Reply With Quote
“We have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama’s presidency not be destroyed by this debate,” the Congressman stated.
I have my theory but, I'm wondering what the forum Democrats think changed Dennis Kucinich's mind on a piece of legislation he claims to detest and of which he's been extremely critical.
What could President Obama have said, during that 45 minute flight, that could have turned Kucinich from "no" to "yes" on Obamacare?
Just two days ago Kucinich wrote an op-ed for the Cleveland Plain Dealer in which he excoriated Obamacare:
Kucinich now will vote for a bill which is worse, in his own words just two days ago, than the House bill he voted against.Unfortunately, the president's plan, as it currently stands, leaves patients financially vulnerable to insurance companies. It requires all Americans to buy private health insurance policies, while failing to ensure those policies do what they are supposed to do -- protect people from financial catastrophe caused by injury or illness....
Unfortunately, if the president's plan becomes law without substantive change, you would still be only a major illness or injury away from personal bankruptcy, except the federal government will have required you to buy a private health insurance policy....
[T]he version of the bill that reached the House floor was considerably watered down. It had a severely weakened public option and the employee-retirement waiver had been stripped. It no longer cons uted an incremental step forward that would provide relief to my cons uents, so I could not support it. The version of the bill that passed the Senate was even worse.
“We have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama’s presidency not be destroyed by this debate,” the Congressman stated.
He doesn't hate it for the same reasons you do. He wants it more liberal. Stop trying to spin the truth.
Politically speaking, for a democrat, passing nothing while controlling both the legislative and the executive would be a tacit admission of their inep ude to get anything done.
If they actually pass this pile of turd, then they can claim that even if far from perfect, they really tried to take a stab at healthcare reform. I think that's the reading a bunch of democrats are making on this topic, IMO.
You repugs wouldn't happy with this bill unless your secret sexual lover, Ronald Reagan, wrote it. Actually, he did triple the debt, so even then you'd probably cry foul.
Rofl! which doesn't compare to your seed gargling adoration of OBAMA.
No, I criticize him when I think he's wrong or not doing enough. It's not blind party loyalty the way it is for most repugs.
I bet MN promised DK that what DK wants, public option, etc, etc is also what MN wants and campaigned on, and will be the next step in health care reform.
What spin? I haven't even said what I think is the reason.
Therein lies the kernel of truth.
Well, I'm not answering this as a republican because I am not. The republican party seems to have died with Reagan's administration.
I am answering to you because I think Reagan was the best president in the last 140, maybe 200 years.
I don't know how many times I have mentioned this, but you liberals refuse to acknowledge the truth.
President Reagan inherited double digit inflation. He did get that down. Apparently, you guys don't know what double digit inflation does as compound interest.
Your loss as you prove yourselves financially incompetent, not mine. However, I suggest that you learn how compound interest works, and how fast the debt rose during his time frame because of it. Even if he didn't push for the military buildup he did, the debt would have severely rose. You can blame those before him in congress and the executive. Not him. He managed to keep it from getting worse. If you has a shred of mathematical intelligence, you would praise the man.
"the truth." ... in your blindly ideologial version of the "truth"
"double digit inflation. He did get that down"
the early 80s inflation was a result of the US/UK interfering in and corrputing for decades in Iran to grab their oil, resulting in the Iranians kicking them out and installing Khomeini.
Reagan didn't do about inflation.
He did cut taxes on his wealthy class, then raised taxes on the non-wealthy, while starting the Movement Conservative ball rolling which almost immediately resulted in the S&L crisis and $200B govt bailout.
Reagan started the silly Star Wars bull which still hasn't worked after a few $100B.
Reagan also didn't defeat Russia. Russia went bankrupt invading Afghanistan as the price of oil, their only source of hard dollars, dropped after the Iranian oil shock and world recession cut oil demand.
Volcker, not St Ronnie, was the inflation slayer, raising the rates to painfully high rates to squelch prices, demand, credit.
What language does 'bouton' mean idiot in anyway?
so you and reagan agreed that deficit spending as part of his economic policy was needed. If you had a shread of mathematical intelligence you would praise Obama...thanks WC
it created a huge deficit. In 1981 at the start of the Reagan administration the deficit was about 2.5 percent of the national economy. By the end it was about 5 percent of the national economy. Interest payments just on that debt went from $69 billion in 1981 to $169 billion at the end of the Reagan administration.
With that kind of deficit, eventually you've got to pay the piper. There is a day of reckoning, and the day of reckoning came with a huge recession in 1990 and 1991.
This from the guy who couldn't understand the meaning of conditional probability?
I don't recall where that came up.
Refresh my mind please.
Why would I do that?
Obama did not inherit an economy that requires record deficits.
we have low interest rates and low inflation right now. It wouldn't surprise me if president Obama and the democrtas in congress far exceed, percentage wise, the increase in debt compared to Reagan's time.
That was outside my argument. I never intended a responded directly to that.
How doe that example make it appear as if i don't understand some basic probabilities? I was never good at statistics, but I do understand the basics of the topic.
Because you took the stat of 1% transmission rate for protected sex with someone who is HIV positive as a 1% transmission rate period in your constant insistence that the fallibility of condoms be taught as their major feature.
No, I don't care what the transmission rate is. Any is too high for a deadly disease. To allow children to assume safety when there is such a risk, I think is criminal.
that's why I don't wash my hands--soap only kills 99.9% of harmful bacteria. if it 100% effective, don't bother.
What's criminal is to fill their heads full of talking points about how dangerous condoms are instead of giving them the true numbers. What's criminal is teaching young people that something that reduces their chances for picking up HIV by more than two orders of magnitude in one of the worst cases isn't something worth their time.
But back to the original point, this post shows you missing the point on conditional probability:
You need to quit making blanket statements about things like peoples' math knowledge or respect for the nation when they don't agree with your political religion... i.e, no true American blah blah, no one with a shred of math knowledge rabble rabble...
If that was how it was taught and properly perceived, i would agree.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
