Well dont post in it then and you'll save yourself the time. I didnt post it to justify anything, more to show hypocrisy.
You have no response on these policies? None at all? The only purpose was to point at republicans? That is not even a layup.
1. Cap and Trade, I dont agree with, never have. Seems like a terrible idea. 2. Immigration reform, I am definitely for it in a sense of securing the borders but fast tracking people to citizenship at the same time. I believe our economy needs these folks. 3. Deficit spending is good and bad. Like I said the other day, deficit spending is needed in a recession on infrastructure and jobless benefits other programs should be cut back. 4. Healthcare reform, Im against the individual mandate, I have said this before here as well. But I am for healthcare reform and most of whats in this law.
No you don't have to. I asked you to, and you refuse. I don't respect too many people on here, but I do you. And since we seem to be on opposite sides of the Obama administration, I hoped you could explain to me how it is you think these things are good for America. A wild assumption. But I have been very clear that I do not agree with most of the policies pushed forth by Obama. If for some reason, ten years from now he decides he was wrong and thinks some of his ideas were cuckoo, I am not going to waste time saying "nah-nah". I am just going to be thrilled he figured it out. And if the aisle were reversed, I would probably vote for Obama. But the fact is, that the aisle never really does reverse, regardless of what they say in a campaign. It always seems to be a choice between bad and worse - not different.
I think the flaw in your assumption is that I agree with everything Obama has proposed, if that is it. Then you are a very mistaken. Its just my personal believe that republicans are worst, so you are right it is a choice of bad or worst.
I think both parties have done their fair share of flip flopping on issues. Hell the Democrats used to be the ones who were slave owners, and now they are the self proclaimed minority champions. To be honest, in my opinion there really isn't that much of a difference in the parties these days.
Thanks for answering. :thumb: Immigration - How do we do this? Amnesty like Reagan? It would be a bigger problem today. Guest-worker programs? Do you see anyone tackling this without trying to maximize the latino vote? Deficit spending - but most of the deficit spending has gone to bailouts(yes Bush started it), and shoring up govt budgets. Not much has gone into actual shovel ready jobs. You don't think that instead of borrowing and spending on this, that small business incentives or tax breaks for the private citizen would have enabled more $ to go back into the system? All I hear about is how that banks got bailed out, and now won't lend $. And state budgets are still in trouble because they didn't really reduce spending, and tax revenues are down because business is not expanding. I can personally attest to canceling a planned expansion of my own business for the last two yrs. Congress looking at me like a t-bone steak has not encouraged me to move forward in the near future either. And fear over what will happen to small business is what is driving the unemployment rate, not govt spending. Healthcare reform - I think everyone agrees that healthcare is outrageously expensive and inefficient. But the individual mandate is the fulcrum of this legislation. If you don't agree with it, how does it work? I ask because I don't know. I think drastic steps need to be taken, but I am inclined to think that govt is regulating the wrong things. I don't think price fixing helps at all, on any level. Both sides have done this, and it's gotten us where we are today. I don't think an expansion of that is going to help.
Well I would not say that, but I would say you agree more with him than I do! :hihi: How do you feel about his choice of dog?:rofl:
TheDude;1091135]Thanks for answering. :thumb: Thanks for answering. Of course they will try to maximize the latino vote, but Obama's first intention was to put it off, until Arizona forced his hand, which actually was a good thing, I just dont agree with the language of the law itself. I think he tried to maximize the vote more with the Sotomayor nomination. My plan would be to secure the borders basically at all cost and for those that are here already, give them a 2 year window to display the necessary attributes to become an american citizen, take the test, etc. After those 2 years if you are caught, you are gone, no questions asked. My problem with this is that tax cuts are not the solution for every economic problem. The bailouts where crap no matter who started and finished it. Yes Obama was dead wrong for bailing out GM. The stimulus in theory is a good idea imo and he did offer tax credits and cuts for those small businesses that hired. But I am well aware of the idea of creating false demand, however, in a recession people save more than they spend and thats not really a good solution in the short-term, it extends a recession when people just hold on to the money instead of it being in the economy. Tax cuts are good in a lot of instances, but not a end all be all solution in a recession. The healthcare reform can work without the mandate, because competition has been created with the interstate clause that I believe its in the bill. Also, as a healthcare executive I would be excited of the idea of 30 million more customers. The problem I have with healthcare is its not guaranteed and its extremely expensive. If I have a problem and I go the doctor, but my insurance wont cover it because they say its a pre-existing condition, but I have been paying into my policy for years. How do you fix something like that?
But the language mirrors the federal law, almost verbatim. The only real difference is that they address the possibility of profiling and specifically prohibit it. The purpose was not to raise conflict with federal law, but rather with federal policy. Which apparently is a lax attitude towards enforcement. Forcing the fed to get off their ass can't be a bad thing. Instead Obama is suing Arizona. :insane: Yes, but who wouldn't. I am with that, and you are not going to like this, but Palin said basically the same thing recently. What about future immigration? Guest worker program? Obviously we have a demand for them at a low wage, but will the demand be the same when everyone is on the books? Things will be more expensive, but breaking the law for cheaper lettuce should not be a choice we are willing to make. True on tax cuts, but so much of the money was not spent, and just spent on shoring up state budgets. Did that really help more than a tax cut? And if the stimulus is good in theory, what is it in reality? Has it really done even a fraction of what was promised? I confess to thinking that govt intervention was needed at the end of Bush's term, because they made it sound like a meteor was about to hit us. In retrospect, it is obvious that few people knew wtf they were talking about. But the govt seized the opportunity to spend more $. Now they are talking about another spending spree in congress. It's madness. But it is in there. They insisted for a reason. Why is that? IMO, the whole medicare/medicade thing is to blame. It's as insane as social security and it needs to go away. If I was a drug company that developed a pill to stop heart attacks, would it be in my best interest to make it so damn expensive that only a segment can afford it? Don't you think that treatment costs are outrageous because of govt price fixing? I mean a Ferrari costs what it does because it is targeted to a small segment. But not all cars are. There are plenty of cars that are affordable. And with a growing elderly population, it is in the drug companies best interest to make drugs that appeal to the masses. Otherwise they are all just Ferrari producers. I think the govt protecting the consumer from scams and abuse is a good thing. But it seems like making my medication a fixed price for a huge segment of society will guarantee that I will charge private insurance owners more $ for the same treatment.
