Natural Born Citizenship

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/obama-birth-certificate-birther-oprah-hawaii.html

I see the certificate has been released now. Even if it looks like a move to bury/ignore other issues, will this be enough to end the talk?

Quote: thecesspit

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/obama-birth-certificate-birther-oprah-hawaii.html

I see the certificate has been released now. Even if it looks like a move to bury/ignore other issues, will this be enough to end the talk?

I certainly hope so, but I doubt it. The extremists on the right will say its phony, while the extremists on the left continue to say that republicans want old people to starve. I don't waste time with either end of the political spectrum.

Quote: thecesspit

Even if it looks like a move to bury/ignore other issues, will this be enough to end the talk?

I doubt it. The skeptics will remark that a "certificate of live birth" is just an informal document the hospital gives you until an official birth certificate is issued by the state. As I understand it, this is true of the three states I have lived in: California, Maryland, and Nevada. What gives me pause is this looks much like a birth certificate from other states. It may be that in Hawaii they just don't issue something titled "birth certificate," but go by the certificates of live birth.

When I worked for Social Security I had access to detailed information about how each state recorded births, because when you apply for retirement you to prove your date of birth, and they are picky about what counts as proof. It would not surprise me if what Obama provided is normal for Hawaii.

Quote: thecesspit

Even if it looks like a move to bury/ignore other issues, will this be enough to end the talk?

Don't count on it. Listen/watch this recent Conversation with a birther

I think Barack Obama made his point that it is time for a constitutional amendment.

.....

Quote: PaulEWog

Don't count on it.

Especially not with the same paper that was used for the two-year-old short form and whose stock differs from contemporaneous certificates. Not to mention the myriad misstatements and outright lies by Hawaiian officials of both parties and others about the unavailability of the long form, even if it was to be requested by the named subject. Those people are irresponsible--either for lying or playing games with a fundamental question about governance.

I've asked several people from Hawaii about this and none of them have ever heard of a short form or long form of a birth certificate.

Quote: PaulEWog

Don't count on it. Listen/watch this recent Conversation with a birther

Yep, it's quite clear just with the replies here, there is no proof that he could give to satisfy people.

Quote: Wizard

I've asked several people from Hawaii about this and none of them have ever heard of a short form or long form of a birth certificate.

So what was it that the campaign issued two years ago? And just what was released today?

Quote: pacomartin

I think Barack Obama made his point that it is time for a constitutional amendment.

Ammendment for what? Letting a foreign born person be POTUS? That would be a horrible idea.

The one recurring theme in our mainstream media is that most challenges of President Obama's life history (birth certificate, school records, etc.) or his record as President somehow is answered as being a "racist" action. It isn't every time and it isn't every media outlet...but it happens often enough that it is annoying. I heard it as I was writing this...on CBS News (Bob Schiffer...spelling probably wrong).

Opposition always wants something on their opponent. There was talk of Bush's grades, his military history, etc. I am sure there was scrutiny of Clinton's background as well...and many others before them...

Obama? You can't ask that question because...it is racist! Stop using that tired crutch and say you will either release the information or you won't. Media folks, report that he did or didn't answer the question. He's the President of the United States...before that, he was a United States Senator. To label people who question him a racist is pitiful journalism unless you can prove they are racist.

The question now is simple...is he the best qualified candidate to be President after this term or is there a better qualified candidate?

(it doesn't matter if there is "someone else better qualified"...you don't get to be President unless you run...well, except things like Ford...)

Quote: gofaster87

and why so long to produce it? Hes the president, Im sure he can make anything happen quick.

No reason to produce something for people who weren't voters for him whether it turned out to be unquestionably true. But Obama has to worry about people like the lady that stood up during the McCain campaign who might be going on the latest rumor, who may actively decide to vote for someone else because of the issue, or might have voted for him, but stayed home.

He never had to worry about the core group of people really pushing for this, because they were never going to be supporters anyway.

The same folks who were "looking" for the birth certificate are the same ones who were spreading the rumor that McCain had an illegitimate black child. The Tea Party as with most fringe groups need to repeat telling lies in hopes the lies will become the "reality". Never works but lets see the next loony agenda they have.

Quote: Wavy70

The same folks who were "looking" for the birth certificate are the same ones who were spreading the rumor that McCain had an illegitimate black child. The Tea Party as with most fringe groups need to repeat telling lies in hopes the lies will become the "reality". Never works but lets see the next loony agenda they have.

Would that be like the lie that "the rich" are not paying a fair share of taxes, or the lie that the GOP budget will cut medicare and throw old people out on the street?

The Tea Party is only a fringe group to leftists, it is about constitutionalism mostly.

Quote: AZDuffman

Would that be like the lie that "the rich" are not paying a fair share of taxes

Don't ask what the "fair share" of taxes might be. The answer would per force be, "Until they are no longer rich."

Quote: SanchoPanza

Don't ask what the "fair share" of taxes might be. The answer would per force be, "Until they are no longer rich."

Let's all pay the same % of income and protect the very poorest among us by giving them a pass on the %...

Quote: RonC

Let's all pay the same % of income and protect the very poorest among us by giving them a pass on the %...

They already have the pass, bottom 50% pay only about 5% of income taxes. The ones that pay are probably childfree. If you have 2 kids and make <$40K you will likely pay zero income taxes.

Get rid of income taxes and go to a national sales tax. Makes it way harder for politicians to play games with the tax code. Requires repealing the income tax ammendment.

Quote: Wavy70

The same folks who were "looking" for the birth certificate are the same ones who were spreading the rumor that McCain had an illegitimate black child. The Tea Party as with most fringe groups need to repeat telling lies in hopes the lies will become the "reality". Never works but lets see the next loony agenda they have.

You could be onto something here.
McCain born 8/29/1936.
They could be related.

You could take every dime above 250,000 from everyone making that and you still wouldnt have enough revenue to run this country for 1 year. We dont have a revenue problem in this country . What we have is a spending problem (Dems and Rep alike). We need to do away with political parties and become 1 as a nation and then maybe we can get something solved.

Quote: pacomartin

I also think we are at least 30 years overdue in brining a constitutional amendment to change this requirement from the constitution. We have changed so much as a nation when that clause was written that we should be free to elect anyone president, regardless of birth or residency.

I agree with this somewhat. I don't feel it's necessary for the president to have been born in the US or to US Parents on a military base outside the country. When should be necessary is for the president to be a naturalized citizen who has spent the vast majority of his/her life in the country, and to not have conflicting interests (i.e. - dual citizenship). For example, what would be wrong with electing a candidate who fit one of these scenarios:

A) - Candidate A in born in Greece, moves to the US with his family when he's 5, grows up, goes to college here, gets a job, gets married, has a family, gets into politics, moves up the ladder and runs for president when he's 53.

B) - Candidate B is born in Argentina and grows up there, but goes to college in the US, and stays there after graduation. Gets a job, gets married, has a family, becomes a naturalized citizen, gets into politics, moves up the ladder and runs for president when he's 61.

In both cases, the candidates have lived in the country for decades and have basically all of their roots here. The only thing I'd want is a specified citizenship requirement of at least 25-30 years. That would eliminate anyone without a long term history in the country and who doesn't have a vested interest in our prosperity.

Quote: AZDuffman

Would that be like the lie that "the rich" are not paying a fair share of taxes, or the lie that the GOP budget will cut medicare and throw old people out on the street?

The Tea Party is only a fringe group to leftists, it is about constitutionalism mostly.

Not sure if it is a lie about the wealthy however they are paying a lot less taxes than they have in decades. Tax breaks to the wealthy do not turn into more jobs. Starting with Reagan's trickle down to now there is no correlation to job growth.

AS far as the Tea Party no one loves them more than the DNC. With Palin, Angle and Brewer seemingly the head of the party most Conservatives find them fringe. The GOP is the most fractured it has been since Lincoln. You have almost as many agendas as congressman and all want to shut the government down. I see once again Abortion is a Important issue to the GOP. Oddly when the GOP had the WH and Congress they never threatened George W with a shutdown even though they had the power. Abortion is a topic of convenience to the GOP. When the GOP in the beginning of the year insisted on X$'s of cuts the budget the DNC proposed exceeded the cuts asked for. Congressman Ryan bill would send the USA into the same downward spiral Ireland is in currently. But the GOP doesn't care about Main Street after all was it Bohner who supported the tax breaks to companies that are moving jobs out of the USA? Wasn't it Boehner who fought against HR2378 which would help American producers against countries like China which manipulate the value of their currency to try and devalue the American dollar. By the way most Republicans abandoned Boehner on this but to be fair Speaker Boehner receives a lot of money from China as does his girlfriend who is a lobbyist for the Chinese paper industry. So it is understandable that his sympathies lie with DCCC.

Never said the medicare cuts will "Throw old people out in the street" but since you did it is a fact that Paul Ryan's plan to turn Medicare in to a voucher system will only benefit the insurance industry. They will no longer need to negotiate fair and reasonable price with the government and Seniors will go from a negotiated price to paying full retail for services and prescriptions. It calls for a increase to keep in line with the Consumer Price Index however the cost of health care increases far exceed the CPI yearly increases so every year seniors would be responsible for more than the year before.
Oddly the wealthiest 2% of of enrollees would get less. Does this mean the GOP think wealthy should shoulder more of the burden than the non rich? Sounds a bit socialistic.
But this is lip service. None of the leaders in the GOP want to touch Medicare since they know it will cost them the election but it is fun to put it on the table and bloviate about nothing is sacred and immune from cuts.
But Paul Ryan has great appeal to those who like to read headlines and not further in. Paul Ryan calls for big cuts in Loopholes and Entitlements but does not specify one single cut in the "Path to Prosperity" which is the GOP pet name for the 2012 budget.
Also in the "Path to Prosperity" is the elimination of tax credits to small business owners who provide employees health insurance. Repeal the Medicare "Donut Hole" subsidy which will directly cost elderly more money each year.

Paul Ryan claims his new Medicare plan would be like the insurance Congress gets but that is false and misleading.

The figures Paul Ryan used were dubious at best.

Quote: Toes14

I agree with this somewhat. I don't feel it's necessary for the president to have been born in the US or to US Parents on a military base outside the country. When should be necessary is for the president to be a naturalized citizen who has spent the vast majority of his/her life in the country, and to not have conflicting interests (i.e. - dual citizenship).

The constitution was written when there were 3 million people in America, and we were the only republic then operating in the world. Child kings under regents were still possible. We had no reliable currency and were instead dependent on the Spanish currency (pieces of eight). Sending a message to Europe involved sailing there.

I don't think we need age requirements or birth requirements of any sort. We are in an age when we look at political advertisements on phones, and a presidential campaign costs a billion dollars. If in a hundred years the voters want a 32 year old man who became a citizen five years ago, then so be it. However, all evidence points to the failure of any man like that being able to run a successful campaign unless the USA is running a presidential election in a post -apocalyptic world.

The first naysayers are now saying that the term African on the birth certificate is not appropriate for the early 1960's. It would be more likely to say negro. Hence the document must be a forgery.

Quote: Toes14

I agree with this somewhat. I don't feel it's necessary for the president to have been born in the US or to US Parents on a military base outside the country. When should be necessary is for the president to be a naturalized citizen who has spent the vast majority of his/her life in the country, and to not have conflicting interests (i.e. - dual citizenship). For example, what would be wrong with electing a candidate who fit one of these scenarios:

A) - Candidate A in born in Greece, moves to the US with his family when he's 5, grows up, goes to college here, gets a job, gets married, has a family, gets into politics, moves up the ladder and runs for president when he's 53.

B) - Candidate B is born in Argentina and grows up there, but goes to college in the US, and stays there after graduation. Gets a job, gets married, has a family, becomes a naturalized citizen, gets into politics, moves up the ladder and runs for president when he's 61.

In both cases, the candidates have lived in the country for decades and have basically all of their roots here. The only thing I'd want is a specified citizenship requirement of at least 25-30 years. That would eliminate anyone without a long term history in the country and who doesn't have a vested interest in our prosperity.

I find it amusing that the same folks who are screaming about President Obama's BC are rather silent on allowing foreign governments and companies to flood the US elections with money to candidates who will favor them and not the USA.

Quote: pacomartin

The first naysayers are now saying that the term African on the birth certificate is not appropriate for the early 1960's. It would be more likely to say negro. Hence the document must be a forgery.

The funniest argument so far is that the 3 signatures were done with a Roller Ball pen and they were not invented yet.
Just as funny is that the attending physician Died 8 years ago at the age of 81. That must prove it is a conspiracy. Come on who doesn't live to 89? Oh yeah most Americans.

Quote: Wavy70

I find it amusing that the same folks who are screaming about President Obama's BC are rather silent on allowing foreign governments and companies to flood the US elections with money to candidates who will favor them and not the USA.

Silent? Or just not as interesting to the media?

Face it...it is easier for the media to find a bubba who is a birther and equate him to an entire movement/party than it is to delve into the real issues between the parties. They can get better ratings by saying "racist" than they can by detailing the flow of money into both campaigns.

Real questions? Well, for one, they never really got to much into Obama's original promise to use public financing to fund his campaign if his opponent agreed to it?

"I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-to-break.html

He said that he "tried" to discuss this issue, but it appears that the discussion was very limited. He could have used the issue earlier to push McCain in the direction of public financing had he wanted to, but he choose to opt out instead. I'm not saying that might not have been the ultimate decision had McCain continued to resist the effort, but he didn't pursue it in a meaningful way even though he said that he would.

Did they examine where all of Obama's money came from? I seem to remember there were some things going on there that would have led to a procto exam for many other candidates...Dem or Repub...

I would be very pleased if the media stopped looking for bubbas who are the easy story instead of the real differences and issues with the President and the other candidates. It is much easier to just say "racist"....

Quote: Wavy70

I find it amusing that the same folks who are screaming about President Obama's BC are rather silent on allowing foreign governments and companies to flood the US elections with money to candidates who will favor them and not the USA.

Definitely. We can all remember what China's millions did for Bill Clinton and what he did in return.

Quote: RonC

He said that he "tried" to discuss this issue, but it appears that the discussion was very limited. He could have used the issue earlier to push McCain in the direction of public financing had he wanted to, but he choose to opt out instead. I'm not saying that might not have been the ultimate decision had McCain continued to resist the effort, but he didn't pursue it in a meaningful way even though he said that he would.

No "pushing" of McCain was needed. He was, after and before all, the prime mover of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, a particular favorite of the big news media until--surprise--2008.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Definitely. We can all remember what China's millions did for Bill Clinton and what he did in return.

Sorry Sancho but Bill Clinton did not receive any campaign money from Communist China that would have been illegal when he was running.

Still batting zero huh?

Quote: Wavy70

Clinton did not receive any campaign money from Communist China that would have been illegal when he was running.

Still trying to define "is" more than a decade after he was impeached, eh?
At any right, enough with mincing words and let's get to see what Clinton's Attorney General left on the table when Lewinsky broke:

"By Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy, Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 13, 1997; Page A01, The Washington Post

A Justice Department investigation into improper political fund-raising activities has uncovered evidence that representatives of the People's Republic of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee before the 1996 presidential campaign, officials familiar with the inquiry said.

Sensitive intelligence information shows that the Chinese Embassy on Connecticut Avenue NW here was used for planning contributions to the DNC, the sources said. Some information was obtained through electronic eavesdropping conducted by federal agencies. . .
---------
Investigation Of Illegal Or Improper Activities
In Connection With 1996 Federal Election Campaigns
Final Report Of The Committee On Governmental Affairs
Senate rept. 105-167 - 105th Congress 2d Session - March 10, 1998

"In mid-1995, the President and his strategists decided that
they needed to raise and spend many millions of dollars over
and above the permissible limits of the Presidential campaign
funding law if the President was going to be reelected. They
devised a legal theory to support their needs and proceeded to
raise and spend $44 million in excess of the Presidential
campaign spending limits.
"The lengths to which the Clinton/Gore campaign and the
White House-controlled Democratic National Committee were
willing to go in order to raise this amount of money is
essentially the story of the 1996 Presidential campaign
scandal. The President and his aides demeaned the offices of
the President and Vice President, took advantage of minority
groups, pulled down all the barriers that would normally be in
place to keep out illegal contributions, pressured policy
makers, and left themselves open to strong suspicion that they
were selling not only access to high-ranking officials, but
policy as well. Millions of dollars were raised in illegal
contributions, much of it from foreign sources. When these
abuses were discovered, the result was numerous Fifth Amendment
claims, flights from the country, and stonewalling from the
White House and the DNC.
"Over a brief period of three months of hearings, the
Committee was able to fulfill its responsibility in laying out
the available facts to the American people. A much clearer
picture of what happened during the 1996 Presidential campaign
has been developed and presented. However, many questions
remain unanswered. It is now the responsibility of the Attorney
General or, more appropriately, an independent counsel to take
these facts and aggressively pursue any and all indications of
criminal wrong-doing. Indeed, the three most important legal
developments to come out of the 1996 campaign finance scandal
are all attributable to the investigation conducted by the
Committee on Governmental Affairs. First, Yah Lin ``Charlie''
Trie, an associate of the President, has been indicted for,
among other things, obstruction of the Committee's
investigation. Second, Maria Hsia, a prominent Democratic
fundraiser, has been indicted for laundering campaign
contributions that were a focus of the Committee's inquiry. . . .

"The Committee's non-public investigation did not provide
sufficient information regarding whether Elnitiarta's
contributions to the NPF or the DNC were directed by Sioeng or
were derived from unknown sources in China. Based on all the
information before the Committee, however, including the
information regarding Sioeng's apparent contacts with Chinese
Government officials, the Minority believes that these
activities warrant further investigation, including whether
Sioeng directed any of the contributions to state officials or
federal parties or entities. For a full discussion of the
public information regarding Sioeng's activities, see Chapter 7
of this Minority Report." . . .

"In its public investigation, the Committee received
evidence of foreign funds from businessmen in a variety of
Asian countries coming into the American political system from
1993 to 1996. In particular, the Committee received public
information that the DNC returned approximately $3 million in
political contributions, a portion of which was determined to
derive from foreign funds. These events raised troubling
questions that are addressed elsewhere in Part 1 of this
Minority Report."

Not to mention Johnny Chung, the Cosco terminal in Long Beach, CA, Loral's aid with CSS-4 missiles, and the deal for KH-11 spy satellite data.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Still trying to define "is" more than a decade after he was impeached, eh?
At any right, enough with mincing words and let's get to see what Clinton's Attorney General left on the table when Lewinsky broke:

"By Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy, Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 13, 1997; Page A01, The Washington Post

A Justice Department investigation into improper political fund-raising activities has uncovered evidence that representatives of the People's Republic of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee before the 1996 presidential campaign, officials familiar with the inquiry said.

Sensitive intelligence information shows that the Chinese Embassy on Connecticut Avenue NW here was used for planning contributions to the DNC, the sources said. Some information was obtained through electronic eavesdropping conducted by federal agencies. . .
---------
Investigation Of Illegal Or Improper Activities
In Connection With 1996 Federal Election Campaigns
Final Report Of The Committee On Governmental Affairs
Senate rept. 105-167 - 105th Congress 2d Session - March 10, 1998

"In mid-1995, the President and his strategists decided that
they needed to raise and spend many millions of dollars over
and above the permissible limits of the Presidential campaign
funding law if the President was going to be reelected. They
devised a legal theory to support their needs and proceeded to
raise and spend $44 million in excess of the Presidential
campaign spending limits.
"The lengths to which the Clinton/Gore campaign and the
White House-controlled Democratic National Committee were
willing to go in order to raise this amount of money is
essentially the story of the 1996 Presidential campaign
scandal. The President and his aides demeaned the offices of
the President and Vice President, took advantage of minority
groups, pulled down all the barriers that would normally be in
place to keep out illegal contributions, pressured policy
makers, and left themselves open to strong suspicion that they
were selling not only access to high-ranking officials, but
policy as well. Millions of dollars were raised in illegal
contributions, much of it from foreign sources. When these
abuses were discovered, the result was numerous Fifth Amendment
claims, flights from the country, and stonewalling from the
White House and the DNC.
"Over a brief period of three months of hearings, the
Committee was able to fulfill its responsibility in laying out
the available facts to the American people. A much clearer
picture of what happened during the 1996 Presidential campaign
has been developed and presented. However, many questions
remain unanswered. It is now the responsibility of the Attorney
General or, more appropriately, an independent counsel to take
these facts and aggressively pursue any and all indications of
criminal wrong-doing. Indeed, the three most important legal
developments to come out of the 1996 campaign finance scandal
are all attributable to the investigation conducted by the
Committee on Governmental Affairs. First, Yah Lin ``Charlie''
Trie, an associate of the President, has been indicted for,
among other things, obstruction of the Committee's
investigation. Second, Maria Hsia, a prominent Democratic
fundraiser, has been indicted for laundering campaign
contributions that were a focus of the Committee's inquiry. . . .

"The Committee's non-public investigation did not provide
sufficient information regarding whether Elnitiarta's
contributions to the NPF or the DNC were directed by Sioeng or
were derived from unknown sources in China. Based on all the
information before the Committee, however, including the
information regarding Sioeng's apparent contacts with Chinese
Government officials, the Minority believes that these
activities warrant further investigation, including whether
Sioeng directed any of the contributions to state officials or
federal parties or entities. For a full discussion of the
public information regarding Sioeng's activities, see Chapter 7
of this Minority Report." . . .

"In its public investigation, the Committee received
evidence of foreign funds from businessmen in a variety of
Asian countries coming into the American political system from
1993 to 1996. In particular, the Committee received public
information that the DNC returned approximately $3 million in
political contributions, a portion of which was determined to
derive from foreign funds. These events raised troubling
questions that are addressed elsewhere in Part 1 of this
Minority Report."

Not to mention Johnny Chung, the Cosco terminal in Long Beach, CA, Loral's aid with CSS-4 missiles, and the deal for KH-11 spy satellite data.

OK Sancho or whatever you call yourself today. Big difference between when foreign interests try and illegally get money into election as happened in the article you mentioned and was rampant wiht the GOP in the previous elections and allowing Foreign interests to openly flood the elections.
Which when uncovered the money was returned with Clinton as with the GOP member that were also revealed. But since the Supreme Court loaded with business first America last justices opened the door allowing foreigners to buy elections in the USA. Oddly the GOP was silent about allowing foreign money to influence Americas Election. Well with the GOP as long as the money comes in we are your friend.

Glad you brought up Johnny Chung. If you read past the headlines it was a Clinton appointed official who blew the whistle on Chung. I wonder if that would have happened under Bush? Good job cutting pasting. Didn't answer anything but you did it well.

Quote: Wavy70

when uncovered the money was returned with Clinton

Accompanied by a hefty group of transfers of significant technology and expertise in the military and intelligence fields.

Quote: Wavy70

Oddly the GOP was silent about allowing foreign money to influence Americas Election. Well with the GOP as long as the money comes in we are your friend.

Then you don't know much about McCain-Feingold and the debates, discussions and promises involving it. Of course not, seeing as how it was one of the first 180-degree turnabouts by a certain candidate of "transparency" in 2008.

Quote: Wavy70

Didn't answer anything but you did it well.

You didn't ask anything. You made a mistaken broad-based comment.

Quote: Wavy70

Not sure if it is a lie about the wealthy however they are paying a lot less taxes than they have in decades. Tax breaks to the wealthy do not turn into more jobs. Starting with Reagan's trickle down to now there is no correlation to job growth.

Oh, give me a break. JFK cut taxes in 1961 and the economy which had been slow since the 1958 recession boomed and many new jobs were created. Reagan cut taxes and the economy boomed like never before, millions of jobs created. W cut taxes in 2001-3 and there was a boom in jobs until 2006, right when the Dems took congress and made all kinds of noise about new taxes and regulations. Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and we had the "jobless recovery" that remained so until 1996-7 when the technology breakthru of the internet and major computer improvements changed that. Your statement may be believable to freshmen college students who don't know any better, but those of us who lived thru all of it (well, not JFK) know better

Quote:

As far as the Tea Party no one loves them more than the DNC. With Palin, Angle and Brewer seemingly the head of the party most Conservatives find them fringe. The GOP is the most fractured it has been since Lincoln. You have almost as many agendas as congressman and all want to shut the government down.

Yes, that GD Tea Party and how they prevented the GOP from getting their biggest majority in the House in 60 years, oh, wait, the GOP did clobber the Dems in the House, Senate, and statehouses all over the nation! As far as "fractured" let the debate begin. No McCains and Doles who get the nod because "it is their turn." As far as shutting the government down, shut it down. I am tired of trillion-dollar deficits and "stimulus" programs because Obama and the Dems will not allow cuts to anything. I care about the next generation and don't want my niece nephew paying the price for Obama and his propping up of state governments and government unions that refuse to cut back.

Quote:

Oddly when the GOP had the WH and Congress they never threatened George W with a shutdown even though they had the power.

Obama is the one threatening a shutdown by refusing to allow any cuts or changes. Other than his excitment to tax the "rich" to satisfy his greedy supporters he has said nothing.

Quote:

Never said the medicare cuts will "Throw old people out in the street" but since you did it is a fact that Paul Ryan's plan to turn Medicare in to a voucher system will only benefit the insurance industry. They will no longer need to negotiate fair and reasonable price with the government and Seniors will go from a negotiated price to paying full retail for services and prescriptions. It calls for a increase to keep in line with the Consumer Price Index however the cost of health care increases far exceed the CPI yearly increases so every year seniors would be responsible for more than the year before.

The dems are saying that, which is who I am talking about. Why "negotiate" prices when vouchers allow the best form of "negotiation" there is--COMPETITION! Price Controls do not work. Competition does. Get 5-10 companies competing for those Medicare Vouchers and there will be plenty of care available. Don't know about you, but I prefer choice when I buy.

Quote: AZDuffman

The dems are saying that, which is who I am talking about. Why "negotiate" prices when vouchers allow the best form of "negotiation" there is--COMPETITION! Price Controls do not work. Competition does.

If like credit cards, competition works best for those well financed, and not so well for the underclass. edited, I should add, in where financing something expensive becomes the issue at hand, e.g. health care

Quote: rxwine

If like credit cards, competition works best for those well financed, and not so well for the underclass.

I don't know about where you live, but I always get more choices at better prices when there are more people offering a product or service. LASIK competition has caused lower prices; cable companies compete now that there is FIOS and dishes. Yet the USPS is cutting service and raising prices. Ask "the underclass" if they would like a Wal-Mart Supercenter to compete with the corner store selling wilted fruit at a higher price.

But are you going to deny that credit companies had competition but offered better deals to those with money?

I'm applying this to healthcare in particular, which is not like whether you need a nice TV or a cheap one. You just need it.

Quote: rxwine

But are you going to deny that credit companies had competition but offered better deals to those with money?

That is gauging risk versus reward, a prudent course of action in gambling as well as in any business I can think of.

One of the problems with healthcare is that it's not a repeat good (it's not fruit, if someone serves you bad health care, that might the only time you ever have a chance to purchase it) and comparison shopping is not as easy to do. Furthermore, you can get geographical monopolies, and the barriers to entry are rather high.

While I agree competition can breed improvements (the good old invisible hand of the market) for some levels of health services (acute and severe chronic, for example) I'm not sure that market forces will/does produce the benefits the more economically conservative say it does.

If I'm suddenly diagnosed with stage 2 bowel cancer, shopping for best health care is possibly not even I'll be able to make. What I like about single-payer healthcare (as it is up here in BC for the most and in the UK, for the most part) there's a minimum standard expected level of care for all. The trick is to make sure that minimum is constantly and consisently met across all providers, and raised where ever possible.

The highest standards are less likely to be reached in such a system, while they will be in the free market. But those high levels will not be given to all, but by those with ability to pay (possibly via a voucher system).

Competition in non-acute and chronic care (GP's, eye and dental care, maintenance living) makes more sense to me (and the UK and Canada have both to some extent. I've always been able to choose which healthcare center I go to on a regular basis in both countries, which optician and which dentist too). GP care is a little harder to be 100% shoppable here, but I do have some choices (with no cost to me), and I choose the downtown one where the staff are fast, efficient and have very brisk "bedside" manner. Which suits me fine.

Quote: rxwine

But are you going to deny that credit companies had competition but offered better deals to those with money?

I'm applying this to healthcare in particular, which is not like whether you need a nice TV or a cheap one. You just need it.

They offer the best deals to the best customers, people who use the card and carry a balance. This should not be news to anyone.

Consumers need to be taught to shop better for health care. Most health care is not emergency. And medical providers should be required to have more transparant prices for people to compare.

Quote: SanchoPanza

That is gauging risk versus reward, a prudent course of action in gambling as well as in any business I can think of.

Well, it just seemed that with credit cards, there is an example that competition doesn't always provide lower prices for everyone. The key word being "everyone". If that's the idea being pitched here.

Quote: AZDuffman

Oh, give me a break. JFK cut taxes in 1961 and the economy which had been slow since the 1958 recession boomed and many new jobs were created. Reagan cut taxes and the economy boomed like never before, millions of jobs created. W cut taxes in 2001-3 and there was a boom in jobs until 2006, right when the Dems took congress and made all kinds of noise about new taxes and regulations. Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and we had the "jobless recovery" that remained so until 1996-7 when the technology breakthru of the internet and major computer improvements changed that. Your statement may be believable to freshmen college students who don't know any better, but those of us who lived thru all of it (well, not JFK) know better

Actually Duff in 1961 Unemployment went up 1.2% over the previous two years it went back to the 1959, 1960 level the following year in 1962. So No level change at all but up. (Yet again you are incorrect.)
So in 2001 the rate was 4.7%. 2002 5.8%, 2003 6.0%, 2004 5.5%, 2005 5.1% but in 2006 when the Dems took over the rate went back down to 4.6% (So you were mixing up the Democrats and Republicans. I see this happens a lot with you. But you were still wrong)
In 1993 the unemployment rate was 6.9% in 1994 6.1%, 1995 5.6%, 1996 5.4%, 1997 4.9%, 1998 4.5%, 1999 4.2%, 2000 4.0%. (7 years straight drop in unemployment. Yet again you are not even in the ballpark)
Do you make up your "facts". If so try a little harder to make them seem correct.

Duff it literally amazes me how you can be factually so infrequently correct and still be smug about it.

Duff Your "Fact's" may be believable to illiterate yokels who don't know any better, but those of us who can read know better.

Hah, well, they say the devil is in the details.

Quote:

WASHINGTON—Saying the nation must face the "grave realities" of its mounting debt, President Barack Obama unveiled a deficit-reduction plan Wednesday that included far-reaching spending cuts, pulling off a daring robbery of the heavily fortified Fort Knox bullion deposi-tory, and repealing Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy.

According to a fact sheet issued by the White House, the proposed measures include slashing farm subsidies, cutting federal pension insurance, tricking Fort Knox security personnel into thinking that the president and five others are ordinary elevator repairmen, capping Medicaid's outlays on equipment, shaping C4 charges to blast 21-inch-thick vault doors off their hinges, and curbing discretionary spending.

here

Quote: rxwine

Hah, well, they say the devil is in the details.



here

Careful Fox(Faux)News has quoted The Onion before as a news source.

Quote: Wavy70

Quote: rxwine

Hah, well, they say the devil is in the details.



here

Careful Fox(Faux)News has quoted The Onion before as a news source.

Just a question, Wavy...I see that you don't like Fox news. That is fine. What I want to know is do you hold the same disdain for the "journalism" at MSNBC as you do for Fox? Or are you one of those Fox wrong/MSNBC right type of folks? I know some like that (and the opposite, of course, too).

If I am talking to someone who doesn't believe everything a particular network puts forward, we can have a conversation. If they believe either Fox or MSNBC is 100% "the way it is"...well, it is not worth bothering. There are others who can actually discuss the issues.

By the way, I would also ask the same question of everyone else who is involved in the conversation...

Quote: Wavy70

Actually Duff in 1961 Unemployment went up 1.2% over the previous two years it went back to the 1959, 1960 level the following year in 1962. So No level change at all but up.

Thanks for making my point for me. Intelligent readers realize that JFK got elected in 1961 and thus the cuts took effect late 1961 at earliest but mostly in 1962 and beyond. Perhaps you think likew John Kerry who blamed Nixon for having him illegally stationed in Cambodia on Christmas day 1968 when he didn't take office until 1969?

Quote:

So in 2001 the rate was 4.7%. 2002 5.8%, 2003 6.0%, 2004 5.5%, 2005 5.1% but in 2006 when the Dems took over the rate went back down to 4.6% (So you were mixing up the Democrats and Republicans. I see this happens a lot with you. But you were still wrong)

f

Thanksa for looking up the data to back up my point. The rate jumped 2001-2003 due to the combination of the Clinton-stock-bubble bursting and 9-11. But Again it took a year or so for the trickle to start trickline (or in this case GUSHING) down. The unemployment rate in this case fell anmost 25% (1.4 is almost 25% of 6 for those of you in Rio Linda) from peak to trough. And again, the dems got ELECTED in 2006 but TOOK POWER in 2007, when the rate started climbing again. Perhaps you should brush up onb your civics before trying to post economic numbers? Or watrch an outlet besides MSNBC.

Quote:

In 1993 the unemployment rate was 6.9% in 1994 6.1%, 1995 5.6%, 1996 5.4%, 1997 4.9%, 1998 4.5%, 1999 4.2%, 2000 4.0%. (7 years straight drop in unemployment. Yet again you are not even in the ballpark)

At least this time you understood when Clinton took office. So in this case it took 4 years (1993-1997) to drop about 1 point. Under the Bush tax-cut-for-everybody it took 2 (2003-2005) for a similar drop. (Ignoring the .2% difference.)

Quote:

Duff it literally amazes me how you can be factually so infrequently correct and still be smug about it.

Being correct, as I am, makes it easy. Your points are little more than the discredited talking points the left has been using for years.

Quote:

Duff Your "Fact's" may be believable to illiterate yokels who don't know any better, but those of us who can read know better.

When you find someone who does know better, please invite them to join the board, we need good participation here.

Quote: AZDuffman

Thanks for making my point for me. Intelligent readers realize that JFK got elected in 1961 and thus the cuts took effect late 1961 at earliest but mostly in 1962 and beyond.

Minor correction: elections take place in even years. JFK was elected in 1960 and took office on 20 January 1961.

No dispute with your principal claim that the cuts took effect in late 1961 at the earliest.

Quote: RonC

Quote: Wavy70

Quote: rxwine

Hah, well, they say the devil is in the details.



here

Careful Fox(Faux)News has quoted The Onion before as a news source.

Just a question, Wavy...I see that you don't like Fox news. That is fine. What I want to know is do you hold the same disdain for the "journalism" at MSNBC as you do for Fox? Or are you one of those Fox wrong/MSNBC right type of folks? I know some like that (and the opposite, of course, too).

If I am talking to someone who doesn't believe everything a particular network puts forward, we can have a conversation. If they believe either Fox or MSNBC is 100% "the way it is"...well, it is not worth bothering. There are others who can actually discuss the issues.

By the way, I would also ask the same question of everyone else who is involved in the conversation...

Nothing to do with my like or dislike. But of all the news organizations you mentioned only Fox has used stories from The Onion (A news parody site) and thought them to be real. Since the link above was from The Onion I jokingly said that they have used fake news stories before believing them to be real.

.....

Quote: AZDuffman

Thanks for making my point for me. Intelligent readers realize that JFK got elected in 1961 and thus the cuts took effect late 1961 at earliest but mostly in 1962 and beyond. Perhaps you think likew John Kerry who blamed Nixon for having him illegally stationed in Cambodia on Christmas day 1968 when he didn't take office until 1969?

f

Thanksa for looking up the data to back up my point. The rate jumped 2001-2003 due to the combination of the Clinton-stock-bubble bursting and 9-11. But Again it took a year or so for the trickle to start trickline (or in this case GUSHING) down. The unemployment rate in this case fell anmost 25% (1.4 is almost 25% of 6 for those of you in Rio Linda) from peak to trough. And again, the dems got ELECTED in 2006 but TOOK POWER in 2007, when the rate started climbing again. Perhaps you should brush up onb your civics before trying to post economic numbers? Or watrch an outlet besides MSNBC.



At least this time you understood when Clinton took office. So in this case it took 4 years (1993-1997) to drop about 1 point. Under the Bush tax-cut-for-everybody it took 2 (2003-2005) for a similar drop. (Ignoring the .2% difference.)




Being correct, as I am, makes it easy. Your points are little more than the discredited talking points the left has been using for years.



When you find someone who does know better, please invite them to join the board, we need good participation here.

Duff I was using the dates your provided. I highly doubt you would know what an intelligent reader would realize. I was just proving beyond a doubt that the numbers you spout and "facts" you spout are useless and pulled from Lord knows where. Oh wait you often reference a professor in college told you 40 years ago or you remember from high school. Discussions with you are useless. You seem to be unable to think things clearly. You start wiht the answer and make the facts to fit it.

Your arrogance is only outweighed by your ignorance. Enjoy you muddled self assuring life. It can't be easy to be an expert on everything while simultaneously a dullard but you seem to be doing it well.

You have a lack of ability to understand anything that is not already in your head.

Quote: pacomartin

Minor correction: elections take place in even years. JFK was elected in 1960 and took office on 20 January 1961.

Don't worry Duff never lets facts get in the way of his incorrectness.