PDA

View Full Version : More Trust Dems. & Pres.Than Repubs4 H.C. Reform



Gayle in MD
03-08-2010, 11:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans remain more confident in the healthcare reform recommendations of President Obama (49%) than in the recommendations of the Democratic (37%) or Republican (32%) leaders in Congress. But these confidence levels are lower than those measured in June, suggesting that the ongoing healthcare reform debate has taken a toll on the credibility of the politicians involved.

</div></div>
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126338/Obama-Retains-Trust-Congress-Healthcare.aspx

pooltchr
03-08-2010, 11:28 AM
Rasmussen disagrees.

As President Obama and his congressional allies search for a way to pass their proposed health care plan, most voters remain opposed to the legislative effort.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% favor the plan while 53% are opposed. These figures include just 20% who Strongly Favor the plan and 41% who are Strongly Opposed.

Steve

sack316
03-08-2010, 12:30 PM
And the majority trusts none of them.

Sack

Sid_Vicious
03-08-2010, 01:03 PM
It changed my idea of credibility Gayle. Obama and, God help us, Pelosi have wimped-around and wasted so much political capital, that it makes me sick. The Republicans have been the opposite and flipped off the desperate and dying by continuing to be the party of NO. Both parties have been very disappointing.

Obama needs to ask Hillary if he can borrow her balls. Hillary wouldn't have pu$$y-d out all this time. She'd done a reconciliation a long time ago and shut these sorry Reps up, or made them even madder. Nice guys finish last, and Obama's running second to last. He had so much popularity in the first 100 days, which has been a total waste. sid

Gayle in MD
03-08-2010, 01:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the majority trusts none of them.

Sack </div></div>

The majority wants Universal Health Care for everyone. The majority also wants a public option.

At the least, with the changes predicted, we can clean up many of the inhumane practices currently employed by the health Insurance Industry.

We have to start somewhere.

G.

sack316
03-08-2010, 01:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The majority wants Universal Health Care for everyone. The majority also wants a public option.</div></div>

I think the majority wants reform, I think everyone wants reform. I'm honestly not sure what the polls say as far as what you mentioned there, but last I saw the majority were not for Universal or the public option.

I personally, as stated before, feel if we are gonna do anything, then may as well do it all the way and see if it works. So perhaps there are more similar thoughts as that since I last really dug into the polls.

But then again, none of that in what I just said there or your response has anything to do with the majority of people distrusting each facet of government representation in the matter. That's a scary thing

Sack

Deeman3
03-08-2010, 01:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It changed my idea of credibility Gayle. Obama and, God help us, Pelosi have wimped-around and wasted so much political capital, that it makes me sick. The Republicans have been the opposite and flipped off the desperate and dying by continuing to be the party of NO. Both parties have been very disappointing.

Obama needs to ask Hillary if he can borrow her balls. Hillary wouldn't have pu$$y-d out all this time. She'd done a reconciliation a long time ago and shut these sorry Reps up, or made them even madder. Nice guys finish last, and Obama's running second to last. He had so much popularity in the first 100 days, which has been a total waste. sid </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Damn, Sid, he had to pick out a dog first. Give the guy a break, will ya? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

Gayle in MD
03-08-2010, 01:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It changed my idea of credibility Gayle. Obama and, God help us, Pelosi have wimped-around and wasted so much political capital, that it makes me sick. The Republicans have been the opposite and flipped off the desperate and dying by continuing to be the party of NO. Both parties have been very disappointing.

Obama needs to ask Hillary if he can borrow her balls. Hillary wouldn't have pu$$y-d out all this time. She'd done a reconciliation a long time ago and shut these sorry Reps up, or made them even madder. Nice guys finish last, and Obama's running second to last. He had so much popularity in the first 100 days, which has been a total waste. sid </div></div>

Martin,
I am holding on waiting for the final incarnation of the bill.

I've been told that most of the more controversial parts will be resolved. It will focus mostly on outlawing the things that are hurting Amercians the most. Eliminating the Pre-existing conditions, closing the Medicare loophole, Providing eassier access, a number of good things, which could be a start.

The endless propraganda has hurt this effort a great deal, but we still have a chance to make a start on reforming what is truly a broken system.

Republicans have been saying NO to solving all of our critical problems, from pollution, to oil dependence, to health care reform, to even restoring regulations on the financial markets. We simply cannot stand by and allow this to continue.

In the meantime, check out the link I provided to T.R.Reid's book, The Healing Of America which is the bible on this issue of the broken Health Care system in our country, and what we must do to remain a strong country, which can compete on the Global market. Reforming health Care, is surely the lynchpin. It is far too important to allow Republicans to continue to hold back progress.

Gayle

Gayle in MD
03-08-2010, 02:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The majority wants Universal Health Care for everyone. The majority also wants a public option.</div></div>

I think the majority wants reform, I think everyone wants reform. I'm honestly not sure what the polls say as far as what you mentioned there, but last I saw the majority were not for Universal or the public option.

I personally, as stated before, feel if we are gonna do anything, then may as well do it all the way and see if it works. So perhaps there are more similar thoughts as that since I last really dug into the polls.

But then again, none of that in what I just said there or your response has anything to do with the majority of people distrusting each facet of government representation in the matter. That's a scary thing

Sack

</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">It is frightening, I agree. I recall while watching the John Adams docudrama on HBO, his reference to dealing with an uneducated public. There are times when our representatives should set a strong course to solve the threatening problems we face, when the public is unable, or unwilling to recognize the necessity of solving them.

Our country cannot compete with the other rich nations of the world, unless we provide universal health care for all of our citizens. It is a moral responsibility, and failing to address it is a black mark on our country.

One would think, that those who defended the tax cuts for the corporations which outsourced our jobs, using health care costs as the lynchpin to defend it, would be the first to understand the importance of our country having universal Health Care for everyone

It is a fact, that nations which remove the insecurity and threats which their citizens live with on a day to day basis, are well compensated in growth, by the increase in productivity which is a direct result of a more satisfied, peaceful civilian population.

G. </span>

eg8r
03-08-2010, 02:38 PM
Those numbers are pretty funny. The bill will be drawn up by those people whom the Americans don't trust, NOT Obama. On top of that, look at all the ground the Reps have gained. This is a feel good story for the Reps. They used to be down in the teens but now they have gained a ton of ground. Still a long way to go but the Dems have done nothing but go down.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-08-2010, 02:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Those numbers are pretty funny. The bill will be drawn up by those people whom the Americans don't trust, NOT Obama. On top of that, look at all the ground the Reps have gained. This is a feel good story for the Reps. They used to be down in the teens but now they have gained a ton of ground. Still a long way to go but the Dems have done nothing but go down.

eg8r </div></div>

Ed,
If you think Republicans are doing grand, I'm happy for you.

LMAO!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

I'm happy that all of the Republicans think they're doing rand.

I hope they continue to think that way.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

eg8r
03-08-2010, 02:58 PM
What part of "still a long way to go" did you not understand? Why are you trying to twist my words?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-08-2010, 03:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What part of "still a long way to go" did you not understand? Why are you trying to twist my words?

eg8r </div></div>

Republicans have not gained a ton of ground Ed. But I hope you keep thinking that.

eg8r
03-08-2010, 03:07 PM
Low teens to almost equal with the Dems. LOL, I thought so but if you think the Dems were that low then I would agree with you.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-08-2010, 03:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Low teens to almost equal with the Dems. LOL, I thought so but if you think the Dems were that low then I would agree with you.

eg8r </div></div>

Democratics are still ahead, but Shhhhhhh, don't tell the gloating Republicans, whose babe from Texas with the loose dentures, just got booted out of the primary.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

And just don't count the REpublican held seats, that went Democratic in the last election....

And don't just look at the low approval ratings in several states, of Republican governors.

And just keep tuning into Rush and Fox everyday, and reading Bortz!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

wolfdancer
03-08-2010, 03:13 PM
I think instead of a long way to go...it should have stated: a long way to get back...to where the party was, before they got usurped by "Big Brother and the holding company"

Gayle in MD
03-08-2010, 03:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think instead of a long way to go...it should have stated: a long way to get back...to where the party was, before they got usurped by "Big Brother and the holding company"
</div></div>

A long way to get back to where this country was before we were shamed by Republican lies to the whole world, to justify an illegal invasion, going against our treaties, which, among other things required them to maintain the human needs for food and water and electricity, which they totally failed to do, and to treat prisoners humanely, which they tortured instead.

A long way to get back to a projected five trillion dollar surplus following the Clinton Administration.

Overturning the Republican disastrous policies, will take decades.

G.

pooltchr
03-08-2010, 03:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
A long way to get back to a projected five trillion dollar surplus following the Clinton Administration.


G. </div></div>
At the risk of facing Wolfie's wrath for pointing out another error, the word "projected" applies to a future estimate.
In this case, a better word might be "imagined".

The fact that you continue to believe and accept at face value anything the Dems tell you is truely amazing. Both parties lie to promote their agenda.

They are lying to you Gayle, and you lap it up like a thirsty dog...just bury your face in it and lick until you've consumed it all.

Steve

hondo
03-08-2010, 05:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the majority trusts none of them.

Sack </div></div>

I'm with you on this one. They're all a POS.

The only difference we might have is that I think the
Republicans are a bigger POS than the Democrats.

sack316
03-08-2010, 06:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
A long way to get back to a projected five trillion dollar surplus following the Clinton Administration.
</div></div>

Where's that number come from? Even in the glory days of 1998, even President Clinton's OWN projection for the next ten years was $1.1 trillion, not 5. And his own was also far more than the CBO projection of the time.

Then the key question, as usual, becomes "Why?", as in why such projections?

Well, the Clinton admin saw a few things they felt the CBO was underestimating or ignoring: That White House thought that there would be slower growth in Medicare spending. Smaller increases in CPI (consumer price index)... which in turn leads to slower growth in Fed. spending on benefit programs linked to inflation. They also believed strong economic growth was ahead, and would in turn produce higher federal revenues... couple that with their outlook on the lessened benefit programs and indeed, one can see how a large surplus would be estimated.

If 'ifs and buts' were candy and nuts... well we all know the rest.

Reality was that the changes in domestic economy at the time were modest at best. Absolutely nothing to scoff at, but still far from the rosy constraints needed to satisfy Clinton's estimates.

One may also recall in late '97/early '98 financial crisis in Asia. Which to economists would be a signal to "look out" because that doesn't bode well for the American economy, Wall Street, or Federal revenues.

Now, to Mr. Clinton's credit, I don't believe he was blowing smoke or just trying to make himself look better. There were actually several years where he produced an deficit that wound up beating his own predictions for those years (an example is '97, where his own estimate was a deficit of $37 bil, and turned out to 'only' be $22 bil!) So as always, credit where credit is do. Whether I disagree with him or not, whether I agree on figures between those of us here... one cannot deny that the man did do the best job on the budget out of anyone in recent history.

So where do such numbers come from? How did it change? etc.? Well, besides the obvious Bush screw ups (the easy answer) there is slightly more.

The rosy projections are based on leaving everything 'as is'. i.e. the nation/world remain stagnant, no unforeseen scenarios come up, no changes in policy, no new programs, etc. etc. etc. If everything stays exactly as is at that moment, and all else goes as hoped, then the figures by either the CBO or Clinton at the time could be valid.

Unfortunately, it's crazy to assume we would do nothing new or anything else. In fact, with things looking better and better, one SHOULD assume complacency is the last thing that will come of it. Especially with money burning a hole in politicians pockets (please, nobody deny that is the case for either side of the aisle. If they'll spend money we don't have, we damn sure know they'd spend money we do have). Also not factored in so well was the first wave of baby boomers reaching retirement age, and qualifying for age depending benefits (i.e. tossing a wrench into the Clinton hope of slowing benefit spending).

Also of note missing from the equation of budgets was social security. Which, even under those rosiest of conditions and height of budget optimism, was still at that moment projected to be taking in less than it paid out by 2012.

If anyone looks up articles from the first half of 1998 on this, you'll see most or all of those factors listed in the debate as to what/how much surplus there actually will/would be.

Now, the rest of it that also would be left out of articles from '98 presented the first variable that would send all those projections into chaos, that nobody seemed to see coming, was the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000. Remember that nice boom in the 90's? The one that allowed for all those projected gov't revenues to exceed even their own expectations due to an insane amount of money flying around all over the place? in tech. market value alone, over $5 TRILLION was wiped out in only 2 years. That kind of change in that one sector, at that time, can really render projections of '98 to nearly a moot point on its own.

So what of all that I said? Well, none of it changes the screw ups Bush made, of course. And also, none of it changes that Clinton did indeed do a great job on the budget. BUT, one must realize that any 'surplus' at the time and any projections tied to it, were volatile at best and dependent on what was good to continue throughout. We all know that is simply not how the world works. More recently, had the housing boom (bubble) continued to grow rather than burst, we'd be sitting quite pretty even now. Had the tech boom (bubble) continued to grow rather than burst, we'd be sitting even prettier. But booms turn to blips and bubbles do burst. And that can throw everything off from top to bottom in what seems like an instant when we look back.

The good news? The math still works the same in reverse. So what are dire estimates of deficits for the future can also be beaten if, for example, some other boom comes along that would not be factored in currently. Something such as alternative energy could be the favorite to achieve this even. Or could be a resurgence of American cars. Could be something we don't even think about right now.

The possible bad news? We have to learn our lesson on how we look at booms and bubbles when they do come. We cannot make the same mistakes of assuming that they will always be there and continue to grow infinitely. We have a habit of seeing "boom" and more "$$$" and think, well we can spend it to do things! Then when it busts, we are hesitant to reduce that extra spending. Think of a story of someone who gets a good paying job, and begins a lifestyle that suits their new status. Buying cars, nice home, all the things he/she wants because, well why not? Then suddenly that job is lost, but he/she doesn't want to give up that lifestyle. We all know how that story goes. And that's pretty much exactly what we as a nation do on a grander scale.

Sack

LWW
03-08-2010, 06:28 PM
It's well demonstrated that Gallup is a shill for the left.

Every examination I have ever seen of actual accuracy of polling groups shows Rasmussen in the top tier ... which is why the left hates them ... and Gallup at the bottom.

LWW

eg8r
03-08-2010, 08:20 PM
You are right, they still have a long way to get back to where they once were. The shining point right now is that they are almost equal with the Dems. Sure is embarassing for your team isn't it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
03-08-2010, 08:22 PM
Why even talk about a "projected" anything from Clinton's times. They are over, we can easily look at actuals.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-09-2010, 05:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the majority trusts none of them.

Sack </div></div>

I'm with you on this one. They're all a POS.

The only difference we might have is that I think the
Republicans are a bigger POS than the Democrats. </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Hondo,
You are a genius! That is precisely what I have been writing here for over a decade!

And, history proves our beliefs to be true.

Just imagine, for a moment, Hondo, if we had address this oil problem back forty or fifty years ago!

Imagine if we had settled the issue of American Health care, back in the Clinton Administration, who far ahead our country would be right now.

I really do not understand why so many Americans cannot understand that Health Insurance companies make their profits by denying health care to their subscribers! WTF is so hard about THAT?</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Gayle in MD
03-09-2010, 06:01 AM
Sack,
I will try and find it for you. I beieve it was based on the savings from Clinton's welfare reform, and included both the additional tax revenues and savings which would result.

However, I'd also like to ask you to show me why you think Clinton inherited such a grand economy from Bush One?

Any links for that, because that does not fit my memory of the circumstances.


Regardless, I agree with most of what you have written above, although I would add, the booms and busts, IMO, are sometimes not a big surprise to those who foment them, often behind the scenes, for their own opportunity to gain from the losses of others.

Also, I will add, that dealing with a serious recession like this one, which, IIRC, economists were saying had actually been going for a year before the administration, and their operatives, woudl admit to it, regardless, we could get through the average kind of recession, but this one was not average, and also, we were surely disadvantaged by the huge debts which Bush ran up over the course of his administration.

I look at the way all of this has had to be handled as a no win situation. In fact, I look at everything left over from the Bush Administration, and the Republican majoirty, as no win situations. WE have gained absolutely nothing from creating two failed countries in the Middle East. The destablization of that area will have untold negative future consequences going far into the future.

The massive debts which this president faced from the morning he walked into the White House, crippled our nation in it's ability to take over all of Bush's multileved, foreing and domestic, disasters.

I continue to blame Ronald Reagan, for his amnesty, for example, because few seem to be aware of how much it damaged our country economically and in how many vastly differing ways.

The Bush's relationships with the Saudis, over decades, and all of the Bush administration's close involvement with the oil industry, amounted to a conflict of interests, IMO, and also, a very huge part of our foreign problems resulting from their foreign alliances with the oil industry, both here and abroad.

The fact that Republicans propped up Saddam in the first place, and have sought to interfere far too often in Middle East Affairs, has surely been the lynchpin of the al qaeda movement, and hence, bin laden and co. refer to it with nearly every video, as regards Israel's failure to acheive peace with their neighbors, and their oft refusals in our requests for more cooperation in the goal.

Our problems are many and varried, but I truly cannot think of a single one of them, that was not made far worse, by Republican Policies, and particularly this president, trying to divert a global depression, without spending money, which is what the right semms to think realistic, while being deeply in debt, which we were o the day this president was sworn into office.

The Republican slander and rhetoric, at such a difficult time, for any president, has surely not aided our recovery.

I am far more anti-Republican, at this time, than ever before, having watched their behavior, watched the debts pile up, watched the enemies accumulate, predicted the disaster which would surely follow all of it, and now see their gross hypocracy, and constant efforts to divide the country, destroy this president, and obstruct any advances, suffice it to say, I was too easy on them in years past.

G.

pooltchr
03-09-2010, 08:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the majority trusts none of them.

Sack </div></div>

I'm with you on this one. They're all a POS.

The only difference we might have is that I think the
Republicans are a bigger POS than the Democrats. </div></div>

[color:#000066]Hondo,
You are a genius! That is precisely what I have been writing here for over a decade!

</div></div>

Oh, come on now, Gayle. You are the biggest cheerleader for the Democrats of anyone on this forum. You buy their crap 100%, and regurgitate it on here ad-nausium. You admit you are a total partisan, and then try to pass this comment off as your factual history????????????????

Steve

sack316
03-09-2010, 04:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sack,
I will try and find it for you. I beieve it was based on the savings from Clinton's welfare reform, and included both the additional tax revenues and savings which would result.</div></div>

Yeah, that's on par with exactly what I said in my post: "Smaller increases in CPI (consumer price index)... which in turn leads to slower growth in Fed. spending on benefit programs linked to inflation. They also believed strong economic growth was ahead, and would in turn produce higher federal revenues... couple that with their outlook on the lessened benefit programs and indeed, one can see how a large surplus would be estimated.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, I'd also like to ask you to show me why you think Clinton inherited such a grand economy from Bush One?

Any links for that, because that does not fit my memory of the circumstances.</div></div>

I'd like to ask you where I said word one about Bush one, or anything about inheriting a grand economy from him, or anything of the sort? I mentioned nothing about anything Clinton may have inherited, and in fact said "...... one cannot deny that the man did do the best job on the budget out of anyone in recent history."

Not sure if you are thinking someone else's post was mine or what. But thus far in what I've read you seem to have offered to provide proof for facts that I myself introduced, and then asked me for proof of something I didn't say, allude, or imply anything about. But I shall read on now to see if it gets any better...


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Regardless, I agree with most of what you have written above, although I would add, the booms and busts, IMO, are sometimes not a big surprise to those who foment them, often behind the scenes, for their own opportunity to gain from the losses of others.</div></div>

That is fair enough, and certainly true enough.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, I will add, that dealing with a serious recession like this one, which, IIRC, economists were saying had actually been going for a year before the administration, and their operatives, woudl admit to it, regardless, we could get through the average kind of recession, but this one was not average, and also, we were surely disadvantaged by the huge debts which Bush ran up over the course of his administration. </div></div>

Yes, I believe I said that as well.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I look at the way all of this has had to be handled as a no win situation. In fact, I look at everything left over from the Bush Administration, and the Republican majoirty, as no win situations. WE have gained absolutely nothing from creating two failed countries in the Middle East. The destablization of that area will have untold negative future consequences going far into the future.</div></div>

Another topic for another time. I was simply pointing out where the argument for surplus and projected surplus comes from, and other less talked about factors that affect such projections.

In fact the rest of the post falls to another topic. Which mind you, I am not ignoring, simply doing a quick visit here before I head to class, and may attempt to go through them later.

But thank you for sharing your thoughts. I enjoy seeing real discussion on here, and am appreciative of your well thought out contribution to that with me on this thread.

Sack