Thank you, Massachusetts, for restoring my faith in our democracy. This just goes to show that we have a self-correcting system of government. Democrats needed to be taught a lesson in humility.
Printable View
Thank you, Massachusetts, for restoring my faith in our democracy. This just goes to show that we have a self-correcting system of government. Democrats needed to be taught a lesson in humility.
rvg: Ahem. Beskar: Uncool.
I am sorry Lemur. :sad:
Woohoo! :smash::2thumbsup::yes::balloon2::beam:
CR
wHAT IS ALL THIS HUBUB ABOUT? WAS THERE A NEW PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?
Just watched a video of this guy, why is he such a loud mouth?
Oh well, so much for Obamas "change we can believe in". I guess Americans aren't ready for that so called change. I guess it's about much more than universal healthcare, it's about the very core of American politics and the apparent American values. Obama obviously was under the mistaken impression that these values could be changed.
I guess if this continues we can expect to see another Republican in the white house in 3 years time and a return to the "traditional American" values. Do I personally think these traditional values will allow America to keep it's position as the dominant power in the world? Possibly not..
And why wouldn't he be under that mistaken impression, is it not the core of modern liberal-left politics that the word "progressive" means the unrelenting attempt to hammer out the rough edges of human nature via legislation and compulsion in order to achieve a more harmonious society.......... regardless of the fact that what it really amounts to is the attempt to pervert that natural inclinations of individual human nature (both the good and the bad) under the foolish assumption that there is a 'correct' way to order society? :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
Democrats needed to be taught a lesson in humility.
Right, because wanting affordable healthcare for everyone in your country is hubris.
It's not just that, but rather the fact that Dems were running the show as if they got a blank check from the public, and their ultra-partisan manner of handling the healthcare bill is part of the problem.
I'm pretty liberal and have been a party-line Democrat for many years now. However, I can't even find myself mourning this result too much. First, the sheer irony of the health care bill being defeated as a result of Ted Kennedy's seat going to a Republican is high entertainment value in and of itself. Second, there is something fundamentally wrong with a party that is incapable of passing legislation with 59 Senate seats and a large majority in the House.
They did. They ran on a manifesto (Platform?) of health care reform, they won the election, and control of Congress. Looks like a blank check to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Fix'd. You know just as much as I do that the Republicans weren't the ones reaching across the aisle. Whether the Dems did is debatable, but the Republicans were not victims.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Truth. As a Brit, I'm finding this amazingly funny. The sheer incompetence of everyone involved in Congress in the past year has provided much entertainment to the rest of the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
There is something fundamentally wrong with an entire system of government that prevents core pieces of legislation of the ruling party being passed when they have a majority in the legislature.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Thank God for the House of Commons and our "elected dictatorship".
It's not, and this election result shows it quite well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Yes, it is difficult to administer sweeping changes, and that is a good thing. Revolutionary changes usually bear sweeping consequences, and if the healthcare bill if flawed (which it is), then the public will end up paying the price for a legislative mistake.Quote:
There is something fundamentally wrong with an entire system of government that prevents core pieces of legislation of the ruling party being passed when they have a majority in the legislature.
Because a tyranny of the majority is a good thing. I don't mind, that's one reason why so many English fled to us. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
At the same time, the current use of the filibuster is not remotely historical. Google-fu tells me that there were no filibusters at all between 1789 and 1840, and fewer than 2 dozen total between 1841 and 1899. Between 1919 and 1963, there were a total of only 23 filibusters. From 2000 through 2008, there have never been fewer than 43 filibusters per year, with 139 filibusters in 2008 alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
There's something wrong with our system. It was not intended to work like this.
Occasionally it even gets downgraded to a tyranny of the plurality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
If that healthcare bill fails to pass, you can celebrate with having your currently working system that costs twice as much as anybody elses and got the least coverage and bang for the bucks, for another decade or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Or putting it this way, cutting down your healthcare costs with 33% is a mediocre reform, cutting it down with 20% is a bad reform. That's with no quality loss or even quality increase on average.
But, it will keep working this way until we elect congresspeople who can do something other than only vote along party lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
If the bill is flawed (Which it is), is that because the concept of healthcare reform is flawed, or is it because the process which generated that bill is flawed?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Oh, no, if the government tries to do something silly, we get our unelected Lords to smack them down :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Partisanship has become extreme. It's interesting to see that the Republicans in Congress, who claim that government is inefficient, are making government unworkable in a self-fulfilling prophecy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
On the other hand, we should remember that filibusters, cloture, majorities, super-majorities, and all these other (annoying to us) nuances of law-making, are not constitutionally-mandated, and could be changed in a day - rather, they're products of rules made and agreed to at the start of congressional sessions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scienter
The people have spoken! ~;) Now just wait till 2012 when we get Palin in. :beam:
It is funny, because I have seen countless polls saying that a great majority of Americans do not want the health care legislation that the house and senate is offering, but they still employ all their dirty, underhanded tricks to pass it against the express disapproval of the people who they are supposed to be representing. They are representatives, and they are supposed to act like it.
The process was bad. The bill is loaded with problems because it was rushed. As a result, it contains a lot of problems and pork that was put in there to appease particular senators (like the special status for Nebraska). I would welcome the healthcare reform, but it needs to be done right. For example, this humongous healthcare bill needs to be broken up into dozens of mini-bills each of which would target a specific aspect of the healthcare reform. That way the reform will be overall more thought out, will have more support among the people, and possibly even some bipartisan backing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
What's the core of conservative politics? I guess it doesn't involve any ideas about what the correct way to order society is...Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
No, the Republican Party has spoken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
Thank God Armageddon will happen before she's inaugurated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125030/He...c-Divided.aspxQuote:
It is funny, because I have seen countless polls saying that a great majority of Americans do not want the health care legislation that the house and senate is offering,
Americans' support for U.S. healthcare legislation has crept up incrementally since early November. Now, slightly more Americans want their member of Congress to vote in favor of such legislation rather than against it, 49% vs. 46% -- a first since October.
I would love to see the maths you did to get -3% to constitute a "great majority".
Representatives != Delegates. Edumund Burke established that before the United States even existed.Quote:
They are representatives, and they are supposed to act like it.
EDIT:It took years to establish the NHS in the UK. Attempting to do something similar in the USA over one year is nigh-impossible.Quote:
The process was bad. The bill is loaded with problems because it was rushed. As a result, it contains a lot of problems and pork that was put in there to appease particular senators (like the special status for Nebraska). I would welcome the healthcare reform, but it needs to be done right. For example, this humongous healthcare bill needs to be broken up into dozens of mini-bills each of which would target a specific aspect of the healthcare reform. That way the reform will be overall more thought out, will have more support among the people, and possibly even some bipartisan backing.
Damn those mighty 12% of the Massachusetts electorate!Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
I would hesitate to declare that a single-state election is a proxy referendum for the nation. I mean, hey, you're free to declare that it's a referendum on the entire galaxy if you like, but I think it's a bit much.
Fivethirtyeight does some number crunching on the spectacular 31-point swing from a 26-point Obama win in 2008 to Coakley's 5-point loss yesterday.
At a bare minimum, 10 of those points must be assigned to the national environment. Generic ballot polling suggests that the Democrats' position has worsened by a net of 10 points since November 2008, from winning the House popular vote by 10 points in 2008 to being dead even with Republicans today.
Also at a bare minimum, 11 points of blame should be assigned to Coakley. That represents the difference between the 58 percent of vote that she received at her high-water mark in the polls to the 47 percent she received on Election Day. A fairly large number of voters, it appears, actually turned away from Coakley; it was not just a matter of undecided ones turning toward Brown.
That leaves us with 10 more points of blame to assign; let's just dole those out as evenly as possible, giving 3 more points to Coakley, 3 more points to the national environment, and 4 to Massachusetts-specific special contingencies -- it gets the extra point because it hadn't received any yet.
That would make the final score: national environment 13, Coakley 14, special circumstances 4.
If you follow through on the math, this would suggest that Coakley would have won by about 8 points, rather than losing by 5, had the national environment not deteriorated so significantly for Democrats. It suggests that the Democrats would have won by 9 points, rather than losing by 5, had the candidate been someone other than Coakley. And it suggests that the race would have been a 1-point loss (that is, basically too close to call), rather than a 5-point loss, even if Coakley had run such a bad campaign and even if the national environment had deteriorated as much as it has, but had there not been the unusual circumstances associated with this particular election.
Obviously, this is a rather imprecise and unsophisticated exercise. But each of those implications feels about right to me. Maybe you'd do the math a little differently. But don't be sparing with your blame; there's plenty of it to go around.
Tyranny of the minority. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Best headline of the day: Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate
My statement might have been "uncool", however, it was unfortunately very true. Maybe some plant extracts would solve a lot of the problems.
Browsing through the comments:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I don't know where you attended college, but I'm questioning your math skills. In what world is 41 considered a majority over 59?
Is this irony deficiency a nation wide phenomenon?
You can find people with no sense of humor in every nation.
You're talking about the nation that created The Onion, The Colbert Report and South Park, so no, I don't think there's a nationwide irony problem. There are just some thick people out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
I don't see this so much as a referendum on Obamas health care as much as I see it as Coakleys bumbiling campiagn coming to bite her in the backside.
She did all the wrong things and handed this thing to Brown.
As a liberal, I nonetheless fully agree with you (at least on the 'crap-load of problems' part), but Subotan was right that this takes time to develop. Without a doubt this is a common human tendency, but it is all too well-observed in Republican/conservative apologists. Namely, I am speaking about that 'perfect proof/solution' requirement. That perfect proof for evolution, that perfect proof for 'climate change', that perfect health-care bill... - the list goes on...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Simply because the parts are wrong/missing, it does not mean it should be trashed - something most evident in science, particularly the theory of evolution. On the contrary, everything seems like rubbish in the beginning, but usually it improves. US has a great deal of experience in this, and its entire Constitution was founded upon this belief, hence the amendments (I simply at loss of words why so many Republicans deny or oppose the 'living Constitution' principle on historical grounds too).
So what is it that the Republicans want? Are they truly that idealistic? No. And neither are the Dems - it is all (or mostly) partisanship. But can the conservative Orgahs not see through this? Now, if you do not beleive the nation even needs the healthcare bill, then that is another matter, and I leave those who believe in this hypothesis alone, as their argument is rather well-formulated, even if I disagree with it.
So in which category do the conservative Orgahs fall in, I ask you.
Since I'm not a conservative I can't answer that question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Sorry, let me rephrase that:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
All who oppose the healthcare bill - which category do you fall in?
You are libertarian, right rvg?
I'm a centrist, actually. Which means that I usually end up voting Democratic when the republicans are in power and vice versa when the Democrats are in power. I am also convinced that no party should be allowed to control both the Congress and the presidency at once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Having said that, my opposition to the healthcare bill is mostly due to the fact that it is poorly written and loaded with pork. Personally, I think the states should decide on their own how to tackle health care, but if there has to be a federal bill, it should be efficient, concise and clear. The bill in its current reading is nothing short of a nightmare.
Well, there's humor, and then there's humour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
It's certainly difficult to see this as some kind of nationwide rejection of "Obama-care". Didn't she take Christmas off? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I always get a fuzzy feeling inside when people on an internet forum say I'm right :smug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
This is slightly OT, but an interesting aspect of that phenomenon is that regardless of how much evidence is provided for those issues (Or any issues even), for many Republicans it never reaches their consistently increasingly high standard of "proof" (For Republicans, I just want to clarify that I mean the loudest ones, e.g. Glenn Beck, Limbaugh et al)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
I doubt that's feasible. There would be many discrepancies between states, and increase the strain on State's finances, without increasing the accountability of state legislatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
As opposed to straining the Federal finances without increasing the accountability of federal legislatures? Look, if the people in any given state want universal healthcare, let them have it. The statewide healthcare bill can be tailored towards the specific needs and intricacies of the state, and if it falls flat, at least that mistake has not been implemented elsewhere. There's NOTHING preventing any given state from following the example of Massachusetts, and if the Massachusetts universal healtchcare plan is good, then other states will eventually adopt something similar. There's no reason whatsoever so shuv this plan down the proverbial throat of the entire nation at once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Please, states have a bad record on initiative for major reforms/groundbreaking laws. namely the ones which entail very high costs, as opposed to issues such as banning/permitting gay marriage, abortion, etc... And states lack the accountability of the Federal Gov't (I know, rvg, you are likely trying hard not to fall off your chair in laughter right now).Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Not to mention, such a degree of autonomy bothers me, but of course, my outlooks on the issue of state's rights are far out of tune with the general American public, so this is hardly surprising. Still, that makes me queasy. And the US Gov't cannot default on their loans, or carpet people with IOUs as California is doing. Not feasibly, at least. Sure, there is foreign and private domestic debt, but how much do people keep track of what goes on in their state legislature vs. the Congress?
Don't forget Ferrous Bueller's Day Off. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
But aren't the right-wing USAians basically trying to do the same thing with bans on gay marriage, jailing young couples because one of the two is a few months older etc.?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I am a man of spiteful, resentful character.
Here then, is a picture of the young Scot Brown. Please somebody tell me he, uhm, has a tendency to toe-tap around 'issues':
https://img14.imageshack.us/img14/44...wnpicturey.jpg
Looks like Obama has gotten the message and responded appropriately. Bravo, Barry-o, a very classy and presidential response that is worthy of respect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8470187.stm
I don't know about toe-tapping, but this picture definitely reminds me of something ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Obama is an experience Chicago-school politician. He knows how to play the game fairly well and (though the right-wing radio frothers will not admit it) with a modicum of class as well.
I loathe his POLICIES, but he is neither stupid nor impolite.
For AP:
US conservatives come in many stripes.
The fiscal responsibility subset hates the latest health care effort because it will NOT reduce costs. No government essay into insurance/health care here in the USA has ever done so. Moreover, the quality improvement generated by government involvement is rarely, if ever, of the same magnitude as the increased costs. They grumbled over the wall street and bank bailouts, but tolerated them in the name of financial stability. They hated the auto bailout thinking the monies will be wasted on companies doomed to fail anyway.
The anti-big government subset hates the latest health care effort because it puts more and more federal government control in place over healthcare. They view this as unwarranted government interference in private life. They also hated the Bush bailouts of Wall Street and the Banks AND the Obama bailout of the car industry.
The state's rights subset hates the latest health care effort because it doesn't adhere to the implicit limitations set forth the the Constitution and re-iterated in the 10th ammendment thereto. They view this as yet another effort/means by which to neuter the several states in favor of a one-government for all system. They hated the bank bailouts and auto bailouts as well.
The right to life subset hates the latest health care effort because it will end up using government money to fund abortions -- regardless of the codicil that seeks to prevent same. This subset rarely cares about any other issue, view abortion as both a crime and an inherent evil. Obama doesn't expect a lot of votes from this crowd anyway, so they have limited influence.
The libertarian subset hates the latest health care effort because it will end up increasing the federal government's role, increase taxation, and take away from their individual choice. This reflects a good bit of the "rugged individualism" mindset.
These subsets are not, of course, mutually exclusive. Moreover, all of them are aided and abetted in the case of the Brown race by the GOP subset. That subset views the enhancement of GOP power as the ultimate goal in and of its own.
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
Interestingly, Healthcare reform is popular if you don't mention the present Bill. The current legislation commits the problem of assuming that the answer to Healthcare reform lies between the two extremes - single payer and free market. This means that, in turn, neither side of politics is pleased and thus the present Bill becomes unpopular. This is particularly true of Progressives, who are causing the poll numbers of this Bill to be deflated compared to overall healthcare reform (Which is what the poll you quoted shows).Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
While watching FOX News the past two days I have been reminded why I loathe political journalism. They have used the word "revolution" probably a hundred times while referring to Brown. They have already elected him president. Jim Kramer flat out said the 100+ bump the stock market got yesterday was due to the polls showing Brown ahead, yet tonight altogether failed to mention whether or not Brown had anything to do with the 190 point loss today which is, I believe, the biggest one this quarter. I mean, the guy said it was "fact" that people like Brown cause a stock rally. OMG WTF GTFO TV NOW SWITCHED TO OFF POSITION
Just as the Founding Fathers designed our government. Liberty comes from the inability for governments to intrude in your life. The fact that it takes extreme compromise, debate, and all out fighting keeps the government at bay while the citizenry can have freedom. Europeans use to understand that, those Europeans became Americans!!! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Victory, for the Ferengi!
https://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4861/ferengi1.jpg
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Good grief, at least tribesy put effort into his trolling.
These lefty mini-mes and their attempts at snarkiness are just sad.
CR
Yet you share many beliefs with the Ferengi. So it is pretty accurate. :wink:
That is interesting. I wonder how many Americans would support a full blown NHS then. Ofc, it might be ebcause the poll numbers are vague, as "Do you support defeating terrorists?" is always going to get more support than "Do you support the war in Afghanistan?"Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
It's also interesting to note how FOX News has kidnapped the words "freedom", "liberty" and "American", and uses them as if FOX News is the dictionary definition of all of these things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
EDIT: Also, this. Maybe ever slightly NSFW.
'I'm Scott Brown. I drive a truck'
Steve Bell is very funny.
Yep, I knowQuote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
:embarassed: well you know, great minds think alike etc etcQuote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Still, it; nice to know there's another Guardian reader on the .Org, We sandal wearers have got to stick together.
This seems like an intelligent, coherent analysis. As such I expect it to be ignored.
Obviously, Republicans should oppose Obama and the Democrats on substance, sharply if there are (real) sharp disagreements, which is the case on many policies. But the rejectionist strategy they're following (oppose Dems at every turn, regardless of policy difference) is, I continue to believe, a real mistake.
What's the cost to Republicans? First, on policy, they lose the ability to negotiate on behalf of their important constituency groups; as we've seen, this can have the effect of actually driving some of these groups (the doctors, for example) right out of the party. Second, embracing the crazy yields, well, the crazy in charge of your party. Republicans stand to gain in the 2010 cycle because the economy is lousy, because Democrats have a lot of exposure after two terrific cycles, and because the party of the president almost always does badly in midterms. If, however, Republicans nominate candidates who have embraced the crazy, they will be far more vulnerable to counterattacks than if they nominate good, solid candidates (and not every Democratic candidate will emulate Martha Coakley and not get around to attacking crazy things that their opponents say until the last 48 hours).
However, no one is going to listen to advice like that. Republicans are invested in a particular interpretation of 1994, and yesterday's election is only going to reinforce that interpretation, whether it's correct or not.
That's really good. I wondered why the both shrill shrieks of total Democrat annihilation and the gloating cries of Republican conquest had left me unfazed. That blog explains why.
That is the reason of my resentfulness. I can't get over the fact that the Republicans should've been rewarded for their obstruction and sabotage. They have taken it to a level that is unheard of in the democratic world, where political mitigation is considered a virtue, the oil that keeps the political machinery functioning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Obama's administration, agree with him or not, is by any reasonable standards a moderate, centre-right administration. Not a foreign Marxist occupational force that needs to be resisted at all cost.
I should hope there is a price to be paid for the GOP itself, and not just for the functioning of democracy in America.
No evidence of price-paying thus far, or as one blogger put it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
The problem here is that the Republican strategy of holding out for total surrender is working just fine. They had an interesting theory that if you refuse to cooperate with efforts to make the country better, things won’t get better and the out-of-power party will benefit. The theory appears to be true.
Yeah, the Republicans seem to be opposing everything just because they can, and because the thoughtful types on Fox are causing their supporters to froth at the mouth. And where were all these disaffected small government types when Bush was racking up a massive deficit (hello multiple trillion dollar tax cuts to the rich) and expanding the government hugely? They were probably congratulating themselves on their tax cuts, and not noticing that it blew an enormous hole in the budget. So now they're suddenly all hot and bothered?
It's comical to hear all the 'blame the GOP obstructionists' talk when until too recently the Democrats had unstoppable majorities in both houses. The Democrats had total control over Congress and the White House and still failed to accomplish anything. Why? Because of the Republicans. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Under Bush, the GOP never had a 60 seat majority in the senate and the Democrats still howled about one party rule and how they were powerless to oppose the GOP majority. How is it that the Democrats had 60 seats and still managed to be so feckless? I guess Bush was just more bipartisan than Obama...
Not only was there similar opposition, but the opposition climbed the more Bush slid into deficit and debt. Is it any surprise that, now that Obama added so much extra debt and created an even larger deficit, that they are so much angrier?Quote:
Originally Posted by aimlesswanderer
:yes: I've been pondering if the Democratic congressional leadership was (and remains) incompetent, or complicit in allowing the abuses of the Bush years. I'm not sure Occam's razor applies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
But the budget was crap and getting worse the longer bush was in charge, and so when Obama took office it was already in terrible shape. If there was no stimulus the US economy would have been even crappier, and if there were no bailouts there would be no economy, no financial system and probably a global depression. It isn't Obama's fault that the budget he inherited was in huge deficit, that was his predecessors who caused that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
I'll see your Aussie Massachusetts, and Raise you a Dirty Water; Boston You're My Home. :) (Funny those guys are still doing gigs, 40 years later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
-edit-
to topic: GOP'ers need to be careful they don't convince themselves of a "message from the people" that isn't there.
http://incredimazing.com/static/medi...al20090917.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Nice one!Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Also, would you let illegals just rot to death and deny them healthcare, it looks inhumane in my eyes.
Actually, even as a leftie, I would not agree with your point. The last thing US needs is providing for illegals. The fact they do not pay taxes is bad enough, and the illegals are almost never turned down in the ER (Emergency Room) because that is illegal. And the anchor babies, a concept which is widely and blatantly abused by illegals...Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
So now you tell me they should get healthcare as well? What happened to the fact they are breaking the law by staying in US, and that they can go back anytime they want to Mexico (or whichever Central American/Caribbean state they belong to). I mean, your idea is noble and splendid, sure, but it is not sustainable. A healthcare system for US citizens only would necessitate a sharp tax increase, but providing for illegals as well would push taxes up and possibly over the levels of European welfare states - something most Americans loathe, or at least would rather not have.
Not to mention, legal immigrants like me do not/will not receive free healthcare - why should illegals, of all the people, receive it? Despite the fact that I would love to receive free healthcare myself, I do not think US should provide for legal immigrants either. If US does it though, then it could face reverse medical tourism...
If the democrats haven't done anything, I guess that conservatives who want to keep the status quo should be cheering them on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Even if they pay taxes, just like all other americans?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Well, for example, my family pays all the taxes any equivalent American would pay, owns significant property in US, but suppose if our incomes dropped to the level where an American would receive Medicaid, we would not (even if we continued paying the taxes, which an American of that level of poverty barely does - or does not pay at all, considering the tax returns). Also, I am not eligible for any public-university scholarships/public scholarship grants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
So, if the new healthcare plan is unveiled, it is unlikely that my family will be covered. American citizenship is supposed to grant privileges unavailable to others, and it does. Otherwise, how do you distinguish an American from an immigrant? Residing and working in US is a privilege, not a right. The privilege entails certain costs, certain restrictions. And I am lucky enough already.
I heard from a friend ( I dont think it's true, because it's so weird) that you get a scholarship in America just because you're good in a sport, can anybody confirm this?
Sure can. But you gotta be good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
REALLY?! That's just unbelievable, and poor ol' taxpaying AP can not and a retarded sporter can get it.
Mind=blown
Not at all. If you are that good at a sport you'll bring in far more money than tuition and fees. It's all about the money. Think about it: How much money is involved in college sports? Whether that is right or wrong is another subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
It's the colleges who pay for an athlete's scholarship - and the athletes have to be good. The cost is made up by people paying to see the college football team play.
Of course, you could easily make an argument that such massive spending by colleges on sports is wasteful and shouldn't be the goal of educational institutes.
And there's lots of scholarships for smart people as well.
No, it's denying criminals free health insurance paid for by American taxpayers.Quote:
Also, would you let illegals just rot to death and deny them healthcare, it looks inhumane in my eyes.
From Peggy Noonan:
CRQuote:
Speaking broadly: In the 2006 and 2008 elections, and at some point during the past decade, the ancestral war between Democrats and the Republicans began to take on a new look. If you were a normal human sitting at home having a beer and watching national politics peripherally, as normal people do until they focus on an election, chances are pretty good you came to see the two major parties not as the Dems versus the Reps, or the blue versus the bed, but as the Nuts versus the Creeps. The Nuts were for high spending and taxing and the expansion of government no matter what. The Creeps were hypocrites who talked one thing and did another, who went along on the spending spree while lecturing on fiscal solvency.
In 2008, the voters went for Mr. Obama thinking he was not a Nut but a cool and sober moderate of the center-left sort. In 2009 and 2010, they looked at his general governing attitudes as reflected in his preoccupations—health care, cap and trade—and their hidden, potential and obvious costs, and thought, "Uh-oh, he's a Nut!"
Which meant they were left with the Creeps.
But the Republican candidates in Virginia and New Jersey, and now Scott Brown in Massachusetts, did something amazing. They played the part of the Creep very badly! They put themselves forward as serious about spending, as independent, not narrowly partisan. Mr. Brown rarely mentioned he was a Republican, and didn't even mention the party in his victory speech. Importantly, their concerns were on the same page as the voters'. They focused on the relationship between spending and taxing, worried about debt and deficits, were moderate in their approach to social issues. They didn't have wedge issues, they had issues.
...
For Mr. Brown now, everything depends on execution. He made the Olympics. Now he has to do the swan dive, with a billion people watching. And then he has to do it again.
He needs to serve the country the way he campaigned for votes—earnest, open, not beholden to interest or party. And he needs to avoid the Descent of the Congressional Vampires, who'll attempt to claim his victory as their own and suck from his neck until he's a pale and lifeless husk. Not to understate. But they'll want him fund-raising and speaking all over the country, not knowing or perhaps caring that the best work he can do for his party is succeeding in the eyes of his constituents, who couldn't care less about the fortunes of the GOP. He needs to avoid the vampires in the nicest possible way. Maybe he should carry a little cross deep inside his breast pocket so they retreat without knowing why: "I tried to get him to Boca for the donor retreat but some invisible force stopped me! I ran backwards and slipped on the shiny marble floor! Mah hip is out! "
Zero money in University sports here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir