edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 12:39 am
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 05:33 am
@blatham,
The truth is the party that ‘espouses’ Christianity also embraces the most godless policies. They show a complete lack of care and compassion for people whose lives are affected by poverty and unequal treatment.

The GOP fights against children getting medical care. They fight to award business with tax breaks to further enrich the wealthy while bleeding regular Americans for their paltry resources.

Giving lip service to religion is meaningless. The only high road the GOP can claim is trying to keep babies safe in their mothers’ wombs, but the hypocritical and breathtaking lack of care for those children, once they arrive, negates those ‘Christian’ brownie points.

The Democrats have a little more cred with family friendly policies, but ultimately, they fail also.

edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 08:31 am
People trying to shut down OAC: Who before her got any traction calling for 70% tax?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 08:49 am
@edgarblythe,
I question whether she is getting any real traction. 70% is a bit too much. We don't want to penalize people for being successful in business.

60% would be much more realistic.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 08:51 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
The only high road the GOP can claim is trying to keep babies safe in their mothers’ wombs,
The GOP can truthfully claim that they protect the Second Amendment instead of trying to violate it.

Our civil liberties are important.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 08:51 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

I question whether she is getting any real traction. 70% is a bit too much. We don't want to penalize people for being successful in business.

60% would be much more realistic.


You want 60% starting at $200,000.
She wants 70% starting at $10,000,000.

Your policy is much more penalizing than hers (not that I disagree with it).



Also, you won’t see any ‘real’ traction until enough democrats are elected. So I wouldn’t hold out for much beyond talk these next two years.

oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 08:54 am
@maporsche,
I didn't realize that. 70% starting at 10,000,000 would be all right with me.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 08:56 am
Traction. The public would support it if the congress could be persuaded to act.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 09:00 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Traction. The public would support it if the congress could be persuaded to act.


That downside to that is that in order to act, you need more members of congress.

That means either
a) electing more democrats
b) convincing more republicans to get on board with progressive proposals


Quite the conundrum.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 09:06 am
@maporsche,
Just shows that the public is more enlightened than the bunch sworn to govern for them.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 09:08 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

Just shows that the public is more enlightened than the bunch sworn to govern for them.


For which, I blame the public.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 09:59 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

For which, I blame the public.


Sounds like a famous statement attributed to Lenin.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 10:10 am
@georgeob1,
Maybe it was Groucho.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 10:16 am
@georgeob1,
“It serves as a reminder to those of us who vote and those of us who don’t,” Zagel said. “It reminds the voters of the maxim ‘The American people always get precisely the government that they deserve.

Judge Zagel’s point, I think, was that no politician takes office without the consent of the voters — their votes as well as their abstentions. Voters take responsibility, however, only for the good ones. Both an informed, engaged electorate that turns out to vote and an uninformed, apathetic electorate that stays home deserve what they get.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 10:17 am
@edgarblythe,
I don't think Karl Marx ever wrote anything like that. He was merely the theologian for the sappy notion of a workers paradise. Lenin, who first undertook to create one, knew well that he would have to terrorize and imprison large segments of the population to meet his goals for the transformation of Russian society. He termed this rather coldly as "the elimination of the irreconcilables".

Stalin later confirmed that such tyranny was required on a continuing basis to sustain the system.

So much for educating the public towards "right" thinking.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 10:17 am
@maporsche,
Obama said:

“People have a tendency to blame politicians when things don’t work, but as I always tell people, you get the politicians you deserve,” Obama said in May. “And if you don’t vote and you don’t pay attention, you’ll get policies that don’t reflect your interest.” He meant, “You got Trump.”
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 10:25 am
@georgeob1,
You brought in Karl, not me.
I know right wingers have to slur democratic socialism by conflating it to communism, but I don't take the bait and argue about it because we both should know how dishonest that is, as old as we are.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 10:27 am
Tribalism can't be dismissed when discussing elections. It's what keeps people voting against their own interests. Both parties.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 10:32 am
Got some work to do on convincing the public...

A lot of people apparently don't know what Medicare for All is (not surprising since nothing specific has been detailed). Republican criticism seems to work in light of this and support for the 'plan' drops when faced with opposition.

Need to get some details out there now people. Need to argue from a policy standpoint.

***********************************************************************
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/medicare-for-all-kaiser-poll_us_5c47e6cae4b0b6693675059b

Medicare For All Looks Good In New Poll, But There’s A Big Asterisk

Quote:
The idea is also popular, according to the new Kaiser poll. Fifty-six percent of Americans “strongly favor” or “somewhat favor” the idea, compared with 42 percent who “somewhat oppose” or “strongly oppose.”

But it’s an open question just how strong or solid that support is.

When Kaiser asked respondents whether they thought they could keep their current insurance under a Medicare for all scheme, 57 percent said they could. In reality, the whole point of Medicare for all would be to wipe away current insurance arrangements and replace them with a new public plan.


Proponents of Medicare for all know this. They argue that the public plan would be simpler, more comprehensive and ultimately less costly for most Americans.

Kaiser actually tested to see how some of those arguments would affect public opinion and, sure enough, people were even more excited about Medicare for all when they heard, among other things, that it would eliminate premiums, copays and deductibles.

But Kaiser also tested some of the arguments that Republicans and other opponents of Medicare for all have made against such schemes ― and already are making now. When respondents heard that Medicare for all would eliminate private insurance, for example, support dropped dramatically, with just 37 percent favoring it and 58 percent opposing.

Kaiser also asked respondents about some other Democratic ideas that call for creating or expanding government-run insurance but without making it a system for everybody. These ideas include some relatively moderate steps, like opening up Medicare to people 55 and over ― or offering Medicaid to anybody without access to employer coverage.

Yet another idea Kaiser tested is a more ambitious initiative that would create a new government-run insurance plan open to anybody, on a voluntary basis. In this scheme, employers would have the option to keep offering their own plans, thereby giving their employees a choice.

In Kaiser’s polls, these proposals were even more popular than Medicare for all, although Kaiser didn’t test how these ideas held up to common conservative criticisms.

Another poll finding was about priorities: 51 percent of self-identified Democrats think it’s more important for their party to focus on improving and protecting the Affordable Care Act, while 38 percent think it’s more important to pass Medicare for all.
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2019 11:30 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
Another poll finding was about priorities: 51 percent of self-identified Democrats think it’s more important for their party to focus on improving and protecting the Affordable Care Act, while 38 percent think it’s more important to pass Medicare for all.


The upshot of the piece you brought is we need more leftist/democrats in government elector positions in order to fix Obamacare to make it run the way it is supposed to. The trouble is that some of the things (States able to reject the Medicare expansion) in Obamacare was stripped away by the courts and now that Trump has been in the position to appoint very conservative Judges and republicans in their positions in Senate to confirm those judges; those decisions will not be reversed for quite some time. Like Obama said, you get the government you vote or not vote for.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 08:23:32