| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Darth Marley
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 105
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| petrjanda wrote: | | Darth Marley wrote: |
In terms of lowering actual health care costs, everyone being insured doesn't help.
|
Ever heard of economies of scale? |
Of course.
Why do you ask? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1486
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| juniper wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | juniper wrote: | | big dave wrote: | | mcgruff wrote: | | big dave wrote: | | that's an admission that obamacare is health redistribution if i've ever seen it. |
FTFY |
it doesn't magically stop being socialism based on what you spend the money on.
"healthy people will opt out, leaving behind a high-risk, high-cost pool." because healthy people don't want to pay for everyone's health care.
"So you have to also have a mandate, requiring that people buy insurance. And you can’t do that without subsidies, so that lower-income people can afford their policies." so now healthy people are paying for both sick people and the poor.
by definition... wealth redistribution.
why doesn't food fall into this category, or homes? |
1) calling it socialism doesn't magically make it a silly thing to do.
2) food and housing are tangible consumables, insurance is not.
yup. that's the way insurance works. you pool risk. Ordinarily, people too expensive to insure in other cases (for instance, for consumer purchases, car insurance, house insurance etc) are expected to do without. but some people (not you I take it) see some kind of injustice if people are priced out of health insurance as selling your body is not an option.
Out of curiosity, what should someone who has "pre existing conditions" do? Let's for now not consider people who foolishly didn't have insurance because they didn't feel like it and now have a tumour the size of an organ in their belly, but consider those that were forced off their insurance by temporary unemployment or the like. your system lack all semblance of sanity to take the hard line approach you seem to want to take. |
Your post is chock-full of fallacies.
1. Strawman. He didn't call it socialism, nor (as you are thereby implying) did he condemn it for being socialism; he condemned it for being a large-scale redistribution of wealth. We are already substantially socialistic, with some 15% to 20% of our GDP going to wealth redistribution. His argument is obviously that we don't need a lot more wealth redistribution, not that it's wrong "because it's socialism".
|
| big dave wrote: | | it doesn't magically stop being socialism based on what you spend the money on. |
he called it socialism pretty directly. |
So you want to stick with your strawman? He didn't say that all things socialist are bad; he's alluding to the majority position of Americans that this much more of it is too much. If you'd care to discuss whether this much more it is too much, please do so. Otherwise, don't waste forum space responding to this point again.
| juniper wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | 2. Meaningless. People don't need tangible consumables? The government provides people with money to buy food. The government broadly subsidizes housing providers (not just big ones, but anyone who wants to do it) to provide low-cost housing the needy. Both are more basic, essential human needs than health care. The government stays the fuck OUT of the business of producing, processing, and distributing food or directly constructing, marketing and managing housing for the needy for a reason: doing such things destroys competition and fucks up the markets. (The government getting into the business of health insurance, thereby subsidizing various producers, providers, and managers of care and insurance, and the resulting degradation of competition, is the primary reason our health care costs have risen so much, a phenomenon that occurred only in the decades since they got into the business).
So, the question is, why does the government need to stick its dick not only into the business of directly managing health care for the needy but now everybody? One might claim it is reduce costs, which a well-managed single-payer system would do, but that's not what Obamacare is. So, not being able to convince people to change to a single-payer system, why did they go forward with this monstrosity called Obamacare? |
housing and food ARE more basic and it's delivery via private entities is a proven success. we have discovered it is relatively easy to both grow, deliver and price food. It isn't perfect either, but we feed almost the entire population with out current imperfect, partly free market, partly govt subsidized system.
But the fact that food and shelther are more basic means that consumers are rather good at getting it (in addition to producers making it). People won't forgo food; they will go through all sorts of things to get it. Health insurance is different. It's only important occasionally, when your health goes south. |
You point out meaningless differences. It's something you buy, and the social safety net for it can be provided the same way we provide it for everything else: by putting the money for it in the hands of the needy, and/or indiscriminately subsidizing providers to provide it at little or no cost. It doesn't make any difference whether it's something you only need occasionally, just like it doesn't make any difference that you eat three times a day but only sleep in your bed once. The need for coverage is constant, and the premiums paid for that coverage are just as periodic as rent or grocery bills.
You're just throwing out garbage responses as though blurting anything out creates the illusion of successful refutation. It doesn't.
| juniper wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | The anwer is: because the Democrats want to dramatically increase the amount of wealth redistribution, and they hope to disguise a massive new form of wealth redistribution as an attempt to reduce health care costs. |
I thought obama was in the pocket of bankers? I guess we mean philanthropic bankers? |
I suppose you'd like national politics to be a simple as building with Legos, but it's not. He's in the pocket of bankers because he couldn't fulfill his destiny of being the Chocolate Che of Change if he didn't get in office, and "the means justify the ends".
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sugar
Guru
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:52 pm Post subject: [Rtaints] suck up to Clinton; Orwell spins in his grave. |
|
|
| Quote: | Republicans rewriting history on Clinton
The Romney campaign is suddenly lauding Clinton as a wise moderate who reached across the aisle and inspired Republicans to meet him halfway. Romney surrogate John Sununu is extolling Clinton's "credibility" on economic issues. Paul Ryan says Clinton is reminding us "how good things were in the 1990s," when the budget was balanced and 20 million new jobs were created. And back in June, conservative activist and ex-presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Clinton was so pragmatic and conciliatory that "Republicans want to get the bumper strips that say, 'I miss Bill.'"
Obviously, Republicans are embracing Bill for political reasons. He is making an eloquent case for President Obama's re-election -- most recently in his convention speech Wednesday night. So the GOP, mindful of the ex-president's 69 percent approval rating and the public's nostalgia for the peace-and-prosperity '90s, is intent on convincing voters that Obama is no Clinton. This critique of Obama as a failure hinges partly on the idea that Clinton was a rousing success.
Orwell spins, and the mind reels. Isn't this the same Bill Clinton the Republicans impeached in 1998, wasting a year of America's time because the guy had lied under oath about sex? Their moral crusade prompted a substantial majority of Americans to side with Clinton.
Let's revisit the '90s -- the actual '90s, not the alternative-reality '90s the GOP is determined to dwell in -- and take a look at what Republicans were actually saying and doing while the Big Dog had the big job. |
http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/opinion/sbt-republicans-rewriting-history-on-clinton-20120911,0,208770.story
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1486
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| juniper wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | You're just being stubborn. It's all very clear.
He was specifically asked whether he would support repeal of the New Hampshire law. He responded by saying that he would, and side-stepping the propaganda trap by reaffirming his well-known general position that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. You can't get any clearer than that. |
It could be more clear. He could have said he supports a repeal of the law, but has no power to do so in NH. He could have said it doesn't matter what he thinks because it is an NH law.
| Quote: |
While his general position on gay marriage could theoretically matter, in the extremely unlikely event that both houses of Congress pass a law mandating that gay marriage be legal in all 50 states, in which case he would have the opportunity to veto it, this is simply not going to happen, particularly with Democrats having been thrown out of the House on their asses and possibly even being on the verge of losing their narrow majority in the Senate. |
Ok, now we are getting to it. So, it does matter if the president has these opinions. Your unlikely scenario could possibly happen, so why should they support him. Gays know that religious nuts view Romney with suspicion. Without his support for these issues, they may abandon him. He may go through all sorts of contortions for it.
In any case, he has made his voice clear on the matter. Gays know where he stands and it isn't with them. |
What are you talking about? You act like somebody asked gays to support him. This thread is about an accusation that Romney is going to repeal the NH gay marriage law, which is bullshit.
What the guy in the video really wanted to know was whether the Federal government would, for the purposes of determining spousal benefit eligibility, recognize homosexual marriages sanctioned at state level. He was just to addled or feeble-minded to articulate the question. (And that isn't the president's decision, either, by the way.) Then some troll in here decided to misrepresent what the conversation was about, creating a thread with a title that is a complete and asinine fabrication.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| petrjanda wrote: | | Initially he was for abolishing Obamacare to try to get as much of the conservative vote as possible, now that he's leading the party, he's turning left by saying he wants to abolish only the individual mandate, but leave pre-existing condition in |
With no individual mandate, it is not forced and remains left up to the states. So again, I don't understand the flip-flop.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rewriting? He's long been considered an opportunist to get reelected. This isn't news.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
petrjanda
Veteran
Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 1557
Location: Brno, Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | petrjanda wrote: | | Initially he was for abolishing Obamacare to try to get as much of the conservative vote as possible, now that he's leading the party, he's turning left by saying he wants to abolish only the individual mandate, but leave pre-existing condition in |
With no individual mandate, it is not forced and remains left up to the states. So again, I don't understand the flip-flop. |
As far as I understand it Obamacare is not just the individual mandate.
_________________
There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The mandate is the problem most people have with the law. Many Republicans have even commented that reform is needed. Whether or not they're getting on board with reform because it is inevitable is a different issue.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
petrjanda
Veteran
Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 1557
Location: Brno, Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | The mandate is the problem most people have with the law. Many Republicans have even commented that reform is needed. Whether or not they're getting on board with reform because it is inevitable is a different issue. |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/10/romney-obamacare-repeal_n_1872667.html
Seriously, there's only a number of times you can possibly tolerate a guy flip-flopping like this. Now he's back on the "repeal Obamacare entirely" wagon again. Romney shifts positions like a whore changes condoms.
_________________
There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Merged a bunch of posts to this one.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
juniper
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 756
Location: EU
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | juniper wrote: |
he called it socialism pretty directly. |
So you want to stick with your strawman? He didn't say that all things socialist are bad; he's alluding to the majority position of Americans that this much more of it is too much. If you'd care to discuss whether this much more it is too much, please do so. Otherwise, don't waste forum space responding to this point again. |
I spent one sentence saying that he implied socialist = bad. He certainly called it socialist. and from what I know of him he thinks socialist = bad. However, that was ONE sentence. The first point isn't in dispute. the second (that he thinks socialist policies are bad), I will leave him to dispute. I only mentioned it because one policy (as big as it is) doesn't make a system socialist.
| BoneKracker wrote: | | You point out meaningless differences. It's something you buy, and the social safety net for it can be provided the same way we provide it for everything else: by putting the money for it in the hands of the needy, and/or indiscriminately subsidizing providers to provide it at little or no cost. It doesn't make any difference whether it's something you only need occasionally, just like it doesn't make any difference that you eat three times a day but only sleep in your bed once. The need for coverage is constant, and the premiums paid for that coverage are just as periodic as rent or grocery bills. |
it's absolutely not a meaningless distinction. if you can't see something so apparent, I can't do anything about it. You can go your whole life or many years without health insurance. In fact, many of your countrymen do, and in your insane country that might be the rational decision to make (you are young and healthy). You can't go more than a week without food and shelter the same. They are completely different products. The fact that you only *possibly* need it occasionally is what makes it a rational decision for some to go without.
however, you still haven't addressed how pre existing conditions should be paid for without covering the least risky. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sugar
Guru
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:11 pm Post subject: Why [R*censored*] Are Wrong in Wanting 'No More Solyndras' |
|
|
| Quote: | There is an urgent need for investment in new technologies in America. There is an urgent need for venture risk in America, and the federal government must be involved through programs like the Department of Energy's loan guarantees.
Solar technology in the U.S. faces a big, uphill challenge from foreign competitors who have easy access to capital and inexpensive labor. The cost of building manufacturing plants for solar cells is in the billions of dollars. That kind of investment cannot be delivered with venture capitalist or even bank money. Uncle Sam has to be involved, and because solar is still a developing technology, it will continue to be a high-risk venture.
Big questions deserve bold answers. To the question of whether a man could reach the moon, America answered with the Apollo program. To the question of whether a revolution in global technology and communication was possible, America answered with the Internet. These high-risk projects were transformed into world changing innovations because of federal investment. |
| Quote: | But instead of trying to address the need to support American efforts to lead in innovative renewable energy technologies, House Republicans are seeking to shut promising and less costly new clean energy projects from the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee program.
Interestingly, in this bill House Republicans aren't trying to end the loan guarantee program, which would seem to be the logical course if they believe it to be fatally flawed. Instead, they are limiting the remaining loan authority to projects for which applications have already been submitted, which are mostly high risk, capital intensive fossil fuel and nuclear projects. This approach will leave taxpayers at risk of even higher losses if the projects fail, and have taxpayers supporting technologies that do not deliver the return on investment of clean, renewable energy.
When Steve Jobs passed away last year, people around the world praised his life and work. Steve not only had the vision to succeed, he had the guts to fail. The creator of world-changing technology like the iPad once designed a computer so flawed that he was forced to advise owners to pick it up and drop it whenever it froze. But Jobs didn't give up; instead, he drew inspiration from his missteps. He kept trying, kept innovating and he ultimately won countless more risk missions than he lost. What worked for Jobs has worked for America before, and it must work for America again. We cannot abandon investment in technologies. We must oppose the "No More Solyndras Act." |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-mike-honda/why-republicans-are-wrong_b_1882434.html
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose
Last edited by sugar on Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sugar
Guru
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:31 pm Post subject: [Mittens] Worst week ever |
|
|
| Quote: | Mitt Romney’s Worst Week Ever: Three Explanations
.........................
Why must Romney, a multimillionaire, push for highly unpopular tax cuts for the wealthy in an era of guilded inequality? Because his base demands it. If such cuts are bad economics (see the Bush administration, 2001-2009), bad fiscal policy (ditto) and unpopular with the broad electorate, so what? The Republican nominee must support tax cuts for the wealthiest -- no matter how much it costs him in credibility or votes.
The list goes on and on. Indeed, Romney's ill-fated foreign policy attack this week may be derived from the same impulse to appease the fantasies that have taken root in the Republican base, which clings to its belief that Obama is anti-American and vaguely in cahoots with terrorists (though presumably not the ones he has had assassinated).
Romney was a fairly successful governor who made a valuable breakthrough in an extremely complex policy arena: health care. His particular brand of business success would probably not be an unmitigated political boon under any circumstances. But any positive political effects have been buried amid Republican protests that the very wealthiest require additional tax breaks and the poorest need more "skin in the game."
Democrats would've painted Romney as a corporate marauder in any case. But Republican policy demands turned the effort into a simple paint-by-numbers exercise.
Apparently some Republicans think Romney is dragging the party down. He's not. The party is killing him. |
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-14/mitt-romney-s-worst-week-ever-three-explanations.html
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big dave
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| until there's a constitutional mandate that expenses will not exceed 95% of the previous year's government revenues and every citizen of the US has express standing to sue, it's utterly stupid to agree to spending. dems did it under bush 1... they made claims that the tax hikes would be offset by 3x spending cuts. the tax hikes got approved and the spending cuts never came. dems are fucking liars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big dave
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| this is silly. anyone in the startup / VC sector knows this is outright false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I can assure you that sugar has had the qualifying academic courses to know what he's talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The GOP needs just three more state legislatures to invoke an Article V constitutional convention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1486
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is just more left-wing denialism and Orwellian double-speak. It's not Romney who had a bad week, but Obama.
1. Hugely disappointing job growth and household earnings reports essentially destroys all credibility his claims the economy is improving and that people are better off than they were 4 years ago.
2. Roof caves in on Obama foreign policy, with anti-American uprisings all across the Middle East, and his undefended embassy in the country he single-handedly went to war to overthrow (without Congressional approval) being overrun and his ambassador killed.
The supposedly "mainstream media" (e.g. left-leaning NBC, CNN, Bloomberg, NYT, etc.) can rush to the President's defense from this catastrophe, conspire to twist reality and play all the mind games they want, and tell people what they ought to think about these things (including describing a bone fide criticism as a "gaffe" and throwing up a cacophony of red herrings and lies, such as the one that Romney wants tax cuts for the rich, or the one that Romney wants to raise taxes on the middle class), but the long term effect is the destruction of their own credibility with those we are not stupid.
There are 23 million people out of work, household incomes are at a 30-year low, and there were black Islamist flags, instead of the U.S. flag, flying over our sovereign embassies in several countries this week. It takes a special kind of moron not to realize that these are not a positive outcomes, no matter what they want to believe. The emperor has no clothes, and his tiny pecker is showing.
And, it takes a lot of denial and a staggering lack of journalistic integrity to sum up such a week by saying it was teh wurst week evar for the opposition of those who bear responsibility. 
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1486
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | The GOP needs just three more state legislatures to invoke an Article V constitutional convention. |
That would be something to see!
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are not obligated to remove the rtaint tag, but if not, I'll merge it with the other thread. You are welcome to try explaining how it is anything but intended to incite a specific reaction.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
He's the GOP version of Kerry and or Gore. Not at all charismatic, and not at all able to relate to the general public. Unfortunately, "Not Obama" isn't good enough.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sugar
Guru
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | You are not obligated to remove the rtaint tag, but if not, I'll merge it with the other thread. You are welcome to try explaining how it is anything but intended to incite a specific reaction. |
it's a convenience.
In any case, I have removed it.
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Merged.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1486
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | He's the GOP version of Kerry and or Gore. Not at all charismatic, and not at all able to relate to the general public. Unfortunately, "Not Obama" isn't good enough. |
He's nowhere near as charismatic as Obama, but con men are the most charismatic among us -- they know what works for them, and they use it. I don't see that Romney is any less able to relate to the general public than Obama: the man who famously tried to talk to farmers about the price of arugula in Whole Foods, who described white working-class voters as angry rednecks clinging to their bibles and guns, and who insists people are better off than they were four years ago.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1486
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
The article sugar cites is bullshit (surprise, surprise). The Republicans (Bush) are the ones who started the program. They aren't ending it because they think investing in alternative energy is a wise thing to do. They are constraining Obama's program because he has abused it, pushing through loans as favors to cronies and "campaign contributors", who had no business getting loans because they wouldn't have qualified normally (i.e., didn't have a good business plan, didn't have enough of their own funding, etc.), and who then mysteriously squandered billions of taxpayer dollars, went out of business, and delivered nil as a return on investment to the taxpayers.
The author's apparent confusion is understandable, since he has his head deeply embedded in his ass.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
