Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2014 5:52:45 GMT -5
SourceSeriously, a winner?! Is she even paying attention? She says it's not about politics, but calls it a winner for Dems. I wonder what she'll say when the Dems lose the Senate soon?
|
|
|
Post by musicman on Mar 21, 2014 6:02:08 GMT -5
She's delusional.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Mar 21, 2014 6:12:56 GMT -5
It will certainly be interesting to see how many candidates run with support of the ACA as a centerpiece of their campaign for election/re-election.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2014 8:17:52 GMT -5
She is proud of obamacare. I wonder why.
|
|
|
Post by darave on Mar 21, 2014 8:39:27 GMT -5
I tried looking up her job resume. I can't find that she ever had a real job just political positions.I guess if you never worked in the real world the ACA in her mind is a success.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 21, 2014 15:37:53 GMT -5
What would you expect her to say? That she thinks it will cost them the Senate in '14? That might become self-fulfilling. She's got to defend it because the only chance the Dems have to keep their hands on Congress is to convince people it's true.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 21, 2014 16:02:11 GMT -5
SourceSeriously, a winner?! Is she even paying attention? She says it's not about politics, but calls it a winner for Dems. I wonder what she'll say when the Dems lose the Senate soon? I'm sure, in her district, it is a winner. Let her convince her colleagues to run on it. That can only be good for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 21, 2014 16:04:03 GMT -5
Pelosi is just another leech that's never held a job in her life. In her tiny, distopian world, I'm sure Puppettax is considered wonderful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 0:23:18 GMT -5
Pelosi would have done better to keep her mouth shut rather than try and trumpet an issue that the Republicans are only too glad to make a centerpiece of the campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Cuchulain on Mar 22, 2014 0:46:47 GMT -5
Nancy D'Alesandro - what a gift to all humankind. "Affordable! Affordable! Affordable! Affordable!" Obama's "signature" legislation and legacy from which he is now trying to dissociate himself.
Much in the fashion of his comrade in crime John F'in Kerry - author of "The New Soldier." Ever read it? I doubt it - he suppressed its publication after he decided to run for office.
Unfortunately for him, it's been placed on the Congressional Record where any citizen so inclined can download it for free, as I have done.
It's very interesting reading.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 22, 2014 11:11:05 GMT -5
Pelosi would have done better to keep her mouth shut rather than try and trumpet an issue that the Republicans are only too glad to make a centerpiece of the campaign. She would have. But there's a trap here: the Pubs could form a circular firing squad by crowing about what they're going to do IF they get control of Congress. Instead, each Pub should ask voters whether they're really, truly happy with Obamacare. They're never going to get the votes of those who answer "yes", but they might get the votes of those who answer "not really". Added to the "no" votes they'll be able to achieve office except in districts heavily dominated by Dems - cities, mostly. Then when they actually have congress, especially if they somehow manage a veto-proof majority (I consider this unlikely), they ought to go to work. More succinctly: keep a low profile and don't get the Dems a cattle-prod they can use by making a lot of promises.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 23, 2014 8:12:28 GMT -5
Pelosi would have done better to keep her mouth shut rather than try and trumpet an issue that the Republicans are only too glad to make a centerpiece of the campaign. She would have. But there's a trap here: the Pubs could form a circular firing squad by crowing about what they're going to do IF they get control of Congress. Instead, each Pub should ask voters whether they're really, truly happy with Obamacare. They're never going to get the votes of those who answer "yes", but they might get the votes of those who answer "not really". Added to the "no" votes they'll be able to achieve office except in districts heavily dominated by Dems - cities, mostly. Then when they actually have congress, especially if they somehow manage a veto-proof majority (I consider this unlikely), they ought to go to work. More succinctly: keep a low profile and don't get the Dems a cattle-prod they can use by making a lot of promises. The problem with that is, the Dems will use their silence, and the LR media, to claim the Pubs are "really for it, they just don't like it because the 'first black President' signed it". Racism is all they've got left, and they are already starting to use it.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 23, 2014 9:54:58 GMT -5
The problem with that is, the Dems will use their silence, and the LR media, to claim the Pubs are "really for it, they just don't like it because the 'first black President' signed it". Racism is all they've got left, and they are already starting to use it. They need a strategist with Rove or Atwater's brains, but not their utter disregard for ethics.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 24, 2014 8:23:15 GMT -5
The problem with that is, the Dems will use their silence, and the LR media, to claim the Pubs are "really for it, they just don't like it because the 'first black President' signed it". Racism is all they've got left, and they are already starting to use it. They need a strategist with Rove or Atwater's brains, but not their utter disregard for ethics. No, they just need to go out and tell people what The Puppet is doing to them. Continually. Everyone isn't as stupid as Puppetworshipers, and simply putting out the facts will work in most cases. A lot of former serfs are realizing they've been lied to for at least 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Mar 24, 2014 15:59:49 GMT -5
Nancy D'Alesandro of the liberal scum political crooks of Baltimore
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2014 16:18:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Mar 24, 2014 16:30:00 GMT -5
Nanc is still blabbering huh?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 24, 2014 21:36:00 GMT -5
I don't know. With the LR media, Hollywood, and sports stars more than willing to line up to lie about everything from premiums, to how many are insured, to what is covered. there are a lot of LIV's out there that will believe it.
|
|
|
Post by Cuchulain on Mar 24, 2014 22:17:47 GMT -5
If you wait six months four years then Obamatax might become popular.But wait! There is more! So if you take the long view it'll get better? Nope! Financially crippling. It's as bankrupt as any Ponzi scheme will be after the first few iterations. Do the math - people are living long after the full retirement age and the ratio of workers contributing to the system to retirees receiving benefits from the system declines month by month, year by year. I don't expect Social Security to be there for my children in the 2050's and after when they reach retirement age. Isn't there just a possibility that if I had been paid the money taken out of my paycheck for Social Security, and the money contributed by my various employers into the system over the last half-century, money that should have been paid to me for my work rather than diverted into a Socialist boondoggle, that I would have been able to save it in an interest bearing account or to invest it in one of the many attractive - and safe - vehicles available in the Free Market?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 25, 2014 7:49:41 GMT -5
If you wait six months four years then Obamatax might become popular.But wait! There is more! So if you take the long view it'll get better? Nope! Financially crippling. It's as bankrupt as any Ponzi scheme will be after the first few iterations. Do the math - people are living long after the full retirement age and the ratio of workers contributing to the system to retirees receiving benefits from the system declines month by month, year by year. I don't expect Social Security to be there for my children in the 2050's and after when they reach retirement age. Isn't there just a possibility that if I had been paid the money taken out of my paycheck for Social Security, and the money contributed by my various employers into the system over the last half-century, money that should have been paid to me for my work rather than diverted into a Socialist boondoggle, that I would have been able to save it in an interest bearing account or to invest it in one of the many attractive - and safe - vehicles available in the Free Market? Social Security was sold on lies, just like Puppettax. The goal was never "retirement insurance" as it was sold, since the age set to collect was older than the life expectancy at that time. Everyone was supposed to pay in, then die before collecting. The Federal government was supposed to simply have that much more money to waste.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Mar 25, 2014 22:25:26 GMT -5
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. President Obama.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Mar 25, 2014 23:16:07 GMT -5
Social Security was sold on lies, just like Puppettax. The goal was never "retirement insurance" as it was sold, since the age set to collect was older than the life expectancy at that time. Everyone was supposed to pay in, then die before collecting. The Federal government was supposed to simply have that much more money to waste. Oh, give FDR some credit. Prior to SS, the life-trajectory of everyone outside of "the 1%" was: grow up, work, become self-sufficient, raise a family, grow old, grow too old to work, grow poor, become dependent on your children." The elderly were poorest class. SS gave them, not enough to live on, but enough to relieve the burden on their children. That's not such a bad thing. I don't think FDR saw SS as a way to make the elderly the RICHEST demographic. And I don't think he anticipated the generational "income inequality" that followed, as SS made it easier for people of means to leave MORE MONEY to their children. (Medicare helps, too. Nice to have young drywall hangers in Dundalk, just scraping by to support their own children, paying the bulk of the late-life health care costs, instead of having to sell 100 shares of that Exxon stock to pay the doctor.) Using excess FICA taxes to fund Leviathan, and hide the deficit, came long after FDR died. Don't blame him for what late-coming politicians did with his Grand Idea. We are the victims of unintended consequences. Blame FDR for not having a crystal ball-- and blame the voters for "gladly paying Tuesday, for a hamburger today." Then, blame the "elderly" for spending their "golden years" living in luxury senior developments and taking vacation cruises-- all on the backs of young, drywall hangers in Dundalk. (The FICA tax is as regressive as they come.) And the affluent elderly get to leave their OWN children a lot more money, too! Sooo-weet!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 23:30:58 GMT -5
FDR was prescient enough to realize that the signature achievement of the New Deal would eventually be on shaky ground as a pay-as-you-go-plan. What he didn't want was to saddle future generations with increasingly higher debt--or higher taxes, or both--as the number of retirees increased. What FDR envisioned was something similar to a contributory pension plan that would gradually build up surpluses now instead of debt later. He eventually got his way, but coalitions of both sides of Congress gradually switched the system to pay-as-you-go after FDR's death and on into the 1950s.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 25, 2014 23:45:25 GMT -5
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. President Obama. I did both... which did you lose?... <input id="mac_address" value="" type="hidden">
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Mar 26, 2014 4:58:13 GMT -5
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. President Obama. I did both... which did you lose?... <input id="mac_address" value="" type="hidden"> Good for you. Is that because of the ACA, or in spite of the ACA? Not to fear! Those in "Cadilac" plans will be dealt with! (managing the affairs of 300+M souls is demanding work- takes time)
|
|