Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is nice is that not only can you track the mean through time but it also records the individual polls that went into it. For example, there is a Quinnipiac poll from May that shows that 40% approve and 51% disapprove. Many of the polls show that Americans disapprove of the health care plan by anywhere from a couple of points to many points. This is a vast shift from where healthcare bill support stood even one year ago.
Quote:
(2) Republicans never rammed through bills, when they CLEARLY did so with Bush's tax cuts (as well as other measures).
I think there is confusion on "ramming." At least when I hear "rammed", I interpret it as the leadership pushes a bill and garners only their own party members to support it without needing/including/getting any support from the other party.
The Bush Tax cuts originally passed the House along party lines (uh oh, the "Party of No" were the Democrats!!!), but it enjoyed bipartisan support in the Senate. I am unsure of what other measures of healthcare reform-stature passed strictly on party lines in the Senate and House from 1994 - 2006, but I am certainly open to hearing about them.
By the way, someone earlier asked about examples of the Democrats acting as a unified front to stop bills, implying that the Republicans' latest strategy is unprecedented. The House Democrats in 2001 (minus 12 of them) certainly exemplify that, as well as the Democrats in the Senate in 2005 who worked on filibuster techniques to stop many bills and even wanted to implement that to stop Supreme Court nominees. So, let's not pretend that parliamentary tricks and blockage are monopolized by one political party. That's a mere campaigning/talking point from the Democratic party.
Quote:
(At the same time, I'm fine with people below poverty level paying close to no taxes.)
Do you believe in paying $0 in taxes? I don't particularly agree that people in society should get a free ride and use services without contributing to their costs, even if it is a small contribution.
What is nice is that not only can you track the mean through time but it also records the individual polls that went into it. For example, there is a Quinnipiac poll from May that shows that 40% approve and 51% disapprove. Many of the polls show that Americans disapprove of the health care plan by anywhere from a couple of points to many points. This is a vast shift from where healthcare bill support stood even one year ago.
This is decent for establishing a general trendline, but it still doesn't answer the objection I raised earlier: that part of the "oppose" group has included liberals who don't like the current plan because it doesn't include a public option. (Yours truly would have been included in this group during different instantiations of the bill.) The couple of times I read deeper analysis on this--and if I could find links right now, I'd share them--this group consisted of about 10-15% of voters.
And even putting that objection aside: I don't think one can look at these polls and claim something like, "Health care was rammed through Congress despite the will of the people!!!" or some such. We're a pretty split nation over this and many other issues.
Quote:
I think there is confusion on "ramming." At least when I hear "rammed", I interpret it as the leadership pushes a bill and garners only their own party members to support it without needing/including/getting any support from the other party.
Anyone who claims that Obama and Reid DIDN'T try to garner Republican support OR include Republican ideas in this health care bill is being completely disingenuous. You can look at the policy itself and see pretty readily that it's founded in large part on Republican party platform health care ideas from the 90s. Since when have Democrats championed free market exchanges on health care? Since when was ditching single-payer, or even eliminating the possibility of producing a public option to compete with private plans, NOT an ideal in Republican circles? It's silly to suggest a bill that stalled in Congress in large part because Democrats tried to make it bi-partisan was "rammed" through. Sorry, that p.o.v. just isn't credible.
Quote:
The Bush Tax cuts originally passed the House along party lines (uh oh, the "Party of No" were the Democrats!!!), but it enjoyed bipartisan support in the Senate. I am unsure of what other measures of healthcare reform-stature passed strictly on party lines in the Senate and House from 1994 - 2006, but I am certainly open to hearing about them.
Of course Dems have been a party of "No!" before. This isn't specific to any one party--though it must be noted that Republicans have recently taken filibustering to astronomical levels that would make Madison spin around in his grave. In any case, there are plenty of times Republicans one-partied a major bill to pass legislation:
I don't know what you mean by "healthcare reform stature," but several of those budgets were huge--like, billions and billions of dollars in tax breaks and Republican-promoted spending (typically for military contracts), mostly for the supremely rich, being pushed by exactly one party.
But Dems have done this trick as well for their own issues. (And some of their one-party efforts are listed in that link above.)
Quote:
Do you believe in paying $0 in taxes? I don't particularly agree that people in society should get a free ride and use services without contributing to their costs, even if it is a small contribution.
I don't think it's fair or reasonable to expect an individual working full time making $15,000/year--possibly with family--to be expected to pay taxes for much of anything. Even the Fair Tax folks like Neil Boortz agree with this point. Every dollar you earn at that subsistence level is immensely more valuable than a dollar for a billionaire--or someone with even a $100,000 income.
If you were proposing a nominal contribution, like all folks contribute a minimum of $10 to taxes, I could agree. But much more than that seems to unfairly punish the poor. We're way too wealthy of a nation to treat working citizens this way. It's just not fair to tax people that are below subsistence level incomes.
Last edited by K-SawDude; 06-14-2010 at 10:27 PM..
What should be the point of the Democratic party, to be conservative? Social liberalism, progressive taxation and mixed social free market economy is what the Democratic party has been all about for the last 60 years. If you ask me, they aren't liberal enough!
So if you think the path to victory in November is calling Democrats "too liberal", have at it.
You let me know when you hear southern democrats adopting the mantle of "too liberal". They KNOW that is a path to DEFEAT.
60 years ago democrats were arguing for "social liberalism" ie gay rights? Fascinating....
Mark my words: in 2012, the question won't be which red states turn blue, but rather, which blue states turn red. There will not be a single red state that turns blue in 2012.
Outside of being an old thread it does make sense to re-visit with the 10 elections coming up.
But, looking at the Federal level anymore does it even matter? Outside of being so currupt they are all the same. You have socialist (progressives) against neo-cons (compassionate conservatives) In other words the question remains. How many ways to camoflague a turd?
Just like Obama and McCain there isn't any difference. Hey let's us look at these two currupt goons for comparison.
Obama: Socialized health care, open borders, police action social programs in the Middle East, increased welfare through Fannie/Freddie, raise taxes for producers, give handouts to non-producers.
McCain: Ok, for some reason he is now the opposite But is that just for the press and American's with short memories?
Let's see, open borders and author of the 1986 amnesty act, helped place Arizona in the shape it is now by countering past request for assistance, one of the co-authors of Medicare Part D, which has began to hurt many seniors as will this current Obama plan will hurt all. One of the sponsors of the Home Ownership of America Act of 2005 under Bush and the Republican congress that gave us depressed housing and foreclosure issues. And of course the never ending Middle East situation of the day. Folks, as an FYI five members of my family including myself has spent time in the Middle East helllhole locked and loaded since 1948. So it isn't just Iraq and Afghanistan, they have been killing each other for 5,000 years.
Now, there are two reasons at the Federal level. Let's look at Georgia.
We had Barnes, wow! he was a whippy wooo Let's see, like now he is promising Utopia through a massive welfare state, supposed to be pro transportation, ugh! last term? Spends his day as an ambulance INS chasing lawyer to stop deportation of illegals, Hates Prop 387 which has assisted in reducing deadly accidents and crime. and when governor, he basically bankrupted Georgia.
Perdue, oh Sweet Baby Jesus where do we begin. Well, when he ran he hated Barnes, would do everything different, he was elected and for around 12-18 months he did, then he was re-elected. Heck! with this said maybe we should just vote for Barnes as Perdue has turned into his twin. Wishy washy, supports it, don't support it, begs from the feds, and now taking a business venture to Communist Cuba. Let's see Cuba and business Almost reminds me of Obama and the free market.
So, to keep it brief. They are all crooked cronies. It's all big money now folks. As we move closer and closer to a Banana Republic it will even become more scary
In favor of whom? Sometimes (often?) the lesser of two evils is all we are offered by the major parties.
Hillary Clinton could be offered up in 2012 if Obama continues to go into the tank. No way the Dem's are going to let the nomination be Obama if their data shows that he will routed by the Republican which seems more and more likely. Stranger things have happened!
"A near-record majority of Americans believe the Democratic Party is "too liberal." That's according to a new Gallup Poll that finds 49 percent of Americans believe Democrats have moved too far left. That number is up 10 points since 2008 and just 1 point shy of the all-time record set in 1994 when Democrats lost control of congress. According to the poll, 38 percent now believe the Dems' views are "about right"—a 12 point decrease since 2008.
By comparison, 40 percent of those surveyed believe Republicans are "too conservative"—down 3 points since '08— and 41 percent believe the party's "about right." That number marks a 7 percent increase in the last two years."
I'm Minnesotan. What do you expect. And I've voted for *MANY*more Republican candidates over the years than I have Democrat. You can blame GWB, Palin, and their ilk for my change of heart.
I for one say that the Republican party is better without you. Anyone that ever supported a Republican and then turned around to vote for the Community Organizer in Chief is someone that WON'T be missed!
And your point is? There have been a lot of whites who've relocated here from the Southeast, but not nearly as many that have from the Northeast. To believe there is some sort of demographic symmetry in that you are extremely mistaken. But lets run with the whole "they came from alabama, tennessee, etc" line: Many of them of them are young DINKs who came here to escape their little conservative towns. Not exactly the demographic the Republican party is going after.
Those are old numbers and guesses. Better information can be found at the local level. For instance, Gwinnett county estimates that there are at least 80,000 Koreans there alone that's not counting the large communties in Dekalb, Fulton, and Cobb....or the tons of Indians, South East Asians, etc.
Look out indeed. Georgia in 2010 is more diverse, younger, and as recent elections have shown more liberal. The old rules no longer apply.
This to me sums up everything that is wrong with the Republican party's outreach to the minority community.
LOL, ok.
Please provide proof that many more northern transplants are moving here than from surrounding states to back up your claim.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,987,215 times
Reputation: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by suprascooby22
Hillary Clinton could be offered up in 2012 if Obama continues to go into the tank. No way the Dem's are going to let the nomination be Obama if their data shows that he will routed by the Republican which seems more and more likely. Stranger things have happened!
Apparently you don't remember 1996 when those on the right claimed there was "no way" the Democrats would run with Clinton....he won in a landslide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does it really matter anymore?
In other words the question remains. How many ways to camoflague a turd?
Let's see, like now he is promising Utopia through a massive welfare state, supposed to be pro transportation, ugh! last term? Spends his day as an ambulance INS chasing lawyer to stop deportation of illegals, Hates Prop 387 which has assisted in reducing deadly accidents and crime. and when governor, he basically bankrupted Georgia. 
to Communist Cuba. Let's see Cuba and business
And I've voted for *MANY*more Republican candidates over the years than I have Democrat. You can blame GWB, Palin, and their ilk for my change of heart.
