Random Political comments...

Beasty said:
1.) So this is why the dems NEVER get anything done for active duty military? Funny how they can get other things that they want badly enough.
They can get the affordable care act passed and can't get decent annual cost of living raises for active duty? Riiight.

2.) The democrats started the expansion of welfare and has always been for it while like most programs the republicans wanted to cut and do away with it.

The Dems provided the money for the programs at the federal level, the least they could have done was make laws to assure that the program would be administered properly.

You choose to absolve them of responsibility. According to that logic the people who fund terrorist activities are in no way responsible for terrorism.

The people who bring drugs into the country are in no way responsible for the destruction of thousands of communities because they were not the ones on the neighborhood block till 5 am.

The republican states administered welfare just as poorly as the democratic states but they didn't want the program at all to begin with.

3.) Props to Obama on this, but the constituency of the left could care less about this achievement.

4.) Have you paid any attention the the gun laws of New York, Cali, Washington D.C. and Chicago? That boogey man is real and the democrats created him.

5.) Based on what exactly? What would this system be modeled after??
Click to expand...

1. I see what you're saying, but you have to remember something; politics. When it comes to this stuff we have to look past the result and look at the reasons why. Republicans were all for universal health care as far back as Nixon (Maybe even before that). Remember, the ACA is nothing more than a republican health plan. That's why Obama chose that model. He knew he could get it through. It was a win-win for both sides. Not to mention, it gave the republicans another issue they could fire up their base about. How often have you heard one of them say, "Elect me and I'll repeal Obamacare blah, blah and so forth!)? They were always going to eventually pass it. Except this way they could blame it on the Democrats.

Higher pay for the troops is another political game. Dems wanted to give every federal worker a wage hike of 3.8 to make up for years of no cost of living increases, but republicans said no. Think about this; as you said, the military largely votes to the right. If they begin to get good increases from democratic administrations, they will begin to vote democratic en mass. Especially given the fact that dems aren't as quick to send them into battle as the republicans are.

Which, to me, would be another reason to vote for dems if I were a soldier. Sure, a good bump in pay would be nice. But what good is it if I'm too dead to spend it. Especially if I died over oil fighting a country for no reason. The republicans know this. So, they are not about to give the dems a win with the military. They use the troops as pawns in more ways than one and it sucks.

2. Nope, how republicans run welfare in their states is all on them. Back in the late 80's early 90's that's what they clamored for; block grants with no strings attached. Republicans swore up and down they could do a better job, spend less money, and reduce the number of welfare recipients by getting them working if only the dems would just give them the money and get out of the way. So, Clinton signed off on it and fast forward almost 30 years and who has the highest number of welfare recipients? You guessed it, republican led states.

I'm sorry, but republicans deserve the blame on that, too. They got what they asked for and failed. You or I would be fired from a job for doing that.

3. It really depends. I think it's pretty fractious when it comes down to it on the left. I think location and occupation plays a big role in how important immigration is to the average liberal. But, you're right, a lot of us don't feel it's as big an issue as the right does.

4. There isn't a state in the union where gun ownership is illegal.

5. We can either start with one of the foreign examples and work out from there. Or, do our own thing and come up with a better way to do free college. It can be done successfully in the U.S. It has already been done successfully in the U.S.. California used to have a great free college program ... until Reagan. Republicans strike again.
 
Last edited:
Beasty said:
My ideal pic for president and because it's up in the air for me I may end up voting for whoever he endorses.




colin-powell-flag.jpg
Click to expand...

The only Republican that would have gotten my vote. A whole lot of blacks feel that way, too. I predict, if Hilary wins the nomination, he'll endorse her.
 
samson1701 said:
1. I see what you're saying, but you have to remember something; politics. When it comes to this stuff we have to look past the result and look at the reasons why. Republicans were all for universal health care as far back as Nixon (Maybe even before that). Remember, the ACA is nothing more than a republican health plan. That's why Obama chose that model. He knew he could get it through. It was a win-win for both sides. Not to mention, it gave the republicans another issue they could fire up their base about. How often have you heard one of them say, "Elect me and I'll repeal Obamacare blah, blah and so forth!)? They were always going to eventually pass it. Except this way they could blame it on the Democrats.

Higher pay for the troops is another political game. Dems wanted to give every federal worker a wage hike of 3.8 to make up for years of no cost of living increases, but republicans said no. Think about this; as you said, the military largely votes to the right. If they begin to get good increases from democratic administrations, they will begin to vote democratic en mass. Especially given the fact that dems aren't as quick to send them into battle as the republicans are.

Which, to me, would be another reason to vote for dems if I were a soldier. Sure, a good bump in pay would be nice. But what good is it if I'm too dead to spend it. Especially if I died over oil fighting a country for no reason. The republicans know this. So, they are not about to give the dems a win with the military. They use the troops as pawns in more ways than one and it sucks.

2. Nope, how republicans run welfare in their states is all on them. Back in the late 80's early 90's that's what they clamored for; block grants with no strings attached. Republicans swore up and down they could do a better job, spend less money, and reduce the number of welfare recipients by getting them working if only the dems would just give them the money and get out of the way. So, Clinton signed off on it and fast forward almost 30 years and who has the highest number of welfare recipients? You guessed it, republican led states.

I'm sorry, but republicans deserve the blame on that, too. They got what they asked for and failed. You or I would be fired from a job for doing that.

3. It really depends. I think it's pretty fractious when it comes down to it on the left. I think location and occupation plays a big role in how important immigration is to the average liberal. But, you're right, a lot of us don't feel it's as big an issue as the right does.

4. There isn't a state in the union where gun ownership is illegal.

5. We can either start with one of the foreign examples and work out from there. Or, do our own thing and come up with a better way to do free college. It can be done successfully in the U.S. It has already been done successfully in the U.S.. California used to have a great free college program ... until Reagan. Republicans strike again.
Click to expand...

1.) Interesting take. Sounds like a plausible political strategy.

2.) I'm not trying to completely exclude the republicans from blame. My overall point is that the democrats have baggage as well. There is really no reason to be a loyalist to any party. Slick Willie was on some bullshit with that NAFTA agreement too.

3.) It would make sense for location to influence concern. I could see that playing a role.

4.) My advice to the Dems on this would be to let it go. Their position on guns is a loosing political stance. Trying to win a southern state with their so called reasonable regulations is a no go. I'm not a political analyst by any means, but this is so obvious that it isn't funny. For some people gun rights are the main reason they vote.

I remember when Gore was running, I was gung ho for him to win and damn near everyone I talked to mentioned the fact that he had a tough stance on guns. If that was true no wonder he lost his home state in the election. Also nearly ALL the veterans that I know support the gun policies of the right.

Their stance on guns (dems) could be fixed easily so it's just annoying these days.

5.) I'm willing to look into this. Hopefully there are some good findings because the more we discuss this issue the more I start to prefer Hilliary over Bernie.

Honestly I've been trying to figure out which idea is the dumbest between trickle down economics and a free decentralized state college system. No conclusion on that one so far.

The issue of the supreme court appointments is about the only thing keeping me from saying the hell with the Dems at this point. I don't like any party at all, but Bernie needs to elaborate on his plan for state colleges. Just saying that they should be free is not good enough.
 
Beasty said:
1.)

Honestly I've been trying to figure out which idea is the dumbest between trickle down economics and a free decentralized state college system. No conclusion on that one so far.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm not convinced that cost is what's keeping more kids from going to college. I think the problem is rather that most (including me) eighteen year olds assumed it was free. (lol).
High school is free but kids still drop out.
 
As I filled out my health insurance re-enrollment, I couldn't help thinking back to the "salad" days when I had several choices of coverage.

Now, I have 2, a middle of the road PPO and a Consumer Driven option that's just crap. Both of which are costing me more money.

I hate the ACA. Hate it.
 
Bookworm616 said:
As I filled out my health insurance re-enrollment, I couldn't help thinking back to the "salad" days when I had several choices of coverage.

Now, I have 2, a middle of the road PPO and a Consumer Driven option that's just crap. Both of which are costing me more money.

I hate the ACA. Hate it.
Click to expand...

Do you get your insurance through your employer or do you go to the exchanges on your own?
 
Beasty said:
4 appointments to the supreme court by democrats and Sotomayor was the only one to vote in dissent smh.

Supreme Court gives police using deadly force in chases more immunity

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-police-shootings-20151109-story.html

Sotomayor rips Supreme Court for letting cops get away with a ‘shoot first, think later’ approach to violence

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/sot...shoot-first-think-later-approach-to-violence/
Click to expand...
look at the backgrounds of all of them. Sotomayor is probably the only one that dealt with this. This is why I wanted non ivy league judges. yes, sotomayor is the exception but a small exception.
 
archangel said:
look at the backgrounds of all of them. Sotomayor is probably the only one that dealt with this. This is why I wanted non ivy league judges. yes, sotomayor is the exception but a small exception.
Click to expand...

All of the current justices went to Ivy League schools she is no exception.



"Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, was nominated by President Barack Obama and took her seat in August 2009. She was nominated by President H.W. Bush to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, and served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She was educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School. She is generally considered a liberal voter."

http://www.voanews.com/content/a-look-at-the-nine-us-supreme-court-justices/1275442.html


Anyway, Thurgood Marshall went to Howard so maybe you are on to something.
 
Beasty said:
All of the current justices went to Ivy League schools she is no exception.



"Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, was nominated by President Barack Obama and took her seat in August 2009. She was nominated by President H.W. Bush to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, and served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She was educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School. She is generally considered a liberal voter."

http://www.voanews.com/content/a-look-at-the-nine-us-supreme-court-justices/1275442.html


Anyway, Thurgood Marshall went to Howard so maybe you are on to something.
Click to expand...


When I said
look at the backgrounds of all of them. Sotomayor is probably the only one that dealt with this.

I was talking about a personal level. All of the rest of the justices have had better lives than her(from what I know). She is more likely to dissent because she has dealt with big life issues. She's going to be more compassionate because she has dealt with say an alcoholic father before.


I felt that non ivy people are more likely to have dealt with difficult life problems which may make them more compassionate.
The rest of my comment agrees with yours and was pointing to sotomayor as an exception.

Though Marshall is exception on my point of view... a guy who comes from a better background than sotomayor and didn't go to an ivy. He probably would not have dissented.
I need to elaborate more on what I said. I was too lazy and tossed a quick comment.
 
Loki said:
Do you get your insurance through your employer or do you go to the exchanges on your own?
Click to expand...

I'm getting it through my employer.

When I had the idea that until I found a FT job in my field (new master's degree in Jan) I thought I could live with 2 PT jobs for awhile. I looked up health insurance coverage on the exchange and it was cost prohibitive.

So, my options are my employer or nothing (and pay for that privilege). LOL.
 
Bookworm616 said:
I'm getting it through my employer.

When I had the idea that until I found a FT job in my field (new master's degree in Jan) I thought I could live with 2 PT jobs for awhile. I looked up health insurance coverage on the exchange and it was cost prohibitive.

So, my options are my employer or nothing (and pay for that privilege). LOL.
Click to expand...

Not to delve into your finances too much, but with two part time jobs perhaps you qualify for the subsidies? They could help offset the costs of the exchange plans.
 
Satchmo said:
I see truth in all that you're saying. In vulnerable moments bm friends have told me that the "unreportable income biz" was more dignified than selling soda at the mall. They were saying that the choice that racism left them was both obvious and incompatible with the W9 American dream. This made sense to me.

The only 'solution' to this (apart from ending racism) seemed to lie in creating alternative opportunity, which points us to look at education. The problem I see with high schools is that they vary dramatically depending on the parish/county -- they seem to be tied to the property taxes of the neighborhood? What if public education wasn't tied to income levels? I don't know the ins-and-outs of school vouchers, but the basic premise begs the question as to why democrats are against it?
Click to expand...

One of the big reason Dems don't support school vouchers is because it only rewards kids with motivated parents while leaving children who's parents aren't that involved, or unable to get their children to a charter school behind.

See, that voucher is money and when a child takes his or her voucher, that money is taken with that child. So, it depletes an already cash strapped school even more. Therefore, you end up with a bunch of kids who, by no fault of their own, end up getting a crappy education in a continually failing school system.

Also, a lot of those schools can pick and choose the kids they take. Public schools have to take all comers from the district. And, if I remember correctly, they don't have to kids with disabilities (learning or physical). Now, this may have changed. I'm not entirely sure. But, that was the case a few years back.

In short, it rewards those with resources to do better and punishes those that don't. Instead of finding a better way to fund our schools, Repubs and dumb Dems would rather find new ways to divvy up an already shrinking pie.

Beasty said:
1.) Interesting take. Sounds like a plausible political strategy.

2.) I'm not trying to completely exclude the republicans from blame. My overall point is that the democrats have baggage as well. There is really no reason to be a loyalist to any party. Slick Willie was on some bullshit with that NAFTA agreement too.

3.) It would make sense for location to influence concern. I could see that playing a role.

4.) My advice to the Dems on this would be to let it go. Their position on guns is a loosing political stance. Trying to win a southern state with their so called reasonable regulations is a no go. I'm not a political analyst by any means, but this is so obvious that it isn't funny. For some people gun rights are the main reason they vote.

I remember when Gore was running, I was gung ho for him to win and damn near everyone I talked to mentioned the fact that he had a tough stance on guns. If that was true no wonder he lost his home state in the election. Also nearly ALL the veterans that I know support the gun policies of the right.

Their stance on guns (dems) could be fixed easily so it's just annoying these days.

5.) I'm willing to look into this. Hopefully there are some good findings because the more we discuss this issue the more I start to prefer Hilliary over Bernie.

Honestly I've been trying to figure out which idea is the dumbest between trickle down economics and a free decentralized state college system. No conclusion on that one so far.

The issue of the supreme court appointments is about the only thing keeping me from saying the hell with the Dems at this point. I don't like any party at all, but Bernie needs to elaborate on his plan for state colleges. Just saying that they should be free is not good enough.
Click to expand...

2. You're right on that one. 3rd party candidate Ross Perot tried to warn us of that and people made a joke of it. But, I'm not loyal to any party. Only ideals. Dems are closest to what I believe in and have the best chance at winning. It's all about odds for me. Shit, I'd vote for Hitler if I thought he would further my agenda. ...lol

4. Naw. Dems problem is they suck at communication. Why the hell would they call it gun control? That's where Republicans shine. they know how to label their plans and talk about them in a way that makes them seem like great ideas.

Dems just need a better way of communicating what they want to do and quit letting the NRA frame the argument. The majority of us aren't trying to take away gun rights. Just want to make firearms harder to get for those who are unfit to carry them. Most Americans agree with that stance, BTW.

Free college is a great thing and it could be done if we put our minds to it. Bernie isn't going to say how he'd do it at this point. No candidate would. If he started telling his approach now, by the time of the election there would be so much mis-information and bullshit to wade through it would turn off most voters. He smart to keep his cards close to the vest for now. Remember; it's all politics. He's got to play that game if he is to win.
 
Maybe one of these candidates should address daycare costs. Maybe the Idea of a full deduction for all related expenses is a good place to start.

I can't imagine having a kid right now unless the mother is at a good place in her career or willing to stay home and take care of the child full time. It's rough for single parents out there.
 
Last edited:
Beasty said:
Maybe one of these candidates should address daycare costs. Maybe the Idea of a full deduction for all related expenses is a good place to start.

I can't imagine having a kid right now unless the mother is at a good place in her career or willing to stay home and take care of the child full time. It's rough for single parents out there.
Click to expand...

Very good point, my wife and I decided and prepared *before* we had kids that she would stay home. She ended up staying home for more than a decade, until both of our kids were in school full time, then she decided to resume her career, and I was able to move into a home office so our kids have always had a parent at home when they are home. This has provided a great sense of security for our kids and something I strongly promote for others considering having kids.
 
Loki said:
Very good point, my wife and I decided and prepared *before* we had kids that she would stay home. She ended up staying home for more than a decade, until both of our kids were in school full time, then she decided to resume her career, and I was able to move into a home office so our kids have always had a parent at home when they are home. This has provided a great sense of security for our kids and something I strongly promote for others considering having kids.
Click to expand...

Your kids are lucky.

My mom was a stay-at-home mom and I grew thinking that if I ever had kids, that's how I wanted it to be. I think having a parent home when your kid gets home is very important.

Of course, life had different plans for me. LOL. Oh well. We have to play the cards we're dealt.
 
i agree. this is awesome for kids. u surely chose the right woman.



Loki said:
Very good point, my wife and I decided and prepared *before* we had kids that she would stay home. She ended up staying home for more than a decade, until both of our kids were in school full time, then she decided to resume her career, and I was able to move into a home office so our kids have always had a parent at home when they are home. This has provided a great sense of security for our kids and something I strongly promote for others considering having kids.
Click to expand...
 
Loki said:
Very good point, my wife and I decided and prepared *before* we had kids that she would stay home. She ended up staying home for more than a decade, until both of our kids were in school full time, then she decided to resume her career, and I was able to move into a home office so our kids have always had a parent at home when they are home. This has provided a great sense of security for our kids and something I strongly promote for others considering having kids.
Click to expand...

maxresdefault.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom