FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Presidential Primary News & Discussion Center - Obama Clinches Nomination (Page 67)

  This topic comprises 82 pages: 1  2  3  ...  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  ...  80  81  82   
Author Topic: Presidential Primary News & Discussion Center - Obama Clinches Nomination
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
No! Very few countries have "socialized" medicine. I believe that England has such a system. I don't know of any other Western country that does.
Not Canada? I think you're using a very narrow definition of "socialized".

I think it may be that the federal government may have to take responsibility for healthcare since we no longer live in a society where it makes sense for employers to do so. However, I think the things that need to happen, if it's to be cost effective, would be rather drastic and not anything that existing powers with lobbyists and political sway would support. It's rather like global warming in that way. I think the universal healthcare initiative may turn out to be a mistake like ethanol fuel supplementation.

Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I think you might be using too broad a definition of socialized medicine. A single payer system, which is what is being proposed, isn't nearly the same as some socialized systems, like what I believe France has, where the government runs the hopitals, and everything else, they run the whole system. This is about insurance, not about who controls and pays the doctors and hospitals.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Not Canada? I think you're using a very narrow definition of "socialized".
No, I am using the technically accurate definition of "socialized". Socialized medicine refers to systems in which the government owns and operated health care facilities and employs health care professionals. The UK has "socialized" medicine as do Cuba, Israel and some other countries. France, Australia, Canada and a host of other countries have national health insurance programs, where the government pays private hospitals and health care facilities for providing medical services. This is a very important distinction.

If you are a doctor working in a socialized medical care system, you receive a salary from the Government. If you are a doctor working with a National Health Insurance system you would be paid for service by the government. You could also see private patients (ex US visitors) and charge a fee for service.

In the US we have socialized medicine (the VA system along with the medical branches of the armed forces). We also have National Health Insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, and FEHB). The difference between our socialized medicine and Britain's socialized medicine is primarily that ours covers only a small fraction of the population and a small fraction of the health care facilities. The difference between our National Health Insurance programs and Canada National Health Insurance program is that our program covers on a fraction of the population. In the US we also have private insurance an pay for service medical care. We have it all. One of the great disadvantages of the US system is that the costs are so unfairly distributed. What you pay for a medical procedure can vary over a factor of 10 at the same facility depending on what insurance plan you have and how well they have negotiated prices.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
Good summary of the single payer/socialized systems , Rabbit.
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
What you pay for a medical procedure can vary over a factor of 10 at the same facility depending on what insurance plan you have and how well they have negotiated prices.

Or in the case of the Medicare prescription plan, how thoroughly Big Pharma pre-empted price negotiation by forbidding it legislatively. That was such a slick move I was both appalled and impressed by the brazenness of corruption. I wonder what the price tag for that scam was? Surely a tiny fraction of the billions it netted them.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
The 5-8% estimate is reasonable. But even an 8% win wouldn't translate into 20 extra delegates.

If the delegates were apportioned smoothly 8% would translate into 14 delegates, according to CNN's delegate counter. But of course they aren't apportioned continuously--8% I think would work out to less than 14 delegates.

Grand Coulee Dam, you're good.
[Blushing]
Actually, I didn't dig into the Penn. primary system, I just used a rule of thumb that delegate apportioning favors the loser, generally, in this year's Democratic party system. The Republicans, with many winner-take-all states, obviously favor the winner.

Which is both why Obama hasn't been able to clinch the nomination, and yet another reason why Clinton's campaign is doomed (outside of a superdelegate coup, or a contested convention): it's allowed Clinton to hang on, but now even if she keeps beating Obama she still can't catch up in pledged delegates. It's just not possible at realistic vote margins.

Did you hear Bill Clinton say last week that Hilary would have won already using the Republican primary system? [Roll Eyes] What does that have to do with the price of a politician in China?

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
Also worth noting that Medicare and especially Medicaid often pay only a percentage of costs, causing some practitioners to refuse patients dependent on them for insurance outright.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
The 5-8% estimate is reasonable. But even an 8% win wouldn't translate into 20 extra delegates.

If the delegates were apportioned smoothly 8% would translate into 14 delegates, according to CNN's delegate counter. But of course they aren't apportioned continuously--8% I think would work out to less than 14 delegates.

Grand Coulee Dam, you're good.
[Blushing]
Actually, I didn't dig into the Penn. primary system, I just used a rule of thumb that delegate apportioning favors the loser, generally, in this year's Democratic party system. The Republicans, with many winner-take-all states, obviously favor the winner.

Which is both why Obama hasn't been able to clinch the nomination, and yet another reason why Clinton's campaign is doomed (outside of a superdelegate coup, or a contested convention): it's allowed Clinton to hang on, but now even if she keeps beating Obama she still can't catch up in pledged delegates. It's just not possible at realistic vote margins.

As much as I'd like it to be true, it just isn't true that the delegate apportionment scheme favors Clinton. Right now Obama has about a 1.5 percent lead in the popular vote (excluding Florida and Michigan) and a 5.5 percent lead in pledged delegates. If you consider only the delegates won in primaries as a opposed to Caucuses that aren't included in the popular vote count, Obama still leads Clinton by 3.9% in the delegate count. Obama is the one who has been favored by the delegate apportionment system.

Disappointing for an Obama supporter but none-the-less true.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sterling:
Also worth noting that Medicare and especially Medicaid often pay only a percentage of costs, causing some practitioners to refuse patients dependent on them for insurance outright.

The same thing is true for most all private insurance plans as well.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
States with caucuses tend to have lower voter turnout (since caucuses take more work), so the popular vote in those states is not necessarily comparable to that of primary states.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
Indeed, but if your insurance is from an employer, chances are there's a doctor who will accept that insurance (or, in the case of many HMOs, is employed by the insurer) somewhere in the employer's area. In some cases the number of offices that accept Medicaid are scarcely more than those that offer outright charity care.

One example. From the link:

quote:
The restrictive policies “left many of the 20,000 Medicaid-eligible children and adults in Champaign County at risk by leaving them with fewer choices to obtain quality primary medical care — if they could access primary care at all,” Madigan said in a statement.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
States with caucuses tend to have lower voter turnout (since caucuses take more work), so the popular vote in those states is not necessarily comparable to that of primary states.

True and if you are trying to figure out what the votes caste in a caucus mean in terms of the popular vote that is really problematic.

If however you are solely interested in determine which candidate is favored by the strange method used for apportioning delegates in a primary, its an easy call. You compare the fraction of the votes each candidate won thus far in primaries to the fraction of delegates they have won in primaries. No problem. If you look only at the primaries, Obama has won a larger fraction of the delegates than the fraction of the popular vote he has won. The system favors him.

I'd have to do more analysis to determine how much of that advantage is because smaller states get more delegates his advantage is due to the fact that apportionment favors the looser in every race. But under any circumstance, the system is favoring him.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
I just calculated some %s for a handful of state primaries. Sometimes the loser gets more delegates than are strictly proportionate, sometimes not. So I don't know how well the rule of thumb holds up, and I'm too tired to calculate more states tonight.

Thanks for the comments, Rabbit.

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
Rabbit- that makes sense. I didn't pay enough attention to your first post. [Smile]
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
"loser"

Not to nitpick. I've noticed it a few times. "Lose" and "loser", not "loose" and "looser" unless you're talking about shoelaces or hounds.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
Why is it that whenever someone begins by saying "not to nitpick", that is precisely what they do?

Or perhaps the better question is why is it that when people intend to nitpick, they off start by lying about their intentions.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alcon
Member
Member # 6645

 - posted      Profile for Alcon   Email Alcon         Edit/Delete Post 
She means that she's not nitpicking at the arguments or comments, but wants to correct the spelling and grammar.

It's not lying [Razz]

Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
RE: Health Care.

Biggest fear that is mentioned in any government aided or provided health care program--waiting months for procedures.

I've waited months for any procedures in the US system every time I changed jobs or my job changed insurance companies.

The reason this has a chance of happening is that the cost of the current system is getting too expensive for companies. Business groups previously lobbied against changing the US Health Care system because they assumed the increased tax burden would come from them.

However the increased insurance burden is getting much higher than any tax burden being proposed.

Health Insurance originally came from your employer because your employer wanted to make sure you were healthy enough to work, then because most accidents requiring hospitalization were due to working conditions. More recently it was a perk, used to procure the best employees and to keep their morale up. However the increased costs in health care meant that businesses were spending more and more on health care, but able to provide less and less of it. Employees were not getting the raises they expected because that money was going into insurance, then those same employees were being forced to pick up more of their health care costs.

So the businesses were spending more money, but the employees are taking home less. Neither are happy. The employees are not a really effective political force but the business sector is.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tstorm
Member
Member # 1871

 - posted      Profile for Tstorm   Email Tstorm         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:

Did you hear Bill Clinton say last week that Hilary would have won already using the Republican primary system? [Roll Eyes] What does that have to do with the price of a politician in China?

I suspect that the Clinton camp is wracking their collective brains, trying to come up with a victory scenario. The disconcerting thing about this quote, to me, is that it smacks of someone who wants to change the system so that it works out in his/her/their favor.

edit: formatting

[ April 24, 2008, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Tstorm ]

Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, I just heard Hilary say the same thing on the Daily Show as Bill did earlier: she would would win under Republican rules.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
However the increased costs in health care meant that businesses were spending more and more on health care, but able to provide less and less of it. Employees were not getting the raises they expected because that money was going into insurance, then those same employees were being forced to pick up more of their health care costs.
Not to mention the fact that it makes US industries less competitive in the international market. Several US auto companies have moved production facilities to Canada because their National Health Insurance makes the cost of doing business there lower.

During the 7 years I taught at the U of U, the increase in medical insurance benefits was averaging 15% per year while the increase in salaries was never more than 3% in any year. At that rate, medical benefits will exceed salary in less than 15 years. It doesn't take a Ph.D in Engineering to see that this trend is not sustainable.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
Are we talking about a single payer system or Uncle Sam picks up everyone who isn't insured otherwise? I seem to recall it was the second. Under that scenario, the disproportionate inflation of health care premiums is unlikely to be quashed. Keep in mind I am not working under the "don't make running a small business expensive" idea, which is the thing most Republicans oppose. I am more of a med-industrial complex conspiracy theorist.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Are we talking about a single payer system or Uncle Sam picks up everyone who isn't insured otherwise?
We ought to be talking about single payer. Unfortunately no one in power or who is likely to get in power is seriously doing that. I sincerely doubt that Obama's plans, Clinton's plan or any of the similar proposals which simply try to insure the currently uninsured will do anything to reduce the escalating costs. They are a step in the right direction but not a very big step.

I probably qualify as a med-industrial complex conspiracy theorist as well.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
OK, this is bogus: Sen. Evan Bayh(D, Ind.) is "leaning" on fellow Indiana congressmen to not endorse Obama, at least until after the Indiana primary. Of course, Bayh endorsed Clinton a while ago, so it's totally hypocritical.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The effect of any endorsement -- his included -- "really is pretty marginal," Bayh said...

"My advice to you is to follow the voters of your district," Bayh said he has been telling them.

He has not overtly asked them not to endorse, but, he added, his advice "would have that effect."


I guess he's saying something along the lines of "Not that it matters, but don't do it." What an integrity challenged individual.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
Of course to be fair, back when Bayh endorsed Clinton, no one expected the Democratic nomination to be still in contention by the time of the Indiana primary.

But to be completely fair, if Bayh weren't being hypocritical he would withdraw his endorsement of Clinton and agree to follow the voters of his district after the primary.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Honestly, I think people may be taking what he said out of context. It seems likely to me that he's giving the freshmen congressmen some potentially good advice.

Let's make some assumptions. First, that their endorsement isn't going to have much of an effect on the primary race. Second, that their constituents are going to strongly support the candidate other than the one that they come out for. In this case, they would be taking an unnecessary risk that might come back to bite them on the butt come the next time they are up for election.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Jon Stewart made a pretty good case (without explicitly saying so) for why the Dems need to finish up fast. He did a little tour of some of McCain's recent stops and statements and it's ridiculous. If he had the same attention the Dems were getting, he'd be getting hammered for his gaffes and issues, but he's being virtually ignored thanks to the media orgy over Obama and Clinton.

I only blame a tiny fraction of that though on the Democrats. I blame the rest on the media for giving him a free ride.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm personally glad the media has too much to do with Clinton and Obama to be able to uncover all the useless, meaningless "controversies" McCain might be producing. I'm tired of the bombardment of "commentgate" and "gaffegate" on the news--blowing every blink of the eye totally out of proportion, painting everything extremely negatively. You'd think they wanted the candidates to screw up just so there would be something for the 10:00 news. With the press out of the way for McCain, I can actually pay attention to the positive things he's doing and saying.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Saephon
Member
Member # 9623

 - posted      Profile for Saephon   Email Saephon         Edit/Delete Post 
That's fine and dandy for Republicans, but the other 50% of us would like the media to die in a fire and leave us alone as well >_>
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post 
There's more being ignored than gaffes. The popular perception of McCain is a far cry from the reality of McCain, issues-wise.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
That's my problem with the media coverage. Democrats are getting a trial by fire, and it's killing their popularity. McCain is getting a free ride and is cleaning up all the people running away from negative Democratic press coverage.

It's all or nothing. Cut out all the crap, or dole it out evenly.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
looks like all said and done Clinton picked up 10 delegates out of the PA primary.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
The funny thing is Obama rolled up past 1700, so he looks further ahead. [Smile]
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting. A so called "defection" for a major fundraiser from Hillary to Obama.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/25/major-clinton-fundraiser-switches-to-obama/

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
Latest Newsweek Poll finds that 48% of Americans are idiots, in that only 52% know Obama is Christian.

If they're going to remind people that his middle name is Hussein, why not remind people that Hillary did not use her husband's name for the first seven years of their marriage?

Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
I guess that's where places like forums are unrepresentative of the states.

Seriously, is there anyone here who still openly assumes that Obama is Muslim?

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
What's there to assume? If he isn't a Muslim, why did he get sworn into office on a Koran?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged
Member
Member # 7476

 - posted      Profile for Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged   Email Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged         Edit/Delete Post 
Except Obama didn't use the Koran to be sworn in. That would be Keith Ellison.

United States Representative Keith Ellison (Minnesota) is a Muslim, and as such was sworn in on the Koran.

Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
But it says right there in the Book of Revelations that the Anti-Christ will be a Moslim man in his 40s. Are you calling Jesus a liar, Wowbagger?

[ April 27, 2008, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]

Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
I heard on NPR yesterday that Clinton was challenging Obama to an actual, honest to god debate. It's be 90 minutes of the two of them actually talking directly to each other, responding to each other's questions, and so forth (link)Obama has declined, which I find disappointing both because I'd be interested in watching such a debate, and because I could see his refusal to go head to head with her looking like/successfully being spun as weakness on his part.

This quote from the abcnews blog linked to in the TPM article really irritates me, I have to say:

quote:
Clinton continued, “Unfortunately, Sen. Obama has not agreed yet, and he’s turned down every debate that has been offered. So here I have a proposition my campaign sent his campaign today. You know, after the last debate in Philadelphia, Sen. Obama’s supporters complained a little bit about the tough questions (awwwwwww heard in the audience). You know tough questions in a debate are nothing compared to the tough questions you get when you are president.”
Was she not complaining at least as much about always being asked the hard questions in debates just a month or two ago? How short does she think our memories are?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
But does anyone still want debates? Well, I want a science debate, but that's different (and I want McCain invited to that). By this point, I am pretty sure I know what they are going to answer to any question that could come up.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Does she mean he has turned down every debate that has been offered except for the 21 he has accepted? And my impression was that he was "complaining" not about the tough questions, but about the stupid questions.

Good heavens, she will say just about anything.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
But does anyone still want debates? Well, I want a science debate, but that's different (and I want McCain invited to that). By this point, I am pretty sure I know what they are going to answer to any question that could come up.

Oh, I'd love to see this one; the format being proposed would make it a much more interesting debate than any of the ones we've seen so far. I'd like to see a science debate too, of course.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
How short does she think our memories are?
Short. And I don't think she's wrong either. The very people she wants to win over with words like that are the ones who probably don't remember all the contradictions in her campaign.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
This is part of the reason that this election matters so much to me. I know it is somewhat overdramatic, but I think that this election is an indication of whether people can be sufficiently engaged and informed for democracy to really work or whether we are too easily fooled or frightened into making bad choices.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Was she not complaining at least as much about always being asked the hard questions in debates just a month or two ago? How short does she think our memories are?
How short does who think our memories are?

What about memories?

What election?

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
Operation Chaos
"...100,000 Republicans-turned-Democrats cast ballots for Clinton in Ohio...120,000 in Texas...38,000 in Mississippi."

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Was she not complaining at least as much about always being asked the hard questions in debates just a month or two ago? How short does she think our memories are?
Stupid questions, not hard or tough questions.

Also, she's proposing "Lincoln/Douglas style" debates. The irony there is that often Lincoln and Douglas didn't debate so much as one person talked for an hour, and then the other person talked for an hour, and maybe the other would go again after.

What she's talking about is really more like the debate on "The West Wing."

And I agree with you, THIS debate I'd watch.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
And I just saw a couple nuggets of gold from McCain on the news.

1. McCain is apparently under fire for using an exemption in an FEC rule about using corporate jets owned by family members or owned by the businesses of family members (his wife's company) to avoid paying drastically higher rates for the plane rides. He says it's not illegal, and it isn't but the FEC has tried to close the loophole, and it seems ironic coming from a guy championing reform and who said he wouldn't accept help from his wife.

2. And the other is this quote:

quote:
"I noticed again today that Sen. Obama repeated his oppositionto giving low-income Americans a tax break, a little bit of relief so they can travel a little further and a little longer, and maybe have a little bit of money left over to enjoy some other things in their lives," McCain said. "Obviously Sen. Obama does not understand that this would be a nice thing for Americans, and the special interests should not be dictating this policy."
First of all, what special interests? He's accusing Obama of being in the pocket of the oil lobby? That's rich, coming from the candidate who has taken the most money from oil to the candidate who has taken the least amount. Furthermore, it's a ridiculous argument. That tax break won't help the poor, they'll just drive more. Gas taxes, other than just paying for road maintenance, help by reducing the growing demand for more gas (or they would if they were higher anyway), but if we drop the price of gas, people will just drive more to make up for it. And even if that wasn't the case, such a tax break, during the summer driving season, will explode the deficit even more. It's another irresponsible tax cut that I think would be very unhelpful in the long and short run. Frankly I think he's pandering and trying to buy votes. Where was his call for some sort of tax relief to help the poor pay for heating in the Winter?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
The worst part about McCain's accusations is the claim that repealing the gas tax is targeted at poor people since they drive older cars that get worse gas mileage.

First off, the average gas mileage of light duty vehicles in the US has dropped of the last 20 years not increased. One would expect that people driving older cars would get better gas mileage than those driving newer cars. The people who are getting the worst gas mileage on the road aren't poor people, they are people driving high priced SUVs.

Gas, unlike most commodities, is simultaneously both an essential and a luxury in the US. Because people in most regions of the US have no practical transportation alternatives, they have to buy gas to do essential things like get to work and the grocery store. People who are living on a tight budget are really struggling because of the high gas prices. But at the same time other people are still buying hummers and using them to tow trailer loads of ORVs hundreds of miles to tear around on the desert burning gasoline like it was water.

The average American uses 500 gallons of gas per year. The gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. If they burn 1/4 of that gas in the summer months, McCain's proposal would wave the average person only $23. That's not going to make the difference between being able to afford a vacation or not. At current prices, its not even one extra tank of gas. Of course, the benefit will be larger for those who can afford to drive on vacation. And even though its not going to make a significant difference to any individual, it will result in less money available for road maintenance in an interstate highway system that already had bridges collapsing because of neglect.

What's more, McCain fully admits that most people would use this tax cut to drive more miles using more gas. Gas prices have been rising because demand is growing faster than the supply. Under those circumstances, dropping the gas tax will likely result in and increase in the base price so that the actually savings to any individual will be less than 18.4 cents per gallon of the tax.

If McCain really cared about poor people he would be proposing things that would really target poor people like increasing subsidies to mass transit or even a gas tax rebate for families who fall under a certain income threshold. He'd be looking for long term approaches like big improvements to the mass transit systems and raising fuel efficiency standards. Instead, he's trying to dress up a tax cut to wealthy SUV drivers as a program to aid the poor. Typical republican election year politics.

[ April 28, 2008, 04:09 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 82 pages: 1  2  3  ...  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  ...  80  81  82   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2