[Plantagenet]

....ignore....Obama.....

?????

This entire election was about Obama and his policies. The most potent campaign ad used by the Rs was one where they said "Senator X has voted with Obama 99/98/97 percent of the time" That ad played thousands and thousands of time all across the country, and it brought down D senator after D senator.

The whole Republican electoral strategy was to tie the Ds to Obama, because Obama is so unpopular right now.

No wonder some of you guys are so mystified by the outcome of the last election --- you are completely blind to what happened in the election. You are ignoring the most significant factor in the whole 2014 election cycle, and that is the unpopularity of President Obama.


The reason for the 2014 R election victories is clear to see---for those who don't have a huge blind spot

[Lore]

Meant to imply that Hispanics should really consider jumping ship from the left because the right has done so much for them

What do you mean "done so much for them" ? I think it's pretty racist to think that hispanics need someone to do something for them, are they are too stupid to do for themselves ? My heritage is partially hispanic dating back to the Isleno people of colonial Louisiana, my wife and chidren are hispanic and we don't need government handouts in exchange for votes. That's never seemed to work out for other ethnic groups in this country anyway.

Really, well I happen to me Hispanic as well. And a helping hand is not a hand out. What needs to be done is to allow minorities fair and equal footing.

Also, misdirection, who is pulling the race card here by claiming one party is trying to "enslave hispanics" as you quote?

[wildbourgman]

Meant to imply that Hispanics should really consider jumping ship from the left because the right has done so much for them

What do you mean "done so much for them" ? I think it's pretty racist to think that hispanics need someone to do something for them, are they are too stupid to do for themselves ? My heritage is partially hispanic dating back to the Isleno people of colonial Louisiana, my wife and chidren are hispanic and we don't need government handouts in exchange for votes. That's never seemed to work out for other ethnic groups in this country anyway.

Really, well I happen to me Hispanic as well. And a helping hand is not a hand out. What needs to be done is to allow minorities fair and equal footing.

Also, misdirection, who is pulling the race card here by claiming one party is trying to "enslave hispanics" as you quote?

I'm just playing, I wanted to show you how easy it is to play the race card, but it seems one side feels like they have race baiting cornered and it's acceptable form of political discourse, well maybe they don't have it cornered. Is it still acceptable if the right uses the language of the left ? According to your reponse I think you don't like it. The right can race bait and use identity politics in 2016 and I think they will.

I don't think only one party or one group wants to enslave hispanics. I see at least two groups that are trying to do that. Democrats wan't new vote slaves for the future and then big business or big agri-business wants continued cheap labor.

A safety net that turns into a trap will never allow anyone to get an equal footing. Minorities have nothing except the left trying to keep them from an equal footing. I know of no laws or regulations that the right has backed that call for anything that keeps minorities down, but how many people have been trapped by the welfare state ? Millions!

[MonteQuest]

Yes, I have another choice and I glad you asked. They should have allowed the banks to fail and allowed the free market to clense itself of the mal-investment.

So, a financial collapse and a long depression were ok with you?

[MonteQuest]

Read what I said.

If hispanics don't get entrenched in the welfare system

.

But the mere fact you even brought it up speaks to your mindset. Why would Hispanics be any more susceptible to the "lure" of welfare, than any other group, like say, white people, who are the biggest recipients?

[wildbourgman]

Yes, I have another choice and I glad you asked. They should have allowed the banks to fail and allowed the free market to clense itself of the mal-investment.

So, a financial collapse and a long depression were ok with you?

Here, read slowly now. I don't believe that the bailout actually stopped the coming collapse. The bailouts protected a few rich people in the short term, for many there still was a financial collapse and depression.

Did you read the stats that came out today? People over 55 are having to remain in the work force, do you know why? Because the ZIRP policy of the fed won't allow people to make money off of whatever savings they might have had. Try to live off of interest from a CD or a money market right now like people from past generations.

So are you in favor of bailing out the rich con men ? You might have well sent everyones money to a Nigerian prince that needs help getting his inheritence out of Nigeria. The bailouts did not stop the collapse and depression they postponed it, I think that I would have rather dealt with the problem in 2008 than later. That's my answer.

[wildbourgman]

Read what I said.

If hispanics don't get entrenched in the welfare system

.

But the mere fact you even brought it up speaks to your mindset. Why would Hispanics be any more susceptible to the "lure" of welfare, than any other group, like say, white people, who are the biggest recipients?

I'm saying that luring a certain racial group to welfare is in the democratic party play book. See there is a little problem with white welfare recipients many of them don't vote and the ones that do especially in the south vote republican half the time, so it just don't work as planned on white folks.

[MonteQuest]

Here, read slowly now. I don't believe that the bailout actually stopped the coming collapse.

Well, if the bailout didn't stop our system from collapsing, then what did? Are you suggesting that the system would not have collapsed if there hadn't been a bailout? You'd be hard pressed to try and defend that.

The bailouts protected a few rich people in the short term, for many there still was a financial collapse and depression.

A necessary evil to protect the system.

So are you in favor of bailing out the rich con men ?

No, but I saw no other choice that would pass muster.

[MonteQuest]

I'm saying that luring a certain racial group to welfare is in the democratic party play book. See there is a little problem with white welfare recipients many of them don't vote and the ones that do especially in the south vote republican half the time, so it just don't work as planned on white folks.

Boy! You sure know how to dig the hole you are in deeper.

[wildbourgman]

I'm saying that luring a certain racial group to welfare is in the democratic party play book. See there is a little problem with white welfare recipients many of them don't vote and the ones that do especially in the south vote republican half the time, so it just don't work as planned on white folks.

Boy! You sure know how to dig the hole you are in deeper.

Ok

[wildbourgman]

Well, if the bailout didn't stop our system from collapsing, then what did? Are you suggesting that the system would not have collapsed if there hadn't been a bailout? You'd be hard pressed to try and defend that.

Nothing stopped the system from collapsing the bailout simpy postponed what was going to happen in 2008-2009. I'm suggesting that the system is in collapse as we speak and has been for many years. The bailout was a tight tourniquet for a stab wound to the neck, sure it slowed the nasty bleeding, but the patient is still in major trouble and the guy that stabbed him just got rewarded for calling 911.

[MonteQuest]

Nothing stopped the system from collapsing the bailout simpy postponed what was going to happen in 2008-2009. I'm suggesting that the system is in collapse as we speak and has been for many years. The bailout was a tight tourniquet for a stab wound to the neck, sure it slowed the nasty bleeding, but the patient is still in major trouble and the guy that stabbed him just got rewarded for calling 911.

Let me rephrase: Are you suggesting that the system would not have collapsed in 2008, if there hadn't been a bailout? You'd be hard pressed to try and defend that.

[wildbourgman]

Nothing stopped the system from collapsing the bailout simpy postponed what was going to happen in 2008-2009. I'm suggesting that the system is in collapse as we speak and has been for many years. The bailout was a tight tourniquet for a stab wound to the neck, sure it slowed the nasty bleeding, but the patient is still in major trouble and the guy that stabbed him just got rewarded for calling 911.

Let me rephrase: Are you suggesting that the system would not have collapsed in 2008, if there hadn't been a bailout? You'd be hard pressed to try and defend that.

I think we would have had a deep recession. Some banks would have failed and been bought by banks that didn't. I feel that capitalist shouldn't be able to demand economic liberty for profits but then want to socialize the losses when times get tough. In my view the reason our system lasted as long as it did after the great depression without another major crash is because we actually had the great depression. You learn from the pain of mistakes and you don't dare repeat them. The bailout dulled the pain for the people that made the mistakes and then allowed them to transfer the pain to people that did all the right things.

Is it fair for big bankers to be able to have savers punished for the misdeeds of the bankers, then the bankers get rewarded.

[MonteQuest]

Let me rephrase: Are you suggesting that the system would not have collapsed in 2008, if there hadn't been a bailout? You'd be hard pressed to try and defend that.

I think we would have had a deep recession. Some banks would have failed and been bought by banks that didn't.

But that's exactly what did happen. Banks failed and we entered a deep recession.

Without the bailouts, financial institution failures and frozen credit markets would have crippled the system in 2008.

Now, don't get me wrong, the bailouts didn't fix a thing, they just shifted the collapse down the road.

They just thawed the credit markets so the farce could continue. Are we in agreement now.

[wildbourgman]

Let me rephrase: Are you suggesting that the system would not have collapsed in 2008, if there hadn't been a bailout? You'd be hard pressed to try and defend that.

I think we would have had a deep recession. Some banks would have failed and been bought by banks that didn't.

But that's exactly what did happen. Banks failed and we entered a deep recession.

Without the bailouts, financial institution failures and frozen credit markets would have crippled the system.

Hey look you are fine with being the mark in a hustle and I'm ok with that, but once you realize that you've been hustled you don't keep giving excuses for the con man. The truth is that someone you trusted in the Bush administration made you believe the end of the world was coming unless they acted in a certain way and you believed it. I didn't believe it. That's it.

[dinopello]

So, this could really shake things up.

The justices announced Friday they will look at one of the law's most fundamental provisions: tax credits that subsidize health coverage purchased on federal exchanges. The credits are a central element of the law in states that decided not to set up their own exchanges. If the Court rejects them, coverage could be upended for millions of Americans..

The ruling comes in June 2015. If the ruling is that the policies off the federal exchange website don't get the subsidies -

the Republicans might get a law passed that fixes it - and they might extract a few tax cuts or something - this seems unlikely in todays climate
would the Republicans let millions lose their healthcare subsidies ? It would probably hurt their vote share in 2016 or turn out more angry people
what else could happen if that's the ruling ?

[wildbourgman]

So, this could really shake things up.

The justices announced Friday they will look at one of the law's most fundamental provisions: tax credits that subsidize health coverage purchased on federal exchanges. The credits are a central element of the law in states that decided not to set up their own exchanges. If the Court rejects them, coverage could be upended for millions of Americans..

The ruling comes in June 2015. If the ruling is that the policies off the federal exchange website don't get the subsidies -

the Republicans might get a law passed that fixes it - and they might extract a few tax cuts or something - this seems unlikely in todays climate
would the Republicans let millions lose their healthcare subsidies ? It would probably hurt their vote share in 2016 or turn out more angry people
what else could happen if that's the ruling ?

I was thinking about that very thing when this news broke. I would think the republicans can't worry about pissing off the 5 million people in mostly safe red states that would lose Obamacare, over pissing off the base. Think about that. If they help Obamacare they lose the Tea Party vote and more. If that group of people loses the subsidies the GOP will just say that the democratic bill was flawed and we told you cost will go up.

I see no political upside for the GOP helping the ACA stay viable.

[dinopello]

So, this could really shake things up.

I would think the republicans can't worry about pissing off the 5 million people in mostly safe red states that would lose Obamacare, over pissing off the base. Think about that. If they help Obamacare they lose the Tea Party vote and more. If that group of people loses the subsidies the GOP will just say that the democratic bill was flawed and we told you cost will go up.

I see no political upside for the GOP helping the ACA stay viable.

You probably know better than I how that base would take it. I thought there might be a chance if McConnell and Boehner want to preserve their majorities. That would certainly poison the well for anything to happen other than Obama trying to find a way and impeachment. I'm sure Boehner and McConnell hope it goes the other way

[Plantagenet]

So, this could really shake things up.

The justices announced Friday they will look at one of the law's most fundamental provisions: tax credits that subsidize health coverage purchased on federal exchanges. The credits are a central element of the law in states that decided not to set up their own exchanges. If the Court rejects them, coverage could be upended for millions of Americans..

would the Republicans let millions lose their healthcare subsidies ?

This has nothing to do with the Rs. The ACA was 100% passed by the Ds. Unfortunately, many of the Ds never even bothered to read the bill they were voting to pass.

The clear language of the ACA law doesn't allow subsidies in some states. It was dumb of the Ds to set it up this way, but thats what they did.

[wildbourgman]

You probably know better than I how that base would take it. I thought there might be a chance if McConnell and Boehner want to preserve their majorities.

Dinopello, there's no way that cutting a deal to help Obamacare stay viable would cause them to stay in the Majority. They just ran an anti Obamacare campaign and won big. Your talking about 4.7 million people affected divided among 36 state (I think) and at least half of them were not voting republican ever and the half that were voting Republican many had probably been forced on to Obamacare by the mandate anyway.

If the two clowns that run the house and senate have the chance they had better just let Obamacare go away.