logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Election results are in!, What do they mean?
Hobbes
post Nov 3 2010, 04:30 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,310
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



The mid-term elections are over, and they finished about like most polls predicted they would. The Republicans made very large gains in the House, adding 60 (or more) seats. They picked up ground in the Senate, but not enough to gain control, with 46 seats currently and three still undecided. They also made large gains in governorships. Some of the Tea Party candidates won major races (Paul, Rubio); some lost convincingly (O'Donnell). Both these results, and early exit poll results indicate a dissatisfaction with the direction we were headed. Republicans swept into office with a renewed smaller government mantra, but they only control 1/3 of the government. Boehner, the likely new Speaker of the House, has a propensity for working across the aisle--but now has a supposed mandate behind him. Given all this, the following questions emerge:

1. What do these results mean? Was this vote a repudiation of the policies Obama has enacted? If so, what do you think he will do about it? If not, what do you think was the rationale for the change?

2. What do you think will likely happen in government the next 2 years? Will the Republicans in the House become active in trying to form policy through new legislation? Or will they simply work against whatever Obama/the Senate propose? Will there be any significant slowdown in government spending?

3. Were the House to propose any significant changes in Obama's Health Care, would the Senate go along with them or would they strongly oppose it? If any such bill were to come out of Congress, would Obama veto it?

4. Will Obama try to work with the Senate to continue his agenda, work with the Republicans to move forward on areas they can, or wait and see what comes out of Congress? Will he adopt a new policy of triangulation, like Clinton did? Or will he stick with his initial policies/philosophy?

5. Do these results validate the Tea Party as a legitimate entity politically? Will it grow, or wither on the vine?

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Nov 3 2010, 07:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Ringwraith
post Nov 8 2010, 06:36 PM
Post #41


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 253
Member No.: 697
Joined: April-28-03

From: Houston, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(BoF @ Nov 8 2010, 10:09 AM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 8 2010, 08:58 AM) *
...as exemplified by her demands for a bigger plane?

This is a cheap shot.

Wanna take bets about the "Orange Man" demanding a plane downgrade?

We'll see.


Oh, its anything BUT cheap. I know this for sure. Heck for me just getting an upgrade to business class is expensive.

Orange man. Good one. I prefer this however to Skeletor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 8 2010, 07:16 PM
Post #42


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
PE
Here you are, Ted, since you don't believe me (Shame on you! ):


I read it and see nothing that quoted Bush saying he planned to drop tax cuts for any specific individuals. Please show me the passage.

The Tax cut you quote below was the temporary payroll tax reduction done by Obama and NOT the Bush cuts we are discussing……

QUOTE
Then she was a pretty powerful "clown", I'd say. Just why do you think the Republicans would ever be shut out of the process?


Because they didn’t buy the 500 Billion $ “savings” in Medicare lie or go for the Public Option just to name a couple of things. So the Dems wrote 2,000 PAGES alone with their lobbyists like Labor and then asked Republicans to vote on it with no changes allowed. Duh. wacko.gif Who the hell would sign that as a Republican? Remember when we were taxing the “Cadillac” Plans because those nasty corporate executives have them and of course Dems could care less for them? Then in come the Labor Bosses to remind the fools that their members Plans were essentially the same! So 91 Billion in cost coverage was gone the next day! Real clear nonsense.

Not the Bill creation PE. And did his listen to them? Hell no.
QUOTE
When he signed a bill with an expiration date.


Bush had no choice the Congress would not pass the bill without the expiration date.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 8 2010, 07:45 PM
Post #43


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted)
The Tax cut you quote below was the temporary payroll tax reduction done by Obama and NOT the Bush cuts we are discussing……


So you DID believe me when I talked about the Obama administration's tax cuts? Pardon me for misunderstanding you. blush.gif So you DID believe that Obama's administration cut taxes for the middle class!

QUOTE(Ted)
Because they didn’t buy the 500 Billion $ “savings” in Medicare lie or go for the Public Option just to name a couple of things. So the Dems wrote 2,000 PAGES alone with their lobbyists like Labor and then asked Republicans to vote on it with no changes allowed. Duh. Who the hell would sign that as a Republican? Remember when we were taxing the “Cadillac” Plans because those nasty corporate executives have them and of course Dems could care less for them? Then in come the Labor Bosses to remind the fools that their members Plans were essentially the same! So 91 Billion in cost coverage was gone the next day! Real clear nonsense.


So the nasty corporate executives got less say than those "nasty" Labor Bosses for a change? Quel dommage!. It might do us well to remember that because collective bargaining got positive results for the rank and file, the bosses had to treat their salaried employees better, too...

The Democrats remind me of "The Little Red Hen" (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/stories/fairytale/littleredhen/story/) who wanted the help of their friends when they were crafting health care reform and didn't get any, even from the big Blue Dogs. Had the GOP and the "dogs" been willing to have a hand in it and not rejecting it outright, they quite possibly would have been included. Half the Blue Dogs are gone, and the Republicans didn't even try, Ted.

Congress and the administration wanted to guarantee that all Americans would be covered by insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions. So three of the healthcare insurance corporations are now not providing ANY children coverage, because they are more interested in their bottom lines than in the little brats that might come down sick and cost them money for their livetimes, even though that's why their parents would pay premiums in the event of something catastrophic...See, there's always a loophole for people who choose making money over doing the right thing! We're not going to cover you, because you might get SICK and live a while! w00t.gif

QUOTE
Bush had no choice the Congress would not pass the bill without the expiration date.

I'm glad you brought that up, Ted. I will concede that point if YOU will remember how many choices the current President has when he signs a bill, regardless of how he feels about it.

But here's an article that explains what extending the tax cuts to the wealthiest would and would not change:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html
QUOTE(New York Times)
Most of the tax cuts that were a signature domestic initiative of George W. Bush’s presidency carried an expiration date of Dec. 31, 2010, to limit the potential revenue losses; supporters assumed that they would be extended when the time came.

Extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to a growing national debt that is already the largest since World War II. About $700 billion of that reflects the projected costs of tax cuts for those in the top 2 percent of income-earners.

With the economy still weak, the issue of the tax cuts has led to an economic debate between those who would end all or some of them to reduce the projected debt and those who say raising taxes on the wealthy could threaten the economic recovery.




This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 8 2010, 07:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 8 2010, 08:05 PM
Post #44


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
PE
So you DID believe me when I talked about the Obama administration's tax cuts? Pardon me for misunderstanding you. So you DID believe that Obama's administration cut taxes for the middle class!


ONLY if you believe the temporary cut is a real cut. I believe it was like the checks he had sent out. Temporary of for a very limited time. Unlike the Bush massive Tax cuts for the Middle Class we have enjoyed for 10 years………. whistling.gif

QUOTE
So the nasty corporate executives got less say than those "nasty" Labor Bosses for a change? Quel dommage!. It might do us well to remember that because collective bargaining got positive results for the rank and file, the bosses had to treat their salaried employees better, too...


The point is that the hackers crafting the Bill were happy to shaft one group until they discovered some of their own supporters were part of it. Then they backed off fast. Is this the “new politics and change” Obama promised us free off special interests? Not even close…. cool.gif

QUOTE
Had the GOP and the "dogs" been willing to have a hand in it and not rejecting it outright, they quite possibly would have been included. Half the Blue Dogs are gone, and the Republicans didn't even try, Ted.


Again PE when you are locked out and not even allowed to add amendments or discuss the Bill generally you don’t go for it. Lets just see how many Republican Bills get Nancy and crew to sign on?.

QUOTE
Congress and the administration wanted to guarantee that all Americans would be covered by insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions. So three of the healthcare insurance corporations are now not providing ANY children coverage, because they are more interested in their bottom lines than in the little brats that might come down sick and cost them money for their livetimes, even though that's why their parents would pay premiums in the event of something catastrophic...


Come on PE show me more about what you are saying here. Insurance companies have been badgered into not raising prices yet some expect that all the additional coverage they will be required to do is free?? AARP just raised their rates – are they evil PE. Or is there a reality out there that says that if you want more it costs more……

QUOTE
WASHINGTON (AP) – AARP’s endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. Now the seniors’ lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.
In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to
http://patdollard.com/2010/11/citing-obama...arges-employees
/


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Nov 8 2010, 08:11 PM
Post #45


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 8 2010, 03:05 PM) *
Again PE when you are locked out and not even allowed to add amendments or discuss the Bill generally you don’t go for it. Lets just see how many Republican Bills get Nancy and crew to sign on?.


Except you know that's false. Republican proposed amendments were included in the health care reform bill.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 8 2010, 08:17 PM
Post #46


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Nov 8 2010, 03:11 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 8 2010, 03:05 PM) *
Again PE when you are locked out and not even allowed to add amendments or discuss the Bill generally you don’t go for it. Lets just see how many Republican Bills get Nancy and crew to sign on?.


Except you know that's false. Republican proposed amendments were included in the health care reform bill.


Yes some small concessions were made but nothing substantial. And being locked out does not anyone willing to just sing the damn 2,000 page Bill does it….

Anyone see real tort reform in the Bill whistling.gif

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/25/while...-strikes-again/

This post has been edited by Ted: Nov 8 2010, 08:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 8 2010, 08:27 PM
Post #47


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted)
Come on PE show me more about what you are saying here. Insurance companies have been badgered into not raising prices yet some expect that all the additional coverage they will be required to do is free?? AARP just raised their rates – are they evil PE. Or is there a reality out there that says that if you want more it costs more……

Regarding not writing policies for children any more:
http://www.californiahealthline.org/articl...s-coverage.aspx

QUOTE(California Healthline)
Major health insurance companies that serve Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma and other states no longer are offering plans specifically for children in response a requirement under the new health reform law that insurers cover children regardless of pre-existing conditions, according to National Association of Insurance Commissioners officials, The Hill's "Healthwatch" reports (Pecquet, "Healthwatch," The Hill, 7/25).

The final regulations for children's coverage are expected before Sept. 23 and insurers are required to provide coverage to all children that apply to new plans after that date (Alonso-Zaldivar, AP/Washington Post, 7/23).

Dropping Child-Only Plans

On Friday, at least three NAIC members -- Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty, Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger and Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland -- said insurers in their states already have dropped child-only plans or have discussed the idea (Nussbaum, Bloomberg, 7/23).



Read more: http://www.californiahealthline.org/articl...x#ixzz14iz0RC6b


That's what I was referring to in my previous post. Insurance companies are for-profit. Their altruism is trodden underfoot in their quest for bigger and bigger profits. Heaven forbid that they would actually have to pay out the amount of money to help keep their sicker policy holders alive.

Is it any wonder why some of us do not trust the "free market" to provide for those who need more protection and have fewer resources? If Republicans can demonstrate the compassion that a couple of their Presidents were fond of talking about, they might find cooperation on the left side of the aisle.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 8 2010, 08:31 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 8 2010, 08:42 PM
Post #48


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



From your link

QUOTE
“The officials noted that insurers are not rescinding children's coverage that has already been issued, but they are ceasing to write new policies (AP/Washington Post, 7/23).
According to Holland, insurers have been using "medical underwriting," which has allowed them to craft low-cost plans for children that limit their expenses for costly medical care and make their expenses more predictable.
Changes Under Reform Law
However, under the new reform law, insurers are required to honor all applications for child-only coverage, and parents can sign up for the plans at any time, particularly when their children get sick. Parents then can stop payments when they no longer need coverage, which insurance industry officials say drives up medical costs and makes insurers' financial risk unmanageable (Reichard, CQ HealthBeat, 7/23).”


The problem is that low cost plans cannot have higher costs added without increasing the price of the policy making it unsellable. And as above insurers have to sell child only coverage. But the law allows parents to sign up when a child gets sick and cancel after treatment. Then everyone pays more. Is that what you think is the right way to do this PE?
QUOTE
That's what I was referring to in my previous post. Insurance companies are for-profit. Their altruism is trodden underfoot in their quest for bigger and bigger profits. Heaven forbid that they would actually have to pay out the amount of money to help keep their sicker policy holders alive.


PLEASE try to understand the issues. Healthcare Insurance companies make 3.5 to 6% profit. Less than most industries. They are middlemen who have to survive. Expecting them to lose money doing it is ridiculous.

This post has been edited by Ted: Nov 8 2010, 08:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 8 2010, 08:48 PM
Post #49


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 8 2010, 03:42 PM) *
From your link

QUOTE
“The officials noted that insurers are not rescinding children's coverage that has already been issued, but they are ceasing to write new policies (AP/Washington Post, 7/23).
According to Holland, insurers have been using "medical underwriting," which has allowed them to craft low-cost plans for children that limit their expenses for costly medical care and make their expenses more predictable.
Changes Under Reform Law
However, under the new reform law, insurers are required to honor all applications for child-only coverage, and parents can sign up for the plans at any time, particularly when their children get sick. Parents then can stop payments when they no longer need coverage, which insurance industry officials say drives up medical costs and makes insurers' financial risk unmanageable (Reichard, CQ HealthBeat, 7/23).”


The problem is that low cost plans cannot have higher costs added without increasing the price of the policy making it unsellable. And as above insurers have to sell child only coverage. But the law allows parents to sign up when a child gets sick and cancel after treatment. Then everyone pays more. Is that what you think is the right way to do this PE?
QUOTE
That's what I was referring to in my previous post. Insurance companies are for-profit. Their altruism is trodden underfoot in their quest for bigger and bigger profits. Heaven forbid that they would actually have to pay out the amount of money to help keep their sicker policy holders alive.


PLEASE try to understand the issues. Healthcare Insurance companies make 3.5 to 6% profit. Less than most industries. They are middlemen who have to survive. Expecting them to lose money doing it is ridiculous.


It's a matter of proportions, Ted. Three point five to six percent profit in the health insurance industry is a much higher amount than 10% profit in some other industries. In addition, people need health insurance coverage, to the point that they will take and remain in lousy jobs if it means coverage for themselves and their families.

So they would rather cap the benefits of a sick person than voluntarily lessen somewhat the profits of their companies, even if it might mean the shortening of the individual's life. There needs to be some ethics involved, and if the corporations do not understand this and the public continues to be ill-served, then it comes within the purview of our government leaders to address injustice in the health care industry.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 8 2010, 08:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 8 2010, 08:55 PM
Post #50


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2010, 12:06 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Nov 8 2010, 11:29 AM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2010, 10:23 PM) *
...
Why shouldn't the most obscenely rich of Americans share the burden with the lower 98% of the country? ...
...

1.
Ask the "obscenely" rich John Kerry. Or, the "obscenely" rich Google guys.

2.
There is nothing stopping those among the "obscenely" rich who advocate in favor of the "obscenely" rich paying whatever they think is their fair share (e.g. Kerry, the Google guys, Herb and Marion Sandler, Peter Lewis, Buffett, Soros, Huffington, Streisand, Oprah, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.) from putting their money where their mouth is. As GW Bush reminded them in his 2008 State of the Union address: ""Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm, and I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders."

And, finally, ...

3. "Obscenely", eh? Your class envy and resentment is showing.



1. and 2. That is an argument that has to be among the most ridiculous you've made. Yes, anyone can pay extra taxes if they choose. But if only a few people do it (you might get Oprah to do it, but not the Koch Brothers), it's not going to resolve any deficit issues, and thus the few who would be willing to aren't going to be motivated to as it won't change a thing. You know this; the argument is specious on its face.

3. Knock off the armchair psychoanalysis. It belittles you more than Paladin Elspeth.

There's nothing ridiculous about putting your money where your mouth is. There's nothing ridiculous about leading, inspiring, motivating by example. Quite the opposite. It's the ethically right thing to do, not least because you would avoid categorization as a rank "everybody should do as I wish, not as I do" hypocrite.

Your statement that only a few of the aforementioned "obscenely" rich Lefties/Liberals/Democrats would actually do that is quite revealing. Of their hypocrisy, that is.

If all of the aforementioned, plus the rest of the Lefties/Liberals/Democrats who make from $250,000 and up would put their money where their mouth is, that would amount to much more than "change". Guesstimate: about half of that $300 billion that is being touted as the amount that would accrue toward lowering the deficit. And they might even manage to shame others to follow suit, making an even bigger dent. Not to mention that doing it that way (just voluntarily sending one's "obscenely" big check to the IRS) would also save the government a nice chunk of money in terms of monitoring, auditing, enforcement, and collection costs.

And, finally, ...

Spare me the "armchair psychoanalysis" tut-tutting. One's describing great wealth as "obscene" is a blindingly obvious indication of one's invidiousness toward it. If one were to describe the manner in which great wealth is gained and/or deployed/spent as "obscene", that would be one thing. But to describe the mere fact of it that way, ... well, that's just plain ole envy.

I'll finish with a recent quote from our President, expressing sentiments that betray similar attitudes: “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pheeler
post Nov 8 2010, 09:08 PM
Post #51


*******
Professional Chem Nerd

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 557
Member No.: 925
Joined: July-25-03

From: Fort Collins, CO
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Nov 8 2010, 01:55 PM) *
One's describing great wealth as "obscene" is a blindingly obvious indication of one's invidiousness toward it. If one were to describe the manner in which great wealth is gained and/or deployed/spent as "obscene", that would be one thing. But to describe the mere fact of it that way, ... well, that's just plain ole envy.

And to believe that there is no amount of wealth too great is just plain ole greed. Are you going to play Gordon Gecko and convince me that greed is a virtue?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 8 2010, 09:16 PM
Post #52


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(pheeler @ Nov 8 2010, 12:10 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Nov 8 2010, 09:29 AM) *
3. "Obscenely", eh? Your class envy and resentment is showing.

Your belief that no amount of wealth is obscene can be construed as another deadly sin, akCG.

I was not aware that acquiring/possessing great wealth is one of the deadly sins. Nor was I aware that believing that the acquiring/possession of great wealth is not "obscene" is a deadly sin as well.

I AM aware that envy is.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 8 2010, 09:22 PM
Post #53


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Nov 8 2010, 03:55 PM) *
There's nothing ridiculous about putting your money where your mouth is. There's nothing ridiculous about leading, inspiring, motivating by example. Quite the opposite. It's the ethically right thing to do, not least because you would avoid categorization as a rank "everybody should do as I wish, not as I do" hypocrite.


So everyone who wants to increase defense spending should contribute money to defense contractors? Everyone who wants to increase transportation infrastructure should go out of their way to drive on toll roads and give money to construction companies? Where does this "put your money where your mouth is or you're a hypocrite" begin and end?

QUOTE
Your statement that only a few of the aforementioned "obscenely" rich Lefties/Liberals/Democrats would actually do that is quite revealing. Of their hypocrisy, that is.


Actually, it's indicative only of the utter absurdity of your argument.

QUOTE
Spare me the "armchair psychoanalysis" tut-tutting. One's describing great wealth as "obscene" is a blindingly obvious indication of one's invidiousness toward it. If one were to describe the manner in which great wealth is gained and/or deployed/spent as "obscene", that would be one thing. But to describe the mere fact of it that way, ... well, that's just plain ole envy.

I'll finish with a recent quote from our President, expressing sentiments that betray similar attitudes: “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”.


Full quote (emphasis mine): "We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy."

Your effort to paint a false picture using carefully redacted quotes is as transparent as is your attempt to deflect being called out for clucking your tongue at Paladin Elspeth's choice of adverb. "Obscenely rich" is a phrase that is used in many contexts, including the avaricious. "If this plan works, we'll all be obscenely rich!"

Stick to facts, akaCG. When you do, you're formidable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 8 2010, 09:33 PM
Post #54


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(pheeler @ Nov 8 2010, 04:08 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Nov 8 2010, 01:55 PM) *
One's describing great wealth as "obscene" is a blindingly obvious indication of one's invidiousness toward it. If one were to describe the manner in which great wealth is gained and/or deployed/spent as "obscene", that would be one thing. But to describe the mere fact of it that way, ... well, that's just plain ole envy.

And to believe that there is no amount of wealth too great is just plain ole greed. ...
...

No, it isn't. It is simply the belief that, say, Peter Lewis has not committed a deadly sin by becoming "obscenely" wealthy.

QUOTE(pheeler @ Nov 8 2010, 04:08 PM) *
...
Are you going to play Gordon Gecko and convince me that greed is a virtue?

I'm more of a J.P. Morgan (of bailing out the government on two occasions fame, among other things) fan.

This post has been edited by akaCG: Nov 8 2010, 09:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 8 2010, 09:33 PM
Post #55


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
PE
It's a matter of proportions, Ted. Three point five to six percent profit in the health insurance industry is a much higher amount than 10% profit in some other industries.


And why is that? They are like # 52 in industry profits PE.
QUOTE
Health Insurance Profits: Not So Outrageous After All?
Amid Calls for Health Care Reform, Insurance Companies Made Hundreds of Millions, But Analysts Say They Shouldn't Be Vilified
But the companies' profits still represent a miniscule percentage of the $2.5 trillion Americans spend every year on health care.
"Insurance company profits in the large picture have very little to do with the overall rising cost of health care," said health care expert Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.


Carroll and others pointed out that the profit margins the health insurance companies report -- often below 5 percent -- pace some industries and lag behind many others.

"From a net margin basis, it's not that much," said Steve Shubitz, an analyst at Edward Jones. "The bottom line is any business needs to make money. That's why you're in business."
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/health-insu...tory?id=9036632

QUOTE
In addition, people need health insurance coverage, to the point that they will take and remain in lousy jobs if it means coverage for themselves and their families.


OK so tell me what you would like to do. Remember these folks pay the Bills from the Hospitals and Doctors. That is where the costs are. Should they lose money? You do know that the proposed replacement by the Public Option was, according to the CBO more expensive…..

You are falling for the silly vilification of the insurance companies that Obama and crew spouted last year. It’s just wrong PE. Dead wrong….
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 8 2010, 09:45 PM
Post #56


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2010, 04:22 PM) *
...
... "Obscenely rich" is a phrase that is used in many contexts, including the avaricious. "If this plan works, we'll all be obscenely rich!"
...

Yes, the phrase is used in many contexts, by many different kinds of people. And based on the particular context, and the particular person using it, one can determine whether it is meant positively or negatively.

"PE"'s use of it falls in the latter category. Or are you about to claim that she used it positively?

Nice try, though.

This post has been edited by akaCG: Nov 8 2010, 09:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 8 2010, 10:33 PM
Post #57


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Nov 8 2010, 04:45 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Nov 8 2010, 04:22 PM) *
...
... "Obscenely rich" is a phrase that is used in many contexts, including the avaricious. "If this plan works, we'll all be obscenely rich!"
...

Yes, the phrase is used in many contexts, by many different kinds of people. And based on the particular context, and the particular person using it, one can determine whether it is meant positively or negatively.

"PE"'s use of it falls in the latter category. Or are you about to claim that she used it positively?

Nice try, though.


I think it was used as an emphatic, no more, no less. Synonymous with "extremely" or "super-". Of course, instead of trying to score personal points, you could, y'know, ask for clarification.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 8 2010, 11:10 PM
Post #58


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted)
You are falling for the silly vilification of the insurance companies that Obama and crew spouted last year. It’s just wrong PE. Dead wrong….

And you're falling for some of the wealthiest companies and people on earth screaming poverty! The costs are going up for everybody, Ted, even the poorest Americans. Who can better afford to cover them, individuals or the companies with whom they hold policies? Should they be able to renege on their commitments?

Regarding my use of the word "obscenely," I was just going to ignore akaCG's little rant, but since some of you have gotten sucked into it (and thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt!), let me clarify. It is not my attitude which characterizes something as obscenely anything. It is the fact that there are people who will spend more on dinner than some Americans earn in a week or a month. While accruing wealth is not evil in itself, taking measures to deprive others of their livelihoods in order to get a still larger bonus can be construed as such, for instance shipping American jobs to other countries because they can be paid less there without concern as to what happens to American families. There is a detachment from what ordinary Americans experience in their struggle to stay solvent, sort of like President Bush I's astonishment at the scanning of groceries at a checkout counter. I found akaCG's accusation or insinuation--whatever it was--to be a childish retort and not worth my time. But I did not want this thread to go further off subject because I chose one word over another. For what it's worth, my second choice would have been "extremely" rich.

A Bible verse reads, "To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, it is sin." (James 4:17) That applies to not only the rich, but any of us. An evangelist had an air-conditioned dog house for his pooch several years ago, and yet he and his wife continued to plead for funds so that the Gospel could go out. Among those contributions were those from people who could not afford air conditioning for their families, let alone a pet. 'Nuff said.

Back to the implications of the recent election on the direction the country will take...

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 8 2010, 11:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 9 2010, 01:18 AM
Post #59


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
PE
And you're falling for some of the wealthiest companies and people on earth screaming poverty! The costs are going up for everybody, Ted, even the poorest Americans. Who can better afford to cover them, individuals or the companies with whom they hold policies? Should they be able to renege on their commitments?


Did you ever work for a “company”. You speak of them as if they are evil individuals. Did you read above from the liberal Brooking Institute. Their profits are tiny compared to healthcare spending PE and without any profit they do not exist. That’s right PE they are GONE. Think of asking a person to work and then saying I will not pay you. Do you get the point here?
QUOTE
There is a detachment from what ordinary Americans experience in their struggle to stay solvent


I agree and this election shows us how people feel about their government spending like drunks and hiring like crazy while companies big and small lay off workers.

This is why the Democrats lost OVER SIX HUNDRED Seats at the state level and over 60 in the US House.

This post has been edited by Ted: Nov 9 2010, 01:18 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 9 2010, 02:28 AM
Post #60


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 8 2010, 08:18 PM) *
QUOTE
PE
And you're falling for some of the wealthiest companies and people on earth screaming poverty! The costs are going up for everybody, Ted, even the poorest Americans. Who can better afford to cover them, individuals or the companies with whom they hold policies? Should they be able to renege on their commitments?


Did you ever work for a “company”. You speak of them as if they are evil individuals. Did you read above from the liberal Brooking Institute. Their profits are tiny compared to healthcare spending PE and without any profit they do not exist. That’s right PE they are GONE. Think of asking a person to work and then saying I will not pay you. Do you get the point here?
QUOTE
There is a detachment from what ordinary Americans experience in their struggle to stay solvent


I agree and this election shows us how people feel about their government spending like drunks and hiring like crazy while companies big and small lay off workers.

This is why the Democrats lost OVER SIX HUNDRED Seats at the state level and over 60 in the US House.

That is insulting, Ted. Of course I have worked for companies. You pulled that statement totally out of context. When you have something of value to say I might respond to you further. But your last statement is beneath you in its simplistic ignorance.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 9 2010, 03:10 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 23rd, 2018 - 11:46 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.