend more momey than you made in your life keeping you alive for one more month. Just die already. :lookaroun

[BeeJay]

. . . and when your time comes, don't be a whiney pussy and expect everybody else to spend more momey than you made in your life keeping you alive for one more month. Just die already. :lookaroun

:lol

This is what I wondered if you were getting at with your earlier comments. I've read stories where doctors talk about all the end of life care they see administered, and the futile nature of it. I agree with you. I think there's a lot to be said for dying with dignity.

But...I'm also a 30-year-old man a year removed from running a marathon. Maybe I'll feel different when my number's almost up. :blink

[Christy]

I'm a big fan of tort reform - not just for Drs, but across all areas.

But as this debate has gone on and as I've thought more and more about it, I've become convinced, while it would certanly help, it's far short of a real solution.

I think the real solution involves beating some common sense into the American people.

If individuals really value health in the way we say we do,the answer isn't to have a broke government throw money at it. If individuals really value their health they should eat wisely, excercise, not smoke etc.







. . . and when your time comes, don't be a whiney pussy and expect everybody else to spend more momey than you made in your life keeping you alive for one more month. Just die already. :lookaroun

Oh I know... one of those drop in a bucket things, but one that hits close to home. :lol

So, the ER (the people working there) are force to treat you, insurance or no insurance, and if you're unlucky (or lucky :lookaroun ) maybe they'll screw up, and you can ruin a few professional hard working peoples' lives and become a millionaire! :thumbs

:lookaroun

[BeeJay]

Oh I know... one of those drop in a bucket things, but one that hits close to home. :lol

So, the ER (the people working there) are force to treat you, insurance or no insurance, and if you're unlucky (or lucky :lookaroun ) maybe they'll screw up, and you can ruin a few professional hard working peoples' lives and become a millionaire! :thumbs

:lookaroun

Hold on, you can DO that??!

Which one of y'all wants to come over and help me shove lightbulbs up my butt? I'll split my winnings...err, justice with you. :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

Hold on, you can DO that??!

Which one of y'all wants to come over and help me shove lightbulbs up my butt? I'll split my winnings...err, justice with you. :lookaroun


:rotfl

Is anyone else as concerned by these comments as I am?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-obama-warns-supreme-court-health-law-192629533.html

What exactly is he saying here? He seems to be suggesting that the Supreme Court has no authority. If they shouldn't overturn legislation passed by congress, what can they do? :shrug

The President's PRIMARY responsibility is to defend the constitution of the United States, but these comments would indicate that he doesn't even understand the most basic elements of that constitution.

The scary thing to me is that I think he understands full well the authorities of the Supreme Court, but he also thinks that many voters are ignorant and he'd like to manipulate them. If he is willing to be dishonest to manipulate the American people regarding the basic nature of our Constitution, what won't he do?:shrug

Ironically, one of my biggest issues with Obama up until this point has been his lack of respect for the authority of the same "democratically elected congress" which he now wants to say is beyond reproach. It seems that he only believes in the authority of the other branches of government when they agree with him.

Just stop and think about what he's really saying here. Isn't he saying: "If congress passes a law to jail anyone who disagrees with me, the Supreme Court damn well better not stop them.":blink

I have already been disappointed with his Supreme Court nominees, and his latest comments really make me frightened of what may happen if he can pick a few more.

Maybe my memory is poor, but I can't remember any other president, in the 35 years or so that I've been paying attention, say anything that showed as much contempt for the Constitution as this. Does anyone have anything they'd like to nominate?

[Christy]

:rotfl

Is anyone else as concerned by these comments as I am?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-obama-warns-supreme-court-health-law-192629533.html

What exactly is he saying here? He seems to be suggesting that the Supreme Court has no authority. If they shouldn't overturn legislation passed by congress, what can they do? :shrug

The President's PRIMARY responsibility is to defend the constitution of the United States, but these comments would indicate that he doesn't even understand the most basic elements of that constitution.

The scary thing to me is that I think he understands full well the authorities of the Supreme Court, but he also thinks that many voters are ignorant and he'd like to manipulate them. If he is willing to be dishonest to manipulate the American people regarding the basic nature of our Constitution, what won't he do?:shrug

Ironically, one of my biggest issues with Obama up until this point has been his lack of respect for the authority of the same "democratically elected congress" which he now wants to say is beyond reproach. It seems that he only believes in the authority of the other branches of government when they agree with him.

Just stop and think about what he's really saying here. Isn't he saying: "If congress passes a law to jail anyone who disagrees with me, the Supreme Court damn well better not stop them.":blink

I have already been disappointed with his Supreme Court nominees, and his latest comments really make me frightened of what may happen if he can pick a few more.

Maybe my memory is poor, but I can't remember any other president, in the 35 years or so that I've been paying attention, say anything that showed as much contempt for the Constitution as this. Does anyone have anything they'd like to nominate?

Andy was talking about this yesterday... it's pretty appalling. "Did he just threaten the supreme court?" :lol

[BeeJay]

It sits ill with me when politicians go after judges. A few years ago, Bush and Co. were going on about "robed tyranny" and "judicial activism" based on judges overturning state bans against gay marriage. This is the second time Obama has gone after the court publicly (Citizens United previously). I just don't see the point. Does he want to diminish the court's legitimacy with voters? There's NO good that could come of that. If the law is overturned, it would make a lot more sense to focus his fire on people who supported the suits, and actually are on the ballots.

As for the court itself: Today they upheld strip searches in jails for people brought in on any minor charge, like driving without a license. That's a pretty broad interpretation of government power. If they also turn around and strike the HC law, I'm going to have a hard time seeing them as more than a political body. The only principle that would seem to allow those two decisions to exist in the same mind would be "broad government power with few practical limits is OK, but only when the forms of power being exercised are those that conservatives would support."

So...I guess in a way I agree with Obama's criticism (if the HC law goes), but I still don't think it's a good idea for the president to come out and say these things.

[Garyhoov]

Does he want to diminish the court's legitimacy with voters?

I don't think that's his intention. I think his intention is to have someone to blame when he's campaigning in November, but intended or not, his comments will continue questions regarding the legitmacy of the courts.

I share your disappointment with the strip-search ruling (which is actually a local story for me).

Politics in the courts has been a reality since the beginning of our nation and it will continue to be. And I think people like us should discuss those issues and keep the politicians as honest as possible.

But I also think there's a big difference between citizens disagreeing with the courts and the President of the US questioning their authority to perform their most basic tasks.

We were discussing the constitutionality of the health-care law right here on this forum before it even passed. If bumpkins like us recognized that there were potential constitutional issues, why didn't the president and congress recognize . . . and deal with . . . those issues?

Assuming it gets overturned, those on the left should be furious with Obama and congress over their ham-handed handling of this legislation, but somehow I doubt that will be the story.

[Doug11]

as for those comments about judges interfering with law. . . I'm sure there are still some people who are angry about Brown v. Board of Education. You know, the end of segregation in public schools?

and as for the whole "re-elect me so that I can appoint justices who will uphold my laws" notion, yeah that's going to end partisanship in the judiciary.

[Garyhoov]

as for those comments about judges interfering with law. . . I'm sure there are still some people who are angry about Brown v. Board of Education. You know, the end of segregation in public schools?

and as for the whole "re-elect me so that I can appoint justices who will uphold my laws" notion, yeah that's going to end partisanship in the judiciary.

:yes

Great points. And my 'bumpkin' comment earlier didn't apply to you, counselor.:lol

[BeeJay]

I
But I also think there's a big difference between citizens disagreeing with the courts and the President of the US questioning their authority to perform their most basic tasks.

Exactly! The president isn't just an average citizen, and he has to be mindful of how he expresses himself in public.



We were discussing the constitutionality of the health-care law right here on this forum before it even passed. If bumpkins like us recognized that there were potential constitutional issues, why didn't the president and congress recognize . . . and deal with . . . those issues?

They probably could have passed the same law and avoided all this, if they'd just made the penalty for not buying insurance an official tax. But everybody in Washington is scared shitless of increasing anybody's taxes these days.

[BeeJay]

Gary, I hate to let you know this way, but...you're apparently not the only one who's good buddies with Barack Obama:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/04/jon-stewart-mocks-obama-campaign-emails-119791.html

[Garyhoov]

Gary, I hate to let you know this way, but...you're apparently not the only one who's good buddies with Barack Obama:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/04/jon-stewart-mocks-obama-campaign-emails-119791.html


:rotfl

Maybe Jon Stewart reads our posts. :lookaroun

[Hooker]

So, Santorum has suspended his campaign, which basically means he's thrown in the towel and is finished. I hope for his own sake and respect as a human being, that it truly is because of his daughter's illness and not because he won't admit that he has no chance of beating Romney.

[Doug11]

High time that happened. Sad to see the Newt is trying to leach Romney's financial support. Just GO AWAY, NEWT!

[Garyhoov]

So, Santorum has suspended his campaign, which basically means he's thrown in the towel and is finished. I hope for his own sake and respect as a human being, that it truly is because of his daughter's illness and not because he won't admit that he has no chance of beating Romney.

He lost his PA Senate seat to Bob Casey by 18 % a few years back and he realized that was a black mark on his record. His hope was to win PA, erase that loss and then bow out gracefully - setting up a run in 2016. But when he realized he had a very real chance of losing PA and, again, having those who know him best reject him, he realized that could be devastating to his 2016 run.

I highly doubt it had much to do with his daughter since she was admitted to the hospital several days ago - without his campaign skipping a beat - and realeased today when it was reported he was quitting. Wouln't a parent be more concerned with their child going into the hospital than coming out?

[BeeJay]

It's interesting timing on Santorum's part. I would have thought he'd have waited a little longer to see how PA might shake out (the primary isn't for two weeks...lot of time for polls to change) before making a decision. But the bottom line is the same thing we've been saying for a while: Romney is the nominee. The anti-Romney camp could never get its stuff together. Santorum probably was hurt by not being immediately declared the winner in Iowa and getting a clear bounce. Then we had to go through Newt's big surge in South Carolina, which ultimately proved pointless but still ate up time that Santorum could have used to establish himself as the clear alternative. And while I don't ultimately think that Newt made much of a difference, you can never tell how those tight votes in Michigan and Ohio might have gone with only two candidates instead of three. If Romney had lost one or both of those, his campaign might have started to unravel.

Now Romney heads into the election with everybody (myself included) thinking he looks exceptionally weak. He struggled to beat a field of nobodies and has-beens in the primary. But you just never know. The Cardinals barely made the playoffs last year, and then won it all. Guess we can spend the next seven months coming to a consensus. :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

It's interesting timing on Santorum's part. I would have thought he'd have waited a little longer to see how PA might shake out (the primary isn't for two weeks...lot of time for polls to change) before making a decision.

I think he was looking at reports like this: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_PA_404.pdf and watching Romney buying up huge ads in PA that he couldn't afford. That, combined with the fact that he has shifted his focus to 2016 rather than 2012 made his decision for him.

If he waited until just before the primary - when he could have been down 20% in the polls, it would seem a cowardly and transparent move. If he rode out the election and lost big in his 'home state' (in quotes because a lot of people in PA are still pissed that he was living in VA and billing the school district of his fake Penn Hills house for 100s of thousands of dollars for home schooling) then his opponents would have used that against him in 2016: "Look at this loser: His only accomplishment was serving as senator in PA and they rejected him . . . BIG-TIME . . . twice."

[Hooker]

If the GOP will get behind Romney now that he's all but the winner, he has a chance. Romney has to get conservative backing behind him, pounding on Obama's liberal record. It's gonna be an ugly, nasty campaign.

Ok, who is Romney's running mate? Santorum? Rubio? Other?

[BeeJay]

It's gonna be an ugly, nasty campaign.

Not to mention long. Quick everybody, what were you doing last Labor Day? Unless you went on vacation, you probably have to stop and think. It's been a while between then and now.

Well, we have just about that much time for Obama and Romney to beat up on each other until the election. :blink

[Christy]

If the GOP will get behind Romney now that he's all but the winner, he has a chance. Romney has to get conservative backing behind him, pounding on Obama's liberal record. It's gonna be an ugly, nasty campaign.

Ok, who is Romney's running mate? Santorum? Rubio? Other?

Christie :lookaroun

[Christy]

Christie :lookaroun

Paul :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

I think the Vegas odds favorite is Rubio, and then there are a few other names I've heard but forgotten - I think one guy was from New Mexico?

Christie is possible, but I'm not sure if he really wants it and I don't know if Romney would take someone from the Northeast (though if you assume Romney will get the traditional 'Red States', it would be interesting to see if Romney/Christie could take some traditional Blue states. Christie would probably give him Jersey and he gets a lot of press and is fairly popular in Philly, so that could help Romney take PA. Would NY go with Christie? Possibly. He would probably be at least the best choice if you wanted to go after NY (though some feuding about tunnels/bridges could be a negative to some in NYC). If Romney could take some New England states, the math could get interesting.

I don't think Santorum has a chance. He brings too many negatives with him.