Well, Seems Romney Was Right
So far we have the tax increase on the middle class that was not suppose to happen, major increases in health insurance premiums which was not suppose to happen, no even approach for the fiscal cliff, Obama threatens no spending cuts just wants to raise the debt ceiling, wants an unlimited debt ceiling, and Jeep IS going to be built in China. We are only a few weeks into the new year and the crap is piling up already.
So Romney was right after all, Jeep is going to be built in China to supply the overseas market. Fiat is also planning to open more than just the China factory.
“As part of our global expansion of the Jeep brand, there are some cars — that because of the price position in the market — can never be made in the U.S. and exported,” Marchionne said at the North American International Auto Show. “We’re going to be announcing the first step in the globalization of Jeep [in China]. There’s another one that’s going to come in Russia. These things are part of a natural process of expansion.”
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/01/15/ … hina-14820Ultimately the just over 50% that re-elected Obama does not much give a damn in that, as Romney pointed out, 47% are on the government dole. Romney did not make that observation as a criticism but to point out to potential campaign investors that he could not gain that vote regardless of how much campaign money that he put into it....the vote was already bought and paid for with American taxpayers' money. As long as that situation exists and the near majority of those voting are contributing little or nothing in the form of productivity or tax revenue, the country is down the crapper in terms of leadership. This is not about wise decisions or well-thought out voting...this is about riding on the "gimme" train and who is willing continue that process. There are only so many assets to steal and redistribute and when that goose is dead...well, the country will long since have expired. So, in the final analogy, those who put us in this position do not really give a damn. ~WB
I agree with you about the 47%. Mitt Romney wasn't calling the recipients of various government entitlements LAZY. He referred to them as receiving so many benefits from the large Federal government; that they're not likely to support a man who is for a smaller government who, yes, is for entitlements to the truly in need.
I say that as a person who is a recipient of that monthly check, that Mitt Romney would NOT have received such strong support from me, had I thought otherwise FOR JUST ONE MINUTE!.-
He was making a remark in a strategy session to campaign donors that his wouldn't be able to count on the support of the 47%.
What has me concerned is that we have a media that let "Mother Jones" sit on the tape for as long as it did and was just as complicit in airing it at the mot inopportune time and not placing it in the contect that the media is to do: REPORT THE NEWS, not their SLANT on what may be news. I'm perfectly capable of drawing my own conclusions. I don't need-not quite want-Rachell Maddow's 'I think I'm a commedienne' version.
Don't get me going, but people said that Mitt Romney's 45% remark scared them. How could it when it was taken out of context? What out to cause a chill up the spine of EVERY AMERICAN were the off-mic moments that Mr. Obama shared; with Dimitri Medvev. Did you hear about them from Chris Matthews or Andrea Mitchell? Heck now. It seems that "ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO PRINT, GOES THROUGH A FILTER."Romney got 47 percent of the final vote. Obama got 53 percent. Romney would have us in a nuclear war with Russia based on his foreign policy speeches and support for missile defense which is actually a provocative act.
Funny that Romney got 47 percent of the vote which proves God has a sense of humor and Romney was an idiot of the first order. White people generally are too stupid to understand this.The lion and the unicorn
Were fighting for the crown,
The lion kicked the unicorn
All around the town.
Some gave them black bread
And some gave them brown...
Some gave them white bread
And kicked them out of town!What makes you take the leap that Mitt Romney would have us at war with the Russians when it was Barack Obama who was getting cozy with the Russians in his off mic moment with Dimitri Medveev?
"White People" Really? You needed to go there?
I am so glad you feel comfortable that the election was such a huge trouncing for Obama. Too bad you did not read the exit polls. Do you realize that 300,000 votes in the right places Romney would be President having only received 47% of the vote?American View, the aforementioned view expressed by the other person was totally inappropriate. Some people really WENT THERE............I applaud your response.
The Black people who voted for Obama are mainly stupid. They only voted for Obama because he was/is Black (remember , Obama has born of a White woman).
I am Black by the way and from Detroit. I have seen and heard it from the catacombs.
The Black demographics: Blacks on welfare, racist and prejudice Blacks, brainwashed Blacks.
It is funny how the wordsmithing continues this far after the election. Everyone knows with the Romney campaign that he stated things different ways to different crowds to muddy up understanding that was being debated. Yes he never stated that the presently domestically manufactured Jeeps would be built in China and Jeep stated that they would be built in China for the Chinese market. This because the shipping and tariffs made it impossible to make the domestic manufactured Jeeps sales in China feasible. The problem has always been and always will be the one way street our goods encounter in overseas sales. Our products cost too much to compete with their labor and labor is almost always the one expense that a business in a free society cannot control.
Everyone knows this???? (about the Romney campaign)? It's interesting to hear that EVERYONE knows that Mitt Romney tailored his message to different crows and Barack Obama would NEVER stoop so low.
You mentioned wordsmithing. THAT is wordsmithing at it's pinnacle. Can you give me an example where MR said one thing to one group of people and something completely opposite to another group? I didn't think so.
This "EVERYONE KNOWS" stuff has to be elimitated from our lexicon, because as a responsible vbter, i didn't know and I'm SOMEONE. Or, because I'm not on the Messiah bandwagon, don't I count?Yes, Teamrn, the Romney audiences were crows. And don't go editing your statement to make it look like they were crowds. Romney had no crowds.
And while we were at it Miss RN, I hope you realize that Romney wanted to risk WW3. He insisted on the defense shield that the Russians said they would DESTROY. It isn't for defense because if one country has one and the other doesn't it throws off the balance of power.
Perhaps you should take seriously what people are saying about Romney, as he would let the US infrastructure rot in order to buy another unneeded aircraft carrier.
Wake up.
It’s amazing isn’t it! This administration has been wrong about almost everything and their policies will most likely hurt the ones who voted them into power the most. Even those with the most basic knowledge of economics should realize that taxes had to be raised on everyone and that premiums would eventually sky rocket. Why? Because that’s what’s happens in every country with government healthcare, any institution for that matter, that the government runs is grossly inefficient and expensive. Spending cuts and the debt ceiling, I doubt they were even given serious consideration because they believe this is old news and people really don’t care. I think their wrong, poeple will start feeling the pain in short order and realize thier bad mistakes!
No, I don't think they will realize their mistakes. They will turn to the government for MORE intervention, MORE solutions, MORE government.
If people were capable of realizing their mistakes, Obama wouldn't have been re-elected.Maybe its because I'm an optimist and believe a spiritual awakening is coming to America, thats our only hope! Tyranny and oppression comes naturally, freedom only comes from God. A nation that turns its back on God often looks to the Government to solve its problems, that's what I believe we're seeing now. In a sense the left and some on the right has made the government its own god, thats why they keep trying what's failed a hundred times over.
Oh, they'll REALIZE their mistakes, but there's a big difference between REALIZING and ADMITTING that they made a mistake. We've several friends when confronted with a new set of facts about the adminstration, change their tune=BUT NOT THEIR VOTE.
They're oblivious to the fact that 'elections have consqueces, so they go about their lives the same old ways, even though they KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES.+---------------------------------------------------
You want the Great Depression like England and Italy? Try austerity and you will get one.
Now, that does not mean I support the type of stimulus that is going on. I don't. The stimulus that is going on puts money into the hands of the uber rich, the wrong people.
And while we are at it, after the Great Depression, Hoover's secretary of the treasury, the bankster Andrew Mellon believed three things:
1. Austerity for the masses.
2. Percolation, or supply side economics.
3. Bank bailouts with no penalty for the banks.
Now, maybe the financial system needed a bailout but it didn't need the taxpayer on the hook for almost everything. The bankers are getting away with financial murder.
They are lending bogus loans, foreclosing, getting insurance on the foreclosing and getting the houses back. Wake up folks.
Obama is too much like Hoover, but he wants bonds for building up American infrastructure and we need that big time.
Or maybe you want to be like the UK and Italy?
Not that I support Obama, but all politicians lie... I truly believe that you could make this claim regardless who won the election. Nowadays, political parties really only exist to distract you from the reality of the political machine.
You know for someone who claims to support a free market system you sure don't seem to understand how that works, cars to sold in Asia should be made in Asia, it makes no sense to make them here then pay for the cost of shipping them over.
Thanks fr coming late to the discussion and missing the point completely. It has nothing to do with free market and where a company makes its product to save money, it was about liberals, MSM, and many here demonizing as well as taking a statement made by Romney during the campaign trail for which he was accused of being a liar. Even Fiat issue statements claiming the Bloomberg article from which Romney quoted was false and Romney was trying to spread fear to the auto workers about loss off jobs. Now here we are 3 months later, Romney and Bloomberg news were correct and the person from Fiat who said it was not going to happen was the one who made the announcement. Notice MSM and the liberals did not mention the story, wonder why?
As I said previously,
"What do you think Romney would have or could have or should have done about Chrysler's plans for Jeep production in China? The truth is the public didn't buy his misleading ads which implied that Chrysler was threatening or planning to ship their jobs to China. His misleading ads cost him votes."
What do you think Obama could have or should have done about GM's and Chrysler's decisions wrt to production in China?
BTW, both GM and Chrysler have subsequently hired significant numbers of employees in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana.Ralph,
my comment was not directed towards you but since you answered let me point out a few facts. You always make this claim:
BTW, both GM and Chrysler have subsequently hired significant numbers of employees in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana.
I have to admit that I have not seen adding jobs in the auto industry except in a few spots, mostly in the parts section and a few month over the last few years in the manufacturing plants in the BLS reports I read each month. So I went back and checked.
Ohio, Indiana and Michigan — three key auto industry states — lost an estimated 275,000 auto manufacturing jobs. Yet since June 2009, Ohio has added 11,300 new auto industry jobs, while Michigan has added 35,200 and Indiana has added 19,800, said DrivingGrowth.org, citing information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
It is always good to see new jobs being added. n this case the auto industry has added a total of 66,300 jobs over the last 4 years leaving the auto industry with 208,700 less jobs, the number is worse if we add the jobs lost not included from when Obama took office to June 2009.
What can Obama do? Quite simply, meet with the auto makers, ask them directly what can he do to help. Could it be a reduction of the export fees, could there be a tax credit per car made here instead of overseas, I do not know. But a conversation needs to take place otherwise nothing will change.He ain't the king, and that ain't his job. Boycott by the citizens is the only thing that will work. So, shut your yap and quit shopping at Walmart!
Thanks to Obama, the U.S. auto companies are back on track, investing and hiring. Romney was dead wrong.
DETROIT — A few years ago, American automakers cut tens of thousands of jobs and shut dozens of factories simply to survive.
Add to Portfolio
But since the recession ended and General Motors and Chrysler began to recover with the help of hefty government bailouts and bankruptcy filings, all three Detroit car companies including Ford Motor Company have achieved one of the unlikeliest comebacks among industries devastated during the financial crisis.
Now steadily rising auto sales and two-tier wage concessions from labor have spurred a wave of new manufacturing investments and hiring by the three Detroit automakers in the United States. The latest development occurred on Thursday, when Ford said it was adding 450 jobs and expanding what had been a beleaguered engine plant in Ohio to feed the growing demand for more fuel-efficient cars and S.U.V.’s in the American market.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/busin … s&_r=0From the report:
The auto manufacturing sector employed 1.1 million people in the United States as recently as 1999, according to a recent study by the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. About one-third of those jobs were in the final assembly of vehicles, and the balance in the production of auto parts.
Employment dropped as low as 560,000 in 2009. Since then, about 90,000 jobs have been added, the report said
According to the article you provided, the auto industry is still down over 500,000 employees since 2009 when Obama became President. Let's not forget about all the dealerships that closed nationwide as well, those job losses are not even reflected in these numbers.
I said before, I am happy to see auto makers hiring, but I do not get excited about Ford hiring 400 more people when there are still 500,000 not working. I was happy to see they are bringing some production back to the US from Mexico and will hire 1200 back.
Demand for Jeep Wranglers both in the U.S. and in Europe is leading Chrysler to hire about 200 people in Toledo, but that still might not be enough to meet growing global demand.
The Auburn Hills automaker has been working to wring more production out of its eight-year-old plant for several years.
In 2012, Chrysler built more than 200,000 Wranglers and four-door Wrangler Unlimiteds in Toledo -- the most in the plant's history.
The need to increase production has been driven by the rebounding U.S. economy and the decision by Fiat and Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne to turn Jeep into a global brand, which has led to an increase in exports.
"Marchionne has challenged us to find a way to get more" Wranglers, said Bruce Baumhower, president of UAW Local 12. "The whole complex -- we are all working together to find a way to get things done."
CHRYSLER'S RESURGENCE BRINGS LIFE BACK TO KOKOMO, INDIANA
KOKOMO, Ind. -- Just a few short years after workers feared Chrysler would close all four of its plants in the Kokomo area, more workers are moving in than leaving.
"Half of this plant was empty ... it just went to bare bones. Nothing." said Stacy Hrabos , 52, of Kokomo, recalling the dark days of 2009. "It's a big turnaround from where we were."
Since then, Chrysler has invested more than $1.6 billion and has hired nearly 2,000 workers. Just this week, the company announced it will hire 1,250 more workers as it expands transmission production in Kokomo and at a new factory in neighboring Tipton.
There are many applicants who hail from Kokomo and surrounding Howard County.
"I am very happy to have my job," said Sonia Lewis, 40, of Upland, who was hired in late 2012.
A stay-at-home mother for about 12 years before getting divorced, Lewis first applied at Chrysler more than two years ago.
"It's a tough market out there," she said. "Especially when you haven't worked for 12 years."
She works for the second-tier starting wage at Chrysler that starts at about $15 per hour, as do most of the recent hires.
"It would nice to be getting paid what others are getting paid," she said. "But this is good. It's the best that I could find."
Over the last three years, Chrysler has transferred many workers from plants in Huntsville, Ala., St. Louis, New Castle, Ind. and Twinsburg, Ohio, that it shuttered before and after the wrenching 2009 restructuring.
Hrabos is an electrician with 20 years of Chrysler service, who said the workers' mood in Kokomo is better today than it has been in years despite a new three-shift work schedule that is controversial. He credits CEO Sergio Marchionne for improvements large and small -- including new paint inside the plant, and equipment for future work.
Paint matters
What was once a plant with a faded yellow-gold ceiling and a gray concrete floor now has a gleaming bright white steel ceiling and freshly painted floors.
"Who wants to come to a dungy, dirty, disgusting place to work? It has an impact," Hrabos said.
At the end of 2009, Chrysler employed about 4,000 at its plants in Kokomo. Today, that has grown to more than 6,000. And by early 2014, when the new Tipton plant opens, Chrysler's payroll in the area will top 7,300.
Chrysler transmissions key for fuel efficiency
Chrysler developed new eight-speed and nine-speed transmissions in a partnership with ZF Group. Now it will add 400 workers in Kokomo to produce its own eight-speed, then hire another 850 workers to make nine-speed transmissions in Tipton.
As transmissions gain speeds, gears shift more smoothly and engines burn fuel more efficiently.
"In many ways, buying them from a third party would have been the easier route," Marchionne said. "But ... it soon became apparent that our own group possessed the talent, the experience and commitment to do it ourselves."
Chrysler decided to expand in Kokomo before Indiana became a right-to-work state.
The right-to-work law -- which allows a worker to opt out of paying union dues -- has little impact on Chrysler because it doesn't affect the company's contract with the UAW until it expires in 2016.
Largest employer in 'cornfield county'
Chrysler is the largest employer in this city of 50,000, an hour north of Indianapolis. The economy is based on manufacturing, agriculture and health care.
In 2009, when Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection, the city had to make budget cuts because Chrysler didn't pay its taxes.
Now, Chrysler is about halfway through a multi-year payment plan to not only pay its current taxes but to pay $7.5 million in back taxes, said Mayor Greg Goodnight.
"At our core, we make things and we grow things," Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said Thursday. "We prove again, that our past and our future is manufacturing in the state of Indiana."
As a Republican congressman, however, Pence voted against the federal emergency loans that Chrysler received. The automaker has repaid all federal loans it received during the Obama administration.
Jerry Price, vice president of UAW Local 685, said he remembers watching TV the day President Barack Obama announced that Chrysler would be filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
That "was a very scary time," Price said. "But look at us now."
Some Chrysler workers prefer to work the evening shift so they can work on the farm in the morning, said Price, citing that kind of work ethic for convincing Chrysler to expand in Kokomo.
"They joke, and they call us Cornfield County because we are surrounded by cornfields," Price said. "But these people here ... they are the best."
The new workers will begin working on April 1. Chrysler is adding about 130 workers to relieve assembly line workers when they go on break in a system that the automotive industry calls "tag relief."
Chrysler also is adding about 70 workers, or a third shift, at its paint shop.
Some of the jobs are being filled by temporary/part-time workers who were offered full-time jobs, but at least 75 are jobs that have been filled with new employees, said Dan Henneman, chairman of the Jeep unit for UAW Local 12.
"This is the first time we've added new hires at Toledo Jeep since 2000," to build Wranglers, Henneman said.
In addition to the 200 new Chrysler positions, supplier Mobis North America is adding about 50 workers at the plant. Mobis assembles the Wrangler chassis.
Tyson Stoll, plant manager for Mobis, said the company's work force in Toledo will expand by about 15% on April 1.
Mobis, like Chrysler, is operating the plant with two, 10-hour shifts of production.
Though Stoll declined to provide exact employment numbers, Mobis currently employs about 320 hourly workers, according to news media reports.
The additional workers will give Chrysler the ability to build an additional 50 to 60 Wranglers per day, Henneman said, or slightly more than an extra 16,000 Wranglers annually.
Painted into a corner
The question for Chrysler now is what to do next.
After April 1, when the paint shop begins operating on three shifts, there will be little Chrysler can do to increase production at the plant unless it expands the paint shop, Henneman said.
Chrysler and Mobis could add a third shift, but that would be pointless since the plant's paint shop will already be at full production capacity with three shifts beginning next month.
To increase production, Chrysler would need to invest and expand the paint shop, but the plant is landlocked, so it has little room for growth.
Meanwhile, Chrysler sold 141,669 Wranglers in 2012 in the U.S., a 16% increase over the prior year, and sales have increased an additional 10% for the first two months of this year.
Wrangler sales outside the U.S. also grew last year to a little more than 52,300. Those export sales are expected to grow again this year, despite a very weak European economy.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti … 3303030162
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti … 3303140134This is a good article about why the auto industry is important to America. Jobs!
Nothing like not staying on point. No one doubts Chrysler is doing good, we are all happy they are. But no matter how much you spin and praise them, Romney was right, Fiat will be building Jeeps in China, Russia, Italy, all new factories. Each Jeep built there is one less Jeep built in America by an American Auto worker.
As for Chrysler paying back all of its loans, they came up short.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/au … ment_n.htmChrysler and GM would not be doing well if Romney's advice had been followed, and they may well have gone out of business and taken Ford with them.
From where I sit, its a tax increase the wealthy, and my premiums have stayed the same.
I really do not care where you sit, middle class families got a tax increase as well as the top 1%. One of the best kept secrets with the recent deal is how it effects everyone's retirement plans.
I guess you are like me and have no healthcare insurance, because everyones policies go up every year, but at a higher rate the past two years and at a bigger increase for the next three years.
No comment on Romney being right?From my perspective neither of your claims are correct. That was my comment. I don't count only the 1% as being wealthy. I think as single person earning over $121,000 and a couple earning over $266,000 are plenty wealthy. I have seen no data on what is happening to premiums in general and whether it exceeds inflation.
I don't mean per year on average, I mean as a direct result of Obama's policy. As per your claim.
No comment in whether $212,000 is wealthy? I think it is.I think $50k is wealthy, people are just irresponsible with money.
We won't know the direct result of Obamacare until at least 2015Jaxson,
Premiums have been going up due to some of the regulations that have already kicked in. Last month Blue Cross announced a 7% rate increase and attributed 3.8% of it to ACA. Just think how much more they will rise over the next 2 yearsJaxon, we've seen enough to know that business owners, small and HUGE are preparing for the time when they're required to offer insurance or pay a penalty/tax. INSURANCE companies are also planning to obey Obamacare; by offering insurance to those with preexisting conditions. Sounds great, huh? Pre-existing coverage finally! Until you get the bill for that coverage.and find that it comes with a lot of strings. For one, I saw a whopping increase of 35% in my healthcare premiums, and that part of the law hasn't even taken effect yet.
I fully expect to see more next year and the next year. So, please don't say that we have to wait until 2015 to see the full effect; we see enough now not to like what is coming down the pike. We don't know the 2015 effect, but the 2013 effect is bad enough and quite a deviation from what we were led to believe. It's hard, but I'm lucky that we're in a position to absorb that cost; most aren't and many swallowed the 'if you like your doc...' crap.
The government believes that anything over $12,000 per year is wealthy.
Anyone earning over $1,000 per month cannot receive welfare.
And, anyone earning more than $2,000 pe month cannot receive food stamps.
the government is creating the problem - not the wealthy.
the wealthy create jobs when the govenrment gets out of the way.
the government eliminates jobs when they get in the way.
inflation for insurance in 2012
"(Reuters) - U.S. health insurance premiums have climbed faster than wages and inflation this year, and look poised to accelerate in 2013, adding to voter concerns about soaring healthcare costs ahead of November elections for the White House and Congress.
A study released on Tuesday showed that premiums for employer-sponsored health plans, which cover about 149 million Americans, grew by 4 percent to $15,745 in 2012. A substantially slower rate of growth than 2011, when premiums jumped 9 percent.
The higher costs took a bigger bite from the income of middle-class employees, whose wages advanced only 1.7 percent, as employers shifted more healthcare costs to their workers."
Jaxon, how about my 35%? With inflation at 2% a year..... Do the math? I might as well be the wealthy; but no, I'm in the lower income brackets and soon the middle class will feel the presence.
As a single person earning $121K, would you notice that your premiums go up. I'm a single person earning $23K and EVERY penny adds up, especially the $60/ month that my health insurance costs. So, this year's COLA for SS recipients is already gone.
A person who earns over 121K?Try the single person who makes over $75 K. From where the poor to the middle income sit, a single person who makes more than $30k has needs met and a single person who makes more than $40, can meet his/her needs. His wants? You don't always get what you want.
I'll say it. Romney was absolutely right.
I still reflect on his sad and defeated aura. I really think he knew he didn't have a chance.
Not a chance in hell.The left wing media played the pied piper and led the Obama supporters by a ring through the nose as they regurgitated what the media said, chapter and verse. Very sad to see human beings who you know have a brain, become brainwashed. Reminded me of "Manchurian Candidate" in an eerie way.
Sometimes, just pure anecdotal evidence is necessary, though there have been studies of the reported vs the REAL unemployment rate.
As far as health insurance premiums increasing or staying the same, what would you say to a 35% increase? Yep, I wan handed that, but would prefer to increase my 3rd party insurance premiums than receive OC of less quality for 'FREE' beginning next year.
The. old adage, 'you get nothing for free' can just as easily be stated as 'nothing worth having is free' If OC needed 2,000 pagess and 20,000 pages of regulations to clarify and justify it, I'd seriously question the paper it was written on and the minds of the people who wrote it. They didn't craft it, it was written, not by Congress, but by the lobbies.
Head still in the sand about premium increases?
"So far we have the tax increase on the middle class that was not suppose to happen" - was alwats going to happen - both sides said they would not renew the temporary SS tax reduction.
Premiums - mine were already going up every year by a large amount - nothing to do with any politician - simple corporate greed.
Both sides are full of bs.....get used to it!Perhaps you forgot the part of Obamacare that was suppose to lower premiums, Remember all that hype, better, more coverage at affordable prices, hence the name Affordable in the bill. Not to mention that there are more than 3 millions less people on insurance today which also is the opposite of what ACA was to do. How about the jobs lost, jobs changed from full time to part time.
Obama did promise it would lower premiums AND you can keep your doctor - You can watch the video of what he said. Of course, I read in articles by lefties he was elected on the basis of his integrity (you may die laughing, its OK), so he couldn't have been lying. Premiums are lower and you can keep your doctor and if you dare to say otherwise YOU must be lying. Welcome to the ~~TWILIB ZONE~~.
Howdy AV. Nice to see you. Looks like you are making progress with your Dragon software. I use the free app on my iPhone. I love it for quick emails and text messages.
I agree with SmileyC. You must have forgotten that President Obama established the payroll tax holiday with an expiration date. Therefore, you get no points for trying to give Gov. Romney undeserved credit.
American View wrote:
“Remember all that hype, better, more coverage at affordable prices, hence the name Affordable in the bill.”
The “more coverage at affordable prices” comes from the voluntary state insurance exchanges that do not kick in fully until 2014. “Each state is required to develop and have a functioning insurance exchange operating by 2014. If a state chooses not to develop an exchange or does not develop an adequate exchange, the federal government will come in and develop and operate that state’s exchange.” {1} You call it hype. Most Americans see it as a plan.
American View wrote:
“Not to mention that there are more than 3 millions less people on insurance today which also is the opposite of what ACA was to do.”
You need to help me out here, AV. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities contradicts your claim “that there are more than 3 millions less people on insurance today." They said in September 2012, based upon 2011 Census data, “The good news is that the number of uninsured Americans dropped by 1.3 million and the share of Americans without insurance fell by more than in any year since 1999.” {2} Since 2012 data has not been released yet, I trust you will be sharing your source with us.
American View wrote:
“How about the jobs lost, jobs changed from full time to part time."
When I look at the BLS data I see employment grew an average of 153,000 jobs per month during the recovery years of 2011 and 2012. {3} I also see full time jobs changing to part time, AV, due to businesses dodging ACA benefits for their workers.
Perhaps Gov. Romney did not get as much right as you claim. Perhaps if he had gotten more right he would be President. That campaign is history. I would say it is time to move on.
Stay well, AV. We need you around here to provide a different viewpoint. .
{1} http://www.acatoday.org/content_css.cfm?CID=4578
{2} http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3832
{3} http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf , Table B-1Quill,
Great to see you , hope all is well. Still having issues with Dragon, back to typing more again, so much for modern progress.
I think you missed the point as to what I meant when I said Romney was right. It was about Jeep opening up plants in China and other places abroad costing US auto workes jobs, the attached link I placed verified it. The same Upper management person who denied it was ever going to happen before the election was the one who made the announcement. Remember how much you and the others on the left got on me when I backed Romney's statement, provided articles backing my position and you all blew it off accusing me of making it up?
You are right that the payroll tax did have an expiration date, one that was extended for a year. Remember when Obama was selling it to the country as a tax cut? Asking you what would you do with that extra $40 per pay period? Well if it was a tax cut then it must be a tax increase now since after all, we are paying more in taxes. It is an interesting spin the left used on that claiming it was not a tax increase since it had an expiration date. So using that line of logic, if the Bush tax cuts expired sending us off that scary fiscal cliff Obama mentioned, that would not been a tax increase on the middle class either right. After all the Bush tax cuts had an expiration date too.
There were 3 goals to the ACA, to bring down health insurance policy costs, to get more people on health insurance because it was made more affordable, and to get insurance companies to cover more medical procedures they currently will not insure. ACA has failed on all three. The exchanges you refer to pertains to Medicaid and its coverage. See I know how it works for I am already on it. The company I am no is Molina Healthcare and the coverage is horrible not to mention hardly any doctors will accept it. That is the biggest problem, one not yet realized by many since the majority are not affected yet. It is not hype at all.
As for the source for the 3 million less people insured today it came from a 2012 report issued by HHS. It is similar to the one in the link I will provide showing the 2011 report. Not sure why I cannot get it to come up but I will give you the link to the 2011 report and you may be able to find it
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2011 … 1/ib.shtml
[i]Earlier today, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an updated cost estimate for Obamacare that showed that the law will cost less over 10 years than last predicted—because fewer people will be covered.[i]
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/24/cbo … -decision/
Take care Quill, I admit I enjoy our conversations, I do not say that about many people here in these forums.BLS data cannot be relied upon for those kinds of stats and there's a VALID reason, not a partisan reason for it. When BLS is computing the figures of % employed or unemployed, they do not take into consideration the people whose unemployment has run out. Only the unemployed who are receiving severance or unemployment benefits Once you're off the PAYROLLS or the UNEMPLOYMENT rolls, BLS no longer counts you in their statistics. There are an estimated 13-14 million people who fit that bill: no longer having a job AND who have run out of unemployment benefits.
You mention the decrease in payroll taxes. For my husband, at that time a middle wage earner, that amounted to $26/month. What kind of bills can be paid with that. Kids are so deluded with 'Obama cut the taxes.' Well, he did, to the tune of $26/month and EVEN THAT 26 MONTH WAS LIMITED IN DURATION. That's hooey. A tax cut is something you can do something with, more than the cost of a latte!
They're LOST to the BLS the MINUTE they stop getting UE benefits. It's as if they don't exist, these 14 million people. There are also countless others who have given up looking for a job (do I agree that one should give up: no, but if the environment hasn't been conducive to finding a job after a few years, I think there are many who would throw in the towl.HAH! My econ classes are finally coming in handy. I understood all of that and agree. Although I'd also like to add that in general, most US economic measures for unemployment are incorrect because there's no method for counting discouraged workers. There's just no precise formula to take them into account. So when unemployment goes down, it could just be that a large majority of discouraged workers have stopped searching for jobs, and have been removed from the labor force. It's not just the BLS, but the BEA and other economic data collection agencies.
Since it's imprecise though, we can't be sure if it's a large number of discouraged workers, or a smaller number.teamrn wrote:
“BLS data cannot be relied upon for those kinds of stats and there's a VALID reason, not a partisan reason for it. When BLS is computing the figures of % employed or unemployed, they do not take into consideration the people whose unemployment has run out.”
Shanna11 wrote:
“I understood all of that and agree. Although I'd also like to add that in general, most US economic measures for unemployment are incorrect because there's no method for counting discouraged workers..”
Hello, Nurse Annie. It is nice to meet you. I do not think we have had an opportunity to share ideas before. Greetings also to Shanna. It has been a while.
Thank you, Annie, for responding to my comments to American View. I appreciate your taking the time to correct me. I am sorry to say your criticism of my statement is misplaced. While your assessment of BLS UNEMPLOYMENT data is true, I think you have overlooked two very important factors and have been a tad hasty in bashing the BLS. One, my post was not talking about UNEMPLOYEMT figures (see above). Two, my end note link refers to table B-1 and takes you to EMPLOYMENT data.
I rarely refer to the BLS UNEMPLOYMENT data for precisely the reasons you and Shanna indicated. The household survey is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the BLS and provides information on the labor force, employment, and UNEMPLOYMENT that appears in the "A" tables, marked HOUSEHOLD DATA.
I said to AV, “When I look at the BLS data I see EMPLOYMENT grew an average of 153,000 jobs per month during the recovery years of 2011 and 2012.” {1} Follow the footnote link and you will find this stat on Table B-1. The BLS establishment survey provides information on employment, hours, and earnings of employees on nonfarm payrolls; the data appear in the "B" tables, marked ESTABLISHMENT DATA. Each month the BLS surveys “about 141,000 businesses and government agencies, representing approximately 486,000 individual worksites, in order to provide detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm payrolls. The active sample includes approximately one-third of all nonfarm payroll employees.” I find this to be a much better trend indicator than the UNEMPLOYMENT data you mentioned.
Thank you, Annie, for venturing into the forum. It is good to have you here.
{1} http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf , Table B-1Quill,
I agree with you that the BLS is the data we follow until a better way of counting new jobs comes along. But you have to admit the ladies are correct, the system has major flaws to it.
I do not have the months nor do I feel like researching them right now, but I read those monthly BLS reports very closely every month. One of the biggest flaws is counting jobs that already exist as new jobs. For example, when the Verizon strike ended, the BLS counted those 65,000 strikers as new hires, last summer or the summer before the auto industry did not lay of any workers from the line as they customarily do. It was around 30,000 people. Since they were not laid off BLS counted them as new hires. How can you count someone already working as a new hire?
The other flaw is when they adjust the numbers down. Every month they put out a number like say the month added 130,000 new jobs for a total of 1,000,000 new created for the year.( these are not real numbers just an example) . Then next month report comes out and they revised last month down 30,000 jobs making last months real number 100,000. The new report claims 100,000 new jobs bringing the new jobs total to 1,1000,000 total added. Notice anything wrong with the math on the new jobs total, they did not subtract out the 30,000.
These are just 2 examples of some of the flaws, but it is the best we have for now. No question a better system needs to be put in place to be more accurate.I'm on to something different, but I just want to point out (you probably already knew and the BLS is also aware, I'm sure) that the addition of 130-150,000 jobs per month is hardly an attractive scenario and one that noone should be proud to be connected with. It's better than no job growth, but, where are those jobs?
Hi Quill, I'd like to comment on a post you made a few weeks ago about my mention of unemployment data coming for the BLS.
"I said to AV, “When I look at the BLS data I see EMPLOYMENT grew an average of 153,000 jobs per month during the recovery years of 2011 and 2012.” {1} Follow the footnote link and you will find this stat on Table B-1. "The BLS establishment survey provides information on employment, hours, and earnings of employees on nonfarm payrolls; the data appear in the "B" tables, marked ESTABLISHMENT DATA. Each month the BLS surveys “about 141,000 businesses and government agencies, representing approximately 486,000 individual worksites, in order to provide detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm payrolls. The active sample includes approximately one-third of all nonfarm payroll employees.” I find this to be a much better trend indicator than the UNEMPLOYMENT data you mentioned."
I see your use of the BLS reporting EMPLOYMENT figures, but that leaves on with the faulty impression that everything in' unemployment-land' is honkey-dorey. Do you actually believe that 23,000,000 Americans unemployed or underemployed represents 'honkey-doriness?
The BLS states that there are 153,000 jobs added/month. Is that something to be PROUD of? We need a good 300.000-400,000 jobs created each month to cover the 23,000,000 Americans who are unemployed and/or have given up looking.
Also of note is the referral to GOVERNMENT jobs that have grown, GOVERNMENT jobs, GOVERNMENT jobs. Is there no private sector? Seems like a bit of cherry picking at the expense of the largest sector of employment, THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
It needs to be faced here, for never in the media will it be said, that the POTUS owes his election in great part, to the unions and unions are comprised largely of what?" I think I heard you think it, know it, but will I ever hear you or the media say it" UNIONS. The you scratch my back and I'll scratch your back-unions.
Don't get me wrong, I don't disapprove of unions, though I'm not a member and would never plan on it. However, the POTUS never misses a chance to speak of the jobs created, but reading between the lines shows you the brick layer who got a raise or a new job; not the car salesman or clerk at the grocery store-unless it's a union shop.
National EMPLOYMENT grew on an average of 153,000 jobs. DO THE MATH AND YOU WON'T BE SO IMPRESSED. That's shy of @ 3 K jobs per state. Think of California with it's population of 38 MILLION? Or how about NY or Texas? Illinois is more crooked than the back of a camel, so I'll not count them (that's one of the reasons I moved from Illinois.)
That (at least in California) is the addition of 1 job for every 12,666 people, hardly enough to point to progress. Businesses and government agencies represent 145,000 individual workers: Full-time, PT, seasonal, PT, but needing full time. The administration, certainly not the MSM will cover something that doesn't add up
What about the responsible fatherhood that the POTUS was to instill? He made a wonderful speech in Philadelphia that would go down in history books, but he didn't follow through and lead on this VERY important issue, more important than healthcare legislation. Where was the follow-through, where was the LEADER? That's what America needs first and foremost to solve it's problems, LEADERSHIP, LEADERSHIP, LEADERSHIP. Establishing leadership IMHO is more important than ideas which people are going to bicker about. Lead the people and command their respect and don't bicker and THEY WON'T BICKER. They'll follow your good example.
Annie
Quill, yo!u bring up that business don't comply with ACA so they''re the one causing job loss because they don't hire; THEY HAVE NO CHOICE! If they're going to offer health care to everyone (100% coverage) to EVERYONE, in no way can they keep their doors open.
I agree that the campaign is history and it's time to move on. HOWEVER, our president needs to sit back and really think things through, that he wasn't reelected in a landslide and while he''s at it, it wouldn't hurt the leader of our land to wonder WHY and do the right thing and work to unite our counntry. Wasn't it Stephen Douglas or A Lincoln, "A HOUSE DIVIDED AMONGST ITSELF CANNOT STAND: and he wasn't taling about divided houses of Congress.
He's not just the President of the liberals, he's the president of ALL in the USA and the arrogance and self-piety can leave; there's no room in governing for that. Even he said it, he's not the President of the red states or the blue states, he's the president of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. BARACK, eat your own words and walk the walk, talking YOUR talk.
I'm hugely critical of the man, not only because I disagree with his policies, but he is not cut out to LEAD. He couldn't lead himself out of a paper bag, let alone get people to follow him out of the paper bag.
That is the sign of a leader; someone who is able to make you and me suspend disbelief and do something that we wouldn't otherwise do-and we hope, in the meantime, that it's for the good of the country. So far he's batting a whopping 0.0000000%
In that sense. Adolf Hitler was a leader and that was where the Hitler references come from. He has managed to delude a good portion of the country, including himself, that he's doing what's right. Michelle, she's more saavy." You must have forgotten that President Obama established the payroll tax holiday with an expiration date." That payroll tax holiday, gave my husband $26/month MORE. A night at the movies is not going to get us out of debt.. Keep your $26 and let me keep my $$$ with the same time restrictions and I'll put it to reasonable use..
- JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago
0The whole thing about Jeep was ridiculous. If the President of Jeep says 'X', and Romney says 'Jeep said X', that is somehow a bad thing.
Then, the president of Jeep comes out and says 'Oops, not X, Y'. So Romney says 'Y', and that's a bad thing too.
America screwed itself, rejecting someone with a history of success for someone with a history of failure. Everyone's taxes are higher this year. Every. Single. Taxpayer's. Health insurance costs are going to keep rising(weird how if you increase the cost of doing business, the prices from that business go up).
The left will just continue to blame corporations, greed, CEOs, the 1%, etc etc etc. Doesn't matter if they are presented with facts. Simey blames corporations for higher premiums, even though their profit margin hasn't gone up to match the increases. Weird that. Good for Jeep, opening up the lucrative China market.
Yet, they did not close down any Ohio operations to do it, did they?
On that dire warning, Mr. Romney was (deliberately and deceptively) not right.You're wrong. Romney only said what Jeep said.
MM,
The plants in China and Italy have not opened yet, but for every car not made in th USA is a job lost by our work force.
As for the plant closing in Ohio, the plant was never going to close. If you remeber from the original article I posted that everyone balked at, Fiat clearly said there would not be any American workers laid off if Jeep went overseas. They would retool the plant to build a different product.
Romney put the facts out there, he was ridiculed but he was right. He was correct and now the left wants to spin and blow it off. Notice how MSM is not covering it.No, Chrysler has been hiring thousands in it's Toledo and Detroit Jeep plants. Romney's lying TV commercials backfired in Michigan and Ohio. Ditto for his claims about the bailout. Michiganders and Buckeyes didn't buy any of Romney's propaganda on the auto industry.
Yeah, Romney was such a liar. I mean, he totally said the same thing that Jeep said... that's such a lie!
Ralph, what were Mr. Romney's lies and propaganda in particular? I'm not a resident of Michigan, so am in the dark on that one.
The president of Jeep said in an interview that they were looking at moving production of their entire portfolio to China. Romney said that Jeep was thinking about moving to China.
Then Jeep corrected themselves, saying they were looking at adding production in China. When they did that, Romney changed his message to say that Jeep was going to start building vehicles in China.
He didn't lie, even factcheck said everything he said was true. Haters hate and say he was being misleading or outright lying.Jaxson, that seems to make sense. Looking to move production and thinking about moving to China mean the same thing. Only the word choice is different.
Then ADDING production in China and START building are the same. Put the fact check alongside of that and I'm in agreement: it sounds from the words that were chosen, that Mitt Romney was maligned.Whenever a liberal cannot overcome the truth they have no choice but to lie about it, change the subject or attack the messenger to discredit him/her personally - get ready for what comes next (or if we're lucky, sometimes they just disappear)
Romney was the one who lied about it. I don't appreciate being called a liar by you or Jaxon. Do it again and I'll report you. That goes for you, too, Jaxon.
1 - You are fine with calling Romney a liar, but calling you a liar is wrong?
2- I called you a liar? The only time I did that was when you admitted that you lied.
3 - Wouldn't it be true that you are being misleading if Romney said X and you claimed he said Y?I don't remember mentioning your name - but thanks for reminding me that threats are another way liberals try to shut you up.
Here's a link to the misleading Romney ad which he ran AFTER being corrected by Chrysler's CEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVv6w0EC7Qs
Voter's didn't buy it.
"
"Published on Dec 12, 2012
"PolitiFact on Wednesday named Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's ad falsely claiming Chrysler Group LLC planned to move Jeep production to China as its "Lie of the Year."Romney made the false claim in a speech on the campaign trail and a television ad, despite Chrysler's assertion that it is maintaining its American operations and considering expanding production to China. His campaign sparked controversy when it aired the commercial in Ohio."So what? Voters are often stupid. They voted for Obama, who riddled the country with more debt than any other president, in half the time, who promised to cut the deficit in half, but instead more than doubled it, who has had a consistent 20 million + under/unemployed under his administration...
Lol, voters didn't buy it, and that's what is so sad.I'm not too much inclined to give non-partisan credence to what Politifact says. That's like saying MSNBC has no axe to grind. Read and do your own homework as to WHO'S WORDS were followed by WHAT ACTIONS.
Just curious what do you think Romney was trying to accomplish with his ads about Jeep and China? Obviously he was trying to scare and mislead people in Ohio and Michigan that Chrysler and GM were planning to ship their jobs to China when the truth was that both companies were hiring in Ohio and Michigan and didn't have intentions to move a single job to China. GM's and Chrysler's activities in China actually made their U.S. operations more secure. That's the truth. I live in Michigan and am a GM retiree. Nobody was fooled by Romney's misleading TV ads on China nor by his misleading claims wrt the bailout and bankruptcy. Michigan and Ohio voters were clearly influenced to vote for Obama by his action to bailout GM and Chrysler and save their jobs at a time when private funds were absolutely not available. That's the bottom line and why Romney's positions actually slit his own throat in the midwest.
Obviously, he was trying to scare......It's not OBVIOUS to me or OBVIOUS to most people. I can tell that you see the OBVIOUSNESS in it, though. Please not to disrespect the inntelligence of saying that it's OVVIOUS that they were scared which was the intent of the ads. Who died and make you judge, jury and executioner of the OBVIOUS-the OBVIOUS police.
THERE IS A GOD; LATER ON WHEN i GET HOME, MY COMPUTER WILL BE BACK FROM THE STORE AND i WON'T HAVE TO USE THIS BLASTED PC ANYMORE@@@@!!!" Obviously he was trying to scare and mislead people in Ohio and Michigan that Chrysler and GM were planning to ship their jobs to China when the truth was that both companies were hiring in Ohio and Michigan and didn't have"
It wasn't OBVIOUS to everyone. Who's the judge of OBVIOUS? The fact that I was able to copy and paste, is testament to the fact that I have my mac back. Life is sweet!"Just curious what do you think Romney was trying to accomplish with his ads about Jeep and China?" the phrase, "IT'S OBVIOUS...' is YOUR interpretation of the facts presende=ted
Ralph,
No one here is calling you a liar from what I have read, let's dial down the rhetoric. You will not admit you were wrong about this issue, that is your right. JaxsonRaine and the others have the right under the first amendment to answer your post and question it. You have the right to ignore them but not the right to threaten them into silence by saying you will turn them into HP.
Did you even listen to the ad you posted? I offer you $1,000 with everyone here in this forum as witnesses for you to point out in that ad where it said Chrysler was going to close plants and ship jobs overseas. I will make it easy for you, it doe not say it anywhere.
Show me anything that is false in that ad. The ad said Obama gave funds to bailout Chrysler, that's true. Obama sold the stake we took in Chrysler to Fiat, an Italian company. The ad said " Obama sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China". Both are true.
The ad was true, it was accurate as proof that now Fiat is opening the factories in China as well as Italy and they are looking for other places as well. For each Jeep made there is one less jeep made here by an American auto worker, which means less jobs.The Romney ad was clearly designed to convince Ohio and Michigan auto industry employees and voters that Chrysler's plans for China production put their jobs in jeopardy. Voters were too smart to fall for the misleading claims and voted solidly for Obama. Ditto for Romney's patently false claims on the bailout.
Ps. Jaxon has called me a liar more than once.Voters were too smart? Really? Do you have any polls or statistical information to back that up? I doubt it. The election was over a number of issues so that Romney lost is not proof of your accusation. Exit polls actually support the notion tha people favored Romney's views. When voters were asked which candidate had a vision for the future, Romney won that question in exit polls, 55 percent to 43 percent. But then again, what do facts matter to you?
I only ever called you a liar about something you admitted to lying about. Is that really so bad?
I don't recall ever lying or admitting I lied.
I know you don't. You've said the same thing maybe half a dozen times now, and each time I've quoted where you admitted to it, and you never responded. Do I need to do that again?
Maybe you're hoping with enough time I won't be able to find your quote anymore?Seeing as you have never responded once I have quoted you, I wonder if this time will be different?
As I said, I don't recall lying or admitting I had lied. But I do recall you calling me a liar.
Ralph,
The ad said Romney had a plan for the auto workers, period. The ad also said Jeep was going to open plants in China. Poof, they are.
The ad never said auto workers jobs were in jeopardy, but lets examine that. For now, the plants in America building jeeps will continue ad they will continue to ship overseas. The plants in China and Italy will open and supply Europe and Asia with Jeeps. A jeep built overseas and not built here in the US deprives a person here of a job, would you not agree? After all, if it was built here a worker from here would be employed.
Let's say Jeep ships 50,000 Jeeps abroad each year. Now the 2 plants overseas open up. They make 25,000 Jeeps, obviously Jeep will not ship 50,000 abroad, they will send 25,000. Next year Italy and China make 50,000 jeeps, now we no longer need to send Jeeps abroad. What do you think will happen to the employees here in America that use to make those 50,000 Jeeps?
As for your assertion Romney lied about the bailout, tell me what part did Romney get wrong. The part where Obama bailed out Chrysler, well no that happened. The part where Obama sold the US to Fiat with the provision they buy out the company, well not that happened too.You don't know what you are talking about. If Chrysler builds Jeeps in China it will be because that's the only way to sell cars in the growing China market as has been the case with General Motors highly successful China operations. A successful manufacturing operation in China would strengthen Chrysler and not take one job from the U.S.
Romney criticized the auto bailout, saying that Chrysler and GM should have been allowed to go into an ordinary bankruptcy without any government bailout money. There is near universal agreement that an ordinary bankruptcy wouldn't have worked because there was no outside financing. Moreover, a GM bankruptcy would have jeopardized Ford because it would have interfered with common supplier relationships.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/chrysle … -1C6764547
Chrysler CEO calls out Romney over 'inaccurate' Jeep ads
null
Jacky Naegelen / Reuters
Sergio Marchionne
Despite declaring his desire to stay out of this year’s presidential battle, Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne has found himself drawn into the fray as he responded to a series of comments and political ads by GOP contender Mitt Romney, which the CEO called "inaccurate."
The Italian-born Marchionne made it clear in a note sent to Chrysler employees that statements and advertising by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggesting the company was moving Jeep production from its assembly complex in Toledo, Ohio, to China simply were not true.
“Chrysler Group’s production plans for the Jeep brand have become the focus of public debate,” the Chrysler CEO said in the statement that was also released to the media.
The domestic auto industry has become a central topic of debate between President Barack Obama, who approved the largest portion of an $84 billion government bailout of Chrysler and General Motors, and his Republican rival – Romney arguing against the rescue effort but also trying to claim he helped to save the two makers by demanding a “structured” bankruptcy.
For his part, Marchionne has tried to sidestep the ongoing debate, and in his note he continued to insist he wanted to avoid getting involved in politics, insisting, “I’m the furthest things from a politician. I manufacture and sell cars.”
But the latest flap over the Detroit makers has become a major campaign issue as candidates Obama and Romney square off over Ohio, a state considered by many likely to help determine who will occupy the White House after next January’s inauguration.
Romney has begun running ads in Ohio stating Chrysler planned to move Jeep production to China. Analysts described the ads as part of Romney’s efforts to pry the state’s pivotal 18 electoral votes from President Barack Obama.
Obama’s support of the 2009 auto bailout has been central to his effort to line up support in Ohio, particularly among blue-collar workers.
“I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China,” Marchionne wrote. “Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand. … It is inaccurate to suggest anything different.”
In contradicting the assertions in the Republican ads, Marchionne said North American production was critical to reaching Chrysler’s goal of selling 800,000 Jeep vehicles by 2014.
“In fact, U.S. production of our Jeep models has nearly tripled since 2009 in order to keep up with global demand,” he said.
The production of Jeep models is expected to be up 185 percent this year, and if anything Chrysler has rapidly expanded production at the flagship Jeep plant in Detroit with the addition of second and third shifts since the 2009 Chrysler bailout.
Chrysler does plan to produce Jeeps in China but only for domestic (Chinese) market sales, the maker has said. Indeed, virtually every major automaker now operates production facilities in China – critical to avoid hefty import duties.
Advertise | AdChoices
The announcement by Chrysler that it would build Chinese Jeeps in that country was incorrectly reported initially, and despite a later correction in the media, the Romney campaign has continued to run with the inaccurate information.
In his statement, Marchionne said: “We also are investing to improve and expand our entire U.S. operations, including our Jeep facilities. The numbers tell the story. We will invest more than $1.7 billion to develop and produce the next generation Jeep SUV, the successor of the Jeep Liberty — including $500 million directly to tool and expand our Toledo Assembly Complex and will be adding about 1,100 jobs on a second shift by 2013.”
“At our Jefferson North Assembly Plant, where we build the Jeep Grand Cherokee, we have created 2,000 jobs since June 2009 and have invested more than $1.8 billion.”
Marchionne said that with the increase in demand for Chrysler vehicles, especially Jeep branded vehicles, more than 11,200 U.S. jobs have been added since 2009.
Plants producing Jeep branded vehicles alone have seen the number of people invested in the success of the Jeep brand grow to more than 9,300 hourly jobs from 4,700. This will increase by an additional 1,100 as the Liberty successor, which will be produced in Toledo, is introduced for global distribution in the second quarter of 2013.
“We are working to establish a global enterprise and previously announced our intent to return Jeep production to China, the world’s largest auto market, in order to satisfy local market demand, which would not otherwise be accessible,” he said. “Chrysler Group is interested in expanding the customer base for our award-winning Jeep vehicles, which can only be done by establishing local production. This will ultimately help bolster the Jeep brand, and solidify the resilience of U.S. jobs.”
He continued: “Jeep is one of our truly global brands with uniquely American roots. This will never change. So much so that we committed that the iconic Wrangler nameplate, currently produced in our Toledo, Ohio plant, will never see full production outside the United States.”
Ironically, it was American Motors, the company once headed by Romney’s father George, that began building Jeeps in China in the early 1980s. Chrysler took over the venture in 1987 when it acquired AMC.
After Chrysler’s 1998 merger with Daimler-Benz, what was the Beijing Jeep venture became the center for the launch of production of Mercedes-Benz vehicles in China.
Advertise | AdChoices
After Daimler sold Chrysler to Cerberus in 2007, the German automaker retained its ownership of the Beijing Jeep venture, which effectively shut Chrysler out of the China, which is now the largest automotive market in the world.
There has so far been no word from the Romney campaign as to whether they will correct or otherwise stop using the inaccurate information about Chrysler’s plans for Jeep.
Romney might better have criticized the $85 billion bailout of AIG which was passed through AIG to Goldman Sachs.
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB500 … rticle%3D1So I see you cannot admit that every vehicle built overseas and not built here in America costs Americans jobs. Who is it that does not know what he is talking about?
Moreover, a GM bankruptcy would have jeopardized Ford because it would have interfered with common supplier relationships.
Completely inaccurate. Ford maintained, was also in negotiations, to buy GM to keep it from going into default. Of course Ford was the only one of the major three not to take bailout money.
Strengthen Chrysler, how? Jeep is owned by Fiat, an Italian company. Cars sold overseas will be taxed by the countries involved where tey are sold, and of course corporate taxes go to Italy, not the US. Now the jeeps built and sold here will pay taxes realized by the US government. Not to mention the salaries of all those employees building Jeeps abroad and not in the US are not paying Federal withholding taxes.
If you recall I had Sergio Marchionne on my show to discuss this where he said that Fiat was looking into it but nothing was decided. Yet he denied it was ever going to happen when he denounced it prior to the election. From the link you did not read:
“As part of our global expansion of the Jeep brand, there are some cars — that because of the price position in the market — can never be made in the U.S. and exported,” Marchionne said at the North American International Auto Show. “We’re going to be announcing the first step in the globalization of Jeep [in China]. There’s another one that’s going to come in Russia. These things are part of a natural process of expansion.”
Marchione advised that while the Jeep’s premier models — Wrangler and Grand Cherokee — will continue to be American-made, “If you tell me I cannot make a [Jeep] Patriot somewhere else, I might as well go out of the market.”
I knew you would never admit Romney and those of us that should you what Fiats plans were. I know you would never admit cars being built abroad costs US jobs. I also expected statements from you like you do not know what you are talking about”. Attacking when wrong, don’t you get tired of it?"I know you would never admit cars being built abroad costs US jobs."
China basically doesn't allow cars to be imported into China. Therefore, the only way to sell cars in China is to build them there. Thus, Chrysler's choice is to forgo the China market and be content to build cars only in the U.S. or to invest in plants in China to serve the Chinese market. Moreover, as I pointed out establishing a successful manufacturing operation in China will strengthen Chrysler Corporation and make U.S. jobs more secure. This has been true of General Motors which has had a very successful car manufacturing operation in China for some time which was making money while it's American and European operations were losing millions. Why is that so hard for you to grasp that Romney was dead wrong on this, and I'm sure he knew it. But out of desperation he okayed the lying ads in Ohio and Michigan. Fortunately, few believed them.This has been true of General Motors which has had a very successful car manufacturing operation in China
So you claim Chrysler will be stronger from building Jeeps in China. How do you know that to be true? After all you just said GM was very successful yet they had to be bailed out, more than once I might add.
Look, I do not know why you cannot handle the fact you were mislead and are wrong. You keep spinning but each time you just descend further down into the depths of despair. You did not even address the $1,00 challenge about the commercial you supplied when I asked to show where it said Chrysler was moving jobs or plants or labor or all Jeep operations to China. When in fact all it said was Fiat was going to build jeeps in China. You could not even admit that. I am not going to respond to you on this issue anymore, It is a waste of my time, I have better things to do. Take care of yourself Ralph
"The Romney ad was clearly..." Such a judgement. For every person who agrees that it was CLEARLY disigned......I can find 20 who disagree with you and have different interpretations.,
Did the Romney campaign tell you what it's motives were? I'm not hearing a "well, I called them. What I hear are interpretations and judgments and anectodal calls, and surmising that that is what the ad means.I doubt that the ad was designed to get votes for Obama which is what it accomplished.
"The Romney ad was clearly designed to convince Ohio and Michigan auto industry employees and voters that Chrysler's plans for China production put their jobs in jeopardy."
The only way ANY of us can know what was the CLEAR intention of the ad was to hsve been in a stratgeic meeting or two, to have been there. Or WERE you there? If so, I'm mistaken and I extend my apology,
That's just like saying that the 'Joe Soptic ad was clearly meant to vilanize Mitt Romney-before the statements were prove to be inaccurate.That ad, though proven false, did it's damage BEFORE shown to be as false as they come; this time an apology should have been forthcoming and honest.Do you think the purpose of the ad was to get votes for Obama? That was its actual effect in Michigan where I live. Romney was contradicted by Marchionne from Chrysler-Fiat and by a GM vice president, as I recall and yet he persisted in his quite misleading comments about Jeep jobs going to China.
I'd like to know what was misleading in that ad. Not the talking points (anyone can look them up); but you must have FACTS, not Politifact. Say it ain't so@
Well, the purpose of the ad was to convince Ohio and Michigan auto workers and voters that their jobs were threatened by outsourcing to China. Officers of Chrysler and GM objected to the ads, stating that they were not true. Fortunately, fewer people believed Romney, and Obama won both states. The fact that Romney had changed his story so many times on so many positions didn't help. I live in Michigan and know plenty of Republicans and Dems. Nearly all were shaking their heads at Romney's ads and his spurious objections to the auto bailout.
"Basically when we move jobs overseas (for example, for reasons of our tax code)., we contribute to the economies of the countries where we take the compaines."
That's true but neither Chrysler nor GM have moved car assembly jobs overseas, and both companies denied they have plans to do so. No jobs have been moved from the U.S. to China by Chrysler or GM.Instead, GM pays $0.00 in taxes in 2011, contributing ONLY to itself and not to the economy of the United States and our POTUS advertises this fact when he makes Jeffrey Immelt his jobs guy. GM deserved to go under. They would have been restructured, but no, they gave so much to Obama's election, that their CEO was rewarded. No bankruptcy; in fact, my money, your money was offered to BAIL THEM OUT. Obscene.
GM has long supported the GOP. Until the PAC law was passed, GM executives were told how much they were supposed to give to the GOP when the annual bonuses were passed out. I haven's seen anything indicating contributions by GM or by GM executives to Obama.
If it's true that GM didn't owe any taxes in 2011 a disastrous meltdown which would have affected a large number of GM employees, supplier employees and GM communities around the country was avoided by Obama's actions, and GM has hired a large number of employees in the last couple of years. Not even Romney denied this. All he said was that GM should have been re-structured in a regular bankruptcy without the use of government funds. The problem with that was that GM needed an infusion of cash and private funds simply were not available because the big banks were in trouble themselves and receiving bailout money.Really? According to this site, GM gave twice as much to Obama as they gave to Romney. They contributed to other Dems, too:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary … D000000155That surprises me. The figures were for 2011-12. I wonder what the figures were for GM contributions for 2008. I'll see if I can find them. Traditionally, GM has contributed much more to the GOP, although they have supported some Dems, e.g., John Dingle who has helped them on auto legislation and whose wife worked (works?) in government relations for GM.
Here's the report from the same source for 2008. As I suspected GM contributed more to Republicans, including several who opposed the auto bailout including Boehner, Cantor, Corker and others.
"GM's political action committee has donated $43,000 to House members who voted against the bailout in 2008, according to OpenSecrets.org. That's roughly the same amount it's given to House members who voted in favor of the bill....
"GM's campaign donations are heavily weighted in favor of Republicans. During this campaign cycle, it has donated $62,500 to Republicans and $34,300 to Democrats."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/2 … 99638.html
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/23/news/co … /index.htm
Is only one of the articles written on the subject.
That's true but neither Chrysler nor GM have moved car assembly jobs overseas, and both companies denied they have plans to do so.
Officers of Chrysler and GM objected to the ads, stating that they were not true.
Did you not read the original link or the statement from Fiat I posted earlier for you to read? It is true Fiat denied they were going to open plants to build jeeps in China and abroad. Yet here we are,Fiat is going to build those Jeeps abroad.
When China, Italy and Russia begin building Jeeps and other vehicles overseas, they are not being built by Americans. SO how does vehicles not being built by Americans not cost Americans jobs? If Italy and Russia build 50,000 Jeeps there that's 50,000 less Jeeps built here."If Italy and Russia build 50,000 Jeeps there that's 50,000 less Jeeps built here."
Not true. It's 50,000 more jeeps built in Italy and Russia where Chrysler isn't selling Jeeps at present. There would be no fewer jeeps built here. Making Jeeps here and exporting them to Italy or Russia would not be a viable option, as is the case with China. The available options were (1) Continue building Jeeps in the U.S. for the U.S. market and not build any in China or (2) Continue building Jeeps in the U.S. and build 50,000 more in China (a net total increase of 50,000 and no decrease in U.S. production. (Hypothetical)Ralph,
It's 50,000 more jeeps built in Italy and Russia where Chrysler isn't selling Jeeps at present.
You keep claiming Jeep does not export or sell in China, that is not accurate as I have pointed out to you before.
Jeep sold 532,972 vehicles globally through September. The majority are sold in North America, with U.S. sales leading the way by a wide margin.
But international sales are climbing. In the first nine months of 2012, Jeep sold 117,198 vehicles outside North America — a 54 percent increase from the same period last year.
China is Jeep’s largest market outside North America and the third largest in the world, trailing Canada by fewer than 900 vehicles through September. [i]Chinese sales are up 124 percent from last year, at 33,463 vehicles[/b].
China sales up 124% So now once more, if the US stops exporting those 117,198 Jeeps, tell me again how that does not hurt the automakers on the line? Seems to me that many less Jeeps made here is a large gap in the production line.I stand corrected on the matter of Chrysler's Jeep sales in China. They have been shipping Jeeps from the U.S. to China. However, the company apparently believes that they must build Jeeps in China if they are to realize the company's full potential in that market because of transportation and tariff cost penalties.
What do you think Romney would have or could have or should have done about Chrysler's plans for Jeep production in China? The truth is the public didn't buy his misleading ads which implied that Chrysler was threatening or planning to ship their jobs to China. His misleading ads cost him votes.Ralph,
I know that you knew better when you made your statement about Jeep exports, you were just o a rant. I do agree with you that Fiat is doing this to increase sales, better supply the market with product and increase profits by reducing import export taxes. That is what Fiats plan was all along, Romney pointed that out when he mentioned the Bloomberg article and in the ad you presented it said"now Jeep will open production lines in China". It never said it was closing and moving jobs overseas. The left and MSM are the ones that twisted it and ran with it.
But again I say, if Michigan and Ohio are not building those 150,000 plus Jeeps, then that costs jobs. Also remember Fiat said Ohio will not close, they would retool it and build something else there if they stop building Jeeps there.
What could Romney do? I do not know, his ad did not say what his auto plan was. Maybe he was going to give Fiat incentives, work a deal on lowering import export taxes, I am just guessing. Again the ad was not misleading, it was just spun that way.
The PURPOSE of the ad? Were you there when the ad campaign was developed? Are you superhuman and can get inside the thought process, inside the minds of those who made an ad?
"Well, the purpose of the ad was to convince Ohio and Michigan auto workers and voters that their jobs were threatened by outsourcing to China.""
HOW can you say what the purpose of the ad was? That bugged me 6 weeks ago and still does now. Unless you were fly on the wall in the Romney ad campaign room or unless you 'signed off' on the ad or were somehow else involved, HOW COULD YOU KNOW?/Obviously, the purpose of the ad was to convince voters to vote for Romney. I repeat, it didn't work. Democrats I know were repelled by the ads. Republicans I know, many in the auto industry, were shaking their heads. What do you think they were trying to accomplish with the ads? [I admit I'm not a mind reader nor privy to the thoughts of the idiots who advised Romney on this issue. I only am assuming they were trying to scare people into voting for Romney, the same people who overwhelmingly supported Obama's $82 billion bailout and managed bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler.]\
Finally, I wonder why the auto bailout that saved a million jobs upset so many conservatives while Bush's much bigger bailout of the NY crooked banksters is apparently okay with them."What do you think they were trying to accomplish with the ads?" Finally, to my point. NO ONE CAN KNOW, unless they were privvy to inside ideas.
"I only am assuming they were trying to scare people into voting for Romney, " That might have been true, but again, we'll never know, and when you ASSUME, you make an ass///u///me...''
But, since we're on the subject of 'scare', what were the Joe optic ads intended to do...scare? Granny over the cliff ads? Scare? It cuts both ways. it cuts both ways. And so it continues.The auto bailout did not save millions of job
Ohio, Indiana and Michigan — three key auto industry states — lost an estimated 275,000 auto manufacturing jobs. Yet since June 2009, Ohio has added 11,300 new auto industry jobs, while Michigan has added 35,200 and Indiana has added 19,800, said DrivingGrowth.org, citing information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
It is always good to see new jobs being added. n this case the auto industry has added a total of 66,300 jobs over the last 4 years leaving the auto industry with 208,700 less jobs, the number is worse if we add the jobs lost not included from when Obama took office to June 2009. Not included in those above numbers of the thousands of dealerships that closed costing tens of thousands more jobs.You're getting a little sloppy. I said jobs "saved," not jobs "created." Your figures don't count the jobs that would have been lost without the bailout in GM, Chrysler, Ford and their suppliers, dealers and plant communities. The estimate of a million jobs saved (BTW I said "a million," not "millions.") has been widely accepted by knowledgeable commentators on the auto industry and the bailout program.
Not sloppy at all, just pointing out that you cannot save a million jobs when there was not a million jobs to begin with.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012 … rkers.html
http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iagauto.htm#emp_nationalThe data you linked don't not support your claim. It has been widely reported that approximately one million auto company and related jobs would have been lost if the U.S. companies had failed. That estimate includes employees of the auto companies, their suppliers, their dealers and other jobs dependent on the the U.S. auto companies.
Wow, make a claim, someone shows you claim was wrong, then make a new claim to try and spin.
Look, there is no way in the world anyone can count how many jobs are saved by the stimulus package, even the best economists will tell you that and have done so. You made a claim that the bailout saved one million manufacturing jobs, I showed you the BLS report that there are not even one million jobs in the auto manufacturer sector, can't lose what you do not have. Plus the BLS numbers include employees of ALL manufacturers with plants here.
Not to mention your claim was how GM, Chrysler, and Ford saved those million jobs. The new claim you have is now including the private retail trade, employment not linked to the 3 auto manufacturers. Dealerships, auto repair, parts stores are all individually owned, not under ownership of the big 3.
Wow, still at it. Just cannot admit Romney only repeated what was printed in Auto magazines and Bloomberg news report.
Of course Fiat came out and said there were no such plans in the works, had to do that having been bailed out by Obama. But here we ar e a few short months later and Jeep is opening plants in China and Italy, not to mention they are looking for other sites. They even admit the reason is it cost too much to make them here. SO who was right, Romney who repeated what he read and was widely criticized for it, or the guy who lied when he said it was never going to happen?After being corrected by the CEO of Chrysler and a GM VP, Romney continued with misleading ads trying to convince Ohio and Michigan voters that Chrysler was planning to move Jeep production to China and lay off Ohio and Michigan Jeep workers and that GM's successful China operations were hurting GM's U.S. workers. Michigan and Ohio voters didn't buy it.
No, he didn't. He said they were going to build Jeeps in China, not that they were going to move production. He didn't say they were going to lay off employees.
Who's being misleading? The one who says what Jeep said about Jeep, or the one who says something that Romney never said?
yep - the irrational are still in charge so the drain on the economy will continue.
we should expect this type of destruction when we permit those who do not generate revenue for the nation vote to destroy it further.
The President ruined the communities in Chicago, and now he is working the same path for America.?? How is bringing in money, created by production and sales in another country, to our country going to ruin our country? Or am I misreading your post somehow?
"How is bringing in money, created by production and sales in another country, to our country going to ruin our country?"
HOW is this money made by production in other countries, benefitting the USA, exactly? Let's say in search of lower tax rates, Apple exports its operations to Dubai. Some Apple employees follow, some don't want their kids to change schools, yada, yada, so they stay behind.
The Apple employees who go, feed the economy of Dubai when they buy any goods and services that they'll need. Taxes on cars, food, money movie theatres.
And, the Apple employee's wife, big time PTA person who can influence and make better the school districts of another country: not that that is wrong, but she's not HERE, to make OURS better.
Sure, there are taxes that the IRS will obtain from Apple, but in the meantime, Apple, their employees and families will feed the economy of Dubai, not the US. Money created by production and sales in another country will not in and of itself will not RUIN our country, but it won't help it either and it SURE WILL BENEFIT THE OTHER COUNTRY, which will now in people's minds, be linked with Dubai and not the US.
Substitute GM for Apple and Cars are one of the products associated with America. Then Jeffrey Immelt. Think again. Or IBM, or Big Pharma.
When they move off-shores because American shores are not business friendly, they'll sell to Canadadrugs.com for twice the price and all of a sudden, getting drugs from Canada and UK won't be such a bargain.One of us is missing the whole story. What I understand is that Jeep, who cannot afford to sell jeeps in china that are made here and shipped to China, will open a plant in China. They will employ Chinese labor to produce a vehicle that will be sold in China. If made here instead, each vehicle will lose money as they cannot recover the production plus shipping costs but they can earn a profit if the cars are both made and sold in China.
Profits come back to the states, to be given to stockholders who will presumably spend it to buy a new refrigerator - a refrigerator that perhaps you built.
It's not as if they were moving a US plant to China or laying anyone off. I don't see a loss anywhere as those cars won't be produced in the US whether they build a plant in China or not.
Are you reading it differently?I think what I is pretty clear. Basically when we move jobs overseas (for example, for reasons of our tax code)., we contribute to the economies of the countries where we take the compaines.
When we contribute to economies of other countries, we aren't contributing as much as we possible can to the US economy. Easy answer department.
I don't know that I'd go as far as to say that I wouldn't permit those who don't produce revenue the right to vote for several reasons.
The Constitution guaarantees the right to vote.
Even though I no longer collect a paycheck and receive social security benefits, this is my country and I should have a say in HOW it is run, until I become addlebrained and am drooling.
In response to the OP: My health insurance premiums just increased by about 10%.
Sorry to hear that but it was expected. My friends went up 18%. It's going to be a long year, these few things are the first few of many more to come. I wonder how long people will keep defending Obama as the spool unravels?
American View wrote:
“Sorry to hear that but it was expected. My friends went up 18%. It's going to be a long year, these few things are the first few of many more to come. I wonder how long people will keep defending Obama as the spool unravels?
G’day AV. Sorry to read about your problems tweaking Dragon. Having to go back to proofread and edit the software output is usually just as tedious as hunt, peck, and re-typing as you go along. Voice recognition has come a long way but has never replaced a good stenographer.
“As the spool unravels” is great imagery. I know you harbor dire predictions for the future of healthcare under the ACA but I must point out many of your draconian statements about insurance premiums are not supported by the facts. You “rag” on the President about the ACA causing health insurance premiums to rise but some analysts contradict your venting.
First of all, we must acknowledge premiums have been increasing every year going back as far as I can remember. I can not recall a single year in my lifetime that they declined. Secondly, health insurance premiums vary drastically from state to state. In the worse states of Delaware, Alaska, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts average family premiums ran $16K to $17K per year in 2011. In bold contrast, “average annual premiums for family plans ranged from about $12,400 to $13,500 in the lowest-cost states (Arkansas, Alabama, Iowa, Tennessee, Idaho, Mississippi, Utah, and North Dakota)” according to The Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation working to improve our healthcare system. {1} Habee has experienced a ten- percent rise, your friend 18 percent, and some residents in Columbia, S.C. saw an 87 percent increase in 2011.
Faced with this state to state, and county to country, disparity, we still need to look at national averages to capture a sense of what is happening. “Analysis of employer-sponsored health insurance costs in 41 U.S. metropolitan areas shows a 61 percent average increase in premiums for family coverage from 2003 to 2011, and a 21 percent increase over the past three years.” {2} Doing the math over eight years, I come up with about 7.6 percent a year typical. Doing the math again just for the last three years that include the enactment of the ACA, I come up with about 7.0 percent a year. This suggests the trend line is showing lower year over year increases.
Whoa! You say. The ACA is just getting started! Read further to the conclusions, “The report’s authors note that the Affordable Care Act lays the groundwork for lowering cost growth and improving and expanding insurance coverage. The law’s provisions put pressure on private insurance plans to lower their overhead and focus on the underlying costs of health care, setting standards for how much of each premium dollar must go to health care, as opposed to administrative costs, with insurers who don’t meet the new standard paying rebates to policyholders. Other reforms provide private insurers with a platform for further cost-reduction efforts. The authors conclude, however, that more will need to be done to confront the forces driving up the cost of care in private insurance markets.” {3} This appraisal may never materialize but it serves to underscore that in the eyes of some qualified observers the future is not filled with all of the negative, gloom and doom found in your predictions.
The United States remains the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. {4} Then again, Americans have been marching to the beat of a different drum since 1776.
{1} http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publica … Areas.aspx
{2} Ibid.
{3} http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/Ne … miums.aspx
{4} Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of SciencesThat America remains the only civilized country which does not have a universal healthcare system says one thing: America is the only civilized country without a universal healthcare system.
I don't need my taxes to go up an exhorbitant amout just so I can have care that AT THE TIME may be free. Thing is, I've already paid for it in my taxes.
What do you think the reason might be that people with means come here for health care? It surely isn't because they can get a room with a view. Could it be that our medicine has been tried and true and is on the cutting edge? There is R & D which will be squelched and innovation and entrepreneurship stifled. For their training, physicians should make a bit more, but that's a different subject.
Facts from the IOM don't lie, so I won't dispute those facts. But taking all hats off and putting your COMMON SENSE hat on, tell me how we can provide insurance to more people without raising rates.
Then tell me how we can offer more coverage to more people without raising rates and without having physisians flee practices because they gets such measly reinbursements ratesl.'''
So, the reimbutdrmrnt rates are lower than a cellar, so your doc, if he remains in practice, no longer accepts most insurance. Cash up front or no care. It's that simple. If the government mandates that he practices otherwise, so much for his practice of medicine, no matter how much he loves it. So much for being able to see yorur own doc; ACA has made sure that starting in 2014 that ability is going to decrease; heck I know of that happening now.
Feel so good about the ACA, now? And the majority of it's provisions won't go into effect until 2014. I've (preexisting conditions) already been told by BC/BS that they will not insure me come 2014. So much for preexisting insurance coverage.
Health insurance premiums not increasing?. My health insurance premiums increased by 20% month. TWENTY percent. No increase, eh??
I suggest you watch a You Tube video entitled "A Short Course in Brain Surgery" and then come back and tell me that we're incorrect in not embracing a single payer government run system. Let's think and TALK (all of us) this through and come to some consensus. Health care is tooooo important to leave it up to a few people to ram down the thoats of the many. or to have our leader acting like a 2 year old in a pissing match.Hi there, Annie. I am sure your nursing background can bring much to this discussion.
I try very hard to deal with facts and to leave the emotional rants and name calling to others. You know, do you not, the USA is a hundred years behind the rest of the industrialized world. European countries were passing social welfare acts and forming the basis for compulsory government-run or voluntary subsidized health care programs since 1900. {1} I get the message you are not happy with the current model in the US but, surely, you are not suggesting there has been no debate about healthcare in this country. More recently, the issue of health insurance reform in the United States has been the subject of political debate even before the Clinton healthcare plan failed to clear the Congress in 1993.
Everyone seems to say health care is tooooo important. However, only one political party in the last two decades has had the will to take the initiative and to make it happen. All emotion aside, that is a fact.
I enjoyed reading your impressions. Thanks for sharing.
{1} Patel, Kant; Rushefsky, Mark E. (2006). Health care politics and policy in America (3rd ed.). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. pp. 34–74."However, only one political party in the last two decades has had the will to take the initiative and to make it happen."
Only if you're coming from the point of view that the only "action" that is worth talking about is action take by government, which seems to me a conflation of government and society. Society dealt reasonably well with the problem of healthcare in the early 20th century, and before that, with fraternal societies, in which members received quality care (for the time) for around a week's wages a year. These were unfortunately regulated out of existence. http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html
Arguing against the government providing something is not arguing that the problem should not be addressed. This is part of a wider misconception about those against 'universal' healthcare, that is, government provided healthcare paid for by force: that they are against everybody receiving healthcare. Most simply disagree in the method of providing healthcare. It is the libertarian view that voluntary actions have to be considered superior than violent ones, and it just so happens that voluntary actions are almost always more efficient in the long-term.Quill , I feel my nursing background AND experience as a patient and a citizen put me in a unique place to comment. I believe we would all agree that the healthcare system we operate (if it could be called a system) is in need of some major repair. The fact that the whole of America (who was so inclined) took part in this debate is testament to this fact.
What I and many Americans object to is the inability to be part of the solution to a problem that we ALL deemed was so major.. There was no disagreement on the 'sides' that there was a problem. There was disagreement as to the solution, however.
When I say that it was TOO BIG, I mean that just because the party in power was the party that came up with A solution, does not make it the right solution for America and just because the world has the same kind of solution, does not make "well, jimmy's jumping off the bridge so I thought I would too" the right solution.
Health care reform could have waited until this president showed that he was going to take more than a 'if you don't like the way I play, I''ll take my toys to my own sandbox."s
Yes, healthcare transformation is too important to play partisan politics with. All Americans need to be onboard with the same solution to a huge problem (well, as many Americans who are willing to become involved..
Otherwise it can only be seen that a very partisan president, used the bully pulpit to achieve his signature legislation, one that he thinks will put him in the history books as the greatest president since FDR. Hell's bells..
In those 2 years while focusing solely on HC, therre were other things left untended: revision of the tax code, jobs legislation, workment's comp, budget bills. Things that really mattered. Healthcare really mattered, but as was obvious, there was no real consensus or attempt to compromise.
There was only the attempt to call Republican party 'blockers' and obstructionists, when for TWO YEARS, there was a majority party in the exec and both legislative houses.
Q, I'm on a diffrent ccomputer so therer are typos and I'm not as able to copy and paste., but there was something you said rather authoritatively that begged addressing. Let me go and see if I can find your post..
You did say that the US was 100 year behind the times. That does depend on what you mean by behind the times. If that means we don't offer free healthcare coverage to all, then we're behind the times. But, the thing is, NOONE offers free healthcare to all.
Behind the times: does that mean the cutting edge R and D that is done in the US, or do people flock to the US by the thousands in search of our behind the times healthcare? Sure, we have big-time kinks, but when we draw a new paradigm, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater as is often the case in the ACA which hasn't -or won't- honor a good number of it's signature achievements (like coverage for pre-existng condition).
I see in the post above mind that most Americans don't disagree with health care reform', but they can't agree with how it should be accomplished. To say that only ONE group of people has shown any interest or desire to reform healthcare is to totally ignore the continued attempts by the GOP to transform Medicare-when they attempt to transform MDC, it is said that they want to "throw Granny off the clifff"
Now,, put the shoe on the other foot!"NOONE offers free healthcare to all."
Nothing is "free." However, every other industrialized democratic country provides universal, single payer government health care which costs a fraction of what our U.S. system costs and produces significantly better results than our for-profit medical care approach.
Good morning, Mr. Quill. Yes, my premiums have gone up almost every year, but not by this much. Is ACA to blame? I don't know. I actually don't mind paying a little more if it means that uninsured people, especially children, can now be covered. BUT...one of the "selling points" of the ACA was the claim that insurance costs would decrease. I'm not sure that's going to happen.
I keep hearing people saying their premiums have risen exhorbently here, and mine have not...at all..I guess we have been lucky thus far...I read that this problem exists due to the layout, different functions are set to take place at different times, I believe 2014 and 2016 if I remember correctly...I believe we are seeing this swell and once everyone is in, all states have done their parts, then we will see this level out as claimed. That's how I read it anyway.
Tamm'y, you've been incredibly lucky. I saw a 35% increase, there was a 20%, an 18% and other hefty increases reported and seen.
I certainly expect a swell in taxes until all the dust settles. But a 35% increase is NO SWELL. It is a hike, that's in direct contrast to "YOUR PREMIUMS WILL NOT GO UP..."http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/25/514117 … 8-why.html
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25, 2013 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Health insurance giant Wellpoint today announced a 38% profit increase in the 4th quarter of 2012, as compared to last year, for a total $2.7 billion in net profits for 2012. The insurance company continues to pad its profits even as the growth of health care costs remains at record-low levels and the company is forcing double-digit premium increases on consumers and small businesses across the country, said Consumer Watchdog".
"Health insurers are talking out of both sides of their mouths when they preach austerity to their customers in order to raise premiums, then turn around and announce another banner year to shareholders. As federal health reform requires health insurance companies to disclose more and more information online, it will be harder for insurers to say one thing to customers and the opposite to Wall Street. Still, consumers remain unprotected in many states where no one has the power to reject an excessive rate hike, even when company profits exceed projections," said Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog."
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/25/514117 … rylink=cpy
Quill
I find it interesting you feel I am “ragging” on the President, in this case I am not. I am Ragging” on the legislation itself. It does not matter to me who puts out bad legislation, I write about it, talk about it on my show hoping people will get involved to effect a change. Why is it when I “rag” on faulty GOP legislation or like recently when I was pushing for the house to replace Boehner the left is deadly silent, they do not accuse me of “ragging” then.
As the spool unravels was a great imagery, but a sad one as well. Perhaps you cannot understand my “dire” predictions from where you sit because you have not walked a mile in my shoes and speaking as a friend, I hope you never have too.
Due to my health situation I have plenty of time on my hands. I could give you the story as to why but it would be a mini novel. I went from a 1%er to having nothing, and I do mean nothing. February 22, 2013 will be one year without a hospital stay since I left the long term care. Out of the prior 5 years I spent 4 ½ of them in hospital and long term care facilities having almost died December 2010. When I was discharged from the health facility I had 2 pairs of sweat pants, 3 tee shirts and a pair of sneakers as my only worldly possessions left. As someone who is a very proud person I cannot tell you how difficult it was to accept the fact I had to go on Medicaid as well as accepting other help. I know people ell me it’s OK because I paid into the system but still.
Back to my too much time. I mention all this because I have the time and ability to do mch research to get past the hype of what we here politically. I read the ACA act 2 times, have several notebooks full of notes I made while reading it. I know or could go back and reference every tax increase and regulation Obamacare has put in place so far and the many yet to come over the next 4 years. I also have the unique perspective since I am on Medicaid to see the system in action.
Part of Obamacare was a test pilot in each state so they could see how it works to help them make decisions on whether to create their own or allow the government to do it. I do not know how I got to be so lucky but I am on the pilot. So lets look at that mandate and its great coverage. The doctors wrote a prescription for a glucometer and the diabetes test strips, you know, like the ones you see advertised on TV that if you call and are on Medicare or insurance are free. Well, Medicaid turned it down. When the hospital contacted Medicaid to check on doing a trach on me to save my life, the hospital was turned down. Want to know why? “due to patients age this procedure is not a cost effective way for treatment”, I know that to be a fact because the hospital gave me a copy of the refusal letter. Good thing for me the doctor did it anyway, without it I would have died. Seems there are death panels after all. By the way, since Medicaid refused to cover that, they refused to cover the treatment after like the life support I was on to keep me alive. Did you now just a ventilator itself cost $15,000 per day, that does not include hospital, doctors, nurses IVs, and all the rest.
Your statements about the cost of insurance policies is absolutely correct, the premiums have been rising every year for many years becoming unaffordable to many individuals and businesses. There are major disparages across states not only for pricing, but for coverage as well. ACA was suppose to cure that, but has made it worse. Prior to ACA, rates were rising at an average of 3 % per year. N 2012 average rates went up 7%, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation predictions are rates will be higher 10% this year as insurance companies ramp up for the next wave of regulations coming their way. From the report:
The unexpected increase in premiums raises questions about whether health care costs are, in fact, stabilizing at all, as people have postponed going to the doctor or dentist and have put off expensive procedures. “No one quite knows,” said Mr. Altman.
Kaiser is a leading healthcare insurer and provider. Even they cannot predict stabilizing premiums in the future, which of course calls into question the left leaning economists who claim otherwise.
This appraisal may never materialize but it serves to underscore that in the eyes of some qualified observers the future is not filled with all of the negative, gloom and doom found in your predictions.
See, here is where common sense in Washington fails again. They miss the point and want to be dictators in the business world and in your private life. First dictating to a company how to run it, how much to spend on operations is lawsuit coming. Imagine since they do not have enough staff because they can only spend so much on “overhead” claims get handled slowly. Some person in need of life saving surgery is waiting on approval that is sitting in a stack waiting for processing; the person passes because approval never came. OK maybe that is a little theater there, but arbitrary cuts create havoc, just ask the DOD and all the defense contractors. Remember those arbitrary cuts to Medicaid doctors for payments, that went well. It took me 6 months and hundreds of phone calls here in the DFW area to find a doctor who would take the coverage, and I am not exaggerating.
Due to ACA many doctors are no longer taking Medicaid and Medicare patients, the opposite effect ACA was suppose to have. You found a study that clams premiums went up over 7% per year, I found several saying between 3% to 5% depending on which you read. My point is nobody agrees. I look at what is happening now. A swing in the work force changing people from full time to part time in order to not be counted by ACA. Part time also means no paid holidays, no vacation time, no sick days or any other benefit a full time employee would enjoy.
People only look at the car ahead of them, they never look beyond and when they get into an accident, they say they never say it coming. Quill my friend, when it comes to ACA and the future wreck which is already in motion, people are not seeing it coming.Quill, you also said that you leave the emotions and name calling to others while you stick to the facts, somewhat implying that I was doing bother the name calling while I tossed around emotions without facts.
I'm sure if you asked around on HubPages, you'd find that I'm known for facts and NO name calling and I resent the implication otherwise. I always think of what is in the best interest of my country and if for one minute, I felt the direction in which we're headed was in the best interests of the US of A as I have grown to love it, as others have grown to love it, I'd be behind the ACA and current administration and socialism for all I was able to muster.
Thing is, we're goverened by a Constitution, not by Washington and not by the people who occupy the White House unless they show they answer to and 'defending the Constitution. NOT in this case. Many POTUS have veered from the preserve and protect, but this POTUS deserves the medial-or a chest to pin it on.
I don't know how I let that slip by but I feel like Meg Ryan in 'You've Got Mai,l" every now and then something slips out that cuts. Usuallly I never say anything, but I'm human.Q, most of AV's 'views' about the ACA are not b\ased in fact? I'll address just one fact that I think I've addressed before: Health insurance premiums: Mine went up by 35%, That's an indisputable fact. Not $35, but 35%. This marks a DECREASE?
Sure, there's room for a temporary increase before you're up and running full speed, but more than 1/3???? The same coverage, too; not a gold, Cadillac coverage.
- JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago0
Oh look, Ralph ignored his own admission of lying, yet again!
My health insurance for 2013 did not change from 2012. There's a little more Fica changes on my paycheck, as the law went back to it's normal position.
It's a wonder how long this attack on Obama and health insurance is going to take place. After all children are insured and have their own doctors? After you can keep your current health insurance policy after getting fired? And how long will the attacks on Obama go on as Hitler coming to subdue all American's. Geez, there isn't going to be a single bill that restricts guns that passes Congress, so who cares about gun control? It's a dead issue for now.As far as children keeping their health insurance and doctors, for now. With a single payer system, that won't happen and the weak and disadvantaged will be in poo. Keeping your current health insurance after being fired? Wonderful sounding, Iknow, but WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT? Ah, I fofotgoy about the money tree and the money fairy./
This needs to be an ongoing dialoge between health insuranc providers and experts from all sides. exchanging ideas/ Not one side saying the election is over and basically saying, "so shut your hap!)
How well spoken, short and to the point.Dr. Billy, maybe your premiums didn't change but see the board; the evidence of increase is all over and 'we've only just begun...' I'm seing debits from my health incurace company for 35 % more, and that seems to be a trend.
You folks want a solution? Here's one: How about if all of us decided to stop abusing our health! Let's stop smoking, stop drinking, stop doing illegal drugs, stop overeating, start exercising, etc. We can blame the politicos all we like, but it is those of us (a big group, indeed), who continue to run health care costs up through the roof. And, oh yes, let's stop using the Emergency Rooms as though they are doctor's offices!
That's what I like, a solution-oriented person. But what about those with chronic illnesses, or the people who get lung cancer with no smoking hx or no exposure to second hand smoke.
It's also easy to say "stop using ERs....), but there are some people who have NO OTHER WAY. I think that would be grossly dimiinished if we had only LEGAL immigration and tossed illegals out; but there are migrants who contribute to our economy. I don't have a solution, but this is what talking is about.
I think making a concerted effort, and that means parets raising their children to make the concerted effort NOT TO ABUSE THEIR HEALTH!That's what I like, a solution-oriented person. But what about those with chronic illnesses, or the people who get lung cancer with no smoking hx or no exposure to second hand smoke.
It's also easy to say "stop using ERs....), but there are some people who have NO OTHER WAY. I think that would be grossly dimiinished if we had only LEGAL immigration and tossed illegals out; but there are migrants who contribute to our economy. I don't have a solution, but this is what talking is about.
I think making a concerted effort, and that means parets raising their children to make the concerted effort NOT TO ABUSE THEIR HEALTH!People with chronic illnesses generally do not cause them, and always should be treated within the health care system. These are not the ones to whom I refer. I am talking here about people who blatantly refuse to take care of themselves and then abuse the system to get care. It's about taking responsibility for one's own actions and is the only way anything positive will happen in our society...and this includes politicians who do and say all the wrong things to the public, no matter their party. There will always be consequences for actions. I can tell you from my experiences as a teacher that many who "have no other way but than to use ERs" are in that position because they chose the wrong path in life. Notice, I didn't say "all"...I said "many"...and believe me, this is a fact. If people refuse to educate and prepare themselves for work, they earn no money...and therefore limit their choices. Most DO have a choice, and again, THESE are the people to whom I'm referring.
The myth that either candidate or party has the "right answer" to our situation is a deflection from the problem. If either one of them had a solution we would be well on our way to a full and complete recovery.
The crux of the matter lies in the fact that neither is concentrating their efforts on the problems alone. Petty arguments and bickering have come to the forefront because that is where their priorities are focused. Add the mix that we have a sensationalized press that covers the latest fad or trash talking argument between unimportant made up newsmakers to boost ratings for a neverending public thirst for trash topics and it is a wonder any real topics even get discussed let alone debated.
With our troops over in Afghanistan and the post for Secretary of Defense desperately needing a posting now, the slimebags want to hold it up so they can get the skinny on Obamas phone call the day of the 911 attacks in Benghazi! This from a group that profess the absolute support of our troops in the field.
The problem is the system and how the countries business is carried out. The public is entitled to unfettered leadership but is instead given sniveling slimebags looking out for themselves.
Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is our only hope of capturing back this country.Speaking of "slimebags," neo-McCarthyite Ted Cruz is hard to beat--
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/us/po … s&_r=0So glad to see that you have stopped name calling when you know someone is right. Cruz is right on the money, Hagel is a horrible choice for SOS. Talk about someone whose voting history and public quotes shows he has no interest in protecting the US.
the slimebags want to hold it up so they can get the skinny on Obamas phone call the day of the 911 attacks in Benghazi! This from a group that profess the absolute support of our troops in the field.
I know this is not on topic but I could not let this one go. First, Hagel's nomination should not be blocked, it should be terminated. This is the most unqualified person to take the job, he has no interest in protecting the American people.
As for the "slimebags" their actions are in support of US troops and personal. We currently have an incompetent SOS leaving, we do not need to bring in another one that will not read security requests, cuts security personnel, does not bring embassies up to proper safety standards, one that would allow a President to leave our people out there to die by not giving them support. Funny you should mention a phone call, Pannetta and Dempsey at the hearings claimed they spoke to the President for 30 minutes by phone,. Yet in the DOD report they submitted to congress several months earlier claimed they met with the President in the oval office fro about an hour. I wonder which story is true.
They also claim the President did not check back with the till long after the incident concluded, they specifically mention the President was not briefed. We also now the President blew off his security briefing the next morning to go to Vegas for his fund raiser
So the people in charge, who are the liberalsw, turned their back on our countrymen under fire and you call the conservatives who want answers "slimebags". . .I know this is not on topic but I could not let this one go. First, Hagel's nomination should not be blocked, it should be terminated. This is the most unqualified person to take the job, he has no interest in protecting the American people.
As for the "slimebags" their actions are in support of US troops and personal. We currently have an incompetent SOS leaving, we do not need to bring in another one that will not read security requests, cuts security personnel, does not bring embassies up to proper safety standards, one that would allow a President to leave our people out there to die by not giving them support. Funny you should mention a phone call, Pannetta and Dempsey at the hearings claimed they spoke to the President for 30 minutes by phone,. Yet in the DOD report they submitted to congress several months earlier claimed they met with the President in the oval office fro about an hour. I wonder which story is true.
They also claim the President did not check back with the till long after the incident concluded, they specifically mention the President was not briefed. We also now the President blew off his security briefing the next morning to go to Vegas for his fund raiser
So the people in charge, who are the liberalsw, turned their back on our countrymen under fire and you call the conservatives who want answers "slimebags". . .
"This is the most unqualified person to take the job, he has no interest in protecting the American people."
Who was better qualified than this bunch? McNamara, Rumsfeld, Chenney? They were all political hacks that said anything they were told to say.
"We currently have an incompetent SOS leaving, we do not need to bring in another one that will not read security requests."
Who would that be? Rusk, Kissinger, Haig, Schultz? These boobs either acted autonomosly or were spooks from the CIA that held their secrets even from the Presidents.
"They also claim the President did not check back with the till long after the incident concluded, they specifically mention the President was not briefed. We also now the President blew off his security briefing the next morning to go to Vegas for his fund raising."
What would you have him do? Blow up Libya? Based on the information all claim he went to Vegas and addressed the concerns in a news conference and in his speech. Maybe some more troops on the ground would have placated you."
"So the people in charge, who are the liberalsw, turned their back on our countrymen under fire and you call the conservatives who want answers "slimebags". . ." You don't get it because your opinion is part of the problem. The lobbyists are in charge! They are all slimebags and deserve to be voted out. What you can't see is that they "ALL" must go. They are bought by the lobbyists and cater to their every whim. What you don't understand is that "YOU" contribute to the problem by backing any of them. Don't get me wrong, I think they all are slimebags!
rhamson, "The myth that either candidate or party has the "right answer" to our situation is a deflection from the problem. If either one of them had a solution we would be well on our way to a full and complete recovery."
That is your opinion and you're entitled to it. Conservatives are saying, "we have the solution," and libs are saying, "We don't have a solution; we just don't agree with yours."
That's a far cry from saying that NEITHER has a solution. They don't work together well, because they'er not inspired by a leader-they should be able to work together in the absensce of a leader, but we have what we have; unfortunately they need leadership which they're not getting it.
You make a lot of assumptions, "the crux of the matter is...." That's what you feel is the crux, but someone else feels differently. That's a pretty bold statement to make, for if that were the case, all we'd need to do is follow your rules and we'd be out of the doggy-doo we're in.By conservativees opinion do you mean the lower taxes for the rich and wait for the trickle down recovery? Yeah that has worked so well for everyone. This not an opinion. It has been proven time and time again to be a failure.
Romney who proved to be the candidate nobody wanted, even in his own party, wanted to cut taxes to the corporations like they would bring jobs back to the US. Yeah that worked with more jobs going out of the country in our history in "W's" administration with his tax cuts that left out the tax havens corporations relish..
Obama has been "trying" to create jobs for us all while never getting a plausible budget passed in the House. He doesn't have a clue.
And Clinton started the whole ball of S#*t rolling when he got NAFTA passed with "W" and Obama adding to it along the way.
No I would say I am right on target and as long as you wish to cling to a bias or moniker such as a conservative or a liberal there can never be an open or intelligent conversation directed toward a solution.First, I NEVER used the phrase CONSERVATIVE OPINION (never used those words together). The word opinion was used to comment on your OPINION. The word Conservative was used in the next sentence.
I do happen to believe that we had no reason to raise taxes by 10% on the rich. 10% on the VERY wealthy MIGHT be tolerable, but 10% on the small business owner, making $250,000/year is a recipe for disaster. Since the small business owner is minus that 10%, one or two of his employees will see pink slips, benefits or hours cut. AGAIN, SQUEEZE THE LITTLE GUY. is the long-term affect.
I might direct you to the speech that many questioned its appropriateness, but was on the mar. Dr. Benjamin Carson spoke at the national prayer breakfast. If you only have a few minutes, I think starting about 18:30 minutes will illustrate my point, but the whole thin is really worth watching:
http://youtu.be/vyyHegP255g
" It has been proven time and time again to be a failure." Then what has been proven to be a success? Rather than cast aspersions on the other guy for having a solution which you don't think works, it's so important in a dialog to offer SOMETHING that you think will work..
Why is cutting the corporate tax rate a bad idea? Already you talk to someone in New Dehli when you want to get service over the phone for a lot of technical questions about your computer. We should be encouraging that these companies NOT outsource their jobs overseas, and feed the economies of India and Dubai,
President Obama has been trying to create jobs for 4 years and the bottom line is he hasn't. Unemployment in my town is 18%, and the job growth rate isn't anemic, IT ISN'T. That tells me the only thing I need to know and that is, if one approach isn't working, don't continue to try it. He is. He thinks a bigger government is the andre.
He has been trying to get his budget passed AND HE COULDN'T GET ONE DEMOCRAT TO VOTE FOR IT. Why? Well, Dems in the House weren't for it, period, and Harry Reid wouldn't let it come up for a vote in the Senate.
I don't know what you're saying in this sentence:"No I would say I am right on target and as long as you wish to cling to a bias or moniker such as a conservative or a liberal there can never be an open or intelligent conversation directed toward a solution." I've scratched my head and scratched and nothing frees up.
Clinton got the whole ball of *****rolling with the CRA, he and Carter. I wouldn't go as far as to say that Romney was the candidate whom nobody wanted. It was just that more people wanted to see Pres. Obama in the job;.
When asked, they weren't really able to state any particular reason, or they were union, or more they drank the koolaid of the day that the rich should somehow rescue this country and it's not fair for them to have more than anyone else. Do you know what the problem is with that theory? Or, they blindly followed the pied piper while he fed them to the rats.
That all aside, we're all intelligent human beings on these HP and we can come up with solutions to our problems. Washington has shown a complete inability or complete lack of desire to do that, do the PEOPLE'S WORK. Is there some reason that WE THE PEOPLE can't come up with the general gist of a solution and demand that they institute it?
Forget who in DC said what or did what; for my money, they all speak with forked tongue to get reelected. It time WE accomplished the stuff at the crux of the problem.You have me at a loss as to follow your indignation over my comment of putting the conservative opinion together in your statement as you where the one who has seemed to tie the two together with your reply. I merely commented from an extrapolation of the two thoughts in your reply. I happen to agree with your assesment of the situation but you seem to personalize the meaning for some odd reason.
The two sides of the argument cannot meet common ground and blaming and putting the current administration on the hot seat as the culprit only describes slimebag of the day and not towards what I commented on. Both sides are merely an aberation of the current thinking in this country of my way or the highway thinking. No compromise (OOHH that dirty word) is exhumed to be replaced with vanquish and destroy the other side all the while getting nothing done in the process. The lobbyists love us in this condition as their bidding is carried out without debate and the money keeps flowing through the hands of the politicians even as we write.
As I stated or opinioned if you will, term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is our only way out of this. If you wish to carry on with pushing policy through the filthy, slimy filter of congress and the presidency you will still wind up with what we have now.
A single astute observation does not a good leader make. Romney would've sold America to the first person who'd ask for a handful of $50s.
You both seemed so convinced that Mr. Romney would have sold us to the lowest bidder, sold us (the USA down the river). Doesn't the off-mic moment capturing the POTUS and Dimitri Medvev put a chill in your bones?
" Romney would've " No amount of WOULD HAVES can replace someone else's DID/ACTION. The first is an opinion, the second is FACT.
We need a leader, our POTUS is to be that leader; and President Obama has show time and time again, that leadership is not his strong suit; not even his weak suit, it's not in his lexicon.You did not get the gist of what I am describing to you. They (Congress and the President ) have sold us all down the river to the lowest bidder. Why did Obama add more countries to the NAFTA list if he is concerned about American jobs? Do you think Romney is going to change his winning formula of busting up American companies and outsourcing? These slimebags are in it for their ego and the money and I am not sure which comes first at this level of greed. As long as these greedy b@$tards are in charge the only leadership you will see is where their bank account is bigger than the others. You really don't get it do you! You are trying to find a winning horse in a race that has no interest in the race you are betting on. This country is run by a plutocracy that starts with the Federal Reserve, flows through the banks and winds up in the politicians pockets. We merely give them a bump in the road to deal with every time an election rolls around.
Funny thing is, I agree with a lot about what you say, except the part where you insult me. Our country haas problems, we hire and send folks to DC to solve said problems. They show utter incapability and/or desire to do so.
It seems to me that the solution is for US, JOHN Q. PUBLIC to put their shoulder to the wheel and come up with solutions in absence of leadership. I thought Mitt Romney was a leader, but apparently not enough other Americans felt the same way.
So, I feel it incumbent on the citizens to pick up the reims of leadership and you, my friend, will be left insulting others, while the rest of us put our collective heads and try to solve many problems. I have no doubt that I'll be in the problem-solving/finding solutions group.I am sorry if you feel insulted but I get impatient with conversations that have to go backwards to move forward. I think we do have a lot we agree upon but I still get the feeling you think you can go through the tired old way of voting them out and who ever comes up through their system is going to be any different. As long as we have an us and them frame of mind there can be no compromise (OOHH that dirty word again) You kept defending Romney as if you expect me to defend Obama. I don't like either of them and I am tired of going into the booth and holding my nose while I vote for the one that stinks the least.
Occupy Wall Street has no answers and neither does Citizens United with their meandering and bias platforms towards the left or the right. One seems to be in business to eliminate the other rather than find any solutions. Their agendas are rooted in their bias and ineffectual in getting anything meaningful accomplished.
The goals of every American should be how to make this self rule experiment work and not concentrate on gaming the system to their own advantage. Now that is real progress in my opinion and something I would like to discuss rather than argue whos' philosophy of the other is right or wrong.
If you still think your way is the right way of going down the same path traveled by many greater than you or I, have at it and I wish you well. But I will leave you with a quote that better explains the conundrum.
"The very definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results."—Philip ManganoI think I only mentioned Mitt Romney's name twice, and neither was in defense of him; just that I thought personally that he'd do a better job as POTUS instead of the alternative. There's nothing that I said that indicates where I stand ideologically.
But I do feel that because our system of government was established with two houses of Congress, an executive and a judiciary branch,l that we ought to vote all the bums out who don't do the people's bidding. Studdy their history which is a matter of public record and often on YouTube.
WE want the tax structure/code changed. Throw the bums out who don'ts see it that way. WE want REAL leadership in DC. Throw the bums out who's only goal is to get reelected. WE no longer want to participate in the Federal Reserve system. Throw the bums out who want to.
THROW THE PEOPLE OUT WHO ARE NOT GOING TO DO WHAT YOU AND I WANT, even if if may be different politically (like you may be fore green energy, I may be against it) That doesn't matter as much as having people represent us WHO WILL ACT-one way or antoerh.
That's why we're 20 years behind the times. Not because we don't have sate of the art computers, phones and learning environs (some/many lacking). We don't see the IMPORTANCE of learning and the process of learning; but we'll fund study after study to prove that this kind of LEARNING works better than the other..
This means the American people have to pull their ostrich heads out of t the sand, do their OWN homework, listen to THER OWN thoughts, come to message boards like these where we talk solutions; NOT PROBLEMS.You mentioned Romney as an alternative to the Obama situation we have now. I would and did reason that you thought Romney was any answer to changing the situation we are in now. If I misunderstood you I appologize. I really don't want to belabor this point as the rest of your statement is what I wish to address.
Your understanding that the two house system with the addition of an executive and judiciary branch is any fix to the two criminal organizations that reside in both is naive. They are in charge and have spent the last two hundred years writing rules and legislation to circumvent any control you or I wish to force on them. How do you think it is possible that Hilliary Clinton could get elected to the Senate having spent little if no time in the district she represented? Party clout and favor with a bankroll from special interest that's how. I don't need a history course in how the government is supposed to work but you need to wake up to how it is being perverted. Look at the house rules filibuster that is not in the constitution but congress has blocked votes to the tune of 878 in 2010 alone. Majority rule is impotent with this in place.
How do you throw the bums out that are as entrenched as mobsters in a crime family? To find a lone or dozen congressmen for that matter that will go against the system is impossible as it is suicide for them to even think of it.
Even more impossible is to find a quorum let alone a party of people who can agree on how to mount an opposition run for the offices of these people. The system you wish to employ to break this gridlock up is not willing to participate.
I agree these message boards are a start to hash out our arguments and even organize a concerted effort to change the countries direction but did you know congress is even trying to legislate what we do here? Think about it. Who is really in charge?"They are in charge and have spent the last two hundred years writing rules and legislation to circumvent any control you or I wish to force on them."
That's an admission of 'they've won'-or defeat, even though I know it will be called 'realistic or naive, like you said.' Those people represent us, are OUR EMPLOYEES, and though they're heavily lobbied and entrenched in their positions, they can be gotten rid of. Attitudes that accept that they're here forever are attitudes we don't need. We can give up and not have ANY chance to make a difference. Or, we CAN do our level best, collectively IGNORE the bully pulpit and realize that we have a few more (300,000,000) than they; basically give up and call the game off before it's started, or take a stand and be a force to be recorded with.
This would require that all people would know and care that the future of this country is in a bit of trouble-no small feat, in and of itself, and then they'd need to decide that it is time to take the reins s back from those entrenched, like-John MCCain, for example or that Congressman from Harlem.
Tell them they're terms will be limited, DON'T ASK, and if they don't vote that way, don't reelect them. It's going to take a lot of commit tent, but what is the alternative. We lose COMPLETE control, the country becomes an entrenched dictatorship,
ALL people have to realize that their country is up for grabs and is more important then the boob tube. Do they have to stop other pursuits, (work life, soccer practice, etc?). No. It means changing the national dialog, our priorities from 'who was on SNL' and 'who is Suzy dating', to one of substance.
People who live abroad know more about OUR country than we do and I'm the first to admit, that I know little of what is happening in other nations. This is not just becoming a global economy, but a global SOCIETY and we all need to know what is happening wherever.
You continuously state, "who is really in charge?" Well, we can make a choice, LIKE ADULTS DO and take back our authority, our charge and let John McCan and Harry Reid know that they work for us and for harry, if he blocs parliamentary procedure one more time, HE'S OUT. We let the House know that filibusters will not be tolerated unless thee is a damn good reason that WE approve.
The only way that this can happen is if the American people KNOW about the filibuster, know about vote-blocking and what is appalling to me is recess appointments and all the stuff that few know about, because we have our nose in these GD boards.
There will always be political differences, but there is commonality in overcoming an obstacle: all of our children's and for generations to come are being tossed around lie casino chips. Americans must agree that this country is worth saving and they need to commit, AND REALLY COMMIT to finding a solution, because GOVERNMENT isn't able. Finding a solution will mean term limits and the legislature will fight that tooth and nail.
But, anyone Congressman or Senator who doesn't vote for term limits, must not be reelected. The people must play ruthless-but legal. Washington has co-opted our government, through a lot of help by us, and now they need to be put on notice that the 234+ year Honeymoon is over.It is funny but I agree with everything you say and for some reason we have an argument here. This Democratic/Republic style of government was founded on a priciple of self rule that seems to have gone heavy on the republic (a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them) side as compared to the democratic (characterized by free and equal participation in government or in the decision-making processes of an organization or group). The problem lies therein to have our government distinguish between the two for the good of the country. The politician has thrived in our form of government because of all the loopholes and trickery that this type of government breeds.
To begin the process of uniting this country on a central theme of better government through the election process will take monumental cooperation of a politically poorly educated constituency who are informed by a commercially motivated media clusterf#$k who have only one purpose which is to get all they can monetarily and get to the next commercial break.
Am I apathetic to the solution? Probably but the realistic understanding of knowing your battle is tiring to say the least and look at the two of us who just about believe everything each other has exposed yet we can't find a way to effect the change in our government we both want. You say we can effect the change through attrition in the voting booth and I believe it will take a great deal more. Just look at what the Republicans are saying since licking their wounds after the last election where the latino vote made the difference. The Republicans are trying to come up with a strategy to sway that vote their way with whatever lies they can sell to make it happen. They still want it to remain the same business as usual as always.
"To begin the process of uniting this country on a central theme of better government through the election process will take monumental cooperation of a politically poorly educated constituency who are informed by a commercially motivated media clusterf#$k who have only one purpose which is to get all they can monetarily and get to the next commercial break."
but, I feel that it (the media cluster****) CAN be overcome, by enough people (like benjamin Carson) speaking out against Chris Matthews and his ilk who have one motive and it is is not journalism.
They may THINK they're doing their job, enlightening the public. They're fooling a good many; but others (like you and media aren't fooled one bit).
Please don't be apathetic towards finding a solution. It may take decades, but the populace must get control of IT'S country back and it can only do so if people with passion like you and me and a BUNCH of others, don't throw their hands up and more important:. They can only make a difference if they're not ridiculed to death by people of differing political ideologies (like I imagine you and I are).
Call me a Pollyanna if you want. I'd reather be called that than a lazy SHMUCK who let her country down because it was easier to go with the flow, the status quo. I don't think one of us has to be Enjoiras (this isn't militancy), but we need to spark concern amongst most f the American people who've buried their heads like ostriches (there's nothing wrong because I can't see it) or those who don't see-or won't see..
Yes, it will take more than not reelecting the crooks, but it will take ELECTING people who promise they'll accomplish one thing. Then, if their voting record while in DC shows otherwise, we need to show tough love and NOT reelect them. NO SECOND CHANCES.
I won't address licking wounds, I don't care. The GOP can do what they want,; they nave their agenda. I HAVE MINE. It's necessary for you to forget that, drop the criticism of the GOP and concentrate on our Constitution. I'm willing to give up my criticism of the libs (you don't find much of it in these posts if you search around). We must drop it all for the survival of this country.
If people who are ''running' to be legislators don't stand on platforms that have the best interests of this country at heart-or their voting record shows the same-they need to be voted off the island. That simple: do what the AMERICAN people want, or go back to the farm.
Problem is, too many Americans don't know what they want, don't give a rat's a** or are so ill-informed. So, DC has free rein. Let's change that.I like your zeal and motivation but as I said the fox is not only watching the hen house he is culling out the opposition to his authority. Yes I have heard the good Doctor and watched as the President listened in quiet consternation but one person cannot motivate the whole electorate as the two sides chew at the words and twist the truth to neutralize his message.
It does not matter what side of the rhetoric we are on because as a people we have to get together and figure out a solution beyond what is available to us with the watchdogs of the constitution ie. The Supreme Court. The beauty of the constitution is that it can be changed to become better. That is what is needed but it is in itself the great taboo. The old "be careful what you ask for, you may just get it" conundrum is always an inhibitor.
I am sorry but either the current establishment inside the beltway must have a change of heart or the people will have to unite to run them out of office. With the last election and the current climate in the houses in congress I don't see that happening in my lifetime. And I don't or never will promote anarchy as a solution to the problem. So I am a realist but I have hope that there can be something never the less. These forums give us a real glimpse into where people are politically and intellectually.Consternation can also mean 'alarming amazement.' No, our President was watching Dr. Carson call him on the rug. Mr. Obama looked like a kid who'd been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
It really sounds like you're saying that the beauty of the Constitution is that we can change the it at our whim and the Supreme Court will do it for us. Thing is, the Supreme Court wasn't charged with that. The beauty of the Constitution is that it has only been changed27-28 times in several hundred years. Some countries have had more CONSTITUTIONS in as many years!)
The framers thought that it MIGHT need changing, so they made provisions for changing it, but they were STRICT.and required more involvement of the PEOPLE. with ratification by the states in a 3/4 majority, I think.
How would you propose to make it better? That is one for the books, I must say. For WHO is going to determine WHAT or HOW MUCH is 'better'? You, me? The Supreme Court was not charged with that. They were given the authority to INTERPRET THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION. No more.
You say that the current establishment must have a change of heart, or the people will have to run them out of office. They won't have a change of 'heart.' I don't see their ilk being run out of office in my lifetime, either; but there can be a movement towards that goal over the years , over the years.
I'm not promoting anarchy. I'm simply stating that I feel the people ought to make learning about their government a priority. They don't need to talk 'government-ese' 24/7, but don't you think that asking a college-grad a simple civics question, "Who is the POTUS?' should meet with the right answer? I'k ashamed when I see those TV spots aired by Letterman and Leno.I never said the Supreme Court is charged with changing the Constitution although some of their recent verdicts do seem to be just that. We have had tries at Constitutional Conventions some 800 times but the bastards shoot it down everytime. I wonder why.
The landmark Citizens United case provided a broad interpretation of the campaign finance laws that changed everything. Was it interpreted correctly? It is a confusing case but one that changed this last election and many to come with the money special interest can contribute to get their way.
Publicly financed campaigns upheld by a constitutional amendmant would eliminate money swaying an election in what has become our traditional money orgy of spending and bought appointments..
Term limits if amended to the Constitution wll assure a changing of the guard (The Good Old Boys) and open the door for fair and equal debate.
Lobby reform to include the ability of a "CITIZEN" personally to write and petition his congressman could be included or at least redefined by congress and not up to the Supreme Court with its' politically and bias appointments to pay their appointment debts.
Basically any legislation that can take the influence of money out of the campaign and legislating process can only make the Constitution faily rule over us.
You believe the process has a chance and I disagree strongly and history is on my side as my proof.
If you detected a bristling spine on my part, I was responding to something you said, but I attributed it wrong. No, the SCOTUS is NOT charged with changing the Constitution, thought on occasion, they do or proceed, as if they are.
This is what I was reaction to: "The beauty of the constitution is that it can be changed to become better. " Yes, it can be changed, but what is the need, what is the reason? The people who wrote that document were wise beyond their years. It seems to me the only 2 things they left our was a clause on term limits and one addressing lobbies.
My theory about why they didn't address term limits: They NEVER though that anyone in his/her right mind would ever want to stay there for more than a few years. They never intended a government where that would be a family's way of life; pick up and move to DC and raise all the kids in DC.
Washington wasn't going to be a place that was so big that it needed a Sidwell Friends and a Camp David retreat. These guys were anxious to get back to the farm and return to their practice of law, farming, or whoever; having served their country. Yes, the Constitution CAN be changed, but the framers made it AWFULLY hard for a reason.
Like I said, the only thing that I see that needs addressing are term limits and that can be done in an amendment to the Constitution. But, woe is me; it'll never happen. Those legislators know the hand that feeds them and they would NEVER agree in any way, shape or form to even consider legislation towards a Constitutional amendment.
We do have it in our power not to vote back into office the legislators who turn a blind eye to term limits. It may take years, but I believe that once the ball gets rolling, maybe 10-15 years, maybe even 20. But, what do they say, ANYTHING worth having is worth waiting for..
Where do progressives want us to progress to? Why? My niece calls herself a progressive and I never knew what she meant. The only thing i can think of is that progressives see that we're a modern civilization now and the principles laid forth in the Constitution are old and archaic. ONLY THE LANGUAGE is old. ONLY the paper is old..
But the Constitution needs revising like I need a hole in the head.. As far as I'm concerned, this country is based on a Constitution, a Constitutional Democracy. The Constitution is a living document and needs interpretation by the SCOTUS, NOT politicization by a group of people who feel it is 'old-fashioned' and needs to talk the latest IT and jargon.
"You believe the process has a chance and I disagree strongly and history is on my side as my proof." To which process do you refer? Term limits? I believe they can be instituted, but it will take effort and years.
"ou believe the process has a chance and I disagree strongly and history is on my side as my proof."
THAT IS EXACTLY what I mean. We don't need the MY SIDE/YOUR SIDE and HISTORY is on my side. That is exactly what isn't needed. The Divide and Conquer mentality. We have a leader who doesn't need. At least his followers should be able to behave like adults.My statement about the beauty of the constitution has the ability to be changed is even backed up by your statement, "Like I said, the only thing that I see that needs addressing are term limits and that can be done in an amendment to the Constitution." An amendment is a change to the Constitution and the other two arguments I have is the implementation of publicly funded campains and lobby reform of which you agreed that this must be addressed by stating, "It seems to me the only 2 things they left our was a clause on term limits and one addressing lobbies." I have never said we need to change the old wording or throw anything out just to address those three things which were not even an issue when it was drawn up as you stated, "They NEVER though that anyone in his/her right mind would ever want to stay there for more than a few years. They never intended a government where that would be a family's way of life; pick up and move to DC and raise all the kids in DC."
Your statement about Progressives and its' link to liberal tendensies is an accepted definition but it is not the foundation of it. Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform. In relationship to that definition of it where do your reform proposals compare?
By cherry picking my sentence out of the paragraph "you believe the process has a chance and I disagree strongly and history is on my side as my proof."and claiming I have chosen a side is incorrect at best. I merely referred to history as proof of my argument as a realist and not as an opposing force but as another opposing argument proved by history.
I think you have a lot confusing arguments within your statements that seem to show a duplicitous nature without you knowing it. Keep the constitution the same but lets change it is one contrary thought. Oppose the progressives but update the constitution to reflect more modern problems within the system such as term limits and lobby reform. (Almost progressive in its wording) These are opposing points of view that you meld together.
Like I said, we agree upon everything except you wanting to point at others without your opinion as being bad and leading the country down the wrong path.
"We have a leader who doesn't need. At least his followers should be able to behave like adults." We have not had a leader since JFK and not had a responsible one since Eisenhower who did what was best for the country. Just line them up and see. LBJ , The Vietnam War escallation built on lies. Nixon the crook. Carter the bungle in Iran. Reagan and the deregulation that led to the 1980 recession and what about the Iran Contra and Beirut debacle? Bush the first idiot and the Iraq mess. Clinton and the NAFTA setup to undermine the middle class. Bush "W", with Chenney and Rumsfeld causing the biggest debt with two unfunded wars and the further deregulation of the banking industry. Now we come to Obama who refuses to compromise on any type of federal budget while spending our way into oblivion.
Try and pick some grown up action out of any of that."Try and pick some grown up action out of any of that."
Seems to me your comment is onesidedly negative. Try Nixon's opening to China, Carter's de-regulation of the airlines and trucking industries, the passage of civil rights legislation and Medicare under Johnson, the tearing down of the Berlin wall and dissolution of the USSR under Reagan, Clinton's avoidance of war, strong economy and balancing the budget and so forth.It may be so but where has trade with China gotten us? Walmart heaven? Carters deregulation of the Airlines has led to more defunct major airlines in the history of air travel not to mention the horrible situation it has caused for pilot pay and qualifications. Civil rights and medicare legislation has done nothing to make it fair to get equal consideration for college funding and jobs in the government. Reagan did more damage to the country with his savings and loan debacle than he could ever make up for with the Berlin wall. Why are we seemingly still carrying on espionage and covert operations against Russia if it was such a miracle? Clinton sold us out to the world in instituting open lanes of trade that we will never recover from. The avoidance of war was just common sense as Clintons failure in Somalia was a disaster. I will give you that in the case of Serbia while still controversial was smart in keeping it at bay with the airstrikes instead of boots on the ground.
My statements above were in response to one side always pointing a finger at the other and that there is plenty of blame to go around. It always seems that in these forums there is little objective information being passed back and forth. Of course all the aforementioned presidents had shining moments I merely wanted to make it known that they all have their shortcomings. I did not even want to go back to Truman who is so identified witht the phrase "The buck stops here" and his legacy of creating the Israel mess. That is never going to end.
Right. Do you think the right and left have a common enemy, teamrn? - An enemy in common... that we can all get on the same page to fight against? Because, if its us against the socialistic left... (of course, not all are wanting socialism... and not all are, consciously, wanting it,)... I do not know if we have a chance. Socialist desires seem to be spreading and people don't identify it as such. It looks to many like Santa will deliver... But This Santa won't.
At all.I think the members of both right and left, while having disagreements, sometimes over the direction this country is headed, intrinsically want to abide by the Constitution. They don't always agree on the subtle meanings of the Constitution and there is a fundamental difference in their interpretation of the document. Who says that the Constitution needs to PROGRESS? I didn't know that it was behind the times; in fact, I think it's a brilliantly written document that has precious few errors of omission or commission.
Do I think the right and left have a common enemy? Most would say that their enemy in common is the status quo in Washington, but I don't think you'll find many on the left agreeing with me right now. Why? Because their boy, Barack Obama, is representative of Washington.
But, I believe that when the right gets over it's anger that they've not prevailed in the last two POTUS elections and the left gets per the fact that the POTUS they elected, has delivered on precious little that he's promised and doesn't lead,, the right and left will come together as best as they can. IF they see a benefit to coming together.I so agree, that the left and right need to find some common ground, but unfortunately, our politicians are doing a dang good job of dividing. We all know that when we stand UNITED, we can what we get and accomplish much; but if we allow ourselves to become DIVIDED and a wedge pounded between us, we deserve what we get.
WE HAVE TO MAKE UP OUR MINDS that anything we say of do has to be done or said for the good of our country, You know the way your Mom said, "if you can't say something nice about someone, don't say it at all."
The temptation is great for the left to say something negative about Mitt Romney or for the right to say mega things bad about Barack Obama. But to what end?
And Obama did not sell out the middle class? OR the rest of America? How many campaign promises did he break so far? Who created sequestration and now it is biting him in the ass and trying to blame everyone else for it? Who missed submitting the budget on time again and still has not submitted one yet?
I would say the common enemy we all have, as people trying to survive, is any person or group who interferes with h o w we want to survive or who attempt to take away our economic survival capabilities. President O (and all our elected politicians in Congress) should keep taxes low. I propose this: It should be against the law to take more than 25% of take home income, including the rich.
Also, let local governments take care of their own problems.
Local government contributes to our independence.
The constitution was actually ahead of its time.
Please respect it and strive to keep it.
To loose it, is to to loose our liberty.
Then, where will we find it?Kathryn, I really agree with you about the Constitution; but not about the illegality of keeping the money one has earned.
If I went through what it takes to be in the right place at the right time, with the right skills and talents because I missed the keepers in college, so I could apply myself. If I studied so I knew what field needed my skill and applied that sill there and thrived, positioned myself against those who would have what I have without risking sacrifice, and letting me take all the risk; you would have me take none of the rewards?
How to stifle entrepreneurial spirit!! That would emasculate men and women and strip them of ANY desire to do well, and make the n'er do wlls realize that they didn't have to try; they'd be taken care of, no matter how little they contributed to society.
The biggest examples of this who take home more than 25% of their income are people you and me know, our friends and our neighbors. Are you advocating so level a playing field that NOONE takes risk, no one is rewarded and the government does for you, does for me, does for everyone?
These people may take home more than 25% of their income, but 25% of 30K in't much. What about the $$ they were going to reinvest in their businesses, the signage or awning they were going o buy, the benefits they were going to pay to that new employee. I guess he's out of luck.No! You misunderstood me, totally! I meant this: Make it illegal for the Government to TAKE more than 25% of MY income...ever! as in put a cap on how much we can be taxed!
Would this be do-able in the practical realm? I figure if they can't get their hands on any more than that, then they will have to make do with what they already have coming. How often do they get paid by us... every day? every week? every year?Oh!1 I'm sorry; I had a little trouble deciphering the wording and I erred on the wrong side. I thought you and I were thinkig the same way and that statement about the 25% 'smacked me between the eyes!!' Sorry, I put words and thoughts in your mouth that dont' exists!
That's okay... look what a brilliant post you put up! My wording was a little shaky.
What about that idea of putting a 25% tax cap per person, including the rich?A 25% cap I like it;
There is no reason that people who work for their money and were in the right place at the right time to create wealth, should be penalized. That stifles entrepreneurship. And, as far as doing something with that money, the government isn''t showing that it does a damn thing with the extra cash it takes in now.
Oh, yes, it does. It has 'parties' like the bathtub and glass of wine party at the GSA. Lets face it, it will take a LOT more than taxing Mitt Romney's millions to make PERMANENT dent in the plight of the poor and disadvantaged. We'll have to think of another solution.Plus, did you know that the government has 17 government owned corporations? Actually more than one. FDR established many of them.
My idea is that the government operate its own business, since it wants to be Dad to so many, to be able to legitimately feed those mouths through its own source of income...
(Did any body catch that small three letter word? Its O W N source of income.. ITS OWN... as in you do not have to TAX ANYONE to feed the POOR! This is Brilliant if I do not say so myself.)
There could be a special branch to operate this business and deal with the practicalities of it. Call it the Welfare Branch.We could vote for its members or have the states send their own representatives. Suggested names for the government's own business/corporation:
$ Tree Inc.,
or WBR Inc. (We Bring Relief )
or WIU Inc. (Welfare Is Us)
Other suggestions?
But, there would have to be a way to make sure the PROFITS are allocated specifically to the disadvantaged, elderly and those who cannot find work. Government Security committees, accountants and agents would be hired to police this Branch and the recipients. So, It would provide lotsa jobs, as well.
Naw...you could never establish honest over-seeing of the profits,
as is the case today,
Never mind.
Why don't you stop acting as if Romney is even relevant any more? The man self immolated in a catastrophic way.
He was never presidential material and many were seriously asking if he was mentally stable!
It seems that nothing is still right about Romney. What you just did was to tell the world that there are too many more like him.His son said he really didn't want to be President. Well, I think Republicans are worse than Dems in foreign policy. And I think they are worse for programs at home. I think they are letting the wealthy get away with little tax.
I think the Republicans are the most corrupt, the worst of two evils.Consider that some people not in this country (J.H. is one) think that our president is actually right winged.
Mitt Romney didn't NEED to be president (far cry from not WANTING it), he and he went as far as to say that, "Ann would be find.."
No one should NEED that office, NEEEEEEEED is a pretty strong word for the presidency, Someone should want the office for what he can do for the office, for his country. Not for what the office can do for him (another stamp on a passport or something to add to the resume). I suspect the latter is Barack Obama's motivation at the minimum.
It was asked earlier, why was/is Mitt Romney even a FACTOR in our discussions. He shouldn't be, other than he represents often the subject matter of some of the discussions we're having. That's why his name comes up.
However, if someone did ask which person had the right ideas, the right temperament and zeal: pf the 2 candidates from several months ago, I'd be endorsing Mitt Romney for ideology AND desire to do the right thing for the right reasons.teamrn:
What is "the right thing for the right reasons?"the right thing for the right reason: Mitt Romney would be doing the bidding Americans, what you and I want (the man can afford financially to thumb his now at lobbyists) for the betterment of this Country, using the Constitution as his playbook-NOT a playbook that has to be modernized. It is so good that it's only been 'updated' about 27 times. So the framers left a few things out. So the right thing is DOING STUFF FOR YOU, FOR ME, FOR ALL AMERICAS. And the right reason would be dining stuff that has a basis in REALITY, not _______whatever the motives of Barack Obama are.
The thing is, they gave us a way to take care of those things WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONSTITUTION, not by slipping things though the judicial branch, or passing executive orders. The provided for an amendment process within the framework of the Constitution. Lib don't like it, because their desires to' improve' upon the Constitution would NEVER pass the amenment process." Mitt Romney would be doing the bidding Americans,"
How do you figure? He had planned on expanding a military that is already more expensive than all the other militaries of the world combined. He gave a foreign policy speech attacking Russia for no good reason. We are doing the wars, not Russia. America is the most imperialistic nation on the face of the earth and it needs to STOP.All the while we have Barack Obama chumming up to the Russians and that 'off mic' moment ought to have cost our POTUS the election, it was that powerful and chilling
Maybe it, "America is the most imperialistic nation on the face of the earth and it needs to STOP." is true. What specifically are you doing to stop America from being 'imperialistic' or are you a good backseat driver and criticizer of those who don't do your bidding?Do you see the Russians fighting any wars? I think you are very blind about this. Yeah did you know that the Taliban went to Texas in 1997? Did your Republican friends tell you that? No. But the Taliban went to Texas in order to be wined and dined by Texans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
But then they refused the pipeline to Halliburton investments in oil in the Caspian Sea, owned by HW Bush and Cheney. So, before Al Qaida, the Taliban were the real enemy of these oil men who had to have that oil.
Why do you think we are still fighting illegal wars?
Cheney had motive for 911. He also had knowledge as his organization, PNAC, posted on their website in 2000 this:
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[14]
Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[39][40][41] investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[42] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[43] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_fo … an_Century
But I am arguing they were complicit in the attacks. Cheney had motive and knowledge for the crime of the millenium.Take a deep breath and relax, pr take a red, We disagree, but that's no reason to have a cat with a crocheted tail. No, we aren't in a war with Russia and NO I was quite aware that the Taliban going to Texas. And? The President said QUITE CONVINCINGLY that HE'D HAVE 'MORE FLEXIBILITY AFTER HE WAS REELECTED. TO Dimitri Medveev. Did MSNBC report that? Did Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow discuss that? We're the tape edits of NBC aired AT ALL by the media?
"But then they refused the pipeline " WHO is THEY? The statement WHY DO YOU THINK WE'RE STILL FIGHTING ILLEGAL WARS? What is illegal, what are the wars.?
You may be against war (an admirable position), but to call war illegal when it received Congressional approval. It's illegal because YOU disagree?
"But I am arguing they were complicit in the attacks" Is there a reason to ague, a need to argue? Ah, COMPLICIT? Are you looking for a fight? This post is about a subject WORTH DISCUSSING, not needing of an ARGUMENT.Iraq was an illegal war under international law.
As for having more flexibility after he was re-elected that would be the truth, presidents have less pressure on in their second term, I still fail to see how stating an obvious fact is some sort of evil indication.There is a difference between PRESSURE and FLEXIBILITY, Pressure is an obvious fact at that time, but presuming that a decrease in pressure will increase one's FLEXIBILITY can easily be interpreted as evil intentions.
"Stating an obvious fact;" interesting. statement. Yes, it is a fact that Barack Obama made that statement, but that statement DOES indicate that he had plans that he wasn't telling us-or that he'd make plans with "VLADIMIR"From a physics and political standpoint less pressure means more flexibility. A president has to play it safe before the elections because he is under greater pressure to perform in the second term he has less to lose and certainly I imagine that the US president and the Russian president may be making plans on many things for example new trade offers or perhaps action against Syria that Russia supports to jump to the conclusion that they are planning something nefarious is utterly illogical.
It's the job of the President to work with foreign leaders.
P.S. Is putting Vladimir in capitals supposed to make it scary, are you that xenophobic?
I still fail to see how stating an obvious fact is some sort of evil indication.
You and others are missing the point to the statement and how it came to be.
First let me address a comment about Russia not fighting any wars at the moment.That is true, after the last conflict in Georgia, Russia had realized they had not military strength left. They needed to rebuild and modernize. They have slowly been doing that but not fast enough for many including Putin, that is why he has reemerged over the last couple of years. He has one agenda alone and has made it real clear, to rebuild and modernize their military to a level greater than it has ever been. .
Part of that effort is Putin wants to grow their nuclear weapons program and develop more weapons as well as opposing our missile defense program.. At the famous open mike meeting, Obama granted Russia permission to grow their program while committing the US to shrink its program. Russia wanted more growth and more cuts in the US arsenal as well as eliminating the missile defense program, hence the Obama comment "he will be able to do more after the election"
Everyone is more worried about what Obama said and are ignoring why he said it.
"WHO is THEY?" The Taliban, after they were given the royal treatment in Texas.
Yes, the Taliban visited Texas in 1997 to see about an oil deal. A crime? Wined and dined? Clean clothes and a toothbrush and fresh sheets isn't most people's idea of being wined and dined. Conspiracy theory runs deep: 'Cheney had motive for 911....'
So, even though Dick Cheney was caught in the thick of 911 and could have been killed himself, you'd have us believe that he was also complicit and planned or somehow involved with the organizing of 911? Proof?
What is your reason for wanting to turn this DISCUSSION Iabout whether or not the wealthy should pay more in taxies, into a conspiracy theory about the Taliban and Dick Cheney?What I don't understand is your penchant to defend these slimeball criminals. So much has been documented and written with regards to the Iraq war and the WMD impedus to go there it is mind boggeling. Bush "W" wanted to be in Iraq as soon as he took office and one has to wonder what the real security briefings included. Bush had the blessings of the American people and Congress to chase Al Qaeda in Afghanistan but he and Chenney with Rumsfeld just could not finish that as they knew it was unwinnable and Iraq was so inviting with its oil fields. This will go down with so many of the foreign interference debacles this country has stepped into and show that we must mind our own business. But then again there is that pesky thing with the oil.
What I don't understand is your penchant to defend these slimeball criminals. So much has been documented and written with regards to the Iraq war and the WMD impedus to go there it is mind boggeling.
So you claim we wanted the Iraqi oil, well let me ask you this, do we control or own any of the oil fields today? Did we during the War? Final answer is NO, we did not and do not own the oil fields. So much for that argument that people keep bringing up.
You are worried about the WMDs, answer me this. After the invasion we all know no WMDs were found. Hans Blix, AMSCON inspector had a list of those weapons that could not be found. In 2010 3 missile rockets landed in Israel, there were no injuries from the attack. The serial numbers were run from the weapons and it turns out the 3 missiles were on Hans Blix weapon list. A week later 4 more missiles landed in Israel and those as well were on the list, the list of weapons that the coalition forces were wold were in Iraq yet they could not find them. How did missiles from Iraqs WMD list end up being shot into Israel 10 years after no one could find them in Iraq?
IS it possible that Iraq moved the weapons outside the country knowing the US was going to invade? They had plenty of time to do so.
Do you really believe oil was the only reason Bush went into Iraq? The many UN Sanctions put in place over several years, the many inspections where Blix and his team were locked out or run around? Hundreds of warnings to comply or else? Or has everyone forgot about all that. .Last time I'll write about this:
"What I don't understand is your penchant to defend these slimeball criminals." I'm not DEFENDING the slime balls. I'm just not pronouncing them guilty without a trial.
"So much has been documented and written with regards to the Iraq war and the WMD impedus to go there it is mind boggeling. " So much of questionable origin.
"Bush "W" wanted to be in Iraq as soon as he took office " What did he say tp whom? How are you privy to this knowledge and the world isn't? Ah, I know. MoveOn.org!With your bias I don't believe that you could look beyond what you accept and I have tried to sway you from your extreme right arguments to ones that are in the middle where compromise is possible. I haven't the time or the energy to expound on your lack of common knowledge in recent history so I guess you win! Obama is the devil and America is doomed to the prophesies in Revelations as we now have our Antichrist to hang the fall on.
RN,
Do you not find funny how the left states Bush and Cheney were the dumbest most stupid team of all time, yet want to give them credit for planning 911. 911, an attack with years of prep that could only be carried out by people who were not stupid or dumb.
Still pushing the debunked stories, nothing like keeping it fresh.
Only debunked in your mind. Some people cannot handle the truth.
Well that took long for you to resort to the name calling, and you are right, some people cannot handle the truth, hence the name calling.
I did read the article you showed, the same article you post every time you bring this up, it was wrong then and is still wrong today. Let's start with the obvious, you claimed:
But the Taliban went to Texas in order to be wined and dined by Texans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
But then they refused the pipeline to Halliburton investments in oil in the Caspian Sea, owned by HW Bush and Cheney. So, before Al Qaeda, the Taliban were the real enemy of these oil men who had to have that oil
First mistake this was NOT an oil pipeline but a natural gas pipeline. The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (also known as Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India Pipeline, TAP or TAPI) was a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank. The pipeline would transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India.
Next mistake, neither Bush nor Cheney owned Halliburton, ever. Cheney was CEO for a short time, and Bush worked for a company Dresser that was bought by Halliburton. Bush left and started his own company.. .
Next mistake, Halliburton was not the company bidding on the project, UNOCAl was. UNOCAL has their headquarters in California and then moved them to Illinois.But they were never in Sugarland Texas. So if the Taliban came to the US to negotiate on a pipeline, they would not be going to Texas since that is not where the company headquarters for UNOCAL is located. In fact, since UNOCAL forged a partnership with Saudi Arabia and a few others on this pipeline, they opened a headquarters in Afghanistan. So since the operations for the pipeline were taking place in Afghanistan, there was no reason for the Taliban to even come to the US.
The original project started on 15 March 1995 when an inaugural memorandum of understanding between the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a pipeline project was signed. This project was promoted by Argentinian company Bridas Corporation. The U.S. company Unocal, in conjunction with the Saudi oil company Delta, promoted alternative project without Bridas' involvement. On 21 October 1995, these two companies signed a separate agreement with Turkmenistan's president Saparmurat Niyazov. In August 1996, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium for construction of a pipeline, led by Unocal, was formed. On 27 October 1997, CentGas was incorporated in formal signing ceremonies in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, by several international oil companies along with the Government of Turkmenistan.[citation needed]
Since the pipeline was to pass through Afghanistan, it was necessary to work with the Taliban. The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Robert Oakley, moved into CentGas in 1997. In January 1998, the Taliban, selecting CentGas over Argentinian competitor Bridas Corporation, signed an agreement that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquished its 10% stake in the project. On 7 August 1998, American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed under the direction of Osama bin Laden, and all pipeline negotiations halted, as the Taliban's leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, announced that Osama bin Laden had the Taliban's support. Unocal withdrew from the consortium on 8 December 1998, and soon after closed its offices in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So in the end, the actual company UNOCAL, not Bush or Cheney, pulled out of the natural gas pipeline, not a fictitious oil pipeline, project.
Oh, and btw, Bush and Cheney were not stupid, just evil. Did you even bother to look at the link, Einstein?
"I think you are very blind about this. " I CAN'T be blind about what I see, about what I saw live and by the way, was seen on PBS and FOX. Of course other CNN, MSNBC and all 3 network channels are so in the tank, it did not cover the story, but it can be seen here on You tube:
http://youtu.be/5weGTPkaL7o
Can ANYTHING be made from that other than what he says and deeply implies?
Why do you hear the name Romney? Well, number one, he was mentioned in the title of the post? Also, Mitt Romney is somewhat of a symbol of what can be accomplished in this country. Many have had similar accomplishments and I think it's important to realize that fact.
Son of immigrant, came here with little and you know the rest of the story. Became wealthy but has been kept grounded by the illness of his wife. One grand couple.
Mitt Romney is the story of many people, right and left; America's story. It just so happens that he is conservative, but his story could be that of a liberal."Many have had similar accomplishments and I think it's important to realize that fact."
Romney's "accomplishments" resulted mainly from laying people off, terminating pensions, outsourcing jobs to China and using every possible tax loophole, e.g. exploiting a dubious loophole in IRA regulations which resulted in an IRA of $100 million, not to mention his accounts in Bermuda and Cayman accounts.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/20 … harts.htmlThose accomplishments result in job creation (where they can be created), investing money and sweat . As is the natural cycle of business, certain companies will thrive with a little cash infusion and restructuring, but certain other companies won't 'make it.' You heard all the stats of the companies that DIDN'T make it, but MSNBC doesn't tell of the ones that did.
You can watch the Joe Soptic ads, which have since been proven factually incorrect or watch balanced news, a little of morning Joe and CNN, cSPANN and FOX.That's why we all should get our news from a variety of sources. Lib AND conserv outlets. I'll link one from You Tube. http://youtu.be/8b1g07uq4y8
After the ad and more like them were aired, the 'whoops' factor emerged; Joe Soptic's wife HAD health insurance from another job. She didn't die immediately after Bain capital needed to close the plant, which they tried to keep open. Joe Soptic found another job. But, did the lib media and Priorities USA retract their ads which had obviously been edited?
Do you think/or does he think people ACTUALLY get out of bed each morning and say, "gee, whose life can I ruin today?" But the sting stung and to their demise, the GOP never effectively countered those ads. I'd have come out swinging, but this is one of the GOPs weaknesses. They don't want to appear anything but the nice guy and will turn the other cheek until its bloody and keep on turning it. And the Dems know this and play up this weakness.
Take home lesson, "...There must be two sides to every story..." Or as my wise brother says (and I think Bob Dylan), "Believe NONE of what you hear, and HALF of what you see..."Oh, by the way, Mitt Romney had left Bain for the Olympics at the time (he left in 1999, I think). But the ad would have you believe that HE WAS THERE. He left for the Olympics in 1999 -2001 and Joe Soptic's wife didn't become ill and die until 2005-6. She had ANOTHER job with bennies in between that time and when Joe Soptic made that VERY misleading ad which the WH attempted to distance itself from.
Thanks for the link. I agree the ad was borderline, but not false.
What wasn't false about it. For example,
I mean, though still at Bain, Mitt Romney was hard at work in Salt Lake
Joe Soptic went on to another job
Joe's wife went on to another job which HAD insurance.
Then she left that job and THEN she became ill.
What does Mitt Romney have to do with the death of the woman? What is partly true about the ad, other than possibly that Joe Soptic worked for GSTeel?
It is apparent that the 47% referred to by Mitt Romney want to destroy this nation. That is why they voted several times for other people in the necessary states to maker sure that the destroyer was reelected.
While the lamestream media and the faithful fruitless continue to spread their devotion to the destroyer, the nation continues to drown in the deficit drain. The nation is spiraling toward the same destruction as the European nations. This is fully due to the free-ride syndrome inflicting many in the nation.
When evaluating the current position of the nation with respect to revenue generation, every working citizen is currently taking care of 19 who do not work. This includes their personal family as well as the family of 3 others who are drawing direct support from the government.
The entire crisis today is a matter of disrespect shown by the White House administration whose lackluster leadership spends more time campaigning and vacationing rather than running this nation.
When a family does not have enough money, they cut back on spending. When the President does not have enough money, he continues to spend wildly by claiming vistory when none has actually occurred. With the current addition of jobs in the USA claimed by the current administration, the nation is still running a 38% deficit.
Reminds me of the commercial - "Where's the beef?"
In this case, it should be - "Where's the positive revenue line?"
The magic-math being conveyed by the administration continues to destroy the nation and the free riders continue to demand more.
When all is gone, those who recognize the signs will be doing fine, those who have been demanding more free ride will not.
So, everyone should recognize that those who work and spend within their means will always rise above those who demand a free ride.
The non-contributing voters have created this mess. Those who recognize it voted for Rommney, those who were not capable of recognizing it voted for the destroyer.Romney? He's ancient history. You'll never hear from that marionette again. Give it a rest, already. Get a clue. Buck up and move on. Maybe Rubio will work out better for you next time.
I don't think people are talking about reviving Mitt Romney, as much as they talk about what would have helped this country a lot much more and how they rue the day that the administration won a 2nd term.
But, the vote was won and he was duly elected, so Americans have no one to be upset with than themselves for not promoting the Constitution enough.
I get the idea that you feel that conservatives are poor losers; au contraire, but they see a country they love a lot and one that people who voted for President Obama SAY they love. If that's the case...
Romney was not right, he says whatever people tell him to even if it make no sense whatsoever. Like the robot he is, Romney changes veiws so often, it's hard to know what his true belief is. Easy to say he was right when he has 10 different opinions on every subject!
I don't think we' need to be talking about who was right and who was wrong. Mitt Romney was not right in your opinion; but in the opinion of others, Barack Obama isn't right for the job. I think the discussion we ought to be having, if there ought to be a discussion-which I think there should- is on about WHAT is right for our country and why.
Is Obama and Kerry the Left's version of the robot?
Your guy doesn't care about America.
Oh yeah?
Your guy doesn't care more!
No. Your guy doesn't care more!
Well your guy cares less than infinity times zero about America.
Alas, we will never know how much Mr. Romney really cared.
Because the American people did not CARE to risk finding out which of the many etch-a-sketch
Romney characters would show up to be our president.I like how you pretend to disdain the partisan bickering, then you go ahead and do it...
Still sad that people can't admit that Romney was a huge success in nearly everything he's ever done.No argument.
Romney was successful at Bain. Very.
He was successful as Governor of Massachusetts.
He didn't make it through the primary in 2008.
He was up against a bunch of clowns in 2012, so of course was the last primary candidate standing.
He had a really bad economy on his side against Obama.
Had he not adopted a "severely conservative" façade, he likely would have won.
Instead, he failed.
Significantly.
So yeah. Romney's glory days were a lot more glorious than most of us could ever dream.
But they are still glory days....
whatever, this country is depressing me too much to argue with people who ignore the point of what other people say.
Successful businessman. Successful governor. Successful head of the Olympics. But, since he wasn't elected, clearly he would have been a bad president or something like that. Sorry, the correct inference is we screwed ourselves by not electing him.We actually saved our country from going right back to what got us in trouble to begin with!
Jaxson, can I say something without you being *annoyed* at my ignorant comment? Anyway, and this is only an observation from across the pond, but I have noticed that many from the right in the US tend to think that a successful businessman is the *right* man for the country. Yet, many successful businessmen also lack integrity. Do you not think that integrity is equally important when it comes to running your nation? I'm not being obtuse, but I find this "but he's made millions therefore he's good for us" really difficult to understand.
I've never made that argument.
I've argued that he has shown tremendous levels of success as a turnaround specialist. Not just fiscally either. He has done so in business, politics, and with special events(olympics).
Our country does need that, because we are dangerously close to a point of no return with our debt.
Integrity is important, and Romney probably had more than most politicians. He just never talked about himself that way, we had to hear about it from others. From his political background, he had plenty of integrity. Did what he said he would, didn't do what he said he wouldn't.I've never suggested that you made this argument, not at all. However, I do notice that your first instinct is to talk about his business acumen, rather than his integrity, that appears to be secondary.
The point I'm attempting to *get to* please don't lose patience, is that, in the US, many from the right appear to think that running a successful business is akin to building a successful nation.
Is a successful nation just about eliminating debt?In some ways running a business is akin to running a nation.
At this point, eliminating our deficits is about the #1 priority. We are dangerously close to a Zimbabwe kind of situation, but most people don't seem to realize it. They are apathetic to the danger of borrowing trillions year after year after year.
Integrity is important too, but most people don't expect that from politicians anymore.Integrity is important too, but most people don't expect that from politicians anymore.
And therein lies the problem. It doesn't matter how successful the man/woman is, if they cannot trusted, neither can their declarations for the future.
In my book, integrity is worth it's weight in gold. At least, the person can be trusted to do what they believe is the right thing to do, rather than what might be personally profitable.
Debt is, of course, a massive problem for more than just the US. But in whose hands would we trust that debt, that is the question. Asset strippers rarely oblige other's, they just line their own pockets.Two politicians. One, who as President, ran up more debt than almost all other presidents combined.
Another, who as Governor, decreased real spending, and changed a ~billion deficit into a ~billion surplus.
If you can't trust the integrity of either(More reason to trust Romney than Obama), then go with their record.
No way, in this environment, that you can say Obama has integrity. Especially not in regards to fiscal responsibility.Two politicians. One, who as President, ran up more debt than almost all other presidents combined.
I think you might find there is serious opposition when it comes to that argument. You are not being objective here, Jaxson.
And no, I'm not speaking as a liberal- I'm not a liberal. But there has been some serious fact checking when it comes to expenditure and presidents. Your statement is factually inaccurate, independent analysts agree.
Sensationalist statements will not improve the current situation, for anyone.Let me guess, you want to pull out the Huffpo chart showing Obama's incredibly restrained spending?
Obama said $450 billion in deficits was immoral, then he approved $5,000 billion in deficits over 4 years.
That's integrity????
About those deficits...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 … shrinking/
And a fair-minded* look at Romney's management acumen and the important similarities and differences between running companies and running the United States. What worked for Romney in the outside actually ended up derailing him in November.
The Romney who governed Massachusetts sold out to the far right. That was his choice.
*Not my assessment. Reihan Salam of The National Review said it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-0 … dency.htmlYeah, I knew that about the deficits. Still more than double the amount Obama said was 'immoral', and still much higher than we can support.
I thought after the election you were going to go back to being more moderate, but you still seem the same. The media's portrayal of Romney was horrible.Where were all these "fiscal watchdogs" from 2000 to 2008?
If it's such a core value of the conservatives, why was there no outcry when the credit card was going way over its limit to fund two Bush wars?
The movement seems to have arisen conveniently when Obama took office.It's because we totally needed that money to find all of Saddam's WMDs.
Because many of them are hypocritical, just like many Liberals/Libertarians/Christians/Atheists/Humans are hypocritical.
Bush's spending was ridiculous too, just only about half as ridiculous as Obama's.
The movement keeps growing though, as more people realize that we are heading to default... and that would be very, very, very bad."Bush's spending was ridiculous too, just only about half as ridiculous as Obama's."
Bush racked up ~$12 trillion in debt, Obama racked up ~$6 trillion. You've got it backwards.Facts don't bother you much, do they?
Bush took the debt, in 8 years, from 5.8 Trillion to 10 Trillion. At the end of Obama's first 4 years it was at 16 trillion. When you distribute the 2009 deficit to those who were responsible, Obama basically tied Bush, but did it in half the time.
Mitt Romney lacked neither business savvy or integrity needed to run this country. He had both of those qualities in spades, but he lacked the flashy smile and occasional oratory skills that Barack Obama possessed. But since when is the presidency a contest on window dressing?
Business savvy? Ask the good folks at Bain how smoothly Romney handled their business.
Integrity? Are you effing joking?!No, Z, I'm asking YOU and I'm not asking that Joe Soptic PAC. A good explanation of liberal double talk is best stated by an unknown source:
"a company is failing and Romney steps in to try and bring it back. A few years later the company fails and it is all Romney's fault according to liberals.
-The nations economy is failing and Obama steps in to try and bring it back. A few years later the economy is still failing and none of it is Obama's fault according to liberals."
I'm not asking the folks at Bain about how smoothly Romney handled their business. I am asking you to point out how he has less business-sense that Barack Obama.
I state what I feel: that Mitt Romney has integrity. You disagree, obviously. I guess I can't take that at fare value, but I need a few solid, concrete mature-sounding (because the one you gave sure wasn't) reasons, not emotional outbursts that might show my interpretation to be wrong.The fact that I got NO answer when I asked YOU, not anyone else, seems to me to be evidence that you can spout talking points and party lines, but YOU don't have FACTS. That's what many mean by 'liberal-speak:' long on criticism, short on FACTS TO BACK UP THAT CRITICiSM.
The Left has no integrity. The are smug liars.
Mighty, the same could be said, and would be TRUE to say, :the American people didn't care enough to find out what Barack obama throught, did beind the scenes. One listen to the Dimitri Medveev tape and I'd be scurrying the opposite direction. He does not and NEVER has had the USA's best interest at heart.. Suave and deboner, social climber, neveau riche, cheap.
Jaxson,
The election is over. You can stop campaigning now.
The post-mortems have all been done. Why Romney lost has been dissected by the left, the right, and everyone in between.
I watched and read a lot of it (on both sides). Back in November.
Admittedly, my memory is imperfect.
But I don't recall "Romney was a victim of the (lamestream?) media" as of the major conclusion.
I'm sure you have specific examples to back up your claim.
When you say
The media's portrayal of Romney was horrible
Do you mean
a) The British press responding to his insult of their Olympics by labeling him "Mitt the Twit"?
b) Mother Jones that broke the infamous "47 percent" videotape
c) Perhaps Univision, where he appeared in orange face and was called on it
d) The media that pointed out his constant policy flip-flops and lies, lies lies?
e) What about ALL the media that declared the first debate a TKO? Was that horrible?
Whether through arrogance or poor handling or a personality not suited to being "on" in public 24/7 for months, Romney was his own worst enemy with the media.
Followed by his Pinocchio Veep pick and his Marie Antoinette wife.
By the end of the campaign, how could undecided voters NOT have reasonable doubt about who Mitt Romney really is and which version of Romney would show up to be president?
Never was campaigning MM. We've been over many of those topics in the past. The biggest things were him being painted as a huge flip-flopper(he wasn't), and the demonizing of his experience, money, and character, when the truth was just the opposite.
Romney's experience= vulture capitalist; plant closer; job and pension destroyer; out-sourcer to China.
Romney's character=tax dodger
Romney's position on the issues=whatever it takes to get elected governor of Massachusetts, win the GOP primaries; and get elected president (clueless on this one).
Mom, you laid out a laundry list that was quite compelling and could explain why Mitt Romney failed to win enough votes to win the presidency and Barack Obama prevailed.
But that doesn't account for a good part of America having it's head in the sand and being unaware that this country is on the fast track to not being a the superpower they'd always thought. One day soon, when they fill up for $10 and they can't get a mortgage or a job, they'll realize, too late, that they could have, and didn't, do something. Is that reason to justify that it was 'okay' for Mitt Romney to lose because Mother Jones timed a leak (and the reporter was paid handsomely)
I don't like to continue post--mortems, but when will Americans give a dam? They can be liberal or conservative, but CARE ENOUGH TO BE INFORMED. Not like my brain-washed college-age niece who justified her Obama vote this way, "well, he lowered taxes..."We are losing our superpower status based on our stupidity and arrogance.
Lost in all of the arguing is the sad but all too real fact that America
is celebrating getting dumber.
Knowledge is power.
Superiority is not a given. We have to be smart enough to work for it.Do you support government schools? If so you contribute to the problem.
Do you even know that?Everyone who pays taxes supports public schools which are one of the things that made this a great country--universal public education. [Just curious, what do you have against public schools?]
That is not what I meant by support. You just espoused what I meant by support!
You really think our Public school system works? You think we are producing the best and brightest? I certainly hope not because the statistics don't support it.
Mighty-we agree on something. Yes, we are losing our super-power status because too many Americans ascribe to the belief that the only way we can 'beat 'em' is to JOIN 'EM. Barack Obama is leading the 'dumbing down of America' parade, and I don't know of a whole lot of GOP members who want anything to do with participating. You know, guilt by association. There are times to distance yourself and this is one of them.
Are you implying that the rest of the world is dumped down and Obama wants to join them in this state? The ignorance is startling.
There is a recognized trend called the dumbing down of America and although Barack Obama isn't participating, I feel that he'd like to lead (like a pied piper) these people who will follow without question.
I don't know where you get the word 'dumped'. Obama is an opportunist who will take advantage of this kind of situation. (The dumbing down=people who don't have a clue who the POTUS is, people who couldn't pass a basic civics test, people who accept mediocrity as the norm.) If Obama wants to lead these, he sees an advantage to be gained; not because he wants to serve as their leader; rather he wants to be on the power trip that goes a long with it. The thrill.
I'm not saying the rest of the WORLD is dumbed down. The rest of the world likely knows more about this country that most of the Americans in the dumbed down category! (I'm not ignorant)Liberals are statistically much more likely to have finished high school, almost twice as likely to have a university or college education and make an average of 7% more income yearly, given that claiming they are the "dumbed down" group is pretty laughable.
Finishing HS or college can make you FACTUALLY INTELLIGENT. It doesn't guarantee that you used that finely honed intellect in a certain way. Josak, the dumbing down of America is a phrase and a trend that applies to liberals and conservatives. You've apparently not heard of it. Where Americans accept more crap at face value, because it is easier to accept it as fact than to question the establishement.
Dumbing down has nothing to do with income, intelligence or yearly salary. Good Lord.On the basis of what evidence? All studies show that modern Americans are much better informed than they were in the past (due to the ease of access to varied information sources), use more sources for their information and are more likely to fact check information they receive (thanks to several websites that solely provide that service.
So factually speaking Americans accept less at face value.
So this "dumbing down" is of better educated people, who are better informed, who check their sources better and have more sources...
Sounds to me you just don't like the conclusions people are coming to from becoming more informed and educated about the world around them and choose to label it dumbing down.Better educated than whom, if you are a complete moron and move up to just a dumb ass are you better off?
Better educated widely than people in the past and better educated then conservatives in the present, whichever direction you like.
Also obviously yes you are better off
Josak, dumbing down has nothing, NOTHING to do with intelligence, ability to make more money, social status and all wonderful human attributes. 'Dumbing down of America' is the acceptance by too many Americans NOT to know facts, to be satisfied with explanations that don't make sense, to be satisfied with half-truths as long as they tell a story. The dumbing down of America is tantamount to American people (sometimes through no fault of their own) being too tired and pulled in too many directions from work, that they don't have time or inclination to learn issues. This dumbing down is sometimes referred to as the numbing of the soul.
I don't know how much more clearly I can put it. Dumbing down is NOT making one DUMB or calling him/her dumb. It has to do with what we expect of that person, and that expectation has been decreasing over time.
our decreasing expectation from him.
I was amazed that the guy who filmed the "Romney 47% of Americans are takers speech" did not publicize it for that reason. He was horrified that Romney went to China and bought a prison camp that produced articles similar to the ones in a plant he'd shut down in the U.S. and ripped off the retirement funds.
This makes me think Romney outclasses Obama for craziness.That's (buying a prison camp) new to me, but the fact that the tape was made in the earlier part of the year isn't new. The tape wasn't released to prime time-when the time was ripe and the guy who made the tape was compensated -that doesn't strike you as odd? The way I see it is if a reporter has a solid story, release it-AT THE TIME,
Romey rip off retirement funds? Think about what you just said Dr. Billy. Think and use a bit of common sense, COMMON SENSE. Mitt Romney has more money than God; when he worked as Governor of Mass, he collected $1/year in salary and really didn't financially need the presidency.
You're trying to convince me that he needed someone else's retirement funds, so he ripped them off? Let's leave that to the Bernie Maddofs and Ken Lays of this world.What do you think happened to the pensions of the employees who were laid off from the companies raided by Bain, closed and production shipped to China? That was one of the ways Bain (and Romney) made its money.
The scenario goes something like this: Company A is flailing and asks for help from Bain. Bain tries to restructure and salvage the parts of the company to keep it from going under. However, on occasion, the company can't be fixed and it goes onto the auction block . The pensions go to settle unpaid debt that the company has incurred in trying to stay afloat. Not every company can be saved, Ralph. Some are so poorly managed/run, that they're one step away from insolvency when Bain get's there. Bain tries to save them as best as they can, but sometimes, there's not enough money to pay the pensions. That's a tragedy and sad, but , sometimes that's one of the few ways the business can survive with any kind of credit rating assuming they don't declare bankruptcy.
That's one reason we're broke. The pensions are so exhorbitant in some states, that states are having a hard time making pension payments. (Take California and Illinois, for example).
So you think Mitt Romney grabbed the pension money that was intended for you? The total of $25,000 spread out over 30 years wouldn't be enticing at all to someone who is worth 1/4 Million. And don't give me a song and dance about LOTS of $25,,000. Yes, they do add up, but in NO WAY, SHAPE, FORM like the $250 Million Mitt Romney is worth and I don't have my dancing shoes on today!Romney didn't affect me personally, but there are good reasons for calling him a vulture capitalist. At the $500k fund raiser in Tampa he spoke admiringly about a visit to a Chinese penitentiary-like plant surrounded by a razor wire fence to keep the workers from escaping. That was one of the things he said that inspired Prouty to release the video tape with his 47% remark. Somebody should make a compendium of all of his clueless remarks (e.g., "my wife has two Cadillacs" and "the trees are the right height in Michigan" and the lies he told in the campaign.
Ralph, shameless Scott Prouty wasn't even in the subject of the question you asked and I answered. To establish a legal defense fund and ask someone to pay for your dream of going to law school. What;s that all about. But we weren't talking about Scott Prouty. That video was released long after it was shot as a favor to the Obama Campaign. Why else would the timing be such?
You made reference to a remark, "my wife has two Cadillacs." If that's a fact, it's a fact. The man isn't a politician, yet you expect him to ACT like one. You also mention in your lack-of-response, response that he told lies in the campaign. Do you care to elaborate? Libs are so good at spouting off what they read in the NYT, Mother Jones and what they hear from Chris Matthew, Rachel, Ed and Piers; without being able to back it up. Prove me wrong and prove that you're different.
Mitt Romney did NOT speak "admiringly about a visit to a Chinese penitentiary-like plant surrounded by a razor wire fence to keep the workers from escaping." He was told that the fence was to keep others from getting in.
I;ll do a bit of homework for you, the YouTube video which says it is: at: http://youtu.be/KLxL-oSwDvw and if time is limited, start watching about 6 minutes 43 seconds.
It does'nt really matter in the end. Romney is gone and will not be back in politics in any meaningful way. Regardless of when the 47% tape was released, these were Romneys words, (not words of a president to be)
The Republicans have a lot to figure out before they can even think about 2016........Both parties need to start working together for the good of the country and not JUST their political careers.
Romney is OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I don't believe I ever debated that Mitt Romney wasn't over. He offered his help and it was declined last November. That's that.
But there's more to be concerned about than Dems and GOP not working together. Both parties DO need to start working together for the good of the country, but the good of the country and Barack Obama are not synonymous; they're an oxymoron
The release of the tape, not when it was made, but when it could do the most damage to Mitt Romney by an adoring press is only proof positive that the press is in the tank. They;ll be in the tank for ANY liberal And that Scott Prouty calls himself a journalist is a laugh! But who's not laughing.with him.Lucid, it DOES really matter, as it is one more way in which the left twists the stories. Not just the left media, but there is solid evidence that I pointed out to Ralph, Did he answer? SILENCE tells a story and in this case, a story Ralph cannot defend.
The guy who filmed that tape knew what he had and strategiacly released it when it could do the most damage. It was not introduced at the time of it's shooting for another motive and that motive was greed.
How do you know what Romney will and will not be back into? Are you him? Republicans do not have much to figure out other than Americans who vote for members of the New Left who attack the Church and hate responsibility.
The worthless Left will always cater to those individuals who are lazy and stupid. The Left is the opiate of the masses.Yes, the Left appeals to the stupid. Which is exactly why Rick Santorum said in one of his speeches that the Republican party will never have smart people on their side.
/facepalmNo, not just the stupid, the uninformed who think they really know it all, but only know half the story. If the Left want's the people who don't care or people who blindly follow the Left (because they don't know better), take ' em.
No, not just the stupid, the uninformed who think they really know it all, but only know half the story. If the Left want's the people who don't care or people who blindly follow the Left (because they don't know better), take ' em.
Also, the government has no business whatsoever endorsing any religion anyway, so if people want to attack the Church, the 1st Amendment says the government is only allowed to sit back and spectate.
The church should not be forced to marry homosexuals or lesbians then if forced by the federal government. Also, the government has no business trying to force the church to buy condoms, endorsing abortion or birth control.
Stay out of church affairs the government should.Nobody has suggested that any church be required to perform same sex marriages. Try reading up before making ignorant comments.
My comment was for Zelkirro, not you. Try reading ALL the comments first. Second, I have a grandfather who is a reverend. He is being sued because he didn't marry a gay couple.
YOU make ignorant statements much without knowing all the details.Either you are lying, misinformed or the case will be thrown out as soon as it reaches court, there is not a single state in the US (nor I believe any nation on earth) where you can be sued for refusing to marry people, nor should there be, it's as simple as that.
Josak, shut up. I know what I am talking about. Just mind your own business. People like you make me sick. You know NOTHING.
You are nothing more than a stupid Left Wing idiot. My grandfather is a conservative and a very religious man. He believes in marriages between men and women ONLY.- Not a single state is that legal, please tell us which state and we can check the by law, obviously you are lying.
I do not care what you think. I do not care if you think I am lying. I am giving you NOTHING.
That is your problem not mine. You check by yourself. I will give you nothing loser.
Because courthouse marriages never happen, right?
Oh, wait...Actually plenty of states, where same sex courthouse marriages happen.
Not in my grandfather's church of worship. He does NOT play around with mess.
It's only legal for the church to do anything when the Left says so.
I remember when I joined the U.S. Army. I held up my hand to defend the U.S. from people like Josak and other Leftist filth.
Oh that must be the special non existent oath
Given you are capable of lying about your grandfather the rest of your claims also look pretty dodgy.Nope, in the Army, Socialists and especially Communists are hated. Go to the Army and tell them you are a Socialist or Communist and see what happens.
I do not need to lie because you do not understand anything. We even had cadence songs dedicated to killing Communists.
Communist red blood makes the green grass grow. Never forget it and ask ANY vet.
Fort Leonardwood, MO 64 Bravo hoa,
pathetic Socialist loser -
I can't stand politics. All of them lie right to our faces.
Oh btw Obama we are still at war!! Remember that promise!?!It's amazing how those who are obviously very conservative or stout Republicans blame the media. You see it on Fox News (which I watch to hear both sides of the story) always blaming main stream media. What is mainstream? What most people tend to believe or agree upon? If that's the case, main stream is what most people consider to be normal. Those opposed are in the minority for a REASON!
Left, right who cares................how about doing what is good for the country. I am neither a Democrat or Republican because by being one or the other, you are certainly not open to what really has to be done, just taking party sides and that is sad!
I do side more with the Dems recently because they are more in tune with what America wants, including myself. I could easily be more pro-Republican if they ever got it together. Maybe the Republican should try and work things out with Democrats versus pledging to say know on every bill proposed. That's complete non-sense and should be considered un-patriotic. Republicans...listen up, start helping and quit hampering, don't worry about future elections and how you can make things bad now to claim the Dems messed it up improving your chances for future elections. Makes me ill!
Do your job and people may start to consider voting your way again. Until then, this party is just a thorn in the Americans peoples side!Lucid, " I am neither a Democrat or Republican because by being one or the other, you are certainly not open to what really has to be done, just taking party sides and that is sad!"
Not true. There are a HUGE number of registered republicans who vote the issues and vote their conscience and not party lines. It is sad when ANYONE does that and votehis s according to his/her party platform and doesn't use the gift of rational thinking that the good Lord gave him/her.
By the way, what is mainstream media? The main channels, the NBC's CBS, ABCs of this world. I also add the CNNS and the MSNBCs to this list.
Unfortunately, they don't get their news directly from C-SPAN, PBS, FOX which shows the left, right and then YOU make your own interpretation of the facts.
All I know is my taxes have increased. Don't know where everyone else is sitting, but I'm certainly not the "wealthy 1%"
If your taxes have increased and you see a noticable difference in your paycheck, that life my friends. It is a constant balancing act which no politician seems to be 100% correct on.
Atleast the economy is going in the right direction, it may be a slow gain but compared to the innevitable toilet bowl sucking we were doing 4 years ago, I'm good with the slow progress.
Republicans and Democrats both have some good ideas on how to keep things moving forward but nobody will actually stick up for what they believe in. Too busy sticking to party lines versus doing the RIGHT thing!
TERM LIMITS................................Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on anybody earning less than 250,000. I know he lies, but Bush never raised my taxes.
If you're upset about that, consider asking the Republicans why they can't seem to make a deal with the Democrats? If they would quit forcing all of these last minute deals, that could have been avoided.
The Republicans like to make promises to each other which may not be in the best interest of the people. These promises tend to get in the way of logical voting. In the end, we all pay!!!!!!!!!!Sorry, it was a republican that lowered my taxes and a lying democrat that raised them.
Sad that you don't understand enough about how politics work to be a serious threat in any conversation regarding it. I sincerely hope that YOUR Republicans can turn it around. By the way, was'nt Bush a Republican? Good thing he's gone, you would'nt have a job to be taxed on with a few more years of what was happening!
Lucid, There's a song, "There must be two sides to every story, and who's to say who's right and who is wrong..."
It can be said that Republicans aren't compromising OR it can be said that Democrats aren't willing to work with Republican (aka, won't compromise). Who is to say which it is? At the end of the day, it doesn't much matter who is compromising and who is blocking and not compromising.
It is the job of the people to vote out the people who, in our opinion, WON'T block legislation and to VOTE IN people who in our esteem are good for compromising and getting legislation passed that is for our good. This finger pointing of saying that the Republicans did this, only for someone else to counter with: but the Dems did THAT never got us anywhere and never will.
Washington isn't acting like the mature kids in the sandbox, so it is up to the people to police Washington. I hope you're up to the challenge, because you've got a good grasp of facts and ideas.I good example of my point is in a recent point of yours, "If you're upset about that, consider asking the Republicans why they can't seem to make a deal with the Democrats? "
Turn that around and you've got, ""If you're upset about that, consider asking the Democrats why they can't seem to make a deal with the Republicans? "" See, there must be two sides to every story; but it is the work of the people to tell THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE that they work for WE, THE PEOPLE. How, do we do this? We grow some and vote out ANYONE who is going to vote along strict party lines and is there for HIS/HER business-not ours.
Idiots like Grover Norquist, who asked all Republicans to pledge "never to raise taxes" back in the 80S are the mindset the current politicians have to deal with. If you really think about it, saying never to anything is putting yourself in a non-negotiable situation, that's poor business strategy. Unfortunately, the Republicans jumped on board and have been scared to go against this ideology until this last year when many Republicans finally said, " this idea is crazy" too little to late! That is just ONE example. We cannot run our country this way.
Negoatiation is what makes our government mainly (congress and the senate) work! Without being able to negotiate, well you see how well that works out...(government shutdowns, sequesters and so on)
True, "negotiation is what makes our government work.' Though not simple, one answer is to THROW OUT those who don't have a proven track record of negotiation a compromise to a solution.
That means work on the people's part; to know the issues and to take/make time to find out what candidate voted what way and it also makes it incumbent on the people to put pressure on their newspapers to make VOTING record more evident. (instead of burying voting records on the 20th page of Thomas), the people must demand that the voting record of all legislators be displayed in a designated section of each local paper.
The people aren't used to this, but trust me, the people of OTHER countries are that invested in their governments. Americans must be more invested in their country and make it a part of life; or they will lose the country they know.
That's fine, if they detest the country they know, but for me and millions of others, that is NOT SO FINE!I really wish things were that easy. I would love to believe we could vote out those who make things difficult in politics, Unfortunately, most of the states have been rigged to avid this. Not harping on the Republicans but look, after the last election the Republicans wanted to change electoral vots and how they are counted in key swing states. They have already changed the boudaries in most rural states to increase their chances of keeping representatives from losing there.
What is this junk all about? Winning a seat or political position should be about fairness, not how you can rig it to win That's just sad they have to act this way in order to HAVE A CHANCE. I cannot see how it makes any sense to be strictly one party. Lie I have said before, I am not a Democrat, I just see them going in the right direction vs the Republicans currently.
I have voted Republican several times, the last being just a few years ago in my state.
Without serious term limits, no screwing around with voter polls and when people can vote and early voting rules and all that junk that the Republicans always try, why not just consider doing what your country needs you to do?
Seems like we are going down the wrong path, too big for our own britches always screwing around with other countries when it is not needed. I understand foreign policy is important, but get a grip and slow down on the wars for a second, let's take care of the people here first ok?"I really wish things were that easy. I would love to believe we could vote out those who make things difficult in politics, Unfortunately, most of the states have been rigged to avid this. "
Maybe things are NOT that simple. But we have to start somewhere-if we just accept the things the way that they are, we have noone to blame when things get really ugly BUT OURSELVES.
So, we blame rigged elections; We do something about them. Complaining that they're rigged is not going to 'unrig' them.
You bring up the fact that we need serious term limits to effect a real change. At this point, Washington won't enact them; that'd be asking them to cut the hand that feeds them.
So, it is up to the people to police Washington. No matter how much I like John McCain or Russ Feingold, when their time is up, I HAVE to vote against them. In too few cases they'll resign on their own.
The people take their role in their governance too lightly and history prooves that once a people begin to do this, their grip on their government slips and the government stops to be one of the people. It becomes a thing unto itself (sort of like we have now, beholden to none but special interests groups).
The people have more power than we thing. Unfortunately, there are prevailing winds that give the government all the power. Power is in the people's hand and they chose how much to give to the federal government.
If you think we're always screwing around with other countries when we should be minding our own business, what are you doing about it? Are you electing a President who has a limited idea of foreign policy and tells us what it is, what it will be and what his strategy is for minimizing the involvement we have with other countries?
The PEOPLE have to do things, because left to their own devices, most of the people in DC cannot be counted on to do the people's bidding. They're too concerned about getting reelectd. But if is for the 8th 2 year term, we should take a serious look at what their record is to justify keeping them in the legislature.
If you feel that rather than having an aggressive foreign policy, we ought to be spending our resources closer to home, we need to vote out the legislators who say that and have a track record of SAYING ONE THING AND VOTING THE SAME WAY.Good points........now if we could just get more people to stand up, agree and do something about it.
"I'm good with the slow progress." There's progress? I'd not noticed and I've been looking. You say that some things (like tax increase and the like) are just life. While that's so, I saw a 35% increase in health insurance this year-with no increase or decrease in coverage.
That was by a private insurer and it is timed at the same time when pre-existing conditions will need to be covered by insurance companies-and I've got a few. Do I feel like I'm being forced to accept less coverage than I want and being forced to accept a government insurance that says it's free?
I would venture a guess, a VERY STRONG GUESS that next year, my health insurance will go up, but not as much, so an increase will be seen as a COLA, inflation.
But, if the economy is picking up, where are the jobs? Where is the progress? Unemployment among single black men of working age has not increased.
Unemployment where I live is still just as bad. After 3 1/2 years of unemployment or underemployment, my husband found a job; but he's not sure how long it will last.People in the workforce has not increased as far as total jobs for years. The Fed won't let enough money out into the money supply.
Just thought this was funny. Caught my eye, I'm sure the Obama haters could appreciate. Take a second and watch this video, at the 1 minute mark there is a woman who looks like a female version of Barak Obama, don't you think? Or am I just crazy? Well I know I'm crazy....
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/2182 … ts-or-else
Related Discussions
- 85
Romney or Obama? Is there really any decision to be made?
by maddot 11 years ago
Romney or Obama? Is there really any decision to be made?
- 70
With Obamacare and failed promises and social policies, who do YOU
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
believe would have made a more efficient president? Why?
- 35
What exactly is "Obamacare" and when does the law go into effect?
by scoop 10 years ago
What exactly is "Obamacare" and when does the law go into effect?
- 13
The burden of Obamacare is on the poor and middle class
by Eric Newland 11 years ago
People are pretty excited lately about the new health insurance regulations. And sure, I'll admit, it probably feels like a godsend for those who can now have health coverage who previously couldn't. No more lifetime limits! Hurray!But oops, we forgot something: someone has to pay for all this. The...
- 73
Name the ways that America is worse under President Obama? President
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America? However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that America has become worse under President Obama? The main crux of Obama's...
- 195
R.I.P. Mitt Romney
by Ralph Deeds 11 years ago
Robert Shrum in the Daily Beast:"The campaign has come down to a race between Mitt’s media and Mitt’s mistakes—and the mistakes are winning..."In a last-ditch attempt to crack Ohio and Michigan, Romney has now resorted to advertising an outright lie—that Chrysler’s Jeep division will soon...