Printable View
Actually, they are cast as older white guys, but it isn't just the Dems and the mainstream media doing it. It's the numbers themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
But then, I think certain conservatives here have cast the Republican party in the same light.
Bae,
Up to you, really. I did a google search and could really only find entertainers making the claim in order to be inflammatory and/or entertaining -- which is why I caveated, as well as then asked whether or not O'Reilly should be categorized that way. If he should (as I do Rush), then all good, I don't care about his statement. :)
But if he's considered a legitimate dude in the community, like I think Rove is (which is also why I stated that it didn't look like a "meltdown" to me, I definitely saw his point and what would be the problem of waiting another 10 minutes to call the state or whatever?), then any association with the party would go severely down hill because his statement *is* racist and sexist, imo.
Also, I think it's entirely possible for us to work together, and I've seen politicians (particularly younger ones in general) doing a good job of bridging the gap and being less interested in their party's pushing and far more interested in their constituent's interests. But, to be sure, I suggest that the "older" ones probably are as well, but they don't go on the Daily Show (as an example) as often and chat with their other-party counterparts about this issue openly and intelligently.
What I find really humorous right now is my sister and BIL. The last 4 years, they spent complaning about obama, how terrible he is, this, that and the other. They talked about how they supported republican efforts to NOT cross the divide (a lot of language around holding to your values, no compromise, only working together if their terms are met, etc), and then as soon as obama wins this time, my sister publishes (on fb) this big statement congratulating obama, how we need to cross party lines and work together to solve these common problems, and everyone needs to compromise, etc. And I pointed out: that's what obama ran on 4 years ago (and put a link to him saying those statements).
I'm glad that many people in the party have come to this idea (particularly, as well, since so many republicans lost their seats in congress this time around -- I think many of them were surprised about that too). . . because I do believe it is possible.
I read the articles from redfox about the deception (self deception?) around the numbers, and the claims that the consultants were scamming the campaign (interesting one!).
And, yes, I do see it as an attempt to stay in denial, but honestly. . . I could see his point and it wasn't as if he was being aggressive or weird. I suppose I see meltdowns as more dramatic. for me, this was sort of "more of the same Rove."
whom, btw, I do not watch much, but people talk about him so much that when I was in labor (with my son), it's the only mantra my brain latched too. literally, my brain repeated "karl rove" over and over and over again. Weird, right? Painless labor, other than that.
So what if one wants stuff? Personally I'd give up quite a lot of stuff (including pay more taxes) for a platform of environmental responsibiilty and investment in *that* future, plus civil liberties, but since that's nowhere to be found ...
This economy is so screwed up anyway. They set interest rates at zero and then blame old people if they absolutely rely on social security. If we don't want stuff, reasonable stuff like a good state college system, they throw us into the hands of corrupt cartels and banksters who will provide us with that stuff only in the most exploitive fashion possible (for profit colleges and 100k college loans, and no I'm not even touching the medical system). Meh.
I agree. I found it ironic that a guy who made his money from a company whose sole purpose was to make money rather than create things, was scammed by guys whose sole motivation was to make money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
And this guy was supposed to be this super business manager who was going to save our country.
Zoebird - my experience is not defined by Google, or media personalities. I was referring to members of my own community, who have spoken such words, directly to my face. It is quite divisive and hateful. My wife has been shunned by two ladies in one orchestra she plays in, simply because she voted for a Republican candidate, and was accused of being racist for criticising Obama. Since I was "outed" as a Republican because of my educational effort to participate in the caucus process here, people who have been nice to me for over a decade won't give me the time of day.
It's sickening.
I had a somewhat different take on Rove's reaction to Fox calling the election. Zoebird is right in a sense -- there is no reason they couldn't have waited to make the call. EXCEPT that the presidential election is kind of like the Olympics for American political media. Everyone wants to be the first to make the (correct) call. So they are weighing all kinds of factors, including how much weight to give to the early returns as well as how likely they are to be first.
I think part of Rove's reaction was that he seriously felt (legitimately, perhaps) that Fox was "his" network. He was there for a celebration, not a defeat. When they called it so early, it wasn't just the possibility of defeat that freaked him out. It was discovering that Fox's loyalty to the cause was not as steadfast as he thought. It was kind of like the captain of a sinking ship standing on the bridge trying to issue orders to stand fast and wait for rescue while the crew was all frantically running for the lifeboats.
I do think they call the elections too early, especially what happened in Florida a few years back. As someone who has no choice but to vote by absentee ballot, this bothers me -- does make you wonder sometimes whether your vote really counts. But we got marriage equality, legal pot (not so much for that as against silly drug laws), charter schools, and a Democratic governor in WA all in fairly close races, so I do feel my vote was significant this time. And it was fun to help DH vote for the first time since he naturalized.
lhamo
Woot! Woot! You go girl!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
Here is the difference... Florida was called on exit polls. Ohio was called on actual votes counted, and considering what votes were left outstanding. There was absolutely no doubt. As the Dunder-Miflin nerds at Fox explained, there just weren't enough votes outstanding in Republican areas for Romney to make up the numbers. I understood that just watching it live, without the explanation. Rove doesn't know nearly as much about vote counting as those guys in that room. It is a given they are going to bend over backwards for the Republican cause, but they aren't idiots. They CAN count.Quote:
Originally Posted by lhamo
I knew how much Fox and the Republicans were in denial for weeks. All you had to do was look at the numbers. Instead, the campaign and their allies explained them away. Instead they lied to each other, and they lied to themselves. What you saw with Rove was an on-air, real-time manifestation of their deep, deep denial of reality. Rove couldn't believe those numbers were real. They didn't jive with his alternate reality. THAT is what makes it a melt-down, and so damn fun to watch. Even The Architect was taken completely by surprise.
You can't spin everything. There IS an objective reality.
I find the whole pot thing fascinating. I didn't even know it was on any ballot, certainly not as recreational legalization.Quote:
Originally Posted by lhamo
So I guess folks will start being open about growing a few plants in their garden. But, just as most folks don't grow their own tomatoes, I suppose most won't grow their own pot after a while. This opens up a whole new revenue stream for the state government in taxes (sin tax like booze and cigarettes) and growers. And even tourist, as I can see pot tours to the state like some go to Nevada for prostitution and gambling.
I wonder how long it will take other states to see the added bonus of legalization and put it on their ballots.
I assume the laws of pot usage will be the same as drinking, i.e. no smoking and driving, no smoking under a certain age, not on campus, etc...
No there isn't. Reality is a liberal lie!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
Well. maybe not....Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6...92c4c9d88f.png
From what I understand from friends in the area, the legislature actually has a full year to get the legal structure set up to manage pot usage, which is only for over-21s. So it will be a while. Also, (not sure if this is speculation or definitive) but I have heard pot will fall under no-smoking ordinances existing for tobacco...which eliminates an awful lot of territory outside people's homes and private property. Seattle especially has very strict no-smoking laws.Quote:
I find the whole pot thing fascinating. I didn't even know it was on any ballot, certainly not as recreational legalization.
So I guess folks will start being open about growing a few plants in their garden. But, just as most folks don't grow their own tomatoes, I suppose most won't grow their own pot after a while. This opens up a whole new revenue stream for the state government in taxes (sin tax like booze and cigarettes) and growers. And even tourist, as I can see pot tours to the state like some go to Nevada for prostitution and gambling.
I wonder how long it will take other states to see the added bonus of legalization and put it on their ballots.
I assume the laws of pot usage will be the same as drinking, i.e. no smoking and driving, no smoking under a certain age, not on campus, etc...
Per the way people treat Republicans (and I am not surprised to hear that in the Pacific Northwest, frankly), I think the party has become associated in many people's minds with those few who speak hatefully--and with our increasingly self-segregated society (culturally speaking) people know fewer and fewer folks who are different from them to correct a media impression of Republicans being monolithic in their thinking. So liberals think they are striking a blow for righteousness by practicing social shunning, etc. It makes me feel sad--I don't think this is good for the country. Interestingly, I am in a slightly majority Republican area and people are much politer about political differences face to face. I happened to go to a social event on Election day and it was hilarious to watch an entire tableful of people cheerfully discuss the election without ever admitting who they had actually voted for...
If you were a politician who was going to lose an election, would it help your chances more to know you were going to lose or to pretend to yourself and others that there was still a chance you would win? Just faking it until ... they didn't make it. But you're not a politician and don't live in the bubble where image is everything - good for you.
We turned to Fox's coverage after a couple of tweets I saw mentioned the ensuing hilarity. We got there after Rove did his thing, but while that Shepherd (sp?) guy was still clearly disbelieving that it was over. Why, candidate Romney supposedly never even wrote a concession speech on the 50/50 chance that he'd need it. Betcha he does carry an umbrella on days with a 50% chance of rain (more likely, he's hired someone to hold it for him).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
On Election Night, Karl Rove looked like the Iraqi Information Minister insisting that Baghdad was safe even though the background of the camera shot he was in showed Allied tanks rolling by. Jon Stewart did a funny bit on his show about the whole dissembling mess. Good times.
I think sometimes people see what they want to see regardless. Shepard Smith is a pretty non-partisan guy. The truth in that is pretty easy to see because he has the highest rated primetime news show on cable and most people on the left don't know his name. I sometimes lurk at Democratic Underground and all the really far left folks over there love him because they think he's gay. You should check out his 7pm nightly newscast sometimes. You might be surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveinMN
that is a shame, as through the years it seems like you have tried to do a lot for your community. But it seems to me like that was the problem with the whole election. Intolerance. Trying to impose views on others and promoting interpretation of religious views.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I am an athiest living in a country that is largely intolerant of those who are not Christian- it is amazing how it changes some peoples view of me if they find out. I can't imagine what it is like to be Jewish or Black.
I agree with you on Reddit. It is huge, and kudos to whoever on the Obama campaign pointed him there. Part of Obama's appeal to younger voters is, he (or someone close to him) knows where they hang out.Quote:
Originally Posted by try2bfrugal
That IS sickening... And I expericed some similar stuff in SJC. Rural communities can be very harsh. I was on the Lopez Comp Plan committee, and got a death threat... Seriously. Stoopid. I'm sorry y'all have been castigated. I hope the GOP comes back and re-occupies the center. I miss being on the ultra left wing!Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I missed seeing live Karl Rove's challenge* to Fox since I stopped watching the election an hour earlier. So, I watched it the next day on Youtube. And I have to say, I want geeky Karl on my side when I run for Queen. I kept hearing about Rove's "meltdown" yet when I watched the episode in question he was just arguing numbers. It's what all of the election geeks do, but he's the geekiest of the geeks. He didn't get crazy about it. He thought Ohio was coming in extremely close and Romney still might pull it off, and that's ok.
He seemed reasonable to me. An hour earlier, just before I left my friend's house, Jonah Goldberg was tweeting chastisements about Fox New calling other states early, and earlier than other mainstream news organizations. And, Jonah is one of their own.
I just wonder if any of you saw Fox News call states for Obama BEFORE the other networks? It happened, I saw it.
*"meltdown" is what mainstream leftie media called it,and glad to see that Stoyteller mimicked the adjective
Yeah, that's not cool. I've had the same outcome with family members (reverse direction -- republicans refusing to talk to me, look at things from different angles, including alternative republican angles beyond fox news, etc; name calling, etc). You've heard me tell of it before.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
But, I think we are talking about two different things.
Since this thread is talking about the overall perception of the republican party, we are talking about something that is cultural -- not necessarily individuated (though it plays out there too).
Looking at O'Reilly's statements, is it false to assume that republicans are racist, sexist white people? Because O'Reilly's statement is sexist and racist. We also know that the majority of republican voters were white.
Flip side, Republicans can disavow O'Reilly (and I think they should), and/or we can simply consider O'Reilly an entertainer not to be taken seriously (assuming republicans do not take him seriously), then I'm happy to bypass the statement the same way I blow off Jeanine Garofolo's statements (wherein she called Republicans "tools" and racist white guys and lots of other things. But I don't consider here a voice of liberalism or liberal news or what have you).
That being said, I think people have ridiculous lack of manners around these things -- no civility or decency. I'm sorry that you guys went through it. And, I'm sorry that I go through it too.
But I don't understand why people wouldn't be upset (republican or democrat) about what O'Reilly stated if he is considered a legitimate voice.
I'm not upset with whatever O'Reilly said, because I don't ever watch whatever show he has, and don't view him as representing anyone but himself and his own views.
And I don't like people wanting me to play the game of "repudiate So-and-So, or you must be with him!".
I was watching O'Reilly live when he said that. I can see how it would be offensive to the other side. It is incredibly simplistic. But sorry, I also think there's a ton of truth in it for many Obama supporters, certainly not all. Perhaps not even a majority of Obama voters--yet. It's not yet a majority who expect the "stuff." But it will be, the tide has turned and the tipping point is past, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
If you don't think stuff is important, just look here on this website at the first posts celebrating his reelection where there is reference to the stuff he's bringing with his administration.There were many reasons to reelect the President and his gift basket, bigger than Mitt Romney's, was one of them.
I liked what O'Reilly said that the overriding POV is: what can my government give to me? Not John Kennedy's idea of what can we do for our country? I don't know if that part played on the O'Reilly clip above.
I generally like what Bill O'Reilly says, he makes sense to me, but keep in mind that I probably see him only 2 -3 times a year so I don't see him often enough to get sick and tired of hearing him.
I voted for Obama and don't expect stuff. That is a typical non-informed conservative statement. Hispanics are some of the hardest working people in this country. They also start many small businesses. Remember the majority of people receiving government benefits are mostly poor and white. They are also conservative and vote republican. I can not figure that out.
Understandable. For my own part, I think that we do need to hold each other accountable for our statements. We do it on here all the time, so I don't know why public figures would necessarily get a "bye" on these things.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I don't watch his show either. It just popped up after the Rove video. I was shocked. I never thought that he would assert something so ridiculous!
I suppose that I live in a bubble where I think most people are pretty intelligent, pretty open-minded, and pretty informed. They might disagree on things -- in fact, I expect that -- but I didn't expect such a highly respected public figure (I assume) to have stated something so blatantly egregious.
I also don't assume that you stand "with" someone if you don't repudiate them, but I do think that if we do not stand up against these statements, it's a permissive stance toward those ideas.
Can you provide some evidence to support this idea? That many people who support Obama -- and eventually will be a majority -- want "stuff?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
Such as the protection of the civil rights of homosexual individuals in terms of marriage? protecting women's reproductive rights? slowing down the military interventionism ideology in favor of diplomacy? Providing a tax plan that used real numbers? Putting forward Obamacare wherein individuals will be able to buy insurance plans independent of employer group plans (as such driving the market into providing better service at better prices)?Quote:
If you don't think stuff is important, just look here on this website at the first posts celebrating his reelection where there is reference to the stuff he's bringing with his administration.There were many reasons to reelect the President and his gift basket, bigger than Mitt Romney's, was one of them.
You are effectively asserting that non-republicans are selfish, unwilling to work, and basically want government handouts.Quote:
I liked what O'Reilly said that the overriding POV is: what can my government give to me? Not John Kennedy's idea of what can we do for our country? I don't know if that part played on the O'Reilly clip above.
This is not the case. It is an over-simplified cartoonish sense of how democrats work.
It's basically the difference between two different points of view in terms of autonomy (rep) vs equality (dem).
I want to point out that I'm using "equality" in a specific way here. I believe that in the big concept of civil equality, both Rep and Dems hold the same position. but to the idea of "everyone gets the same" is the idea for the dems.
I'll use an example from education that requires some background leg work.
First, one we are familiar with because it's happening in the US: republicans would choose a voucher system (which utilizes tax parity and free market values) to facilitate increased educational standards. The research on the matter tells us that, in fact, this idea works. Public schools near private schools that accept vouchers are of higher quality and cost less per student to run than schools in non-voucher areas (this is according to the Manhattan Institute of Policy regarding test cases in Florida).
In the alternative, democrats would probably go for what we have here, which are education reforms that were brought in by the labour party and then altered a bit when the nationals came in after. Happened in the 1990s.
what labour did was really interesting. the essentially got rid of the dept of education and created a smaller, ministry of education which basically verified a curriculum. Curriculum development and school management went entirely local. Parents, teachers, and a board of trustees (locally determined) manages each school.
With the nationals, funding for schools moved to a per-student basis (as I understand it, labor just gave each school the same amount of money). since this proved to be an inadequate amount of funding early on (1990s), the schools also began to work on fund-raising efforts, and by 2000, 74% of schools were asking for a tax-deducatable "fee" (donation) per child to cover other costs. Over time, taxes have been adjusted to pay a better per-child rate, but still schools require both fees and fund raising in most instances.
To many people, this looks rather "republican-y" because it's about local ownership (with a national curriculum standard though individual methods are determined at the local school level), but where it gets really "democrat-y" is with the national (or what would be federal in the US) government providing a dollar amount per child enrolled in that school.
According to policy research here in NZ, this system is quite effective in terms of creating competitive schools. Nationals also did away with districts -- so any child can go to any school in a given locality -- which functions under the same market ideology as "voting with their feet" so to speak, and keeping schools more competitive. The more students they attract, the more money they attract, and the less they may need to fund-raise.
Special character -- or private schools -- are included in this scheme, and are the most likely to ask for the fees. These are donations, and so they cannot reject you once they have accepted you as all public schooling in NZ is free. And since they accept gov't money per student, even a private school therefore qualifies as public! Thus, it created open competition between all schools -- as all get funded per child.
The desire of these programs is the same: high quality education for all children by creating competitive schools.
But their methods of going about it were very different. One provides the voucher (tax credit) for families who are choosing to opt-out of public schooling, which in turn makes public schools more competitive because they are trying to attract students. The other provides a per-student national funding (every student gets funded if they go to school -- homeschoolers are SOL unlike in the voucher system), and then schools make up the difference with donation fees (tax deductible) and also fund raising activities.
The first one increases/decreases the tax amount based on the actual requirements of the competitive school (but is not determined per child, but per budget), while the second one increases/decreases/maintains the tax amount based on the actual requirement of the competitive school's number of students.
They both create competitive schools that spend less money and provide higher quality education for the children. Both are more locally driven, too, with some modest national oversight (curriculum). They both work.
And how does this fit in with autonomy vs "equality?"
In the first instance, the family is autonomous and chooses the school, and the school is autonomous of the students as well -- getting funding based on it's necessary, competitive budget (which determines the tax amount). Parents pay into the tax to pay for public schooling if their child utilizes that school, keeping the family autonomous from public schooling.
In the second instance, each child is provided with an equal amount of money for their education, which can be utilized at any school in NZ (but not homeschooling).
As you can see, neither of these approaches is about gift baskets or being ignorant or even wanting hand-outs. It's simply a different way of solving the problem of needless/excessive education spending (as we know, spending more money per child doesn't necessarily increase educational results), while also providing education to our citizens.
The real difficulty of the voucher system is the issue of income levels of families within a tax base. Can a poorer tax base support public schools if the wealthier individuals in that tax base are opting out (with the educaitonal tax credit), thereby decreasing tax revenue to support those schools?
We know that when the tax base is broad enough (populous enough) that the system can create a dynamic free market where some wealthy families will choose (and in particular, middle class families will mostly choose) -- these being the tax base -- to send their children to good, public schools, thus continuing to adequately fund those schools. Because, ostensibly, if everyone in a given tax base is opting out, then there won't be enough revenue for public schools, which would leave the poor (who are technically not paying income taxes, etc. . . or not at the rates of middle class and wealthier people) without educational opportunities with the exception of private schools (which they may or may not be able to afford).
And that's the concern of the liberal party. They would much rather that taxes go into a pot and that if you opt-out of the system (like a homeschooler in NZ) then that's what you choose freely, but that the poorest will have an opportunity for education provided by the tax base. Everyone is provided with this basic education -- public school -- and if you want to home school or send to another school, you are free to opt-out and do so.
And they do this as an aspect of equality.
I don't see this as an ignorant, hand-out desiring process. I see it as a process of simply trying to solve the same problem using two different methods -- both of which have evidence to support that they work in creating competitive schools.
For most things, it's really not that we disagree on the idea (education) or the result (competitive schools), but the methods of achieving these outcomes.
And I think if we all just acknowledged that, we'd be less likely to call each other names over it.
I forgot to include some criticism of the NZ system that is relevant.
The hope of these reforms was that Maori and poorer students would have more opportunity because the schools would be more competitive. Enrollments were generaly up in schools, but Maori received fewer places at their top-choice schools, and ended up in their second or their choices.
Likewise, the schools rely heavily on local resources -- both in fund raising and in terms of educational opportunities. Some schools, while able to receive funding from the government were in areas that there wasn't a broad enough base of wealth for adequate fund raising, and likewise, communities may also be too small to have other educational resources available to them.
For example, here in wealthy seatoun, our local school was donated a new roof by a local family's business. They also were gifted a new science center/wing/thing from another single-family business. They have weekly visits from all kinds of experts and specialists in many fields -- most of whom live in the community (whether or not their children attend the school).
In a smaller, more rural town, the resources may not be as diverse -- both financially and. . . in terms of the diversity of expertise. And this is a down-fall of this particular system, according to the research conducted.
Changes to the curriculum did create some positive innovations for these communities, but there are still schools that struggle with providing the education that they want for their students.
On the "stuff" argument.
Sending kids to die for oil and profits, that is STUFF.
Tax cuts for wealthy, that is STUFF.
Bailouts for wealthy, that is STUFF.
If the 1 percent never got any "stuff" from governemnt, I doubt they'd be spending billions in elections.
I voted for Obama and I dont need any stuff. However, I HOPE that there is slightly more compassion for those with less and more freedom for choice in reproductive issues and marriage issues. I wanted some balance between the parties to make them work together to come up with some balanced ideas. I was totally frightened by some of the far right speeches by some of the Republicans trying to get elected.
There are a couple of Republicans I would have voted for. If our govenor, Mitch Daniels, had run and maybe even if vice president, I would have voted for him.
On this board on thread about Obama's victory posters here are expressing happiness about the "stuff" that comes with Obamacare including Free's free physical (I couldn't resist that phrase "Free's free...). Before the election there was lots of tweeting and Facebooking amount my acquaintances about the free mammograms that come with Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
Anecdotal for sure, but all of these people directly link the free stuff to the guy in the White House.
Make no mistake, I too am now waiting to see what shakes out for private health insurance. It's the manna that came with the election. I'll be watching that to see if it's something I want to take advantage of, this "stuff."
I have been completely confused by this whole "stuff" thing. What I am hearing is that those who are struggling very much want the Federal government to enact policies that help get our economic, justice, and social services systems up & functional again. That to me is the proper role of government.
If "stuff" means a reasonable path to citizenship, I say yes. If "stuff" means marriage equality, I say yes. If "stuff" means affordable and accessible health care, I say yes. If "stuff" means a fair tax rates and ending the tax cuts for the wealthy, I say yes.
Since most of the country has plenty of "stuff", I suspect that this entire meme is rooted in the meanness of some R's who see the world through the lens of class bias, and judge poor people as lazy & underserving.
I agree to a basic level of social support. The "stuff" that is being handed out goes way beyond that. Why in God's name are me and DH now exempt from having to pay a co-pay (a modest, what, $25) for a physical. WHY?????Quote:
Originally Posted by redfox
I'll tell you why: to get votes. This is one of the many pieces of stuff contained in the Obamacare bill.
Here's an interesting map showing the election without women's suffrage. As always, I'm proud to live in the beautiful Pacific Northwest:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-suffrage.html
To get votes? Or perhaps because the President believes in the concept of affordable health care? By all means, if you think you exemption from paying a co-pay is odd, donate that amount each time you see your PCP to a low-income clinic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
The free physical was not put in to get votes. As most doctors would tell you a annual physical can catch problems at an early stage and prevent far more costly treatments at a later date. It was put in to reduce health care costs and not for votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
A side not on my physical. My doc is a pretty and young women so the physical got the old heart pumping.:cool:
And the part about 'free' stuff in Obamacare? That's a crock.
Everyone who can, will pay for health care. So, it isn't really free is it, if it is included in your health care insurance coverage. What some keep denying is the fact that Obamacare is largely a set of regulations for the insurance industry. Obscene profits while denying coverage to folks who have been paying in good faith all along is over. Denying coverage to people who were born with a condition, which may or may not affect their long term health, is over. Being tied to a job in order to find affordable health care coverage is over. This last, by the way, opens the door for entrepreneurs who up to now hesitated to go it alone because they could not afford coverage for them and their family as an independent business person. If that's the kind of 'stuff' they re talking about then, yeah, bring on that stuff. It is exactly why he was re-elected.
We are the government and the government is us. WE said we want our government to work this way. Obama is simply doing the will of the majority of the people, which is why he was hired, overwhelmingly. O'REilly believes that his position is the only right position, whether the majority agrees with it or not. He is wrong.
So, in the objective opinion of the leaders there, political, educational, etc...how is this working? Have the educational levels/standards/successes been raised?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
The "I want stuff" ship sailed long ago. You're on it. I'm on it. Bill O'Reilly is on it. Romney is on it. Obama is on it. Every American we know is on that ship and it left harbor a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
The discussion these days is what "stuff" we want for our tax dollars. There are direct costs for military preparedness, for maintaining highways, for addressing financial malfeasance and pollution, for offering Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Once those expenses are out of the government purse, there is less to spend on other things.
But Mitt Romney loves his 14% tax rate, and that is a government benefit, too, in that capital gains are not taxed at the same rate as earned income of similar size, so the government takes in less than it ordinarily would. The Bush tax cuts are a government benefit even if they don't show up in poor neighborhoods in major American cities. Donald Trump dangles his big office buildings in front of governments expecting some sort of break or special treatment for plopping that building in a particular jurisdiction. A farmer accepting payment from the government for not growing crops one year on some acreage is receiving a government benefit.
All of those benefits cost money just as much as directly paying a doctor to perform a "free" preventive-care physical. Unless one is Henry David Thoreau, living on one's own outside of some pond somewhere, you, too, are receiving government "stuff". It's just that some of us recognize that it's not a rich-person vs. poor-person thing.
Think? No. I KNOW is it odd and inappropriate as well as pandering to me, training me to expect goody handouts (i.e. "stuff") from Nanny G but the ridiculous thing is that I'm not remotely in need of it. Even though our household income is way way WAY below $250,000 I don't need that handout. I hate being treated as though I can't take care of myself. Hey Mr. Prez & your cronies in Congress, stop treating me in the one-size-fits-all under $250,000 group.Quote:
Originally Posted by redfox
I for sure won't donate anything to a human health clinic, but maybe I'll make that donation to the neuter-spay clinic in my neighborhood. It serves the entire metro area. When we start neutering and spaying humans, THAT's when I've be making donation, large donations.
Steve, I know. I can't even name all of the Federal gooberment handout programs that are insidious to my life. But the country is bankrupt. We have no more money. Stop it handing it out is what I'm saying. Just stop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveinMN
Today DH and I pretty much decided to move over to the Libertarian side. We've been Ron Paul friendly for a long time. I think we'll be voting Libertarian in the future although probably not for local candidates, I've seen too many oddballs at the local or state level.