Liberal Supermajority

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

I know. Damn those Veterans out on the street who got booted into the streets during the 80's and can't afford health care. I mean, Jesus, they're so damn lazy.

If I'm correct don't we have a medical system for veterans in place allready?
Health Care — Veterans Health Administration Home

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If I'm correct don't we have a medical system for veterans in place allready?
Health Care — Veterans Health Administration Home

I'm not saying that they don't have it readily available, just that there are many that can't afford it, more specifically those that still need psychological treatment.

[70Chip]

Just remember. In politics, like football, nothing is ever as good or as bad as it seems. These so called "mandate" elections can be very short-lived. Once all all the Obama kiddies go back to their dismal, solipsistic lives, then decent people will begin to fight back. This is our country. We own it, and we always will.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

I'm not saying that they don't have it readily available, just that there are many that can't afford it, more specifically those that still need psychological treatment.

Not sure about the cost for veterans health insurance so I won't comment. The part about psychological treatment is correct but its very tough to make these people come in for treatment and allot of them just don't go because they are embarassed. Its there for them its just not very many take advantage of the help.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If I'm correct don't we have a medical system for veterans in place allready?
Health Care — Veterans Health Administration Home

Yes - it's a social program. You want to do away with those, remember?

[saden1]

Hope you don't make more than 150K SS33 or your family just might be headed to the poor house. Hope you ball and shine forever, forever and ever.

[dmek25]

ss33, do you really believe that McCain will not raise your taxes?

[Dirtbag59]

DAMN LIBERALS....and NEOCONS. To be honest I don't like the eithers of you. Heres why (remember I say this with love)

In general:
- Liberals want to fight no one, neocons want to fight everyone
- Liberals want to spend everything, neocons don't want to spend anything unless theres fighting involved
- Liberals want to make everything Go Green, Neocons could care less about the enviornment (Yes I've heard the hunting argument)
- Both support seperate but equal when it comes to gays which is pretty hypocritical if you ask me.
- Liberals are way to soft on major criminals (rapist, murderers, con artist, etc), Neocons are way to hard on minor criminals (the college kid with a bag of pot, statutory rape between people that are around 1 or 2 years apart)
- Liberals blame everything on Bush. To me thats like knowing the answer to a math problem without knowing how to do the work. The most clichey thing to do these days when discussing politics is to blame everything on Bush. Maybe people should learn not to give a party total control over government. Neocons, well their opponent always happens to be the "most liberal canidate EVER." So liberal that America is going to become a socialist country if they get elected.
- Liberals pander to the "middle class" claiming they'll cut the taxes that a lot of them don't pay any taxes as well as a health care system that if truely allowed would be among the worst in the developed world (think DMV), neocons pander to the crazy Christians promising to completly overturn Roe vs Wade as well as possibly introducing school prayer in public institutions (seriously I don't know of any Christians that HAD to pray before school and last I checked you can do it silently without anyone noticing, I know I used to). Not to mention a good amount of the ones not named McCain oppose stem-cell research. A practice that could lead to medical breakthroughs (I think someone already mentioned waiting list in Canada and the US for organs).
- Liberals have Hollywood actors providing political analysis, Neocons have the lady that doesn't trust Obama because "he's an arab." No mam.
- "Change", "Maverick"

All in all I hate extremes to begin with. I think if I had it my way I would have the most moderate politicians in office, but then again we don't live in an ideal world.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Thought this thread deserved a bump since it's now effectively happened with Franken winning the Senate seat in MN.

Let's look at the original predictions from the WSJ, and where we are right now:

WSJ predicts: Medicare for all
Current Situation: Universal Health Care being pushed through Congress, likely approved without bi-partisan support in late summer/early fall.

WSJ predicts: More government control of private economy
Current Situation: Gov't already strong-arms bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM leaving private investors with virtually nothing. Gov't control of GM is 60%, Canadian gov't 12%, IAW 17%. Bail-out $$$ has given the federal government deeper control into the financial industry, to the point of determining executive pay.

WSJ predicts: Union supremacy
Current Situation: Employee Free Choice Act will likely pass easily.
President Tells Unions Organizing Act Will Pass - WSJ.com

WSJ predicts: Cap and Trade (Tax/Regulate)
Current Situation: Crap...ooops...Cap & Trade narrowly passed the House. The Obama Admin will likely use Chicago-style politics to force passage in the Senate on a party line vote. Our only salvation from this will be either Dems in blue-collar states or the two Independents. EPA suppresses Climate Change report that questions (correctly) the junk science of Global Warming.

WSJ predicts: Voting Rights will be stacked towards Dems, led by ACORN.
Current Situation: Bureau of Census will allow ACORN workers to be census-takers. Stimulus bill provided over $ 4B in funding that ACORN is eligible to receive.

Great summary of what would happen with a Dem supermajority IMO:
"In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined."

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Thought this thread deserved a bump since it's now effectively happened with Franken winning the Senate seat in MN.

Let's look at the original predictions from the WSJ, and where we are right now:

WSJ predicts: Medicare for all
Current Situation: Universal Health Care being pushed through Congress, likely approved without bi-partisan support in late summer/early fall.
WSJ predicts: More government control of private economy
Current Situation: Gov't already strong-arms bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM leaving private investors with virtually nothing. Gov't control of GM is 60%, Canadian gov't 12%, IAW 17%. Bail-out $$$ has given the federal government deeper control into the financial industry, to the point of determining executive pay.

WSJ predicts: Union supremacy
Current Situation: Employee Free Choice Act will likely pass easily.President Tells Unions Organizing Act Will Pass - WSJ.com

WSJ predicts: Cap and Trade (Tax/Regulate)
Current Situation: Crap...ooops...Cap & Trade narrowly passed the House. The Obama Admin will likely use Chicago-style politics to force passage in the Senate on a party line vote. Our only salvation from this will be either Dems in blue-collar states or the two Independents. EPA suppresses Climate Change report that questions (correctly) the junk science of Global Warming.

WSJ predicts: Voting Rights will be stacked towards Dems, led by ACORN.
Current Situation: Bureau of Census will allow ACORN workers to be census-takers. Stimulus bill provided over $ 4B in funding that ACORN is eligible to receive.

Great summary of what would happen with a Dem supermajority IMO:
"In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined."

1) It's about time.
2) Good news--the middle class never thrived more than when union membership was hearty.
3) "Chicago-style" politics. You mean the Obama administration is going to be aggressive? Gee, White House administrations NEVER act like that. ("If you can't stand the heat, boys, . . ." )
4) Amen. The country remains strong because of them.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

1) It's about time.
2) Good news--the middle class never thrived more than when union membership was hearty.
3) "Chicago-style" politics. You mean the Obama administration is going to be aggressive? Gee, White House administrations NEVER act like that. ("If you can't stand the heat, boys, . . ." )
4) Amen. The country remains strong because of them.

Do you work for a union? Unions are the downfall of this country. There once was a time and place for unions but in today's day and age the only thing that a union does is protect the LAZY worker. The union is why GM and Chrysler went bankrupt in my opinion. I work in the automotive industry and have been in many union factories and its the same at each factory you see people sitting on their asses and expecting to be paid like kings. The union is bad for this country...

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

Do you work for a union? Unions are the downfall of this country. There once was a time and place for unions but in today's day and age the only thing that a union does is protect the LAZY worker. The union is why GM and Chrysler went bankrupt in my opinion. I work in the automotive industry and have been in many union factories and its the same at each factory you see people sitting on their asses and expecting to be paid like kings. The union is bad for this country...

Oh get'off'it. Last time I checked the unions didn't cause the Wall St. meltdown nor were they the reason why GM and Chrysler failed. Better quality product, customer care, and poor management is what killed them but you go ahead and believe what you want about unions.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

1) It's about time.
2) Good news--the middle class never thrived more than when union membership was hearty.
3) "Chicago-style" politics. You mean the Obama administration is going to be aggressive? Gee, White House administrations NEVER act like that. ("If you can't stand the heat, boys, . . ." )
4) Amen. The country remains strong because of them.

1) No matter the financial cost or reduction in health care quality/benefits/delivery that will affect the vast majority in the U.S.
2) The years of unions taking advantage of the auto industry are definitely a major contributor to the failure of GM & Chrysler.
3) Chicago style politics is more of the Blago/R. Emanuel style certainly a lot worse than "being aggressive". The WH Chief of Staff dropping F-Bomb laden tirades in meetings with Congressional leaders is just the tip of the iceberg.
4) Voter registration fraud definitely makes the country stronger.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by slingin sammy 33

1) no matter the financial cost or reduction in health care quality/benefits/delivery that will affect for the vast majority in the u.s.
2) the years of unions taking advantage of the auto industry are definitely a major contributor to the failure of gm & chrysler.
3) chicago style politics is more of the blago/r. Emanuel style certainly a lot worse than "being aggressive". The wh chief of staff dropping f-bomb laden tirades in meetings with congressional leaders is just the tip of the iceberg.
4) voter registration fraud definitely makes the country stronger.

glad to see that i am not the only one!!!

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

1) No matter the financial cost or reduction in health care quality/benefits/delivery that will affect the vast majority in the U.S.

That's just FUD. We have the 37th ranked health-care system in the world, and most evidence points to a single-payer system providing better benefits at cheaper total cost and with more freedom to doctors than our system.