DRSmith Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 It just seems strange of late, you have no one who wants to clearly announce if they are running. You have fights now over CPAC and their inviting gay Republicans to the even and the social cons saying they will boycott. Paul Ryan has been tabbed to give the oppistion respone to the presidents state of union address and Michelle Bachman is saying she will give her own response. This is like watching the Dem infighting during health care when they would not all get on the same page and this it seemed cost them at election time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The elections are pretty far off, there really isn't a need to declare that they're running yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 No, at least certainly not yet. Just remember, in 2004 the Republicans declared a hundred year majority. In 2008, the Democrats came in and people thought after Bush the Republicans would be doomed for a generation (Who'd have thought a generation lasts only about 1 and a half years) These premature signals of death are a sign of two thing... one it's much easier to be the minority party and two, we really like to jump the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 No. They will be less popular in a couple of years if the economy picks up, but they're here to stay. PS - Paul Ryan is a pretty smart and reasonable dude. I'm interested to see what he has to say. MB is a loon with the intelligence of a brain-dead mouse. I might watch her response for the comedic value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasaurus Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 It just seems strange of late, you have no one who wants to clearly announce if they are running. Because they know who ever decides to run is gonna lose in the election..Obama despite what Republicans do to criticize him and his policies. know that he is taking the country down the right road, to help at least in part to get this country back on track, the other side has no viable answers to how in fact we clean up the mess..what they worry about is how the rich will be impacted by the changes because to them..The rich are more important to America's long term survival than the poor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Eh, I could buy it to a limited extent, but no more so than the Dems were imploding in '06. After all, in '06: -The Dems took back the House and Senate; in '10 the Republicans took back the House and are relevant in the Senate again -The Dems did not have the presidency, and as a result had no clear-cut party leader; ditto the Republicans now -The Democratic presidentail field was wide open: Hillary and Edwards were merely the frontrunners in a field of at least a dozen candidates as Obama was still making a name for himself; the Republicans right now have Romney, Palin, Newt, Guiliani, Huckabee....none of which I actually see being the final candidate. This is how politics works. The Republicans have the House, but the Democrats still control the Senate and President. If things don't get better in the next year, I'd expect the Democrats to seem just as fractured as the Republicans. After all, when you have no incumbent the field seems even more wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Because they know who ever decides to run is gonna lose in the election..Obama despite what Republicans do to criticize him and his policies. know that he is taking the country down the right road, to help at least in part to get this country back on track, the other side has no viable answers to how in fact we clean up the mess..what they worry about is how the rich will be impacted by the changes because to them..The rich are more important to America's long term survival than the poor What road would that be? So far, Obama's road has led to a multi-trillion dollar deficit, the dems losing the house, and one of the worst pieces of legislature to ever be passed in Obamacare. Oh yeah, and unemployment rivaling the depression. Where are those 3.5 million jobs that Obama promised? What happened to Obama's promise about being able to keep your doctor in Obamacare? There's a bigger chance that the Skins win the Super Bowl next year than Obama wins the next presidential election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 No, at least certainly not yet.Just remember, in 2004 the Republicans declared a hundred year majority. In 2008, the Democrats came in and people thought after Bush the Republicans would be doomed for a generation (Who'd have thought a generation lasts only about 1 and a half years) These premature signals of death are a sign of two thing... one it's much easier to be the minority party and two, we really like to jump the gun. It is amazing how quickly people forget. They're not imploding, but there are cracks. Part of it is losing the momentum of election season. Now they have a bunch of freshman in place, and they have to get down to the decidedly boring and monotonous practice of governing. Part of it is Obama's increasing poll numbers (and their own decreasing poll numbers) and small signs that the economy is in the early stages of recovery, which forces them to tone down the rhetoric just a little bit. And part of it is indeed political infighting, but I read nothing into that. If you are going to be any kind of "big tent party" these things are inevitable. Lindsey Graham (can someone convince this guy to run? Please?) and Michelle Bachmann will not see eye to eye on a lot of things. That's just the way it is. ---------- Post added January-22nd-2011 at 03:47 PM ---------- What happened to Obama's promise about being able to keep your doctor in Obamacare?[/b] This interests me. I haven't heard of anyone not being able to keep their doctor. Has that happened to you? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasaurus Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 What road would that be? So far, Obama's road has led to a multi-trillion dollar deficit, the dems losing the house, and one of the worst pieces of legislature to ever be passed in Obamacare. Oh yeah, and unemployment rivaling the depression.Where are those 3.5 million jobs that Obama promised? What happened to Obama's promise about being able to keep your doctor in Obamacare? There's a bigger chance that the Skins win the Super Bowl next year than Obama wins the next presidential election. The defecit was started because of the war in Iraq..after 911 Bush knowing full well he could never catch Bin Laden launched a unprovoked war in Iraq. to get revenge on Saddam for going after his father. claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and then later learning that was in fact a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 22, 2011 Author Share Posted January 22, 2011 Eh, I could buy it to a limited extent, but no more so than the Dems were imploding in '06. After all, in '06:-The Dems took back the House and Senate; in '10 the Republicans took back the House and are relevant in the Senate again -The Dems did not have the presidency, and as a result had no clear-cut party leader; ditto the Republicans now -The Democratic presidentail field was wide open: Hillary and Edwards were merely the frontrunners in a field of at least a dozen candidates as Obama was still making a name for himself; the Republicans right now have Romney, Palin, Newt, Guiliani, Huckabee....none of which I actually see being the final candidate. This is how politics works. The Republicans have the House, but the Democrats still control the Senate and President. If things don't get better in the next year, I'd expect the Democrats to seem just as fractured as the Republicans. After all, when you have no incumbent the field seems even more wide open. Watching the Dems in fight during the health care debate I knew they were going to lose in the midterms They seemed to hurt the themselves and Obama with their not all being on the same page. Edwards may have had a better chance without the affair but I remember people mentioning Obama 04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Edwards may have had a better chance without the affair but I remember people mentioning Obama 04 I was taking a couple of PoliSci classes my sophomore year in college in '04, and I remember Obama just exploded onto the scene in '04 with his big speech at the DNC when he was running for Senator. He gained momentum after that for sure, but I honestly don't remember anybody pushing for Obama in '04. Just out of curiosity, do you remember where you were hearing this? I mean, if it was around Chicago or Illinois I could see it, but I didn't know he was nationally known before his '04 DNC speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 This interests me. I haven't heard of anyone not being able to keep their doctor. Has that happened to you? Why? No, it hasn't happened to me, thankfully, but there are other examples. In New England, the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care plan cancelled it's Medicare Advantage program specifically because of Obamacare and the new regulations it is imposing. Under the current plan (pre-O-care) patients can go to any doctor for services. Under O-care, the Medicare program has a contracted network of doctors who agree to participate for a negotiated amount of money. Even if Harvard Pilgrim had kept the Medicare, their subscribers couldn't go to any doctor they wanted, just the doctors who agree "to participate for a negotiated amount of money." So if your doctor doesn't agree to the prechosen amount of money for the medical services provided, he doesn't get paid by Medicare. Several other prominent insurance companies are planning big cutbacks because of this too. Harvard Pilgrim alone covered 22,000 who now have to change. ---------- Post added January-22nd-2011 at 04:02 PM ---------- The defecit was started because of the war in Iraq..after 911 Bush knowing full well he could never catch Bin Laden launched a unprovoked war in Iraq. to get revenge on Saddam for going after his father. claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and then later learning that was in fact a lie. Bush didn't have anything to do with the deficit. The war, provoked or not, had nothing to do with the deficit. No one was even thinking of going trillions into the red while Bush was president, that all started with the O-man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 22, 2011 Author Share Posted January 22, 2011 I was taking a couple of PoliSci classes my sophomore year in college in '04, and I remember Obama just exploded onto the scene in '04 with his big speech at the DNC when he was running for Senator. He gained momentum after that for sure, but I honestly don't remember anybody pushing for Obama in '04. Just out of curiosity, do you remember where you were hearing this? I mean, if it was around Chicago or Illinois I could see it, but I didn't know he was nationally known before his '04 DNC speech. Actually it was friends who are Dem supporters living in Canada ---------- Post added January-22nd-2011 at 04:05 PM ---------- No, it hasn't happened to me, thankfully, but there are other examples. In New England, the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care plan cancelled it's Medicare Advantage program specifically because of Obamacare and the new regulations it is imposing. Under the current plan (pre-O-care) patients can go to any doctor for services. Under O-care, the Medicare program has a contracted network of doctors who agree to participate for a negotiated amount of money. Even if Harvard Pilgrim had kept the Medicare, their subscribers couldn't go to any doctor they wanted, just the doctors who agree "to participate for a negotiated amount of money." So if your doctor doesn't agree to the prechosen amount of money for the medical services provided, he doesn't get paid by Medicare. Several other prominent insurance companies are planning big cutbacks because of this too. Harvard Pilgrim alone covered 22,000 who now have to change.---------- Post added January-22nd-2011 at 04:02 PM ---------- Bush didn't have anything to do with the deficit. The war, provoked or not, had nothing to do with the deficit. No one was even thinking of going trillions into the red while Bush was president, that all started with the O-man. So the insurers are changing the doctors and not the patients if the patient wanted to keep their docs could they not pay cash or find another insurer? And it seems the keep your own doctor was in response to those who were trying to scare people by telling them the government would assign you a doctor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 They have been imploding for a very long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 22, 2011 Author Share Posted January 22, 2011 They have been imploding for a very long time. Wehn looking at McCain's run in 08 and the number of negative things I was hearing from Pubs the only thing I could think was 8 years of him being bashed on talk radio did not help when you needed those same people to now support him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasaurus Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 No, it hasn't happened to me, thankfully, but there are other examples. In New England, the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care plan cancelled it's Medicare Advantage program specifically because of Obamacare and the new regulations it is imposing. Under the current plan (pre-O-care) patients can go to any doctor for services. Under O-care, the Medicare program has a contracted network of doctors who agree to participate for a negotiated amount of money. Even if Harvard Pilgrim had kept the Medicare, their subscribers couldn't go to any doctor they wanted, just the doctors who agree "to participate for a negotiated amount of money." So if your doctor doesn't agree to the prechosen amount of money for the medical services provided, he doesn't get paid by Medicare. Several other prominent insurance companies are planning big cutbacks because of this too. Harvard Pilgrim alone covered 22,000 who now have to change.---------- Post added January-22nd-2011 at 04:02 PM ---------- Bush didn't have anything to do with the deficit. The war, provoked or not, had nothing to do with the deficit. No one was even thinking of going trillions into the red while Bush was president, that all started with the O-man. Oh but it did have something to do with it..it took tax payers money to help fund the war in Iraq..Tanks, helicopters, weapons, missile's, fuel, food, supplies to set up base operations. are all tax payer fueled, then when the war was "over" we invested more money in to rebuilding Iraq, mean while American's here were desperate to find jobs..and I can further back that up. by the fact that no other country wanted to join the Bush war machine during his "cause" I mean lie. which means that it was you and others splitting the bill for a lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 So the insurers are changing the doctors and not the patients if the patient wanted to keep their docs could they not pay cash or find another insurer? If you want to think about it like that, sure. But most of the people on Medicare can't afford to pay cash or find another insurer. And it seems the keep your own doctor was in response to those who were trying to scare people by telling them the government would assign you a doctor If your doc doesn't agree to the fixed payment, they in essence will, by giving you a list of "approved" docs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 by giving you a list of "approved" docs. private insurance companies already do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 22, 2011 Author Share Posted January 22, 2011 If you want to think about it like that, sure. But most of the people on Medicare can't afford to pay cash or find another insurer.If your doc doesn't agree to the fixed payment, they in essence will, by giving you a list of "approved" docs. Your insurer gives you an apporved doc That is not the gov forcing you to pick a doc Personally I am not sure why the gov did not make it law that all docs have to take medic care patients Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Bush didn't have anything to do with the deficit.. WOW. and I mean that seriouslyWOW Your whole quote is incredible, but the most unbelievable thing is having read your other posts you probably wrote it seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 WOW. and I mean that seriouslyWOWYour whole quote is incredible, but the most unbelievable thing is having read your other posts you probably wrote it seriously. I was thinking the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 22, 2011 Author Share Posted January 22, 2011 WOW. and I mean that seriouslyWOWYour whole quote is incredible, but the most unbelievable thing is having read your other posts you probably wrote it seriously. It could be one of two things, people did not seem to care about the deficit then or the latest talking point is blaming Pelosi for all the spending under Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 WOW. and I mean that seriouslyWOWYour whole quote is incredible, but the most unbelievable thing is having read your other posts you probably wrote it seriously. So tell me, what did Bush do to get us to the trillion dollar mark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 This is a TOTAL lost cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 So tell me, what did Bush do to get us to the trillion dollar mark? He kept buying lotto tickets that didn't hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.